Pin Shooter Posted December 30, 2007 Share Posted December 30, 2007 Modified is not a USPSA-recognized division, so it doesn't really factor into this discussion. But Revolver is a division here in the US, and it should receive equal treatment from our organization. The top levels of Revolver Division are just as hotly-contested as any other, and the top wheelgunners in the US, and the world for that matter, are just as serious about the game as competitors in any other division. If people think Revolver would be an easy way to win a paid trip to the World Shoot, they can sign up and shoot Revolver and prove themselves. The option would be available to anybody. USPSA should do the right thing next time. USPSA should have got it right last time too................... I agree that Revolver is no gimme division for a slot at the WS......ask Taran....seems that the IRC has proven that not all good auto shooters can be as competitive with a wheel gun. No offence to anyone, but it is not like taking candy from a baby. If there was a WS slot for a Revo Team, I would be a lot more interested in shooting USPSA Revolver. Since there is not, I tend to shoot more ICORE. I tried to get a slot at the revo nats, just for kicks, but, you guessed it.....there were no slots, unless you wanted to show up on the day and take the gamble....In my opinion that is crap......USPSA needs to take a leaf from the Bianchi Cup, and start getting their S@#t together. Even more so now, that "we" have aquired the Steel Challenge. That's my .02.....and I want change Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barrettone Posted December 30, 2007 Share Posted December 30, 2007 Sorry, but I'm gonna take the other side on the team split. I don't see enough participation in Revolver or Modified at a US National level to justify sending a team. I'm not saying that Junior or Lady should get a team either, I didn't look at the numbers. But when their are only 40 guys at a Nationals (and if Memory serves that is high) I don't think sending 10% of them to the World Championship on my dime is a good use of USPSA money. And Modified isn't even recognized in the US. There are even less people set up for that. Sorry Kenny. As far as Modified goes, I said that our 5-8 ranked Open shooters could really represent us well. Heck, if they are already spendng 4-6 thousand just to make the trip, making a modified gun would be a worthwhile option for making the team if they didn't make open. And to the contrary, Modified IS RECOGNIZED in the US. You just need to run an IPSC match, which we have the ability to do at any time at levels 1, 2, and 3. As for it being on "your dime", I only recommended that we take the funds ALREADY BEING ALLOCATED, and divide them EVENLY between all divisions and whatever categories we want to send, thus not costing USPSA any additional monies. I hope this makes my veiw clear. I think that if we are going to send a WS contingent, that ALL DIVISIONS need to be represented before categories are recognized. Nothing is to say that ladies or juniors can't try out in those other divisions as well. YMMV Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BritinUSA Posted December 30, 2007 Share Posted December 30, 2007 In my opinion USPSA should equally fund the following teams: Standard Open Production Revolver Ladies Open Junior Open Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckw Posted December 30, 2007 Share Posted December 30, 2007 Take a look here: http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/tw/tw_918.htmlI'll pass on Bali. Hey Mike, no problem. We all make our own decisions, but these two links posted at the global village are very interesting: http://www.balidiscovery.com/messages/message.asp?Id=3522 http://www.globalincidentmap.com/home.php Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Stoeger Posted December 30, 2007 Share Posted December 30, 2007 The top levels of Revolver Division are just as hotly-contested as any other... Are you kidding? Limited nationals this year had 28 GM's! I mean no disrespect to the wheelies.. but there just isn't as much heat in the division as others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Di Vita Posted December 30, 2007 Share Posted December 30, 2007 My thoughts exactly.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wide45 Posted December 30, 2007 Share Posted December 30, 2007 In my opinion USPSA should equally fund the following teams:Standard Open Production Revolver Ladies Open Junior Open Where is your cutoff? Why not Ladies/Junior Standard, Production? Revolver? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carmoney Posted December 30, 2007 Share Posted December 30, 2007 I understand your point about the raw numbers, but it still seems to me that each division has 3 or 4 top dogs that are always fighting it out, and one guy that's a little better than all the rest. I know who they are in Revolver Division, and I'll bet you guys know who they are in Production, Open, and Limited. Am I right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BSeevers Posted December 30, 2007 Share Posted December 30, 2007 (edited) Open Nationals 29 GM, 50 M out of 227 shooters that's like 1/3 of them, M or above. I think there is a little more competition there too. I understand that there are 10 or less that can win the overall but there is a lot more competition in Lim and Open, I think. No way am I diminishing high overall Pro, Rev etc but I think its a valid point Edited December 30, 2007 by BSeevers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Di Vita Posted December 30, 2007 Share Posted December 30, 2007 I know who the guy is that runs away with it every year. Seriously though...add up the winning margins from every other division and they still don't equal the 16% that Jerry won by this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Norman Posted December 30, 2007 Share Posted December 30, 2007 I wouldn't go to Bali if it was first class prepaid all the way. There is crime everywhere, but some areas also have a higher random act of violence level. Just for the record, there are cities in the US I'd just as soon not spend a lot of time in. Camden, NJ; Detroit, MI; Many areas of LA, CA. Why can't a "First World" country seem to host a WS? Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Stoeger Posted December 30, 2007 Share Posted December 30, 2007 Am I right? No.. not really Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted December 30, 2007 Share Posted December 30, 2007 Let me throw out a monkey wrench... First, a question...were the three IPSC qualifier matches held as Level-III matches? I don't think so, but if they were...IPSC has a requirement of 10 competitors (mandatory at L-III) to recognize a division. That seems more than reasonable. The competition that shows up at these three matches and the nationals...that shows a commitment to wanting to go. If the numbers are there...send a team. If not, pound sand or work to get the numbers up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Moneypenny Posted December 30, 2007 Share Posted December 30, 2007 Amen Flex... go dry fire! this arguing is silly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barrettone Posted December 30, 2007 Share Posted December 30, 2007 (edited) Let me throw out a monkey wrench...First, a question...were the three IPSC qualifier matches held as Level-III matches? I don't think so, but if they were...IPSC has a requirement of 10 competitors (mandatory at L-III) to recognize a division. That seems more than reasonable. The competition that shows up at these three matches and the nationals...that shows a commitment to wanting to go. If the numbers are there...send a team. If not, pound sand or work to get the numbers up. That's a great philosophy Flex...BUT IT IS FLAWED...It is pretty damn hard to get the numbers up when people KNOW GOING INTO THE MATCH THAT USPSA ISN'T FUNDING THE DIVISION!!! MV made it perfectly clear to me BEFORE the TE match went into production that only Open, Limited, Production, Ladies and Juniors were being recognized. Kind of a conundrum ifyaknowwhatimean. The division needs to be recognized BEFORE people will even CONSIDER shooting it. As for 10 competitors to count, that point is moot, as USPSA decided that the best 3 shooters were going to advance from the series, not that there had to be 10 (as per IPSC policy/rules). The death sentence for modified was that the fourth slot was to be filled by the 2008 nationals champ. Kinda hard to do that when there is NO MODIFIED at nats (coulda made it the 2'nd place open guy though I guess). And for the record, TE WAS a Level III, reported as such and all activities paid accordingly. If we SAY we are going to truly PROMOTE IPSC in region, and this agreement isn't just smoke and mirrors to keep IPSC off our back (due to differring rulesets), then USPSA needs to put its money where it's mouth is. Do it for real, or break away completely. No bull$hit. My .02 YMMV Edited December 30, 2007 by Barrettone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BritinUSA Posted December 30, 2007 Share Posted December 30, 2007 Where is your cutoff?Why not Ladies/Junior Standard, Production? Revolver? Typically a World Shoot only recognises a Ladies Open and Junior Open teams and not standard, production or revolver. I think each World Shoot has the option of recognising additional categories (provided there were enough teams). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook Posted December 30, 2007 Share Posted December 30, 2007 (edited) The top levels of Revolver Division are just as hotly-contested as any other... Are you kidding? Limited nationals this year had 28 GM's! I mean no disrespect to the wheelies.. but there just isn't as much heat in the division as others. Yes, there are less shooters. But the number of GM's doesn't say it all. In Europe, we have very few GM's because a lot of shooters don't classify, they just shoot matches and don't really care about their rankings. Saying the division is not hotly-contested when Jerry is shooting is like saying Open division is not hotly-contested when Eric G. is one of only ten Open shooters shooting the match It's the quality, not the quantity, right? Both Jerry and Eric put the runner-up away @ 4% last World Shoot. I agree there are fewer shooters, so pay for fewer shooters... Paying for people that score less than 80% of Jerry to go is crazy. But having a defending World Champ pay for his own trip sounds weird to me Sorry to mix into a USPSA shooting thread Edited December 30, 2007 by spook Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dajarrel Posted December 31, 2007 Share Posted December 31, 2007 ....... But having a defending World Champ pay for his own trip sounds weird to me That's kinda what I was thinkin, but I'm just one of those mediocre "B" class shooters dj Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scirocco38s Posted December 31, 2007 Share Posted December 31, 2007 It is unfortunate that we arent going to pay for revolvers as we are the rest, but what a shooter gets from uspsa for the wotrrld shoot is only a fraction of what it takes to go to a world shoot. If I understand it uspsa pays for the entry fee to the match and then some money to offset the cost of travel and meals.Now, this is no small amount of money and I am not trying tomake light of it but it would not pay Jerrys way even if it was offered. I would say that the uspsa portion is about 25-30% maybe of the shooter associatted costs. I agree with those that it is a shame that we arent even considering a revo team, but I would like to look deeper into why. I also find it interesting that we dont support or even acknowledge Modiified anymore but have a division for every other type made. We make rules to align us with ipsc and then make divisions that aren't recognized and either drop the ones that are or modify the ones that we do for political reasons. There are alot of goings on that the bod needs to address. We have discussed tham here at length. It isnt going to change soon so get used to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted December 31, 2007 Share Posted December 31, 2007 Let me throw out a monkey wrench...First, a question...were the three IPSC qualifier matches held as Level-III matches? I don't think so, but if they were...IPSC has a requirement of 10 competitors (mandatory at L-III) to recognize a division. That seems more than reasonable. The competition that shows up at these three matches and the nationals...that shows a commitment to wanting to go. If the numbers are there...send a team. If not, pound sand or work to get the numbers up. That's a great philosophy Flex...BUT IT IS FLAWED...It is pretty damn hard to get the numbers up when people KNOW GOING INTO THE MATCH THAT USPSA ISN'T FUNDING THE DIVISION!!! MV made it perfectly clear to me BEFORE the TE match went into production that only Open, Limited, Production, Ladies and Juniors were being recognized. Kind of a conundrum ifyaknowwhatimean. The division needs to be recognized BEFORE people will even CONSIDER shooting it. As for 10 competitors to count, that point is moot, as USPSA decided that the best 3 shooters were going to advance from the series, not that there had to be 10 (as per IPSC policy/rules). The death sentence for modified was that the fourth slot was to be filled by the 2008 nationals champ. Kinda hard to do that when there is NO MODIFIED at nats (coulda made it the 2'nd place open guy though I guess). And for the record, TE WAS a Level III, reported as such and all activities paid accordingly. If we SAY we are going to truly PROMOTE IPSC in region, and this agreement isn't just smoke and mirrors to keep IPSC off our back (due to differring rulesets), then USPSA needs to put its money where it's mouth is. Do it for real, or break away completely. No bull$hit. My .02 YMMV Well...we are on the same page, but I didn't get my point through, it seems. Right...you/we knew going in for this go'round. So...there is no point typing any of this, unless you are talking about the next go'round. This milk was spilt a long time ago. So, are we talking about working on a change for the next time, or....are we just venting steam here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L9X25 Posted December 31, 2007 Share Posted December 31, 2007 (edited) Let me throw out a monkey wrench...First, a question...were the three IPSC qualifier matches held as Level-III matches? I don't think so, but if they were...IPSC has a requirement of 10 competitors (mandatory at L-III) to recognize a division. That seems more than reasonable. The competition that shows up at these three matches and the nationals...that shows a commitment to wanting to go. If the numbers are there...send a team. If not, pound sand or work to get the numbers up. That's a great philosophy Flex...BUT IT IS FLAWED...It is pretty damn hard to get the numbers up when people KNOW GOING INTO THE MATCH THAT USPSA ISN'T FUNDING THE DIVISION!!! MV made it perfectly clear to me BEFORE the TE match went into production that only Open, Limited, Production, Ladies and Juniors were being recognized. Kind of a conundrum ifyaknowwhatimean. The division needs to be recognized BEFORE people will even CONSIDER shooting it. As for 10 competitors to count, that point is moot, as USPSA decided that the best 3 shooters were going to advance from the series, not that there had to be 10 (as per IPSC policy/rules). The death sentence for modified was that the fourth slot was to be filled by the 2008 nationals champ. Kinda hard to do that when there is NO MODIFIED at nats (coulda made it the 2'nd place open guy though I guess). And for the record, TE WAS a Level III, reported as such and all activities paid accordingly. If we SAY we are going to truly PROMOTE IPSC in region, and this agreement isn't just smoke and mirrors to keep IPSC off our back (due to differring rulesets), then USPSA needs to put its money where it's mouth is. Do it for real, or break away completely. No bull$hit. My .02 YMMV Well...we are on the same page, but I didn't get my point through, it seems. Right...you/we knew going in for this go'round. So...there is no point typing any of this, unless you are talking about the next go'round. This milk was spilt a long time ago. So, are we talking about working on a change for the next time, or....are we just venting steam here? This is the "chicken or the egg" scenario all over again. Should we have participation before recognition, or