SCSA - Classification System 10.0

[Hoops]

38 minutes ago, GKB said:

 

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".

Not a bad guess for an old man.

 

I’m glad you posted this.  It underscores my belief that SCSA.org is too focused on GM scores from too small a sampling.  
 

Your same analysis for B and C would show  this.   IMO

[Joe4d]

Make high hit factor 0  seconds. Which is impossible,  tests should be made so that no one can get 100%.. 100 PER 100 by definition is all you can get. If someone gets more than 100 per 100 your system is jacked up.
A HHF of Zero means everyone will fall as a percentage of that,, then do your bell curve..
Yes its gonna show alot more A-GM shooters than actually exist at a match,, but thats probably due to them being the only ones that care enough to pay a membership..
I mean come on,, its steel challenge,, same handful of stages,, over and over and over.... Its like playboy for married guys... Same centerfold every month. I cant believe very many people not on this forum even care.

[Hoops]

This may be counter intuitive based on the log jam of B and C shooters which is driven by PST’s.  On the assumption that PST’s will be adjusted to reflect a reasonable baseline for all classes, I would recommend that unless OL or SO is shot, classifications should be flagged and capped at A-class.  
 

Since the percentages by class was an arbitrary assessment and copied from USPSA, I would recommend the following changes to the classification structure.  I believe this would address the log jam at B/C and the disproportionally low numbers in A and M.

 

D=0-34.99%
C=35-54.99%
B=55-69.99%
A=70-79.99%
M=80-94.99%
GM= 95.00% up

 

 

 

[Hoops]

@Joe4d I understood from your previous posts that you no longer shoot these sports.  Am I mis-informed?

[GKB]

23 minutes ago, Hoops said:

D=0-34.99%
C=35-54.99%
B=55-69.99%
A=70-79.99%
M=80-94.99%
GM= 95.00% up

 

What is the logic in B being 15% "wide", A is 10% and M is 15%?

 

I could better understand a 15%-15%-10% split since it's harder to get the time to get out of M.

[shred]

Requiring OL and SO (esp without allowing for reduced-size plates) is a non-starter and recipe for massive sandbagging, as explained elsewhere.

 

[Hoops]

2 minutes ago, GKB said:

 

What is the logic in B being 15% "wide", A is 10% and M is 15%?

 

I could better understand a 15%-15%-10% split since it's harder to get the time to get out of M.

First blush for feedback and comment.  I expected it.

 

D is short lived.  C and B have been log jammed….high….A and M appear suppressed.

 

Initial thoughts outside the norm.  

 

[Hoops]

2 minutes ago, shred said:

Requiring OL and SO (esp without allowing for reduced-size plates) is a non-starter and recipe for massive sandbagging, as explained elsewhere.

 

I’m not understanding sandbagging?  Example?

[shred]

21 minutes ago, Hoops said:

I’m not understanding sandbagging?  Example?

Local hero shoots on a range that only has 25 yard bays.  Gets really good, but is capped in A class because reasons.  All the local "legit A's" get upset because this guy keeps destroying them in the match.  Goes to Nationals and wins A-class by a ton over all the "legit A's" who also get upset.

 

Said it in the other thread-- the main point of classifications is to see where you rank versus other shooters nationwide without needing to go shoot majors.   Artificial caps and limits break that.

 

Shooters get way more upset by sandbagging than grandbagging.

[Hoops]

4 minutes ago, shred said:

Local hero shoots on a range that only has 25 yard bays.  Gets really good, but is capped in A class because reasons.  All the local "legit A's" get upset because this guy keeps destroying them in the match.  Goes to Nationals and wins A-class by a ton over all the "legit A's" who also get upset.

 

Said it in the other thread-- the main point of classifications is to see where you rank versus other shooters nationwide without needing to go shoot majors.   Artificial caps and limits break that.

I’m thinking purely SC.

 

Local shooter shoots 5-6 of the easier stages and makes GM.

 

Goes to an Area or WSSC as GM.  Shoots OL and SO for the first time and gets beat badly for the match.  Following the match his/her %,goes down to maybe M or A.  Back home no longer shooting OL and SO and is stuck in GM?

 

Who would complain?  

[shred]

13 minutes ago, Hoops said:

I’m thinking purely SC.

 

Local shooter shoots 5-6 of the easier stages and makes GM.

 

Goes to an Area or WSSC as GM.  Shoots OL and SO for the first time and gets beat badly for the match.  Following the match his/her %,goes down to maybe M or A.  Back home no longer shooting OL and SO and is stuck in GM?

 

Who would complain?  

Yeah, that's very common.  Look at USPSA Nationals results.  There's lots of GM's all the way down to 70% or so.  Some had a bad day or gun problems, some are older or don't practice anymore, some just cherry picked classifiers to get there.  Way less people complain about that than the A or B class dude in the top 10 that always walks off with the trophies (let alone class prizes).

 

The thinking a dude that can GM the other 6 stages can't put together a decent run on OL or SO I think is wrong, especially since they're unlikely to show up blind at WSSC without ever shooting them or a simulation of them.  I hadn't shot SO or OL at all for three years even in practice (and didn't even do much SC practice at all) and still beat my previous-best time on it in M Open and was 0.1 second slower on OL, so they don't take much in the way of unique, special skills.

 

 

[Hoops]

5 minutes ago, shred said:

Yeah, that's very common.  Look at USPSA Nationals results.  There's lots of GM's all the way down to 70% or so.  Some had a bad day or gun problems, some are older or don't practice anymore, some just cherry picked classifiers to get there.  Way less people complain about that than the A or B class dude in the top 10 that always walks off with the trophies (let alone class prizes).

 

The thinking a dude that can GM the other 6 stages can't put together a decent run on OL or SO I think is wrong, especially since they're not going to show up blind at WSSC without ever shooting them.  I hadn't shot SO or OL at all for three years even in practice and still beat my previous-best time on it in M Open and was 0.1 second slower on OL.

 

 

@shred 

 

1.  I personally know of a local GM that when he shot OL and SO in his first match it was not pretty.  You are an accomplished shooter in USPSA and SC from way back.  Not many have your background.

 

2.  If the GM shoots OL and SO for the first time before an Area or WSSC, chances are they will be at a huge disadvantage.

 

3.  Capping suggestion was to deal with artificial GM’s (frankly I would not want it).  Maybe not the answer.  Maybe not a concern.

 

4.  Classifications, in my opinion, will not be fully resolved by changing PST’s alone.  Especially if they are continually lowered.  My thoughts here….tossed out to Enos world….is merely to exchange thoughts about both the classification percentages in conjunction with PST’s.  If changes are made to the class formula, the sport won’t suffer….maybe the 99% settle into reasonable classes and the top 1% still win and set records.  Just fodder for thought.

[shred]

in USPSA there are plenty of GMs that can tear up local matches and have basically zero chance to win Nationals because the top dozen or so are just better. Within that group there's usually only two or three shooters that are just a bit better still and the odds-on favorites to win.  Nobody seems to care much.   Most of the GMs still beat most of the Ms and on down the line.

 

I don't really get why there's so much noise around "GM" in SCSA.

[Darqusoull13]

11 minutes ago, shred said:

I don't really get why there's so much noise around "GM" in SCSA.

Same reason people complain about everything. It's easier to complain than practice. 

[schmidtg]

4 hours ago, shred said:

in USPSA there are plenty of GMs that can tear up local matches and have basically zero chance to win Nationals because the top dozen or so are just better. Within that group there's usually only two or three shooters that are just a bit better still and the odds-on favorites to win.  Nobody seems to care much.   Most of the GMs still beat most of the Ms and on down the line.

 

I don't really get why there's so much noise around "GM" in SCSA.

 

Top 1% vs Top .01%.  Letter classification is far less meaningful than percentile rank, especially when one's percentile rank for GM differs across divisions (current for SCSA CO it's top 1%, but top 4% or so for PCCO).

[GKB]

On 8/16/2024 at 8:30 PM, schmidtg said:

percentile rank for GM differs across divisions (current for SCSA CO it's top 1%, but top 4% or so for PCCO).

 

The percentage across divisions is not constant but it's skewed by the similar divisions making it easier for a GM in one to be a GM in another.  This is a big part why PCCI has 13.4% of it's total shooters are GMs as 75% of them are also PCCO GMs.

 

    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%)

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

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

 

 

Edited August 19 by GKB

[bigdawgbeav]

3 hours ago, GKB said:

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

 

 

 

I'm one of the 15 that is NOT a PCCO GM while holding a PCCI GM.

[GKB]

42 minutes ago, bigdawgbeav said:

I'm one of the 15 that is NOT a PCCO GM while holding a PCCI GM.

 

Are you classified in PCCO, RFRO, and/or RFRI?

 

The point is there is often a lot of overlap of common skills that if you can be successful in one of these 4 divisions you're probably pretty close to the same skillset in all of them.

 

If you have a classification in one of the other 3, I'm guess you are an "A" or better.

 

I'm a mid "M" in RFRO and shot a "B" in RFRI my first (and only) time out with it.  Without some issues with the rifle, it probably would have been an "A" (4xA, 2xB, 2xC stages).

[Hoops]

5 hours ago, GKB said:

 

The percentage across divisions is not constant but it's skewed by the similar divisions making it easier for a GM in one to be a GM in another.  This is a big part why PCCI has 13.4% of it's total shooters are GMs as 75% of them are also PCCO GMs.

 

    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%)

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

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

 

 

Are these based on actual % shot and not by Letter?

 

At the moment, I’m not aware of any data that would include both Letter and current percentages.  Do you?

 

Example: Name/GM/%(M)

[GKB]

24 minutes ago, Hoops said:

Are these based on actual % shot and not by Letter?

 

At the moment, I’m not aware of any data that would include both Letter and current percentages.  Do you?

 

I pulled the data from STEEL RANKINGS.

 

GMs are easy, since you just grab all of the USPSA ID numbers that are >94.99% for a division.

Do the same thing for a 2nd division you want to compare.

Then determine how many of the ID numbers from list #1 are in list #2.

[bigdawgbeav]

20 hours ago, GKB said:

 

Are you classified in PCCO, RFRO, and/or RFRI?

 

The point is there is often a lot of overlap of common skills that if you can be successful in one of these 4 divisions you're probably pretty close to the same skillset in all of them.

 

If you have a classification in one of the other 3, I'm guess you are an "A" or better.

 

I'm a mid "M" in RFRO and shot a "B" in RFRI my first (and only) time out with it.  Without some issues with the rifle, it probably would have been an "A" (4xA, 2xB, 2xC stages).

yes, i'm M in the other 3.  

[JM_]

On 8/14/2024 at 6:13 PM, shred said:

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.

Not to toot my own horn. But in PCCO and PCCI I set match records and 4 stage records per gun within those run. None of my runs were zero or hero., I just out competed everyone who has ever shot.

[Renno]

I would guess that only 5% or less of stage records are zero/hero runs. The kind of competitor who can shoot that time isn't going to jepordize their match standing by risking stages like that. Obviously burn downs happen but I wouldn't call that zero/hero if you already have 4 solid strings in the bank. More like capitalizing on your consistent runs which were likely slower than your top end speed anyway

 

Of my two records, one was a bad first string where I shot the remaining four safe. The other record had a makeup on the clock just shooting normally

Edited August 23 by Renno

[shred]

Nearly all of the records in the "old days" at Piru with all of two (thus highly-attended) divisions were set by people who had crashed out of the match and were looking for stage cash.

 

Now there's 14 or 15 divisions, maybe less so, but still has anyone put together a match of all records on every stage?

 

 

[Renno]

The only payout is in the overall now

 

Most of JM's WSSC division times were composed of mostly stage records when he shot them. @JM_ which division was the most saturated? 

 

It's possible to make high risk runs for records but that's not what's happening now. The fact that no one has put all world records together in a match is not evidence that the standing records are unrealistic at match pace, but rather that it's really hard to perform perfectly for that long as humans with brains that think too much