Merlin Orr Posted January 9, 2006 Share Posted January 9, 2006 Best, I think, to let old wounds heal. Ok if everyone thinks that's best but I gotta say I'm very uncomfortable. I keep reading posts from people with megaphones to tell us about how bad IPSC is and how they're the most evil people in the world and how they screw everything up but as soon as questions about US flip-flops are asked people clam up and you can hear the proverbial pin drop in here and I don't think it's coz nobody knows the answer. If I may be so bold as to ask? Who are you, what is your name and where are you located? Respectfully, Merlin Orr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Norman Posted January 9, 2006 Author Share Posted January 9, 2006 Related to this and in fact to most forums, it would be nice if we were identified in some manner, at least as to region. I understand some people's reluctance to post under their real name. But I think not identifying where in the world you are from may color some of the reaction you get. It may even temper the reaction you get if the reat know where you are coming from, it may help the rest to understand your viewpoint. Drift mode off Jim Norman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Beverley Posted January 9, 2006 Share Posted January 9, 2006 Guys This is getting out of hand. I truly don't believe this is about IPSC versus USPSA or USPSA versus IPSC. It's certainly not for me. It's different people with some different ideas. I know guys in the UKPSA who have things they don't like in the rule book, and they've told me plainly enough. And there are guys in Scandanavia and Australia and South Africa and .................. just about everywhere. I guarantee you that if you took one person from every Region in the world and asked them to rewrite the rulebook they would all be different. If you got one person from every county in the UK all the rulebooks would be different. From every state in the US and they'd all be different. Actually, out of the 500 or so rules most would be retained but different folk would have their own pet likes and dislikes. But somewhere we have to stop and take a vote. If we wait for utopia with unanimous agreement on each and every item, we would NEVER have a finished rulebook. Please believe me when I say there are things I don't like in the rulebook but I live with them because we got there by due process. The rulebook is better because there are others that have been around to discuss and argue with me. And me with them. It is a certainty that there are other IPSC members that don't like some aspects of the IPSC rulebook. It is a certainty that some of them prefer some aspects of the USPSA rulebook. It is also a certainty that some members of the USPSA don't like some aspects of the USPSA rulebook. They may even prefer the IPSC version. Or something different again. Where does it stop? What would the USPSA say to an Area or Section if that Area or Section said they didn't like the USPSA rulebook and that they wanted to write their own? Where would it stop? The big rewrite of the rulebooks (The 2004 Edition) was during 2002/3. I was very pleased to have Arnie Christianson working with me on my Shotgun Committee. Troy McManus worked on the Rifle Committee. Bruce worked on the HG Committee. John Amidon worked on the co-ordinating committee. Mike Voigt was and is Chairman of the IPSC Rules Committee. We got loads of work done, and there was very little us (not US) versus them. What we all did was learn from each other. We all learnt that there are a lot of ideas and requirements. Setting aside the Divisions the differences aren't so big. -- WRT to "flip-flops", I believe that a bare reading of IPSC GA minutes may lead to some confusion. In some cases, the US Regional Director may make (or support) a motion on behalf of the Rules Committee (of which he is chair)... and subsequently vote against it, on behalf of the US region. I believe that the power factor is just such an issue - the rules committee recommended 160, but the US region was in favor of 165. Picking up on this, there is a slight mistake on this occasion. The USPSA Regional Director at that time was Andy Hollar who was NOT on the IPSC Rules Committee. It was not until later when Mike Voigt took over as USPSA President did we have the USPSA President also sitting as Chairman of the IPSC Rule Committee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bgary Posted January 9, 2006 Share Posted January 9, 2006 (edited) So..... let me ask this. In my other sport (sailboat racing, the sport I'm actually *competitive* in ), this whole scenario has been quite adequately dealt with for years: -- Each regional body has the authority to maintain the rules for competition within their region. So, for example, the US Sailing Association governs the rules for competition within the US. -- The international rules body governs rules for international competition. Those rules are different, for many of the reasons discussed here. It is the responsibility of the competitor to know the differences when they are competing in international competition. -- The rules for collegiate sailing are another, differentiated set of rules, and competitors are expected to know/be bound by the differences. -- The rules for olympic sailing are another, differentiated set of rules, and competitors are expected to know/be bound by the differences. All of this just *works* - if I am sailing locally in the US, I know what rules govern me. If I enter an international competition, it is up to me to know the differences in the international rules. If I am sailing in Olympic competition, I am expected to know those rules. There are international "equipment rules" and US "equipment rules", and if I build a boat, I decide which kind of competition I am going to optimize it for. And - most importantly for this conversation - at no time does anyone (the international body, the olympic rules committee, whoever) say "hey, United States - if your rules aren't exactly like ours, you're in violation and subject to being removed from the confederation. You have to follow exactly our international rules or you can't be part of our sport." The various tiers of competition *accept* that there will be regional differences, and agree that the *one* place where it is essential to have *one* set of rules is on the playing field where competitors from all over the world come to play - i.e., international competitions. Having that *one* set of rules imposed on all other regions at all other levels of play is not considered essential - or, in many cases, desireable. Why can't we (IPSC and its member regions) come to an agreement like that? Each region - not just the USPSA - would have the right to govern the rules of competition within the their own boundaries, agreeing to keep them consistent with the constitution and principles in order to remain a viable member of the international confederation of practical shooting organizations. It would seem to be a "no harm, no foul" scenario for both IPSC and its many regions. And, whenever a regional shooter wants to compete in international competition, they would have to know that the international rules of competition are different from their own "home region" rules. What would be wrong with that? *MANY* sports have exactly that situation (think tennis, basketball, baseball, soccer, american-trap vs international trap, etc, ....) I think such an alignment would be to the benefit of both IPSC *and* its member regions, and would remove an awful lot of the dynamic tension involved in attempting to write *one* set of rules that meets the needs of *all* regions. Bruce What would the USPSA say to an Area or Section if that Area or Section said they didn't like the USPSA rulebook and that they wanted to write their own? We actually already sanction that, in a way. There are a number of rules in the rulebook for which "compliance is not strictly required" at club-level matches (eg, the freestyle and roundcount limits, and match re-entry for score), and for which compliance *is* strictly required for larger (section, area and national-level matches). This is similar to my last post, where the governing body explicitly *grants* some latitude to smaller/internal competitions, but requires strict compliance with the "one" set of rules for cross-boundary competitions. So... the notion already exists in our sport. $.02 Bruce Edited January 9, 2006 by bgary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Norman Posted January 9, 2006 Author Share Posted January 9, 2006 (edited) Bruce, Once again you are proving the reason you occupy the position you do. I like this idea. Further, if I in region A, regularly compete under Region A rules, but decide to compete in a Region B match, all I need do is obey Region B rules for that Match. the only time the "International Rules" would apply would be at say the Continental and above level, Pan-American, European, Austral-Asian and of course World Shoots. We'd all still play essentially the same game, but no longer would any region be forced into changing to fit some other regions world-view or legal requirement. Problem is, it makes far too much sense to work. Jim Norman Edited January 9, 2006 by Jim Norman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wgnoyes Posted January 9, 2006 Share Posted January 9, 2006 (edited) In my other sport (sailboat racing, the sport I'm actually *competitive* in ), I didn't know you raced sailboats! Hell, when you guys get into a dispute, my former manager told me things are always resolved by the entire sailing regatta degenerating into a big honking water balloon fight! Cindy and I took a Caribbean cruise some years back and one of the ports of call was St. Maarten, NA and we did the America's Cup Regatta, which is real America's Cup yachts running 2/3rd sail capacity on a scale model of the real race course. Cindy and I and about a dozen other) sailed on Stars and Stripes against Canada II, and our crew/vessel won by the length of our bowsprint. (The most critical rank aboard ship was that of bartender, of course, but you for the most part don't just sit and watch, you work the boat.) So afterward we're still sailing abreast one another and our captain/guide encourages us to honor the other crew with three cheers, and hip-hip-pizzah, etc, etc. and we do. Then he tells us "okay, now flip 'em off!" And of course a lot of fingers promptly went up in the air! Edited January 9, 2006 by wgnoyes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caps Posted January 9, 2006 Share Posted January 9, 2006 If I may be so bold as to ask? Who are you, what is your name and where are you located? Respectfully it's not convenient for me to say more than I'm a Canadian now living in the US and this is why I'm trying to learn more about the USPSA point of view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Stevens Posted January 9, 2006 Share Posted January 9, 2006 (edited) A point of history, for discussion purposes only, that I voiced once and didn't get a rebuttal. In 1983 I attended a Gunsight class taught by none other than Jeff Cooper. During the week I was there various topics were discussed from the trivial to the Bren 10 and the foundation of IPSC. This is not an exact quote as I did not write it down or record it, but he said that the word "confederation" was used deliberately in the founding of IPSC. The intent was for the international body of shooters to promote the advancement of practical shooting while being free to develop their own rules and regulations to achieve that end. I believed then, and I believe now, that he stated that we were never intended to all march to the beat of the same drum. Based on the wide variance in customs, laws and traditions through out the world, this would seem to be a sensible approach. I would add that if you look up the word confederation, it seems to match what Col. Cooper said. Gary Edited January 9, 2006 by Gary Stevens Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeInNePa Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 The idea that each region would have their own rules and that the confederation controls the international rules makes the most sense. Why hasn't this been brought up at a GA? If it has, what was the outcome? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Stevens Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 Honestly I don't know. I can't get very many people to talk about it. Gary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
diehli Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 Gary and Bruce, please keep logic out of the discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bgary Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 I've brought up the sailing/basketball/trap analogy a number of times, internally. Have no way of knowing if it has been brought up in IPSC Executive Council discussions... Bruce Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Beverley Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 A point of history, for discussion purposes only, that I voiced once and didn't get a rebuttal. In 1983 I attended a Gunsight class taught by none other than Jeff Cooper. During the week I was there various topics were discussed from the trivial to the Bren 10 and the foundation of IPSC. This is not an exact quote as I did not write it down or record it, but he said that the word "confederation" was used deliberately in the founding of IPSC. The intent was for the international body of shooters to promote the advancement of practical shooting while being free to develop their own rules and regulations to achieve that end. I believed then, and I believe now, that he stated that we were never intended to all march to the beat of the same drum. Based on the wide variance in customs, laws and traditions through out the world, this would seem to be a sensible approach.I would add that if you look up the word confederation, it seems to match what Col. Cooper said. Gary Notwithstanding your conversations above, IPSC is governed by the Constitution and Item 4.1 of the Constitution has a reason and meaning for the word "Confederation": The IPSC is a non-political Confederation of non-political participating Regions, whose borders normally, but need not necessarily, correspond to national borders. For these purposes, Confederation is defined as being a league or agreement between two or more independent Regions whereby they unite for their mutual welfare, and the furtherance of their common aims. Which, however, retain their sovereign powers for domestic purposes and some other purposes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bgary Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 Which, however, retain their sovereign powers for domestic purposes and some other purposes. So... does that mean that we can make the case in the EC, that USPSA "retains our sovereign powers for domestic purposes", and that part of that sovereignty includes the right to administer the domestic rules as we deem necessary? Bruce Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Beverley Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 While Bruce has mentioned some sports that allow some variances in their rules there are plenty of other international sports that don't. This is another item covered in the IPSC Constitution. There are a number of rules in the rulebook for which "compliance is not strictly required" at club-level matches (eg, the freestyle and roundcount limits, and match re-entry for score), and for which compliance *is* strictly required for larger (section, area and national-level matches). This is similar to my last post, where the governing body explicitly *grants* some latitude to smaller/internal competitions, but requires strict compliance with the "one" set of rules for cross-boundary competitions. With respect, I think this is a weak case and not the same as what is being proposed. Which, however, retain their sovereign powers for domestic purposes and some other purposes. So... does that mean that we can make the case in the EC, that USPSA "retains our sovereign powers for domestic purposes", and that part of that sovereignty includes the right to administer the domestic rules as we deem necessary? Bruce Bruce You know full well the answer . A smilie would have helped. I don't want to get personally bogged down in the politics. It's not my bag and I don't have any influence anyway. I think I'll leave this thread for you to play with and I think it was wise for Shred to split this off from the main part of the original. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Norman Posted January 10, 2006 Author Share Posted January 10, 2006 Personally, I think that the idea that Bruce has put forth here is excellent. If this were to be adopted, I would have no probem with a region such as Japan, where private ownership of firearms is all but totally outlawed, being a voting region. They can have Airsoft as a recognized accepted part of IPSC, but the rules will not be amended on a world-wide basis to allow for it. Of course I am sure that there are some reasons, and i can name one, that this will be opposed. If in some venues it were realized you could now play with airsoft, that region might lose it's ability to use real guns. It is a tangled web. But all that being said, the idea of International rules for when we all get together and Regional rules for the rest of the year sound like a great idea. Even sound like the IPSC Constitution actually supports it! No amendments are required. Jim Norman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Beverley Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 Even sound like the IPSC Constitution actually supports it!Jim Norman No it doesn't. Please read what it says not what you want it to say. Please also see Point 13 of the Constitution: The International Practical Shooting Rules referred to in this Constitution and adopted by the Assembly shall be applied by the Confederation, its affiliates and members. <snip> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 Doesn't the 0.30 buffer have a longer precedent? Wouldn't altering it have a negative impact on the fixed time classifiers that have been in use for USPSA (we'd have to lose them). Does it really matter...as long as it is standardized? Did we get this from NRA Action Pistol (who shoot all fixed time)? I am sure this all was hashed out in the past. Seems like we are looking at the wheel and, perhaps, trying to reinvent? ----------------------------- I just wish that we could get away from (what I - meaning no disrespect - would characterize as) changes unrelated to actual competitive issues. I know this is a parochial view, but it seems to me that IPSC is on a path of trying to please everyone... and that worries me. So many of the rules discussions started with "I saw this once and didn't like it so we need to make a rule against it", or "this region can't have such-and-such, so we need to make a rule against it"... and, I guess I just fundamentally wonder those rules are really *necessary*. Or, wonder whether they actually *accomplish* anything. Or.. more fundamentally... wonder whether they make the game "better".Is our game materially improved by not allowing sight pictures? Or not allowing upside-down Metric targets? Or introducing the notion of "warnings", which may result in competitive penalties for things unrelated to actions during an attempt on a course of fire? IPSC clearly believes the answer to those is "yes". I have a hard time agreeing. And therein lies perhaps the core of our misalignment. If you look at the pattern of "US exceptions" to the IPSC rulebook, the majority of them occur where IPSC changed something, and the US Board felt the US shooter was better served by leaving things as they were. I *wish* we were on the same page. I have put in my share of time working to get us there. But... IMO, we *aren't* currently on the same page, and my belief is that it is because we have different "visions" for what the sport should be. IPSC wants to be a global game that can be implemented consistently in every region, and if that means adapting it for *all* regions to meet the needs of the smallest region, or the most legally-restricted region (or whatever), that may well serve the global goal. But I worry greatly about what lies down that road... if the rules are constantly being revised in an attempt to meet *all* the needs of *all* the regions, how long before the game is unrecognizable against its freestyle, "combat shooting", test-bed-for-equipment-and-techniques heritage? As I said in my other post, I'd love to have IPSC rules and USPSA rules be more consistent... but my personal belief is that IPSC is headed down a path that changes the game in arbitrary - and arguably detrimental - ways. Perhaps that's a fundamental philosophical difference, perhaps it is merely my perception, but... if we can address the divergence and *resolve* it, I think it would serve the interests of *both* orgs. So... how can we work together better toward getting our paths more aligned, rather than one moving "away" and the other reacting? Count me "willing to help solve the problem", for whatever that is worth... Bruce Bruce, I am with you 100% on this. (And, I think we see it within USPSA as well ) The rules need to be approached from a fundamental perspective. They ought to have a driving guideline (mission statement?) behind them. I don't know that they do or don't. Apparently, people aren't working off the same sheet of music. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bgary Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 They ought to have a driving guideline (mission statement?) behind them You mean, like, the "Principles of Practical Shooting", which used to appear in the rulebook, and haven't for the last several books? Bruce Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 Perhaps? I've never read them. I did come to this same conclusion though...a year or two ago. it just seems that people are approaching the rules from a different (or lacking) foundation. So, of course they come to differing opinions on the rules. Direction is needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bgary Posted January 14, 2006 Share Posted January 14, 2006 (edited) Not that it has any particular relevance, but my own filter for things is pretty simple: -- If it affects safety, we need rules that define the proscribed behavior and delivers a DQ for violations. -- If it affects the competitive equity of a shooter's attempt on the course of fire (eg, foot faults, procedurals, etc) we need rules that define the proscribed behavior and delivers procedural penalties for violations. Period. In my opinion, if it doesn't affect safety, and doesn't affect the fairness of the competition, then I am *far* less interested in creating a rule. Fundamentally, I wonder what such a rule accomplishes. Now, that is a broad statement, and I don't mean it to be taken that we don't need rules around course design, match administration, scoring guidelines, chrono procedures, equipment standards and many other things. But when I think of things like, oh, say... someone walking around behind the line with the hammer back on a holstered gun. Did we really *need* a rule to deal with that? Does it really deserve a warning? Should a warning really have the potential to become a penalty which affects the outcome of the competition? I just have a hard time with all that. $.02 Bruce Edited January 14, 2006 by bgary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Norman Posted January 14, 2006 Author Share Posted January 14, 2006 Bruce, AKA- a Voice of Reason I am 100% in agreement with your last post (And if that doesn't worry you....) Jim Norman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckw Posted January 14, 2006 Share Posted January 14, 2006 Not that it has any particular relevance, but my own filter for things is pretty simple:-- If it affects safety, we need rules that define the proscribed behavior and delivers a DQ for violations. -- If it affects the competitive equity of a shooter's attempt on the course of fire (eg, foot faults, procedurals, etc) we need rules that define the proscribed behavior and delivers procedural penalties for violations. Period. Bruce, using your filters, how do you categorize the rule change in L10 from "10 rounds loaded in a mag ever" to "10 rounds loaded after the start signal" - wasn't that just a feel good thing to make a few whiners who objected about barney mags happy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
diehli Posted January 14, 2006 Share Posted January 14, 2006 Not that it has any particular relevance, but my own filter for things is pretty simple:-- If it affects safety, we need rules that define the proscribed behavior and delivers a DQ for violations. -- If it affects the competitive equity of a shooter's attempt on the course of fire (eg, foot faults, procedurals, etc) we need rules that define the proscribed behavior and delivers procedural penalties for violations. Period. Bruce, using your filters, how do you categorize the rule change in L10 from "10 rounds loaded in a mag ever" to "10 rounds loaded after the start signal" - wasn't that just a feel good thing to make a few whiners who objected about barney mags happy? Are you kidding? It rewrote a rule that the Rule Gestapo required be read literally and moved those that had 11 in their start mag to Open. If you're going to nitpick, at least come up with something better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Beverley Posted January 14, 2006 Share Posted January 14, 2006 Bruce,AKA- a Voice of Reason I am 100% in agreement with your last post (And if that doesn't worry you....) Jim Norman The one thing we NEVER want to have happen is for USPSA to simply adopt the IPSC rulebook as the rules. We have a right to have our own rulebook and the day we stop exercising that right is the day we will forever lose it.I don't care if we only make one small change, we must have our own rules! <snip> Jim Norman My emphasis in red. Frankly, there are not enough differences betweeen our rules and IPSC rules. We should have kept a lot more of the old or not accepted a lot of the new.Jim Jim, with respect, your response to Bruce's post seems incongruous with your other comments about the rulebooks. Sadly not helpful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now