Future Of Uspsa Revolver Division

[Barrettone]

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

Bruce,

Here is (one of) the problems I have with your "category" division. How the heck do you plan to make the slot distribution system work so people can earn slots in revolver (or any other category for that matter) for nationals? Currently, if you finish in the top 3 at one of the first 8 tounaments, or win at an area match, you get a slot. There is NO WAY that a revolver can place high enough in either open, production or limited division to earn a slot. You need to think about the bigger picture, and how all the other USPSA policies will be affected. This is just one example of how the division would get crippled due to a change in recognition. Revolvers are an entirely different animal, and, like it or not, MUST have their own division. You simply CANNOT tuck it neatly into another division. The hardware precludes such logic IMHO. I didn't invent them, but USPSA has to understand that their differences from other guns give you absolutely no choice.

Just My .02

Jeff LaFave

PS Thank you for conversing with us here...we do appreciate your thoughts.

[BritinUSA]

With regard to assigning slots for Nationals; If there were not enough people in the 'category' for a given qualifier match, their performance could still be counted as Revolver shooters for the purposes of assigning slots for Nationals.

In theory it could work and work just as well as it does with Revolver as a division.

I should add that I agree with much of what Bruce has to say. The sport is getting watered down with all these divisions. Just at our local matches, we have all divisions represented but some only have 1 or 2 shooters. It just makes a mockery of the word 'competition'. If there is no-one to shoot against is it still a competition.

Three divisions with additional categories would work for me and I agree with the breakdown of Open, Limited and Production, though I would like to see the mag capacity for production match IPSC in that regard.

Perhaps it's time for another USPSA survey on this issue.

Edited June 30, 2006 by BritinUSA

[bgary]

OK.

Thank you both for the constructive replies. Surprisingly (I'm not sure if I should be surprised, or you should be), I *agree* with most of what you have said.

I had not been aware that the HHFs were out of whack for Revo. I know that at the outset of L-10, the HHFs were set to the same as Limited because the belief was (is?) that there's no tangible difference between a Lim and L-10 gun for the vast majority of classifiers. I believe that Production HHFs were set to some percentage of Limited at the beginning, until enough of a trend-line was established to make "real" Production HHFs a viable measure of performance, and I *thought* that Production was now running under their own HHFs. Similarly, I *thought* that Revo was established as a percentage of Limited, until "real"revolver baselines were established, and I had *thought* revolver was running under its own HHFs now. I am *pretty* sure that, at worst, Revo HHFs were set against Limited HHFs, not Open HHFs, but I'll find out.

Note, though, that the Board does not generally get involved in those things - the Board sets classification policy, and the office implements it. No excuse there, I will find out how the HHFs are being set for Revolver, and why, and if it is something that is out of whack we can fix it. I would normally not be involved in the day-to-day operations of the classification system any more than I would normally be involved in the day-to-day aspects of distributing Nationals slots - the Board sets the policy, and generally expects the office to execute details according to the policy, but if there is something out of whack here, we can tweak the policy to address it.

I also agree - in fact have long argued - that the classifiers should be 6-round neutral. I've actually argued that *stage* designs, in general, should be 6-round neutral. I haven't won those battles (yet).

I totally agree that shooters like recognition. Heck, *competitors* like recognition, what the heck is the point of competing if you aren't beating someone? But... as I expound on below, if I am in a division, I'm just not sure I agree that it matters if my B-card in revolver would really be equivalent to an A-card in Limited. What I *think* I care about is who else is in B-revolver, and whether or not I can beat them this week. Am I off base on that?

I understand (?) that the 625 is a dominant gun in Revolver, at least what I have seen. I had assumed that was because of a number of factors, like making major, and the ability to lob RN 45s in moonclips at big holes in the cylinder, and the fact that there's a bunch of aftermarket stuff for them. I had thought that 627s were also competitive, but... I'm not up on what is "best", and I'm not sure I understand how "any other model from any other manufacturer" is at a disadvantage... or, if that is true, how it is different from a Para widebody being at somewhat of a competitive disadvantage compared to an SV/STI widebody.

I *totally* agree that having an AD and MD argue about whether to recognize your division would be demoralizing. Not sure who or where that was (I *hope* it wasn't me). I'm pretty by-the-book about that stuff - if a division is valid according to the rulebook, it gets fair treatment in awards and everything else (I'll spare you my opinions about prize tables and the detrimental effect I think they have on our game, for another time)

Fanfare and promotion? I don't remember a lot of fanfare or promotion for L10 or Production back in the 2000-2002 timeframe. I *do* remember big fanfare about the first "factory gun" nationals (2002? 2003?) and how single-stacks, stock glocks, and "dad's model 19" were all touted as exactly the kind of gun that finally had a nationals to play in. "Back to the Future" was a big theme, and it included revolver fanfare. Perhaps not as much as one would like, but... then again, it may be as simple an issue as "in proportion to the level of interest that the numbers indicate". I don't view that as "bias", as much as I view that as "reading the market". In other words, it is not about consciously deciding to give short shrift to revolvers, as it is looking at how many revolver entries there are in the match, and aligning the marketing message accordingly.

I *totally* agree with you that the Board muffed the yes/no/yes crap on 8-round revolvers when the division was established. That was... well, not the intent. Originally we planned to adopt the IPSC criteria. Then we figured out that IPSC was only going to allow 6 rounds to be *loaded*, and thought that was less-than-optimal. So we landed on allowing revolver shooters to *load* as many as they want, but reload after shooting 6. Bad place to compromise, affected up-to-that-point-division-legal equipment, lesson learned. You may have noticed that since then there has been a *great* deal of attention paid to *not* writing equipment rules that invalidate currently-legal equipment. (oh, and by the way, I could send you email logs that show we put a *lot* more thought - or at least, a lot more angst - into the revolver rules than we did for the production rules).

But... having said that... a few questions (and maybe an observation)

-- Aren't classifications "relative"? In other words, what difference does it make if the Revolver HHFs are skewed 10% high or 10% low - aren't they still a *relative* measure of your performance against other revolver shooters who are being measured on the same scale? If the HHF scale is compressed, both of us may be arbitrarily low compared to an "absolute" scale... but won't you and I be correctly classified in relationship to each other if we are comparing revolver classifications? Doesn't a B-card (or whatever) in revolver reflect relative performance against a C-card in revolver, every bit as much as a B-Open card reflects relative skill against a C-open card? (Oh, and by the way... I'm an advocate of classifying the shooter, not the kind of gun he chooses to put in his hand. So, I think if you earn an A-card, it means you have attained a certain level of skill, and probably ought to be considered an A-shooter no matter what kind of gun you pick up. But I'm in the minority on that idea, too).

(as an aside, one of the many things we have on our list to do is to look at the whole classification algorithm and figure out how to "fix" it. At present, it is set up so it goes up as your performance improves, but it doesn't go down as performance stabilizes or declines. Your "good classifiers" stay in the calculation forever, even if all your classifiers for the last 10 years are consistently below that level - I can point to shooters whose current classifications are calcuated using scores that were shot more than a decade ago. That's one problem. Another problem ... and perhaps more relevant here... is that as HHFs improve, the higher HHFs are generally NOT changed in the system. Largely that is because if we adopted a new higher HHF, we'd have to recalculate everyone's classification, and the *only* direction they would go is down. Imagine being really proud of that A-card you earned, only to find that next month someone shot a new HHF, and when the calcs were run, you had been downgraded to a B-card, because your 80% of the old HHF was now only 70% of the new HHF. That doesn't seem like a good thing... but using the same HHFs forever doesn't seem like a good thing, either. Not sure what the solution is, but for right now, you're right, HHFs almost never change, not because of anything specific to revolver, but because of the reclassification problem)

-- And... how does that HHF problem affect growth? Are either of you really saying "gee, if only the revolver HHF problems got fixed, we'd have 1000 more Revo shooters nationwide, and 200 more people shooting Revo at the Nationals."? I know I have a tired brain today, but I just don't see the connection. Put differently, I don't see that there is a causal relationship between HHFs being out of whack, and Revo experiencing slow growth compared to Production or L10

(an observation... Production *did* start out with exactly the same HHF issue as revolver... if I recall correctly, their HHF was based on a finger-in-the-wind pro-rata adjustment to Limited HHFs. So... that adds to my difficulty in seeing how the HHF problem has held back revolver. In point of fact, SS participation is *ahead* of revolver, after less than half a year, without even having HHFs or classifier scores at *all*. We could *try* the same approach with Revolver, and just administratively declare that your Revo classification is whatever your highest other-division classification happens to be. Would that be of interest?)

-- Last... back to the point I keep seeming to want to fall on my sword over... let's assume that we do fix the HHF problem, and the 6-round neutral problem, and the 8-round revolver problem, and the gotta-have-this-exact-model-to-be-competitive problem, and any other problems... what if revolver participation remains a relatively small segment of member interest? How *should* we deal with revolver? How *should* we decide what division(s) get their own Nationals, and what divisions may not be "big" enough to stand on their own?

OK, one more thought, and then I gotta go back to work. I could be *very* wrong, but I don't think that there are lots of Open and Lim/L10 shooters because the classification system makes it easier to get a better classification card. I don't think that the large number of GMs in those divisions is why lots of people shoot those divisions. *MY* opinion is that lots of people shoot those divisions because they have "critical mass" - when you go to a match, you see most people shooting Open, Lim-L10 or Production guns, so people are drawn to those divisions to "fit in", and that critical mass leads to more people shooting more competitively, which leads to more GMs. I also think the bigger the division is (and the longer it has been around), the more GMs there are likely to be. I think of when I was sailboat racing - the smaller classes almost never yielded world champions... but the classes that had been around for a while and got 150 identical boats fighting it out at a big regatta, seemed to produce a *lot* of current and future world champions. If the HHF issue is why there are few GMs, that may be a fixable thing... but I doubt that the lack of GMs is why participation has stayed small. Rather, my guess is that the small participation has affected the number of GMs.

We can work on the things that are wrong with the way Revo is set up. We can try to fix the problems you've cited. But... at the end of the day, if we fix all those things and Revo is *still* a "niche" game, with comparatively low participation... then what do we do?

One possibility - made possible by our new semi-autonomy with regard to IPSC - might be to set up the *perfect* revolver division, according to the criteria that you the shooters tell us you want. Maybe even see if we can partner with the ICORE championship for a revolver nationals, like we did with the 1911-Society match. And then implement it the same way as the single-stack division - make it "provisional" for three years, watch how it does, and then decide whether to keep it, modify it or ditch it, based on participation and growth. Would that be an approach you'd like us to pursue? It's just a random idea from a tired brain, but... what the heck, maybe it is worth kicking around?

Bruce (*gotta* get some work done now...)

Edited June 30, 2006 by bgary

[bgary]

Here is (one of) the problems I have with your "category" division. How the heck do you plan to make the slot distribution system work so people can earn slots in revolver (or any other category for that matter) for nationals?

If I were king? <evil grin>

I'd let the numbers decide how that comes out.

If Open is 28% of the big-match activity, or 28% of the classifier scores entered into the system, or whatever, I'd allocate 28% of the slots to Open shooters.... *specifically* for the Open Nationals (in other words, you would not be able to use an Open slot to get into the Production nationals, or vice versa).

So, yeah, if 3% of the measured participation is revolvers, I'd make sure that 3% of the slots go to revolver shooters.

Yes, that would affect how slots get handed out - one of the [many] things we gotta figure out is whether the current system of using activity credits to award slots to sections who turn an awful lot of them back in makes any "sense". But, whether it was section slots, or big-match-performance-award slots, or wait-list slots, I'd have them go to revolver shooters in proportion to how much of the relevant participation revolver shooters represent. Want more slots? get more people shooting revolvers.

That would have some interesting repurcussions.... not the least of which is that we would be able to actually apply some "intelligent planning" to the Nationals, and which divisions get combined with which, because we would know *ahead* of time how many revolver shooters to expect, and how many L10 shooters to expect, and plan accordingly. If we hand out 30 revolver slots, based on participation, it would mean we'd plan to lump revolver in with some bigger division's Nationals. If we handed out 150 revolver slots, based on pro-rata participation, then by gosh it would make sense to have a revolver-specific nationals.

Conversely, the current system (where I might be able to earn a section slot shooting Open, but use it to go shoot Production or something) is, in my opinion, ripe for cherry-picking, and does *not* provide Nationals representation in proportion to actual participation, which makes match planning and logistics a lot harder, which (I think) tends to lower the quality of the experience at the Nationals.

$.02 (before taxes)

Bruce

Edited June 30, 2006 by bgary

[cliffwalsh]

Why do we need more than one National Match??

If they cost money and a very small number of members go, why spend the money there?

Why not have just one National Match and use the extra money to help out the local clubs where the majority of members shoot?

Edited June 30, 2006 by cliffwalsh

[Barrettone]

OK.

-- Aren't classifications "relative"? In other words, what difference does it make if the Revolver HHFs are skewed 10% high or 10% low - aren't they still a *relative* measure of your performance against other revolver shooters who are being measured on the same scale?

Bruce (*gotta* get some work done now...)

Well, <evil grin of my own>

If you consider the USPSA policy that states you need 3 GM's to make a major match (level II or III) qualify as a classifier, then no, they aren't relative. We are missing out on having our major match scores (a better measuring stick than classifiers IMHO) because we can't muster the needed GM's to make the matches count where we get all the top Revo guys. Because the system is broke, we are missing out. They count nationals with only Jerry participating, for whatever reason, which doesn't even meet the policy requirements.

We have great revo guys like Carmoney, Carden, Walsh, Burkholder and Kettles who can really tear it up, but because they are about 85% of Jerry at nats, Master is the best they can do, as that is the only way to move up as the classification system is so screwy for revo. Other divisions take the best 10 HHF's and average them to render the HHF. Jerry should be PART of that equation, but not ALL of it like it is now. Even Jerry only made GM due to his match scores...nationals wins mostly (look it up). We need our top ten HHF's averaged to be our HHF. Who cares if a GM, or a D class guy shot 'em??? It shouldn't matter. We shouldn't be bastardized against Limited. At least give us enough rope to hang ourselves or swing high above the trees!!!

Incidentally, you will find that for all the "99" series classifiers we were based 10% lower than the HHF for Limited division. For the "03" series, it was a whopping 30%...and there are six-shot nuetral classifiers in there!!! I have heard that the "06" series are very low, but haven't seen numbers on them yet. So you see, it is terribly inconsistent. You will either score in the basement, or through the roof on them. Since the classification system is upwardly biased, you really try to avoid those "03's" like the plague unless you want to get your a$$ whipped in a class or two higher than you should be.

So, in a nutshell...it matters, for many reasons. A solid classification system for a division is the foundation which it builds on. Screw that up, and you've got problems right from the get-go as you either discourage shooters because they can't score reasonably well, or they score too high, and get dejected when they get their butt handed to 'em at a major from somebody with the same or lower classification. Capice???

DVC

Edited June 30, 2006 by Barrettone

[Carmoney]

Revolvers are an entirely different animal, and, like it or not, MUST have their own division. You simply CANNOT tuck it neatly into another division. The hardware precludes such logic IMHO. I didn't invent them, but USPSA has to understand that their differences from other guns give you absolutely no choice.

In a few concise sentences, Jeff has captured the real essence of this whole issue. If we don't have our own division, we truly have no place to go in USPSA. With the semi-auto divisions, you generally can move a holster or change mags and still have a place to play, and if you're good, you'll still be competitive. For example, a good shooter can take a stock Glock and still run with the wide-bodies in Limited. A skinny L-10 gun with different mags can work just fine in Single-Stack--and vice versa. We Revolver shooters though, perhaps more than any other division, need to be sorted out separately and scored against each other in order to have a meaningful match. It just won't be any fun otherwise.

I don't really care about all the classification stuff. I just really want to keep on competing and having fun in Revolver division with my son and all my friends. I guess that's the bottom line for me.

[bgary]

<wry smile>

OK, let me see if I have this right...

The HHFs are set too high, so everyone in revolver division is classified too low...

...which is why there are not enough GMs...

...which is why match scores don't count as classifiers....

...which is why so few people want to shoot revolvers...

...oh. except that the revolver HHFs are 10-30% lower than the base HHFs

...oh. and then there are the classifiers for which the revolver HHF is *too* low...

...which are avoided like the plague...

...because it would be a bad thing to have your classification go up...

OK. I get that the HHF thing is a real issue. But... c'mon, can you really tell me with a straight face that *that* is the main reason more people don't shoot revolvers in USPSA competitions?

Bruce

PS - I don't know Carmoney, Carden, Walsh or Burkholder (other than from reading posts on the forums)... but Tom Kettels and Rich Bitow are from my home section, and I bet that either one of them would be *thrilled* to end up at 85% in a match against Jerry. I think (this is based on conjecture), that if Jerry defines the 100%/GM mark, then M is a pretty reasonable place for them to be.

Note, too, the classifier system only uses a match score for classification if there are 3 or more GMs who shoot GM-level scores. So, if you have the top 3 GMs in a division shooting 100%, 98% and 97%, for example, that is a viable *candidate* for classification score. If the top 3 GMs shoot 100%, 82% and 80%, that match score is not going to get used as a classifer (according to the policy) no matter which division it is. So... as one poster already suggested, this is a bit of a catch-22, but maybe not the one you think it is. When there are revolver shooters who shoot 95-99% of Jerry's score, heads up, as a match score? I bet that would get a *lot* of attention.

Edited June 30, 2006 by bgary

[bgary]

Whoops!

Back the truck up!

I just went and looked thru all the major-match results from 2005 and 2006.

In all those matches, there was only *one* instance where someone shot more than 85% in a match against Jerry.

That was Cliff Walsh at the 2005 Nats, and he holds an M-card. Which, given the 85.43% score against the HHF-holder, seems to be perfectly in line.

There were - in all that time, only three other scores of over 80% against Jerry. All of those people held A-cards, which, again, seems to be perfectly in line.

And if you look at the distribution of scores at the 2005 Nationals, something jumps out.

-- The top A-card holders were grouped right around the top of the "A" percentage (75-85%)

-- The top B-card holders were grouped right around the top of the "B" percentage (60-75%)

-- The top C-card holders were grouped right around the top oc the "C" percentage (40-60%).

Just looking at it at a surface level, it looks like the classification system is working *perfectly*. If we agree that Jerry's performance sets the standard, I'm really having a much harder time believing that "skewed HHFs" is keeping people's classifications artificially false. It looks to me like Jerry's standard is making it so other people's classifications line up *exactly* with their demonstrated performance. My general belief is that when people shoot a match against the best in the world, and their match percentage is pretty close to their classification average... things are working pretty well. From that standpoint, it looks like Revolver classifications are *better* aligned than most other divisions!

Bruce

PS - One other thing I noticed... in the vast majority of those matches, there were only two or three (or in some cases just one) revolver shooters. Let's face it... even if every revolver shooter in those matches was a GM, those scores still wouldn't count as classifiers... in fact, those scores should not have stood at all, because the revolver division should not have been recognized due to not meeting the minimum participation level. Meaning no disrespect, but... that's not a problem with the classification system, that's just... lack of interest.

We Revolver shooters though, perhaps more than any other division, need to be sorted out separately and scored against each other in order to have a meaningful match.

Yup. I agree.

And that can be done whether you are scored as a division, or as a category within a division. Either way, "revolver match results" can be produced, and "revolver awards" can be given out, revolver performance-award slots can be awarded, revolver classifiers can be captured.... everything can be made to work, so that revolvers are "sorted out and scored against each other"...

...assuming there are enough of them to qualify as a division, or a category.

Bruce

Edited June 30, 2006 by bgary

[Barrettone]

<wry smile>

OK. I get that the HHF thing is a real issue. But... c'mon, can you really tell me with a straight face that *that* is the main reason more people don't shoot revolvers in USPSA competitions?

Bruce

Hell no Gary, but it all starts with being given the tools to start the ball rolling. Since revolvers inception, it really hasn't been given ANY support. It was, as you indicated in an earlier post, an afterthought when IPSC recognized it, and USPSA was (somewhat) forced to deal with it. It was kinda shoved in the corner, and let go. I am not saying that we would be the dominant division in USPSA, but I can honestly believe, if it had been given a reasonalble amount of support, that it could have already attained a 10%-12% following among all USPSA entries. The number of ICORE shooters alone that were driven off to start their own confederation should be proof enough of that estimate. Driven off due to the "equiment race" and the couse design issues (but that is another topic altogether). We could have marketed the fact that revolver shooters are only shooting against other revolver shooters, so it doesn't matter. In fact, that is the mantra that the current revo corp has used to bring back as many competitors as they have this year.

Another side note:

Keep in mind, there was a shift away from revos in favor of auto pistols back in the late 70's and early 80's. Lately, the small revos like the airlites and other titanium revos made by S&W and Taurus have made a bit of a comeback. I carry one of these, and that is why I shoot a revo...to be proficient with the system that I carry (although a 625 is a SMIDGE heavier). I see people showing up with revos more and more at our clubs to practice (albeit for self defense). Could we bring these people in??? Who knows, but I think it is worth trying.

But to get moreso back on topic...When the President calls them "silly round things that spin" on national television ( Shooting USA-OLN), it doesn't do much for promoting a division, as newbies don't think they will be taken seriously in revolver division. We're like comic relief to some people, and IMHO thats bullsh!t. Bottom line is, we need support if we are to grow. You are saying in effect: "bring us shooters and then we'll do something", we are saying: "give us the tools we need (marketing and otherwise...like open and limited have gotten over the years) and we'll bring in the shooters". It is a mexican standoff in the truest sense. I hope my ramblings made at least a little sense.

Jeff

Edited June 30, 2006 by Barrettone

[bgary]

OK. I *really* gotta quit coming here, and get some work done (Jerry_V, are you sorry you got me into this yet?)

A couple of last observations

*Perhaps* revolver has not gotten as much attention as the other divisions. We could argue why that is, but probably not agree.

*Perhaps* the way the 2001 rulebook was mangled caused USPSA revolver shooters to go to ICORE. We could argue about what the right thing to do with those rules might have been, but probably not agree.

*Perhaps* there is an equipment race in Revolver. We could argue that it is no difference than equipment races in other divisions, but probably not agree.

*Perhaps* the president should watch what he says, because whether he knows it or not his on-camera opinions *do* change perceptions. I'll give you that one.

BUT

all of those things add up, in your mind, to... again, I mean no disrespect here, you're citing those things as if they are all reasons why Revolver participation is low in USPSA.

I mean. I really don't mean to be disparaging, and I really am trying to understand the issues so I can help fix them... but... on the one hand you tell me how much harder a revolver is to shoot well, and that it is so different that it is really an entirely separate game, and that there just isn't any way to reasnably compare shooting a revolver to shooting a semi-auto, and that revolver shooters are at such a big disadvantage against autos because of capacity and trigger pull and reloading challenges, and how important it is to recognize revolvers only against other revolvers, separately from all the "other" type of gun, because they're so different, and....

...and then you tell me "but, the reason more people don't shoot revolvers is because USPSA didn't market the division properly, and USPSA dorked-up the revolver rules, and the USPSA president made a joke about revolvers on TV, and if only we had been given more attention we'd be just as big as those other divisions..."

Isn't it possible that people pretty much choose to shoot the kinds of guns they like to shoot, and that Revolver participation is, in fact, a pretty accurate reflection of how many USPSA shooters actually want to contend with all those unique and challenging aspects of revolver shooting in USPSA competitions?

Bruce

[Carmoney]

I guess I still don't see how maintaining a separate division for Revo is costing USPSA anything. Take the USPSA Nationals, for example. We shoot alongside L and L-10. Last year there were 20 of us (this year there will be substantially more, I'll wager), so that's about five grand in entry fee money. What did it cost to have us there as a separate division? Four plaques, a fairly lame prize table (where only the top two guys even recouped their entry fee), and a couple minutes' worth of statistician time to print off and post our scores on a separate sheet of paper. That's it.

I shot a lot of major matches last year (Nat'ls, two Area matches, and a whole slew of state/sectionals) and thinking back I can't come up with a single one in which it was unprofitable to have us around. As a distinct and separate division.

I don't think it creates any meaningful expense, from the club level to HQ, to have Revo as a separate division in USPSA.

Whatever the rationale (or rationalization) may be for those who wish to dump the division, it's not monetary cost.

Somebody tell me if I'm wrong here.

[XRe]

Note, too, the classifier system only uses a match score for classification if there are 3 or more GMs who shoot GM-level scores.

Not true... in practice, anyhow. The SSC and DoubleTap matches from this year both counted for classification. At the SSC, in Open, only one shooter shot a GM score - and at the time, he was classed as an "M". The 4 Open GMs in the match were all lower than that. At DoubleTap, in Open, it was the same way, except that the top shooter was a GM. The other two GMs didn't shoot GM scores.

I'm not complaining about that - but the practice apparently doesn't match the policy....

[BritinUSA]

Just to throw so more fuel on the fire. If we have an individual like Jerry who wins most stages at a match, then it will scew the results downwards for everyone else. In the other divisions (as Bruce has pointed out) there are a lot of exceptional shooters. At a major match - say 20 stages - no one person will win more then 6-7 of them, so this will spread out the HHF on each stage and bunch people close together as a consequence.

The problem that is occuring with Revolver scores at big matches is because JM is an anomaly. He's not representative of the rest of the division. Now in time the gap between JM and the other mere mortals will slowly close but for now it is out of whack.

Revolver shooting is a very small pond at the moment (about 3%) and in that very small pond are a bunch of goldfish and a shark, no-one wants to join the other goldfish because they are going to get mauled by the shark.

If you enter a big match and shoot better than you have at any time in your life and some guy kicks your butt by 300-400 points it's not going to encourage others to play.

My solution:

Each division in the classification database should only contain scores shot with guns from that division, and not altered scores from other divisions... so there

The CLASSIFICATION system needs to be altered (once a year refresh to accept higher HHF) which will mean that shooters can go DOWN as well as UP. The current system is so flawed as to be completely worthless.

Once the above two are done then the system will work for all divisions.

As to qualification; Simple solution, alter the percentages for GM, M, A, B, C, D for the revolver division to more accurately reflect scores. You can't include JM when making those calculations. He is a statistical anomaly and if he is not removed from the calculation then it will never work.

[Jerry V]

OK. I *really* gotta quit coming here, and get some work done (Jerry_V, are you sorry you got me into this yet?)

Bruce, your doing great......hey at least no one has threatened to do a drive-by moonclipping on you yet

Though what I'm afraid of is that the next time I see you it will probably go something like this:

Hey Bruce how's going.......Bruce...hey don't walk away .....no really, I just wanna say hi and ask you something .......Why are you running away????

Bruce, hang in there you contributed a lot to a really great discussion so far

[Waltermitty]

...and then you tell me "but, the reason more people don't shoot revolvers is because USPSA didn't market the division properly, and USPSA dorked-up the revolver rules, and the USPSA president made a joke about revolvers on TV, and if only we had been given more attention we'd be just as big as those other divisions..."

Isn't it possible that people pretty much choose to shoot the kinds of guns they like to shoot, and that Revolver participation is, in fact, a pretty accurate reflection of how many USPSA shooters actually want to contend with all those unique and challenging aspects of revolver shooting in USPSA competitions?

Bruce

I'll re-read the thread, but I don't recall the poster that said revo would be as big as the other divisions if those things were fixed. I guess it could be, but I didn't see the claim.

Open certainly can't make the claim they would be as big as Limited, but that's another discussion.

The main point of my message that got lost in this side issue is that Revo Division probably wasn't a target for elimination until there got to be "Too Many Divisions" after the addition of L-10, Production, and Single Stack. My perception was that everyone was just fine with ONE U.S. Nationals including Open, Limited, and Revo.

As far as Revo being harder to shoot and how important that is, ICORE has done a decent job proving that it doesn't matter when the rules are set up to recognize the limitations of the platform. Last year's USPSA 2005 Nationals was 99.9% 6 shot (revolver) neutral, and I don't recall any bellyaching from the competitors in other divisions that it screwed them up or slowed them down to have 2-3 shots less per target array on 30+ round stages. I feel the staff and crew made an effort to design the stages this way and applaud their effort.

So yeah, we chose the equipment we shoot and are contented (in the main) with competing only against other revo shooters, but that's not what started this thread; what started this thread is the discussion that the division is on the chopping block for reasons that are largely, in my opinion, constructs of the opposing sides in the other discussions.

USPSA created, through policy and practice, the break away competetive venues of IDPA, the 1911 Society, ICORE and to some lesser degree SASS. Separate, self-sustaining organizations that USPSA couldn't figure out how to craft a division around. All represent refugees from some facet of IPSC/USPSA policy making (aka "the equipment race"). I think the Production Division was smart from this aspect, even if I may quibble with the execution, but the underlying growth opportunity still exists to regain these enthusiasts by a better development of divisions that goes beyond just scabbing some equipment limitations onto Open and Limited Division rules.

The keys lie elsewhere, in course design, classification and competition structure rules. Can you name the most important "anti-USPSA" rules in each of the breakaway games that founded their success? Important answers are in there.

Do we need 6 National Championships? Hell No! That's a straw man erected to force the conversation back into limiting the sport to three semi-auto based divisions.

There's a much larger number of markets out there if the goal is to increase the size of the pie. I happen to think much of this division nonsense could have been side-stepped with course design rules that not only would have made the playing field more level but that would have given us better courses and a better game to boot; but the bias has been (for many years) to off-set the increasing prevalence of long-range, high round count hoser stages by changing equipment rules (or adding divisions) to reduce the overall dominance of red dots, compensators and 30 round magazines. This is backwards.

I think this is the root of the limitations on growing USPSA. The high-zoot equipment crowd have pushed the competition into a relatively small niche of it's own, comprised of high-dollar custom guns (even in "Production") that require 30+ round courses of fire. (not that I mind 30 round courses of fire). With little accomodation for the recruitment of less-than-fire-breathing competitors in any division.

So let's look at this like a business if you insist. How would the golf industry/economy look if every newbie was faced with the prospect of having to play Pebble beach with his rented clubs and was scored as a percentage of Tiger Woods best score ever shot at the Pebble Beach open? That's not how it works. The new guy shoots against Par to develop a handicap and then plays to improve against that.

Think of what the game could be properly executing the Golf model!

[Round_Gun_Shooter]

I guess I still don't see how maintaining a separate division for Revo is costing USPSA anything.

It doesn't. BUT, bringing that into a discussion with Non revolver competitors who ultimately do not want revolvers in the sport will sway them to the decision to abandon the division.

Take the USPSA Nationals, for example. We shoot alongside L and L-10. Last year there were 20 of us (this year there will be substantially more, I'll wager), so that's about five grand in entry fee money. What did it cost to have us there as a separate division? Four plaques, a fairly lame prize table (where only the top two guys even recouped their entry fee), and a couple minutes' worth of statistician time to print off and post our scores on a separate sheet of paper. That's it.

That $30 worth of Lucite may put the Association under. As for the prize table, remember, it has been stated in this discussion that Revolver division was a knee jerk reaction to IPSC.

I don't think it creates any meaningful expense, from the club level to HQ, to have Revo as a separate division in USPSA.

Whatever the rationale (or rationalization) may be for those who wish to dump the division, it's not monetary cost.

As I have said elsewhere, it is an opinion from the top on down that revolver shooters do not belong in this game. As much as BGARY has posted, read all of his posts together. It is obvious he is also against this division and nothing that is posted here will change that.

The USPSA continues to add to semi auto divisions while down playing the only division for revolvers as the unnecessary division. Where is the sense in this? Just because the powers that be do not see it as a viable division are we, as Revolver shooters, supposed to give it up?

No, this is a member run organization. As members, we should be represented and not swept aside.

I do not think it is "If" the revolver division will be eliminated. I think it is "When". No matter what we do, no matter what we say, as long as "They" don't want it, "They" can eliminate it.

I know I said I was staying out of this, but this attitude has been stuck in my craw for some time.

Somebody tell me if I'm wrong here.

You are not wrong.

Edited June 30, 2006 by Round_Gun_Shooter

[Loves2Shoot]

Think of what the game could be properly executing the Golf model!

One set of gear with handicaps? That's the golf model isn't it?

How about 6 round neutral courses, with Open, Limted, Production (no round restrictions just factory mags) and Other (L10, SS, Revo) Ooops not to step on anyone's pet specialty class, but simpler may be better. Not to try to exclude revo's or say they can't hang with evil bottom feeders, but too many classes gets very expensive in match administration and can really watter down the comeptition part of it.

Revo shooters know they are shooting gear limited by reloading skill, that is accepted, make the course a little more neutral and don't pigeon hole them into a special class (stick all the round handicapped guns into the same class) and it might actually grow interest in revos and downloaded guns. Don't flame me too bad, just a random thought.

ps. I don't know ANYONE who does want those who shot revos not to play the game...

Edited June 30, 2006 by Loves2Shoot

[Round_Gun_Shooter]

Think of what the game could be properly executing the Golf model!

One set of gear with handicaps? That's the golf model isn't it?

How about 6 round neutral courses, with Open, Limted, Production (no round restrictions just factory mags) and Other (L10, SS, Revo) Ooops not to step on anyone's pet specialty class, but simpler may be better. Not to try to exclude revo's or say they can't hang with evil bottom feeders, but too many classes gets very expensive in match administration and can really watter down the comeptition part of it.

Revo shooters know they are shooting gear limited by reloading skill, that is accepted, make the course a little more neutral and don't pigeon hole them into a special class (stick all the round handicapped guns into the same class) and it might actually grow interest in revos and downloaded guns. Don't flame me too bad, just a random thought.

ps. I don't know ANYONE who does want those who shot revos not to play the game...

You need to read this thread

Sweeney's best

[Genghis]

HHF's should be set so that there is a normal distribution of GM's, M's, etc. in each division. In other words, with a large enough sample of classifier scores, we'll see a standard bell curve.

Choosing the right HHF should eventually result in a predictable percentage of GM's, M's, etc. in that division. I don't know what the actual distribution of classifier scores is, but setting HHF in this way might give us 1% GM's, 4% M's, 10% A's, 15% B's, 30% C's, and 40% D's. Making A class would then tell you that you're better than at least 85% of the other shooters in your division.

It's not right to have the bar set much higher in Revo, because (for instance) an A in Limited doesn't equate to an A in Revo.

Muchos Kudos to Bruce for getting so deeply into this discussion. That's above and beyond what most people would do.

[Loves2Shoot]

Sweeney's best

I have read the post before and agree with Pat's post 10000%

The round count neutral might make other folks more open to the idea because some folks aren't as rational as Pat.

Edited June 30, 2006 by Loves2Shoot

[XRe]

I do not think it is "If" the revolver division will be eliminated. I think it is "When". No matter what we do, no matter what we say, as long as "They" don't want it, "They" can eliminate it.

So, let me ask you this... What have *you* personally done to try to promote and preserve revo as a separate division within USPSA? Have you lobbied the BoD through your AD and the President? Have you offered them possible solutions to the problems you see in the course of your lobbying, or just complained that you're getting the bum steer? Have you promoted shooting revo at your local matches, including things like organizing a prize table at a match for revo shooters, etc? Have you talked with your SC about possibly providing a better prize table for revo at your section match - and offered to do all the labor required to make it happen (including drumming up the prizes as donations from potential match sponsors)? Have you spoken to the match directors who haven't recognized Revolver division placements (because there wasn't enough participation) and explained (calmly and politely) to them why it would be helpful to the success of the Revolver division if they'd recognize the division in the future, even with low participation numbers - and offered to help get the awards together for them?

If you want Revolver to succeed (long term) as a division, it's up to you to make it happen, and not for the BoD to do it all for you.

I think Bruce has made it rather clear that USPSA is following the perceived desires of the membership, based on the participation numbers that they see (which is the only hard fact they have to work with) and the feedback that they've received (that there are too many divisions). I think Bruce has been very open with his feelings and opinions, his reasoning for them, and has responded to the issues presented and has been willing to be educated on the unique issues Revolver shooters are facing in this sport. I think you haven't been willing at all to see it from the other side - until you are willing to do that, and begin to formulate and offer solutions to the challenges that are faced collectively by Revolver enthusiasts and USPSA as a whole, you're not going to get anywhere.

Just my opinion on the thread....

I do have a question re: equipment. Excuse my ignorance... Assume the 6 round limitation for Revo stands... IS there a revolver that would be more competitive than a 625, given the reloading requirements of a revolver?? Obviously, if 8 round revos were let back in, the two extra rounds are a pretty huge advantage. But ignoring that - is there anything else out there that would be as suited for USPSA competition???

[Flexmoney]

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

Sorry if this has been coverd, but I wanted to respond to it before I got side-tracked (reading the rest of the thread).

From the rule book:

Unless otherwise specified, IPSC sanctioned matches will recognize Divisions

and Categories based on the number of registered competitors who actually

compete in the match, based on the following criteria:

1. Divisions

Level I & II A minimum of 5 competitors per Division (recommended)

Level III A minimum of 10 competitors per Division (mandatory)

Level IV & V A minimum of 20 competitors per Division (mandatory)

Two things from above:

1. It should be pointed out that the above rules, being referenced by Bruce, are...indeed...IPSC sanctioning guidelines, not USPSA.

2. The words "Unless otherwise specified..." can/do negate the whole minimum competitors thing altogether. (And, putting Revolver on the match applications is good enough for me as to being "otherwise specified".)

[Carmoney]

Good points, Flex.

[Flexmoney]

HHF's should be set so that there is a normal distribution of GM's, M's, etc. in each division. In other words, with a large enough sample of classifier scores, we'll see a standard bell curve.

There aren't enough shooter in revolver to provide a meaningful sample.

The Revolver HHF are screwed up.

I think, a better method, would be to go through them and see what they require. And, use Jerry's abilities as a baseline.

- We can figure out his draw time and A-hit at 5-10-15y etc.

- We can figure out his standing reload time.

- We can figure out his splits.

- We can figure out his transitions.

- We can figure out his time to reload while moving to a position 5y away.

Then, it's just math (which is how a lot of us GM's look at breaking down stages).

The idea of having Jerry shoot all the classifiers is great, but it's not really likely to happen...a logistics nightmare. But, that doesn't mean we can't figure out his prdeicted HF on stages.

The stage I sent in to NROI as my "classifier" stage for my CRO class, I know..beyond doubt...what the HHF would work out to for that stage. It's just math.