Limited Major dying?

[THS]

62% of the HHF?   National HHF doesn't matter.   The sample was to illustrate the point. 

 

Speed (of movement) is even more important across field courses, and they make up 90% of what we see.   

 

It is no longer "how long does it take for you to be accurate", it is now "can you get enough points going as fast as you can go."

 

It is not right or wrong.   The game has changed, evolved, devolved, pick your adjective.  I'm back after nearly 20 years out of this game and it still makes me smile to have a good run!   It is still a lot of fun and has some good gun-handling skill requirements that translate to other parts of life like CCW.   

[whan]

24 minutes ago, THS said:

Two things:   Accuracy is REALLY undervalued in today's game.   Right or Wrong it just is.   At a recent local we shot El Prez.   The Winner (open)  had 3 A, 7 C, and 2 D in about 5.58.    Second (LO) was 9 A, 3 C in 7.05.   I would argue that the winner lacked Accuracy, with only 25% A hits!  I doubt we are going to change it, but the sport is "accuracy, SPEED, power" now.

 

When 40 was what EVERY law enforcement guy shot and was plentiful in brass and ammo it was a good limited round.   I shot many thousands of them.  As the LE community has moved to 9mm again, and the military has stayed there, it has become the easiest things to find and load for.  It is a cycle of life thing, in my observation.

 

Politics is out as it brings out the worst in people.  We dont talk the politics of the sport, much less the Nation;  you wont change that here.

 

We probably don't have the data as practiscore is a relatively recent invention, but it'd be interesting to compare the points scored % of top shooters in the past vs. those today from nationals. Granted the stage design has varied, but if top shooters in the same division (open and prod would be good examples given they have bene more consistent) are still shooting the same points % but getting faster, it'd mean that shooters aren't necessarily sacrificing accuracy for speed, they're just gaining more speed in general.

 

It's interesting using El Prez as the example as that's probably one of the oldest classifiers in USPSA. Fundamentally the setup hasn't changed for almost 25 years, so the intended design of speed vs. accuracy hasn't changed. As @Racinready300ex had mentioned, those performances were pretty mediocre low B runs, so obviously a lot of room for improvement. Even if the winner had shot 12A, it wouldn't be an M class score with that time. You'd actually have to shoot 12A in under 5.2 seconds to make M. 

 

If anything, the fact that the classifier HHFs got bumped up in 2018 seems to point to the fact that the standards are getting even higher, meaning shooters are better today than they were 20 years ago. Going back to my original point, my bet is that the top shooters today are just as accurate as in the past, but faster. In most cases with USPSA, once you hit 92-94% of points scored (major/minor champs are around this), you get a lot more benefit from focusing on getting faster vs. further increasing accuracy. 

[barry]

16 minutes ago, Racinready300ex said:

 

If a division is going to potentially bring people in, that's great. LO is doing that some, or at least it's giving some people a place to shoot guns that were in open before and didn't fit. It'll probably be the biggest division at Iron sight nationals, so clearly it's a popular idea.

 

But, I don't see anyone these days showing up at their first match with a limited gun. They might shoot limited because they don't have 5 mags for their production gun but they're not really shooting limited. At this point limited is kind of broken and no one really shoots it. I personally don't think it's healthy for the sport to have lots of divisions that no one shoots. I think the sport can be better with less divisions if we put a little thought into it. 

 

Limited is 100% a legacy division that only exists because it's been around a long time. If we were going to start uspsa today there is no chance we'd make a division for SAO iron sight 40's. No one would be asking for that at all. 

Well having started when there were no divisions an it was run what ya brung. 

 I do think there way to many divisions, mostly because it has le to way to many nationals which seems to be unsustainable from a financial end. But a lot of divisions would go before ltd. Would be a shame for no place for a classic 1911 tho. Maybe sport should be split irons and optics.

[THS]

1 minute ago, whan said:

my bet is that the top shooters today are just as accurate as in the past, but faster. In most cases with USPSA, once you hit 92-94% of points scored (major/minor champs are around this), you get a lot more benefit from focusing on getting faster vs. further increasing accuracy. 

Agreed. 

 

You make the perfect argument for more, longer shots.   That would not impact the ACCURATE shooters anywhere as much as the SPEEDy ones.   Yes the dot proliferation makes the sight alignment part of the game moot, but without trigger control 35 yard Classics become kryptonite to some.

 

I looked at some events in PS.  Predictably it reads almost exactly 1 though 50 in placement as total time.   There are some wrinkles- fast shooter burns a NS or two, but the ones I looked at seem to have 8 out of ten in a time order.  Nothing scientific in that look-  just an observation.

 

7 minutes ago, whan said:

shooting the same points % but getting faster, it'd mean that shooters aren't necessarily sacrificing accuracy for speed, they're just gaining more speed in general.

Agree again.   Gear hasn't really changed that much since I left in early 2000's, but performance expectations are higher. 

 

Brian's book talks about Limit of Human Function.   If memory serves, his thought was a 2 second Bill Drill was pretty near as fast as a human could go (circa 1989) but Bill Drills today are commonly faster.   We see that performance and then realize it is attainable, then use our minds to achieve it.   Maybe it is like the 4 min mile mental barrier- but watching a local guy reload in less than a sec opens your eyes to the fact you too could do that with effort and work.

 

I've changed my approach to being faster too.   Taking risk by moving when it isn't really comfortable with respect to thit probability, things like that.   So far I have a lot to work on, but it sure is fun.

[whan]

1 minute ago, THS said:

Agreed. 

 

You make the perfect argument for more, longer shots.   That would not impact the ACCURATE shooters anywhere as much as the SPEEDy ones.   Yes the dot proliferation makes the sight alignment part of the game moot, but without trigger control 35 yard Classics become kryptonite to some.

 

 

I agree with that - would like to see more technically difficult shots in stages, particularly to challenge the popularity of dot shooters these days. Around me, some locals can be pretty biased to be very hoser-ish stages with close range open paper. At the same time I understand the balance of not making it too brutal for new shooters. I recall there was a match last year with a 20 yard plate rack, and some newer shooters had some issues with it. I liked it as even shooting SS minor was able to clear it fine without a standing reload, but not everyone had the same experience.

 

No excuse at level 2 and 3 matches though - they should almost certainly have technically difficult shooting to test a variety of skills. Some movement heavy, some with difficult shots, some with high pressure movers, etc.

[THS]

10 minutes ago, barry said:

Well having started when there were no divisions an it was run what ya brung. 

 I do think there way to many divisions, mostly because it has le to way to many nationals

Yep,  it was pretty simple then.

 

I also don't understand the need for so many Nationals.  I get that the top guys want to shoot each one, and some Nationals cred can go a long way to making someone a "professional instructor" but why not 2 nationals.   Optics and Irons.  Period. 

 

Is it a range capacity issue?   Time it would take to get 1000 shooters through each?  Cost to the organization?  RO volunteers willing to stay that long?  Should we really have course designs so disparate that it is too easy for an Open dot or too hard for a Revo guy?  Some say the Iron sight nationals was to have less challenging target presentations due to irons and guys with 8 or 10 in the gun.   Isn't that contrary to the rules?

 

I've never earned a slot to the USPSA nationals- Until a few months ago I did not know there was open entry.  I thought every slot was earned in a Sectional or something similar.   That said I have shot and run other National shooting events and I'd expect the logistics is similar.

 

 

[whan]

12 minutes ago, THS said:

Yep,  it was pretty simple then.

 

I also don't understand the need for so many Nationals.  I get that the top guys want to shoot each one, and some Nationals cred can go a long way to making someone a "professional instructor" but why not 2 nationals.   Optics and Irons.  Period. 

 

Is it a range capacity issue?   Time it would take to get 1000 shooters through each?  Cost to the organization?  RO volunteers willing to stay that long?  Should we really have course designs so disparate that it is too easy for an Open dot or too hard for a Revo guy?  Some say the Iron sight nationals was to have less challenging target presentations due to irons and guys with 8 or 10 in the gun.   Isn't that contrary to the rules?

 

I've never earned a slot to the USPSA nationals- Until a few months ago I did not know there was open entry.  I thought every slot was earned in a Sectional or something similar.   That said I have shot and run other National shooting events and I'd expect the logistics is similar.

 

 

 

I agree with this, if it was me, I'd make nationals a more limited event that you have to earn a slot through via area performance (and plus volunteers). I think it'd make it more interesting as you'd really mostly have top GM/Ms, and also increase the stakes of area matches (which are open to all). Makes it easier to fit more divisions into combined nationals as less shooters are there.

 

Back to my other post around nats difficulty, it does look like CO nats this year was a pretty technical one. Most shooters shot below 90%, and almost no shooters at 92%+. Seems like accuracy did play a meaningful difference there. Significant separation from 90th percentile vs. 50th percentile shooters, around 89% vs 85%. Welcome thoughts from those who attended as well

Edited September 27, 2023 by whan

[Racinready300ex]

25 minutes ago, barry said:

Well having started when there were no divisions an it was run what ya brung. 

 I do think there way to many divisions, mostly because it has le to way to many nationals which seems to be unsustainable from a financial end. But a lot of divisions would go before ltd. Would be a shame for no place for a classic 1911 tho. Maybe sport should be split irons and optics.

 

Yeah there are worse divisions then Limited. But limited is currently benefitting from some misleading numbers because our divisions don't really reflect the guns that people have. 

 

[Racinready300ex]

30 minutes ago, THS said:

Agree again.   Gear hasn't really changed that much since I left in early 2000's, but performance expectations are higher. 

 

 

I don't know, these days the majority of shooters are running slide mounted optics in a minor scored division with 140's. That's pretty different from what guys were running over 20 years ago.

 

It might not sound like much, but I think the popularity of CO is allowing todays shooters to get better faster and the bar for what is good is going up every year. The other big change is the internet. Now it's so much easier to watch video of good shooters, and use things like PTSG or virtual coaching from high level guys. Plus there are more guys travelling doing classes.

 

All this adds up to much better shooters today than even just 5 or 10 years ago. As someone above pointed out probably the reason HHF's for classifiers were raised 5 years ago. And I remember at the time people freaking out because they seemed so high. But yet even with this new higher bar shooters are making GM. This tells me good shooters today are shooting at a higher level then good shooters of yesterday.

 

 

[THS]

9 minutes ago, Racinready300ex said:

because our divisions don't really reflect the guns that people have

Winner Winner!  Could not agree more.

 

Limited is no longer what every cop carried- high cap .40 plastic gun.   Now more and more agencies are back to 9mm, many with optics approved, and lord knows the popularity of Staccato et al amongst LE circles.   

 

Aligning divisions seems like a smart move, not to "save" limited, but to more closely match what our shooters bring in a fair and equitable way.

 

 

Just saw your other post.   I was thinking of gear as in holsters and mag pouches etc.   I was shooting a Tasco PDP2 back in 1992, so optics have been around for a while, and there were guys trying slide ride stuff in the 2002ish time period too.  

 

In that respect the rise of the dot has taken the element of sight alignment out of the equation, allowing people to focus on other things and improve faster.  

 

I also think the proliferation of You Tube etc. has made things advance way faster- You can get some great tips in seconds now.   You might also have to sort some BS out, but that gets easier to see the more you shoot ha-ha.

 

Edited September 27, 2023 by THS

[THS]

9 minutes ago, Racinready300ex said:

All this adds up to much better shooters today than even just 5 or 10 years ago

 

I would edit this to say "much better gun handlers today than..."   The game today is not about the shooting (Accuracy) as much as it is about getting to the shooting, be that movement, reloads, transitions, entries and exits, etc. as that is where HF is made or lost.

 

[Boomstick303]

Shooting in USPSA today is a reflection of society once again.  At least it seems that way to me.  We are currently in the Microwave society, so everyone wants everything their way and fast.  Is this right?  I am not sure if that is the correct question.  IT is what IT is.  What I do know is red dots and high capacity mags are what people seem to want, and to me that is a reflection of our current society.  Easy and fast.  No amount of Fuddnum is going to change that.  

 

Something I think needs to be taken into consideration in this conversation as it has been on other threads is the difference between Level 1 matches and Level 2 and above matches.  Level 1 matches are a product that match directors have to put together to appease customers for them to return.  I am not saying that everything at every local match needs to be easy, but it does need to cater more to the A-C level shooter more than the M and GM level shooter.  There is a nice mix that can be achieved to keep the A-C shooter (the majority of the local match customer base) happy and still test the M and GM level shooters, and this is upon the match director to make that happen.  Blending arrays and shooting on the move allows both sub sets of shooters to work on skills at different levels.  To be honest, M and GM level shooters should by the time they reach those levels be able to train the harder skills outside of a match to be successful at the National/Regional level.  

 

If a Match Directors need to make the local matches for so his/her customers will return.  If local matches were full of stuff that should be tested at Level 2 and above matches on the regular he/she could possibly loose that customer base, based on what type of society we live in.  A society were people want stuff easy and fast.

 

How much do the majority of Local Shooters actually work at getting better?   To me that number seems extremely low.  Most people only shoot matches for the majority of shooters attending local matches.  They hardly pick up a gun between matches.  SO really, what are local matches really catering too?  The M-GM crowd or the A-C level shooter?

 

To me what society wants is really why Iron Sight and low cap divisions are dying.  Dots and High capacity is what the masses seem to crave.  No matter what you do to "Save" those other divisions, it is not really going to matter in the long run.  

 

 

[whan]

46 minutes ago, Boomstick303 said:

Shooting in USPSA today is a reflection of society once again.  At least it seems that way to me.  We are currently in the Microwave society, so everyone wants everything their way and fast.  Is this right?  I am not sure if that is the correct question.  IT is what IT is.  What I do know is red dots and high capacity mags are what people seem to want, and to me that is a reflection of our current society.  Easy and fast.  No amount of Fuddnum is going to change that.  

 

 

Agree that It is what it is, and to adapt for it. That being said, I do think society has always been this way. It's human nature to want to make things easier and more efficient across all areas of life. Technology evolves constantly to continue to enable this.

 

Even in the past eras of practical shooting, we've evolved from everyone using 45 1911s with 7 round mags, to the introduction of double-stack 2011s, to having steel grips with aggressive texturing and heavy weight, thumb rests, comps and frame mounted optics in open. Non-gun equipment has evolved to have race holsters for easy draws and aggressive trail-running shoes with increased traction. Each of those innovations became popular as they made the game easier. Before the recent proliferation of dots in CO/LO, the trend towards hi-cap has long been there, shown by the massive difference in popularity between Limited and L10

 

Bottom line is that the modern flavor to make things easier and faster is definitely hi-cap minor dots, but there's always been a flavor of sorts. I wasn't around at the time, but I can just imagine single stack 45 shooters at the time in the 1990s complaining that the popularity of 40-cal 2011s is a reflection on society then wanting things to be easier and faster with higher capacity, potentially lower recoil 40 S&W.

Edited September 27, 2023 by whan

[Racinready300ex]

2 hours ago, THS said:

62% of the HHF?   National HHF doesn't matter.   The sample was to illustrate the point. 

 

Speed (of movement) is even more important across field courses, and they make up 90% of what we see.   

 

 

But, the national HHF does matter. You're making the case that shooters today aren't capable of the accuracy of shooters from 20 years ago. And your evidence is some local guy that won a stage with sloppy hits. That shows the level of skill at that match, it doesn't reflect what good shooters can do today.

 

In a sense you're not wrong. Speed is vary important no argument there. You can't alpha your way to victory if you're not first on par in the speed department. But, to win you need to shoot good points at that speed. 

 

Do you have any idea what % of points the winners shot back in the 90's to early 2k's? These days you need to be fast and shoot between 90 and 95% of the points. I doubt 20 years ago guys were shooting any better points than that. Especially with a minor gun. 

[Racinready300ex]

59 minutes ago, Boomstick303 said:

If a Match Directors need to make the local matches for so his/her customers will return.  If local matches were full of stuff that should be tested at Level 2 and above matches on the regular he/she could possibly loose that customer base, based on what type of society we live in. 

 

 

I sometimes wonder how true this really is. Certainly it's the line of thinking of a lot of MD's. But somewhat local to me there is a match that is known to be vary technical and difficult. It's 7 stages I think and typically harder than any of the level 2's around and likely harder than some Area matches. The match still fills and has a wait list. 

 

If it wasn't so far away I'd shoot it all the time. 

[shred]

Old classifier HHFs are useless as data points.  Despite what was published, they were never updated at all after they were originally chosen, which was often a single Area match.

 

Brian's book doesn't list a LOHF for a bill drill, but does list 2 A's at 7 yards in 1.0 or 2A at 15 yards in 1.15.  10" plate at 7 yards in 0.7 or 5 To Go in 2.3  Those are still top-level shooter times.

 

Back in the 90s' you still aimed to shoot 95% of the points, but in general the shooting was harder and there were less shots per stage.  Hell, you can probably find old posts on here from back then talking about it.

 

[whan]

Went back and found this thread from over 20 years ago. Sort of fun to see how there are a lot of the same themes. Back then it seemed the complaint that people have today about dots and minor PF was about the hicap 1911/2011.

 

 

[Boomstick303]

38 minutes ago, Racinready300ex said:

It's 7 stages I think and typically harder than any of the level 2's around and likely harder than some Area matches.

 

 I should have mentioned in my post that I have attended a few Nationals and Level 2 matches that were easier than some of locals in our area.  

 

Like I said there is a balance.  If you run a match where there are a rather large amount of penalties per shooter the MD might want to reassess the shooting challenges presented to the shooters.

 

I think this also goes along the lines of the shooters and number of matches in that area.  If there is a lot of heat I don't think it matters what type of shooting challenges exist.  The heat is going to show up regardless. 

 

  

[BritinUSA]

Some people shoot to get better, others shoot for fun. Appeasing both groups is always going to be a challenge.

[Racinready300ex]

24 minutes ago, shred said:

Old classifier HHFs are useless as data points.  Despite what was published, they were never updated at all after they were originally chosen, which was often a single Area match.

 

Brian's book doesn't list a LOHF for a bill drill, but does list 2 A's at 7 yards in 1.0 or 2A at 15 yards in 1.15.  10" plate at 7 yards in 0.7 or 5 To Go in 2.3  Those are still top-level shooter times.

 

Back in the 90s' you still aimed to shoot 95% of the points, but in general the shooting was harder and there were less shots per stage.  Hell, you can probably find old posts on here from back then talking about it.

 

 

I forgot about the HHF's not being adjusted for a long time. That doesn't change the fact that the HHF's got raised and yet more and more people are making GM now. This still makes me believe there are more good shooters now than their used to be. I'd still say this is due to training techniques and what is available to us now vs then. 

 

One could probably make the case that the stages being smaller probably made it easier to shoot points. Like it's probably easier to shoot 100 A's in one day than it is to shoot 350 Alpha's over 3 days. 

 

Back then, how many people were really competitive at Nationals?  CO Nat's the top 20 was all at 90%, looking at past nationals 90% many times could of been top 10 easy. 80% would of gotten you top 20 while at CO Nat's 75th was at 80% of the winner. 

 

In the world of Instagram lots of people can hit 2A's in under 1 at 7 and even 15. Even guys no where near national level talent. 

 

No doubt the game is different. But, I think shooters today are vary likely better than 20 years ago. But, there are still lots of guys that aren't. 

[whan]

Another fun comparison looking at the most recent 2023 CO nats vs. a vintage 1990s USPSA nats. Both matches were considered at the time to be on the more challenging side - interviews at 21:10 mark of 1990s nats, some said it was too difficult for non M shooters. Certainly very different styles with modern nats being far more field course like and old nats being positional stand and deliver.

 

In some respects modern nats does indeed have more room for gain on purely movement. But at the same time I'd argue that a lot of the shots at modern nats were just as difficult, if not more so than old nats. Poppers seemed to be more difficult, and swingers/movers were at further distances. In general lots of long distance shots at 2023 nats. Particularly the stage with the 3 triangles - taking the shots from the rear must have been 40+ yards. 

 

 

 

[barry]

23 carry optics nationals was not a very difficult match. Some challenging shots. I always have 35+ yard targets in the match I run. I honestly don't think the top level shooters have gotten better just a lot more GMs. But at any national championship there are 2- maybe 5 shooters that are a threat to win. By the time you get to 10th or so place down to 85% just like 30 years ago. I think to get gm you should have to shoot the score at a area or national match.

[BritinUSA]

Talent will always excel on stages with limited movement.

 

If you're fast on your feet you can gain some extra time to cover a lot of peripheral hits, or a fumbled reload. 
 

Stages with limited movement have no leeway when it comes to poor accuracy or technique.
 

 

[whan]

1 hour ago, barry said:

23 carry optics nationals was not a very difficult match. Some challenging shots. I always have 35+ yard targets in the match I run. I honestly don't think the top level shooters have gotten better just a lot more GMs. But at any national championship there are 2- maybe 5 shooters that are a threat to win. By the time you get to 10th or so place down to 85% just like 30 years ago. I think to get gm you should have to shoot the score at a area or national match.

I disagree - looking at nats the 85% cutoff was actually at around 40th place. 10th was at 92%, and that’s only because Christian gapped Nils in second by 2%. If he wasn’t there, the spread between 1st and 10th would only be 6%. the Also not trying to pick on you, but it appears that you shot 80% of available points at nats? Given the competitive standard is to hit 90-92% in minor, and even most of the top 10 didn’t meet that, to me that implies that the targets were on the more difficult side.

Also disagree that today’s top GMs aren’t better than those from the past. You’re already seeing the new crop of SuperGMs outperform the old ones. Yes, of course they’re younger and can move faster, but even from a points perspective they’re outperforming. At locap nationals 2021 you have Christian sailer shooting a higher points percentage and nils shooting a higher number of Alphas and fewer penalties than Rob Latham. Thats on top of the faster time as well.

 

This isn’t to rag on The Great One (he still far exceeds my skill) but it’d be crazy to think that shooters haven’t gotten better over time. It’s pretty obvious that shooters in the 90s were better than those from the 70s when ipsc first started, why wouldn’t that be the case today? Technique continues to evolve as people learn more and more - that’s the nature of any sport or skill. 

Edited September 28, 2023 by whan

[barry]

1 hour ago, whan said:

I disagree - looking at nats the 85% cutoff was actually at around 40th place. 10th was at 92%, and that’s only because Christian gapped Nils in second by 2%. If he wasn’t there, the spread between 1st and 10th would only be 6%. the Also not trying to pick on you, but it appears that you shot 80% of available points at nats? Given the competitive standard is to hit 90-92% in minor, and even most of the top 10 didn’t meet that, to me that implies that the targets were on the more difficult side.

Also disagree that today’s top GMs aren’t better than those from the past. You’re already seeing the new crop of SuperGMs outperform the old ones. Yes, of course they’re younger and can move faster, but even from a points perspective they’re outperforming. At locap nationals 2021 you have Christian sailer shooting a higher points percentage and nils shooting a higher number of Alphas and fewer penalties than Rob Latham. Thats on top of the faster time as well.

 

This isn’t to rag on The Great One (he still far exceeds my skill) but it’d be crazy to think that shooters haven’t gotten better over time. It’s pretty obvious that shooters in the 90s were better than those from the 70s when ipsc first started, why wouldn’t that be the case today? Technique continues to evolve as people learn more and more - that’s the nature of any sport or skill. 

Thanks for looking up my  percentage of points shot at nationals.  Which one was it I shot both open and carry optics.  Carry optics only because it was an easy drive. Shot the gun in 1 match and 2 practice before the match. 80% of the points? Really ,I'm thrilled because I normally shoot like I'm watering the lawn.Spray some bullets over there some over here.

On trying to compare top shooters over the decades is pointless as they are not shooting the same stages at the same match. Pretty sure a Rob Leathem or Todd Jarret or Jerry  Barnheart or Max in their prime could Give Christian a run for his money.