How Do You Measure Where You Are At

[j1b]

So here's my question. We have this classification system out there that tells us where we are at right? Roughly speaking, it is supposed to equalize the field.

So my question is how do you measure you're status? You personally, not theoretically.

In lim-10 I am a 75% shooter which I believe puts me in A class. In limited I'm somewhere around 93%. That's an old number though - the reality is my last classifier I shot was 70% or so.

But (and yes there is a but) in my last match I took a 59 point hit due to gun problems yet was able to pull back into the race with a current Master in limited. So my question to me is where am I? The classification system says I'm sitting roughly as a solid "A" but my match results would say something different.

Most of you know I'm not a huge believer in the classification system but I'm wondering how do you all measure your movement in this sport? Is it match performance? Class movement?

Just curious.

JB

[DaBlaster]

The classification system is ok, but if a person wants to know where they are

I say go to the area & national matches, they are what I use as a guideline.

anything less normally don't have the upper end talent to use as the guideline %.

Thats what I used coming up through the classes, and still use as a ruler.

My .02 worth.

[Nik Habicht]

At the Nats, my goal last year was to improve my percentage of the Production winners score versus the year before. The biggest mistake I made was setting a specific goal (50% --- I'm a C-class shooter) and then following the results too closely. I tried on two different days --- and it cost me huge points both days. The last day I shot very conservatively, because I knew I needed to. In fact on the first stage of the last day, my mantra was "Nothing but Alphas."

Locally I key off one particular shooter --- forum member Dave Marques --- he's a decent standard setter most of the time, until he put the Glock down to get ready for PSA anyway.

The last way I keep track is through epiphanies: Just when I'm convinced that I've stopped improving --- because I never practice anymore --- I'll realize something. The last big one was when I noticed, after shooting a bunch of Bianchi matches, that I now KNOW how much sight picture I need to make a particular shot. It's cool, that as long as I actually pay attention to the bumps on the slide, my brain just automatically hits the gas or the brakes depending on target distance.....

At the moment I feel like all the basics are there --- and I just have to focus on putting them all together and playing my kind of game without getting distracted.....

[Loves2Shoot]

In my opinion, the classification system is for handing out prizes, not an indicator (IMO) of overall skill (at all.)

Major match performance tells me where I'm at compared to others, class means squat. Estuardo Gomez (5th standard last World Shoot) is a Master, yea right he's a GM if anyone is. I think it takes 8-10 stages to get an acurate measure of ability against the best.

I measure personal improvement by my pars of repeatable practice.

My "status" lies in my next shot.

You know where you at, it's up to you to shoot like the GM you are.

[EricW]

I'm not much of a classifier whore. All I care about is what % I'm shooting of the scores of those I respect.

[warpspeed]

Like a lot of SoCal shooters, I get to shoot with MV, KC, JoJo & Taran from time to time. When you shoot in a match with these guys, you know that on each and every stage, you have a very good measuring stick for pts and time. That's how I do it.

[Wakal]

The classification system is nice, but doesn't take into account the real Grandmasters. Amazing how low my match percentage gets when figured off Max, Robbie, T, Taran, or any of the other big dawgs

Luckily (or unluckily?) for me, I shoot with some consistantly hot shooters. Superstition Mountain makes the fourth or fifth time we have been to a "big show" and managed to hang toward the top of the heap and within a few places of each other. Easy to tell when you are off your game, when you have three people constantly running close together. If you fall down, they are right there laughing and pointing

Alex

[XRe]

I'll chime in w/ the only gauge that really seems to work is direct comparison against the big dawgs. Classifiers are discrete points in time, and don't tend to represent what I can do in a match, as a whole, or on any given stage. Since they tend to be short, stand and shoot things, they don't give me *any* perspective on how I'll stack up on a big match. Shooting at big matches w/ several "contenders" is the only thing that's ever really worked for me to gauge where I'm really at...

As far as gauging progress, I tend to do that through shooting various drills and keeping track in a journal - but that's only subjective performance against myself, so...

[ErikW]

Big matches against big dogs is the only yardstick for me.

[AikiDale]

Have you ever noticed how many people want to shoot in the same squad with you? Now that's an indication of Status.....

Where your name is on the list of match results is an indication of how well you shoot.

[Sam]

Jack, I've been pondering along this same line lately. And I don't consider classifiers as a very accurate indication of my skill at all. Here's why. Classifiers are predictable. And they are seldom long enough or complex enough to give me a chance to really screw up the way I can in the rest of a match. I don't get to shoot many big matches, but the guys who shoot the local matches are good enough, and the stages hard enough, to keep almost anybody honest. If I can run with the Open "A" shooters and Limited Masters with my single stack on a good long field course, I'm right where I want to be. A classifier is a just snapshot of my performance on one very predictable stage. I feel that most of us, including me, are over-rated by a full class when compared to the pros.

[j1b]

Edit - Yeah - but Sam you rock anyhow. You're high class - which is better than GM, M or any other class. You get points for being a cool cat

OK - good stuff. Sounds like everyone is basically on the same page. I too am a STRONG advocate of the match performance camp (in case ya'll couldn't tell from all of my other posts )

I think the challenge is understanding the competition and figuring out how to get better. Pushing the limits of traditional parameters.

Take Todd Jarrett for example. I suspect he wins every club match he goes to. If he doesn't he has a reason for it (he wanted to try going faster than his eyes would allow or something like that) Todd's gauge can't be winning because he can cruise to a win almost anywhere except for a big area match or more likely - at nationals.

Today I shot a match and there was a popper at - maybe 7 yards? Maybe 10? I'm not certain but it was close. Actually there were two poppers with a no shoot popper between the two of them. I knew that a sub 1 second draw was probably status quo for that particular scenario. I did a 1.06 I think. Today was unique in that we got to shoot the same match twice - so I came around the second time and again knew that a sub 1 was what I was looking for. Did a 1.2.

Now I'm pissed because I inherently know that what I think needs to happen I'm not doing. So after the match I get the timer out, and head over to that stage. I've got a few rounds in the mag. I do 5 draws. The first is a .87 but a clear miss. Then I do a .86, .88, .90 and a .77 in a row hammering that popper. Not the crispest of sight pictures, certainly not the fastest draws on earth. Today I can't duplicate that because I don't have the *trust* (as discussed in an alternate thread) that it can be done, I can do it, and that what I need to see may fall outside of the normal parameters to get it done. The whole point being that there's a strong possibility that I won that stage today however I know for a fact that my draw alone was 20% off pace. I know the draw does not "a stage make" but you get my point.

What would have happened or how would progress be made if I hadn't gone back to see what should have been done? How does one know that X needs to be better? Because anybody could have shot that stage good, won it at a club match, and left feeling like their game was up to par when it possibly was not.

Interesting stuff. I'm into the pondering mode today because I shot twelve stages and lived in a world where I perfectly executed a mediocre performance. Frustrating knowing I can and should be doing better.

JB

[XRe]

Jack - it strikes me that, when you were shooting the match, you got focused on results (fast 1st shot time) for that stage, instead of on seeing/feeling what was required to shoot the stage in that moment. That is - instead of just performing, you tried to pre-determine the outcome. That usually doesn't work for me , it usually puts me in the mode of "trying", instead of "doing" - just asking for a mediocre (at best) performance.

I think you're right on the money w/ going back and retrying certain skills, afterwards, though - I'm going to keep that in mind. It might be more useful to try those things while they're fresh, rather than try to setup that shot in practice some other time. But, you're right on the money about not making as much progress if you don't go push the envelope continually.

Sub-1s on a close popper ain't bad at all I always liked doing fast draws on a 10-yard 8" plate just for "see what can be done if I trust it" practice - it's way cool when you're doing 1-ish draws on that puppy, and nailing it every time. Don't think I could do that right now, but.... maybe soon

[j1b]

Dave,

Good point. So without trying to debate I just want to clarify, it was simply an expectation. I had no expectations of a time for the stage or how long it should take to shoot "X" array - I just expected to shoot a sub 1 on that target.

The bad news? During the match I didn't do it. Twice! Oh - and I was slower the second time . . . Ugg!

The good news? I shot when I saw what I needed to see to get 'er done. So while I had an expectation, the bigger expectation was to hit the target. Mission accomplished.

All those sub 1's I did afterwords were because I had the flexibiliy to shoot a sub 1. The match wasn't at stake then.

