Classifier HF

[JThompson]

We are down right sticklers for the rules of this game. Just have a look at some of the heated debates in the rules section. Some of these debates are over things, many would consider, minor issues to the sport.

My question is this... why then do people ignore the fact of how out of wack some of the classifier HF are. Some of them are the same from Prod, Limited and Open. Others have impossible HF for any gun and shooter combo. I won't even go into how bad some of the revo stuff is screwed up. Obviously, some of these HF were arbitrarily assigned by "someone." How can we overlook and ignore such a major part of the sport. Is this why Sedro doesn't publish the HHF?

In a word

Let's have a serious look at the system and take the time to fix the damn thing.

Edited October 23, 2008 by JThompson

[Flexmoney]

Takle a look here (as well as other past threads): http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=24428

[JThompson]

Takle a look here (as well as other past threads): http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=24428

Excellent links Flex!! I couldn't agree more. We could build some that didn't take a rocket scientist to design and make consistent. I understand the want to keep them simple to insure they are the same from one club to the next, but you have to give us a little credit. We are trusted to run around shooting stuff after all, can we not be expected to understand how to setup a simple stage?

By all means get some stages that are more indicative of what we actually shoot!!

JT

[ima45dv8]

By all means get some stages that are more indicative of what we actually shoot!!

JT

You mean like this one?

[JThompson]

By all means get some stages that are more indicative of what we actually shoot!!

JT

You mean like this one?

Ya. That one is a waste of ammo... nothing like anything we shoot at all.

[LPatterson]

So design a stage with all the dimensions and post it here on the forum for members to go out and shoot with different divisions and then post their hit factors. After that submit it to the Match director of the next Nationals with the results and see if that is something they want in their match.

Saying on my bosses wall, "If you are not part of the solution then you are part of the problem".

[ima45dv8]

My somewhat limited experience in that area was that HQ generally prefers scores/HF's from Area-level events if at all possible, in order to consider a stage as a potential classifier. And that makes sense. Having a large pool of shooters with a good number of them A-class and higher (and hopefully a number of GM's) would make determining the High HF easier and hopefully more realistic.

Mr. Patterson's point is still valid, though. Design a stage and offer it up for some state- and area-level events. You might be surprised by what happens.

[JThompson]

So design a stage with all the dimensions and post it here on the forum for members to go out and shoot with different divisions and then post their hit factors. After that submit it to the Match director of the next Nationals with the results and see if that is something they want in their match.

Saying on my bosses wall, "If you are not part of the solution then you are part of the problem".

If I thought it would really do any good I would, but since there are so many that they haven't taken the time to correct.... it seems more like masturbation. Perhaps, you could say the same about me bitching here, but there are a lot of the guys here who CAN do something about it. If the powers that be would take the time to correct some of the errors in what we already have, I would sure be glad to design a few.

Edited October 23, 2008 by JThompson

[bkeeler]

Why are most of the classifiers stand and shoot with very little movement?

BK

[JThompson]

Why are most of the classifiers stand and shoot with very little movement?

BK

I think the thought behind it was two fold. One to make it easy to setup and be consistent. The other being some small ranges... esp indoor ones, don't have a lot of room to move.

We can always have the stand and bang, but why not have some others too.

JT

[AikiDale]

Why are most of the classifiers stand and shoot with very little movement?

BK

Initial Disclaimer: I do not know why.

Speculation: To measure gun handling skills and not athletic performance.

[bkeeler]

We can always have the stand and bang, but why not have some others too.

JT

+1

BK

[WDB]

Why are most of the classifiers stand and shoot with very little movement?

BK

Initial Disclaimer: I do not know why.

Speculation: To measure gun handling skills and not athletic performance.

BUT, athletic performance IS part of your overall ability to compete in a match. Sooooooooooooo,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

[HSMITH]

I generally shoot within a couple percent of my classification at the major matches. Some of the classifiers are dumb, but I do not believe the system is broken. I think it could be improved in some areas but it is certainly viable as is.

[moverfive]

I generally shoot within a couple percent of my classification at the major matches. Some of the classifiers are dumb, but I do not believe the system is broken. I think it could be improved in some areas but it is certainly viable as is.

This is probably a better question to be asked on USPSA's forum in order to get an official answer.....

.....how are the HHF's actually determined?

A while back I remember seeing where HHF's were determined by taking the average of the top 10 scores received. At a high level, that would seem to be a very fair method. However, IF this average is based on the top 10 scored received (to include Level I submissions), that would mean this is a constantly moving number. And this is where the problem begins - because people regularly reshoot classifiers and/or do the "Hero or Zero" run at Level I matches, using the ALL of top 10 scores received could produce a HHF that would require subsequent folks to go for the "Hero or Zero" score in order to get an accurate score commensurate with their skill level.....or conversely, the resulting HHF would produce classification scores well below most shooters' true skill level.

However, I have some HHF's from many years ago for classifiers currently being shot. And without having gone through all of them, it does appear that many HHF's are still the same today and thus would indicate that the HHF's are static. So again, how and when were these HHF's determined? Was there a limited timeframe where this average was determined and then shut down? What scores were used in that timeframe.....again, if HHF's are static.

My point - if Level I scores are used to determine HHF's, then I think the resulting scores are suspect. While some may argue that many Level I scores are held under "match pressure," that may be true for most. But reshoots, top shooters goofing off, and other similar actions produce scores that would not normally be obtained IF the stage were shot at a Level II or above match. And therefore, I think only scores obtained from Level II or above matches should be used in determining HHF's.

[larry cazes]

We can always have the stand and bang, but why not have some others too.

JT

+1

BK

A few field course style classifiers with quite a bit of movement do exist. We have set them up at some of our locals but it is a lot of work to do so. As has been said already, design some new ones and submit them.