Interesting discussion of Vickers count and IDPA scoring

[1KPerDay]

Larry Vickers and Ken Hackathorn talking about the original intent of the Leatham/Vickers scoring system. Apparently Vickers wanted it to be one second per point. This would place a heavier emphasis on accuracy.

http://youtu.be/Rh5jubVjwQQ?t=4m54s

 

[waktasz]

I've heard that before and I've shot matches that way. It sucks.

 

[ny32182]

From what I can see, the "one second per point" crowd tends to consist of mid level or below shooters who seem to be implying that if the scoring model was even more biased toward accuracy, they would suddenly be much more competitive.

This is not the case. Review the stats from virtually any big match, and the winners are not only right near the top of the field in speed, but in accuracy too. A half second per point is already a scoring model that biases heavily toward accuracy at the higher levels. The winners are already dropping the fewest points, and going to one second per point would only expand the gap between them and the rest of the field.

 

[Jim Watson]

The original Vickers Count was .3 second per point.
It was increased to .5 sec/pnt before matches were held.
Now we are told it was really meant to be 1 sec/pnt?

I am in a local league as one of the few "civilians" admitted to shoot with LE and military.
It started out run to IDPA procedures but has drifted away.
The MD revised the scoring to 1 sec/pnt and 10 sec FTN or HNT to emphasize to the cops the need for accuracy and target ID so as to avoid winging a taxpayer.
Overall placement is about the same as it ever was.

 

[Drail]

I am always just happy to be shooting a match somewhere. i really don't much care about the points or winning or losing any more.

 

[Hometeached1]

I am always just happy to be shooting a match somewhere. i really don't much care about the points or winning or losing any more.

I just started, but feel the same way.

 

[jmorris]

My local club hosted the first NRA tactical 3-gun match trial in march of 2008. The rules were skewed towards accuracy and it would not have mattered much if the faster civilian 3 gun shooters were compaired with the "tactical" LEO shooters. Frequent 3-gun shooters that were also LEO placed quite well, while people trained with other things in mind would have been smoked by even lower level " competition" style shooters.

A 20 second penetality for hitting a no shoot, is not even enough of a problem to level the field if a "gamer" can shoot a stage that much faster hitting it.

Bad practice for an LEO though. Why games are a bad idea for this. I have never had to spend a year in court and loose my job for hitting a NS target, all while hoping I wouldn't be convicted of something.

 

[Nom de Forum]

My local club hosted the first NRA tactical 3-gun match trial in march of 2008. The rules were skewed towards accuracy and it would not have mattered much if the faster civilian 3 gun shooters were compaired with the "tactical" LEO shooters. Frequent 3-gun shooters that were also LEO placed quite well, while people trained with other things in mind would have been smoked by even lower level " competition" style shooters.

A 20 second penetality for hitting a no shoot, is not even enough of a problem to level the field if a "gamer" can shoot a stage that much faster hitting it.

Bad practice for an LEO though. Why games are a bad idea for this. I have never had to spend a year in court and loose my job for hitting a NS target, all while hoping I wouldn't be convicted of something.

Hitting a NS target should result in DQ. Sure it would slow things down and not be as spectacular, but didn't most of us start shooting these competitions 40 years ago because they were somewhat valuable for SD training and not just a game of darts with guns and bullets ?

 

[jmorris]

A DQ for a NS would be a game changer. Most of the guys and gals I know that shoot, shoot for fun.

"unsafe actions" generally don't involve a bullet missing a target and breaking the perf on a NS. Does sound like a good way for IDPA to loose more members to other games though.

IDPA came about 18 years ago so people could compete, in a IPSC type game, with guns and magizines that didn't cost a fortune, if you didn't have them before the Clinton AWB.

FWIW IDPA is even more lax than USPSA/IPSC in that not only do you get the score of the hit on the target behind the NS you just shot but you can hit it as many times as you like, after the first, and it's only 5 seconds. Not so in USPSA, no shoot throughs and each hit on a NS is a penalty.

 

[Nom de Forum]

A DQ for a NS would be a game changer. Most of the guys and gals I know that shoot, shoot for fun.

They probably still would shoot for fun as long as the rule applied to everyone. Nobody has stopped enjoying NL baseball because the AL has the designated hitter crutch to help win the game. Maybe the gamesman should consider what is best for the people shooting to learn to do rather than what is best for speeding up the game. These games should have the same element of either life (remaining in the game) or death (Disqualification) from human mistakes as life does. After all, these games somewhat simulate a situation of life or death.

 

[lcambre]

http://www.elearnenglishlanguage.com/blog/english-mistakes/loose-vs-lose/

 

[Jim Watson]

I don't understand the constant Internet Sniping at IDPA.
If they changed the rules to suit you, would you win? Would you have more "fun?" Would you prevail in "the real world?"
(MY definition of "fun" is doing well in competition. I am not a big winner, but I look at my scores and placement closely.)

 

[Nom de Forum]

I don't understand the constant Internet Sniping at IDPA.
If they changed the rules to suit you, would you win? Would you have more "fun?" Would you prevail in "the real world?"
(MY definition of "fun" is doing well in competition. I am not a big winner, but I look at my scores and placement closely.)

I am not sniping at IDPA or any other I-whatever. I don't think changing the rules to DQ if you hit a NS would make a difference in the ranking of shooters in a competition other than the rare DQ of a Grand Master who brain farts. Why not make the consequences of a poorly placed shoot more of a reminder of the consequences in the real world. The game would still be just as fun and sometimes more surprising than anticipated, sorta like the real world too.

 

[jmorris]

Hits on NS targets are much more common than FTDR's and DQ's combined at all of the matches I have ever shot.

Take the targets in the video below for example note the double swinger with NS in front of the threat target at the far right. Not out of the ordinary for people to hit the NS when used.

That target will be used at the TX State IDPA match this year and has been used in many matches in the pased.

 

[Comrade Mike]

You guys think about it way too much. Screw the scoring, just hit what you're shooting at and let the guys upstairs take care of the points. You'll have more fun and be surprised how well you finish.

I'm not a "fast" shooter, I'm not a gamer. I just hit what I shoot at, and do it at my own pace. I won my division in my first IDPA match, classified expert, and even win the occasional service rifle two gun match.

 

[Nom de Forum]

Hits on NS targets are much more common than FTDR's and DQ's combined at all of the matches I have ever shot.

Take the targets in the video below for example note the double swinger with NS in front of the threat target at the far right. Not out of the ordinary for people to hit the NS when used.

That target will be used at the TX State IDPA match this year and has been used in many matches in the pased.

I clicked on the photo but the link did not display anything. Just looking at the set-up I have to wonder if this is not a situation with a NS target but a no shooting situation because there is too much risk. I wish I could see it in action to confirm or dismiss my suspicions.

 

[Nom de Forum]

You guys think about it way too much. Screw the scoring, just hit what you're shooting at and let the guys upstairs take care of the points. You'll have more fun and be surprised how well you finish.

I'm not a "fast" shooter, I'm not a gamer. I just hit what I shoot at, and do it at my own pace. I won my division in my first IDPA match, classified expert, and even win the occasional service rifle two gun match.

That's great Tovarich and congrats. I won a trophy at my first IPSC match four decades ago using much the same technique. I do think IDPA and all the "action shooting" sports would be doing the responsible thing to increase the awareness to not hit things you should not hit by using DQ as a penalty. If they would embrace shooting stages where making the decision not to shoot because of unacceptable risk it would be even more responsible of them. Of course that would be extremely difficult logistically and competitively and will never happen.

 

[ny32182]

How about leave the games alone and worry about the "real world" in a tac-timmy class somewhere?

 

[Nom de Forum]

How about leave the games alone and worry about the "real world" in a tac-timmy class somewhere?

You are pretty much asking the impossible. The rules of games rarely remain unchanged. How do you think IDPA ever got started? People began to dislike the rules that were making IPSC what it became and wrote new rules that created a new game. Many games of all types have had their rules revised to slow down the action or eliminate types of competitive assistance for the benefit and preservation of the game's raison d'etre. Why shouldn't we discuss possible changes to IDPA rules if that is the intent?

I must be getting old. "tac-timmy class"? I can only guess that is short for Tactical Timmy Class and a derogatory term for more realistic training in the use of SD weapons than IDPA/IPSC.

 

[ny32182]

From what I can tell it got started for two reasons:

1) At the time USPSA didn't have divisions where you could be competitive with off-the-shelf guns.

2) The original founders decided it wasn't "tactical" enough.

Unfortunately in an effort to "fix" #2, they came up with rules that are subjective and restrictive, the former making it a lesser sport due to a whole lot of unneeded competitive inconsistency. If they want good shooters to keep shooting it, they need to make it less subjective, and while there were some attempts to address that in the new rulebook, they still have a long way to go.

 

[jmorris]

If they want good shooters to keep shooting it, they need to make it less subjective, and while there were some attempts to address that in the new rulebook, they still have a long way to go.

In the last printed rule book they sent out, on page 1, it read that IDPA was geared towards the new or average shooter. Many of the "good" ones move on to USPSA.

 

[Jim Watson]

The biggest move I have seen is to the 3 Gun fad. More gadgets, more, MORE!

 

[waktasz]

I don't understand the constant Internet Sniping at IDPA.
If they changed the rules to suit you, would you win? Would you have more "fun?" Would you prevail in "the real world?"
(MY definition of "fun" is doing well in competition. I am not a big winner, but I look at my scores and placement closely.)

Yes, it would be more fun.