Nimitz Posted May 31, 2015 Share Posted May 31, 2015 (edited) Since I'm still unable to shoot I find myself thinking about a lot of the things I see posted on-line. One of my favorites is what I call the fallacy of being competitive. The typical post goes something like this: " I've been shooting XXX division for a while and now I'm planning to switch to YYY division but I'm worried that I won't be competitive ---- currently my setup is from Billy Bob's Gun & Magic Emporium so I'm thinking about having a gun built by Mike's Alien Tech Super Blaster Shop and paying 4 months of my annual salary (I'm a cashier at McDonald's). I feel it's worth it so that I'll be competitive ... BTW, I've been shooting USPSA for 7 years and am currently at 51% C class shooter ... what do you all think?" It's amazing to me the number of people who have never won a local match, never mind placed in the top 10 at a level II or III match but are still concerned somehow about being 'competitive' when they are going to make a change when clearly they are not now, nor have they ever been competitive. And yes, we can debate the definition of competitive all day but I believe the way most use it it means being a legitimate contender for the win or top 3 or so. obviously, some folks are just using it to rationalize buying new stuff which is fine but why not just admit what you are doing? I have more money then God and I'm going to buy a new blaster because I can .... nothing wrong with that. Why do so many people feel the need to use the fallacy of being competitive ... Edited May 31, 2015 by Nimitz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerTrace Posted May 31, 2015 Share Posted May 31, 2015 Some people need change and gadgets to get them excited about the sport again. That excitement might make them train as much as they think they should........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitedog Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 I'm not "competitive".....but I still like new stuff. I don't justify it thinking it will make me better. I want it because it will be fun. Example, I bought a .50. Quite a bit ago. For no reason other to dust cinder blocks at 1000 yards. Did it make m e a sniper? Nope. The G34 won't make me a GM either...but I like it and do actually shoot well with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nimitz Posted June 1, 2015 Author Share Posted June 1, 2015 No doubt people use buying new toys as motivation, nothing wrong with that but let's face it, for the vast majority of us we'll never be in a position where owning a $5,500 custom built gun will make a competitive difference over just owning basic quality gear .... the real reason I think this is important becuase i think this way of thinking spills over into how we train, cuasing all sorts or issues ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkCO Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 If we are to be honest, in any match, there are only a few people at any one given who are truly competitive, which yes, in some general definition might mean to be able to place in the top 5-10% of the match. We sometimes see the top competitors tumble out of the top tier due to equipment issues or maybe a total meltdown. I'd venture to say most shooters think of competitive as being able to beat or stay close to their peers in the same relative skill level, whether that be B Class, M class or whatever. The enthusiasm bump of buying new gear is mental, and mental is important...but gear bumps are typically short lived. So yes, i do think it can be detrimental. $1000 worth of ammo with diligent practice, physical training and dry fire is worth more on the scoresheet than $1000 more on any pistol will gain, likely irrespective of skill level. So yes, I agree with you. An hour a day on the forums and shopping for a new gun, ultimately buying it, for most competitors won['t make them more "competitive." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerTrace Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 If we are to be honest, in any match, there are only a few people at any one given who are truly competitive, which yes, in some general definition might mean to be able to place in the top 5-10% of the match. We sometimes see the top competitors tumble out of the top tier due to equipment issues or maybe a total meltdown. I'd venture to say most shooters think of competitive as being able to beat or stay close to their peers in the same relative skill level, whether that be B Class, M class or whatever. The enthusiasm bump of buying new gear is mental, and mental is important...but gear bumps are typically short lived. So yes, i do think it can be detrimental. $1000 worth of ammo with diligent practice, physical training and dry fire is worth more on the scoresheet than $1000 more on any pistol will gain, likely irrespective of skill level. So yes, I agree with you. An hour a day on the forums and shopping for a new gun, ultimately buying it, for most competitors won['t make them more "competitive." As usual this is spot on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lifeislarge Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 But.... unicorn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EasyTargetRN Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 It's not about being competitive, for some it's about having more stuff, and then wondering why the "stuff" doesn't make them competitive (read "happy") My guns can "outshoot me", it's about me out shooting my gun that's makes the difference. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lawmangr Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 I'm not competitive and I'm ok with that It was like golf when that was my main sport/hobby. Better than many, but certainly not all, but I had a lot of fun with it, and that's what mattered to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Smith Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 This is the old Arrow vs Indian discussion. It's really both but by and large, unless the gun is a piece of junk the shooter is the more important component. No amount of money spent on equipment can make up for a lack of time and money spent on practice. That said, it is possible that changing divisions can make a substantive difference for some people. But if a shooter is expecting anything other than having to start at the bottom and climb a different ladder by changing class, then they are doomed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hi-Power Jack Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 most shooters think of competitive as being able to beat or stay close to their peers +1. By Nimitz def'n, I'll NEVER be competitive, but I try to stay "competitive" with a few peers at "my level". I also watch my % when I shoot major matches - I got to 63% a few years ago, and use that as a gauge to whether I'm improving. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corey Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 You mean we can't buy our way to wins in this sport? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PKT1106 Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 Is this a veiled PO thread?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cnote Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 most shooters think of competitive as being able to beat or stay close to their peers +1. By Nimitz def'n, I'll NEVER be competitive, but I try to stay "competitive" with a few peers at "my level". I also watch my % when I shoot major matches - I got to 63% a few years ago, and use that as a gauge to whether I'm improving. +1. I can generally judge my improvement by my major match % throughout the year , or year to year for the same match. Yes there are different players, but in general the quality if all the big boys is close to each other on any given day if the top dog isn't there. Oddly, my classification % is normally in the neighborhood of my finish compared to the GM that wins. The equipment, if it functions without a hiccup , is a part of the equation , not the end all /be all that some want it to be I will say, I like nice stuff though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Youngeyes Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 In all respect to the OP, I believe this post should be in the "What I hate forum". IMHO, it really does nothing to further the knowledge or share experience in USPSA/IPSC shooting. I know you stated that we can debate the word competitive, but you've decided that it means being in the top 3. I agree that getting a new gun won't help me get in the top 3. Shooting every day won't get me in the top 3. Praying won't get me in the top 3. Reading every post on the Forums won't get me into the top 3. I'm also not someone who thinks that scores don't count unless you had a good time. I am competitive in that I want to shoot better than I did before.Scores help me gauge that growth. I "compete" against you, Mr Nimitz, because you set the pace. As long as a shooter doesn't blame his equipment for being a lousy shot, I'm OK in buying the coolest blaster one can afford .By the way, did you see my new cool trigger in the what I like forum?. That trigger also wont help shoot me into the top 3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motosapiens Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 And yes, we can debate the definition of competitive all day but I believe the way most use it it means being a legitimate contender for the win or top 3 or so. I have a different definition of competitive that is more focused on improvement and one's own performance, and less focused on external things like who else happens to show up for a match. Completely different from the idea of being in contention for the win. I'm competitive at nationals even tho I currently have no chance of winning or finishing top 3. But I'm better than I was last year, and there are lots of people finishing behind, and fewer each year finishing in front of me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jkrispies Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 I think that in order to properly answer the question, "competitive" does need to be defined. To use your definition of "top 3" and apply it to myself, then yes buying new equipment is foolhardy if it is meant to get me to that end. I can't buy skill, and skill is paramount. Now, I don't compete for extrinsic justification (ie, comparing myself to others via "top 3," etc.) but rather for intrinsic reasons (ie, self-improvement), and even for that reason I can justify purchasing new equipment if it helps me to improve, especially when starting in a new category. I'll use myself as an example: I consider myself to be a Single Stack shooter but at one of my clubs I compete for a trophy in L-10. Did I buy a different gun, holster, pouches, etc. for L-10? No-- I bought 10 round magazines. Done. Now, let's say I choose to shoot some Limited. Am I going to get a different gun? Heck yes! Why? Because while my Single Stack is legally able to compete in limited, it is substantially less likely to compete, and intrinsically I want to improve knowing the equipment isn't Contributing to my NOT improving. In other words, I can only work on my faults if I can precisely identify exactly where they lie. That means I need to equip myself with materials that essentially take the equipment out of the equation. Now, do I ever see myself purchasing a $5000 rig. Um... No. (For the record, I do sometimes compete in Limited with a 20 year old Glock, so maybe I'm just cheap.) On the other hand, I'm preparing my equipment to get more heavily into multi-gun and have a good upper but I'm building a great upper to replace it. I readily admit that I'm building the new upper mainly because I want to build a new upper! I've said it multiple times outside this thread. However, no, it's not going to break my bank as I do it. BUT, again, I want to feel confident that my equipment isn't quantitatively holding me back, so I feel more justified in the purchase than simply "I want to." Everything set aside, for all the guys who have money to burn on $5000 setups, I say go for it! There's always a good handful at the matches who I beat, and that makes me super happy!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jkrispies Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 (edited) Adding to the above, the OP is asking about division improvement (ie found from C to B ) and not category change. Again I think that there's potentially a justification for upgrading equipment to make this happen (especially if it helps with fit and feel) but I think it is a small improvement vs practice. Yes many people "just want to" and don't care to admit it. But then if they can afford to do it, then it's their wallet. Edited June 2, 2015 by jkrispies Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j1b Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 So I agree with a lot of what's been said. I would have to believe that many people who buy new equipment fall into the following three buckets: - They like new stuff. So they buy new stuff. If they think they'll shoot better because of it then that's really just the means to the end - They are competitive within the context of what they deem competitive. Yeah, that's a round about sentence but it's really the meat of the issue. Some people want to compete better within their division or their class. Some people want bragging rights with their friends. - And then there is the division change. Yesterday I shot single stack. My holster was a paddle holster. Inherently I knew that if I wanted to compete to win the match against limited or open shooters that my battle was uphill. Hell even production guys had a slight capacity advantage. If a shooter wants to change from the Single Stack division to the limited division their climb to "competitiveness" is much steeper if they don't improve their equipment. Competitiveness is intrinsic to the sport, it's why we keep score. But "being competitive" is hardly well defined. When I was shooting in AZ WAY back when I can confidently say that if you went to a local match and placed in the top 5 …. top ten … it's very likely you could have won at other clubs that weekend. I'm talking the early 90's here when there weren't even that many divisions. Said differently, the talent wasn't as diluted across the divisions. The best shooters all shot in the same division (mostly open) and if you were hanging with the big dogs, you were doing ok. Imagine showing up to a local match and seeing Rob Leatham, Brian Enos, Matt Burkett, Arnt Myre, Doug Boykin etc. plus all the good local talent shooters. If someone didn't place in the top three at that match were they not competitive? Hard to say ….. I bitch about being competitive all the time now because I'm so out of practice that I just don't execute. Since you're a little laid up right now you may find the same dynamic, at least for a little while. Now I will say with a full heart that I know changing my equipment won't change my level of execution. There's no doubt. But I also know that had I opted to shoot my limited gun yesterday, with my limited rig, that the odds are GREATLY increased that I would have placed better. Execution wouldn't have changed at all (that still would have sucked ) but different course strategies, less reloading etc. would have certainly made a difference. How much better would things have gone? Hard for me to say - my execution was poor enough to doubt that a match win was a possibility but who knows. I guess I would say this - if changing gear improves the shooter's level of execution then there's likely something to be said for it. Better sights, better trigger, better holster, better functioning firearm, a gun that a person just shoots better - all things that MAY improve execution and thus improve performance. But I would also say that it's been my observation that the best shoot almost any gun really, really freaking awesome. As someone said above, they have the blood, sweat and tears in to make almost anything work. I still don't think that the pursuit of improved equipment is a bad thing. Heck, had that not happened we'd all be shooting with a gun stunningly similar to what I shot yesterday. Particularly when applied to open class. The hi-cap guns, scopes, comps and caliber evolutions all made a difference. I think it was the 92' nationals when Rob Leatham was shooting a P9 with a distinct capacity advantage and Jerry Barnhart was shooting a scope - hard to imagine that match and what happened there didn't change the evolution of equipment for years to come. They battled down to the very last stage, each advantage having its pluses and minuses. I believe Jerry won and if I'm right it happened because there was a hiccup with a popper that Rob shot that caused him to lose that last stage. Recognizing that 92' was a LONG time ago it is interesting to wonder what evolutions will come about over the next 20 years and where will that lead our sport? I don't know what being competitive means or is these days. It differs with each shooter I suspect. And that affects how they shoot, how they play, why the play, and the equipment they use when they play. To me, it's all good. Just glad to be able to yank a trigger every now and again and hopefully, one day, maybe compete again - compete the way I define compete in my own mind. J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cnote Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 Well spoken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbarker13 Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 Being competitive has nothing to do with winning. It has everything to do with how you approach the game and how you perform during the game. It's about effort. And caring about your performance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkCO Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 com·pet·i·tive kəmˈpedədiv/ adjective 1. of, relating to, or characterized by competition. "a competitive sport" synonyms:ruthless, aggressive, fierce; More 2. as good as or better than others of a comparable nature. "a car industry competitive with any in the world" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fergus556 Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 Being competitive comes with practice...dare I say that; not with fancy gear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeRush Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 Why do so many people feel the need to use the fallacy of being competitive ... Why do so many people care what other people shoot? Perhaps that is the real question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waktasz Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 Some people need change and gadgets to get them excited about the sport again. That excitement might make them train as much as they think they should........ Nothing wrong with that at all. I've done it, and it worked. Maybe it's a personality flaw, but that new gadget really excited me and helped me turn over a new leaf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now