OK guys, help me out

Discussion in 'GSSF' started by Fireglock, Jul 2, 2007.

  1. Fireglock

    Fireglock Which is worse?

    Messages:
    2,952
    Likes Received:
    1
    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2000
    Location:
    Pinellas County, FL
    OK, several folks keep talking about how the new prize (giveaway guns/cash) schedule isn't as good as the way it was last year. Help me out here, how so? Is it that the small matches don't payout more than they take in? Or is it that the Masters now have a chance at the random prizes? Seriously I want to understand where you folks are coming from. Right now if you have an average match it appears to me that there will be more giveaway prizes than when we had the A, B, C system. I realize the small matches don't get as many giveaway prizes since now they have to have enough shooters to cover the prize money/awards.

    If we go back to A,B, C, 10 place payout then that means Ft. Benning has the same number of prizes as say Lubbock, right. So 356* competitors are treated the same as 147* shooters right? Same number of prizes? Does that mean because you live in an area with a good turn out you pay for the prizes for shooters in areas that don't have a good turn out? Why shoot at Ft. Benning when your chances of a prize are twice as good at Lubbuck?

    I've been vocal in the past, I've been encouraged by folks I respect to hold my tongue and go on for the greater good of GSSF, I did and I have. Now it seems that it's OK to question things again. Like I said, I'm confused about what the problem is. It seems to me the new system is fairer to all the shooters, not just the ones at small matches. It may not be the best "marketing" strategy but at some point and time I would think as competitors (not greedy consumers) fairness would be what we looked for. Right, not greed but fairness?

    Is the system perfect? No. In the 5 years I've shot Master I've "won" 2 guns. Did I win them? NO. Did I come by them honestly and by the rules? Yes. I was second both times to competitors who should have won both Master Stock and Unlimited. But since the rules say Masters can only win one cert per match I profited. Now if my non-GSSF friends ask did I win a gun I say yes rather than explain how it came about that I got the cert. BUT I didn't win them, I was second. Was that fair to Bobby and Tony, not in my opinion.

    At some point we need to buck up, figure out that everybody isn't going to be happy with everything GSSF does and if the greater majority profit then maybe it's OK.

    I sincerely hope I haven't offended anyone, that's not my purpose, but folks we're halfway through the season and it's getting strange again.......

    Edit for spelling and to identify the *. The numbers quoted were the entry numbers for the matches listed, actual completed entries may be slightly lower.
     
  2. ede

    ede

    Messages:
    11,585
    Likes Received:
    3,907
    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2004
    Location:
    New Mexico Mountians
    i've "gave up" two guns i should of won because of the 1 gun per master rule, but i didn't care and it was by the rules. i had also won a gun by the same set of rules before i got the * after my name. i like the new system and i tihnk it is by far the fairest system to the shooters and to GSSF and provides a reson to enter and shoot more classes.
     

  3. lethal tupperwa

    lethal tupperwa

    Messages:
    9,977
    Likes Received:
    2,522
    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    I seems to me that if they were handing out crap sandwiches with lettuce, tommato and mayo, there would be someone that didn't like the bread.


    I know that you can not make everybody happy all the time.

    I'm not sure if half the people have to be unhappy to make it fair.

    Or if you just make the most people happy and tell the rest have a nice day.
     
  4. glockess56

    glockess56 CLM

    Messages:
    1,105
    Likes Received:
    2
    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Location:
    Dublin, Ohio
    I think the part where the masters get prizes and shoot extra divisions are great. I just don't like that the little guy or the little matches getting no random prizes at all, like Louisiana or Ft. Smith. I like the changes involving the masters, that's great. Even the changes of random drawings they first went to. But, when some matches don't get any prize drawings, that's what I don't like. Some people look forward to that and they can't help who shows up, especially if it's a new match. If they could have had, maybe two guns and maybe five cash prize drawings, it would have helped everyone at Ft. Smith. They would have had a chance to win. But, my beef is that the random prizes is determined by an xx number of entrants to a match. Why not have a system that gives random prizes based on the entrants of each match? I'm sure there is a fair system. Although I liked the Lewis system, a system that would help shooters regardless of the size of the match would help. Not every shooter can make it to Conyers or Ft. Benning, some can only go to Louisana or Ft. Smith or one of the other smaller mathces.
     
  5. shootinglocks

    shootinglocks

    Messages:
    131
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    May 16, 2007
    I seems to me that if they were handing out crap sandwiches with lettuce, tommato and mayo, there would be someone that didn't like the bread.


    well said some folks just like to complain glock is good to all of us just for organizing these events never mind free guns and money.:banana: we should be talking about how generous they are rather then complaining is there even a gun company that holds matches for its customers provide them with repair services and give any sort of prize not including the number of matches and locations
     
  6. FESTUS

    FESTUS Horse Whisperer

    Messages:
    822
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    May 27, 2001
    Jerry..glad to see ya vocal...we all respect your point of view and what you have shared with us all and have accomplished....as I grow older I also try to temper my comments inlieu of an informed consensus of greater good.

    My personal goals are motivated by accomplishment....to shoot a 55.xx with an open sight stock(approved GSSF)pistol. No matter what prize distribution that evolves I will support, to accomplish my personal goal .....I need to concentrate on one thing and that is getting better at the above....for me to bring several pistols,shooting several categories is counterproductive for me ...for my progress. Bobby started another thread and I bit...problem is this would distract me from that goal....hence I need to get back to basics if I expect improvement this year. HOW DOES ALL THIS TIE in with the prize distribution? Well I believe that people that are spending time and money will usually justify an extra $25.00 to $50.00 in registration for more trigger time....so you see fewer people spending more money.
    The cost of getting to a match takes it's toll and time spent getting there (travel time)is punishing.

    People that I have talked to who use to participate...eluded their discontent not in prize distribution but cost and time to participate...sooooo whatever comments I have interjected do not reflect their opinions.I do see more younger shooters and GSSF has done a good job in making the Course of Fire more interesting.....the issue as I now reflect is HOW MUCH is availiable at a match and how should it be distributed. I would imagine the one's that really know are the ones that have intiated the changes and the ROI and bottom line have been drawn.....175 entries and Christmas begins....with that review I can only hope that GSSF does not get discouraged at OPINIONS.....my solicitation to the new shooter is because I appreciate what you have all done for me and I believe that there are more people out there that may need a purpose and a better direction in Life.....yes this is the Church and Religion.... :hugs:
     
  7. glockess56

    glockess56 CLM

    Messages:
    1,105
    Likes Received:
    2
    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Location:
    Dublin, Ohio
  8. BCarver

    BCarver CLM Millennium Member

    Messages:
    824
    Likes Received:
    1
    Joined:
    Oct 13, 1999
    Location:
    Jacksonville, Florida
    FireGlock,

    The solution to the problem, regarding the "best" award system may not exist. I'll explain my comment:

    Whether we agree or not, we must first identify GSSF's first objective of having GSSF matches. I believe that the initial objective was to promote their products, provide a safe environment to compete with their products and to increase market share by exposure. After kicking off the new segment of their marketing campaign, the growth of new applicants to join, match attendance and obviously more sales exceeded Glock's expectations and any considerations to short live the program was unheard of.

    Some possible reasons for the initial growth could have been:
    1. No other company was giving away guns and cash like GSSF
    2. Many people had Glocks but they were not prominant in other venues of competition. Remember, in the mid 90's, IDPA had not been born and IPSC did not have a production class.
    3. Gasoline and lodging was not at the prices they exist today.

    In order to keep the program thriving and to appeal to "more" new shooters, changes continued. First, the COF's changed and we went to a different scoring method. Some people were winning too many Glocks and the fear of turning GSSF into a "skills race" rewarding only the winners resurrected "share the wealth", simply described as, AM/CIV's can win up to 3 Glocks but Masters can only win 1 at a match. It was my understanding that this modification was done to protect the "AM/CIV's" from getting discouraged and to spread the winnings. At this time, the Lewis system was still in place.

    At about the same time gas prices soared above $3.00 a gallon and food prices and all other commodities began to rise due to the fuel prices, the quantity of competitors including GSSF, IDPA and IPSC began to decline. In addition, many of the GSSF shooters who had been competing for several years, winning Glocks moved onto other shooting sports or decided to take up another sport and were not effected by the new changes forthcoming. In addition, many AM/CIV's were bumped up to Master and felt that they could no longer compete in the "deep end of the pool". At this time, when match attendances were declining, "random drawings" began and the Lewis system was retired.

    Since the "random drawings" began, it appears that participation overall at GSSF matche has declined. Only the stats at GSSF would know for sure. I don't know if the "random drawings" were the result of the decline in participation or was it because the Glock brand had grown in popularity so much that former GSSF members had moved onto IDPA and IPSC where the number one brand is GLOCK in IDPA and IPSC has a class that is dominated by GLOCK, called production.

    After the matches continued to reduce in size, it appears that the GSSF team worked to keep the program on the board and have arrived at variations to do so: New COF's, More drawings and now the NEW award's program.

    Everyone has great ideas on how they would like to see GSSF's award program ran but the bottom line appears to be, "Return On Investment". If the same competitors are shooting GSSF each year, they no longer need to buy Glocks because they own all they need or want so GSSF will not grow sales unless more new shooters are attracted or the match fees support the administration costs.

    When we compare the current GSSF program to how IDPA or IPSC operates, we can all find differences. Why? Because they have never been the same. The only common thread between the 3 is "competition". Most folks that shoot matches, shoot because they like the thrill of comparing their skills to those of others and seeing how they match up. Many of you reading this have already commented about "why" you compete and the competition is one of the most relevant. Winning prizes for your accomplishments is what we "expect" because every competition that we have ever participated in awarded the winners.

    To conclude my thoughts, FireGlock, "If GSSF had initiated, from the beginning, a similar class system to IPSC or NRA where everyone had to qualify and be classified, it's possible that the current conditions would not have happened. If GSSF had initiated, from the beginning, a similar award system to IPSC or NRA where limited prizes and cash were awarded, it's possible that the current conditions would not be in this discussion. IF GSSF had copied IPSC or NRA, as described above, they would not be unique, as they are today."

    Comparing GSSF to any other organizational shooting sport is difficult. You can find positives and negatives in all that you compare. In your words, FireGlock, "At some point we need to buck up, figure out that everybody isn't going to be happy with everything GSSF does and if the greater majority profit then maybe it's OK."
     
  9. Don At PC

    Don At PC Senior Member Millennium Member

    Messages:
    5,227
    Likes Received:
    9
    Joined:
    Dec 17, 1998
    Location:
    USA
    I have no complaints and I am not a Master and may never be. I had doubts about the current system at the beginning but after seeing it used I cannot complain. Yes it would be nice to have more prizes for the smaller matches instead of the bare bones basics However it isn't practical from a business stand point. The match entries MUST support the match prizes. Therefore each club and shooters should do their best to pull in more shooters and yes try to shoot more than one category to help build up the numbers. Remember we all have a budget to work with and so does GSSF. The bottom line is "This is the fairest way for everyone". It may not be exactly the way we would like it but it is the Fairest.

    I think old Norske said it best in another thread:"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".

    Remember Glock could close down GSSF and still be a profitable business. This is just my opinion and yes I know what I can do with my opinion. I do feel I speak the truth, like it or not.

    See ya'll at the range real soon.:thumbsup:

    Don
     
  10. JonInWA

    JonInWA

    Messages:
    856
    Likes Received:
    33
    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2004
    Location:
    Auburn, Washington
    Very well put, Bobby. We enjoy our sport(s), and I strongly suspect that most of us here would continue to support GSSF (albeit perhaps to a more limited extent) even if there were no prizes (much like most local IDPA matches).

    As much as WE enjoy it, I think that Glock needs to assess and define their goal(s) vis-a-vis GSSF. I definitely think that the matches SHOULD reward performance-but performance may need to be rewarded within various levels of classification, much like IDPA, as Bobby suggested on an earlier response. It strikes me that something like the 90-round IDPA classifier, appropriately modified for GSSF could be incorporated into a GSSF match's course of fire, with competitors being able to shoot it at anytime during the match, to preclude a bottleneck. I think that an important part of GSSF is that in addition to the intangibles that all participatants can share that there be a viable perception that their competition participation has a semi-reasonable chance of garnering something tangible-at least, that's how I think that GSSF itself has socialized us over the years! And I think that GSSF's primary target audience, from a Glock marketing point of view, is still the entry to middle level shooter and their families/significant others, and that the match and awards structure(s) need to be at least somewhat configured with that target audience in mind. Right now, particularly in the smaller venue matches, I think that that has gone a bit adrift.

    Best, Jon
     
  11. Don At PC

    Don At PC Senior Member Millennium Member

    Messages:
    5,227
    Likes Received:
    9
    Joined:
    Dec 17, 1998
    Location:
    USA
    Quote by JonInWA:

    "It strikes me that something like the 90-round IDPA classifier, appropriately modified for GSSF could be incorporated into a GSSF match's course of fire, with competitors being able to shoot it at anytime during the match, to preclude a bottleneck".

    Jon this sounds good on paper however I see two serious problems in
    trying to do it. They are:
    (1) For those of us who fly to some matches this would pose a problem since we can only carry 11 pounds of ammo on a flight. That is barely enough to shoot 3 categories in GSSF Matchs. Which means we would have to ship our ammo separately (another added expense) or hope there is someplace between the hotel and range where we could Legally buy ammo to shoot in the match. (another added expense, possibly caliber of ammo not available or because we were not a resident we could not legally buy ammo).
    (2) Many of the Matches the host club is barely able to get enough RO's to run the basic match. I have seen where the small GSSF Staff at the match had to help RO and several of us who are there to shoot help all we can.

    No saying your ideas don't have merit but there are many things to consider on the broader view.

    Don
     
  12. lethal tupperwa

    lethal tupperwa

    Messages:
    9,977
    Likes Received:
    2,522
    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    might be effected by the cost of gas.

    We go to 6 or 8 different states and the cost gas is probably close to the hotel bill.
     
  13. gary newport

    gary newport

    Messages:
    5,741
    Likes Received:
    3
    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2004
    Location:
    People's Republic of California
    If I recall the results correctly, there were NO random prizes awarded at the Roseburg match. None for Amateurs. None for Masters. Fair? Yes. Satisfying? About as satisfying as a crap sandwich!

    I've been thinking about driving up to Roseburg for the match. Now, I don't know if it would be worth it. Perhaps I'll just do the Richmond, CA match and look around locally for other pistol competition venues. I suspect other Amateurs will be doing similar calculations when considering the smaller non-local matches.
     
  14. degoodman

    degoodman Out of Columbus

    Messages:
    845
    Likes Received:
    1
    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2004
    Location:
    Marysville, OH
    One of the principals of GSSF however was to cater to the person who was otherwise a "non-competetor" by having simple courses of fire that did not require draws from a holster (thereby requiring a holster...), a pile of magazines and carriers for on the clock reloads, shooting on the move, and a whole pile of other things that scared the novices off. They could shoot with a bone stock gun, and the accessories that came in the box with it and have some success. They made a nice simple shooting sport that the average shooter had a chance in.

    While it may not be stated, and I don't mean this as an insult to the fine shooters who have made master, I imagine that the expectation on the part of the founders of GSSF was that by the time the shooter's skills evolved to the point they were a "master" they would have voluntarily moved on to more advanced disciplines that were a more stringent and appropriate test of their skills, thus clearing the way for the next crop of inexperienced shooters to make their mark. Ignoring for a minute the friendship and comeraderie aspects of it, lots of the masters at this point really don't belong at a GSSF match any more as an active competetor. It would be like Jeff Gordon, Michael Schumacher, and Dario Franchetti coming down to the local SCCA autocross to strut their stuff. Sure, they'll blow everyone away...and what exactly does that prove?

    The same goes with the prize distribution. I don't have any problem excluding the masters from the bulk of the prize distribution, including the "random" prizes. If you've made master in GSSF, it's because you've already won enough times, and won the guns that go with it to be classed up, or because you're a master in another discipline, and have won your loot over there. You've got plenty of guns, and really don't need another bone stock one to play with. The guy who finished in the middle of the C-class pack on a lewis scoreboard, winning a pistol means something to him. It's not his 4th G17 amongst 10 other Glocks, but it's in OD this time with night sights, it's probably his 2nd GUN, one he wouldn't have obtained otherwise.

    GSSF deliberately tilted the field towards the novices because under the "old" class-based random system and the lewis system, even an average shooter could take home the big prize, when otherwise he wouldn't have had as much chance to. Yea, I know, he still can win on the randoms, but now there's less chance of it, and it's because of the preception that he's competing against the masters, even though it's for a random prize, which GSSF tried really hard to avoid. Which do you think is more necessary to the survival of a sport, "retaining" guys who have been around for a long time by keeping on giving them more stuff, or by attracting new guys by giving them a leg up on scoring some prizes? In every example I've ever seen, if you make your changes to keep the "old guard" happy, you're on a downward spiral that ends in the failure of your organization.

    If I were writing the prize system, I'd go back to a lewis class system, with the winner of each class getting a pistol, or other appropriately sized prize for the size of the match if you needed to keep costs aligned, and then do three randoms in the bottom class, two in the middle, one for the top class, and no randoms for the masters. If your goal is to attract and retain novice competetors, that's how to do it. And if you really want to contain costs, make the lesser prizes certificates for magazines, field knives, range bags, clothing and other merch. At Glock's costs, they could probably give out ALOT of loot for the same money as a $100 prize. a $500 pistol that costs them maybe half that, a $20 magazine that cost them $2, etc. $100 worth of mags is still $100 in prizes, but Glock only pays $10 for it, allowing them to up the prize count, or make up for the less attended matches.
     
  15. gary newport

    gary newport

    Messages:
    5,741
    Likes Received:
    3
    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2004
    Location:
    People's Republic of California
    The old Lewis/class prize distribution system was frustrating if you were stuck in the middle of a class. It actually encouraged "sandbagging" in a couple of cases I know of--one of them being me! Realizing that I was not going to win A class, I deliberately shot one match much faster than I should have. It almost worked; I finished one spot above the last A class shooter, so I missed getting the B class pistol by THAT much!

    Besides figuring that I couldn't shoot (and miss) fast enough to fall out of A class and I couldn't shoot (and NOT miss) fast enough to win A class, I really didn't like "aiming" for a lower score. I was pleased when the classes were dropped and prizes were awarded randomly across the field of entrants--though I never won anything.

    The new scheme is the worst of several possible worlds. Smaller and newer matches are starved for prizes, with the likely result being that they will STAY small or simply disappear altogether. Masters have (relatively) more chances to win something by performance or randomly, while Amateurs have fewer.

    Unless Glock really is losing interest in supporting GSSF, I'd suggest the following hybrid of the previous random and present (fair but skimpy) prize distribution systems.

    1. Keep the current scheme of awarding preformance awards to the top three Amateur shooters in A-C, A-G, Subcompact and Competition, but do so at ALL GSSF matches, regardless of attendance.

    2. Award at least one Glock randomly to Amateurs (NOT Masters) in EACH Amateur division at EACH match, with additional pistols and prizes to be awarded depending on turnout. (I see no justification for awarding random prizes to Masters in ANY division, but they certainly should be ineligible for the limited number of random awards in what have been primarily Amateur divisions.)

    3. Allow Masters to compete in Subcompact and Competition on the same basis as in MajorSub; that is, they compete only against other Masters for whatever prize is awarded to the top Master competitor, and Amateurs compete only against other Amateurs for the top three Amateur performance awards.

    4. Keep the "special category" performance cash awards in A-C.

    This hybrid approach would offer the possibility of awards for performance or random selection to Amateurs through all the divisions where they most commonly compete, encourage Amateurs to enter more than one division, allow Masters to compete (and win a performance award) in five divisions (rather than three), factors in match attendance to INCREASE the number of awards for the larger matches and would be, I think, less like to "starve out" small and new GSSF matches. It might not be as cheap as the current prize distribution scheme--but I think we're worth it! Does Glock?

    (Disclosure--I am a GSSF Life Member.)
     
  16. Fireglock

    Fireglock Which is worse?

    Messages:
    2,952
    Likes Received:
    1
    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2000
    Location:
    Pinellas County, FL
    Intersting, but I think your history needs a little work.
     
  17. OMF64

    OMF64

    Messages:
    81
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2005
    Location:
    Left Coast
    Must not be the sharpest bowlingball on the rack.:upeyes:
     
  18. gary newport

    gary newport

    Messages:
    5,741
    Likes Received:
    3
    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2004
    Location:
    People's Republic of California
    Just what is that supposed to mean? Precisely WHAT do you disagree with or find to be less "sharp" than you would prefer?
     
  19. JWG_34

    JWG_34 TeamCarverMount

    Messages:
    926
    Likes Received:
    36
    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2002
    Location:
    Columbia SC
    Guys, like has been said before,You cant make all the people happy all the time!

    But if you look at the big picture,with so much property going into private hands,and cities and urban areas, growing in size,I think it is a good thing ,that GSSF is good enough to put on as many matches as they do, They all do a fine job ,and put in some hard work.How would everyone feel, if they stopped the matches?

    I found out the other day that they do not have the Bowling pin match in Topton PA. anymore and have closed the range down!

    Just think ,Their may be other disciplines, as far as shooting goes ,at other ranges. But where can you find a better place to meet good peolple and put some lead down range,and know that it is Our God giving right to do this. It is still a free country.

    I cant recall their names, But I met 2 fine fellows, from Australia some years back and , the only way they get to shoot ,is come here to the USA and borrow a pistol to shoot in the Steel Challenge match in Califonia.

    Having fun ,and enjoying a day spend with good friends and putting a few rounds down range should always be first on the list.

    Hope this makes sense,just my 2 cents worth!
    Jeff
     
  20. FESTUS

    FESTUS Horse Whisperer

    Messages:
    822
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    May 27, 2001
    Up to now it has been informative and interesting....please lets keep it that way....all that have posted are respected and deserve to be heard and understood...please.:shocked: