How Do You Catch A Shooter Sandbaggin'

[moverfive]

So let me get this right:

1. We seem to have determined that you can't stop sandbagging.

2. Some here want to reward based on class performance.

HUH?

I can only talk from experience - but a couple of sandbagging cases were eleviated via clerical errors. So I am not sure 'it cannot be stopped' is completely accurate. It is just whether the local club will take the necessary action. But again, I think we are talking about such a small minority that the hefty majority of folks winning their class are legitimately in that class.

[ExtremeShot]

Yep, this has happened to me several times. Additionally, it always takes me a stage or two to get warmed up and for some reason I always get the classifier as my 1st stage.

But...from my experience and the shooters that I have seen, there is a great chance they are simply choking on the "dreaded classifier" stage.

[XRe]

Three thoughts:

- sandbagging can't occur w/o a classification system

- the current system is at least slightly better at rejecting sandbagging than how it has been in the past (at least it rejects totally blown classifiers)

(and, the one that's bound to turn the flamethrowers in my direction...)

- sandbagging only matters to those who are not striving to win the match....

[Steve Moneypenny]

I hate to point this out but i know of one A class shooter in L 10 that has been TRYING to make master all year and one A that's been trying to make GM in production and because of various situations hasn't.. and none of us are sandbaggers

[Mistral404]

Matt, you can hug me anytime.

There is some merit to the way prizes were given out at the Dual Championship in CA this year. Each class winner got a gun, then everything else was done by drawing.

Additionally, I think your highest classification should be for all Divisions. If you get A in Limited you should be A for all of them.

[ima45dv8]

I think your highest classification should count for all divisions except Revolver.

Those round thingies ain't normal.

[blackdragon]

There are still prize tables???

Ivan

[Shawn Knight]

What is a prize table? Is that like a really nice table to put your stuff on?

[AlamoShooter]

What is a prize table? Is that like a really nice table to put your stuff on?

Its a place that you find yourself after years of practice, & thousands of $$$ ? mayby tens of thousands of $$ in, 'investing'. And vactions missed, yards not mowed, kids not played with & kisses not kissed, & love not made. After all that you stand at a (Prize Table)and pick something you could have eazyily purchased by not eating out for one meal.

And It will be the most wonderfull thing you have, becuase you can say ... !I won this!

Just make shurr you write a thank you note ...or life will Getchya

So, If a sandbager gets a prize that should not have ben, they Steal much more than match placment.

Jamie Foote

Edited September 19, 2006 by AlamoShooter

[Bigbadaboom]

Three thoughts:

- sandbagging can't occur w/o a classification system

- the current system is at least slightly better at rejecting sandbagging than how it has been in the past (at least it rejects totally blown classifiers)

(and, the one that's bound to turn the flamethrowers in my direction...)

- sandbagging only matters to those who are not striving to win the match....

Yeah but!! I just had two 65.****% classifiers overtake two 72.****% classifiers which has, once again, stifled me down in B class.

If they are going to use this "Within **% of your current %" crap then they need to count the highest classifiers out of ALL the classifiers you've ever shot. If that were the case I'ld be an "A" class shooter right now and people would stop calling me a sandbagger.

IMHO the currrent classification set up blows.

Edited September 19, 2006 by Bigbadaboom

[Shawn Knight]

Its a place that you find yourself after years of practice, & thousands of $$$ ? mayby tens of thousands of $$ in, 'investing'. And vactions missed, yards not mowed, kids not played with & kisses not kissed, & love not made. After all that you stand at a (Prize Table)and pick something you could have eazyily purchased by not eating out for one meal.

And It will be the most wonderfull thing you have, becuase you can say ... !I won this!

OOOHHHHH OK. I get it now.

[kurtm]

The best way to catch a sandbagger is to stand directly under them with both hands out and hope they don't fall too far, as sandbags can be quite heavy.

