USPSA Category Awards

[FranDoc]

Ours is one of the few sports where men and women of all ages compete head-to-head, and are judged against a single standard (the classifier percentile system).

"Speed and accuracy" favor strength, agility, visual acuity. These have been extensively discussed elsewhere; re-argument in this thread is not appropriate.

Individual achievement is a result of many factors (also extensively discussed previously). Physiologic age and gender are among those factors. Age and gender are not chosen on a whim prior to the match. Public service (including national defense) careers deserve respect.

The survey question asks about acknowledging accomplishment (in Level II-III matches - implied, since awards are not generally given in Level I/club matches) when fewer than 5 shooters per special category, per Division, are present.

It is not "tokenism" to acknowledge, and the accomplishment is not trivialized, if four (or two, or three) competitors are present in that category, rather than the currently-stated minimum of five (5). ALL shooters -regardless of demographic - have traveled, paid the match fee, and put their best game against the match challenges.

The survey asks a main question -- changing the minimum number of participants before achievement is formally recognized. If you're the best that day among all the juniors/seniors/ladies/LE/Mil in your division who brought their game, should there be tangible recognition (if there are fewer than 5 others like you there)?

The first post in this thread invited everyone to submit his/her thoughts on that matter via the survey.

If you make it to page 2 - also see Julie's text above - there is another question about types of recognition.

There is also space on the survey for free-form comments.

[BritinUSA]

Why there isn't a USPSA flier or banner blatantly posted at every gunstore I visit... I don't know...

I thought that USPSA came out with some flyers some time ago. I thought that they could be ordered online so members could give them to their local gun-stores. Either I imagined it or its hidden somewhere on the USPSA web-site... I couldn't find them on the site.

[Flexmoney]

...even if only one entrant meets the category requirements.

Only one?

[Chills1994]

slight thread drift ahead... slash... how to write a survey/ how to survey people lesson mode on...

I would fill out the survey IF and only IF there were not any identifying information requested.

In completely anonymous surveys, there still exists a (psychological) phenomenon called "social desirability". For example, in a completly non-identifying survey on sexual experiences/behavior of let's say, high school teens, the high school girls will downgrade their experience/past behavior because it is socially desirable to be seen as not a slut. On the other hand, high school boys will embellish their past experiences because it is considered socially desirable... to be manly to have had many sexual experiences.

Now, this is a wrench in the works of professional survey taking.

Okay?! Now just imagine if the survey asked for personal identifying info... the survey would either be turned in blank... or the survey results would make you think everyone was a nun or a monk.

[JThompson]

slight thread drift ahead... slash... how to write a survey/ how to survey people lesson mode on...

I would fill out the survey IF and only IF there were not any identifying information requested.

In completely anonymous surveys, there still exists a (psychological) phenomenon called "social desirability". For example, in a completly non-identifying survey on sexual experiences/behavior of let's say, high school teens, the high school girls will downgrade their experience/past behavior because it is socially desirable to be seen as not a slut. On the other hand, high school boys will embellish their past experiences because it is considered socially desirable... to be manly to have had many sexual experiences.

Now, this is a wrench in the works of professional survey taking.

Okay?! Now just imagine if the survey asked for personal identifying info... the survey would either be turned in blank... or the survey results would make you think everyone was a nun or a monk.

Obviously those subjects have not undergone the "Kolinahr."

[Ben Stoeger]

Are we in different camps? I'm in the "What's good for USPSA camp," or at least that's what motivates me to do the work I do.....

Are we in different camps? I'd like this sport to hang around for a while, and ideally to grow. Putting on matches for 20 people is fine, but putting on matches for 60-100 people on a monthly basis is a lot more fun....

I'm actually surprised at this particular reaction from you. Did you stop at GM? We don't know each other but my impression is that you're still trying to accomplish more by improving, by winning matches, etc. Why shouldn't we apply that approach to excellence to increasing the number of USPSA members?

Nik and Julie,

I think something has been lost in the translation to online. I think that I have somewhat ineffectively communicated my position on this issue.

I am not interested in having a point by point, tit for tat rebuttal of both your posts. What I can do is further elaborate and clarify my views.

At this point I would like to draw a clear distinction between USPSA shooters, and the organization itself.

First I will discuss the membership:

I of course want more people to shoot USPSA. I agree, more people is better. I am always nagging my shooter buddies to come. I lend gear, load ammo, and sing the praises of the sport I love. That is the norm among the USPSA shooters I know. We are a passionate bunch. That is how we roll.

USPSA shooters as a group want everyone to come out and play. To be perfectly honest, I observe a certain excitement over two groups of shooters. Women and to a somewhat lesser extent juniors are very highly regarded in this sport. As a rule I see people offer special encouragement and help to these two groups (Especially women).

Now, we are all about inclusiveness in USPSA. We will let anyone come out and shoot with us. We will let blacks, homosexuals, and even democrats come out and shoot. We are cool with that. We are an open bunch. However, I see USPSA guys falling over themselves to help women and juniors. Like I said, we are a helpful bunch.

USPSA as an organization has used the tools at its disposal to try and reach out. We recognize many categories of shooters. We have a junior program. We put top lady shooters on the cover of Front Sight. The message is clear, you are welcome to shoot with us.

I don’t object to ANY of that, that’s cool with me.

However, the idea that it is incumbent upon USPSA as an organization to do more to get women and juniors to come shoot is strange. How is it our duty? What exactly do you want them to do? Are we to give an award to the only woman in a division, simply because of her gender? That seems to be a very pedestrian accomplishment. Sure, it might make her come back. It might give her some measure of motivation. But, how is it incumbent upon USPSA to do that? To me, that sort of activity crosses the line from marketing into patronizing.

Julie got it right when she said that marketing comes down the membership. Think about your home club for a second. Think about how an all volunteer effort pulls together your monthly match. Think about how helpful your shooters are with the newbies, no matter their gender or age. You can’t sit there and tell me that as a group we are somehow at fault for the demographics of our shooters.

Now, there is the idea that we can and should always do more. Yes, I agree that we should do more. We should put on better matches, with more diverse stages and challenges. We should ensure that are matches are as safe and fun and fair as possible. USPSA has more shooters than it had 10 years ago, and in another 10 years we will have even more. We are moving in the right direction. I don’t think that we need to single out any particular group for any more special attention.

[HuskySig]

I'm all for growing our game by trying to appeal to all demographics.

What I don't agree with is the apparent favoritism of one special category over all the rest. At Nationals last year I didn't see stage medals handed out to High Junior, High LEO, High Military, High Senior, or High Super Senior. Why is that? Why do the vast majority of authors in Front Sight fall over themselves to recognize High Lady, but none of the other categories?

An example would be the GM Tips article in the November/December 2009 issue of Front Sight. If we're going to read about how much ammo Julie and Jessie brought to Steel Challenge, why can't we read about how much ammo some juniors brought as well? Fair is fair, right? Especially if we're going to be reading the advice of non-GM shooters.

[99gski]

Ben

I understand your argument (not that I agree with it but can see where you are coming from through your personal experiences). The whole point of the survey was to test the waters on the subject. If the results state things should stay the same, I hope you know I respect that and they would still be reported to USPSA. I can say a this point of the 71 people who have completed the survey, 70% feel that the rules should change.

HuskySig

I think one of the main reasons women are "celebrated" is because they can represent all the other special categories as well as being 50% of the population. I hope you will note that the survey covers all the special categories, not just women.

Chills1994

I understand your points. We just don't have the capability to verify the survey otherwise. Surveys aren't completely anonymous, whether they capture you IP info or are sent as a personal link pertaining your account (example, please rate your recent hotel stay by clicking on this link). I understand that may keep some from completing the survey, but we will also include that in the results. Bottom line, we respect your privacy and wishes. I wish there was another way, but we felt it was more important to get an accurate result vs. the "American Idol" way of voting where you can enter as many times as you like.

Thanks!

Julie

[BritinUSA]

Why do the vast majority of authors in Front Sight fall over themselves to recognize High Lady, but none of the other categories?

An example would be the GM Tips article in the November/December 2009 issue of Front Sight. If we're going to read about how much ammo Julie and Jessie brought to Steel Challenge, why can't we read about how much ammo some juniors brought as well?

In previous years the coverage of Women in Front Sight has been patchy at best. There are regular articles about Juniors but none of the other categories. Many of the articles are submitted by members and if those members wish to cover the other categories then I am sure that the editors at Front Sight will give them due consideration.

Especially if we're going to be reading the advice of non-GM shooters.

I enjoy reading all the articles, just because someone is not a GM does not mean that the learning/training/match experiences are not relevant. I have been shooting IPSC for over 20 years and I'm ready and willing to learn from anyone. I learnt a huge amount from following the Women's squads during the last US Nationals, their stage preparation and execution was in many cases far better than mine.

[HuskySig]

When you understand these things, perhaps you will see the value how marketing to women and awarding them for their success keeps them engaged, interested, bringing their friends along, being open to having their children participate, being pro-gun, etc.

Are you saying that the only thing that captures women's interests is rewarding them no matter how insignificant it may be?

Matt Kundrat

TY56195

[BritinUSA]

Are you saying that the only thing that captures women's interests is rewarding them no matter how insignificant it may be?

