PDA

View Full Version : New IDPA Rules Clarifications are out!



cclaxton
12-03-2013, 12:17 PM
http://www.idpa.com/misc/RC/IDPARulesClarification-v2013-12-02.pdf

AtomicToaster
12-03-2013, 12:26 PM
Rule 6.13 takes care of the "Humanoid-shaped vision barriers" issue from the Nationals that Caleb (iirc) brought to our attention a few months ago.

BCL
12-03-2013, 12:55 PM
I think it's funny that the Lone Wolf 21T slide is not allowed due to the cutout in the top of the slide. The 21T slide is the same length as the legal G34/G35 slide....

I don't shoot IDPA, but from an outsiders perspective it seems like the California of the shooting sports.

jetfire
12-03-2013, 01:06 PM
Rule 6.13 takes care of the "Humanoid-shaped vision barriers" issue from the Nationals that Caleb (iirc) brought to our attention a few months ago.

The stink that those things caused was pretty epic.

PPGMD
12-03-2013, 02:30 PM
The stink that those things caused was pretty epic.

It wouldn't have been an issue if they didn't regulate the no shoot to target ratio. If those "vision barriers" were actually no shoots that would've been one of the most accurate IDPA stages ever. Possibly the most accurate practical shooting stage ever. Well other than a stage that involves screaming like a little gir... I mean doing a manly war scream while emptying a J-frame into an attacker.

Beyond that it is mostly nit picky stuff that comes from the strict equipment rules that the IDPA has.

jetfire
12-03-2013, 02:43 PM
I just noticed that the official IDPA rulebook now acknowledges kilts as a garment.

cclaxton
12-03-2013, 02:53 PM
I just noticed that the official IDPA rulebook now acknowledges kilts as a garment.

I know two guys who wear them....with Cargo pockets!!!

Not for me, tho.
CC

LHS
12-03-2013, 03:32 PM
Interesting that you can no longer fire while holding spare ammo. What's the rationale for that? I know of at least one match where a mover activated while I was tac-loading, and I shot it with the chambered round, with no mag currently in the gun.

Sal Picante
12-03-2013, 04:11 PM
Interesting that you can no longer fire while holding spare ammo. What's the rationale for that? I know of at least one match where a mover activated while I was tac-loading, and I shot it with the chambered round, with no mag currently in the gun.

"That kitten will get you killed on the street"
:rolleyes:

littlejerry
12-03-2013, 04:35 PM
Interesting that you can no longer fire while holding spare ammo. What's the rationale for that? I know of at least one match where a mover activated while I was tac-loading, and I shot it with the chambered round, with no mag currently in the gun.

Because tactical.

ToddG
12-03-2013, 05:11 PM
Interesting that you can no longer fire while holding spare ammo.

I'm fairly certain that was a rule in the last book, too.

The level of complication regarding the exact placement, movement, and angle of feet before and during reloads is going to become so bogged down as to be nonsensical. Just say "feet cannot move during reload" and be done with it. Or get rid of the rule altogether. But having multiple levels of complex yeas and nays for how your support pinky toe can be pivoted during certain phases of the Moon on Tuesdays...

_JD_
12-03-2013, 05:18 PM
I'm fairly certain that was a rule in the last book, too.

The level of complication regarding the exact placement, movement, and angle of feet before and during reloads is going to become so bogged down as to be nonsensical. Just say "feet cannot move during reload" and be done with it. Or get rid of the rule altogether. But having multiple levels of complex yeas and nays for how your support pinky toe can be pivoted during certain phases of the Moon on Tuesdays...

This is so stupid. I about kitten when they said "like in basket ball" WTF do I know about basket ball!?! I'm a 5'8" white boy for God's sake!

Sal Picante
12-03-2013, 06:58 PM
I'm fairly certain that was a rule in the last book, too.

The level of complication regarding the exact placement, movement, and angle of feet before and during reloads is going to become so bogged down as to be nonsensical. Just say "feet cannot move during reload" and be done with it. Or get rid of the rule altogether. But having multiple levels of complex yeas and nays for how your support pinky toe can be pivoted during certain phases of the Moon on Tuesdays...

Dude, I totally agree... It is like the "fun police" showed up.

The worst part about it is that in the monthly newsletter they show a picture of some girl dropping to her knees behind a barricade while reloading... The rule is so out there that IDPA can't even really figure out if it is allowable or not... Just bad rule-making on the whole...

cclaxton
12-03-2013, 07:40 PM
This is so stupid. I about kitten when they said "like in basket ball" WTF do I know about basket ball!?! I'm a 5'8" white boy for God's sake!

Well, last time I checked, white guys play basketball too. I actually think the basketball reference explains exactly what they want the rule to be. My issue is the exceptions and the general restriction that you can't move while reloading. I just plain don't care for that rule. But, even USPSA has some strange rules, and I just learn to live by them and enforce them as an SO. I wish someone would write a book explaining the justification/history of these rules. I understand many of them came from people like Vickers and other experienced shooters. It would be good to hear the justifications, only so when I am SOing, I have the answer as to why, no matter how weird.

CC

_JD_
12-04-2013, 10:33 AM
Well, last time I checked, white guys play basketball too.

Fo' rill?

You know, come to think of it I think the last basket ball game I watched Bill Laimbeer was still playing for the Pistons.




I actually think the basketball reference explains exactly what they want the rule to be. My issue is the exceptions and the general restriction that you can't move while reloading. I just plain don't care for that rule. But, even USPSA has some strange rules, and I just learn to live by them and enforce them as an SO. I wish someone would write a book explaining the justification/history of these rules. I understand many of them came from people like Vickers and other experienced shooters. It would be good to hear the justifications, only so when I am SOing, I have the answer as to why, no matter how weird.

CC

If the rule is so vague or not easily enough understood so that you have to start comparing it to basket ball the rule probably needs to go.

Then again I don't see 3.9.1 & 3.9.2 needing that much extra clarification... but gamers gonna game and as well they should as it is a game.

All I know is that its going to make it harder to SO in a consistent manner and gives us more stuff to try and watch for. There's enough stuff going on during a shooter's run without having to worry about if he's flat footed during a reload or if that was a pivot or something else.

The comment above about the fun police showing up rings pretty true to my ears.

There's enough tactically stupid things that probably deserve more attention than forcing flat footed reloads while behind cover with no "threat" in sight.


Sent via Tapatalk and still using real words.

cclaxton
12-04-2013, 11:14 AM
All I know is that its going to make it harder to SO in a consistent manner and gives us more stuff to try and watch for. There's enough stuff going on during a shooter's run without having to worry about if he's flat footed during a reload or if that was a pivot or something else.

This is exactly my reason to support revoking the rule. But, I like the sport, and I like to shoot USPSA and 3-Gun as well, and as a certified SO I try my best to be a good ambassador for IDPA. Even basketball has it's rule controversies. I just wish people would see the glass half full here. It's one thing to suggest that a particular rule/policy should be changed. But too often people use these small problems to indict the entire sport or become overly harsh. IDPA has shown a lot of international growth because people wanted an alternative to USPSA/IPSC.

When USPSA was the only action pistol sport, people complained that it wasn't realistic or tactical enough and cost of entry was high. So, IDPA was invented to address those very complaints, and a new action pistol sport was born. Now people complain that IDPA isn't sufficiently tactical or improperly tactical or has too many rules or *gasp* encourages vest-wearing,, etc. etc. !!!

I am all for improving the sport in a respectful manner, and I have found that HQ does listen to those. But those decisions involve Board Members and leading industry people and prominent shooters. Just because WE think a particular rule should change doesn't mean THEY think it should change.

CC

raks
12-04-2013, 11:16 AM
Interesting that you can no longer fire while holding spare ammo. What's the rationale for that?

Like a lot of the new rules I think this clarification is just tightening things up to discourage 'gaming'. If it's not clear then shooters will argue for their dumbass tactic/plan and push the limits (and waste the match directors time).

In stages where mags start on a table or such, I've had guys ask if they could stow them in their mouth while engaging targets... to save the time of putting the mag or retrieving it from a pocket or pouch. Now the answer is clearly 'NO, dumbass'

PPGMD
12-04-2013, 11:24 AM
But, even USPSA has some strange rules, and I just learn to live by them and enforce them as an SO. I wish someone would write a book explaining the justification/history of these rules. I understand many of them came from people like Vickers and other experienced shooters. It would be good to hear the justifications, only so when I am SOing, I have the answer as to why, no matter how weird.

Other than stage design rules, the rules in USPSA are rather simple when you are shooting, stay within the fault lines when you are shooting and don't do anything unsafe.

As far as hearing the explanation for the rules from IDPA, I honestly don't think they even know what they are doing things. I look at the IDPA rule book and see contradictory arguments for each rule switching between "It is tactical" and "It is a game" within the same rule.

But the real measure of an organization stems with how they respond to a stupid rule. For the most part USPSA has been pretty good about stamping stupid rules, and listening to members about proposed rule changes. IDPA OTOH took thousands upon thousands of comments and listened to almost none of them in the last six months. In fact the only major change I've seen since the new rule book was published for comment was to do deal with the humanoid vision barriers issue.

Tamara
12-04-2013, 12:01 PM
...it seems like the California of the shooting sports.

Heh. You could probably sell that on t-shirts. :cool:

Sal Picante
12-04-2013, 12:32 PM
Heh. You could probably sell that on t-shirts. :cool:

Or how about "IDPA: Because you suck. And we hate you."

Tamara
12-04-2013, 12:33 PM
Or how about "IDPA: Because you suck. And we hate you."

That's pretty tactical right there. :D

cclaxton
12-04-2013, 01:19 PM
Other than stage design rules, the rules in USPSA are rather simple when you are shooting, stay within the fault lines when you are shooting and don't do anything unsafe.

As far as hearing the explanation for the rules from IDPA, I honestly don't think they even know what they are doing things. I look at the IDPA rule book and see contradictory arguments for each rule switching between "It is tactical" and "It is a game" within the same rule.

But the real measure of an organization stems with how they respond to a stupid rule. For the most part USPSA has been pretty good about stamping stupid rules, and listening to members about proposed rule changes. IDPA OTOH took thousands upon thousands of comments and listened to almost none of them in the last six months. In fact the only major change I've seen since the new rule book was published for comment was to do deal with the humanoid vision barriers issue.

Actually, there were major changes to the initial public version related to SO liability and club liability. There was language that could have been used against the club and the SO in a lawsuit. All of that was removed. Also, being close to one of the staff, I happen to know there was quite a bit of debate about these new rules and a lot of thought actually did go into them. But, when rules are made by committee...well...they will look like they were made by committee. So, when it came to making final decisions, they relied on the feedback from the IDPA veterans with decades of experience.

This is not a lot different than a Jury: Everybody may disagree about the verdict, but they weren't in the jury room when the decisions were made. I try not to Monday-morning quarterback. I will enforce the rules as they are today, and advocate for changes when they make sense. That is the best we can do. In the meantime, I will enjoy the sport and the glass is half full.
CC

Tamara
12-04-2013, 01:28 PM
...they relied on the feedback from the IDPA veterans with decades of experience.

It'll be another three years before anybody can even have "decades" of IDPA experience. ;)

cclaxton
12-04-2013, 02:22 PM
It'll be another three years before anybody can even have "decades" of IDPA experience. ;)

Just to be clear: I did not mean to infer they have decades of IDPA experience, but simply decades of experience with pistol shooting, and in some cases combat and law enforcement experience.
CC

ToddG
12-04-2013, 02:26 PM
I've explained in the past why I understand the motivation behind the "don't advance while reloading" rule both from an anti-gamer standpoint -- especially after ditching the godawful "dumping" rule -- and from a logical tactical standpoint: people don't run toward the next fight before their gun is topped off, or at least they generally shouldn't.

The problem is how does one regulate and enforce? My first thought was to say you cannot move more than one yard in any direction while reloading. That would make for a lot of flexibility for the shooter but still keep him more or less rooted in place. But how do you measure those 36 inches? Perhaps change the rule to "no more than two steps" during a reload. That would pretty much allow both feet to move once into whatever position the shooter wanted to set himself in. Of course, then you'd have folks game it by taking two giant strides toward the next shooting position while they reloaded.

I get where they're trying to go with the Basketball Rule but (a) that's still far from realistic and (b) how many basketball players, even pros, cheat on that a bit? It just becomes another subjective standard and now the RO needs to be deciding whether regaining my balance or setting up for my next move was too egregious during a "flat footed reload."

I was OK with the rule when it first came out mostly because all the "it's not tactical!" whiners annoyed me with their thinly veiled complaints because what was really happening was they were losing a gamer advantage over people who were flat footed during reloads. I absolutely see the spirit behind the rule and it does make sense. But if enforcing the rule creates more problems than it solves it needs to go. It took IDPA forever to realize that about the "dumping" rule and it's one of the things that cost them some big-name competitor involvement.

cclaxton
12-04-2013, 03:22 PM
I've explained in the past why I understand the motivation behind the "don't advance while reloading" rule both from an anti-gamer standpoint -- especially after ditching the godawful "dumping" rule -- and from a logical tactical standpoint: people don't run toward the next fight before their gun is topped off, or at least they generally shouldn't.

The problem is how does one regulate and enforce? My first thought was to say you cannot move more than one yard in any direction while reloading. That would make for a lot of flexibility for the shooter but still keep him more or less rooted in place. But how do you measure those 36 inches? Perhaps change the rule to "no more than two steps" during a reload. That would pretty much allow both feet to move once into whatever position the shooter wanted to set himself in. Of course, then you'd have folks game it by taking two giant strides toward the next shooting position while they reloaded.

I get where they're trying to go with the Basketball Rule but (a) that's still far from realistic and (b) how many basketball players, even pros, cheat on that a bit? It just becomes another subjective standard and now the RO needs to be deciding whether regaining my balance or setting up for my next move was too egregious during a "flat footed reload."

I was OK with the rule when it first came out mostly because all the "it's not tactical!" whiners annoyed me with their thinly veiled complaints because what was really happening was they were losing a gamer advantage over people who were flat footed during reloads. I absolutely see the spirit behind the rule and it does make sense. But if enforcing the rule creates more problems than it solves it needs to go. It took IDPA forever to realize that about the "dumping" rule and it's one of the things that cost them some big-name competitor involvement.

I plan on using my 4th and 5th eyeballs to watch their feet for fouls. (Keeping safety glasses on them is a challenge, tho)

Lately I have been telling the Scorekeeper that he/she has to watch for cover and foot fouls...I am watching the gun and watching for safety (muzzle, finger, etc.), and trying to stay within arms reach of the shooter, and that can be challenging when he/she is moving fast. When the scorekeeper does that job, it works really well.

CC

jetfire
12-04-2013, 03:29 PM
I plan on using my 4th and 5th eyeballs to watch their feet for fouls. (Keeping safety glasses on them is a challenge, tho)

Lately I have been telling the Scorekeeper that he/she has to watch for cover and foot fouls...I am watching the gun and watching for safety (muzzle, finger, etc.), and trying to stay within arms reach of the shooter, and that can be challenging when he/she is moving fast. When the scorekeeper does that job, it works really well.

CC

Please don't stay within arm's reach of the shooter. There are few things more dangerous than an SO who thinks it is his or her job to physically stop a shooter from doing something unsafe.

PPGMD
12-04-2013, 06:48 PM
So, when it came to making final decisions, they relied on the feedback from the IDPA veterans with decades of experience.

And there is the issue, if you are outside of the select group they don't listen to you. IMO the flat foot reload is going to be the round dumping of the current rule book. How many years will it stay on the book before the IDPA comes to it's senses?

IMO IDPA needs to make a leadership change. The unelected board can still retain final authority, but IMO the BOD selected "Tiger Teams" should be disbanded. And they should be replaced with elected group similar to USPSA. Who they are should be public not secret like the Tiger Teams, and there should be lines of communication other than a form to no where. And by electing them we ensure that we have people that will listen to their local membership and present the issues that matter to the people in their area.

TR675
12-04-2013, 08:06 PM
That's pretty tactical right there. :D

Don't you mean "über tactical?"

cclaxton
12-04-2013, 11:11 PM
And there is the issue, if you are outside of the select group they don't listen to you. IMO the flat foot reload is going to be the round dumping of the current rule book. How many years will it stay on the book before the IDPA comes to it's senses?

IMO IDPA needs to make a leadership change. The unelected board can still retain final authority, but IMO the BOD selected "Tiger Teams" should be disbanded. And they should be replaced with elected group similar to USPSA. Who they are should be public not secret like the Tiger Teams, and there should be lines of communication other than a form to no where. And by electing them we ensure that we have people that will listen to their local membership and present the issues that matter to the people in their area.

Again, I am the glass half full kind of guy. So I am okay with the current leadership. IDPA is not a democracy and it is not a membership-owned non-profit. This has good and bad attributes. I am kinda torn between making it a membership-owned non-profit and leaving it as a for-profit that has a membership. Committees often get into "analysis-paralysis" mode and often politics and personalities drive them. I have been there, done that.

By taking the input of members, but then allowing a smaller group to debate those suggestions and have it reviewed by a board and master-level "consultants," it allows decisions to made easier and without a lot of drama. If we would have used a committee approach to the rulebook, we would still be caught up in the drama and the paralysis IMHO.

This all comes under the category of: "Making sausage is messy."

Just one man's humble opinion.
CC

PPGMD
12-04-2013, 11:27 PM
By taking the input of members, but then allowing a smaller group to debate those suggestions and have it reviewed by a board and master-level "consultants," it allows decisions to made easier and without a lot of drama. If we would have used a committee approach to the rulebook, we would still be caught up in the drama and the paralysis IMHO.

My suggestion wouldn't necessarily be any different. The only difference is that the members of this board would be elected by the members of each area.

They can still bring in others to provide input, while the BOD and the Wilsons would still have final say on the rules (which is how the Tiger Teams work they just present things to the IDPA Board as their suggestion). Simply that the instead of secret Tiger Teams you have elected members that report directly to the members. Members can still make suggestions using the suggestion form. But they also have the option of directly contacting their elected member.

Even if you have as little as five elected members that still makes things manageable as at most they would have to report to is around 5,000 members. Instead of a random submission form for 20,000 members.

You would be surprised how well this works. Often you don't even have to talk to your area director directly. A post on BE can often result in an issue being brought at the next BOD meeting as almost all area directors are there in some capacity. The Tiger Teams OTOH take the opposite approach, as they've openly said that they will not listen to anything posted on any place but the submission form. And at the range they will typically tell you to go to the website.

JAD
12-07-2013, 10:23 AM
You know, IDPA could probably run off half of the 'let's make it a better sport' folks and still make money while providing an inviting competitive activity for new shooters.

secondstoryguy
12-07-2013, 10:58 AM
IDPA is like the minor-league of the action shooting sports. It's more choreography than actual shooting IMHO. The upside is the choreography seems to slow it down and make it a little more friendly for new shooters. Personally, I will probably never shoot another IDPA match until they make some more sensible rules and stop killing the fun-factor with stupid procedural calls.

NEPAKevin
12-07-2013, 11:59 AM
You know, IDPA could probably run off half of the 'let's make it a better sport' folks and still make money while providing an inviting competitive activity for new shooters.

Yea, but then what would the ADD generation have to whine about on the shooting forums? :)

jetfire
12-07-2013, 12:58 PM
IDPA is like the minor-league of the action shooting sports. It's more choreography than actual shooting IMHO.

Lol. So how many state level or higher IDPA matches have you shot in the last couple of years to form that opinion?

NETim
12-07-2013, 01:23 PM
We are FINALLY getting IDPA off the ground here in NE. True to form, this AM, when the gun went dry, I was off to the races!

Procedural.

:(

This, after much mental prep. "Don't move before the reload! Don't move before the reload! DON'T move before the reload!" :)

I'll still shoot IDPA but when training I will continue to keep the feet in motion whenever possible.

secondstoryguy
12-07-2013, 01:49 PM
Lol. So how many state level or higher IDPA matches have you shot in the last couple of years to form that opinion?

I've never shot (nor had the desire) to shoot a state level or higher IDPA match. I don't doubt for one minute that at that level you won't place well in one unless you have some serious shooting skills. I actually haven't shot any IDPA in a year or so, primarily due to the last match I shot being ripe with subjectively inane penalties that made it seem more like I was learning the tango than attending a shooting event.

jetfire
12-07-2013, 02:33 PM
So your opinion of IDPA is based on shooting a club level match a year or so ago. Got it.

Protip: A bad club can ruin any shooting sport regardless of which alphabet soup name it has attached to it.

JodyH
12-07-2013, 09:11 PM
Protip: Considering club level matches are where the vast majority of shooters will form their opinion of IDPA, belittling someone's complaints because they aren't coming from the state level is a sure way to kill the roots and end up with a dead sport.

secondstoryguy
12-07-2013, 09:47 PM
My opinion comes from shooting club level matches off and on all over the country since IDPA started in the late 90s. And it's kinda funny you mention how one bad club can kill the ride...a regular at the local club is actually a member of the IDPAs "tiger teams" and has SOed me or been on my squad more than a few times(he's been shooting locally since at least the mid 2000s), and that to me indicates that the local matches are a good example of how IDPA wants a match to be run.

My posts might have come off a little harsh on IDPA. Honestly, I think IDPA is an excellent venue for newer shooters and suggest it to many. IDPA has drawn many new shooters in that otherwise might have never tried the shooting sports.

JodyH
12-07-2013, 10:20 PM
A national organization should have their rules "tightened up" to the point that there's very little room for a local chapter to screw things up.
IDPA should strive for the McDonalds business model.
The Big Mac tastes exactly the same in Chicago as it does in Phoenix.
They achieve this with standards and procedures that leave no room for local interpretation.

secondstoryguy
12-07-2013, 10:33 PM
I agree. It is amazing to me how much variation you see in the interpretation of the rules from squad to squad at one match, let alone the variation I've seen across the country.

ToddG
12-09-2013, 01:02 PM
Yea, but then what would the ADD generation have to whine about on the shooting forums? :)

Agree. All the people who complain about what IDPA isn't are missing the point that it's almost precisely what the founding members, current Board, and most members want it to be.

One man's "too heavily choreographed" is another man's "doesn't reward stage tactics over shooting."

One man's "complex stage" is another man's "unrealistic stage."

One man's "too much emphasis on accuracy over speed" is another man's "properly places emphasis on accuracy over speed."

And so on.

If a certain person likes one and not the other, shoot that one and be done with it. I'll never understand the need to get involved in discussions about the other just to shout "I like my sport better!"

I don't log in to baseball forums just to post, "I'd rather watch football!"

PPGMD
12-14-2013, 07:42 PM
One man's "too much emphasis on accuracy over speed" is another man's "properly places emphasis on accuracy over speed."

Ok this is one of the things I hate that gets banded around by IDPA members when labeling USPSA members. If you want to be a top level shooter, there aren't many cases where you can accept anything less than an 'A' hit on an open target within 15 yards. It is only really in the lower ranks that someone really fast can move through the stage fast enough to overcome misses, but the same can be said for IDPA.

ToddG
12-14-2013, 07:49 PM
If we only compare the top five people in each sport, we're basically ignoring everything that matters to the vast majority of people. Were the top five guys here having this discussion, or were a bunch of "ordinary" members?

PPGMD
12-14-2013, 08:05 PM
If we only compare the top five people in each sport, we're basically ignoring everything that matters to the vast majority of people. Were the top five guys here having this discussion, or were a bunch of "ordinary" members?

It is true in the lower ranks as well, the only real exception are people who's shooting skill is poor, but they are way more athletically fit so they can run through a stage.

But take my most recently match, between myself and the next two lowest production shooters. I shot the stages 50-90 seconds slower (480 second match for me). I beat them because I shot 81% of the points available versus them shooting 70% of the points available (with penalties subtracted).

Now the person directly above me is one of those exceptions, he shot the match 140 seconds faster, but only shot 56% of the points available. But that can happen in IDPA just like it can happen in USPSA. Back when I shot IDPA I routinely got beat by people that simply could move through the stage faster. So even through I got almost no points down, they still beat me.

So IMO it is true that there is slightly more emphasis on accuracy in IDPA, but there is not enough of one to counter the fact that in the lower ranks that more athletically fit can shoot sloppier and win.

ToddG
12-15-2013, 06:19 PM
We're partially in agreement.

First, IDPA and USPSA both share a common trait that is often overlooked: typical stages are more about movement than shooting. Or at least, you spend more time moving than shooting and knowing how to take time off the movement part is one of the things that becomes critical as you advance.

However, the idea that the two games are very close in terms of measuring accuracy is still silly. We've had this conversation before on the forum -- along with Maths and even examples from DotWs -- and at the end of the day, changing the scoring system does change the order of finish. Heck, look how people like Leatham and Michel "score" USPSA when they just want to use a time-plus system. E.g., Michel uses 0.2s penalty for a C-zone, 0.5s penalty for D-zone, and 1s for a complete miss.

Here's another good example: Leatham talking about speed vs accuracy in USPSA (http://robleatham.com/wp/2009/01/08/what-is-fast/). Take his examples and add the IDPA times:

clean El Prez in 10s: USPSA Hit Factor 6, IDPA score 10s
all C-zone hits in 5s: USPSA Hit Factor 9.60, IDPA score of 11s
all D-zone hits in 5s: USPSA Hit Factor 4.80, IDPA score of 23s

That's the scoring system, no two ways about it.

What you've basically argued is that "you have to be both fast and accurate to beat the best guys," and that's certainly true because of the level of competition. But it's not because of something inherent in the scoring system and, at the end of the day, USPSA is more likely to reward increased speed for reduced accuracy while IDPA does the opposite.

PPGMD
12-16-2013, 12:00 AM
clean El Prez in 10s: USPSA Hit Factor 6, IDPA score 10s
all C-zone hits in 5s: USPSA Hit Factor 9.60, IDPA score of 11s
all D-zone hits in 5s: USPSA Hit Factor 4.80, IDPA score of 23s

No one is USPSA is going to last long shooting Cs all the time. So yes the math is there, but I don't think it works in practically on the range.

IMO the same targets where it is acceptable to shoot a C, are the same targets where it is acceptable to shoot a down 1.

ToddG
12-16-2013, 08:48 AM
No one is USPSA is going to last long shooting Cs all the time. So yes the math is there, but I don't think it works in practically on the range.

Still missing the point. Obviously, the best score comes from being fastest and having fewest points down. Both games work that way. The point is that the calculus can work out in favor of speed over accuracy more often in USPSA. Again, read the linked article by Leatham.

PPGMD
12-19-2013, 10:51 AM
Still missing the point. Obviously, the best score comes from being fastest and having fewest points down. Both games work that way. The point is that the calculus can work out in favor of speed over accuracy more often in USPSA. Again, read the linked article by Leatham.

Oh I understand the math, and agree that the basic math in IDPA favors accuracy. I am simply saying that from the practical standpoint it rarely works in that manor.

ToddG
12-19-2013, 08:10 PM
Oh I understand the math, and agree that the basic math in IDPA favors accuracy. I am simply saying that from the practical standpoint it rarely works in that manor.

So you think a Charlie shooting Major/Lim in USPSA is equal to a -1 in IDPA?

joshs
12-19-2013, 08:24 PM
So you think a Charlie shooting Major/Lim in USPSA is equal to a -1 in IDPA?

I think what he is saying, and I may be wrong, but I've found it to be true as well, is that often the best way to win in both sports is to shoot 90-95% of the available points as fast as you can. When you start accepting more Charlies/-1s it is by shooting at a level where you have very little control, so you end up crashing and burning no matter the scoring system.

ToddG
12-19-2013, 08:42 PM
That's still a completely different issue than the scoring system and, as I said, shooting 95% of the points really fast is obviously going to be better than shooting fewer points slower in either game.

Again my question is a simple one: is a C in Maj/Lim going to have as much of an impact on your score as a -1 in IDPA? Put another way, are you more likely to make up a -1 than a C?

joshs
12-19-2013, 09:14 PM
That's still a completely different issue than the scoring system and, as I said, shooting 95% of the points really fast is obviously going to be better than shooting fewer points slower in either game.

My point was that even in cases where the theoretical best way to shoot a stage is at X speed and 80% of the points, this usually isn't a good match winning strategy, although it is a very good way to win stages. The way to win matches often works out to be shooting slightly slower and more points no matter the scoring system


Again my question is a simple one: is a C in Maj/Lim going to have as much of an impact on your score as a -1 in IDPA? Put another way, are you more likely to make up a -1 than a C?

No, and it depends ;). See:


There are many conflicting explanations given for how accurate you should shoot based on a given scoring system. I’ve attempted to figure out a more exact balance of speed and accuracy.

I find the different scoring systems used in practical shooting as an excellent example of how penalties for bad accuracy can influence speed. It's easiest if you think about the IDPA and IPSC scoring in terms of hit factor, or points per second.

IDPA has a fixed hit factor of 2.

In IPSC, the hit factor varies depending on how many points you shoot per second on a given stage. So, in order to know whether you should shoot for points or accuracy you need to estimate your hit factor for the stage, this usually comes with experience. Once you know how long it takes for you to shoot certain types of target arrays clean, you add these up and come up with the estimated hit factor. Or, if there is another shooter of similar skill who shoots the stage well before you, you can look at their hit factor.

With a hit factor it is now possible to figure out how to balance speed and accuracy. This would be easy, if the options were A or C (-0 or -1). If this were the case, any time you had to make the decision between a -0 or -1 in IDPA, if you could change the outcome by taking .49 (this number is the balance of speed and accuracy) or less, it would be worth it. (Hit factor of 2 means 1 point costs you .5 of a second, so if could get the point in less than half a second, you should.) However, the options are trickier than either/or. When accepting a C or -1, there is still a chance that the shot will land in the A or -0, since the inner target zones are essentially "part of" the outer target zones. The variable needed is: How often when you accept a C or -1 (not a perfectly called A or -0), do you still end up with an A or -0? For purposes of demonstration, the assumed probability is .5. This is probably a very conservative estimate, especially for more experienced shooters who are more likely to get to the uncalled A or -0 due to a much more refined index.

Assuming that .5 is the correct probability, using IDPA's fixed hit factor, the balance of speed and accuracy would be .249. (The original .49 from above, multiplied by the probability of not getting an "uncalled" A.) This number would of course shrink as the hit factor goes up (a hit factor as low as 2 is almost unheard of in IPSC) and as the probability of getting the uncalled A goes up (through increased shooter skill).

Given these factors, it is easy to see why experienced shooters will often "accept" a C or -1. The time penalty to guarantee the A or -0 is greater than the penalty assessed by the scoring systems. This isn't to say that, at the margin, different scoring systems don't promote more accuracy. A hit factor of 8 (relatively common in IPSC) would change the above balance from .249 to .065 (assuming major scoring).

The balance of speed and accuracy number can be very beneficial. If you can influence the outcome to guarantee the A in less time than the balance number, then you should take the time to do so.

Shooters often get this wrong on close range hosing stages. At close range, it only takes a couple of hundredths to guarantee an A instead of accepting a C/A. Excepting a high hit factor with major scoring, it is almost always worth taking these hundredths to guarantee the A.

PPGMD
12-19-2013, 09:44 PM
My point was that even in cases where the theoretical best way to shoot a stage is at X speed and 80% of the points, this usually isn't a good match winning strategy, although it is a very good way to win stages. The way to win matches often works out to be shooting slightly slower and more points no matter the scoring system

That is my point, the people who spend too much time figuring out whether it is worth it to make up a C or not are not the ones that win. I honestly rarely make up a C or a -1 shot, because the difference between a C (-1) and an A (0) is minor enough that the time it takes to evaluate it isn't worth it (as I can't easily do it from calling my shot alone). I will only make up a shot if it feels like a D (-2) or a M. Granted my score sheets typically have 2s down the A column unless I make a mental error (where I lose most of my points these days). In fact looking back, outside of moving targets or a miss on steel, I rarely make up shots.

My opinion is that in the overall scheme of things hosing only takes a person so far. Regardless of game, if you approach it with accuracy in mind you will win. Even in Steel Challenge, which many think of a hose fest, the accurate shooter will have a more consistent time/score and will be more likely to win.

ToddG
12-19-2013, 09:53 PM
There's a false dichotomy here, though. There is an entire spectrum between "hosing" and the balances of speed/accuracy.

If you guys are just going to keep saying "shoot fast and accurately to win!" then we're clearly talking about two different things.

I offered to run this year's USPSA Nats through the spreadsheet to see how the scores would have played out if calculated per IDPA rules instead. All I need is the raw score data. If you guys are correct then obviously every single person would be in the exact same slot, that's all. :cool:

Alaskapopo
12-19-2013, 10:27 PM
That's still a completely different issue than the scoring system and, as I said, shooting 95% of the points really fast is obviously going to be better than shooting fewer points slower in either game.

Again my question is a simple one: is a C in Maj/Lim going to have as much of an impact on your score as a -1 in IDPA? Put another way, are you more likely to make up a -1 than a C?

IDPA with the -.5 second is a harder hit about twice as hard I would say. In fact its harder than shooting minor in USPSA. Its hard to do the exact math however.
Pat

PPGMD
12-19-2013, 10:54 PM
If you guys are just going to keep saying "shoot fast and accurately to win!" then we're clearly talking about two different things.

But that is the gist of it.

IMO too many people over analyze things. Yes IDPA has a slight emphasis on accuracy, but then again so do some USPSA stages. I throw a no shoot on a USPSA target and the balance just tilted way toward accuracy than IDPA as the shots don't penetrate and each hit is a penalty. But that is fluff that doesn't really come into play while you are actually doing the shooting. And even among those that calculate all that few will actually make up a C or a -1 hit as the time it takes to analyze and redo your mental plan isn't worth it.

Granted perhaps my perspective is different due to the limited amount of rounds I am allowed to stuff in the magazine.

jetfire
12-19-2013, 11:23 PM
There's a false dichotomy here, though. There is an entire spectrum between "hosing" and the balances of speed/accuracy.

If you guys are just going to keep saying "shoot fast and accurately to win!" then we're clearly talking about two different things.

I offered to run this year's USPSA Nats through the spreadsheet to see how the scores would have played out if calculated per IDPA rules instead. All I need is the raw score data. If you guys are correct then obviously every single person would be in the exact same slot, that's all. :cool:

What raw data do you need? I'd happily hook it up.

ToddG
12-19-2013, 11:31 PM
What raw data do you need? I'd happily hook it up.

Time on each stage. As, Bs, Cs, Ds, Mikes on each stage. Hits on no-shoots. For simplicity's sake I'd say Lim and Production. For Limited I'd need to know who was major and who was minor.

I'd propose -- unless there is objection -- that we ignore procedurals as that doesn't really have a germane connection. But I'll count them if folks think that's more appropriate.

I doubt there is a way to calculate Failures to Neutralize without knowing scores for each individual target so that will also probably have to be left out.

jetfire
12-20-2013, 12:05 AM
Time on each stage. As, Bs, Cs, Ds, Mikes on each stage. Hits on no-shoots. For simplicity's sake I'd say Lim and Production. For Limited I'd need to know who was major and who was minor.

I'd propose -- unless there is objection -- that we ignore procedurals as that doesn't really have a germane connection. But I'll count them if folks think that's more appropriate.

I doubt there is a way to calculate Failures to Neutralize without knowing scores for each individual target so that will also probably have to be left out.

I can pull that, email it over tomorrow.

ToddG
12-20-2013, 12:18 AM
I can pull that, email it over tomorrow.

Rgr rgr. I'll try to crunch the numbers over the weekend but it may have to wait until after the holidays.

cclaxton
12-20-2013, 12:37 AM
We have forgotten the two most basic things related to competitive shooting:
1) Each shooter has strengths and weaknesses and will play to their strengths and "make up" for their weaknesses in their own unique manner;
2) "Competition" inherently means competing against other comparably skilled shooters;

Because each sport has developed its' own methods and rules, each shooter will "play" each game differently depending on many circumstances:
- Who else is in the competition (and how good are they?...what are their strengths and weaknesses, etc.);
- How well you performed as you progress through the stages (Doing well in the first stages may make a shooter slow down for later stages to minimize mistakes/non-alpha shots, but doing poorly on the first stages may make a shooter to "go for broke" on the later stages by speeding up);
- Environmental variables, such as weather, mud, gravel, temperature, etc;
- Prestige/awards for the particular match may incentivize some shooters to step up their speed or accuracy, depending on the game.

The reason I love to compete is that it is different every time.

CC

PPGMD
12-20-2013, 01:18 AM
Rgr rgr. I'll try to crunch the numbers over the weekend but it may have to wait until after the holidays.

That is all on the USPSA website. You just have to go into each competitor to get the hits.