rmills Posted January 31, 2004 Share Posted January 31, 2004 Update on the AC/SOI rule book clarification. It was rejected. They started over last I heard. Larry P Larry: Would you please advise us as to the source for your information regarding your comment? There has been no indication from HQ that the rules clarification process was scrapped. I will pass your comments along though and ask the question. Honestly, the rules were fine. There were just too many individuals who came from an IPSC or USPSA background who didn't like the fact that the rules could not be "gamed" around. As mentioned in the above posts, airgunning is addressed in Competition Rules 2 and 3. These rules also address any other nebulous area in which a shooter wants to circumvent the stated intent of a stage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Nesbitt Posted January 31, 2004 Share Posted January 31, 2004 Yep, the updated rulebook was rejected. They have started over. I forget exactly where I got that information but it is correct. HTR, Excellent post. I get tired of people bashing other sports when they don't know what they are talking about. Of course sometimes they DO know what they are talking about. Hopefully, those times will lead to friendly discussion that will resolve problems. Bill Nesbitt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larrys1911 Posted January 31, 2004 Share Posted January 31, 2004 Update on the AC/SOI rule book clarification. It was rejected. They started over last I heard. Larry P Larry: Would you please advise us as to the source for your information regarding your comment? There has been no indication from HQ that the rules clarification process was scrapped. I will pass your comments along though and ask the question. Honestly, the rules were fine. There were just too many individuals who came from an IPSC or USPSA background who didn't like the fact that the rules could not be "gamed" around. As mentioned in the above posts, airgunning is addressed in Competition Rules 2 and 3. These rules also address any other nebulous area in which a shooter wants to circumvent the stated intent of a stage. Sorry, but no I won't. I wasn't given permission, but it is common knowledge. I was involved in it, as was Bill (a lot more than me) Check with whoever you wish, but its gone and has been for a while! Honestly, the rules were fine. There were just too many individuals who came from an IPSC or USPSA background who didn't like the fact that the rules could not be "gamed" around. No they were/are not. I come from an IDPA background and the rules need clarification BAD! They directly contradict in places and are vague at best in others. A Former board member recently decided that cleats were OK and published it, contrary to what we have been told since the beginning and what has been done at the Nats every year. The TJ is NOT supposed to be a rule interpretation publication but many people think it is and its still being argued about. One club does it one way and another does it another. We even have some of that in AR and my home club trained about everyone involved in the central AR area and still clubs vary. It has nothing to do with "gaming around" a rule. A vaguely written rule is much harder to enforce than a clear one. and a Vague one is MUCH easier to "game around". Remember the benefit is supposed to go to the shooter! Those two rules "can" be interpreted to the point of being "goofy". A person that sees IDPA as a Game/Competition/Sport Etc will interpret those rules differently than one that sees it as Tactical training or RL Practice. Right or wrong that's a fact and it makes for rule differences from one club to another! That's unacceptable, you wouldn't play any game without knowing the rules first and if they are not the same from one place to another, you don't know the rules. A competitor doing something to "gain a competitive advantage" THAT is just plain goofy. I will shoot right to left, I will shoot bottom to top, over the top of cover, etc., whatever is fastest when I have the choice. FOR a COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE. Everything we do is for competitive advantage, it danged sure is not to be slower. If your thinking "tactically" IRL you are trying to "gain a survival advantage" SO those same rules "could" and "have" been misused in the past. There were a couple different matches that did more to create rules than gamers have to date, because people went too far with their "interpretations". No, sorry, the rule book needs help, It needs both Clarification and Organization, as an SO I shouldnt have to memorize the whole rule book to be able to find anything when someone contests or has a question about it. I should be able to know its in this section, at the very least! As I said I come from an IDPA background. My opinions come from SOing at Local State and National levels and being involved with all of it up to a State level, and being an SOI. It had zero to do with IPSC/USPSA. Its something that needs to be addressed and apparently HQ agrees at least on that part, otherwise they wouldn't be doing it. Word through the Grape vine is the new one will be out in 3-6 months last I heard. Larry P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Forsyth Posted February 1, 2004 Share Posted February 1, 2004 Hey Bill & Larry. Yep, the rule book clarification that was worked on by the AC's/SOI's was rejected. I wonder how the holster list is doing. Know two prominent holster makers who laughed when they were told they had to send in an example (and IDPA gets to keep it) to be approved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vincent Posted February 1, 2004 Share Posted February 1, 2004 Larry and John, Thanks for the update. I agree that the IDPA rules need to be clarified. It's not just the differences in interpretation from club to club. At both the 2002 and 2003 Nationals there were inconsistencies in the SO's interpretations of the rules from stage to stage! That is unacceptable. The wait continues.