1 Point Down = 1 Second

[Jim Watson]

Quote

 69% of IDPA shooters do not shoot for competition,

Is that like "I only compete against myself?"

[IHAVEGAS]

57 minutes ago, Jim Watson said:

 

Is that like "I only compete against myself?"

A lot of us would be at the range shooting with friends and family even if none of the shooting sports existed, we just like to shoot and enjoy the company. 

[IronArcher]

Do you care about the new rule?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[GmanCdp]

2 hours ago, IronArcher said:

Do you care about the new rule?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

his opinion says no..and I don't care either.. the only way I see getting anything done would be get every club to have their members and MD's email HQ about not liking it. There are only about 200 shooters that look here on the  IDPA B.E. forum, and only 91 have voted so far on this post, with 1675 views posted.. so basically this post and topic  is dead.

[GMB]

I'm relying on my foot speed to carry me through the match, with my severely lacking shooting skills I can't afford this scoring change.  Well sometimes that's true.

Edited September 3, 2016 by buller01

[v1911]

7 hours ago, GMB said:

I'm relying on my foot speed to carry me through the match, with my severely lacking shooting skills I can't afford this scoring change.  Well sometimes that's true.

Sadly, there are some shooters that fall under this description. I do know of 1 or 2 that rely on their athleticism to help counter their points down. 

[IronArcher]

Why would you not?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[GMB]

Thats why this scoring change is bad. People that are overweight and out of shape shouldn't be rewarded either. The current scoring is fine and I would hsve no objections to higher penalties for misses and non-threats. Just sayin.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

[IronArcher]

Seems to be the general consensus... If only the heads would listen....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[GMB]

I'll admit it, I'm one of those that that counts on my athleticism o give me an edge, that carrys over to real life as well!!!

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

[IHAVEGAS]

Reminds me.

An r.o. instructor told me that one of the most dangerous guys to r.o. for is Rob Leatham .

Not young, not skinny, I think he has had at least one knee replaced, but the buzzer goes off and zing . 

[BillR1]

13 hours ago, IronArcher said:

Why would you not?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

IDPA has always tried to reward shooting skills over raw athleticism.

"1.3.3.2    A CoF  should test a competitor’s shooting  skills.  Allowances will  be  made  for physically challenged or disabled shooters.  Match Directors  should always  attempt  to make  the CoF  accessible for  all  shooters."

Edited September 4, 2016 by BillR1

[Thomas H]

On 9/1/2016 at 11:33 AM, BillR1 said:

Some people leave IDPA, and many others take their place. Until such time that HQ starts seeing a significant net loss in member numbers...

You know, you've said variations on this in a number of other cases, plus made comments about the survey being given to "19K IDPA members" and if I recall correctly, also have made an earlier comment about IDPA having 25K members or something like that.

I'm curious why you think this is true, and why you think "many others take their place."

According to the IDPA Members database (which, I'll note, is supposed to contain data on all IDPA members according to IDPA HQ), there are currently 2730 International members and 10235 US members.

Considering that even a cursory check will show you that many of those people do NOT have a current classification in any division (which is a yearly requirement, yes?), I'm wondering where you get 19K members, or over 20K members, or even any commentary that IDPA has had "many others take their place."

Do you have access to a special database that actually says how many current members of IDPA exist, and even more importantly, how many actually have shot at least one IDPA match (with reported results) in the last year?  Something that tells you how many new members have been added in any given year, and how many have left?

....because if the database has (putting together US and International members) only 12965 members in it, and many of those don't have a current classification or any match results in the database.....I'm wondering why you are saying what you do.

Do you have more membership information than the rest of us?  Remember, IDPA HQ is the one that says that all members are in the database.  The link you provide (which relates information given to them from IDPA HQ, instead of their own poll), says that the survey was given to 19700 members in October 2013.  Have we lost almost 7000 members in the last 3 years?

[BillR1]

http://www.idpa.com/about/introduction

This clearly states a membership number in excess of 22K. I believe their numbers. Others are certainly free to pick a number they like better.  I have no reason to question the stated number of members. 

As for the "others taking their place" statement, IDPA is growing. Major matches fill up quickly, and our local matches are well-attended and new shooters are being introduced every month. 

[Thomas H]

1 hour ago, BillR1 said:

http://www.idpa.com/about/introduction

This clearly states a membership number in excess of 22K. I believe their numbers. Others are certainly free to pick a number they like better.  I have no reason to question the stated number of members. 

As for the "others taking their place" statement, IDPA is growing. Major matches fill up quickly, and our local matches are well-attended and new shooters are being introduced every month. 

So-----the marketing intro to IDPA says a number that is nowhere near the number of members in the actual IDPA database that (according to IDPA) contains all members.  And a cursory search will immediately find you people who don't have classifiers shot in the past year, or even any scores at all.  Why do you believe their numbers?

And you say that major matches fill up quickly, and your local matches are well-attended, and new shooters are being introduced every month---if you get new shooters every month, do you have hundreds of shooters at a match now?  Or are you losing shooters at the same rate?  Do you actually track this, or are you just pulling opinions out of thin air?

How do you know IDPA is growing?  Supposedly, we had 19K members in 2013, and yet the current database has less than 13000.  Are you saying that IDPA lied about everyone needing to be in the data or (given your contention of "in excess of 22K") that 9000 members are "secret" and not in the database?

Everyone is of course able to have any opinion they like.  My question is simple:  Is your continued insistence that IDPA has over 20K members and is growing based on any actual known facts, or is that just your local impression based on the fact that you see new faces every once in awhile?  Do you actually have any DATA on this, or is yours simply an unsupported opinion?

If there is actual data to back it, I'd like to know.  It would be interesting to hear the actual number of IDPA members (actually, it would be most interesting to hear the actual number of IDPA members who actually classify in each calendar year, which shouldn't be hard to find out since they are required to be entered into the database) instead of hearing large numbers that aren't actually supported by the IDPA database.

Do you have any explanation as to why the IDPA database only contains (in the U.S. plus internationally) under 13K members, yet IDPA claims 22K members?

[Thomas H]

1 hour ago, BillR1 said:

http://www.idpa.com/about/introduction

This clearly states a membership number in excess of 22K. I believe their numbers. Others are certainly free to pick a number they like better.  I have no reason to question the stated number of members. 

As for the "others taking their place" statement, IDPA is growing. Major matches fill up quickly, and our local matches are well-attended and new shooters are being introduced every month. 

So-----the marketing intro to IDPA says a number that is nowhere near the number of members in the actual IDPA database that (according to IDPA) contains all members.  And a cursory search will immediately find you people who don't have classifiers shot in the past year, or even any scores at all.  Why do you believe their numbers?

And you say that major matches fill up quickly, and your local matches are well-attended, and new shooters are being introduced every month---if you get new shooters every month, do you have hundreds of shooters at a match now?  Or are you losing shooters at the same rate?  Do you actually track this, or are you just pulling opinions out of thin air?

How do you know IDPA is growing?  Supposedly, we had 19K members in 2013, and yet the current database has less than 13000.  Are you saying that IDPA lied about everyone needing to be in the data or (given your contention of "in excess of 22K") that 9000 members are "secret" and not in the database?

Everyone is of course able to have any opinion they like.  My question is simple:  Is your continued insistence that IDPA has over 20K members and is growing based on any actual known facts, or is that just your local impression based on the fact that you see new faces every once in awhile?  Do you actually have any DATA on this, or is yours simply an unsupported opinion?

If there is actual data to back it, I'd like to know.  It would be interesting to hear the actual number of IDPA members (actually, it would be most interesting to hear the actual number of IDPA members who actually classify in each calendar year, which shouldn't be hard to find out since they are required to be entered into the database) instead of hearing large numbers that aren't actually supported by the IDPA database.

Do you have any explanation as to why the IDPA database only contains (in the U.S. plus internationally) under 13K members, yet IDPA claims 22K members?

[BillR1]

Let's try this again...IDPA's website states that they have over 22K members. I personally don't have an issue with that number, so I have no desire to go digging into any database to try and prove them wrong. It's just not that important to me. I trust them so I'll take their word for it. Others feel differently, and that's their right. Works for me!

The survey result that I posted earlier was compiled from over 5K responses from members. I seriously doubt that 5000 responses came from a membership of only 12K. 

In the big picture, it doesn't really matter. My "opinions" are based on my own experiences and the stated numbers on the website. If you're looking at other data and coming to different conclusions, so be it. 

[Steppenwolf]

Thomas:

Another interesting statistic is the number of IDPA-affiliated clubs (and is that number decreasing). I confirmed that at least five clubs (including one in our area) have dropped IDPA affiliation (and perhaps there are more) in the past 12-15 months. The people that were members and belonged to those clubs may not renew membership. I suspect that IDPA's numbers are not growing much. In order to grow they will have to attract younger members (and therein lies a hint).

[IHAVEGAS]

6 hours ago, Steppenwolf said:

. I suspect that IDPA's numbers are not growing much. In order to grow they will have to attract younger members (and therein lies a hint).

The issues I'm seeing locally is that it is difficult to attract workers and to replace those that get burnt out from the work, so the clubs die or go dormant till some other persons step up. If you can find a way to attract younger folks who will do the heavy lifting of match set up and all the behind the scenes work then that is ideal, locally it is rare to see a key player who is not 40+ years old. 

Come to think of it, if you want to talk to a group of shooters who tend to be slow and accurate, show up on set up day, or 3 hours early on match day, or at the equipment shed after the match. 

Edited September 5, 2016 by IHAVEGAS

[Thomas H]

9 hours ago, BillR1 said:

Let's try this again...IDPA's website states that they have over 22K members. I personally don't have an issue with that number, so I have no desire to go digging into any database to try and prove them wrong. It's just not that important to me. I trust them so I'll take their word for it. Others feel differently, and that's their right. Works for me!

The survey result that I posted earlier was compiled from over 5K responses from members. I seriously doubt that 5000 responses came from a membership of only 12K. 

In the big picture, it doesn't really matter. My "opinions" are based on my own experiences and the stated numbers on the website. If you're looking at other data and coming to different conclusions, so be it. 

In other words, what you are being told matches your opinions, so you have no interest in actual data.

"If you're looking at other data and coming to different conclusions, so be it. "

I'm looking at IDPA's data.  This doesn't require "digging into any database," it literally is hitting a button for "members" on the IDPA website for US and International.  That isn't digging to prove them wrong, that's simply going "hey, I wonder how many members are in the database."

If you choose to ignore IDPA's own data because it doesn't fit your preconceived notions of the truth, okay, but it certainly ALSO means that in the future when you comment (repeatedly, as you have in the past) about the size of IDPA and how it is growing, people are going to remember that you don't care about anything but the marketing blurb on the IDPA website.

"In the big picture, it doesn't really matter."

Really?  So.....the actual reality about whether or not what is happening in IDPA is good for the sport or not doesn't matter to you? 

It does to me.

I'd like IDPA to continue and grow.  And either we currently have 9000 "hidden" members, IDPA can't manage a database correctly and doesn't have 40% of its members in its required database, or IDPA is considerably smaller than people think it is....and many of those members aren't current on their classifications.  If there are more memberships lapsing than are being renewed and/or begun, we have a problem.  Looking at just one local area is not sufficient data, and also seeing new faces (while a good thing) isn't that important if most of them never come back.

I keep the stats for my home club.  I can tell you that from 2007 to 2015, our average local match attendance has risen from 22.3 shooters to 66.7 shooters.  I can show you how different advertising, marketing, and outreach initiatives have affected that, and exactly how many shooters only shoot one match and leave, and how many return--and I could tell you what we've done to increase retention, and whether or not it has worked.  And the reason I can do that is because our club likes to look at what really happens.

In IDPA, I'd like to know what is really happening.  Because I'd like IDPA to continue. 

[Thomas H]

9 hours ago, Steppenwolf said:

Thomas:

Another interesting statistic is the number of IDPA-affiliated clubs (and is that number decreasing). I confirmed that at least five clubs (including one in our area) have dropped IDPA affiliation (and perhaps there are more) in the past 12-15 months. The people that were members and belonged to those clubs may not renew membership. I suspect that IDPA's numbers are not growing much. In order to grow they will have to attract younger members (and therein lies a hint).

You know, it hadn't even occurred to me to look at the clubs database.  Just doing a search for US clubs on the IDPA website, I get......360.  Internationally, the number is 116.

Number of IDPA clubs currently is 476?

Might have to check that again in 6 months or so.

 

 

[GMB]

Well seems we have gotten a little off topic, but it does seem raise some more questions as to how things are being run at HQ. With regards to the scoring it would have been nice if they (HQ) would have asked for members input.



Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

[Bill Nesbitt]

I was curious, so I went to the IDPA web site. I did a search for all members, inserted just the letter "a" as the search criteria and got a listing of 19460 members. I do know that one of out local clubs did not re-affiliate with IDPA this year.

The local people I talk to are mixed in whether they like the 1point = 1 second is a good or bad thing. They all agree it won't make much difference in the results.

[BillR1]

5 hours ago, Bill Nesbitt said:

I was curious, so I went to the IDPA web site. I did a search for all members, inserted just the letter "a" as the search criteria and got a listing of 19460 members. I do know that one of out local clubs did not re-affiliate with IDPA this year.

The local people I talk to are mixed in whether they like the 1point = 1 second is a good or bad thing. They all agree it won't make much difference in the results.

Thanks Bill! Some folks get way more carried away with exact figures than most of us do. ?

I completely agree that the rule won't make a huge difference in the final standings.

[Thomas H]

3 hours ago, BillR1 said:

Thanks Bill! Some folks get way more carried away with exact figures than most of us do. ?

You literally make no sense.  A difference between 13K and 19K, and you merely say "more carried away with exact figures."  Seriously?  That discrepancy isn't something that makes you go "hmm?"

 

Anyway: Mr. Nesbitt, you might try this: 

In the member search, type "a" and you'll get:  19460 results

Yet, limit the search to US only (still "a") and you'll get:  7818 results

and limit the search to International (still "a") and you'll get:  2379 results

.....which means that the database will give you both 19460 results, and 10197 results.  (Unless there is another category outside of "US" and "International" that people know about...?)

So---you might try the US and International search filters, with NO search terms, and see what you see.

One of the things that is interesting, is looking at the list of "5-gun classified members" both without search filters, (131 results) and with search filters (30 in the U.S., 2 internationally).

Interesting difference yes?  So when you click on several of the "5-gun members" on the list from without search filters, you find that some of those members don't actually have any stats, because they are inactive members without an actual data page.  Of course, when you do the same with the U.S. list, the same things happens sometimes.

In other words, the database itself isn't that helpful, because people who show up in the listing aren't necessarily active, and of those who are supposedly active, many haven't shot the classifier or have any match results in the last year.

And....even if ALL of those folks (19K, right?) were actually current, active members----that STILL means we have 3000 fewer members than three years ago when the survey was done (BillR1 keeps touting the 22K members given the survey, after all).

I personally think that a loss of almost 14% of our membership in 3 years (survey of 22K in 2013 versus 19K in 2016) is a big deal.  But apparently according to other people who aren't interested in data, our numbers are higher, and we have tons of new people starting.

I'm curious, BillR1---do you think that a membership level of 19K now (losing 14% of our membership in three years) means that "IDPA is growing"?