BillR1 Posted November 29, 2016 Share Posted November 29, 2016 I'm 55+...I like the scoring change. IDPA is simply catering to it's core demographic. That's just smart business. The average age of an IDPA shooter is 51, and less than 20% are under 40. http://nssf.org/PDF/research/IIR_IDPA.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steppenwolf Posted November 29, 2016 Share Posted November 29, 2016 (edited) Well, I'm just above average age and disagree with the change. I enjoy competing against the younger shooters and having them show up to matches. The statistic that you should be relying on instead of age is the percentage that claim they do not shoot for competitive reasons. There are many of us over 50 that oppose the change. P.S. I'll share an insight about human nature. If the majority of the respondents claimed that they are not "competitive" shooters then why are they bothered by the existing scoring system? If by some miracle the scoring change made shooters over 51+ win more (which it won't) then they would likely not be so bashful to claim that they shoot for competitive reasons. HQ is mandating the change (the membership was not crying out for it). Edited November 29, 2016 by Steppenwolf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillR1 Posted November 29, 2016 Share Posted November 29, 2016 7 minutes ago, Steppenwolf said: If the majority of the respondents claimed that they are not "competitive" shooters then why are they bothered by the existing scoring system? If by some miracle the scoring change made shooters over 51+ win more (which it won't) then they would likely not be so bashful to claim that they shoot for competitive reasons. HQ is mandating the change (the membership was not crying out for it). Good question...I'm not a hard core competitor, so I don't really care how high they make the penalties. It's just a number to me. I don't however believe that HQ would make a change like this if no one was asking for it. Why would they?? It's obviously simpler to score, but I think other reasons came into play. I'm not privy to those discussions or reasoning, but I have to believe it wasn't just someone sitting around saying "How can we tick some members off today?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deerslayer Posted November 30, 2016 Share Posted November 30, 2016 3 hours ago, BillR1 said: Good question...I'm not a hard core competitor, so I don't really care how high they make the penalties. It's just a number to me. I don't however believe that HQ would make a change like this if no one was asking for it. Why would they?? It's obviously simpler to score, but I think other reasons came into play. I'm not privy to those discussions or reasoning, but I have to believe it wasn't just someone sitting around saying "How can we tick some members off today?" Ummmmmm no. Name three IDPA members who were asking for flat-footed reloads back in 2012... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronArcher Posted November 30, 2016 Share Posted November 30, 2016 I'm pushing 50... I think 1sec/pt is stupid.Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Watson Posted November 30, 2016 Share Posted November 30, 2016 The technical term for that is "cutting off your nose to spite your face." Or do you have other things to shoot around there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ngodwetrust21 Posted November 30, 2016 Share Posted November 30, 2016 32 minutes ago, Jim Watson said: The technical term for that is "cutting off your nose to spite your face." Or do you have other things to shoot around there? Yes sir! USPSA is a little further of a drive, but well worth it. Plus, I am in good enough with the 3 gun guys and they let me run only my pistol at their matches. IDPA is already slow paced. 1 second per point is just going to make it even slower. Top shooters will still be the same ones on top because they are the better shooters. I greatly appreciate IDPA for getting me into the shooting sports, but it is sad watching them destroy their own sport with all the rule changes. 1 second per point is not going to gain them any additional members, but rather alienate current ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeBurgess Posted November 30, 2016 Share Posted November 30, 2016 Why does everyone keep saying it's easier to score? Is anyone actually scoring by hand on a note pad? With programs like practiscore it doesn't matter if it's + .36758533 per point down, the computer (or tablet to be specific) does the mathSent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B_RAD Posted November 30, 2016 Share Posted November 30, 2016 36 minutes ago, MikeBurgess said: Why does everyone keep saying it's easier to score? Is anyone actually scoring by hand on a note pad? With programs like practiscore it doesn't matter if it's + .36758533 per point down, the computer (or tablet to be specific) does the math Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk This^^^^! and how hard is it to PD x .5 + time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillR1 Posted November 30, 2016 Share Posted November 30, 2016 8 hours ago, Jim Watson said: The technical term for that is "cutting off your nose to spite your face." Or do you have other things to shoot around there? On the same Saturday of the month that I drive 2 hours each way to an IDPA match, there's a USPSA match 20 match minutes from my house. No thanks...the IDPA match is well worth the drive for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ngodwetrust21 Posted November 30, 2016 Share Posted November 30, 2016 2 hours ago, BillR1 said: On the same Saturday of the month that I drive 2 hours each way to an IDPA match, there's a USPSA match 20 match minutes from my house. No thanks...the IDPA match is well worth the drive for me. To each is own. Changing it to 1 second per point is not going to gain them any additional membership. More likely, it will drive some of their membership to other shooting sports. I doubt keeping the scoring the way it is would lose them any members. People already shooting IDPA would continue to shoot it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillR1 Posted November 30, 2016 Share Posted November 30, 2016 1 hour ago, ngodwetrust21 said: To each is own. Changing it to 1 second per point is not going to gain them any additional membership. More likely, it will drive some of their membership to other shooting sports. I doubt keeping the scoring the way it is would lose them any members. People already shooting IDPA would continue to shoot it. Here we go again...seems like every time IDPA changes a few rules, people start predicting some mass exodus of shooters from the sport. It hasn't happened yet, and I doubt this will do it either. Like you said, people that are shooting IDPA will continue to shoot it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Watson Posted November 30, 2016 Share Posted November 30, 2016 I doubt Joyce Count will drive many away, even though we grumble about it. It is not likely to attract any, though. PCC will likely pick up some entries. I think it is outside the remit of IDPA but we are going to be stuck with it. I hope SOs are on their toes, handling of long guns is entirely different from a holstered pistol and I predict I will be swept by a carbine at the first opportunity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H Posted November 30, 2016 Share Posted November 30, 2016 19 hours ago, BillR1 said: I'm 55+...I like the scoring change. IDPA is simply catering to it's core demographic. That's just smart business. 19 hours ago, BillR1 said: Good question...I'm not a hard core competitor, so I don't really care how high they make the penalties. It's just a number to me. So, you like the scoring change, but you aren't a hard core competitor so you don't care. Right. Okay. Other people have already pointed out the issues with the other things you said. Thus far, I still have seen no actual explanation from anyone of any actual problem that this is intended to fix, and no particular change (other than slowing things down and penalizing mid-level and lower shooters twice as much) that will occur due to this rule. BillR1: Do you know what problem is this intended to fix? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillR1 Posted November 30, 2016 Share Posted November 30, 2016 (edited) 5 hours ago, Thomas H said: Thus far, I still have seen no actual explanation from anyone of any actual problem that this is intended to fix, and no particular change (other than slowing things down and penalizing mid-level and lower shooters twice as much) that will occur due to this rule. BillR1: Do you know what problem is this intended to fix? I already posted that I'm not privy to the reasoning or discussions concerning this rule, but again I don't believe it was a haphazard decision. Just because I/we don't know the reason behind the rule change doesn't mean there wasn't one. If I was guessing, I could imagine that some of the "older" shooters asked for it in hopes of making the game more accuracy-intensive and slower to suit their skillset better. Again, that's just a random guess. Edited November 30, 2016 by BillR1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deerslayer Posted December 1, 2016 Share Posted December 1, 2016 I guess finisher medals will be next. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H Posted December 1, 2016 Share Posted December 1, 2016 22 hours ago, BillR1 said: I already posted that I'm not privy to the reasoning or discussions concerning this rule, but again I don't believe it was a haphazard decision. Just because I/we don't know the reason behind the rule change doesn't mean there wasn't one. If I was guessing, I could imagine that some of the "older" shooters asked for it in hopes of making the game more accuracy-intensive and slower to suit their skillset better. Again, that's just a random guess. So what you are saying is that you can't think of a single problem this is intended to solve, other that possibly slowing the game down. ......why would anyone support this again? Unless they wanted to make it easier for them to win, meaning that they are attempting to change the rules for personal gain? That's a great reason to support something that doesn't actually fix any particular problem other than "I'm not winning enough." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronArcher Posted December 1, 2016 Share Posted December 1, 2016 ^ ThisSent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Watson Posted December 1, 2016 Share Posted December 1, 2016 I am an "older shooter." I do not approve Joyce Count, so don't tar all us Distinguished Codgers with the same brush. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillR1 Posted December 1, 2016 Share Posted December 1, 2016 39 minutes ago, Thomas H said: So what you are saying is that you can't think of a single problem this is intended to solve, other that possibly slowing the game down. ......why would anyone support this again? Unless they wanted to make it easier for them to win, meaning that they are attempting to change the rules for personal gain? That's a great reason to support something that doesn't actually fix any particular problem other than "I'm not winning enough." Nope, I don't know the reasons for the change. (I think I said that earlier...whatever?) I don't need to know the exact reason why it was done to have an opinion on whether I like it or not. I like the way the math works out, and the fact that people will need to shoot more for accuracy. That's my opinion. Opinions vary... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillR1 Posted December 1, 2016 Share Posted December 1, 2016 6 minutes ago, Jim Watson said: I am an "older shooter." I do not approve Joyce Count, so don't tar all us Distinguished Codgers with the same brush. LOL...who did that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Watson Posted December 1, 2016 Share Posted December 1, 2016 (edited) The idea appeared in your imagination and has shown up in numerous other gunboard posts. Edited December 1, 2016 by Jim Watson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillR1 Posted December 1, 2016 Share Posted December 1, 2016 (edited) Ahh...got it. Like I said, that was just a wild guess. I honestly have no clue what may have caused HQ to make that rule change. Someone must have asked for it...seems like a strange adjustment to make just out of the blue with no input from anyone. I wonder if we'll ever really know...? Edited December 1, 2016 by BillR1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B_RAD Posted December 1, 2016 Share Posted December 1, 2016 41 minutes ago, BillR1 said: Ahh...got it. Like I said, that was just a wild guess. I honestly have no clue what may have caused HQ to make that rule change. Someone must have asked for it...seems like a strange adjustment to make just out of the blue with no input from anyone. I wonder if we'll ever really know...? I feel like you may have a hint of why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H Posted December 1, 2016 Share Posted December 1, 2016 2 hours ago, Jim Watson said: I am an "older shooter." I do not approve Joyce Count, so don't tar all us Distinguished Codgers with the same brush. Don't mean to do that AT ALL. It just interests me that I have yet to see any actual problem that this rule will solve -- and a number of people who like it always end up saying something that equates to "I'm not winning enough, so let's change the rules." I can think of a number of people older than I am that don't need any "help" at all in winning...and if you offered to change things to give them an advantage, their reactions would be.....non-thrilled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now