Uspsa's Shortcomings

[Chuck D]

After reading several threads ,especially the ones titled "USPSA vs. IDPA" it becomes clear that the marketing and policy implementation advantage goes to IDPA. Make no mistake, I've been a USPSA member for 17 years now and I still enjoy the sport of IPSC but a few of the following issues/policies MUST be addressed if we're going to reverse the membership loss trend.

1. Pay-to-Play Nationals. Forget making USPSA members chase a slot to the Nationals thru the Sectional and/or Area Championship victory route. Forget about twin-tier Nationals slot pricing. If you want to attend a National Championship, write your check for ONE dollar amount and mail it in. Accept slots by post date mark on the envelope until the match is full. IDPA, Steel Challenge, Bianchi Cup, IRC and the Single Stack Classic use this format effectively, so should USPSA.

2. Eliminate "cash" and "prize" payouts. Practical Shooting is far and away an amateur sport. The introduction of cash and prizes encourage some shooters to "sandbag" their way to a cash or prize payout at the next big tournament. By providing a quality trophy,plaque or USPSA President's Medal instead of cash and/or prize payouts (a-la the Area-7 Championships of the past 2 years) we MAY be able to lower entry fees to the point where more members can afford to participate.

3. Rules stability. USPSA and IPSC change rules on what seems to be a daily basis. So much so that the average member has difficulty keeping track (Example- the new "holster position" rule for Production Division). IDPA rules for the most part are simple to follow (they might not make perfect sense but once they are explained to the shooter the shooter can reasonably expect that it won't be "different" next year) and are consistant from year to year. The only big changes I've noticed in an IDPA rule book has to do with holster design. A stability condition that simply does not exist in IPSC.

4. Cost of Participation. IDPA has this market cornered hands down. I had high hopes that the advent of Production Division would help "close the gap" between the two organizations but it was not to be. IDPA is the ONLY pistol shooting sport where the competitor CAN compete with what they REALLY carry on their persons for protection. You see a vast variety of different manufacturers of guns,holsters and allied equipment at an IDPA match. USPSA/IPSC seems to be "pigeonholed" into the STI/SVI/PARA/Glock format. This REALLY limits the ability of an organization to seek and obtain sponsorship from companies outside the IPSC realm. While over the years I've spent thousands of dollars on the latest "competitive" gear for USPSA competition, my IDPA gear ( a S&W Model 19, a Wilson holster, 4 Safariland Speedloaders and a speedloader pouch) cost me a grand total of $450.00 The last SVI frame kit I purchased cost me $400

I'm not "badmouthing" USPSA or placing IDPA on a "pedestal". I'm just trying to point out some reasons ( some may call VALID reasons) why USPSA continues to lose membership at a faster rate than they gain members. No matter where you look, the issue of Us vs.Them comes up for debate. While running the risk of making a whole new batch of enemies....might I suggest that we LEARN something from IDPA instead of dismissing the obvious.

Feel free to "flame away".....

[rhino]

IDPA is the ONLY pistol shooting sport where the competitor CAN compete with what they REALLY carry on their persons for protection.

You make some interesting points, although I'm not sure how you reached the conclusion above. I don't agree with much of what you said, but your assertion (quoted above) just doesn't match with facts.

All I ever shoot in USPSA/IPSC matches are guns that I REALLY carry on my person for protection. I may not be a threat to win any matches, but obviously my lone example refutes an assertion including the the words "ONLY" and "CAN." I am also far from being the only one who shoots carry guns exclusively.

[jimstc]

I compete in IPSC with my carry gun, a Baer 5" Premier II in 45 ACP. The only thing I added to the stock gun was a fiber optic front sight. Just started competing in October 2003 in Limited 10 and hope to make B class by summer. I see a lot of competitors shooting the 1911 platforms( Kimber,Springfield etc), Maybe it's different where you compete.

[TRNinTX]

4. Cost of Participation. IDPA has this market cornered hands down. I had high hopes that the advent of Production Division would help "close the gap" between the two organizations but it was not to be. IDPA is the ONLY pistol shooting sport where the competitor CAN compete with what they REALLY carry on their persons for protection.

I guess that guy named Sevigny, who shoots a box stock Glock, is an abberation. Phil Strader made Lim Master with a SS. I don't subscribe to the theory that equipment will hold you back in your respective division.

