Jump to content
Brian Enos's Forums... Maku mozo!

Do classifiers really represent a full skill set test of a GM?


CHA-LEE

Recommended Posts

Please forgive me as I am new at this and have only been participating in USPSA matches for less than a year. This topic may have already been covered.

But…….. From the solid GM’s I have seen shoot, the basic processes of drawing, shooting, reloading and so on performed in the average Classifier stage is a very small snapshot of what makes these shooters so good. Sure their ultra fast and accurate execution of these basics is usually far above most of us. BUT, where they really distance themselves from most shooters is their efficient and effective movement through a stage as they are engaging targets. To me, the quality of a competitors movement and shooting abilities though a stage greatly defines their current skill level. I am sure you guys have seen this as well. Not to mention their uncanny stage analysis abilities and knowing what THEY can or cant do effectively for a given stage.

So here is the question……Why do the Classifier stages rely so heavily on the pure basics of shooting and not so much on movement while shooting or even stage analysis? Movement and shooting while moving through a stage is a lot harder to master and execute effectively than the basic mechanical process of drawing or reloading. The same goes for breaking down a stage and knowing what the best plan of attack is for your given skill sets.

The classification percentage you receive from a major match performance should hold a lot more “Weight” in your classification listing than the basic Classifier Stages which can be “Hero or Zeroed”. The major match result percentage will be a better representation of your current overall skill level. At least I think so.

Edited by CHA-LEE
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 126
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

My 2 cents

When you lay out a classifier it takes time to get all the measurements right to ensure that the challenge is the same each time. With a field-course layout it becomes much harder to ensure that all the instances are setup the same across the country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I completely agree, why is there no long/field course classifiers ??

If there were field course classifiers, my % would be in much better shape .. :wacko:

I think that you would do alot better if they weren't called classifiers and you had a complete front sight. :unsure:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't get me wrong. We do need a "Standardized" set of shooting skill tests such as the classifier stages we have now. That is a good thing and does seem to work for the most part.

My question really is, why give the major match results the same "Value" as a single classifier stage when we all know the major match result a better representation of our current skill level.

For example, I think that a single major match classification result should have the value of at least 5 individual classifier stages. Or set a "Value" multiplier based on the level of the match. Like a Level III match gets a 5X multiplier and a Level II match gets a 3X multiplier. Something like that would make more sense than the current way of doing things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are field course classifiers, but not every club has bays large enough to accommodate them or the staff/time to set them up.

In the Western PA Section, I mentioned this to the MD's at our clubs and did get an excellent education on this. Their points are all valid and well supported.

If you would like to see such classifiers, volunteer to set it up and run it for your local club. Not trying to flame, many clubs would like to do one occasionally, but the exacting measurements you need to do, even for stand and shoot classifiers, mean much more time is spent on setting up that single stage than many other non-classifier ones. You need bodies to do that.

As for your other point, isn't the game about shooting? Not a track meet or an endurance run, but shooting. The 'basics" is what we do every time we engage a target or an array.

My overall match results, whether local of larger, are fairly reflective of where I am, from the classifier perspective. And some major match results do count as classifiers.

Of course no shooter would deliberately use the classification system to keep their "ranking" low so they can place higher at a major match. :blink::rolleyes:

Edited by vluc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am glad to see this topic as I am just returning to IPSC/USPSA shooting after a 12 year break (kids). I remember problems in Phoenix with sandbaggers, but I was happy to see VLUC say that no one would do this. I am still picking up on the nuances of the changes. Thakns for filling in some of the spots.

Jason

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am glad to see this topic as I am just returning to IPSC/USPSA shooting after a 12 year break (kids). I remember problems in Phoenix with sandbaggers, but I was happy to see VLUC say that no one would do this. I am still picking up on the nuances of the changes. Thakns for filling in some of the spots.

Jason

:roflol: :roflol: :roflol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you think that there are GM level shooters that are under ranked?

In my (limited) experience it seems like the guys that are really good go to a lot of big matches. They will move up anyway. I can't imagine there are a bunch of GM level field course guys that just can't seem to shoot El Prez well enough to move up and don't shoot a few level 3's and above a year.

I know some guys that I think are underrated, but they are B's with a C in a division they rarely shoot, maybe they really should be an A, so in that C division they are ringers. Or they are so inconsistent that they can absolutely kick a$$ one stage and then zero the next.

I can't believe you could be good enough to score in the middle of the GM's in a major and not wind up a GM over a year or two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

bofe954> I am sure there is a subset of shooters that are able to Run & Gun at a higher level than there current classification. Such as a "B" class shooter that can Run & Gun at an "A" or "M" level but can't perform draws or reloads at the higher level so their classifier results are lower. On a lot of stages you are moving while drawing or reloading so being 2 - 3 tenths slower on doing those things gets masked by the movement in the stage. My opinion is that the Run & Gun capabilities of a shooter is a better gauge of their skill level verse the raw speed of reload or draw. But the vast majority of classifiers rarely test the Run & Gun skill sets. You could have a shooter that practices draws and reloads relentlessly for months and can produce a GM level performance in the mechanics of doing those things. But get that same guy on a Run & Gun COF and his ultra fast draw and reload translate into maybe 5% of the runs performance. Is this shooter a true GM simply because he can mechanically perform the draw and reload quickly then sling some "hoper" shots onto the targets during a classifier stage? Or would his Run & Gun abilities better define his skill level?

I also don't want to diminish the accomplishment of achieving a GM classification. I would venture to say that everyone that has a GM classification has earned it with lots of hard work and dedication. You don't just "Luck" into getting a GM classification. This thread isn't about making it to GM, its about quantifying the skill sets of a solid GM shooter when it comes to Classifier stages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do believe that the classifiers are a good measure of a shooters ability.

I understand why uspsa has the achievement of GM being done with classifiers only, but it also creates a whole sector of shooters that achieve GM that are no where close to GM level shooters.

I see these guys at every match. They shoot classifiers over and over until they get the score they want and then they show up at a major match and shoot 75% or less of the match winner.

I would like uspsa to institute a way of regulating these shooters. I realize that everyone has a bad match or a major gun failure. But if you are a GM and cannot shoot at least A class in major match then their is a problem.

We call them granbaggers as a joke but it kind of dilutes the GM class.

I also dont agree with the reshooting of classifiers until you get the score you want. I can understand you blowing the classifier and reshooting it 1 time to redeem yourself with the understanding that it doesnt count for match score but to shot it 5-8 times and take the best of the lot is a bit excessive, especially when you are trying to put up the props get the match finished and get the scores and results out for the rest of the crowd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Classifiers historically test the core basics of shooting. In that sense, there is no better test.

My unsolicited opinion is this. You can't see huge success in the game without the core basics. Classifiers, in general, test the core basics. In that sense I do believe they have some degree of representation.

Ah, I'll say it like this. I "used" to be a GM. That is to say that years ago I used to shoot GM scores regularly. I was actually quite decent at the game. I then quit. For years, and years, and years. Today, while I still enjoy the benefit of a GM by my open class - it isn't exactly accurate. The most recent division I shoot (production) has a classification of something like 75% (or so - I haven't looked recently). What that speaks to is that my core - my basics - are not as sound as they were in the past. I haven't practiced at all and it shows. The true shooting tests show that (CONSTANTLY!!!!!! :D ). I can at times do ok in the matches though because I can conceal my lack of developed basics in movement, stage interpretation, etc. etc. If I went to go shoot a nationals, I suspect that the cracks in my foundation would show terribly. The only thing that would help would be experience - that might help a little.

Do classifiers represent the full skill set? Probably not. Do they show that the core foundation of the shooter is solid and by virtue of that their total game is likely more complete? Probably.

Now, there are grandbaggers and sandbaggers and all others out there. It is what it is. The top ten at nationals know the deal. They are rock solid in their core and they execute all components of the game pretty flawlessly. And they do it if the test is a basic classifier or a complex field course.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jack is pretty much spot on. Except that... as compared to the standard shooter at 75%, I'd wager he owns the concepts behind quite a number of skills that would serve him well at a Nationals, should he choose to go... :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do I reply without seeming like a self indulgent ass ? :unsure:

While I mostly agree with Jack, especially the part about the top 10 at the Nats, I have a friend

who places 90-100% with the GM's and M's at all local matches and level II but can't shoot a classifier

to save his life. Classifiers end up being his throw away stage at most matches and still maintains 90-100%.

His classifiers end up from 5-65% but as soon as there is a classifier with movement, even a box to box, he'll

score a 75-85% ...

So Grandbagger, Sandbagger, Paper GM, whatever, I guess you need to be in the top 10 at the Nats and

routinely pull off 100%'s to not have a label put on you, or have your technique taken apart... <_<

Thats great but I just want to know how to win !! Matt Burkett :lol:
Edited by P.Pres
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thats great but I just want to know how to win !! Matt Burkett :lol:

This quote brings up an interesting point.

All of us must understand our own individual goals. Make GM. Win a local club stage. Win a local match. Win a nationals stage. Win a national match. The goal dictates the result.

Vluc knows this well about me. My goal is, and always has been, winning. If I'm a GM - fine. If not, but I still win, fine. That's my goal, and it likely affects my response to a thread like this. I use classifiers as a point of reference. They play no part in the goals I have as a shooter.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jack is pretty much spot on. Except that... as compared to the standard shooter at 75%, I'd wager he owns the concepts behind quite a number of skills that would serve him well at a Nationals, should he choose to go... :lol:

Thanks,

And . . . I'm workin' on it man!!!! Had a few things going on lately. :D:D:D:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you have your draws down, your reloads down, and descent accuaracy strong hand and week hand, you can be really good at classifiers.

Classifiers dont have texas stars, swingers, drop turners, timing issues etc etc. a little bit of movement, but some of the classifiers are too difficult to setup and most clubs want something easy to measure out. Granted they are core skills which are good to know and have, they only represent a small portion of what we do. We do 1 draw a stage, open shooters may do 1 reload a stage, and how many stages do we shoot strong hand or a stage weak hand? I think and have always thought that classification should be based on your precentage of what you shoot at a level 3 match where there is a number of quality gm's to get a good representation.

2cents

sean

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PAPER KILLER Brings up good points on the subject. One thing I am really trying to focus on and evaluate is one handed shooting for the average match stage that is not a Classifier. When do you really see a top shooter leverage one handed shooting for a stage and it end up being faster/better than doing it two handed? From what I have seen, it’s been VERY rare. I have been exploring this in my own shooting to see if I can incorporate strong handed shooting into my “Bag of tricks” for a given stage in order to save time. I have been somewhat successful with it at times and other times it was just a waste of time or points. This is even for Strong Hand shooting much less Weak Hand. I am yet to see anyone transition to weak hand on a stage where it ended up being faster or better than a two handed grip. So really, other than being mandated to shoot strong or weak hand in a COF what is the point in it being a “Core” skill set??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's say I don't run so fast. Which is easy, 'cuz I don't. I get in a 40 yd foot race with an NFL running back. He only beats me by 2 seconds. I score 70% of his time. Then I get in a 400 meter sprint with an Olympian. He beats me by 60 seconds in the 400 meters. I score 40% of his time.

In a match environment the really good guys just have so much more track to beat us on. :roflol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All part of the game. Some paper GM's that will smoke classifiers they practice, yet never perform at matches. Others that hero/zero classifiers yet are always up there at day's end.

Focus on what you do and how you do it and don't worry about the rest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...