Jump to content
Brian Enos's Forums... Maku mozo!

1 Sec Per PD Email. Send yours today!


Steve Koski

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 157
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Well, I'm just above average age and disagree with the change. I enjoy competing against the younger shooters and having them show up to matches. The statistic that you should be relying on instead of age is the percentage that claim they do not shoot for competitive reasons. There are many of us over 50 that oppose the change.

P.S. I'll share an insight about human nature. If the majority of the respondents claimed that they are not "competitive" shooters then why are they bothered by the existing scoring system? If by some miracle the scoring change made shooters over 51+ win more (which it won't) then they would likely not be so bashful to claim that they shoot for competitive reasons. HQ is mandating the change (the membership was not crying out for it).

Edited by Steppenwolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Steppenwolf said:

If the majority of the respondents claimed that they are not "competitive" shooters then why are they bothered by the existing scoring system? If by some miracle the scoring change made shooters over 51+ win more (which it won't) then they would likely not be so bashful to claim that they shoot for competitive reasons. HQ is mandating the change (the membership was not crying out for it).

Good question...I'm not a hard core competitor, so I don't really care how high they make the penalties. It's just a number to me.

I don't however believe that HQ would make a change like this if no one was asking for it. Why would they?? It's obviously simpler to score, but I think other reasons came into play. I'm not privy to those discussions or reasoning, but I have to believe it wasn't just someone sitting around saying "How can we tick some members off today?" :mellow:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, BillR1 said:

Good question...I'm not a hard core competitor, so I don't really care how high they make the penalties. It's just a number to me.

I don't however believe that HQ would make a change like this if no one was asking for it. Why would they?? It's obviously simpler to score, but I think other reasons came into play. I'm not privy to those discussions or reasoning, but I have to believe it wasn't just someone sitting around saying "How can we tick some members off today?" :mellow:

Ummmmmm no.  Name three IDPA members who were asking for flat-footed reloads back in 2012... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Jim Watson said:

The technical term for that is "cutting off your nose to spite your face."
Or do you have other things to shoot around there?

Yes sir! USPSA is a little further of a drive, but well worth it. Plus, I am in good enough with the 3 gun guys and they let me run only my pistol at their matches. IDPA is already slow paced. 1 second per point is just going to make it even slower. Top shooters will still be the same ones on top because they are the better shooters. I greatly appreciate IDPA for getting me into the shooting sports, but it is sad watching them destroy their own sport with all the rule changes. 1 second per point is not going to gain them any additional members, but rather alienate current ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why does everyone keep saying it's easier to score? Is anyone actually scoring by hand on a note pad? With programs like practiscore it doesn't matter if it's + .36758533 per point down, the computer (or tablet to be specific) does the math

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk


Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, MikeBurgess said:

Why does everyone keep saying it's easier to score? Is anyone actually scoring by hand on a note pad? With programs like practiscore it doesn't matter if it's + .36758533 per point down, the computer (or tablet to be specific) does the math

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk
 

 

This^^^^!

 

and how hard is it to PD x .5 + time?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Jim Watson said:

The technical term for that is "cutting off your nose to spite your face."
Or do you have other things to shoot around there?

On the same Saturday of the month that I drive 2 hours each way to an IDPA match, there's a USPSA match 20 match minutes from my house. No thanks...the IDPA match is well worth the drive for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BillR1 said:

On the same Saturday of the month that I drive 2 hours each way to an IDPA match, there's a USPSA match 20 match minutes from my house. No thanks...the IDPA match is well worth the drive for me.

To each is own. Changing it to 1 second per point is not going to gain them any additional membership. More likely, it will drive some of their membership to other shooting sports. I doubt keeping the scoring the way it is would lose them any members. People already shooting IDPA would continue to shoot it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ngodwetrust21 said:

To each is own. Changing it to 1 second per point is not going to gain them any additional membership. More likely, it will drive some of their membership to other shooting sports. I doubt keeping the scoring the way it is would lose them any members. People already shooting IDPA would continue to shoot it.

Here we go again...seems like every time IDPA changes a few rules, people start predicting some mass exodus of shooters from the sport. It hasn't happened yet, and I doubt this will do it either. Like you said, people that are shooting IDPA will continue to shoot it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I doubt Joyce Count will drive many away, even though we grumble about it.  It is not likely to attract any, though. 

PCC will likely pick up some entries.  I think it is outside the remit of IDPA but we are going to be stuck with it.  I hope SOs are on their toes, handling of long guns is entirely different from a holstered pistol and I predict I will be swept by a carbine at the first opportunity. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, BillR1 said:

I'm 55+...I like the scoring change. IDPA is simply catering to it's core demographic. That's just smart business.

 

19 hours ago, BillR1 said:

Good question...I'm not a hard core competitor, so I don't really care how high they make the penalties. It's just a number to me.

So, you like the scoring change, but you aren't a hard core competitor so you don't care.

Right.  Okay.

 

Other people have already pointed out the issues with the other things you said.

 

Thus far, I still have seen no actual explanation from anyone of any actual problem that this is intended to fix, and no particular change (other than slowing things down and penalizing mid-level and lower shooters twice as much) that will occur due to this rule.

BillR1:  Do you know what problem is this intended to fix?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Thomas H said:

Thus far, I still have seen no actual explanation from anyone of any actual problem that this is intended to fix, and no particular change (other than slowing things down and penalizing mid-level and lower shooters twice as much) that will occur due to this rule.

BillR1:  Do you know what problem is this intended to fix?

 

I already posted that I'm not privy to the reasoning or discussions concerning this rule, but again I don't believe it was a haphazard decision. Just because I/we don't know the reason behind the rule change doesn't mean there wasn't one. If I was guessing, I could imagine that some of the "older" shooters asked for it in hopes of making the game more accuracy-intensive and slower to suit their skillset better. Again, that's just a random guess. 

 

Edited by BillR1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, BillR1 said:

I already posted that I'm not privy to the reasoning or discussions concerning this rule, but again I don't believe it was a haphazard decision. Just because I/we don't know the reason behind the rule change doesn't mean there wasn't one. If I was guessing, I could imagine that some of the "older" shooters asked for it in hopes of making the game more accuracy-intensive and slower to suit their skillset better. Again, that's just a random guess. 

 

So what you are saying is that you can't think of a single problem this is intended to solve, other that possibly slowing the game down.

......why would anyone support this again?  Unless they wanted to make it easier for them to win, meaning that they are attempting to change the rules for personal gain?

That's a great reason to support something that doesn't actually fix any particular problem other than "I'm not winning enough."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Thomas H said:

So what you are saying is that you can't think of a single problem this is intended to solve, other that possibly slowing the game down.

......why would anyone support this again?  Unless they wanted to make it easier for them to win, meaning that they are attempting to change the rules for personal gain?

That's a great reason to support something that doesn't actually fix any particular problem other than "I'm not winning enough."

Nope, I don't know the reasons for the change. (I think I said that earlier...whatever?)

I don't need to know the exact reason why it was done to have an opinion on whether I like it or not. I like the way the math works out, and the fact that people will need to shoot more for accuracy. That's my opinion. Opinions vary...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ahh...got it. Like I said, that was just a wild guess. I honestly have no clue what may have caused HQ to make that rule change. Someone must have asked for it...seems like a strange adjustment to make just out of the blue with no input from anyone. I wonder if we'll ever really know...?

Edited by BillR1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, BillR1 said:

Ahh...got it. Like I said, that was just a wild guess. I honestly have no clue what may have caused HQ to make that rule change. Someone must have asked for it...seems like a strange adjustment to make just out of the blue with no input from anyone. I wonder if we'll ever really know...?

I feel like you may have a hint of why?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jim Watson said:

I am an "older shooter."  I do not approve Joyce Count, so don't tar all us Distinguished Codgers with the same brush.

Don't mean to do that AT ALL.

It just interests me that I have yet to see any actual problem that this rule will solve -- and a number of people who like it always end up saying something that equates to "I'm not winning enough, so let's change the rules."

I can think of a number of people older than I am that don't need any "help" at all in winning...and if you offered to change things to give them an advantage, their reactions would be.....non-thrilled. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...