USPSA Division Revamp Based on Data

[Superkaratemonkeyfighter]

It did for me. 
now I do focus on the overall standings. 
Especially if I’m shooting limited major. 

[twodownzero]

On 3/29/2022 at 6:56 AM, Thomas H said:

 

I've heard this phrase a number of times recently, and I'm always confused as to what it means.

 

twodownzero, do you mind explaining what you mean by "competitive equity" with regard to USPSA?  I'd appreciate it.

 

Competitive equity is the concept of matches giving people the same challenge for each shooter.  Like any sport, it's a concept of fairness in competition that each shooter faces the same challenge.

 

Divisions are a subset of that.  Production exists because it's perceived as unfairly challenging for those shooting striker fired or traditional double action guns against the 1911s in single stack.  Limited exists so that shooters who choose to shoot irons and 140mm magazines don't have to compete against open guns.  Revolvers are allowed in production because nobody thinks it's unfair that someone could choose to use a revolver in a division dominated by 9mm automatics.  And so on.  The idea behind divisions is to level the equipment playing field such that every shooter has similar equipment when compared to the people he is actually competing against in the match.

 

In my opinion, creating Carry Optics didn't improve competitive equity.  We already had a division for shooters who wanted to aim with a dot--Open.  We already had a division for those who wanted to have the fewest equipment rules--Open.  Instead of telling them what we told every other "innovative" shooter who wanted to try something new, we created a special safe space for open shooters who were okay shooting minor only in exchange for not using a magwell and having to deal with a traditional double action or single action trigger.

 

If these distinctions didn't or don't matter, or add to competitive equity, then I propose letting me shoot my 1911 in Production and allowing 2011s in Carry Optics.  Or letting someone shoot a A fudgecicle nobody but a few crayon chewers and winder likkers want gun with no magwell on it in Carry Optics.  And so on.

 

Also, just for everyone who doesn't know: I'm an outlier.  I hate carry optics and PCC and if I had the power, I'd get rid of both of them tomorrow.  Don't worry, I am not running for anything and I never will.  But neither of these changes should have been made.  CO should be in Open and PCC should be at a 3 gun match.  I also think Revolver never should have allowed more than 6 shots and that the Limited 10 division should have been replaced by Single Stack in 2005 when SS became a full time division.  And I'd even entertain arguments to get rid of my favorite divisions if it meant we could have fewer of them.  I also think we should get rid of classification all together and shoot heads up, even though I'm a mediocre B class shooter on my best day and a sloppy C class shooter if I'm hungover that day.

[twodownzero]

dupe post

Edited March 30, 2022 by twodownzero

[twodownzero]

 

 

On 3/28/2022 at 3:52 PM, Johnny_Chimpo said:

 

 

 

This game is working fantastically well for the majority of members who have voted with their feet and dollars to make CO the absolute most popular division in many areas of the country.

 

 

The biggest division based on actual data is still Limited, so I call BS on your flavor of the month division.  Once the firearms industry has sold all of you a CO gun, I'm sure they'll remain popular, but not as popular as they are, being the newest and best-marketed thing going right now.

 

I'm not going anywhere but I am focuses on my other shooting sports.

Edited March 30, 2022 by twodownzero

[motosapiens]

17 minutes ago, twodownzero said:

 

 

The biggest division based on actual data is still Limited,

can you show me that data? just looking at entries for A1 this year, there are more than twice as many CO as Limited. Looking at area match results last year, the first 4 matchesl I pulled up all showed CO was the biggest division by a pretty hefty margin.

[BritinUSA]

My 2 cents:

• PCC is a rifle that has no place in a handgun match. USPSA could have catered for this division by declaring .556 as Major and allowing PCC as Minor in rifle matches.
• Revolver was killed with the 8-shot Minor ruling, many people shot revolver once in a while as they had one in the safe, once the capacity was increased by 33% those 6-shot guns became obsolete.
• Limited-10 has no place any more, if you live in a state with mandatory magazine limits then everyone should be within those limits anyway.
• Single-Stack is where the sport originated, it should have its own Nationals with its own unique flavor of stage designs reminiscent of the origins of the sport.
• Production was created by IPSC as a way to bring more people into the sport. Outside of USA, most gun owners had 9mm DAO/striker fired guns and so the division was created for this purpose.
• Open was created by IPSC when people started adding compensators and red-dots to their guns giving those shooters an enormous advantage.
• Production Optics was proposed as it would fill a hole in the USPSA line-up; We had a lower-cost, minor iron-sight division with Production and a higher-cost Major iron-sight division with Limited. the idea was to have the same choice for optics. 

Edited March 30, 2022 by BritinUSA

[waktasz]

41 minutes ago, motosapiens said:

can you show me that data? just looking at entries for A1 this year, there are more than twice as many CO as Limited. Looking at area match results last year, the first 4 matchesl I pulled up all showed CO was the biggest division by a pretty hefty margin.

 

That data is from like two years ago's annual report to the BOD. 

[Johnny_Chimpo]

3 hours ago, twodownzero said:

 The biggest division based on actual data is still Limited,

 

LOLOL

 

Look at any Area match and most section matches over the last two years.......

 

This from the level II match I'm going to in 3 weeks

Edited March 30, 2022 by Johnny_Chimpo

[konkapot]

Not speaking for twodownzero but my take as that he wasn't talking about the last 1-2-3 years, but for a longer timeframe. 

 

I happen to agree with many of his points, but I might be waaaay off on the above. 

 

I've posted on this before; but I do believe that the growth of CO didn't really seem to take off until they allowed hicap mags. My perception/observation is that people flocked to CO because it's easy. Aiming is easier, you don't have to work up a load, factory ammo is easy to shoot and (used to be) easy to get, and you're shooting a hicap gun. 

 

I got flamed last time I said this so skip it this time. 

[RJH]

Maybe just go time plus with 1 alpha/2 anywhere for minor and 1 charlie/2 anywhere for major. Heads up divisions  or maybe, locap of 10 round max and hi cap with 170s

[motosapiens]

2 hours ago, RJH said:

Maybe just go time plus with 1 alpha/2 anywhere for minor and 1 charlie/2 anywhere for major. Heads up divisions  or maybe, locap of 10 round max and hi cap with 170s

worst idea ever. i would probably quit the sport if the scoring got that jacked. there’s literally nothing wrong with what we have now. everyone except 5-6 malcontents on the internet (who probably shoot production) is enjoying the golden age of uspsa.

[ddc]

42 minutes ago, motosapiens said:

worst idea ever. i would probably quit the sport if the scoring got that jacked. there’s literally nothing wrong with what we have now. everyone except 5-6 malcontents on the internet (who probably shoot production) is enjoying the golden age of uspsa.

 

I'm at a total loss. I just don't understand where these people are coming from. I am totally clueless. Don't tell my wife I said that.

[Johnny_Chimpo]

7 hours ago, motosapiens said:

worst idea ever. i would probably quit the sport if the scoring got that jacked. there’s literally nothing wrong with what we have now. everyone except 5-6 malcontents on the internet (who probably shoot production) is enjoying the golden age of uspsa.

 

+1

[Johnny_Chimpo]

11 hours ago, konkapot said:

Not speaking for twodownzero but my take as that he wasn't talking about the last 1-2-3 years, but for a longer timeframe.

 

I've posted on this before; but I do believe that the growth of CO didn't really seem to take off until they allowed hicap mags. My perception/observation is that people flocked to CO because it's easy. Aiming is easier, you don't have to work up a load, factory ammo is easy to shoot and (used to be) easy to get, and you're shooting a hicap gun.

 

As to your first point, that might be so.  But time and technology move on.  What 10 years ago was weird and experimental is now standard equipment.  Carry Optics is a reflection of that.

 

Yes, CO is easier than Open in terms of cost and accessibility.  I'd like to know why anyone would think that is a negative or a downside. 

 

Like I said before, time and technology move on.  An equipment-dependent sport like ours needs to move on with technology and needs to find a formula attractive to most of its participants before it becomes irrelevant. 

[konkapot]

My concern with things getting too easy is that "Easy" bleeds into other areas. When is the last time we shot strong/weakhand in a match? Does it happen, sure, but not common. 

 

Many field courses at the club level have hf of 8 or higher. One of the new classifiers has a hhf of over 10.

Targets...even clean targets...beyond 20 yards are rare. Stage I shot recently had two targets that were almost muzzle/contact shots. 

 

Obviously there are some clubs that are different, but in general terms making things "easy" can be a slippery slope. 

[RJH]

9 hours ago, motosapiens said:

worst idea ever. i would probably quit the sport if the scoring got that jacked. there’s literally nothing wrong with what we have now. everyone except 5-6 malcontents on the internet (who probably shoot production) is enjoying the golden age of uspsa.

 

You sound scared to go fast, are you a little girl who don't know how to run? Think of all the 3 gunners we would pick up. And no way my idea was worse than the one in the OP

[Boomstick303]

2 hours ago, Johnny_Chimpo said:

Like I said before, time and technology move on.  An equipment-dependent sport like ours needs to move on with technology and needs to find a formula attractive to most of its participants before it becomes irrelevant.

 

^^This^^ is what I believe is the biggest issue.  Humans naturally dislike change.  Yet change will always happen.  The rule set must change to accommodate for new technology, and markets (speaking of higher capacity guns and the introduction of pistol mounted red dots sales).  When rules change to incorporate new tech, some people will embrace it, some people will hate it.  That's life.  

 

 

[Racinready300ex]

3 hours ago, Johnny_Chimpo said:

 

As to your first point, that might be so.  But time and technology move on.  What 10 years ago was weird and experimental is now standard equipment.  Carry Optics is a reflection of that.

 

Yes, CO is easier than Open in terms of cost and accessibility.  I'd like to know why anyone would think that is a negative or a downside. 

 

Like I said before, time and technology move on.  An equipment-dependent sport like ours needs to move on with technology and needs to find a formula attractive to most of its participants before it becomes irrelevant. 

 

We've been using red dots on pistols in uspsa for way more than 10 years. I don't see any fancy new tech that needs a new division built around it at this point. 

 

Hell right now I see more posts about wanting SAO in CO. What they want is 2011's which have been around for what? 30 years now and based on the 1911 that's over 100 year old design. Divisions have nothing to do with the advancement of technology. 

[Racinready300ex]

13 hours ago, RJH said:

Maybe just go time plus with 1 alpha/2 anywhere for minor and 1 charlie/2 anywhere for major. Heads up divisions  or maybe, locap of 10 round max and hi cap with 170s

 

I'm with @motosapiens I'd quit if we went to this system. 

 

 

[RJH]

11 minutes ago, Racinready300ex said:

 

I'm with @motosapiens I'd quit if we went to this system. 

 

 

[Thomas H]

19 hours ago, twodownzero said:

 

 

I'm going to break this apart because I wanted to reply to certain sections.  The stuff in italics is what twodownzero said.

 

"Competitive equity is the concept of matches giving people the same challenge for each shooter.  Like any sport, it's a concept of fairness in competition that each shooter faces the same challenge."

 

Ok.  By definition, then, anyone in a particular division, operating under the same requirements and rules, with the same opportunities and choices, has the same challenge, and therefore there is competitive equity.

 

"Divisions are a subset of that.  Production exists because it's perceived as unfairly challenging for those shooting striker fired or traditional double action guns against the 1911s in single stack.  Limited exists so that shooters who choose to shoot irons and 140mm magazines don't have to compete against open guns.  Revolvers are allowed in production because nobody thinks it's unfair that someone could choose to use a revolver in a division dominated by 9mm automatics.  And so on.  The idea behind divisions is to level the equipment playing field such that every shooter has similar equipment when compared to the people he is actually competing against in the match."

 

I'm not sure about the word "subset" there.  That being said, I agree that divisions exist such that the people in the same division are under the same basic requirements, AND said requirements are created so that they are using similar equipment. 

 

That, however, doesn't actually change "competitive equity."

 

Technically speaking, if everyone shot against everyone and the only division was "Open," then everyone has the same challenge and the same opportunity to solve it--which is literally equitable.  Just because people made non-optimal choices doesn't make it less equitable.  If everyone has the same ruleset, requirements, and is confronted with the same shooting challenge, it is "equitable."  People showing up with "unfair" guns don't make it less equitable, it simply means that some people didn't bring the right gear for the game.  Calling it "not equitable" because someone brought a 5-shot snub-nose revolver to an Area match (as an example) isn't correct. 

 

Separating into divisions DOES, however, give people with different guns a chance to do well in the standings, by having them only compete against people with roughly the same equipment.  That isn't the same as the concept of "equity" that you said above, I'll note---it is adding another layer to make the equipment itself be less of a difference.  (Forcing "rough equity" of equipment, which is not the same thing as giving each shooter the same challenge fairly.)

 

"In my opinion, creating Carry Optics didn't improve competitive equity.  We already had a division for shooters who wanted to aim with a dot--Open.  We already had a division for those who wanted to have the fewest equipment rules--Open.  Instead of telling them what we told every other "innovative" shooter who wanted to try something new, we created a special safe space for open shooters who were okay shooting minor only in exchange for not using a magwell and having to deal with a traditional double action or single action trigger."

 

Creating CO wouldn't change competitive equity any more than creating any other division.  Every shooter already had a chance to buy/borrow/obtain optimal equipment for the game in the existing divisions.  Arguing against CO for "equity" reasons makes little sense.

 

CO was created because there was a large (and growing) set of people with production-type firearms that had dots on them, used for fun, concealed carry, and law enforcement, most of which were 9mm.  Those guns themselves previously would only fit into Open division, and were non-optimal for that division.  As such, most people would not choose to shoot them there.  Creating a new division in which people with those guns would actually come out and shoot, again, doesn't change whether or not it was "equitable."  In all cases, everyone had the same challenge and the same chances. 

 

It did, however, change the number of people who were interested in shooting their guns in USPSA---because there was a division in which their firearms would no longer be the non-optimal choice.   This has little to do with "equity" still---it literally has to do with people with those guns placing well in the final standings.  They would have been perfectly equitable in Open division.  They just wouldn't done as well.

 

Perhaps a problem here is that some people are using the term "equitable" to relate to firearms, as opposed to relating to shooters as they should.  Equipment and gear --- those are choices.  Everyone has the same ability to pick whatever, and make their own choices.  Choosing something less-than-optimal for equipment/gear doesn't change equity, it merely means that some people use other criteria for their choices.  Again, if someone signs up to shoot A3 with a 5-shot snub-nose revolver in Open divisions, that's completely equitable.  They had the same opportunities and choices available as everyone else in the division, they just chose poorly.  (Or they lost a bet.  Or are filming a comedy video.)  One could say that given the same challenge as everyone else, they performed poorly.

 

If equity WAS equipment-based, we'd only let people buy one type of firearm for a division.  After all, some choices are literally functionally better than others.  And yet...we don't do that.  That's because "equity" is a concept that applies to people and their possible choices in this case, not objects.

 

I'll note also that you can't use a single-action firearm in CO.

 

"If these distinctions didn't or don't matter, or add to competitive equity, then I propose letting me shoot my 1911 in Production and allowing 2011s in Carry Optics.  Or letting someone shoot a A fudgecicle nobody but a few crayon chewers and winder likkers want gun with no magwell on it in Carry Optics.  And so on."

 

That's not the point of competitive equity.  And not the point of divisions.  Literally, divisions get created so that people who want to shoot guns that are non-optimal for USPSA can compare themselves to others who have similar non-optimal guns.  (Unless someone wants to argue that Open guns aren't currently the "most optimal" firearm configuration we have for USPSA?). Equity is based on the challenge---everyone in the match, under the same rules, has the same challenge.

 

Divisions just give people who don't own Open guns a chance to see how they do versus people with the same type of equipment.  If you want to argue the concept of "competitive equity" within a division we can, but once the divisions are separated, there is no need or reason for "competitive equity" between divisions---they don't shoot against each other, after all. 

 

"Also, just for everyone who doesn't know: I'm an outlier.  I hate carry optics and PCC and if I had the power, I'd get rid of both of them tomorrow."

 

Interesting.  Taking divisions that are incredibly popular that people enjoy shooting, that don't take away from your ability to shoot any other division in exactly the same way that you did because those divisions existed, and getting rid of them is....an interesting opinion.

 

Anyway:  Thank you for defining what you meant by "competitive equity."  I appreciate it, because people keep using that term in ways I didn't understand.  Now, however, I understand that people are using the term as if it means what I thought, but are also incorrectly attempting to use it to argue about things that it doesn't cover.

 

 

 

[Racinready300ex]

12 minutes ago, RJH said:

 

I get your desire, you can't shoot and aiming is hard. Change the sport to all you need is one Charlie shooting major and you can basically take the sights off the gun and just point shoot everything. The game should be really fast, but also be completely impractical and have little to do with shooting challenges.

 

I'd just go back to IDPA. 

[Part_time_redneck]

13 hours ago, RJH said:

Maybe just go time plus with 1 alpha/2 anywhere for minor and 1 charlie/2 anywhere for major. Heads up divisions  or maybe, locap of 10 round max and hi cap with 170s

 

Sounds great. Take a shooting sport & change the rules to have less importance on accuracy. Only one problem, doesn't change a thing. Under this system, all the guys who were top in the overall standings at your last match, regardless of division, will still be at the top and most likely have more separation from the lower placing shooters. 

[RJH]

3 minutes ago, Racinready300ex said:

 

I get your desire, you can't shoot and aiming is hard. Change the sport to all you need is one Charlie shooting major and you can basically take the sights off the gun and just point shoot everything. The game should be really fast, but also be completely impractical and have little to do with shooting challenges.

 

I'd just go back to IDPA. 

Dude it was a joke post. There been 10 million dumb ideas thrown out in this thread, so I tossed one out too lol. I'm all about the hit Factor scoring anything else is stupid just like this whole thread.  

 

You are right about me not being able to shoot though LOL

[RJH]

1 minute ago, Part_time_redneck said:

 

Sounds great. Take a shooting sport & change the rules to have less importance on accuracy. Only one problem, doesn't change a thing. Under this system, all the guys who were top in the overall standings at your last match, regardless of division, will still be at the top and most likely have more separation from the lower placing shooters. 

 

But we can get all the three gunners