NEW OLD SCORING!

[P.E. Kelley]

Hello fellow 3 gunners,

Let us, for the initial debate on this thread forget that we have equipment divisions. Forget equipment divisions until AFTER scoring is complete. What this means is that for each stage ONLY ONE HIGHT HIT FACTOR (score) will be used to calculate the complete results. Once the complete results are tabulated, equipment divisions will then be extracted. Not rescored, just extracted from the overall placement list in order of overall finish.

A number of things happen using this method.

An OVERALL match champion is known.

All competitors know how they placed against all comers.

All divisions are separated and rewarded as before.

Scoring is much easier for match staff.

I cannot speak for any of you but my goals have always been to place as high overall as possible. I see no reason to score my equipment division choice separately. We will still be recognized for our efforts within a division but just scored together. My guess is the only reason we do is because we do.

Way back when;

IPSC Principle #3 (found in the blue 1995 rule book on page 17).

3. Firearm types are not separated, all compete together without handicap.

This does not apply to the power of the firearms as power is an element to

be recognized and rewarded.

We got away from this in the pistol ranks but we are 3 gunners and we don’t need no stinking divisions!

Honestly what would this hurt? If we did not score separately the minor flip flops that occasionally happen after we combine the scores would not happen. We all show up with our division gear and all shoot and compete equally against each other and the stages. We are still recognized for awards within our division but with only one winner per stage.

What say you?

Patrick

[ima45dv8]

What say you?

No, thanks.

[MCFooter]

What say you?

Amen

[P.E. Kelley]

What say you?

No, thanks.

This is open to debate. Some match directors maybe considering this method. Why not?

Patrick

[Dan Sierpina]

Patrick,

I like your suggestion. I don't shoot much 3 gun/ multigun out here on the east coast. But, that type of scoring was what was uesd when I started shooting IPSC back in the early 80's. I think Major rifle should go back to being 7.62 x 51 for the floor too!

[Scout454]

Pat,

All of the local outlaw 3 gun matches score in order of finish. All of us who compete prefer it. The divisions show beside the shooters name in the results but the order of finish is just that - an order of finish.

While we're on the subject, it's all time plus scoring too. No percentages, no hit factors.

Mike

[Merlin Orr]

As an Open shooter - I LOVE it.

As a Limited shooter - not so much

As a Production/L10 shooter - kinda sucky.'

As a Single stack shooter - glad I am not shooting revolver.....

Not.

[uscbigdawg]

I'm down. Game on! It'll truly be run what you brung!

Rich

[uscbigdawg]

I'm down. Game on! It'll truly be run what you brung!

Rich

[P.E. Kelley]

Merlin, this is 3 gun specific.

Scout 454, The matches WE have been to do not have ONE high score per stage. They have a high score for each division. Then combine those

after for the overall. That does not give a true overall.

Heavy Metal has NOT truely won the overall at SMM3gun. It just looks that way because of the scoring snafu that

is created by separate then combined.

Look through results and you will see multiple 100% per stage.

DPMS does it. SMM3G has and may still. CMMG too.

This has nothing to do with time plus. Only one winner per stage to base the final scores for the overall.

Everyone will still get rewarded by division. The match will just be scored without divisions.

Gentlemen, please continue.

Patrick

[StealthyBlagga]

Such a scoring change would not be entirely benign, as factoring all shooters to the stage winner (assuming its an Open shooter) would change the relative importance of some of the stages for the Tactical guys. For example, long range/small target stages would end up being less influential than shorter hoser stages. However, I am not totally against this concept if we all understand the results will be different.

What I would be STRONGLY against is the next logical step, that of simply using total time a la IDPA... totally inappropriate in 3-gun IMHO, though some local matches do score this way.

I'm more curious to understand what supposed problem such a scoring change would fix ? Scoring mistakes can happen under any system, and dumbing down the calculations is not the best solution. We have very sophisticated computers to do the number crunching - its not like we have to do these calculations on an abacus anymore.

Edited October 19, 2007 by StealthyBlagga

[Jim Norman]

Sounds OK at first.

What we do is the following.

We utilze a modified San Angelo. We score everyone as major and add additional penalty points (single points off) for each B C or D a shooter gets when using a minor firearm. Using EzWinScore we score Multi-GUn as a Pistol Match which gives us 56 divisions to work in, (5 are usable since Production is all minor) We can publish directly the Combined results, Open, Limited, L-10 (Tactical) and either Revo or SS (Heavy Metal)

We could stop there.We choose not to. We take the percentages of each shooters finish on each stage and use that as his stage score (% x 100) in other words a 74.23% is 72.23 points. Each stage is worth 100 points. We add up the points and high score wins. Works for overall and division split outs.

Our feeling is that if we only go heads up, we will soon see no one byt Tactical, Why? because it is very unlilely that a trooper shooting Irons, a SS and Pump all Major will win or even come close to a high cap, minor, optic rifle, a high cap pistol and an auto load shotgun.

One thing we all have to remember is what we want indivisulally has to be balanced against our customer base.

All this said, I will shoot what ever match I can get to and however I finish is fine just as long as I know going in how the match is scored and can make an intelligent choice as to my platforms.

Jim

[bgary]

Interesting question, Mr. Kelley... especially as we have the hood open on the USPSA multigun rules right now.

I guess my initial thought is that - mathematically - it implicitly penalizes anyone who wasn't in the same division as the stage winner, by "collapsing" the relative differences between scores.

Let's say that you and I are both shooting Open - you shoot 90% of the stage winner, and I shoot 65% of the stage winner. let's assume the stage winner is also shooting Open. To keep things simple, lets say it is a 100-point stage. So, you get 90 points, I get 65, for a "gap" of 25 match points.

Now, let's say we have the same situation, except you and I are shooting Limited, and the Limited stage winner only shoots 80% of the Open stage winner.

In the current system, our scores are "normalized" against our own division-specific stage winner, so you'd get 90 points, I'd get 65, still 25 points behind.

In the proposed system, we'd get a "depreciated" score. The Limited stage winner would get 80 points, you'd get 72, and I'd get 52... now, only 20 points behind you.

I guess what all that means is that... for the big dogs at the top of the pack, it's an interesting idea... but for the rest of the pack, it would tend to artificially deflate scores, which.... I just dunno if that's a good thing or not. More to the point, I don't know if "crowning an overall winner" (1 guy) is worth affecting the scores of everyone else in the match.

Note that, as was mentioned above, EZWS *does* have the ability to produce an overall/combined results, so... in USPSA we can already do this - although, not in TimePlus.

---

On a separate-but-related topic, one of the other differences between USPSA scoring and IMGA scoring is the relative "weights" of stages in the match. In USPSA scoring, each *round* counts the same - so a 30-round COF counts more in the match results than a 10-round COF. In most IMGA matches, all stages are worth 100 points, which means that each round you shoot in a 10-round COF is worth [potentially] 10 points, and each round in a 30-round COF is only worth 3-1/3rd.

I mention that because... the USPSA rules committee is thinkin' about experimenting with timeplus for USPSA multigun... it *does* have some advantages, in that it is easy to score on the range, etc... but IMHO, it also "changes the game", because it doesn't really test accuracy, and doesn't at ALL address power, so it ends up being all about speed. That's not a "bad thing", just... something we're thinkin' about.

Bruce

PS - great job on the compensator article! Those were some clever fixtures!

[Joe4d]

I'd just like to see a system of scoring that actually rewards accuracy instead of treating it like an after thought when the time is recorded.

[Jim Norman]

Bruce,

Time Plus CAN, but does not inherently reward accuracy. It is easy to game if the penalties are not relative to the stage.

If for example we penalize 10 seconds for a miss, but the COF has either no limit or a very high time limit and is a long range and thus more difficult stage, a shooter can run up, throw two "Aimed" shots at a 500 yard target and take a miss that costs him far less than the time it would take to aim and fire the required shots. THis brings up the need to have either relative penalties or a FTDR and I know that is not wanted in USPSA!.

All the above said, the idea in USPSA that all shots count the same towards the match is fine, for handgun, but personally I like the idea that all skill sets and all challenges count the same and that is the idea behind the 100 points per stage. You can't win just by being good at a few things, you need to be at the top in all i order to actually win.

IF we can figure out a good Time Plus for three-gun, I would be in favor, it is certainly easier to score than what we currently go through.

My thoughts.

Jim

[EricW]

Hey Pat,

I think I can find you a hornet's nest and a broomstick to beat it with...might be easier on you in the end.

[TRUBL]

Jim has a point....how ever....a good MD will see that up front and have stiffer penalties for longer targets. Even USPSA allows for that in 3 gun (I believe).

Further more.....in an IMGA match, for the most part, all stages are 'longer' in time. However then the short time stages will tend to open a gap for the shooter field in the scheme of the entire match points.

If you do the graphs, the scoring is actually done on a logarithmic curve ((your time/fastest time)*100). And there is a point of dimishing returns.....on a short time stage, it is seen much faster than a longer timed stage. This could mean that the shortest stage in the match may be the most important.

I've looking into the possibility of 'weighting' a stage, based on the time it takes the fastest shooter to run the stage. It would really make no difference as to mid-match scoring as no one knows where they stand to the fast shooter until he runs the stage anyways. Basically, I am trying to have eliminate the curve and make the longer stages mean more than the shorter stages.

I've not said much about this.....but since mr. kelly brought up the whole scoring thing.....oh well.

Tim

[SinistralRifleman]

Personally I'd like some way to compare scores across divisions accurately. Points based matches don't allow for this because all the divisions are separated.

[Benelli Chick]

There are pros and cons to everything. In USPSA scoring, when you run them overall with only 1-100 for each stage, and then pull them out with 1-100 for each stage in each division, there are occasionally some small flip flops, but only between shooters that are very close anyway. I was talking to someone, and they said they didn't want to end up behind someone because of the overall scoring, but someone goes up and someone goes down in these situations. Either one could be you.

As far as the open shooter always winning...I have to disagree. Recently, I have had at least one stage at a number of IMGA matches (and USPSA) where I have a shorter time or a higher hit factor than someone in open, and they get more points than I do toward the match because of...Daniel Horner! Tactical! Okay, he's a freak...but it kind of gets frustrating.

As far as the scenario where the open guy gets more points than you, he still gets less points than the winner in open. If you're the fastest, you still get more points than anyone in your division. While the spread may be smaller, it's the same spread for everyone in your division!

If you look at final scores, no one gets all the points for a match unless he wins all the stages. Say the top tactical has 834 points, and you have 567 points, you have to divide and you'd still have to to get your percent in tactical.

Other than stirring doo-doo (which sometimes is fun for the sake of stirring! No names, but his initals are PEK!), the advantage I see is that you could see if you were in a non-open division how many open people you beat and feel all warm and fuzzy. It doesn't do that much for open people, except maybe let them know a non-open person beat them which I suppose would be anti-warm and fuzzy!

A lot of people really don't get the scoring as it is, and lumping them all together and pulling them out, though it is essentially going to come out the same for all sakes and purposes, will confuse and perturb some people even more.

I agree, I like to know how I come out against everyone, even though it is comparing apples and oranges. I wouldn't give an award for the overall winner, even if scored this way, because while it's interesting, it's a big bowl of weird fruit and vegetables and who cares if the cauliflower beats the kumquat? ( That analogy got away from me!)

It's something to think about. I don't know how much easier it will make anything except comparing yourself against the whole field. Worry not...you would still be compared against your division for awards...it would just be info!

Well, Patrick thanks for stirring it up again. Do you get bored at work???

Keep commenting! It's very interesting...but...

Denise

P.S.

The other thing that scoring overall would do is eliminate percentage inflation that happens in really small divisions. For example, if you have...I don't know... He-Man Scoped and He-Man Iron and there's only 12 guys in He-Man Iron and none of them is an Ace. All of a sudden it looks like they're the best shooters ever, with 8 of 9 100 percents or what have you. I'm not saying yes or no, it's just another point in it's favor. The same guy would win with the overall system, but his numbers might be a little more realistic. Again, it's a thought.

P.P.S.

Whoops! One more thing! At this time in IMGA, often people list overall, but they score it with the points from the separate divisions. That makes me crazy as you are not shooting against them. Your leader is shooting against their leader, and if your leader wins, then everyone underneath gets ripped off. If you're going to show overall, you really ought to do it the way Patrick suggests as that is a true overall!!!! I think that's the last thing I have to say about this.

Edited October 19, 2007 by Benelli Chick

[Scott R]

I guess my initial thought is that - mathematically - it implicitly penalizes anyone who wasn't in the same division as the stage winner, by "collapsing" the relative differences between scores.

Let's say that you and I are both shooting Open - you shoot 90% of the stage winner, and I shoot 65% of the stage winner. let's assume the stage winner is also shooting Open. To keep things simple, lets say it is a 100-point stage. So, you get 90 points, I get 65, for a "gap" of 25 match points.

Now, let's say we have the same situation, except you and I are shooting Limited, and the Limited stage winner only shoots 80% of the Open stage winner.

