Max Michel interview regarding making changes to the sports

[GunBugBit]

The last thing I care about is trying to appease those who will never approve of firearms, and I don't even think changing the targets would make any difference.

We could change the targets, but we will still be left with ourselves -- USPSA competitors shooting our guns speedily and moving in ways that appear aggressive.

As far as making USPSA matches telegenic, I think it could be done. It would be in the packaging of it and the resources dedicated to making it exciting to watch. I just don't think it's likely to be taken up in a serious way by the media powers.

[StealthyBlagga]

...

I think the turtle targets would make it look less like we're training to be a one person assault force against a horde of terrorists. That sounds ridiculous when you actually say it, but as d-striker pointed out people actually think that way.

BUT if that wouldn't help convincing the middle ground, what would?

I think this is a fallacy. Changing the targets won't change that perception... to do so, you'd need to eliminate the movement through a "shoot house" like stage.Put the shooter in fixed spots and have them shoot reactive targets fast. Steel challenge and ProAm are the epitome of what it would look like. Those disciplines already exist, yet have not achieved the magabux sponsorships and media exposure being suggested here.

In countries where humanoid targets are banned by law, then I can see a case for non-humanoid targets. Otherwise, I am just not buying into the case being made here.

[Strick]

So many nay-sayers and haters that want to keep that status quo. LOL

[motosapiens]

So many nay-sayers and haters that want to keep that status quo. LOL

that's the definition of 'conservative'. What we have works, so before we change it, someone needs to *prove* it's better, and not just change for the sake of change.

[Bamboo]

"striving to better, oft we mar what's well"

The Bard

[Jadeslade]

We all like heads on targets, shooting on the move, more than one way to solve a problem, anybody can compete, and it has nothing to do with chest thumping. That's MMA, where people regularly get fubar and die. Yet makes millions. If you want said shooting sport like Classic targets and big money prizes, go create said sport. I think you will find the general membership does not want to change USPSA to that. All 15 of you guys can have your own league. There are only like 45 Formula 1 drivers licensed at any one given time and F1 makes millions. 3 Gun Nation created their own sport, I don't think they are making millions. Lots of people have put lots of years into USPSA, nobody dies, hardly any injuries, and actually fun.

This is starting to feel like a trolled thread.

So many nay-sayers and haters that want to keep that status quo. LOL

Yup, you're pretty much outnumbered.

[MilkMyDuds]

I care less what targets we shoot at than forcing rifles into handgun matches.

Yeah I know I am outnumbered, as truth is in the hands of the few as always.

[Bryan 45]

In the eyes of the non-competitive shooting public, what's the purpose of the handgun? It's not for shooting turtles.

Even steel challenge (zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz) looks like training for combat pistol for the people that don't understand what we do. Because a handgun is used, and the primary purpose of a handgun for the 99% of the US population, and probably 80% of all gun owners, is for self protection.

So are we going to change these people's perception of what a handgun is used for? Not going to happen. But we can show them there are other things to do with handguns, and those skills translate directly to the primary purpose of the handgun, which is the same for all of us.

[teros135]

I care less what targets we shoot at than forcing rifles into handgun matches.

Yeah I know I am outnumbered, as truth is in the hands of the few as always.

This^^^.

Actually, you have plenty of company. They're just not making a lot of noise.

[d_striker]

In the eyes of the non-competitive shooting public, what's the purpose of the handgun? It's not for shooting turtles.

Even steel challenge (zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz) looks like training for combat pistol for the people that don't understand what we do. Because a handgun is used, and the primary purpose of a handgun for the 99% of the US population, and probably 80% of all gun owners, is for self protection.

So are we going to change these people's perception of what a handgun is used for? Not going to happen. But we can show them there are other things to do with handguns, and those skills translate directly to the primary purpose of the handgun, which is the same for all of us.

I'm no gunfighter. Most of my pistols are for sport shooting.

[StealthyBlagga]

I'm no gunfighter. Most of my pistols are for sport shooting.

Do you not keep ANY handguns for personal protection? That surprises me. To have this skill and yet refuse to use if for protection in the event that the worst happens would seem... strange.

Edited February 23, 2016 by StealthyBlagga

[d_striker]

I'm no gunfighter. Most of my pistols are for sport shooting.

Do you not keep ANY handguns for personal protection? That surprises me. To have this skill and yet refuse to use if for protection in the event that the worst happens would seem... strange.

Perhaps that's where the disconnect on this issue is. It would appear that there are those that shoot USPSA to hone their face shooting skills, while some look at it as purely a game.

[Bryan 45]

I'm no gunfighter. Most of my pistols are for sport shooting.

