Steel Challenge - Jan 15, 2022 BOD Minutes - Zack Jones Presentation

[Hoops]

If interested, this was copied from the SCSA/USPSA website under BOD minutes.   There will be a future BOD meeting to discuss further and perhaps to set new policy.  

 

Emphasis:  Peak Times review and perhaps Reclassification of shooters

 

3. Presentations  

 

b. Zack Jones – Steel Challenge 

 

i. Category awards – currently the rule book allows all matches to exceed what is  provided for in the rule book.  An MD can choose to recognize anything that  goes above the award requirements 

 

ii. Slot policy for World Speed Shooting Championship 

1. Board requests a full presentation on proposed Slot Policy for Steel  Challenge to be presented in a future meeting 

 

iii. Peak stage time, classification, and reclassification 

1. Peak stage time review required each year (review key word)  a. Does not always require action beyond a review 

 

2. Propose new policy  a. Review as always, look at all competitor’s stage times from 95% and up, eliminating any above 110% 

 

3. Reclassification of competitors due to change in peak stage times 

 

a. Propose selective reclassification for competitors who want to  have classification lowered – optional for members to “opt in” 

i. Division specific 

ii. Time limited option 

 

b. Classification history/what determines classification for low  activity divisions for a competitor 

 

c. Recommendation to be included in future meeting along with  peak stage time 

 

iv. Board resolves to review presentations and official recommendations when  presented.  Peak stage times to be reviewed after completion of the 2022 World Speed Shooting Championship. 

 

[Hoops]

With current analytics software, I would recommend that the BOD seek out a statistical specialist to crunch the data.  Perameters can be set such as eliminating anything above 110%, etc. (but I am a bit of math nerd ). 

 

Should the WSS be the only metrics used?  Perhaps consider a broader cross section of shooters by including data from other Level 11 or 111 matches in addition to WSS?

 

Should classifications be fluid and reset based on each shooters average percentage taken from their most recent 10 matches; or reset each time Peak Times change; or once earned, never go down in class?

 

Should a classification earned be based on times from all eight stages?  Currently a shooter can be classified as high as GM without Outer Limits and Speed Option (and others).  

 

Perhaps our comments can assist Zack as he prepares for the next BOD meeting follow up on his presentation.

 

 

[jrdoran]

I think what is needed is a statement of objectives for the classification from USPSA/SCSA.  Once we know what the classification goals should represent ( and over time ); then the other pieces fall in place.  i.e.  metrics and scope of participants to produce that outcome.

 

Without a clear understanding of the peak times should produce as a cross section, it is just speculation and our own personal points of view that get bantered about.  

 

If the above exists, lets use that as a starting point or perhaps we can help craft one. 

[Nathanb]

6 hours ago, Hoops said:

With current analytics software, I would recommend that the BOD seek out a statistical specialist to crunch the data.  Perameters can be set such as eliminating anything above 110%, etc. (but I am a bit of math nerd ). 

 

Should the WSS be the only metrics used?  Perhaps consider a broader cross section of shooters by including data from other Level 11 or 111 matches in addition to WSS?

 

Should classifications be fluid and reset based on each shooters average percentage taken from their most recent 10 matches; or reset each time Peak Times change; or once earned, never go down in class?

 

Should a classification earned be based on times from all eight stages?  Currently a shooter can be classified as high as GM without Outer Limits and Speed Option (and others).  

 

Perhaps our comments can assist Zack as he prepares for the next BOD meeting follow up on his presentation.

 

 

You don’t even need a specialist. You need one person semi competent with alteryx and access to the data. 

[ZackJones]

10 hours ago, Hoops said:

With current analytics software, I would recommend that the BOD seek out a statistical specialist to crunch the data.  Perameters can be set such as eliminating anything above 110%, etc. (but I am a bit of math nerd ). 

We have used various ranges such as 95 - 105 and 95 - 115 or 95-120 and 95-110 seems to be the sweet spot as far as the numbers go. 

 

10 hours ago, Hoops said:

Should the WSS be the only metrics used?  Perhaps consider a broader cross section of shooters by including data from other Level 11 or 111 matches in addition to WSS?

 

Should classifications be fluid and reset based on each shooters average percentage taken from their most recent 10 matches; or reset each time Peak Times change; or once earned, never go down in class?

For one year we did look at matches besides WSSC but it didn't make a significant difference. For our analysis this year we'll use 2021 and 2022 WSSC results so we will have a larger dataset to work with. The original intent, at least when we first started working on classification by division, was that your classification would be based on your current percentage. That's why we implemented the current year plus 2 previous years when calculating it. When HQ decided steel classification would be like USPSA and be based on your fastest time regardless of when it was shot dropping data doesn't make since. That's why we're planning to bring back all times for classification purposes. 

 

10 hours ago, Hoops said:

Should a classification earned be based on times from all eight stages?  Currently a shooter can be classified as high as GM without Outer Limits and Speed Option (and others).  

 

 

There are ranges that can't shoot Outer Limits and Speed Option due to a lack of bay size. I could see at some point in the future making classification be based on the "speed six" stages as we call them. Every range should be able to run those stages. 

[Darqusoull13]

On 2/19/2022 at 2:54 PM, ZackJones said:

There are ranges that can't shoot Outer Limits and Speed Option due to a lack of bay size. I could see at some point in the future making classification be based on the "speed six" stages as we call them. Every range should be able to run those stages. 

I'm strongly against this one. Dropping the only stage with movement and the two "long" shot stages would be significantly skew the classification numbers. 

At the very least including OL and SO provides an incentive to travel to other ranges beyond one's "home club." 

[old558]

5 hours ago, Darqusoull13 said:

I'm strongly against this one. Dropping the only stage with movement and the two "long" shot stages would be significantly skew the classification numbers. 

At the very least including OL and SO provides an incentive to travel to other ranges beyond one's "home club." 

Not sure I understand, but I be leave you can classify with only 4 stages. Not shooting OL and SO only helps your numbers. I have had my knees replaced so if I had never shot it my numbers might look better. I,m not complaining my numbers keep getting better and soon I will get to where I need to be.

[Darqusoull13]

17 hours ago, old558 said:

Not sure I understand, but I be leave you can classify with only 4 stages. Not shooting OL and SO only helps your numbers. I have had my knees replaced so if I had never shot it my numbers might look better. I,m not complaining my numbers keep getting better and soon I will get to where I need to be.

You can in fact classify with only 4 stages. I've done it. Once you shoot a stage though you have to improve it. 

For me, including OL is a significant advantage because relative to the field, my knees are young and healthy . 

[Hoops]

7 hours ago, Darqusoull13 said:

You can in fact classify with only 4 stages. I've done it. Once you shoot a stage though you have to improve it. 

For me, including OL is a significant advantage because relative to the field, my knees are young and healthy . 

Just a few thoughts.........from my point of view.

 

There are a lot of 6 stage combination only ranges which has been one of the supporting points behind the suggestion to add 2 additional stages to give some additional options (leave WSS as is).   OL and SO size is physically not possible at quite a few ranges.

 

Also, Outer Limits is the only SCSA stage that is skewed towards "young, healthy" shooters.  SCSA has a lot of Sr. and Super Sr. shooters that are fast shooters but the "USPSA like" OL stage, with the quick 6 ft move, stabilize then shoot element, does not reflect their true SCSA shooting skills.  I am a prime example at soon to be 71, with pins/screws in both feet, recent back surgery and a total knee replacement.....otherwise I am quite healthy and active.  M class on all but Outer Limits.  I've lost count of the matches where the match has been decided by Outer Limits alone.  Regardless of this, I shoot 3 SCSA matches per month and will continue to do so as long as I can. 

 

To add insult to injury, a person with disabiilities is hit with a 12 second penalty on OL.  Hard on the classification.  Hard on the "fun factor".  With the shooting box frame design, wheelchair movement between the two boxes is difficult at best.  Time for the BOD to review this?  

 

 

 

 

[motosapiens]

32 minutes ago, Hoops said:

Also, Outer Limits is the only SCSA stage that is skewed towards "young, healthy" shooters.  SCSA has a lot of Sr. and Super Sr. shooters that are fast shooters but the "USPSA like" OL stage, with the quick 6 ft move, stabilize then shoot element, does not reflect their true SCSA shooting skills.  I am a prime example at soon to be 71, with pins/screws in both feet, recent back surgery and a total knee replacement.....otherwise I am quite healthy and active.  M class on all but Outer Limits.  I've lost count of the matches where the match has been decided by Outer Limits alone.  Regardless of this, I shoot 3 SCSA matches per month and will continue to do so as long as I can. 

 

To add insult to injury, a person with disabiilities is hit with a 12 second penalty on OL.  Hard on the classification.  Hard on the "fun factor".  With the shooting box frame design, wheelchair movement between the two boxes is difficult at best.  Time for the BOD to review this?  

Hmm, I'm only 60, but with one rebuilt acl and the other knee was shattered in pieces (femur split vertically through the knee joint and is now screwed together). I don't really feel like athleticism is much of a thing in outer limits, except for folks that are truly disabled. You don't really have to move fast, you just have to leave soon, and then shoot soon when you get there. I would agree with you that the penalty for disabled shooters is too high. Honestly, I'd be fine with with just tossing OL entirely, and make the sport for welcoming at the elite level for disabled folks. There are people with NO use of their legs who shoot pretty dang well.

 

[AzShooter]

When I came back to SCSA I was wheelchair bound.  The 12 second penalty is a turn off for disabled shooter and should be eliminated.  We are shooting under a penalty all ready.   Sure some individuals are going to take advantage of this and may even win a stage but the physically fit shooters will continue to dominate the stage.

 

Are people afraid that a handicapped person will beat them?  Most of us are doing this sport for therapy, a day out with friends and we are competing against ourselves.

 

I'm now much better and don't need my wheelchair.  I started moving on Outer Limits this year but at 70 and still with a handicap I can assure youI'm not going to win a match but I will be working on my personal best.

[Umbrarian]

On 2/21/2022 at 9:56 AM, Darqusoull13 said:

I'm strongly against this one. Dropping the only stage with movement and the two "long" shot stages would be significantly skew the classification numbers. 

 

You can already get classified without shooting OL/SO, so nothing would be dropped. If I read it right, he was saying requiring 6 stages (instead of the current 4) to get a classification.

[Hoops]

1 hour ago, AzShooter said:

I'm now much better and don't need my wheelchair.  I started moving on Outer Limits this year but at 70 and still with a handicap I can assure youI'm not going to win a match but I will be working on my personal best.

That's fantastic that you don't need your wheelchair now.  

[Darqusoull13]

17 hours ago, Hoops said:

Just a few thoughts.........from my point of view.

 

There are a lot of 6 stage combination only ranges which has been one of the supporting points behind the suggestion to add 2 additional stages to give some additional options (leave WSS as is).   OL and SO size is physically not possible at quite a few ranges.

 

Also, Outer Limits is the only SCSA stage that is skewed towards "young, healthy" shooters.  SCSA has a lot of Sr. and Super Sr. shooters that are fast shooters but the "USPSA like" OL stage, with the quick 6 ft move, stabilize then shoot element, does not reflect their true SCSA shooting skills.  I am a prime example at soon to be 71, with pins/screws in both feet, recent back surgery and a total knee replacement.....otherwise I am quite healthy and active.  M class on all but Outer Limits.  I've lost count of the matches where the match has been decided by Outer Limits alone.  Regardless of this, I shoot 3 SCSA matches per month and will continue to do so as long as I can. 

 

To add insult to injury, a person with disabiilities is hit with a 12 second penalty on OL.  Hard on the classification.  Hard on the "fun factor".  With the shooting box frame design, wheelchair movement between the two boxes is difficult at best.  Time for the BOD to review this?  

 

 

 

 

Anyone over 30 is already 0.1-0.2 behind on every single beep. We can't get our reaction speed back. We can't take the miles off our knees, elbows or any other joint. We aren't going to win HOA at WSSC. 

Basic movement, 3-4 steps, is a fundamental skill that should be tested. 

You're competing against other Sr. and Super Sr. shooters just like Revolvers are competing against other Revolvers. Yes, getting old sucks. I'm trying to finish off all the iron sight divisions while my eyesight is still good. No, there's no reason to change the sport because of it. Keep shooting for the enjoyment of it. But never forget it will always be a young man's game. 

[motosapiens]

6 hours ago, Darqusoull13 said:

Anyone over 30 is already 0.1-0.2 behind on every single beep. We can't get our reaction speed back. We can't take the miles off our knees, elbows or any other joint. We aren't going to win HOA at WSSC. 

Basic movement, 3-4 steps, is a fundamental skill that should be tested. 

You're competing against other Sr. and Super Sr. shooters just like Revolvers are competing against other Revolvers. Yes, getting old sucks. I'm trying to finish off all the iron sight divisions while my eyesight is still good. No, there's no reason to change the sport because of it. Keep shooting for the enjoyment of it. But never forget it will always be a young man's game. 

that's some defeatist excuse-making bullsh!t right there, almost as bad as the whining you were responding to, lol. Looking at the results of last year's WSSSC I see a number of people over 30 in the top 50 overall (including kc in 3rd OA, first rfpo). Admittedly, BJ was still under 30 I believe when he recorded the fastest centerfire time ever. yes, sure, you do lose a smidgen of reaction time, but what really ends these kids' domination is not getting older, but discovering the opposite sex.

 

Looking at A1 and A2 matches over the last couple years, I see people in their 40's and even late 50's winning divisions, and not just lame old man divisions like ss or revolver.

 

However, I just don't see why moving 3-4 steps is a fundamental shooting skill that should be tested. It's already tested in tons of other shooting sports. If it's sooooo fundamental, it should probably be tested more than once every 8 stages, right? Maybe we should test other fundamental skills, like weak-hand-only shooting, and empty gun starts...... Or maybe we should consider making steel challenge more welcoming to 70% of its demographic (people to old or lazy or both to shoot USPSA  ). If you look at WSSC results for outer limits, it's the same people that are crushing it on every other stage. The only thing the movement on that stage does is prevent the disabled from having any chance of finishing with the other elite shooters, and therefore discourage them from participating.

Edited February 23, 2022 by motosapiens

[egd5]

I would be in favor of throwing out OL. It's the only stage that requires movement. Everything else is strictly a test of shooting, including the long shots. That is how I view steel challenge- a shooting contest.

As Moto says, there are plenty of other sports/games that include movement.

[Umbrarian]

8 minutes ago, egd5 said:

I would be in favor of throwing out OL. It's the only stage that requires movement. Everything else is strictly a test of shooting, including the long shots. That is how I view steel challenge- a shooting contest.

As Moto says, there are plenty of other sports/games that include movement.

 

Didn't OL originally not include movement?

[egd5]

IDK, I haven't been doing this all that long.

[Hoops]

4 hours ago, motosapiens said:

 

 

However, I just don't see why moving 3-4 steps is a fundamental shooting skill that should be tested. It's already tested in tons of other shooting sports. If it's sooooo fundamental, it should probably be tested more than once every 8 stages, right? Maybe we should test other fundamental skills, like weak-hand-only shooting, and empty gun starts...... Or maybe we should consider making steel challenge more welcoming to 70% of its demographic (people to old or lazy or both to shoot USPSA  ). If you look at WSSC results for outer limits, it's the same people that are crushing it on every other stage. The only thing the movement on that stage does is prevent the disabled from having any chance of finishing with the other elite shooters, and therefore discourage them from participating.

Your last sentence is spot on.   

 

A brief reason I am an advocate for changing OL (other than my own whining ).  I live in the San Antonio, TX area and we have far too many veterans here with traumatic loss of limbs.  One in particular convinced me to start shooting competitions when I was 63.  At the time, he was a 35 yr old Pararescue (PJ) in fantastic shape that I met at a local in-door range where I shot often.  He had tried for 2 yrs to save his right leg, but eventually elected to have it removed just above the knee.  He was one of the best iron sight pistol shooters I have ever seen.  A fantastic young man.  In spite of this, 6 feet.....that simple 3-4 steps.....was very, very difficult for him.  He refused to take penalties and eventually gave up competitions.  Our loss.   

 

Dropping OL won't impact the the current SCSA winners/leaders or cause anyone to leave the sport.....but.... another stationary stage in it's place would open the door to many other very deserving disabled shooters who are currently discouraged from participating in the sport.  

[Flatland Shooter]

15 hours ago, Hoops said:

Dropping OL won't impact the the current SCSA winners/leaders or cause anyone to leave the sport.....but.... another stationary stage in it's place would open the door to many other very deserving disabled shooters who are currently discouraged from participating in the sport.  

Well said.  I stopped shooting USPSA back in 2019 after a long hospital stay.  I still love the sport but it don't love me.

 

In the past several months I've taken up shooting Steel Challenge.  The only stage I dislike is Outer Limits due to the movement requirement.  At nearly 70 years old I am not going to win any big matches but I do want to do as well as possible.  Let's change Steel Challenge back into the drag racing of shooting sports.

 

[AzShooter]

Let's replace OL with The Flying M again.  That was a fun stage.

 

[jrdoran]

On 2/19/2022 at 4:50 AM, Hoops said:

  Peak Times review and perhaps Reclassification of shooters

iii. Peak stage time, classification, and reclassification 

1. Peak stage time review required each year (review key word)  a. Does not always require action beyond a review 

2. Propose new policy  a. Review as always, look at all competitor’s stage times from 95% and up, eliminating any above 110% 

3. Reclassification of competitors due to change in peak stage times 

a. Propose selective reclassification for competitors who want to  have classification lowered – optional for members to “opt in” 

i. Division specific 

ii. Time limited option 

b. Classification history/what determines classification for low  activity divisions for a competitor 

c. Recommendation to be included in future meeting along with  peak stage time 

iv. Board resolves to review presentations and official recommendations when  presented.  Peak stage times to be reviewed after completion of the 2022 World Speed Shooting Championship. 

 

Thread drift !  

 

Great points of view on the demographics and relevance of OL, but honestly speaking from@Hoopsoriginal question about what the review policy and direction of peak times will be has not advanced in the discussion.   Still unclear what the goals and objectives of the peaktime distribution should be.  SCSA can pull various levers to achieve whatever competitor classification curve they want by just raising and lowering the peak times.     What 'bell curve' or distribution do they think makes sense ?

 

[Flatland Shooter]

Nah, the Flying M stage still had some movement required.

[Hoops]

3 minutes ago, jrdoran said:

Thread drift !  

 

Great points of view on the demographics and relevance of OL, but honestly speaking from@Hoopsoriginal question about what the review policy and direction of peak times will be has not advanced in the discussion.   Still unclear what the goals and objectives of the peaktime distribution should be.  SCSA can pull various levers to achieve whatever competitor classification curve they want by just raising and lowering the peak times.     What 'bell curve' or distribution do they think makes sense ?

 

I agree.  Good points made on OL.

 

When I put this topic out on Enos, it was actually in response to a statement made by Zack Jones under a seperate Area 4 thread.  Zack recommended that SCSA members read the January 2022 BOD minutes and indicated future changes were being discussed.  Also, since Zack was formally designated by the BOD as the official SCSA Coordinator who will attend all BOD future meetings, I thought this thread may be a good way to communicate ideas or suggestions to Zack.  He now has a seat at the table.

 

Clearly from the BOD minutes, Classifications (and/or Re-Classifications) and Peak Times will soon be reviewed by the BOD.  Perhaps for now, we should focus future comments in this thread to these two topics.

 

To answer jrdoran's questions about how Peak Times......perhaps Zack can offer some insight on this?

 

[egd5]

OK, let me see if I understand the cause of discussion about peak times. Is it--there are more shooters shooting better than 100% (faster than the peak time), therefore some think the peak times should be adjusted upward? That would then affect all shooters making it harder to achieve any desired class given that it takes a % of peak time to do it.

1. Are there that many people who shoot that fast?    I wouldn't think so.

2. If there really are that many, how about establishing another class-super GM- just for those folks?  Then it wouldn't make it that much harder for us normal humans who struggle as is. Why skew the entire system just for a relatively small % of the overall shooters?