"bipsc" Clarifications

[EricW]

I had a chance to yak for about 2 hours with Ron this afternoon. It was pretty funny. "You say to-may-to! I say to-maah-to!" Sing that for an hour and you'll have the entire conversation down pat.

Anyway, I'm REALLY not trying to stir the pot here, I just felt like it would be nice to put up a couple clarifications about Ron and his article.

- Ron is absolutely NOT anti-open or anti-open gun. He likes them just fine.

- Ron likes the TX*. He doesn't like stages with more than star. Bad county fair flashbacks I guess.

Anyway, two phone calls and about an hour and a half later, I think we both realized that we both were talking about the same thing, but using different language to describe the same destination. Ron basically wants the sport to go back to tougher shooting challenges and eliminate what he feels are non-"shooting tests." I think the criteria that he wants to use is: "When would we ever do this in a defensive situation?" He uses tactical language to describe it. I use the PC term "shooting tests." (a term I stole from BE)

Anyway, there's more to come in FS. Ron and Ara M. are collaborating on what direction they would like to things to go. And, as un-tactical as I am, based on what I heard, I think I'd really enjoy shooting a Ron & Ara match. I think most all of you would too. Once Ron got rolling, it turns out what he wants is pretty much exactly what Rob Leatham said in a published letter to Mike Voigt: that the skills of U.S. shooter are on the decline and that the sport needs to be re-evaluated to step up the American's level of performance.

In the meantime, we're going to see if we can re-tune Ron's Tactical-to-IPSC Translator. I think his modulation frequency is just a tad out of phase and thus his message was semi-automatically weeded out by a lot of folks' Whactical mode rejection filters. A job for an electrical engineer if there ever was one.

Peace.

E

(Mods, please don't think twice about locking this if things turn south.)

[ChuckS]

I would be interested in seeing that TGO letter. Is it on the web somewhere?

[eerw]

Possibly a good example of Ron and Ara's intent and direction would be the

Cheyenne Shootout

Ara is match director of this match..

[EricW]

I would be interested in seeing that TGO letter. Is it on the web somewhere?

http://www.robleatham.com/Rob%20Leatham%20rob%20rants.htm

Look all the way at the bottom of the page to find this last paragraph:

It would be great for us to have our best shooters representing the Nation! I believe our skills are deteriorating as our US matches become more hose-fests and less shooting-skills oriented. I guess everybody likes to squirt rounds real fast, but this type of shooting won't win us a World Shoot. Look at the fact that we old farts (you and me, Mikey) are still competitive. We are now the best in the world at shooting close, fast, run & gun matches! I would really like to see the USA dominate every division (again) at the World Shoot in 2008 and beyond, but we're all going to have to work much harder! Rob

[JD45]

Leatham not on the team???!!!!

I had no idea.

Just how in the hell did they select the team members?

[tightloop]

Rob certainly speaks for me..I think too much has been made of the 30 round field courses..you certainly can make an interesting stage with 15 to 18 rounds or even less..it does not have to be 300 rounds to be a World class match...

[Ron Ankeny]

I have a copy of Ara's stage design criteria. It's obvious he is shooting for world class stages, and I am looking forward to the match. I think everyone will be more than pleased with the quality of the stages.

I just read Rob's letter. This line really stood out,

The shots would be more difficult than normal (for us in the USA), there would be more no-shoots, standard exercises, fewer shots, more stand-and-shoot stages, lots of gun manipulation, and we would use the IPSC classic target. --- Rob Leatham

I would embrace such changes with open arms because that's the type of shooting I dearly love. Unfortunately, that is also the type of shooting many of my fellow USPSA shooters despise with an unrivaled passion.

Edited March 15, 2006 by Ron Ankeny

[ChuckS]

Eric, thanks for the link!

jd: here is the discussion from last year : world shoot team selection

later,

Chuck

[38superman]

Okay, having never been to a world shoot, perhaps someone will educate me.

If they don't have field courses what do the have?

I would love to see some of the course descriptions.

Tls

[EricW]

A couple more things that came to mind before I log off:

The subject that came up over and over again was "what ever happened to <fill in the blank>? We used to do that all the time!" (Ron talking, not me, I'm new)

Basically, he feels that only a subset of skills are being tested. That's something I've noticed, but had no historical basis for stating one way or another. All I know is that we shoot weakhand at every match, and I stink at it every time. I know that prone is a rare, rare bird these days and that WX permitting, I'll be practicing it tomorrow.

I'd love to see the M's, GM's, and old hands chime in and start to list out the missing pieces from today's hose 'em-if-ya-sees-em courses.

Ron was also not fond of the "stand on X-marks-the-spot if you want to see all the targets you're supposed to be shooting courses. I'm not fond of those, but am not sure if they're good or bad. I *think* they test a skill. I'm busy building my own walls and props to practice doing so because I know I'll get creamed if I don't. The merit of those types of courses would be a good discussion too.

I have a copy of Ara's stage design criteria. It's obvious he is shooting for world class stages, and I am looking forward to the match. I think everyone will be more than pleased with the quality of the stages.

Is Ara willing to let that out into the wild? I'd REALLY be interested in seeing it.

[Ron Ankeny]

Ron was also not fond of the "stand on X-marks-the-spot if you want to see all the targets you're supposed to be shooting courses.

Is that in reference to the psuedo field courses that are really nothing more than 2 or 3 sweet spots?

Is Ara willing to let that out into the wild? I'd REALLY be interested in seeing it.

It would be inappropriate for me to post the criteria on the Web because it's not my place to do so. I probably shouldn't have even mentioned it. I can say the courses will all be field courses with 26-32 rounds, but rather than little clumps of hoser targets over there, another little clump over here, they will test a variety of shooting skills and they will be also be down right fun to shoot.

Edited March 15, 2006 by Ron Ankeny

[EricW]

Ron was also not fond of the "stand on X-marks-the-spot if you want to see all the targets you're supposed to be shooting courses.

Is that in reference to the psuedo field courses that are really nothing more than 2 or 3 sweet spots?

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's what Ron was getting at. The one's that certain, unnamed shooters drop the piece of brass on the "X" so they can run right up to the spot and shoot.

I would embrace such changes with open arms because that's the type of shooting I dearly love. Unfortunately, that is also the type of shooting many of my fellow USPSA shooters despise with an unrivaled passion.

Ron,

I always knew this, but you're my kind of people. I need to get a jet so I can go shoot in WY more often. I love the harder courses with tighter shots. When I get to be stage designer for a day, the more people gripe, the less visible brown there is.

Edited March 15, 2006 by EricW

[RIIID]

It was either the first or second Factory Gun Nationals Todd and Rob were being questioned by a writer on the shooting skills and matches. Todd said something like this, shooting an Area match(early to mid '90s) was the best practice for the Nationals and shooting the National's was like 10,000 rounds in practice for the World Shoot. Both agreed that the last challenging Area match was the '96 or '97 Area 5 match, the one in Indiana. They clarified that shooting Area matches present day were challanging but they just don't test a shooters skill like what was done in the past. I never did see an article with that conversation in it.

Rich

[shred]

Okay, having never been to a world shoot, perhaps someone will educate me.

If they don't have field courses what do the have?

I would love to see some of the course descriptions.

Tls

There are some over on the USPSA-photos site I uploaded from the WS. The match booklet is a little decieving since few of the stages actually were like they were drawn. There's at least two nice DVDs (Sauls and mine-via-Chet that I know of) of the action available.

The world guys do the 1-long to 2-medium to 3-short courses thing. I like that too. It tests a far wider set of skills than most US stages. Even if you've only got 4 berms at your local range, you can stick 2 or 3 smaller stages into one berm and actually test some things besides how well your big stick runs and how many extra shots you can take on steel.

The trouble is when we US-shooters think '8 shot COF', we all see some variation of 4 targets in the open at around 15 yards, with varying amounts of hard-cover. We don't think 'sitting in go-cart, take foot off brake, shoot 3 targets and two plates before coming to a stop', or 'shoot 4 steel and 2 swingers'

Check out some of my Panama videos as well-- there were some fun stages of stuff we often wouldn't think of doing here. Forwards, backwards, low ports, prone ports, ports in the floor, etc, etc.

(and before people complain that's too hard & physical, a 70+ year old lady shot the match and declared it 'fun')

[Flexmoney]

I sure do agree with whats been posted here. But, my read of what Avery wrote...well, it didn't sound like what we are hearing here.

Thanks for translating guys. It sure helps to think we are all talking about "testing the shooting" from a somewhat practical perspective.

[Middle Man]

So after reading everything these past three odd weeks, I've come to the conclusion that USPSA today, the membership at large, is in some ways lacking a sense of history. Oh, we pretty much all know the people and guns they shot, but it seems to me that a component is missing. There is a wealth of "how to" information regarding shooting but...

What were the shooting tests of old? I would be interested in seeing course designs from 10, 15, 20 and 30 years ago. I think EricW attempted to address this question here http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=33104

I guess I would like to hold in my hands a course design history book, a grand reference, if you will, of what's been done and what was good (and fun) back then. Social scientists would probably point out that a great deal of this subject in IPSC/USPSA is oral history and a drawback is that some folks just walked away from the sport and didn't pass along what they knew.

I'm just pondering out loud here.

[XRe]

I don't disagree with Rob's opinion at all. I haven't been to a WS, but I shot the North American Champs in '97 in Barry. The IPSC match format leaves a lot of room for testy little stages that can eat your lunch in a hurry. I'm in favor of a good mix of targets throughout a match - both Classic and Metric. I like speed shoots. I like short and medium field courses. I like a few really long field courses. But the short and medium ones always seem to turn out to be neater stages with a more interesting test to them.

My take on it, coming back after a 6 year hiatus, is that many matches are catering to the "fun" aspect, and most shooters seem to think "fun" is hose-em-up run-and-gun long field courses. When well thought out and designed, these are definitely a lot of fun, and good tests of a lot of different skills. Most aren't that well thought out.

Even the Nationals lacks what I always thought was a real mainstay of USPSA/IPSC higher levels matches - the 50 yard standard w/ turning targets (usually done on something like a bullseye range w/ multiple shooters on the line at one time). These stages tend to separate the "men from the boys" (so to speak).

Put another way, we generally tend to test the "C", rather than the "D", in the DVC with our course designs these days. And, when someone decides to test "D", they tend to do it in some silly, overdone, overly difficult way (witness all the discussion on "Open shooters designing stages", etc).

Here's a challenge for you - design a five or six stage match for your next local match. 1 long field course (28-32 rounds), 1 medium field courses (24-28 rounds), 1 short field course (18-22 rounds), 1 speed shoot (12-16 rounds), and one standards (24 rounds or so). Add in another speed shoot, or short/medium field course for six. Strive to design the field courses so that they are not just "clumps of 4 targets" - break up the engagement patterns. Make creative use of steel and swingers. Utilize accuracy tests in most of the stages (tight or distant shots), as well as speed tests (up close and wide open). See how many people come up to you and say "that was a really cool match" - I think you'll be very surprised how fun those stages will be.

The best part is - you'll be testing a full skill set, too, and not just how fast someone can run and squirt ammo....

[EricW]

I sure do agree with whats been posted here. But, my read of what Avery wrote...well, it didn't sound like what we are hearing here.

If I hadn't talked with Ron about this exact issue long before and not known his true take, I would have read that and uttered an exclamatory reaction toward CO as well. I actually wrote my own "tirade" before I ever saw Ron's article, believe it or not. (My letter carrier said he'll vouch for me and that FS is the best free gun magazine he's ever read. ) Anyway, I looked at that and pretty much knew that wasn't the entire story.

Anyway, so there I am, standing in Black Sheep, a pound of H4895 in each hand, when the phone rings. It's Ron Avery. And for what it's worth, I feel that Ron should have edited his article differently. I wish I would have edited about 98% of the drivel I've written differently. I think Ron knows that. Ron's a tactical guy and has a tough time letting go of that. It's who he is. It's what he does. I'm cool with that. But in the end what he really wanted was exactly what has already been discussed: better balance.

"Want to have a 64 round 'Death Star' stage? Fine. But, can't we have *one* 'tactical' stage in the match where good stage design forces one to engage targets in a realistic fashion? Nobody stands flat footed in front of 4 bad guys, shoots them each twice and lives." (A quasi-quote of R.A.)

Hopefully, HOPEFULLY, the wheels will start turning and people will think "How can I design a stage within USPSA guidelines that's going to reward 'tactical' engagement? I can think of at least a couple methods of how to do it. (I guess I'll spare the world a tirade or two and post some potential stage designs to pick apart.) I don't know if it will ever end the us v. them / 9 v. 45 debate, but a match designed with the intent to give a little something for everybody is probably a good thing.

FWIW...

[sturmruger]

I think I am still confused. What exactly is a "tactical stage"??

[shred]

What were the shooting tests of old? I would be interested in seeing course designs from 10, 15, 20 and 30 years ago. I think EricW attempted to address this question here

I happen to have just scanned some pages from the Jan/Feb 1991 Front Sight (you should see the moaning about optic sights..), on World Shoot IX. 35 yards of crawling through concrete drain pipes. VC steel-- if you missed a 10-pt popper, you had to shoot the corresponding paper. All-popper stages. One-shot-per-target stages. Concealed Carry stages. Yee haa.

http://www.shred2.net/~shred/gallery/OldIPSC Click the images twice to enlarge them (the stage descriptions are barely legible, sorry)

[carinab]

Having started during the waning days of "old school," I can tell you I love 50 yard standards, weak hand and strong hand only stages. It's where I can pick up points versus the folks who have only been exposed to 32 round field courses. I still have my match booklets from the nationals in the 90's - The courses of fire certainly were different. Hello! Six Chickens! At the 05 TX Ltd, I think I was only one of a half dozen who nailed hits on the 75 yard string. I'd certainly believe that "well rounded" better describe your skill set if you're going out to compete at world shoot...and actually be competitive. Now that prone and kneeling stuff....ouch, it makes my knees complain...

[ima45dv8]

Last year we went back to doing a mix of short-medium-long-standards (like Dave suggested) in our "summer schedule" mode, as opposed to 4-5 Long courses with a speed shoot and a classifier. It's easier on the shooters, but the primary reason at the time was to make things easier on the setup crew (Georgia summers can be a bit brutal at times, like many other places).

Those matches were very well received, to the point that several shooters even wrote their appreciation for the matches. Stages don't all have to be 32+ rounds to make a good match.

...Mark

P.S. - The best matches are the ones someone else builds and lets me be a paying (and grateful) guest.

[SRT Driver]

.. I can tell you I love 50 yard standards, weak hand and strong hand only stages. It's where I can pick up points versus the folks who have only been exposed to 32 round field courses.

x 10,000.

[WRanger]

In the spirit of a friendly discussion, I'd like to add a dissenting opinion. While our club doesn't have some of the more bizarre stage elements Ron Avery described, we are not the least bit interested in going back to the "original" IPSC (whatever that really was). Nobody longs for the days of 50 yrd Standards; in fact, we don't even have a 50 yrd pistol bay. Besides, there is nothing "tactical" about a 50 yrd shot.

Ron talks about USPSA being "bashed" as being nothing but a game. It IS a game (and a pretty enjoyable one, too). The IDPA people made a lot of noise about being "tactical," but their shooting is a game, too... anything with a timer is. I've been shooting USPSA for about 15 years, now, and don't recall anything approaching "real life shooting" (including State and Area matches)... at least nothing resembling the teaching at GUNSITE suggested would be "real life". More importantly, few (if any) of the shooters in the clubs throughout our area have any interest in USPSA as "real life shooting." Run-n-Gun, whether Open, Limited, L10, or Production, is the objective.

That said, Mr. Avery, by his skill and experience, is entitled to voice his opinion. The article did, however, leave all of us scratching our heads and pretty much thinking we were offended. It seemed to be an "in your face" approach to communication, even accepting EricW's position that Avery's real meaning wasn't clearly communicated. Between Avery's challenge and the article on Bill Wilson, it seemed like IDPA had infiltrated FS and taken over

Perhaps Ron Avery (possibly coached by some of you) will publish a clarification. In any case, our answer to the question he posed at the end of the article is "NO, we don't want to go backwards to IPSC in the 80's."

Thanks for the opportunity to contribute to the discussion.

WRanger

[Front Man]

At the 1994 A-3 there was a stage called "Bedridden".

It was also a classifier at one time.

That stage was an awesome test of shooting and gun handleing!

I miss 50 yard standards too!

FM

Edited March 15, 2006 by Front Man