Do you not keep ANY handguns for personal protection? That surprises me. To have this skill and yet refuse to use if for protection in the event that the worst happens would seem... strange.

Perhaps that's where the disconnect on this issue is. It would appear that there are those that shoot USPSA to hone their face shooting skills, while some look at it as purely a game.

Are we talking about things that make the participants of USPSA feel better about themselves or things that make the uneducated public feel better about USPSA?

Because to the entire uneducated public- handguns are for shooting people in the face. (I like that term, thank you.) And that's not going to change no matter the medium in which the projectile is expended.

[Sarge]

...

I think Mr. Foley would consider committing USPSA to such a deal but he'd have to put it before the board. And if he's as smart as I think he is he'd also put it before the general membership. If he didn't he'd be no better than any of the current "leaders" that so many here and elsewhere already despise.

I think that if it were put in front of the general membership, it would pass if we could get a $25-50,000 series going.

Good God, I would hope NOT. I think more of the membership than that.

By all means start a new and different pro sport, under the USPSA umbrella if you must, but leave the core USPSA amateur match format alone.

What are you talking about when you make these statements? I also find it odd that a PCC supporter at a handgun match would hate to see hadgun matches change to get more money involved.......that is funny. LOL

Actually I find your comments funny. What on earth does supporting PCC have to do with anything here?

I support PCC but no way would I support a tv show that will benefit only a select few top level shooters. What do the other 20,000 of us get out of it except being forced to be like the rest of the "not" free world of IPSC?

Since you asked.....PCC, rifle at a handgun match will only benefit a few shooters in the grand scheme of things but that seems to be ok. Also how is only exclusively using 1 of the 2 targets we currently use changing the game at all. Other than the chest pounding no one has stated how it affects anything. And lastly i amnot sure how bring money into the sport only benefits a select few, that is the type of logic that just escapes me......"I am not good enough or won't benefit so no one should".

I won't fund through my membership fees the funding of massive payouts to 10 or 20 shooters. As long as they don't use membership fees I don't care what a few select people want to do.

So, I don't want them to eliminate one of the two legal targets? So it's no big deal. OK, eliminate the classic target in USPSA matches. I'm fine with that. I certainly don't want to appear inflexible.

[GunBugBit]

Don't a lot of us view it as both a game/sport and as a way to enhance our ability to do well in potential real world applications?

[teros135]

I'm no gunfighter. Most of my pistols are for sport shooting.

Do you not keep ANY handguns for personal protection? That surprises me. To have this skill and yet refuse to use if for protection in the event that the worst happens would seem... strange.

Me too - most of my pistols are for sport shooting (except for the ones that aren't).

Did you catch his use of the word "most"? Where did you get that he "refuses" to use his guns for protection?

This sounds like trying to create an argument where there isn't one.

[StealthyBlagga]

I'm no gunfighter. Most of my pistols are for sport shooting.

Do you not keep ANY handguns for personal protection? That surprises me. To have this skill and yet refuse to use if for protection in the event that the worst happens would seem... strange.

Me too - most of my pistols are for sport shooting (except for the ones that aren't).

Did you catch his use of the word "most"? Where did you get that he "refuses" to use his guns for protection?

This sounds like trying to create an argument where there isn't one.

Don't a lot of us view it as both a game/sport and as a way to enhance our ability to do well in potential real world applications?

^^^ THIS is the point I am making. Most of us see USPSA competition primarily as a sport/hobby that ALSO helps us polish skills that would be useful for self-defense in the unlikely event that such a situation were to arise. Few of us are so naive as to consider it to be "combat training", nor do we consider ourselves "gunfighters", but that does not mean we are happy to see the martial element be discarded. It still matters.

Edited February 23, 2016 by StealthyBlagga

[d_striker]

I will admit that shooting USPSA will absolutely make one more competent in their gun handling skills and shooting...Both of which would be very beneficial to a real life situation. However, I don't spend all of the time and money that I do shooting this sport with the intent of honing my face shooting skills.

I practice the things in this game that will net me more points in a match, many of which are NOT sound tactical techniques. I'm addicted to the sport and competition. I don't do all this under the delusion that these skills are going to translate toward the benefit of kicking in doors or clearing houses.

Additionally, there are many olympic athletes that would say that ALL of their firearms are purely for sport. There are many in our sport and this thread that say this matter is purely because of handguns. The reason USPSA will never be a legitimate sport is because of that attitude. That attitude is simply perpetuating the mentality that guns are purely for killing.

Edited February 23, 2016 by d_striker

[Beastly]

That's MMA, where people regularly get fubar and die. Yet makes millions.

You are confusing MMA and Boxing. A little bruising, blood or a hyper-extended elbow is hardly "fubar and die".

Go check what happens to boxers after a match/career of repeated blunt force trauma to the head, using an instrument (boxing gloves) designed to primarily to protect the hands from injury.

[MilkMyDuds]

Gamers vs. timmies.

I wonder if they have "fishermen vs. preppers" thingy going on in pro bass fishing.

[GunBugBit]

Name one tactic that isn't immediately obvious to most shooters of all stripes that is a decent substitute for the ability to shoot precisely and expeditiously.

[Nimitz]

Moto:

Why do you equate "changing our targets" with "screwing up our sport"?

Do you really believe that the style of target we shoot really defines the sport? Sounds a little over dramatic to me .... please explain why changing the style of target we shoot at materially changes the sport of USPSA in any way .... other than clubs would have 'wasted' a bunch of money on targets that would be no longer 'legal' if it were changed ... and even that wouldn't be too much of a big deal as we could sell them all to IDPA since it's about time for another rule change from them ... I'm sure we could convince them they should be using our old metric targets which are 'defensive' & tactical .... or was that offensive ...

[Nimitz]

a couple of observations at this point ....

1. Every non 'mainstream' sport (bass fishing & beach volleyball are the 2 outstanding examples) which figured out a way to turn into a TV-viable entity with big money for the top competitors still has the same non-big money version of the sport. There were some format/rules changes mandated by those putting up the money (the sponsors) but the 'original' versions still thrive & continues today. there was no need to create a new sport .... In the 2 best cases just cited, to keep the amateur, grass roots portion of the sport alive they simply enacted a qualifying method for the big money sponsored events so literally ANYONE could enter the 'OPEN' tournaments and if you did well enough to qualify you made it to the main (televised) event where you had a equal shot at the big money. They also added a few "invitational" events where only certain competitors were invited to compete but most events are 'open' events'. This is how they avoided the 'elitist' concerns I keep hearing here.

2. The discussion about target type is irrelevant to the discussion of making the sport TV viable. The sponsors (in conjunction with whatever network the TV deal is made with) will determine these types of 'format' things based on the target audience they & the advertisers are going after. Since it's doubtful the sponsors will be seeking to garner the anti-gun crowd as their viewership it is literally irrelevant what those 'citizens' think. The sponsors will no more concerned about what anti-gunners think than Ray Scott worried about what PETA thought of the BASS Masters Classic ... this is not the U.S. Congress; it's big business ...

3. What target shape we choose to shoot at in our sport, by itself, has no bearing on anything.

4. Organizational member dues don't pay for the top competitor's prize money in an event .... the sponsor's do ... which is why they get to dictate certain aspects of the sport .... they're putting up the money & are taking all the risk.

5. If you really are opposed to the minor format changes the sponsors make for TV-USPSA events you can simply elect not to shoot them. There will still be plenty of non-televised events to play in with the 'original' format ...

6. If you believe USPSA style shooting provides any training to help you in a gunfight other than "hey, I've shot a pistol before" then I'm going to suggest that you should talk to someone who's been in a real gunfight ....

Edited February 23, 2016 by Nimitz

[d_striker]

Name one tactic that isn't immediately obvious to most shooters of all stripes that is a decent substitute for the ability to shoot precisely and expeditiously.

I would say that the one tactic that should be the most obvious is don't get in a gun fight with 16 armed individuals. And if you must, neutralize the immediate threat and run the other way. Not run out in the open in front of them all.

The sooner all of the timmies in this thread understand that USPSA is not a game of real life tactics, the better the sport and themselves will be.

Edited February 23, 2016 by d_striker

[cnote]

In the eyes of the non-competitive shooting public, what's the purpose of the handgun? It's not for shooting turtles.

Even steel challenge (zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz) looks like training for combat pistol for the people that don't understand what we do. Because a handgun is used, and the primary purpose of a handgun for the 99% of the US population, and probably 80% of all gun owners, is for self protection.

So are we going to change these people's perception of what a handgun is used for? Not going to happen. But we can show them there are other things to do with handguns, and those skills translate directly to the primary purpose of the handgun, which is the same for all of us.

I'm no gunfighter. Most of my pistols are for sport shooting.

Come on, show me a gunfighter and I will look at someone going to jail or an early dirt bath.

Maybe a soldier in active combat could be considered one, anyone else ,including LEO, looking for gunfights is looking for trouble.

Now I am not saying that what we do doesn't make us far more competent with a gun, but most people in Uspsa do not confuse competition with defensive training, at least nobody in my group does.