Match Finishes

[Jane]

In summary:

Proposing solutions to issues is a good thing. The bump numbers are completely arbitrary. They could be 5, 10, 15 or 3, 7 and 11 if you like prime numbers. They could be the same for one classification and different for the classification above. It is an arbitrary number, easy to argue with.

But criticising IDPA and its HQ is the only enjoyment some seem to get from the sport. Even the many parts of the rulebook that are crystal clear, some have found a way to ignore or modify for their own purposes.

HQ has said they are working on a new rulebook. They have said they have a quote "Big Book" of clarifications to work on. If it was me, more flogging would not be motivational....

Rest assured that when the new rulebook comes out, HQ will be rewarded with very few thank you, and more flogging.... I truly do not understand some of the participants of the sport. Most yes, some, not at all.

kr

Ken,

I'm criticizing a formula that seems illogical to me.

I'm proposing a solution - that the multiplier not be such that it requires you to beat a higher number of shooters if they're classified above you.

For that matter, I've set up a separate forum where people can propose rule changes.

My intention is to be constructive... not to trash IDPA.

[Bones]

You're a married man, Bones.

Certainly by now you've learned the phrase, "You're right, Dear"

I have.

I hear it all the time.

However you've calculated it, I think your software is the best thing since Curt Nichols.

Craig

[sigfla]

Let me chime in along with you Jane. I was also trying to be constructive in order to help myself and others interpret the rule. If it was perceived any other way I apologize. I do however appreciate the ability have a discussion with people who are more familiar with the implementation of the rule than I am. I feel certain IDPA is making its best efforts to evolve the rule book as it grows each year. In order to do that people must be able to discuss issues critically and any sport must be willing to accept those observations. I will reserve further comment to Janes forum site.

[freeidaho]

Ken,

I'm criticizing a formula that seems illogical to me.

I'm proposing a solution - that the multiplier not be such that it requires you to beat a higher number of shooters if they're classified above you.

For that matter, I've set up a separate forum where people can propose rule changes.

My intention is to be constructive... not to trash IDPA.

Jane,

Did not mean to offend as I know your heart is true. Sometimes I paint with too wide a brush, but was summarizing the whole thread, not your posts alone. My apology to you.

The formula may be illogical, and it is arbitrary, and may not have been put into place by someone as skilled at numbers as you. The truth is that the second part of the rule has gone a long ways toward promoting the right people, and IDPA is much better off with the rule in place, no matter how illogical the math. I wrote comments to HQ about this rule too, back in Jan of 2005. It would be nice if it were easier to program, but still, it is a great addition that we didn't have in December of 2004.

I am hopeful that the new rulebook will be much better. I know that lots of hard work is going into it.

kr

PS: just reread this whole thread, and my post is unfounded. Sorry, I got the posts from another forum mixed up with this one, and didn't read the whole thread here again before posting, thinking I knew what had gone on here in the last few days. So never mind. This thread has been very constructive. Thanks!

I still think the new rulebook will be better. Perfect no, but better.

Edited April 29, 2009 by freeidaho

[Jim Watson]

Arithmetic aside, we need to be sure to promote the shooters who earn it.

If I were MD, I would not hand a class winner his trophy until he handed me his card. Last sanctioned match I attended, I saw ONE voluntarily do so and none the time before. And put the shooter's name on his card.

[sigfla]

I agree but the card is hard to keep up with sometimes. If we had hard plastic credit cards or a bar code on our membership cards that might be easier. In any case once the scores are uploaded to IDPA the web site, national would have your most current class. Most sanctioned matches I have attended require the card to attend but since IDPA national has your current class they should be the final say on what you are or are not and clubs have access to that info.

Otherwise anyone could sign a card anyway they wanted.

Edited April 29, 2009 by sigfla

[Jane]

You're a married man, Bones.

Certainly by now you've learned the phrase, "You're right, Dear"

I have.

I hear it all the time.

Craig

I'm printing this for Kim

[lugnut]

Dave, wouldn't making MA more exclusive with the existing data accomplish the same thing as creating a "Grand Master" at no additional cost?

"Master" is a superlative term. As such, elevating modifiers are intuitively dissatisfying. What's next - "Supra-Ultra-Grand Master"? Rationalizing the lesser Classifications is more logical, and simpler in my mind.

Requiring both a Classifier score and match win for MA Classification would also increase the EX ranks and, likely, match attendance, making the competitive field bigger in that Classification in all Divisions - that's good, isn't it?

Craig

I mostly agree with you. My main point is there is a HUGE different between running a classifier for SSP in 60 secs as compared to running one in 90secs. I think it needs to be "tighter" in the Master division. I'm not so sure just by making someone have a match win as well would "thin this out" by itself. Also- I still think by making a match win as an additional requirement for achieving Master status- would be too restrictive. Some people just can't travel to a match or would be stuck in expert land for years- while truly being a "Master" level shooter.

At the end of the day... the best way to measure yourself... is to consistently beat your competition!!

Edited April 29, 2009 by lugnut

[Glock3422]

You're a married man, Bones.

Certainly by now you've learned the phrase, "You're right, Dear"

I have.

I hear it all the time.

However you've calculated it, I think your software is the best thing since Curt Nichols.

Craig

Damned by faint praise.