In my best Chandler Bing impersonation; "Could you be any more condescending?"

[Chills1994]

well, Julie, there aren't going to be many RO's/scorekeepers at Nat's who can track down my IP address to my real name for when I am up to run a stage or my scoresheet (or Palm scoring)... if it just so happens that there is a female RO or scorekeeper on a stage I am about to attempt.

Should I be thinking "Oh, oh! I might have wrote something in that Women of USPSA survey that ticked off that female RO, and now is her chance at retribution?"

It's not the first time I have butted heads with people over the internet who a few weeks later tried to catch up with me at a match in the RO/SO/MD role. I had one guy relieve the RO/SO on that stage just so he could RO/SO me in a deliberate attempt to screw with my mental game.

Yeah, seriously.

Anywhoo... I suppose if one wanted to get just the USPSA'ers, you all could put up a USPSA target with a few bullet holes on it, and then ask "How is this target scored?"

A. Two alpha!

B. One alpha, one bravo

C. Two Bravo

D. One alpha, one charlie .

If the would be survey taker gets the correct answer, then he/she continues on to the rest of the survey.

[Chills1994]

as far as the person who takes the survey over and over again, I think that is an issue with cookies. The website/survey software could be set up to respond with "You have already taken the survey." Now, granted there is a work-around to that, by deleting the cookies or browser history... but are people really going to go to that kind of trouble... for an internet survey?

Edited November 30, 2009 by Chills1994

[HuskySig]

Are you saying that the only thing that captures women's interests is rewarding them no matter how insignificant it may be?

In my best Chandler Bing impersonation; "Could you be any more condescending?"

I don't know who Chandler Bing is, but apparently all we need are goodie bags at every match to attract more women participants.

[Chills1994]

I think if we just advertised in general we will get more people in "to grow the sport" / "swell the ranks" . The law of averages just says we will get more women.

I guess somebody at Sedro could run the numbers and figure out on average something like "there 11.5 men for each woman USPSA member".

I was in Victoria's Secret the other day with the girlfriend... maybe I should have dropped some "I shoot USPSA!" bumper stickers in amongst the bras and panties.

(trying to inject some levity to this thread)

Okay, seriously, what percentage of male USPSA'ers vs. the percentage of female USPSA'ers go on to shoot higher than local club matches?

And another serious question... does a woman who gets the "High Lady" trophy also get a seperate trip to the prize table?

Edited November 30, 2009 by Chills1994

[Chills1994]

Does anybody look at match entry form and go: "They are not recognizing military/LE/junior/super senior/lady at that match. I am NOT going!! HUHHH!!" <stomps feet> ??

[99gski]

well, Julie, there aren't going to be many RO's/scorekeepers at Nat's who can track down my IP address to my real name for when I am up to run a stage or my scoresheet (or Palm scoring)... if it just so happens that there is a female RO or scorekeeper on a stage I am about to attempt.

Should I be thinking "Oh, oh! I might have wrote something in that Women of USPSA survey that ticked off that female RO, and now is her chance at retribution?"

It's not the first time I have butted heads with people over the internet who a few weeks later tried to catch up with me at a match in the RO/SO/MD role. I had one guy relieve the RO/SO on that stage just so he could RO/SO me in a deliberate attempt to screw with my mental game.

Yeah, seriously.

Anywhoo... I suppose if one wanted to get just the USPSA'ers, you all could put up a USPSA target with a few bullet holes on it, and then ask "How is this target scored?"

A. Two alpha!

B. One alpha, one bravo

C. Two Bravo

D. One alpha, one charlie .

If the would be survey taker gets the correct answer, then he/she continues on to the rest of the survey.

For what its worth you have my personal promise that none of the personal info will be shared. That said though I completely respect your decision not to complete the survey. For future surveys, your suggestion is an excellent one! The current program we have doesn't allow for photos to be uploaded into the questions, but I am sure we can come up something that would work as well.

Thanks again for the feedback.

All the best,

Julie

[99gski]

1. Okay, seriously, what percentage of male USPSA'ers vs. the percentage of female USPSA'ers go on to shoot higher than local club matches?

2. And another serious question... does a woman who gets the "High Lady" trophy also get a seperate trip to the prize table?

1. That would be a USPSA question, but I don't believe their database is set up to distinguish that in an easy way.

2. To my knowledge the only time High Lady gets more than one "prize" is at Steel Challenge where you have specific sponsored categories. I bring it up since USPSA runs Steel Challenge now. In all my experience, other than Nationals where High Lady goes to the prize table after the Top 16, High Lady is a trophy and doesn't warrant an extra trip to the table. She goes in the order of how it is determined by the match based on her class/finish.

Julie

[99gski]

When you understand these things, perhaps you will see the value how marketing to women and awarding them for their success keeps them engaged, interested, bringing their friends along, being open to having their children participate, being pro-gun, etc.

Are you saying that the only thing that captures women's interests is rewarding them no matter how insignificant it may be?

Matt Kundrat

TY56195

Hi Matt,

Not at all. I think you missed the part "how marketing to women" specifically is valued. I apologize if I wasn't clear. In any case, I am going to decline responding to further arguments of the points as I sense a bit of personal resentment developing which was certainly not the intention of the survey. Feel free to express any feelings you might have regarding your views of excessive female coverage in the survey - or not.

All the best,

Julie

[Chills1994]

Thanks Julie for answering my questions.

Maybe I just haven't been paying enough attention to Front Sight magazine, but has there been some big meeting of the minds, say like the AD's got together (the BOD?) and said "We need to get more women into USPSA. We are unveilling our new program... Ideally, for the long term, our goal is to ________ by getting more women into USPSA. "

Me? Just sitting here, I am thinking that maybe somebody at USPSA HQ thinks that possibly by getting women out there, then the children will follow suit. And we'll get the kids hooked early and they'll be USPSA'ers for 20, 30 plus years to come. Plus, they will pro 2nd amendment voters.

Well, that's what I am thinking that they are thinking... I think...

[Chills1994]

Of course, getting real bathrooms with real running water would be a big boost to getting the women folk out to the range too.

Just sayin...

[LPatterson]

Me? Just sitting here, I am thinking that maybe somebody at USPSA HQ thinks that possibly by getting women out there, then the children will follow suit. And we'll get the kids hooked early and they'll be USPSA'ers for 20, 30 plus years to come. Plus, they will pro 2nd amendment voters.

Well, that's what I am thinking that they are thinking... I think...

Where did you get the idea that someone in USPSA HQ had anything to do with the survey? Give this some thought, for someone that is married (just a guess on my part), would you go to as many matches as you do if you did not have tacit approval of your significant other. Get your lady upset with you and life can become pure He[[ but give her a box of candy or some flowers and things sometimes get better. If the significant others go out to shoot it becomes easier to get the kids involved because there are times that a sitter can not be found so they have go along. What are the chances that there will be someone like Max Michael Jr or Julie or Jessie or Randi if their parents had not gotten them involved.

I started this sport at age 59, long after my kids were gone from my influence but in the last 10 years I have seen an increase in the number of wives (significant others) who show up to watch a match. Maybe it is the running water and inside toilets but I would like to think there are other influences.

[Carmoney]

I am not interested in having a point by point, tit for tat rebuttal of both your posts.

Put me down on the "tat" side with Ben.

[Alfie]

thread drift but my point does involve new participation.....

Last weekend I convinced my wife to bring my son and stop by the range while I was shooting a local match. Years ago (before my son) I had convinced her to shoot some bullseye leagues with me and she liked it (and was awarded high lady). So I thought it would be cool if she took up USPSA style shooting and we could spend more time together, etc, etc. Now my son is young and still too young to shoot but he knows a lot about what I do from me reading shooting magazines to him and showing him the pictures. He's got his own set of eyes and ears and wears them around the house daily as he shoots stuff with his water gun. So at the match I was approached by another VERY OUTSPOKEN shooter who told me that the range was no place for my son....I ignored the shooter's comments. I told my wife about it later that night and she commented about how uncomfortable she'll feel in the future if she ever does come to another match. AWESOME!!! Then to add insult to injury I get an email from the MD who tells me that children under 12 are not welcome at the range for liability reasons. WTF????? I did some research and wasn't able to find any such rule, I contacted the MD and appologized for not following the rules and I told him I wouldn't let it happen again. It turns out that he was approached by other shooters (I think I know who) who told him he should say somethign to me about it. I think we're still waiting on an official word from the club as to what the minimum age requirement is for kids. What a heartbreaker it will be to find out I can't bring my little guy back until he's 12.

I guess I'm not sure how my experience ties in with the survey but I thought that some people should know that there are shooters who are outspoken enough to scare others away from the sport. Sorry about the drift.....

For the record the MD has expressed his apologies to me and does not necessarily agree with the opinion of other shooters.

[Carmoney]

I'm a big proponent of introducing juniors to the sport, and as many of you know I have coached my son Sam through his own junior years. On the other hand (and this is not directed specifically at Alfie), nobody wants to be around a spoiled whiney little brat who doesn't know how to act in public. Unfortunately, there are plenty of those kids out there--and sadly they show up at the shooting range, both as spectators and participants, from time to time.