Steel Challenge - Jan 15, 2022 BOD Minutes - Zack Jones Presentation

[Sinister4]

Well after timing quite a few this weekend of different classes i`d say the penalty should be  somewhere between 2.8 and 3 seconds,  4 is totally out to lunch, and 2 would be to low for sure     

[egd5]

Even after all the discussion about # of seconds for penalty or percentage, etc. The simplest solution is still just to eliminate the movement, IMO. I am 72 but I can still move pretty good , for my age. I am A class with PCCO.

 

I still believe SC is speed shooting, as the Nat. championship name says. There are other games-USPSA, IDPA- that one can play to test both movement and speed combined.

[Hoops]

5 hours ago, egd5 said:

Even after all the discussion about # of seconds for penalty or percentage, etc. The simplest solution is still just to eliminate the movement, IMO. I am 72 but I can still move pretty good , for my age. I am A class with PCCO.

 

I still believe SC is speed shooting, as the Nat. championship name says. There are other games-USPSA, IDPA- that one can play to test both movement and speed combined.

Beginning last year with other threads, I advocated for an additional one or two official SCSA stages.  A similar debate ensued between those that were in favor and those that were against.  Outer Limits also became a focal point....as it has now in this thread.

 

Because the definition of abled bodied is not defineable and in some cases, without visible confirmation, I believe that developing an equitable "one size fits all" assessment of 2, 3 or 4 seconds per string will not be possible and OL should ultimately be retired.   Others will probably disagree.

 

The difference of time between movement vs no movement, is a single data point and not a complete dataset.  There are many other factors that should go into a broader dataset of time between the initial buzzer reaction and the last shot collected from a larger control group of shooters. 

 

Becasue I am curious, I plan to shot some test runs this week to see what my data point is.  

 

 

 

[egd5]

I wouldn't mind having more stages, but that's another can of worms.

 

[zzt]

I like OL and hope it doesn't change.  When the subject of the penalty was first brought up, the decision was between 3 and 4 seconds.  I advocated for 4.  At an East Coast Steel Challenge match I timed shooters going from box to box and the average time was 3.5 seconds.

 

At the time I was a mid-B Class shooter.  I could shoot all targets from the center box in 2.5 seconds.  My OL times were in the 18 second range.  So a stage time of 19.5 from the center box seemed reasonable.  At the time, the main worry was people 'cheating'.

 

I'm an A shooter now in RFRO and PCCO.  My OL times are 15.83 and 15.62 respectively.  I'm 74 with a problematic left ankle (among other things).  I have to be VERY careful where I put my foot, or my ankle will go out and I'll go down.  It is the only stage where my scores are not A or M.

 

At the range I shoot most of my SCSA now there is a good mix of ages and abilities.  We have many GMs and a couple who are in the top 20.  Transition times are quicker than at ECSCS.  So I think reducing the penalty to 3 seconds per string is the right thing to do.  Admittedly there could be a benefit for some C and D Class shooters who choose to shoot from the center.  That being said, I've never seen someone who was ABLE choose to shoot from the center.

 

On the topic of changing Peak Times.  It is off-putting.  I remember my first year I wanted to make A in RFPO.  I was .58 seconds down at the end of the season.  They added 5 seconds for the next year.  I got to within 1 sec and they added more.  It was frustrating.  Nonetheless, I kept shooting.

 

That is more than I can say for several others who I used to shoot with.  Their attitude was f*** that!.  If they keep raising the bar I quit.  I'm not sure what the best solution is.

[EarlKeese]

Can someone tell me why they can't just make a "super" GM class for the people who are above 100% and actually compete for  tier 2/3 match wins? 

[Hoops]

Stages

USPSA's attraction is the freestyle format with different stages at each match.  Even the typical one stage classifier has approximately 60 to chose from and beginning in 2019, USPSA began to focus on new classifiers that had movement.  I believe if USPSA matches were limited to only 8 "official" stages and 8 "official classifiers to chose from the sport would lose shooter's.  

 

I have advocated for adding 1 or preferrably 2 new stages that would physically fit in most range bays.  If world records is the only glitch, then shoot the original 8 stages at the WSS match.  I have yet to read from anyone in this forum any data based reason for not adding 1 or 2 stages.  IMO, SCSA would benefit with the added stage options.  I look at this way, many people have classifications based on 6 stages because their range can't fit OL or SO so adding 2 stages would be a benefit.  What is the down side?

 

Outer Limits.  Leave it as is but fix the penalty.  If someone wants to cheat, my guess is they would be called out on it very quickly.  Don't penalize those who should be (and deserve to be) shooting from the center box on the basis of cheaters.  

 

Peak Times/Classifications

I read where some folks think Peak Times should be reduced more.  Why?  On what statistical basis supports this?  On average, only about 10% to 12% are shooting below current Peak Times in large matches I have reviewed.  GM's compete against GM's.  Just because some very young and talented shooters can shot in the 50's (RFRO) does not support a change that would effect 88% to 90% of the SCSA shooters.  I could be wrong.  If someone has a math based reason for shooters in each class....GM to C....that would support a "one size fits all" Peak Time reduction, I would like to see the data.  If I have a wrong assumption, I would accept the data and move on.

 

USPSA.org issues a Top 2O list each week.  All classes show the exact percentage....with the exception of GM which they artificially cap at 100%.  Why not publish the real percentage?  Then we could see how many GM's are shooting 101% to 120%, etc.  I would further suggest they expand the Top 20 to Top 30.  I would also recommend that only "active" shooters (18 months) be listed in the Top 20(30).  It may be this way now.....I don't know if it is.

 

 

[motosapiens]

On 3/21/2022 at 7:56 AM, Sinister4 said:

Well after timing quite a few this weekend of different classes i`d say the penalty should be  somewhere between 2.8 and 3 seconds,  4 is totally out to lunch, and 2 would be to low for sure     

if the penalty were 2 seconds, everyone good would still choose to move, but i could see it being gamed by less athletic (but still able bodied) people. we set up outer limits today and i was running 4.30-4.5 with the move, and right around 3 seconds flat shooting everything from the middle. mrs velo didn’t shoot anything from the middle, but her split between boxes was 1.6-1.8, so i guesstimate she would have also been around 1.3 faster from the middle.

 

im planning on talking about this with some of the ADs at worlds. i think 4 seconds is waaaay too much.

[varminter22]

On 3/21/2022 at 8:38 AM, egd5 said:

Even after all the discussion about # of seconds for penalty or percentage, etc. The simplest solution is still just to eliminate the movement, IMO. I am 72 but I can still move pretty good , for my age. I am A class with PCCO.

 

I still believe SC is speed shooting, as the Nat. championship name says. There are other games-USPSA, IDPA- that one can play to test both movement and speed combined.

I agree with egd5 and others:  Just eliminate the damned movement.  

 

Steel Challenge is speed shooting, as the national championship name says.  There are other games -USPSA, IDPA, ICORE - that one can play to test both movement and speed combined.

 

Having only one stage that involves movement out of eight stages is, quite frankly, asinine!  

[bigdawgbeav]

@ZackJones good article in Front Sight... good stuff there.

[ZackJones]

I've been tied up with other stuff lately so I haven't been around. I worked Multigun Nationals this past week. Let's just say you'll never see this guy registered for one of those matches. I can appreciate the skill required for that match but a man has to know his limitations. 

 

I personally believe the 4 second penalty is too high. 3 just seems right so I'll be doing additional research and doing actual timing myself as I look into it more. 

 

Stages - I've had two good discussions about stages in the past few weeks. There is a need for official states that are smaller so that they could be shot on smaller bays outdoors and indoors (that was the primary topic of one of the discussions). One idea for new stages would be to take the 8 we have now and compress them so they would fit on smaller bays. The stop plate on 5 To Go would need to be moved so that if run indoors you would not be shooting the side walls. 

 

Obviously none of this is set in stone and would require BoD review and approval but I wanted you to know we are listening to your feedback both pro and con. 

 

 

[ZackJones]

On 3/26/2022 at 5:42 PM, zzt said:

Admittedly there could be a benefit for some C and D Class shooters who choose to shoot from the center.  That being said, I've never seen someone who was ABLE choose to shoot from the center..

 

Two points (1) If it helps a C or D shooter improve isn't that a good thing? They could possibly be moving up into a more competitive class and will be facing new challenges which I think is a good thing (2) I'm able bodied though my mental capacity has been questioned a few times :). I plan to shoot it center box only (CBO) at our next club match just to compare my WSSC time with movement to CBO time without movement. I thought about shooting it CBO at WSSC but decided I'd shoot with movement there and CBO at club match.  

[Hoops]

51 minutes ago, ZackJones said:

I've been tied up with other stuff lately so I haven't been around. I worked Multigun Nationals this past week. Let's just say you'll never see this guy registered for one of those matches. I can appreciate the skill required for that match but a man has to know his limitations. 

 

I personally believe the 4 second penalty is too high. 3 just seems right so I'll be doing additional research and doing actual timing myself as I look into it more. 

 

Stages - I've had two good discussions about stages in the past few weeks. There is a need for official states that are smaller so that they could be shot on smaller bays outdoors and indoors (that was the primary topic of one of the discussions). One idea for new stages would be to take the 8 we have now and compress them so they would fit on smaller bays. The stop plate on 5 To Go would need to be moved so that if run indoors you would not be shooting the side walls. 

 

Obviously none of this is set in stone and would require BoD review and approval but I wanted you to know we are listening to your feedback both pro and con. 

 

 

Zack, thank you for advancing the discussion with SCSA.org

 

 

[JM_]

12 hours ago, ZackJones said:

Stages - I've had two good discussions about stages in the past few weeks. There is a need for official states that are smaller so that they could be shot on smaller bays outdoors and indoors (that was the primary topic of one of the discussions). One idea for new stages would be to take the 8 we have now and compress them so they would fit on smaller bays. The stop plate on 5 To Go would need to be moved so that if run indoors you would not be shooting the side walls.

Are we talking about officially changes all the stages to fit into tighter areas? If so I would be very against that and I am sure 90% of other people would be too. That would in theory be changing the fundamentals of every stage. However, I do see the appeal to having stages that can fit indoor ranges because that opens up the door for those types of matches. Maybe each stage for a 'mini stage' indoor match incurs a time added penalty to not give them an advantage?

 

But I think no matter what you'll find that people are very against change in terms of the stages. I do agree that outer limits and speed option should be adjusted to fit into smaller bays (25 yards and in). It would be easy enough to just move the 18x24 plates into 25 yards on SO and OL, and I don't think you would see times improve by more than .1 or .2 of a second. But even that is an unpopular opinion.

[zzt]

Moving the 35 yard plates in OL to 25 is doable and only requires a 30' wide bay.  With SO you need a 50' wide bay, so that is not practical.  Most of the short bays at most of the clubs I shoot at are narrow.

 

I would still prefer two new stages, or bring back some old ones.

[motosapiens]

I would hate to see the current stages changed, but it might be worthwhile to come up either new stages for indoors/small-ranges, or separate versions of the current stages for smaller venues.  but every range in my region has room for the current stages.

 

Perhaps a completely different 8-stage indoor-friendly setup, with it's own peak times, that the rest of us can completely ignore.

[ChuckS]

1 hour ago, motosapiens said:

--- snip--- that the rest of us can completely ignore.

Nah.. This would shift the never-ending debate as to who has a "real" classification

[ZackJones]

10 hours ago, JM_ said:

Are we talking about officially changes all the stages to fit into tighter areas? If so I would be very against that and I am sure 90% of other people would be too.

Oh NO! The 8 stages we have would remain as they are. We would create 8 new stages based on the current 8. They would have different names and SC-XXX numbers to keep them totally separate from our current 8. Sorry I wasn't clear about that. 

[ZackJones]

5 hours ago, motosapiens said:

Perhaps a completely different 8-stage indoor-friendly setup, with it's own peak times, that the rest of us can completely ignore.

Exactly. You're welcome to ignore them all you want. On the other hand if it permits clubs that can't currently host SCSA matches due to space limitations providing them a set of official stages would be a good thing for our sport. 

