Revolver Divisions Future In Uspsa

[dillon]

My understanding is that there are 18 revo shooters signed up for the upcoming Area 2 event, AKA the Desert Classic. A least one of our regular revo shooters has reverted to a bottomfeeders for this match ( Do you hear me Kevin, the self proclaimed "World Champion of Arizona?!)

[Carmoney]

Good example....and that's double the number of revolver shooters at Area 2 last year! Plus, once again, we don't know how many more might have shown up if the dang match didn't fill up so fast!

[shred]

I also like Bruce's idea of 3 main divisions, and then sub-divisions of those if competitor numbers warrant. It wouldn't really be that different than what we've got now, except simpler to manage and easier on MDs.

It would make recognizing cool things like Open Revos and 8-shots easier too.

[slflr]

I have emailed all the powers that be to express my displeasure with the thought that revolver may be up for the axe. Please do the same.

Bob

[cliffwalsh]

"I also like Bruce's idea of 3 main divisions, and then sub-divisions of those if competitor numbers warrant. It wouldn't really be that different than what we've got now, except simpler to manage and easier on MDs."

#1: If that is the goal, why no just one division then put everyone into sub-divisions if they have the numbers?

#2: How would the bookwork by any less with 3 L-10 shooters in a sub-division or 3 L-10 shooters in their own division. The shooters would have to be identified in the database as L-10 and they would get one plaque in either case....

#3: In Bruce's plan, there would be more work for MD's. He would have to keep track of many more categories;

"Open Revolver? No problem - Open division, revolver category

8-round revolver? No problem, Limited division, revolver category

6-round revolver? No problem, Limited (or Production) division, reduced-capacity division

etc, etc, etc"

#4: If you want to make thing easier on the MD's, get rid of the class system (Carmoney of dictator). I have heard too many times," I don't want to move up until I win C class at the state match." I have seen grown men shoot 6 no shoots to stay in D class to win STI money at a match. It all makes me sick. If there was no class system, everyone would just shoot the match and see where they end up.

[bgary]

OK, let me ask this...

Separate from the "keep revolver / ditch revolver" debate, let's assume that, if we don't already have too many divisions, at some point if we keep adding them, someday there *will* be too many. By "too many divisions" I meant that there are so many divisions that the competition gets "diluted", and the administrative burden of keeping track of how many prizes/plaques/awards/whatever are needed for each division, that setting up the awards takes more time/effort than setting up the match. And/or that there are divisions that are not capable of generating enough participation to warrant a separate Nationals match (which is not a requirement, but I'd argue is probably a reasonable threshold to set, and the way divisions have been shuffled in different combinations over the last several years, may be a relevant measure of "viability")

What can we do that will

-- provide shooters the flexibility to shoot whatever kinda gun they want

-- provide match directors the flexibility to award plaques/prizes where participation warrants

-- work equally well at 10-shooter club matches and 500-shooter nationals

-- encourage participation with diverse equipment and skills

-- promote membership growth

-- NOT require a lot of new/extra administrative overhead

-- NOT fundamentally change the game

-- NOT disenfranchise any existing shooter or currently-legal gear.

-- NOT "cheapen the competition" (I think you should have to *beat* someone to be called the "winner")

Is there a way we can elevate this above the question of whether or not there should be a revolver division, and ask the broader question: "what *should* our division structure be"?

I'm open to constructive ideas/solutions, as I think all the Board members are.

Bruce

PS - this - for me - is not a revolver-specific issue. I made *exactly* the same arguments when lobbying against making SingleStack its own stand-alone division. I thought then, and to a large degree continue to believe, that it should have been made a "category" of Limited and/or Limited-10.

Edited November 8, 2005 by bgary

[cliffwalsh]

Bruce

Has there been any discussion by the BOD on the class system and or not having one??

[10mmdave]

I'm sooo glad I just spent good money to compete in USPSA Revo class !

Gun, 45 acp conversion, more moon clip holders......

And by some accounts, least reading thru these past posts, the weenie that said

"revolvers don't belong in IPSC" is alive and unfortunately well.

I've shot a small number of USPSA matches (local ones), and always meet one or a few

folks I would have been better off never meeting, but I've met the nicest folks at ICORE

matches.

Dave Parker

[slflr]

I have contacted the Area 8, and Area 5 directors and I feel from their responses that we are not going to loose our division in the near future, but I also get the feeling that it would be a good thing if we had 40 shooters at the next Nationals. What is the respose from the rest of the Directors you have poled?

Bob

[bgary]

Has there been any discussion by the BOD on the class system and or not having one??

Not that I'm aware of.

And therein lies an interesting (?) twist. A good percentage of USPSA's operating revenue comes from classifier fees. Separate from the question of whether it would be good or bad to get rid of classifications, if the classification system is changed, we'd have to consider impacts on funding needed to do things like put on Nationals matches, print rulebooks, deliver RO training, produce the magazine, and all the many many many other things that USPSA does with those classifier funds.

Interestingly, the more divisions there are, the more classifications people "have to have", and the more classifier revenue USPSA gets. So, it could be argued that there is a [potentially] negative financial impact to rationalizing the list of divisions.

Bruce (was that the sound of a can of worms being opened?)

[cliffwalsh]

I am not against having classes and classifiers to measure progress. I think that is a good thing. I just think it has no place in a match.

Keep the classifiers as a yardstick of improvement and drop if from matches.

[Airedale]

I use my vacation time to chase the deadly pheasant in Iowa.

Carmoney-I'm headed your way next Saturday-you will be safe from vicious pheasant strikes for a week at least

Dave, I know you're an Airedale man.....do you happen to know anything about these line-bred bird dogs coming out of Tennessee that everybody's talking about?

Mike,

I am familiar with that hound line. They are Keenhounds from the famous kennel in Rammer Tn. Their motto is "Keep it in the family"

Dave

[AK74]

If the popularity of IDPA and SASS has proven anything its that there is a lot of gun owners out there interested in action shooting.

If by eliminating one or more divisions it will help us attract more new shooters to IPSC I am all for it.

Lets see, the pistols and equipment needed for shooting production or revolver are what a potential new shooter is most likely to all ready own and the single stack 1911 has probably never been more popular then it is today.

For those that like hi-cap, customized guns and race gear we have limited.

Well that leaves Open, few potential new shooters own open guns, but on the other hand most open shooter already own a pistol they can shoot in one of the other divisions.

Most important I don't "get" open, IMO dots, 30 round mags, optics and comps belong on rifles not pistols.

Boy it really is easy to trash divisions you don't shoot.

Seriously, IMHO eliminating any division may be good for big match shooters at lest short-term but long-term we need to attract more new shooters to IPSC and increase activity at the club / local level.

Edited November 8, 2005 by AK74

[Flexmoney]

My Area Director tells me that there is no push to kill Revolver.

Hop...it might be a good idea to grab that "little birdie" that told you this and wring it's neck for starting this...

-------------

What can we do that will

-- provide shooters the flexibility to shoot whatever kinda gun they want

-- provide match directors the flexibility to award plaques/prizes where participation warrants

-- work equally well at 10-shooter club matches and 500-shooter nationals

-- encourage participation with diverse equipment and skills

-- promote membership growth

-- NOT require a lot of new/extra administrative overhead

-- NOT fundamentally change the game

-- NOT disenfranchise any existing shooter or currently-legal gear.

-- NOT "cheapen the competition" (I think you should have to *beat* someone to be called the "winner")

Bruce...the answer there is simple...leave things as they are.

We cover nearly all of the bases already. (We well never make 100% of the people 100% happy.)

Stability. Stability. Stability.

[Bill Nesbitt]

[

Stability. Stability. Stability.

Yep, what Flex said.

I feel that revolver participation is just starting to grow.

[Carmoney]

I think Hop's just "barking from the front porch" again.

But on the bright side, at least we're finally talking about something other than titanium cylinders.....

[bgary]

Stability. Stability. Stability.

I agree - and that's why there is not (IMHO) any coherent effort to change the divisions right now - there's no alignment that is demonstrably *better* than what we have.

In fact, I'd argue that the discussion has only come up because we recently *added* a 6th division.... that starts us all thinking about what kinds of problems we may (or may not) have to deal with when the 7th, or 10th, or 20th division is on the table. Once the SS division is up and stable, I suspect the discussion will go dormant until... the next time we add a new division.

And... to others that have already said it, I want to underscore: IMHO, the absolute best way to cement the future of revolver as a stand-alone division is to get the participation up. When we start thinking we have too many divisions, the revolver division is the one that sticks out because the participation is so small compared to the other divisions. If that gets turned around, who knows... it could very well be some other division that finds itself on the bubble in the next iteration of this discussion.

Bruce

[shred]

One other cool thing about sub-divisions of a few top divisions is scores would be directly comparable within the top division-- so Lim-Revo, L10, SS and Limited scores all could be directly compared to each other in a 'combined' results listing, instead of the 'unofficial combined' mess we have to deal with now, trying to see if Joe in L10 actually beat Fred in SS or not.

[revchuck]

What is the respose from the rest of the Directors you have poled?

Bob

Bob - You've really got to watch your spelling, dude!

Poled?

Edited to add: Double entendres are easily seen by folks who have done too much editing.

Edited November 8, 2005 by revchuck

[cliffwalsh]

Mike,

I am familiar with that hound line. They are Keenhounds from the famous kennel in Rammer Tn. Their motto is "Keep it in the family"

Dave

[Waltermitty]

I think Hop's just "barking from the front porch" again.

But on the bright side, at least we're finally talking about something other than titanium cylinders.....

Yeah, Hop's been shooting bottom feeders at the matches I've seen him at since July....

Sandbagged the classifier at Old Fort even....

Hey, wanna see a picture of my new cylinder.

[Carlos]

Maybe this thread has just been a plot to draw attention to Revolver division & motivate people to shoot it for fear it could disappear?

On another not, AK47 wrote:

"If by eliminating one or more divisions it will help us attract more new shooters to IPSC I am all for it. . . Well that leaves Open, few potential new shooters own open guns, but on the other hand most open shooter already own a pistol they can shoot in one of the other divisions. . . Boy it really is easy to trash divisions you don't shoot."

Gee - that got me thinking: What if someone had started a post titled "Lets eliminate Open Division altogether" - now a post like THAT would get some folks howling mad (just as this thread ignited the passions of some Revolver shooters). Can't we all just get along?

[slflr]

What is the respose from the rest of the Directors you have poled?

Bob

Bob - You've really got to watch your spelling, dude!

Poled?

Edited to add: Double entendres are easily seen by folks who have done too much editing.

Polled?

Can't spell, can't type.......oh well.

[SteveHarris]

I think revo (top feeders) attacts cross over shooters and that's good. Even better would be for revo to offer Revo Limited (6 shot) AND Revo Open. I think you'd find many ICORE shooters shooting another match each month at USPSA!

BTW at our club we have had 8 shot l'top feeders' win or place in the top three places in (pistol) Limted and Open in 45-50 shooter matches!!!

[hdgun]

Maybe I have missed somthing. In the real world, What would getting rid of revo div accomplish? IMO, I think Revo div is the greatest thing to happen to USPSA. Just the word Revolver is the closest (spelling) thing you will find to USPracticalSA.

If I'm not misstaken, wasnt this sport started with single stacks and Revolvers. Now some one wants to take a part the true base on which this sport was built. Just because it might be a little incovieniant (spelling) to do a little more paper work! Come on guys!

This sport has evolved quite fast, From the Single stack and revo to single stack with a comp to dots to hi caps ECT: lets not lose sight of the true meanning of the sport.

I personally like the way things are set up now. Differant Divisions. It gives people a chance to play this GAME the way they want and have fun doing so. Remember, for most of us this is just a GAME.

Take open for instance, How PRACTICAL is it to shoot a COF with 30 rounds in a gun? Don't get me wrong, I love shooting open div. It's FUN. but don't take away the guy who wants to shoot 6.