-1 Points down = 1 second?

[LeviSS]

So has anyone heard of a date that this will start?

[racknrider]

Rumors of 1st quarter 2016.

Despite internet hysteria, I think this will be the Y2K of IDPA.

[waktasz]

My guess is it will never happen.

[robport]

Does anyone have any solid data on the number of clubs that have dropped their association with IDPA? In say the last 12 months.

Don't know, but I just heard that the North Carolina Cup will not be an IDPA sanctioned event next year. It was also left out of the IDPA schedule so I don't think it's a rumor.

[IHAVEGAS]

Rumors of 1st quarter 2016.

Despite internet hysteria, I think this will be the Y2K of IDPA.

+1

[Single Stack]

My guess is it will never happen.

+1

[SWprotected]

Those shooters who know what their front sight looks like will not suffer greatly under the D-1 one second Rule. They will just slow down a 'small beat' and shoot -0s. The ones who think the faster they go the better they are will be disappointed.

The "Day of the Gazelle" may be over.

I have no real idea why this D-1 = one second Rule was enacted. But, it will give older, more experienced, but slower foot work shooters a better chance. If that was the idea behind the Rule, it works. As a Distinguished Senior (MA SSP/BUG) I kinda like it.

But, it does make IDPA more like ICORE, except with more bullets in the gun. Whatever the intention originally was that will be the result.

I still do not think this is correct, I have shot at least 30 IDPA matches in the last year with a couple of major matches in the mix. What I have observed is the guys who win are not spraying and praying they shoot fast and they shoot accurately. The last IDPA match I won I went back and applied the new scoring nothing at the top or bottom of the sheet changed. Usually what I see is the scores might shuffle for some of the mid pack shooters but the results still look about the same. I just see no need for it, but they did not ask me anyway. As far as the slow footwork I dont see a penalty for running to fast yet.

Edited December 23, 2015 by SWprotected

[GOF]

The last IDPA match I shot I won HOA by 4 seconds with 21 down points. The next shooter (4 seconds slower) had 42 down points. The 3rd shooter was 13 seconds off (but did have a FTN on one stage), and he had about 35 down points. Do the math with the new scoring system on those three scores and the final order of finish results wouldn't have changed... but they'd have been a lot wider in score.

Those new scores would also be a wake up call for those two shooters (both of whom I know and shoot with regularly) to settle down a bit. That will be the change with the new scoring system. The "Gazelles" will have to slow down, while this Distinguished Senior just needs to keep finding the front sight, hit the 0-zone and try not to let the old knees make him stumble while running between shooting positions.

It does change the IDPA game as we currently know it.

[v1911]

As repeated over and over, only those that pray and spray will be most effected. Those that can acquire the sights quickly and have little wasted movement (the ones that are already top of the pack), will continue to due what they do.

[Jim Watson]

I have "rescored" my matches in Joyce Count.

If the spread is wide as GOF described, it doesn't matter.

But if it is a tight contest, it doesn't take much to move you a place or two.

If you are already a slow accurate shooter finishing 17th, better accuracy moving you up to 15th is not a big deal.

But if you are a fast shooter winning the Division, it might only take one shot to lose you the event.

[GOF]

Well said. If a shooter runs 3 targets, 2 rounds each, and has two 0s and four 'close' -1s it costs you 2 seconds today. Not too bad if you're fast.

Next year it costs you 4 seconds, and it's hard to make that up with "more speed"... which may then increase your down point count.

I don't even want to think what will happen to some on weak/strong hand stages.

[v1911]

Well said. If a shooter runs 3 targets, 2 rounds each, and has two 0s and four 'close' -1s it costs you 2 seconds today. Not too bad if you're fast.

Next year it costs you 4 seconds, and it's hard to make that up with "more speed"... which may then increase your down point count.

I don't even want to think what will happen to some on weak/strong hand stages.

Oddly enough, my weak hand shooting is about on par with my strong hand. I actually like stages that put our weak hand to the test. But I can see how some of the shooters local to me would be concerned about shooting weak hand under the new scoring.

[IHAVEGAS]

I can see how some of the shooters local to me would be concerned about shooting weak hand under the new scoring.

I'm guessing it is the same ones who are now concerned about weak hand under the old scoring .

[rowdyb]

Just for fun I just rescored the last IDPA match I shot to see where it would go under Joyce count scoring (JCS)

Current scoring, overall for match.

1st (me) ssp ma 33pd 97.43 or with a JCS of 113.93

2nd esp ex 52pd 98.87 (very much the epitome of young gazelle spray and pray sometimes) get a JCS of 124.87

3rd ssm ma 22pd 107.17 give a JCS of 118.17

4th esp ex 30pd 117.09 then yields a JCS of 132.09

5th esp ss 27pd 127.97 gets a JCS of 141.47

It's not about how many points you shoot down but what percentage of your score comes from points down that is going to make ALL the difference here. If more than 15% of your score comes from points down currently you are going to notice a change for sure. Doesn't matter if you're fast or slow.

[Rangerdug]

let's use my scores at the recent Wolds as an example. My final score was 282.56. Let's say 283 for the match. I was 88 points down, or 44 seconds in penalties. So my raw time for the match was 239. So 15% of my final score was from errors.

Using the new scoring my final score would have been 327. So now 27% of my score is from errors. That is what I think makes it a poor decision, upping the percentage of your score that comes from errors. Once someone has shot enough to figure this out they will start to weigh and balance speed and accuracy more in their mind. And this will slow a majority of people down.

Will it change overall results? Not at the top but surely in the middle. And for quite a few people a slower game is less interesting.

