HHF and the Classification System

[HSMITH]

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]

Now that makes sense. Thank you.

[Nik Habicht]

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.

There's a problem with that: How does USPSA assure that the classifiers are set correctly? I can guarantee that on any given weekend there's a classifier set somewhere in the U.S. that either produces artificially low or high results due to a set-up error that isn't caught....

The only way to address that would be to set all ~ 60 classifiers and then have the top dogs come and shoot them. That would be an expensive proposition.....

I shot 4 handgun Nationals and a number of Area/Sectional matches between 2002-2006. I've shot a number of the 06 and 08 series classifiers at those matches --- and I believe that's where some of the HHFs were set.....

[Flexmoney]

Now that makes sense. Thank you.

How so? I believe it was made on a faulty assumption? That being that changing a HHF now...would retro-actively change your past percentages that were shot on that classifier.

??

[Flexmoney]

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

I think this is a very good idea.

I don't believe the numbers would support that?

Take this year's Area 5...even in a well populated Limited division:

1 Travis Tomasie 100.00%

2 Matt Cheely 93.64%

3 Shannon Smith 90.58%

4 Ted Puente 88.39%

Should you, Shannon and Ted should be credited with Master scores? You all are clearly Grand Master caliber shooters.

Results would be further skewed in less competitive divisions, I believe. Where one dominant shooter could win 11 of 12 stages (Vogel).

Internationally, Eric G. might prove to be the only GM in Open.

Major match results skew the percentages downward. It's the math.

[HSMITH]

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.

Now that makes sense. Thank you.

I read it differently, the listed portions are what struck me as reasons not to think it was based on a faulty assumption and why it works the way it does. The bold portion I feel is the 'meat' of the subject.

Edited December 5, 2008 by HSMITH

[Flexmoney]

Howard,

A scratch score...something similar to what IDPA has...with regards to having a line in the sand?

(for example) Shoot 102.5 seconds and you are XX class/

I think the issue there is...we just get better and better. If you don't adjust upward, then everybody moves up...

Let's take the El Prez. Jake showed that past perceptions of what can be done (nobody can shoot a 3sec El Prez) get washed away with progress.

I know that Jake and Brad Balsley shot well above 100% on the El Prez at the Ohio match that year.

At one point, I was shooting 100% El Prez in Production division on a regular basis (with what Id call "safe" runs).

I'm down with losing the "random" part.

Anyway, I think we'd be better served is the HHF did more regularly (why not monthly). That might even help keep the number of "paper" Masters and Grand Masters to a minimum (since the hhf would always be going up).

[Flexmoney]

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

I think this is a very good idea.

We did have an alternate ranking system at one point.

It was completely based on major match performances. The baseline was the Nationals. From there it ranked shooters using their latest Major match performances. (you didn't have to shoot the Nationals to get ranked...you just had to shoot against somebody that was ranked)

It was conceived by forum member Dowter, a Master class shooter from PA. I believe that he worked at an indoor range part-time. He was solid at stand and deliver stages (classifiers come to mind), yet scored lower at Major match (non-stand and deliver). So, he came up with a system that showed major match performances.

Too bad USPSA didn't adopt it. (officially or not)

[HSMITH]

Kyle, I was keying in on the 'reasonable amount of time' part of the line in the sand. Not a line that never moves, but not a line that moves once a month, once per quarter, etc. Maybe move it every year? Keeping the scale relative is all good, but I would like to see enough consistency in the position of the line to be able to measure performance over the course of several months or an entire season. I liked the way Bruce posed his belief for why it works the way it does now.

I guess I am one of the few that thinks that it works fine as is if the shooter is honest with himself/herself. My classification has been within a couple points of my major match finishes for the last two years. I shoot the classifier as any other stage and my classification is very close to major match finishes, who would have guessed.....

Paper M, GM, etc? F 'em and feed 'em fish heads, the only person they are cheating is themselves. I think it is funny that they do it, tells you a lot about them. Sandbaggers? Seems there is always a better sandbagger to take away what they hoped to achieve, I love to see it happen and I think it is priceless.

This alternate Dowter system sounds like it has a lot of promise.

[Matt Cheely]

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

I think this is a very good idea.

I don't believe the numbers would support that?

Take this year's Area 5...even in a well populated Limited division:

1 Travis Tomasie 100.00%

2 Matt Cheely 93.64%

3 Shannon Smith 90.58%

4 Ted Puente 88.39%

Should you, Shannon and Ted should be credited with Master scores? You all are clearly Grand Master caliber shooters.

It should be taken with 3 GM's finishing above 95%. It would push classification scores down, and you'd be left with the TRUE GM's at the top. I personally don't believe I'm quite there yet.

[Flexmoney]

Matt,

If you look at past matches, you'l see that few have 3 GM's above 95%.

Limited (because it's the deepest at the top) might get there every so often. But, time after time, major matches skew results downward.

I think there is a better system, one that shows major match performance (Dowter's system).

Oh...and you are "there" yet.

Lim Nats:

1 Travis Tomasie

2 Todd Jarrett

3 Ted Puente

4 Shannon Smith

5 Emanuel Bragg

6 Taran Butler

7 Robert Leatham

8 Michael Voigt

9 Matthew Cheely

10 Blake Miguez

11 Chris Tilley

12 Phil Strader

13 Glenn Shelby

14 Ron Avery

15 Michael Seeklander

16 Mike Burrell

17 Henning Wallgren

[Matt Cheely]

We did have an alternate ranking system at one point.

It was completely based on major match performances. The baseline was the Nationals. From there it ranked shooters using their latest Major match performances. (you didn't have to shoot the Nationals to get ranked...you just had to shoot against somebody that was ranked)

It was conceived by forum member Dowter, a Master class shooter from PA. I believe that he worked at an indoor range part-time. He was solid at stand and deliver stages (classifiers come to mind), yet scored lower at Major match (non-stand and deliver). So, he came up with a system that showed major match performances.

I remember you talking about that before. It sounded like a good system.

[Chills1994]

Ya could just get rid of the classification system entirely... and shoot head's up within a division at major matches.

(yeah, yeah, I know... I am beating a dead horse... no need for you guys to respond... besides I wouldn't want to get this thread closed down )

Like Kyle said, the major match scores are going to be skewed... not a lot of newbies are gonna want to spend the jack to go to a major match if they don't feel all that confident in their abilities.

The guys who have been doing it for a while and are proficient are gonna be the ones jonesing to shoot an Area or a Nat's level match. They are the ones who want to see how they stack up against the Big Dawgs. Kind of like a barometer of their performance.

The other thing that skews major match percentages vs. classifier percentages is look at all the props, movers, swingers, drop turners, and bear traps that you can/will encounter at a major match. I haven't seen too many (none?) of those on the classifier stages.... just stand and deliver... quickly...

[rvb]

Major match results skew the percentages downward. It's the math.

Anyway, I think we'd be better served is the HHF did more regularly (why not monthly). That might even help keep the number of "paper" Masters and Grand Masters to a minimum (since the hhf would always be going up).

These statements seem contradictory....

Why do we need to adjust the hhf's? Maybe some need weeded out that are used too often and too practiced (el prez) but is it really easier to make a classification today than it was before? That implies the equipment IS that important.

What is a "paper" anything? You say the match results skew the percentages. A GM is a GM no matter the match results because it isn't match results that define a GM. So someone is a "paper" class shooter based on skewed results?

The only thing you accomplish by moving up the HHFs in order to limit the number of M/GM (which is what you are trying to do if you want to eliminate "paper" class shooters) is just that... to limit the number of shooters in class. So perhaps we should throw the HF % system out and go strictly based on percentile. So the top 5 percentile of HFs on a classifier stage would be GM. (ie if the best shooter shoots a 12 HF, top 5% is anyone who shoots at least an 11.4, even if today the HHF is 11). Or better yet just allow a percentage of active membership to have certain classifications (only top 1% of active members w/ at least six OPEN matches can be OPEN GMs?). That requires allowing people to go backwards.

To me these ideas all stink. It's not based on the shooting but who happens to be the best shooter. And no one has yet explained to me why it is so much easier to make A/M/GM today than it was 10 years ago that we need to set the bar higher? Again, equipment is the only thing I can think of and on this forum we say over and over that equipment doesn't matter.

To me it just feel like the pool is getting full and loosing it's exclusivity so some want to kick other kids out of the pool.

I think a very strong justification should be required to adjust HHFs.

-rvb

Edited December 5, 2008 by rvb

[Flexmoney]

RVB,

I'm not sure I even know where to start with a response to that. I'm just not sure I get where you are coming from?

To me it just feel like the pool is getting full and loosing it's exclusivity so some want to kick other kids out of the pool.

I don't now of anybody that has that motivation. To be honest, the thought never occurred to me that anybody would.

I think a very strong justification should be required to adjust HHFs.

It's always been my understanding that the HHF for a particular classifier was supposed to be the average of the top 10 hit factors turned in for that classifier. (I believe that is how it read when I started paying attention to it about half a decade ago.) If you are averaging the top 10 scores turned in, wouldn't that possibly change each month?

On equipment... I don't think it's changed in any manner that would impact on classifier scores. But that is a factor to consider.

From the classifier course book (which should reflect current policy):

The maximum hit factors are derived from the scores of

the top shooters. Since these top shooters can, and

sometimes do, make quantum changes in their equipment

or technique, the maximum hit factors need to

changed as well. For instance, a member’s hit factor of

5.64 on a given stage may represent 63 percent of the

stage maximum at the time it is entered, but some time

later may represent only 59 percent if the top shooters

have forced a change in the stage maximum. The

member’s score will remain as entered as it is not

possible for the staff to recalculate every member’s hit

factor for the stages that have changed, but all subsequent

scores will be calculated based on the new maximum

hit factor.

Maybe some need weeded out that are used too often and too practiced (el prez) but is it really easier to make a classification today than it was before? That implies the equipment IS that important.

Again, I don't see the equipment as much of a factor...at least not in this decade. I don't think we need to toss out classifiers. The classifiers often test certain skill sets...and those skill sets do get honed by the shooters that do actually practice.

I think the shooters are just better. It's a natural progression. It's continued competition which raises the bar.

I was on a shooting forum the other day (one I'd never heard of) and a seasoned gentleman (who I believe used to teach at one of the big, traditional schools) was speaking about how a 12 second El Prez with all the hits used to be a solid run.

This internet thing doesn't hurt much either. I can come to a place like this forum and mine information. I can watch a shooter perform on a video on youtube...over and over...picking up technique.

The sport matures. The competitors stand on the shoulders of those that went before them.

Shouldn't the measure move as well?

[ima45dv8]

And no one has yet explained to me why it is so much easier to make A/M/GM today than it was 10 years ago that we need to set the bar higher? Again, equipment is the only thing I can think of and on this forum we say over and over that equipment doesn't matter.

Equipment may have had a part in it, but I think it's more heavily influenced by the level of information, expertise and refined techniques a new shooter can be exposed to early on. There's also the level of training that's readily available for those who want it. Add in the wonderfully educational resources that weren't even available 10 years ago (brianenos.com, jumps to mind) and we're just scratching the surface of enhancements that could account for the increased competitive fire in some folks. Today we get fast (and in some locations, immediate) results from improved scoring programs and the associated hardware, and the ability to compare yourself to others across the country or world via the internet. More fuel on that fire. Just the shooting and match videos on YouTube can and do spark greater desire.

It's like the folks who say shooting Open is sooooo easy thanks to the dot and comp. Yeah, maybe it is. But your competition has access to the same "easy" guns. The desire to win still separates the winners from the losers.

I think the advancement of equipment has played a role, but not a major one.

{thread dift off}

*This might make a good topic of it's own.

[Alan Meek]

Been crunching some numbers.

As of the Nov update:

These numbers represent the highest classification held in any of the 6 divisions

239 members that are classified GM in at least one division.

785 members that are classified M in at least one division

1,157 members that are classified A in at least one division

3,122 members that are classified B in at least one division

4,662 members that are classified C in at least one division

2,300 members that are classified D in at least one division

That leaves roughly 5500 members that are not classified at all.

4,764 members are only classified in a single division

7,501 members are classified in multiple divisions

Alan

[Nik Habicht]

That leaves roughly 5500 members that are not classified at all.

4,764 members are only classified in a single division

7,501 members are classified in multiple divisions

Alan

Does that really mean that we are at almost 18,000 members? That's pretty cool, if true....

[Alan Meek]

That leaves roughly 5500 members that are not classified at all.

4,764 members are only classified in a single division

7,501 members are classified in multiple divisions

Alan

Does that really mean that we are at almost 18,000 members? That's pretty cool, if true....

Last number I heard was 17,000 + Don't have the exact, I'll see if I can get a more exact number when the classification update is run next week

Alan

Edited December 6, 2008 by Alan Meek

[rvb]

RVB,

I'm not sure I even know where to start with a response to that. I'm just not sure I get where you are coming from?

Sorry Flex, I didn't have time to really put together a good post and being hurried shows....

First, the "paper GM/M/etc" is a pet peeve of mine. It's all on paper.... that laminated paper you get in the mail. As you said, match %'s are skewed and can't be counted on to relate to a classification. That's where I saw the contradiction: that match results skew the %s yet we call people "paper class" shooters because it's thought they should not be in their class based on match performance.

Ok, back on point.... so the perception is that it has become too easy to make M/GM.

First, has it? I don't know. honestly. I'm relatively new to uspsa. I wish uspsa in their "Classifiers by State" section showed the number of shooters that hold each highest level of classification as now there is no way to know how many shooters hold at least one M/GM/etc card since so many hold a classification across multiple divisions. How would that % compare to the number of GMs say 2 years after the class system started?

If you are averaging the top 10 scores turned in, wouldn't that possibly change each month?

Yes.

First, I'm not against hhfs changing ever, but I think each time a good classifier is turned in is too much.

It's not statistically viable, IMO. Too easy for the results to get inflated, even averaged across 10 classifiers. What if we get two "Eric G's" in the US in the near future. Is that good for the average or the intent of the class system? What after a "prodigy" retires? What about the guy who raises the top-10 average, but it was his first valid classifier after many many invalid classifiers. Should we be raising the bar based on the "hero or zero" factor? I think their needs to be a strong trend and a strong justification to raise the hhf.

On equipment... I don't think it's changed in any manner that would impact on classifier scores.

Agreed. I was just trying to stir the pot regarding why (If) it's easier than it was to make M/GM.

I think the shooters are just better. It's a natural progression. It's continued competition which raises the bar. .....a 12 second El Prez with all the hits used to be a solid run. .....

I agree the bar raises with competition. Records will always be broken. But monthly? Yearly? For the '99 series classifiers which are coming on 10 years old, how much easier now is it for shooters to shoot >100%.?? Not a rhetorical question. I've only been involved in uspsa for a couple of years.

This internet thing doesn't hurt much either. I can come to a place like this forum and mine information. I can watch a shooter perform on a video on youtube...over and over...picking up technique.

I think that helps people progress and move up faster. I don't know that it changes the curve on which we grade (the top shooters)...

I don't think we need to toss out classifiers. The classifiers often test certain skill sets...and those skill sets do get honed by the shooters that do actually practice.

Something I've thought should be done is to limit how often a classifier can be shot and count. Maybe once per year?? There are dozens of classifiers I have never shot and some I have shot many times. If anything, it's those popular ones that are probably skewing the results by being shot and practiced over and over...

I hope that makes my previous rambling nonsense more clear.....

-rvb

[SRT Driver]

Here we go again...

My interpretation is that the purpose of the classification system is to group shooters of like ability together. It is a barometer, of sorts. I think that is the same explaination the USPSA uses.

Everyone knows the top are there for a reason. Tiger Woods was the man to beat for a long time. But there were many others who compete for the green jacket. They are good golfers just not to the same level but far better than the average golfer. Our sport is the same.

We shoot the same classifiers OVER and OVER again and if there is no improvement, practice until there is. These classifiers are the base line. Again, grouping shooters of like ability.

This question is starting to sound like discussion at the local gym mirror.."My pecs are bigger than yours" Same solution, work until yours are bigger than his. If not, who cares.

Major match performance. Fine. Win at Nats..get a GM card. In golf, you get the green jacket if you win, not until. If you want to shoot against the best, shoot a Nats or where ever the best shoot. Win and get the GM card.

The mirror is getting crowded and there are only a few who deserve to be there. Funny that they are the ones who avoid the mirror. They continue to work while the others are standing in front of the mirror trying to see who is the biggest.

Kind of says something about us, doesn't it?

[Nik Habicht]

That leaves roughly 5500 members that are not classified at all.

4,764 members are only classified in a single division

7,501 members are classified in multiple divisions

Alan

Does that really mean that we are at almost 18,000 members? That's pretty cool, if true....

Last number I heard was 17,000 + Don't have the exact, I'll see if I can get a more exact number when the classification update is run next week

Alan

Those numbers seem to add up to 17,765..... That's freaking cool!

[Flexmoney]

RVB,

I'm not sure I even know where to start with a response to that. I'm just not sure I get where you are coming from?

Sorry Flex, I didn't have time to really put together a good post and being hurried shows....

First, the "paper GM/M/etc" is a pet peeve of mine. It's all on paper.... that laminated paper you get in the mail. As you said, match %'s are skewed and can't be counted on to relate to a classification. That's where I saw the contradiction: that match results skew the %s yet we call people "paper class" shooters because it's thought they should not be in their class based on match performance.

I probably shouldn't use terms I don't care about...as what I say haphazardly might prove to be somebody's pet peeve.

Ok, back on point.... so the perception is that it has become too easy to make M/GM.

That is not the argument that I am making, nor is it one that I've seen anybody else make. That is how you are seeing it, which may (or may not) be a logical conclusion to draw.

If I were to phrase my belief, it is that the High Hit Factors on classifiers are flaky. Some are really hard and others are really easy (heck, we have threads pointing out which are which). Further, the manner in which they are administered (adjusted) is ...well, I don't know what it is (don't want to use the wrong word here).

If you are averaging the top 10 scores turned in, wouldn't that possibly change each month?

Yes.

First, I'm not against hhfs changing ever, but I think each time a good classifier is turned in is too much.

It's not statistically viable, IMO. Too easy for the results to get inflated, even averaged across 10 classifiers. What if we get two "Eric G's" in the US in the near future. Is that good for the average or the intent of the class system? What after a "prodigy" retires? What about the guy who raises the top-10 average, but it was his first valid classifier after many many invalid classifiers. Should we be raising the bar based on the "hero or zero" factor? I think their needs to be a strong trend and a strong justification to raise the hhf.

Well, it is a HIGH Hit Factor, right? The very best sets the curve.

I'm cool with the average of the top-10 runs, because that would lessen some of the vary statical anomalies that you just brought up.

On equipment... I don't think it's changed in any manner that would impact on classifier scores.

Agreed. I was just trying to stir the pot regarding why (If) it's easier than it was to make M/GM.

O...Kay. I won't think of that as wasted time, since I'm sure we've put an end to that question once and for all. lol

I think the shooters are just better. It's a natural progression. It's continued competition which raises the bar. .....a 12 second El Prez with all the hits used to be a solid run. .....

I agree the bar raises with competition. Records will always be broken. But monthly? Yearly? For the '99 series classifiers which are coming on 10 years old, how much easier now is it for shooters to shoot >100%.?? Not a rhetorical question. I've only been involved in uspsa for a couple of years.

Again... HIGH Hit Factor. I'd suggest keeping it current on a monthly basis. Quarterly or even yearly would work too. Right now, I don't know that we get any of that.

This internet thing doesn't hurt much either. I can come to a place like this forum and mine information. I can watch a shooter perform on a video on youtube...over and over...picking up technique.

I think that helps people progress and move up faster. I don't know that it changes the curve on which we grade (the top shooters)...

Sure it does. Two rams that grow up together and slam horns as they grow...they each get stronger and benefit from the competition. In some locations, there might not be any rams to compete with. The Internet gives us access to more rams. (The ultimate example of this is Poker. Where the 22 year old online players can get enough experience to win the World Series and $9 million dollars.)

I don't think we need to toss out classifiers. The classifiers often test certain skill sets...and those skill sets do get honed by the shooters that do actually practice.

Something I've thought should be done is to limit how often a classifier can be shot and count. Maybe once per year?? There are dozens of classifiers I have never shot and some I have shot many times. If anything, it's those popular ones that are probably skewing the results by being shot and practiced over and over...

In my experience, it is the classifiers that don't get shot much that are the easier ones to move up on. If true, that is probably because they get looked at...and adjusted...even less frequently.

I hope that makes my previous rambling nonsense more clear.....

-rvb

[Yankee Dog]

They should consider doing away with the class system entirely. It is not use for any meaningful purpose. Unless you count bragging rights. And the organization expends a lot of time, effort and money for something that doesnt really mean a good hoot.

Yankee Dog

[Chills1994]

SRT driver wrote:

My interpretation is that the purpose of the classification system is to group shooters of like ability together. It is a barometer, of sorts.

I think... .that is, I think the major match results are a better barometer.

Once you're out of the local club scene and at a major match, you're no longer the big fish in a small pond. The pond gets larger and the other fish get bigger. Yeah, theoretically, the USPSA database should be the biggest pond, right?

In experimental research and design terms, what is being measured by the classifiers is not "valid", when necessarily compared to the move and shoot of local club or major match stages.

I don't care how many A's, M's, GM's or even B's, C's or D's zipped past me in the division results. I wanna know that I am X number shooter out of Y number of Limited/Open/Production/L-10/SS/Revo shooters.

Am I in the top quarter?

The top third?

Bottom third?

Besides... if the single stack percentages are the same as L-10, how can that be an accurate barometer?

I know that at the local club matches I will strategize a stage differently with 11 in the gun versus just 9.

at Yankee Dog... I like the way you think.

at RVB... "paper master" is a double entendre, if you haven't figured that out already... yeah, that M or GM stamped on the paper card looks good, but the other "paper" meaning comes from implying that there is no substance, no structure, no backbone behind it. It's just the facade of the "paper".

Yeah, I guess technically I am a "Paper B" in production... I doubt however that some C's and D's who peruse the major match results go:

That Chills fella, he sure is a "Paper B".

I'd still like to see a records page for each classifier posted up on the USPSA website. Shooter's name, division, date, club location, points scored, raw time, and finally, HF and percentage, possibly??.

[SRT Driver]

This topic cracks me up everytime....

The classification system shows that you have "mastered" (or not) the basic skills. Stand and shoot or whatever. These are the base skills that most others are built from. From there you get to the more advanced (major match) skills which are not possible without the basics (or not possible on demand). Its merit is that you can see where you place with those skills. It may not be perfect but it gives you an idea. But it breeds sandbaggers.

If the USPSA were to do away with the classification system, only those who want to rank themselves against the best in the sport will participate and shoot the matches that the best participate in.

This sport has degraded into a bunch of whiners looking for a prize. And it's all about a prize, trophy etc. right? How many times have you heard "I'm not going to shoot ZXY match because I don't have a chance to get anything from the prize table?

It's all about the prize. If you group like skill levels together..you are allowing the sandbagger to perpetuate. Since the sandbagger abuses the system.

And the categories .. High super duper senior with red shoes etc. And my pet peeve.. the infamous raffle for the gun. Let the ones that do the work reap the spoils.

Use the Area matches etc to qualify for the nats. We do that to a point since the top in a division/class get a slot if there are enough shooters. Make it where you have to place to shoot a nats, not sell a slot or get on a waiting list. Let's make a nationals visit mean something.

So get rid of classifications at the majors. This will cure the "sandbagger syndrome". They won't show up. And many others for that matter. Maybe people will stop considering themselves "champions" if they win the "blue jean division." You are not a champion unless you are the best. That means #1.

To me a major championship title is a Nationals or a World shoot - nothing else. Not shooting the BFE Championship and beating everyone by 40%. That is a layup. It's not a "major" championship victory.

Just my 2c or whatever it's worth. SRT out!!!!

Edited December 7, 2008 by SRT Driver