Well, its official.

[bigcraig]

I am a B in Limited.

 

[Zoub]

If you had studied harder for the mid terms would you of got an A?

 

[slow1911s]

Congratulations! Now you're in the hardest class to get out of.

 

[downrange72]

I am a B in Limited.

Oops, threw in some decent classifiers huh

I am at my high percentage in C....ironically it is about .2% higher than last year...

 

[bigcraig]

Congratulations! Now you're in the hardest class to get out of.

I know.

As you can tell, I am highly excited about this.

 

[bigcraig]

Oops, threw in some decent classifiers huh .

Not intentionally, just shot them the only way I know how.

Hmmmm...........maybe I am getting better!

 

[bigcraig]

If you had studied harder for the mid terms would you of got an A?

Noted, but as a personal rule, I never study.

 

[riverman67]

59.5 in SS unclassified in production
guess what I'm shooting next year.
I am not going to B class until I get better at field courses. I am not a B class there.
I don't think the classification system truly gauges one's ability. Most of them are stand and shoots. How many of these do you shoot in a major and what percentage of the points available are they? You don't have this problem Craig , you shoot field courses very well. congrats on the bump

 

[RangeJunkie]

Congrats!!

 

[rvb]

-rvb

 

[slow1911s]

Thread Drift

I don't think the classification system truly gauges one's ability. Most of them are stand and shoots. How many of these do you shoot in a major and what percentage of the points available are they?

You're right. But, know how matches used to be shot. Field/long courses 10+ years ago were only 1, and not that often 2, stages a match. Short courses and standards used represent at least 2-3 stages a match. Now it's flipped.

However, what classifiers are meant to do is test shooting basics - draws, reloads, transitions, multiple targets. You do that on almost any stage, including field courses, no matter what. If classifiers tested field course skills, most of us weekend warriors would complain that the fast young guys have the advantage (and they probably would, but don't that to TGO or Chuck at Shooters Connection).

However, I think we could add a level to the current classification system that recognizes major match performance. If you shoot your classification at a major match where at least 3 GMs compete in your division, you are now certified (e.g. your card reads Lim B-Cert, instead of Lim-B). This would be similar to the Distinguished system the NRA uses. For most people, me included, there is a big difference between having a classification, and shooting that classification (shooting your card) against the best in the sport.

 

[riverman67]

Thread Drift



You're right. But, know how matches used to be shot. Field/long courses 10+ years ago were only 1, and not that often 2, stages a match. Short courses and standards used represent at least 2-3 stages a match. Now it's flipped.

However, what classifiers are meant to do is test shooting basics - draws, reloads, transitions, multiple targets. You do that on almost any stage, including field courses, no matter what. If classifiers tested field course skills, most of us weekend warriors would complain that the fast young guys have the advantage (and they probably would, but don't that to TGO or Chuck at Shooters Connection).

However, I think we could add a level to the current classification system that recognizes major match performance. If you shoot your classification at a major match where at least 3 GMs compete in your division, you are now certified (e.g. your card reads Lim B-Cert, instead of Lim-B). This would be similar to the Distinguished system the NRA uses. For most people, me included, there is a big difference between having a classification, and shooting that classification (shooting your card) against the best in the sport.

I am one of the fat slow guys(working on it) I can shoot most of the stand and shoots at 60% or better on a good day but I lag behind the b class guys I shoot with by 2-4 seconds on field courses. Movement,reloads and stage planning are all issues I'm focusing on. I don't know what the answer is as far as classification goes , I'm not sure there is one, there are some classifiers that require movement but they don't get shot as often because of prop requirements and difficulty of set up. The ones I have shot I end up aroud 50% and I feel this is a good gauge of where I am.

I like shooting field courses they are the most fun, I'm just giving up too much time in all the non-shooting areas.

 

[rvb]

what classifiers are meant to do is test shooting basics - draws, reloads, transitions, multiple targets. You do that on almost any stage, including field courses, no matter what.

I agree... I think the classification system tests everything needed in a field course very well w/ the exception of the ability to sprint, and to shoot on the move. I fail to see the difference. It's a good thing that gaming a stage out and being efficient isn't weighed into the class system, IMO. Let the match test gaming ability, and endurance, and foot speed, and consistancy.

I think we could add a level to the current classification system that recognizes major match performance. If you shoot your classification at a major match where at least 3 GMs compete in your division, you are now certified (e.g. your card reads Lim B-Cert, instead of Lim-B). This would be similar to the Distinguished system the NRA uses. For most people, me included, there is a big difference between having a classification, and shooting that classification (shooting your card) against the best in the sport.

There is too much emphasis placed on "shooting your %" at majors. Your % and where you finish w/ the leaders have nothing to do w/ each other. Contrary to popular belief, a 100% score on many classifiers is FAR from what the best in the sport are capable of. It's a fun metric, and I often set it as a goal, but it doesn't matter w/ regards to classification. If you want to correlate match performance and classification %, then let's stop throwing out two of the last eight VALID classifications. Straight up average the last 8 classifiers. THAT's representative of a match. No toss-outs. Considering that, of course the class % is inflated.

If the class system were set based on the best scores on record, the performance needed to be in a class would be too volatile. It would loose meaning. So I'm glad we aren't always chasing the best score on record as the 100%.

All the class system needs to do is group shooters of similar ability. It does that quite well (which we can see by looking at major match results). It does not, and should not, correlate to how a person finishes in a match... otherwise, why bother with matches?

Just shoot. Then it all works out pretty well. Game the system and it'll frustrate you.

-rvb

 

[blkrifle]

Congratulations! Now you're in the hardest class to get out of.

its hard to get past all the A class that hangs around the top of B class!!!

 

[jakemartens]

welcome to the big pond where the water is deep and wide

look at the nationals and see how many people shoot up to their class %

whether it is a classifier, field course, short course whatever

it all comes down to draw, sights, trigger control

The rest of it do like you ass is on fire

 

[BillD]

Way to go Craig!!

 

[Litlratt]

Congrats!!

 

[Coach]

Congrats Craig. You have to pay attention to what you are doing on classifiers or they will move you up.

It does not matter what class you are in. There is a difference between being in a class and being competitive in a class at a major match. There are plenty of GM's who have never won a match.

Take a look at results from any nationals and notice how many big name GM's did not shoot their classifier percentage. Match scores are for that day. Sometimes you have a good day and some days you have a bad day.

 

[HICKMAN]

welcome Craig! It's the place to B!

 

[BROBERTS]

Great Job !! Now your gun bag should get lighter if you let some of that sand out !!!! to "B"