On The Nature Of Competition

[Patrick Sweeney]

OK, let's stop, take a step back and a deep breath, and stop this nonsense. What I mean by that is the wrangling over how many Divisions is too many, and which ones should go. I've seen this before, and it serves no purpose. How many here raced something or other? Fought where there were weight divisions? Did anything timed? If you have, you've seen this before.

Most people who have firmly-held opinions on "how many is too many" do so either because they see an advantage for themselves, or they have an axe to grind over some other, "irrelevant" Division. If you don't like those other Divisions, don't shoot them.

Yes, L-10 and Single Stack are potentially replacements for each other. L-10 seemed like a good idea when it began, but we now find far too few single stack shooters at matches. Can they co-exist? Maybe, maybe not. Time and attendance will tell.

"But that's not what it used to be." Or "Why should we dilute the sport by being accomodationists?" Cards on the table: I started shooting IPSC in the Fall of 1977. Who here has been at it longer? All others pour a cup of coffee and listen:

There never was a golden age of pure competition and study of combat shooting. From the beginning there were those seeking an advantage. Even before. I have a reprinted volume of the predecessor magazines to the American Rifleman. Back in the 1890s there were notices for upcoming handgun competitions: "Service charges only. No down-loaded ammunition allowed." We have always struggled with the question of "How much is enough?"

To those bemoaning hi-cap guns, that they aren't "real" or "tactical" or "manly." Get a grip. Lets drop you into a bad neighborhood in Fallujah. Given equal reliability, accuracy and ammo on your person, which do you want: a single stack or a hi-cap? However you decide, your decision is not what someone else might do. That's right, we get to desice what we'll use.

"But Jeff Cooper says there should be no equipment restrictions." Hey, I've met him. A number of times. Took classes from him, had coffee with him, talked shootouts with him. Back when he laid that down as a ground rule, you know what your choices were? A 1911. A BHP. An S&W M-19/25/29. An SAA. Or some really weird European drek. If the rules placed any restrictions on guns, one type would have an advantage. Guess what? We now know how the guns stack up against themselves. If we had no restrictions on equipment, if we simply shot heads up, I can predict what would happen. One, USPSA shooting would become Open shooting. Two, clubs would fail to renew. Why? Who would want to shoot thier box-stock Sig/Ruger/H-K against the local club Master with his Open gun?

Any time someone suggest more or fewer Divisions, ask a simple question: "Will this likely increase or decrease match attendance and USPSA membership?" Heads-up competition, no Divisions? Decrease both. A Glock-only Division? No change, but piss off a lot of people who don't shoot Glocks. Dropping Divisions? Lose the people in them, for sure.

You want to "make the stats a lot easier" by only having two or three Divisions? fine, your stats crew will have a very much easier job, when the Divisions you've slighted go elsewhere. Hey, you just told them you did't need them, so don't be annoyed that they leave and go elsewhere.

No, the USPSA shoud not try to accomodate everyone. We couldn't accomodate the cowboy shooters if we wanted. Single shots? .22LR? Too far from what we do, and nothing to be gained.

If you really want to discuss what Divisions the USPSA should have, perhaps you might want to do so with a copy of Gun Digest in your lap. Open it at random in the handgun section, and ask yourself "What Division would this fit, how many potential shooters own it, and what are their odds of doing well with it?" If you find your "perfect" array of Divisions a bit restrictive, you can count on membership declining under your proposal.

Off to adjust my caffiene dosage.

[ima45dv8]

Thanks, Professor. That was great!

[Barrettone]

I agree with Pat...to an extent. We don't need to disclude ANYONE. I am of the opinion that we need just three divisions (Open, Limited, and Production). OK...hear me out. After the origional three, all others would be "sub-divisions" of one of those three. We would put Open Revolver, or other "open" variations as a subset of Open. Limited 10, and Single Stack could go under Limited. Revolver could go under Production. You could possibly even have a "single action" production subset. By doing it like this, you would acheive two things. First, USPSA would only have to classify three divisions instead of five (saving a TON of work). Second, it gives the match director a little latitude in what divisions he wants to recognize. If you have a large revolver following in your club or area, you can plug it in. If you don't, you can plug in another division. Whatever the persons classification is in one of the three main divisions (that MUST be recognized), is their classification for any subset division. This idea was proposed by the A5 director, and I support it. I think it stops a lot of the controversy and fighting over "how many divisions?". If you want a division recognized at a match, then you, as a competitor, go out and drum-up the participants, and we'll do it!!! Look at what the revolver guys did at the Ohio State Championship. If you can get the interest, we have a "tool" in the "toolbox" to accommodate it. I like that flexibility as an MD to please my competitors on an as-needed basis.

My .02

Jeff

[Flexmoney]

Jeff,

Realistically, a subset of a division is still a division...with just a different name. And, the MD won't be blessed with the option to run it or not...his/her shooters will demand that it gets run. That is the reality of how that will shake out. I've seen it.

If that is what you are after...OK. But, I think that hits the slippery slope pretty quick.

I wish we wouldn't debate more or less. I'd rather see us talk about change vs. no change. My vote goes toward stability.

[John Baier]

I think the six divisions we have now pretty much covers everything.

Of course, a sub-machine gun division would get my vote

Edited December 17, 2005 by John Baier

[davidball]

I think the six divisions we have now pretty much covers everything.

Of course, a sub-machine gun division would get my vote

Six? Are we being presumptive about the eventual adoption of single stack?

Edited December 17, 2005 by davidball

[Chriss Grube]

Well once you open the barn door ...... I can hear the whining if they ever did away with it....But I bought the latest gee whiz single stack and now there is no division for it. They did that with the 8 shot revolvers and seriousily doubt if they want to go through a mess like that again. It will be like Revolver 2-5 people at most area matches and 20 at Nats shooting it.

[Barrettone]

Jeff,

Realistically, a subset of a division is still a division...with just a different name. And, the MD won't be blessed with the option to run it or not...his/her shooters will demand that it gets run. That is the reality of how that will shake out. I've seen it.

If that is what you are after...OK. But, I think that hits the slippery slope pretty quick.

I wish we wouldn't debate more or less. I'd rather see us talk about change vs. no change. My vote goes toward stability.

I see where you are coming from Flex. The way I would address that is simple. Get me "X" number of shooters, and I'll recognize it. Any less, and you are shooting for overall in one of the three main divisions. It is simply driven by participation. You take the onus off the MD and it gets decided purely on the number of shooters. The only thing they can be pissed about is the fact that shooters didn't show up for it. Hardly the MD's fault...

I agree with you about stability, but the face of the game is constantly changing, and there are too many variables with different demographics in every area. In my neck of the woods, PCC (Pistol Caliber Carbine) is a hot ticket. Drive to Oregon, and they look at you with a puzzled look on their face when you mention PCC (they have lots of wide open ranges, we don't...they just use 223's).

It would be nice to have divisions to choose from based on demand. Still maintain a baseline of the main three divisions, yet have a way to put on a Revo-only match if the masses want it. It all comes down to Iowa is different from Kali which is different from Georgia which is different from Texas. I do believe that the numbers should decide, and not the MD's or a couple of PO'd shooters who are mad because nobody wants to shoot their game. Oh well...the battle rages.

DVC,

Jeff

PS BTW...I am a revo guy, so I am speaking from a minority standpoint...no jaded perceptions here. Gotta look at the big picture and not be self-serving.

Edited December 17, 2005 by Barrettone

[John Baier]

Six? Are we being presumptive about the eventual adoption of single stack?

Alright, 5 and half divisions

[Chuck Anderson]

I prefer Bruce Gary's idea, I think, of using the three categories, Open, Limited and Production and running the rest of the guns as categories. The categories would be similar to Senior, Lady, Junior, etc. You're still shooting against everyone but you have the ability to win the category.

And Jeff, If you do make it out to Oregon we run at least two pistol caliber carbine matches a month at Sherwood. We'll know what you're talking about.

[Carmoney]

It will be like Revolver 2-5 people at most area matches and 20 at Nats shooting it.

As a USPSA wheelgunner, I feel obligated to make a partial correction here, Chris......

In 2005 we had Area matches with up to 18 revolver shooters. Not a big number, true, but much more than 2 to 5, and certainly enough to make it a meaningful match. Hell, we even had 20 revolver shooters at the Ohio Sectional. And nobody's really sure how many revolver shooters would have shown up at Nationals if the demand for getting on the waiting list hadn't been so heavy.....(plus, you gotta keep in mind many avid revolver shooters are functionally illiterate and have no credit cards!)

Yeah, we're still the smallest division, probably always will be, but we are growing and people are starting to pay attention. (Take another flip through the latest issue of Front Sight and you'll see what I mean!) Part of the reason is that in the long run, real shooters like steel and smoke, not plastic and popple-holes.

Edited December 17, 2005 by Carmoney

[cliffwalsh]

I don't know what popple-holes are but I say down with them!!!

[Bruce]

Since you mentioned fighting, Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu is a growing sport in America. Obviously, it has always been huge in Brazil. But, in most tournaments [gi and no-gi submission tournaments] there are belt divisions, weight classes within those divisions, masters, juniors, etc. Then, after all is said and done, there is the Absolute class. No matter what you weigh, you go against the draw. It is amazing the size of many who win, consistently. Often times it is the "smaller" fighters.

How is this relevant to the topic? No clue really, except that there are some who could win in almost anything, shooting almost anything. Put an open gun in my hands and a revo in Jerry's hands, he will beat me like a rented mule. At the top, that is not always true---but the majority of this sport is not made up of the top, it is made up of the middle of the road shooters and below. Many of us will never compete at the Nationals, nor be competitive if given free entrance to Nationals. The sport, in my opinion, does not need to argue divisions, it needs to address participants. Keeping the old ones in and getting the new ones interested, and accepted enough by the ones who compete all the time to come back after the first go round. One way to never keep them interested is to bicker about rules and divisions.

[JayC]

"Part of the reason is that in the long run, real shooters like steel and smoke, not plastic and popple-holes. ;"

Hey now Mike, that hurts There is nothing wrong with my plastic gun when I do my part.

Our local club is going through this same issue. They had talked about possibly dropping L10 in place of the provisional single stack, but I didn't feel that was right and some others also felt the same, so we voiced our opinion. What our club ended up doing is adding another weekend. Well see how it turns out. As it was it was 2 monthly matches as a run what you bring. This put a hurt on the production, revo, and L10 divisions. Now we will still have the same 2 weekends plus another weekend for production, revo, and the SS class. We'll have to see what happens. They also mandate to have an x number of shooters in a division for year end awards. I don't think that is right because so far the only divison that meets it is limited. You have devoted shooters in the others that are there most every match, why not support them as they have supported the club.

This is just my 2 cents worth. This is also a never ending story. Why not just shoot what you like and be done with it.

Jay

[Barrettone]

I prefer Bruce Gary's idea, I think, of using the three categories, Open, Limited and Production and running the rest of the guns as categories. The categories would be similar to Senior, Lady, Junior, etc. You're still shooting against everyone but you have the ability to win the category.

And Jeff, If you do make it out to Oregon we run at least two pistol caliber carbine matches a month at Sherwood. We'll know what you're talking about.

Hey Lawman:

You know, you just had to chime in and prove my PCC example wrong...didn't ya? Sherwood huh...don't they just shoot bows and arrows there? Anyway, sorry if I plagerized Mr. Gary's idea. I ASSumed that since my AD asked me about it, it was his idea. I am in full support of the category idea, as you put it. OK...back to our program already in progress...

Jeff

PS I like popple holes, whatever they are...can't we all just get along?

[Chuck Anderson]

I may have misspoke. I'm not sure if it was originally Bruce's idea. I know that he has talked about it in another thread and that he likes the idea. I certainly don't want to get into an AD fight, although mine AD can kick your AD's butt at stats.

[tightloop]

Started in Fall of '78, so I listened too....

I think evolution is part of the sport...like equipment changes, the Divisions are subject to evolution...that is what is happening with SS vs L-10...it will work itself out...I think stability at the helm of USPSA and the ability to listen and evaluate the wants of the shooters is paramount...good thing the sport has that...although it may appear slow to take action I do believe the BOD does listen and act in what they consider to be in the best interest of the sport...

[Barrettone]

I may have misspoke. I'm not sure if it was originally Bruce's idea. I know that he has talked about it in another thread and that he likes the idea. I certainly don't want to get into an AD fight, although mine AD can kick your AD's butt at stats.

Oh ya? Well my AD's drinkin' milk, and someday your AD is gonna be sorry.

Jeff

Edited December 17, 2005 by Barrettone

[pskys2]

Mr. Sweeney you make a lot of sense.

Started in 1979 myself, seen the growth, stagnation and rebound that happened. I say leave things as they are. If SSD grows, then add it in. The split of Open and Limited was necessary. Limited 10 was a hedge against the clintonistas. Production started slow, but was a good idea. Revolver is necessary, there is just no way to equitably classify the Revolver Competitor within any other Division.

Many matches state a Division won't be recognized if there aren't a specific number, and that is the way to handle it. Nobody should expect an award if they are the only competitor, but it has happened and it is usually an empty award.

There is a growing interest in Revolvers and that is only good for all of us. There is a healthy interest in Production, great. It never bothered me to use my SS against a DS in Ltd 10. Heck I used it in Limited when it first started up.

The recent financial statement for USPSA looks really good, let's not start getting narrow minded now, let as many play in equitable/like equipped Divisions as they can. If it starts actually dragging the organization down, it can be revisited.

Stats are being done universally on computers now, the number of Divisions shouldn't have any effect.

Just my .02.

[caps]

Patrick - great history lesson!

[LPatterson]

What difference does it make how many divisions there are as long as it gets more people shooting. If there is not some one else in your division/class then you haven't beaten anyone so don't expect a trophy. If you are only going to a match so you can take home a trophy then the one you should be shooting for is High Overall. If the reason for not wanting more divisions/categories is because you don't know what trophies to order for division/class/category, then stop giving trophies.

It doesn't matter how many trophies you win, when you die God will not care if you don't have any.

[Merlin Orr]

Started in Fall of '78, so I listened too....

I think evolution is part of the sport...like equipment changes, the Divisions are subject to evolution...that is what is happening with SS vs L-10...it will work itself out...I think stability at the helm of USPSA and the ability to listen and evaluate the wants of the shooters is paramount...good thing the sport has that...although it may appear slow to take action I do believe the BOD does listen and act in what they consider to be in the best interest of the sport...

yes.

[Two Mikes]

I don't have the years of experience as many of you but .... I suggest the problem isn't too many divisions during a match, its our classification system.

Our classification system should assign one class per shooter by combining the scores/percentages from the various divisions shot. With the invention of computers, this can be done easily. Once this is done, you open up all the divisions to everyone, not just those who shot enough matches to qualify in them. The shooters will then have the chance to select the catagory they want based on their personal opinions .... trophy ... who is shooting ... what gun do I have today ... etc.

In many sports, the competition is self divided up. For example, Sailing has multiple organziations based on the sail boat used and location. USPSA is a better organization and can handle multiple divisions efficently. I'd suggest we need more, including a selfdefense/IDPA type division.

[George]

Hear, Hear Patrick! We thrive in the diversity of and our ability to please the actual customer.

[midvalleyshooter]

From the 1911 society web page:

This match has turned into a match that some shooters absolutely wouldn't miss. The SSC has drawn competitors from both I.P.S.C. and I.D.P.A. disciplines. As ten-time SSC winner Rob Leatham has said: "This match is all about shooting skills, everybody is playing on a level field."

I see the Single Stack Division as an extension of the above. What do the naysayers fear???

Keith