New Classifier Percentages

[B_RAD]

12 minutes ago, MikeBurgess said:

 

And here lies the problem that needed fixed. 

would that be can shoot the easiest 6 classifiers at 90-100? or whatever classifiers? with the HHF (in limited for example) needing adjustments over a 44% window (+25% to -19% with a average of hardest 6 to average of easiest 6 being a 30.6% difference) that means depending on what classifiers a guy happens to shoot makes the difference between B and GM 

I see you're point.  If I take my 6 used to give me a 92% It come out to 86%.  So, while still M, it's considerably lower.  I still don't think this was a problem. I know that may sound dumb but again, what was the real problem when it came to overall match performance and will this really solve ALL of that? I don't think so.

 

I said a few days ago, look at last years production nats. One GM, and the only shooter to do it, shot within 95% of the winner.  All those GM's who didn't shoot within the GM percentage are still supper squad level shooters and would still lay down mostly 95%+ runs on any classifier now.  So, it's not like those same GM's would only be M's under the new HHF"s.  They would still make GM. But they didn't shoot 95%.  So, IMO the update didn't solve anything when it comes to match performance.  There will always be discrepancies. 

 

I do feel for people who are/were trying to get out of B class and now might even be C class with the new numbers.  Yeah, it's easy to say, "if you practice, you'll succeed" but it still is a kick in the pants for them.

Edited July 5, 2018 by B_RAD

[Racinready300ex]

32 minutes ago, mosher said:

To me it seems weird to make such a big change and not retroactively reset everyone.

 

Whether they get easier or harder is immaterial.  It skews the comparative use of the classification system the way it was done, imho.

 

I always thought the classification system was to compare yourself to others in your class, like see how you did relative to the other guys in B class, for example, but now you not sure if other guys are pre-change B's or post-change Bs, or would've been A's but started after the change and are post-change B's, etc.

 

Everyone who is classified from this date forward, all the newer shooters will be set right and can be equally compared, but everyone who was classed prior without retroactively resetting them it will have to be done by attrition as they either quit or die off, which could take decades lol, and by that time they'll have to reset the scores again.

 

I think changing the HHF to reflect reality was a great idea and the right thing to do.  I think not following through and resetting previously shot classifiers and adjusting everyone's classifications on the new baseline was a bad idea. 

 

 

 

 

 

Think about what resetting the classifications would mean.

 

Major match coming up in a few weeks. Now everyone is U. and shooting for HOA. What did that fix? I would probably stay U for the rest of this year and not be reclassified until next spring. While I'm confident I could easily get back to my current classification, it's still going to take us all time. On top of that you'll have some guys who see resetting everything as a perfect opportunity to sandbag for a while. Others certainly are going to feel like something was taken from them.

 

Most of our membership isn't on this forum, and probably don't even know anything changed. Reset their classification and they'll know something changed that's for sure.

[MikeBurgess]

22 minutes ago, B_RAD said:

I see you're point.  If I take my 6 used to give me a 92% It come out to 86%.  So, while still M, it's considerably lower.  I still don't think this was a problem. I know that may sound dumb but again, what was the real problem when it came to overall match performance and will this really solve ALL of that? I don't think so.

 

 

I don't think major match performance, and classifiers have a much in common, I will say that major match finished do tend to stack up in generally the classification order but that's about it.

 

the problem was 2 shooters of equal skill would have had wildly different classifications depending upon what classifiers they happened to shoot in what order. it would be reasonably easy to make a case that with equal skill and equal scores on the same classifiers shot in different orders one could be a GM and the other a B. taking that variability out and making all classifiers statistically equally hard makes it so it doesn't matter what classifiers you shoot in what order, everyone should advance at the same rate.

[SCTaylor]

3 minutes ago, Racinready300ex said:

 

Think about what resetting the classifications would mean.

 

 

I'm guessing he meant to re-run & re-class based on the updated HHF's. So I'd go from 72% to 66%, still B but "reset" to the current HHF.

[MikeBurgess]

2 minutes ago, Racinready300ex said:

 

Think about what resetting the classifications would mean.

 

Major match coming up in a few weeks. Now everyone is U. and shooting for HOA. What did that fix? I would probably stay U for the rest of this year and not be reclassified until next spring. While I'm confident I could easily get back to my current classification, it's still going to take us all time. On top of that you'll have some guys who see resetting everything as a perfect opportunity to sandbag for a while. Others certainly are going to feel like something was taken from them.

 

Most of our membership isn't on this forum, and probably don't even know anything changed. Reset their classification and they'll know something changed that's for sure.

the other thing not taken into account by the reset based on my latest classifiers is you would have to recalculate from some point in the past (the beginning?) so scores on the adjusted up classifiers that helped them advance would possibly not count because too low and low scores that were from the adjusted down classifiers may count. so its not as simple as saying these 6 are different now

[Racinready300ex]

Just now, SCTaylor said:

 

I'm guessing he meant to re-run & re-class based on the updated HHF's. So I'd go from 72% to 66%, still B but "reset" to the current HHF.

 

Even that...do you just take the most recent 6 or the 6 that got you the classification?  What about older classifiers that they don't have the record of your HF? Do you just drop those down to U? I haven't shot wheel gun in a while so I'll be U in that but they can adjust what I'm shooting now? Would that really fix anything? How hard will it be to figure all this out? It took how many years just to get a new webpage? It seems super simple to ask someone else to come up with all this though.

 

I'd be game to reset you're most recent 6 becasue I'd be going up.

[Racinready300ex]

8 minutes ago, MikeBurgess said:

the other thing not taken into account by the reset based on my latest classifiers is you would have to recalculate from some point in the past (the beginning?) so scores on the adjusted up classifiers that helped them advance would possibly not count because too low and low scores that were from the adjusted down classifiers may count. so its not as simple as saying these 6 are different now

 

Exactly, there are a lot of potential pitfalls with trying to adjust things.

[SCTaylor]

Lol I dunno man, just taking a SWAG at what he meant. I'm still one 75% classifier away from A, one step closer to my classification goal. All this means to me, I've got to reset the process driven goals to hit the Outcome I desire.

[B585]

1 hour ago, Racinready300ex said:

 

So you're C class now, and it really bothers you that some guys made B class a month ago and you missed it by 3.5%? 

 

I don't really see how re-classification is needed. Sure some guys classifications will be a tiny bit higher than they should be. Those guys would still be at the bottom of what ever class they are in either way. Guys like you that are about to bump up a classification get to sandbag for another couple months.

 

This just doesn't seem like a big deal to me. Keep practicing, you'll make B and this silly 4% wont matter at all. If you're practicing you will not stay in C class.

We define "tiny bit" differently...10 to 12% is not a "tiny bit" to me and that was the difference I saw on more than one classifier I shot (post 6-28-18). 

[Racinready300ex]

2 minutes ago, SCTaylor said:

Lol I dunno man, just taking a SWAG at what he meant. I'm still one 75% classifier away from A, one step closer to my classification goal. All this means to me, I've got to reset the process driven goals to hit the Outcome I desire.

 

lol I had considered he might mean that too. There is really no good answer to this, someone will be negatively effected no matter what the BOD does.

[IHAVEGAS]

13 minutes ago, Racinready300ex said:

 

There is really no good answer to this, someone will be negatively effected no matter what the BOD does.

 

I think the good answer is that you let the membership vote on all big changes. 

 

 

[Racinready300ex]

16 minutes ago, B585 said:

We define "tiny bit" differently...10 to 12% is not a "tiny bit" to me and that was the difference I saw on more than one classifier I shot (post 6-28-18). 

 

But you're only 3.5% short of bumping up a class. That isn't much, and i though it was that bump you were worried about.

[Racinready300ex]

4 minutes ago, IHAVEGAS said:

 

I think the good answer is that you let the membership vote on all big changes. 

 

 

 

Don't we vote on the BOD and the Prez for just that reason? Most people wont even know anything changed.

Edited July 5, 2018 by Racinready300ex

[B_RAD]

52 minutes ago, MikeBurgess said:

I don't think major match performance, and classifiers have a much in common, I will say that major match finished do tend to stack up in generally the classification order but that's about it.

 

the problem was 2 shooters of equal skill would have had wildly different classifications depending upon what classifiers they happened to shoot in what order. it would be reasonably easy to make a case that with equal skill and equal scores on the same classifiers shot in different orders one could be a GM and the other a B. taking that variability out and making all classifiers statistically equally hard makes it so it doesn't matter what classifiers you shoot in what order, everyone should advance at the same rate.

Great point!

 

Though, I'd say even with the adjustments, I'd bet there are still some that are easier than others.

 

Also, from what I've seen it looks like they adjusted each based upon the highest runs for each. Does that mean the top 10? So, one like El Prez that most everyone shoots twice a year will have a lot more runs than one that people may shoot once every other year. The more one gets shot, the more chance for higher runs. Then you get shooters who are professional shooters putting up runs where every aspect is as fast and efficient as possible, that doesn't seem like a logical method for measuring performance on a national level.

[SCTaylor]

1 minute ago, B_RAD said:

So, one like El Prez that most everyone shoots twice a year will have a lot more runs than one that people may shoot once every other year. 

 

Shooting over 2 years, I've still never shot El Prez at a match. Sure wish our MD would run it once.

 

Bitching but I agree with your point.

Edited July 5, 2018 by SCTaylor

[Steve RA]

I agree with the suggestion for a list showing the top shooters for each classifier.  Would be nice to see who has attained the highest score on each.

[MikeBurgess]

2 minutes ago, B_RAD said:

Great point!

 

Though, I'd say even with the adjustments, I'd bet there are still some that are easier than others.

 

Also, from what I've seen it looks like they adjusted each based upon the highest runs for each. Does that mean the top 10? So, one like El Prez that most everyone shoots twice a year will have a lot more runs than one that people may shoot once every other year. The more one gets shot, the more chance for higher runs. Then you get shooters who are professional shooters putting up runs where every aspect is as fast and efficient as possible, that doesn't seem like a logical method for measuring performance on a national level.

Im sorry you end up shooting the same classifier twice a year.  I try to keep it to at least 2 years apart before running one again.

 

If you don't think 100% should be set based on perfect or near perfect runs what do you think it should be based on? 

 

[B_RAD]

1 hour ago, MikeBurgess said:

Im sorry you end up shooting the same classifier twice a year.  I try to keep it to at least 2 years apart before running one again.

 

If you don't think 100% should be set based on perfect or near perfect runs what do you think it should be based on? 

 

I just looked at my scores. I got classified last Feb. Since then I've shot 99-11 five times. Three times in production in '17 and twice this year in limited.  I shoot at 5 different clubs so that may be why I've shot it so many times in 2 yrs.  Now, I'll admit I've not shot it well. My first time shooting it was my best run ever at 89.85%.  That was my second time shooting USPSA and was an all classifier match that I came out at 85.01%. I've had major classifieritis when it comes to 99-11 and others..... I say all this because I feel that part of being that legit GM level means not screwing up an easy one like El Prez. 

 

For me personally I'm not mad.  If I get to what I keep calling legit GM, then it's only a matter of time before my classification letter matches. I'd rather perform at that level with M besides my name than the other way around. Not to grandbag but performance is more important. Yes, I also want the accomplishment of making GM too!  

 

I just think people trying hard to get to that next classification, are going to find it hard to not be disappointed now. People here telling them classification doesn't matter aren't helping.  Maybe it does to them!  Making the next class may be all they want. 

 

 

 

Edited July 5, 2018 by B_RAD

[mosher]

1 hour ago, Racinready300ex said:

 

Think about what resetting the classifications would mean.

 

Major match coming up in a few weeks. Now everyone is U. and shooting for HOA. What did that fix? I would probably stay U for the rest of this year and not be reclassified until next spring. While I'm confident I could easily get back to my current classification, it's still going to take us all time. On top of that you'll have some guys who see resetting everything as a perfect opportunity to sandbag for a while. Others certainly are going to feel like something was taken from them.

 

Most of our membership isn't on this forum, and probably don't even know anything changed. Reset their classification and they'll know something changed that's for sure.

 

Didn't mean resetting like starting over.  Meant retroactively applying the new HHF to your existing body of work.

 

ie, if you are a 78% A class now, but using the new HHF retroactively you are a 69% B, then you get re-classed as a B and go from there.  Could be done on a Wednesday night for the whole membership. 

[mosher]

1 hour ago, Racinready300ex said:

 

lol I had considered he might mean that too. There is really no good answer to this, someone will be negatively effected no matter what the BOD does.

 

I don't care who is negatively affected, I just thought it was weird to put in the amount of work to set a new baseline, and then not evenly apply that new baseline in determining the classifications. 

 

Previously we measured boards in inches, and right or wrong or who thought we should do it differently was immaterial it was at least consistent.  Now, we measuring some boards in inches, some in centimeters, and we ain't telling you which was which we just giving you a number.  It is what it is, but to me it seems like in a genuine effort to improve the classification system was half-implemented and in the end it made the system less meaningful.  I think they should follow through and retroactively implement the new HHF on all existing classifications.  People can argue right or wrong still, but again at least would be consistent.

 

 

[MikeBurgess]

 
Didn't mean resetting like starting over.  Meant retroactively applying the new HHF to your existing body of work.
 
ie, if you are a 78% A class now, but using the new HHF retroactively you are a 69% B, then you get re-classed as a B and go from there.  Could be done on a Wednesday night for the whole membership. 

But how would you do that?

Changing just the 6 that count for you today would be no more accurate. You may never have made the class your in now and different classifiers may have counted for or against you making a recalculated from the beginning % much different than your 6

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

[IHAVEGAS]

2 hours ago, Racinready300ex said:

 

Don't we vote on the BOD and the Prez for just that reason? Most people wont even know anything changed.

 

I think we vote on people who we think will do the business needed to keep things running smoothly, and we vote on people who advertise changes they want when they are asking for votes. 

 

Beyond that, huge changes out of nowhere are always going to create unnecessary angst & not necessarily suit the best interests of the majority of the membership. It is not at all hard to advertise what changes you are considering, communicate the pro's and cons, and give the members a chance to weigh in and feel like their interests matter. As a side benefit it would add an interesting page or two to the USPSA publications which sometimes seem in need of more content.  

[Racinready300ex]

1 hour ago, mosher said:

 

I don't care who is negatively affected, I just thought it was weird to put in the amount of work to set a new baseline, and then not evenly apply that new baseline in determining the classifications. 

 

Previously we measured boards in inches, and right or wrong or who thought we should do it differently was immaterial it was at least consistent.  Now, we measuring some boards in inches, some in centimeters, and we ain't telling you which was which we just giving you a number.  It is what it is, but to me it seems like in a genuine effort to improve the classification system was half-implemented and in the end it made the system less meaningful.  I think they should follow through and retroactively implement the new HHF on all existing classifications.  People can argue right or wrong still, but again at least would be consistent.

 

 

 

 The classifiers needed to be adjusted, some were way off. Why spend the time and money trying to figure out who should be what class retroactively? We have 30K members shooting classifiers all the time, and going back for many years. I don't see any way you could realistically fix past classifications. Just because my current 6 aren't A class under the new HHF doesn't mean I've never had 6 good ones at once. There is no way to account for that. You'll just end up with thousands of members calling wanting to know why they lost the classification they earned. Do you want to field those calls?

 

Those few that are currently over classified are the only ones negatively affected by this change, if you don't care about them why argue on there behalf? If you're one of those over classified shooters just petition HQ to get your classification dropped to where you belong. Or are you just mad that someone got something easier than you did?

 

HHF isn't something that can be measured with a ruler, there is no perfect score in USPSA. As shooters improve the goal posts move, if the classification system doesn't move with it maybe we should just eliminate it.

 

This really seems like a pretty minor issue.

[Paulie]

16 minutes ago, Racinready300ex said:

 

 The classifiers needed to be adjusted, some were way off. Why spend the time and money trying to figure out who should be what class retroactively? We have 30K members shooting classifiers all the time, and going back for many years. I don't see any way you could realistically fix past classifications. Just because my current 6 aren't A class under the new HHF doesn't mean I've never had 6 good ones at once. There is no way to account for that. You'll just end up with thousands of members calling wanting to know why they lost the classification they earned. Do you want to field those calls?

 

Those few that are currently over classified are the only ones negatively affected by this change, if you don't care about them why argue on there behalf? If you're one of those over classified shooters just petition HQ to get your classification dropped to where you belong. Or are you just mad that someone got something easier than you did?

 

HHF isn't something that can be measured with a ruler, there is no perfect score in USPSA. As shooters improve the goal posts move, if the classification system doesn't move with it maybe we should just eliminate it.

 

This really seems like a pretty minor issue.

 

You wouldn’t happen to be a GM or M, would you?

 

Asking for a friend  

[B_RAD]

1 hour ago, Racinready300ex said:

 

 The classifiers needed to be adjusted, some were way off. Why spend the time and money trying to figure out who should be what class retroactively? We have 30K members shooting classifiers all the time, and going back for many years. I don't see any way you could realistically fix past classifications. Just because my current 6 aren't A class under the new HHF doesn't mean I've never had 6 good ones at once. There is no way to account for that. You'll just end up with thousands of members calling wanting to know why they lost the classification they earned. Do you want to field those calls?

 

Those few that are currently over classified are the only ones negatively affected by this change, if you don't care about them why argue on there behalf? If you're one of those over classified shooters just petition HQ to get your classification dropped to where you belong. Or are you just mad that someone got something easier than you did?

 

HHF isn't something that can be measured with a ruler, there is no perfect score in USPSA. As shooters improve the goal posts move, if the classification system doesn't move with it maybe we should just eliminate it.

 

This really seems like a pretty minor issue.

Probably the best post on the subject of retroactively changing past classifers.