Originally Posted by OrigamiAK
The reason I used the specific words I did was in reference to the press release (which is what this whole thread is based upon). People who don't know anything about the sport will assume that a press release like this means that the person with these qualifications are one of the greatest shooters in our sport.No way, dude, I think you rock it. The 95% + comment was aimed at the Jessie Duff/GM discussion specifically. I also respect people who can shoot a fair bit less than 95% on classifiers. Got to have a little respect left for myself, right?
Is someone saying that shooting 95% on classifiers = being a champion? Those seem like two different things to me. All I'm saying is that I personally find classifiers very hard and my hat is off to anyone posting high scores on them.
I'd also like to ask a regurgitated question. It's regurgitated because I don't have a strong opinion on it, but there are points and counterpoints I've seen made in these 'classification vs. match performance' discussions a bunch of times and this one seems appropriate here.
So here's the question: if the classifier system does not actually represent skill level when it comes to USPSA, why are the classes grouped approximately according to their normal hierarchy in overall match placement? Irrespective of the exact percentage a person shot, it seems like from the top down in match results, I usually see the GM, M, A, B, C, and D shooters clumped together in basically that order. Is that not so?
And if one takes the position that you aren't a legitimate GM unless you shoot 95% of the winner at Nationals, then doesn't that mean that there are a whole lot more 'top shooters' than Jessie Duff who aren't deserving of the GM title? It doesn't seem right to me to say that based on this year's Production Nationals, Stoeger, Sevigny, Leatham, Racaza, Mink, etc. (everyone other than Eric Grauffel, since no one shot 95% of him) aren't legitimate GMs.
Dr. No, I am honestly interested in your answers to these questions. I am not an accomplished USPSA competitor at all, and I always want to hear more experienced perspectives on these issues.
To your question:
The big answer is because there aren't very many sandbaggers/grand baggers out there. There are SOME, but they seem to be the exception to the rule. Some have accused me of that in the past "Why aren't you a GM" etc, but when I go to a match and shoot exactly in my percentage range I believe that represents me accurately. Often times if you look at Nationals results you will see someone stick way out - an A or B class shooter that finishes in the top 16, for instance. Some of these folks haven't shot many classifiers, may be involved in playing in another discipline (steel challenge, 3 gun, bianchi, etc) and return at a much higher skill set. I got a ration of crap when I switched from Limited to Production because I was shooting at a much higher level than I was classified as, and I hadn't shot enough classifiers to bring my ranking up where it should be.
I've never said that you HAVE to be 95% at Nats to be a GM. In fact, I'd probably expand that range to be 90%+. Eric G is a freak and has completely crushed the competition, which in itself is impressive. As I said before, I think majors should be weighted more heavily. To expand a little, let me explain the classification system in case you don't know how it works:
Classifiers are set courses of fire which should be set up the same everywhere they are administered. USPSA takes some of the top scores for the classifier and averages them to come up with the top score. You submit your score and get a percentage of that top one. Once you shoot 6 classifiers in your category, your average is used to determine your score. If you shoot a recognized major match, that score also goes in as a classifier.
If you achieve the rank of Master, (85-95%) and then you shoot another classifier and only get 60% - that classifier is dropped from your score. You cannot move down in rank unless you are allowed to by USPSA for reasons such as injury or a long sabbatical. If you shoot another classifier and you get 83%, that one may go in to your score and conceivably your average could drop below the Master threshold, but you still will never go down.
So now lets examine someone who gets their GM card by shooting classifiers. They have 6 classifiers in that are 95%+, and they shoot 76% at Nationals. Because of the vast difference in scores, that nationals score is dropped because it is "too far out of range" for that persons classification level.
My first stab at an updated proposal would be something of a sliding scale. You would be able to lose your GM card (and GM only) if you do not maintain 95%+. Two recognized major matches would always be used as scores, and they would rotate through no matter what difference in percentage. Four other classifiers would be regular ones you shoot at a match.
So, I shoot 4 classifiers at 96, 97, 98, 100 percent. I go to production and limited nationals and shoot 76 and 75 percent. Average these together and I get a ranking of 90.33% - A middle of the road Master class score.
Lets say I shot nats and I scored 90% on both - same classifiers - that would bring my average to 95.166% - just borderline GM. This fits directly in line with my assertion that the top 10% should be the GM's in the sport.
To get to GM is a lot of work. A monumental amount of work. To finish top 16 at Nationals is something to be proud of. There are lots of folks who have made GM, who were top 16, but then moved on in sports, got a new hobby, had family priorities, got older, etc. You will see a lot of these guys in the rankings - GM's that finish 40th, etc. There is nothing taking away from their former accomplishments, but to call them GM's still is somewhat disingenuous. They could rightfully claim they were a GM from 2005-2007 , and that is a respected statement.
If one is truly a top level competitor and leader in the sport and they go out and get spanked at a major, they will re-examine their training regiment and aspire to get better. That's why they are champions. I think losing your GM card because you shot 10% under the top guy at Nats is a tough pill to swallow, but it should be a respected feature of the game.
In addition, I think GM should be the only rank you can lose - this will prevent the sandbagging that it was originally intended to avoid.
Reply With Quote
.
