"bipsc" Clarifications

[j1b]

Wow, leave for a few weeks and the pot gets stirred up a bit.

Someone should set up a poll or something on this. I'd be interested to see the stats.

Me personally, I'm all for the stages as they existed in the early to mid 90's. It was like a transition time from accuracy to speed. Great courses of fire with decent round count. I don't recall 32 round stages that much, but there were plenty in the 24 round count area - plenty for a fun assault course.

When we used to practice for a world shoot our whole philosophy changed - we focused on things like draws, reloads, transition times and short movement. It was a given that those were going to be the things empahsized. It was inherent that matches we generally shot in the U.S. would not reflect what we'd see at Worlds. Of course back then you'd see a lot of area matches start running a few more small movement stages - I assume to help prep the folks going to worlds.

Nothing pleases me more than a match that has a stand and shoot of about 12 rounds, a couple of small movement stages in the 12-18 round count area, a decents skill testing standards, and a couple of 24-30 shot field courses. The perfect match to me. Especially if there are a few challenging shots in each stage.

The problem today that I sometimes see is when you go to a stage that has a 10 yard open target that one has to shoot WHO and shooters are moaning and groaning about it.

And then you throw in the fact that the guns have gotten better, not worse, and all of the sudden you start to wonder if shooting skill has in fact deteriorated. I worry about that for myself because honestly I'm only challenged as much as the stage challenges me. I remember back when I used to practice heavily that very few practice sessions didn't include some transitions on no-shoot covered targets at reasonable distances. Now, if I were to practice, I wouldn't stake those up. I wouldn't because most no shoot targets I encounter now are at 5 to 10 yards and at that distance it just isn't a big deal.

I am not with Ron in this whole "tactical" versus "non-tactical" - I could really care less. I just liked matches that were shooting contests. Today they are still fun, but not quite as challenging IMO.

J

[Jim Norman]

At our annual 3-gun Match last year, I had a "death Jam" in my AR. I switched to my trusty Para and carefully engaged rifle poppers (ablut half the size of a US Popper) at about 35 yards, took two shots on a couple, but I go them.

We had a contingent from West Point shooting at our match, You should have seen the look on thier faces! Shooting targets that small with a handgun, at that distance. And I am not that great of a shot.

Now 50 yard standards, I need a little time to aim, but it is not that hard of a skillset to learn. I personally am in favor of the older scenerio based stages, but I have no problem shooting either. I think that "oddball" starts are a good thing as are starts that simply state "Standing in the free-fire zone"

Texas Stars are an excellent shooting challenge. You have an erratically moving target to engage. A single plate at 25 yards that cannot be engaged late is good. There are many ways to acheive both the return to accuracy without going totally away from the larger 32 round COF.

Jim

[Vlad]

At our annual 3-gun Match last year, I had a "death Jam" in my AR. I switched to my trusty Para and carefully engaged rifle poppers (ablut half the size of a US Popper) at about 35 yards, took two shots on a couple, but I go them.

Thats was funny. I was RO'ing Jim and it was amuzing as I'm following him along and I'm hearing "WTH is he doing??" behind me. Not to mention that I was trying to figure out how many procedurals he was picking up while trying to figure out if the rules allowed for "style" points.

I can see both sides of the assault course vs "hard" course argument. I think some of it that people like to shoot, so shooting more is what they want. After all this is an expensive game if you look at the price per second spent shooting, and then you add to it the fact that the goal is to go faster and pay even more per second.

Hey Jim ... I think my stages are going to be "hard" at our matches from now on. Just for a change of pace

Edited March 16, 2006 by Vlad

[Flexmoney]

Fireant:

"1.1.5.2 Standard Exercises and Classifiers may include mandatory reloads and may dictate a shooting position or stance, however, mandatory reloads must never be required in other Long Courses.

1.1.5.3 Standard Exercises and Classifiers may specify shooting with the strong hand or weak hand unsupported. The specified hand must be used exclusively from the point stipulated for the remainder of the string or stage."

That is NOT the definition of Standards. Those two rules only state where mandatory reloads and strong/weak hand shooting are allowed.

I was going to put up a poll and see how many people could properly define what a "standards" stage is. (It's in the rule book.)

[JFD]

The problem with making any changes based on top shooters is that they do not represent the majority of USPSA membership.

