Singlestack Posted February 7, 2004 Share Posted February 7, 2004 Alabama Section Championship I'll be there shooting Open. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cpty1 Posted February 7, 2004 Share Posted February 7, 2004 I'll be there too, shooting open on Friday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lynn jones Posted February 7, 2004 Share Posted February 7, 2004 i'm gonig and i'll be shooitng open. lynn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shooter Grrl Posted February 7, 2004 Share Posted February 7, 2004 David and I are going, both shooting Open. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew_Mink Posted February 8, 2004 Share Posted February 8, 2004 More than likely, Production. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joseywales Posted February 8, 2004 Share Posted February 8, 2004 The MD has the courses out on the web site...looks good. '04 AL stages For someone that has really been bitten by the IPSC game within the last year, this match description has got me thinking it may be worth a drive from Dallas (now, if I can just find someone willing to help keep me awake at the wheel for 10-11 hours). Be shooting Production. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Singlestack Posted February 8, 2004 Author Share Posted February 8, 2004 The FOP range is nice and they put on a good match. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dajarrel Posted February 8, 2004 Share Posted February 8, 2004 I'll be there. I'll be shooting 'C' class revolver. dj Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chp5 Posted February 8, 2004 Share Posted February 8, 2004 I will likely go and shoot Production. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JRBean Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 I'll be there shooting open and my wife will be shooting limited. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foprange Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 Hi all. Glad to see the interest in the Alabama match. I have been the MD, RM or Match coordinator for this match every year since 1995. I need input on a few things while we are still in the planning stages of putting this match together. Take a look at the stages. I have posted them on the range web site for all to see and maybe prepare a little for. http://www.foprangeinc.com/2004_al_ipsc_champ.htm is the web address for the match page. The issues I want input on are #1, look at stage #4, Four Card Stud. One complaint that I have had is that the No-Shoot targets will not be painted a solid color to differentiate them from the shoot targets. The idea was to make the stage different for each shooter while still being fair to everyone who shot it. It requires the shooter to think while shooting. Novel, huh? We have played around with this type of a stage at our club matches with some sucess. It is funny watching each shooter look at the table for the cards, at the target, then at the table, then at the target, table, target... trying to make his mind up on what he should shoot. While it is fun at a club match, we have never tried it at a major match and I am looking for any pitfalls that may get it booted from a fun match. One idea presented was to make the cards represent targets behind hardcover instead of making them no-shoot targets. Something to take them out of play, make hits on wrong targets hurt some. We have had a stage where the competitor flips one of two cards over to determine shoot and no-shoot targets. The heads of half of the targets were painted red and the other half were painted black. The card you flipped determined the shoot targets. One competitor that year heard the beep, drew and shot half the targets. When he was done, unloaded holstered, the RO pointed out that he had not flipped over any cards and that he now had a 50/50 chance of either doing well or zero'ing the stage. He then flipped a card and zero'ed the stage. Something about requiring a competitor to think after the beep that makes things interesting. We all get programmed during the walk through as to what we are going to do, where to engage what from, etc. that we go on autopilot. I like this stage and want to keep it in the match. Maybe in a little different format but with the same theme. Item #2 is the chronographing of competitors on a random basis. It is done at major matches in some places. It has been done here for the last 5 or 6 years with no problems. We have someone unassociated with the match choose a number between 1 and the highest competitor number in the match. That competitor is the lucky winner of the Chrono drawing. It is totally random. Each competitor has the same chance of having his ammo checked. Any RO may have a competitor's ammo pulled if they believe is may be improperly declared major. We have not seen had any ammo cheating as of yet. As a match adminstrator, reducing the chrono work to just one or a few shooters frees up at least 2 RO's who can now help run stages. The match runs smoother, faster, and the shooters do not seem to mind that the match appeared well staffed. What do you think? This may be a can of worms but input from shooters will help tremendously. This match is for you. This sport is about the shooters, not the events. Any input will be considered and thanks in advance, Jon Grigsby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 Jon, Check out this thread (with regards to stage 4): http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=11012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joseywales Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 Jon, Couple of thoughts. Thought #1 - If you make the targets represented by the 4-card set covered by hardcover, would you get a fair number of shooters that just say 'to hell with the cards' and shoot all of the targets? Looks like this would eliminate the thinking part, with the only penalty being the extra time involved in engaging 4 targets that you otherwise should not engage. Thought #2 - How about this? Have some sort of white overlay (t-shirt or something) hanging on the back of every target, that could be placed over any of the targets. Setup could be something like this: -have the shooter pick one of the 4-card sets, and don't allow him/her to see the cards -one of the RO's takes the card-set and pulls the white overlay over the targets represented by the 4-card set picked by the shooter -specify the start position as "facing uprange" (you may/may not want to make sure that the shooter is close enough to the barricade that he/she cannot see any of the targets during the LAMR) #2 would seem to: -keep it different for everyone, -put the white stuff on no-shoots, and -still make the shooter think on his/her feet. Whadayathink? Damn I hope I get to come to this match! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JRBean Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 The only problem with stage four that I see is that it doesn't offer a consistent course engaement. Meaning that not every shooter will be shooting the same course of fire. Which in my opinion does not allow a fair comparison of a competitors scores. I know that shooters don't always shoot courses the same as other shooters do on freestyle courses, but it is because they choose not too. This type of course of fire is making the shooters engage targets different than the other shooters they are competeing against. Club matches are OK for somewhat questionable stages but major matches where you are spending a lot more money needs to offer a more level playing field. Also rule 4.1.4 states that Paper scoring targets and metal targets used as penalty targets must be clearly marked or of a solid color different from scoring targets. I'm not trying to step on anyones toes here just trying to offer some helpful criticism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shooter Grrl Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 Jon, The way it is now, it is not a legal USPSA stage since the no-shoots are not clearly marked, nor a different color. It looks like you'll need to paint the targets different colors. It would appear that you have 4 arrays and you want to make one target in each array a no-shoot. That's gonna require you to paint the targets 3 colors at a minimum. Also, on your Stage 2 you will need to remove the target engagement order requirement and allow the shooters to shoot "on an as-visible" basis. AND, Stage 5. The rulebook says that Standard Exercises is the only type of stage wherein you can mandate reloads. The definition of a Standard Exercise is explained in US 6.1.2 - "a course of fire consisting of more than one separately timed component". So in order to keep this one, ya gotta get rid of the mandatory reload requirement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
titandriver Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 Jon, I guess I would ask: what does the rulebook say concerning questions #1 (unmarked no-shoots) & #2 (random chronographing)? I would think that any competitor attending a Sectional Championship or above would reasonably expect the match to be run exactly according to the current rules. I'd check with either your section coordinator or your area director to see what they think about the matter. Or contact John Amidon for the complete lowdown on the two questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foprange Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 To clear up one problem with course #4, the targets will be clearly marked with a large stenciled number or letter, from 2 - A, to comply with Rule 4.1.4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
titandriver Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 Hmm.... just read 4.1.4 again. As I understand the rule, penalty targets are only "marked" or of a "different color" to ALWAYS differentiate them from the actual shoot targets. If the same numbered/lettered no-shoot targets will also be the same numbered/lettered shoot targets, totally dependent on the number/letter drawn by the shooter, what has changed? I guess what I'm thinking is that the rule prevents one target from being a shoot target for one person and the exact same target being a no-shoot target for another person. Seems like a shout out to John Amidon is in order! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foprange Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 ShooterGirl, I had several examples of USPSA approved courses to use as a guide direct from our current classifier book. If it wasn't legal to use, then why have it used for classification purposes for all our members? Take a look at CM 99-37 for an example. This stage goes against your argument for both stage 2 and stage 5. There are several more valid examples of these types of courses in our classification system. Just wondering what everyone thinks about this. I am still in the late planning stages of this match and nothing is carved in stone. If we used the match guidelines from the rulebook for a Section level match, one feild course, two medium courses and three short courses (not more than 9 rounds), everyone would go home pissed off about what a crappy match it was that they just dropped several hundred on shooting. They would not come back. The stages I want to see are fun, challenging to all the shooters, fair, and will get your gun warm shooting them. Shooters leave the stage wanting to have another shot at shooting it again. I want each Section match we do to have at least one item that no one has seen before or done before that everyone can take home to their club matches. The rules we have are the best there is in the practical shooting sports. They still have room for improvement and several of the last changes I have seen are moving towards the fun factor. We shoot IPSC in alabama becuse it is fun. I have been to several major matches around the southeast and could find things that are contrary to our rules but, the stages were fun to shoot, a challenge for all who shot them and I didn't whine because a course designer wanted me to shoot targets in an order or do a reload. Lets have fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shooter Grrl Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 ShooterGirl, I had several examples of USPSA approved courses to use as a guide direct from our current classifier book. If it wasn't legal to use, then why have it used for classification purposes for all our members? Take a look at CM 99-37 for an example. This stage goes against your argument for both stage 2 and stage 5. There are several more valid examples of these types of courses in our classification system. Jon, the current rulebook specifically EXEMPTS classifiers, because they don't FIT the rules anymore (If I were to go into thread drift mode we could discuss how AWFUL classifier stages are!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chp5 Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 The FOP range is nice and they put on a good match. Jon put on a great match last year. I'm sure 2004 will be fun as well. Thanks Jon! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Heiter Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 Well, looking at the descriptions, I would say that there are technical/legal problems with five of the eight stages really (2,4,5,6,7). Mandatory reloads, number of rounds in an array, specifying engagement order in field courses, etc. Most of these could probably be fixed by adding some walls or shifting targets around a little but that's up to you. If you understand these issues and are ok with the stages as they are then that's fine. Understand that some shooters will be fine with this and some will be frustrated by it and may express that frustration in different ways. I understand how difficult it can be to design stages with the appropriate props to create a high round count freestyle field course. I'm not here to condemn or complain, just adding a voice to the discussion. Let me know if you would like and I'll put together a detailed list of the issues I noted and recommend a fix. I don't want to step on anyone's toes, especially someone who has volunteered to take on the herculean task of putting on a match like this. Just offering to assist if assistance is desired. I'm planning to come shoot the match regardless. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilTerry Posted February 10, 2004 Share Posted February 10, 2004 This is a Points Series Match which requires that USPSA HQ ( John A) review and approve all the courses of fire - lets see what happens when they are reviewed!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted February 10, 2004 Share Posted February 10, 2004 If we used the match guidelines from the rulebook for a Section level match, one feild course, two medium courses and three short courses I believe you are thinking of rule 1.2.1 (and it's sub-rules, particularly 1.2.1.4). That is an IPSC rule. The US version of 1.2.1 doesn't have the requirements of Short-to-Medium-to-Long courses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foprange Posted February 12, 2004 Share Posted February 12, 2004 Thanks for all the input. A revision of stages 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7 are underway. Look for updated stage descriptions in a day or two with before and after comparisons on the match web site, http://www.foprangeinc.com/match_book_2004.htm. I knew if I asked a question here, I would get plenty of input. Thanks again, Jon G. 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