When Open shooters design stages...

[blackdragon]

As a former Match Director in Colorado ( and I might add burn out ) It is my opinon that if you get 3 or 4 guys setting up the matches ( most of the time they are the top shooters) They want to practice and challenge themselves, leaving tough stages for the new shooters. So I agree with the long held statement " If you don't like my stages help me design and set up yours!" Not every stage should be designed for M & GM shooters, But they are usually the ones involved with design and set up.

Thus endith the rant.

Ivan Walcott

Las Vegas

[Nolan]

but they build some unrealistic and frankly overly difficult stages. One of the designers in particular has been asked to ratchet it down a notch or four. His logic is to make it competitive for the better shooters. What he's not realizing is that it is killing the new shooters, which are the future of the sport.

What? No more 6 inch square plates partially behind soft cover at 20 yards weak hand only through the 6 inch swivelling tube 12 inches off the ground?

Wow, where's the challenge without stages like that?

Nolan

By the way the above description is from an actual stage.

[Dead Buff]

I'm so glad I do NOT shoot with you guys....

[sargenv]

I figure I should chime in here as well. I've designed a few stages here and there. A few times they even let me be MD. One match in particular, the comments were like "You're supposed to design a match for LIMITED Shooters, not OPEN shooters.." Let me give a background.. It was for the Limited match for the month. Basically, I had heard how bad some of our shooters did at the Nationals a few months before and wanted to sharpen their skills and hopefully make things like they had there. What I didn't realize was the new shooters were going to get hosed. Imagine 5 plates at 35 yards.. I'm a middle B class shooter and I had to leave one standing due to it taking too much time and a whole mag It got easier as it went, but not by much, there was a lot of hard cover and no-shoots. I definitely challenged myself, but a lot of people were asking me "What were you thinking?". Oh well, chalk one up for experience.

I've since found out that the general layout should be a long field course, a hoser, a classifier and 2 medium difficulty courses. Generally making the long field course followed by something not quite as hard. In general, we want to keep the better shooters entertained as well as keep the newbies that occasionally show up. It's all about a balance. The long field course could have a difficult course substituted. Ok, I'm learning.

Vince

[shred]

Repeat after me: "The good shooters will always be challenged on points and efficency..." There's no need for newbie-running-off-difficulty shots.

Want to see if they're accurate? Put wide open paper targets at 25-35 yards somewhere. The beginners can probably get one on paper and will move on. The wanna-be-speedy's will yank shots. The good shots will take the time to get ok hits. The very best will park 2 quick A's in there.

Targets at 7-10 yards? Slap on some hardcover & no-shoots. Make the good shooters decide if they want to play it safe for center-brown or try and get the A's.

[Nolan]

Maybe I should start a new thread entitled

"when Limited shooters design stages" but I'm too lazy.

Same club as in my previous post had a stage for the Open match designed by a Limited shooter. The stage had a Cooper tunnel with a very small port maybe 6 inches high by 8 inches wide for engaging a number of targets. The port was cut into the middle of a solid sheet of plywood and located about 18 inches off the ground.

Nolan

[uscbigdawg]

Repeat after me: "The good shooters will always be challenged on points and efficency..." There's no need for newbie-running-off-difficulty shots.

Want to see if they're accurate? Put wide open paper targets at 25-35 yards somewhere. The beginners can probably get one on paper and will move on. The wanna-be-speedy's will yank shots. The good shots will take the time to get ok hits. The very best will park 2 quick A's in there.

Targets at 7-10 yards? Slap on some hardcover & no-shoots. Make the good shooters decide if they want to play it safe for center-brown or try and get the A's.

Amen to that!

Rich

[geezer-lock]

The guys with the light sabers are going to hit them way out there, way fast. The rest of us humps with iron sights CAN hit them way out there, way slow. The new guys will dump rounds downrange until they quit or learn to shoot. Can’t be helped, that’s why we have divisions and classifications.

Be safe, have fun...shoot to win

geezer

[uscbigdawg]

Can’t be helped, that’s why we have divisions and classifications.

In a B&W world, I'd agree however, it really intimidates the hell out of a lot of newbies that aren't fully motivated to shoot IPSC. If you push someone away too early, you've lost them for good.

