Prop Tossing And Monkey Motions

[konkapot]

Anyone get the vibe that these stages basically come down to:

"Revenge of the Shooter that Isn't That Interested In the Shooting Anyway"....?

I have (with my own eyes and ears) seen, heard, and witnessed EXACTLY what EricW is talking bout. On more than one occassion.

FY42385

[shred]

Right after the mag ban came down and there were a lot of noises from the gun grabbers about 'safe storage' laws, we saw a raft of 'all ammo loose in the drawer'; 'gun locked in the box, all ammo locked somewhere else' stages. Those suck.

[Angus Hobdell]

What ever happened to gun in holster, hand somewhere wait for the beep and go.

I always thought this was a

"shooting" sport.

Not a hoopla throwing all singing (in the rain tra la la) get this in here put that in there.

Oh that didn't work, Oh bugger what next type of sport.

If I wanted to do that s*#T I would have joined mensa (now some will say they would not take me) but I say to them nay it is not true.

Angus

[Jim Norman]

What ever happened to gun in holster, hand somewhere wait for the beep and go.

I always thought this was a

"shooting" sport.

Not a hoopla throwing all singing (in the rain tra la la) get this in here put that in there.

Oh that didn't work, Oh bugger what next type of sport.

If I wanted to do that s*#T I would have joined mensa (now some will say they would not take me) but I say to them nay it is not true.

Angus

To a point I agree. This is supposed to be about the shooting, BUT... This is also called "Practical Shooting" so having to carry something, or perhaps deposit something prior to the completion of the COF is acceptable, provided that it is done within the sprit of the game. We need to specify how certain items are to be carried or rather how they may not be carried.

Example, No, you may not put Fluffy's ears into your mouth, although Fluffy is a stuffed toy, Fluffy represents a real family pet, would you really carry your dog by biting on his ears? Hopefully not!

So, where does this leave us?

Props that must be carried should be representative of items you might find yourself carrying in "Real Life", they should be carried in a manner that one would actually carry them. Example, you have a briefcase that you are carrying on your way home from work, the normal method of carry would be "by the handle designed for the purpose, and in your hand, either weak or strong as specified in the WSB. You would not normally hook the case's handle offer a magazine or carry the case tucked up under your arm. Would you throw your brief case 50 feet to try and get it to land in a particular group of floor tiles in the train station? Not likely. You might at some point divest yourself of the case, true enough. So, the WSB could say: Standing erect with briefcase in strong hand, on start signal move to FFZ, once in FFZ, Drop Briefcase, Draw and Engage all targets as they become available. This requires the shooter to move, drop the case past a certain point, Then draw and Engage. This is valid. It doesn’t have any "Monkey Motion" in that the carrying of the case is natural and the divestment is also natural.

Depositing an item presents similar design and communication issues. Tossing the grenade as an example: The grenade needn't be deposited with in 12" of it's target as it does have a blast radius in real life. It should go through the window as an example, but the size of the window and the distance required to toss should be more than reasonable. The only time that such a prop should be required to land in a specific spot is if the depositing action activates a target and simultaneously frees the shooter from having to carry a prop. An example is the "Bomb Disposal Chute" that has a spring-loaded trap that will regardless of how the item is deposited will always activate the target.

Carrying a 30 pound dummy 30" tall in a manner that you might carry your child is an acceptable challenge, stuffing said dummy under your arm and banging it's head against various walls should result in a visit form the range division of Child Services!

The proper use of props simulates situations that however unlikely could occur. Carrying or depositing props just for the sake of doing so and allowing them to be carried in manners that would not be acceptable in real life should be discouraged.

Any prop used that allows the shooter complete desecration in how it is carried should be of a size and weight that virtually eliminates the chances of gaming. The stage, "Roll-Out-The-Barrel" at our last match was a case in point. You had to have a 50-gallon plastic drum in the same FFZ as yourself to engage the targets available from that FFZ. Some people rolled the barrel as intended. This caused a lot of problems for some as too hard a push could send the barrel off in the wrong direction. Most people solved the problem by picking up the barrel by the lid and shooting SHO. Reloads were accomplished by setting the barrel down with the lid in the upwards direction so you could grab it again easily. The answer for this stage would have been to stipulate that the barrel could not be carried, and then to place rails high enough to keep the barrel in the pathway along the sides of the FFZ. It was a fun stage, but a few modifications would have made the playing field even from a prop manipulation point. The shooting should always be in so far as is possible the deciding factor in winning.

