Why are SS classifier HFs lower than Production?

[motosapiens]

11 minutes ago, -JCN- said:

If any of the top Production guys shot SS minor would they have done worse? Probably not. Really doesn’t look like there’s no clear advantage to major if barring Sailer production was really up there. 

 

thats obvious nonsense. Don't get me wrong, I love Gianni, but it's silly to pretend he is currently at the same level as nils, jj, sal, and mason. I suspect in another year or so he *will* be at that level tho.

[twodownzero]

SS originally disallowed men using a DOH holster.  On the short courses like classifiers, that might be responsible for at least some of the difference.

 

I also think the number of shooters and the data pool are bigger for Production.

 

After many years of SS Minor, I'm shooting Production now, so I guess we'll see with my own scores (although having a gun that wouldn't run at a recent classifier match sure didn't help).

Edited October 7, 2021 by twodownzero

[MikeBurgess]

9 minutes ago, -JCN- said:

I think that’s a straw man too, because to make that conclusion you’d have to put the fancy gun in Nils hands to say that. Does he run Canik because gun doesn’t matter or does he run it because that’s tied to his sponsorship and food on the table is as important or more important than winning? I don’t know the answer to that. I don’t think anyone but Nils knows that. 

not really a straw man argument, I've been seeing this debate for years in this sport and have observed for years that the gun really doesn't matter beyond, does it go bang when you pull the trigger (reliable), is it accurate enough (like almost any gun on the market today), is the trigger not something horrific (like DAO or 12 lb) if it checks all the boxes and the shooter likes it it doesn't seem to make any difference in peoples scores.

 

Now I will admit that for lower skilled shooters that have not learned how to hold a gun and pull a trigger straight back a heavy gun with a 2 lb trigger will ba an instant advantage, likely this will reinforce bad habits but it will help them do slightly better for a little while.

[Racinready300ex]

17 minutes ago, -JCN- said:

That’s a straw man, though. Speed and scoring judgement are related. Can’t just change major to minor. 
 

If any of the top Production guys shot SS minor would they have done worse? Probably not. Really doesn’t look like there’s no clear advantage to major if barring Sailer production was really up there. 

 

Yeah, like I said they would change their tactic's. But Nils was faster and more accurate a the match you screen capped. So clearly major has a advantage or he would of won. 

 

If the question is just SS minor on par with Prod? Then yeah I don't see why it wouldn't be. The classifier system is pretty messed up for a lot of divisions. Look at CO, everyone is M or GM. That division was jacked up out of the gate. They set the HHF the same as Prod for a long time. And the way they set the HHF on new classifiers taking the top 10 at Nat's is less than ideal too. It's way easier to shoot a good classifier at your home club match then it is at Nat's. So now you see lots of guys running the new classifiers moving up much faster than if they shot any of the old ones. 

 

I don't think there is really a way to fix it though. 

[-JCN-]

Just now, Racinready300ex said:

 

Yeah, like I said they would change their tactic's. But Nils was faster and more accurate a the match you screen capped. So clearly major has a advantage or he would of won. 

 

If the question is just SS minor on par with Prod? Then yeah I don't see why it wouldn't be. The classifier system is pretty messed up for a lot of divisions. Look at CO, everyone is M or GM. That division was jacked up out of the gate. They set the HHF the same as Prod for a long time. And the way they set the HHF on new classifiers taking the top 10 at Nat's is less than ideal too. It's way easier to shoot a good classifier at your home club match then it is at Nat's. So now you see lots of guys running the new classifiers moving up much faster than if they shot any of the old ones. 

 

I don't think there is really a way to fix it though. 

I don’t know that you can make that conclusion re: Nils. It may be true. Or it might not be true. Would he have been slower if he shot a higher recoiling caliber? I don’t know. Maybe?

 

I don’t think it’s CLEAR or else there would be a predominance of L10 in the top 10. 
 

I think CO is one of the softest HHF wise. 
 

But most things were a full class softer back in 2016-2018 and previous Lim M is like A class now. 

[Racinready300ex]

3 minutes ago, -JCN- said:

I don’t know that you can make that conclusion re: Nils. It may be true. Or it might not be true. Would he have been slower if he shot a higher recoiling caliber? I don’t know. Maybe?

 

I don’t think it’s CLEAR or else there would be a predominance of L10 in the top 10. 
 

I think CO is one of the softest HHF wise. 
 

But most things were a full class softer back in 2016-2018 and previous Lim M is like A class now. 

 

No, Nils would not of been slower shooting Major. That's crazy talk. If Nils shoots major at Limited Nat's I'd put my money on him to win it. If he shoots minor I see him in the 95% range like last year. He's not going to win shooting minor. 

 

L10 never has a deep field, that explains what you're seeing.

[-JCN-]

4 minutes ago, Racinready300ex said:

 

No, Nils would not of been slower shooting Major. That's crazy talk. If Nils shoots major at Limited Nat's I'd put my money on him to win it. If he shoots minor I see him in the 95% range like last year. He's not going to win shooting minor. 

 

L10 never has a deep field, that explains what you're seeing.

Could be!

[Sinister4]

As a "new to this sport"shooter, (but shooting for 40 years in national level trap and smallbore rifle ) its really amazing to me with the number of people in the sport that they don't drop people to a lesser level if over time there scores drop off.   Also that there is no professional class, ie sponsored people who are paid to shoot.  It's really quite the classification system, but i'm trying to follow it.   

 

 

[MikeBurgess]

36 minutes ago, -JCN- said:

I don’t know that you can make that conclusion re: Nils. It may be true. Or it might not be true. Would he have been slower if he shot a higher recoiling caliber? I don’t know. Maybe?

 

I don’t think it’s CLEAR or else there would be a predominance of L10 in the top 10. 
 

I think CO is one of the softest HHF wise. 
 

But most things were a full class softer back in 2016-2018 and previous Lim M is like A class now. 

I'm not a world class shooter like Nills but I know that my splits with major and minor are the same, not similar they are the same, on hoser targets I run .16s major or minor open, limited, ss, or production, Glock, Tanfoglio, 19/2011, the only gun I don't naturally shoot at that speed is revo where the long DA trigger slows me down.

 

Nobody shoots L10 its the dumb division, top guys only shoot it to pad the resume or get a pre run on stages for their real division. I would not expect L10 to place well vs any division at a major match due to its merits only due to who happened to show up for it.

 

CO is second softest

 

Yes after the update the HHF in the popular divisions went through the roof, as Moto can explain better then I bad math gives you bad answers. (I know for a fact that one of the HHF for revolver was figured using one my scores on a stage where I had a mike on the stage, if that's not on its face an obviously bad way to set HHF I don't know what is)

[-JCN-]

@motosapiens

@MikeBurgess

@Racinready300ex

 

Okay gents, on the off chance we are saying similar things but talking past each other due to definitions of "huge" and "doesn't matter..."

 

Can we put objective estimates on the following for field courses (F) and classifiers (C) with regards to percent? If I were to ballpark estimate.

Gun. F=0.5%, C=0.7%

Slide versus frame mounted optic. F=0.5%, C=0.7%

Magwell versus not. F=0.5%, C=0.7%

Major versus minor (uncompensated). F=1%, C=-0.5%

 

I don't think the major ammo benefit (uncompensated) is worth more than 5% on a field course and probably less than 3%?

 

Thoughts?

[motosapiens]

3 minutes ago, -JCN- said:

I don't think the major ammo benefit (uncompensated) is worth more than 5% on a field course and probably less than 3%?

 

 

I would say 3-4% overall, based on personal experience. Certainly more than I would be willing to give up for no good reason.

[-JCN-]

6 minutes ago, MikeBurgess said:

I know that my splits with major and minor are the same, not similar they are the same, on hoser targets I run .16s major or minor open, limited, ss, or production, Glock, Tanfoglio, 19/2011, the only gun I don't naturally shoot at that speed is revo where the long DA trigger slows me down.

 

Out of curiosity, do you know what your splits are across different divisions for something like a 7 yard alpha (or something similar where recoil and return of vision to the same spot matters more than a close full hoser where you can pull the trigger to cadence rather than to vision). Not accusing, just curious.

 

I'm at 0.15-16 splits with everything but Revo (0.20-21) up close to about 3-5 yard alpha but on things at 15 yards, to stay with the same accuracy my uncompensated major splits start slowing to maybe 0.22-24 while my compensated major doesn't (0.15-17) and my CO is in the middle (around 0.20). 

[motosapiens]

2 minutes ago, -JCN- said:

 

Out of curiosity, do you know what your splits are across different divisions for something like a 7 yard alpha (or something similar where recoil and return of vision to the same spot matters more than a close full hoser where you can pull the trigger to cadence rather than to vision). Not accusing, just curious.

 

wait, wut? 7 yard alpha seems like a full hoser target to me. the sight never leaves the a-zone. grip it like a grown man and rip.

 

on a 12-15 yard target, with either major or minor, i have to wait for the gun to come back down before I can shoot again. It seems to take the same time to settle enough to shoot whether it's major or minor. i don't have any experience with open, but I suspect with a well-tuned gun/ammo combo, there is less wait required.

[-JCN-]

3 minutes ago, motosapiens said:

 

wait, wut? 7 yard alpha seems like a full hoser target to me. the sight never leaves the a-zone. grip it like a grown man and rip.

 

on a 12-15 yard target, with either major or minor, i have to wait for the gun to come back down before I can shoot again. It seems to take the same time to settle enough to shoot whether it's major or minor. i don't have any experience with open, but I suspect with a well-tuned gun/ammo combo, there is less wait required.

 

Lol dude, maybe a little less testosterone. I was just trying to come up with something on the border. I don't think I split fully at 0.15s at 7 yards with CO. I think it varies between 0.14-0.18 because I'll take the extra 0.03 to make sure I'm in the center of the alpha rather than risk an edge. Yes, the sight never leaves the A zone but if I can give it a few hundreths of timing to guarantee the center alpha, I will. 

 

Make it a 10 yard or whatever. Sheesh.

[BritinUSA]

20 minutes ago, Sinister4 said:

As a "new to this sport"shooter, (but shooting for 40 years in national level trap and smallbore rifle ) its really amazing to me with the number of people in the sport that they don't drop people to a lesser level if over time there scores drop off.   

The thing to understand about the classification system is that it is all about revenue generation and ego. The system is not an accurate measurement of ability as scores do not go down and the HHF’s are manipulated after the fact.
 

The system won’t change, if it did a lot of competitors would see their grades go down (some rapidly) and this might impact the generation of revenue and hurt some feelings too.

 

My highest classification in Open and CO was 94% and 92% respectively. Which is absurd. I was at best an ‘A’ class shooter, but I am being honest, there are many that prefer the bliss of ignorance.

[Racinready300ex]

20 minutes ago, -JCN- said:

I don't think the major ammo benefit (uncompensated) is worth more than 5% on a field course and probably less than 3%?

 

 

My experience is similar to @motosapiens I'd say at 3-5%. 

 

[-JCN-]

@motosapiens

 

This is what I'm talking about.

At 7 yards I think (whatever Tick Tock is at), I confirmed sights a little more and slowed down some shots to 18-19 splits. Still a Hundo pace.

 

 

Maybe you're going 130% on your classifiers? 

 

That's not my full "can you count" splits but I took just a little more time to get the hits I wanted.

 

Sorry if hundos aren't manly enough though!

Edited October 7, 2021 by -JCN-

[Racinready300ex]

1 minute ago, BritinUSA said:

The thing to understand about the classification system is that it is all about revenue generation and ego. The system is not an accurate measurement of ability as scores do not go down and the HHF’s are manipulated after the fact.
 

The system won’t change, if it did a lot of competitors would see their grades go down (some rapidly) and this might impact the generation of revenue and hurt some feelings too.

 

My highest classification in Open and CO was 94% and 92% respectively. Which is absurd. I was at best an ‘A’ class shooter, but I am being honest, there are many that prefer the bliss of ignorance.

 

I think it's tricky and everyone has a different idea of what's best. I do see a issue with allowing people to go do in classification. I remember back when I played video games there was one that gave you a rank 1-50. And it would match you with people at a similar level to you. I got to be around a 35. Occasionally I'd be playing a game against some guys a few levels above me and they'd let me win. They were level 50's who were intentionally loosing every game to drop back down to 1 so they could beat up on new guys. This was pretty common, and was known as "de-leveling". We'd certainly have this issue. 

 

Another option might be to stop throwing out bad scores for your average. This would make the hero-zero strategy extremely risky to impossible to pull off. 

[-JCN-]

8 minutes ago, Racinready300ex said:

 

I think it's tricky and everyone has a different idea of what's best. I do see a issue with allowing people to go do in classification. I remember back when I played video games there was one that gave you a rank 1-50. And it would match you with people at a similar level to you. I got to be around a 35. Occasionally I'd be playing a game against some guys a few levels above me and they'd let me win. They were level 50's who were intentionally loosing every game to drop back down to 1 so they could beat up on new guys. This was pretty common, and was known as "de-leveling". We'd certainly have this issue. 

 

Another option might be to stop throwing out bad scores for your average. This would make the hero-zero strategy extremely risky to impossible to pull off. 

