Do classifiers really represent a full skill set test of a GM?

[Supermoto]

Dave, I still see the classification system as only showing the best you have shot, not what you usually shoot. Look at the top 20 for any class, Only the top GM are consistently shooting in their classification.

[lugnut]

Dave, I still see the classification system as only showing the best you have shot, not what you usually shoot. Look at the top 20 for any class, Only the top GM are consistently shooting in their classification.

Just consider all the problems with your proposal.... it would be interesting to see some shooters' classifications drop just before a major match. I don't think that makes sense. You would be an 'A' now... I don't think so....

[TWHaz]

like our system of justice in america. The USPSA classifier system is not perfect but it is the best we have.

Most people shoot club stages well then crash on the classifier. Mostly trying to shoot it above their skill level.

Many shoot classifiers multiple times till they get the score they want i.e. paper A,M,GM comes into play.

I was called a "bagger" from C to M and shoot mostly at a high A level consistantly now.

I am classified a Master. I only shoot the classifiers once. Even with that I shot good enough to make master on a few of them.

The old saying even a blind squirel finds a nut every now and then comes to mind.

Just shoot the best you can and let the people you are beating worry about your class.

Some would even say I have NO CLASS.

Sorry about that.

[Steven Cline]

I think some of the critics of the current system may be focusing on outliers. When I look at the results of most major matches, the classes seem to line up pretty well, with a little bit of overlap. Sure, there's always a C or B class shooter who surprises everyone and finishes with the shooters 2 classes above them, but for the most part, the GMs are at the top and the Ds are at the bottom. I haven't run the stats, but I'd wager that class and finish percentage at major tournaments have a pretty strong correlation.

I think bbbean said it quite well. As TWHaz observed the system isn't perfect. He is correct. No system is.

I've been called a sandbagger (when I finished better than a C class Single Stacker should). I've been called a grandbagger (when I botched a classifier and paid for a re-shoot because I was tired of being called a sand-bagger). You can't satisfy all the people all the time. But I think the classification system is pretty accurate. GMs tend to be at the top of the lists, then the Ms, and then alphabetically they tend to fall.

Show me a GM who ends up with the C class shooters in his division and I bet he had equipment issues, a rare poor performance or had some other exception to the rule. But, he didn't disprove the rule or proof the Classification system is (grossly) flawed or non-representative.

With an un-written rule that the shooter shouldn't be forced to move more than 10' without being able to engage a target, it's not supposed to be a foot-race.

While stage management will always help; it doesn't make up the .25 second difference in split times that separates the GM from the C class shooter on a 28 rnd course. Almost without exception the big difference between the GM and C class shooter is pure shooting skill. The C classers typically shoot the stage the same way as the GM, just not as well/fast/accurate. Order of shooting is often dictated by the stage design.

The 7 second difference across 28 shots isn't about draw times or reload times.

As always, this is just an opinion based on observation. I can always be shown to be wrong if I am and will change my position if done so.

Edited August 18, 2010 by Steven Cline

[Chris iliff]

I've always wondered why Sedro does not stipulate the classifiers for major matches. I would think that this would offer some control over the process and make percentages more realistic. Or do they?

Edited: Surely with all the State, Area, National, and not to mention other big time type matches we could just about cover the whole course book in a year and have some good solid percentages from pressure matches. To me the most accurate and reflective.

Edited August 19, 2010 by fourtrax

[tgford58]

As a question on this thread. Doesn't the USPSA have provisions to alter classifications upward if a shooter finishes above their class in a majot shoot? I guess I have heard of this happening but it must not happen often if the sandbagging claim is thrown around so much. If it was a person may get away with sandbagging once - the gun grab - but it wouldn't happen twice.

From my personal experience at least with the people I shoot with, there are great shooters - high A - that seem to have some type of brain fart when it comes to classifiers. I know this isn't intentional since I know how badly they want the M on their card. For my money, I would live to see more special classifier matches, especially at the end of the year. Perhaps those of us that are trying hard to improve over the year could get a chance to climb the classification system.

[Flexmoney]

Take a look a major match results.

Discounting a few outliers, the higher classed shooters finish toward the top and the under classmen finish toward the bottom.

[pries81]

Ron Ankeny> Good points!!! What is your list of skills needed for executing Stand and Shoot Classifier stages?

Draw fast then shoot and reload fast and accurate. I think it is that simple.

I would go a little more and say draw to first shot. Getting it out and up is foreplay... you have to actually use it too.

Ha! I'm gonna write that down and use it!

[pries81]

I think classification would be more accurate if they took the best 6 of the last 8, none of this 5% below your classification stuff.

