Thomas H

So you were a B-class 8 years ago, and according to you, "But when I do go to the range, I still practice draws, transitions, and Bill Drills." ....yep, fits the "other than an occasional one or two here and there who specifically worked on that skill. ... " A lot of people have a ton of fun meeting arbitrary-but-well-known measurements of specific skills. 2-second Bill Drill, that one-second draw, one-mile rifle shot, one-second reload, etc, etc. They are fun to do, no doubt! I'm still thinking that if someone got together a bunch of B-class shooters and had them attempt a 2-second Bill Drill (7 yards, USPSA A-zone, all A-hits in 2 seconds), the vast majority would fail.

Different people have different opinions. Note: My experience with Area matches is based on Area 3, Area 4, and Area 5 each a number of times. Out of them, I prefer the A3 match, because I like it when the stages require you to think in addition to shooting. If you like a high round count match, with close shots, distant shots, lots of steel, and lots of movement, then you'll like A3. If any little thing outside of directly shooting causes you to lose your focus and screw up, you will probably hate A3. A3 is known for having strange start positions, lots of choices in terms of far or near shots, and little things you have to think about in the middle of shooting to mess with your concentration. I personally find that fun to shoot. Other people don't. All that being said, I had a perfectly good time shooting the A4 and A5 matches, also, though each has a very different "flavor" to it. I think if you can ONLY go to one Area match, you should go to (and support) the one in your area. If you can go to multiple ones---do it. They are all a good time, IMO.

I would like to know where "most B and some C shooters" can shoot a Bill Drill in under 2 seconds. Because "most B and some C" can't, other than an occasional one or two here and there who specifically worked on that skill. (Normally to the detriment of others, because if they built that skill to that level but still are B or C class, they ignored lots of other skills.) And a lot of this conversation has been had before. Your classification percentage and your match finish percentage are not the same thing, don't measure the same thing, and aren't SUPPOSED to be the same thing. As such, people being unhappy that they aren't the same thing seems.....less than useful. Throughout the years of matches, match finishes (in majors) tend to go by class for the vast majority of people. Most of the time, GMs will beat Ms who will beat As who will beat Bs and so on. Yes, there is some melding at the edges, and similarly, some few people who are misclassified. (Or had a bad match with gun issues, or whatever.) And yet...the vast majority of classifications match how people do at majors. Talking about how wide the bands are (for whatever meaning people add to that) also doesn't make much sense, because GM M, and A are deliberately set to be a smaller range of percentages, plus in any test of ability, you just aren't going to have that many people at the high end. That's how human abilities work. We wouldn't expect the "band" of Ms to be either as wide as Cs, nor contain as many people. IVC also said: "It's a problem because the whole classification system loses relevance. If you use it to track personal progress, like majority of people do, neither your class nor your percentage reflect your ability as a shooter. " Your class and your percentage reflect your ability as a shooter almost every single time at a major--as long as you recognize that classification percentage and match finish percentage are two completely different things. However, your match finish (place) relative to other shooters almost invariably reflects your classification. As such, using your classification to track your personal progress is a great idea.

Yeah, a number of weeks ago I emailed him about that, and he forwarded it to the people in charge of the online course. It just takes awhile to update. (I already had my SC endorsement, but since I was telling a bunch of my local folks to take the online course, I decided to go through it myself.) Interestingly enough, a later module clearly states and discussed that staging areas ARE legal in SC, and how exactly they should be handled. The fix is simply to remove the one or two comments and the slide in the earlier module, because a later module explains it well.

That's interesting, and a pretty significantly change, considering quite a few classifier HHFs didn't change. 50% less making it into a higher classification? That's a lot. Mind sharing where you heard that, and what their data is based on? I'd be interested to know.

This type of comment always seems interesting to me, because it seems to be so self-evidently not true. If there isn't a difference between DA and SA, then people should be doing just as well with DAO pistols as they are with SA pistols. But they don't, because DA is more difficult, and nobody shoots that way if they have a choice. Not impossibly so, and with practice you can minimize the difference. Which doesn't change the fact that a similar amount of practice with an SA trigger would result in a better outcome. Since it is only for one shot, in general, with practice, you can make the DA first shot almost the equal of an SA first shot, so given the current usefulness of having SA shots the rest of the time, many people will go for that choice. It isn't because DA "means nothing," it is because you can practice enough to make the negatives of one shot of it worth less than the positives of the rest of the SA shots. But it requires extra practice specifically on that first DA shot for that to be true. As such, it WILL make a difference to the vast majority of people in USPSA (who are in the B-to-C range).

Isn't that "always"? I mean, other than various Nats, I can't think of any regular match that doesn't allow Limited in it. So isn't this more of a "I like Limited better than Production, enough to even not care about shooting Minor" comment? One of the things that sets Production apart from most the rest of the semi-auto divisions is the low-capacity requirement where everyone shoots minor, which makes for a different type of stage plan and execution. Changing that (as has been said numerous times) turned it into a very different division. On a separate note: Several people have now said variations on "XXX is killing Production" and "Production is dropping a lot" and "Production is dying" and so on. And yet....while the numbers themselves are indeed going down a bit, Production isn't dying at all. Not at a major match level, nor on a club level. Sure, there are regional variations, but overall, tons of people are still shooting Production. Yes, some dilution has occurred---this should have been expected, since we added two more divisions (PCC and CO), both of which tend to be shot by people in 9mm with minor scoring. As such, we'd expect that Production would (comparatively speaking) lose more of a percentage of shooters than any other division. None of that changes the fact that Production is still an incredibly popular division. I have yet to see any suggested change that would actually increase the participation in it. Is there a suggestion I missed that would make any substantive difference in making people want to shoot Production more?

It says placed on the surface. It then says the fault line must be a certain height. You are attempting to claim that something that has a height, and that is lying on a surface, won't be that height above the surface. That doesn't work for you. What you just said either makes no sense or isn't relevant, or makes no sense and ALSO isn't relevant. The rule requirements a physical representation. Of what? The fault line that is the delineation of the difference between the inside of the shooting area, and the outside of the shooting area. What you just attempting to argue (whatever it was) doesn't change any of that. If there is not a physical representation of the different between the fault line and the area outside the fault line, then it isn't legal. Given that the surface outside the OP's situation not only is equal in height to the fault line, but actually in places covers the fault line, there is no physical representation, must less the height requirement needed.

Considering that nothing is "killing Production," watching yet another round of people trying to justify changing the rules to match their personal wants when they have nothing to do with making the division better, is just as amusing as always. Rowdy had a good comment in that pretty much the only intelligent realistic change to Production would be making it match IPSC rules, because that would be the only change that had an actual reason behind it that made any sense. That being said, I doubt that we would ever do that (and I certainly hope not) because that would cause a lot of issues for people who shoot Production currently in USPSA. I personally see no reason to match IPSC, but I can understand that it at least has a valid argument justifying it. Everything else so far has just been people saying things without providing any justification that would support the idea that Production entries would increase due to their changes.

Yup. The Level II matches I run will have a lunch break. Mostly because my staff need a break. They need time to change out targets, time to take a look at stage props, and most importantly, time to sit down and have some food and drink a bunch of water. It also helps even up squads between the morning and afternoon, but mostly---it is for the staff break. (And most competitors need a break also. While some are indeed okay with a break while other people shoot, many folks, particularly on boiling-hot days, need a little time in the shade drinking water.) It has been interesting looking at some of the other things people want/say they need for Level II matches, some of which wouldn't have actually occurred to me as being important. Useful and interesting thread.

You said, and I quote: "See and I thought the key to this stage was keeping the gun up, and aiming at the target " ...considering the person in the OP is just outside of the first box, and moving to the second, and that was the topic at hand, you DIDN'T mean keeping the gun up and aiming at the target? You meant what I said, which was "having the gun up and being aimed on the next target when you get a foot down in the next box"? ....because that isn't what you said. Ok.

I wonder how many people are ignoring that part in bold? Fixed to the surface (in other words, sitting on the surface) and then have a minimum height above that surface (that they are fixed to). After all, you can't have a minimum height above a surface if the surface that is above the fault line. Given the the OP's situation had a surface that literally was over (and on top of) the fault lines, that is in violation of this rule.

The part in bold is (one of) your issues. It isn't high above the surface, because the surface out of the shooting area is higher than the fault line. It doesn't specify that the physical reference must be on all sides, because the fault line is the delineation between inside the shooting area, and outside the shooting area--as such, the physical reference must be between "inside the shooting area" and "outside the shooting area". And the situation at hand doesn't have a physical reference for that. The number of people commenting on the inside of the fault line don't seem to understand that the inside doesn't mean anything. After all, I've been on 2"x10" boards that were both the fault line AND the shooting areas. They had no inside. And yet they were completely legal, because how big the fault line is compared to the shooting area isn't important. The only part that is important is the fault line compared to outside the fault line. That's where you need the physical reference, after all. RJH wrote: "The top inner edge would be your physical reference, no rule stating how wide the fault line must be." Physical reference for what? Both sides of that spot (the "top inner edge") are inside the shooting area. As such, it isn't a physical reference for anything. "The question is not "where the shooting area ends," the question is whether you are touching the outside of the shooting area while shooting. " Hint: You can't know whether or not your are touching outside the shooting area unless you know where the shooting area ends. And that's why a physical reference must exist.

Not that I've noticed, no. If you are on their strong side, it isn't hard to tell when they get on the trigger either. Having the gun up and being aimed on the next target when you get a foot down in the next box, yes. Keeping the gun in both hands (if a handgun) and pointed at the next target (PCC or not) during the entire movement from box to box in Outer Limits? Not at all.

Not the ones I've seen.

It isn't a physical reference. After all, there is dirt on top of the fault line, and there is no difference in height between the outside of the fault line and the ground outside the fault line. As such, standing on the fault line (which is legal as it is within the shooting area), there is no physical reference enabling you to tell if you are touching the ground outside the shooting area. I'll note that quoting only one part of the rule while ignoring the rest means that you are attempting to ignore the meaning. "For hard ground surfaces clear of debris, 0.75-inch material is the minimum allowable size. On other range surfaces, such as covered with turf, sand, gravel, wood chips or similar, thicker material which rises at least 1.5 inches above the surface is recommended" Note the part in bold. Even IF you decide to ignore the "recommended" and ALSO still attempt to claim the 0.75-inch material for some reason doesn't actually mean "0.75 inches above the surface" (which, I'll note, is ridiculous because burying it in the ground would meet your requirements and yet make no sense, as someone else pointed out), the fact remains that the physical reference requires a difference between the fault line and the surface. And this case has no height difference causing a physical reference to shooting area as opposed to the non-shooting area. Even better, given that dirt covers the fault line, not only is their no height difference, there is no effective material difference. 1) No. 2) Also no. Truthfully, the only change to the rules should be to remove "recommended" from the rule and instead use "required." It isn't legal, and as I said, this would not only lose in arb, but the stage would most likely be thrown out if a number of people had shot the stage.

The closest I get to this is looking at people's classification in the results, and comparing that to other people's classifications if I'm bored. As has been said, a shooter's classification peak times are the best they have ever shot, per stage, at different times, on different days. That doesn't necessarily mean they can do that on demand. (Truthfully, if you consistently shoot your peak times, you probably aren't pushing very much. Either that, or your are the fastest shooter in the world already. And since there aren't many BJ Norrises in the world, that means that if you are shooting your peak times pretty much every match, you need to push yourself more, IMO.) In general, my scores tend to have my match overall times generally within half of a classification level of my actual classification. Sometimes I have a bad day, and they aren't. But mostly, that's how it goes. Every once in awhile I have a really good match (for example, at Free State in PCCO I managed to have an extremely good match, with three or so new stage peak times, and the rest were mostly very close to my current ones) but mostly, my match times are about half a classification lower (unless I'm having an awful day, like this past Sunday) than my peak times. I think also how much difference people see is also related to their classification. A C-class shooter might one day have an awesome time on Outer Limits (compared to their normal) and then forever after have a time 10 seconds longer while shooting like normal (for them), just due to that one stage. A GM-class shooter simply won't have that level of difference, barring a gun malfunction. Mostly....I don't worry about it.

It interests me that the MD said that. As Flatland Shooter said, right off the bat: ".2.1.1 Shooting Boxes and Fault Lines should be constructed of wooden boards or other suitable material, must be fixed firmly in place, and provide both physical and visual references to competitors. For hard ground surfaces clear of debris, 0.75-inch material is the minimum allowable size. On other range surfaces, such as covered with turf, sand, gravel, wood chips or similar, thicker material which rises at least 1.5 inches above the surface is recommended." It doesn't say "oh, the minimum allowable size is only for one side, you can ignore the other" or anything like that. The shooting area runs to the outside of the fault line. You can clearly see in the picture that the fault line is actually BELOW the ground outside the shooting area in parts, and equal with the ground (at best) for most of it. It does NOT provide a physical reference to competitors. All the other made-up justifications regarding the inside are irrelevant to the rule. There is no physical reference (since the dirt on the outside actually is on top of the fault line), and this is not a "hard ground surface clear of debris" so 0.75 inches isn't enough. This obviously fits into the "1.5 inches above the surface" recommended part. However, since it says "recommended" people will argue the RM doesn't have to follow it. Which means at that bare minimum, this should provide a physical reference and be above 0.75 inches. It is none of those things. It isn't a legal fault line. Not only would this win in arb against a "per shot" penalty, it would win against ANY penalty, and be grounds for a reshoot, since it isn't a legal fault line. Even better, since probably quite a few people shot this stage and couldn't all be given reshoots, this stage would most likely have to be thrown out. And it would have been easy to simply set it up correctly in the first place.

Man, I'm so up in the air on this one. On one hand, I agree, particularly when the award ceremonies are done badly. Incredibly boring, and take SO LONG. On the other hand, shooting my last stage and then wandering off and leaving immedaitely seems like...like something is missing. I want closure, dang it!

No. (I'll note that isn't a "correction" because it isn't relevant to the decision-making regarding any penalty for not following the WSB.) When the OP updated the WSB by adding the part where he said the targets were listed specifically, that made a difference in that the shooter needed to engage all targets in the array before the reload, instead of just "the array," --- but since the shooter did that, no, it doesn't make any difference that after the reload the shooter also took another shot at the first array. He engaged all targets in the array, then reloaded, and didn't engage the second array until after the reload. The fact that he engaged something else after the reload doesn't make any difference. No penalty. As I said earlier, if the person who wrote the WSB wanted to micromanage the stage (which doesn't work well on Comstock stages, nor should it in USPSA at all), then he should have added "a reload is required every time the shooter switches arrays" or something like that, which is often used in various Classifiers. (And Mike Burgess also wrote out the decision logic in a nice clear way too.)

After the reload, the shooter engaged the other array. It doesn't say he can't engage anything else. (Hint: this was Comstock. Extra shots are legal.) He engaged the first array, reloaded, and engaged the second array. He didn't engage the second array until after the reload. He engaged all of the first array prior to the reload. Nothing in the WSB supports any sort of penalty for this set of actions.

I personally think that "paper GMs" aren't a problem, because they get stomped at majors and it doesn't help them in the slightest. Sandbagging doesn't currently seem to have any suitable algorithm to stop it, and as such I don't see something else magically appearing just because we let people go down in classification. With regard to going down in class: is there any problem with letting people stay at the highest class they have ever obtained? Is it harming anyone else? Making it more difficult for anyone else? If the only thing it harms is the shooter themselves at matches, the shooter can decide to petition to reduce their own class. If they don't care, why bother changing it?

Shooter, by your own words, engaged all poppers in the first array, performed a mandatory reload, then engaged the other array. No penalty. If you had wanted to micromanage the situation and tell them exactly when to reload, or that they couldn't switch arrays without a reload, you'd have to add something like what is in the stage procedures for classifier 03-05, which is: "A mandatory reload is required whenever changing arrays." or something like that.

Again with making up something and then basing your reactions on the things you've made up. Do you normally react to people based on your hallucinations? "If your match percentages are not improving over time than your class wins are useless especially if the pool of competitors is lowly to begin with especially at the top." As RacinReady300ex said: As such, match percentages over time only really tell you about improvement if you are comparing to the same people ever time. Comparing a match performance at Area 1 to Area 7 won't really tell you much unless the same high-overall-guy is there. (Which this year, would obviously work out in Open, but not much else.) It is true that over long periods of time, you can compare match scores, and watching improvement is able to occur. But plenty of people don't actually shoot lots of majors. "The goal is always to improve one's total match percentage and IF that ends up winning you something, good. " I agree other than "total match percentage" and substitute "your shooting and competition skills". That isn't the topic, though. Overall, I like what B_Rad said:

And again you make up emotional responses, ascribe them to me, and then act condescending based on what you made up in your mind. Do you think that means anything to anyone else? Anyway, back to the point: I did not say "prizes" are the vindication, I said that it is well-known what motivation in small, recognized steps works best for most people in terms of them working on getting better. Hence my comment about classification wins (which, I'll note, are different from "prizes.") If you want to call them "participation trophies" (as does moto) you certainly can---but research on motivation out there pretty much shows that you don't seem to understand the concept at all, and don't know what you are talking about. I'll note: Giving yourself as an example is a sample of one---and given that you think an example of obvious sandbagging (by your own admission) is hilarious, I'm thinking your example isn't particularly relevant to the majority of shooters, and definitely isn't representative. Moto said: I'll note I agree with this---I personally think that class plaques are a good idea, AND I don't think that prizes should be attached to them. And I agree that having prizes attached to them encourages unsportsmanlike conduct.