SmittyFL Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 I missed a few pages in the middle Jay as I had to go do that work thing for a while. I had initially thought the premise behind this was to get those big bad good shooters out of the way so the 28th loser could say he won a match. I was either mistaken or the gist of the point morphed during the day. Either way I gather the goal now. I would be behind it 100%. My concern would be what Tightloop continues to bring up. Although most of his posts are pointless except to stir the pot I think he's correct that most won't want to put up or shut up. Maybe including me though it would take me a while to learn that. I know I won't beat Robbie on a daily basis, actually I've never beat him, but I'll try for a long time. It would only be a matter of how long I can survive in the 3rd or 7th or 5th or 11th position. I think the point series sorta tried something similar. But its a chicken and egg deal. I thought the point series was a good idea if there was something good to win out there, but most shooters are too cheap to pony up and the sponsors are hit plenty for other matches. It wasn't worth it for me to fork out for another match I wouldn't normally have shot just to qualify for the point series and win $400. The extra match would have cost me $600. Like I brought up earlier, the Pro-Am match in Tulsa should be a decent bench mark at how something like this might be accepted. As for the typical pot stirring folks, we don't need it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rgkeller Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 The USPSA is a MEMBERS organization whose mission is to enhance shooting opportunties for MEMBERS. Running a pro shooting circuit is not its mission. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brazos SC Shooter Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 For me ...when it was suggested that every entry into the match would pay $500.00....then the top guys get the $$ Just what incentive do I have to go do this?? My wife and I BOTH shoot!...would it be real bright for me to spend $1000.00 just to get to shoot a single match When you start talking about a few people making money from the sport I just choose not to be the one whos pocket it comes out of! Jim Took forever to get up to speed on this thread. But now that I am, I have to say I think this is a great idea. Jim - there is nothing in Z's idea that says you will have to pay $500 and that your money will go to the Pros. Those who want to shoot as amatures continue to do so. You pay lower match fees and your prize table would be smaller industry prizes, trophies, handshakes or pats on the back. The Pro designation and the Pro entry fee create their prize money and their prize money only. Anyone who CHOOSES to give the pro match a run can do so. No one is saying you have to. Everybody who tries to make it professionally has to make sacrifices. They bottom line is they make they choice to do so. This idea gives folks a chance to try and do something they love AND make some money. As for how to make this a sport that is better received by spectators, I would like to see what smaller versions of the the sky-cams that are used in football could do. You mount them on top of barricades, fly them overhead, and add poser cams and you could possibly make it more exciting and involving for the avergage joe couch potato. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zhunter Posted March 18, 2008 Author Share Posted March 18, 2008 Smitty I agree, the Pro-Am is going to be interesting to watch for sure. It is basically what I am proposing. Like I said, I don't have all the answers, but it would not be tough to figure it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AikiDale Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 Great Idea Z! I don't understand all the flack you are getting from the nattering nabobs of negativism. The system you propose works in many other sports, to the benefit of the sportsmen, spectators, equipment manufactures and media, not to mention the soap, beer and automobile manufactures! Shooting will always be a non-televised, misunderstood, hobby unless it grows into a professional sport. Golf is a perfect example by the way. Whether golf is a 'fine walk spoiled' or the 'intentional misuse of a rifle range' it is about as exciting to watch as paint drying. That said, millions of people play every day who are not pros and who only do it for fun. Others compete as amateurs and a hand full for the money. There would be no T.V. coverage, no big sponsors and no big payoffs if it were not for the pro competition. The same can be said of skiing, running, skateboarding... even bowling for crying out loud. Someone please try to tell me watching a shooting match is not more exciting than watching bowling or golf. Yes, it is time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brazos SC Shooter Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 (Thread drift on) This has of the hottest topics started in a while. Z's 1911 Snob thread took 2 days to hit 9 pages. The "Show us your workbench thread" took a year to hit 9 pages. Nice work Z (Thread Drift off) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tightloop Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 USPSA Pro-Am Circuit- 4 matches / year (start small) - USPSA accepts proposals from prospect host clubs and announces venues WELL in advance. - USPSA provides guidance to hosts (match structure, PRO-AM slot ratio, finances, prize $ distribution, et. al) - TV coverage and sponsors. Doesn't USPSA have consultants for that now? Suggestion: At this year's nationals, poll the participants in the entry questionaire. KISS Nemo.... I still think Z has the answer and that is the self funding aspect of the top guys throwing down $$ to see who is best...find out real fast who wants to play with the big guys... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zhunter Posted March 18, 2008 Author Share Posted March 18, 2008 (edited) Smitty, Brazos, Dale, where have you guys been all day???? Geez, TL and I have been hammered all day by the naysayers!!!! Glad to have ya on board!!!! Edited March 18, 2008 by zhunter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokshwn Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 (edited) I don't think that we can get there through self-funding. If there was seed money, and a path to growth... ? Flex you are wrong. You can take a look at any of the shotgun sports. Yes there are shoots that have sponsor added money, however the vast majority of the money won by shooters is in the form of them paying into the purses and options at entry time. The path has already been cleared, paved, and widened if we would look at some other sports. As to the fact that there would be rampant sandbagging and unending corruption of the sport in the pursuit of money, it just hasn't happened in other venues. In fact creating the opportunity for a recreational level shooter to fund his hobby has been key in the growth of shotgun sports. There are numerous models to accomplish giving shooters an opportunity to do this to include shooters of all abilities. The bonus is that it counters Ben's arguements and is transparent to the results of the match for those that choose not to participate. If I pay $1500 to attend a match (A2, Nats, etc) and I know that I have been practicing and had some good previous showings, might I want to put up another few schekels for the opportunity to pay for the whole trip...hell yeah. PS...For a group of guys who have all pretty much read or at least heard of the concepts put forth by Lanny Basham, I can't believe how low the level of self talk is Edited March 18, 2008 by smokshwn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nemo Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 The USPSA is a MEMBERS organization whose mission is to enhance shooting opportunties for MEMBERS.Running a pro shooting circuit is not its mission. Wouldn't the pro circuit matches provide an enhanced shooting opportunity for us members? I would shoot the match, just wouldn't pay the pro entry fee. If the pro circuit gives USPSA better "visibility" I don't see why it would be a bad thing to be involved in the organization of the matches. Besides the USPSA could somehow also benefit from the finance$. Don't ask me how because I don't know. Higher mission count for pro-am matches, maybe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tightloop Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 I don't think that we can get there through self-funding. If there was seed money, and a path to growth... ? Flex you are wrong. You can take a look at any of the shotgun sports. Yes there are shoots that have sponsor added money, however the vast majority of the money won by shooters is in the form of them paying into the purses and options at entry time. The path has already been cleared, paved, and widened if we would look at some other sports. As to the fact that there would be rampant sandbagging and unending corruption of the sport in the pursuit of money, it just hasn't happened in other venues. In fact creating the opportunity for a recreational level shooter to fund his hobby has been key in the growth of shotgun sports. There are numerous models to accomplish giving shooters an opportunity to do this to include shooters of all abilities. The bonus is that it counters Ben's arguements and is transparent to the results of the match for those that choose not to participate. If I pay $1500 to attend a match (A2, Nats, etc) and I know that I have been practicing and had some good previous showings, might I want to put up another few schekels for the opportunity to pay for the whole trip...hell yeah. PS...For a group of guys who have all pretty much read or at least heard of the concepts put forth by Lanny Basham, I can't believe how low the level of self talk is Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rgkeller Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 Great Idea Z!I don't understand all the flack you are getting from the nattering nabobs of negativism. The system you propose works in many other sports, to the benefit of the sportsmen, spectators, equipment manufactures and media, not to mention the soap, beer and automobile manufactures! Shooting will always be a non-televised, misunderstood, hobby unless it grows into a professional sport. Golf is a perfect example by the way. Whether golf is a 'fine walk spoiled' or the 'intentional misuse of a rifle range' it is about as exciting to watch as paint drying. That said, millions of people play every day who are not pros and who only do it for fun. Others compete as amateurs and a hand full for the money. There would be no T.V. coverage, no big sponsors and no big payoffs if it were not for the pro competition. The same can be said of skiing, running, skateboarding... even bowling for crying out loud. Someone please try to tell me watching a shooting match is not more exciting than watching bowling or golf. Yes, it is time. People played golf long before there was a successful professional tour and will do so after pro golf dies off. If Professional golf disappeared tomorrow, all that would happen to amateur and recreational golf is that it would become cheaper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zhunter Posted March 18, 2008 Author Share Posted March 18, 2008 People played golf long before there was a successful professional tour and will do so after pro golf dies off. OK, I get it, you are playing devils advocate. Cuz that is NOT gonna happen, no way, no how!!! Golf has Tiger, stronger than ever, before him was Norman, before that was Watson, Nicklaus, Player, Miller, Casper, Hogan, Snead, Nelson, Jones, Hagen, Sarazen.... OK, you get the idea. The question is, who wants to play Francis Ouimet? You know, the young amateur who beat Ted Ray and Harry Vardon in the 1913 US Open The Country Club in Boston. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GentlemanJim Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 As jim signs off of this meandering thread My heart felt respect to all who have argued their point with respect, and have refrained from insults both direct, or thinly veiled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zhunter Posted March 18, 2008 Author Share Posted March 18, 2008 As jim signs off of this meandering threadMy heart felt respect to all who have argued their point with respect, and have refrained from insults both direct, or thinly veiled. Night Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shred Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 I can stop listening to people drone on and on about how they should be paid because they are a better shooter than someone else. Well said. The real question is "should people with no chance of winning, and who know that going in, be forced to pay a fee to make sure the more highly skilled competitors are paid to attend the match?" Rob The answer to that is a big fat NO!!!!! And having a PRO division would go a long way to making for lower entry fees for non-professionals, as the professionals would be subsidizing themselves, rather that the masses subsidizing the prize tables for the GM's. You just made a nice point for me. Ah, so we tax the rich so we can get a free ride! Hasn't anybody remembered the prize table threads that go on for 3 pages of people saying how they'd love a lower match fee and skip the prize table, only to be stopped cold by the match director that pops in and says "at the last Area-X match, exactly $2 of the entry fee went to prizes." ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Anderson Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 For me what it comes down to is whether this is optional for mandatory for the pros. If it's mandatory, I would just quit shooting major matches. I'm a tweener, not good enough to win the big money, and apparently too good (by your definition of Pro) to be an amatuer. There would be no reason to go. If it's not mandatory, I don't think the pool of pros would be as big as you think. And if it's not funded by them, it's funded by no one. Are you still going to retain a prize table for amatuers? If not what about the millions of dollars in product that sponsors are willing to contribute to the sport. And yes it is Millions that our sponsors donate each year. Are the sponsors going to be as likely, more likely or less likely to donate product if it won't go to top shooters. I can speak from a bit of experience that there are a lot of sponsors that want their product to go to the best shooter, or at a minimum in order of finish. Some other sponsors would prefer random order, but from experience, they are the minority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zhunter Posted March 18, 2008 Author Share Posted March 18, 2008 Ah, so we tax the rich so we can get a free ride! NOPE! Man you guys just like being difficult!!!! The "rich", meaning the pros, foot their own bill/prizes, the amateurs pay a lower entry fee that enables them to shoot the same match they always have, with no prize table dangled in front of them, you know, the one that they had no chance of winning anyway, because the Manny's, Dave's, Max's, TGO's of the world are going to win. Shred, I still don't see the downside!!!! Help me out here as Flex was saying earlier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AikiDale Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 People played golf long before there was a successful professional tour and will do so after pro golf dies off. Yep. And people shot pistols long before there was a successful professional tour as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zhunter Posted March 18, 2008 Author Share Posted March 18, 2008 Lawman I threw out an idea, one that has plenty of room for tweaking, but I will say, ONCE again, the premise works. Get a group, say 5 - 10 guys, and decide what the rules of professionalism are, hell, maybe it is just enter as a pro if you want to play, it is NOT that tough, you are making too big of a deal out of being left out/not competitive. It seems to me you are not denying my idea works, but rather saying you don't want to shoot against the pros. IF that is your only beef, get onboard and let's figure out the small print later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Hostetter Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 In order to make a "Pro" circuit work you would first need to make USPSA/IPSC a true Amatuer sport. As it is now everyone refers to it as an amateur sport but then demands prize tables. As long as USPSA matches pay you to win, then USPSA is a "Pro" sport by just about any definition you want to use. And as long as the "Pro" shooters can go to one of our "Amatuer" events and get paid to win, why should they give up the prize table, pay huge entry fee's, and then maybe make money, maybe not even break even on costs? Make USPSA a true Amatuer sport by eliminating the prize tables and then create a Pro circuit and you have a chance of making it work. By eliminating the prize table you would likely get Sponsors to sweeten the pot by donating additional money to the Pro fund out of the money they are saving not supporting 100's of prize tables. And I might suggest you pay down much further then the top 8 if you want more then 8 Pro's to show up. Maybe pay the top 50-75% of the Pro entries. Work a deal with either of the TV guys (Shooting Gallery or Shooting USA) to film the matches and talk them out of a small % of the advertising dollars to put into a points fund for the end of the year which you could combine with say 10% of the entry fees you collect over the year on the circuit. This way the "Pro" would not only the prize money to help cover their costs but also a point fund check at the end of the year to get them started the next year. Keep the course's of fire reactive and colorful so they looked good on TV, stay with one type of gun to keep costs down and field the playing field ( say 10 rds, iron sights, no comp's or porting, 125 pf), have a dress code to keep up appearances, and now you have something workable. Let me know if you put something like this together, I will buy in....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zhunter Posted March 18, 2008 Author Share Posted March 18, 2008 (edited) OK, add Bob to the list of believers. Good points as well And, the paying 8 was just a quick example, there are a couple of more detailed/expanded versions somewhere in the last 8 pages. The perfect world was the one where I pointed out a "full field" of 144, and paying out to 60th place, who would recoup a full entry as last paid spot Edited March 18, 2008 by zhunter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlin Orr Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 In order to make a "Pro" circuit work you would first need to make USPSA/IPSC a true Amatuer sport. As it is now everyone refers to it as an amateur sport but then demands prize tables. As long as USPSA matches pay you to win, then USPSA is a "Pro" sport by just about any definition you want to use. And as long as the "Pro" shooters can go to one of our "Amatuer" events and get paid to win, why should they give up the prize table, pay huge entry fee's, and then maybe make money, maybe not even break even on costs?Make USPSA a true Amatuer sport by eliminating the prize tables and then create a Pro circuit and you have a chance of making it work. By eliminating the prize table you would likely get Sponsors to sweeten the pot by donating additional money to the Pro fund out of the money they are saving not supporting 100's of prize tables. And I might suggest you pay down much further then the top 8 if you want more then 8 Pro's to show up. Maybe pay the top 50-75% of the Pro entries. Work a deal with either of the TV guys (Shooting Gallery or Shooting USA) to film the matches and talk them out of a small % of the advertising dollars to put into a points fund for the end of the year which you could combine with say 10% of the entry fees you collect over the year on the circuit. This way the "Pro" would not only the prize money to help cover their costs but also a point fund check at the end of the year to get them started the next year. Keep the course's of fire reactive and colorful so they looked good on TV, stay with one type of gun to keep costs down and field the playing field ( say 10 rds, iron sights, no comp's or porting, 125 pf), have a dress code to keep up appearances, and now you have something workable. Let me know if you put something like this together, I will buy in....... Excellent.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlamoShooter Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 What would be gained by limiting equipment? I haven't Sean Tiger Woods play with a club with a wood shaft Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zhunter Posted March 18, 2008 Author Share Posted March 18, 2008 (edited) What would be gained by limiting equipment? I haven't Sean Tiger Woods play with a club with a wood shaft Everyone would have to play with the same equipment in each match, yes, the equipment could be different at different matches, but this would ONLY work if everyone competed in a match with the same equipment. Even I will admit there are NOT enough to make this work in multiple divisions in a given match. Maybe I should run for president next time, get something done around here!!! Talk about ruffled feathers!!!! And I am joking!!!! About being president that is, ruffling feathers, not so much Edited March 18, 2008 by zhunter 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