 

I would love every score to count, but also to allow people to log 100%+ scores into the average. 

I never liked that you could do really well and get a 110% but you'd only get 100% points.

 

Regardless, I think that classification doesn't and shouldn't mean as much as some people try to put on it. So in that aspect, who cares how it gets set up. The game is the game. I don't think anyone thinks that all M is created equal.

[Racinready300ex]

1 minute ago, -JCN- said:

 

I would love every score to count, but also to allow people to log 100%+ scores into the average. 

I never liked that you could do really well and get a 110% but you'd only get 100% points.

 

Regardless, I think that classification doesn't and shouldn't mean as much as some people try to put on it. So in that aspect, who cares how it gets set up. The game is the game. I don't think anyone thinks that all M is created equal.

 

If people are shooting 110% the HHF probably needs to be adjusted, doesn't it? Of course we'd also probably see less 110% scores if every classifier counted. That's the flaw in using Nat's for the HHF they have a national title on the line so they don't go balls to the wall like local hero's do. 

 

 

[Fishbreath]

34 minutes ago, BritinUSA said:

The thing to understand about the classification system is that it is all about revenue generation and ego. The system is not an accurate measurement of ability as scores do not go down and the HHF’s are manipulated after the fact.
 

The system won’t change, if it did a lot of competitors would see their grades go down (some rapidly) and this might impact the generation of revenue and hurt some feelings too.

 

I do agree that the classification system is not your "Any Given Sunday" rating, but I think it assumes facts not in evidence to say that it needs to be. There's no advantage or way to game the system by having a class in excess of your ability in matches.

If anything, sandbaggers are worse for the sport as currently constituted, with prizes for class winners.

[-JCN-]

1 minute ago, Racinready300ex said:

 

If people are shooting 110% the HHF probably needs to be adjusted, doesn't it? Of course we'd also probably see less 110% scores if every classifier counted. That's the flaw in using Nat's for the HHF they have a national title on the line so they don't go balls to the wall like local hero's do. 

 

 

I think this is where people (and you and I) both disagree. 
 

I take GM to mean that on my best day on a local with possibly two tries and nothing on the line, I can shoot 95% of Max’s match mode. 
 

I don’t believe I’m 95% of Max Michel apples to apples. 
 

So I think 110% is just fine if you pair that with every score counts. Just like the dudes that try and rip 0.15 splits at 20 yard partials… it bites them overall if they outshot their vision. We would see less 110% if they counted all the scores because maybe people would go for 105 rather than risk a miss and a 78. 

[motosapiens]

1 hour ago, -JCN- said:

 

Lol dude, maybe a little less testosterone.

cut me some slack. I'm 60, so I take supplemental testosterone and drive a lifted truck to compensate. Thinking about getting a mullet.

[Racinready300ex]

22 minutes ago, -JCN- said:

I think this is where people (and you and I) both disagree. 
 

I take GM to mean that on my best day on a local with possibly two tries and nothing on the line, I can shoot 95% of Max’s match mode. 
 

I don’t believe I’m 95% of Max Michel apples to apples. 
 

So I think 110% is just fine if you pair that with every score counts. Just like the dudes that try and rip 0.15 splits at 20 yard partials… it bites them overall if they outshot their vision. We would see less 110% if they counted all the scores because maybe people would go for 105 rather than risk a miss and a 78. 

 

The goal of the system is to lump shooters of similar skill level. So you're GM you should be similar to other GM's. Obviously not the case for most of us. I think I can hang fine with a lot of other G's but I'm not in contention to beat the top guys either.

 

I still don't know if counting over 100 would help. It might skew things to much. I shot a all classifier match the other day to get classified in PCC, if my 100% had counted as the the 109 that it was I'd of made G out of the gate. The last thing I needed is to be G in a division I had 2 matches of experience in. Not that it really matters but I know I'm not competitive even with the local GM's right now let alone someone like Max with a PCC. 

 

If you wanted to game the system you just go hero or zero until you nail a 110 or 120%. Then you ease off for your next 5 classifiers and you should be able to ride that bonus into the next level. Gamers gonna game.

[-JCN-]

13 minutes ago, Racinready300ex said:

If you wanted to game the system you just go hero or zero until you nail a 110 or 120%. Then you ease off for your next 5 classifiers and you should be able to ride that bonus into the next level. Gamers gonna game.

Oof. You’re totally right. I did not consider that but you are totally right. Scratch that thought. No Hundo+