An Alarming Trend

[Detlef]

Jack,

good insights *from the top*. Last time I saw you shoot was (eeerrr...) NAC 1998? I think....

a44978, no this is not about *should there be a pro class*, this (aspect of it) is about why some matches die and some strive. *No big boys, no big match* still seems to apply to this day...

--Detlef

[a-44978]

oh ,my greeness showing again.I got the point when re-reading after nappy time.

Thanks again to everyone for the input

[j1b]

JB - just my initials - my name is Jack Barnes - JB is just quicker to type.

I probably got off topic there - so I apologize for that.

I do believe that a very few people do a very large portion of the work. It is unfortunate that in your club the top shooters aren't contributing like they should. When I was in Tucson - I can tell you that the big names at our club actually did a ton of the work. Kippi (at that time Boykin) ran the stats, coordinated matches, maintained props, taught me how to shoot and somehow managed to win nationals a time or two. Her then husband Doug was also a big contributer. Both were sponsored shooters, both were trying to manage their own shooting careers while keeping the support for the club going strong as well. We all taped, we all set steel, we all signed up to set up matches. I think you have to force the issue, but at some point in time the shooters will step up and do their fair share.

I do believe the complexity of the stages and the equipment make it tough to integrate new shooters into the game. Two matches - one set up easy and one set up tough would really help. The easy course could be easy enough that any shooter using any equipment could negotiate the scenario with relative ease. The complex match would simply involve the skills of more elevated shooters. Anyone would be able to shoot of course, but the shooter would know when signing up that this was going to be a tough match and could lead to frustration -

Anyhow - just my $.02.

Detlef - I wasn't trying to justify anything in my earlier posts. I can't speak for the hows and whys the big names do what they do. I would also contend (in hindsight) that my role when shooting was not that of a big dog - so my take probably was entirely different then theirs.

JB

[davenelson]

I have only been shooting IPSC for a little over a year now. I have been going to local, state, and area competitions from the start and have enjoyed myself at all of them. But this year, because of the Point Series, I am taking it much more seriously.

I think that getting and keeping new shooters requires a good attitude. Every new shooter is different and comes into the sport with a different idea of what they want to do and what they think is fun. The thing that has brought me into the sport and has held me there is competition.

Luckily I have made friends with a few people that shoot in my division and class who I can compete directly against. Without that competition I would stop shooting IPSC immediately. Without competition I would go back to visiting the range every weekend and taking two hours to go through a hundred rounds punching holes in paper.

<rant>

THIS IS A SPORT!

Like any other sport it is also a business and for some a profession. So the word “fun” can be used to describe a weekend match where you may spend $500 to attend, it has to be work for someone. Even at a high-school track event, the athletes are not expected to show up the day before to help set up the event, people get paid to do that.

Being an RO, pasting, and setting-up steel are not my idea of fun. There are matches where I do not expect to be competitive that I will spend a lot of time doing those things. But at a match where I want to compete, and maybe one day take home a plaque, pasting targets is nothing but a distraction that will hurt my chances at being competitive.

I could care less about prizes. I would really like to see each match give away one handgun as a drawing and plaques to the top three shooters in each class instead of a prize table full of coozies that they expect us to wait around for. The rest of the money could be spent on the ROs and improving the club.

Three day matches based on the whims of vendors who don’t bring catalogs, don’t have one-eight-hundred numbers, and don’t sponsor shooters in the sport is ridiculous.

At a local match I am more than happy to help set-up and paste. When I don’t have anything on the line, I actually enjoy pasting. But when I am trying to compete and to be better than any of the other people around me, I don’t want to think of anything but how it is going to feel accepting a plaque at the end of the match and how I am going to make that happen.

</rant>

[John Dunn]

Maybe for shooters who don't want to pitch in and set steel or tape there should be a different match fee--like double or triple the regular rate, so match directors could hire kids or someone to do their share. Better yet, I see a market for shooter's caddies. They could paste, set steel, clean and load mags, apply sun screen, set up your lounge chair, help you dope out a stage, etc. Shooters would be responsible for compensating their individual caddy.

Bottom line is, if ROs are compensated at all, it is a token amount. I've ROed a 3 day match, that I didn't shoot, and got a Surefire flashlight as a thank you. I was happy to do it, and had a good time, but I can assure you I lost money on the deal by not working. The system relies on shooters to help out. If someone starts concentrating on a plaque and the fact that resetting a stage isn't fun, and refuses to pitch in, I'd say we could well afford to lose that kind of shooter.

[Duane Thomas]

Two matches - one set up easy and one set up tough would really help. The easy course could be easy enough that any shooter using any equipment could negotiate the scenario with relative ease.

