Number of GMs

[ZackJones]

42 minutes ago, stick said:

The times are only going lower with each review. 

 Generally speaking that's true; however, we do look for those times that need to be increased instead of decreased. We are currently doing our annual deep dive into the data right now. 

[UFO]

1 hour ago, ZackJones said:

 Generally speaking that's true; however, we do look for those times that need to be increased instead of decreased. We are currently doing our annual deep dive into the data right now. 

 

Just toss out the under 18 crowd numbers and we'll be fine.

[ZackJones]

Just now, UFO said:

 

Just toss out the under 18 crowd numbers and we'll be fine.

Chris Barrett is no longer part of the under 18 crowd

 

I like your way of thinking though!

 

[motosapiens]

1 hour ago, ZackJones said:

 We are currently doing our annual deep dive into the data right now. 

If I were diving deep into data, I would do one of two things:

1. not look at the best times recorded, but at the best times at major matches.
2. use actual math and go by percentiles (which will be self-correcting and spare you having to dive into data) instead of a peak time and raw percentage.

[ZackJones]

1 minute ago, motosapiens said:

If I were diving deep into data, I would do one of two things:

1. not look at the best times recorded, but at the best times at major matches.
2. use actual math and go by percentiles (which will be self-correcting and spare you having to dive into data) instead of a peak time and raw percentage.

1 - Our primary focus are times recorded at WSSC. If there's insufficient data for a division we may expand to other major matches to get a feel for how competitors are doing or simply decide not to make any adjustments due to insufficient data.  We don't just look at times though. We also look at who shot those times. It makes zero sense to adjust a PST for a division if only one or two people are shooting faster than the actual PST.

 

2 - We do a number of different calculations using actual math. We certainly don't just pluck some number out of the air and use that. A lot of work goes into the review and our recommendations to Mike and the senior USPSA staff. 

[lstange]

13 hours ago, motosapiens said:

go by percentiles (which will be self-correcting and spare you having to dive into data) instead of a peak time and raw percentage.

Percentiles are noisy in the right tail. A more robust approach would be to look at, say, 50th and 90th percentile, then extrapolate to whatever percentile peak time is supposed to reflect, assuming normal distribution (this assumption is reasonably close to reality for the right tail).

[motosapiens]

1 hour ago, lstange said:

Percentiles are noisy in the right tail. A more robust approach would be to look at, say, 50th and 90th percentile, then extrapolate to whatever percentile peak time is supposed to reflect, assuming normal distribution (this assumption is reasonably close to reality for the right tail).

fair enough. I admit to mostly caring about the left tail. Your suggestion seems mathematically sound to me.

[edyan]

Hi Zack...maybe discuss bringing back the old 3sec penalty instead of 4sec for disabled

[lstange]

3 hours ago, motosapiens said:

I admit to mostly caring about the left tail.

Thank you for the correction. I was thinking about the "good" tail. With peak times it would be left (low times) and with HHF right (high hit factors). The "bad" tail (worse than average) is not really close to normal distribution.

[UFO]

Match scores should be used for classification instead of individual stages. I understand that would mean a complete revamp of the system, but I think it would be a more equitable way of classification.  I'm a GM in RFRO, but I've only shot a GM score in 3 of my last 10 matches, the remainder were M scores.

[Andyk]

43 minutes ago, UFO said:

Match scores should be used for classification instead of individual stages. I understand that would mean a complete revamp of the system, but I think it would be a more equitable way of classification.  I'm a GM in RFRO, but I've only shot a GM score in 3 of my last 10 matches, the remainder were M scores.

That would eliminate local matches since many I think only shoot 6 stages.

[Racinready300ex]

10 minutes ago, Andyk said:

That would eliminate local matches since many I think only shoot 6 stages.

 

Would that really be a bad thing? Does classification even matter at a local?

[Andyk]

1 hour ago, Racinready300ex said:

 

Would that really be a bad thing? Does classification even matter at a local?

 

To people who never shoot anything but tier 1 I suppose it does.  Probably result in less membership

[Hoops]

I am new to SC and learning the classification system.  Someone mentioned total match score vs. "best of" stages.  When I was playing golf, the handicap system was based on total score of 18 holes and a series of calculations were used to develop my handicap.  I was never capable of in the low 70's but I was capable of shooting par or lower on individual holes on various days.  If I understand SC, my lowest stage scores and not match scores advance me.  I wonder what percent of shooters in any class consistently shoot their class in the mid and upper percentile on a match total basis.  My guess is that in the A, M and GM classes it is harder to do on a consistent basis.  Love the sport and the challenge.  Made a lot of new friends.

[motosapiens]

5 hours ago, Andyk said:

 

To people who never shoot anything but tier 1 I suppose it does.  Probably result in less membership

I'm not convinced that folks shooting local matches care *at all* about classification in steel challenge. I was MD of our evening matches for a couple years before I got sucked into USPSA, but I still shoot steel almost every week during the summer, and except for a few folks pushing for GM, I never hear anyone talking about classification in steel. This is in stark contrast to uspsa where people are obsessed about finally breaking out of B class.

 

I suspect it's because the stages are all classifiers so the class doesn't really matter that much compared to the stage times. You just try to keep improving your times. In USPSA the classifications are decoupled from match performances to an extent.

[motosapiens]

16 minutes ago, Hoops said:

 I wonder what percent of shooters in any class consistently shoot their class in the mid and upper percentile on a match total basis.  My guess is that in the A, M and GM classes it is harder to do on a consistent basis.  Love the sport and the challenge.  Made a lot of new friends.

 

I don't know nuthin' bout nuthin, but I have been shooting steel for 7 years now, and my wife is in her 2nd year. Unless we have a total trainwreck, we are both within a few percent of our best total times at pretty much every match, and within 10% or less of our best aggregate (i.e. classification) times. The better I have gotten, the more consistent I have gotten, and now a bad night is often the result of 1-2 mistakes or malfunctions that cause me to be 2-3 seconds slower. 

[Hoops]

Good point.  Improving = becoming more consistent.  Shoot more matches.  Thanks

[Racinready300ex]

14 hours ago, Andyk said:

 

To people who never shoot anything but tier 1 I suppose it does.  Probably result in less membership

 

You must shoot at big clubs, around here the majority of people aren't classified anyway. And even if everyone was, once you split us up by division and class we'd all be competing against ourselves. Not really much point, unless you like being high C class in production when you were the only C class production shooter.

 

Like moto said, people who aren't going to majors don't seem to care about classification.

[Andyk]

1 hour ago, Racinready300ex said:

 

You must shoot at big clubs, around here the majority of people aren't classified anyway. And even if everyone was, once you split us up by division and class we'd all be competing against ourselves. Not really much point, unless you like being high C class in production when you were the only C class production shooter.

 

Like moto said, people who aren't going to majors don't seem to care about classification.

When we got affiliated, our matches started filling up two weeks in advance, 80 guns.  Prior when it was outlaw, 50 was a good number.

[Racinready300ex]

1 hour ago, Andyk said:

When we got affiliated, our matches started filling up two weeks in advance, 80 guns.  Prior when it was outlaw, 50 was a good number.

 

 

My local club (that is affiliated) had 50 guns this month and of those zero registered with a classification. Seems like my area doesn't care.

[UFO]

22 hours ago, Andyk said:

That would eliminate local matches since many I think only shoot 6 stages.

 

No, not really. They can classify you with only 4 stages. 6 stages would still be a percent of GM for those stages.

Edited September 18, 2019 by UFO

[Hammer002]

Its very interesting to see the variety of experiences here.

 

I came on as a second match director for our area this year.  Two years ago, we got 30 or so for local matches and about 100 for level 2.  Last year we got 50 to 70 for locals and 120 or so for level 2, and it was obviously growing.  This year I was brought on and noticed the writing on the wall early.  Our Jan and Feb matches filled completely, 72 guns. with decent weather.  I went from hosting 7 stages/7 12 person squads to 6 stages/6 10 person squads/TWO flights (morning/afternoon).  We immediately began filling the 120 spots.  I then expanded more to set up Saturday mid day and the set up crew of 20 shot Saturday afternoon, making for a 140 entry total.  Its still filling and in need of further expansion.  So our experience is congruent with the USPSA report of growing numbers.

 

Personally, I have been involved for 3 years.  I have ALWAYS paid attention to classification.  Doing math at the end of each match posting if I had personal bests to see what my new percentage will be.  I have seen this to be the case with MOST Steel Challenge shooters.  So much so an app, Matchtracker, is taking off cause it allows you to do this on your phone on the fly.  I believe this is one of the main attractions of Steel Challenge.  Nearly all people I interact with watch their classification.  To say people don't care about their classification is to not understand the sport at all.  Sure there are some who may not.  Some of those may not understand it yet either.  Usually once they do, they care.  I can tell you there is heartache if a stage is set up improperly and we have to throw it out, cause it doesn't go to classification.  People, the vast majority of people, not only care about their classification, they watch it closely.  The other match director I work with incorporated wild cat stages cause he thought people would think its fun.  It kinda was.  But my feedback was most were not interested in shooting a stage not for classification.  Some told me they would reconsider driving as far as they do to shoot a stage that's not a classifier.  We held a Rimfire Challenge match on a week with an extra weekend, thinking it would give everyone something different.  We had ZERO overflow from our large Steel Challenge base.  Several came from far to shoot the match cause they already shoot Rimfire Challenge, but we got nothing from our Steel Challenge crowd.  When asked why?  The answer was unanimous - cause none of those stages count for any classification and shooting them is a waste of time.  People care about classification.  A lot.  Even at the low levels.  D trying to make C and all the way up.

 

As far as changing the way classifications are obtained or calculated, from reading most of the posts here, its just blind opinion.  It doesn't seem too many actually understand how it works or even where the numbers are obtained, nor the fact that its not just a numbers game, but a concentrated effort of thought by some really great people.  One of them being Zack Jones, who has been gracious enough to post here.  For the record, he pushed for the 3 second penalty in Outer Limits instead of 4, but was overridden by higher powers.  The classification numbers mostly come from the Worlds scores.  Participation is also considered.  WHO is also considered.  Many things are considered and the more I learn the more I see what an amazing job is being done to provide us a competitive system. 

 

I could not disagree more with overall match scores being a classification.  That is way too unreliable with far too many variables.  As long as everyone is doing the same, it really doesn't matter too much anyway.  But classifying on a per stage basis shows what any one competitor is capable of.  No, we don't always shoot our classification, which is the exact reason our classification should not be based on the whole.  You may shoot a 80 percent two weeks in a row.  However, you shot Roundabout really well and Outer Limits poorly one week versus shooting Outer Limits really well the second week, but tanked Pendulum, still giving the same score.  Neither scenario shows what you are capable of. 

 

My classification shows what I am capable of if I show up and shoot all 8 stages to my full ability.  That's an extremely rare occasion, if ever, to actually happen, so my classification should not be based on the whole.  If it were, one persons classification may be held high because he shoots Roundabout really, really, well, but the others mediocre.  What happens when a match doesn't do Roundabout?  This is still slightly true now, but nowhere near the discrepancy if graded as a whole all the time.  Whole times would be based on completely different combinations of stages.  Very few clubs run all eight.  Usually its a different 4 or 6 from last week. 

 

Last, only obtaining classification above level one matches would not work well, nor support the sport.  Not many new shooters, D or even C like to pay the entry fees or the expense to travel to level 2 matches.  So they would not be participating in the major aspect of Steel Challenge - the goal of classification.  People who don't care are the great minority, I assure you.  Level 2 classification only would also create, even unintentional, vicious sandbagging.  Shooting for years and obtaining the skill level of a GM, however shooting one match to be a D and stealing the show.  Also, as it should for several reasons, USPSA requires membership for level 2 participation.  Most people don't want to pay for a membership to only use it once a year at the local level 2.  They get it and keep it to keep track of their classification.

 

Competitors care about classification.  On a large, quickly growing scale.  The system as it is now is actually solid.  And its carefully thought through when changes are made, adding the human element.  The only real issue is the lack of ceiling for GM where there can be as much of a difference in shooters as comparing a D to an A.  But that's true in any sport.  And I thank those involved.

Edited September 19, 2019 by Hammer002

[motosapiens]

well, mrs moto missed GM by about 1/2% the first time she ever shot RFRO (with a brand new gun) this week, so the classification system is stupid and broken.

 

I have to say I care alot more about just improving my times than I do about what class I'm in, but wutever.

[Hammer002]

1 hour ago, motosapiens said:

mrs moto missed GM by about 1/2% the first time she ever shot RFRO (with a brand new gun) this week

 

I care alot more about just improving my times than I do about what class I'm in

 

 

so the classification system is stupid and broken

 

Not arguing the other way, you're entitled too whatever opinion you like, I was just wondering how the first two statements concluded to the third?

[EarlKeese]

The classification system is "stupid and broken" because Mrs. Moto is a great shooter? I don't follow. That said, I'm new to this, so maybe I don't have enough experience to understand(not being sarcastic). 

 As I said, I'm new to match shooting(1.5yrs) and 5 matches total in SC. The classification system and repeatability of the stages is what initially attracted me. At this point in my development, I like having something quantifiable to measure/compare and strive for.