An Alarming Trend

[kimel]

I have noticed something over the past couple months. At several of the matches I have been at there have been some of the "old hands" showing up again. Last month a chap showed up that hadn't shot IPSC in 11 years. Now he was getting ready to retire and looking to take it up again as a hobby. 11 years prior he had family/job/etc concerns that ate up all his time and discretionary income. Now with retirement looming on the horizon with more free time he was coming back.

Part (and ONLY part) of the answer to this whole business is simply that the people tend to get into this sport just as their careers and families are starting to take off. When push comes to shove and it is shoot or get Johnny braces we know what happens (or at least what should happen). Now a few years later the kids are gone and there is maybe a bit more discretionary income around. The career is either slowing down or retirement has set in. One day Joe Shooter is cleaning the gun safe and comes across the old blaster and decides to go to a match again. Kinda cool when you think about it.

And don't be decieved...the old farts can shoot! At the Eddie Brown Memorial Metal Match this weekend the top 3 in the Man-on-Man competition were seniors. In fact, if you added their ages together you would get reallll close to 200. I shot against all three and they were practically headed off for more coffee while I was still finishing up my run. Sure, they may not move as fast as the 20-somethings can but they can shoot faster than you can run.

Remember...old age and treachery will always overcome youth and enthusiasm.

With Senior status nearer in my future than I care to think about, I guess I can take solace in this.

[mpolans]

Age-wise, I'm on the young side at 25, but I've been shooting ipsc off and on since around 1988 or 1989. I think a lot of the problem has to do with cost, course design and the arms race.

Cost

Any way you cut it, ipsc ain't cheap. I was lucky enough to have a dad who had the means and was supportive enough to pay for the shooting supplies (we loaded about 800 rounds per hour on the Square Deal and have the broken handles to prove it) and was willing to drive all over western europe every other weekend for matches. Between ammo, match fees, gas, motels, etc., it must have cost over $ 250/month. Sure, it can be done for less. I'm doing it for a lot less now since I'm in grad school (only shooting local matches, no more practicing several hundred rounds per week, not upgrading my gear), but I'm no longer seriously competitive (for now). To be seriously competitive, it takes a LOT of practice. You can dry-fire a lot, but you still need to get some live ammo in.

And let's face it; virtually everyone who plays the game, from the rank beginner to the top GM wants to believe they have a chance at being competitive. . .at least in their class or division.

Course Design

Back when I started, I saw a lot more creativity in course design. Fewer shooting boxes, multiple ways to engage targets, etc. Also, the shots were more accuracy oriented. Not necessarily difficult in that they were covered in no-shoots, but you'd be at longer distances. In someways, I think this was more encouraging for new shooters who strived to get A-hits, even if their times were lower. Even top notch shooters have to spend a little extra time on accuracy oriented stages. I still think the way to become a better ipsc shooter is to start out accurate (even if slower) and let the speed come as you feel comfortable. Accuracy oriented stages put the emphasis on this development path. Current stages are mostly spray and pray. This tends to breed shooters who can pull a trigger fast at stuff close up, but can't hit anything beyond 15 yards. In the long term, (IMHO), this REALLY tends to stunt the abilities of newer shooters. I can't remember a shot longer than about 15-20 yards in a club match in years, and I don't think I've seen a Standard Exercise state since I last shot the Nationals in 1992.

In addition, it seems that round count is now the primary emphasis on stage design, instead of creativity. This isn't always the case, and maybe it's just me, but it's one of the biggest things I've noticed.

The Arms Race

Back in the day (like I'M an old fart ), I started with a single stack .45 and that was good enough to be pretty competitive; I wasn't going to win matches, but I could still win my class and do half-way decent. Then came the comps. Everyone went out and got one, and the cost wasn't that bad, since you could just drop in a barrel kit. Then .38super came and everyone had their frames milled and got new barrels and comps. Then dots came, and everyone went and got those cheap-ass gripmounts that tended to crack at inopportune times (till decent mounts came). All of these upgrades were pretty incremental until we started talking about hi-cap frames; now you had to buy a new gun (till frame kits came out). The guns and frames tended to get more expensive, and after the ban on new hi-caps, getting enough mags to compete with could cost you almost as much as another gun! It was a paradigm shift that not only boosted the entry cost for those that wanted to compete, but it also signalled the shift in course design emphasis to round count. But the worst thing was, in a way, the Hi-Cap arms race seems to chased away a lot of variety in guns and corporate sponsorship behind ipsc.

After all, it didn't make sense to most manufacturers to make guns that couldn't be sold to the general public. As new hi-cap magazines couldn't be produced, manufacturers like Colt and Springfield Armory couldn't make their own hi-cap guns unless they built their guns around Para-Ordnance or STI/SV/Tripp-McCormick frame magazines. Springfield and then EAA got away with running Tanfoglio's CZ-75 copy for a while with 9x21, but that didn't pan out for a variety of reasons. What choices did that leave for the competitors?:

Para-Ordnance - Still around, but sadly, have all but disappeared from matches.

STI - Dominating the sport, everyone that wants to be competitive uses one.

SV - See STI.

Colt- Got nothing.

Springfield - Has a fairly new hi-cap, but I know nothing about it. It might take para mags, I don't know. I'm not sure even their sponsored shooter(s) are using it.

Smith and Wesson - Have never really had a competitive high cap that was available to the general public.

Kimber - Their relatively new to the whole handgun scene and don't have anything competitive.

EAA - Any ipsc support they had going has long since crumbled away.

In other words, you've got a one gun sport, so why should any other major manufacturers even bother supporting it? It's not the sponsorship money at matches (and prize tables) alone that hurts. It's the lack of sponsored shooters and the resulting public image and publicity that result. Think of how many more people watched Chicago Bulls basketball games when Michael Jordan played. Think of how many more people watch golf because Tiger Woods played, decked out in his Nike gear.

In a way, these people didn't just watch these athletes because of how good they were, but because of the professional image they presented. The corporate sponsorship, in a way, "legitimizes" the athlete and the sport he plays. I remember clear as day, as a 12 year old kid back in Heidelberg, Germany, there was NOTHING cooler than getting to meet Robbie Leatham (and Allen Fulford) all decked out in his blue and Team Springfield gear when they came over to shoot against us in the European Bianchi Cup. In someways, in order to attract a younger crowd and to keep the sport alive, we need a variety of firearm manufacturers competing for our interests and the icons that factory teams create. Sure, a lot of the big shooters are still around, but the image just isn't the same anymore.

I believe all of these factors have led to a gradual decline in interest in ipsc here in the US. The manufacturers aren't interested because they can't make money in a sport that emphasizes mag capacity when they're prohibited by law from making new designs. The competitors that came in before/during the hi-cap switch were turned off when they figured out they had to spend a bundle on a new gun to stay competitive (I remember a buddy who just spent about $3000 for a top notch single stack .38super just as the hi-caps started coming out). And the newbies who even dare to dream about wanting to be competitive at the highest level are put off by the high entry costs.

Sure, limited was meant to be a "cheap" way to play...didn't turn out that way. Then production and limited-10 came along; better concepts, but near zero support. Besides, lots of shooters see shooting these two classes as competing in the "IPSC for Dummies" class; after all, none of the top notch guys shoot it unless it's at the Limited Nationals or other big single class match (i.e. Single Stack Classic, etc.).

[Detlef]

I am with Jack on the complexity of the rules. Just look around here on the Rules forum, some of the proposals for new rules are simply hilarious (and repelling) in the level of detail and how they strive to micromanage IPSC. I used to be on top of the rules, knowing every one by name and number, but I've given up. Still, even at the WS last year, from what I have seen voice of reason and common sense have prevailed over the urge to call in the lawyers. But maybe that's because it was in South Africa...

--Detlef

[a-44978]

Now there is an interesting demographic.I wonder how many shooters got screwed on this one.

I too have heard this story."while waiting for my new single stack open gun hi-cap guns came out,and my new $3000.00 baby is now a display item!".I also think the rules have become complex because of the gamer mindset and range lawyers.

Example,you set up a cof,but you miss some little opening between some barrels (did'nt put up a wall of no shoots or whatever).The intention of the cof is obvious but since you did not specificly say you can't do that or make take that shortcut away a guy uses it, then others see it and think i'm not gonna do it the right way if he's gonna win so everyone does it.

Another favorite of mine "Hands above respective shoulders"How come i see so many shooters upperbody twisted and their hands are in the air but weak hand no where near the respective shoulder.My point is not to turn this into a rule topic because it is part of the trend in the mindset of the wannabe.I have talked to some vets of the sport that agree

Backing up a little bit.When i played pool a lot (89)they came out with a cool jump cue $50.Endorsed by the pro tour.A month later not!and nobody would let you use it in a match.I did not quite competing (local,i was never that good anyhoo)but i might if i got a big hit like the $3000.00 History channel display piece.

The mindset win win win.Where did skill,disipline,good sportsmanship,and helping the new guy go?

How do you change the mindset?

Anyone need a pipe with a bike handle on it,only $50

[mpolans]

In many ways, I LIKE the gamer mindset. It discourages lazy course design and poor course instructions and promotes one of the things that I liked most about ipsc; creativity in problem solving.

Now this doesn't mean I think it's okay to contort into Yoga positions in order to have the fastest possible start from a "hands above shoulders" start position or to destroy props or shoot in an unsafe manner.

It just that I don't like the argument that goes,

"You shouldn't shoot it that way, because it wasn't meant to be shot that way."

BIG DEAL! I thought the whole freestyle nature of ipsc shooting was to find the way that works best for you. If you think pausing at that tiny opening and taking the longer shots at a target are better than running up to a large, open port, go for it. Try to solve the problem as fast and accurately as you can. With few exceptions (like standard exercises we never see anymore), there shouldn't be a set "way" to shoot a stage.

Often times, I think the people that are getting mad at shooters that "game" a stage are just upset (sour grapes) because they didn't figure it out first.

[Duane Thomas]

In other words, you've got a one gun sport, so why should any other major manufacturers even bother supporting it?

I must respectfully disagree. Glock has always been a good supporter of USPSA, even more so now that Production has given them a division practically tailor made for their guns. With the introduction of the Factory Gun Nationals, we're beginning to see other manufacturers regain interest in USPSA, now that there are divisions in which their guns are competitive.

And the new classes have attracted shooters - especially Limited-10 has been a great success. Just as an example, in my neck of the woods just this past Sunday, a classifier match attracted (let's see if I can remember this correctly) a whopping one Revolver shooter, six apiece Production and Open shooters, nine Limited....and 23 Limited-10.

Then production and limited-10 came along; better concepts, but near zero support. Besides, lots of shooters see shooting these two classes as competing in the "IPSC for Dummies" class; after all, none of the top notch guys shoot it unless it's at the Limited Nationals or other big single class match (i.e. Single Stack Classic, etc.).

That's simply not true. Armando Valdez and Dave Sevigny are both Glock sponsored, true, but they started shooting major matches - and doing very well - simply because they liked the guns. Robbie Leatham has chosen to compete in Area Championships in Limited-10 running a single-stack .45. AAAMOF, at Area One a few years ago, not only did he win Lim-10, his score beat all but a few of the Open guys!

"Lot of shooters see shooting these two classes as competing in the 'IPSC for Dummies' class"? Y'know I've never run into that attitude. I'm not saying it's not out there but maybe not as prevalent as you might believe. Personally I respect the hell out of anyone who can get out there and rock with a single-stack .45, Production gun or revolver.

"Near zero support"? They made an entire new Nationals for the three new divisions, fer Christsake.

[davenelson]

Without Lim10 I would not be in this sport. Even though I have my eyes on an STI Edge or similar to shoot Lim10 with, I am proud to bring my Kimber single-stack to a match and compete in Lim10 C class.

I agree that very few pistol brands are being used by the competitors just below the top. STI really appears to have a strangle-hold on Open, Limited, and Limited 10 and Glock has production wrapped up.

The gun race will never end. Someone else is always going to come up with a great idea that many of us will want to implement immediately just to get the smallest bit of an edge, because it’s cool and we can afford it.

There are so many other forms of entertainment available today that sometime I think we should be grateful for the people who continue to participate in IPSC and stop worrying about our numbers. If we were having more fun more people would want to join us.

[mpolans]

In other words, you've got a one gun sport, so why should any other major manufacturers even bother supporting it?

I must respectfully disagree. Glock has always been a good supporter of USPSA, even more so now that Production has given them a division practically tailor made for their guns. With the introduction of the Factory Gun Nationals, we're beginning to see other manufacturers regain interest in USPSA, now that there are divisions in which their guns are competitive.

And the new classes have attracted shooters - especially Limited-10 has been a great success. Just as an example, in my neck of the woods just this past Sunday, a classifier match attracted (let's see if I can remember this correctly) a whopping one Revolver shooter, six apiece Production and Open shooters, nine Limited....and 23 Limited-10.

Then production and limited-10 came along; better concepts, but near zero support. Besides, lots of shooters see shooting these two classes as competing in the "IPSC for Dummies" class; after all, none of the top notch guys shoot it unless it's at the Limited Nationals or other big single class match (i.e. Single Stack Classic, etc.).

That's simply not true. Armando Valdez and Dave Sevigny are both Glock sponsored, true, but they started shooting major matches - and doing very well - simply because they liked the guns. Robbie Leatham has chosen to compete in Area Championships in Limited-10 running a single-stack .45. AAAMOF, at Area One a few years ago, not only did he win Lim-10, his score beat all but a few of the Open guys!

"Lot of shooters see shooting these two classes as competing in the 'IPSC for Dummies' class"? Y'know I've never run into that attitude. I'm not saying it's not out there but maybe not as prevalent as you might believe. Personally I respect the hell out of anyone who can get out there and rock with a single-stack .45, Production gun or revolver.

"Near zero support"? They made an entire new Nationals for the three new divisions, fer Christsake.

1. Okay, so we now have a 1.25 gun sport (cause VERY few guys are shooting Glocks outside of production) and it too the creation of an ENTIRE division complete with Nationals to bring that degree of variety. Still not quite the broad variety of manufacturers we had before. I'll go you one further that Limited 10 is now allowing people to use their single stack Kimbers, Springfields and Colts, but two things should be pointed out:

a. we're not getting anywhere near the level of support from the manufacturers in terms of publicity as we did 10-15 years ago.

b. Limited 10 is seen at best as a waypoint; it's not touted as a "premier" class, like Open or even Limited. It and Production are the wading pools of ipsc.

It's true that things are slowly turning around, but as long as L10 and Production are seen as the sideshow, we won't have the degree of major manufacturer support that we had in years past. Without the degree of major manufacturer support, we won't have the amount of publicity, the quality of matches, nor the degree of growth that we had in the past (IMHO).

2. You've pointed out THREE exceptions out of about 16,000. Two of those are paid to shoot their gear. Yeah, Robbie can do it, but let's be fair, he's a WEE bit better than average. I've seen Michael Jordan dunk, but I still doubt my 5'8", vertical leap of a slug, no b-ballin' skills butt is going to be dunking on anything but the kiddie courts.

Exceptions don't change the rule.

3. When I was talking about "support", I was talking about support outside of the organizing body; primarily major manufacturers.

Heck, if I could turn back time, I would have banned hi-caps from ipsc before anyone had a chance to use them; but the genie is out of the bottle.

And all of this really only addresses less than 1/3 of what I brought up.

Mark

[Flexmoney]

mpolans,

I agree with most everyting you've said.

but...I think most all of that is in the past now.

I've been playing this game for 3 years now. I missed the equipment race. The equipment has stabalized...i think the race is over.

Stage design...ugh. We have it pretty good at the two clubs I frequent here in Ohio. No silly hoser matches designed by Jonnie Open Gunner (though I feel that is still a problem at other parts of the country?).

Money...nope, this game ain't cheap. I am competitive with my Glock 40. At least, I can't say that I can blame the Glock on losing a match...heck, I can't think of a stage I've lost because of the Glock. It works, holds 20 rounds or so, hits what I want it to, comes out of the holster quick enough, fires 0.15 aimed splits.

Limited 10 and Production came into being after I started shooting. I think they are gaining ground. They can't be the in thing, right off the bat. USPSA running a seperate Factory Gun Nationals...with all the big-dogs shooting...is certainly supporting the divisions.

[a-44978]

In many ways, I LIKE the gamer mindset. It discourages lazy course design and poor course instructions and promotes one of the things that I liked most about ipsc; creativity in problem solving.

Now this doesn't mean I think it's okay to contort into Yoga positions in order to have the fastest possible start from a "hands above shoulders" start position or to destroy props or shoot in an unsafe manner.

It just that I don't like the argument that goes,

"You shouldn't shoot it that way, because it wasn't meant to be shot that way."

BIG DEAL! I thought the whole freestyle nature of ipsc shooting was to find the way that works best for you. If you think pausing at that tiny opening and taking the longer shots at a target are better than running up to a large, open port, go for it. Try to solve the problem as fast and accurately as you can. With few exceptions (like standard exercises we never see anymore), there shouldn't be a set "way" to shoot a stage.

Often times, I think the people that are getting mad at shooters that "game" a stage are just upset (sour grapes) because they didn't figure it out first.

Why use disapearing targets anymore? why should a course designer have to guard against shortcuts?ok the fastest way through a course sure where to reload what target to enguage etc.not pass this one because there is no penalty or pass that one because the time will be better for my score.And yes if i intend for a couple of shots to be challenging that is part of the challenge.I respectfully dissagree.Not to mention ,try that stuff at sof or some other matches and see what happens.

Maybe it is me ,just sour grapes that i still suck at my reloads and my movement is often compared to a wounded YAK

Thanks to all for the input, its cool to start a couple of topics and see such a response(even big dogs)

[j1b]

Course design is a challenge - because quite simply it needs to be challenging and duable all at the same time. Dissappearing targets are a prime example because they (normally) force a decision. You have to know you can get to X target in time, and that dictates what you do prior to getting to X target.

I always hated (and still do) the CA trend of 40-50 round stages. I hated it. Not only was I not good at it, I didn't like anything that it tested (or tried to test). I like the Lim-10 concept, and catoring stages to it. I've not shot a lim-10 match but if I ever come back it will be what I shoot. Not certain about single stack or hi-cap - but I will be there either way.

For the whoever asked whether or not the Team Springfield guys (ie TGO) are using Springfield hi-cap frames - to the best of my knowledge yes. I know it is similar to a para - but I continue to enjoy using guns on that frame.

Isn't it interesting - all the points of view on why the sport is not going where we want it to. Clearly there are opportunities - but there are no answers. You can't take gamesmanship away - it would destroy the creativity - but perhaps a degree of ethics as it relates to interpretation are needed?

I don't know - truly - I'm barely even a shooter anymore. I can't say much.

JB

[rhino]

Clearly we need for me to step in and take charge of the situation.

[Duane Thomas]

And all of this really only addresses less than 1/3 of what I brought up.

Sorry, I didn't realize I needed to address everything, just what I disagreed with.

Just a personal opinion, but I look for Production division to become much more popular, once more people know it exists. I'm doing my bit to help. Look for an article in Dillon's Blue Press shortly called "Let's Make a Big Production Out of It!" and in this years Handguns Annual titled "Stock Pistols Invade Combat Handgunning!" both about, you guessed it, USPSA Production division.

At the Factory Nats last year, Robbie Leatham told me, flat out, "Production is more important than any of the other divisions. I think it's the future of the sport." Ron Avery told me, "I believe we'll see Production become the most popular division in USPSA because that's where our sponsor support will come. You'll see a lot more people shooting Production once the incentives are there to do it."

[mpolans]

And all of this really only addresses less than 1/3 of what I brought up.

Sorry, I didn't realize I needed to address everything, just what I disagreed with.

Just a personal opinion, but I look for Production division to become much more popular, once more people know it exists. I'm doing my bit to help. Look for an article in Dillon's Blue Press shortly called "Let's Make a Big Production Out of It!" and in this years Handguns Annual titled "Stock Pistols Invade Combat Handgunning!" both about, you guessed it, USPSA Production division.

At the Factory Nats last year, Robbie Leatham told me, flat out, "Production is more important than any of the other divisions. I think it's the future of the sport." Ron Avery told me, "I believe we'll see Production become the most popular division in USPSA because that's where our sponsor support will come. You'll see a lot more people shooting Production once the incentives are there to do it."

You don't have to address everything. In some ways, I hope they're right about Production class, in others I hope they're wrong. I think Production class has the biggest potential for attracting industry support for IPSC and for attracting new shooters. On the other hand, I see IPSC as a fun game (if I wanted "combat" training, I'd do that boring IDPA stuff) complete with all the nifty bells and whistles. Plus, in a way, you've got some of the technology trickling down to the general firearms industry. I've seen compensators on more guns and I've seen several aimpoints and c-mores on Army M-16s.

Either way, I really wish that title was changed to "Stock Pistols Invade PRACTICAL COMPETITION Handgunning!" We get enough flak from the anti-2nd amendment media; we don't need to provide them the ammunition too.

[Duane Thomas]

We get enough flak from the anti-2nd amendment media; we don't need to provide them the ammunition too.

Oh, come now. These people can emit more damaging "facts" by lying and distortion than could ever be found in the pages of a gun magazine. We don't need to PC ourselves.

[Kyle Norris]

Observations from the local level. My father, brother and I have been running a local USPSA match for approximately one and a half years now, and we've had a DRASTIC increase in shooters. WE could barely turn out 15 shooters when we took over, and now routinely have more than 40 show up to shoot. About one quarter to one half of these are new shooters, and it is not uncommon to have anywhere from two to four new shooters a match. We've had about a 75% rate of people showing up for a second match, and maybe 30-50% showing up on a regular basis.

Our keys have been:

Stage design; simple to understand (no find the target stages, minimum of steel), lower round count, but challanges such as disappering and hardcover targets. and some type of standard every other month or so.

Introduction; I've been assigned to give each new shooter a safety and course orientation. I usually spend 15-30 minutes explaining the basics, what we do and don't want to see gun handling wise, scoring, LAMR procedure, ect. If I'm not going to be available, I try to assign a mentor to the shooter that I know will not have a problem "sponsoring" a newbie for the day.

Additude; THE MOST IMPORTNAT ELEMENT!!! Anyone who has shot our club will attest we do our best to keep our shooters happy. We see our selves as being customer oriented, if the hole is even remotely oblong, it's a double type of thing. Last match we ran a stage that was "iffy" rule book wise, we listened and will not include something similar again. Many clubs fail to remember they are there to serve the customers need, not the other way around.

Advertising; we advertise heavily at local gunshops.

Local volunteers are a valuable asset. The same four or five individuals are usually setting up our match, however, we have gotten some people showing up when they can lately. All our volunteers shoot for free, it's the least we can do when they're spending all weekend working their butt's off for our match. Our range is a small, unusable hole in an apple orchard, so it's nearly impossible to get too involved in props, but we do what we can.

I started shooting three years ago at the age of 17, and had some excelent mentorship (gmshtr is "da man" in this regard). I acheived B class Limited about one year later, but have not shot to that level for some time until very recently due to a year round, very demanding college schedule. I agree with J1B, college students are dead flat broke and I could not have even shot if Dad and Phil hadn't help subsidize me.

I've met some of the nicest, most unselfish people in this sport you will find anywhere. Unfortunately, I have also met the bad apples that give us the "gamer scum" reputation. The problem at the local level is these are often the loudest voices on the range. Don't let them be. It's amazing what some self-deprecation, combined with the occasional, friendly, humourous, ego lacerating comment can do for a ranges additude.

Production and Limited 10 will probably save our sport (coming from a guy who shoots a Limited STI)

I don't think we'll ever see the sponsor dollars that I'm told were around during the glory days of the sport. I hope I'm wrong, but between lawsuits, IDPA and a decreasing marketshare, I think our chances of that kind of support are limited. Which is a shame, because I'll only get to see videos where 10 or 12 people could win on any given day (just think, Jack Barnes, Jethro Dionisio, Bruce Piatt, Matt McClearn, BE and many others are no longer shooting USPSA/IPSC anymore, I sincerely wish I coulda seen some of these guys shoot in person).

I would defintely like to see this port continue to grow, but I don't have all the answers. Maybe discussions like this are the best place to start though.