IPSC vs IDPA

[EricW]

What really bugs me about the IPSC/IDPA sibling rivalry is all the false dilemmas people present about one being "better" or "purer" than the other.  Let's avoid talking about shooting altogether for a moment.  

Let's talk flying.  Modern aerobatics is the direct descendant of combat flying, but aerobatics has evolved into a sport all it's own and, with the exception of a few maneuvers, has left the "combat" world well behind.  Aerobatics started out as combat practice, then became for show.  Next people asked, "What happens if I do that?"  Airplanes started rolling, falling and tumbling - seemingly out of control.  Flying evolved.  Notice how no one has stepped forward and screamed: "Down with the Cuban Eight.  The Falling Leaf is the Devil's work!!  Burn the Infidels!!  It's not combat!!"  

Now, take one of the top aerobatics pilots, Sean Tucker or Patty Wagstaff, for instance.  Just because neither is a "combat" pilot and doesn't teach at Top Gun, does that mean they are crappy pilots?  Virtually no reasonable pilot would ever argue that, notably many military exhibition pilots who look up at Sean or Patty in awe and say, "Wow! I didn't know airplanes DID that!  

Let's talk equivalence.  Now would any airshow pilot argue that merely because they can do things a F-18 pilot can't, they will open up a can of whoopass on the Hornet jock in mortal combat.  No! It's an absurd assumption. Pilots know the difference between techniques and tactics.  However, virtually everone would agree that a virtuoso aerobatic pilot is prime material for a great fighter pilot.  Note how one discipline COMPLIMENTS the other.

We could formulate the same argument for other derivatives from fighting arts:  Archery, Fencing, Karate, etc.  But we won't.   Now, back to shooting...  

IPSC started out as combat practice, essentially.  Then it evolved.  People started to get beyond the questions of "What was?" and "What is?" and started to ask "What is possible?" and "What can be?".  Equipment evolved; techniques changed.  What didn't work was discarded and what worked was refined and built upon.  In it's evolution IPSC veered away from pure combat.  Sheer intellectual curiosity and competitiveness liberated it from its inital, narrow definition.  Does this make it blasphemy?  

So IPSC isn't combat.  So what?  I'm really beginning to believe that IPSC's major "problem" is that a lot of people didn't have the talent to compete, so they invented an excuse as to why IPSC was "defective" and went on to play in a shallower sandbox.  Laughably enough, at least one guy who has ruled IPSC (the good Dr. Leatham) is now whoopin' ass in IDPA.  Now how could that POSSIBLY be if everything he learned over the years is "defective?"  

Hmmm.....

Eric

[Chriss Grube]

Eric,

I agree, damn that in and of its self is scary! I have heard the same crap since I started shooting. "That stuff will get you killed on the street" Most of the local clubs shoot both. The same guys that kick butt in IPSC rule IDPA . The secret of switching to IDPA from IPSC is to slow down and get your hits.

[EricW]

Chriss said:  I agree, damn that in and of its self is scary!

I *think* I'll take that as a compliment....  

Eric

(Edited by EricW at 2:58 pm on Dec. 22, 2001)

[Nik Habicht]

I would think that anyone's worst nightmare in a fight would be a guy with tactical training and experience who is also a GM level shooter......

[John Thompson]

---

Quote: from Chriss Grube on 5:28 pm on Dec. 22, 2001

. The secret of switching to IDPA from IPSC is to slow down and get your hits.

---

I was supposed to slow down?

[Bill Schwab]

Eric,

Great arguement.  I too wish folks would wake up and smell the roses.  IPSC has a place, IDPA too, we should all be happy that we have more than one game to play.  I like to think of it as cross-training.

Bill

[Duane Thomas]

In his book, Brian when talking about IPSC shooting as it might relate to self-defense says something along the lines of, "If you were standing on the banks of a raging river watching a little girl being swept downstream, would you want to have the skills of an Olympic swimmer or not?" Meaning of course that in a defensive encounter involving handguns it's better to have the skills of a really fast, accurate pistol shooter than not.

When I recounted Brian's quote my friend, multiple black belt Gray Cassidy, he also made a good observation: "If you're standing on the banks of a raging river watching a little girl being swept downstream, the person who's going to be best off is the one who's been trained to rescue little girls from raging rivers." Meaning in a gunfight it's good to the have the tactical skills to win a gunfight.

However, if we take this argument to its logical conclusions, we would have to figure that if you're standing on the banks of a raging river watching a little girl being swept downstream, the person who's going to have the absolute best chance of saving her, and not dying in the process, is going to be someone who has the skills of an Olympic class swimmer AND has been trained to rescue little girls from raging rivers. Meaning in a gunfight the person who has the best chance of survival is one who has really high-level shooting skills AND good tactics. This is not as rare as you might think.

Some people have the idea that tactics and shooting skill are mutually exclusive, that you can't have one if you have the other. But they're not - you CAN have both. And if you carry a gun for self-defense you're better off if you do.

(Edited by Duane Thomas at 3:56 pm on Jan. 2, 2002)