The future of IPSC

[Schutzenmeister]

4 minutes ago, Steve RA said:

 

How many people would want to shoot IPSC here instead of USPSA  ???   I'd think the number of people who have shot an IPSC match would be a very low percentage of USPSA membership.

Your question is pretty much on target ... But I'm not convinced it's the right question.  Yes, only a minority of USPSA shooters have ever shot under international rules.  But the better question might be what harm does it do to remain affiliated?  The good comes from USPSA controlling who gets selected to represent the US on the world stage.  As they say, ya gotta be in it to win it!

[GrumpyOne]

7 minutes ago, Schutzenmeister said:

Understood, oh Grumpy One!  However, this has been an ongoing issue for decades.  Truth be told, it was apparently the US who wanted a cap of 2000 members for dues purposes.  And by the way ... We've got ~ 28,000 members.  The Russians have something like 36,000!  Right now our vote is equal to theirs.  Would you prefer theirs to be ~ 150% of ours, relatively speaking?

Yes, I would prefer that, as that would at least be the entire memberships will instead of a single persons' will.

[Steve RA]

Well, that is a good point.  I don't know that it does any harm to remain affiliated, I was just curious.  I do realize that many other countries have vastly different rules regarding firearms than we do and residents of those areas are forced to comply with them.

[Schutzenmeister]

2 minutes ago, GrumpyOne said:

Yes, I would prefer that, as that would at least be the entire memberships will instead of a single persons' will.

I'm not sure exactly where you're headed with this.  Direct voting by all members, worldwide?  I suspect even you would agree that would never fly.  Something more republican (small r)?  Kind of what we have - just more like the Senate than the House.

 

I really don't mean to be "shooting down" comments so much as trying to encourage folks to provide some ideas that are based in reality and may be achievable.  If anyone is offended, I'll stop.

[GrumpyOne]

2 minutes ago, Schutzenmeister said:

I'm not sure exactly where you're headed with this.  Direct voting by all members, worldwide?  I suspect even you would agree that would never fly.  Something more republican (small r)?  Kind of what we have - just more like the Senate than the House.

 

I really don't mean to be "shooting down" comments so much as trying to encourage folks to provide some ideas that are based in reality and may be achievable.  If anyone is offended, I'll stop.

How do you know what is achievable unless you try? If nothing ever gets said, nothing gets done, therefore all ideas are essentially based on reality. 

 

Again, Mr. Foley asked for what we would like to see changed, not for your reasons why they should not or could not be changed.

[Schutzenmeister]

Grumpy

 

It is incredibly obvious to me that direct voting, by all "members" worldwide is a concept that has little if any chance of succeeding ... either in getting it approved, or in the execution of it thereafter.  We have enough problems getting our own members to vote in our elections.  I'm less than optimistic about the chances of global success on that.

 

However, it appears I may be offending at least you with my thoughts.  I shall voluntarily withdraw from the discussion unless specifically asked to reply to something.

 

Cheers

[GrumpyOne]

9 minutes ago, Schutzenmeister said:

Grumpy

 

It is incredibly obvious to me that direct voting, by all "members" worldwide is a concept that has little if any chance of succeeding ... either in getting it approved, or in the execution of it thereafter.  We have enough problems getting our own members to vote in our elections.  I'm less than optimistic about the chances of global success on that.

 

However, it appears I may be offending at least you with my thoughts.  I shall voluntarily withdraw from the discussion unless specifically asked to reply to something.

 

Cheers

It's not whether they (all the members world wide) vote or not, but whether they have the option to vote. Without even putting forth the question, there is absolutely zero chance of getting that changed. 

[tanks]

22 hours ago, Schutzenmeister said:

Interesting.  However, the fact is the US is the ONLY region within IPSC who has its own definitions of Divisions.  Everyone else on the face of the planet uses the IPSC designations and rules.  (There are some minor variances allowed in some countries due to firearms laws and restrictions in those countries ... much like there are some variances here in the US due to various state laws ...)  So, what you propose is to have the rest of the world yield to US?  Yeah, I'm USA born and raised, but that's pretty much the tail wagging the dog, don't you think?

...

 

Considering there are a lot more shooters here than IPSC countries combined (or close to it) my comment makes sense. Right now most guys that shoot Limited or Production in USPSA would have to use a different firearm than they are used to in order to compete in IPSC. Not to mention reconfiguring mag placement for Standard.

[GeneBray]

I think one concern to address is territories of a country who is in IPSC or USPSA and that member becoming a region of the other organization. I believe Guam and Puerto Rico are good examples regarding IPSC regions and both are U. S. territories.

This is probably more aimed at USPSA than IPSC, but I believe IPSC has a better approach to Production magazine capacity than USPSA, and I would like to see USPSA move to 15 rounds. Likewise, it makes no sense not to have CO-10, O-10 and PCC-10 if we have L-10. Simple solution is to load what you bring within the magazine length rules and/or what local laws allow within a division. This would make our division rules more like IPSC. May require a rule to address details.

Agree with comment from another on PFs being the same for both organizations. Up to 165 for Open in IPSC and down to 165 for major in Standard, Classic, and Revolver.

Discuss the 357 SIG being major in Standard and Classic, and see if there are issues. Seems like something USPSA should do as well.

Standardize Open bullet weight between USPSA and IPSC.

Standardize range commands. Load and make ready and Make ready.

There is more, but more related to politics, and issues regarding how IPSC is operated (as I understand things which could well be in error) than with rules so will be quiet here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Schutzenmeister]

4 hours ago, tanks said:

 

Considering there are a lot more shooters here than IPSC countries combined (or close to it) my comment makes sense. ...

Tank

 

You could not possibly be more wrong ... Sorry.  USPSA has around 28000 members.  Russia alone has something on the order of 36000.  Technically, we're not even the biggest kid on the block anymore.  Saying IPSC should adopt USPSA standards is absolutely the tail wagging the dog.

 

I'm not at all advocating we cave and adopt international rules, but to imply they should bow to our standards because we're bigger and better than the rest of the world combined is irrational.  We need to find ways to work together.  That will require some give and take on both sides.  That's really all I'm advocating.

[Gooldylocks]

Tank

 

You could not possibly be more wrong ... Sorry.  USPSA has around 28000 members.  Russia alone has something on the order of 36000.  Technically, we're not even the biggest kid on the block anymore.  Saying IPSC should adopt USPSA standards is absolutely the tail wagging the dog.

 

I'm not at all advocating we cave and adopt international rules, but to imply they should bow to our standards because we're bigger and better than the rest of the world combined is irrational.  We need to find ways to work together.  That will require some give and take on both sides.  That's really all I'm advocating.

That's not an accurate number though, as we both know. You have to be a member of a sporting organization to own a handgun in Russia, do you not? So really, they have an additional 36,000 potential handgun owners than they did before. That is a perfect example of why activity count should be the deciding factor. If you have a smaller membership but shoot a ton you get a bigger vote. You have a giant membership but shoot rarely? Less votes for you.

 

[GrumpyOne]

1 hour ago, Gooldylocks said:

That's not an accurate number though, as we both know. You have to be a member of a sporting organization to own a handgun in Russia, do you not? So really, they have an additional 36,000 potential handgun owners than they did before. That is a perfect example of why activity count should be the deciding factor. If you have a smaller membership but shoot a ton you get a bigger vote. You have a giant membership but shoot rarely? Less votes for you.

 

This. Those 36k members in Russia would most likely not vote if they don't compete (sole purpose of their membership is to own a handgun), but if the entire membership has the opportunity to vote, it becomes more balanced. 

[Schutzenmeister]

1 hour ago, Gooldylocks said:

That's not an accurate number though, as we both know. You have to be a member of a sporting organization to own a handgun in Russia, do you not? So really, they have an additional 36,000 potential handgun owners than they did before. That is a perfect example of why activity count should be the deciding factor. If you have a smaller membership but shoot a ton you get a bigger vote. You have a giant membership but shoot rarely? Less votes for you.

 

What's your point?  We in the US are the exception to the rule in firearms ownership (thankfully!)  Many countries (if not most) require such membership.  Further, if one looks at "activity count" (subjective term ... depends on just how it is defined), Russia lead the world in L3 match activity for 2016.  http://www.ipsc.org/results/regionstatus.php  If you question this, go on line and look at the IPSC Match Calendar ... Select "Russia" and list all matches.  (Note, it will only list L3 and higher.)  Look at that list and compare it to how many L3 matches there are each year in the USA.  I think you'll be surprised at what you find!  I wouldn't call them inactive.  Similar arguments can be made for other regions.

 

One other item ... I would respectfully disagree with limiting the discussion to handgun.  Many places in the world severely limit civilian handgun ownership/use.  Some flatly prohibit it.  IPSC attempts to provide these places with SOME form of the sport in which they can participate ... Rifle, Shotgun, and yes - even Airsoft!  My advice to Mike Foley is to encourage this aspect of IPSC as it does us no harm and spreads some form of the sport on a global basis.

 

My 0.02 ... YMMV

 

 

 

[GrumpyOne]

Russia may have more level 3 matches, but I think the point Gooldy was trying to make is, how many participants were in those level 3 matches. I would be interested to see that comparison. Russia could have had  24 level 3 matches, but if there were only 50 participants in each one, that's only 1,200 shooters... if the US had 12 and had 200 participants, that would be 2,400 shooters...but the US doesn't hold many IPSC matches,  since we have such a high participation in USPSA...count those level 3 USPSA matches,  and their participants, and then see who comes out in first.

[Schutzenmeister]

18 minutes ago, GrumpyOne said:

This. Those 36k members in Russia would most likely not vote if they don't compete (sole purpose of their membership is to own a handgun), but if the entire membership has the opportunity to vote, it becomes more balanced. 

Grumpy ... I hear you.  But if I may, let me pose a couple of questions for you:

 

USPSA does not get wonderfully high participation rates for our own domestic elections as it is.  How many USPSA members do you honestly believe actually would vote on IPSC issues if what you propose were in place?  For the moment, I'm asking you to temporarily put aside the "opportunity" issue you refer to.  Now - and neither one of us has the answer to this one, I'll wager - How many Russians would vote on IPSC issues?  (As an aside, also consider the answer to this if Vitaly, the Russian RD, wins the election and becomes the next IPSC President ...)  Opportunity is a wonderful thing, from a philosophical point of view.  Personally, I'm more concerned about likely real world outcomes.  I think such a system might actually dilute our standing at the table.

 

I know Mike Foley ... We both know he is reading this discussion!  He is an intelligent individual and I am confident he will weigh and consider both of our (differing) points of view on this topic!  I think the discussion is good and healthy.  I'm happy it's remaining civil and issue-oriented!

[Gooldylocks]

23 minutes ago, Schutzenmeister said:

What's your point?  We in the US are the exception to the rule in firearms ownership (thankfully!)  Many countries (if not most) require such membership.  Further, if one looks at "activity count" (subjective term ... depends on just how it is defined), Russia lead the world in L3 match activity for 2016.  http://www.ipsc.org/results/regionstatus.php  If you question this, go on line and look at the IPSC Match Calendar ... Select "Russia" and list all matches.  (Note, it will only list L3 and higher.)  Look at that list and compare it to how many L3 matches there are each year in the USA.  I think you'll be surprised at what you find!  I wouldn't call them inactive.  Similar arguments can be made for other regions.

 

One other item ... I would respectfully disagree with limiting the discussion to handgun.  Many places in the world severely limit civilian handgun ownership/use.  Some flatly prohibit it.  IPSC attempts to provide these places with SOME form of the sport in which they can participate ... Rifle, Shotgun, and yes - even Airsoft!  My advice to Mike Foley is to encourage this aspect of IPSC as it does us no harm and spreads some form of the sport on a global basis.

 

My 0.02 ... YMMV

 

 

 

You are so incredibly off base here. I never once (didn't even imply it) that we should have a larger vote than Russia. But the 2000 member cap is a stupid and rather arbitrary number, when there are regions that have 18x that number. Further, it should be members participating at all levels of the region, not just Gold Medals won (since it's kinda tough to win a bunch of medals when there are only 2 matches to choose from on the entire continent that count, compared to every Euro country having one) and L3 matches held under IPSC rules (because by my count, we have at least 12-13 L3's a year, but only get credit for one. A bit of bias there, eh?). 

 

If the Philippines, Russia, Germany, Brazil, Australia, Greece, or whoever else and the good ol USofA have the most active and largest regions, then they should get a bigger vote. Voting should be bicameral, by overall activity (so larger regions have a bigger vote) and by being a voting region at all. 

 

::ETA:: I am only talking about handgun because you were specifically talking about Russia. So how about don't try to be evasive and dodge the question, I and everyone else knows that there are more disciplines under the IPSC umbrella than handgun, nor did I ever say we should try to control or eliminate those. 

 

Things I would like to see:

• Divisions/PF the same (make them all 160 or all 165, I don't care but make them the same)
• Range commands the same
• Changes to the voting system
• More IPSC matches in the US
• Presidential term limits
• Checks and balances of Executive Council control
• Fix IPSC Multigun

 

Edited July 16, 2017 by Gooldylocks

[Gooldylocks]

3 minutes ago, Schutzenmeister said:

Grumpy ... I hear you.  But if I may, let me pose a couple of questions for you:

 

USPSA does not get wonderfully high participation rates for our own domestic elections as it is.  How many USPSA members do you honestly believe actually would vote on IPSC issues if what you propose were in place?  For the moment, I'm asking you to temporarily put aside the "opportunity" issue you refer to.  Now - and neither one of us has the answer to this one, I'll wager - How many Russians would vote on IPSC issues?  (As an aside, also consider the answer to this if Vitaly, the Russian RD, wins the election and becomes the next IPSC President ...)  Opportunity is a wonderful thing, from a philosophical point of view.  Personally, I'm more concerned about likely real world outcomes.  I think such a system might actually dilute our standing at the table.

 

I know Mike Foley ... We both know he is reading this discussion!  He is an intelligent individual and I am confident he will weigh and consider both of our (differing) points of view on this topic!  I think the discussion is good and healthy.  I'm happy it's remaining civil and issue-oriented!

I don't agree that people should have a vote on every issue that comes up, that is stupid and ridiculous. But having a single person that is not forced to vote the way the members of their region would actually want them to vote, is not right. Presidential elections should be open, or have elections internally and then the RD is constitutionally bound to vote that candidate come election time. 

[Schutzenmeister]

10 minutes ago, GrumpyOne said:

Russia may have more level 3 matches, but I think the point Gooldy was trying to make is, how many participants were in those level 3 matches. I would be interested to see that comparison. Russia could have had  24 level 3 matches, but if there were only 50 participants in each one, that's only 1,200 shooters... if the US had 12 and had 200 participants, that would be 2,400 shooters...but the US doesn't hold many IPSC matches,  since we have such a high participation in USPSA...count those level 3 USPSA matches,  and their participants, and then see who comes out in first.

I wish I had access to (or at least knew where to find) actual match results to answer you apparent question as to the level of participation in any given L3 match worldwide.  I don't.  I can tell you there are, particularly in Europe, numerous L3 matches which draw 800-1000 shooters each - every year.  For some reason, we can't match that!  And, by the way, USPSA having only ONE IPSC match per year is by our choice, not a restriction placed on us by IPSC.  Trust me - the leadership of IPSC would be THRILLED if we were to have a dozen or more under IPSC Rules!  Not saying that's going to happen, just acknowledging a fact.

Edited July 16, 2017 by Schutzenmeister

[GrumpyOne]

14 minutes ago, Schutzenmeister said:

Grumpy ... I hear you.  But if I may, let me pose a couple of questions for you:

 

USPSA does not get wonderfully high participation rates for our own domestic elections as it is.  How many USPSA members do you honestly believe actually would vote on IPSC issues if what you propose were in place?  For the moment, I'm asking you to temporarily put aside the "opportunity" issue you refer to.  Now - and neither one of us has the answer to this one, I'll wager - How many Russians would vote on IPSC issues?  (As an aside, also consider the answer to this if Vitaly, the Russian RD, wins the election and becomes the next IPSC President ...)  Opportunity is a wonderful thing, from a philosophical point of view.  Personally, I'm more concerned about likely real world outcomes.  I think such a system might actually dilute our standing at the table.

 

I know Mike Foley ... We both know he is reading this discussion!  He is an intelligent individual and I am confident he will weigh and consider both of our (differing) points of view on this topic!  I think the discussion is good and healthy.  I'm happy it's remaining civil and issue-oriented!

You miss the point. Whether our USPSA members vote or not, they have the opportunity to vote. Not so in IPSC. Arguing that voter turn out is the real problem is like saying that just because 80% of the membership doesn't vote, we should stop the voting altogether.  

 

It would be nice for everyone to have a vote, but I can see where that could be difficult...but maybe every 10 members given the chance to vote (randomly, without anyone but the computer knowing), could be viable.

[Gooldylocks]

1 minute ago, Schutzenmeister said:

I wish I had access to (or at least knew where to find) actual match results to answer you apparent question as to the level of participation in any given L3 match worldwide.  I don't.  I can tell you there are, particularly in Europe, numerous L3 matches which draw 800-1000 shooters each - every year.  For some reason, we can't match that!

Hmm, well A1 had over 800 register, A2 has a waiting list a mile long every year, A6 had around 600 shooters, and I heard somewhere iron sight nats has nearly 1000 registered? Those numbers seem pretty comparable to me.

 

Also, it is a question of time. If I live in Oregon and want to shoot A6, that is an entire day of travel on either end, assuming I'm flying. If not then it is at least 3 days of driving. If I live in France and want to shoot the Hungarian Nationals, I can drive there in a day. Hell, I could probably fly there on Ryanair for under $100, and be there in two hours.  

[Gooldylocks]

2 minutes ago, GrumpyOne said:

You miss the point. Whether our USPSA members vote or not, they have the opportunity to vote. Not so in IPSC. Arguing that voter turn out is the real problem is like saying that just because 80% of the membership doesn't vote, we should stop the voting altogether.  

 

It would be nice for everyone to have a vote, but I can see where that could be difficult...but maybe every 10 members given the chance to vote (randomly, without anyone but the computer knowing), could be viable.

It's almost like he is arguing that Americans shouldn't get to vote for actual government positions, because only about half of them do. "Well, voter turnout has been pretty bad lately, so.... we're just gonna go ahead and not even give you the chance. Really we are just saving you time."

[Schutzenmeister]

12 minutes ago, Gooldylocks said:

You are so incredibly off base here. I never once (didn't even imply it) that we should have a larger vote than Russia. But the 2000 member cap is a stupid and rather arbitrary number, when there are regions that have 18x that number. Further, it should be members participating at all levels of the region, not just Gold Medals won (since it's kinda tough to win a bunch of medals when there are only 2 matches to choose from on the entire continent that count, compared to every Euro country having one) and L3 matches held under IPSC rules (because by my count, we have at least 12-13 L3's a year, but only get credit for one. A bit of bias there, eh?). 

 

My intent here was to point out that we run fewer (USPSA) L3 matches than, for example, Russia runs (IPSC) L3 matches.  Medal counts are a rather silly metric, I agree.  They HIGHLY favor the host country as a rule.

 

12 minutes ago, Gooldylocks said:

If the Philippines, Russia, Germany, Brazil, Australia, Greece, or whoever else and the good ol USofA have the most active and largest regions, then they should get a bigger vote. Voting should be bicameral, by overall activity (so larger regions have a bigger vote) and by being a voting region at all. 

 

Sorry, but I have to chuckle here, just a little.  Looking at our own (bicameral) Congress, I'm not certain just how wonderful an idea that is!  (Please accept the humor and irony intended!)

 

12 minutes ago, Gooldylocks said:

Things I would like to see:

• Divisions/PF the same (make them all 160 or all 165, I don't care but make them the same)
• Range commands the same
• Changes to the voting system
• More IPSC matches in the US
• Presidential term limits
• Checks and balances of Executive Council control

 

 

These are WONDERFUL suggestions.  I second them and think Mike Foley should give this list some thought!

 

9 minutes ago, Gooldylocks said:

I don't agree that people should have a vote on every issue that comes up, that is stupid and ridiculous. But having a single person that is not forced to vote the way the members of their region would actually want them to vote, is not right. Presidential elections should be open, or have elections internally and then the RD is constitutionally bound to vote that candidate come election time. 

 

If I may compare this to our own political system in the USA ... If our Presidential system were similar to what you suggest, Hillary Clinton would be President.  You may or may not like that, depending on your point of view.  Second - I WISH I could force my elected representatives to vote as I want them to on any given issue.  That's not how it works, even in our own country.  We elect them.  They vote on the issues.  If we don't like the way they vote, we can (and sometimes even do) vote someone else in.  How is this any different?

[Gooldylocks]

Just now, Schutzenmeister said:

 

My intent here was to point out that we run fewer (USPSA) L3 matches than, for example, Russia runs (IPSC) L3 matches.  Medal counts are a rather silly metric, I agree.  They HIGHLY favor the host country as a rule.

I count 35 L3 matches in 2016 listed on the IPSC results. That's certainly a lot, and they should be rewarded for hosting those matches. But the number of participants at those matches, and all the participants at the L1s and L2s is another important thing that should not be forgotten. I can only assume other regions are the same as here, and locals are the backbone of the organizations. 

Just now, Schutzenmeister said:

 

If I may compare this to our own political system in the USA ... If our Presidential system were similar to what you suggest, Hillary Clinton would be President.  You may or may not like that, depending on your point of view.  Second - I WISH I could force my elected representatives to vote as I want them to on any given issue.  That's not how it works, even in our own country.  We elect them.  They vote on the issues.  If we don't like the way they vote, we can (and sometimes even do) vote someone else in.  How is this any different?

Because we are talking about a system in which there is no accountability at all, and we are talking about electing the top dog. You may notice as well that Hillary is not the president, because the majority of the electoral college is legally bound to vote as per the votes in their districts. That would be like having internal elections and then the RDs voting for the majority winner of their region. 

[Schutzenmeister]

Guys ... I sense this is starting to get a little heated.  NOT my intention, I assure you!  Hence I will make a couple of replies then give it a rest for 24 hours.  Besides - I need to cut the grass today and 4 acres is a HELL of a lot of grass!  (LOL)

 

 

9 minutes ago, GrumpyOne said:

You miss the point. Whether our USPSA members vote or not, they have the opportunity to vote. Not so in IPSC. Arguing that voter turn out is the real problem is like saying that just because 80% of the membership doesn't vote, we should stop the voting altogether.  

 

My point is that we do have the opportunity.  We vote for our President (our RD) and he represents us at the General Assembly each year.  If we don't like his record, we can replace him.  And, by the way, that's really no different from how we run things domestically.  We (you and I) do not have the "opportunity" to vote on day-to-day things.  We elect Area Directors to the BoD and THEY make the decisions on our behalf.  If we don't like them, we replace them.

 

8 minutes ago, Gooldylocks said:

Hmm, well A1 had over 800 register, A2 has a waiting list a mile long every year, A6 had around 600 shooters, and I heard somewhere iron sight nats has nearly 1000 registered? Those numbers seem pretty comparable to me.

 

Also, it is a question of time. If I live in Oregon and want to shoot A6, that is an entire day of travel on either end, assuming I'm flying. If not then it is at least 3 days of driving. If I live in France and want to shoot the Hungarian Nationals, I can drive there in a day. Hell, I could probably fly there on Ryanair for under $100, and be there in two hours.  

 

The "large match syndrome" here in the US is a relatively new phenomenon.  Historically, our matches have been nowhere near this size.  As to commuting distances ... I guess we're victims of our own success in manifest destiny!

 

5 minutes ago, Gooldylocks said:

It's almost like he is arguing that Americans shouldn't get to vote for actual government positions, because only about half of them do. "Well, voter turnout has been pretty bad lately, so.... we're just gonna go ahead and not even give you the chance. Really we are just saving you time."

 

Last I checked, I don't get a vote for actual government positions ... My elected representatives do that ...

 

 

Guys ... I've got yard work to do - really!  I hope each of you find the discussion as thought-provoking as have I.  Until later ...

[Gooldylocks]

5 minutes ago, Schutzenmeister said:

 

Last I checked, I don't get a vote for actual government positions ... My elected representatives do that ...

 

You directly elect your representatives and your senators, and via the Electoral college (the RDs, in this example) have a shot at voting for president. That's how I would propose amending the constitution.