Jump to content
Brian Enos's Forums... Maku mozo!

Recommended Posts

For those who have been to the IRC over multiple years, you have seen F&N run a few different ways, timeless, par times, 2x4 at 50.... How would you like to see F&N next year? And "not at all" will probably not be one of the options.

Thanks,

Dave Wilson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My only suggestion would be to make the 50 yd. stage freestyle. Standing, kneeling, prone, whatever can be done safely, with all shooters facing downrange at the start signal. Requiring those who won't or can't go prone, to start with their backs to the target just seems sadistic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as the 2X4 I don't care since I don't use it when I go prone. Maybe the guys that have a little more spacing from the ground up front need it I don't know. A few more trips down to the bay to stuff my face with fish and chips and I may find out. :rolleyes:

I was worried about the par times at first but it turns out that I had more than enough time. I actually should have slowed down a little but had not had practice to gage the time properly. I ended up shooting pretty much the same score at the standards this year as in previous years without the par time. If I would get the time clock set in my head for the par time I think I would actually do better with the par time if I slowed down a little more and got more X's.

I think that the par times are extremely discouraging to the newer shooters that just can't get the rounds off fast enough on the reload strings. Without the par time they could get the shots off and the penalty would be the longer time that it took them to get it done. With par times I saw many that were only able to get off 6 of the 12 required and getting 6 Mikes, talk about kicking a dog when it's down. Those that can shoot the standards fairly well will do so with or without par times but the newer shooters or less practiced sure take a beating with the par times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did not get to shoot it this year, but I like the par times. I shoot better with the par times. I like the 2X4 underneath the rug/carpet, and it was not because of the fish and chips, Gregg. It was the beer and Pizza. :cheers:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have a problem with the par times. I like the stage quite a bit more with the par times. It is really hard on newer shooters though. How about having an option where you can take a 20 second penalty and have no par times?

Only other problem was how backed up Far and Near would get at the end of each shift. Maybe put some higher round count stages leading up to it to help slow down the squads before they hit the far and near wall?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've only been to one IRC, but it seems to me that if someone wants to zero the stage it will be easier without the par time. However, the par time is an interesting challenge for us newer shooters. It gives us a good metric of progress and evens the playing field, since everyone starts with the same score. The only bad part of the stage is that some of us didn't get to hear the walk through and it turned out pretty embarrassing. But like I always say: "Eight procedurals is better than nine." :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

do away with the procedurals for taking a sight picture at the 25, 10 and 3 yard line. I think that a persons match shouldn't go south for a kind of stupid penalty. I didn't get hit with it, but did see it happen. For the most part, the only place where people would could take advantage of no par time is at the 10 yard line. at least for me.

maybe a alternate start for the 50 yard line is to make a mad dash for the targets and try and get your 6 shoots off in the 9 seconds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've shot it both ways... last year I shot it timeless in about 28 and change.. this year with a LOT less practice I managed a 27 WITH a miss... Those who practice and can shoot it will always be at the top score wise, those who can't will always complain. The first time I shoot F&N I shot an 80... then something in the mid 40's range.. If I can break 40, I am generally doing well. I've run it side by side, taking my time on timeless and found that I did worse than trying to go at a medium speed with and without par times and it didn't really make a difference either way. I always stand facing uprange at surrender. 9 seconds allows a 3 second draw, and just under 1 second per shot.. very doable.. When I was shooting classic, I found that when I took my time reloading at 10 and 3, I actually finished with more time to spare than if I rushed myself.. Par time is actually harder to zero than timeless is..

Edited by sargenv

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My suggestion would be to include a challenging standards stage, but every year mix it up somewhat from the usual times and distances, and don't reveal or announce the exact details in advance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those who have been to the IRC over multiple years, you have seen F&N run a few different ways, timeless, par times, 2x4 at 50.... How would you like to see F&N next year? And "not at all" will probably not be one of the options.

Thanks,

Dave Wilson

Rather than run a poll here where the ICORE specialists hang out, somebody should have thought to ask this question at the awards gathering on Sunday. My guess is that if you ask the entire group of shooters, they would overwhelmingly cheer for dumping the Far and Near altogether, with No Par Times being a very distant second.

Far and Near is terribly disheartening to the lower to average level shooters, many of whom struggle just to get their shots off on time, and have no realistic prayer of getting their hits on paper.

Or so it seems to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I would shoot it better without the par time.

This year I slipped going prone(I fell while falling down, oh the irony...) landed on my gun arm, and paniced searching for the dot as fear of OT shot took over and it cost me 2 misses even though I shot the string with the fall and subsequent dot searching panic in 8 seconds. That lead to frustration that I couldn't shake off at 25 yds which cost again, so at 25 and 50 I shot two mikes, 3B's and 4 C's and 3 A's. By the time I got to 10 yds I had calmed down and salvaged 18 x's and the remainder in A's which kept the run from being a total disaster ending with a 39. In practice, I could reliably shoot a 26-28 with no stress at all and was expecting about 30 at the match.

I can easily argue of course that the whole point of the par time is exactly that, its a head game. Keeping your head together and delivering regardless of the conditions, the bobbles, the slips, the imperfections in execution, etc...there is plently of time if your basic gun handling skills are worked out and you don't panic.

Procedurals for sight pictures stinks of IDPA. It should go away. I suspect this is done to help move things along?

As we waited for the squad ahead of us, I watched several new shooters or shooters who were not really ready for par time shoot OT's at 10 and 3 yds. It hurts to watch and I can understand how demotivating that experience can be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those who have been to the IRC over multiple years, you have seen F&N run a few different ways, timeless, par times, 2x4 at 50.... How would you like to see F&N next year? And "not at all" will probably not be one of the options.

Thanks,

Dave Wilson

Rather than run a poll here where the ICORE specialists hang out, somebody should have thought to ask this question at the awards gathering on Sunday. My guess is that if you ask the entire group of shooters, they would overwhelmingly cheer for dumping the Far and Near altogether, with No Par Times being a very distant second.

Far and Near is terribly disheartening to the lower to average level shooters, many of whom struggle just to get their shots off on time, and have no realistic prayer of getting their hits on paper.

Or so it seems to me.

It is the International Revolver Championships. It should not be run at the lowest common denominator level

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those who have been to the IRC over multiple years, you have seen F&N run a few different ways, timeless, par times, 2x4 at 50.... How would you like to see F&N next year? And "not at all" will probably not be one of the options.

Thanks,

Dave Wilson

Rather than run a poll here where the ICORE specialists hang out, somebody should have thought to ask this question at the awards gathering on Sunday. My guess is that if you ask the entire group of shooters, they would overwhelmingly cheer for dumping the Far and Near altogether, with No Par Times being a very distant second.

Far and Near is terribly disheartening to the lower to average level shooters, many of whom struggle just to get their shots off on time, and have no realistic prayer of getting their hits on paper.

Or so it seems to me.

It is the International Revolver Championships. It should not be run at the lowest common denominator level

Well said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the goals of good stage design is to make it reasonably shootable for the lower level shooters, and yet still challenging for the higher level guys.

One of the goals of good match design is to ensure that no one single stage becomes disproportionately determinative of overall match performance.

I don't think either of the above statements is all that terribly debatable or controversial, at least not in general terms. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I shot my best Standard ever this year at a 35. I have shot the standard with and without Par times at local clubs. About 4 times each way for score. I am a C shooter that had a previous personal record of 51 on the standard.

I say keep par time. It required me to dry fire practice at home several times. I shot the standard for score 2 times in the month of May this year and then again for the IRC all in similar conditions. If you practice memorizing the times you can improve. I discovered the reload at the 10 and the 3 are the two most important reloads of the entire event. My wheels fell of on stage 2,3(memory stages). Stage 12 for me rocked.

I understand. B,A,M,GM's are already shooting the standard in less than the current par times. That is what it takes to win. The D&C shooters just need more practice. This is an International Championship for crying out loud, I don't see a major issue. If I fail to reload in under 3 seconds or cant hit a 30" piece of paper at 50 yards do I much deserve to stand on a podium or walk the table early? I dont think so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the goals of good stage design is to make it reasonably shootable for the lower level shooters, and yet still challenging for the higher level guys.

One of the goals of good match design is to ensure that no one single stage becomes disproportionately determinative of overall match performance.

I don't think either of the above statements is all that terribly debatable or controversial, at least not in general terms. ;)

I agree. I've talked to people that know a thing or two about getting participation up in a match and a specific comment was "if you design stages that that the B's and C's can shoot reasonably well, maybe with a little twist here and there, those matches have something for everyone. The GM's and M's will do them faster than the abc's, and the low/just made C, the D's and novices will perform more slowly but they will also walk away feeling like 'I know I can do that better' vs walking away feeling like 'I will never be able to practice enough to shoot that so screw this'"

One of those is good for participation and the sport, the other is not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those who have been to the IRC over multiple years, you have seen F&N run a few different ways, timeless, par times, 2x4 at 50.... How would you like to see F&N next year? And "not at all" will probably not be one of the options.

Thanks,

Dave Wilson

.......Far and Near is terribly disheartening to the lower to average level shooters, many of whom struggle just to get their shots off on time, and have no realistic prayer of getting their hits on paper.

Or so it seems to me.

It is not just the C and D shooters that have a issue shooting the Standards well. Anyone with math skill could pull up the data for the F&N and see where the higher C shooters ended up. Unlike IPSC /USPSA your score depends on you alone. Not what the best GM shot So your score is yours and you can compare it to others within your abilities. And you are recognized for your match performance.

One of the goals of good stage design is to make it reasonably shootable for the lower level shooters, and yet still challenging for the higher level guys.

One of the goals of good match design is to ensure that no one single stage becomes disproportionately determinative of overall match performance.

I don't think either of the above statements is all that terribly debatable or controversial, at least not in general terms. ;)

The GM's and M's will do them faster than the abc's, and the low/just made C, the D's and novices will perform more slowly but they will also walk away feeling like 'I know I can do that better' vs walking away feeling like 'I will never be able to practice enough to shoot that so screw this'"

One of those is good for participation and the sport, the other is not.

What is the difference in a GM M shooting faster than a B,C,D, Shooter and a GM, M, shooting better scores than the A,B,C,D shooter. And as far as a participant walking away thinking that "I can do no Better"? The reason you did not do as well as you belived you could is there for you to see. It is not a question of do I go for A's or shoot faster. You can see by your performance where the work is to be done. If your reloads were bad, let's face it they will be bad on any stage. If your accuracy suffers then it suffers all match. If it because you just got to overwhemed with that stage then you need to work on control. There are standards in IPSC and USPSA also and they are hard for some people. And as far as the F&N being a large portion of the match...It's the basics of all the stages similar to Bianchi type shooting, trigger control, and emotional control. Yea Sh@# happens but it happens at any stage and your score would have been better if it had not happened. A little long but to add my best score was 13 in the F&N at the IRC and my first was in the 40's so I worked on it some. later Roger Davis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In those other sports that have standards they use stage points instead of just straight time plus penalties. The standards don't blow out your results, or elevate them, as much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My only suggestion would be to make the 50 yd. stage freestyle. Standing, kneeling, prone, whatever can be done safely, with all shooters facing downrange at the start signal. Requiring those who won't or can't go prone, to start with their backs to the target just seems sadistic.

I once shot at a target about 40 yards one handed. Not fun <_<

Edited by zorro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the goals of good stage design is to make it reasonably shootable for the lower level shooters, and yet still challenging for the higher level guys.

One of the goals of good match design is to ensure that no one single stage becomes disproportionately determinative of overall match performance.

I don't think either of the above statements is all that terribly debatable or controversial, at least not in general terms. ;)

Is your premise that the F&N is "not reasonably shootable"?? I disagree even though it has always handed me my ***

I am open to ways to minimize its impact on the final result. We used to have a giant field course that helped with that at the IRC. Unfortunately, it created a second bottleneck. Higher round counts elsewhere would help

Participation at the championship, IRC level is not an issue. There always seems to be enough players there. I don't think a lot of standards at the club level would be a winner but that is not what we are talking about

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well here is my two cents!

I was one of the people against changing the Standards for a long time, but one I shot it with no par time and blacked out X's I was sold on the idea.

I think no par times makes it better for everyone, If you fumbel a reload at the 10 or 3 your match is not over.

I feel a non par time Standards is better for the newer shooters and not so intimidating!

For the shooters that want to try and beat the former par times and save time for more X's where their stronger so be it.

If they keep Par times, I will have to finally put in a request to have the Overtime penalty change from a

(Match killer)10 seconds to 5 Like the rest of the penalties in Icore.

Thanks

John

Edited by J.Bagakis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Far and Near Standards is the measure of a revolver shooter. It tests speed and accuracy like no other stage I have ever shot. The stage can be discouraging to new shooters, but it is just one stage in the International Championship! ICORE is unique in that everyone is welcome to enjoy the Championship match; it is one of that things I think is special about ICORE. We welcome shooters at any level, and we all have fun. However, it is not unreasonable and should not be discouraging to have an extremely challenging stage that tests your abilities at the Championship match.

Knowing that the Standards will be in the match every year and knowing exactly what the stage will be like ahead of time, should make it alot less discouraging. If the stage is the same every year, I can accurately measure my performance (improvement or not).

Keep it with par times!

Chris Sallee

Edited by S&W627shooter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well here is my two cents!

I was one of the people against changing the Standards for a long time, but one I shot it with no par time and blacked out X's I was sold on the idea.

I think no par times makes it better for everyone, If you fumbel a reload at the 10 or 3 your match is not over.

I feel a non par time Standards is better for the newer shooters and not so intimidating!

For the shooters that want to try and beat the former par times and save time for more X's where their stronger so be it.

If they keep Par times, I will have to finally put in a request to have the Overtime penalty change from a

(Match killer)10 seconds to 5 Like the rest of the penalties in Icore.

Thanks

John

Maybe we should petition for an ICORE rule change. Overtime shots are just a procedural (+5 sec).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well here is my two cents!

I was one of the people against changing the Standards for a long time, but one I shot it with no par time and blacked out X's I was sold on the idea.

I think no par times makes it better for everyone, If you fumbel a reload at the 10 or 3 your match is not over.

I feel a non par time Standards is better for the newer shooters and not so intimidating!

For the shooters that want to try and beat the former par times and save time for more X's where their stronger so be it.

If they keep Par times, I will have to finally put in a request to have the Overtime penalty change from a

(Match killer)10 seconds to 5 Like the rest of the penalties in Icore.

Thanks

John

John,

I couldn't agree more.

I would also add that one merely look at the result to see the effect of par times.

The year only 7 of 241 shooters scored under 20 seconds.

7.

Last year with no par times 25 people shot a 20.something or less, and few would argue that last years conditions were better than this years.

With that small sample, it is pretty easy to at least suggest that par times radically effects the performance of the group.

All that aside, If the par time is to remain, then making the OT shot 5 seconds like any other procedural, is an excellent compromise suggestion as far as I am concerned.

sean

Edited by seanc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...