Amateurs vs. Professionals

[zhunter]

TL...I'd put my $500 up against you or Z in a big match. (and that is $500 that needs to go into my truck right now) Let me know. I might have to oil up the single-stack.

(If you guys aren't willing to do that with your own money, then it might be less rude of you to suggest that somebody else is gutless for not doing it with their money.)

Well Flex, thanks for the offer. As a lowly "A" shooter, and you being a GM, that is a huge chance you are willing to take.

I'm just a U in single-stack and a Master in L-10. I've probably never done more than a few dozen reloads with my 45. I don't know what load it would take...I've never even loaded 45 on my press. My SS doesn't even have sights on it. And, I'd have to use a Fobus holster. It's sounding like you'd need to give me odds.

Self belief, gotta believe Flex Jay!!!

Like I said earlier, it is an investment in your business self. Put the money up, perform well, and get paid.

Your humor, or whatever it is meant to be, would not be much of a challenge for you would it. I am a guy who shoots less than 10 local matches a year, and MAYBE 2 major matches a year. I have nothing to personally gain from my idea, so I don't understand you "humorously' calling me out.

So in essence, I am not sure of the motivation of your post.

My motivation was to point out that you and TL might quit suggesting other don't have guts to bet against the odds...or saying "money talks, bs walks". (I was finding those lines a bit rude and antagonistic.)

It was not meant in that manner, I can assure you. I can see how it was tho.

The whole point is to get the best to shoot against each other more often. I remember when this was suggested in golf the first time, back in the early to mid-90's. It was shot down so quickly as to be a joke. Know what, that same idea is now called the WGC, or World Golf Championships. What did not seem like a good idea then, well, has turned out pretty well. Sometimes it is not the right time, many times, it is a matter of who presents the idea. When Greg Norman presented the idea, it was looked upon of the rich trying to get richer. I am not the Greg Norman of shooting. Let's face it, I have nothing to gain. I am slow, need to go get glasses and have very little time to practice.

[AlamoShooter]

Wow ! did any one look at in just over 6.5 hrs this post reached page five? And most of it has some information exchange, AND point of view adjustments? a few boo boos are going to need a band-aid though

and now Zee is making fun of us slow guys with glasses

Edited March 17, 2008 by AlamoShooter

[Chills1994]

(slight thread drift on)

Some of you are saying that the way to bring in the big bucks into a USPSA or Steel Challenge like competition is with TV.

You have to make whatever the competition is spectator friendly. Hence, the appeal of the Sportsman Team Challenge and the big Piru, CA match.

I suggest with technology being the way it is, we NEED to outfit the best shooters with some sort of hosercam / "posercam" type set up.

Others here have tried comparing/contrasting NASCAR to USPSA. I can imagine that on Sunday afternoons there's several thousand Joe Sixpack's sitting at home with their #8 hats and shirts on, in their Lazy-Boy recliners... the only time they really sit up and take notice is when the control booth guys switch to an inside the "stock car" cockpit camera view and everyone for a few short seconds gets to vicariously see/feel what it's like to be Bobby Labonte or Jeff Gordon.

(thread drift off)

A while back there was some talk on the IDPAforum.com website about having another classification higher than Master. I guess some folks out there would like to see a Grand Master IDPA classification.

My suggestion was to NOT have a GM class, but rather have either an INDUSTRY or a HIRED GUN class.

Me, being a newbie to USPSA, coming over from IDPA, it does bug me that us lower ranked shooters appear to be financing the prize tables for the GM's.

I do like how IDPA does it. Prizes given out randomly. I think High Division should get a prize and a trophy. That could, maybe, put a damper on sandbagging. Besides that, my only other solution is to scrap the classification system entirely, or at least at major matches, and make it a "run whatchya brung, head's up" with in division sorta thing.

[zhunter]

Wow ! did any one look at in just over 6.5 hrs this post reached page five? And most of it has some information exchange, AND point of view adjustments? a few boo boos are going to need a band-aid though

and now Zee is making fun of us slow guys with glasses

If I don't get glasses soon, I will be shooting Open with a freakin' dot so I can enjoy the sport.

