2025 PST Changes

[Renno]

On 7/14/2024 at 10:33 AM, shred said:

What did I miss in RFPI last year that's good for a second per stage?

 

 

I can provide some insight. Lance and I pushed the division average down by about 6-8 seconds per match this last year. We knew it hadn't really been pushed like the RFPO or RFRO/RFRI so we worked together sharing ideas to go from shooting 70s in 2023, down to 64s by 2024. A few weeks ago Lance shot a 61. 

 

We made a few gear changes and altered our shooting process/strategy around them. We started using flared magwells to push our grip higher and stabilize the swing more. This allowed us to keep our sights aligned consistently enough to just swing without verifying alignment each shot. We used longer fibers and anti-glare coatings on our sights to increase contrast and glow brighter to process sight picture faster. We ended up shooting it like a red dot and our times followed the trend.

[joseywales]

On 7/13/2024 at 7:41 PM, Hoops said:

I’m reserving further comment until an explanation is offered relative to methodology.  My initial thought was are these times putting classes beyond the reach of good shooters who may now disillusioned to extent that memberships may be reconsidered.  Getting close to a Pro-Am arrangement?

Zack & Jeff explaining LO survey and Peak Time calculations on SteelTargetPaint Steel Challenge podcast.

 

https://www.iheart.com/podcast/256-steeltargetpaint-31050921/episode/103-lo-survey-results-and-peak-197437973/

[Hoops]

7 hours ago, joseywales said:

Zack & Jeff explaining LO survey and Peak Time calculations on SteelTargetPaint Steel Challenge podcast.

 

https://www.iheart.com/podcast/256-steeltargetpaint-31050921/episode/103-lo-survey-results-and-peak-197437973/

The podcast is worth listening to.  The discussion on PST methodology is near the end of the podcast.  Unfortunately it abruptly ended in mid-discussion.

 

The formula is as previously noted: >=95% thru highest……sort of.  It appears to be a baseline followed by additional adjustments.  It’s too bad the podcast cutoff……unless it was just mine.  
 

 

[Hoops]

Podcast works just fine.  It was on my end when I lost the link.  I finished it this morning.  Zack and Jeff go thru the mechanics of how the calculations for PST’s were made for 2025.  

[Hoops]

On 7/15/2024 at 6:47 PM, shred said:

 

Did one person win every stage at the WSSC or is using the 'top times' for every stage comparing against a non-existent "perfect" shooter?  At the old SC in California it was common for top shooters that blew out from the race for overall to swing for the fences on every stage after that trying to score some of the stage cash or set a record.  That would skew scores a little.

 

 

@shred I had blinders on thinking it was based on what the top shooters shot and was puzzled why I could never duplicate numbers.  It was pointed out to me today by someone smarter than me, that you are correct in your assessment.  Each stage was sorted from top to bottom irrespective of shooter to then they ran the average for each stage >=95%.  The numbers this way match the new PST spreadsheet.  

[JM_]

@Hoops if you want to see something interesting... Next year they are likely going to deploy the exact same equation to times. If we use the same times shot this year, apply the new PST's and average from 95% and up, PST's are going to drop drastically again next year after 2025 WSSC. putting RFPI closer to 66, RFRO closer to 60, etc...

[GKB]

Yearly changing the PSTs is how they ensure it's both fair and fun.

 

[Hoops]

35 minutes ago, JM_ said:

@Hoops if you want to see something interesting... Next year they are likely going to deploy the exact same equation to times. If we use the same times shot this year, apply the new PST's and average from 95% and up, PST's are going to drop drastically again next year after 2025 WSSC. putting RFPI closer to 66, RFRO closer to 60, etc...

I ran my classification numbers this morning.  Not pretty.  I’ve resigned myself to just focus on being able to shoot.  There’s no reason to follow classifications anymore.  Especially with 2022 looming in a couple of my divisions I haven’t shot much this year.  Classes B and C will be piled up.  As they say….it is what it is.

[Hoops]

2 hours ago, JM_ said:

@Hoops if you want to see something interesting... Next year they are likely going to deploy the exact same equation to times. If we use the same times shot this year, apply the new PST's and average from 95% and up, PST's are going to drop drastically again next year after 2025 WSSC. putting RFPI closer to 66, RFRO closer to 60, etc...

Jesse, you’re probably correct.  I’ve been a businessman all my adult career.  I tend to look at most things regarding SCSA through the lens of both a sport and a business.  The business needs new members, especially given that non-members can shoot as much as they want to without joining.  Until HQ decides to look at adding new stages, the basic product….8 stages won’t change.  So the question to me is what is being marketed to the new shooters and to those longtime members that aren’t blessed with the amazing skills and talent possessed by you and a few others.  It’s an interesting question if you think about it.  But I’m just one old guy.  

[Renno]

25 minutes ago, Hoops said:

So the question to me is what is being marketed to the new shooters and to those longtime members that aren’t blessed with the amazing skills and talent possessed by you and a few others. 

