Practicing classifiers

[Airic]

Very simple solution: introduce classifiers that involve at least SOME movement and require entry and exit from shooting positions. Do that, and the skills that win matches are being tested in the current classifier system.

http://www.uspsa.org/classifiers/03-03.pdf

http://www.uspsa.org/classifiers/03-09.pdf

http://www.uspsa.org/classifiers/03-12.pdf

http://www.uspsa.org/classifiers/09-08.pdf

http://www.uspsa.org/classifiers/09-10.pdf

http://www.uspsa.org/classifiers/13-03.pdf

Thats just the first half of the classifier list....

 

[drmitchgibson]

All the people who think classifers are not a good measure of skill and not a good idea...offer a solution.

What should be done? How should people be ranked?

I wouldn't say the current system not a good measure of skill, but classifiers are drag races. Make more of them more difficult. Put in speed bumps. Like A5 Standards with it's 50-yard shots, SHO/WHO. More of that. There are plenty of regular stages that are designed to be difficult, with unavoidable tests of skill that are generally not offered in a classifier. Hard leans, for example. Hard leans eat up most shooters. Or long yardage shots. Very uncommon, not very fast.

It almost seems like classifiers are thrown into a match as an afterthought. Classifiers that are easy to set up are nearly always chosen, even though they all come with blueprints. You don't have to come up with anything. Someone else did all the planning and measurements. Isn't that lame? Someone else came up with the ideas and drafted these things, but the same few easy-to-build classifiers are regurgitated ad nauseam. It would be awesome if the Section's match directors collaborated to prevent frequent repetition and widen the selection of classifiers that are offered up to shoot.

I'm not sure I would say that the current system is broken, or terrible. It's fully functional. I just don't think it represents everything that we do. Maybe it doesn't need to, but I personally think it should.

 

[Airic]

I wouldn't say the current system not a good measure of skill, but classifiers are drag races. Make more of them more difficult. Put in speed bumps. Like A5 Standards with it's 50-yard shots, SHO/WHO. More of that. There are plenty of regular stages that are designed to be difficult, with unavoidable tests of skill that are generally not offered in a classifier. Hard leans, for example. Hard leans eat up most shooters. Or long yardage shots. Very uncommon, not very fast.

It almost seems like classifiers are thrown into a match as an afterthought. Classifiers that are easy to set up are nearly always chosen, even though they all come with blueprints. You don't have to come up with anything. Someone else did all the planning and measurements. Isn't that lame? Someone else came up with the ideas and drafted these things, but the same few easy-to-build classifiers are regurgitated ad nauseam. It would be awesome if the Section's match directors collaborated to prevent frequent repetition and widen the selection of classifiers that are offered up to shoot.

I'm not sure I would say that the current system is broken, or terrible. It's fully functional. I just don't think it represents everything that we do. Maybe it doesn't need to, but I personally think it should.

I can agree totally with that. The easiest to set up classifiers are the most used and get shot over and over. Take for example Window Pain:

http://www.uspsa.org/classifiers/13-09.pdf

We saw this three times at majors before it became a classifier. Its a cool stage but its never going to be used. Why would someone pick this classifier over all the way easier classifiers to set. It has a very very specific wall/target setup that most ranges do not want to duplicate. There are some 99 series classifiers that are like that also, they take a very specific wall/prop setup and the normal MD and setup crew are not going to do that after building 4-5 unique stages for this months match.

 

[Rockon71385]

USPSA does not have stand and shoot stages beyond level 1 matches. Why are at least 3/4 of the classifiers stand and shoot?

 

[technetium-99m]

USPSA does not have stand and shoot stages beyond level 1 matches. Why are at least 3/4 of the classifiers stand and shoot?

I'd actually argue that USPSA needs more speed shoots and standards stages.

 

[Jeff T.]

I'd actually argue that USPSA needs more speed shoots and standards stages.

If all the stages become standardized, and gravitate to speed shoots, wouldn't that end up being Steel Challenge except with paper targets?
I like the weird stages in USPSA.
I like the weird/more involved classifiers. Like Eric said "classifiers that involve at least SOME movement and require entry and exit from shooting positions"

 

[Tech]

Honestly though, I see more guys sandbagging classifiers than people trying to game them by shooting over and over. So many people that are C's or D's, that should be A's or B's.

This^^^^
Why the hell would I practice classifiers? Heck, I usually sandbag them. I usually Slip one of my reloads that I know won't chamber into my mag on purpose on a classifier. That way I could be the bestest, most badass D Class shooter around!

 

[Airic]

I'd actually argue that USPSA needs more speed shoots and standards stages.

and short courses. Round count isnt everything. You can look at IPSC matches and see very challenging speed shoots and short courses that require exact timing and precision.

 

[jtischauser]

Speed shoots and standards aren't fun to me no matter how you slice it. In fact I think everything should be a 32rd course of fire that traverses at least 20 yards. I only gun because I enjoy the run.

 

[wav3rhythm]

Really awesome discussion! I've learned a lot by reading through this thread, and it is making me rethink my training plan.

I'm a new shooter (about 6 months), and I have shot classifiers during live fire training from time to time just to see how I stack up versus other USPSA shooters with core skills. I haven't learned a lot of the techniques used on field courses due to inexperience, but I can work simple skills and measure progress. It's also a nice break from "par times" in training books and rather than a binary option of making the par time or not, checking my hit factor and my percentage on a calculator gives me a good idea of how effective my training really is. I don't agree with training a specific classifier repeatedly prior to shooting it at a match, but it's certainly not something that I would lose sleep over. I'm just a newbie and think that golf is stupid... so I shoot instead.

 

[Rockon71385]

I'd actually argue that USPSA needs more speed shoots and standards stages.

I love good freestyle speed shoots and short courses. A blazing fast stage with a 8+ hit factor is fun and challenging in a way that's totally different from a 32 round field course.

Standards belong in the fiery pits of hell with all of the other abominations on earth.

 

[drmitchgibson]

Golf is stupid

 

[mike cyrwus]

USPSA does not have stand and shoot stages beyond level 1 matches. Why are at least 3/4 of the classifiers stand and shoot?

theres some here and there

Speed shoots and standards aren't fun to me no matter how you slice it. In fact I think everything should be a 32rd course of fire that traverses at least 20 yards. I only gun because I enjoy the run.

see now, that 3gn that you like is VERY often nothing more that sprinting to "stand and shoots", x3

 

[jtischauser]

theres some here and there


see now, that 3gn that you like is VERY often nothing more that sprinting to "stand and shoots", x3

What you talking bout Willis?

 

[mike cyrwus]

What you talking bout Willis?

just last match, with that death star stuff. Run here shoot, dump a gun, run here shoot, dump a gun, etc

 

[jtischauser]

just last match, with that death star stuff. Run here shoot, dump a gun, run here shoot, dump a gun, etc

That stuff is yucky! Made for TV 3-gun.

Easy for uninformed viewers to follow quickly.

 

[technetium-99m]

If all the stages become standardized, and gravitate to speed shoots, wouldn't that end up being Steel Challenge except with paper targets?
I like the weird stages in USPSA.
I like the weird/more involved classifiers. Like Eric said "classifiers that involve at least SOME movement and require entry and exit from shooting positions"

Not really standardized, but imagine an 8-12 round speed shoot with 3 poppers, a drop turner, and a clam shell. It's an excellent test of skill.

I'd like to see a standards course something like every other month at locals. They are an excellent test of pistol shooting.

 

[mike cyrwus]

or timing.

 

[technetium-99m]

Timing props and movers is a skill.

 

[Steve Moneypenny]

Most classifiers are stand and shoot classifiers, which i really do suck at... the shooting and moving, touch shots etc are some of my strengths, as i would rather win majors than win a classificiation. I will practice the classifier stage if their is something wierd in it, like step forward, and load an unloaded gun, or get the gun from a wierd shelf.. .... practice it like you would any other stage in a match you want to win.