Is SASS fading? If so, why?

[Big Hext Finnigan]

Will,

The badge numbers are a bit misleading.  There are about 30-35,000 members in SASS right now.. In a recent Chronicle, it was reported that a total of 31,000 CCs are printed per month.  That's a pretty good indicator of actual members.

As for the politics... I think we should all support the NRA first, and then any other organization that fits a more personal need.  I've suggested to the NRA in the past, that they should include a discounted, even down to $10, membership for anyone buying a gun.  The certificate could be given out by the merchant.  It would encourage ALL gun owners to become NRA members.

Adios,

[Will Pluggum]

I didn't figure in those who joined and then didn't renew.  I'm guessin that explains the difference in numbers.   Still there is power in numbers and maybe someday sass will evolve to the point where it wants to take an active part in defending gun owners rights.  If for nothing else, then just to protect it's own turf. BTW... Good idea on the the $10 discount to encourage new NRA membership. 

[Trinity]

Does anyone know how SASS handles the issuance of their membership numbers?  Are all numbers belonging to people who let their memberships lapse reused or not?

Just curious.

[Advertising]

[Big Hext Finnigan]

Trinity,

At one point, the numbers could be sold and re-issued. 
NOW, once a badge has been issued, it's gone.  In fact, if a regular member goes life and chooses to do so at a major shoot, they can pick up a badge on the spot.  They will then have two badge numbers, their original number and their new life number. 

Adios,

[Howdy Doody]

Trinity,

At one point, the numbers could be sold and re-issued. 
NOW, once a badge has been issued, it's gone.  In fact, if a regular member goes life and chooses to do so at a major shoot, they can pick up a badge on the spot.  They will then have two badge numbers, their original number and their new life number. 

Adios,

That is true. I myself have had two badge numbers and this is my second alias. It wasn't a membership lapse, but a error that was made at HQ and was picked up upon my first year renewal. To their (SASS HQ) credit they never charged me for the new alias change and badge number.
Only SASS can tell you how many are actually active and all. I suspect the higher numbers quoted helps to secure advertisers and such.
I think I have noticed in the past year that attendence to bigger shoots has increased some, as in some are sell outs a fill completely, where in the past they hadn't.
I take myself as an example. Just about a year and retired, nothing much to do to stay active except travel around and shoot CAS, and there are many people around my age that are facing retirement and leisure time, soooooooo more time = more shooting. Life is tough ain't it? 

[Big Hext Finnigan]

I sure hope I can enjoy that kind of "retirement"

[Lucky Deuce]

  I agree with St. George about SASS spreading itself thin.  The way I see it, SASS is kind of divided into different groups.  At one extreme are those who don't care that much about authenticity and are more interested in "winning"; and at the other extreme are those who think SASS should push for more authenticity;  and the rest of the shooters who fall in between. 

If NCOWS or WASA or other groups that exist were bigger I would wager that many in SASS who want more authenticity would move to them and shoot them most of the time and occasionally attend SASS matches.  Unfortunately, they aren't, so there is a frustration level in SASS because shooters see things that they feel should be addressed.  Some of the problems are they do not like the Shotgun Shell holders or the gun modifications (there is a difference between having your gun worked on to make sure it shoots well and having a custom modification job done on it) or styles of shooting that weren't prevalent in the 1800's (two handed shooting) .    Another thing some see as a problem is having a Top Shooter or Match Winner who gets all or most of the "press" instead of giving the Category winners the attention.   You can't compare the various categories and have them compete with each other and declare the shooter with the highest score the overall winner.  There is a heck of a lot of difference between Frontiersman and Traditional. 

  I mentioned this difference and was told that if I wanted to even have a chance to win then instead of shooting Frontiersman I should shoot Traditional because Frontiersman is not a competetive category.  Huh??  So if Frontiersman is not Competetive then why have it compete against Traditional in the first place???  It seems like the main focus has become winning and the competition part of the game.  As St. George said, some shooters feel like they have to have the tricked out guns and the slick holsters and anything else to shave off the nano second off thier times so they can compete.   

  Its these problems, some minor some major, that are causing ripples in SASS.  Do I think it will fade away?  I hope not.  But it does need to realize that it is no longer the small organization that it once was and it needs to re-organize and change so it can handle the changes that growth has brought.   Back when SASS was started there wasn't all the authentic guns and clothing and equipment that there is today.  IF there had been I would wager SASS would be a lot different...  Authenticity would have been emphasized more. 

   I shoot to have fun but I would like to see some changes to SASS.  Not so I can win...heck I am happy if I can finish a match and have all my caps go off and the gun shoots...(and I ain't even going to go into hitting the targets LOL) but so others who are good shooters but don't shoot Traditional and therefore are not as competetive might be able to be recognized...

[Doc Shapiro]

Lucky Deuce, scoring and recognition seem to be a bone of contention with a lot of folks.  There are a couple of deeper issues that surround scoring, so may be better left to a different post.  I will suggest that in the article about the MD State Match (a couple of issues ago), there was no mention at all of any of the category winners or the match winner.  You might bring up recognition issues with your local clubs.  As far as I know, every match that I've been to recognizes the category winners as well as the overall winner.

---

My bone of contention here is the rule book.  SASS has gotten too big to be able to rely on peer pressure to maintain adherance to concepts and ideas regarding the game.  It's time for the organization to grow and put together a complete rule book that address modifications, vague rules, and other stuff.  It should be written by a competant technical writer that understands how to write rules.  We spend far too much time debating "the right call" and "is this modification legal" and not enough time on the important stuff like "check out my new hat!"  A complete rule book would go a long way toward this.

There is a lot of animosity directed toward this idea as it starts to resemble IPSC.  I happen to enjoy shooting IPSC matches and my wife prefers them.  She even uses a totally unmodified 1911 in 45 ACP, and has won.  Cowboy and IPSC are 2 different games, BPCR, and Silhouette are different too.  All of these except for Cowboy have complete rule books that specify what is and is not allowed.  It's time for SASS to do the same.

Doc

[Big Hext Finnigan]

Howdy Lucky Duece,
 
I made this post elsewhere as an observation of the CAS game.  What are your thoughts?

There's a fair amount of discussion, here and elsewhere about the Modern category and what to do with it.  Here's my suggestion, but it's a pretty significant revamp of the category structure of SASS.
 
First off, I think there is room for everyone's cowboy shooting style.  Still, they seem to divide along two lines, one Modern and one Traditional. 
Modern would hold adjustable sights, modified guns, light loads and minimal dress.  It would be the default/catch-all category for new shooters.
Traditional would be for traditional BP level loads, stock guns and upgraded dress.
I'd say that 97s could be in both, Blackpowder and smokeless can be in both and two handed shooting can be in both, but not off hand thumbing.
 
My theory is based on a 4 phase spectrum pairing the two dominant issues in CAS, Shooting and Costuming.  If you will:
Quadrant one is your fast competitive shooter who just happens to be shooting cowboy guns.  He would be just as happy shooting another discipline.  This shooter wears the very minimum of clothes needed to qualify for the match.  His ability to transform steel into a rapid-fire machinery is his passion.
Quadrant two is your competitive shooter, but committed to CAS.  He will slick his guns and lighten his loads.  He wears a Gus rather than a Cattleman's crease on his hat.  He loves the game but it's the shooting more than the history. 
Quadrant three is the Tom Selleck wannabee.  He dresses to the best of his ability and shoots the loads like they did back in the old days.  His guns may have a little stoning or a set of springs.  He cares about his match placement, but not at the cost of leaving the history.
Quadrant four are re-enactors who shoot cause it gives them an excuse to wear the clothes.  He likes to shoot but history, authenticity and heritage are his watchwords.  Blackpowder is the only way for this shooter.  He does the little things and enjoys transporting himself back in time.
 
