BritinUSA

Works for me. This way they only get one shot at sandbagging.

If the number of GM's gets too high, they may adjust the HHF's higher which will make it harder for you to up in classification. If people are sandbagging and getting away with it then that's a problem that the org needs to acknowledge and rectify. If you have specific examples then please send them to the org and ask them why it has not been fixed. It's possible that they are not checking for this kind of stuff.

An ELO ranking system would probably be a better fit for USPSA, though the analysis method might suffer when getting down to L1 matches. I think around 90% of members don't shoot outside of their state, so any process needs to take that into account. I don't think the current system works too well, and I suspect USPSA won't fix it. If people saw their classifications go down, then they would be less likely to shoot classifiers and that hits the bottom line. The classification system is a cash-cow for the org.

Classification should also fluctuate, the reality is that a persons ability will decline over time compared to younger competitors. This needs to be reflected in the classification system. If HQ is altering HHF's to limit the number of GM's then it will be a perpetual problem under the current system as classification goes up and never down

The ‘shenanigan’ runs are a problem only in that they are affecting the HHF for everyone else. Some of them are easy to spot, others less so. This is why I think the HHF set by the single best run at Nationals should be immutable. Introduce each classifier at Nationals, the best run in each division sets the HHF, it should never change for the life of that classifier (3-5 years). If someone beats it at a local match, they get 100% on their classification, but the HHF should not change, we don’t know if the stage was set correctly, we don’t know if they practiced for hours at a time, we don’t know if the time was recorded correctly etc.. If someone wants to game the system it’s tricky to prevent it at the L1 level, but we can easily prevent those people from impacting the system for everyone else. We would need a process to deal with new divisions; the best way would be to organize a match with the top shooters and run through as many classifiers as possible to set the HHF’s. Admittedly this would be costly but it would be more accurate than the current methodology.

How can someone at the L1 level know if they’re getting better if they don’t have a reliable metric to measure their performance against ?

I wonder how many people (who pay their classification fees each week/month) know how flawed the process actually is. Perhaps instead of ignoring the problem USPSA could look into alternative methods of ranking competitors, and give the members a product that is worthy of their revenue/attention.

Probably, it appears they are just pulling numbers out of thin air. Other HHF’s are being pushed up by people gaming the system: Shooting the classifiers multiple times until they get a score they like. Not setting the stage up correctly. Hero-or-zero runs that don’t count if they are 5% below current classification. Editing scores after the fact. All of the above artificially raises the HHF’s which affects everyone. I doubt that many of the people that have posted 100% on some of these stages could repeat the performance on-demand.

A shooters classification is supposed to represent their ability against the best in the sport. This further reinforces my opinion that they are instead being compared to an imaginary person, an NPC. Competitors are spending money chasing a classification bump, while the org is arbitrarily moving the goalposts. I think USPSA is selling a product under a false pretense.

They went into Executive session to discuss financials. I guess that means that the members will never see the full financial status of the org.

He’s on Instagram too.

It was tonight, you didn’t miss much. A replay may show up here in the next day or two. Ken Cobb is the new interim A4 director taking office next Monday (4th)

Short stages with movement are great. People generally shoot them the same way and as they are not a ‘foot race’ they are much more of a shooting challenge. Some of the best IPSC stages I’ve seen were short/medium courses.

Next session on Wednesday… no time set yet

Neither does IPSC for club matches. I think the 3-2-1 kicks in for sanctioned matches, which I think are Level 2 or higher (might be even level 3)

Statement from Luke Faust running for A3D (assuming Scott is not re-instated on 26th February).

Open will die out in the same manner as that other divisions have. The number of participants will dwindle to a level where there will be little competition at L1 matches where 95% of the members shoot. Once it reaches that breakdown point it will all but vanish, just like revolver, L10 and soon Limited.

It’s not just USPSA, I suspect IPSC will go the same way eventually. Not sure it will happen on the timeline you suggest, it will be a gradual/regional thing. Personally, I don’t see Open lasting much longer either. I know that’s probably not a popular opinion, but when people can buy two CO/LO/ProdOptics guns for less than half the price of an Open gun, at some point fiscal restraint is going to kick in. If IPSC brings in a Standard-Optics in Major/Minor it will probably be the mail in the coffin for both Standard and Open in that sport. Revolver is basically dead, Classic/Single-Stack will last maybe a decade. Once all those that remember the origins of the sport are gone, these divisions will fade too. I think IPSC will be left with ProdOptics in Minor, and Standard/Optics in Major/Minor, I think that will offer a good balance of divisions. USPSA will have probably have LO/CO and maybe an out-of-the-box ProdOptics as an entry/low-cost division.

Will A5 need a special election or will they appoint someone to serve the rest of the term? It’s hard to keep up with the changes.

Stages were much smaller back in Cooper’s days, capacity was much less of an issue. A good revolver shooter could keep up with someone shooting a Colt 1911. Technology and stage designs both changed, higher capacity guns led to higher round-count stages. Splitting off divisions had to happen at some point. Standard was bought in, but it has now become anything but standard. It’s now essentially another custom division, like Open but with restrictions.

This is the Certificate This it the source of the image that I posted One says IPSC the other IPSP ???? The links are going to the wrong document, maybe a problem with USPTO

It appears that USPSA also TRADEMARKed the letters I P S C, back in 2019-2020. Citing their first use of the phrase in April 2017. Someone did some research and trademark was in existence from around 2006 to 2013, when it was canceled. "I.P.S.C." was a registered mark from 1997-2004, when it too was canceled. This is the letters I P S C with no dots just spaces. If the mark last expired in 2013, then it was open season from 2014 onwards. Universal Shooting Academy hosted the 2014 IPSC World Shoot in that year so they had first use of it in USA. I'm guessing the earliest use after that was the 2017 Front Sight Article that is referenced in the Trademark application. Not sure why USPSA did this; I think they can only use IPSC while they are the Regional Directorate of the organization. Link to Application at USPTO

I’ll leave my comment as it stands, feel free to read it in a sarcastic tone.

Good luck

I'm sure there are some regions that suffer from corruption and do a poor job of representing their members, and losing a ton of money each year, and paying themselves vast sums of money with scant regard for the value they return to the sport. I don't think this is endemic to the entire organization; some people value integrity and honesty above money and power.