Rob wants Area and the National matches to be like IPSC matches so US shooters can once again dominate the world shoot. While I respect anything he says, I believe he has an agenda that puts money in his pocket that doesn't apply to more than a handful of US shooters. Sure the very few USPSA members who go to the world shoot would do better if we all shot IPSC style matches, but where does that leave the rest of us?

How many Area matches did he shoot last year? I believe "zero" is the answer. I know Area 6 had a massive turnout, so I'm thinking USPSA members as a whole don't agree that there's a problem with Area matches.

Of the 5 divisions at the WS, US shooters won or placed 2nd in 4 of them. Few in the US care about Modified, so no surprise US shooters didn't do much there. I call US performance at the WS pretty dominating and I'm proud of them. Our women kicked some major butt as well. Chris Tilley, a shooter who has had the misfortune to shoot "bipsc" stages his entire career, didn't seem to be at a disadvantage.

Ok, I'm just a B class shooter who has only shot a couple of big matches. I had to turn down my slot to the Nats due to work last year, and work will get in the way of every single big match this year. Just GETTING the slot to the Nats will likely be the biggest honor I ever earn in this sport. However I think I'm more representative of the majority of USPSA membership than everyone who will ever shoot an IPSC match.

I love every match I shoot. I loved the match I shot that had that damned Cooper Tunnel (I REALLY hate those things). Swingers sort of scare me, but I work hard and shoot them pretty well. A stage with 2 Texas Stars means double the fun for me.

The local matches I shoot have a nicely balanced blend of stages.

My cheapest holster of the 3 my wife and I use cost $165. I didn't pay that much to use it as a gun holder between stages while I have to screw around with IPSC-type start positions. I would place much higher in matches if they were IPSC-like. However the last thing I ever want to see are stages that follow the IPSC formula. I didn't spend $600 on mag extensions to throw them away because someone thinks they aren't the right thing for the sport.

I want stage design to evolve naturally, just like it has been doing since the beginning. The members/customers are the folks we need to be concerned with. The folks who work the matches (I'm one of them) and shoot them without a hope of winning concern me a whole lot more than the top shooters/pros. It wouldn't take a lot of effort to completely destroy USPSA. I'm aware of that, but I think a lot of top shooters never give it a thought. We have a lot of top shooters in this forum. However IMHO they are generally very selfish when it comes to the direction USPSA should take. Of course they will also kill themselves to help a fellow shooter, but this thread isn't about helping other shooters.

I'm just rambling because this talk scares me, but I'm trying to remain calm.

The post from geezer-lock gives me the most hope of all. I'm hoping I'm just too new at this to realize this is a cycle of talk that changes nothing, while the actual changes evolve over time, from the local level up, never from the top down. I hope.....

[ima45dv8]

Fireant:

"1.1.5.2 Standard Exercises and Classifiers may include mandatory reloads and may dictate a shooting position or stance, however, mandatory reloads must never be required in other Long Courses.

1.1.5.3 Standard Exercises and Classifiers may specify shooting with the strong hand or weak hand unsupported. The specified hand must be used exclusively from the point stipulated for the remainder of the string or stage."

That is NOT the definition of Standards. Those two rules only state where mandatory reloads and strong/weak hand shooting are allowed.

I was going to put up a poll and see how many people could properly define what a "standards" stage is. (It's in the rule book.)

You're right, Kyle. I was in a hurry to be somewhere and didn't think the question through.

6.1.2 Standard Exercise – A course of fire consisting of more than one separately timed component strings. Scores, with any penalties deducted, are accumulated on completion of the course of fire to produce the final stage results. Standard Exercises must only be scored using Virginia Count or Fixed Time. The course of fire for each component string may require a specific shooting position, procedure and/or one or more mandatory reloads. Only one Standard Exercise of a maximum of 24 rounds is allowed in IPSC sanctioned Level IV or higher matches.

"1.2.2 Special Courses of Fire:

1.2.2.1 Standard Exercises must not require more than 24 rounds to complete. Component strings must not require more than 6 rounds (12 rounds if a mandatory reload is specified)."

Is that what you're looking for?

Edited March 16, 2006 by ima45dv8

[SteveZ]

That is NOT the definition of Standards. Those two rules only state where mandatory reloads and strong/weak hand shooting are allowed.

I was going to put up a poll and see how many people could properly define what a "standards" stage is. (It's in the rule book.)

Ok...I'll do it without looking at the rule book. A Standard Exercise is 1) any COF that has multiple timed strings. 2) No more than 6 rounds per string (12 if a mandatory reload is required) 3) no more than 24 rounds to complete 4) any stage that requires "handedness" 5) any course that requires a shooting position (e.g. prone, kneeling, etc).

I think that pretty much covers it.

EDIT: For 10 bonus points....lets see if someone can tell me whats wrong with the classifier "6 chickens".

Double Edit: I forgot to add the Virginia Count part...I'm such a failure!

Edited March 16, 2006 by SteveZ

[eric nielsen]

Six Chickens completely covered the A-zones of the targets without also covering the rest of the "body" portion of the targets, giving you the choice of head shots or D-Zone shots.

Edited March 16, 2006 by eric nielsen

[ima45dv8]

Ok...I'll do it without looking at the rule book. A Standard Exercise is 1) any COF that has multiple timed strings. 2) No more than 6 rounds per string (12 if a mandatory reload is required) 3) no more than 24 rounds to complete 4) any stage that requires "handedness" 5) any course that requires a shooting position (e.g. prone, kneeling, etc).

I think that pretty much covers it.

EDIT: For 10 bonus points....lets see if someone can tell me whats wrong with the classifier "6 chickens".

OK, I'm impressed. I think I could have named *maybe* 2-3 from memory.

[Flexmoney]

6.1.2 Standard Exercise – A course of fire consisting of more than one separately timed component strings.

It's the more than one string that defines a stage as a standards.

The "handedness" and "mandatory reloads" are a different aspects. (These "non-freestyle" aspects are permitted in "classifier" stages and "standard" stages.)

[XRe]

EDIT: For 10 bonus points....lets see if someone can tell me whats wrong with the classifier "6 chickens".

Would that be the typo about "Scored Hits: Best 6 Paper", when it obviously means best 12?? And should really say "best 2 per IPSC", or something to that effect? Or that the procedure should read "...one round each maximum..." for both parts of the string? Or that the stage procedure implies that you can only fire two rounds total without taking extra shot penalties?

Truly a crappy stage description

[SteveZ]

6.1.2 Standard Exercise – A course of fire consisting of more than one separately timed component strings.

It's the more than one string that defines a stage as a standards.

The "handedness" and "mandatory reloads" are a different aspects. (These "non-freestyle" aspects are permitted in "classifier" stages and "standard" stages.)

regarding the part about "handedness" in classifiers AND standards(and for that matter...shooting positions or stance). When I took my CRO course with none other than JA, John told me that handedness (shooting positions or stance too) can ONLY be used in Standard exercises and if a future classifier had a handedness (shooting position or stance too) requirement...it MUST be a Standard Exercise. He told me the wording of Standard Exercise AND classifier was put in to grandfather current classifiers that were technically illegal. Here are JA's exact words:

"The reason that the rule states "and classifiers", was due to the classifiers that existed when the rules changed, those that were not 100% in line with the changes were grandfathered by the "and Classifiers", future classifiers presented, must follow the rules, which means, that if someone today submitted a classifier that specified a shooting position or stance, or strong or weak hand, it would have to be scored VC and have more than one string, and must follow the 24 rounds total, six rounds per string unless a reload was involved then it could be 12.

John"

So now it should be obvious whats wrong with Six Chickens. Say good bye to Six Chickens the next classifier go around.

Edited to add the part about shooting positions or stance...which are Standard Exercise issues ONLY.

Edited March 16, 2006 by SteveZ

[XRe]

So now it should be obvious whats wrong with Six Chickens. Say good bye to Six Chickens the next classifier go around.

The exception for classifiers means there's nothing wrong with it.... Technically speaking, anyway... There's plenty of other stuff wrong with it, thoguh (see above)...

[iweiny]

The problem with making any changes based on top shooters is that they do not represent the majority of USPSA membership.

Rob wants Area and the National matches to be like IPSC matches so US shooters can once again dominate the world shoot. While I respect anything he says, I believe he has an agenda that puts money in his pocket that doesn't apply to more than a handful of US shooters. Sure the very few USPSA members who go to the world shoot would do better if we all shot IPSC style matches, but where does that leave the rest of us?

How many Area matches did he shoot last year? I believe "zero" is the answer. I know Area 6 had a massive turnout, so I'm thinking USPSA members as a whole don't agree that there's a problem with Area matches.

Of the 5 divisions at the WS, US shooters won or placed 2nd in 4 of them. Few in the US care about Modified, so no surprise US shooters didn't do much there. I call US performance at the WS pretty dominating and I'm proud of them. Our women kicked some major butt as well. Chris Tilley, a shooter who has had the misfortune to shoot "bipsc" stages his entire career, didn't seem to be at a disadvantage.

Ok, I'm just a B class shooter who has only shot a couple of big matches. I had to turn down my slot to the Nats due to work last year, and work will get in the way of every single big match this year. Just GETTING the slot to the Nats will likely be the biggest honor I ever earn in this sport. However I think I'm more representative of the majority of USPSA membership than everyone who will ever shoot an IPSC match.

I love every match I shoot. I loved the match I shot that had that damned Cooper Tunnel (I REALLY hate those things). Swingers sort of scare me, but I work hard and shoot them pretty well. A stage with 2 Texas Stars means double the fun for me.

The local matches I shoot have a nicely balanced blend of stages.

My cheapest holster of the 3 my wife and I use cost $165. I didn't pay that much to use it as a gun holder between stages while I have to screw around with IPSC-type start positions. I would place much higher in matches if they were IPSC-like. However the last thing I ever want to see are stages that follow the IPSC formula. I didn't spend $600 on mag extensions to throw them away because someone thinks they aren't the right thing for the sport.

I want stage design to evolve naturally, just like it has been doing since the beginning. The members/customers are the folks we need to be concerned with. The folks who work the matches (I'm one of them) and shoot them without a hope of winning concern me a whole lot more than the top shooters/pros. It wouldn't take a lot of effort to completely destroy USPSA. I'm aware of that, but I think a lot of top shooters never give it a thought. We have a lot of top shooters in this forum. However IMHO they are generally very selfish when it comes to the direction USPSA should take. Of course they will also kill themselves to help a fellow shooter, but this thread isn't about helping other shooters.

I'm just rambling because this talk scares me, but I'm trying to remain calm.

The post from geezer-lock gives me the most hope of all. I'm hoping I'm just too new at this to realize this is a cycle of talk that changes nothing, while the actual changes evolve over time, from the local level up, never from the top down. I hope.....

Ah, ok... I was going to stay out of this but with this post I just have to relate a recent event at our local match. I understand the view that we should give the new local D or U shooter a "chance". I can tell that many of the new shooters we have come out feel they are not good enough. Our club is geared toward the new shooter and I think that having stages which are on the "easy" side might be good for them.

However, at a match recently I put a couple of USP's (the small ones) out at about 30 yards... It might have even been 25yards... Guess which shooters complained and which shooters enjoyed that stage? You guessed it. The new shooters liked the fact that some accuracy was stressed... A couple of the higher class shooters just gave up and left 1 or both of the popers standing...

I don't know what it used to be like. But perhaps we are underestimating our new shooters. Give them a chance to prove themselves. I have a feeling that the new shooters at this match went home feeling pretty good that they did not give up and made those shots.

Anyway, just another insight,

Ira

[diehli]

A couple of the higher class shooters just gave up and left 1 or both of the popers standing...

I hope by "higher class" you mean they shoot with their pinkies sticking out. If not, they are grandbaggers.

[Jim Norman]

A new shooter to us may be very accomplished and accurate, but may not be as fast as our better shooters are at running a field course or drawing from a holster, however they are often able to hit a target that we feel is just too far or too tight as shown by the example above.

Remember a Bullseye shooter may be putting all his shots into a 1" group at 25 yards an a regular basis and NOT WINNING! So putting in a few tight shots is not a bad idea, it serves as a leveeler of the field in maybe some unexpected ways...

Jim

[Z-man]

I've really enjoyed reading about all the different types of courses and the way that the sport has evolved (though I don't care for the schism over sport/tactical), as I've just recently come into the sport myself. From one who has been a newcomer within the last few months, I'd like to offer my own .02 about stages given my limited experience. I think most people who encounter the sport fall in love with it regardless of stage design, since we all just like to shoot! I think difficult courses don't scare off the new shooter, they only increase one's desire to be competitive. I don't think that most first time shooters expect to be blasting away at the same level as others with more experience, so why worry? I know that when I encountered tough shots in my first matches I just slowed down and worked on the shooting. I like the idea that USPSA shooting challenges the well-rounded shooter, as it offers variety. Perhaps I don't speak for other new shooters, but I must say that stage designers shouldn't be too concerned with putting off firstimers. Just some thoughts from a new guy.

[Merlin Orr]

While I have read some interesting views and also some entertaining statements on this thread - the sum of the parts equals a BIG YAWN for me.

Shut up and shoot.

Respectfully,

Merlin

[Ron Ankeny]

James:

I haven't been to enough big matches to comment on the level of difficulty in comparison to a World Shoot. I am talking about the club level matches I see here in Wyoming. The stages I see on a monthly basis are much easier than the stages I saw at Area 1 last year, or at the Colorado State Championship, and the Mile High year before last. Frankly, I think it is a disservice to shooters to never expose them to courses of fire that would prepare them for an Area match. The last time I brought that idea up on this forum I felt like I was flamed to a crisp.

The fact is, there are a lot of shooters that just want to shoot the fun stuff, and for them "fun" is the high round count hoser stuff. So, we have local course design that doesn't prepare a shooter for an Area Match, and that's an undeniable fact in this state. It seems to me like the mainstream shooter is content to wallow in mediocrity as far as their own shooting skills, then test those skills with mediocre courses of fire that don't even push them to their limits. I understand that mentality very well because I deal with it every day at work. But I still think everyone would benefit from raising the bar a little bit at a time.

[shred]

I thought of something this morning--

What hit-factors are 'fun' stages? Does that change by ability?

To me, a HF (assuming no disasters & major mistakes) of 2 is tedious, and a HF of 15 is spray-n-pray.

I like stages I shoot in the 5-10 HF range. At those levels, you have to shoot reasonably accurately and move pretty well (at 5 HF, every point down is the same as 0.2 seconds slower and at 10 HF, 0.1 seconds), but bullsye-level accuracy or sprinter-level speed is not they key to scoring well.

Since everybody's HF depends on ability, I wonder if that's where some of the differences of opinion come from? A stage I run a 6 HF on may be fun for me, but tedious to the C-shooter that has a 3 HF on the same stage.

Flipping through last year's Open nationals results, most of the top HF's were in the 10 range. At the WS, the range is much wider.. they had 36 stages to work with, but about half were in the single-digit HHFs.

If your club match has a lot of stages won with 10+ HFs (assuming the worlds best didn't shoot it), then odds are those stages are generally easier/faster than Nationals or WS stages. Whether or not that's a problem is a separate issue.

[geezer-lock]

Moved to Hate forum.

Edited March 16, 2006 by geezer-lock

[Jim Norman]

Shred,

You make an excellent point. I will review our stage results and see how they finish up. One concern would be Production vs Open HHF. An Open HHF of 10 could be a Prod HHF of say 4 or 5, same stage, same day different shooter, same class.

Jim

[geezer-lock]

Moved to Hate forum

Edited March 16, 2006 by geezer-lock

[JFD]

I'm a little confused about this Tactical versus Game talk.

Up til now I don't think I've read a post on this forum where anyone called USPSA anything but a game.

[ong45]

James:

I haven't been to enough big matches to comment on the level of difficulty in comparison to a World Shoot. I am talking about the club level matches I see here in Wyoming. The stages I see on a monthly basis are much easier than the stages I saw at Area 1 last year, or at the Colorado State Championship, and the Mile High year before last. Frankly, I think it is a disservice to shooters to never expose them to courses of fire that would prepare them for an Area match. The last time I brought that idea up on this forum I felt like I was flamed to a crisp.

I get ya Ron, take into consideration though that sometimes the local clubs don't have the resources or manpower to do stages up as nice as they would like. Expediency does not always make for good stages but you take what you can get.

Wasn't there a thread a while back about norco going to WS style stages ( and ipsc targets)because the people running the club was getting ready to go to ecuador? if i remember correctly, most of the customers did not dig it so much. What are you gonna do?

People who tend to go to area matches learn pretty quick what skills they need to have.

When i set up stages i always try to choke the targets up with hardcover/no shoots, i don't control all the stages but i do what i can.

It's admirable though that you want your fellow shooters to eat their vegetables

James