Flexmoney Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 -- or, the most recent approach, of running a specific "qualifying series", had its own significant set of issues. Hard to find clubs that *want* to run a leveli-III IPSC match. Hard to ensure quality control. Hard to make sure the matches are a reasonable "test" of skill. Ahhhh....no. The quality of the 18-stage match in Michigan was first rate (Midwest). I cannot speak to the other two. I know you had at least one other match that applied (east coast - Larry H.) that would have been first rate as well. I think geography won out. You don't have to go back to the venues that under-performed. And/or...perhaps they would improve after their first attempt. I do know this. Now that we know this is even on the table... Chuck Anderson has offered to setup and run an IPSC qualifying match. There is no doubt he will do a great job. And, if the BOD members check there current emails...I have offered up the USPSA Level-III Ohio match as a candidate. I would suspect that the folks from Michigan might like to run another IPSC match. If so, they should be strongly considered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandro Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Here's my 2 cents on a process for Team Selection:In 2010: Determine four Area matches, preferably one in each time zone to reduce the need for too much travel. The best two scores from those matches will count (so you only have to do 2, or you could do 3 or all four, only best 2 count). Add the score from 2010 Nationals. That determines places 1,2 and 3 in each team. The fourth place is determined by the Team Manager, possible options: 1. The winner of 2011 Nationals (must be pre-registered with WS by this time). 2. 4th place from qualifier series. 3. Personal Choice - must provide written documentation to back up the decision. To just adjust your idea a tab I would do two area matches and the nationals in 2009 and the same in 2010. That way if you break your leg this year and miss the entire year, you are not out or if you do well this year but have an unfortunate event next year you are not done in. I would pick just two area matches each year, one west coast and one east coast, since if you shoot 100% at one, you are likely going to want to go to the other to protect your score which was the unintended consequence attached to the 2005 team selection process. Also if there is one each year on each coast, you could choose to shoot the two closest matches to you over the two years saving a lot of travel. Of course the best score from either the 2009 or 2010 nationals would also count. Charles, I am part of AREA 6 so I wanted to ask you. Is this decision reversible, or are we just wasting time discussing this in terms what if? Regards, Sandro Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 No one discussing "suitable formulas" has addressed the issue Bruce Gary pointed out - knowingly sending a sub-optimal team because were were boxed into a formula (yes, it happened). Everyone tries to sidestep this issue pretending it's possible to have both - an objective system and the assurance we won't knowingly send a sub-optimal team. Sub-optimal? When did that happen? In Educador? When the process to make the team proved over-complicated and goofy (see David O's well written post)? The process for Bali was 3 qualifier matches and the 2 Nationals. We won everything. The good folks that were on the teams were fantastic representatives of USPSA. They desried to be there. They bought in...they sat at the table...and when the dust settled... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davecutts Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 I wonder how many people knew, prior to Bruce Gary's post, that we have already had a case where using a pre-defined formula results in us knowingly sending a team that was not the best one possible. Only someone exceedingly naive would fall into that trap... World Shoot XII, Philippines Match Date: Nov 1 - 6 Match Director: Chepit G. Dulay Range Master: Peter Glenn, Vin Lava Stats Director: Ding Marfori Open 1. Eric Grauffel (FRA) 2. Todd Jarrett (USA) 3. Jethro Dionisio 4. Jerry Barnhart (USA) 5. Angus Hobdell 6. Jeufro Lejano 7. Errol Thomas 8. Patrick Marvin Sanchez 9. Robert Leatham (USA) 10. Eduardo De Cobos Only Todd was on the team. I read somewhere Jerry, Rob and Travis formed their own informal team and crushed the official TEAM USA. Now I may be "exceedingly naive", and I do not know how the 1999 teams were chosen, or if Jerry and Rob even tried to make the team, but I've now pointed out two examples where USPSA did not send the optimal team to compete at the world shoot. I don't really care how the teams are chosen, I am perplexed at all the ruckus this BOD decision, what I am curious about is Manny Bragg feels about or would have vote being the only member of the BOD who made the team in 2008. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Bond Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Here's my 2 cents on a process for Team Selection:In 2010: Determine four Area matches, preferably one in each time zone to reduce the need for too much travel. The best two scores from those matches will count (so you only have to do 2, or you could do 3 or all four, only best 2 count). Add the score from 2010 Nationals. That determines places 1,2 and 3 in each team. The fourth place is determined by the Team Manager, possible options: 1. The winner of 2011 Nationals (must be pre-registered with WS by this time). 2. 4th place from qualifier series. 3. Personal Choice - must provide written documentation to back up the decision. To just adjust your idea a tab I would do two area matches and the nationals in 2009 and the same in 2010. That way if you break your leg this year and miss the entire year, you are not out or if you do well this year but have an unfortunate event next year you are not done in. I would pick just two area matches each year, one west coast and one east coast, since if you shoot 100% at one, you are likely going to want to go to the other to protect your score which was the unintended consequence attached to the 2005 team selection process. Also if there is one each year on each coast, you could choose to shoot the two closest matches to you over the two years saving a lot of travel. Of course the best score from either the 2009 or 2010 nationals would also count. Charles, I am part of AREA 6 so I wanted to ask you. Is this decision reversible, or are we just wasting time discussing this in terms what if? Regards, Sandro Sandro The BOD can and has reversed itself a number of times so yes this can be changed. The real question is time. If this is going to be changed we need to do it soon before plans for where members are going to shoot this year are irreversible. Charles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fiddler Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 ...I have not heard a single person say "I would rather have a sub-optimal team and an objective process than a better team lacking such process". While I would not necessarily agree with that position, I would support if it if there were indications a majority of the membership felt that way. ... I would rather have a sub-optimal team and an objective process than a better team lacking such process. I don't believe that a reasonable objective process would select a suboptimal team. RC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Bond Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 I wonder how many people knew, prior to Bruce Gary's post, that we have already had a case where using a pre-defined formula results in us knowingly sending a team that was not the best one possible. Only someone exceedingly naive would fall into that trap... World Shoot XII, Philippines Match Date: Nov 1 - 6 Match Director: Chepit G. Dulay Range Master: Peter Glenn, Vin Lava Stats Director: Ding Marfori Open 1. Eric Grauffel (FRA) 2. Todd Jarrett (USA) 3. Jethro Dionisio 4. Jerry Barnhart (USA) 5. Angus Hobdell 6. Jeufro Lejano 7. Errol Thomas 8. Patrick Marvin Sanchez 9. Robert Leatham (USA) 10. Eduardo De Cobos Only Todd was on the team. I read somewhere Jerry, Rob and Travis formed their own informal team and crushed the official TEAM USA. Now I may be "exceedingly naive", and I do not know how the 1999 teams were chosen, or if Jerry and Rob even tried to make the team, but I've now pointed out two examples where USPSA did not send the optimal team to compete at the world shoot. I don't really care how the teams are chosen, I am perplexed at all the ruckus this BOD decision, what I am curious about is Manny Bragg feels about or would have vote being the only member of the BOD who made the team in 2008. I believe I am correct that the team for WS XII was chosen only based on their performance at the nationals. The results you cited were a factor in changing the way teams were selected subsequently for the 2005 team. I also recall that there were some allegations of home cooking at that WS. I am not saying anyone at the host venue did anything wrong I am just saying there were some disussions. I also vividly recall the photos of slum housing at the top fo the hill that served as the back drop for at least one berm. It goes without saying that US shooters are not accustomed to housing serving as the top of a berm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Norman Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Perhaps I missed something here, but who asked that this subject even be on the last BOD Agenda? I assume it did not appear by magic. Someone had to have asked or demanded or something that this be there at all. It did not 'just happen' Who ever that person is should perhaps be the object of all of our questioning. Just what did he find so wrong about the process that selected the winning USA teams for 2008? If we knew the answer to that, maybe we'd have a better shot at either understanding and accepting this or insuring that if there is a reason to, that we exercise our voting rights to make a change at what ever level of leadership is required so that this is not the case in the future. Then again, I could be wrong, maybe things just pop up onto the agenda for the BOD meetings and no one knows how they get there. Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zhunter Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Perhaps I missed something here, but who asked that this subject even be on the last BOD Agenda? I assume it did not appear by magic. Someone had to have asked or demanded or something that this be there at all. It did not 'just happen'Who ever that person is should perhaps be the object of all of our questioning. Just what did he find so wrong about the process that selected the winning USA teams for 2008? If we knew the answer to that, maybe we'd have a better shot at either understanding and accepting this or insuring that if there is a reason to, that we exercise our voting rights to make a change at what ever level of leadership is required so that this is not the case in the future. Then again, I could be wrong, maybe things just pop up onto the agenda for the BOD meetings and no one knows how they get there. Jim Jim I think IF you go to the "sister thread" on the USPSA Forum, you can ask the above question and expect to get an answer. I don't see one coming here, as it might start to infringe upon BE'nose forum rules But.. the answer will be very telling!!! BTW, as a middle of the road "A" shooter, I have no dog in this fight beyond fairness in our sport Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Stevens Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Chuck your comment about the Michigan match is very interesting. I shot the match, and enjoyed it. However, the BOD has been informed, by a well known shooter, that the Michigan match was a bad match for an IPSC qualifier. Very Interesting. Must be the "is the glass half full or half empty" thing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Cheely Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 However, the BOD has been informed, by a well known shooter, that the Michigan match was a bad match for an IPSC qualifier. I gotta know who that was. I worked that match, and shot it. It was a very tough shooting test, much more so than many Area matches and even more than the Nationals IMO. It was crafted to specifically be harder ( like international matches) to pick the best shooters for that style of shooting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Chuck your comment about the Michigan match is very interesting. I shot the match, and enjoyed it. However, the BOD has been informed, by a well known shooter, that the Michigan match was a bad match for an IPSC qualifier.Very Interesting. Must be the "is the glass half full or half empty" thing I don't know about that Gary, John A. and Perry RM'd the match. Jeff Lafavre (certified TD) put it and a star team togehter. Larry Houck built 18 stages. It was staffed by RM's , CRO's, and RO's that populate the match staff at all of our biggest and best matches. Linda ran stats. They are a hop, skip and a swim from a true IPSC region (K-nardia). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Sweeney Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Put down the big-stick magazine, step back and take a deep breath. Sweeney's Axial Law of Laws: Clarity and fairness are antagonistic. That is, you can strive to make a law/process absolutely clear. In which case it is probably unfair. ("Witches float, innocents sink.") Or you can work to make a law/process absolutely fair. In which case it is probably so convoluted that it takes a college degree to figure it out. (7,000+ pages of tax law.) As for picking "the best" team in a competition, there is only one way: once you've held the competition, you take the best 3 or 4 shooters/runners/whatever, and you form a "team." That's who were the best that day, that match, that race. IPSC doesn't allow that process. So, we have to then fall back on one of the other less-certain methods. They all have strengths. They all have weaknesses. None of it is worth acrimony. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Stevens Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 (edited) Flex, just repeating what we have been told. Not saying I agree with it. I think this individuals problems were that it was overly hard, and the stages were not of normal IPSC type. If it makes any difference, this individual did not shoot the match. Gary Edited January 21, 2009 by Gary Stevens Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 On the subject of "no clubs volunteered to host IPSC qualifier matches," no one from the Board of Directors or USPSa HQ contacted me to see if any of the clubs in the Mid-Atlantic Section would be interested in hosting such a match...... Assuming that no one wants to host a match for an event that occurs only every third year, within a couple of months of the last World Shoot, without even asking the question doesn't strike me as the best possible plan for 2011. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Norman Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 IPSC doesn't allow that process. So, we have to then fall back on one of the other less-certain methods. They all have strengths. They all have weaknesses.None of it is worth acrimony. Patrick, Are you saying that IPSC does not allow us to choose our teams by holding a qualifier match? Or am I reading this completely wrong? Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Now for a reality check. There are realisticaly 5 to 10 shooters in each division capable of making a team. The idea that we need a process that is fair so all USPSA members have a shot at being on a team is crazy. I am not delusional enough to think I have a shot and I hope that is not the reason you think we need a objective method. This is a small sport, we all know who are qualified to be on a team. It seems like we are putting a lot of energy into something that in reality affects a very small part of our membership. I have no desire and therefore no shot at making a World Shoot team; that doesn't equate to the selection process having no effect on me or my membership in the organization. Before I go remember that we on the board are here because, well no one else wanted the job, but really because we care about this sport and organization. It is hard sometimes not to take stuff written here personally. As to the first part --- at least in 2007, all three Area Director Races were contested, as was the presidency. I know of multiple candidates running for at least one seat in 2009. As to the second part --- I know you care about the organization. We may not always agree, but I'm grateful for the work you do. Thank You! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 IPSC doesn't allow that process. So, we have to then fall back on one of the other less-certain methods. They all have strengths. They all have weaknesses.None of it is worth acrimony. Patrick, Are you saying that IPSC does not allow us to choose our teams by holding a qualifier match? Or am I reading this completely wrong? Jim Jim, no Patrick's saying that the best process is to name the teams after the scores of the World Shoot have been compiled --- as in the highest four finishes for each country determine the winner/order of finish. IPSC requires that a country declare four team members prior to the start of competition.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RIIID Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 When I hear the word "hired" and or "hired gun" I think the BOD is calling it a job. A job has compensation, this makes me think we/USPSA is going to pay more to field the WS teams. I'm probably wrong but that's what I think of and maybe some of the selected few might come to think that way to. Just how much more do we pay to win or are we just wanting to guarantee that we win everything by hand picking. The Nationals have been used to select WS teams in the past, our Nationals aren't IPSC approved matches they're USPSA approved. So why do the classifier matches have to be IPSC approved matches? Just use our Area matches as qualifiers. This last process of picking the WS teams worked and it was fair for everyone. This new process just doesn't sound fair from the start and it smells to. Rich Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Stevens Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 (edited) Part of the process of the qualifier matches was to do several things. Insure that the competitors equipment, gun, magazines, bullet weight, box compliant where necessary were in check with IPSC rules, which we know are different from USPSA rules. Get the competitors used to IROA Range Officers and commands and rules, which again are somewhat different from USPSA rules. Provide a system to select a team. I think, based on the results, we succeeded fairly well. Edited January 21, 2009 by Gary Stevens Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRNinTX Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Chuck your comment about the Michigan match is very interesting. I shot the match, and enjoyed it. However, the BOD has been informed, by a well known shooter, that the Michigan match was a bad match for an IPSC qualifier. I attended all three qualifier matches and the MI match was by far the best organized and run. It also had the best stages. Was it a hard match? Damn straight, but it was closer to the WS XIV match in Ecuador than WS XV in Bali. Flex, just repeating what we have been told. Not saying I agree with it. I think this individuals problems were that it was overly hard, and the stages were not of normal IPSC type. If it makes any difference, this individual did not shoot the match. I find this very interesting that first it is stated that the change was requested by the teams, yet no one that was on a team that has posted on this topic was asked anything. Secondly, the BOD is taking the input on a match of someone who did not attend that match. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RIIID Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Gary, Just think how much better the US would do at the WS if we shot IPSC rules all of the time. Rich Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Now Rich...this thread doesn't need to go there. (somebody get a rope) lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scirocco38s Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Gary,Just think how much better the US would do at the WS if we shot IPSC rules all of the time. Rich As far as the equipment rules, I would whole heartedly go for it. As far as course and match format, I hate it. The 3 short, 2 medium,1 long course format is not what I want to shoot. I dont mind shootiing short courses, but I like to shoot alot when I pay 100+dollars for a match. I like the targets, and the equipment is fine. I would even go for standard insstead of limited even with all the money I have in 140mm 40cal mags. So equipment and rules is ok, but the courses need to stay uspsa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Stevens Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Rich it is time for your medicine. Put down the keyboard. step away, and nobody will get hurt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts