Why don’t classifications go down?

[GunBugBit]

Just now, Balakay said:

I can't but clearly you have chosen to compete with a less expensive gun.  Your choice. No one cares. 

You seem to, enough to post three times about it.

[Balakay]

30 minutes ago, GunBugBit said:

You seem to, enough to post three times about it.

I think you are missing my point. the choice of gun bothers me not in the least.  It is when Joe C-class takes the attitude of "look at me beating that B class guy with a 2011."  Call it a pet peeve.  One of my many character flaws.  

Edited November 14, 2019 by Balakay

[B_RAD]

14 minutes ago, motosapiens said:

I like when i see some guy with a totally hot wife and I can think to myself  'haha, i get the same sex from my fat ugly wife'.

 

(disclaimer, this is fictional. My wife is actually hot, and a very good shooter too).

That’s funny!  Though this could be true in a couple of different ways!  

[B_RAD]

18 minutes ago, Balakay said:

This line of thinking is just pointless.  My Rafferty custom costs less than this guy's SVI, and I beat him by 2%.  what a sucker....It's just dumb.

If you say so. 
 

 

[Racinready300ex]

2 hours ago, GJM said:

Your USPSA classification is mostly important for impressing non shooting friends

 

Most of my non-shooting friends have no idea what our classification means. Unless maybe you're M or G I can't see D-A meaning anything to anyone.

[shred]

Trust me, M and GM doesn't mean a thing either... 

 

[nasty618]

well... ultimately, none of this stuff really means anything to anyone... other than the people who are really invested and dedicate A LOT of time to it.

 

But trust me, to someone who is stuck in C class and is putting in 30 minutes a day for 6 months getting that B means a lot.

Edited November 18, 2019 by nasty618

[shred]

Oh yeah.  I'm all for classifications so shooters can see improvement.  I was just commenting that non-shooting people generally don't care about M or GM any more than they care about any other classification..   By the standards of the average range-dweller, even a B shooter has godlike skills.

 

 

 

 

[bimmer1980]

Paper GM´s? Go for it. If everyone can do it, do it! 

 

Issn´t it the same in every sport? You can do it at the highest Level but get finishes (depending on the sport) in the top 3, 5, 10 or 15 is a whole other story. Thats often for people who dedicated their life to that sport and/or are pro´s.

 

I thought it became harder to get to GM these days?

 

 

 

[nasty618]

On 11/28/2019 at 1:42 PM, bimmer1980 said:

Paper GM´s? Go for it. If everyone can do it, do it

 

What is your classification sir, and how many 95% classifiers have you shot?  

 

Quote

I thought it became harder to get to GM these days?

 

From what i heard - yes.  The 2018 changes to the HHF halved the number of people making it into higher classifications in 2019. 

Edited December 2, 2019 by nasty618

[Thomas H]

On 12/2/2019 at 9:03 AM, nasty618 said:

 

 

From what i heard - yes.  The 2018 changes to the HHF halved the number of people making it into higher classifications in 2019. 

 

 

That's interesting, and a pretty significantly change, considering quite a few classifier HHFs didn't change.  50% less making it into a higher classification?  That's a lot.

 

Mind sharing where you heard that, and what their data is based on?  I'd be interested to know.

 

[nasty618]

25 minutes ago, Thomas H said:

Mind sharing where you heard that, and what their data is based on?  I'd be interested to know.

 

From a forum member who likes to do match data analysis - hopefully he'll chime in with some details when he has a chance.

[motosapiens]

47 minutes ago, Thomas H said:

 

 

That's interesting, and a pretty significantly change, considering quite a few classifier HHFs didn't change.  50% less making it into a higher classification?  That's a lot.

 

Mind sharing where you heard that, and what their data is based on?  I'd be interested to know.

 

it looked to me like most of them changed in divisions with heat (limited), but they actually got easier in divisions without heat (CO). It's made a dramatic difference on my classification scores, so I just stopped paying attention to them and worried about doing better in matches. Kind of a win, actually.

[Racinready300ex]

On 11/17/2019 at 12:43 PM, shred said:

Trust me, M and GM doesn't mean a thing either... 

 

 

I think you're probably wrong on that. Now I'm not saying people give a s#!t what your classification is that's different. But most people will assume when you say you're a Master at something that you're good at it. I don't know much about martial arts, but I'd probably assume a Black Belt is good. But if someone said they are a green belt, I don't know what that means. Just like no one will know what C class is. Some even say a certain shooters scores on classifiers kept changing for the better becasue students might respect him more with the title GM.

