Bones

Maybe your response the "Are You Ready" range command needs changing more than the rule that enforces your implicit or explicit assent to said question.

Yes, we should flog them... My point is, a single calibrated system that encompasses the entire population is superior to one that is not.

Put another way, the match bump system extrapolates an attribute from a sample size of 10 to a population of ~10000. I am estimating there are about that many competitors with SSP classifications - you get the picture. Ken, you seem like you know some math. Go to your T table (not the Tiger Table, Student's T table). What is the confidence level of that assumption? Now, at that confidence level, replicate the exercise, say 5000 times, assuming half the shooters in A class above master got there via the 'bump' and tell me what the relative variance of the population is. You will quickly see that the error in that extrapolation exceeds the result value, (i.e. it has a confidence level that approaches 0. For any given individual , the attribute ( their classification) is more likely wrong than correct. This assumes their Classifier score would be "correct". The systems (classifier and match bump) are not equal. They produce very different results. You can not equate them or their products. The weaker system (bump) significantly dilutes the stronger. And since you brought it up, if Members pay the same match fees and annual dues, etc. why should they not expect the a similarly robust and unambiguous assessment structure, representation or service at the same price point? I'm glad it's easier, but frankly, we are not giving money to a charity in either sport. Aspects of the individual sports aside, members are buying services that provide competitive shooting venues.

I'm not sure if you missed the point on purpose or not. USPSA seems to always be held up as the perfect example of everything. So, why not apply Bones math experiment. Now I'm not sure you understood Bones' thought experiment. In the IDPA case, Bones started out with 100 Marksman as the only shooters in a completely isolated system and did the subsequent math. If it was not a completely isolated system, then the math doesn't work. So, just like in Bones example for IDPA, if the only shooters in the entire USPSA system are the 100 shooters with "D" class skills, there is no 20%. Their score is the 100% mark. They all make Grand Master, because their scores would be the only scores in the classification database. Their scores automatically represent 100%. This is an apples to apples comparison using the same premise. The example is an unattainable contrived situation. It means nothing for IDPA or USPSA. That is my point. If you can read clearly, I am agreeing with Bones' premise that USPSA match bumps classifiy people more accurately than do IDPA match bumps. But the math example fails for IDPA and USPSA. It means nothing for either sport. The IDPA match bump only occurs if the shooter beats 9 others in his/her classification/division or the ones above. And as you have said, people don't spend the money to go to sanctioned matches if they can't shoot. So it isn't as bad as y'all make it out to be. You seem to be advocating that hardly anyone in IDPA is properly classified. It ain't true. kr Wow - just read this after being away awhile. I was not advocating anything, nor was I applying my example to the USPSA Classification system (which I consider to be superior to the IDPA system because it sets and maintains an absolute reference - the 100% line). A thing can be both imperfect and superior to something else. Here's what I meant: The IDPA match bump system is structurally flawed in that produces Classifications that exceed basic skill levels set by IDPA. The IDPA Classifier sets a (relative to USPSA low) 75% line (at best) as its highest skill level bar. Ergo, relative to USPSA, it is much easier to progress to higher Classification levels without commensurate increase in skill level. By design or by unintended consequence, the system is built that way. Here’s why I said it: I was making an observation based on a very large sample size. The majority of IDPA shooters I have met classified at any rank above MM cannot demonstrate basic shooting skills that match their Classification level on demand (as IDPA itself defines them in the IDPA Classifier). The frequency of this observations increases significantly as one progresses to higher Classifications MA>EX>SS ). My observation was that the match bump system was the primary cause. In fact, I met many MAs who never shot a Classifier at their Classification level after their first one to make MM, and simply progressed via "match bumps". Many, ironically, referred to this as "doing it the hard way". I get a big kick out of that response - they are implying a photographer's vest, some blue barrels and a NT stapled to the target array would imbue them with better shooting skills. No wonder "tactical" and ""CCW" clothing costs so much. The rules only require a Classifier be shot every year, not that skill be demonstrated - this is another contributor to the "bump" dilution of shooting skills at higher Classifications. As long as they don't put a round over the berm, they maintain their rating. I argued against the creation of DM. I thought it was an unnecessary response to a nonexistent problem. The perceived "problem" from my perspective was not that there were too many MAs; the problem was there were too many EXs in MA. Those EXs got to MA via the (flawed) match bump system. Obviously, they were not competitive (“winning” as they defined it) in MA at larger matches. This made them unhappy. The match bump system was setting unrealistic expectations by promoting them without confirming a basic skill level. These are the shooters “who do not test well”, whatever that means to a physical skill. My recommendation when the creation of DM was clearly inevitable was to require both a match win (or absolute performance level) and a documented Classifier time. I know many of us submitted documented classifier times to use as a basis for establishing a criterion. Now, I will advocate something: The data for Classifier times and match winners exist in the HQ database. Therefore, the overlap of these two populations can be known. If the classifications for members were reset using this data (i.e. a documented Classifier Time and Match bump would be required for all Classifications beyond MM), the mean would shift to the left (lower classification level). Would that exercise not answer the "properly classified" question definitively? This would not require anything beyond time to cross reference the data (nor will it likely sell more subscriptions), but it would reconcile the obvious incongruity of the 2 independent systems. This would not affect how many trophies are awarded at matches, since this is done on a fractional, and not an absolute performance, basis. I am, however, under no illusion that this will be seriously considered. I am, hopeful, however, that after a short break my good friend Glocktogo will wake up, and that we will continue to shoot together in Single Stack. Barry, IL is about halfway between OK and MA last time I looked. For what it's worth and if anyone is still reading this very boring post, he should have been on the original DM list, as I am certain he would have met any and all the performance criteria everyone who ultimately ended up on the list did, but the cut off date that was selected excluded him.

Fascinating. Having encountered so many SOs who were already fixated on and fascinated by feet and knowing they now have yet another validating perspective to watch them, a cynic would wonder if the IDPA "P" is indeed for "Pistol" and not "Podophiliac" - or perhaps "Procedural".... Craig

I agree that no rulebook can list all possible unsafe situations. However, the engagement of steel at distances shorter than 10 yd was specifically and explicitly identified by the authors. Confusion might result in that other explicitly stated safety violations - such as fingers in the trigger guard when not engaging targets - incur 3.0 second penalties for their first occurrence. DQs are incurred after a specified number of occurrences (Section 2.6, 2.6.1 and 2.6.2) It is easy to understand how a rational, experienced Action pistol competitor would seek clarity for consistencies sake, esp. given: 1) the seriousness of the potential penalty (DQ) and 2) that other, similar sports have shorter minimum steel engagement distances (where the consequences are clearly defined). SOs who also compete and work in other sports could legitimately not consider 10 yd an unsafe distance, and therefore may not consider engagement from 9 yd a DQ’able offense, but rather a non-conformance (3.0 second) penalty – esp. on its first occurrence using the stated logic and rational derived from Section 2.6. It would be clearer to explicitly define the consequences to the explicitly identified act.

.

You know the moonclipped 45ACP revolver was invented because they couldn't make enough 1911s, right? Good news - There are plenty of 1911s now. If it were me, shooting an unsanctioned match, I would down load it so it didn't hurt. Enjoy. Craig

I am simply pointing out that it is easier to demonstrate either basic shooting skills or turn in a winning performance on any given day than to do both, and that IDPA shooters will generally not be at parity with seemingly equal Classifications of sports that require both at any Classification level (C-MM, B-SS, A-EX, M-MA, etc..). Recall that in other sports, Classifiers are required to be incorporated into Major matches. Even if they are held as separate events, requiring both a match performance AND a Classifier score to be promoted would not require any more data than already exists and would give a much more complete view of skills than either event independently. The system would not, however, advance people nearly as quickly. If the goal is to advance shooters as soon as possible, the current system is more effective than others. Craig

Its beyond academic and, in my experience and observation, very real. In the independent IDPA match bump system, promotion is relative only to 9 other competitors at that location at that match. In broadly, linked calibrated systems like USPSA and ICORE, all performances are always relative to the best of the entire population all the time. Moreover, forcing promotions before basic skills can be demonstrated via the Classifier accelerates and amplifies this situation - as the exercise above shows. In USPA or ICORE, without a repeated and sustained demonstration of improvement linked to a 100% calibration line, all 100 of those competitors would stay at the level at which they entered the system, regardless of match finish. The IDPA Classifier times are not 100% lines. The best shooters can easily best MA times in any Division on demand on any given day. The very best IDPA shooters can shoot the Classifier in 65 seconds or less. Using that as a 100% line, for example, would mean that 85% of that (as is required to make MA in USPSA) is 77 seconds. I have met very few IDPA MAs who can demonstrate that skill level on demand. The fastest IDPA MA time requirement is 89 seconds - 73% of the 65 second 100% line. That is equivalent to B class in USPSA. That explains why the "average" IDPA MA could easily be a B class shooter in USPSA based on Classifier scores alone. Promoting people to MA via the unlinked match promotion path who cannot demonstrate the minimum IDPA requirements on demand only amplifies the effect. As an anecdotal example, you need to repeatedly demonstrate a certain absolute skill set to shoot 85% of Rob Leatham in 4 USPSA SS Classifiers (and be promoted to MA) but 1:10 CDP EX is ALWAYS going to be promoted to MA at a Major match, regardless of absolute skill level. If they are all 70% of (take your pick - Shelby, Olhasso, Vogel, Burwell, etc.) one of them MUST be promoted. The distribution is forced further and further to the right by the unlinked match promotion system. I pass no judgement on any of them, but the math and logic is what it is. Craig

Barring intentional actions, your Classifier score will likely not vary more than 10% on any given day at any given skill level. Food for thought re: the independent IDPA match bump & Classifier classification systems. The system's basic attribute - two independent promotion paths - leads to some interesting outcomes. Start with 100 Marksmen in any Division. Have them do nothing - no practice, no skill improvement, no equipment change, etc. - but shoot against one another in successive Major matches. After the 8th match, the system produces it's first MA. After the 33rd match, MAs are the majority. After the 49th match, the system literally locks up and 73% of the participants have been promoted to MA. I have always supported coupling the systems by requiring a documented classifier score and match result to be promoted - esp. to MA level - or mandating portions of the classifier in major matches to provide a more complete assessment of skill sets. It would also normalize the population distrubtion against the best (100% line) at any given time. No additonal work would be required for the former, as all this data exists(ed) in the system. Essentially, without a calibration against something - like a 100% line - Classifications are locally subjective and generally imprecise relative to other existing Action Pistol systems. From some perspectives, there are not too many XXs (pick your Classification), there are too many XXs in XX+1 class. The system as it exists cannot produce any other outcome. IDPA Match Bump Analysis - starting with 100 Marksmen - same population competing in successive Major matches # MM SS EX MA Total 1 100 0 0 0 0 100 2 90 10 0 0100 3 81 18 1 0100 4 73 25 2 0100 5 66 30 4 0100 6 60 33 7 0100 7 54 36 10 0100 8 49 38 12 1100 9 45 39 14 2100 10 41 40 16 3100 11 37 40 19 4100 12 34 39 22 5100 13 31 39 23 7100 14 28 38 25 9100 15 26 36 27 11100 16 24 35 28 13100 17 22 34 29 15100 18 20 33 30 17100 19 18 33 29 20100 20 17 33 28 22100 21 16 31 292 4100 22 15 29 30 26100 23 14 28 29 29100 24 13 27 29 31100 25 12 26 28 34100 26 10 25 29 36100 27 9 23 30 38100 28 9 21 29 41100 29 9 19 29 43100 30 9 18 28 45100 31 9 17 27 47100 32 9 16 26 49100 33 9 15 25 51100 34 9 14 24 53100 35 9 13 23 55100 36 9 12 22 57100 37 9 11 21 59100 38 9 10 20 61100 39 9 9 19 63100 40 9 9 18 64100 41 9 9 17 65100 42 9 9 16 66100 43 9 9 15 67100 44 9 9 14 68100 45 9 9 13 69100 46 9 9 12 70100 47 9 9 11 71100 48 99 10 72100 49 9 9 9 73100 Something to think about, Craig

SW 945

Beautiful work. My concern would be when the ham-handed SO (who just learned everything he knows about revolvers from Youtube yesterday) pushes on your cylinder latch and busts the (now thin) strut that restrains the bolt. It is easy to underestimate thier enthusiasm as many have learned. You might want to leave enough metal so that the work is not visible with the side plate on when the action is cycled - you can easily see material has been removed in your photo. Those types of conversations with SOs at the "safety check" are best avoided in my experience. Here's the rule you will most like have to discuss (I added the color): 8.2.5.2.2. Action work to enhance trigger pull as long as safety is maintained (smoothing the trigger face, removing the hammer spur, use of over travel stop, conversion to DA only and addition of ball detent are considered action work and are permitted). Beyond removal of the spur, the removal of the remaining hammer material is not on the "inclusive" list of action work. It's absence on the "non-inclusive list" of excluded modifications has not been an effective defense in my experience. I don't agree with it, but I am just offering another perspective. I would not be shocked if the interpretation is not in your favor should you have the conversation. Again, it is easy to underestimate thier enthusiasm. Good Luck.

Ty, Are you suggesting that most humans can consistently resolve 0.001" differences with their naked eyes? That is exactly what you are asking from SOs. Bullets are relatively symmetrical at the 0.001" scale (as are the overlays), grease rings, tears, folds and the like are not - and since shoot through count in IDPA, any and/or all of those characteristics are highly variable. Bullet diameter is a much more stable and robust reference, isn't it? IDPA measures gun weight with a scale, gun size with a box, bullet velocity with a chronograph, holster position with a stick, and magazine pouch height with a ruler, right? Why can’t any of those things be “eyeballed”? Aren't there a lot more bullet holes in a match than any of those other attributes? This is exactly the same issue as cover calls vs. foot faults - asking humans to make positional or dimensional assessments quickly and consistently across a bay, a match and a country without the use of simple, obvious reference points. What training do IDPA SOs receive that judges in other sports do not? Anecdotal but highly relevant - here are some stats from a recent major IDPA match I attended. The PEs on stage 7 were predominantly cover calls. There were 2 points of cover in that stage. Do you think the SOs were consistently assessing position across the match? Stage Total Procs 1 1 2 10 3 8 4 13 5 0 6 16 7 51 8 23 9 5 10 16 11 5 Totals / Overall Averages 148 Total Shooters in Match: 109 Having experienced other systems in Bianchi, USPSA and ICORE, I can tell you unequivocally that the use of simple reference aids (like overlays and foot faults) adds consistency and fairness without complication. What experience or data can you share that suggests otherwise? For the number of times you’d actually need them, overlays seem to be a simple and universally accepted solution to a common challenge. Craig

Care to cite a rule to back that up? Sure. USPSA handgun - 9.5.2 NRA Action Pistol 14.3 ICORE 6.14 Essentially, the shooter always recieves the highest score possible. NRA action pistol uses the word 'doubt' explicitly. The fact of the matter is most of IDPAs paying customers will realize 0 benefit from a 0.5 sec variance in thier score that an overlay would provide, its volunteer workforce percieves negative complexity in the use of overlays, and the use of overlays is apparently in conflict with IDPAs stated mission of putting an premium on promoting social interaction and camaraderie (page 1 of the new rule book). The overwhelming majority of shooters I know who have used and experienced both the IDPA and any of the other scoring target methods mentioned above strongly prefers the use of overlays.