Classification not Always Indicitive of Skill Level

[Sharyn]

What if, and I am just throwing this out there:

What if we had the nationals count as 3 classifiers

Other major matches counted as 2 classifiers, when 3 gm's are in attendance

and local matches count as 1 classifier, with the best 6 of the local matches averaged out to be one keeper classifier, monthly updated.

I'm confused... what's your benchmark?

Are you saying, for local matches, using your results as an example...

95.72% of a M

88.27% of a M

99.77% of a C

93.44% of a M

100.00% against one B

89.89% of an A

... you'd net a 94.515% "keeper" classifier???

I agree that your Nationals % should be weighted a little heavier... because you're shooting an entire match (not just one stage) against the best of the best at that moment in time!

As for other major matches counting for more... naw, I think the current system is the most fair.

[Dan Sierpina]

One thing I can tell you is foot speed has WAY less to do with performance on a field course than most people think.

Performance in field courses comes with refined fundamentals...that and the fact that most people get so amped up about speed they shoot horrible points.

Jake,

In the old days, freefire zones were unheard of. Lot's of shooting boxes even on field courses. ( We didn't call them field courses then) So, a shooter that was fleet of foot would do well. Of course, almost everyone shot a 5" .45ACP at the time, so lots of loading.

[boo radley]

It seems most of us agree that, in some areas there is room for improvement. Now we just need to discuss what areas we would change and how to do it. I feel, until almost all of the classifiers have some form of movement, or are averaged with match results, we will have a somewhat skewed results. The current systems puts all the pressure on one stage that is like nothing we shoot on a regular basis.

Well, with all respect to you and Paper Killer, I think it's time for some math. Y'all keep saying "this" is broken, or "that" doesn't represent the actual skills need in a match, but show proof that there isn't a statistical correlation between current classifier ranking and major match performance.

On *average* do folks not shoot up to their classification at major matches? Yeah, about 10% worse. But that's true across *all* of the classes.

Here's a game. I'll throw out raw averages from the 07 Open Nationals, and I'll bet $5 anyone here can match class (GM,M,A,B,C) to average:

83%, 57%, 65%, 43%, 74%.

Or '07 A6 LTD:

60%, 70%, 47%, 89%,75%

[shred]

My point was if you want to use major match scores exclusively to classify shooters, then you also have to immediately also raise the HHFs on every classifier as well, effectively dropping everybody at least 10% right off the bat, or there will be a huge disparity between the "I got my B-card at Nationals" versus the "I got my B-card shooting classifiers locally" shooters. If we dump the classifier stages entirely, then how do we classify the local-only shooters without doing some sort of six-degrees-of-separation-from-Robbie thing? ("shooter X shot 87% against shooter Y who shot 74% of TGO at Nationals..")

Seems easier to just assume most everybody shoots, on average, when it's one-run-for-score, about 10% below the best they can do when shooting "best 3 out of 4 runs" (that would be "best 6 of most recent 8", for the math- and analogy-challenged)

I think that any class win at Nationals and maybe Area matches with at least 8-10 other shooters in the same class should move the shooter up, no matter what the percentage. The Prez can always 'demote' shooters if appropriate.

[Sean Gaines]

What if, and I am just throwing this out there:

What if we had the nationals count as 3 classifiers

Other major matches counted as 2 classifiers, when 3 gm's are in attendance

and local matches count as 1 classifier, with the best 6 of the local matches averaged out to be one keeper classifier, monthly updated.

I'm confused... what's your benchmark?

Are you saying, for local matches, using your results as an example...

95.72% of a M

88.27% of a M

99.77% of a C

93.44% of a M

100.00% against one B

89.89% of an A

... you'd net a 94.515% "keeper" classifier???

I agree that your Nationals % should be weighted a little heavier... because you're shooting an entire match (not just one stage) against the best of the best at that moment in time!

As for other major matches counting for more... naw, I think the current system is the most fair.

Hey Sharon

no, basically your keeper classifier would be the one you have currnetly right now. lets say you are a 65% under the current method of classification, that would be your 1 keeper classifier that would go toward the 6 that you would need. Making the local match classifiers less representative, by making it count as only 1 classifier, but it is made up of 6 of your best averaaged classifiers (Basically what we have now, just only count as 1)

[mjbine]

Why not average more then just 4 or 6 classifiers? Average based on 10, 15 or 20 classifiers. A problem could be then new shooters could not get classified very quick. What is your class if you averaged 15 or 20 classifiers? I just looked at mine, 6 classifiers are 71.84 and with 20 classifiers are 48.99. That is a big difference. 6 seems to be too low of a number to base an average on.

[Sean Gaines]

It seems most of us agree that, in some areas there is room for improvement. Now we just need to discuss what areas we would change and how to do it. I feel, until almost all of the classifiers have some form of movement, or are averaged with match results, we will have a somewhat skewed results. The current systems puts all the pressure on one stage that is like nothing we shoot on a regular basis.

Well, with all respect to you and Paper Killer, I think it's time for some math. Y'all keep saying "this" is broken, or "that" doesn't represent the actual skills need in a match, but show proof that there isn't a statistical correlation between current classifier ranking and major match performance.

On *average* do folks not shoot up to their classification at major matches? Yeah, about 10% worse. But that's true across *all* of the classes.

Here's a game. I'll throw out raw averages from the 07 Open Nationals, and I'll bet $5 anyone here can match class (GM,M,A,B,C) to average:

83%, 57%, 65%, 43%, 74%.

Or '07 A6 LTD:

60%, 70%, 47%, 89%,75%

So you are providing the proof in your post. That we all shoot about 10% worse at Nationals. So what you are saying if I am a 80%. That when I go to nationals I will shoot a B class score. If so then I should probably be B class shooter. That would be more accurate than saying I am a 80% shooter but at Nationals I will probably shoot a 70%, so really I am a B class shooter. If your 10% number is correct than thats were the system is flawed.

I just don't know of any sport that people take credit for a win, when they used the system to keep them in a certain class for thier benefit. It just underminds the integrity of this sport. And thats another thing that is majorly flawed.

[boo radley]

[quote name='JThompson' post='590334' date='Aug 3 2007, 12:54

Here's a game. I'll throw out raw averages from the 07 Open Nationals, and I'll bet $5 anyone here can match class (GM,M,A,B,C) to average:

83%, 57%, 65%, 43%, 74%.

Or '07 A6 LTD:

60%, 70%, 47%, 89%,75%

So you are providing the proof in your post. That we all shoot about 10% worse at Nationals. So what you are saying if I am a 80%. That when I go to nationals I will shoot a B class score. If so then I should probably be B class shooter. That would be more accurate than saying I am a 80% shooter but at Nationals I will probably shoot a 70%, so really I am a B class shooter. If your 10% number is correct than thats were the system is flawed.

I just don't know of any sport that people take credit for a win, when they used the system to keep them in a certain class for thier benefit. It just underminds the integrity of this sport. And thats another thing that is majorly flawed.

Well...the *winners* don't shoot 10% worse.

IMO, the important thing here, is the relative relationship between classes is preserved, and that is more important than the actual percentage, because the 100% match point value comes from a single shooter's performance.

In my example, let's give the average score of the GM's a 100% value. Now it breaks down thus:

100% GM

91% M

82% A

74% B

60% C

or in the other match...

100% GM

86% M

81% A

70% B

58% C

A raw average isn't great, but you get the idea. It's like taking a Corvette, a Honda Accord and Geo Metro. Put them on a drag strip, and call that your classifier, and rank the other cars relative to the 'Vette's time. Now, go run races - you can say the race tracks are very different from a drag strip, with curves, etc., but until the Metro starts beating the Accord, or the Vette almost loses to the Accord, your ranking system is functional.

Anyway, just my ramblings. There's a certain elegance to the classification system that really impresses me. It can probably be improved in certain ways, but at what cost, and what specifically is broken that needs fixin'?

[tightloop]

It's this whole Class thing that's got me going....If people want to shoot different Divisions, great, but everyone shoot heads up in that Division...if they have to have a class ranking to make them feel good, let them do it at the local club level...the class rankings are meaningless...the same guys are going to win at the local, area and national levels anyway...so who's kidding who...? Does it really mean anything to come back from the Nationals as the Production Novice Champion, if you got whooped by 94% of all Production shooters and 99.9% of all shooters in the match....are egos so fragile that they have to cling to something so subjective as that...Get tough or die...be realistic, you might as well just say you are a middle of the pack shooter than trot out your finish as 36th C class Production shooter...and don't start up about the prize table and your standings to get an earlier trip there...this sport shouldn't be about the prizes anyway...personal satisfaction is the best prize.

[Matthew_Mink]

Imagine a few years ago at Production nationals when Sevigny won by over 15%. Not only would he be the only GM in Production...there wouldn't have even been any Masters.

I would have taken the demotion back to A class after that and even said so at the time. What it did do was make me reevaluate what I was doing, and I came back with a vengence the next year after much reflection and practice. I think the classification system needs revamped, it does not mean much anymore.

[EZ Bagger]

It's this whole Class thing that's got me going....If people want to shoot different Divisions, great, but everyone shoot heads up in that Division...if they have to have a class ranking to make them feel good, let them do it at the local club level...the class rankings are meaningless...the same guys are going to win at the local, area and national levels anyway...so who's kidding who...? Does it really mean anything to come back from the Nationals as the Production Novice Champion, if you got whooped by 94% of all Production shooters and 99.9% of all shooters in the match....are egos so fragile that they have to cling to something so subjective as that...Get tough or die...be realistic, you might as well just say you are a middle of the pack shooter than trot out your finish as 36th C class Production shooter...and don't start up about the prize table and your standings to get an earlier trip there...this sport shouldn't be about the prizes anyway...personal satisfaction is the best prize.

Just my opinions, and I've not been playing this game that long....

To me, the questions/issues above are the difference between theory and reality. I've not met anyone whose goal in this game was the prize table per se. And, I don't remember ever hearing anyone running around claiming they're the best in the country because they won C class. What I have heard, seen and been a party to is shooters being proud of improving. In theory, it doesn't make any difference, but in reality (OK, my reality) the Class levels continue to provide interim goals and measures of whether or not I'm accomplishing those goals.

Remember the new shooter and how intimidating it is to show up and shoot that first match. Call that a fragile ego if you want...because it probably is. To ignore that reality and take away a tool that helps that person build themselves up will IMO result in fewer shooters retained, not more.

[shred]

Except on exceptional days, even the winner of the Nationals shoots 10% worse than their best 3 of 4 runs where they can also ignore any really trashed runs.

Watch how the top guys shoot Steel Challenge (best 4 of 5 runs) versus IPSC matches (one run, that's it). Much more swinging for the fences.

The classifier-stage system recognizes peak performances on one stage while match results reflect consistency over many stages.

[Sean Gaines]

Well...the *winners* don't shoot 10% worse.

IMO, the important thing here, is the relative relationship between classes is preserved, and that is more important than the actual percentage, because the 100% match point value comes from a single shooter's performance.

In my example, let's give the average score of the GM's a 100% value. Now it breaks down thus:

100% GM

91% M

82% A

74% B

60% C

or in the other match...

100% GM

86% M

81% A

70% B

58% C

A raw average isn't great, but you get the idea. It's like taking a Corvette, a Honda Accord and Geo Metro. Put them on a drag strip, and call that your classifier, and rank the other cars relative to the 'Vette's time. Now, go run races - you can say the race tracks are very different from a drag strip, with curves, etc., but until the Metro starts beating the Accord, or the Vette almost loses to the Accord, your ranking system is functional.

Anyway, just my ramblings. There's a certain elegance to the classification system that really impresses me. It can probably be improved in certain ways, but at what cost, and what specifically is broken that needs fixin'?

Good analogy, but in your analogy they are not going for hoa honda, or hoa corvette. The classifier system is like your" dragstrip",just drive straight. Local mathces can be easily manipulated, without anyone to say anything, ex: people shooting classifiers more than once, Having an all classifier match where they set up easier, "move up classifiers" Lets say someone shoot a "move up classifier match" then moves up into a class that he can't compete in, is that really fair. Major matches are the "racetracks" they require movement, shooting on the move, preperation, etc. which should count more towards your classification. There are people out ther who are not fleet of foot who can shoot stand and shoot classifiers with the best of them, but when there is movement involved they can't shoot thier class.

I am sure most of us have been beaten, by someone who should have in a class higher than were they were at the time. I have seen B class shooters in the top 10 at some major area matches. Were they promoted by Uspsa. no. Did the shooter request to move up. heck no, not when there is frames, and slides to be won staying in thier current class. Maybe my method is not the best, but I think there needs to be something done to prevent sandbaggers. Thats what is broke

Edited August 3, 2007 by shred

[tightloop]

It's this whole Class thing that's got me going....If people want to shoot different Divisions, great, but everyone shoot heads up in that Division...if they have to have a class ranking to make them feel good, let them do it at the local club level...the class rankings are meaningless...the same guys are going to win at the local, area and national levels anyway...so who's kidding who...? Does it really mean anything to come back from the Nationals as the Production Novice Champion, if you got whooped by 94% of all Production shooters and 99.9% of all shooters in the match....are egos so fragile that they have to cling to something so subjective as that...Get tough or die...be realistic, you might as well just say you are a middle of the pack shooter than trot out your finish as 36th C class Production shooter...and don't start up about the prize table and your standings to get an earlier trip there...this sport shouldn't be about the prizes anyway...personal satisfaction is the best prize.

Just my opinions, and I've not been playing this game that long....

To me, the questions/issues above are the difference between theory and reality. I've not met anyone whose goal in this game was the prize table per se. And, I don't remember ever hearing anyone running around claiming they're the best in the country because they won C class. What I have heard, seen and been a party to is shooters being proud of improving. In theory, it doesn't make any difference, but in reality (OK, my reality) the Class levels continue to provide interim goals and measures of whether or not I'm accomplishing those goals.

Remember the new shooter and how intimidating it is to show up and shoot that first match. Call that a fragile ego if you want...because it probably is. To ignore that reality and take away a tool that helps that person build themselves up will IMO result in fewer shooters retained, not more.

The intimidation factor is there in any sport...intermediate goals are good and do provide goal markers for improvement, but only at the local level...does any C shooter regardless of Division really think that even with their best personal performance that they are going to beat any of the GM's in their division at the National level, I don't think so..it does give them something to aim for at home but not at the big matches. Boo's excel charts provide insight about that...only until you get into the mid A shooters do you find any leap frogging in positions over higher ranked shooterswhere a B or C shooter with a lights out performance can jump over higher ranked shooters. Sure I was uncertain of how I was going to perform at the first few matches I went to, everyone is..but getting trounced by the better shooters only made me work harder, it did not drive me out of the sport, I gained better technique, better gear, better thought process and fought my way up as my skills improved.

Other threads in this forum have touched on the prize table and there are those whose only thought is to get there as quickly as they can...sandbaggers love to exclaim their ability by showing their class wins, but we know the only real winning is by those close to HOA...maybe for some it provides the impetus to continue and improve but those who claim that they shoot only for themselves will forever remain in the middle of the pack...The Nationals should provide a place for the best from across the country and world to showcase their skills, against the rest of the best...perhaps it should be harder to obtain a slot to the Natls....and since there seems to be a Natls for each division now, what do classes mean when you get there anyway?

If you must have classes, perhaps there should be a Pro class for shooters like TGO and his kind...and have a cut line line they do in golf where the top 60% plus ties go on to the last two days..just my thoughts.

[XRe]

I like the idea, Jake.... I don't necessarily think it will eliminate sandbagging, but its a good concept..

Frankly, I think if we had more classifiers that involved significant field course skills, the classifications would be slightly more accurate...

That said - the hallmark of a *top* GM is the ability to keep the head together to win a big match. Frequently, those who come in 2nd are not within the GM range, because they usually make more than one mistake through the match. That doesn't mean they aren't GM shooters. The same holds true for most everyone else in the match - and shooters who have a good, solid match in one match may make mistakes in the next. Otherwise, based on the past two nationals, you're saying that JJ, JoJo, KC, Henning, Saul, BJ, Matt M, Steve Anderson, Jake, et al, should not be GMs.... I don't think I agree

If we're going to have a classification system (ie, a handicap system), it should not be based solely on performance in major matches, but they should be accounted for - it should, however, attempt to make a reasonable assessment of the shooter as a whole, and that should include field course skills. We don't have many classifiers that stress those skills... And, the high hit factors need to be determined through match results where those classifiers are part of the score - no arbitrary HHFs, based on guesses, etc.

I think the current system works, just the data has grown stale, and the classifiers have not kept up with the evolution of the stage designs we really see in matches. It shouldn't be that painful of a thing to refresh the whole thing....

[Sean Gaines]

Except on exceptional days, even the winner of the Nationals shoots 10% worse than their best 3 of 4 runs where they can also ignore any really trashed runs.

Watch how the top guys shoot Steel Challenge (best 4 of 5 runs) versus IPSC matches (one run, that's it). Much more swinging for the fences.

The classifier-stage system recognizes peak performances on one stage while match results reflect consistency over many stages.

I understand the classifier-stage system recognized peak performances on one stage with your top current 6 being your classification, while at the same time major match performances thrown in thier also. So basically we have individual performances in classifier-stage type environment, coupled with major match percentages being put in thier also for our current classification. granted it still leaves room for people to trash the local match classifiers to stay at thier current level. The way its setup now there is more emphasis on local matches for classification, unelss you shoot just majors, which the majority of us don't, which leaves more room for corruption at the local level. Your right the match result method would reflect consistancey over many stages. Thats the whole idea, since our game is all about consistancy.

What I am proposing to is to put less emphasis on the local match, giving it 1/6 it worth and placing the other 5/6 on major match performance.

[Jake Di Vita]

Dave,

The reason I believe it would eliminate sand bagging is because if you won your class...you are automatically moved to the next higher class. You can sandbag a win once...after that you have to work for it. It wouldn't eliminate sand bagging immediately...but after a year of everyone shooting matches, you can pretty much bet 99% of sand baggers in the sport would be put in their rightful class.

[Sean Gaines]

I don't so much have a huge problem with the class system as I do with how it's rewarded.

As a disclaimer...I thought all of this when I was a middle of the pack B shooter as well.

Eliminate the prize table and make it cash reward only. There should not be 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place in every class....everyone can't win. Do 1st, 2nd, and 3rd overall, and each class winner except GM. If you are a GM you can only win by winning the match. Reward class winners with progressively higher rewards for each higher class. This way, the people who put more effort in get more out of it...which is how every sport should be. Once someone wins their class in a level III they are automatically bumped up to the next higher class. This way you have 8 paid placements for each division....much better than the 19 there already is.

1st place - 30%

2nd place - 25%

3rd place - 15%

High M - 10%

High A - 8%

High B - 6%

High C - 4%

High D - 2%

Percentage is of whatever prize pool there is per division. If by chance there is no one shooting one class in a division....that classes's percentage is distributed evenly amongst the others.

I'm sure there will be people thinking that this isn't fair to them....fortunately....there is always dry fire.

This type of reward system will eliminate sand bagging and encourage a higher performance level of shooting across the board.

Unfortuantly with current classifer system the sandbaggers would get all the money. If I was a high master in limited all I need to do is shoot 4 classifiers in limited 10 and get my "A card" do some practice skip some classifier matches, screw some local classifiers up, and then go to the match and win A class I don't think this will stop sandbagging, if anything it might promote more of it.

[Sean Gaines]

Dave,

The reason I believe it would eliminate sand bagging is because if you won your class...you are automatically moved to the next higher class. You can sandbag a win once...after that you have to work for it. It wouldn't eliminate sand bagging immediately...but after a year of everyone shooting matches, you can pretty much bet 99% of sand baggers in the sport would be put in their rightful class.

Yes I see what you are saying they would be able to sandbag once. But then here come sandbager B who finished second because he wasn't the better sandbagger, win the next match. then once he moves up there is an up and comming sandbagger. I think it would be an never ending cycle, especially when thier is money or good prizes to win.

[mjbine]

Why aren't winners of the class promoted to the next class? I agree with Jake that would get rid of 99% of the sandbaggers after they won one match.

[racerba]

Why aren't winners of the class promoted to the next class?

Eventually, everybody would become a GM at that rate. Not all class winners are sandbaggers.

[Jake Di Vita]

racerba,

You only get moved up if you win your class. Any A shooter might not win their class for a long time. Also realize I said this only happens at Level III matches.

Ben,

I'm all for rewarding performance from a top down level...which is why I made the scale the way I did. This way it still rewards performance at every level...but only rewards the winners.

From a competitor stand point....only the people that win or are in the top 3 of the division should be rewarded. There will always be a class system...and I think there should be...but there shouldn't be the "everyone wins" mentality that we have now.

What USPSA was going for when the class system was created was basically having 6 different matches within the same division...which I think is fine. Reward the winners of each of the 5 classes and reward the best 3 performances overall.

Be it a good thing or a bad thing....most people will try harder when there is a tangible reward for their work. By having monetary rewards for each class, USPSA shooters will improve more as a whole than any other way...and that is what we are trying to do...promote excellance in the manipulation of a pistol.

Oh and as a side note. The other thing that should be done which I forgot to mention is one classification per shooter. If the shooter's highest classification is Master...he should be a Master in all divisions.

By and large nowadays there are enough good shooters out there where you need to perform into the next class to be able to win your class...which is my reasoning (other than eliminating sand bagging) for an automatic bump after the win of a Level III.

[BigDave]

It's this whole Class thing that's got me going....If people want to shoot different Divisions, great, but everyone shoot heads up in that Division...if they have to have a class ranking to make them feel good, let them do it at the local club level...the class rankings are meaningless...the same guys are going to win at the local, area and national levels anyway...so who's kidding who...? Does it really mean anything to come back from the Nationals as the Production Novice Champion, if you got whooped by 94% of all Production shooters and 99.9% of all shooters in the match....are egos so fragile that they have to cling to something so subjective as that...Get tough or die...be realistic, you might as well just say you are a middle of the pack shooter than trot out your finish as 36th C class Production shooter...and don't start up about the prize table and your standings to get an earlier trip there...this sport shouldn't be about the prizes anyway...personal satisfaction is the best prize.

Amen. Nice post.

[Ben Stoeger]

Ben,

I'm all for rewarding performance from a top down level...which is why I made the scale the way I did. This way it still rewards performance at every level...but only rewards the winners.

From a competitor stand point....only the people that win or are in the top 3 of the division should be rewarded. There will always be a class system...and I think there should be...but there shouldn't be the "everyone wins" mentality that we have now.

What USPSA was going for when the class system was created was basically having 6 different matches within the same division...which I think is fine. Reward the winners of each of the 5 classes and reward the best 3 performances overall.

Be it a good thing or a bad thing....most people will try harder when there is a tangible reward for their work. By having monetary rewards for each class, USPSA shooters will improve more as a whole than any other way...and that is what we are trying to do...promote excellance in the manipulation of a pistol.

Jake,

I think we agree more than we disagree. However, I still do not think that class performance should be used as a means of awarding anything but trophies. I don't really care how hard other people want to try. I think its crazy to pick my pocket in the form of entry fee's, or rewarding donated prizes that could go to someone that actually deserves it by awarding it to a guy that happens to beat the 7 other D production shooters. 2% is still 2% to much if you ask me. Give him a trophy, an attaboy, and send him on his way. I don't see how we can "promote excellence in the manipulation of a pistol" by rewarding the most pedestrian of accomplishments with prizes.

I hear the "encouragement" reason cited for other things that drag the sport down as well. Like if an MD puts on stages that are just plain to easy, and says "well what about the new shooters"? Ummm.. its a match... not a goddamn ego massage for people that cant hit anything.

The same should also go for our prize table. You want a prize? Practice.

I hate to say this, but one of the things I really like about IDPA is the rule that prizes must be given randomly. I can't get anything for shooting well, but nobody else is gonna get something for shooting poorly.

[XRe]

but after a year of everyone shooting matches, you can pretty much bet 99% of sand baggers in the sport would be put in their rightful class.

But only if they shoot Level III matches... If every big match were a Level III match, I'd agree, but... around here, many of them are only Level I