Limited Minor

[BritinUSA]

There is no problem with new members per se. The problem is what is happening as a result of those new members and/or the organizations attitude toward them.

 

More emphasis is placed on participants, than competitors. If this was a business then that position is understandable, but it is supposed to be a sport.

 

USPSA cannot serve two masters, either it serves the competitive sport or it serves money.

[BritinUSA]

2 minutes ago, Fishbreath said:

I was perfectly happy with a 'within X oz' limit and a box, and I think the same thing could have been done for Carry Optics given an allowance for optic weight. Pretty sure that ship has sailed, though.

The original concept would have been in balance with the other three main divisions. It would have offered clear choices to members, find the division that your existing gun meets (but does not exceed) and learn from there.

 

 

 

[Fishbreath]

3 minutes ago, jt1207 said:

I can understand your position. Although, this sounds like a beef with uspsa leadership, and not so much people who shoot uspsa. And remember, you were a uspsa "noob" at one time too. 

 

I like to draw the same distinction as Balakay, but I don't see it as a negative judgment on newcomers or recreational shooters.

 

I enjoy golf, but not enough to put in the work to get good. I go out, hit my 100+ rounds, and have a good time. There are a lot more golfers like me than there are serious, competitive guys, but the PGA would be crazy to put the future direction of golf in the hands of players like me. I don't think that's an insult to me—just a statement that competitive golf knows what it wants to be, and that I'm fine playing by its rules even if I'm not going to be winning at TPC Sawgrass anytime soon.

[B_RAD]

3 minutes ago, BritinUSA said:

There is no problem with new members per se. The problem is what is happening as a result of those new members and/or the organizations attitude toward them.

 

More emphasis is placed on participants, than competitors. If this was a business then that position is understandable, but it is supposed to be a sport.

 

USPSA cannot serve two masters, either it serves the competitive sport or it serves money.

Ok. This guy gets it. 

 

 

[Racinready300ex]

6 minutes ago, jt1207 said:

I can understand your position. Although, this sounds like a beef with uspsa leadership, and not so much people who shoot uspsa. And remember, you were a uspsa "noob" at one time too. 

 

I remember when I was a noob, and I looked at the rules and figured out what I needed to do to compete and then got after it. Those were the days. Now I have to read the minutes to every BOD meeting so I don't miss then next change. 

[Balakay]

5 minutes ago, jt1207 said:

I can understand your position. Although, this sounds like a beef with uspsa leadership, and not so much people who shoot uspsa. And remember, you were a uspsa "noob" at one time too. 

the beef is with both.  I was a noob not that long ago and  still a "mid-pack nobody"

 

The difference is I showed up, read the rules and shot what I had for a while. After I figured that this was a sport that I wished to pursue, I purchased a gun that fit an existing division. 

 

The tail needs to stop wagging the dog

 

 

 

[jt1207]

2 minutes ago, Balakay said:

the beef is with both.  I was a noob not that long ago and  still a "mid-pack nobody"

 

The difference is I showed up, read the rules and shot what I had for a while. After I figured that this was a sport that I wished to pursue, I purchased a gun that fit an existing division. 

 

The tail needs to stop wagging the dog

 

 

 

that makes sense to me. 

[outerlimits]

grow the sport has created this mess, period.

[Racinready300ex]

20 minutes ago, Fishbreath said:

 

I don't shoot Production beyond the occasional match when I want to leave the revolver at home, go a little faster, and make more aggressive stage plans, so take this with a grain of salt, but: I was perfectly happy with a 'within X oz' limit and a box, and I think the same thing could have been done for Carry Optics given an allowance for optic weight. Pretty sure that ship has sailed, though.

 

 

I agree the ship has sailed. Not sure if you do IDPA or not, they added 2 oz for the CO division to cover the optic and cut a hole in the top of the box for it to stick out. 

[BritinUSA]

I did not know that… The box cut-out was in my original proposal to USPSA. I think I had a weight allowance at 5oz over listed weight to accommodate slide cut and optic.

[Jeff226]

20 minutes ago, BritinUSA said:

There is no problem with new members per se. The problem is what is happening as a result of those new members and/or the organizations attitude toward them.

 

More emphasis is placed on participants, than competitors. If this was a business then that position is understandable, but it is supposed to be a sport.

 

USPSA cannot serve two masters, either it serves the competitive sport or it serves money.

