nasty618

It's a long time to be dead and yet still be kicking. I think maybe reports of Single Stack death were greatly exaggerated. Make Single Stack Great Again.

We're at 104 one day before open reg starts. 17 Gs, 21 Ms. That's with less than half of the super squad filled and other heavy hitters still to squad. 22 Gs, 37 Ms in 2020. 32 Gs, 44 Ms in 2019. Not making any assertions, just a quick update in case we want to track numbers, gauge slot vs open registrations or come back to the topic of Production Nationals participation next year.

The next thing they do is buy a Shadow 2 that keeps winning local matches, install fancy triggers and thumb rests... and still finish 30% of the winner. If one forgets the second component after looking at their results... Well, that's just willful ignorance.

So you've been playing this game for a while... Can you give any specific, non-anecdotal examples where a club lost its affiliation for breaking 3.3? How many clubs? I can give you at least one specific example of the opposite. Match fees matter.

That's a very good point and it makes sense.

To you, to me and 44% of those who voted it seems to be clear. But overwhelming majority seems to have no clue. 50+% said "no call", 5+% said Procedural. What rule did those 5% apply?... we'll never know. I agree that the rule should be adjusted to address this giant gap. Not even access to the trigger - it's drawn when there's access to any portion of the inside of the trigger guard... Which can be tricky as there are set ups that allow some movement potentially exposing a millimeter or two of the internal trigger guard.

And that is what's troubling... but not shocking. I can point you to a thread where I describe how not one, but three CROs make a fundamentally bad call on a well known classifier.

I like the NROI question of the month. I don't like the 50/50 spilt in votes.

What exactly should it tell me?

I'm all for having an electronic rule book. It's there on my phone and gets good use almost every match... But there's huge psychological and educational value in being able to pull out an official book from the range box, open it on the right page, ask the range lawyer or opinion giver to read it and walk away. One does not exclude the other and the costs of having a printed book cannot be so prohibitive that a a fiscally frugal and financially healthy organization should so easily scratch it.

Yes, I was hoping to hear your opinion on why and if a different combination might fix things somewhat. Personally, if it's 300 or 100... I can't say "I don't care". I do, to an extent. But as long as the returning champion is there - for me it's all that matters. For the outcome I'm looking for in a Nationals, which is my performance and improvement gains as compared to the champ's results, it could be just the two of us.

But it's also an open book test and you have what? three attempts to complete it? All while being able to review the results before taking another stab at it in an attempt to get 80 or 85% to pass? I find it almost amusing when people who are not ROs or worse, haven't even read the rule book, start offering their opinions. It often starts with "I think it should be...". I wish we still had printed rule books. Open the book on the relevant rule, point at it and tell them to read it.

Not that Production is not going the way of SS... it might be... or maybe not, given the political climate, we don't know. But are you considering the point of combined divisions that draw and split the pool of talent, like CO and Prod last year? Makes me think if a combined Open/Low Cap and PCC/CO/Lim might be a better combination to maximize the numbers of each division.

That's not what I'm talking about. But, as you've said in the past - i don't have the time or inclination to try to educate you.

Well, I'm relieved. Not that I thought it did.

Hey man. I'm sorry if what I said got to you, but let me also remind you that you're the one who replied and quoted my post. I am not attaching any kind of feelings to our exchange and definitely no ill intent, I'm just replying with my opinion to yours.

The post you quoted is definitely nothing but a personal opinion. The "overall results don't matter" or the "game is played differently depending on division" parts have been covered in the past and even a little earlier in this thread.

I mean... that's exactly what I said. Once set, opinions are difficult to change. I'm always weary of the "I've been doing this a while" guys. I don't even know what "I have been doing this a while" means in terms of knowledge and match results. Are your consistently winning your local matches... today? Are you performing at a high level at major matches... today? Or have you been doing this for 30 years and still sitting in M class? Because, with respect, it matters. Game has changed a lot in the last few years, as you know, and I am not sure if a GM classification from 20+ years ago has much meaning today. Not that one needs to be a high level competitor to understand the finer points of the scoring system and how it changes the game strategy, but... it certainly doesn't inspire confidence when I hear "overall results matter" from someone who has been playing this game a while.

USPSA doesn't have combined results. All divisions are recognized separately, no combined scores are shown in the match uploads. It absolutely is a fact and not an opinion. ... It really isn't though. It's based in personal observations and experience, supported by opinions of the highest level of competitors whose points of view I share. In any case, I appreciate your point of view and participation in this thread.

If they are actually good AND understand the game (note that one can be a good shooter yet be very simple about their game knowledge and strategy), it is not and should not be important to them. That's also not the take away that should have after a match you describe. Let me try a different way. This will probably be a bad analogy, but... Imagine you're a hobbyist drag racer. You compete in Stock class. You buddy is competing in the Funny Car class. You both race in the quarter mile... you both get measured in time... it almost as if you're playing the same game and should compare yourself against his time, right? But you're not. Look, I am not trying to red pill anyone who has been playing this game for a long time and still thinks that overall results matter. I find it difficult to convince people who are set in their ways. And it really doesn't matter to me what folks think about overall results. But that's just a simple fact - combined overall results do not matter. I am not even talking about how the stage planning is affected, how your strategy on each type of a target changes, how to evaluate all of that based on the HHF of the stage... most people dont even understand what all of this means. I am just talking about the scoring of Major vs Minor. Let me try another question. Why do you think Max Michel was ~30 seconds faster and 10% higher in the overall results that Jacob Hetherington? Is he really that much faster and that much better? Or maybe their game strategies were different and dictated how they shot? But honestly... If it makes one feel better looking at the overall results, they find that useful and it drives them to work on their skills to improve - then who cares, it's a win win.

It's amazing to me how some ppl feel that winning matches entitles them to "being sponsored". They literally expect free guns after making GM or consistently winning locals. Heard a dude complain how a company wasn't giving him a free gun, so he tried to get it from another one. When asked "what service will you provide to help them sell more stuff?" ... there was a blank stare. Zero understanding that there's work involved as well as a contract with fine print. Having said that, I think motosapiens summed things up nicely.

Ha. Lol? I find it mind numbing how little people understand about the game. Even at M and G levels. Oh well.

Is it possible that in their game rules, "as long the hand didn't leave the gun - it's ok"? This technically was the OP's intent - to find out if there ever was alternate wording of the same rule that might lead someone to think this would be ok. It was not to find out what the result of holstering a unsafe gun should be.

"Instead of trying to look at the point where the shooter did the reload, really try to realize the truth... there was no reload yet and it was only stacking." This reminds me of the mental block some have trying to score perforation hits, like on a NS covering A zone. " It touches the A behind the NS, what do you mean it doesn't exist?". Then once it clicks, they can't unsee it. It just takes a little bit of time and patience... Right?

In a neighboring reality, the HQ listened to the people, put out an online poll and, following the wishes of the membership, got rid of VC... I guess we'll just have to wait to see if it happens here.