It is my observation that most folks are in Q2 and Q3.  Most folks in Q2 want to compare themselves with the folks in Q1 and most folks in Q3 would rather not be compared to folks in Q1 and to a degree Q2.  Q4 folks want more dressing up and look at Q2 as a minimum and Q3 as acceptable costuming. 
 
I'm sure there is a lot I'm missing and I hope everyone reads this with a clear eye.  I am not judging any position nor am I trying to separate folks, I am relating my observation just think these are the fracture lines that are developing.
 
Your comments please..
Adios,

[Big Hext Finnigan]

My bone of contention here is the rule book.  SASS has gotten too big to be able to rely on peer pressure to maintain adherance to concepts and ideas regarding the game.  It's time for the organization to grow and put together a complete rule book that address modifications, vague rules, and other stuff.  It should be written by a competant technical writer that understands how to write rules.  We spend far too much time debating "the right call" and "is this modification legal" and not enough time on the important stuff like "check out my new hat!"  A complete rule book would go a long way toward this.

There is a lot of animosity directed toward this idea as it starts to resemble IPSC.  I happen to enjoy shooting IPSC matches and my wife prefers them.  She even uses a totally unmodified 1911 in 45 ACP, and has won.  Cowboy and IPSC are 2 different games, BPCR, and Silhouette are different too.  All of these except for Cowboy have complete rule books that specify what is and is not allowed.  It's time for SASS to do the same.

Doc

Yepper, I completely agree.  'Specially when the peer pressure is so uneven and based on regional and personal vagaries.

If I can sum up SASS's problem in one word, it's "professionalism" or the lack thereof..
Adios all,

[Doc Shapiro]

Hext, your quadrants are a pretty fair example of why we need a better rule book and more equitable scoring.  I'd like to see each category scored only against themselves and then all combined for an OA winner.  If there is a complete rule book with everything spelled out (including modifications) a lot of the griping will change character and scope.  All the griping about "this modification shouldn't be allowed and isn't allowed in the rule book even though it's mostly internal" will go away cause it'll be in the book.

I really do think we need an Overall winner.  Think about this...

Every other shooting sport has a winner.  BPCR, Sillywets, Bullseye, High Power, IPSC, IDPA, and the list goes on.  Without an overall winner, we look like just a bunch of organized plinkers that are playing at shooting.  That is not good for industry support!  We need to look like a professional shooting organization that takes it seriously (as an organization that is).  And part of that is having an overall winner.  If you don't want the shooting industry to support CAS, then by all means do away with an overall winner.  But if you want the shooting industry to support us and continue to come out with new guns, and other stuff, then we need to have an overall winner. 

Now that isn't random rumblings in my head.  That comes from some of the folks that support us in our habit (and I am not going to name names even though I could).

Doc

[Big Hext Finnigan]

Howdy Doc,

As far as an "overall" winner.. I would like to think that the outstanding performances would win the day.. If you will, like the Olympics.  Sometimes the Decathlete is the superstar, sometimes it's the sprinter, the miler or the hurdler.  So Bruce Jenner or Carl Lewis or Sebastion Coe or the latest, greatest gets the biggest pub..
Right now, I'm really impressed with Jackson Turner (except for the 32s, but that's another issue).  He's a duelist who is always near the top of the scoreboard. 

The different disciplines should be encouraged to stand on their own.. then there could be the odd "grudge  " match to see who is really best..

Adios,

[Doc Shapiro]

The different disciplines mostly do stand on their own.  The only issue is how they are scored.  Everyone is lumped together and the categories are scored from that.  I think the categories ought to be scored seperately and not lumped in with everyone.

If you read the match reports in the Chronicle, the majority hardly even mention the match winner.  For example, the one about the MD State Match (Thunder Valley Days) that was printed earlier this year didn't mention the match winner or the state champions anywhere except in the sidebar.  It was about the match, not the shooters.  Isn't that what folks are after?

We do need our champions in order to garner respect from the shooting industry.  They do look at that.  Aside from that, at least as many people that want to do away with an overall winner, want to keep it!  There's no pleasing everyone.  It's a fools errand to try to (and no, I'm not calling anyone a fool  ).