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Thomas Posted February 2, 2004 Share Posted February 2, 2004 As to there Being no major / minor; there sure is - SA Major is CDP, SA Minor is ESP. If it is so "REAL" why is there not a "major" for guys wanting to shoot a DA gun in .40 or .45?" Major/Minor means different scores for different pf ammo with less-than-center hits. There is no Major/Minor in IDPA. All hits score the same, no matter what caliber/pf inflicted them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Thomas Posted February 2, 2004 Share Posted February 2, 2004 That being said, and reguardless of Duane's "tests" to the contrary, harder kicking guns really are harder to shoot fast. If I recall my "tests" correctly - and I do - I never said harder kicking guns aren't harder to shoot fast and accurately. I said the difference, granted a highly skilled shooter, isn't a great as many shooters of lesser skill level think it is. You're talking my SIG .45 vs. SIG 9mm article, right? For those who never read it, I and a friend of mine, who carried a SIG P228 9mm and SIG P220 .45 at the time, respectively, went out and shot the graduation exercises from the InSights Training Center's Intensive Handgun Skills speed shooting course, both with our own gun and the other guy's. We came to the amazing conclusion that we each shot better with the gun we shot all time, though in neither case was the difference great. Familiarity with the gun was more important than .45 vs. 9mm level recoil. Or was it the Alloy Framed .38 Snubbies thing? (One of the first articles I ever sold.) Fired different loads, from standard pressure to +P out of a Smith & Wesson 642 Centennial Airweight. No appreciable difference in times and accuracy, but hell, this was close range stuff - not exactly a great challenge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shootingbuff Posted February 10, 2004 Share Posted February 10, 2004 FWIW - I was told HQ was "trying" to get the new rulebook out this month. I wont hold my breath though. Airgunning is not a sight picture by the def in the LGB. I was never told I needed to purchase a crystal ball to figure out what HQs was/is thinking in ref to anything. The LGB does need to be cleaned up. It is not growing pains as I see it since there has been plenty of time to address concerns and the LRB was updated as the LGB. Should have been a simple process of sending it to the print plant in enough time to have it available for IDPAs anniversary. Lazy and or not enough concern for updating the rule book is how I see it. Either way the shooters and the sport suffers. sb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dirtypool40 Posted February 10, 2004 Share Posted February 10, 2004 Actually Duane I was thinking of your G19 vs. G30 article. I didn't realize you had done several. I am not meaning to turn this into that argument, but if I remember, the drills you mention were short strings and close range with relatively generous times (for competition shooters). Yes, on targets 7 yards and closer, on strings no more than four rounds and "police academy revolver" par times I can shoot clean with my .45 CCO or a minor powered 5" gun. That doesn't mean I want to pick up that CCO for a match when the 5" gun is an option. That being said, it reinforces that point I was trying to make about the rules, major minor and IDPA in general; there just ain't enough there to "separate out the cream". A .50 / sec hit factor might be ok for courses where the AVERAGE shot is 20 yards, but the LONGEST shot in IDPA is seldom over 10 yards, and therefore a good rough point value might be .25, even for the average shooter. I actually started in IDPA, and yours was the first article I ever read on it. You did a good job of making it seem apporachable for a first timer (ME), but at the same time making suggestions for improving it. Moving the down zero zone up was smart, going from .3 to .5 per point was not. IDPA has stalled in it's evolution and taken a very adversarial stance with advanced shooters. It's too bad, it really does seem like a good idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mayonaise Posted February 10, 2004 Share Posted February 10, 2004 IDPA has stalled in it's evolution and taken a very adversarial stance with advanced shooters. It's too bad, it really does seem like a good idea. Out of curiousity. How should IDPA evolve to satisfy "advanced" shooters? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Perez Posted February 10, 2004 Share Posted February 10, 2004 IDPA has stalled in it's evolution and taken a very adversarial stance with advanced shooters. It's too bad, it really does seem like a good idea. Out of curiousity. How should IDPA evolve to satisfy "advanced" shooters? Don't know abbout Dpools response - but maybe add a class above the current Master. Just don't call it grandmaster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dirtypool40 Posted February 10, 2004 Share Posted February 10, 2004 Mayo, I'm not talking about satisfying advanced shooters, IPSC does not do that either, but maybe challenging them on a level playing field, instead of treating a match like your own personal speed trap. Just a thought, but I noticed how you are reacting to every suggestion made. Sorry, I am not usually so adversarial. All that being said, and to put my money where my mouth is, I am helping with the upcoming FL IDPA state match. My mantra will, fun, fair and objective. We'll see if I go nuts. Do I get a FTDR for sniper crawling to the line when they call me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Thomas Posted February 11, 2004 Share Posted February 11, 2004 Actually Duane I was thinking of your G19 vs. G30 article. I didn't realize you had done several LOL! Actually, I don't even remember writing such a thing. Oh well. Was it cool? Honestly, I've always thought having a gun that worked was really important. Having a gun that fit my hand was important. Having a trigger action I can control and sights I can see is important. The level of recoil - while important - is down the list of concerns. Having said that, I'll admit I've put a lot of time lately into developing a more controllable match load for my .45 - and I've succeeded. As I've gotten better, I've found it's not that I can't fire, say, .45 hardball instead of my match loads and win, but I can certainly do it with the match loads more easily. And after awhile, you just get really impatient with anything that stands between you and more easily attaining higher performance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mayonaise Posted February 11, 2004 Share Posted February 11, 2004 Mayo, I'm not talking about satisfying advanced shooters, IPSC does not do that either, but maybe challenging them on a level playing field, instead of treating a match like your own personal speed trap. Just a thought, but I noticed how you are reacting to every suggestion made. Sorry, I am not usually so adversarial. Whatever bud. I honestly would like to know how you thing IDPA should evolve and why? Nothing like posting statements and walking away I suppose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe D Posted February 11, 2004 Share Posted February 11, 2004 When the regional guys were gathering information for the new LGB one of the things suggested was a higher class for the "Professional Shooters". Call it the Pro Class, Grand Master would have never been approved. That probably has about as much chance as my .40 S&W or the new .45 GAP being allowed in CDP. Maybe I should just shut up about the CDP thing, buy a Wilson .45 and meekly fall in line. NOT!!!!!! Mayo, I heard you have stepped up to the plate to be the Match Director of the Georgia State Match. Congrats, I knew someone would do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dirtypool40 Posted February 11, 2004 Share Posted February 11, 2004 Mayo, actually nothing could be further from the truth, bud. I am right here. I am really not trying to turn this into a pissing contest. So rather than letting this degenerate any further I'll send you the suggestions you ask for to you via PM. Feel free to post, paraphrase or ignore them at your convenience. Sorry to get you so riled up, and I hope you learn to enjoy the SPORT in spite of it. Smile, you don't actually get more points for scowling. Duane, yes the article was cool, and as at the time I was brand new and had never shot any competition I was surprised that you could shoot a compact .45 as well as (or very closely to on those drills) a 9mm. An eye opener. Gave me the attitude to get off my ass and learn to shoot, taking me defeats and set backs on the chin. Now that I think of it, you also wrote an article on the NW SSC long before I ever shot one of those. Hmmm, write more articles I need to shoot more matches.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mayonaise Posted February 11, 2004 Share Posted February 11, 2004 Sorry to get you so riled up, and I hope you learn to enjoy the SPORT in spite of it. Smile, you don't actually get more points for scowling. I don't know what gave you the impression that I'm "riled up". I just asked a question about your post. Relax Joe, Wrongo Bongo! I don't know where you got the idea that I was running a GA State Match. You're misinformed. Probably RT spreadin' rumors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Perez Posted February 11, 2004 Share Posted February 11, 2004 Posted on: Feb 10 2004IDPA has stalled in it's evolution and taken a very adversarial stance with advanced shooters. It's too bad, it really does seem like a good idea. Posted on: Jan 30 2004 Please let IDPA learn and evolve... DirtyPool You keep referring to the "evolution" of IDPA - but offer no further explanation . I am interested [seriously] in your ideas , please make them public for all of us. Until that day mark p. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dirtypool40 Posted February 11, 2004 Share Posted February 11, 2004 Mark, fair enough, I'll work something a little more organized when I have time and post it. Mayo, I think we are getting off on the wrong foot here. Come down, shoot the FL IDPA match. I'll buy you a beer and we'll make nice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Perez Posted February 11, 2004 Share Posted February 11, 2004 Mark, fair enough, I'll work something a little more organized when I have time and post it. Thanks - looking forward to reading them. MP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mayonaise Posted February 11, 2004 Share Posted February 11, 2004 Thanks dirtypool40. I appreciate the PM. You make some good, valid points. Posting them is your option. Nothing really ground breaking but have been in the mix of many a IDPA flame wars in the past. I now understand where you're coming from. Mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted February 11, 2004 Share Posted February 11, 2004 What do I need to say about IDPA to get somebody to buy me some beer??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmills Posted February 11, 2004 Share Posted February 11, 2004 "I Desire Potent Alcohol"? In regards to creating "higher classes", why? One of the things I see in IDPA that is a positive is the comraderie between all of the shooters no matter what the level. The classes we have work fine. Why change to be like some other sport? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mayonaise Posted February 11, 2004 Share Posted February 11, 2004 In GA they're about to pass a law allowing an increase in the alcohol content from 6% to up to 14% Salute! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LPatterson Posted February 12, 2004 Share Posted February 12, 2004 Mayonaise, Are you sure that word is not 'Shine instead of Salute, who wants watered down booze anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts