Classifier Cm3-08

[10mmdave]

Okay, no comments over in the other forum on this so I'll try here !

Shot this last week, course description was shoot all 7 targets, reload, shoot all 7 again,

easy enough. So for the 6 shot revo folks the description was, shoot 6, reload, shoot 1,

reload, shoot 6, reload, shoot 1 !

Have any of you folks shot this classifier and is that how you shot it ??

Just wondering, Thanks.

DaveP

[smithy625]

Shot this classifier last year in Salt Lake city just like you said. Shoot 6 reload, shoot 1 reload shoot 6 realod for the last shot. I was not very proud of my time or the classifier.

Kal

[pskys2]

Yes, on a course like this I like to take the first shot at the open target and definitely reload on an open target, as it helps for a bit faster reload.

Best of 3 runs (in 1 year at 2 clubs!) was 14.85 with a 4.444 HF 61.5%.

The fastest run was 13.88 with a 4.398 HF 60%.

This was a real tough one for a Revo, and not very friendly.

Good Luck,

Dave

[Walt S]

Yes, you shoot all 7 rounds as you have stated. I often hear that some classifiers are not revolver friendly. Sooooooooooo what. We only compete with other revolvers. Plus there are 6 round shooters, 7 round and 8 round. shooters.

NOT A PROBLEM

[10mmdave]

Guess I should have made my post a little clearer,

I know we only shoot against other revolver shooters, and only 6 shooters, once you

fire 7 it's bye bye revo class, hello open !

What I wanted to know was how did others shoot this stage, a poster over on the USPSA

classifier section gave the impression he shot 3 wheels as opposed to 4.

I can't see anywhere where it's listed as to how a revo shooter (or someone with less than

7 rnds) should shoot this stage, if we are not all shooting it under the same set of

directions then the classifier becomes useless (imho).

I guess the "shoot T1 thru T7, reload, shoot T1 thru T7" part implies a way to shoot it but

no where does it say I have to do a mandatory reload before I start the array again.

Example: Shoot T1 thru T6, reload, shoot T7, T1 thru T5, reload, shoot T6 & T7

I've done the mandatory reload haven't I ? Twice even

If we all shot it the same way then great, and as long as every other revo class shooter

shoots it that way then there's nooooo problem

But I'm sure this question as well as many more will come up as more and more revo's

enter the USPSA arena, best to start clearing up the issues now than to let it come up on

match day.

But what do I know, I'm only a newbie to this IPSC stuff

[Carmoney]

Dave, I read the other thread and didn't get the idea that the revolver guy posting there shot this classifier differently--I think he said he shot it with 3 reloads, not in 3 wheels.

But regardless, you are exactly right. A case can be made for allowing the 3-wheel option you describe. It would be clearer if the instructions said:

"Upon start signal, from Box A only, engage T1-T7

with only one round per target, THEN perform a mandatory reload

and reengage T1-T7 with only one round per target."

But the word THEN does not appear in the actual instructions.

These instructions are ambiguous as they relate to the revolver division, and that creates a big friggin' problem. Shooters at various matches around the country will send in classifier results using both interpretations, and as a result there will be error in the system. I've decided not to worry about it, since the classification system is so messed up as it relates to revolver division anyway....but it's a real issue when one of these comes up at a bigger match.

We discussed the exact same issue with 03-06 ("A Barrel of Fun") last year--people from different clubs were shooting it two different ways, with both sending them on in to Sedro. When 03-06 came up at Area 3 last year, I specifically asked the ROs on that stage how other wheelgunners were shooting it, and requested an advance ruling on how they would respond if a shooter tried to do it in 3 wheels instead of 4. They should not have answered the question (other than to re-read the description and then stand there looking at me)--but I'm glad they did--indicating they would assign procedurals to a revolver shooter attempting to do it in 3 wheels. I tended to agree with them (although the more I think about it, the more I question that interpretation), and since everybody else was doing it the same way, I had no interest in pushing the issue.

Y'know, the longer I look at this, the more convinced I am that Dave's 3-wheel option (described in his second post above) would be perfectly legal, under the instructions as they are written--every target would be "re-engaged" after the requisite mandatory reload (or two).....

[10mmdave]

Dave, I read the other thread and didn't get the idea that the revolver guy posting there shot this classifier differently--I think he said he shot it with 3 reloads, not in 3 wheels.

I re-read those old posts Mike and yes I agree, the poster did say 3 reloads which I would

have to assume means 4 wheels.....my bad.

But regardless, you are exactly right. A case can be made for allowing the 3-wheel option you describe. It would be clearer if the instructions said:

"Upon start signal, from Box A only, engage T1-T7

with only one round per target, THEN perform a mandatory reload

and reengage T1-T7 with only one round per target."

But the word THEN does not appear in the actual instructions.

Exactly !, the more I play this "game" the more I "play" the stages and the descriptions,

(I think that's bad by the way, we revo guys aren't "gamers" ) I think all it means is

that whatever higher power approves these classifiers needs to look at it from all

divisions point of view. As I said earlier, the more revo shooters shoot USPSA the more

issues will come up.

We ARE NOT a bunch of complainers, we just need to know we are playing on a level

playing field.

-snip-

Y'know, the longer I look at this, the more convinced I am that Dave's 3-wheel option (described in his second post above) would be perfectly legal, under the instructions as they are written--every target would be "re-engaged" after the requisite mandatory reload (or two).....

And what if a "name" competitor brought this up half way thru a match, even after a

MD decision !! I have to wonder what would happen with it not being written down.

Course as you stated in the section I snipped, MD makes a ruling at the begining and that

should stand for all, but I gotta wonder

[Carmoney]

Dave, you're right. There should be absolutely no "gaming" on classifiers. The instructions should be crystal clear as they apply to all divisions.

[10mmdave]

Dave, you're right. There should be absolutely no "gaming" on classifiers. The instructions should be crystal clear as they apply to all divisions.

Maybe that's a good reason to have 'Revo Squads'

The group shows up, we all "discuss" the stage, and shoot it per our agreement

Ya...that'll work

(I don't want to shoot on the all revo squad so you other folks won't see my "secrets" )

I'm not trying to start anything, just wanted to bring up the issue that classifier stages need

to be wrote up with 6 shoot max shooters playing.

But as they say, I'm preaching to the choir !

[Waltermitty]

This is coming up quite frequently with the new classifiers and other stages as well. With the 8 shot rule, many course designers are trying to throw in "mandatory" reloads to accomodate single box stages that don't simultaneously break the rule and disadvantage the 10 round divisions. Simply put, it's the easy way out to get more rounds with less course design work.

I used to see course descriptions that stated that at least one reload had to be performed in a string or a reload had to be performed when indexing from one array to another, that gives some latitude on how to shoot a course. So some people don't like it when the Open guys shoot all of the targets then blaze a reload and fire the last shot, but so what? They're gonna beat the Production guys, L10 guys, and SS stack guys anyway.

Over the past couple of weekends I saw at least four stages that were these "shoot 7 or 8 mandatory reload, shoot 7 or 8" stages. More than a couple had steel in them so were Comstock on top of it all. Just how exactly can you penalize me for doing a reload in the "wrong place" on a Comstock stage anyway? What rule allows an "FTE" or "Stacking" penalty on anything but a Virginia or fixed time course?

The 8 shot rule is simply the wrong number. If it was 6 or 12 a lot of this "mandatory reload" nonsense would go away; otherwise the only solution is conscientious course design which ain't gonna happen all by itself.

Of course, if the new SS division had been limited to 7 rounds, I'm confident this issue would be resolved quickly...I'm just sayin'...

It matters less to me what happens with classifiers because I'm not that interested in moving up in class, classifiers are usually only one low-point stage in a match, and most classifiers suck on the fun-o-meter from the get-go. But I would like to see a rule clarification on these mandatory reload rules on comstock stages at least so that there aren't so many stages requiring flat-footed reloads for one or two shots.

IMHO, the underlying problem is folks trying to design 24 - 32 round stages (both classifiers and club matches) with one shooting box and no prop construction. I've set up enough matches to understand the weather and workload factors, but it seems kinda petty to require one division to do 3x reloads just so all the bottom feeders have to do 1.

[LPatterson]

It would be clearer if the instructions said:

"Upon start signal, from Box A only, engage T1-T7

with only one round per target, THEN perform a mandatory reload

and reengage T1-T7 with only one round per target."

But the word THEN does not appear in the actual instructions.

The comma in the sentence conveys the same meaning as then does. The same as T1-T7 means T1 through T7. In reading the WSB, I would read it as "Upon start signal (pause) from Box A only (pause) engage T1 through T7 with only one round per target (Comma) perform a mandatory reload and reengage T1 through T7 with only one round per target."

I would probably add a gesture at the pause and comma.

However I will agree this is a bad couse of fire for a classifier. If the target count had been reduced to 6 with the 2 inner targets reduced to A zone only then it would have been competative for everyone.

The best way we can prevent something like this in the future is to do a better job of course design by thinking of everyone in other divisions. Every division should be presented with an equal challange.

I seem to remember something about this in my CRO class, it is a shame more CRO's aren't on more COF selection boards

[10mmdave]

It would be clearer if the instructions said:

"Upon start signal, from Box A only, engage T1-T7

with only one round per target, THEN perform a mandatory reload

and reengage T1-T7 with only one round per target."

But the word THEN does not appear in the actual instructions.

The comma in the sentence conveys the same meaning as then does. The same as T1-T7 means T1 through T7. In reading the WSB, I would read it as "Upon start signal (pause) from Box A only (pause) engage T1 through T7 with only one round per target (Comma) perform a mandatory reload and reengage T1 through T7 with only one round per target."

I would probably add a gesture at the pause and comma.

However I will agree this is a bad couse of fire for a classifier. If the target count had been reduced to 6 with the 2 inner targets reduced to A zone only then it would have been competative for everyone.

The best way we can prevent something like this in the future is to do a better job of course design by thinking of everyone in other divisions. Every division should be presented with an equal challange.

I seem to remember something about this in my CRO class, it is a shame more CRO's aren't on more COF selection boards

Or.... "A mandaory reload is required before re-aquiring T1-T7"

When you put the pauses between the words it sounds like it makes sense.

And agreed, this may be a bad COF for us revo shooters but if we all shoot it the same then

it's only us that get's frustrated, and you said what needs to be done above, but now how

do we get it done ??

(sorry for the spelling, I'm writting fast today)

[pskys2]

Actually I could care less if it's Revo friendly. What I do wish is there were enough good Revo shooters competing to give us an actual Revo score to qualify against.

Just taking a % of Limited isn't good, at least for a course like this.

I'm not sure JM is the one to do it either, but then Spook and some of the others have been creeping up on him. Heck with creeping, they stuck it to him on several stages at the WS. Made him work for the win, which is good for all.

Guess it doesn't matter, we usually end up competing heads up anyway. Like the "Good 'Ole Days"! Ha!Ha!

[AzShooter]

I think the stage description is quite clear the way it is. Anyone that doesn't shoot it this way should be given the proper procedurals.

Fortunately revolver shooters don't game stages we just shoot them the best way possible.

It's a great COF for revolver shooters. Particularly testing reloading skills and your concentration.

[Carmoney]

I think the stage description is quite clear the way it is.

AzShooter, I'm going to have to disagree with you here. As they are written, the instructions are susceptible to two different (but reasonable) interpretations. I'm not saying I'm right and you're wrong--I'm just saying there can be a reasonable debate on how those instructions can be followed.

I can virtually guarantee you that this classifier (and several others like it) is being administered inconsistently for Revo shooters at various clubs and matches around the country.

Dave W. is correct, it's all pretty much a big mess anyway. The classification system is totally screwed as it relates to revolver. The same "discount" from the Limited HHF (high hit factor) seems to accrue regardless of whether the classifier is reasonably "revolver-neutral" or not. As it stands right now, there are some classifiers that are pretty easy to max and several classifiers on which I'd bet even Jerry can't get close to the HHF. If Sedro wanted to fix it, they'd need to gather up several top revo shooters, set up the classifiers, and base the HHFs on real-life performance.

And as Dave rightly states, there are never enough Revo shooters for the class system to function correctly at a match anyway. In reality, we shoot heads-up. Like real men.

[10mmdave]

And as Dave rightly states, there are never enough Revo shooters for the class system to function correctly at a match anyway. In reality, we shoot heads-up. Like real men.

Insert Tim Allen's manly grunt here.........

[Bubber]

If the intent was to make two hits on 7 targets with out shooting any consecutively with a reload in the middle, I would of loved to be able to shoot 1 thru 6 do a reload shoot t7, t1thru t5 then reload and engage 6 and 7 one hit each. But I don't know the intent of the stage, what is the test?

[underlug]

If the intent was to make two hits on 7 targets with out shooting any consecutively with a reload in the middle, I would of loved to be able to shoot 1 thru 6 do a reload shoot t7, t1thru t5 then reload and engage 6 and 7 one hit each. But I don't know the intent of the stage, what is the test?

I don't think intent should be an issue. If a stage does not specifically require a reload or specifically preclude shooting in a particular way, the shooter should be free to solve the problem presented the most efficient way possible. Opinion is worth what you paid for it.

[Carmoney]

If the intent was to make two hits on 7 targets with out shooting any consecutively with a reload in the middle, I would of loved to be able to shoot 1 thru 6 do a reload shoot t7, t1thru t5 then reload and engage 6 and 7 one hit each. But I don't know the intent of the stage, what is the test?

I don't know anything about any test, Bubber, but in your scenario you shot 'em all with one round, you did your mandatory reload, and you re-engaged 'em all after the reload with one round each. Requiring you to do it otherwise would appear to be reading additional rules into the stage that aren't actually there.

Sounds like that scenario would've fulfilled the instructions and solved the problem in what is probably the most efficient way.

But I understand others view it differently, and therein lies the problem. And normally the ROs cannot give advisory opinions on how they're going to rule.....

[10mmdave]

If the intent was to make two hits on 7 targets with out shooting any consecutively with a reload in the middle, I would of loved to be able to shoot 1 thru 6 do a reload shoot t7, t1thru t5 then reload and engage 6 and 7 one hit each. But I don't know the intent of the stage, what is the test?

That's why I brought it up Bubber, I'm new at this and that's the way I wanted to shoot it,

then the MD comes in and says "Okay, this is pretty straight forward 1 rnd on each target,

reload, 1 rnd on each target. Oh ya, you revo guys, reload for the 7th, and then reload

before you start again"

I have no problem shooting it that way (it's stupid! but whatever) as long as everybody shoots it that way. If we're not consistant we'll always be using percentages of limited scores.

I don't think intent should be an issue. If a stage does not specifically require a reload or specifically preclude shooting in a particular way, the shooter should be free to solve the problem presented the most efficient way possible. Opinion is worth what you paid for it.

Exactly Underlug, in the rule book it does say something to that effect, please don't make

me go back and find it something about not hindering a shooter as to how to

shoot a stage !?

Oh boy !!! I have another USPSA match this weekend...wonder what I'll run into then

ICORE rules are so much easier

[Flexmoney]

I think the procedure on here is pretty clear.

> Engage T1-T7 with only one round (then)

> Perform a madatory reload (then)

> Re-engage T1-T7 with only one round

If you don't follow one of those "procedures" you get the appropriate ding.

That is how it reads, and that is how it has been run at even match that I am familar with.

And, your MD or RO can tell you how they plan to score penalties. That is what the "any questions" part at the end of every walk through is for. Find out how they plan to score it. If they tell you wrong (and run it wrong), get the stage tossed as a classifier (tough love, they gotta learn to get it right, not just wing it).

BTW, this classifier was my first choice for the Ohio match last year. Then I saw how it dicked the wheel gunners and I replace it.

You guys are dead right. The classifier sysytem is broken when it comes to Revolver. I went through the old (99 series) classifier book and marked each classifier as friendly, unfriendly, and neutral.

Don't expect USPSA to up and fix this. I don't think they know how. I don't think they see it as a large enough issue to spend the time on. They may not even be aware of how big of a problem it is.

If you guys want this fixed, then you will likely have to be the ones to fix it. Don't expect Jerry to do it. He might not have the time and ammo to dedicate to setting up and shooting all the classifiers. And, what would his incentive be anyway?

If I were a revolver shooter that wanted the classifier system fixed:

- I'd first get in touch with the area directors (etc.) and see if my effort would be accepted.

- I'd likely accept that 10% off Limited is a fair basis (for classifiers with reloads)

- I'd go through the classifiers and sort them as to which are overly friendly and which aren't friendly at all.

- Knowing the hhf (10% of limited), I would document the difference that having to perform (or not perform) the reloads makes to the hf.

I don't think there is a great need to actually shoot the classifiers. You'd just need to know how long it takes to do the reload (to an Alpha) in that particular situation. Then, factor that in to see how it would change the hf.

----------------------

I was going to go through and use this classifier as an example, but it looks like it has already been tweaked. HHF for Revolver is set at ~ 70% of Limited for this one.

[professor]

<snip>

I don't think there is a great need to actually shoot the classifiers. You'd just need to know how long it takes to do the reload (to an Alpha) in that particular situation. Then, factor that in to see how it would change the hf.

And----------------------

I was going to go through and use this classifier as an example, but it looks like it has already been tweaked. HHF for Revolver is set at ~ 70% of Limited for this one.

I agree with Flexmoney's interpretation that us revo shooters have to perform 2 extra reloads to avoid procedurals for violating the COF. Also, the new set of classifiers (CM03-xx) mostly have Revo HHF set at 70% of Ltd/L10 HHF, Pro HHF set at 85% of Ltd/L10. IF no additional reloads were required, these percentages sort of make up for the equipment differences between the divisions.

That said, let's look at what those HHFs mean in terms of the time necessary to score 100% on the classifier. The max score for CM03-08 is 70 points. Dividing by the HHF in the Ltd/Pro/Rev divisions gives the time allotted for each division's shooter to score all alphas and attain 100% on the classifier. Those times are 6.79 sec, 7.99 sec, and 9.70 sec respectively for Ltd/L10, Pro, and Rev divisions. The Pro shooter gets an additional 1.20 sec than the Ltd shooter, and performs the single reload after engaging T1-T7. The Rev shooter gets 2.91 sec more than the Ltd shooter/ and 1.71 sec more than the Pro shooter, but has to perform two additional reloads. In essence, that gives Revo shooter a whopping 0.85 seconds per reload to perform at the same level as the Pro shooter.

Sorry, but a fixed percentage of Ltd didn't give realistic HHF numbers for the CM99 series of classifiers, and it doesn't do it for CM08 series either.

With the 70% of Ltd HHFs, we can be competitive in the classifiers with no reloads, and even in those with the same number of reloads as the other divisions, but not in those requiring extra reloads.

I've been arguing for years that the HHFs for the CM99 series ought to be recalculated using actual L10, Pro, and Rev results, but it didn't happen. I also argued that there ought to be a mechanism to adjust the new CM03 series HHFs for actual results from the "new" divisions. That probably won't happen either. Although the section in the rulebook implies that HHFs will be adjusted over time, and it might have been done at some time in the distant past, in practice, no changes to HHFs have been made in the six years I've been looking at them.

The best we can hope for, is that the classifiers are shot consistently at all clubs by all shooters in a given division.

As this division has shown, even that modest goal might not be attainable.

Let's face it. At many clubs, there aren't enough revo shooters to require match organizers to standardize the enforcement of COFs. In fact, I've run into a lot of local stages, where the designers put mandatory reloads in places 'inconvenient' for revo, and the ROs say 'as long as you're performing at least as many reloads as the other guys, you can shoot it without doing reloads in the mandated spots. Other matches enforce the reloads the same as for the other division shooters. I don't care, as long as everyone gets the same instructions.

Stan Penkala

FY44158

[Carmoney]

Sorry, but a fixed percentage of Ltd didn't give realistic HHF numbers for the CM99 series of classifiers, and it doesn't do it for CM08 series either.

With the 70% of Ltd HHFs, we can be competitive in the classifiers with no reloads, and even in those with the same number of reloads as the other divisions, but not in those requiring extra reloads.

In fact, in those rare classifiers in the CM03 series which have no reloads (there's only a few), revolver shooters might actually have too much advantage--hell, if I were grandbaggin', I'd always take a wheelgun and a 30% time advantage in a stage like 03-10 (although weak hand only double-action is a bitch). On the classifers which can be run with the same number of reloads as the autos, the 70% of Ltd HHF is probably not too terribly far off from reality. Where extra reloads are required of us, though, like in 03-08 and a bunch of others in the CM03 series, the classifiers are killers--as I've said, I don't believe even Jerry could get GM scores on any kind of consistent basis on those.

All of this said, it still doesn't matter much. While it's nice to see an upward progression, the classifications for Revo are going to be largely controlled by the number of classifers shot (and re-shot), and (unfortunately) the particular choice of classifers shot. In my view, the only truly valid classifers in our division are the aggregate percentages of major matches where Jerry is in attendance.

There's never enough prizes or plaques to pay out down through the classes in our division anyway. It's heads-up ball. Which is OK with me, actually.

[professor]

All of this said, it still doesn't matter much. While it's nice to see an upward progression, the classifications for Revo are going to be largely controlled by the number of classifers shot (and re-shot), and (unfortunately) the particular choice of classifers shot. In my view, the only truly valid classifers in our division are the aggregate percentages of major matches where Jerry is in attendance.

There's never enough prizes or plaques to pay out down through the classes in our division anyway. It's heads-up ball. Which is OK with me, actually.

Think about this "Unintended Consequence".

A: Many of the revo HHFs are set unrealistically high, making attaining GM based upon classifier scores alone next to impossible.

B: The only Area and Regional Matches which count toward a person's classification [besides the Nationals] are those where our sole GM shoots.

C: Our sole GM is still consistently better in major matches than any other revo shooters. [Hell, he's still best in the world.]

D: GM status consists of those shooters that perform within 5% of the performance of the top 10 shooters in a division.

Of these statements, only D is False. And D is false because A, B, and C are True. And D will continue to be false until JM slows down enough that other shooters attain GM status. Then, additional shooters will find it easier to break into GM rank via superior scores in Area and Regional matches where the new revo GMs are matched or beaten by others.

This is the unintended consequence of having unrealistic HHFs. The top 10 revo shooters were never used to set revo HHFs, not in the CM99 series and not in the CM03 series of classifiers. And because of the unrealistic HHFs that are in use, those top 10 shooters will likely NOT attain GM status.

The other Unintended Consequence is that without recognition as GMs, and because of depressed classifications throughout the ranks, other revo shooters don't see their skills rewarded by Class standings. [As much as they like revo shooting, it is still a nice feeling to be recognized by shooters in other divisions as a M or GM shooter.] And that means that many of the shooters who could become really good revolver shooters either switch to other divisions, or to other games [can you say IDPA?].

So I think adjustment of revo HHFs to realistic values ought to be a goal of every revo shooter. No matter how often we say to ourselves "We're only competing against other revolver shooters", it's only justification that supports and perpetuates a classification system that is unfair, and only affects only our division.

We NEED more GMs in the revolver ranks. We need them for the good of the sport.

Please note that Jerry attained GM status only because of the 100% scores he got from winning National matches [and a 100% at the 2003 Area 4 that was credited to him while he was still classified M]. Of the nine classifier scores he has on record, only one [CM03-10, at 100%] was a GM score. If he couldn't achieve GM by shooting classifiers, is it realistic to think that the next 9 best revo shooters can?

Stan Penkala

FY44158

[10mmdave]

WOW ! ! all this HHF and 70% of this and that ??? I'm screwed, I don't understand any of it

I do thank all you folks who have the brain power to understand it, I've learned a lot from

these posts, learned that I have a lot to learn !

It's clear that the classifiers won't always be to a 6 shooters liking, and that we may not all

shoot them the same, but until we get enough of us in the game it will be a "head's up" kinda

deal. For now that's good I think, we are all progressing at a rapid rate, and enjoying the heck

out of it as we go, I know it's a cool feeling after finishing a stage and hearing the comments

and whispers from the peanut gallery "and he's shooting a wheel gun"

DaveP