I have been accused of being the quintesential "sandbagger". I'm actually begining to enjoy it. I have won matches over all on numerouse occassions, and have won many a state match, but I'm still classified as an A..( those of you who enjoyed me when I was a B will now be happy and the list of people calling me sandbagger is now smaller ) even though I have won at least 4 state matches and an area match ( high over all ) since I was bestowed the great august A classification. How can this be you ask. So do I! I don't shoot many pistol only matches ( last one was Double tap in 2005 ) nor many classifiers, as I onlyshoot club matches sporadicly. I mainly 3-gun and I guess those finishes just don't count, even though several of these 3-guns were tournament style meaning that the pistol match should stand alone ( like the area 6 3-gun that I won high over all). So untill the classification system catches up with reallity, there will always be pleanty of "sandbaggers" out there, like me that you can love to hate Kurt Miller

[MattBurkett]

If you look at the Kurtm picture above you will notice that it is completely possible to hide a sandbag under that mullet! hehehe

[bgary]

onlyshoot club matches sporadicly

OK, so, I know I'm going to regret chiming in here, but.... that's apparently never stopped me before

There are a couple of issues that sorta orbit each other:

-- there are ways that a shooters classification can get "out of whack". For example, as Kurt says, if you don't shoot a lot a pistol matches, or your club doesn't put on a lot of classifiers, it is quite possible that the classification system has not caught up with your current level of ability. No "evil intent" necessary - it happens even to people who are *trying* to get classified upwards.

-- prizes in class represent a financial incentive to game the system. Let's face it, if there is a gun or other prize of monetary value awarded to "Top D" (or whatever), someone will figure that's a good reason to *not* try real hard on classifiers... or maybe even avoid classifiers for a while. Again, it may not be intentional, but... the effect is the same. Look at some of the foreign shooters who placed very highly (in class) at the recent Lim/L10 Nationals. Some of them don't have the opportunity to shoot classifiers at home, so... they come to our Nationals with M-class skills, but a "B-card" with their name on it (which they probably got by winning "C" at last year's Nationals) As long as there are prizes in class, there are going to be people who benefit from "not being in the right class".

-- many lower-class shooters would have a problem with an order-of-finish prize policy. I know the top shooters hate this argument - it *is* a valid argument to say that only top performance should be rewarded. But the simple truth lies in the economics. When a GM leaves a prize table with a gun, that gun was paid for by a bunch of people that he beat.... and the bell-curve says a lot of those people were B-C-D class shooters. I'll put it in personal terms: If I have a choice between paying $250 to enter a prize-table match that is order-of-finish, or $100 to enter an equivalent match that is trophy-only or random-draw? I'll totally go for the $100 match, because, from *my* perspective, the order-of-finish match is $150 that I could spend on *me*, rather than donating to a prize pool that I have no realistic chance of swimming in.

So... what do we do?

Well, separate from the prize-table issue, I think we need to fix the classification system.

One idea is to get rid of the multiple classifications (I'm B-Open, C-Limited, whatever) and go to a single classification. The net effect of this would be to classify a shooter according to his *skill* (like, actually aiming and moving and executing a stage strategy) rather than according to the kind of gun he chooses to put in his hand. There are a variety of potential advantages (like, as soon as you are classified, you're classified in all divisions). I'd be interested in hearing people's thoughts.

Another idea is to make it so that a shooter *must* shoot a number of valid classifiers per year in order to keep their classification current. For example, if you are a B-class shooter now, you can't just sit on that B-card for years and never have your classification catch up with your A-class skills. You would have to shoot valid classifiers to keep your card, and if you don't, your classification would go "stale" and you would be listed as "unclassified" until you have current classifier scores. Again, there are pros and cons - this might be a problem for people who, for whatever reason, are not able to shoot enough classifiers (like, active-duty military on overseas deployments or whatever). I think we can come up with exceptions to deal with those. But it would *directly* resolve the issue of the guy who comes in from [wherever] with a 3-year-old C-card that doesn't reflect his A-class skills. Again, would welcome people's thoughts on this.

OK, so those things might make the classification system "better". Probably not perfect, but "better". So then the question becomes... how should prizes be given out?

The thing that makes the most sense to me, at the moment, is to leave things as they are, which is that every match has the right to decide how they want to give out prizes, and shooters have the right to vote with their dollars. I know that means some chaos, because some matches award prizes in class and others do it only order of finish. But as long as you and I each have the ability to choose the kinds of matches we want to go to, that's probably OK.

$.02

Bruce

[shred]

How about if you exceed your class percentage at a major match, you're moved up to the appropriate class, before the prizes are awarded? The truly out-of-whack classifications will correct themselves.

We could even give out "I got bumped at a major match and all I got was this lousy plaque" awards..

Didn't we determine last time around that not a lot of the shooter's entry fee goes directly to the prize table?

