mgmcaleer Posted August 2, 2003 Share Posted August 2, 2003 I was curious if anyone has any comments on the two candidates? I recently came into the sport because of the new divisions which allowed me to compete with my single stack Kimber and not have to put out thousands of dollars on a Limited or Open gun. Here are the answers to a Division question asked to Michael Voigt and Denise Minor by Front Sight Magazine: Front Sight: Q8. Do you believe the current Divisions are adequate? Should we have more? Should we have fewer? Should our Divisions be more in line with the IPSC Divisions?Voigt: I believe we may need to reduce the number of divisions we have currently. USPSA has some needs that will not benefit from aligning with all IPSC divisions. There has been some discussion on IPSC changing some division criteria to align better with USPSA's current requirements, but these will need to be finalized before submission to the 2002 General Assembly for vote. Minor: I believe that the current Divisions are an adequate reflection of current basic firearms types, and we should not alter the Divisions unless there are serious negative changes in firearms/magazine ownership laws at the federal or major state levels. If the U.S. representatives on the IPSC rules committees can work with the other Regions to align the Divisions so none of our USPSA members are adversely affected, it would only make sense to align the Divisions. What does this mean for the sport? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrianH Posted August 3, 2003 Share Posted August 3, 2003 Best thing I can suggest is talk to shooters who have been in USPSA for many years. They can tell you what it was like before Mike, and after. That, to me, is the best way to judge if someone has been an effective leader. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loves2Shoot Posted August 3, 2003 Share Posted August 3, 2003 I agree with MV in that. I think it would be better to combine L10 and Production. I also think he has done a good job. My 2 cents Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ironman Posted August 3, 2003 Share Posted August 3, 2003 I have been on the same squad as Mike twice and from personnel experience I can say that he is a great person that loves our sport. I believe he has the right spirit that will help our sport grow. I do not know the other person that is running against him so I cannot speak for their qualifications or sprit. Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck D Posted August 3, 2003 Share Posted August 3, 2003 Could we expand on the "combine L10 and Production division" comment a bit ? I wouldn't be against the idea if the details were explained further. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chriss Grube Posted August 3, 2003 Share Posted August 3, 2003 Didn't we have a 6 page debate on this a couple month ago Chuck? As far as the election goes being a shooter and having a top shooter in charge is pretty good. Ever work for a boss that has no friggin clue what you do or how to do it? Give me a guy that has BTDT! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j1b Posted August 3, 2003 Share Posted August 3, 2003 I'm voting for Mike V again JB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madmark Posted August 3, 2003 Share Posted August 3, 2003 If L-10 and production combine, will all calibers be scored minor? Shooting L-10 in a small club allows you to guage your performance against all other divisions shooting major. Shooting production (minor PF) makes it look like everyone kicked your butt if you're the only one shooting production. Both divisions have merits, I don't see the sense in combining. This being an election issue, I had better look for the said 6 page debate. I just hope the "good ol' boy" mentality doesn't factor in.............. (in my trade chriss, I surely wouldn't work for a girl, yech!) Maybe I'm off base, sorry if I am. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Anderson Posted August 3, 2003 Share Posted August 3, 2003 Is combining lim 10 and prod an official platform item for Mike V.? I don't think I like that idea...minor 9 needs a home. SA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck D Posted August 3, 2003 Share Posted August 3, 2003 Chris, I'm not looking to argue. All I'm interested in is what M.V. said to another forum member. Like I said earlier, I would like to hear the details of the latest info people MAY have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted August 3, 2003 Share Posted August 3, 2003 From what I just read...it sounds like Loves2Shoot would like to combine L10 & Production. I don't think that he was meaning that Voight had said that. Lets be careful with the wording here...I don't want "those guys from Enos' Forum" getting blamed for starting rumors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madmark Posted August 3, 2003 Share Posted August 3, 2003 Reducing the number of divisions is an issue, I would like clarification. Anyone have Mike's #? Flex, would you mind calling him for clarification, I don't want to wake him up if he's sleeping. Currently, I am shooting a .40 cal Witness with an unported barrel in a ported slide. If my double stack (12 rd.) mags don't get me put in the wrong division, the "lightened" slide will. Can't we just get by with the divisions we have? I have read the interviews with both candidates on the USPSA page, and they both seem rather solid. My 2/10's of a cent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Posted August 3, 2003 Share Posted August 3, 2003 I firmly believe that Mike is the best choice for the position right now. He has done some good work, and he is willing to do some more. I'm votin' for him again because he has the capability, and the credibility it will take to lead us forward. Regards, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mgmcaleer Posted August 3, 2003 Author Share Posted August 3, 2003 Is it Mike's position to combine L-10 and Production? Why not Limited and Open? What is the reasoning behind the argument? I'm just trying to get some of the facts before I make a decision. To me it seems that after the USPSA added the Production and L-10 classes it sparked more of an interest for shooters with, let's say, a Glock or an 1911 single stack to participate in the sport. They no longer have to go out and compete with people shooting SV's or STI's with 30+ rounds in their mags. They can now go out and compete with shooters using the same stock equipment and not feel inferior. From Jim Eyerman: I have been on the same squad as Mike twice and form personnel experience I can say that he is a great person that loves our sport. I believe he has the right spirit that will help our sport grow. I'm not questioning Mike's love for the sport nor his spirt. Hell, the guy has a competition gun with his name on it. That says it right there. But does he have what it takes as a leader to further the sport of practical shooting, to make it fair to everyone? I don't personally know either of the candidates but I don't want to be pushed aside into the "everything else but us blasters catagory" because I shoot a 1911 single stack and not a high dollar, high capacity blaster either. I like the divisions the way they are. I emailed Michael Voigt asking for clarification on the matter. I will wait to find out his answer. Here is another one for everyone. Who could make these changes if the new President decided to do it? The rules committee? Would it have to go to a vote of the members? And why would anyone want to take away divisions anyway? Who does it hurt? Surely not Limted, Open or Revolver division shooters; only the Production and L-10 division. And possibly the USPSA membership. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ducati Posted August 3, 2003 Share Posted August 3, 2003 i agree with mgm. being new to uspa, i say leave it as is. i don't here people complaining about to many divisions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Merricks Posted August 3, 2003 Share Posted August 3, 2003 2) The spirit here is one of self, technique, or technical improvement in the realm of competition. Accordingly, this forum is for discussions regarding firearms and techniques as used in competition. (And other unrelated topics. ) While the occasional post regarding defensive shooting is not prohibited, this is not the place for lengthy discussions/debates regarding defensive shooting. I did not start this forum to discuss or debate political issues of any kind - either for IPSC, USPSA, or governmental. Just a reminder. Please do not let this thread become uncivil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric nielsen Posted August 3, 2003 Share Posted August 3, 2003 I liked it better when you just picked open or limited. Years gone by that would mean 10 guys in Open, 30 guys in Limited. Take your pick. Couple years ago it was almost 50/50 - more ppl in Open, which I really liked. Nowadays, you can still run into the same friends, look forward to competing against them, only to find they are competing in another division - their 4th division in 4 months. It will be nice if the Crime Bill sunsets out in 2004. We could still have some kind of "box stock" class, but it would be nice if that division was closed to shooters with more than 2 years in the sport. Maybe? Mike Voigt is great. The divisions were necessary because of US laws and the BOD representing everyone's concerns. Hope the laws change, not the Prez. dvc - eric - a28026 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j1b Posted August 3, 2003 Share Posted August 3, 2003 Jon and Kyle, Your posts are very appropriate. I am going back to revise my first post on the subject. I would like to take back the comments made in my original post - I know nothing about the issue, why it exists, or how the candidates see the issue. I truly had no right to post on it. I would like to stand by the fact that I will be voting for Mike V. again. Thanks for getting us back to the basics - its easy to share an opinion based on info that may not be accurate - causing the tried and true rumor mill. JB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck D Posted August 3, 2003 Share Posted August 3, 2003 Flexmoney, the statement by LovesTo Shoot..."I agree with M.V." gives me the impression that it's not just LovesToShoot's idea exclusively. Although this subject is NOT what this forum was designed for, I know what I read and I wanted to expand upon it. I'll know better next time, sorry for the confusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted August 3, 2003 Share Posted August 3, 2003 Hi guys, I cannot and will not comment on the candidates (nor their positions on any issue) but, as far as I know, the claim that either of them has suggested combining Limited 10 with Production Divison is an urban legend because, believe me, that would be like trying to mix oil and water. Limited 10 is overwhelmingly dominated by SAO pistols (e.g. the STI/SVI/Para/Caspian genre), as are Open and Limited Divisions. Production Division specifically prohibits SAO pistols, hence this is the only place where "mainstream" manufacturers (e.g. Glock, Beretta, S&W, CZ, H&K, Sig-Sauer, Walther etc.) are competitive. If you try to combine Limited 10 with Produciton, say "Bye Bye" to the mainstream manufacturers, their sponsorship dollars and all their fans, with absolutely nothing gained. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted August 3, 2003 Share Posted August 3, 2003 Chuck...you are quoting L2S (and you left off where he says "...I think..."). You are not quoting Mike Voight. This is how rumors start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mgmcaleer Posted August 3, 2003 Author Share Posted August 3, 2003 Jon: 2) The spirit here is one of self, technique, or technical improvement in the realm of competition. Accordingly, this forum is for discussions regarding firearms and techniques as used in competition.(And other unrelated topics. ) While the occasional post regarding defensive shooting is not prohibited, this is not the place for lengthy discussions/debates regarding defensive shooting. I did not start this forum to discuss or debate political issues of any kind - either for IPSC, USPSA, or governmental. Jon, I don't mean to make this a b*tch session, I was just trying to get the facts on where both candidates stand on the issues and where they intend to take the USPSA. I thought this forum was called: IPSC or USPSA Questions Specific IPSC or USPSA inquiries This is a very important time for the USPSA. Elections. It will determine who is going to lead the USPSA and where they intend to take the sport because we are electing them to make the decisions for us. If this area was not intend for USPSA political questions then where should we discuss it? This discussion/thread would fall under the "and other unrelated topics". If no one discusses the issues then everyone is forgetting a huge part of running the sport. It's like having a United States forum but not allowing Presidential or political discussions. It only lasts for a short time and before we know it the elections will be over and it will be business as usual. The members run and elect the USPSA President and board. The members need to be informed and get involved with not just the fun part of the sport but the administrative/political side also. If you are not interested in who is going to run the sport or what they are going to do with it then I appologize for wasting your time. Just my two cents worth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loves2Shoot Posted August 3, 2003 Share Posted August 3, 2003 Just to clarify what I said. I said I agree with MV in: "Voigt: I believe we may need to reduce the number of divisions we have currently" I do believe this would be better from a cost standpoint on the local club level and quality of competition. With Open, Limited, L10, Prod and M, A, B, C, D classes there is seldom more than 3 competitors in each class/division outside of "C class" except very large matches. I wouldn't be against combining Limited and Open either if enough people wanted it. I DO NOT know how MV would do this. I would do this by combining L10 and Production as they are the closest in equiptment type. I would get rid of minor only scoring, if you want to shoot a .40 or .45 then you get the score. I disagree with Vince in that WE ARE NOT here to support the manufactures. I disagree with Vince's statement that nothing is gained. I would say that this might force manufactures to give us better products (ie. if they don't have a product that can shoot fast and accurately enough, they maybe they would improve it.) I see a ton of Glocks in Limited and Open already so why coddle them in production? That you can't be competitive with the gun of your choice is a lame excuse in my book. If you shoot classifiers with your gun the you should be grouped with people of a similiar skill level, and pandering to manufacturers is Un-American in my book. Freedom of competition I say, let the best man/product win. To stay on topic, I think MV is the best candidate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck D Posted August 3, 2003 Share Posted August 3, 2003 Flexmoney, I guess now that the words in question are highlighted in RED and now I'm aware that it's L2S's comments I GET THE POINT ! Besides, this is not the first time I've heard this idea floated and i've read/heard it elsewhere (not a be.com exclusive). Besides, all I asked for was clarification on a comment, not to be "corrected" by a perfect stranger. I guess my appology for the "confusion" wasn't read by you? Like my parents always said..."you don't know of you don't ask". Sorry I asked..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted August 3, 2003 Share Posted August 3, 2003 Chuck, I apologize if it sounded as if I was coming down on you hard. That wasn't my intent. I just wanted to get the thread straightened out. We have went on for nearly two pages based on a miscommunication. (quite a few of us) In fact...that is the real problem here. What we all type isn't always what we all mean. ---------------- mgmcaleer, Jon quoted Brian Enos' words on the direction that Brian Enos would like his forum to go. This comes from problems we have had here in the past. No big deal. I think your topic is current and relavent...though it is a bit outside the usual scope of the forum. I think we should be able to discuss the topic...as long as it remains completely civil (no personal attacks, no beating somebody up for their opinion...no rumors). If we get too far off base, then I'll have to put the admin wammy on the topic. Religion...politics...tactics... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now