Jump to content
Brian Enos's Forums... Maku mozo!

New Classifier Percentages


B585

Recommended Posts

I am sure 300ex will have an answer for this question which will be my last one....why implement this right in the middle of the season?   When you are making drastic changes, the off-season (winter) would have made more sense.  Same thing would go for rule changes in a division (with respect to gear).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 335
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I am sure 300ex will have an answer for this question which will be my last one....why implement this right in the middle of the season?   When you are making drastic changes, the off-season (winter) would have made more sense.  Same thing would go for rule changes in a division (with respect to gear).
I'll take a stab at it.

There is no off season. There is always a major match somewhere.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, MikeBurgess said:

I'll take a stab at it.

There is no off season. There is always a major match somewhere.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk
 

Ok, down season...winter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, echotango said:

Some areas don't have winter..... 

Ok, during peak season.  I guarantee there are more USPSA matches now than in Winter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, B585 said:

Ok, during peak season.  I guarantee there are more USPSA matches now than in Winter.

so 

does it make a difference if your classification Does Not change during the summer or during the winter? 

I guess I don't understand what the timing of the change has to do with anything 2 months ago or 3 months from now the same people will have the same upset.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just want to know what problem they were trying to solve. Based on some old data I have less than 1.5% of shooters are GMs, do we want it to be harder?

 

The thing I think HQ fails to realize is that for a LOT of people, the classifier system is the only reason to be a member at all. If they changed it so the average dude really struggles to get out of B/C class, what motivation does he have to continue?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, waktasz said:

I just want to know what problem they were trying to solve. Based on some old data I have less than 1.5% of shooters are GMs, do we want it to be harder?

 

The thing I think HQ fails to realize is that for a LOT of people, the classifier system is the only reason to be a member at all. If they changed it so the average dude really struggles to get out of B/C class, what motivation does he have to continue?

the problem was the classifiers as a group were not all equally hard, as in some classifiers had HHF that were made up and nobody could shoot and others that good shooters could easily shoot well over 100% on. looking at the chart posted on here for Limited that difference appears to have been 45% from hardest to easiest (not including the fixed time ones that got dropped) that means that depending on the mix of classifiers and the order they shot them you could have 2 shooters of equal skill, one making GM and the other not making it out of B. with actual score data used we should now have classifiers where the HHF is equally hard to achieve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, B585 said:

Ok, during peak season.  I guarantee there are more USPSA matches now than in Winter.

Not here in Florida.  We don't have a winter but we have a brutal summer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MikeBurgess said:

the problem was the classifiers as a group were not all equally hard, as in some classifiers had HHF that were made up and nobody could shoot and others that good shooters could easily shoot well over 100% on. looking at the chart posted on here for Limited that difference appears to have been 45% from hardest to easiest (not including the fixed time ones that got dropped) that means that depending on the mix of classifiers and the order they shot them you could have 2 shooters of equal skill, one making GM and the other not making it out of B. with actual score data used we should now have classifiers where the HHF is equally hard to achieve.

This is the second time you've said this. While a good point, I'd ask is there any evidence this has actually happened?  

 

Ive been saying that folks at a lower level are now gonna have a harder time making it to the next level. Folks that just want to shoot and not be dogged by the stigma of being in C class or now having a harder time getting out of C class. The solution to solve the so called papper GM problem now makes this harder.  

 

 

Edited by B_RAD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MikeBurgess said:

so 

does it make a difference if your classification Does Not change during the summer or during the winter? 

I guess I don't understand what the timing of the change has to do with anything 2 months ago or 3 months from now the same people will have the same upset.

 

When you are making drastic changes, it would make the most sense to not do it during peak season (when you are going affect most people in one week)...i.e. one week the rules are this and next week they have changed.  That is not rocket science nor should it require any further explanation.  Yes, for the shooters in an area where it is feasible to shoot year round, you can't avoid that, but for probably half of USPSA membership, they are lucky to shoot one match from Dec. to March (Winter by calendar year).  Since the HHFs have been the same for years, this is was not something that had to be done STAT.  They easily could posted the changes months before they went into effect so members knew exactly what was coming.  Safety concerns would obviously be a different issue.  Those types of problems would need to be addressed STAT.

 

You are obviously you are going to defend whatever decision comes out of USPSA headquarters no matter what.  I want to give you one last thing to think about.  The "normal" members (Ds, Cs, and Bs) are the majority of the membership and whether you want to admit it or not, this decision and MORE IMPORTANTLY, how it was enacted, angered many of them.    This organization should think long and hard before it makes a decision which angers the majority of their membership and they do decide it will be best for the organization, they should think long and hard about how to best enact it.  Again, I think that is common sense.  I am sure you will disagree. At least IMO, USPSA is the greatest sport in this country and out of the roughly 350 million people in the USA, the USPSA membership is ~ 27,000 active members (less than 1 in 10,000 people). 

 

I am done responding so you can have it.

 

 

Edited by B585
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, B_RAD said:

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.

In the last two months, El Prez (99-11) has 639 results in Production, more than any other classifier. The close second is 06-03 (Can You Count) with 607 runs.

 

For contrast, during the same period 09-10 was shot 12 times. 99-61 14 times, and 99-59 16 times. HHF for 99-59 changed from 6.508 to 5.247, a 19% difference.

 

This leads me to believe that many of those changes are simply noise due to low sample size and questionable methodology (looking at top N results instead of picking a high quantile and estimating it from the entire distribution). But the methodology is not published, so this is only a guess.

Edited by malobukov
typo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, B585 said:

 

When you are making drastic changes, it would make the most sense to not do it during peak season (when you are going affect most people in one week)...i.e. one week the rules are this and next week they have changed.  That is not rocket science nor should it require any further explanation. 

 

 

 

 

So what you're saying if there is only two weeks between when you shoot a classifier or 4 months it's different? To me, if I'm close to moving up in Nov. and can't shoot another match until Feb or March it'll have the same impact on my classification as if I was going to shoot another match in a couple weeks.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, B585 said:

 

 At least IMO, USPSA is the greatest sport in this country

 

 

On 7/3/2018 at 9:46 AM, B585 said:

  I can say that if new organization comes out with a format similar to USPSA which attracts great shooters, I will have no problems leaving USPSA after this. 

 

 

 

It's the greatest, but if something else comes along that you can make B class in you'll drop it......... Again, I'll point out you can probably already make Master in IDPA.

Edited by Racinready300ex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, waktasz said:

Where are you getting that info?

USPSA web site has all results. It takes a bit of effort to comb through and aggregate, but the data is available. I'm only interested in Production, so this is what I'm tracking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, B585 said:

 

You are obviously you are going to defend whatever decision comes out of USPSA headquarters no matter what.  I want to give you one last thing to think about.  The "normal" members (Ds, Cs, and Bs) are the majority of the membership and whether you want to admit it or not, this decision and MORE IMPORTANTLY, how it was enacted, angered many of them.    This organization should think long and hard before it makes a decision which angers the majority of their membership and they do decide it will be best for the organization, they should think long and hard about how to best enact it.  Again, I think that is common sense.  I am sure you will disagree. At least IMO, USPSA is the greatest sport in this country and out of the roughly 350 million people in the USA, the USPSA membership is ~ 27,000 active members (less than 1 in 10,000 people). 

 

 

 

 

 

I am by no means a mindless yes man for the org. I have had several arguments with the org over the years over what and how things were done, this just happens to be one instance where I strongly agree. 

 

I Know that the vast majority of shooters are Cs and Bs those are by far the largest classifications. I was a B for a very long time in most divisions, in open it was until the day Area 1 started this year, so I got to shoot that as my first match as an A in Open. Should the org have waited to bump me because it was mid season? or just a day or two so I could shoot a area match without penalty?  I actually get that the classification system could be gamed, I made A in open by shooting Revolver to make M on classifiers that likely had made up HHFs or ones that were based on 6-shot guns. Because I know and have abused the system myself I see the fix as a good thing. 

I Don't think in the end we will find that nobody ever gets out of C or B again because its all so hard now. why because it also got easier and unless you only shoot the ones that were made much harder your average should reflect your progress in a very similar way.  if you only shoot the few classifiers that were adjusted up, I suggest you volunteer to help set up your matches and pick a variety of classifiers.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, B_RAD said:

This is the second time you've said this. While a good point, I'd ask is there any evidence this has actually happened?  

 

Ive been saying that folks at a lower level are now gonna have a harder time making it to the next level. Folks that just want to shoot and not be dogged by the stigma of being in C class or now having a harder time getting out of C class. The solution to solve the so called papper GM problem now makes this harder.  

