Stages that involve random chance

[Phudd]

I have shot stages like this that were fun. I am, however very much against "memory" stages. It should be about shooting, not remembering what card is the noshoot this time.

[kgunz11]

But aren't memory stages a part of this sport? Every match I go to has at least one stage in it that is a memory stage. Some are really hard... did I shoot this one yet? Did I run passed that last target you could only see through that one crack? It's part of the game. Stand and shoots would get boring to me. I like walls, barricades, barrels, doors that activate targets, texas stars with spinning plates, swingers, disappearing targets... all of that stuff that folks come up with to challenge the shooter.

[uscbigdawg]

And we wonder why that French guy keeps winning the World's?

Good night. It's the easiest memory stage you'll ever shoot. Don't shoot (given color) or (given card suit). It's an excellent exercise in target acquisition and transitions.

Oh well...let's just go back to 50 yard standards....wait...people bitch about that too.

Rich

[JThompson]

You can't paint the scoring surface of shootable portions of an target.

4.1.2.1 The scoring area of scoring paper targets must be of a typical

cardboard color.

Well draw it on there then

There are ways around this. (for paper) You could do something like using the partial hardcover to signify which targets were for what color. The only thing I see where HC is concerned is that it must be a a solid color dif from that of shootable targets. So, If I was looking for a way to do this legally I might cover, say cover the D/C zone from the bottom up to the A zone and make that color red and then on the other targets the same only with the color yellow. Then you would have hardcover defining what targets you shoot according to what color you draw. And the way I read it, this would be legal.

There's a whole other issue here though... what penalties are given for shooting the wrong targets, or some of the wrong ones, but then you realize it and shoot all yours too. It becomes a mess rather quickly... I've seen it happen more than once.

On the whole though I do not like this type of stage.

Edited August 11, 2009 by JThompson

[Jaxshooter]

I don't see how you can make the star equitable for all shooters. If your no shoot is on top it makes it more difficult than if it was on the bottom.

[mike4045]

I don't really care if they are legal or not. I just don't like them. I have never seen one that was equal for all shooters.

[JThompson]

But aren't memory stages a part of this sport? Every match I go to has at least one stage in it that is a memory stage. Some are really hard... did I shoot this one yet? Did I run passed that last target you could only see through that one crack? It's part of the game. Stand and shoots would get boring to me. I like walls, barricades, barrels, doors that activate targets, texas stars with spinning plates, swingers, disappearing targets... all of that stuff that folks come up with to challenge the shooter.

NO. I hate memory stages. I think they all should burn in hell.

[uscbigdawg]

In case y'all haven't figured it out...every stage is a memory stage....especially in Revolver.

Rich

[Gwhiz]

I shot the stage that started this thread. The minimun foot work was the same no mater which card you picked. Two of the arrays target were edge to edge, transitions changed very little(if any). I'm not a fan of this type of memory course but the stage was fair to all.

[kgunz11]

I don't see how you can make the star equitable for all shooters. If your no shoot is on top it makes it more difficult than if it was on the bottom.

5 plates on the star, the top one everybody has to shoot.

[Singlestack]

There's a way to set that up that maintains equity --- but it requires reverting to old school principles of shooting arrays from boxes on the ground. If one wanted to do this at a level 1 match, in order to maintain competitive equity:

Four arrays of four targets in front of four boxes. All targets would need to be the same height. All arrays would need to be equidistant directly in front of (centered on) their respective shoot boxes. Targets in the four arrays would need to be arranged from left to right in the following order: 1 2 3 4; 2 3 4 1; 3 4 1 2 ; 4 1 2 3, where 1,2,3, and 4 represent colors or suits of cards. This ensures that irrespective of which number (color, card) one draws for the no-shoot, transitions will be equivalent, i.e. each shooter will engage one array of each set-up at an identical distance.

The start position would need to be in a fifth location, ideally requiring the same amount of movement to enter the first box that would be required to enter each subsequent box...

This is the way it was set up when I shot it except the targets were behind sideways sheets of plywood. You had to run up and look over the wall to see them.

I guess that would be "unfair" to short folks though.

[Singlestack]

I don't see how you can make the star equitable for all shooters. If your no shoot is on top it makes it more difficult than if it was on the bottom.

5 plates on the star, the top one everybody has to shoot.

The star reacts differently to every plate. I can see where this one could be not equitable.

[kimel]

Don't forget that there are lots of colorblind people out there so a color discrimination stage really screws them up.

[JThompson]

Don't forget that there are lots of colorblind people out there so a color discrimination stage really screws them up.

Then use blue-yellow as almost all color blind people can discern the dif in those two colors. I think it's like .01 of 1% that can't.

[ima45dv8]

Don't forget that there are lots of colorblind people out there so a color discrimination stage really screws them up.

Then use blue-yellow as almost all color blind people can discern the dif in those two colors. I think it's like .01 of 1% that can't.

Then don't do it.

I mean, really, if it saves only one child....

[Flexmoney]

I save a good half-second+ if I get to shoot the targets that I indicated in the first two arrays:

[kgunz11]

But wouldn't you lose it in the back 2 arrays? Nik has it right on how the targets have to be divided, and besides, you don't know what your suit is until after the beep when you draw the card from a deck on the table.

This is like beating a dead horse. My view of it was from the fun factor. Yes, it has to be a legal stage for it to even be considered, but arguing the inequitable/equitable sides is not going to get us anywhere. Flex, I thought you of all people could come up with a way to make it work, if for nothing other than the challenge of figuring it out. If you really want to get down to it, most stages offer their own disadvantages to someone based on body size, physical ability, eye sight, blah blah blah... Are 25 yard plates equitable to the guy with poor eyesight? You get the point, and so do I, so I'm bowing down. As someone who has been in the role of coming up with CoF that give people their moneys worth, I like challenges such as this where the competitor has to use their brain as well as their trigger finger. It makes for an exciting match when you can do more than challenge a competitors shooting ability alone. I know some great bulls eye shooters (world class) that would have a hard time beating a D class USPSA shooter. It's more than shooting, and that's what I love about USPSA.

[Flexmoney]

But wouldn't you lose it in the back 2 arrays?

You might. I wouldn't.

Seriously. It is different. It makes a difference.

My view of it was from the fun factor.

I already addressed that. Sure it's fun. Don't means it equitable. I have fun shooting G18 mags with +6 basepad added onto them...ain't legal (in USPSA). Ya follow?

[Flexmoney]

Flex, I thought you of all people could come up with a way to make it work, if for nothing other than the challenge of figuring it out.

I've seen stages like this since before you found USPSA. You aren't coming up with anything new here.

It doesn't work because it doesn't work. People aren't shooting the same targets...so they aren't shooting the same stage.

[kgunz11]

Are you saying it's not legal on the equality factor?

Please go back and read what Nik said about the order of the targets, I don't want to have to draw suits on my perfectly crafted targets in my drawing.

Array 1 = diamond - club - spade - heart

Array 2 = club - spade - heart - diamond

Array 3 = spade - heart - diamond - club

Array 4 = heart - diamond - club - spade

You'll have a different sort of transitions on every array. What you shoot on the 1st array someone else might shoot on the 3rd, what you shoot on the 2nd array they might shoot on the 1st. Everyone would have to shoot the same thing, it might just be in a different spot. We use fault lines and barricades to make the distances equal. Of course, you'd have to take out the texas star, but maybe it could be replaced with 4 US poppers. It's going to provide the exact same shooting challenge to everyone that shoots it. If you can't see that, then I'm doing a poor job of laying it out there for you, which is pretty typical of me.

[kgunz11]

Actually, I didn't come up with anything at all. It wasn't my idea in any fashion. If it's not legal then it's not legal. I'm not trying to argue (even though it seems like I am), just trying to convey my case for the potential of it being equitable to all shooters, but I'm done with it, I need to be tuning mags anyway.

[JThompson]

Don't forget that there are lots of colorblind people out there so a color discrimination stage really screws them up.

Then use blue-yellow as almost all color blind people can discern the dif in those two colors. I think it's like .01 of 1% that can't.

Then don't do it.

I mean, really, if it saves only one child....

[Flexmoney]

Are you saying it's not legal on the equality factor?

That is exactly what I am saying. No bones about it.

Just take the first array on the right. As long as I don't have to shoot that left target, which is closest to the wall, I can release from that array sooner and be a step or two on down the range. If you have to shoot it, you are stuck there...and I am already ahead of you. On your stage, I can probably shoot the rest without stopping...so you won't gain that time back...you lost it. Even so...

Take a simple plate rack (as represented by the two examples below...with 3 shoot targets and a non-shoot):

_____O_____O_____O_____X_____

vs.

_____O_____X_____O_____O_____

the second one is different in at least 3 ways (just off the top of my head).

- The total swing the gun has to go through to get to all the shoot targets on the bottom rack is greater.

- The top rack gives nice and even transitions. The bottom rack has a transition that is twice as wide, follow by one a short one.

- The bottom rack requires more twist away from your centerline (assuming you line up your NPA on the left target to draw on).

I know which one I'd rather shoot, and which one I'd want my competition to have to shoot!

[kgunz11]

Are you saying it's not legal on the equality factor?

That is exactly what I am saying. No bones about it.

Just take the first array on the right. As long as I don't have to shoot that left target, which is closest to the wall, I can release from that array sooner and be a step or two on down the range. If you have to shoot it, you are stuck there...and I am already ahead of you.

Take a simple plate rack (as represented by the two examples below...with 3 shoot targets and a non-shoot):

_____O_____O_____O_____X_____

vs.

_____O_____X_____O_____O_____

the second one is different in at least 3 ways (just off the top of my head).

- The total swing the gun has to go through to get to all the shoot targets on the bottom rack is greater.

- The top rack gives nice and even transitions. The bottom rack has a transition that is twice as wide, follow by one a short one.

- The bottom rack requires more twist away from your centerline (assuming you line up your NPA on the left target to draw on).

I know which one I'd rather shoot, and which one I'd want my competition to have to shoot!

Now do that again with 4 plate racks, with the "no-shoot" plate in a different spot each time.

_____A_____B_____C_____D_____

_____B_____C_____D_____A_____

_____C_____D_____A_____B_____

_____D_____A_____B_____C_____

Four plate racks, shoot all four. The next guy comes along and shoots all 4. You both have the same difficulties if you don't shoot "A" and he doesn't shoot "C" right?

The sequence is the same no matter what "no shoot" letter you draw over the 4 plate racks. It's 3 in a row, 3 in a row, shoot 1 skip 1 shoot 2, or shoot 2 skip 1 shoot 1. Everybody would have to shoot the exact same combination at one point or another. But oh well, I give up. If it ain't legal it ain't legal, but it's not because it isn't equitable.

In this example, tell me which color isn't equitable, considering no one is color blind of course.

[Nik Habicht]

Flex,

you're right: This can't be done equitably while retaining freestyle (and vision barriers.)

It could be done with four shoot boxes on the ground at a level 1 match taking the match exemption. (Shoot this array from box 1 only, this array from box 2 only, etc.) It would involve almost as much measuring as setting a classifier.

Bobby,

nothing new here. When I first started shooting USPSA in 2001, we'd shoot one of these three or four times a year at one of the local clubs. We stopped when we had a leadership change at that club in 2003....

Not shooting them is a better idea, if a club has the manpower and props to throw up vision barriers instead of boxes on the ground for every stage they build....