Jump to content
Brian Enos's Forums... Maku mozo!

Classification not Always Indicitive of Skill Level


JThompson

Recommended Posts

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... :cheers:

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.. :closedeyes:

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..

Good Post :cheers:

pat

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 226
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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... :cheers:

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.. :closedeyes:

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..

In reality, where you have an order of finish prize table such as at the USPSA Natonals, classification does not manner. It does not matter you are a "D" class shooter and won your class with a "B" class score. We spend all this time and effort on a classification system all year even to the extent that shooters earn slots to the nationals at their area matches based on their classification finish. Once the big show ends and trophies are passed out, the real prize is on the prize table when only order of finish matters.

There is plently of support for strictly order of finish matches but I believe that the support would slowly erode over time. Yes, USPSA got started this way but USPSA grew much larger much faster once the classificaiton system was in place. The members then could come out and shoot against others in their own class. Just like we have age groups for children's sports (and who would let there 6 year old play football with 10 year olds), we have skill level groups for adult sports and USPSA is no exception.

Let's face it. If you are at the top of the food chain, you are not affected at all by a classification system since you are going to win regardless whether there are 4 classes or 40. If you are not at the top of the pile, what you are trying to do is win your class. Most of us shoot for fun but being last match after match wears on you and we would see many more dropouts if the classification system was given the boot altogether. Once that happens, the prize table starts looking leaner and leaner for the match winner because there are less of the under dogs to fund it.

Charles Bond

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Jim

I like this idea. My initial reaction would be that the 6 needs to be a lower number (maybe 4?), but still like the idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

AD? :unsure:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its hard for me to figure out why someone would want to shoot a local classifier only match multiple times and then pick out the best ones to submit. Shooting a classifier as a single stage at a sanctioned event is a much better benchmark of your current skill. Sometimes you will do well, sometimes you may not - isn't that how it normally works out? I've got one full shooting season under my belt now and I want to be classified per my skill level. Maybe someday I can actually win something that way (I'm starting to doubt that though). Anyway, I come from a shooting sport where sandbagging was very prevalent - I see a few in this sport but does'nt seem as many. The reverse sandbagging to shoot in a class over your head just doesn't make much sense to me. Oh well, I'm still learning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"In reality, where you have an order of finish prize table such as at the USPSA Natonals, classification does not manner. It does not matter you are a "D" class shooter and won your class with a "B" class score."

Not sure I really fully agree with that. You are correct, at the end of the day, the prize table with order of finish is a nice reward, but many people shoot for recognition. If you consistently are able to "manage" your classification every year, and bring home Class wins at Majors, your name gets recognized, and you start being recognized as a "good shooter". Recognized shooters end up being sponsored (ok, semi-sponsored!) shooters in many cases. I'm not even talking about sandbaggers. Done correctly, one shooter may win D, then C, then B, and so on right up the chain - constantly being recognized as a good shooter, because he is slightly ahead of his classifier "curve".

Another shooter may be slightly behind his "curve" year in year out, constantly getting better, and advancing in Class steadily due to good classifiers, yet never place or win a Major... and on any given day could whip the guys in his last classification, but bad timing has moved him up right before the big match of the year. Bad luck, or bad management? :huh:

In any case, it does take a good shooter to shoot a complete match and win or place in ANY Class, for sure...... but it is easier to pull off when you are progressing faster than your old, dated classification scores show. Not sure theres really a fix for that, as far as somebody quickly improving, to fast for this classification to show.

I fully agree with the concept that we need a classification system to "bracket race" so we can continue to draw large crowds to big matches, and give everyone there something to fairly compete for. Even Categories function in this manner, and give people something to shoot for who, may not otherwise get a chance for some much due recognition.

(oh, forgot to mention, there are still many larger matches where prizes (guns, frames) are handed out to Class finishers, before the prize table - that just seems to reinforce negative behavior, IMHO as far as "managing" classifications goes).

Edited by sfinney
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

I was joking with a fellow shooter at our last match that I'm probably getting more dance practice than shooting practice.

Footwork is very important: one of the Local GMs does a pretty good job of whipping up on the young guns...and not because he ever physically runs through a course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it an automatic move up if you win your class or division at a level III match like the Nationals? It should be. I think it is fair to say the winner of C Class at a level III match should go to B for winning the match. I think that would be another reward for good shooting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it an automatic move up if you win your class or division at a level III match like the Nationals? It should be. I think it is fair to say the winner of C Class at a level III match should go to B for winning the match. I think that would be another reward for good shooting.

I think its supposed to be a move up (Area, Nats, etc) if you win your class AND shoot a certain percentage higher than your current class, with the requisite number of GMs in attendance? However, it does not seem to be consistently applied, so the term "automatic" probably can't be used. :blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Don't go bringing facts into this, this is about how we feel.

:P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Snip...

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.

Interesting that you should mention this stage, as it was orginally designed the package was to have been carried from the start position to a recepticle as the end of the COF. The redesign had you knock the package off the table to active a clamshell, so if you knocked the package off without control of the gun then chances are you were left with the head shot only. I am not sure if the bullet hole in the table was there before you shot this COF but somebody had an awshucks draw.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

I was joking with a fellow shooter at our last match that I'm probably getting more dance practice than shooting practice.

Footwork is very important: one of the Local GMs does a pretty good job of whipping up on the young guns...and not because he ever physically runs through a course.

You have to understand what Jake is saying - footwork and footspeed are two different things. The best example today of that fact is Rob Leatham. I could probably out run Rob while wearing a cast on both legs and balancing a glass of water on my head......but his footwork and ability to get in and out of positions is still some of the best ever, and thus he more than makes up for his lack of speed in between locations. Sort of like a quote Michael Jordan made towards the latter part of his basketball days - he said as a young player that he could beat most guys because of his physical skills but now that he has "slowed" down, he beats most guys because he understands the game better that most.

And contrary to other comments, while a GM or M can miss fast enough to beat B-class shooters......in the upper classifications, you cannot miss fast enough and expect to win your class, much less the match. Now I am a definite advocate of going after speed first and then points second on most stages, but on every stage and within every class, there is a breaking point that if you drop too many points, your time will probably not save you.

The other thing that I would caution people about judging someone's results to the better shooters at a local match - for many upper-classed shooters, local matches are nothing more than practice. They are not going to shoot a local match with the same focus and intensity as they would at a real match. So if you are a C-class shooter and you regularly finish in the 70%-80% range against M's at your club, do not expect to finish anywhere near this at a real match......and conversely, you cannot necessarily call that C-class shooter a sandbagger because of his local match results.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting that you should mention this stage, as it was orginally designed the package was to have been carried from the start position to a recepticle as the end of the COF. The redesign had you knock the package off the table to active a clamshell, so if you knocked the package off without control of the gun then chances are you were left with the head shot only. I am not sure if the bullet hole in the table was there before you shot this COF but somebody had an awshucks draw.

I watched the shooting of the table...by a Master on my squad. He is normally a safe shooter who deserves his M card. He just made a mistake that, thankfully, didn't hurt anyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...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?

Nope. From the USPSA website:

A person may be down-classed if the shooter requests in writing a review of is classification record; if there are no scores on record for at least one year in his assigned lass; and if the president of his club, or the Section Coordinator, writes and verifies that the shooter's ability actually is in the lower class requested. Final decision to down-class remains with President of USPSA. (Special circumstances may be considered in cases of severe, permanent injury.)

Later,

Chuck

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have to understand what Jake is saying - footwork and footspeed are two different things.

Oh, I was agreeing with what Jake said by providing an example...definitely not a misunderstanding...should have stated the agreement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its hard for me to figure out why someone would want to shoot a local classifier only match multiple times and then pick out the best ones to submit. Shooting a classifier as a single stage at a sanctioned event is a much better benchmark of your current skill. Sometimes you will do well, sometimes you may not - isn't that how it normally works out? I've got one full shooting season under my belt now and I want to be classified per my skill level. Maybe someday I can actually win something that way (I'm starting to doubt that though). Anyway, I come from a shooting sport where sandbagging was very prevalent - I see a few in this sport but does'nt seem as many. The reverse sandbagging to shoot in a class over your head just doesn't make much sense to me. Oh well, I'm still learning.

Those individuals have a different set of priorities. They may just want to brag on them being a Grand Master or they may want that by their name so they can promote their business. I strongly believe that it needs to be something special to attain that classification. There needs to be at least one instance where they demonstrate that level of performance in a major match before being granted the GM classification.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that the current classification system is not a true representation of one's overall abilities. I just don't see how you can base one's classification on a 12 shot classifier, when most stages at big matches are field type cousrses that have more rounds, which also has more margin for error. The more shots you shoot the more chances of having a bad shot. consistency is a big part of our game.

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.

and out of those 6 becomes your initial classification, or it could be 4 for the initial classification.

your next match you go to lets say its a major, and you shoot it better than your local classification classifier than the major match classifier would overide your local one.

I know the bad side is that there would be alot of unclassified shooters, but that would change the longer your in the sport.

good side is that it would discourage "Sandbagging" since at majors we want to finish as high as we possible can. So you can get all the goodies, but even then alot of matches are going to the raffle idea of prize giving, which I don't agree with, but thats another topic. It would eliminate grandbagging, because you are shooting a major as good as you can shoot it. I don't see why people would spend that kind of money on a major match to tank it.

So there you have my thoughts on how we should base our classification system. Please feel free to add on. I definately think the current system needs to change.

PK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Easy for you to say...on a well designed course I will agree with you...and I'm a fat old fart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Easy for you to say...on a well designed course I will agree with you...and I'm a fat old fart.

You still move pretty good Sherwyn... 20.5 seonds on "Windows 5.0" is a pretty solid run. That was 5 secs better than my time :o I did get all As though. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Using major match scores as classification results would skew the classification system tremendously. Check out how many GM and M-class percentages were shot at the last few nationals and area matches. Imagine the whining at the local level when all those used-to-be-M's and GMs come back to the local level as A's and B's... :o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's an interesting topic and we've heard a lot of dif views on it. 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 think what we are using now has it merits, but feel that some augmentation is needed to move the classifications to more of a moving based format. 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. I feel this is one reason that so many tend to choke... they know this is for class and it adds that much more pressure, but not only that, unless they practice the classes they never shoot anything like it.

Edited by JThompson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Using major match scores as classification results would skew the classification system tremendously. Check out how many GM and M-class percentages were shot at the last few nationals and area matches. Imagine the whining at the local level when all those used-to-be-M's and GMs come back to the local level as A's and B's... :o

I see alot of people shooting way below what thier classifications at big matches and we would probably see alot of whining about people getting demoted from thier current classification. But at least it would be a true an honest rating of thier abilities against the top dogs. And how is any different from the whining we hear about sandbagging at the local levels, or people calling each other paper master or paper grandmasters.

Jake:

As far as Sevigny winning by over 15 percent, than according to my plan, than everyone under sevigny would have recieved 3 classifiers according to thier percentage of sevigny. and they would need another 3 more classifiers to be officially classified. They can recieve 2 classifiers by shooting a major match besides a national, and the one averaged classifier from the local match would give them a final classification. read my above post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...