Chuck D Posted January 21, 2003 Share Posted January 21, 2003 It's not the first 1.50 I have an issue with...it's the second 1.50 you have to pay for the SAME service as far as a Limited and L10 classification goes ( no other classifications apply here). If you can pay your workers,good for you. Common sense should dictate the fact that if I'm concerned about a lousy 1.50 that paying workers isn't in the cards. I've got news for you S.G. until we send the check....It's OUR money ...not USPSA's money. I believe in supporting USPSA ...to a point. Redundancy in classifier fees amounts to being taxed twice for the same product or service. If someone were to tax you twice for the same product or service would you accept it by saying it's YOUR fault not the vendors fault? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Stevens Posted January 21, 2003 Share Posted January 21, 2003 Chuck the point you seem to be missing is that no one is forced in anyway to shoot an extra classifier, or to obtain an extra classification. They do this of their own free will. As to being taxed twice, we already have that now, it is called the estate tax or more accurately the death tax. You are taxed when you earn it, then you are taxed again when you die. Yes I realize that most of us are exempt because our estates are not worth that much, but the double tax does exist and I'm sure that is not the only example. Unlike choosing to shoot an extra classifier, we don't get to choose whether to die or not. If L-10 is your thing, don't waste the buck and a half for the Limited classifier. Problem solved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck D Posted January 21, 2003 Share Posted January 21, 2003 I don't know how I can make this any simpler. I'm aware no one is "forced" to shoot classifiers in both Limited and L10 division. The question for me is why does USPSA require two different classifications for divisions in which the ONLY difference is the allowed number of rounds in a magazine and to top it off 90% of the classifiers are 10 round neutral? It MUST create less work for H.Q. if the clasifications for the two divisions were combined. Just because we are "double dipped" in other areas doesn't validate the process. I have yet to hear a compelling reason for two different classifications...only how it "is the way it is" and reasons/excuses to validate the extra monies paid to USPSA. If someone were to say that we needed seperate classifications to validate or give credibility to L10 division,there-by making it an equal partner with Limited Division I could accept that...but no one has stated that... (Edited by Chuck D at 11:36 am on Jan. 21, 2003) (Edited by Chuck D at 11:37 am on Jan. 21, 2003) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted January 21, 2003 Author Share Posted January 21, 2003 Wow...I started this thread to give the view point of "others" that have posted about the problems they see with shooters holding different classification for Limited and Limited 10. (Where are you guys? I am not going to fight your fight for you.) Now...Chuck D is starting to make more and more sense. We shoot the same classifiers...with the same gun and rig...for Limited and Limited 10. There is no difference. We are just paying again for a different "paper designation". As for "free will"... Hmmmmm. If the shooter is a fair person, and thinks that their classification should reflect their ability...then they would need to shoot the classifiers (under the current system). I don't think any B-class Limited shooter (with any integrity) wants to show up to a match and shoot as a Limited 10 C-class shooter. That is not fair to the C-class shooters, nor would it promote any feeling of accomplishment to the B-class Limited shooter. Nobody is forced to shoot the classifiers. Nobody is forced to shoot USPSA at all. Chuck D is providing some "customer feedback". If we get caught up in defense of the current system, then we miss an opportunity to see potential problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Stevens Posted January 21, 2003 Share Posted January 21, 2003 I'm still waiting for the problem to be identified. There is more to a classification than the classifiers, there is the real world experience of shooting in a match. I will agree that the difference is minimal and perhaps it should be re-evaluated and combined into a single classification. Having said that, the only real problem I have heard identified is a few people being one class down from their high classification. This may or may not be a legitimate concern as I don't know how big the perceived problem is. If the problem individuals shoot enough the system will eventually catch up to them and their classification will be adjusted. The speed of the adjustment could be as short as one month or it could be longer depending on a long list of variables. I still maintain that shooting a gun with 20 + 1rounds in it is different than shooting a gun with 10 + 1 rounds in it. Of course that is just me:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck D Posted January 21, 2003 Share Posted January 21, 2003 I give up . (Edited by Chuck D at 3:13 pm on Jan. 21, 2003) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jhgtyre Posted January 21, 2003 Share Posted January 21, 2003 Gary Stevens wrote: I still maintain that shooting a gun with 20 + 1rounds in it is different than shooting a gun with 10 + 1 rounds in it. Of course that is just me Gary, Do the current classifiers reflect that difference? -ld Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shred Posted January 21, 2003 Share Posted January 21, 2003 Some do. 99-10, for one, and whatever other field-course classifiers there are Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Thomas Posted January 21, 2003 Share Posted January 21, 2003 I guess I don't understand this discussion. If I go to a match and shoot the classifier, it's part of the match. It doesn't cost me anything above and beyond the match fee. If I want to shoot it with a different gun and/or a different division, it costs $1.50. Okay. Are some people saying they should be able to shoot the classifier at the match with every gun they want to, for free, as well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted January 21, 2003 Author Share Posted January 21, 2003 DT, That isn't what people are saying at all. But..I give up too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noname Posted January 21, 2003 Share Posted January 21, 2003 If no one is concern that an A class Limited shooter is competing in L10 in B class with the exact same equipment, and they see it as "no big deal", then why do we move someone up in class at certain matches if they come in 1st place while competing/finishing above their declared class. When done in this manner, it is called sandbagging. When done by means of an anomaly in the Limited/L10 classification system, it is brushed off. We need to coin a new term of endearment for this behavior. Classifications and scores equal perceived shooting ability and they do matter, even when it is only one class difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Thomas Posted January 21, 2003 Share Posted January 21, 2003 Well, I guess I'll just have to put myself down in the "no big deal" category. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noname Posted January 21, 2003 Share Posted January 21, 2003 No big deal? You're at the Factory Gun Nationals. An A class L10 shooter, who is also a M class Limited shooter, shows up, along with an A class L10 shooter who has been sandbagging the classifiers, and has the skills of a Master class L10 shooter. You are there as a legitimate A class L10 and Limited shooter and are about to get the competitive "big squeeze", "10 round rope-a-dope", "fool's farwell". How could anyone be happy about that experience? Are they going to come back to the Factory Gun Nationals again? Have they now been taught that the way to win is to engage in these types of tactics, further exasperating the problem? (Edited by noname at 6:24 pm on Jan. 21, 2003) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ankeny Posted January 21, 2003 Share Posted January 21, 2003 Flexmoney: Dude, you were doing a great job of fighting the battle. I have been right behind you all the way. In another thread kbear38s said, "What you're describing is another form of sandbagging." We all know it is just about impossible to legislate morals and ethics. To some, sandbagging or manipulating the system for personal gain is low life behavior. To others, it's a very real part of the "game", and there are others who just don't care. In the other thread, I was talking about how manipulation of the system is not conducive to recruiting and keeping new members. In my situation, it is vital that we conduct our selves in a fashion that fosters growth. I suppose each person applies their own belief system to their personal situation. That type of behavior coined the term "situational ethics". Some would argue that rationalizing behavior and employing situational ethics is what is wrong with the moral fiber of our country. Others would argue that failing to recognize situational ethics and how they come into play is narrow minded and immature. I guess I am narrow minded, immature, and delusional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shooter Grrl Posted January 22, 2003 Share Posted January 22, 2003 AH HA - Chuck D - consider it said They voted down making them the same to legitimatize L10. ------------------------------------------------------------------ 9:56pm: Portability of classifications between Limited and Limited 10 Divisions Michael Voigt brought up this subject, and mentioned it was the primary purpose for which this meeting was called. The following motion was made by Area 4 and seconded by Area 5 Classifications between Limited and Limited 10 shall be portable between these two divisions, until such time as a competitor has earned a classification in both of these divisions. For example, a member who is classified in one but not the other may use his/her classification in Limited to Limited 10 divisions. Area 5 called for a discussion of the motion President Voigt expressed his opinion that the proposed portability policy would dilute the legitimacy of Limited 10 as a division. He also stated that Limited 10 is very important to USPSA's growth, as many of our prospective members already own single stack 1911s. Vice President Amidon mentioned that obtaining a classification can now be done in one day with a "special classifier match". ----------------------------------------------------------- The above is an excerpt of the USPSA Board meeting held April 11, 2001. (Edited by Shooter Grrl at 6:08 pm on Jan. 21, 2003) (Edited by Shooter Grrl at 6:10 pm on Jan. 21, 2003) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck D Posted January 22, 2003 Share Posted January 22, 2003 S.G.sure told me....brought up a vote taken 21 months ago. (please take note that I did not ,will not or can not insult S.G. in ANY fashion...lest be I suffer the "pissed off" rath of an intellegent woman on a mission). With that said..I still give up. Here's my $1.50..USPSA obviously needs it more than me. (Edited by Chuck D at 10:35 pm on Jan. 21, 2003) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam Posted January 22, 2003 Share Posted January 22, 2003 Yeah SG, I think that qualifies. (sound of me slappin' my forehead) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shooter Grrl Posted January 22, 2003 Share Posted January 22, 2003 Look guys, I spent 2 years on that board and I can assure you with all my heart that they only have YOUR best interests at heart. What I saw was that they were so intent on NOT gouging you that they damn near crippled the entire organization. They never have been nor can I see them ever going to be in it for your money. Unfortunately, I can only point you to the written records of the meetings. You're just going to have to take my word on the rest of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now