1 Point Down = 1 Second

[robport]

This may be a stupid question, but if Bill Wilson wanted 1 second per point, why did he use 0.5 seconds as the basis of his short 25 round classifier? 

From what I heard, he was the one that came up with that last year?

 

[S391]

2 hours ago, robport said:

This may be a stupid question, but if Bill Wilson wanted 1 second per point, why did he use 0.5 seconds as the basis of his short 25 round classifier? 

From what I heard, he was the one that came up with that last year?

 

I'm only repeating what Ken told us.......

[Jim Watson]

What Bill Wilson short 25 round Classifier?

[B_RAD]

21 minutes ago, Jim Watson said:

What Bill Wilson short 25 round Classifier?

I wonder if he's talking about the 5X5 ( I think that's what it's called). 

 

I'd say he used the .5 sec because it's the current method for figure time/score. 

I'd also imagine after the new rules, it'll go to 1 sec per point down  

 

[robport]

10 hours ago, Jim Watson said:

What Bill Wilson short 25 round Classifier?

Yes, the 5X5.  Sorry, didn't remember the name.

[Steve Koski]

Not a fan. 1 second penalty is not "defensive" in nature. It's too big. A fast decent hit is worth more than a 1 second slower slower perfect hit.

1 seconds turns IDPA into a non-defensive sport, akin to GSSF.

[IronArcher]

Bullseye with cover.

[B_RAD]

Just about every time I shoot a match, I get annoyed by another stupid rule. 

RWR is one. I would love to know if LAV, Wilson or Hackathorne actually teach this on any of thier defensive classes?

 

senario:

you engage multiple threats and fire 9-10 shots, then have to move to another position. so you're gonna go engage another set of multiple threats with only 1-2 rnds?!  which means you stick out around cover shoot twice at one of the threats, then have to reload, and now the threats are shooting back, but it's ok to keep half your upper body out around cover while reloading. Oh and let's not forget about the no shoots that'll be obscuring parts of the threat targets! I'd love to see LAV tell you "yeah go ahead and shoot that bad guy with a head shot but don't hit that innocent bystander".  "And don't forget to hit that popper to activate said no shoot"!

It's a game!  It's not real training. So why be "more accountable for every round down range" but the penalties for misses and hitting NS isn't getting increased!  

To me most of the rules they have are non realistic and seem to be whatever is opposite for USPSA by design!

And the 1 pt = 1 sec is for the members who can't shoot fast. 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 24, 2016 by B_RAD

[IHAVEGAS]

1 hour ago, B_RAD said:

whatever is opposite for USPSA by design!

That seems like a fundamental flaw with the sport. They could have done things (production class regulations, single stack regulations range commands, etc) much more hand in hand with what already existed in USPSA without hurting what they were trying to accomplish. Would have saved the shooters money and confusion.

Getting rid of some fun targets (e.g. Texas Star) that local clubs already invested in was particularly irritating. Shooting a star once in a while does not inhibit your ability to defend yourself. The justification was that a star is not all self defensie, but if you look at some of the dumb assed stage scenarios involving martians & zombies and etc I'm not seeing the point. 

[IronArcher]

3 hours ago, B_RAD said:

Just about every time I shoot a match, I get annoyed by another stupid rule. 

RWR is one. I would love to know if LAV, Wilson or Hackathorne actually teach this on any of thier defensive classes?

 

Absolutely agree! If your mag is empty, and the fight is not over, why wouldn't you reload the gun while it can still be fired if needed?
I kind of see the point of not leaving ammo behind, but if there is NO ammo in the mag, who cares?
My compromise would be 1 point per round left behind.

 

I know I have shot 3 matches where I dropped an EMPTY mag, only to pick it up again, fire the last round from the chamber, drop it again, and reload.
Yes, my problem.  As someone new to the sport, it seems much more to be some stupid technicality than anything remotely geared towards "real life".

 

The whole 1point/sec thing is another stupid rule because they say it's for being responsible for every shot, yet no change in mikes and no shoots. I'd much rather hit the guy with a lung shot first, than give him an extra second to shot me first.

I have heard it reported that MOST "real life" situations are in the open. I understand the cover rule, but there should also be more times when your not in cover, and not moving to cover where you  can shoot your targets as well.

 

P.S. the quote feature here is weird LOL!

 

 

 

Edited August 24, 2016 by IronArcher

[Mike62]

On ‎8‎/‎24‎/‎2016 at 11:17 AM, IHAVEGAS said:

That seems like a fundamental flaw with the sport. They could have done things (production class regulations, single stack regulations range commands, etc) much more hand in hand with what already existed in USPSA without hurting what they were trying to accomplish. Would have saved the shooters money and confusion.

Getting rid of some fun targets (e.g. Texas Star) that local clubs already invested in was particularly irritating. Shooting a star once in a while does not inhibit your ability to defend yourself. The justification was that a star is not all self defensie, but if you look at some of the dumb assed stage scenarios involving martians & zombies and etc I'm not seeing the point. 

I love every single word of this post. 

[rowdyb]

which came first? ssp or production? cdp or single stack? (off topic, sorry) but yeah, some increased commonality in the equipment or whatever would be nice.

you can keep what to me at least keeps idpa idpa, like shooting from cover, wearing a vest, interesting stage props, shootign to slide lock or a rwr and still shoot a star, ect. uspsa has its problems for sure but the identity crisis of idpa isn't helping itself over the past few years.

[johniac7078]

If you model this change mathematically, overall finishes of top shooters are affected only slightly, but enough to make differences in who wins. While a simple model predicts this to be somewhat linear across all shooters, if you factor in skills (calling shots for example) lower level shooters will see their final scores increase more because they will focus on making hits and therefore the matches will be pretty slow.  Watching someone shoot an 18 second stage in 40 seconds in annoying and can increase the time it takes to complete a match.  

I shoot a lot of IDPA. IMHO, the rule changes just lead to endless range lawyering and make it hard to have a consistent match.  Different SOs call stages at monthly club matches AND sanctioned matches differently so in many cases, everyone is shooting a different match.  To me, this makes it less of a sport.  

[IronArcher]

which came first? ssp or production? cdp or single stack? (off topic, sorry) but yeah, some increased commonality in the equipment or whatever would be nice.

you can keep what to me at least keeps idpa idpa, like shooting from cover, wearing a vest, interesting stage props, shootign to slide lock or a rwr and still shoot a star, ect. uspsa has its problems for sure but the identity crisis of idpa isn't helping itself over the past few years.

If those rules had a logical, realistic reason for existence.

99% never wear the vest unless competing.

Sure, cover is nice... Having an official determine if you need to be penalized because he/she though your upper body was only 49% covered isn't especially nice.

Shooting to slide lock when you could drop an empty mag from a loaded gun to avoid a penalty is stupid.

You can still have props, interesting (even semi realistic ones), and keep your identity.
At the moment, I'm inclined to identify IDPA as the game with the most useless arbitrary rules, that really isn't interested in hearing input from its members.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[B_RAD]

1 hour ago, IronArcher said:

 

Sure, cover is nice... Having an official determine if you need to be penalized because he/she though your upper body was only 49% covered isn't especially nice.

 

 

Shot my first sanctioned match yesterday. 

 

My last stage after ULSC the SO started the speech about he couldn't tell if I was out of cover on the first target for the last position. He said it was because I was so fast he could see if my foot was available to the target. He was really nice and I pointed to the gravel that had been distributed. He ended up not giving me one but I think he was deciding rather or not to give it to me while he was talking.  

 

I've never been called fast so much (or really at all) in my life as much as I have since I've started shooting IDPA. 

Even if I would have gotten that PE I still would have finished in the same place BUT I would have been pissed at the time!  And if it would have happened on the first stage, that could have really screw with someone's flow!

 

 

 

Edited August 29, 2016 by B_RAD

[GMB]

It would be nice if someone at IDPA HQ would just take a look at the survey results posted here. I believe that it does give a good sample of what the IDPA members want. The traffic on the IDPA forum is non-existent. IDPA HQ really didn't think this out to well. I totally agree with Steve Koski's post on this topic.

[v1911]

I think this forum is more of a snap shot of the better shooters in IDPA. We know that there's more MM and SS shooters than the EX and MA shooters in the organization. But most of the MM and SS crowd don't visit these forums. So to say this pole represents what the membership feels, isn't entirely right. Just what the top half of the skills chart feels. 

[IHAVEGAS]

20 minutes ago, v1911 said:

I think this forum is more of a snap shot of the better shooters in IDPA.

Plus when you consider that it is primarily a USPSA forum I think you get a bias in the adrenal rush and not so much tactical or marksman direction. 

But, like the o.p. said, it is what is is and it is better than nothing. I think the results are interesting. 

 

[B_RAD]

35 minutes ago, v1911 said:

I think this forum is more of a snap shot of the better shooters in IDPA. We know that there's more MM and SS shooters than the EX and MA shooters in the organization. But most of the MM and SS crowd don't visit these forums. So to say this pole represents what the membership feels, isn't entirely right. Just what the top half of the skills chart feels. 

Yeah. We forget most folks aren't into shooting as much as us. A lot of gun owners never get on any forums. 

 

If if you're on a gun forum, id say you're more into guns than the average owner/shooter. 

[BillR1]

On 8/17/2016 at 7:18 PM, freeidaho said:

Not too many of the 25000 IDPA members belong to BEnos, and even fewer are active in this thead.  Just saying this is hardly a random sample of IDPA shooters, which it would have to be, for the results to be meaningful.

I agree...this forum is not even remotely an accurate sampling of IDPA members/shooters. I'm not saying that's a bad thing necessarily, but an IDPA shooter's poll from here is almost worthless due to the different demographic of readers.

[GMB]

It's a lot more accurate than the IDPA forum! There is very little going on there, at least here there is some discussion and more importantly current and relevant.

[Steppenwolf]

In our local shooting area (one IDPA club and one "former" IDPA club (I'm not counting the USPSA club)) I would estimate (based on the subject being discussed over the past few months at matches) that our local shooters come close to matching the poll's results (at least 65%) are opposed to the new scoring change. In fact, some of the younger shooters (those under 35) are starting to gravitate to USPSA (at least seven IDPA members started shooting it in the past three months and all are dropping IDPA affiliation). The USPSA club matches tend to coincide with the IDPA club matches and thus some people are voting by no longer shooting IDPA. I will also be shooting more USPSA (but I'm over 35 for sure).

Edited September 1, 2016 by Steppenwolf

[Alaskapopo]

IDPA is supposed to be based more on reality supposedly but this new scoring system makes the match more in line with bullseye shooting than defensive shooting. Both speed and accuracy matter at the same level. This new scoring puts way more emphesis on accuracy over speed. USPSA hit factor is too far the other way in my opinion. Minor hit factor or older IDPA scoring was the best balance again in my opinion. I have shot a Police match with scoring like this 1 second down etc. I still won but it was like shooting a bullseye match where you walked around. 

Pat

[Alaskapopo]

On 8/26/2016 at 5:52 AM, Mike62 said:

I love every single word of this post. 

Me too 

[IronArcher]

I think this forum is more of a snap shot of the better shooters in IDPA. We know that there's more MM and SS shooters than the EX and MA shooters in the organization. But most of the MM and SS crowd don't visit these forums. So to say this pole represents what the membership feels, isn't entirely right. Just what the top half of the skills chart feels. 

MM in SSP and ESP here... though that will change at the next classifier I take (IF I take one) or next L2 or better match.