Difficult stages at local matches.

[rvb]

IMO, I look at it from a match perspective. A good match has variety. I don't care if you have a ridiculous memory stage, a footrace stage, a super accuracy stage, a hoser stage, etc. But what I don't like is when there are a whole bunch of any of those things. A good match kinda tests it all. Maybe the footracer gets to shine on a stage, the hoser gets to shine on a stage, the ex-bullseye shooter gets to shine on a stage, and at the end of the day the guy who could do it all pretty well will end up with the most MATCH points.

I've never said "that stage was too hard." I have said "that match got boring because I got tired of ..."

It doesn't seem people here get upset by hard stages......

This was my first USPSA match... I enjoyed the challenging stages.

I had no problem with the stage.

I like the hard stages and have fun with all.

I enjoy the challenging stages

I thought the stage was great.

I understand this is challenging but that stage that we are all talking about is what gets me coming back!

I remember RVB saying his apologizes in a shooters meeting for stage 4 at Ft Wayne a couple months ago. We all gave him a hard time mainly because he brought it up. It was different and a memory stage with all mags from the barrels. The stage was very challenging and fun. Not Boring For sure.

Ah yes. my "everything you hate in a stage, in one stage" stage. Seated start with unloaded gun on table and all mags on barrels, on a complex memory stage using turtle targets.
I still got comments on that stage two months later... all positive. If it upset folks, they kept quiet about it. It was hard. I struggled with whether I had gone too far. Do I take that as a challenge to see how hard I can push the limits?!

-rvb

 

[rhino]

IMO, I look at it from a match perspective. A good match has variety. I don't care if you have a ridiculous memory stage, a footrace stage, a super accuracy stage, a hoser stage, etc. But what I don't like is when there are a whole bunch of any of those things. A good match kinda tests it all. Maybe the footracer gets to shine on a stage, the hoser gets to shine on a stage, the ex-bullseye shooter gets to shine on a stage, and at the end of the day the guy who could do it all pretty well will end up with the most MATCH points.

I've never said "that stage was too hard." I have said "that match got boring because I got tired of ..."

Some of the thing that I would consider "too hard" are rarely if ever seen in USPSA matches. An example would be a wall (that are taller than most people) that the shooter must climb over using a rope. That used to happen in the pre-USPSA days of IPSC.

In addtion, sometimes stage designers do not plan their physical challenges to accommodate shooters of different sizes (including the props), which can be a problem for safety reasons as well as making it not fun for some of the shooters. It can be as simple as considering that a seated start in a folding chair on grass probably needs a piece of plywood or something else under the legs to prevent them from sinking into the ground.

Something else that I think requires more care than some stage designers use is fixed time. If you make the par time so short that less skilled shooters barely have time to get their gun aligned with the first target, there will be a lot of zeros and near zeros. I'm not sure what purpose it serves to do that. I don't get bent out of shape when I zero a stage, but I know some do, especially people who are newer to the sport. You can make the times just a little longer and make it better for those people and still provide a reasonable challenge for the higher level shooters.

 

[rvb]

Some of the thing that I would consider "too hard" are rarely if ever seen in USPSA matches. An example would be a wall (that are taller than most people) that the shooter must climb over using a rope. That used to happen in the pre-USPSA days of IPSC.

These days people would just run around and take a penalty! Ha!

In addtion, sometimes stage designers do not plan their physical challenges to accommodate shooters of different sizes (including the props), which can be a problem for safety reasons as well as making it not fun for some of the shooters. It can be as simple as considering that a seated start in a folding chair on grass probably needs a piece of plywood or something else under the legs to prevent them from sinking into the ground.

I tend to separate stage design from stage construction. Absolutely something to be considered when putting these things on the ground. construction issues take TIME to bulletproof... something often not available in great supply when bulletproofing a club match.

Something else that I think requires more care than some stage designers use is fixed time. If you make the par time so short that less skilled shooters barely have time to get their gun aligned with the first target, there will be a lot of zeros and near zeros. I'm not sure what purpose it serves to do that. I don't get bent out of shape when I zero a stage, but I know some do, especially people who are newer to the sport. You can make the times just a little longer and make it better for those people and still provide a reasonable challenge for the higher level shooters.

fixed time is most interesting when done as a short course with many options. eg. to get all the points you need to move between positions, or if you don't think you're fast enough for that, you can stand in one position and collect as many points as possible. gives a risk vs reward factor, especially when combined with the right use of hardcover/noshoots. If it's just a 2s par time on a bill drill, then yea, it's boring and some folks won't even be out of the holster... so that might be a case of "too hard." I expected to get lynched the first time I used fixed time, but with this approach, a LOT of folks said they really liked it. The only thing that really is a legit gripe w/ club-level fixed time is many people just can't hear that second beep and so I don't do them often for that reason.

-rvb

 

[kevinm]

Well since you brought it up and it is a good learning moment. The very thing you described caused problems on our squad.
I RO'ed first shooter on our squad on this stage and he was a PCC shooter. I have been trying to make sure to stay close to the PCC guns to make sure to pick up the last shot. He started the stage and was going to try to race the drop turner and engage it while it was dropping. It went really badly as he missed the popper 3 or 4 times and tried to leave after every shot. He got lost in the stage. He engaged the drop turner and shot another target and headed to 2nd shooting box leaving 3 targets that weren't engaged. I stayed back in first shooting box seeing him hesitate and think about coming back. He then committed and ran to the 2nd box and I was thinking crap I have to get there to get the last shots. Well after getting to the second shooting box he decided to return to the first box to engage the targets that he forgot. Well basically we passed each other in the middle with him going uprange and me going downrange. I stopped him because... well he was heading uprange of me. He did nothing wrong and was safe with the muzzle although he did screw the pooch on the stage. He got a reshoot obviously. I stopped him because I lost control of the situation and got caught out of position. My mistake but was trying to make sure to be close enough to get the last shot. I don't know what I could have done differently.

This wasn't just a one time deal as another PCC shooter on our squad got a reshoot for RO interference because he went back uprange to reengage a target while in the second shooting box and ran into the RO.

And yes it was a great match and beautiful weather.

Not sure but I think the first reshoot was intentional and the 2ed was not.

 

[kevinm]

I'm a B shooter (stil should have been C) and I find difficult and challenging stages are actually fun. Cookie cutter stages are no fun. Set up crew are the most under appreciated people. Big props to you all.

I'm thinking more of a D shooter!!

 

[kevinm]

I understand what everyone is saying but if someone is willing to set up a stage they can do it anyway they want as long as it's legal. When you I have the same 2,3 or 4 people come out and set stages up and someone wants to set up a stage up there self go for it.

 

[Fuzz]

Sounds like lots agree and we are all on the same sheet of music.

The only big concern I see is a person shooting there first match and getting stuck or frustrated.

My 12 year old Grandson shot his second match at Warsaw this month and it was a NO MATCH and had some very difficult and interesting twists. He did great and loved it being difficult. Afterwards I mentioned it was as tough of a match as he will ever shoot. Since he had made it through he just smiled at that statement and it really helped his confidence.

If it is a new shooter or a recent new shooter we just need to coach and assist them. This will help the new guy from getting in a panick or discouraged and quit.

 

[Grelber]

Not sure but I think the first reshoot was intentional and the 2ed was not.

For what it is worth, you do not need to grant a reshoot if the shooter gets up range of you, providing you do not block his path or prevent him from being able to keep the muzzle pointed in a safe direction (per Jay Worden, the guy that was r.o. instructor at the last class at Silver creek). Probably a great great policy to if there is any doubt in your mind or if the situation comes at you by surprise, but if you figure somebody is gaming you . . . .

if someone is willing to set up a stage they can do it anyway they want as long as it's legal. When you I have the same 2,3 or 4 people come out and set stages up and someone wants to set up a stage up there self go for it.

+1000

 

[kevinm]

You do if stop the shooter. . The RO would of been uprange from the shooter.

 

[Tanfodude]

For what it is worth, you do not need to grant a reshoot if the shooter gets up range of you, providing you do not block his path or prevent him from being able to keep the muzzle pointed in a safe direction (per Jay Worden, the guy that was r.o. instructor at the last class at Silver creek). Probably a great great policy to if there is any doubt in your mind or if the situation comes at you by surprise, but if you figure somebody is gaming you . . . .



+1000

Basically that's a safety issue so he had to stop the shooter, even if no physical contact, it's still RO interference. The RO was downrange in relation to the shooter during course of fire. Even if the intended target was opposite of the RO, just not a safe practice to let the shooter go.

 

[Twangbanger]

I would just encourage people to keep the new shooter in mind. On a day when everything is clicking, we all enjoy hard stages. But invariably there is a newbie whose gun or ammo are not gelling, and it doesn't take much to blow someone's fuses under those conditions. If something in a stage design is teasing the 180 line, and risks getting somebody sent to the house, that's probably an example of the kind of thing that needs to be avoided.

Like it or not, we have to compete against things like IDPA and 3-gun. I have said it before, but there has not been a shooting sport invented by man that can't die or go into decline, if it doesn't remain shooter-focused and accessible to the newbie. Arguably, I wonder if USPSA couldn't be about 10 years away from this and just not know it yet. It takes a _lot_ of work to set up a shoot, more than other sports, and if the same people are doing it over and over, responding to a perceived need for better and better stages, you could already have one foot in the grave once the current generation ages out.

Do we just want the same die-hards over and over? What portion of the newbies actually stay with the sport, vs. checking in for a couple years then drifting away? These are questions many, many other shooting sports have failed to deal with effectively, from trap to skeet to bullseye to PPC to metallic silhouette (which, according to another INGO poster, just held a National Championship this summer with only 70 shooters (!)...despite being a hot-growing sport in the 80s).

It can happen to us. Is what we're doing sustainable, in the face of competition from other things which are seen as more welcoming to the newbie on one side (IDPA), or sexier on the other (3-gun)?

 

[Grelber]

Basically that's a safety issue so he had to stop the shooter, even if no physical contact, it's still RO interference. The RO was downrange in relation to the shooter during course of fire. Even if the intended target was opposite of the RO, just not a safe practice to let the shooter go.

NROI Instructor, the email chain was about a dropped mag rather than a forgotten target, but same difference.

As long as the competitor could retreat safely and the RO could safely get out of the way a reshoot is not actually warranted. If the shooters stopped and requested the reshoot because he was interfered with but no contact occurred it is a judgement call whether it should have been granted. I am assumming that is what happened. The correct call would have been “If you are finished, unload and show clear” At that point the COF would have ended and no reshoot would be allowed. Or at least the RM should have been called and it could be discussed.

If the RO could have went sideways and got out of the way, then after the shooter in a safe manner retreived the mag and proceded downrange, it would be no harm no foul. The key is “safely” if the shooter pointed his gun a the RO in the process, then a DQ would be warranted for sweeping. 5.5.2 says they can retreive their dropped mags, but it must be done safely.

The rule was not designed to give a shooter a free reshoot because of his error. It was designed to allow a reshoot if the RO physicially interferes with the competitor by contact. However, in the real world we know the RO is going to be standing there with "the deer in the headlights” stance and will not be able to move.
We cannot expect the shooter to go around us like we are a wall or stack of barrels.


​

 

[ViperJock]

Outside of a championship where does a shooter encounter a stage that challenges them if not at a "local" match? Seems like last cal matches need hard stages if you want lit cal shooters to be able to compete in regional matches....

 

[rvb]

I would just encourage people to keep the new shooter in mind. On a day when everything is clicking, we all enjoy hard stages. But invariably there is a newbie whose gun or ammo are not gelling, and it doesn't take much to blow someone's fuses under those conditions. If something in a stage design is teasing the 180 line, and risks getting somebody sent to the house, that's probably an example of the kind of thing that needs to be avoided.

Like it or not, we have to compete against things like IDPA and 3-gun. I have said it before, but there has not been a shooting sport invented by man that can't die or go into decline, if it doesn't remain shooter-focused and accessible to the newbie. Arguably, I wonder if USPSA couldn't be about 10 years away from this and just not know it yet. It takes a _lot_ of work to set up a shoot, more than other sports, and if the same people are doing it over and over, responding to a perceived need for better and better stages, you could already have one foot in the grave once the current generation ages out.

Do we just want the same die-hards over and over? What portion of the newbies actually stay with the sport, vs. checking in for a couple years then drifting away? These are questions many, many other shooting sports have failed to deal with effectively, from trap to skeet to bullseye to PPC to metallic silhouette (which, according to another INGO poster, just held a National Championship this summer with only 70 shooters (!)...despite being a hot-growing sport in the 80s).

It can happen to us. Is what we're doing sustainable, in the face of competition from other things which are seen as more welcoming to the newbie on one side (IDPA), or sexier on the other (3-gun)?

?

USPSA is continuing to grow.

We had a brand new shooter on my squad this past Sunday. There were some typically challenging courses. He had some mikes and some FTEs, but he was loving it, and he sounded hooked. Could some other personalities reacted differently? maybe. That tells me it's the person, not the stage.

I know when I talk to new shooters I try to emphasize not getting frustrated on the shooting at their first match, and that they're on the beginning of a big, fun learning curve, not all of which is shooting related... miss a steel a couple times, move on! forget a target and get an FTE, shrug it off, it happens! have fun!

There is a lot of shooting happening in IN and nation wide, but I see no need to change our style to try to "compete" with that at the local level. If folks want simpler stages, there is IDPA. Go have fun. At the national level, IDPA is actually a good example of how the organization tried to compete... not by trying to make stages simpler or requiring concealment, etc, but by adding Production division. And I think the org as a whole is at least trying to do a good job of not becoming stale (the demise of most shooting sports) by adding divisions to accommodate guns people want to compete with (eg Production, CO, PCC). PCC is drawing some folks that want to run a carbine but not spend 12 hrs on the range for a 3-gun match.

As a business model, changing your core product with established regular "customers" in order to attract new customers, puts you at risk of ending up with no customers. I've seen clubs on the brink of death, because they got in a vicious cycle of less help resulting in simpler stages, then simpler stages meant lower attendance, which lead to even less help and even simpler stages, and so on. While we are still small, FtW has on average 3-4x the attendance we had 7-8 yrs ago, and it's because we started putting up challenging courses.

-rvb

 

[longbeard]

Anyone who contributes to setting up a match in any capacity gets my support. It's a LOT of work. If there are new people (like me) designing stages. Bear with them while they learn. You need them to do it.

Also... Tough is subjective. In the end I think people want flow and options. Less than obvious stuff is cool.

 

[rvb]

NROI Instructor, the email chain was about a dropped mag rather than a forgotten target, but same difference.

As long as the competitor could retreat safely and the RO could safely get out of the way a reshoot is not actually warranted. If the shooters stopped and requested the reshoot because he was interfered with but no contact occurred it is a judgement call whether it should have been granted. I am assumming that is what happened. The correct call would have been “If you are finished, unload and show clear” At that point the COF would have ended and no reshoot would be allowed. Or at least the RM should have been called and it could be discussed.

If the RO could have went sideways and got out of the way, then after the shooter in a safe manner retreived the mag and proceded downrange, it would be no harm no foul. The key is “safely” if the shooter pointed his gun a the RO in the process, then a DQ would be warranted for sweeping. 5.5.2 says they can retreive their dropped mags, but it must be done safely.

The rule was not designed to give a shooter a free reshoot because of his error. It was designed to allow a reshoot if the RO physicially interferes with the competitor by contact. However, in the real world we know the RO is going to be standing there with "the deer in the headlights” stance and will not be able to move.
We cannot expect the shooter to go around us like we are a wall or stack of barrels.


​

As an RO, if I end up down-range of the shooter, I will shut it down. Every time.
I'm not putting MY safety in jeopardy or putting the shooter at risk of a sweeping DQ because of MY mistake.

now before people want to scenario that to death, sure, if I'm at 170 on the left side and shooter is moving/pointing 160 on the right, and I can get out of their way w/o so much as being in their peripheral vision, I'd let it go. But safety has to come first.

As a shooter, if I so much as hesitate because I see you getting in front of me or I'm about to outrun you up-range, I will consider that interference and argue for reshoot if I feel it's warranted (advantageous). Because as a shooter if I see things getting unsafe, I will shut it down (ie wait til you're behind me before continuing). I shouldn't be expected to keep shooting in that situation and just assume the RO will "safely get out of the way."

I've been on both sides of that coin, and it's never been a big "thing" when you can express it in terms of safety.

-rvb

 

[cedartop]

?

I've seen clubs on the brink of death, because they got in a vicious cycle of less help resulting in simpler stages, then simpler stages meant lower attendance, which lead to even less help and even simpler stages, and so on.
-rvb

I guess it is a bit off topic, but even in my short time in USPSA I am seeing this. At my club it could happen, as of right now the two guys holding it together have too much pride to let it happen, but that makes a lot of work for the 3 of us. It is definitely happening at another club I shoot at monthly and it is sad to see.

 

[rvb]

I guess it is a bit off topic, but even in my short time in USPSA I am seeing this. At my club it could happen, as of right now the two guys holding it together have too much pride to let it happen, but that makes a lot of work for the 3 of us. It is definitely happening at another club I shoot at monthly and it is sad to see.

well, it's not off topic, because in those cases where the match got small and stages got very simple, it sure didn't attract new shooters. maybe I failed to make that point above, but that's where I was going with that. It disproves the idea that we are collectively "too hard" for new shooters. New shooters also want to go where the fun, challenges, and competition are at...

-rvb

 

[JollyMon]

The more difficult the stages the better. I dont feel people can improve as shooters if they are not challenging themselves.

 

[Grelber]

As an RO, if I end up down-range of the shooter, I will shut it down. Every time.
I'm not putting MY safety in jeopardy or putting the shooter at risk of a sweeping DQ because of MY mistake.

now before people want to scenario that to death, sure, if I'm at 170 on the left side and shooter is moving/pointing 160 on the right, and I can get out of their way w/o so much as being in their peripheral vision, I'd let it go. But safety has to come first.

You seem to be a man of two minds this morning .

I do not think anyone is suggesting compromising safety. On occasion you can see things coming from a long way off (forgotten target or dropped mag) and allow the shooter to get their correct score safely. We have all had opportunities to get on the wrong side an r.o. after screwing something up, I think it is good that there is no automatic free reshoot card, but I support you guys being very anal about safety being 1st.