Max Michel interview regarding making changes to the sports

[StealthyBlagga]

Max is right. It is a sport. Lets stop pretending its combat training.

...

With respect, that is a bit of a straw man - I am sure most of us realize USPSA is a sport, and not "combat training". However, the original goal of the sport was to test the equipment and techniques employed in the defensive use of firearms, as embodied in the DVC balance of accuracy, power and speed. Moving to artificial, non-humanoid targets distorts the balance between speed and accuracy, and IMHO would be as harmful to the match experience as moving from centerfire to rimfire or airsoft. If the sport does not remain firmly anchored in its founding principles, we will be on a very slippery slope.

Edited February 21, 2016 by StealthyBlagga

[Jake Di Vita]

Moving to artificial, non-humanoid targets distorts the balance between speed and accuracy, and IMHO would be as harmful to the match experience as moving from centerfire to rimfire or airsoft.

So by extension you are saying that shooting IPSC where they use non-humanoid targets is as "harmful to the match experience" as creating a .22 or airsoft division.

That's more than a little ridiculous.

Edited February 21, 2016 by Jake Di Vita

[Beastly]

Max is right. It is a sport. Lets stop pretending its combat training.

The martial art of Judo was created specifically to get the art into the Olympics. Let IDPA use body targets. Hell, put faces on IDPA targets. Studies in WW2 found that shooting "targets" that did not simulate human beings made shooting a human being difficult in combat. USPSA isnt combat training. It is a sport.

Full disclosure: I'm completely bias as I get more alphas when shooting turtle targets.

Bolded text is patently false, try doing 2 seconds of research.

[d_striker]

Max is right. It is a sport. Lets stop pretending its combat training.

...

With respect, that is a bit of a straw man - I am sure most of us realize USPSA is a sport, and not "combat training". However, the original goal of the sport was to test the equipment and techniques employed in the defensive use of firearms, as embodied in the DVC balance of accuracy, power and speed. Moving to artificial, non-humanoid targets distorts the balance between speed and accuracy, and IMHO would be as harmful to the match experience as moving from centerfire to rimfire or airsoft. If the sport does not remain firmly anchored in its founding principles, we will be on a very slippery slope.

How does moving to a non-humanoid target distort the balance between speed and accuracy?

Also, it's funny hearing you talk about founding principles and slippery slope when you're one of the more outspoken PCC supporters.

Edited February 21, 2016 by d_striker

[Bruce]

Change the target to whatever shape you want, this sport is still not going to attract large crowds of spectators. In this way our sport is similar to professional racquetball. The guy on top of that sport for the last decade or so is, without question, the most dominant player to ever play...is amazing to watch...but few outside the sport know his name (Kane Waselenchuk). Go watch him play sometime. Don't worry, there will be seats available.

[perttime]

IPSC and USPSA targets? I shoot both. One for civilian sport, one for military reservist "sport".

Who cares as long as the shapes don't change too often. There's too many different kinds of targets in use in different sports already.

[StealthyBlagga]

Moving to artificial, non-humanoid targets distorts the balance between speed and accuracy, and IMHO would be as harmful to the match experience as moving from centerfire to rimfire or airsoft.

So by extension you are saying that shooting IPSC where they use non-humanoid targets is as "harmful to the match experience" as creating a .22 or airsoft division.

That's more than a little ridiculous.

Not ridiculous at all - the IPSC target has a much smaller target area, which changes the balance of speed vs accuracy that has been a benchmark in the sport since its inception. IDPA is making the same mistake by doubling the penalties for hits outside the "down 0" zone, essentially requiring the competitor to put every shot in the pie plate if they hope to do well. Watch a USPSA match video side-by-side with comparable IPSC and IDPA videos and the difference in pace is clear... smaller targets = slower shooting (boringly so IMHO).

If we can agree that the smaller targets have changed the DVC balance, and if people believe that this balance is not sacrasanct and can be changed at will, then why not shoot .22LR or airsoft? Sure, the guns are not as powerful, but we are not doing "combat training" so who cares about vis?

See where this slippery slope way of thinking takes us?

Edited February 21, 2016 by StealthyBlagga

[StealthyBlagga]

Also, it's funny hearing you talk about founding principles and slippery slope when you're one of the more outspoken PCC supporters.

I don't see how one has anything to do with the other. PCCs are commonly used in defensive and offensive applications in the real world, often as more effective substitutes for handguns. PCCs would shoot at the same targets (diligentia), would hit with the same power (vis), and would be timed (celeritas).

[MilkMyDuds]

Also, it's funny hearing you talk about founding principles and slippery slope when you're one of the more outspoken PCC supporters.

I don't see how one has anything to do with the other. PCCs are commonly used in defensive and offensive applications in the real world, often as more effective substitutes for handguns. PCCs would shoot at the same targets (diligentia), would hit with the same power (vis), and would be timed (celeritas).

PCC will gravitate USPSA towards longer avg target distance than the current handgun stages. Effectively same result as reducing target size.

BTW airsoft is cool I won't mind creating an airsoft division in USPSA. Fun for everyone!

Sent from my GT-N7105 using Tapatalk

[StealthyBlagga]

PCC will gravitate USPSA towards longer avg target distance than the current handgun stages. Effectively same result as reducing target size.

...

That is pure speculation. The vast majority of shooters will still be handgunners, so why would any sane MD do something like that and make the majority of his customers unhappy?

[chickenzomby]

USPSA is not practical, by and large. The raw shooting skills (grip, trigger manipulation, recoil management, etc.) do translate over to combative shooting, but the target presentations, dropping fully loaded mags, running through door ways, sticking guns through ports, race holsters, etc. are not by any stretch of the imagination. We are fully a game.

The primary reason of switching over to turtles, in my mind, is drawing in more sponsorships. Wild West 3 Gun match last year had red bull girls handing out drinks and taking pictures. This is not to say we need to switch targets, but I think equating it to weakness and caving into anti-firearm groups' demands or a slippery slope with airsoft or laser guns at the end is overreactionary. And trying to claim we are getting away from our "roots" by switching targets is ignoring all the non-applicable stuff that looks good on camera but does not make a better shooter out of you. IPSC is balanced more towards raw shooting skill and consistently making very hard shots, even though it might be slower. All this said, if a match or the organization as a whole can get a major sponsorship for switching targets to a smaller A zone target, it just increases the difficulty and the skill required to compete. If anything, we should welcome a better test of our skill.

A TV broadcast would require a format that lends itself to "moments" - like knockouts in UFC or touchdowns in the NFL, action shooting would need to have stages with reactive steel targets that are cool to watch when shot. When Max Michel shot the 18 rounds with two reloads in under 5 seconds video, it was a moment that could be replayed and enjoyed, because it had that wow factor.

In regards to changing the sport for the better though, outside of scoring simplification, I think that there needs to be support for collegiate teams. Once junior shooters move to college, it seems that all the support they got as juniors evaporates. Collegiate teams would allow for continuity of their shooting and feed more people into the sport. For as many junior shooters as we bring into the sport, how many drop off or reduce the amount of participation when they enter college? Plus, you have alumni groups and established team loyalty (imagine a man on man steel shootoff between rival universities - that's pretty easy to spice up and sell to sponsors) to drive viewership. Most of the problems arise when there is no coach to help guide the changing team leadership and keep them accountable. Still, a collegiate identifier would be nice (like junior, lady, mil, LEO, etc.), and you can even live webcast it if you get enough teams at one match, similar in setup to golf.

The other improvement I could see to make would be in adding team events (and not just 4 people's scores are added together...), such as a relay race of some kind, or stand and deliver stuff. There are tons of ways it could be done, but we're still doing the same thing we've always done and have not tried to think at least a little outside the box. Instead, it's been adding divisions. We could have companies sponsor loaner pistols to send to clubs along with gear for new shooters, or have clubs host new shooter matches and get a coordinator or marketing director that actively pushes USPSA across the USA.

Exposure to a wider audience is what the sport needs. You make some allowances for spectators, but broadcasting to fanbases that already have intense pride and loyalty (collegiate) would be help, though would probably take a little while.

[Gooldylocks]

USPSA is not practical, by and large. The raw shooting skills (grip, trigger manipulation, recoil management, etc.) do translate over to combative shooting, but the target presentations, dropping fully loaded mags, running through door ways, sticking guns through ports, race holsters, etc. are not by any stretch of the imagination. We are fully a game.

The primary reason of switching over to turtles, in my mind, is drawing in more sponsorships. Wild West 3 Gun match last year had red bull girls handing out drinks and taking pictures. This is not to say we need to switch targets, but I think equating it to weakness and caving into anti-firearm groups' demands or a slippery slope with airsoft or laser guns at the end is overreactionary. And trying to claim we are getting away from our "roots" by switching targets is ignoring all the non-applicable stuff that looks good on camera but does not make a better shooter out of you. IPSC is balanced more towards raw shooting skill and consistently making very hard shots, even though it might be slower. All this said, if a match or the organization as a whole can get a major sponsorship for switching targets to a smaller A zone target, it just increases the difficulty and the skill required to compete. If anything, we should welcome a better test of our skill.

A TV broadcast would require a format that lends itself to "moments" - like knockouts in UFC or touchdowns in the NFL, action shooting would need to have stages with reactive steel targets that are cool to watch when shot. When Max Michel shot the 18 rounds with two reloads in under 5 seconds video, it was a moment that could be replayed and enjoyed, because it had that wow factor.

In regards to changing the sport for the better though, outside of scoring simplification, I think that there needs to be support for collegiate teams. Once junior shooters move to college, it seems that all the support they got as juniors evaporates. Collegiate teams would allow for continuity of their shooting and feed more people into the sport. For as many junior shooters as we bring into the sport, how many drop off or reduce the amount of participation when they enter college? Plus, you have alumni groups and established team loyalty (imagine a man on man steel shootoff between rival universities - that's pretty easy to spice up and sell to sponsors) to drive viewership. Most of the problems arise when there is no coach to help guide the changing team leadership and keep them accountable. Still, a collegiate identifier would be nice (like junior, lady, mil, LEO, etc.), and you can even live webcast it if you get enough teams at one match, similar in setup to golf.

The other improvement I could see to make would be in adding team events (and not just 4 people's scores are added together...), such as a relay race of some kind, or stand and deliver stuff. There are tons of ways it could be done, but we're still doing the same thing we've always done and have not tried to think at least a little outside the box. Instead, it's been adding divisions. We could have companies sponsor loaner pistols to send to clubs along with gear for new shooters, or have clubs host new shooter matches and get a coordinator or marketing director that actively pushes USPSA across the USA.

Exposure to a wider audience is what the sport needs. You make some allowances for spectators, but broadcasting to fanbases that already have intense pride and loyalty (collegiate) would be help, though would probably take a little while.

My school has rifle and pistol clubs and rifle and pistol teams. I joined the pistol club last year, in hopes to make some friends to bring to steel or USPSA matches and was pretty much shoved to the wayside by the club president, even though several of the members thought it sounded fun. The club even owns a few sets of loaner production gear and it still got shot down. I think that it would be a huge hit at the collegiate level if some existing clubs would just take the leap and try it.

[Nimitz]

I have to admit, i'm completely baffled as to why anyone would want to fish other than being hungry, and even more baffled as to why anyone would want to watch 'competitive' fishing.

But whatever, if someone wants to invent a new tv-friendly moneymaking action pistol sport, I wish them luck. I will resist any attempts to transform uspsa into such a creature.

That's because you probably can't see a future where you could make 'serious money' shooting. However, can you look yourself in the mirror and honestly say that ft the possible of making big money shooting was real for you but to do it you'd have to embrace some changes to the sport as you know it now you wouldn't? Edited February 21, 2016 by Nimitz

[Strick]

The part I find funny in all this "don't want 'my' sport changed to get TV/sponsors/money is that at one point our sport was televised and there was money. Of course then our sport changed and continues to do so. The USPSA that so many here say they don't want to see different is not what it was when it started.

If changing the target, or I should say using only 1 of the 2 we use now, makes a difference in how enjoyable the sport is to you then I don't think we are participating in the same sport. Also the "P" in USPSA jumped the shark years ago in handgun matches, lets not pretend that most of what we are doing now is "practical", it may be fun and a challenge but not practical.

Edited February 21, 2016 by Strick

[Sarge]

Leave USPSA alone.

[Gooldylocks]

Leave USPSA alone.

"This is my ball and you can't play with it."

[teros135]

Leave USPSA alone.

"This is my ball and you can't play with it."

No, it's more like "it works fine. We're just fine with it. It's character doesn't need to be changed. Nobody's dying if it doesn't change." Anyway, are you going to be the one to do the hard work involved, or is it just fun to be eagerly pressing for change and arguing abstractly?

[Nimitz]

The part I find funny in all this "don't want 'my' sport changed to get TV/sponsors/money is that at one point our sport was televised and there was money. Of course then our sport changed and continues to do so. The USPSA that so many here say they don't want to see different is not what it was when it started.

If changing the target, or I should say using only 1 of the 2 we use now, makes a difference in how enjoyable the sport is to you then I don't think we are participating in the same sport. Also the "P" in USPSA jumped the shark years ago in handgun matches, lets not pretend that most of what we are doing now is "practical", it may be fun and a challenge but not practical.

Yep, we tend to have short or selective memories when we don't want to do something ....

[Nimitz]

Leave USPSA alone.

"This is my ball and you can't play with it."

No, it's more like "it works fine. We're just fine with it. It's character doesn't need to be changed. Nobody's dying if it doesn't change." Anyway, are you going to be the one to do the hard work involved, or is it just fun to be eagerly pressing for change and arguing abstractly?

it's also easy to be on the side of 'no chage' since that doesn't require any effort either ....

Just because someone has ideas about making changes doesn't automatically mean they are the ones who must execute the changes ... Lots of people have had great ideas over the years but have has others actually implement those changes ...

Edited February 22, 2016 by Nimitz

[Jadeslade]

I am surprised Max made those suggestions. Maybe Sig-Sauer asked him to speak to it. USPSA seems just fine to me in terms of targets and stuff. If I had to stage reset 32 steel targets every stage, I'd have to hire a gun bearer or something. Leave the head on. IPSC needs to come to us, not vice versa. I am sorry that the world is messed up. But we didn't mess it up. Well we messed up some of it, but always try to do the right thing. Kind of stems from WWII. Winning side sets the rules on guns in country. Then those countries went on binges of gun control, etc. Except there is no explaining England's, Australia's, and Canada's gun prohibition. Winston Churchill would be appalled- he wanted all of England armed to supplement British soldiers if needed for "security of the Homeland". Because they were in real danger from "the Fatherland". I agree with Stealthy that we need to stay somewhat true to Jeff Cooper's original principle's (I mean he split off from IPSC himself, before USPSA was created) and not try to appease the masses. I think USPSA needs to stay steady. There is no PC in USPSA-anyone is allowed to compete if they can own a gun-there is no discrimination, well women in tight shorts get the benefit of the doubt, but one of the most egalitarian sports around. You don't have to be rich or join an expensive golf or tennis club. Keep the heads.

South Africa and Rhodesia were around for the beginning of IPSC, it's not like we evolved separately. IPSC split off because IPSC President for life Nick had his own weird mission. Mike V just said no. That's why we still use targets with heads, and our own rules. There are way more people that come to America to shoot than vice versa. I like Saul, cool awesome Israeli/Dutch shooter, makes great products, but I'm sorry you have to lop the heads off in Holland! I am more concerned with getting California, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, and Connecticut back in the mainstream. Keep the heads on. Keep the B zone. Keep the matches going. USPSA is great sport. DVC

[Sarge]

Leave USPSA alone.

"This is my ball and you can't play with it."

No, it's more like "it works fine. We're just fine with it. It's character doesn't need to be changed. Nobody's dying if it doesn't change." Anyway, are you going to be the one to do the hard work involved, or is it just fun to be eagerly pressing for change and arguing abstractly?

it's also easy to be on the side of 'no chage' since that doesn't require any effort either ....

Just because someone has ideas about making changes doesn't automatically mean they are the ones who must execute the changes ... Lots of people have had great ideas over the years but have has others actually implement those changes ...

But when you are one of the most recognized shooters in the sport, people tend to listen. I listen because I see a man saying we need more mainstream exposure so he and a few other top shooters can line their pockets. I don't have a problem with them doing that until it changes the sport for the worse and takes my support class fees to make it happen. Also listening are those who think our sport needs to be more PC or go away entirely because it involves guns. There's a reason it's called flying under the radar.

[Sarge]

Leave USPSA alone.

"This is my ball and you can't play with it."

Not at all. Pretty childish to even say that. But it is mine and every other members game. I for one don't think we need to be more like IPSC. Their system works where shooters have to sneak into buildings to shoot and only the very rich or elite can even own guns in many countries.

We are USPSA because we are in the USA where there more guns in most single states than there are in all of Europe.

[Strick]

So it seems that the best argument for the metric target is ....merica, f*@k yea! or some other form of we need to keep it as a sign of some sort of political symbol. I for one think that is the most ridiculous reason, I don't want my sport to be some political statement, I just want it to be a sport. Besides that, again, what difference does it make in the shooting of a stage what the target is. We already use classics, it is not some sort of "new" target or a change.

[PatriotMRD]

Leave USPSA alone.

"This is my ball and you can't play with it."

Not at all. Pretty childish to even say that. But it is mine and every other members game. I for one don't think we need to be more like IPSC. Their system works where shooters have to sneak into buildings to shoot and only the very rich or elite can even own guns in many countries.

We are USPSA because we are in the USA where there more guns in most single states than there are in all of Europe.

Give 'em hell Sarge!

WE (the rank and file members) are the reason USPSA is even operating as a sanctioning body.

If you want a PC game use IPSC or create something else.

USPSA, or even IPSC, has never made a good spectator sport. Hits on cardboard targets can't be seen by the audience no matter which target you use. You need something that is all steel and/or frangible to make it easily seen by spectators.

This seems more about a handfull of shooters that want to be the Shaun White or the Tony Hawk of shooting sports getting the rest of us to go along with it not about getting the public to accept and embrace the shooting sports.

[Jadeslade]

So it seems that the best argument for the metric target is ....merica, f*@k yea! or some other form of we need to keep it as a sign of some sort of political symbol. I for one think that is the most ridiculous reason, I don't want my sport to be some political statement, I just want it to be a sport. Besides that, again, what difference does it make in the shooting of a stage what the target is. We already use classics, it is not some sort of "new" target or a change.

I like that it represents a head. It also has two different scoring zones. Your are confusing explanations about the difference in the targets with politics. We like the Metric target! It is not a political statement!