CFRC Shot Averages from the All-Comers Agg for FClass

Hi Keith,
Been reading over posts and though I understand the reasonings behind a classification system, there are always situations which cause misclassifications to occur.
I do understand that in any classification system, to be more accurate,a minimum number of matches(raw data) must be shot to provide a base level for ranking.
I know IPSC has it's system(and heard some of the arguments when they changed it) and am not sure of all the details of the US F Class system.
Myself, I think it's a good way for shooters, new and experienced to compare thier own personal results and mark thier growth against others in similair levels.
However, I think that in order for it to be of real value we would need input from a greater number(all) of participants in F Class in Canada.Then as usual there is the questions of how one compares raw scores in matches if not all are shot on same targets and same distances and same scoring methods.Can see this eventually being worked out and brought in given enough data and comparison formulas,but for now it can be a logistical nightmare.
Would regular provincial matches count as level 1 ,Provincial Championships as level 2 and National level matches as level 3??
By the way I agree ,Wolfgang is a Grand Master Worldclass Shooter.
Would any non Canadian be classified as Unclassified until they have recorded enough matches to be classified like (I'm assuming)in the US?
I understand that 600 and 1000yrd are the 2 distances for F Class in US.We have a broader spectrum of ranges to draw from.
Hmmmm... I'll let you and Glen figure it out and volunteer you two to host the data input and management of stats and rankings. In meantime while you're both tied up
with it, I'll just grab a rifle and head out for some rangetime fun.
Stay well.Let me know if the Canadian F Open is a go and when and I'll plan on coming.
Gord
 
ONT0001 said:
However, I think that in order for it to be of real value we would need input from a greater number(all) of participants in F Class in Canada.
Click to expand...

Agreed Gord, I already have close to 1000 matches entered in my system, not just the SR ones, but all of the CFRC and all of the SPRA matches and the last one at the APRA. The more data the better.

ONT0001 said:
Would regular provincial matches count as level 1 ,Provincial Championships as level 2 and National level matches as level 3??
....Would any non Canadian be classified as Unclassified until they have recorded enough matches to be classified like (I'm assuming)in the US?
Click to expand...

According to DCRA rules for classification of TR shooters, which use the All-comers at the CFRC and the ABC system (percentiles), at the PRA level you should use a large match like an annual which allows you to base the classification on a larger number of matches. In this day of age, with computers, we can include all the match for an entire year for a shooter. The All-comers are all just SR scores (300M to 600yd) since not all ranges go beyond the 600 yd mark. The US uses two classifications, Long and Mid. The All-comers would be like their Mid. I'm pretty sure the US system uses the last 140 shots for a shooter to classify them. Since us FR's in Canada do not have a classification system at this time, we could make it anything, and I have setup and based my system on the DCRA All-comers, but with all the data I have already entered, I can also have it classify us on.. Mid, and also separately on Longs, or both. It is all up to us Cdn Fr's to decide on what and how IMO.

Keep well Gord and hope to see you again soon, maybe in Wpg eh.

Keith
 
Hi Gord, I really didn't have much to do with the statistics thing. Keith has done all the times, by's and gozinta's and deserves all the credit (or discredit in someones mind I'm sure). I think we dreamed this up during the white knuckle ride to the CFRC on very little sleep and it seemed like a good idea then, as it does now. If nothing else, it provides a formula to compare apples to apples as it were. We just need a formula that truely represents what's been accomplished by an individual. I also think the targets we're shooting, regionally, basically represent a close approximation to the 1/2 value / MOA thing, give or take a few mm's, and we must remember this is still a work in progress and there's a bunch of feedback that's not been forthcoming. I think initially, Keith's plan was to work all the bugs out and get each provinces rep a copy to maintain there. Once a year the national listing posted either here or on the DCRA website could be updated. That way the work is shared out a bit.

As far as International competitors, just do like the US does and have an unclassified shooter classed as "Master" whether they like it or not.

Keith, what particular process is used in the US? They have a rating systems that's specifically for F Class don't they? It might be a bit more realistic than using the DCRA formula that's pretty much for TR.