[Chuck D]

Allow me to clarify my comments regarding "carry guns". Yes, it's true that most people carry various 1911's and Glocks like the model 17.

Other people carry snub nose revolvers,mini Glocks, Kahrs and pistols/revolvers of that size and design. These are the guns you are most likely NOT to see at an IPSC match. Sure, anyone could use them and some people do...but the instances are few and far between.

The existance of a "bug gun" division in IDPA allows even the smallest "pocket pistols" a place to compete.

* A quote borrowed from the latest edition of the IDPA Tactical Journal, Ken's Corner by Ken Hackathorn.

" One of the goals that the founders of IDPA had in mind when they created the organization was a competition shooting enviroment where members could compete and test their abilities with the handgun they carry for self defense.It was clear that practical shooting competition would quickly evolve into the use of those handguns that the participants felt they could "score" highest with. We were all veterans of IPSC and had seen this movie before."

I wish I had the space to post the complete article, it's that thought provoking.

Once again, I'm not trying to bash USPSA/IPSC. I'm looking at this from the standpoint of lost opportunity. What if we could attract the largest block of potential members , those with non-IPSC traditional guns and gear, by adopting a different strategy than we've been using?

[kdj]

Once again, I'm not trying to bash USPSA/IPSC. I'm looking at this from the standpoint of lost opportunity. What if we could attract the largest block of potential members , those with non-IPSC traditional guns and gear, by adopting a different strategy than we've been using?

Like most things, there are two sides to this. The thing that I like most about IPSC, and that attracted me back after many years, is that it is clearly a sport, has an interesting equipment race and has "nothing" to do with carry guns and self defense.

I like the fact that the weapon of choice is a heavily modified compensated optically sighted high capacity race gun, for the same reason that if I were to compete in motor sports, I'd find Formula 1 more interesting than "the Honda Accura Challenge" ;-). People shouldn't expect to be competitive with a snub nosed revolver. They could shoot it for fun of they wished but they wouldn't win, just as you wouldn't win most car events with a stock Ford Taurus.

The IDPA seems much less interesting *to me* than IPSC for exactly this reason.

I think the thing most lacking in the "attract new members" arena is an ad campaign telling everyone just how much *fun* you can have shooting this IPSC game.

I'm in agreement with much of the rest of what you said though, so this is not a totally contrarian reply

Kevin

[Chuck D]

I don't suggest changing it all,just a small fraction of the game ( a single divisional requirement maybe) to allow a different approach to USPSA/IPSC shooting that would/could draw in those of a different mindset.

Just an idea thrown out into cyberspace........

[steve223]

I agree with Kevin I shoot USPSA mostly and an IDPA match once in awhile and Idpa is just not as interesting to me. In New Mexico the trend is the other way around the USPSA clubs seem to be growing and the IDPA clubs seem to be loseing shooters. I have talked several IDPA guys into shooting an IPSC match and once i finnaly got them to show up almost to a man (or woman) they always come back,Some of them swore they would never shoot IPSC now they are diehards. I asked most of them why it took them so long to shoot a uspsa match and almost all of them told me the same thing,They were intimadated.

I have to go to work mabey i can finnish this thought later.

Steve

[rhino]

One of the strengths of USPSA/IPSC is that you, the shooter, choose what equipment you want to you use and you, the shooter, choose how you wish to approach shooting the matches. The fact that we have the freedom to shoot anything from a high end .38 super race gun all the way to a 5-shot J-frame .38 is a very good thing. The fact that we can approach it as a game or as a chance to practice valuable defensive skills (or both) is an even better thing.

In my opinion, most of the equipment rules in USPSA/IPSC are a feature to highlight, not a flaw to correct.

[Loves2Shoot]

might I suggest that we LEARN something from IDPA instead of dismissing the obvious.

Sure, my don't we learn that IDPA with all it's rules a standardize equiptment is absolutley no more "Practical" than USPSA. In real life if I shoot at a bad guy 30 yards away, I'm going to jail. .5 Second penalties for a C hit is ABSURD in real life, and for practical training. Perosnally in a shooting sport, I don't want to shoot what I carry, I want to shoot the best possible equiptment I can so that I can learn to shoot as fast accurately as I can. This has improved greatly my performacne with my carry gun. THIS IS A GAME to see who can poke holes in papaer and knock down steel targets the fastest, no simunition with bad guys shooting back, that's called paintball.

RANT

Dammit this is America, don't tell me I can't shoot what I want!

RANT OVER

Ps. Where did you get the stats on USPSA membership versus IDPA?

Where I live the opposite is true, people here like to shoot more than 14 rounds in a stage.

[Deuce]

Greetings Gentlemen!

I'm pretty new to this game, but, this is the sort of discussion I was having with some other folks recently and, as someone new, perhaps I can provide a different perspective.

As I've indicated in the "newbie" area, I've been shooting for a little of 2yrs now and I run an indoor club this winter.

I've shot both IDPA and USPSA.

For whatever reason, I see a lot more "smaller" guns used for IDPA (one guy was using a 3" XD and not for BUG). The IDPA club I've shot at recently uses the same range (in fact, we alternate weeks). They usually allow 2 guns per match. At first, a few of us only shot our BUG for the 2nd gun ... but, as this was limited to 5rds/string, and, for the same money, we could shoot our "big" gun again, many people have now seemed to opt for that.

So long as IPSC has the stigma of NOT being THE self-defense sport and IDPA does, the only reason any current IDPA shooter could have to "move" to USPSA is because they believe they can compete. Also, many IDPA shooters enjoy IDPA as they believe it helps them "train" for a real scenario and that "moving" to USPSA might take away from that.

Aside from a couple equipment rules, using hardcover, and magazine retention, there's just not a whole lot of difference between IDPA and USPSA ... at least, not at the local level.

So, I think the real question is "what does USPSA offer that IDPA doesn't?"

Equipment rules stability? Not hardly. But, then again, what about the 5" 625 for IDPA?

Lower fees? Nope.

More easy-going atmosphere? Uh-uh.

Less expensive factory ammo to compete equally? Except for CDP, nope.

About the only thing I can think of is, with less of a "fun" atmosphere, you're pretty-well guaranteed that your classification is accurate in USPSA ... if that matters to ya. Also, without the 18rds limitation, at least outdoors, bigger stages are more fun. But, I think that's a tough sell considering everything else.

I think the real bottom-line though is, when a newbie shows up to an IDPA match, it just doesn't seem as "intense". Go to a USPSA match and watch a couple STI/SV's perform and you might just pack up your Beretta and go home. Even in the Production division (here we go), with some "tuned" Glocks and XD's performing at a level close to some 1911's, it can be pretty intimidating (although, we don't have a lot of that in my area). If you went to a bowling alley and most everyone was throwing strikes for every frame and you had a hard time breaking 100, how much would you want to "compete"?

We always seem to have trouble getting our weeknight matches done with by "closing time". But, I sure would like to see something where BUG's can compete. I agree that while some guys have no problem carrying a 5" 1911, there's a reason that S&W continues to develop all kinds of 2" lightweight revo's. You shouldn't have to look far to find a debate over the "perfect ccw gun". It wouldn't take much to develop some criteria for 2 or three divisions of BUG so apples can compete against apples. Something like that could be the inroad into USPSA that might bulk-up the membership. But, as I said, the logistics could be a problem.

Anyhow, so long as USPSA could have a division where those at the various "beginner" levels could compete equally (and no, classifications just don't cut it ... dead-last in Ltd-10 is still dead-last ... not first for "D"), there'd be a spot for newbies to come into. As it is, trying to convince all those S&W, Ruger, Beretta, and Sig 9mm owners to come join us is tiring, at best ... getting them to stick with it for a few matches seems even tougher sometimes. "Well, ya know, that gun is fine ... but what you really need is an STI/SV ... or at least a Para".

Ya, anyone can shoot just about any gun in the appropriate division and not care about how competitive they are ... but, I don't see that message being conveyed, convincingly, to newbies. Maybe if we had the "Don't Care" division, that might do it.

YMMV, but, in my area, that's the way I see it.

[Alan Meek]

What is with all of the discussion of BUG? Is that a Glock Division (BUG=Butt Ugly Gun)

[Loves2Shoot]

Yea timid shooters, should stick with IDPA. I think Hillary Clinton endorses IDPA because they try to make you feel good even if you suck, where in USPSA you know you suck and we help you get better. People who want to get to be the best shooters in the world should go IPSC

[IPSCDRL]

Chuck, I always read your posts with interest because I know you are an active participant and want positive things for the sport. I know you communicate with your AD (Hi Rob) regarding things that concern you rather than just bitching without offering anything constructive. Lord knows there are enough of that type.

I see your points about wanting to increase membership and match attendance even though I know there are match directors who want no such thing.

The thought that jumped out at me as I read your first post was, they are different games that attract different people in some cases. What makes on different from the other does not necessarily make one better or worse than the other. Changing IPSC/USPSA to be more like IDPA will not automatically make it “better” (a VERY subjective term) but WILL make it less different. That may NOT be a good thing overall.

Just another thought.

I’d probably shoot more IDPA matches if they were as plentiful as USPSA matches here in New England but they don’t seem to be.

[Chuck D]

IPSCDRL, Thank you for your kind words.

I'm not looking to change USPSA to make it more like IDPA, I'm attempting to suggest ways in which we could lure some IDPA members over to us and/or have some former IPSC members rejoin the USPSA family.

The IDPA reference was one of 4 possible solutions offered.

Loves to Shoot- In all honesty, I can tell you from first hand experience that IDPA has some quality shooters amongst their membership. They simply don't all "suck".

[Rob Boudrie]

I have some comments about one sub-topic - prize tables at the nationals.

From what I see, there are some problems which could occur if we went to bragging rights only:

1. Sponsors donate merchandise MUCH more readily than cash, both for marketing reasons and actual cost. For most manufactured goods, the incremental cost (not "fully burdened cost with overhead", but the "incremental cost of making another unit") is a fraction of the price. Manufacturers know this.

2. If we don't give prizes away, it will be hard to extract value from the manufacturers to put towards the match.

3. Although we buy prizes, we do so from those who also donate to us.

The bottom line is that any reduction in match fee would NOT be equivalent to the average value in prize lost. I wonder how members would feel if they found out that they had a $30 or so reduction in their match fee as the 'payoff' for removing the prize tables from the nationals.

No-prize matches are fine, but don't expect that $150 match to suddenly be able to offer you the same service for $75 - the numbers don't always work that way.

[Rob Boudrie]

It is interesting that the recent issued raised regarding rules stabiliy (production holster psition and 2 round scoring limit on noshoots) have been the direct result of USPSA accpting changes at the world level, and making an effort not to re-write every rule from the world body.

[MBaneACP]

I think Chuck D has hit a lot of nails on the head.

IMO, the "root cause" of this schism is that the two sports are fundamentally *the same.* Because they share so much in common, the differences tend to be exaggerated. Over the last few years, USPSA has moved toward IDPA's thinking in many area (Production, for example) and IDPA has moved toward USPSA's thinking in some areas (at a local level, the focus has shifted to competition, much to some people's chagrin).

That's why, when dealing with the Outside World, I tend to lump them all into "scenario-based practical shooting." People outside the sports can't tell the difference.

The problem is that right now, it's all a game of egos (and heaven knows I am not without sin in *that* department!). Especially at the top tiers of both sports. And as such, I don't think the problems are solveable.

It would be SO MUCH COOLER to have a single sport that encompassed the best features of both USPSA and IDPA (plus stealing the good stuff from other sports, such as Bianchi and sporting clays). Compete practically or go full race...there's a place for both. In fact, depending on the fate of the Gun Ban in light of the latest S&W debacle, there's a NEED for an all-out balls-to-the-wall Open class that encourages all sorts of guns within a 10-round framework, because THAT'S HOW GUNS GET BETTER! We ARE the shooting industry's unpaid R&D division.

NROI is THE state-of-the-art training facility for safe range officers, far better than the IDPA (or cowboy and shotgun, for that matter) program because it has had more years to work out problems and systematize the answers. IDPA's scoring system is logical and easy to teach. IDPA has built a "culture" that is encouraging for new shooters; USPSA has built a competition machine.

One is not better than the other. "Absorb what is useful!"

Michael B

[Sterling White]

Lets think about this....generally speaking I think that big matches lure the best competitors from miles around. Some competitors even travel long distances on air travel to attend tournaments. Whats the lure? Could it be the opportunity to perform against other competitors? Could it be the opportunity to be rewarded for the performance? Do rewards bring out better competitors?

Give me a chance to compete and win a prize or contingency reward...I'm there!

[MBaneACP]

And Rob, the problems you outline on prize tables--very valid at this point in time--can all be cured by GROWTH!

Look at the cowboys, who are the most successful shooting sport in the last decade. If you have 40K members instead of 12K members, your cash flow picture is a bit different. And, too, IDPA has proven the validity of the cowboy model for a smaller organization.

USPSA's business model is built on cascading non-value-adding activities...for example, how many classifications does one human actually need? "One" makes a lot more sense (and it a lot less expensive) than "five."

As my mentor in the consultiing business said (over and over and over until I could strangle him), it's not a question of whether you're doing things right. It's a question of whether you're doing the right things.

USPSA is doing a great job of trying to prop up a severely flawed business model. I think people like you and Charles Bond and Gary Stevens and even Dave Thomas are absolute wizards at keeping the walls from collapsing! You guys ought to quit USPSA and take over a couple of gun companies I could name...you'd be rich!

Michael B

[Gary Stevens]

Oh my God!! My name and a positive comment

Well, I have to go now, as I am sure that asteroid will be landing in my back yard any minute now

[Patrick Sweeney]

Michael makes a very good point. That is, the friction is not because the two are so different, but because they are so much the same. Any consideration of change to make things better must be approached (and poked with sharp sticks) fromt he perspective of "What are we trying to do here?"

Are we trying to increase membership? What new members? Which kind of shooting? If the idea is to decrease membership loss, then we need to find out why they left. Simply adopting some superficial attribute of another shooting sports won't necessarily gian us their membership numbers or base.

Wearing chaps isn't going to lure cowboy shooters to IPSC. Dropping the prize table isn't going to bring IDPA shooters into the fold.

The questions to ask are; What do we do, why do we do it, and how can we convince others that it is worth doing?

[Loves2Shoot]

I can tell you from first hand experience that IDPA has some quality shooters amongst their membership. They simply don't all "suck".

That means take what I have to say with a grain of salt. The skill level on AVERAGE, from what I've seen is MUCH lower than USPSA in my area. My biggest real gripe is the ATTITUDE of IDPA and the conformity to their approved list of gear and "way" ie FTDR. I hope USPSA never heads there.

[rtr]

I would say that dropping prize tables would in fact be detrimental to the sport. Let's face it, being able to win fancy guns and other shooting stuff is a good way to get people to the match.

I don't think IDPA has any advantage in terms of equipment cost. Most production rigs can be run in IDPA, a simple production rig can cost as little as $800 or so. There are lots of 1911s in IDPA matches that cost over $800 for the gun alone.

I personally think that USPSA has a better product, I simply find their matches to be more fun. With that said I think USPSA is more intimidating for the average new guy. Most USPSA stages are more complex with more movement, moving targets etc. IDPA stages in general are more regimented and therefore you can watch a few people shoot it and have it figured out, whereas a USPSA field course may be very confusing for the average person. This fact in addition to the equipment in USPSA (ie expensive limited and open 1911s with skeleton holsters) makes the sport look more intimidating to the new shooter.

Therefore I think the solution is for USPSA to reach out to potential members (ie people who are already gunowners) and make the sport as welcoming as possible. For me once I got past my slight initial intimidation I found the people in my local club to be extremely nice and helpful. No matter how poorly I shot with my bone stock Glock 17 they were all very encouraging. Once I saw that the best guys in my club really understood that they need new shooters to grow the sport and that they treat everyone the same regardless of shooting skill I knew there was no reason to be intimidated. In fact this past weekend my club president was telling the story of his first match where he shot an el prez in like 30 or 40 seconds. The point being we all start somewhere and can only improve from there.

I'm not sure exactly HOW to reach out to new shooters, but I think that is the solution.

I think another question to consider is how big do we want USPSA to get? At some point I think the sport would change drastically. Clearly the current state of USPSA with it shrinking is not good, but have a stable size or slight growth might be preferable to phenomenal growth.

[rhino]

Michael makes a very good point. That is, the friction is not because the two are so different, but because they are so much the same.

Kind of like the centuries long, ongoing war between the Swedish and the Norwegians.

Actually ... if we want to get IDPA people to join us too, the hurdle to cross is to get more of them to actually try a USPSA/IPSC match. A majority of IDPA-only people I know have never shot or even seen a USPSA/IPSC match in person. Part of that is the systematic way some of the popular gun rags built IDPA in the eyes of their readers at the expense of USPSA by publishing misleading words and articles.

In my experience, when someone who shoots IDPA actually tries USPSA/IPSC, there is a very good chance they not only will like it, they will like it more than IDPA. There are exceptions, of course, but those are the people who will never like USPSA for whatever reason no matter what.