Jump to content
Brian Enos's Forums... Maku mozo!

What makes a stage "technical"?


Recommended Posts

I hear the term "Technical Stage" thrown around quite a bit on podcasts and in books/posts. Its usually in reference to the quality of a stage. Is a stage with a lot of partials or more precision shots? Does it have more to do with movement? All of the above?

 

This is my first year shooting USPSA and I have only shot local level 1 club matches. Just trying to gauge how these compare to matches elsewhere.

 

Sent from my SM-G930U using Tapatalk

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, anonymouscuban said:

 

I hear the term "Technical Stage" thrown around quite a bit on podcasts and in books/posts. Its usually in reference to the quality of a stage. Is a stage with a lot of partials or more precision shots? Does it have more to do with movement? All of the above?

 

This is my first year shooting USPSA and I have only shot local level 1 club matches. Just trying to gauge how these compare to matches elsewhere.

 

Sent from my SM-G930U using Tapatalk

 

 

 

Anything that’s not a hoser stage.😊

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anything that’s not a hoser stage.[emoji4]
Haha. That's kind of what I was thinking but wanted to ask. The club matches I shoot tend to have a lot of partials. Some stages are all partials. Don't mind these as much as the all steel stages. Ugh. I get heartburn soon as I see a bunch of steel. Trying to practice this more but also not let it get in my head.

My club just started adding swingers so that's been interesting. Not sure how I feel about them yet.

Sent from my SM-G930U using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anything where you need more precision. Be it foot work, shots, stage plan ect. Stages go hoser --> technical --> memory. Memory have a bunch of hidden targets or ones that can be engaged from multiple locations. Scoring these you will see targets with 4 holes and others with none.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The definition of a "Technical Stage" is going to vary from one person to the next. For me it means that precise shooting positions need to be hit in order to engage specific targets. Or there are more complex target arrays that require changing the rate of fire due to varied shot difficulty or not engaging targets from certain positions because its an advantage to engage them from another position within the stage.

 

Unfortunately most club matches end up with very bland stage design where everyone runs to the same general shooting positions and engages all the targets they can see from that position. This example is what I would consider the opposite of a "Technical Stage".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Local Matches don't usually put in that much time and effort in Stage design . If you shoot  a Section Match or an Area Match the stages will be more challenging .

I suggest you go shoot a Section match see for your .

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, anonymouscuban said:

I get heartburn soon as I see a bunch of steel.  My club just started adding swingers so that's been interesting. Not sure how I feel about them yet.

 

Come across a texas star yet?  Or even better a polish plate rack?

 

You're gonna love those........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anything with moving targets, and (to a lesser extent) what Chalee said; if there are precise/critical set up points. 

 

On one end you have the "go here and shoot 8 rounds, go here shoot 8 rounds, go here shoot 8, and go here and shoot 8 if finished ULSC>"

 

On the further end of the spectrum there's stages where you ride a roller coaster or scoot around in a little spaceship; I refer to those as carnival stages. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

to me Technical stages are not about target difficulty, I have seen some stages where all the shots were made difficult (far, partial, no-shoot) and it made for a very bland stage because every shot was the same.

Technical to me is,  make me speed up and slow down, make me hit a exact spot, make me skip targets, make me shoot on the move, make me physically do something I'm not used to, make me execute a plan correctly, etc. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MikeBurgess said:

to me Technical stages are not about target difficulty, I have seen some stages where all the shots were made difficult (far, partial, no-shoot) and it made for a very bland stage because every shot was the same.

 

I agree. You can set up three or four simple boxes or ports with tight partials and long steel... and you snow have an Accuracy Stage, but not an overly technical one.

 

Quote

Technical to me is,  make me speed up and slow down, make me hit a exact spot, make me skip targets, make me shoot on the move, make me physically do something I'm not used to, make me execute a plan correctly, etc. 

 

This. This is a technical stage recipe.

 

Whatever you do, don’t setup up a port with 4 targets, then another port with 4, and repeat.

 

Move a few targets around. Consider combining one or more of the following:

 

1) Make a few available from two or even three ports.

2) Leave a couple of them visible while moving from port to port.

3) Perhaps place barricades so that one target is only visible from each corner of the shooting area, then leave remainder of them exposed for most of the stage.

4) Make a few of the targets available from multiple place into shots that are too tight to comfortably shoot on the move, while others pretty much beg for it.

 

(Or do something fun and unusual: like an activator steel that operates a swinger in another port.)

 

Edited by MemphisMechanic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, CHA-LEE said:

The definition of a "Technical Stage" is going to vary from one person to the next. For me it means that precise shooting positions need to be hit in order to engage specific targets. Or there are more complex target arrays that require changing the rate of fire due to varied shot difficulty or not engaging targets from certain positions because its an advantage to engage them from another position within the stage.

 

Unfortunately most club matches end up with very bland stage design where everyone runs to the same general shooting positions and engages all the targets they can see from that position. This example is what I would consider the opposite of a "Technical Stage".

 

I actually set up some stages for a local match with Mason Lane last week.  He had two objectives (that I could tell); one was being able to shoot things on the move and the second was being able to shoot things in different positions so as to not lock everyone into the same or similar stage plans.  It was very educational and easily one of the best local matches I've shot.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hate to say it this way, but at local matches "Technical" stage design rarely comes from B class or below skilled setup crews. For most local clubs the bulk of the match staff are B class shooters and below. Its not that they don't want "Technical" stages, they do. The problem is that they usually don't have the shooting or movement skill set to formulate or verify good "Technical" stages. They usually live in a practical shooting execution universe of "Run over there and shoot some targets". When you own stage planning and execution is that generic then the resulting stages you build will also be that generic. The other common stage design failure I see at local matches are random obstacles, stupid start positions, or abnormal shooting positions that shooters are forced to do which add very little to the overall goal of testing practical shooting or movement skills. The stage designers add these things to their stage thinking that it will make their stage design more "Technical" but it completely misses the mark. I have lost count of how many local club matches I have attended where I noticed a stage design or requirement that was completely over the top for no good reason and asked the stage designer to change the stage because all it did was add unneeded stage time to everyone's run for no good reason or dramatically increased the risk for safety violations. I would ask them what their general intent was and then offer them a few different options to achieve that goal without deploying something stupid. 99% of the time my suggested changes were accepted and I helped them rework the stage to make it better than before while eliminating the unneeded carnival stuff. The vast majority of the time these stage designers couldn't even grasp what my changes were or why they should be deployed until the final setup was done then a huge light bulb moment happens when they see how it turned out. The frequency of that happening is what solidifies my stance on B class or below skilled shooters not having the shooting or movement skills to formulate a decent "Technical" Stage on their own.

 

The moral of the story is this...... MD's of the world, always strive to have M or GM skill level shooters on your match staff. This will help promote setting up more interesting stages that will test a wide range of skilled shooters.    

Edited by CHA-LEE
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, CHA-LEE said:

 

The moral of the story is this...... MD's of the world, always strive to have M or GM skill level shooters on your match staff. This will help promote setting up more interesting stages that will test a wide range of skilled shooters.    

  Are you being serious right now? You have to SEARCH really hard around here to see a GM help with set up, or even help run shooters for that matter. The reason us lowly non GM/M shooters are on match staff is because we are willing to help. 

  Your theory also gets busted by the fact that the same guys who do stage design, help set up etc for our local matches are the same guys who help with our state and Area championships.

  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Sarge said:

  Are you being serious right now? You have to SEARCH really hard around here to see a GM help with set up, or even help run shooters for that matter. The reason us lowly non GM/M shooters are on match staff is because we are willing to help. 

  Your theory also gets busted by the fact that the same guys who do stage design, help set up etc for our local matches are the same guys who help with our state and Area championships.

  

 

I knew that my comments would get some peoples panties in a twist. Its not my intent to degrade or disparage anyone. I am simply stating the facts as I see it as well as my direct experience as a competitor and match director. I attend 50+ Club, 12+ Major and MD 10+ matches a year. What I experience is the reality of the situation. Why would I make this stuff up? It is what it is good, bad or otherwise.

 

In response to your comment, I have been to plenty of State, Section, Area and National level matches that had uninteresting non-technical stages because of the exact facts that I have already explained. The part you are also leaving out in that scenario is that Level 2 or above matches get a LOT more eyes on the stage designs well before the start of the match to help make them the best they can be. That level of stage design vetting or support for Club matches is virtually non-existent. 

 

I am not saying that ALL non M/GM level shooters can't design or deploy technical stages. There are some that absolutely can, but they are the far exception versus the norm. What I am saying is that the majority of B class or below skill level stage designers can't design truly effective "Technical" stages and that is proven every weekend at local club matches all across the nation. This has also been proven in prior Nationals where the bulk of the stages were designed by B class non-shooting career RO/CRO's. I have been to more "Run-Stop-Shoot, Run-Stop-Shoot everyone uses the same stage plan because there are no options" uninteresting stage design Nationals than good stage design Nationals. This last nationals in Utah was the exception to that as it had many good stage designs with options. What do you know, a GM (Shannon Smith) was in charge of setting up those stages. 

Edited by CHA-LEE
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, CHA-LEE said:

 

I knew that my comments would get some peoples panties in a twist. Its not my intent to degrade or disparage anyone. I am simply stating the facts as I see it as well as my direct experience as a competitor and match director. I attend 50+ Club, 12+ Major and MD 10+ matches a year. What I experience is the reality of the situation. Why would I make this stuff up? It is what it is good, bad or otherwise.

