"bipsc" Clarifications

[Jaxshooter]

I hate to bring this up. It is the lowly A, B,C,and D shooter that support our clubs and matches. There are far more of them than M and GM. Why should the GM get a better or more expensive prize for being 1st GM than the 1st D who paid the same fees to a shoot? Most of these lower class shooters are the ROs for the matches. When was the last time you saw a GM shoot on Friday and RO the match all weekend?

If we were going to reward only the upper class shooters why have any classes? Do these shooters deserve more than the rest of the membership in USPSA? In most cases these shooters are already getting more ie: sponsorships, guns, ammo, etc. that they earned thru hard work , practice, and God given ability.

[Chuck Anderson]

I'm pretty sure that I saw Dave Sevigny working a stage at Area 6 earlier this month. I'm pretty sure that I've put in about 200 hours towards Area 1 so far, and I'm pretty sure that there are a large number of other M and GM shooters who work their butts off towards match administration, management and ROing. I'm also pretty sure that in your neck of the woods there's a guy up in Frostproof that hasn't gotten to shoot the Florida Open, at least in several years, because he's putting it on.

Very few matches reward only the upper classes. That's why most class and category winners will walk somewhere towards the top as well at the Nationals, Area 2, Area 3 (at least in 2005 when I shot it) and several other matches. At Area 1 everybody, regardless of ability will have the same shot at the prize table.

As far as GM's being sponsored, the majority aren't. Of the GM's and M's that are sponsored, most of them don't begin to cover the expenses that they put in to get to that level. One of the reasons that these folks are able to travel across country is by selling what they win on the prize table. I know that is the same for everyone that shoots out of their area. But I also know that alot of matches like to attract the GM's and I like shooting against them because it gives me something to shoot for.

If you don't like matches with order of finish prize tables, there are a lot that don't have them. As far as whether GM's "deserve" them more? You're going to find a wide difference of opinion on that.

[ktyler]

Lawman and I are some of the hardest working when it comes to match day.....and we are both GM's. We always take time to help others improve and we both RO a lot even it we have to leave the match and run off to work swing shift patrol.

As for sponsorship.....until you try to actually get some you will not realize how hard it is to find. There are 108 GM's in open and I bet only about 15-20 are sponsored. The only way I got sponsored was to start my own business the sponsor myself. LOL

Prize tables......Now this is an area I love to complain about. I believe you should reward performance not adopt a socialist/communist idea of everyone is equal. These are competitions and winning is the idea, if winning didn't matter why would anyone try to perfect their ability.

IF there is a prize table I like to see it reward the shooter for a job well done. First 3 over all go first, then 1st of each class GM-D the 2nd GM-D then 3rd GM-D. Once that is done, by over all placement. The best prize I got off a table was a $2000 race gun which I had to sell to keep shooting for the season. That year alone, I spend $17,000 shooting matches, buying gear and practicing. $2,000 off a prize table sounds great but compared to the overall price for the year.....it was small change.

If the prize table is to be by random drawing, I always suggest that those who place in the top 3overall and/or top three in class should get extra tickets in the drawing. That way performance is rewarded. They only get to walk the table once but this gives those who placed to have better odds to walking the table early.

I have shot all kinds of matchs; trophy only, random drawing and perforance based. I have fun at all of them. I like the trophy matches because they are much cheaper to shoot and I still have a great time. I just with the trophies/plaques were as nice as the one of old when I started in the mid 90's.

Shoot well all and remember it is a sport and nobody is getting rich playing it so have fun.

Ktyler

www.tylerfirearmsinstruction.com

[ipscbob]

Prize tables......Now this is an area I love to complain about. I believe you should reward performance not adopt a socialist/communist idea of everyone is equal. These are competitions and winning is the idea, if winning didn't matter why would anyone try to perfect their ability.

Indeed. Why not do away with prize tables completely and just give trophies. Then it truly would be about winning!

[Wakal]

Speaking as a ex-MD and Gatherer Of Prizes, most sponsors will NOT give money. At the "trophy only" annual match that I was involved in, we decided to go with a random draw prize table with goodies generously donated by our many kind sponsors and cough up the dough for props, trophies, RO expenses, targets, etc, out of match fees (and club dues ).

I like a straight draw prize table (order of finish only) with trophies by class. I also like random draw prize tables.

