Max Michel interview regarding making changes to the sports

[BeerBaron]

I'm actually surprised there is such strong feeling about this. Does anyone really think the B zone is needed since it scores same as a C?

Does it really matter what the target is? they both reward accuracy with multiple scoring zones and in fact both are humanoid targets with the turtle just being a torso/centre of mass target.

I personally could care less between the metric or classic target.

Where does the paranoia about IPSC not allowing 'aggressive' movement or "running forwards" come from? I shoot under IPSC rules and have plenty of running down range, up range, sideways, wobbly bridges, weird props (starting in a porta-loo, starting in a car, climbing onto a scaffold, cooper tunnels etc), To be honest the main differences I've observed in lvl2 ipsc vs lvl2 USPSA are - obviously metric targets vs classic, the lack of texas stars and polish plate racks in ipsc, and the fact that ipsc matches follow a ratio of 2 long stages, 4 mediums and 6 shorts (for a typical 12 stage lvl 2, for higher stage numbers it's still stays close to that 6/4/2 ratio), uspsa tends to have higher round count and a higher ratio of longer stages.

Other than that they are basically the same.

Divisions are pretty much the same:

classic = single stack (in fact IPSC classic is more open as it allows bull barrels)

production = production (limited to 15 rounds in IPSC vs 10 in USPSA and IPSC restricts modifications a little further than USPSA)

standard = limited (basically the same)

open = open (the only real difference is mags are 170 in IPSC and 171.5 in USPSA)

I know bugger all about revolver... Production optic is on trial in USPSA and IPSC is looking at something similar too.

Both have 'all courses are freestyle' as one of the cornerstones of their rules.

both are mainly comstock (IPSC is all comstock these days)

Both have the same A/(B)C/D scoring.

both have major/minor in all divisions except production.

Powder factors are slightly different in major (5 PF points).

IPSC is perhaps more concerned about appearance in certain regions and some countries have funny laws that inhibit IPSC ( cannot shoot while moving in germany for example) but otherwise they are pretty much the same deal.

Be careful what you ask for. IPSC would radicalize stage design. The targets are first, then you can't run forward because that is aggressive.

If people want IPSC, move to Europe.

stage design between IPSC and USPSA is pretty close. USPSA tends towards higher rounds count stages and allows for some more 'uniqe' props and targets (stars etc). I'm not sure where you get the no running forward thing from.

Change the target or don't change it - it's hard to believe that is a big driver on whether the sport is "mainstream." Is it mainstream in countries that use the ipsc target? Popular on television, draw lots of spectators, outside sponsors, etc.?

I agree with this. Whilst I don't think changing target diminishes the sport in anyway I also agree it won't make it more palatable for the mainstream. In places that shoot IPSC it's just as much as an outcast as USPSA is in the US. It would take a lot more than target changes to bring a large piece of the population around.

I certainly don't think Max is some kind of heretic for suggesting there be some attempt to bring the sport to a wider audience. I do think it's a very difficult task though.

[Nimitz]

I've mentioned this before and the similarities are not perfect but the pro beach volleyball crowd went through exactly what we're discussing here back in th 1980s ... At that time there was a well established circuit of events with incrediable athletes but no money, no TV & no way to make a living ... Within 2 years of making an effort to get organized they had a major TV deal, money flowing in for prizes, etc. And unlike us, there we not already 25,000 people spending lots of money on teh sport for the sponsors to reap the rewards .... After all, what do you need to buy to play beach volleyball ...

Now when you win a event the 2 player team can split a check of up to $50,0000

It can be done but it's difficult ....

[motosapiens]

The list of sponsors for the 2016 X-Games includes AT&T, Coors Light, Intel, LifeProof, America’s Navy, GoPro, Harley-Davidson, Jeep, Monster Energy, Oakley, Polaris, Skype and Xbox. With sponsorship like that backing a match, can you imagine the quality of stages? Forget the match itself, how many local matches could be helped out with the kind of financial infusion sponsorships of that size would bring to USPSA?

first off, I think you are on some serious crack if you think shooting could *ever* have the visual appeal to young people that backflipping snowmobiles has.

Second, do we really *want* shooting to be an x-games type sport? I raced mountain bikes for years, and then offroad motorcycles for more years. The x-games bicycle and moto events incorporate nothing that looks like fun for me to actually do. I don't mind if x-games invents their own shooting sport, but I'd rather they didn't ruin ours by dumbing it down so drunk teenagers can understand it. When I shoot a big match, I want to shoot all day, or 1/2 days for 2-3 days, not squeeze a super-short event in between commercials.

the whole idea of changing our sport to appeal to tv is completely backwards imho. If our sport had *any* chance of being appealing, someone smart and greedy would already have come up with their own version of the sport and sold it to the mainstream media. I don't watch 3-gun on TV (or anywhere else, because I don't care about 3-gun), but it sounds like maybe that has already happened in there, and it also sounds like most people are pretty much 'meh' about it.

Edited February 17, 2016 by motosapiens

[motosapiens]

I've mentioned this before and the similarities are not perfect but the pro beach volleyball crowd went through exactly what we're discussing here back in th 1980s ...

similarities are not perfect? lol, are you kidding me? the similarities don't even exist!

beach volleyball happens at the beach, with beers and margaritas and hot chicks in swimsuits. shooting happens at the vegas range, with no beer, and with rob leatham and taran butler (who are damn good looking men, but I don't mind admitting I'd rather look at hot chicks in swimsuits).

Anyone with a brain could look at beach volleyball players and say 'we could make lots of money on this and have a great sporting event on tv'. IMHO, no one with a brain could look at uspsa shooting and think that.

[Sarge]

I'm actually surprised there is such strong feeling about this. Does anyone really think the B zone is needed since it scores same as a C?

Does it really matter what the target is? they both reward accuracy with multiple scoring zones and in fact both are humanoid targets with the turtle just being a torso/centre of mass target.

I personally could care less between the metric or classic target.

Where does the paranoia about IPSC not allowing 'aggressive' movement or "running forwards" come from? I shoot under IPSC rules and have plenty of running down range, up range, sideways, wobbly bridges, weird props (starting in a porta-loo, starting in a car, climbing onto a scaffold, cooper tunnels etc), To be honest the main differences I've observed in lvl2 ipsc vs lvl2 USPSA are - obviously metric targets vs classic, the lack of texas stars and polish plate racks in ipsc, and the fact that ipsc matches follow a ratio of 2 long stages, 4 mediums and 6 shorts (for a typical 12 stage lvl 2, for higher stage numbers it's still stays close to that 6/4/2 ratio), uspsa tends to have higher round count and a higher ratio of longer stages.

Other than that they are basically the same.

Divisions are pretty much the same:

classic = single stack (in fact IPSC classic is more open as it allows bull barrels)

production = production (limited to 15 rounds in IPSC vs 10 in USPSA and IPSC restricts modifications a little further than USPSA)

standard = limited (basically the same)

open = open (the only real difference is mags are 170 in IPSC and 171.5 in USPSA)

I know bugger all about revolver... Production optic is on trial in USPSA and IPSC is looking at something similar too.

Both have 'all courses are freestyle' as one of the cornerstones of their rules.

both are mainly comstock (IPSC is all comstock these days)

Both have the same A/(B)C/D scoring.

both have major/minor in all divisions except production.

Powder factors are slightly different in major (5 PF points).

IPSC is perhaps more concerned about appearance in certain regions and some countries have funny laws that inhibit IPSC ( cannot shoot while moving in germany for example) but otherwise they are pretty much the same deal.

Be careful what you ask for. IPSC would radicalize stage design. The targets are first, then you can't run forward because that is aggressive.

If people want IPSC, move to Europe.

stage design between IPSC and USPSA is pretty close. USPSA tends towards higher rounds count stages and allows for some more 'uniqe' props and targets (stars etc). I'm not sure where you get the no running forward thing from.

Change the target or don't change it - it's hard to believe that is a big driver on whether the sport is "mainstream." Is it mainstream in countries that use the ipsc target? Popular on television, draw lots of spectators, outside sponsors, etc.?

I agree with this. Whilst I don't think changing target diminishes the sport in anyway I also agree it won't make it more palatable for the mainstream. In places that shoot IPSC it's just as much as an outcast as USPSA is in the US. It would take a lot more than target changes to bring a large piece of the population around.

I certainly don't think Max is some kind of heretic for suggesting there be some attempt to bring the sport to a wider audience. I do think it's a very difficult task though.

And I can hear the main stream media that some of you are just chomping at the bit to expose our sport to. "Today USPSA acknowledged that it will no longer be shooting at targets which are humanoid in appearance which is the norm in more other advanced societies ". Then ten years from now, "USPSA has banned the use of firearms that fire live ammunition in order to be more in step with other advanced societies. They will only be permitted to use air soft toy guns. And by a majority vote of IPSC members, USPSA will only permit shooting while stationary in order to appear less aggressive".

Trust me, someday......

[motosapiens]

I'm actually surprised there is such strong feeling about this. Does anyone really think the B zone is needed since it scores same as a C?

that's not it. the point is we don't want to start down the path of ruining our sport in an attempt to appease people who will always hate our sport no matter what.

[Gooldylocks]

I've mentioned this before and the similarities are not perfect but the pro beach volleyball crowd went through exactly what we're discussing here back in th 1980s ... At that time there was a well established circuit of events with incrediable athletes but no money, no TV & no way to make a living ... Within 2 years of making an effort to get organized they had a major TV deal, money flowing in for prizes, etc. And unlike us, there we not already 25,000 people spending lots of money on teh sport for the sponsors to reap the rewards .... After all, what do you need to buy to play beach volleyball ...

Now when you win a event the 2 player team can split a check of up to $50,0000

It can be done but it's difficult ....

Wouldn't it be awesome if Area or Nationals winners were taking home big checks in the 25-50k range? The way I see it, yes. The dissenters here sound very similar to a lot of the mountain bikers that I know. Everyone wants the Downhill World Cup events to be on TV, but then complains at the mere thought of more people on the trails. More people riding/shooting would create more races/matches, more media coverage, and most importantly, more money.

I think that more matches, more participants, more coverage, and more money are all good things. But maybe I'm crazy.

[r01]

What about those child sized metal targets we shoot at?

[Gooldylocks]

The list of sponsors for the 2016 X-Games includes AT&T, Coors Light, Intel, LifeProof, America’s Navy, GoPro, Harley-Davidson, Jeep, Monster Energy, Oakley, Polaris, Skype and Xbox. With sponsorship like that backing a match, can you imagine the quality of stages? Forget the match itself, how many local matches could be helped out with the kind of financial infusion sponsorships of that size would bring to USPSA?

first off, I think you are on some serious crack if you think shooting could *ever* have the visual appeal to young people that backflipping snowmobiles has.

I am a young people, that thinks shooting has the visual appeal of backflipping snowmobiles. Where do I go to get burned at the stake?

[Sarge]

I've mentioned this before and the similarities are not perfect but the pro beach volleyball crowd went through exactly what we're discussing here back in th 1980s ... At that time there was a well established circuit of events with incrediable athletes but no money, no TV & no way to make a living ... Within 2 years of making an effort to get organized they had a major TV deal, money flowing in for prizes, etc. And unlike us, there we not already 25,000 people spending lots of money on teh sport for the sponsors to reap the rewards .... After all, what do you need to buy to play beach volleyball ...

Now when you win a event the 2 player team can split a check of up to $50,0000

It can be done but it's difficult ....

Wouldn't it be awesome if Area or Nationals winners were taking home big checks in the 25-50k range? The way I see it, yes. The dissenters here sound very similar to a lot of the mountain bikers that I know. Everyone wants the Downhill World Cup events to be on TV, but then complains at the mere thought of more people on the trails. More people riding/shooting would create more races/matches, more media coverage, and most importantly, more money.

I think that more matches, more participants, more coverage, and more money are all good things. But maybe I'm crazy.

You can find a bunch of hills to ride a bike down without everybody wanting to run you off your land. Not so for gun ranges. You can't just buy a few acres and shoot guns on it in many places. Hell, there are numerous existing ranges that have been around long before new homes surround it. And they still want the range to leave !

Bicycles? Geesh!

[motosapiens]

I've mentioned this before and the similarities are not perfect but the pro beach volleyball crowd went through exactly what we're discussing here back in th 1980s ... At that time there was a well established circuit of events with incrediable athletes but no money, no TV & no way to make a living ... Within 2 years of making an effort to get organized they had a major TV deal, money flowing in for prizes, etc. And unlike us, there we not already 25,000 people spending lots of money on teh sport for the sponsors to reap the rewards .... After all, what do you need to buy to play beach volleyball ...

Now when you win a event the 2 player team can split a check of up to $50,0000

It can be done but it's difficult ....