Matches should be won by shooting ability and the ability to dissect a stage as to order of engagement and location of engagement as well as the planning of reloads. Matches should not be able to be won by creative interpretation of the rulebook. This is probably the most salient point of this discussion. My ability to run a 100 yards in 5 seconds and not have a coronary should not be why I win a stage, my ability to shoot more A's faster from reasonable positions than the next shooter should be the criteria that wins. Likewise, my ability to parse the rules to find an allowance to stick Fluffy's ears in my mouth so I can shoot using both hands should not be the criteria. Hey, If I am up first and we unwrap a new Fluffy, OK, but if I'm the second through 150th shooter, do I really want to swap spit with all those people? I think not. It is this type of "Monkey Motion" that should be eliminated.

Lastly one final consideration in using props. Props must not create a shooting hazard. Use a knife to cut a rope to activate a prop, OK, re-sheath the knife on the clock? NO. Provide a place to toss the knife out of the pathway so that no one gets cut. Cutting the rope with a knife breaks the shooters flow and is valid, having to stitch up the shooters leg because re-sheathing a knife is not a practiced skill is not conducive to return engagements by our customers!

OK, I'm done for now.

Jim

[grassy knoll]

I am thinkng the use of props or other monkey motions except running and pulling the trigger do get added into stage designs with the idea to increase the challenge of the stage or make it more fun, but when it gets done without proper vetting the extras make the stage seem kooky and frustrates those who don't just get to the shooting.

As a match director I have learned my lessons the hard way by allowing some of this into matches and paid for the indiscretion.

Anything that cannot be repeated exactly everytime regardless of height, weight, arm length, shoe size etc of the competitor is not fair and is not included in my stage designs.

[wide45]

Example, No, you may not put Fluffy's ears into your mouth, although Fluffy is a stuffed toy, Fluffy represents a real family pet, would you really carry your dog by biting on his ears? Hopefully not!

Umm, no. Fluffy's on his own. Practically speaking, if I need to be shooting, there is not much I will carry. Making competitors carry stupid things is a game, and I will game it all the way.

Any practical point to the barrel thing? You are arguing both sides.

[bayoupirate]

Ron,

I shot that match too.

After that experience, I believe that it is possible to have stage designs that do unfairly penalize those who are not 18-25 year old athletes.

I'm all for an extremely low port or other very difficult position once or twice in a big match. A Major Match that has some gimmick, extremely physically challenging task or obstacles that are unrealistic is not one I'm interested in shooting.

I realize that there is a physical challenge as part of this sport, but shooting skill should be the primary ability measured by the shooting challenge presented in a stage.

[tightloop]

That is why some long field courses are questionable...it measures foot speed rather than pistol skill...

[George]

That is why some long field courses are questionable...it measures foot speed rather than pistol skill

Absolutely. More than 3-5 yards of movement without available shooting on a pistol course is a pretty useless thing if you want a level playing field for all comers.

I will bus the shooters up to 10 yards without shooting possibilities on shotgun stages and 20 yards on LD rifle stages, but for pistola work, it needs to be all about the shooting.

[eric nielsen]

How many crazy non-shooting things do we want to have new shooters doing, at their first big match, with a loaded gun in their hand? If they're 12yo? If they're 72yo?

More than none at all I suppose, maybe less than some matches now ask.

Kindof goes along with the discussion of plywood props and shooters getting the LAMR command with people still down-range: One bullet going to a bad place will hurt our sport a whole bunch.

---

PS - shot like 22 or 23 tournaments and some of the stuff brought up in this thread goes well beyond the dumbest things I've ever seen at any match. Thanks for the videos.

Human nature to design stages similar to others set up in the recent past - so if several 2006 stages are Silly, plan on many 2007 stages to be The Son of Silly - Even Sillier.

Monkey see monkey do...

[Ron Ankeny]

I realize that there is a physical challenge as part of this sport, but shooting skill should be the primary ability measured by the shooting challenge presented in a stage.

I agree. I guess what chaps my behind is when course designers transfer the emphasis from shooting to non-shooting activities. Frankly, I don't mind stuff like carrying a brief case to shoot with one hand, but any time the non shooting task is the determining factor on the clock, it's time to rethink what we are trying to test.

I'll shoot the match again next year, and I'll spend a couple of days helping to set up. But I think this year's match just had too many low positions. The scores and number of DQs should be a hint.

[Flexmoney]

The scores and number of DQs should be a hint.

Stage designers could learn a lot by just reviewing the scores for various stages.

[kimel]

The scores and number of DQs should be a hint.

Absolutely! If the RO's are handing out DQs like candy on a stage there is a SERIOUS problem with that stage!

Stage designers could learn a lot by just reviewing the scores for various stages.

And this goes both ways. If every C/D shooter is getting >90% of the points then the stage may be too easy. If the A/M crowd isn't getting >90% of the points the stage may be too difficult. It is all about balance. Note that standard exercises may well be the exception here in terms of too difficult.

As others have pointed out, we often have to use props to create a situation. A briefcase carried in the weak hand to force SHO is a good example and this is done because the rules don't let us require it. I, for one, DO NOT want to see the rules changed to allow this. Careful and judicious use of props has its place.

It has also been my experience that those that complain about "stage designers" have all too often not done much, if any, stage design let along designed stages on a consistent basis.

Stage design is an art. It must be practiced continually to keep the skills sharp. More importantly, the stage designer must see others shoot his/her stages and shoot them him/her-self. It is amazing how much you learn, as a stage designer and competitor watching others solve your puzzles.

[slavex]

I agree somewhat with the notion of Monkey Movements being crap, but find it ironic that a lot of the older shooters I shoot with are now complaining about stages that require funky positions, or climbing/crawling etc. back when they were young and spry it was all the rage to have tunnels, props you had to move around and such, but now that they are older it's all "it's a shooting sport, not gymnastics". Bah.

[Ron Ankeny]

...but now that they are older it's all "it's a shooting sport, not gymnastics". Bah.

So, is it a shooting sport or is it gymnastics? Where do we draw the line?

[blackdragon]

I started shooting IPSC in 1983, When I walk up to a stage like this, I can picture the Volkswagon pulling into the middle of the stage and 15 clowns rolling out!!!

Ivan

[slavex]

realistic type stages are fine, which could involve weird positions, tunnels, stairs, ladders, super low ports, crawling etc. Backflips, forward roles might be pushing it?

[GeneBray]

I am about to the point where I won't even bother filling out the registration card for matches that have a reputation for "memory" stages, monkey motions, and gimmicks designed to "slow them down". I have shot way too many stages where the ability to perform the non-shooting tasks is by far the deciding factor and the ability to actually shoot doesn't mean squat. It ticks me off.

I also can not help but to wonder if some of the monkey motions and more physical stages won't ultimately hurt the sport by driving shooters away who find it difficult to perform the required tasks. For example, this summer I shot a stage where the shooter was required to start laying flat on a cot. On the signal, the shooter got off the cot and retrieved one or two grenades, their choice. The shooter had to toss the grenade through a high port above an extremely low port in a sand bag bunker then engage an array through the low port. The shooter then stood up and retrieved a .30 cal ammo can full of sand and proceeded to another low port in a sandbag bunker, shooting targets along the way. The can was then placed on an activator pad that started a swinger that was shot through another very low port along with several static targets.

I struggled horribly with that stage (back issues) and frankly I hurled the ammo can full of sand at the activator pad so hard that the can flew open puking the sand all over the activator pad. Any young, agile, shooter with a C card or better could easily hand me my ass on that stage. There were similar antics required on other stages of the match.

In this particular match, 42% of the shooters were seniors or super seniors. After the match, I had three of our local shooters, all seniors, tell me they will not shoot the match next year. That's a damn shame.

I'm familiar with the match. I shot through on Sunday, in the rain...

I found the stages some of the best I've seen since the 1999 or 2000 Mile Hi Shootout! The most fun I've had at a match in a long time.

Were there low ports the referenced stage? There were. However, the shooting challenge presented a realist scenario. I cannot recall a Nationals in the last 4-5 years that did not require you get up off a "bed" or "recliner". I have also seen lower ports at Nations as well. M More and more matches are requiring you to toss or throw something through a port and it is a realist situation.

I believe every one of the stages reflected some sort of practical shooting challenge that could be realistically expected in life.

By the way, I am not young (age 59), agile (surgically repaired herniated disc at L3-L4, two shoulder surgeries--the most recent last November that kept me from shooting until late March, and when I shot the match I as recovering--if you ever can--from a blood clot (DVT) in my left leg, was still taking coumadin (aka warfrin, aka rat poison), and had not be able to exercise since prior to the last shoulder surgery). Oh, I almost forgot, I'm like too many Americas—I’m over weight and like most people my age my eyes aren't what they were when younger.

I'll go back in a heart beat to shoot that match again because the MD knows how to make stages fun, realist, and challenging. And, I'll weigh less, be in better condition, stronger, and quicker because like every athletic sport (and IPSC certainly is) it requires a great degree of physical skills. As I get older, I'll adjust as best I can but I'll never compete with a 20-35 year old who is simply stronger, faster, quicker, better eyes, and a better shooter because of it.

But, I can still enjoy the challenge......

[Sam]

At the Cheyenne Shootout, I was going to whine about the difficulty of the mini-car standards where competitors had to crouch into uncomfortable positions and shoot targets that were just too darn hard. ....then I won the stage. (oh, never mind! )

I shot an great match in August where at least two competitors were unable to finish the COF and had to be hauled out on a 4 wheeler by the match staff. Like Ahhnold says, "I'll be back! "

Yeah, I feel bad for a guy when he can't get up fast enough. (sometimes I'm that guy) But, getting up off of a bed is something that most of us do every day. Carrying a chainsaw or 20lb tool box while handling my pistol is something I might actually have to do. I'm not sure what constitutes a "monkey motion", but simulating everday tasks designed to distract us from the shooting is every bit as much a part of USPSA as the surrender start.

Conquering our own attitude is key to a good performance. If you find yourself resenting some aspect of a stage, you will probably find yourself being defeated by it. Embrace the challenges. And praise the stage designers for realism. That's just my take.

[Ron Ankeny]

Gene:

The match I am referring to in:

I am about to the point where I won't even bother filling out the registration card for matches that have a reputation for "memory" stages, monkey motions, and gimmicks designed to "slow them down". I have shot way too many stages where the ability to perform the non-shooting tasks is by far the deciding factor and the ability to actually shoot doesn't mean squat. It ticks me off.

was not the Cheyenne shootout. I too enjoyed the Cheyenne match. All I am saying is I would prefer to see more emphasis placed on shooting skills and less on monkey motions and athletic ability.

Sam:

What constitutes a monkey motion? How about a wooden key that may or may not go into the slot and turn depending on who set the prop after the last shooter? I think that qualifies.

Edited September 4, 2006 by Ron Ankeny

[kimel]

How about a wooden key that may or may not go into the slot and turn depending on who set the prop after the last shooter?

That is just poor stage design. Good stage designers learn, usually the hard way, to make sure that every prop will work the same way for every shooter, every time.

[Sam]

The key! Yes, I'm sure I did make plenty of monkey motions, and monkey faces, while trying to get that key to work. Half the people at that match would probably have liked to shove that key right up the monkeys.....

Remember how the nerf football at 2005 Area 1 bounced out of the bucket on several shooters? Monkey motions. Yep.

[Jim Norman]

Example, No, you may not put Fluffy's ears into your mouth, although Fluffy is a stuffed toy, Fluffy represents a real family pet, would you really carry your dog by biting on his ears? Hopefully not!

Umm, no. Fluffy's on his own. Practically speaking, if I need to be shooting, there is not much I will carry. Making competitors carry stupid things is a game, and I will game it all the way.

Any practical point to the barrel thing? You are arguing both sides.

Two points here.

Fluffy could be representing whatever you want it to, but if you are leaving your child's dog behind, I can't think of much you'd carry by sticking it in your mouth.

The barrel stage probably should not have been included in the match. It was and had the mods I suggested after the fact been oin place, then it would have at least been fair and consistant.

Jim

[RPMartin]

I am going to play devil's advocate here.....

How many times have you heard " There is nothing new, or orginal, or challending at Club XYZ, it just the samething year after year"?

By trying to creat fun, new, exciting, challenging, clever, stages, the folks that design them and the MDs, who wpprove them are just trying to make the match more fun and challenging.

Sometimes the good folks try too hard........ Let someone know and give the match honest feedback.

None of us are going to be happy with all the stages all the time, but remember, there are only so many ways you put targets in a bay without repetition.

Monkey moves are just a sign of desperation in the creative process...................

RPM

[38supPat]

More monkey motions I think don't belong in major matches: You will note that many of them can have large 'luck' components.

* Cutting things. Knife, sword, cleaver, hatchet and tomahawk targets. Doubly so for scored targets. Mayybe if you cut a string to trigger an activator, but otherwise, no thanks.

What else?

You didn't mention lightsabers