I think it's called IDPA, Jack. I'm convinced that most shooters looking to get into "combat" handgun competition find IDPA much less intimidating than IPSC. The guns, holsters, mag pouches, etc., and, above all the courses of fire, are seen as a much easier first step than IPSC.

Probably the most off-putting thing about IPSC to many potential newbie shooters (just MHO here) is one of the reasons true competitors are attracted to the sport: the reputation - and actuality - for godlike skill levels of the very best IPSC shooters, the Masters and Grand Masters. For many people, it can be hard to screw up the courage to compare yourself to that.

[Duane Thomas]

The system relies on shooters to help out. If someone starts concentrating on a plaque and the fact that resetting a stage isn't fun, and refuses to pitch in, I'd say we could well afford to lose that kind of shooter.

I'm forced to agree.

Personally I'll knock off the taping, etc. when I come up In the Hole (three down in the stack, for those not up on the slang). Gotta get my mojo right before I shoot, doncha know. Before and after that, why not help? I find having something to do, some easy, repetitious task, helps stops me from getting nervous while waiting to shoot, and afterward.

[shred]

I don't mind taping, setting, etc even at Area and National's level matches-- so long as a) everybody is putting their share in and I get some time off before I have to shoot. Much of the time the real Big Dogs are the first ones out with the tape, and it's the wanna-bes that are acting all prima-donna like. I remember Florida Open or something a few years ago when some of the super squad were talking about educating one of the new up-and-coming kids in taping "we got him from a C-class taper to an A-class taper now.."

The Carter Martin Classic used to have kids do taping/setting/brassing for the shooters. That was pretty nice too.

[xcount]

I was going to post this as a new topic but I think it is more appropriate here.

A friend & I got talking about our “old days” (we started in 1994) and how there seemed to be more new members joining up back then and how there definitely were more shooters at matches. So I did a bit of research, looking at some membership data gleaned from the USPSA site and at old match results found on a back shelf in my shop.

First, the national news. I tracked how long it took (in months) to sign up each block of 1,000 new USPSA members, starting in 1989. Predictably, the number of new member applicants would rise during the summer months and drop off during the winter. So when looking at a chart (have one, can’t seem to post it, any help appreciated) you would see a series of peaks and valleys. Between early 1991 and the middle of 1996 we had 16,000 people join USPSA. On the average we had 1,000 new members every 3.7 months. Those were the golden years.

And then the bottom fell out. Between mid ’96 and today we have had another 16,000 people join the association. But it took an average of 5.3 months for each block of 1,000 of these members to join. That’s a drop in the new membership rate of more than 40%.

And this was a rather dramatic swing, very noticeable on the chart. Before mid ’96 most blocks of 1,000 members were signed up in less than 4 months, many closer to 3 months. But, after mid ’96 – not a single group joined in under 4 months. Anyone could take one look at this and put a finger on the point in time when the drop off began, the fall of 1996.

On the local front, a similar drop in people participating in the sport has occurred in my local area. I looked at match results from 5 clubs within an hour or two driving distance. I compared their attendance from this point in the season 8 years ago to their published attendance at the last couple of matches they held. Every one of these clubs is off at least 50% from 8 years ago. If this were just one or two clubs you could say there were problems specific to those clubs or the people running those matches. But this is every club.

So, a couple of questions for you guys. What happened in 1996 to cause the big drop off in new memberships? And has a drop in match participation happened in other areas of the country as well?

[PhilTerry]

I think its called an economic downturn - our sport requires a significant level of disposable income - when that goes away people don't play.

[SiG Lady]

Even just the modest-but-regular practice sessions I engage in here every single month--including ALL aspects of their expense--costs me at least $200 per month to pull off. And that's cutting corners in every way I can for the moment. When I told this to a fellow shooter he was surprised. But when you add up EVERYTHING--even petrol in the motor to get to the range and back each session (20-mile R/T)--it all comes to at least $200/month. And that doesn't include league competition fees when they come around. Yes, it DOES take some disposable income to shoot. That's why, folks, that my progress in setting up the reloader (for instance) has been slow. I was just extraordinarily lucky to find my setup when I did and for half-price at that!

[xcount]

Phil,

I agree but I thought the down turn occurred later than 1996. I could be wrong on this.

[a-44978]

xcount,i would love to see that chart.Feedback i have gotton from a few new shooters was,race gear and the high speed guys.No matter how much you tell them about production,or limited class i don't think they understand they would compete against the same set up they have (or simular).I see local idpa clubs have practice nights(real practice)not the pseudo-match

the ipsc clubs have.They run drills and stuff like that.How about only a few (at least in fl)have a place to practice.The

guys i know about that do, use it as some kind of power trip.I am very lucky to have a club i can go to, just a mere 2hrs15mins

one way and i invite people to come but thats too far for them usually.It goes back to the ilitist attitude of wanna-be champions.Maybe it's carma(i hope)but the True champions usually come out on top,even while outworking everyone else on the squad.Armondo Valdez is a prime example.He never stops and at the end of the day it does'nt hurt his scores.

When 9mm major happens for limited that might mean i'll make a change myself.The equipment race is a tough one,on one hand it helps spur on development and on the other it eliminates(at least handicaps)blue coller bigginers like me

Maybe this has gotten too big for its own good(IPSC)with range lawyers and rules that make it an expensive thing to do.

An example that comes to mind is mag length for limited 1 or 2mms longer and i would not need to send out the whole set to be tuned to hold 20 for a (percieved)advantage.Once you leave production you almost have to buy reloading gear.

Is it me,am i just beingDARK?

[Detlef]

xcount, that looks like mighty interesting USPSA membership information that you quote. Are you a USPSA officer or other official with such access? Or have you kept track of the membership numbers published every year? Obviously, just looking at the *incoming* no. of members (e.g. by following the current USPSA a-numbers given out) is not enough, we need to subtract the large number of outgoing ones. I thought over the past few years those two had evened out more or less. I have not looked at these numbers in a long time, but I also thought we had never passed the 20k paying-members threshold. That would mean near-stagnation since the mid 90s. Stagnation means not a single sould signed on enthusiastically for which another didn't leave in disgust. It doesn't matter how many new customers you have in your store if the old ones don't come back...

[xcount]

Detlef,

No, not anybody official. And my research certainly wasn't expert by any means. I did exactly as you said, looked at the "incoming" number of members by following the ID numbers issued. For example, I looked up A-18000 and found that person joined on 8/12/91. Then looked up A-19000 and found that person joined on 12/16/91. So it took roughly 4 months for that block of 1,000 members to join. As I said, not an expert's way of going about it but does give a rough idea of trends.

But, you are absolutely right in that the number of people no longer active is a matter of great (maybe even greater) concern. One thing I found as I was poking through membership numbers. It is not uncommon to find an entry like this:

A-33xxx Joe B.

Open Class U

Limited Class U

Limited 10 Class U

Production Class U

Revolver Class U

Joined 5/10/96

Membership expires 5/10/97

Joe didn't even stick around long enough to get classified.

I was surprised at the number of entries like that.

What does that tell us?

[Detlef]

hi xcount! Your quotes are interesting but (sorry) nearly worthless for managing an organization. "Sing up a new member" has been the call a few y ago when we had the "25k members by Y2k" (or some such) drive. Nothing became of it, sign-up rates for new members are useless w/o monitoring i) how long they stay, ii) how active they are and iii) how many old members leave. I am not aware of any concerted affort inside USPSA to do a serious demographic member flux analysis. That could give us some more than only anecdotal evidence of why USPSA is not growing. Member retention, in my belief, will turn out to be a grave problem after 1 y ("wasn't what I expected") and then again after 5 or 6 y ("signed up as single student , now have kids & a job, and they want me to stay 4 days for a 12-stage match, no way..."). But who knows without looking at the data...

--Detlef

[xcount]

Detlef,

I fully agree with what you say. And I would hope USPSA would take a look at those demographics. I suspect, though, there is little interest in doing so. I have seen posted elsewhere a question about exit-polling which was promptly poo-pooed by an area director citing lack of funding.

However, that's not really why I posted what I did. I stumbled across something in the records I do have access to (we all do) which caught my attention. After mid 1996 the number of people joining USPSA within given time periods fell dramatically.

At my age, I have trouble remembering what I had for breakfast let alone what might have happened 7 years ago to influence recruitment in this way. My hope was, by posting this here, some of the OG's on the board could tell us what happened.

What's your opinion?

[Detlef]

I fully agree that it's interesting info, and probably part of the story. But with all the discussion we get in every single issue of FS one should think that someone would take the (doubtlessly available) data and do a quick analysis in Excel...

--Detlef

[j1b]

I think the data has some application - perhaps it does not shed the whole truth - but there are some truths in it.

I remember 96' - there was a lot of tension with and in the USPSA. IDPA was coming on the scene and they grew rapidly. A lot of people felt IDPA filled a niche that IPSC did not. We lost a lot of membership to IDPA.

The economy does play into it a bit, though some would argue the economy was relatively good through 97' (myself being one of them).

It doesn't surprise me the competitor is not classified. Perhaps they are the ones that did either get intimidated, or simply stopped enjoying the matches well before their membership expired. Maybe they learned the sport was tremendously expensive and required some due diligence to improve.

The more concerning statistic is the guys Detlef brings up - they guys who have been members for a while, and now don't do it anymore. Maybe time and money did catch up to them, but maybe it didn't . . . and that would constitute a problem. I'm a prime example - were I not a life member I would more than likely not be a member at all. It ain't because of the money or the gear though. I have all the gear still to this day - everything I would possibly need to get out there and shoot. My latest open gun is several years old, yet I would be willing to bet it is the exact gun I would shoot - regardless of new technology - it is simply fantastic. I don't shoot partly because of time and family, partly because its a pain in the ass to get to a club, partly because I can't dedicate the time to be what I would want to be, and partly because I don't want to deal with all the BS that often times rides the train with an IPSC match. Every time I pick up a gun rag I think "Wow - wish I was there" and "Thank God I'm not there" almost at the same time.

My "analysis" of the problem is simply a lack of consistency. Every match runs slightly differently. Straying from some core fundamentals that in years changed the face of the game. Afterwards one has to realize that if rules had been established and adhered to that the game would be consistent and by virtue of that one would not have to wonder about what to expect. I again relate the sport to Golf - Golf now has such a following, and such a large understanding, that the players regulate themselves. Integrity is at a high level, and when it is compromised the players pay dearly. They KNOW THE RULES and they adhere to them. They put "right" in front of "wrong" and they understand that sometimes doing what is right often times costs dearly. Hell - I don't compete at any level in Golf, and I am adament about making certain I play by the rules. IPSC does not breed this thought process, and people see this. They see the bad apples, and they realize that the incosistency and lack of precedence causes issues that are probably not able to be fixed. You could have established rules that would still allow equipment growth, creative course design, challenges and fun. Instead we created classes, complicated the scene, created an environment of mistrust and unsure expectation and then expected people to support something that noone could truly understand in terms of what they were supporting as well as what direction that support would be going.

I think the sport is too complicated for the begginers, too complicated for the vets, and too damn confusing for those of us stuck in the middle.

That's just my take though -

JB

[Bill Nesbitt]

I'm one of the old guys. I'll try to give a little history.

I shot my first IPSC match in 1982 before USPSA was organized. Everybody shot a 5 inch 45. The arms race had already started. As time went on, from the mid 1980's until about the mid 1990's you needed a new complete gun every year to be competitive in the upper levels. There was only one division, Open. First 38 super single stacks replaced 45's. Then Springfield P-9's through McCormick, Caspian, Para etc. Then scopes etc. Then extended mags. The average guy couldn't keep up.

Around 1993 or so Limited came along. You needed a 40 hi-cap gun to compete. Single stack 45's need not apply.

Rules continued to be changed from year to year. 9 major was banned after about one year. Magazine lengths were changed.

The average guy just couldn't even think about spending enough to keep up with the big dogs.

Classification was another thing. There were very few special classifiers and I think you still needed 6 or so classifiers to be classified. Many people couldn't get to enough matches to get classified.

I have looked at membership numbers in several match results. I seldom see many numbers below 30,000.

I think things are better now that the USPSA president is a shooter.

In my area when IDPA started, all the clubs switched to IDPA. I don't know if that happened anywhere else or not.

And I have to mention stage design. It seems to be improving with the 8 rounds from one spot thing, but for a while the number of shots fired from any position was decided by the capacity of the gun the stage designer used.

I have no answers, just a little history.

Bill Nesbitt

USPSA # A-4429

[BamBam]

One reason I bet many shooters went a year without being classified to lose interest and quit was that back in the 90's USPSA headquarters only ran the rankings quarterly. Remember that? It was very disappointing to be a new guy shooting about once a month and then go a whole season without ever being classifed. I think the new monthly system is a huge improvement and moral booster for the new guy, as are the special classifier matches. Everyone likes to get "their card" and start the process of moving up in the ranks~!! Whatever we can do to give real feedback that first year will help keep new shooters interested. I concur that an exit poll is as important as a recruitment drive.

[a-44978]

A thought on gear.

My new central air unit=$1600.00

My used STI=1600.00

not a rig ,just a lead thrower!

9mm major(limited) will come and i will go

[shred]

Hmm.. I remember 1996.. I was just getting serious into IPSC-- Got my first Open gun late in 95 (in 9x25 Dillon, natch). I don't remember a big membership drop then, but it is interesting that it coincides with IDPA forming, SASS getting big and, two years after the AWB, magazines for the then-new STI .40's were impossible to find. We went from the only game in town to one of three or four, and we the gunwriters were all beginning to sing from the "You need a $3000 race gun to play IPSC and it'll get you killed on the street" songbook.

We've addressed several of the issues, but the memories, opinions and other sports are still there.

[Duane Thomas]

9mm major(limited) will come and i will go

I will stay - still shooting a .45 singlestack in Limited-10. Kind of the "anti-equipment race."

[Duane Thomas]

We went from the only game in town to one of three or four, and we the gunwriters were all beginning to sing from the "You need a $3000 race gun to play IPSC and it'll get you killed on the street" songbook.

Not me. Just about then I was wising up and starting to shoot competition.