Jump to content
Brian Enos's Forums... Maku mozo!

Racinready300ex

Classifieds
  • Posts

    4,055
  • Joined

  • Last visited

2 Followers

About Racinready300ex

  • Birthday 11/26/1980

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Salisbury, MD
  • Interests
    USPSA
  • Real Name
    Mike Ennis

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Racinready300ex's Achievements

Back From the Dead

Back From the Dead (11/11)

  1. Technically he asked about "general barrel fit". Then followed up with the statement you quoted about the bushing in a girsan.
  2. That sucks. I had a P01 which I'd guess is about the same size. I got it in the box at the one match I shot it in. But I think my rear sight might of spread the box a little. I forget what I was using for a basepad. Maybe it's something a belt sander can fix. lol.
  3. If you're stuck you probably need to take a class with someone who can point you in the direction you need to go. 3k is a lot in a class, and 5 days is a lot for a class. It sounds like something that would be fun, but more likely a shorter 1 or 2 day class would be cheaper and you might retain the information better. Maybe check out PTSG, lots of good info over there and you can get some video reviews that might point you in a good direction with out taking a class.
  4. Exactly, IDPA attempted to fix their match bump system. I think they were probably hoping to make it so the smaller less popular divisions could still get bumps. The result is now Master is close to the biggest classification in Carry Optics. With 4 or 5 new Masters being made at every level 2+ match in the country. It used to be people would say B class = IDPA Master. Now it's C Class.
  5. Pretty accurate, I got my 2nd G card via winning a level 2 and getting a bump which I didn't know was a thing at the time. I've never hit 95% in that division. But I also stopped shooting irons about then too.
  6. I would disagree. To do well on classifiers you need to be able to draw the gun fast, reload it fast and shoot A's fast. That stuff is pretty important in this game.
  7. Can you explain how they do better? Do you mean they finish a higher % of the winner then they normally do? And if so how would the number of participants change the % they shot?
  8. So like if I shot El prez a bunch that's essentially gaming the system. But if I train my turn and draw on it's own and my reloads and my transitions and run drills that require all that but never shoot el prez that's some how different when El Prez is the classifier? IMO it's dumb not to use classifiers in practice. You can go set one up as a drill and run it and immediately know if you did well or not. How do you know if you're shooting a M or G pace in practice if you've never done it? Running a known drill with data on M's and G's is a good way to figure out the pace. Then you just need to figure out how to always shoot at that pace. At the end of the day that guy that practices classifiers and gets good at them is going to do better then most.
  9. Can you explain to me how it makes bumps easier? If 10 people shoot L10 and Sailer shows up and wins the division and you shoot 75% of him. No bump. If 1,000 people show up and shoot L10 and Sailer shows up, shoots the exact same score and you finish 75% of him you bump to A. You didn't shoot any better but you got a bump. How is the second match harder to get a bump? How many people you beat doesn't effect your bump, and neither does how many beat you. The only thing that matters is your % of the winner. The thing that does effect you is if there are enough G's in contention pushing each other to win. Without that you'll get easy bumps. Which is why I don't think having 50 B and C class shooters matters. How many guys in contention to win is all that matters.
  10. But if you don't have some number of G's required you risk soft bumps. Remove the 3 over 90 and one guy shows up in a division and just coasts because he can't loose and people get bumps. If there isn't a chase for the top then everyone's finish is suspect. I think it's better to have a few match bumps not happen because someone blows everyone away vs everyone getting bumps.
  11. I think we could dump the 50 shooter requirement for match bump TBH. I don't really see what that accomplishes, maybe someone can fill me in. My thinking is does it matter how many average joes are in the match? No, what matters is what's 100%. So if we keep the 3 GM's finishing above 90% I don't see a need for a set number of non GM's in the match. Unless they win a stage they don't effect the outcome or your % anyway. Just don't become IDPA where everyone is a Master. I know several C class IDPA Masters who have zero chance of winning their division in IDPA as a Master.
  12. No that isn't the reason they swing for the fence. If they lower the HHF it will still be to high from most people and they'll still just swing for the fence. They just wont have to do as well to get that bump. The reason people swing for the fence is because failure comes with zero cost. There is probably another club match the next day or the next weekend. Loosing one stage doesn't matter. And if you do really bad it wont count so you can just try again. So why wouldn't someone go for it there is nothing to loose? If we didn't toss classifiers that are %5 below you class then the pressure to not fail goes way up when you're getting close to moving up. If you can't consistently put up the numbers you'll never get there. This change even with lower HHF would be significantly more difficult for many shooters to move up. If you're trying to get A class and put up a 45% it's going to drag you down for a while.
  13. Imagine setting up a drill and practicing to get better. It's so unfair. Guys who don't train and are stuck in some lower class are quick to talk about paper this or that and needing to make things fair.
  14. I think there is more than one line of thinking here. You can say peoples classes don't matter. But others goal is stated as helping people that are stuck in their classification. If the goal out of the gate is help those stuck, then that goal is move people up and I think that's a bad way to approach it. If someone is getting a 70, then 80 or 90 like you mention that could be bad HHF's. And some of it surely is, the HHF's are kind of a mess. But, you can also just have better days then others, sometimes you hook up or maybe you're just really good at the skill being tested that day. Maybe my WHO game isn't 80% for example. I do think that having a system that basically encourages shooters to swing for the fence is probably flawed. If I where going to "fix" it I'd remove the bit about dropping a classifier that's to low for your classification. With that change we'd probably need to lower the HHF's too. This would increase the pressure on the shooter and be more representative of how we shoot in a match and what we can do consistently over time. Some people would go down, others would probably go up, chips will fall.
  15. How do we decide what's "fair" for a classification? If it's unfairly keeping B class shooters stuck in B class. Then to get them to move up you must lower the HHF. Lowering the HHF will result in everyone moving up a % not just the guys "stuck" in B class. And now that B class guy will just be stuck in A, but I guess that sounds better? I don't really see what it fixes. So the top B class guys move to A where they can't win. Then new guys move up to the top of B and start winning the class. The top C class guys move to B, and loose to those guys already in B. Results don't change, skill levels don't change we just move everyone up some.
×
×
  • Create New...