A Cool Idea?

[ima45dv8]

I heard an idea today that was (to me) brilliant. I truly wish I could take credit for this, but......

Maybe it's been thought of before but it's new to me. Just to keep the sandbaggers in line, and to assist those of us who tend to put too much pressure on ourselves when shooting Crashifiers, can you have two in one match and turn in the results of only one of them to USPSA? No one except the match organizers would know which was the stage bound for Sedro Wooley.

...Mark

[GlockSpeed31]

I would agree with that idea Mark. Might keep a few more people somewhat honest and try to shoot to their ability. But one thing comes to mind is the true "Sandbagger" will just tank both of the classifiers to make sure they do "bad".

Anyway, I like the idea.

GlockSpeed31

I would agree with that idea Mark. Might keep a few more people somewhat honest and try to shoot to their ability. But one thing comes to mind is the true "Sandbagger" will just tank both of the classifiers to make sure they do "bad".

Anyway, I like the idea.

GlockSpeed31

[vluc]

Or to prevent that, add a factor that sends in either the best of the two classifiers or the shooters percentage for the overall match in the division they shoot.

So you zero the classifiers, but get credit for the 75% of the match points you shot....

[Vlad]

I think if more of the classifiers where longer with a heavier point load people will be less inclined to tank them on purpose because it may mean loosing the match. Whats the point of sandbagging if you can't win your class because you threw away a 120 point stage?

Edited October 24, 2005 by Vlad

[SRT Driver]

That would make life hell for stats. Especially, when using EZScore.

You'd have to go into the report and manually edit out the competitors score and change the mission count fee.

On top of that, to run more than 1 classifer in a match you need Section Coordinator approval for a "Special".

Sedro might think something is up if 2 classifiers are run for some competitors at 1 match.

[AlamoShooter]

Better yet why don't more of us call Sandbagging what it realy is=Cheating, its dishonest and self cheating at best. its like picking a fight with a with a child just to help your chances of a fake win. A sandbagger would rather **(^ / never mind. A sandbagger is alowed to steal self respect from themself. If a person has no self respect they can never understand respect of a rule. Or sespect of anything, the y just understand the fine that goes with = Speeding in a school zone. getting hit in the face for fealing up someones passed out girlfriend. going to jail if they (get caught) driving drunk.

I think if more spoke out about the stink and smell sandbagging makes, maybe we would show it is notices. fith palce in A class is a mile from the win in B class only if one of the shooters sandbaged scores to stay in B. Iwill put my name with my voice

Jamie Foote

[Flexmoney]

I think a lot of shooter that get tagged as "sandbaggers" just choke. Many likely don't deserve the label (I am sure some do.)

If you truly run more than one classifier, then you have logistic problems.

A Match Director could setup up more than one, but only count one as an actual classifier. The MD could/should decide which one that would be before the match.

The MD could go so far as to rename the stages. Calling the classifier something else entirely, then sending it in as normal.

[Tman33_99]

Run two classifiers, at the end of the day, flip a coin, and one becomes the classifier and one becomes just another stage for score.

[Harmon]

put two classifiers in the match, that way if someone is trying to sandbag(cheat) they will not have a very good chance to win if they tank two classifers. then do a random drawing and send just one in..

honestly i think any of the area matches should have 4 of the stages approved for classification purposes...and not tell the competitors untill after the match is over. classified C and shoot four stages at a major match at 82 % of Jarrett? welcome to A class buddy.

[ima45dv8]

I think a lot of shooter that get tagged as "sandbaggers" just choke.

That would be me.

That would make life hell for stats. Especially, when using EZScore.

You'd have to go into the report and manually edit out the competitors score and change the mission count fee.

On top of that, to run more than 1 classifer in a match you need Section Coordinator approval for a "Special".

Sedro might think something is up if 2 classifiers are run for some competitors at 1 match.

I'll have to play with that in EzWinScore. You might be on to a big problem. Bill Noyes -- Where are you!?

Barring that, and assuming you would only report one classifier for each competitor at that match, what say y'all?

put two classifiers in the match, that way if someone is trying to sandbag(cheat) they will not have a very good chance to win if they tank two classifers. then do a random drawing and send just one in..

honestly i think any of the area matches should have 4 of the stages approved for classification purposes...and not tell the competitors untill after the match is over. classified C and shoot four stages at a major match at 82 % of Jarrett? welcome to A class buddy.

That's kinda where this idea is going.

[JerryDGeek]

Maybe it's been thought of before but it's new to me. Just to keep the sandbaggers in line, and to assist those of us who tend to put too much pressure on ourselves when shooting Crashifiers, can you have two in one match and turn in the results of only one of them to USPSA? No one except the match organizers would know which was the stage bound for Sedro Wooley.

Why would you want to do this?

It wouldn't hurt the dedicated sandbagger. As mentioned before, he is only going to tank both classifiers to gain an advantage at major matches. He doesn't care about club match results.

Everybody else is GENERALLY going to try to do well on classifiers. Why do so many people reshoot them? Answer: They want to continually test their own performance against the best shooters in the region.

If someone is perennially willing to ruin their chances to win at a club match, their perspective on the sport is already warped. Let them go their own solitary way. Eventually, losing will become a habit, and they find themselves unable to maintain the competitive edge because they have become accustomed to losing.

My experience with sandbaggers is that the shooters who are right on the cusp of breaking into a new class just before a major match will allow themselves to throw a classifier stage for the sole purpose of retaining the lower classification for a limited time. They will either do extremely well within their class for that single major match, and then find them selves bumped to the next class, or they will have learned that the sandbagging has undermined their ability to compete consistently to the best of their ability.

I have no argument with either result.

The only time when sandbaggers win is when they maintain a low average within their own region (say, for the sake of example, Jamaica) and go to a major match in another region (USPSA?) and do well. Their rating in their own region may not be enhanced by their performance in this 'foreign' region, so they are rewarded for their manipulative performance.

This is a situation which can't be addressed within club matches in USPSA; it can only be resolved when the every region considers match results from 'foreign' or 'international' matches, which not all regions do.

The problem with having mystery double classifiers in club matches is that it hurts the average local shooter. This can happen because the local club becomes so competition-oriented that it begins to play games with it's competitors. It becomes manipulative, and confrontational. It's no longer fun for the honest person who just wants to go shoot an IPSC match with the intention of doing as well as possible on any given day.

IPSC is a game. Don't make it a game in which the participants don't even know the rules.

[ima45dv8]

IPSC is a game. Don't make it a game in which the participants don't even know the rules.

Pretty good argument right up to this point, Jerry. No one suggested changing the rules.

Is your point is that 2 classifiers in one match is somehow a rule change? I don't think it would be.

If the dedicated sandbagger does tank both of them on purpose, at least he wouldn't have as good a chance to steal a trophy from someone who actually deserves it.

[John Heiter]

As far as how to score this sort of thing using Winscore, I can think of several ways of doing it that are all fairly easy to implement. Example, if you include two classifiers in the match but you don't mark the match as a special classifier match in the setup then USPSA only counts one of them anyway. It would require no extra work and would leave deciding which one counted up to USPSA.

Lately, I've been tossing around another idea...I'm starting to really think that once you get past B or C class, your classification should really be determined by your performance in big matches (say State/Sectional or above). Every once in awhile I'll see someone shooting above their class in a big match (so called sand baggers) but far more frequently I see people shooting below their class for the match because the majority of the classifiers test their shooting speed and accuracy but they don't often test the shooters' movement skills, problem solving skills, etc. like regular courses do. You're not going to win a big match without these skills and it would be nice if our classification system recognized them. Either we need a whole new set of classifier stages or we need to start putting more emphasis on match performance.

I now yield my soap box.

[RogerT]

In IPSC it's possible to let the whole level 3 match be a classifier, would this help out?

No single stage to "crash", the whole match counts.

[scorch]

What need to happen is that the Classifier need to be bigger round counts / points so it is tougher to tank and we need more simple field courses for classifiers. I belive sandbaggers like winning period, club maches, big matches, winning is everthing to them.

[moverfive]

I think John hit the nail perfectly on the head. When you look at the grand scheme of things, true sandbaggers are a very small group. And unless you know the person and their shooting history, just looking at the results of a major match might make you think someone is sandbagger, when that person really isn't.

For example, B-class is probably most ripe with these situations. When you pool together the best of this class at a major match, you will typically see a B-class shooter WAY above shooters he shouldn't be - that is based on the fact he is in B-class. The first thing people say when they see that is to call them a "Sandbagger!"

And as for my own situation, I sucked at stand-and-shoots (and still do), which is what most classifiers are, but I think I have above average speed. So needless to say, every single classification I received, through A-class, came from a major match because of crappy classifier skills. In fact, I got A-class by shooting 83% at the '93 nationals.....but only got 4th B!!!! So while that performance would hint at me being a sandbagger, I can promise everyone, I wanted to move up in class and never intentionally tanked any stage or match at any time. I was just improving faster than the system could catch me and it all culminated at the nationals that year.

My point here - I don't think sandbagging is a big problem in our sport as some would make it out to be. I think the problem is that the skills required to do well in classifiers are totally different than what it takes to do well in a match (the things John pointed out)....and thus the people that appear to be sandbagging are just merely advancing in their skills faster than the system can classify them.

[ima45dv8]

Lots of good discussion.

As to who actually is a sandbagger, I put that in the same basket as pornography and Rednecks -- I can't define 'em, but I know 'em when I see 'em.

The idea here is, when you have someone locally who IS a known sandbagger, what can you do to make their unethical choice painful without adversely affecting the other shooters at a match? The idea of 2 classifiers with only one of them reported for classification purposes is just one possible scenario. Put another way, What good are immoral people if you can't have a little fun with them?

Would it adversely affect other more-honorable shooters? Maybe..... But consider that it may reduce the pressure to perform since the shooter won't know which really is going to be counted as part of their classification. I know the inverse is also possible in that a shooter might feel doubly-pressured, but that's their own doing, isn't it?

[Merlin Orr]

Looks to me like the whole tone of this thread is skewed... If you worry about yourself and your own performance you won't have time - or care about someone else and their (purported) failure to perform up to the standards that YOU think they should. Cheaters? This is a game with various ways to play - game - the game. Next someone will suggest slapping a FDR on em.... If I shot only to "win" something I would truly be a sad individual. I think I will enjoy what I do and not worry about the other guy and if he is shooting like I think he should.

.02 US

[ima45dv8]

Looks to me like the whole tone of this thread is skewed... If you worry about yourself and your own performance you won't have time - or care about someone else and their (purported) failure to perform up to the standards that YOU think they should. Cheaters? This is a game with various ways to play - game - the game. Next someone will suggest slapping a FDR on em.... If I shot only to "win" something I would truly be a sad individual. I think I will enjoy what I do and not worry about the other guy and if he is shooting like I think he should.

.02 US

Merlin, your point's well taken (2 cents well-spent).

I apologize to all if this sounds like a "screw-the-shooter" proposal. That wasn't the intent and isn't my normal mode, though it seems to strayed in that direction. It was meant only to explore the possibilty of being able to run 2 classifiers to trap a know bad-seed, and whether that would have a negative impact on those who honestly choke classifiers.

You're probably right to just ignore the occasional butthead and shoot around them.

...Mark

[GlockSpeed31]

Mark,

Did something happen at the match on Sunday that brought this topic to light?

GlockSpeed31

[ima45dv8]

Mark,

Did something happen at the match on Sunday that brought this topic to light?

GlockSpeed31

I wasn't at the Cool Springs match on Sunday. I was in a class with Erik Lund. This was just an extension of a conversation that cropped up during a break.

Fact is, we don't have anyone locally that I think fits the title of a true sandbagger. If we do, I must be too ignorant to notice. I just thought the idea was sort of neat and wanted to bounce it off of the collective wisdom on this forum (the largest, most experienced well of IPSC knowledge available to dip a bucket into, IMO).