-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
So over the Contrived and Repetitive Nature of Stages today
- Thread starter Lowlight
- Start date
It's all been seen before in other disciplines.
In the clay target sports for example; they've had handicap comps for decades. It didn't start off that way though. There was a gradual change in rules, target speed, target departure angle, shot size & weight & distance from the traps.
As sports mature from their inceptions, there is a growth in the number professionals or semi professionals which unintentionally hijack the sport until changes & systems are implemented, most often to address dwindling participation numbers.
There are a number of things I can think of such as changes in target size relative to shooter ability. Shooter grades, AA, A, B,C & etc.
There are many ways the sport can be improved from a competition perspective, it's more a question of the governing bodies willingness to make the changes.
In the clay target sports for example; they've had handicap comps for decades. It didn't start off that way though. There was a gradual change in rules, target speed, target departure angle, shot size & weight & distance from the traps.
As sports mature from their inceptions, there is a growth in the number professionals or semi professionals which unintentionally hijack the sport until changes & systems are implemented, most often to address dwindling participation numbers.
There are a number of things I can think of such as changes in target size relative to shooter ability. Shooter grades, AA, A, B,C & etc.
There are many ways the sport can be improved from a competition perspective, it's more a question of the governing bodies willingness to make the changes.
I am a long time competitor in IHMSA. Where once, handgun matches proliferated in Louisiana and Mississippi and one had to make a reservation days if not weeks in advance to have a spot to shoot, participation had seriously fallen off. There were no Centerfire silhouette matches in Louisiana and only one in Mississippi.
In an effort to get the sport restarted, we rebuilt an old silhouette range on Transport road east of Weston, Louisiana in 2008 and held matches at that range (Handgun Silhouette) for four years. At first we were getting 20 or more entries. However, we ended when participation dropped to zero. Our Friend, Charlie Braud, took up the challenge and moved the matches to Top Shot in Hodge, Louisiana. As of the last two years, he has been the only competitor at those matches. The matches also host Cowboy small bore silhouette and as of late, only one competitor has shown up.
We go to Charlies’ matches just to try to meet old friends when we are in Louisiana. His last match, he set out some half scale silhouettes for Brenda and I to shoot. Charlie and I have discussed getting into the Precision Rifle matches. However, as I will be 76 in a few days and he is 74, we are both getting a bit long in the tooth to host, much less set up targets for matches.
Final thought. unless I can convince Charlie to give up his match date at Top Shot and use it to hold money making precision .22 matches (for us and for the range) and we are successful, he is going to loose his match date reservation.
This can be the future of PRS/NRL.
Note, because both handgun silhouette and rifle silhouette use a fixed course of fire, there is not an issue with the match director competing in the matches he/she is hosting. And, many of the complaints discussed in this thread were also brought forth on web IHMSA discussions in the early to mid 2000’s. (Too easy, guns too complicated/expensive, production class is a mess etc).
You asked.
Last edited:
Consider that in order to qualify for semi-finals and finals, one must have shot a qualifier. If there were fewer qualifiers and local competitors had to travel 4-6 hours to attend a 1-day qualifier match, don’t you think that would be a bigger issue for those people than your perceived problem of too many qualifiers?
You really think that is what’s affecting quality of a match?
Yep, that's basically along the same lines I mentioned.
For guys who are interested & competitive, it's almost a dream to be recognised as a top shooter. The reality though, consists of guys who have the money & time to be the best &, that's ok & there's nothing wrong with that. I did that myself in sporting clays. Bought a new expensive shotgun, had it fitted to me, bought $5K worth of cartridges & spent the next 2 years practice shooting every spare moment I had &, I reloaded all those cartridges 3 x each as well. Cost me prolly 20K or more over about 3 1/2 years but I got to AA grade in relatively short time. The problem is, most guys can't afford that & they get jacked with never taking a win or even getting close so, they just fall away because they aren't competitive. That's where a shooting grading & handicap system get the average guys, who, are the bread & butter of most clubs, a fighting chance to win legitimately against those who simply have more time & money at their disposal. I've heard the argument a dozen times about whether or not a financial advantage is a legitimate advantage. My thinking is that there can be "winner takes all" no handicap matches. That's only fair to the guys who can afford to boost themselves but, they have to have competed in a certain number of handicap comps throughout the year to qualify for open entry. So no four flushers or dark horses &, they pay hard to play hard.
During most of the season with a grade system, the AA boys have to work their ass's off to keep their status but, cannot fall below "A" grade, ever, no matter how badly they may score. So no grade sitters or circling sharks.
There's plenty that can be done to enhance the competitive enjoyment for all the members &, it's a far better settup than watching the sharks bleed the comp dry & destroy the discipline as a result.
To be honest, it's a wonder that PRS has gone this long without having done something about the situation.
As much as I hate to say it, there's unspoken volumes right there with regard to the motivation of the guys running the show. I don't believe their priority is in the welfare of the sport.
Just sayin.
Last edited:
That’s a really good description of what is happening where I see.
