Top 15000 Classification Rankings

[GKB]

And, yes, the way to game your way to GM is to pick your 4 best stages and NEVER shoot the other 4.

 

[Hoops]

15 minutes ago, GKB said:

And, yes, the way to game your way to GM is to pick your 4 best stages and NEVER shoot the other 4.

 

Here we go.  @jrdoran and @GKB have spent significant personal hours to create the 15,000 database and the tables showing the breakdown by division and classification.  As predicted, members are now beginning to raise questions about how classifications can be earned, minimum stages, etc.

 

I have posted several topics on this subject over the past two years….including Peak Times.  Yes, a member can make GM shooting only 4 stages.  In fact, under Level 1, matches can have only 2 SCSA stages to be official…..and have scores posted for class and division.  
 

 

 

[GKB]

Here's the best visual I've been able to do for the data of the distribution of classifications across the divisions.

 

Steel Challenge Divisions by Class Breakdown

 

 

This is a pure percentage breakdown, not a comparison with the heights equivalent to the number of shooters.  (I started with that and it REALLY compressed the columns for the lower participation divisions, since the range goes from 4542 (RFRO) to 518 (PCCI) shooters in a division).

Edited December 8, 2023 by GKB

[Hoops]

38 minutes ago, GKB said:

Here's the best visual I've been able to do for the data of the distribution of classifications across the divisions.

 

Steel Challenge Divisions by Class Breakdown

 

 

This is a pure percentage breakdown, not a comparison with the heights equivalent to the number of shooters.  (I started with that and it REALLY compressed the columns for the lower participation divisions, since the range goes from 4542 (RFRO) to 518 (PCCI) shooters in a division).

This is excellent presentation.  Clearly the more people shooting a division influences ratios.

 

i know this would be a PITA, but I wonder what the impact would be based on:

GM 100%~up

M 85%~99.99%
A 70%~84.99%
B 55%~69.99%
C 40%~54.99%
D 0~39.99%

 

just an equity thought.  My guess is B and A may look reasonable and the “problem “ with too many GM’s (per USPSA.org….not me saying) may be corrected?
 

 

Edited December 8, 2023 by Hoops
Added words

[GKB]

1 hour ago, Hoops said:

My guess is B and A may look reasonable and the “problem “ with too many GM’s (per USPSA.org….not me saying) may be corrected?

 

How many is "too many GM's"?

 

Overall, only 2.9% are shooting at 95% or better.

Only 4 divisions have more than 4% of it's shooters at 95%. 

Eight divisions (CO, Open, both PCCs and all 4 rimfire) are getting their PSTs lowered for 2024, which will push everybody in those divisions down a bit.

 

 

 

Edited December 8, 2023 by GKB

[Hoops]

49 minutes ago, GKB said:

 

How many is "too many GM's"?

 

Overall, only 2.9% are shooting at 95% or better.

Only 4 divisions have more than 4% of it's shooters at 95%. 

Eight divisions (CO, Open, both PCCs and all 4 rimfire) are getting their PSTs lowered for 2024, which will push everybody in those divisions down a bit.

 

 

 

I’m with you.  I don’t see too many based on your percentages but each year when Peak Times are reviewed there has been “background “ USPSA.org comments (maybe just noise) about the number of GM’s in SCSA.  Whenever peak times are lowered to counter this, I have said the impact of reduced times is felt more in the A, B, C and D classes.  A 1.00 second reduction for .95% GM is 1.05 and: M=1.18, A=1.33, B=1.66, C=2.5, D=variable.

 

You had mentioned how it appears B shooters may get stuck.  My thought about changing class percentages was more about the down classes than the upper classes.  It was just an exercise suggestion just to see if my theory about down class impact has merit.  

[zzt]

2 hours ago, Hoops said:

I have said the impact of reduced times is felt more in the A, B, C and D classes.

 

Absolutely.  My first year of SCSA I shot RFPO and OPN.  The only two suitable guns I had.  I got within 0.5 seconds of A in RFPO by the end of the season.  Then the lowered peak by 5 full seconds.  Frustrating.  In my second season I got back to within 1.38 seconds of A.  They lowered it another 5 seconds (might have been 4.5).  Again, frustrating.

 

I tried again the third year and got close. Every time I was edging up, I got dropped back because my older better times expired.  So, I'll probably never make A, because I only shoot RFPO once or twice a year.  I mostly shoot RFRO and PCCO now (and always in the Winter).

[bravobravo]

On 12/6/2023 at 12:47 PM, GKB said:

If there was any doubt, "B" class is where shooters get stuck.  With the exception of RFRI and PCCI (which are aberrations in their distribution), there are more B shooters than GMs, Ms, and As combined.

 

I would only partially agree with you.

Low ready divisions you are correct.

Holster divisions, C class is where more shooters get stuck.

In every holster division, there are more C and D class shooters than GMs, Ms, As, and Bs combined.

[zzt]

46 minutes ago, bravobravo said:

Holster divisions, C class is where more shooters get stuck.

 

Yup.

[GKB]

CO, Open, and OSR seem to make it to "B" before hitting a wall.  (I'm defining the "wall" being where the following class is less than half the size of the preceding class.)

 

Limited, Production, Single Stack, and ISR seem to hit the wall in "C" class.

 

Is it just coincidence that the first group is all optics and the second group is all irons?

Or is it the second group are more likely to be a gun somebody already has to shoot and then they switch/invest into the optics group to continue competition?

Or some other factor(s)?

Edited December 9, 2023 by GKB

[Hoops]

On 12/8/2023 at 8:13 AM, Hoops said:

This is excellent presentation.  Clearly the more people shooting a division influences ratios.

 

i know this would be a PITA, but I wonder what the impact would be based on:

GM 100%~up

M 85%~99.99%
A 70%~84.99%
B 55%~69.99%
C 40%~54.99%
D 0~39.99%

 

just an equity thought.  My guess is B and A may look reasonable and the “problem “ with too many GM’s (per USPSA.org….not me saying) may be corrected?
 

 

I did a manual re-calculation of RFRO only based on the above class percentage changes and it appears to me to be a more balanced range for C to M.  Unfortunately I couldn’t figure out how to insert the file properly.  
 

I’ll give it another try later.

 

 

[Squirrel45]

On 12/8/2023 at 8:24 PM, GKB said:

CO, Open, and OSR seem to make it to "B" before hitting a wall.  (I'm defining the "wall" being where the following class is less than half the size of the preceding class.)

 

Limited, Production, Single Stack, and ISR seem to hit the wall in "C" class.

 

Is it just coincidence that the first group is all optics and the second group is all irons?

Or is it the second group are more likely to be a gun somebody already has to shoot and then they switch/invest into the optics group to continue competition?

Or some other factor(s)?

I would guess it's two fold. One as you mentioned that, someone borrowing a gun shoots once to get classified then done. Second is that production, limited, single and iron revolver are the most trying divisions. People get discouraged and move on. Just my thoughts 

[GKB]

On 12/8/2023 at 11:21 AM, Hoops said:

the impact of reduced times is felt more in the A, B, C and D classes.  A 1.00 second reduction for .95% GM is 1.05 and: M=1.18, A=1.33, B=1.66, C=2.5, D=variable.

 

Here's the practical example for 2024 where Rimfire Pistol Irons is getting 1.00 second faster.

 

     (SC-105 = Accelerator, SC-106 = Pendulum, SC-108 = Roundabout)

[Hoops]

15 minutes ago, GKB said:

 

Here's the practical example for 2024 where Rimfire Pistol Irons is getting 1.00 second faster.

 

     (SC-105 = Accelerator, SC-106 = Pendulum, SC-108 = Roundabout)

Absolutely.  Why the A, B, C  and to some degree M, classes continue to be pushed back more than GM class remains a mystery to me.  

[Hoops]

10 minutes ago, Hoops said:

Absolutely.  Why the A, B, C  and to some degree M, classes continue to be pushed back more than GM class remains a mystery to me.  

I realize this may not be a popular position, but classifications will not be resolved by Peak Times alone.  SCSA is not USPSA and copying the classification percentages and minimum classifiers from USPSA is perhaps not the best metric.  

[shred]

What is "wrong" with the current classification system?   I think that needs to be defined before any solution can be proposed.

 

[Hoops]

24 minutes ago, shred said:

What is "wrong" with the current classification system?   I think that needs to be defined before any solution can be proposed.

 

I’ve outlined it several times.

 

1. Peak Times heavily skewed based on WSSC match as outlined/stated in SCSA rules.  
 

2. As an advocate of all SCSA shooters, the math/mechanics of Peak Time reduction disproportionately impacts down class shooters.

 

3. Looking at the distribution of the number of shooters per class, there is indication, to me, that the current percentages by classification should be reviewed.  A 5 point shift, putting GM at 1.00, which I have done for RFRO, based on the 4500 +- shooters, levels out the total numbers within each class.

 

4.  The 4 best of stages without Outerlimits or Speed Option is a factor, but I believe the real fundamentals fall in Items 1,2 and 3.

 

This is my opinion.  It may not bear out but I have given this a lot of thought and done a lot of math.  The development of the 15000 Ranking has been very useful.  
 

i would encourage debate on this.  I may not be looking at other factors.