 

In response to your comment, I have been to plenty of State, Section, Area and National level matches that had uninteresting non-technical stages because of the exact facts that I have already explained. The part you are also leaving out in that scenario is that Level 2 or above matches get a LOT more eyes on the stage designs well before the start of the match to help make them the best they can be. That level of stage design vetting or support for Club matches is virtually non-existent. 

 

I am not saying that ALL non M/GM level shooters can't design or deploy technical stages. There are some that absolutely can, but they are the far exception versus the norm. What I am saying is that the majority of B class or below skill level stage designers can't design truly effective "Technical" stages and that is proven every weekend at local club matches all across the nation. This has also been proven in prior Nationals where the bulk of the stages were designed by B class non-shooting career RO/CRO's. I have been to more "Run-Stop-Shoot, Run-Stop-Shoot everyone uses the same stage plan because there are no options" uninteresting stage design Nationals than good stage design Nationals. This last nationals in Utah was the exception to that as it had many good stage designs with options. What do you know, a GM (Shannon Smith) was in charge of setting up those stages. 

My panties aren’t in a twist. You’re blanket statement just isn’t accurate on this subject. You regencies one match, ONE, that was put on by a GM. How many thousands of matches are put on every weekend across the country that are great matches put on by common folks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sarge said:

My panties aren’t in a twist. You’re blanket statement just isn’t accurate on this subject. You regencies one match, ONE, that was put on by a GM. How many thousands of matches are put on every weekend across the country that are great matches put on by common folks.

 

You can try to minimize or invalidate my responses all you want. It doesn't change the reality of the situation. Don't kill the messenger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would you consider this technical?

Distances were between 2 and 16 meters. There aren't many options for shooting locations. At the sides, you see the close target to the side, a target downrange in the corner, a swinger triggered by a step pad, round plate, and a target across to the other side. In the middle, you have the two close targets, two mini.poppers, and a No-Shoot mini popper.

It is from a September IPSC match.

 

8.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of the problem is that the local shooters willing to help design/build don't actually have a of the higher level match experience to go off of or they are thinking within their own capabilities (aka KYL thinking) so the stages you get are not always as awesome as match goers would like. 

 

I'll admit though, sometimes you just need a stage built and its very limited and boring but its that or no match.... I know my designs are not always great, but I am learning still.

 

But you know what, if someone is going to complain they should be offering designs and their time to build instead.  It's a volunteer sport after all 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, perttime said:

Would you consider this technical?

Distances were between 2 and 16 meters. There aren't many options for shooting locations. At the sides, you see the close target to the side, a target downrange in the corner, a swinger triggered by a step pad, round plate, and a target across to the other side. In the middle, you have the two close targets, two mini.poppers, and a No-Shoot mini popper.

It is from a September IPSC match.

 

8.jpg

 

I'd call that technical. Has run-n-gun, point shooting, and accuracy tests on a wide transition.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, perttime said:

Would you consider this technical?

 

8.jpg

 

I wouldn't call this a "technical stage". 

Stand in one spot, shoot a bunch of stuff... run to an easy position, run to another easy (defined by the stomp pad) position and shoot some stuff. 

 

This kind of outlines what Charlie was referring to I think.  Stomp pads and swingers don't make a stage feel "technical". I'm not saying it's not a good stage, it looks fun. It's just not a stage I'd walk away from thinking "technical". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ssanders224 said:

 

I wouldn't call this a "technical stage". 

Stand in one spot, shoot a bunch of stuff... run to an easy position, run to another easy (defined by the stomp pad) position and shoot some stuff. 

 

This kind of outlines what Charlie was referring to I think.  Stomp pads and swingers don't make a stage feel "technical". I'm not saying it's not a good stage, it looks fun. It's just not a stage I'd walk away from thinking "technical". 

 

BINGO!!!!............ But watch out. Stating facts hurts peoples feelings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, perttime said:

Ha, a couple of opposite opinions :D

I wasnt thinking about the swingers as technical, myself. There's something about the wide transitions and pretty different distances, though.

 

That is how I see it. Its forcing you from fast transitions coming from middle to one of the ends driving into the near target, then 3+ paper and some steel (depending on your stage plan) over a nearly 180 degree swing that require more accuracy after a long movement. Swingers are not technical, they are just a PITA at times. 

But what is technical to some is not to others. Opinions vary and you'll get consensus on it

Edited by broadside72
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, broadside72 said:

 

...Swingers are not technical, they are just a PITA at times.

...

 

I had to re-shoot that one. First time, I had enough holes in the swingers, but was really slow. Second time, I was a bit faster, but on one swinger my hits were in one perfectly round hole,  indistinguishable from the other holes ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...