Doc

[Dogwoman]

When you have the different disciplines (duelist vs. traditional vs. frontier cartridge), why not give points to the placements based on where they finish.  Add the points up at the end of the match or season and you get an overall winner (similar to NASCAR?).  Is this already done somewhere with the point scoring system?

This is just a thought that came to my feeble brain. 

I don't score high enough to even care about winners.  I have too darned much fun just shooting the stages, dressing up, and visiting with good friends.

SASS fading?  Not in Utah!

[Big Hext Finnigan]

When you have the different disciplines (duelist vs. traditional vs. frontier cartridge), why not give points to the placements based on where they finish.  Add the points up at the end of the match or season and you get an overall winner (similar to NASCAR?).  Is this already done somewhere with the point scoring system?

This is just a thought that came to my feeble brain. 

I don't score high enough to even care about winners.  I have too darned much fun just shooting the stages, dressing up, and visiting with good friends.

SASS fading?  Not in Utah!

Howdy,

I think at the bigger matches, if each category were scored against itself, then you would get the same kind of scoring, as your suggestion.

The social aspect is the big deal.. That's what I love about it.  Heck, I even visited a shoot this Saturday just to eat lunch with the pards.

Adios,

[Marauder]

Doc, with your experience in computers, etc, I'm kinda surprised - do you support rank scoring only within the category?

That can only work at large matches.  If you try it with only 5 or 10 competitors, you'll find folks will hate it.  In that case total time would be better.

I've tried to explain it but guess I make it too technical - the other scores are really just index points.   The higher number of index points - the more accurate the scoring.  If you only have a few shooters, a one second lead on one stage may be the same as a 10 second lead on another stage - one rank point.

A couple of folks that write scoring programs and I discussed this.  At least on also wanted to go with scoring only within the category - so he played with it and found it made a difference.  At first, he thought it was good, but as he watched more matches, he gave up on it because of the lack of an accurate index method.

Any way.  Enjoy!

[Doc Shapiro]

Marauder, that's a great point, and one I hadn't considered.  What I really ought to do is to get enough scores into a system to simulate a large match (say 200) and then score it both category seperate and together.  This will give us an idea if it's possible for someone to win a category when scored by itself, but not if scored with everyone together.  If that happens, then this scoring system wouldn't be a good idea.

I like the scoring system used in IPSC, but I don't fully understand the configuring. 

I have found that rankings can vary dramatically when total time is used vs rank.  Which is better?  I dunno. 

I don't know if there is a good solution of not, but I think there's gotta be.  But it might take a mathmatician to figure it out.

Doc

[Big Hext Finnigan]

Howdy boys...
Should I split this scoring talk off the SASS fading thread?  Would make sense to me..

Adios,

[sixnhand]

When I first got into CAS, SASS had a membership of around 4000. I don't know what it is now, 10X ? I shot Judge's Court 1990 something, in Hot Springs, Arkansas, and set up a stage, lots of work, lots of fun. But I realized I liked shoot'n, but I did not care for the competition. Might be because I can't hit the broad side of the barn, even if I'm locked inside. Now I go to occasional local shoots. Love the smell, smoke, and fire of BP. Still dress up, mainly go just to shoot the 'Bull'. The interest is still there, but the get-up-an-go is lacking. I have a major investment in arm's, and will continue to shoot, but only for the fun. This, of course, is a personal little piece of the story.
sixnhand
Young men think old men are fools, old men KNOW young men are.

[Nashville Frank]

I concider myself as pretty young. But I also pretty much agree with you, Sixnhand! I have to be a fool...

When I think of Big Hexts theory of the four phases, this comes to my mind:

When we are only club members, I concider myself a Q1.

When we have some visitors from other clubs, I`m Q2.

When I attend on open matces, I concider myself as a Q3.

When I watch a good moovie or read a historic book in my own sofa, I`m for sure a Q4!

Now I`m not sure anymore...