Vickers & Hackathorn on IDPA Vickers Scoring

[rhino]

On a recent episode of "TAC TV" with one of my favorite chubsters, Mr. Larry Vickers, I learned some interesting things about the IDPA scoring system that bears his name. No one has mentioned it here, so I will!

First, he mentioned that Rob Leatham actually invented the Vickers Count scoring system. I didn't know that, but it does not suprise me.

Second, the original penalty for missing the center of the target was to be 1/3 second per point down. After some initial experience, IDPA changed that to 1/2 second per point down.

Here's the part that really interested me. Mr. Vickers and Mr. Hackathorn spent a significant amount of time discussing the penalty per point down and both agreed that it should be one full second per point down. Their rationale was that speed has too much emphasis and accuracy not enough emphasis in the game, especially since it was originally intend to more accurately mimic "real life" defensive shooting than did USPSA/IPSC.

I agree with their assessment. I would take it farther because I also think that penalties for misses and for hitting non-threat targets should be much bigger than they are.

Naturally this would change the character of the game. It might also shift the balance of the groups of people who dominate the different ability classifications. It might also significantly impact how (or whether) some people enjoy the IDPA game. Some will like it less, but some will like it a lot more.

I do not foresee it ever happening, but it might be fun to shoot some courses of fire using penalties that (according to Vickers & Hackathorn) would more realistically weight the respective importance of accuracy and speed with respect to being a competition simulation of "the real world."

 

[Craigh]

Hey Joe,

You bring up a very good point, one that has concerned me for some time. I think we in the ‘shooting sports’ (USPSA, IDPA) can be lulled into a false sense of security by our match scores. The scoring system each use greatly rewards speed over accuracy and each have ‘generous’ scoring zones. Those of us who participate in these games run the risk of becoming satisfied (if not downright proud) with substandard hits.

The goal of any self defense shooting is instant/rapid incapacitation of the threat. And the only way we can do that is by striking a blow to the central nervous system (CSN) with enough force (caliber) to place pressure on the spinal column, so the threat becomes incapable of continuing the behavior that brought him/her to our attention in the first place. This type of threat incapacitation can’t be reliably achieved with hits to same target areas that are considered ‘good hits’ in the afore mentioned shooting sports.

The CSN is a tough target to hit under the best of circumstances but, if we strive for it and miss ‘just a little’, we still hit good things.

To me, the upper 1/3 of the A-zone on a standard IPSC target, with a 2” strip connecting the ocular window should be considered the 0 time or A-zone. Any hits outside this zone should add time that reflects actual incapacitation time (100-200 seconds for two lung shots would be appropriate).

This was the nature of the match at Range Masters Tactical Conference. Here, they used anatomical reactive steel targets, with 3D bodies. The drill was finished when the last bad-guy target fell. Low or off center hits wouldn’t cut it. Only center hits to the upper chest (or head in the presence of a hostage) would cause the targets to fall. It was quite an experience and got the heart rate up.

I agree Joe, I would prefer this type of match to the conventional USPSA but, not sure how many others would. How many USPSA shooters would entertain a target with a smaller A-zone?

Good topic.

Thanks for posting.

Craig

 

[rhino]

Agreed on all points!

Having a vertical strip in the center to represent the spine has been something I've thought was a good idea for a long time. I know that USPSA/IPSC has strayed too far from its martial roots to ever adopt such a target scoring zone, but IDPA purports to represent the defensive use of a firearm on some level, so it should reflect that.

The whole head should not be "good enough" either!

 

[Coach]

I mentioned something like this over on Enos last year and it go flamed like crazy. I made the mistake of tying it to USPSA's poor performance on Top Shot though. USPSA's GM's have embarrassed us on that show and it is because they are speed over accuracy in my opinion, and the pressure of defending their reputations crumbles them like a stale cookies. If you cannot hit a pool ball at 30 ft without time pressure how can you even go on the show?

An easy step in the right direction would be making the headbox a zone worth 8 or 9 points instead of five. It would change how many people would engage those type of targets.

 

[BillD]

I go to a match every weekend. Despite carrying a gun for 30 years, I've never been close to a gunfight. Doubt seriously if I ever am.

I know USPSA has martial roots and the P stands for Practical but it's a game. I don't believe a CNS hit is required in the game or a gunfight.

People don't win these matches or score well by not hitting the A zone. If one can hit the A zone repeatedly at speed, one should be able to hold their own in a gunfight.

YMMV and IMO

 

[rvb]

I disagree that either game rewards speed first. I've proved it over and over again that the faster I try to be, the lower my score, in both IDPA and USPSA. Missing the A zone hurts your score, period. I have lots of specific examples and lost matches/stages to show for it. The scoring systems work.

The question here is how MUCH emphasis should be on accuracy. You go putting a 2" vertical strip tied to an apple sized A zone, fine. It doesn't change anything other than all the HFs shift lower relative to each other in USPSA, and the times and points-down increase in IDPA. Where people place in matches won't significantly change.

So what if we went to such a target? What I see is a whole lot of frustrated C/D shooters, and stage times with tripple-digit times, and a WHOLE lot of standing on the dime (which the tactical croud complains enough that the games are so untactcal w/ lack of cover, standing in the open, etc.). And we may as well forget targets past 5 yds if you HAVE to hit these zones to score, else we better set time limits. And you say if we aim for the cns and miss just a little we should hit good things, I thought that's what the A-zones represented, missing dead center by a few inches on each side.

As to top shot, I agreed w/ you, Coach, that it is disapointing how the practical sports have been represented. But I disgree that there is NO time pressure. It's the worst kind of time pressure.... do it faster than the guy next to you, ie shootoff pressure. Poor management of that pressure (w/ exception to JJ) is what has done these guys in and says we need to bring back the shootoffs to our sport! I can hit a paster at 30 ft just about every time, but can I do it w/ a TV host yelling and national cameras rolling and hearing the comptition shooting next to me?

And finally, if faced w/ 2 or more bad guys and taking fire yourself, you are expecting heart/cns shots? Is that realistic? I would want rounds into their "Azones" right freakin now... and I think the A zone for both games pretty well represents what we need to be 'happy' with in that we'd hit some pretty important stuff. I would conscede the ipsc A zone could loose 2-4 inches off the bottom, make it more square, but that's about it.

btw: you want more accuracy required in your game, switch to production!

-rvb

 

[Rob377]

I go to a match every weekend. Despite carrying a gun for 30 years, I've never been close to a gunfight. Doubt seriously if I ever am.

I know USPSA has martial roots and the P stands for Practical but it's a game. I don't believe a CNS hit is required in the game or a gunfight.

People don't win these matches or score well by not hitting the A zone. If one can hit the A zone repeatedly at speed, one should be able to hold their own in a gunfight.

YMMV and IMO

'specially not in production. You can go as fast as you want, but if you're not hitting 80%+ Alphas, you're losing.

 

[JettaKnight]

On a recent episode of "TAC TV" with one of my favorite chubsters, Mr. Larry Vickers,

I think the same thing everytime I watch the show. I do learn a thing or to, but Vickers comes off as a know-it-all, but I think that's the nature of TV...

 

[singlestacksig]

changing to 1 sec per point would make scoring easier..

 

[BillD]

I think the same thing everytime I watch the show. I do learn a thing or to, but Vickers comes off as a know-it-all, but I think that's the nature of TV...

Well, he may not know it all but I suppose being in SF AND being a very high end custom 1911 builder will tend to make one cocky.

 

[riverman67]

I think that USPSA is biased toward speed(this is coming from a slow fat guy). If I slow down enough to shoot all alphas,my standing against others in my division will be worse than If I shoot on the ragged edge of what I am capable and have an occasional miss. I've proven this to myself over and over. Speed is a tactic and it should be rewarded. The type of shooting that is taking place on top shot doesn't play to the strengths of the top USPSA shooters most of the time. They excel at acceptable accuracy in the least amount of time. That is the game they play and what they practice. I stopped watching the show long ago , it's too much like survivor and dancing with the stars for my taste.

 

[rhino]

I think the same thing everytime I watch the show. I do learn a thing or to, but Vickers comes off as a know-it-all, but I think that's the nature of TV...

I know what you mean! I can tolerate someone being a know-it-all when they know as much as he does! Heck, we all had to deal with our fathers, right?

I have to admit that one of the reasons I like seeing him on TV (beyond his wealth of information) is that he is a chubster. Before he started becoming really popular in the civilian training market, there were a few online forums where the training junkies were spending a significant amount of their time whining about having to tolerate fat guys as fellow students in classes. I know it's an unintended consequence, but when more of them knew more about Vickers, that talk subsided significantly.

My buddy G-Man likes to say that Larry Vickers has killed more people than the plague. That may or may not be true, but he is a genuine expert on the topics he discusses. A couple of decades in Delta is a pretty good credential.

changing to 1 sec per point would make scoring easier..

That's a really, really good point that I had not even considered.

