Chuck D

...and people have been answering the OP's question to the best of their abilities. Ignorance is a lack of knowledge. The point being made here is that a comparison of the USPSA and IDPA rulebook can not be made without some form of "better than average" knowledge with both documents. Your comments regarding "short term and long term" mixes is VERY relevant. IDPA will no doubt see a decline in short term participants. It's an eventuality that what goes up must come down. As I've stated over and over again....there is no long term membership retention strategy and when long time members/SO's and SOI's leave it creates a vacuum that has to be filled. When Joyce Wilson pens an article in the Tactical Journal stating rather clearly that members objections are noted but corrective measures are not being considered and if they disagree with the decisions made feel free to "find a shooting sport more to your liking and if you want to come back we'll welcome you back" ...well that isn't conducive from a membership retention standpoint. The guys and gals who helped build the sport are leaving because policy, rules, and subjectivity of those rules by SO's (called home rule by the way) is damaging the sport. To change course would be an admittance that IDPA is a SPORT and possesses a COMPETITIVE aspect to participation. This doesn't bode well for those who view IDPA as a "social activity" and have a vested interest in applying 20 plus year old tactical shooting techniques such as the flat footed reload rule or the fact that creating distance between you and the threat while behind cover (and recharging your firearm while doing so) is an activity most likely to occur with great regularity versus the CCW holder concealing his/her carry weapon with a custom manufactured and embroidered "fishing vest." Last word on the subject...membership retention numbers would tell the ENTIRE story but you'll NEVER see them released by IDPA for the very reasons I've pontificated on in my numerous posts. If they did...they'd have to admit they have a problem that will only get larger unless they reverse course and place an emphasis on the founding principles of the sport and stop injecting subjectivity into a sport that could use in infusion of creativity and modernization.

I'll ask, "what was the time" and 99% of the time the RO will show me the display screen of the timer.

Your constant reference to "whining" is growing old. The original poster asked a question, people on both sides of the issue answered it. Those who feel IDPA is on the right track are no more "whining" about the issue then those who feel differently and have posted relevant information explaining and justifying their viewpoint. No one EVER said that "new shooters are a bad thing." I HAVE said that before anyone can make policy, and set rules that effect the membership that they should have some measurable level of experience in those matters. Kind of like spending a significant amoUNT of time being an SO before becoming an SOI. IDPA at some point will need to come to the realization that they can not sustain membership if they don't correct some of teh problems that are causing members, SO's and SOI's to leave the sport. Running interference and ignoring the obvious as they "protect the brand at all costs" isn't a viable option.

You'll never get a retention rate answer ...ever. I try not to look down upon anyone who volunteers their time and effort to any organization but they need to have some form of experience before passing judgment especially in areas where "subjectivity" plays a factor. 2 of these people in my area are SOI's ...and they influence the new cadre of SO's. As far as experience is concerned, I mean actual experience and watching Tac TV or DVD's from Rob Pincus won't cut it either. Where is IDPA going ? As long as they can tap into the "newby" who just got his/her CCW license and the "tactical this and that" wave continues to exist they'll be fine. It's when the tactical gravy train finally comes to an end and the "newby" starts to question why things are the way they are and don't like being told "because it is" by Joyce Wilson you'll see the end result of a no membership retention policy come into effect. I've been participating in the practical shooting sports since I was 17 years old...31 years in total. I've seen people come and go from USPSA for various reasons but the overwhelming majority of them eventually make it back to compete and even fewer of them relinquish their membership in the organization during periods of inactivity. In the 2.5 years I was involved in IDPA...it was the exact opposite. Once people left...rarely if ever did they go back and if they did it was on a one-two match basis as non-members.

The problem with the rulebook is it allows SO's to interject their personal beliefs and "theory" into rules interpretation. Here's the "cut and dry" portion of the issue. Either an action by a shooter or a piece of equipment is legal or not. What the SO "thinks" about the matter is irrelevant. Take a good hard look at the new "flat footed reload" rule and tell me that the "pivoting of the foot" action isn't an action that's up to interpretation by the SO or not ? If IDPA wanted a flat footed reload, plant BOTH feet and reload before moving. If they were to allow movement with an empty pistol while behind cover...so be it but the way it's written virtually guarantees inaccurate and inconsistent rulings. They've gone SO far so to create a gap between IDPA and USPSA policies that some of the new rules border the outer limits of understanding. As far as equipment rules and use of cover are concerned IDPA has it correct. Most of the other matters interject policy and "personal beliefs" in areas where concrete and clear rules are required.

You thought we were the same person.....and you were SO excited to call me out on it. Sorry to disappoint . I big FTDR penalty for you Sir.

Well spoken.... ...and 100% on point.

I'm not bitter...I'm being honest. There's a difference. When I sent my membership card back to HQ...I told them to keep the money. If you're ACTUALLY from HQ, I'm certain you'd know that and I'm certain my 40 bucks was already spent on aviation fuel anyway...lol. I'll just take my FTDR and carry on thank you. Sorry chuck. You claimed non bitterness and refused my offer. Then upon reflection realized you had made a mistake and changed your mind. Day late and a ...... Different Chuck D's.....the Chuck D. vs. Charles D. should have been your 1st clue.... Your money is safe...with me at least. Your generous offer should you honor your refund offer to Charles D will benefit the USPSA Junior Program nicely...thank you.

All organizations are "sinister".....

I'm not bitter...I'm being honest. There's a difference. When I sent my membership card back to HQ...I told them to keep the money. If you're ACTUALLY from HQ, I'm certain you'd know that and I'm certain my 40 bucks was already spent on aviation fuel anyway...lol. I'll just take my FTDR and carry on thank you.

My point is two fold and rather simple to understand.... 1. IDPA's membership numbers are not true representations of their ACTUAL membership totals. I believe you'd find that once you factor out the members who quit the organization or pay membership dues and never make it to the range for a sanctioned match the numbers are easily cut in half. 2. How is an SO or SOI or IDPA HQ guru going to lecture ANYONE who has actual self defense training and experience (and I'm not talking about watching Tac TV or taking a weekend class from Rob Pincus either) on "what happens in the real world?" It's clear IDPA is raking in a boatload of cash....and like anything in the "real world" what goes up eventually comes back down thereby rendering "membership retention " an important factor and when your hobby is racing airplanes that cost in excess of 350,000 dollars each...a million dollars in revenue doesn't go as far as you (or I) think it might. The "ninjas" wear fishing vests and play cardboard gunfighters on the weekends all the while pontificating to others what happens in the "real world." The ninjas don't make up the vast majority of the IDPA membership BUT they are the most vocal , are the ones in charge of policy at HQ and have cost the sport SO's, SOI's and members all the while fleecing the overwhelming majority of the membership out of their hard earned money of which they receive a membership card, a second rate publication named Tactical Journal, and a "not so user" friendly website, while the organization rides the "tactical wave" for as long as it is possible. I hope you don't trust the statements of your Congressman/Senator, doctor, auto mechanic, and HVAC repair person with the same "blind faith" you put in Joyce Wilson.

Really....IDPA has 25000 members because Joyce says so ? Do you think Joyce would admit the rulebook and some involved with IDPA culture has cost the organization membership ? Surf YouTube and view videos about some SO's and SOI's who openly state "it isn't about whether we shoot well or not...for us it's a social thing" and then come back and tell me how the "only true defensive pistol sport" is all about defensive pistol and not social activities and cookie recipies. A poster on here correctly stated that most DM's who frequent the sport so do because they are under contract to do so. That should in and of itself be for thought. It was just this past weekend when I had a long talk with a former match director about being fired from an MD position in a MAJOR IDPA tournament over his advice of not using the term "in the real world" because it creates an illusion that the "real world conditions" are predictable. Fact is the majority of people setting policy at IDPA have NEVER served this nation as a member of the armed forces, served as Law Enforcement Officers, or have NEVER fired a shot in self defense. The other component that sets policy have never developed past the Weaver Stance. It bears repeating....it's about membership retention, not paid people who last a maximum of two years and move on.

No....not even close. Every shooting organization, not just IDPA which we happen to be talking about here needs to focus on MEMBERSHIP RETENTION. You can sign up all the "new members" you want BUT unless they continue to pay membership dues AND participate at SOME level, they really aren't "active members" ...they just "donate" to the cause like a citizen that sends checks to a political entity but never enters the ballot box and actually pulls the lever to vote. Where IDPA faces a significant challenge is when these so called "new members" finally educate themselves with regards to defensive pistol theory and practices and begin to question the established practices in the IDPA rulebook and the application of those practices at local matches by SO's who "interperate" the rules from a subjective position based upon personal beliefs versus a "concrete" rules application method. It is at this point where members "bail out" and long time SOI's quit and to continue to ignore these factors will cause IDPA to continue to suffer from a membership retention problem. Every shooting sport goes through this stage at one point or another in their development. To ignore or explain it away is counter productive and should NEVER be seen as bashing...it's constructive criticism.

Where have I ever used the word Hate in any of my posts ? It's wise to take into consideration those of us who shot IDPA BEFORE the latest rules changes. Those of us who found some of the rules changes like the "dead standing reload" and the NBA style "foot pivot" reasoning to be...well...you get the point. It's also wise to remember it was JOYCE WILSON in an edition of the Tactical Journal who advised those who didn't buy into the new IDPA to "go and experience other shooting sports that were more suited to your liking" and in effect told those of us who found parts of the rulebook such as not being able to wear soft knee pads with shorts and the flat footed reload to get lost. I would have preferred to stick around and shoot but when you're not wanted...why stay and support those financially who don't want you around in the 1st place ? You're 100% right in this perspective....don't bother showing up just to "bitching up a storm" over the rules. If they don't suit you, move on. I'm sorry for what your son and yourself were exposed to. There is no call for that in either sport... In the final analysis both IDPA and USPSA are games. To say they are otherwise is being short sighted. It isn't gunfighting unless and until the targets shoot back and when you suit up for either "game" you and I are nothing more than "cardboard gunfighters." IDPA has numerous options to make the sport inclusive and still stay true to the sports founding principles but they chose to drive the people who use innovation (the so called gamers) out of the sport and they did so by crafting a new rulebook that allows "subjectivity" regarding rules application. So enters the era of the Procedural Penalty fest where you have to seek approval from each and every SO as to what they will allow and what they will assign a PE penalty for. Penalty elimination overtakes marksmanship and as an instructor myself...I fail to see the "tactics benefit" to that.

The OP asked a question and people answered it. If you get a significant number of people offering constructive criticism and you consider it "whining and complaining" then why are you bothering to add your 2 cents ? Attacking the messenger versus addressing the message is a cheap political trick and is akin to running interference. What have I posted on this topic can be construed as "whining and moaning" when I've stated CLEARLY that this is what I've experienced in local, State, and Regional matches throughout the U.S. Northeast and in dealing with IDPA HQ on several issues pertaining to those experiences in the States of Pennsylvania, New York, Mass, and New Hampshire ? You and others are 100% correct when you say if IDPA isn't for you then don't shoot it. After 2 years of IDPA competition the rules changes and the creative application of those rules spelled the end for me and I sent back my membership card to HQ. Membership numbers are only one component of the strength of the organization. Membership RETENTION is the other. You can sign up all the new members you want but if they don't stay members ....well.... In my experience, once shooters get a taste of USPSA where the rules are less effected by "subjectivity" and are spelled out extremely clearly AND the round counts are significantly higher than your average IDPA match they jump ship. I'd be interested to see the numbers from HQ detailing membership retention....that in and of itself would tell the entire story. As far as HQ not listening is conccerned, unless your name is Larry Vickers, Bill Wilson, Ken Hackathorn, ect....they couldn't care less what you have to say. Minor tweaks may be made in the rules but NOTHING that goes against the grain established by the so called "tactical trainer experts" of the 1970's and 80's. No bitching or whining here...just my experiences with the game, its rules, and HQ specifically. But then again what do I know...I'm a gamer who happens to be employed in the LE field and possess LE firearms instructor status.

Backpedaling.... I knew EXACTLY what you meant and it is the same kind of response people (including me) get when you talk to IDPA HQ on the very same subject. If something is discussed "ALOT" that is a CLEAR indication that something is up.

It is here that you lose all credibility with me.... People tell you it happens and they share their experiences with you. Take a good hard OBJECTIVE look at other forums and you'll find no shortage of examples BUT you make light of it by calling it "legendary phenomena." I was willing to give you a pass...now I'm certain your doing whatever you can to protect "the brand." Nice try....

Exactly. Sure you have to engage all the targets in correct "priority" and from the correct shooting position. And you must stand still when reloading. But other then that you can do just about anything you want. There has to be at least two places you can reload on alot of stages. OK...Once I engage the targets in the correct "priority" which controls the shooting aspect of the stage and I must "stand still" when reloading which addresses the reloading component of shooting the stage where else can one "do just about anything they want?" Surely you don't mean that I'm free to run as fast or as slow as I want.....

IF the targets can't be engaged in ANY order and they HAVE to be engaged in an IDPA LEGAL order then it isn't FREESTYLE now is it. If I understand your example correctly, "cover positions were usually dictated" and if the "targets could be engaged in any legal order" then all the targets involved in the example must have been visible from the position of cover AND of equal distance and threat to the shooter. Please...Sir, PLEASE tell me you're not calling that "creative" COF design... IDPA stage design...if it's a LEGAL stage design it will dictate 98% of what the shooter needs to do in as far as shooting position, target engagement order, reloading points, adequate use of cover, ect....and like I said rather clear, there's nothing wrong with that if that's what the rules require but don't equate that to "creativity" and "flexibility" in stage manipulation. I will never understand why when confronted with the realities of IDPA stage design and the inclusion of some "well known and respected tactical instructors" beliefs some will IMMEDIATELY shift to defenseive mode and make any statement necessary, no matter how obscure and unconventional to protect the brand. Those of us that took the time and invested the capital to join IDPA and shoot it, especially on the State and Regional level and have left the sport NOT because of the rules but because of how the rules are applied not only have a right but have an obligation to explain to others why they (I) took the steps they (I) did. USPSA/IPSC isn't perfect either but if you're telling me IDPA has a measureable component of creativity or flexibility in stage manipulation by the shooter I'd be "amused" to say the very least. Tac Priority, Tac Sequence, and the use of cover rules when engaging targets say otherwise. Hell...even reloading on the move behind cover is strictly controlled now.

Every IDPA match I've attended ...EVERY ONE...was scripted. Start here...move here...shoot here...ect... Anytine you throw in tactical sequence or tactical priority the "freestyle" element of stage completion is eliminated...completely. Slicing the pie around props such as walls or vehicles dictated the ORDER in which you engage targets. IDPA by it's very design is a "scripted" game...to make statements that it isn't takes "creativity" and the scripted component DOESN'T just come from USPSA guys/gals. That being said...IDPA has to be a scripted game due to the cover rule requirements along with the application of tac prioroty and tac sequence into course design and there is NOTHING wrong with that. Why run from and why try to avoid the obvious ? IDPA course design stifles creativity and when someone actually thinks "outside the box" out comes the PE hammer as a form of punishment caused by straying too far from someone elses idea of "tactical correctness." Call things what they are and stop being SO defensive of the brand. If the application has merit embrace it DON'T run from it or pretend it doesn't exist.

"Ignorance OF the law is no excuse." No one questions that rules change. Some question as to the CORRECT APPLICATION of those rules. ...and it appears (I believe this to be true) experiences differ.

Here it is in a nutshell. There is no "tactical component" to USPSA. It's a clear cut activity with the rules pertaining to firearms, associated gear, course design, membership requirements, classification, and safety matters. IDPA is exactly the same until you get to the "spirit" of the game which allows for creative license to be taken to protect teh brand and its founding principles. It is HERE in those rules and their individual application of them that IDPA falls short. Like I said earlier...IDPA has to admit it has a problem before it can solve that problem and at this juncture that isn't going to happen. When membership numbers begin to decrease (and they will just like membership in any activity driven sport/hobby eventually experiences) then maybe they'll correct the matter. Until then...things will go on as they are. It's no surprise to me that once I put forth the individual and collective roles of the SO's and SOI's that the conversation takes a turn away from the issue at hand. The rulebook is what it is...people are supposedly instructing new SO's on these rules (the SOI's) and if I am to accept the premise that the rulebook is "clear cut" and it's NOT the source of the "home rule" and "creative application of the rules" problem then it must rest solely on the SO and the SOI's. The use of a FTDR penalty in an unauthorized and illegal manner must be someones fault isn't it ? The rule itself is a "catch all" punitive measure that is used to teach a lesson versus addressing a drastic measure that circumvents the rules for a competitive advantage. The FTDR rule along with several other rules in teh rulenook are designed specifically to protect the brand and are written in such a fashion to allow application of punative measures as the SO and MD sees fit. We will agree to disagree Bill...no ill will intended and I respect your viewpoint although I strongly disagree with it based solely on first hand experiences which obviously differ from what you've experienced.

IDPA also has clear rules on holsters and their position. Section 8.5 is dedicated to holsters and includes several photos to show the correct positions. There should be no ambiguity or interpretation needed. When/if the SOs are not following the rulebook, that still doesn't mean the rulebook is lacking or vague. It simply means the SOs are making up their own rules. The issue is again with the SOs and not the rulebook. I agree to a point.... Each sanctioning body trains and certifies its R/O and SO's and utilizes their respective rule book to do so correct ? If it's all on the SO's and in my opinon the SO's are responsible for fair and correct application of the rules then why is it that the claims of "selective application of the rules" is associated with IDPA and not the other shooting sports ? The rulebook is not as "clear cut" as you would have me believe and there is significant areas within its pages for "creativity." If I were to apply your reasoning which has some merit to it that a portion of the SO's are to blame for "home rule" and "creative application" of IDPA's clear cut rulebook then just what purpose do the SOI's have in this ? Am I to believe that the rulebook is correct in its scope and application and 100% of the failures with regards to the rules are the fault of the SO's and those that certify them ?

"deliberate attempts on the part of the shooter to circumvent or violate the competition rules to gain a competitive advantage" If it's already a specific rule being violated then why not use the established punishment for violating that specific role? In my mind FTDR is a catch all that an SO can pull out of his or her back pocket when they feel like someone just figured out a better or more effective way to shoot a stage. It's the penalty that is given out for "gaming" while playing a game. Exactly....

No offense taken Bill...rest assured. By the time the match in question was over...I was drawing literally from my kidney area. The holster position was legal, of this I was certain. It's funny how some SO's confirmed my holster position as legal...while others did not. Water under the bridge at this point but you did ask for examples. Maybe the differences in experiences are geography based but I can assure you...these things happened and continue to happen and the ambiguity of the rulebook provides the mechanism for these conditions to exist. You can't seek clarity whenever a "theory" is involved and rules interpretation is dependent upon the SO's personal belief system for enforcement. USPSA and IPSC have specific holster position rules for Production, Single Stack/Classic, and Standard Divisions. How many times have you read or heard about someone having to adjust their holster position multiple times during a major tournament ? In my 28 years I've NEVER experienced it in USPSA or IPSC competition. IDPA was another story. As far as "riding the edge of legality" is concerned, thank you for making my point for me. Rules are cut and dry, black or white, legal or illegal. "Riding the edge of legality" is a JUDGEMENT call, not a legal or illegal one. Either the holster position is legal or it isn't...simple as that and herein lies another example of "subjectivity" that IDPA simply can not admit exists nor will they admit is applied to some but not others. Need I (or others) carry a straight edge with them in the shooting bag as a reference point to PROVE the holster position is or isn't legal ?