2007 IPSC Canadian Nationals
- Thread starter Dragoon
- Start date
stormbringer
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- S.W. Ontario
HOLY CRAP!!
Now I need to get planning..
Going to have to wait to see if Storm Jr Gets his BB....then we can both sign up.
Is there a special rate for Juniors??
Now I need to get planning..
Going to have to wait to see if Storm Jr Gets his BB....then we can both sign up.
Is there a special rate for Juniors??
are we stuck with ICS for class, or can we specify whatever we want? I want to go in as Master, based on experiences in the past little while, but I'm a B in ICS (and I will make no great effort to shoot special ICS stages to try and change that).
Last edited:
Have you taken a look at the Regional Classification lately? In Production, there is only 1 GM, 1 M, and 1 A. What would be the point of declaring Master class?
What you have in Production in right now is the same situation we had in Open a couple of years ago. 2 people from the same area were the only 2 GM's in Canada, and most of the people who are currently finishing in the top ten were in A class and lower.
Whether the current problems arise from choice of classifiers or higher scores for a couple people because they shot incorrectly set up stages is kind of hard to tell. Mathematically, it should all work out in the end, but in the meantime, we suck it up and move on.
You should be more worried about overall finish anyways.
What you have in Production in right now is the same situation we had in Open a couple of years ago. 2 people from the same area were the only 2 GM's in Canada, and most of the people who are currently finishing in the top ten were in A class and lower.
Whether the current problems arise from choice of classifiers or higher scores for a couple people because they shot incorrectly set up stages is kind of hard to tell. Mathematically, it should all work out in the end, but in the meantime, we suck it up and move on.
You should be more worried about overall finish anyways.
I still think we need an intemediate classification system between sectional and international.
In ontario, the presence of at least one GM and one M, and 10 shooters in a division makes the match a "classifier", and a person's average is computed using their top 3 classifiers in a 12 month period.
In BC, as I understand it, the provincials count for 60% of your classification, and each of the 10%'s totalling to 100% come from your standing at special matches called "qualifiers", which are pre-arranged to be qualifiers.
Could we not use some combination of these approaches to develop a regional classification system?
60% of your national standing would come from the Nationals themselves, and the other 40% comes from 4 "classifiers", so defined by the presence of at least one national GM and one national M, at any level 2 or higher match, across the country.
Most importantly, your national standing gets re-computed after the nats, every single year, so you can lose your standing.
Just my thoughts, you all know I'm very humble, right?
Dan
In ontario, the presence of at least one GM and one M, and 10 shooters in a division makes the match a "classifier", and a person's average is computed using their top 3 classifiers in a 12 month period.
In BC, as I understand it, the provincials count for 60% of your classification, and each of the 10%'s totalling to 100% come from your standing at special matches called "qualifiers", which are pre-arranged to be qualifiers.
Could we not use some combination of these approaches to develop a regional classification system?
60% of your national standing would come from the Nationals themselves, and the other 40% comes from 4 "classifiers", so defined by the presence of at least one national GM and one national M, at any level 2 or higher match, across the country.
Most importantly, your national standing gets re-computed after the nats, every single year, so you can lose your standing.
Just my thoughts, you all know I'm very humble, right?
Dan
hungrybeagle said:
that's my point; the classification system used does not produce any meaningful results.
hungrybeagle said:
you and me, sure, what about the "true" B, and C, and D class shooters, who actually might like to get a chance to win their actual class, but have top shooters dumped into their classes, because of the ####ed up way ICS works?
ICS reminds of me this one Dilbert strip I saw a while ago, they were talking about ISO certification, and the punchline went something like this: "so it doesn't matter if our business processes are seriously flawed, as long as they are well documented?" Same here: doesn't matter that the output of ICS has no relation to reality, as long as we can say that we have SOME system in place. A system which ignores your performance in matches, ignores your performance in national championships, and focuses on your performance on a handful of stages, as compared to the performance of others in your region on a DIFFERENT handful of stages. Yup, if I hold my breath and squint long enough that will actually make sense.
You want a better idea? Use the past results from the Nationals (i.e. the national standing list). For people who haven't shot 2 nats in the past 3 years, use ICS as their initial class. There, done deal. How is that a bad idea?
Never mind, let's talk about the Nationals here. Wrong thread.
Last edited:
- Location
- Halifax - NS
omen said:
We actually were able to come up with some ideas before you started this, I know - it's hard to believe - but we tried.
Everything you've talked about in this and the previous class thread has been tried and didn't work.
ICS ain't perfect, but after a few years, it's working better than the other stuff did - it's main weakness is a lack of participation of which only shafts the people who don't participate.
The only option left on the table is to kill class awards at the nationals entirely, like we had 9 years ago and every nationals previous to that.
and that's all I have to say about it...
Freedom Ventures said:
The only option left on the table is to kill class awards at the nationals entirely, like we had 9 years ago and every nationals previous to that./QUOTE]
Just curious:
What would happen if we had a match-based system for awards at least, wherein your classification for that match is according to your finishing percentage in that match? Then maybe we use the regional rating system structure we have currently so that everyone has some sort of base-line to work with in their own regions. At a National championship or a level III, everyone enters as unclassified and competes to the best of their ability and the cards fall where they fall. If a GM screws up and shoots an "A" level match for instance, so be it. Live learn and grow.
I know the first question is going to be, "So what happens when that GM screws up and wins A class? The legitimate A shooter gets screwed out of his trophy." Right, but we seem to be having a problem actually defining what is a legitimate class ranking for anyone, so what exactly is a legitimate A shooter? And the fact is that it WAS an A class level of performance on that day. Could we not then use this performance based number averaged out over X number of matches to arrive at a more realistic regional ranking? Level 1's and 2's would need more matches to get the average than level 3"s of course, and you would probably have to specify that you can't make M and GM without level 3 match experience.
Sean is right; ICS is useless if nobody participates. But it is also primarily based on stand-and-shoot type drills which are relatively easy to measure out and standardize. (I said RELATIVELY, so don't pounce on that ok?). The problem is that they don't really reflect what happens in a big match, or account for movement and setting up or match strees and how one handles it. Also, since not everyone shoots the same stages it is in fact, impossible to standardize. As I see it, the only way to come up with a ranking that makes any sense is to base it on what the competitor can do on match day...consistantly. And for those who don't want to shoot many hi level matches, their classification will likely reflect their ability so there should be no complaints there.
Flame retardant suit on.
Sean and Walter,
Here is a suggestion for a small change to the Nationals Classification policy that would address Omen's Concern:
The competitor may compete at the IPSC Canadian Nationals in any classification that is at least as high as his or her current Canadian Regional ICS classification.
This allows anyone who feels that their ICS class is ridiculously low to compete in a class that they feel is more appropriate, but prevents anyone from dropping to a lower class and smoking everyone there. It still would not be perfect, but it might be just a little bit better.
Here is a suggestion for a small change to the Nationals Classification policy that would address Omen's Concern:
The competitor may compete at the IPSC Canadian Nationals in any classification that is at least as high as his or her current Canadian Regional ICS classification.
This allows anyone who feels that their ICS class is ridiculously low to compete in a class that they feel is more appropriate, but prevents anyone from dropping to a lower class and smoking everyone there. It still would not be perfect, but it might be just a little bit better.
Freedom Ventures said:
Can I choose not to participate in the class portion of the awards, if I feel my ICS class isn't realistic? Just shoot it as a U, and let others compete for B class awards? Like HB said, we only care about overall...
Freedom Ventures said:We actually were able to come up with some ideas before you started this, I know - it's hard to believe - but we tried.
I like your attemps at gentle sarcasm
Very few of people who are getting screwed by the Prod ICS results were around 9 years ago, shooting IPSC. Very few of them know how we got here. I've been asking about this for a while, and no one, not a single person, really explained what the problems were with any of the other ideas - virtually every answer is "ICS is a needed evil, it's the best we can come up, go away." If this system, where across the country we have ONE gm, ONE M (who no longer shoots, by the way), and ONE A class shooter, with most of the top shooters being shoved into B, and some into C class, is the best we can come up with, this is really sad... I'd be curious to see how badly those other ideas have failed us, I can't imagine how it could be worse than this.
Like you said, it's easy to ##### from the side lines, without being in the inner circle and knowing the history. Fine... Let it be. ICS it is - all hail ICS. Let's setup some ICS matches using metric target stages for speed shoots.
Last edited:
omen said:I like you attemps at gentle sarcasm
Very few of people who are getting screwed by the Prod ICS results were around 9 years ago, shooting IPSC.
News flash...there is more than 1 division in IPSC Canada.
How's that for gentle sarcasm