Statement from the USPSA President
USPSA Headquarters
Jun 26, 2017
 All Announcements
What is USPSA?  Is it a hobby, a sport, or an event?  The answer depends largely on who you ask, but USPSA is all three.  We are a hobby.  Not everyone who competes in USPSA has his or her eye on winning.  Many USPSA members continue to show up for the friendship and fellowship that matches at all levels provide.  We are also a sport.  Our top athletes spend thousands of hours training and preparing for our most prestigious events.  To this group, and others who aspire to be part of it, taking the test against the best, and winning, is paramount.  We are an event, too.  Events are local monthly matches, state or section championships, area championships, or national championships.  Members look forward to their next match, and each match seems to have its own identity.

 

 

Without sufficient participants you won't have a sport...or more precisely as much opportunity to participate in the sport.  Arguably, unless you are an M or GM, you are probably just a participant regardless of how much of a "competitor" you identify as.  Not sure I see the value in claiming to be one and looking down your nose at the other.

[BritinUSA]

Doesn’t matter what the skill level is; If you are serious about competition and train and puts the effort in the you’re a competitor.
 

I have noticed in your responses an inclination to be derogatory towards those that disagree with you.

 

Now you claim that I look down my nose at people, how disrespectful. If you cannot explain your position without insults then perhaps your opinion is not on the solid ground that you believe it to be.

[Fishbreath]

4 minutes ago, Jeff226 said:

Arguably, unless you are an M or GM, you are probably just a participant regardless of how much of a "competitor" you identify as.

 

Wrong. Competitor vs. participant is mindset, not achievement. You're thinking of participant vs. contender, which is a different story.

 

Would you say a motivated high school football player is just a participant, not a competitor? After all, he's not playing in the NFL, so by your logic he's not a competitor no matter how seriously he takes the game.

 

4 minutes ago, Jeff226 said:

Not sure I see the value in claiming to be one and looking down your nose at the other.

 

Again, nobody's looking down their nose at anybody. There's nothing wrong with treating a sport as a recreational activity, but it's also silly to change the rules of a sport to cater to recreational participants at the cost of serious competitors.

Edited May 24, 2021 by Fishbreath

[motosapiens]

20 minutes ago, outerlimits said:

grow the sport has created this mess, period.

what are you saying is a 'mess'?

 

i think we have good divisions (except for pcc) with sensible rules, and enough freedom that people can tweak their equipment to make it work for their particular preferences. You can cheaply tweak an actual duty/carry gun to be competitive, or you can get a fancy custom-shop gun.  The guns I bought 6-7 years ago are still useful. The people who shoot the best are winning all the matches.

 

The only thing I might change (if everyone wanted to) would be to go to 15 rds for production.

Edited May 24, 2021 by motosapiens

[Jeff226]

4 minutes ago, Fishbreath said:

 

Wrong. Competitor vs. participant is mindset, not achievement. You're thinking of participant vs. contender, which is a different story.

 

Would you say a motivated high school football player is just a participant, not a competitor? After all, he's not playing in the NFL, so by your logic he's not a competitor no matter how seriously he takes the game.

 

 

Again, nobody's looking down their nose at anybody. There's nothing wrong with treating a sport as a recreational activity, but it's also silly to change the rules of a sport to cater to recreational participants at the cost of serious competitors.

Who says your subjective classification is correct?  I don't know anybody who participates regularly that is just going through the motions in order to kill 5 hours.  Everybody seems to be competing.  Seems like a pointless distinction. If you are saying someone's opinion doesn't matter because of how you classify them then that is looking down your nose at them.  Objectively, limited minor participants outnumber many other groups of participants.  

[Balakay]

5 minutes ago, Jeff226 said:

 If you are saying someone's opinion doesn't matter because of how you classify them then that is looking down your nose at them.    

If you have shot 3 matches with a SAO Sig with a magwell with factory 9 and mags loaded to capacity and then wonder why you are at 30% in the overall, I don't look down upon you because of your performance per se, I look down upon you because you are trying to  change a sport/hobby/event that you know nothing about

[Jeff226]

12 minutes ago, BritinUSA said:

Doesn’t matter what the skill level is; If you are serious about competition and train and puts the effort in the you’re a competitor.
 

I have noticed in your responses an inclination to be derogatory towards those that disagree with you.

 

Now you claim that I look down my nose at people, how disrespectful. If you cannot explain your position without insults then perhaps your opinion is not on the solid ground that you believe it to be.

I am speaking in general terms.  I didn't quote the guy who calls limited minor shooters "weaklings, sissies, and women" but the general opinion here seems to be that people who want limited minor are lacking in some way or are less of a competitor and I don't see value in that.  I think you are noticing an inclination that doesn't exist because you don't like being disagreed with...I have yet to insult anybody (again, I am not the guy calling people sissies and weaklings).  

[Fishbreath]

1 minute ago, Jeff226 said:

Who says your subjective classification is correct?

 

Answer the question about the football player or concede I'm right.

 

1 minute ago, Jeff226 said:

I don't know anybody who participates regularly that is just going through the motions in order to kill 5 hours.

 

Go to a public golf course, and 80% of the people there are doing exactly that, except they'd tell you they're having fun, which is a perfectly valid objective.

 

I know a half-dozen guys who come to one of my monthly matches to hang out with their friends and burn some powder. They're competing good-naturedly among themselves, but they don't care about classification or indeed about getting better. I don't begrudge them that in the slightest, but it does mean that I weight their opinions about how the sport should be less than, say, Ben Stoeger's.

 

5 minutes ago, Jeff226 said:

If you are saying someone's opinion doesn't matter because of how you classify them then that is looking down your nose at them.

 

I play golf recreationally. It would be great if I could use a 600cc driver, and if courses would cap holes at 300 yards, fill in all the bunkers, and give me free mulligans if I hit into the water. If I were to express those opinions in a non-joking way to serious golfers, they would be right to claim my opinion doesn't matter. If, by your reckoning, that counts as them looking down their nose at me, they're entirely justified in doing so.

[Jeff226]

Just now, Balakay said:

If you have shot 3 matches with a SAO Sig with a magwell with factory 9 and mags loaded to capacity and then wonder why you are at 30% in the overall, I don't look down upon you because of your performance per se, I look down upon you because you are trying to  change a sport/hobby/event that you know nothing about

Limited minor already exists in every way except as its own division.  There is a known scoring problem vs major.  This topic isn't even related to some noob showing up with the wrong gear.

[Fishbreath]

1 minute ago, Jeff226 said:

I have yet to insult anybody

 

Two or three pages ago, you insinuated that I only care about not making a new division because it pads my scores against newbies.

 

Also, to someone else talking about .40, you said,

 

Quote

they don't use it as testosterone replacement therapy.

 

So no, I don't buy your claim that you haven't insulted anybody.

[motosapiens]

3 minutes ago, Jeff226 said:

 I didn't quote the guy who calls limited minor shooters "weaklings, sissies, and women" 

 

I said no such thing. I pointed out that LE agencies are hiring weaklings and sissies who can't qualify with 40 and that's what is driving some agencies to downsize. 

 

I have voiced no opinion about people who choose to shoot minor in Limited division, although it is clear that the vast majority of them are noobs just figuring out the sport and competing with what they have in the meantime.

[Fishbreath]

2 minutes ago, Jeff226 said:

There is a known scoring problem vs major. 

 

There is a known disadvantage to shooting minor in divisions that allow major.

 

There's also a known disadvantage to a PCC or Open gun with iron sights instead of an optic. Should we have PCC Irons and Limited Compensator divisions, too?

[Jeff226]

1 minute ago, Fishbreath said:

 

Two or three pages ago, you insinuated that I only care about not making a new division because it pads my scores against newbies.

 

Also, to someone else talking about .40, you said,

 

 

So no, I don't buy your claim that you haven't insulted anybody.

Why else would you insist that minor stays in a division with a scoring problem making it not competitive?  What other reason is there?  It isn't bait, it isn't an insult...what is the motivation.  You have yet to answer.

 

[Jeff226]

2 minutes ago, motosapiens said:

 

I said no such thing. I pointed out that LE agencies are hiring weaklings and sissies who can't qualify with 40 and that's what is driving some agencies to downsize. 

 

I have voiced no opinion about people who choose to shoot minor in Limited division, although it is clear that the vast majority of them are noobs just figuring out the sport and competing with what they have in the meantime.

That is how you phrased it this time...we have years of other examples.  Besides, you aren't the point...I was trying to give the the other guy a good example of what an insult is.

[Fishbreath]

6 minutes ago, Jeff226 said:

Why else would you insist that minor stays in a division with a scoring problem making it not competitive?  What other reason is there?  It isn't bait, it isn't an insult...what is the motivation.  You have yet to answer.

 

I don't shoot Limited, so it doesn't pad my results either way, but I do care about stable, consistent rules. Fiddling with the rulebook yet again violates that principle, and it sounds like you're proposing it to solve something (major being better than minor in Limited) that I don't think is even remotely in the top five problems in the USPSA rulebook. In fact, I don't think it's a problem at all. I shoot in Revolver, where minor is transparently better than major, and I don't think that's a problem either.

 

edit: which I've said repeatedly already.

Edited May 24, 2021 by Fishbreath