[GKB]

4 minutes ago, shred said:

What is the "problem" with current classifications?

 

Maybe the odd distribution of divisions as to the number of people in it's classifications?

 

Limited is the worst.....out of 1,855 shooters only 9.1% are GM (11), M (12), A (36), or B (111).  The other 90.9% of the division are Cs (981) and Ds (704).

 

At the other end is PCCI which has 13.9% (72 of 518) shooting GM times.  Only 35.9% are Cs and Ds.

[zzt]

1 hour ago, shred said:

What is "wrong" with the current classification system?   I think that needs to be defined before any solution can be proposed.

 

What is wrong is the system based on percentages.  Using the RFPI example above, decreasing the peak time does the following.  a 2023 95% GM shooter must increase his total match speed by 1.05 seconds to get back to 95%.  A 2023 60% C class shooter must improve by 2.5 seconds to get back to 60%. Generally, a more difficult task.  In prior years when peak adjustments were larger, you dug the C shooter an even deeper hole.

 

I understand the argument that a 1.05 second improvement may be more difficult for a GM than 2.5 seconds for a C.  I just don't buy it.  As I mentioned earlier in this thread, I finished my first season with .5 seconds to go to make A.  The adjustment the following year added 5 seconds for A.  So, I started 5.5 seconds down.  Something similar happened again the following year.  It can be frustrating.

 

I don't know how you fix this while using percentage divisions.  As it stands, the system makes it harder and harder for a B, C, D shooter to move up a class.

[shred]

Doesn't USPSA think the "problem" is there are too many GMs?  Otherwise why keep adjusting the peak times?

 

[Hoops]

2 hours ago, shred said:

Doesn't USPSA think the "problem" is there are too many GMs?  Otherwise why keep adjusting the peak times?

 

From what I understand, yes.  I believe the other factor are the low scores being shot by a group of young, talented shooters at the WSSC match.  But if you look at the percentages developed by @jrdoran and @GKB (incredible work) the GM overall percentages don’t look to be  too many.  However, they could be based on disproportional overall percentages in lower classes.  

 

The WSSC focus, in my opinion, even capping the performance percentage at 1.10%, is not broad enough and is hurting the lower class shooters as has been highlighted in previous posts.

 

 It’s not factually correct to say that a division peak time has been lowered by a single X second when the math shows it’s more for the down class shooters.  

 

Why do they (BOD’s) keep lowering Peak Times?  Certainly not clear to me nor is the methodology.

 

Toss in the dropping of 2021 and earlier and the system gets even more complicated for most seniors.  But that’s for another discussion.

 

[bravobravo]

3 hours ago, shred said:

Doesn't USPSA think the "problem" is there are too many GMs?  Otherwise why keep adjusting the peak times?

 

I wonder if they really do think this is the “problem”. 
As per SteelRankings.com and @GKB
CO with 1.1% of shooters at GM is getting the largest reduction in peak time in January.

Open with 0.8% at GM is also getting a peak time reduction.

Meanwhile, the low ready divisions with 2 to 3 times more GM’s on a percentage basis are getting little to no peak time reductions.

There must be some strategic reasons for the way peak times are adjusted, but the logic escapes me.

Edited December 12, 2023 by bravobravo

[GKB]

4 hours ago, bravobravo said:

CO with 1.1% of shooters at GM is getting the largest reduction in peak time in January.

 

There must be some strategic reasons for the way peak times are adjusted, but the logic escapes me.

 

Maybe somebody can figure out the common factor.

 

Here are the winning times from the 2022 and 2023 WSSC for CO division.

Below them are the 2023 and new 2024 PSTs.  (I don't have the 2022 PSTs.)

Yellow cells are the 5 PSTs changing for 2024.

Percentage is taking the new PST divided by the average of 2022 & 2023 winning stage times.

Link to spreadsheet:  https://app.box.com/s/nroujj563kwggr0qj78av9e0sjo9no9e

 

= = = = =

 

2 of the unchanged stages (Roundabout, Accelerator) had similar times (0.19 and 0.37 sec) in 2022 and 2023.

But Outer Limits was 0.89 sec difference and is changing 0.25 faster in PST.

Were they just trying to get as close as possible to an overall 110% of PST vs. average winning time so OL got shifted just to put that 0.25 sec somewhere?

[shred]

If they keep using peak times, there's going to be a selection bias.  Even more so if they use per-stage records.

 

Back when I shot a lot of SC, the top guys could run the match 10 seconds faster in practice when they pushed harder than they would at the big match.  Then if they'd trashed the match overall, they'd swing for the fences on every stage trying to grab some stage cash. 

 

 

[GKB]

Part of the issue is that the top end are professional shooters in a sport that is 99+% amateur.