For those who've made GM in USPSA

[Racinready300ex]

I used to only have one match I could make a month, and that is tough at any class. Nothing like having a low % on one and knowing it's going to stick around with you for the whole season. 

[AverageJoeShooting]

There's a place near me that you pay extra for an extra classifer match. Basically 20$ to shoot the 8 stages and the classifier or 25$ to shoot the 8 stages and two classifiers.....if only they had a match every weekend, I could hit up 8 classifiers a month!!

[robertson]

On 5/28/2020 at 12:31 PM, 2011BLDR said:

Yea same for me in 30 years at this sport I probably have less than 5 hours total of dry fire, no routine practice might do 100 rounds of drills if I am on a range to adjust a Zero or do some chrono work 2-3 times a year... I just shoot 6-8 matches every month

 

Awesome!

[rowdyb]

Well I just shot my way away from my chance again. Thank you all for your insight. 

 

Dropping a 100 and a 99 and replacing them w crap scores.

[shred]

Bummer.  It's hard work and there's enough random chance in the classification system that equally-skilled shooters can have different classifications through no intent of their own.

 

At least now the pressure's off and you can just shoot for a while

[rowdyb]

8 hours ago, shred said:

least now the pressure's off and you can just shoot for a while

Not until the club starts having matches again.... ARC or the club have anything out about the decision process?

[shred]

Monday the ARC board will discuss.  Not sure how fast APSC will pick up if they decide to open.

[mikeg1005]

Here is the brutally honest truth about it.  

 

First way to make GM is by shooting level 2s and 3s that count as classifiers well enough to get 90-100% finishes.  If you can do this you'll naturally be able to shoot 'most' of your classifiers at 90-100%.   You will also have enough 'almost' classifiers that bombing 1 or 2 will not change the outcome at the end.  I've never met a person that really 'wanted' to be a GM that did this... they just shot well enough and the rank came with it in time. 

 

2nd way is to mathematically get to a 95% average on your classifiers.  I've watched several people do this... some have... some haven't.... some are still trying.   This is the way I've seen them do it.  

• Figure out what the 95% HF is on a classifier you're about to shoot. 
• Figure out how fast you need to go/what kind of points you need. 
• Hero the s#!t out of the classifier. 
• If you screw it up really bad then that's fine.
• If you kind of screw up... make sure to screw up bad, you don't want it to count.  By screw up I mean... shoot a couple no shoots... wait 2-3 seconds send another round, etc.  
• If it felt ok... chances are its not good enough... screw up so it doesn't count.
• If it felt really good, look at your hits, if they're good, estimate the time you think it took... go as far as asking the RO for the time (maybe they'll give it to you).  Do the math in your head really quickly.  If its what you need.  Let it stand.

Now... long term....

• Strive to shoot all the classifier matches you can.
  • If at the classifier match there is something you know for a fact you won't do good at... screw up that classifier. 
• Go to clubs that you know pick easy classifiers.
• Going into each match/classifier figure out where you are and what classifers are going to drop off 'next' in the system.  For example... if you're about to lose an 80% you know that shooting 'good' will likely be of benefit to you.  If you're going to lose a 97% you know that you REALLY have to do well on a classifier or else it will decrease your average.
• Once you have this... do the what I listed above.

 

Eventually.... if you hero enough stuff/play the math correctly you will make GM.  I can tell you this though... almost everyone I know that did this regrets making GM as they usually don't finish as GMs at majors and hate themselves for it. 

Edited June 10, 2020 by mikeg1005

[Racinready300ex]

Or look for a match that meets the criteria for a match Bump. I stumbled into this by accident when i got bumped in Limited. 50 shooters and 3 GM's you think you can beat, just win the match. Piece of cake right?

[rowdyb]

I know all the strategies to get there. My question is more specifically about when you're just 1 or 2 classifiers away. When you're tttthhhiisss close, as I've been 93% or better like 4 times now. (I'll get close then drop off a few good ones and then build back up again. This cycle of constantly moving back and forth from 88ish to 93ish.)

[rowdyb]

18 hours ago, mikeg1005 said:

know that did this regrets making GM as they usually don't finish as GMs at majors and hate themselves for it. 

Regretting gm and regretting your match performance are two different things. I beat plenty of GM shooters at big matches. And there are many Aand B shooters who do the same. 

I've tried to only focus on myself when it comes to match results. 

