Last edited by Clusterfrack; 12-22-2019 at 03:15 PM.
“There is no growth in the comfort zone.”--Jocko Willink
"You can never have too many knives." --Joe Ambercrombie
So do we need a Great Grand Master class?
Jeff Cooper wrote that in the early days A was about a half dozen shooters who would dominate a match. B was another half dozen who would duke it out if none of the As showed up. C was the top half of the mass, D the bottom half. (No Masters then.).
Code Name: JET STREAM
Probably not. It just needs to be understood that a GM card...much like a black belt in a martial art, means you still get to learn.
Not every BJJ black belt can be a world class competitor. You'll probably see an enormous skill difference actually. But that doesn't mean they aren't a black belt.
Sent from my moto g(6) using Tapatalk
Does BJJ not have the multiple degrees of black belt common to the Orientals?
Code Name: JET STREAM
I would think most if not all GMs should have a decent idea where they stack up in the grand scheme of things. On the other hand I think accurate classification is actually more important for lower classes where people lack the experience in the sport to know what level they're at. As a newer shooter myself I find it very annoying that I am comparing myself to people who made a classification years ago and haven't shot that division since, or I am comparing myself with tons of unclassified shooters.
It may also be important for instructors trying to market, using their classification, to outsiders who don't really understand the nuances of the sport. I see lots of people who don't understand how hard it is to make master or GM, how the relative skill levels stack up within each classification, that not all GMs are competitive with the top GMs, etc.
Last edited by Eyesquared; 12-23-2019 at 01:29 AM.
The 4 new classifier that were recently introduced (19-01-04) are in the right direction imo. I hope that starts a trend for classifiers going forward.
Classifiers with movement are IMO a good thing, and more likely to be predictive of real match performance than the mainly stand and shoot ones the sport has relied on in the past. El Pres, while definitely a valid test of shooting skill, is pretty much nothing like you'll ever see in a "real" stage. It'll be interesting to see what more classifiers with movement in them do for different shooters' classifications. You could have two people at the same classification level who got there in two very different ways; maybe one is great at old-style stand and deliver style classifiers and the other doesn't shoot as fast in that scenario but has a higher fitness level and thus moves much better. Ultimately, making M/GM level is still going to require a high level of dedication to training/practice either way, though.
I have very few complaints about the USPSA classification system. I don't want to see it be purely based on match performance, because I think one of the best aspects of it is being able to compare yourself to the top shooters without having to commit your life to traveling around to major matches all the time. Also in my experience, shooters who shoot the way the classification system is designed tend to have their classification match their actual match performance. The examples that don't hold true to that are shooters who intentionally sandbag, or shooters who pay to reshoot classifiers over and over until they get a decent score.
I think USPSA can take some steps to ensure the classification system is as robust as possible though and minimize the outliers by taking a few proactive steps:
1. Only allow single attempts on a classifier per match. Allowing reshoots at all is bullshit, regardless of the reason.
2. Bump sandbanging shooters immediately for high performance at a level 2+ match up to any classification except GM. As the system works right now, there are too many rules for match bumps, and only the most populated divisions tend to have enough shooters to consider match bumps or classifying scores. I would exclude the GM classification from this except at nationals. GM's should need to shoot classifiers at a GM level in order to make GM. IDPA classification is broken because they give out match bumps to master left and right, and you have the majority of master class IDPA shooters who can't shoot a master score on the classifier.
3. Constantly re-evaluate the high hit factor on classifiers. They should have an algorithm built to do this on a continual basis as scores come in, with a way to throw out extreme outliers. As it stands now, we are lucky to get a HHF update once every 10 years, which results in broken "easy" and "hard" classifiers allowing shooters to cherry pick which ones they shoot or do well on.
4. Separate PCC classification from pistol classifications. A PCC GM should not automatically be a M in other divisions. They are completely different skills and I see a lot of pistol M's at matches with a ~60% classification score in that pistol division because they made PCC GM.
I actually think IDPA has a better classifier stage with their longer course. It's long enough it can't be hero'd/zero'd and it has a good balance of close range and distance shooting. Of course they screwed it up/watered it down by adding the 5x5, which is no where near as challenging to make master, and they give you a match bump at a level 2 match with no competition.