We all know it, but does it matter?

[rowdyb]

That almost no one shoots their classification percentage at nationals? Of the 60ish Carry Optics GMs at the last Nationals only 3 shot a 95% or better in the match for example.

 

Doesn't matter the division or classification. If you've shot a Nats or trolled the results you've seen this over and over. 

 

But does this matter? To the average member? To someone trying to be a contender at that level? To the value or validity of the classification system?

 

I know my thoughts, interested in yours.

[Rnlinebacker]

National level GMs are another level. Should be a new classification called Elite GM or something of the sort(based on Nats performance) lol

Edited September 13, 2022 by Rnlinebacker

[Cuz]

I wouldn’t mind being a GM in name only, but don’t you have to switch to PCC for that?  I never shoot anything but local matches, and only a few a year at that, so my classification doesn’t mean anything to anyone but my son. As long as I stay one level ahead of him I am good to go for all the household banter…

[BritinUSA]

The classification system is broken, and has been for many years.

The classification system generates a significant amount of revenue for USPSA.

 

An ELO rating system might be worth investigating; I think that would negate the need for classifiers, USPSA would probably steer away from it due to the financial impact.

 

 

 

[CClassForLife]

The top shooter has an unknown % that just happens to get assigned 100%. So if a GM shoots 80% at Nationals, then ask if it's reasonable for the top person to be 119% (95% divided by 80%). If so, then there's nothing wrong with the current system. The top of our sport ranges 108-135%* at Nationals+ level events. It's actually expected to see nearly everyone closer to the top NOT shoot to their "classification."

 

 

Edited September 13, 2022 by CClassForLife
*Numbers are a reasonable guess, but a quick gut check is looking at the 2022 World Speed Shooting Championship where the winners ranged from 100.84 - 139.20%

[rowdyb]

5 minutes ago, CClassForLife said:

The top shooter has an unknown % that just happens to get assigned 100%. So if a GM shoots 80% at Nationals, then ask if it's reasonable for the top person to be 119% (95% divided by 80%). If so, then there's nothing wrong with the current system. The top of our sport ranges 108-135% at Nationals+ level events. It's actually expected to see nearly everyone closer to the top NOT shoot to their "classification."

 

 

True, I am doing an extremely simplistic look at the numbers and their relationships.

[crmcdm]

I hear this "system is broken" from time to time, but rarely is a detailed explanation of what needs to be fixed offered. No doubt there is stratification across any given class. When I scan down results of a large match, most at the top are Gs, followed by Ms, ten As, and so on, with a fair number of paper classes doing worse, and baggers doing better. Broken--not really--imperfect? Yeah. People are involved. I think the system works well to track and identify improvement, but ceases to be as useful at the top end. When I am ROing, I'm generally (but not always) more comfortable with a G than a D. 

[oddjob]

I used to play golf.  I always thought the USPSA classification should be like a golf handicap and fluctuate.  USPSA already has the shooter's percentages listed.  To me that is a more accurate reading of the shooter's abilities. 

 

I spoke to a National GM and he felt the only way GM status should be given was to finish within the 5% of the winner's score at the Nationals or maybe an Area Match.  We all have seen "Local GM" shooters, but as Rnlinebacker mentioned national level GM's are at another level.

Edited September 13, 2022 by oddjob

[RJH]

I think it's a non issue. Back when I used to shoot an occasional major I generally shot right to my classification, but I'm a middle of the pack nobody so maybe that's just not that hard to do. If people want to get their GM cards but then not practice movement etc to end up shooting GM level scores and majors that doesn't bother me one bit. Realistically I don't care about classifications at all. That said I wouldn't mind if you had to shoot 95% or higher at Nationals to be considered a GM either. But I've also found that anybody with a GM card whether "real" or "paper" can generally kick the crap out of me so I just shoot to the best of my ability and don't worry about it

[Silverscooby27]

As somebody who is currently at a low spot in his shooting, what I can say is that people are rarely operating at their peak performance, and that there is a significant difference in performance when you are practiced/trained vs if you enjoyed the summer doing other things like going to the beach and spending time with your family. The top pros make their living doing this, it’s why they always perform when it matters. Their lives revolve around it. It’s like being amazed that Hollywood movie stars are always in shape and buff. It’s because that’s their job and how they put food on the table.

[Johnny_Chimpo]

8 hours ago, BritinUSA said:

The classification system is broken, and has been for many years.

 

It would be interesting to see the analysis done to determine this.

[Johnny_Chimpo]

9 hours ago, rowdyb said:

That almost no one shoots their classification percentage at nationals? Of the 60ish Carry Optics GMs at the last Nationals only 3 shot a 95% or better in the match for example.

 

Doesn't matter the division or classification. If you've shot a Nats or trolled the results you've seen this over and over. 

 

But does this matter? To the average member? To someone trying to be a contender at that level? To the value or validity of the classification system?

 

I know my thoughts, interested in yours.

 

I don't care.  My only concern is how I do against my competitors on any given day.

[rowdyb]

I'm not so interested in why it is, I know those reasons. 

 

My question was does it matter and to whom?

[Kwontanamo]

9 hours ago, Rnlinebacker said:

National level GMs are another level. Should be a new classification called Elite GM or something of the sort(based on Nats performance) lol

Global Elites! Radiant! Apex Predator!

#PCgamers

[Joe4d]

It mattered to me, and was a contributing reason to why I quit shooting USPSA.  
The classifiers at the time, had zip to do with match stages.  Almost all were stand and deliver with little to no movement.
So a good shooter, bad runner can very easily be classed well above their match performance. 
While there were larger classifiers, I dont think they get used that much due to the extra work it takes to set them up exact.

as far as GM spread at big matches,,, nah I really dont care.
Class winners,,, well we all know if you win you are a sandbagger,,, lose you are a grandbagger 

[motosapiens]

1 hour ago, rowdyb said:

I'm not so interested in why it is, I know those reasons. 

 

My question was does it matter and to whom?

doesn’t matter to me in the slightest. the classification system is simply a curiosity, important to some individuals, but irrelevant to the people who win matches. most people would shoot better if they mostly ignored it.

[zzt]

I don't care at all about the Classification system in USPSA.  I'd rather shoot matches with no Classifiers, because they are mostly boring.  The new 'action' style Classifiers they are trying out are interesting.  However, only one club I shoot at sets them up.  They ARE very time consuming and tedious to set up correctly.

[BritinUSA]

I think an ELO ranking would work better, no need for clubs to set up those classifiers each match. Despite their small size they sometimes take just as long to set up a field course, trying to get all those measurements just right. 

[vluc]

Count all the ones that we shoot, let your classification rise and fall as the shooter rises and falls in his/her performance.  Isn't that a truer reflection of your skill set?  Go from "A" to "B" to "A" again, then to "C" if your performance reflects it.

 

All major match performance should be counted, regardless of how many GM's are present.  You shoot it, you own it.

 

 

Edited September 13, 2022 by vluc

[obsessiveshooter]

I think the classification system is great for people starting out.  Match results are nothing but defeating to someone new to USPSA.  The bump from D to C to B is a great attaboy when the match results are depressing, and those bumps are tied to real gains in skill. I think these are the average USPSA shooter, and very few of them go to Nationals. So the people that care about the system won't be bothered by how the system plays out at the big matches.  

 

 

[Bigzona]

Interesting and timely topic. I'm less than a year into seriously (most of my free time) shooting USPSA. I was obsessed with the classification system, the math, the data and all of it at the start. Tracking my progress with spreadsheets and all that jazz (I'm a bit OCD).  As my tenure in the sport lengthens, my regard for the system diminishes.  As stated above, I've had good and bad classifiers putting me very close to A class.  However, my match results tell a different story. I've begun to compete for CO division wins in a fairly talented local pool with plenty of strong M class shooters. So my match performance has become the big factor.

 

And to Rowdy's core questions;

 

It should matter. Our top classified shooters should be able to demonstrate match performance reflective of their ranking. Its indicative of the validity of our classification system, and reflective of my own personal experience.

 

Am I losing sleep over it? No. From talking to others that have been in the sport longer than me, everyone mostly seems to go through the same evolution, ultimately arriving at match performance taking precedence over paper classification.

Edited September 13, 2022 by Bigzona

[costeel]

4 hours ago, zzt said:

I don't care at all about the Classification system in USPSA.  I'd rather shoot matches with no Classifiers, because they are mostly boring.  

 

This! Would rather have a fun short stage.

[zzt]

31 minutes ago, Bigzona said:

everyone mostly seems to go through the same evolution, ultimately arriving at match performance taking precedence over paper classification.

 

Bingo.  I'll never get out of C Class.  The raft of weak hand shooting Classifiers the local clubs like to put out guarantees that.  My left hand doesn't work as intended and I can barely control the gun with it.   I shoot way better than C in the match.

[Fishbreath]

33 minutes ago, Bigzona said:

It should matter. Our top classified shooters should be able to demonstrate match performance reflective of their ranking.

 

By and large, they do. "Paper GMs" are mostly a myth, in that the vast majority of highly-classified people are capable of beating the vast majority of lower-classified people most of the time. Using national champions as the benchmark is unreasonable, because skills and results aren't linearly distributed. A 95% classifier score excludes substantially more than 95% of attempts (chart and statistics courtesy competition.shooting.analytics on Instagram) already.

 

 

1,414 attempts
12.1593 HF was the highest
5.545 HF was the average
0.14% of shooters shot 100%
0.64% of shooters scored GM
2.4% of shooters scored M or better
8.2% of shooters scored A or better
28.29% of shooters scored B or better
69.52% of shooters scored C or better

 

That tracks with his statistics on classification: 1-2% of shooters are GMs in most handgun divisions. (PCC is about 3.5%, because of the Open HHFs initially used; Revolver is about 5%, because some of the old classifiers still have 6-round HHFs, and some of the 18s were soft up until the most recent adjustments.)

 

If you use 95%+ at Nationals as the GM threshold, there are 10 Carry Optics grandmasters in total:

 

Dazhi Zhang
John Vlieger
Max Michel
Mason Lane
Nils Jonasson
JJ Racaza
KC Eusebio
Hwansik Kim
Phil Strader
Shane Coley

 

A Distinguished Grandmaster title for 95%+ Nationals finishers would make sense, but adding everyone in CO except for those ten guys back into M is obviously wrong, to me.

 

I've been experimenting with Elo rating (also on Instagram), and had it spit out average ratings and standard deviations for each class, against the dataset of all L2+ matches since 2020:

 

GM: 1603 +- 175
 M: 1357 +- 149
 A: 1169 +- 151
 B:  961 +- 147
 C:  744 +- 150
 D:  574 +- 144

 

Each class is about 1.3 standard deviations better than the class below it, and GM is the widest, which makes sense, given that it includes the entire right tail of the skill graph. That seems pretty reasonable to me.

[motosapiens]

1 hour ago, Bigzona said:

It should matter. Our top classified shooters should be able to demonstrate match performance reflective of their ranking.

why? what difference does it make?

 

in general, If you look at any match results, you'll see gm's at/near the top (along with a few improving m's and A's whose classifications haven't caught up yet), and you'll see lower-classified shooters further down. However, you shouldn't expect to see shooters clustered in the same percentages as the classification percentages. It's statistically unlikely that someone who reached a 95% classification average (when able to throw out all the bad runs) will be able to reach 95% in a major match when they have to keep all their bad runs.