 

 

To that magnitude probably not, similarly skilled shooters shooting in classes 1 or 2 apart all the time. 

The fact that it could happen to that magnitude is proof in its self that the system was in need of repair. What I think I keep seeing the complaint being is the repair was not adjust all the HHFs down and make the easy ones the base line. 

 

How many would have complained if suddenly all their scores went up? Who would complain that the system no longer emphasized  exceptional performance to make the highest ranks? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, MikeBurgess said:

To that magnitude probably not, similarly skilled shooters shooting in classes 1 or 2 apart all the time. 

The fact that it could happen to that magnitude is proof in its self that the system was in need of repair. What I think I keep seeing the complaint being is the repair was not adjust all the HHFs down and make the easy ones the base line. 

 

How many would have complained if suddenly all their scores went up? Who would complain that the system no longer emphasized  exceptional performance to make the highest ranks? 

 

I see what you're saying and agree. I'm just the type that feels that trying to fix something usually ends up breaking it more. I didn't think it was broke enough to really worry about it. I except that most things are somewhat flawed and it's never gonna be perfect. So, there's just as much risk that it'll just get jacked up as the chance it'll get fixed correctly. Who's to say they got it right? Doesn't seem they're all that transparent now does it. 

 

I guess I'm a pessimist!  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, B_RAD said:

I see what you're saying and agree. I'm just the type that feels that trying to fix something usually ends up breaking it more. I didn't think it was broke enough to really worry about it. I except that most things are somewhat flawed and it's never gonna be perfect. So, there's just as much risk that it'll just get jacked up as the chance it'll get fixed correctly. Who's to say they got it right? Doesn't seem they're all that transparent now does it. 

 

I guess I'm a pessimist!  

 

That is the only concern I really have with it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, MikeBurgess said:

To that magnitude probably not, similarly skilled shooters shooting in classes 1 or 2 apart all the time. 

The fact that it could happen to that magnitude is proof in its self that the system was in need of repair. What I think I keep seeing the complaint being is the repair was not adjust all the HHFs down and make the easy ones the base line. 

 

How many would have complained if suddenly all their scores went up? Who would complain that the system no longer emphasized  exceptional performance to make the highest ranks? 

 

 

You mean like all the PCC GMs?

 

It's dumb and it waters down what the G card means, but I don't think it needed to get noticeably harder.

It doesn't affect me either way, it's just interesting the way they did it, which btw, did not involve the BOD at all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, rowdyb said:

el pres and can you count get set up the most often because they are the easiest to set up close to right. i can't stand how many times i've shot can you count.

I can’t count the number of times I’ve shot can you count.?

Oddly enough only shot El Prez twice in 10 years or so

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it will ever be that accurate using the current framework, which is at odds with how matches are scored.

From my perspective, I can see several specific issues with the current system:

 

Any classifier score that is 5% or more below our rated ability is discarded, but that is not how it works at a match. At a match every stage score counts, if we zero a stage due to a few plugged no-shoots or shooting outside the box, we don't have the option of discarding everyone's run on that stage. Why do we do this on classifiers ? Everyone has bad stage runs and that impacts our overall score. So why do we exclude really bad scores from the percentage calculation ?

 

Excluding bad scores tends to encourage the 'hero or zero' approach to shooting, over time enough people will win that classifier lottery and thereby push the HHF's ever higher. This is part of the reason for the latest reset. But if the underlying issue is not resolved then eventually that reset may need to be done over and over again.

 

 

 

If new classifiers were introduced at Nationals (as they will be this year) then the HHF's that are recorded will likely be the most accurate scores. The stages are guaranteed to be the same setup for every shooter and the competitors runs are taking place under actual match conditions with a Nationals title on the line. 

 

Further scores on these classifiers may not accurately reflect a person's true skill set for several reasons:

 

Firstly the classifier is no longer being shot under Nationals conditions with all the inherent match pressure that entails, and secondly there is no guarantee that the stage has been set up accurately at the local club. For these reasons I think the HHF recorded at Nationals should be the maximum for each division. If a person scores a higher HF in a later match then they score 100% but the HHF will NEVER go above that set at Nationals.

 

To cater for increases in skill level the classifiers would be retired after 3-5 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...