Classification not Always Indicitive of Skill Level

[EZ Bagger]

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....

Well, I didn't say that I don't practice those things just that I think that from an overall ranking standpoint, I get far more mileage out of box entry/exit, shooting on the move, and stage management than I do from the one second of cummulative difference (combined) draw and reload time differences between me and a GM. If I were already a M or GM then those small differences would be at the margin that I'm working on!

Not to drift the thread too much, but how many times do you have to make that decision on a draw vs how often do you need to do that during a stage but well after the gun is already drawn? Open Nats this year had one stage where a millisecond draw (off of the table) would have made any significant difference in how the stage could be shot. This type of decision seems to reinforce that our current system is, overall, pretty accurately ranking the competitors.

[EZ Bagger]

Generally when we're finished up with three hours of setup I want to go home and put my feet up.

mattk

Unfortunately, too true!

[tightloop]

Zman

And for those of you that don't like the current classification system...lets go back to the way it was when this first started...No divisions, no classes...everyone run what you brung and shoot heads up...no sand/grand/bagging and really makes you ponder what equipment to throw into the car before you leave the driveway...

I am sure that those that specialize in one division might get their fanny whipped a few times b4 they became an M or GM alround shooter...that assumes of course that the courses of fire do not give one division a better chance than another...oh, damn...there are those 29+ round mags, we'll need a rule to get rid of those of course..

SH/WH shooting are part of the skill set that every M and GM shooter develops whether they shoot it much or not...used to be part and parcel of most every match..as did other skills that have been relegated to nonuse, like weakhand reloads and mandatory SH then WH within the same string...

Paper masters indeed...tell me what is the difference in a guy who can crank a 4.5 El Prez down a few but who isn't fleet of foot and a 21 yr old guy who used to run pro track and throws down a time on a 32 round field course that only Carl Lewis could match.. If the stand and shoot classifiers are such clap trap, why is it you very seldom see anyone GM or M really crank out on one in a match...cause the pressure of ONE small mistake could cost them 60+ match points...when even a Mike on a long field course can be overcome by speed of foot in a long field course.

Everyone has their fav kind of stages...for us older guys who can't run with the kids, stand and shoot gets the nod..for the Open guys and Limited guys with MANY rounds down, the field courses are their pick.. if you utilize the three aspects of the sport; speed, power and accuracy and offer a fair number of every type of COF the cream will come to the top...

Let's face it, every one likes to see their name at the top of the page and the current classifiers offer the best chance that a Production, L10 or SS shooter will win at least one stage...and I like the idea of that

My .02 worth..

[boo radley]

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.

Thx, SA! Not a ton of work, just a pain 'cause Excel only allows you to apply 3 conditions, when conditionally formatting.

Here's another one only of the Nationals, in this order, 'cause the formatting got screwed: 2007 Open, 2007 L10, 2006 LTD, 2006 Open and 2006 Prod.

A couple things stand out to me. First, no classes are ever "jumped". IOW, you will never get to a B shooter before at least one Master and A. Second, the very best M shooters beat the best A shooters, but in the middle there, M and A are pretty jumbled. Interesting stuff. The anomalies do stand out, don't they?

(white spaces are "U" )

Edited August 1, 2007 by boo radley

[SA Friday]

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.

Thx, SA! Not a ton of work, just a pain 'cause Excel only allows you to apply 3 conditions, when conditionally formatting.

Here's another one only of the Nationals, in this order, 'cause the formatting got screwed: 2007 Open, 2007 L10, 2006 LTD, 2006 Open and 2006 Prod.

A couple things stand out to me. First, no classes are ever "jumped". IOW, you will never get to a B shooter before at least one Master and A. Second, the very best M shooters beat the best A shooters, but in the middle there, M and A are pretty jumbled. Interesting stuff. The anomalies do stand out, don't they?

(white spaces are "U" )

Wow, the biggest thing I see is to win your class/division, you essentially have to beat 50%+ of the next highest division. It seems systemic throughout the charts regardless of the class or division. Interesting way of looking at things.

[chuckbradley]

I agree with the title of the thread but its about as good as it can get. There are a few things i would do to change it. One being that to make GM you had to shoot a GM score at a match that counted, thus 3 GM shooters. I think we have too many paper GM's. They cant do it at the matches but they claim the glory of reaching that status. Then there are those that attained that level who just are not able to perform at that level any longer. This includes myself. I just cant bring myself to move to another division just because I may only be a Master in those. Enough of that. Other examples are my son who got classified D in open shooting a glock, now he has an open gun he is on the verge of breaking into B. He was well above(2nd place) the bulk of c class shooters at the last big match we went to but then there was the guy who actually won C. He hadnt shot open since he got classified 2 years earlier and is now almost A class limited. He won c class open. It is evident that you have to be on the verge of moving to the next level and perform into the next level to win your class.

Given that most matches have done away with awarding valuable prizes based on performance it really doesnt matter. We should be trying to win our division. With all the divisions we have now maybe the classes should be less emphasized. Unless of course we consider playing the classification system as part of the overall game.

[mscott]

I'm not sure that I wouldn't fall into the sandbagger catagory even though it isn't true. I'm a long ways from being real good, but in my corner of the world I seem to hang real close to some of the A and B shooters and do sometimes shoot well enough to beat a few of them at local shoots. I am classified D in Limited. I just simply haven't had any luck on classifiers this year. I'm pretty sure the system will work itself out in my case. I'll be at Area 8 in a couple of days, so we'll see how the classification system works. I think the major matches are the best judge of a shooter's classification, but some of us can't attend very many.

[Jman]

Can't add much to what has been mentioned.

Except my dream. A handicap. Change nothing, just figure out a way

to assign a handicap based on existing data. It will NEVER happen.

But, honestly it's the only way a guy like me "Joe Sixpak" will

ever "compete" against the best. During my golf hay days I

carried a legitimate 8 handicap. The joy and satisfaction I got

from taking $5.00 nassau's from scratch -2 pros by one stroke was

indescribable. Much, much fun. Another C shooter heard from.

Jim M

Edited out lies

Edited August 1, 2007 by JimmyM

[ChuckS]

Hi there,

After reading this thread I went a took a look at my current classification and the matches that I shot in July.

My current classification in open is a breathtaking 66.13%

My last 3 matches (from 3 different clubs) are as follows:

62.60%

66.89%

68.03%

for an average of 65.84%

For me, at least, things seem to be in pretty good alignment.

Later,

Chuck

Edited August 2, 2007 by ChuckS

[38superman]

Zman

And for those of you that don't like the current classification system...lets go back to the way it was when this first started...No divisions, no classes...everyone run what you brung and shoot heads up...no sand/grand/bagging and really makes you ponder what equipment to throw into the car before you leave the driveway...

I am sure that those that specialize in one division might get their fanny whipped a few times b4 they became an M or GM alround shooter...that assumes of course that the courses of fire do not give one division a better chance than another...oh, damn...there are those 29+ round mags, we'll need a rule to get rid of those of course..

SH/WH shooting are part of the skill set that every M and GM shooter develops whether they shoot it much or not...used to be part and parcel of most every match..as did other skills that have been relegated to nonuse, like weakhand reloads and mandatory SH then WH within the same string...

Paper masters indeed...tell me what is the difference in a guy who can crank a 4.5 El Prez down a few but who isn't fleet of foot and a 21 yr old guy who used to run pro track and throws down a time on a 32 round field course that only Carl Lewis could match.. If the stand and shoot classifiers are such clap trap, why is it you very seldom see anyone GM or M really crank out on one in a match...cause the pressure of ONE small mistake could cost them 60+ match points...when even a Mike on a long field course can be overcome by speed of foot in a long field course.

