IDPA Distinguished Master

[SLG]

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.

I expect she'll be M-class soon, and she is already shooting low to mid-M in competition as a A-class shooter.

You're view of what constitutes a master class shooter is different than how USPSA views it.

For starters, placing in and among "X" shooters does not make you an "X" shooter in USPSA. You have to shoot the percentages. That means 85-95% for a master. No female shooter has consistently shot 85-95% of a real GM in major matchs.

As an example, when I shot a little competition (mostly in order to date my wife), I was never ranked higher than A class. I routinely beat lots of M's and GM's in matches, even when I was B class. Does that mean I should have been ranked higher?

No.

I didn't shoot 85% of a real GM in a major match, and neither did any of the guys I was beating.

One typical year at single stack nationals (2006), only 1 GM shot a GM score, and 1 master shot a master class score. Even worse in 2007.

Percentage of the winning GM is what matters. That's why nationals are the best way to look at shooters in USPSA. They have more top shooters in one place than at any other matches.

[JulieG]

Overall placement is something entirely different that the ability to shoot a classification score. I think the problem lies in how USPSA determines what is a GM score in classifiers. Classifiers are generally just one stage in a match too and vs. a major match where your score is an average. It's performance on stages over time (classification averages at local matches) vs. an average of stage performance over an entire event. It ends up being 2 very different ways to establish "ability" from the same organization.

Women of USPSA has a list of Women Masters: http://womenofuspsa.com/wp/?page_id=1468

Sheila Brey – Open (The FIRST woman to obtain Master Class!)
Laurie Kraynick – Open
Lisa Munson – Open & Limited
Kay Miculek – Open
Athena Lee – Open
Tonda Gilfillan – Open
Jessie Abbate – Limited
Randi Rogers – Production
Sarah Irish – Open (The YOUNGEST to earn Master – at age 17!)
Megan Francisco – Open
Lori Casper - Production

The women listed above are VERY TALENTED and their accomplishments are simply outstanding. Only 6 of the women listed above are Women's national champions. I know its BIG news to the women in our sport when one of us even gets close to shooting a master classification score. It is a rare and wonderful thing right now. It would be wonderful for women in the sport if that changes.

Female DM's? If someone does it GREAT for them. I will say that the subjectivity in IDPA makes that a formiddable challenge though.

We can expect to see a boost of new DM's at this year's World Shoot for sure though. With this match and the USPSA Back to Back Nationals on the same dates, top shooters have a tough choice.

Another interesting thing with the new class...
With IDPA's 1 in 5 trophy policy, the trophy distribution will definitely change. Other than IDPA Nationals & World Shoots, there most likely won't be enough DM's in a division/match to distribute to 1st, 2nd, 3rd DM. The top guys are now shooting for the Division Championship and nothing else. At level, I personally feel that's the way it should be.

[jthhapkido]

You're view of what constitutes a master class shooter is different than how USPSA views it.

For starters, placing in and among "X" shooters does not make you an "X" shooter in USPSA. You have to shoot the percentages. That means 85-95% for a master. No female shooter has consistently shot 85-95% of a real GM in major matchs.

Hm. USPSA says you have to shoot an average of 85-94.9999% on 6 of your last 8 classifiers to be considered M. This is completely different from "No female shooter has consistently shot 85-95% of a real GM in major matchs." (For example, several females have already managed that on classifiers, and thus USPSA does indeed consider then M-class.)

Yours is an interesting viewpoint---because while it is true the USPSA headquarters views Nats and Area matches such that they are considered classifiers if you have enough GMs shooting, pretty much no one else thinks that your actual percentage in a major match is a good indicator, including the GMs who win them. On the other hand, most would agree that in large matches, where you place is indeed a good indicator of the level at which you are shooting.

For example, only 3 people would have been considered GMs in Production Nats, only 6 in Limited Nats, only 3 in Open Nats, and 6 in Limited-10. (Which you even mention.) Does this mean that no one else should be considered a GM?

In major matches, a person consistently ends up placing in the middle of the pack of masters. Whether this person is M-class officially from USPSA, are you saying they aren't managing master-level shooting?

