Wesquire Posted October 27, 2015 Share Posted October 27, 2015 So when I started shooting, I only shot IDPA. Like many others, I eventually moved on to USPSA and never really came back to IDPA. With the new 1 second down rule, I actually will start going to more IDPA matches. I think distinguishing itself from USPSA/IPSC further is the right move. Previously, there was just no reason to shoot IDPA over USPSA unless you just hated long stages. Now, I doubt the change will have an effect on the top DM/M shooters, the game will be much slower in the middle. That is something that I look forward to. It is a change of pace. I like that. Anyone else think the change will bring more USPSA/IPSC shooters to local matches? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkCO Posted October 27, 2015 Share Posted October 27, 2015 (edited) Opposite effect is what I think will happen. I might shoot my Revolver some in IDPA next year, but not because of the rule change. Edited October 27, 2015 by MarkCO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nimitz Posted October 28, 2015 Share Posted October 28, 2015 (edited) slowing things down is not a concept embraced by any USPSA shooters I've ever met .... the only thing this will do is guarentee they will never try or go back to IDPA .... Edited October 28, 2015 by Nimitz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wesquire Posted October 28, 2015 Author Share Posted October 28, 2015 Here's an analogy that might explain what I'm saying: People that love watching American football are not likely to watch arena or Canadian football because they are just worse versions of American football. However,fans of American football are probably less inclined to write rugby off as a bastardization since it has more fundamental differences. I see uspsa as American football and the current rules of idpa like Canadian football. The new rules are a step in the direction of idpa becoming like rugby. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rowdyb Posted October 28, 2015 Share Posted October 28, 2015 Except rubgy is more bad ass than american football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bikerburgess Posted October 28, 2015 Share Posted October 28, 2015 Rugby would be more like IDPA with the targets shooting back Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JD45 Posted October 28, 2015 Share Posted October 28, 2015 So, for self defense, it's now important to shoot a tight little 2 shot group in the center of your attacker and give him extra time to shoot your dumbass. Very smart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robport Posted October 28, 2015 Share Posted October 28, 2015 I think that a lot of good thought went into the concepts, but there are some things you just can't simulate with static cardboard targets and may effect your tactics in real life. X X __________________ P1 What about slicing the pie around a wall with an attacker two feet on the other side, while you have the other one 15 yards away? In real life, I see the close one as the most dangerous threat. He's not just going to stand there. There was a Vicker's demo with a USPSA shooter and him separately clearing a room. The USPSA guy cleared the whole space in 8 seconds while Mr. Vickers did it slowly, and methodically. It took a while. It was shown as "proof" that his way was better. After seeing it, I don't know myself. Just thinking as the bad guy, I probably wouldn't have been able to react the right way in 8 seconds, but I surely wouldn't stand there with gunfire slowly coming my way. I don't know for sure which is better, but it's just more evidence to me that this is a game...as I see it. I see the defenders of the change throwing out two major arguments as evidence it "needs" to be done; "founders intent" and it won't change anything. Both of those arguments don't really make sense with "intent" taking this long to realize (why wait almost 2 decades to correct an error) and if it won't change anything why take an un-researched major risk. I'll adapt (I hope), but I just fear that in a year or so, there will no one left but us old geezers out there. It's already looking more like an AARP convention than a sporting event. ...but then, I'm risk adverse without data. I wouldn't walk over a tarp on the ground without knowing that there is no hole underneath. They either don't seem to have that problem (as evidenced by their last rule changes), or just aren't presenting their data on there being no hole there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wesquire Posted October 28, 2015 Author Share Posted October 28, 2015 Except rubgy is more bad ass than american football. In what way? Football players are bigger, stronger, and faster. The average tackle has 3 times more force in football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jhgtyre Posted October 28, 2015 Share Posted October 28, 2015 Except rubgy is more bad ass than american football. In what way? Football players are bigger, stronger, and faster. The average tackle has 3 times more force in football. Ditch the pads and then tell us how it works out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MHicks Posted October 28, 2015 Share Posted October 28, 2015 Sure. Rugby players don't wear the protective gear that american football playets use. They have the occasional big hit. It's a rough sport. But, they do not hit regularly with the same force of impact as in football. Mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motosapiens Posted October 28, 2015 Share Posted October 28, 2015 Except rubgy is more bad ass than american football. In what way? Football players are bigger, stronger, and faster. The average tackle has 3 times more force in football. Ditch the pads and then tell us how it works out. so you're saying rugby is more like hugging, or slow dancing, and football is more like a sport? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racknrider Posted October 28, 2015 Share Posted October 28, 2015 This could be the worst tangent of all time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jhgtyre Posted October 28, 2015 Share Posted October 28, 2015 This could be the worst tangent of all time. Agreed and I am to blame for contributing. IDPA, lets talk about. People should aim. 1 for 1 on points down is a great idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2MoreChains Posted October 28, 2015 Share Posted October 28, 2015 I'm going off memory, but if the original intent from J.W. was "CCW'ers need to be accountable for where their bullets go" (or words to that effect) wouldn't the better way to handle that be a higher penalty for FTNs and hits on non-threats? Hell, for that matter recognize PF and the almighty hammer of Thor that is the .45 by making the penalty for a .45 hit on a NT be higher but allow 2 hits from a .45 in the groin of a Threat target to count as neutralized (I winced as I typed that). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkCO Posted October 28, 2015 Share Posted October 28, 2015 I'm going off memory, but if the original intent from J.W. was "CCW'ers need to be accountable for where their bullets go" (or words to that effect) wouldn't the better way to handle that be a higher penalty for FTNs and hits on non-threats? Hell, for that matter recognize PF and the almighty hammer of Thor that is the .45 by making the penalty for a .45 hit on a NT be higher but allow 2 hits from a .45 in the groin of a Threat target to count as neutralized (I winced as I typed that). All scenarios blind, some require a few shots, some require no shots to be fired. LOTs more non-threat targets on most stages. Once you hit a Non-threat target, you are done for the day. Everyone who hits a NT target has to brass, prepare lunch and clean all the rest of competitors guns before they go. If you make it through the match, you get interrogated about your score, your shot placement and if you bobble an answer, you are DQ'd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motosapiens Posted October 28, 2015 Share Posted October 28, 2015 I'm going off memory, but if the original intent from J.W. was "CCW'ers need to be accountable for where their bullets go" (or words to that effect) wouldn't the better way to handle that be a higher penalty for FTNs and hits on non-threats? Hell, for that matter recognize PF and the almighty hammer of Thor that is the .45 by making the penalty for a .45 hit on a NT be higher but allow 2 hits from a .45 in the groin of a Threat target to count as neutralized (I winced as I typed that). All scenarios blind, some require a few shots, some require no shots to be fired. LOTs more non-threat targets on most stages. Once you hit a Non-threat target, you are done for the day. Everyone who hits a NT target has to brass, prepare lunch and clean all the rest of competitors guns before they go. If you make it through the match, you get interrogated about your score, your shot placement and if you bobble an answer, you are DQ'd. it would be more realistic to have jail time and a 10,000 dollar fine. anything else is like hugging rugby players, it will get u killed in da streetz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2MoreChains Posted October 28, 2015 Share Posted October 28, 2015 All of which are considered higher penalties for hits on Non-Threats, que no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wesquire Posted October 29, 2015 Author Share Posted October 29, 2015 Except rubgy is more bad ass than american football.In what way? Football players are bigger, stronger, and faster. The average tackle has 3 times more force in football. Ditch the pads and then tell us how it works out. I love that argument. Rugby players hit like wet noodles because they don't wear pads, then brag about not wearing pads. You can't have it both ways. If you hit with the same force as the football players, you'd have a point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ac4wordplay Posted October 29, 2015 Share Posted October 29, 2015 I'm going off memory, but if the original intent from J.W. was "CCW'ers need to be accountable for where their bullets go" (or words to that effect) wouldn't the better way to handle that be a higher penalty for FTNs and hits on non-threats? Hell, for that matter recognize PF and the almighty hammer of Thor that is the .45 by making the penalty for a .45 hit on a NT be higher but allow 2 hits from a .45 in the groin of a Threat target to count as neutralized (I winced as I typed that). Excellent! (and congrats on the recent RM status!) 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