Round Counts

[elenius]

I'm reading the (2004) rule book (for the first time), and this surprised me:

1.2.1.4 The recommended balance for an IPSC match is a ratio of 3 Short Courses to 2 Medium Courses to 1 Long Course.

where Short,Medium,Long courses have been previously (1.2.1.1-3) defined as being no more than 9/16/32 rounds.

I've only shot 4 local club matches in Richmond, CA, and I'm pretty sure that ALL stages I've seen were Long Courses, except the classifiers.

I also watched Matt Burkett's "IPSC Strategies" where he shoots the 2005 Area 2 championships, and all those stages seem to be of the Long kind as well.

Is this just a recommendation that everyone ignores? If so, why is it in the rule book in the first place? Is this a USPSA vs IPSC difference? Did stages use to be much shorter?

[BritinUSA]

IPSC matches are generally lots of small speed shoots, a few medium and fewer large stages. Just as the rule implies.

USPSA does focus more on larger field courses. I noticed this when I first moved here in 1998. It's been an IPSC type rule for as long as I can remember. Level I (local matches) are kind of exempt from some aspects of course design as they may not have the facilities that you find in Level III, IV and V matches.

[elenius]

IPSC matches are generally lots of small speed shoots, a few medium and fewer large stages. Just as the rule implies.

USPSA does focus more on larger field courses. I noticed this when I first moved here in 1998. It's been an IPSC type rule for as long as I can remember. Level I (local matches) are kind of exempt from some aspects of course design as they may not have the facilities that you find in Level III, IV and V matches.

I just noticed that they have removed 1.2.1.4 in the 2008 draft rules. They still have the definitions of short/medium/long.

[sargenv]

Well, the thing is, we try to follow the rules at Richmond, but well, we like to shoot so generally we fire at least 100 rounds per match. Sometimes if I pick up a large bay (Bay 3 for instance) I'll put two smaller courses on it and we wind up with 6 stages. Other people have done this also. The problem is, if we followed the 3 small, 2 medium, 1 long course rule, we'd have a lot more waiting to shoot than shooting as the people shooting the long courses will obviously take the longest amount of time and the people shooting the shorter courses will be done sooner and waiting. We get a lot of shooters often enough that generally we run round counts in the 20's when they are more complex (activators, etc) and in the 30's or more for fairly simple hoser type stages. It is a level 1 match so we have some leeway for more than the 32 rounds that USPSA dictates. If you are curious about how they run for match setup, come on out and help onthe saturday before a match.

Vince

[elenius]

Well, the thing is, we try to follow the rules at Richmond, but well, we like to shoot so generally we fire at least 100 rounds per match. Sometimes if I pick up a large bay (Bay 3 for instance) I'll put two smaller courses on it and we wind up with 6 stages. Other people have done this also. The problem is, if we followed the 3 small, 2 medium, 1 long course rule, we'd have a lot more waiting to shoot than shooting as the people shooting the long courses will obviously take the longest amount of time and the people shooting the shorter courses will be done sooner and waiting. We get a lot of shooters often enough that generally we run round counts in the 20's when they are more complex (activators, etc) and in the 30's or more for fairly simple hoser type stages. It is a level 1 match so we have some leeway for more than the 32 rounds that USPSA dictates. If you are curious about how they run for match setup, come on out and help onthe saturday before a match.

Vince

Don't get me wrong -- the 3/2/1 recommendation didn't sound fun to me. I was just curious why this was in there, and like I said, they already took care of it

[richardschennberg]

This appears to be a mathematical suggestion based on our scoring system. Since each stage has match points available based on the maximum target points, you need the 3 short, 2 medium, 1 long proportion for each type of stage to be equally represented in the final score.

[Jim Norman]

Actually the match only works if you short the round counts from the maximums.

32, 2x16, 3 x9 is close, but not quite right. Also there was or is a caveat that no single COF account for more than 15% iof the points. 32 rounds is 15% of 213.3 points. So, the smallest match we can have is a pretty hefty match by that standard. More like no full compliance is possible.

2 long, 4 medium and 6 short is 32 rounds short of the required points. and is still a 182 round 12 stage match. To keep the actual proportions per the rules, you need 273 rounds! We just made the Nationals about the smallest match you can hold and not break a rule!

Jim

Jim

[kevin c]

Short version for Richmond shooters.

We like to shoot a lot, do it fast, and do it all at once.

[Barrettone]

elenius

This is one of he primary reasons for the World Shoot Qualifier Series. USPSA wants to send their best IPSC team not their best USPSA team. International matches tend to more closely follow the 3:2:1 reccomendation. These matches test different skillsets, so we are trying to simulate what is encountered at a World Shoot. IPSC matches test the shooters in a more well-rounded way, but it isn't necessarily the funnest match in the world due to that premise.

We like to run n' gun through those monster 32 round feild courses and hose targets in USPSA. In IPSC, distance, obscured targets and short timing courses are the order of the day. Neither format is necessarily bad...just different. I will admit though, that some USPSA shooters might find an IPSC match a little boring compared what they are used to. Hopefully we kick butt at the next World Shoot due to our format change in qualification matches.

Sorry for the slight thread drift, but I thought it held a little relevance in explaining things.

Edited January 21, 2007 by Barrettone