My latest "improving IDPA" idea

[dukeofurl]

This came to me in the shower while I was soaping my.........well, the guys know what I'm talking about. Come to think of it, I get a lot of ideas while I'm soaping my.....well, lets get on with it.

The IDPA/USPSA Team Challenge! (It goes both ways! Like a bisexual! <--bad family guy joke)

Think you and your buddy are good enough to beat another shooter or team of shooters? Well why shouldnt you be able to challenge them to the field of honor at dawn? Ok, bad wording, anyhow.....

Take 2 or more IDPA/USPSA shooters, class them as a team based on division and classification. All team shooters must be in the same equipment division but they are classed based on the HIGHEST classification that any team member holds.

IDPA Example: 3 SSP shooters, one MM, one SS, one NV.
Team: Triple SSP/SS

USPSA Example: 4 Open shooters, one MA, one GM, one A, one B.
Team: Quad Open/GM

IDPA Team Scoring: Combine all team shooters times, points down, applicable penalties and calculate score for team. Compare with other teams in similar classifications.

USPSA Team Scoring: Combine all points after calculating hit factors and such and calculate score for team. Compare with other teams in similar classifications.

This idea would be GREAT for inter club rivalry. If you have 3 clubs withinn one hour of each other, kick the idea around and take 5 shooters from each club and team them against each other.

Anyone want to bash my idea or have I actually got something neat going?

 

[John Forsyth]

Actually it's a good idea, and we have tried to figure out a way to do it several times at my club.

Our idea was to have a team oriented non-sanctioned match, 4 stages, with a team of four, of which only one could be in master and expert, and all divisions would be represented. Example, you could have one MA SSP, one EX ESP, and two SS, CDP and SSR. Every member shot the stage, get a cummulative score, divide by four, and that would be your team's score for that stage. At the end of the match, the team with the best score won.

I think the team idea is a good one.

 

[Kend]

We've done 3 person team competition at our larger IDPA matches using rules I came up with, instead of a separate match you use the combined scores of the team members and have separate awards based on the combined scores. Each member has to be in the same division but not the same class, somewhat popular but it takes a little explaining on how it works. At $15 per team it was quite the money maker for the club, we called it "Redneck Team Competition" and gave engraved beer mugs for awards. We're kicking around the idea of having it at the GA state match this year. I don't know how it could be used with IDPA and USPSA but it could probably be modified a bit to work. Following is what I had posted on our web site about it.

IDPA team competition is something new we've come up with to add a little more fun to our matches. This is not an official IDPA competition, just a local club thing. The rules are very simple and are adapted directly from NRA Silhouette Competition. Each classification is assigned a point value as follows:
Master = 5, Expert = 4, Sharpshooter = 3, Marksman = 2, Novice = 1
Each team must have 3 members and the point value of the team can not exceed 9 points. The 3 team members must be from the same Division.

EXAMPLES:
1 Master + 2 Marksman = 9 points
2 Expert + 1 Novice = 9 points
3 Sharpshooter = 9 points
2 Sharpshooter + 1 Marksman = 8 points (this team is handicapped, but it's legal)

There are other combinations of shooters that will work as long as the total points of the team doesn't exceed 9. The team scores would be determined by adding the individual team members score for the entire match, best score wins. Each team would pay an entry fee to compete for a team award, I think charging $15 per team at a big match would be reasonable. We give a first place award only and each winning team member would get the same type of award, plaque, t-shirt, etc. Try it at your club and let me know how it works, we don't charge anything for the club match teams but we don't give awards yet either. We're just seeing if it works and how much interest it will generate

 

[dukeofurl]

Kend, um

5+2 is not 9, its 7.

 

[Taipei Personality]

Kend, um

5+2 is not 9, its 7.

True, but 5+2+2 does equal 9, i.e., there are 2 Marksmen

 

[Joe D]

Good ideas, but first let's get rid of the silly Classifier system that IDPA uses. There are too many instances of MM/SS/Experts that year after year win their class by a wide margin yet don't get moved up due to less than 10 shooters in their class or they just don't ever shoot the Classifier match.

Why not just use an IPSC style classification system that has a Classifier stage in every local match. The sandbaggers would go away pretty fast.

