?Originally Posted by wtturn
?
By saying (flat out incorrectly) to make GM you have to be a good stage planner, he would like us to think that other shooters (unranked or with a lower classification) are just as good as GMs when it comes to shooting, but they don't bother learning to stage plan or for some reason they aren't good at stage planning.
(I've been in the military or law enforcement for 12 years and shooting competitions for 11 years, and trust me, I've heard all the put downs about competition shooting from my tactical brethren. Jack's little jab doesn't require a lot of reading between the lines, but I'm happy to spell it out for you.)
If necessary, I can also spell out the irony in his response, but you probably already caught that.
Last edited by Pup town; 07-07-2015 at 05:34 PM.
Id also say it came off odd to be questioning a person's stated desire and goal..."to exceed at USPSA and become a GM"...while in the Competition/USPSA forum.
Seems like a perfectly legit goal and a proper question in a proper place.
Yep.
I find it to be exceedingly poor form to tear down another's ambition and goal.
I obviously phrased my response incorrectly if it garnered this much objection.
I was pointing out that high level match performance (of the GM variety) is attained not only from high marksmanship skill, proven by classifier stages, but in great part also to stage planning and executing that plan.
Frankly, I would agree with that statement. I would also say that solely focusing on the stand and shoot portion won't prepare an aspiring shooter for match wins.I'll be frank as well. People that downplay the shooting skills of USPSA GMs don't have the shooting skills to be a USPSA GM.
If my reply came off as condescending, I apologize. I typed a quick reply late at night on my phone to a question with the intent to define purpose. Brevity was not intended to be insulting.
Not sure why my name is ironic here, it's open disclosure of who exactly is behind the screen name.What's your USPSA classification, "Jack"?
I was "A" Limited for my first couple of years in USPSA, which membership lapsed in 2007, if I recall correctly, as I was newly stationed in the UK and my ability to compete was limited sufficiently to preclude my inclination to pay membership fees. I competed fairly regularly from 2010 to 2012 as Unclassified since I no longer had a membership. My classifiers and stage performance were in the "A" area, with some in the low "M". I recently renewed my membership as I began shooting USPSA more frequently (Lim Minor) in 2014. I didn't get my membership in quickly enough to catch my last classifiers shot at Frostproof.
Here's the link to the results: http://www.universalshootingacademy....CPS-020815.txt
Looks like I was mostly high "B", low "A".
Haven't shot a USPSA match since due to an injury and work schedule, but will be resuming shortly.
I hate to argue semantics, but since you seem to want to take umbrage at my reply, I was speaking to the op's stated desire to "exceed at USPSA and eventually make GM". Admittedly, my reply was not as clear as I intended, but the reply of, "to be a GM..." was not directed at the classifier part of becoming a GM, but of GM match performance.
I was in the military for 15 years, and participated in USPSA since 2005. I have shot or continue to shoot SPR/DMR matches, USCA 2-Gun, various 3-Gun, and other forms of competitive marksmanship since then. I'm primarily a rifle/carbine guy these days, mostly due to the job and my past history of job duties. I frequently recommend that people shoot USPSA, and I would say that my involvement in non-military competition drove me to be better at my (then) day-job. There was no insult there other than what you have chosen to find.(I've been in the military or law enforcement for 12 years and shooting competitions for 11 years, and trust me, I've heard all the put downs about competition shooting from my tactical brethren. Jack's little jab doesn't require a lot of reading between the lines, but I'm happy to spell it out for you.)
I'm kinda interested to know what irony there is in my response.If necessary, I can also spell out the irony in his response, but you probably already caught that.
Viewed on tapatalk, didn't see the sub-forum it was under.
Not that it matters, I agree that it's a perfectly valid goal, not that anyone's personal goals need to be validated by anyone.
The response I was trying to elicit from the op is what about being a GM did he find alluring. The stated practice time and goal, to me, would imply that he wanted to be a stronger competitor. IF that was the case, my advice would be to work on more than just the stand-up part of becoming a better classifier shooter and work on the "whole game" aspect. There is a reason that GMs teach stage planning classes: they make high-level shooters competitive. If the goal was simply to get the "GM" classification, then replicating classifier stages and focusing on the "where the wheels fall off" parts would be a good path.
My question about why the op was interested in being a GM without knowing what is needed to be a GM wasn't challenging the goal, but rather to understand WHAT about being a GM is so appealing. Is it that seeing a GM run a stage is impressive, or wanting the respect that fellow shooters give to someone that has earned the title "GM", or something else? What I wondered from reading the initial question was how many GMs he has shot with or interacted with. I was lucky in that I began shooting USPSA with guidance from GMs, and am in frequent contact with a handful. They answer my questions and I can discuss their approach to stages directly with them. I understand how different capabilities permit different stage plans, and how to generate a plan based on my skill level. I have discussed aspects of that strategy on this forum.
I happen to share a similar ambition to the op's: to make GM and place at the top of matches.
My work and travel schedule does not happen to support the training and practice needed to achieve that goal for the near-term. I know why I want to be a GM*, and I know what it takes to be a GM**.
*-Because I am competitive by nature, and it is a challenge to meet a goal that few attain.
**-Lots of work.
Director Of Sales
Knight's Armament Company
Great response Jack!
To those who took offense I will add this; Though we might be blunt at time, SMEs are here to help, not tear down ones ambitions. Due to our previous/current occupations (particularly those who came from the military), most tend to be very direct. That is how we are with each other and tend to forget that typed responses are without visuals, body language, inflection, etc... In light of that, there is still no reason to “jump to conclusions”, particularly on the internet. Also keep in mind that most of us are “A-types” and the internet is someplace that we merely pass through. Our full-time jobs, par-time jobs, hobbies and families, limit our interaction on forums, so our responses might be short at times. My apologies in the future if my curt responses offend anyone, particularly those whose parents would not allow them to play contact sports in school
To the OP, there's some good info and recommendations so far. I'll echo Jack's and JTSpidey's and add by saying DRY FIRE every day, LIVE FIRE 1-2 times during the week and shoot 1-2 matches a month. Buy Steve Anderson's dry-fire Book (Refinement & Repetition) and/or take a class from him. Take a class from Frank Garcia and learn his live fire training method. If you follow that recipe, you can get there in less than a year!
The condescension was not a product of the brevity. If you say you didn't mean to be condescending, then I'll have to take your word for it. But others read it the same way I did and found it condescending, it would seem.
Guy asks what it takes to be a GM, and rather than give him any advice, you talk down to him (the 'I'm going to be frank' part) and chastise him for being interested in being a GM without knowing what it takes to be one. Yet one sentence above you demonstrated that you yourself don't know what it takes to be a GM.
dude.. lol
If my clarification reply didn't answer your objection to my first post, or at least clarify my intent sufficiently to move the discussion along, I have a hard time in convincing myself that continued discourse will achieve anything positive.
Director Of Sales
Knight's Armament Company
I'll admit I just popped in to this thread as I saw the title and Jack had responded. Maybe cause I know Jack (and Mr Pink), I did not think anything of the brevity of the response in his initial comment.
My response would have probably been - you can't get there from here. Short but honest.
Entirely due to the ending comments about "exceed in USPSA and eventually become a GM."
I'm not a GM, I shoot with some occasionally, and I know even when I was at my pistol shooting best (probably 15 years ago) I did not have what it took to become one, and barring me winning the Powerball to retire and shoot competitively for fun - it is never going to happen.
Now if I read a question saying, I have only X hours and x rounds per week, what is the best use of my time to improve myself as a USPSA shooter, I think the answers would have been different.
I'm not blaming the OP for his post, but just putting context into the reason why I see some replies would have been formed.
Kevin S. Boland
Director of R&D
Law Tactical LLC
www.lawtactical.com
kevin@lawtactical.com
407-451-4544
Reply With Quote
