Historical basis

[coldchar]

As a newly minted RO, I get a lot of irratated participants asking why USPSA;/IPSC uses the method it does for scoring, not the ring points but the dividing the score by the time.

I am thinking it is because of the sheer number of participants. By dividing the score by the time we can easily carry the results out of 4 or more decimal points as versus just two decimal points if only the time were used as is done in IDPA.

Can someone tell me before I open my mouth and give out the wrong answer.

[Rob Boudrie]

It's hard to know what was in the mind of the persons who created the rules, but it is possible to look at the benefits and disadvantages of any system.

Hit Factor scoring weights stages so that each round counts the same amount, and avoids the situation where a competitor who shaves 2 seconds off a very long field course gets the same overall score benefit as someone who shaves a 6 second el-prez down to 4 seconds.

The big disadvantage of hit factor scoring is that a match is actually a weighted series of separate contests (stages), so it is possible that the relative position of two competitors can "flip" if a new high hit factor changes the stage points awarded on a particular stage.

[ChuckS]

The first draft of IPSC (June, 1978) rules had this as the final rule:

"37. The proper balance of speed and accuracy will depend upon the nature of

the test, but neither speed nor accuracy will be rewarded without interdependence."

There was no description of the scoring mechanism in the document but #37 seems to have been the seed. The really amazing thing is that there were only 37 rules.

Later,

Chuck

[pskys2]

I remember reading Coopers columns and books and discussed at length amongst fellow shooters and early club/section officials and organizers.

Many debated the concept in the late '70' and early '80's. We experimented with Time Plus (like ICORE & IDPA) and variations of Comstock but virtually any other type ended up giving weight to either speed or accuracy.

I seem to remember Jeff Cooper even had a formula at one time based on the Hatcher Stopping Index that gave less weight to a hit outside of the optimum "Stopping Zone". That idea was kind of enmeshed in the Comstock Scoring Formula. The idea being to weigh less potent hits with fewer points (based on the supposed Stopping Power of that hit) and thereby measuring how well your performance may have stopped your opponent.

Simply put any hit on an IPSC target could be effective, the different zone's being more or less so. But 2 "D" Hits were considered more effective in 1 second than a single "C" in 2 seconds (remember the theory that your opponent was also trying to use time to hit you). Then to keep us from spraying and praying a "Miss" would be penalized due to it's wastefullness of effort.

Also remember that the whole concept started as a means of testing theories of personal defense. Allowing the program to find it's own center with neither accuracy or speed reigning supreme (as a general rule) made the advances in technique and equipment we see today possible.

It's not perfect and the other scoring methods have some merit and other programs that use them are fun and relevant. But the majority of the advances we see today have come from the cauldron of IPSC.

At least that's the way I remember the debate being framed and explained.

Edited July 21, 2008 by pskys2

[Bill Nesbitt]

Anybody remember "Chapman Count"? One second added to your time for each point down.

[Guy Neill]

American Handgunner magazine has some of their old magazines available from 30 years ago. Of the two currently available, one has Cooper's column talking about Comstock scoring. It may give some historical perspective.

Guy