USPSA Nationals Shooting Challenge Difficulty Poll

[CHA-LEE]

I would like to know if the shooting difficulty at the Nationals should be more difficult than other major matches?

[Hi-Power Jack]

I was shocked, the one time I attended the Nat'ls ...

And, on top of that, I presumed (I no longer AssUme) that the OPEN

Nat'ls would involve tougher shots than the Production ...

Longer shots, tighter shots, etc.

Very surprised !!!

[motosapiens]

don't care.

However Nationals darned sure should be better organized and better-staffed, and the stages more carefully proofed, and RO's more reliable about getting the correct time on the timer, even for big-name sponsored shooters.

[CHA-LEE]

I have mixed feelings about the 2016 Limited Nationals, but that is mainly because I am torn between being a Competitor and a Match Director.

As a Competitor, I really don't care about the difficulty of the shots as long as they are not so hard that it creates an element of luck verses skill in getting your hits. The only stage that I felt that was totally unreasonable from a shooting challenge perspective was stage 9. This was a standards stage that only 10 of 300 competitors shot penalty free. One third of the competitors zeroed this stage. When world champion skill level GM shooters can't shoot the stage clean then its too hard.

As a Match Director, I wouldn't have put several of the shooting challenges or arrays of difficult targets in the Nationals stages as they were clearly beyond the skill set of the masses attending the match. When I review the results of the middle of the pack finishers from the Limited Nationals the average amount of misses is well into the double digits and no shoots in the high single digits. Sure, the Nationals is testing shooters to see who the national champion should be based on practical shooting skills. But do the majority of the stages have to be so difficult that the average shooter is racking up double digit shooting penalties? I would say no. The "Masses" entry fee's are what creates the income to make the match happen. So why would we want to force those guys to shoot unrealistic shooting challenges so 10 or so guys can contend for a national title? The national title contenders will always be able to segregate their performances from others in time and points shot so why not make the shooting challenges more reasonable for the average shooter so they can at least get their hits? 

[teros135]

Nicely said, Cha-Lee

 

 

[seadog_99]

I have mixed feelings about the 2016 Limited Nationals, but that is mainly because I am torn between being a Competitor and a Match Director.

As a Competitor, I really don't care about the difficulty of the shots as long as they are not so hard that it creates an element of luck verses skill in getting your hits. The only stage that I felt that was totally unreasonable from a shooting challenge perspective was stage 9. This was a standards stage that only 10 of 300 competitors shot penalty free. One third of the competitors zeroed this stage. When world champion skill level GM shooters can't shoot the stage clean then its too hard.

As a Match Director, I wouldn't have put several of the shooting challenges or arrays of difficult targets in the Nationals stages as they were clearly beyond the skill set of the masses attending the match. When I review the results of the middle of the pack finishers from the Limited Nationals the average amount of misses is well into the double digits and no shoots in the high single digits. Sure, the Nationals is testing shooters to see who the national champion should be based on practical shooting skills. But do the majority of the stages have to be so difficult that the average shooter is racking up double digit shooting penalties? I would say no. The "Masses" entry fee's are what creates the income to make the match happen. So why would we want to force those guys to shoot unrealistic shooting challenges so 10 or so guys can contend for a national title? The national title contenders will always be able to segregate their performances from others in time and points shot so why not make the shooting challenges more reasonable for the average shooter so they can at least get their hits? 

This pretty well sums up my feelings about matches in general including those at championship level.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BritinUSA]

I'm not a big fan of 'difficult' stages for the reasons that Charlie mentioned. Personally I prefer the stages that are simple and allow options to the competitor. A good stage design can be shot clean by just about anyone, but the challenge comes in trying to do it as fast as possible.

Basically allowing the competitor the opportunity to screw it up.

Take this stage below for example. It's from the 2014 WS, it has just nine rounds with some movement. I watched some of the best shooters in the world tackle this after trying to figure out the best way to shave a fraction of a second off their times.  