[Hoops]

Since I first wrote about adding 2 official SCSA stages last year, I have had numerous discussions on the subject at different matches within a 2 hr radius of where I live.  The majority of folks I talked with believe SCSA would benefit from the addition.  What was interesting to me was that those who were initially opposed could not give a definitive reason of why the addition would be a negative change.  What is the downside to adding 2 official stages that would be sized to suit many more ranges?  

 

I am encouraged that Zack is advancing stage discussions with SCSA.org.   

[Darqusoull13]

11 hours ago, Hoops said:

Since I first wrote about adding 2 official SCSA stages last year, I have had numerous discussions on the subject at different matches within a 2 hr radius of where I live.  The majority of folks I talked with believe SCSA would benefit from the addition.  What was interesting to me was that those who were initially opposed could not give a definitive reason of why the addition would be a negative change.  What is the downside to adding 2 official stages that would be sized to suit many more ranges?  

 

I am encouraged that Zack is advancing stage discussions with SCSA.org.   

Show me the matches that are currently being held that would in any way grow or increase attendance by adding 2 stages. How, specifically, does this grow the sport? What stops that exact same range from running the smaller stages? Your plan has nothing to do with putting in the work to get matches going. 

I see no value in your plan to add stages. It does not offer any assistance to current clubs to increase voice, reach, access to equipment or opportunities. Your proposal does not have any effect on a person outside the sport.The only thing this does is waste resources better spent on tangible, proven ways to increase participation. 

Rather than focusing on wasting time, effort and resources on minutia within the sport, why not focus your efforts on the big picture. How for example would you get 10 additional new, never before attended a competition, to a local SCSA match? What plan would you implement to drive that goal? How would you go about convincing a range that does not currently host competitions to host SCSA events? 

If half the time was spent addressing big picture questions, instead of the nonsense about whether OL is "fair" in the sport or adding this or that stage would do this or that, SCSA participation would have already eclipsed USPSA participation by a significant margin. 

[motosapiens]

50 minutes ago, Darqusoull13 said:

Rather than focusing on wasting time, effort and resources on minutia within the sport, why not focus your efforts on the big picture. How for example would you get 10 additional new, never before attended a competition, to a local SCSA match? What plan would you implement to drive that goal? 

 

Not really sure that is HQ's job, but the way we get new people is at our annual membership meeting and bbq, we host demos from the various disciplines that take place at our range. USPSA, IDPA, steel challenge, nrl22, High-power, silhouette, etc.... We always get a bunch of new participants in the following weeks or months, and some of them stick around.

[Darqusoull13]

7 minutes ago, motosapiens said:

 

Not really sure that is HQ's job, but the way we get new people is at our annual membership meeting and bbq, we host demos from the various disciplines that take place at our range. USPSA, IDPA, steel challenge, nrl22, High-power, silhouette, etc.... We always get a bunch of new participants in the following weeks or months, and some of them stick around.

It is every member's inherent responsibility to help grow the sport. The mission of USPSA is, "To promote safe, fair and fun participation in Practical Shooting competition."

The point is there are a hundred other ways to get people involved. Our focus should be on the big picture, not bickering about stages. 

[egd5]

 Cory, While what you say is true to a large extent, the two concepts are not mutually exclusive. We can work on those things while also keeping the shooters we have now happy too.

There are several ideas discussed in this thread but I still think the best thing is just to eliminate the movement in OL. If we got some disabled people to shoot because of it that would be growing the sport.

Eliminating the movement doesn't add any work to you (and me) who help set up matches.

[BentAero]

I may he completely ignorant on this, but I just can't visualize a significant amount of people who are sitting at home saying "I'd shoot Steel Challenge if they'd just do away with the movement on Outer Limits."

 

I could get behind changing the single box penalty from 4 seconds to 3 seconds, but no way on eliminating the movement. That borders on Cancel Culture meets the Shooting Sports.

 

Meanwhile, more than 700 guns are registered for the WSSC later this month, and I dare say every one of those shooters will be moving on OL.