The most Evil IPSC traget array to date

ENSHOOTER said:
What is the basis for banning the star? Is it unsafe? Does it harm shooters self esteem. (Destroyed Mine)Seriously what is the problem? Or is somebody just does not like it?
Click to expand...
oh yeah I forgot the most important reason why.... IT cause I don't like them and the Sanctioning committee likes me...... hehehe
 
this is just a dumb rule in my opinion. I'll be asking my regional director to ask for them to be allowed.
 
I've shot the star in several variants at different matches and have always found it to be fun to shoot and entertaining. That being said however, it does tend to exagerate the difference between excellent shooters and us not-so-excellent shooters.

The following is a cut and paste from global village of a compilation of posts from an individual on the Brian Enos forums. It does provide an interesting perspective on the question.

This is going to be a bit long winded, but if you want to know why I don't think a Star has any place in a big match, then read ahead. BigDave pretty much nailed it and I agree with him, but I'll take it one step farther.

In my work life, I design a lot of performance assessments. A performance assessment allows a student to demonstrate what they know, and what they can do, preferably through an authentic problem solving activity that allows them to demonstrate their ability. To properly assess a student's skills, whether those skills be welding, driving a car, or shooting, the assessment must be reliable, valid, meaningful, and fair. The student should also have multiple opportunities, delivered in diverse formats, over time, to demonstrate their ability. The problem I have with a Star in a major match is a personal belief that the assessment format is inappropriate for maintaining the health of the sport.

As BigDave pointed out, the shooting test is equal for all shooters (that is the targets are presented the same way) right up until the first plate is removed. Even though I got my butt jumped for using inexperienced shooters as an example, I am going down that road one more time.

Let's say little Johnny Wannablaster goes to an Area match with his father. Johnny is young, exubberant, and he has been looking forward to attending his first big match. Johnny starts shooting the Texas Star by shooting the very bottom plate. Johnny has just demonstrated he can hit the plate, but he has also shown he is not familiar with the prop. Johnny throws a couple more rounds downrange and hits another plate, but now he has the prop off balance and spinning like crazy. Like any good assessment, Johnny will now be provided with multiple opportunities to show his ability, or lack of ability.

Unfortunately, the faster the prop spins, the more difficult the assessment becomes. Even when Johnny is successful in hitting a plate, if it's the wrong plate, his reward is to be faced with shots of increasing difficulty levels. By contrast, the better a person shoots, the easier the task. I suppose one can say that of any target, but this especially true of stars and windmills. With a static target, if the shooter has difficulties, they have the opportunity to take another shot at the same difficulty level. This is not necessarily so with a spinning target.

Is this type of assessment necessarily a bad thing? Well I suppose that depends on the intent of the test. Some of the most notorious tests that I have personally encountered that posed increasingly difficult questions (in the event of a missed question) were made by the IT certification industry. It was not unusual to take an on-line certification test that was scored on the fly. If a fundamental question was missed, the next question generated would be at a higher level of difficulty. If that question was missed, the next question was even more difficult. The intent was to weed folks out, fail them in their tracks, and send them back to square one if they missed due to a lack of fundamental knowledge. Their only salvation was to prove superior mastery of content if they missed a question as a result of just screwing the pooch.

My personal belief is the Texas Star can be excessively punitive to shooters who lack fundamental skills. I have no problem with putting a shooter in a position to demonstrate their ability, but I do have a problem with punishing a shooter by increasing the difficulty level beyond reasonable expectations after they have already failed. I don't believe such actions are in the best interest of attracting and retaining shooters.

Suppose I assess a couple of kids using the Texas Star system. I could compare Johnny D. Shooter with G.M Hotshooter. The test will end for each student when they have given the correct response to five questions. Each question will be worth five points and the questions must be answered in a timely fashion. A slow response time, or a missed question will result in the next question being more difficult than the previous question.

I would begin by asking both kids question number one. The question would be an easy one for young Hotshooter but it would be a bit on the difficult side for Johnny (say a star at xx yards). Both kids would get the first question correct (nail the first plate) and they would get identical questions for question number two (the second plate). But because Johnny D. Shooter was a bit slower than G.M. in responding to question number two, Johnny's third question will not be the same as Hotshooter's third question. In fact, Johnny's question will be much more difficult. G.M. Hotshooter will nail the third plate, I mean question, right away. Unfortunately, Johnny D. Shooter will miss the third question. But don't worry, Johnny will be given additional opportunities, they just won't be the same as G.M.'s opportunities. Because little G.M. is so bright and so fast in shooting his plates, darn it I mean answering his questions, his last two questions will be only slightly more difficult than the previous questions, and he will answer them correctly in a timely fashion.

Unfortunately, Johnny D. Shooter misses three questions in a row, and now the plates, I mean questions, are spinning by at warp drive, and with each instant that passes, the questions become increasingly difficult. At last young Johnny has answered correctly five times. Of course those questions took longer to answer and were more difficult than Hotshooter's plates (questions) because young Johnny is a bit slower on the draw (no pun intended).

Time to enter grades in the grade book. Let's see, G.M. got 25 points in 3 seconds for a hit factor of 8.333. According to my scoring guide that's an A. Hmmm, Johnny got 25 points in 8 seconds for a hit factor of 3.125 and that's only 37 per cent of G.M.'s score, or an F. In fact, the grade is an F minus.

Was the test meaningful, fair, valid, and reliable? Can I justify asking more difficult questions of a lower performing student than I asked of the higher performing student by claiming both students controlled their own destiny? Did I set one student up for success and the other for failure? Oh screw it, give the kid an F, it's what he earned.
Click to expand...
 
the above argument while interesting, is flawed. new shooter Johny could just wait for the star to stop spinning, or slow down enough for him to hit, thereby creating the same test of skill for each shot. It's no different than a new shooter shooting clamshells badly, or engaging targets in the wrong order and missing the drop turner as a result. I for one think these are exactly the kind of targets we should see in the sport.
 
Slavex said:
the above argument while interesting, is flawed. new shooter Johny could just wait for the star to stop spinning, or slow down enough for him to hit, thereby creating the same test of skill for each shot. It's no different than a new shooter shooting clamshells badly, or engaging targets in the wrong order and missing the drop turner as a result. I for one think these are exactly the kind of targets we should see in the sport.
Click to expand...


If time weren't a factor 'in the test' you argument would have merit but time is a HUGE factor in the test......
 
I agree with Slavex .
But to me this test answers another testing question of " johnny " that you don't bring up .
Under pressure which student can make better decisions to take advantage of there position .
One student is smarter and this test will show it .
Because this test can have an difficulty escalator built in is of no concern to the new shooter . I'm willing to bet they both would have fun shooting it .
I can understand why a seasoned competitive shooter might not like it because if he blows it it will dramatically affect his score / placing .
To bad , learn to shoot it . The winner did .
If every target array was dumbed down to not hurt someones self esteme in short order every qualifier would be a string of standard exercises . Growing the sport if you take away these type of options will slowly become even more difficult IMO
 
I shot the Star at 2 matches last year. I think the TExas star is the best target around. Its a nice variation and change. Why is it IPSC is either trying to not militaristic or not carnival like? Out of the two I bet a more carnival atmosphere with flashing lights and moving targets would bring alot more people into the sport. A texas star is a nice change over a a piece of target stuck in the mud waiting to get blasted.

I bet some people dont like them because it brings a level of fun to the sport which some would probably like sanitized out.

I hope if anything we can have more carnival like targets and more action moving things to shoot at..
 
so long as we are testing shooting skill (which I the star does), I don't care if we have a circus worth of things to do. I hate boring "standard" type stages.
 
I just received the word from our section coordinator. No t-star in any match above level 1 ( He just received the official notification) :mad: So the t-star must be pulled from the match. :bangHead:

And I just finished buying and upgrading the springs.
 
doon said:
I just received the word from our section coordinator. No t-star in any match above level 1 ( He just received the official notification) :mad: So the t-star must be pulled from the match. :bangHead:

And I just finished buying and upgrading the springs.
Click to expand...

I'll double check my email when I get to work in the morning...but I'm pretty sure Level 1's would be out as well (any IPSC sanctioned match)
 
I don't want to turn this into a political discussion, but if my Section Coordinator or Regional President told me I couldn't use a Texas Star in a match, I would ask for the rule which supports that decision.

The opinions of folks like Quigley and Slavex speak volumes to me. Canadian IPSC shooters enjoy a challenging stage, and see no reason why a new target design shouldn't be used.

On the other hand, the long quote from the Brian Enos Forum (thank you, MrFritz) just naturally brings to mind a small quote of my own:

Rule 1.1.6 - Difficulty
IPSC matches present varied degrees of difficulty. No shooting challenge or time limit may be appealed as being prohibitive. ...

Having said that, I understand the concern about discouraging new shooters. As I recall, this was also the basis for another rule which appears in the January, 2006 IPSC rule book (the current version):

9.4.2 -- Each hit visible on the scoring area of a paper no-shoot will be penalized the equivalent of twice the point value of a maximum scoring hit, up to a maximum of 2 hits per no-shoot.

http://www.ipsc.org/pdf/RulesHandgun.pdf

There are a number of problems with this rule, not least of which is that it doesn't allow for the number of scoring targets in the immediate vicinity of the no-shoot target. But essentially, this is another of the 'do it for the children' rules which added needless controversy in regardless to the January, 2006 rule book.