John, see you this weekend.

 

[Kend]

The sandbaggers would go away pretty fast.

There are a lot of sandbaggers in USPSA, I like their classification system but it's still screwable(?). Both classification systems have good and bad points but neither is perfect. My team concept is far from perfect but it was easy and it worked really well the couple of times we've used it, I'm sure something better can be dreamed up but it was a start.

 

[Joe D]

That's true there are SBs in every sport. There just seems to be a lot more in IDPA. I don't understand the concept of sandbagging. When I started shooting IDPA several years ago my burning desire was to be a Master class shooter.

 

[dukeofurl]

Sandbagging isnt neccessarily intentional.

Example: My weak hand SUCKS. My strong hand SUCKS. Everytime I shoot an LV course, I'm down at least 5 points a string.

Do some math. A good portion of the IDPA classifier is the strong hand/weak hand and the whole thing is LV.

The 50 foot shots kick off a lot of points down.

What I'm trying to say is that theres a degree of unintentional sandbagging. The difficulty level of an entire classifier, being nothing but drills drills drills isnt something to sneeze at. I've had shooters shoot the classifier at MM, show up to match and beat SS and borerline EX shooters.

The reason this happens is that most matches follow the IDPA rules, the classifier seems to exhibit the current stage design rules in drill format and increased difficulty. Shooters doing the classifier will excel at the strong hand/weak hand and the headshot only strings.

Shooters winning the matches will excel at what REALLY counts - shooting on the move, speed of target acquisiton and re-acqusition, knowing how to shoot the COF to the best of their abilities and staying withinn rules, when going back for an extra shot is warranted, et al. These are generally skills that arent exactly seen in a mostly static classifier.

I like the USPSA classifcation system and I dislike it. There are a LOT of GOOD USPSA classifier stages that would make good IDPA classifier stages, except I think that IDPA does not want to infringe on any USPSA proprietary materiel. Here are some USPSA classifiers that I rated for IDPA use.

http://www.uspsa.org/classifiers/cm99-01.gif - Good, if you scale back the distance some.

http://www.uspsa.org/classifiers/cm99-03.gif - Poor, I fail to see the point of the use of a soup can. Perhaps manual dexterity on the clock is a valuable asset in a gunfight. Nonetheless, I think this dosent work well.

http://www.uspsa.org/classifiers/cm99-06.gif - Complicated/Poor.

http://www.uspsa.org/classifiers/cm99-28.gif - Complicated.
http://www.uspsa.org/classifiers/cm99-20.gif - Complicated.

http://www.uspsa.org/classifiers/cm99-22.gif - Excellent.

http://www.uspsa.org/classifiers/cm99-49.gif - Good.

http://www.uspsa.org/classifiers/cm99-11.gif - Perfect! The gold standard! Maybe we should just take this, standardize the distance at 30 feet, and do 3 starts - back to targets, surrender, back to targets relaxed, hands relaxed. Cumulate the 3 string times and points and base the entire thing from there. Score 6 strings. Freestyle - Surrender/Back/Facing, Headshot only - Surrender/Back/Facing, Weak hand - Surrender/Back/Facing.

BTW, the current classifier is a PAIN IN THE ASS TO RUN. Every MD I've talked to that has done them has mentioned this as well as the area IDPA boss.

Just my .02.

 

[bradvanhorn]

Interesting read...

I've only just shot my first match, so I haven't experienced enough yet to really have any comment.

I will shoot my first classifier in about three weeks, and I'm looking forward to it. The course of fire doesn't look as entertaining as the stuff we did this week, but it strikes me as a test of overall ability rather than up close and personal ability. Maybe it could be better, but for now I can only say that it's already a lot better than what I used to do - occupy a lane and shoot at a paper target hanging somewhere down the bay.

 

[another okie]

"What I'm trying to say is that theres a degree of unintentional sandbagging."

Sandbagging is intentional by definition. That's what the word means - intentionally shooting worse than you can at a classifier. It comes from golfers who intentionally throw in a few bad holes or rounds to keep their handicap up.

I think what you're trying to say is that classifiers don't always test the same skills as courses of fire at matches. For example, weak hand shooting is not stressed at most monthly matches I go to. Maybe we need a new term, such as "classifier-challenged." Or "classifer issues." "A classifier-related disability."