Gettin' old sux

[GentlemanJim]

Wow ! did any one look at in just over 6.5 hrs this post reached page five? And most of it has some information exchange, AND point of view adjustments? a few boo boos are going to need a band-aid though

and now Zee is making fun of us slow guys with glasses

If I don't get glasses soon, I will be shooting Open with a freakin' dot so I can enjoy the sport.

Gettin' old sux

OLD????......you just turned 45

Sorry sonny you cant bitch about old yet.....durn blasted Kids

Jim

[Jake Di Vita]

Well I still think the idea is good but I'm done with this thread...unfortunately most of the people commenting here are doing so through emotion rather than logic.

Ben,

Just because it "ain't broke" doesn't mean it can't be improved. Again....this would not replace all matches - it would be for whatever match wanted to run it.

I cannot believe the pissing and moaning that happens when someone offers a reasonable suggestion of how to improve the sport for some and keep it exactly the same for whoever wants nothing to do with it. I mean seriously...all you guys that hate this idea...why do you hate it? What bad could come from it? It isn't making you change, isn't increasing fees for you, isn't damaging the sport - but we have people saying that if there was a chance for a pro-caliber shooter to actually make money doing what they love and are best at - they would quit...are you kidding me? You don't even have to attend the freakin' match!!!

I really thought shooters of all people were intelligent and open minded enough to deal with a topic like this rationally. Guess I was wrong.

Man reading this thread ruined my day.

[Ben Stoeger]

Jake,

Initially it was my impression that certain people would be forced by virtue of recieving sponsorship or whatever other criteria into a "Pro" class. This class would pay more for entry.

What is being said now (that it would be totally optional) I have no issue with. I myself am not interested in signing up for matches that are 500 bucks or whatever, so count me out. I suspect that sort of system would be unpopular to the point of not even being a factor.

I don't see why discussion of prize allocation or match entry fees or classes makes a real improvement in the sport. This sport is about shooting, and how to divide the loot after the match doesn't have a lot to do with it as far as I am concerned.

[rgkeller]

Well I still think the idea is good but I'm done with this thread...unfortunately most of the people commenting here are doing so through emotion rather than logic.

Ben,

Just because it "ain't broke" doesn't mean it can't be improved. Again....this would not replace all matches - it would be for whatever match wanted to run it.

I cannot believe the pissing and moaning that happens when someone offers a reasonable suggestion of how to improve the sport for some and keep it exactly the same for whoever wants nothing to do with it. I mean seriously...all you guys that hate this idea...why do you hate it? What bad could come from it? It isn't making you change, isn't increasing fees for you, isn't damaging the sport - but we have people saying that if there was a chance for a pro-caliber shooter to actually make money doing what they love and are best at - they would quit...are you kidding me? You don't even have to attend the freakin' match!!!

I really thought shooters of all people were intelligent and open minded enough to deal with a topic like this rationally. Guess I was wrong.

Man reading this thread ruined my day.

The sport would not be exactly the same for those whose current shooting is partially subsidized and/or who teach shooting for money. Under Z's proposal they would be pros.

[Dan Sierpina]

The sponsors dropped away Chevy Truck backed out & the NSSF turned the event over to the Nat Skeet & Sporting clay org. the entire event was "Made For TV" easy to watch the targets fall on the TV

but = Every thing had a Financial hit in the late 90s the shooting Industry was drained buy the end of the 90s

Less payout and the event moved from Florida to San Antonio. + personality conflicts in the management.

The committee picked up the event about 4 years ago to salvage STC. STC is alive and hanging on

I know the STC is hanging on. I've know Ron Weaver for quite a while.

What I meant was, the STC and the Masters were matches that were designed to have spectator appeal (reactive targets), fairly large payouts for the top shooters. Both of them are mere shadows of what the once were, and hoped to be.

[G-ManBart]

Just because it "ain't broke" doesn't mean it can't be improved. Again....this would not replace all matches - it would be for whatever match wanted to run it.

I mean seriously...all you guys that hate this idea...why do you hate it? What bad could come from it? It isn't making you change, isn't increasing fees for you, isn't damaging the sport - but we have people saying that if there was a chance for a pro-caliber shooter to actually make money doing what they love and are best at - they would quit...are you kidding me? You don't even have to attend the freakin' match!!!

Jake, I know you said you were done with this thread, but someone might be interested in the counterpoint here.

So we'd have USPSA shooters that are professionals for some matches, and not for others? Yeah, like that won't cause friction or anything...

I don't "hate" the idea, but I'm not sure I like it. Why? Because if I wanted to shoot in those selected matches I'd be considered a professional and I don't think it's realistic to force me into that category with someone gets ALL of their gear paid for, gets free ammo/components, gets PAID to be there etc. I get a little help, not all that much really, but it would count the same as someone who can pick up the phone and get a new blaster just for the asking.

[Flexmoney]

I don't think that we can get there through self-funding. If there was seed money, and a path to growth... ?

[Chills1994]

Hence, my recommendation to further clarify the "professional" designation with either an "Industry" or a "Hired Gun" label instead.

I think we can figure out who the hired guns would be. Industry is a little trickier to draw the line at.

Professional shouldn't be the guy who received 500 LSWC's from his bud, Bubba, down at the bullet casting shop.

(slight thread drift on)

Ya know how there is a Golf Channel, if there was USPSA TV or Practical Firearms TV, I'd certainly subscribe to it. And I probably wouldn't be able to keep up burning DVD's of the shows I recorded to the TiVo.

(drift off)

Edited March 17, 2008 by Chills1994

[Flexmoney]

You got Bubba's number? I could use a bullet sponsor.

[Chills1994]

Couldn't we all?

LOL!

[el pres]

It's silly to argue the details of a suggestion!! It's just an idea and if someone decided

to do it then all the details can be figured out then !!!

I think it would be a great idea and would really bring the SPORT to another level. There's always

going to be people that dont want to change anything, anytime, ever. This would bring some validity

to the sport outside of shooters. If a so called pro, or most of the pros, in a SPORT are not makeing

any sort of living from doing it then outsiders just see as a hobby and not a PRO SPORT...

Someone mentioned Pool, well how do most of us non Pool players view PRO Pool players that dont

get paid ?? Something like "that just spent a lot time at bars" so we just spend a lot of time shooting cans ???

I love shooting !!! I see it as the bigger it gets the more secure our shooting future would be !!

Man ,6 pages !!!

[Chuck Anderson]

Just using golf as an example, anyone who accepts product/equipment valued over $400 in an event is considered a professional. Anyone who takes money, i.e. cash, is a professional. Anyone who endorses a product for money or is reimbursed for that endorsement by receiving product in return, is a professional. Anyone who is paid to teach or give instruction in that particular sport, is a professional.

I'm sure this isn't what you were looking for when you posted this, and it seems like your views may have changed a bit. But...LE Firearms instructors are professionals, Blade Tech gave a holster to our Junior team to use and Techwear gave them shirts with Blade Tech and Techwear logo's on them, they're all pro's, a shooter wins a raffle or heck even does well enough on a prize table to win a Glock certificate, pro.

I think your definition of what makes a pro is a bit light. The number 30-40 that was used earlier is way high. The number of truly professional shooters, as in that is their job, is wayyyyyyy low. My guess is closer to 5-10. The folks who are instructors don't make money off of teaching IPSC shooters, the pool is too small. Most make their money with Gov't and LE contracts, with the rest by civilian type folks that may or may not be IPSC shooters. Even some of the folks that we consider pros actually have other jobs. The AMU doesn't spend all their time on shooting. The majority is spent providing training to troops. Same thing with guys like Dave Sevigny. His job isn't professional shooter, it's marketing.

As far as some of the folks that have been listed as pros in the other threads. I'd be surprised if most of them get $5000.00 a year from their sponsors. With few exceptions, Robbie, Todd, Dave and some others, the big money days are gone. If the folks that aren't at the very top aren't even making $5000.00 a year from it, why call them pros? I'm a professional police officer. That is what I do for a living. That is my profession. I don't shoot for a living.

[Loves2Shoot]

The biggest problem I see (as someone who would be considered pro but isn't) is that I generally spend more in preparation for a serious match than I do in going to the match. If I was to win a couple thousand at the match, it wouldn't even pay my expenses to prepare and go to the match. That is true for most folks that I know who are "pro" shooters.

I shoot because it is fun. I wouldn't want it as a job unless I had guaranteed money to pay the bills and piles of ammo for practice. If I had all that, I still wouldn't want it, because it wouldn't be fun.

The competition market is tiny compared to the "joe shooter" market, so sponsors laying out big bucks on a small group of passionate people is not generally the best investment of advertising dollars IMO.

ps. I agree 100% with Lawman's post, the people who make a living "shooting" are very very few.

Edited March 17, 2008 by Loves2Shoot

[el pres]

A pro to me would be someone who only shoots for a living !!! No classes or anything,

just trains and shoots and tries to win, thats a pro. If the pro makes an appearence

or instructs a group it would because his sponsor company is making them do it and not

because they are getting a check for that event !!! Essentially the Pro is under contract..

[GentlemanJim]

Jake

Just because people may hold a differing opinion than you does not indicate a lack of intelligence.

In my opinion when the sport becomes all about money..it would have a bad impact on most participants.

And dividing the group into an elite...non elite class system will drive some people out.

The current GM- to D class is as fair as can be as it is....and payback issues ....seem to be mostly about greed.

This idea may indeed enrich a select few...and concentrate those into some matches.

I just dont think it is in the best interest of all involved.

These are just my opinions....and as such, could be incorrect.

We as a whole will never ALL hold the same opinions....but each should be respected.

Jim

[BSeevers]

I like the idea a lot.

I see that it would raise the bar in our sport. Now I have always said just give trophies to all of us "regular" or amateur people. There is honor in achieving and winning your class at a major event.

You can say that the AMU doesn't just shoot,its true, but they do run weekend classes for hundreds of dollars per student, all the time. I got no problem with them doing it but that's a Pro and in a different "league" than a guy who works 50-60 hours or more a week and has a family. They get ammo, practice time and a place to practice, guns, etc. That's an advantage and yea I can possibly beat any of them at a National event but I think they define the term, Pro. Dave S is pretty much a Professional shooter no matter how you look at it. We can use other examples too. PS They earned every bit of that above resources and sponsership but I stick by my opinion that they are a Pro shooters.

30-40 of them? Well I think if you start paying $2K to win an Area they will come. Look at the SC and the Masters for examples in the past. The 50K Masters brought the excitment and shooters, it was just ran poorly. I think a Pro class might be a good thing for the sport.

As to the $500 match fee? The sponsor would pay it of course. Or the shooter. I don't get why that is an issue. Ok make it $250 match fee and split 2/3 of it to Pro division winners.

Edited March 17, 2008 by BSeevers

[tightloop]

There are NO guarantees in life, nor in most lines of work..you screw up you get fired or you should...Same should be true with Pro shooters, you don't get as much $$ is you place 8th as you do if you are 3rd....NO guarantees...if you must have the security of salary to shoot, then you probably aren't cut out to be a pro shooter.

[Ben Stoeger]

if you must have the security of salary to shoot, then you probably aren't cut out to be a pro shooter.

Yeah that whole needing to eat thing can be a real bitch.

[Flexmoney]

As to the $500 match fee? The sponsor would pay it of course. Or the shooter. I don't get why that is an issue.

I can't see how it's not an issue, Bill.

You would probably be talking about 10-12 matches a year for it to mean anything (Level III sized matches), right? That is five grand...more. I am sure that Springfield, Glock and Para could pay it for Dave, Robbie, and Todd. S&W...? Maybe...or maybe they'd lose a few shooters. AMU...? Max, TT, KC and Lee on the pistol side...their budget would take a $20k hit. Does CZ take a $5k per shooter hit? SV?

Could anybody else?

I know I'm not funding another $5k a year in match fees. Plus, how much more in practice and travel $$ to make a run at it? And, then...the pay off probably still couldn't be worth the expenses.

I like the idea of some $$$ flowing, but I can't see it working as self-funded. I think the pool of pro shooters gets smaller, not larger.

I could be wrong, somebody show Flex the money.

[D.Hayden]

I'd like to see matches just with the Option on the match entry: prize table or not... pay more if you want prizes at any level.. I just want to shoot!

[L9X25]

Somebody explain how the FIPT worked, for the newer guys.

Edited March 17, 2008 by L9X25