1 Point Down = 1 Second

[BillR1]

53 minutes ago, Thomas H said:

 

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"?

 

 

 

Too funny...it took me awhile, but now I realize you're trolling. ONE more time...

I clearly stated that the 2013 survey was sent to over 19K members, and got over 5K responses. Those figures come from the bottom page of the survey results themselves. 19K members then and at least that many now is not a "14% loss" as you claim. Your 10K membership figure wasn't remotely close either. 

IDPA claims membership numbers over 22K. That figure comes from the IDPA website. The database (by your own admission) has some issues, so this small (IMO) discrepancy between 19K and 22K is not something I wish to knitpick over on this gentlemen's thread. You're obviously way more concerned about actual figures than I am. Good for you...have fun with your endless worrying and researching. 

[BillR1]

13 hours ago, GMB said:

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
 

We HAVE gotten off-topic, and I apologize to the OP for allowing myself to get drawn into a mindless mathematical debate instead of discussing the one second rule. My bad...

[Brooke]

First, how is the membership total a "mindless mathematical debate". It appears that how many people pay dues is a straightforward data point. I don't care what the number is and I am not debating it, but is it not a simple thing to determine?

To return to your earlier statement regarding the 5000 member response indicating that approximately 70% of IDPA members do not care about competition, if that is representative of the 10K or 20K members (whichever is correct), why keep score at all?? 

Everybody just turn out for a picnic and a little shooting at beer cans! While I can't believe you are right about this stuff, I have no data, but yours is discouraging to say the least.

 

 

[Thomas H]

7 hours ago, BillR1 said:

Too funny...it took me awhile, but now I realize you're trolling. ONE more time...

I clearly stated that the 2013 survey was sent to over 19K members, and got over 5K responses. Those figures come from the bottom page of the survey results themselves. 19K members then and at least that many now is not a "14% loss" as you claim. Your 10K membership figure wasn't remotely close either. 

IDPA claims membership numbers over 22K. That figure comes from the IDPA website. The database (by your own admission) has some issues, so this small (IMO) discrepancy between 19K and 22K is not something I wish to knitpick over on this gentlemen's thread. You're obviously way more concerned about actual figures than I am. Good for you...have fun with your endless worrying and researching. 

No, I'm not trolling.  It just interests me that you say things (IDPA is growing, getting new shooters all the time, etc) which are clearly not true based on the numbers, and yet you say the numbers don't matter because your personal opinion is apparently more important than reality.

The database DOES have issues---but the issues aren't between 19K and 22K, they are between 13K and 19K.  And you say 22K.  But then 19K. 

In other words, you can't even stick with your own numbers, the database itself says that (using the best possible set of numbers that obviously aren't true) we haven't grown at all in 3 years (19K 3 years ago, 19K now)---and what seems to be more likely is that the 22K wasn't ever remotely true, and neither is the 19K now, particularly if you are looking for people who are actually active members with a classifier shot in the last year.

"You're obviously way more concerned about actual figures than I am."

Yes, because literally ignoring reality is a great way to make certain that we aren't growing the sport. 

"have fun with your endless worrying and researching"

You have an odd idea of how hard it is to log in to the IDPA website and hit the search button for members, then look at the number at the bottom of the page. 

But as I said---people who actually want IDPA to grow should look at reality.  If we have a large number of members who don't have any match scores, and don't have a classifier shot in the last year, there's an issue.  If we don't have nearly as many members as we did 3 years ago, there's an issue.  Not fixing the issues means the sport won't grow.

It never ceases to amaze me how many people will deliberately choose to ignore reality if it doesn't agree with their preconceived opinions, as if that will change reality somehow.

 

[BillR1]

I went back and looked at the scores from our local match this weekend. If the new rule was applied, the top shooter would remain the same. The shooters that came in 2nd and 3rd would've swapped places. Interesting...

[BillR1]

2 hours ago, Brooke said:

 

To return to your earlier statement regarding the 5000 member response indicating that approximately 70% of IDPA members do not care about competition, if that is representative of the 10K or 20K members (whichever is correct), why keep score at all?? 

Everybody just turn out for a picnic and a little shooting at beer cans! While I can't believe you are right about this stuff, I have no data, but yours is discouraging to say the least.

 

 

First off, it's not "my" data. I posted the survey that you can read yourself.

Im not sure why you think the results are discouraging. I think that percentage about competition is pretty predictable when you look at the survey in depth. IDPA has a generally older population of shooters. The average age is 51, with lots of shooters in their 60s. Those people are probably not there to "compete". Like I said, we have many shooters at our local matches that claim they never even look at the scores. Again, there is already a game for people that are hard-core competitors. Since the majority of IDPA shooters (in the survey) are not shooting to compete, it makes sense that most wouldn't care at all about this rule. 

I guess the results would be discouraging if people were trying to turn IDPA into something closer to the other game, instead of leaving it as it is. I think most of us like it the way it is, but that's my opinion.

[IHAVEGAS]

33 minutes ago, BillR1 said:

Those people are probably not there to "compete".

I wonder how many use USPSA for their competition juices and just play around at IDPA?

It is hard to train at both sports simultaneously (I really hate the feel of drawing with IDPA legal equipment) and USPSA is where you need to go if you really want to test yourself against serious shooters. 

[Steppenwolf]

Thomas:

Trolling accusations are usually made in order to censor or stifle discussion so just "ignore them." You made some good points. You are not going to change "made-up" minds using logic (or illogic).

Back to the new 1 second 1 point rule. There is no justified/rationale reason to implement it. Several counter-arguers (justifying the new rule) note "it won't change things much." If it won't change things much then why implement it? It all comes down to "psychology." It is a "feel good" rule change that is probably being implemented to appease what HQ ("Joyce") perceives as the core constituency of IDPA (and separate IDPA even more from USPSA). My main point, like many others in this thread, is that HQ is making the rule change without direct input from members (with no rationale justification). The new rule will not improve the sport and it probably "won't change things much." But that is what "feel good legislation" is supposed to do.

 

[BillR1]

1 hour ago, Steppenwolf said:

 It is a "feel good" rule change that is probably being implemented to appease what HQ ("Joyce") perceives as the core constituency of IDPA (and separate IDPA even more from USPSA). My main point, like many others in this thread, is that HQ is making the rule change without direct input from members (with no rationale justification). The new rule will not improve the sport and it probably "won't change things much." But that is what "feel good legislation" is supposed to do.

 

IDPA *should* be trying to appease it's "core constituency". That's their demographic and they're the ones paying the bills.

HQ obviously looked at the various surveys and had input from senior members, and decided this was the best course of action. They really don't need to get member input (permission?) for a rule change, particularly when the change won't make a huge difference in the overall finish in most matches. 

From the rulebook.."The IDPA competition format was designed to be enjoyable for all shooters of all skill levels, with a premium put on the social interaction and camaraderie of the members."

Edited September 6, 2016 by BillR1

[BillR1]

On 8/18/2016 at 7:13 AM, S391 said:

I had a long talk with Ken Hackathorn about this at the NRA convention this summer. He said that Bill Wilson wanted the 1pt = 1 second penalty right from the beginning and they first tried 1/3 of a second per point then settled on 1/2 second per point....  Yes, they could have sent out a survey and asked for people to vote (like they did with CCP or carry optics) but Bill wanted this and Bill is going to get it. I don't think it's needed but in the end the guy with the gold makes the rules......

I agree with you 100% regarding the ever changing rule book! I don't have as much time to shoot as I used to and I've stopped SO'ing because I don't have the time to stay on top of all the rule changes.... That said, I'm told they are working hard to clarify the rule book and try to make it more streamlined.... we shall see.

In the end, very few, if any, of us on this board make a living as a professional shooter so I don't think the changes are going to effect any of us too much one way or the other.....

Perfectly said!!

[GorillaTactical]

Disclaimer: I shoot very little IDPA.  I am primarily someone who you'll find at USPSA matches.  That said, I used to shoot 3 Gun some years back, specifically with Vickers Count rules at one local club, regularly.  I'd encourage anyone reading this to just see this response as an outside perspective on the issue, having some level of experience with the various game types, but specifically Vickers scoring.

As a general rule, I don't think this change would have a meaningful impact on those top 3-10% of shooters who are winning/contending at matches consistently (local, regional, or nationwide).  These shooters are still going to finish at the top.  I'd propose that shooters at that level can modify their balance of speed and accuracy to adapt to the acceptable hit zone accordingly without much issue.  Making the penalty for a -1, a 1 second penalty, basically means there is never an advantage to shooting a 0-1 or a -1-1.  Now, I'd simply propose, there isn't an incentive to do so now either.  Unless your split on a 0-1 is picking you up over half a second on a 0-0, you're still losing out.  To this point, I haven't met any shooter who can consistently improve over half a second for dropping the -1 shot.  Now that said, I could see the change possibly shaking things up and causing some separation in the middle of the pack where there are shooters who struggle with that balance a bit more.  Perhaps you'll see some shooters who are settling for 0-1s (because they are not quite confident enough to take the time for a 0-0 or maybe struggle with accuracy a bit), having to slow down and ensure their hits or drop in the standings.  

All that said, I do think the change would likely impact the the speed of the sport as a whole, generally at all levels.  Again, maybe the very very top set of shooters won't have to slow down on the majority of targets at all, as they're already targeting 0-0s at their current speed, but I'd be fairly confident in saying the majority of shooters will likely need to decrease speed slightly in order to ensure their down 0 hits.  Maybe this is a marginal decrease, but it will still take the generally slower, more accuracy focused sport of IDPA further down that road of separation from USPSA.  Maybe this is good for membership and the sport, maybe not?! 

Ultimately, as long as we're not expecting the rule to do things it won't, no worries.  If you don't like the change and want to focus more on speed, there's USPSA matches for that.

If you disagree, just remember, I don't really shoot much IDPA, so who cares what I think 

[BillR1]

21 minutes ago, GorillaTactical said:

 If you don't like the change and want to focus more on speed, there's USPSA matches for that.

 Fact! So simple...

Edited September 6, 2016 by BillR1

[Bill Nesbitt]

Anybody else going to start shooting .45 wadcutters so you can see the hole better and have a better chance of cutting the line?  LOL

[S391]

20 hours ago, Bill Nesbitt said:

 

I'm editing my post...... I misread the original post and my response wasn't worth leaving up.

Edited September 7, 2016 by S391

[Jim Watson]

Geez, I hadn't thought of that.

So Joyce will be training us to look at the target instead of calling our shots. 

[v1911]

Just remember:

Those wad cutters that help you get that -0 also help you break the pref on that NT. But they sure do make scoring a lot easier.

[Jim Watson]

I have been shooting .45 ESP about 40% of the time for a while now. 

The bigger hole has made more points than it has lost. I only recall one border NT that a smallbore would not have clipped. 

[racknrider]

If you can consistently shoot 0-0, then HNT should be a non issue. 

[Jim Watson]

True, but not always attainable for we Mere Mortals.  Perhaps Joyce Count will provide the initiative. 

From reading the gunboards, I have concluded that I am the worst shot in the country. 

[S391]

Bill Wilson wants this change and Bill Wilson is going to make this change. Nothing we can do about it (I know, it sucks... yes he should have asked for member input but the last time IDPA asked for member input we got CCP instead of carry opticts... be careful what you wish for). 

That said, if we really wanted to make things better we would petition for fault lines... sure would make the SO's job a LOT easier and help to eliminate a lot of judgement based issues.

Edited September 7, 2016 by S391

[racknrider]

1 hour ago, S391 said:

 yes he should have asked for member input but the last time IDPA asked for member input we got CCP instead of carry opticts... be careful what you wish for). 

 

Do you think CO would have done any better? There's ESP, SSP and that other stuff. I don't see much participation in CO for USPSA either. 

[IronArcher]

I have no problem with CCP or CO (though USPSA should change the name to Production optics).
Adding more divisions won't change the way I play the game.
My initial reaction is to shoot the same way I do now. That is to say shooting as fast as possible while still giving myself the reasonable chance to hit all zeros/As.
My fear is the my competitive nature will make me want to slow down to ensure all down zero... Something I find somewhat retarded. If I wanted to slow down and shoot every shot into a little circle, there is a game for that (bullseye).
My hope is that my local "outlaw" clubs ignore that rule change.
How sad is it that rather than listening to members, we have to hope clubs don't follow the rules?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[S391]

43 minutes ago, racknrider said:

Do you think CO would have done any better? There's ESP, SSP and that other stuff. I don't see much participation in CO for USPSA either. 

Carry Optics is going to happen... It was a chance for IDPA to get out in front of something instead of leading from behind. It's a division that makes far more sense in IDPA than it does in USPSA....

[BillR1]

32 minutes ago, IronArcher said:

My hope is that my local "outlaw" clubs ignore that rule change.
How sad is it that rather than listening to members, we have to hope clubs don't follow the rules?
 

Outlaw clubs are a lot of fun sometimes. I shoot at one about every other month. They have two divisions, auto and revolver. The only equipment rule is no optics. Other than that, shoot what you bring. There are no holster, modification, or magazine restrictions, and no weight limits. Got a cut-out slide, or a ported barrel, or bass magwell and magazine extensions? No problem! No vests are needed, and reload when/where you want. It's a nice change of pace, but it's sure not IDPA.

[IronArcher]

Carry Optics is going to happen... It was a chance for IDPA to get out in front of something instead of leading from behind. It's a division that makes far more sense in IDPA than it does in USPSA....

And yet USPSA is leading with carry optics..... from the front.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro