Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Classification Query
-
16-06-2008 08:43PM#1
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
It wasn't me! wrote: »Yeah, but come the Autumn you're going to have to start doing some work! :pac:
Yeah. If I don't bring home crystal it's harder to get a day pass for the next competition.
Seriously though, are there any plans to start including outdoor scores in the classification?0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
It's a pity we couldn't have some sort of system like DURC uses (the ladder cards) for classification in all disciplines, but you'd have to report scores in from all over the shop every day. We don't have any system for that (which isn't to say we couldn't develop one if we had manpower enough), and not everyone would shoot a ladder card every time they come down to train either, so competitions always got used instead. And people just don't shoot enough competitions.
To be honest, I'd rather see work done on a national rankings system before we worked too much on the class system. And I'd rather we worked on running more matches before we worked on the national rankings
0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
I know it was discussed every two or three meetings when I was on the committee, but the problem was always the same - the NTSA cannot order a club to run a match, their role is coordination of the calendars, collation of results, production of classification lists and so on. The NTSA has no range of it's own, so it can't run matches every weekend (the Nationals are the only matches the NGB runs, and it depends on hiring ranges from the clubs for those).
It's a case of both sides needing to push more, not just one.
It's not often I find myself agreeing with you wholeheartedly Sparks, but this is one of those rare occasions
The calendar is a big issue in all this as well. Sparks knows the kind of data we have to assimilate into the equation in order to avoid clashes with just about everything thrown into the pot. We still haven't got the timing right on the Air Nationals despite numerous attempts. It's still a problem (in my view) when the colours match gets more entries than the nationals.
In terms of the number of matches, it's slowly increasing as we bring more clubs on line. Myself and Kieran Barry brought back the Fermoy shoot, yet (take note those who are complaining) only six turned up to shoot in it.
As for the classification system, Conor is right. You just don't get enough reliable data from 50m shoots to classify on that basis and in any event it's only classification: A method of giving someone a chance to get a piece of glass or whatever. The more level the playing field, the less people that will feel hard done by.
Incidentally, the classification gives a national ranking, and has done since this time last year with changes highlighted with each issue.
But this is a good discussion and the type of one which I'd like to see more of on this forum. I'm always open to suggestions and when a good one comes along, I'm delighted to give it a try.
I agree that we need more matches, but we also need the kind of turnouts we saw at the last two in DRC for clubs to be motivated to run them.0 -
It's not often I find myself agreeing with you wholeheartedly Sparks, but this is one of those rare occasions Though to be honest, we're usually at about 90% agreement and differ over the final 10%. It's rare for me to know you're utterly wrong
It is, but the colours isn't actually under the aegis of the NTSA at all anyway, it's solely the domain of the college clubs (it only shows up on the NTSA calendar for completeness, same as some club shoots like the RRPC Turkey Shoot do). It's an interesting look at a different way of running matches and it highlights the problem - in the colours, you have two clubs that commit to that match from before the start of the academic year and train towards it for about four to six months or so, taking in complete newbies as well as experienced people to form two teams per club for the match. It's well-known within the club membership that this is going on - there's a block of time booked every week for training and that's visible to any other shooter who's booking a detail to shoot on. There's a lot of time and effort invested into the teams and a lot of bragging rights on the line. Which rather proves the point that the push has to come from the clubs and the high-level admin stuff just won't drive things along (it's necessary but not sufficient).The calendar is a big issue in all this as well. Sparks knows the kind of data we have to assimilate into the equation in order to avoid clashes with just about everything thrown into the pot. We still haven't got the timing right on the Air Nationals despite numerous attempts. It's still a problem (in my view) when the colours match gets more entries than the nationals.
How does that handle the decay rate? (ie. how do you prevent someone shooting a 590+ score in one match and then holding the number one spot throughout the year even though they may not fire another shot in competition or training in all that time?)Incidentally, the classification gives a national ranking, and has done since this time last year with changes highlighted with each issue.0 -
-
But this is a good discussion and the type of one which I'd like to see more of on this forum. I'm always open to suggestions and when a good one comes along, I'm delighted to give it a try.
I've been playing around with some of the scores having a look at different ranking mechanisms.
So far I like weighted averaging (and not just because it tends to rank me higher!
) because it takes "trajectory" into account. Someone's recent form makes a bigger difference than their old scores. I've been using a pretty simple version. For example if a shooter has shot 4 matches: 570, 574, 581, 585 it would be calculated as follows:
((570 * 1) + (574 * 2) + (581 * 3) + (585 * 4)) / (1 + 2 + 3 + 4) == 580.1
A simple average would be 577.5. The higher weighted average reflects the fact that the shooter is on the way up in terms of scores.
A shooter with the following scores: 579, 580, 576, 565 would get a weighted average of 572.7 where their simple average was 575.
It still needs something in there to deal with people who don't shoot all that regularly. For example, there's at least one class A shooter who I haven't seen shoot since the last 50m nationals. He's a talented shooter, so bumping him down a class would be unfair on the class B shooters if he comes back. On the other hand, it's also unfair if he gets to stay artificially high in the list.I agree that we need more matches, but we also need the kind of turnouts we saw at the last two in DRC for clubs to be motivated to run them.
Indeed, a big fear (certainly for DURC in the past) is that too few people turn up and the club makes a loss on the competition.0 -
-
I might answer one or two of these since I was one of the people pushing for that whole process to happen.Deleted User wrote: »Its the NTSA's job to try and fix this. I heard a lot of very, very good suggestions in a meeting in UCD two years ago and haven't seen any of them implemented appart from raising the qualifying score (which I agree with).
Squad shoots have collapsed. No argument there. However, the regional level coaches are incoming. Matt and Geoff have completed their NCTC coach tutor courses and are putting together the coaches course. That's going to be run before october this year and those who complete it will then be NCTC-qualified coaches. They're also working on a club instructor level course (The idea is that the instructor course is a subset of the coaches course) and that would produce people able to do basic instruction (think of one of DURC's Range Officers. They wouldn't be ROs though because outside of UCD and TCD, Range Officer is a safety role and Club Instructor isn't - it's only in the college clubs that they're combined).Where are the squad shoots gone? Where are the regional level coaches?
And no transport. I remember having 400-odd shooters in DURC as well, but it's nearly impossible to transport them and the kit to any other club. Even UCD's a push. Getting everyone out to WTSC for colours was a major logistics effort. Even getting ten people out to DRC is an accomplishment worthy of a medal in its own right. And on top of that, no competition in DURC or UCDRC ever gets pushed to the level of the colours match.[RANT] When I was captain in DURC I was talking to the NSTA and saying that I have around 100 shooters who are reasonable plinkers and a very large number of air rifle shooters who were competitive shooters.
The membership thing is a problem, but it's really a seperate one. Students can't afford much, so asking for 150 quid for a year's membership (which is the WTSC membership fee for adults this year) is out. Unless they have the Junior's setup (ie. Mommy and Daddy pay), you're down to asking for what they have in their pockets right there, and there are concerns over fairness if you have 400 people getting a vote in the AGM for the same price as ten people getting a vote anywhere else. It's a problem that's been there for years. There are possible solutions; I don't think they're going to happen fast because the FCP's sucking up too much manpower and fundamental problems like the membership take time to sort out - do it fast and you risk totally screwing everyone.I heard nothing from NTSA apart from where was the clubs membership that year.
That's not really down to the NTSA thoughI was given out to by UCD for 'booking too many people in' and as result, half the squad couldn't shoot at matches.
And if there's an Open run by a club and you've got 50 people showing up to shoot, it's the fault of the club running the match if they can't cope, not the NTSA. (You did book in at least a week early, right? ). And in fairness, I did say I'd put together a course on how to run the stats office back when I was running one every other week or so and that's never happened; but we've been overtaken by events with the introduction of electronic targets now in UCD and RRPC, and they reduce the workload by a degree that anyone who never ran a full match scoring everything by hand (as in, with gauges, not the scoring machine) just doesn't get on a visceral level. 0 -
-
-
In the current classification scheme of things he sits in A artificially increasing the pool of "A" shooters.
Not artificially Conor. He or she has shot well enough to merit the classification and if they don't make the grade in the next competition they're out.
But really, classification is just a means to an end. It doesn't make you shoot better, it really exists as a means for shooters lower down the scale to measure their progress (or lack of it).
I don't think you could look at any of the classification lists over the last two years or so and see someone who doesn't deserve to be in class A. Sometimes people miss the cut to go up a class, but if they're going in the right direction, they'll get there.
Ideally, you win the class before you get promoted, but that's not always possible when you get banditas from DURC jumping straight into class B or A on their first competitive outing.
In the end, so long as it's fair and transparent, there's not a whole lot that would make it fairer or more transparent.
There's a time factor here as well. I use data for over a year in order to keep the classfications up to date. As it is, I have to have control totals and other checks to make sure I'm not including the wrong scores or have left something out. If you add more complexity, it will get easier to make mistakes which will cost time and effort.
At least I can get the classifications out the day after a match.0 -
Advertisement
-
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement