Arms-length Targets

[tightloop]

Well, just because a course of fire is more than 25 rounds does not mean that it tests anything at all except who has a Big Stick that works.....

...the USPSA rules as they are now, do not allow you to test many things on low round count stages...you cannot mandate a reload, you cannot do a weakhand draw, you cannot do a weak hand reload, you cannot go from freestyle to reloaded weakhand in the same string.., just as examples...so the long field course has emerged as the defacto standard simply because people want the opportunity to jam a huge magazine into the pistol and then blast targets till empty without having to think about distance or accuracy, or how many rounds they have left...it is simply lots of rounds at modest lengths, 5 to 12 yds mostly, some movement and a freaking sea of similar targets...these are popular because there is a certain thrill of emptying a big mag with lots of brass in the air...if you have to concentrate on a 22 yd head shot, you aren't streaming brass from your blaster...you have to take time to aim and make the shot...if you have a swinger at 18 yds it does the same thing....

The thing that is tiresome is long stages with the same rhythm or cadence to most of the shots...just like going to a port and shooting 9 rounds, next port...9 rounds, you get the picture and you can substitute port with barricade or sight barrier...dull...Just like Eric says about the short courses....arms length is dull too...nothing but hearing the pistol fire...

I have to agree with Eric that a stage that makes the shooter think, keeps him off balance and only offeres him targets that require a sight picture do more for testing his shooting ability than a 27 round CoF with 3 ports and 9 shots per port or a stage with 6 rounds at 4 yds freestyle...or any stage with gimicky props like a swinging bridge, Tx star, swivel seat like a gun turret and 17 targets....

[D.Hayden]

Based on the topic subject.. I expected more differing opinions then this

[ipscbob]

Sorry but have to rebut this with an observation about these posts.....Lock if you must but some things need to be said even if they only survive long enough for a mod to kill them.

Seems to be a lot of bitchin and moaning lately on here about how USPSA has degenerated into a hose fest with no challenge left. Quite frankly, I dont see this at ANY of our local matches. We have a pretty good balance of speed vs. accuracy. We see paper from 5 to 40 yds and plates out to about 30 as well some run and gun hoser courses that EVERYONE seems to enjoy. Please, realise that matches are setup and run differently everywhere you go based on the personality and abilities of those who run them. Please STOP generalising about the sport and put your energy into improving your local matches. If you dont like the matches you shoot, get involved more and change them or go elsewhere. If the energy that is expended here complaining went into the sport itself somehow, we would all benefit.

Edited August 7, 2006 by ipscbob

[cking]

Hose fest, yep! But lets face it there are two camps. The fun only shooters, and those that see it as practice for something more important.

Make the match too hard and they will bitch. and you'll lose shooters. So we usually figure on only a couple of targets per match that are really challenging. That way the C/D shooters will only have a couple of drops.

Now hosers want to use those expensive guns so you have to give them something to really blast away at. So we usually throw in a 30 round stage with lots of movement for that group.

Me I'm in camp of I like tough shots, and courses that leave a lot up to the shooters. Rather than from box A engage blah ......

[38supPat]

A couple of points:

The last time I ran across a arms length match (all paper was 3 - 5 yards and all steel at ten) I removed my scope and won the match sans sights...kinda p'd them but made my point. It wasn't stock friendly, it was just too damn easy.

Second, while I have never been big on the whole tactical side of the sport, I do remember the old days when we had scenarios, and the targets (distance, difficulty etc.) had to make sens. They just don't seem to any more. A course with 30 yd partials with or without n/s doesn't make any more sense than 3 yds open targets. If a trget is closer than 10 yrds, and a number should be, most (but not all) should be partials. 10 to 20 yds there should be a good mix of partials and full, and anything beyond 20 should pretty much be a full or limited hard cover no no-shoots.

Several reasons why: remember that while everyone on this board is a GM (sarcasm) there are many newbies and lower class shooters out there, they pay the majority of the fees at a match, GM and M is only a small percentage of the match income. The match should be challenging (and fun) for everyone. While a point and squirt is boring (once in a while fun) the challenge should not be so tough that new or lower class shooters get frustreated and never come back, a no-shoot on a 30 yd target is not a fair target for a newbie. For someone who would have trouble hitting a 30 yd target, hardcover is tough at that distance..no-shoots are just unneccesary punishment. Racking up a bunch of penalties on an already hard target is just a cruel way to say newbies and lower classes are not welcome.

I have never had a shot at the Nationals that I didn't think ANYONE should be able to make this. But I have been to some Area and local matches that were brutal EG. 25-30 yd US poppers in front of No-shoots. Those are challenging targets at that distance, but adding double the penalties for each miss is unjustified.

[EricW]

Please STOP generalising about the sport and put your energy into improving your local matches.

Bob,

With all due respect, the fact that the courses I'm at odds with have been institutionalized in the sport via the classifier system is all the evidence I need to know that this is a widespread USPSA problem. If we have a stage where the LONGEST target is 10' away, we have a serious problem in the sport. And if USPSA HQ thinks this is the right direction, I'd say it's time for a massive management overhaul.

Also, how many times do I have to say that I am going to be putting on matches? I have a vision and in that vision there are not six back-to-back hose-fests. I'm not against short targets for the very reason that Kevin mentions, but at least place such targets intelligently. Place them against background of distant targets or through a port with a narrow viewing angle, or on the way to somewhere else so that you have to nail them at full-tilt-boogie. Very short range targets are real scenarios, but some thoughtfulness and moderation would be a refreshing change from the norm.

=====================================

I must protest that "speed shoot" automatically demands 10' hoser targets. It does not.

======================================

Finally, with regards to making the sport totally accessible to new shooters - at one time I would have agreed with it - now I'm not so sure. There's a difference between accessible and wheelchair accessible. New shooters ususally are so jazzed about shooting that the first thing they do is to go work on their skills and quickly rise to the norm. The shooters I see that seem to "need" wide open hoser targets have been around a while, only shoot at matches, and have zero interest in pursuing the sport to a higher level. Are we better off catering to that demographic?

Granted, more than some of this is selfish on my part because I enjoy the "tougher" courses because they focus my attention better and I seem to shoot better on them.

[tightloop]

Well, I see some good coming from these kinds of topics...I could be wrong but I see some change on the horizon...every sport goes thru phases and USPSA has had a long phase of 28+ round field courses...maybe it is time some reality came back into the sport and limit the trick aspect of who has the most ammo in my mag, to one stage per CoF...shooters evolve too...after you have shot the hose fests and the run and gun field courses till you are sick of them...the others have lots of appeal...

[EricW]

OK, why does a field course HAVE to be 28 to 32 rounds? I can envision all sorts of little 12 to 18 round field courses with substantial movement. You could fit two in a bay. It's time to break out of USPSA-think, if you ask me.

I LIKE field courses. I LIKE stand and shoots. I like it all, but I like it a lot better with liberal dose of common sense.

[Flexmoney]

ipscbob,

Well put.

Whoever is running the match and designing the stages...they tend to design things from their particular perspective. They do what they have always done. If we want something different (likely our own perspective) then we have to show them a different way or encourage them to spread the design workload out to different people.

And, this (the hate forum) is a good place for the bitching and moaning...as the hate forum is (usually) a place to just vent some frustration. Although, we have turned this one into a discussion.

If all a shooters sees all the time is a bunch of 3y targets...that can get frustrating. If all a shooters sees is a big-stick hoser stage with no variety...that can get frustrating.

There are some matches I go to because they are really tough. I go to others because they are really easy/speedy. Some I don't go to at all because I have better uses for my resources. The matches that I really like are the ones with variety and balance in their shooting challenges.

shred, I am amazed that you are taking the other side of the discussion on the short courses. If we look at Steel Challenge or the Handgunner Shootoffs, the shooting test is mostly stand and deliver. There are shooters that can hang there...quite well...but when you get them on a field course they haven't mastered getting into and out of positions...the proper angles of attack...shooting from an unstable platform (moving?)...negotiating obstacles...putting it all together for a longer cof...

Time and time again, I have seen lower classed shooters at the top of the stage scores for a speed shoot. They are there, often, because they can "hero or zero" the stage...and somebody is going to have a hero run.

[kurtm]

"And on the first shot his shirt burst into flames from the flash of the revolver which was jumping in the hand of Clay Allison" Eye witness acount of one of Clay Allisons 30 some odd gun fights from Myths of the old west.

I bet he hated the close stages also KURTM

[tightloop]

Also agree with Eric about catering to the demographics...Let's face it, this is a competition....and if you don't mind getting your butt beaten each weekend, you can continue to show up, shoot real fast, get no hits, finish about last...have a good time, and don't do anything to improve on that scenario...or you can be like most if not all of the people who shoot and appear on this forum...shoot, get beaten, practice, read, dry fire, practice, and improve....till you are the one doing the beating and not the one being beaten upon..

You will always have a few who only appear at matches for the companionship, and do not care that they finish last if they can talk the talk with those that win or finish high..kind of like going to church with people who care nothing about the spiritual part of church, but go to see who is there, what they are wearing, and what they are driving...both are BS....and let's face it, if you have skin that thin, perhaps this is not the sport for you...you are going to loose lots more than you win, so why not use it as incentive to try to get better...

Personally, I would rather, and have shot matches with 6 shooters who are prepared, committed, and battle on each stage than shoot at the circus of 75 shooters who are all about having fun and hearing the gun go Bang....if you can have some fun along the way, great, but that is not the only criteria for some shooters..

The sport like many other things in today's society is getting too "politically correct" and trying to appeal to everyone..well, it didn't start out that way and it really won't work that way...do what you do, within the guidelines of the people who started it all and let those who want to shoot, shoot, and those that want to show up and talk, do something else...

The idea of the sport was never to appeal to the masses, but to those who wanted to COMPETE and see who was best on that particular day...if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen...if stage design can be brought under control it might return to that principal, but not until 9mm isn't major only in Open, 30 round courses aren't the norm the sea of targets at 10 yds are replaced with fewer and more challenging choices, and someone has the courage to say that some of the changes that have been made weren't the best choices for continuing the sport and they finally realize that this thing will never have the popularity of soccer or NASCAR....

[bgary]

have been institutionalized in the sport via the classifier system is all the evidence I need to know that this is a widespread USPSA problem. If we have a stage where the LONGEST target is 10' away, we have a serious problem in the sport. And if USPSA HQ thinks this is the right direction, I'd say it's time for a massive management overhaul.

Speaking as part of "management" (oh, how I love comments like that), I'll throw in two cents worth. Yes, I know this is a hate range, and not supposed to be a venue for contra-positions, but... ok, a mod can delete this post if they wish.

1) I think your argument is getting muddied. In one post, you argue about field courses. Then you make comments about classifiers. Note that those are two very different topics.

2) USPSA management does not make up classifiers. They are submitted by shooters to NROI, which vets them and passes them along. Want a different flavor to the spectrum of classifiers? No problem... design some (that's a broad comment, not directed at you, Eric)

3) Classifiers *do* have some characteristics which constrain their design. They have to be stages which can be set up consistently at any venue, have to be relatively "compact" so that they can be set up in small bays and indoor ranges, and generally are consciously constrained to a narrow set of approaches... all of which are *not* parameters required of a field course. As an aside, classifiers also tend to be stages that don't require a lot of props (wall sections, doors, etc), because there's no way to know what a club has available. We want the classifiers to be stages that *any* club can run.

4) and most fundamentally... the most powerful force in the universe is public opinion. If the club/range where you shoot is putting up boring stages, tell them. Help them. Teach them. Most clubs have "a guy" who puts together the match, and he generally puts on the ground things that *he* likes to shoot, and/or that the "customers" tell him would be fun. If you want something different.... there is no vast conspiracy keeping anyone from pitching in and making it better.

I personally like challenging stages that can be shot a lot of different ways. I *love* stages where a whole squad of 10 people can go thru and nobody shoots it the same way. But, those kinds of stages take a lot more work to design and debug, generally take more space, more props, and more time. Nothing in the world is keeping people from putting those kinds of stages on the ground as field courses. But... it is tough to have classifiers that meet those same criteria.

As an aside... my own personal opinion is that one of the biggest problems we have to solve as an org is "lazy course design". We legislated "box stages" (stand in this box, shoot those targets, move to that box...) out of the rules, in the hope that we would get back to shoot-em-as-you-see-em freestyle. Now what we see is stages with a lot of ports, and little or no creativity... which means all we have done is move the boxes onto walls (stand at this port, shoot those targets, move to that port...) I'd *love* to have stages that were more creative, but... it takes time and creativity, and sometimes those are hard to come by. I think we gotta fix that. Things like Brad Sitton's "stage exchange" (http://www.stageexchange.com/) could be really good aids...

$.02

Bruce

[ipscbob]

Bob,

With all due respect, the fact that the courses I'm at odds with have been institutionalized in the sport via the classifier system is all the evidence I need to know that this is a widespread USPSA problem. If we have a stage where the LONGEST target is 10' away, we have a serious problem in the sport. And if USPSA HQ thinks this is the right direction, I'd say it's time for a massive management overhaul.

Sorry if this came across as trying to be beligerent....I intended for it to be constructive in that I was hoping to rechannel some of the wasted energy that I see here in these rants.

I guess we come from a completely different viewpoint of how things get institutionalised in the sport. As bgary has already stated, I don't see that the classifiers are part of the heart of a match but are just a neccessary evil to try to keep the class system up to date. At our locals, our stages look nothing like any of the classifiers. We typically see 18-32 round stages with lots of near and far targets and the best are completely freestyle with lots of options, some of which have big risk/reward trade offs. Since this is a volunteer run sport, HQ doesn't set the future direction, WE do.

Also, how many times do I have to say that I am going to be putting on matches? I have a vision and in that vision there are not six back-to-back hose-fests. I'm not against short targets for the very reason that Kevin mentions, but at least place such targets intelligently. Place them against background of distant targets or through a port with a narrow viewing angle, or on the way to somewhere else so that you have to nail them at full-tilt-boogie. Very short range targets are real scenarios, but some thoughtfulness and moderation would be a refreshing change from the norm.

I agree completely. It seems that your locals could really use your input and guidance. I just object to generalising this to the "state of USPSA" in general. This would be the easy way out because it keeps US, the members, from having to take responsibility for the direction of the matches that we shoot. Every time I see a post like this, It makes me see how lucky we are to have so many good matches within 2-3 hours of us here in California.

Finally, with regards to making the sport totally accessible to new shooters - at one time I would have agreed with it - now I'm not so sure. There's a difference between accessible and wheelchair accessible. New shooters ususally are so jazzed about shooting that the first thing they do is to go work on their skills and quickly rise to the norm. The shooters I see that seem to "need" wide open hoser targets have been around a while, only shoot at matches, and have zero interest in pursuing the sport to a higher level. Are we better off catering to that demographic?

Careful what you wish for, you just might get it. If we cater to the best instead of the most populated demographic, the sport will return to it's roots and I am willing to wager that membership will be cut drastically and most local matches will pull in maybe 15-20 shooters instead of 50-60. This will mean less resources for the sanctioning organisation, less ROI for local ranges, and finally you and I will have to do much more work to put on a match. To me this sounds like a negative direction for the sport as a whole.

[EricW]

Bruce,

Nothing was directed at you, personally. I am now aware of the genesis of some of this and how things came to be. I won't go into it here.

I think that one of the phenomenas that occurred with the ban on shooting boxes is that smaller clubs have not had the resources to keep pace. I'm not advocating rat's mazes, but if we're not going to have boxes, we're going to have to have some type of wall system to manage course flow.

I've got a wall setup that's durable, flexible and costs about $30 per section or less depending on the specific configuration.

Also, I'll ask again, aside from the stage listing of World Shoots, is there some type of repository of IPSC stages like the one Bruce mentioned? Must I venture to the GV?

Finally, Bruce, yeah I probably muddied my gripes. I just see the 10' stand and shoot and the field course of 4 x 10' target arrays to be the same animal just configured slightly differently.

Edited August 7, 2006 by EricW

[Flexmoney]

is there some type of repository of IPSC stages like the one Bruce mentioned?

