USPSA Updated Production Classifiers

[motosapiens]

19 minutes ago, BritinUSA said:

 

If people are sandbagging and getting away with it then that's a problem that the org needs to acknowledge and rectify. If you have specific examples then please send them to the org and ask them why it has not been fixed.

 

It's possible that they are not checking for this kind of stuff.

imho, the best way to deal with sandbagging is to avoid giving valuable prizes to class “winners”, and otherwise ignore it. acknowledge the achievement with a cheap trophy if you must. i don’t care too much about that stuff.

[RJH]

1 hour ago, AKGrahamw said:

Am I missing something?  A paper GM doesn't effect me.  I'm bothered by the C class shooter that shoots at M or high A level at a major, wins the class and doesn't get bumped up.  Next match, I have to deal with the same people again!

 

I think the only way to correct it would be to use some sort of Lewis class system. Which would tell you what class you were on at that particular match. That's the easiest way to do it, but it doesn't really give somebody a b or c card. Basically the guy who finishes closest to 50% without going over gets the "win" then the guy at 75%, etc

[Joe4d]

you dont need anythign that complicated,,, win  a class at a major,, automatic bump to next class. 

[BritinUSA]

2 minutes ago, Joe4d said:

you dont need anythign that complicated,,, win  a class at a major,, automatic bump to next class. 

Works for me. This way they only get one shot at sandbagging. 

[RJH]

3 minutes ago, Joe4d said:

you dont need anythign that complicated,,, win  a class at a major,, automatic bump to next class. 

 

 

The only thing easier than Lewis class system is no class system

[Fishbreath]

5 hours ago, CutePibble said:

Some classifiers literally don't have historical GMs or Hundos, much less current adjusted GMs or Hundos.

 

Is it possible that there are pre-Practiscore scores affecting your analysis, or are you pulling percentages out of the USPSA website too, to catch legacy scores?

 

4 hours ago, BritinUSA said:

Classification should also fluctuate, the reality is that a persons ability will decline over time compared to younger competitors. This needs to be reflected in the classification system.

 

I disagree with 'needs'; classification as a 'lifetime achievement award' is no less reasonable than an up-and-down classification system.

 

[CutePibble]

9 minutes ago, Fishbreath said:

are you pulling percentages out of the USPSA website

No practiscore. 100% official HQ data. Unless it’s a private USPSA account (like most cheaters do) - it’s there. 
 

[BritinUSA]

22 minutes ago, Fishbreath said:

I disagree with 'needs'; classification as a 'lifetime achievement award' is no less reasonable than an up-and-down classification system.

If restricting the number of GM’s is causing HQ to adjust the HHF’s which affects everyone below that level, then I would consider that unreasonable.

[shred]

IPSC does ok without a classification system*, but there are a lot of USPSA people that care.  IIRC a survey of local club members said 50% didn't want to go to matches without them.

 

 

*Yes, they have one that nobody uses, and some regions have their own.

[BritinUSA]

I don't have a problem with a ranking system, I can see why it would be a valuable tool for someone wanting to improve and measure that improvement.

 

That being said I don't think the USPSA method is valid, meaningful, reliable or provides value for money. I'll go further and say it's deceptive. The data is being manipulated, so the results reflect the opinions of the manipulator(s), and are not reflective of reality.

 

The sport needs a viable replacement, and USPSA needs to acknowledge the flaws in the system and work with skilled members to replace it.

[Joe4d]

22 minutes ago, BritinUSA said:

That being said I don't think the USPSA method is valid, meaningful, reliable or provides value for money. I'll go further and say it's deceptive. The data is being manipulated, so the results reflect the opinions of the manipulator(s), and are not reflective of reality.

 

The sport needs a viable replacement, and USPSA needs to acknowledge the flaws in the system and work with skilled members to replace it.

Agree with the first thought... but dont think it justifies the second and big picture not sure they need a replacemnt.

Have to look at what the classfier system IS,, vs what some think it is or should be.
What it IS....
1.  A money maker for USPSA,, without it,, you have really no reason for local shooters who are vast majority of membership to join.. and if most people arnt members, suddenly most local matches have zero reason to sanction. 
2. Vast majority dont care how their results pan out at majors because they dont shoot majors,, and at locals alot are just looking at the overalls.
3. For most members , classes are matches within a match against them selves.. They like moving up against a metric.. They probably could care less how that metric is calculated... they just want to climb the ladder.. If the practice a set of classifiers and can make M or GM they are happy, despite some who's who, calling them grand baggers or paper GM,, they are proud of the accomplishment.. Heck I was proud of my A, even though I would never be competitive at a match.

So while I totally agree with your first section, and could see some changes, I dont think we should destroy what it is, in pursuit of better major match results. Because really thats the least important part of it.
 

[Racinready300ex]

On 3/3/2024 at 12:50 PM, BritinUSA said:

Introduce each classifier at Nationals, the best run in each division sets the HHF, it should never change for the life of that classifier (3-5 years).

 

Flaw in this, what if at Nationals the super squad shoots the stage at frost proof 1st stage of the day into the sun? What if the weather is bad? Not to mention the difference in pressure from shooting your local to shooting Nationals. Or the effect of shooting the same stage 3 or 4 times over a year or two.

 

This is why the best time to level up is on new classifiers that are based on Nationals performance. 

 

I think the excluding bad runs is really the problem. The HHF wouldn't need to be as high if you eliminated the ability to hero or zero by counting the best 6 of all 8. Not best 6 of what is basically your best 8. 

[BritinUSA]

15 minutes ago, Joe4d said:

So while I totally agree with your first section, and could see some changes, I dont think we should destroy what it is, in pursuit of better major match results. Because really thats the least important part of it.

 

You're comparing participants to competitors.

 

Participants will seek a classification that is beyond their abilities, because they know they will not test those abilities against the very best. 

 

Competitors will pursue a classification to improve themselves, that they might one day test their abilities against the best.

 

The system cannot achieve both ends, is this a sport or is it a hobby? To the shooters it is one or the other, but the organization must make a choice, the mechanism cannot serve two disparate functions. 

 

Edited March 4 by BritinUSA

[jrb06]

1 hour ago, BritinUSA said:

 

You're comparing participants to competitors.

 

Participants will seek a classification that is beyond their abilities, because they know they will not test those abilities against the very best. 

 

Competitors will pursue a classification to improve themselves, that they might one day test their abilities against the best.

 

The system cannot achieve both ends, is this a sport or is it a hobby? To the shooters it is one or the other, but the organization must make a choice, the mechanism cannot serve two disparate functions. 

 

Well put!

[Joe4d]

5 hours ago, BritinUSA said:

 

You're comparing participants to competitors.

 

Participants will seek a classification that is beyond their abilities, because they know they will not test those abilities against the very best. 

 

Competitors will pursue a classification to improve themselves, that they might one day test their abilities against the best.

 

The system cannot achieve both ends, is this a sport or is it a hobby? To the shooters it is one or the other, but the organization must make a choice, the mechanism cannot serve two disparate functions. 

 

participants fund the organization and run the matches for a handful of competitors.. ..   
Your post comes across as a bit arrogant.  cater to a handful of sponsored shooters you wont have an org..
You guys might have to tape your own targets.

 

 

[akarhi]

23 hours ago, CutePibble said:

No practiscore. 100% official HQ data. Unless it’s a private USPSA account (like most cheaters do) - it’s there. 
 

Huh very interesting didnt know about that

[BritinUSA]

22 minutes ago, Joe4d said:

participants fund the organization and run the matches for a handful of competitors.. ..   

I think there are thousands of competitors; don’t assume they are all sponsored, don’t assume they are just M’s and GM’s. A competitor could be in ‘D’ class. It’s about the attitude to the sport, treating every L1 stage as if it’s a stage at the Nationals; dry-fire practice in the evening, reading books and watching videos to improve skills.

 

They are being ill-served by a failing classification system, because the org  treats it as a social gathering and not a competition, because the love of money is more important than the principles of the sport.

[rowdyb]

does it really matter to the org or anyone else if the number of gm's went from 1% of the membership to 3%? would tripling the number of gm's just cause the whole notion of what top level skill is to be totally voided?

 

would you really want controlled numbers of individuals at skill levels?

Edited March 5 by rowdyb

[FuzzyGreenHat]

If the concern is that people will have higher levels based on shooting paper targets. Isn’t that better than the alternative? A guy that’s really an A class shooter got himself GM through ripping these. He’s not going to win against actual GMs and is now stuck in the higher category. I think at this point, any change USPSA institutes is a good thing and if it doesn’t work try something else. But leaving things as they were doesn’t seem like the right answer. 

[shred]

1 hour ago, rowdyb said:

does it really matter to the org or anyone else if the number of gm's went from 1% of the membership to 3%? would tripling the number of gm's just cause the whole notion of what top level skill is to be totally voided?

 

would you really want controlled numbers of individuals at skill levels?

I think it's backlash against the large number of PCC GMs that came about through too-low HHFs when that started-- for example, I 100%'ed a PCC classifier score on my very first stage shooting a PCC.   Wasn't uncommon in those days that some PCC GMs would only run A or B class pistol scores.

 

I would not be surprised if the data shows it's considerably harder to make GM now in most divisions than it has been in a long time because with the old-eyeball method it's much easier to raise than lower the HHF.

 

[Racinready300ex]

So what exactly is the problem we hope to fix?

 

Are there to many GM's or not enough?

 

Are we concerned about GM's winning and/or being competitive with other GM's or at Nationals?

 

It seems like if we raise or lower the HHF, we'll increase or decrease the number of GM's. But we'll also increase or decrease the numbers every classification. We'll probably shift the goal post a little so guys who were winning C are not loosing B or whatever.

 

We'll still have guys at the top of every class who win that class, and guys at the bottom who can't. In general the higher your classification the higher you'll likely finish in the division. None of that will change, match results wont change. 

 

So what is the end game? We probably need to define that, then figure a system that can pull it off. 

[CutePibble]

7 minutes ago, Racinready300ex said:

So what is the end game? We probably need to define that, then figure a system that can pull it off. 

There’s a GitHub repo with all that and feature tracking. There are many goals. HHFs-wise it’s about transparency and fair classification. Fixing just HHFs won’t take anyone’s title away. But it will help unlucky B and A shooters who should be classified higher. 
 

just more fair system, that’s it

Edited March 5 by CutePibble
Higher

[Racinready300ex]

3 hours ago, CutePibble said:

There’s a GitHub repo with all that and feature tracking. There are many goals. HHFs-wise it’s about transparency and fair classification. Fixing just HHFs won’t take anyone’s title away. But it will help unlucky B and A shooters who should be classified higher. 
 

just more fair system, that’s it

 

So more fair in this case means move people up?

 

I don't think anyone should get stuck in A or B just from bad luck. It's not hard to get out of those if you can really shoot at a level higher than that. 

 

 

[BritinUSA]

The goalposts keep shifting due to arbitrary changes in the measurements, this affects everyone to various levels. Fixing the HHF's may provide some degree of equity but it does not address the root cause of the problem which is the following:

 

 

USPSA considers the resulting HHF's to have the same statistical significance.

 

The HHF set at Nationals may seem low and readily exceeded at an L1 match because the environment is not the same; there is no Championship title on the line, there is no consequence for a bad run, the stage may not be set exactly the same - even a couple of inches can affect the score.

 

The sport needs a better, more accurate system. The members are paying over $300,000 each year in classifier fees, but the system is flawed, though a more accurate system may lead to fewer people willing to pay for it, especially if their ranking goes down.

[shred]

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

 

Does anyone disagree that if you shoot 80% as well as the best shooters on any given classifier you should get an 80% score for that and not 70% or 90%?