-1 Points down = 1 second?

[9x45]

I'll check that with Bob Hostetter

[Gryff]

I'll check that with Bob Hostetter

You do that, princess. Do you need a list of other past Area Coordinators who can verify that I've never run a match at SLO?

[9x45]

Gryff, RULES, no PERSONAL ATTACKS.

Stop it!

[TonytheTiger]

This is the kind of nonsense I like to see in these threads! I don't shoot IDPA so the only thing that keeps me coming back to these superthreads is the nonstop pointless bickering and occasional snarky remarks with a good dose of sarcasm! The entertainment value is off the charts as long as everyone keeps acting like kindergarten kids! I expect to see this continue here as well as all the Carry Optics threads, the new USPSA division dropping thread and any other big thread we can fill with humor. Carry on!

[9x45]

Thank you Tony! Grrrrr. Don't forget to put "Suppressor Sights" on your CO USPSA gun. You know, in case your dot goes down, during a stage, OMG, could get you kilt on the streets.... Southern Medical Speak, Rectum: Dang near kilt m...

You have to admit the Princess Crown is over the top! I mean, look at the cocky tilt.

Edited September 23, 2015 by 9x45

[TonytheTiger]

Excellent! Continue gentlemen!

[SoCalGlocker]

I'm ok with the new rules of 1 sec penalty for each point down, but to say that's it's because of math is an insult.

Everyone knows practiscore and uberscoremaster are very capable of doing math without errors.

To expand on the rules, any hit to the 0 or 1 zone on a non-threat should result in a match DQ.

[motosapiens]

Unless they are bad at math, those same people can probably shoot accurately faster than the turtles too. They'll still be less accurate than the turtles, but faster enough to beat them easily.

Huh??

Changing the scoring generally won't change who wins. It won't make it any easier for fat slow out-of-shape people to be competitive. The people that shoot better under the current scoring will also shoot better with 1-second/pt scoring, they'll just adjust their shooting style.

[Ty Hamby]

Unless they are bad at math, those same people can probably shoot accurately faster than the turtles too. They'll still be less accurate than the turtles, but faster enough to beat them easily.

Huh??

Changing the scoring generally won't change who wins. It won't make it any easier for fat slow out-of-shape people to be competitive. The people that shoot better under the current scoring will also shoot better with 1-second/pt scoring, they'll just adjust their shooting style.

Thank you for the clarification.

Shooting 8 seconds 9 points down on a 13 second stage may soon become a loosing strategy. I am OK with that.

[Bob Hostetter]

Gryff ....... I think the incident he is referring to happened at Richmond and involved an local LEO and a popper during the lunch break and I am pretty sure you knew that. Your response while technically correct was only correct because of your failing to provide a complete response. You are normally better then that.

The Tactical Plumber remark came from me and my former training partner (mostly my partner). At the time we were both assigned full time to the firearms training division for our agency and were in the middle of a 6 month program to upgrade our training programs and retrain our SWAT Teams. My partner, John, didn't have much of a competition background so I was taking him around to various matches to give him a chance to try different techniques under a little pressure, even if it was only time and peer pressure. We were shooting a house clearing stage one day and when John shot it the SO immediately started telling him how he screwed it up tactically. John being an active SWAT member and very good instructor in all matters tactical asked the SO what he did for a living to have so strong an opinion about tactic's. He replied he was a plumber. From that day on John would refer to people low on talent and experience but big on mouth as "Tactical Plumber's". Obviously it caught on with some of the locals like 9x45.

As far as changing the times added for points down, it will have very little effect on the shooters finishing at the top. They are the shooters best prepared to adjust their game to suit changes in the rules. I have spoken to several of the people who have influence in the direction that IDPA is and will be taking over the few years. They all seem to believe that these types of changes are designed to make the less talented shooters more competitive, to narrow the distance from the bottom to the top. it will actually do just the reverse. As the stages become more technically demanding the better shooters will pull farther away from the pack.

Edited September 23, 2015 by Bob Hostetter

[GOF]

I kinda like the idea of penalties for HNT being doubled. Hitting a bystander in the Real World (sorry kitten ) can "Get ya kilt in court".

I also would support a FTN penalty being increased "That could get ya kilt on the streets" (Hey, if ya dont stop 'em they can keep gettin' after ya).

As far as -1 going to one second instead of .5... Being old, but normally one of the top 5 in Most Accurate, I could see it helping MY scores... but I'm not sure it's fair to penalize those fast shooters who have rounds one inch out of the -0 zone. I think that rule could turn IDPA into ICORE (two-handed bullseye).

[GOF]

Bob, thanks for the explanation on "Tactical Plumber"..... it is so DEAD ON! I get so tired of MM SOs trying to tell this MA (who taught these same techniques to SEAL/UDT during his military instructor days) why "You wouldn't want to do that on the streets. It could get ya kilt!" :roflol:

[motosapiens]

As far as -1 going to one second instead of .5... Being old, but normally one of the top 5 in Most Accurate, I could see it helping MY scores... but I'm not sure it's fair to penalize those fast shooters who have rounds one inch out of the -0 zone. I think that rule could turn IDPA into ICORE (two-handed bullseye).

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.

[Gryff]

Gryff ....... I think the incident he is referring to happened at Richmond and involved an local LEO and a popper during the lunch break and I am pretty sure you knew that. Your response while technically correct was only correct because of your failing to provide a complete response. You are normally better then that.

Nope. He screwed up SO many things with that story (SLO, a hill, sweeping other shooters with a loaded gun) that I expected him to go find out the real facts. If someone is going to make a douchebag accusation, it helps to get more things right about it than wrong.

[GOF]

If you go to a one second score for -1 you are looking at the same type of target scoring as in ICORE (I shoot ICORE... C Classic). You are also then looking at the need to slow enough to hit INSIDE the 8 inch zone as opposed to just close to it.

ICORE has a one second scoring penalty for anything outside the 8 inch round A Zone. It does change the speed at which shooters do their thing. BTDT.

I could live with a one second -1, but I think it would "dumb down" the game and turn it into "two-handed bullseye". I think COF designers can be creative enoughwith NTs and tight head shots to make accuracy an important component of the game.... but we all still like "Hose Fest" stages.... even if they're 20 yard targets.

If you want to slow down the "hosers"... increase HTN & FTN penalties. That makes a difference in how you shoot a stage... and gives COF designers some devious options.

An example might be from the 2011 IDPA Worlds in Frostproof, FL. There was a stage with swingers over the top of a vehicle that did not disappear. You started with them and then ran down a wall about 25 feet to a port and engaged the rest of the targets. Some shooters shot the swingers fast and moved. Some made sure they had neutralizing hits to avoid the FTN.

I was shooting SSR and that is the only stage I ever beat JM on revo to revo. He FTNed a swinger and I didn't. That was the difference.

With a 1 second -1, he might have slowed a bit to make better hits, and then would have whupped me like he always did.

A one second -1 will change the game... those extra .5 seconds make a difference over a 100+ round match.

[Jim Watson]

Everyone knows practiscore and uberscoremaster are very capable of doing math without errors.

But a drafted scorekeeper with three minutes instruction on the device can screw up the whole match.

I am old and fat and slow and a modicum of accuracy keeps me off the bottom of the standings. But I do wish you young snots would quit reminding me of it and all the other stuff that IDPA and its shooters are doing wrong.

[elguapo]

Can they? That's about a minute more of instruction than I had the first time I scored a stage with a wireless device and PS. And even with that little bit of training I still got it right and even figured out on my own how to add shooters to my squad.

I'm 49 and still have a dumb phone, no idpad, no tablet, no nothing

But a drafted scorekeeper with three minutes instruction on the device can screw up the whole match.

[Jim Watson]

They have in my district. Maybe they weren't getting the full three - or two minutes of training. One club gave up and went back to paper.

[Alaskapopo]

I have shot in non-idpa matches where the outlaw rules basically doubled all penalties, like you have mentioned.

It completely changes the way you shoot. You CANNOT afford to hit anything but -0. Heck 2 shots in a -1 will kill your stage.

Edited: for me it ends up being quite boring because you cannot afford to shoot fast.

Shooting accurately is boring?

[elguapo]

I have shot in non-idpa matches where the outlaw rules basically doubled all penalties, like you have mentioned.

It completely changes the way you shoot. You CANNOT afford to hit anything but -0. Heck 2 shots in a -1 will kill your stage.

Edited: for me it ends up being quite boring because you cannot afford to shoot fast.

Shooting accurately is boring?

When the focus is only accuracy, HELL YES

Been to a bullseye pistol match lately? It's like a nursing home

[elguapo]

They have in my district. Maybe they weren't getting the full three - or two minutes of training. One club gave up and went back to paper.

That's not an indictment of the technology, but of the people too dumb to be able to grasp it

[BillR1]

I have shot in non-idpa matches where the outlaw rules basically doubled all penalties, like you have mentioned.

It completely changes the way you shoot. You CANNOT afford to hit anything but -0. Heck 2 shots in a -1 will kill your stage.

Edited: for me it ends up being quite boring because you cannot afford to shoot fast.

Shooting accurately is boring?

It sure isn't boring to me! I really enjoy stages where I finish with very few/no points down, particularly if my speed was good also.

[Tarkeg]

I have shot in non-idpa matches where the outlaw rules basically doubled all penalties, like you have mentioned.

It completely changes the way you shoot. You CANNOT afford to hit anything but -0. Heck 2 shots in a -1 will kill your stage.

Edited: for me it ends up being quite boring because you cannot afford to shoot fast.

Shooting accurately is boring?

When the focus is only accuracy, HELL YES

Been to a bullseye pistol match lately? It's like a nursing home

I guess you have to give up all your speed to get any accuracy.

[rowdyb]

Like I said earlier. It won't change anything at the top, but it definitely will in the middle of the pack. The fat part of the bell curve. And for those who take the time to look at their score and see how much of it is coming from error, again like in the math I did earlier, most will make a conscious decision to slow it down.

I agree with others that changing the flavor, or mental pressure to encourage one to slow down will lessen my enjoyment. A match is already 20 seconds of you shooting per 45 minutes you're at the match. Now make that 20 seconds more methodical? No thanks.

IDPA is golf with guns. Rules, times, scores, equipment, courses, goofy clothes and all. You can change the rules and it will change the game. I just wish there was a clear vision and consensus from those writing the rules. It's bad enough I have to explain it like this to a friend, "So I run over here to shoot these targets. But I have to stop rriigght here on this invisible fault line. That moves per each target. That someone standing behind me supposedly can see. Oh and they get to penalize me in a way that's roughly 10-20% of my score for the stage with additional time off a glance. To that moving, invisible fault line."

And now that I'm ranting about cover and it's subjective nature...... I HAVE taken a string and taped it to the center of the target, ran it to the edge of cover and beyond. In my experiment what was proven with a measurement to show where cover truly is, was much more liberal than the eyeball method. IE most people who just stand back and look are getting it wrong. And then to expect them to make that call on the fly? HA.

IDPA would do best to remove the things that actually happen on the range, in the match that deal with intent or any sort of subjectivity. And hire a technical writer to at least proof read your rule book. Then set them in stone and call it good. I've only been shooting IDPA for three years and I have seen 3 iterations of the rules. Not just silly but damaging. Just like this -1=1sec will be.

[elguapo]

Tarkeg, thanks for the logical fallacy

Edited September 24, 2015 by elguapo