What Brian said about matches 20 years ago

[yekcoh]

https://brianenos.com/hate/#tactical

Quote

These days the matches have more rounds on one stage than entire matches we used to shoot. Everywhere you go you see targets stuck all over the place just to get the round count up. Nobody wants to come to the match if you’re not going to be running around spraying bullets all over the place. I’ve watched guys capable of winning big matches shoot standard exercises—they have no basic shooting skills whatsoever. But yet they can win major tournaments because the matches no longer test shooting skill. Instead they test cranking rounds all over the place on easy targets.

 

This is the quote I just ran into from our forum founder Brian over 20 years ago. This has been an issue for the last two decades.

 

In fact, I shot a level 2 match a few months ago. One of the RO's introduced himself to me and asked how the match is. The stages were actually technical with difficult targets.

My only complaint was that every stage was 30+ except one or two stages. The RO replied, "that's what we love! we want  to shoot as many rounds as possible."

 

Which is the exact thing Brian and I despise. 

 

USPSA has gone far into its degradation. Level 1 and level 2 matches are high round count and hose fests. Very sad. @Brian Enos @Brian Enos

 

 

[RangerTrace]

Ammo is more expensive now than ever.  You can certainly test shooting skills and have fun without 32 rounds stages.  I shot KY State a few weeks ago and only 3 of the 11 stages required a reload if shooting CO.  But there was a TON of movement.

[Racinready300ex]

Some matches are moving in the opposite direction. The Maryland state this year most of the a fantasy division division HHF was sub 7 with the highest HF in the match being like 8.5. Not a hose fest at all. Round count was about 210 over 12 stages. 

 

Vary tough match. 

Edited July 10, 2023 by Racinready300ex

[Bigzona]

This is interesting.  I'm 1.5yrs into USPSA, and still learning a lot of the history.  What would one consider a good test of skill in a major match? In my mind, some appropriate mix of execution at speed (hoser), accuracy (distance plus target difficulty), and strategy (interesting stages with multiple viable options to execute).

[yekcoh]

10 minutes ago, Racinready300ex said:

Some matches are moving in the opposite direction. The Maryland state this year most of the a fantasy division division HHF was sub 7 with the highest HF in the match being like 8.5. Not a hose fest at all. Round count was about 210 over 12 stages. 

 

Vary tough match. 

That sounds great. Seems like east coast and midwest are doing ok. The problem is the west coast, mostly

[Racinready300ex]

26 minutes ago, Bigzona said:

This is interesting.  I'm 1.5yrs into USPSA, and still learning a lot of the history.  What would one consider a good test of skill in a major match? In my mind, some appropriate mix of execution at speed (hoser), accuracy (distance plus target difficulty), and strategy (interesting stages with multiple viable options to execute).

 

It's a pretty tough one to answer TBH. I don't want to see a bunch of clusters of targets for one. I think HF tells us a lot. overall through a major you should have a stage with a high HHF and one with a low but the average should be 6 or 7 IMO. If the average is high 8's and up that match was to hosey. Epically if minor divisions are pulling those numbers. 

 

A major should test skills, different distances, and target difficulties. Low ports, seated starts, activators,...all the things. 

 

I'd avoid making stages where the gun stays up at your eye line and you're on the trigger until you're out of ammo. It can be fun but not really interesting to do repeatedly. 

 

Another indicator is you should see separation in the results. 

 

Good doesn't mean just slap NS's on stuff to make it "hard" and it doesn't mean just add targets to increase the round count. Sometimes you'll see a perfectly good short stage that someone decided needs more rounds and they just make it 3 per. This doesn't do anything for the stage, and IMO makes it worse in many cases. Making single targets into stacks just to add targets in a small bay is similarly lame. 

 

No doubt it's a balancing act and it's difficult to get it right. And no matter what you do, someone will complain. 

[yekcoh]

1 minute ago, Racinready300ex said:

 

It's a pretty tough one to answer TBH. I don't want to see a bunch of clusters of targets for one. I think HF tells us a lot. overall through a major you should have a stage with a high HHF and one with a low but the average should be 6 or 7 IMO. If the average is high 8's and up that match was to hosey. Epically if minor divisions are pulling those numbers. 

 

A major should test skills, different distances, and target difficulties. Low ports, seated starts, activators,...all the things. 

 

I'd avoid making stages where the gun stays up at your eye line and you're on the trigger until you're out of ammo. It can be fun but not really interesting to do repeatedly. 

 

Another indicator is you should see separation in the results. 

 

Good doesn't mean just slap NS's on stuff to make it "hard" and it doesn't mean just add targets to increase the round count. Sometimes you'll see a perfectly good short stage that someone decided needs more rounds and they just make it 3 per. This doesn't do anything for the stage, and IMO makes it worse in many cases. Making single targets into stacks just to add targets in a small bay is similarly lame. 

 

No doubt it's a balancing act and it's difficult to get it right. And no matter what you do, someone will complain. 

It's not that difficult to construct good stages. The problem is believing that in order for a match to be good there must be a lot of rounds involved.

[Bigzona]

13 minutes ago, Racinready300ex said:

 

It's a pretty tough one to answer TBH. I don't want to see a bunch of clusters of targets for one. I think HF tells us a lot. overall through a major you should have a stage with a high HHF and one with a low but the average should be 6 or 7 IMO. If the average is high 8's and up that match was to hosey. Epically if minor divisions are pulling those numbers. 

 

 

 

Agreed. Thanks for the input. I'm blessed to have several local clubs, but one in particular really strives to properly test skill in a variety of ways. The others are fun, but do fall into the hose fest trap.

 

I attended Dragon's Cup for the first time this year, and found it quite balanced in its approach to testing skill.

[Racinready300ex]

4 minutes ago, yekcoh said:

It's not that difficult to construct good stages. The problem is believing that in order for a match to be good there must be a lot of rounds involved.

 

But, for some if all you've ever seen or shot are one type of stages it's hard to get out of that box. A lot of people have the thinking you're point out of more is always better. I think they're missing the part that makes shorter courses more challenging. 

 

Example on a 32 round stage you can absorb a mistake here and there. For example a mike 15 points. On a 160 point stage that's less than 10%. So as long as you're on pace you can still put up a +90% run on a stage with a mike.

 

But, on a 60 point stage that same mike is 25% of the points. So the same mistake really hammers you. 

 

This means a 10 stage match that has more short to medium courses will have less room for error than that 10 stage 310 round match.

 

I think this escapes people. I wonder if people think they're better at longer courses than they really are because of how the scoring system works. It makes you look better because there is less separation. 

[yekcoh]

20 minutes ago, Racinready300ex said:

 

But, for some if all you've ever seen or shot are one type of stages it's hard to get out of that box. A lot of people have the thinking you're point out of more is always better. I think they're missing the part that makes shorter courses more challenging. 

 

Example on a 32 round stage you can absorb a mistake here and there. For example a mike 15 points. On a 160 point stage that's less than 10%. So as long as you're on pace you can still put up a +90% run on a stage with a mike.

 

But, on a 60 point stage that same mike is 25% of the points. So the same mistake really hammers you. 

 

This means a 10 stage match that has more short to medium courses will have less room for error than that 10 stage 310 round match.

 

I think this escapes people. I wonder if people think they're better at longer courses than they really are because of how the scoring system works. It makes you look better because there is less separation. 

This isn’t actually the case. 
 

explanation:

 hypothetically, a match has two stages one 32 and one 8 round. 
 

A 32 round course will be 80% of the match. So if we assume a mike is about 10% of the stage. You will get 72%. When if you get a mike from the 8 round stage you will get about 60% on that stage which is .6 x 20% of the match so thats 12% in the overall. 
 

So no matter where you get a mike, it will be a mike in the cumulative score. 
 

to say long course is less punishing is incorrect

[Maximis228]

Be the change you want to see. Submit stages to your local MD or become the local MD and put stages on you want to see. I started doing that back in 2015 and I've now designed well over 500+ unique stages for clubs and major across the country. 

 

I used to run an indoor club (5 years - 30-33 matches per year) that would shoot 4-6 stages on 2 bays (Shoot 1, switch bays, shoot 2, flip stages, shoot 3, and so on...). Usually, would start with 2 large fields, 2 mediums, and then 2 short or 1 short/1 classifier. This offers a balance of shooting skill and would mix up the styles of shooting. I like seeing both hoser and super technical stages at the same match. 

 

I still think majors need to spread out who designs stages. Often 1-3 people design all the stage for majors. A specific type of "Flavor" is created. Often these people end up being from the same club. I think sectionals should use 1 stage from each club in their section. Area matches should use stages from every state in their area. Nationals should use stages submitted from RMs from each area. 

 

This would force different "flavors" into majors. 

Edited July 10, 2023 by Maximis228

[shred]

Excessive running with little shooting should not be used to "balance" stages.  

 

Don't throw in extra targets "to get the round count up" or "make them do a reload"

 

All the targets at 15 yards with partials and movers will give you a ~8 HHF match (see: CO Nats), but it may not be all that much fun or really test much if there's not many speed changes or shooting on the move opportunities.

 

People here love to dunk on IPSC but they can do really good low round count stages.

 

Good stage design is not easy and takes some tries and failures to get good at.

 

The pandemic ammo-primer panic I think improved matches and stage design but now it looks like the trend is going back to 30+ rounds everywhere, because "fun".

 

[Maximis228]

Just now, shred said:

People here love to dunk on IPSC but they can do really good low round count stages.

 

This is why I like their 3-2-1 rule. But this requires more build time by staffers leading up to a major (More stages = more props placed) on top of needing more space to layer more stages in one bay. Majors are already a labor of love for those who put them on.

 

To me, 3-2-1 is awesome for shooters, but can create a massive headache for the ground crew setting it all up. 

[BritinUSA]

Multiple stages on a single bay rarely work well, there's usually always a backlog around them.

[louu]

6 hours ago, Bigzona said:

This is interesting.  I'm 1.5yrs into USPSA, and still learning a lot of the history.  What would one consider a good test of skill in a major match? In my mind, some appropriate mix of execution at speed (hoser), accuracy (distance plus target difficulty), and strategy (interesting stages with multiple viable options to execute).

No one actually knows they just like to complain about how people do things and if they did it how much better it would be, if they actually did anything. 

 

Its usually the same guys that are walking the stages while people are busy hammering nails and setting up. It's also sometimes the guys that think they would have won if the match had stages designed by themselves, you know, if they actually designed stages. 

 

Really, who the f*#k cares? It's a day out of the house with your buddies shooting guns and mouths. Have fun and don't be a f*#kin Fudd. People take time away from the family to volunteer and shooting this stuff, don't ruin someone's day by complaining about their work. 

 

To anyone else reading this, don't tell me people shouldn't complain about the complainers in some arrogant way, because that's just guys saying don't call an a_-hole, an a_-hole. 

[RJH]

17 minutes ago, louu said:

No one actually knows they just like to complain about how people do things and if they did it how much better it would be, if they actually did anything. 

 

Its usually the same guys that are walking the stages while people are busy hammering nails and setting up. It's also sometimes the guys that think they would have won if the match had stages designed by themselves, you know, if they actually designed stages. 

 

Really, who the f*#k cares? It's a day out of the house with your buddies shooting guns and mouths. Have fun and don't be a f*#kin Fudd. People take time away from the family to volunteer and shooting this stuff, don't ruin someone's day by complaining about their work. 

 

To anyone else reading this, don't tell me people shouldn't complain about the complainers in some arrogant way, because that's just guys saying don't call an a_-hole, an a_-hole. 

 

 

This is pretty spot on

[Racinready300ex]

15 hours ago, yekcoh said:

This isn’t actually the case. 
 

explanation:

 hypothetically, a match has two stages one 32 and one 8 round. 
 

