Whitefish ... My original thought (not a completely contemplated proposal, I admit) was that while IPSC/USPSA was originally evolved as an "Amateur" competition, it has lately evolved to one in which "Professional Shooters" have dominated all Major competition.
A "Professional Shooter", for the purpose of argument, is one who has not only had all competitive expenses compensated by a (commercial) third party, but sufficient or a major part of his/her income derives from competition-related ... or expertise-related (eg: training classes), or professional (eg: branch of the U.S. Military which has assigned him/her to, for example, the U.S. Marksmanship Unit) ... day-to-day work to the point where we can honesly assert that their livelihood IS supported directly or indirectly by their Competitive prowness. And this support is to a greater degree incumbent upon their continuing ability to 'win' at the shooting competition defined by USPSA.
"Sufficient or Major part of his/her income" is defined as the amount which, if removed from his/her income, would require the shooter to either find another supporting source of income, or to dramatically reduce his/her life-style because residual funding is not sufficient in comparison.
Please let me know if any part of this definition does not seem reasonable to you. I'm not talking about mere "sponsorship";
_______________________________________
Whitefish, your comment was:
While it may have merit, it takes us to a whole different level of bureaucracy, which we already have plenty of. Witness our burgeoning rulebook and those infamous interpretations thereof by JA. At what point does someone become a professional? Does someone (say a company or gunsmith) giving you a gun to use constitute enough to be called a professional? How about ammo to shoot at matches and practice with or a shirt with a sponsors name on it for advertising? If you will recall a certain arrangment with STI and the open gun you have used for several years, that may constitute "being a professional". I think that is great, but it also falls in the category of be careful what you ask for!!!
_______________________________________
Point(s) well taken, and worth talking about.
First, I cannot address ANY suggestion that "J.A." may 'rule' against any change to the Classification system such as my comments may have been considered to suppose. Mr. J.A. pretty much defines the world in his own vision, and I have no idea which way he may jump on any given comment.
But let's just consider what would happen if he did NOT present himself as an active opponent to the idea, okay? Better to think about how it may come to be, rather than think about the opposition. This is still a conceptual proposition; there's room to play with it.
Here are your points of concern:
- ... it takes us to a whole different level of bureaucracy ...
- At what point does someone become a professional?
- Does someone (say a company or gunsmith) giving you a gun to use constitute enough to be called a professional?
- How about ammo to shoot at matches and practice with or a shirt with a sponsors name on it for advertising?
- If you will recall a certain arrangement with STI and the open gun you have used for several years, that may constitute "being a professional". I think that is great, but it also falls in the category of be careful what you ask for!!!
BUREAUCRACY, GROWTH:
In the late 1990's at the National Championship in Las Vegas, Nevada, I was approached by a match official who was also a candidate (failed, as it happens) for the USPSA Presidency. He wanted to know my thoughts about a proposed new Division, prvisionally named "Limited 10". He had a clear vision about why it should be accepted, and although he was not elected USPSA President, the concept was accepted by the USPSA Board of Directors.
At this time, we have Six Divisions:
- Open
- Limited
- Limited 10
- Production
- Single Stack
- Revolver
It occurs to me that the prospect of NOT being compared to "Professional Shooters" may be attractive to the "amateurs" among us.
Perhaps I have not given sufficient attention to the concept of adding a new divisory unit which differentiates PROFESSIONAL shooters from AMATEUR shooters, and I don't know (although I suspect not) that this should become a new Division. Probably, it would have to be hierarchically rated somewhere above DIVISION. (Forgive me for the stilted construct; I am, after all, a Geek!
While we're only talking about it, I don't much car what name you call it. Heirarchicaly, I see it looking like this:
(UNKNOWN CATAGORIZATION) ("Status?"): Amateur (Professional)
...........Division (Open, Limited, Limited 10, Production, Single-stack, Revolver)
....................Class (GM, M, A, B, C, D, unclassified)
The current breakdown:
...........Division (Open, Limited, Limited 10, Production, Single-stack, Revolver)
....................Class (GM, M, A, B, C, D, unclassified)
You can see the hierarchical structure. While Amateur/Open would not compete against Professional/Open, the Match Winner (in a major match) would be the same regardless of ... let's call it "Status"
Wouldn't it be wonderfully kewl to see a match where an Amateur won against a Professional? Wouldn't it be more meaningful?
Okay, so let's use this as a springboard, and take your issues point-by-point:
... it takes us to a whole different level of bureaucracy
I think we have already addressed the issue of "bureaucracy". In the past 13 years, USPSA has demonstrated a readiness to increase the bureaucracy needed to support a dramatic increase in the number of "Divisions". If it were to accept a new separation between PROFESSIONAL and AMATEUR, it would require a certain amount of redesign for the computer system to accommodate a new primary hierarchical definition, but the actual bureaucratic impact is yet to be determined.
At what point does someone become a professional?
How about ammo to shoot at matches and practice with or a shirt with a sponsors name on it for advertising?
I think this is one of the following 3 questions can be answered all at the same time.
The new definition of "Professional" vs "Amateur" would be based on remuneration over and above purely competition-related expenses. That is to say, it would provide (in some manner, yet to be determined) for the recipient to be able to compete as a "Professional" without need for a "second job" to provide for more than optional funding. That is to say: you can quit your "day job" and still suffer not significant lowering in your previously-established standard of living.
Does someone (say a company or gunsmith) giving you a gun to use constitute enough to be called a professional?
See above: could you quit your day job?
If you will recall a certain arrangment with STI and the open gun you have used for several years, that may constitute "being a professional". I think that is great, but it also falls in the category of be careful what you ask for!!!
See above: there's no WAY I could quit my day job based upon this personal accommodation! This suggestion may be something less than the precise definition of mere hyperbole, but it is something more than the suggestion that it would constitute the status of a "Professional Shooter.
An allegory would be a sales representative who would be hired to represent a commercial company at a competitive event; the sales representative would have use of the equipment, but there would no expected (nor material) 'other' remuneration regardless of the place of finish; nor would continued 'favor' be based upon the competitive excellence displayed, or not displayed.
I realize that here you are not making an attempt to establish a Quid Pro Quo, but only exploring the boundaries of the discussion. Please be aware that this extension of the discussion is not only not on point, but is also personally objectionable. (This is like flunking your match semi-final; it doesn't determine your final grade for the term, but it bodes ill.)
The Bottom Line:
It's quite likely that I have not provided a good, definitive description of The Professional Shooter. I accept the criticism, and I only suggest that it is a ripe field for further discussion.
We aren't quite certain how to define the Professional Shooter, but in a small way (and forgive me for the comparison) somewhat about the Supreme Court Judge when, asked how to define Pornography, said: "I'm not sure how to define it, but I know it when I see it".
You and I, my friend, have watched Professional Shooters at USPSA (IPSC, before that) for YEARS. They are the ones who get special attention, special favors from ... well, from Range Officers at Major Matches ... for example.
At a 1990+ National Match in Oregon, I watched a World Champion Grandmaster argue a Range Master into declaring that an obvious A-hit/miss into a "Perfect Double". I'm sure this happens, but I'm not convinced that it happened in this case. The point is, the competitor was a definitive Professional Shooter ... and he got preferential treatment which you or I would NEVER have been accorded.
The next year, I saw the same World Champion Grandmaster at a Charity Match (but a major match, none-the-less), where at the Chronograph stage his load was determined to be Minor Power. He had one round left, and his was the choice whether to re-weight the bullet or take a final shot over the chronograph to determine velocity.
He asked "Let me look at my gun", and his request was acquiesced by the match official. The World Champion Grandmaster then OILED THE BARREL of his gun, and returned it for the final chronograph shooting. It showed up marginally above Major Power velocity (for the measured bullet weight), and all of his scores were subsequently scored as Major Power
I do not know if that person's "perfect double" was a double, or an alpha/mike shot.
Nor do I know if his final shot velocity (in the other match) was influenced by the oiled barrel. (Full Disclosure: in fact, I had been careful myself, to clean and oil the barrel of my own pistol; but this was before I went to the Chronograph Stage, as it had been my practice to do so before every stage because I know I was loading with the minimal power charge to make Major.)
However, I found myself resentful that this action was taken outside the normal practices; when you submit your gun and ammunition for chronograph, it is not typical that you are allowed to make changes in either in the middle of Choreographing your ammunition.
I realize the all of the last few paragraphs sound like Sour Grapes, but in fact it is evidence of "his" unofficial protests to the normal match events being accepted where in similar circumstances "my" similar protests, if I was sufficiently bold to make them, would probably be rejected out of hand.
Professional Shooters not only have an advantage in the support the receive in fiduciary matters, but they also may receive preferences in Match Administration matters. Whether this is evidence that Match Officials are intimidated by Professional Shooters ("He is so good, he doesn't NEED to argued that he couldn't possibly have missed the target!") or not, I personally find it unacceptable that I must compete .. if only in my Classifier scores comparison .. with Professional Shooters. They have the skill, they have the experience ... and they arguably have the influence in several ways over me. And over you, probably.
Why should Amateurs compete against Professionals?
Is it because it would be too "difficult" for USPSA to define a separate group: "Professional Shooter"?
I don't think so. USPSA hasn't weighed in on this question, but if they were reluctant, when closely pressed, I would think it would be because of laziness.
This is NOT the impression I have received of USPSA. over the decades they have administered my competition.
I think we should bring the situation to their attention; make them aware that we are serious about this differentiation; and allow them to address it as they see fit.
x
No comments:
Post a Comment