Next Level GM

[Maximis228]

Just now, Furrly said:

Why are you the a_hole 

 

Someone needs to be the ambassador of truth.

[Furrly]

2 minutes ago, Maximis228 said:

 

Someone needs to be the ambassador of truth.

... True that 

[Furrly]

 

[MemphisMechanic]

1 hour ago, Maximis228 said:

 

"You move real well for a big guy" is the most common thing I hear at a match. Outside... that guy is an a_-hole.

 

All this time I just thought you wrote really well for a 12 year old...

 

 

https://instagram.com/maximusoutdoors?utm_source=ig_profile_share&igshid=za872vgctf1w

[Maximis228]

Just now, MemphisMechanic said:

 

All this time I just thought you wrote really well for a 12 year old...

 

 

https://instagram.com/maximusoutdoors?utm_source=ig_profile_share&igshid=za872vgctf1w

so close.

[mikeg1005]

So like I said on page 1... they're better shooters

 

They are more accurate, miss less, and shoot faster than 'average' GMs. 

 

I think we can close this one... as that is LITERALLY the answer. 

[motosapiens]

38 minutes ago, mikeg1005 said:

So like I said on page 1... they're better shooters

 

They are more accurate, miss less, and shoot faster than 'average' GMs. 

 

I think we can close this one... as that is LITERALLY the answer. 

 

yes, as someone mentioned before, just because classification only goes up to 100% doesn't mean the worst gm is 95% as good as the best. There is a large gap in skills of all sorts between top gm's and average gm's.

[Dazhi]

Isn't this true in all sports?  Only a handful in the nation/world will win major matches consistently.

 

I don't think the USPSA classifier system is the problem.  My observation has been that for 90+% of the time, the classifications correlate to match finishes very well.

 

Even in sports that use ELO ratings, for example in chess, only very few out of the 1800 GMs ever win national or world tournaments.

 

In every area, the top of the pyramid is always a tiny population.  That's why people refer JJ/Ben/Max et al. as "world/national champions" instead of "GMs".   

 

In that sense, the classification system does have a hidden "next level GM" title that equals to "world/national champions".

[IHAVEGAS]

7 hours ago, Dazhi said:

 

I don't think the USPSA classifier system is the problem.  My observation has been that for 90+% of the time, the classifications correlate to match finishes very well.

 

It would be hard to deliberately construct any handicap system that was somewhat rational and yet was still so bad that it did not correlate to match finishes. 

 

 

Was curious. 

This is 2010 data copied from this forum didn't see anything more recent on a quick search. 

 

Looking at production for example, 12.4% of the shooters are in classes GM,M,A and 87.6% of shooters are in classes B,C,D. 

[Dazhi]

You cannot use just 1 match to show it does not correlate.  When I said "classifications correlate well to match finishes", I was talking about level 2, 3 and 4, and even level 1 included, not just area or nationals.  Different matches have totally different styles.  I can argue the same thing that some matches do not test the full spectrum of shooting related skills.  That's why you cannot just use 1 match to conclude anything.  I think ELO system built out of all matches would be the most fair and accurate scale, and again based on my observations I expect it to correlate very well with classifications. 

[IHAVEGAS]

1 hour ago, Dazhi said:

You cannot use just 1 match to show it does not correlate. 

 

True, if you are referring to the data above I believe that it is the total USPSA membership as of 2010, and again, it would be hard to design a classification system that was so terrible that it would not correlate unless you did something ridiculous. 

[MemphisMechanic]

2 hours ago, Dazhi said:

You cannot use just 1 match to show it does not correlate.

 

You think @IHAVEGAS found data from a match with 3,000 C-class Limited shooters in attendance?

[mikeg1005]

YellowVisorGuy on Doodie 1.0 did a regression analysis on classification vs. major match finish.. determined there was a .88 correlation coefficient from about 2-3 years of major matches...thats a pretty solid number, so yes, classification does correlate to match finish well. 

 

[GunBugBit]

On ‎3‎/‎14‎/‎2019 at 10:51 AM, Acer2428 said:

 

I think that's kind of the whole point. A 'paper' GM may not be competitive in a match, thus,  what makes them/why should they be a GM?

 

It's almost like ranking racecar drivers on how how fast they go around a specific corner. Sure, they can go around a corner fast, with practice, but can they string them together? Can they pass and strategize, and draft, etc. Or ranking a boxer by who can punch the hardest.... Sure, it may be an aspect, but if you're getting TKO'd every bout... there's an issue. 

 

Not just Master, but GRAND MASTER should reflect a mastery of all aspects of the sport which ought to make you competitive at majors constantly. 

In my non-important opinion they ought to either make classifiers more reflective of actual match placement or make GM harder to obtain and KEEP.

GM is just another classification that's (usually) based on how well you shoot the classifiers (though there are other ways to rise in classification).  Most of the classifiers are just stand-in-the-box-and-shoot, not tests of whole-body athleticism nor indicative of big match performance against other excellent shooters.

 

Being a GM simply means you're better than roughly 95% of other similarly-equipped USPSA members at shooting the classifiers.  Being able to do that is no small thing.  If it were easy, it wouldn't be only the top 5% of shooters who can pull it off.

[GunBugBit]

On ‎3‎/‎14‎/‎2019 at 8:42 AM, Onepocket said:

I think I know the answer to this question but would like others input.  Why do upper level GMs (Ben, Vogel, J.J.) do so much better at majors than your local GM. Local GMs for the most part can hit the same skills (draw, reload, splits ect.) time as the upper level guys. I am just a local scrub, just interested in the why.

Because they're the best of the best.  Not in just the top 5%, but in the top fractional percent based on things BEYOND what it takes shoot the classifiers well.

 

The other GMs DO NOT have the same total competition skill set as the top elites, though they might be able to score just as well on the Can You Count classifier.

[GunBugBit]

In others words, what everyone else already said.

[rowdyb]

1 hour ago, GunBugBit said:

Being able to do that is no small thing.  If it were easy, it wouldn't be only the top 5% of shooters who can pull it off.

It's by number closer to 2% of discrete members who have a GM classification. Two percent of 33 thousand is 660. Not sure how accurate it is but a quick google search says 4,000 people have summited mount Everest. For something to compare it to....

 

Occasionally I'll look at random match results on practiscore and there are tttooonnnnsss of matches without even a single M shooter in them every month, let alone a GM. Should a person have a local with more than 1 GM in it, they are extremely lucky. (Yes I know there are the standout areas that can have like 6 or 8 but that is far from the norm nationwide.)

 

Mink told me that it's considered a bit of a truism that "most people" shoot 10% below their classification at Nationals. Pretty easy to look at the data and see of 30+ GM's in a division at Nats how many of them finish above 95%.

 

There is a co-mingling of the Professional level and Amateur level of competitors in USPSA that's not as easily found in other sports. That's why we have these kinds of discussions.The "regular joes" and the "elite" are all together.

Edited March 19, 2019 by rowdyb

[MikeBurgess]

One thing that I think gets missed many times when looking at this topic is our classification system only allows upward movement (without petitioning your AD with cause) I have seen many shooters work very hard to achieve their classification goal (usually M or GM but others as well)  then have a dramatic drop in effort to either maintain that level of skill of continue to improve. also as shooter age they often have a drop in performance but most do not go to the trouble of petitioning to lower their classification. contrast this with the top level shooters that while already at the top of the game are working daily to improve, they don't look at winning a nationals as proof they are good enough they know they can be better yet and work hard to achieve it.

 

 

[CheekyChung]

On 3/15/2019 at 9:33 AM, Maximis228 said:

 

.... Even my license plate says PaperGM...

 

Do you live near Chicago suburbs? Arlington Heights, Roselle area? I think I’ve seen that plate around here. 

[Maximis228]

2 minutes ago, CheekyChung said:

Do you live near Chicago suburbs? Arlington Heights, Roselle area? I think I’ve seen that plate around here. 

 

Lake Zurich. Im the MD at MISS in McHenry.

[Smithcity]

On 3/19/2019 at 2:58 PM, GunBugBit said:

GM is just another classification that's (usually) based on how well you shoot the classifiers (though there are other ways to rise in classification).  Most of the classifiers are just stand-in-the-box-and-shoot, not tests of whole-body athleticism nor indicative of big match performance against other excellent shooters.

 

Being a GM simply means you're better than roughly 95% of other similarly-equipped USPSA members at shooting the classifiers.  Being able to do that is no small thing.  If it were easy, it wouldn't be only the top 5% of shooters who can pull it off.

Forgive me if im wrong but I do not think GMs are better than roughly 95% of other members at classifiers. Rather, GMs are within 5% of the designated 100% high hit factor. As such it was my understanding that somewhere between 1-2% of uspsa members achieve the GM designation. Remember, many GMs hold a card in multiple divisions. The number of unique GMs is less than the number of GM percentages in the sport across divisions I.e. right now its the 1-2%, it could grow to 6%, or shrink to 1% or less. Your percentage is not relative to the rest of the sport, and it is not a percential relative to all other shooters, it is a percential of the highest hit factor.

 

Or im completely wrong....

[elguapo]

3 hours ago, Smithcity said:

Forgive me if im wrong but I do not think GMs are better than roughly 95% of other members at classifiers. Rather, GMs are within 5% of the designated 100% high hit factor. As such it was my understanding that somewhere between 1-2% of uspsa members achieve the GM designation. Remember, many GMs hold a card in multiple divisions. The number of unique GMs is less than the number of GM percentages in the sport across divisions I.e. right now its the 1-2%, it could grow to 6%, or shrink to 1% or less. Your percentage is not relative to the rest of the sport, and it is not a percential relative to all other shooters, it is a percential of the highest hit factor.

 

Or im completely wrong....

 

Is that a distinction without a difference?

[elguapo]

On 3/25/2019 at 2:27 PM, MikeBurgess said:

One thing that I think gets missed many times when looking at this topic is our classification system only allows upward movement (without petitioning your AD with cause) I have seen many shooters work very hard to achieve their classification goal (usually M or GM but others as well)  then have a dramatic drop in effort to either maintain that level of skill of continue to improve. also as shooter age they often have a drop in performance

 

I've never understood why that is so.  Not just in USPSA but in all of the NRA rifle disciplines I've competed in and in NSCA sporting clays.

 

I guess some people must have their ego too tightly tied to their classification?  If it was meant to fix sandbagging, it doesn't.

[Smithcity]

3 hours ago, elguapo said:

 

I've never understood why that is so.  Not just in USPSA but in all of the NRA rifle disciplines I've competed in and in NSCA sporting clays.

 

I guess some people must have their ego too tightly tied to their classification?  If it was meant to fix sandbagging, it doesn't.

It absolutely does not fix sandbagging,  rather the nature of the classification system.  It leaves room for variability of the number of people in each class. The level of difficulty to move feom D through GM isnt linear, it is more exponential which would account for the disprate allocation. 

 

A distinction between classifiers and match performance is that classifiers have a high hit factor calculated from a wider sample size of shooters. Your percentage at nationals is relative to 1 guy...the one who won the match.

[elguapo]

1 hour ago, Smithcity said:

It absolutely does not fix sandbagging,  rather the nature of the classification system.  It leaves room for variability of the number of people in each class. The level of difficulty to move feom D through GM isnt linear, it is more exponential which would account for the disprate allocation. 

 

A distinction between classifiers and match performance is that classifiers have a high hit factor calculated from a wider sample size of shooters. Your percentage at nationals is relative to 1 guy...the one who won the match.

 

Do you have any idea why USPSA makes it so hard to go down in class?  As far as I'm concerned, one's classification should float and it should be whatever the average of your last six classifiers is (with the caveat of outliers thrown out per the current rulebook).