regional classification - why ICS doesn't make sense

[omen]

Hi all,

Let me begin by saying that I believe there is a lot of merrit in the idea of ICS, and that on the world scale the mechanism is sound - it's only the virtual absence of ICS stages from our matches which causes problems.

On the regional level, however, they use a different process to come up with your regional class, and THAT mechanism does not make sense (IMHO).

To review: on the world scale, your scores are compared to the best scores for that stage from across the world, and you get your standing based on that. Makes sense, logically and mathematically.

On the regional level, they take all the shooters from the region (Canada, say), they find the one with the highest percentage world wise, deem him to be 100%, and then everyone's regional class is their ics world percentage as a function of the region's top shooter.
Now, if you think this makes sense, consider this: on the world level, they compare how you did on a set of stages to how other people did on the same set of stages. On the regional level, they are comparing how you did on a set of stages relative to a group of top world shooters to how this other person did on a DIFFERENT set of stages relative to a DIFFERENT group of top world shooters! There is no attempt to compare your performance to the performance of the person deemed to be top in your region - you are not compared to that individual in any way, shape, or form (ohh, it might accidently turn out that you two have some current stages in common but that is not intended nor required).

I'm sorry, but that, to me, makes no sense. My regional class is the result of looking how I performed world wide on stages A, B, C, D and comparing that to how ipsc1 did, world wide, on stages W, X, Y, and Z. WTF?

Plus, let's be honest: at least in production, the ICS system is producing classes which have nothing to do with reality. Nothing. We are clinging to a system, just because we want to be able to say we have a 'national system', totally ignoring the logical flaws in how it's implemented and the fact that it's giving us garbage.

We have a national ranking based on performance in the Nationals. Let's use that! The only place where ics matters is the Nationals, let's look at the Nationals' performance to rank people nationally. You get compared to people shooting the same stages, at the same time, etc. The only catch is that you'd need to remove international shooters from the scores, FOR THE NATIONAL RANKING purposes only.

This is already in place in IPSC Australia, that's what they do, and it seems to be working fine.

Can we have a civil discussion here about what people think about this? My main two points in the favor or something like that are simple: comparing apples to apples, AND looking at the current ranking (this is even before it is updated with the latest scores), it would seem to produce classes which are fairly accurate. A simple, home grown solution which works seems better than an outside solution which doesn't. I mean, am I going to be fightining Clint for the top B trophy in BC again ?

 

[Musky Hunter]

ICS would work if we had more ICS classification matches....maybe have a min of 2 ICS stages per match.

 

[Abman]

ICS would work better, IF they reduced the number of stages to chose from.

 

[96Brigadier]

Omen, I'm somewhat new to IPSC so forgive me if I didn't fully understand your post and ask a stupid question.

First, I'm not entirely sure how people are ranked nationally today. I thought (perhaps incorrectly) that it was based on the ICS system. If that were true then would that also mean that a person does not have to shoot the Nationals in order to be ranked nationally?

As I understand your post you are suggesting that the national ranking be based upon the performance at the Nationals. If that is the way it already is then my main concern would be a moot point, but here goes my concern: If it were based solely on performance at the Nationals then the national ranking would still not likely be based upon anything in reality since not all of the top shooters are able to attend the Nationals on a yearly basis. I think it would be a shame to limit a national ranking to only those who can afford to travel (which if you were going from Vancouver to Kingston this year or Halifax to Vancouver next year would be pricey).

I would prefer a system that allows everyone in the region (Canada) to have a national ranking regardless of whether they can attend the Nationals or not.

 

[omen]

If it were based solely on performance at the Nationals then the national ranking would still not likely be based upon anything in reality since not all of the top shooters are able to attend the Nationals on a yearly basis. I think it would be a shame to limit a national ranking to only those who can afford to travel (which if you were going from Vancouver to Kingston this year or Halifax to Vancouver next year would be pricey).

Well, (a) if people can't come to the nationals then they don't need to worry about a national classification, since it's only at the nationals that is used (I'm talking about classification here, not ranking, ranking is only used for nationals teams going to international matches), and (b) I haven't seen any nationals in the recent past without the top shooters in all divisions - there are enough good/top people around that no nationals are going to be a breeze for anyone, regardless of what individual shooters might not show up, or get DQ'ed.

