New Classifier Percentages

[MikeBurgess]

If you are worried about MATCH performance, you won’t hero or zero the classifier.  You will shoot them at the fastest pace you think you can hit.  This ultimately affects the HHF.   If the newest “fix” truly fixed the problems with classication, then making the changes so drastic all at once would have made a little better sense but it would still result in 2 different outcomes.  The post 6-28-18 classification in Production, Limited, and Open would be better than the pre 6-28-18.
 
If you didn’t like the PGA example then look at baseball.  Years ago there were more HRs, but baseball didn’t change how tight the balls could be wound mid-season.  Point is no major sport makes changes to the rules mid-season unless there is a safety concern.  We all know there are more than double the matches going on right now compared to the winter months.

I agree that for many pre adjustment classifications may not be as accurate as post adjustment. I am all in favor of a bunch of shooters petitioning their area director to get their classification lowered if they belive that their ability doesn't match their classification.

I agree rules changes should be made at a time that has the least negative on the competitors and competitions. In this case it had no impact on competitions at all, and the affect on competitors is exactly the same regardless of time of implementation.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

[MikeBurgess]

Heck yes I did and do. And I think you're wrong in trying to grade it as whether it was my perfect performance or not to determine its value. More truly it is my performance relative to a standard. How it ranks on what I'm capable of doesn't matter. What matters is how I ranked on that day and time against the standard.
 
Even if I felt like it was a crap run for me or my best run ever, who cares. What matters is how I did against the standard. Real data and not perception. Real data weeks ago had me doing it equal to the very best. I still believe what I did was better than 95% of the people out there in the whole US who shoot Prod. The org looked at their numbers and decided overnight that was wrong and changed it, in this case almost 14%.
 
That's a seismic shift. If the HHF is gonna be a moving target, then make it moving on a regular and scheduled basis and let us know what the moves are rather than making people do the math and dig around. It's stupid.

Please dont take my question as a personal attack.
My point was and is a 100% run should be the best that can be done at that point in time in the sport. I respect the effort you have put into the sport and respect your ability, if you feel your run on that stage was a garunteed stage win at nationals then I agree the adjustment is probably in error.

I trust math, if math was used in the creation of the new HHF as we have been told it would then I trust the new numbers as a real standard over the old numbers that were often made up or based on another division and adjusted by feel.

Shooting better than 95% of shooters is not the standard shooting above 95% of the maximum is.




Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

[malobukov]

1 minute ago, MikeBurgess said:

a 100% run should be the best that can be done at that point in time in the sport.

Should hero runs count? If yes, then everyone is expected to either hero-or-zero classifiers, or accept a classification that is lower than what their current level allows them to get. There's quite a bit of difference between YouTube speed and speed one can replicate on demand, under major match pressure. If no, then how can you tell a hero run from just a good, solid, repeatable run?

 

Current classification system discards results a certain threshold below current classification, presumably to prevent sandbagging and avoid lowering classification of people who just leveled up. If you care about "making GM" more than winning your local match, this gives a strong incentive to hero-or-zero. And if you look at the distribution of hit factors, it's clear that many competitors do hero or zero on classifiers. This pushes HHFs up, especially for popular classifiers.

[broadus123]

With a stroke of a pen they just moved everyone in the low end of their classification down one class. This will probably cause some classified to go to a "U" when their membership expires. Too bad this couldn't have been voted on.

[SCTaylor]

With a stroke of a pen they just moved everyone in the low end of their classification down one class. This will probably cause some classified to go to a "U" when their membership expires. Too bad this couldn't have been voted on.

No one lost classification. This horse is dead. Nothing has been retroactively modified.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MikeBurgess]

Should hero runs count? If yes, then everyone is expected to either hero-or-zero classifiers, or accept a classification that is lower than what their current level allows them to get. There's quite a bit of difference between YouTube speed and speed one can replicate on demand, under major match pressure. If no, then how can you tell a hero run from just a good, solid, repeatable run?
 
Current classification system discards results a certain threshold below current classification, presumably to prevent sandbagging and avoid lowering classification of people who just leveled up. If you care about "making GM" more than winning your local match, this gives a strong incentive to hero-or-zero. And if you look at the distribution of hit factors, it's clear that many competitors do hero or zero on classifiers. This pushes HHFs up, especially for popular classifiers.

You can't filter all the hero runs, but you can look at a distribution of hitfactors relative to the number submitted and find a point where the max performance ends and the miracles begin.

That said the hero or zero is driven by those that care about their classification more than winning. Those just worried about match performance will end up with classifications they are competative in.

Personally I wish you could enter up to whatever class you want but not down. When I raced motorcycle they had some formula to force you up a class based on performance, but there was nothing stopping you from entering up a class. I never placed better than 3rd in class at a single event before moving myself up.



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

[broadus123]

14 minutes ago, SCTaylor said:

 

No one lost classification. This horse is dead. Nothing has been retroactively modified.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I didn't say your classification would change. I meant if you are in the bottom of your class, your next scores just dropped into the lower class.

[Balakay]

55 minutes ago, broadus123 said:

I didn't say your classification would change. I meant if you are in the bottom of your class, your next scores just dropped into the lower class.

Only if your next scores would have been marginally above the floor of the class before they changed the HHF AND they happen to be on classifiers that were adjusted to have an increased HHF. Maybe you are going to shoot a classifier that the HHF has been adjusted down.

 

Sitting 2.x% from my 2018 goal, I want to move up as much as many of you who have complained but a letter grade will not make me a better shooter. I really just want to improve my performance relative to the Major match winners. If I achieve this as an A or M or G it will make no difference in the end.  More practice. Get faster. The classifications will fall into place 

[motosapiens]

5 hours ago, B585 said:

 Point is no major sport makes changes to the rules mid-season unless there is a safety concern.  We all know there are more than double the matches going on right now compared to the winter months.

 

there was no change to the rules, just to a fairly meaningless ranking formula. Absolutely nothing has changed about match scoring.

[motosapiens]

4 hours ago, malobukov said:

Should hero runs count? If yes, then everyone is expected to either hero-or-zero classifiers, or accept a classification that is lower than what their current level allows them to get. There's quite a bit of difference between YouTube speed and speed one can replicate on demand, under major match pressure. If no, then how can you tell a hero run from just a good, solid, repeatable run?

 

Current classification system discards results a certain threshold below current classification, presumably to prevent sandbagging and avoid lowering classification of people who just leveled up. If you care about "making GM" more than winning your local match, this gives a strong incentive to hero-or-zero. And if you look at the distribution of hit factors, it's clear that many competitors do hero or zero on classifiers. This pushes HHFs up, especially for popular classifiers.

 

Agreed, and this pretty much sums up what was broken (and still remains broken) about the classifier system.

 

I would say 100% shouldn't be the best possible run, but should be what the very best shooters can reasonably  do on match day most of the time.

[BritinUSA]

10 minutes ago, motosapiens said:

I would say 100% shouldn't be the best possible run, but should be what the very best shooters can reasonably  do on match day most of the time.

 

And this is why I think the HHF should be fixed to the HHF that was set for the stage when it is shot at Nationals.

[mstamper]

Not sure if this has been asked here yet or not, (don't feel like reading through 5+ pages of posts). I was wondering if and or when Practiscore will be updated with the new HHF's? I shot a match Saturday (CM99-46) and Practiscore shows my score as a 71.03% and the USPSA site classifier calculator shows it with a 66.2229% that is more than a 5% point difference. 

 

Also, is there a specific website or a page on USPSA that actually shows the classifiers with the old and new HHF's?

[OdinIII]

I would say 100% shouldn't be the best possible run, but should be what the very best shooters can reasonably  do on match day most of the time.

Exactly right!

If I understand correctly from previous post then the new hit factors are all hero or zero runs by the best shooters in the country. Surely this wasn’t the intent of our leadership?

[Flatland Shooter]

36 minutes ago, mstamper said:

Also, is there a specific website or a page on USPSA that actually shows the classifiers with the old and new HHF's?

 

From what I see, you can calculate the new HHF from the Classification Calculator on the USPSA.org website.  They show the 95% HF.  You do the math from there.

 

Places like Classifier Calculator (http://www.classifiercalc.com/) have not updated yet so the old HHF can be found there.  Problem is you can only see one classifier at a time.  On the USPSA calculator, after 17 or so searches, they shut you down for an hour.

[waktasz]

4 hours ago, mstamper said:

Not sure if this has been asked here yet or not, (don't feel like reading through 5+ pages of posts). I was wondering if and or when Practiscore will be updated with the new HHF's? I shot a match Saturday (CM99-46) and Practiscore shows my score as a 71.03% and the USPSA site classifier calculator shows it with a 66.2229% that is more than a 5% point difference. 

 

Also, is there a specific website or a page on USPSA that actually shows the classifiers with the old and new HHF's?

