God you're picky. Think of all the senoritas you'll pick up at your post-match yoga class.
They do exist in various forms though:
https://www.amazon.com/Kayden-Tapere.../dp/B00PMR9MSC
God you're picky. Think of all the senoritas you'll pick up at your post-match yoga class.
They do exist in various forms though:
https://www.amazon.com/Kayden-Tapere.../dp/B00PMR9MSC
Last edited by Peally; 09-10-2018 at 09:27 PM.
Semper Gumby, Always Flexible
I am not sure why this is so complicated. Hit factor scoring is merely taking points and dividing by time to come up with a score that weights points and time. Hit factor scoring does not bring with it value judgments on what points to assign to what targets, what size the targets should be, what the penalties for misses should be, whether or not there should be secondary scoring zones and what points should be assigned to them. The course designers make the value judgments and size the targets, assign points and make the rules.
I once asked Bill Wilson why they did not use hit factor scoring in IDPA. He said they wanted the scoring to not require a calculator, so they talked to Robbie and other shooters and came up with times drills should be shot in, and then converted those hit factors into fixed time deductions. These days, calculators are more common. I believe Gabe told me that Tom Givens used hit factor scoring at the recent NW Tactical event.
Likes pretty much everything in every caliber.
Hit factor ain't complicated, you and I do it in our heads when we practice. Applying it broadly to types of shooting where values other than points per second may exist is.
Doesn't read posts longer than two paragraphs.
Last edited by Clusterfrack; 09-10-2018 at 10:53 PM.
“There is no growth in the comfort zone.”--Jocko Willink
"You can never have too many knives." --Joe Ambercrombie
Technical excellence supports tactical preparedness
Lord of the Food Court
http://www.gabewhitetraining.com
It was allegedly Joyce who decided we should be forced to be more accurate and increased the scoring from half a second to a full second per point down.
Many years ago, before IDPA, Front Sight ran a piece on some middle of the pack shooters instead of the usual fawning over the Super Squad.
One guy said he liked the shooting but a sport that took 20 minutes to explain the scoring had a problem.
Code Name: JET STREAM
Those factors you mention GJM, which are not always factored into hit factor, are the devil in the details.
-
An example of hit factor utility: main Tac Con in Arkansas, par time course in the match resulted in top 30 instead of top 16, and a pre-shoot off had to be held to narrow the field to 16. At NW Tac Con a similar course was at shot using hit factor scoring - top 16 was easily and clearly determined.
Technical excellence supports tactical preparedness
Lord of the Food Court
http://www.gabewhitetraining.com
I’ve read this thread with interest, and like others here I really don’t think there is a better system of evaluating overall shooting skill than hit factor scoring. Faster and more accurate is the definiation or hit factor scoring, which is the definition of shooting skill for the vast majority of practical pistol sports.
A lot has been mentioned here about training and using hit factor scoring. I’m not smart enough to do dirty HF math on every drill that I do in training, so I rarely calculate HF during training. On the odd time that I have, it was to figure out some shooting problem that I could always solve by just “seeing my sights and calling my shots”. Training for me is usually breaking down components of drills or components of stages and trying to improve those pieces in preparation for a match. On the core drills I do, I know what PAR time I am trying to beat and kinda know what acceptable hits mean at those speeds, so I guess, HF is considered, just not calculated on every run.
For me calculating HF is for skill measurement, not necessarily for skill building. If that makes sense.
"Next time somebody says USPSA or IPSC is all hosing, junk punch them." - Les Pepperoni
--