Did you know there has never been a Lady GM?

[zhunter]

Women are stronger than us by nature. The pain they endure that men will never know.

PINMAN44

Obviously you have never had a Kidney Stone

I'll concede upper body strength but I dont think foot speed is a valid argument. I know an awful lot of fat, old, and out of shape GM's.

Lawman

Maybe this is because Classifiers are stand and shoots. By nature they have to be in order to be replicated week in and week out across the country. The system is not perfect, but it does seem to work. But, on that note, why are there so many strong hand-weak hand classifiers, but VERY little in actual matches. I think this needs to be corrected. ( YES, I suck as strong hand weak hand)

[JThompson]

All GMs are not created equal... there are a handful in the world that will have most GM shooting M, or even A against them. These guys are a whole other level from most of the GMs and I don't mean the paper variety.

I wouldn't mind seeing an EGM, or Elite GM classification...

ATHENA: Congrats on you second world!! You are a GM in my book... I've spent hours looking at your film and have picked up some valuable data from watching you shoot.

JT

Edited November 6, 2008 by JThompson

[carinab]

Congrats Athena!! By the way....if you haven't seen it, you were the cover girl for Women and Guns September/October issue. Awesome post, awesome shooter...Girl, you're just made of awesome!

And now for boynty77.....

I have got to assume that you were kidding when you said Jessie's looks would help her make GM. Surely you're not saying that she could some how use her assets to better her placement?! When I was single, I was dating an "M" shooter. And I heard the gossip of "does she think she can sleep her way to an M card." You would never, ever hear that rumor of a male D class shooter dating a lady of higher rank. I quit dating shooters shortly there after because I just got tired of it.

Now don't get me wrong, women like to be appreciated for talent and for looks...No problem. You can tell me I'm gorgeous all day long! But how could it be anything but an insult to say that my rank is related to my looks.... <insert tsk tsk head shaking emoticon here> That would be like saying that <Super Star Male Shooter> only has his GM card because he has cut abs and a...er...um...an impressive piece of equipment.

and now back to the topic....

Edited November 6, 2008 by carinab

[GTOSHootr]

It can be done. On paper. Like many grandbaggers out there who get beat by B class shooters at Nationals....

I, personally, can't live with the idea of being classified GM and NOT making GM scores at Nationals, yaknowhatimean?

Here is my tired, cranky and jet-lagged two cents...And yes, I am the 70% lady from the World Shoot in question who never made grandmaster... I've never believed in shooting classifiers because I think people take advantage of it. For me, I think Nationals is the true gauge on how people should be classified. But then again, that's just my opinion. Now the question is, Mr. OP, how come a lot of GM's can't shoot GM scores at Nationals?

Oh wait, I just realized that the original post was "Did you know there has never been a Lady GM?" ...so, "Yeah, we know..."

That's an awesome post!

[Charles Bond]

As incredible as it sounds, there may be something to the looks idea as to women that shoot well in our sport.

Many years ago, an old lawyer told me that I should always hire an attractive secretary. He said it did not matter whether or not she was pretty but rather whether or not she did the best she could with what she had to work with. His reasoning was that someone who takes care of themself would take care of me.

How does this transulate to shooting? Anyone, male or female, who takes the time and effort to take care of themselves is more likely to be the type of person who wants to excel at every thing they do and devote the effort to make that happen.

I am also still waiting for someone to take my bet offered earlier in the thread.

[rgkeller]

My ambition is to become a paper GM.

[DrShooter]

I predict that the first Lady GM will be in Production Division...and pretty soon.

[Loves2Shoot]

It isn't that hard to make GM, you just have to shoot classifiers as fast as you possibly can. Since they are pretty much all stand and shoot, you will nail them from time to time and your percentage will go up. Do you want to shoot Nationals that way? Not me.

Classification has very little to do with a matches anyway as Athena stated. I have no doubt there are several women I know who could make GM if they wanted to, but since they don't see the value in pursuing it, why should they?

The more I shoot, the less I see the point in having a GM class anyway.

Edited November 6, 2008 by Loves2Shoot

[Carlos]

It isn't that hard to make GM, you just have to shoot classifiers as fast as you possibly can. Since they are pretty much all stand and shoot, you will nail them from time to time and your percentage will go up. Do you want to shoot Nationals that way? Not me. Classification has very little to do with a matches anyway as Athena stated. I have no doubt there are several women I know who could make GM if they wanted to, but since they don't see the value in pursuing it, why should they?

The more I shoot, the less I see the point in having a GM class anyway.

It is even easier than that - if you want to:

-select only the "easiest" classifiers out there (don't we have a list of those somewhere around here?)

-then, as some clubs and areas do, shoot the same classifier over and over after the match and only send in the score you like. As policy, we don't do that around here. But I believe its done that way elsewhere. For example, at a practice night once, we all tried shooting El Pres over and over, forgetting about getting all the points and just shooting for pure speed - and there were a few "hail Mary" runs that night which were quite impressive - AND they were flukes (rather than repeatable demonstrations of realistic skill). Being a practice night, we didn't send those scores in, and we never allowed multiple runs during a regular or classifier match. We also made ever classifier match a fair mix of easy and hard classifiers (as I feel it should be).

I'd guess that many of our women shooters don't "game" the classification system just to get to the next level (which speaks well of how the women approach the classification system). From a look at larger match score though, it appears that more than a few guys in USPSA are gaming the classifications and are no more than "paper" GMs, instead of being competitive GMs who earned the title fairly.

Just my 2cents.

ps good post Athena.

Edited November 6, 2008 by Carlos

[reneet]

I've said it before and I'll say it again . . .

"I think that there are alot of paper Ms and GMs out there and no woman wants a card that they're not capable of backing up consistently."

[kgunz11]

It isn't that hard to make GM, you just have to shoot classifiers as fast as you possibly can. Since they are pretty much all stand and shoot, you will nail them from time to time and your percentage will go up. Do you want to shoot Nationals that way? Not me. Classification has very little to do with a matches anyway as Athena stated. I have no doubt there are several women I know who could make GM if they wanted to, but since they don't see the value in pursuing it, why should they?

The more I shoot, the less I see the point in having a GM class anyway.

It is even easier than that - if you want to:

-select only the "easiest" classifiers out there (don't we have a list of those somewhere around here?)

-then, as some clubs and areas do, shoot the same classifier over and over after the match and only send in the score you like. As policy, we don't do that around here. But I believe its done that way elsewhere. For example, at a practice night once, we all tried shooting El Pres over and over, forgetting about getting all the points and just shooting for pure speed - and there were a few "hail Mary" runs that night which were quite impressive - AND they were flukes (rather than repeatable demonstrations of realistic skill). Being a practice night, we didn't send those scores in, and we never allowed multiple runs during a regular or classifier match. We also made ever classifier match a fair mix of easy and hard classifiers (as I feel it should be).

I'd guess that many of our women shooters don't "game" the classification system just to get to the next level (which speaks well of how the women approach the classification system). From a look at larger match score though, it appears that more than a few guys in USPSA are gaming the classifications and are no more than "paper" GMs, instead of being competitive GMs who earned the title fairly.

Just my 2cents.

ps good post Athena.

Are you saying you think there are USPSA affiliated clubs sending in "practiced" classifier scores?

Is it not possible that someone can stand and shoot well but not be good in field courses?

I find I am pretty well classified when it comes to the basics of shooting. The standards drills that are practiced in classifiers allow me to shoot with people in my same class. Unfortunately I am a new shooter and lack the experience in the field courses and the best way to break them down and shoot them.

[-JQ-]

...I think they are all GM's

[Carlos]

.

.

Are you saying you think there are USPSA affiliated clubs sending in "practiced" classifier scores?

Yes.

[markcic]

It can be done. On paper. Like many grandbaggers out there who get beat by B class shooters at Nationals....

I, personally, can't live with the idea of being classified GM and NOT making GM scores at Nationals, yaknowhatimean?

Here is my tired, cranky and jet-lagged two cents...And yes, I am the 70% lady from the World Shoot in question who never made grandmaster... I've never believed in shooting classifiers because I think people take advantage of it. For me, I think Nationals is the true gauge on how people should be classified. But then again, that's just my opinion. Now the question is, Mr. OP, how come a lot of GM's can't shoot GM scores at Nationals?

Oh wait, I just realized that the original post was "Did you know there has never been a Lady GM?" ...so, "Yeah, we know..."

Excellent points!

I struggle with the whole concept of classifiers in more than one way. Most of them don't really translate well to a lot of the stages we shoot. We're only rarely forced to shoot strong hand only and never weak hand only in field courses/normal stages....and they make up the overwhelming majority of stages. Sure a big match might have one or two classifier type stages or some standards, but that's it.

In thinking about the Open Nationals this year, I think only four A class shooters were above 75%, only two Masters were above 85%, and two GM's (aside from Tilley as HOA) were above 95%. Sometimes I wonder if the whole system isn't skewed. It's fair because it's the same for everyone, but it still seems odd. I guess if you throw a random number of GM's in the field, it's unlikely that you're going to get most of them all in the top 5% because even a small mistake can kill any chance of that, but for the lower classes you'd think it more likely since the percentage window is so much larger. R<

Classifiers test basic shooting and gun handling skills.

Shooting stages test all of the above and your aiblity to break down a stage and move.

If I remember correctly there are only about 6 firld course classifiers, most everything else is stand and shoot.

[Jeff686]

Many years ago, an old lawyer told me that I should always hire an attractive secretary. He said it did not matter whether or not she was pretty but rather whether or not she did the best she could with what she had to work with. His reasoning was that someone who takes care of themself would take care of me.

I knonw this is a bit of a tangent...

This is what is known as a non-causal relationship. People frequently confuse non-causal for causal (I'm not implying you are). Causal means that there is a cause-and-effect relationship. When I have to explain this to friends, I like to say that non-causal should use the phrase "happens to", but causal should use the phrase "because".

Here's what I mean:

On average, a secretary who tries to be as attractive as possilbe happens to also be good at her job of taking care of her boss. - likely true & implies non-causal

On average, a secretary is good at her job of taking care of her boss because she tries to be as attractive as possible. - likely not true & implies causal

Since this relationship is non-causal, you can't make a person into a good secretary by forcing them to dress more attractively.

On average, a person is fat because they eat to much. - likely true and implies causal

On aveage, a person that is fat also happens to eat too much. - maybe true, but implies non-causal

Since this relatioship is causal, you can make a person fat by forcing them to eat more.

Popular news snibbets of scientific studies often fool people into thinking there is a causal relationship. For example: Children who are good readers also happen to have lots of books in their home.

We all know, however, that buying a bunch of books won't make our children good readers, but rather households that are enthusastic about reading happen to need lots of books to read. So, the relationship between number of books and good readers is non-causal. - this is not a great example, but I'm short on time to come up with a better one.

off to a meeting....

[bbbean]

Are you saying you think there are USPSA affiliated clubs sending in "practiced" classifier scores?

If they were, what harm would it do? If someone gains a classification based on practiced or repeated classifiers, he's just put himself in a more competitive bracket. I'd be more worried about shooters sandbagging to shoot in lower classes than shooters taking a shortcut to higher classes.

If you classified me as a GM, the real GMs would kick my butt on every stage in every match. I'd never win my class. But if you classified Rob Leatham as a D shooter, he'd obviously own the class.

[ken hebert]

Personally I am proud of our sport and pertaining to the matter at hand for one simple reason: that the BOD has not changed the rules in order to satisfy the PC crowd by lowering the requirements for lady/women shooters to attain GM classification. I've been in matches with my share of lady shooters, most notably Sharyn Cohen and Athena Lee, and was just as impressed with their abilities in a course of fire as I am with anyone who demonstrates learned and achieved skill and proficiency with their firearm.

"There are no and have never been any lady GM's?" I've never been a GM either, but like so many other shooters out there, both male and female, I ain't giving up nor am I satisfied.

[carinab]

...I think they are all GM's

Why thank you!

The ladies camps were born out of a this type of discussion (in a rental car driving back to the hotel from Nationals at Bend). We too wondered amongst ourselves as to why there aren't more highly ranked women. If there are less than 4% GM's in the game and women are less than 5% at any match, it not only comes down to physical differences but the numbers too.

So, go out and recruit more women!

[Martha Stewart voice] Estrogen at the range is a good thing! [/Martha Stewart voice]

[JThompson]

It can be done. On paper. Like many grandbaggers out there who get beat by B class shooters at Nationals....

I, personally, can't live with the idea of being classified GM and NOT making GM scores at Nationals, yaknowhatimean?

Here is my tired, cranky and jet-lagged two cents...And yes, I am the 70% lady from the World Shoot in question who never made grandmaster... I've never believed in shooting classifiers because I think people take advantage of it. For me, I think Nationals is the true gauge on how people should be classified. But then again, that's just my opinion. Now the question is, Mr. OP, how come a lot of GM's can't shoot GM scores at Nationals?

Oh wait, I just realized that the original post was "Did you know there has never been a Lady GM?" ...so, "Yeah, we know..."

GREAT POST!!!

Wonder how the PAPER GM's are feeling today?

I dunno, but this paper A feels right fine.

[JThompson]

...I think they are all GM's

Why thank you!

The ladies camps were born out of a this type of discussion (in a rental car driving back to the hotel from Nationals at Bend). We too wondered amongst ourselves as to why there aren't more highly ranked women. If there are less than 4% GM's in the game and women are less than 5% at any match, it not only comes down to physical differences but the numbers too.

So, go out and recruit more women!

[Martha Stewart voice] Estrogen at the range is a good thing! [/Martha Stewart voice]

I must admit the pink range bag took some getting used to. I had to change my Rudy's from clear to Racing Red.

[Loves2Shoot]

"I think that there are alot of paper Ms and GMs ..."

Every M and GM is a paper GM, cause that is all it is, a piece of paper. To stay at that level is not easy either and the classification system has no way to deal that.

When I got my GM in limited I shot nearly everyday for 6 months straight, a couple hundred rounds per session. Hitting good classifiers was easy, because I put in the work. By that point I didn't really care about what card I was, I just wanted to get better.

A wife, kid and new business later, my classifiers are much lower. Do I know first hand what it takes to shoot at the M-GM level, I think so, can I do it every time, nope, but I have done it. I even got second on a stage last year between Taran and Robbie at a major match, so deep down in side I do believe I could hang, but in reality it is more than I have to give to do so at this point in time, so I accept that, so I shoot for the love of it (thus my screen name.)

[JThompson]

"I think that there are alot of paper Ms and GMs ..."

Every M and GM is a paper GM, cause that is all it is, a piece of paper. To stay at that level is not easy either and the classification system has no way to deal that.

When I got my GM in limited I shot nearly everyday for 6 months straight, a couple hundred rounds per session. Hitting good classifiers was easy, because I put in the work. By that point I didn't really care about what card I was, I just wanted to get better.

A wife, kid and new business later, my classifiers are much lower. Do I know first hand what it takes to shoot at the M-GM level, I think so, can I do it every time, nope, but I have done it. I even got second on a stage last year between Taran and Robbie at a major match, so deep down in side I do believe I could hang, but in reality it is more than I have to give to do so at this point in time, so I accept that, so I shoot for the love of it (thus my screen name.)

Bravo...

[Athena]

Thank you.

I know I've stepped on some toes when I posted that and I apologize. I was just getting cranky after my long flight home, seeing how some people think we don't try hard enough, that we're mediocre, blah blah, etc etc, yada yada, yaknowwhatimean? I have seen the classifiers get abused firsthand (i.e. shoot it over and over until you get the ideal time and the ideal hits). I am not saying everyone is doing this but my point is, I have seen it happen and it just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I should have been more specific. I'm M class and I don't even shoot M class scores at Nationals. So there.

My point is, women work doubly hard to get a foothold in this sport. I will have to work out a lot to be able to even get Average Joe's upper body strength. I am not making excuses, I think I'm just pointing out some facts. Take away the award for women and you take away the chance of encouraging more women to get in the sport. I KNOW that there will be a female world champion someday who will do 90% or better. But it takes a helluva lot of work. But it can be done.

Edited November 6, 2008 by Athena

[Loves2Shoot]

If there never is a woman GM, I would rather have that than lose the camaraderie, and joy for the sport you gals have, you are a much better example to the world to see than many who are GM (at the cost of everything else.) Keep rockin' Athena, Renee and all you other gals who are a shinning example of what sport should be.

Edited November 6, 2008 by Loves2Shoot

[JThompson]

Thank you.

I know I've stepped on some toes when I posted that and I apologize. I was just getting cranky after my long flight home, seeing how some people think we don't try hard enough, that we're mediocre, blah blah, etc etc, yada yada, yaknowwhatimean? I have seen the classifiers get abused firsthand (i.e. shoot it over and over until you get the ideal time and the ideal hits). I am not saying everyone is doing this but my point is, I have seen it happen and it just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I should have been more specific. So there.

My point is, women work doubly hard to get a foothold in this sport. I will have to work out a lot to be able to even get Average Joe's upper body strength. I am not making excuses, I think I'm just pointing out some facts. Take away the award for women and you take away the chance of encouraging more women to get in the sport. I do agree that there will be a woman GM someday. And I do believe, theoretically, it can be done. But it takes a helluva lot more work for us and a lot more time practicing.

I understand both sides of the topic and I'm glad you dropped in to give your opinion. You are one of the top shooters in the world, and it's are pleasure to listen to anything you have to say. It's easy to miss the tone in the written word... something that would be no problem said in person can take on other tones when people read their own feelings into it. Know that this is also true for posts subsequent to yours.

I hope you will drop by more often and say a few words.. perhaps share some of your training routines and any epiphany you might have along the way. I've been shooting a short time and I have learned tons from the people here. Having you post could only help flatten the learning curve for both female and male shooters. Many new lady shooters find there way here and read these forums... What better inspiration could a new shooter have then to read the words of the top shooters and how they achieved that success.

Here's hoping you drop by more and share what you can when you have a spare moment.

Best,

JT

Edited November 6, 2008 by JThompson