Why does USPSA have its own rulebook?

[Jim Watson]

Well, that's interesting.  The legend here at one time was that IPSC was setting up to be an Olympic demonstration event.  With time plus scoring so the commentators and spectators would know what was going on in real time.

[Vince Pinto]

32 minutes ago, Jim Watson said:

Well, that's interesting.  The legend here at one time was that IPSC was setting up to be an Olympic demonstration event.  With time plus scoring so the commentators and spectators would know what was going on in real time.

 

The story got twisted and  took on a life of its own. Our friends at IPSC Greece informed us that IPSC would be able to put on a demonstration match for the IOC, in conjunction with the 2004 Olympics in Greece. We were very sceptical, but they were so insistent, we said OK, that would be great, and we notified all regions of the possibility.

 

As it turned out, it was indeed a pipe dream, as we suspected. The IOC decided to cancel all demonstration sports for 2004, so it was never a real starter.

 

 

[StealthyBlagga]

6 hours ago, Vince Pinto said:

 

Fake news. IPSC never expected or applied to become an Olympic sport. The only thing we sought was membership of the GAISF (aka Sport Accord), which would merely give us IOC recognition. If granted, this would be a huge benefit for our member regions, but with little to zero cost. 

 

 

 

Hmmm... with respect, that seems like a bit of revisionist history. I was around at the time and the buzz was clear - semantic arguments not withstanding - that making changes like getting rid of humanoid targets were going to pay off in terms of IOC acceptance. The "demonstration sport" idea was clearly used to imply progress in this direction. Even USPSA got into the swing of things:

 

Exhibit 1: LA Times Article from Wednesday, July 21, 1999 

 

'Practical' Gun Game Proposed for Olympics 
By STEVE BERRY, Times Staff Writer

 

Firearm enthusiasts from around the world who organize run-and-gun competitions--once commonly known as "combat" shooting and often featuring human-shaped targets--are trying to persuade the International Olympic Committee to let them compete in the Olympic Games.

 

The 60-nation International Practical Shooting Confederation has been trying to persuade the committee to accept the competition as a sport for the last two years, President Nick Alexakos of Canada said Tuesday. Though now referred to as "practical" shooting to avoid the negative connotations of the word combat, the international game pits shooters armed with assault rifles, semiautomatic handguns and shotguns against imaginary adversaries in the form of human-shaped targets. Children as young as 9 compete in the United States. 

 

"It's a running-and-gunning type of deal," said Andy Hollar, president of the 14,000-member U.S. Practical Shooting Assn.  In a typical American competition, a shooter jumps up from a prone position, grabs a gun from a table drawer and starts firing away, Hollar said. The U.S. group is sanctioned by Alexakos's international confederation. In an Australian competition, a shooter must also carry a person for 100 yards, "as if rescuing a buddy," Hollar said.
 
Competitors in the contests shoot at a variety of targets, including "tombstone-shaped targets that roughly represents a humanoid shape," Hollar said. There is also a lollipop-shaped steel target "that falls down when you hit it," he said. Competitors shoot from behind walls with cutout windows and doors and around corners. Shooters get higher scores when they hit spots where the head or heart would be located in a person. 

 

The confederation scored a major victory last October when it persuaded the IOC-sanctioned Hellenic Shooting Assn. to host a practical shooting exhibition for the 2004 games in Athens.  Alexakos said all IOC members and other Olympic officials have been invited. Although the exhibition is not sanctioned directly by the IOC, the  Hellenic association approval is considered an important step toward winning legitimacy.  Efforts to include the competition in the Olympics has sparked outrage among gun control organizations. "This type of shooting is for military maneuvers in NATO. An organization [the Olympics] that is supposed to celebrate peace should not be sponsoring military shooting," said Naomi Paiss, spokeswoman for Handgun Control Inc. 

 

Critics say including the competition in the Olympics would be a way of legitimizing weapons and fighting gun control.  Philip Alpers, a New Zealand firearms researcher, and the Washington-based Violence Policy Center have done an in-depth study on the sport of practical shooting. They plan a series of press conferences Thursday in Washington and other world capitals. Bill McGeveran, a spokesman for the center, said its findings "should persuade IOC that violent fantasy and combat weaponry have no place at the Olympics." He declined Tuesday to release any details. 

 

Although the U.S. still uses targets that resemble human shapes, Alexakos said his organization no longer uses them. The competition, he said, is simply "shooting at as many targets and as fast as you can." IOC officials in Lausanne, Switzerland, declined to say whether they favor the sport, but noted that IOC approval is a years-long process. The practical shooting contests contrast with existing Olympic gun competition, which is limited to skeet and trap shooting, air-gun shooting and .22-caliber weapons. The contests also include the hunting-based shooting biathlon, which combines cross-country skiing and shooting, and the modern pentathlon. The pentathlon, a sport rooted in ancient civilizations' military messengers, requires competitors to shoot at stationary targets, fence, swim, ride horses over jumps and run a 3,000-meter, cross-country course. 

 

Alexakos said his shooting confederation began talking with IOC officials, including its sports director Gilbert Felli, two years ago. Alexakos said the contact with Felli was not encouraging.  Although the name has been changed from combat shooting, the confederation's constitution lists "principles and objectives" implying that the competition is designed to simulate military, law enforcement and self-defense shootouts. Targets "reflect the general size and shape of such objects as the firearm may be reasonably be called upon to hit in their primary intended use," including human enemies.  Alexakos said "those principles are 25 years old," when the major thrust of the contest was law enforcement applications. "The fathers of practical shooting were primarily interested in law enforcement and self-defense," he said. 

 

Copyright 1999 Los Angeles Times. All Rights Reserved

[Vince Pinto]

2 hours ago, StealthyBlagga said:

Hmmm... with respect, that seems like a bit of revisionist history. I was around at the time and the buzz was clear - semantic arguments not withstanding - that making changes like getting rid of humanoid targets were going to pay off in terms of IOC acceptance. The "demonstration sport" idea was clearly used to imply progress in this direction. Even USPSA got into the swing of things:

 

Also with respect, you obtained your information third or fourth hand. I was there in the room, at the pointy end of the spear, and that article is complete and utter nonsense. We had one meeting with Gilbert Felli, and it was he who advised us to go the GAISF route. We did not try to persuade anybody of anything. It was just an exploratory meeting.

 

And here's a clue to the inaccuracy of the article: the organisation name did not change from combat shooting. The organisation was called Practical Shooting from Day 1.

Fake news was around long before Trump, but he certainly nailed them with the moniker. 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 11, 2019 by Vince Pinto

[Vince Pinto]

One more thing: IPSC did not retire the Metric (headed) Target until 2008, long after all the Olympic hoopla.

 

 

[StealthyBlagga]

2 hours ago, Vince Pinto said:

 

Also with respect, you obtained your information third or fourth hand. I was there in the room, at the pointy end of the spear, and that article is complete and utter nonsense. We had one meeting with Gilbert Felli, and it was he who advised us to go the GAISF route. We did not try to persuade anybody of anything. It was just an exploratory meeting.

 

And here's a clue to the inaccuracy of the article: the organisation name did not change from combat shooting. The organisation was called Practical Shooting from Day 1.

Fake news was around long before Trump, but he certainly nailed them with the moniker. 

 

 

 

 

 

I agree that the article is full of nonsense - it's about what one would expect from a liberal rag like the LA Times, then and now. I post it only because it is a public record that alludes to IPSC's IOC ambitions and explains why many of us who were not present in the smoke-filled meeting rooms suspected ulterior motives in some of the rules changes that seemed intended to distance the sport from its martial origins. It's clear from the comments of others that I am not the only person who got this impression.

 

2 hours ago, Vince Pinto said:

One more thing: IPSC did not retire the Metric (headed) Target until 2008, long after all the Olympic hoopla.

 

 

 

When the Classic target was introduced, ostensibly as an alternative for countries unable to use the Metric target due to political and legal considerations, it was a completely understandable move. The mistake many made was believing the powers that be when they told us there was no agenda to phase out the Metric. I was skeptical then and am sorry to say I was proven right.

 

The OP asked why there are two divergent rule books. I am explaining the historical context - I call 'em as I see 'em, without fear or favor.

[Vince Pinto]

3 hours ago, StealthyBlagga said:

When the Classic target was introduced, ostensibly as an alternative for countries unable to use the Metric target due to political and legal considerations, it was a completely understandable move. The mistake many made was believing the powers that be when they told us there was no agenda to phase out the Metric. I was skeptical then and am sorry to say I was proven right.

 

The Classic Target was factually, not ostensibly, introduced as an alternative to regions who demanded it. At the time, Germany was using a Metric Target with two heads, in order to avoid any problems with their government, while Australia found it politically expedient to cut off the heads. Other regions were facing similar political pressures.

 

And the suggestion that the Classic Target was the first step towards a devious plan to retire the Metric Target was the figment of the tinfoil hat imagination of a guy in Massachusetts who objected to the very existence of IPSC. There was no such plan. Once again, I was in the room when the matter was discussed. The logical fallacy "Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc" applies.

 

However, the Classic Target proved to be considerably more popular worldwide than the Metric, with one major reason being its reduced size. As a result, when the Motion came up at the 2008 General Assembly, the outcome was not even close: 42 Yea votes versus 5 Nay votes (one of the latter was the USA). 

 

 

[IHAVEGAS]

The real split started when IPSC insisted that R.O.'s have to pat your butt when they say make ready. 

 

[zhuk]

On 1/11/2019 at 10:08 AM, StealthyBlagga said:

In an Australian competition, a shooter must also carry a person for 100 yards, "as if rescuing a buddy," Hollar said.

 

[IVC]

On 1/10/2019 at 11:54 PM, Vince Pinto said:

And the suggestion that the Classic Target was the first step towards a devious plan to retire the Metric Target was the figment of the tinfoil hat imagination of a guy in Massachusetts who objected to the very existence of IPSC. There was no such plan. Once again, I was in the room when the matter was discussed. The logical fallacy "Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc" applies.

 

Remove "devious plan" and the rest of the sentence stands - it was the first step and there was not only a clear path, but also a clear motive. It might have been convenient not to have had any plan at the time, if nothing else then for the plausible deniability purposes, but if someone pointed out the slippery slope and it was ignored, it's good enough to establish quite a bit of causality. "Intent" can be argued, the "first step" not so much. 

 

I wasn't part of it in any way, wasn't even aware of the sport at the time. My beef is with the incrementalism that is eerily similar to how gun control works in California where I live - the path is clear, the motive is clear, yet we argue on whether there was a conscious intent as if it somehow vindicates the end result. 

[Vince Pinto]

1 hour ago, IVC said:

I wasn't part of it in any way, wasn't even aware of the sport at the time.

 

Yet you know so much about it. I'm truly impressed. 

 

 

 

[IVC]

1 minute ago, Vince Pinto said:

Yet you know so much about it. I'm truly impressed. 

 

I don't anything about "it" which is precisely why I put a disclosure, so your meme is completely off the mark. 

 

What I do know is that if you are catering to an anti-gun government request, you are walking the anti-gun path regardless of your need for the high moral ground that it wasn't the intent, it just happened. If someone pointed out that you would be removing the humanoid targets and it happened, he was right. He indeed "knew so much that was so." Even if the final decision to remove metric targets was completely independent of any politics and was there for "practical purposes," remember that those "practical purposes" came about for a very specific reason.

[gose]

On 1/10/2019 at 11:54 PM, Vince Pinto said:

 

Fake news. IPSC never expected or applied to become an Olympic sport. The only thing we sought was membership of the GAISF (aka Sport Accord), which would merely give us IOC recognition. If granted, this would be a huge benefit for our member regions, but with little to zero cost. 

 

 

 

The membership itself might be near zero cost, but the pursuit of that membership certainly doesnt seem to be free...

[Vince Pinto]

1 hour ago, gose said:

The membership itself might be near zero cost, but the pursuit of that membership certainly doesnt seem to be free...

 

What does it cost?

 

 

[Jollymon32]

On 1/10/2019 at 12:33 PM, Vince Pinto said:

 

We were rejected twice previously, but that was solely due to the ISSF objecting under the "competing sport" rules at those times. Apart from their hatred of IPSC style shooting, which is far more exciting, which might affect their growth, they were worried that we would somehow lessen the funding they obtain from the IOC.

 

However, for us, this has nothing to do with money.

 

We continue to pursue GAISF membership, because there is now little to no weight given to the former "competing sport" rule. It's a very long and arduous process, and we continue to plod along. We have a sizeable war chest, so all we need is patience. A lot of patience.

 

 

 

 

What’s with the “We” and the “Us” in the present term?  I was not aware that you are still affiliated with IPSC.  I was under the impression that that chapter was closed.

Edited January 15, 2019 by Jollymon32

[Vince Pinto]

27 minutes ago, Jollymon32 said:

What’s with the “We” and the “Us” in the present term?  I was not aware that you are still affiliated with IPSC.  I was under the impression that that chapter was closed.

 

So, now you want to make this about me? That didn't take long. Did Andy Hollar's or Mike Voigt's (RIP) or John Amidon's chapter close when they no longer had official HQ positions in the USPSA? What about the numerous Area Directors who no longer serve in that capacity?

I'm still actively involved with IPSC. I have been, every day, for 25 years, and I have no intention of withdrawing. In respect of the GAISF application, I single-handedly submitted our official application in 2015, which took 7 days a week for 6 weeks to assemble the 470 pages of supporting documentation that had to be included.

I also single-handedly raised the US$570,000 war chest which enabled us to pursue this dream.

I therefore hope it's OK with you that I continue to use the words "we" and "us".

 

 

[wtturn]

 

 

 

 

 

 

I also single-handedly raised the US$570,000 war chest which enabled us to pursue this dream.

 

I therefore hope it's OK with you that I continue to use the words "we" and "us".

 

 

 

You always neglect to mention the 10% commission you took off the top of that figure.

 

It always struck me as a fundraiser for Vince Pinto more than anything.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[ima45dv8]

22 minutes ago, wtturn said:

You always neglect to mention the 10% commission you took off the top of that figure.

 

It always struck me as a fundraiser for Vince Pinto more than anything.

 

That sounds like a harsh indictment. Can you back that up with fact?

Or was it was meant as a joke?

[Vince Pinto]

33 minutes ago, wtturn said:

You always neglect to mention the 10% commission you took off the top of that figure.

 

It always struck me as a fundraiser for Vince Pinto more than anything.

 

Yep, as usual, my participation in any thread here invariably becomes about me. The obsession and hatred hasn't waned one iota since I joined in 2002. It's no joke.

For starters, my commission was no secret. Secondly, I didn't "take it". It was offered to me as compensation for the considerable expenses I incurred in raising the money. This included numerous airfares, hotel accommodations and some wining and dining to convince potential Patrons to sign up and part with their money. 

I also conceived the program, and I spent five years actively working on it. 

 

And during my 25 years with IPSC, I never asked for, nor was i ever given, a salary. Do you also object to Range Officers getting compensation? What about USPSA Executives and staff?

 

How much have you raised to bolster the USPSA balance sheet?

 

Edited January 15, 2019 by Vince Pinto

[wtturn]

 
That sounds like a harsh indictment. Can you back that up with fact?
Or was it was meant as a joke?

Not a joke, Vince received a commission from sales of IPSC "Patron" memberships.

Vince was the sole creator, salesman, and administrator for that program, to the best of my knowledge.

He's never denied it, to his credit.

But he never accounts for his fee when he quotes the fundraising figures until prompted, which is a bit disingenuous (by omission) in my humble opinion.

I can link you to threads on Vince's own forum in which he discusses the Patron program and his commission, if you like.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk

[Vince Pinto]

2 minutes ago, wtturn said:

I can link you to threads on Vince's own forum in which he discusses the Patron program and his commission, if you like.

 

Yep. No matter what, I'm guilty.

 

Business as usual here.

 

 

 

[wtturn]

 
Yep. No matter what, I'm guilty.
 
Business as usual here.
 
 
 

No one is persecuting you.

The truth should never be objectionable.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk

[Vince Pinto]

1 minute ago, wtturn said:

No one is persecuting you.

The truth should never be objectionable.

 

Yet I don't see you saying "thanks for your service to our sport" or "great work on achieving something that nobody else has ever achieved" or "everybody said your plan would fail, but you persisted and made it happen". No Sir. Always look for the perceived dirt, even though the commissions were public knowledge.

Is our sport any better due to your comments? Clearly, my getting US$57,000 in commissions over a period of 5 years is disgraceful. I've spent more in that time on lunches.

I don't need a medal, and I don't need a hug, but it would be nice, really nice if once, just once in 17 years here, I was not personally attacked and vilified for what the rest of the IPSC World thinks is quite a accomplishment. I know, wishful thinking, but I'm an optimist.

 

 

[Gary Stevens]

Hi Vince.

[GrumpyOne]

I thought this thread was about why there are separate rule books, not about the inner workings of who got what and why. Get back on topic.