Vickers & Hackathorn on IDPA Vickers Scoring

[Dewidmt]

I am actually happiest when I take "most accurate" rather than top score at an IDPA match. And several state matches I have attended have had stages where the "down zero" zone has been reduced to a ocular or CNS spinal hit.
Unfortunately, too many folks equate "speed" to "expert shooter"!

 

[hooky]

I saw this same show and thought the more interesting point was the habit of clearing the gun and showing it empty, rather than continuing to cover or topping off. "Training scars" was the term used.

 

[SERVED_USMC]

In the sport "expert shooter" means your fast and accurate. Why slow the pace of the match down by covering more of the A zone? You have to be both to be competitive. I dont get it. If people want less speed and more accuracy they can always shoot bullseye

 

[Coach]

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

If the perception is that it is about speed does not that mean that speed is emphasized? Taran Butler does not win USPSA National Championships because he does speed over points. However he does beat most people because he is faster.

Speed will allow you to absorb some penalties and accuracy alone will not put you at or even near the top. At the top the balance has to be there but not through all the classes. Speed will move you up the score sheet more than accuracy. Given enough time we can all shoot the points available, but we cannot all do it at speed. How can I have a mike on El Prez? By trying to go faster than I can see the sights.

There is more emphasis on speed in USPSA.

 

[rhino]

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.

Absolutely agree.

 

[Barry in IN]

I agree the scoring should be one entire second per point.

I also agree with Rhino that some other penalties should be higher. I'd maybe rather see that changed before scoring, because it might bring more attention to accuracy anyway.

I think a hit on a non-threat should take a big enough bite out of the score to make the shooter regret it more than the "Oh well, I'll make it up on the next scenario" we do now.
Am I going to be as careful with a

And here's one that usually gets me in hit water every time I bring it up: I think a Failure To Neutralize should be a zero for the scenario.
Yes, I'm serious. If the "threat" was one that needed shot and neutralized when you started shooting, and you didn't accomplish that, you lost. Failure means failure. If done in a match, it should be something you don't forget easy. Instead, you get five seconds. Oh boy.
Maybe not a zero, but make it heavy. A Failure should be hard to forget, but while I've had plenty, I couldn't tell you when my last FTN was. It was probably at my last match two weeks ago. The penalty is so small I don't remember.

Make a hit on an non-threat about 10-15 seconds, and zero out a scenario for a failure (ok, I'll compromise and make it 30 seconds) and you won't have to change the scoring. Accuracy will come up.

 

[Barry in IN]

Oh yeah-
And put 10mm back in CDP while messing with the rule book.

 

[rhino]

Agreed on all.

I hadn't thought about the failure to neutralize, but you make an excellent point. If you're going market the game as being based on defense, the penalties should reflect that.

I forgot about 10mm. It's kind of silly to put it in ESP. I don't even remember why they did it.

I agree the scoring should be one entire second per point.

I also agree with Rhino that some other penalties should be higher. I'd maybe rather see that changed before scoring, because it might bring more attention to accuracy anyway.

I think a hit on a non-threat should take a big enough bite out of the score to make the shooter regret it more than the "Oh well, I'll make it up on the next scenario" we do now.
Am I going to be as careful with a

And here's one that usually gets me in hit water every time I bring it up: I think a Failure To Neutralize should be a zero for the scenario.
Yes, I'm serious. If the "threat" was one that needed shot and neutralized when you started shooting, and you didn't accomplish that, you lost. Failure means failure. If done in a match, it should be something you don't forget easy. Instead, you get five seconds. Oh boy.
Maybe not a zero, but make it heavy. A Failure should be hard to forget, but while I've had plenty, I couldn't tell you when my last FTN was. It was probably at my last match two weeks ago. The penalty is so small I don't remember.

Make a hit on an non-threat about 10-15 seconds, and zero out a scenario for a failure (ok, I'll compromise and make it 30 seconds) and you won't have to change the scoring. Accuracy will come up.

Oh yeah-
And put 10mm back in CDP while messing with the rule book.

 

[Barry in IN]

I forgot about 10mm. It's kind of silly to put it in ESP. I don't even remember why they did it.

I have never seen or heard a real answer, officially or unofficially.
Whenever someone at a match or on a forum asks why the 10mm was dropped out of CDP the "answer" is usually a poke at the lack of 10mm shooters. Something like "Yeah, and the three guys using it haven't been seen at a match since". Such hilarity.

That's all I have ever gotten: Because "nobody" used it. Not that popularity should be a requirement for the caliber's inclusion, but at the time IDPA started, the 10mm was perhaps the "deadest" it has ever been. I think there are more 10mm shooters (in general, not competition) now than in 1996. There are more guns made for it now.

I think my real question is "Why was it allowed in CDP (and .400 CorBon)? I say it like that because any reason I can think of for including the 10mm to begin with would still stand. In fact, there might be more good reasons now, not the least which is that Wilson Combat makes a 10mm now. Just sayin'.

Maybe I'll shoot my Delta Elite in ESP this year as my own little protest. That'll show 'em. Bring 'em to their knees I will.

But about penalties, yes, make them heavier. It should be heavy enough you remember it. Otherwise, what did you learn? Now, all we learn when it happens is that you can sometimes shoot faster on the next scenario to try to make it up.
Hit a non-threat and the penalty should be severe enough to make you kick yourself the rest of the day.
Get an FTN, and it should bug you all week. You won't do it again soon.
Everybody would shoot more accurately and the scoring system wouldn't need to be changed.

 

[BillD]

Well first off, you'd have to be shooting IDPA which is a total waste of time.

that was for you Joey.....

 

[Barry in IN]

I saw Joe wasting his time last year- twice!

 

[rhino]

Well first off, you'd have to be shooting IDPA which is a total waste of time.

that was for you Joey.....

Heh! Touche, sir.

I enjoy shooting IDPA as long as the stage don't involve too much down on the ground back up down on the ground back up, etc.

And IDPA needs to define "shooting from retention."

I saw Joe wasting his time last year- twice!

WITNESS!

 

[Barry in IN]

Come to think of it, I saw him those times, but I wasn't squadded with him so I can't actually say I saw him shoot.

I've never got too worried over clearly defining "shooting from retention" because it is hard to clearly define. But I suppose that if something get get you a penalty, it should be defined in the rule book.
The only mention of "retention" I remember involves mag change rules I don't agree with so much focus being heaped on (can of worms).

One usually has to let the arm come pretty far from the body to get penalized from what I've seen. However, speaking as an (occasional) SO, I've got enough to watch when a shooter is shooting from retention that determining if I can see light between the forearm and side is getting a ways down the priority list. Any angle from which I can see precisely where the the arm is related to the body won't let me see much else...especially things I need to be seeing with regard to where muzzles are pointed.

I suppose if someone wanted to get really anal (What? No!) the statement that the wrist/forearm must contact the shooter's side can be played with. It assumes one can define the "side" of the human body, which is oval in cross section. I overheard that comment at a match one time, and it was a joke, but I guess it does show the vagueness in the unwritten definition.

 

[rhino]

My point is, when it's been required in matches I've shot, it's essentially cowboy hip shooting. The targets are too far away ... like in the bad distance where you're slightly too far for contact and slightly too close for shooting at extension. Sticking your gun out with your elbow against your side is 1) not a good way to get accurate shots placed, and 2) makes it more difficult to actually retain possession of the gun if a real threat actually stepped forward and grabbed.

If I'd have the option of stepping into the target or stepping back away from it, I would have been . . . happier.

I do not anticipated any change. I also do not anticipate practicing hip shooting so I can do better on such stages. I'm just complaining about a detail that matters very little even in the tiny big picture of IDPA.

 

[rvb]

I know this is primarily an idpa thread, but I thought this was relavant, especially since ipsc is considered the "speed focused" game.... This is something a fellow competitor and friend wrote this week... a good lesson learned.

"Funny, comparing 1st place to 6th(me). It was fairly close. From high 80's to the winner.

The real interesting thing is the winner generally shot slower than everyone, 2-6 place. Except on my first stage, my times were considerably better every other stage. Some by several seconds. But he had no penalties and gobs more
A's. A signicant # more, actually [winner] shot a clean match. Clean, clean, clean.
....
There's a lesson for everyone in those scores. I went back and double checked, except for my first stage, I slaughtered him on time. Almost a full ten seconds over the match. "

-rvb

 

[rvb]

I think a hit on a non-threat should take a big enough bite out of the score to make the shooter regret it more than the "Oh well, I'll make it up on the next scenario" we do now.
...
I think a Failure To Neutralize should be a zero for the scenario.
... it should be something you don't forget easy. Instead, you get five seconds.

I dunno, I consider these to be match breakers. I can't make up 5 seconds. Should I shoot one of those, I'm most likely no longer shooting for match win.

In ipsc, you can usually get away with 1 or two misses or no-shoots and still be in contention, but mainly because the competition will most likely have 1, because the stage times are longer, so it's -possible- to chissle away at the deficit, and because the number of rounds is higher so the points lost aren't as big of an impact as the time loss in idpa.

-rvb

 

[04FXSTS]

Heh! Touche, sir.

I enjoy shooting IDPA as long as the stage don't involve too much down on the ground back up down on the ground back up, etc.

And IDPA needs to define "shooting from retention."




WITNESS!

Come to think of it, I saw him those times, but I wasn't squadded with him so I can't actually say I saw him shoot.



I was and these have become some of my fondest memories, or nightmares I am not sure which. Jim.

 

[Barry in IN]

I have been thinking in terms of a real-life correlation, but that's a good point too. I also think it supports raising the penalty.

The current five second penalty is a harsher penalty for you, and effectively is a "death penalty" because you are shooting for the match win and five seconds will usually have an effect there. Most aren't shooting at that level. At any given local match, there might be six or eight shooters who will likely win. Their total time for a six stage match might be around 70 seconds with them close together so even a penalty of two seconds would make all the difference.

For the rest of the 40 or so shooters, five seconds hurts, but it doesn't hurt their overall time that much (percentage-wise). I've looked at scores, and after the top few clustered at the top, there starts to be a big spread between overall match times from shooter to shooter. Five seconds is nothing when there is 15-20 seconds between placings, an that's what I see a lot after the top quarter of shooters.

I think it's unfair to you. An FTN will knock you a few spots down in the placings, but it doesn't hurt the average shooter nearly as much. The Sharpshooter and maybe Expert placings on down often wouldn't shift at all due to a five second change in one of them.
If an FTN ruins your day, why not everyone? The fast shooter "dies" but the slower shooter only gets lightly wounded.

If instead an FTN was 10 or more seconds, it would sting for just about anyone. You would lose first place with an FTN, but you would if it was five seconds so it blows either way for you. But now, the shooter who would have won Expert or Sharpshooter probably lost it too...along with a bunch of people dropping down if they also got FTNs.

 

[rhino]

I was and these have become some of my fondest memories, or nightmares I am not sure which. Jim.

D'OH! Surrounded by the Cousins Brown! Downtown and Uptown!