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

Classifier system: a modest proposal

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, malobukov said:

With R.

That looks like it may be a really powerful, cool tool.  Sadly, not being a coder of any sort (my grade matched the programming language when I last attempted coding in college some 20 years ago - C+), I have no idea how to use that.  :(  I have a passing familiarity with stats, but writing code queries is beyond me.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, SCTaylor said:

 


Why is that Moto?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

because the hhf's are lower, and easier to attain. at least for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, motosapiens said:

some divisions g-cards are already significantly easier.

I haven't paid enough attention to the recent changes to know whether that was addressed or not.

 

It was.

 

A friend on this forum is a mid to high M in Production. He re-ran his scores on all of his claissifiers; if he’d shot them after the switch he would be down in A class right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, MemphisMechanic said:

 

It was.

 

A friend on this forum is a mid to high M in Production. He re-ran his scores on all of his claissifiers; if he’d shot them after the switch he would be down in A class right now.

of course it sounds like the same thing happened in limited, so maybe prod will still be easier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, motosapiens said:

of course it sounds like the same thing happened in limited, so maybe prod will still be easier.

 

Hater. :D 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Kind of like IDPA DM. Not very often we see USPSA shooters recommending we be more like IDPA.

Don’t really know squat about IDPA except I don’t shoot it. Never wanted to after our club allow IDPA to use our state match stages for their state match. IDPA shot together on one or more stages. Had to find timers that would record stage time longer than 99.9 seconds if my memory is correct. May have been longer. Just know the that one or more timers could record stage times because of length it took IDPA to shoot stages. Watched one shooter take cover behind a card table, engage one target with one shot SLOWLY scan all other targets, SLOWLY decide which to engage, and fire one shoot and repeat until all targets were engaged with two rounds. I quit watching at 3 to 4 minutes and he was still shooting targets. It was a short course, speed shoot. ~15 seconds for average USPSA shooter.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, GeneBray said:


Don’t really know squat about IDPA except I don’t shoot it. Never wanted to after our club allow IDPA to use our state match stages for their state match. IDPA shot together on one or more stages. Had to find timers that would record stage time longer than 99.9 seconds if my memory is correct. May have been longer. Just know the that one or more timers could record stage times because of length it took IDPA to shoot stages. Watched one shooter take cover behind a card table, engage one target with one shot SLOWLY scan all other targets, SLOWLY decide which to engage, and fire one shoot and repeat until all targets were engaged with two rounds. I quit watching at 3 to 4 minutes and he was still shooting targets. It was a short course, speed shoot. ~15 seconds for average USPSA shooter.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That is funny! LMAO. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, GeneBray said:


Don’t really know squat about IDPA except I don’t shoot it. Never wanted to after our club allow IDPA to use our state match stages for their state match. IDPA shot together on one or more stages. Had to find timers that would record stage time longer than 99.9 seconds if my memory is correct. May have been longer. Just know the that one or more timers could record stage times because of length it took IDPA to shoot stages. Watched one shooter take cover behind a card table, engage one target with one shot SLOWLY scan all other targets, SLOWLY decide which to engage, and fire one shoot and repeat until all targets were engaged with two rounds. I quit watching at 3 to 4 minutes and he was still shooting targets. It was a short course, speed shoot. ~15 seconds for average USPSA shooter.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I'd like to have seen that lol. I did once watch a IDPA shooter at his first USPSA match (Sectional at that) go out of the fault lines and engage all the targets using cover at the walls. I think he got like 25 PE's. The RO's didn't have enough fingers and had to count the shots up after his run.

 

That said, IDPA typically isn't that bad lol. It's certainly slower, think shooting USPSA and trying to be sure to shoot 100% A's. If I drop more than more than 10 "charlies" all day at a IDPA match I'm not going to be happy.

 

Anyway IDPA you can only make DM "distinguished Master" by winning Nationals. You may also be able to get it if you're really close to the winner but I'd have to look that up to be sure. It would thin the ranks of GM in USPSA for sure, at the same time making Master a more competitive classification.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Y'all are just waisting time and energy. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, B_RAD said:

Y'all are just waisting time and energy. 

 

 

I think that goes without saying.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, ATLDave said:

I think that goes without saying.  

Sucks but true. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 7/10/2018 at 9:36 AM, 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.  

Not really true because your classification in one division drags up your classification in other divisions to N minus 1. 

 

PCC GMs get to be Ms in all other divisions in which they are classified 

 

Edited by TrackCage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's true, insofar as it goes, but the situation is not presently better.  The N-minus-1 thing causes serious misclassifications now.  The PCC thing, as you note.  Similarly, most semi-auto shooters who put in 6 classifiers in revolver would likely come out overclassified.  That's not really a percentage-versus-percentile issue, it's just a function of the anti-sandbagging/N-minus-1 rule.  We could keep or drop that separately.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ATLDave said:

That's true, insofar as it goes, but the situation is not presently better.  The N-minus-1 thing causes serious misclassifications now.  The PCC thing, as you note.  Similarly, most semi-auto shooters who put in 6 classifiers in revolver would likely come out overclassified.  That's not really a percentage-versus-percentile issue, it's just a function of the anti-sandbagging/N-minus-1 rule.  We could keep or drop that separately.  

Fair enough. I for one don't see a huge problem with the percentile model you propose. Don't see it happening, however

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ve thought this for years.  A GM’s classifiers should be in the top 5 percentile of all shooters.  It shouldn’t be based on shooting 95% or better of some arbitrary number.   Hell, our HFF isn’t even HFF because I’ve seen numerious people shoot over 100% on classifiers and the “HFF” doesn’t move up when submitted.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Climbhard said:

I’ve thought this for years.  A GM’s classifiers should be in the top 5 percentile of all shooters.  It shouldn’t be based on shooting 95% or better of some arbitrary number.   Hell, our HFF isn’t even HFF because I’ve seen numerious people shoot over 100% on classifiers and the “HFF” doesn’t move up when submitted.   

so you want to make it substantially easier to make GM? right now it's more like 1-3% depending on the division.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, motosapiens said:

so you want to make it substantially easier to make GM? right now it's more like 1-3% depending on the division.

So what’s wrong with calling the top 5 percentile of our sport GMs.  If that bothers you let’s make it the top 3 percent.   It’s like settingnpar on a golf course.  Par doesn’t matter. Only your score. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Climbhard said:

So what’s wrong with calling the top 5 percentile of our sport GMs.  If that bothers you let’s make it the top 3 percent.   It’s like settingnpar on a golf course.  Par doesn’t matter. Only your score. 

 

wut? who said it bothered me? It might bother current GM's, but ultimately classification is just a distraction for most people, and it  keeps them from getting better.

Share this post


Link to post
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

×