The New Ipsc/Uspsa Relationship

[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.

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?

If I am not mistaken, the targets I buy have a USPSA Licence number, NOT an IPSC number.

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,…”

We have a tradition of Firearms ownership by the common man in the US. This is not true of other regions. Certain regions allow no one except military and police to won a gun, Japan, China are both listed as regions. I was under the impression that you had to be able to hold a match to be a region. Japanese nationals anyone?

We probably can hold a match under IPSC rules here. I have no idea why we would. We have more and better divisions and frankly a somewhat clearer set of rules. By seperating from IPSC and being gthe overseeing body holding both IPSC and USPSA matches, we can getr rid of some of the dumber rules foisted upon us in recent years. Yes our BOD didn't fight them, we had to chose our fights. Not anymore!

USPSA all the way

Jim

[GeorgeInNePa]

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.

4. Structure

4.1

The IPSC is a non-political Confederation of non-political participating Regions, whose borders normally, but need not necessarily, correspond to national borders. For these purposes, Confederation is defined as being a league or agreement between two or more independent Regions whereby they unite for their mutual welfare, and the furtherance of their common aims. Which, however, retain their sovereign powers for domestic purposes and some other purposes.

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.

[bgary]

Hi, all.... sorry to be slow to this discussion, I've been outatown on business for much of the last two weeks.

Most of the interesting bits have already been addressed, but I'll chime in with a few things:

USPSA is not leaving IPSC.

Quite the contrary, what we are *trying* to do is remove a long-standing point of contention between USPSA and IPSC, so that each of us can pursue our separate goals while at the *same* time furthering our mutual goal of advancing practical shooting competitions.

For quite some time, USPSA has been trying to serve two masters - the wishes of the international org, and the wishes of the 15,000 or so USPSA members. Sometimes those wishes are in conflict. In the past, we have ...uh... sort of mitigated those conflicts by asking for - and receiving - a "rules waiver" from IPSC which allows the US to have a different rulebook from the rest of the world. That's a good thing and a bad thing at the same time. Good thing, because (IMHO) it allows the game in the US to stay more "true" to the heritage and history of the sport, while (IMHO) the international game changes according to the wishes of 60-some-odd other regions around the world, each with its own ideas about what the sport should be. It's a bad thing, though, because every time the international rulebook changes and the US rulebook doesn't, we get farther out of sync, and the gap we would need to close to be in alignment gets bigger.

USPSA's current waiver is tied to the 2003 IPSC rulebook, which is the basis for the 2004 USPSA rulebook (the "green book") - which means it would expire when the 2006 IPSC rulebook went into effect. It became apparent, a while back, that the IPSC executive council might not be all that open to the idea of a new/extended waiver, which meant that USPSA had to make some decisions. Among the obvious choices were 1) fully adopt the IPSC rulebook, which would mean some interesting changes to the way the game is currently played in the US, 2) leave IPSC and do our own thing, which would be a Bad Thing not only for our relationship with the international org for our sport, and might have other ramifications, or 3) "something else".

We chose "something else"... which is to basically split the focus of USPSA... or, more accurately, to broaden the focus of USPSA to include "pure IPSC" competitions *plus* other forms of practical shooting competition. Take, as an example, multi-gun competition. Multi-gun will probably never be sanctioned by IPSC - my guess is that it doesn't fit in with their vision of where they want the sport to go. But in the US, multi-gun is pretty popular, and is in fact the fastest-growing segment of USPSA competition (although being rapidly chased by SingleStack). So... if we were to do "only" IPSC-rules matches, we'd have to shut down multi-gun. It seems to make more sense, for us, to do IPSC-rules competitions *and* other forms of competition.

This is not an unusual thing. Look at almost any other sport... baseball, basketball, soccer, swimming, volleyball.... most of them have US (or whatever other country) rules for domestic/internal competitions, and different rules for international competitions. Players know that (for example) US collegiate rules apply if playing college baseball, but international rules apply in international competition.

That's the same model we're going to try. And, to be really honest, we're really interested in seeing what the marketplace (our clubs and members) does with the option. Will shooters and clubs "vote with their feet" one way or the other? or both? Or... ?

Either way, we think this is good for IPSC - it means that USPSA will be running matches under "pure IPSC rules" for the first time in a long time... and even if we only run a *few* matches under IPSC rules, it will be more than most the other regions in the world currently hold (quiz for the reader... how many IPSC-rules pistol matches are held each year in Japan? UK? Singapore? Russia?... I don't know the answer either, but I bet it is a small number, yet all are IPSC member regions in good standing, and have exactly the same voting power in the General Assembly as the US has) At the same time, it is really good for the clubs and members of USPSA, because it means we can be more agile and provide you with the things you are telling us you want, without putting our international affiliation at risk.

And because USPSA remains a - in fact, becomes a stronger - participating member of IPSC, USPSA members will continue to be members in good standing of an IPSC member region and, in doing so, continue to have full access to international competitions.

Bottom line... IMHO, this has a lot of potential for *upside*, both with IPSC and within USPSA, without a lot of downside.... and, the reason the resolution asks for a continued waiver thru 2007 is *specifically* to mitigate the downside issues - things like training US ROs in international rules, having match-director workshops to educate clubs about the differences between IPSC matches and what we have been running, as well as setting up the policies and "infrastructure" at Sedro to deal with issues such as classification, Nationals and World Shoot slots, activity credits, and all that stuff.

$.02

Bruce

Edited May 1, 2006 by bgary

[BritinUSA]

Excellent synopsis !

Thanks Bruce

[MasterLefty]

+1 Thanks Bruce.

I am not sure why this is being drawn into an us vs. them discussion. “USPSA is the American region of IPSC.” (from the USPSA web site). If you compete in the U.S., you are shooting an IPSC match, with specific waivers that allows a U.S. edition of the book. There are over 70 regions within IPSC, and everyone brings their own unique flavor to the sport. Even within the U.S. we have variety in our match styles, from technically challenging to hose fest and everything in between. It’s part of what makes our sport fun.

The majority of U.S. changes to the rules only occur when we would issue warnings. I was not involved with the construction of these changes, but it appears that they were made to ease match administration at the local level.

The biggest deviation is in our divisions. This will always be an area of personal opinion. Some may say that more is better, and this is fine. I personally like the divisions that are defined by IPSC, or actually I would like fewer (my opinion). I asked our R.D. a few years ago when would the U.S. recognize modified, and was told basically not on his watch. I like the idea of our multi-gun format but personally have no interest in shooting 3-gun. I do not like Limited-10 or the 1911 single stack divisions, but I don’t have to shoot in those divisions so it doesn’t affect me. (Now when they come up with a middle-age/over weight/left-handed/Browning HP division, then I may sign up.) If the addition of these extra divisions will bring more shooters into our sport, then having a separate standalone rulebook may be a good choice.

Pop Quiz: In what year did IPSC recognize the Limited Nationals for IPSC medals? This was the first time that the Limited Nationals was IPSC sanctioned. Limited is a U.S. only division, yet they recognized the match.

Kenny

(Looking forward to my first Level IV match in 7 or 8 years. Pan American in Brasilia.)

[BritinUSA]

I do have one concern about IPSC matches in USA. If someone wants to shoot an IPSC match one weekend and USPSA the other (I hope they do), then they have different PF requirements.

Any chance we (USPSA) could move in line with IPSC on this one issue....?

[Jim Norman]

What would wrong with IPSC moving in line with us?

Why does everyone jump to "Why can't USPSA move in line with IPSC?" Why do we have to continuously change to follow them.

Jim Norman

Yikes - sorry Jim, I accidently edited your post - EDIT is right next to REPLY. I'm going to create myself a second ADMIN account and take admin privs off the main one so that I don't make this mistake a third time. (rob boudrie).

[omnia1911]

All the positions that I have read so far from USPSA are how the changes it wants would be best for it and its membership. I would like to hear the arguments from this USPSA BOD why it wants to remain a member in IPSC?

I'm not advocating a split, but a token effort to run a few IPSC matches when it has the capacity to do much more, in spite of what other Regions do, seems disingenuous.

[Rob Boudrie]

1. USPSA is one region with a single vote. That will not change unless the majority of other members vote to reduce their voting power.

2. Certain influential factions within IPSC have made "recognition" the top priority, and have made it clear than sacrifices will be offered to the god of political correctness if it is felt that doing so will help towards this goal.

#2 is in direct conflict with the goal of preserving the character and nature of our sport. The US is almost unique among regions since (1) We do not need any "recognition" to be allowed to own guns, and (2) USPSA is so insignificant in national politics that what we do, or do not do, will not change laws or US policy on gun ownership.

In some regions, the very right to own a handgun hinges on "recognition." If fact, if Australia had chose to "recognize" the legitimacy of 40's and 45's in IPSC competition (they did not), members in that nation would not have been required to surrender all handguns with a bore diameter above 9mm.

The goals of IPSC are no less legitimate than the goals of USPSA - but they are different. The first step in dealing with the situation is recognizing that fundamental truth.

[Chuck D]

Regardless of the "feel good" vibes coming from certain proponents...this proposed solution will take some doing.

For 3 consecutive years I was the match director for our club's hosting of the A.H. Postal match. This match is run under IPSC not USPSA rules. The outcome was...

* Open Division shooters had no questions and/or problems.

* Production Division shooters complained about the absence of a 10 round limit.

* Limited Division shooters were the most effected group. Their 140mm mags were illegal, the holster and mag pouch placement was a problem (it was a bitch having to explain over and over again that they had to move their gear).

I won't even bother getting into the "I hate the turtle target" comments.

First match had roughly 33 shooters. It went steadily downhill from there. The last go-around had 11 shooters.

As i've advocated previously, I'm all for bridging the gap between IPSC and USPSA rules. I'm wondering whether we're going to see the IPSC match structure at the local (club) level or if it's going to be a 4 to 6 "bigger" match type thing. My concerns are two fold. 1st, once IPSC has exerted pressure on USPSA to run IPSC rule matches, will the pressure will become relentless to "finish the job" and make the transformation complete. Secondly, will this proposal garner adequate support at the club level? My previous experience says no, especially amongst Limited Division purists.

In case they do...I've just scored a G17 and a half dozen pre-ban mags for Production Division.

Edited May 2, 2006 by Chuck D

[BritinUSA]

The so-called turtle targets are required fro the AH postal match, but they are not mandatory for IPSC matches. Both style of targets are valid for IPSC.

You can host a IPSC match with the exact same targets/poppers you use for USPSA, even the ICS classification stages are shown with both types of targets.

[Chuck D]

O.K. the target issue is resolved. What about the remaining issues in my post?

I'm not completely against the ideal but how would you approach the other issues especially the Limited-Standard Division rule differences?

I'm NOT looking for an argument...just an idea or two as to how someone would bridge the gap.

Edited May 2, 2006 by Chuck D

[Nik Habicht]

What would wrong with IPSC moving in line with us?

Why does everyone jump to "Why can't USPSA move in line with IPSC?" Why do we have to continuously change to follow them.

Jim Norman

Yikes - sorry Jim, I accidently edited your post - EDIT is right next to REPLY. I'm going to create myself a second ADMIN account and take admin privs off the main one so that I don't make this mistake a third time. (rob boudrie).

Personally I could care less what the PF numbers are ---- but I recognize a certain value in consistency, irrespective of division. My proposal would be to allow 112 gr. bullets in all divisions and to pick any number between 160-170 for major power factor, though ideally the number would be between 160-165, to not adversely affect the Major 9x19 shooters.....

Problem solved?

[omnia1911]

Rather than have two entities operating under one IPSC-USA Region, why not have two separate IPSC Regions operating in the USA; IPSC-USPSA and IPSC-USA; both with their own BOD, bylaws, budget, RULES, etc.?

Edited May 2, 2006 by omnia1911

[GeorgeInNePa]

Rather than have two entities operating under one IPSC-USA Region, why not have two separate IPSC Regions operating in the USA; IPSC-USPSA and IPSC-USA; both with their own BOD, bylaws, budget, etc.?

No.

I'm happy with it the way it is and the BOD has my support.

JMHO

By the way, are you a USPSA member, omnia1911 ?

[omnia1911]

1. USPSA is one region with a single vote. That will not change unless the majority of other members vote to reduce their voting power.

2. Certain influential factions within IPSC have made "recognition" the top priority, and have made it clear than sacrifices will be offered to the god of political correctness if it is felt that doing so will help towards this goal.

#2 is in direct conflict with the goal of preserving the character and nature of our sport. The US is almost unique among regions since (1) We do not need any "recognition" to be allowed to own guns, and (2) USPSA is so insignificant in national politics that what we do, or do not do, will not change laws or US policy on gun ownership.

In some regions, the very right to own a handgun hinges on "recognition." If fact, if Australia had chose to "recognize" the legitimacy of 40's and 45's in IPSC competition (they did not), members in that nation would not have been required to surrender all handguns with a bore diameter above 9mm.

The goals of IPSC are no less legitimate than the goals of USPSA - but they are different. The first step in dealing with the situation is recognizing that fundamental truth.

I thought IPSC was a non-political organization?

Can you explain the concept of "recognition"?

[chuckw]

The process leading to the waiver has not always been pleasant by any means, but I believe that USPSA as the founding, largest, most active and most experienced region should be in an IPSC leadership role – not in a reactive position as in the past.

Is the "founding" part in the other post by President Voigt correct? I thought IPSC was founded by reps from many different countries who met at the Columbia Conference in 1976, but USPSA was not formed until 10 years later?

[Rob Boudrie]

Can you explain the concept of "recognition"?

Recognition can take many forms and depends on the locality. It can be:

- A firearms licensing official accepting that IPSC is a "legitimate" sport which creates a valid "need" to own a handgun.

- It can be a formal determination by a government agency such as the ministry of sport

- It can be a formal determination by a government agency such as the US BATF - which has already issued a formal opinion that practical shooting is not a "legitimate sporting purpose" for the purposes of the gun control act of 1968. US law allows certain guns to be banned or relegated to Destrictive Device status unless they are for a "legitimate sporting purpose". The BATF non-recognition of IPSC allows them to relegate the USAS12 shotgun to DD status - making it all but impossible to buy ($200 tax, federal paperwork, signoff by local police chief, advance ATF permission to take the gun across state lines, etc.)

- The holy grail of recognition is Olympic Medal Sport status. Just below that is non-medal or demonstration sport.

- The General Association of International Sport Federations is regarded as legitimate by many governments.

- One example is Australia. IF the government decided to recognize IPSC as legitimate, it could allow posession of handguns above 9mm even with the current law. They have decided not to grant such recognition.

[Flexmoney]

[Forum Administrator Hat on]

By the way, are you a USPSA member...?

For the record, this isn't an USPSA ONLY forum, and this isn't an USPSA topic. Even if it were, there is no need to question somebody's membership status. Non-USPSA members are certainly more than welcome in discussions on the Brian Enos Forums.

[Schutzenmeister]

[Forum Administrator Hat on]

By the way, are you a USPSA member...?

For the record, this isn't an USPSA ONLY forum, and this isn't an USPSA topic. Even if it were, there is no need to question somebody's membership status. Non-USPSA members are certainly more than welcome in discussions on the Brian Enos Forums.

Not to be too picky, but if you read the title, this IS a USPSA topic. I have no problems with non-USPSA members posting to it, but it IS a USPSA/IPSC topic and if you are not a member of USPSA, or at least someone who shoots the sport and understands the rules, you risk not bringing very much credibility to the discussion. For example ... I would not presume to make serious comments on the rules of golf. I don't play golf and I have very little first-hand knowledge of the finer points of the rules in that sport.

[Rob Boudrie]

There is an excellent summary by USPSA President Michael Voigt at:

http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?...topic=35170&hl=

Michael has done an excellent job of explaining the position and momentum of the world body and IPSC President.

Way back when the Classic Target was announced, I predicted that a future step would be watering down of stages. Various individuals - some with official standing within IPSC - denied this. Read Michael's post for more details on the current situation.

To pretend that the World Body will not continue to push towards a flavor of the sport which obfuscates the martial origins by changing the character of competition will only lead to frustration as the dichotomy between "what is being said" and "what is being done" continues to expand. The USPSA board has chosen to address this issue directly, rather than accept the unrealistic conclusion that the current IPSC changes represent the final step in the path towards political correctness and appeasement.

Hopefully, we will see an outcome whereby both organizations are able to pursue their goals within a framework of mutual support.

[Skywalker]

[Forum Administrator Hat on]

By the way, are you a USPSA member...?

For the record, this isn't an USPSA ONLY forum, and this isn't an USPSA topic. Even if it were, there is no need to question somebody's membership status. Non-USPSA members are certainly more than welcome in discussions on the Brian Enos Forums.

Not to be too picky, but if you read the title, this IS a USPSA topic.

Not to be too picky as well but ... this is a USPSA and IPSC topic.

I can understand you see it from the USPSA point of view, but you could also look at it the other way around: IPSC members debating if the new USPSA/IPSC relationship will bring any good to IPSC shooting ...

Edited May 2, 2006 by Skywalker

[omnia1911]

Can you explain the concept of "recognition"?

Recognition can take many forms and depends on the locality. It can be:

- A firearms licensing official accepting that IPSC is a "legitimate" sport which creates a valid "need" to own a handgun.

- It can be a formal determination by a government agency such as the ministry of sport

- It can be a formal determination by a government agency such as the US BATF - which has already issued a formal opinion that practical shooting is not a "legitimate sporting purpose" for the purposes of the gun control act of 1968. US law allows certain guns to be banned or relegated to Destrictive Device status unless they are for a "legitimate sporting purpose". The BATF non-recognition of IPSC allows them to relegate the USAS12 shotgun to DD status - making it all but impossible to buy ($200 tax, federal paperwork, signoff by local police chief, advance ATF permission to take the gun across state lines, etc.)

- The holy grail of recognition is Olympic Medal Sport status. Just below that is non-medal or demonstration sport.

- The General Association of International Sport Federations is regarded as legitimate by many governments.

- One example is Australia. IF the government decided to recognize IPSC as legitimate, it could allow posession of handguns above 9mm even with the current law. They have decided not to grant such recognition.

These are legitimate concerns of USPSA for which it should hold its ground, but many of the differences between the IPSC and USPSA versions of the rulebook don't have any connection to these important concerns.

Someone in another country not having access to a gun or specific caliber to compete with in an IPSC match is different than not being able to agree on issues, such as, standardized power factors, or a single version of 4.3.1.6, for example.

Edited May 2, 2006 by omnia1911

[Rob Boudrie]

I have been advised that IPSC is recognized in Australia but has not yet been able to obtian the "large bore diameter" exemption which the government may grant to recognized sports.

[bgary]

Plus there's that whole Canada thing, where shooters didn't oppose the gun registration plan because they were assured that participants in legitimate shooting sports would not be affected... and then, surprise, surprise, when the law was in place, it was decided that IPSC was *not* deemed a legitimate-enough sport to warrant an exemption...

B