Hhf

[tightloop]

Looking at some of the times and HF's on the Bang & Clang, I was wondering if the people in Sedro ever consider some of these absurdly high hit factors a once in a lifetime occurance and discount it completely, regardless of the calssification of the shooter? If a GM has a lights out run, and is completely out of his mind and runs it in under 1.8 sec shouldn't they consider that in the same light as an A shooter shooting a GM time? Or does the fastest time automatically enter into the average to make up the HHF regardless of how crazy the time appears? If an A shooter can have a run which appears beyond his normal ability, shouldn't the same logic apply to all shooters, even GM's?

[Ron Ankeny]

The folks in Sedro Wooley once told me they do throw our the extremely high HHFs. They also told me the revisit the hit factors and will raise them up if too many people exceed what is normal (Indoor Rapid Fire Standards comes to mind) or lower them if nobody is making the cut (Steel One for example). Looks to me like the hit factors are set in stone because I have seen nothing happen one way or the other in the three years I have been shooting.

I really believe something has to be done to bring the "easy" classifiers and the "hard" classifers back into line. Where the absurdity of not having a comprehensive and current data base really comes into play is in revolver and production divisions. Those divisions have hit factors based on Limited and that's just nuts.

[SmittyFL]

I think the classifer system is pretty good. I'm not sure of a better way to do it. But I don't think it is a true representation of skill given the type of courses we normally shoot. I think a lot of the problem stems from the fact that many of the classifers don't get shot that often and not by the "right" people.

As I understand it, the HHF's are an average of the top scores anyway. But my thing is a lot of times I shoot a classifer and think I burned it down and the percentage sucked or I thought I didn't do that great and had 90% or something. A good bench mark I've noticed is, the easier the classifer stage is to set up, the higher the HHF is respectively. If it is easy to set up then it probably has been shot a bunch more times than a classifer that is a pain to set up. Therefore, law of averages is somebody has shot that one well.

I think the "fix" is to change out all the classifers. There is a post on here somewhere where I talked about this. But I would like to see either at a nationals or a special "invitation" match. Have all new classifers, shot under match conditions, by as many pro's as they can get to a match. I'll bet everybody's national percentage would move up quite a bit. As it stands now, I feel I have to shoot a little out of control to have a classifer worthy of moving me up. (although that also could mean I'm not getting any better)

[professor]

Revisions to the Revolver and Production HHFs are under discussion at the USPSA BOD meeting in Orlando, this weekend. Yes, L10, Pro, and Rev HHFs are all based on Ltd HHFs, at 100%, 95%, and 90%, respectively.

The HHFs haven't been adjusted AFAIK since the CM99-xx series went into use nearly 5 years ago. At this time, Open and Ltd HHFs are routinely being exceeded, for almost every classifier (fixed time classifiers excepted). About half the L10 classifiers have a top posted score of 100%, but only a third of the Pro classifiers are at a top score of 100%, and only 3 Revo classifiers are at 100%.

Pro and Rev HHFs need to be reduced to reflect actual scores shot by the top revo and Pro shooters. The unrealistic HHFs on most classifiers are based on percentage of Ltd. That ignores the round count limitation of revolvers, which increases the reloads on some COFs from one to three. These artificially high HHFs are keeping the top rovo shooters from reaching GM.

Likewise, Open and Ltd HHFs need to be increased, to make GM classification in those divisions the exceptional thing it ought to be.

[tightloop]

Well Professor

That sounds good, but how ya goin' to do it, and when.

[Ron Ankeny]

As an old revolver shooter, I don't think any of the revolver hit factors are worth a damn. On those classifiers that require a standing reload, revolver shooters don't have a chance. The hit factors are just too high. On the flip side, I know for a fact that the hit factors on some of the six round classifiers, or multiple string classifiers without a reload, are way too low. For instance CM99-15 doesn't justify a 10 per cent lower hit factor than Limited nor does CM99-02 or CM99-24.

[ErikW]

I heard USPSA is coming out with a new set of classifiers next year.

They shouldn't have a maximum acceptable hit factor; they should include an unusually good HF in averaging a new High Hit Factor like they say they do.

P.S. Bang & Clang does not have an absurdly high hit factor.

[professor]

Ron, congrats on getting Master class in revolver. That said, you're not giving yourself enough credit as one of the best revolver shooters playing our game. Did you know that 4 of the last 8 classifiers that you shot were the highest revolver scores ever shot on those classifiers at the time? And only one revo shooter so far has scored 100% on CM99-15, where you got a 99.9%?

as of May 2003, only 7 revolver classifiers had a top classifier score in the system in the GM range (95% or better).

If the revo HHFs were based upon the highest scores posted for those 4 classifiers as of May 2003, you would have gotten 100% on each one of them. IMHO, your scores ought to be in the set of top shooters averaged to produce realistic HHFs.

Tightloop, what I did was put together some stats from the "top 20 Shooters" lists to point out the actual scores being posted in revolver by the top shooters, and compared those results to what the HHFs are. That led to some more extensive work, whish was supposed to be presented to the board by Rob Boudrie and my AD George Jones this past weekend.

What happens next? Your guess is as good as mine. Hopefully, lowering Rev and Pro HHFs, and raising Ltd and Open HHFs., as I suggested.

P.S. to Erik. The top revo score on Bang & Clang, as of May 2003, was only 93.3%

[ErikW]

No problem. B&C is a non-reload, 6-round neutral course. See my post in the 99-62 classifier thread. I'm sure there are other classifiers that are much better examples of absurd, fictitional HHFs for Revolver.

I am, of course, opposed to arbitrarily reducing the HHF in a given division to come up with a HHF for another division.

[tightloop]

We are not talking about revo HF's here. The question was about disallowing extreme HF's for any particular classifier if it was "out of line" with others of the same classification.

[Ron Ankeny]

I don't know if there is enough interest to resuurect this old thread, but I think the word is out on the best example of goofy, stupid, absurdly high, hit factors. It's CM 03-18. I burned the sucker to the ground today with my single stack with a hit factor of 7.0687 for a 75%. You gotta be kidding me. Yeah, maybe my reloads wern't the best, but for crying out loud you just gotta haul ass to get a 7 hit factor and it's 10% below the floor for Master? I would like to know where the HHF came from for this one.

Edited April 3, 2006 by Ron Ankeny

[tightloop]

We need support from some of the AC's like Flex and others to make sure this gets on the agenda for the next BOD meeting..I like that new classifiers are being brought out, but that alone doesn't fix this problem...

[Caspian_45]

I have to agree that all the HHF's need reviewed.

Example: 99-11 is a joke. It is nothing more than a hose feast now.

Sorry Jake.

If you set a HHF too high I wouldn't run that classifer at a match, ever.

[Jake Di Vita]

Why you apologizing to me?

[Flexmoney]

We need support from some of the AC's like Flex and others to make sure this gets on the agenda for the next BOD meeting..I like that new classifiers are being brought out, but that alone doesn't fix this problem...

What's an AC?

There are Area Directors (AD's) and Section Coordinators (SC's). One gets to vote, the other gets to bitch.

I am likely as active as most an SC, but I have no idea how to get an item onto the agenda of the next BOD meeting, other than to ask...same as anybody else.

My feeling is that the BOD has a finite amount of time and more items to deal with than fit into that time frame.

The answer, it would seem, is to arrive with a solution at the same time you point out an issue.

With this, somebody would need to take charge and be willing to crunch the data once the BOD gave authorization and access to the data.

[Flexmoney]

I have to agree that all the HHF's need reviewed.

Example: 99-11 is a joke. It is nothing more than a hose feast now.

Sorry Jake.

If you set a HHF too high I wouldn't run that classifer at a match, ever.

Tony, what is wrong with the HHF on 99-11? Is it too high or or too low? How is it a hoser?

Here are two (production) runs from the Ohio match last year...one being clean, the other being fast.

56 0 5.39 10.3896

44 0 4.59 9.5861

DVC

[tightloop]

Alright Flex

My terminology is a bit off centered, you are a Section Coordinator, not an Area Director...

I could be wrong, but I believe that USPSA works like most other businesses in this country...that is if the employees want to change the manner in which something works, it needs to get a grass roots surge of support and then get someone with as much clout as possible to champion their cause in front of the BOD..My comment should be taken at face value, that if several Section Coordinators and even better yet, several Area Directors voice the opinion that the HHF are askew on some of the classifiers and there is a ground swell of support to get it corrected, the Powers that Be in Sedro are more willing to pay attention than if they get a dozen disconnected emails during the course of the month from individual shooters asking for the same thing to occur..

This is just one example of the sport evolving...the HHF for 99-11 used to be under 10....a resonable shooter could have a chance of getting a great classifier to send in if he shot it clean in about 6 sec...Man, that won';t get a smell now...you got guys like Jake shooting it in 3.5 sec down a few and a HHF at about 15 or so...same with B&Clang....those are just two of the most obvious...

I understand that there is no way to police an effort like this: what prevents anyone from taking a particular classifier and practicing it till they can blow the doors off it and run it about 40% faster than the HHF is now...then waiting for his club to shoot that one...it skews the HHF at Sedro something terrible for the rest of the shooters nationwide and IMO should be thrown out with the bathwater.

Just saying that specializing your shooting on a few classifiers might help you attain Master or GM card, but your shooting overall is not up to that status and that shooters who are already are GM should not have their scores sent to Sedro at all anyway...kind of a moot point..they are not going to rate you down, only up...

I don;t have all the answers, I stopped thinking that when I retired...then I found out just what I did not know from my grandkids...LOL I am with Ron and my original post when I say that something is off kilter when you take a super run like Ron's B&C and it only rates about 75% nationally...and HQ needs to take a look at it...how that gets done, I leave to smarter folks than myself...

[driver8M3]

Here are two (production) runs from the Ohio match last year...one being clean, the other being fast.

56 0 5.39 10.3896

44 0 4.59 9.5861

um, flex...5.39 is pretty fast too...

[Caspian_45]

Jake you have a goal. Thats good. I mean no insult against you. I just used your goal as an example. I really hope you succeed.

But people will hose classifers just to get a higher classification. They couldn't do the same run on demand. This is one of the reasons some HF are too high.

[Caspian_45]

Flex take a look at the 2002 factory gun nationals stage 10 results. I think you can draw your own conclusions about what the HHF probably should be on 99-11. I believe the HHF is just about what it should be. I only used Jakes goal as an example. When he does break 3 seconds and good points, the hit factor will be 18+. Now thats at least 6 over the current HHF.

The point is that people will hose classifiers at club matches in hopes of getting a higher classification but can not carry that classification. This causes the HHF's to be recalculated higher and higher anytime someone pulls off that smokin' run.

Edited April 3, 2006 by Caspian_45

[Jake Di Vita]

Tony,

Never thought you did mean an insult. The fact the El Prez is a classifier never even crossed my mind...I just set the goal because people said it couldn't be done.

[Ron Ankeny]

tightloop:

The classifier I am complaining about is a new one called High Standards and those standards are indeed very high. The last time I shot Bang and Clang in Limited I shot it very well. The same is true with my Production gun.

FWIW, the guys who watched me shoot High Standards thought I did very well. I had forgotten the HHF was suspect or we wouldn't have shot that particular classifier. As near as I can tell, a person will need two sub one second draws and a couple of reloads to match to even be in the running.

I ran some of the other scores through the Ohio calculator and either the calculator is off, the HHF is too high, or all of our club members suck.

This causes the HHF's to be recalculated higher and higher anytime someone pulls off that smokin' run.

I think outliers are trimmed and it's an average of the highest runs. One abnormally high run (or even more) won't necessarily drive the HHF unreasonably high will it? My complaint is hit factors that are bogus from the get go. Does anyone know the history of CM 03-18 and how they arrived at such a high hit factor?

Edited April 3, 2006 by Ron Ankeny

[shred]

Since the release of the 03-series classifiers, Sedro has revisited the HHFs at least once (I no longer keep detailed track of them, my efforts to fix them being largely ignored, but occasionally changes come to notice). It does seem to be much more common for HHFs to be revised upwards than downwards. It's much easier to see 20 100% scores for one roll across the desk in Sedro vs no 90% scores on another.

Check how few new Open & Ltd GM's have been in the last few Front Sights? It's not a coincidence. The guys that got there shooting in the past 6 months had it a lot harder than the guys that got there in the first half of 2003 when there were several 'gimmies' (this is not saying anything about their relative shooting abilities, merely what % a certain HF on a classifier counted for)

[Flyin40]

I think the so called hoser fest classifers thats being referred to amounts to High Hit Factors due to 2 things. Draws and reloads at a GM level. You can get all the points on Bang and Clang but if you don't have a GM class draw its going to hard to get even a OK HF.

Also want to note that even if Jake would hit a sub 3sec el prez in a match(I don't think he would even try it, he seems to be more worried about overall score than a single stage which is a good thing) how does that make it unfair. If he has the ability to do why shouldn't he. Should he take it easy so he doesn't hurt us avg. joes feelings or pride??

Flyin40

[Flexmoney]

This causes the HHF's to be recalculated higher and higher anytime someone pulls off that smokin' run.

Ahhhhh...I think I am seeing where you are coming from now (and I believe there is a disconnect).

It looks like some here are under the impression that the HHF is automatically adjusted when new scores roll in. I just don't know that to be the case...at all.

In fact, I think the HHF's are stagnant more than they are moving.