Classifier Cm3-08

[Carmoney]

FYI all,

There's a similar thread running now over on the Rules sub-forum regarding interpretation of classifier 99-42. Once again, there are conflicting opinions as to exactly how the stage descriptions should be interpreted, particularly regarding revolver shooters.

Once again, this situation highlights serious problems in the USPSA classification system. There is no doubt in my mind that many inconsistently-administered classifiers are being sent through to Sedro.

I really think USPSA needs to re-write the descriptions and tighten down the language to eliminate the controversy.

[Pin Shooter]

Hi Dave....

I have just started shooting IPSC over here, and I am finding that there is a lot to more to the rules than in ICORE, STEEL, or PINS...

I have been to the last couple of State selection matches, and have had to inform my squad that I am a rookie, and need to be watched. I find myself laughing out loud at some of the questions in the stage briefings, and am actualy really enjoying the mental giants that can find a loop hole in everything. It is loads of fun, and I have even shot on the dark side with an Auto....

As long as it goes bang it is going to be fun....

Hope to see you at the IRC

Regards

Mark

[10mmdave]

Hi Dave....

I have just started shooting IPSC over here, and I am finding that there is a lot to more to the rules than in ICORE, STEEL, or PINS...

I have been to the last couple of State selection matches, and have had to inform my squad that I am a rookie, and need to be watched. I find myself laughing out loud at some of the questions in the stage briefings, and am actualy really enjoying the mental giants that can find a loop hole in everything. It is loads of fun, and I have even shot on the dark side with an Auto....

As long as it goes bang it is going to be fun....

Hope to see you at the IRC

Regards

Mark

Yes Mark, isn't it interesting how these "gamers" try to figure out a COF !

Jeez, the intent is most always seen as soon as you see the stage description, but forget

a deck screw in a certain place or don't let a barrier reach the ground and it's a free for

all It is funny to watch sometimes.

Sorry but I really don't see me making the IRC this year, I am way behind in all things

ICORE, just not in good shooting shape and won't have the time to get there with all I'm

doing this spring. Plus this IPSC 6 shot stuff has got me all mixed up...I keep dumping 2

live rnds on the ground out of my open gun

Good luck and do well out there, above all have fun and keep Vic in line

[10mmdave]

FYI all,

There's a similar thread running now over on the Rules sub-forum regarding interpretation of classifier 99-42. Once again, there are conflicting opinions as to exactly how the stage descriptions should be interpreted, particularly regarding revolver shooters.

Once again, this situation highlights serious problems in the USPSA classification system. There is no doubt in my mind that many inconsistently-administered classifiers are being sent through to Sedro.

I really think USPSA needs to re-write the descriptions and tighten down the language to eliminate the controversy.

Hey Mike,

I just went and read that 99-42 thread Jeez !! what a mess.

I was rooting for the guy until I just read the last post, now I'm confused as ever

I think we all agree that there are problems with all this at USPSA, until we become a force

to be reckoned with little will get done IMO. And don't forget, this all a game, we are not

competing for the $$$ The folks that do all this do it for little pay back (free match fee ?)

And the folks at Sedro have to deal with that huge percentage of "gamer" guys who really

go off the deep end on a bad RO call (or questionable one anyway )

So what do we do ?? do we, as Revolver Fanatics, start at the top of the classifier list and

start a discussion ? figure out what's missing, compile a list of questions to send to who ever !

Maybe pick the obvious ones, the ones with 6 or 7 or 8 shots ?

Maybe start a "Classifier of the Week" post, pick one, debate it for the week then close it and

then document problems or issues ??

As I've said before, I'm new to this type of competition, so many rules and meanings with sub-rules

that can contradict another rule, I just don't have the gray matter to comprehend it all, but as a

group maybe we can get something to move our way ?

I dunno, just rambling on here.

[Bwana Six-Gun]

I know it's a cool feeling after finishing a stage and hearing the comments

and whispers from the peanut gallery "and he's shooting a wheel gun"

DaveP

Dave, this is probably off the thread, but I know how you feel. Three years ago at the Louisiana Sectional I finished the last stage and the next squad was waiting to shoot. Several of them were from the Air Force and Army shooting teams. When the RO finished calling off my last target he said I was only the second shooter to get all A's. As I walked back to my shooting bag to get rid of my moon clips one of those Air Force shooters said to me, "Really smooth run man." Made my match

[Mooney]

Back to the original classifier question:

This was shot around here recently, and was deemed by the MD to go as 6- reload-1-reload- 6- reload- 1 - done.

I think that the intent of the stage was clear (if not the wording); but we sent the question through J. Amidon anyway (via Area Director) who confirmed it as 6-1-6-1, 3 reloads.

That said, I agree with those who say it doesn't matter- I thought this was a heck of a fun stage, with plenty of fumbling and room to show errors, weakness, and gave me a lot of feedback on what I needed to work on.

I shot this stage to my ability and was pleased by my score.

This classifier IS especially friendly to back-scoring, because the shooter is close enough to see a miss (not that any of us ever has one of those ), and has the chance to take the extra shot penalty and make up a portion of the -15 pts, turning it into a -10 instead, without getting killed time-wise on a reload.

At another match last weekend up here, we had another slip in stage wording, where the intent of the stage was clear, if read a certain way, and ALSO clear if read another way (mandatory reloads between arrays). One shooter brought up the discrepancy, and the ruling was made in his favor- he could do it in 2 reloads rather than 3....

That's why I love revolver division- heads-up play, less gaming (most of the time).

I hope that this wasn't a re-post, but I don't think J. A.'s opinion was put up here...

DVC

[Carmoney]

......and I know he's John Amidon and all, but when Troy McManus (also a highly experienced and influential RO trainer) was asked, he rendered the exact opposite ruling.

I'm not saying anybody's right or wrong here. My point is that if these two guys can't agree on it, then how in the world are a bunch of "regular guys" supposed to administer it consistently at weekend club matches around the country? Answer: They won't. Different clubs will allow it to be shot different ways, and the scores will be sent through.

And that, my friends, is a problem.

(Although, I must agree with Mooney's assessment that in Revolver, it's all heads-up. The classes in our division never really come into play.)

[Mooney]

"And that, my friends, is a problem"

And with that now out in the open, with experienced fellows like that disagreeing, I totally agree that it is a problem....

Now, how to get a consensus together to straighten this out? I think I need a faster 'net connection to look at all the classifiers like some have done.

hmmmm....library?