Classification not Always Indicitive of Skill Level

[JThompson]

The more I think about the classification system the less I feel it has to do with the skills of our sport. First and foremost, in my mind, is movement... every classifier I've seen you stand on one place and bang away. When was the last time you shot a COF and stood in one place? Unless a course designer wants to tweak people, when is the lst time you had a weak hand only stage, or a strong hand only? It seems more IPDA. More of a defense type thing if you were shot in one arm and were forced to shoot with the other.

Also, I have heard the term "classifier management" in the sport. I'm not sure what the answer is maybe something of the percentages of regular COFs taken with the class of shooters you are shooting against averaged with classifier type stages. This would involve more of the skills you use shooting the sport. Also, I'm seen a few paper Ms in my short time in the sport. I just know they got the class by pounding the classifiers until they could shoot them blind folded. I'm not saying I have a better answer, only that I think it deserves some thought by people above my pay grade to look into it and see if there might be something more indicative of what we do. If they could somehow classify during regular courses of fire, and I know about the three GM rule at higher level event ; If we could do an average of the two we might find a better representation of true ability, and help reduce paper classes and "classifier management."

I know people that have spent a long time under the current system might have a, "That's always the way it's been done" attitude, but I would ask that you suspend that knee jerk and think openly about a better solution. I'm not sure there is one, but I think it's worth consideration.

Thanks,

JT

Edited August 1, 2007 by JThompson

[zhunter]

I think in the way USPSA has evolved, weak hand and strong hand is a bunch of BS. WE never, no, hardly EVER are forced to use these skills in matches.

So, why have it as a skill important in our classification system?

JT, BTW, nice avatar

[HoMiE]

You can't be forced to use strong/weak hand only shooting in a non-classifier stage, that is what freestyle is. But a course designer can make it advatageous for you to shoot strong/weak hand only by making it hard to lean around a wall or barricade. There are quite a few classifiers that make you move. If you are not happy with the classifier stages, make one up and submit it to the powers that be.

[raz-0]

Personally, i'd like some additional classifiers that are more indicative of a normal COF, even if simply because they are more fun in my opinion. However, I think the classifier system is weighted so that if tends to fail with you being rated higher than you actually perform. Other than bragging rights, you get nothing good. In fact, if you really just get put up against others who can outperform you on a real COF, and thus at a match.

I'm more concerned about sandbagging than grandbagging with regards to classifiers being accurate. If you get your A card and don't actually perform that well and finish behind me with my B card, why should I care. You don't get some sort of prize or discount or anything like that. Now if you manage to hold on to your C or B card while shooting at high A levels... then there is a problem for folks.

[dirtypool40]

I have a dream...

of an updated classifier system.

It could work for our sport, but we have evolved past our current system and it's administration.

That being said I think it does measure pure shooting skills fairly well. Moving and cutting up courses? Doesn't even touch on that. Just my two cents.

[AikiDale]

The classifier system grades basic gun handling skills. The results page grades competition skills. There is no need for them to be the same.

[boo radley]

The more I think about the classification system the less I feel it has to do with the skills of our sport. First and foremost, in my mind, is movement... every classifier I've seen you stand on one place and bang away.

When was the last time you shot a COF and stood in one place?

When is the lst time you had a weak hand only stage, or a strong hand only?

Well...First, there are a number of classifiers that require movement. Not as much as I'd like, but then again, many stages we shoot don't require as much movement as I'd like, either.

Second -- many stages are nothing BUT a linked set of classifier-like arrays. The skills need to manage ye Old Typical Classifier are *exactly* those needed to handle the array, when you come into shooting position: visual patience, accuracy, speed, shot-calling, etc.

Third, weak-hand/strong-hand shows up sometimes. I only have a couple years experience in USPSA, and don't shoot that many majors, but I see these stages on occasion. This year's Florida Open stage 6 -- "Banker," for example.

Finally, it seems to me that major match performance pretty much reflects the classification break-down of it's participants. You wouldn't see this correlation if the skills were that dissimilar. Below I quickly cut 'n pasted the results rom 2006 A6 Limited into Excel, and gave each classification a color coding. I ignored "D". Yellow is GM, aqua is M, green is A, blue is B and red is C.

So. I kinda disagree. It's a system with some potential for abuse, obviously, and the intentional or unintentional performance that's vastly different than a classification would suggest. Still -- what's a better solution? At worst, it's yet another objective measure of at least some sorts of shooting ability.

[Dan Sierpina]

Strong hand only, weak hand only were almost always part of standard excercises. But, that was ummmm...decades ago. As in when there was only one division. It seems classifiers are applied differently with different clubs. I think most you get one shot at it, as in any other match stage. Other clubs let you keep shooting, till you get one you like. The second kind creates the "Paper Masters"

[driver8M3]

Finally, it seems to me that major match performance pretty much reflects the classification break-down of it's participants. You wouldn't see this correlation if the skills were that dissimilar.

i agree...

[Gwhiz]

I have long believed that for a classification system to be accurate it needs to use major matches counting 2 or 3 times more than club shot classifiers. The current system gives you your max class. Use major match finishes even if they are 5% or more below current class.

[HoMiE]

Finally, it seems to me that major match performance pretty much reflects the classification break-down of it's participants. You wouldn't see this correlation if the skills were that dissimilar.

i agree...

Doesn't the current classification system bump you if you are sandbagging and you place higher than your current class? I know someone who got bumped for finishing first B holding a C card at an area match.

[mjbine]

I am a B Class shooter but when I am in a major match I am a negative Z Class shooter. I think with dry fire practice you are able to move up the Class Ladder. At match that you cannot practice for, it makes you use all of your skill sets cold especially the brain. It seems to me that movement and thinking on fly should be in the classification system somewhere not just repeating the same classifiers over and over and over.

[38superman]

First of all, there are quite a few classifiers that require movement.

Some of them have fairly high round counts and substantial movement.

It really comes down to who is picking them out and why.

Speed shoots are easier to set up, easier to reset, take less time to move squads through.

As for strong/weak hand, I tend to agree.

You will not be forced to shoot weak hand often but it does happen.

I remember a stage where you were hand cuffed with a chain connecting the cuffs.

The chain was threaded through a steel ring that was bolted to the table.

You had to shoot around a barrier and the chains would not allow you to engage the targets any way other than strong / weak hand.

I have always been surprised by how closely my classification matched up with my scores in major matches.

In big matches with a lot of top shooters in attendance, I am usually within a couple of percent of my classification.

I don't practice the classifiers and I treat them the same as any other stage.

For me at least, the classification system has been a pretty accurate gage of how I stack up against the big dogs.

I have no complaints.

Tony

Edited August 1, 2007 by 38superman

[zhunter]

Going out in a limb here, but I think all Nationals, Area and Major Matches should count towards classification. It there is (pick a number here, 1, 2 or 3 minimum) GM's in that Division, then it should count!!!

Big matches make you use all of your shooting skills, not just what you can train for in Dry Firing.

[38superman]

Going out in a limb here, but I think all Nationals, Area and Major Matches should count towards classification. It there is (pick a number here, 1, 2 or 3 minimum) GM's in that Division, then it should count!!!

Big matches make you use all of your shooting skills, not just what you can train for in Dry Firing.

Jay, (a.k.a. Glider)

I was under the impression that was already the case.

Several of my classifiers are based on scores from national, area and sectional matches.

I think the only requirement is 3 GM's in your division? Not sure.

Tony

Edited August 1, 2007 by 38superman

[Mick]

If you consider all the ways to "classify" someone to compete with others you will be hard pressed to find a better overall way to do this than what USPSA has done. Yes, you may think that one handed shooting is frivilous but it does show a distinct skill level AND a willingness to pratice to achieve a better level of performance. It also allows for shooters to move up at major matches when they perfom above their "normal level". I got my M card that way at Area 4 years ago and that "one good match" turned out not to be a fluke.

I am a terrible "stand and blast" shooter which inculdes most classifiers. I do much better at high round count field courses where there is alot of movement despite my age. It would be hard to build classifiers that are 32 round field courses that can be duplicated repeatedly.

To me, the classifier stage at any match is just another stage and I tend to shoot them conservatively to not loose any match points. I tend to shoot them better on the first run anyway.

There have been attempts in the past to make larger classifiers but they tend to be difficult to build and the shorter ones weigh the same for classification.

I too have no complaints...

Edited August 1, 2007 by Mick

[SA Friday]

Finally, it seems to me that major match performance pretty much reflects the classification break-down of it's participants. You wouldn't see this correlation if the skills were that dissimilar. Below I quickly cut 'n pasted the results rom 2006 A6 Limited into Excel, and gave each classification a color coding. I ignored "D". Yellow is GM, aqua is M, green is A, blue is B and red is C.

So. I kinda disagree. It's a system with some potential for abuse, obviously, and the intentional or unintentional performance that's vastly different than a classification would suggest. Still -- what's a better solution? At worst, it's yet another objective measure of at least some sorts of shooting ability.

Very nice visual. It supports more than one point brought up in this thread. It would be interesting to see this type of analysis of all divisions from every major match from one year. It would be a lot of work, but would be a great tool to review the classification system.

BTW, there seems to be a lonely red bar way up top in the color chart. This anolomy seen regularly might support sandbagging issues too.

On a whole, I think the classification system works pretty well when shooters 'play it straight'. Grandbagging is just stupid, so I just don't see it as an issue either. Sandbagging could be addressed a little better, but I'm not sure as to what would be the best way. Scoring the resulting percentages from Level II and Level III matches as classifiers for all classes except GM might be a way to address this.

[EZ Bagger]

...but we have evolved past our current system and it's administration.

That being said I think it does measure pure shooting skills fairly well. Moving and cutting up courses? Doesn't even touch on that. Just my two cents.

IMO this is most often the complaint that people have against supposed sandbaggers...me included. I learned very early on that there is only one draw and for Limited and Open usually no more than one reload per stage. If I want to move up the standings, why would I spend hours upon hours practicing draws and reloads?

Now, sit me in front of a classifier that is so hugely influenced by the draw and reload and I'm not going to be as high up the list on those stages. But, guess what? I get frustrated that my classifier scores lag my match placements too!

The current system, by design, has the class lagging behind for those of us who are still improving....

Have yet to see a better overall system, so would be hesitant to recommend huge changes.

[SA Friday]

Hmmm, the more I think about it, I don't really see any reason scoring percentages from Level II and III matches couldn't be applied to the GM class either.

A little clarification on the idea... I am thinking that this would happen for everyone that shoots the Level II or III match, not just when there is a certain amount of GMs in the division.

I feel like I'm missing something in this idea, but I can't put my finger on it. Something that makes it a bad idea. Little help from the Big Giant Heads on this one, please.

[GeorgeInNePa]

Going out in a limb here, but I think all Nationals, Area and Major Matches should count towards classification. It there is (pick a number here, 1, 2 or 3 minimum) GM's in that Division, then it should count!!!

Big matches make you use all of your shooting skills, not just what you can train for in Dry Firing.

This rule already exists.

I've shot 5 Nationals, they all counted for classifaction.

At Area,Section, State, and other special matchs there needs to be 3 GM's in your Division for the score to count for classifaction. This is fair when you think about it. I am classified M, you are classified A (or whatever), I win the match, you shoot 89.5% of my score, there are no GM's at the match in that Division. Did you really shoot a Master class score?

[mlmiller1]

You do know there is another way to move up, right? If you will send your scores from a match where you did well to your area director & ask him to move you up, I'm pretty certain he can get it done. You can also send these same items directly to USPSA & make your request. The area director is how I moved up from D to C in limited. I asked the area guy to move me up. He said he could make me a B if I wanted. I did ask him not to do that right then!

If you aren't happy where you are, show them why you should be moved up. You'll get your wish.

MLM

IMO this is most often the complaint that people have against supposed sandbaggers...me included. I learned very early on that there is only one draw and for Limited and Open usually no more than one reload per stage. If I want to move up the standings, why would I spend hours upon hours practicing draws and reloads?

Now, sit me in front of a classifier that is so hugely influenced by the draw and reload and I'm not going to be as high up the list on those stages. But, guess what? I get frustrated that my classifier scores lag my match placements too!

The current system, by design, has the class lagging behind for those of us who are still improving....

Have yet to see a better overall system, so would be hesitant to recommend huge changes.

[JThompson]

You do know there is another way to move up, right? If you will send your scores from a match where you did well to your area director & ask him to move you up, I'm pretty certain he can get it done. You can also send these same items directly to USPSA & make your request. The area director is how I moved up from D to C in limited. I asked the area guy to move me up. He said he could make me a B if I wanted. I did ask him not to do that right then!

If you aren't happy where you are, show them why you should be moved up. You'll get your wish.

MLM

IMO this is most often the complaint that people have against supposed sandbaggers...me included. I learned very early on that there is only one draw and for Limited and Open usually no more than one reload per stage. If I want to move up the standings, why would I spend hours upon hours practicing draws and reloads?

Now, sit me in front of a classifier that is so hugely influenced by the draw and reload and I'm not going to be as high up the list on those stages. But, guess what? I get frustrated that my classifier scores lag my match placements too!

The current system, by design, has the class lagging behind for those of us who are still improving....

Have yet to see a better overall system, so would be hesitant to recommend huge changes.

I have heard that too, but I wouldn't feel like I earned it that way.

[Rocket35]

If I want to move up the standings, why would I spend hours upon hours practicing draws and reloads?

Have yet to see a better overall system, so would be hesitant to recommend huge changes.

I don't agree with the the first part. Draws and reloads often times make a big difference in the timing of moving targets. Say you have a stage that has you start holding a shopping cart. It is much faster to pull the cart then draw and get a static target shot before say two movers. But if your draw is out of shape you have compromised the opportunity to take a static target before any moving targets and if one is a dissappearing target- you may miss the opportunity to shoot that as well! This is just one example- but one in which I see played out in many ways, many times. Same goes for the reload. Mess that up and it can cost you seconds. If the fresh mag falls behind a wall and is unretreivable- it could cost you the stage by not having enough rounds to finish the course. Again- I have seen it several times. Lets not forget about the speed shoot courses! So- yeah, I think the draws and reloads are very important skills to master!

I tend to agree with you on the system we have in place- as long as everyone "plays it straight" and utilizes some integrity as far as re-shoots and "tanking" classifiers are concerned. People "tank" classifiers- it sucks, but it seems to be the nature of the beast before a big match. I have seen a couple of "sandbaggers" get bumped up from Area match placement though- so that helps....

[HuskySig]

It seems classifiers are applied differently with different clubs. I think most you get one shot at it, as in any other match stage. Other clubs let you keep shooting, till you get one you like. The second kind creates the "Paper Masters"

At the matches I run, you only get one shot at the classifier. I try to pick classifiers that haven't been used much or recently in the section. When I first became a match director, I thought I would be able to pick a classifier then practice it a few times before the actual match. My plan hasn't worked out so well. Generally when we're finished up with three hours of setup I want to go home and put my feet up.

mattk

Edited August 1, 2007 by HuskySig

[Rocket35]

That is a big 10-4 Husky- that was my experience as a match director also!