Future Of Uspsa Revolver Division

[Viggen]

It is surprising to me that with regard to revolvers that IPSC seems much more stable than USPSA. Dealing with revolvers can't be that difficult for USPSA, or that expensive. And it keeps a bunch of potentially noisy folks(us) happy.

[Carmoney]

It would be interesting to me to see what percentage of the total # of shooters are ranked GM vs the overall total # in each division. Like 1 per 100 or whatever #. I would think that if the classification system were fair and unbiased the numbers would be pretty even as to Gm shooters per 100.

That information is available on the USPSA website (click Additional Content, then Classifiers by State).

The percentages vary somewhat from division to division. The highest is Open, where 2.4% of the total number of classified shooters are GMs. The lowest (by far) is of course Revolver, where only 0.1% of the classified shooters are GMs.

In other words, it's historically 24 times easier to make GM in Open than in Revolver. (Ya think maybe the system is a little skewed? Hmm?)

[JFD]

I have never, and will never shoot in the Revolver division. I'm not nearly crazy enough

I can not imagine how Revolver division negatively impacts our sport in any way, shape or form. Leave it alone is my opinion. If it was sucking USPSA dry for some reason, THEN there would be reason to think about eliminating it. It isn't, so it should be left alone.

I still don't see how having even 50 divisions would negatively impact the sport. Obviously the folks shooting in tiny attendance divisions wouldn't expect much in the way of prizes, so that wouldn't be a surprise. The only people who think they'd be hurt are those who seem to believe they should make a profit when they go to a major match at the expense of the lower classification shooters.

[professor]

Look at the 2005 Area 6 results for "Can You Count" (before it was a classifier). While JM won that course, a guy named Dan Carden was .18 slower and 1 point better. Only 1.03% off of JM's HF. Dan finally clawed his way up to "M" this year.

Like TGO, JM is a phenom at "Match Pressure". But, then there aren't that many other GM's names at the top of any Match either. It doesn't mean their shooting skill levels aren't comparable.

Now "Can You Count" IS a classifier, CM06-03. Since I shot it at a match last Sunday, I figured out the HHFs for this classifier. They are set exactly the same for every division. While I will not post the HHF, I did check the 2005 Area 6 match results. Lo and behold, the HHF for CM06-03, now used for all divisions is the HHF posted for the OPEN division winner of that stage.

Had those Area 6 shooters been classified based upon their Stage Winning performances, their classification percentages would have been:

Open - 100% [Max J. M.]

Limited - 91.2% [Phil S.]

L10 - 76.0% [John M. N.]

Prod - 82.3% [Dave S.]

Rev - 68.2% [Jerry M.]

Let me point out the obvious. The best revolver shooter in this sport would have been scored as a B shooter, based on this classifier. Some of the best shooters in their respective divisions would have scored as M or A shooters. Every other shooter in those divisions would have scored no better.

Conclusion #1: There is no way a shooter can attain GM status in Revolver given the existing HHFs.

Conclusion #2: Whoever set this classifier's HHFs didn't consider any differences between the divisions.

[AikiDale]

No one gives a rat's back side about revolver shooters except the revolver shooters. It is unfortunate, but that is the way it is.

Gary

Not true Gary. I bought my Airedale from Airedale and I share the occasional Saturday with Zookeeper so there is a place for his ICORE match. I actually like revolver shooters. They provide a much needed comic relief when the shootin' gets serious....

[bgary]

Two weeks ago I got to talk to Area 1 Director Bruce Gary at the Area 1 Champ. about the Revolver Division's future. His opinion is that there is too many divisions and that his idea is to keep Open, Limited & Production Divisions and to have the rest as catagories. Of course I disagreed and stated since to compete with a revolver in USPSA is so different than a auto, we truly need our own Division. I also stated that the division is growing, though we only had 9 wheels at Area 1, that number would have without a doubt been higher if the IRC hadn't been the same weekend.

I invited Bruce to check out the discussions that was going on about what we want the Revolver Divsion to be and I've waited to see if he'd add his opinion before I wrote of our discussion on this forum, but now seemed like a good time to do so and perhaps he will now also. Bruce, if I've mistated any of our conversation, please correct me.

Hi, Jerry! Sorry to join this discussion so late (it is end-of-year at work, which means 100-hour weeks until projects are completed). No, you haven't mis-stated any of our conversation.

My belief about the "right" structure for our divisions actually has nothing to do with revolvers <gasp!>. No, hang on a second, hear me out.

From an organizational perspective, we have three problems, in my opinion.

1) We currently have 6 divisions, if you count Single Stack. That means that club matches already have a considerable problem with "division dilution" - at my home club, at a normal match, just about anyone has a chance of "winning" their class, because with 6 divisions and 7 classes, a lot of people are the *only* shooter in their class. Besides the inherent silliness of printing 6 division-specific results, each with only a handful of names on them, it sorta undercuts the whole idea of a match being a "competition".

