Arms-length Targets

[bgary]

<<topic drift>>

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

Interesting that [at least] one squad [apparently] got reshoots there.

For those not at the match, the grenade was tied to a string, attached to a stick holding up the weight of a swinging target. If you threw the grenade hard enough, it pulled the stick which started the swinger.

Our RO quite explicitly told us that if we didn't throw the grenade hard enough, it was NOT range equipment failure, and would not result in a reshoot. Rather, it would be the shooter's responsibility to find the string and "tug" it hard enough to dislodge the stick, while the timer was running.

Which.... not only serves to amplify my hatred of shooter-handled props, it also tapers nicely into a second area of hate, that being the inconsistencies that creep into a match when you use "roving ROs", each of whom have a different idea of what the course description says and how it should be interpreted.

<<drift=OFF>>

B

[Loves2Shoot]

The squad before us had several re-shoots too...

The para cord and type of stick didn't help the reliablity either. With roving RO's how can you insure the prop is set the same? You should have seen the size arms on the guys who had failures, it wasn't because they didn't chuck it, but I guess that makes the same point.

[BigDave]

This is one of the most engaging discussions, IMO, that has occured here in a long, long while.

I think there is bit of confusion with some course design. This is a sport and I think we all agree on that, at least on paper. But some people also view this as entertainment. That's where the problem is. We've convinced ourselves that shooting arms-length targets ad infinitum is somehow fun. And, while it may be [fun], does it or should it have a place in USPSA?

[George]

Yeah, that grenade start was a big explanation point at the Multigun Nationals too. At least it did something this time (trigger a swinger) as opposed to various types of "prop tossing" for no real result I have seen in the past.

The problem I have with a prop like this grenade activating a moving target is that this specific system required explaining that it required a specfic type of toss to work right. That type of explanation is a bandaid fix for a prop that does't work very well and is in need of re-engineering.

For the record and IMHO, if a prop grenade toss or, prop bomb dropoff routine actually activates movers and is designed to work 99.99% of the time with variable quality actuator input, then that routine is fine with me. If the routine does nothing but add "monkey motion" to the stage and then penalizes the shooter if he makes a mistake handling this non-shooting prop, then it doesn't belong in the stage in the first place.

That's my opinion on non-shooting related prop handling and I'm sticking with it ;-)

[shred]

I'll be stealing that for another thread on "prop tossing" and "monkey motions".

[bgary]

That's my opinion on non-shooting related prop handling and I'm sticking with it ;-)

+1

[tightloop]

+1 Shred

[bgary]

But some people also view this as entertainment. That's where the problem is.

Since I'm on a roll hijacking other people's threads today....

What's wrong with entertainment?

From *my* perspective, work does not allow me the option of enough trigger time to be truly competitive. I'll probably never win a match overall. But.... does that mean I shouldn't be able to have some *fun*?

After a long week (or month or year) at work, I *love* being able to walk into a match, and spend an enjoyable day busting caps with friends, in a competition setting. And, as L2S has said, the more caps, the more fun it is.

I don't think that aspect of our game *necessarily* takes anything away from the folks who want to take it really really seriously. A good stage design can be BOTH fun for me, and challenging for you.

B

[EricW]

I'm all about the fun. Dumbing down COF's into special olympics stages that only exist for the sake of making a gun go bang!: not fun. 500 rounds of shooting into a berm is not 5X more fun than a well-thought out 100 round match.

[Chris Keen]

Practical shooting was never meant to only test shooting skill.

Amen!

[tightloop]

Tell 'em Eric....

[bgary]

Dumbing down COF's into special olympics stages that only exist for the sake of making a gun go bang!: not fun

Agreed

Similarly, putting targets out at a distance, with only a sliver showing between overlapped no-shoots, and asking me to shoot them weak-handed through a low-port, all just to make things "challenging": also not-fun.

a valid test of shooting skill? Sure. Just not fun.

B

[Loves2Shoot]

I'm all about the fun. Dumbing down COF's into special olympics stages that only exist for the sake of making a gun go bang!: not fun. 500 rounds of shooting into a berm is not 5X more fun than a well-thought out 100 round match.

I don't think a fair comparision. A bad match is a bad match, regardless of the round count. I've shoot really good stages that are 50+ rounds, and bad stages that are 12 rounds.

More round (everything being equal) is still more fun

Edited August 7, 2006 by Loves2Shoot

[n2ipsc]

...But some people also view this as entertainment. That's where the problem is...

IMHO, "challenging" and "fun" (read that as "entertaining") need not be mutually exclusive, and I'm eternally perplexed at the diametrically-opposed camps that seem to insist that one can have one, but not the other.

I'd personally hate to see our game devolve into the sort of grim, humorless, dour "sport" other disciplines/organizations have, in pursuit of of "realism." I could argue equally that arms-length targets have no more place in our sport than 40-yard partials protected by no-shoots...or vice versa.

Mix 'em up, and I'm a Happy Camper, though...

[BigDave]

What I was suggesting is that if challege represents one end of a line and entertainment the other, we're biased towards entertainment in many cases (and that is what I'm infering from EricW's original rant). I agree, fun and challenge need not be seperated intentionally. If we're here merely for the entertainment value, why keep score? That is not a stab at anyone, anyone at all who just comes to a match to have fun. There are many out there who do and that is great. But, this is a sport in which we do keep score and a challenge it should be.

[ima45dv8]

Amazing! One (ONE) stage caused all this?

Could this really be more of a case of the straw that broke the camel's back? Possibly this one club had one too many close stages this month (or for many months)? We've shot the same stage around here, but we don't set up entire matches with arms-length targets (I hope I never find a match that does ).

And since "Can You Count" started all of this (and it has devolved into a discussion, per Flex's observation), I'll add a little about it.

It was stage designed to have a little fun and generate some spectator appeal by emphasizing the Speed aspect of DVC. Turns out it tested a little more than some people see at first glance -- Draw, reloads, transitions, and just how relaxed you can be at the start signal all get a workout. And judging by the number of mikes I've seen on this CoF, I guess we should add Calling Shots to the list. The fact that it wound up being selected as a Classifier wasn't the intention, but since it was, shoot it! High hit factor or not, there's still only one person at the match who can shoot THE high hit factor that day. If it's so easy, go be that shooter.

Would I want to see an entire match with stages like this? Not just No, but HELL NO. Like Eric I would seriously consider taking my toys and going back home if that were the case. But it is a challenge, and if you're up to it, and damn fun one.

[tightloop]

Challenging does not have to mean rediculous...ie: weakhand, low port, 40 yds, partials, nope, not fun..but 6 yd partials, weakhand is fun...4 ports with 4 targets per window is same old, same old...not fun...

[n2ipsc]

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

[snip]

-- 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...")

[snip]

+100...

[Flexmoney]

And I asked you to name some.

I'm not going to throw out names on the forum. And, I am not talking about the top 10 shooters in the country/world...the shooters that do what it takes to win. But, come on...you can't honestly tell me you can't think of good stand and deliver shooters that you wouldn't want to bet your car against...but you would move right past them in a field course???

Or, how about we just take you and me. I put the heat on in a shoot-offs a couple years ago...beating Phil Strader in the finals. That was the year Phil was trashing everybody at the Area Matches and he got second to TGO at the Nationals. Yet, Phil ate my lunch in the match. I wasn't lucky. I was shooting well...at the skills involved in the shoot-offs. And, you took a stage off of EG if I'm not mistaken? Yet he easily carried the match. I'll bet you'd be much tighter overall if you were shooting Steel Challenge against him.

And short course does not equal stand and deliver. I get very tired of that mentality.

I'll take another look at the World Shoot video, maybe I am mistaken. I just don't recall seeing much movement in all those short courses ? I sure don't see it in short course that I have seen in the states, and I'm betting that probably never will.

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.

Of course they didn't win the match...which is exactly my point. They were good enough (and luck enough) at fast draw, point-n-shoot to win the stage though...because that is all that was being tested. And, some of that is fine...almost required/needed.

[Nik Habicht]

Since this thread violates a bunch of hate forum guidelines, but has generated lots of useful and stimulating discussion, I've asked Eric, and he's consented, to its relocation to the USPSA Shooting forum....

[Ara]

Eric, did you say "bubblegum"?

I'll have to dissagree with you...kinda. The stages you mentioned are not the epitomy of bubblegum. Texas Stars and windmills are, but we've killed that topic already.

While I agree with your idea, the solution is not just to increase the distance, per se. There are many real-life situations that have required very close shots, in and out of law enforcement.

The problem is, as Ron Avery has said, we are operating on different guidleines...or at least the interpretation of such. I'll elaborate.

Bruce Gary is right. The requirements of a classifier are different. In fact, when you look at it they are very strict and narrow for the reasons he stated. The "mission statement" is very specific and different than anything we may have for real matches. Yet for the "real world" of IPSC, anything goes...like the Texas Star and windmill (one or two targets spinning freely in the open). Classifiers need to be as consistant as possible because there are other variables that make it inherently unfair such as terrain like the thick sand we have to run in at a range in Denver.

However, within the "real world", there is an obvious interpretation of what we are or should be. We need to narrow that interpretation down a little thru a true mission statement that is ratified thru the members and principles that are enforced and not "omittted" from our rulebook. (sorry if I offended anyone there). Newer members have only what they currently see as a basis of their experience and us old timers have the "old days". If we "allow" certain things to go on, the newer shooters merely pass on what some of us consider bubblegum and it perpetuates.

Col. Cooper recently told Ron and I that his purpose for founding IPSC was to "discover, by means of open, unrestricted, diversified, realistic competition, the best weapons, equipment and technique to fulfill the lifesaving mission of the combat pistol".

Talk about a mission statement! And how does it differ from what we do today?

So...it really depends on what glasses you are looking thru and until we are all wearing the same prescriptions, we will always disagree. For example, Bruce Gary prefers snow screen walls for safety reasons. I prefer solid walls for a more a more realistic stage. There's no arguing that the solid walls offer a different view (NO view) of targets and probably a more difficult challenge. Are they both acceptable? Yes.

Eric, after 18 years of 1911 I switched to Production. One of the reasons was along the line of what you said, or maybe didn't realize you said. I think you crave a little more challenge. The beauty of production is that since everyone is scored minor, it puts a little more emphasis on accuracy, regardless of where the targets are set. My recommendation is that you go out and kick everyone's butt regardless of what challenge they present you. At the same time, do what you can locally and politically to affect change.

Mr. (No) Bubblegum

[JFD]

While you folks are busy generalizing, you might want to step back from the keyboard and shoot some more matches.

Come to SC for the 4th Saturday match at Spartanburg. Very well designed stages that will test you to you heart's desire. You even get to shoot turtle targets. The MD knows what he's doing and could set up the entire match with targets 10 feet away and still challenge the best shooters (short shots usually equal an odd shooting position).

The club's 1st Saturday match is easier, but usually has a nice variety of challenges. An easy hoser stage will most likely be followed by something evil. The match last Saturday was easier than normal, but lots of fun and perfect for the heat we were dealing with.

Bitch about local matches all you want, but do not try to take your personal experience in local matches and apply it to the state of the sport across the US. It only shows that the USPSA world doesn't revolve around anyone here, regardless of what they might think.

[tightloop]

On the other hand, your local matches might be the rare exception...ever consider that?

[EricW]

Thanks for setting me straight on bubblegum Ara.

Regarding your and Bruce's thoughts on walls....

I am going to start a separate discussion on walls. If there is one thing we need to come to some kind of consensus on is what is a wall and how is it constructed. The locals here prefer construction netting because of wind. I prefer solid walls because that is what is typically seen at larger matches (excluding Bend, OR).

I don't have a particular religious bent on the issue, but we need to recognize that transparent and opaque walls present very different shooting challenges.

[ima45dv8]

On the other hand, your local matches might be the rare exception...ever consider that?

That very well could be, TL. But if it is an exceptional situation, I have to say I'm very lucky to be living in the Atlanta area where we also enjoy excellent stage designs at numerous local matches.

Maybe it's a Southern thing!

Edited August 8, 2006 by ima45dv8