I've also looked at the "Interpretations" of that rule book version, and I see nothing there which seemed to apply to the use of a Texas Star target-array design.

http://www.ipsc.org/pdf/RulesHandgunInterp200607.pdf

Okay, so I'm an American competing solely in USPSA matches. It's not a problem to me. And if I should decide to compete in an IPSC match, I'll abide by IPSC rules whether they make sense to me or not.

It's my choice. I have one. That makes me happy.

In the meantime, I'll be shooting this Evil Oregon Target a lot in the future. and if it's any consolation, the target (as presented in links previously noted) is probably not allowable anyway in IPSC competition, because it includes paper targets which, due to being rotated around an axis, are repeatedly displayed at an angle of greater than 90% from the vertical. This is illegal, even though the paper targets in question are the old-fashioned "Metric" target which provide an obvious 'this end up' profile.

(See rule 2.1.8.4, which provides no exception for "Metric" targets.)

That has nothing to do, of course, with the Texas Star which includes no paper targets.

So ... Oregon isn't all that far from Western Canada. Want to shoot a Texas Star target? How about the Evil Oregon Star?

Come on down! We'll be glad to have you join us.

Oh yeah, I almost forgot:

The first time I shot the Texas Star, it took me two 20-round magazines to clean the plates. I thought "Hmmmm ... I need to practice". So I did, and eventually I was shooting it as well as all the other B-Limited shooters.

New shooters have problems with a moving-plate target? What a great challenge. The more experienced shooters have a wonderful opportunity to step up and offer some unofficial coaching.

Nobody expects new shooters to be as skillful as more experienced shooters.

As adults, it's our duty to teach the next generation. If they can't handle failure, and are not sufficiently mature to accept advice from their elders and betters, they shouldn't be allowed to run around with a loaded gun anyway.

But that's just one man's opinion.
 
A well built texas star will spin for one hell of a long time before it begins to slow down. i have seen the ones in Lethbridge spin through 6 mags and still be going strong.
 
yeah I'd like to know the specific rule on this too. I mean is it actually disallowed by name?
 
MrFritz argument is interesting but missing one key point. The percent that a single Texas star or any other very tough condition would make in the final result. 80% of the people shooting a match should be able to complete 80% match successfully. It is the remaining 20% that separates the GM from the C's. As single star maybe only worth 25 pts in match of how many. It would likely be a disaster to C shooter and would be a chance for GM to use their superior skill to get way ahead with all the other GM's.

Think about folks the more diversity in a match the better. Stages with options which test thinking, not just speed. Accuracy not just speed. Level of difficulty. The harder the task the more the top shooter will pull away. The easier the task the more all shooters will cluster. You need things like this to make the separation real.
 
I think the star is great. Sure I'd expect to either zero the stage with a spray and pray technique or place poorly with a slow time. So what, it's a nice change from just "engage T1 thru T3, 2 rounds each".....
 
jerrydgeek said:
...In the meantime, I'll be shooting this Evil Oregon Target a lot in the future. and if it's any consolation, the target (as presented in links previously noted) is probably not allowable anyway in IPSC competition, because it includes paper targets which, due to being rotated around an axis, are repeatedly displayed at an angle of greater than 90% from the vertical. This is illegal, even though the paper targets in question are the old-fashioned "Metric" target which provide an obvious 'this end up' profile.
Click to expand...

that's easily fixed with static PT's covering the paper targets when they are upside down...and visable when they are moving back up to right side up
 
Here's what I got on the whole TS thing.

Regarding the Texas star:

The target violates items 5 and 6 of the IPSC Constitution.

5.Practical competition is conducted using practical targets, which reflect
the general size and shape of such objects as the firearm used may
reasonably be called upon to hit in their primary intended use.

6.The challenge presented in practical competition must be realistic.
Courses of Fire must follow a practical rationale, and simulate sensible
hypothetical situations in which firearms might reasonably be used.


so no wonder we couldn't get into the Olympics if our constitution is worded like that.
 
I find it somewhat interesting that the IPSC constitution makes considerable use of the term "practical" to justify eliminating such target arrays as the "Texas Star" and yet it has no problem with Open Division guns that are about as far from "practical" as one can get.


(Don't get me wrong, I think that open guns are very cool and fun to shoot. That division makes a great addition to the sport. But as far as carrying one in a "practical" sense goes... I don't think so.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom