RuckUp

I always liked Ted. Such a friendly guy who didn't seem to fuss about much. Obviously, he was a really good shooter too.

This one is a bit late as I just learned of it recently. I first met Rod in July 1988 at the local IPSC match just outside of Colorado Springs. I had always wanted to get into IPSC and I decided to check out a match. Although he was a typically a 1911 shooter he was trying out a Taurus 9mm at that time. Wow! He tore up the match and it wasn't because he was using a hi-cap. He was just smoking fast and accurate. Besides being a great shooter he was a fantastic human being; friendly, rational, very funny, and compassionate. I've posted a link to his Obit below. RIP my friend. https://obits.gazette.com/us/obituaries/gazette/name/roderick-goodall-obituary?id=53053927

Hi Shred, I'm pretty sure Rob shot his Springfield P-9 in 9x21 mm (aka 9mm JLE.) If you watch the Lenny Magill video (slide to 58:44) you'll see him fire about 14 shots without reload. Honestly, that's the only clear way I was certain it was a P-9. In the end when he's unloading you can see an very long and squared trigger guard, which kinda reveals it's not a 1911. Not trying to be critical of your post. But that hi-cap really hit the reset button for everyone and the next arms race was underway. Also, notice in that final run, the rather controversial situation where he tried to open the final door, but it was still locked (you had to knock down a popper to unlock it.) Rob simply beat the popper and got to the door before it got unlocked. That situation likely cost him the match. Not trying to knock on Jerry either. He shot brilliantly and at the same time, woke everyone up to the value of the red dot and the "other" new arms race began. BTW, we shot Standards that match with three runs at 50 yards. Guess what? They put hard cover on the targets; only the A and C zones were clear. Do you think a red dot helped with that? Jerry took that stage with ease with 155 pts out of 180. Needless to say, The 1990 Nationals was a pivotal moment in USPSA with a world of change on the horizon. Fun times!

Thanks! My bad.

I can see this happening. And I think this has been discussed, but to what degree will LO cause an exodus of sorts from CO to LO? (assuming LO becomes official) And not just with GM/M/A, but all. There's been a lot of talk about people leaving a particular division (Prod, L10) due to low attendance and less competition. How much difference is there between LO and CO? LO gives you major/minor, a better trigger, probably better accuracy, in a rather large market place of parts, gunsmiths, etc. I think the affinity divisions (SS, Revolver) will remain fairly stable because shooters really like the platform they're using. So, could we we see more consolidation/abandoning of the "smaller" divisions? In the end, do folks really want to shoot what the top competitors are shooting to see how they compare? Are we going back to the 1980's and 90's?

Wow, sad news. I only shot a few times with Mike. One year I was on the super squad at the nationals (first time! ) and we chatted a bit. At the party after the awards ceremony I was bummed because a couple jams and shooting single-stack (against high-caps) cost me a few places. Mike was sitting across from me and picked up on this. Like a gentleman he said, "Hey, you shot a great match this week. You should be proud of that." It was a really kind gesture that he didn't have to do. But, that was him. RIP Mike.

Hi Nathanb, That's a good question. As as one of those who didn't take the survey I'll try to explain my perspective. But first, since I did not take the survey I realize have nothing to complain about. I'm good with that and will accept whatever the outcome. I shot IPSC decades ago. We had three "divisions" of firearms: Open, Stock, Revolver. Probably 98% shot Open. Yes, it was an arms race and at times hard to keep up with. Personally, I got tired of that around the time I was departing serious shooting due to changes in life priorities. No regrets or angst. It was just timing. Yes, I've retained my membership and have watched/read from afar what's happening in USPSA. Please note, many, many people will grind through one sport/hobby after another as they age. They just get bored, or interested in another game, or whatevs, and move on. It's no more complicated than that but we keep our memberships anyway. So, that's part of the equation. But also, why invest time in a survey when we really don't understand all of the dynamics of what's happening? It's like shooting without sights. Will we be on target with our uninformed/aged/dated opinions? Perhaps knowing that you might prefer we didn't take the survey? (e.g. "We should bring back the ballistic pendulum!!" <-- joking) Regardless, maybe we shouldn't judge too harshly those who didn't take the survey even though we still hold a membership. Next, watching from afar I've been both pleased and disappointed with the changes. First, I was really excited about Production. Iron sights, 10 rounds, all Minor; that's probably as close to a level playing field you might find (SS is there too.) But then all of these spin-offs were being suggested, or put into play. For me and others in my "cohort" I sensed that many had this dream that if only they could get their favorite firearm/caliber setup approved, that would be perfect for them, and they'd be a home-town hero at every monthly match. I'm a bit surprised we haven't created sub classes for the color of each gun. It's still early yet. "... High Overall in L-10 in with a turquoise finish is..." OK, I'm being snarky there, but I think some will share the sentiment. More importantly, how many divisions must we have to keep everyone happy? And that begs the question, should everyone be happy? The martial artists didn't like what happened to IPSC/USPSA so they formed IDPA. I've never shot an IDPA match but I respect that they put their money where their mouth was and broke off. Yes, the member's voices should be heard. But how do we balance those organizational ideals against the withering complaints of the small groups of folks that want change? With all the flux it makes one wonder if filling out a survey will really alleviate the demands or just create more. So...why bother? There's a game. And it has rules and parameters. If we try to appease everyone, for every reason, what kind of an organization will we be and what kind of game will it become? And will all of these new divisions and changes really result in membership retention? I can't be certain, but it sure feels like this is a key driver in attempting to appease everyone. USPSA survived when it was 5,000 members, then 10,000, then 20,000, and more. It survived a split (IDPA). Do we really need to accommodate every demand in the name of membership numbers? Food for thought. RuckUp