[mikeg1005]

1 hour ago, rowdyb said:

I know all the strategies to get there. My question is more specifically about when you're just 1 or 2 classifiers away. When you're tttthhhiisss close, as I've been 93% or better like 4 times now. (I'll get close then drop off a few good ones and then build back up again. This cycle of constantly moving back and forth from 88ish to 93ish.)

 

You need to stop allowing your bad classifiers to count.  Zero them. Intentionally.   That way your other ones dont drop off.

 

[mikeg1005]

2 hours ago, rowdyb said:

Regretting gm and regretting your match performance are two different things. I beat plenty of GM shooters at big matches. And there are many Aand B shooters who do the same. 

I've tried to only focus on myself when it comes to match results. 

 

You do you but I'm just forewarning pretty much everyone I know that made GM to just have a GM card.... regrets it. 

[wtturn]

There are reputational consequences to forcing GM, from my observations.

People generally know who's legit and who's not, despite which letters follow their name in Practiscore.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk

[rowdyb]

I have complete confidence. 

[Steppenwolf]

Interesting thread. Performance based classification (from match placement) is probably not feasible for a variety of reasons. I guess that people want "their colored belts." I remember years ago when I was taking Judo that there was only a white belt, brown belt, and black belt. The elder black belt Sensei told us that you do not ask to get tested. He awarded a belt after you earned it from matches and when he felt that you were ready to receive it (usually a minimum of 5 years before you could get a black belt). I see Taekwondo students at the gym getting various colored belts and some people getting black belts after only a year. Of course they get crushed at matches. But the people with "higher classifications" get to stand closer up front to the instructor by pecking order.

 

I applaud your dedication to achieving your goal. I work in a "show us what you can do don't tell us what you can do" industry. Degrees and talk mean nothing. It is competitive, but rewarding. I paid my dues and can thus appreciate the path that you are on (and I must spend time practicing my skills in order to remain good). I want to get better at competitive shooting, but cannot devote the time to get to a GM level. I do understand how working on small, incremental improvements over a longer stretch of time result in practical gains. For me there is no rational "pay off" for attaining GM. For my line of work there is a pay off for continuing to get better and practice.

 

You appear to be paying your dues and thus will achieve your goal. When you become a GM I hope the "pay off" is worth it for you.

 

 

 

 

 

[Racinready300ex]

18 minutes ago, Steppenwolf said:

Interesting thread. Performance based classification (from match placement) is probably not feasible for a variety of reasons. I guess that people want "their colored belts." I remember years ago when I was taking Judo that there was only a white belt, brown belt, and black belt. The elder black belt Sensei told us that you do not ask to get tested. He awarded a belt after you earned it from matches and when he felt that you were ready to receive it (usually a minimum of 5 years before you could get a black belt). I see Taekwondo students at the gym getting various colored belts and some people getting black belts after only a year. Of course they get crushed at matches. But the people with "higher classifications" get to stand closer up front to the instructor by pecking order.

 

There are some differences there, in martial arts it seems belts are completely up to the school you go to. Where here we have one set of standards for the whole country. So our belts mean the same for everyone. For the most part I don't see even paper GM's who can't shoot, it takes a lot of work and time even if you're trying to game the system. The biggest issue IMO is the system doesn't test movement enough, but it does a good job testing shooting skills. 

 

I think I'd rather see lower HHF's and them not throw out your scores that are below your current level. That might curb the urge to "hero or zero" a stage. But currently some of the HHF's you wont GM if you don't swing for the fence.

[Steppenwolf]

Mike:

 

Good point, but I've noticed that the classifier stage choices for matches and "Super Classifier" matches tend to vary a lot among various clubs. I agree that the "hero or zero" fix would be not dropping classifier runs. I've seen several local shooters trying to move up in classification using that technique and so far the prize still eludes them because they will get a run that was not zeroed, but dropped their average a bit. In order to have one exact set of standards for the country--we would have to all shoot a "postal match" using the same classifiers.

 

If I know there is going to be a classifier at a match I shoot Limited Minor. That makes it difficult to progress much and puts me at a disadvantage against those shooting Limited Major. But it does give me a different perspective on how to improve over time and it takes my ego out of the equation more.

[Racinready300ex]

34 minutes ago, Steppenwolf said:

Mike:

 

Good point, but I've noticed that the classifier stage choices for matches and "Super Classifier" matches tend to vary a lot among various clubs. I agree that the "hero or zero" fix would be not dropping classifier runs. I've seen several local shooters trying to move up in classification using that technique and so far the prize still eludes them because they will get a run that was not zeroed, but dropped their average a bit. In order to have one exact set of standards for the country--we would have to all shoot a "postal match" using the same classifiers.

 

If I know there is going to be a classifier at a match I shoot Limited Minor. That makes it difficult to progress much and puts me at a disadvantage against those shooting Limited Major. But it does give me a different perspective on how to improve over time and it takes my ego out of the equation more.

 

Most people I see try to hero or zero are pushing way beyond their abilities. The only way it's really going to work is if you know you can do it, just maybe not safely or maybe not on demand. then you can let it hang out a bit and you might get it. 

 

I can remember a few years back shooting a classifier as a M in Open. Then when I was putting my mag back in my bag I remember hearing crazy splits and turned to see who was shooting. It was a C class production shooter, probably shot it faster then I did. I had to go see his hits, I think he had 2 hits out of 8 shots. There is zero chance you're getting a GM run like that, certainly not 6 of them.

[MikeBurgess]

On 6/10/2020 at 9:26 AM, mikeg1005 said:

 

 

2nd way is to mathematically get to a 95% average on your classifiers.  I've watched several people do this... some have... some haven't.... some are still trying.   This is the way I've seen them do it.  

• Figure out what the 95% HF is on a classifier you're about to shoot. 
• Figure out how fast you need to go/what kind of points you need. 
• Hero the s#!t out of the classifier. 
• If you screw it up really bad then that's fine.
• If you kind of screw up... make sure to screw up bad, you don't want it to count.  By screw up I mean... shoot a couple no shoots... wait 2-3 seconds send another round, etc.  
• If it felt ok... chances are its not good enough... screw up so it doesn't count.
• If it felt really good, look at your hits, if they're good, estimate the time you think it took... go as far as asking the RO for the time (maybe they'll give it to you).  Do the math in your head really quickly.  If its what you need.  Let it stand.

 

part of this works but part is way off, for me anyway, my perception of time is now very skewed, and I literal have no reliable version of how fast a run was anymore, good runs feel stupid slow, mediocre runs can feel fast.

 

I will always remember the run that pushed me over the top. 18-07 I knew it was the classifier so I had practiced it a few times the weekend before, at the match I knew it could be the one if I I shot the best of my ability so I took a extra few seconds at make ready to get really centered. beep shot the poppers, reload shoot the partial A, close C , shoot the open next to the partial A, D shoot the close open A, A. ULSC, as I'm holstering I pointed at the D and blurted out NOT GOOD ENOUGH!!, that D was that's just too many points down to even be close, then the RO says the time and it was half a second faster than I had ever done in practice, one of my friends runs the HF and it was more than good enough. 

[shred]

9 hours ago, Racinready300ex said:

 For the most part I don't see even paper GM's who can't shoot, it takes a lot of work and time even if you're trying to game the system. The biggest issue IMO is the system doesn't test movement enough, but it does a good job testing shooting skills.

Even to paper-GM through reshoots and pre-practicing classifiers you've still gotta be able to knock out a fast draw and stick the points a lot of the time, so even the "Last GM" at a match generally does't suck (GM-via-shenanigans is different).

 

From watching people years ago at some 'reshoot all you want' matches, if you don't get it in the first 2-3 tries, any more are largely a waste of ammo.

 

I got the 100% that kicked me over to GM in Open through a major match win, but I'm older and slower now and other people are overall better, so that path is a lot tougher now.

[unisonicz]

I am newer to USPSA and was wondering how shooting well at a level 2 or 3 match would increase your classification it it is based on classifiers.

 

Thanks! 

[ChuckS]

59 minutes ago, unisonicz said:

I am newer to USPSA and was wondering how shooting well at a level 2 or 3 match would increase your classification it it is based on classifiers.

 

Thanks! 

All you need to know is here: https://uspsa.org/pages/about/classification

[unisonicz]

1 hour ago, ChuckS said:

All you need to know is here: https://uspsa.org/pages/about/classification

Thanks, I seen that about 5 minutes after posted the question then got busy at work and didn't edit my post. Appreciate the help!

[obsessiveshooter]

It seems strange to me that we have this concept of a "paper GM" when naturally understand that there will be a spectrum of skill levels in all the other classes. The difference between JJ or Christian and a newly minted Open GM is about the same difference as an A shooter about to move up, and a newly minted A. Which can be a big difference.
So why would making 95% be fundamentally different than the approach to finally getting to 85% or 75%?

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk