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.
"For a moment he felt good about this. A moment or two later he felt bad about feeling good about it. Then he felt good about feeling bad about feeling good about it and, satisfied, drove on into the night."
-- Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy --
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.
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.Originally Posted by NEPAKevin
Yea, but then what would the ADD generation have to whine about on the shooting forums?
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!"
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.
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.
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. 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.
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.
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.
Reply With Quote