Your point about placing in and among masters simply shows that those matches didn't have the depth of competitors that bigger matches draw.

Considering I quoted from Area matches and Nationals, I wonder what "bigger matches" you think have enough depth?

Percentage of the winning GM is what matters. That's why nationals are the best way to look at shooters in USPSA. They have more top shooters in one place than at any other matches.

I only agree with your third sentence here---because according to USPSA, your first sentence isn't true most of the time. And the second sentence assumes that to have a classification in USPSA, you need to attend Nationals, which most don't.

As you said---most GMs do not reach GM-level percentages at Nationals. So does this mean they shouldn't be GMs?

You can't have it both ways---earlier you were talking about "paper masters" and now you are saying "USPSA doesn't view it that way"----you only get to pick one.

USPSA ranks people using classifiers, Area and Nats (mostly as classifiers, though it IS possible to get a jump directly due to Nats or an Area match). They do not, however, limit M or GM (or any class) based on not reaching a certain percentage of the high score at any particular large match.

I say again: Someone consistently places in the middle of the pack of M-class shooters at large matches. Whether or not USPSA considers them a Master-class, are you saying they aren't shooting with M-class proficiency?

Your original post said: "There is not a single female USPSA master class shooter who has consistently shot master class scores at major competitions (area and national championships)."

If you mean "85-95%" of the high score, than that is true---but it doesn't mean anything, because almost no master-classified shooter has ever done that either. If you mean "consistently shot similarly to what the majority of other masters have shot at major competitions" ---then I already gave you an example.

What exactly are you trying to argue here?

[SLG]

Hm. USPSA says you have to shoot an average of 85-94.9999% on 6 of your last 8 classifiers to be considered M. This is completely different from "No female shooter has consistently shot 85-95% of a real GM in major matchs." (For example, several females have already managed that on classifiers, and thus USPSA does indeed consider then M-class.)

I apologize if my typing has been too brief or ineffective. I'm not saying that classifiers don't make a master, I know that USPSA says they do. I am saying that classifiers are not a good indicator of performance, and thus, not a great way to distinguish among shooters. Lots of people shoot good classifier scores, and then qualify for whatever class is appropriate. Very few of them can perform as well in competition, which you would think, is all that matters in a sport that involves people competing against each other.

Yours is an interesting viewpoint---because while it is true the USPSA headquarters views Nats and Area matches such that they are considered classifiers if you have enough GMs shooting, pretty much no one else thinks that your actual percentage in a major match is a good indicator, including the GMs who win them. On the other hand, most would agree that in large matches, where you place is indeed a good indicator of the level at which you are shooting.

That is an opinion that I cannot agree with, since most of the GM's I know disagree with it.

For example, only 3 people would have been considered GMs in Production Nats, only 6 in Limited Nats, only 3 in Open Nats, and 6 in Limited-10. (Which you even mention.) Does this mean that no one else should be considered a GM?

Exactly. They should not be GM's. They may be great shooters, they may even win a match, but a true GM (like TGO or Dave Sevigny) is a rare bird, and to de-value the term "GM" by allowing all sorts of people into the class has been a problem, just as IDPA master class is a problem. They are problems because saying you're an IDPA master means next to nothing. I'm an IDPA master, as is TGO. Should we be viewed as being on the same level? Of course not.

In major matches, a person consistently ends up placing in the middle of the pack of masters. Whether this person is M-class officially from USPSA, are you saying they aren't managing master-level shooting?

Yes, if they can't shoot the percentages needed. All that means is that many of the people in their pack are at a lower level as well.



Considering I quoted from Area matches and Nationals, I wonder what "bigger matches" you think have enough depth?

I removed that line because it did not express what I was trying to say. If at a nationals, a master class shooter cannot shoot a master class percentage of the winning GM, then I would say they are a paper master, not a real one, regardless of what USPSA considers a master.


I only agree with your third sentence here---because according to USPSA, your first sentence isn't true most of the time. And the second sentence assumes that to have a classification in USPSA, you need to attend Nationals, which most don't.

As you said---most GMs do not reach GM-level percentages at Nationals. So does this mean they shouldn't be GMs?