You shoot it, you own it. Drop 2 for bad luck,

I have classifiers that are over a year old. I pushed for my M a year ago, then realized I don't need to shoot a M classifier to win a match, Now I shoot them as high risk low reward stages

I would drop from 90% to 80%.

I used to be quite anxious about the classifiers, gaining a higher ranking. Hero or zero was me all the way. Then I started to look at them as just another stage. Consistency is the key. When I switched from Pro to Lim, I became more consistent. I no longer have 50%-100%, I have 80-90% (or so). And this shows in my match scores as well.

The problem I see with the current system is moving up when I'm not ready. But overall, my rank has improved with my skills.

[2alpha]

Why do we have classes anyway? ( not to be confused with Divisions)

The answer I hear most often is so the less skilled shooters don't have to compete directly with the better shooters. But those same people will insist on a section of the monthly results being tabulated with every division combined so they can brag that their limited run beat Billy Bobs open run. How do you square that? Could it be we have classes to soothe the fragile male (and sometimes female) ego? If so human emotions are involved so there can be no perfect solution.

The old original Steel Challenge with no classes sure worked nicely best I remember. But the prize table was deep, all the way to last place deep.

[HICKMAN]

Why do we have classes anyway?

Could it be we have classes to soothe the fragile male (and sometimes female) ego?

Because even some of us fat, slow shooters like paying money to shoot in a State/Section/Area match for a shot at winning something to hang on the wall.

[markcic]

As a question on this thread. Doesn't the USPSA have provisions to alter classifications upward if a shooter finishes above their class in a majot shoot? I guess I have heard of this happening but it must not happen often if the sandbagging claim is thrown around so much. If it was a person may get away with sandbagging once - the gun grab - but it wouldn't happen twice.

They do. I'm B in limited and was C in open. I finished first C open at the High Desert Classic in Albuquerque this year and was bumped to B open. I train wrecked a couple of classifiers when I got my open gun so I'm at 56.55% even though I'm classified as B.

[PJ BAD]

Focus on what you do and how you do it and don't worry about the rest.

Nicely said.

[Turboprop]

Don't get me wrong. We do need a "Standardized" set of shooting skill tests such as the classifier stages we have now. That is a good thing and does seem to work for the most part.

My question really is, why give the major match results the same "Value" as a single classifier stage when we all know the major match result a better representation of our current skill level.

For example, I think that a single major match classification result should have the value of at least 5 individual classifier stages. Or set a "Value" multiplier based on the level of the match. Like a Level III match gets a 5X multiplier and a Level II match gets a 3X multiplier. Something like that would make more sense than the current way of doing things.

Where the classifiers are the same for everyone. The average persons major match final percentage is dependent on who and how many top shooters show up to the match. I have seen about a 10-20% difference on how I end up in a state match versus something like Nationals. The more big guns the farther down I fall.

As a previous poster stated I think the major issue with why most classifiers are basic is the setup. There are a few field course classifiers but you seldom see tham in a match because no one wants to spend the time to measure all that stuff out. Our club will only set up the more labor intensive classifiers for special classifier matches.

[Turboprop]

Why do we have classes anyway? ( not to be confused with Divisions)

The answer I hear most often is so the less skilled shooters don't have to compete directly with the better shooters. But those same people will insist on a section of the monthly results being tabulated with every division combined so they can brag that their limited run beat Billy Bobs open run. How do you square that? Could it be we have classes to soothe the fragile male (and sometimes female) ego? If so human emotions are involved so there can be no perfect solution.

The old original Steel Challenge with no classes sure worked nicely best I remember. But the prize table was deep, all the way to last place deep.

When you are one of the better shooters in your area people are always going to watch what you do and compare what they are doing and how they do to your scores. Its motivation for them to get better and a stage win over a top shooter despite the division is motivation for the newer shooters. I don't have a problem with it. I always laugh and congratulate them when someone brings me their score sheet to show me that they bested me on stage??

Edited January 26, 2011 by Turboprop

[rvb]

"Do classifiers really represent a full skill set test of a GM? "

Of course, that's how a person gets a GM card by definition. If the question is really "Do classifiers really represent a full skill set test of a CHAMPION," then I'd respond with another question.... Do they need to? Isn't the match itself that test? The goal of the classification system is to lump shooters into groups by skill level. That's it. Not to weed out who is capable of being a champion. I think people read WAY too much into the system. And there are too many outside influances to draw any real parallel.

I have looked at each of my classes as being a milestone met as I work to develop my complete skill set.

And frankly, I don't think the skill sets are that different. Even the longest field courses typically constitute arrays of targets. The entries, shooting, and exits from positions are much bigger portions of the field work than the sprinting, and those are tested with boxes and barricades in the classifiers. Movers, activators, stars, etc are all just distractions.... tricks that have to be learned with some experience.

As for stage breakdown, there is NO way to test that. You can't design a stage that can be setup the same every time, and test people's ability to figure it out as if they are seeing if for the first time. But again, the matches test that, and it's not a test of "shooting" anyway.

my 2c.

-rvb

[sincityshooter]

It's the best we have with no other easy options. You might take note that even though the "true" GM's are very good on the move, it's the over-all efficiency they can shoot A's. In a straight out hoser stage that's a high hit factor, there are M and even A class shooters that can hang, but then add in a technical stage with some difficult shots and those same shooters would be luck to get 80% of a GM's score and add a standards stage with long range or tight shots and the difference would be even more. If clubs manage the local matches with stages that test all skills, it's easy to see the difference between the GM's and the non-GM's.

[belus]

Funny... I just reviewed the results of a major match.... I am classified as middle 'B' as well... and I ended up in the middle of 'B'! Although the classifiers test somewhat different skills that typical matches with more movement and decision making... I feel that somehow it is reflective of the overall field course skill as well. May be some variation... but there is a strong correlation for the most part IMO.

Take a look a major match results.

Discounting a few outliers, the higher classed shooters finish toward the top and the under classmen finish toward the bottom.

AZ shooters are good. I won't be winning matches with any regularity even as a GM in production.

Though it also looks like I could expect to regularly win the division after getting A. That seems right; I think the best guys out here are usually shooting Limited or Open.

edit: graph was way too big

Edited March 10, 2011 by belus

[SethML3602]

I think classifiers work personally because they do challenge your "Core" abilities. If you practice shooting in general not shooting just classifiers then it does work. There are people who buck the system known as "Paper M's and GM's" but i really think that the general core of GM's have worked hard at shooting all aspect of a match not just the classifier part of it.

What i don't understand is how anyone can remain a "Sandbagger". You have to eventually move up because you shoot major matches at such a good score. It wouldn't help you to win stuff if you "Sandbag" a big match. I guess it just makes no sense to me to not shoot the best i can at every stage at every match.

If you don't push yourself you will never get better. If you never get better then you will never win. Even GM's get better at certain aspects of this sport because they can't do everything perfect every time, lets say you work on your target aquisition for 2 weeks before a match, but then at that match you weren't shot calling as good as you think you should so you work on that, but at the next match your reloads were sloppy. Its a never ending cycle of training to remain the best at anything.

[dravz]

I'm glad Ben posted. Ben is currently a 100% classifier guy. There are four shooters in the USPSA production division that have 100% on their classifier scores. Ben is one of them.

As a newish Production shooter, I'm very thankful for Ben's 100 Project. It really helps to just SEE what 100% really looks like.

[spanky]

What i don't understand is how anyone can remain a "Sandbagger". You have to eventually move up because you shoot major matches at such a good score. It wouldn't help you to win stuff if you "Sandbag" a big match. I guess it just makes no sense to me to not shoot the best i can at every stage at every match.

I've been to approximately 10 Level II or above matches in my short (2.25 years) stint and I believe only two of the major matches I've shot have counted as classifiers (correct number of GMs, etc) and I have placed 1st or 2nd in my class at all but two of them. It takes more than just placing well, in other words.

I get called a sandbagger a LOT. Surely because I tend to place well and people say I shoot better than a "B" should shoot but the stars just haven't aligned for me to move up. I tend to not shoot classifiers well and, as I said, most major matches (save the area matches) simply don't have enough GMs in Production to do anything for me.

Edited April 25, 2011 by spanky

[Strick]

Sandbagger.

:roflol:

[spanky]

See.

[OpenDot]

Ok i'm really new at this and shoot my first qualifier tonight, just joined USPSA 2 weeks ago.

I've been shooting Limited at the local CCML and Thursday night steel shoots at another club.

I thought the goal of the qualifiers was to practice for the National matches to get you some sort of a rank?

Being Old, Fat and Tired...i'm really not expecting much tonight other than lots of lead being thrown down range.

But, I will be shooting as many qualifier matches as humanly possible to get more expierience with all the different stages, more exersize, more Dot Time and just have fun.

I guess i'm not understanding by what you guys are saying is "Sandbagging"

Forgive the noob in the thread, just trying to learn!!

[jar]

The point of the CLASSIFIERS is to put you in a class with shooters of similar abilities. This is used to distribute some of the prizes at some of the bigger matches. Sandbagging is purposely shooting classifiers below your ability in order to stay in a lower class so you can win one of these prizes.