Is your Local Match all field courses?

[CTJer]

Seems like the majority of matches are field courses with maybe a short course to go with the classifier stage to even out the match.

 

Does your club run some shorter stuff?

 

 

[MemphisMechanic]

When I set it up.

 

Otherwise. 28-32 rounds is absolutely the norm. 

[GeneBray]

Unfortunately it has evolved to that. A good match to me is not determined by quantity but quality is what make a match good. Good 21-30 round field course can present a better shooting challenge than a 32+ field courses. There is more room for target placement and allowing options.

A question for all. How many of you see long fields that provide multiple choices on the way you shoot the CoF and is fair (meaning good shooting plan) for all divisions?

One of the problems I see with PCC is a course that is a good/great shooting challenge is hard to do when you also have accommodate pistols. That said PCC may result in more longer distance shots than without PCC which should help skill development for pistol shooters.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MemphisMechanic]

@GeneBray I’ve been shooting PCC and I’m one of the guys who helps design our stages. I make it a personal goal to put my Production / Limited hats on when I design a stage.

 

I never want anyone to be able to walk into the bay and be able to say “this was obviously designed by a PCC shooter.”

 

Multiple options for running the course, choosing whether to post up or shoot on the move, easy and hard entrances and exits... there are a lot of ways to make a stage challenging without putting an array of tight partials at 32yd so that rifle guys run away from everyone else.

 

Edited August 15, 2018 by MemphisMechanic

[GeneBray]

[mention=8963]GeneBray[/mention] I’ve been shooting PCC and I’m one of the guys who helps design our stages. I make it a personal goal to put my Production / Limited hats on when I design a stage.
 
I never want anyone to be able to walk into the bay and be able to say “this was obviously designed by a PCC shooter.”
 
Multiple options for running the course, choosing whether to post up or shoot on the move, easy and hard entrances and exits... there are a lot of ways to make a stage challenging without putting an array of tight partials at 32yd so that rifle guys run away from everyone else.
 

Good approach!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[IHAVEGAS]

40 minutes ago, GeneBray said:

Good 21-30 round field course can present a better shooting challenge than a 32+ field courses. There is more room for target placement and allowing options.

 

Maybe on really small bays, I guess? Even with small bays I don't see why it wouldn't be more fun to shoot multiple targets at each position. 

 

I've never been to a 6 stage local match & heard anyone say that round count was too high, I have heard comments the other way. 

[rowdyb]

People seem to more often say with a smile, "boy that made me think", rather than "boy that made me aim!" hahahaha

 

I personally give zero thought to each divisions supposed plusses or minuses over another division when designing or building local stages. If I build a legal, well designed stage then the shooter's division has no bearing on if it is good or not.

[MemphisMechanic]

@rowdyb I think you know what I meant. There are bad stages, and bad stages which clearly favored a specific division in their construction.

 

I agree with yo uthat a truly good stage is going to interest everyone equally.  

[MemphisMechanic]

58 minutes ago, IHAVEGAS said:

Maybe on really small bays, I guess? Even with small bays I don't see why it wouldn't be more fun to shoot multiple targets at each position.  

 

Hmm. 21 meticulously placed rounds in positions that require precise entries and setups, then let you cut loose and blast away on the move, then get hard on the sights again... all while trying to decide which of the 4 viable stage plans best suits your personal strengths...

 

Versus a 32 round stage where you run, fire 8 shots, run, fire 8 shots? I’ll take stage #1 any day of the week.

 

For one thing, there’s two subtle things that happen when you lower the round count:

 

1) There are less points to be earned in your 15 seconds of scooting & shooting, so the hit factor is lower. Suddenly Alphas benefit you more - even in Major your shooters need to be smart enough to see this.

 

2) It really shows you where you are strong and weak in your movement; someone who shoots fast but has horrible footwork will get destroyed by someone who moves well.

 

No one is saying that every stage needs to be lowered in round count.

We’re saying there are 12, 18, and 24 round stages out there which are seriously challenging ballbusters and which compliment the long courses in your match.

 

 

Edited August 15, 2018 by MemphisMechanic

[GeneBray]

 
Hmm. 21 meticulously placed rounds in positions that require precise entries and setups, then let you cut loose and blast away on the move, then get hard on the sights again... all while trying to decide which of the 4 viable stage plans best suits your personal strengths...
 
Versus a 32 round stage where you run, fire 8 shots, run, fire 8 shots? I’ll take stage #1 any day of the week.
 
For one thing, there’s two subtle things that happen when you lower the round count:
 
1) There are less points to be earned in your 15 seconds of scooting & shooting, so the hit factor is lower. Suddenly Alphas benefit you more - even in Major your shooters need to be smart enough to see this.
 
2) It really shows you where you are strong and weak in your movement; someone who shoots fast but has horrible footwork will get destroyed by someone who moves well.
 
No one is saying that every stage needs to be lowered in round count.
We’re saying there are 12, 18, and 24 round stages out there which are seriously challenging ballbusters and which compliment the long courses in your match.
 
 

Well said.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Steelslinger86]

I enjoy a variety, as long as they are all well designed. 

[perttime]

I shoot IPSC, and there rules mandate a balance between Short, Medium and Long Courses. Roughly, the balance must be more Short ones than Long.

[jcc7x7]

Match flow may be the concern. Thus the same size stages

[perttime]

26 minutes ago, jcc7x7 said:

Match flow may be the concern. Thus the same size stages

 

During my RO course, I was adviced that it helps match flow when you put any swingers and other gizmos that take time to reset in Short courses, and keep the Long ones as easy as possible to process.

 

Some IPSC matches with adequate volunteers also go for Hot Scoring, when feasible, for Long courses. Start scoring the targets while the competitor has moved on but is still shooting.

Edited August 15, 2018 by perttime

[CTJer]

You guys don’t disappoint.   Thanks for the feedback.  

 

1 hour ago, jcc7x7 said:

Match flow may be the concern. Thus the same size stages

Yeah, that’s probably the simplest reason for it. 

 

11 hours ago, MemphisMechanic said:

When I set it up.

 

Otherwise. 28-32 rounds is absolutely the norm. 

Yeah, I’ve watched some of your stuff and incorporated it into some of my stages.  Even some of your practice set up arrays.  

[IHAVEGAS]

7 hours ago, MemphisMechanic said:

 

Hmm. 21 meticulously placed rounds in positions that require precise entries and setups, then let you cut loose and blast away on the move, then get hard on the sights again... all while trying to decide which of the 4 viable stage plans best suits your personal strengths...

 

 

None of the things you have noted above are in any way diminished by higher round count, but, to each their own, no worries. 

 

Where I am at the 4 closest clubs will only put up a short stage if they are forced to (have a tight bay) and to the best of my knowledge everybody likes it that way. 

 

Only downside I know of is that you can occasionally get more memory challenge than you are looking for. 6 full memory stages can sort of feel like work. 

[rowdyb]

8 hours ago, MemphisMechanic said:

@rowdyb I think you know what I meant. There are bad stages, and bad stages which clearly favored a specific division in their construction.

 

I agree with yo uthat a truly good stage is going to interest everyone equally.  

Wasn't meant to sound like I was playing off you or arguing with you. It was a separate post unto itself. And yes I got what you meant for sure. (Your club just needs to abandon paper scoring)

[MemphisMechanic]

36 minutes ago, rowdyb said:

Wasn't meant to sound like I was playing off you or arguing with you. It was a separate post unto itself.

 

 

36 minutes ago, rowdyb said:

And yes I got what you meant for sure. (Your club just needs to abandon paper scoring)

 

You just got stuck on the squad where we have one person that still likes to write everything down! Everywhere else it’s all Kindle, all the time.

 

Yes, we’ve ditched the nooks for modern tech, too!

[robchavous]

The sport is about all size stages. They all have their place and when done correctly can all be challenging and enjoyable.

I do think in general people get lazy and just start adding targets that don't really add anything to the stage simply to pad round counts because that's all some people look at.

I think your better shooters can appreciate well done short and medium courses more than your average guy who only wants to get the most trigger time out of his match fee. For them this is basically their monthly practice.

As to the match flow aspect, if you design the stages well and where they fall in the order you can easily manage the flow. This is where designing around an entire match comes into play and not just a single stage. Planning out your stages in advance is key here. I can definitely see where matches that just have stuff thrown together the morning of by whoever shows up would need to keep everything basically the same size.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[CTJer]

2 hours ago, robchavous said:

As to the match flow aspect, if you design the stages well and where they fall in the order you can easily manage the flow. This is where designing around an entire match comes into play and not just a single stage. Planning out your stages in advance is key here. I can definitely see where matches that just have stuff thrown together the morning of by whoever shows up would need to keep everything basically the same size.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
 

We build the day before and we get designs going a week or so out.  

 

I design a few and another guy or 2 do  couple.  We have completely different styles, so it mixes well.  

 

I’m still struggling with match flow myself.  Still working on that aspect.  

[robchavous]

We build the day before and we get designs going a week or so out.  
 
I design a few and another guy or 2 do  couple.  We have completely different styles, so it mixes well.  
 
I’m still struggling with match flow myself.  Still working on that aspect.  

We do something similar. We have several people with access to a shared Google drive and drop in sketchup files of our stages. Everyone can see which bays have been used already for whichever match and we which ones still need stages. You can also see what props are being used / round counts / etc to make informed decisions on remaining stages. Also the MD can see it all and ask whoever designed it to make edits if he wants.

We're also fortunate enough to build the weekend before (minus setting out props / steel)

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[tanks]

Most are 28+ except for the classifier stage. I think part of the reason is to make the Open guys change mags  

[sc68cal]

I value short, technically challenging field courses. I think they're more difficult to design, and they'll have interesting props/swingers/activators to make up for the lower round count.

[CTJer]

1 hour ago, sc68cal said:

I value short, technically challenging field courses. I think they're more difficult to design, and they'll have interesting props/swingers/activators to make up for the lower round count.

I'm starting to feel that way.

 

I'm only in my second year with USPSA and I'm coming around to the idea that not everything has to be RUN AND GUN.   I of course still really like that aspect of the sport, but think the shorter courses with some activators with options is good for a overall match.

[zzt]

I happen to shoot at four clubs that do an excellent job of stage design.  I never hear the SS and P shooters complain the stages put them at a disadvantage.  Most of the courses are 24~32 rounds, even in the small bays.  It is quite easy to set up a highly technical course in a small bay.  Match flow is usually good as well.  There are always exceptions.  One time 15 shooters were placed on a squad (they all insisted on shooting together) with only 9 or 10 on the others.  That slowed things to a crawl.  Last Sunday there was a long Classifier.  Four stings:  25 yard prone, 20 yard free style, 15 yard strong hand, 10 yard (approx) weak hand.  It took longer to run and score than the other stages, so there was so back up.  Fortunately, they are few and far between.