-1 Points down = 1 second?

[tk2]

I disagree, I think it would slow the shooting down too much. It is already much slower than USPSA, doubling the penalty would slow it down that much more. I know if they make the change, I'm done with IDPA. I just don't want to shoot that slow.

I guess it is just a decision each person will have to make for themselves.

[racknrider]

Instead of complaining about having to shoot slower, how about learning to shoot -0s faster? Just a thought.

[Racinready300ex]

Because at some point the game becomes less fun, isn't that really the point of our hobby? For each person that point will be different, if increasing the penalties 100% puts it over the edge for someone I can understand that.

[racerba]

Instead of complaining about having to shoot slower, how about learning to shoot -0s faster? Just a thought.

You would have to shoot slower than you did before - that's inevitable...eventually you will be able to shoot -0 faster, but it won't be faster or as fast as before the change...just think about it...

it also doesn't sound like complaining...sounds like just stating the fact...

Because at some point the game becomes less fun, isn't that really the point of our hobby? For each person that point will be different, if increasing the penalties 100% puts it over the edge for someone I can understand that.

true - that's why you don't see bulls eye shooting a common thing today...

you want to slow people down without a big change? make the -0 circle smaller...it will slow some people down, but not much that it would affect the whole match...

Edited March 31, 2016 by racerba

[racerba]

.

Edited March 31, 2016 by racerba

[racerba]

.

Edited March 31, 2016 by racerba

[MemphisMechanic]

It will only penalize the dumb ones. The people winning aren't going fast to make up for their crappy accuracy. They're sacrificing enough accuracy so that they go fast enough to win.

This one reply is the grand summary of the entire thread.

The guy at the top of the leader board is inevitably one of the most accurate shooters at the match. Always. They are also very skilled at knowing how fast they need to shoot a given stage in order to win it. Currently that means pushing so hard that their group size is barely able to stay inside the -0, and that occasionally one shot wanders just outside it.

Vying for the top 5 spots in a sanctioned match is currently about who dropped too many shots into the -3 or clipped a noshoot.

Perhaps soon we'll all be taking an extra fraction on each shot to keep them inside the -0. It'll be a game of who went two points down versus shot it clean... instead of the current "who dropped eight points to my two down because the clipped a -3." But nothing at the Expert or Master level will really change.

It'll only add a second or two to a stage winning time. The winners will just be harder on the front sight a few yards closer to the targets than they were before. Hell, the stage winning time might not even decrease.

What it WOULD do is slow the Marksman and Sharpshooters way down. And that's why I oppose it. This sport is already discouraging enough the new shooter who can't honestly keep their shots inside the -0 yet!

It certainly won't make anyone shoot more "real life" speed. I know that personally two or three shots into an agressor's chest in the "one down" portion of the torso before he can shoot me sounds like a fantastic plan. So in my estimation, that argument for doubling the points down is right out the window.

Edited March 31, 2016 by MemphisMechanic

[racknrider]

I seriously doubt there will be a mass exodus from IDPA. Sure a few will leave, but they're probably on the way out anyway. The rest will complain for 2 or 3 matches then move on. It's mainly a bunch of Internet hoopla anyway. At the 5-6 local matches I shoot, no one is talking about this.

[IHAVEGAS]

It's mainly a bunch of Internet hoopla anyway.

+100

[Cherryriver]

It's mainly a bunch of Internet hoopla anyway.

Well, this is an Internet forum, so that's inevitable.

But seriously, at the IDPA matches and other get-togethers I've experienced since the announcement, the opposition is not only strong, it's loud. Pretty close to 100% of the shooters I've spoken to, in our club and other area ones, are strongly against it. In fact, I can't recall a single favorable comment at all, in a sampling of several dozen.

So, I'd say the rule is unpopular, at least in the three-state area where we are.

[IHAVEGAS]

It's mainly a bunch of Internet hoopla anyway.

Well, this is an Internet forum, so that's inevitable.

But seriously, at the IDPA matches and other get-togethers I've experienced since the announcement, the opposition is not only strong, it's loud. Pretty close to 100% of the shooters I've spoken to, in our club and other area ones, are strongly against it. In fact, I can't recall a single favorable comment at all, in a sampling of several dozen.

So, I'd say the rule is unpopular, at least in the three-state area where we are.

"Weird gun gripes in Chicago area - Stay tuned for more news at 6:00"

[Craig N]

It's mainly a bunch of Internet hoopla anyway.

Well, this is an Internet forum, so that's inevitable.

But seriously, at the IDPA matches and other get-togethers I've experienced since the announcement, the opposition is not only strong, it's loud. Pretty close to 100% of the shooters I've spoken to, in our club and other area ones, are strongly against it. In fact, I can't recall a single favorable comment at all, in a sampling of several dozen.

So, I'd say the rule is unpopular, at least in the three-state area where we are.

Yeah but HQ don't listen to the members.

[Fordfan485]

I let my membership expire yesterday and this proposed rule is a big part of the reason why.

[Steppenwolf]

The "IDPA club" at a range about 30 minutes away is having a classifier in two weeks. They were clear that "you had to join IDPA" in order to shoot the classifier. My local club/range dropped IDPA affiliation in December and is now "action shooting" (USPSA style). The same day of the IDPA classifier is a USPSA match (1.5 hours away). I contemplated shooting the IDPA classifier, but decided that I would probably have more fun shooting the USPSA match and I did not pay to join IDPA because of "HQ not listening" to members. I don't really care too much one way or another about the new scoring, but most of the people that talk about it locally don't like the change.

Short version "I voted with my feet."

[v1911]

Nothing has even changed for 2016 and yet people are jumping out of windows from a building that isn't even on fire.

In the past 6 months or so, the most you here about it at our club is if a shooter has a great raw time but has too many 1 down. Then it becomes an opportunity to rib someone.

Sure, many of us aren't keen on the new score change that will eventually happen, but there will be few members from our club that leave. Those that do are the ones that probably aren't found something else to scratch their trigger finger. And that's ok in my book. As long as they're still involved in shooting sports we all win.

[GMB]

The issue is that HQ fails to listen to the membership!!!! If they are trying to widen the difference between IDPA and USPSA they will do it at the cost of membership. They will end up pushing more shooters over to USPSA IMO!!!!!!

[Steppenwolf]

Well, I now have firsthand experience with the new scoring system. Our local club dropped IDPA affiliation (last December). We are "action shooting" sports (more USPSA style). However, the club MDs/ROs had a ton of IDPA targets left. So, the scoring system in a recent four-stage match was 1 point down = 1 second (new IDPA scoring rules). About 36 shooters showed up.

Quick overview (that will help make more sense of my reflection about the new scoring). The match had a lot of moving and shooting (one stage required moving in a "square" pattern (up, right, back, left), shooting two to the body (there were four paper targets) as moved in each direction followed by moving around the square a second time shooting two head shots each (two each target), followed by two steel poppers at 15+ yards at the end)), more rounds per stage required than typical IDPA maximum, variation in required number of shots on paper targets per stage (for example, two shots each on three targets, but two on body and one on head for another target). There was steel mixed in on every stage. On two stages there were paper targets at about 20 yards (one required two to body and a head shot). Did not have to wear a vest (unless wanted to). One stage had a seated table start followed by shooting while moving at paper and steel, followed by some farther shots. One stage had a wire spool table that you had to run up to after shooting two paper targets, that required shooting from a kneeling position (under the table top) at targets on the left and then the right (both paper and steel). Also, you could load to 18 rounds if you had the magazine capacity (1911 guys had to reload more).

So, the stages were more USPSA style, but the paper targets were IDPA. These were tough stages because of all the moving and shooting. On the "move around the square" twice stage I missed one head shot while moving backwards. I was down 12 points on that stage--had one procedural (-3) because I backed into a corner barrel and "stopped" according to RO (9 seconds = 9 points down+ procedural instead of 4.5 seconds + procedural under old scoring). Many shooters had procedurals for stopping to shoot, for shooting at the next target before changing direction, etc. Scores are not posted yet, but I expect a lot of bad results on that stage. My time on that stage was among the top three fastest (in my squad). On the "shoot under the spool table" stage I was only down one point. On the table start stage--shoot seated, then get up and move (shooting paper and steel at varying distances while moving--having to finish before reaching a wall, including one target with a no-shoot partial cover) I was 8 points down (there were seven paper targets and two arrays of steel poppers).

I was not happy with my "moving and shooting" (something we rarely did when an IDPA club), but I did better than 75-80% of the shooters on the "lots of movement" stages.

I know that the match was not a pure IDPA match, but what I think will happen is that many of the shooters will become discouraged relative to the better shooters (i.e. the "gap" will widen between the newbies and less experienced and the more experienced). At least ten of the shooters were new or only shooting their second match (November was last match given weather). The "less experienced" shooters are going to feel even more intimidated. Just my reflections. I really have not reached a final conclusion about the new scoring (but if it was USPSA style targets I would have scored better because of more A-zone hits and not penalized as much for "Charlies"). Using IDPA targets with USPSA style shooting is probably not to be recommended. However, I think that the gap between the top shooters and the lower 40% of shooters will widen even in IDPA. That could result in more shooters dropping out or more top shooters migrating to USPSA.

Edited April 10, 2016 by Steppenwolf

[GMB]

Somewhere in this thread someone made a comment that ICORE has had the scoring that IDPA is moving to and that it works fine. Last I checked ICORE matches are few and far between. I don't know of any local clubs that even have ICORE matches anymore. If the proposed scoring change does in fact happen, it won't be good for IDPA. IMO

[Brooke]

In announcing the the intentions of this 1=1 rule change, the notion that shooters should be responsible for the results of their shots was primary in justifying the change. In that case why increase the penalty for hitting the target...anywhere. Increase the penalty for mikes instead. The penalty for hitting no shoots has already increased as of the last rules changes.

I have only been shooting IDPA for about 5 years and it helped me get started in the competitive shooting arena. For the last year I have also been shooting USPSA. I find USPSA to be more fun, more creative in ways to approach a stage, and free from some of the subjective calls like cover and whether I put one foot into the opening before completing the reload.

As a result, I have already dropped 12 monthly IDPA matches to shoot 24 monthly USPSA matches instead. I will be reducing or eliminating the 50 indoor IDPA matches I shoot annually because of this unnecessary, irritating rule change that accomplishes nothing except to widen the scoring pattern of the matches. The really good guys are already accurate and fast. The beginners and lower level shooters will have to slow down to optimize their results.

I see all kinds of reasons on this thread that it does not matter to shooters. That is not true here. Many IDPA-only shooters are asking me about my USPSA experience and some of them are now shooting USPSA matches and loving them. As that experience starts too get around in the IDPA crowd it will turn into a rush to the exit. This change only results in loss of interest without any redeeming positives. Inane policies will not work and shooters lost to IDPA will not return.

Just my opinion...let the internet gang bang begin !!!

Edited April 11, 2016 by Brooke

[GmanCdp]

Just got done shooting a sold out IDPA regional match last week, Next weeks regional match is way above last years total and the regional match at the end of April is sold out will over 200 + shooters and will be the largest so far in that state for IDPA. So I don't think shooters in IDPA will be dropping out by the thousands and thousands to go shoot USPSA.. But you go girl !!! Good for you!!

[Jim Watson]

I don't mind Brooke and Friends changing from IDPA to USPSA... as long as they don't keep coming back telling me what I am doing wrong by staying in IDPA.

I don't like the IDPA habit of shuffling rules but this one won't really affect me. I am a "Distinguished Senior" and am old, fat, and slow, but moderately accurate - second fewest points down on Saturday - so I will probably gain a bit until shooters faster but wilder than me learn how to hold harder.

[IronArcher]

We hear a lot of talk about how "The winners are still going to win" because they shoot fast and don't miss etc. etc.

Check my last match score sheet. The guy who took 1st, dropped to 3rd, I would have moved from 13th to something like 6th (i'd have to double check that vs. everyone...was mainly interested in what would happen at the top of the sheets). There aren't HUGE moves, but there are moves from top to bottom.
Perhaps this won't be the case at more major matches, but there are more local matches than majors...

[Jim Watson]

I have noticed that. Moving from 28th to 24th is of little significance to me, but going from first to third really matters. It doesn't take a large shift to upset your apple cart if you are in contention for a win.

[Steppenwolf]

IronArcher:

I thought along the same lines prior to actually experiencing a match with the new scoring system. We don't know how some of the top shooters will react until they actually shoot a match with the new scoring (they may take a bit more time to ensure down-zero hits). In our first match using the new scoring system the top five shooters (using old scoring) will remain the top five in the match. The top shooter (served in the Marine Corps) has a secondary job training people to shoot. He practices three to five days (500 - 750 rounds) per week on an outdoor range. He draws from an inside the waistband holster. He was on my squad. I observed him quickly assessing and taking a make-up shot (quickly) if he thought it was needed (Vickers count stages). On the backward moving head shots requirement he quickly made up a head shot (little hesitation) because he was "calling his shots." He said afterwards that he "wasn't sure if his second head shot hit" and thus decided to quickly shoot another while his gun was still on target. He ran the stage clean in about .5 seconds less raw time than I ran the stage (but I was 9 points down with one procedural for "stopping" to shoot). The second place shooter (federal LE with a lot of experience and an STI 2011 finely tuned) also quickly made up a couple of shots that must have been perceived as not down-zero (his time as about as fast as the winner, but he was five points down). If those experiences can be extrapolated then the better shooters will likely adjust (and probably still do so better than the mediocre shooters).

I'm not attempting to argue, just relating actual match experience. I'm not at the level yet where I can successfully call every shot (especially when faced with something I'm not well-practiced at such as moving and shooting). I did not attempt to make up a missed head shot when backing up because I did not call the shot and didn't know that I missed it until the run was scored.

Edited April 11, 2016 by Steppenwolf

[waktasz]

Where I'm shooting the guys who are winning are going to win by more, and the poor newbies at the bottom of the scoresheet are going to get absolutely hammered.