2) One of the big things that the USPSA organization is responsible for doing is running National Championships. We used to have one Nationals. Then we had two (Open and Limited). Then we had five (adding L10, Production, Revolver). Now we have six (adding Single-Stack). Some of those "nationals" are nothing more than saying "OK, we know this division doesn't have enough participation for its own National-level match, so we'll just sorta tack the name of the division on the side of the match title and call it good." My opinion is - if a division has enough participation to warrant its own stand-alone National-caliber match, then we should do it *right* - we should have a match, we should designate slots specific for that match, we should designate slots for that match, etc. If a division does *not* have that level of participation.... I'm just not sure in my own mind that it warrants being called a "division".

3) Besides the 6 we already have, we get requests for *new* divisions all the time. Open-10 is a popular request from certain states. Production-HiCap (or Production-IPSC, if you prefer) is a popular request. Open Revolver comes up from time to time. If we continue to add divisions.... well, I just don't know where it makes sense to *stop*. My own opinion is that we are already past that point. I shudder to think what the org looks like if we get to the point where we have 10 or 12 or more divisions, each with a passionate-but-small segment of the USPSA membership celebrating their own flavor of differences.

and 4) how do we deal with the above things, *without* negatively impacting the choices a shooter can make about the kind of equipment they want to play with, and without invalidating equipment that shooters already own (or want to buy)?

My thought (broadly discussed with the board for about 5 years) is to restructure our equipment rules along three lines:

-- OPEN is "anything goes", as it is today

-- LIMITED is "anything goes except comps and dots"

-- PRODUCTION is "basically stock, DA or DA/SA guns"

*Everything* in use today, and coming from manufacturers, fits nicely into one of those division boundaries. But wait, there's more....

Within those divisions, we would define "categories" to represent sub-groups. In my opinion, "reduced capacity" should be a sub-group.... you could then have "Open-10" as a recognized group within Open, "Limited-10" as a recognized group within Limited, "Production-10" as a recognized group within Production. What that means is that... *if* there are enough people in a match (currently 5 for a category) to recognize a subgroup, then they are eligible for category awards. If there are *not* enough shooters in a match to validate the category, then they are *still* eligible for the division awards. So, take for example, somebody who shows up at a match with a Limited gun and 10-round mags. If there are 4 other people shooting "Limited-10", then they shoot in Limited division overall, *and* they also are competing against each other for top "Limited-10" category award. If there are not 4 other shooters in L-10... no problem, the shooter still has a perfectly legal Limited gun and still competes for Limited division awards.

In my opinion, Revolver (and SingleStack) should be handled the same way. Making Revolver a "category" means that you have more choices - you can shoot your Open Revolver in Open division, for example, and even if there are not 4 other Open Revolver shooters, you still have Open division to play in. Similarly, I think it would give a place for 8-round revolvers to play, separate from 6-round revolvers, so there's a new choice. And it would provide a framework to distinguish between highly-customized revolvers and basically-stock revolvers.

Yes, I know there is a lot of passion around revolvers, and I know that there is a stigma around the idea of having the revolver division relegated to "category" status. But... consider this: at present, the rules say that 10 shooters in a division are *required* for that division to be recognized at a match. So if you have 9 revolver shooters at (for example) an Area-level match, the Revolver Division will *not* be recognized, according to the rules. That means that the revolver shooters are [probably] going to be moved into Limited, anyway. Wouldnt it be nice to have a way to recognize revolvers based on how many of them attend, and use that as a way to *encourage* growth and participation? Rather than the current approach which says "if you don't get enough to qualify as a division, you don't exist"?

Revolver is *not* the forgotten step-child of the org. It is very much front-of-mind in our discussions about how the divisions should evolve growing forward. But (putting on flame-resistant suit)... revolver *is* a fairly small portion of USPSA activity, whether you look at it in terms of Nationals participation, club-level participation, classifier scores, or other metrics. So, any discussion we have about Revolver has to - we have a responsibility to - include the appropriate context. In my opinion, that context is *not* "should revolver be a division or should we get rid of it". The right context, in my opinion, is "how do we make sure that revolver enthusiasts have a place to play in our sport, without disadvantaging them *or* creating unintended consequences for other parts of the org?"

Just my two cents.... and having said all that, I am *totally* open to ideas. Feel free to light up my inbox (with work a little crazy, I don't have all that much time to check in here, so email is the best way to put something in front of me). If there is a solution which works at every level of the org, from club match to Nationals, I will *totally* put it in front of the Board. Like Gary.... my job, as an AD, is to bring your ideas, issues and concerns to the Board table. I'll be glad to help in any way that makes sense.

Bruce

[Carmoney]

My opinion is - if a division has enough participation to warrant its own stand-alone National-caliber match, then we should do it *right* - we should have a match, we should designate slots specific for that match, we should designate slots for that match, etc. If a division does *not* have that level of participation.... I'm just not sure in my own mind that it warrants being called a "division".

Bruce--

In its very first year as a provisional division, Single Stack brought in 238 competitors to its official Nationals, and expansion of the Single Stack Nationals is planned for next year. More than enough to constitute a meaningful national-level match, and proof positive that there's enough interest to warrant a stand-alone division, according to your own parameters.

Revolver has never been given this chance. USPSA should put together a real stand-alone Nationals for Revolver, announce it way ahead, build great stages, bring in a full match staff, award slots, fund a real prize table, make trophies, cultivate sponsors, etc....i.e. do everything that's done for the other divisions....and see what happens.

Bet you'd see all kinds of great shooters coming out of the woodwork, not just the revolver regulars, but the big names from other divisions, too. Leatham just shot the IRC, he'd show up for a real USPSA Revolver Nationals--and that's just the first example that comes to mind.

My thought (broadly discussed with the board for about 5 years) is to restructure our equipment rules along three lines:

-- OPEN is "anything goes", as it is today

-- LIMITED is "anything goes except comps and dots"

-- PRODUCTION is "basically stock, DA or DA/SA guns"

*Everything* in use today, and coming from manufacturers, fits nicely into one of those division boundaries.

I gotta disagree here, Bruce. Where in the world does a S&W 625 fit in here and have any remote chance of being competitive? Remember, it's not just the 6-round capacity, it's the completely different manual of arms in completing a timely reload that is also a big issue. If you think about it, Production is much closer to Limited than Revolver is to Production. Look at the Glock shooters that are very competitive in Limited against the wide-body 1911 variants. If we wanted to pare it down to three divisions, and truly want to keep the game inclusive and competitive, those divisions should be Open, Limited, and Revolver.

Just my two cents.... and having said all that, I am *totally* open to ideas.

Thanks for participating in the conversation.

[Jerry V]

Thanks Bruce for taking the time to voice your thought's on the subject ......glad I didn't misrepresent what you had said

[ChuckS]

Just one thing to remember, guys, is the the SS Nationals was the 12th year of the SSC match. It may not be the best metric to judge the success of a new division.

Later,

Chuck

[Patrick Sweeney]

ChuckS: Was it larger than the year before? By how much? Did it grow when other matches were not? That's how you measure success.

Perception can (not always IS) be reality. Let's suppose we do go with three Divisions, and Categories. At every club and match where the shooters who run the match are in the "real" Division, and not just the Category, we all know what will happen:

"And the winner of Open is...." pause "Did someone win Open Ten? Oh, yea, your prizes are on that table over there." By the next match, Open Ten wouldn't even get that much recognition.

You want to kill participation in an equipment segment, let it become a Category, and be killed through neglect.

There are shooters who feel that any "dilution" of the loot, glory, limelight or honors from their segment is a personal slight. "Open or nothing" sums it up. Guys, here's a clue: not everyone in those other Divisions shares your vision. Nor will they all switch to your Division if you "consolidate" theirs out of existence.

At least as a Division, if someone gets overlooked, it is apparent to all who wish to see.

Guarantee me the right to administer corporal punishment to organizers slacking on wheelguns, and I'll be willing to try "Category." Until then, we're a Division.

You may think we're odd, but if you think we're obsolete or inefficient, strap on a holster and we'll loan you a 625. You'll see differently.

One thing puzzles me: it has been a long time since I ran a match, but I can't see the problem with additional work for Revos. If we're so few, how much work can it be?

As for "too many categories" at a club match making it so everyone wins, so what? You want to compete, you'll compete. What do you care, Mr. Open Master, that some poor schlub won B-Class Open all by hisself? You kicked his ass, you crushed his scores, what more do you want?

Got to slow down on the espressos.

[Genghis]

Genghis

What is your classification with the Open blaster? Have you ever shot anything but Open and Limited..? Just curious... Thanks

I've been shooting since March '05, and have made C-class in Open and Limited (a53313). Those are the only USPSA divisions I've shot in. I also shoot IDPA (SSP and CDP) and a local steel match. I've shot in one Palma match and one 3-gun match.

I'll be moving up, just as soon as I can eliminate some of the stupid distractions like work and life.

[AFDavis11]

Why bother having an Open Division? There is so little attendance. Can we just eliminate that instead? I know 12 years olds that can compete with an Open gun-no challenge at all. And it has nothing to do with the roots of the sport at all. Are we eliminating Divisions with low attendance now for a reason? Lets start with Open instead.

[bgary]

You want to kill participation in an equipment segment, let it become a Category, and be killed through neglect.

Hi, Pat!

I get your point.... it does have the smell of making the category a "second class citizen". But... I guess my point is, wouldn't it be better to have it be a second-class citizen, than an alien enroute to being deported?

In point of fact, Revolver *is* a second-class citizen right now. How many Nationals slots are designated as "Revolver slots"? How difficult is it to win a "section slot" using a revolver? The challenge (OK, I know I'm going to have to change to a PO box after I say this), is... if a given subset of the population represents, oh, say... 3.37% of total activity (based on latest numbers I have for participation at major matches in 2006), *should* that subset get more than ... oh, say, 3.37% of the organization's resources? interest? attention?

I'm not saying this is a democracy - quite the opposite, we really want to provide a place to play for every shooter no matter what they want to bring to the line, which means that we are paying and will continue to pay attention to small segments, and not *just* because they represent opportunities for growth. But the simple truth, in my opinion, is that if Revolver represents 3.37% of our activity, it simply *isn't* on the same footing as Open, Limited/Lim10 and Production. So... the question becomes, what do we do with it *until* it gets there?

"Open or nothing" sums it up.

Ah. Not words that came from my mouth, nor would they. This is not about "I like my division more than yours."

At least as a Division, if someone gets overlooked, it is apparent to all who wish to see.

