Classifier reshoot policy

[Nik Habicht]

That mirrors my "reshoot" data entry and upload experience....

[ima45dv8]

They would (should) both get submitted in the Classifier Report for the match, but only the highest one will be applied to the shooters classification calculation.

Actually, I don't think so. If you look at the generated upload file for classification reporting out of ezws, I'm pretty sure only the highest score per division for a competitor is listed therein.

Cool. I didn't realize it was scrubbed at the machine level.

I've generated a number of Classifier reports but never picked one apart. I think I'll go do that now.

[Nik Habicht]

Probably made life easier in the days of mailed-in reports to only have to manually enter the higher value into the database.....

[Poppa Bear]

Our reshoot policy is we allow reshoots for anyone looking to be classified in another division.

We also allow reshoots for anyone that is looking for an initial classification AND who had an equipment failure or a brain failure. Eg. Shooter is competitive against B or C class shooters, but they do not have their official classification in a division or maybe any division. They score well below their ability due to penalties. We will allow them to reshoot the classifier so that an HONEST evaluation of their abilities can be entered into the system. After they are classified the scores will start to average themselves out.

We will not allow them to reshoot until they get the score they like just like we will not penalize them by making them submit a sub-standard score that keeps them classified below their true abilities. It is not fair to anyone if the newly classified D shooter (30%, 55%, 58%, 5% ) is consistently beating C shooters, or even B shooters. Allow the party to reshoot and score a penalty free 50% and we are now looking at a high C shooter starting to knock on the door to B class.

We have several new shooters whose initial classification will be as a high D or even a low C. I myself just tanked a classifier by double tapping all six targets before my brain remembered that the WSB called for 1 each, reload, 1 each.

Edited March 21, 2010 by Poppa Bear

[mgood]

Our reshoot policy is we allow reshoots for anyone looking to be classified in another division.

That's what I was doing.

End of February, I shot a Classifier match with four classifier stages. I shot the match as Limited, then went and re-shot those four stages as L10. I just wanted to get classified in both of those divisions.

The following week, I shot a match as Singlestack and re-shot the classifier with a different gun in Production. I only lacked one classifier getting classified in Production, but didn't have enough ammo for that gun to shoot the whole match with it. (I'd shot up all my .40 ammo the previous week, but wanted to knock out that one last classifier in Production.)

When the thing was updated this month, I went from being classified in one division to being classified in four divisions.

I'm done with that now. I'm classified in every division in which I want to be classified (for now). I'm going to concentrate on SS and maybe some Prod here and there. I wanted the other classifications so that if I decide to go to, say, the Texas State Limited, I've got a classification and won't have to compete as a U.

[grkmec]

How about this situation...

I was shooting a classifier last weekend called Madness. Up until this stage, I was having a pretty good match so I decided to push it a little too much. When I was finished, I had a bunch of no-shoots, some mikes, etc. I zero'd the stage. First time for everything I guess. Should I have asked and/or gotten a reshoot on this stage? I actually shot this same classifier 1 month ago and got a 49.4% which I thought I could easily beat...

[Corey]

i guess i dont like the idea of reshooting it based on performance. You want a different division to count? sure, pay $5 and shoot it again with a new gun. Stage has a malfunction (wind blows over the target, steel not calibrated, etc) yes a reshoot should happen. Had a brain fart or didnt shoot where you thought you could/should? better luck next week.

just my opinion. You are either good enough to hit the targets or your not. bad classifier or not, things will even out in the end and you'll eb facing equal competition (sandbagging aside of course). I've beaten a lot of B class shooters and heck, even beat some M class shooters on indivdual stages in major matches. Does that make me an A or M class shooter? no b/c its soemthing I cant do everytime i shoot ( not yet anyway). if your running classifier scores of 49, 36, 8, 41. the 8 shouldnt be thrown out or re-done, b/c 1 out of every 4 stages are tanked. in a major match, you cant blow 2 stages and expect to be super dooper competitive.

again, just my opinions on the subject.

[bbbean]

in a major match, you cant blow 2 stages and expect to be super dooper competitive.

Although you can apparently zero a stage and win the nationals.

[Corey]

in a major match, you cant blow 2 stages and expect to be super dooper competitive.

Although you can apparently zero a stage and win the nationals.

haha, well i cant, put it that way.

[Nik Habicht]

How about this situation...

I was shooting a classifier last weekend called Madness. Up until this stage, I was having a pretty good match so I decided to push it a little too much. When I was finished, I had a bunch of no-shoots, some mikes, etc. I zero'd the stage. First time for everything I guess. Should I have asked and/or gotten a reshoot on this stage? I actually shot this same classifier 1 month ago and got a 49.4% which I thought I could easily beat...

Sure -- you could have asked. It's up to the MD, and the re-shoot would only count for classification, not for match score.....

Classifier attempts should represent your ability level -- so the Classifier book actually suggests that reshooting a problem run is a desired thing, for the integrity of the system....

[Corey]

How about this situation...

I was shooting a classifier last weekend called Madness. Up until this stage, I was having a pretty good match so I decided to push it a little too much. When I was finished, I had a bunch of no-shoots, some mikes, etc. I zero'd the stage. First time for everything I guess. Should I have asked and/or gotten a reshoot on this stage? I actually shot this same classifier 1 month ago and got a 49.4% which I thought I could easily beat...

Sure -- you could have asked. It's up to the MD, and the re-shoot would only count for classification, not for match score.....

Classifier attempts should represent your ability level -- so the Classifier book actually suggests that reshooting a problem run is a desired thing, for the integrity of the system....

But at the same time if your skill level is only being able to shoot well on 3 out of 4 stages (seems to my problem actually) wouldnt re-shooting classifiers until you get a good score (good being a flexible term here based on the shooter) take you out of your "actual ability level" maybe Im looking at it the wrong way in terms of how it classifies you but it seems like if you can do it, you would have done it the first time...

[Blueridge]

Corey, I see classifiers much the same way that you appear to. The first run shows how well you handle facing the stage on that given day. Reshooting a classifier stage in a match I feel should follow the same stipulations as the other stages. There should be a good reason for the reshoot, and that reason should be held to the same requirements for reshooting any stage of the match.

Nothing is stopping shooters from practicing all of the classifier stages when they go to the range normally (unless you go to a range that won't let you setup the classifiers to practice on). Once you are at a match I feel that you take your best shot at all of the stages and let the chips fall where they may.

Some of my early classifiers are still pulling down my average, but I accept that I shot the stages and have to endeavour to shoot several classifiers better in the future to bring it up.

Edited April 24, 2010 by Blueridge

[Nik Habicht]

Sure -- you could have asked. It's up to the MD, and the re-shoot would only count for classification, not for match score.....

Classifier attempts should represent your ability level -- so the Classifier book actually suggests that reshooting a problem run is a desired thing, for the integrity of the system....

But at the same time if your skill level is only being able to shoot well on 3 out of 4 stages (seems to my problem actually) wouldnt re-shooting classifiers until you get a good score (good being a flexible term here based on the shooter) take you out of your "actual ability level" maybe Im looking at it the wrong way in terms of how it classifies you but it seems like if you can do it, you would have done it the first time...

Corey,

you could certainly have a point -- and the system probably has a slight bias toward moving people up. Read the intro to the Classifier coursebook though -- it's downloadable on the same page as classifier diagrams -- and you'll see what guidance USPSA has to offer. Got a major jam or a mental meltdown in the middle of the classifier? They'd like you to reshoot if possible, for classification only, so that you may be correctly classified. Don't overthink it....

[Corey]

Sure -- you could have asked. It's up to the MD, and the re-shoot would only count for classification, not for match score.....

Classifier attempts should represent your ability level -- so the Classifier book actually suggests that reshooting a problem run is a desired thing, for the integrity of the system....

But at the same time if your skill level is only being able to shoot well on 3 out of 4 stages (seems to my problem actually) wouldnt re-shooting classifiers until you get a good score (good being a flexible term here based on the shooter) take you out of your "actual ability level" maybe Im looking at it the wrong way in terms of how it classifies you but it seems like if you can do it, you would have done it the first time...

Corey,

you could certainly have a point -- and the system probably has a slight bias toward moving people up. Read the intro to the Classifier coursebook though -- it's downloadable on the same page as classifier diagrams -- and you'll see what guidance USPSA has to offer. Got a major jam or a mental meltdown in the middle of the classifier? They'd like you to reshoot if possible, for classification only, so that you may be correctly classified. Don't overthink it....

ill check it out as Id actually like to know what it says. and as for the last 3 words you just wrote, thats me in a nutshell

[Flyin40]

Sure -- you could have asked. It's up to the MD, and the re-shoot would only count for classification, not for match score.....

Classifier attempts should represent your ability level -- so the Classifier book actually suggests that reshooting a problem run is a desired thing, for the integrity of the system....

But at the same time if your skill level is only being able to shoot well on 3 out of 4 stages (seems to my problem actually) wouldnt re-shooting classifiers until you get a good score (good being a flexible term here based on the shooter) take you out of your "actual ability level" maybe Im looking at it the wrong way in terms of how it classifies you but it seems like if you can do it, you would have done it the first time...

Corey,

you could certainly have a point -- and the system probably has a slight bias toward moving people up. Read the intro to the Classifier coursebook though -- it's downloadable on the same page as classifier diagrams -- and you'll see what guidance USPSA has to offer. Got a major jam or a mental meltdown in the middle of the classifier? They'd like you to reshoot if possible, for classification only, so that you may be correctly classified. Don't overthink it....

ill check it out as Id actually like to know what it says. and as for the last 3 words you just wrote, thats me in a nutshell

Corey,

I know what your saying but there is so much emphasis put on classifiers that it causes people to screw them up quite a bit. You said someone does good on 3 of the 4 stages and they screw up the classifier then thats the way it is. The thing is I would say most shooters I have shot with shoot a 4 stage match as following. They shoot the first 3 stages with no pressure and shoot within their ability. Then the classifier comes up and they start telling themselves "I have to really concentrate and do well on the classifier". They distinguish the classifier separately from the other stages. They put pressure on themselves treating the classifier as something different. This causes them to tense up and try alot and in the end bomb or do poorly on the classifier. The secret is that there isn't any secret, it is just another stage.

Thats why it doesn't bother me to see guys reshoot a classifier. There are quite a few other reason I don't mind that they reshoot classifiers but I have already posted them.

Flyin

[OlliesRevenge]

There is a problem with grand bagging, and with allowing multiple fee based re-shoots that I have not seen addressed yet. The problem is that when grand bagging happens at the upper levels (ie. M trying to make GM), and is coupled with multiple re-shoots, what you get is a database full of HHF's that represent the pinnacle of human performance, rather than even what the top GM's can perform at will. In other words the HHF's wind up being statistical outliers rather than simply the leading edge of the bell curve. This creates a situation where, on a given classifier, a score like 75% of HHF just might actually represent an elite level of performance that could be greater than 90% - 95% of all HF's in the database for that classifier - when the HF data is viewed as a statistical frequency distribution.

In other words there is a big difference between...

1) The current system of simply grading HF's on a % curve based on HHF,

and

2) Statistically looking at where each individual score falls in relation to all the other scores in the data for that classifier.

The latter method of determining classification would, in my opinion, be by far the better method. It would be more computationally intensive to calculate though.

In my opinion, the current system would be improved if classifier re-shoots had been forbidden entirely from the start, beyond what would be allowed on a regular COF of course. However, given the fact that there are shooters out there doing multiple re-shoots and "polluting" the data with statistical outliers, it is actually important to then let everyone do re-shoots in order to be equitable. Within the reality of the current system, I personally have zero problem with doing a re-shoot, even if I didn't "blow up" on my first run.

[bbbean]

The problem is that when grand bagging happens at the upper levels (ie. M trying to make GM), and is coupled with multiple re-shoots, what you get is a database full of HHF's that represent the pinnacle of human performance, rather than even what the top GM's can perform at will.

You have a valid point *if* it can be shown that the HHFs were the result of reshooting. If reshooting is simply leting a bunch of 85% shooters log a 95% result (or 35% shooters log a 45% result, for that matter), it doesn't change the relationship to the HHF.

In theory, we're all comparing our score to a single HHF, so what happens at the X<99.9% level is only if interest in viewing the distribution of scores, not the value relative to the top. It's like putting a few elevators and escalators on Mt. Everest. They might help someone get further up the mountain than they could otherwise, but you still have to climb that last ridge to stand on the summit.

[OlliesRevenge]

If reshooting is simply leting a bunch of 85% shooters log a 95% result (or 35% shooters log a 45% result, for that matter), it doesn't change the relationship to the HHF.

That is a great point worth mentioning & I do understand this completely.

You have a valid point *if* it can be shown that the HHFs were the result of reshooting...

In my mind there is simply no way for this to not be the case. Consider this fact for any given classifier: If at any place & at any time in the history of that classifier the HHF got bumped up as a result of someone playing the multiple re-shoot to "burn it down" game, then the complexion of that classifier just got changed forever. Now, going forward from that point, it suddenly just got harder to produce a 95% HF on that classifier without playing the "Practice the hell out of it before the match" game, the "Multiple re-shoot" game, or both. This is a dynamic phenomenon that is cumulative over time. In my opinion, not only is this likely to be the case, it is extremely unlikely to have not been the case.

There have been multiple instances where I have witnessed one of my local GM's shoot the top match score for that match's classifier stage, and it appears like they just took a flamethrower and burned it to the foundation. Yet when I look at the actual HF score that night and calculate the percentage of HHF it turns out to be a 75 - 85% run.

I hope no one misunderstands me - I'm not complaining about any of this, I just think its important to understand that this is likely to be a factor. Particularly if you want to answer questions like: "Where do I really stand relative to all the other shooters in my division"? The answer to this question cannot be found in your current average. For example: If you are an 'A' shooter with an average of 79% percent, that does not mean that you are "better than 78.99% of all the other shooters" in that division. I believe in that case "the percentage of shooters you are better than" (or at least better at shooting classifiers than) is likely to be much higher, maybe even as high as the mid nineties. The key to this is looking at the data in a statistically correct manner, that is relative to all the other data, and not just the single highest data point.

In my mind, this is why we regularly see that A class (and sometimes B class) shooter who is totally capable of winning matches.

Understanding this has given me a fresh perspective on that shooter we've all seen - the upper B class shooter who cleans house at local club matches, who everyone seems to think is a "sand bagger" because he just "can't" seem to move up to A. We'll, that guy may not be trying to sandbag at all, it might just be that the 75% level represents a greater level of skill than what it might seem to represent if we haven't really looked into the numbers.

[Nik Habicht]

Most of the recent classifiers have been shot at Nationals or Area matches. Most of those have a HHF that is equivalent to the winning HF on the stage. Folks might burn classifiers down, but HHF rarely get adjusted up.....

There's a world of difference between attaining GM and winning a National Championship....

[OlliesRevenge]

Most of the recent classifiers have been shot at Nationals or Area matches. Most of those have a HHF that is equivalent to the winning HF on the stage. Folks might burn classifiers down, but HHF rarely get adjusted up.....

This is not in conflict with my point.

There's a world of difference between attaining GM and winning a National Championship....

This is in agreement with, and reinforces my point.

Respectfully,

LF

[professor]

How about this situation...

I was shooting a classifier last weekend called Madness. Up until this stage, I was having a pretty good match so I decided to push it a little too much. When I was finished, I had a bunch of no-shoots, some mikes, etc. I zero'd the stage. First time for everything I guess. Should I have asked and/or gotten a reshoot on this stage? I actually shot this same classifier 1 month ago and got a 49.4% which I thought I could easily beat...

Sure -- you could have asked. It's up to the MD, and the re-shoot would only count for classification, not for match score.....

Classifier attempts should represent your ability level -- so the Classifier book actually suggests that reshooting a problem run is a desired thing, for the integrity of the system....

A couple of points to make here. First, as others have said, any reshoot of the classifier would not affect your match position, as that would always be based on the first, official, run.

Second, your classification is always based on the best 6 of the latest 8 valid classifiers on your record. Since you shot this same classifier just a month ago, that 49.4% is still there. On any reshoot, you would have to be better than that 49.4% or it wouldn't improve your average at all. Specifically, it can't replace a poorer score on some other classifier with a second score on this classifier. The 8 classifiers considered in forming the average have to be different.

In general, the only reason to reshoot that makes sense is when you need at least 4 valid classifier scores for an initial classification [other than U] that is representative of your shooting skills in that division.

[Nik Habicht]

Most of the recent classifiers have been shot at Nationals or Area matches. Most of those have a HHF that is equivalent to the winning HF on the stage. Folks might burn classifiers down, but HHF rarely get adjusted up.....

This is not in conflict with my point.

There's a world of difference between attaining GM and winning a National Championship....

This is in agreement with, and reinforces my point.

Respectfully,

LF

You missed my point -- which was that HHFs are rarely now adjusted up. We know this, because we can compare the (computed) HHF to the winning HF in the Nationals or Area match where the classifier debuted.....

[OlliesRevenge]

You missed my point -- which was that HHFs are rarely now adjusted up.

Fair enough, I hear you. You have been at this longer than I have, and have been present at larger matches, so you would know better than I would about the frequency (or lack) of HHF increases. I have read that the HHF is actually calculated by taking an average of the top 10 or so HF's for the classifier. This obviously makes the HHF less susceptible to changes based on any one smoking hot run, but a cumulative effect over time will still affect it. Maybe this discussion is more academic than practical, but the issue I pointed out still has merit. The current system of grading HF's on a % curve based on HHF is, by it's nature, more prone to the influence of grandbagging and reshooting than a percentile based system.

To calculate percentile rank (ie. determining where each individual HF falls relative to all the other HF's) you would take all the HF's lower than your HF, and divide that number by the total number of HF's in the data for that classifier. Notice that such a method would be independent of any change in HHF.

Also notice, that with a percentile scoring system the resulting number would actually represent what many shooters erroneously believe the current number to represent. I have seen posts here, and heard statements made at matches like: "a grandmaster classifier score is in the top 5% of scores", yet if you really look at the math you'll see it just isn't so. A score of x% of HHF means simply that your score was x% of HHF, nothing more. It says nothing about where you scored in relation to the national field of competitors.

If a = the current % of HHF method, and b = percentile, a does not equal b, and the difference is very likely to be more than splitting hairs. Because the classifier HF data is very likely to be normally distributed (ie. bell curve), scores in the upper % of HHF range would probably be higher when measured on a percentile basis, and scores in the lower % of HHF range would probably be lower when measured on a percentile basis.

Once again I'm not griping about any of this (I'm having fun shooting), and I'm not saying the current system doesn't "work", I just think it's worthwhile to understand what the HF percentages really mean, and what might affect them.

[Nik Habicht]

I get that. Occasionally there's an adjustment to a HHF, but in my experience that's rare. I'd speculate that the classifier was originally shot by the Super Squad under less than ideal conditions, or that the talent pool wasn't the deepest in one division, and when the classifier gets out into wide circulation, there is a significant deviation from norm in the spread of hit factors being reported to the office....

I can only remember that happening once or twice in the last nine years, relatively soon after the classifier was released. I can't put my finger on which one though -- I want to say one of the 03 or 06s....

[CrankyCrash]

I had the same experience at a range I USED to shoot at, except it wasn't just with the Classifier stage. The guy re-shot any stage he felt he didn't do good on, it helped that it was his show and he did whatever he wanted. No one else could do the same, unless you were one of his buds.

I don't spend my money or time at that club any more ... their loss. Fortunately, I've got way too many places I can shoot at.