I think that USPSA is biased toward speed(this is coming from a slow fat guy). If I slow down enough to shoot all alphas,my standing against others in my division will be worse than If I shoot on the ragged edge of what I am capable and have an occasional miss. I've proven this to myself over and over. Speed is a tactic and it should be rewarded.

Speed is defininitely important, especially when you are reacting instead of initiating the action! Vickers and Hackathorn just expressed that they think the balance is too far toward speed and not enough toward accuracy in IDPA. I agree!

 

[riverman67]

I know what you mean! I can tolerate someone being a know-it-all when they know as much as he does! Heck, we all had to deal with our fathers, right?

I have to admit that one of the reasons I like seeing him on TV (beyond his wealth of information) is that he is a chubster. Before he started becoming really popular in the civilian training market, there were a few online forums where the training junkies were spending a significant amount of their time whining about having to tolerate fat guys as fellow students in classes. I know it's an unintended consequence, but when more of them knew more about Vickers, that talk subsided significantly.

My buddy G-Man likes to say that Larry Vickers has killed more people than the plague. That may or may not be true, but he is a genuine expert on the topics he discusses. A couple of decades in Delta is a pretty good credential.




That's a really, really good point that I had not even considered.




Speed is definitely important, especially when you are reacting instead of initiating the action! Vickers and Hackathorn just expressed that they think the balance is too far toward speed and not enough toward accuracy in IDPA. I agree!

I don't disagree with your point,but the way the game is set up speed rules over pinpoint accuracy. I like the idea of making the a zone smaller or worth more points but as RVB said earlier it wouldn't change where I finish in the standings. Speed will still be a factor and at some point going for the highest points possible will have diminishing returns.

 

[cedartop]

I don't know much about competition, but I did see that episode a while back and thought it was pretty interesting.

 

[Coach]

I disagree that either game rewards speed first. I've proved it over and over again that the faster I try to be, the lower my score, in both IDPA and USPSA. Missing the A zone hurts your score, period. I have lots of specific examples and lost matches/stages to show for it. The scoring systems work.

The question here is how MUCH emphasis should be on accuracy. You go putting a 2" vertical strip tied to an apple sized A zone, fine. It doesn't change anything other than all the HFs shift lower relative to each other in USPSA, and the times and points-down increase in IDPA. Where people place in matches won't significantly change.

So what if we went to such a target? What I see is a whole lot of frustrated C/D shooters, and stage times with tripple-digit times, and a WHOLE lot of standing on the dime (which the tactical croud complains enough that the games are so untactcal w/ lack of cover, standing in the open, etc.). And we may as well forget targets past 5 yds if you HAVE to hit these zones to score, else we better set time limits. And you say if we aim for the cns and miss just a little we should hit good things, I thought that's what the A-zones represented, missing dead center by a few inches on each side.

As to top shot, I agreed w/ you, Coach, that it is disapointing how the practical sports have been represented. But I disgree that there is NO time pressure. It's the worst kind of time pressure.... do it faster than the guy next to you, ie shootoff pressure. Poor management of that pressure (w/ exception to JJ) is what has done these guys in and says we need to bring back the shootoffs to our sport! I can hit a paster at 30 ft just about every time, but can I do it w/ a TV host yelling and national cameras rolling and hearing the comptition shooting next to me?

And finally, if faced w/ 2 or more bad guys and taking fire yourself, you are expecting heart/cns shots? Is that realistic? I would want rounds into their "Azones" right freakin now... and I think the A zone for both games pretty well represents what we need to be 'happy' with in that we'd hit some pretty important stuff. I would conscede the ipsc A zone could loose 2-4 inches off the bottom, make it more square, but that's about it.

btw: you want more accuracy required in your game, switch to production!

-rvb

Your lower scores are more about the trying and the speed focus not because of the speed itself. Sight unseen I would say this is the problem.

 

[Craigh]

Coach, I must admit, your comment about Top Shot made me chuckle. Although I’ve not seen all the episodes, I’ve certainly seen enough to share your thoughts and I agree. All the man-drama has caused me to lose interest in the show. No doubt the pressures associated with the show are increased, but still if you are a GM…..

RVB, you make some good points. ” So what if we went to such a target? What I see is a whole lot of frustrated C/D shooters, and stage times with tripple-digit times, and a WHOLE lot of standing on the dime (which the tactical crowd complains enough that the games are so untactcal w/ lack of cover, standing in the open, etc.). And we may as well forget targets past 5 yds if you HAVE to hit these zones to score, else we better set time limits. And you say if we aim for the cns and miss just a little we should hit good things, I thought that's what the A-zones represented, missing dead center by a few inches on each side.”