recognition before participation? I think that USPSA should determine a minimum participation level and then recognize the division once the level is met, and not before. Open the door for everyone and then let the numbers speak for themselves. Edited December 31, 2007 by L9X25 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barrettone Posted December 31, 2007 Share Posted December 31, 2007 Well...we are on the same page, but I didn't get my point through, it seems.Right...you/we knew going in for this go'round. So...there is no point typing any of this, unless you are talking about the next go'round. This milk was spilt a long time ago. So, are we talking about working on a change for the next time, or....are we just venting steam here? I guess a little of both. I didn't mean to slam you Kyle...it wasn't my intent. This is just one of those issues that pisses me off to no end. As for moving forward and finding solutions, I think we need to either do it right, or not at all with regards to the world body and Level IV and V matches. We need to recognize all divisions for teams, and then categories. I think it should be split between the 5 divisions, then 3 categories...Ladies, Juniors, and a Senior team. If all we can allocate is $40,000, then it gets split up between those 40 people and they each get $1250 (40,000/32). Rather than giving $2000 to 5 teams (40,000/20). It is $750 less per person, but then we are truly sending a full contingent to the big show. If we did it that way, trust me...you'd see more participation in the qualifiers for Revolver and Modified. Guys would think twice about going for an Open slot if they felt they might not make the top 3, so they would try Modified. Same with the Revolver guys...More would come out if they were recognized. We only had an average of 80 shooters at the 3 qualifier matches. TE had 100, Rio had like 75, and Tulsa had 60-something. I bet a lot of people would have welcomed having those additional slots even if it dilluted the pool of funds a bit. Lets face it, that trip to WS is like 5-6K. Do you really think $750 is gonna stop those upper echelon shooters from going? Lets at least be fair in the meager amount of funding that USPSA distributes to s team members for this venture. I hope you see my point. OK...I gotta go take my happy pills now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barrettone Posted December 31, 2007 Share Posted December 31, 2007 This is the "chicken or the egg" scenario all over again. Should we have participation before recognition, or recognition before participation? I think that USPSA should determine a minimum participation level and then recognize the division once the level is met, and not before. Open the door for everyone and then let the numbers speak for themselves. This one is a little different than how we do our in-region matches, as we have a responsibility to the world body as per our agreement with them to promote IPSC in-region and still participate in the world events. We are not talking about some area match where we just want to give everybody a trophy. This is more like our "Olympics", and as such warrants greater consideration IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BritinUSA Posted December 31, 2007 Share Posted December 31, 2007 Well it's a little late for this time around but I think we definitely need to have some more equitable method in place before 2011. If USA puts in a bid to host the 2011 WS then you can bet that requests for slots/teams is going to be through the roof. As the host nation we need to put out strong teams in all the divisions and I imagine that the contest for those slots will be seriously intense. So many people will want to shoot the match that the only way to guarantee a slot will be to qualify for one of the teams. As has been mentioned, the attendance at the IPSC qualifier matches was significantly lower that I would have expected. I suspect that the destination of the 2008 WS is a contributing factor in this regard. Rest assured that a 2011 US World Shoot will have several hundred vying for places in the teams. Prior to 2010, USPSA needs to indicate which teams will be formed for the next World Shoot so that everyone knows where they stand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barrettone Posted December 31, 2007 Share Posted December 31, 2007 Well it's a little late for this time around but I think we definitely need to have some more equitable method in place before 2011. If USA puts in a bid to host the 2011 WS then you can bet that requests for slots/teams is going to be through the roof. As the host nation we need to put out strong teams in all the divisions and I imagine that the contest for those slots will be seriously intense. So many people will want to shoot the match that the only way to guarantee a slot will be to qualify for one of the teams. As has been mentioned, the attendance at the IPSC qualifier matches was significantly lower that I would have expected. I suspect that the destination of the 2008 WS is a contributing factor in this regard. Rest assured that a 2011 US World Shoot will have several hundred vying for places in the teams. Prior to 2010, USPSA needs to indicate which teams will be formed for the next World Shoot so that everyone knows where they stand. In that same vein, I would think that we would want to represent all divisions (and respective categories)...especially if it was on our home turf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now