Page 1 of 18 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 173

Thread: Hit Factor Scoring as an Evaluation of Skill

  1. #1
    Site Supporter MGW's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Kansas

    Hit Factor Scoring as an Evaluation of Skill

    GJM made some comments in Enels Training Journal that made me stop and do a lot of thinking. about my own training.

    Quote Originally Posted by GJM View Post
    The problem with fixed time drills, if you can make the times, is it doesn’t push you to develop greater speed. This is true even with harder drills like Gabe’s turbo standards. I would try to incorporate hit factor scoring, where you take points, divided by time, and come up with a score that rewards accuracy and speed. Unless your goal is to be a bullseye shooter, you reach a point where you have plenty of accuracy, and the hard part is maintaining that accuracy at ever increasing speeds.

    I think hit factor scoring will also make you picky about guns, since a generous time effectively equalizes different guns, where hit factor scoring will bring out differences that get lost with fixed time drills.
    I know that I have improved as a shooter a lot over the last 12 to 18 months but I struggle to quantify that improvement. I also struggle to come up with skill builders that will push me to improve accuracy at speed. Finally, I struggle to separate "real from feel". Is a certain technique or change in gear really an improvement?

    I would like to spur some discussion on this topic. How could hit factor scoring be incorporated into a training plan? Is hit factor training an effective way of measuring the points I wrote above?

  2. #2
    Chasing the Horizon RJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Interested in this topic as I’ve just become a D shooter in USPSA.

    I otherwise shoot at the square range. I was thinking about this the other day actually. I only got so far as envisioning a couple target shapes (upper A zone? 3x5?) mounted on a larger (11”x17”?) backer. Then shoot both sequentially but timed. As in, say each zone is 5 points. Time is time, and HF is points / time.

    Be interested in what y’all think.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  3. #3
    Member GuanoLoco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Birmingham, AL
    Quote Originally Posted by GreggW View Post
    GJM made some comments in Enels Training Journal that made me stop and do a lot of thinking. about my own training.



    I know that I have improved as a shooter a lot over the last 12 to 18 months but I struggle to quantify that improvement. I also struggle to come up with skill builders that will push me to improve accuracy at speed. Finally, I struggle to separate "real from feel". Is a certain technique or change in gear really an improvement?

    I would like to spur some discussion on this topic. How could hit factor scoring be incorporated into a training plan? Is hit factor training an effective way of measuring the points I wrote above?
    Perfect accuracy that is far too slow, and blinding speed that doesn’t result in meaningful hits are both useless.

    Hit Factor scoring is a powerful way to evaluate your true skill level. If you don’t balance accuracy and time across runs of any given drill, then the results are not really relevant in any real world scenario. (I’ll ignore pass/fail schemes for a moment). It also lets you assess ‘good’ runs against each other - a little faster and a little less accurate vs. a little slower and a little more accurate. This is a sign of operating at your current skill level.

    I would argue that improving your Hit Factor over time, either on average, or more conservatively on your WORST run, is the best way of demonstrating improvement in core skill level over time.
    Are you now, or have you ever been a member of the Doodie Project?

  4. #4
    Every means of evaluations has its own merits and week points. The power of hit factor is that it incorporates both speed and accuracy, as already mentioned.
    The problems with HF that I have are following. First, don't get me going about major vs minor HF as it is applied currently in USPSA. I understand that in a context of this discussion it is not really relevant because we're talking about historical comparison to self as opposed to cross comparison to others. Regardless, I'll take any opportunity I get to bitch about major PF scoring.
    Second, the validation and usefulness of HF has been done in USPSA type of shooting and scoring. I don't know if this fully cross-talks to a defensively oriented shooting. For example, two faster C hits vs slightly slower A and C hits vs two even slower A hits may have same HF for games (or less accurate hits may even have a better HF is they are much faster) and different meaning for a defensive application. So I think that some tinkering needs to be done in regards what minimal accuracy is acceptable for an intended application before factoring in the speed.
    Doesn't read posts longer than two paragraphs.

  5. #5
    Hammertime
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Desert Southwest
    This is a great topic. I would like to have some concrete examples of hit factor drills I can use for measurement going forward.

    I guess one could take something as simple as the 10 in 10 at 10 test and divide score by time with any hits off the B8 being totally disqualifying. Just an example off the cuff.

    I still believe a la @Dagga Boy and @Wayne Dobbs that defensive shooting needs to have fairly rigorous accuracy standards. For me that means inside 2” closer than 5 yards and generally striving for the Black on a B8 5-15, and the entire B8 out to 25.

    I am all for doing that faster though.

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Rochester Hills, MI
    I like the concept of HF scoring. In a defensive context, I can see where someone hosing targets could bleed into “gaming the drill”. Maybe change up the scoring when doing defense oriented drills. Instead of just straight up using Major or Minor scoring go with the following:

    A = 5 pts
    C = 1 pt
    D = 0 pts
    M= -10pts

    I’d say that’s sufficiently rewarding for accuracy. You can still push speed a la HF, but if you hose it too much you get penalized well for it. You’re not going to treat a violent encounter like a USPSA stage, so don’t score your defensive drills the same way. Get your hits.

    I see competition as a means to figure out how to most efficiently run a gun where your HF scoring the way it’s laid out reflects that well. But it’s still just a game. In a defensive context the stakes are MUCH higher and you’re going to functionally be treating it in a totally different manner. HF scoring like this gives you a way to reward steadfastness in hits, but also gives you a way to constantly push for better performance.


    Sent from mah smertfone using tapathingy

  7. #7
    Site Supporter CCT125US's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Ohio
    Almost every drill I shoot is timed and scored. One of my defaults is to take a B8 and do 5 reps of (concealed) D3 at 7yds. Add up pts and divide by total time for the 5 runs. Max pts is 150. Currently, for me any run shooting 30 points under 2 seconds is great. Carried through, that would yield a hit factor of 15. When I was shooting every week, I could do that consistently, but not currently. The only thing I don't like about using the B8 and hit factor scoring is that it doesn't reward an x. I have toyed with adding a pt for an x hit, but preferred to keep my historical scoring consistent. Of course this also works from any chosen ready position.


    Ex.

    30 pts in 1.9
    30 pts in 2.1
    30 pts in 2
    30 pts in 1.9
    30 pts in 2.1

    150 / 10 = 15 HF
    Last edited by CCT125US; 09-09-2018 at 01:42 PM.
    Taking a break from social media.

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    East Greenwich, RI
    I like hit factor with one important stipulation. You need to determine an acceptable level of accuracy and benchmark hit factor from there. I don’t care how fast I can knock out peripheral hits. I do care how fast I can knock good upper chest hits.

    There is no substitute for accuracy at speed. Both are critical for technical shooting skills.
    Last edited by LSP552; 09-09-2018 at 01:38 PM.

  9. #9
    Site Supporter JSGlock34's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    USA
    Quote Originally Posted by YVK View Post
    Second, the validation and usefulness of HF has been done in USPSA type of shooting and scoring. I don't know if this fully cross-talks to a defensively oriented shooting. For example, two faster C hits vs slightly slower A and C hits vs two even slower A hits may have same HF for games (or less accurate hits may even have a better HF is they are much faster) and different meaning for a defensive application. So I think that some tinkering needs to be done in regards what minimal accuracy is acceptable for an intended application before factoring in the speed.
    This was an interesting aspect of the KSTG ruleset; failure to score at least one 'A' zone hit resulted in a Failure to Neutralize Penalty.

    Failure to Neutralize (FTN): If a competitor does not score at least one A- zone hit on a target, there is an additional 5 second penalty. However, there is no FTN penalty for disappearing targets. See Rule II.A.2.b for definition of disappearing targets.
    "When the phone rang, Parker was in the garage, killing a man."

  10. #10
    Site Supporter MGW's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Kansas
    Quote Originally Posted by LSP552 View Post
    I like hit factor with one important stipulation. You need to determine an acceptable level of accuracy and benchmark hit factor from there. I don’t care how fast I can knock out peripheral hits. I do care how fast I can knock good upper chest hits.

    There is no substitute for accuracy at speed. Both are critical for technical shooting skills.

    I agree 100%. I like the way Gabe White approached USPSA shooting limited minor. He had to maximize accuracy to stay competitive within a class dominated by major power factor pistols.

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •