The New Ipsc/Uspsa Relationship

[GeorgeInNePa]

I'm not really sure how USPSA can say there will be 3 IPSC matches held. What matches would switch to IPSC? Sure the Florida Open might jump on the IPSC bandwagon, but what other matches would?

If I'm reading it right, the team selection process has to be based on three IPSC matches. I am sure they will have no problem finding organisers for those matches. I agree that Florida would most likely jump straight, perhaps a couple of Areas may host 2 Area matches, one IPSC and one USPSA to meet the criteria.

I almost hate myself for this, but if I knew one of these matches was going to be near enough to me, I'd almost have to buy myself a SP-01, mags and a CR Speed and play 18+1 IPSC Production.

Edited April 28, 2006 by GeorgeInNePa

[dbletap_ed]

I am not sure I see the whole point to this. I do not think that I really care what the IPSC wants. If I am not mistaken we, that is the USPSA, are the largest single group in IPSC yet the rest of them what to tell us how to run our lives. Let me think what else does that remind me of …… oh yea, the UN.

Same weekend IPSC match or USPSA match …… USPSA for me.

Ed Lawson

L415

[Vlad]

Hmm .. Three matches a year? .. Lets say that Florida Open goes IPSC. They could have a Open match, a Standard Match, and a Production match. There .. I found three matches. They just happen to run concurent.

Failing that bit of rule gaming, you could have Florida Open, IPSC Nationals, and one other just for fun, lets call it the North American Invitational or something. That way you end up with two Nationals you can shoot every year (IPSC and USPSA) plus a third national level match, and that doesn't even count the Florida Open.

[cliffwalsh]

I am not sure I see the whole point to this. I do not think that I really care what the IPSC wants. If I am not mistaken we, that is the USPSA, are the largest single group in IPSC yet the rest of them what to tell us how to run our lives. Let me think what else does that remind me of …… oh yea, the UN.

Same weekend IPSC match or USPSA match …… USPSA for me.

Ed Lawson

L415

Wrong....this is proposed by the USPSA. IPSC is not telling us to do anything.

[Schutzenmeister]

Why would we want to be part of the Olympics when there are lots of countries that do not allow firearms to start with. How would you score a match using an Airsoft.

This is America so let's be Americans & let the rest of the world do what it wants. I am tired of calling a company and hearing a recorded message asking if I want English or Spanish. I spent 23 years defending this country so I could speak English and not some foreign language. Mexico invaded this country before & the cry was "Remember the Alamo", now they are doing it one at a time and flying the Mexican flag above the American flag.

Small point ... but technically speaking, at the time of the Alamo, if I remember my history correctly, San Antonio and Texas were legally PART of Mexico. If ANYONE could have been considered invaders, it would have been those from TN, KY, etc. While I too dislike the automated questions of English or Spanish (I generally request German, but to no avail), accusing Mexico of invasion at the Alamo is historically incorrect. (There are other examples of Mexican invasion you could have quoted, but they were substiantially later in history than the Alamo.) No offense intended, hopefully none taken!

[Schutzenmeister]

By way of clarification, I am a USPSA member, an NROI CRO, and an IROA RO. I shoot matches at all levels, both in the US and overseas. I also officiate at major matches in both the US and internationally. In my reading of the current FS article and the responses posted in this thread, I come to the conclusion that roughly 9 out of 10 of the folks posting have little if any experience with IPSC rules or international matches.

As I have experience in both, I can state that the differences, other than definitions for divisions, are really quite minor. Personally, I have no problems with the rules as written by IPSC. (Which, by the way, we have input to!) There are a few areas where I feel the USPSA version is a little better, and some where I feel the IPSC version is better.

I queston whether the new USPSA offer to "allow" full IPSC rules matches in addition to our arguably now "renegade" USPSA rules matches is good or bad. For the last several years I have felt that the differences between the international and US rules were coming closer together ... from both ends. I fear now this will develop into a further wedge. This, IMHO, would not be good.

I will continue to shoot and to officiate, if allowed, both in the US and elsewhere ... This is what I enjoy and what I like to do. I can only wonder just what if any good will come of the current direction being taken. I fear more harm than good, and that would be unfortunate.

There are a lot of good folks participating in this sport in the US and around the globe. It sadens me to see this continuing rift between "US" and the rest of the world. It isn't really necessary.

[omnia1911]

Up to this point, USPSA's position for not using the IPSC rulebook in its entirety revolved around the following:

(snip)

-- IPSC rules that you believe are problematic

for USPSA (and why)

-- Current USPSA rules that you believe are

problematic and should be changed

-- Rules that you believe are missing, unclear

or incomplete, and should be added.

(snip)

These issues precluded USPSA from being able to run any IPSC rules matches in the USA, so we were told.

The new USPSA proposal now says that we can run IPSC rules matches in the USA, will agree to do so, and we want a permanent waiver/exemption to some of the provisions of the IPSC constitution, not because we need one, but because we want one. This is a paradigm shift in USPSA's position, and will require a significant restructuring of the IPSC constitution.

USPSA can't expect that its region alone will receive this waiver/exemption. The IPSC BOD is going to have to grapple with the reality of constitutionally granting the provisions that USPSA seeks to all of the member regions, if USPSA should prevail.

Edited April 29, 2006 by omnia1911

[johnhurd]

No problem just dumb it down to the Japanese version of IPSC and be done with it, think of all the problems solved no more power factors to consider no lead levels or noise levels to worry about. And who ever heard of someone being in danger if crossing themselves or breakling the 180 with a air gun. Here's a thought maybe they can throw velcro covered rocks at sticky targets,,, probably not that would lead to spears and clubs and we would be right back to 2 sets of rule books.

[GeorgeInNePa]

Up to this point, USPSA's position for not using the IPSC rulebook in its entirety revolved around the following:

(snip)

-- IPSC rules that you believe are problematic

for USPSA (and why)

-- Current USPSA rules that you believe are

problematic and should be changed

-- Rules that you believe are missing, unclear

or incomplete, and should be added.

(snip)

These issues precluded USPSA from being able to run any IPSC rules matches in the USA, so we were told.

The new USPSA proposal now says that we can run IPSC rules matches in the USA, will agree to do so, and we want a permanent waiver/exemption to some of the provisions of the IPSC constitution, not because we need one, but because we want one. This is a paradigm shift in USPSA's position, and will require a significant restructuring of the IPSC constitution.

USPSA can't expect that its region alone will receive this waiver/exemption. The IPSC BOD is going to have to grapple with the reality of constitutionally granting the provisions that USPSA seeks to all of the member regions, if USPSA should prevail.

I just don't understand where the problem is. USPSA, as a Region of IPSC is going to have IPSC matches, run completely under the IPSC rulebook. There will be no USPSA rules used, if I understand everything correctly.

How is also running USPSA matches, run with the USPSA rulebook a problem?

[EricBudd]

Simple question: How many USPSA shooters want to shoot a USPSA match (at the club level)?

I have no problem with having both USPSA and IPSC matches, but it there are only a few IPSC matches each year in the US, the proposal is a bit questionable. If there is interest in IPSC matches, I',m sure ther will be IPSC matches at the club level (just like there ar revolver neutral matches at the club level).

Opps, I wanted to sau "How many USPSA shooters want to shoot an IPSC match at the club level.?"

[omnia1911]

Up to this point, USPSA's position for not using the IPSC rulebook in its entirety revolved around the following:

(snip)

-- IPSC rules that you believe are problematic

for USPSA (and why)

-- Current USPSA rules that you believe are

problematic and should be changed

-- Rules that you believe are missing, unclear

or incomplete, and should be added.

(snip)

These issues precluded USPSA from being able to run any IPSC rules matches in the USA, so we were told.

The new USPSA proposal now says that we can run IPSC rules matches in the USA, will agree to do so, and we want a permanent waiver/exemption to some of the provisions of the IPSC constitution, not because we need one, but because we want one. This is a paradigm shift in USPSA's position, and will require a significant restructuring of the IPSC constitution.

USPSA can't expect that its region alone will receive this waiver/exemption. The IPSC BOD is going to have to grapple with the reality of constitutionally granting the provisions that USPSA seeks to all of the member regions, if USPSA should prevail.

I just don't understand where the problem is. USPSA, as a Region of IPSC is going to have IPSC matches, run completely under the IPSC rulebook. There will be no USPSA rules used, if I understand everything correctly.

How is also running USPSA matches, run with the USPSA rulebook a problem?

The IPSC Assembly will ultimately have to answer this question with a vote. Even though USPSA has a large membership, relative to the other Regions, it has only one vote in the Assembly. It will take a majority of three-fourths of the votes to affect affiliation. How many IPSC Regional friends does USPSA have?

Edited April 29, 2006 by omnia1911

[Vlad]

But ... what does IPSC need to approve? They now need to approve of USPSA running IPSC matches? I also don't see how they can say USPSA can't run other types of competitions.

[omnia1911]

But ... what does IPSC need to approve? They now need to approve of USPSA running IPSC matches? I also don't see how they can say USPSA can't run other types of competitions.

The USPSA BOD understands that it needs the approval of the IPSC Assembly, or it wouldn't be presenting the Assembly with a proposal, but would just do what it wants.

The IPSC Confederation has its own mission statement and preferred organizational structure. What USPSA is trying to do here may not conform to those goals. We'll have to see what transpires.

[Jim Norman]

But ... what does IPSC need to approve? They now need to approve of USPSA running IPSC matches? I also don't see how they can say USPSA can't run other types of competitions.

The USPSA BOD understands that it needs the approval of the IPSC Assembly, or it wouldn't be presenting the Assembly with a proposal, but would just do what it wants.

The IPSC Confederation has its own mission statement and preferred organizational structure. What USPSA is trying to do here may not conform to those goals. We'll have to see what transpires.

Vlad,

You make a most interesting point. If the USPSA runs IPSC matches and some number of clubs also do, where is the problem. Is IPSC trying to tell us that all we are allowed to shoot is IPSC? It seems that may be their position. Can IPSC deny the shooters in the US the right to shoot any type of match we want to shoot? If the answer to that is yes, then the sooner we kick them out, the better. On the otherhand, if USPSA still runs IPSC matches as well as USPSA rules matches, then what is the problem?

Jim

[GeorgeInNePa]

But ... what does IPSC need to approve? They now need to approve of USPSA running IPSC matches? I also don't see how they can say USPSA can't run other types of competitions.

The USPSA BOD understands that it needs the approval of the IPSC Assembly, or it wouldn't be presenting the Assembly with a proposal, but would just do what it wants.

The IPSC Confederation has its own mission statement and preferred organizational structure. What USPSA is trying to do here may not conform to those goals. We'll have to see what transpires.

Read it again, it looks like a statement, not a proposal.

[omnia1911]

But ... what does IPSC need to approve? They now need to approve of USPSA running IPSC matches? I also don't see how they can say USPSA can't run other types of competitions.

The USPSA BOD understands that it needs the approval of the IPSC Assembly, or it wouldn't be presenting the Assembly with a proposal, but would just do what it wants.

The IPSC Confederation has its own mission statement and preferred organizational structure. What USPSA is trying to do here may not conform to those goals. We'll have to see what transpires.

Read it again, it looks like a statement, not a proposal.

"Accordingly, the Board of the United States Practical Shooting Association directs its President, as the Regional Director for the US Region of IPSC, to communicate this direction to the IPSC Executive Council."

We can call it a statement if you wish. The fact is that it has to be presented/communicated to the IPSC Assembly.

I would think that IPSC would want its member Regions to have as their primary goal the promotion of the IPSC Confederation. Technically, USPSA was doing that, even with its waiver. Now USPSA wants as their primary mission the promotion of USPSA Inc. and secondarily IPSC. I'm not sure that IPSC will want that. It is possible that IPSC will be OK with it.

[omnia1911]

Is IPSC trying to tell us that all we are allowed to shoot is IPSC?

The purpose of belonging to the IPSC Confederation is to promote and shoot IPSC matches after all. If you are not happy with the organization that you belong to, start your own organization like IDPA did.

Can IPSC deny the shooters in the US the right to shoot any type of match we want to shoot?

No, but it can deny IPSC Regions the use of anything but the IPSC rules in their matches. IPSC also has exclusive rights over the use of its logo, shield, and name.

If the answer to that is yes, then the sooner we kick them out, the better.

We/USPSA cannot kick IPSC out of the USA. IPSC is not a member of USPSA, but the other way around.

Edited April 30, 2006 by omnia1911

[Jim Norman]

Omnia1911, Do you think that IPSC can stop USPSA from using the USPSA licensed target? Or EzWinScore? They are the property of USPSA. The rules as published here in the US are the USPSA rules, not the IPSC rules.

But, More to the point, if USPSA still sanctions IPSC matches as well as other matches what is IPSC's beef?

I may be mistaken, but in some other regions, especially where firearms ownership is much more restricted, isn't IPSC just a part of a national federation? Sort of if USPSA were a part of NRA?

Also, I would give your opinion more weight if you told us who and where you are as opposed to the no information that is listed in your profile.

Proud to be:

Jim Norman

American

Sadly a resident of NJ

[Chuck Anderson]

I think Omnia1911 has a point. USPSA is it's own organization. But it is sanctioned by IPSC. IPSC certainly has the right to withdraw that sanctioning if they think it's needs are not being met by USPSA. Those needs being the promotion of IPSC in the US. If USPSA makes a token effort at promoting IPSC and becomes in effect, soley a US organization. It only makes sense for IPSC to find another US organization to run IPSC matches.

I have no idea what the result of that dissafiliation would be however. I imagine it would make it more difficult for our shooters to shoot internatioanally and also for international shooters to come to the US.

On the flip side if USPSA makes an actual push to run some IPSC matches I think it will be pretty cool and work out just fine. The only downside I see it trying to keep the rules straight at matches. The equipment divisions are pretty easy. It's the little subtle rules that will be a pain, like the sight pictures, etc. Right now my understanding is that USPSA does not have a program in place to train RO's for IPSC rules. Hopefully they will have soon.

[chuckw]

Omnia1911, Do you think that IPSC can stop USPSA from using the USPSA licensed target? Or EzWinScore? They are the property of USPSA. The rules as published here in the US are the USPSA rules, not the IPSC rules.

USPSA target?? What do they look like? In my green book the targets are all called IPSC targets. Also aren't our rules just IPSC rules with some USPSA variations added?

[omnia1911]

Omnia1911, Do you think that IPSC can stop USPSA from using the USPSA licensed target? Or EzWinScore? They are the property of USPSA. The rules as published here in the US are the USPSA rules, not the IPSC rules.

But, More to the point, if USPSA still sanctions IPSC matches as well as other matches what is IPSC's beef?

I may be mistaken, but in some other regions, especially where firearms ownership is much more restricted, isn't IPSC just a part of a national federation? Sort of if USPSA were a part of NRA?

Also, I would give your opinion more weight if you told us who and where you are as opposed to the no information that is listed in your profile.

Proud to be:

Jim Norman

American

Sadly a resident of NJ

My comments are based on what is in the IPSC constitution.

The issue is coming down to whether an IPSC Region can operate as two separate entities under an IPSC "umbrella" in order to circumvent those parts of the parent organization it doesn't like. It looks like USPSA's position is that it can, because it isn't specifically forbidden in the constitution ("if its not specifically forbidden in the rule book it must be legal" approach to the issue). IPSC may have a different opinion of that, and may be constructing an amendment to its constitution right now to address the issue that USPSA has presented it with.

Edited April 30, 2006 by omnia1911

[encoreman]

Hey guys and gals. Let's not bicker about this. First this isn't a sport, it is a game, remember the scorecard!! If we the USPSA want to play with classic targets instead of the turtles, then we will. If IPSC complains too much, we can secede from their little organization. Just like the US should secede from the UN organization. Sort of similar huh, we pay for most of that also. Ya'll have a nice day now ya hear!!

[Ben Stoeger]

I think it is in both organizations best interest to come to some sort of an agreement on this issue. I can't see anything to drastic coming of this.

[omnia1911]

I can’t help but see this as a strategic error on the part of the USPSA BOD.

Its position states that it can’t hold IPSC rules matches in the USA several reasons…

“Insofar as USPSA has historical, practical and reasonable needs to deviate in several and various ways from the IPSC rules for the conduct of shooting competitions within the United States,…”

…then, goes on to say in the same document that it can hold IPSC rules matches in the USA.

“The United States Practical Shooting Association will offer and promote IPSC

competition within the United States, in accordance with IPSC rules,…”

[chuckw]

If IPSC complains too much, we can secede from their little organization. Just like the US should secede from the UN organization. Sort of similar huh, we pay for most of that also.

The USA pays 22% of the UN's expenses. Are you saying the USPSA pays the same percentage or more of IPSC's expenses?