Jessie Duff makes USPSA Grandmaster

[ToddG]

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]

My point is, anyone can practice classifiers and get a GM card.

Can't reply. Off to range.

[PPGMD]

...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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

No, but the butt hurt is rolling off him like a fog off a lake.

Epic imagery.