2011 USPSA MultiGun Nationals

[Religious Shooter]

I know the guy. He's one of our locals. Next time I'm gonna rib him for being the USPSA HM Limited National Champion.

Go to USPSA's website and you can easily look at his raw scores and compare them to Taran's.

[gose]

The problem is you have made an assuption that the guy who won HM Limited is not as good a shooter as Butler because more people didn't shoot the division. What did you base this on? Did you shoot with him? The guy took first, enough said. Not his fault no buddy else wanted to play.

I also like the Rocky Mountain system. No system is 100% fair and somebody is always unhappy, that's life.

Doug

In general I think that most people would agree that its harder to win a division with 100 competitors than a division with five. Rewarding the guy that came second out of five more than the guy that came second out of a 100 just seems wrong to me.

Wouldnt the the most fair thing be to just have one all-inclusive division instead? If people want to shoot an iron sighted .308 instead of an open .223 and give up some spots in the finals its their choice. Wanna get a shot at something good on the prize table, get open gear, if you dont care as much about prizes and just want to have fun, shoot whatever you have.

Edited November 10, 2011 by gose

[Sterling White]

I say...Good for the one guy who had the courage to do and yes he should walk the table. Other shooters will say "wtf" but I bet the division is loaded with shooters at the next match. When you think about it - Rocky Mtn has a fair system that rewards based on performance. The system encourages a shooter to pick their division carefully "IF" the prize table is important. This system flattens the field removing pressure on the scope tactical division. I also like the way they have delineated the divisions:

Light Scope

Heavy Scope

Light Irons

Heavy Irons

Open

[gose]

I say...Good for the one guy who had the courage to do and yes he should walk the table. Other shooters will say "wtf" but I bet the division is loaded with shooters at the next match. When you think about it - Rocky Mtn has a fair system that rewards based on performance. The system encourages a shooter to pick their division carefully "IF" the prize table is important. This system flattens the field removing pressure on the scope tactical division. I also like the way they have delineated the divisions:

Why is there a need to remove "pressure" on TO?

The issue is people in the smaller division complaining about lack of attendance and small prize tables, not really the other way around, right?

[MarkCO]

I say...Good for the one guy who had the courage to do and yes he should walk the table.

Courage, or luck? Nothing against the guy at all. But with a DQ by one of three and another jumping to a larger division on purpose, left him competing against...only himself, FTW.

Regardless of what anyone says, the prize table IS important, to the shooters and the sponsors. Prize distribution should be clearly stated in the match materials so that people KNOW what is going to happen. That way if it IS important to them, they can choose based on their preferences. The VAST majority of matches don't publish the prize distribution scheme, and some change it without announcement...that is wrong. The Sponsors donations should be DISPLAYED!

There is NOT a perfect scheme for prize distribution unless there was only one division and everyone ran heads up.

[Doug H.]

I know the guy. He's one of our locals. Next time I'm gonna rib him for being the USPSA HM Limited National Champion.

Go to USPSA's website and you can easily look at his raw scores and compare them to Taran's.

I checked his scores, he got first place on every stage, including the one zeroed.

[Stlhead]

I say long live the H.M. Limited USPSA National champ, if someone wants to challenge him for his title next year then get going. Until them he was first in the division at nationals so he gets the title. As for comparing his scores to any other shooter's what exactly does that show? I bet more people consider H.M. limited next year!

[Benelli Chick]

In general I think that most people would agree that its harder to win a division with 100 competitors than a division with five. Rewarding the guy that came second out of five more than the guy that came second out of a 100 just seems wrong to me.

Well, I don't agree.

If the 5 people were Kurt Miller, Trapr Swanson, Patrick Kelley, Rob Romero, Bryan Ray and I beat them ALL..well...I think I'd be about peeing myself with glee! Okay, lightning would've struck and the 5 of them would've had to have been tripped (by someone )but...you see where I'm going! I beat about 40 people at Rocky Mountain this Year in Tac Scope, and I'd be happier to beat these 5 than all of those!

Okay, you say, Denise isn't so good. I see your point!

Let's pick Rocky Mountain Limited Scope shooter #39 Mike Payne. He's a friend of mine, and I don't think he'll mind. He Beat OVER 100 people in his division with a 63%. His first year shooting 3-Gun! Awesome finish! BUT, just because he beat more people, doesn't mean he's a better shooter than Kurt Miller (who only beat 16), Rob Romero (who only beat 13),Adam Popplewell (who only beat 35) or Mike Voight (who only beat 41)!

In fact, I beat more people than each of them did! I deserve a better prize!

It's not the size that matters! (Of the field of competitors! ) It's the competitors themselves.

Yes, a field of 1 or 2...that's a tough sell even for me!

But, with the number of shooters in each of our divisions this year...I think the winners were great shooters in their division. Closest second place 99%. Farthest 2nd place 92%. Two 94%'s and a 97%. The fields were pretty darn evenly matched.

No, it's not perfect. It's like comparing apples and oranges. But what we're trying to do... is compare the comparisons(rankings) of apples to apples and oranges to oranges...does that make sense the way I explained it?? Probably not! I'm old, tired and I teach middle school!

Anyway...just had to get my 34 cents in!

Denise

I say again...SIZE DOESN'T MATTER!!! Oh wait, isn't a guy supposed to be saying that!

edited to add the bad joke!

Edited November 11, 2011 by Benelli Chick

[DyNo!]

In general I think that most people would agree that its harder to win a division with 100 competitors than a division with five.

I don't know about that, it's pretty damn hard to beat (in no particular order) Kurt Miller, James Casanova, Kelly Neal, Patrick Kelly, and Jeff Crambilt.

Plus the 6-12 up and coming limited shooters from TacOps and the other limited guys that were finishing right behind the people above.

[MarkCO]

What interests me more than anything else w.r.t. HML at Nationals is did anyone learn a lesson here? USPSA has a rule w.r.t. # of competitors to recognize a division. That rule was set aside. In one division at Nationals, it did not really work out well. This appears to be an abberant match, but should put MDs on notice to have a plan (and let the competitors know) for what to do with a division that does not have enough participation a certain time prior to the match date. We have folks that petition USPSA for change to the rules w.r.t. division recognition and then they do and get roasted for it. Everyone makes mistakes, but what have "we" learned?

[smokshwn]

In general I think that most people would agree that its harder to win a division with 100 competitors than a division with five.

I don't know about that, it's pretty damn hard to beat (in no particular order) Kurt Miller, James Casanova, Kelly Neal, Patrick Kelly, and Jeff Crambilt.

Plus the 6-12 up and coming limited shooters from TacOps and the other limited guys that were finishing right behind the people above.

+1

You really have to look at the number of folks who can win the division. With respect to Limited/Irons there may not be many shooters but it is a damn sharktank if compared to TO.

[MarkCO]

+1

You really have to look at the number of folks who can win the division. With respect to Limited/Irons there may not be many shooters but it is a damn sharktank if compared to TO.

I know you could take them all, might have to stock up on ether though

[Sterling White]

Why is there a need to remove "pressure" on TO?

The issue is people in the smaller division complaining about lack of attendance and small prize tables, not really the other way around, right?

Let me answer your question with a question.... Would you consider shooting in another division if you thought you could finish in a better position and having a higher percentage of the division winner or even being the division winner? The hardest part of one prize table is deciding who gets to go first. Simply...all of the division winners draw straws to determine who walk first because they each earned 100%. So, the best of the best prizes go to these folks. Next in line are those who had the highest percentage, ie., reward for performance.

Apex predators will gravitate to the divisions that they think they can win. The remaining predators will fill in the divisions based on either personal preference of shooting equipment or where they think they may have the best chance of finishing well.

Everyone there will want their bite of cake! The pressure of shooting TO is now removed because your chances of getting a higher percentage and better prize off the table may be in one of the other divisions. Simple concept really. I think Denise and JJ have hit a home run!

[Religious Shooter]

I say long live the H.M. Limited USPSA National champ, if someone wants to challenge him for his title next year then get going. Until them he was first in the division at nationals so he gets the title. As for comparing his scores to any other shooter's what exactly does that show? I bet more people consider H.M. limited next year!

If you have a shared prize table does the USPSA HM Limited Champion get to walk the table before Taran? Does he get to walk before Honer?

The HM Limited winner won by 100% over his lone competitor. Whereas Horner won by 2.01% over the second place Tactical shooter.

If USPSA had a shared prize table and it was based on percentage of performance by the shooter in their division, the HM Limited winner would have walked before any of the other division winners.

Is that fair?

Well compare their raw scores and see if that is fair or not. Under that system, do you think the better shooter is walking the table first?

[Charles Bond]

Has anyone firgured out why we have 414 posts on a match that did not even attract half that number of shooters? And when you look at the number of posts aoout what needs to change about the match vs what the match did right, it starts to look like Groundhog Day since we see the same posts year after year.

[Sterling White]

Your post was #415

[MarkCO]

Your post was #415

As long as the complainers voted in the USPSA elections, I'm good with that.

[Jadeslade]

How many reshoots were issued at Multigun Nationals? Anybody know? Thanks?

[Chuck Anderson]

How many reshoots were issued at Multigun Nationals? Anybody know? Thanks?

No records are kept on that. But there were a lot off of one squad. Everyone else seemed to be about average.

[gose]

I say long live the H.M. Limited USPSA National champ, if someone wants to challenge him for his title next year then get going. Until them he was first in the division at nationals so he gets the title. As for comparing his scores to any other shooter's what exactly does that show? I bet more people consider H.M. limited next year!

If you have a shared prize table does the USPSA HM Limited Champion get to walk the table before Taran? Does he get to walk before Honer?

The HM Limited winner won by 100% over his lone competitor. Whereas Horner won by 2.01% over the second place Tactical shooter.

If USPSA had a shared prize table and it was based on percentage of performance by the shooter in their division, the HM Limited winner would have walked before any of the other division winners.

Is that fair?

Well compare their raw scores and see if that is fair or not. Under that system, do you think the better shooter is walking the table first?

Well, its seems like the argument is that it would be Taran's fault for not choosing to shoot HM Limited.

[Doug S]

I would like to add my 2 cents in on a couple of the issues being discussed.

First: I was one that had their ammo go minor. I chrono'd my loads before I left home and I was at a 172 PF, should have been plenty of difference to allow for any altitude deviations. I wasn't trying to just skate by or cheat, I shoot this load whenever I shoot 9mm Major and at the 172 PF. The RO was tilting my pistol when he shot and it looked like most of the shots were going though the wood, when I questioned him about this he said he shot all the open guns this way. OK but there weren't enough holes for all the open guns! I have never had this happen before, could I have called the MD for a ruling, maybe, but I didn't and still had a fun match.

Second: Being a "B" class shooter, I will most likely never win a gun at a match with the way the prize tables are usually set up. What I would like to see is a table set up like the old DPMS Tri-gun Challenge and CMMG Midwest Championships where they bagged the prizes, but with a twist, put gun certificates into random bags so some of the lower classified shooters have a chance at a new gun. I think if a cash payout was given to the top 3 in each division (amount based on the number of entries per div) and then let them pick a bag like the rest of the shooters, it would be alot fairer. As an un-sponsored shooter, I probably spend more than a sponsored shooter since I pay 100% of all the expenses I incur for the match yet will never be able to win the top prizes. If $50 was taken from each entry fee and placed in the prize fund it could be distibuted to each division based on the number of shooters per division. If you had 100 shooters in your division, you would have $5000 to split between the top 3 and if you only had 10 shooters, you only get $500 to share. Your winnings would reflect the amount of shooters you had to beat in your division.

Finally: "Thank You" to all the RO's, match staff and sponsors, it was the best MG Nationals to date!

I finished 34th in my division and still managed to get a prize package worth $300-400! It was alot of fun getting to shoot with Mike V, Matt B and the Miculeks, hope to get the chance again.

Doug S' 2 cents worth.

Sponsors in my package:

GoGun-Outstanding support after the match!

Brownells

Midway

Remington

HiViz

Dawson Precision

Safariland/Speedfeed

Sinclair

Break Free

[gose]

Second: Being a "B" class shooter, I will most likely never win a gun at a match with the way the prize tables are usually set up. What I would like to see is a table set up like the old DPMS Tri-gun Challenge and CMMG Midwest Championships where they bagged the prizes, but with a twist, put gun certificates into random bags so some of the lower classified shooters have a chance at a new gun. I think if a cash payout was given to the top 3 in each division (amount based on the number of entries per div) and then let them pick a bag like the rest of the shooters, it would be alot fairer. As an un-sponsored shooter, I probably spend more than a sponsored shooter since I pay 100% of all the expenses I incur for the match yet will never be able to win the top prizes. If $50 was taken from each entry fee and placed in the prize fund it could be distibuted to each division based on the number of shooters per division. If you had 100 shooters in your division, you would have $5000 to split between the top 3 and if you only had 10 shooters, you only get $500 to share. Your winnings would reflect the amount of shooters you had to beat in your division.

Finally: "Thank You" to all the RO's, match staff and sponsors, it was the best MG Nationals to date!

I finished 34th in my division and still managed to get a prize package worth $300-400! It was alot of fun getting to shoot with Mike V, Matt B and the Miculeks, hope to get the chance again.

Doug S' 2 cents worth.

I hate bagged prizes for two reasons, 1: I have tons of stuff I dont use as it is, if I cant see what I'm getting I might end up with more stuff I dont need instead of something that might actually be of use to me; 2: having all the prizes displayed shows off how much and what the sponsors contributed, why hide that in ugly bags?

Most "sponsored" shooters dont get nearly as much stuff/money from the sponsors as people believe. Sponsored shooters also tend to spend a lot of time and money on practice before the match, so I'd say that in most cases a sponsored shooter spends more money AND time than an unsponsored shooter does per match.

If youre gonna do a raffle you might as well lower the entry fee and let the shooters that want to be part of the raffle by tickets, or do the match a la ProAm.

Rewarding randomness and luck over practice and skill just seems wrong...

Edited November 17, 2011 by gose

[abn-rgr]

The problem with the bagged up prizes is lack of exposure for the sponsors. How would you like to be swarosvski with a 2k scope in a black bag no one got see. We need to give the sponsors the maximum exposure we can.

[smokshwn]

As an un-sponsored shooter, I probably spend more than a sponsored shooter since I pay 100% of all the expenses I incur for the match yet will never be able to win the top prizes.

Most "sponsored" shooters dont get nearly as much stuff/money from the sponsors as people believe. Sponsored shooters also tend to spend a lot of time and money on practice before the match, so I'd say that in most cases a sponsored shooter spends more money AND time than an unsponsored shooter does per match.

There seems to be a large misperception that somehow or another the top shooters "spend" less on this sport and "win" more. Nothing could be further from the truth. If we actually pulled out receipts for a shooting budget I think most here would blown away at the amount of money the top shooters have put into this sport. Oftentimes the statement "the B and C shooters drive this sport" is made and goes unchallenged. I don't mean to take anything away from those shooters, but that statement is usually made at the expense of the top shooters who are somehow seen as privaleged all the while not recognizing that very often they have spent exponentially more (in time, $$$, and effort) to gain the skillset they have. This supports the sport as well.

[Big Bore]

I would like to add my 2 cents in on a couple of the issues being discussed.

First: I was one that had their ammo go minor. I chrono'd my loads before I left home and I was at a 172 PF, should have been plenty of difference to allow for any altitude deviations. I wasn't trying to just skate by or cheat, I shoot this load whenever I shoot 9mm Major and at the 172 PF. The RO was tilting my pistol when he shot and it looked like most of the shots were going though the wood, when I questioned him about this he said he shot all the open guns this way. OK but there weren't enough holes for all the open guns! I have never had this happen before, could I have called the MD for a ruling, maybe, but I didn't and still had a fun match.

Second: Being a "B" class shooter, I will most likely never win a gun at a match with the way the prize tables are usually set up. What I would like to see is a table set up like the old DPMS Tri-gun Challenge and CMMG Midwest Championships where they bagged the prizes, but with a twist, put gun certificates into random bags so some of the lower classified shooters have a chance at a new gun. I think if a cash payout was given to the top 3 in each division (amount based on the number of entries per div) and then let them pick a bag like the rest of the shooters, it would be alot fairer. As an un-sponsored shooter, I probably spend more than a sponsored shooter since I pay 100% of all the expenses I incur for the match yet will never be able to win the top prizes. If $50 was taken from each entry fee and placed in the prize fund it could be distibuted to each division based on the number of shooters per division. If you had 100 shooters in your division, you would have $5000 to split between the top 3 and if you only had 10 shooters, you only get $500 to share. Your winnings would reflect the amount of shooters you had to beat in your division.

Finally: "Thank You" to all the RO's, match staff and sponsors, it was the best MG Nationals to date!

I finished 34th in my division and still managed to get a prize package worth $300-400! It was alot of fun getting to shoot with Mike V, Matt B and the Miculeks, hope to get the chance again.

Doug S' 2 cents worth.

Sponsors in my package:

GoGun-Outstanding support after the match!

Brownells

Midway

Remington

HiViz

Dawson Precision

Safariland/Speedfeed

Sinclair

Break Free

Well, I happen to be a B class pistol shooter myself and over the last years have picked up lots of guns off of the prize tables so I don,t like the random grab bag style of giving out prizes. I've been at matches where I won my division and picked up a bag with a Glock hat, a few parts, and a Tshirt in it. I would much rather go off of performance. I have not had a good season this year and the prizes I've brought home have reflected that. But thats my fault and no one elses and I can live with that.

As far as money spent and prizes won, I use it offset what I spend but has, and I doubt, will ever totally pay for all the shooting I do. I have won a few guns that have paid for 1 matches expenditures and some of the practice that went into shooting that match and maybe a good bottle of Bourbon.

I do belong to the Firebird team and they help me with some gun parts but I am not sponsered in any big way by anyone else. I pay for everything else.