Props being too heavy/akward

[BritinUSA]

What.... no moat with Greek fire?

... or 300 speedo-clad Spartans ready to run us through with spears ?

[Whitefish]

The stage was approved by Amidon and NROI as a Level III match. The weight of the door/ram was not listed on the stage description. We had a lot of conversations with the MD, RM, AD and other match staff as to what to do with the door. There was also a thread here on the forum months ago I started about how to assess penalties, which is where we came up with the two procedurals. There was a heck of a lot of thought put into this before we did it.

As far as the shooter that chewed me out at that match, I don't really care. To be perfectly honest, I lost a ton of respect for her over this. She and a couple other ladies decided before they even got there that it was an impossible task. I know that they tried to convince several other shooters, including a junior, that it couldn't be done and to just bypass it. Then instead of arbitrating the stage they just started a rumor that it was going to get thrown out. It might have if they had arbitrated it. Although I doubt it.

Gary, I know you say you tried the ram and decided there was no way you could do it. That is fine and that is your decision. I know Tyler Roberts did just fine and he is smaller than you in height and weight. We look at every stage in the section before a match and Fish proof it. Every time we say, can Gary see through this port etc. I looked at that stage and Tyler proofed it. I figured if he could do it we were good. He was the smallest person registered in the match by far.

The reason that we didn't use a smaller ram is because there is no way to know what would happen with a smaller ram. The door is designed and tested by the company. The ram is designed and tested by the company. If I throw a sledgehammer out there, I don't know how it will last or what effect it will have on the door. As far as using pencils or dowels, same thing. I'm not going to hit the door 300 times to make sure that it opens consistently with dowels, or pencils or whatever. The pins were designed to work in the door and were a consistent challenge for everyone.

Clearly there were people who didn't like the door. We won't use it again for an Area match or even a USPSA match. I give.

Chuck, I really do appreciate the effort you make to ensure equitable "Fishproof" stages. And I have to say you are getting better at it , but in this case I don't think it worked. Tyler is 40 years younger and doesn't have a surgically repaired shoulder from 30 years ago that still dislocates when stressed, so that's not a really good comparison. As a stage designer, you can never account for everyone, but just try to avoid the most obvious things. I stayed out of the discussion mostly because I know how hard you worked at the match and didn't want you to feel I was being hypercritical or say something that I might regret. I cannot speak for others and was just relaying what I heard first-hand from them. You are correct that it was my decision, but after watching several shooters twice my size take two whacks at the door, the decision was actually a no-brainer for me. No one influenced me in that decision even though I shot with two of the shooters who decided ahead to not even bother with the ram. I personally decided the upside was not worth the risk (for me), either in terms of the match or personal injury and that I would just take the penalties and live with it. I shot so badly that it did not matter at that point anyway and it was just too damned hot to whine at others who were just as hot. It was a really good match overall (once again) and it is too bad the heavy ram has become a focal point and what many remember. I for one am ready to move on. All of us can agree to disagree on occasion, but it does not diminish the hard work that went into planning the match.

[Flexmoney]

All of us can agree to disagree on occasion, but it does not diminish the hard work that went into planning the match.

Well said. We have a lot of great people in this sport. All working hard and doing good stuff.

It's not a bad place to be.

[Chuck Anderson]

No problem Gary. I could never get, let alone stay mad at you anyway. You were there and I would never have a problem with you voicing an opinion on how you felt. Oh, and by the way I think I figured out a way to squeeze 60 yds to shoot at poppers on some of the bays at TCGC. Can't wait to try it.

[Whitefish]

No problem Gary. I could never get, let alone stay mad at you anyway. You were there and I would never have a problem with you voicing an opinion on how you felt. Oh, and by the way I think I figured out a way to squeeze 60 yds to shoot at poppers on some of the bays at TCGC. Can't wait to try it.

Thanks, Chuck. You might have noticed my autograph next to bullte holes on the two high ports on the green wall from the last Area match. I was surprised they were still there. Mitch and I have had a running discussion about the ram and door ever since the match, so I guess we are to the eye-rolling stage on the discussion! I guess it is time to take the 12 moa C-More dot off the Dawson if 60 yard poppers are the new order of the day. Go for it! Hey, you could always have them activate a swinger or drop turner at 50 yards, shot through a very low port . Actually, it only took me three shots on the 2 forty yard poppers, which was probably the best shooting I did all day.

[ajg308]

I believe that all too often we try to cater to the lowest common denominator and I believe that is detrimental to the sport. The creative stages and props are what keep people coming back instead of moving onto golf or something else. I think it was a great stage and prop, enough that we are going to use the MGM breaching door the next 2 weekends at the Parma, Idaho range. USPSA this weekend and IDPA next. Come and try it.

Edited July 16, 2008 by ajg308

[ajg308]

Here are a couple of videos I put on Youtube if anyone cares. They are of me and my buddy. I even have Carrie on video and can post it if she does not care.

I was also on the same squad as XRe and he is the one in the video in the first post of this thread.

[bgary]

I would never have a problem with you voicing an opinion

Oh, CRAP! Now you've *really* done it! Actually given Whitefish permission, in writing, to voice his opinions?!?!? The end is near!!!

(Hi, Gary! )

B

[kimel]

Chuck is right that I was not "quite there" about complaining. I was not complaining; just relaying an observation. I went through on first strike. Had I been doing this for "real" I would have opted for some sort of gloves to help avoid the "bees" in the hands. All in all, I enjoyed the stage and like TDean said, "now I can say I breeched a door". Okay, probably equal to some cheap, 3/4 rotten, half-open door and NOT what our LE folks face every day but still...

I had several squads arrive with one or more members upset about the door. More than a few were nursing bruises and abrasions. Several were complaining of wrist and elbow discomfort. One gentleman was nursing a knot on the knee from where the door bounced back and whacked him. Don't recall who that was though. All that I spoke too refused first-aid.

Not everyone went Stage 9 --> Stage 10 in the squad matrix so I did not see every squad right after stage 9. And, to be fair, those that complain tend to be way louder than those that are happy. Fact of human nature.

Had we used very wimpy pins (and yes, I know there are harder pins available and the pins used were the wimpiest the company makes) that were cheaper so people could test their ability to operate the prop and a lighter ram or sledge then I think it is a very interesting prop.

I would suggest some sort of hold-open mechanism (the old cannon ball and chain method used on garden gates around the world is cheap and easy to rig) for shooter safety.

I will publicly commend Chuck on his designs. These were some very challenging stages and were well thought out.

Please, no one take my earlier post as a complaint. It was an observation. That is all it was meant to be.

[HoMiE]

Be careful what you ask for Fish, Chuck might make the targets upper A/B only and Virginia Count.

[Whitefish]

Be careful what you ask for Fish, Chuck might make the targets upper A/B only and Virginia Count.

Too bad Virginia count would not be a legal stage with the poppers on it, Mitch ! We could always make the start C-More off and gun unloaded in the a closed box, with the shooter on his knees facing uprange of the box just to make it challenging.

[Whitefish]

I would never have a problem with you voicing an opinion

Oh, CRAP! Now you've *really* done it! Actually given Whitefish permission, in writing, to voice his opinions?!?!? The end is near!!!

(Hi, Gary! )

B

Yes, he did, but since when did I ever need permission or ask for it? No one is safe now.

Hi yourself, Bruce . It was good to see you at the match even though the stats were definitely not my friend.

[smokshwn]

First off,

Chuck, excellent stages. As always you and Tom put together several chanllenges that looked easy, however proved to really test one's shooting ability. I liked that the match had some short stages that really made you focus on your "technical" skills or when the shots looked easy the position increased their difficulty. Very well done

As to the ram door (if you guys have met me you can guess it wasn't a problem for me) I feel it was an equitable test for shooters. If you took the time to try the door, you paid a fairly equal price to the procedurals you would have incurred had you not tried it. My observation was that many people were defeated before they ever got to the stage. They became so focused on whether or not the ram was heavy, whether or not it was fair, so and so took X number of hits etc etc etc. The worry of unfamiliarity and doubt ruled instead of focusing on shooting the stage. I think there is a mindset lesson there somewhere.

On the bigger subject of physical fairness in our sport I think many people confuse equality of opportunity to equality of outcome. Every shooter has the same opportunity to shoot a stage successfully, however there are many unequal outcomes. This will always be the case whether it is cooper tunnels, low ports, high ports, walls, field courses, etc. I am 6'4" and go about 290, I have three herniated discs, have undergone a knee reconstruction extensive enough that I was completely non weight bearing for 27 weeks, and did I mention I was fat . I say this not to whine but to explain that there are several challenges at any given match which I could claim unfairly targeted me due to my size or physical ability. It is just a matter of using the perspective that it is a challenge that I must overcome to be successful.

I for one welcome the continued efforts of those who go to great lengths to provide us with great stages/matches that offer us the opportunity to challenge ourselves and experience those things that may be unfamiliar to us.

[ong45]

Area 1 has never been known for making things easy, the only time i ever saw a cooper tunnel at the nationals was at you guessed it, Oregon!!

Chuck and co. thought out the situation pretty well, they coulda assesed a per shot penalty for going around the door. That would have really hurt.

I was guilty of underestimating the stage, swung that ram like i was playing t-ball ( even after Xre told me what to expect). Imagine my surprise when the door didn't cooperate

[rgkeller]

What was the required start position?

[ChuckS]

What was the required start position?

You can watch the stage from this post.

Later,

Chuck

[Chuck Anderson]

Start was standing outside box A with ram in one or both hands. Gun was on table inside shooting area. The smart play for the folks who didn't want to swing was just like Nancy Marrs did. Start with the ram on the ground standing up with one hand on it. That was why we set up the start position that way.

[Stuck in C]

As I said previously, I really enjoyed the stage. I think smokshwn is right: it was more of a mental challenge/mindset problem than a physical one. I also would have been happier if they had given us a third option of blowing the door with C4! (There are few problems that cannot be solved with high explosives...)

[rgkeller]

What was the required start position?

You can watch the stage from this post.

Later,

Chuck

so the required start was with the ram held back in striking position?

[rgkeller]

Start was standing outside box A with ram in one or both hands. Gun was on table inside shooting area. The smart play for the folks who didn't want to swing was just like Nancy Marrs did. Start with the ram on the ground standing up with one hand on it. That was why we set up the start position that way.

so the start was not the same for everyone

and on the ground does not seem to satisfy the condition "in one or both hands" which implies (to me) that the ram is off the ground and in control of the shooter.

[Punkin Chunker]

Since the prop was made by the sponsor, I think ya need to man up on this one or take the 2 and move on. We need all the sponsors we can get and alienating them is counter productive to growing our sport. With all the monkey shines I've seen for no good reason... at least this one was putting up some cash.

Can't wait to see the WSB when Viagra sponsors a stage . . .

[Chuck Anderson]

Start was standing outside box A with ram in one or both hands. Gun was on table inside shooting area. The smart play for the folks who didn't want to swing was just like Nancy Marrs did. Start with the ram on the ground standing up with one hand on it. That was why we set up the start position that way.

so the start was not the same for everyone

and on the ground does not seem to satisfy the condition "in one or both hands" which implies (to me) that the ram is off the ground and in control of the shooter.

The start was as I wrote above. If you wanted to hold it in one hand you could. If you wanted to use two hands you could. There was nothing that said you had to hold it off the ground or above your head or what not. It allowed the shooter to solve the problem, just like many other legal start positions.

[JThompson]

laedo ledo mortuus equus

Edited July 16, 2008 by JThompson

[XRe]

In that match there wasn't a single low port or scenario that favored being short.

BS, you freakin' whiner Perhaps you forgot about Stage 10....

[XRe]

Well, I guess I'm a little bit sorry that my blog post ended up being the source of more consternation for you, Chuck...

Then instead of arbitrating the stage they just started a rumor that it was going to get thrown out. It might have if they had arbitrated it. Although I doubt it.

Whitefish stated a rumor that I'd heard, that a shooter was allowed to test the door, whereas the rest of the match was prevented from doing so. That was the only grounds for tossing the stage that I knew of.... (ie, unfair advantage to one or a small group of shooters). The general basis for tossing a stage has to do with it being run inconsistently, or changing through the course of the match in such a way that competitors were provided with a significantly different challenge than those that came before them. In this case, everyone was given the same challenge, and the stage was run as consistently as it possibly could be (as near as I could tell). Some were more physically up to the task than others.

I think the Euro Extreme match is another good one to look at for physical challenges - without having looked at scores, it appears that several stages had far more running than shooting involved. Is that a fair non-shooting test, if the course requires you to sprint 50 yards through switch-back charge lines before you can reach the first shooting position? I have a hard time feeling like its not, yet its arguable its physically harder for someone to be competitive at that skill than getting through the door in this case (especially when you consider that you were given a perfectly feasible "out" to get around the door - and that the penalty essentially allowed you to break even if had to hit the door a second time - there's no penalty that allows you to get out of that run, and the fit guys are going to kick your butt every time....).

Where do we draw the line??? Hard to say. You can never make everyone happy all at one time. You put in a 50 yard standards, the folks who can't shoot complain. You put in close up hose fests, and the folks who can't move and pull the trigger fast complain. You put in a bunch of low ports or a Cooper Tunnel, the tall guys complain. You put in props that have be shot over, the short guys complain. You put in strong hand or weak hand only, and the folks who don't practice those skills complain. As a course designer who wants to include a well rounded set of tests - especially at a major match - you simply cannot win, if your goal is to please everyone.

So, I'll say three things.... First off - A1 was an extremely fun match that presented some difficult tests to the shooters. It required a well rounded set of skills to negotiate each stage and come away with a good performance. You had to know your equipment and your abilities, and adapt to the stages accordingly. This is what an Area match should be. I would not recommend changing this design philosophy in the future - this is the tradition of what Area matches were intended to be, and is the sort of test you used to expect at the Nationals, as well.

Secondly.... from a constructive suggestion standpoint, if you ever find yourself designing a course of fire, and you have devised a test that you also have to decide upon a penalty for shooters who are not physically capable of executing that task (as opposed to preventing whiny gamer types from bypassing the challenge to try to gain some time - and I can say that, cause I'm a whiny gamer type).... at least take that as a sign to stop and rethink what you're doing, as it may be a little over ambitious given the wide range of physical abilities that show up to the match. That's not to say you should abandon it simply because of that.... and I'm not saying that this wasn't done in the A1 case.... Just something to keep in the back of your mind as a course designer....

Finally, I do strongly believe that, in the end, this is a physical sport, like it or not. Even in the way its played in IPSC, where there are a lot of short courses, the position work demands physical fitness to be at the top of the game. As shooters - at least, if we are shooters who desire to win or to improve our games significantly - we need to realize that. If your goal is solely to have fun and get better at handling your gun, you're probably not too worried about these kinds of things anyway. If you're not in that boat, you need to do more than address just your shooting skills to excel at this game. I know that's not a popular statement, but there it is - I said it... You don't have to be super-man fit. I'm not saying you all need to be burly-man types.... But some physical training would go a long way to prepare you to, say, stretch upward on toes, or squat low without having to kneel, or run hard without dying of a heart attack, or.... The simple fact is that, within at least some parameters, we need to be prepared for basically anything when we show up at a match - and if we can approach it with a mindset of "I can do that"... it can be done. If we can't.... it can't.

Oh, Craig.... even with that whole list of infirmities you stated, given your line of work, I was going to be seriously worried if you couldn't get through that door, man...