"bipsc" Clarifications

[SA Friday]

Last March, I got stuck in the Clear Creek Gun Range club house with Ron Avery. (Sorry, I'm too new at this to truely understand what an opportunity this was. Next time I'm asking a million more questions...) We were waiting to see if the snow would stop and we could shoot the match or go home. It dropped a couple of inches on us, but we finally shot the match. Ron talked about his FS article with me during the wait. Believe me, he knows he shook the bee hive with his article.

Being a newcomer to USPSA, and never having shot IDPA, a lot of his impressions were lost on me. I DO know I've seen Ron shoot and I don't think it really matters if he is shooting a bubblegum stage (whatever bubblegum truely means, still haven't figured that one out) or if its a classical stage, or long distance, or whatever... He is equally amazing to watch and learn from. So, I don't think Ron's intention of the article was ever complaining about stage design, per se, to play to his strengths. I got the impression (from the conversation and them re-reading his article about a dozen times) he's concerned the pendelum has swung too far in the direction of gimmic's and gadgets and they should be less relied upon. In place of these items, there should be tests of skill more realistic but equally difficult so they separate the GM's from the C's.

IDPA was in Ron's article, but I believe it was only to assist in quantifing the amount of change he invisioned. No more, no less. IDPA is more tactical in its rules, BUT there is a middle ground between IDPA and USPSA in stage design and rules. I think Ron was trying to nudge the pendelum back to that middle ground by making people think/realize there is still a contingent of shooters in USPSA who appreciate the six chickens vs the texas star. They are both fairly difficult, but definately of different flavors.

As for me, I'll shoot whatever is set up as long as the targets arn't shooting back (dang poppers are close to that with them open guns though).

[Lurper]

Having re-read Ron's article and being an "old timer" I have to agree with most of his points. The sport has drifted from its roots in an attempt to 1. attract more shooters 2. attract more sponsors 3. keep the "masses" happy. This has led to the use of courses of fire, rules, classes and targets that the founders must shake their heads at every day.

All of these should have some basis in practicality. If I go to a match and they use a texas star, I won't shoot it. There is no practical application. This is one of those "let's see how we can mess with them now" designs that are all too common. Match directors and course designers should follow rules of practicality. Making the shooter perform a task that has no practical application or just for the sake of doing it is poor design. The same for non-shooting tasks. I can't remember the last time I saw a person swing back and forth like a swinging target does. However, take that same swinger and obscure half the arc behind a no-shoot or barricade and it is practical. That is the sad thing about the problem - it is easy to fix. As Ron mentioned, courses should not test your memory. They should test your shooting and analytical ability. One of the most attractive aspects (and principal) of practical shooting is that it should present the shooter with a problem and allow the shooter to solve the problem FREESTYLE within the constraints of safety. Arbitrarily restricting the shooter should not be allowed. IMHO, arbitrarily assigning a minimum bore diameter to make major should not be allowed. The minor floor was set by the founders based on a practical application. If you can safely make major w 9mm or 38 super in a modified gun, you should be allowed to for example. Look no farther than IDPA to see the problem with arbitrary rules.

Like so many things, the classification system was well intentioned when it was implemented. I was a big supporter of it in its infancy. However, it soon got off track and out of control. It was intended to recognize shooters of equal ability relative to one another, not to become a system that rewarded lower classed shooters with monetary gain. It is wrong for the high "D" class shooter who places 154 out of 170 to win a Dillon 1050 while the shooter who places 8th overall wins nothing because of placement in class. This resulted in the classification becoming corrupted to the point where I personally had a class winner at the Nationals tell me the he had sandbagged all year just so he could win his class. Sadly, this seems all too common.

I concur with Ron that we are heading in the wrong direction and have been for quite some time. It's time to get the sport back on track and heading in the right direction. The common theme with all of these problems is people. If you as a shooter don't become involved in the direction the sport takes then you deserve what you get. Get involved, if you go to a match that has poorly designed courses tactfully mention it or don't shoot.

If you want the sport to become nothing more than a Carnival Shoot, then stand by and watch.

[tightloop]

Lurper

Amen Brother....I agree with all you said....thanks for stating it so well..

[kruger]

If I go to a match and they use a texas star, I won't shoot it. There is no practical application.

I beg to disagree. It does have a practical application. It tests your ability to shoot an erratically moving target. The erratic motion is due to the laws of physics, which are the same for everyone and the shooter's abilities.

In some respects it is more practical than other targets we shoot at. Ever see multiple folks standing still in the open during a shootout (all static targets)? Ever see someone repeatedly appear at regular intervals from behind cover (swinger partially behind cover)?

Can the texas star be used in a stupid manner in a stage design? Yes, but so can every other target that we shoot at. The problem with the star is that it is NEW. Nobody questions the skills required for other, more familiar targets.

Having said that, I don't like total hose-fests either. In that respect, I agree with Mr. Avery. I *like* difficult shots, awkward shooting positions, and weak hand only shooting and would like to see more of that in local matches. However, those things don't need to come at the expense of things like the texas star.

Respectfully,

Mark Kruger

[Ara]

I'm the one that coined the word BIPSC but I've been holding off posting because some of you are ruthless and it was never my intent to offend anyone with the word.

Yes, Ron and I talk much about the direction of the sport but it is out of concern after decades of participation. We have been faithful to the sport that has made us what we are today.

For the record, I am a policeman but not hardcore martial artist. I've been shooting IPSC since 1988 and always been involved locally and regionaly.

My position is only that we need to bring back a little reality to our sport, without getting carried away. After much thought about my upcomming match, the Cheyenne Shootout, I realized that over the years, even I had become BIPSC in many ways and started over with all my stage designs.

I hope that I can help start a new trend in stage design and maybe a new and better direction for our sport.

Lurper said it well. Thank you.

[Lurper]

If I go to a match and they use a texas star, I won't shoot it. There is no practical application.

I beg to disagree. It does have a practical application. It tests your ability to shoot an erratically moving target. The erratic motion is due to the laws of physics, which are the same for everyone and the shooter's abilities.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. It represents no real life situation and has no place in the sport. Neither do floppers or twisting targets that disappear.

In some respects it is more practical than other targets we shoot at. Ever see multiple folks standing still in the open during a shootout (all static targets)? Ever see someone repeatedly appear at regular intervals from behind cover (swinger partially behind cover)?

In fact I have seen that. Remember, the scenarios are a snapshot of the situation. Think of it as time not existing for the targets until the buzzer. That is what it represents. Properly used, swingers represent someone ducking behind cover and peeking out perhaps to take a shot at you. Texas Star, rotating targets and the like exists simply for eye candy and have no real world equivalent. Their use constitutes poor stage design. It has nothing to do with newness or skill. I can shoot with the best. It has everything to do with the soul of the sport. Getting away from the principles of the sport is like tearing up the Bill of Rights to improve the constitution.

Personally, I have always had an advantage at "hose fests", I am as fast as anyone. All of the stages I won at the Nationals were hosers. It was the Standards that killed me. But, I still believe the format we used to use - each major match having a set of standard excersizes (preferably 50 yds) and a balance of speed and field courses is the way it should be done. The sport is about balance - D.V.C. It is also about practicality. When you stray too far from the principles, the sport suffers.

Brian Wardell

L-388

[kruger]

In some respects it is more practical than other targets we shoot at. Ever see multiple folks standing still in the open during a shootout (all static targets)? Ever see someone repeatedly appear at regular intervals from behind cover (swinger partially behind cover)?

In fact I have seen that. Remember, the scenarios are a snapshot of the situation. Think of it as time not existing for the targets until the buzzer. That is what it represents. Properly used, swingers represent someone ducking behind cover and peeking out perhaps to take a shot at you.

When the buzzer goes off and time starts, there is still plenty of time for folks to start moving, especially after the first target is engaged.

The "peeking" is just fine... However, it always appears a certain time after activation and the reappearances have a very regular rhythm. Those two problems make that target presentation unrealistic.

The problem with wanting realism in the COF is that you can argue that _everything_ is unrealistic (short of an actual confrontation). All this can be avoided by asking "Does this test a useful shooting skill?" instead of "Is this realistic?" While there may be no star shaped, rotating, bad guys out there, shooting an erratically moving target does have it's merits.

Now, the question "Does this test a useful shooting skill?" can be seen as a change since the beginnings of IPSC. However, to use your analogy, the Constitution has changed since it's inception as well.

Respectfully,

Mark Kruger

[Lurper]

The problem with wanting realism in the COF is that you can argue that _everything_ is unrealistic (short of an actual confrontation). All this can be avoided by asking "Does this test a useful shooting skill?" instead of "Is this realistic?" While there may be no star shaped, rotating, bad guys out there, shooting an erratically moving target does have it's merits.

Now, the question "Does this test a useful shooting skill?" can be seen as a change since the beginnings of IPSC. However, to use your analogy, the Constitution has changed since it's inception as well.

Respectfully,

Mark Kruger

Mark,

Not to steer this thread in the direction of a two person debate, but I have the spare time today and this is an issue that is dear to me, so in the spirit of a healthy exchange of ideas I'll give you this response.

Yes, the Constitution has changed but the Bill of Rights has not. The question of testing a "Shooting" skill never entered into course design. I have several rule books up to the 1992 edition and it was always called "The Practical Challenge." The 1986 club manual says the following:

"There is considerable debate in Practical Shooting circles about 'tactical realism'. One of the IPSC principles (6) requires that:

The challenge presented in Practical Competition must be realistic. Courses of fire must follow a practical rational and simulate sensible hypothetical situations in which weapons might reasonably be used

A frequent complaint of shooters is that the courses are not 'realistic'. We are happy to agree. They are not. Our targets are cardboard; they seldom move, dodge or duck; they never return fire."

I realize that the sport and the rules have changed a bit over the years, but that is one of the founding principles. Again, you will never convince me that the Texas star has any practical application, but that is not what the debate is about. It is about the bigger picture -where are we going relative to where we came from and is it a pretty place? Change is only good if it is good change, change for change's sake is rarely good. The founding principles should be adhered to the same way the Bill of Rights is.

In the old days, we used to write hypothetical scenarios that were read off before the start of the walk through. Some were quite imaginative and it lent a certain atmosphere to the match.

Ara, I would be more than happy to help you with your courses or whatever you need. Feel free to let me know how I can.

Brian Wardell

L-388

[Ben Stoeger]

Can the texas star be used in a stupid manner in a stage design? Yes, but so can every other target that we shoot at.

I think you just hit the nail on the head.

[pskys2]

I've often seen some pretty empty, bulbous heads bobbing around malls at regular intervals. Some were obviously harmless, others looked quite contrary.

The Texas Star isn't hard as designed. Unless you're spraying & praying. Crazy use of a Texas Star, putting it so you can only engage it at the bottom of it's rotation and then weighting it so it spins like a pinwheel.

When it's better to leave a target than engage it, the course isn't designed well. Then it's sometimes hard to tell until you set it up.

[Ara]

Brian, thanks for the support. The best way for you to help is to come to the match and be part of the effort.

Ron teases me alot and says "I started this whole thing". In a way he's right. When we first began discussing this, I pointed out to him that the Principles of IPSC were deleted from the rule book in 2001. I have since found out the they are still within the IPSC Constitution, but not in the USPSA handbook. Brian, as you said, Principle #6 is my favorite and clearly written. Even the words..."must be realistic" were bolded. It further uses my favorite word: "sensible". This Principle has not been enforced and most newer members probably don't even know the Principles exist.

To put this in better perspective, a while back I came up with six concepts that I will use in my match and share with others. These are my ideas on how we can all keep with the original intent of the sport and still make everyone happy within the USPSA rules:

1. Explained themes...this is something that the RO will read before each stage. It sets up the scenario and its relavance...and adds to the fun.

2. No carnival targets such as the Texas Star or windmills.

3. Adhering to Principle #6 for stage designs. Each stage will have a scenario behind it, not just a portion of it. By portion, I mean the perverbeal stage with a few walls, hallways and scattered targets. Fun, but not a real scenario. (At the risk of offending some, this is ok for a local match but not for a big match where people pay lots of money). Each stage will have a defensive theme, not an arbitrary one.

4. No memory stages, ie., huge shooting area with targets clustered too close together and props that confuse your positioning.

5. Procedures that make the shooter use better tactics. I really do hate the word "tactics" but what I mean is multi-tasking without getting bubblegum.

6. Better use of fault lines and "stay-out-boxes" (SOB's). Another acronym I coined. These are "areas" within a shooting area you have to STAY OUT of while shooting, such as directly in front of a window or door, etc. Target placement is still key here. You can still allow hosing, just not from this box.

So this is my take on some practical (no pun intended) solutions. Whether you believe there's a problem or not, I think incorporating these ideas will go a long way.

Ara

[Jaxshooter]

I am relativly new to USPSA 3 years appx. Being in the older age group with bad knees does not help me being competitive when it comes to track meet stages or standing on your head hanging from a rope. That doesn't mean that I can't win the gun fight because I can't run as fast as a 25 year old or jump up and down from port to port. Speed certainly should be part of the equation but accurate shooting should count for more in my opinion.

In a real life encounter I don't have to run a 4.1 40 yard dash I just have to hit the target before he shoots me.

[Ron Ankeny]

...I've been holding off posting because some of you are ruthless...

Ouch, that should serve as a wake up call. BTW, welcome to Brian's forum.

[2alpha]

A basic problem with USPSA/IPSC has been from the early days the division between the old" blood and guts guys" and the " gamesmen" this is just more of the same. I see young gamesmen, not all of them, grow old and unable to compete turn into "tactical" guys and sometimes the othe way and also even young gamesman after some dissapointments turn into Tactical guys. It's something that has to be settled.

In the begining we were supposed to be simulating a gunfight that might happen on the street. Best shooter, tactic and firearm wins period. Well the sport has outgrown that, firearms are much better and easier to shoot and it takes a lot more to offer a decent challenge to todays shooters. We have to decide which it is a sport with pistols or tactical exersizes with scores kept and then just sick with it. We lose far more disgruntled members with the equipment than we draw dedicated members who stick with us. How about keeping the guys already here happy? Is that a foreign idea?

The bottom line to me is that keeping score on tactical courses doesn't work and USPSA equipment is not slanted towards tactical. If you don't like various shooting challenges because they are not realistic there are many other avenues. Lets keep USPSA in the fun business, not the trained killer bizz. The only dissent I have is using props that can get you DQ'd or don't really add anything to the course. You should never be DQ'd because of a prop.

Edited May 6, 2006 by 2alpha

[Ron Ankeny]

I see young gamesmen, not all of them, grow old and unable to compete turn...

Like Ron Avery and Ara Maljian? Isn't middle aged fat guys going "tactical" another issue?

As near as I can tell non-BIPSC is about the roots of the sport and how it relates to the "flavor" of good course design. Frankly, I am looking forward to rolling up my sleeves and going to work with Ara to put on the Cheyenne Shootout. I want to experience a match consisting of well thought out tests of shooting skills first hand. If I don't like the experience, I'll tell Ara Maljian what I think face-to-face after the gunsmoke clears.

How about keeping the guys already here happy?

I wonder how many people have even shot a match like Ara is proposing? Seriously, how many folks who have posted on this topic have even shot a match like the Mile High of old? I know I have not. I think Ara's intent is to make course design even better. What's wrong with trying to make the guys already in the sport even "happier" through better course design?

To be perfectly honest, I think a lot of the goofy stupid carnival stuff I see at some of the smaller matches are designed by guys with good intentions who are more interested in entertaining shooters with hoopla and glitz than testing shooting skills through sound course design principles. If want silly I can stay home and go to work, or surf the Internet.

Edited May 7, 2006 by Ron Ankeny

[SA Friday]

Earlier I related my impression of what Ron was trying to say. I could be wrong in my understanding. Like I said, I'm new.

But for the record, I would like to place my opinion here now.

USPSA is a SPORT. There is no denying this. As I'm sure every cop and military man can attest to, no matter what you do, bubblegum or not, the thought, "I may have to kill this person" is not a contributing factor to any stage, texas star or 50yd head shot on a target. Military Tactical typically means your gun is shooting in one direction to keep the badguy's head down, while you are running in the other direction for cover. The average LE shooting is 3yds, 3 rounds, 33% hits... Niether of these scenarios falls into the "safety first" of USPSA. Realism of stages..... come on. Paintball has more realism; people are shooting back. That's why simunitions were invented. To add realism to LE and Military training.

There are classes in USPSA, and the winner of the class SHOULD be rewarded. If a GM that comes in 8th in his/her class and doen't get anything for it is pissed the winner of the C class was rewarded, boo hoo, get a box of tissues. I bet that C class shooter wants to be a GM and come in 8th. (No matter how many times I here some say they just shoot for fun and don't care if they progress in class, when questioned for their true feelings, they really would like to be a M or GM.) As for sandbaggers, if YOU know some is sandbagging, call them out. Integrity is everyones responsibility. Staying silent makes you an accomplice.

If you don't like the stage designs at your club(s), AND are not getting involved to make stages and run the matches, then you have not earned the right to critisize. Don't critisize others work when you are showing up two hours later than everyone who's doing the work. I have nothing but respect for someone like Ara who wanted to make a change and was willing to take on the burden of running the local clubs matches and AFFECT change. This also applies to USPSA as an organization. USPSA has elected officials, so get involved at that level and AFFECT change.

A C class shooter WILL occasionally win a stage and beat even the GM's. Once again, tissue can be found at the rear of the stage. Instead of resentment of the stage, how about congratulating the C class shooter and mentoring him/her on the good on their part and the bad (what not to do) of the rest of the shooters, so they will eventually progress to a B class shooter. Almost all the mentoring I have gotten was asked for. Of the M's and GM's I've met, Avery was the only one who freely gave me insight before I asked for it (12 March 06, Pikes Peak Practical Shooters match, Stage 3, it was a memory stage and after his advise, I smoke it). As for memory in shooting, sniper school week one is memory testing and it's damn hard! The loose more shooters to these tests than the shooting. Memory IS a shooting skill, and it's relyed upon in the military and LE. I testify regularly, and shooting boards are even worse. There are real reasons to apply memory to shooting.

Lastly, I have NO opinion as to this prop or that shooting skill or course design. I like to sharpen ALL of my shooting skills, and they are all exercised and honed by shooting ANY stage. Moving and shooting is a skill just as much as shooting a head shoot at 50yds. I do both equally crappy, but not forever. So, bring on any stage you want. I will help set it up, ask all the questions I need to become a better shooter and take any free advise, and always go home happy.

Edited May 6, 2006 by SA Friday

[boo radley]

As near as I can tell BIPSC is about the roots of the sport and how it relates to the "flavor" of good course design.

From what Ara has said above, and Ron's article in FS, my belief is the use of the pejorative "BIPSC" is all about challenging those who don't sufficiently regard the cardboard and steel targets as human beings -- bad guys, goblins, thugs, whatever.

I wonder how many people have even shot a match like Ara is proposing?

I have, a time or two. It's called "IDPA." A self-proclaimed "martial artist" explains his stage saying, "You're watering your lawn, when you hear loud rap music, and a pimpmobile comes crusing up..."

I don't mean to be rude, but gets my blood hot. I'm new(ish) to the sport, and love it and the various shooting challenges I encounter at different matches both in and out of the state. It's fascinating to shoot a match like the Florida Open, for example, that didn't have a single no-shoot target. Or, shoot a local match, every stage of which is a tricky stand-and-shoot. Etc., etc. It seems to me there's room within USPSA/IPSC rules for all sorts of stages and course philosophies.

Just don't see why all that has to be ditched because I'm not appropriately participating in the FANTASY that I'm in a gun fight.

[wide45]

Just don't see why all that has to be ditched because I'm not appropriately participating in the FANTASY that I'm in a gun fight.

Perfect.

[Lurper]

From what Ara has said above, and Ron's article in FS, my belief is the use of the pejorative "BIPSC" is all about challenging those who don't sufficiently regard the cardboard and steel targets as human beings -- bad guys, goblins, thugs, whatever.

Again, I think many of you guys are missing the point. It is not about fantasy or not. It is about following the principles the sport was founded on. Practicality is one of the founding principles. Designing stages (or targets) just to be eye candy is not following the principles. Too many people think the sport should adapt to the competitors. The competitors should adapt to the sport. Just like our country, the sport has principles it was founded upon. Those principles should be followed and those who don't want to follow them should create their own sport.

The other theme is that the challenges are lacking - too many hoser stages, not enough balance. Principle 2:

Accuracy, power and speed are the equivalent elements of practical shooting and practical competition must be conducted in such a way as to evaluate these elements equally

And too much "Carnival" shoot targets/stages. Principle 5:

Practical competition is conducted using practical targets, which reflect the general size and shape of such objects as the firearms may reasonably be called upon to hit in their primary intended use.

Clearly, the Texas Star violates that principle.

SA, IMHO I have earned the right to say these things since I ran 2 clubs simultaneously in two different states (VA and AZ) for several years, shot all the major matches every year, shot well enough to have several sponsors (including S.A.) and won the State Championship (MD 1986) as a "C" class shooter. As far as accusing me of being an accomplice to sandbagging, I guess you have that right since I'm sure you would have marched said culprit right up to the President of USPSA and pointed out his obvious lack of integrity.

The class system was designed to "recognize" lower classed shooters, not reward them. There are several problems with the system, but that is a topic for another thread.

What has happened is that our sport has over the years began catering to the lowest common denominator instead of challenging everyone to rise to the sport.

[Ron Ankeny]

Brian:

You are correct, a lot of folks just don't get it.

It seems to me there's room within USPSA/IPSC rules for all sorts of stages and course philosophies.

So why can't we give the guys a chance and see what they come up with?

[SA Friday]

SA, IMHO I have earned the right to say these things since I ran 2 clubs simultaneously in two different states (VA and AZ) for several years, shot all the major matches every year, shot well enough to have several sponsors (including S.A.) and won the State Championship (MD 1986) as a "C" class shooter. As far as accusing me of being an accomplice to sandbagging, I guess you have that right since I'm sure you would have marched said culprit right up to the President of USPSA and pointed out his obvious lack of integrity.

Whoa, back the train up. Sorry if you feel this comment is accusing you or anyone else of sandbagging. It was not focused at anyone peticular. But I would hope if watching an 'A' opener 'intentionally' in your opinion bag three consecutive qualifiers (for example) with a limited or production gun, you would talk to them. As a match coordinator etc, it would be appropriate to fair play. That is what I meant.

I am glad to see you have taken the reigns and are running two clubs. As stated, I have not problems with any type of course or prop, design etc. If you have taken on the burden, as Ara has, then you deserve more say in what stages are shot. Many are not willing to take on this additional duty and yet are venting their spleens about where USPSA is going. That a foul.

Lastly, prizes should be weighed based on the class; GM's get higher value prizes than the 'C's. I have no problem with that and never stated I did. But I cannot agree with an individual who is upset with 8th as a GM because he didn't earn anything and a 'C' shooter was rewarded for winning their class (in a major match for example). As you said, another topic for another thread...

[Vlad]

From what Ara has said above, and Ron's article in FS, my belief is the use of the pejorative "BIPSC" is all about challenging those who don't sufficiently regard the cardboard and steel targets as human beings -- bad guys, goblins, thugs, whatever.

Again, I think many of you guys are missing the point. It is not about fantasy or not. It is about following the principles the sport was founded on. Practicality is one of the founding principles. Designing stages (or targets) just to be eye candy is not following the principles.

But the practicality of what? I argue that the game should stress partical skills. Those skills can be tested and stressed in more ways then one. Hiting a small moving object and thinking fast about direction changes is a VERY practical skill, even if a texas star is not target directly representing a practical scenario. USPSA courses stress draws, shooting on moving targets, shooting from strange positions, etc. All these are practical skills, even if the courses of fire are not. Who in their right mind will charge in a room with 10 adversaries?

[Lurper]

I didn't take it personally SA, I thought you were making reference to my statement about the "B" class national champion telling me that he had sandbagged all year just to make sure he won. That was more than 10 years ago and obviously it still bothers me. BTW I have not spoken to him since.

I just wanted to point out that my opinions come from experience on both sides of the match picture.

[Ara]

Wow, 2alpha, I hope you weren't suggesting Ron and I are two old guys "turning tactical" because we're "unable to compete". I think our record would say otherwise.

I have never said I want USPSA to "go tactical". Nor have I said my match would be. What some of us are saying is we need to adhere to the founding principles. My match IS NOT mirroring IDPA. I don't shoot IDPA because I just don't have the time nor do I claim to know their rules.

I have never said that IPSC should be "training" either. IPSC does provide, in generel, a high value of training for me but its not the intent. (I will argue that one with Hackathorne all day). Yes, Texas Stars and windmills do test you...and "train you" in some respects but so do clay pigeons, balloons, and bullseye targets. I can shoot at anything and call it "practical". Thats not the point. We just need to adhere to the principles.

We can't ignore that the Principles do apparently exist. In fact, it says the Principles are "established to define the nature of pratical marksmanship. They are accepted by all members of IPSC as conditions of membership". Some want to define words like "realistic...sensible...hypothetical..practical rationale" as the Star and windmill. To me that's stretching it and it seems like when I say that, I'm somehow labeled "tactical" or something else with a negative conotation.

I am not talking about taking the fun out. In fact, the contrary. I believe we can appeal to all types of shooters..and do a better job of it. Is this not one of the reasons IDPA even exists? Are they right? When someone walks up to my stages, I want them to really feel like they are in another world. The world of that scenario. When they are done shooting, I want them to say, "holy smoke!" because they just experienced something they never have before.

In many ways, my match is a test of these ideas. I'm apparently not alone. So far 11 states and Canada are represented with the whole range of demographics including lots of GM"s and M's. For an innaugeral match, this says something.

Go easy my friends...

[Steve J]

Lastly, I have NO opinion as to this prop or that shooting skill or course design. I like to sharpen ALL of my shooting skills, and they are all exercised and honed by shooting ANY stage. Moving and shooting is a skill just as much as shooting a head shoot at 50yds. I do both equally crappy, but not forever. So, bring on any stage you want. I will help set it up, ask all the questions I need to become a better shooter and take any free advise, and always go home happy.

Amen to that, SA F. Let's shoot it all.