-1 Points down = 1 second?

[racknrider]

Maybe we can have a scale system. 1 second for M, .8 for EX, .5 for SS, .3 for MM, and 0 for novice. Then we can give everyone a participation trophy.

[IronArcher]

Honestly, i liked the idea of a larger penalty for mikes.

If the idea TRUELY is about being responsible for each shot, shots that hit the target shouldn't get penalized... Those that miss should.

[LeviSS]

I wouldn't mind the more points down for misses, but I think even now you are penalized enough. You can't win throwing many Mikes.

The 1=1 thing sucks.

Edited April 12, 2016 by LeviSS

[IHAVEGAS]

and the poor newbies at the bottom of the scoresheet are going to get absolutely hammered.

If they ain't smart enough to figure out what the scores mean (either way) they probably should not be encouraged to own handguns.

[Jim Watson]

The police league I shoot in started out as IDPA but with the concept that a cop is liable for rounds fired and either letting a violent felon escape or winging a taxpayer is frowned upon, has gone to 1 sec/point down and 20 sec for either a FTN or HoNT.

[MarilynMonbro]

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.

Pretty much thjs. I'm going to get hammered

[waktasz]

You have 8 months you can be practicing. You're not a newbie anymore with 8 months of practice.

[racknrider]

The biggest problem I see for newbies is not being able to make shots. Most are looking for holes, taking tons of make up shots, and getting discouraged. Then comes the scoring; 10 & fail, 10 & fail, 8 & fail, you know how it goes.

My last few matches have been pretty tough to try to help shooters that will be going to sanctioned matches get used to some tighter shots, but the next one is going to be a wide open, close target hose fest just to let our lower level shooters go home feeling better about their shooting. And keep coming back.

[Steppenwolf]

Racknrider:

South Carolina has the right idea! I've read several forum discussions ("arguments") about the change and I've read what Larry Vickers (and some other IDPA "founders") have rambled on about. In a nutshell, if IDPA does not attract and keep new shooters then it will dwindle. The first match or two will determine if people (newbies) will return to shoot. I've noticed a similar phenomenon in other "competitive-related" groups over the years. If a newbie (referring to new at competition shooting--not just newbie with a new pistol) feels intimidated or overwhelmed then they will not return (we've all probably witnessed a LE, military, or experienced bulls-eye shooter show up once and never return). The members that claim people should "toughen up" tend to forget what it was like to experience/learn something new. A group that is supportive of newbies (people that make others feel comfortable) and that does not intimidate newbies (large score discrepancies) will fare better. Every club probably has experienced shooters that enjoy demolishing the egos of newbies (I've seen this behavior in past years at groups as diverse as Chess, table games, and misc. sporting-related clubs).

Why exactly is HQ making the rule change? Specifically what will the change improve (measurable benefit, not speculative/imaginary)? If HQ wants to further differentiate itself from "run and gun"(such as USPSA) it is naive to believe that changing scoring will directly result in overall improved accuracy. You become more accurate via learning (reflecting on experience over time and practicing), getting training (and practicing), or a combination of the two. Your "mental" game is vital to the process (re-read Benos' book). You will never build confidence unless you stick with it and learn, but you will not stick with it if you are intimidated or have a bad initial experience. Changing the scoring is a superficial solution.

And that and $1 will buy you a cup of not very good coffee.

[Racinready300ex]

Our local range you get what seems like a hour of a SO going over the rules before the match. Now if that doesn't scare off new shooters I don't know what will.

[GMB]

Just wondering if anyone has heard any new updates on this ridiculous rule change. Is there hope of it going away?????

[Sidewinder6]

Good question.

[IHAVEGAS]

Just wondering if anyone has heard any new updates on this ridiculous rule change. Is there hope of it going away?????

Ok, I like the change (but I also like minor scoring in USPSA production so go figure). More than anything though, when you crunch the numbers both ways on a match it makes little difference.

Rumor from a dude that knows a guy that thought he heard a lady say something is 1st quarter 2017, along with things I think that about everybody will like (you might not have to pick up an empty mag if you still have 1 in the chamber, stuff like that).

