Female GM"s

[HoMiE]

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%

I agree, if anyone of these shooters showed up at a major match, they would be a contender to win. To make the math simple, say 1500 points at a 15 stage national. So if Max won all the stages and got 1500 points and Nick Neel shot 85% of Max, Nick still shot 1275 points. Yes he was 225 points behind but if you average that out over 15 stages, thats only 15 points per stage. Now granted, all stages are not weighted the same, but still, 85% is still good and it's not like they are handing out GM cards to everybody as I heard someone say at a match one day. I think Jessie could be the first woman GM shooter.

Edited September 12, 2012 by HoMiE

[mhop]

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?

By earning the GM card through classifers isn't that exactly what they did reach 95% or above efficiency? That is the system we use. You can always create a new classification system that USPSA can use. BTW there is only one paper GM that i know of all others have earned it at that current time should we start taking it away them if they are out of the game or have other priorities?

[mhop]

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.

What are your ideas to USPSA to promote them more?

[MarkCO]

What are your ideas to USPSA to promote them more?

Honestly, it is not USPSA. It is the grass roots that needs to change, and NSSF is taking some very needed steps in that direction. Also, regardless of our likes or dislikes, the TV coverage is helping as well.

[bbbean]

Any classification gathered by shooting just classifiers is rarely going to accurately reflect performance in a full-size competition such as Nationals...

And yet the vast majority of shooters at level II and III matches finish within the range of scores they score on classifiers. There will always be exceptions, but classifier scores are a reliable predictor of major match performance.

I do think it's odd that we don't have female GMs yet, but our sport is still relatively young, female participation is low, and our top-down scoring system means the bar is constantly being raised. Throw in anatomical differences and the fact that fewer women have the same combination of speed and strength that we see in top male shooters, and it's not that remarkable that A and M represent the best of the current crop of female shooters.

It'll be interesting to see where that stands in another decade or so, particularly if we ever see more mainstream female interest in the shooting sports. You only need look at some of the women participating in Olympic events to see that there are some remarkable female athletes out there who are doing things women simply couldn't do a generation ago. Let a few of them get the USPSA bug, and we'll see a female GM.

[Carmoney]

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.

OMG, really Brit? Really? How could anybody seriously suggest that USPSA doesn't fall over itself to promote and publicize and reward the women shooters, at levels that are far out of proportion to their actual participation levels??

I'm not saying it's a bad idea. But at the very least, let's acknowledge all the active effort that is already being expended in that direction.

[MarkCO]

Agree Mike. USPSA and most of the action shooting sports hugley reward female competition. But unlike NASACR, we seem to not understand the fact that the "Top" series can't promote itself to females as competitors and hope that we end up at a 50/50 mix. As a male who has tried to understand one particular female for going on about 18 years now, I have an idea, but any smart male will answer this question as "I don't know, ask her."

I don't know if Kay or Julie, or Randy or Jessie or ... can or will answer the question posed, but I would venture to guess, based on my research on the female mental processes, that there will NOT be a unified answer.

Edited September 12, 2012 by MarkCO

[CHA-LEE]

I don't buy the "If you don't finish 95% or better at the nationals then you are not really a GM" stance. Look at all of the past Nationals results and you will see only a few shooters at 95% or better in their match result at the nationals with OBVIOUS solid GM talent finishing below the magical 95% mark. There will almost always be one or two shooters who have an awesome match at the nationals and blow out the bell curve when compared to the rest of the solid GM's. From all of the scrubbing through past nationals results that I have done, it seems like the "Average" solid GM finishing percentage is about 90% of the winner. If you attend the nationals and can finish within 10% of the winner, you are a bad ass in my book!!!

As for why there are no Female GM's, I am going to take a different stance than most. Everyone trains only as hard as it takes to win. Women compete against each other for the "Ladies" National Title. As a lady, if you know that you only have to put in a solid A Class level performance to win the title, then that is all you are going to train for. I think that they are holding themselves back because they have greatly lowered the bar, when compared to men, when it comes to earning a national title. That and I don' t think that they have the same pressure to perform as dudes when it comes to making their sponsors happy or setting personal goals.

Lets use the 2011 Nationals results as data points.....

Single Stack - Sarah Dunivin - 69% of the winner

Open - Rebecca Jones - 78% of the winner

Revolver - Julie Golob - 68% of the winner

Limited 10 - Lisa Munson - 71% of the winner

Production - Julie Golob - 77% of the winner

Limited - Jessie Harrison - 72% of the winner

We know that all of these ladies are "good" shooters but obviously based on their finishing percentage when compared to the division winner its very telling of their overall skill level. All of them would need to make a significant step forward in skills to even start to perform at a GM level. I am not knocking the ladies who shoot our sport. Just simply stating the facts as I see them. There are no female GM's because they can win national titles without needing to perform at a GM level. The path of least resistance in getting the job done always wins in the end.

[kevin c]

I would be very pleased to finish in the middle 70's at the Nats (A class).

I think the 100% marks for classifier stages, whether those in the book or those shot at the Nats, and the top scores at the Nats may often be anomalous. They represent, by definition, the top performance of the best, most often under circumstances where everything has gone right. It's not hard to imagine that most GM's are very close in ability, but that the performance put out on any given day may depend on variables beyond an individual's control. If everything is "on" you burn it down. If not, a good run comes out, better than the rank and file but not quite as good as the top guy who had it all come together. And of course, some people push it: they do very well (and then that freakish run gets incorporated into the other freakish runs that are the classifier bench mark) or they crash, and finish down with the rank and file and the system throws out the bad score. At the Nats, one or two bad stages can really put you down, percentage wise, compared to good clean runs by other GM's, and well behind those who really pulled it out. All that to say 90-95 percent might be where most GM's end up after a solid run, and 95-100% represents an exceptional performance by a GM.

Back on topic - I think much of the sport favors the male physique, especially field courses, and that means women have further to go and more to do to overcome that. I do think that a female GM is very possible, but it might have to wait for much larger participation base by women to make it happen. If the sport became more technical, with fewer aspects rewarding greater strength size or speed, then the top women's scores would get closer to the top.

[Flexmoney]

Any classification gathered by shooting just classifiers is rarely going to accurately reflect performance in a full-size competition such as Nationals.

Huh?

That just isn't reality. Check your major matches. In general, the GM's are at the top of the list, followed by the Masters, etc.

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

And, it does that.

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?

Here is where many are misinformed. They don't get that those are two different things (classifiers vs. match finish). The math is different. The data is different. The 100% is different. Etc...

[bbbean]

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?

Here is where many are misinformed. They don't get that those are two different things (classifiers vs. match finish). The math is different. The data is different. The 100% is different. Etc...

Good point. Perhaps is you took the best 6 of 8 level II or III matches (dropping any scores that weren't within 5% of classification), the numbers would be comparable.

[PKT1106]

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

Scores are input regardless of "gender norming" or "gender handicapping". Look at the 100m dash between men and women. Men's record is 9.58s by Bolt and Women's is 10.49 by Florence Griffith-Joyner. Do both train at a high level? Of course. Are they running the same course? Yes. The difference is just plain body physiology and kinesiology.

Women and men are generally put together different and have different strenghts. Women generally have better visual acuity and target tracking. Men have muscular bodies that are easier trained for speed, quickness and movement. Is it easier for the women to gain speed/quickness or for the men to gain visual acuity and tracking?

I am not knocking the ladies because most of them can whip my ass on any day (with a smile on my face), but there is something to be said for comparing women to men straight across the board and the lack of female GMs.

[mikeg1005]

Scores are input regardless of "gender norming" or "gender handicapping". Look at the 100m dash between men and women. Men's record is 9.58s by Bolt and Women's is 10.49 by Florence Griffith-Joyner. Do both train at a high level? Of course. Are they running the same course? Yes. The difference is just plain body physiology and kinesiology.

I think this is a bad example.

The 100m dash is VERY much dependent on muscles and your body build... Men are built different than women, hense why they are faster. All movement in USPSA is level for men and women, getting in and out of position, running, bending, leaning, etc. Anyone can do that.

Shooting skills and stage breakdown does not have an advantages in any gender. Even arm/hand muscles in some women are strong enough to manage recoil like the guys do.

I agree with CHA-LEE, there is nothing in this sport that being a guy gives you an advantage in... the main reason(I think) men dominate the top spots in a division is because women compete against eachother, instead of against everyone.

Mike.

[Corey]

Do people not realize how hard it is to shoot your classification at a Nationals? Take a look at the results from any recent Nationals event. Look at each class winner and the next few down. How many of them shot their actual class percentage? how many shot above it? Not very many, if any at all. Shooting up a class at a Nationals is an awesome way to earn a class bump, but the vast majority shooters aren't going to make that happen, I don't care what the class move is C->B or M->GM.

[JakeMartens]

I think the women on their super squad are too worried about being stalked by someone in to small of shorts and cannot perform better because of this

[bbbean]

FWIW: Boys Throw Better Than Girls. Good Job?

[jualdeaux]

What is the percentage of women compared to men in the shooting sports? quite a small percentage I'm sure.

How many of those women have the innate ability to become GMs and how many of those are willing, and able, to dedicate the necessary time and resources to bring that ability out?

[SauconValley Shooter]

Good Morning,

I do not believe that women are limiting themselves by competing only amongst themselves. I am fortunate that Joanna shoots almost every shooting sport with me, in fact we met at an IDPA match. Joanna does not compare herself to the other women at a match, she compares herself to the men. In a similar fashion, because I shoot revolver in IDPA and USPSA, and there are usually so few other revolver shooters, I compare myself to everyone shooting the match. I get great satisfaction from besting bottom feeders just as Joanna gets great satisfaction from besting men. All of the women shooters that I know feel it is "nice" to win High Lady, but they want the class or division win as much as anyone else.

[Lifeislarge]

There are very few sports/activities in which women and men participate competitively on an even playing field. The USGA has a handicap system, that is supposedly designed to even out the playing field. You can have a male and a female scratch golfer, but their handicap is still based on total distance of the course. Danica Patrick races in a male dominated sport, but is it her skill level, or the skills of her crew that are holding her back? I'm slight of frame, with short thumbs, and therefore may have a disadvantage compared to the guy with meat sticks for arms and big paws to cradle his gun. Do I need to work out more to compete? I'm still looking for a mag release that will allow me to drop a mag without shifting my grip.

Are there International women GM's? Seems that Europe has always had women that could compete at a higher level in physical and tactical sports. I'm sure there will come a time when we see a woman show up with a blend of natural talent, drive and ambition, and a daddy who started her training at 3 who will demolish the competition much like Tiger woods did early in his career.

[GForceLizard]

There are enough physical aspects to the sport that men will generally be better and hold the top spots. It would be great to get the number of women participating up and create entirely separate scoring for men and women. If for example 50% of the participants were female we could have classifier numbers for each sex.

[Coach]

Back on topic - I think much of the sport favors the male physique, especially field courses, and that means women have further to go and more to do to overcome that. I do think that a female GM is very possible, but it might have to wait for much larger participation base by women to make it happen. If the sport became more technical, with fewer aspects rewarding greater strength size or speed, then the top women's scores would get closer to the top.

Most classifiers are not of the "field course" variety. So I would think a female being able to earn a GM card would be easier to accomplish than for a female to be competitive with the top male GM's. I know for me it is a lot easier to earn a classification than it is to be competitive in that class at a major match. I also think it is possible that it can happen and I think it will happen.

Perhaps it has more to do with focus on the goal of making GM during the years of their life when their reflexes are the best. I have seen a young lady shoot a GM run on a classifier in person, but school and other things have kept her off the range lately. I would say if she had shot as many classifiers as I have in the last two years she would have that classification. If other priorities such as school, a job, getting married, having some kids get in her way for the next ten to fifteen years she may not make it at all.

We are all fighting time.

[JakeMartens]

Back on topic - I think much of the sport favors the male physique, especially field courses, and that means women have further to go and more to do to overcome that. I do think that a female GM is very possible, but it might have to wait for much larger participation base by women to make it happen. If the sport became more technical, with fewer aspects rewarding greater strength size or speed, then the top women's scores would get closer to the top.

Most classifiers are not of the "field course" variety. So I would think a female being able to earn a GM card would be easier to accomplish than for a female to be competitive with the top male GM's. I know for me it is a lot easier to earn a classification than it is to be competitive in that class at a major match. I also think it is possible that it can happen and I think it will happen.

Perhaps it has more to do with focus on the goal of making GM during the years of their life when their reflexes are the best. I have seen a young lady shoot a GM run on a classifier in person, but school and other things have kept her off the range lately. I would say if she had shot as many classifiers as I have in the last two years she would have that classification. If other priorities such as school, a job, getting married, having some kids get in her way for the next ten to fifteen years she may not make it at all.

We are all fighting time.

She has two 95+ classifiers and is sitting at 90% in open, if she wasn't focused on college right now I think she would already have it

[Chris iliff]

Me too! And, I might add, what a great young lady!!

[West Texas Granny]

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.

We are the ones at home holding things together so our husbands can go play. We seldom have the time to put in due to taking care of the home. By the time the husbands and children are gone we are just no longer young enough to play the game.

[PKT1106]

We are the ones at home holding things together so our husbands can go play. We seldom have the time to put in due to taking care of the home. By the time the husbands and children are gone we are just no longer young enough to play the game.

I am a stay-at-home dad and I still find time to go play. I take advantage of the down times (naps) by doing dry-firing, draw practice and using Burkett's online programs.