 

It can be seen as a revitalization of classification based competition. Lowering peak times means more competitors in C-M if individuals choose to reclassify. Competitors will migrate to their fitting class and increase that population at each match. This will lead to more recognition for these classes in terms of awards at majors and WSSC slots at Area matches for them. This is particularly good for GMs who were just over the 95% mark prior to the PST change because they no longer have to compete against the top end GMs at 120%+ in their class results. That was the biggest complaint I've heard about the class system in recent years. The cost it comes with is that ranking up now takes more work, but everyone will fit more accurately into their classification since the margins are widened. I think these benefits create a fairer environment for competitors of all skill levels

[Hoops]

@Renno, you may be spot on.  Time will tell.  

[JM_]

2 minutes ago, Renno said:

 

It can be seen as a revitalization of classification based competition. Lowering peak times means more competitors in C-M if individuals choose to reclassify. Competitors will migrate to their fitting class and increase that population at each match. This will lead to more recognition for these classes in terms of awards at majors and WSSC slots at Area matches for them. This is particularly good for GMs who were just over the 95% mark prior to the PST change because they no longer have to compete against the top end GMs at 120%+ in their class results. That was the biggest complaint I've heard about the class system in recent years. The cost it comes with is that ranking up now takes more work, but everyone will fit more accurately into their classification since the margins are widened. I think these benefits create a fairer environment for competitors of all skill levels

This will be difficult for people at first, but everyone will need to shift their perspective on what the ranks mean now. M class with current peak times means you have worked hard to get better, but GM is the real goal. After peak times change, M class will mean you have become one of the best, but now you really need to dig in and find everything that it takes to hit GM. Times being faster just means A and M class mean so much more, you've worked hard to earn them. I think over time people will shift their perspective and look at M and say "Wow, you are truely one of the best and have worked hard for this" and they see GM and think "Holy Crap, this person had worked their butt off for years!"

 

I would be one of the first to request myself to lose my GM if I wasn't good enough to be in that class.

 

I do hope it encourages people to work harder and to build this sport into something highly competetive in all classes. That paired with the casual side is what will keep SCSA alive. 

[Hoops]

@JM_ Area and WSSC matches aside for a moment.  This probably won’t be received very well, but in my opinion, the PST’s alone should not be the sole source if classification correction is a goal.  There are other factors that could address this as well that may be more balanced if the perception is too many GM or M’s.  First is the minimum of 4 stages shot that doesn’t include Outer Limits and Speed Option.  The second would be an automatic reclassification for all shooters each year when the rolling drop off of previous years goes into effect.  For example, I earned M class in RFRO and PCCO at age 69.  I’m now 73 and had 4 lower back surgeries in 24 months.  I requested a reclassification to A and was granted it in PCCO.  But in January I’ll be A actual in RFRO based on my scores this year.  Would it not be more broadly equitable solution to have automatic annual classification adjustment?

[JM_]

7 minutes ago, Hoops said:

@JM_ Area and WSSC matches aside for a moment.  This probably won’t be received very well, but in my opinion, the PST’s alone should not be the sole source if classification correction is a goal.  There are other factors that could address this as well that may be more balanced if the perception is too many GM or M’s.  First is the minimum of 4 stages shot that doesn’t include Outer Limits and Speed Option.  The second would be an automatic reclassification for all shooters each year when the rolling drop off of previous years goes into effect.  For example, I earned M class in RFRO and PCCO at age 69.  I’m now 73 and had 4 lower back surgeries in 24 months.  I requested a reclassification to A and was granted it in PCCO.  But in January I’ll be A actual in RFRO based on my scores this year.  Would it not be more broadly equitable solution to have automatic annual classification adjustment?

100% agree that classifications should be reset to where your % lands after peak time changes. However the power that be is not in agreeance. Agreed on atleast 4 stages. I wouldn't even be opposed to more.

[GKB]

So what is the actual purpose of the PSTs?  To set the top of what is possible (current effect) or to spread out the competitors by relative skill?

 

Setting it based on high performers at WSSC puts a gap between the top 0.1% and the rest of the sport as the people setting these numbers are out performing even those rated as a GM (the ones "only" shooting 95-100%).

 

3 of the Divisions have less than 1% currently classified as GM up through one with 13.4% as GM.

 

And it's a bell-shaped distribution.  It's easy to get out of "D" class.  A good (say "A" class or better) current Steel Challenge shooter should be able to classify as "C" in their first match in about any other division if they've done one or two practice sessions.  (In fact I did that, shooting a "C" match in OPEN having never shot any match from a holster draw before.)

 

Edited July 23 by GKB

[Hoops]

@GKB it’s interesting to me that your distribution never seems to garner much comment or debate.

 

@JM_. @Renno  do you guys ever see information like this?  Curious your thoughts.

[Renno]

@GKB the PSTs are used to spread out classifications, they are top level times but not necessarily the best times possible. Per the bylaws they have to be set based on the results of WSSC each year. This is not based solely on the top performers but rather the results of the whole division (from my understanding). I think some divisions should de reworked with slower PSTs but that's just me.

 

I think the wide range of GM players in low ready divisions is evidence that the PSTs were too slow to balance that class out. Its not so much about the population of GMs in each division thats the issue, but rather the range of scores in that class was too wide. We have 95% fresh GMs complaining they had to compete against 150% GMs. Lowering the PSTs solved this problem and placed everyone in classes they are more appropriate to be competing in

[Hoops]

Can someone point me to the language for using WSSC and PST’s?  I’ve read it several times but can’t locate it via small print size using my phone.

 

Thanks

[joseywales]

[GKB]

The 2 divisions with the highest percentage of GMs are PCCI (13.4%) and RFRI (9.1%).  It looks to be that these are double-dipping GMs that are making GM in one (probably Optics) and then shooting the other.  It's seems Irons and Optics aren't much difference in skills for the rifles.

     RFRI has 82 of it's 94 GMs are also GMs in RFRO (87.2%)

     PCCI has 47 of it's 62 GMs are also GM in PCCO (75.8%)

 

Seems the RFR and PCC skills are interchangeable, also.

     PCCO has 111 of it's 134 GMs are also GM in RFRO (82.8%)

 

While RFPI only has 2.4% of it's shooters as GMs, it has the same rate of cross over of it's GMs to optics.

     RFPI has 38 of it's 49 GMs are also GMs in RFPO (77.6%)

Edited July 24 by GKB

[Hoops]

@Renno as shown above, the use of WSSC as the basis for PST's is not a by-law requirement but rather an administrative statement that was added to the Classification appendix in the rules.  The calculation method is not noted so it has been a WIP since 2016.  

 

Is there a direct correlation of the effect of recent changes to PST's and the number's of members who shoot matches?  I think that would be very difficult to assess. But, regardless of the extent of the changes, every SCSA member/shooter will be affected by PST's. 

 

I was wondering how many members shot at least one match/division in 2023 vs 2024 and I decided to put together the table below.  The table below does not indicate how many matches a member shot......just how many members have shot a division at least one time.  It does not show how many divisions shot by the same individual.  Only individual names listed in 2023 and 2024 only in steelrankings.com.

 

I was surprised by the numbers.  Yes, we are only in July so there are several months left.  But I would have expected many of the people who shot in 2023 would have shot at least one match/division by now in 2024.  It will be curious how many new people shoot in the future or how many people that may shoot another division by the end of the year.  I'll come back in December and look.  

 

Number of members who shot at least 1 match in a division.

 

 

[GKB]

On 7/23/2024 at 8:59 PM, Renno said:

We have 95% fresh GMs complaining they had to compete against 150% GMs.

 

Other than WSSC and, maybe, Nationals, how often do the top performers who are setting the PSTs actually shoot a L1 or L2 match?

 

People like KC, Max M, Doug K, etc. are usually shooting other leagues and show up just to shoot WSSC.

 

That said, I routinely shoot matches with the #6 (128%) and #10 (124%) ranked shooters in my primary division.  (So, Yes, some of them do shoot L1 on a regular basis.)  I like watching the top performers shoot and it pushes me to be better.  As an "M", does it make it any better that they still shot a faster time than me then if I was a "GM"?

Edited July 25 by GKB

[JM_]

3 minutes ago, GKB said:

 

Other than WSSC and, maybe, Nationals, how often do the top performers who are setting the PSTs actually shoot a L1 or L2 match?

 

People like KC, Max M, Doug K, etc. are usually shooting other leagues and show up just to shoot WSSC.

 

That said, I routinely shoot matches with the #6 (128%) and #10 (124%) ranked shooters in my primary division.  (So, Yes, some of them do shoot L1 on a regular basis.)  I like watching the top performers shoot and it pushes me to be better.  As an "M", does it make it any better that they still shot a faster time than me then if I was a "GM"?

On the Eastern half of the state, Myself, Adam, and Lance shoot quite a few L2 matches. The South East has its own trend setters that people have to deal with too. L1 is usually not an issue for GM on GM competition. And we all attend many Area matches, Area 2, 3, 5, 8 are what I'm shooting/have shot this year. 

 

Now, I say this just to answer your question, my opinions on peak times have changed a lot in the last few days because everyone is still left in the dark about how these times are being applied over the long term. I think we need to ditch the current times we have now and build them off of common sense of our demographic.

[Hoops]

There may be a glitch in my table.  I need to double check.

 

2023 may include activity from 2021 and 2022.  But since it’s individual names and not how many matches shot, I’m beginning to wonder how many names have not shot at least one match in 2024 and why?

 

I need to step back and think about it.

[shred]

1 hour ago, JM_ said:

Now, I say this just to answer your question, my opinions on peak times have changed a lot in the last few days because everyone is still left in the dark about how these times are being applied over the long term. I think we need to ditch the current times we have now and build them off of common sense of our demographic.

Yeah, there's a still a problem if the top "GM" is supposed to be the top 5% of shooters or just the people capable of shooting top-5% scores across the board.    IMO if the bell-curve smashes everyone into say B class, classifications will become irrelevant to most (around here I'd guess half the match doesn't care about them already).