SCSA - Classification System 10.0

[Hoops]

I started this to separate this discussion from the PST discussion even though they are connected.

 

@jrdoran has spent countless hours developing Steelrankings.com which is actual percentage based.

 

The question that keeps coming up is what does GM class represent?  Is there a perceived ratio as a standard?

 

Factors that affect classification:

 

1. Four stages….any…required to earn a class.  All stages are Classifiers.  Shooting the remaining stages could drop the actual percentage but not the Letter.

2. Changing PST’s.

3. The annual dropping of the third year.

4.  Active shooters/members aging out of classification’s (me as example) and the desire of “I earned it….I’m keeping it.”

5.  Inactive members.

 

 

Without knowing, I’m guessing that the grouping by Letter class much different than grouping by current percentages.  

PST’s is the obvious thing we look at but in my opinion the classification system is very fluid.

Comments?

 

 

 

[shred]

How about "Why is 'GM' all anyone seems to care about?

 

 

[Hoops]

6 minutes ago, shred said:

How about "Why is 'GM' all anyone seems to care about?

 

 

Personally I don’t think GM’s alone should be a factor.  According to Zack, there is no perceived ratio.  If you earn it….you get it.

 

The disruption in classifications occurs when new PST’s are changed.  Essentially If peak times are based on too much influence by the fastest guns.

 

BTW…..who decided that the third year would be dropped? Two years actual shooting plus the upcoming new year.   I’ve never found minutes or bylaws on this.  Anyone know?

[zzt]

If the distribution of classifications were on a smooth bell curve, half of all shooters would be on the B/C/D side of the curve and A/M/GM would be on the other half.  The curve doesn't look anything like that now.

[Umbrarian]

Throw out PSTs, rank against World Record.

[AR_James]

28 minutes ago, Umbrarian said:

Throw out PSTs, rank against World Record.

 

The folks that are upset over the changing PSTs would love this.  

 

If you combined each individual world record stage time for RFPI the new PST would be 58.54.  

[42ATK]

37 minutes ago, Umbrarian said:

Throw out PSTs, rank against World Record.

Disagree. The spike per shooter in the top 50 is insane. Normal distribution for PSTs based on ideal share per normal curve %. I.e GM is top 1%, M is top 10%, A is top 25%, and so on. If you went by one data source - World Record - how do you vet those records? How do you know it wasn’t cheated? Etc

Edited August 14 by 42ATK

[Umbrarian]

4 minutes ago, AR_James said:

 

The folks that are upset over the changing PSTs would love this.  

 

If you combined each individual world record stage time for RFPI the new PST would be 58.54.  

 

3 minutes ago, 42ATK said:

Disagree. The spike per shooter in the top 50 is insane. Normal distribution for PSTs based on ideal share per normal curve %. I.e GM is top 1%, M is top 10%, A is top 25%, and so on. If you went by one data source - World Record - how do you vet those records? How do you know it wasn’t cheated? Etc

 

 

YMMV.

 

The only thing that matters to me is how I compare to the best. Comparing my score to an artificially reduced score is a participation trophy. Letting me keep a ranking I am no longer capable of is even sillier. Siller yet is how so many folks get worked up over this.

[AR_James]

4 minutes ago, Umbrarian said:

 

The only thing that matters to me is how I compare to the best. Comparing my score to an artificially reduced score is a participation trophy. Letting me keep a ranking I am no longer capable of is even sillier. Siller yet is how so many folks get worked up over this.

 

Agreed

 

[42ATK]

29 minutes ago, Umbrarian said:

 

 

 

YMMV.

 

The only thing that matters to me is how I compare to the best. Comparing my score to an artificially reduced score is a participation trophy. Letting me keep a ranking I am no longer capable of is even sillier. Siller yet is how so many folks get worked up over this.

World records are an artificially inflated score. Using an amalgamation of world/national/area matches makes sense. WR does not

[Umbrarian]

55 minutes ago, 42ATK said:

World records are an artificially inflated score. 

If someone actually shoots it, it cannot be artificial.

 

[42ATK]

1 hour ago, Umbrarian said:

If someone actually shoots it, it cannot be artificial.

 

We shouldn’t base the entire sport on artificial hero runs.

[shred]

World Records are per stage, often hero-or-zero.  Match results are per-match.  AFAIK nobody's managed to put together an entire match of World Records on each and every stage at a major.

[Umbrarian]

44 minutes ago, shred said:

World Records are per stage, often hero-or-zero.  Match results are per-match. 

 

There are world records per stage and per match. Since PSTs are per stage, you would use world records per stage too. It is just a different number, but everyone can easily see and understand how it is calculated. Most sports (swimming, track, etc), use the raw number for comparison.

[shred]

Yeah, but those sports generally don't use best-lap times, they use total overall time.  Lap records can be set by people that know they are out of it swinging for the fences and hooking up.  More accurate would be to take the top 5 or 10 total times at the WSSC and use the stage times from those shooters.  It still might have an 'outlier' problem, but less so.

 

 

[Umbrarian]

27 minutes ago, shred said:

Yeah, but those sports generally don't use best-lap times, they use total overall time.  Lap records can be set by people that know they are out of it swinging for the fences and hooking up.  More accurate would be to take the top 5 or 10 total times at the WSSC and use the stage times from those shooters.  It still might have an 'outlier' problem, but less so.

 

 

 

Well it was not meant as a serious proposal for BOD to take up. I was just throwing it out there as it solved 2 problems, 1) transparency because anyone can get the 8 WR and do the calculation, 2) Since WRs do not drop as fast as PSTs, folks do not have to overcome as much each year to get to next class. But it does introduce other problems which have not even been mentioned.