Cheers, Glen
 
Kodiak99317 said:
In this day of age, with computers, we can include all the match for an entire year for a shooter. The All-comers are all just SR scores (300M to 600yd) since not all ranges go beyond the 600 yd mark.
Click to expand...

Scores at long range are much more affected by the particular relay you drew, and also whether it was fired on an easy or difficult range. I would imagine that if you compared scores fired at long range in Nokomis, SK, to long range scores fired in Batouche, NB, you might wrongly come to the conclusion that the Westerners are a bunch of mediocre long-range shooters, which is clearly not true; it's because their range is wide open, and Batouche is fairly shielded by vegetation these days.

Scores at 300y-600m are of course affected by winds, but to a much lesser extent. I think you could do reasonably useful cross-country comparisons of shooter performance (and therefore grading/ranking) based on short and midrange scores.

And whatever you do, it's always important to run sanity checks on your output. Like Wolfgang Scholze ending up classified as an Expert (!) - it just goes to show the limitations of even thoughtfully designed classification systems.

The DCRA system has a rule that shooters on visiting international teams are automatically classified as Master, which is probably the right way to handle things.

When I shot in the US, I was considered "Master(unclassified)", because I didn't have an NRA classification. The funny thing was, they considered "Master(unclassified)" to be a different class than "Master", and broke out the results seprately. I suspect that had I shot a score higher than the highest Master, I would have won M-U but not M class - go figure.

In the US, shooter classification is considered to be a bit of a badge of honour, with most shooters being quite proud of the fact that they earned a Master or High Master classification. I get the feeling that if you were to shoot in a US match and were to ask the match director to categorize you as a High Master, they might interpret this as you wrongly claiming an honour that you had not yet earned, even if your intention was to honestly try to avoid sandbagging, by entering in a class at least as high as what your skills are.

One thing that is interesting about long-range classification is that it is quite susceptible to the conditions fired under. I expect that it is very difficult for a US shooter to earn a High Master LR classification (>= 437.5 out of 450) at Raton or Rattlesnake.

Even in Connaught, which is not at all a wind hellhole like Raton or Rattlesnake, it can be hard to shoot High Master scores. In the 2007 WLRC match in Ottawa, conditions were decently challenging, but I would not call them nasty. I know it's a TR match, but there were nearly 400 shooters, including the very best in the world, firing there on the standard US Long Range target. Seeing how many (few!) of them actually "made High Master" scores is somewhat sobering.

It would probably be fair to say that at the 2007WLRC individuals, that at least 100-150 of the competitors ought to be classified as High Masters. (there were ten 16-shooter Palma teams in attendance, most of whose coaches and shooters fired in the individual matches).

If you look at the 900m agg, only one person exceeded 437.5. In the 800m agg there were 224 shooters scoring 438 or better, and 234 scoring 437 or better (perhaps the HM cut line should be about here? or slightly higher than that point?).

The Tuesday agg and Wednesday agg each had a bit more than one hundred people scoring 437.5+. In the Grand (three 450s combined) the High Master cutoff score would be 1312.5; only sixty shooters got HM scores there.
 
Inspector said:
Keith, what particular process is used in the US? They have a rating systems that's specifically for F Class don't they? It might be a bit more realistic than using the DCRA formula that's pretty much for TR.

Cheers, Glen
Click to expand...

This is the US system as I know it... as of Jan 2009

19. NATIONAL F-CLASS CLASSIFICATION
19.5.1 Courses of Fire Used for F-Class Long Range Prone Classification

800, 900, or 1000 Yards

Target: LR/wLRFC, slow fire, 15 or 20 shots, prone
F-Class Palma Course (45 shots)
800 yds: Target, LR/wLRFC, slow fire, 15 shots, prone
900 yds: Target, LR/wLRFC, slow fire, 15 shots, prone
1000 yds: Target, LR/wLRFC, slow fire, 15 shots, prone

19.5.2 Courses of Fire Used for Mid-Range F-Class Classification

300 Yards
Target: MR-63/wMR-63FC, slow fire, 15 or 20 shots, prone
500 Yards
Target: MR-65/wMR-65FC, slow fire, 15 or 20 shots, prone
600 Yards
Target: MR-1/wMR-1FC, slow fire, 15 or 20 shots, prone

19.15 Individual F-Class Averages - Competitors classified or reclassified on the basis of scores fired under
the conditions specified in Rule 19.4 reduced to 10 shot averages, those averages leading to classifications as
shown in Table III below:

Table III
Individual F-Class
High Master . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98.00 and above
Master . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96.50 to 97.99
Expert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94.00 to 96.49
Sharpshooter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91.50 to 93.99
Marksman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Below 91.50

19.4 Scores Used for Individual Classification - Scores used for International Fullbore Prone Rifle classification or reclassification include all scores fired in NRA sanctioned individual and team competitions of the types defined in Rule 1.6 subparagraphs (c) through (h) inclusive, over the courses of fire listed in Rule19.5.1. Scores from sanctioned League competitions may be used in Score Record Books if applicable (Rule 19.14) during the League season, but will not be entered in the official classification or reclassification procedure until completion of the League season.

19.17 Reclassification - A competitor who has been classified by the NRA will be reclassified as follows:
(b) A competitor will be considered for reclassification upward when his most recently reported scores, for not less than 240 shots (120 shots for Prone Classification), fired subsequent to the tournament date at which he earned his current classification, have been recorded prescribed, except that such consideration will not include tournament or league competition concerned have been recorded. If his average score so justifies, he will be reclassified upward accordingly.
(c) A competitor will be reclassified downward only upon a request in writing by him to the NRA, and only on the basis of at least 320 shots (180 shots for Prone Classification) recorded as prescribed. fired subsequent to the effective date of his current classification. If his average on this basis so justifies he will be reclassified downward accordingly.
 
Last edited:
I would be interested in knowing how many people hold US F-Class Long Range "High Master". At 98%, that's 441/450 or better. As far as I can tell, shooting F-Class on the F-Class target, is a bit more difficult than shooting TR on the TR target - at matches where both are fired, you might see top TR scores of 448-449, and top F-Class scores of 445-447.

So given how challenging it is for a TR shooter to achieve 437.5 on the TR target, I wonder just how few shooters are going to manage to achieve 441 on the F-Class target?
 
rnbra-shooter said:
I would be interested in knowing how many people hold US F-Class Long Range "High Master". At 98%, that's 441/450 or better. As far as I can tell, shooting F-Class on the F-Class target, is a bit more difficult than shooting TR on the TR target - at matches where both are fired, you might see top TR scores of 448-449, and top F-Class scores of 445-447.

So given how challenging it is for a TR shooter to achieve 437.5 on the TR target, I wonder just how few shooters are going to manage to achieve 441 on the F-Class target?
Click to expand...

I've got the shot by shot breakdown for every shooter at the FCWC. I'll see if I can dig it up and see what it tells us.
 
Been shooting on the smaller target and it doesn't bother me at all. Will see what happens next weekend :)

I actually think this is an improvement over the larger target. With the smaller target, you can gain and loose position throughout the weekend. Unlike the larger target where a dropped point is essentially an also ran status. I have seen shooters pack up and leave cause "what's the point?"

Now it is the score that matters, not the number of V bulls. Of course, V's are important but play a role they were designed for, tie breaker. I like it.

If everyone shoots on the same target, it really doesn't matter what it is. Now I have heard the concerns and I can relate BUT this sport is evolving and tech/target changes.

I am unsure what marker will be used at the Farky but if it is like last year (big orange dot), you can't see the V bull anyways - unless you miss :)

How will the shot be marked Ian?

As for scoring, I think the idea of breaking down a small turnout into multiple small groups is kind of silly and expensive. Especially if you end up with only 1 or 2 in a group.

How about a handicapp system like in golf?

Each shooter is given extra points based on their shooting skill level. This is applied to their final score to give them a 'gross' score. 1st to 3rd is determined that way.

Then there is the 'net score' 1st to 3rd which is based on the actual score shot.

Now any division (F/O, F T/R) will only have 6 possible medals/prizes. That is manageable.

What do you guys think?

Jerry
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom