Jump to content


Photo

Classifier HHFs about to get real


  • Please log in to reply
287 replies to this topic

#1 waktasz

waktasz

    Admin

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,090 posts

Posted 06 July 2017 - 01:34 PM

Foley is going to fix up the classification system. 

 

 

 

 

The high hit factors for USPSA classifier courses of fire have been updated from time to time over the years. In reviewing the current data, it is apparent that all of the classifiers need to be reviewed, and in some cases adjusted. Some of these will go up in difficulty, while others will go down in difficulty. Each division will be reviewed for each classifier. The new high hit factors will be the best 10 records on file for each classifier in each division, throwing out only statistical anomalies. When the update process is complete, USPSA will release high hit factors to the membership via the USPSA webpage, along with an announcement to the membership.

 


  • Surfer, peterthefish, Will and 2 others like this

#2 maximis228

maximis228

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 339 posts

Posted 06 July 2017 - 01:37 PM

Just scrape the whole thing. Make Activity fees $3 and call it a day.



#3 Peally

Peally

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,855 posts
  • LocationWisconsin, USA

Posted 06 July 2017 - 02:02 PM

I'm pretty pumped about this. The USPSA classifier system is one of the most convenient collections of fundamental shooting drills with associated ranking systems out there. Getting the old and occasionally odd score criteria stabilized better is a good thing, some are unnaturally difficult or easy.

 

Also published HHFs finally means no popping up possibly out of date apps all the time, which is nice.



#4 Motosapiens

Motosapiens

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,521 posts

Posted 06 July 2017 - 02:37 PM

in general, due to the hero/zero approach that many people use for classifiers, I suspect that the top 10 records for most classifiers will ALL be anomalies, and not reflective of what shooters who are trying for a good match score can consistently shoot.


  • sirveyr, Unibrain, BenB and 6 others like this

2013 National Champion C class  Limited 10


#5 waktasz

waktasz

    Admin

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,090 posts

Posted 06 July 2017 - 02:41 PM

Yup. 



#6 LeadChucker

LeadChucker

    CO

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,044 posts
  • LocationHC, Utah

Posted 06 July 2017 - 02:52 PM

Timeframe?

#7 Peally

Peally

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,855 posts
  • LocationWisconsin, USA

Posted 06 July 2017 - 02:55 PM

in general, due to the hero/zero approach that many people use for classifiers, I suspect that the top 10 records for most classifiers will ALL be anomalies, and not reflective of what shooters who are trying for a good match score can consistently shoot.


I think that becomes far less common at the upper tiers of shooting. Are 100% GMs really trying to push their abilities and throw stages like that?
  • Motosapiens likes this

#8 NickBlasta

NickBlasta

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 500 posts
  • LocationWA

Posted 06 July 2017 - 03:33 PM

I'd think it would be easy to correct up and down if you had some data, like, if you compared a shooter's classification percentage at the time vs the score they shot on the classifier, and look for trends across the whole membership. I wouldn't be surprised if some had people shooting better than average and some lower than average.

 

They could fix a swath of them by introducing some kind of bell curve to the fixed time ones. They're arbitrarily more difficult for irons shooters, I think.



#9 MilkMyDuds

MilkMyDuds

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 237 posts

Posted 06 July 2017 - 03:35 PM

This is going a bit extreme imo.

Think of the handful GMs who can actually shoot 95% in nationals. Then think very few of those handfuls actually win individual stages.

Now this new HHF system will be the mother of classifier national match, where stage win data across many years and the whole country sets the bar. Aka super inflated HHF

This is sad news for M shooters who are trying to make GM.

#10 peterthefish

peterthefish

    Banned.

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,999 posts

Posted 06 July 2017 - 04:02 PM

This is sad news for M shooters who are trying to make GM.


You say that like it's a bad thing. Imagine a world where GM was a de facto impressive title. A world where pre 2017 GMs have an asterisk next to their names.

Sounds like a net positive to me.
  • Ben and racetaco like this

#11 MilkMyDuds

MilkMyDuds

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 237 posts

Posted 06 July 2017 - 04:05 PM

Its not a bad thing if the system has been like this all along. It is a bad thing to drastically tilt the scale now. Eliminating unlimited classifier reshoot already weed out most paper GMs.

Imagine the system has been like this since the beginning, how many GMs will there be? Basically just all the area and nationals division winners.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk



#12 Vagetarian

Vagetarian

    I used to have 3 warning points.

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,981 posts
  • LocationLightyears from Ben's nuts.

Posted 06 July 2017 - 04:30 PM

Will I still be able to win high C?  I'll be pissed if I get bumped up.  


  • MilkMyDuds and racetaco like this

Kitten_zps66d94599.jpg
I just man-handled that prick with my Type-A personality.
Dipshit tard duckweed goat humper.

You're all a bunch of fucking idiots and retards!


#13 NickBlasta

NickBlasta

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 500 posts
  • LocationWA

Posted 06 July 2017 - 04:41 PM

Its not a bad thing if the system has been like this all along. It is a bad thing to drastically tilt the scale now. Eliminating unlimited classifier reshoot already weed out most paper GMs.

Imagine the system has been like this since the beginning, how many GMs will there be? Basically just all the area and nationals division winners.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

 

We'd need a new title. Something like Distinguished Master. There we go.



#14 Mike Foley

Mike Foley

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 907 posts

Posted 06 July 2017 - 04:44 PM

Newsflash, it has been this way all along, but they haven't been updated for a while with the exception of two or three that were obvious. Some of them are going to get easier and that's a fact. The goal is to have an accurate moving scale. This isn't new, but since no one seems to know how any of this works, I thought I'd demystify it. Timeline? This year, hopefully soon.

#15 Mike Foley

Mike Foley

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 907 posts

Posted 06 July 2017 - 04:47 PM

I'm going to give two examples. When I first started this job a year and a half ago, we reset a particular classifier that had never had anyone ever shoot an open score above 84%, and the same classifier in production had pages and pages of 100s all the way down to
C class. The goal will be to review these every two years and not make changes unless they're necessary based only on empirical data.
  • Stubb and NickBlasta like this

#16 ron169

ron169

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 623 posts
  • LocationSouth Georgia

Posted 06 July 2017 - 04:47 PM

The system could definitely use a fix and this is probably far cheaper than the method that would result in a true scale.

I think to get the truest scale, you would need to take the best of the best, max, Ben, Dave, TGO, Leograndis, taran, etc etc and get them in one place and each shoot all the classifiers and build that way.way too expensive in sheer cost of manpower, ammo etc.

#17 Mike Foley

Mike Foley

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 907 posts

Posted 06 July 2017 - 04:50 PM

Logic tells me that even those guys can't nail the exact same hit factor every single time on demand. Those guys are good, but they're not that good. I've shot with most of them and seen them make mistakes.

#18 MilkMyDuds

MilkMyDuds

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 237 posts

Posted 06 July 2017 - 04:51 PM

What I was saying is that, the "truest scale" is not to take 10 best scores of a given classifier across 10 years across all shooters.  I suspect those 10 best scores are all anomalies and won't be repeatable.  Not sure how the system has been like this all along, since El Prez has had HHF 10 for Production for years.  If you collect the best 10 scores of El Prez for Production, I bet $20 the HHF will be around 13. 



#19 ron169

ron169

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 623 posts
  • LocationSouth Georgia

Posted 06 July 2017 - 04:52 PM

I'm going to give two examples. When I first started this job a year and a half ago, we reset a particular classifier that had never had anyone ever shoot an open score above 84%, and the same classifier in production had pages and pages of 100s all the way down to
C class. The goal will be to review these every two years and not make changes unless they're necessary based only on empirical data.


Mike, will they check classifications and make things retroactive? Ie, go up or down based on past score already graded.

#20 Mike Foley

Mike Foley

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 907 posts

Posted 06 July 2017 - 04:53 PM

All changes to the system have been and will continue to be going forward.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users