 

[faustulus]

BTW, the current classifier is a PAIN IN THE ASS TO RUN. Every MD I've talked to that has done them has mentioned this as well as the area IDPA boss.

Another problem is it is a PITA to shoot. Nobody likes to shoot it. I have once to get classified. At the ranges I go to I have to go out of my way to shoot it (it is usually held after a match when one or two new people have to be qualifed.) I would rather see it like the USPSA does it. It would keep people like me from being MM all just because they qualifed once.

 

[dukeofurl]

Okie, thank you - that is exactly what I meant to say but better versed.

The classifier does not stress the skills that will win a match, it does stress accuracy and mostly static shooting, but shooting on the move is a big step up for novice shooters.

I actually considered breaking down the classifier into 3 stages, doing one per month.

Perhaps we should just take an el pres, stretch it out. Take 3 el pres shoots, average the scores and work it out on a table from there. Maybe even breaking it down to one el pres from cover, one from kneeling, one holding 2 stuffed grocery bags, I dunno. Theres got to be something better than the current system.

 

[Dr.Who]

Kend,

EXAMPLES:
1 Master + 2 Marksman = 9 points
2 Expert + 1 Novice = 9 points
3 Sharpshooter = 9 points
2 Sharpshooter + 1 Marksman = 8 points (this team is handicapped, but it's legal)

What would the handicap be?

 

[Kend]

What would the handicap be?

You could have 3 SS instead of 2 SS and 1 MM which, theoretically, would be a better team.

You could use 3 NV shooters if you wanted and if that was the only team they would be the winner in that division. The idea would be to use the highest classified shooters for the team but not to exceed 9 points.

 

[Dr.Who]

Kend,

You could have 3 SS instead of 2 SS and 1 MM which, theoretically, would be a better team.

Theoretically, would you handicap the so called "better team"? By adding on seconds? For example: 1 Point Below 10 seconds added, 2 points below 20 seconds, 3 points- 30 seconds and so on... 3 masters would have a 60 seconds added to their score.

In the same vain, if the scores were higher. 3 novices on a team for 12 points, 3 points over- would they get 30 seconds taken off of their score.

This sounds like something to try to see if it can be made to work. just trying to figure out from a small club angle, how this points could work from a small shooters pool with limited Masters, Experts, and SharpShooters. Thi could be figured like either a bowling or golf handicap. I could see this be a team ccompetition that could go over a few months or quarterly basis. Award the winners and start it over again. Even make the caveot that they must be on a different team for the next period. This could be allot of fun and help a good many people improve.

 

[Kend]

We didn't add or subtract time to make up for the handicap or advantage, it could be done but I think it would drive you wacky trying to figure out how much to give who. With average shooters the 9 point max should give you an average team, note use of the words "average" and "should". Sandbaggers will screw this up just like they do the classification systems and that's where the headache would come in trying to assign handicap points. I just figured keep it simple and let the hair go with the hide, see what happens and make changes if needed. It worked pretty well but I think people are hesitant about it because they don't fully understand the way it works. It's really very simple but we haven't done it on a club level as we don't have enough interested shooters to make teams in each division. Perhaps you could figure out a handicap that would allow you to mix divisions but I have no interest in trying that. Last year we did an individual points championship that ran all year and the winner recieved a gift certificate that was bought with the entry fees we collected. It's very simple also, if there is any interest I'll post the details in another thread.

 

[Tacblack]

Nothing is perfect so lets go past that. I get the idea sounds like it would be fun. There is already too much bad rivalry between IPDA and USPSA, of course people that shoot both don't seem to care. If you had people from each that were cool you could do a vs. match, but how about a team match have some of each style stages and 2 IDPA guys teamed with 2 USPSA guys I think that would be fun. Same thing you said just mixed teams, even them out a little and go shoot

 

[dukeofurl]

I started a point series that is exceptionally easy to calculate (I ripped off the concept from NASCAR, so thats pretty damn simple math)

Divison Winner: 150 points. Next place down recieves 15 points less. Repeat as neccessary.

 

[Dr.Who]

Kend,
Your other system sound interesting as well... Post It.