USPSA Rate increase pushed back

[Racinready300ex]

I wonder if we would just transition to IPSC if uspsa went away. 

[RJH]

20 minutes ago, Racinready300ex said:

I wonder if we would just transition to IPSC if uspsa went away. 

 

I guess it would depend on how much their dues were

[Sandbagger123]

i am not going to renew. i have no interest anymore shooting level 2 and above so don't need to be a member.   i also don't care anymore what i am classified at.   

 

lifetime memberships are like lifetime warrantees.  Usually its only good till they go belly up 

[motosapiens]

4 minutes ago, Sandbagger123 said:

i am not going to renew. i have no interest anymore shooting level 2 and above so don't need to be a member. 

i'm the opposite. the older I get, the more major matches I want to shoot. I retire at the end of this year, so we're going to try to work/shoot 3+ area matches and open nationals next year, plus the section/state matches in our area.

[Joe4d]

2 hours ago, RJH said:

 

I think the difference is when somebody goes to Chili's they feel like they got something for their money. I think right now there's a lot of people having a hard time seeing just what they're getting from USPSA by being a member, or a member club. There's some other organizations out there that are run with no fees or dues, and I think people see that and go, "why is USPSA increasing my membership fee?"

 

And when you realize that most people only shoot locals, that question really starts to make some sense. And it would also be easy to see how a club could say we could take that $3 per shooter and invest it in more targets or props or whatever. Because running a USPSA match doesn't get you much as a club. 

 

I think the only real draw to USPSA for most people is the classification system, and that is usually only in the first few years. If another organization like pscl built some sort of classification system that was open sourced, that could really put a dent in USPSA

And there we have it,, ,, it offers little value in return for the membership, 

[motosapiens]

21 minutes ago, Joe4d said:

And there we have it,, ,, it offers little value in return for the membership, 

all you have to do is go to one of the 'other organizations' matches and get screwed over on a bogus rules call to appreciate uspsa. Not really a big deal i guess for people who aren't competitive and just shoot to have fun and make noise, and don't want to shoot major matches with a reasonably consistently applied ruleset and stage design criteria.

[BritinUSA]

3 hours ago, Racinready300ex said:

I wonder if we would just transition to IPSC if uspsa went away. 

I think there is space for both to exist; If there was a separate USIPSC org for IPSC and USPSA then I think a lot of the top shooters would join both, the hobby shooter would just stay in USPSA as they only shoot locals anyway and the division  rules are far more lax than the world-wide body.

[BritinUSA]

4 hours ago, Racinready300ex said:

I'd imagine it runs into trouble if someone is shooting small clubs with no heat they wont get a good idea of their standing until they go somewhere else and shoot against higher ranked people. With our classification system you at least can see where you stand on that skill test no matter who shows up at your local club. 

Actually I don't think its an issue, my limited understanding is that it can work via proxy results.

 

For example; Imagine JJ wins Nationals, and Fred gets 80% of JJ's score.

 

Next Fred wins a local match and his buddy George gets 90% of Fred's score

 

Now its possible to estimate that at Nationals George might have scored 90% of Fred's score which would be 72% of JJ's score.

 

Or something like that…

 

Obviously different matches would carry a different weight value, but the more matches that were examined the more accurate the numbers might become.

 

The main advantage of this method is that the entire match counts, not just one stage that could have been practised multiple times. One of the original core concepts of IPSC/USPSA was that any given stage could only be shot once, the current classification system does away with that concept.

[Racinready300ex]

18 minutes ago, BritinUSA said:

I think there is space for both to exist; If there was a separate USIPSC org for IPSC and USPSA then I think a lot of the top shooters would join both, the hobby shooter would just stay in USPSA as they only shoot locals anyway and the division  rules are far more lax than the world-wide body.

 

As long as uspsa exists I don't see that happening. And as many point out, the sport can't run on just the top shooters. If the masses are only shooting uspsa then ipsc really isn't a thing. And at the end of the day that's how it is currently anyway. IPSC matches, even nationals in this country don't really mean anything. 

 

For ELO, I think Fishbreath might use stage scores to increase the data to get more accurate numbers. But, I can still see where comparing shooters that never shoot against each other in matches of different flavors wil be skewed.

 

You're examples JJ wins nationals, match is lots of partials and distance. Fred shoots 90% and fred is really good at distance and partials. Fred goes to local match with all open close targets, Jimmy is a badass at hosing but sucks at aiming. How will we really get a accurate ranking for Jimmy? 

 

Maybe it works out, I don't know much about it honestly. Our current system is flawed but it also basically works. I can go shoot a stage at a local or in practice and basically know if it was good or not. That part is nice. 

[42ATK]

2 hours ago, Racinready300ex said:

 

As long as uspsa exists I don't see that happening. And as many point out, the sport can't run on just the top shooters. If the masses are only shooting uspsa then ipsc really isn't a thing. And at the end of the day that's how it is currently anyway. IPSC matches, even nationals in this country don't really mean anything. 

 

For ELO, I think Fishbreath might use stage scores to increase the data to get more accurate numbers. But, I can still see where comparing shooters that never shoot against each other in matches of different flavors wil be skewed.

 

You're examples JJ wins nationals, match is lots of partials and distance. Fred shoots 90% and fred is really good at distance and partials. Fred goes to local match with all open close targets, Jimmy is a badass at hosing but sucks at aiming. How will we really get a accurate ranking for Jimmy? 

 

Maybe it works out, I don't know much about it honestly. Our current system is flawed but it also basically works. I can go shoot a stage at a local or in practice and basically know if it was good or not. That part is nice. 

I think you just weigh major matches more

[motosapiens]

2 hours ago, Racinready300ex said:

You're examples JJ wins nationals, match is lots of partials and distance. Fred shoots 90% and fred is really good at distance and partials. Fred goes to local match with all open close targets, Jimmy is a badass at hosing but sucks at aiming. How will we really get a accurate ranking for Jimmy? 

 

this is a little bit of a thing, but probably averages out, unless jimmy *only* shoots s#!tty hoser matches. At any rate, it's still probably better than the current rankings which only test a subset of match skills.

 

Now and in the future, the best way to compare yourself to other shooters is to shoot major matches, where you can shoot the same stages at the same time under the same conditions. That's one of the main reasons that people who are serious shooters go to major matches (plus they are hella fun).

[shred]

There's a skew problem when Fred craps out at a major, or maybe another good shooter does badly and Fred beats them.  That affects Jimmy's percentages too even though he's still the same shooter.

 

The other problem is there's no HF number you can say "that's a 73%" right there at the match.  I think that part is what USPSA likes.  

 

[BritinUSA]

There will be other people at the match , so even if Fred has a major malfunction, others won't. The more data points are used the less likely a single problem will skew the numbers.

 

Theoretically it could work, the data exists in PractiScore, the trick will be to come up with an effective process for that data.

[shred]

If Fred is the only shooter from the local club that went to Nationals, it does.

 

This happened to me several years ago.  One one of the ELO sites I was rated very high in the world because I'd done well at US IPSC Nationals in Classic or some such and the international shooter they were comparing with to generate IPSC rankings had not.

 

[Shootingaggie]

Costs are up on everything. Hoped USPSA wouldn’t be joining in on the price gorging. 

[BritinUSA]

1 hour ago, shred said:

If Fred is the only shooter from the local club that went to Nationals, it does.

Not necessarily, it depends how many 'degrees of separation' there are between any given shooter and someone who went to Nationals. This is where the volume of data works in its favor, provided all the data is used.

 

Its like that Kevin Bacon thing

[euxx]

18 hours ago, Racinready300ex said:

You're examples JJ wins nationals, match is lots of partials and distance. Fred shoots 90% and fred is really good at distance and partials. Fred goes to local match with all open close targets, Jimmy is a badass at hosing but sucks at aiming. How will we really get a accurate ranking for Jimmy? 

 

Maybe it works out, I don't know much about it honestly. Our current system is flawed but it also basically works. I can go shoot a stage at a local or in practice and basically know if it was good or not. That part is nice. 

The math just need to take into account each stage specifics.

There is enough data in the results to tell if stage required accuracy or hosing. Basically each stage can be identified as 2-dimensional coordinates: target points (5 - 160) and the best time (say 0.5 sec to 30..40sec). Though the time need to take into account what level competitors shot it. Then you can compare stages with similar parameters.

For simplicity the 2-dimensional space probably can be just broken down to 4 areas (e.g. fast and low points stage, fast and high points, slow and low points, slow and high points) or 9, 12 areas. That would reflect the non-linear dependency of HF on points and time.

[Dazhi]

19 hours ago, BritinUSA said:

I think there is space for both to exist; If there was a separate USIPSC org for IPSC and USPSA then I think a lot of the top shooters would join both, the hobby shooter would just stay in USPSA as they only shoot locals anyway and the division  rules are far more lax than the world-wide body.

 

What is preventing "IPSC USA" from existing? Are there bylaws/contracts between IPSC and USPSA that mandates no separate "IPSC USA" can exist outside of USPSA?

[BritinUSA]

There can only be one IPSC Regional Directorate per country. For a USIPSC to exist, the current directorate (USPSA) would either have to have vacate the position voluntarily, or be pushed out by IPSC.

 

All explained in the IPSC Constitution.

 

See 5.7 through 5.9

 

 

 

 

[Joe4d]

19 hours ago, Racinready300ex said:

 

You're examples JJ wins nationals, match is lots of partials and distance. Fred shoots 90% and fred is really good at distance and partials. Fred goes to local match with all open close targets, Jimmy is a badass at hosing but sucks at aiming. How will we really get a accurate ranking for Jimmy? 

 

 

Thats exactly how the classification worked 10-15 years ago,, and maybe still does.
Classifiers full of technical stand and shoots,,,weak/strong hand only, limited,, etc..
Matches all point blank hose fest.. 
Then non sprinters get denigrated as "grandbaggers" or paper masters, because they are A classed but finish matches down in low B
And Jimmy gets called a Sandbagger for the reverse results

New system cant be any worse, at least its using match results.

Edited August 5, 2023 by Joe4d

[whan]

I think an ELO system would be an interesting add-on, but not replacement, to the current classification system. ELO would really only work well for people who regularly shoot major matches (assuming you exclude Level 1s from counting). It becomes particularly interesting for the better shooters out there to see exactly how you stack up

 

But it’d be a huge mistake to remove the current classification system IMO. Classifications, although flawed, provide newer and lower level shooters goals to aim for. It’s like the belt system in martial arts. For C and D class shooters, ELO / being the 1500th ranked CO shooter would be meaningless to them, but the ability to move up into the next class is much more meaningful.

[BritinUSA]

While it's true that ELO is a ranking system, it would be easy to add a classification value based on where a person is in that ranking.

 

For example, those in the top 5% would be GM, etc.

[whan]

That's true, but I think you'd still end up with a data issue for lower ranked shooters where there may not be enough info if they haven't shot a major yet. I think the ELO system really is only relevant for the dedicated competitors within USPSA. People who shoot major matches often and really care where they stack up against others. This forum along with USPSA-specific instagram/facebook pages have a selection bias towards people who are those dedicated competitors, and thus would benefit more from an ELO system

 

Like it or not, most people who shoot USPSA are not those people. A lot of people are in USPSA to improve their skills and have a fun time, without necessarily a goal to become a top 100 shooter in their division. For those people, removing the classic standards-based system would be a big mistake. It would largely remove the ability to measure their progress and essentially force them to shoot majors to get a classification. If they were to bomb the one major they shot per year (maybe via a bad match-ending equipment malfunction), it'd be very demoralizing to get shoved into D class suddenly

 

My point is that replacing the classification system with ELO would be a definite negative for most of the USPSA membership. The problems it is trying to solve (IE grandbaggers who underperform at matches) only matter to a select few people who are the top shooters. IMO that's why adding ELO as a supplement makes the most sense.

 

I'd be ok with a requirement that GMs also have an ELO-based minimum. That would actually cater to the people who really care. Perhaps you could add another Super GM category based off top 1% of shooters by match performance via ELO. But again, it's most useful only to apply ELO-based classifications at the very top, but leave the standard system in place for everyone below

Edited August 5, 2023 by whan

[RJH]

What does ELO stand for?

[euxx]

19 minutes ago, RJH said:

What does ELO stand for?

 

It's the last name of a physics pfogessor who created it.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system