Yes... I am not to keen on the two new divisions concept .... 1) The example of a Glock 19 for "compact pistol"? Really? I and a number others tend to shoot do just fine in SSP with that particular model. 2) Could the laser/optic equipped pistol be the slippery slope to the reason IDPA founders left IPSC? I understand the idea in theory but ......
Going to be harsh on IDPA for a moment...
IDPA places a significant amount of importance to the "social" aspects of shooting, and also significantly
de-values how competition drives people to excellence. It also really likes to reward mediocrity (which, I'll note, USPSA does also, though not nearly as strongly).
Having a "compact" division will mean that all the folks who are in SSP (or whatever) shooting against the people using guns best suited for that division will now have a place to go where they won't be getting stomped quite as much.
That's phrased harshly, and yet....shooting an IDPA match with a stiff vest, a G34 in an OWB holster, and Tek-Lok-ed mag pouches is significantly easier than doing so with a G19 in an IWB under a t-shirt, with IWB mag pouches.
One of those is much more suited to actual concealed carry. However, if you want to win in IDPA, you won't use that method. And IDPA has a real problem with its continual insistence that it is actual Real Defensive Practice when 1) it obviously isn't in terms of tactics and techniques and 2) the people who win do so with gear that doesn't resemble their carry gear at all.
And IDPA really doesn't like to make shooters feel bad (in some ways, it reminds me of the push in education for self-esteem, instead of self-respect), so by creating a division so that people who shoot their "real carry guns" won't have to shoot against the best guns for a division choice, those people can now brag that they are shooting "real IDPA" (you can see this happening, can't you?) as opposed to the rest of "those people who should just go shoot USPSA if they want to be gamers." (You can see people saying that too, can't you?)
I realize that the above "rewarding mediocrity" statement is quite harsh, but there is a grain of truth in it. USPSA and IDPA both "class" people so that the people who actually win the divisions aren't the only ones who are recognized, so that people who aren't the winner can also feel like winners. (Occasionally in USPSA, that means that the 1st D-class shooter goes to the prize table and picks up a gun before the #2 in the division gets anything---IDPA doesn't have this since they don't have prize tables, but makes it MORE obvious that they are trying to make sure no one has hurt feelings by not even reporting score comparisons to anyone BUT people in your own class.)
Having classes is actually a smart thing to do---because both sports want to keep people interested, and having fun, and it is a GOOD idea to have performance/competence milestones for people to use as goals. Having classes, IMO, is a good idea. That doesn't change the fact that making as big of a deal for 1st Marksman as they do for 1st Expert is a way to reward people who just don't shoot as well. (Considering that those classes in both USPSA and IDPA are arbitrary in setting, though USPSA is a little less than in IDPA.)
Win your class? Feeling good about that makes perfect sense. (Though doesn't it REALLY mean that you should probably be in the next class up?) But treating 1st D almost the same as 1st A, or 1st MM similarly to 1 MA? That's really not what should happen. (Making a 1st category win similar in prestige to 1st overall? That's a problem that USPSA has also.)
What REALLY makes IDPA the group that rewards mediocrity is their concept of a "match bump." (Which, I'll note, I recently received, so yes, I'm commenting negatively on something that benefited me personally.) In IDPA at a major match, if there are at least 10 people in your class, the top person in that class automatically gets "bumped" to the next higher class.
But what if all of those people weren't any good? Should you actually be in that higher class?
Awhile back, someone (elsewhere) make a spreadsheet showing what would happen if you took 100 MM-ranked shooters of equal skill, and let them shoot major matches together.
I replicated that because I was curious about a couple of things.
Assumptions:
1) all shooters were completely equal in skill
2) all shooters were MM level in shooting
3) no shooter ever got better
In
seven major matches (that's about 2 to 2.5 years for many IDPA shooters, that's all it took), they had their first Master completely due to match bumps. (Remember, no shooter ever got better---as such, no shooter EVER shot better than MM in a classifier match.)
Matter of fact, after 7 major matches, there were only 49 MMs left. There were 38 SS, 12 EX, and 1 MA.
None of them had to get any better at all, the match bumps did everything for them. In IDPA, it is automatic---and it doesn't have anything to do with the quality of the people you are shooting against, either. (If you keep the simulation going, at 15 major matches you have more Expert-ranked shooters than you do Markman-ranked shooters, even though none of these shooters ever practiced or got better, or shot better on a classifier.)
That's the match bump system. For those want to increase their class quickly, match bumps are the way to go. (I'll note I've never shot an IDPA classifier sufficiently well to support the class I'm currently in...)
USPSA has something a LITTLE bit similar, but it isn't automatic---you have to win your class, shoot sufficiently into the next higher class, AND have it occur in a match where there are enough national-level GMs for HQ to actually consider it.
It doesn't happen much in USPSA.
As for the guns-with-optics-or-lasers situation---I'm thinking that 1) they are trying to make sure it isn't doesn't turn into IDPA open with their restrictions being slide-mounted optics only and the optic must be between the rear of the slide and the ejection port, 2)
good luck with trying to stop the gamers because the point of competition is to compete and win, and therefore people will devote time, brains, and effort into giving themselves every advantage possible.
Rather the point, isn't it?
If IDPA didn't want to be a competition in which people were trying to win, then they shouldn't have added a scoring system. And since they DID add a scoring system, people will try to gain every advantage they can to win.
Gamers.
(Eliminating ESR amuses me, because while they say that hardly anyone shoots it, I'm thinking that it is because the people who DO shoot it are often USPSA shooters who just use their regular revolver rig, and since they aren't IDPA members they never go to a major match in that division. Dropping ESR will lose those shooters---but IDPA won't care because they aren't paying members. IMO.)
Don't get me wrong, folks---I enjoy shooting IDPA. And I enjoy shooting USPSA. That doesn't blind me to the various issues each shooting sport actually has.
IDPA has a real internal problem with the attitude between the IDPA shooters who insist that IDPA is the "real defensive carry sport" and the IDPA shooters who simply like the sport and win using the rules. (And yet later, hear other people say "He just won because he is a gamer. He wasn't being
realistic in how he ran that stage with his gamer gear.")
I'll note: Locally, we don't seem to have this problem. People show up, people have a GOOD time on some nicely tricky stages, people make fun of their each other's mistakes and applaud each other's good runs, and then we clean up and go home. Local IDPA club is good stuff.
