PDA

View Full Version : Jessie Duff makes USPSA Grandmaster



jetfire
12-14-2013, 06:02 PM
In a bit of interesting news, Jessie Duff (of Team Taurus) recently became the first female USPSA Grandmaster (http://www.gunnuts.net/2013/12/13/jessie-duff-becomes-first-female-uspsa-grandmaster/).

On the last run of the classifier calculator Jessie's 100% on CM 99-23 (Front Sight) put her over a 95% average in Open, making her the first woman to ever reach the rank of Grandmaster in USPSA. This raises a couple of interesting questions: first question is who's next? The second question is whether or not this is going to open the floodgates on women getting their GM cards; not too long ago a female Russian IPSC shooter won all of the Production division in the East Asia champion, which is a legitimate accomplishment as well.

With a couple of notable exceptions, the trend in shooting sports has been towards shooters who approach shooting as a sport and train athletically in addition to working their trigger fingers out. So with Jessie breaking the GM barrier, will other women shooters in the sport be similarly motivated to kick their training into high gear and get their GM cards?

feudist
12-14-2013, 06:18 PM
Well, I hope so.

It can only help.

I think you might see some of the "4 minute mile effect" where after Bannister broke the record, several guys did it in rapid succession.

Other women look at her and think"if she did it, so can I"

Here's to her:)

Haraise
12-14-2013, 06:28 PM
First thought: She /really/ worked hand and arm strength to get there.

Second thought: Even pro teams still use comps that seem to be designed by 'what looks good' in the 1980s. Weird.

Good on her.

rob_s
12-14-2013, 06:51 PM
Shooting seems to be one game where a woman, especially an attractive one, could stand to make even more money than their male counterparts.

What has led to the super high level of competition in MMA is that payouts got high enough to allow guys to train full time. Previously virtually all competitors had to have real jobs to make ends meet. Shooting may be poised to make a similar transition.

rsa-otc
12-14-2013, 07:18 PM
Randi Rogers has been on a tear as of late. It's only a matter of time before she gets her GM in production.

Dr. No
12-14-2013, 10:41 PM
I'll just leave this here.

2013 - USPSA Open Nationals - 76.663%
2013 - USPSA Limited Nationals - 76.744%
2013 - USPSA Production Nationals - 65.255%

SeriousStudent
12-15-2013, 01:17 AM
My congratulations to her on her accomplishment, I think she is a very good ambassador for the shooting sports.

jetfire
12-15-2013, 09:37 AM
I'll just leave this here.

2013 - USPSA Open Nationals - 76.663%
2013 - USPSA Limited Nationals - 76.744%
2013 - USPSA Production Nationals - 65.255%

Not to put too fine a point on it, but so what? There are plenty of GMs that don't shoot GM level scores at Nationals. I'm not white-knighting for Jessie here, but I'm seriously tired of people posting her Nationals scores as if they have any bearing on her classification as a GM.

If your argument is that people who can't shoot GM level scores at Nationals aren't real GMs, that doesn't really hold water, because then there would only be 5, maybe 6 GMs in the whole world, and USPSA would have the same Master-class problem that IDPA does.

Goat18D
12-15-2013, 11:38 AM
I'll just leave this here.

2013 - USPSA Open Nationals - 76.663%
2013 - USPSA Limited Nationals - 76.744%
2013 - USPSA Production Nationals - 65.255%


But she also beat 8 other GM's in Open at Nats, not to mention 38th overall, which beat Jay Hirshberg and Chris Keen who are supposed to be strong shooters and finish well at area matches, and she hasn't even written a book.

gtmtnbiker98
12-15-2013, 01:14 PM
But she also beat 8 other GM's in Open at Nats, not to mention 38th overall, which beat Jay Hirshberg and Chris Keen who are supposed to be strong shooters and finish well at area matches, and she hasn't even written a book.Chris Keen is a local shooter and he is a strong shooter.

Dr. No
12-15-2013, 02:18 PM
Not to put too fine a point on it, but so what? There are plenty of GMs that don't shoot GM level scores at Nationals. I'm not white-knighting for Jessie here, but I'm seriously tired of people posting her Nationals scores as if they have any bearing on her classification as a GM.

If your argument is that people who can't shoot GM level scores at Nationals aren't real GMs, that doesn't really hold water, because then there would only be 5, maybe 6 GMs in the whole world, and USPSA would have the same Master-class problem that IDPA does.


My point is, anyone can practice classifiers and get a GM card. It does not very well define skill in the sport ..... as is referenced above. There is a guy I know who used to call up the RM at local matches and find out what classifier was going to be at the match. He'd practice it all week and then kill it. He made GM and used it to advance his career. He's never shot worth a crap at a major. Does this really denote skill? Does this really denote success in the sport?

Caleb I'm not trying to dog on you, but would anyone give a crap if some other sponsored shooter got their GM card? Would anyone even know who Jessie is if there wasn't a woman's HOA trophy?

If they are going to make ladies HOA trophies equal to the HOA for the match, then they need to do the same with the senior, super senior, LE, military, and junior trophies. Winning any of these categories is nice, but there is no reason for one to be respected as much as the one who wins the whole schebang. While we're at it, why not high A? high B? Where does it stop? It all smells like the "everyone gets a trophy" award.

As far as "only 5 or 6 GM's" ... So what? Is that so wrong? I just looked at the results from this years Nationals and aside from Eric crushing everyone, all the rest are in line with the top 5-6 shooting in 95%. I would go as far to say if you shoot 90% at a major you can be considered a GM. One would not deny that those who do that have earned their spot through consistency and skill. If you can't make that top 10% ... get back out on the range and practice. That's what the rest of us are doing to make it to the same place.

Why should I respect someone who has a grand bagger card but shows up and shoots 75%? I don't care if they are a Combat Vet, SWAT Sergeant, Sponsored Female, or 14 year old. If you carry that title it should denote your skill level. Not just be a trophy you got by playing the system.

jlw
12-15-2013, 02:26 PM
My point is, anyone can practice classifiers and get a GM card.


Really?

Byron
12-15-2013, 02:37 PM
...would anyone give a crap if some other sponsored shooter got their GM card?

Maybe yes, maybe no.

But, I bet that if some other sponsored shooter got HIS (which is what you really mean by "their") GM card, no one would bother whining about how it doesn't matter.

Was it a difficult accomplishment? Yes.
Was it earned fair and square, same as everyone else? Yes.

So why try to diminish someone's accomplishment?




Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk

GardoneVT
12-15-2013, 03:20 PM
My point is, anyone can practice classifiers and get a GM card. It does not very well define skill in the sport ..... as is referenced above. There is a guy I know who used to call up the RM at local matches and find out what classifier was going to be at the match. He'd practice it all week and then kill it. He made GM and used it to advance his career. He's never shot worth a crap at a major. Does this really denote skill? Does this really denote success in the sport?

Caleb I'm not trying to dog on you, but would anyone give a crap if some other sponsored shooter got their GM card? Would anyone even know who Jessie is if there wasn't a woman's HOA trophy?

If they are going to make ladies HOA trophies equal to the HOA for the match, then they need to do the same with the senior, super senior, LE, military, and junior trophies. Winning any of these categories is nice, but there is no reason for one to be respected as much as the one who wins the whole schebang. While we're at it, why not high A? high B? Where does it stop? It all smells like the "everyone gets a trophy" award.

As far as "only 5 or 6 GM's" ... So what? Is that so wrong? I just looked at the results from this years Nationals and aside from Eric crushing everyone, all the rest are in line with the top 5-6 shooting in 95%. I would go as far to say if you shoot 90% at a major you can be considered a GM. One would not deny that those who do that have earned their spot through consistency and skill. If you can't make that top 10% ... get back out on the range and practice. That's what the rest of us are doing to make it to the same place.

Why should I respect someone who has a grand bagger card but shows up and shoots 75%? I don't care if they are a Combat Vet, SWAT Sergeant, Sponsored Female, or 14 year old. If you carry that title it should denote your skill level. Not just be a trophy you got by playing the system.

So, you'll be shooting against Jessie Duff head to head then?

Dr. No
12-15-2013, 05:49 PM
Really?

If you read my post, you'd even see where I gave an example of how someone did so. People have even discussed which are easiest to hit high percentage at ... http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=7632

Dr. No
12-15-2013, 05:53 PM
Maybe yes, maybe no.

But, I bet that if some other sponsored shooter got HIS (which is what you really mean by "their") GM card, no one would bother whining about how it doesn't matter.

Was it a difficult accomplishment? Yes.
Was it earned fair and square, same as everyone else? Yes.

So why try to diminish someone's accomplishment?

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk

No one would be talking about it unless there was a press release ...

My whole point in this is that shooting classifiers to make it to the top level of the game (and to have notoriety as such) I feel diminishes the title and allows that person to hold a title they can't actually perform at.

Dr. No
12-15-2013, 05:53 PM
So, you'll be shooting against Jessie Duff head to head then?

I have. I was at the same match and I beat her by several percentage points. Does that make me a Grand Grand Master?

GardoneVT
12-15-2013, 05:57 PM
I have. I was at the same match and I beat her by several percentage points. Does that make me a Grand Grand Master?

No.

It also doesn't give you the right to mock her hard work.

Dr. No
12-15-2013, 06:03 PM
No.

It also doesn't give you the right to mock her hard work.

Am I mocking her hard work or pointing out that there is something wrong with a classification system which awards its highest level to someone who shoots on a middle-of-the-pack level? I would be just as vocal about this if it was a dude from Arizona or a cop from Chicago.

LittleLebowski
12-15-2013, 06:28 PM
No.

It also doesn't give you the right to mock her hard work.

I didn't see any mocking being done by Dr. No.

ToddG
12-15-2013, 06:58 PM
My whole point in this is that shooting classifiers to make it to the top level of the game (and to have notoriety as such) I feel diminishes the title and allows that person to hold a title they can't actually perform at.

Jessie is hardly the first person to earn a GM card who doesn't shoot GM-level scores at majors, though. Nonetheless she's come under an unusual amount of scrutiny and criticism compared to those other (male, frequently unsponsored) GMs.

Even if you want to say she's the first girl ever to sandbag her way to GM -- and I've got no idea whether that's valid or not, it's just an assumption everyone is making -- she's still the first girl to do so. I'm pretty sure that's what the press release said. It didn't say she's now going to dominate the sport and beat all the boys.

Now, you can be upset that she gets the fame and the money, but I guarantee you that Jessie has generated more interest for her sponsors and more interest in USPSA -- among both males and females -- than 95% of the GMs out there. That's what she's paid for.

Tamara
12-15-2013, 11:52 PM
My point is, anyone can practice classifiers and get a GM card.

Can't reply. Off to range.

;):p

PPGMD
12-16-2013, 12:09 AM
...sandbag her way to GM...

I believe the correct term for that is Grandbag.

Anyways I am honestly surprised that she is the first woman GM, I thoughts she already was a GM, and that there would be more woman GMs. But to me honest I don't watch other people's classifications all that closely.

But I wouldn't be so sure she was grandbagging. She could be a victim of the classifiers not being recalculated based on a new 100% anymore. So while she may be shooting 100% on that classifier, Max and KC might be shooting that classifier at 125+% (though I am told that it never gets reported at anything but 100%).

Sal Picante
12-16-2013, 09:16 AM
These two quotes are pretty interesting:


My point is, anyone can practice classifiers and get a GM card. It does not very well define skill in the sport


My whole point in this is that shooting classifiers to make it to the top level of the game (and to have notoriety as such) I feel diminishes the title and allows that person to hold a title they can't actually perform at.


I agree with you that the USPSA classification system is skewed a bit; people can/could only ever shoot the "easiest" classifiers and bump at some point. That said, I do think that the classification system does test core-shooting skills and it does take folks a bit to figure out how to get things right and earn a GM card. I've been trying for about a year - you get close, then it pulls your average down, then you have to pretty much shoot 100%'s to get it right.
(I really don't think that there are are as many "paper GM's" out there, though.)

I think that it is tough to test "match ability", though - many stages aren't exactly repeatable from venue to venue. I think this is just a byproduct of the sport - it isn't perfect. It has flaws/bugs, just like any game/system has...



Now, you can be upset that she gets the fame and the money, but I guarantee you that Jessie has generated more interest for her sponsors and more interest in USPSA -- among both males and females -- than 95% of the GMs out there. That's what she's paid for.

Checkmate - she's a pro, so generating interest/controversy is great for her and her sponsors.

ToddG
12-16-2013, 09:45 AM
I think that it is tough to test "match ability", though - many stages aren't exactly repeatable from venue to venue. I think this is just a byproduct of the sport - it isn't perfect. It has flaws/bugs, just like any game/system has...

But following up on a discussion we recently had...

How hard would it be to create classifiers that involved more movement, setups, etc.? You may not be able to replicate "stage strategy" very well but you could encompass a wider range of actual game skills. I mean, "three foot square Box A located twenty-one feet edge-to-edge from three foot square Box B" shouldn't be any harder to set up than other Classifiers.

Probably cannot do it within the rules, but I've always thought a good measure of game skills would be something like:


Box A, two targets at 5yd and two targets at 15yd.
Box B, two targets at 5yd and two targets at 15yd.
Start in Box A.
On the buzzer move to Box B, shoot any two targets with two rounds each.
Move to Box A, shoot any two targets with two rounds each.
Move to Box B, shoot remaining two targets with two rounds each.
Move to Box A, shoot remaining two targets with two rounds each.

Chris Rhines
12-16-2013, 10:42 AM
But following up on a discussion we recently had...

How hard would it be to create classifiers that involved more movement, setups, etc.? You may not be able to replicate "stage strategy" very well but you could encompass a wider range of actual game skills. I mean, "three foot square Box A located twenty-one feet edge-to-edge from three foot square Box B" shouldn't be any harder to set up than other Classifiers.

Probably cannot do it within the rules, but I've always thought a good measure of game skills would be something like:


Box A, two targets at 5yd and two targets at 15yd.
Box B, two targets at 5yd and two targets at 15yd.
Start in Box A.
On the buzzer move to Box B, shoot any two targets with two rounds each.
Move to Box A, shoot any two targets with two rounds each.
Move to Box B, shoot remaining two targets with two rounds each.
Move to Box A, shoot remaining two targets with two rounds each.


Such classifiers do exist, there just aren't all that many of them. USPSA classifiers are like standards stages, in that they aren't subject to the "freestyle" requirements that regular stages are.

The stage you describe would be on the long side for a classifier, but I see no reason why it wouldn't be legal. It would be a good gaming drill in general.

jetfire
12-16-2013, 12:18 PM
Such classifiers do exist, there just aren't all that many of them. USPSA classifiers are like standards stages, in that they aren't subject to the "freestyle" requirements that regular stages are.

The stage you describe would be on the long side for a classifier, but I see no reason why it wouldn't be legal. It would be a good gaming drill in general.

One of the big problems with classifiers is that it's a lot easier to set up a 6-12 round hoser classifier than it is to set up the more complicated ones. If you're looking at a six stage club match staffed by volunteers, a lot of MDs simply see the classifier as their "easy" set up and tear down stage. That's not an indictment mind you, it just is how it is.

Dr. No
12-16-2013, 05:38 PM
I agree with you that the USPSA classification system is skewed a bit; people can/could only ever shoot the "easiest" classifiers and bump at some point. That said, I do think that the classification system does test core-shooting skills and it does take folks a bit to figure out how to get things right and earn a GM card. I've been trying for about a year - you get close, then it pulls your average down, then you have to pretty much shoot 100%'s to get it right.
(I really don't think that there are are as many "paper GM's" out there, though.)

I think that it is tough to test "match ability", though - many stages aren't exactly repeatable from venue to venue. I think this is just a byproduct of the sport - it isn't perfect. It has flaws/bugs, just like any game/system has...

Checkmate - she's a pro, so generating interest/controversy is great for her and her sponsors.

Duff is, unfortunately, the exact "paper GM" we are talking about. Her results from Nationals are barely A class. 76%........ The other story I told is about a guy I personally know in my area. I'm not going to out him since that isn't the point, but I know for a fact that he practiced the match classifier every day for a week before the match, specifically so he could get his GM card and use it to further his firearms instructor career. He has never shot at a major and finished well. He still touts his GM card, however.

Absolutely, being a sponsored shooter is about bringing press for the company that you represent. Her becoming the first female GM is a great publicity stunt. It just makes me sad that someone can achieve that kind of "fame" while being a mediocre shooter. People like TGO, Eric Graffel, Nils Johanson, etc come out and crush matches and as a byproduct are GM's. They are the ones who should receive the notoriety for having the skill to win. I guess as a shooter myself I put more value on skill rather than looks for PR.

If I had to put a suggestion forward for classifiers, make them an ever floating scale. IE:

If I shoot classifier A in 2012 and I had the top hit factor, I receive 100%.
In 2013, 5 people shoot better than I did. The average of those top 5 now becomes 100%. Instead of that classifier maintaining a 100% rating on my card, it drops to 90%. My average drops accordingly.
In 2014, 10 people shoot it better than I did, and it gets bumped down to 85%.

I shoot the same classifier again and get 97% of the new top. It goes in and is averaged as such.

Etc, etc, etc.

I think in this way there can be a sliding scale based on skill and these "easy" classifiers will fall out because the top level shooters will still be able to murder them compared to the rest of us human beings.

I also think major matches should count as a bigger percentage of your classification than 1/6. Perhaps 1/2? 1/3?

Chemsoldier
12-16-2013, 08:10 PM
I didn't see any mocking being done by Dr. No.
No, but the butt hurt is rolling off him like a fog off a lake.

TheTrevor
12-16-2013, 08:19 PM
No, but the butt hurt is rolling off him like a fog off a lake.

Epic imagery.

Matt O
12-16-2013, 09:34 PM
No, but the butt hurt is rolling off him like a fog off a lake.

Not that I agree with everything he's saying, he's at least making a compelling argument. Remind me again what your key points were for the topic at hand?


I agree with you that the USPSA classification system is skewed a bit; people can/could only ever shoot the "easiest" classifiers and bump at some point. That said, I do think that the classification system does test core-shooting skills and it does take folks a bit to figure out how to get things right and earn a GM card. I've been trying for about a year - you get close, then it pulls your average down, then you have to pretty much shoot 100%'s to get it right.
(I really don't think that there are are as many "paper GM's" out there, though.)

I think that it is tough to test "match ability", though - many stages aren't exactly repeatable from venue to venue. I think this is just a byproduct of the sport - it isn't perfect. It has flaws/bugs, just like any game/system has...

The classification system does seem to work pretty well overall and definitely tests core-shooting skills - draws, reloads, SHO/WHO, etc. Have you found though that some people who perhaps perform well on classifiers may not perform as well on longer field courses, or vice versa? Obviously there are lots of individuals who excel at both, it just seems those might represent more opposite spectrums of the game?

GJM
12-16-2013, 09:52 PM
Duff is, unfortunately, the exact "paper GM" we are talking about. ?

Dr. No, you are being too narrow minded. I have seen you with your shirt off, as recently as last week. I have only seen pictures of Ms. Duff, but we need more GM's like her.

JDM
12-16-2013, 10:38 PM
No, but the butt hurt is rolling off him like a fog off a lake.

Remain civil, or don't participate.

Dr. No
12-16-2013, 11:14 PM
Dr. No, you are being too narrow minded. I have seen you with your shirt off, as recently as last week. I have only seen pictures of Ms. Duff, but we need more GM's like her.

Hahahah! Now that is a compelling argument! She is definitely that kind of GM.

So what you're saying is heavily tattooed white guys just don't sell product for you? Dang. Back to the drawing board.

Dr. No
12-16-2013, 11:17 PM
The classification system does seem to work pretty well overall and definitely tests core-shooting skills - draws, reloads, SHO/WHO, etc. Have you found though that some people who perhaps perform well on classifiers may not perform as well on longer field courses, or vice versa? Obviously there are lots of individuals who excel at both, it just seems those might represent more opposite spectrums of the game?

The problem with classifiers, as any A or B class shooter knows ... is that you can burn them down pretty well. Heck, you might even be a half second off that GM who shot in front of you. But on that next field course, he puts 3 seconds on you with better points. On the next one it's 5. On the next one it's 10! Movement, stage breakdown, and skill at engaging targets while still moving comprise a large majority of the game. Very little is "stand and shoot". Unfortunately, most classifiers are ..... "stand and shoot".

Alaskapopo
12-17-2013, 01:03 AM
Not to put too fine a point on it, but so what? There are plenty of GMs that don't shoot GM level scores at Nationals. I'm not white-knighting for Jessie here, but I'm seriously tired of people posting her Nationals scores as if they have any bearing on her classification as a GM.

If your argument is that people who can't shoot GM level scores at Nationals aren't real GMs, that doesn't really hold water, because then there would only be 5, maybe 6 GMs in the whole world, and USPSA would have the same Master-class problem that IDPA does.

I have no dog in this fight and I think its great we have a woman GM however there is something called grandbaggers. People who shoot a classifier especially the easier ones over and over again until they boost their average. Match scores are really what shows how good of a shooter you are.
pat

GJM
12-17-2013, 01:12 AM
I have no dog in this fight and I think its great we have a woman GM however there is something called grandbaggers. People who shoot a classifier especially the easier ones over and over again until they boost their average. Match scores are really what shows how good of a shooter you are.
pat

You aren't referring to people who shoot the FAST like 1,000 times a year -- FASTbaggers? :)

JM Campbell
12-17-2013, 05:07 AM
You aren't referring to people who shoot the FAST like 1,000 times a year -- FASTbaggers? :)

Ohhh no you didn't!!!!!!!!!!

Proofs in the pudding, if she can't perform she will loose such designation...right?
If so all is good in the world and we can go back to eating In and Out burgers minus the fries with shakes from Braums.....

Chemsoldier
12-17-2013, 09:13 AM
Not that I agree with everything he's saying, he's at least making a compelling argument. Remind me again what your key points were for the topic at hand?

There may be a compelling argument for changing the classification system. However, a player utilizing the existing rules system properly is not "wrong." Its the rules. I don't know if female competition shooters will ever "catch up" to the males in action pistol, though I have seen women post stage wins and in some instances have ranked very high in the overall score in some matches, however if that is ever to happen some women are going to need to make GM. If it inspires others, if it pushes the bar higher, if it puts more women into the sport I don't see how it is a bad thing.

Jerry Miculek won high overall at the IDPA BUG Nationals, well they were all 5 shot strings so no reloads made it revolver neutral. If people had been able to max load some of the autos he might have been in trouble. But he still won under that rule set. He won and that is what matters. Incidentally, him winning does not make him "better" than some of the auto shooters. It just makes him the winner of that match with those rules. Likewise, Jessie Duff is a GM, whether that makes her the greatest thing since sliced bread is irrelevant. As long as the press release is accurate. *shrug*

Actually, in the case that Dr. No presented of a friend who was a trainer getting his "paper GM" to fill out his resume, I am not even sure that is so bad a thing. Unless he is touting himself as a competition instructor, the simplistic nature of USPSA classifiers is probably closer in structure to the average defensive shooting than a big field course at a major match and shows a measurable level of skill. (no I am not claiming that USPSA classifiers are an accurate simulation of defensive shooting.

As to myself I wish all the best to Jessie Duff for her accomplishment. She has reached a level of ability I likely never will. I hope it leads to her continuing to push the envelope for her performance.

Sal Picante
12-17-2013, 09:43 AM
Have you found though that some people who perhaps perform well on classifiers may not perform as well on longer field courses, or vice versa? Obviously there are lots of individuals who excel at both, it just seems those might represent more opposite spectrums of the game?


Not really. Most GM's do seem to shoot pretty well, since the sport is still really about shooting. That said, classifiers do test a persons skills over the long average, rather than at the match with all the heat of the competition bearing down on you.



The problem with classifiers, as any A or B class shooter knows ... is that you can burn them down pretty well. Heck, you might even be a half second off that GM who shot in front of you. But on that next field course, he puts 3 seconds on you with better points. On the next one it's 5. On the next one it's 10! Movement, stage breakdown, and skill at engaging targets while still moving comprise a large majority of the game. Very little is "stand and shoot". Unfortunately, most classifiers are ..... "stand and shoot".


I don't know... I mean, look at Robbie vs Dave Sevigny or Robbie vs Vogel - no contest in the athletic department. It really still boils down to shoot/transitioning faster, being on your plan and just being able to load faster. If you're burning down classifiers consistently, then you shouldn't really have a big problem at the matches.


Honestly, there is a lot of todo about "stage breakdown", but 90% of the time it really does boil down to execution. This years production nationals was a great example - nothing too hinky. It was about as straight up as you could get.

Those seconds usually come from just shooting faster... Case and point:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RD_Hqt2Z-A

My best is ~4.5... I'm losing my time to guys like him because of the shooting...


If I had to put a suggestion forward for classifiers, make them an ever floating scale. IE:

If I shoot classifier A in 2012 and I had the top hit factor, I receive 100%.
In 2013, 5 people shoot better than I did. The average of those top 5 now becomes 100%. Instead of that classifier maintaining a 100% rating on my card, it drops to 90%. My average drops accordingly.
In 2014, 10 people shoot it better than I did, and it gets bumped down to 85%.

I shoot the same classifier again and get 97% of the new top. It goes in and is averaged as such.


Now this is really interesting - there is a thread on Enos about this. There isn't a lot of visibility on how the High Hit Factor of a classifier is set or how they are adjusted.

I'm almost fine with the one-way system since I could see the potential for sandbagging by "tanking classifiers"...

Dagga Boy
12-17-2013, 11:15 AM
This thread is WAY out of my lane, but…..In Dr. No's defense, he has had the "You're not a GM" shoved down his throat extensively in his area. This may not be the norm, but it is for him. In the business side of the training world, everyone is fighting for students. Some of us want the best for our students and potential students and are not in it to get rich, others are in it for the money. I send a lot of people to Dr. No (another not a good business decision, but the right thing to do) in his area, because I think he is a solid and very versatile instructor with a bunch of unique experience both in real world stuff and competitively. I have had guys on the internet post for people not to go to him, because he is not a GM. That is public stuff viewed by a ton of people. The funny thing is the guy that they are recommending over Dr. No gets regularly spanked by Dr. No in actual competition. I have seen the exact same thing in many other areas of firearms training with the hue and cry of "Not a GM, then un-qualified".

Again, I have zero idea how these rankings are done, how they are gamed or not gamed, and what it is all about. What I do know is that there are some folks who are kind of polluting the pool with ideas about how important that ranking is in order to teach and train.

peterb
12-17-2013, 11:40 AM
Again, I have zero idea how these rankings are done, how they are gamed or not gamed, and what it is all about. What I do know is that there are some folks who are kind of polluting the pool with ideas about how important that ranking is in order to teach and train.

I've seen similar discussions about the importance of ratings and certifications in other sports. It's important to recognize what they mean: that the person demonstrated a specific skill or set of skills to a known standard. No more, no less.

The problems come when people claim that meeting a specific standard is proof of other skills or qualifications. It ain't necessarily so.

Congratulations to Ms. Duff on her accomplishment, and cheers to all who strive to elevate their skills and those of their students.

jetfire
12-17-2013, 11:56 AM
On the topic of Grandbagging to enhance qualifications: I'm totally okay with it. Partly because it would be hypocritical of me to be against something I've done, and also because all that shooting you have to do to successfully grandbag has the side benefit of making you better at shooting.

So if you're someone whose job is teaching other students how to shoot guns, wouldn't being able to execute the fundamentals of marksmanship at a high level be a skill that's worth investing time and effort into? And since IDPA and USPSA have these handy ranks that look super awesome on training resumes, it would be bad business to not pursue a resume booster like GM or 5-Gun master.

Tamara
12-17-2013, 12:59 PM
...a resume booster like GM or 5-Gun master.

Or Four Weapon Combat Master! :D

jetfire
12-17-2013, 01:00 PM
Or Four Weapon Combat Master! :D

Six Sandwich Condiment Master!

And at least 5 Gun Master or GM are real titles. I could call myself The Master of the Universe all I want, it still doesn't make me He-Man.

ToddG
12-17-2013, 01:13 PM
And at least 5 Gun Master or GM are real titles.

I don't think that's fair at all. While I might not agree with what he tests or how, Taylor's 4 Weapon Combat Master test was an established, published standard. Just like the USPSA and IDPA titles, you need to spend money on the overseeing organization and participate in various events to get "certified." You need to use gear they proscribe in a way they proscribe. Etc.

It's ridiculously dangerous to think that any single "credential" is the be-all end-all for firearms training. There are GMs (and their fans) who think only GMs should teach just like there are veterans (and their fans) who think only veterans should teach.

As I've said before, if most instructors were honest, when asked what qualifications are necessary to be a good teacher they'd simply show you a photograph of themselves.

jetfire
12-17-2013, 01:16 PM
Sorry, I thought we were making fun of Iggy P. I had no idea there was actually a legitimate anything behind his "Four Weapon Combat Master" title, I just thought he'd made it up.

Tamara
12-17-2013, 01:21 PM
Sorry, I thought we were making fun of Iggy P. I had no idea there was actually a legitimate anything behind his "Four Weapon Combat Master" title, I just thought he'd made it up.

No, Chuck Taylor came up with it. I would assume for the express purpose of separating Mr. Dr. P. from some cash. (Only a FWCM can certify you as a FWCM.)

jetfire
12-17-2013, 01:25 PM
No, Chuck Taylor came up with it. I would assume for the express purpose of separating Mr. Dr. P. from some cash. (Only a FWCM can certify you as a FWCM.)

Well, now I've won half the battle.

45dotACP
12-17-2013, 01:29 PM
Well, it sure is better than I do on the classifiers, so I will say that Ms. Duff is likely a better shooter than I am. Even if she is "grandbagging" I think that she's probably still an inspiration to get women involved in the shooting world. While she may lose the pissing matches that competition shooting and competition shooters seem to manufacture, the important thing (the ultimate goal of having her in the papers and on the news) is getting more people to shoot, to have fun, and to do it all safely. Competition shooting is a kittenload of fun and most of us aren't GM's and several of us never will be. Such is life. I'd love to be a GM, but I honestly don't have the time or money to invest in that level of training, ammo, and practice. I'd be happy with A classification truthfully and that'll probably take me years from where I am right now. I guess what I'm saying is, the shooting world is hella insular, and I see her being in the papers as a way to attempt to reach out to a demographic that has very little participation in this world. So goody goody gumdrops. May we reach out to newbies, and stomp on the antigunners and giggle all the while.

P.S. if you need a GM card to get more people to attend training with you, I can see how that would rub you wrong. But hey, why not do a little gaming yourself? As it takes advantage of the rule system that's already in place, it isn't against the rules. ;)

Sal Picante
12-17-2013, 07:24 PM
On the topic of Grandbagging to enhance qualifications: I'm totally okay with it. Partly because it would be hypocritical of me to be against something I've done, and also because all that shooting you have to do to successfully grandbag has the side benefit of making you better at shooting.

So if you're someone whose job is teaching other students how to shoot guns, wouldn't being able to execute the fundamentals of marksmanship at a high level be a skill that's worth investing time and effort into?

I practice a lot of classifiers; not because I want to shoot them better, rather, with a a little math you can look up the 100% level and gauge your progress against it...
I got really bored shooting some of the "standards" (Hack, Langdon, etc...) mentioned here and the variety of the USPSA classifiers was kinda refreshing.

They're out there for free. (http://www.uspsa.org/uspsa-classifier-list.php)

I've seen my performance really skyrocket too.



And since IDPA and USPSA have these handy ranks that look super awesome on training resumes, it would be bad business to not pursue a resume booster like GM or 5-Gun master.

I do agree with this. I think it can help students select folks that have relevant experience in the subject that they're trying to learn... That said, I have no illusion about being a "defensive firearms instructor": I focus on competition training and steer folks to people who have more experience that I on that topic.

jlw
12-17-2013, 07:41 PM
Earlier this year, I ran a retired "Unit" Sergeant Major through the IDPA classifier. He made SS in SSP.

If only he were a USPSA GM then maybe he would be worthy of teaching about stuff involving shootin' irons...

Tamara
12-17-2013, 08:07 PM
If only he were a USPSA GM then maybe he would be worthy of teaching about stuff involving shootin' irons...

Depends on what stuff involving shootin' irons he's trying to teach. ;)

(A roundabout way of saying I think WIILSHOOT's post above yours was bang on the money in the last paragraph.)

jlw
12-17-2013, 08:42 PM
Depends on what stuff involving shootin' irons he's trying to teach. ;)

(A roundabout way of saying I think WIILSHOOT's post above yours was bang on the money in the last paragraph.)

The individual in question is actually an experienced firearms competitor and shot on a pro team(s).

FailureDrill
12-17-2013, 10:02 PM
I’ll chime in here as I think I have the relevant qualifications for the discussions and have existed on both sides.

I started USPSA in 2004. As a Cop, I saw local GM’s burning stuff to the ground on the range and decided it was my goal to reach that level. I thankfully linked up and was mentored by another Cop who was a GM and he showed me a solid path to success. I shot Nationals as an A, Master and then GM shooter and multiple area championships. In 2007, I reached my goal and got my GM card in Limited. I decided to switch divisions because production was beginning to take hold as a competitive division and a year later, received my GM card in Production. My top placing nationally was a top-16 finish at the 2009 Production Nationals. I still only shot 81.5% of the winner, Robert Vogel. If it was entirely based on major match performance, they only true production GM this year in USPSA is a guy from Europe.

Other people’s problems, shot on demand without make-ups or Mulligans. This applies to the “easy” classifiers and major matches. I agree that the percentages at major matches are typically not reflective of peoples actual overall classifier based percentage. I would contend that typically the dispersal of classes in the competition overall are usually consistent with their classification. Meaning, that the top 20 will be mostly GM’s, possibly with a few M’s in there. Then as you get lower in finish, you see predominantly more M’s with the occasional A’s plugged in and so on and so forth. If the classification had no basis for match skill, you would see A’s beating a whole bunch of the GM’s.

That’s not to say that there aren’t problems with the overall classification system, but I doubt it’s going to change and based on dispersion within the major matches, it’s not too far off. Kinda like lining up runners for a marathon. The likely winners are out front and slower behind them. It’s not saying someone will come from the back, but it’s not likely.

I’ll be honest, I’ve never actually heard a GM refer to another as a “paper” GM, GrandBagger, etc. This is likely because there is a considerable amount of work required to get to the point that you get that classification. The push to GM is challenging and frustrating and requires thousands of reps of dryfire, practice and a mindset always with an eye to efficiency and accuracy. It also requires you to perform at a very high level on demand. I would imagine if “everyone could do it”, there would be greater than 2-3% of the overall membership that are GM’s.

On the training side, it is something that is looked at when credentials are reviewed. If I want to learn competition stuff, I would be biased towards someone that competed at that level. For learning to shoot people in the face a GM (or similar) ranking wouldn’t be the only thing I would look at for teaching and closing off all trainers who lack that would be very shortsighted.

Jessie Duff is the first woman to be able to actually get it done. She put in the work, did the reps, and burned enough classifiers to get it done. Those that don’t/can’t/haven’t put in that same work won’t be classified as GM’s. I salute her work.

Alaskapopo
12-19-2013, 12:42 AM
Ohhh no you didn't!!!!!!!!!!

Proofs in the pudding, if she can't perform she will loose such designation...right?
If so all is good in the world and we can go back to eating In and Out burgers minus the fries with shakes from Braums.....

Actually no once you make a classification it sticks even if you shoot below your level in all matches and future classifiers. The only thing that can change that is appealing to USPSA to have your classification lowered due to injury or other health issues.
Pat

JeffJ
12-19-2013, 11:10 AM
Here's my C class haven't shot a match in over 6 months (family, work, getting in the way) perspective:

1. The classification process isn't perfect, never will be, get over it.

2. Even grandbagging to a GM card requires a significant amount of practice, dedication, and skill. Dr. No mentioned someone who would practice the classifier over and over again every day for a week getting ready to shoot it, I personally would love to have that kind of time and ability and I have a hard time believing that practicing the skills for those classifiers that much didn't make that shooter better at those skills.

3. I've heard a lot of black belts in various martial arts say that a black belt is the beginning, not the end, I think you could easily look at a GM card the same way.

4. The training sector right now is absolutely bananas, there are trainers all over the place with a variety of different backgrounds. Students don't know what to believe and plunking down $450 bucks, plus travel and ammo for 2 day class with somebody is a big deal. A GM or M card from one of the 2 larger shooting sports is a tool that students can use to help them try to determine if the instructor they are looking into is legit. If I was an instructor who felt that I was loosing students due to not having a GM card, then I would be busting my ass to get one - regardless of how I felt about it personally.

PPGMD
12-19-2013, 11:21 AM
3. I've heard a lot of black belts in various martial arts say that a black belt is the beginning, not the end, I think you could easily look at a GM card the same way.

I think that is one way to look at it. I've been told in the past that the distance between a new GM, and a national champion level GM is almost as wide at the new GM and a C class shooter.

Mr_White
12-19-2013, 11:27 AM
I haven't shot a whole lot of USPSA, but I have shot enough, and enough classifiers to give a lot of respect to anyone shooting 95%+ on any of them.

Sal Picante
12-19-2013, 11:44 AM
I haven't shot a whole lot of USPSA, but I have shot enough, and enough classifiers to give a lot of respect to anyone shooting 95%+ on any of them.

Why don't you respect me? Was it the Beretta?

;)



I've heard a lot of black belts in various martial arts say that a black belt is the beginning, not the end, I think you could easily look at a GM card the same way.

This! +1.

Dr. No
12-19-2013, 11:58 AM
So it seems that the consensus is that just shooting 95% on classifiers is good enough to make one a champion.

If that's the case, then why is this particular champion only shooting 76% at nationals? Is finishing 57th out of 239 a "top level shooter"? I am honestly a little confused at how this is acceptable. She is being called one of the top level shooters of the sport, but she can barely finish in the top 25%.

I think what you are all missing is that if you practice a classifier over and over ... you can get really good at that one. Does that translate to skill in other ways? Sure, but apparently not enough to help you win matches. As most GM's know, there is much more to USPSA than standing and shooting accurately quickly. Movement, transitions, planning, etc are a significant factor. This is proven time and time again, and is evident in this very example. To me this is a clear example that the classifier system does not actually represent skill level when it comes to USPSA.

I've said my piece, I think I'm done here. I'm very glad Duff is a part of our sport and is now bringing good press to it. I also hope that some changes can be made to the sport to inspire and reward those who choose to put the effort in to win.

Byron
12-19-2013, 12:19 PM
So it seems that the consensus is that just shooting 95% on classifiers is good enough to make one a champion.
I'm not really perceiving the same "consensus" in this thread that you are.

I see a lot of people giving her credit for accomplishing a difficult feat. I don't see people saying she's a champion because of it.

Perhaps you could actually quote the statements that you take issue with, so that they can be directly addressed, rather than setting up straw men arguments to knock down.


If that's the case, then why is this particular "champion" only shooting 76% at nationals? Is finishing 57th out of 239 a "top level shooter"?
To use quotation marks is disingenuous, given the fact that you are the only person in this thread who has used the phrases "champion" and "top level."


She is being called one of the top level shooters of the sport, but she can barely finish in the top 25%.
Who in this thread is calling her "one of the top level shooters of the sport"?


To me this is a clear example that the classifier system does not actually represent skill level when it comes to USPSA.
You've made your point quite clear. You've also thoroughly explained the chip on your shoulder.

Making Jessie the target of your rants seems quite petty.

You and nyeti have said that you lose business because of your lack of a GM card. You've also said that "anyone can practice classifiers and get a GM card."

So maybe you should practice classifiers, get your GM card, and stop crapping on Jessie because some random local is takin' yer job?

Mr_White
12-19-2013, 12:37 PM
Why don't you respect me? Was it the Beretta?

;)


No way, dude, I think you rock it. The 95% + comment was aimed at the Jessie Duff/GM discussion specifically. I also respect people who can shoot a fair bit less than 95% on classifiers. Got to have a little respect left for myself, right? :)


So it seems that the consensus is that just shooting 95% on classifiers is good enough to make one a champion.

If that's the case, then why is this particular champion only shooting 76% at nationals? Is finishing 57th out of 239 a "top level shooter"? I am honestly a little confused at how this is acceptable. She is being called one of the top level shooters of the sport, but she can barely finish in the top 25%.

I think what you are all missing is that if you practice a classifier over and over ... you can get really good at that one. Does that translate to skill in other ways? Sure, but apparently not enough to help you win matches. As most GM's know, there is much more to USPSA than standing and shooting accurately quickly. Movement, transitions, planning, etc are a significant factor. This is proven time and time again, and is evident in this very example. To me this is a clear example that the classifier system does not actually represent skill level when it comes to USPSA.

I've said my piece, I think I'm done here. I'm very glad Duff is a part of our sport and is now bringing good press to it. I also hope that some changes can be made to the sport to inspire and reward those who choose to put the effort in to win.

Is someone saying that shooting 95% on classifiers = being a champion? Those seem like two different things to me. All I'm saying is that I personally find classifiers very hard and my hat is off to anyone posting high scores on them.

I'd also like to ask a regurgitated question. It's regurgitated because I don't have a strong opinion on it, but there are points and counterpoints I've seen made in these 'classification vs. match performance' discussions a bunch of times and this one seems appropriate here.

So here's the question: if the classifier system does not actually represent skill level when it comes to USPSA, why are the classes grouped approximately according to their normal hierarchy in overall match placement? Irrespective of the exact percentage a person shot, it seems like from the top down in match results, I usually see the GM, M, A, B, C, and D shooters clumped together in basically that order. Is that not so?

And if one takes the position that you aren't a legitimate GM unless you shoot 95% of the winner at Nationals, then doesn't that mean that there are a whole lot more 'top shooters' than Jessie Duff who aren't deserving of the GM title? It doesn't seem right to me to say that based on this year's Production Nationals, Stoeger, Sevigny, Leatham, Racaza, Mink, etc. (everyone other than Eric Grauffel, since no one shot 95% of him) aren't legitimate GMs.

Dr. No, I am honestly interested in your answers to these questions. I am not an accomplished USPSA competitor at all, and I always want to hear more experienced perspectives on these issues.

frozentundra
12-19-2013, 12:37 PM
Somebody should figure out how to rank the top 300 or 500 shooters individually, like in tennis or golf. Then you could have real rankings based on match performance and disregard the always flawed classifier system.:eek:

Sal Picante
12-19-2013, 01:05 PM
A while back, Ron Larimer had an interesting statistical analysis looking at IDPA classifications. (http://www.balloongoesup.com/blog/its-not-the-arrow-its-the-indian-confirmed-by-idpa-nationals/)


Read it?

Mr_White
12-19-2013, 01:10 PM
A while back, Ron Larimer had an interesting statistical analysis looking at IDPA classifications. (http://www.balloongoesup.com/blog/its-not-the-arrow-its-the-indian-confirmed-by-idpa-nationals/)


Read it?

Yes!

Dr. No
12-19-2013, 01:26 PM
I'm not really perceiving the same "consensus" in this thread that you are.

I see a lot of people giving her credit for accomplishing a difficult feat. I don't see people saying she's a champion because of it.

Perhaps you could actually quote the statements that you take issue with, so that they can be directly addressed, rather than setting up straw men arguments to knock down.

To use quotation marks is disingenuous, given the fact that you are the only person in this thread who has used the phrases "champion" and "top level."

Who in this thread is calling her "one of the top level shooters of the sport"?

You've made your point quite clear. You've also thoroughly explained the chip on your shoulder.

Making Jessie the target of your rants seems quite petty.

You and nyeti have said that you lose business because of your lack of a GM card. You've also said that "anyone can practice classifiers and get a GM card."

So maybe you should practice classifiers, get your GM card, and stop crapping on Jessie because some random local is takin' yer job?

Okay, I will.

http://www.prlog.org/12257164-jessie-duff-earns-grand-master-rank-with-uspsa.html

"Duff is recognized as one of the most accomplished competition shooters in the world"
"“Jessie is one of the best shooters in the world,” said USPSA Executive Director Kim Williams. "
" 2013 was a record-winning year for Duff, which included top wins in USPSA’s Open, Limited and Single Stack National Championships. Duff also took multiple top wins in the Steel Challenge World Championships and earned top titles in the Arkansas Sectional Championships and Steel Challenge National Championships."

As I've said from the beginning, I really could care less if this was Jessie, or Phil Strader, or whoever. My point remains the same.

Honestly, Nyeti's comment is somewhat taken out of context - I haven't lost business to this particular guy because he goes after a different market. I think it's dishonest the way he got his paper card and I don't respect him for that. Those who have gotten their card and have earned it through high performance in the sport are ones I respect more.

Anyhow, I really am done. I know I took an unpopular position here, and I pretty much got the response I expected. It's still disappointing.

Mr_White
12-19-2013, 01:37 PM
I'd also like to ask a regurgitated question. It's regurgitated because I don't have a strong opinion on it, but there are points and counterpoints I've seen made in these 'classification vs. match performance' discussions a bunch of times and this one seems appropriate here.

So here's the question: if the classifier system does not actually represent skill level when it comes to USPSA, why are the classes grouped approximately according to their normal hierarchy in overall match placement? Irrespective of the exact percentage a person shot, it seems like from the top down in match results, I usually see the GM, M, A, B, C, and D shooters clumped together in basically that order. Is that not so?

And if one takes the position that you aren't a legitimate GM unless you shoot 95% of the winner at Nationals, then doesn't that mean that there are a whole lot more 'top shooters' than Jessie Duff who aren't deserving of the GM title? It doesn't seem right to me to say that based on this year's Production Nationals, Stoeger, Sevigny, Leatham, Racaza, Mink, etc. (everyone other than Eric Grauffel, since no one shot 95% of him) aren't legitimate GMs.

Dr. No, I am honestly interested in your answers to these questions. I am not an accomplished USPSA competitor at all, and I always want to hear more experienced perspectives on these issues.


Anyhow, I really am done. I know I took an unpopular position here, and I pretty much got the response I expected. It's still disappointing.

I'm not down on you at all for taking the position you are, I just want to understand better. I'm still interested in your perspective on the questions quoted above...

jlw
12-19-2013, 01:39 PM
So it seems that the consensus is that just shooting 95% on classifiers is good enough to make one a champion.



What?

There are a lot of guys who have made it to the PGA Tour but haven't won a tour event. They still have their PGA cards though.

peterb
12-19-2013, 02:51 PM
Okay, I will.

http://www.prlog.org/12257164-jessie-duff-earns-grand-master-rank-with-uspsa.html

"Duff is recognized as one of the most accomplished competition shooters in the world"
"“Jessie is one of the best shooters in the world,” said USPSA Executive Director Kim Williams. "
" 2013 was a record-winning year for Duff, which included top wins in USPSA’s Open, Limited and Single Stack National Championships. Duff also took multiple top wins in the Steel Challenge World Championships and earned top titles in the Arkansas Sectional Championships and Steel Challenge National Championships."

As I've said from the beginning, I really could care less if this was Jessie, or Phil Strader, or whoever. My point remains the same.

Got it. Not liking overblown press releases makes perfect sense. But I haven't heard Jessie spouting off about how great she is, so it sounds like the problem is the PR machine and not the shooter.

Dr. No
12-19-2013, 03:14 PM
I'm not down on you at all for taking the position you are, I just want to understand better. I'm still interested in your perspective on the questions quoted above...


No way, dude, I think you rock it. The 95% + comment was aimed at the Jessie Duff/GM discussion specifically. I also respect people who can shoot a fair bit less than 95% on classifiers. Got to have a little respect left for myself, right? :)

Is someone saying that shooting 95% on classifiers = being a champion? Those seem like two different things to me. All I'm saying is that I personally find classifiers very hard and my hat is off to anyone posting high scores on them.

I'd also like to ask a regurgitated question. It's regurgitated because I don't have a strong opinion on it, but there are points and counterpoints I've seen made in these 'classification vs. match performance' discussions a bunch of times and this one seems appropriate here.

So here's the question: if the classifier system does not actually represent skill level when it comes to USPSA, why are the classes grouped approximately according to their normal hierarchy in overall match placement? Irrespective of the exact percentage a person shot, it seems like from the top down in match results, I usually see the GM, M, A, B, C, and D shooters clumped together in basically that order. Is that not so?

And if one takes the position that you aren't a legitimate GM unless you shoot 95% of the winner at Nationals, then doesn't that mean that there are a whole lot more 'top shooters' than Jessie Duff who aren't deserving of the GM title? It doesn't seem right to me to say that based on this year's Production Nationals, Stoeger, Sevigny, Leatham, Racaza, Mink, etc. (everyone other than Eric Grauffel, since no one shot 95% of him) aren't legitimate GMs.

Dr. No, I am honestly interested in your answers to these questions. I am not an accomplished USPSA competitor at all, and I always want to hear more experienced perspectives on these issues.

The reason I used the specific words I did was in reference to the press release (which is what this whole thread is based upon). People who don't know anything about the sport will assume that a press release like this means that the person with these qualifications are one of the greatest shooters in our sport.

To your question:

The big answer is because there aren't very many sandbaggers/grand baggers out there. There are SOME, but they seem to be the exception to the rule. Some have accused me of that in the past "Why aren't you a GM" etc, but when I go to a match and shoot exactly in my percentage range I believe that represents me accurately. Often times if you look at Nationals results you will see someone stick way out - an A or B class shooter that finishes in the top 16, for instance. Some of these folks haven't shot many classifiers, may be involved in playing in another discipline (steel challenge, 3 gun, bianchi, etc) and return at a much higher skill set. I got a ration of crap when I switched from Limited to Production because I was shooting at a much higher level than I was classified as, and I hadn't shot enough classifiers to bring my ranking up where it should be.

I've never said that you HAVE to be 95% at Nats to be a GM. In fact, I'd probably expand that range to be 90%+. Eric G is a freak and has completely crushed the competition, which in itself is impressive. As I said before, I think majors should be weighted more heavily. To expand a little, let me explain the classification system in case you don't know how it works:

Classifiers are set courses of fire which should be set up the same everywhere they are administered. USPSA takes some of the top scores for the classifier and averages them to come up with the top score. You submit your score and get a percentage of that top one. Once you shoot 6 classifiers in your category, your average is used to determine your score. If you shoot a recognized major match, that score also goes in as a classifier.

If you achieve the rank of Master, (85-95%) and then you shoot another classifier and only get 60% - that classifier is dropped from your score. You cannot move down in rank unless you are allowed to by USPSA for reasons such as injury or a long sabbatical. If you shoot another classifier and you get 83%, that one may go in to your score and conceivably your average could drop below the Master threshold, but you still will never go down.

So now lets examine someone who gets their GM card by shooting classifiers. They have 6 classifiers in that are 95%+, and they shoot 76% at Nationals. Because of the vast difference in scores, that nationals score is dropped because it is "too far out of range" for that persons classification level.

My first stab at an updated proposal would be something of a sliding scale. You would be able to lose your GM card (and GM only) if you do not maintain 95%+. Two recognized major matches would always be used as scores, and they would rotate through no matter what difference in percentage. Four other classifiers would be regular ones you shoot at a match.

So, I shoot 4 classifiers at 96, 97, 98, 100 percent. I go to production and limited nationals and shoot 76 and 75 percent. Average these together and I get a ranking of 90.33% - A middle of the road Master class score.

Lets say I shot nats and I scored 90% on both - same classifiers - that would bring my average to 95.166% - just borderline GM. This fits directly in line with my assertion that the top 10% should be the GM's in the sport.

To get to GM is a lot of work. A monumental amount of work. To finish top 16 at Nationals is something to be proud of. There are lots of folks who have made GM, who were top 16, but then moved on in sports, got a new hobby, had family priorities, got older, etc. You will see a lot of these guys in the rankings - GM's that finish 40th, etc. There is nothing taking away from their former accomplishments, but to call them GM's still is somewhat disingenuous. They could rightfully claim they were a GM from 2005-2007 , and that is a respected statement.

If one is truly a top level competitor and leader in the sport and they go out and get spanked at a major, they will re-examine their training regiment and aspire to get better. That's why they are champions. I think losing your GM card because you shot 10% under the top guy at Nats is a tough pill to swallow, but it should be a respected feature of the game.

In addition, I think GM should be the only rank you can lose - this will prevent the sandbagging that it was originally intended to avoid.

jetfire
12-19-2013, 03:21 PM
in reference to the press release (which is what this whole thread is based upon).

Actually, the first post in the threat contains a link to a post I wrote for Gun Nuts, of which I have helpfully copy/pasta'd the whole text:

Title: Jessie Duff becomes first female USPSA Grandmaster
Body: As of the classification update on USPSA.org, Jessie Duff of Team Taurus is officially the first female Grandmaster in USPSA. Congratulations, Jessie!

Dr. No
12-19-2013, 03:27 PM
Actually, the first post in the threat contains a link to a post I wrote for Gun Nuts, of which I have helpfully copy/pasta'd the whole text:

Which is based upon the press release, right? :) Come on, now you're just arguing semantics...

jetfire
12-19-2013, 03:29 PM
Which is based upon the press release, right? :) Come on, now you're just arguing semantics...

Actually no, I wrote that before the presser came out. Breaking news and whatnot.

But yes, I am arguing semantics right now. Mostly because basing any sort of argument off a press release is sort of like arguing about a commercial. That's really all a presser is, a commercial.

Dr. No
12-19-2013, 03:34 PM
Actually no, I wrote that before the presser came out. Breaking news and whatnot.

But yes, I am arguing semantics right now. Mostly because basing any sort of argument off a press release is sort of like arguing about a commercial. That's really all a presser is, a commercial.

A very good point. I am being a bit stubborn about the words used, and I think that's probably my own bias about what I think a great shooter in our sport should do.

Dagga Boy
12-19-2013, 03:37 PM
"Honestly, Nyeti's comment is somewhat taken out of context - I haven't lost business to this particular guy because he goes after a different market. I think it's dishonest the way he got his paper card and I don't respect him for that. Those who have gotten their card and have earned it through high performance in the sport are ones I respect more."

Actually, you have. My comments were based on some stuff you probably have not seen. I'll fill you in next time we talk.

I would also say that personally, I am glad that Dr. No is not practicing classifiers to get his GM card. It would take him away from his day job, which is where I want him and the community he works in is better served by guys at his shooting level putting in exceptionally long work days protecting them, and maintaining a rigid training level to stay in his day job.

I'll take the off-ramp now and drive back over to the dinosaur freeway where my lane is:cool:.

Dr. No
12-19-2013, 03:38 PM
Actually, you have. My comments were based on some stuff you probably have not seen. I'll fill you in next time we talk.


Interesting. Guess I need to start shooting classifiers in practice. :)

PPGMD
12-19-2013, 04:35 PM
Has USPSA changed the policy, and is recalculating the 100% again? It is my understanding that much of the current classifiers the 100% score hasn't change in a while.

Also I don't believe that any of the people at the level that they are in the running for the National Championship shooting local matches anymore. So they rarely shoot the classifier so they rarely add scores for calculating the 100% HF for the classifier.


Some of these folks haven't shot many classifiers, may be involved in playing in another discipline (steel challenge, 3 gun, bianchi, etc) and return at a much higher skill set.

I sure hope that isn't sandbagging, as that describes me. I shoot maybe one or two USPSA matches a year, and they are typically are matches without classifiers.

Dr. No
12-19-2013, 05:16 PM
Has USPSA changed the policy, and is recalculating the 100% again? It is my understanding that much of the current classifiers the 100% score hasn't change in a while.

Also I don't believe that any of the people at the level that they are in the running for the National Championship shooting local matches anymore. So they rarely shoot the classifier so they rarely add scores for calculating the 100% HF for the classifier.



I sure hope that isn't sandbagging, as that describes me. I shoot maybe one or two USPSA matches a year, and they are typically are matches without classifiers.


No, the old 100% is still 100%, which is another thing I suggested they address earlier in this thread (I think)

There are enough GM's around that could still set those 100%'s, though. Even Phil Strader hasn't lost his edge. :)

I would say that it could be considered sandbagging if you are ranked a B class guy and are shooting 250/250 on the plates at the Bianchi cup... and then you decide to attend an area match and win first B. If you are a M and shooting at a GM level? Probably not. When you're 2 ranks out of your level and are taking first by 10-20% ... yeah. It's sandbagging. :) Though most of the time when you do that at a major USPSA will bump you, provided there are enough GM's at the match. I believe I got my A card by shooting in that percentage at a major.

jetfire
12-19-2013, 06:24 PM
There are 480 points available on the Plates at Bianchi, so a perfect score would be 480-48x. Which, I can attest to is REALLY HARD. Robbie dropped two plates this year, and the guy who won Production and set a new Prod record dropped a plate as well. That stage man...that ****ing stage. *shudders

I've shot Bianchi 5 times now, and two of those five times I've been totally demolished by the plates. Two other times I had average performances, and once I beast-moded them.

Sal Picante
12-19-2013, 07:40 PM
Interesting. Guess I need to start shooting classifiers in practice. :)

Serious question: Why don't you?

Quick setup, quick tear down... They're mostly simple, graded drills that focus on core shooting skills...

I just pick a couple of cool one and go with it... Some favorites "Hoser Heaven" (highest scores has been an 80-some %), "Can you count" (first one I ever shot), and "Times Two" (some movement)

Sal Picante
12-19-2013, 07:51 PM
Has USPSA changed the policy, and is recalculating the 100% again? It is my understanding that much of the current classifiers the 100% score hasn't change in a while.

Also I don't believe that any of the people at the level that they are in the running for the National Championship shooting local matches anymore. So they rarely shoot the classifier so they rarely add scores for calculating the 100% HF for the classifier.

I sure hope that isn't sandbagging, as that describes me. I shoot maybe one or two USPSA matches a year, and they are typically are matches without classifiers.

There was a recent thread about this at Enos: basically, nobody really knows how some of the 100% scores were calculated. NROI seems to set it using voodoo sometimes... We've asked our Regional Directors to look into it and maybe they'll figure something out.

Usually, the high score is determined at Nationals: the best run on one of the standards stages is used. I've heard rumors that an average of the top 5 is used, but that doesn't seem to be the case. It is complicated a bit...

That said, most of the time, a GM does set the score... At a match... So... We're back to a fairly reasonable comparison.

Dr. No mentioned something interesting about "losing your credentials". I dunno. It's just a game. I think it is nice to say, "I accomplished it". It is also nice not to have to hit a big match (or number of big matches) - Those things get expensive...

TheTrevor
12-19-2013, 08:42 PM
After carefully reading Dr. No's long post (1214PT today) I'd just like to point out that the system suggested would encourage GMs to minimize their participation in major matches. If losing a major match would put a GM in jeopardy of losing their man card, ahem, GM card, then it would be in their best interest to shoot as few major matches as possible.

I think that's called a "perverse incentive"...

Mr_White
12-20-2013, 11:07 AM
There was a recent thread about this at Enos: basically, nobody really knows how some of the 100% scores were calculated. NROI seems to set it using voodoo sometimes... We've asked our Regional Directors to look into it and maybe they'll figure something out.

Usually, the high score is determined at Nationals: the best run on one of the standards stages is used. I've heard rumors that an average of the top 5 is used, but that doesn't seem to be the case. It is complicated a bit...

That said, most of the time, a GM does set the score... At a match... So... We're back to a fairly reasonable comparison.

Dr. No mentioned something interesting about "losing your credentials". I dunno. It's just a game. I think it is nice to say, "I accomplished it". It is also nice not to have to hit a big match (or number of big matches) - Those things get expensive...

That was a really interesting thread. I found myself recoiling from the apparent fact that USPSA determines HHFs on classifiers in inconsistent and sometimes illogical ways, such as using Max Michel's Open run as the HHF for Can You Count for all semiauto divisions, or changing the setup of a classifier stage between the time it's shot at nationals and turned into a regular classifier, but still using the high hit factor set on the stage as set up at nationals. But it also seems like the classification system basically works, as demonstrated by the overall clumping by class that happens, so I'm not too upset about it.

I have been thinking lately that the classification system is inherently a bit of a grandbagger system since it so heavily favors a person's better scores and disregards their worse ones. I chuckle to myself when I imagine how people might shoot classifiers if every single score counted, and would not be thrown out because you did badly or shot below your current class - like if they just averaged the last six or eight or whatever and that was your percentage, and if you went down in class, oh well.

All this also makes me wonder what it would be like with no classifications at all.

jthhapkido
12-23-2013, 06:20 PM
So it seems that the consensus is that just shooting 95% on classifiers is good enough to make one a champion.

Reading this thread, you are the only one making that claim. And then arguing with yourself.

Reading further, I see that your issue with this is the press release sent out by the company that sponsors her. Yeah, I'm sure that is all her fault. (Even better, if you add the word "women's" to all of the "champion" stuff, that press release is 100% true.)


If that's the case, then why is this particular champion only shooting 76% at nationals? Is finishing 57th out of 239 a "top level shooter"? I am honestly a little confused at how this is acceptable. She is being called one of the top level shooters of the sport, but she can barely finish in the top 25%.

Yep, called that by a press release, that like many, has carefully ignored putting "women's" in front of the accolades. So---why again are you upset with Duff, as opposed to those who put out the press release?

I see that in the 2013 Production Nationals, 13 GMs scored lower than 80%. Are they "not worthy" to be GMs? Or more importantly, are they not top level shooters? Just for the sake of my curiosity, what do you define as "top level"? Are only the top five shooters "top level"? All GMs "top level"? Where is the dividing line, I wonder?

....seriously, you seem to reacting extremely negatively to a press release that Duff didn't have anything to do with, other than being the subject. And yet, you are doing a good job of placing the blame for it on her, instead of her sponsor. Why?



I think what you are all missing is that if you practice a classifier over and over ... you can get really good at that one.

You know, you've said this several times now, and each time you've said it in a way that effectively accuses Duff of practicing classifiers (over and over) in order to have one good run to make GM.

I'm curious---in her case, do you have any evidence of this occurring? Or are you either assuming it, or making it up? I don't recall anyone else saying anything about her practicing classifiers, so I'm just wondering if you have evidence of this, or are just using this argument to "prove" something even though she doesn't do it.


[Does that translate to skill in other ways? Sure, but apparently not enough to help you win matches. As most GM's know, there is much more to USPSA than standing and shooting accurately quickly. Movement, transitions, planning, etc are a significant factor. This is proven time and time again, and is evident in this very example. To me this is a clear example that the classifier system does not actually represent skill level when it comes to USPSA.

And yet, it does. Awhile back, I did an analysis of where people finished at Nationals with respect to their classification, and it showed REALLY clearly that the classification system, in the main, works pretty well to define skill levels.

Now, I don't think anyone has ever said that the classifiers actually check all skills necessary to succeed at USPSA. That is a separate issue, however, compared to whether or not the classification system effectively grades people in order of skill level.



I've said my piece, I think I'm done here. I'm very glad Duff is a part of our sport and is now bringing good press to it. I also hope that some changes can be made to the sport to inspire and reward those who choose to put the effort in to win.

(Emphasis added by me.)

Huh. What does that have to do with Duff managing to shoot well enough to make GM? "Inspire and reward those who choose to put the effort in to win"----here I thought that the prize table and the awards did that. Or did we stop giving those out and I missed it?

I note: There is a difference between "effort" and "win,"---if someone makes GM effortlessly, we don't say it isn't real. If they walk away with a major match win easily, we don't say they didn't deserve it. Conversely, if you put in long, long hours again and again but don't win----we don't give you a consolation prize.

Not sure what that has to do with Duff making GM using the standard method of doing so, which is by shooting classifiers well (and I'm still wondering how that makes people upset, since other people do it all the time, and oddly enough we don't automatically assume THEY are grandbagging) ----again, did you have any information or evidence that Duff practiced classifiers "over and over" until she made GM?