Correct, totally agree. But when the down Zero is available hitting down 1 is unacceptable just to cut an extra quarter second off your split.Originally Posted by caleb
Correct, totally agree. But when the down Zero is available hitting down 1 is unacceptable just to cut an extra quarter second off your split.
Scott
Only Hits Count - The Faster the Hit the more it Counts!!!!!!; DELIVER THE SHOT!
Stephen Hillier - "An amateur practices until he can do it right, a professional practices until he can't do it wrong."
Unacceptable to you...
Think for yourself. Question authority.
Why is that always the case? I mean even if we say "let's pretend it isn't a game, and is some kind of tacticlol training situation"...
If someone was shooting at me at 4jhps/second and I figured I could put one perfectly in his aorta two bullets from now, or right through his lung one bullet from now...should I always wait the extra bullet and get the 0?
There's not much in life that isn't a balance of something and something else. Even when you're doing that thing for realz on tha streetz.
This is a thread where I built a boat I designed and which I very occasionally update with accounts of using it, which is really fun as long as I'm not driving over logs and blowing up the outboard.
https://pistol-forum.com/showthread....ilding-a-skiff
I'm fine with that.
Scott
Only Hits Count - The Faster the Hit the more it Counts!!!!!!; DELIVER THE SHOT!
Stephen Hillier - "An amateur practices until he can do it right, a professional practices until he can't do it wrong."
"The rules of the game are set up in a way that penalizes how I want to shoot, the rules should be changed!"
A couple of notes, and I want to keep this relevant to self-defense here for a moment. If someone is actually trying to kill me, and my choice is to shoot them "somewhere in the chest" in 1 second or shoot them directly in the heart in 1.5 seconds, I'm going to take the 1 second chest shot.
Now to get back to the competition arena, there are times when it makes sense to take a faster -1 shot vs. a slower -0. Although to be fair in IDPA, that's almost never. Dropping points in IDPA is terrible for your match scores, because it's hard to make that time back up once it's gone. Going "hero mode" at IDPA matches usually results in disaster because the penalties follow you around. But now we're just spinning our wheels, because everyone knows that the way to win is to be the fastest and most accurate.
OTOH it is a lot easier for the slow accurate guys to speed up, than it is for the fast inaccurate guys to get more accurate.
Also IMO it depends on the match. At local matches you see more stages that favor the faster shooters as there are often time, and range considerations. While at more major matches you see more technical stages with harder shots. Those major matches have more time to setup, often have extra crew to help reset for longer stages, and they understand that the shooter attending their match is typically going to be more forgiving of stages beyond their capabilities than at a local match (though a good stage designer will design the stage so competitors will less skills have a slower alternate way to shoot the stage for people of lower skill levels).
I used to believe that, but after conversations with more than a couple of top GMs, I don't. Their thought process is that they'd rather have someone who understands the value of speed and how to apply it, because teaching accuracy is relatively simple by comparison to teaching speed and its appropriate use.
Hell, I'm a crazy accurate shooter, and I still struggle with proper applications of speed. I often don't have a gear between "slow and accurate" and "fast and derp."
In all fairness Caleb, I think you'll find this is one of the few times I've said anything about changing the rules. I play the game as it's written or I take the penalties given in the game to do something different. But I do think in a game that the masses seem to feel replicates training for the street; accuracy needs to came to the fore at all levels, not just high Expert or Master level.
Ok keeping it relevant to self defense I'll share my view in regards to those two choices. If I shoot my antagonist somewhere in the chest in most cases it will take him seconds longer to cease his aggressive behavior from a physiological stand point vs. a heart shot. All the while sending those .25 second splits my way. So what did I gain with that .5 second quicker shot? To be clear we know that a center punch to the heart is not a lights out hit, but it will turn his lights off much quicker than a shot somewhere else in the chest. I will take a shot somewhere in the chest rather than a miss or no shot at all, but I am not convinced that taking a less effective hit just to cut .5 seconds off the clock is the way to stop the fight and end the flight of bullets coming my way faster. It just allows him to stay in the fight that much longer.
Last edited by rsa-otc; 04-09-2014 at 04:09 PM.
Scott
Only Hits Count - The Faster the Hit the more it Counts!!!!!!; DELIVER THE SHOT!
Stephen Hillier - "An amateur practices until he can do it right, a professional practices until he can't do it wrong."
I get that. You miss my point, as do those arguing the fast "C" is better than a slow "A" angle (which I completely agree with).
I wasn't "glacially slow". And this guy had two complete misses.
.
Yeah, but in that extra 0.5 second, I can shoot him twice more in the chest. So the real choice is "shoot him once directly in the heart" in 1.5 seconds, or shoot him three times "somewhere in the chest" in 1.5 seconds.
Reply With Quote