Some competitors made a complete mess of it by trying to shoot the steel targets on the move, hit factors were all over the place. A ten year old could have shot this clean but the pressure the shooters put themselves under caused them to make mistakes.

This was an easy stage, made difficult by the competitor, not by the stage designer.

 

[Aircooled6racer]

Hello: I voted no since the matches I shoot here are very challenging compared to some other places I have shot. I think a stage should be setup in such a way it can be shot different ways if the level of shooter chooses to. I also think the level of shooter will separate from the others by there time and hit factor. I think the stages should be challenging but not over the top hard. I shot one nationals that there were more head shots than I thought possible, that match was in Vegas. A well rounded match is when people come away saying that was a fun match to shoot, not stage 4 sucked and everyone tanked that same stage. Thanks, Eric

[Trent1k1]

There was also El President and a Bill drill stage.

There were only about 30 people out of roughly 300 that shot it under 2 seconds.  On this case, it was a very simple stage, where shooters just had to perform.

El President also had about 10 percent of the entire match shoot sub 5 seconds.

To some extent, match pressure creeps in too.

Stage 9 was very tough with the zebra target at 25 yards strong hand.  The match officials recognized that and replaced that target with a different one for Open and the results were much different

[CHA-LEE]

I shoot a lot of matched every year. Usually about 50+ local club matches and 12 - 15 major matches a year all over the US including the USPSA Nationals. Along with this I am also an MD for a local club and host a Level 2 match there each year so I can experience and learn that side of the sport. I think I have a pretty good understanding of what the "normal" practical shooting skill tests should be and what match consumers find fun and challenging to experiecne in stage design.

The thing that bothers me is that I am continually disappointed at how the stages at the Nationals are consistently "different" in design and shooting challenge than most other major matches I attend. The Nationals stages tend to be "Run-Stop-Shoot" style shooting positions with very limited strategy options in how to shoot them. There is virtually no risk vs reward type of strategy options as everyone is basically forced to shoot the stage the same way. Or the stage is such random cobbling of obstacles or contraptions that it really does not matter which way you shoot it as everyone is forced to eat the same shit sandwich. These type of stages are not "Fun" to shoot as you are more worried about surviving it than anything else. This years nationals stages were virtually devoid of shooting on the move. To me, testing the skill of shooting on the move should be done to determine a national champion. But some how that was missing and aiming your ass off was the paramount skill tested.

I guess my primary gripe is that it does not make sense to have shooting challenges at the Nationals that are abnormal to what shooters experience everywhere else. If we have to change our practice to focus on abnormally hard, over the top shooting challenges for the nationals that are not seen elsewhere, then is it really a valid test to determine who the National Champion will be? Shouldn't the shooting challenges at the nationals represent the stage designs from all of the "normal" major matches?

Lastly, as a match director I need to cater my stage "Products" to the average skilled shooters, not the highest skilled shooters. If I create a shooting challenge that an average C or B class shooter can't get their hits on consistently, then I have failed in producing the correct product for my customer base. If I consistently created Nationals level shooting difficulty stages at my local matches then I would quickly be left with no shooters attending. To this point, the USPSA customer base is showing their displeasure with the product the nationals currently is as shown in how quickly the match fills up. When there are Area matches that fill up in minutes and the the Nationals never fully fills to capacity that is telling you something. The Nationals would be filling up in minutes if it was a better product.   

[Aircooled6racer]

Charlie: You bring up very valid points. Attendance tells the story for Nationals. Good matches always get bigger attendance every year since the people shooting them tell others how great this match was and how much fun it was to shoot. The first time I shot nationals I was looking forward to the big event. I got there and was not impressed at all. I was actually disappointed. It was not the big show I expected or thought a nationals should have been. I had shot better stages at local and area matches as well. The prize table was very lacking also. Charlie you run a good match and the numbers show that. Fun stages and everyone enjoys themselves. Making the stages stupid tough or all very similar does not make a good match. Stand and shoot stages are ok if you only have a few or you could just practice classifiers. I guess what I am saying is that a nationals match should be a well rounded match for all to shoot. Thanks, Eric

[Trent1k1]

I didn't design the stages or build them at Nationals.

I think your comparison of an Area  match filling up quickly compared Nationals is that many people can drive to an Area match or even 2 for the cost of traveling to 1 Nationals (regardless of which part of the country it is held at).  If the match is close enough,  many D class shooters may go to It as thier first "big" match with only the goal of not DQing

It's 1 match (per Division basically) for Nats.  I don't shoot Single Stack,, Production, Carry Optics or Revo, so there are automatically 3 Nationals I don't go to.

  It has nothing to do with the quality of the stages,  I just choose to use my Limited shooting funds on matches with Divisions that I shoot.

At my local club, we almost always provide an "out" for the new shooters.  We do believe that the club should assist shooters by increasing the difficulty of the stages and teaching them how to improve to meet the new challenges.  We employ swingers, bombers,  max traps, etc.  Noone from our club ever goes to a major and says they have never seen and shot many times one of those props.

Many people in this sport only enjoy house fest targets at 10 feet.  Maybe shooting them on the move.  At 10 feet.  Shooting on the move is certainly a skill to be tested, but shouldn't have any more emphasis than shooting accurately under the pressure of time.

Some people like technical short stages, some like long run and gun courses. I also don't think that this sport should be too physical.  Some may want to run 50 yards during a stage climbing up and over ramps, and going prone, but not everyone is physically able to do that.

The one certainty is, that everyone is different and not everyone will be pleased.

Not arguing, just my thoughts on it.

[IronArcher]

I think stages should be interesting and fun.
The clock will separate the champions from the joes.
All skills should be tested. Shooting on the move, accuracy, timing, and even short range hosing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Dr Mitch]

This is a great thread.

[nelson1each]

Was the toughest match I have ever shot...3 days straight was a grind too

[bret]

I think the stages were a good mix of challenging but not overly difficult, I had 10 Mike's, 6 Procedurals, total for the match, got all my hits on the movers, didn't hit any no shoots, but I was too slow.

My club does a good job of mixing things up, we don't have very deep bays, but other than long shots, there wasn't really anything at Nationals we haven't seen or shot something similar to.

Longer shots aren't hard to practice, so it's not that important to have them in our club matches.

I had 2 Mike's, 6 Procedurals on stage 9, I screwed up and didn't shoot weak hand after the reload on the 2nd string, still didn't Zero the stage.

I think stage 9 should have been left the same or made more difficult for Open rather than easier, if left the same it could be compared against the Limited Match, scores should be better in Open than Limited.

6,7 and 8 were great, shot stage 6 in 1.40 1st shot, not fast but not real slow for me.

I think the Stages were good, I shouldn't have had as many Mike's, but I also shot it too conservatively?

My biggest concern was the CRO's that are RM's not knowing the rules and the issues with not following the rules, it's Nationals not a level 1 club Match.

Universal Shooting Academy is a great venue for Nationals, even this year weather wasn't that big of a deal.

 

[Strick]

16 hours ago, CHA-LEE said:

I have mixed feelings about the 2016 Limited Nationals, but that is mainly because I am torn between being a Competitor and a Match Director.

As a Competitor, I really don't care about the difficulty of the shots as long as they are not so hard that it creates an element of luck verses skill in getting your hits. The only stage that I felt that was totally unreasonable from a shooting challenge perspective was stage 9. This was a standards stage that only 10 of 300 competitors shot penalty free. One third of the competitors zeroed this stage. When world champion skill level GM shooters can't shoot the stage clean then its too hard.

As a Match Director, I wouldn't have put several of the shooting challenges or arrays of difficult targets in the Nationals stages as they were clearly beyond the skill set of the masses attending the match. When I review the results of the middle of the pack finishers from the Limited Nationals the average amount of misses is well into the double digits and no shoots in the high single digits. Sure, the Nationals is testing shooters to see who the national champion should be based on practical shooting skills. But do the majority of the stages have to be so difficult that the average shooter is racking up double digit shooting penalties? I would say no. The "Masses" entry fee's are what creates the income to make the match happen. So why would we want to force those guys to shoot unrealistic shooting challenges so 10 or so guys can contend for a national title? The national title contenders will always be able to segregate their performances from others in time and points shot so why not make the shooting challenges more reasonable for the average shooter so they can at least get their hits? 

I have been saying this for the last couple of years.  I think big part of the problem is that there are MD's that go into with the thought process of "this will get the top guys" but in reality all it does is crush the average shooters that make up the majority of the field.

Like you mentioned, this is supposed to practical shooting and I think there are a lot of stages out there nowadays that have lost sight of what is actually practical.........or even reasonable.

[bret]

16 hours ago, CHA-LEE said:

I have mixed feelings about the 2016 Limited Nationals, but that is mainly because I am torn between being a Competitor and a Match Director.

As a Competitor, I really don't care about the difficulty of the shots as long as they are not so hard that it creates an element of luck verses skill in getting your hits. The only stage that I felt that was totally unreasonable from a shooting challenge perspective was stage 9. This was a standards stage that only 10 of 300 competitors shot penalty free. One third of the competitors zeroed this stage. When world champion skill level GM shooters can't shoot the stage clean then its too hard.

 

A B Class shooter on my Squad shot it clean.

 

Maybe the GM's should slow down.

 

[teros135]

We know that at the top end the scores can be fractions of a percent apart, so folks might go "hero or zero", which can get to "zero" in very little time.

[SWprotected]

At a nationals level event I do look for some increased difficulty, but this year the match was a grind. The stages had plenty of places to rack up penalties and when every stage is that way it makes the match less like fun and more like work. I managed to stay in the single digits for penalties 5M and 1 NS but my time was slower than I would have liked. I would like to have seen a few more open targets.

[Mikeski]

I shot in the 2016 Limited Nationals for a couple of reasons. 1. It was only a 2 hour drive from home and 2. It's a National championship. I was hoping for the stages to be different than what i see at local club matches and was looking to see where I sit against some very good shooters. I learned a lot during the 3 days and really see where my game needs to improve.

I thought the stages were well done and really tested me as a shooter. Now as a Low C-D shooter. I really didn't think there were any stages that I thought were " Oh no way I'm going to hit that". I was a big fan of stages 6,7 and 8. I thought they were really back to the basics of why we do this, and why it's called Practical Shooting. I was one of those who zero'ed out stage 9 but I also had major gun issue and didn't finish the stage. I just think that I need to work more on single hand shooting both strong and weak. Which I will admit when I get limited practice time, I don't practice that. 

[Hi-Power Jack]

1 hour ago, bret said:

A B Class shooter on my Squad shot it clean.

 

Maybe the GM's should slow down.

 

Great point, but I bet ALL the GM's, with all their errors, probably beat the B class shooter

on this stage, based on their speed ...   

[bret]

1 hour ago, Hi-Power Jack said:

Great point, but I bet ALL the GM's, with all their errors, probably beat the B class shooter

on this stage, based on their speed ...   

He was 12th on that stage.

a B class shooter beat quite a few GM's on that stage, 21 including the OP.

Why change the stage so the GM's can shoot it better?

Edited October 26, 2016 by bret

[seadog_99]

He was 12th on that stage.

a B class shooter beat quite a few GM's on that stage, 21 including the OP.

Why change the stage so the GM's can shoot it better?

That's what B shooters generally do, win a stage once in a while and then finish overall just above the middle of the pack.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[seadog_99]

I don't take the OP's intent on this thread to be "change the game to fit the elite" as much as "make sure the game doesn't just become lop-sided on the side of difficulty OR speed". I didn't shoot Lim or Open Nats so I can't speak about the stages but I HAVE shot matches that were so much of a grind that I didn't enjoy them much.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk