Pistol Smith Forum banner
1 - 20 of 30 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
199 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I am not that familiar with the IDPA rules. Will a competitor place higher if he has a faster time with marginal hits than more accurate hits with a slower time?

Where does the balance fall?

Thanks
 

· Registered
Joined
·
3,552 Posts
Hits or speed for the mortals. Go fast enough and you can make up for anything...almost. But IDPA isn't as forgiving as IPSC is in that side of the equation.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Dane Burns on 2001-07-17 20:40 ]</font>
 

· Registered
Joined
·
199 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Mr. Burns,

I am definitely a mere mortal. I've been trying to emphasize A Zone hits over speed. But, I notice faster times with less accuracy seems to win the matches.

How can I improve my speed? I can get the hits pretty well but, my speed has hit a plateau.

Thank you for your advice.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: JM on 2001-07-17 21:28 ]</font>
 

· Registered
Joined
·
3,552 Posts
There are lots of guys who can get you to shoot faster. There is also a balance between speed and accuracy. My suggestion for any shooter in IDPA is shoot the -0-s first, think speed later. The time penality is HUGE in IDPA. I can't go fast enough to make up for a -1 while doing it as a master in IDPA and IPSC. Jim Higginbotham on this list shot the last Nationals at -7 points down IIRC...for the ENTIRE match. I think he was also in the top 10. Now Jim is a good shooter. But the likes of Leatham, Middlebrooks, Haught and Langdon and a few other's who are younger (not much Jim:) and do it for a living won by being faster....but shooting A's is what it's all about on the street or in a match. The guy who wins normally shoots the most A's with the fastest time.

FWIW my only goal is to shoot A's as fast as possible....but only A's.

There is another 3 dozen guys on here that can help you out past that :grin:
 

· Registered
Joined
·
493 Posts
It was 5 points but who's counting, Dane :smile: I don't even know what place but I don't think it was top 10.

I take exception to the remark about speed though. I had to shoot 350 rounds and still had 5 points down... Robbie only shot 225 or so and was satisfied with 18 or whatever he had... his way is better for winning matches. Like Theodore Roosevelt, I don't shoot particularly well but I shoot often :smile:

Actually that is all a joke (for those who don't know how Dane and I banter back and forth)... I agree with him completly... well, on this issue anyway. Keep them in the A-zone (or -0 zone) and then just keep doing it faster. You might find some local matches where "spray and pray" might work out but I guarantee no one is going to win against serious competition (either in a match or on the street) by dropping points to get faster.

Also, a tip, learn to analyze what you are really seeing. In a 200 round IDPA match there is usually some 40-60 seconds of "slop". Meaning, tactical reloads, how one uses cover (emphasis on minimum exposure or emphasis on getting the shots off quick), how they move when required to move etc. Be careful who you choose as your model and know what you want to achieve before you do.

Be careful out there!
Best regards,
Jim Higginbotham
 

· Registered
Joined
·
271 Posts
Jim and Dane are on the money. BTW, I was in Jim's squad last year at the Nats, scored a lot of those targets, and I have not figured out where he dropped those points. If you can keep getting A hits, the speed will happen.

Last year, Mikey made up a little standards string, and I started to shoot it every week. What I noticed was what I percieved as slowing down a lot was not really slowing down, but getting a better sight picture. My score started to improve quite a bit. My raw time time was slightly slower, but with the improved accuracy, my score was much improved. My goals at any match is to win of course, but I look at points down. I always want the fewest points down.

Take my word for it, speed will come. And Jim, hope to see you at the Nats again this year.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
548 Posts
Getting nothing but good hits is everything in IDPA. Most IDPA field courses are not long and you can’t make up much time running fast.

I shot a three yard standards stage a few months ago close to three times faster than the nearest shooter. After penalties, I just barely won. I had no misses, just points down. I did however, have six to eight pieces of brass in the air at once on every string... Style points anybody?

I am not much for the bullshit IDPA doctrine or politics, but shooting it has helped my IPSC accuracy. A skill I had lost over the past few years.

Advice for IDPA? Hit zero's as fast as YOU can. Not as fast as someone else can. If you aren’t shooting zeros, you are loosing. The speed will come.

Advice for IPSC? Speed first, accuracy will come.

Good luck to you.

Tom
AF Shooting Team
 

· Registered
Joined
·
240 Posts
I have always thought that if IDPA wanted to stress accuracy they wouldn't take the points down X .5. That would double the overall points down and force people to make A hits. As long as the timer is on people are going to go fast. In a true shootout situation, people wouldn't be so fast to display 1/2 of their bodies to their antagonist. A lot more cover would be used and more time taken to ensure good hits.

Don't get me wrong, I love shooting IDPA.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
240 Posts
On 2001-07-18 10:25, Rosco Benson wrote:
IDPA's scoring gives accuracy too much weight, IMO. The original .3 second per point down was better in this regard than the current .5 second penalty.

Rosco
Interesting Rosco. So you favor speed over accuracy? Don't you think there is a diminishing return on that? I would have thought that accuracy was more important.

Bill
 

· Registered
Joined
·
486 Posts
Speed without accuracy is useless. All of the elements...accuracy, power, and speed must be in balance. DVC, y'know...not Dvc, or dvC.

That said, I do think that IDPA tends to undervalue speed versus accuracy. For example, let's say that you're facing two targets and you draw and put two "-0" hits on each in 2.5 seconds. Then I run the drill and put a "-0" and a "-1" on each target in 2.0 flat. My "adjusted" time will be 3.0 seconds and you will have won.

However, if these were real bad guys, would you rather have the 2.5 second time...with perfect hits...or would you rather whack 'em in 2.0 flat with your pairs spread a bit more than ideal? Which time would you want if you knew that target/bad guy #2 was going to put a bullet in your left eye at the 2.25 second point?

Personally, I like Louis Awerbuck's "mantra" of "as quickly as you CAN, as carefully as you MUST" to describe the balance between speed and accuracy. If you aren't slipping one out of the A-zone every now and again, you aren't going as fast as you CAN.

Rosco
 

· Registered
Joined
·
18 Posts
On 2001-07-18 14:59, Rosco Benson wrote:
Speed without accuracy is useless. All of the elements...accuracy, power, and speed must be in balance. DVC, y'know...not Dvc, or dvC.


It is impossible to design a scoring system that would always kepp the 'DVC' triangle in perfect ballance. Course design will cause some stages to favor speed and others to favor accuracy. I would say that IDPA stages usually favor accuacy slightly over speed most of the time. However the difference is slight and one still needs to apply both to win.

That said, I do think that IDPA tends to undervalue speed versus accuracy. For example, let's say that you're facing two targets and you draw and put two "-0" hits on each in 2.5 seconds. Then I run the drill and put a "-0" and a "-1" on each target in 2.0 flat. My "adjusted" time will be 3.0 seconds and you will have won.

OK, but if we changed it to your prefered .3 seconds for each '-1' your time would be 2.6 seconds and you still would have lost.

However, if these were real bad guys, would you rather have the 2.5 second time...with perfect hits...or would you rather whack 'em in 2.0 flat with your pairs spread a bit more than ideal? Which time would you want if you knew that target/bad guy #2 was going to put a bullet in your left eye at the 2.25 second point?

So wouldn't you want to get two -3's on each target in 1.5 seconds if you knew that bad guy #2 was going to put a bullet in your other eye in 1.501 seconds, but that you knew that two -3's would be enough to stop him?
Using a 'what if' scenario constructed to prove your position is correct does not make it correct.

Personally, I like Louis Awerbuck's "mantra" of "as quickly as you CAN, as carefully as you MUST" to describe the balance between speed and accuracy.

Good advice for real life but difficult to codify into a scoring system.

If you aren't slipping one out of the A-zone every now and again, you aren't going as fast as you CAN.

But then again neither are you being as careful as you MUST if that slipped A costs you a win.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
486 Posts

On 2001-07-18 15:36, Tim Bacus wrote:
OK, but if we changed it to your prefered .3 seconds for each '-1' your time would be 2.6 seconds and you still would have lost.
That's true. I said the original .3 penalty was better than the current .5 penalty...better, not perfect.


Using a 'what if' scenario constructed to prove your position is correct does not make it correct.


I'm not trying to "prove" anything, Tim. I'm just pointing out that one never knows how much time he will have to deal with a given situation. Faster is better...provided it works. Agreed?


Good advice for real life but difficult to codify into a scoring system.


Difficult? I suppose. However, the original Vicker's count (.3 second penalty) came close, as did the classic Comstock. I would opine that the Paladin scoring system comes even closer, but that's not what we're discussing here.


But then again neither are you being as careful as you MUST if that slipped A costs you a win.


I wonder how many highly-qualified motorcycle racers there are who have never dropped a bike? How many Indy winners have never hit the wall? Still, they don't win races in which they drop their bikes or hit the wall. That's okay. A "win" happens when everything goes right (or goes "more wrong" for the competition). I don't object to this in the least. What I do object to is setting the overall pace too slowly, so as to avoid that ragged edge of control. Playing it safe isn't (or shouldn't be) any way to win a race, an IDPA match, or a gunfight.

Rosco
 

· Registered
Joined
·
146 Posts
On 2001-07-18 10:25, Rosco Benson wrote:
IDPA's scoring gives accuracy too much weight, IMO. The original .3 second per point down was better in this regard than the current .5 second penalty.
Agreed. In a fight my reasoning would be to shoot as fast as reasonable hits could be made and once each opponent had lead in them return to any target requiring further attention. As an IPSC shooter I recently shot an IDPA mactch. On one stage the scenario was a holdup by three BG's while you were pumping gas. Each was armed with a pistol. I turned and engaged the three with my Kimber in approx 3 sec. Four of the six hits were -1's (some of these would have been A hits on an IPSC target) for a total time of 5 sec! While my score was trashed, I'd do the same in a real situation. Would anyone here really attempt shooting this in the real world in 5 sec? Not me! FWIW, I would think BG #3 would really plaster you if you did.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: DblTap on 2001-07-19 07:39 ]</font>


[PeterL: Fixed your quote code error. :smile:

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Peter Loron on 2001-07-20 13:18 ]</font>
 

· Registered
Joined
·
18 Posts
On 2001-07-19 07:36, DblTap wrote:
Agreed. In a fight my reasoning would be to shoot as fast as reasonable hits could be made and once each opponent had lead in them return to any target requiring further attention.

Sounds like a good plan, unfortunately in real life you don't get to decide what are reasonable hits, the target does. You may think a 45ACP hollowpoint through the lung is quite reasonable, the shootee might not. A gangbanger thought a .357 in the heart was reasonable (a -0 hit BTW) when he shot LAPD officer Stacey Lim. She however did not, she chased him around her vehicle and killed him with her 9MM.

As an IPSC shooter I recently shot an IDPA mactch. On one stage the scenario was a holdup by three BG's while you were pumping gas. Each was armed with a pistol. I turned and engaged the three with my Kimber in approx 3 sec. Four of the six hits were -1's (some of these would have been A hits on an IPSC target) for a total time of 5 sec!

So you shot fast and hit poorly, IDPA is a game, and is scored accordingly. You shot faster than you could put all your hits in the -0 zone and were penalized for it. We need to remember that IDPA is a game, not real life.

While my score was trashed, I'd do the same in a real situation. Would anyone here really attempt shooting this in the real world in 5 sec? Not me! FWIW, I would think BG #3 would really plaster you if you did.

I'm not really sure what one has to do with the other. The goal of a gunfight is to survive, the goal of an IDPA match is to shoot faster and drop less points than the other competitors.
 
1 - 20 of 30 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top