"class win advantage" prize tables foster sandbagging and promote Divison-shopping to avoid peers.

IMO

A

[Ron Ankeny]

I don't know about where you guys live, but in Wyoming some of the hardest working shooters at the club level are the upper class shooters because they have the most to lose if the sport dries up and blows away. I am not saying the M class and our only GM class shooter are doing it all because they certainly are not. However, they are not standing around twiddling their thumbs.

Edited May 25, 2006 by Ron Ankeny

[Flexmoney]

Man...I was wanting to go off. You guys beat me to it. I was going to start listing all the work the top shooters in my neck of the woods do. Oh well...

[eric nielsen]

...or you could read the article on SmittyFL in Front Sight magazine.

FWIW, i think the 6 guidelines for match design that Ara wrote out would make for a great match. #6 especially - it's a new one on me but it makes sense.

Not that every match needs to conform but I'd seek out the ones that do & give them a try.

[MBaneACP]

Consider this a small whisper...

I've trained myself to be quiet on this forum, because I haven't been a member of USPSA for awhile...still shoot the occasional match as time allows, but not in any sense an "active competitor."

What I do have, though, are the two highest-rated shooting shows ever — SHOOTING GALLERY and COWBOYS (and, yes, I have the Nielson ratings to back me up) — as well as several of the most visited firearms websites on the Internet. In the 3 years we've televised the Steel Challenge, it has grown from a $100,000 match to a $425,000 match; we have been repeatedly told by the industry that the Steel Challenge shows are the best shooting events ever presented on television, and I believe we are on the threshold of breaking the SG into a serious national sporting event with support outside the industry. This year, The Outdoor Channel is upping their contingency money to $20,000 (along with an additional $10,000 from SIGARMS) for anyone who can break 80 seconds — fastest shooter wins — with the new 8th stage added. I'll once again be doing the "play-by-play," but Mickey Fowler, who has been shooting the SG stages now for months, will be joining us as color commentator.

Also this year I took a gamble with a lot of The Outdoor Channel's money (and a bunch of additional money from my sponsors) to do a SHOOTING GALLERY challenge, take 7 of the top shooters and pit them head to head on 5 stages for $5,000. You'll see the results in July, and they will blow you away. The SG Challenge will set the baseline for how the shooting sports should be covered.

The interesting thing apropo this thread is that Match Director Dave Arnold and I — both of us go back to the beginnings of this sport — intentionally designed the stages AGAINST the competitors' weaknesses as opposed to catering to their strengths. Interesting to watch what happened.

Those of us who designed the match came away with a greater understanding of what has changed in USPSA over the years. I think when you watch the shows, assuming of course that you watch the shows, it'll make a lot of points on this thread much clearer.

I come down four-square on the side of "matches should be fun." There is a baseline difference between "competition" and "training." As the great NYPD "gunfighter" Jim Cirillo once told me when we were waiting to shoot a stage, "It's never real until the targets shoot back, Michael." OTOH, he attributes a lot of his survival to being a champion PPC shooter, whihc taught him how to shoot under pressure, however artificial; gun-handling, etc. In other words, all competition is inherently "tactical" in that it prepares a person to work a mechanical device under stress.

FWIW — which is probably not much, to be sure — I think USPSA has become far too specialized in its course design. It is the current equivalent of PPC, a sport requiring a very specific, and at this point very narrow, range of skills and catering at its highest levels to a very specific, relatively exotic weapons' system. That doesn't denigrate USPSA one iota as a serious challenge and a wonderful experience for its participants! It does, however, limit both its growth potential and appeal to a larger shooting public. Maybe that doesn't/shouldn't matter...it's a discussion that to the best of my knowledge has never taken place.

And Ara, I confess to being one of the ones who started the "weird stage" trend back when we were all still shooting un-comp'ed single stack .45s...I ran what I believe is the first alien match at an indoor range in Tampa, say 1982, '83 or so. The match directions were, "Move forward and engage everything that isn't human; all humans are hostages." We used that kind of language back then, remember. My other match, which went on for years after I left, was "Save Santa," which involved terrorists from the Elf Liberation Front and a mandatory ride on Rudolph, complete with flashing red nose. I think there was also an "Graveyard Undead" .22 match...SmittyFL might remember! There's nothing quite like shooting an "alien" and watching his/her/its head explode! I';m only sorry we couldn't have worked in some green goo.

Michael B, back to lurking...

Edited May 29, 2006 by MBaneACP

[BritinUSA]

Visually appealing stages are a key to growing the public perception of our sport. I agree with Michael in that the sport should be fun and should convey to the public that image and not the image of shooting as 'tactical training'. I don't want to get into that whole argument about tactical versus competition.

Stages that look good on TV are generally fun to shoot as well, particularly reactive targets such as steel plates. The viewer can actually see the hits - something that is not possible with paper targets.

I am worried however that the sport is becoming too easy. There is too much emphasis on close targets and fast shooting. The next US Nationals has Open and Production shooting the same stages, it will be interesting to see how they devise a tough challenge for both types of gun.

I think we need more long/tight shots at our major venues. We should be able to hit poppers at 50 meters, we should be able to hit fast moving sliders/swingers. I have shot a few World Shoots and the stage difficulty at those matches is far in excess of what we can find in the USA. Finding that happy medium between challenging, fun and exciting to watch is the key here.

I can't watch shooting gallery as it is not carried by my cable company...

[shred]

In the 10.. 12.. 14 (yeek has it been that long?) years I've been competing, stage design at the local level has generally improved. Who remembers a bunch of targets in a field with some shooting boxes scattered around and 'Shoot T1-3 from only Box A only, engage only T7,9,11 & 17 from only Box B only. Re-engage only all the targets in only the Fibonacci sequence from only Box C only?"

That blew compared to 'shoot 'em as you see 'em'

Sure targets tend to be closer now, and with less hard-cover, more hose-fests, and the art of a good speed shoot seems to be dying in the US-- that's not a good trend, but taking the shooting boxes off the ground and sticking them on the walls was a huge step forward.

I am, however, a big fan of Mr Bane and what he's doing for the shooting sports, so if he says stand-n-shoot steel is where it's at, I'm there. (well, I'm there anyway. SC rocks)

[MBaneACP]

You'll see when we pull together the stuff in July that run and gun works equally well. For a long time I thought about pulling together a big USPSA/IPSC style match built for television, but for various and sundry reasons (like whenever I get even CLOSE to USPSA I get my nose slapped with a rolled-up newspaper...LOL!), I've abandoned that idea.

Instead, I'm working with Ruger on a .22 two-gun match with some television appeal. We'll probably bring the first one to TV first quarter 2007.

It took me a while to catch on, but the most important thing about televised matches has nothing to do with the match...it's the personality of the competitors. Ironically, most of the top USPSA shooters haven't yet figured this out...they're so used to special treatment that they now see it as an entitlement. The most media-wise people in the biz are TGO, Jerry Miculek, Todd Jarrett and Phil Strader. They understand how the machine works, and although they bitch at me occasionally they are willing to go the extra yard. Interestingly enough, I've been talking to top firearms company marketing executives about what makes a good professional shooter, sinc ethe new marketing guys are MUCH more TV-savvy!

Michael B

[2alpha]

You're doing a great job Michael, why'd you wait so long? LOL just kidding I know how hard you've been working and you deserve much more recogonition than you get for what you have done for the shooting family. I remember so many years ago when the choice was the new "combat" shooting and PPC. The combat guys said we shoot real guns with real recoil in realistic senarios. those PPC guys shoot big ole heavy guns that dont kick you couldnt carry them on the street and draw them out of a slab of plastic you cant even call a holster. LOL how much things have changed or have they? I think USPSA has been avoiding the question far too long, are we going to continue to pretend to be a martial are or just admit we have morphed into something else? All the bad compromises that have been made trying to be both have not helped at all. Time to recogonize whats what.

[shred]

It took me a while to catch on, but the most important thing about televised matches has nothing to do with the match...it's the personality of the competitors. Ironically, most of the top USPSA shooters haven't yet figured this out...they're so used to special treatment that they now see it as an entitlement.

So do we have to start yelling at each other and throwing things?? It works for that motorcycle show, right? :D

[MBaneACP]

Yes, Shred...we have no choice! It'll be hard on everybody, but in the end, television WINS!

Also, somebody is going to havE to marry Sandra Bullock.

Actually, we have some pretty spectacular tandrums on tape, stamp your foot scream and yell stuff. My co-producer is from ESPN, and he pointed out that ESPN would be airing those clips hourly; I pointed out that the shooting sports aren't quite ready for that level of intrusion. Here's sort of an example why — one "top level" shooter who had absolutely made my life miserable took me aside and actually said, "You don't understand, Bane...I've got a reputation to protect." I nearly had to sit down to keep from breaking into laughter. As Roger Miller once sang:

"Kansas City star

That's what I are...

I'm the number-one attraction

At every supermarket parking lot

I'm the king of Kansas City

No thanks Omaha; thanks lots!"

Shred, start watching reruns of SPEED and ARMED AND FABULOUS and be ready when the call comes!

Lightheartedly, Michael B

And thanks for the kind words...

[BritinUSA]

With all this shooting TV stuff, it's no wonder I'm still waiting for the sequel to 'All Night Radio'.....

[Jim Norman]

Micheal,

Are you saying that we need "tantrums" to sell USPSA on the tube?

I am not sure that guys with guns, screaming at each other and throwing things makes for a good image of us. Face it, most people (general public) thinks that we are only a few brain cells short of Cro-Mags already. Do we want to remove their doubts?

Jim

[Ara]

Mike, good to hear from you. I don't get all those cable channels so I haven't kept up on ya. If I can get nothing but shooting shows instead of MTV, I'll get it.

Apparently, what they say about great minds is true. I think you and I are kinda on the same track. I forgive you for "starting" BIPSC but I have to admit as I did on an earlier post, that I'm a recovering BIPSCOHOLIC. Or at least an enabler.

I think dialogue on this issue is healthy for our sport. I just wish it happened before we lost some to IDPA.

In that effort, I think we can create matches that cater to the entire spectrum of shooters and philosophies. That's what I'm doing with the Cheyenne Shootout. Originally, I had started designing modern IPSC stages and then decided to come up with something entirely "new". I've spent alot of time designing fresh new stages even minutes ago getting permission from my Chief to use a police car. (No, you don't get to shoot it). I've come up with very elaborateand visual stages that are scenario based from beginning to end and "sensible". The final product is stages with a high fun factor and challenge without getting crazy. I'm looking forward to posting the stages on-line soon even tho the diagrams won't do them justice.

Mike, I know you can relate to a "list". On my list is a goal to help support my sport that has helped shape my life since 1988. If a way to do that is by creating a whole new venue, I'm there.

I grew up in So Cal in the 60's and 70's and we used to vacation in a place called Big Bear Lake. When I was old enough to drive, I even drove to the range there...alone...and shot my guns. Last month, Ron and I had the fortune of going back there. So there we were, thirty years later, standing at the birthplace of the very sport we talk. We couldn't help but reflect on the original intent of the founding fathers. We know the times have changed and no one is advocating shooting 6 rd stages but certainly we can accomplish more...within the existing guidelines.

Mike, I think you should consider coming up to the match especially if you are still in Boulder. (Do they still allow guns there?). It's definitely a match for the eyes..or camera.

Ara

[ipscbob]

In the 3 years we've televised the Steel Challenge, it has grown from a $100,000 match to a $425,000 match; we have been repeatedly told by the industry that the Steel Challenge shows are the best shooting events ever presented on television, and I believe we are on the threshold of breaking the SG into a serious national sporting event with support outside the industry.

Doesn't your quote about the growth of the steel challenge seem to suggest that the bulk of the public is more interested in carnival like matches? Is there any other shooting event that is more devoid of practicality and reasonable scenario based stages than the steel challenge?

[Wakal]

...or is it that they want something fast and easy to understand?

I fall asleap during discussion of "hit factors"

Alex

[Flexmoney]

FWIW — which is probably not much, to be sure — I think USPSA has become far too specialized in its course design. It is the current equivalent of PPC, a sport requiring a very specific, and at this point very narrow, range of skills and catering at its highest levels to a very specific, relatively exotic weapons' system. That doesn't denigrate USPSA one iota as a serious challenge and a wonderful experience for its participants! It does, however, limit both its growth potential and appeal to a larger shooting public. Maybe that doesn't/shouldn't matter...it's a discussion that to the best of my knowledge has never taken place.

I'd like to hear more about that...because you lost me there. I'll start another/separate thread for it if you like?

Are you suggesting we should be shooting 454's at > 100y as a means of being "practical"? That everybody ought to be well-rounded enough to shoot a Colt SAA, a S&W snub-nose 38, a mil-spec 1911 in 45, and an XD in 9mm?

[MBaneACP]

I believe — as do the two Mikes who own the Steel Challenge — that the growth is due to the way we chose to televise the match. The way matches have previously been televised has been to, essentially, cater to you guys, the core audience. I love you guys, but there's not enough of you to support a television show. The appeal has to be to the larger audience, which is the smart play because that's how you get new people in the sport, which means more viewers, more advertisers, more sponsors, etc.

There are a few keys to appealing to a larger audience — the audience needs to be able to get involved in the drama, which mandates an understandable scoring system (i.e., the Olympics), a longer exposure than the current "attention deficit" style of covering the shooting sports and a focus on people rather than hardware. Most importantly, it means that the competition shows have to have a narrative "arc," just like a television series or a novel. It's sort of like writing a book, except that you write it on the fly and the plot is constantly changing. Watch Monday Night Football at its best...they are the masters. It also requires a world-class crew with a lot of experience working around guns — I currently have the only one in the business — very expensive equipment, and someone like me who actually does know, more or less, what's going on.

Flex, no need for a new thread...when I went out to run for USPSA Prez back in the day, one of the biggest things that struck me, aside from the occasional barrage of rotten tomatoes, was that in the field, there was a profound ambivalence from the clubs and the shooters as to whether they actually wanted USPSA to grow. USPSA is a mature sport — think golf — and the participants are pretty happy with it just as it is. They have an investment in the specialized hardware, have the computer programs to decode the scoring, etc. Growth always requires change, and change is unsettling, especially to an "installed base."

And there's nothing wrong with NOT growing, other than the fact that you become increasingly marginalized within your larger community — and I don't think USPSA could be any MORE marginalized than it is now.

I'm looking at something different...how to get more people into the big end of the funnel. Once I get them into the funnel, I don't care whether they eventually shoot cowboy, USPSA, precision rifle, Steel Challenge, etc. The important thing is that more people move into the funnel. I am personally rewarded — more viewers, which means Mikey gets more money — and from an RKBA point of view, we're stronger.

Ironically, the more I shoot and film other disciplines, the more convinced I am that no sport is intrinsically more "practical" than any other, nor is that my concern. TRAINING is practical; COMPETITION is practice!

I personally believe that scenario-based pistol competition offers me the biggest bang for my buck, but as of right now I don't have the venue. Mixing up guns serves several (apparently contradictory) ends — it de-emphasizes the hardware and flattens the playing field with a minimum of rules while allowing the hardware manufacturers to participate at a higher level. It also doesn't cannibalize any of the more specific sports.

From a television standpoint, it does the same thing they do on "Survivor" every season — take people out of their context, their comfort zone, and make them do something hard.

Shred marrying Sandra Bullock wouldn't hurt, either...

Michael B

[XRe]

Shred marrying Sandra Bullock wouldn't hurt, either...

Wouldn't hurt you... Shred's SO knows how to shoot... it might hurt shred to make that move

[Wakal]

I'd happily tune in for THAT show...

...highest...ratings...ever...

A

[SA Friday]

I've known about USPSA for years, but never tried to shoot until I figured out there was actually a division that doesn't require a $3000+ gun. All I ever saw on the shooting shows are the Brazo's, Dawsons, STI's, etc, custom guns, and the Super Squad...

If the goal is to get more people involved or interested, it might not hurt to show the 'other' side of this sport some in those TV shows. We 'C' class Glock shooters can definately throw a temper tantrum too. I saw some last sunday on our squad's last stage at the CO state match by a couple of 'C' shooters . (Yes, I'm guilty, but it was a little one...)

TV can make a hockey puck glow on TV, and football can make the first down line glow. Isn't it feasible to use this technology to show bullet travel and target impact while a person is running a stage, and also show the stages time running real time? IMO, this would make it more TV friendly. Not that a temper tantrum isn't good for ratings, everyone loves drama.

Lastly, since you brought this up Mr Bane (the male chauvinist in me humbly brings this up as a TV selling point), I thought USPSA already had a Sandra Bulloch (or two), per se. She's blonde though.