USPSA Updated Production Classifiers

[BritinUSA]

Depends on where the "best shooters on any given classifier" score is coming from, if its from a Nationals stage then that would be a 'Yes' from me.

 

If the "best shooters on any given classifier" score is coming from an L1 match, then 'No'.

 

Edited to add: You used a negative in the question so maybe reverse the Yes and No above. The Nationals score should be the definitive metric.

Edited March 5 by BritinUSA

[shred]

8 minutes ago, BritinUSA said:

Depends on where the "best shooters on any given classifier" score is coming from, if its from a Nationals stage then that would be a 'Yes' from me.

 

If the "best shooters on any given classifier" score is coming from an L1 match, then 'No'.

 

Edited to add: You used a negative in the question so maybe reverse the Yes and No above.

I think that's irrelevant to the question.  If you shoot 80% of the best (however that's determined) on any classifier, you should get an 80% and not a 70% on this one and 90% on that other one, right?   

 

After that gets fixed across all the classifiers, then you can argue about how to derive the 100%s because without consistency classifier-to-classifier, it won't matter.

 

 

 

 

 

[motosapiens]

15 minutes ago, shred said:

I think that's irrelevant to the question.  If you shoot 80% of the best (however that's determined) on any classifier, you should get an 80% and not a 70% on this one and 90% on that other one, right?   

 

 

 

 

thats one way to do it, and its not statistically sound imho. a far better way is to determine into which percentile your score falls. is in the best 1% of scores ever submitted? that is probably solid shooting even if its only 90% of the best ever run.

 

using percentiles is self-adjusting and makes the whole hhf concept irrelevant.

[CutePibble]

10 hours ago, rowdyb said:

if the number of gm's went from 1% of the membership to 3%

It actually would go from 720 to 336 total if we simply reclassify everyone using new HQ HHFs and same classification logic, but from scratch. That’s what new By Cur. HHF Percent mode does in Classification Stats tab

 

4 hours ago, Racinready300ex said:

So more fair in this case means move people up?

Not necessarily. Some will go up, some will go down. It’ll just measure things right. Fair. 

 

3 hours ago, shred said:

Let's just fix the screwed up HHFs first and then think about changing the whole system.  Crawl-Walk-Run

Sir, yes, sir!

[Racinready300ex]

13 hours ago, CutePibble said:

Not necessarily. Some will go up, some will go down. It’ll just measure things right. Fair. 

 

 

How do we decide what's "fair" for a classification? If it's unfairly keeping B class shooters stuck in B class. Then to get them to move up you must lower the HHF. Lowering the HHF will result in everyone moving up a % not just the guys "stuck" in B class. And now that B class guy will just be stuck in A, but I guess that sounds better?

 

I don't really see what it fixes. So the top B class guys move to A where they can't win. Then new guys move up to the top of B and start winning the class. The top C class guys move to B, and loose to those guys already in B. Results don't change, skill levels don't change we just move everyone up some. 

 

 

[shred]

This has nothing to do with whatever class people are in.  Take an example shooter "Mr Consistent".  Mr Consistent always shoots exactly  80% as well as the best shooters on every stage.

 

Today, he shoots Classifier 1-1 and gets a 73% score on that.  Next month he shoots Classifier 1-2 and gets an 80% score on that.  The month after he shoots Classifier 1-3 and gets a 91% score.  He's not any better day to day, he's still shooting "80% good" across the board.

 

He should get an 80% on all three, but solely because the HHFs are screwed up, the scores he gets could be way up or down from there and he has no control over it (unless he's picking classifiers for the match)

 

The first step is just making sure if anyone shoots "80% good" on any classifier, they get 80% for it.

Classifier 1-1's HHF needs to be lowered and Classifier 1-3's HHF raised.

 

 

[Racinready300ex]

1 hour ago, shred said:

This has nothing to do with whatever class people are in.  Take an example shooter "Mr Consistent".  Mr Consistent always shoots exactly  80% as well as the best shooters on every stage.

 

Today, he shoots Classifier 1-1 and gets a 73% score on that.  Next month he shoots Classifier 1-2 and gets an 80% score on that.  The month after he shoots Classifier 1-3 and gets a 91% score.  He's not any better day to day, he's still shooting "80% good" across the board.

 

He should get an 80% on all three, but solely because the HHFs are screwed up, the scores he gets could be way up or down from there and he has no control over it (unless he's picking classifiers for the match)

 

The first step is just making sure if anyone shoots "80% good" on any classifier, they get 80% for it.

Classifier 1-1's HHF needs to be lowered and Classifier 1-3's HHF raised.

