Jump to content


Photo

First Female GM


  • Please log in to reply
245 replies to this topic

#21 JGus

JGus

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 253 posts
  • LocationMidwest

Posted 13 December 2013 - 11:49 AM

Pretty cool right?

 

Very cool. 


  • Scoogeengindy likes this

I'd rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints.


#22 Brownie

Brownie

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • 1,361 posts
  • LocationCamilla, Ga

Posted 13 December 2013 - 11:59 AM

Good for Jessie. Whatever anyone says it takes a lot of hard work to get there.

There's so many moving parts in this thread though.....

As stated, Randi is an animal and head to head I think Vegas would handicap Randi as the favorite but.....
Randi doesn't shoot Open. Is Open more suited for women to excel at in this sport? I would argue that it is.

As CB45 asked, does this send the High Lady trophy to extinction? Do they keep it to encourage participation? Is it patronizing to women if they do?
  • RussellM likes this

#23 foofighter

foofighter

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,388 posts

Posted 13 December 2013 - 12:13 PM

As stated, Randi is an animal

 

That's just mean.



#24 Brownie

Brownie

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • 1,361 posts
  • LocationCamilla, Ga

Posted 13 December 2013 - 12:38 PM

That's just mean.


You know what I meant.

#25 foofighter

foofighter

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,388 posts

Posted 13 December 2013 - 12:43 PM

Randi doesn't shoot Open. Is Open more suited for women to excel at in this sport? I would argue that it is.
 

 

But then you have Maria Guschina and her much talked about IPSC Production win a few weeks ago, which somewhat seems to contradict that.

 

Either way, we're working on pretty small datasets...



#26 Brownie

Brownie

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • 1,361 posts
  • LocationCamilla, Ga

Posted 13 December 2013 - 12:44 PM

But then you have Maria Guschina and her much talked about IPSC Production win a few weeks ago, which somewhat seems to contradict that.
 
Either way, we're working on pretty small datasets...


IPSC doesn't count.

#27 foofighter

foofighter

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,388 posts

Posted 13 December 2013 - 01:02 PM

IPSC doesn't count.

 

Ok, so lets look at the Nationals

In Open there were 19 female shooters, with an average percentage of 56.09

In Limited there were 20 female shooters, with an average percentage of 55.66

 

In Open the lowest score was 39% and Limited 22.9%. Limited had two other pretty low scores at 24.9 and 31.4. Though the average for Open was marginally higher, the Limited scores were skewed downwards by a few really low ones. Without one of those really low scores, Limited average would have been higher.

 

Based on this data, it seems like Open isnt really  easier.



#28 Death Mechanic

Death Mechanic

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 260 posts

Posted 13 December 2013 - 01:06 PM

Other Pat would ask if she made it with an OSS, but this Pat thinks it's cool as hell. Bravo Jesse, well fucking done!

Fix it to death

No love for MFCEO  


#29 JGus

JGus

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 253 posts
  • LocationMidwest

Posted 13 December 2013 - 01:11 PM

I don't think the "average" % score for females is a relevant measure, nor do I think it's relative to men. Most relevant would be how well a particular competitor scores In a large match relative to the overall division winner. Just like always.

I'd rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints.


#30 waktasz

waktasz

    Admin

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,090 posts

Posted 13 December 2013 - 01:14 PM

I'd venture to say that just about 100% of the people who just make GM by a few percentage points aren't going to hang with the top 5 at nats either, so stop hating. I know when I barey snuck into M this year I knew I had to step up my game so as not to allow myself to get beat by any sandbagging A class scumbags and so I wouldn't look like a douche when I rolled into area matches.


  • Tank, Matt Mc and seanc like this

#31 foofighter

foofighter

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,388 posts

Posted 13 December 2013 - 01:18 PM

I don't think the "average" % score for females is a relevant measure, nor do I think it's relative to men. Most relevant would be how well a particular competitor scores In a large match relative to the overall division winner. Just like always.

 

The top female in Open was 76.663%, the top female in Limited was 76.744%

In both cases Jessie. Look fairly equal to me.

 

No, I dont think that either this or the average necessarily are very good measures, but they are at least quantifiable measures.

Apart from these numbers, I havent seen much other than opinions, feel free to make up your own numbers and post them here



#32 T "G" O

T "G" O

    The Gay One

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,854 posts

Posted 13 December 2013 - 01:44 PM

I can personally guarantee the 31.4% score in Limited was 100% as a result of gun failure.



#33 Hammar

Hammar

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 20 posts

Posted 13 December 2013 - 02:57 PM

Hammar,
 
Do you live under a rock?  Women in USPSA IS a BIG thing... big enough that the organization bought "Women of USPSA" (probably for some insane amount that could have been spent on self squadding program that wasn't so fucked up to operate).   They get several pages in Front Sight every issue to talk about their accomplishments. 
 
Her being the first female GM is a really big milestone for the sport and the women who shoot it.

Well as long as USPSA tells me it's important then it surely must be.

It's not important to me because it's not surprising to me. As I said, I'm surprised there aren't more female GM's.

#34 T "G" O

T "G" O

    The Gay One

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,854 posts

Posted 13 December 2013 - 03:02 PM

USPSA isn't telling it, the USPSA shooting community is.  If there wasn't interest they wouldn't be in the spotlight all the time. 

Clearly you are in the minority. 



#35 JGus

JGus

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 253 posts
  • LocationMidwest

Posted 13 December 2013 - 03:54 PM

The top female in Open was 76.663%, the top female in Limited was 76.744%

In both cases Jessie. Look fairly equal to me.

 

No, I dont think that either this or the average necessarily are very good measures, but they are at least quantifiable measures.

Apart from these numbers, I havent seen much other than opinions, feel free to make up your own numbers and post them here

 

I definitely see your point in terms of comparing different divisions level of difficulty.  I wasn't referring to the same thing you were, though.  I was referring to how any shooter, male or female, should be measured overall, not comparing division difficulty. 

 

The point I was trying to make, and probably didn't, is that the only true measure (in my opinion) is how well a shooter does at large matches against the top shooters in their division.   If I can regularly shoot 60% or higher of the top shooters (assuming GM's), then I justify my B card.  If I can't, then despite my B card in Limited, then I'm not really a B class shooter even though I have a B card.

 

I'll get flamed for this, but yeah it's nice to score well on classifiers and it means someone can shoot a certain level of difficulty on one stage without much pressure.  In my opinion, the only true measure that matters is to shoot an entire large match with many stages and see how you score against the GM's in that match shooting under pressure.  If someone can more often then not shoot within their scoring range for a certain class, then they have justified their classification.  If not, then they truly don't deserve it and shouldn't be able to keep it.  

 

If Jessie can shoot, more often than not, 95% of the GM's at a large match, she deserves the GM classification.  If not, it means nothing.  This is true for anyone.  I like Jessie and now that she has a GM card I hope she justifies it at large matches and not just on classifiers.          


I'd rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints.


#36 Matt Mc

Matt Mc

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 465 posts

Posted 13 December 2013 - 04:21 PM

Good for her. Lots of work goes into that.

I still beat her at prod nats....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

#37 wchangose

wchangose

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 75 posts

Posted 13 December 2013 - 04:27 PM

Good for her. Lots of work goes into that.

I still beat her at prod nats....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

How did that work at Limited nats? :)


  • Ben likes this

#38 Matt Mc

Matt Mc

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 465 posts

Posted 13 December 2013 - 04:28 PM

About like it did for you at prod nats


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  • Big Doodie likes this

#39 wchangose

wchangose

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 75 posts

Posted 13 December 2013 - 04:32 PM

I'll refer you to a genius comment a bit earlier in this string:

 

" ... worry less about how she's going to compare with the other GMs and worry more about how you will."

 

 

 

 



#40 waktasz

waktasz

    Admin

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,090 posts

Posted 13 December 2013 - 04:33 PM

I definitely see your point in terms of comparing different divisions level of difficulty.  I wasn't referring to the same thing you were, though.  I was referring to how any shooter, male or female, should be measured overall, not comparing division difficulty. 

 

The point I was trying to make, and probably didn't, is that the only true measure (in my opinion) is how well a shooter does at large matches against the top shooters in their division.   If I can regularly shoot 60% or higher of the top shooters (assuming GM's), then I justify my B card.  If I can't, then despite my B card in Limited, then I'm not really a B class shooter even though I have a B card.

 

I'll get flamed for this, but yeah it's nice to score well on classifiers and it means someone can shoot a certain level of difficulty on one stage without much pressure.  In my opinion, the only true measure that matters is to shoot an entire large match with many stages and see how you score against the GM's in that match shooting under pressure.  If someone can more often then not shoot within their scoring range for a certain class, then they have justified their classification.  If not, then they truly don't deserve it and shouldn't be able to keep it.  

 

If Jessie can shoot, more often than not, 95% of the GM's at a large match, she deserves the GM classification.  If not, it means nothing.  This is true for anyone.  I like Jessie and now that she has a GM card I hope she justifies it at large matches and not just on classifiers.          

 

That's all well and good, but for the most part, very few people, even legit GMs, finish above 95% at nationals.  What does this mean? I don't know.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users