Yup.

I'd suggest, though, that making Revolver a "category" would give it more visibility, and would make it so that revo shooters always have a division to play in, whether there are enough of them to validate a "revolver group" or not. Right now, if you go to a match with a revolver, and there aren't enough brethren to meet the required minimum... you're kinda hosed, aren't you? That isn't a match-management issue, or a division-discrimination issue. That's pure-and-simple a "lack of sufficient interest" issue.

Guarantee me the right to administer corporal punishment to organizers slacking on wheelguns, and I'll be willing to try "Category." Until then, we're a Division.

Ohhh, a spanking? <g>

Just for historical context, I'll note that from the Beginning of Time until 2000, Revolver was a "category"... and apparently that wasn't a problem. When IPSC went on a juggernaut implementing a bunch of new divisions, and USPSA followed suit, Revolver became a division. I contend that was a Bad Idea, not because they created revolver, but because the game went from two big parties to a whole bunch of smaller parties. In the same light, I think that creating a separate Limited-10 division was a bad idea. I think there were better ways to solve that problem.

You may think we're odd, but if you think we're obsolete or inefficient, strap on a holster and we'll loan you a 625. You'll see differently.

Have a 625. Love it. If I could still see the sights, I'd still be shooting it in competition. (If there was an Open Revolver category, I'd put a dot on it, crank on the Wichita slab-comp, and bring it out. really.)

One thing puzzles me: it has been a long time since I ran a match, but I can't see the problem with additional work for Revos. If we're so few, how much work can it be?

I never said the issue was more work.

As for "too many categories" at a club match making it so everyone wins, so what? You want to compete, you'll compete. What do you care, Mr. Open Master, that some poor schlub won B-Class Open all by hisself? You kicked his ass, you crushed his scores, what more do you want?

The issue for me.... well, let me wax philosophical for a second. I believe that, in order to claim you "won" something, you should actually have to "beat someone". So.... if I go to a match, and I am the *only* shooter in B-class-Whatever-division.... have I really "won" the pin they give me at the end of the day? IMHO, no. But, yet, that's what we do, and... I can't get past the idea that it really isn't a "competition" if everyone is in their own little segment, competing against "nobody". The more divisions we have, the more likely it becomes that every shooter at a club match is going to be in a little niche by themselves, and ... well, maybe in a kinder gentler it-takes-a-village way, that's not bad, as long as everyone gets to feel good about themselves, but.... it isn't a *competition* anymore, is it?

Lets go back to first premises for a second. Take yourself out of your "it's all about me" mode, and look at the bigger picture. Acknowledge that revolver *is* - measurably, provably - a very small percentage of overall USPSA activity. From an organizational perspective, noting that whatever we do has to work consistently and fairly from the National level down to the 10 guys starting a club in the middle of nowhere.... what *should* we do with Revolver?

Bruce (*not* an Open Master... not even close)

[bgary]

I also stated that the division is growing, though we only had 9 wheels at Area 1

Oh, by the way, I forgot to mention....

There were 9 Revolver shooters at Area-1, 2006

The Area-1 was a level-III match

According to the rules, there must be 10 shooters in a division to qualify that division for recognition.

So, according to the rules, I (as Area Director or stats-dude, take your pick) *should* have put those revolver shooters into another division (according to 6.2.5) or *could* have allowed the Revolver division to stand "without recognition" (according to 6.2.2).

I did neither. I gave full faith and credit to the Revolver shooters, and recognized them as a valid Division even though they did *not* meet the minimum requirement.

Feel free to consider that (or not) when deciding how much of an anti-revolver bigot you think I am.

B

[Waltermitty]

None of us should be surprised, which wouldn’t make it any less disappointing, but if participation in the division is not increased dramatically it will be History, sooner or later.

I’m not saying that it’s right, or that the division has had a fair shake since it was broken out of Limited as a separate division, but if the Majority makes the rules, the Majority doesn’t have much use for Revolver Division.

It probably doesn’t even have anything to do with the burden (or lack thereof) that a few revolver shooters place on match administration. The real truth will be that you can’t kill L-10 or SS based on lack of participation unless you kill Revolver Division in the same breath.

The unavoidable fact is that there are important people that think we have “too many divisions”. The only defensible reason to eliminate unwanted divisions (as opposed to coming out and saying L-10 & SS are too much alike and one has to go) is by comparing participation numbers. The actual targeted divisions typically have higher participation than Revo. The handwriting is on the wall.

So I will still lobby to keep the division and would encourage others to do the same, but facts is facts. Every time one of these “eliminate X Division” discussions comes up, somebody points out that you can’t eliminate “X” for participation unless Revo goes too! I doubt that those using that argument intended for it to be so, they probably thought Revo was safe and they were bolstering their position, but by using it, they ensured we would be thrown out with the Divisions that probably have added overhead for the same number of shooters.

The “Category” thing is kinda funny. Like at the DoubleTap Championship one year, we were one revo short of recognition. Rudy won the division followed by the rest of us, but they couldn’t spring for a plastic trophy or trinket for the winner; ok, them’s the rules. But one of us did get recognized; the guy that finished last in Revo got a trophy for High Super Senior.

[bgary]

In its very first year as a provisional division, Single Stack brought in 238 competitors to its official Nationals, and expansion of the Single Stack Nationals is planned for next year. More than enough to constitute a meaningful national-level match, and proof positive that there's enough interest to warrant a stand-alone division, according to your own parameters.

Yeah.... maybe. My guess is that the number is less about Single Stack being strong out of the gate, and more about USPSA joining forces with a strong existing Single Stack match. Hard to say.

As far as 2006 major-match participation goes, *separate* from Nationals, here's the numbers I have seen:

-- Limited: 33%

-- Open: 28%

-- Production: 18%

-- Lim-10: 14%

-- Single Stack: 4%

-- Revolver: 3%

I think that, going from 0 to 4% in its first year is a strong showing for SingleStack. If it continues to grow, it will continue to get commensurate attention. If it flattens out at a single-digit percentage, then I'm going to raise the question about whether it should be considered a "real division"... same as here.

Revolver has never been given this chance. USPSA should put together a real stand-alone Nationals for Revolver, announce it way ahead, build great stages, bring in a full match staff, award slots, fund a real prize table, make trophies, cultivate sponsors, etc....i.e. do everything that's done for the other divisions....and see what happens.

OK. And... where do we get the $100k or so, over and above match-fee income, it would take to put on a "real stand-alone Nationals... full match staff... prize table... trophies... etc" for those 50 or 75 or 100 revolver shooters who would make the trek? Or should we charge those shooters $1000 each in order to make the match break even?

One of the big issues - which we *don't* have a solution to - is the fiscal responsibility one. We know that we can put on one big Nationals match, everybody come and pick a division, for 500-600 shooters. And we have a pretty good idea what that match will cost the org to put on the ground. We also know that it will cost *more* money to put on two matches - two venues, two sets of staff, two of everything. And as you can probably guess, three matches costs more than two, four matches costs more than three. You might guess where this is headed when we start talking about 6 divisions.

All of that is OK, except.... at the same time we're running around trying to put on all the National Championships you tell us you want, you also tell us you want us to be fiscally responsible, and not have your dues grow, and ... oh, by the way, a lot of you grumble about things like sending in classifier fees and pretty basic stuff that affects the ability of the org to actually *pay* for things like Nationals. So... how do we reconcile the "lets have lots of matches, and give Revolver one of their own" with 'oh, but I don't want it to cost *me* anything!"

More than anything else, *that* is the problem we have with Revolver (and other low-participation divisions). If there isn't enough participation to warrant a "real" nationals, then... is it really a viable division? And if it is viable at the club level but [argably] not defensible at the National level, what do we do with it?

One idea that has been floated around, rather than "getting rid of divisions", is to turn the equation inside out and make it *totally* about participation. Decide that there will be 3 National Championship matches (or whatever, pick a number... although more matches cost more money), and say "hey, whatever the top three divisions are (in terms of participation, or activity credit, or classifier scores, or whatever you choose to measure), those are the divisions that will get their own stand-alone National Championships".

Then it would be *totally* about how many revolver shooters you can get involved.

Would that be an acceptable approach? Or would we still be saddled with the "important people who don't like revolvers are trying to make us disappear" conspiracy-theory?

Bruce

[Patrick Sweeney]

Bruce, I'm not saying you're against us. Heavens, no. You're obviously in our corner, otherwise we would not be having this discussion.

My gripe is about those who want to exactly divide the pie according to participation. We should be thinking of growing, not the arithmetic of prize distribution.

Case in point: the Steel Challenge isn't exactly new. It has many of the same stages it started with back in the early 1980s. And yet, the prize table will soon be crushed by the weight of the loot they're giving away.

Why them, and not us? (Not that I begrudge them, I shot the SC a few times myself and may yet again.) What are we doing that has stalled growth? Is there even a way to grow?

A cautionary tale should be the Bianchi Cup. There was a time when the SC, BC and USPSA Nationals were all equal titles to be sought after, and participated in. What are the numbers now?

Those are the quesitons we should be considering, not "Do we have too many Divisions?" or "I'm not getting enough recognition/loot/trophies for the level of my skills with this hi-zoot blaster."

[Round_Gun_Shooter]

DELETED as I decided to stay out of this.

Edited June 29, 2006 by Round_Gun_Shooter

[Jerry V]

I also stated that the division is growing, though we only had 9 wheels at Area 1

Oh, by the way, I forgot to mention....

There were 9 Revolver shooters at Area-1, 2006

The Area-1 was a level-III match

According to the rules, there must be 10 shooters in a division to qualify that division for recognition.

So, according to the rules, I (as Area Director or stats-dude, take your pick) *should* have put those revolver shooters into another division (according to 6.2.5) or *could* have allowed the Revolver division to stand "without recognition" (according to 6.2.2).

I did neither. I gave full faith and credit to the Revolver shooters, and recognized them as a valid Division even though they did *not* meet the minimum requirement.

Feel free to consider that (or not) when deciding how much of an anti-revolver bigot you think I am.

