Jessie Duff makes USPSA Grandmaster

[Sal Picante]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?