Page 2 of 27 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 265

Thread: Input on Current Project

  1. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    SATX
    Not to state what may be the obvious, but have you considered asking Ken Hackathorn what he thinks qualifies someone as "Good"? Is this only grading shooting (weapons handling, accuracy and speed..etc) or are other skills beyond shooting like movement, decision making and general tactics to be included?

  2. #12
    Threshold of IDPA master = B class USPSA

    Consider Rogers Basic, Int and Advanced

    First two shots of the FAST is very relevant and predictive. The rest is mostly a reloading exercise. If you need a slide lock reload for real, in a hi cap world, you have likely made a big mistake or are in a world of hurt. Also best FAST or average FAST time?

    Should long gun competency factor in?

    I think USPSA Classifier performance is more relevant, as most fights aren't 42 rounds with footwork as important as shooting.
    Likes pretty much everything in every caliber.

  3. #13
    Member John Hearne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Northern Mississippi
    First, thanks for all of the input, this is exactly what I was looking for.

    I fully recognize that there is more to winning a gunfight/armed confrontation than simple pistol skills. I would offer that a certain level of pistol skill is a necessary per-requisite for winning (as opposed to surviving) such a contact. What I am trying to do at this time is look just at the skill side of the equation. At what point are your skills good enough that they won't be the principle weakness in your performance? At what point might you be "good enough" and start to spend limited training resources on other important aspects?

    When I did the first version of the chart I was worried that people would become fixated on arguing the relative values of certain data points. I am some what familiar with the IDPA world but not so much with the USPSA world and their rankings. I have notes on what Ken considered good enough but I wanted to look at alternate standards. I am less concerned about where USPSA-A is in relation to IDPA-Master than whether they are good or great. With that said, I think that most of us recognize gradations of performance once you're "good."

    The other issue that rears its head is that some of these metrics are based on speed over accuracy. I've heard of lots of higher level USPSA shooters that couldn't reliably make the head shots on the FAST or shoot bullseye tests well.

    I get the concerns about using a variety of metrics, some short and some long, to measure but I think there is still some relevance if the shorter metric is "legit." By that I mean shooting a sub 6 second FAST once doesn't matter. If you show up at the range and shoot the FAST three times cold and consistently average less than 6 seconds then that matters. Similarly with "paper Masters" or "paper GM's." We're talking about people whose level of skill consistently meets that standard. I would argue that some of the shorter courses might be best evaluated in combination with another. For instance, if you can pass the FAM qual (speed) and shoot a passing score on the FBI Bullseye, you'll definitely be "good."

    Regarding which "POST" course, I don't think it matters much. State POST courses are written so that passing can be accomplished by the most mediocre of institutional shooters. I've seen plenty of "qualified" officers who I don't think of as passing the threshold for competent.

    I've got Ken's ideas on what "good" is as he does provide that input during class and I am a compulsive note taker. For instance, I think he expects you to pass his head standards 7/9 to be good enough. Ken has other standards that he offers but they are different. For instance, his El Pres has a random reload in it which really increases the typical time. With that said, I'm not just worried about what Ken says is good enough but what the group thinks is good enough.

    GJM - I thought hard about including Rogers but those measures can't be replicated by the average person without their own Rogers Range. With that said where do the Rogers rankings rate. My thoughts are passing=competent, Intermediate=Good, and Advanced=Great but I'm open to discussion.
    Last edited by John Hearne; 01-22-2014 at 10:01 AM.

  4. #14
    Site Supporter JHC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    North Georgia
    Quote Originally Posted by John Hearne View Post
    I have notes on what Ken considered good enough but I wanted to look at alternate standards.
    Based on my Advanced Tac Pistol course with him and our conversations; now a couple years old; I sense you are tracking to a tougher standard than his.
    "I realized all the mindset talk was useless without action and that with action, all the mindset talk was unnecessary." - Mike Pannone

  5. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by John Hearne View Post

    GJM - I thought hard about including Rogers but those measures can't be replicated by the average person without their own Rogers Range. With that said where do the Rogers rankings rate. My thoughts are passing=competent, Intermediate=Good, and Advanced=Great but I'm open to discussion.
    Perhaps Rogers time standards, as they distribute on their handout, can be incorporated.

    Depending on whether you subscribe to the Rogers philosophy, that one hand skills can be quite necessary in many fights, you would either believe Rogers level one hand skills are very necessary or a diversion of training that could be better spent elsewhere.

    Someone that can consistently shoot 70-89, or basic on the Rogers school test, is a very solid shooter with two hands, left and right hand only. My understanding is that Robbie Leatham is the only person, in the entire history of Rogers, to shoot at least 120/125 first time through the school test.
    Likes pretty much everything in every caliber.

  6. #16
    Interesting topic!!

    My opinion on POST courses is that at best they can rate "competent". The generous par times allow for someone with a decent skill set to take their time and get solid hits versus some of the other standards where you have to push a balance between speed and accuracy.

    I have no experience with USPSA standards as I have never played that game, but based on some people I know who cross over,
    A-class seems to be somewhat higher skilled than IDPA/EX.

    ---

    The chart puts me in the "good" category:

    - On the IDPA classifier, my scores are in the 102-104 range with an M&P45 thus EX in all three pistol divisions.

    - I typically turn in a mix of 100s/99.3s (one 8 point hit) on the GA POST course; I shot a 100 on the old FBI this past year, and dropped two support hand shots from 25 on the AL POST course.

    - From my duty gear, I have run the FAST by another name on an IALEFI-Q clean in 4.85 seconds, but the head scoring range is more generous than a 3x5 card.. That was cold. I later ran it in 3.89 with one dropped head shot. I was pushing too hard on the second run trying to compete directly with Lund. I'm guess around 6.0-6.5 on the actual FAST from concealment when accounting for the smaller head shot target and less practice from concealment versus duty gear.

    I have twice gotten an "Advanced" rating on a system similar to a Rogers range, but people I know who have attended both tell me the Rogers course runs a little faster.

    I have yet to run the FAM, but hope to do so soon.

    At best I figure I am on the lower side of "good".
    I had an ER nurse in a class. I noticed she kept taking all head shots. Her response when asked why, "'I've seen too many people who have been shot in the chest putting up a fight in the ER." Point taken.

  7. #17
    Leopard Printer Mr_White's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Gaming In The Streets
    Really cool thread, John. I have often thought along these same lines.

    I'm all for comparing different standards and declarations of skill level from different venues and I find it very interesting to do so, but I personally am a little hesitant to say that Incompetents will die, and the Competent, the Good, or the Great will live/survive/prevail, etc. I think there is something to the argument that people who we in the dedicated training communities might find quite incompetent, frequently prevail. No data to back that up, but HH's arguments have influenced me on that point. Not that it's going to stop me from training and carrying the way I do.

    There are definitely confounding factors in some of the skill comparisons on your chart. FAST in class is stiff because of pressure conditions and few chances. FAST in practice is inherently easier. IDPA and USPSA rankings are only achieved under match conditions under the attendant stress and pressure.

    USPSA rankings are one that I think bears some additional consideration. I don't believe it is necessarily correct to say that having a given USPSA ranking means the competitor consistently shoots at that level. Because of the way the classification system works (in this case, throwing out classifier scores more than 5% below a person's current classification), a USPSA shooter might slowly claw their way up the classification ranks, but along the way can post many bad scores. USPSA classification tests heights reached much more than consistency, IMHO.

    And it is true that a given classification in USPSA can reflect that a person is particularly fast, or particularly accurate, but not the other - at least for a ways up the rankings. As the rankings get higher, there is no way out of being very fast and very accurate. Shooting fast without accuracy only gets you so far. Shooting at a pace where you are guaranteeing the hits only gets you so far (it got me to B class initially.) Even though I am ambivalent about the practice of throwing out bad classification scores, I personally find USPSA ranking one of the more significant metrics that you are considering, based on my experience of how difficult it is to post a very high score on USPSA Classifiers.

    Some specifics with me as an example:

    When I could shoot Master on the IDPA Classifier on demand in practice (8x.xx), I barely squeaked into B class in USPSA. As I was attaining B class in USPSA, I won the FAST coin in class with TLG, with times of 4.67 and 4.58, IIRC. The week before that I shot a 3.62 cold FAST in practice. Around that time, I had been posting consistent 290 + scores on the Hackathorn Standards, and around 250 on the Manly Man Hackathorn Standards. I could shoot a sub-5 Triple Nickel, a pretty consistent sub-2 Bill Drill and ~1.5 Mozambique. El Prez, as shot on the IPDA Classifier was about 7 seconds I think.

    Some specific suggestions with regard to the skill comparisons on the chart:

    I'd put USPSA C class about even with maxing POST Quals (of course I am thinking of the one used here in Oregon, the PQC-1, since that's the one I'm most familiar with.)

    I would say that IDPA Master is approximately low B class in USPSA, and I am guessing might correspond to being able to shoot a 5-ish second FAST. I tend to think passing the old FAM qual is somewhere near here.

    I'd put USPSA class A at the upper end of Good or lowest end of Great, I'd put USPSA class M a bit into Great, and USPSA GM class halfway up Great, to leave room for National Champion and contender level shooters at the upper end of Great.

    I'd put USPSA C class near the bottom end of Good.

    Based on the comparative FASTs of Sevigny's official record, Vogel's performance in winning his FAST coin, and Vogel and Stoeger's back-and-forth warring runs on video, I'd put a sub-4 FAST a small distance into the Great category, and a FAST run in the low 3s much further into the Great category. Sub-3 FAST would be like a limit of human performance run that only the very best shooters in the world might reach.

    I would call USPSA D-class roughly equivalent to passing POST/state LE Quals.

    I think I'd say that passing the Defoor Pistol Test #1 is about B class in USPSA and I'd call passing the Defoor Pistol Test #1 with halved PAR times to be GM level shooting.

    Based on what I've seen shooting USPSA and GSSF, I'd call a sub-60 score from GSSF the level of pure shooting of a USPSA B or A class shooter, a sub-50 score from GSSF the level of pure shooting of an accurate M or GM in USPSA, and I'd call a low 40s score in GSSF approximately the pure shooting of a national-level big dog GM in USPSA.

    This is all very rough since the parameters and conditions can be so different for these different metrics, and different shooters attain different rankings using different personal strengths and weaknesses, which can lead to odd combinations, like a GM who can't shoot a sub-5 clean FAST, or an IDPA Master who is C-class in USPSA, or a USPSA B who is really fast but doesn't do well in IDPA due to accuracy issues or maybe shoots a 10 second FAST because of the wicked accuracy penalties.
    Technical excellence supports tactical preparedness
    Lord of the Food Court
    http://www.gabewhitetraining.com

  8. #18
    Site Supporter taadski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Colorado
    I'll add a couple of perspective points:

    (1) I know a ton of folks that shoot our (Colorado) POST tests clean over and over but can't come close to shooting a 7 second clean FAST test on demand.

    (2) Most solid B class USPSA shooters, IME, can shoot IDPA Master level, even with the newly implemented time standards.

    (3) While USPSA classifiers vary with regard to their accuracy requirements, the standard for an A class run generally FAR exceeds what's required of the IDPA Master class standard.

    (4) As already noted, I think one needs to look at consistent capability (3 clean in a row, cold type "consistent capability") as opposed to any "one time" hail mary type performance. USPSA classifiers cater to the "hero or zero" type mentality which doesn't necessarily jive with that. The IDPA classifier less so because of its length, but you still only need to shoot it once at a given level to gain that classification.

    The whole "paper GM" or "paper Master" distinction generally refers more to folks who practice the classifiers and "stand and shoot" skills to a level higher than their respective ability in field courses and actual matches.


    t

  9. #19
    Leopard Printer Mr_White's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Gaming In The Streets
    Here's another chart (not mine) that's been floating around for a while that attempts to make a similar comparison:

    [IMG] Skills_zps102fc8f7 by OrigamiAK, on Flickr[/IMG]
    Technical excellence supports tactical preparedness
    Lord of the Food Court
    http://www.gabewhitetraining.com

  10. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by OrigamiAK View Post
    Based on what I've seen shooting USPSA and GSSF, I'd call a sub-60 score from GSSF the level of pure shooting of a USPSA B or A class shooter, a sub-50 score from GSSF the level of pure shooting of an accurate M or GM in USPSA, and I'd call a low 40s score in GSSF approximately the pure shooting of a national-level big dog GM in USPSA.
    David Knight is usually in the low 40s in GSSF and a multiple times over Matchmeister. He has a Rogers Advanced pin, and he was the top shooter in his Rogers class. He has also won some steel championships.

    I had the honor of running him though the IDPA classifier. He shot an an 88.xx. This was his first go at classifying in IDPA.
    I had an ER nurse in a class. I noticed she kept taking all head shots. Her response when asked why, "'I've seen too many people who have been shot in the chest putting up a fight in the ER." Point taken.

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •