IDPA Distinguished Master

[beltjones]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[jthhapkido]

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]

Therein lies the rub.

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.