HHF and the Classification System

[ed_henry]

I think if you look at the results from the US nationals you will see that there are really only very few people that can shoot a 95% in large scale competition.

Most of the GM's out there are very good but not necessarily at the very top. Most sports have a pyramid shaped result structure. There are only a very few at the top.

ed

[gose]

I think if you look at the results from the US nationals you will see that there are really only very few people that can shoot a 95% in large scale competition.

Most of the GM's out there are very good but not necessarily at the very top. Most sports have a pyramid shaped result structure. There are only a very few at the top.

ed

Well, one of the reasons behind this is that the classifiers are kinda "static" and don't change when someone beats the current highest HF. This means that the GMs might actually shoot scores that would put them in the 110-120% range on a classifier, rather than the max 100%.

When I shoot a classifier in Production at 75%, it might look like I'm only 25% behind Dave S, but if the same stage would have been in a match I might only have scored 65%, since I now get a % of his score, rather than a % of the "max".

One solution would be to handle classifiers just like matches and really make the very highest score 100%, which, AFAIK, is how ICS works.

Edited November 18, 2008 by gose

[kgunz11]

I think if you look at the results from the US nationals you will see that there are really only very few people that can shoot a 95% in large scale competition.

Most of the GM's out there are very good but not necessarily at the very top. Most sports have a pyramid shaped result structure. There are only a very few at the top.

ed

Well, one of the reasons behind this is that the classifiers are kinda "static" and don't change when someone beats the current highest HF. This means that the GMs might actually shoot scores that would put them in the 110-120% range on a classifier, rather than the max 100%.

When I shoot a classifier in Production at 75%, it might look like I'm only 25% behind Dave S, but if the same stage would have been in a match I might only have scored 65%, since I now get a % of his score, rather than a % of the "max".

One solution would be to handle classifiers just like matches and really make the very highest score 100%, which, AFAIK, is how ICS works.

Is that accurate? I thought the point of them updating monthly is to prevent the classifier percentages from becoming "static". Every time someone raises the bar then it is raised. Previous scores are not changed to reflect that, but the "100%" now has gotten difficult. Is that not the way it is done?

[ima45dv8]

Is that accurate?

Yep.

I thought the point of them updating monthly is to prevent the classifier percentages from becoming "static". Every time someone raises the bar then it is raised. Previous scores are not changed to reflect that, but the "100%" now has gotten difficult. Is that not the way it is done?

I wish it was. I scored a match locally where a shooter shot ~112% of the then-current HHF. The HHF didn't change with the next update.

[mlmiller1]

I'm not sure but I believe every year or two, uspsa updates the classifier 100% scores to what has been shot. It obviously wouldn't be a fair reflection if one shooter, somewhere, shot over 100%. You would need several before the numbers should go up, in my opinion.

MLM

[shred]

I'm not sure but I believe every year or two, uspsa updates the classifier 100% scores to what has been shot. It obviously wouldn't be a fair reflection if one shooter, somewhere, shot over 100%. You would need several before the numbers should go up, in my opinion.

MLM

USPSA says they update the HHFs, but it's rarer than you'd think in most cases.

[Carmoney]

Time to get rid of the entire class system perhaps??

Edited November 19, 2008 by Carmoney

[shred]

Time to get rid of the entire class system perhaps??

Seems to work for the World Shoot. They got 1200 shooters and have yet to publish or recognize class winners at all

[bgary]

USPSA says they update the HHFs, but it's rarer than you'd think in most cases.

Very rare. In no small part because if they raised the HHF, it would re-calc everyone's average, and a lot of people would move backward in class.

[Flexmoney]

USPSA says they update the HHFs, but it's rarer than you'd think in most cases.

Very rare. In no small part because if they raised the HHF, it would re-calc everyone's average, and a lot of people would move backward in class.

Why ?

[gose]

USPSA says they update the HHFs, but it's rarer than you'd think in most cases.

Very rare. In no small part because if they raised the HHF, it would re-calc everyone's average, and a lot of people would move backward in class.

Even if they did recalc people's averages, you can't move down, so I dont really see how this would be a big problem. It would require some more computing power for the box doing the calcs, but that doesn't seem like a big thing either.

Yes, it would make it harder to go up in class, but why would that be bad?

[bgary]

Why ?

Let's say I have a classifier that is 65% of the HHF. A low-but-valid B-class classifier. And let's say you have a solid M-class score on the same classifier, at 90%

Now let's say the HHF on that classifier goes from ... I dunno, 7.5 to 8.5 or something.

If my classifier is re-calced based on the new HHF, it is now a 57% classifier for me. No-longer a B-class score, dragging my overall average down. Depending on what other scores I have on file, it might still get used, it might not. At the same time, your classifer would be re-calced to 79% - no longer an M-class score. In fact, at 79% this re-calced score is so low (more than 5% below the M-class floor) that it can't even be counted in your average - it would have to be thrown out, and some other score would have to be used to [re-]calc your average. When the recalc is done, I might no longer be B-class. Or you might no longer be an M. Or both. Or neither. Sort of randomly depends on when a new HHF is set and which classifier it affects.

That would be annoying. But more to the point, it would make the classification system effectively useless as a measure of relative performance over some meaningful period of time, because every time the HHF moved, everyone's classification would change, but by different amounts. Some would not move at all, because their average didn't use that classifier. Others might move a lot. It would *more* accurately reflect my level of skill against the current best-of-the-best, but it would screw up our ability to use the classification system to reflect my level of skill against *yours*.

To me, it makes more sense to have a "scratch score", and use that for a meaningful period of time, rather than have the yardstick change at random intervals, by random amounts, for random subsets of the membership.

$.02 (my opinion, not USPSA's)

Bruce

[/thread-drift]

[Nik Habicht]

The bigger problem I see with changing high hit factors based on what clubs send in is that USPSA has no idea whether or not the classifier was indeed set up correctly. Errors could result in large swings.....

Now, I'd guess that the 100% HF on EL Prez isn't the same as it was in the 1980s, but I could be all wrong there.....

[KGentry]

I think two things should be looked at.

1. Large Match results should carry heavier weight when determining class.

2. Classifiers should be shot only once - no re-shoots for money or any other reason other than what is allowed for any other stage.

[shred]

Why ?

Let's say I have a classifier that is 65% of the HHF. A low-but-valid B-class classifier. And let's say you have a solid M-class score on the same classifier, at 90%

Now let's say the HHF on that classifier goes from ... I dunno, 7.5 to 8.5 or something.

If my classifier is re-calced based on the new HHF, it is now a 57% classifier for me. No-longer a B-class score, dragging my overall average down. Depending on what other scores I have on file, it might still get used, it might not. At the same time, your classifer would be re-calced to 79% - no longer an M-class score.

[...]

When USPSA changes the HHFs (and they've done so on a few in the past several months), they don't go back and recalc anybody's percentages. Only new scores use the new HHF. So the same shooting one day could get you 60%, but only 50% the next month, but your 60 will never drop to a 50 once it's in the system. Solves that problem entirely.

[Flexmoney]

Bruce,

As Roy said, the classifiers that have already been shot should be grandfathered (I always thought they were, but wasn't sure.)

That likely is the current policy anyway, right? Shoot it, you earned it. It stands. ??

[boz1911]

Bruce,

As Roy said, the classifiers that have already been shot should be grandfathered (I always thought they were, but wasn't sure.)

That likely is the current policy anyway, right? Shoot it, you earned it. It stands. ??

They are grandfathered. A while back I checked a "M" class shooters old classifier scores. The old scores stood even though some of the HF's have changed dramatically.

[XRe]

Might I suggest that the classifier discussion be split out, so that the parent thread can die the death it should've died a long time ago??

[Flexmoney]

I planned to get to it later (unless somebody beats me to it...and I'd rather Bruce gets a chance to see it first...so we don't lose him from the discussion))

[Tim Egan]

USPSA says they update the HHFs, but it's rarer than you'd think in most cases.

Very rare. In no small part because if they raised the HHF, it would re-calc everyone's average, and a lot of people would move backward in class.

I thought they did it monthly and thats why only my own percentage seems to be heading in the wrong direction

[sslav]

Time to get rid of the entire class system perhaps??

Seems to work for the World Shoot. They got 1200 shooters and have yet to publish or recognize class winners at all

How many shooters below M class even bother going to World Shoot? What exactly is the problem that is being solved here? That people do not hit their class percentages in matches? Why is that a problem?

[buddy_fuentes]

When I joined USPSA, I called and had some general questions about the sport. One of the questions was how does classification work? I was told that every few years that a group of Grand Masters would shoot the classifiers and that the average was 100%. Then when they averaged my hit factor it would be a percentage of what the GM's shot.

I don't imagine that was the official voice of USPSA, but it seemed like someone that knew something about what was going on. So maybe one of you knows an official and can ask them to give us a definitive answer.

Buddy

Edited December 4, 2008 by buddy_fuentes

[SA Friday]

As I understand it, that did happen with some of the past classifiers. They were shot by multiple GM's at a Level III match and they established the 100%'s based on those initial scores. I have also seen classifiers have their initial percentages changed after being shot for a couple of years to re-establish a corrected 100% based off of the historical scores. Some were adjusted up and some were adjusted down. I think that happened about two years ago.

I personally would like to see an established method where all classifier HF's are adjusted annually based off of the average of the top 2 or 3% of all historical scores for the classifier for that division. Old %'s remain (grandfathered), but every year the classifier is adjusted for each division. This would stop a lot of the grandbagging concerns on some classifiers, and I suspect it would actually lower other classifiers in certain divisions.

In all fairness, I actually do NOT know what system is in place to adjust classifier scores, and the above or something better could be in place, but I don't think so. There are a few classifiers that the 100% was established and set based off of shooters from other divisions, and that just isn't right.

Lastly, I keep thinking there could be a whole lot of work involved in doing annual adjustments, but then again, isn't that something a computer program could complete? Afterall, there's already a database of the historical scores for everyone.

[shred]

Time to get rid of the entire class system perhaps??

Seems to work for the World Shoot. They got 1200 shooters and have yet to publish or recognize class winners at all

How many shooters below M class even bother going to World Shoot?

Most of them.

There were 350+ in Open. Less than 15 shot 85% or better. There were 309 in Standard and less than 25 with M-class percentages. 280 in Production, less than 15 with M-class scores.

Compare to US Nationals. The figures are amazingly close-- about 15 out of 228 in Open, about 25 out of 236 in Limited and 9/130 at the US PD Nats made 85%.

[Matt Cheely]

1. Large Match results should carry heavier weight...

I think this is a very good idea.