Wouldn't it be awesome if Area or Nationals winners were taking home big checks in the 25-50k range? The way I see it, yes. The dissenters here sound very similar to a lot of the mountain bikers that I know. Everyone wants the Downhill World Cup events to be on TV, but then complains at the mere thought of more people on the trails. More people riding/shooting would create more races/matches, more media coverage, and most importantly, more money.

I think that more matches, more participants, more coverage, and more money are all good things. But maybe I'm crazy.

Mtn biking is a good example of the problem. i don't know if you are old enough to have ridden in some of the old school mtb races, like the revenge of the siskiyous (50 miles, 1 loop) or weaverville or the humbug hurryup in yreka (another single loop classic), or the shasta lemurian. There are very few of these type of races now because mtn biking got big and famous, and courses got much shorter and friendlier to tv and to promoters trying to make money. Nowadays good mtn bike races are few and far between.

The national motorcycle enduro series went through a similar change... dumbed down the scoring, made the courses shorter and easier to attract more people. End result is both sports are worse than they used to be imho.

[Sarge]

What about those child sized metal targets we shoot at?

[motosapiens]

The list of sponsors for the 2016 X-Games includes AT&T, Coors Light, Intel, LifeProof, America’s Navy, GoPro, Harley-Davidson, Jeep, Monster Energy, Oakley, Polaris, Skype and Xbox. With sponsorship like that backing a match, can you imagine the quality of stages? Forget the match itself, how many local matches could be helped out with the kind of financial infusion sponsorships of that size would bring to USPSA?

first off, I think you are on some serious crack if you think shooting could *ever* have the visual appeal to young people that backflipping snowmobiles has.

I am a young people, that thinks shooting has the visual appeal of backflipping snowmobiles. Where do I go to get burned at the stake?

wherever you go, you will be lonely, otherwise people would already be watching shooting on tv.

[Gooldylocks]

I've mentioned this before and the similarities are not perfect but the pro beach volleyball crowd went through exactly what we're discussing here back in th 1980s ... At that time there was a well established circuit of events with incrediable athletes but no money, no TV & no way to make a living ... Within 2 years of making an effort to get organized they had a major TV deal, money flowing in for prizes, etc. And unlike us, there we not already 25,000 people spending lots of money on teh sport for the sponsors to reap the rewards .... After all, what do you need to buy to play beach volleyball ...

Now when you win a event the 2 player team can split a check of up to $50,0000

It can be done but it's difficult ....

Wouldn't it be awesome if Area or Nationals winners were taking home big checks in the 25-50k range? The way I see it, yes. The dissenters here sound very similar to a lot of the mountain bikers that I know. Everyone wants the Downhill World Cup events to be on TV, but then complains at the mere thought of more people on the trails. More people riding/shooting would create more races/matches, more media coverage, and most importantly, more money.

I think that more matches, more participants, more coverage, and more money are all good things. But maybe I'm crazy.

Mtn biking is a good example of the problem. i don't know if you are old enough to have ridden in some of the old school mtb races, like the revenge of the siskiyous (50 miles, 1 loop) or weaverville or the humbug hurryup in yreka (another single loop classic), or the shasta lemurian. There are very few of these type of races now because mtn biking got big and famous, and courses got much shorter and friendlier to tv and to promoters trying to make money. Nowadays good mtn bike races are few and far between.

The national motorcycle enduro series went through a similar change... dumbed down the scoring, made the courses shorter and easier to attract more people. End result is both sports are worse than they used to be imho.

I DH pretty much exclusively, so I suppose what we consider "good mountain bike races" might be different, but I see what you are saying.

[PatJones]

What about those child sized metal targets we shoot at?

Don't laugh. I had to explain to a woman who was at the match to watch another shooter on my squad that mini poppers were supposed to simulate standard poppers at a longer distance. She honestly thought they were sized to simulate children. She was with our squad so I got a chance to talk to her, but if she was just shooting on the next bay over she'd still have that misconception.

I regularly hear people on the squad make jokes about "don't shoot the white guy". We have created a sport out of running around shooting brown people. I really enjoy USPSA, but I wouldn't be sad to see the upper scoring zone go bye bye.

[Gooldylocks]

What about those child sized metal targets we shoot at?

Don't laugh. I had to explain to a woman who was at the match to watch another shooter on my squad that mini poppers were supposed to simulate standard poppers at a longer distance. She honestly thought they were sized to simulate children. She was with our squad so I got a chance to talk to her, but if she was just shooting on the next bay over she'd still have that misconception.

I regularly hear people on the squad make jokes about "don't shoot the white guy". We have created a sport out of running around shooting brown people. I really enjoy USPSA, but I wouldn't be sad to see the upper scoring zone go bye bye.

My mom came and watched a match one time (my dad dragged her along) and had the exact same response. I had to explain it to her, same thing. It is no secret that the poppers are designed to replicate the CNS and vital areas of a person. I would be more sad to see poppers go than metrics though, because Colt poppers are hard to hit haha.

[BritinUSA]

Practical Shooting is a niche sport and always has been, while Shooting USA provides some coverage of our Nationals they certainly don't dedicate an entire show to it every week. There is just not enough interest to justify it, we can post all the match videos online that we want, if people are interested then they can find them and watch them to their heart's content.

There really is nothing to be gained by televising it especially if we have to change the sport to appease the TV company. We don't need TV, if people want to watch the top competitors at Nationals or other big USPSA events then they can watch online and there are things we can do to improve that experience such as electronic scoring for example and a real-time leaderboard, links to sponsors web-pages (ROI)…

Changing the targets to try and create a more favorable impression is just not going to work; As I stated earlier, I prefer the IPSC target to the USPSA target but only because I think it brings back the accuracy with the smaller zones (I just wish they were more rectangular to make scoring easier).

If we want to promote a more positive view on gun ownership and shooting sports then thats going to have to start with us. I suspect that many of our new shooters find their way to USPSA by word-of-mouth, we're certainly not promoting it outside of the organization so I can't think of many other ways that new members are coming in to the sport. By the time the prospective member has made his/her way to the range for their first match they will most likely have watched a few videos online and seen the types of target that we shoot at, and they showed up anyway. So the target is a non-issue in my opinion.

[Gooldylocks]

........ I suspect that many of our new shooters find their way to USPSA by word-of-mouth, we're certainly not promoting it outside of the organization so I can't think of many other ways that new members are coming in to the sport. By the time the prospective member has made his/her way to the range for their first match they will most likely have watched a few videos online and seen the types of target that we shoot at, and they showed up anyway. So the target is a non-issue in my opinion.

But wouldn't increasing our general media/TV exposure get more people to see the sport at all, and then they could pursue it further to their hearts' content? Wouldn't that be a piece of the puzzle in promoting it outside of the organization (which we definitely should be doing, IMHO)?

[BritinUSA]

But wouldn't increasing our general media/TV exposure get more people to see the sport at all, and then they could pursue it further to their hearts' content? Wouldn't that be a piece of the puzzle in promoting it outside of the organization (which we definitely should be doing, IMHO)?

Increasing media coverage is a good thing, and TV is certainly part of the 'media', but there is not enough interest to drive a regular show. There are many avenues that we could be exploring; There are numerous gun magazines and internet shows where we could be pushing the sport, we could try reaching out to LEO's (especially those that may be adopting Optics on their handguns), though to be honest we have had a few LEO's attend our matches, they rarely return for a second time…

I'm by not a marketing specialist, but it seems to me that USPSA should be coming up with a comprehensive multi-layered plan to promote the sport among responsible gun owners; Of course we first need to find ways of encouraging more ranges to become affiliated and that requires some kind of ROI for them.

Nationals are our premier events and my perception is that USPSA is stuck in the thinking that Nationals is just a competition and nothing else. Our Nationals are one of the best marketing opportunities that we have, competitors with a wide variety of skill levels are all at the same place, at the same time. If the stage designs are appealing (look good in videos/photos) then it can help to attract new members if we can find ways to reach out to people with it.

Edited February 17, 2016 by BritinUSA

[Nimitz]

I've mentioned this before and the similarities are not perfect but the pro beach volleyball crowd went through exactly what we're discussing here back in th 1980s ...

similarities are not perfect? lol, are you kidding me? the similarities don't even exist!

beach volleyball happens at the beach, with beers and margaritas and hot chicks in swimsuits. shooting happens at the vegas range, with no beer, and with rob leatham and taran butler (who are damn good looking men, but I don't mind admitting I'd rather look at hot chicks in swimsuits).

Anyone with a brain could look at beach volleyball players and say 'we could make lots of money on this and have a great sporting event on tv'. IMHO, no one with a brain could look at uspsa shooting and think that.

I get what you are saying but pro beach volleyball was around for a LOT of years with the same beach, bikinis and beers and NO sponsors, TV or money EVER came calling ... It wasn't until a small group of pros got together and decided they wanted to make money at this instead of having to get a job that it happened ... I was actually there when it happened and saw some of it from the inside and the same things I'm reading now WRT shooting I heard back then, just no Internet to have instantaneous discussions ... "We're selling out", "no way will TV be interested", "we're not going to make those changes just so TV will air our sport". And on and on ... The parallels are uncanny ....

[motosapiens]

I've mentioned this before and the similarities are not perfect but the pro beach volleyball crowd went through exactly what we're discussing here back in th 1980s ...

similarities are not perfect? lol, are you kidding me? the similarities don't even exist!

beach volleyball happens at the beach, with beers and margaritas and hot chicks in swimsuits. shooting happens at the vegas range, with no beer, and with rob leatham and taran butler (who are damn good looking men, but I don't mind admitting I'd rather look at hot chicks in swimsuits).

Anyone with a brain could look at beach volleyball players and say 'we could make lots of money on this and have a great sporting event on tv'. IMHO, no one with a brain could look at uspsa shooting and think that.

I get what you are saying but pro beach volleyball was around for a LOT of years with the same beach, bikinis and beers and NO sponsors, TV or money EVER came calling ... It wasn't until a small group of pros got together and decided they wanted to make money at this instead of having to get a job that it happened ... I was actually there when it happened and saw some of it from the inside and the same things I'm reading now WRT shooting I heard back then, just no Internet to have instantaneous discussions ... "We're selling out", "no way will TV be interested", "we're not going to make those changes just so TV will air our sport". And on and on ... The parallels are uncanny ....

really? I played beach volleyball as a kid in the 70's, and then I played more in the late 90's and early 2000's and the game seems pretty much the same except for rally scoring (which indoor ball also switched to), and a little relaxation of double/lift calls on driven balls. I don't really see what changes had to be made to the sport of volleyball to make it palatable for tv.

OTOH, look at endurocross.... short races on short gnarly tracks, easy for spectators to understand..... absolutely NOTHING like the sport of enduro racing, but it's on x-games...... If you wanted a shooting sport to get tv coverage, it would have to be DRASTICALLY different, just like endurocross is drastically different. Shortened, dumbed down, simplified scoring, 1 stage, probably all reactive steel. People might well watch that; but it would not be the same sport, and imho it's dumb to make changes to our sport with tv coverage in mind, because it really will take a drastically different sport to fit into a tv timeslot. It might even be a fun sport, but it would be a different one. I fully support someone inventing a tv format pistol sport. It sounds like a great idea.

IMHO, uspsa shooting is and always will be a participant based sport, not a spectator sport. Like enduro, or desert motorcycle racing, it takes a long time, and for spectators there's alot of nothing going on, but for competitors, it is exciting and well worth spending all day participating. Any changes should be to make it better for *participants*, not to try to attract tv coverage or make it better for spectators.

[PatriotMRD]

I'm actually surprised there is such strong feeling about this. Does anyone really think the B zone is needed since it scores same as a C?

Does it really matter what the target is? they both reward accuracy with multiple scoring zones and in fact both are humanoid targets with the turtle just being a torso/centre of mass target.

I personally could care less between the metric or classic target.

Where does the paranoia about IPSC not allowing 'aggressive' movement or "running forwards" come from? I shoot under IPSC rules and have plenty of running down range, up range, sideways, wobbly bridges, weird props (starting in a porta-loo, starting in a car, climbing onto a scaffold, cooper tunnels etc), To be honest the main differences I've observed in lvl2 ipsc vs lvl2 USPSA are - obviously metric targets vs classic, the lack of texas stars and polish plate racks in ipsc, and the fact that ipsc matches follow a ratio of 2 long stages, 4 mediums and 6 shorts (for a typical 12 stage lvl 2, for higher stage numbers it's still stays close to that 6/4/2 ratio), uspsa tends to have higher round count and a higher ratio of longer stages.

Other than that they are basically the same.

Divisions are pretty much the same:

classic = single stack (in fact IPSC classic is more open as it allows bull barrels)

production = production (limited to 15 rounds in IPSC vs 10 in USPSA and IPSC restricts modifications a little further than USPSA)

standard = limited (basically the same)

open = open (the only real difference is mags are 170 in IPSC and 171.5 in USPSA)

I know bugger all about revolver... Production optic is on trial in USPSA and IPSC is looking at something similar too.

Both have 'all courses are freestyle' as one of the cornerstones of their rules.

both are mainly comstock (IPSC is all comstock these days)

Both have the same A/(B)C/D scoring.

both have major/minor in all divisions except production.

Powder factors are slightly different in major (5 PF points).

IPSC is perhaps more concerned about appearance in certain regions and some countries have funny laws that inhibit IPSC ( cannot shoot while moving in germany for example) but otherwise they are pretty much the same deal.

Be careful what you ask for. IPSC would radicalize stage design. The targets are first, then you can't run forward because that is aggressive.

If people want IPSC, move to Europe.

stage design between IPSC and USPSA is pretty close. USPSA tends towards higher rounds count stages and allows for some more 'uniqe' props and targets (stars etc). I'm not sure where you get the no running forward thing from.

Change the target or don't change it - it's hard to believe that is a big driver on whether the sport is "mainstream." Is it mainstream in countries that use the ipsc target? Popular on television, draw lots of spectators, outside sponsors, etc.?

I agree with this. Whilst I don't think changing target diminishes the sport in anyway I also agree it won't make it more palatable for the mainstream. In places that shoot IPSC it's just as much as an outcast as USPSA is in the US. It would take a lot more than target changes to bring a large piece of the population around.

I certainly don't think Max is some kind of heretic for suggesting there be some attempt to bring the sport to a wider audience. I do think it's a very difficult task though.

And I can hear the main stream media that some of you are just chomping at the bit to expose our sport to. "Today USPSA acknowledged that it will no longer be shooting at targets which are humanoid in appearance which is the norm in more other advanced societies ". Then ten years from now, "USPSA has banned the use of firearms that fire live ammunition in order to be more in step with other advanced societies. They will only be permitted to use air soft toy guns. And by a majority vote of IPSC members, USPSA will only permit shooting while stationary in order to appear less aggressive".

Trust me, someday......

IPSC already banned humanoid targets, wearing camouflage and tactical type clothing some time ago. It's not that far fetched to foresee them going further to remove the appearance of "paramilitary aggression". Shooters in Europe intentionally wear colorful clothing and paint their guns and equipment in bright colors to emphasize the "sport" aspect and prove they are not a threat to the government and try to keep the sheeple from getting nervous.

[motosapiens]

I'm by not a marketing specialist, but it seems to me that USPSA should be coming up with a comprehensive multi-layered plan to promote the sport among responsible gun owners;

In our area we have steel challenge as a way to introduce newer shooters to the sport in a much less intimidating setting. We also have an annual charity 'shoot for the cure' event that really beats the bushes to get newbies and especially women to show up and get a simplified taste of uspsa, idpa and steel. And it works. Attendance at our matches has dramatically increased over the last few years, and the quality of shooters has dramatically increased....... And we didn't even need the federal government or a national organization to tell us what to do.

Just make your local matches better and more inviting, and shooters will show up and have fun. Get local shops involved. We have employees and owners from multiple gun stores coming out to steel challenge, and they pass the word on to their customers. We can do it. We don't have to wait for a national marketing plan.

[PatriotMRD]

I'm by not a marketing specialist, but it seems to me that USPSA should be coming up with a comprehensive multi-layered plan to promote the sport among responsible gun owners;

In our area we have steel challenge as a way to introduce newer shooters to the sport in a much less intimidating setting. We also have an annual charity 'shoot for the cure' event that really beats the bushes to get newbies and especially women to show up and get a simplified taste of uspsa, idpa and steel. And it works. Attendance at our matches has dramatically increased over the last few years, and the quality of shooters has dramatically increased....... And we didn't even need the federal government or a national organization to tell us what to do.

Just make your local matches better and more inviting, and shooters will show up and have fun. Get local shops involved. We have employees and owners from multiple gun stores coming out to steel challenge, and they pass the word on to their customers. We can do it. We don't have to wait for a national marketing plan.

Much better plan than make our sports more PC and media friendly. More people would be interested IF they knew about it and didn't have the (wrong) impression that only people like Max, KC and Jerry can be competitive at any level.

[L3324temp]

Ignoring advice from two of the best known shooters in the game is exceptional....for its ignorance. All this tough guy crap from you and groups like the NRA is eventually going to be the downfall of the gun sports.

You do realize that gun ownership and sentiment are rapidly expanding. The number of woman embracing firearm ownership is at an all time high. What is being done is working very well for us. No reason to turn and run with our tails between our legs now.