USPSA Nationals Shooting Challenge Difficulty Poll

[Trent1k1]

3 hours ago, IronArcher said:

3 hours ago, IronArcher said:

Still kind of looking at this a bit differently.

Is a stage too hard? Only if you are worried about going faster than the next guy.

If most can't shoot it without a penalty, it's probably not a good stage in my book.
We can make stages incredibly difficult so everyone has to shoot super slow... I thought that was IPDAs schtick.
When is a stage too easy?
A bill drill is easy..... until people start throwing down 1.6 seconds/all alphas.... in production.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Still kind of looking at this a bit differently.

Is a stage too hard? Only if you are worried about going faster than the next guy.

If most can't shoot it without a penalty, it's probably not a good stage in my book.
We can make stages incredibly difficult so everyone has to shoot super slow... I thought that was IPDAs schtick.
When is a stage too easy?
A bill drill is easy..... until people start throwing down 1.6 seconds/all alphas.... in production.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Doesn't look like anyone did.  Guess the Bill Drill was too hard too.

 

Stage 7 - 7-DILIGENTIA- Pistol - Limited

 

Place	Name	USPSA	Class	Points	Penalty	Time	Hit Factor	Stg Pts	Stage %
1	Scott B	A28945	M	30	-	1.84	16.3043	30.0000	100.00%
2	MIKE G B	FYF42936	GM	30	-	1.85	16.2162	29.8379	99.46%
3	gerwin h	TY64738	M	29	-	1.81	16.0221	29.4808	98.27%
Tie	John V	A79695	M	28	-	1.78	15.7303	28.9438	96.48%
4	Kevin B	A67361	A	28	-	1.78	15.7303	28.9438	96.48%
6	Travis T	L1973	GM	30	-	1.91	15.7068	28.9006	96.34%
7	Blake M	B40	GM	30	-	1.96	15.3061	28.1633	93.88%
8	Chad T	L3329	GM	28	-	1.83	15.3005	28.1530	93.84%
9	Shannon S	L3936	GM	30	-	1.97	15.2284	28.0203	93.40%
10	Lesgar M	TY45606	GM	28	-	1.84	15.2174	28.0001	93.33%
11	Shane C	TY51938	GM	29	-	1.95	14.8718	27.3642	91.21%
12	Robert V	A49056	GM	28	-	1.89	14.8148	27.2593	90.86%
13	Christopher O	TY72937	M	27	-	1.84	14.6739	27.0001	90.00%
14	Robert K	A73111	GM	28	-	1.91	14.6597	26.9739	89.91%
15	wally b	TY66707	A	29	-	1.98	14.6465	26.9496	89.83%
Tie	Aaron M	L3507	M	30	-	2.05	14.6341	26.9268	89.76%
16	Luigi L	B50	B	30	-	2.05	14.6341	26.9268	89.76%
18	Brad B	TY44785	M	27	-	1.85	14.5946	26.8541	89.51%
19	Michael F	RD6	M	28	-	1.93	14.5078	26.6944	88.98%
20	james o	L3657	M	28	-	1.94	14.4330	26.5568	88.52%
21	NILS J	L3837	GM	28	-	1.97	14.2132	26.1524	87.17%
22	Steven S	A77712	GM	27	-	1.90	14.2105	26.1474	87.16%
23	Matthew E	A68393	M	28	-	1.98	14.1414	26.0203	86.73%
Tie	Randi R	TY56945	A	30	-	2.13	14.0845	25.9156	86.39%
24	Alex M	TY69633	M	30	-	2.13	14.0845	25.9156	86.39%
26	Ryan C	A72195	M	29	-	2.06	14.0777	25.9030	86.34%
27	Dylan E	A87751	M	28	-	1.99	14.0704	25.8896	86.30%
Tie	Daniel K	A70905	B	30	-	2.14	14.0187	25.7945	85.98%
28	Jay T	A79401	B	30	-	2.14	14.0187	25.7945	85.98%
30	John K	TY82856	GM	29	-	2.07	14.0097	25.7779	85.93%
31	Tim G	TY75289	M	27	-	1.93	13.9896	25.7409	85.80%
Tie	Joey Z	FY81341	M	30	-	2.15	13.9535	25.6745	85.58%
32	Brad O	A70399	A	30	-	2.15	13.9535	25.6745	85.58%
34	Cody V	A82915	M	28	-	2.01	13.9303	25.6318	85.44%
35	Jason M	A93451	M	27	-	1.94	13.9175	25.6083	85.36%

[Sarge]

Wow! Great thread! Many thoughts and opinions and only a minor pot shot at the OP!:)

I agree with so many posters but then again I disagree with quite a few as well. lol

When I started this game I assumed I couldn't just sign up and shoot the national championship. I originally thought "slots" were earned purely through performance. 

AS a local MD I firmly believe two things. Never set up stages to make new shooters happy while disappointing seasoned shooters. AND, don't make stages so difficult that everybody screws the pooch and I "BEAT THEM" as the MD. 

For the State match I MD'd I kept the same philosophy only at a slightly higher level. Meaning, if you shot two matches total and then decided to shoot the Ohio you were going to be disappointed in your performance but happy because even though stages were a notch above in difficulty they were for the most part much more fun than typically seen locally.

When I shot my first area match I was pleasantly surprised that it was about what I expected. Tougher but doable stages,, longer shots, etc while still allowing one to reasonably finish in his class if he had put the work in. Yeah, I'm one of those losers that pay attention to class finish. I'm a solid middle of the pack shooter in majors so it's easier to keep track of my performance against 20-25 shooters than it is 350!

Another thing somebody hit on was staff performance and stage similarity. If I were king for a day and MD'd an area or even Nationals match I would reach out to the membership for stages. I would describe what my goals were and give basic guidance and see what folks come up with. Sure, I would probably take creative liberties to tweak them to fit bays, perhaps take out 30 yard WHO shots etc. In my experience this virtually guarantees the stages will NOT look similar at all. I can honestly say if I shoot even a state match, it pisses me off when range commands are ate up, several shoot throughs are obvious, or (rarely) RM's take liberties with the rules. I would expect Nationals RO's to be the best and brightest but I know that's asking a lot when it's often hard to get enough help. But it still should be the goal. The best match in the world shouldn't have shooters grumbling about staff.

[bret]

Sarge,

 

ever hear the CRO of a stage that is also an RM, yell Muzzle as a guy is breaking 180?

I did at Limited Nationals, guy should have been DQ'd, he broke 180 on 2 different stages yet didn't get DQ'D.

I had more guns pointed at me at Nationals than I do at months worth of local matches.

[bret]

3 hours ago, CHA-LEE said:

Not at all. Even if I would have gotten lucky and had all my hits on Stage 9 I would still consider the stage too difficult for the masses. Just because you survive a train wreck does not mean that the train wreck was needed to prove that you can survive one.

stage was difficult, not impossible.

 

[Sarge]

Just now, bret said:

Sarge,

 

ever hear the CRO of a stage that is also an RM, yell Muzzle as a guy is breaking 180?

I did at Limited Nationals, guy should have been DQ'd, he broke 180 on 2 different stages yet didn't get DQ'D.

I had more guns pointed at me at Nationals than I do at months worth of local matches.

Exactly! Even though the rules don't differentiate there is no way safety warnings should be used above a local match with a new shooter. 

Im actually kind of embarrassed for the sport since you shared that.

If you are going to shoot majors you should not expect a lot of slack

[bret]

2 minutes ago, Sarge said:

Exactly! Even though the rules don't differentiate there is no way safety warnings should be used above a local match with a new shooter. 

Im actually kind of embarrassed for the sport since you shared that.

If you are going to shoot majors you should not expect a lot of slack

I fault the Range Officers running the shooters, it is their job to enforce the rules, especially safety rules.

2 times on that stage I was looking down the muzzle of a gun, when shooters were being run by Range Officers that are also RM's.

[Ryan626]

I am a C class shooter and I found this match to be a grind! Shooting wise, I did not enjoy it! A buddy is a good B class and he almost zeroes stage 9! Did it show me my weaknesses, absolutely and magnified it!This is my second nats in USA and I must say, the stages were not well rounded! In my opinion, there should have been a fast semi hoser style stage, some very hard technical stages and some medium with option to shoot in the move stages. In other words, more assortment. 

I did vote that nationals should be harder than Area matches and I believe this could have happened but not all stages should be difficult.  So far, the 2014 Nationals in St George is still one of the most enjoyable nationals Ive attended stage wise. Just my 2 cents.

[IronArcher]

Was the problem that most *couldn't* shoot it without a penalty?

Or that most didn't pay enough attention to fundamentals to shoot it without a penalty because they weren't used to such hard shots?

How about most couldn't shoot it without a penalty.... while trying to win a match (or at least be as competitive as possible).
Many more could have shot it without penalties.... might have doubled their times. Bullseye with reloads is boring.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[rowdyb]

Define "difficult" and then I can more easily answer. Does it mean something you personally struggle with doing well? Does it mean more shots than not requiring very intense sight picture/alignment with a dead perfect trigger pull?

All I know is from my experience that when I go to a level 3 match I'm not as happy as I could have been if the stages appear to:

• all be the same design, same designer, same flavor, over and over again.
• every stage is 32 rounds.
• the stages feel silly, gimicky, contrived. when i want a prop heavy match i like to shoot idpa.
• a very hard, tough reset or whatever bottle neck stage in a range spot that impedes match flow significantly.
• the feeling of the stages which as was so eloquently put as the designer was trying to "beat the shooter"

I don't have a problem with difficulty, and sometimes super difficult, but when it happens over and over again and grinds down the dudes in the middle I think that was something poorly done. Things I've seen like sho/who on small poppers at greater than 25 yards or a 35 yard target with a no-shoot starting at the bottom of the A zone in the head, a plate rack at an oblique angle with no shoots behind most the plates and at 25 yards, 50 yard prone shots on partial targets. These are doable but to most the people in the middle of the skill range a match with a majority of the stages having a component like these I think they'd say it was too hard.

Really, I can handle no lunch at a match. I can handle RO's who mess up the commands. I can handle a late start. I can handle no prize table. But I really dislike shooting 8-10 of the same style of stage over and over again.

I kind of like the analogy that the stages should be like race tracks. They can take street cars, F1 cars, motorcycles, novices and world champions. But they don't have things in them just for the hell of it to make the racing harder, no one would keep racing a track of 12 chicanes in a row. The difficulty is in being perfect at speed compared to others. Kinda like shooting in a way.

[ATLDave]

This discussion parallels the disputes in the golf world about the U.S. Open setup.  One view is that a national championship should be a grueling, soul-testing event that examines every facet of a player's game and severely punishes any deficiencies.  The contrary view is that, at a certain point, setups become so difficult that randomness begins to exert an outsized influence on outcomes, great players can't display their skill because they're having to stay so conservative, those close to (but not in) the lead cannot make a charge by being aggressive, etc.  While U.S. Opens are still very, very difficult course setups, the USGA has moved away from the ridiculous/arbitrary kind of course setups that dominated in the 90's and early 2000's.  

Now keep in mind that the field of golfers at the U.S. Open golf tournament is comprised ENTIRELY of true-GM-grade players.  There are no B golfers on the course.  Yet the Nationals, like all USPSA tournaments, depends upon the participation (and entry fees) of C and B class chumps to be financially viable.  

[teros135]

10 minutes ago, ATLDave said:

This discussion parallels the disputes in the golf world about the U.S. Open setup.  One view is that a national championship should be a grueling, soul-testing event that examines every facet of a player's game and severely punishes any deficiencies.  The contrary view is that, at a certain point, setups become so difficult that randomness begins to exert an outsized influence on outcomes, great players can't display their skill because they're having to stay so conservative, those close to (but not in) the lead cannot make a charge by being aggressive, etc.  While U.S. Opens are still very, very difficult course setups, the USGA has moved away from the ridiculous/arbitrary kind of course setups that dominated in the 90's and early 2000's.  

Now keep in mind that the field of golfers at the U.S. Open golf tournament is comprised ENTIRELY of true-GM-grade players.  There are no B golfers on the course.  Yet the Nationals, like all USPSA tournaments, depends upon the participation (and entry fees) of C and B class chumps to be financially viable.  

Chumps?  You're kidding, right?  Those "chumps" make up a substantial portion of the sport.   

[ATLDave]

Here's one more thought.  One way to think of the Nationals is as a test to determine the best USPSA shooter.  In testing (of whatever sort - academic, vocational, predictive, etc.), there are two basic criteria for a good test:  1) The test should be valid; and 2) the test should be reliable.

