Why's Everybody Always Picking On Me?

[GeorgeInNePa]

I too read Avery's article about bubble gum IPSC. If you read the article closely you probably noticed Avery was also speaking on behalf of Ara Maljian and countless others who despise bubble gum IPSC. I doubt that their dislike for bubble gum has much to do with their inability to make the shot.

I have had the opportunity to set up stages side by side with Ara Maljian, and I have discussed stage design very briefly with Ron Avery a couple of times. While I don't agree with Ara and Ron on every little item, I am firmly in their camp with the belief that a good course of fire is all about testing a variety of shooting skills, and there is no place for gimmicks and other such nonsense designed to "slow them down" or "trip them up". I also believe there is no place in IPSC for gimmicks that introduce an element of luck such as inconsistent props that don't behave the same for each competitor. I also believe a good course of fire is one that flows smoothly from the start to the finish, is not punitive to the less experienced shooters, but is still challenging to M and GM shooters. As for those "memory stages" that many folks find so "novel", just gag me with a spoon.

I think there might be some confusion about the idea that IPSC stages should be reality based. The trend today is towards long field courses shot totally freestyle. I can not think of any possible scenario that would require me to wade through a sea of 15 bad guys. I think what Avery is getting at, (and I know this is where Ara is coming from) is if the course of fire is a shoot out at the OK corral, the stage should look like the OK Corral with pole fences, a watering trough, etc. The scenario should at least look like something that might happen and the skills tested should at least look like something that might be employed to solve the problem. If the course of fire is the LA shoot out, it should look like a bank, a parking lot, have some cop cars to shoot from behind, etc. The skills tested should at least resemble something that might happen.

Instead we find ourselves shooting through a steel ring at a Texas Star where we can't even choose the engagement order, and in the initial stages we have to wait on the darn prop instead of getting on with the shooting. Heaven help the shooter that has to launch his rounds through Barney's sphincter when the afternoon breeze comes up, or the junior shooter blasting away with dad's single stack while going to slide lock; more than once. What a great idea, let's try to slow the GM's down and in so doing let's frustrate a 14 year old junior to the point of tears. Get a clue, gimmicks and tricks only make the disparity between the inexperienced shooters and the experienced shooters even greater.

As we all know, good course design isn't easy. There is nothing wrong with designing courses of fire that don't employ gimmicks, speed traps, or other bubble gum. I think the guys deserve a chance.

That's what I got out of the article also.

[Ron Ankeny]

I think some chilling out is in order here.

Sorry if I came on like gang busters.

Edited February 28, 2006 by Ron Ankeny

[XRe]

With anything, there's an approrpiate balance. If every course of fire was supposed to simulate "realistic scenarios" - we'd only be shooting a couple of rounds on one target at 7 yards or less for almost every course of fire. Snooze. At the same time, I've seen some pretty cheeze-o-la courses that beat the heck out of anyone who's not a GM or M Open shooter, due to carnival props, etc.

I haven't gotten a chance to read Ron's article, yet (Front Sight hasn't arrived in my mailbox, yet). I'm looking forward to it - if anything, to see what all the hubbub is about.

I strive to design courses that are: safe, fun, challenging to all levels of shooter, and fair to all levels of shooter. If I'm designing a course for a tournament level match, the difficulty level might step up a small notch. There are plenty of ways to make something challenging for a GM to shoot the top score without crashing (ie, give them a lot of rope), but still be fair to a D Production shooter. You don't have to resort to parlor tricks to have fun......

[shred]

While everybody loves to hate them durn furriners, every USPSA stage designer should take a hard look at the stages they shoot in the rest of the world. Those guys have a lot of experience making fun, interesting, varied and challenging stages, and doing it with eight to sixteen rounds.

The Panama Columbus Cup (video: here ) is a great example of some cool stage designs that are very rarely seen in the US, for no reason than they aren't 32 rounds.

I agree a lot with Ron-- every match tries to top the last with more rounds or more goofy things to shoot through that will get them a write-up in Front Sight. "Trying to slow people down" or "trying to make them think" is as classic an error as "trying to shoot faster".

[John Dunn]

Ron,

I was composing my post before yours even appeared, so that wasn't directed at you. I think you're right on.

[Singlestack]

Put me firmly in the "BIPSC" camp. I love to shoot and I could care less if we all shot at paper plates. I don't shoot USPSA matches to become better at anything but shooting USPSA matches.

The skills tested should at least resemble something that might happen.

I could not disagree more.

[AikiDale]

Real men shoot whatever the F they want.

Where's the F? I thought I was supposed to shoot A's?

[38superman]

I havn't seen my copy of Front Sight yet but in reading through this thread here's what comes to mind.

1. There are just so many types of targets and props available such as bear traps, swingers, movers, paper and steel.

The guys that put together the matches both major and local have to find inventive ways to rearrange these components to keep the stages fresh and interesting.

That to me would seem to be quite a challenge.

2. I've never considered any stage frivolous as long as it presented some sort of shooting challenge. My personal favorites are the dark house at the last two nationals and the waterfall stage at the last Miss. Classic. Both were unusual and great fun.

IPSC is a game.

Yet I have to believe that those that play it are better prepared for a real world gun fight than those that shoot about as often as they go to the dentist.

If you must relate what we do to some potential real world scenario, the real benefit is not in how the targets are arranged and what props are used.

Benefit lies in the kind of familiarity with a firearm that can only come from thousands and thousands of rounds fired.

The benefit lies in learning to engage targets in an unfamiliar scenario and come up with a shooting solution on the fly.

What little I know about "real world" tactics, it would seem to be less about how fast you can pull a trigger and more about how well you can think under pressure.

The stage has never been invented that can simulate the pucker factor that comes from having a target that is shooting back.

Tls

Edited March 1, 2006 by tlshores

[JFD]

+1 to what Singlestack wrote.

I can see the carnival aspect of the windmill and would prefer to see it die off. Big deal if it doesn't though.

I think the texas star with it's erratic movement can't get much closer to replicating some SOB trying to prevent me from shooting him. Other than the windmill, I can't think of any props I've ever thought were stupid and without real life value.

It all comes down to gunhandling skills, and any improvement in that area has a definite impact on real world applications. If you want scenarios, then shoot IDPA.

[Bigbadaboom]

As far as the windmill goes, you never know when you'll have to shoot ata a bad guy doing summer-saults or cart-wheels.

[GeorgeInNePa]

As far as the windmill goes, you never know when you'll have to shoot ata a bad guy doing summer-saults or cart-wheels.

You never know when a Ninja will strike!

[Flexmoney]

...I am firmly in their camp with the belief that a good course of fire is all about testing a variety of shooting skills, and there is no place for gimmicks and other such nonsense designed to "slow them down" or "trip them up". I also believe there is no place in IPSC for gimmicks that introduce an element of luck such as inconsistent props that don't behave the same for each competitor. I also believe a good course of fire is one that flows smoothly from the start to the finish, is not punitive to the less experienced shooters, but is still challenging to M and GM shooters. As for those "memory stages" that many folks find so "novel", just gag me with a spoon.

I agree with what you just posted. I wish you had written that article. Avery didn't come off as saying that...from many perspectives.

FWIW, I wish we had easy ways to bring more moving targets into our game...consistently.

[Bwana Six-Gun]

Just got through reading Avery's article in Front Sight and reading through all the posts to John's initial post. There were many valid points made in the posts, but what I see it boiling down to is this: A. IPSC is a game. It is not supposed to be a training ground for people anticipating an imminent gun battle. B. The "Practical" in IPSC is almost non-existent. How many of the people carrying a firearm on regular or semi-regular basis have a C-More mounted on it, have it tucked into a CR Speed or Ghost rig and have between four and six 20+ round magazines stuck all across the front of their waist? C. Who among us is going to be insane enough to take on 5, 10, or 15 adversaries armed only with a pistol/revolver, no matter what the capacity or sights or skill level. The whole point is to have fun. For me that means shooting stages with a lot of rounds, different challenges and unique props. I have shot Open, Limited, Limited-10 and Revolver. I have settled on Revolver and Limited ans the divisions I will concentrate on, because for me they are the most fun. If Ron Avery is so dissatified with the way IPSC is going, and wants realism he needs to sign up for Uncle Sam's shooting team and head for the ultimate realism match, Iraq.

Sorry I got so longwinded.

[diehli]

"practical: adj. ... 3. capable of being put to use or account...."

Nothing seems more useful than learning to shoot quickly and accurately if you ever encounter a SHTF situation. And, I agree... a Texas Star seems pretty practical to me (BGs don't usually just stand around and wait to get shot).

That being said, USPSA (and IPSC) have evolved from their martial roots. Just as guys in the UFC aren't fighters so that they can defend themselves on the street, the top shooters in our sport aren't in it to go clear houses in the Sandbox.. There are various reasons why people shoot USPSA, but talking $#@! about it because it's not enough like real-world encounters could be (neither is three 5-minute rounds) just illustrates that that person is either upset because they're not making the most of it (i.e. not getting the training or fun out of the matches they shoot) or because they're no longer competitive. The people that want more or different rules—not rules that are better or clearer, but rules that make things subjectively (rather than objectively) "fairer"—can't hack it in the current system. And why should we care about them?

[pskys2]

Pretty much +1 with tlshores comments.

As far as Realism goes, the only true realistic course is a "Surprise" course with no walk through, I've actually seen a few and at least one that was in a dark room. Funny story of it's own.

Of course the problem with surprise courses is like real life, the odds of the "Secret of the Course" getting out and ruining the premise goes up exponentialy with each completed competitor.

And, as in real life, the odds of a grievance (probably legitimately) goes up also.

I like playing shooting games and pray I can never say I used my experience in shooting competition for anything serious. But, then who knows where their life is really going next.

[Chriss Grube]

What I get from reading all the posts here a lot of people seem to get all wrapped up about this stage favors "X" or "Y" division. You only shoot against the others in your division and they all have to shoot the same stage. Lately we seem to have a bunch of people that are so unhappy with this stage or that rule or prop here is a thought if it isn't fun anymore for you go find something that makes you happy maybe non competitive basket weaving or synchro swimming? I shoot for fun and to relax, the training aspect is just a bonus. Sure some of the props make you scratch your head and say WTF but they make you think and figure out how to shoot it. I still haven't seen my front sight yet, damn new mailman needs to read faster!

BSG, as far as taking on 5+ unfortunately it is becoming more common with the gangs to swarm people.

[XRe]

So, I read the article today (FS finally got here yesterday...). I understand a lot of what Ron is getting at, and I agree with him on some points (or, at least, to some degree, anyway).

I agree with him that some stages and props are a bit carried away. Stages that are designed maliciously (to trip up the competitor, or to specifically provide a frustratingly difficult challenge) don't do anything good for the sport. I would also like to see more standards type stages (even though they kick my butt, too). I would like to see more speed shoot and short field course stuff. I like moving props as much as the next guy - but windmills that operate at mach speed are a bit silly. If the target moves so fast that you engage by keeping the gun static and pulling the trigger as fast as you can while the targets fly by... that's a bit much... Stages designed around children's cartoons (well, some are arguably loved by adults, too, but...)??? That's a bit silly, too. Themes can be cool, when done right, but it's real easy to go overboard with them, as well.... Shooting targets in voting booths??? Come on, people....

At the same time, I think Mr. Avery and his fellows have missed a couple of valid points - we are playing a game, like it or not. And, regardless of the trappings in place on a stage, USPSA/IPSC/IDPA all resemble a "practical" event about as much as shooting at one target on an indoor range. Until the targets react to you in a threatening manner (ie, they shoot back), there are real world penalties for hitting "hostages" (like, you get sued), and real world resolutions to the stage (you take off, for instance) are valid ways to win, this game will never represent anything "practical". After that - it's as practical as you want to make it. Stage doesn't have a scenario presented to you?? Make one up for yourself. Want to shoot in a more "tactically appropriate" manner (whatever you think that is)?? Do it - it's your choice. Oh, right, you want to win, too - well, then you're being somewhat hypocritical... The "political correctness" bugs me, too - but I'm not so naive as to believe it hasn't helped our game, either. The "Tacti-Speak" scares off people who would otherwise play, and avoiding it (to the point of changing the targets) has definitely allowed some of our foreign brethern to keep playing the game. In some ways, I think what Ron and Ara, et al, are missing is that some of these changes, while watering down *their* idea of the game, actually are drawing more people in, which is generally regarded as a good thing.

I didn't find the article to be as "bashing" as it's made out to be - I think Ron came across as being frustrated with his perceived direction the game is taking, and where he'd like it to go instead. I do think it should have been printed as a letter to the editor - because it gives the impression of being "the voice of USPSA" when it's printed as a regular article. Kudos to Mr. Avery for speaking up and speaking his mind.

[SRT Driver]

Ron Avery trains police officers for a living. Ara M is a police officer. If they want to train for real life stuff, do it on the counties' nickle. GM or not..doesn't matter.

But they will always get to train shooting at targets that depict bad guys holding hostages with guns and a stern scowl, because they are police officers. We, on the other hand, may not, if some leftwing politician exposes that we are training for the Michigan Militia to shoot at people and passes a law that bans everything except boxer shorts. A little PR goes a long way to perserve an otherwise precarious situation, especially now.

As long as it is a challenge and consistent..shoot it. Skill is skill regardless if you have a Police officer's mindset or a competitors..except you might look at the challenge in a different way. Texas Stars and spinners teach timing and movement. We all need that.

As far as the Open advantage, it's supposed to be that way. That's why I shoot Production.

[Harmon]

i think the windmill is silly....and for the word "fair" as far as im concerned its the 4 letter F word...nothing is "fair"

perfect example of a silly stage was the taxi stage from the 05 nats...did anyone enjoy that? i know TJ didnt..

[Flexmoney]

I loved the taxi stage. It provided quite a test. A few tests, for that matter. Really good stuff. I wish I didn't have a big jam on it, but those are the breaks.

TJ should have tore that stage up. It tested a lot of skills that he excels at.

[BSeevers]

Well I am out of town but just read FS and have a comment or two.

First to the "original poster- the guy picked on" Don't worry it sounds like you are getting good and its a weak and jealous person that usually makes those comments. Start soaring with the eagles and let the turkeys cry together.

First if Ron Avery or anybody starts out an article with this is a "tongue in cheek" I take that comment to mean I know that I have to treat everything he says as a joke, right?.

Now in a real world encounter, which we don't emulate very often in USPSA( an example 32 rds running at targets, would you really charge 16 armed men? I guess only if its the only choice I had) bad guys move, don't stand at attention at 5 feet to the shoulder, cheat, get lucky, and duck too. So if a bad guy is say behind a brick wall with 3 of his friends I think the skill needed to pop them all as they look over and shoot over the wall is very similar and related to the skill that is required to hit a spinning Texas Star. Isn't it? That said I don't mind(well a little) getting beat by a shooter but if a prop is variable and different for each shooter and beats me, I do mind that very much. That can mean the overall match win.

Also realistic shots are needed. Shooting a partial windmill at 30 yards is a more luck than skill and luck belongs in a casino not in a match. That said I love hard and different challenging stages. I even don't get shookup by upside down targets

This is a sport that I enjoy and am dedicated to promoting, growing and competing in. Have the powers in charge done everything correctly. NO WAY. But contrary to articles and or really in spite of articles like the one being discussed here, USPSA is growing in membership and it is a sport competition shooting event. Do the skills help in a real world bad guy encounter. The only guy that believes that it doesn't is at best a fool and probably a very poorly skilled shooter. That's my experience talking.

Real world for most of us would involve this course of fire. We all load and make ready, six minutes or six hours later the RO's punchs/stabs/shoots/jump on one shooter and he draws and engages targets(not the RO, he gets to live, you need volunteer help and no body would volunteer ) til down, then we all go home. Next month, no shots at all fired. I'll stay with fun competition shooting.

Every so often I pull my carry gun and put six fast ones in a target or two. Competition, as far as I can tell, isn't keeping me down.

Edited March 2, 2006 by BSeevers

[38superman]

Now that I have read the article I thought it made some good points.

IDPA vs IPSC, tactical vs. practical, game vs. training. It all pretty tedious.

It did however, get me thinking about a interesting question.

I'm wondering if any IDPA/IPSC shooter whether police, military or civilian has ever been engaged in a real gunfight.

If so, and assuming they survived it, I would be curious to hear about it and to know whether that person believes their action pistol experience had any bearing on the outcome.

If none of our thousands of members has been in a shoot out, I submit that the odds of it happening are astronomical and not worth one more word of argument.

Tls

Edited March 3, 2006 by tlshores

[Bigbadaboom]

If the sports are supposed to be pure "Practical" then you should be able to max the stage by running away and avoiding the confrontation entirely at the beep.

Edited March 3, 2006 by Bigbadaboom

[Jim Norman]

Read the article, Generally agree, but not entirely.

Why not consider the "Cartoon Characters" and other types of targets as PCamoflage (Read that as Politically Correct Cammoflage) We are attacked by 3 Barneys and four Squidwards along with a couple of Sponge Bobs while changing a tire on our undewater taxi.

We get the same skill sets exercised, but instead of being "wanna-Be Rambo" we are just a bunch of people having fun on a Sat/Sun afternoon. Entirely non-threatening to the hoplophobics.

More later, have to work to pay for habit

Jim

[Nik Habicht]

We get the same skill sets exercised, but instead of being "wanna-Be Rambo" we are just a bunch of people having fun on a Sat/Sun afternoon. Entirely non-threatening to the hoplophobics.

Jim

And the flaw in that bit of logic is that by definition, the hoplophobes are afraid not of our activity, but of the tools we employ in the pursuit of that activity. Dress it up how you want to ---- they're afraid of the guns!