 

 

 

I think there is more than one line of thinking here. You can say peoples classes don't matter. But others goal is stated as helping people that are stuck in their classification. If the goal out of the gate is help those stuck, then that goal is move people up and I think that's a bad way to approach it.

 

If someone is getting a 70, then 80 or 90 like you mention that could be bad HHF's. And some of it surely is, the HHF's are kind of a mess. But, you can also just have better days then others, sometimes you hook up or maybe you're just really good at the skill being tested that day. Maybe my WHO game isn't 80% for example. 

 

I do think that having a system that basically encourages shooters to swing for the fence is probably flawed. If I where going to "fix" it I'd remove the bit about dropping a classifier that's to low for your classification. With that change we'd probably need to lower the HHF's too. This would increase the pressure on the shooter and be more representative of how we shoot in a match and what we can do consistently over time. Some people would go down, others would probably go up, chips will fall. 

[BritinUSA]

You would also have to drop the bit about classification only going up. That’s not representative of reality. To clarify; none of this addresses the root cause of the problem.

[akarhi]

3 hours ago, shred said:

This has nothing to do with whatever class people are in.  Take an example shooter "Mr Consistent".  Mr Consistent always shoots exactly  80% as well as the best shooters on every stage.

 

Today, he shoots Classifier 1-1 and gets a 73% score on that.  Next month he shoots Classifier 1-2 and gets an 80% score on that.  The month after he shoots Classifier 1-3 and gets a 91% score.  He's not any better day to day, he's still shooting "80% good" across the board.

 

He should get an 80% on all three, but solely because the HHFs are screwed up, the scores he gets could be way up or down from there and he has no control over it (unless he's picking classifiers for the match)

 

The first step is just making sure if anyone shoots "80% good" on any classifier, they get 80% for it.

Classifier 1-1's HHF needs to be lowered and Classifier 1-3's HHF raised.

 

 

I agree with this. Classifiers are some what dumb but its a good way for people to get an idea where they're in the sport.

[Hoops]

I was reading an Enos post titled HHF and Classification and a few of you posted similar comments on it then.  There’s a lot more new people posting now.  Problems with the system, random classifier adjustments, etc.  

 

The post was in 2008……16 yrs ago.  I suppose it’s difficult to identify areas of concern and to get HQ’s attention.

 

For transparency, I am now an exclusive SCSA shooter (age and physical issues) but some of this discussion regarding classification’s is similar to SCSA regarding changing classifier peak times.  It’s been interesting reading your posts.

Edited March 6 by Hoops
Peace changed to peak

[akarhi]

6 hours ago, Racinready300ex said:

 

How do we decide what's "fair" for a classification? If it's unfairly keeping B class shooters stuck in B class. Then to get them to move up you must lower the HHF. Lowering the HHF will result in everyone moving up a % not just the guys "stuck" in B class. And now that B class guy will just be stuck in A, but I guess that sounds better?

 

I don't really see what it fixes. So the top B class guys move to A where they can't win. Then new guys move up to the top of B and start winning the class. The top C class guys move to B, and loose to those guys already in B. Results don't change, skill levels don't change we just move everyone up some. 

 

 

There isnt a fair way for a classification. Since you can literally practice for it.

 

If the person gets to A class from paper classification and does a major match, then perform a B class that shows results. It tells the person that they're a paper A class.

[Fishbreath]

7 minutes ago, BritinUSA said:

You would also have to drop the bit about classification only going up.

 

This is only a problem if you're trying to use classification as a system that indicates how good a shooter is now, which it is not designed to be. Dividing shooters into six strata is uselessly vague for that purpose.

 

Classification is the analog to a martial arts belt system, not chess Elo.

[RJH]

The more I read of all of this the more I think USPSA should just use a Lewis class system, if anything, at majors and at locals not worry about classification at all. I can't believe the amount of worry this creates for some of y'all

 

I mean damn, how many of y'all's local matches has enough b-class competitors in limited to justify worrying about this. Even in the bigger divisions by the time you break them down by class at a local, winning b class doesn't matter anyway. 

 

There was talk about how "competitors" do it earlier LOL, competitors are trying to win the match not their class and don't care about classification. (Crap, I guess that makes me a competitor. Unfortunately I'm a bad competitor because I almost never win the match )

 

And if the goal is for people to see their improvement, it would be much easier and much more realistic for that person to look at people in their local area and pick a guy and go "I'm going to start trying to beat that guy at every match". Then when that was done they could beat the next guy, till they're on top of the heap

[Fishbreath]

11 minutes ago, RJH said:

And if the goal is for people to see their improvement, it would be much easier and much more realistic for that person to look at people in their local area and pick a guy and go "I'm going to start trying to beat that guy at every match". Then when that was done they could beat the next guy, till they're on top of the heap

 

I like this.

 

Then, maybe we could build up a library of standardized stages so different clubs could set them up, and then shooters could compare their performance to more than just the local guys...

[RJH]

9 minutes ago, Fishbreath said:

 

I like this.

 

Then, maybe we could build up a library of standardized stages so different clubs could set them up, and then shooters could compare their performance to more than just the local guys...

 

 

Why do that when it's been said (I think fairly correctly) that 90% of USPSA shooters only shoot at their local clubs. Kind of negates necessity of a classifier system

[CutePibble]

7 hours ago, Racinready300ex said:

top B class guys move to A where they can't win

I don't care about non-overall wins. 

 

1 hour ago, Fishbreath said:

Classification is the analog to a martial arts belt system

yep, which is made for what? Motivation

 

3 hours ago, Racinready300ex said:

a system that basically encourages shooters to swing for the fence is probably flawed

at any given local match with a single classifier, unrealistically high HHF is what makes people to swing for the fences. They often look up the HHF using calculator and try to get to that next class.

 

1 hour ago, akarhi said:

isnt a fair way for a classification. Since you can literally practice for it.

if you practice you get better lol, and not just at classifiers 

 

3 hours ago, Racinready300ex said:

that goal is move people up

no, the goal is to classify people where they belong. Your unlucky B class who should be M? You go up. You're a paper GM in CO, who got in time when CO used prod HHFs and now perform at A-class level? You go back to A.

 

Now we can't take a title from people, but what I can is introduced a recommended classification on my website. And that's what I'm working on. There will be GMs that have recommended classification of A/M. And there will be B/A shooters, who will be recommended as M/GM. 

 

3 hours ago, Racinready300ex said:

Some people would go down, others would probably go up, chips will fall. 

 

1 hour ago, BritinUSA said:

drop the bit about classification only going up

recommended classification on my website will allow going down. At first algorithm will be USPSA-like, with B and C flags which severely limit classification dropping, but I'll see what can be done about that and later switch recommended classification to something along 4 best out of 10 most recent, no exclusion flags.

 

[BritinUSA]

1 hour ago, RJH said:

Why do that when it's been said (I think fairly correctly) that 90% of USPSA shooters only shoot at their local clubs. Kind of negates necessity of a classifier system

219,211 classifier scores were submitted in 2023 (per the DME report). Obviously there is a demand for a ranking system of some kind. The problem is the current system is not fit for this purpose.

[BritinUSA]

23 minutes ago, CutePibble said:

recommended classification on my website will allow going down.

I’d suggest some mechanism to adjust downward (if required) at year-end only. Bumping someone down a class in the middle of a season could provide incentives for sandbagging.

 

I would suggest that ranking can go UP through the year and optionally a DOWN adjustment just before Jan 1st.

 

Perhaps there could be two measurements on your site, the CURRENT ranking and a HISTORIC HIGH ranking to recognize a high watermark for the competitor; only the CURRENT ranking would be used by the system.

[RJH]

17 minutes ago, BritinUSA said:

219,211 classifier scores were submitted in 2023 (per the DME report). Obviously there is a demand for a ranking system of some kind. The problem is the current system is not fit for this purpose.

 

Doesn't that just mean there were 219,211 people that shot? I mean some of those classifiers were mine and other than needing to be classified in a division in case I wanted to shoot a level two, they meant absolutely zero to me. They were simply submitted because I happened to be a member that shot a match, well several matches.

 

It will be interesting to see how many casual members the new yearly rate drops, as I know there are a lot of people that don't shoot level two matches, and I think at some point they are going to start asking what they're getting for their money (unless they just really love the magazine ). Especially the ones that have been members for a long time and yet only shoot level ones and will probably never move up in classification anyway, because they haven't moved up in the last 10 years. At my local clubs that's about 70% of the people shooting. In other words they probably get a classifier just because that's what they did way back when they started and have since forgotten why they give USPSA money every year and just do it out of habit.

 

And if we're going to go off of the 219, 000 some odd classifiers that were submitted, if that many people are submitting classifiers and really want them, it would stand a reason that they are happy with what they're getting, or else they wouldn't be submitting all of those classifiers. Unless they just happen to be like me, a guy who shoots some USPSA matches and is a member and so my classifiers are automatically uploaded whether I care about them or not

 

The more y'all classification system updators talk, the more I'm convinced that the classification system is useless

[Fishbreath]

4 hours ago, RJH said:

Why do that when it's been said (I think fairly correctly) that 90% of USPSA shooters only shoot at their local clubs. Kind of negates necessity of a classifier system

 

On the contrary, it makes one more important. How else does the local shooter answer the question, "Am I any good, or is my local competition just bad?"

Edited March 7 by Fishbreath

[RJH]

20 minutes ago, Fishbreath said:

 

On the contrary, it makes one more important. How else does the local shooter answer the question, "Am I any good, or is my local competition just bad?"

 

If he only shoots locals, does he really care? I'll go with no. So if he really cares he's going to shoot level twos anyway and then he'll begin find out how good he is

 

How important is a GM card really if the only people you are beating up is a bunch of midpack nobodies

 

 

So, you're still convincing me that the classification system is useless. Until next time LOL

[BritinUSA]

35 minutes ago, RJH said:

If he only shoots locals, does he really care?

Not everyone that cares is able to shoot outside of L1.
 

People have jobs, families, responsibilities, other things that take up their time. Maybe the only opportunity they have to shoot is at a local club. 
 

They might still be a competitor that wants to improve, but are limited with their options.
 

They want to know how they are doing, we shouldn’t be taking that knowledge from them. Instead, we should be providing them with a viable method of determining their skill level.
 

 

[RJH]

51 minutes ago, BritinUSA said:

Not everyone that cares is able to shoot outside of L1.
 

People have jobs, families, responsibilities, other things that take up their time. Maybe the only opportunity they have to shoot is at a local club. 
 

They might still be a competitor that wants to improve, but are limited with their options.
 

They want to know how they are doing, we shouldn’t be taking that knowledge from them. Instead, we should be providing them with a viable method of determining their skill level.
 

 

 

They will know how they're doing if they start beating everyone else at their local match. If they start beating everyone at the local match, the next test would be to increase the percentage that they beat everyone by.

 

Probably one of those locals made it to a major and if he shot 65% of the match winner and you always beat him by 20%, it might be fair to say that you might have placed 10 to 20% ahead of him in the major match. There by giving you an approximation of a major match finish and an approximation of how you would do against better competition. It would be as close as a classification system lol 

 

Wasting a bunch of time worrying about classifications seems silly when you can just apply direct math to people you actually shoot against.

 

 

Here is a simple example. I don't shoot majors anymore, though one day I might. However there's a local guy that shoots quite a few majors. Me and him will trade wins against each other (not match wins) quite often. If I was really concerned, I could look at how he finishes at a major match and know that I would probably finish a few percent on either side of him. That's going to give me as good an estimate as a classification system that can be gamed, the targets put in the wrong place, has wonky hit factors from time to time, etc. All so somebody can win third B class out of five guys at a local

 

So, y'all are still convincing me that the classification system is a waste of time and money.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited to add: I have never seen anybody that really wanted to shoot a major that couldn't get around to shooting a major at some point. Back when I used to shoot them many times I was flat broke because I had to take me and my son. So we either saved up, shot an off day that had a cheaper rate, or worked the match. So I'm basically going to be calling BS on your point about somebody that just couldn't quite get it done but they really really wanted to

 

Edited March 7 by RJH

[Racinready300ex]

16 hours ago, akarhi said:

There isnt a fair way for a classification. Since you can literally practice for it.

 

If the person gets to A class from paper classification and does a major match, then perform a B class that shows results. It tells the person that they're a paper A class.

 

Imagine setting up a drill and practicing to get better. It's so unfair.

 

Guys who don't train and are stuck in some lower class are quick to talk about paper this or that and needing to make things fair. 

[Racinready300ex]

15 hours ago, CutePibble said:

 

at any given local match with a single classifier, unrealistically high HHF is what makes people to swing for the fences. They often look up the HHF using calculator and try to get to that next class.

 

 

No that isn't the reason they swing for the fence. If they lower the HHF it will still be to high from most people and they'll still just swing for the fence. They just wont have to do as well to get that bump.

 

The reason people swing for the fence is because failure comes with zero cost. There is probably another club match the next day or the next weekend. Loosing one stage doesn't matter. And if you do really bad it wont count so you can just try again. So why wouldn't someone go for it there is nothing to loose?

 

If we didn't toss classifiers that are %5 below you class then the pressure to not fail goes way up when you're getting close to moving up. If you can't consistently put up the numbers you'll never get there. This change even with lower HHF would be significantly more difficult for many shooters to move up. If you're trying to get A class and put up a 45% it's going to drag you down for a while.