"bipsc" Clarifications

[zhunter]

OK, I read pages 1, 2, 3, and 8

What started out as a "how can we be more competitive at the WS" has turned into a mudslinging catfight!!!

The whole point of our sport is to entertain different levels of shooters while at the same time challenge all levels. The problem here is synonymous with our society in general, we all want that instant gratification!!!! No one wants to work for anything, i.e. everyone wants to be a M or GM Class shooter, but not practice and acquire the skill necessary to REALLY be an M or GM Class shooter.

Bottom line is, if we want to compete and rule to roost of IPSC, then USPSA needs to standardize the rules so they are in sync with the IPSC rules. So, it would start with the same mags, guns and yes, TARGETS!!!! Why do we have to be different from everywhere else? I have had the "pleasure" of shooting the IPSC targets at the Florida Open, and yes, they are more difficult. They are smaller and offer a different look, why not standardize and use them?

Next, make the matches and stages more challenging, what is the problem. The same shooters are going to come out on top, but what this will do is spread the standing, ( percentage wise ) out and there will be a much larger gap than we are accustomed to seeing. It will be very obvious who the best shooters are in a short period of time. BUT, it will also make everyone better. When I am training to go on a big bow hunt, I shoot at 65 yards. Why? I am never going to shoot at 65 yards in a hunting situation, well, mainly because when I am proficient at 65 yards in practice, ( i.e. local or state match levels ) I am deadly at 35 yards. Hey, if a long shot like this presents itself at a match, take a shot at it, and then move on if it is beyond your skill level, NO BIG DEAL. It all comes down to knowing your abilities and limitations.

The biggest thing is to decide EXACTLY the goal of every match is, whether is is a local, state, or national level match. Then go about designing stages with varying skill challenges. Some should be short and require gun handling skills, and so on...

But, just like any successful business, have a plan, in this case a goal of what challenges you want the shooter to face, and THEN design stages to meet the goals of your plan. The same should be the case with the USPSA leadership, what is your goal? Are we trying to grow the sport? Are we trying to make our members better shooters? Are we trying to be the best shooting team in the world? Those are just a few questions that need to be answered BEFORE moving forward with a PLAN the then needs to be met.

Just like in any business, there HAS to be a business plan, well this "business plan" is about the challenges to the membership and then how to go about best reaching the intermediate goals of the overall goal.

Let's work together!!!!

[Ben Stoeger]

if we want to compete and rule to roost of IPSC

How many people is this really important to?

Zhunter, I think you make a lot of great points in your post, but I don't go to a USPSA match worried about how I am going to do at the world shoot. You know what I'm sayin?

[zhunter]

if we want to compete and rule to roost of IPSC

I don't go to a USPSA match worried about how I am going to do at the world shoot. You know what I'm sayin?

Yes, I do know what you are saying!!! But in the big scheme of things, we would ALL become better shooters if the "powers that be" had a plan to improve the USPSA Team and all of our matches were geared to that goal!!!

[wide45]

Yes, I do know what you are saying!!! But in the big scheme of things, we would ALL become better shooters if the "powers that be" had a plan to improve the USPSA Team and all of our matches were geared to that goal!!!

We have all the power. The Matches are what they are, because it is what we want. We prove it by going to them.

[Vlad]

So, it would start with the same mags, guns and yes, TARGETS!!!! Why do we have to be different from everywhere else? I have had the "pleasure" of shooting the IPSC targets at the Florida Open, and yes, they are more difficult. They are smaller and offer a different look, why not standardize and use them?

Because most USPSA shooters I know don't like them, want them, or care about them? Here is a thought ... how about we admit that there is a reason for a head on a target and if we really want more of a challange shrink the main A zone. You can even make it the same shape as the one on the turtle if you want.

[Chris Keen]

Because most USPSA shooters I know don't like them

+1

[Jim Norman]

The "Classic" ISN'T!

I have shot both, I don't care for the so-called Classic, not because it is harder, it really isn't, but becaue it is a bow down to PC. What we do is not "POLITICALLY CORRECT" it never will be.

If you want hard hots, fine, not a problem, they can certainly be made using the USPSA target. A little black paint, a couple of No-shoots and you have the difficult shot you want.

Don't believe me? Ask about Vlad's stage.

If we want USPSA and IPC to move together, how about IPSC moves our way?

Jim Norman

[zhunter]

Being the Devils advocate:

If we want USPSA and IPC to move together, how about IPSC moves our way?

Jim Norman

"If we want USPSA.....how about IPSC moves our way?"

Jim, if we want to be better at IPSC, then it is us who needs to adapt!!! Hey, I am NOT trying to cause a ruckus here, just pointing out what should be obvious!!!

Listen, just because we "don't like" Classic targets is a lousy reason to not use them. As for the "PC", well I don't see getting rid of USPSA targets as a bowing to PC if it makes us all better shooters.

Stop letting hard-headedness and Nationalism get in the way of becoming better! IF a different target would make you a better shooter, WHY on earth would you not REQUEST it, much less fight against it?

I get so tired of these same arguements, no matter the topic and who is making them. "PC" and "don't like" are only self limiting thoughts.

Reminds me of the guy that is "trying". Telling me you are gonna "try" is just a crutch, if you set out to "try", you have left open the possiblilty of failure being OK! Just DO IT. IF you fail while attempting to DO something, well, that is a much better effort then TRYING!!!

OK, I am done, I can see that there is too much lack of common sense here to agree to be the best we can be!!!

[caps]

how about we admit that there is a reason for a head on a target

There is and that's one of the points of Avery's article. On one hand you want a realistic target with a head but on the other hand you want to use that same target in a bubblegum fashion on a Texas Windmill. How many times have you seen five bad guys spinning around in circles on a ferris wheel?

And the "shooting challenge" argument just won't wash. Either you want all challenges to be realistic or not. If realism doesn't matter then the headless target is just as legitimate.

[JFD]

The goal of every match is to keep their customers happy. If they don't, then the customers leave and go somewhere else.

Focus on the World Shoot and IPSC rules and you'll get to see this in action.

Eliminate Limited, L-10, SS, and basically turn Production upside down for the sake of a handful of World Shoot contenders(?) and USPSA will only have that handful of shooters left as members.

You'll never sell me on throwing out $700 worth of mag extensions, then buying $700 worth of new extensions to shoot a sport that has lost touch so completely with it's members.

I have faith our BOD will ignore that particular brand of "common sense".

[ima45dv8]

What started out as a "how can we be more competitive at the WS" has turned into a mudslinging catfight!!!

Sorry, I can't see it. There's been a good bit of discussion, but "mudslinging catfight" is a stretch of the imagination.

Let's see if we can difuse any of the passion stated herein....

The whole point of our sport is to entertain different levels of shooters while at the same time challenge all levels. The problem here is synonymous with our society in general, we all want that instant gratification!!!! No one wants to work for anything, i.e. everyone wants to be a M or GM Class shooter, but not practice and acquire the skill necessary to REALLY be an M or GM Class shooter.

Speak for yourself. You've been in a position professionally that hasn't allowed you to shoot since December. That doesn't mean the rest of us have been sitting on our collective butts. Granted I don't wish to devote the energy required to be a GM, but that doesn't anywhere near to equate to me not putting effort into the sport. Saying I (and others) don't want to work for anything is at least.............offensive?.

Are you just suffering from USPSA withdrawls?

Bottom line is, if we want to compete and rule to roost of IPSC, then USPSA needs to standardize the rules so they are in sync with the IPSC rules.

Says who? We started this sport (Jim Norman, this is your queue to jump in) and still have our own rulebook to show for it. There's no need to standardize with the IPSC version of the rulebook. Let them play our game if they wish. The more the merrier. Or not......

So, it would start with the same mags, guns and yes, TARGETS!!!! Why do we have to be different from everywhere else?

Pardon me for being blunt, but it's because we damn well choose to be. We started the song.....let them come to our dance. The so-called "Classic" target was spawned as a an apeasement to the governments that disallow shooting at any humanoid-formed targets. As long as we don't have similar restrictions here in the U.S., let's not jump on that misdirected bandwagon. If we do, we give credence to that ass-backwards mentality.

I have had the "pleasure" of shooting the IPSC targets at the Florida Open, and yes, they are more difficult. They are smaller and offer a different look, why not standardize and use them?

Yes, they are different, and arguably more difficult, but only beacuse you are used to the presentation of A and B and C and D zones within the so-called "Metric" target. They only seem harder because they are *different*. If we were to standardize on the so-called "Classic" target, it wouldn't be seen as harder for much longer. Again, there's no need to standardize on those targets. We use the so-called Classic targets at local matches. They're just a different shooting challenge. Harder? Maybe....maybe not. Who cares. It's a target. The reason to not standardize on the "Classic" target is the same as saying, "Why don't we standardize on the "Texas Star" for every stage? The answer is simple......people want variety. Not everyone wants the same presentation at every match, in every stage. If two different targets are available to satisfy those desires, so much the better. Standardizing on one means the exclusion of the other. A bad move, in my opinion.

Next, make the matches and stages more challenging, what is the problem. The same shooters are going to come out on top, but what this will do is spread the standing, ( percentage wise ) out and there will be a much larger gap than we are accustomed to seeing. It will be very obvious who the best shooters are in a short period of time.

It's already obvious. Changing the targets won't change who is the better shooer in our sport. Make the target a beer can......the same people will win.

BUT, it will also make everyone better.

Nothing makes anyone better than the desire to be better. As you already stated, working for it is the only way to achieve it.

Edited June 12, 2006 by ima45dv8

[shred]

Yeah, they only had, what, 1000 competitors at the World Shoot? Plus a bunch of irritated US shooters that wanted to go but couldn't? I don't think we should jump right on that boat either, but a "handful" of shooters, it wouldn't be.

On the plus side, since IPSC courses don't go over 32 rounds, you'd only need 4 or 5 basepads. $100 should do it.

Anyway, I doubt McBane thinks international IPSC is the end-all-be-all of TV shooting either.. so what was the argument about again?

[ima45dv8]

Shred, I too would like to see a move towards a more IPSC-like mix of stages at the local level -- 3 Short, 2 Medium and 1 Long. That would have made my life as one who until very recently spent a good bit of time and effort building these events, much easier. And it would (if adopted on a wide-scale basis) provide a more consistent challenge match to match.

But, as was previously mentioned (by you, I think?), the desire of the membership seems to be a bunch of 30-32 round field courses with a Classifier thrown in for good measure.

[Flexmoney]

Maybe shooting at the World Shoot was different, but from watching Saul's dvd of the match...I was bored. (And, that damn sure wasn't Saul's fault, he did good work.)

I have no desire to shoot matches with the IPSC ratio.

Long field course provide, with good design, more opportunities to test a larger variety of skill sets.

[Ben Stoeger]

I have no desire to shoot matches with the IPSC ratio.

Not trying to start a s**tstorm here.. But how did the 3-2-1 Ratio come into being? How was that decided? Why is it SOOOOoo Strictly adhered to at the World Shoot?

[ima45dv8]

I have no desire to shoot matches with the IPSC ratio.

Not trying to start a s**tstorm here.. But how did the 3-2-1 Ratio come into being? How was that decided? Why is it SOOOOoo Strictly adhered to at the World Shoot?

I have no idea how it came to be the defacto standard in IPSC. I only embrace the idea from a selfish standpoint of one who constructed matches of five or six L-O-N-G field course with 1 Classifier variety. Setup with 3 or 4 people was a bitch! If we could convince the local shooters it is a good idea, it would make (have made) my life my easier.

Edited June 12, 2006 by ima45dv8

[Jim Norman]

Mark,

You said I should jump in the debate. Why? You said most everything on that particular subject.

As for the 3-2-1 mix, it really won't work well with a local 6 stage match with 70 shooters. You will have a lot of people sitting around waiting and that is not a good thing. If you want that ratio, you need more like 6-4-2 and you put 3 9 round speed shoots in a pit, shooter to stay hot between each run, score when done. This gives you 8 stages which may be a bit much, so I would delete 1 or two of the middle size courses.

When you build a match, you have to consider the time it takes to celar each stage as well as the time between stages. The short 9 round courses that take only a couple seconds to shoot and not much longer to score and patch will clear very fast. This leads to back-ups and more than a little grumbling.

Heck, I have to jump in anyway Mark. USPSA is IPSC, I am not saying we have more shooters than the rest of the world combined, but we certainly have more shooters than any other region. Also, keep in mind, I don't have to be a member of a club and I don't have to take any mandated governmental test to shoot. In much of the worls, you have to be rich, in a certain social strata, and also a member of a shooting organization to own guns. You can't reload, you can't pick-up your brass, you can't shoot while moving, you can't shoot at a target with an upper A-B Zone (That part we call the head). Do we really want to move USPSA closer to that? Do we really want those peolpe writing our rules?

I say NO! However, I also welcome them to come here and shoot our matches. Under our rules.

Jim Norman

[Vlad]

Listen, just because we "don't like" Classic targets is a lousy reason to not use them.

Actually .. it is the best reason. This is a hobbie not a job. It is PLAY. It makes little sense for me to play with Lego's if I like Erector sets.

There is and that's one of the points of Avery's article. On one hand you want a realistic target with a head but on the other hand you want to use that same target in a bubblegum fashion on a Texas Windmill. How many times have you seen five bad guys spinning around in circles on a ferris wheel?

I've never seen one and I agree with you, it might be a step to far. I do like the Star though, and I do think it represents a practical target.

Edited June 12, 2006 by Vlad

[geezer-lock]

It is interesting that MBane succeeded in proving his point (with our considerable help) that shooting shows are less about the shooting than about the personalities. AND he succeeded in showing that the visuals are more important than the shooting. AND he succeeded in showing that reactive targets (steel poppers, plates and the TX*) are what add the “gee whiz” factor that might bring people into the “big end of the funnel” and get them to shooting…something.

I would like to audition for the part of the curmudgeonly old fart that shoots as slow as he talks on the next episode of the reality show, “The Real Practical Pistolero”.

PM me when the shooting starts.

David C