When will the new peak times be updated for Steel Challenge?

[euxx]

15 minutes ago, Hoops said:

For me, my look at the numbers in this fashion was based on this topic discussing when (If) there will be adjustments made to the Peak Times sometime this year and also a topic that I had started elsewhere about how often a shooter shots at or below thier classification.

 

I'm not following what difference does it make how often shooters shoots below their class?

 

Perhaps a better question to answer first is what is the objective for changing the current peak times?

 

If the idea is make everyone GM - that is one thing (and you may have a point in your calculations.

 

But if the goal is to classify competitors relative to the current SCSA achievements - that is a different story (even so some former GMs are shooting at B levels).

[Hoops]

13 minutes ago, jrdoran said:

I also think we should be looking broader than just the WSSC and look at it stage by stage and throughout the year.     PKs are really a stage level measurement.  

 

Agree w/Eugene that many of the shooters current class definition could be ancient history and not 2021 actual class achievements.   

 

I continue to suspect if you took the top 5% of the scores of GM, and used those as the basis, PK would in fact drop for all low ready classes.

Using only the top 5% of RFRO would only be 2.6 or rounded to 3 shooters who averaged 58.72 or 115.80%.  I have not been shooting SCSA for that long, so I am not sure this approach would be representative of establishing a reasonable Peak Time.  

 

It's a fun topic for sure...................

[Hoops]

3 minutes ago, euxx said:

 

I'm not following what difference does it make how often shooters shoots below their class?

 

Perhaps a better question to answer first is what is the objective for changing the current peak times?

 

If the idea is make everyone GM - that is one thing (and you may have a point in your calculations.

 

But if the goal is to classify competitors relative to the current SCSA achievements - that is a different story (even so some former GMs are shooting at B levels).

There really was not a point to my exercise with regards to a conclusion or even a firm point of view.  I really don't have enough information to make an informed comment on the methodolgy SCSA uses.  I do however, have too much time on my hands recovering from back surgery.......

 

The only question that made me think about it was whether or not SCSA will change Peak Times for 2021 or leave as is.  Since I can't speak for them, I have no clue.  On the other hand, IF SCSA were to make changes in the Peak Times, it would be interesting to know the basis for the calculations since there are many people shooting in all of the classes.  

 

Thanks............

 

 

[euxx]

Looking at the past years of USPSA classifier changes, they are not going to tell you. But try to contact them and ask. Guessing here won't really give you an answer.

 

I would have thought they could take absolute best stage times, aggregate them and give some extra margin to make it tough for GMs.

 

It wasn't how it was done last year. But then again maybe it wasn't the objective and they just wanted to lure more people to get a GM coin and participate in matches and make money for the org. Low peak times would serve that objective.

 

What also puzzle me is why no new stages being added...

[nso123]

Something to remember here is that there are GMs who made it under old peak times, some under very old peak times.  Many of these folks make up the times that are posted in the 80s.  I made it under the new times.  I would bet big that the times will move this year. 
 

To be in the top 10% of the RFRO field this year you needed to shoot a 70.76. The top 20 finishers shot GM times. To be top 10% of PCCO you needed a 71.45. The top 17 shot GM times. 
 

If I were going to guess, I would look at the top 5% and that will get you close to where the new times will be.  My guess is around 64 for RFRO and 66 for PCCO. 

[euxx]

The top 10% against real GMs (not the old time GMs) does not make a GM. And then also GM times start from 95%, so why set them at the current 100% from the top times? Shouldn't it leave some room for growth to all those GMs?

[nso123]

9 minutes ago, euxx said:

The top 10% against real GMs (not the old time GMs) does not make a GM. And then also GM times start from 95%, so why set them at the current 100% from the top times? Shouldn't it leave some room for growth to all those GMs?

The slowest of the top 10% was at 96% of the current peak, while the fastest was 56.98, or 119% of the peak.  There were several people who were well off of their regular times at WSSC too. If RFRO were to move to 64 it would take around a 67.4 to make GM. That puts it between the top 5 and 10% times at WSSC. I’m not saying that I want to see the times move, but I think that gives a little idea as to what might be happening. 

[jkallner]

On 5/5/2021 at 8:56 PM, euxx said:

Looking at the past years of USPSA classifier changes, they are not going to tell you. But try to contact them and ask. Guessing here won't really give you an answer.

 

I would have thought they could take absolute best stage times, aggregate them and give some extra margin to make it tough for GMs.

 

It wasn't how it was done last year. But then again maybe it wasn't the objective and they just wanted to lure more people to get a GM coin and participate in matches and make money for the org. Low peak times would serve that objective.

 

What also puzzle me is why no new stages being added...

I did send a message, but the answer must be the equivalent to the launch codes. I'll rattle their cage again. I'm just curious more than anything else - doesn't really matter. I am curious when they will recognize that growing the sport includes keeping current members and if it's impossible to achieve the next level because the times are getting unrealistic, overall participation may drop. 

[euxx]

14 hours ago, jkallner said:

I am curious when they will recognize that growing the sport includes keeping current members and if it's impossible to achieve the next level because the times are getting unrealistic, overall participation may drop

 

See my point regarding the objective.

 

The USPSA is really far past the point when they need two separate classifications (for both SCSA and USPSA). One for the PRO shooters and the other one for the mere mortals who are paying to keep organization alive.

 

Alternatively they could remove the PROs from all classification-based standings at matches (say if competitor ever placed at the top 10..15 at the Nationals), so the regular competitors can have a chance to fight for the top M, GM awards.

[nso123]

5 hours ago, euxx said:

 

See my point regarding the objective.

 

The USPSA is really far past the point when they need two separate classifications (for both SCSA and USPSA). One for the PRO shooters and the other one for the mere mortals who are paying to keep organization alive.

 

Alternatively they could remove the PROs from all classification-based standings at matches (say if competitor ever placed at the top 10..15 at the Nationals), so the regular competitors can have a chance to fight for the top M, GM awards.

Where would the line be drawn?  I agree that many of us will never be at the level where some of these competitors are.  I am sure it would create a lively discussion when trying to determine a point to declare someone a pro. I think doing this could open an opportunity for some serious sandbagging to keep from moving to pro.  I don’t think we want to see the drag race become a bracket or index race. I regularly shoot with some of the top competitors at local matches, and I just make it my goal to finish as close to them as I can.  Now, as far as prize tables go, I think random is how you include the A, B, C competitors who truly pay the bills. I ran a tier 2 match, and we did a random prize table. The guy who won one of the guns was someone who had no chance of even winning his class. He was happy as could be. I think doing it this way keeps the top folks from coming in and cleaning off every prize table at the matches. 
 

Now, I will say that the lack of availability of ammo will hurt us more than a change in peak times. Matches are dropping off in attendance. If it happens long enough you’ll see people finding new hobbies.  I have already seen one local competitor who was at every match imaginable go to a new hobby because he can’t get ammo. 

[euxx]

45 minutes ago, nso123 said:

Where would the line be drawn?

 

See the last part of my message as one of the possible options.

 

45 minutes ago, nso123 said:

 I agree that many of us will never be at the level where some of these competitors are.  I am sure it would create a lively discussion when trying to determine a point to declare someone a pro. I think doing this could open an opportunity for some serious sandbagging to keep from moving to pro.  I don’t think we want to see the drag race become a bracket or index race. I regularly shoot with some of the top competitors at local matches, and I just make it my goal to finish as close to them as I can.  Now, as far as prize tables go, I think random is how you include the A, B, C competitors who truly pay the bills. I ran a tier 2 match, and we did a random prize table. The guy who won one of the guns was someone who had no chance of even winning his class. He was happy as could be. I think doing it this way keeps the top folks from coming in and cleaning off every prize table at the matches. 

 

Some sports using handicap of some sort as part of the competition...

 

And no, I wasn't referring to the random "participation" prize table, but the class-awards. But besides that, none of it won't change the overall standing and you still going to compete against those PRO guys. It's gust they would be above any class awards.

 

[jkallner]

10 hours ago, euxx said:

 

See my point regarding the objective.

 

The USPSA is really far past the point when they need two separate classifications (for both SCSA and USPSA). One for the PRO shooters and the other one for the mere mortals who are paying to keep organization alive.

 

Alternatively they could remove the PROs from all classification-based standings at matches (say if competitor ever placed at the top 10..15 at the Nationals), so the regular competitors can have a chance to fight for the top M, GM awards.

I like your thoughts. Now try to get the USPSA to do something about it when I can't even get an answer on changing the peak times. Anyway, I think you are on the right track. Thanks.

[jkallner]

4 hours ago, nso123 said:

Now, I will say that the lack of availability of ammo will hurt us more than a change in peak times. Matches are dropping off in attendance. If it happens long enough you’ll see people finding new hobbies.  I have already seen one local competitor who was at every match imaginable go to a new hobby because he can’t get ammo. 

You have a great point during these particularly challenging times.

[ZackJones]

By rule we (USPSA) are required to perform an analysis of the PST's. We do that upon completion of WSSC each year. We did it for 2020 and will be working on 2021 review shortly. We look at a ton of different factors such as how many competitors, regardless of current classification, shot faster than the current PST. How many GM's shot below, etc. Our analysis is presented to President Mike Foley who then presents it to the BoD for final review and approval. 

 

One way to simplify the process is to set the 100% PST time equal to the current world record for that division and stage. For some odd reason I can't seem to get anyone to sign off on that idea :). 

 

Also for anything related to Steel Challenge don't email "them" email me - that's my job - zack@uspsa.org

 

[jkallner]

8 hours ago, ZackJones said:

By rule we (USPSA) are required to perform an analysis of the PST's. We do that upon completion of WSSC each year. We did it for 2020 and will be working on 2021 review shortly. We look at a ton of different factors such as how many competitors, regardless of current classification, shot faster than the current PST. How many GM's shot below, etc. Our analysis is presented to President Mike Foley who then presents it to the BoD for final review and approval. 

 

One way to simplify the process is to set the 100% PST time equal to the current world record for that division and stage. For some odd reason I can't seem to get anyone to sign off on that idea :). 

 

Also for anything related to Steel Challenge don't email "them" email me - that's my job - zack@uspsa.org

 

Thanks for the reply - didn't know "they" weren't the right guys - thanks for the heads up. 

[ZackJones]

21 hours ago, jkallner said:

Thanks for the reply - didn't know "they" weren't the right guys - thanks for the heads up. 

 

"They" could be anyone :). If you say you emailed me and I didn't reply then I know whose ass to chew :).

[jkallner]

15 hours ago, ZackJones said:

 

"They" could be anyone :). If you say you emailed me and I didn't reply then I know whose ass to chew :).

As it happens, I got a reply yesterday (Wed. 5/12)

 

There is no set schedule. We will notify the membership when this is done.

 

Thank you.

 

 

Rick Brotzel Director of Information Technology United States Practical Shooting Assoc. 1639 Lindamood Ln Burlington, WA t: +1 (360) 855 - 2245 (ext 105)  e: rick@uspsa.org | w: http://www.uspsa.org/