Yes.

You can't have it both ways---earlier you were talking about "paper masters" and now you are saying "USPSA doesn't view it that way"----you only get to pick one.

Sorry, I was unclear here. USPSA does indeed recognize two different ways to become a master, either through classifications, or through winning your class and getting bumped up. I'm saying that getting master through classifications, and then not being able to shoot the percentages, is "proof" that you're not a real master, regs aside.

USPSA ranks people using classifiers, Area and Nats (mostly as classifiers, though it IS possible to get a jump directly due to Nats or an Area match). They do not, however, limit M or GM (or any class) based on not reaching a certain percentage of the high score at any particular large match.

I say again: Someone consistently places in the middle of the pack of M-class shooters at large matches. Whether or not USPSA considers them a Master-class, are you saying they aren't shooting with M-class proficiency?

Yes, again:-)

Your original post said: "There is not a single female USPSA master class shooter who has consistently shot master class scores at major competitions (area and national championships)."

If you mean "85-95%" of the high score, than that is true---but it doesn't mean anything, because almost no master-classified shooter has ever done that either. If you mean "consistently shot similarly to what the majority of other masters have shot at major competitions" ---then I already gave you an example.

What exactly are you trying to argue here?

[SLG]

If the above post is unclear, it's because I seem to have screwed up my quoting. I can try and fix it, if needed.

[JulieG]

Your original post said: "There is not a single female USPSA master class shooter who has consistently shot master class scores at major competitions (area and national championships)."

If you mean "85-95%" of the high score, than that is true---but it doesn't mean anything, because almost no master-classified shooter has ever done that either.

For what its worth, I disagree with your statement that "it doesn't mean anything because almost no master-classified shooter has ever done that either." That's a pretty bold and broad statement and to prove would take a very comprehensive evaluation of all master class shooters in USPSA over all the different divisions. If you have the time to accumulate and evaluate that kind of data, USPSA should hire you for analysis! I would love to see these kind of stats and it would be awesome to have this info!

It's easy to chat about women masters because to USPSA's knowledge there are 11 of them. Important note: USPSA won't "officially" confirm that number because of the holes in their database.

I can only speak for myself, but I personally take great pride in the fact that I am a 2 Division IDPA Master (based on the classifier) and an NRA High Master. I can deliver scores within those classifications. I have come close to shooting Master class percentages in major matches (USPSA) where there have been the required number of GM's to warrant a bump in class. I have not done so consistently nor to my knowledge has any other female in USPSA/IDPA. I would certainly love to see that change for the women in the sports! For me though, and this doesn't take away from any one else's status as a M/GM, I hope if I ever make USPSA Master, I am able to deliver those Master Class scores consistently.

I think it's important to note classifications standards are part of the rule book. Where someone finished overall based on who ever happened to be there or not, isn't. There's a reason for that. The only reference to overall placement in the rules is how to award prize/trophy distro at the USPSA Nationals.

Do we celebrate someone's success overall? SURE.
Should we? ABSOLUTELY!

But when establishing ability based on classification, overall doesn't come into play. It's based on score/%.

GM/M's - by classifier, overall, paper vs. "real"? That's always a fun debate and there are definitely lots of opinions. I can see the different arguments. Regardless of the opinions, logistically it's too difficult for sports to maintain a constant change in classification ranking. Classification systems by nature will have flaws but overall, I think they help sports grow.

[Dr Steve]

I like the fact that IDPA have made the new DM class something you have to place high in a national match to achieve. Gives us mere mortal master's something to aspire and work for!!!

[jthhapkido]

If the above post is unclear, it's because I seem to have screwed up my quoting. I can try and fix it, if needed.

Nope---took a second to realize what had happened, but no problem.

And I see what your thinking is on this. I might happen to disagree with your opinion---but that's fine---my opinion doesn't define the world either.

From my point of view, while I think the "shooting classifiers" idea is flawed in that people can game it too easily (and create paper masters), I think that "Nats 95%+ for GM" is a little stringent, too. For example, according to that model, Travis Tomasie, Michael Voigt, Daniel Horner, Shannon Smith, Ted Puente, Chris Tilley, and Ron Avery shouldn't be grandmasters. (Not to mention various others.)

