Matthew_Mink Posted August 22, 2003 Share Posted August 22, 2003 This is to go along with the other one. If you are trying to move up classifications, which ones should you avoid? This should be a list of the really hard ones, like a lot of weak hand, tight shots, or just insanely high hf's that almost nobody can get. Again, I'll edit this post to keep the entries in one list. TIA, again! 99-14 Hoser Heaven (no it ain't) 99-37 Steel One (stronghand steel!, egads!) 99-47 Triple Choice 99-53 Triple Play 99-59 Lazy Man Standards (the worst-- no M or G scores on record, ever) - according to shred 99-63 Merle's Standards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lynn jones Posted August 22, 2003 Share Posted August 22, 2003 long range standards cm99-9 hozer heaven cm 99-14 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew_Mink Posted August 22, 2003 Author Share Posted August 22, 2003 Hmmm, we've got a vote for Long Range Standards on the ones to avoid and the ones that are the easiest to get a high hf on. I for one find that classifier somewhat easy, so I don't think it's gonna make my list. Hoser definately makes the cut. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogdoc Posted August 22, 2003 Share Posted August 22, 2003 Steel One! This classifier can be gamed, and the hf is obsurd! The wording of this classifier allows some room for gaming if you look hard enough! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ankeny Posted August 22, 2003 Share Posted August 22, 2003 Triple Choice seems to be really tough. All it takes is one hit in the hardcover... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilTerry Posted August 22, 2003 Share Posted August 22, 2003 99-63 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFD Posted August 25, 2003 Share Posted August 25, 2003 I choked up my guts on Lazyman standards. Too ashamed to mention the pitiful hit factor that will result in a % that will just be thrown out. Another roadblock to "B" class. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THS Posted September 4, 2003 Share Posted September 4, 2003 I disagree. Hoser Heaven is a test of patience, and avoiding the disaster factor. Let's break it down for a limited shooter like me. String 1 is 6 shots freestyle. All A's for 90% of the B and better shooters I know. Strong hand, shoot all A's, and forget about the number of shots. Most B's are getting 5 shots, maybe 6, all A's. Support hand, Shoot 3 A's, then whatever you can in the time left, a C maybe? 14 A's and a C is 74 points, a solid 80 plus percent. For the A class and up shooters you should be shooting 6 A's in both Freestyle and Strong hand. Then the game is to shoot the support hand without a disaster, meaning No Shoot. 21 points on that string adds up to a 90% run, that is 3 A's and 2 C's, minimum. Sounds easy, executing it isnt though. I also like Merles and LR Stds. I come from a bullseye background, and the simple fact is that many USPSA shooters have traded accuracy for speed in training and skills! As a result, any shot over 25 yards intimidates many of them, and the B!tch factor goes way up. WAY OFF TOPIC. Does Sedro have HF's for the CM's using Classics yet? That will be a neat comparison! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AikiDale Posted October 21, 2003 Share Posted October 21, 2003 CM 99-35 X-Mas I don't even want to talk about it......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Di Vita Posted October 21, 2003 Share Posted October 21, 2003 The name of this thread should be changed to "What skills need to be refined." In the immortal words of Bruce Lee, the only thing belts (classifications) are good for are holding your pants up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vluc Posted October 21, 2003 Share Posted October 21, 2003 Good one Jake! With only 1 classiifer a match, I really don't have any choice but to shoot them. What the heck, I don't want my classification to just be a paper one...too many folks practice particular classifiers just to get a different letter then suck at matches. But, whatever floats your boat! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dowter Posted October 21, 2003 Share Posted October 21, 2003 "With only 1 classiifer a match, I really don't have any choice" Yes, but assuming that one is a match director or is in good with a match director than certain favorable classifiers can be used. I guess there are different theories as to what are good classifiers to move up on. For example I've always felt that "weak hand, tight shots" stages were good to move up on since you can either blaze the stage or the classifier gets thrown out - just as long as you don't get one of those damn "almost but not quite less than 5% HFs", you'll be OK. For example being an A class shooter and getting a 70.1% is like having an achor on your class. It's not easy moving up with one of those. But on the other side, a 69.9% just gets thrown out. For moving up in class, I think that the best strategy is to either burn through a course or totally screw it up. (Note - this is horrible match strategy, but I'm not your mother and you can shoot the match however you want) "CM 99-35 X-Mas" This is definitely a short man's classifier. You're damned if you can't get down low enough easily on the left and right ports. " the simple fact is that many USPSA shooters have traded accuracy for speed in training and skills! " Yup. I'm one of the few IPSC shooters that will actually practice bullseye with a .22. It damn well pays off too. I won a stage two weeks ago with 17 long distance pieces of steel and no one in limited got 70% of my score and only two people got 50%. The only problem is that these kind of stages that I like usually have the highest BF (bitch factor) from shooters and therefore don't get put into matches much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bucky Posted October 21, 2003 Share Posted October 21, 2003 Good one Jake! With only 1 classifier a match, I really don't have any choice but to shoot them. What the heck, I don't want my classification to just be a paper one...too many folks practice particular classifiers just to get a different letter then suck at matches. Ah, but the real problem is that classifiers are NOT indicative of most matches. Now I realize that it is not feasible to have classifiers with 32 rounds, walls, doors ect., but how many classifiers are 1 round each? Take that percentage, then see how many non-classifier stages are 1 round each. Additionally, look at the amount of hard cover and no shoots on classifier stages versus other stages. There needs to be less of a disparity between classifier stages and the "other" 4, 5, 6.... stages that one shoots at a match. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shred Posted October 21, 2003 Share Posted October 21, 2003 Crash-and-Burn works well for moving up in class only if you shoot classifiers fairly frequently. Otherwise it'll take you forever to get 6 good scores in. And to repeat myself again, there's a big difference between a difficult-shooting classifier and an unreasonably high HHF classifier. The first you can work on what it needs and do OK. The second, you're hosed on the national % no matter what. I'd say the Travis quote "Once you've got the G, the classifier's just another stage" is the proper attitude, even if you don't have the G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vluc Posted October 21, 2003 Share Posted October 21, 2003 Yes, but assuming that one is a match director or is in good with a match director than certain favorable classifiers can be used. I hear you Dowter, though my point, not well expressed I guess, was that there are what 50 some classifiers that are to reflect our overall shooting skills and abilities. If all you pick are the ones you are good at, is that reflective of how good you are or how good you are - on those classifiers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric nielsen Posted January 26, 2004 Share Posted January 26, 2004 99-20 Fish House Encounter. If you're over 5'8" this one is just survived so you won't tank the whole match. Get your hits, take your "B" tag (more than 5% below your class) and keep going. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Norman Posted February 12, 2004 Share Posted February 12, 2004 I have to agree with Bucky that most classifiers don't resemble most stages we generally find in a match, BUT they do generally address a particular skill or skill set. As to choosing a particular group of classifiers to shoot to enable one to move up in class, or conversely to remain in a particular class, that is a whole different discussion. Do I as a MD choose "Easy" Classifers so that people can get moved up in class and wind up being classed above where they regularly finish, OR do I choose a series of classifiers that are "Hard" so that you wind up shooting above your class in matches? Or is there some particular grouping that if one ran the following six classifers, one after the other they would reasonable reflect your actual performance. So far the only real world classifications occur when you shoot a laarge enough match where several GM's shoot in your class and you can compare your actual performance against them on the entire match. (Nationals, some areas and a few sectin matches fit this) Most of us do not get to shoot at that level on a regular enough basis so that we all get classified in that manner. So it seems we are for the present stuck with the classification system as it is. I do think that we should probably do two things though. One is to simplify the set up proceedures for classifiers, eliminating the adding of meaurements and instead use a polar diagram and continuous measurements from two points and second that we need to address the content of many of the classifers so that they better represent real world stages. Jim Norman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogmaDog Posted February 12, 2004 Share Posted February 12, 2004 99-59 Lazy Man Standards (the worst-- no M or G scores on record, ever) - according to shred How can a classifier not have any M or GM scores on record? Isn't the high hit factor established empirically, by averaging several of the best scores ever submitted? DogmaDog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shred Posted February 12, 2004 Share Posted February 12, 2004 99-59 Lazy Man Standards (the worst-- no M or G scores on record, ever) - according to shred How can a classifier not have any M or GM scores on record? Isn't the high hit factor established empirically, by averaging several of the best scores ever submitted? DogmaDog You would think so (after all, USPSA says so), but no, it's not true. Ask anybody with a HHF spreadsheet-- it's pretty obvious some of the HHFs were made up or rounded-off-- there's way too many 8.0, 10.0, 7.5 HHF's. Some of them almost certainly were generated from big match results or best-10-averages at one point, but many were not. They also are never adjusted based on changes in skill or equipment like USPSA says either. That one in particular looks very much like they lifted it from a previous year, changed the setup to make it harder and didn't change the HHF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Agerholm Posted February 14, 2004 Share Posted February 14, 2004 I'd offer that CM 99-11, CM 99-22, and CM 99-62 are all very fast classifiers with such very high hit factors that the average shooter will be hard pressed to do well on. The top Gs have really pushed these classifier's H/H/Fs to such an incredible level. In the case of the El' Presidente, this is such a practiced staple in the sport that it has really been driven up there. The other two are similiar. One of the easiest classifiers to shoot is CM 99-32: a timed fire exercise with a very generous allotment of time to do your work. Almost everyone shoots this classifier many percentage points beyond what they normally can achieve. I personally know of at least two members that have been bumped up in class as a result of shooting this one particular classifier. An A-Class shooter should be able to shoot this one in the mid-nineties. Myself, I like em' all, doing well on some and trashing others. A favorite is CM 99-38 and CM 99-56. CM 99-45 is fun as well. All three are large field courses for the most part. Regards, Mark Agerholm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
driver8M3 Posted April 15, 2004 Share Posted April 15, 2004 99-59 Lazy Man Standards (the worst-- no M or G scores on record, ever) - according to shred weakhand shots at 25 yards! now thats TOUGH! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harmon Posted February 7, 2005 Share Posted February 7, 2005 hoser heaven should be renamed to hosers hell. steel one sucks too. long range standards can KMA, so can area 5 standards. 50 yard bill drills.?? wtf? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waktasz Posted February 8, 2005 Share Posted February 8, 2005 Baseball standards! The only classifier my rookie self has done to date. 3 shots, reload, 3 shots in 4.5 seconds par time at 25 yards is hard. And that's only one string out of 4 HHF is all A's on all targets too AFAIK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Di Vita Posted February 8, 2005 Share Posted February 8, 2005 Sounds similar to the Reload Standards stage at Nationals. 1-1-1 reload 1-1-1 at 25 yards. 4.5 second par time isn't bad, especially with all shots being on one target. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ima45dv8 Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 I'd say the Travis quote "Once you've got the G, the classifier's just another stage" is the proper attitude, even if you don't have the G. I have tried desparately to learn that lesson, but it eludes me still.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now