B

I apprecient the fact you chose to recognize the Revolver Division even though you didn't have to nor did I feel at anytime we were treated as "unwanted stepchildren" by you or any one else. The Area 1 Match Staff did a awesome job for ALL COMPETITORS -- ALL DIVISIONS

[ChuckS]

ChuckS: Was it larger than the year before? By how much? Did it grow when other matches were not? That's how you measure success.

Patrick,

I talked to a friend that was at the '05 SSC and he said that there we "about the same as 06". I can't find the results but I don't think that match was significantly bigger.

Later,

Chuck

PS: I like SS and I shot an SS in L-10 and I will shoot SS when I tire of production!

[MikeFoley]

KEEP REVOLVER DA?#IT!

[bgary]

My gripe is about those who want to exactly divide the pie according to participation. We should be thinking of growing, not the arithmetic of prize distribution.

I [mostly] agree. I guess I was sort of bristling at something that someone [else, not you] said... basically... well, heck, let me para-quote it:

the division [hasn't] had a fair shake since it was broken out of Limited as a separate division

This is the point where I get pulled off the tracks. I tend to believe that USPSA works really hard to be a "free market economy". By that I mean we work really hard to give you a place to play, no matter what you want to bring to the line. All we do is watch the numbers as they come in. People seem to want to think that USPSA is doing something to "opress the downtrodden revolver shooter" in favor of... something. I don't know what. When in fact the truth is that the numbers show *exactly* how many people have an actual interest in shooting a revolver, because... they are a count of people who actually brought a revolver to the game. Nobody is artificially holding that number down. Nobody is saying "we're not giving you a stand-alone nationals, because we don't want you to grow". Nope. Sorry. Simply not true. Revolver has gotten *exactly* the same shake as the other divisions - the low numbers are a reflection of how many people wanna bring a revolver to a match, not a response to something that Intergalactic Headquarters is doing (or not doing).

The truth is simply that a very small segment of our USPSA membership has a real, demonstrable interest in shooting revolvers. Y'all are passionate about them, no doubt about it. But you are currently almost a rounding error in the demographics.

The conversation I would much *rather* have, as you note, is "how do we make participation grow?" here I diverge slightly from you, because... arguably, I don't care about specifically making revolver participation grow. I care about making *general* participation grow, no matter what that new participant chooses to fill his or her hand with. If we doubled the number of revolver shooters that would be cool. If we doubled the *percentage* of revolver shooters, that would get a lot of attention. But if we doubled the number of USPSA members, that would be front-page news, and would allow the org to do and support all kinds of things that we can't do now.

At the end of the day, it *is* about dividing the pie and allocating scarce resources, especially when we start talking about Nationals and such. The org only brings in so much money, and just like your household budget and mine, has to decide how to spread it out. The tendency is to invest in things that will beneficially affect the largest number of shooters. So, as you may note, *most* of the org's resources don't go to the Nationals at all, because barely 5% (roughly 750 of our approximately 15,000 members even *go* to a Nationals in a given year). We have to make sure we are providing services to all 15,000 members, not just the few that go to Nats. Of the money that does go to put on a Nationals, most of it goes to supporting the divisions that have shown the most activity, and/or those that represent the biggest segments of our membership, as defined by levels of activity. One might even go so far as to say that most of the money is spent recognizing the divisions that *generated* the most money for the org, but... that would probably be an unpopular concept here.

I would *love* to see revolver participation grow. No doubt about it. But... I can't *make it grow, all I can do is watch to see whether it is growing, as a function of shooter's free choices. And, IMHO, whether or not Revolver participation grows is a totally separate issue from, should Revolver (or any other segment) be considered a "real division" when [apparently] less than 5% of the org's membership have an interest in shooting that style of gun?

Botom line, for me, as I noted above.... I am not about getting rid of divisions. I *am* about having a division structure that "makes sense", at every level from club-match to Nationals (and, parenthetically, about having a classification system that makes sense, too. If we have 6 divisions, does it really make sense for me to have 6 different classifications? Or can we just all agree that I suck equally bad no matter what I pull out of a holster?).

I don't know what the perfect structure is, but my instinct is that simpler is better, and that the fewer "dividing lines" we have between us, the better off we'll be as a body.

$.02

Bruce

Edited June 29, 2006 by bgary

[hopalong]

Damn,

Gone for just a little while and all this stuff comes up.

First of all I want to thank Bruce and Gary both for listening to what us few vocal revolver shooters have to say.

THANKS!!!

My AD and I have not had a face to face conversation about the fate of just the revolver division, I have sent him several ideas and got the "Thanks", but I have a feeling he is not to partial to all the divisions ect.

My take on this and I'll see ya later.

ON separate National matches......

2 are only needed.....

1 Race gun.....Open....Limited....Limited-10(It has the same equipment rules as limited only 10 rounds so it is still a race gun)

2 Production....REVOLVER....and the others Just funning....Single stack if it lasts, and Production.

Every body who attends a Nationals (or both) can find a division to shoot.

as for getting rid of any divisions.......

It will not happen for at least 2 more years, single stack is on a 3 year program until then the BOD has to sit back and watch the numbers....BUT then LOOK OUT !!!!!

On having so many divisions..............SO WHAT? If someone want to shoot a gun in USPSA and is a MEMBER of USPSA.................LET them shoot the DAMN THING!!!!!!!

as for participation of shooting "Action Pistol" with a revolver......

LOOK at ICORE........it took them 14 years to get 200 shooters to a Nationals match but they did!!!!! (seems like their prize table is quite generous too)

YES, USPSA is NOT ICORE, but it does show there is more interest in shooting them things at a "Nationals" match if there was a way to shoot it and not be torn to shoot in another division.

Shannon Smith(some guy from Florida that is easily in the 10 best Limited shooters) personally asked M. Voight to make Revolver Div Nationals seperate from Limited so he could shoot REVO ...........HMMMMMM...........AND I know many others that would do the same thing if it was available.

I have often thought about how to make the smaller divisions (notice I said DivisionS) larger at the Nationals and the same thing keeps coming back to me.....

SLOTS are the key!!!!

Each division has to have their own number of slots available, not first come first served pretty much the way it has been or it will always be the same.

My take on Revolver participation......

To shoot a revolver in USPSA you have to be either, "touched", a masochist, or just trully Passionate about one of these things..........I fall in the "touched" catagory.

There will NEVER be as much participation in USPSA with a revolver just because most think it is too hard to shoot, requires too many reloads or some other silly reason that they decide is good enough to not try one..............GOOD FOR THEM, AS LONG as they are SHOOTING SOMETHING IN USPSA !!!!!!!!

Bruce you yourself gave one of the biggest reasons I hear........."I can't see the sights". but what is the most popular division in USPSA??????? and what kind of sighting system does those guns use??????

So what do we do?????

LEAVE IT ALL ALONE!!!!!!

When the 3 years are up on the SS experiment make a decision on it. But the other "small divisions" have a place and yes maybe they take up a small place but they are still willing shooters who just want to shoot.

Maybe with time and better technology scoring and such will be more effecient and easier. I can ask several of the "older" shooters if they remember doing scores on a calculator.

SAM KEEN,

JUST A DUMMY THAT SHOOTS..........A revolver sometimes.

[Waltermitty]

My gripe is about those who want to exactly divide the pie according to participation. We should be thinking of growing, not the arithmetic of prize distribution.

I [mostly] agree. I guess I was sort of bristling at something that someone [else, not you] said... basically... well, heck, let me para-quote it:

the division [hasn't] had a fair shake since it was broken out of Limited as a separate division

This is the point where I get pulled off the tracks. I tend to believe that USPSA works really hard to be a "free market economy". By that I mean we work really hard to give you a place to play, no matter what you want to bring to the line. All we do is watch the numbers as they come in. People seem to want to think that USPSA is doing something to "opress the downtrodden revolver shooter" in favor of... something. I don't know what. When in fact the truth is that the numbers show *exactly* how many people have an actual interest in shooting a revolver, because... they are a count of people who actually brought a revolver to the game. Nobody is artificially holding that number down. Nobody is saying "we're not giving you a stand-alone nationals, because we don't want you to grow". Nope. Sorry. Simply not true. Revolver has gotten *exactly* the same shake as the other divisions - the low numbers are a reflection of how many people wanna bring a revolver to a match, not a response to something that Intergalactic Headquarters is doing (or not doing).

Since you quote me as pulling you off the tracks, I'll address my comment specifically.

Not since the beginning of the division has the classification system been operated (to my knowledge) as if Revolver Division was an actual separate division where you could be competitive with a "typical" revolver. As we have discussed at length here before, the classification system is important to many folks, maybe more so for new and/or more competitive shooters. Back when classifiers were more or less "6 shot neutral" it was bad enough, but since the arrival of the new classifiers, things have gotten markedly worse.

In my view, this single item has probably had the greatest negative effect on growing the division from day one. USPSA tried to create the Revo Divison on the cheap and it has hampered the division. Most folks, faced with a classification system inappropriately ranking them against high-capacity, semi-auto, single action firearms find the disadvantages too great. In fact, it created a mini-equipment race which forced anyone wishing to be even marginally competetive to buy very specific equipment. The average shooter won't make "C" class in Revolver Division with any commonly owned 6 shot revolver. Hell, the greatest freakin' revolver shooter of all time is a GM not because he can earn it with classifiers, He's a GM because he wins the majors. You can read the threads for yourself.

How do you think Limited Division would do if the system was set up so that only one model of one manufacturers equipment had a chance at being competitive; no matter what the skill of the shooter? And the piece of equipment is something of an oddball? Even better, rank them all by the best Open shooter scores on classifiers. That has been the result of failing to use the numbers coming in, and using that data to structure the division.

That, in my view, has not been a fair shake for the division and I stand by that statement. Production Division would have failed, in my opinion under the same rules. I do not attribute malice to this action, but who would it have killed to run the dern Revo classifiers and live up to that marketing claim that you're only shooting against people with similar equipment?

Course design rules and changes since the blue rule book expired have been going in the direction of higher round counts per shooting position which also makes the division harder, but I don't think that's a killer deal as long as the division is separate. Added to the classification system however, and you've got to be a pretty hard core wheel gunner to even play the game.

I do not think there is an organized effort to surpress revo on an organized level, if you are attributing that sentiment to me you are way off base. However, if you score and classify a "Division" as if it is a "Category" of Limited that may be the effect.

It also doesn't have to be very organized to have an Area Director (and other officers) stand around at a Championship Prize ceremoney bitching about the hassle of recognizing Revo Division. How much of the performance is self-fullfilling prophecy.

There was no-where near the fan-fare and promotion done for Revo that was rolled out for Production, SS, and even L-10. So I respectfully disagree that USPSA has been a "free market economy" model promoting all divisions without bias. USPSA went after IDPA with Production Division. Of course Revo shooters went after IDPA too, at least enough to get all our 5" 625's banned.

So roll Revo back into Limited Division, make it a category and be done with it, but please don't pretend that USPSA gave a fraction as much thought into structuring Revo Division for success as it put into Production Division; where you can't even use a "Production" single action gun because it's just too dern much of an advantage for those poor Production guys to shoot against. Oh and there is just sooo much of a disadvantage for those SS guys, why, they can't compete in L10 because of the magwell size. If that argument has merit, shoving 6 rounds into 6 individual holes may bear some consideration as well for not classifying us as a percentage of Limited.

There were other things that poisoned the well in 2001 including the yes/no/yes/no signals on 8 shot revolvers and required reloads. That's another discussion, but the compromise was a non-starter, it may be practical to download a hi cap mag to 10 rounds, but downloading an 8 round revo to 6 is a non-starter; particularly when not counting right moves you to open, instead of costing you procedurals for a failure to make a mandatory reload.

So I guess I'll bristle too at the suggestion that USPSA set up a bona-fide division and gave it the support given to other efforts through both administration and promotion from the start.

Does that make us even?

[professor]

I shoot in revolver division exclusively. The classifiers I have in other divisions [Ltd and Open] were also shot with my revolver. A couple years back, Area 8 held two sectional matches, Factory guns [L10, Pro, Rev] in NJ, and Race guns [Open, Ltd] in eastern PA. I couldn't make the Factory gun match, so I shot my revolver as Ltd in the Race gun match.

That said, there was no way on earth I was going to be competitive because of the equipment differences. I didn't care about getting any recognition for winning a division, category, subset, minority, or whatever.

HOWEVER, and whether Mr. Gary thinks so or not, a lot of people do care about recognition. And the fact of the matter is that right now, the USPSA classification system is buggered beyond belief against revolver shooters. It is flat out impossible for any shooter to make it to GM by shooting and scoring GM level scores with the way the high hit factors are currently set. Jerry M didn't do it. He made it by NOT shooting classifiers until he had enough major match wins to be elevated to our sole revolver GM.

And that's where the recognition comes in. If we get a new shooter interested in shooting USPSA matches, he might try any of the divisions. but no matter which division he shoots, he is much more likely to score a respectable classifier percentage if he avoids revolver division.

The BOD hasn't allowed the establishment of division-specific scores for anything except Open and Limited since the new divisions were created. Unrealistic percentages were applied to Limited HHFs in the CM99 series of classifiers and used for L10, Pro, and Rev. A second attempt used different percentages in the CM03 series, but they screwed revolver shooters by using stages that require 3 reloads to the 1 mandatory reload in the other divisions. Now, I find that at least one of the CM06 classifiers uses the same HHF, established by Open shooters, for ALL THE OTHER DIVISIONS. This is the most biased selection of HHFs that the board [or whoever] could possibly make.

Poor scores in classifiers discourage all non-Open shooters. Because of equipment, revolver shooters are incapable of the sub-second reloads that are common for the best Open shooters. Revolver shooters have to contend with trigger pulls of 6 to 8 lbs, while the open shooter is pulling a 1 - 2 lb trigger a quarter of an inch to fire 0.1 to 0.15 splits. How in hell can the BOD use the same HHF for the two divisions?

So IMHO, the BOD-established HHFs for classification has stifled the ability of any shooters to make GM in revolver, and without GMs in revolver, there is no recognition of the Area and Sectional matches as a mechanism for advancing in classification. Its a classic Catch-22, and like most Catch-22s, it's one generated by the brass upstairs who don't care if revolver falls off the face of the earth.

The only way this situation is going to be remedied is if all classifier HHFs are set by the high HF scored at the match where the classifier originated.

There will be some who argue that this would establish an HHF on a very limited group of shooters, and it might not be high enough as a result. To which I say, SO WHAT! Right now we have a "very limited number of shooters" in revolver. If these classifier scores are easy to achieve, then the shooters looking to select a division to play our game might select revolver as a "friendly" venue. Which means more revolver shooters. And that's what we are interested in doing, getting more shooters to play in our division.

And if the classification team on the BOD was doing its job, the influx of new and higher scores would mean that the HHFs for these classifiers might have to be adjusted upwards. THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THE BOD SHOULD HAVE BEEN DOING RIGHT ALONG.

Instead, I haven't seen a single classifier HHF changed in the past 6 years. Meanwhile, we have "grade inflation" in Open and Limited, where the HHFs are routinely exceeded, by considerable margins, by the top shooters. And that is the reason there are so many GMs in the Open and Ltd divisions. And its also a reason a number of the people in those divisions SHOOT those divisions. They are getting positive feedback to shooting skills that are not as outstanding as their classifications indicate.