If you want to push accuracy turn a mike into a 5 sec penalty and leave the rest alone.

These types of things really force the issue of training, real life, defense, rule books, games and so on that haunt the identity of the membership and the organization. In my opinion only and not that of anyone I represent.

I agree completely

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Cherryriver]

Changing the match results is not the issue, nor should it be a factor in the decision process. The results are the game part. It shouldn't the centerpoint of the discussion.
The shooting is what's important. Having to slow the shooting down to where there are no -3s and very few -1s will be bad for several things:
The game will be less interesting. Not every IDPA attendee is a bullseye shooter coming over the the action side and who appreciates taking speed out in favor of added, possibly excessive, accuracy.

Stage designs will suffer in terms of interesting changes of cadence- speed. Currently there is a lot of benefit for speeding up the cadence of closer targets; in a "tactical sense, a closer target is a much higher priority- it can hurt you more, sooner, and with a higher degree of certainty. Taking away this urgency is contrary to the basic concept of a defensive-shooting-based sport.

And, just plain, speed will go down. Again, in a self-defense-derived game, reducing (excessively) the speed component unbalances the triad of DVC too far. IDPA is already very accuracy-oriented. The existence of the 1 1/2 second time add for the -3 zone is proof: -3s are huge detriments to a good score. The balance is already weighted strongly towards accuracy. Going further will make the thing tip over.
Finally, if one does indeed include self-defense proficiency as a portion of the reason to shoot IDPA, and I believe people should, then pushing shooters towards bullseye shooting timing will, as the tactical guys like to say, get someone killed.
I'm not against accuracy, nor do I think it's a problem that IDPA scoring is the way it is, so strongly accuracy-oriented. But three seconds per perimeter hit is too much, and one second per near-center-mass hit is much too much.

[LeviSS]

I just got the Tactical Journal today... looks like its pretty much a sure thing.

[Swanny10]

Anything been said about how they are going to convert existing qualifying scores? Or did I miss it.

[GOF]

I'm not sure Berryville gave that much thought. My suspicion is that the math will prove too difficult for them, so they'll just leave Classifier scores as is.... you are what you are .

Given some of their other Rules changes, I have come to the conclusion that they just do "An Edict From On High", and let the chips fall where they may. Deep Thought doesn't seem to be one of their strong points.

[waktasz]

Anything been said about how they are going to convert existing qualifying scores? Or did I miss it.

There will be new classification scores to meet for each level but they never change previous scores or classifications. There are plenty of Masters around these days that can't shoot to the new Master level times since the last time they were changed.

[racknrider]

Anything been said about how they are going to convert existing qualifying scores? Or did I miss it.

There will be new classification scores to meet for each level but they never change previous scores or classifications. There are plenty of Masters around these days that can't shoot to the new Master level times since the last time they were changed.

This may be my biggest problem with the change. The old classifications will still apply even though the standards are changing. Under the 1 point system I would drop a class on every classifier I've shot. I know the whole you'll shoot a different way argument but I only know one way to shoot. I'm a hoser, it's what I do.

[Swanny10]

Anything been said about how they are going to convert existing qualifying scores? Or did I miss it.

There will be new classification scores to meet for each level but they never change previous scores or classifications. There are plenty of Masters around these days that can't shoot to the new Master level times since the last time they were changed.

This may be my biggest problem with the change. The old classifications will still apply even though the standards are changing. Under the 1 point system I would drop a class on every classifier I've shot. I know the whole you'll shoot a different way argument but I only know one way to shoot. I'm a hoser, it's what I do.

Interesting. I had planned on moving up a class next year. Guess I'll be staying where I'm at. Not that it matters. Everybody will be in the same boat. It'll just make it more difficult to measure my progress.

[IronArcher]

I don't agree with the rule change based on the reasoning (being responsible for every shot). If that was the case, double the points added for mikes.

Pretending this is based on real shooting, I would rather hit the bad guy in the shoulder or ribs, than get shot aiming longer.

[GOF]

+1. That makes sense in the "Real World" (sorry kitten).

A fast torso hit before the other guy can deliver a hit, will normally disrupt the "other guy's" plan of action long enough for you to deliver more hits... which will disrupt their plan of attack and ability to perform them further. ... which lets you get more hits. Slap some rounds into the hip area (lower D-1 and D-3) and you can take the legs out and drop them to the ground... remove their mobility, and let you slip to a place where you can neutralize them. Whack a knee, and they are definitely "mobility/operationally challenged." A low center D-3 hit strikes what? I have heard it referred to as the Lorania Bobbit shot . That would tend to take them out of the fight!

Hits count, and the faster you can deliver them the more they count. As to where the hits are in IDPA and scored, their target is flawed.

The 0-Zone is nice... heart... but just above it is better....major arteries above the heart. Look at the DOJ study on the matter (Sniper's Triangle). The USPSA target is actually more correct in terms of "lethality per hit" when it comes to upper body shots.... and definitely more accurate when it comes to head shots.

You can score a D-0 with a hit to the head box on a IDPA target that may disable the opponent no more than a quick "slap to the side of the head."

Real World?... Not so much.

[Distant Thunder]

I went back and watched the original IDPA Invitational Competition DVD and noted the founding concept of IDPA was to utilize sound tactics and marksmanship with handguns practical for concealed carry/self defense. We can argue forever over how valid the rules are today versus the original intent, but increasing the penalties does play to the marksmanship aspect laid down way back when. We're still nowhere near Target/Action Pistol standards, but then this is a different game. I agree with NewColonial that this change will help simplify scoring. Good shooters will always rise to the top. Frankly, for me, this is all much ado about nothing.