Female GM"s

[mildot1]

Has there ever been one?? If not I wonder why?

Mildot

[BritinUSA]

Not so far; its possible by picking the right classifiers, practice them over and over and nail the GM that way... I think that some of the top women want to earn it the hard way, 95% or above at Nationals

[Paul Santiago]

... earn it the hard way, 95% or above at Nationals

Any idea how many GM's have done it this way?

[steel1212]

... earn it the hard way, 95% or above at Nationals

Any idea how many GM's have done it this way?

If I had to guess, and its merely just that, I would say a couple folks Make GM every year at nationals but I could be way off.

[konkapot]

Serious props to anyone who does it like that.

FY42385

[Paul Santiago]

... earn it the hard way, 95% or above at Nationals

Any idea how many GM's have done it this way?

If I had to guess, and its merely just that, I would say a couple folks Make GM every year at nationals but I could be way off.

You are correct Corey, not many indeed.

I couldn't find 2010 or 2009 National Results but going back to 2006, this is what I could find for shooters scoring higher than 95% who were not GM's in that division.

2011:

BJ Norris (M) Lim

2008:

Shannon Smith (M) L10

Manny Bragg (M) L10

2007:

Travis Tomasie (M) L10

2006:

Max Michel (U) L10

Doug Koenig (U) L10

Ted Puente (M) L10.

[sperman]

I know a handful of revolver shooters did it in 2009 or 2010.

[Paul Santiago]

I know a handful of revolver shooters did it in 2009 or 2010.

yup. I found 2009 and 2010.

2010

Josh Lentz (M) Rev

Blake Miguez (M)

2009

Olhasso (M) Rev

Bagakis (M) Rev

Griffin (A) Rev

Penrod (M) Rev

[Thomas H]

... earn it the hard way, 95% or above at Nationals

Any idea how many GM's have done it this way?

If I had to guess, and its merely just that, I would say a couple folks Make GM every year at nationals but I could be way off.

Taking a look at the last two years, this has only happened to about three people in the 2010, 2011 years. I note that in pretty much every case, those people were already GMs in another division.

[mildot1]

I am gathering from the posts that even the percentage of men who have earned by shooting 95% or above at the nationals is fairly low. Since most classifiers are little to no movement that should eliminate the size and strenght difference. What other reason would you tender for lack of a female GM? Lets leave out the men to women ratio. I would bet that the ratio for male to female drag racers might be even more slanted but Shirley Muldowney won the big one.

Mildot

[Paul Santiago]

apologies to the OP for getting offtrack

[BritinUSA]

...Since most classifiers are little to no movement that should eliminate the size and strenght difference. What other reason would you tender for lack of a female GM?

From my post earlier...

... I think that some of the top women want to earn it the hard way, 95% or above at Nationals

If you get a GM card by classification and then go to Nationals and get around 85% then your GM classification doesn't really mean much, its just a piece of paper. Nationals attracts the very best shooters from across the country so getting 95% really means something. Performing at that level requires significant skills in EVERY aspect of shooting. Foot speed is not the main issue, there are some top women shooters who can move around a range as fast as the Super Squad, it is primarily recoil-management (in my opinion). The guns used by both genders are the same, PF is the same too. Women weigh less than men (generally), they are shorter than men (generally), they have less grip strength and upper body strength than men (generally).

Some women tend to have greater lower body strength than men.

Those are all key issues in recoil management. Is it possible for technique to overcome these obstacles, I personally think so. There is no such thing as the perfect stance or grip as each person has key strengths and weaknesses, so each competitor will have to figure out for themselves what works for them.

[Bunchies95]

Foot speed is not the main issue, there are some top women shooters who can move around a range as fast as the Super Squad, it is primarily recoil-management (in my opinion). The guns used by both genders are the same, PF is the same too. Women weigh less than men (generally), they are shorter than men (generally), they have less grip strength and upper body strength than men (generally).

Some women tend to have greater lower body strength than men.

Those are all key issues in recoil management. Is it possible for technique to overcome these obstacles, I personally think so. There is no such thing as the perfect stance or grip as each person has key strengths and weaknesses, so each competitor will have to figure out for themselves what works for them.

I think that KC Eusebio proved you point about technique by getting his GM card at 12. Replace references to women in bolded statement above with 12 yrd old boy and it still fits.

[Ben Stoeger]

If you get a GM card by classification and then go to Nationals and get around 85% then your GM classification doesn't really mean much, its just a piece of paper.

How so?

I looked through this and can't seem to find anything to support what you are saying:

http://www.uspsa.org/uspsa-faq-details.php?How-does-the-classification-system-work-9

[twodownzero]

Foot speed is not the main issue, there are some top women shooters who can move around a range as fast as the Super Squad, it is primarily recoil-management (in my opinion). The guns used by both genders are the same, PF is the same too. Women weigh less than men (generally), they are shorter than men (generally), they have less grip strength and upper body strength than men (generally).

Some women tend to have greater lower body strength than men.

Those are all key issues in recoil management. Is it possible for technique to overcome these obstacles, I personally think so. There is no such thing as the perfect stance or grip as each person has key strengths and weaknesses, so each competitor will have to figure out for themselves what works for them.

I think that KC Eusebio proved you point about technique by getting his GM card at 12. Replace references to women in bolded statement above with 12 yrd old boy and it still fits.

I don't know about that. Most 12 year old boys are probably stronger than my girlfriend, who is a perfectly able bodied adult woman.

[Fullauto_Shooter]

I think the key difference is that men are more willing to sacrifice the time and resources (money) to practice, even to the point of neglecting other important parts of their life, in order to meet self-imposed goals. I've known guys who have willingly shunned family and career, to pursue excellence in their leisure activities - be it hunting, riding bikes, triathlons, golf, or shooting.

Most women are not willing to make the sacrifices required (time and money) to make GM - they are simply too responsible.

I'm not saying all, or even most, GMs neglect family responsiblities or spend an inordinate amount of money on practice. What I am saying is that you don't get to be a GM without investing a lot of time and money in the pursuit of this goal, time and money that may have been better invested in other things. Everything we achieve has a cost; men are simply more willing to pay that cost - regardless of the consequences.

Just my thoughts.

Edited September 12, 2012 by Fullauto_Shooter

[gose]

Has there ever been one?? If not I wonder why?

Mildot

It would be interesting to see the average classification of females vs men, I'm guessing the difference will not be big.

That guess leads me to believe its more a function of a shallow talent pool than anything.

[BritinUSA]

From the web-site

Recently, some members have come to believe that the system was intended to indicate the highest performance level they could reach. Unfortunately, it is a simple matter for members to shoot a particular classifier over and over until they achieve as high a score a possible, then they send that score in to be used. This results in a classification that does not reflect reality, and in most cases, members who have done this cannot realistically compete at that higher level.

What the system was really designed and meant to show is how well a member can perform on a regular basis so that they can compete against shooters of their own relative skill level.

Any classification gathered by shooting just classifiers is rarely going to accurately reflect performance in a full-size competition such as Nationals. The GM classification is supposed to indicate a 95% efficiency rating compared to the rest of the scores in the database. If a GM cannot reach that 95% competing head to head in a competition then the question is this; Is that person really a GM?

[BritinUSA]

That guess leads me to believe its more a function of a shallow talent pool than anything.

I agree, and its another reason that USPSA should be more actively promoting the sport to women. We have some remarkably talented women in USPSA, but there are far too few of them.

[gose]

Any classification gathered by shooting just classifiers is rarely going to accurately reflect performance in a full-size competition such as Nationals. The GM classification is supposed to indicate a 95% efficiency rating compared to the rest of the scores in the database. If a GM cannot reach that 95% competing head to head in a competition then the question is this; Is that person really a GM?

Also, the classifiers dont really reflect true performance relative to the best shooters, since AFAIK, 100% isnt necessarily the best score achieved on a classifier, meaning that even if youre getting a 100%, you might still be 10-15% behind the fastest guys (which will be the ones winning the Nats)

If the classification system was changed to actually take the best performance into account and then recalculate classifications once/twice yearly, it would probably give a much more accurate picture (but this has been discussed before and we're getting OT...)

Edited September 12, 2012 by gose

[steel1212]

Any classification gathered by shooting just classifiers is rarely going to accurately reflect performance in a full-size competition such as Nationals. The GM classification is supposed to indicate a 95% efficiency rating compared to the rest of the scores in the database. If a GM cannot reach that 95% competing head to head in a competition then the question is this; Is that person really a GM?

Also, the classifiers dont really reflect true performance relative to the best shooters, since AFAIK, 100% isnt necessarily the best score achieved on a classifier, meaning that even if youre getting a 100%, you might still be 10-15% behind the fastest guys (which will be the ones winning the Nats)

If the classification system was changed to actually take the best performance into account and then recalculate classifications once/twice yearly, it would probably give a much more accurate picture (but this has been discussed before and we're getting OT...)

The problem with that is if you have somebody hero or zero it and hose it down and get lucky they have just set the bar unrealistically to high for that classifier.

Back to the Women thing, I honestly think there is just to few women in the sport.

[gose]

Any classification gathered by shooting just classifiers is rarely going to accurately reflect performance in a full-size competition such as Nationals. The GM classification is supposed to indicate a 95% efficiency rating compared to the rest of the scores in the database. If a GM cannot reach that 95% competing head to head in a competition then the question is this; Is that person really a GM?

Also, the classifiers dont really reflect true performance relative to the best shooters, since AFAIK, 100% isnt necessarily the best score achieved on a classifier, meaning that even if youre getting a 100%, you might still be 10-15% behind the fastest guys (which will be the ones winning the Nats)

If the classification system was changed to actually take the best performance into account and then recalculate classifications once/twice yearly, it would probably give a much more accurate picture (but this has been discussed before and we're getting OT...)

The problem with that is if you have somebody hero or zero it and hose it down and get lucky they have just set the bar unrealistically to high for that classifier.

Back to the Women thing, I honestly think there is just to few women in the sport.

And now you have people doing just that over and over again to get a higher classification.

Changing the classifier system doesnt mean that only one parameter can be changed Stop allowing people to reshoot classifiers, count the best 6 of the last 10 (or something like that) classifiers, change the percentages... there are plenty of changes that could be implemented to make the classification system more accurately reflect a shooters current relative skill level.

The big question is, does anyone really care enough to spend the time to come up with a better system? I doubt it, I know I surely dont

Back OT, yes, we need more women. We also need more men, so bring more shooters to the range!

Edited September 12, 2012 by gose

[Paul Santiago]

Any classification gathered by shooting just classifiers is rarely going to accurately reflect performance in a full-size competition such as Nationals. The GM classification is supposed to indicate a 95% efficiency rating compared to the rest of the scores in the database. If a GM cannot reach that 95% competing head to head in a competition then the question is this; Is that person really a GM?

From the 2011 Open Nationals Top 16. I'd say the answer is 'yes'. Only 3 shot above 95% but other than the three M's, I'd venture to say they are still GM's

Place Name Class Match %

1 Max Michel GM 100.000%

2 J J Racaza GM 96.761%

3 KC Eusebio GM 95.784%

4 Todd Jarrett GM 93.661%

5 William E Drummond M 92.923%

6 Shane A Coley GM 92.351%

7 Dave Sevigny GM 91.481%

8 Jojo Vidanes GM 90.654%

9 Michael Chris Tilley GM 90.520%

10 David E Pruitt GM 90.091%

11 Eddie M Garcia GM 88.386%

12 David M Re GM 87.769%

13 James McGinty M 87.741%

14 Ben Thompson M 87.496%

15 Joe D Bridgman GM 87.104%

16 Nicholas A Neel GM 85.922%

[motosapiens]

Foot speed is not the main issue, there are some top women shooters who can move around a range as fast as the Super Squad, it is primarily recoil-management (in my opinion). The guns used by both genders are the same, PF is the same too. Women weigh less than men (generally), they are shorter than men (generally), they have less grip strength and upper body strength than men (generally).

Some women tend to have greater lower body strength than men.

As gose hinted at above:

What percentage of male shooters are gm's?

How many female shooters are there in uspsa?

comparing those two numbers should shed some light on whether there the lack of female gms is indicative of some other issue, or simply an expected statistical result.

Based on what I see locally (2 or 3 female shooters out of every 100), i would expect 1 out of every 50 or so GM's to be female.

[Ben Stoeger]

The GM classification is supposed to indicate a 95% efficiency rating compared to the rest of the scores in the database.

Really? The bit you quoted just implied that people were supposed to be competitive against shooters of like classification. It didn't specify the numbers that you are talking about regarding major match finish and percentage.

GMs that have shot over 95% at nationals are the exception and not the rule, so I think it is interesting you would claim that most GMs are not actually GM's, based upon a few GMs that finish really well at nats.

I think you (and many others) have arbitrarily decided that a shooter of any given classification should shoot a certain percentage at nationals when you can find no verbiage to support that claim in the classification system explanation.

Nationals is used as a classifier... ONE classifier. The classification system on the other hand makes no claims (not that I can find anyway) in terms of being a predictive tool to tell us how certain shooters "should" finish at nationals. Do you not agree with my assessment?