Props being too heavy/akward

[Cy Soto]

I just finished watching a video that raised an interesting question... The video is located here -> http://re-gun.blogspot.com/search/label/CrossFit <- and it is under the blog called: Into the Breach (posted on July 1, 2008). It describes Stage 9 of the 2008 Area 1 Championship in which the starting position requires the shooter to swing a 42lbs battering ram into a breaching door in order to get it open so they can begin shooting.

Now, what happens if you have a shooter that is incapable of swinging this 42lb instrument hard enough to break through this door? For example, my wife is 5'1" and weighs 92lbs. I don't believe that it would be impossible for her to break through this door but she would certainly be at a significant disadvantage against a shooter that is 6'3" and 210lbs. Shouldn't stages such as this one that give advantage to a shooter based on his/her size and not their shooting ability be deemed illegal?

[Joe4d]

Sure, as long as we also make shooting ports that handicap me because I am over 6 foot illegal, while were at it lets make a field course that favors a fast runner over a slow runner illegal, why stop there, A GM can draw faster than me so lets let everyone start with the gun allready pointed at the target.

I my usual sarcastic tone what I am getting at is USPSA is a sport that has physical aspects. I bet the same match that handicapped your 5'1 wife had another stage with a port that favored her because of her height. There will allways be stages that favor one physical ability or feature over others that's part of the game.

[Cy Soto]

I understand your point but I believe that we are addressing different issues here. You are referring to having to change your shooting position to shoot through a port, and I am talking about being physically able to lift a heavy prop; apples and oranges IMO.

PS And note that I didn't have to be sarcastic to say it!

[Greg Bell]

I've shot some IDPA stages that had full size "dummies" that had a fair amount of weight to them that a smaller shooter would struggle with, however this particular club has a fair amount of ladies that shoot and they all handled it fine. I do agree that a battering ram may be a bit too much.

Last year I shot most of the season unable to lift my left arm, I had to take more than one proceedural as I was physically unable to complete a few courses of fire properly.

[ajg308]

I shot the match and each shooter was given the option to use the ram or to run around the doorway. If you ran around the door you received two procedurals.

[G-ManBart]

I think props need to be reasonable. By reasonable, I mean something that the average competitor can handle without risk of injury or totally unfair advantage. A battering ram that's nearly 50% of the weight of smaller shooters (think juniors here too) is unreasonable. If they want to simulate a breaching situation, they could do it with a door that opened easily and a light "ram" that weighed 15lbs....pretty much everyone can handle that and it's an even playing field. This isn't a SWAT tryout, it's a match that's supposed to be fun and fair. Forcing shooters of smaller stature to accept two procedurals due to poor stage design/planning is also unreasonable.

You're always going to see higher or lower ports that work better for some than others, but those equal out over time....or similar situations with walls to shoot over etc. This is quite different than that sort of situation.

[BrianATL]

I think props need to be reasonable. By reasonable, I mean something that the average competitor can handle without risk of injury or totally unfair advantage. A battering ram that's nearly 50% of the weight of smaller shooters (think juniors here too) is unreasonable. If they want to simulate a breaching situation, they could do it with a door that opened easily and a light "ram" that weighed 15lbs....pretty much everyone can handle that and it's an even playing field. This isn't a SWAT tryout, it's a match that's supposed to be fun and fair. Forcing shooters of smaller stature to accept two procedurals due to poor stage design/planning is also unreasonable.

You're always going to see higher or lower ports that work better for some than others, but those equal out over time....or similar situations with walls to shoot over etc. This is quite different than that sort of situation.

+1

A very "reasonable" response. I think course designers just don't think about this kind of issue. Mainly because most courses are designed and setup by men of at least average size and strength.

[BritinUSA]

I have not seen the video but if the description is accurate, the course of fire may be in violation of the following:

1.1.2 Quality – The value of an USPSA match is determined by the quality of the challenge presented in the course design. Courses of fire must be designed primarily to test a competitor’s USPSAshooting skills, not their physical abilities.

1.1.6 Difficulty – USPSAmatches present varied degrees of difficulty. No shooting challenge or time limit may be appealed as being prohibitive. This does not apply to nonshooting challenges, which should reasonably allow for differences in competitor’s height and physical build.

[Neomet]

I'll pile on here and agree with the G-man. It is just too much for the smaller build shooters. Its the same logic that says you don't have have a stage where you have to climb a rope to reach a platform to shoot from. It goes beyond a "reasonable" physical challenge, at least IMHO.

[konkapot]

I'm 6'2"/225 and felt that thing was a bit too heavy for a prop.

It didn't really contribute anything to the stage.

The company that provided that breaching tool (as well as the special doorjamb you'd use it with) was a sponsor for the match.

FY42385

[BritinUSA]

I'll add this one; At the 1999 World Shoot, they had a stage that required the shooter to wear a scuba tank. This thing was heavy and awkward. For the shooter with a lot of upper body strength they could stand almost upright. Others were bent nearly double in order to stop themselves from tipping over backwards.

Props can add an interesting dynamic to a stage, but in my opinion they;

• Must add value to the stage
  
• Be 'strength neutral', so a particular build does not have an advantage
  
• Should not require the shooter to get into awkward positions that could result in injury
  
• Should not require luck to achieve success, ie. tossing something from a distance into a bucket (sorry, couldn't resist)
  

[open17]

That breaching door was a MEAN one! I got it on the first whack. It actually opened easier

that I thought it would. My wife took one look at it and said "no way". She started with the

ram standing on end and touching it with one hand, then ran around. I was REALLY close

to a toss on points. It was a long field course, and it took time to break down the door,

get rid of the iron and get through the door. 2 procedurals for running around were about right.

Definitely a "Do, or Do Not--there is no try" kind of thing. Saw a few that weren't much more

mass than the ram go right through, they understood momentum and the value of a straight on hit.

Was it an appropriate prop for an Area match? Maybe not. I helped un-crate it and set it

up, and this was the first time it was used. A little experience with it might have

made it a little more friendly. Lighter ram and a pin that sheared a bit easier?

[BritinUSA]

...A little experience with it might have made it a little more friendly.

And that's another thing....

Those with experience with this type of equipment, such as Law Enforcement, would have a distinct advantage on a stage such as this.

Edited July 13, 2008 by BritinUSA

[FranDoc]

I also agree with GMan Bart re: "reasonable".

Needing to breech the door delayed the time between the 'beep' and the first shot on target. Period. That was its sole purpose.

Would there have been a way to close the door, obstruct its opening briefly, and provide another method to open it (lighter ram, lighter 'pin' in the latch)? Something that would have provided the same delay to the shooter, without the risk of ANY injury? As previously said, this is a USPSA Area match, it's not a SWAT/LE/Mil PT test.

There will always be those who say 'man up', surmount the obstacle, 'soldier on'. We run into this locally with a 24-yr-old course designer, male, in near-peak physical condition ... and a bunch of senior shooters with arthritis, diabetes, peripheral vascular disease, etc. Hoisting a 40# weight, or contorting into some bizarre position isn't just uncomfortable, it may verge on physically impossible AND may make the shooter choose between attempting the course as described while functioning on the edge of their safety level, vs. swallowing the bitter pill of procedural penalties.

We've had several (ahem) "discussions" about such course design. If you can hoist, haul, carry ... God bless ya (and come to the farm, I have work for you)! However, I shoot with a few guys who would realistically be at risk for another trip to the cardiac cath lab if they rammed a 42# weight into a breecher door.

We do this why ...?

I had a conversation about this same issue with someone else off-Forum, and I have to agree with his comment that, if a WSB has to include some calculation about penalties a priori for not achieving unusual physical demands in the stage, perhaps the stage needs to be re-thought.

[ajg308]

I thought the challenge was reasonable and that it added to the stage. Your adrenalin was pumping when you got to your gun and that is not always the case. I saw juniors do it, three on my squad, and women do it with no problem. Personally I do not want to attend a large match and shoot the same ol stages I get at home. If you can't handle it take your lumps and move one.

[G-ManBart]

I'm 6'2"/225 and felt that thing was a bit too heavy for a prop.

It didn't really contribute anything to the stage.

The company that provided that breaching tool (as well as the special doorjamb you'd use it with) was a sponsor for the match.

FY42385

If you thought it was a bit too heavy for a prop, that's saying something

[wide45]

I agree with the posts on reasonable props.

I'd like to add the hope that no one sees this as a need for more rules.

Comon sense, and feedback is all we need.

Comon sense, in stage design, and in not using a prop in a major match, that has not been debugged in smaller matches.

Feedback, in NROI giving some guidelines about unsuitable props when stages for a major are approved, and in competitors making it clear to the match officials when a stage is not about shooting.

Edited July 14, 2008 by wide45

[HoMiE]

It seems that no one minds dragging a 80lb+ dummy shooting strong hand or maybey they do. So, I'd like to know how heavy is too heavy, what would be an acceptable weight for a "battering ram" or some other prop?

[kimel]

A lightweight "sledge" hammer and Popsicle sticks for pins would have allowed everyone to go through the door. Sledge hammers are common breeching tools. The spirit would have been preserved and everyone could have played.

I was CRO on the next stage and given the level of discontent from squads as they got to my stage I was very surprised it was not challenged. Always so fun to have pissed off squads hit your stage.

I went through first try but had nasty "bees" in my hands for several minutes to the point where I had difficulty shooting.

Given how hot it got I was surprised folks could even pick that ram up without getting blisters...being as it was painted black.

[Joe4d]

I guess I am in the Minority, but the shooting port issue never "evens out" for the tall guy and fences are allways designated all the way to the sky. Field course allways favor the faster quicker more agile runner. So the one time the bigger stronger slower less agile guy is thrown a bone people complain ?

[G-ManBart]

I guess I am in the Minority, but the shooting port issue never "evens out" for the tall guy and fences are allways designated all the way to the sky. Field course allways favor the faster quicker more agile runner. So the one time the bigger stronger slower less agile guy is thrown a bone people complain ?

There were two or three stages at the Double Tap this year that had covering walls in front of shoot targets. I had to get a lot closer to them, or slow down more to reach over them, than the tall guys did. In that match there wasn't a single low port or scenario that favored being short. Granted, that's just one match, but it's not unusual. I often joke about where I'll have to jump to see a target, but rarely get to say "oh, you tall guys are hosed on this one".

It's not so much about an advantage for one person over the other, it's about safety...it wouldn't have looked so good if someone seriously hurt their back or dropped the ram on their foot and broke a couple of toes....that sort of stuff. R,

[geezer-lock]

The mods need to merge this with the "monkey motions, carnival props" threads. OH, and add "low light" to the list for all of us that have old eyes.

David C

[Chuck Anderson]

Wow, I'm glad somebody finally pointed this thread out to me. I was the stage designer and I have had a chance to use this door previously at other matches. I did give quite a bit of consideration to younger, older, smaller etc shooters. That is why the 2 procedurals were put on. It worked out to about 3 seconds for most folks hit factor wise. It took most folks 1 1/2 to 2 seconds to breach the door. This didn't end up being that much of a penalty on a 160 point field course.

For the people that think the ram was too heavy, go tell that to Tyler Roberts. A 12 year old junior shooter, who if he weighs 80 pounds I'd be surprised, made it through on the second hit. Granted there are going to be some folks who can't complete the task. I can tell you for most of them it was becasue of a lack of trying, not a lack of physical ability. There were some people, Super Senior Ladies who didn't try, no problem, I doubt it affected their scores much. But I also saw and heard from the RO's on that stage that there were a couple shooters who had it set in their minds that they weren't going to succeed before they got there, gave it a half a$$ed try and complained when they didn't make it through. If you tell yourself you can't do something you're probably right.

I'm not sure where the people that went to Kevin stage griping were. We asked at the awards ceremony. There were a very small handful of people that didn't look to happy about the prop. Everyone else seemed like they enjoyed it. I guess I like matches and stages where there is an aspect of challenge to them. 50 yd standards, 40 yd shots on poppers. It's an Area Match. It should present a challenge.

As far as the physical aspects of USPSA. It's a physical sport. There's running, and jumping, and it's not easy getting my big butt moving, or stopped. I don't particularly like Cooper Tunnels or low ports because of my size. I've never once complained about them though. It's part of the game. With this stage you had the option. If you wanted to play with the ram, you could. If you didn't want to it might cost you a complete second on the stage. But you'd probably also shoot better.

[Flexmoney]

It's an Area Match. It should present a challenge.

As far as the physical aspects of USPSA. It's a physical sport. There's running, and jumping, and it's not easy getting my big butt moving, or stopped. I don't particularly like Cooper Tunnels or low ports because of my size. I've never once complained about them though. It's part of the game. With this stage you had the option. If you wanted to play with the ram, you could. If you didn't want to it might cost you a complete second on the stage. But you'd probably also shoot better.

I think the discussion is that is should represent a shooting challenge.

1.1.8 Scenarios and Stage Props — The use of scenarios and reasonable stage props is encouraged. Care must be exercised, however, to avoid unrealistic non-shooting requirements which detract from the shooting challenge and/or may expose competitors to potentially unsafe conditions.

I can see both sides of this. And, I like distractions from the shooting (funky props and scenarios). After reading the feedback, however, I don't think I'd put this particular prop into a (normal) USPSA match...hindsight being 20/20.

It was a neat idea. Pretty cool. But, being new/different (big thing), and being heavy, and it needing to be "man-handled"...it was certain to cause controversy.

I have always wanted to see a more robust/physical match. Maybe something with special billing as being physical?

[Flexmoney]

BTW...I wasn't there, but I know how much work that Chuck and the staff put into the match.

I appreciate the effort, and applaud it from afar.