I’ve wondered if a smaller A-zone would simply result in a shift in Hit Factors or, would it reshuffle the order… I would agree with your last statement, if the current (USPSA) A-zone was limited to the upper half. And, I’m a big fan of stepping off the line of attack while presenting the pistol.

Below is a target a friend of mine designed. He uses it to train the Kentucky National Guardsmen who deploy. They are available at:
Law Enforcement Targets, Inc.: KY NATIONAL GUARD CLOSE QUARTER TARGET


Don’t you think the C-D shooters should be frustrated? Meaning, I would rather they work on their fundamentals of marksmanship, rather than have a larger A-zone (improve the shooter, not dumb down the target).

Again, good discussion.

Thanks,

Craig

 

[SERVED_USMC]

I shoot USPSA to be involved in a shooting sport. It familiarizes me with the guns I carry every day, and the ones that are purpose built for the sport. I go to the match to shoot the match, only that. During the stage Im not pretending as if there is a "threat" in front of me that needs to be neutralized.

Most of us shoot for sport, and the targets and scoring are based upon that notion. IDPA is obviously geared more towards real life scenarios, but I in no way think that it should be changed based on the opinions that in a real confrontation people might choose speed over accuracy hits.

There are numerous guys on this board who can train you to handle a real life gun fight where accuracy is above all else. Sorry if this is a lot of rambling and not well organized. I guess what Im trying to say is keep shooting sports geared towards the ones who are well rounded shooters. Where both speed and accuracy are critical. Most USPSA guys could care less about trying to crush some dudes spinal cord with critical hits, and I like it that way.

 

[rvb]

Your lower scores are more about the trying and the speed focus not because of the speed itself. Sight unseen I would say this is the problem.

Yup, sorta my point... if someone thinks shooting speed is how matches are won, they're wrong. they are never going to shoot "faster enough" to make up the points loss. When a person striving to shoot mostly A's then strives to be fast hoping for some As, the speed difference is minimal but the pain in the standings is tremendous. This is true for both idpa and uspsa. You cannot shoot "faster enough" to make up for lost points (tenths of seconds, or multiple seconds for a miss).

Why most people think they are getting beat by speed has nothing to do with shooting. It has to do with moving between positions, getting into/out-of position, reloads, and setting up on shots, etc. People get beat on the stage/match score by someone who flat out smokes them on those aspects yet shoots fewer points and they associate it w/ getting beat by shooting speed (or being penalized for accuracy). It's not an apples to apples comparison, but people want to "fix" it by changing the scoring.

So if shooter A wins w/ a faster time but fewer points, it's not because the scoring "penalized" shooter B for being accurate (or "rewarded shooter A for shooting faster). It's most likely because shooter A does all the OTHER STUFF so much better better. Shooter As score could have been even better by hitting more As!

The scoring isn't broke. The perception is.

If the scoring value changes, it may change the emphasis on accuracy, and slightly change the "test" (which I think defining what the test should be is part of the issue here), but it won't change who the better shooter is or where shooters rank. I've seen that personally switching from minor to major in uspsa.

["Test" is probably a good analogy.... if a written test is 75% multiple choice and 25% essay, the emphasis might change somewhat if that's changed to 25% multiple choice and 75% essay, but the smartest kid will still set the curve.]

It's a balance in DVC. Whether IDPA calls it that or not, that's what they're after as well (well, DC anyway). DVC? DVC?



-rvb

 

[SERVED_USMC]

rvb-

You said in one line what I couldnt get across in 2 paragraphs.

"The scoring isn't broke. The perception is."

Well said.

 

[011101110111]

I know what you mean! I can tolerate someone being a know-it-all when they know as much as he does! Heck, we all had to deal with our fathers, right?

I have to admit that one of the reasons I like seeing him on TV (beyond his wealth of information) is that he is a chubster. Before he started becoming really popular in the civilian training market, there were a few online forums where the training junkies were spending a significant amount of their time whining about having to tolerate fat guys as fellow students in classes. I know it's an unintended consequence, but when more of them knew more about Vickers, that talk subsided significantly.

My buddy G-Man likes to say that Larry Vickers has killed more people than the plague. That may or may not be true, but he is a genuine expert on the topics he discusses. A couple of decades in Delta is a pretty good credential.

I've taken some of Vickers' classes and they are definitely worth it. I've always come away knowing a lot more than when I went in. Every single time.