In the current system, our scores are "normalized" against our own division-specific stage winner, so you'd get 90 points, I'd get 65, still 25 points behind.

In the proposed system, we'd get a "depreciated" score. The Limited stage winner would get 80 points, you'd get 72, and I'd get 52... now, only 20 points behind you.

Now imagine how this could work in a high round count shotgun stage. It would be conceivable that the stage winner in any division requiring hand feeding could finish as low as 40-60% of the Open division stage winner. The difference would be 2- 3 times as much as pointed out in the above scenario

[kurtm]

Well....score it anyway you like! No matter what, I can already name the top 20 as we know them today. Mix them anyway you like..but it will be the same! Using IMGA and it,s 100 points per stage gives equal weight to ALL 3-gun skills from hosing to "shooting out beyond Fort Mudge" ( The Late Great One..Jeff Cooper)! No other system does that yet! As for heads up between all divisions that was already tried at RM3G this last year! KURTM

[Scout454]

"Scout 454, The matches WE have been to do not have ONE high score per stage. They have a high score for each division. Then combine those

after for the overall. That does not give a true overall.

Heavy Metal has NOT truely won the overall at SMM3gun. It just looks that way because of the scoring snafu that

is created by separate then combined."

I was referring to OUR local matches. There is one winner per stage. There is one winner for the match and that winner shoots the fastest time with the least number of penalties. That individual will be first regardless of his division.

[TRUBL]

yep.....gotta agree with Kurt there.....we always know who the top 20 are.....and that other thing you said.

[scirocco38s]

Hello fellow 3 gunners,

Let us, for the initial debate on this thread forget that we have equipment divisions. Forget equipment divisions until AFTER scoring is complete. What this means is that for each stage ONLY ONE HIGHT HIT FACTOR (score) will be used to calculate the complete results. Once the complete results are tabulated, equipment divisions will then be extracted. Not rescored, just extracted from the overall placement list in order of overall finish.

A number of things happen using this method.

An OVERALL match champion is known.

All competitors know how they placed against all comers.

All divisions are separated and rewarded as before.

Scoring is much easier for match staff.

I cannot speak for any of you but my goals have always been to place as high overall as possible. I see no reason to score my equipment division choice separately. We will still be recognized for our efforts within a division but just scored together. My guess is the only reason we do is because we do.

Way back when;

IPSC Principle #3 (found in the blue 1995 rule book on page 17).

3. Firearm types are not separated, all compete together without handicap.

This does not apply to the power of the firearms as power is an element to

be recognized and rewarded.

We got away from this in the pistol ranks but we are 3 gunners and we don’t need no stinking divisions!

Honestly what would this hurt? If we did not score separately the minor flip flops that occasionally happen after we combine the scores would not happen. We all show up with our division gear and all shoot and compete equally against each other and the stages. We are still recognized for awards within our division but with only one winner per stage.

What say you?

Patrick

I personally like it as most of the real 3-gun matches are scored this way and you go to the prize table in order of finish overall.

Hey Pat,

I think I can find you a hornet's nest and a broomstick to beat it with...might be easier on you in the end.

Now thats just to damn funny. Although completely accurate.

Well....score it anyway you like! No matter what, I can already name the top 20 as we know them today. Mix them anyway you like..but it will be the same! Using IMGA and it,s 100 points per stage gives equal weight to ALL 3-gun skills from hosing to "shooting out beyond Fort Mudge" ( The Late Great One..Jeff Cooper)! No other system does that yet! As for heads up between all divisions that was already tried at RM3G this last year! KURTM

Kurt, I agree with you on this 100%. the cream rises to the top in these matches no matter how they are scored. I personally would like to see an overall winner regardless of division and then all the division winners. I have always found it more interesting to know who is ahead of me and what division they are shooting. It sometimes is an indicator of how difficult the stage was. I might shoot tatical for a match and would like to see how I stacked up against the open shooters.

[mpeltier]

I think the open competitors would be ok with this method. I as a Tactical/optic division competitor would not care for it. I couldnt care less how I did against the open shooters or the Iron shooters. My personal feeling is that divisions typically compete together for efficiency of running the match. I dont think there should be an overall match winner in a tournament hosting multiple divisions. With complete result only the top competitor appears to be first. "if you aint first your last", I hate bieng last. The prize table order is not very important, I think that should be a lottery. ( as you can guess im probably not one of those top 20-----yet)