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

Classifier system: a modest proposal


ATLDave

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 75
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

You don’t need to change anything to get that. All you need is distribution of people by classification percent. This is relatively stable. Once you have the distribution function, you plug in your classification percent and get your percentile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ATLDave said:

No, we use percentages, not percentiles, in the match points system.  

then please clarify for me how I can win a stage and shoot 94% and be awarded 100% of the available stage points even though I did not score 100% of the stage points. At that point, isn't the awarding of the majority of the points and being shown as getting 150 stage points now a percentile? IE, I am now the high curve percentile wise? Or am I too weak minded to wrap my brain around this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wouldn't the number of shooters effect this also? Example being Limited, you could be in the top 25% in Limited, switch to L-10 where there are less shooters and with the same performance on stages be in the top 10%.

 

If a division has less heat, wont it be easier to get into the upper percentile? With the current system it's equally hard between Limited and L-10 as most HHF are the same.

 

I must be missing something

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Racinready300ex said:

So how would we decide what percentile is what class?

 

 

decide how many shooters you want in that class (or what percentage of the whole). then set the percentile accordingly. For example, if you think we have about the right number of GM's now, just set the percentile for gm so that same number of shooters are above it.

 

regarding different divisions, yes for sure limited and L10 have mostly the same HHF,  but that's because the L10 ones were simply invented. As we see know in CO, the lack of heat means HHF's are going down, making it easier to upclass. should it be that way? Dunno. I strongly suspect tho that if all the guys currently shooting Limited and Open switched to CO for a year, the HHF's would need to be significantly adjusted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Racinready300ex said:

So how would we decide what percentile is what class?

 

We could either do as moto suggests, or we could keep the same boundary lines as we have now.  I.e., a GM is someone who can average (after whatever toss-outs/exclusions we keep in the system) classifier scores higher than 95% of the shooting population's posted scores.  That doesn't seem unreasonable to me.  The GMs would be the top 5%, the M's would be people better than 85%, and so on.  If you think that's too generous, pick different lines.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, mstamper said:

then please clarify for me how I can win a stage and shoot 94% and be awarded 100% of the available stage points even though I did not score 100% of the stage points. At that point, isn't the awarding of the majority of the points and being shown as getting 150 stage points now a percentile? IE, I am now the high curve percentile wise? Or am I too weak minded to wrap my brain around this?

None of that is percentile.  You are still being measured relative to a single point, fixed by the top HF on a stage.  Percentile ranks places you versus the whole population.  Which would be dumb at the match level - not enough data.  But for national classifications (as in standardized testing), percentile makes more sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Racinready300ex said:

Wouldn't the number of shooters effect this also? Example being Limited, you could be in the top 25% in Limited, switch to L-10 where there are less shooters and with the same performance on stages be in the top 10%.

 

If a division has less heat, wont it be easier to get into the upper percentile? With the current system it's equally hard between Limited and L-10 as most HHF are the same.

That's true - but remember the official USPSA position, which is that different divisions don't compete with one another.  Since L-10 guys are only competing with other L-10 guys, that's the relevant population to compare against.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, malobukov said:

You don’t need to change anything to get that. All you need is distribution of people by classification percent. This is relatively stable. Once you have the distribution function, you plug in your classification percent and get your percentile.

Sure.  If that data were available, anyone curious (and adept at Excel or another tool) could do that for themselves.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, ATLDave said:

We could either do as moto suggests, or we could keep the same boundary lines as we have now.  I.e., a GM is someone who can average (after whatever toss-outs/exclusions we keep in the system) classifier scores higher than 95% of the shooting population's posted scores.  That doesn't seem unreasonable to me.  The GMs would be the top 5%, the M's would be people better than 85%, and so on.  If you think that's too generous, pick different lines.  

 

I've heard the number tossed around that 1.5% of shooters made GM, so using 95 percentile would add a ton of new GM's. I imagine M would be similar.

 

4 minutes ago, ATLDave said:

That's true - but remember the official USPSA position, which is that different divisions don't compete with one another.  Since L-10 guys are only competing with other L-10 guys, that's the relevant population to compare against.  

 

And while the divisions aren't competing against each other making some divisions G card easier than others will lessen the significance of becoming GM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Racinready300ex said:

 

I've heard the number tossed around that 1.5% of shooters made GM, so using 95 percentile would add a ton of new GM's. I imagine M would be similar.

Good enough.  Make 98.5% the boundary for GM, then. 

 

1 minute ago, Racinready300ex said:

And while the divisions aren't competing against each other making some divisions G card easier than others will lessen the significance of becoming GM.

Unlike PCC?  The significance is only in that division.  

 

All of this being in the open would further expose those divisions where the competition is currently so weak that they should perhaps not exist or be recognized in most matches.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, ATLDave said:

Good enough.  Make 98.5% the boundary for GM, then. 

 

Unlike PCC?  The significance is only in that division.  

 

All of this being in the open would further expose those divisions where the competition is currently so weak that they should perhaps not exist or be recognized in most matches.  

 

I do think there is a problem with PCC, and someone should of considered that before we made it a division and set HHF for that division.

 

Wouldn't tossing the whole system for another flawed system kind of be throwing the baby out with the bath water?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Racinready300ex said:

Wouldn't tossing the whole system for another flawed system kind of be throwing the baby out with the bath water?

I do not concede that the percentile system would be "flawed."  It would be materially and fairly obviously better in a bunch of ways.  No system is perfect, but it seems clearly superior to what we have now.  The current system is, however, good enough to get by.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, ATLDave said:

I do not concede that the percentile system would be "flawed."  It would be materially and fairly obviously better in a bunch of ways.  No system is perfect, but it seems clearly superior to what we have now.  The current system is, however, good enough to get by.  

 

So it's not perfect but it's not flawed. Somewhere in the middle? It'll be easier to make GM in some Divisions no big deal.

 

I assume we'd have to try to set the % to keep everyone basically where they are at now. Or you'll have a lot of upset members. In which case we spend a bunch of time coming up with a new system and the software to back it all up to basically keep everyone where they are with the current system. And even then someone will be on the internet saying this was a bad idea. How long did it take us to get this new web page again??

 

I don't really see much gain. What you get is you can say "I'm in the XX percentile" instead of 'I'm A class". Seems like a lot of effort for little return

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Racinready300ex said:

 

I've heard the number tossed around that 1.5% of shooters made GM, so using 95 percentile would add a ton of new GM's. I imagine M would be similar.

 

 

And while the divisions aren't competing against each other making some divisions G card easier than others will lessen the significance of becoming GM.

some divisions g-cards are already significantly easier than others (cough cough, production, cough cough). I haven't paid enough attention to the recent changes to know whether that was addressed or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, motosapiens said:

some divisions g-cards are already significantly easier than others (cough cough, production, cough cough). I haven't paid enough attention to the recent changes to know whether that was addressed or not.

 

I agree and i think that should be fixed. Good luck to those guys when they go to another division as a M......

 

Edit....I was thinking PCC more than production. I've not shot production, so I've never paid attention to the HHF.

Edited by Racinready300ex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
I do think there is a problem with PCC, and someone should of considered that before we made it a division and set HHF for that division.
 
Wouldn't tossing the whole system for another flawed system kind of be throwing the baby out with the bath water?

That has done sailed.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, GeneBray said:

I think you shouldn’t get a GM classification until you shoot an area or nationals (with a minimum number of GMs in the match) at score 95% or better.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Kind of like IDPA DM. Not very often we see USPSA shooters recommending we be more like IDPA.

Edited by Racinready300ex
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...