 

Now you and I may know that master necessarily doesn't mean much because we are in it.

 

 

[B_RAD]

IMO, the classifier system is getting more jacked up. I’d say that people tend to place in line with their classification (excluding any outliers) but the system is kinda jacked.  For instance, some classifiers are easier than others. Ones that get shot a lot because their easier to set up, or more fun, get the HHF artificially bumped up. Where the newer ones like the 18 series don’t have the same amount of attempts and most of the attempts are from matches that people were actually trying to place well overall. So, those have lower HHF. It was easier to make GM before the HHF update just like its easier to make GM shooting the easier classifiers. 
 

I didn’t see many go down in HHF but I didn’t go thru them all and list them out. I think CO is the same for Prod. Some say that’s easier for CO and I kinda agree. Other say irons are easier at the closer distances that are typical for most classifiers. I don’t know about that?.... guess it’s all personal preference. 

 

I personally think there should be a pro class for the top shooters. The only problem with that would be it wouldn’t get implemented well and would probably just create more issues. 

 

Even with the issues the current system, it works decently well IMO. Enough to leave it alone. For the most part. Maybe, retire some more classifiers or just leave them alone and quit updating them?  I mean, if we keep shooting El prez the amount of good runs are just going to increase.  I’d say leave them alone and just create another class like Pro. 
 

anyways,  someone will be along very shortly to tell me I’m an idiot. 
 

[Eric802]

4 minutes ago, B_RAD said:

Even with the issues the current system, it works decently well IMO. Enough to leave it alone. For the most part. Maybe, retire some more classifiers or just leave them alone and quit updating them?  I mean, if we keep shooting El prez the amount of good runs are just going to increase.  I’d say leave them alone and just create another class like Pro. 
 

anyways,  someone will be along very shortly to tell me I’m an idiot. 
 

 

I used to practice in front of a judge who always told jurors that the American trial system isn't perfect, but it's better than anything else.  Seems like the same thing with the classifier system.  I used to shoot NRA service rifle, and in that it's easier to classify shooters based on match scores - the course of fire is the same for everyone, so you're generally comparing apples to apples.  If I shot 94% in a match in Illinois and a guy in California did the same, we probably had pretty similar abilities.   Of course, even with that you have the "100 yard High Master" who shot all his matches on reduced targets at a 100 yard range and never had to deal with the wind or mirage at 600.  

 

 

[shred]

7 hours ago, Racinready300ex said:

 

I think you're probably wrong on that. Now I'm not saying people give a s#!t what your classification is that's different. But most people will assume when you say you're a Master at something that you're good at it. I don't know much about martial arts, but I'd probably assume a Black Belt is good. But if someone said they are a green belt, I don't know what that means. Just like no one will know what C class is. Some even say a certain shooters scores on classifiers kept changing for the better becasue students might respect him more with the title GM.

 

Now you and I may know that master necessarily doesn't mean much because we are in it.

 

 

 

I have two G's on my card.  Had one for a dozen years or more.  About nobody outside of shooting knows or cares what it means any more than they know what 'a 3rd degree black belt' means, beyond "pretty good". "A class", 'Sharpshooter', 'Nationally-ranked', 'High Master' and 'Trail-Rated' would mean pretty much the same thing to most of them.

 

I know a GM that went to teach a basic shooting class somewhere.  He asked "who here knows what a USPSA GM is?"  Nobody did.

[IVC]

On 11/10/2019 at 1:51 PM, StealthyBlagga said:

Simple question: If the classification system is supposed to pit shooters of like ability together, why does classification get locked at the highest class a shooter ever attains?

While it's somewhat pushed as "pitting shooters of similar ability," few outside beginners would take it at the face value - being a "High C" shooter is akin to winning the Boston Marathon* (*among people who didn't finish in the top 10,000). I'm pretty sure people in the sport generally understand that we compete in the same bucket. 

 

The highest attained class is similar to your education. You don't retest to keep your college degree and once you have a Ph.D. or an M.D. it stays with you whether you practice in the field or not. It doesn't mean you are current to do anything with your degree and you might need a bunch of additional licenses (that do have to be renewed). Heck, you might not even be able to get a job in your field, but you still get to keep your degree. 

 

As long as you know what your degree or classification means, i.e., the highest level of achievement thus far, it all makes sense and there is nothing to worry about. 

Edited December 4, 2019 by IVC

[bimmer1980]

On 12/2/2019 at 4:03 PM, nasty618 said:

 

What is your classification sir, and how many 95% classifiers have you shot?  

 

 

From what i heard - yes.  The 2018 changes to the HHF halved the number of people making it into higher classifications in 2019. 

 

How many? None! We don´t shoot classifiers in IPSC, but what i´m pretty sure about is, that there is no way that everybody can be a GM. It´s no joke.

The Guys that can get a GM card, are freakin good. So i don´t get this "paper GM" nonsense. As far as i know it´s even much harder today.

 

It maybe doesn´t transfer straight to stage times and scores, but to me all this "paper GM" talk is strange.

[p7fl]

I definitely respect classifications, in context.

Got hooked on attending high end classes with name instructors a while back. I don't go to major matches, just spend my money on the classes. For years weather it is pistol or rifle, out of the 25 people in class I would come in 1st to 3rd anytime a clock came out.

I am also the eternal B shooter, If I go to a USPSA match I'll finish dead center, class and overall.

What does this mean....I am not sure

Reminds me a lot of being in the martial arts for 25 years. Yes, belts and ranks can mean a lot, but only in the specific school within the world of the specific GM you are training under.

[Racinready300ex]

12 hours ago, shred said:

 

I have two G's on my card.  Had one for a dozen years or more.  About nobody outside of shooting knows or cares what it means any more than they know what 'a 3rd degree black belt' means, beyond "pretty good". "A class", 'Sharpshooter', 'Nationally-ranked', 'High Master' and 'Trail-Rated' would mean pretty much the same thing to most of them.

 

I know a GM that went to teach a basic shooting class somewhere.  He asked "who here knows what a USPSA GM is?"  Nobody did.

 

I don't think I said anyone would know what USPSA is, or what GM means. I also don't think I said they'd care. If I did that's not what I was going for. I was trying to say is if you tell someone you're classified as a Master they'll likely assume you're good at what ever it is. That's what the word Master means. ( having or showing very great skill or proficiency) I'm sure that's why IDPA uses classifications like  Expert, Sharpshooter and Master. They all sound good to someone who doesn't know the sport. Where C class doesn't mean anything or sound cool at all, even though it's about on par with IDPA Master. I don't expect someone to know that.

 

I don't know what a 3rd degree or 19th degree black belt is. But through my extensive knowledge of martial arts programed into me via Hollywood I'd assume anyone who achieves black belt is good even though I don't really know what it means. Can I really grasp just how good they are? No, certainly not. And I don't expect someone who doesn't own a gun to grasp how good a GM is. But, they likely know the meaning of the word Master and will jump to the conclusion that you know what you're doing even if you don't.

 

Does that make sense?

[nasty618]

2 hours ago, bimmer1980 said:

The Guys that can get a GM card, are freakin good. So i don´t get this "paper GM" nonsense.

 

I misunderstood - thought it was another "I'm in B class, but paper GMs get crushed at matches, so i dont want to be one" type comment, my apologies

 

1 hour ago, p7fl said:

Reminds me a lot of being in the martial arts for 25 year

 

I agree 100%. I think shooting sports absolutely IS a martial art.  The approach to training, time and dedication it takes to achieve any meaningful results and the ranking system are very similar, with belts to GM, then dans after that.

 

Having said all that, i dont think it's bad to remind ourselves on occasion that at the end of the day, all this stuff means absolutely nothing to anybody besides maybe you, your buddies and your poor wife who has to listen to you day after day talk about your shooting... especially if she trains and competes too LOL  

 

[lstange]

On 12/3/2019 at 3:35 PM, nasty618 said:

From a forum member who likes to do match data analysis - hopefully he'll chime in with some details when he has a chance.

Dashed vertical line is June 2018 HHF change.

 

[B_RAD]

18 hours ago, lstange said:

Dashed vertical line is June 2018 HHF change.

 

Looks like half the advancements. Not gonna lie, in some ways that actually might be good. 
 

id like to see the line for M to GM. 

[lstange]

3 hours ago, B_RAD said:

id like to see the line for M to GM. 

It's very noisy, single digits. Not enough to draw conclusions. Not that many people make it to GM (who would have thought).