Tenderfoot or Tenderloin, single pistol class. I dunno; I like the idea, but see a couple of problems: to shoot the 10 handgun targets the rest of the field shoots requires a reload; and for a "tenderfoot" that might just be the cause of a dropped gun, breaking the 170 deg. plane or another safety violation that will be counter-productive to the new shooter. (See 1st Match Jitters thread). Having them only shoot 5 of the 10 targets might throw off the overall scoring if they happen to be a skilled shooter, but still just starting out in CAS. Far as I'm concerned, go back to one handgun for all competitors. But I do like the NCOWS "working cowboy" class. For several years I carried my SAA Colt as my official duty gun, which meant I had to qualify with it on the PPC course. That included reloads and shots inside a time window. 12 rounds at 25 yards in 180 seconds is doable, but still shooting a qualifying score isn't easy. It was sometimes very gratifying to beat some the guys shooting autos! Not to mention shooting a better score! And the looks when I told my fellow officers I was only a mediocre Cowboy Action Shooter was priceless.
And, IROT is 100% correct. Removing the WB in any form from the running of their organization is theft, plain and simple. Look at any Board of Directors of any corporation, they still run the company. They may have a Pres, and several VPs in several capacities, but the BoD runs the show and tells the rest of the organization what they want done. The fact that the WB organized the TGs shows that they are interested in what the membership wants and needs. However, the membership is not always wise in what it wants. Take any organization run by committee and you'll find an organization that's stagnant, or dominated by one individual on said committee. And as for the Chisler, what can I say? Some personalities just clash. From what I've seen, public relations, if defined by his people skills, isn't his forte, but promotion is. You have to remember, his job isn't to promote the sport to the members, but rather to match sponsors and contributors to prize pools, etc. Sometimes, the membership is a hinderance in its' demands, over what he percieves as his primary function. I may be off-base here, JMNSHO.
What I would agree with, is putting the Founder's Ranch to more use. But it has to be a paying concern in order to do that. That means, if we want it to hold more events, we have to support those that it does host. And, I'm as guilty as a lot of folks for not doing just that. I'm hoping to change that myself in the coming year.
Target issues and guidelines are fine just as they are. The placement of targets is generally a local issue. But, I agree, they need to generally move back a few more feet. And either Rank Points or Total Time scoring is scoring on accuracy. It's been proven, time after time, that you can't miss fist enough to win.
What I do disagree with, it that total time is a better scoring method. Rank point scoring or total time seldom change the outcome of matches. For several months I took our monthly match scores and ranked them using both methods. The changes in the overall finish or class finish was seldom changed. IIRC, the same folks were in the top ten, and won their classes. Yes, there were minute changes from time to time depending on what scoring method you used, but in the big picture it doesn't make any difference. If I can explain this right, it's like any race, those with the best skills and most talent will win more often that those that don't. Those in the top ten were there in either scoring system, those in the 11th-20th place were there, those in the 21st-30th place were there, and so on down the list. Yes, there were exceptions, but there were many times that no change in the ranking was found.
News & Blogs
Home
Posts
Recent Posts
Help
Business Directory
Calendar
Advertising Rates
Contact Us
Login
Register
