IDPA and the foolishness

[BillR1]

Chuck, now you have me curious. IF...(have to start the question with if) GOF gets an answer regarding membership numbers from IDPA HQ, will you accept those numbers or be dismissive of them? And if you are dismissive of the numbers (assuming GOF is able to provide any) then who do we believe and why?

Chuck will dismiss any and all information and sources that don't support his "theories"...that much IS clear.

[robport]

I just left a match about 2 hours ago. We had about 20 new shooters. I don't think anyone was expecting them. Good thing the NC cup is going on a few hours down the road.

The regulars weren't here. Otherwise, I don't think they could have fit them in. I don't know what they are going to do next time.

I'm not quite ready to count out IDPA yet, at least on the local level.

I talked to a USPSA shooter there. They aren't having any matches any time soon...lost their location, so it's not related to the discussion, but I'll try that too when they find a place.

They seemed to have fun, like I did...but those poor hostages....

and for those of you that think this isn't real training, I'll show you if I'm somewhere bad things are happening, I'm going to yank back my fishing vest, put on my safety glasses with the bifoculs in the middle of the right lens, pull my full sized pistol and miss anything that looks like cardboard. As long as you paint hands on them, the bad guys don't have a chance!

As far as IDPA headquarters goes, you need to leave an email; "Thank you so much for your email to Clarifications@IDPA.com. We value your input. The Rules Clarification team will consider your question/clarification the next time we meet.", hey, they are polite! I'm sure these people have day jobs too, like I do.

[Chuck D]

If...the little word with a BIG meaning.

If IDPA will release stats on MEMBERSHIP RETENTION and include the numbers for long term serving SO's and SOI's and IF it comes on Official letterhead then for me that will solve the mystery (and I'll give them the benefit of the doubt regarding honesty and accuracy).

Remember....it's MEMBERSHIP RETENTION I'm interested in...not we lost 100 members but we signed up 100 new ones but the stats regarding how many members with 3 or more years membership left after the release of the new rule book.

Go for it....but don't hold your breath for an "official" answer.

Edited June 21, 2014 by Chuck D

[BillR1]

I'm simply interested in membership numbers as compared to before the rule book. You can spin the "retention" stuff any way you like, but higher membership numbers prove that:

1. The 25K number put out by HQ is probably correct.

2. The new rulebook has NOT been a repellent to new members as some have falsely claimed.

3. The "mass exodus" away from IDPA has been, as usual, greatly exaggerated.

[Chuck D]

...the "master of spin" here BillR1 certainly isn't me.

My point isn't "membership numbers as a whole" of which only a percentage can be deemed "active" members, the crux of my argument is how many members are LOST due to factors such as the new rule book.

This conversation has become tedious and tiresome.

Keep the Kool Aid cold Sir.

Edited June 21, 2014 by Chuck D

[BillR1]

...the "master of spin" here BillR1 certainly isn't me.

My point isn't "membership numbers as a whole" of which only a percentage can be deemed "active" members, the crux of my argument is how many members are LOST due to factors such as the new rule book.

This conversation has become tedious and tiresome.

Keep the Kool Aid cold Sir.

Sorry Chuck, but if/ when members leave and others take their place, that's NOT a net loss in membership. Overall membership numbers tell the real story that IDPA is still attractive to it's members and sponsors. If overall numbers were declining, then an argument could be made that the organization is not meeting the needs of it's members. Member numbers and match participation ARE increasing, much to the chargrin of those who've chosen to shoot elsewhere.

I'm a little surprised that since you made an "announcement" about leaving IDPA back in January, that you're still debating the alleged problems with IDPA in this forum. Sure sounds Iike you don't really want to leave. I don't blame you...

Edited June 21, 2014 by BillR1

[Chuck D]

...the "master of spin" here BillR1 certainly isn't me.

My point isn't "membership numbers as a whole" of which only a percentage can be deemed "active" members, the crux of my argument is how many members are LOST due to factors such as the new rule book.

This conversation has become tedious and tiresome.

Keep the Kool Aid cold Sir.

Sorry Chuck, but if/ when members leave and others take their place, that's NOT a net loss in membership. Overall membership numbers tell the real story that IDPA is still attractive to it's members and sponsors. If overall numbers were declining, then an argument could be made that the organization is not meeting the needs of it's members. Member numbers and match participation ARE increasing, much to the chargrin of those who've chosen to shoot elsewhere.

I'm a little surprised that since you made an "announcement" about leaving IDPA back in January, that you're still debating the alleged problems with IDPA in this forum. Sure sounds Iike you don't really want to leave. I don't blame you...

Boy...you REALLY don't get it do you.

...and I thought it was all an act.

I hope their PR department is compensating you well...you are doing an EXCELLENT job .

I'd love to talk more BillR1 but Tac TV is on and oh how I LOVE to watch Larry Vickers "scowl" that "tactical scowl" of his.

It's all about flat footed reloads, the Weaver stance, and cookie recipes in the "new and improved" defensive pistol game and yes..I do miss the old IDPA....the one prior to the new and nonsensical rulebook but there is no place in IDPA for "gamers" and alas...that's what we who question the status quo have been defined as.

My best wishes Sir...and don't forget to call HQ and get those numbers that will prove one of us correct.

Edited June 21, 2014 by Chuck D

[BillR1]

...the "master of spin" here BillR1 certainly isn't me.

My point isn't "membership numbers as a whole" of which only a percentage can be deemed "active" members, the crux of my argument is how many members are LOST due to factors such as the new rule book.

This conversation has become tedious and tiresome.

Keep the Kool Aid cold Sir.

Sorry Chuck, but if/ when members leave and others take their place, that's NOT a net loss in membership. Overall membership numbers tell the real story that IDPA is still attractive to it's members and sponsors. If overall numbers were declining, then an argument could be made that the organization is not meeting the needs of it's members. Member numbers and match participation ARE increasing, much to the chargrin of those who've chosen to shoot elsewhere.

I'm a little surprised that since you made an "announcement" about leaving IDPA back in January, that you're still debating the alleged problems with IDPA in this forum. Sure sounds Iike you don't really want to leave. I don't blame you...

My best wishes Sir...and don't forget to call HQ and get those numbers that will prove one of us correct.

:

HQ has already released the numbers that I'm interested in, but you've dismissed those as somehow "untrustworthy". Come to think of it, you've dismissed nearly all of the sources, references, and experiences that don't fit your vendetta. Sanctioned matches filling briskly means nothing to you. The research and opinions of a top writer (and 5-gun IDPA Master!) gets quickly dismissed as well. Jealous maybe? But I digress...

People leave a sport and others take their place...it's the same with nearly any activity. That's why overall membership numbers are the statistic that most people look at. If overall membership or participation was declining, then HQ would have a reason to be concerned and make some corrections. Since this is clearly not the case, HQ must assume (like most shooters) that the new rulebook is really a non-issue and people DO continue to support the organization.

[GOF]

I saw an interesting chart assembled from IDPA HQ data, and put together by a shooter I personally know. It is a break down of the Classified shooters in IDPA from DM to Novice. It states that it lists the TOTAL number of classifications listed in HQ data. The total number of classifications was about 17,000.

What the data doesn't reveal is how many of those classifications are held by the same shooter. Many IDPA veterans are classified in more than one division. I'm classified in 4. I know many shooters who have been in the sport for more than 3 years who are classified in more than one division. So, if 17,000 is the TOTAL number of classifications recorded (as the shooter states) then it is very possible (even likely) that the actual number of Classified IDPA shooters could range from 8,000 -to maybe 12,000? The higher figure would indicate that an average of only 25% of IDPA members are classified in only two divisions. My experiences since 2007 indicate that figure is low.

But, lets take that 12,000 figure. That would mean that of the 25,000 (I've also heard 28,000) members IDPA claims that less than half are classified. Since a member is REQUIRED to shoot at least one classifier each calendar year.... and the new Rule Book allows SSP classifications to be entered into ESP as a valid classification (that's two classifications for that shooter right there!) these figures on TOTAL classifications -- provided by HQ -- do cast a "reasonable doubt" on their overall membership numbers.

I report... you decide

[BillR1]

I saw an interesting chart assembled from IDPA HQ data, and put together by a shooter I personally know. It is a break down of the Classified shooters in IDPA from DM to Novice. It states that it lists the TOTAL number of classifications listed in HQ data. The total number of classifications was about 17,000.

What the data doesn't reveal is how many of those classifications are held by the same shooter. Many IDPA veterans are classified in more than one division. I'm classified in 4. I know many shooters who have been in the sport for more than 3 years who are classified in more than one division. So, if 17,000 is the TOTAL number of classifications recorded (as the shooter states) then it is very possible (even likely) that the actual number of Classified IDPA shooters could range from 8,000 -to maybe 12,000? The higher figure would indicate that an average of only 25% of IDPA members are classified in only two divisions. My experiences since 2007 indicate that figure is low.

But, lets take that 12,000 figure. That would mean that of the 25,000 (I've also heard 28,000) members IDPA claims that less than half are classified. Since a member is REQUIRED to shoot at least one classifier each calendar year.... and the new Rule Book allows SSP classifications to be entered into ESP as a valid classification (that's two classifications for that shooter right there!) these figures on TOTAL classifications -- provided by HQ -- do cast a "reasonable doubt" on their overall membership numbers.

I report... you decide

Interesting...I'd like to see that chart and the information it came from.

Another thing to realize is that IDPA is a world-wide organization with members from over 50 countries. I'm pretty sure those members are included in the total.

[GOF]

BillR1: the chart is on the IDPA Forum - Match Chat-- "Percentage of shooters with multiple matches". Scroll down the 1st page and you find it. I know the shooter who posted it. He doesn't "make stuff up". The info came from IDPA HQ. I suspect they had no idea when they released it that it could quite conceivably cast serious doubt on their current PR efforts.

[BillR1]

BillR1: the chart is on the IDPA Forum - Match Chat-- "Percentage of shooters with multiple matches". Scroll down the 1st page and you find it. I know the shooter who posted it. He doesn't "make stuff up". The info came from IDPA HQ. I suspect they had no idea when they released it that it could quite conceivably cast serious doubt on their current PR efforts.

I'm not dismissing the source at all, nor do I insist that it needs to be on official letterhead to be valued.

I too am classified in several different categories. (all 5 now) However, my SSP classification has not been "renewed" in a couple of years, either by a classifier or by match participation in that category. I'm not sure how/if that affects the numbers. Also, in just our local club we have at least 4 shooters that are IDPA members and have yet to shoot a classifier. Just throwing that out there...

[GOF]

BillR1; if you make the 'assumption' that IDPA shooters who have been in the game for more than a few years are classified in more than one division.... and then 'assume' that would average out to only 2 divisions per shooter... these IDPA HQ-provided stats would show about 8,500 classified members.

Yes... that is a lot of 'assuming'.. . but that's a pretty valid assumption. Those of us (like you & me) who have 3, 4, 5 division classifications would certainly account for those that only have one. One could logically 'assume' 8,500 classified IDPA shooters. But, I won't. I'll err on the side of caution and go with 11,000-12,000 classified shooters.

That's still a heckuva long way from the 25,000 members IDPA is currently boasting about. And, remember... these classification stats are from April 2014. The new Rule Book went into effect in 10/2013. Since then I have run several classifiers and -- using the new rules -- allowed shooters who desired to use their SSP scores for ESP. Most do.

Chuck D's point was about membership retention. Most veteran members hold multiple division classifications. If the number of classifications has dwindled to 17,000..... while IDPA is claiming 25,000 members... one would have to figure that (if IDPA's membership figures are accurate) that since the beginning of calendar year 2013 they signed up over 14,000 new members who within that Jan 1 2013 to 30 April 2014 have not shot a classifier? What about the previous veteran members who would have shot during that 16 month period? Where are they when the MOST GENEROUS figure one could accept is 11,000-12,000 classified shooters (and likely noticeably less shooters than those numbers).

One could easily see/agree with Chuck D's point on veterans leaving. IMHO, it would also require "willful disbelief' to accept IDPA's current membership figures. Every affiliated club is REQUIRED to hold a minimum of one Classifier per year. I know, I run them. I see no way that ALL 14,000-15,000 claimed NEW Members have not shot a classifer to be listed in the April/2014 figures that Rick Lund obtained from IDPA.

I report - you decide.

[BillR1]

Something else to think about...as the article by Caleb alluded to, the majority of IDPA competitors are in the SS or MM classifications. That doesn't sound like people who are really hard-core about competing. The only real reason to shoot a classifier is to be able to compete in a sanctioned match. If you have no desire to do that, then a classifier is somewhat a waste of time. For example, in our local club there are exactly 2 of us that compete in IDPA sanctioned matches. The rest of them usually shoot once a month at match time, and probably couldn't care less about the scores. They simply shoot for the practice with their carry guns. Folks like that have little reason to shoot the classifier. I suspect that our local club is not all that unusual in this regard.

Edited June 21, 2014 by BillR1

[Glock3422]

Damn logic and facts.

Possible explanations-

RangeLog made a mistake. I know, hard to believe.

The reported number of members actually includes everyone who was ever a member. Not likely since they issued numbers greater than 25,000 before they started using random numbers to hide the actual count.

Someone in Berryville messed up the math.

[GOF]

BillR!, I am not certain that your club is 'common'. One FL club I shoot at has a half-dozen members that will shoot any sanctioned match in FL and even puts on a stage at FL State... and a couple of other shooters even go out of state. Another club, not that far away, draws a half dozen shooters that GO TO THE NATIONALS, and shoot any sanctioned match within about 500 miles. When I was sanctioned match active I travelled with them (2011 World, 3 Nationals, five or six FL State, Blackwater, GA State, etc.) Lotsa fun meeting up at airports (Philadelphia, Little Rock, etc.) with guns and then grabbing a rental vehicle while we tried to discreetly load our licensed CCW guns, or two day trips in a custom rental van. My credit cards got a real work out at hotels and airports!

Those are the IDPA veterans that Chuck D was talking about. Some of my group still does that; but not all.

Glock3422... I would not disagree with any of what you said, and could add a few more -- but won't.

[BillR1]

BillR!, I am not certain that your club is 'common'. One FL club I shoot at has a half-dozen members that will shoot any sanctioned match in FL and even puts on a stage at FL State... and a couple of other shooters even go out of state. Another club, not that far away, draws a half dozen shooters that GO TO THE NATIONALS, and shoot any sanctioned match within about 500 miles. When I was sanctioned match active I travelled with them (2011 World, 3 Nationals, five or six FL State, Blackwater, GA State, etc.) Lotsa fun meeting up at airports (Philadelphia, Little Rock, etc.) with guns and then grabbing a rental vehicle while we tried to discreetly load our licensed CCW guns, or two day trips in a custom rental van. My credit cards got a real work out at hotels and airports!

.

That sure sounds fun! There are a few members like that at the Phoenix club, but not very many outside of that. There are only 4 IDPA-affiliated clubs in the state. USPSA is MUCH bigger around here, but I have no desire to get into that mess. I'll be shooting sanctioned IDPA matches in MI, NM and another one here in AZ before Thanksgiving. It seems like most of the really big matches are over on your half of the country. (Carolina Cup, Nationals, Indoors, etc.) I'm jealous!

[Chuck D]

"Berryville messed up the math...."

Would anyone except that excuse if the "math" was say...your tax return?"

It's irrefutable....IDPA HQ's numbers are not accurate. They're propaganda .

Everytime ...EVERYTIME someone illuminates IDPA's membership number claim a new "excuse" arrises.

Well...the majority of the membership according to Caleb is SS amd MM and they don't usually shoot classifiers ? So...the 25000 member number is based upon people that throughout the year as "casual" members ? How many of them remain members ? Again....the strength of an organization is based upon membership retention in the very same mode the strength of a business is based on repeat customers. Is it really THAT tough to understand the concept and it simply can NOT be explained away.

IDPA is global....yup. I'm taking about membership retention in the USA. USPSA is global as well under the IPSC banner and if we were to compare the two (IDPA vs. USPSA/IPSC) IDPA would be dwarfed by comparison but it doesn't factor into the mix. I'm interested in membership retention in the USA. The mere mentioning of International IDPA is another example of a smoke screen to cloud the issue.

My IDPA number before I stopped being a member was in the high 15000 range. They now are most likely to be cresting the high 29000 range if not higher. Expired memberships are NOT purged from the system so Joyce Wilson can make whatever claims she wishes to make with regards to membership numbers BUT how many are actually current members ? How many multiple division classifications are counted as individual members ? I was classified in SSP, ESP, AND CDP there are three that are lost right there and I'm just ONE person. If anyone think that IDPA has 29000 PAID memberships or if USPSA has 70000 PAID memberships (USPSA membership numbers are not purged from the system either) you have a SERIOUS comprehension issue. IDPA knows that if they inflate the numbers it shows strength in the organization...a fact that is up for serious debate.

Lastly...if I am to accept that the majority of the shooters participating in the sport today are casual members of the SS and MM variety...how many of these "casual members" are new SO's, SOI's, or are participatory members of the rule and policy crafting Tiger Teams ? Two rather influencial members of IDPA in my area are SO's, SOI's and have served with SIGNIFICANT influence (and continue to serve) as Tiger Team members. These so called "casual" members...not MY term mind you but one used by a poster to describe the possible reasonings for the membership numbers offered by IDPA HQ, are the ones training new SO's, SOI's and are influencing the rules of the game not based on ACTUAL experience but based upon input from "dinosaur" firearms instructors whose techniques have not developed past the late 1970's. As an LE firearms instructor ZERO of what the majority of these "instructors" teach especially in the policy realm is used in a modern Academy. Want to see 1st hand how we teach recruits to shoot ? Watch Bob Vogel. Want to see what we have gotten away from for no other reason then evolution....watch Vickers, Wilson, Hackathorn, Pincus, Thomas, ect...It's these guys IDPA has taken its rules cues from sans the flat footed reload rule.

Regarding the writings of Caleb Giddings....I wonder how many of you are aware that he was on IDPA's payroll and that the majority of his "sponsors" are benefactors for IDPA tournaments ? Will he offer criticism or at the very least question current policies and procedures of IDPA when he benefits from the relationship? How many firearms publications exist in the marketplace that offer accurate, constructive, and HONEST critique of the industry and the products they provide ?

Excuses won't cut it....the numbers are skewed and I'm interested in seeing the ACTUAL stats pertaining to membership retention created by the new rulebook and the PR approach they deployed to justify the changes. IDPA is a FANTASTIC sport that trusted in less than suitable leadership and advice. You can NOT replace experience with anything else than experience...period.

Crawl...Walk...Run...

The most accurate way I can describe my "relationship" with IDPA would be the same way I could describe my relationship with my favorite sports team. I've been a fan since day 1. I enjoyed going to the game...even owned season tickets. After experiencing several high points, moments where I was proud to be a fan, participant, and avid follower of everything team related....years of bad coaching, poor draft picks and trades, and disinterest in what the fans and season ticket holders have to say saw me give up my season tickets, not buy anymore logo clothing, and my not following the team with any frequency as I wait for competent coaching and front office staff to turn the franchise around.

Edited June 21, 2014 by Chuck D

[peterthefish]

Z

[GOF]

There is a lot of truth in what Chuck D said. Those who gain their knowledge from 10 second sound bites won't get it. Those that can read & comprehend a serious dissertation will get it.

Edited June 21, 2014 by GOF

[BillR1]

Do I think IDPA is perfect? It's FAR from it! I can think of several suggestions that would IMO help with the organization's perceived consistency issues. For instance, our local club is newly-affiliated. We currently have 3 different certified SOs that have never shot a sanctioned match or even shot the classifier. This was done to help our club get off the ground, but there's little chance that someone would get even close to the same calls if I was SOing rather than one of these new guys. I made a comment at the end of my SO class pertaining to this. Being an SO should take more than passing an open-book test and showing up for the class. Chuck is absolutely correct in this regard...EXPERIENCED SOs are the key to consistency and experience cannot be easily replaced.

[GOF]

Right on Bill!! And, experienced shooters, SOs/SOIs are exactly what IDPA has been losing in considerable numbers. But, Berryville doesn't seem to care. I know, personally of a new club (that shall remain nameless) that started without a SINGLE currently certified SO (despite Rules to the contrary).They decided they wanted to be a club, and more power to them. They sent in their money to Berryville... and Boom! They are now a IDPA club.

As one shooter I have known and SOed for 10 years... who is somewhat of a 'loose cannon' (but a very safe shooter) who doesn't really understand or overly care about the intricate details of the Rules, but just likes to shoot and gracefully accepts all the PEs we give him, put it after shooting one of their matches "They need some help. When I know more about the Rules than their guys running the timer, things are a bit whacky!".

But, send the money to B-ville and ya get a certificate.... regardless if the 'exact rules' are followed. Ah... yes... Ca Ching!.

And then you can add to that a number of other 'corporate decisions' and obfuscations".... I remember all the promises from Kitty Richards and Terry "Bubba' Burba on the IDPA web site about how great the Tiger Teams would be with the new Rule Book. Since Oct 2013, they seem to have vanished from public/forum view..Nor, for that matter, has anyone on the Tiger Teams actually come forward to take credit for their work.

Yup, that's work ya can be proud of !. And, maybe why many veteran shooters have taken Joyce Wilson's advice and " found a shooting sport they are more comfortable with"..

Edited June 21, 2014 by GOF

[Chuck D]

Kitty Richards was one of the two "influential" people I spoke of in my last post. I've "social networked" with Terry Burba, Kitty, and others in the past but once I began to question the logic of some of the new rules and was critical of the so called "transparent" process....we haven't spoken since. For some it was their choice, in other examples it was clearly my choice.

Kitty is a decent person...and she believes "whole heartedly" in the direction IDPA has taken. Last I heard, she is an SOI instructor and was working with a new crew of SO's at the newest IDPA club in Central NY... Pathfinder Fish and Game Club in Fulton NY.

These people are all good people....and they have the sports best interests at heart but they either put themselves in a bad position or were put in a bad position by Joyce Wilson. Some of the rules that were adopted were done so regardless of the large and rather public display of dissatisfaction of the membership. Dropping out of sight in the social network realm was most likely an effect of being "beaten up" over decisions that they may or may not be in agreement with. More than a few of the upper level SO's, SOI's and Match Administrative staff I know and have spoken to personally question the rules and rules application but are concerned that if they make waves, they'll face consequences and for most...IDPA is a labor of love and holds special meaning to them.

I call that "ruling by edict"...and its a lousy way to "do business."

The "transparency" claims by Joyce Wilson regarding the work of the Tiger Teams were propaganda in the same manner as IDPA's membership numbers. It stands to reason...making sausage is an unpleasant experience, one that need not be made fully public especially if the end product is worthy of consumption. Up for grabs here is whether the Tiger Teams recommendations were taken at face value, considered, or overruled altogether.

I honestly believe that IDPA couldn't care less if you or I or anyone else for that matter disagree with them. As long as they have the CCW market cornered, have sufficient levels of industry support, and a positive cash flow on the ledger sheet it will be business as usual and those who disagree can in Joyce's words "find a more suitable activity."

Edited June 22, 2014 by Chuck D

[Dkrad1935]

You guys kill me. I dropped out of this conversation. But I glance back in and you guys attack anyone who disagrees with your assessment about future of IDPA.

I will agree with one thing chuck said. It is a business. If they are losing money, they will innovate. If they are making money they may not innovate.

They are in a unique position to have many revenue streams but I can't imagine they would just let a decent highly profitable revenue stream whither up.

You guys sound like you got the shaft. If so, sucks for ya. But dang guys, move on with life!! Haha

[Chuck D]

Don't you worry Dkrad...they'll eventually get you too.

It's indicative of dictatorships...

Until then...enjoy your flat footed reloads, bad cover calls. and PE/FTDR penalties.

Edited June 22, 2014 by Chuck D