Was looking over the email today. Seems to have both some good and bad points. I mostly agree with it other than the fact that you need level 3s or you loose your classification. Seems unless you shoot alot you will be unclassified. Anybody else think different?
So what does everybody think about the new ISPC classifications?
- Thread starter USP
- Start date
It's actually not that much of an increase...with the old system you needed 3 Level 2's...
With the new system you need 4 matches (3 Level 2's and a Level 3) plus 4 ICS stages. If the 4 matches you need for the Classifiction have a combined 4 ICS stages...you have everything you need.
We'll be doing everything we can to encourage clubs with a big enough facility to host Level 3's...and almost all clubs maybe with the exception of the smallest indoor clubs) can throw ICS stages into a match.
Cheers
With the new system you need 4 matches (3 Level 2's and a Level 3) plus 4 ICS stages. If the 4 matches you need for the Classifiction have a combined 4 ICS stages...you have everything you need.
We'll be doing everything we can to encourage clubs with a big enough facility to host Level 3's...and almost all clubs maybe with the exception of the smallest indoor clubs) can throw ICS stages into a match.
Cheers
So.......with the new system, will M's and GM's drop their ranking if the scores reflect a drop in the upcoming year? In past, you could not drop a class very easily (especially M's). Once an M, always an M was the basic rule (with exceptions).
Let me clarify. If a GM right now has 98% with all three of the criteria, he will remain a GM. After one year (in 2008/2009), he drops to 89% average using the same formula for the previous 12 months. Does he remain a GM, or does he drop to M status? And also not be eligible for constituting a classifier because he does not hold a current 90% average?
Just a question.
Quigley...........
Let me clarify. If a GM right now has 98% with all three of the criteria, he will remain a GM. After one year (in 2008/2009), he drops to 89% average using the same formula for the previous 12 months. Does he remain a GM, or does he drop to M status? And also not be eligible for constituting a classifier because he does not hold a current 90% average?
Just a question.
Quigley...........
40cal said:So.......with the new system, will M's and GM's drop their ranking if the scores reflect a drop in the upcoming year? In past, you could not drop a class very easily (especially M's). Once an M, always an M was the basic rule (with exceptions).
Let me clarify. If a GM right now has 98% with all three of the criteria, he will remain a GM. After one year (in 2008/2009), he drops to 89% average using the same formula for the previous 12 months. Does he remain a GM, or does he drop to M status? And also not be eligible for constituting a classifier because he does not hold a current 90% average?
Just a question.
Quigley...........
No...
Under the new system we will do updates two times per year...early Spring (Jan/Feb) and sometime mid year before the Provincials....so were' looking at 6 month windows 9approx 6 months)
Classes will float, so it is possable to go down in class (and you would remain there until the next update...assuming your % goes up to the required floor)
The method to determin classifiers is % based only...so it would be the individuals % for that 6 month window...If a GM drops to an M, but still has a % above 90...they still count towards determining Classifiers...
Cheers
stormbringer
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- S.W. Ontario
stormbringer said:
I was waiting for you to chime in...
So...ESSA has stepped up...Drama Daze will be a Level 3 this year(as well as a fund raiser)
In case any of you missed the wrap up from last year...it was a great match, the students had a blast, the teacher was very cool...and ESSA handed approx $2,000 over to the high school drama club
...and it got great Media Coverage (thank god the reporter didn't publish that first picture)
the only bit which seems off is that this is no longer Ontario-only system; by using the regional ipsc listings, we're including the top person in the country in the calcs, regardless is that person is from Ontario. you cannot get 100% in Ontario unless you have 100% in Canada - seems a little silly... Since the top ipsc prod shooter in canada is not from ontario, no one in ont can be at 100% in prod. I though the idea was to have a system for ontario shooters...
(I know, I know, Quigley, no need to reply, we've discussed this over email - I understand the point of the system is to get a relative ranking of individual shooters, and not necessarily have a system which starts at 100%. I guess we'll see how it does, and we'll talk about in few months, I guess...
(I know, I know, Quigley, no need to reply, we've discussed this over email - I understand the point of the system is to get a relative ranking of individual shooters, and not necessarily have a system which starts at 100%. I guess we'll see how it does, and we'll talk about in few months, I guess...
IPSC Ontario: "Any GM's and M's that do not have the required matches in order to complete their new classification (this is very unlikely) will reviewed on a case by case basis to determine the best resolution."
I've never shot an ICS stage. I guess I'll be a 'case by case'??
Probably not a bad system... I'm sure in a year or two the bugs will be worked out, and this conversation will seem pretty stale.
Where is Omen?
I've never shot an ICS stage. I guess I'll be a 'case by case'??
Probably not a bad system... I'm sure in a year or two the bugs will be worked out, and this conversation will seem pretty stale.
Where is Omen?
kent23 said:
Well your in luck...the RA is putting on ICS stages this Saturday and next (so no excuses eh!)
Go here http://www.ipsc.org/ics.htm and register your Alias
I just noticed, last year's Ont provincials would have been deemed a 'soft classifier' in Production under this system, haha! The Quebec provincials would have made it, but just by 3 stage points...
This 90% rule seems hokey... This basically means that any technically difficult matches, where people are expected to screw up and the winner will be the one who screws up the least will never be classifiers... Ohh, I know, IN THEORY, they could be, but in practice, I doubt it.
Funny, no one was asked to vote on THIS aspect of it, this just appeared out of the blue, without any public consultation (that I'm aware of). Hmm...
This 90% rule seems hokey... This basically means that any technically difficult matches, where people are expected to screw up and the winner will be the one who screws up the least will never be classifiers... Ohh, I know, IN THEORY, they could be, but in practice, I doubt it.
Funny, no one was asked to vote on THIS aspect of it, this just appeared out of the blue, without any public consultation (that I'm aware of). Hmm...
...nor was the part about 'A's thru 'D's being reclassified based on percentages, while the 'M's & 'GM's are on a 'case by case' basis.omen said:Funny, no one was asked to vote on THIS aspect of it, this just appeared out of the blue, without any public consultation (that I'm aware of). Hmm...
But this is an Ontario glass of water - it's half full, it's half empty, the glass is too big, this water stinks.Slavex said:
pmt said:...nor was the part about 'A's thru 'D's being reclassified based on percentages, while the 'M's & 'GM's are on a 'case by case' basis.
But this is an Ontario glass of water - it's half full, it's half empty, the glass is too big, this water stinks.
Read it again...not what I said and no reason to try and read between the lines
Everyone gets re-classed...including the GM;s and M;s
The only issue we have to deal with is what to do in th event that someone does not have the required matches...for a-d...we will freeze them until they get the matches (or until the end of this year)
For GM's and M's it's a bit more complicated because they determine what is a classifier. No single rule will apply to all situations...
I expect that most GM and M's will only be missing the ICS...and that's an easy one to catch up on. If it's a Level 3...we have to decide what to do...while still making it fair to everyone else.
This is not a complicated system....
