Jump to content
Brian Enos's Forums... Maku mozo!
nasty618

Classifiers from 2018 Nationals are official?

Recommended Posts

Hi all,

 

Looks like USPSA has made the 2018 Classifiers official

 

10/23/18 18-01 USPSA National Events P        
10/23/18 18-05 USPSA National Events P        
10/23/18 18-03 USPSA National Events P        
10/23/18 18-07 USPSA National Events P        
10/23/18 18-04 USPSA National Events P        
10/23/18 18-09 USPSA National Events P        
10/23/18 18-08 USPSA National Events P        
10/23/18 18-02 USPSA National Events P        
10/23/18 18-06 USPSA National Events P

 

The Classification Calculator now supports them as well - you can see your percentages 

Edited by nasty618

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why did I just get a pit in my stomach

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just checked the USPSA website and sure enough the new 2018 Classifiers are listed in the classifier stage section.

 

I am surprised that USPSA hasn't sent out an e-mail notice to the membership about this yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 classifiers plus the match counting as a classifier?  Considering, the match importance, I'm guessing anyone that was hiding in lower classes probably getting bumped. And anyone trying to get bumped, probably having their precentage going down. 

Edited by B_RAD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm gonna go up in L10 and CO and remain unchanged in Prod from just some quick calculations. Maybe there will be more CO GM's now....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CHA-LEE said:

I just checked the USPSA website and sure enough the new 2018 Classifiers are listed in the classifier stage section.

 

I am surprised that USPSA hasn't sent out an e-mail notice to the membership about this yet.

It will likely be announced via the weekly 'Down Range" email.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just got done reviewing all of the classifiers and found several inconsistencies or clarifications that are needed. Sent it all to DNROI for review. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just did some basic calculations on the 100% hit factor listed on USPSA vs real match results from the nationals and its looking like they averaged the hit factors for the top 10 shooters for each division to come up with the initial 100% hit factors. I can see most of these getting blown out of the water with 110% - 120% runs when people go for broke at local matches. This is an interesting contrast to all of the old classifiers 100% hit factors being bumped up to nearly unobtainable levels for most GM's.

Edited by CHA-LEE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, CHA-LEE said:

I just did some basic calculations on the 100% hit factor listed on USPSA vs real match results from the nationals and its looking like they took they averaged the hit factors for the top 10 shooters for each division to come up with the initial 100% hit factors. I can see most of these getting blown out of the water with 110% - 120% runs when people go for broke at local matches. This is an interesting contrast to all of the old classifiers 100% hit factors being bumped up to nearly unobtainable levels for most GM's.

I agree 

 

Using the average of best 10 on such a small sample yields MUCH different results than pulling the 10 best of thousands of runs. 

Limited was the largest division at 270 shooters finishing, that is small data pool. with almost nobody going hero or zero pace

 

Revolver was smallest with 26  so super small sample there.

 

Using the winning HF would have made more sense 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yep, interesting that my stage finish isn't the same as my classification percent

Share this post


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

yep, interesting that my stage finish isn't the same as my classification percent

 

Quick. Get your range to set these up as a classifier match and make Production G. ;) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nevermind

Edited by B_RAD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Curious to know what discrepancies you guys are seeing and how you're reporting them?

 

Figured my other question out on my own

Edited by nasty618

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, MemphisMechanic said:

 

Quick. Get your range to set these up as a classifier match and make Production G. ;) 

I expect some won't get used much. They look a tad difficult to set up. Or should I say, more difficult than some of the easier ones now that are popular. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can’t find them ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I bet these get used a lot early like MM said. Scores are at their lowest they’ll ever be. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, MemphisMechanic said:

 

Quick. Get your range to set these up as a classifier match and make Production G. ;) 

I no longer have a range, and definitely not one where anyone would listen to my requests. And sides, the sinking pit in my stomach was correct. Once the nats classifiers hit this morning i lost 3 gm scores to be replaced with m and a scores. Dumb.

 

with people able to shoot weekly matches and the classifier system updating weekly i think the old formula for which 6 count, that originated pre personal computer usage should be revisited.

 

just like we all know which nats it was when we say "the hurricane nats" we now all know what match it was when we'll say "classifier nats".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, CHA-LEE said:

and its looking like they averaged the hit factors for the top 10 shooters for each division to come up with the initial 100% hit factors.

Isn't that as it should be? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, ima45dv8 said:

Isn't that as it should be? 

 

We don't average the top ten scores at a match to figure out the final results. I think it should be the best Hit Factor for each division.

 

Averaging the top ten scores is going to lower the HHF, which means that future competitors will get higher scores than they would have reached if they shot that same stage at the Nationals.

 

Honestly, I think the whole system has become a joke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, ima45dv8 said:

Isn't that as it should be? 

 

I do not think so, in this case we are using a rather small sample size with a even small number of high level shooters attempting each stage with even fewer of those shooters going for broke on the stage, so what we have is a average of 10 good shooters shooting the stage safely one time.

I don't know what the plan for adjusting them is or how often that will occur but I expect most of these will need to be adjusted up a bunch once people start shooting them without a championship on the line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, ima45dv8 said:

Isn't that as it should be? 

 

This is just my opinion so take it for what its worth. But I think there are several factors to consider when using the Nationals match performance on these new classifiers. The first is the reality that very few competitors with a chance of winning a National Title are going to let it all hang out on these classifiers while shooting them at the nationals. Its way too much risk to push your performance to 100% and potentially eat a miss or no shoot.This is in stark contrast to how these classifiers will be shot in local club match where the risk is minimal if you screw it up. The top shooters in the nation would likely be able to shoot these classifiers 10% - 15% better in a club match setting where they can swing for the fences and their "risk" is throwing away a $20 club match win. Versus trying to go bonkers on them at the Nationals and throwing away a national title and the thousands of dollars in expenses to attend.

 

The second factor to consider is that using an average of the top 10 nationals performances only lowers the achievement or performance of the stage winners. Since we know that the top shooters at the nationals will be shooting these classifiers in a slightly conservative manner, the winning stage runs are still not the potential maximum performance. Averaging the hit factors of the top 10 simply waters it down even more.

 

The third factor is how the high hit factors were determined and updated for all of the old classifiers. All of the old classifiers recently got their 100% hit factors readjusted based on the classifier results data from all of the years they have been shot. Which the majority of these results are coming from local club matches where shooters are swinging for the fences because the risk vs reward in that scenario makes it worth it. The old classifier run sample size is likely in the tens of thousands for each classifier stage. Where as the sample size for the new classifiers is limited to the few hundred shooters in each division at the nationals.

 

I understand that any time new classifiers are deployed it can be tricky in determining what the initial 100% hit factor should be. If it was up to me I would take the classifier stage winning hit factors from the nationals and add 10% to each one because we all know that people are shooting those things more conservative at the nationals verses their maximum performance potential. Deploy the classifiers to the masses for club matches and review the results for 3 - 6 months to tweak them as needed. 

 

Doing it this way at least minimizes the Grandbagger situation that is going to happen with the current 100% hit factors USPSA has settled on. If history repeats itself these artificially low 100% hit factors will stay that way for a while before they are adjusted to where they should be. By then all of the Grandbaggers will have fully exploited the gaping hole in the classification system and changing them won't make much of a difference.

 

I don't understand why USPSA would water down the Classification system like that with inaccurate 100% hit factors which make it much easier to make the next level of classification. But they have done exactly that time and time again whenever something new is deployed like new classifiers or divisions. PCC is the most recent example of the classification system being completely wrong in skill rating for way too long which allowed a bunch of "B Class" pistol shooters to magically earn Master or Grand Master classifications in PCC. To make it even worse, they allowed the PCC classification to automatically bump up their pistol classifications to one level below. Now you have a "B Class" pistol shooters who exploited the classification hole in PCC to earn a GM classification there and by associated get a Master classification in all of their pistol divisions. That type of mismanagement of the classification system is what pisses people off and turns them away from the sport. Simply because they have allowed a mistake like that to water down what it takes to earn a classification in any division.

 

I also want to point out that all of us pay USPSA handsomely in Mission Count and Classifier fees every weekend to do this stuff right but it still gets screwed up on a regular basis.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, BritinUSA said:

We don't average the top ten scores at a match to figure out the final results. I think it should be the best Hit Factor for each division.

 

Averaging the top ten scores is going to lower the HHF, which means that future competitors will get higher scores than they would have reached if they shot that same stage at the Nationals.

 

Honestly, I think the whole system has become a joke.

I agree, looking at the top 20 there are way more 100s now than there were last time I looked, 

3 in CO

2 in limited

3 in open

7 in PCC

5 in production

5 in revo 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've said it before, this is all about the money….The system is a joke. The ONLY true HHF is the one from Nationals and should be set in stone for the life of that stage; new classifiers should push out old ones, we only need about 20-30 classifiers to test the various skills. If L1 scores are allowed to alter the HHF then the system fails, as we have no way of knowing if the classifier stage was setup correctly.

 

Rifle classifications should not affect handgun classifications, to have that link is absurd.

 

This service is not worth what we pay for it.

Share this post


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

This service is not worth what we pay for it.

I liked shooting better when I knew less of what happened nationally.... And I think you're right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your points are all well taken, and I don't necessarily disagree with all of them. But looking at the excerpt below from the rulebook, which was in there as long as I can remember, it seems to indicate HHFs should be based on an average. While it's not specifically mentioned there, I know I've read it was supposed to based on the top 10 HF's for a given classifier. And that idea has some merit when you consider a crazy hero-or-zero, almost impossible to duplicate run could set the HHF while not being truly reflective of actual efforts:

Quote

Your percentage is based on your scores as they relate to the average high scores on file for a particular course of fire.

 

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

×