Vince Pinto

“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.” Theodore Roosevelt.

You just never quit, do you Mr. Turner? Your obsession with, and hatred of, me are obviously a huge part of your life. I must've done something terrible to you but I don't recall. In any case, please, go ahead, continue with the attacks.

Hey Gary, I hope you've been keeping well. Your help and guidance when I was drafting IPSC Classic Division rules was invaluable. Sorry about the dumb questions, and thanks for your patience!

Yet I don't see you saying "thanks for your service to our sport" or "great work on achieving something that nobody else has ever achieved" or "everybody said your plan would fail, but you persisted and made it happen". No Sir. Always look for the perceived dirt, even though the commissions were public knowledge. Is our sport any better due to your comments? Clearly, my getting US$57,000 in commissions over a period of 5 years is disgraceful. I've spent more in that time on lunches. I don't need a medal, and I don't need a hug, but it would be nice, really nice if once, just once in 17 years here, I was not personally attacked and vilified for what the rest of the IPSC World thinks is quite a accomplishment. I know, wishful thinking, but I'm an optimist.

Yep. No matter what, I'm guilty. Business as usual here.

Yep, as usual, my participation in any thread here invariably becomes about me. The obsession and hatred hasn't waned one iota since I joined in 2002. It's no joke. For starters, my commission was no secret. Secondly, I didn't "take it". It was offered to me as compensation for the considerable expenses I incurred in raising the money. This included numerous airfares, hotel accommodations and some wining and dining to convince potential Patrons to sign up and part with their money. I also conceived the program, and I spent five years actively working on it. And during my 25 years with IPSC, I never asked for, nor was i ever given, a salary. Do you also object to Range Officers getting compensation? What about USPSA Executives and staff? How much have you raised to bolster the USPSA balance sheet?

So, now you want to make this about me? That didn't take long. Did Andy Hollar's or Mike Voigt's (RIP) or John Amidon's chapter close when they no longer had official HQ positions in the USPSA? What about the numerous Area Directors who no longer serve in that capacity? I'm still actively involved with IPSC. I have been, every day, for 25 years, and I have no intention of withdrawing. In respect of the GAISF application, I single-handedly submitted our official application in 2015, which took 7 days a week for 6 weeks to assemble the 470 pages of supporting documentation that had to be included. I also single-handedly raised the US$570,000 war chest which enabled us to pursue this dream. I therefore hope it's OK with you that I continue to use the words "we" and "us".

What does it cost?

Yet you know so much about it. I'm truly impressed.

The Classic Target was factually, not ostensibly, introduced as an alternative to regions who demanded it. At the time, Germany was using a Metric Target with two heads, in order to avoid any problems with their government, while Australia found it politically expedient to cut off the heads. Other regions were facing similar political pressures. And the suggestion that the Classic Target was the first step towards a devious plan to retire the Metric Target was the figment of the tinfoil hat imagination of a guy in Massachusetts who objected to the very existence of IPSC. There was no such plan. Once again, I was in the room when the matter was discussed. The logical fallacy "Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc" applies. However, the Classic Target proved to be considerably more popular worldwide than the Metric, with one major reason being its reduced size. As a result, when the Motion came up at the 2008 General Assembly, the outcome was not even close: 42 Yea votes versus 5 Nay votes (one of the latter was the USA).

One more thing: IPSC did not retire the Metric (headed) Target until 2008, long after all the Olympic hoopla.

Also with respect, you obtained your information third or fourth hand. I was there in the room, at the pointy end of the spear, and that article is complete and utter nonsense. We had one meeting with Gilbert Felli, and it was he who advised us to go the GAISF route. We did not try to persuade anybody of anything. It was just an exploratory meeting. And here's a clue to the inaccuracy of the article: the organisation name did not change from combat shooting. The organisation was called Practical Shooting from Day 1. Fake news was around long before Trump, but he certainly nailed them with the moniker.

The story got twisted and took on a life of its own. Our friends at IPSC Greece informed us that IPSC would be able to put on a demonstration match for the IOC, in conjunction with the 2004 Olympics in Greece. We were very sceptical, but they were so insistent, we said OK, that would be great, and we notified all regions of the possibility. As it turned out, it was indeed a pipe dream, as we suspected. The IOC decided to cancel all demonstration sports for 2004, so it was never a real starter.

Double tap.

We were rejected twice previously, but that was solely due to the ISSF objecting under the "competing sport" rules at those times. Apart from their hatred of IPSC style shooting, which is far more exciting, which might affect their growth, they were worried that we would somehow lessen the funding they obtain from the IOC. However, for us, this has nothing to do with money. We continue to pursue GAISF membership, because there is now little to no weight given to the former "competing sport" rule. It's a very long and arduous process, and we continue to plod along. We have a sizeable war chest, so all we need is patience. A lot of patience.