A valid test is a test that measures (or predicts) what it purports to measure (or predict).  An arithmetic test is not going to have high validity as a test for measuring competence in English literature.  It's not measuring what the test is supposed to measure.  

A reliable test is a test that will produce consistent outcomes for a given test subject.  For instance, an essay test graded by a wide array of different graders with no structured grading rubric is likely to have low reliability.  The same student might re-take the same test, write the same answer, and get very different grades.  

Assuming that one agrees that the Nationals is a test of USPSA skill, then we should want it to be valid and reliable.  We should expect it to measure the sorts of skills that are at the core of USPSA shooting - otherwise, validity will be low.  The same skill sets that make you good at club matches and state matches and area matches ought to be rewarded at the Nationals... otherwise, we're measuring something different, and it's not valid as a test.  This would suggest that the overall content of the Nationals should not deviate too far from other USPSA matches.  

We should also want it to be reliable.  The role of randomness should be minimized.  While this bears most directly on things like making sure the RO's are in position to have the timer accurately record the final shots, enforcing start positions the same way, keeping steel calibrated, etc., it can also bear on course design and, at the far end, difficulty.  If we assume that a typical USPSA gun is only capable of holding a 3" group at 25 yards (no idea whether this is a reasonable assumption, just offered for illustration purposes), then an upper-A/B zone-only target at 30 yards isn't going to produce reliable results.  The same shooter providing exactly the same (perfect) input to the gun will find that sometimes he gets 2 A's, sometimes 1 A-1 B, and sometimes 2 B's.  That's one example of how cranking up the difficulty too high has the potential to introduce randomness into the results, which drives reliability down.

Now, I will say that looking at results over the past decade, there is reason to believe that Nationals (at least in the big 3 divisions) as recently constituted probably do have a decent amoung deal of validity and reliability.  I think we would all agree that the shooters who have won are shooters who are genuinely very good shooters.  It does not appear that there's a distinct "Nationals type" shooter who is significantly better at Nationals than at other serious USPSA matches.  So that suggests validity.  OTOH, it may be that there is a distinct "non-Nationals type" of shooter, who can place well at area matches, but performs disproportionately poorly in Nationals.  It would probably require a good deal of analysis to see if that phenomenon exists, and, if it does, whether that indicates a validity issue or simply a performance issue by those shooters.

Similarly, a lot of the same names show up from year to year in the top 10, top 16, top 50 - wherever you want to draw the line.  While that is not, in and of itself, a direct measure of reliability, it is certainly consistent with Nationals over the years being reliable compared to themselves.  I.e., whatever USPSA is doing at Nationals, they seem to do it pretty much every year... at least in terms of stuff that has measurable impacts on competition and performance.  

Sorry for the long post that doesn't even give a clear answer... just some concepts that might (or might not) be worth thinking about, if someone were really serious about this stuff. 

[bret]

2 hours ago, rowdyb said:

Define "difficult" and then I can more easily answer. Does it mean something you personally struggle with doing well? Does it mean more shots than not requiring very intense sight picture/alignment with a dead perfect trigger pull?

All I know is from my experience that when I go to a level 3 match I'm not as happy as I could have been if the stages appear to:

• all be the same design, same designer, same flavor, over and over again.
• every stage is 32 rounds.
• the stages feel silly, gimicky, contrived. when i want a prop heavy match i like to shoot idpa.
• a very hard, tough reset or whatever bottle neck stage in a range spot that impedes match flow significantly.
• the feeling of the stages which as was so eloquently put as the designer was trying to "beat the shooter"

I don't have a problem with difficulty, and sometimes super difficult, but when it happens over and over again and grinds down the dudes in the middle I think that was something poorly done. Things I've seen like sho/who on small poppers at greater than 25 yards or a 35 yard target with a no-shoot starting at the bottom of the A zone in the head, a plate rack at an oblique angle with no shoots behind most the plates and at 25 yards, 50 yard prone shots on partial targets. These are doable but to most the people in the middle of the skill range a match with a majority of the stages having a component like these I think they'd say it was too hard.

Really, I can handle no lunch at a match. I can handle RO's who mess up the commands. I can handle a late start. I can handle no prize table. But I really dislike shooting 8-10 of the same style of stage over and over again.

I kind of like the analogy that the stages should be like race tracks. They can take street cars, F1 cars, motorcycles, novices and world champions. But they don't have things in them just for the hell of it to make the racing harder, no one would keep racing a track of 12 chicanes in a row. The difficulty is in being perfect at speed compared to others. Kinda like shooting in a way.

stage 9 was the most difficult, I think it was a good stage, should always be one stage like this in Nationals.

what other stages were too hard for shooters?

IMO the stages were good, if someone didn't like a stage, there were 21 others, one stage won't make a person win or lose a match, everyone shoots the same stages.

the op complaining about lighting and not seeing his sights, to me is..., my 1st stage I shot was facing the early morning rising sun, Sunday and Tuesday, I didn't complain, I dealt with it.

 

[ATLDave]

38 minutes ago, teros135 said:

Chumps?  You're kidding, right?  Those "chumps" make up a substantial portion of the sport.   

Of course they do, and I'm one of them!  

The word choice was a bit of a joke, but there's some truth to it, too.  Objectively viewed, our role at big matches is to donate a lot of $ and get whupped by the really good shooters.  The last role isn't critical to the match, but the first is.  MD's (and I'm one of these, too) have to remember that.  

[CHA-LEE]

49 minutes ago, bret said:

stage 9 was the most difficult, I think it was a good stage, should always be one stage like this in Nationals.

what other stages were too hard for shooters?

IMO the stages were good, if someone didn't like a stage, there were 21 others, one stage won't make a person win or lose a match, everyone shoots the same stages.

the op complaining about lighting and not seeing his sights, to me is..., my 1st stage I shot was facing the early morning rising sun, Sunday and Tuesday, I didn't complain, I dealt with it.

 

You are delusional if you believe that Stage 9 didn't artificially impact the overall match results in a negative way. Listed below is the top 10 with and without Stage 9.....

With Stage 9

1 - Nils J - 2118
2 - Bob V - 2109
3 - Dave S - 2006
4 - Chris T - 1974
5 - Manny B - 1962
6 - Jacob H - 1959
7 - Robert K - 1951
8 - Blake M - 1919
9 - Lusgar M - 1891
10 - Brent L - 1880

Without Stage 9

1 - Bob V - 2050
2 - Nils J - 2022
3 - Dave S - 1945
4 - Chris T - 1924
5 - Jacob H - 1921
6 - Manny B - 1901
7 - Robert K - 1882
8 - Blake M - 1836
9 - Lusgar M - 1832
10 - Brent L - 1808

[bret]

pull any 1 stage out of a 22 stage match and it will affect the outcome of a match.

 

it's not a drag race, it's an endurance, rack up the most points during the full course of the match.

 

[teros135]

44 minutes ago, ATLDave said:

Of course they do, and I'm one of them!  

The word choice was a bit of a joke, but there's some truth to it, too.  Objectively viewed, our role at big matches is to donate a lot of $ and get whupped by the really good shooters.  The last role isn't critical to the match, but the first is.  MD's (and I'm one of these, too) have to remember that.  

Me, too (B).  I'm not too cynical about big matches; our purpose isn't to fill coffers, the purpose of the match is to provide a challenging (and hopefully fun) match to all of the sport.  We know, of course, that only one person is going to win each Division, and it probably won't be us.  I like being challenged by the stages and by the fact that everyone is one their best game (for that day), and I can have fun and see how I do, find out what I need to learn.

Regarding Stage 9, I wasn't there but did download the stages.  Certainly a challenge, and I darn well would have practiced it, and the skills needed for it.  You'd want to practice at distance, partial targets (none was an upper AB box), and SHO/WHO, both plain and from a barricade.  Definitely a challenge. 

Looking at validity, if the actual scores on this stage followed a pattern similar to other, harder stages (i.e., not just "hoser"-type stages with mainly plain targets), it's probably okay.  If not, reassess.

That said, it does look like more "work" than some other stages.  Maybe slightly less distance would be useful.  At any rate, I'm going to set it up and practice it; if I can get hits on all the targets in some reasonable time frame (for my level), it'll be a very good exercise. 

[teros135]

20 minutes ago, CHA-LEE said:

You are delusional if you believe that Stage 9 didn't artificially impact the overall match results in a negative way. Listed below is the top 10 with and without Stage 9.....

With Stage 9

1 - Nils J - 2118
2 - Bob V - 2109
3 - Dave S - 2006
4 - Chris T - 1974
5 - Manny B - 1962
6 - Jacob H - 1959
7 - Robert K - 1951
8 - Blake M - 1919
9 - Lusgar M - 1891
10 - Brent L - 1880

Without Stage 9

1 - Bob V - 2050
2 - Nils J - 2022
3 - Dave S - 1945
4 - Chris T - 1924
5 - Jacob H - 1921
6 - Manny B - 1901
7 - Robert K - 1882
8 - Blake M - 1836
9 - Lusgar M - 1832
10 - Brent L - 1808

It would be interesting to see the comparisons of all the other stages, too.  These were all top guys, and they seem to trade positions from stage to stage in a big match.  In the end, it's who shot the most consistently who wins, I believe.  

Edit:  I just looked at the results for the top 5 shooters on Practiscore Competitor.  They did indeed trade rankings from stage to stage during the match.  Looking at Practiscore, Nils took 1st on only one stage and ranked as low as 37th, but he won, fair and square.  He was 2nd on stage 9.  Again, practice, persistence, and overall consistency, I think.

An interesting discussion, overall

Edited October 27, 2016 by teros135

[motosapiens]

 

12 minutes ago, CHA-LEE said:

You are delusional if you believe that Stage 9 didn't artificially impact the overall match results in a negative way. Listed below is the top 10 with and without Stage 9.....

 

Just to play the devil's advocate, I'm not sure that just because a stage had an effect on the final results that means it's a bad stage or too hard or whatever. It's kind of a judgement call as to whether there is too much effect from a single stage.

I don't think any reasonable person would say Nils' victory was 'artificial', or that he didn't earn it by outshooting everyone else (as usual). It looks from the results you posted that perhaps Bob and Jacob need a little more practice on certain skills that the other 8 guys in the top 10 were more consistent at.

[ChuckS]

25 minutes ago, teros135 said:

It would be interesting to see the comparisons of all the other stages, too.  These were all top guys, and they seem to trade positions from stage to stage in a big match.  In the end, it's who shot the most consistently who wins, I believe.  

Bob would of beat Nils if you threw out 4,7,9,14,17, or 22.

[bret]

1 hour ago, CHA-LEE said:

You are delusional if you believe that Stage 9 didn't artificially impact the overall match results in a negative way. Listed below is the top 10 with and without Stage 9.....

With Stage 9

1 - Nils J - 2118
2 - Bob V - 2109
3 - Dave S - 2006
4 - Chris T - 1974
5 - Manny B - 1962
6 - Jacob H - 1959
7 - Robert K - 1951
8 - Blake M - 1919
9 - Lusgar M - 1891
10 - Brent L - 1880

Without Stage 9

1 - Bob V - 2050
2 - Nils J - 2022
3 - Dave S - 1945
4 - Chris T - 1924
5 - Jacob H - 1921
6 - Manny B - 1901
7 - Robert K - 1882
8 - Blake M - 1836
9 - Lusgar M - 1832
10 - Brent L - 1808

sounds like you are butt hurt over stage 9.

[teros135]

8 minutes ago, bret said:

sounds like you are butt hurt over stage 9.

Be kind.  There's nothing to "win" here.  The Winnebago is already taken.

[bret]

32 minutes ago, teros135 said:

Be kind.  There's nothing to "win" here.  The Winnebago is already taken.

I am being kind, it's just strange to hear guy, a GM, complain so much about a stage at Nationals being too hard.

It's NATIONALS, it ain't supposed to be easy.

that one stage didn't decide the winner of the match anymore than other stages did, Robert was not screwed out of a Nationals win because of stage 9, everyone had the same opportunity to shoot the stage.

 

[ATLDave]

11 minutes ago, bret said:

It's NATIONALS, it ain't supposed to be easy.

 

It's not going to be easy to win, no matter WHAT the stages look like.  It could be nothing but a series of bill drills at varying distances and it would still be hard to win BECAUSE OF THE GREAT SHOOTERS THERE.  The MD doesn't have to do anything to make it hard.  

The question is whether some positive interest is advanced by making the shot values difficult.  

[motosapiens]

22 minutes ago, bret said:

I am being kind, it's just strange to hear guy, a GM, complain so much about a stage at Nationals being too hard.

 

It seems to me that you may have entirely missed several of cha-lee's points.

Edited October 27, 2016 by motosapiens