 

Never. That's an old version of Practiscore you have that shows your percentages right away. The current versions don't do that. 

 

[Brooke]

10 hours ago, OdinIII said:

 

 

Exactly right!

If I understand correctly from previous post then the new hit factors are all hero or zero runs by the best shooters in the country. Surely this wasn’t the intent of our leadership?

 

 

 

Exactly !! As others have said.

 

Didn't anyone take a statistics class. This is the dumbest method of setting a standard I ever heard of. Even IDPA does it better. If 100 GM's hero/zero a classifier some of them will succeed and set a bar for all members based on pure luck.

 

[B_RAD]

13 hours ago, OdinIII said:

 

 

Exactly right!

If I understand correctly from previous post then the new hit factors are all hero or zero runs by the best shooters in the country. Surely this wasn’t the intent of our leadership?

 

 

I'm sure if you ask them, they will be forthcoming with information....

[waktasz]

Him, not them. The BOD wasn't involved 

[Racinready300ex]

2 hours ago, waktasz said:

Him, not them. The BOD wasn't involved 

 

This doesn't seem like a surprise for some reason.

Edited July 9, 2018 by Racinready300ex

[waktasz]

Stay in your lane IDPA boy!

[Reekus]

2 hours ago, B_RAD said:

I'm sure if you ask them, they will be forthcoming with information....

If you're gonna ask him,make sure you do it in a comment on his Instagram as well

Edited July 9, 2018 by Reekus

[MikeBurgess]

I think the Hero or zero issue is not as big as many assume, from what I have see the top shooters tend to do way less of it and the difference between their on demand and go big or go home runs is much smaller than us mortals. the thing that really messes with the system is the generous size of our scoring zones.  look at a classifier like El Pres. it is easy to shoot all As at 10 yd on open targets, it gets harder the faster you go to do that consistently but going mach stupid on it you are still likely to hit all As occasionally. so lets look at some simplified math for it. all As in 4 seconds is 15 HF, just dropping the accuracy to AACC on each target drops the HF to 12 in major and 9 in minor. So pretty much anyone that can do the shooting quickly enough is going to hook up with all As often enough to drive the HHF up. 

 

the only solution to this is longer more complicated courses of fire where the likelihood of a perfect run is much lower.  

 

I unfortunately don't think using the HF set at nationals is a good idea because that is a one time run on the stage the first time anyone has ever seen it, it hasn't been practiced or drilled or had multiple runs the years. 

 

I do not think there is a perfect solution to the system as we know it. I think with major changes something better could be implemented.

a couple ideas for that.

The Elo system like chess (Ken has played with this some) seems like a great solution just implement a range of Elo scores for each class. 

Create a distribution curve for each classifier so each one has X% Gm X% M ect, scores. based on the HF shot 

[ATLDave]

I see references earlier in this thread to a list of changed HHF's for limited.  Does anyone have a link to that list/chart?

[motosapiens]

16 hours ago, OdinIII said:

If I understand correctly from previous post then the new hit factors are all hero or zero runs by the best shooters in the country. Surely this wasn’t the intent of our leadership?

 

 

 

I like our leadership in general, but I'm not convinced they are very good at math, especially statistics. 

 

While I think these adjustments were mostly wrong-headed, at least I don't care about classification anymore.

[Balakay]

1 hour ago, MikeBurgess said:

I think the Hero or zero issue is not as big as many assume, from what I have see the top shooters tend to do way less of it and the difference between their on demand and go big or go home runs is much smaller than us mortals...

Well, I think you might be underestimating this. Significantly.

Let's take a look at one of our National Champions classifiers:

He is currently at 98.xx%.  Included are 3x Hundos (one of which is a match win), and 3 x 97s

 

Looking more closely, what were the other scores that were shot:

73

67

69

83

86

46 (followed by 100 on a reshoot)

73 (followed by 97 on a reshoot)

59 (followed by 100 on a reshoot)

100

41 (followed by 87 on a reshoot)

91

65

52

60 (following a zero)

92

96

46

57 (followed by 92 on reshoot)

36 (followed by 93 on reshoot)

94

58 (followed by 92 on reshoot)

 

So clearly, even the best of the best still have issues. The statement that the top shooters have little difference between their typical performance and the high hit factor is laughable.  The HHF, in my opinion based on a sample size of 1, is unlikely to represent the typical performance of the pinnacle at our sport. I suspect if you went through the classifiers of the super squad, it would looked strikingly similar to the above.