Changes to USPSA classification system

[Le Français]

The new system will count all of the best 6 of your last 8 classifiers, even very low scores (as long as they’re at least 2%). This is to reduce “Hero or Zero” attempts, and make one’s classification a better reflection of repeatable performance.

Supposedly, High Hit Factors will also be lowered.

https://s3.uspsa.io/classification/C...-BCD-Flags.pdf

To editorialize: I think that some people will still “Hero or Zero” by looking at the targets and pumping 20 rounds into a no shoot if they don’t like what they see (to get a percentage below 2%).

That said, I like the idea of emphasizing repeatable performance, instead of peak performance. Especially for those who regard pistol shooting as a defensive skill, cold/repeatable performance is most important.

[Clusterfrack]

The new system will count all of the best 6 of your last 8 classifiers, even very low scores (as long as they’re at least 2%). This is to reduce “Hero or Zero” attempts, and make one’s classification a better reflection of repeatable performance.

Supposedly, High Hit Factors will also be lowered.

https://s3.uspsa.io/classification/C...-BCD-Flags.pdf

To editorialize: I think that some people will still “Hero or Zero” by looking at the targets and pumping 20 rounds into a no shoot if they don’t like what they see (to get a percentage below 2%).

That said, I like the idea of emphasizing repeatable performance, instead of peak performance. Especially for those who regard pistol shooting as a defensive skill, cold/repeatable performance is most important.

I like this. Classifiers are part of the match, and should be shot that way.

And, a decent number of legacy HHF's were based on lucky hoper shots.

[Artemas2]

I feel like these changes will hurt a lot of people unless the legacy HHF are adjusted for reality. I can pretty consistently hit 85%+ on most anything after the 18 series, anything older you have to "hero or zero" just to make high B in some divisions.

[GJM]

Steve Anderson interviews a member of the committee that made these changes, and he (Jay) seems like a smart and thoughtful guy.

[Artemas2]

hearing it that way does make me a little more interested in seeing where this goes, I had no idea that Jay was in involved with this

[ECK]

I’m interested to see what happens when they implement the new algorithms. I tried reading one of the papers the Hit Factor guys posted to describe their methodology and when I got to part about using the Weibull distribution I had flash backs to Dr. Bob Loveless’ Stats class and it wasn’t the good kind. Plus that was a really long time ago (Bush Admin, the first Bush).

I would concur that the HHF’s have been set too high on many classifiers, or at least that’s better than the alternative of age catching up with me…

[bofe954]

I feel like these changes will hurt a lot of people unless the legacy HHF are adjusted for reality. I can pretty consistently hit 85%+ on most anything after the 18 series, anything older you have to "hero or zero" just to make high B in some divisions.

Yeah, hopefully some get adjusted down. They do already have some way to adjust them up, so you'd think they could come down.

On the other hand, when you think that there are guys who can consistently hit 3 second El Prez's with production guns...

[YVK]

I honestly don't care. One measuring system, another measuring system, some differences, the end point will be the same: better shooters will score better. Considering that IPSC doesn't even have classification system and people still show up and compete and enjoy the sport, I can't get excited one way or another.

[DMF13]

To editorialize: I think that some people will still “Hero or Zero” by looking at the targets and pumping 20 rounds into a no shoot if they don’t like what they see (to get a percentage below 2%).

Yeah, they should have set it all the way down to zero. If someone was at 74.9%, and trying to make A class, intentionally zeroing out a stage is way better than taking anything that might drag them farther away from the line.

I also like the averaging of repeated classifiers. I have re-shot a classifier once, and it was completely gaming the system. I may have still have re-shot for an average, to mitigate the damage, but completely erasing the screw up seems "impractical" to me.

That said, I like the idea of emphasizing repeatable performance, instead of peak performance. Especially for those who regard pistol shooting as a defensive skill, cold/repeatable performance is most important.

+1

[Lon]

Steve Anderson interviews a member of the committee that made these changes, and he (Jay) seems like a smart and thoughtful guy.

Very interesting video. I can already hear the wailing and gnashing of teeth. I stopped worrying about classification along time ago. I worry more about where I place overall in the match.