"Good Stage"

[benos]

I started this forum as a result of "stage discussions," regarding what makes a "good" or "bad" IPSC stage. My first thoughts came from a stage at the 2001 Area 2/Classic, which I thought was a "good" stage. Here's why:

1) It was a shooting test (close range partials). 2) It had a couple ways to shoot it, and you could choose your own way depending on your skill level and how much risk you were willing to take. You could shoot it "safe," or with a little risk, depending on your skill level and how your were feeling. (You could take the head box on the way in for a little more risk, and potential benefit, or come in and set up on the body partial.) 3) It was "technical," meaning body position and set-up were critical for a good run. In other words, you didn't just run to a port and crank 8 shots at wide open targets at 3 - 7 yds, and then repeat 4 times. 4) It was 8 rds. 5) Their wasn't anything "stupid" about the stage, meaning every swinger and dropper the range owned wasn't on the same stage. 6) To me, all this means the stage was a challenging shooting test, not a foot race.

be

[ErikW]

(Photos for people who weren't there, or people who were there but have bad memories: http://www.azgunning.com/classic/stages/03...e_03_photos.htm)

That stage had too much foot race element; the table and chair should have been right there at the doorway. Half the time in that stage was burned getting up and running to the first target.

The targets were close, which is not good, but had very little A zone available, which is good for close targets. It seemed whoever could slow down from the sprint and quickly set up on that head shot, the first visible target, would take that stage. I had to wait for the other target to become visible, but I had a respectable time. And when you swung over to the left, that no-shoot was just barely a problem if you were too anxious. (You could see a good deal of white tape along its edge so you know people were getting burned by it.) That was pretty cool.

One problem with the stage is, like stage 1, it had an unwritten limitation. I was gonna leap up on the carpeted table near the targets and light em up from one position. The RO said we couldn't do that. Hey man, build a wall or charge line or lay down a fault line and write it in the goddam description. Otherwise, as visible means as visible.

The other cool thing about the stage was it would come down to points, who shot As in the head shots instead of Bs.

Oh yeah, another cool thing about that is it burns foo-foo gunners who don't compensate for their sight height and drop their shots low into hardcover.

(Edited by Erik Warren at 12:53 pm on Nov. 14, 2001)

[benos]

Erik,

Yea, we were gonna leap up on the table as well, or at least we asked about it.

be

[ErikW]

Were you gonna make a bayonet charge of the two fast swingers on stage 1, too? I had a crowd gathered to see that before the RO quashed that plan.

[Flexmoney]

I'll say Pat's line for him...since I must have read this post first.

IPSC = Freestyle.  If one wants to dictate how a stage should be shot, then it needs to be done through stage design.  Especially at a MAJOR match.

Moving is good.  There needs to be something to shoot while moving though.  Those that have the skill to hit on the move need to be rewarded.

The Big Dogs need something to shoot while waiting for targets to activate.  This further seperates the Big Dogs from the mortals.  

Some stages should, maybe, be short distance blasters...to test trigger speed and stance.  Other stages need to test accuracy, target transition, shooting out of position,  movement into/out of the shooting position.  Some stages should test the equipment (starting and drawing from a kneeling position, picking the gun off a table)

I thought this years Limited Nationals were great.  Simple shooting test.  

I thought the Tri-State match in East Huntington (Pitt, PA) was awful.  Targets everywhere...for no particular reason.  Best I can figure was that the idea was that 'your position was being over-run by a superior force'.  Often.  (Sorry...I'll stop ranting before it gets worse.)

[Ron Ankeny]

I too like stages that test a variety of shooting skills. What I really hate is not having something to shoot at while I am waiting for turners or swingers to get going. Unfortunately, the folks around here like close hose mode stages so when I design stages I add hard cover and no-shoots. Ditto on the freestyle notion. Either use boxes or set the stage up right with vision barriers and so on. As they appear means as they appear...

[Detlef]

I'm gonna become unpopular for this, but hey....:

I like Standard Exercises!

On most big matches, you just need to see the standings for that stage, then you have more or less the match standings...

--Detlef

[38supPat]

Well I might have to stop  posting if you all  already know what I'll say!

I kinda like standards too Detlef, they can provide a skill test that you know what the max. possible score is, though hopefully it is tough enough that the max. score is difficult to achieve. Also with so many hosing stages around, standards separate the men from the boys.

Pat

[Phil Dunlop]

Choice!

I love stages with several ways to shoot them. We had a big field couse at our Nationals that could be shot in different ways, I don't think anyone in our squad shot it the same way.

At the Desert Classic, stages 1,3 & 4 had interesting choices in engagement order.

p.D.

[benos]

Erik,

No, I didn't think of that one! Probably would have got more points out of the stage though. (Like I'd a got away with it.)

be