Everyone has their fav kind of stages...for us older guys who can't run with the kids, stand and shoot gets the nod..for the Open guys and Limited guys with MANY rounds down, the field courses are their pick.. if you utilize the three aspects of the sport; speed, power and accuracy and offer a fair number of every type of COF the cream will come to the top...

Let's face it, every one likes to see their name at the top of the page and the current classifiers offer the best chance that a Production, L10 or SS shooter will win at least one stage...and I like the idea of that

My .02 worth..

I wholeheartedly agree with Tightloop.........oh crap, did I say that out loud?

Tls

[EZ Bagger]

Hi there,

After reading this thread I went a took a look at my current classification and the matches that I shot in July.

My current classification in open is a breathtaking 66.13%

My last 3 matches (from 3 different clubs) are as follows:

62.60%

66.89%

68.03%

for an average of 65.84%

For me, at least, things seem to be in pretty good alignment.

Later,

Chuck

Definitely not the case for me...

CurrentL OPEN Class: B Pct: 63.95

A couple of recent matches:

Classifier %'s 75 and a 79

Corresponding Match (not class) placements:

Place Name USPSA Class Division PF Lady Age Points Mtch%

1 Snyder, Todd B Open Major N 574.7087 100.00%

2 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX GM Open Major N Senior 541.5667 94.23%

3 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX M Open Major N Senior 520.4392 90.56%

Place Name USPSA Class Division PF Lady For Age Points Mtch%

1 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX GM Limited Major N N 372.7310 100.00%

2 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX M Open Major N N 352.3878 94.54%

3 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX GM Limited Major N N 324.7015 87.11%

4 Snyder, Todd B Open Major N N 305.2656 81.90%

And just in case you're wondering, yes, the GM's are real. One's a top 10, the other is a top 20.

[sfinney]

Hi there,

After reading this thread I went a took a look at my current classification and the matches that I shot in July.

My current classification in open is a breathtaking 66.13%

My last 3 matches (from 3 different clubs) are as follows:

62.60%

66.89%

68.03%

for an average of 65.84%

For me, at least, things seem to be in pretty good alignment.

Later,

Chuck

Definitely not the case for me...

CurrentL OPEN Class: B Pct: 63.95

A couple of recent matches:

Classifier %'s 75 and a 79

Corresponding Match (not class) placements:

Place Name USPSA Class Division PF Lady Age Points Mtch%

1 Snyder, Todd B Open Major N 574.7087 100.00%

2 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX GM Open Major N Senior 541.5667 94.23%

3 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX M Open Major N Senior 520.4392 90.56%

Place Name USPSA Class Division PF Lady For Age Points Mtch%

1 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX GM Limited Major N N 372.7310 100.00%

2 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX M Open Major N N 352.3878 94.54%

3 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX GM Limited Major N N 324.7015 87.11%

4 Snyder, Todd B Open Major N N 305.2656 81.90%

And just in case you're wondering, yes, the GM's are real. One's a top 10, the other is a top 20.

Your comment in an above post is "our current system is, overall, pretty accurately ranking the competitors."

Yet the results and classifier scores above seem to contradict that. If you're shooting 80 or 90% against top GM's in matches, I'd say your definitely not B class, despite how you feel about your "classifier skill set".

[EZ Bagger]

Your comment in an above post is "our current system is, overall, pretty accurately ranking the competitors."

Yet the results and classifier scores above seem to contradict that. If you're shooting 80 or 90% against top GM's in matches, I'd say your definitely not B class, despite how you feel about your "classifier skill set".

I am one of those that is improving, and luckily the last month has been good. The classifications will catch up at some point. As noted in another post above, the differences are often so small. But for 4 points, the 79% would have been well over 85%....

Definitle time for a thank you to those that are willing to help out the shooters like me that started out at a zero % only because it can't go below that!

[sfinney]

2007 Area_4_Championship - Final results for Limited

Place Name No. USPSA Class Division PF Lady For Age Match Pts Match %

1 GM Limited Major No No 1378.0099 100.00%

23 Shaun Finney 196 TY33826 M Limited Major No No 922.6686 66.96%

I'm the other way around - my classification is currently 91.77% in Limited. I usually place somewhere in the 70 to 80% range at majors, and have a hard time breaking into M class. Mostly because I can stand and shoot ok (classifier friendly), but need work hauling my butt around the course.

At Area 4 this year I was beat by 6 GM's, 6 M's, 7 A's and 1 B, yet I still beat 4 other M's with a 66.96%, 23rd place match score (realistically I should have shot near 80% and 10th place in this match but dang near zeroed one large 140 point stage due to an extensive dain bramage induced penalty fest).

2 of my best stages were the classifier Can You Count, and the Standards (I was 2nd Lim on that one).

My point is that on any given day at any given match, the classification system is skewed depending on the type of stages and flavor of the match. It could be made to more accurately reflect Major Match ability if the the Major Match scores would count double or triple compared to normal Classifiers.... and maybe even let them count if they are below the normal cut off as well? Oh well. in the mean time, if I want to win something, I need to practice more. I'm more concerned about overall finish than class finish anyway.

[Xfactor]

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.

I'm not a fan at all of one-handed shooting - especially WHO! Although, admittedly, I'm new to this sport, and I suck at WHO... and SHO isn't exactly my strong point either

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"

Really? Some clubs actually let you shoot classifiers over and over until you're happy with the result? That seems like it should be against the rules... I would think that would be a huge advantage, and vastly skew the classifier results for shooters at these clubs... so, uh, anyone know of any of these clubs??

[Ron Ankeny]

It seems to me that most shooters who primarily shoot IPSC or "grew up" shooting IPSC seem to develop "classifier skills" , "match skills", and "long course skills" at about the same rate. For them, the classification system seems to have some merit.

For those of us who came into IPSC from 30 years of shooting other handgun sports, the classification system does little more than provide us with an artificially high "ranking". I have always felt the classifier is the easiest course of fire in any given match. With dry fire practice, and a lot of work on "only seeing what is required" an accomplished shooter from other sports can easily reach GM through the classification system while only really being able to compete in a "real match" at about the B class level.

Then there is the matter of going downhill as we age. Between my vision and physical problems, I haven't shot a Master score on a classifier in over a year, but I still have the card...

Let's face it, the classification system really only measures a person's best efforts at stand and deliver. If that happens to coincide with a person's match performance, everything is well and good. If not, why should any one care? I am all for running with what you brung, no classifications at all. Just grip it and rip it.

[sfinney]

It seems to me that most shooters who primarily shoot IPSC or "grew up" shooting IPSC seem to develop "classifier skills" , "match skills", and "long course skills" at about the same rate. For them, the classification system seems to have some merit.

For those of us who came into IPSC from 30 years of shooting other handgun sports, the classification system does little more than provide us with an artificially high "ranking". I have always felt the classifier is the easiest course of fire in any given match. With dry fire practice, and a lot of work on "only seeing what is required" an accomplished shooter from other sports can easily reach GM through the classification system while only really being able to compete in a "real match" at about the B class level.

Then there is the matter of going downhill as we age. Between my vision and physical problems, I haven't shot a Master score on a classifier in over a year, but I still have the card...

Let's face it, the classification system really only measures a person's best efforts at stand and deliver. If that happens to coincide with a person's match performance, everything is well and good. If not, why should any one care? I am all for running with what you brung, no classifications at all. Just grip it and rip it.

Big +1 to all of that.

[shred]

For 95% of shooters, the classification system seems to work pretty well. The other 5-10% are the problem.

What we ought to do is get our favor back from IPSC-- they borrowed a lot of our classifiers to get going, now we should borrow back the ones that aren't in the USPSA book. There are some interesting classifiers in the IPSC book. Most of 'em have 'Metric' target versions too.

[EZ Bagger]

an accomplished shooter from other sports can easily reach GM through the classification system while only really being able to compete in a "real match" at about the B class level.

Can I be an accomplished shooter someday? Please?

[HSMITH]

I get labeled as a sandbagger quite frequently. I can honestly say that I have never bagged a classifier in my life. Sit me in one spot and make me shoot and we will find guys and gals that can stand and shoot better than I can. What I CAN do well is move through a stage decently and shoot on the move decently, get a couple field courses in the overall and guess what? I whoop guys with a card a level or two above mine. I am NOT a sandbagger and the people I shoot with know that, but it doesn't stop some of the comments. That said, my performance in state and area matches has been right in line with where my classification is.

I don't think the system works on a macro level, the local matches. I do think the system works great on a micro level where we are compared to the bigshots shooting a major match.

[RPMartin]

Classifiers are meant to test the BASIC shooting skills.

It doesn't matter how fast you can sprint to the targets, if you don't have the bacic gun handling skills to hit the target, or get your rig into action.

Could we use some updated Classifiers? Yes! Go design them and get them in enough matches to qualify for a "CLASSIFIER".

Until this happens we are stuck with the ones us old fogies designed years ago...............

Come on you youngsters, step up and design the new era classifiers!

RPM

Edited August 2, 2007 by RPMartin

[mpeltier]

I fall into that 5-10% who it does not work for. I am not a sandbagger but I have not shot enough classifiers to reflect my tru skill level. I am currently classified "C" class and have several first place plaques reflecting this, even though I finished ahead of the "A" class winners. I also shoot 3-gun extensively and always place in with the "M" and "GM" finishers. After re viewing all the matches I have competed in I would place myself as an "A" shooter and may petition my area directer to move me up. Having said all that the system does seem to work accurately for the majority, and with the ability to request a move up (as I have learned from this thread) in certain instances it may indeed accomodate everyone and needs little change.

[Jim Norman]

This is an interesting thread.

I am currently an "A" Class in Limited and Limted-10. Locally I finish well most of the time, (Current rash of gun related problems excluded) I have on occasion turned in a good classifier. If one were to take my 6 highest ever classifier scores, I would be a Master Class shooter. At larger matches, I generally finish at the lower end of A or upper end of B percentage. This year I have either slipped or some of the GMs are really pulling out the stops. I am seeing 5-10% spreads in the top two or three shooters with #4 coming in only in the high 80's. When I finish at a match like this with a high 60 I don't feel too bad.

This is all by way of preamble. Good classifiers mean one thing, the shooter shoots good classifiers. Good match results at larger venues means the shooter can put it all together stage after stage to make a good showing against the better shooters in the sport.

I think that a change to the way classifications are assigned MAY be in order. If a shooter shoots say 6 LARGE matches in a year, Level 2 or greater in a division, the average of his finishes should be his classification. If the shooter only shoots at the local level, then classifiers will be his classification. There would NOT be a choice of methodology in the decision, you would receive the Match Classification if qualified, otherwise you get the classifier average.

This COULD have an additional benefit of getting more people out to shoot larger matches. And MIGHT cause less charges of sandbagging. Also, in my humble opinion, we would, those that had the Match Classification, have a much more realistic classification than the current model.

Jim

[Xfactor]

...I have not shot enough classifiers to reflect my tru skill level... After re viewing all the matches I have competed in I would place myself as an "A" shooter and may petition my area directer to move me up...

That brings up an interesting question: If the AD moves you from "C" to "A", and you shoot your next 6 classifiers in the "C" % range, will you get moved back to "C" class?

[mpeltier]

No I would not think so. The classifiers dont work for me as they do not reflect match performance. After all match performance and a comparable skill level of those you compete against is what it is all about anyway right? If I stay in "C" class and after 6 years of shooting this sport I show up and win the "C" class against true "C" class shooters the guy behind me is not too happy (crying sandbagger) when he sees hes lost to someone who finished close to the top. And Im not to thrilled with a "C' win when it should have been an "A". I do not have the opportunity to shoot classifiers very often at all as there are not many available to me. I have e-mailed my match director about this and am anxious to hear from him.