Top shooters are working on points and efficiency. "Lower" class shooters should be working on the fundamentals and basics. 50 yard US poppers with no-shoots behind, ain't helping a C & D shooter learn (other than what not to do on stage design). Target engagement, order of engagement, footwork and positioning, are good skills that need to be learned at the club level.

Hardcover, targets that can be shot on the move, stage layouts where reloads aren't punishing to Limited (and Open) are all great tips for stage design.

Just a thought.

Rich

[geezer-lock]

Rich,

First let me be clear here, I’m with you in-so-far as trying to keep new folks coming out and enjoying the sport. I just don’t think that the difficulty of the COF is a make or break part of that effort.

You said: “Target engagement, order of engagement, footwork and positioning, are good skills that need to be learned at the club level.”

Here again I agree with you, but that is a teaching, mentoring, instructing or training effort that has to go on back behind the firing line. It involves everyone in your club or squad, not just the course designer.

I expect that there are plenty of folks that tried this once and didn’t come back. I’m willing to bet a greenback American dollar it wasn’t because the shots were tough.

Be safe, have fun...shoot to win

David Cross

[Harmon]

6 months later i revist the thread, and have went and shot at the particular club only one more time.

That time We brought plate racks and stuff to set up a stage of our own..

I think that stage everyone had the most fun on..

shooting Glock model 22 in limited, i finished third overall.

I was beat by A4 director Ken Hicks and an Open Division shooter named Joe Marsh...or Smoking Joe Marsh..

I shot many of the same types of stages with a stock Glock 40 caliber, winchester 180 grain factory ammo out of my production rig and still finished 93% of what the limited master shot

I know the match had some stages that werent legal for uspsa, and thats OK with me its just a club match..

as for setting up stages at a match, i help host a steel match once a month at my home town, Im about to be a club president at another local range, and im looking into getting a club started at my home town range.

I dont think fun is shooting bullesye matches from the holster...25 yard shots on IPSC classic targets from a shooting box with NO shoots positioned around the targets in such a manner that you are nearly off balanced by the time you see the target from within the box..thats not what i call fun, but its hard.

[Azone41]

Ok here goes:

I don't post here very much mostly I just read and enjoy the forum. When people complain about how other people set up stages it really gripes my rear. I used to run two clubs because I loved to shoot and for 3 years I set up matches for other people to come out and shoot. I worked my butt off and basicly got no help at that time I was a C class shooter (8 years ago), I got burned out on the game and quit because it got to be to much work trying to keep two clubs going. If someone dosent like the stages then pony up and set something up. Club presidents and match directors need help and once you start getting involved you will see that most of the work is done by one to four people and they would welcome any help the you would be willing to offer. I was really into this sport back then. I have designed stages for area 4 and worked as an RO as well and I was on track to be the next sc just before I quit. Now I am back after a big break and again I am a C class Shooter and only 3 or 4 people still do all the work. My USPSA number is A10520 so its been around for a while. At the sectional we had last year we ( 3 of us) spent over 400 hrs working on brand new swingers and movers for the match as well as setting up the match and we got complaints that there were to many movers,this was a Limited only sectional. This year we are doing the Open/Limited sectional and there will be very few movers/swingers just a standup run and gun match. Oh if anybody needs some really cool swingers LMK and maybe we can work something out (we have 23). So if you don't like the way stages are being set then set some up yourself. This was not ment to make anybody mad but I think some people just don't understand how much work it takes to set up even a local club match

[Ron Ankeny]

I hate to sound like a broken record, but good course design is difficult to accomplish and it's a thank less job. A good course of fire tests multiple skill sets, is challenging to the good shooters but not frustrating for the new shooters, and it has variety. Unfortunately, it seems like the masses want to minimize the difference in scores by making everything a wide open hose fest with full targets at spitting distance with little clumps here, a clump over there, and so on. The better shooters will still win and hoser stuff will never motivate the not so good shooters to improve.

After carrying a hell of a load for going on five years I have decided to just do my best knowing the sport will benefit from my efforts. I used to bitch right along with the masses, but I have learned to either pitch in and work for improvement, or just shut up and go with the flow. Believe me, it will make life better for all of those involved.

PS

There was a time when I thought a good course of fire was one that I was successful at shooting. Doing well is always more enjoyable thank sucking canal water. Now I find the most enjoyable courses are often times the ones that make be struggle.

[MoNsTeR]

Do people really like hoser stages? I can't think of anything more boring... except maybe standards

[sargenv]

I think a hoser stage has it's place. Maybe after a technical stage that has brought everyone down, it serves to be a kick in the pants kind of thrill ride. Having 4-6 hoser stages would get boring, having 4-6 difficult technical stages, long or short would get tedious. I still say it's all about balance.

Vince

[j1b]

Stage design is an age old quandry -

I too have set up many a match. And, quite frankly, I always made my stages pretty difficult. Perhaps too difficult at times. I was young(er) back then, and was more centrally focused (in other words selfish). My goal in setting up the match was to provide extremely challenging stages because I'd go to major matches and find those stages sometimes very difficult. I wanted to drive difficulty at the club level to better prepare for tough stages on a bigger scale.

I was fortunate in that I had a bunch of shooters that also traveled to bigger matches - so I was able to "justify" for myself.

The reality is I wasn't "new shooter" friendly. Had I swung that way I would not have been as challenging as what some of the better shooters needed.

I can't say where the happy medium is.

I guess, deep in the recesses of my under-utilized brain I feel like every stage, and every shot I've ever set up was something that everybody could do. Granted it would take some longer than others, but all shots were makeable. In that sense the challenge wasn't really the stage, but the discipline of the shooter which coincidentally is generally the difference between the better shooters and the average shooters anyway.

Generally the matches I set up almost always cost me. I almost always fell into my own traps. I almost always lost. I was almost always a better shooter having shot them than not. For me - I always liked the matches that actually tested me and my limits both mentally and physically.

JB

[Al Capizzo]

Im about to be a club president at another local range, and im looking into getting a club started at my home town range.

Well Well, tell me more!

[EricW]

There definitely should be a balance. But at the same time, I think there's some people in the sport whose fragile egos can't handle the occasional reality check. Yeah, tanking the odd stage that really tests your abilities isn't fun, but how else do you expect to know your weaknesses?

By the same token, I know I quit shooting sporting clays when the courses got set so hard that even an intermediate shooter couldn't succeed. There's a fine line between offering a shooting test and putting up a "Beginners Unwelcome" sign.

[Guest Larry Cazes]

There definitely should be a balance. But at the same time, I think there's some people in the sport whose fragile egos can't handle the occasional reality check.

I've gotta agree with Eric on this one. I'm probably gonna draw some fire on this but I got into this sport because the "tactical" matches that we were shooting at a local club got repetitive and too easy. Unless there is a significant challenge on at least a few stages of a match, I don't see the point. I think you have to design stages that will challenge all but the very best of your audience. I like stages with a lot of opportunity for movement with the chance to balance risk vs reward on at least a few medium to long targets. Hoser type stages with mostly stand and shoot or sub 5 yard shots are just not fun to me.

[shred]

Repeat after me: "The good shooters will always be challenged on points and speed..."  There is no need to create top-shooter-specific challenges

Hard shots, easy shots, the top guys still have to make them faster and better than everybody else if they want to win.

However, most of the shooters (especially the newer shooters) aren't there to win the match. They're there to shoot the stages and have a good time. Lots of Misses and No-shoots is not a good time, regardless of what everybody else is hitting.

This is the key. IPSC matches don't have shots so physically difficult that only a GM can possibly make them (or M or A or B shooters for that matter).

Good stages balance the needs of both groups-- targets everybody could hit, but difficult enough when combined into the stage requirements that everybody will have fun trying to hit them.

I also note that one person's "fun" is another person's "boring", and maybe even another person's "frustrating". Thus we need a mix of everything. Not "lowest common denominator" or "highest denominator", but somewhere in-between

[j1b]

In most sports, defense is as much a factor as offense.

A running back can be speedy as all get out, and that helps. But good D makes the game interesting right?

In IPSC - the stage is the defense. Granted sometimes the defense is weak (wide open targets at 3 yards) which allows the runner to . . . run. Its when the defense is top notch (zebra stripes at 25 yards) that the rubber hits the road.

I've thought about this some the night through. Hard (but possible) stages are good - regardless of the skill level. Shooters learn more on hard stages, and the skill of the sport improves.

JB

[Mistral404]

I try and design a stage every other match or so. I try to make it fun for everyone-D to Master. Some close arrays for speed, some farther away with no shoots, lots of movement, L10 friendly and around 32 rounds.

Some start in a box and move to other boxes, sometimes they start in a box then get to move all around. My idea is to add all the elements in one fun stage. It seems to work for everyone. We always have someone putting up an a@#^$^@ss kicker of a stage and a classifier. My stage is usually the first one, so it helps everyone warm up but still adds a bit of a challenge.

I hate stages that totally wipe out the D and C limited shooters. Mostly because the get discouraged and do not come back very often. No sense in making them pay money for the match then make them seem foolish or discouraged.

[MoNsTeR]

I've thought about this some the night through. Hard (but possible) stages are good - regardless of the skill level. Shooters learn more on hard stages, and the skill of the sport improves.

This gives me a thought...

Thinking of the shooters I see regularly (and irregularly) at club matches, they can be divided pretty easily into two groups.

One group is enthusiastic, motivated, and driven to improve. Maybe they read this site, have Brian's book or Matt's DVDs, dry-fire every day, and practice whenever they can. Maybe they don't. But whether they work hard or not, whether they know how to improve systematically or not, they want to get better, and are willing to look upon challenges and failures with the right attitude.

The other group is casual, laid-back, just there to have a fun day shooting. They don't go to major matches, they read Front Sight for the pictures, they wish they could shoot better but they don't pursue improvement. They groan about hard stages and hard shots, and rationalize failures with "my gear sucks" or "I can't practice enough."

(If you want to see the difference, set up 99-09 or 99-63 sometime and watch the reactions!)

Which kind of shooter you are is your choice, and I respect both paths. I might bust a few clays a couple of times a summer, but I don't invest any real effort into shotgunning. I take a couple of trips up to Winter Park every winter, but I don't work at improving my skiing. I do dry-fire a lot, and practice when I can, and go to matches, and read this site. But any of those choices could be flipped around. Time and effort are scarce resources, and we ultimately have to choose our specialties.

In my experience, I think the split among the types is about half and half. So for every guy who looks at a 25yd partial or plate as a personal challenge and a learning experience, there's another guy who just thinks it's a big bummer. So what's the point here? Both of these guys paid their money! They're both customers of the club, both members of the organization, both fellow shooters. If we want to provide a quality match experience, maximize the amount of fun had by all, and allow as many folks as possible to enjoy our sport, the needs of both groups have to be balanced.

What some of us perceive as a challenge and an opportunity for improvement, others might perceive as a chore or worse, an embarassment. It's not so much about skill level, but about attitude. I think it's worth reminding ourselves of this when crafting stages.

[RKooi]

Noah, that is an excellent summation; one that should be read by all stage designers and MD's. I know I will keep it in mind when setting up our monthly match in 2 weeks. Thanks.

[Ron Ankeny]

Yeppers, Noah pretty much nailed it. I think the "fun" shooters are the guys who want the 32 round courses with a clump here and a clump there. The guys looking to improve want more.

You don't need a plate at 25 yards to make a GM shooter appreciate the course of fire. Here's an example. Let's say you have a little array of stuff at Box A where the field course begins. When you set the array up, make a person decide which target to draw to and which target to leave on. Set a target low and make them decide which way to move the gun. When I use a drop turner, I'll give the good shooters something to shoot at so they don't wait for the target, but I'll entice them to get greedy. The slower shooters and middle speed shooters can shoot the activator and one target, or they can shoot the activator and wait.

When setting up a stage, look at what you have created through the eyes of a D class shooter. Don't make the course punitive to the less experienced shooters but it's ok if they miss and need to make up a shot. On the flip side, look at the stage through the eyes of an M class shooter and make sure there is some decision making going on.