SuperGrandmasters

[Flexmoney]

- The classifer high hit factor is (in theory) an AVERAGE of the top ten hit factors turned in for that particular classifer.

At Majors, we don't do an average. We compare DIRECTLY to 100%.

- In classifers, we get some freebies. Best 6 of last 8...not including anything 5% below your current class.

I am sitting at around 93% for my classifers. It's not realistic for me to think that I will match that percentage in a match shooting against Phil or Robbie.

Everything is as it should be.

(Doug, good observation.)

[vincent]

From the USPSA website there are 14227 shooters in the database with 9968 shooters with a classification. There are only about 113 GM's in Open and 105 GM's in Limited. I'll bet that quite a few of those overlap. I would be suprised if the organization had a lot of motivation to revamp the classification system to make an adjustment to further segment the top 0.2% of the membership for the potential benefit of the remaining top 0.8% of an already "elite" classification. Seems like splitting hairs to me (although I'm currently not a GM so I may be biased).

[diehli]

How do you classify a professional shooter? Those who get paid to shoot?

Seems to me that there are only a few people that actually get paid to shoot (Leatham, Jarrett), though guys like Dave Sevigny work for a company that sponsors them, their primary job isn't to be a spokesperson and shoot every day. So do we include guys that work with/around guns/shooting in the pro category?

In that case, you still have guys like Jojo Vidanes who are gonna beat the living crap out of others, and he's got a day job that's not even remotely related to shooting.

Leave it be... work harder if you want to win.

[Kingman]

I am working pretty hard to get where I am going.

Some people hate me shooting C class. Its all about the game anyhow.

[Matthew_Mink]

- The classifer high hit factor is (in theory) an AVERAGE of the top ten hit factors turned in for that particular classifer.

At Majors, we don't do an average. We compare DIRECTLY to 100%.

- In classifers, we get some freebies. Best 6 of last 8...not including anything 5% below your current class.

I am sitting at around 93% for my classifers. It's not realistic for me to think that I will match that percentage in a match shooting against Phil or Robbie.

Everything is as it should be.

(Doug, good observation.)

flex, that's the best explanation I've ever heard on this subject. Matter of fact, if I don't shoot 95% or better this year at Nats, I'm not gonna feel too bad.

[Jeeper]

Matter of fact, if I don't shoot 95% or better this year at Nats, I'm not gonna feel too bad.

Thats bull! You will be at 100%.

[TMC]

I think it sould be left the way it is. I like being a "B" and beating higher class shooters on a regular basis. Going to a major match and seeing your name and B surrounded my GM, M and A's is kinda cool.

14th at the 3 guns nats, with only one B and one A higher than me and all the rest are M and GM, plus I beat 3 GM's a bunch of M's and I can't count how many A's.

[Loves2Shoot]

I think it sould be left the way it is. I like being a "B" and beating higher class shooters on a regular basis. Going to a major match and seeing your name and B surrounded my GM, M and A's is kinda cool.

14th at the 3 guns nats, with only one B and one A higher than me and all the rest are M and GM, plus I beat 3 GM's a bunch of M's and I can't count how many A's.

Sandbagger

[Matthew_Mink]

Matter of fact, if I don't shoot 95% or better this year at Nats, I'm not gonna feel too bad.

Thats bull! You will be at 100%.

I was pretty confident too, until the Summer Blast.

[EricW]

[Flexmoney]

Matt,

I just went and did the math from last years Production Nationals.

By averaging the top ten (by match points), yuor percentage would have came in at 99.046%. Of course, Robbie would have came in at 113%, and Dave was 120%.

And, your 92.26% at the Summer Blast was pretty solid. Especially without any help (from a Robbie or the like) to steal stage wins from Dave.

[wide45]

Dead? But he looks so lifelike

[TMC]

I think it sould be left the way it is.  I like being a "B" and beating higher class shooters on a regular basis.  Going to a major match and seeing your name and B surrounded my GM, M and A's is kinda cool.

14th at the 3 guns nats, with only one B and one A higher than me and all the rest are M and GM, plus I beat 3 GM's a bunch of M's and I can't count how many A's.

Sandbagger

And you should have seen my performance at the IRC, 15th overall and winner of C open. The next "C" shooter was 30th. I'm told there was some grumbling at the wall where the scores were posted. I don't blame them, been there myself.

I didn't like the way that turned out but I was unclassified for open so I showed up on Thursday before the match to shoot classifiers. They had only 4 set up and I know I screwed up one due to a relead gone bad, and who knows on the others. What are you going to do when you have so few classifiers?

[Ron Ankeny]

TMC:

Perfect example of why the whole classification system should be dumped. You were 15th overall and that has meaning. First C means nothing.

[j1b]

IMO the classification system is screwed up.

If you didn't have a classification based on the current system then you wouldn't go into a major match and think "damn . . . why doesn't my current classification match up to the percentage I shot in a match?" You'd simply say "I shot 83% of Rob Leatham and that probably reflects where I'm at" The classification system has given you a false sense of being able to perform at a match at X level when that may not in fact be reality (due to factors already mentioned above)

I like to use classifiers as a point of reference, but truly that is all. I know what my real classification is, or at least what my real shooting level is, at major matches. Only there do I know whether or not I need to work on more things, or if I am about where I need to be.

There is a vast difference between the big dogs, and the great shooters. I don't know that they should be classed different, just that the great shooters need to work on a few more things.

I don't agree that natural talent is needed to get there though. Shooting has never come easy to me, which is why it has taken me so long to get back into the saddle at a level even close to where I once was. Still not there. Working hard will get you there as long as you are working hard on the right things - which differ by individual.

Just my opinion.

JB

[Ron Ankeny]

Working hard will get you there as long as you are working hard on the right things - which differ by individual.

I completely agree, if a person has the physical skills required to get there. Not everyone has what it takes. Even if they make it, the skills will eventually diminish as the ability to physically perform goes down the toilet.

[h4444]

Nik,

I crashed and burned on 4 at the Buckeye Blast too,,,,,couldn't hit the damn plates on the plate rack. I was jerking shots low all day long.

Based on what you quoted from my post, I don't think that their approach was all that much different from a lot of people's in terms of engagement order, positions,,,,etc,,,,but it was the execution part that they kicked everyone's ass on.

Crap, you could add both their times together and they still would have beaten me.

H4444

[j1b]

Ron,

I agree. Obviously made some assumptions there. Clearly a person who only had one arm would be hard pressed to be competitive regardless of how hard they worked. Or a person that turned 80 yesterday may not be the one to get there.

I don't know that those individuals would expect to become one of the best, so by virtue of that I assumed that a person desiring to get there, and working to get there, had the physical ability to get there.

Quite frankly there are many that will never get there because they aren't willing to mentally apply themselves. That is probably the bigger hurdle.

I can't count the number of times I've seen a young person doing some menial job and thinking "That person has a ton of work ethic, they are intelligent, they have the ability" but then go talk to them and they've already decided that moving up isn't in their best interest. Or their pissed off about something and have made excuses for why they are where they are. My experience tells me that there are many similar individuals in our sport.

I have to believe that happens more than anything else and that ironically many people that HAVE the ability for whatever reason refuse to apply it.

Anyhow - I think we agree. If a person can do it, and wants to do it then they need to decide to do it and go. Its like me and chewing. Every time I try to quit I tell people "I'm quitting" Truly the approach should be entirely different (if I know this it begs the question why I haven't quit ) My approach should be that one day I wake up, and I don't chew anymore. I'm not quitting - I quit.

Anyhow . . . I guess its all good either way.

JB

[Kingman]

To get to that level takes alot of work towards high goals. I have started working out several hours every day, running, lifting, biking, whatever I can do.

Practicing several thousand rounds a week and dry firing my arse off. its starting to show in my results. But I am never satisfied.

I hope to be there in two years. Hope to make master in one year. I am changing jobs etc to be able to accomplish it.

Willing to give up alot to get alot in my opinion.

[TommyGun]

A lot of good points on this thread, and some others that just don't add up.

I've been moving up through the ranks for some time now. The athletic side is kind of natural for some people. I've been very fortunate with that side of the sport, others seem to be hindered by it. You can't expect to go out and compete against the elite atheletes of your sport without at least a little prep work.

Everyone knows that you can make M or GM by standing flat footed and hosing a few good classifiers. Thats great if you just want the card. It's not good for you if you want to go out and compete on a national level. You must be dedicated to your goals, and set them within your reach. Reavaluate your progress and set new goals. If you want to be the Big fish at home thats fine. If you think you can go out and play with the BIG DOGS you better be ready. They are THE GAME and they are not getting slower.

When I started shooting in USPSA in 2001 I knew instantly that I wanted to climb that mountain to the top. I knew I'd have to be prepared for the MENTAL game as well as the actual shooting. I've never complained that the top GM's where beating everyone out there by a bunch. I just started working harder to catch them. Most of them already had 10-15 years experience on me.

Best advice from me. Have fun, make friends, enjoy the game.

If you want to play at the top prepare yourself for it. I want to play at the top, and I'm getting there slowly. I'm not a paid shooter, I work full time, and have two kids. Area 7 4th OA Open, Area 8 5th OA Open. If I can close the gap, you can too.......

Less time whinning and more time shooting!

I think the system works as is.

See you at the Top,

TGun

[h4444]

This thread reminds me exactly why I "play the game two ways". I spoke to Steve and Kyle after the Buckeye Blast about this.

I want to win my cards in Limited on the "field of battle" going head to head against the big dawgs. I didn't do well at the Buckeye Blast, but oh well. That's my plan for Limited, I simply didn't execute well.

All the other divisions, I don't care if I win my cards through classifiers.

I look at it like this,,,,someone calls me a sandbagger in limited,,,,hey, I won my XX card by classifiers. Someone calls me a grandbagger, hey, I won my YY card inLimited in tournament play against the big dawgs.

It is just the way I want to do it. I want those Limited cards to come through head to head competition against the very best on their best days. I'll take my other cards against the classifier system.

I already know how that's going to turn out. I won my B card at Area 5 last year. This year, I'm one classifier away from A in L10. I shot my ass off to get that B card at Area 5 and I'll be far more proud of it than if I win my A in L10 this year through the classifier system,,,,but that is just me and that is just my goals/approach to measuring my progress/success.

It is all in what you want out of the game and there is room to play it both ways.

H4444

[Matthew_Mink]

Matt,

I just went and did the math from last years Production Nationals.

By averaging the top ten (by match points), yuor percentage would have came in at 99.046%. Of course, Robbie would have came in at 113%, and Dave was 120%.

And, your 92.26% at the Summer Blast was pretty solid. Especially without any help (from a Robbie or the like) to steal stage wins from Dave.

Kyle, I almost understand what you did with the Nats averages, but explain that in a little more detail please.

And I was pretty happy with my SB finish. But I shouldn't need Robbie to take stage wins from Dave, Matt needs to take stage wins from Dave. And for the first time ever, I did on a couple of field courses. That was a huge confidence builder. I think I lost some confidence after getting smashed so bad at Nats last year. The gap between 1st and 2nd, and 2nd and 3rd was HUGE. I realized that there was yet another level to climb, and that's why this topic was so intriguing to me.

But after your above explanation on why there is such a difference between match percentages and classifier percentages, some of the confidence came back, and I think that is one area I have been lacking in all year.

If I can figure out just a few more things in big matches, I think I could have a shot at the title. And maybe this year if I am on the Production SuperSquad, the last few pieces of the puzzle will fall in place. And I think those few more things are what seperates the match/classifier percentages at the upper echelons, no matter the division.

And I totally agree with Jack, the classification system is screwed up. If they (USPSA) maintained it like they say they will (see classification administration on the uspsa homepage), it wouldn't be such a mess. Right now it is so easy to grandbag or sandbag, because everybody that wants to know, knows the HHF's. The fix? There would be a lot to fix. First of all is revamp the HHF's back to reality for all the divisions. Even Jerry can't shoot 100% on most of the Revo classifiers. That's crazy. Production HHF's don't take into account all the extra mag changes. Neither do Lim10. Having the same HHF for Limited and Lim10, but on the same classifier Lim10 has to do 2 extra mag changes is totally wrong. Most of the classifiers haven't had their HHF's adjusted in what, 3 or 4 years? Some classifiers are grandbag specials. Fix it. Some are so hard they are sandbag specials. Fix it. But that would only be a start... I think there should be a few more things fixed to stop the grand/sandbagging, but that's a whole nuther topic.

[Kingman]

I agree about shooting out of class. They should institute some way based on all match results classify.

For ex, I have a 49% avg on classifiers, but at local matches I have shot as high as 80% with gm's there. Now I don't throw the classifier. But I have a slow draw(1.5+) right now and make up for it on the splits, transitions etc.

But I have already heard about sandbagging based on my shooting overall.

[Flexmoney]

Kyle, I almost understand what you did with the Nats averages, but explain that in a little more detail please.

Nothing too significant. I just took the top ten finishers and added up their points, then divided by ten to get an average of the match points for the top ten. To kinda simulate the way they do classifiers.

It just a different way to grade on the curve.

As it stands now, whoever gets the match win gets 100%. They set the curve.

All I did was average the top TEN, and set the curve on their average.

Your right on winning stages. That is key. Especially the big point stages.

[Matthew_Mink]

Gotcha!