When I had to start designing stages (which I'm not great at...I'm MUCH better at tweaking them), I printed out every stage taht Jeff Maass had on his website and put them into a 3-ring binder. I often print out the stages from major matches. And, try to keep many of the local stage designs around.

Now, a lot of those are out of date and a bit illegal depending on who's rules you are using, but they contain great ideas and a variety of shooting tests. I kinda cut and paste the good stuff from a bunch of different places to come up with stages.

Another thing I like is to just pretend we are talking real world practical sometimes. That seems to help get the head wrapped around the placement/distribution of targets in a cof.

[bgary]

Nothing was directed at you, personally.

Oh, I know. <grinning> Some day I'll start my own hate-rant about conversations that start with "hey, Mr. Area Director..." ;-)

hesitating to throw too much "goodness" into a healthy hate-thread, here's what I'd love to see:

-- stages that have lots of options (eg, take the tough shot from here, or do some moving and have an "easier" shot later, your choice, clock is running)

-- stages that comply with "shoot 'em as you see 'em"

-- stages that DON'T just use a batch of 4-target-arrays to up the round-count

-- stages that are interesting/challenging for GMs, and still shootable by Cs/Ds/newbies

-- stages that DON'T depend on weird positions/contortions/props (eg, super-low ports, etc) to accomplish the "challenging" bit.

-- stages that DON'T require bizarre shooter-handled props ("throw the grenade thru the window") or other things that have nothing to do with a SHOOTING competition

-- stages that DON'T use procedurals as a stick to beat shooters into compliance with a specific "intent" ("one procedural per shot fired for failing to get the grenade thru the window...")

-- stages that are equally valid as "competition", and as "entertainment".

-- stages that DON'T require massive/complex/RO-trap wall systems to accomplish all of the above

Here's an example. Several years ago at a club match, there was a stage that consisted of two full paper targets at about 10 yards. On either side of the array were two stacked poppers (one behind the other). The *back* popper of each pair, activated a drop turner on the *opposite* side of the bay. The course description simply said "two each on T-1 and T-2, reload, two each on T-1 and T-2. engage all other targets as and when visible". The stage was a HOOT to shoot.... there were as many different ways to approach it as there were shooters. It was a challenge for GMs, it was shootable by beginners. It didn't take up a big bay. It didn't require a lot of props or walls, or a lot of setup. It was fun to shoot, fun to watch. Oh... and it was a test of *shooting* ability, and a test of your *own* ability to know - and push - your limits. Which is, I think, what a stage should be.

I want more of those.

A comment on that last bulletpoint, above:

As more and more walls proliferate to "control" shooter movement, I've noticed a *LOT* more reports of cases where an RO was about to start a shooter, and learned that there were still people downrange. I'm on a jihad to start getting more clubs to build their "walls" out of snow-fence, rather than plywood or posterboard, so that the RO can *SEE* that the range is clear before starting a new shooter. With complex maze-like walls and vision barriers out of opaque materials, I think we are setting ourselves up for a "problem"...

B

[Loves2Shoot]

OK, why does a field course HAVE to be 28 to 32 rounds?

Because more rounds = more fun and more challenges (if designed properly)

More mag changes, more shots, more challenges makes sense to me. Pointless multiple close or far targets doesn't.

I hate lots of low round count matches, because the shooting is over too soon. If I'm going to stand around for half a day, I want to shoot as many targets as I can...

ps. Even shooting 10 round mags more is still better in my book.

Edited August 7, 2006 by Loves2Shoot

[Front Man]

Hence the name "Loves2Shoot"!

I like everything including 50 yard Standards.

I may not be very good at anything, but I like the short, quick couses of fire too.

FM

Edited August 7, 2006 by Front Man

[Loves2Shoot]

-- stages that DON'T require bizarre shooter-handled props ("throw the grenade thru the window") or other things that have nothing to do with a SHOOTING competition

Amen brutha, keep it focused on shooting challenges. Most props cause more problems than adding anything besides re-shoots to the game.

(We had many re-shoots from the hand grenade thing this weekend.)

