euxx
-
Posts
1,857 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Profiles
Events
Store
Posts posted by euxx
-
-
1 hour ago, Blackstone45 said:
Interesting analysis.
In those minor divisions where the times were faster, they're only competing against other minor shooters. I guess the theory is that he still shot conservatively in order to minimise his points loss against the major shooters.
Normally I'd see Standard division to dominate over all Minor divisions or be closer than 8% drop.
I'm guessing either both Shane and Gorka aren't used to this style of stages or the rain fall during some of the match days had slowed them down.1 hour ago, Blackstone45 said:Also interesting to see classic dominated by minor shooters, I always thought minor wasn't competitive in that division
This was an IPSC match and many of them came from South America or Europe. And the stages likely were different for the usual USPSA SS/Major dominance. It is probably worth to compare stage HFs between this match and the Single Stack at USPSA Nationals:
PanAm Classic HFs (Min): 2.8 5.1 2.3 5.7 4.1 5.9 4.2 4.3 3.8 3.3 5.2 6.5 7.3 5.4 4.4 4.9 3.6 5.5 3.9 6.7 6.2 5.1 4.0 5.8
2022 Classic Nationals HFs (Maj): 5.7 6.0 8.1 6.9 6.7 7.5 6.6 5.3 5.7 7.7 10.3 7.7 8.1 8.2
Easy to see the latter stage HFs are quite higher. Likely because different style of stages.
-
...does stages 12 and 13 times look odd to anyone? As if they entered Nils results on the opposite stage.
-
3 hours ago, Blackstone45 said:
So the overall winner of Standard division did it shooting minor as an experiment. I'll be interested to read his analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of shooting minor in that division.
It seems like he pushed for speed and maintained decent the accuracy to compensate for the point loss in Minor
Recalculated to Major he would gain 4% in points.
The time-equivalent for the penalties. About 50 seconds equivalent of penalties added to his total stage time. Good thing penalties are not carried over across stages in HF scoring.
But then if you look at the other Minor division times (Production, PO and POL), the Standard times don't look that great
-
1 hour ago, BritinUSA said:
Can you please provide the functions of their software that dictates IPSC’s policy, and the the ‘reasons or motivations’ that you think direct those policies.
Since your "every IPSC match I attended around Europe from the early 90’s..." the IPSC had developed and been pushing their own software for electronic scoring for several years now. As afar as I know, that is because they wanted it be their own and owned by them. Though it is currently contracted out to some IROA people and it is built based on their vision how it should work for the sport.
What you see on the web site linked from my FB post is the competitor-facing part of that software. -
10 minutes ago, BritinUSA said:
I think every IPSC match I attended around Europe from the early 90’s used this software in one form or another.. So I’m quite familiar with it and the administrative functions it provides in addition to scoring.
That kinda proves you aren't up to speed with the current state of things...
20 minutes ago, BritinUSA said:That’s neat! Another reason for IPSC to incorporate PractiScore is the ability to get data like this.
See, the PractiScore Competitor app don't need match to be run on PractiScore in order to pull in results and show these stats...
-
2 minutes ago, BritinUSA said:
IPSC needs to change this rule and recognize PractiScore as well as WinMSS.. The software is leaps ahead of the official tool.
Feel free to tell that to IPSC or even to your Regional Director. Though I have a pretty good idea what they will answer you...
On the other hand, I don't think you have a good idea what their software is now and what are the reasons or motivations for that. -
On 9/17/2022 at 8:02 PM, BritinUSA said:
Breakdown...
Third most popular division is Production Optics. The Light version of the division is not showing too well.
ProdOptics is still a provisional division.
A more complete breakdown
-
53 minutes ago, rowdyb said:
Why the hell they're not on practiscore is beyond me..... Match score on a stand alone website, in their own unique format, is soooo 2009.
They aren't on PractiScore because the IPSC HQ mandates use of their own scoring software for all L4 and L5 matches and this match isn't run on PractiScore.
But, really, if you care about PractiScore you may want to be subscribed to updates, e.g. https://bit.ly/3SaM0ls
-
19 hours ago, JayWord said:
Unfortunately, there is no provision in Practiscore to enter a second set of chrono results so it is logged on paper and hand calculated. This is the same procedures we use for people who change guns.
Jay, this is not completely accurate. You can record multiple chrono scores in PractiScore app, e.g. as "reshoots".
AND/OR you can also add arbitrary notes to record the followed procedures. E.g. you can state in the notes which ammo was chronographed and why, including manufacturer and SKU, and could also state any decisions there, like competitor's ammo being within 10PF from the manufacturers delivery samples.
Those notes would eliminate a lot of suspicions of the curious competitors. -
2 hours ago, Thomas H said:
The vast majority of the posts on this thread are factually wrong, and attempt to make a controversy out of a process that seems to have literally been done by the book. (And show a situation that probably made it MORE difficult for Max during the match, because we know that occasionally having low PF rounds can give problems on steel.)
My point is that ROs at the chrono stage haven't added complete record in the crono results of that process being completed. Eg. brand and SKU of the certified ammo used by competitors who had used certified ammo is not documented in the match results.
-
20 hours ago, IL-SIG said:
I encourage everyone to read the Competition Rules Appendix C3 in detail. A lot of the comments in this thread are not supported by the actual rules.
This appendix is referring to manufacturer's "delivery samples" PF, but that PF doesn't seem to be published anywhere. Also the certified ammo policy says that that PF is specific to a given SKU.
QuoteIf the samples collected during the match measure more than 10 power factor points below the delivery samples, the measured power factor of the ammo collected during the match shall be used
The only Sig ammo listed on USPSA web site
https://uspsa.org/ammunition
9MM, 147GR, Match Elite Competition JHP (SKU E9MMA3-COMP-50)
Caliber - 9MM Luger
Velocity - 880 fps
Bullet Weight - 147 gr.
Calculated Power Factor - 129.4
Declared Power Factor - 130
USPSA Power Factor - Minor
OAL - 1.100 +/- .010 inches
Max's ammo was about 30fps below that (the slowest one was 122 PF)
Phil's ammo was 10..30fps over that. -
4 minutes ago, Sinister4 said:
Well the dude shooting 151 PF was taking no chances with steel falling lol
Mo interestingly, another competitor with PF 121.4 still having his scores in the match... -
11 hours ago, Bakerjd said:
It's probably noted there but we can't see it on the app or the internet page.
If any of you think this was cheating it's hilarious. The rules are there to be used amd pushed. Get over it. If you want to have the same cushion at chrono buy certified ammo, and declare it when you register at the match. Pretty simple really.
Apparently notes were used for exactly that purpose and you all can see it in the results and in the Competitor app.
https://practiscore.com/results/html/8c248281-b98e-46ea-b63a-242be11fb950?page=stage19-combined -
Just now, BritinUSA said:
I could not find the certification results for the match ammo on Practiscore. It’s possible that they don’t have a function to record or show that data.
THEY provided a free text entry field on the Chrono scoring screen where RO can record all notes that need to be recorded in regards to any decisions made at the Chrono stage. Like when someone's scores still in when the ammo didn't make Minor PF, as well as all other things, including any details why bunch of competitors been moved to Open.
-
7 minutes ago, jrdoran said:
#4 should be the norm on a regular interval something like 2 years. It keeps us all sharp and pushing. Today, once you achieve GM, some of the fire goes away. Wipe it out and you get to climb the mountain all over again.
Wondered that too. If it can be recalculated with the changed class outcome, it probably should be recalculated automatically for all members.
-
Amazon just released new Fire 7 2022 tablet. 30% faster processor, 40% more battery
It is on sale now, along with other bigger tablets.
All-new Fire 7 tablet, 7” display, 16 GB, (2022 release), Black
$44.99 ($15 off) https://amzn.to/3dCbs4u
All-new Fire 7 Kids tablet, 7" display, ad-free, Kid-Proof Case, 16 GB, (2022 release), Blue
$69.99 ($40 off) https://amzn.to/3PpsDU9
Fire HD 8 tablet, 8" HD display, 32 GB, latest model (2020 release), Black
$49.99 ($40 off) https://amzn.to/3JY9GH3
Fire HD 8 Kids Pro tablet, 8" HD, 32 GB, Kid-Proof Case, (2021 release), Sky Blue
$69.99 ($70 off) https://amzn.to/3wb4PMU
Fire HD 10 tablet, 10.1", 1080p Full HD, 32 GB, latest model (2021 release), Black
$99.99 ($50 off) https://amzn.to/3SRDPvL
Fire HD 10 Kids Pro tablet, 10.1", 1080p Full HD, 32 GB, Kid-Proof Case, (2021 release), Sky Blue
$139.99 ($60 off) https://amzn.to/3A4PMpd
-
Amazon Prime Day deals on tablets and power banks.
Samsung Galaxy Tab A8 Android Tablet, 10.5” LCD Screen, 32GB Storage, Long-Lasting Battery
$159.99 ($70 off) https://amzn.to/3uFjcIo
Samsung Galaxy Tab A 8.0" (2019, WiFi Only) 32GB, 5100mAh Battery
$139.93 ($60 off) https://amzn.to/3nWoI5K
Fire HD 8 Kids Pro tablet, 8" HD, 32 GB, (2021 release)
2-year worry-free guarantee and slim "Kid-Friendly" Case included. If it breaks, return it and get it replaced for free.$69.99 ($70 off) https://amzn.to/3c9bgcb
Fire HD 10 Kids Pro tablet, 10.1", 1080p Full HD, 32 GB, (2021 release)
2-year worry-free guarantee and slim "Kid-Friendly" Case included. If it breaks, return it and get it replaced for free.
$119.99 ($80 off) https://amzn.to/3PmC3zU
Fire HD 8 tablet, 8" HD display, 32 GB, latest model (2020 release)$44.99 ($50 off) https://amzn.to/3PbMDtE
Fire HD 10 tablet, 10.1”, 1080p Full HD, 32 GB, latest model (2021 release)
$74.99 ($75 off) https://amzn.to/3P6ygqP
Fire HD 10 tablet, 32 GB, Black + Bluetooth keyboard
$144.99 ($124.98 off) https://amzn.to/3IygslX
Fire 7 tablet, 7" display, 16 GB, (2019 release)
$29.99 ($20 off) https://amzn.to/3RndXXTAnker Portable Charger, 313 Power Bank (PowerCore Slim 10K) 10000mAh Battery Pack
$15.99 ($5 off with Prime) https://amzn.to/3uCEO8o
Anker Portable Charger, USB-C Portable Charger 10000mAh
$19.99 ($20 off) https://amzn.to/3RvW2ht
Anker Portable Charger, USB-C Power Bank 20000mAh
$44.99 ($25 off) https://amzn.to/3NURBtP
Power Bank,Solar Charger,36800mAh 5V3
$23.99 ($15 off) https://amzn.to/3ayU7Iw
Wireless Portable Charger 30,800mAh
$26.36 ($14 off) https://amzn.to/3c7gwNA
-
An early Amazon Prime deals:
Certified Refurbished Fire HD 8 tablet, 8" HD display, 32 GB
$39.99 with Amazon Prime ($50 off) https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07WTJYS9Q
Certified Refurbished Fire HD 10 tablet, 10.1", 1080p Full HD, 32 GB, latest model (2021 release)$69.99 ($65 off) https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08F5LRHB4
-
1 hour ago, Robertwil18 said:
Rather than making a bunch of incremental changes to the divisions to appease people, just get the sport back to the "roots" of what it was designed for, and place shooters in appropriate divisions based on what they want to shoot
It is ironic that at the "roots" there wasn't any divisions to begin with. In that regards PractiScore's defaulted to combined results is reflecting those deep roots.
Though I do agree that view shouldn't be called Overall and it shouldn't be the default one. -
On 6/17/2022 at 6:04 PM, PatJones said:
Meh, additional warm bodies at the back of the match add no value for me...
Kinda disrespectful to say that about your fellow competitors, regardless of their skill...
To me that was a good indication of the interest in Revolver division. Many competitors don't shoot it because their interest and priorities are higher for other divisions, but given the opportunity - they jump right on. I really enjoyed that format, shooting Revolver after Single Stack.
The least USPSA could do to better promote Revolver division is to make it a separate match back-to-back with another Nationals, or even Area match and make it a one day or even a half-day match. -
-
11 hours ago, Unibrain said:
Sure you can. X + 0 = X
Sounds like winning equation for HF scoring. Though 0 is not the same as the absence of time.
-
51 minutes ago, Unibrain said:
As for 9.7.6.1 the time is not missing because there is a time for string 1. Following 6.1.1 “The time component of all strings will be totaled, and the results achieved are then tallied to produce a final stage result”
The first part is kinda the half full vs half empty dilemma. But you can't total something which isn't there, as one of the strings had no time...
-
3 hours ago, Unibrain said:
During a Standard Exercise, I complete string 1 successfully with a time and hits. I get the beep and respond to it for string 2 and as I draw the slide falls off my gun. I can't fix it within the 2 mins. The RO terminates the Course of Fire according to 5.7.4. I did not DNF the stage so USPSA rules prohibit me from being issued a DNF.
The rule I was referring to is:
5.7.6 Where the firearm has failed after the Start signal, the competitor must not be permitted to reshoot the course of fire or string. This includes the instance where a firearm is declared unserviceable or unsafe during a course of fire or string. However, any un-attempted component strings in a Standard Exercise may still be attempted by the affected competitor after the firearm has been repaired, and prior to when match results are declared final by the Match Director.It says "may be attempted", but not "must be attempted". So, when the strings wasn't attempted I still think 9.10.3 can be applied for entire stage if any of the strings are unfinished. And there is also 9.7.6.1 for the missing time.
2022 IPSC Pan American
in Match Announcements - Pistol Only - USPSA, IPSC & Misc.
Posted
If that was the case, we probably wouldn't haven't seen 12% jump in Open division... More likely just a different style of stages. Less hosing, more transitions, more movement, longer distance to targets, more athletic style of stages at PanAm and that is reflected in a generally lower HFs at this match.