Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'GSSF' started by Don At PC, Jun 29, 2007.
They are posted at www.gssfonline.com. Check them out. Great shooting.
SWEET. A savings bond for first amateur sub-compact for my kid!
I just called him on SKYPE over in Spain. He's a happy camper. Thanks for the heads up!!!
A senior male, senior female and junior male teamed up for first amateur team! Is that one for the record books?
Have a great weekend!
Ken..tell Joey thanks again...when they notify me of the plaques availability....I'll drop you a line asking where Joey want's his plaque shipped...
Good shooting Joey and Festus. It was a great match, great people running it and a great time with the great shooters. Keep up the good work.
"Looks like were not dumb.....prior to yesteryear there was A..B..C.. and sometimes D classes in Am.Civ.....a fourth at Milwaukee in Am.Civ.this year will get ya an attaboy/attagirl unless you were High Senior....I too am afraid the message sent is not to attract those just starting out or those that shoot that 155.xx. The attraction other than all those things that we hold dear as a Family Game are waning....the participants in Am. Civ. are now seeing less regardless of how much or whomever else may receive distribution. The message and market stategy will be received and those marginal shooters may/probably drift away......Business is business...as long as those setting policy realize what they have done and have intended to do. Lets face it a 800 mile drive one way by oneself takes people who enjoy...but reality does set in and the cost of enjoyment sets in versus the return...hmmmmm....closer matches, fferent games, substitution....thats the evolution sometimes.
I personally feel that the Random prizes were good to get but counterproductive as a reward...last year at Marietta I shot a 239.xx in Am.Civ. and received my first random pistol....I later won two more...the weekend of brighton and Hallsville I won/drew (2) more...those pistols were appreciated...but were not as cherished as my first B win at Lexington several years ago...I measured myself against that scoring system...it worked and was rewarding...I would like to see a return to that Philosophy IF GSSF sees that it is financially doable......the Am.Civ. category has to be considered the stepping stone for the feeding system that is needed to keep the Sport alive and to grow....IF this is the intention."
Above is what Festus posted in the Roseburg results section, and I wanted to add my agreement in the Ft. Smith section. I remember placing in C class my first GSSF match (Indy 2004) and, although my time wasn't the greatest, it kept me coming back because I wanted to improve, I wanted to do better. GSSF is for the beginner and the Master alike, with something for everyone. That's what makes it unique in shooting competitions.
Then, GSSF went to the system of giving the A class top ten the awards, giving at random prizes and doing away with the Lewis system. Why, 1 in 25 is a winner was the battle cry. All right, we're still for the beginner and master alike, differnt set up. Now, it's changed again. What, three different ways in two years?
Now, it depends on the size of the match. At Ft. Smith, there was no door prizes. Just the top two in each division, both master and non-master alike. What about the novices and beginners who can't place first or second? Isn't that was GSSF is all about, helping the beginners and keeping them coming back and getting new people to join in?
I believe the GSSF Staff does a great job and I've told them so. They do things quickly and they listen. And, I think they want new matches or they wouldn't have added several this year. But, while I agree and like the staff and the job they do, I don't necessarily favor or agree with their ideas concerning prize distributions. The Lewis system was challenging and fair. Even the second type of distribtution was consistent, but this last prize distribution idea won't help beginning matches if they start out small. Who will come to a match if they know the possibility exists for being small? People worked really hard at Ft. Smith and shot well. However, not one person received a door prize of any sort because the size (except new people joining and the RO raffle)of the match was under a certain number. I haven't checked to see if this has occurred at any other match, but I know it did at Ft. Smith.
I agree with Glockess56 and would likr to see GSSF return to the old A/B/C class prize distribution.
The decline started several years ago when GLOCK changed the range/RO compensation system. Far too many of the local clubs in major cities, didn't invite GSSF back because they couldn't justify the "opportunity cost" of giving up their local matches on GSSF weekend. Eliminating the ABC award system will have another detrimental effect on long term support and enthusiasm by the participant.
Folks, you are as they say beating a dead horse. The changes made in GSSF starting with Share the Wealth are here and they are staying here. The changes made with the ranges are now history too, and we have to live with it. My sincere suggestion to you as a fellow competitor is to either let it go or vent your feelings directly to GSSF.
Trust me, I've been as vocal as most anybody about the changes but they've been made and nothing has changed, at least not in a direction back to where it was.
And as much as some folks like the Lewis system others, vocal others, hated it.
Obviously GSSF is still searching for the perfect solution to make everybody happy, they'll never find it but they are trying. As long as they're trying there's always hope.
The main problem with the Lewis system and the "1st through 10th + Random awards in Civilian/Law Enforcement only" that replaced it was that Civilian and Guardian were making up less than HALF of the total match entries.
Despite the crummy award sets in the other categories, people were still shooting them with VERY little expectation of ANY award if their skills were not good enough to finish in the top 3.
Now, how is THAT fair to the people who were paying the same $25 entry fee for those categories?
The new award system is intended to ensure that just about any entry, no matter what Division it is in, has the SAME chance at either the 1st/2nd/3rd place awards AND the random awards.
As for awards. 1st place awards only at matches up to 150 entries. 150 times $25 is $3,750 that GSSF grosses. Against that, they are on the hook for two guns to the Host Club, two more to the ROs, 8 guns as 1st place awards including the new member drawing gun, and $850 in cash awards.
(Remember, that is for a 150 entry match. The people who attended Thibidoux got the SAME award set even though the match only drew about 85 entries.)
A dollar being worth a dollar, subtracting $850 from $3,750 is $2,900 that GSSF "grosses" on a 150 entry match.
Dividing $2,900 by 12 guns means they are grossing about $242 per gun.
Remember when GSSF was selling guns to GSSF members last year? The lowest price for a gun was $398. In other words, GSSF could SELL those guns for $156 more rather than make them available as GSSF awards.
That does NOT take into account the cost of RO shirts, hats, pasters, targets, hotel, rental car, and per diem for the GSSF employees who attend, and what have you.
IMNSHO, GSSF is being generous to keep these small matches on their schedule AT ALL.
My advice to small matches? Grow.
My advice to people who don't like the prize system? Remember the children's tale. People eventually killed the golden goose to find out where those golden eggs were coming from. And after that, there were no more golden eggs.
Please don't think that my comments were anything but constructive. I'm just exploring, out loud, the reasons for the apparent decline in participation in GSSF matches.
I work for a company that is run by accountants. Far too often dollars spent on productive opportunities are looked at as costs rather than as investments in growth. There's a mentality that goes along with that mindset that stiffles growth.
I know tens of people who aren't going back to GSSF matches becauses of the changes with the clubs and the prizes. Maybe those more knowledgeable than I can tell me that I'm wrong...but...based on what I've seen in matches throughout the USA, numbers are down.
What will change that? Doing more of the same won't. IMHO of course.
I believe the difference here Norske is we have an opinion and are not trying to justify or sway an opinion... some of us here may be TOO close to the issues. The system to reward those that may grow through the ranks I believe is the future...The Golden Goose is for those that still want to play and participate....I feel like Glockess and Danny that a return for the Amateur's is necessary.....and that way whether you have 155 or 325 participants at least when I'm trying to solicit new shooters I can say you have a chance to win a Glock and not worry about shooting against much better shooters...random prizes are not WON they are drawn....the pyschology to get people BACK is to give them a measurement and a need to return....GREED always does not motivate all....believe it or not EGO is more compelling.
I appreciate Fireglocks' comments on the beginning of changes and the cause and affect....but like I said the Amateur/Guardian group is the FEEDER SCHOOL...if you continue to take away the incentive it will have a negative influence.....those shooting 20th and above are playing to someday be number one and the incentive is there...but those below are going to measure themselves and without reward they will spend their money and time elsewhere.
Responsibility of growth needs to be delgated to the local clubs and they need accountability.....BUT IF WE ARE ASKING ourselves how to distribute money relative to market strategy then several of us have strong opinions and backgrounds where we see how people react and are influenced.......if you polled nine people that shoot with me (2) Masters and (7)Amateurs I believe they all would agree with the Lewis system.....I believe everyone here posted has no GREED in them and that those posted are concerned for the correct reward for resources availiable......I personally spend money for those rewards through plaques and entry fees......I do not take these as a Tax write off nor do I have a business that profits from the exposure....soooo this is heartfelt with intentions to help and not condemn.
My wife and I have been shooting GSSF matches since 1998. We primarily shoot the Hallsville,Mo match but we also have traveled to Texas to shoot the Carrolton,Tx match which was held at the Dallas Pistol Club for seven years. The Lewis class system was in place in those early years as well as the Glock Mover stage ( It was dropped because only 3 or 4 clubs had movers)for the first two years at Hallsville. The best finish I have ever had was a 5th place finish in Comp in 2001. My wife's best finish has been 16th AM/CIV and High Female at Hallsville last year and we have placed 2nd AM/CIV Team twice and 3rd AM/CIV Team once. As Dennis and Ken have noted the Lewis class system gave people the ability to see where they stood in comparison to their peers and a way to measure their progress from match to match and year to year. I'm more proud of my 5th place Comp finish in 2001 for which I received nothing than I am of my $100 random drawing last year while also finishing 13th in AM/CIV. I think allowing for different COF's was a positive change and letting Masters shoot in more classes as well but I also believe that a return to maybe a modified Lewis class system would renew an interest for former competitors and new ones alike.
With all due respect, do you get more satisfaction from the A, B and C than you do from your times coming down, or you finishing at a higher position overall? Is a structured giveaway gun more satisfying than a random giveaway gun? I only ask because right now at the average match I attend there are more firearms given as prizes than ever before, but we don't have the structured A, B and C prize groups. And one thing stays the same, if you don't finish first then it's a giveaway prize, no matter how you decide to distribute them.
Speaking for myself, it irked the piss out of me when I finished 11th and some clown finished 45 places lower than me and got a gun. That my friends does not encourage shooters to return. Fighting your way up through A class while others below are profiting does not encourage me. Determination and knowing I could make it kept me coming back, that and meeting a bunch of nice folks over the years, many I now consider some of my closest friends.
As to Civilian and Guardian being "feeders" I disagree. If that was the case the Master classes would have a significantly higher participation level than we now have. Do you suppose the significantly higher travel and accommodation's cost have anything to do with lower participation numbers? Should matches like Ft. Benning, Conyers, Orlando, Lexington, etc. pay for the small matches that have always been small and don't seem to grow?
I'm done on this topic but like I've said, we've been down this road before. Festus knows I have nothing but respect and friendship for him but we will just have to agree to disagree on this subject area.
Jerry.....this is not a situation of where we are saying take from the Masters and give to the Amateurs..although that IS what happened years ago....my 239.xx last year at Marietta getting a door prize in the form of a pistol was an embarrasing event versus the 75.xx at Lexington last year with all of you from Carver Mounts watching...that is what was important and the handshake and congratulations.
The issue today is again change, that has taken place and I suppose that MONEY is the driving force,I suspect the change was a derivative of an evaluation and thus the result have taken place.I as well as others are STRONGLY suggesting that TWO things need to take place....1) continue to interest NEW SHOOTERS...those people that may have never considered competing...I believe those people will continue to participate for years to come...GSSF is very non-adversarial and low impact compared to the other GUN GAMES.....we are seeing new shooters but many are shooters from other GUN GAMES....FORT SMITH had a new shooter who shot a 56.xx and won Amateur...not a new shooter but a new shooter to GSSF....after a person wins three...how many more GSSF matches will they attend? We shall see... 2) We do need to entice and pay homage to all you Masters that have paved the way...personally I'm trying to do my part....We sponsor a Master Class and only two of us are Masters... I pay an additional $50.00 and shoot Unlimited and Master with the same pistol for practice and try to drive up the registration numbers....I know others do the same.