For me it was a great lesson though in interpreting what I can do and understanding the zones of those abilities. Clearly during the match I wasn't willing to risk hitting the no-shoot. When I went back I proved I was able to do what I wanted. The challenge for me then becomes being so precisely tuned in that I can do what I'm able to do in a match.

I posted on this some time ago - but when Tawn and I were at the nationals in 94' we weren't in the supersquad. We had MANY conversations about whether or not we were even competitive. We had to figure the stages out knowing the super squad was coming and would dial the things in after we were done (they were on the stage right behind us). So on one stage we shoot - I had a decent run - so did Tawn. Tawn was like "man - that wasn't good enough. They are going to smoke us"

Next day they shoot. That night results posted. I was like 5th on the stage. Tawn was 9th I think. All we did during that whole match was what we knew we could do. Tawn ended up in the top 10 at the nationals. I was 3rd. Amazing what we can do when we just allow ourselves to do it.

JB

[wide45]

It constantly amazes me how much people get bent up about the performance of others.

Only one man can affect your match, and that is you.

How you "rank" against others is irrelevant. Shooting the best you can today, is all you can do.

[j1b]

Agreed -

This thread is intended to discover how one improves and generally the best measure of that improvement is through comparison to others.

If your statement is in fact 100% true then indeed it makes no sense to even hold a match because it would make no sense to have a scoring system that rates you against others.

Only you can control your performance, only I can control mine. That much I agree with you on. However I will hold true that understanding how to get better is driven by competition and competition by definition is comparison to others.

Every stage is a battle against one's self. That is it and that is all. But at the end of the day I bet you want to see who won and where you placed.

It is my last sentence that I look to improve upon with this thread.

JB

[Sam]

Yes, for me, it's like Jack said. I do care, very much, where i place in a match. If I didn't, I would just stay home and plink in the back yard. Competition is every bit as important to me as the shooting.

And you are totally right Rich, if we ever allow ourselved to "get bent" about it, our perspective is all wrong and we are indeed shooting for the wrong reasons.

It's all about the love of the game. And the best part of the game is testing myself against people who are better than me. That's what keeps me honest. Without that, I can just stay home and tell myself that I'm growing and learning when I'm really going downhill fast.

Besides, I'd also miss laughing my butt off everytime I hear some dimestore gun expert dispensing shooting advice that he developed in the vacuum of his own back yard.

[Ron Ankeny]

I'll toss in my 2 cents worth. I have been at this game less than five years and I have an M card in every division. All of those Master cards were inevitable and in a very real sense, they were unavoidable. I guess that makes me a "classifier whore".

When I started shooting, I never planned on going to a big match and I treated the classification system like a huge postal event. The majority of my practice time went into the building blocks of classifiers, the draw, the reload, transitions, etc., all of it from "Box A". As an active club level shooter, I shoot 25-30 classifiers a year, or more. Considering the upward bias of the system, any shooter with decent hand eye coordination, who also strives for improvement, will eventually get a Master card in any or all divisions. In fact, a GM card is achievable for anyone who shoots a lot. On those few occasions when I shot against big name shooters, I did just peachy on the speed shoots (classifier like stages) from "Box A" but my field course performance was less than stellar.

I think performance is best measured on match day against the entire field. I don't mean how well does a shooter do in his/her class, I mean how well did they do shooting from scratch against the top shooters?

It constantly amazes me how much people get bent up about the performance of others.

Isn't that the truth? It amazes me how guys who shot 50% of my match score can stand around and gossip about my crappy performance because I didn't live up to their expectations.

[tightloop]

In the Old Days, you could get an accurate measure of how you were doing if you shot against the Top Dawgs, like Chippie, Plaxco, Shaw, Fowler, Dalton, Campbell because there were no classes and everyone shot heads up....but now it has become more important to have classes which allow the option of shooting in a class beneath your abilities, just so the shooter can WIN....

I have said it before, who wants to be National Novice Champion...Not me...

Local matches won't show you much except how big a toad you are locally...and the Area and National matches are the real test of how you do...and how you are progressing...You can discount the first couple as the nerves will put the brakes on your ability to shoot to your potential, but if you shoot more than 3 or 4 Big matches a year then you can get a pretty fair indicator of your actual ability against the best who shoot this game....

Classifiers are a joke and are a placebo for those who have to see their name at the top of their Class...If you are scared of getting your feelings hurt by trying to run with the Big Dawgs.....stay on the porch....

[dirtypool40]

I agree the classification system is not perfect, and NEEDS more classifiers with movement in them, BUT for now it's what we have.

When I can't make it to the big match, but my local clubs put up a classifier (rarely anymore) it lets you have some measure of how you really did.

I'm a huge non-fan of bagging and going to a big match just for prizes, but if things were run well and consistently, classifiers would let folks have an idea of if they are progressing. Most local clubs in FL are only running the minimum (4 a year?) so, that part isn't really working.

I guess not really having access to the classification system, I use the BENOSVERSE to measure my progress. I set up a drill (like VP @ 25y) and ask others to run it. I keep track of my HF and as it improves, it's pretty black and white.

[SRT Driver]

Locally, we have 2 Production GM's, one that placed in the top 5 at the Nats, and a couple of really good "other" shooters which makes Production the most competitive division, right now. If I can run close to them, that is a good measure.

Classifiers are a good test of basic skill. Now, it seems I either shoot them really well or push too hard and tank them.

If you shoot your best and stay close or better to the top shooters in your area that seems to be a decent measure. If you shoot your best and aren't close..then work is required.

But everyone pushes 150% at the big matches. If you can hang with the big dogs there, then you are on top of your game.

[Merlin Orr]

But everyone pushes 150% at the big matches.  If you can hang with the big dogs there, then you are on top of your game.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If you can hang with the Big Dogs at the big matches you are at the top of "THE GAME!"

[mcoliver]

I'm sure some (if not most) of you have measured yourselves against local or national GM's. I'd like to ask some questions.

Have you ever shot a match against these guys and all those time shooting, you never felt like your life was at stake and yet your performance level was very close to the top?

And all during this time you felt like you're not giving it your best yet and you could have probably narrowed the gap (if not win the match) if you had performed at your peak?

Then here comes your next match and you're so fired up, you think think you're giving it your best and then find out you've now dropped several notches even lower?

I've been having these thoughts and somehow I think improving my shooting is only half the answer (but we alread know that! ).

Which leads me to think that comparing my skills to others using shooting results from matches alone will never give me the answer I need. Now, if I can bug these guys with questions during the match, what do you think are the right ones to ask?...

[wide45]

I will never win my class at a major match. When I can beat the best B's, I will be an A.

Classification won't tell you why you are not winning. When you get the GM, it does not mean you can't, or shouldn't improve.

There is no measure of relative ability.

Today you won, and I did not. Tomorrow is a new day.

[j1b]

Rich, I'm going to agree to disagree. I do see your point and I like your thought. I just see competition as the key to improvement and that competition by necessity requires fellow competitors with whom you compare yourself against. So we don't agree - I'm cool with that

Mcoliver - I get your question but it's difficult for me to answer - I guess that's the point of my original post.

I guess one key is to not confuse effort with results. I get a little confused when we talk about implementing things during a stage, or trying to do something during a stage. All that is behind, or in front of me - either way it doesn't happen while I shoot a stage. Sometimes I read posts about folks trying to do this or trying to do that - quite frankly when the buzzer goes off for me I don't think at all. No verbal thought goes through my brain. I don't have time. I don't have the ability to "think" about what is taking place.

The competition is important to me because I learn where to improve. My last major match I learned that my transition times weren't what they needed to be. My last club match I learned I needed to work on my draws a bit. My competition (both real and theoretical I might add) taught me this.

I look at TGO and I think about the mid 80's when he was winning the only national event at the time. Imagine if he hadn't had competition. The sport would be stuck with the precedence of back then. Sub 5 El Presidente's would be the cat's meow. Granted - TGO drove some of this himself however the competition of Jerry and Todd added to this. Even Rob would admit that in the early 90's as things changed he struggled - but the competition forced him to recongnize where he was weak - he practiced, he adapted, and now he is winning again.

For me the trick is to challenge the process and challenge the results. The greatest thing about this sport is that there is no perfect score. Everything can be done better. If someone gets to the point when they can consistently hit .5 draws then rest assured somebody will be working to hit .45's. And they will get it done. Were it not for that competition we'd all be thinking a 1 second draw was pretty damn good.

Hell - I'm not certain I answered a thing you posted about - sorry 'bout that.

JB