So what does everybody think about the new ISPC classifications?

I think I’ve finally figured out how this new Ontario classification system works. :dancingbanana:

It a little like Fizzbin the card game created by Captain Kirk in Star Trek
Each player gets six cards, except for the player on the dealer's right, who gets seven. The second card is turned up, except on Tuesdays. Two jacks, which are a "half-Fizzbin." So you would think you need another jack, but that third jack is a "shralk" and is grounds for disqualification. With two jacks, one wants a king and a deuce, except at night, when one wants a queen and a four…….:runaway:

So you see, if you can handle Fizzbin, our classification system is easy to figure out…..unless it’s a Tuesday….or an even month…… or a full moon….. and I have know idea what’s going to happen on leap year…..:bangHead:
 
I know I'm late on the bandwagon but why don't we just have a free vote by all the members rather than by the heads of the clubs.

If everyone had a free vote and the class system stood then we have absolutely nothing to complain about...

Frankly the new system is over complicated and disheartening... Its not like a lot of us didn't work to get our classes, your just ripping the sense of accomplishment out of it. At least this way they don't have to make up excuses like "sorry that GM didnt have a current membership when he shot" to keep out the Ms.

All I can say is I hope the # of decent level 3s increases to more than just the triangle to help with this new change...
 
Personally no matter what system is adopted, free vote or
not, there will always be people who are not happy with the
system. My biggest concern is that in eastern ON we are limited
to the number of GM's and M's we have in any class. Once the
new system is adopted I suspect that we will lose some. With
this in mind it will be virtually impossible to get classifiers in our
neack of the woods, as well we are also limited to the number
of level III matches you can drive to. What I see at this point is
we have to head west to get classifiers, and the Open shooters
here............Tough luck, there just are not enough to even
make the 10!:(
FWIW

Sig
DVC
 
Quigley said:
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
Click to expand...


Quigley;
How does the system work for someone coming back to IPSC after a four year absence? In other words, if hypothetically, I was ranked as the 4th top open class shooter in Ontario (95.6%) and an M, before GM existed here, once I complete the Black Badge re-qual next month, do I come back unclassified, M or ??
This is just a point of interest, not arguement because my future performance will dictate where I belong in a "ranking" system. After all, we can all say we used to be able to do ......
Thanks.
 
Quigley said:
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
Click to expand...


Quigley;
How does the system work for someone coming back to IPSC after a four year absence? In other words, if hypothetically, I was ranked as the 4th top open class shooter in Ontario (95.6%) and an M, before GM existed here, once I complete the Black Badge re-qual next month, do I come back unclassified, M or ??
This is just a point of interest, not arguement because my future performance will dictate where I belong in a "ranking" system. After all, we can all say we used to be able to do this or that 5 or 10 years ago.
Thanks.
 
WHYLOOK said:
Quigley;
How does the system work for someone coming back to IPSC after a four year absence? In other words, if hypothetically, I was ranked as the 4th top open class shooter in Ontario (95.6%) and an M, before GM existed here, once I complete the Black Badge re-qual next month, do I come back unclassified, M or ??
This is just a point of interest, not arguement because my future performance will dictate where I belong in a "ranking" system. After all, we can all say we used to be able to do ......
Thanks.
Click to expand...

You would come back as unclassed...

Have you registered an ICS Alias yet?
 
Quigley said:
You would come back as unclassed...

Have you registered an ICS Alias yet?
Click to expand...


I just sent my renewal application to Bud. I guess I have to wait to enter an alias until he cashes the cheque. I believe that I need to have the Regional set-up done first.

I gather that all shooters start off as unclassified until they complete the requirements under the new system? Seems fair to me.
 
so what happens if a GM or M has a series of bad performances? at what point is it decided that those aren't anomalies?
I don't envy you Quigley, you've got a lot of extra work on your shoulders now.
 
Slavex said:
so what happens if a GM or M has a series of bad performances? at what point is it decided that those aren't anomalies?
I don't envy you Quigley, you've got a lot of extra work on your shoulders now.
Click to expand...


So what happens when a M or GM decides to "game" a stage or two and zero's them... does this penalize the rest of the competitors???... Where is the Freestyle when you require the Top shooters to be at their best at all times and require them to shoot it the "safe way" so the match will be a classifier.... I would think with new system in place just having a floating system alone will take care of ranking and any anomalies that may arise for malfunctions and brain farts...and not reviewing each match for M's and GM's performance. The cream will always rise to the top and the rest of us will just fall ino place.
 
Last edited:
WHYLOOK said:
I just sent my renewal application to Bud. I guess I have to wait to enter an alias until he cashes the cheque. I believe that I need to have the Regional set-up done first.

I gather that all shooters start off as unclassified until they complete the requirements under the new system? Seems fair to me.
Click to expand...

Rob..alias has nothing to do with IPSC Ontario you go on to IPSC.org and register there, it is a IPSC world registration..

Josko
 
maxpig said:
So what happens when a M or GM decides to "game" a stage or two and zero's them... does this penalize the rest of the competitors???... Where is the Freestyle when you require the Top shooters to be at their best at all times and require them to shoot it the "safe way" so the match will be a classifier.... I would think with new system in place just having a floating system alone will take care of ranking and any anomalies that may arise for malfunctions and brain farts...and not reviewing each match for M's and GM's performance. The cream will always rise to the top and the rest of us will just fall ino place.
Click to expand...

There's more to IPSC than Level 2 Classifiers...actually...there's more to IPSC than Classidiers...

They can game all they want...but for the matches that we use to "baseline" everyones classifictions...we're going to use ones with a solid performance.
 
Slavex said:
so what happens if a GM or M has a series of bad performances? at what point is it decided that those aren't anomalies?
I don't envy you Quigley, you've got a lot of extra work on your shoulders now.
Click to expand...

That's an easy one...

We update the calssification every six months...if you drop below the minimun % break for your current class...you drop to the appropriate class...if you perform above the maximum % break for your current class...you go up.

In the meantime if you suddenly forget how to shoot...we have the spot check of requiring the match winners to eran 90% of the match points (or better) in order forthe match to be considered a classifier.
 
Last edited:
you know, I don't really have a problem with how the percentages will be calculated, I've wanted to see the inclusion of level 3s in there for a while; I'm not overly crazy about ICS, but it's such a small percentage, plus I understand the reason (to make sure we don't have multiple 100%s). That's cool.

The 'you must win with at least 90% of the max stage points or otherwise it's a soft classifier' rule is pure :bsFlag: ; it does not take into account the way IPSC scoring works, it's already, in its very first match, shown itself to produce illogical results (see other thread about the Wentworth match).
I understand the GOAL of it, but I find the people who defend it are doing so purely on the basis wanting to see the goal reached (very much like ignoring the reality of "gun control" because everyone wants to see fewer people murdered with guns - so pointing out illogical parts of GC is ignored, in favor of focusing on the goal - "do it for the children!!!" ).

Ont 2006 provincials = soft classifier; PQ provincials = almost soft classifier. Wentworth spring match, with multiple GMs/Ms = soft classifier. Clearly SOMETHING's wrong.

I think this falls into the catgory of 'it seemed like a good idea at the time,' and no one just wants to admit its implementation reality doesn't live up to its promise.
 
omen said:
you know, I don't really have a problem with how the percentages will be calculated, I've wanted to see the inclusion of level 3s in there for a while; I'm not overly crazy about ICS, but it's such a small percentage, plus I understand the reason (to make sure we don't have multiple 100%s). That's cool.

The 'you must win with at least 90% of the max stage points or otherwise it's a soft classifier' rule is pure :bsFlag: ; it does not take into account the way IPSC scoring works, it's already, in its very first match, shown itself to produce illogical results (see other thread about the Wentworth match).
I understand the GOAL of it, but I find the people who defend it are doing so purely on the basis wanting to see the goal reached (very much like ignoring the reality of "gun control" because everyone wants to see fewer people murdered with guns - so pointing out illogical parts of GC is ignored, in favor of focusing on the goal - "do it for the children!!!" ).

Ont 2006 provincials = soft classifier; PQ provincials = almost soft classifier. Wentworth spring match, with multiple GMs/Ms = soft classifier. Clearly SOMETHING's wrong.

I think this falls into the catgory of 'it seemed like a good idea at the time,' and no one just wants to admit its implementation reality doesn't live up to its promise.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:

Statistically speaking...the more equally skilled GM's or M's (like at a well attended Level 3) the more match points the winner will give away. Why? because the only way to give away match points is to not win a stage...and that genarally only happens when the competition is equal. No need to have a contingency plan in these situations...the results are expected.

At typical Level 2's...where there may only be 2 GM's / M's ...we need a method to account for inconsistant performances...

If you think your Wentworth results were competative...then I guess you don't have much respect for your Division ...(2 of 5 stages in the 60's and the field course, which was 1/3 of the match points...in the high 80's) That's not a typical performance for you...(or any match winner) The system didn't fail...in fact it worked.

Any anomolies (good are bad) will be magnified at low round count matches. So you'll excuse me if we're not going to abandoned the system after 1 match...just because you disagree with the results.

Spare me the lecture about what would have happened if you weren't there...it doesn't matter. Same as it doesn't matter that Mike B wans't there in Standard (good chance that would have changed the results) We'll only deal with who did show up...and what the actual results were

No offence...and no worries...we were expecting a few bruised egos (and we'll stand behind the system)
 
well I have no hat in this ring, but I am going to offer my opinion anyhow (because I can just see someone out here trying this too).
This "inconsistent" thing is stupid. plain and simple. and it's going to piss people off. They pay money to shoot a match and expect to get something for that money. Shooting the match for fun probably isn't going to satisfy a lot of people. Classifications will.
 
Slavex said:
well I have no hat in this ring, but I am going to offer my opinion anyhow (because I can just see someone out here trying this too).
This "inconsistent" thing is stupid. plain and simple. and it's going to piss people off. They pay money to shoot a match and expect to get something for that money. Shooting the match for fun probably isn't going to satisfy a lot of people. Classifications will.
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that the only value to an IPSC match is Classifiction? I feel sorry for anyone that thinks this way.

What about fun...what about overall poistion. :confused:

In just about every other sport in the world...people do what they have to do to get a class / designation...so they can go out and have fun...

Some people seem to do the opposite for IPSC...shoot only for class....don't shoot the match if it's not a classifier...match wins mean nothing if it's not a classifier...sound like fun eh :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom