Creeker, SASS #43022

Dang, Im stupid. (as I wade back jnto the fray) I have made my living as a "fixer". In multiple different corporate environments - my job often consisted of fixing other peoples mistakes (deliberate, well intentioned or simply errors in judgement. As well as fixing ingrained, but out of date decisions) That's what I do now to make ends meet - I work with a small investment partner to identify business opportunities, purchase them and hopefully make them profitable (again or for the first time). I say all of the above because; to fix, adjust or leave things the same - you have to evaluate every cost, action and return of every component with a critical eye. There cannot be anything off limits to examination. No sacred cows. Now obviously, you don't invest in a given commodity to make it unrecognizable from where you began. And a scalpel is preferable to a chainsaw. But in any endeavor, somethings work; somethings do not. So you cannot walk around with blinders either. You fix what doesn't work by cautious elimination or adjustment and you "carefully" look to improve the items that are working. But you look at everything. I simply wanted to see if there were any common themes among our shooters of their sacred cows or untouchable items to know best where to tread carefully. Wouldn't stop me (or any reasonable manager) from examining - but might encourage me to pump the brakes on dramatically changing those items. I don't assume that I'm going to get a call from Misty offering me the "King of SASS" position anytime soon (but Misty, you do have my number. Lol) - but I assure you, someone will be looking at these things soon - Misty, a new board, a new owner, whomever - it would be nice if our opinions were available for review. With some thoughtful consideration beyond, "Dont touch my category"

I'm going to leave it be. The overwhelming responses I'm hearing are, "SASS is going to do whatever they are going to do. There's no point to asking these questions" or "I really don' t care what happens. I just don't want any changes to MY category or the way I play the game" Apparently most would rather live under a dictatorship than offer opinions or productively work toward change. Good luck.

Perhaps I was unclear. Untouchables are items that are currently present within our game that IF they they were tweaked, adjusted, modified or removed - YOU would feel the game was being destroyed. Untouchables can also take the opposite path and be items that IF they were added, integrated or present - YOU would feel the game was being destroyed. I know there is huge laundry list of things we would love to add, remove, change - but for this thread try to focus on what you feel is sacrosanct.

Since I am either stupid or stubborn (likely both with stupid leading the way) - I continue to create threads trying to zero down on the needs of our game moving forward. The general agreement is "we" love our game - but "we" know that changes are needed to sustain the sport for the next 40 years. The fear is, if we change the wrong things - we risk not only failing to grow, but losing our current core of shooters. So... Just like I said in my other thread - I feel nothing should be off limits for discussion - but some feel differently. What do you feel should be off limits and untouchable?

I shoot with two pistols and still have that same number of misses. Lol

I think when the good Captain is referencing semi autos and red dots - because I said, "everything is on the table" - that's misleading. Cultural? There were a significant number of black cowboys, chinese and other groups involved in the settlement of the west. Perhaps if we educated and addressed these facts; instead of perpetuating the white Savior myths of movies and television - we could make inroads. And absolutely, we have to be very careful and measured in our changes - but no one at Coke thought they were going to crash and burn either. They did not make their changes in a vacuum - they were losing market share to Pepsi and acted. I firmly believe we have to look at every component of our current game - what works, what doesn't. What makes us "cowboy" and special and what we can tweak without losing that special. Perhaps we change nothing - but introspection and harsh analysis while we still are breathing is far better than an autopsy after we collapse. Perhaps another thread is in order to determine individual opinion on inviolate features of our game.

I understand your point but there is a difference. One is a personal choice made to "better" your equipment and/ or performance - it is not required to participate in the game. Mandating or changing the type/ or quantity of firearms required is a change to the game.

Let me address one point that seems to be confusing some. We are COWBOY. Period. When I say EVERYTHING should be on the table for discussion - that should be clear that means EVERYTHING within and under the purview of COWBOY. Using Possums example - when Coke changed their formula; they continued making a brown sugary soft drink. It was a lesser quality brown sugary soft drink, but a soft drink nonetheless. They did not stop making soft drinks and start making lawn darts. No one (at least not me and no one I have seen) is advocating SASS becomes trap shooting or IPSC - adds semi autos and red dot sights - or starts being competitive lawn darts. I would fight vehemently SASS ceasing to be cowboy. Implying "everything on the table" means a desire to do away with "cowboy" is (in my opinion) being deliberately misleading and counter productive to open dialogue.

It is a widely held belief that SASS, for many is their first entry into firearms competition. It is also widely believed that the cost of the needed firearms is a barrier to participation. I know the wire is not wholly representative of the game; but its the best resource I have... So... A few questions. 1. Was SASS (or CAS) your first foray into an organized firearms competition? If you answered NO; a. What shooting game or games did you play prior and why start SASS? b. Was the cost of those games more or less than your SASS cost? c. Did you have to/ choose to delay SASS because of the costs? If you answered YES a. What brought you to SASS as opposed to any other shooting sport? b. What hobby/ sport/ game did you participate in prior? c. Were the costs of the above more or less than SASS entry? d. Did you have to/ choose to delay SASS because of the costs? I appreciate your time and insights.

Im good at starting threads - I'll start another.

Fantastic input Doc. I think we can all agree on the need for marketing. And as Phantom has pointed out - proper and targeted marketing or we are screaming into the void. Out of all the folks within SASS; someone has to be able to direct, assist or point us in the right direction. I think most of the other points come down to enticing folks (from other disciplines) to participate, because of the (perceived) relative ease of our game. Though, I wonder if upping the "challenge" in our game "possibly" drives away existing shooters and loses some of our appeal as an entry level, family friendly game. And we have to figure out where our growth should/ can/ may come from. Existing casual shooters or folks shooting other disciplines or even from folks currently outside the firearms community? But no principle... (As it pertains to a game) NONE, should be inviolate and everything should be on the table. But because we are viewed as an entry level shooting game by many... (And I've often said it myself - maybe I'm wrong) It would be interesting research to find out how many SASS shooters were experienced firearms competitors prior to SASS vs how many became competition shooters via SASS. Because you are correct; most shooting sports are expensive - your example above, a quality trap or skeet gun, etc. This would provide valuable insight into whether startup costs are a true barrier or a red herring reason to not play.

I'd prefer you didn't leave it be. I appreciate your input. And I would be curious what you would hold up as inviolate and untouchable. Unlike some - I have no issue with competing viewpoints. I want what's best for our game and its future (even if that is not exactly what i feel is best for me) And as i said in the very first post - if the idea is good enough; I have no moral aversion to stealing it and claiming the position for myself.

Regarding drawls - I can't help those folks who talk funny. Besides I said "stupid" drawl and few talk stupider than me. I agree we should avoid deliberately doing anything that causes damage - but I'm not going to dismiss "radical" ideas completely out of hand as some of these radical ideas may be able to morph to needed, palatable and even exciting changes. I don't think anything in our game should ever be enshrined as non negotiable or untouchable - beyond we play cowboy. Doesn't mean we have to change it ( or will even want to) - it simply means we have a willingness to look at it. But our "growth" should include membership protections to avoid any unilateral nutjob decisions or at the minimums - protocols to reverse them.

No one has said anything about weakening of "Dress" requirements. What has been said, is a de-emphasis on dressing "to the nines" to the outside and incoming shooters. You don't need a giant Hoss Cartwright hat, wooly chaps, 4 inch rowel spurs and to talk in a stupid drawl to play. Stop going on about, "In this game, women talk about their guns and the men talk about their clothes" (1999, in my own words, "I only want to shoot - not play dress up") And I don't think anyone is inclined to sabotage ourselves by changing the basic game "so" dramatically that current shooters are driven off. Of course, there will always be some that will whine and claim that any changes will have destroyed the game for them (the same group/ mindset that complain that short stroked rifles and lace up boots and any caliber not starting with a "4" all "ruin" the game for them). There is always a balancing act between clinging to the past and casting it aside.

There are a fair number of internal housekeeping items as well that I would love to see addressed and changed; the ROC, TG system, rules creation, but those are meaningless to the outside world and do not dissuade incoming members.

I have a few that I have mentioned; but I will not take offense that everyone has not taken notes. Lol. Numbers 1, 2 and 3 are publicity. No matter the quality of our product - We cannot grow if folks don't know we exist. But this publicity requires a consistent message from the top down. For too long our message has been grassroots and haphazard based on the ideas and opinions of the local clubs and their leadership. These ideas Include videos, pamphlets, YouTube, advertising, cooperations with other groups etc. And as I requested at the start - the ideas and participation of the 1000's of folks in this game smarter than me. Next is erasing the negative stereotypes around our game of being just old white fat guys. Actively address the lack of racial and ethnic diversity among our participation. Stop emphasizing dressing up as much as shooting - explain participation minimums. Address initial costs by adding a rimfire category for adults. Other gun grouping are possible as well. Worry about scoring later. Stop claiming the past was perfect and that tomorrow can never compare. The reality is, Roy Rogers, Hoppy and the Duke are not important to or a cultural draw for a younger generation - no matter how much anyone thinks they should be. And acknowledge that change is part of growth - and NO idea should be simply dismissed with, "We never did it before - so it won't work" And while I would love to be a part of the future of SASS leadership in some fashion - I fully acknowledge the wealth of knowledge, experience and potential the other members of our game possess and we should go to that well as often as possible.

So what I'm reading is... We acknowledge that we are losing members. We agree that current conditions; cultural, economic and societal make bringing in new members challenging. We accept that our current "image" isn't working as it applies to growth. But, in the next sentence - how dare we consider changing anything? Apparently, we are all supposed to turtle up - climb inside our shells and hope that the game simply lives long enough for us personally? I'm ashamed for you. Claim to be cowboys and apparently some of you would have stopped westward expansion in Pennsylvania. "It's good here. What if I don't like where we end up? It might be different than where we started." I appreciate everything those who have come before me have given me, but... The game is not sacrosanct. The Wild Bunch were not infallible. The game is not - never was - never will be perfect. We, perhaps, have an unprecedented opportunity to inject our game with some new blood, ideas and direction. I'm not advocating revolution - but the truth remains; you either adapt and evolve or you die. I've given 20 years of my life to this game; as a shooter, match director, club officer and cheerleader. I have blistered, broken bones and bled for this game. And I have done so willingly. And now; I refuse to stand quietly on the sidelines watching what some have deemed a foregone conclusion of the games inexorable death without making an attempt.

With all due respect to your time in the game... The changes you're stating will make no difference have NEVER occurred - so inferring that they won't change anything is a faulty conclusion. The only equipment change of any consequence that has occurred is early when the 2nd pistol was added to the game. Dress requirements have not changed dramatically (but they have always been stressed poorly) - we have never offered an adult rimfire category. And changing the rules is not necessary a guaranteed participant loser. But sadly as our shooters age out and die - continuing to do nothing different is a guaranteed way to lose membership.

I think a change in verbiage might help too. The phrase costuming is (to borrow a term from Phantom) stoopid. Costuming brings to mind fat guys with thick black frame glasses with tape on the bridge carrying their inhaler escaping their parents basement while dressed like Captain America - hoping there will be girls at the comic con. The modern flat black and tactical groups are playing dress up just as hard as we are - but no one calls their attire "costuming". I don't know the proper term... Competition geared 1800's reminiscent western apparel? But doing away with the term costuming would go a long ways toward erasing some stigma and hesitation about what we wear.

Just like I can see some of the concern with showing videos showcasing only the fastest shooters as a possible obstacle. I also can see the dress issue being over emphasized to new shooters - everyone goes to the gunshow to man the table in their fanciest duds; wooly chaps, $500 hats and fancy stitched boots. I would be sorely tempted to put together an outfit for display (with the accompanying Goodwill price tags) that demonstrates the ease and minimums of meeting the rules. No hat is required - No boots are required. If cost is a factor - Stop telling people they "have" to reload. Equipment and reloading obstacles could be addressed by simply adding a separately scored rimfire category for whomever would want to shoot it. A pair of Ruger Wranglers, Henry lever rifle and cheap Chinese SxS - add some eBay leather and startup and shooting (for non reloaders) costs are easily halved. Folks will upgrade when desire, competitiveness and finances allow. Most all of us have done the same. I'm not advocating for one gun matches, eliminating dress or allowing Remington 870's - but I'm not adverse to abiding by the "10 foot rule" - if it looks cowboy from 10 foot away - let it be. And any cowboy (regardless of age) with two SA revolvers, lever rifle and SxS will look perfectly ok from 10 ft. away. To survive; We must be flexible enough to adjust and draw in new shooters without losing the core of what makes our game cowboy.

We have seen this attitude in southern Nevada as well. Folks refuse to go faster and spout their holier than thou opinion about how "accuracy" should trump speed. They ALL, without exception, claim they respect fast shooters - but follow it up with, "If the targets were further out - then you'd see who can really shoot" Because, for all their claims to the contrary, they all believe that they would move to the top of the score sheet if only the targets were set "correctly". They wouldn't.

Of course not. Move targets out and it slows down everybody. But I guarantee you - the top shooters will still do it faster than the average shooters. This fallacy that setting the targets at X distance will change the rankings is silly. The top shooters will slow enough to ensure their sights are on target - but their superior firearms manipulation skills, transition skills and game understanding will still win the day. Besides; I have, on numerous occasions, explained and demonstrated that moving the targets dramatically further out makes accuracy LESS important to final rankings - not more. But yet, this fallacy continues to exist.

These videos are among some of the ideas I would encourage SASS to look into. Videos, pamphlets, etc. Sanctioned by SASS and consistent from promotion to promotion. Promotional materials to provide to local media outlets for their consumption. I have had the opportunity to speak with a few local media outlets, "Good Morning, Las Vegas" type shows - most want studio guests to avoid the time, editing and expense of sending crews to a range. Professional SASS videos would assist in the distribution of our message - without range time or videos - I'm just a fat guy in stupid clothes talking.

Second point: Where on earth do people get the idea that accuracy is "harder" or more "championship worthy" than speed?

No dice for me. One of the joys of this game is I can play on a level playing field with the very best in our game at the same time. I'm a average to decent shooter. BUT every once in a while, solely by accident - I manage to put together a stage or two that runs with some of the big dogs. I can't seem to put together a complete match too often - but sometimes, I get to point to a stage where I ran times competitive with a Hells Coming, Robyn DeVault or any of the various hot shoes. I don't want those few runs to be meaningless because I'm shooting a different match than the big dogs. And if I do happen to magically shoot the match of my lifetime - I want it to be on the same playing field and under the same conditions as the guys and girls I'm chasing. I'd much rather lose to the best than be a highly ranked second tier shooter.