Uspsa.org Needs An Accurate Classifier Calculator

[ExtremeShot]

Most everyone is aware of the classifier calculator that Ohiouspsa.com put together. It's a great tool, however, it appears it needs to be directly tied into the classifier database so that is produces accurate, real-time results.

Is anyone else interested in seeing this tool made available on uspsa.org? ...It would really be nice not having to wait several months to find out how you did on a classifier.

Darren

[shred]

Last I heard, USPSA didn't want to do that because they had problems with non-affiliated clubs and ranges using the USPSA classifiers and giving shooters 'national percentages' based on them, but USPSA didn't see a penny of return for it.

Same reason why HHFs aren't posted in the classifier section.

I'd much rather they went to a speedier update system like IPSC uses.. those scores are up within a few days and I suspect the process is automatic or nearly so.

[Flexmoney]

Most everyone is aware of the classifier calculator that Ohiouspsa.com put together. It's a great tool, however, it appears it needs to be directly tied into the classifier database so that is produces accurate, real-time results.

Is anyone else interested in seeing this tool made available on uspsa.org? ...It would really be nice not having to wait several months to find out how you did on a classifier.

Darren

If you find the Ohio calculator to be off, make sure to send an email to the address on the page. Include your data and the calculator can be upated.

[ChuckS]

Most everyone is aware of the classifier calculator that Ohiouspsa.com put together. It's a great tool, however, it appears it needs to be directly tied into the classifier database so that is produces accurate, real-time results.

Is anyone else interested in seeing this tool made available on uspsa.org? ...It would really be nice not having to wait several months to find out how you did on a classifier.

Darren

Several months? If your club gets them in by the 10th of that month, you will see the results by the 15th or so. If there is a several month lag, it is probably your club sitting on the scores!

From the uspsa web site section on classification admin:

"Classification hit factors will be input every month. All classifiers received at USPSA headquarters on or before the 10th of the month will be input that same month. Those received after the 10th will be input and reported the following month. "

Later,

Chuck

PS: You can see the status of uploaded files at this uspsa web page by clocking the button that says "Status of Uploaded Classifiers"

Edited February 26, 2007 by ChuckS

[ExtremeShot]

I guess it just seems like several months. Thanks for the info.

Darren

Several months? If your club gets them in by the 10th of that month, you will see the results by the 15th or so. If there is a several month lag, it is probably your club sitting on the scores!

From the uspsa web site section on classification admin:

"Classification hit factors will be input every month. All classifiers received at USPSA headquarters on or before the 10th of the month will be input that same month. Those received after the 10th will be input and reported the following month. "

Later,

Chuck

PS: You can see the status of uploaded files at this uspsa web page by clocking the button that says "Status of Uploaded Classifiers"

Edited February 27, 2007 by ExtremeShot

[dirtypool40]

Is anyone else interested in seeing this tool made available on uspsa.org? ...It would really be nice not having to wait several months to find out how you did on a classifier.

Darren

BIG TIME.

I know they are SUPPOSED to post every month if you get in by the 10th, but we all have stories baout the one that held a month, or two. I think sometimes they get swamped up there and fall behind.

Yes, USPSA clearly needs a better classification database.

Hit Factors NEED to be computed by averaging the best ten recent performances, not some random, arbitrary setting. I say this because one that "mighta coulda" bumped me up went from EXACTLY 9.5 to EXACTLY 10.00 in one month. Yeah, kinda unlikley.

This would be a simple program fifteen years ago, now, with current web design it's a piece of cake.

There should be a "club score entry" port into the site.

Enter scores electronically, via the site. Let the computer compare all the scores shot on a given classifier, and have it kick out and average the ten best shot over say.... the last two years. There's your 100% National HF.

Now simply average the best six of most recent valid eight and you are classified in seconds.

IMHO arbitrarily SET HF's are bad for our sport, they need to be set objectively by computed performance. Hell one of our HF's, "Can you Count?", is set for at least three divisions off what ONE open shooter did at ONE match. I've shot it twice, both times posting a decent score that would have been "in the pack" at the same match they introduced it. I would have been roughly 97% at the Area match, and even though that's where they set the HF they set it off Open, so my national percentage is only 84%. Weak dude. Weak.

We also need new classifiers, more with movement. What else do they do at those meetings? Fight over a new O-10 division???

How about approving a dozen new classifiers a year? Each area match gets one, with the winning HF in each division becoming provisional until at least X number of scores have been shot, say 500. The Nationals gets at least four, and an average of the top 5 HF in each division becomes provisional until there are 500 (or 100 or whatever) have been shot and then the computer recalculates it.

I really don't want to hear any lame excuses about cost or admin. Automation at this low level is cheap, it's a minor database in an existing website. It would actually free up manpower. Ever call up there? She says she's entering things manually still!!!!

Let's get USPSA into the early 90's....

[DrawandDuck]

My matches are held the 1st Saturday of the month and I upload the classifiers that night via the USPSA Classifier Upload tool. EVERY one has been on the new update. I HIGHLY recommend to ALL clubs they take advantage of this tool. NO printing, NO writing checks, No postage and NO hoping the USPS gets it to the right location...JUST a couple clicks on the keyboard and DONE!! I would think the ones she is having to key are the ones we mail in to her??

Randal

Edited February 27, 2007 by DrawandDuck

[wgnoyes]

Ever call up there? She says she's entering things manually still!!!!

That's because more than a few clubs still print and mail in paper match reporting. And some of them HANDWRITE their reporting on the old forms. (I couldn't believe it when I saw a pile of those in Sedro Woolley on a visit a couple of years ago!) The electronic uploads, however, ARE processed electronically. So before we bounce up and down about bringing USPSA into the 90's, let's try to bring those straggler clubs into the 60's first.

[Flexmoney]

We also need new classifiers, more with movement. ...How about approving a dozen new classifiers a year?

We had the same idea here a while back...kind of a put up or shut up thing. The thought was that we'd design some classifiers, set them up and run them...get some data from them and then send them to USPSA ready to go.

It fizzled out.

http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=24428

----------

FWIW...the Ohio Calculator could/would be linked to USPSA data if they'd make it available to us. As it is, we can only adjust it when we get reports back (from you guys and gals) that it is off a bit.

[XRe]

Well, the designs are there, still. Getting someone to run one or more of them at a major match w/ GMs there is the tough part....

[Flexmoney]

I think we could do without the "major match" thing if we could convince USPSA that we knew what the proper HHF's ought to be.

[shred]

I think we could do without the "major match" thing if we could convince USPSA that we knew what the proper HHF's ought to be.

Yeah, I believe that more than a few of the top GM's could predict their 100% run to within a tenth of a second, just looking at it on paper. Some of them could predict other GM's run to within a tenth as well.

[dirtypool40]

I agree, but I think we have the theory of a good system. Parts of it are already in place, they just need to be used. We've gotten lazy, the system isn't being used, people are sandbagging it, switching divisions to hunt a class trophy and HQ is mucking around with things at odd intervals.

I don't like to bitch unless I have suggestions to offer, so here goes....

We NEED:

New classifiers every year.

100% HF's based on real, top 10 average scores from RECENT competiton. Say the last two years.

HF's NOT based on theory or what one shooter, in one division does at one match.....once.

A requirement for ANY major match to have a classifier to get sanctioning. It helps cut down on the sandbagging. 1 per State, 2 per Area, and 4 per Nationals. You shoot more than x percent (nationally, not just for the match) over your class, you are in that class for the match. That one simple rule / addition would kill sandbagging and hinder class trophy hunters by the division switchers. (See L10).

Right now some of the 100% hf's are too low and need attention, others are set "automatically" at some unrealistic height. Yes 100% is and should be tough to shoot, but it should be an average of what the top guys have done under real, match conditions.

"Can You Count?" is still a great example:

13 classified Limtited GM's, and several others who carry the G in another class. Top score on the stage was Strader with a 15.18hf. Compare that to Max's 16.63 and the WINNER in Limited only shot 91%. The L10 stage winner only shot a 76% of the new HHF. Doesn't make sense.

If you average the top 5, all GM's in Limited you get a mid 14 hf, and that's what it should be. There were a passle (Southern word), a passle of solid GM's there. One hooked up and shot a 15. The next ten were mid 14. Why would we compare to a 16+ nobody shot?

I have a decent draw, and decent relaod, I looked forward to this when I saw it on the website. I saw the scores from Area 6, and figured I could compete. The mid 14's I've shot the two or three times I've seen this one in a match would have put me "right up there" in Area 6, but have only factored as mid to low 80's nationally. Yes, if you want me to warm up, stand knee deep in brass and grand bag this thing, I'll put up a 6.0 -0 or better. But that's not the intent of our system. It's supposed to be about real, one run, match day, representative performance.

Same with "Raw Deal". (Boy did that one get revenge on me for talking smack.) I agree it probably should be a 10+. But let the match performance set the HF not someone going, "jeez, they are putting up a lot of 100's on that one, how about we move it...to....hmmm, there ought to do it". Fine, average the runs, and then let the computer move it. Just jumping it around because you wanna "fix" it doesn't fix anything.

I like the objectivity of this sport. It what makes a GM card even worth the paper it's printed on. Let's get it back.

Edited February 27, 2007 by dirtypool40

[Matt Cheely]

We NEED:

New classifiers every year.

100% HF's based on real, top 10 average scores from RECENT competiton. Say the last two years.

HF's NOT based on theory or what one shooter, in one division does at one match.....once.

A requirement for ANY major match to have a classifier

I agree.

Except on the "Can you Count" part. I've shot it twice and both times with 100% + scores. And I'm not that quick compared to some people.

[zhunter]

I like shooting Classifiers. I HATE going to a local match and NOT having a classifier stage. I really think that every match should have a classifier stage. I think a Major match, i.e. this months Florida Open and next months Florida State Match should BE REQUIRED to have 2 Classifiers. Classifiers are quick to shoot and reset. A squad can EASILY shoot two classifiers in one shooting bay as one stage time wise in a large match.

JMHO

Did I mention, I like classifiers?

[ihatepickles]

It's $3 per classifier per shooter to submit the result to the USPSA. Generally classifiers are the most boring of the stages at any match, I'd rather not shoot two of them and a definitely don't want to pay for two either in my match fees.

I shouldn't say most boring, I should probably say least interesting.

[zhunter]

It's $3 per classifier per shooter to submit the result to the USPSA. Generally classifiers are the most boring of the stages at any match, I'd rather not shoot two of them and a definitely don't want to pay for two either in my match fees.

I shouldn't say most boring, I should probably say least interesting.

At $200 or so for a major match, i.e. Florida Open, yeah, I think that should be covered.

[ihatepickles]

At $200 or so for a major match, i.e. Florida Open, yeah, I think that should be covered.

I don't see how paying a $200 match fee is going to make a dull stage (such as a classifier) sparkle. Regardless of match fees, classifiers are the dullest stages of any match. I'm just saying I personally don't care to pay extra to shoot more classifiers at a match.

If any large matches are planning 2+ classifiers, please let me know so I can avoid attending...

[dirtypool40]

The other option of course is to pull up our big boy pants and just shoot heads up.

How would that go over?

[zhunter]

At $200 or so for a major match, i.e. Florida Open, yeah, I think that should be covered.

I don't see how paying a $200 match fee is going to make a dull stage (such as a classifier) sparkle. Regardless of match fees, classifiers are the dullest stages of any match. I'm just saying I personally don't care to pay extra to shoot more classifiers at a match.

If any large matches are planning 2+ classifiers, please let me know so I can avoid attending...

Well, my point was, for $200 there should not be any extra charge.

And, as far as not liking classifiers, that is why they make 31 Flavors at Baskin Robbins, everyone has different tastes.

To me they are fun, I like the pressure to improve and the feedback they give me. Bring them on!!

The other option of course is to pull up our big boy pants and just shoot heads up.

How would that go over?

Sounds good, the only thing about Classifiers I really like is trying to get to the next level. but, now that I shoot SSD that is not an option.

Classifiers are pretty much stand and shoots, and they are fun.

[Flexmoney]

The Florida Open is a bad example for just about anything policy-wise.

It is special/different.

[boo radley]

For $200 it would have sucked if one of the 10 stages had been "Times Two" or some other classifier we've shot times twelve....In fact, one of the things I thought was great this year, were 10 high round-count stages. Last year they had that "roll the dice, whatever color is your no-shoot" kinda stinky one.

Now I'd be down with *11* stages, one being a classifier. Besides, Z -- if you like classifiers so much, you sure picked an odd division to shoot!

I wish there were more (any?) classifiers that challenged shooting on the move.

[zhunter]

Now I'd be down with *11* stages, one being a classifier. Besides, Z -- if you like classifiers so much, you sure picked an odd division to shoot!

I wish there were more (any?) classifiers that challenged shooting on the move.

Boo

I agree, us SSD'ers get screwed on Classifiers. I just plug the results into the L-10 calculator to get an idea of how I did.

I agree, the Florida Open coulda had 11 stages, 2 being classifiers, and the round count would have been about the same, maybe even a bit higher.

But, when they start counting them, I will have plenty on record

[EricW]

The current dues are not enough to fund USPSA to where people seem to want it to be. $600K /yr. plus the pittance from activity and classifier fees is not enough. Want a better org? Then let's cough up the ching.

Edited February 28, 2007 by EricW

[zhunter]

The current dues are not enough to fund USPSA to where people seem to want it to be. $600K /yr. plus the pittance from activity and classifier fees is not enough. Want a better org? Then let's cough up the ching.

Raise membership fees I just paid my Lifemembership, so I am done paying fees