 

I do not see the lap time analogy, we are not using individual strings, but complete runs on a COF. So not fastest 50m length in 200 fly, but all all lengths combined for final score. Likewise not using best string, but all strings for given COF combined for final score. PSTs are calculated same way. One PST number for each COF, or one WR for each COF.

 

I understand the swinging for fences issue, but looking at WR scores, they are only a few percentage points higher than winning match scores. In CO for example, WR is 71.43, and BJ best math is 75.37.

Edited August 15 by Umbrarian

[AR_James]

2 hours ago, shred said:

More accurate would be to take the top 5 or 10 total times at the WSSC and use the stage times from those shooters.  It still might have an 'outlier' problem, but less so.

 

 

 

Took the top 11 (95% or higher of the current PST) RFPI match results from 2024 WSSC.  Average of the eleven match times was 76.06 seconds (current PST is 80).  This is 4.13 seconds faster than using the formula Mr. Misco put forth, and 4.11 seconds slower than the previously approved (now on hold) 2025 PST adjustments.  Cuts the difference between the two formulas almost exactly in half.  Interesting...

[Hoops]

It’s interesting how much focus is on PST’s, which I agree is big….especially if the 2025 published times had not been rescinded.

 

I had hoped for a more robust discussion regarding the classification system.  When USPSA purchased SCSA, there was a lot of copy and paste in the SC rule set.  Four classifiers to earn a classification….. and the same percentages from D to GM without any analysis of differences between the two sports.  Is this important in present day?  I think so, but I could be in minority.

 

The biggest difference is USPSA has a ton of classifiers.  Typically a match has one classifier….but not always.  In recent years USPSA has developed more action classifiers other than the historical stand and shoot.  Their classification system is a bit more complicated with flags and exceptions than SC.  Is this material?  Perhaps.  
 

I shot some USPSA but I am not intimately familiar with sport as I am with SC.  It is my understanding that the outcomes of National matches has no bearing on the USPSA scoring system for a host of reasons.  
 

SC is not USPSA.  Eight and eight only classifiers.  Simple strategy, test of speed vs accuracy.  Super fun….super frustrating at times too (no pun).  Typically shoot one match and you earn a classification.  For most people when they first shoot OL and SO, their percentages drop.  
 

Unlike USPSA, my estimation is that between 30 to maybe 40 SC shooters out of 1,000’s of members directly affect our classification’s and classification system each year the WSSC is used as the new baseline.  Interesting when you think about it.  
 

 

 

[Hoops]

Maybe find a fair and representative PST and leave it alone.  Let the amazing shooters do their thing, but don’t let this affect the classification system for 98% of the members?  

Another metric for leaving the classification and PST’s alone would be how often a members actually shoots their classification in matches.  Overall it’s less than 10%.  

 

Edited August 15 by Hoops
Added text

[shred]

USPSA _used_ to set classifier HHFs from setting those stages up at Nationals and taking the best scores from there.

 

With the plethora of Nationals now that happens less so they've been doing a "provisional" thing where clubs set them up.. more or less... and shoot them and send in the scores and then someone eyeballs the scores and says "10.23 HHF is about right".  

 

 

[Hoops]

16 minutes ago, shred said:

USPSA _used_ to set classifier HHFs from setting those stages up at Nationals and taking the best scores from there.

 

With the plethora of Nationals now that happens less so they've been doing a "provisional" thing where clubs set them up.. more or less... and shoot them and send in the scores and then someone eyeballs the scores and says "10.23 HHF is about right".  

 

 

Clubs set them up and set factor?  Are these predetermined “beta test” clubs?  Would they get scores from 3 clubs and average the HHF?

[Hoops]

@shred dumb question.  Are Nationals used to determine classifications for future use or is it just a championship match?

[Gregg K]

2 hours ago, shred said:

With the plethora of Nationals now that happens less so they've been doing a "provisional" thing where clubs set them up.. more or less... and shoot them and send in the scores and then someone eyeballs the scores and says "10.23 HHF is about right". 

This is pretty crazy. "More or less" is right. I have seen 3 clubs setup the same stage and they all looked different so I don't have much faith in this process.

[shred]

2 hours ago, Hoops said:

Clubs set them up and set factor?  Are these predetermined “beta test” clubs?  Would they get scores from 3 clubs and average the HHF?

 

No.  The drawing gets published and whoever wants to sets them up accordingly.   Sometimes they get that wrong, sometimes there's timer failures or shenanigans...  They try to weed those out but who knows if they get them all.

 

1 hour ago, Hoops said:

@shred dumb question.  Are Nationals used to determine classifications for future use or is it just a championship match?

 

They were used to set the HHF for the future, then sometimes they'd be changed if it became very very obvious that it was too high or too low, but for decades they didn't even do that.

 

3 minutes ago, Gregg K said:

This is pretty crazy. "More or less" is right. I have seen 3 clubs setup the same stage and they all looked different so I don't have much faith in this process.

 

Yup, it's not at all rigorous, so don't look to USPSA for answers on that front.

[GKB]

7 hours ago, Hoops said:

Let the amazing shooters do their thing, but don’t let this affect the classification system for 98% of the members?

 

There's 9907 active (shot a match in the last 2 years) STEEL CHALLENGE shooters.  2% of that is 198.  There aren't 198 "Super GMs".

 

There are 102 Classifications that are at 115+%, but that is only 37 people.  (I picked 115 and up for "Super GM".  Too low?  Too high?)

 

So it's more like "for 99.6% of the members".

Edited August 15 by GKB