That's okay---USPSA doesn't set classification like I think they should either.

Thanks for responding clearly---your point of view makes more sense to me now.

Julie G said, responding to me:
jthhapkido said: "If you mean "85-95%" of the high score, than that is true---but it doesn't mean anything, because almost no master-classified shooter has ever done that either."

(My comment: I've left in her emphasis in bold.)

She then said:
"For what its worth, I disagree with your statement that "it doesn't mean anything because almost no master-classified shooter has ever done that either." That's a pretty bold and broad statement and to prove would take a very comprehensive evaluation of all master class shooters in USPSA over all the different divisions. If you have the time to accumulate and evaluate that kind of data, USPSA should hire you for analysis! I would love to see these kind of stats and it would be awesome to have this info!"

Actually, I think that the part of my comment that should be in bold is this: "If you mean "85-95%" of the high score, than that is true---but it doesn't mean anything, because almost no master-classified shooter has ever done that either."

Significant difference.

As you request, in a small, limited fashion:

Take the 2010 Limited Nats: No master-class shooter received an 85%+.
In Production, only 3 did---two of which are GMs in other divisions.
In L-10, four did---three of which are GMs in other divisions.
In Open---one did.
In Revolver---2 did.

So----according to the 2010 Nats, only 10 M-class competitors actually scored in that percentage area in all divisions put together.

Taking the Area matches for 2010, and only counting the divisions that had at least 3 GMs in them, here is the data. The first number is how many M-class shooters had an overall of 85% or above, and the other is how many shooters were classed as "M" in those divisions:

Area 1: 1/26
Area 2: 7/? (new reporting format doesn't make breakdown easy any more)
Area 3: 0/16
Area 4: 1/20
Area 5: 0/30
Area 6: 8/48
Area 7: 4/16
Area 8: 2/39

So in area matches, when there were at least 3 GMs in the division to compete against, there were 16 M-class shooters out of 195 who scored 85%+. That's 8.2%.

And again, at the 2010 Nats, in all divisions combined there were only 8. How many master-class shooters competed at the Nationals this past year, in all divisions combined? I'm thinking---more than a couple.

So, given a cursory analysis (which is not exhaustive, I know ) I still stand by my statement that "almost no master-classified shooter has ever done that".

...particularly since the post I was replying to said "...shooter has consistently shot 85-95% of a real GM in major matches". If I actually ran THAT calculation, I'm fairly certain the numbers would be considerably smaller, even if I only looked at who had done it _twice_.

Ah---I couldn't take it, had to go back and pull the stats from 2010 Nationals. There were 156 M-class competitors at Nats. 10 of them earned 85%+. That's about 6.4%. Not of the competitors---but of the M-class competitors who were shooting at Nationals. One can safely assume (one hopes?) that while there may be better M-class shooters out there, most of the really good M-class people probably were at Nationals.

And only 6.4% of them managed to stay in the 85%+ range. None in Limited!

[jthhapkido]

I should note here that in USPSA, I wish I wasn't classified as I am, because I don't think I shoot that level consistently enough. [sigh] Based on 2010 Nats, I should be one class lower, and I'd be perfectly happy with that.

In some ways, I actually agree with what SLG said about how it should be done---in the end, it is about what you can do at a match.

My arguments before were merely about what he had said compared to how USPSA actually does it, and how individuals had done compared to people similarly-classified.

Let's hear it for thread drift!

[SLG]

It's nice to discuss this issue with someone who knows something about it. I think we would have arrived where we did, sooner, if I was more clear in my writing.

You hit the nail on the head, as far as I'm concerned. What you can do in competition, is what really matters (if you're a competition shooter).

BTW, you can petition to be moved to a lower class. I tremendously respect anyone who does that. One of the reasons I went a little off on this is that one particular shooter, named earlier, petitioned to be moved from A to M. That is not allowed by USPSA rules, yet they allowed it in that case. That shooter, IMO, is not deserving of the title, and certainly was not doing it to be more fair (a concept that I pretty much have no use for, except in sports). It was done to put on the resume.