Jump to content


Photo

Updated High Hit Factors....


  • Please log in to reply
128 replies to this topic

#121 Lloyd Christmas

Lloyd Christmas

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 208 posts

Posted 27 August 2018 - 01:56 PM

1. Make the HHF the average of the top 1% of scores ever shot per classifier. This lessens the impact on lucky hero or zero runs, or scoring anomalies.

2. Count the best 6 from the most recent 8 scores shot, period. No throwing out runs that are “too bad” or “too good”.

3. Either completely disallow reshoots, or only allow them for gun malfunctions; either will work fine.

These three changes would set high, but attainable HHFs, and eliminate the “go for broke all of the time, or just reshoot if it goes shitty” mentality that has screwed up the classification system in the first place. The people that attain any classification in this system should be able to compete equitably in their division.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

#122 T "G" O

T "G" O

    The Gay One

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,854 posts

Posted 27 August 2018 - 02:44 PM

Many snows ago... back in doodie 1.0, YellowVisorGuy analyzed several years of major matches, finishes, %, classes, etc... and determined USPSA shooters had a 0.88 correlation coefficient between their current class vs. their placement at major matches.

The current system works REALLY REALLY well considering its just some random numbers and shit. USPSA tweaked a few things to make them more realistic since some classifiers were extremely easy to hundo.
  • Sweet T, GooldMember and DazhiZ like this

#123 Motosapiens

Motosapiens

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,438 posts

Posted 27 August 2018 - 02:45 PM

But I don't think gm's accurately represented guys at the top 5% of the sport nationally.

I don't think you need the combination ranking system though it might make things interesting. I think reserving Gm for guys who can hit 95% of any given years national champion would work nicely. 

 

just to be sure you understand how math works.... you realize that the current system (top 5% of scores) results in considerably less than the top 5% of shooters, right? and your suggestion of within 5% at nationals would result in far fewer gm's, more like .1% or fewer.


2013 National Champion C class  Limited 10


#124 T "G" O

T "G" O

    The Gay One

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,854 posts

Posted 27 August 2018 - 02:51 PM

Yeah the idea is exactly to remove the hero/zero factor. It should smooth out the curve a bit.


As long as clubs don't allow reshoots this not an issue.

If you can't shoot at a mid/low M level at majors... you have almost no chance at shooting 6-8 classifiers in a row that average 95% or higher.
  • GooldMember likes this

#125 T "G" O

T "G" O

    The Gay One

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,854 posts

Posted 27 August 2018 - 02:57 PM

Sadly since they aren't going to degrade anyone the system still means little. So many paper m's and gm's who spent time grandbagging the system shooting 'easy' classifieds and pounding out the reshoots.


Who cares, being a grandbagger is embarrassing if you shoot beyond your local club match.

#126 GooldMember

GooldMember

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 876 posts

Posted 27 August 2018 - 05:52 PM

just to be sure you understand how math works.... you realize that the current system (top 5% of scores) results in considerably less than the top 5% of shooters, right? and your suggestion of within 5% at nationals would result in far fewer gm's, more like .1% or fewer.

Isn't it already only like 1.3% or something with the current system? I'm guessing changing it to 5% or better at Nationals would make that number go to under 1/2 a percent

#127 Peally

Peally

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,854 posts
  • LocationWisconsin, USA

Posted 27 August 2018 - 07:31 PM

You guys made the thread boring with all the usual hypothetical change this and that classifier plans. SHAME. Need butts now.
  • Stranger Danger likes this

#128 shreek

shreek

    Aberrant Freak

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,065 posts
  • LocationNull Island

Posted 28 August 2018 - 09:24 AM

It's funny because they're jelly of the "paper GMs" with cards they themselves can't get, so the answer is to try and knock them down a peg.

USPSA's answer, if anyone asks, will probably be some variation on "what does it hurt?" like say, keeping L10 or Revo or Single Stack.

Use the rules. Don't DQ someone who doesn't do anything DQable. -- Da Beard.

 


#129 Mumbles

Mumbles

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 23 posts

Posted 28 August 2018 - 06:37 PM

It's neither of those things. It's a hybrid model. :)

Fucking millennials and their hybrids.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users