SmittyFL Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 From posted minutes: USPSA 2011 World Shoot Team Selection Motion: Members of the 2011 USPSA sponsored Handgun Teams will be selected by the Team Manager. Moved by A4 Seconded by A2 Passed Roll Call requested by A6 Yes A2, A4, A7, A8, President No A1, A5, A6 Break 4:04pm Resume 4:27pm I don't normally bitch about things done by USPSA as I think they are generally done for the betterment of the sport. Whether it ends up that way or not, I think the intentions are normally good. However it seems we finally get the team selection process figured out, actually simple enough that competitors can understand, fair enough that they have a chance and now they slip this in under the radar. Any Area directors care to post why they would make a motion, second, or vote for such a stupid idea? Or maybe try and convince me why they think it was a good idea. I have plenty more thoughts on the subject but am really interested in what the AD's have to say. I just saw Mike and saw/met Alan at SHOT but didn't find this out until today or I would have asked them myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kgunz11 Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 Motion: Members of the 2011 USPSA sponsored Handgun Teams will be selected by the Team Manager. Is that the bad part? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Stevens Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 As you noticed I voted against it, but the information provided was that that was they way the teams wanted it. Personally I believe in some form of stated metric to be on the team. However, I lost. I could go farther, but I think I'll leave it there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CSEMARTIN Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 So.....who gets to be the team manager? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XRe Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 Pardon me, Gary, I just want to make sure I get what you're saying "That was the way the teams wanted it" - which teams do you mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BritinUSA Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 As you noticed I voted against it, but the information provided was that that was they way the teams wanted it. I don't think that the team should have any say in the selection process. The purpose of competition to determine the best shooters is a tried and tested method. The same method is used to determine our Olympic teams for example. If the selection is based upon opinion rather results then this will lead inexorably toward nepotism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Jones Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 So.....who gets to be the team manager? Historically, that has been the Director of NROI. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JThompson Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 (edited) The best shooters go... period. Leaving it to one person could lead to favoritism... even if it doesn't, the perception of it could be just as bad. Nope... don't like it one bit. Edited January 19, 2009 by JThompson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BritinUSA Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 ...and another thing; Why are we changing a system that works ? At the last World Shoot, US Team won Open, Modified, Standard, Production, Open Junior and Open Lady team awards. The team selection process worked ! USA also won INDIVIDUAL GOLD in Ladies Open, Modified, Standard (along with Silver and Bronze) and Open Junior (along with Silver and Bronze). This was a great performance. The implications of USPSA recent decision seems to fly in the face of logic and past results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Bond Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 I voted against changing the team selection to a subjective method. While I believe that our team manager is a very capable person, the idea of using a subjective choice in a sport that is objective makes no sense to me. Diving, gymnastics, and dancing are individual sports where one chooses a winner based on the opinion of a judge. Shooting and fencing, and track are all invidivual sports where one selects a winner from the high score. Before we abandon the objective process, let us not forget that about 9 years ago we embarked on an objective selection process because in addition to wanting the best possible teams, we also desired to have members of the team who regularly participated in USPSA events choosen in an objective manner. Our last three teams have been composed of members who made great effort to be selected for the team by participating in a series of events, were chosen objectively and brought great glory to our program. This past WS saw the US bring home the gold as to every team selected by this process. I can not understand how we could expect to improve on that performance. Charles Bond Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Stevens Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 If I had voted for it, I would be happy to tell you why. I honestly don't feel comfortable speaking for someone else as to why they did vote for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LChico Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 Pardon me, Gary, I just want to make sure I get what you're saying "That was the way the teams wanted it" - which teams do you mean? And I really don't get this comment about "that was the way the teams wanted it" since the original poster on this subject was SmithyFL & he WAS a member of one of our winning teams. . . In addition to the AD's, any USPSA team members care to jump in & add a rationale? Linda Chico (L-2035) Columbia SC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Anderson Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 I don't agree with it, but... In 2005 the US Produciton team lost. The team was made up of members that competed in the selection process. However only 1 of the top 4 finishers at that years Nationals was even on the team. Had a subjective deciscion been made to include Angus and Matt the US would have won. I believe that year Robbie and a few other top shooters were not on the team. This years teams were much better and I think the selection process was much better as well. But with a substitution or two may have been made better. I guess what it comes down to is, whether USPSA wants an open and objective decision regarding who gets to be on the team, but maybe the team doesn't have the BEST US shooters and comes in second, or USPSA wants to win, but maybe (probably) give the appearance of favoritism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe4d Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 your gonna use a good ole boy selection process to select a team and then use the statement that " The teams want it that way" ? Of course the team is gonna want it that way. That's like asking Geogre W if he agreed with the Court decisions in the Bush / Gore election. The world team needs to be selected on some kinda point scale, as in Nationals, and Area match rank. Prior to Area and Nationals a competitor can declare he is competing for a slot for the world team. He who shoots best is in. Another option is an IPSC rules match where all those interested in attending the world shoot can compete for a slot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Bond Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 (edited) I don't agree with it, but... In 2005 the US Produciton team lost. The team was made up of members that competed in the selection process. However only 1 of the top 4 finishers at that years Nationals was even on the team. Had a subjective deciscion been made to include Angus and Matt the US would have won. I believe that year Robbie and a few other top shooters were not on the team. This years teams were much better and I think the selection process was much better as well. But with a substitution or two may have been made better. I guess what it comes down to is, whether USPSA wants an open and objective decision regarding who gets to be on the team, but maybe the team doesn't have the BEST US shooters and comes in second, or USPSA wants to win, but maybe (probably) give the appearance of favoritism. Lets view it the way it was. The 2005 Production team was composed of the best USPSA shooters who participated in the selection process. Shooters that did not participate in the selection matches did not make the team. If you want to play first string you have to show up for practice. It is mightly hard to Monday morning quarterback and say if so and so and so and so had been on the team the US would have won the gold. The selection process for the 2005 team was more match intensive than was warranted so the BOD listened and reduced the number of selection matches. But the process remained objective and based on results at more than a single match. In 2008 each and every team the US fielded by use of the selecton process brought home gold. Edited January 19, 2009 by Charles Bond Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SmittyFL Posted January 19, 2009 Author Share Posted January 19, 2009 (edited) .......but the information provided was that that was they way the teams wanted it. Well that is a lie. Not calling you a liar Gary, but that statement is flat out not true. I can see Chucks point but some credit has to be given to the desire to represent the US. If Angus, or Matt, or Rob had wanted to be on the Team in 2005 they could have competed and likely would have made it. The process for 2005 was a little difficult, I agree. That was what led to my opening statement; it is finally made simple and achievable. Three matches......you want to be on the team......go to these matches and compete for it. Again Rob, Todd, Dave obviously didn't want to be on the team. If the three separate matches is too costly then designate three Area matches or something, it isn't hard to make it a competition. You just don't' want it to require 15 matches over 2 or 3 years or some crap like that. Obviously I'm passionate about this, it was a huge goal of mine to represent the US in Bali. I spent a ton of time and money traveling to the required matches and extra practice over the past two years. I beat Ted by a mere point or two over the course of 5 matches for the 4th spot on the team.......if Voigt's extractor doesn't break in Tulsa....I don't make the team. But you know what? That is how competition goes. --edit- Also if Voigt wanted it that bad he would have gone to all of the qual matches -edit- If the current process was in place a year ago I never would have had the chance to finish 3rd in the World and 2nd on the Standard team helping us to bring home the Gold medal. Edited January 19, 2009 by SmittyFL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catfish Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 Why in the world would "we" fix something that not only wasn't broken, but something that dominated? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XRe Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 Why in the world would "we" fix something that not only wasn't broken, but something that dominated? It would seem that Smitty gave you all you need to know in the 2nd to the last paragraph in his previous post... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Anderson Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 Keep in mind that first sentence of mine. I don't agree with the change and would much rather have a competetive process. I was just trying to guess at the BOD's intent. I really liked the competetive process. While I didn't make the cut in Production I knew exactly what I needed to do. There was no question about the makeup of the team and within 20 minutes of the results being posted I think everyone who cared, knew who the team would be (except for the 2008 Nats champ slot). I really don't like the idea of one person making the decision. No matter how objectively, and I'm sure John would be objective, the decision is made there will be hard feelings. It's kind of hard to be mad at the process when you're the one who blew it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckbradley Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 .....if Voigt's extractor doesn't break in Tulsa....I don't make the team. And we have a winner! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlamoShooter Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 I don't have a horse in the race. My worst fault and best asset is that I don't give up, I don't back down. If That is IF the selection process is changed to something You/WE the shooters don't like start a new shooter's committee. Use the Forum as a spring board and set up a quick vote for the matches that will determine the shooters. Flex the Power of Enos get a list of signatures for participant and supporters. I don't know of any reason why we could not have two sets of USA teams The thing that the directors Voting for the USPSA Change to selection would have to look as is. IF the B string Enos team of shooters that earned a spot beat out the hand picked USPSA team I vote for Smitty to head the (Shooter's Pick) for team members Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Stevens Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 (edited) .....if Voigt's extractor doesn't break in Tulsa....I don't make the team. And we have a winner! Chuck, I am shocked. Shocked I say. Edited January 19, 2009 by Gary Stevens Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Norman Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 This may already be covered, but... How can teams that are not already in place want anything? The USPSA WS Team for the next WS DOES NOT EXIST as of yet, so how can THEY want anything? The members of the teams that just competed and won are part of history now, they are members of the 2008 Team, if they are chosen by any method they may well be members of the 2011 Team, but that will only occur after the selection process is completed, so again I ask; "How can an entity that does not exist have input to the process to form said entity?" Just for the record, I don't think that either method is demonstrably better. One that requires a shooter to travel all around the US and compete against others that do the same MAY have the cream rise to the top, of it just may have us select shooters that can afford to travel for three years to numerous matches. Having one person, the Team Manager, selct the team may allow for a scientific review of the performance of many shooters and the selection of those that seem to do the best at a series of matches where the results can be studied and the challenges analyzed. OR this method may only result in the selection of people that the Manager knows and likes. Both systems seem to have pitfalls. It might be better to have a two level approach where each Area holds a qualifier and the top finishers from each are involved in a shoot off at the Nationals and then after an interview the final selections area made. And yes, we still need some oversight so that the US team not only has the power to win, but the personality to be winners in the PR game as well as on the range. We don't need sore losers OR sore winners representing the US. So perhaps some hybrid system would be best? Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 .....if Voigt's extractor doesn't break in Tulsa....I don't make the team. And we have a winner! Chuck, I am shocked. Shocked I say. Moderator's Note: And that's the end of Mike Voight's name coming up in this thread as the "supposed instigator." Ya'll are free to debate the topic --- Team members should be chosen by competition or by a Corporation Designee" but the bashing of individuals, organizations or their motives stops now. Otherwise, ya'll be discussing this on the USPSA forums.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 Smitty, this might take some work --- and ultimately might be non-productive or ignored: Since the statement "the team members want this" was used to justify the policy shift, perhaps a polite and concise letter to each member of the Board, outlining the actual opposition to the new plan, signed by as many team members as possible might yield some results..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts