With some claasifiers being removed?

[JakeMartens]

Funny thing is that going forward if they have to be six round neutral then all the 8 rounders are screwing themselves with minor scoring

By eliminating the classifiers that they did it leads one to believe that new classifiers replacing these would have to be 6 round neutral, if not they why were these eliminated?

[Chills1994]

Antichrome wrote:

...I truly believe that this is not only the most misguided thing USPSA has ever done, I also believe it is the most poorly executed.

I'll send you a PM.

[Chills1994]

Were there any classifiers that used to make you shoot more than 9 rounds before doing a reload?

What I am getting at is the Single Stack division thing of 8+1 for major and 10+1 for minor.

[JakeMartens]

more than 8 shots from 1 position or before a reload is not legal

[Chills1994]

more than 8 shots from 1 position or before a reload is not legal

Thanks Jake. I didn't know for sure if the 8 rounds fired fron any one position/array was just a field course thing.

We only had 3 full size poppers, so that severely limited which classifiers I picked to set up.

[JakeMartens]

more than 8 shots from 1 position or before a reload is not legal

Thanks Jake. I didn't know for sure if the 8 rounds fired fron any one position/array was just a field course thing.

We only had 3 full size poppers, so that severely limited which classifiers I picked to set up.

1.2.1 General Course of Fire lays it out for all types of of stages, including Standards and Speed Shots, which are what most classifiers are and under the rules none of the removed stages are illegal, but being removed because of an unfair advantage created by adding 8 round minor to revolver, (right we all get that)

My point is going forward have we not created a self defeating issue with classifiers? If these were removed because of the unfair advantage to 6 round guns, then don't they need to change what the rules say about types of stages? And once we start down that path it changes everything.....

So now what seemed like such a little thing to the smallest division has created a huge ripple effect.

Tough to get the genie back in the bottle now that this is a rule, and we are starting to see the effects.

And I will be the first to admit that when they said 8 round minor in revolver my thoughts were "who cares, let them do what they want, it is revolver division"

I didn't look into it, I didn't read the threads or pay much attention.

Now what was once the little division that you never thought much about is the hot bed of the equipment race and game changer for the sport......

(people who are loosing their insurance right now probably feel the same way......"hey this isn't what I thought it was going to be")

[Carmoney]

Mission accomplished, Flex. You got exactly the reaction you wanted.

[Sarge]

Certainly if we flood our AD's, DNROI and USPSA HQ with emails letting them know how we feel........Maybe we can get all of this mess fixed?

[MarkCO]

Mission accomplished, Flex. You got exactly the reaction you wanted.

Or maybe he was one of the few who actually understood what was going to happen.

[Chris iliff]

Mission accomplished, Flex. You got exactly the reaction you wanted.

Or maybe he was one of the few who actually understood what was going to happen.

That's what I think. Flex knew, tried to warn, voted correctly, and now maybe the rest will get it, maybe.

[Chills1994]

You'd think somebody would have mentioned it in the original 8 shot minor revolver thread TGO was involved in about "OHHH! NOESS! The 8 shooters are going to be insta-GM's and insta-Masters!"

[Chills1994]

29 pages:

http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=167593&hl=+major&page=1

[eric4069]

Mission accomplished, Flex. You got exactly the reaction you wanted.

I see what you mean.

As far as I'm concerned, the 8-shot minor revolver rule itself is not a problem.

It is what the BOD is doing to our classifiers that seems to be getting people upset. I think with some imagination there could be other ways of dealing with the classifiers.

For instance, they could have Jerry shoot the listed classifiers with an 8-shot minor revolver to establish new HHF for them, or some of the other ideas people have suggested.

Eric

[The Antichrome]

It is what the BOD is doing to our classifiers that seems to be getting people upset.

I wonder how many people have contacted the BOD, their Area Director, Section Coordinator, Mr President, etc. to voice their concern. When I contacted my AD, I was the first and only one.

Edited February 9, 2014 by The Antichrome

[Sarge]

It took me awhile but I had to voice my opinion:

Sanders sandfam7300@gmail.com

Feb 7 (2 days ago)

to Area5, John, Kim, president

To all concerned,

I am writing this letter to voice my displeasure as a paying member of USPSA in the recent string of decisions made by the organization's leadership. In my opinion these arbitrary decisions were misguided and poorly conceived and executed.

It would be very easy for me to say I am not a revolver shooter, so I don't care what decisions are made pertaining to that division as long as those decisions only affect those within the division. But unfortunately, as becomes more evident every day, that is not the case. When the revolver rules were changed to allow 8 shot minor it set into motion a ripple effect that ultimately resulted in the "retirement" of a significant number of classifiers. Many of those classifiers were tried and true tests that have endured for years. But more importantly many were of the brand new 13 series which promised to inject much needed enhancements into the classification system. Locally we were looking forward to working our way through the new classifiers this coming year.

I feel the best interest of the membership at large has been cast aside in the interest of appeasing the relatively minor number of revolver shooters in USPSA. I use the word minor to describe what is typically one shooter at any given match in my local area. Occasionally a few will sign up to shoot a match but those instances are rare. The matches I frequent on a monthly basis typically consist of 50 or more shooters so you can see that one or two revolver shooters is indeed a very small percentage.

To make matters even worse, not all revolver shooters were even in favor of making the change to the rules in their division. In essence this makes the number of revolver shooters who wanted the rules change statistically insignificant.

I would like to strongly urge all USPSA leadership to aggressively work on a solution to the problems these decisions created in the classification system. The goal of such a solution should be to reinstate the retired classifiers immediately. This could easily be done with only minimal alterations to the WSB's that would create inequity among the revolvers of different types. Simply requiring reloads for revolver shooters is one easy fix. Or since those who made the rule change thought it would put the two types of revolvers on equal ground with minor and MAJOR scoring, let revolvers shoot head to head. Of course, that was not well thought out and would result in significant advantages to the 8 shot revolvers but it would be much more fair to the overwhelming majority of the members of USPSA.

Regards,

Kevin Sanders

TY64885

[56hawk]

Or since those who made the rule change thought it would put the two types of revolvers on equal ground with minor and MAJOR scoring, let revolvers shoot head to head. Of course, that was not well thought out and would result in significant advantages to the 8 shot revolvers but it would be much more fair to the overwhelming majority of the members of USPSA

That's why I was against the rule change from the start. I think they should have just made revolver class 8 shot and let the 6 shooters die off. Then as far as the classifiers go just readjust the high hit factors for revolver. I hate the idea of now trying to make everything 6 shot neutral. Of course I'm also not too fond of the 8 shot neutral rule.

[The Antichrome]

My suggestion was to make a Revo an unclassified Division. Theres only 2 classes anyway; Jerry, and not-Jerry.

But it sure seems like they could shelve the input of Classifier scores for Revo only until there is some 'buildup' of HHF's.

[alecmc]

Sure are alot of selfish recommendations , from people who do not even shoot the division.

[The Antichrome]

Sure are alot of selfish recommendations , from people who do not even shoot the division.

I disagree. A quirk in this Division has created an issue that is affecting everyone else.

Its the smallest Division. Less than 1% in my estimation.

Thats not selfish.

[alecmc]

Sure are alot of selfish recommendations , from people who do not even shoot the division.

I disagree. A quirk in this Division has created an issue that is affecting everyone else.

Its the smallest Division. Less than 1% in my estimation.

Thats not selfish.

A still insist that USPSA as a whole losing a handful of classifiers to try to better the revolver division is hardly " affecting everybody else " . You can shoot your division just the same as before, in the grand scheme of things, you not being able to shoot "whatever" classifier that was retired, is really not a big deal.

[JakeMartens]

Mission accomplished, Flex. You got exactly the reaction you wanted.

Yep and very absent from any conversations about it

The Committee on this could not come to an agreement, but this was pushed ahead

[The Antichrome]

Sure are alot of selfish recommendations , from people who do not even shoot the division.

I disagree. A quirk in this Division has created an issue that is affecting everyone else.

Its the smallest Division. Less than 1% in my estimation.

Thats not selfish.

A still insist that USPSA as a whole losing a handful of classifiers to try to better the revolver division is hardly " affecting everybody else " . You can shoot your division just the same as before, in the grand scheme of things, you not being able to shoot "whatever" classifier that was retired, is really not a big deal.

Most USPSA shooters consider retired Classifiers a big deal. 'Pulled' Classifiers, especially brand-new ones, should be considered a very big deal. New Classifiers come along so seldom, that a whole bunch of retired and pulled Classifiers is a very very big deal.

The bigger issue is that everybody knew that adding 8-shot Revo would affect the HHF's. Then they added some Classifiers that would be drastic examples of this. Then as a stop-gap, knee-jerk reaction, they pulled out a ton of Classifiers including a bunch of the new ones.

So, yeah, I think it affects everybody.

[JakeMartens]

Sure are alot of selfish recommendations , from people who do not even shoot the division.

I disagree. A quirk in this Division has created an issue that is affecting everyone else.

Its the smallest Division. Less than 1% in my estimation.

Thats not selfish.

A still insist that USPSA as a whole losing a handful of classifiers to try to better the revolver division is hardly " affecting everybody else " . You can shoot your division just the same as before, in the grand scheme of things, you not being able to shoot "whatever" classifier that was retired, is really not a big deal.

That they were retired isn't a big deal, why they were retired is

The stages are not illegal based on the rules, but they were retired because of the advantage created by 8 round minor

So going forward stages (speed shoots and standards stages which are what 99% of classifiers fall under) will need to be 6 round neutral, otherwise they too will have the same issues as the 19 retired.

Which means that at some point the BoD is going to have to address 1.2 Types of courses and either add classifiers have to be 6 round neutral or change what speed shoots and standard stages are so everything is consistent and now you are changing a hell of a lot more than just letting 8 round minor in revolver.

The reality of it is that it is a big freaking mess, and no easy way to clean it up.

If you just put those back in and continue forward with 8 round minor then the fear of people going and running up GM scores because of the advantage of not having to reload based on what the HHF are now is real

You also can't just tell revolver division that none of your classifiers count for the next year until we reset the HHF, how fair is that to someone

So the decision was very short sighted and the effect is very board and has the ability to change the face of the sport based on how they handle types of courses of fire going forward.

Edited February 10, 2014 by JakeMartens

[Chris Keen]

First off not all revolver shooters were in favor of this change.

Second this was open for discussion for quite awhile on the USPSA forum and had been discussed since June of last year on this very forum. This is not NEW. Nobody cared because they didn't shoot or care about revolver division. The rest of us were trying to get answers about how this rule was researched and going to be implemented but to no success. This could have been avoided like the production trigger pull rule that was purposed last year but alas no one worried about revolver division.

I was told that this rule would be permanent and could not be brought up for a change back to what it was for 2 years. That is why some of us were against this rule. They had no idea what they were going to have to do or change to get this rule going.

This is sounding more & more like real world politics with every comment!

"We have to pass this bill first, to find out what's in it"

"If you like your classifiers, you can keep your classifiers!"

[toothguy]

I think the leadership see's beyond survival of the fittest and majority rules. The bumps will get ironed out and help the revolver division grow. USPSA shooters as a hole will benefit because revolver shooters are much nicer people that shoot more accurately.