[herky]

I like the one classification for whatever division you choose to shoot, that being the highest currently on record.

[ima45dv8]

One idea is to get rid of the multiple classifications (I'm B-Open, C-Limited, whatever) and go to a single classification. <snip> There are a variety of potential advantages (like, as soon as you are classified, you're classified in all divisions). I'd be interested in hearing people's thoughts.

I would support both of these ideas.

Another idea is to make it so that a shooter *must* shoot a number of valid classifiers per year in order to keep their classification current. <snip> Again, would welcome people's thoughts on this.

And this one, too.

OK, so those things might make the classification system "better". Probably not perfect, but "better". So then the question becomes... how should prizes be given out?

Earlier in the thread someone (EricW, I think?) mentioned the idea of splitting the prize pool and awarding half by finish and half by random draw. I like that idea but would not want to see it mandated by USPSA. The MDs should still be able to decide for themselves and their customers how prizes will be awarded.

[kurtm]

Matt, Matt, Matt, can't you recognise a "pompador" style? That aint no Mullett! and yes you could hide a sandbag or two under it

BTW A.H. 2 ( Martin ) sayes...er well I better P.M. on that one. KURT

[Jim Norman]

If they are going to use this "Within **% of your current %" crap then they need to count the highest classifiers out of ALL the classifiers you've ever shot. If that were the case I'ld be an "A" class shooter right now and people would stop calling me a sandbagger.

IMHO the currrent classification set up blows.

I would support this. I keep flirting with an M card only to get a couple clssifiers that count just good enough to throw me back down a few points. As it is I push a classifier as hard as I can and hope that it is either really good or really bad. I would definately retain the validity check. If your classifer is below your current class, it doesn't count (see further down for expanded reasoning on this)

Another option would be to use major match finishes as classification, although that sort of tells people that don't shoot other than club matches that we don't care about them and that would hurt membership I think.

Another idea is to make it so that a shooter *must* shoot a number of valid classifiers per year in order to keep their classification current. For example, if you are a B-class shooter now, you can't just sit on that B-card for years and never have your classification catch up with your A-class skills. You would have to shoot valid classifiers to keep your card, and if you don't, your classification would go "stale" and you would be listed as "unclassified" until you have current classifier scores. Again, there are pros and cons - this might be a problem for people who, for whatever reason, are not able to shoot enough classifiers (like, active-duty military on overseas deployments or whatever). I think we can come up with exceptions to deal with those. But it would *directly* resolve the issue of the guy who comes in from [wherever] with a 3-year-old C-card that doesn't reflect his A-class skills. Again, would welcome people's thoughts on this.

Bruce

I like the idea of having to maintain your classification. Shoot a minimum of 3 classifers a year or you revert to a 'U'. I would allow you to regain your class in such a situation by shooting the required three classifers. In other words, regardless of your percentage, no recorded classification scores in one year and you are a U, you maintain your past percentage and then if and when you submit your three VALID classifers you regain your classification.

Jim

[boo radley]

Bruce -- those strike me as *awesome* ideas.

With one classifier, would you even bother maintaining seperate breakdowns by division?

Or could the single classification be created from two revolver scores, two L10, one Open and one Limited? If so, it would be even easier to maintain a "valid" status, by shooting 3 classifiers a year, as Norman suggests -- wouldn't even matter if they were with the same gun.

[EricW]

I propose that USPSA abandon the current classification system in favor of a binary system. Every member of USPSA will fall into one of two classifications:

WinsTooMuch

and...

Loser

Everyone starts out as a Loser, except for the current lot GM's and Sandbaggers who will be stuffed into WinsTooMuch. Those practicing, cheating dirtbags will never win again. Only Losers will be allowed to win prizes at matches. Once a Loser wins, he or she automatically becomes a WinsTooMuch. Eventually, all the losers will win and there will be no one left at matches eligble to win prizes and Match Directors will be forced to donate DPMS rifles to Toys for Tots.

Problem solved.

[Jim Norman]

Bruce -- those strike me as *awesome* ideas.

With one classifier, would you even bother maintaining seperate breakdowns by division?

Or could the single classification be created from two revolver scores, two L10, one Open and one Limited? If so, it would be even easier to maintain a "valid" status, by shooting 3 classifiers a year, as Norman suggests -- wouldn't even matter if they were with the same gun.

With only one classification accross all divisons, I suppose that would work, Obviously if you want to be other than a 'U', you would shoot your required three in a division where you can make the cut. If you don't mind being a 'U', then you can shoot anything you want.

I will stress that we still need a minimum valid score or you will still be able to sandbag. An 'A' shooter should still need to get at leaset a 70% and if this were to become the classifcation method, I would move 'Valid' to the score must be no less than your classes lowest allowed percentage, or an 'A' would need a 75%, a 'B' 60% and so on, no 5% lower leeway. THis would encourage even more realistic performance.

Jim

[nm3gnr]

I went through a short period last year being labled a sandbager. I got classified just before the Texas limited (got my C card one week before ), I won C class which then moved me to B. I strived to class up. I then went to Double Tap and won B in march of 06 and that propelled me into A class. I now have a 70% on the USPSA site. So you could say I am over classified.

The only reason for stating this is because I seem to get a lot more enery off of A big match. No matter how hard I try I seem to blow some classifiers trying to go too fast.

A long time and well respected shooter told me that sandbagging only hurts yourself and is not well respected from other shooters.

How could you receive an award knowing that you cheated to get there ?

Like was said in an earlier post, Leave sandbaggers in the dust !

Go out and shoot and have fun !

Edited September 23, 2006 by nm3gnr

[Chills1994]

Let me preface my remarks here with the disclaimer that I do NOT currently shoot USPSA/IPSC matches nor am I a member of USPSA.

A while back I started a thread on sandbagging in IDPA and I think it received a lot of attention, 65 replies and 2058 views. Here's a link:

http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?...;hl=sandbagging

I think USPSA has a better handle on anti-sandbagging measures than IDPA does (i.e. it has a book of classifier stages, instead of just one classifier stage). That makes it harder to sandbag a classifier and still hope to win a USPSA match.

The whole sandbagging in either sport got my attention, so I decided to ask the Cowboy Action Shooters on their forum. They do not have a classification system. And as far as I know there is NO prize table. Heck, I don't even know if they have a raffle table. Strictly bragging rights.

Here's the link:

http://sassnet.com/forums/index.php?showto...mp;#entry554233

I do like the "bring whatchya got" mentality of CAS.

Having a psychology background, I have to break things down into "What is a person's motivation to ______ (sandbag)?"

Is it money?

Is it a prize?

Is it a trophy?

Is it ego?

Is it bragging rights?

Is it anxiety reduction?

Is it the STI contigency program?

Is it to rationalize his/her expenditures of time and money in the sport or to go to that one match?

Which brings me to my next point: USPSA major matches seem way more expensive that IDPA major matches.

Maybe if USPSA major matches weren't so darn expensive there wouldn't be so much motivation to sandbag to trophy hound; for people to rationalize their sandbagging because it cost so much to enter the match in the first place. They feel they are entitled to walk away from the match with a trophy and a prize.

So maybe USPSA should lump all the production shooters, etc, together at a major match and break them down based on how they did versus the mean/standard deviations or the percentiles within that division.

Kinda like in this attached word document (shooters names removed on purpose).

Maybe give out prizes or trophies based on how close you finished to the 25th percentile, 50th percentile, etc.

And for all the folks who think that "statistic-fying" USPSA and IDPA is a bit over the top, if you punch in sabermetrics and baseball into google you will get about 2/3 of a MILLION hits. That is statistics relating to each baseball player's performance something also worth millions of dollars. Clickey this:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=s...cs+and+baseball

I'll get off my soapbox now.

Chills

Curve_example.doc

[Mistral404]

As a quick response to the match being the deciding factor---

It is NOT a good idea.

I do not know how the current classification system works but I can guess they do some statistical analysis.

Let say on a national classifier, 100 people shoot it. One person get a great hit factor, but the next 10 highest are twenty percent below his hit factor. Statistically, he is an outlier. Some statistical routines would eliminate his score totally. Others would "normalize" the data in order to lessen the influence on 1 unusually high score. Then each score would be looked up in a statistical table (Z, F, T -for those of you who have had statistics). This is the strength of using a large number of shooters shooting the same COF and then using a statistical method to determine the appropriate or valid percentage ranges.

A single match percentage system is not necessarily valid sample so a simple ranking is not statistically relevant.

There is not a thirty second answer to sandbagging via match v. classifier scores. It really comes down to individual clubs managing the problem.

BTW: I really agree if you aa A in one division you should be A in all divisions.