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

IDPA GM class


Strick

Recommended Posts

Best part of making Ma is not having to shoot the classifier again. If they go to a GM, I guess I'l be blowing 90 rounds a year again.

Damn that would be one part that would suck. One of the best benefits of making Master is this! I'll compete against Sevigny and Vogel or whoever... just don't make me classify in 3-4 division/year!

You shouldn't be competing against anyone but yourself.

You use others just to help push yourself.

On a personal note. I can see that GM may thin the Master herd out for a while, but as pointed out , that will be top heavy in a couple or so years butmaybe not as much as master.

Master could be broken into 2 sub classes.

Master.

Master Pro.

Master Pro would be for professional shooters like Jerry M, Dave S etc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 107
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I really don't care about GM, as long as my reward for making Master remains not having to shoot the classifier again.

That would not seem logical, though.

You can't go down in classification.

The requirement to shoot a classifier every year seems to be to lessen sandbagging - so that if your skills have improved, you're bumped to a higher classification.

Presumably, the exclusion of Masters from that requirement is that there's no place for them to go in that division - they're at the top and can't go down.

That reasoning wouldn't apply if there's now the ability for Masters to go up.

So you can't keep sandbagging as a mere Master forever, Dude! :cheers:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will say this- I think anyone that sandbags for any reason is pathetic. Personally I guess I'm lucky as I don't know anyone that does this. I always try to shoot my best and my friends do the same thing. Actually- I'll shoot classifiers whenever I can to see how I've improved (or not) with certain aspects of my shooting. I'd rather come in 5th Master than 1st Expert because I know I did my best on each and every classifier. All this being said- I like not "having to" classify every year- only because if I want to switch divisions I don't have to worry about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I started shooting IDPA back in 97 it was said that Bill did not like the way IPSC was going. The rule book had about 20 pages and a few of them was just pictures.No awards for less then a state match, no prize tables and master was as good as it got.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really don't care about GM, as long as my reward for making Master remains not having to shoot the classifier again.

That would not seem logical, though.

You can't go down in classification.

The requirement to shoot a classifier every year seems to be to lessen sandbagging - so that if your skills have improved, you're bumped to a higher classification.

Presumably, the exclusion of Masters from that requirement is that there's no place for them to go in that division - they're at the top and can't go down.

That reasoning wouldn't apply if there's now the ability for Masters to go up.

So you can't keep sandbagging as a mere Master forever, Dude! :cheers:

HaHa , I'm still far enough away from Master that never occurred to me! Of course you're right - (the thought of sandbagging as a Master to avoid Sevigny makes me grin a little inside.)

One of the points I was trying to get across in my post was that I really don't care about classifications

when I guage my performance - in other words it wouldn't bother me much if they dropped the classification system altogether. (So how's that for not being a sandbagger! ;):D )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the points I was trying to get across in my post was that I really don't care about classifications

when I guage my performance - in other words it wouldn't bother me much if they dropped the classification system altogether. (So how's that for not being a sandbagger! ;):D )

Ironically I think the IDPA classification system is very good. It does a decent job "classifying" peoples' shooting skills IMO. I actually enjoy running them too as you probably can't find a better way to practice with just 90 rounds. My beef is since I like shooting different guns on occasion- I don't like having to classify for each division every year- that takes a lot of time. My primary motivation to make Master is so I don't have to shoo them! rolleyes.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ironically I think the IDPA classification system is very good. It does a decent job "classifying" peoples' shooting skills IMO. I actually enjoy running them too as you probably can't find a better way to practice with just 90 rounds. My beef is since I like shooting different guns on occasion- I don't like having to classify for each division every year- that takes a lot of time. My primary motivation to make Master is so I don't have to shoo them! rolleyes.gif

I agree in the first part but disagree in the second.

The classification system is very good but the classifiers SHOULD require cover. The times obtained would be more representative of ones ability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GM Class?? I think IDPA should put more effort in rewritting the Rule Book. In addition, rework the classifier stages. The classifier stages have been the same stages since day one. Once these two items are fixed, then why not start a GM Class. It would be something new to go for.

You know what, I agree I wouldn't mind seeing the classifier stages changed too. I didn't even think of this but when you mentioned it.. yea.. I'd like to see a change.

I made master last year, I don't really care one way or another about a GM class. I try my best and can be competitive most days, at the end of the day I have always been the kind of guy who wants to win when i go out there and have always felt that I just need to step it up to beat some of the better shooters out there. That said, it's hard to compete with the top talent, who shoot multiple times a week, and or work in the business. I work in IT and can't exactly dedicate the time they do at getting better. Is that an excuse? no.. I am not sure if i triple my training time I can compete with Sevigny, but I do feel I would be a lot closer..Is what it is i guess, but i dont thing a GM class would fix anything, or that anything needs fixing. I can think of multiple things that need fixing the classes aren't one of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see nothing wrong with the classifier as it is. For 90 rounds you can't do a more balanced "test" IMO. What specifically would you want changed? Are there skills that aren't adequately tested? I see a good correlation between match results and classifier results for the most part. Occasionally you see Master level shooters that do great in matches but can't do a Master level classifier and vice versa.. but those are the exceptions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the club I shoot at most, the score sheet is almost invariably all the Masters in a block at the top, followed by the Experts in a block, followed by the Sharpshooters, followed by the Marksmen, followed by the Unclassed. Occasionally you may see an Expert having a really good day outshoot a Master who isn't, a Sharpshooter outshoot an Expert,and so on down the line, but in general the classes run true. Which just says to me that, yes, the classifier actually does do a really good job measuring almost all the skills needed to do well in matches.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the club I shoot at most, the score sheet is almost invariably all the Masters in a block at the top, followed by the Experts in a block, followed by the Sharpshooters, followed by the Marksmen, followed by the Unclassed. Occasionally you may see an Expert having a really good day outshoot a Master who isn't, a Sharpshooter outshoot an Expert,and so on down the line, but in general the classes run true. Which just says to me that, yes, the classifier actually does do a really good job measuring almost all the skills needed to do well in matches.

How do you know those folks achieved their classification via the classifier and not from a match bump? Your observation says nothing of the classifier itself, but may speak to the classification system.

I do think the classification system works well enough. I think the classifier (numbers) could be improved in a number of areas, but it, too, does work well enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure there are a few people at the match who have gotten their rank through a bump at the state match. But, having shot every WA state match save one (injury) at Renton since 2002 (they only started at this club in 2002) I have never seen anyone get a match bump other from from Marksman to Sharpshooter.There simply aren't enough people competing in any single class/division for that to happen in anything other than Marksman/whatever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the club I shoot at most, the score sheet is almost invariably all the Masters in a block at the top, followed by the Experts in a block, followed by the Sharpshooters, followed by the Marksmen, followed by the Unclassed. Occasionally you may see an Expert having a really good day outshoot a Master who isn't, a Sharpshooter outshoot an Expert,and so on down the line, but in general the classes run true. Which just says to me that, yes, the classifier actually does do a really good job measuring almost all the skills needed to do well in matches.

Apparently Not so in Texas.... :D

I just reviewed 3 years results of our yearly big match and found that there aere usually 3 or 4 from just about every division that shoot well into the next division..........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the 2010 AZ IDPA Championship - the two biggest divisions:

SSP MA's = 8, number of EX's beating last MA = (*basically) 1

SSP EX's = 11, number of SS's beating last EX = 6

SSP SS's = 14, number of MM's beating last SS = 4

SSP MM's = 12

ESP MA's = 5, number of EX's beating last MA = 3

ESP EX's = 6, number of SS's beating last EX = 2

ESP SS's = 10, number of MM's beating last SS = 4

ESP MM's = 12

So the average "overlap" (If you want to define overlap by the number of EX's beating the last MA and so forth) averages out at 38%.

*One MA really tanked the match, and including his score would have really thrown SSP into a tizzy, so I tossed it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had looked at the Nationals for the same reasons, Steve, but decided not to bother posting results - they seemed to be all over the place.

One class winner would have taken 4th place above, rather impressive. Another class would have only had a few placing in the top ten above. Another had sixteen beating at least one shooter above out of the 21 above. I didn't think I could draw much of a conclusion from what I saw, other than one class is better. ;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok- what can and sometimes does happen is that some shooters that practice quite a bit after making say SS in a classifier can actually get bumped up in a major match and do real well. It's not that much effort to shoot a SS in a classifier then a year later throw a beating on a bunch of Experts as well. This has more to do with the frequency of the classifier requirement... and some people will sandbag- not shoot a classifier to the best of their ability- so they can place well at a major match. Not sure how you could "fix" that. I still think the classifier itself is a great test of skills.

Edited by lugnut
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with that.

Without trying to draw a comparison to USPSA, a system that constantly updates you class on a regular basis would do away with that. The other problem I have seen is that some believe that if you received a match bump then that meets your classifier requirement for that year so a shooter may go 2 years or so with out shooting a classifier.

I would still love to know how many MA have actually shot the classifier at a MA time. I would also love to have the ability to see what other shooters are classified as on the IDPA site.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would also love to have the ability to see what other shooters are classified as on the IDPA site.

Been discussing this on our local forum. My guess is that the classifications on the IDPA site are less than 50% correct. Not IDPA's fault though, if the Club Contacts don't submit classifier scores, then obviously it's not going to get posted. Same thing with match bumps, some MDs are great about getting the info to HQ, others not so much. IRRC, your classification is ultimately what it states on your card?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok- what can and sometimes does happen is that some shooters that practice quite a bit after making say SS in a classifier can actually get bumped up in a major match and do real well. It's not that much effort to shoot a SS in a classifier then a year later throw a beating on a bunch of Experts as well. This has more to do with the frequency of the classifier requirement... and some people will sandbag- not shoot a classifier to the best of their ability- so they can place well at a major match. Not sure how you could "fix" that. I still think the classifier itself is a great test of skills.

Sure, so you have a few anecdotes that may explain some great results, and of course it may not be applicable as well.

Without some actual real analysis that will strip out most of the noise we're left with no definititve answers and just a bunch of individual guesses based on a vary small sample size.

One can't fix sandbagging and improvement of ability, but one can improve the system if desired.

Edited by gr7070
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...