PDA

View Full Version : IDPA Distinguished Master



jetfire
03-02-2011, 08:35 PM
So, IDPA has a new class, called Distinguished Master. The only way to get into DM class is to win your division at one of the two National Championship matches or to shoot within 3% of the division winner. I think that this is a good thing for IDPA as it removes the Super Squad from the ranks of Master class, giving "average Masters" like me an opportunity to shoot for trophies again.

On a note of personal annoyance, I do wish that they hadn't done this after I'd spent a significant chunk of last year getting their 5-gun master award. C'est la vie.

I do like that you can only get into DM class by scoring well at Nationals. It gives me motivation to practice harder (and actually get to a Nationals).

ToddG
03-02-2011, 08:48 PM
Agree on all counts. While there are plenty of people who would have liked to "grand bag" their way to Distinguished Master by getting a great Classifier score -- myself included! -- IDPA HQ did the right thing by making this a classification you have to earn in competition. Much of what separates the truly top competitors from the "average Master" has little to do with the skills tested in the Classifier.

beltjones
03-02-2011, 11:42 PM
" I think that this is a good thing for IDPA as it removes the Super Squad from the ranks of Master class, giving "average Masters" like me an opportunity to shoot for trophies again."

It's kind of a bummer, though, for the average Master women who still have to compete against the likes of Randi Rogers.

There aren't any female USPSA GM's, but at least it's possible for them to reach that level. I can't imagine there will ever be a female DM if the only way to get there is to come within 3% of Sevigny or Vogel at one of only two matches per year.

jetfire
03-03-2011, 03:36 AM
That sort of brings up a different question though - I'd noticed a while back that there are no female GMs in USPSA, although Jessie Abbate has been close a couple of times apparently. The question though is more along the lines of whether or not there are any "average female Masters"? From looking over the scores from the recent Indoor Nationals, there were only 2 female Masters, Tori Nonaka and Randi Rogers, neither of whom are "average". At the 2010 Nats, there were only 3 - Tori, Randi, and Julie Golob. The issue is that IDPA doesn't have a lot of women competitors at the Master level nationally; and while a lot of the really talented women shooters in USPSA like Maggie or Jessie could easily cross over and shoot as IDPA masters, for whatever reason they don't.

jthhapkido
03-03-2011, 01:21 PM
That sort of brings up a different question though - I'd noticed a while back that there are no female GMs in USPSA, although Jessie Abbate has been close a couple of times apparently.

In the interest of precision (and this is no way is meant to be derogatory towards Jessie), Jessie has not ever "been close" to making GM. She is an outstanding shooter, and solidly earned her M-card in USPSA through shooting good classifiers. However, she is not near GM in terms of classifier, nor does she score GM-level (or close to it) in matches.

Yet. (Give her some time, and we'll see. She's good, and practices well. Who knows where she will end up? She might be the first female GM in USPSA.)

At the moment, she is an accomplished M-class shooter, who normally places around 3/4 of the way down the M-class list in Nationals.



The question though is more along the lines of whether or not there are any "average female Masters"? From looking over the scores from the recent Indoor Nationals, there were only 2 female Masters, Tori Nonaka and Randi Rogers, neither of whom are "average". At the 2010 Nats, there were only 3 - Tori, Randi, and Julie Golob. The issue is that IDPA doesn't have a lot of women competitors at the Master level nationally; and while a lot of the really talented women shooters in USPSA like Maggie or Jessie could easily cross over and shoot as IDPA masters, for whatever reason they don't.

I'm think that last sentence is really the one that makes the difference---there just aren't that many women in IDPA. (Or USPSA.) Only a small percentage of people make master---so that small percentage of a small number of women just means you won't have very many.

I don't think this new class makes much difference to the women---until you get a large group of Ms, the difference between "pros" and "hobbyists" isn't going to mean much.

jetfire
03-03-2011, 02:05 PM
I just double checked, Jessie has shot a 95% classifier in Limited and several 90%+ classifiers. I'd say that counts as "close". ;)

jthhapkido
03-03-2011, 04:00 PM
I just double checked, Jessie has shot a 95% classifier in Limited and several 90%+ classifiers. I'd say that counts as "close". ;)

Not really. Jessie's highest ever classifier average is 87.19, which is just barely above M-level. (M-class starts at 85%, and goes up to 95%.)

I've shot a couple of 90%+ classifiers and also a 98%---and believe me, I'm nowhere near GM-class. :)

The ability to shoot a classifier once at a high level just isn't an indicator of GM-level shooting ability. Consistently doing so (and thus, having an average close to 95%) works much better. In a similar fashion, taking a look at large matches, and how the competitor places relative to the GMs, also tell you.

Jessie is a M-class shooter--don't get me wrong. She can outshoot most people. Nonetheless, she was 27th out of 40 M-class shooters at the last Nationals, and 60th overall. That's really good shooting---but it isn't anywhere near GM-level.

jetfire
03-03-2011, 05:28 PM
Being a GM on paper doesn't necessarily mean that you can shoot to a GM's skill level either though. If you define "GM" as "only the people that finish in the top 16 at Nationals" then you'd have to revoke a lot of people's GM cards.

jthhapkido
03-04-2011, 12:05 PM
Being a GM on paper doesn't necessarily mean that you can shoot to a GM's skill level either though. If you define "GM" as "only the people that finish in the top 16 at Nationals" then you'd have to revoke a lot of people's GM cards.

I agree with both of those statements---even if they are talking about two very separate things. :)

There are a number of people out there who are GMs merely because they practiced the classifiers (in either USPSA and for M in IDPA) until they could get the score necessary. They can't actually consistently shoot at a GM level, they merely managed to do it once, and that was enough. (Or in USPSA, 6 times over a number of years, and that was enough.) They are a GM---but they certainly can't shoot GM level in a match. I first beat a GM when I was B-class. (I remember it vividly.) After I saw him shoot a stage, though, it wasn't a subject of celebration anymore. It wasn't that I had done particularly well---it was that he wasn't even remotely close to GM level as a shooter. (Matter of fact, he got beaten by C-class shooters. I don't know how he could claim GM without shame.)

On the other hand, in very large matches, we have a lot of people who do shoot GM level, but have a bad day, or are competing (in USPSA) against people who are GMs in a different division, but are rated M in the one at hand. And some M-class people have a really good day, and are close to GM level also. You are going to get some cross-over here and there.

In general, GM-level people will beat non-GM people, so unsurprisingly, you see a preponderance of GMs at the top of Nationals, interspersed with some others as you move down.

I'll note that I don't believe I ever said anything about "Top 16 at Nationals" :) --- but we can certainly say that someone who consistently scores in the middle of the M grouping at large matches is a solid consistent M shooter, can't we?

Going back to the topic---that is where Jessie shoots in Limited. As an Open shooter, she is a solid "A" class shooter.

None of this is derogatory, by the way---most people can't keep up with her as a shooter. There are only a very small number of people at GM level. She isn't one yet. (She is still improving, though---who knows where she is going to stop?)

Back to the ORIGINAL topic :) again---there just isn't a large pool of women shooters yet in either sport (USPSA or IDPA). Yet. As such, the new DM category just isn't going to make much difference to the women, until they get a large number of M shooters who then separate out into "pros" and "hobbyists."

gtmtnbiker98
03-04-2011, 12:15 PM
Just received an e-mail from IDPA-HQ this morning, sounds like there may be a Classifier for the DM Classification; however, they are still working on the time requirements per Division. Be interesting to see how this pan's out.

For me, I'm just a lowly MA who doesn't really care, anymore.

beltjones
03-04-2011, 12:43 PM
Back to the ORIGINAL topic :) again---there just isn't a large pool of women shooters yet in either sport (USPSA or IDPA). Yet. As such, the new DM category just isn't going to make much difference to the women, until they get a large number of M shooters who then separate out into "pros" and "hobbyists."

Last I checked, they don't give out trophies for High Lady Master, High Lady Expert, and so on. It's just High Lady. That means, regardless of whether they're experts, sharpshooters, or Masters, all the ladies will still be competing with the likes of Randi Rogers and Julie G. Sure the DM thing doesn't apply to the women, but maybe there should be a way for a non-pro shooter female to win a trophy at a major match?

ToddG
03-04-2011, 01:11 PM
Some of the most vital skills for competing at a very high (Area/Nats) level -- such as footwork, setups, and transitions -- have little to do with anything practical outside of those games. Furthermore, the classifiers for those games do little (sometimes nothing) to measure those skills.

As such, it's quite possible to have a B-class shooter who is good at the game stuff (including stage strategy) kick a better shooter's score.

Someone with good footwork/movement technique might get from Box A to Box B two seconds faster than someone who can draw his gun a full second faster him. That leaves the guy with the faster feet a full second ahead of the guy who can blow him away in a drawing contest.

jetfire
03-04-2011, 03:02 PM
Todd makes a really good point - I've been talking to some GMs about what it takes to compete at the Super Squad GM level, and the general consensus is that the "non-shooting" stuff that Todd mentioned is the way to "Top 16" performance. Last USPSA match I shot, I don't think I spent any time on the stages thinking about how I was going to actually "shoot" a target, my entire thought process was "how am I going to set up in this box, how am I going to transition from blah blah blah".

To the actual IDPA DM topic itself, I would be disappointed if IDPA made the DM class open to people via the classifier. As much as I'd like to grand-bag for my own personal shooting resume, I actually applaud the concept of a meritocracy at the top of IDPA. Either you're good enough to shoot your way to the top or you're not.

gtmtnbiker98
03-04-2011, 05:48 PM
To the actual IDPA DM topic itself, I would be disappointed if IDPA made the DM class open to people via the classifier. As much as I'd like to grand-bag for my own personal shooting resume, I actually applaud the concept of a meritocracy at the top of IDPA. Either you're good enough to shoot your way to the top or you're not.I agree, can't tell you how much I agree with this.

jetfire
03-04-2011, 05:54 PM
The way I see it, the people who are really serious about getting a DM tag will do just what I plan on doing - practicing really hard and developing my skill so I can actually get within 3% at Nationals or the World Shoot. The only way I'll know if I've got the skill to do is, well to try and do it!

SLG
03-05-2011, 12:42 AM
Anyone who thinks that getting a USPSA classification, based on classifiers, means something, as opposed to in competition, hasn't been paying much attention to the sport.

There is not a single female USPSA master class shooter who has consistently shot master class scores at major competitions (area and national championships).

Many male masters and GM's cannot do the same either.

The reason is, the female and male paper masters got their rating by shooting specific classifiers over and over, whether planned or not. Not by placing in competition.

Dave Sevigny (a real GM, not a paper one) can shoot 120% on some classifiers, yet can still struggle to shoot a GM score on others. USPSA bases it's classification system on perceived excellence, not on a tested, proven standard.

Rob Leatham once told me that the worst thing USPSA ever did, was to allow people to get rank by shooting classifiers.

If IDPA puts a classifier score on DM class, they will be back where they were. Winning is the only way to really separate the best from the rest.

jthhapkido
03-05-2011, 09:14 AM
Todd makes a really good point - I've been talking to some GMs about what it takes to compete at the Super Squad GM level, and the general consensus is that the "non-shooting" stuff that Todd mentioned is the way to "Top 16" performance. Last USPSA match I shot, I don't think I spent any time on the stages thinking about how I was going to actually "shoot" a target, my entire thought process was "how am I going to set up in this box, how am I going to transition from blah blah blah".

Makes sense---though one could also say that GM level shooters already _have_ similar top levels of shooting fundamentals. As such, for them, the main part where they can save time (as their accuracy levels are all similar) is in the movement aspects.

Manny Bragg (USPSA GM) talks about how to win matches means that you need to get 90-95% of the possible points while maintaining speed with the rest of the shooters. If you drop below those point levels, you just aren't going to win, because you can't move fast enough compared to the other good shooters to make up the difference.

Todd said: "Someone with good footwork/movement technique might get from Box A to Box B two seconds faster than someone who can draw his gun a full second faster him. That leaves the guy with the faster feet a full second ahead of the guy who can blow him away in a drawing contest. "

True, but...

...in that case, we aren't talking about the highest levels of shooting, either. Take the 2010 USPSA Nats, for example. In the Production division, the top 16 shooters had an average of 10 shots that _weren't_ A, B, C or hits in the entire match. The lowest was 6, the highest was 15. In Limited division, the average was 12, the lowest was 6, and the highest was 19. For the math nerds out there (like me) the standard deviation for the Production guys was 2.7. Now, this doesn't tell you the ratio of A to C hits, but you get the idea.

This was in a match where the number of rounds required was in the hundreds. At the top levels (DM and GM) you have to be able to hit the targets and not drop points. And _then_ you have to do it at speed.

So while I agree with Todd and Caleb about how it is possible to be fast enough to beat someone else with better fundamentals---I think that only works at lower levels. Up at the GM level, those guys (when they compare themselves to each other) want to know each other's times, because they each assume the other guy will get almost all of the points on any particular stage. Their fundamentals already get them the points, to the point of unconscious competence. So, they spend their time thinking about how to save time on the non-shooting aspects.

Todd turned this into an interesting question, though, when he said: "As such, it's quite possible to have a B-class shooter who is good at the game stuff (including stage strategy) kick a better shooter's score." (His emphasis.)

What criterion do you use to rate "better shooter"? Accuracy? So bullseye shooters are the best? :) Speed to first shot? People who win quick-draw competitions are the best shooters? Transitions under stress? Winners of Bianchi matches are the best shooters? :)

I think that your answer, past certain basic fundamentals, is going to end up depending on the circumstances in which they shoot. Example: There is a guy I shoot with, and I beat him in USPSA, Steel Challenge, and Man-vs-Man steel matches. He hasn't beaten me in any of those in several years.

At the same time, his draw-to-first-shot is BLAZINGLY fast. He's like the Road Runner on crack. (I'm not kidding.) At 5 yards or less he can put two shots on target in an extremely small amount of time. He is faster than I am for that skill.

So who is a better shooter? For self-defense, versus one person, he is better. On the other hand, I'm more accurate, have better transitions, and am more consistent. How do you compare?

I think---that you are going to have problems comparing people as "shooters" unless you either 1) pick a particular specific aspect of shooting such as "draw speed" or "accuracy level" to compare, or 2) use a particular competition set of rules to compare.

Does the FAST drill tell you who is the better shooter? Perhaps the IDPA classifier? Neither, really---though they are both very good indicators, because they require competency in certain fundamentals of shooting. If I beat my friend at the FAST drill, does that make me the better shooter? Well, it does---on the FAST drill.

Other than that...well, what criterion are we using?

Jay Cunningham
03-05-2011, 09:25 AM
Does the FAST drill tell you who is the better shooter? Perhaps the IDPA classifier? Neither, really---though they are both very good indicators, because they require competency in certain fundamentals of shooting. If I beat my friend at the FAST drill, does that make me the better shooter? Well, it does---on the FAST drill.

Other than that...well, what criterion are we using?

Therein lies the rub. :p

jthhapkido
03-05-2011, 09:34 AM
There is not a single female USPSA master class shooter who has consistently shot master class scores at major competitions (area and national championships).

Mm. Depends on what you mean. For example, most female M-class shooters just haven't been M-class that long. And as with most people bumped into M-class, it takes awhile before consistently shooting M-class. That being said, Jessie Abbate was 10th out of 104 Limited shooters at the Florida Open, and 60th out of 224 in the 2010 Limited Nats, in both cases shooting solidly within the group of M-class shooters.

It will be interesting to see how she does in Open as time progresses. She is A-class, currently, but tends to win one of the top three A for her division. (Not just ladies, but overall.)

Area 8: 21 or 74, 3rd A, beat 9 M-class shooters
Area 6: 18 or 108, 2nd A, beat 2 GM and 10 M-class shooters.
2010 Open Nats: 48th of 271, 4th A, Beat 3 GM and 50 M-class shooters (one of which, Sherwyn Greenfield, I shoot with, and he certainly is NOT a paper M).

I expect she'll be M-class soon, and she is already shooting low to mid-M in competition as a A-class shooter.

The gist of your overall statement I agree with, though---some people who obtained their M or GM card from repeatedly shooting classifiers in USPSA can't support that level in actual matches, versus other shooters. That being said, just looking at matches we can see that the majority of GM shooters beat M shooters, Ms beat As, and so on. (And now dropping this before it turns into a standard "the classifiers don't actually measure shooter's abilities" thread. :) )

jthhapkido
03-05-2011, 09:40 AM
Therein lies the rub. :p

Yep!

One of the reasons I like pulling drills and qualification stages from such a wide variety of people is that it gets me to start thinking of measurements of "shooting skill" from different viewpoints.

SLG
03-05-2011, 10:14 AM
Mm. Depends on what you mean. For example, most female M-class shooters just haven't been M-class that long. And as with most people bumped into M-class, it takes awhile before consistently shooting M-class. That being said, Jessie Abbate was 10th out of 104 Limited shooters at the Florida Open, and 60th out of 224 in the 2010 Limited Nats, in both cases shooting solidly within the group of M-class shooters.

I expect she'll be M-class soon, and she is already shooting low to mid-M in competition as a A-class shooter.


You're view of what constitutes a master class shooter is different than how USPSA views it.

For starters, placing in and among "X" shooters does not make you an "X" shooter in USPSA. You have to shoot the percentages. That means 85-95% for a master. No female shooter has consistently shot 85-95% of a real GM in major matchs.

As an example, when I shot a little competition (mostly in order to date my wife), I was never ranked higher than A class. I routinely beat lots of M's and GM's in matches, even when I was B class. Does that mean I should have been ranked higher?

No.

I didn't shoot 85% of a real GM in a major match, and neither did any of the guys I was beating.

One typical year at single stack nationals (2006), only 1 GM shot a GM score, and 1 master shot a master class score. Even worse in 2007.

Percentage of the winning GM is what matters. That's why nationals are the best way to look at shooters in USPSA. They have more top shooters in one place than at any other matches.

JulieG
03-05-2011, 10:33 AM
Overall placement is something entirely different that the ability to shoot a classification score. I think the problem lies in how USPSA determines what is a GM score in classifiers. Classifiers are generally just one stage in a match too and vs. a major match where your score is an average. It's performance on stages over time (classification averages at local matches) vs. an average of stage performance over an entire event. It ends up being 2 very different ways to establish "ability" from the same organization.

Women of USPSA has a list of Women Masters: http://womenofuspsa.com/wp/?page_id=1468

Sheila Brey – Open (The FIRST woman to obtain Master Class!)
Laurie Kraynick – Open
Lisa Munson – Open & Limited
Kay Miculek – Open
Athena Lee – Open
Tonda Gilfillan – Open
Jessie Abbate – Limited
Randi Rogers – Production
Sarah Irish – Open (The YOUNGEST to earn Master – at age 17!)
Megan Francisco – Open
Lori Casper - Production

The women listed above are VERY TALENTED and their accomplishments are simply outstanding. Only 6 of the women listed above are Women's national champions. I know its BIG news to the women in our sport when one of us even gets close to shooting a master classification score. It is a rare and wonderful thing right now. It would be wonderful for women in the sport if that changes.

Female DM's? If someone does it GREAT for them. I will say that the subjectivity in IDPA makes that a formiddable challenge though.

We can expect to see a boost of new DM's at this year's World Shoot for sure though. With this match and the USPSA Back to Back Nationals on the same dates, top shooters have a tough choice.

Another interesting thing with the new class...
With IDPA's 1 in 5 trophy policy, the trophy distribution will definitely change. Other than IDPA Nationals & World Shoots, there most likely won't be enough DM's in a division/match to distribute to 1st, 2nd, 3rd DM. The top guys are now shooting for the Division Championship and nothing else. At level, I personally feel that's the way it should be.

jthhapkido
03-05-2011, 10:57 AM
You're view of what constitutes a master class shooter is different than how USPSA views it.

For starters, placing in and among "X" shooters does not make you an "X" shooter in USPSA. You have to shoot the percentages. That means 85-95% for a master. No female shooter has consistently shot 85-95% of a real GM in major matchs.

Hm. USPSA says you have to shoot an average of 85-94.9999% on 6 of your last 8 classifiers to be considered M. This is completely different from "No female shooter has consistently shot 85-95% of a real GM in major matchs." (For example, several females have already managed that on classifiers, and thus USPSA does indeed consider then M-class.)

Yours is an interesting viewpoint---because while it is true the USPSA headquarters views Nats and Area matches such that they are considered classifiers if you have enough GMs shooting, pretty much no one else thinks that your actual percentage in a major match is a good indicator, including the GMs who win them. On the other hand, most would agree that in large matches, where you place is indeed a good indicator of the level at which you are shooting.

For example, only 3 people would have been considered GMs in Production Nats, only 6 in Limited Nats, only 3 in Open Nats, and 6 in Limited-10. (Which you even mention.) Does this mean that no one else should be considered a GM?

In major matches, a person consistently ends up placing in the middle of the pack of masters. Whether this person is M-class officially from USPSA, are you saying they aren't managing master-level shooting?


Your point about placing in and among masters simply shows that those matches didn't have the depth of competitors that bigger matches draw.

Considering I quoted from Area matches and Nationals, I wonder what "bigger matches" you think have enough depth?


Percentage of the winning GM is what matters. That's why nationals are the best way to look at shooters in USPSA. They have more top shooters in one place than at any other matches.

I only agree with your third sentence here---because according to USPSA, your first sentence isn't true most of the time. And the second sentence assumes that to have a classification in USPSA, you need to attend Nationals, which most don't.

As you said---most GMs do not reach GM-level percentages at Nationals. So does this mean they shouldn't be GMs?

You can't have it both ways---earlier you were talking about "paper masters" and now you are saying "USPSA doesn't view it that way"----you only get to pick one. :)

USPSA ranks people using classifiers, Area and Nats (mostly as classifiers, though it IS possible to get a jump directly due to Nats or an Area match). They do not, however, limit M or GM (or any class) based on not reaching a certain percentage of the high score at any particular large match.

I say again: Someone consistently places in the middle of the pack of M-class shooters at large matches. Whether or not USPSA considers them a Master-class, are you saying they aren't shooting with M-class proficiency?

Your original post said: "There is not a single female USPSA master class shooter who has consistently shot master class scores at major competitions (area and national championships)."

If you mean "85-95%" of the high score, than that is true---but it doesn't mean anything, because almost no master-classified shooter has ever done that either. If you mean "consistently shot similarly to what the majority of other masters have shot at major competitions" ---then I already gave you an example.

What exactly are you trying to argue here? :)

SLG
03-05-2011, 11:58 AM
Hm. USPSA says you have to shoot an average of 85-94.9999% on 6 of your last 8 classifiers to be considered M. This is completely different from "No female shooter has consistently shot 85-95% of a real GM in major matchs." (For example, several females have already managed that on classifiers, and thus USPSA does indeed consider then M-class.)

I apologize if my typing has been too brief or ineffective. I'm not saying that classifiers don't make a master, I know that USPSA says they do. I am saying that classifiers are not a good indicator of performance, and thus, not a great way to distinguish among shooters. Lots of people shoot good classifier scores, and then qualify for whatever class is appropriate. Very few of them can perform as well in competition, which you would think, is all that matters in a sport that involves people competing against each other.

Yours is an interesting viewpoint---because while it is true the USPSA headquarters views Nats and Area matches such that they are considered classifiers if you have enough GMs shooting, pretty much no one else thinks that your actual percentage in a major match is a good indicator, including the GMs who win them. On the other hand, most would agree that in large matches, where you place is indeed a good indicator of the level at which you are shooting.

That is an opinion that I cannot agree with, since most of the GM's I know disagree with it.

For example, only 3 people would have been considered GMs in Production Nats, only 6 in Limited Nats, only 3 in Open Nats, and 6 in Limited-10. (Which you even mention.) Does this mean that no one else should be considered a GM?

Exactly. They should not be GM's. They may be great shooters, they may even win a match, but a true GM (like TGO or Dave Sevigny) is a rare bird, and to de-value the term "GM" by allowing all sorts of people into the class has been a problem, just as IDPA master class is a problem. They are problems because saying you're an IDPA master means next to nothing. I'm an IDPA master, as is TGO. Should we be viewed as being on the same level? Of course not.

In major matches, a person consistently ends up placing in the middle of the pack of masters. Whether this person is M-class officially from USPSA, are you saying they aren't managing master-level shooting?

Yes, if they can't shoot the percentages needed. All that means is that many of the people in their pack are at a lower level as well.



Considering I quoted from Area matches and Nationals, I wonder what "bigger matches" you think have enough depth?

I removed that line because it did not express what I was trying to say. If at a nationals, a master class shooter cannot shoot a master class percentage of the winning GM, then I would say they are a paper master, not a real one, regardless of what USPSA considers a master.


I only agree with your third sentence here---because according to USPSA, your first sentence isn't true most of the time. And the second sentence assumes that to have a classification in USPSA, you need to attend Nationals, which most don't.

As you said---most GMs do not reach GM-level percentages at Nationals. So does this mean they shouldn't be GMs?

Yes.

You can't have it both ways---earlier you were talking about "paper masters" and now you are saying "USPSA doesn't view it that way"----you only get to pick one. :)

Sorry, I was unclear here. USPSA does indeed recognize two different ways to become a master, either through classifications, or through winning your class and getting bumped up. I'm saying that getting master through classifications, and then not being able to shoot the percentages, is "proof" that you're not a real master, regs aside.

USPSA ranks people using classifiers, Area and Nats (mostly as classifiers, though it IS possible to get a jump directly due to Nats or an Area match). They do not, however, limit M or GM (or any class) based on not reaching a certain percentage of the high score at any particular large match.

I say again: Someone consistently places in the middle of the pack of M-class shooters at large matches. Whether or not USPSA considers them a Master-class, are you saying they aren't shooting with M-class proficiency?

Yes, again:-)

Your original post said: "There is not a single female USPSA master class shooter who has consistently shot master class scores at major competitions (area and national championships)."

If you mean "85-95%" of the high score, than that is true---but it doesn't mean anything, because almost no master-classified shooter has ever done that either. If you mean "consistently shot similarly to what the majority of other masters have shot at major competitions" ---then I already gave you an example.

What exactly are you trying to argue here? :)

SLG
03-05-2011, 12:01 PM
If the above post is unclear, it's because I seem to have screwed up my quoting. I can try and fix it, if needed.

JulieG
03-05-2011, 12:39 PM
Your original post said: "There is not a single female USPSA master class shooter who has consistently shot master class scores at major competitions (area and national championships)."

If you mean "85-95%" of the high score, than that is true---but it doesn't mean anything, because almost no master-classified shooter has ever done that either.

For what its worth, I disagree with your statement that "it doesn't mean anything because almost no master-classified shooter has ever done that either." That's a pretty bold and broad statement and to prove would take a very comprehensive evaluation of all master class shooters in USPSA over all the different divisions. If you have the time to accumulate and evaluate that kind of data, USPSA should hire you for analysis! :D I would love to see these kind of stats and it would be awesome to have this info!

It's easy to chat about women masters because to USPSA's knowledge there are 11 of them. Important note: USPSA won't "officially" confirm that number because of the holes in their database.

I can only speak for myself, but I personally take great pride in the fact that I am a 2 Division IDPA Master (based on the classifier) and an NRA High Master. I can deliver scores within those classifications. I have come close to shooting Master class percentages in major matches (USPSA) where there have been the required number of GM's to warrant a bump in class. I have not done so consistently nor to my knowledge has any other female in USPSA/IDPA. I would certainly love to see that change for the women in the sports! For me though, and this doesn't take away from any one else's status as a M/GM, I hope if I ever make USPSA Master, I am able to deliver those Master Class scores consistently.

I think it's important to note classifications standards are part of the rule book. Where someone finished overall based on who ever happened to be there or not, isn't. There's a reason for that. The only reference to overall placement in the rules is how to award prize/trophy distro at the USPSA Nationals.

Do we celebrate someone's success overall? SURE.
Should we? ABSOLUTELY!

But when establishing ability based on classification, overall doesn't come into play. It's based on score/%.

GM/M's - by classifier, overall, paper vs. "real"? That's always a fun debate and there are definitely lots of opinions. I can see the different arguments. Regardless of the opinions, logistically it's too difficult for sports to maintain a constant change in classification ranking. Classification systems by nature will have flaws but overall, I think they help sports grow.

Dr Steve
03-05-2011, 01:08 PM
I like the fact that IDPA have made the new DM class something you have to place high in a national match to achieve. Gives us mere mortal master's something to aspire and work for!!!

jthhapkido
03-05-2011, 04:06 PM
If the above post is unclear, it's because I seem to have screwed up my quoting. I can try and fix it, if needed.

Nope---took a second to realize what had happened, but no problem.

And I see what your thinking is on this. I might happen to disagree with your opinion---but that's fine---my opinion doesn't define the world either. :)

From my point of view, while I think the "shooting classifiers" idea is flawed in that people can game it too easily (and create paper masters), I think that "Nats 95%+ for GM" is a little stringent, too. For example, according to that model, Travis Tomasie, Michael Voigt, Daniel Horner, Shannon Smith, Ted Puente, Chris Tilley, and Ron Avery shouldn't be grandmasters. (Not to mention various others.)

That's okay---USPSA doesn't set classification like I think they should either. :)

Thanks for responding clearly---your point of view makes more sense to me now.

Julie G said, responding to me:
jthhapkido said: "If you mean "85-95%" of the high score, than that is true---but it doesn't mean anything, because almost no master-classified shooter has ever done that either."

(My comment: I've left in her emphasis in bold.)

She then said:
"For what its worth, I disagree with your statement that "it doesn't mean anything because almost no master-classified shooter has ever done that either." That's a pretty bold and broad statement and to prove would take a very comprehensive evaluation of all master class shooters in USPSA over all the different divisions. If you have the time to accumulate and evaluate that kind of data, USPSA should hire you for analysis! I would love to see these kind of stats and it would be awesome to have this info!"

Actually, I think that the part of my comment that should be in bold is this: "If you mean "85-95%" of the high score, than that is true---but it doesn't mean anything, because almost no master-classified shooter has ever done that either."

Significant difference. :)

As you request, in a small, limited fashion:

Take the 2010 Limited Nats: No master-class shooter received an 85%+.
In Production, only 3 did---two of which are GMs in other divisions.
In L-10, four did---three of which are GMs in other divisions.
In Open---one did.
In Revolver---2 did.

So----according to the 2010 Nats, only 10 M-class competitors actually scored in that percentage area in all divisions put together.

Taking the Area matches for 2010, and only counting the divisions that had at least 3 GMs in them, here is the data. The first number is how many M-class shooters had an overall of 85% or above, and the other is how many shooters were classed as "M" in those divisions:

Area 1: 1/26
Area 2: 7/? (new reporting format doesn't make breakdown easy any more)
Area 3: 0/16
Area 4: 1/20
Area 5: 0/30
Area 6: 8/48
Area 7: 4/16
Area 8: 2/39

So in area matches, when there were at least 3 GMs in the division to compete against, there were 16 M-class shooters out of 195 who scored 85%+. That's 8.2%.

And again, at the 2010 Nats, in all divisions combined there were only 8. How many master-class shooters competed at the Nationals this past year, in all divisions combined? I'm thinking---more than a couple.

So, given a cursory analysis (which is not exhaustive, I know :) ) I still stand by my statement that "almost no master-classified shooter has ever done that".

...particularly since the post I was replying to said "...shooter has consistently shot 85-95% of a real GM in major matches". If I actually ran THAT calculation, I'm fairly certain the numbers would be considerably smaller, even if I only looked at who had done it _twice_.

Ah---I couldn't take it, had to go back and pull the stats from 2010 Nationals. There were 156 M-class competitors at Nats. 10 of them earned 85%+. That's about 6.4%. Not of the competitors---but of the M-class competitors who were shooting at Nationals. One can safely assume (one hopes?) that while there may be better M-class shooters out there, most of the really good M-class people probably were at Nationals.

And only 6.4% of them managed to stay in the 85%+ range. None in Limited!

jthhapkido
03-05-2011, 04:14 PM
I should note here that in USPSA, I wish I wasn't classified as I am, because I don't think I shoot that level consistently enough. [sigh] Based on 2010 Nats, I should be one class lower, and I'd be perfectly happy with that.

In some ways, I actually agree with what SLG said about how it should be done---in the end, it is about what you can do at a match.

My arguments before were merely about what he had said compared to how USPSA actually does it, and how individuals had done compared to people similarly-classified.

Let's hear it for thread drift! :)

SLG
03-05-2011, 04:27 PM
It's nice to discuss this issue with someone who knows something about it. I think we would have arrived where we did, sooner, if I was more clear in my writing.

You hit the nail on the head, as far as I'm concerned. What you can do in competition, is what really matters (if you're a competition shooter).

BTW, you can petition to be moved to a lower class. I tremendously respect anyone who does that. One of the reasons I went a little off on this is that one particular shooter, named earlier, petitioned to be moved from A to M. That is not allowed by USPSA rules, yet they allowed it in that case. That shooter, IMO, is not deserving of the title, and certainly was not doing it to be more fair (a concept that I pretty much have no use for, except in sports). It was done to put on the resume.

JulieG
03-05-2011, 04:38 PM
@jthhapkido
OK. Yeah, I totally missed "almost". [Hanging head sheepishly]
USPSA needs to hire you to do stats! ;)

You present an excellent case study for that specific time range. The small percentage reflects performances at the top, but that percentage does exist. I think it's fair to say that the M's who shoot M classification percentages are at the top performers of the class. I won't deliver the cruel challenge and internet torment of researching women's performances on USPSA's results web pages. Yeah, um... USPSA does not make it easy to find and track stats for special categories. :(

I think the low % might come down to the fact that major matches require a high level of performance over 1-3 consecutive days of competition. Classifiers might be shot once a week, or even once a month. I think that makes it a challenge for a lot of people to shoot their classification in one single event. Then USPSA takes out the highs and the lows for the classification record too. If a shooter hasn't been able to shoot their classification score of a GM, I think that can be discouraging.

Did I mention I like the new DM class??? :)

jthhapkido
03-05-2011, 07:54 PM
USPSA needs to hire you to do stats! ;)

Now see what you've done? I've some of the Nats stats, which means I have numbers to play with...

....and according to the stats, out of the 748 shooters at the various 2010 Nationals, only 226 of them shot within or above their stated classification.

That's just 30.2%. Slightly under one-third.

(sigh) And I was not one of them. Off by 3.73%, which lowered my classifier average nicely. (On the other hand, it isn't as if I've been looking to raise mine any time soon!) In my defense, Sevigny did kick our butts, and there would have only been a total of 3 GM-level and 9 M-level shooters in Production with how he shot....

...excuses, excuses. :)

SLG
03-05-2011, 07:59 PM
....and according to the stats, out of the 748 shooters at the various 2010 Nationals, only 226 of them shot within or above their stated classification.

That's just 30.2%. Slightly under one-third.

That was TGO's point about all this, I believe. What's the point of being in X class if you can't shoot X percentages where and when it matters?

ToddG
03-05-2011, 08:31 PM
....and according to the stats, out of the 748 shooters at the various 2010 Nationals, only 226 of them shot within or above their stated classification.

That's just 30.2%.

Which, one would think, provides rather significant evidence that the classification system needs retuning.

If you can consistently score 85% on classifiers but not at majors, you're a master class classifier shooter, not a master class IPSC shooter. Except the rule book says otherwise. :cool:

jthhapkido
03-05-2011, 09:04 PM
Which, one would think, provides rather significant evidence that the classification system needs retuning.

If you can consistently score 85% on classifiers but not at majors, you're a master class classifier shooter, not a master class IPSC shooter. Except the rule book says otherwise. :cool:

Problem is, how to do it? Can't just have it based on performance at big matches----most people don't _go_ to a big match. And definitely most people don't go to enough big matches to see how they consistently do.

It is true that GM/M/A/B/C/D shooters do tend to mostly group in that order. (You have some outliers, but that is going to be true no matter what.)

Should we have a two-tiered class process? Higher requirements in classifiers, and lower percentage in matches?

Would people not have nearly as much problem if we didn't call them "master" class? Most _do_ tend to beat everyone except for GMs. (Yes, I agree that there are plenty of paper masters---nonetheless, major matches normally have a pack of GMs, a pack of Ms, As, Bs, etc.) We could call them the A+ class instead? :)

It seems to me that oddly enough, even though the classifier requirements don't match the match results in terms of percentage, you do still (mostly) get finishes that match relative class ranking.

So is the classification system broken? Or is it merely that just because a percentage is required on a single classifier doesn't mean a shooter is expected to match that percentage in a match---merely that relative ranking?

[sigh] That one will be harder for me to support from the Nats stats, just because it requires parsing out-of-order placement. I don't think that is going to happen, unless I get really bored after shooting a match tomorrow. :)

SLG
03-05-2011, 09:41 PM
I think you have a point here. While the classification system is broken, fixing it creates a real challenge. JulieG and I were discussing that earlier, and though I would like to see a dose of reality added to the classification system, her point was, how?

I just fear that the new DM class will suffer the same fate - and it will happen as soon as they allow a classifier score to get you in.

JulieG
03-06-2011, 03:18 PM
It would be wonderful to see the action shooting sports be proactive in evaluating classification standards. Logistically though, its just not high on the priority list with small staffs and membership numbers less than 20K.

If there were 100K members in USPSA, then I would bet there would be movement for a Pro class. Compare it to snowboarding - those who do it for fun every weekend they can vs. those who are going for Olympic Gold. The top shooters keep getting better and better, but the rest of ability classes don't change THAT much. Up until a few years ago 80 seconds at Steel Challenge was thought to be impossible. Now there are a handful of shooters who can realistically expect to shoot that. The novice/D class level shooter that competes at Steel Challenge is most likely going to shoot close to the X sec. score or percentage of the winner he/she does every year whether that's based on their ability, preparation or mental game. There is no minimum score to make D or Novice, but there is a standard to make the top.

Essentially IDPA has in a way made a Pro Class and that's what "GM" started out as in USPSA, but because it is accessible through shooting low score classifiers, you have the top portion of the classification system in a bit of disarray when looking at match performance capability.

If USPSA were to establish a yearly set of 25 classifiers, have a test group of national champion level GM's shoot them and take an average I think that would be a good start. To be most effective you would need to change the set up every year and even the members of the test group to a degree. The right way would be to invite the 20 or so GM's out for 3-4 days to a range where the could set up and shoot each classifier. They'd have to be compensated for time and expenses though. Logistic challenges + $$$ means that's unlikely to happen, especially when the system is "good enough."

With such a small membership base, the system "works." Then we end up talking about it in places like pistol-forum.com :)

I really hope that IDPA keeps the DM class to nationals performance. It makes it prestigious and noteworthy. They represent the best of the best that given year.

KeeFus
03-06-2011, 06:08 PM
I really hope that IDPA keeps the DM class to nationals performance. It makes it prestigious and noteworthy. They represent the best of the best that given year.

+1

Let me add that I dont think I will ever shoot a National unless it gets close to me. I also hope that they do not begin to make Master class shooters start shooting the classifier every year... :p

FotoTomas
03-06-2011, 07:58 PM
Something to think about

I am NOT a master class shooter. My best USPSA was "C" class in open while shooting a Glock 26 out of a Serpa holster. They were SUPPOSED to put me in production but whatever.

The key however is STRESS. My forte is Law enforcement and I am a certified LE instructor. I know that I do NOT know a lot. I also know that stress on the street as well as stress at a match causes a major change in one's abilities to shoot to a certain level.

In my field as an example we have a variety of qualification courses that will allow me as an instructor to determine how well an officer can administratively handle a weapon. In addition it will show me how well they understand the fundementals of marksmanship. I might add that one can in some cases "qualify" as Master on the LE range by shooting 98% of the qualification score. Many cops get some extra money for shooting master and often wear the little marksmanship badge to profess their skill. All of this seems to correlate with the IDPA/USPSA classifiers. It seems that when the fighting is real or in a big match when the buzzer goes off...well the scores on the range during practice or "Qualifying" are NOT the standard to which most will shoot.

I believe that a good classifier will get you to a quantifiable level of skill and when the big matches happen then you will see that skill applied under stress and how the scores will fall due to said stress. It sounds like the classifiers and the "big match" results are right in line with reality.

Annecdotally I have personally seen master class (LE qualifier) cop shooters miss the target completely at close range when the bullets fly both ways. I as a 100% shooter on my agencies qualification, still have a hard time winning or placing in local matches when I hear that damn buzzer go off in my ear.

As a side note I often volunteer as a Range Officer at Glock Sport Shooting Foundation matches. At those matches misses cost DEARLY. The key is to take your time to hit the target well and avoid huge time penalties for misses and poor hits. I have seen during over 10 years of these matches that most people go machine gun crazy when that buzzer goes off. Even after some practice time and advice to shoot straight before you shoot fast.

Reality is this... a "Paper Master" is a master period and when the stress goes up after the buzzer goes off in a match that counts, then the scores will fall. That is as it should be.

Oh and I love the idea of a DM class in IDPA based on match performance. I also do not believe that a DM classifier score would necessarily be a bad thing. I would love to have another goal for my limited time to shoot for fun.

KeeFus
03-06-2011, 10:09 PM
Annecdotally I have personally seen master class (LE qualifier) cop shooters miss the target completely at close range when the bullets fly both ways.

Agreed. No amout of "artificial stress" can stimulate you to the level you will be at when bullets are flying. I have seen first hand what happens when good marksman get into a shooting...misses abound but if they make it through to shoot another day I will take that over a funeral.

beltjones
03-06-2011, 11:25 PM
I think the biggest problem with the current USPSA classification system is that in some of the divisions the high hit factors are very wonky, as if they were estimated using someone's score from another division. There was one that I was researching after a particularly poor performance, and I noticed that Sevigny had shot it multiple times, and the best he ever scored was 80% in Production. They ought to start by looking at summary data for each of the classifier stages by division and making adjustments to the high hit factors accordingly. Well, maybe first they ought to upgrade the system so it will update more than once per month, but right after that they ought to look at the high hit factors.

Beyond that, I think the current USPSA classification system is pretty decent. It measures how well you perform on a variety of different shooting challenges, and at least according to a casual perusal of major match finishes, people tend to group according to their classifications. What it does not do, obviously, is measure how well you perform at a major match, which is about a lot more than just the shooting. If we expect people with XX% overall classification percentages to perform at XX% of the top scorer at major matches, then the classifiers need to start adding in the kinds of complications that go along with a multi-day major match. For example, you could have a classifier that stipulates that you sleep in a strange bed with a couple fighting all night in the next room. You could have another classifier that stipulates that you tank the stage right before it, so then it will measure how well you recover mentally from a mistake. Maybe there could be a classifier where you have to shoot it with a batch of ammo with questionable primers.

A classifier really only measures the shooting, and a match measures match performance, a part of which is the shooting. Aside from the issues with individual classifier stages I highlighted above, the system works pretty well as evidenced by the grouping of shooters at matches. If there is a discrepancy between a shooter's classification percentage and his/her match percentages, it's likely due to all the extra things that go into match performance (and the fact that the top GM's are better at those things, too).

jetfire
03-07-2011, 03:03 PM
I really do agree with the sentiment that your performance in major matches is what really determines how "good" you are as a USPSA shooter, regardless of your classification.

But that being said, I also have no problem with grand-bagging to a certain extent. To do so would be kind of hypocritical of me anyway, since I shot my way to 5-gun Master in IDPA for no other reason than to see if I could. Grandbagging essentially is shooting a standard test over and over again until you master it, which does improve your general "shooting" ability. I don't really have a problem with paper GMs, as long as they admit that they're paper GMs. For example, one of my shooting goals is to make Production GM this year. I plan on doing this by grandbagging like it's my job (because it is, in part). I don't think for a second that even if I get GM I'm going to be able to shoot 95% of Dave or Bob, and if someone asks me what my classification is I'll happily tell them that I'm a paper GM.

Shooting classifiers for the sake of shooting them well is a fine goal IMO, as long as people don't think that being able to smoke a classifier makes them competitive in USPSA.

JulieG
03-07-2011, 03:33 PM
@beltjones
Yep, the system is good enough and generally does good job to rank people based on ability. Those "wonky" classifiers are just silly. I have seen Dave S. shoot classifiers that you mentioned jaw dropping fast in seriously RIDICULOUS times and not score even close to 100%. http://pistol-forum.com/images/smilies/confused.png

@Caleb
I don't blame those who have a goal to get a higher classification by the "easier method" for a lack of better term. The system allows it to happen and no one can fault someone for going about it that way who has the goal. I do think its important that people understand that the 2 ways to get classified are much different though. There you go, another thing to make USPSA scoring and classification confusing to newcomers. :)

Just make sure when you are in your quest to bump up you don't shoot the wonky ones! ;)

jetfire
03-07-2011, 03:58 PM
@Julie - I totally agree; I think that the difference in how someone gets a GM card is a very important distinction. If for example I'm able to shoot classifiers into GM, I'd be proud of that accomplishment, because it shows that I'm able to consistently shoot to a high standard on an objective test.

However, if I earned an IDPA DM card by winning Nationals or shooting with 3% of the winner, I'd be a lot more proud of that accomplishment than getting a GM card through classifiers. The way I've always looked at it, classifiers and standards whether they're the FAST Drill, the IDPA classifier, or USPSA classifiers are great ways to benchmark shooting performance and fundamental skill level. They obviously don't indicate diddly about match performance, but it's nice to be able to look at my IDPA classifier when I first started and look at it now and see exactly where I've improved and what I can still work on.

Which I guess is a long form way of saying that I'd be proud to be a paper GM because it's not easy, but I'd be even prouder to be an IDPA DM because it's a real test of match performance and not just standards performance.

ToddG
03-07-2011, 07:18 PM
The way I've always looked at it, classifiers and standards whether they're the FAST Drill, the IDPA classifier, or USPSA classifiers are great ways to benchmark shooting performance and fundamental skill level. They obviously don't indicate diddly about match performance, but it's nice to be able to look at my IDPA classifier when I first started and look at it now and see exactly where I've improved and what I can still work on.

The disconnect -- and Julie please correct me if I'm wrong -- is that some of the classifiers can be cherry picked to get people to GM level without achieving that level of excellence in their actual across-the-board shooting skill.

Personally, I've got no problem with someone saying, "I'm good enough to shoot GM scores on a skills test, but I can't do all the other match stuff -- footwork, setups, stage strategy, etc. -- well enough to compete with the big dogs." That's identifying yourself as a GM-level shooter but not a GM-level competitor, if that makes sense. I'd love to say I was a GM (or DM) level shooter, but I will never be good enough at those other critical non-shooting skills to be a blip on anyone's radar at a major match.

In my experience, to the general populace of the shooting world, being a GM is about being an awesome shooter. They don't really understand or much care about the rest of it (having a good mental game, knowing how to attack a course design, and so forth). Only the tiny fraction of one percent of shooters who are serious USPSA competitors really see or care about the distinction between shoot-great GMs and compete-great GMs.

rsa-otc
03-08-2011, 01:45 PM
Kudos to IDPA for establishing the Distinguished Master class based on match performance. Congrats to those who were so recognized.

Since I consider myself a club competitor only, I'm indifferent with the current way USPSA & IDPA classifies it competitors. It's the way it is and I can take it or leave it. To me it's more about how I do, practicing my skills and I only rate myself on how I did compared to the best in the match and whether I'm improving compared to his score. I have the privilege of an IDPA national champion kicking my backside on a nearly monthly basis.

But for intellectual exercise - if you are making a system that ranks a shooter on his capabilities so that he competes against people of equal skill, shouldn't that system encompass all aspects of match performance. As pointed out a shooter can be an exceptional shot but a poor competitor which brings his level down to that of a lesser skilled shot but a great competitor. The ideal system would blend both.

Back when I competed seriously in PPC you would shoot your first 2 matches with the master class competitors. After that your classification would be based on a rolling average of your last so many scores. That way your classification would be based both on your shooting skills but also on your ability to perform in a match.

I know such a system would be EXTREMELY hard to administer given that much of our competition takes place at the club level and not at sanctioned matches. But it would take in both the shooting skill and completive aspects of a shooter's performance to rank them.

jar
03-08-2011, 06:03 PM
Back when I competed seriously in PPC you would shoot your first 2 matches with the master class competitors. After that your classification would be based on a rolling average of your last so many scores. That way your classification would be based both on your shooting skills but also on your ability to perform in a match.

I know such a system would be EXTREMELY hard to administer given that much of our competition takes place at the club level and not at sanctioned matches. But it would take in both the shooting skill and completive aspects of a shooter's performance to rank them.

The critical difference is that the course of fire at all PPC matches is the same. The problem with trying to apply a similar system to IDPA or USPSA is that scores have no absolute meaning, only relative meaning to the scores of other competitors at the same match.

I think the current classification systems for both games are fine as they are. I don't see the point of trying to make the classifiers closer to match performance. We already have something that tells you how people perform in matches, the match results. Working your way up the classification system provides useful feedback and some motivation to improve, but the real important thing is match results. I'd take a lot more pride in beating Sevigny at a major than a little card that says production GM on it.

jthhapkido
03-14-2011, 12:23 PM
Reading back over the posts in this thread, this caught my eye:


For example, one of my shooting goals is to make Production GM this year. I plan on doing this by grandbagging like it's my job (because it is, in part).

Why? To show how easy it is? How hard? I'm curious as to why you chose this goal.

I'm not against it---it you can do it in a year, kudos to you!

I do think that you might be surprised at how hard it is to do, however...particularly compared to making Master on the IDPA classifier.

How many matches with classifiers do you have access to each month? Do most of them tell you beforehand what classifier stage they plan to set up? Are they clubs that will let you try multiple times, and only send in the highest score?

It'll be interesting to see how it goes for you!

jetfire
03-14-2011, 01:01 PM
Why? To show how easy it is? How hard? I'm curious as to why you chose this goal.

Mostly because it's there; I did 5-gun master just to see if I could, and that's the motivation behind going for USPSA GM. Some people climb mountains, some people jump out of planes, but I shoot guns so I figured I might as well climb the mountain.

jar
03-14-2011, 03:19 PM
Mostly because it's there; I did 5-gun master just to see if I could, and that's the motivation behind going for USPSA GM. Some people climb mountains, some people jump out of planes, but I shoot guns so I figured I might as well climb the mountain.

If you don't already have them, get Steve Anderson's dry fire book. He lays out a set of dry fire drills that cover all the skills needed to shoot classifiers well.

How hard are you planning to grandbag? If you're just planning on practicing the hell out of the classifier skills, I say go for it. If you're planning to cherry-pick classifiers and specifically practice upcoming classifiers, I think that's kind of counterproductive.

What division are you going to do first? If you really want to grandbag, a carelfully selected set of revolver classifiers would get you there the fastest. The Revo HHFs were set based on a percentage of limited. If you only shoot classifiers without a reload, you can crush them.

jetfire
03-14-2011, 03:29 PM
I'm not going to cherry pick the classifiers, that really isn't productive. The point of shooting 5-gun in IDPA was to develop my skills while shooting.

For the USPSA GM thing, I'm just going to practice the "skills" of the classifier, which are really just the fundamentals of marksmanship at Warp 8. I want to be a better shooter, so simply gaming my way into it doesn't really help. Ideally, I want to be presented with a classifier that I've never shot before and shoot 95-100% on because I've increased my skills, not because I've cherry picked the easy ones.

Im lucky as well that up here in the PNW I could shoot 4 classifiers a month if I wanted to.

jthhapkido
03-14-2011, 07:52 PM
For the USPSA GM thing, I'm just going to practice the "skills" of the classifier, which are really just the fundamentals of marksmanship at Warp 8. I want to be a better shooter, so simply gaming my way into it doesn't really help. Ideally, I want to be presented with a classifier that I've never shot before and shoot 95-100% on because I've increased my skills, not because I've cherry picked the easy ones.

If I recall correctly, you said you were going to try this in Production---are you classified in Production yet at all? Or just getting started?

I will say that if you can get your skills up to shooting 95%+ on a classifier that you haven't ever shot before, in only one year---"grandbagger" isn't going to be what people will call you. :)

Good luck!

jetfire
03-15-2011, 10:39 AM
In Production, no I'm not classified. I'm a B-class Single Stack shooter. I would have made A-class, but I had some gun issues with the gun/ammo combo I was running at a recent classifier match.

jthhapkido
04-22-2011, 08:27 PM
In Production, no I'm not classified.

Just remembered your goal---how's it going? Had much chance to shoot USPSA classifiers?

Coming back to Area 5 this year?

jetfire
04-22-2011, 09:02 PM
I've shot one production and one l10 classifier so far since then, the L10 classifier was high 70s with a stock M&P40 and the Production was mid 50s with a stock Sig P250. It was also the first match with the P250, so I figure I'll do better with it this weekend.