[Nik Habicht]

-- stages that DON'T require massive/complex/RO-trap wall systems to accomplish all of the above

A comment on that last bulletpoint, above:

As more and more walls proliferate to "control" shooter movement, I've noticed a *LOT* more reports of cases where an RO was about to start a shooter, and learned that there were still people downrange. I'm on a jihad to start getting more clubs to build their "walls" out of snow-fence, rather than plywood or posterboard, so that the RO can *SEE* that the range is clear before starting a new shooter. With complex maze-like walls and vision barriers out of opaque materials, I think we are setting ourselves up for a "problem"...

B

We use a lot of stockade fence sections locally for walls --- they're affordable, generally last for years, and can have ports cut or pried into them. As an inexperienced RO, I once gave the LAMR command to another shooter, while someone was still walking uprange. I do a lot more walking these days to make sure that I KNOW the range is clear before starting a shooter. Snow fence sounds like a good idea --- but I don't know that we could build frames that would hold up as well as stockade fence....

[tightloop]

-- stages that DON'T require bizarre shooter-handled props ("throw the grenade thru the window") or other things that have nothing to do with a SHOOTING competition

Amen brutha, keep it focused on shooting challenges. Most props cause more problems than adding anything besides re-shoots to the game.

(We had many re-shoots from the hand grenade thing this weekend.)

When I saw the granade I wondered how that pertained to shooting a match unless you are in a war zone and them I am shooting my rifle...sorry it was a bummer..

Edited August 7, 2006 by tightloop

[DJPoLo]

A typical match in UK would be about 8-10 stages and about 120-150 rounds.

Heh? There's IPSC being shot in UK? I had no idea. How does one get around the gun laws?

Sincerely,

-Chet

[Guest 38superman]

In the spirit of making the stage more challenging, I say throw the grenade and require 2 hits on it while still in the air.

Virginia count of course.

Seriously, I have started stages straddled a wooden pony, holding ball bats, golf clubs, playing cards, and dice.

I have started stages in handcuffs.

I have started stages with a simulated parachute jump.

I started a stage with a basketball slung over my shoulder in a sack.

I started a stage with a towel wrapped around my waist as if just getting out of the shower.

I have started a stage with my hands on the controls of a Huey and had to throw a dummy from the helicopter onto a stretcher.

After all that, whats a grenade or two among friends?

38superman

Edited August 7, 2006 by 38superman

[bberkley]

-- stages that DON'T require bizarre shooter-handled props ("throw the grenade thru the window") or other things that have nothing to do with a SHOOTING competition

Amen brutha, keep it focused on shooting challenges. Most props cause more problems than adding anything besides re-shoots to the game.

(We had many re-shoots from the hand grenade thing this weekend.)

You gotta chuck that thing!

[shred]

shred, I am amazed that you are taking the other side of the discussion on the short courses. If we look at Steel Challenge or the Handgunner Shootoffs, the shooting test is mostly stand and deliver. There are shooters that can hang there...quite well...but when you get them on a field course they haven't mastered getting into and out of positions...the proper angles of attack...shooting from an unstable platform (moving?)...negotiating obstacles...putting it all together for a longer cof...

And I asked you to name some. Where are these stand-and-blast specialists that can finish top-10 at the challenge, yet not in the top 10 at a major IPSC match? How many speedy runners can't hack the accuracy needed at the SC?

(Aside: Brian had a fascinating comment in Matt Burkett's radio show-- TGO didn't become really great until Brian told him he would have [done poorly] at an early Steel Challenge, which convinced him to learn to shoot. What does that say about the state of IPSC shooting, then and now?)

And short course does not equal stand and deliver. I get very tired of that mentality. It's what we think because it's most all of what we see in the classifier book, but is in no way true. Everybody should go shoot some matches in other parts of the world and find out how much fun 8, 12 or 16 rounds can be.

Time and time again, I have seen lower classed shooters at the top of the stage scores for a speed shoot. They are there, often, because they can "hero or zero" the stage...and somebody is going to have a hero run.

Hmm.. I've not seen that at major matches I've been to, with the occasional exception of long-range standards, but anyway.. Did they win the match? Exactly.