Jump to content
Brian Enos's Forums... Maku mozo!
Swanny10

Classifier vs match bump

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, reverse_edge said:

People toss around the terms grandbagger / sandbagger / paper GM too much, in my opinion. Just shut up and shoot. 

 

Preach brother. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Swanny10 said:

 

A nationals match that doesn’t qualify as a classifier. Interesting. 

 

It hasn't counted for a classifier at any major match yet. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, reverse_edge said:

 

Yes, this.

 

THAT SAID, with the way our classification system works, it's not really that hard for people to be classed below their skill level. Especially now with the new HHFs.

 

People toss around the terms grandbagger / sandbagger / paper GM too much, in my opinion. Just shut up and shoot. 

Not a bad point.  However, I don't mind talking about it. It's like discussing anything else. 

 

On that note, I've seen more "sandbagging" than I've seen grandbagging. Which, to me deserves more criticism but If someone wants to stay lower class than they are, that's their prerogative. 

 

I want to shoot as I could as I can. That's my prerogative.  

Edited by B_RAD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LilBunniFuFu said:

 

It hasn't counted for a classifier at any major match yet. 

 

Im new to this whole thing so just so I understand....if you go to nationals with a U. You will go home with a U? Correct?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LilBunniFuFu said:

 

Preach brother. 

 

You and Kyle H are prime examples.

 

 

56 minutes ago, B_RAD said:

Not a bad point.  However, I don't mind talking about it. It's like discussing anything else. 

 

On that note, I've seen more "sandbagging" than I've seen grandbagging. Which, to me deserves more criticism but If someone wants to stay lower class than they are, that's their prerogative. 

 

I want to shoot as I could as I can. That's my prerogative.  

 

You've seen people purposefully tanking classifiers so they can stay in a class where they'll more easily win their class at big matches? And you think that's okay and that it's their prerogative? Because that seems pretty unfair, not to mention quite silly in a sport where the prizes and awards leave much to be desired.

 

I see people who are classed below their true skill level all the time. I dont think many of them are purposefully staying there. 

 

On the flipside, a grandbagger ain't hurting anyone but themselves. 

 

Edited by reverse_edge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, reverse_edge said:

You and Kyle H are prime examples.

 

You've seen people purposefully tanking classifiers so they can stay in a class where they'll more easily win their class at big matches? And you think that's okay and that it's their prerogative? Because that seems pretty unfair, not to mention quite silly in a sport where the prizes and awards leave much to be desired.

 

On the flipside, a grandbagger ain't hurting anyone but themselves and maybe my sides when I laugh at them.

 

 

Ha ha. There's some good awesomeness in this!

 

 

Even better points. I never thought of it from that point. I just thought it was to protect thier ego! Now that I think about it, it seems even worse. I just always thought of sand baggers like kids from the 80's that would go to the skating rink and would enter in the races with the 10 yr old kids but they are 15. Even if you win, you're kinda a little &#@$. 

 

 

Edited by B_RAD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, B_RAD said:

Even better points. I never thought of it from that point. I just thought it was to protect thier ego! Now that I think about it, it seems even worse. I just always thought of sand baggers like kids from the 80's that would go to the skating rink and would enter in the races with the 10 yr old kids but they are 15. Even if you win, you're kinda a little &#@$. 

 

 

 

Yes, sandbagging, by definition, is someone who's purposefully and unfairly competes at a skill-bracket deemed less rigorous than their actual level of competitive ability.

 

If you just haven't shot enough classifiers, and you're still B class, and winning matches, you're not sandbagging, you just haven't shot enough classifiers, or they didn't count, etc.

 

If you're purposefully tanking classifiers so that you can stay in C class and have a better chance at winning plaques and prizes - you're a sandbagger.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, reverse_edge said:

If you're purposefully tanking classifiers so that you can stay in C class and have a better chance at winning plaques and prizes - you're a **douchebag**.

 

 

FIFY. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Swanny10 said:

 

Im new to this whole thing so just so I understand....if you go to nationals with a U. You will go home with a U? Correct?

Specifically CO. There hasn't been a match that fulfills the requirements for classification or match bump yet. It's completely automated now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, LilBunniFuFu said:

Specifically CO. There hasn't been a match that fulfills the requirements for classification or match bump yet. It's completely automated now. 

 

Ah. I understand now. I thought you meant across the board. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 2016 CO Nationals counted for a classifier but there was only 76 of us who shot it and almost no one was classified. In 17 there were 72 shooters (no GM). This year there were 85 and only two GM....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, rowdyb said:

The 2016 CO Nationals counted for a classifier but there was only 76 of us who shot it and almost no one was classified. In 17 there were 72 shooters (no GM). This year there were 85 and only two GM....

My mistake. I wasn't away that match actually counted especially so with the hurricane going on. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, LilBunniFuFu said:

My mistake. I wasn't away that match actually counted especially so with the hurricane going on. 

The 2016 one was the first one, it was held at PASA right after Prod nats. The 17 one was held at Frostproof and it was the spring time one where everyone was upset about having a nationals within so few months of the previous one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting thread.  I have yet to see anyone match bumped to GM.   USPSA is not like IDPA in match bumps.   It's super difficult.

 

I do not know people are allowed to reshoot classifiers unlimited number of times.  Is that a geographical thing?  Because in my surrounding area there are close to 10 clubs I have shot with.  Most people don't ask for reshoot even with malfunctions.  Some reshoot once, but that's it. 

 

Practicing classifiers is a great way to master gun handling and other fundamentals.  A lot of top shooters recommend doing that, not for the sole purposes of getting better in classifiers but it is a positive side effect. 

 

I did practice classifiers, and still do now.   At some point I also set making GM as a goal but only as a short-term one.  Having a realistic and achievable goal is a good thing.  For me I could not shoot more than 1 major match last year due to family reasons, and naturally I have to set some other kind of measurable goal.   The USPSA talent pool is so deep that anyone thinking a GM card is the ultimate finish line will either quit the sport or drown very quickly.

 

BTW - @rowdyb  I started at age 40 :)  You are super close, and I know you will make it soon ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/8/2018 at 4:10 PM, rowdyb said:

The 2016 CO Nationals counted for a classifier but there was only 76 of us who shot it and almost no one was classified. In 17 there were 72 shooters (no GM). This year there were 85 and only two GM....

If you look at the Top 20 for CO, there are only 11 GM listed, 7 of which that have over 95% classification. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I meant at the national co matches I shot, not the total possible numbers of co gm's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/9/2018 at 7:07 PM, Dazhi said:

Interesting thread.  I have yet to see anyone match bumped to GM.   USPSA is not like IDPA in match bumps.   It's super difficult.

 

I do not know people are allowed to reshoot classifiers unlimited number of times.  Is that a geographical thing?  ...

 

Per rules as pointed out earlier one can reshoot only once.

 

In regards to "paper GMs". The skill set still has to be there to have draw, split, transition and reload times in addition to accuracy to make GM scores in classifiers regardless of how many times one shoots a classifier.

 

As a "B" shooter, it doesn't matter how many times I shoot a classifier. I am not going to have a GM score regardless as I don't have the skill set... yet ;)  So, I'd say one would have to be at least a very solid "M" in order to shoot 95% or better in classifiers even if it is one out of ten.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, tanks said:

As a "B" shooter, it doesn't matter how many times I shoot a classifier. I am not going to have a GM score regardless as I don't have the skill set... yet ;)  So, I'd say one would have to be at least a very solid "M" in order to shoot 95% or better in classifiers even if it is one out of ten.

 

I'm not sure I'd necessarily agree with that.  I know several A and B-class shooters who are very, very fast.  They just aren't consistently accurate, but every once in awhile (and you can see this in big matches also, occasionally), they burn down a stage AND get lucky enough to get good hits.

 

They aren't GMs (or even Ms) but they are fast, and every once in awhile they get lucky, so they blaze a stage.

 

I've seen similar things happen on classifiers---someone gets a stage score that is vastly outside of their actual skill level due to a hero-or-zero type run where they got lucky. 

 

So take a set of classifiers, run each of them multiple times in a hero-or-zero fashion, and by luck, some of them are going to go really, really well.  May take awhile, but if you can redo them as many times as you want, it'll happen.  Collect them all, and you can get yourself kicked significantly above your actual skill level in terms of classification.  (I'm the opposite---I can't seem to run classifiers well to save my life, though I do decently in matches.  ? )

 

For me, personally, a "paper GM" is someone who is a USPSA GM who got there by hero-or-zeroing enough times, often due to repeated runs at the same classifier, until they managed a set of 6 in the appropriate range---and who can't manage major match finishes remotely close to the other GMs, and who get beaten by people classed several places below their own.

 

I've seen several.  And there's certainly been discussions of others.  I think that it has already been shown (by a particular shooter who even made the claim that "anyone can make GM") that someone can, with enough hero-or-zero runs on repeated classifiers, get a GM card without even remotely being able to finish on a GM level at matches.

 

In general, in my own mind, I have four different levels of "GM".  1st Tier are the guys who finish top three nationally and internationally.  These are the guys who normally just destroy everyone else.  There aren't many of these, and they are just that much better than others until another Tier 1 comes along.   2nd Tier are the guys who normally finish just behind those Tier 1 guys, who every once in awhile give them a run for their money, and who are always beating the Ms and lowers, who tend to be in the top five at Level III major matches that aren't Nationals.  The 2nd Tier guys are the GMs who can do it on a consistent, regular basis whether on classifiers, standards, or field stages---that's simply their skill level all the time.

 

3rd Tier GMs are the poor guys who just made it into GM.  They CAN shoot GM-level, they just aren't doing it all the time yet, so while they mostly are in the GM-group-finish at majors, occasionally an M squeaks by one of them.  Their classifiers and field stages are closer to GM-level than M, but every once in awhile they slide a little.  They rock at locals and do solidly well at majors, and normally are working on getting more consistent in shooting GM-quality all the time.  They got their GM-card after having a whole ton of scores almost get them there, and then one last one finally tipped them over the line.

 

And the paper GMs are the guys who have a GM card, mention it periodically to everyone, but don't have match scores that support it in majors, and sometimes in locals get tromped by M and even A-class shooters. 

 

That's just my opinion, though, based on my experiences with people.   

 

All are GMs according to USPSA, though.  And it all gets sorted out when a match comes along.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interestingly Tim Yackley got a match bump at Nationals a few weeks ago from an "A" to "M" by shooting 90% and placing 6th in Limited.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Thomas H said:

mention it periodically to everyone,

 

I would think this is a major ingredient of being “paper”. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Swanny10 said:

 

I would think this is a major ingredient of being “paper”. 

Indeed. A paper GM once chastised me for not listening to his advice on a stage. I finished and he said, “when a GM tells you something you should listen.” I literally never listened to another thing he said.

Share this post


Link to post
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

×