A 32 round course will be 80% of the match. So if we assume a mike is about 10% of the stage. You will get 72%. When if you get a mike from the 8 round stage you will get about 60% on that stage which is .6 x 20% of the match so thats 12% in the overall. 
 

So no matter where you get a mike, it will be a mike in the cumulative score. 
 

to say long course is less punishing is incorrect

 

 

 

I think you're missing my point anyway. It's all a balance. I'm more talking about a 10 stage major that's all 32 round stages vs one that might have 2 with the rest being short to medium courses of fire. When there are less points on the table every point will matter more. 

 

So compare your 3 stage match to one that's a 8,12 and 16 round. So 1 mike in your match was 4% of your score vs 8% in my match. 

 

I'm not comparing stages within a single match, I'm comparing one style match to another. Matches with all high round count high hit factor stages have less separation and make people feel better. 

 

 

[Racinready300ex]

15 hours ago, shred said:

All the targets at 15 yards with partials and movers will give you a ~8 HHF match (see: CO Nats), but it may not be all that much fun or really test much if there's not many speed changes or shooting on the move opportunities.

 

 

I find many times making the shooting obviously hard just makes everyone aim. I like to put up stuff that's looks easy but still need to some respect. If that makes sense. Penalty targets everywhere isn't really fun. 

[BritinUSA]

Stages that are hard for the sake of it are generally not enjoyed by anyone. A short 9 round stage with movement and open targets can tempt a shooter to push just a little too hard.

 

I think that any stage that increases the likelihood of unforced errors by the shooter is a good one.

[truespode]

15 hours ago, louu said:

Really, who the f*#k cares? It's a day out of the house with your buddies shooting guns and mouths. Have fun and don't be a f*#kin Fudd. People take time away from the family to volunteer and shooting this stuff, don't ruin someone's day by complaining about their work. 

 

Spot on! 

I am not going to ever get Master class and may be C class forever (but have delusions of grandeur I may be a high B class one day) but I am a good ambassador and bring good people up to speed who do go on to be great shooters.

Whether we have short accuracy stages with little movement or hose fests (which I absolutely love sometimes) doesn't matter. The sport has grown and evolved. Our stewardship of the sport and the competitors should as well and always towards the positive.

[ChuckS]

The rules used to limit short courses to 2 shooting positions and medium courses to 3. Those limits were removed with the last rule change. Now short courses could be used like those amazing short courses seen in the IPSC videos. I know for a fact that I could make some pretty interesting short courses with 2 poppers, 1 max trap and 1 swinger and 1 static target. But yeah, it takes some design work and the setup effort to round count ratio is not like doing a 12 target hoser.

 

That said, if you have 70-90 people who want to give you $3K to run a hoser run and gun match every Saturday, are you going to argue on principles? 

[konkapot]

By far the best stages I've ever shot were 12-17 round stages. IPSC does this really well. 

 

When I was MD-ing/designing stages I included a little bit of strong hand/weak hand shooting and it was interesting at who the complainers were. With a just a little effort you can make 15 round stages challenging. And....if you really put your mind to it....they're easier and more efficient to set up. 

 

The martyr thing of a guy pounding stakes for 1000 linear feet of faultlines is totally unnecessary. 

 

I think, sometimes, people bring sh!t on themselves. 

[BritinUSA]

Agree 100%

[perttime]

On 7/11/2023 at 2:31 AM, BritinUSA said:

Multiple stages on a single bay rarely work well, there's usually always a backlog around them.

Two Short or even Medium stages in a single bay can work fine, as long as there isn't anything that is really difficult to reset. Long stages, no. It also depends on what you have before and after those stages.

 

Shooting two stages in a single bay usually means that you need to run them "synchronized": one stage shoots, the other stage shoots, and then both go to score and reset.

 

 

[Joe4d]

I always like stages that had lots of options. Things that really made it fair to people with various abilities.. Made stage planning for each person different as they weighed the pros and cons of various stage plans.  IE a target visible at 20 yards, OR 2 yards,,, Slower more accurate shooter might take the long shot, faster moving the close.  Also things like height and barriers... Different routes or views..