[GMB]

If it will make little difference then they (IDPA HQ) should leave the scoring alone!!!! I'd love to hear from someone on the IDPA board on this forum.

[IHAVEGAS]

If it will make little difference then they (IDPA HQ) should leave the scoring alone!!!!

Nothing wrong with your opinion (in my opinion) , might not be something worth using up the exclamation points about though . I see the change as an incremental improvement.

[Brooke]

If it will make little difference then they (IDPA HQ) should leave the scoring alone!!!! I'd love to hear from someone on the IDPA board on this forum.

My sentiments exactly. A lot of posters claim they have scored matches both ways and it changes very little. Well, you can't do that because the scoring changes the way the shooter approaches the match.

The very top shooters are fast and accurate. their scores will change very little. Hell, Vogel shoots practically all zeros at warp speed. The average Joe (on whom viability of the sport depends) will slow down in an attempt to avoid penalties and the fun gets sucked out of the game. The range in overall scores will increase dramatically and lower level shooters will become discouraged and quit. It matters because newer shooters and average shooters support the sport financially. There is no TV, no spectators or tours. The sport depends on participants.

Many have said this changes nothing in terms of order of finish. I expect that is correct. So why in heck do it? The only possible reason I see is that the few who run IDPA honestly believe it is defensive, tactical training. It is not. It's a game and if you reduce the fun of the game it would be less popular.

These same people skipped over carry optics and USPSA will now own it. If they thought hitting what was intended is important why skip the best way to achieve that goal? Now they want to emphasize accuracy. Something is wrong with their logic.

Edited May 14, 2016 by Brooke

[GMB]

How is it an improvement if the majority of members do not want the change. The scoring system is not broken in IDPA. The goal should be to grow the membership. I just get soooooo excited when I discuss the subject.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

Edited May 14, 2016 by buller01

[IHAVEGAS]

How is it an improvement if the majority of members do not want the change.

How would you know if that was true or false?

[IHAVEGAS]

My sentiments exactly. A lot of posters claim they have scored matches both ways and it changes very little. Well, you can't do that because the scoring changes the way the shooter approaches the match.

The very top shooters are fast and accurate. their scores will change very little. Hell, Vogel shoots practically all zeros at warp speed. The average Joe (on whom viability of the sport depends) will slow down in an attempt to avoid penalties and the fun gets sucked out of the game.

If you've gone to the major matches, either sport, you have probably noticed that often the shot difficulty gets really cranked up. Folks are forced to slow down in an attempt to avoid penalties (average Joe or not) and many of them can't wait to come back next year. Tight shots & high penalties for misses (due to no shoots, or hard cover, or ftn's, or a scoring tweak) are pretty much a proven winner for fun factor.

That said, I'm kind of spent as far as commenting on something that I don't really think is worth getting 0.001% upset about, so I will go away now (at least till I get bored again).

Happy shooting!

[GMB]

What you said is all true with the exception of the scoring tweak. Better stage design and raising the level of difficulty will accomplish this without a change in scoring. I have shot my fair share of major matches in various states.

[GmanCdp]

Since age is being a factor with most of the experienced shooters, why don't we just ask for a target change of the zero down to 10"..

That is how big the vital area is on most of us old guys

[Marshal82]

I see the scoring change as having very little impact on the finishes in the major matches. So why change the entire scoring system forcing the classifier to be redone and the whole scale of scoring in IDPA to change?

All this did was really stir up a bunch of negative controversy over something that doesn't have a timeline or scheduled to be implemented yet.

[IronArcher]

Latest IDPA magazine says it's still on for 2017

[JD45]

It's too hard for beginners already. Most matches I see do not represent the reason the sport was formed.

Ten years ago it wasn't this bad. The guys that ran our matches were old USPSA shooters. The stages didn't need much explaining.

[v1911]

Too hard for beginners? USPSA shooters usually brag that IDPA is the beginner sport and that you graduate up to USPSA when you get bored of slow, predetermined, low round count matches.

Nothing changes. You focus on accuracy and safety. The speed comes with experience. Too many times newbies want to immulate more seasoned shooters. The result is usually an over stressed SO, fist full of procedurals and groupings the size of watermelons.