AlamoShooter Posted June 6, 2006 Share Posted June 6, 2006 (edited) Hey the new O6 classifyers are not to be found on the USPSA web site. JF Up dating the new ones = its in the small print Edited June 6, 2006 by AlamoShooter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j2fast Posted June 6, 2006 Share Posted June 6, 2006 (edited) Maybe its my short attention span but I can never find the page when I want it. Pirated this from another thread: http://www.uspsa.org/classifiers/index.html EDIT: Ummm, OK, duh, I'm a doo-mass. Guess I should have looked at the page before I posted this..... I swear they were there a few hours ago????? EDIT AGAIN: Oooo, I see the note there now. I can't believe they stuck the message right there in plain sight like that..... If my School Teacher wife were here right now she'd be comparing me to her 4th graders..... Edited June 6, 2006 by j2fast Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lynn jones Posted June 6, 2006 Share Posted June 6, 2006 well, i guess the folks at HQ do vist BE's forum. lynn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TDean Posted June 6, 2006 Share Posted June 6, 2006 National Classification Book 4th Edition 2004 - Revised June 1, 2006 The 06 series of classifiers have been temporarily pulled while updates to the stage procedures are implemented. USPSA regrets the inconvenience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tman33_99 Posted June 6, 2006 Share Posted June 6, 2006 I imagine others besides myself sent in questions to the classifiers before running them in a couple of weeks. Someone took a look and said oh $h*t and figured now is the time to fix them. Should have been done before they were posted, but at least they may get fixed before it is too late. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ima45dv8 Posted June 6, 2006 Share Posted June 6, 2006 (edited) I think John Amidon and the rest (NROI cadre, ROs, CROs, Area Directors, etc.) put good effort into making sure these things are right before publishing. But accidents do happen. My recommendation would be to run these (and any future) classifier stages through this forum for a final scrub before publishing. There's over 7,500 registered users here, and more than a few are DRLs. You'd have about the same chance of getting a bugged stage past the collective wisdom/experience here as you would sneaking a bowl of ice cream past my ex-wife. Edited June 6, 2006 by ima45dv8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimWarner Posted June 6, 2006 Share Posted June 6, 2006 speaking of classifiers... is there a way to look up my classification by my USPSA number? Or look at my classifier scores? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lynn jones Posted June 6, 2006 Share Posted June 6, 2006 sure is... just go to the uspsa web page and look to the lower right of the page. http://www.uspsa.org right under the "shooters connection ad" lynn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted June 6, 2006 Share Posted June 6, 2006 Tim, They are updated once a month...if/when your local club gets them turned in. (I don't see that you have any on file yet.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crusher Posted June 6, 2006 Share Posted June 6, 2006 well, i guess the folks at HQ do vist BE's forum. Ya think? Maybe it was just a coincidence that they were pulled after a few were found to be buggy and it was discussed here that they could be GAMED to skew the HHF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LPatterson Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 I am wondering why no one else has commented on the fact that Troy McManus has not posted on this thread or the other one. We know that Troy lurks here so don't ya think he is aware of the problems and maybe had something to do with the classifiers being pulled for wording repairs. The classifiers themselves as shooting skills are fine it was just shooters trying to take advantage of the use of English & how it was worded. Instead of just complaining about it, why didn't somebody post new stage procedures so we could tear apart what they had written. Quote from I dont know where: IF YOU ARE NOT PART OF THE SOLUTION, THEN YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mactiger Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 I am wondering why no one else has commented on the fact that Troy McManus has not posted on this thread or the other one. We know that Troy lurks here so don't ya think he is aware of the problems and maybe had something to do with the classifiers being pulled for wording repairs. The classifiers themselves as shooting skills are fine it was just shooters trying to take advantage of the use of English & how it was worded. Instead of just complaining about it, why didn't somebody post new stage procedures so we could tear apart what they had written.Quote from I dont know where: IF YOU ARE NOT PART OF THE SOLUTION, THEN YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ima45dv8 Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 I wish we could somehow incorporate the language from the classifier manual about "not gaming classifiers" into the rulebook. Maybe not as an actual rule per se, but at least in the introductory portions of the book. People are much more likely to view that than the references in a classifier manual most shooters never see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 I wish we could somehow incorporate the language from the classifier manual about "not gaming classifiers" into the rulebook. Maybe not as an actual rule per se, but at least in the introductory portions of the book. People are much more likely to view that than the references in a classifier manual most shooters never see. Your right. I'll bet there are only about 50 people in USPSA that even know it's there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 We planned on setting up 06-03, "Can You Count", on Saturday for our big match. I think we printed scoresheets up, too. Was there issues with this classifer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ima45dv8 Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 We shot it last Sunday and most people found it to be pretty straight-forward. Basically, shoot the left array first, then the right. Targets within an array may be engaged in any order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidball Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 We shot it last Sunday and most people found it to be pretty straight-forward. Basically, shoot the left array first, then the right. Targets within an array may be engaged in any order. But for now, it is not an official classifier? Is this correct? We had planned to use "Can You Count" as well (really enjoyed it at the '05 A6), but now I guess we have to choose another - at least as far as a classifier goes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mactiger Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 I didn't see that classifier in any of the ones I just reviewed, and it is still an official classifier. (There weren't any problems with it to start with, AFAIK). I'd keep checking the web page to see when it gets put back up, but it should not be long before they are there again. Troy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XRe Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 I wish we could somehow incorporate the language from the classifier manual about "not gaming classifiers" into the rulebook. I've always found that comment to be fairly bogus, anyway, though. Shouldn't we instead be bullet proofing classifier course descriptions? We have enough DRLs willing to help out in the effort (for free) - seems like we just need to get them in contact w/ USPSA and have a "potential classifier gaming committee"... If there's nothing to game, there's nothing to game... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dirtypool40 Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 (edited) I just read through what's left trying to pick something for this weekend's match. Do we do ANY classifiers that are not Bainchi Barricade or all Partials?!?!?!?! There's damned little creativity in our classifiers, except for the names, oh do we have creative names for them. LEt's get some new ones approved in time for Nationals. Some shooting "areas" with target placement that still makes you move. More like, I dunno, WE ACTUALLY SHOOT NOW??? sorry, sorry, a breaker popped, I'm better now. Edited June 7, 2006 by dirtypool40 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mactiger Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 We (USPSA/NROI) should indeed be bullet proofing classifiers. Sometimes errors slip through the cracks, though. As for new classifiers, anyone care to guess where they come from? Nationals, sure, but where else? Troy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 Troy, I was certain you guys would want to use the one I sent in for my CRO certification. It was fantastic. lol I hear that the stages need to be shot in a major match first though ? BTW, We did put together a "put up or shut up" section for building classifiers here on the site. Look how far we got. http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=24428 (<<<clickity) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlamoShooter Posted June 7, 2006 Author Share Posted June 7, 2006 We planned on setting up 06-03, "Can You Count", on Saturday for our big match. I think we printed scoresheets up, too. Was there issues with this classifer? We shot it last week... The problem is I shot too slow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XRe Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 (edited) Look how far we got. Like, 15 of 'em... Troy, I know they've all been in major matches - but has someone proof read them against the written/verbal course descriptions that were used at those matches? And, just because they were used in a major doesn't mean they weren't gamable there, either. Further, just because a classifier is gameable doesn't mean there's necessarily anything wrong with it - my point is that, if there's a problem w/ the course descriptions, address it there instead of saying "We know there's no 'course designer's intent' in the rulebook, etc, but please try to figure it out and act accordingly". We wouldn't tolerate that at a major match (or even a local match), would we? Why is it considered OK to do that for our national classification system, then? I'm not cutting on anyone, or berating anyone, or whatever - seems like there's an easier way to address the problem, is all... as you can see from the classifier workshop, I'm willing to be a part of the fix Edited June 7, 2006 by XRe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mactiger Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 Look how far we got. Like, 15 of 'em... Troy, I know they've all been in major matches - but has someone proof read them against the written/verbal course descriptions that were used at those matches? And, just because they were used in a major doesn't mean they weren't gamable there, either. Further, just because a classifier is gameable doesn't mean there's necessarily anything wrong with it - my point is that, if there's a problem w/ the course descriptions, address it there instead of saying "We know there's no 'course designer's intent' in the rulebook, etc, but please try to figure it out and act accordingly". We wouldn't tolerate that at a major match (or even a local match), would we? Why is it considered OK to do that for our national classification system, then? I'm not cutting on anyone, or berating anyone, or whatever - seems like there's an easier way to address the problem, is all... as you can see from the classifier workshop, I'm willing to be a part of the fix I understand your intent. Seriously, I think that what you mentioned about comparing them against the WSB for nationals is what got looked over here. Even though we reviewed them at our conference, we all knew how they were run at Nats--which was with a statement to shoot from within the fault lines. (I know this because I wrote the WSB's). And, I agree that we should spell out what we want, not just say "no gaming". I don't think classifiers should be any different than any other stage in that regard. Course requirements need to be stated in the WSB, or else we let the competitor "solve the problem", even if it goes against the course designer's "intent". So, they're being fixed. As for classifiers, they do come from members, with only a couple of requirements: One, that we can get a measured drawing so we can publish the dimensions. Two, that they be shot at a major match, such as an Area Championship or Nationals, so that we can determine at least a base hit factor. For the CRO course, we like to ask for classifiers that will fit in an indoor range, but that's not an absolute, and there's no prohibition on movement. Hope this helps. We're always looking for more classifiers, so if you see a stage at your Area championship that looks promising, get the dimensions and send it to John or to USPSA HQ. Troy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now