Roseburg Finals Posted

Discussion in 'GSSF' started by JonInWA, Jun 27, 2007.

  1. JonInWA

    JonInWA

    Messages:
    858
    Likes Received:
    33
    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2004
    Location:
    Auburn, Washington
    GSSF posted the Roseburg final scores earlier today. I'm a bit ambivelant about the new prize system. Other than in the really large, established venues, I think that GSSF is finding that it's going to be rarer and rarer to have enough participation to get to any random gun prize awards. Frankly, although I enjoy shooting in the more rareified categories such as Competition and Master Stock, my chances of winning are realistically pretty slim. While I certainly on an ongoing basis practice and compete in other competitions such as IDPA to improve my own competance, frankly a major motivator for me in GSSF has always been the possibility of the random win...Given the low key and user friendly position that GSSF has positioned the matches, I think that there's more value to be derived to Glock marketing to have increased random pistol/prize awards, particularly in Amateur Civilian and Guardian categories than in the other divisions. I suspect that many of the highly skilled shooters that populate the other divisions pretty much already have what they want, and/or also attend other competitions with larger prize tables.

    Yes, skill placement should always be emphesized and rewarded. But for GSSF, and for my interpretation of Glock's involvement as GSSF matches being a means of both marketing Glocks and incentivizing shooting sports awareness and participation,I think that the new prize system is a step in the wrong direction, which may well lead to even more diminished participation-particularly given the relatively high cost of individual participation in the matches; I suspect that the market that Glock primarily targets only shoots one match per year, which means by definition GSSF match participation costs that individual at least $50.00 (GSSF membership plus shooting in only one division). That may be "jumping the shark." And yes, I don't mean to diminish or ignore the derivitive benefits of having a Glock Armorer present, or the costs of Glock's GSSF staffers' participation and costs, and the cost sharing with the host clubs. I realize, and enjoy these benefits-but I still think that Glock needs to take a hard look at their intended intentions, goals, and tools regarding GSSF.

    Best, Jon
     
  2. Norske

    Norske Millennium Member

    Messages:
    3,454
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Mar 24, 1999
    If they are paying the same $25 entry fee, why should an entry in Civilian or Guardian have a better chance at awards than say, an entry in Subcompact, Competition, or one of the "other" divisions?

    :headscratch:

    If the awards are uneven between divisions as they WERE before this year, your typical shooter will just shoot Civilian, Guardian, or whatever the "favored" division is and just go home.

    There is little or no incentive for him/her to enter any of the "other" divisions.

    Under the new system, it does not matter WHAT division or divisions you shoot. Your chances at both the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place awards as well as all of the Random awards is EXACTLY the same.

    I don't see where the "old" system is superior to the "new" system in ANY respect.

    :sad:
     

  3. dking1

    dking1

    Messages:
    234
    Likes Received:
    1
    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2007
    Location:
    Central Ohio
    I agree. The new system makes it fair for all classes and makes me more likely to try classes like Master Stock or Unlimited because I know that I still have a chance for some random loot (Though I'm going to try like H3ll to compete with these people).
     
  4. JonInWA

    JonInWA

    Messages:
    858
    Likes Received:
    33
    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2004
    Location:
    Auburn, Washington
    Guys, I think that you're misinterpreting what my point is; basically, with the revised prize system, although on its face it appears to be fairer across the board (and, in a literal sense it certainly is), I'm thinking that realistically, given its stringent adherence to a relatively high total match/division attendance as the awards baseline (beyond a basic barebones limited awards structure), I'm thinking (and seeing)that the reality is that we're going to see very, very few random pistols/awards awarded (regardless of division), due to the base numbers of entrants required. The "older" system provided for a greater number of random awards-albeit that they were restricted to a limited number of divisions; i.e., primarily Amateur Civilian. To me, this is a more effective means of Glock to reach out to what I perceived the GSSF marketplace was vis-a-vis the GSSF matches. While the matches were (and are) relatively expensive to enter, the psychic payoff/motivation was the possibility of a random win-of course, behind improving one's shooting/Glock skills, and the camaraderie inherent to a GSSF match. The reality now is that for all practical purposes, the GSSF match prize structure is a pure skill reward set-up; frankly, while this year I'm competing in 3 divisions in 3 GSSF matches, that was my plan from the get-go; my intention was to use the Competition and Master Stock divisions as a warm-up/skill builder sort of thing, with my payoff being a better performance in Amateur Civilian, and, if I wasn't in the top 10/top 4, there was still the possibility of a random win in Amateur Civilian. Now, with the equitization of the awards structure, what I'm seeing is the greater lilihood of FEWER awards-albeit equitably spread throughout the represented divisions, keyed to participant count. While it is arguably fairer, what I sense it actually is is somewhat counterproductive; wht I'm seeing is FEWER shooters participating-with my supposition that this lower participation is engendered by a combination of basic match expenses and a low perception of winning any award. While an entrant can certainly receive awards in a greater number of divisions, the realistic expectation of such an occurance is limited. It's great if you're in the top tier of shooters (and the new structure may be a spur to get there, I guess), but I'm personally finding it actually more discouraging, as my perception is that to reach ANY award, you basically have to be in the top 5, period-and that incorporates the awards "roll-down" that occurs when a placing winner is downgraded due to other divisional wins. So, in my case, what I'm looking at is an overall outlay of about $600+ to participate in 3 categories in 3 matches, including GSSF membership, match fees, travel expenses, fuel, and ammunition. While I enjoy the matches, and the Armorer presence, and the camaraderie, and the skill building, my chances of any recoupment through winning an award, through skill placement or random win is very, very slim-especially since the random awards are effectively eliminated due to limited participation numbers (and my admittedly limited skills :brickwall:

    Am I making any sense?

    Best, Jon
     
  5. gary newport

    gary newport

    Messages:
    5,741
    Likes Received:
    3
    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2004
    Location:
    People's Republic of California
    Yes, you are! All one need do is count the random prizes awarded at the 2006 Roseburg match versus those awarded at the 2007 edition.
     
  6. glockess56

    glockess56 CLM

    Messages:
    1,105
    Likes Received:
    2
    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Location:
    Dublin, Ohio
    Of course we're overlooking the size of the match in order to receive random prizes. In the old days, at least the first 10 would have received prizes. Now, it depends on the size of the match. A new match might not get that many shooters the first year. The Ft. Smith match, for example probably won't have any door prizes distributed due to its size. It barely met the standards to be allowed to give out first and second place awards. It was a great match, and next year it should be bigger. So, besides the distribution of door prizes, we have to also look at the size of the match we're attending.
     
  7. Glock Dave

    Glock Dave

    Messages:
    822
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2001
    Location:
    At The Range
    I actually think you make perfect sense Jon. You are correct in the fact that the smaller matches will suffer in the new prize system. You are also correct in the fact that many shooters travel great distance to compete in these matches and at a large expense. I have been shooting GSSF for almost 10 years and I think it is outstanding of Glock to to hold these matches for us. But to be honest, many people can shoot at an IDPA or IPSC match that is much cheaper and in many cases, a more exciting and challenging match. But the one benefit of GSSF is the chance to win prize money or even a new Glock. That is what sets GSSF apart from those other matches. I have always said the original system of dividing the results into class was the best and that the newer prize allocation leaves much to be desired. But unfortunately, there are many in this forum that think the folks at GSSF walk on water and any criticism, no matter how constructive and thought out, equates to blasphamy.
     
  8. Panhandle Bill

    Panhandle Bill Senior Member

    Messages:
    140
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2003
    Location:
    Lubbock, TX
    Glock Dave , JonInWA,

    I totally agree with you!! The new prize system will ruin the smaller matches. Unless you are the top 1, 2, and maybe 3 shooters in a category you have no chance at all to win anything.
    A shooter will have to feel that he or she is going to place within the top 2 or 3 to reasonable think that they will win anything. Lets face facts, if you don't shoot in the 50s or 60s you are not there these days.
    I think you will see the smaller matches go away and maybe the large matches will get bigger, (maybe not)


    Maybe this is what GSSF wants, is to cut back on the matches, if so, they are on the right track.
     
  9. FESTUS

    FESTUS Guest

    Messages:
    822
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    May 27, 2001
    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, different 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. :)