Too Many B.S. Rules

[Bill Rosenthal]

This ought to start some spirited conversation. IMHO, there is too much emphasis on gun types, trigger pulls, holster placement, light rails or not, number of units made, 8rds., 10rds., this that and the other @#%&*^$ thing...

Good course design levels the playing field for all... the guy with the stock (what would be production) gun could and did, leave the hi-cap limited guy in the dust. (Using a IWB leather holster). And before you say it, the whole "you're just shooting against your division thing is bunk. You can be just as competitive and win with any "limited vs limited". The rest is just B.S.

Rules, rules and more rules... it used to be about the shooting! Remember the saying "spending rises to meet income"? Well, the round count has risen to meet capacity. So this meant we needed more "rules" instead of keeping course designs that leveled the field.

Too many damn rules!

On a different note, to see how people shoot these days, we just ran a 25yrd. standards. You can guess how the average shooter did. A sign of the way our sport went!

Bill Rosenthal

A29254

Former MD and current designer of courses that "don't suck".

(Just ask Jim Norman)

Edited December 3, 2006 by Bill Rosenthal

[ihatepickles]

How about we keep the rules and improve the course design? No reason to throw out the baby with the bath water.

We usually have pretty good stages at the local matches, our MD's usually have 25+ yard shots and a lot of movement. I'm happy with our matches.

Maybe the issue with course design is just time and creativity? Not enough volunteers to setup and tear down, etc... Matches become too routine, etc...

[uscbigdawg]

I don't see the rules hindering stage design at all. I will agree though that good stage design sudo-levels out the playing field and that there just aren't enough good designers out there. That said, I'll take a hard working volunteer on a crappy stage than a good designer sitting on the sideline and whining.

The 2004 Georgia State was the best match, with the best stages I've attended to date. I think every stage had the number one factor, for me, in good stage design. More than one way to do it. On top of that the match staff ran a perfect match, including volunteers that made it possible for the shooters to just shoot rather than work at all on the stages. As it should be!*

*Note that the first major I shot was the 1998(?) Area 1 in Reno. It was a three day match. You shot two and worked one. No shooters had to tape and set steel as there was a squad there to do all that for you on their "off" day (including the Super Squad).

Rich

[Ron Ankeny]

And before you say it, the whole "you're just shooting against your division thing is bunk. You can be just as competitive and win with any "limited" or "open" gun, against each other respectively. The rest is just B.S.

I am confused. Are you saying divisions are BS and given two shooters of equal ability the best open blaster around has no advantage over a "limited" Glock given good course design?

[IronEqualizer]

I am confused. Are you saying divisions are BS and given two shooters of equal ability the best open blaster around has no advantage over a "limited" Glock given good course design?

+1 ....That is the way I read it but I see he does not shoot production.?????...B open, B limited, B limited 10, U production.....WTF

[GeorgeInNePa]

Pardon the arfcommer in me, but ------->IBTL

[Vlad]

Actually Bill does shoot production, I guess just not enough to get classified.

That aside, I sort of agree and disagree with him at the same time. Open and the reast ARE different and it doesn't matter what you do with course design, Open will still have an advantage. I do however think that when it comes to iron sighted, non-ported guns course design can flatten the curve dramatically. Major vs minor remains a issue, as it should, but capacity can be meaningless, and so can magwells, speed holsters, mag pouches in funny places.

Let me put it another way. I DO shoot production, and on good stages I don't feel like I give up anything to the limited shooter, and even beat Bill sometimes

[Bill Rosenthal]

The "respectively" part of my statement is that open shoots against open and limited vs. limited. Course design would limit the number of shots from any given spot to eight with the next available targets being at least 10 steps from the last. The Mid-Atlantic Section had this in place for years. Didn't matter what you shot and you got to see where you finished overall. It was more heads-up. Keeping to that would render at least 3 divisions (and thier rules) obsolete. Major/minor as usual.

Oh, and I volunteer my time to course design, build and run stages for at least 3 larger events a year, along with our club's monthly match. I also help at another. No sitting on the sidelines for meee!

Edited December 3, 2006 by Bill Rosenthal

[EricBudd]

The "respectively" part of my statement is that open shoots against open and limited vs. limited. Course design would limit the number of shots from any given spot to eight with the next available targets being at least 10 steps from the last. The Mid-Atlantic Section had this in place for years. Didn't matter what you shot and you got to see where you finished overall. It was more heads-up. Keeping to that would render at least 3 divisions (and thier rules) obsolete. Major/minor as usual.

Oh, and I volunteer my time to course design, build and run stages for at least 3 larger events a year, along with our club's monthly match. I also help at another. No sitting on the sidelines for meee!

Bill,

I agree with you that a well designed course of fire will help level the playing field. It won't be level of course, but it will be closer. The problem is that designing a course of fire is hard. I know. I run a monthly match and I suck at designing courses.

One thing I have noticed is that there are lots of books and videos on how to shoot our sport but there are not any books on how to run a club/match and design stages. I know there are places on line where you can 'borrow' stages but that doesn't help you learn how to design them.

Any yes, I have noticed that many shooters can't shoot at 25 or 50 yards. I try have some longe range standards but I've found most shooters don't like those stahges and perfer 30 rounds at 3-7 yards.

Eric (Mid 19)

[Crusher]

Good field course design is an evolution. I've been doing them for almost 12 years and I look back on some of the older courses I had designed/set up and am embarrassed. That said, I can see the progression I went through from box ( horizontal/vertical) and 8 round arrays to multiple shooting solutions with mixed round count (within the rules) arrays and multiple engagement points for some targets that will tax any D-GM competitor skill regardless of the division they shoot.

On a good field course there are always multiple shooting solutions even within the divisions, the object in shooting the stages is to figure out which is the fastest way for "you" to shoot it giving "you" the highest hit factor based on "your" abilities. This type of design insures that there will always be disparity in competitors based on skill level and to a lesser extent within the divisions.

To design and build field courses with an intent of "leveling the playing field" amongst all divisions often times leads to a fixed single shooting solution which is not a field course but a standard exercise with movement.

At our local club the object is to increase attendance and expose new/less experienced competitors to the types of stages they may see at a level 2/3 match to allow them the confidence to comfortably attend level 2/3 matches while still providing for challenging stages for the experienced competitor.

If you BUILD IT, they WILL come (and from some distance too)

As far as the RULES are concerned they are fine by me and cover most any situation that could/will arise during the course of any level match.

Edit:

the next available targets being at least 10 steps from the last

We also try to prevent our shooting skills tests form evolving into track events.

Edited December 3, 2006 by Crusher

[SA Friday]

I've said this before in other strings, but is still rings true. Clubs have to grow their own designers. Have new designers make stages, and then have a good designer review them and make changes (feedback) for the new designer. The computer designs are great for this. When the stage is ready, use it and incorporate the designer on the set-up crew. This is how I started and still send my designs to the more experienced for reviewing.

I do understand you anger at the all the rules though. I was watching a shooting program, and all of a sudden there was TGO shooting REVOLVER. God was he good with that thing, Jerry had his hands FULL. The point is, the guy can just flat out shoot; doesn't matter what platform or which rules. He obviously has some advantages that most don't, but the more I shoot the more I realize it's a lot more about the shooter and less about the equipment.

[38superman]

Don't mince words Bill. What do you really think?

I don't really have issues with the rules or with most of the stages I encounter.

I do think that as long a we are going to embrace divisions like Single Stack and Revolver, it would be helpful to have smaller arrays.

True, the wheelies and 1911's are competing within their own divisions.

However those divisions might attract more shooters if it wasn't quite so tedious to constantly have to deal with large arrays.

You can still have the high round counts and everbody is happy.

I keep hearing about how short range hoser stages are eroding our shooting skills.

My feeling is that a shooter should be able to hit the A zone or a plate at 25 yds on demand during slow fire.

If you can do it with slow fire, you should be able to do it on the clock.

You just need the discipline to slow down and aim.

If you can't get good hits during slow fire, you need to do some serious work on your fundamentals until you can.

Development of shooting skills is up to the individual shooters.

If they fail to do that, it's their own fault.

I don't think it's fair to blame stage design, trends toward high round counts, or the sport at large.

Tony

Edited December 3, 2006 by tlshores

[Carmoney]

Good field course design is an evolution. I've been doing them for almost 12 years and I look back on some of the older courses I had designed/set up and am embarrassed. That said, I can see the progression I went through from box ( horizontal/vertical) and 8 round arrays to multiple shooting solutions with mixed round count (within the rules) arrays and multiple engagement points for some targets that will tax any D-GM competitor skill regardless of the division they shoot.

On a good field course there are always multiple shooting solutions even within the divisions, the object in shooting the stages is to figure out which is the fastest way for "you" to shoot it giving "you" the highest hit factor based on "your" abilities. This type of design insures that there will always be disparity in competitors based on skill level and to a lesser extent within the divisions.

To design and build field courses with an intent of "leveling the playing field" amongst all divisions often times leads to a fixed single shooting solution which is not a field course but a standard exercise with movement.

I agree wholeheartedly with Crusher's comments above. As many of you know, I'm a serious participant in USPSA's Revolver Division, and I'll tell you the last thing we want is for every stage to be a series of 8 round arrays. The next-to-last thing we want is a bunch of 6 round arrays. As Crusher points out, the best stages require the shooter to use not just the gun, but also the brain, to figure out the most efficient option (among multiple options) to shoot the stage. If you ask me, the single most interesting and challenging aspect of IPSC shooting is stage break-down and strategy. Otherwise, might as well just shoot steel or bowling pins (both of which are fun in their own right, there's just not a lot of thinking involved).

[Harmon]

i believe there should be limitations on holster positions...unless the shooter is seriously disfigured, there is no reason for the pistol to be pointed towards the "Pecker".

Ive seen it, and do my best not to laugh when i do..

[Flexmoney]

What have you seen??? Somebody had their pecker hanging out??

That has got to be a FTDR !

[Ron Ankeny]

Course design would limit the number of shots from any given spot to eight with the next available targets being at least 10 steps from the last.

We pretty much limit arrays to 8 rounds, but I'll part company with you on the minimum of 30 feet between shooting positions.

[ysued]

What have you seen??? Somebody had their pecker hanging out??

That has got to be a FTDR !

I'm not going there, but an AD would "REALLY" Hurt!!

Y

[half inch groups]

I personally think the rules for production class suck! How could we be so "limited" to what we can shoot? I think production class should be just that.. ANY production gun PERIOD. I cant believe I cant shoot a 1911 in production class because its not a "safe action" gun... I know I'm gonna get heat for this, but What if I dont want to own a glock, XP, sig, EAA or cz???? (which I don't) except for my baby eagle compact which wouldnt cut the mustard in production because of the short barrel. I am practically forced to shoot Limited because of my choice in guns, and thats what I dont like about the rules...

[Jman]

IMO the rules are what make this game worth participating in. What's the alternative? Dozens of people showing up with weird guns, thousands of rounds of ammo.....and a few rules....hmmm. Let's just keep showing up, shoot our game, and help , so others can shoot theirs.

[half inch groups]

IMO the rules are what make this game worth participating in. What's the alternative? Dozens of people showing up with weird guns, thousands of rounds of ammo.....and a few rules....hmmm. Let's just keep showing up, shoot our game, and help , so others can shoot theirs.

I think rules are great. dont get me wrong. its just that when i wanted to get started shooting at a competitive level, I figured the 1911 platform was the gun of choice as it is so widely used by so many shooters. Almost every person I know that owns pistols, owns at least 1 1911... What cracks me up is that you cant shoot a 1911, but you can take your glock, do a trigger job, change the barrel, add a magwell, replace your sites yada yada yada, but yet your production gun is now far from production. If USPSA/IPSC want to invite new shooters, maybe the stock production class should be a little more liberal on the guns that qualify for that class. I think production should be any production gun with zero modifications. The better production gun you buy, might just be able to be shot in Limited, saving the shooter on a budget some money, and the frustration of shooting a disliked gun alike.

[Crusher]

What have you seen??? Somebody had their pecker hanging out??

I'm still laughing and couldn't think of a whitty comment..................I'll be back soon.

Pecker he said pecker

[Chris Keen]

I am practically forced to shoot Limited because of my choice in guns, and thats what I dont like about the rules...

Yeah, it sux that I can't shoot my open gun in Production.

[ysued]

OK.

Just a friendly FYI

1-You can't use a Magwell in Production, Trigger job, yes, Sights, yes, new barrel, yes, magwell, No.

I know how you feel, Production is very far from Production, but if you want to shoot 1911, there's 2 places for you t play, L-10 and PSSD. Right now with the new $500 STI Single Stack (Spartan) you can get into PSSD with a really reasonable cost!!

Now, if you want to find a gun that has NO place in USPSA, is the 9mm Hi-Power!!

Talk about a Red Headed Stepchild!!

Y

What cracks me up is that you cant shoot a 1911, but you can take your glock, do a trigger job, change the barrel, add a magwell, replace your sites yada yada yada, but yet your production gun is now far from production. If USPSA/IPSC want to invite new shooters, maybe the stock production class should be a little more liberal on the guns that qualify for that class. I think production should be any production gun with zero modifications. The better production gun you buy, might just be able to be shot in Limited, saving the shooter on a budget some money, and the frustration of shooting a disliked gun alike.

Edited December 4, 2006 by ysued

[ihatepickles]

I think production class should be just that.. ANY production gun PERIOD.

STI Grandmaster

That's a nice production gun, right off the STI production line.

[half inch groups]

I knew someone was going to do it... that was the exact gun I figured you'd do it with! lol!ok... maybe their should be $$$ cutoff, say $1000. and keep em stock! Now we can shoot GI's milspecs, Custom II's Target II's, Rock rivers, yes the Spartan etc etc... with NO MODIFICATIONS!!!! rules.. No comps, no optics, and no custom work period... Is mit just me or dont most agree that a 1911 should be allowed in production? or am I taking crazy pills?

Edited December 4, 2006 by half inch groups