Jerry...the message here is to GSSF... take care of the FUTURE and award those Masters accordingly...there are alot of intelligient people here and I would suggest GSSF may want to sit down with them and discuss the Future....If that is the intention.
i can't understand why anyone would compete ,unless the match was in their back yard, with the hope or intention of winning a gun. with milwaukee as an example i missed two days work, motel for 2 days, over 200 in fuel, over 100 for food,and 125 in entry fees. my cost for the trip was 1300 or so. a trip to my dealer for a new gun would of cost me less than half that and i wouldn't of had all the **** at work about taking off for 2 days. for me spending a couple of days way from home with my wife, seeing friends i only see at the match or over dinner, beating butch by a hair in UL, and as far as i know the quickest single run on the plates that weekend make it all worth while.
using indy as another example since it's more or less in my back yard it took me 14 hours to make the trip and shoot. with just the fuel, food, and entry fees i could of came close to buying another glock. again the big reward was in seeing my shooting friends, and even chris edwards, and becasue of a really bad day on his part i beat bobby carver in UL. i'm sure it won't happen again but as jerry pointed out shooting well, working your way up the ranks, and making friends is by far more important to me than the prizes. if all i was after was a chance to shoot i'd stay home and shoot in the back year and if a gun was all i was after i'd make a trip to my dealer.
i like the prize structue as it is with one exception. i'd like to see UL open up a bracket for amatures like the masters have in sub and comp.
Ede, Amateur/Unlimited is an excellent suggestion. GSSF, are your ears on?
It is perfectly alright to disagree in a civilized manner, and that is the manner exhibited in this thread. Other forums resort to name calling and bashing, but GSSF Shooters are the best of all Glock Owners, and always have been.
And Festus is right--the common denominator is money.
There has been a lot of good comments made on this subject and a lot of difference of opinions. Unlike some, I don't like the new system.
I have a problem seeing that Am.Civ/Gardians shooters made up less than half of the total entries in a match. These Am.Civ. shooters are the same ones who shoot Competition, sub compact, etc. At a good match, except really large ones like Conyers there are usually less than 8 to 10 Masters shooting, how can they make up more than half of the entries? Even with the new system where the Masters can compete in 5 events they still do not make up over half of the entries.
That aside, this is not about Amateur vs Master, its about how the new prize system is effecting matches and shooters. None of the present day Masters were born Masters, they earned the title, just like the Amateurs are trying to do. Some of us will probably never make it but we will have fun trying, and yes, we work hard at it also.
I know that I, as a member of a low volume match club, am working hard to increase the number of shooters at our match. If it works out, that will be great, and worth the work, if not,then so be it and thanks to GSSF for giving us a chance.
Acknowledging that this is a GSSF decicion to make and not ours, I know that GSSF has always valued the opinion of its shooters.
1. What do you think would improve attendance and participation and still be economically feasible for GSSF?
2. What should the host clubs do (within reason) to improve attendance at matches, thereby getting the numbers up?
2x It is, after all, a competition.
Make that 3x (as 'da Judge' said, "Jerry, when you're hot you're hot!")
The amateur Glock owner remains the primary target of GSSF. Those on this forum are a very small subset of match attendees, regardless of ranking. One thing I've heard from many amateur shooters is that they'd happily shoot the one match a year that comes to their area, except for the membership thing each time that's tacked on. Not grousing about it, but it's out there. As to payback level based on participation, nothing new in any competitive world about that, it's just fiscally sound, even with 100% payback type things. [I've got a local club Husband/Wife bass tournament I host and payback is set 1 thru 5 predicated on 'x' number of boats. Less than that and it's 1- thru 3.]
Now on to the thing Bobby mentioned to me in the parking lot at Indy...
You're talking entries versus shooters. Take the total number of entries and then count the Civilian and Guardian classes, they're less than half of the total entries.
My point is: you have to include competition, sub-compact, amateur civilian,& gardian, these are all civilian / gardian shooters. Entries or shooters, amateur civilian/gardian is much larger than 50%.
I guess I am just being dense Jerry, but not intentionally