Shoot to improve. Shoot to have fun. Compete against your last result.
Handicapping. Smh.
Like the kids sports that don’t keep score.
Spoken as a mid / upper mid pack shooter on my best day.
Raffling off prizes versus walking the table I could see. That would definitely reduce the pro shooter participation and make the poor shooters more likely to come. Lol
Handicapping. Smh.
Like the kids sports that don’t keep score.
Spoken as a mid / upper mid pack shooter on my best day.
Raffling off prizes versus walking the table I could see. That would definitely reduce the pro shooter participation and make the poor shooters more likely to come. Lol
Well, I think the particular discipline governs the essence of the competition.Competitions are just that, compete amongst peers.
Train and practice on your own time and show up to a match to “compete”.
I’m sure glad the football games played on Saturday are competitions and not training sessions
In the case of PRS, I have always understood that it was basically a form of competition/practice as a simulation for military sniper & sharp shooters. Ofcourse PRS has evolved as all disciplines do but, I think there's a valid argument to the question of the relevance of the current manner of the competition with respect to the original intent.
PRS is just a game played with rifles. The vast majority of participants are just regular Joe’s in it just for “fun”. It’s not meant to sharpen GI Joe’s sniper skills for real life scenarios.
Some folks just don’t like to see a movement pass them by.
My guess is that, since his initial gripe was in part that he thinks there are too many shooters with 300 points, which would have to include a win at a qualifier, he thinks that reducing the number of qualifiers would be the best way to reduce the number of guys with 300 points. But I don't really understand how having a bunch of shooters maxed out going into the finale is a bad thing, or why that would matter to anyone since everything will change after the regional finale anyways.
I'm honestly a little baffled by his complaint, since it seems to be essentially "if there weren't so many opportunities for other people to shoot and earn points I would be ranked closer to what I think I deserve." The thing about guys with 300 points not being able to continue competing for points goes along with that.
I agree.
The question is; what is the motivation?
Attending what are basically "open comps" , week in & week out, having to compete with what amounts to be professional (sponsored) shooters, isn't much motivation if your financial situation precludes you from "practicing more".
Grading systems pretty much automate the tier structure by enabling the "have nots" the chance to succeed within their grade because most "C" or "B" graders are in the same boat from a financial perspective &, those that start off "C" grade who are not financially or time challenged, get booted up to their next challenge without impeding the grade below them.
After having competed in the shotgun disciplines for over 35 years, I know that most guys who never get past "B" or "A" know why.
They just want to be able to enjoy themselves & have a fair go at testing themselves within the limits of their situation & maybe even win something every now & again. These guys know they'll never be "top shooters" but, they love their sport nonetheless & are content to compete at whatever level they attain within the means & constraints that their situation dictates.
Unfortunately, elitistism usually kills most sports, especially at the grass roots level &, PRS is looking down the barrel of oblivion unless pride is pushed aside.
I agree but, I didn't take the practice scenario as something that should be implemented all the time.
I think the intention was that some elements of the practices of rifleman could be interwoven into the comp within specific matches.
If done well, it may enhance the fun & keep guys coming back.
I can't see any harm in trialling different things.
It's not that hard, you know.
This is what I do, I’m a decent local match shooter. Hell I’m at 25th in the Central region in a year where I’ve only been able to shoot 6 matches this year due to medical issues. Though I haven’t shot a qualifier this year because of the crap I had going on this year.
My motto has always been that you just need to beat the guys that you rode with to the match. The shit talking on the way home is part of the fun. But with all that said I’ll probably not be a PRS member next year, I’ll still shoot all the matches but I don’t see the need to be a member. PRS really doesn’t do anything for me but that’s just me. I enjoy shooting the one day matches more than anything and feel the two day matches are just too taxing on my body at my age. It’s a costly sport and that part is hard on new shooters or people that don’t make a really good living, that and I feel the production class which is a good way to introduce new shooters is a complete joke. Production is pretty much no less cost than a full custom open class gun.
To get back to what I believe Frank intended when he started this thread, there needs to be some regular and incremental changes to the way PRS is run in order for it to survive long term. The trend towards .22 comps is one thing, but is in and of itself not an actual change in method and can only increase membership for so long before it too starts to decline.
These changes can only come from the organization itself, meaning membership input (and yes, even outsider input) and a leadership that understands that change is necessary. Just like in industry and commerce. The saying goes, if you are not growing and improving your product and processes, you’re losing.
These types of threads, while often devolving into messy complaining and bitching, even pissing matches, are a necessary feedback loop for that change. The organization would be reckless and wrong to dismiss them outright or scoff at the need and does so at its own risk.
These changes can only come from the organization itself, meaning membership input (and yes, even outsider input) and a leadership that understands that change is necessary. Just like in industry and commerce. The saying goes, if you are not growing and improving your product and processes, you’re losing.
These types of threads, while often devolving into messy complaining and bitching, even pissing matches, are a necessary feedback loop for that change. The organization would be reckless and wrong to dismiss them outright or scoff at the need and does so at its own risk.
