kbear38S Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 Relying on IDPA shooters to make a SS division work is a loosing proposition. The pie has been sliced to razor thin pieces already. Agreed. IDPA shooters have a different mindset and want to play a different game. Bring them in and they'll want to change IPSC into IDPA. IDPA may well be the best thing that ever happened to IPSC. They have a sport they like, we have a sport we like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Stevens Posted January 25, 2005 Author Share Posted January 25, 2005 When I asked the members of my Area to elect me to a position of leadership, I offered the philosophy of listening to them and being open to new ideas. I hope I have kept that promise. Being part of the leadership of an organization also means that often you have to overlook what you personally like and think of what is in the best interest of the organization. I can not make decisions on the narrow view of what I like or dislike, but on the issue of will it help USPSA grow, and as a result of the growth benefit. In todays world you can not stand still. You are either moving forward or you are moving backward. If you stand still, the world moves on. Testing new ideas, and their expected results, against real world experience is a good way to find out if the product offered is viable. The automobile maufactuers build concept cars. They bring them out to the public and get reactions, both good and bad. Then based on the reactions they make a decision on implementing the concept car into production in some form. The Provisional Division concept has one overall principle, it is voluntary. For those who think the idea is "bullshit" they can decide to ignore it. For others who think differently they can embrace it. In the end, the total membership will decide, not a few positive or negative voices. This organization is membership based, and membership ran, in the end I trust them to do the right thing when given the oportunity. Gary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shred Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 How about instead of an open-ended "voluntary" and "optional", give it a set trial period, say 3 or 5 years. After that if it doesn't get made into a real division it sunsets. No worries about "is it still viable?" or "should it be continued", On 1/1/2008 (or whatever) the BOD will decide to fish or cut bait. Sunsets work for us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Stevens Posted January 25, 2005 Author Share Posted January 25, 2005 I refer you to my first posting on this subject where I outline the 2-3 year test period. At that time, after evaluation, I am sure the BOD will be glad to "fish or cut bait". Gary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmcdave Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 In the end, the total membership will decide, not a few positive or negative voices. This organization is membership based, and membership ran, in the end I trust them to do the right thing when given the oportunity. When do we vote? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Stevens Posted January 25, 2005 Author Share Posted January 25, 2005 You will vote by your participation or lack thereof. Gary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D.Hayden Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 Gary, great job.. I was affraid this was going to get really ugly. I think you've shown exceptional talent here... Let the 'voting' begin. I think many 45er's will try it, and some others, time will tell, but I think it's a good thing. If you don't like it, don't shoot it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Thomas Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 I hate to disagree with you here, as I hold great respect for your opinions. Hey, absolutely no problem. Civilized discourse is one of the things that makes life worth living. And thanks for the compliment. If you design a game aimed at shooting standing on one foot it is going to be popular with people missing a leg. Now that's what I call a hardcore gamer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_aos Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 I can understand wanting "flush" magazines, but why score .40 minor? Shouldn't it be 9+1 MAJOR? Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeFoley Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 Gary, I like the idea of a SS division. I would prefer 8+1 loaded rounds period, but I think major and minor scoring has already been proven to take care of the mouse gun. I mean hardly anyone shoots Limited Minor, and when they do, the scores suffer given the same ability. I also like the idea of holsters and mag pouches being restricted somewhat. I shot steel challenge at SCCC Saturday with a .40 Trojan from a Bladetech with only 8 rounds in my mags, and hung with the limited race guns in my class within my squad. I must admit that after a couple of years of the hanger type race holster, it was awkward, but really fun at the same time. I have been wanting to shoot this pistol to justify its existence for some time, but felt like I didn't have the proper setup to compete in L10. If it is .45 only, then you isolate the guys with the .40 1911s that tried to shoot L10, and it is all too close to CDP in IDPA and what they did to the 10mm, which is another major pistol that exists in a few safes out there. I would support the single stack Sig Sauers, CZs, S&Ws, and others in this division too. I tried to read this entire thread, but I am still missing a consolidated statement on what the proposed equipment rules would be if you had to go to the BOD today. Maybe you can summarize it again using the most recent information. Thanks again for your interest in what the people want, the people who are reminded of why they voted for you in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wide45 Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 Has there been a determination of what is to be considered success? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Thomas Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 I would prefer 8+1 loaded rounds period That's actually the one thing I'd like to see changed, myself. Make the rule on mag capacity for a .45 seven rounds instead of eight. If we want to make the sport attractive to new shooters without having to buy a lot of new equipment, why force them, in many cases, to buy new mags for the sport? Of course, I realize you'll be sucking wind with the "8 rounds from a single point" rule. Hey, it's an imperfect world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckbradley Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 Take it easy on Gary, his only interest is that of the sport. He understands the equipment issue. Thats why it is a provisional division. I dont hink anybody is going to go out and buy a custom 45 to play in a provisional division, most will have the 1911 already, and even if they did so what. They do it with the understanding it is a provisional division and take the risk. As far as L10, he isnt saying do away with L10. I am saying if it happens that L10 goes away in a few years its because the membership decided not to participate. Even if it did go away those guns would then be legal in either Limited or SS division. Nobody is going to have their equipment made obsolete. When it was realized that the XD was basically a single action gun and IPSC took it off their approved list Gary told me he thought it should be left on because he didnt want those that invested in an XD based on the approval to be left hanging. USPSA is not IDPA so the comparison doesnt fit. We are not restricting but allowing another type of gun, the gun that this sport started with to compete against others that are alike in their own division. If its such a bad idea then why are you so upset, if it is bad idea it will fail and you have nothing to worry about. The fact you are worrying tells me it isnt such a bad idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveZ Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 Even if it did go away those guns would then be legal in either Limited or SS division. Nobody is going to have their equipment made obsolete. Except for those members who are shooting widebody guns in L10 today who live in CA,NJ,HI or MA (or any other state that decides to pass their own AWB). If L10 goes away...there only choice is to shoot in Limited using 10 round mags Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckbradley Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 If a state has a law restricting magazine capacity then USPSA should allow matches int hat state to follow the law and restrict mag capacity. If a club in Ca wants to shoot limited but restrict the round count to 10 they should be allowed. This would do away with the need for Limited 10. It would just be limited, in a 10 round statre, still limted just restricted to 10 rounds. That is a discussion for the future though sinc enobody is going to do away with L10 right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
diehli Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 Question: in states that have 10-round limits, why not allow L10 as optional (provisional?) and allow Production to be run with only 10 rounds (restrict Production to 15 rounds otherwise and try to convince IPSC to do the same)? L10 would then be a sort of category rather than a division. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slapshot Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 Sestock has already said it, but I'll restate it in different words: we can debate the issue on this and other forums till we all turn green with purple stripes, but unless we actually give it a try, no amount of speculation on the outcome (and that's all any of this talk is -- speculation, nothing more) will have any value in the real world. I'm willing to give it a try; in fact, I'm looking forward to it. Gary Stevens, thank you for offering the opportunity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck D Posted January 26, 2005 Share Posted January 26, 2005 How did we go from a "provisional" SS only Division to : 1. Eliminating L10 2. Making L10 a "category" 3. Raising the loaded round limit in Production to 15 rounds. 4. Making L10 "provisional" 5. Restricting L10 to only the States with 10 round magazine capacity limits We have 5 working Divisions THAT WORK !!! We're going to add 1 Division on a Provisional basis and monitor its progress. with all due respect to all whom offer opinions...can we see what the end results are before we place "the cart before the horse?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
diehli Posted January 26, 2005 Share Posted January 26, 2005 Hey man... I'm just playing devil's advocate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted January 26, 2005 Share Posted January 26, 2005 OK...I think everybody has had a chance to say their piece. We are to the point of more heat, less substance. I will "Provisionally" close the thread. If you have some new info to add, let me know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts