That being said, I am not and never will be, competitive with guys like jthapkido due to his overall speed. As an example, our first IDPA match 2014, he was well 10 seconds faster than me, but many more points down due to "accuracy"(all due respect because even then he's not bad).
In my defense, I shot like crap at that match.
Um. That didn't come out quite like I meant.
He's completely right, though----I shot with decent speed, but incredibly poor accuracy at my first IDPA match. I was 25 points down, which was a huge 17 points down more that bullit. (In my accuracy's defense, I was only 13 points down for the January match. Still not great, but better.)
In that first IDPA match, I actually had
3 mikes between the two stages. And yet, overall in the match, I still placed 20.69 seconds faster than the second-place shooter. (And my whole match only took 51.85 seconds, so basically I could have shot one of the stages over, added the time, and still won the match.)
If this had been USPSA, those mikes would have KILLED me. (Relatively speaking.) I still would have been fast enough to place first---but the second place shooter would have been a LOT closer to me.
Math time: In the IDPA match, the 2nd place shooter had 71.5% of my score. If this were USPSA, they would have gotten 84.9% of my score, because my poor accuracy (in that match! really, I'm not normally that bad!) would simply have hurt me more in USPSA.
My original post wasn't a "this sport is better, this sport is worse" comment----it was just a comment that people who toss off a "IDPA is about accuracy, while USPSA is about speed" comment really should think about that before they say it.
Both sports reward speed AND accuracy. At any serious match, you have to be both fast, and accurate.
And yes, people like Bob Vogel and Jerry Miculek are both good examples of that.
.
.
.
.
Bullit has an interesting comment there about shooting matches----he said his goal was to shoot them clean. I have a different goal---I shoot them to win.
I note (before everyone thinks that I'm being condescending to bullit) that both goals are perfectly decent ones for shooting competitions, and neither one is better than the other.
A competition match like IDPA or USPSA sets up a shooting problem, and make you solve it under stress and pressure. As such, that situation can be used for a NUMBER of different goals. However, you generally can't do them all at the same time. As such, people who are working on "excellent accuracy under stress" normally can't also work on "winning this match" just like those folks can't also work on "realistic self-defense tactics" at the same time.
Oddly enough, those three things are related, but as
primary goals, are mutually exclusive.
A couple of years ago, Caleb Giddings had a publicized goal for himself of shooting down zero at IDPA matches for the year. He stopped it after not too long, because it was making a HUGE difference to his ability to place well and win at matches. Taking the time to
ensure top-level accuracy (as opposed to doing enough to get almost all of the points, but not perfecting every shot) meant that he was never in the running to win the match.
Practicing good self-defense tactics would mean getting full points for the match, but having to shoot many extra rounds to get there. What, when you pie around a corner, you don't start by taking shots immediately, you instead wait until the center zone is available? Why? If you can put three shots into the bad guy when the first one may be a "down three" or "D" hit and the other two are A-hits--
but that first one is faster AND it means you get a shot into him before he can see you,
shouldn't you be doing that? Waiting until the perfect center shot comes is NOT good SD tactics.
...so it would be slower. (Much.) You won't win a match that way---and, you'll note, it will be VERY different from a "perfect accuracy" goal, too, which will ALSO end up slower. Perfectly decent goals, and a action sports match is a great place to practice either one of those---because you are having to solve someone ELSE'S shooting problem, under their rules.
You can't simply set up your favorite drill and burn it down because you like it and are used to it. You have to step up in front of other people, and under that minor stress (plus the minor stress of a timer) ---perform.
My goal personally is to win (or at least do well for my level) at the match. My personal belief is that neither USPSA nor IDPA in any way resemble realistic self-defense training, and so I don't treat them like it. In my opinion, what they are are
shooting skills tests, not
any kind of training.
If it was training, I could run it, critique my run, practice some individual parts that I screwed up, take it in sections perfecting my actions and skills, then run it multiple times more as I get better at those actions and skills.
Yeah, well, in USPSA and IDPA you get ONE shot at it. (Hence the stress.) You get
one shot to get it right. And if your shooting skills are up to the task, it'll go well. If not----well, then, you'll get a good lesson on what shooting skills you need to work on.
Do these sports test all shooting skills? Of course not. Are some of the skills that they test irrelevant to self-defense skills? Sure. So what? Both test your ability to
rapidly put shots on target under stress.
Will you get information about what self-defense tactics you need to improve? No, not at all. Do the movements and actions in either sport actually match good self-defense choices? No, not really. (Don't tell me things like "but what about cover?!"---if you use cover in IDPA like people do to win matches, you are NOT using it correctly for self-defense.)
In my opinion (so take that for what little it is worth), matches are great because they are fun, you get to hang around with great people, and they tell you straight out what your shooting skills are like. I wish everyone who wanted to be a shooter would compete, because quite frankly (as has been said before) most people who own guns really are merely gun owners, they are NOT shooters.
Wow, that turned into a long diatribe, didn't it?
Anyway, short form: All sorts of goals to work toward in shooting competitions. Most are mutually exclusive, but all are equally worthy. (Though they don't all get the same recognition at the end of the match.) Different goals will lead to different outcomes. Occasionally, trying different goals will give you a better viewpoint of your own skills. (For example, I think in February, bullit should try to win the match. That doesn't mean "shot wildly as fast as possible" it means "trust your sights and MOVE, don't sit there and check the targets afterward or get those cool-looking 1-inch groups on the targets---put two in the down zero, and move on." I bet he'd be surprised at how his accuracy stays about the same, but his time drops sharply.
)
