Excessively Hard Shooting Challenges - MD's need to know the skill set of their customer base

[RangerTrace]

Perfect example at a IDPA club match this week.  They had a swinger on two stages.  The first one required 3 shots to the body and two to the head.  The second one was 4 to the body, one to the head.  And this wasn't a wide open swinger.  It had non-threats on each side, so you only had a window of opportunity.  It was stupid.  

[echotango]

1 hour ago, Stony Lane said:

We all know and accept the traditional different scoring between minor (5-3-1) and major (5-4-2).  However, with the recent dramatic growth of Carry Optics and PCC, should there also be a scoring difference between iron sights vs. red dot sights?   What would a good difference be?

5-3-0 red dot minor?  Or even 5-2-0?  It seems this might equal out some of the different stages as to what is “too hard” or “too easy”.  Just a thought...

Why? Red dots don't shoot against irons. Divisions only compete against their own division. 

 

With that logic PCC should be 3-1-0

Edited November 24, 2022 by echotango

[CalTeacher]

7 hours ago, Racinready300ex said:

That's the key right "calibrated steel". So if your the first shooter of the day great.  Every other shooter is just assuming it's still calibrated until one time it doesn't fall.  Somewhere along the way it went from calibrated to not. The higher your pf the less that calibration drift is going to matter.  

 

I would imagine everyone has seen a piece of steel in a match that every knows is heavy so you plan to double tap it no matter what. Our of calibration steel is just part of the game.  

I get the fact that odd things happen with steel, wind, etc.  But knowing poppers are out of calibration and not fixing them is just negligence.

 

I will say that popper construction matters in this regard.  We use free falling poppers, not the hinged design.  The popper and base are two separate pieces and adjustment is done with bolt on the front of the base (it takes maybe 5 seconds). We haven’t had popper problems with this design.

 

Anyways, we’ve beat this topic to death.  Have a good Thanksgiving.

[motosapiens]

13 hours ago, CalTeacher said:

but assuming steel is calibrated pf really doesn’t matter.

you made many good points of the game to a wrong conclusion. Power factor still does matter. more power is more forgiving with wind gusts, low hits and edge hits, regardless of calibration.

[motosapiens]

On 11/22/2022 at 11:25 AM, Joe4d said:

,, if everyone is just running up and hitting easy AA,, you have taken power and accuracy out of the scoring . The only thing you are scoring is running speed.

 

This is incorrect. The stage as you describe, would also test trigger speed, Grip consistency, and transition speed. of course, no one wants to shoot only stages like that, but there really isn’t such a thing as a stage that only tests running speed.

[CalTeacher]

5 minutes ago, motosapiens said:

you made many good points of the game to a wrong conclusion. Power factor still does matter. more power is more forgiving with wind gusts, low hits and edge hits, regardless of calibration.

What made you change your position?

[GigG]

1 hour ago, Stony Lane said:

We all know and accept the traditional different scoring between minor (5-3-1) and major (5-4-2).  However, with the recent dramatic growth of Carry Optics and PCC, should there also be a scoring difference between iron sights vs. red dot sights?   What would a good difference be?

5-3-0 red dot minor?  Or even 5-2-0?  It seems this might equal out some of the different stages as to what is “too hard” or “too easy”.  Just a thought...

Why?  The only time optics and iron compete against each other is Open and then only if someone gets bumped. 
 

 

[motosapiens]

12 minutes ago, CalTeacher said:

What made you change your position?

 

i haven't changed my position. there is nothing in conflict between my statements. Not sure where the confusion is. What exactly do you think i'm saying now that is different from the posts you screen-capped?

 

having a popper stay up due to a low hit or an edge hit is not being 'popper-f*cked', it's just the predictable consequence of bad aim and insufficient power.

 

'popper-f*cked' is when you get a full-hit in the calibration zone with 125+pf ammo and the popper doesn't fall, but it *does* fall for the calibration with subminor ammo. That only happens when the RO's don't do their job and/or there is a defective popper is used. It might possibly apply to the wind as well. That has never happened to me in 10 years of shooting every week.

Edited November 24, 2022 by motosapiens

[CalTeacher]

19 minutes ago, motosapiens said:

i haven't changed my position. there is nothing in conflict between my statements. Not sure where the confusion is. What exactly do you think i'm saying now that is different from the posts you screen-capped?

 

having a popper stay up due to a low hit or an edge hit is not being 'popper-f*cked', it's just the predictable consequence of bad aim and insufficient power.

 

'popper-f*cked' is when you get a full-hit in the calibration zone with 125+pf ammo and the popper doesn't fall, but it *does* fall for the calibration with subminor ammo. That only happens when the RO's don't do their job and/or there is a defective popper is used. It might possibly apply to the wind as well. That has never happened to me in 10 years of shooting every week.

It’s ok to just say you agree with me.  Save for some really rare circumstances (you agree with this) major and minor take down steel with no issue if the steel is calibrated properly.  I came to no wrong conclusions.
 

Major pf only masks some really sloppy shooting on steel. Hell, I can shoot 44, hit the base of the popper and make the plate fall.  See?! Power is more effective on steel!  
 

Let’s just admit we’re on the same page here and move on.  I like reading your input here, and there’s nothing here for us to really disagree on.

 

[motosapiens]

49 minutes ago, CalTeacher said:

It’s ok to just say you agree with me.  Save for some really rare circumstances (you agree with this) major and minor take down steel with no issue if the steel is calibrated properly.  

 

I almost agree with this. minor and major both work, but they don’t work “just as well”. major works slightly better in terms of activation speed, and forgiveness for low hits and edge hits. perhaps I am just being a pedantic math guy here about the meaning of equality here.

 

ive had to take plenty of 2nd shots on poppers that would likely have gone down the first time with major, and in working big matches i’ve seen plenty of other shooters do it too.

Edited November 24, 2022 by motosapiens

[MHicks]

I've recently shot 9mm 135g minor switching for a while from my usual 200 gr 45 175 pf loads. This is just at some local monthly matches but I feel like I can tell the difference on some of the poppers as far as how they're going down.

[zzt]

18 hours ago, CalTeacher said:

but assuming steel is calibrated pf really doesn’t matter.

 

Nonsense.  When I hit steel with my major PF Open load it falls a lot faster than when hit with a 9 minor load.  This is especially true of forward falling poppers.  Hit with a 132 PF load they may take two seconds before you can tell if they are falling.  With major you know right away.  Since you only shoot at non-hinged poppers, you may not be aware of this.

[CalTeacher]

36 minutes ago, zzt said:

 

Nonsense.  When I hit steel with my major PF Open load it falls a lot faster than when hit with a 9 minor load.  This is especially true of forward falling poppers.  Hit with a 132 PF load they may take two seconds before you can tell if they are falling.  With major you know right away.  Since you only shoot at non-hinged poppers, you may not be aware of this.

No, I am aware of this. We used to have hinged poppers exclusively at my club before we converted.  Other clubs I shoot at have hinged poppers.  I’m very well acquainted with the drawbacks and benefits of different popper designs.

 

If you are waiting for poppers to fall after hitting them then all I can do is laugh.  That’s not a problem with pf, that’s a skills deficit. Go ahead and blame pf all you want.

[zzt]

1 minute ago, CalTeacher said:

If you are waiting for poppers to fall after hitting them then all I can do is laugh.

 

That's a little smug.  I don't wait.  I know they are going down when I hit them.  Some newb Prod and CO shooters don't.  You can persist in your mistaken belief you are correct.  I know better.

[CalTeacher]

15 minutes ago, zzt said:

 

That's a little smug.  I don't wait.  I know they are going down when I hit them.  Some newb Prod and CO shooters don't.  You can persist in your mistaken belief you are correct.  I know better.

How much faster do your plates fall?  I want to see the math. Why does that matter at all if they fall after being hit?  
 

How many matches do you run per year?  How often is this a problem at the matches you run?

[zzt]

1 hour ago, CalTeacher said:

Why does that matter at all if they fall after being hit?  

 

Because they often are actuators.  Often they are stacked behind one another.  You have to clear the front ones to get to the rear ones.  You must shoot very simple matches out there.

[CalTeacher]

1 hour ago, zzt said:

You must shoot very simple matches out there.

 

Maybe we just know how to run them.  

Edited November 25, 2022 by CalTeacher

[motosapiens]

15 hours ago, zzt said:

 

Because they often are actuators.  Often they are stacked behind one another.  You have to clear the front ones to get to the rear ones.  

 

^^  this is correct. 

Also, even if you are a decent shooter and don't 'look at' the plates, you are often still subconsciously aware of them in your peripheral vision. The faster and more reliably they go down, the happier everyone is.

 

but ultimately, we're arguing very small differences here. CalTeacher is generally correct in that 130+ pf minor, when aimed reasonably well, is extremely reliable in taking down poppers. 

Edited November 25, 2022 by motosapiens

[CalTeacher]

On 11/24/2022 at 6:55 AM, RangerTrace said:

Perfect example at a IDPA club match this week.  They had a swinger on two stages.  The first one required 3 shots to the body and two to the head.  The second one was 4 to the body, one to the head.  And this wasn't a wide open swinger.  It had non-threats on each side, so you only had a window of opportunity.  It was stupid.  

This kind of stuff irritates me.  I can’t count the number of times I’ve seen someone design a stage that they themselves have no reasonable chance of shooting clean. There have been multiple times as a MD that I’ve denied stage designs on this premise alone.

[IL-SIG]

Shooting clean and shooting clean at super fast speeds aren’t the same thing. Some stages may require more technical marksmanship versus speed shooting.  Simply because a target is challenging, requiring the competitor to slow down to get their hits, doesn’t mean the course of fire is excessively hard.
 

I’ve seen numerous times when a competitor, even the best, fail to respect the target resulting in a miss and/or a penalty. The competitors were more than capable of making the shot and shooting clean; however, failing to respect the specific difficulty of that specific target resulted in an unfavorable result. The fact that a competitor doesn’t slow down to make the shot isn’t the fault of the Match Director or Stage Designer. 
 

As long is the target presentation is within the limitations set forth in our rules, the targets are fair game. This sport is about speed, accuracy, and power.  Sometimes accuracy is much more important than speed.  Sometimes the opposite is true and sometimes a stage is more balanced.

 

The best advice I ever received from a GM and that I frequently pass along is to respect every target for the shooting challenge it presents. 

[IL-SIG]

26 minutes ago, CalTeacher said:

There have been multiple times as a MD that I’ve denied stage designs on this premise alone.

That is unfortunate. You’ve potentially denied competitors the opportunity to shoot challenging and fun stages simply because of your bias and your personal belief a stage is too hard.
 

If the stage is compliant with the rules, the MD should not restrict competitors  the opportunity to experience the challenge. The only way people get better is to challenge their capabilities, which should happen in both practice and matches. 
 

As an MD, I’ve run stages such as challenging fixed time stages that local competitors said they never knew were permitted. Those same competitors thanked me for exposing them to the additional challenge when they returned from an Area Match that included a fixed time stage. We only get better when we push our limits.  
 

It would be like saying a golf course designer should never design a course unless they themselves can shoot par on that course. I’ve met some great stage designers who aren’t great shooters. One is not dependent on the other. 

[CHA-LEE]

Now that the Thread Topic Derailments are mostly over (Good discussions though), How do we change the Excessive Shot Difficulty behavior for these matches? I have given direct feedback to the MD's and RM's for these matches (Year over year) and it seems to go in one ear and out the other. That or I get a defensive response that is basically summed up as "If you don't like it then come out and do it yourself". The only match feedback these people seem receptive to is positive feedback.

 

I think I am going to show my Match Product displeasure by simply not attending these types of events anymore. In the end, all I really can do is vote with my feet/wallet and chose to not attend. But even in that scenario, the MD's and RM's associated with these matches won't notice because they are not engaged enough in assessing the quality of their product to look into that level of participation statistics. They usually run it into the ground and then wonder why their attendance sucks. Why their match is failing is a mystery to them 99.9% of the time.

[RJH]

 

Maybe a thought process could be: if a middling shooter, such as a B or A class shooter would be better off taking a miss than slowing down enough to get hits or risk the penalties, then the target presentation might need to be rethought?

 

[CHA-LEE]

6 minutes ago, IL-SIG said:

That is unfortunate. You’ve potentially denied competitors the opportunity to shoot challenging and fun stages simply because of your bias and your personal belief a stage is too hard.
 

If the stage is compliant with the rules, the MD should not restrict competitors  the opportunity to experience the challenge. The only way people get better is to challenge their capabilities, which should happen in both practice and matches. 
 

As an MD, I’ve run stages such as challenging fixed time stages that local competitors said they never knew were permitted. Those same competitors thanked me for exposing them to the additional challenge when they returned from an Area Match that included a fixed time stage. We only get better when we push our limits.  
 

It would be like saying a golf course designer should never design a course unless they themselves can shoot par on that course. I’ve met some great stage designers who aren’t great shooters. One is not dependent on the other. 

 

I think you are missing the point that CalTeacher is trying to make. An effective MD already KNOWS the average skill level of their participants and can easily assess if a specific shooting/movement challenge is "Too Much" for their customer base. This assessment and rejection of insane shooting/movement challenges MUST happen at every match to keep the match product challenging yet enjoyable. Can you have an "Aim your ass off" array of targets here or there? Absolutely. But it shouldn't be the predominate theme presented again and again over most of the stages. This is no different than having too many close hoser targets. It needs to be a balance and the best person to make those decisions is the MD/RM.

 

As an MD myself, I assess each stage submitted for the match in the weeks leading up to the match. YES, I make my team submit their club match stages at least a week ahead of the match so they can be assessed and balanced to one another. I make sure that we are not excessively testing ANY specific skill in an unbalanced manner. Then the day of the match, I walk each stage during setup and adjust things as needed to eliminate excessively deployed shooting or movement challenges. This is on top of the minimum requirement of ensuring that each stage is providing a legal and safe presentation of targets. Unfortunately for a lot of MD's, this minimum requirement is their only assessment of the stages during setup. Why that behavior happens, I don't know.

[CalTeacher]

49 minutes ago, IL-SIG said:

That is unfortunate. You’ve potentially denied competitors the opportunity to shoot challenging and fun stages simply because of your bias and your personal belief a stage is too hard.
 

If the stage is compliant with the rules, the MD should not restrict competitors  the opportunity to experience the challenge. The only way people get better is to challenge their capabilities, which should happen in both practice and matches. 
 

As an MD, I’ve run stages such as challenging fixed time stages that local competitors said they never knew were permitted. Those same competitors thanked me for exposing them to the additional challenge when they returned from an Area Match that included a fixed time stage. We only get better when we push our limits.  
 

It would be like saying a golf course designer should never design a course unless they themselves can shoot par on that course. I’ve met some great stage designers who aren’t great shooters. One is not dependent on the other. 

Notice how I never said I denied challenging stages.  I simply denied stage designs where the average shooter has no reasonable chance of shooting clean.  Shooting challenges are always present in stages, but luck should never be one of those challenges.  Swinging tuxedoes at 15-20 yards? No.  20 yard headshots with no shoots? No.  Long distance 6” plated with no shoots behind them? No.

 

Cha-Lee is making a point that match directors need to take note of.  We’re selling a product with our stages.  Stages that only M-GM shooters have a reasonable chance of shooting without penalty are a huge turnoff to most shooters.  
 

If you can’t design challenging and fun stages without carnival tricks or excessively difficult shooting challenges, then you may need to seek outside help with stage design.  Travel to matches and learn something about how different clubs design stages.  You’ll learn new ideas about things that work, and probably see some predictable ideas that don’t.

 

I have yet to see a stage design that all shooters could accurately describe as easy.  Straightforward? Yes.  Easy? No.

 

Edit: to add, the only thing I’m denying the average shooter at my club with my stage design policies is a day of frustration.

Edited November 25, 2022 by CalTeacher