I would prefer a system that allows everyone in the region (Canada) to have a national ranking regardless of whether they can attend the Nationals or not.

You're focusing too much on ranking, we're talking about classification here. The point is we have a system which allows everyone to have a classification without having to go to the nationals. unfortunately the ranking you get from that system is meaningless - is it better to have a meaningless class or none at all? Remember, the class hierarchy goes:

Grand Master
Master
A
B
C
D

the winner this year (all production division stuff here) is a B, the runner up is a GM, 5th is a B, 6th is an A, etc. All these people shot at their level, more or less, so it's not that they failed to shoot at their class, it's that the class they got from the ICS system had nothing to do with their performance at matches.

Looking at the past results from nationals and using those to come up with national classes, the winner would be an M, runner up a GM, 4th a GM, 5th and 6th Ms, etc - much more realistic.

Plus, remember, the point of a class system is to let non-top shooters compete against others of their skill level, so they can get rewarded for how they do, relative to others at their level. Currently, the shooters in B class are those who end up in top 5-10, and everyone else is squeezed into C and D. I mean, runner up in the Ont provincials is a C class shooter nationally! Right...

Any statement, in my option, which begins with "we should have a system..." is an ideological statement. I agree with you. We SHOULD have a system like that, if you add that the system would produce meaningful results. having a system just for the sake of having a system, and ignoring if the system actually does what it's intended/hoped to do - well, can you can "gun control" in canada? We should have a strong gun control system so criminals don't get guns,right? Does that mean that any system, implemented in the name of gun control is good and makes sense? Same here - look beyond what ICS is meant to give you to see what it actually DOES give you. People need to stop to focus on the intended outcome and look at the reality of the situation.

 

[Freedom Ventures]

I would prefer a system that allows everyone in the region (Canada) to have a national ranking regardless of whether they can attend the Nationals or not.

That's what we had before ICS. It didn't work.

ICS can allow what you want above, but participation is the key.

Before making our own national classification conversion based on the nationals, we tried local classifications - it didn't work because each section compares to different best shooters in the province. PLUS Ontario calls thier best GMs, while NS and NB call thiers Masters...everyone does something different.

ICS using the international class could work, but there would be a lot of bruised egos as Canadian "Masters" drop to B class in thier division. If people could overlook that, then its OK.

Discuss it here, but remember that your section coordinator is the one that makes the change happen...make sure you let them know too.

 

[Frigoman]

...

 

[raks]

If people were classified only by their nationals scores, how would you classify a first time competitor at the Nats? Only those that make 2 in a row can win their division?? ... to me that seems less fair than ICS.

 

[96Brigadier]

Thanks for the reply Omen (and others), I understand what you are trying to say and accomplish a lot better now. I noticed that Clint was a 'B' but came first and found that odd too, I don't know if your suggestion is the best one or not but the outcome (M first, GM, GM, M, etc.) certainly seems way more reasonable.

 

[Madness]

IPSC should just adopt the USPSA system 100%. It's not a floating system, which solves a major issue within ICS and the data base is large enoug that it will give a better representation or your ability. Sure there will still be the sandbaggers and "Classifier Masters", but they would be there by there own doing.

 

[maurice]

So in that respect, now that Clint is the Production Champion (congratulations BTW), and he is technically a "B" class shooter, but yet a Grandmaster in Canada, will all shooters in his class be upped??
ie: I am also in B class, based on the results of 12 classifiers stages, but I am no Grandmaster,,, ?? A little confused. Although I know I screwed up on one day and that is reflective in overall scoring, I hardly think I am in his same classification...!

 

[ipsc1]

2 other issues that exist in ICS is the ease with which you can drop in class and its consideration of only the last 8 classifiers submitted. One bad day could drop you from GM to C class, and then wouldn't the calls of sandbagger be loud.

 

[omen]

I haven't been paying attention to the competition within ipsc for a long time (only the last 2-3 years), so I don't know what's been tried in the past and has failed. maybe my idea is like ICS - sounds good on paper, but will fail in practice. We know, and I mean know for certain (100%) that we will not see any real significant increase in ICS stages in matches. MDs hate to put them on, shooters hate to shoot them, just trying to ignore the problematic outcome by blaming not enough ICS stages, while true, is not a solution. Since this is only something that has any impact on a single match in the year (Nationals), I still think that using the results from the Nationals would be a much better system than the current one. No, it wouldn't be perfect, but that's not what we're looking for - we're looking for something better than the current one. The one problem is for people who only shot one match - maybe use the one as the "initial" class, and then use the same mechanism as what's used for the national ranking (i.e. take the best 2 out of last 3 matches).

Or, give the shooters the choice of competing for higher level classes - use the ICS class as the minimum class. Given the results, I think that the likes of myself, M-Bomber (sp?), Tritium, Kent,Tan, Brent, etc should go into next year's match as Ms, with Clint, ipsc1, and Slavex as GMs (those are the people/names I know, this doesn't mean others wouldn't also be in those lists, I'm not trying to exclude anyone here). That is a very realistic and accurate classification. Any system which gives us those classes for those people gets my vote. Any system which classes half of those people as Bs and Cs, is garbage, not matter how well intended... I mean, what am I supposed to do with the 2nd B trophy I got 2 days ago? It's meaningless... 1st or 2nd Master, on the other hand, that's something I'd value.

yes/no/maybe?

 

[omen]

So in that respect, now that Clint is the Production Champion (congratulations BTW), and he is technically a "B" class shooter, but yet a Grandmaster in Canada, will all shooters in his class be upped??

Ohhh, no, no, no! That's the beauty of ICS: his class is based purely on the ICS stages, nothing to do with match performance. He's still a B, as am I (having finished at 90%).

Also, my percentage in ICS world wide is just a bit lower than my percentage in Canada, and Canada is relative to ipsc1 (who's 100%). Sorry, I know that ipsc1 is a great shooter, but let's be honest - he's not at the level of the likes of Adam Tyc or Sevegny, right? So why is my percentage world wide almost the same as my percentage in Canada? Yet another silly effect of the ICS logic...

 

[Bartledan]

Simple answer, really.

Do a complete second set of classifications for the regional level. If you've got a regional Master and a regional Grandmaster at least at a given match, in a given division, it is also a regional classifier, as well as a (probably) sectional classifier. Hell, make it apply to LIII and higher, if it makes you feel better. Sure, classifiers will be few and far between, but it sn't supposed to be easy, huh?

ICS is great and all that, but it's not IPSC.

 

[Bartledan]

Simple answer, really.

Do a complete second set of classifications for the regional level. If you've got a regional Master and a regional Grandmaster at least at a given match, in a given division, it is also a regional classifier, as well as a (probably) sectional classifier. Hell, make it apply to LIII and higher, if it makes you feel better. Sure, classifiers will be few and far between, but it sn't supposed to be easy, huh?

ICS is great and all that, but it's not IPSC.

In fact, get rid of the sectional definition of a Grandmaster. Say the highest a sectional classifier can create is a master, and that's based on the presence of at least two masters.

We've got way too many GM's, right across the board. We're debasing the currency.

Sectionally, I'm a production grandmaster. If that isn't the most ludicrous thing you've ever heard, you don't watch enough CBC television.

####, I figure I get to have an opinion on this precisely because I am a paper GM

 

[omen]

Sectionally, I'm a production grandmaster. If that isn't the most ludicrous thing you've ever heard, you don't watch enough CBC television.

Why? In the types of matches we have in Ont, you come within 5% of the top people, so you are a GM. Don't you feel you deserved the win at RussellMania?

Removing the top 4 (non-Ont) people from the Kingston scores, you end up with 87% - that's not an unreasonable finish for a new GM, in an above avg difficulty match (haha, look at how some of the Ont Std GMs did, right?). I don't think you are giving yourself enough credit.

 

[Musky Hunter]

Before there were too little GMs now there are WAY too many....what can we do..?

 

[doon]

Provincial Classsification= what you shoot in each province
National Classification= what you shoot at national matches
ICS= What you need for international match classification


In my opinion ICS stages that are not shot in match conditions are not realistic. Here in BC we have had a lot of classifiers in matches and they are either not being submited when asked to be, or people do not want them to be. As a match director ,because of the negative feedback, I will not be using them in a match unless I am told to.