PDA

View Full Version : 2015 Production Nationals



BCL
08-09-2015, 02:33 PM
Congrats to Ben Stoeger for winning his 5th consecutive USPSA Production Nationals! Bob Vogel won 2nd place and Nils Jonasson won third.

The field was steep this year with Bob Vogel, Nils Jonasson, Max Michel, Rob Leatham, JJ Racaza and Alex Gutt.

Ben edged out the win by 1.64 match points.

45dotACP
08-09-2015, 03:02 PM
That's a huge talent pool...pretty telling that the winning scores were that close. Many congratulations due to Ben, Bob, and Nils. I suspect we'll see a lot more of Alex Gutt in the coming years.

GJM
08-09-2015, 03:22 PM
http://www.uspsa.org/uspsa-display-match-results-detail.php?indx=15338


Sent from my iPad

BCL
08-09-2015, 03:38 PM
I know we don't talk about it as much on here as other forums, but it was also nice to see the top three so close with Ben shooting his Tanfo and Bob and Nils shooting a G34. Goes to show that it's the Indian, not the arrow. Nils would have won if he hadn't more or less tanked the last stage (his last stage of the match). It was also telling that Ben didn't win a single stage and only had one stage where he did relatively bad. He shot very consistent and ended up shooting ~94% of the points.

YVK
08-09-2015, 09:56 PM
Nils would have won if he hadn't more or less tanked the last stage

I don't think this is that fair. Ben would've had more points of separation if he didn't nearly tank stage 10. What Nils lost on #20 was within 10 points of what Ben lost on #10.


It was also telling that Ben didn't win a single stage and only had one stage where he did relatively bad. He shot very consistent and ended up shooting ~94% of the points.

To me, as a relatively new competitor and just a general shooter, this was the biggest lesson. USPSA is often portrayed as run and gun game, owing to a stupid (just my opinion) classification system. This match shows very clearly that consitency on demand is what matters the most.


I am glad to see the TGO doing fairly well against the young guns.

rwa
08-09-2015, 10:55 PM
Nils would have won if he hadn't more or less tanked the last stage. If a frog had wings, he wouldn't bump his butt on boulders.

Talionis
08-10-2015, 12:21 AM
It was also telling that Ben didn't win a single stage and only had one stage where he did relatively bad. He shot very consistent and ended up shooting ~94% of the points.

This is important right here. Having shot the match myself, with the amount of extremely tight (read risky) no shoot shots, to shoot those points with Ben's times is very, very impressive. I only managed ~90% of the points, and was definitely slower.

Mr_White
08-10-2015, 12:46 AM
Congratulations on your own excellent placement Talionis!

BCL
08-10-2015, 02:21 AM
I don't think this is that fair. Ben would've had more points of separation if he didn't nearly tank stage 10. What Nils lost on #20 was within 10 points of what Ben lost on #10.

That's fair, I had to go back and look at the amount of points lost per stage and you are correct. Not trying to take anything away from Ben, he had an excellent match.


To me, as a relatively new competitor and just a general shooter, this was the biggest lesson. USPSA is often portrayed as run and gun game, owing to a stupid (just my opinion) classification system. This match shows very clearly that consitency on demand is what matters the most.

Yes, Ben has talked about that in his podcasts several times. Going hero or zero is a surefire way to lose the match. Reminds me of the first time Sebastian Vettel won his first Formula 1 driver's championship, he didn't win a race until the very end of the season, but won the championship because he was consistently near the top.



I am glad to see the TGO doing fairly well against the young guns.

Agreed, he has been up there for the last several years. Not bad for a dude with a double knee replacement having to move around field courses.

JHC
08-10-2015, 06:55 AM
I know we don't talk about it as much on here as other forums, but it was also nice to see the top three so close with Ben shooting his Tanfo and Bob and Nils shooting a G34. Goes to show that it's the Indian, not the arrow. Nils would have won if he hadn't more or less tanked the last stage (his last stage of the match). It was also telling that Ben didn't win a single stage and only had one stage where he did relatively bad. He shot very consistent and ended up shooting ~94% of the points.

I'm very curious is there is any more back story to the short and sweet FB post Ben put up last week to the effect "looks like I'm getting a Sig 320".

LittleLebowski
08-10-2015, 07:16 AM
Good job, Ben and Talionis!

JRM83
08-10-2015, 08:03 AM
I'm very curious is there is any more back story to the short and sweet FB post Ben put up last week to the effect "looks like I'm getting a Sig 320".

Interesting. I figured Tanfoglio was going to change the name of the Stock 2 and start calling it the Stoeger 2. Ben winning again just sold another 200 Stocks 2's.

Peally
08-10-2015, 08:10 AM
I'm very curious is there is any more back story to the short and sweet FB post Ben put up last week to the effect "looks like I'm getting a Sig 320".

Considering the constant ribbing that gun gets from him on his podcasts I'm thinking it's a joke sir ;)

cheshire_cat
08-10-2015, 08:39 AM
Considering the constant ribbing that gun gets from him on his podcasts I'm thinking it's a joke sir ;)
Ditto

RJ
08-10-2015, 09:05 AM
Congrats to the winners.

All I gotta say is as a baby shooter, watching those last day's videos of the top competitors had me dropping my jaw on the floor. I'd just finished up my "Introduction to Action Pistol" class Saturday, myself, and I was like, "woah."

They don't look very fast, but hell, there is no wasted movement.

And aiming; there is also an imperceptible pause before the shot. The mags drop out and go back in like Hershey Bars in a vending machine at the Drive-in during intermission.

Damn.

rob_s
08-10-2015, 09:13 AM
Interesting. I figured Tanfoglio was going to change the name of the Stock 2 and start calling it the Stoeger 2. Ben winning again just sold another 200 Stocks 2's.

That would require that they actually import 200 of them to sell...

JHC
08-10-2015, 10:00 AM
Considering the constant ribbing that gun gets from him on his podcasts I'm thinking it's a joke sir ;)

Ah that fits his trolling heart. :D

45dotACP
08-10-2015, 10:33 PM
That would require that they actually import 200 of them to sell...

Well played sir. Well played indeed.

Sal Picante
08-19-2015, 05:42 PM
That would require that they actually import 200 of them to sell...

ZING!



This match shows very clearly that consitency on demand is what matters the most.

100% spot on... though I don't think the classification system is very forgiving.

YVK
08-20-2015, 09:21 AM
... though I don't think the classification system is very forgiving.

I agree with this; I'd like to see it even less forgiving. The hero-or-zero thing that current classification process promotes is pretty much the only thing that consistently annoys me in this sport.

Sal Picante
08-20-2015, 09:40 PM
I agree with this; I'd like to see it even less forgiving. The hero-or-zero thing that current classification process promotes is pretty much the only thing that consistently annoys me in this sport.

What would you change?

The danger of "sliding" classifications is monsters shooters who would "under classify" then eat folks in lower brackets alive - not that there's much of a payout or etc...

YVK
08-21-2015, 07:51 AM
I would like to see all classifier scores count towards the rating without throwing out any runs.

rob_s
08-21-2015, 08:13 AM
I agree with this; I'd like to see it even less forgiving. The hero-or-zero thing that current classification process promotes is pretty much the only thing that consistently annoys me in this sport.

This used to bother me too, but listening to the practical pistol show discussion on the topic made me realize that the people doing so are really just screwing themselves. If I was to go balls out repeatedly on classifieds and get myself and "M" card by luck, I'd be getting last place at every match I attended in that division.

Lomshek
08-21-2015, 08:34 AM
I would like to see all classifier scores count towards the rating without throwing out any runs.

THAT would shake things up a little and eliminate the "I pulled that shot/flubbed that reload so I'm going to hit the no shoot a couple times to zero my score" approach.

Alpha Sierra
08-21-2015, 08:45 AM
I would like to see all classifier scores count towards the rating without throwing out any runs.

Yes

Alpha Sierra
08-21-2015, 08:46 AM
What would you change?

The danger of "sliding" classifications is monsters shooters who would "under classify" then eat folks in lower brackets alive - not that there's much of a payout or etc...

Match bumps should take care of that. Other sports, like sporting clays, have them just for that reason.

GJM
08-21-2015, 09:48 AM
Right now, USPSA requires on demand performance in matches, and peak performance in the classifier system.

If you were going to count all classifier scores, not sure how you would handle historical classifications for shooters under the current system. It would be a massive undertaking to refigure class thresholds.

Right now some shooters are over classified and other shooters are under classified. The question is would that be any different under an "all scores count" system?

joshs
08-21-2015, 09:56 AM
Match bumps should take care of that. Other sports, like sporting clays, have them just for that reason.

Not really. The under-classified shooter would still easily win at least the match where they are getting the bump, and then would potentially be bumped back down the next time they shoot a classifier poorly. Because many USPSA classifier stages have relatively few points available and very high hit factors (at least compared to a normal USPSA stage), one Mike or no shoot can easily lead to a very low score. The current classification system actually seems to work very well if you look at major match results. IDPA doesn't bump shooters down either for bad classifier performance, but no one talks about the IDPA classifier as being a "hero or zero" shooting test.

rwa
08-21-2015, 10:22 AM
I would like to see the entire classification system dumped. Shoot heads up, dog eat dog. That's the way Steel Challenge was before USPSA got involved. Divisions? Sure thing. Classifications? Nah.

YVK
08-21-2015, 11:30 AM
Right now some shooters are over classified and other shooters are under classified. The question is would that be any different under an "all scores count" system?

Yes, it will bring the classification down towards shooter's mean score and therefore will decrease the number of overqualified shooters.




If you were going to count all classifier scores, not sure how you would handle historical classifications for shooters under the current system. It would be a massive undertaking to refigure class thresholds.


You don't change class thresholds. To handle historical classifications, you introduce another devilish provision: a shooter can go down in class according to his/her current performance. People will reclassify themselves in one year by simply shooting classifiers as they normally do when they shoot matches.

On a big scheme, I don't care as much, Rob's right that over classified peeps are just screwing themselves, and Josh is right about current classification generally correlating. I was just commenting on a couple things that would make the classification more accurate, just in my opinion.

GJM
08-21-2015, 01:17 PM
I think if you averaged all classifiers, very, very few shooters would average their current percentage. Those that would keep their percentage are probably the very top GMs that would stay at 100 percent, because they really are shooting 110-140 percent now, but only getting 100 percent in the current system. Below that small group of GMs, you will have to either rejigger hit factors in each class, or downgrade virtually all USPSA shooters from their current class. Refiguring hit factors would make sense, since many have hit factors so high, you need to hero or zero to shoot a decent percentage.

I am not tracking your comment about making the current system "more accurate," maybe you can elaborate?

YVK
08-21-2015, 02:01 PM
Think Gaussian distribution. Accurately classified shooters are mean +/- n x SD, whatever n is. Under and over classified are outliers on each side of it. As we hopefully agreed, the all classifiers count rule will minimize the number of overclassifiers, who are in this example are half of (3-n) x SD. By eliminating or decreasing that group, your classification is that much accurate in assigning the rank.

In other words, your gun is mechanically 1 inch gun, you're shooting 5 inch groups concentrically around it, and now you did something that you're shooting 3.5 inch group with preponderance of hitting low. You're still more accurate that you were before.

joshs
08-21-2015, 02:37 PM
Think Gaussian distribution. Accurately classified shooters are mean +/- n x SD, whatever n is. Under and over classified are outliers on each side of it. As we hopefully agreed, the all classifiers count rule will minimize the number of overclassifiers, who are in this example are half of (3-n) x SD. By eliminating or decreasing that group, your classification is that much accurate in assigning the rank.

I don't think counting all classifiers will more accurately reflect skill because of the high hit factors and low stage points of classifier stages. Because small errors can have a huge effect on a classifier score, it's relatively easy to end up with a couple really bad classifiers.

Do you think that USPSA suffers from a major problem of over-classification? I think that there are some problems with the current system, but I don't think over-classification is one of them.

YVK
08-21-2015, 02:49 PM
Do you think that USPSA suffers from a major problem of over-classification? I think that there are some problems with the current system, but I don't think over-classification is one of them.




On a big scheme, I don't care as much, Rob's right that over classified peeps are just screwing themselves, and Josh is right about current classification generally correlating..

GJM
08-21-2015, 03:00 PM
YVK, you seem mostly concerned with shooters who are over classified. I am much more concerned about the shooters who are under classified. Everyone loves that GM they can beat, but nobody likes being beat by a B.

Leroy
08-21-2015, 03:56 PM
Many of the top shooters do not shoot classifier stages because some of them do not shoot local matches and it is rare to see a classifier stage at a major. Their current classifiers are their major match results. If a classifier is part of a major match they rarely will push for a higher percentage on the stage because the stage is not worth many points but a mistake could still cost big time. The shooting strategy for shooting %100 on a classifier is different then the strategy for winning a major match. That does not mean that the ability to shoot %100 classifiers does not correlate to match scores. It is not unusual for shooters who want to make GM to spend a large percentage of time on classifier skills (static gun manipulations and hosing the shit out of targets) only to switch over to field course skills because those skills provide the greatest gain in match scores.

Sal Picante
08-21-2015, 05:15 PM
It is not unusual for shooters who want to make GM to spend a large percentage of time on classifier skills (static gun manipulations and hosing the shit out of targets) only to switch over to field course skills because those skills provide the greatest gain in match scores.

I agree and disagree...

The skills you use in classifiers are 100%, no BS, the same skills you use to crush the enemy and hear the lamentation of the women at matches. There are some additional things regarding footwork, strategy, and mental-prep that people may do to round out the field course performance aspect, but learning how to blast classifiers is one of the best ways to become the one legged man at the ass kicking convention...

Sal Picante
08-21-2015, 05:29 PM
I think adding all the classifications is kinda pointless: I was terrible in the beginning. Truly horrible. I put in a lot of effort to get better and where I'm at today is SO different then where I was way back when. Including 3 years of being the guy trying to find his ass with a flashlight just doesn't make sense...

I have to say that looking at the match finishes compared to classifications, it is pretty decent...

To those that want to get rid of the classification system, I'm apt to agree, but for guys just getting into the game, I think it does provide a nice way to track progress, etc...

EricM
08-21-2015, 06:02 PM
I assumed those advocating for using all scores were thinking about simply using the last 8 scores (or however many), instead of the last 6 of 8 that were greater than 2% and no more than 5% below your current classification. Can't see any reason it would make sense to use all scores going back to when someone first joined USPSA, but I can certainly see the argument for using a more representative sample of recent performance.

In the end though, it doesn't really seem that important, at least to me. I'm relatively new to USPSA and figured sometime I'd come to understand the value of the classification system, but it hasn't happened yet. ;)

Leroy
08-21-2015, 07:13 PM
I agree and disagree...

The skills you use in classifiers are 100%, no BS, the same skills you use to crush the enemy and hear the lamentation of the women at matches. There are some additional things regarding footwork, strategy, and mental-prep that people may do to round out the field course performance aspect, but learning how to blast classifiers is one of the best ways to become the one legged man at the ass kicking convention...

The intent of the post was not to degrade GM classifier skills. More a statement of how some GM's have the percentages they do. I know a few GM'S that where 100% for a short time but are no longer. It is difficult to stay at or near % 100 without winning every major you shoot. I think the classification is good. It correlates to match finish and provides a reference for basic practical shooting skills. Even a shooter who has acheived GM through zero or hero mentality has accomplished a feat very few will do. I think there is only roughly 100 GMs in each of the 3 major divisions of USPSA. Every GM I have seen can really shoot.

rwa
08-22-2015, 10:15 AM
To those that want to get rid of the classification system, I'm apt to agree, but for guys just getting into the game, I think it does provide a nice way to track progress, etc...] I agree with you. Getting rid of the classification system would end all of the concerns and sqabbling over "what's in your wallet", but it would discourage many shooters who are working their way up the ladder. Yeah, it does make sense to shoot against people using like equipment and similar skills, but look at all of the complaining over divisions and classifications.

Long ago, I lost that that warm fuzzy feeling I got from winning my class. Being numero uno in B class lost it's value when I realized I was still 30th place loser overall. I busted my butt to get to GM in multiple divisions. Alas, I am now A class across the board due to medical issues. Having gone up the totem pole, only to slide back down, the system has now lost any misplaced value it once had. YMMV

rob_s
08-22-2015, 01:12 PM
To those that want to get rid of the classification system, I'm apt to agree, but for guys just getting into the game, I think it does provide a nice way to track progress, etc...

Not just people just getting into the game, but also those that have different priorities. I'm at a
Isn't in my life where I'm just not going to put in the time to get better at some silly gun game. I'm there for the enjoyment, and the people, and to compete against people with similar skill sets and priorities.

It's important to remember that the B class and Marksman shooters are the ones that MD, SO/RO, scorekeep, set up, tear down, run stats, paste, set steel, etc. not to say that M and GM shooters don't do those things too, but is vice there are less M and GM shooters there are less M and GM workers. It's extremely important not to alienate the B and Marksman shooters. Without them there is no match.

wtturn
08-22-2015, 10:25 PM
I'm at a
Isn't in my life where I'm just not going to put in the time to get better at some silly gun game. I'm there for the enjoyment, and the people, and to compete against people with similar skill sets and priorities.


Sounds like an excuse for sucking.

YVK
08-22-2015, 10:55 PM
Took me two years to get my initial classification. So it ain't realtalk, it is real life. Some of us have no time or desire or both to dry fire one hour daily or shoot a match or two every month.

45dotACP
08-22-2015, 11:50 PM
I tend to think the classification system is accurate enough for a newbie like me trying to track my progress. Until I really commit to aiming for my GM card, I don't think I'll have a beef with it, as the reason I'm not in A class now is because I suck and don't have enough time/motivation to shoot a lot of matches, nor the desire to reshoot classifiers all the livelong day.

Sent from my VS876 using Tapatalk

wtturn
08-25-2015, 08:50 AM
Took me two years to get my initial classification. So it ain't realtalk, it is real life. Some of us have no time or desire or both to dry fire one hour daily or shoot a match or two every month.

To each his own.

Clusterfrack
08-25-2015, 10:00 AM
My overall % score at Production Nationals was nearly identical to my current classification average. Like a lot of people, I've been frustrated by the classification system, but it seems to work for me.

Peally
08-25-2015, 10:15 AM
There's really nothing wrong with it as far as I can see. I think we all just get a little too bored and mull over things like this, or what goofy rule change should be in production, or whatever.

Shooting is more fun ;)

rob_s
08-26-2015, 05:00 AM
Sounds like an excuse for sucking.

You be good at shooting.

I'll settle for winning at life.

BigT
08-26-2015, 06:39 AM
You be good at shooting.

I'll settle for winning at life.


You sure do enjoy taking the piss out of anyone whose interest in shooting isn't exactly the same as yours, don't you? Timmy or Gamer their priorities are all wrong when they don't follow the rob_s model.

Sal Picante
08-26-2015, 02:02 PM
I think there is a lot of vitriol/2-minutes hate for stuff getting surfaced here... Let's be civil?


Additionally, I think we've thread drifted a lot on the topic.

-Being good at shooting, specifically competitive, may have some relationship to organization, sportsmanship, tenacity, but it isn't the end-all/be-all marker of a persons character. I think we all agree on this... If someone is having fun, great. If they're not, and they consider it "work", that's ok too...

-I don't think there is any disagreement that C & B shooters form the bulk of the USPSA organization and that many times, those are the people that make it possible for clubs/matches/etc to progress. That said, I see guys like Ben, Matt Hopkins, Mike Foley, and a lot of other GM's giving back a lot of time, effort, commitment pretty freely to clubs/people/etc. I think most people doing things like IDPA/USPSA are there in some part for the camaraderie.

-I like the classification system. I was horrible when I first started shooting - I didn't grow up around guns are was terrified of them. Making it a goal to progress made USPSA very enjoyable.

-I'm a top-20 classified shooter, I've won matches, etc, but I mess up a lot too ... I track my percentage through a season too, and filter that through the lens of what is going on in my life (kid? Work stress?) and what my training is. It is nice to have that data, even if the %-ages aren't shifting down. My season from January to now (and I've taken a 5 month hiatus) is only 81.91%, reflecting the stress of having a kiddo (my daughter was born in June), having a very stressful time at work (I just quit this past Monday), and dealing with a bum knee (surgery was in early-June)


Have fun, if you're not getting paid, put what you want into your shooting and take the good out of it. If you are getting paid, hook me up with a job?

;)