Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Recommended Posts

 

At their Budget and Pay Grade, do not extend any Credit.  None.  They can't pay it back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The foot ware issue is nothing new. It was a constant issue when I was the Chairman of the ROC, and was there when San Quinton was the Chairman before me. It has never been a cut and dried, absolute issue. Folks wear crape soled work boots at every match in the nation. I watched one of the games biggest and longest raining World Champions wear Rock Swat team boots at Winter Range one year. Enforcement of Foot ware has never been the same everywhere, and it never will.  However, when ask a specific question about a specific product, the ROC can only use the existing verbiage to make their decision. AND, it is THEIR decision to make. I realize that some folks think that their opinion of how things should be is the way it should be done. I remember when we were beating the Vibram Sole issue. Just how big could the lugs be... I think it was Coyote Calhoun that said if you could shin a flashlight on one side of the shoe/boot and  you could see the light coming out the other side, then the lugs were too big. Ha! Of course he was joking, but it was a reminder that the issue was a tough one. I remember that there was laughing movement to require at least 4 colors to be on boots worn in B Western. Ha, ha. There has been all kinds of stuff out there... the Earth Walkers had a lot of pros and cons.  I have always been of the opinion that anyone running around with a loaded gun ought to have the best footing that was available, while keeping things within the Cowboy atmosphere. That meant doing away with the dumb requirement of Leather soles in some categories.... duh.... they can be very slippery at times.  I don't always agree with the ROC's interpretation of things, but I do agree that we must have one body/group that makes those calls, and the ROC should be and is that group. 

 

Snakebite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Snakebite said:

I have always been of the opinion that anyone running around with a loaded gun ought to have the best footing that was available, while keeping things within the Cowboy atmosphere. That meant doing away with the dumb requirement of Leather soles in some categories.... duh.... they can be very slippery at times.  I don't always agree with the ROC's interpretation of things, but I do agree that we must have one body/group that makes those calls, and the ROC should be and is that group. 

 

 Yes, yes and yes!  We're shooting quickly on occasionally slippery surfaces with old, maybe ancient, knees ankles and feet.  I have been been competitive in track, cross county, baseball, football, tennis, etc, and etc.  The shoe shown is not something I'd wear in those sports. 

I have multiple bent parts that have required casts to repair.  The shoe shown is close to a moccasin.  Honestly, who cares if it allows you to have better traction in any circumstances.  If the insert treats my damaged parts kindly, I'm all for it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Foot ware and the legitimacy of the ROC. I keep hoping those horses was kilt dead, but apparently not. 
 

Let’s discuss rank points again. I have some thoughts... :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I'm just the contrarian.

I don't like being told what to do.

I certainly don't like to be told what to do without an explanation.

And I really dislike it when I'm told the explanation is; no real reason - just because someone with some arbitrary authority said so.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Slim, It's good to know that instead of worrying about some stupid little unimportant thing like the corona virus, we're talking about the heavy life changing issues. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, I didn’t realize ridiculing a perfectly legitimate question was “The Cowboy Way”. :blink:

 

Posse marshals and match directors need to know and understand rules and their background in order to make decisions DURING a match. Without that info they’d have to come here to ask a question then wait days or weeks for an answer. Anyone that wants to wait that long for match results please raise your hand. :blink::blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My thoughts about the ruling and this particular shoe:

 

Some newer Shelby Mustangs from our century match quite the style of the iconic ones from the 60s, but it would look very odd if Steve McQueen would drive one in Bullit instead of his 68. The same with the discussed footwear: Although it has certain style elements that strongly resemble a moccasin, it still doesn't look like a moccasin. If any character in any kind of Western TV series or movie (even directed by Mel Brooks) or a real person from the late 1800's would wear those shoes it would imho look odd.

 

You often read on the Wire: "What would Johne Wayne do?" Let's just say: "What would John Wayne wear without looking odd?" respectively Eli Wallach, Gregory Peck, Chief Dan George, Lorne Greene, some BW stars, Bill Hickok etc. etc.

 

A rather theoretical thought regarding where to draw a line between legal and illegal: Take a shoe which is sanctioned legal. Then, just change a tiny detail. Probably everybody would say "if the original is legal then the other one also must be as they are alomost the same. Now, iterate that a thousand times. At the end you have a shoe which looks illegal for almost everybody. That means that somewhere between two almost identical designs you have to draw a line between legal and illegal.

 

At the end it's the overall impression and "when you see it you know it". You cannot break down every overall picture to its details to interpret. And every judgement always has a certain amount of subjectivity as rule books and laws never cover everything.

 

Regarding fabrics: Maybe a clarification could be added to the SHB that modern materials can be used for clothing if they look like the one they imitate (like synthetic leather) or they are not visible (while standing), similar to internal modifications on firearms.

 

Add:

The clause "All clothing and equipment must be worn appropriately and how it was intended, or how it would have been in the Old West or as seen on B-Western movies and television" in my opinion says that the overall appearance must be somewhat plausible. A trapper or native american wearing real moccasins would be plausible, a cowboy wearing moccasins, imho doubtful.

 

Equanimous

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Equanimous Phil said:

a cowboy wearing moccasins, imho doubtful.

Except that a lot of cowboys in Louis L'Amour's books kept a pair in their saddle bags and wore them at times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Branchwater Jack SASS #88854 said:

We have subjectivity in our rules now...Just look at the BP smoke standard.

OK, point taken.  Does that mean that more subjectivity is to be desired?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Creeker, SASS #43022 said:

I guess I'm just the contrarian.

I don't like being told what to do.

I certainly don't like to be told what to do without an explanation.

And I really dislike it when I'm told the explanation is; no real reason - just because someone with some arbitrary authority said so.

 

I'm a bit of a contrarian myself!  I also don't like  being told what to do. 

 

However, I take issue with a statement that defines the ROC authority as 'arbitrary'.  The folks who started this game, or people to whom they sold a stake in the business, have designated certain people to 'clarify' what the rules are.  That is their (the owners) prerogative, just as it's my prerogative to determine what is and isn't acceptable behavior on my property.  Don't like it, don't come visit.  If I get too crazy with my rules, I have no visitors.

 

It's not a perfect comparison, but it's workable.

 

I had a long conversation with an old time SASS member yesterday.  I'll leave his name out of it, but he's been around pretty much since the start.  I learned a lot in that conversation (and I'm grateful for it) and it colors my reaction to this topic.

 

As he pointed out, SASS has a pretty remarkable business structure.  One in which volunteers provide most of the work needed to keep SASS viable, but decision making and profit (such as there is) are concentrated in a few people.  

 

I think it would be advisable for those few people to recognize their dependence on the rest of us and give us a greater voice in how things are done than consumers typically have.  BUT, although I think it's advisable, there's no legal or ethical requirement that they do that.

 

In the past, the ROC was viewed essentially as our version of the Supreme Court, interpreting rules, but not creating them, which was the responsibility of the TGs.  I think that's a good model, and that's what's going on with this 'ruling' IMHO.  We have a broad rule about clothing and accoutrements and the ROC applies that rule, using their judgement, to items that are brought to their attention. I think in this case the system is working as it was originally designed to work.

 

It seems to me that recently the ROC has moved in the direction of becoming a rule making body, as evidenced by the change to the duelist rule regarding having two guns out at once.  IMHO that was NOT a clarification, the rule was broadly understood at the time. That was a change, and arbitrary in my view. 

 

That type of ruling is more of a concern for me than this one is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know lets put a caveat in the rules about shoes; If you have a profile and a profile slip can wear the shoe to better serve the injury...Just saying :D

 

Captain Bill Burt, I must have missed the duelist rule could you shoot me the reference location, thank you sir.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tyrel Cody said:

Except that a lot of cowboys in Louis L'Amour's books kept a pair in their saddle bags and wore them at times.

We do CAS gunfights. 

Did they wear moccasins into gunfights?  (seriously asking?) 

Did you ever hear of a cowboy "preferring to die with his moccasins on"? 

 

I'm sure soft shoes were worn around camp or at home, especially when their boots were covered in mud or horse/cow/bison manure, as I'm sure they often were.  I'm sure many avoided wearing muddy, smelly boots into their homes, hotels, saloons, casinos, or brothels.  (is brothel attire SASS legal--being pre-1900?). I doubt they pulled on muddy boots when they had to get up in the middle of the night to visit the privy.  

 

I own quite a few different kinds of shoes today, including slippers.  But I don't wear most of them to work or ride horses in.  But that is me, not the real historic or (later) movie cowboys.  Does anybody really know what they wore at different times? Does anybody really care? 

 

I'm just posing questions here. 

I really don't know the answers.  Thinking about it conjured up a funny vision of all of us shooting a match in "brothel attire". EEEEEEW! 

On second thought, scratch that one.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, BootStrap Phil said:

I know lets put a caveat in the rules about shoes; If you have a profile and a profile slip can wear the shoe to better serve the injury...Just saying :D

 

Captain Bill Burt, I must have missed the duelist rule could you shoot me the reference location, thank you sir.

Unfortunately I'm forced to work from memory on this one Phil, so I'm subject to being wrong!  If I recall correctly the rule used to state that only Gunfighters, or B-Western could have two loaded revolvers in hand at the same time.  That rule was 'clarified' to indicate that the situation could be corrected without penalty so long as neither revolver had been cocked.  To be clear, I don't take issue with either the old or new rule, I simply view the new rule as exactly that, a new rule, not a clarification. 

 

I could be wrong though because it's been a while since that happened and I'm prone to forgetfulness. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Captain Bill Burt said:

Unfortunately I'm forced to work from memory on this one Phil, so I'm subject to being wrong!  If I recall correctly the rule used to state that only Gunfighters, or B-Western could have two loaded revolvers in hand at the same time.  That rule was 'clarified' to indicate that the situation could be corrected without penalty so long as neither revolver had been cocked.  To be clear, I don't take issue with either the old or new rule, I simply view the new rule as exactly that, a new rule, not a clarification. 

 

I could be wrong though because it's been a while since that happened and I'm prone to forgetfulness. 

 

Ah no worries actually tracking now, recall that in the SHB now the old rule must have been before my time. Thank you sir!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dusty Devil Dale said:

We do CAS gunfights. 

Did they wear moccasins into gunfights?  (seriously asking?) 

Did you ever hear of a cowboy "preferring to die with his moccasins on"? 

 

I'm sure soft shoes were worn around camp or at home, especially when their boots were covered in mud or horse/cow/bison manure, as I'm sure they often were.  I'm sure many avoided wearing muddy, smelly boots into their homes, hotels, saloons, casinos, or brothels.  (is brothel attire SASS legal--being pre-1900?). I doubt they pulled on muddy boots when they had to get up in the middle of the night to visit the privy.  

 

I own quite a few different kinds of shoes today, including slippers.  But I don't wear most of them to work or ride horses in.  But that is me, not the real historic or (later) movie cowboys.  Does anybody really know what they wore at different times? Does anybody really care? 

 

I'm just posing questions here. 

I really don't know the answers.  Thinking about it conjured up a funny vision of all of us shooting a match in "brothel attire". EEEEEEW! 

On second thought, scratch that one.  

 

 

 

I can't remember which book but I believe it was Tell Sackett that put on his moccasins, slipped into the mining camp, and pulled all the tents down. I'd consider that a fight.

 

The "Gunfight" is pretty much a Hollywood myth. I'm sure when they did get into fights, be they gunfights or otherwise, they didn't really care what boots or shoes they had on.

 

 

What everyone seems to ignore is that not everyone wore boots in the old west. Remember "clothing must be typical of the late 19th century, a B-Western movie, or Western television 
series." 
That's a pretty broad area for footwear. I've posted pictures elsewhere and don't really feel like digging for links right now so I I won't. 

 

Biggest example I can think of is Buffalo Bill, who wore moccasins and had his picture taken wearing said footwear. Some might argue that he was an Indian Scout and Buffalo Hunter instead of a Cowboy, but I won't buy that bridge.

 

Except for CC and B-Western there is a LOT of leeway as far as footwear. I really don't think we need to try to shame folks into wearing boots if they have bad feet. I do think everyone should try to make a concerted effort to wear something that looks the part. Neither of the shoes that have been mentioned in this thread or the recent one that spurred this look the part to me. 

 

I keep seeing "that there are literally a hundred choices that will do a better job of looking the part."; what I'd really like to see is a thread started with examples/links of those hundreds of choices that do fit the part.

 

You and I are way off topic for this particular thread, so I'm stopping.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Tyrel Cody said:

 

I can't remember which book but I believe it was Tell Sackett that put on his moccasins, slipped into the mining camp, and pulled all the tents down. I'd consider that a fight.

 

The "Gunfight" is pretty much a Hollywood myth. I'm sure when they did get into fights, be they gunfights or otherwise, they didn't really care what boots or shoes they had on.

 

 

What everyone seems to ignore is that not everyone wore boots in the old west. Remember "clothing must be typical of the late 19th century, a B-Western movie, or Western television 
series." 
That's a pretty broad area for footwear. I've posted pictures elsewhere and don't really feel like digging for links right now so I I won't. 

 

Biggest example I can think of is Buffalo Bill, who wore moccasins and had his picture taken wearing said footwear. Some might argue that he was an Indian Scout and Buffalo Hunter instead of a Cowboy, but I won't buy that bridge.

 

Except for CC and B-Western there is a LOT of leeway as far as footwear. I really don't think we need to try to shame folks into wearing boots if they have bad feet. I do think everyone should try to make a concerted effort to wear something that looks the part. Neither of the shoes that have been mentioned in this thread or the recent one that spurred this look the part to me. 

 

I keep seeing "that there are literally a hundred choices that will do a better job of looking the part."; what I'd really like to see is a thread started with examples/links of those hundreds of choices that do fit the part.

 

You and I are way off topic for this particular thread, so I'm stopping.

Fair enough. 

I'm stopping too, fun as this has been! 

I have to get back to work at some point.  

Thx for the exchange.  Best of health to you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Captain Bill Burt said:

That type of ruling is more of a concern for me than this one is.

Captain; I don't believe we are that far apart.

I also believe the ROC has over reached it's purpose and has begun issuing rules instead of rulings.

 

I don't care about the shoes in question; I wear lace up boots and will continue to do so because of some ankle injuries requiring the additional support.

But...

I have latched on to the footwear question because of the ease of explanation of the features of said footwear.

 

The ROC ruled these shoes are illegal.

Why?

I contend that there was no rules analysis and finding of violation - simply someone looked them and said, "they don't look cowboy enough to me" and from their resounding silence - I think I'm right.

 

The components on the shoe are pretty easy to define:

Crepe/ rubber sole - legal.

Leather upper - legal

Leather laces - legal

Manufacturer logo - legal

It appears to be visually modeled after leather moccasins - legal

 

The toecap? 

What RULE makes that item illegal?

Remember in the absence of a rule - you cannot deem something as against the rules i.e. illegal.

And If that is the illegal item - then is this shoe legal with the removal of that item?

 

It is a simple request....

What specifically makes this shoe illegal when compared to literally 100's of shoes with the same features?

 

And if the ROC cannot or refuses to provide insight on this simple, easily explained ruling (which, I understand, is their right under the SASS); then complex and multi faceted questions/ rulings such as the two loaded guns out issue will never be explained beyond, "we said so"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dusty Devil Dale said:

is brothel attire SASS legal--being pre-1900?

 

Yes. It is one of the attires allowed in Classic Cowgirl shooting category.  Separately, there is even a costume category award for it.

 

Untitled.png.3d44838cf617f80f46848e037c2154e0.png

 

Of course, I have been known to shoot looking like I just got out of bed, too!

 

nightshirt.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dusty Devil Dale said:

We do CAS gunfights. 

Did they wear moccasins into gunfights?  (seriously asking?) 

Did you ever hear of a cowboy "preferring to die with his moccasins on"? 

 

I'm sure soft shoes were worn around camp or at home, especially when their boots were covered in mud or horse/cow/bison manure, as I'm sure they often were.  I'm sure many avoided wearing muddy, smelly boots into their homes, hotels, saloons, casinos, or brothels.  (is brothel attire SASS legal--being pre-1900?). I doubt they pulled on muddy boots when they had to get up in the middle of the night to visit the privy.  

 

I own quite a few different kinds of shoes today, including slippers.  But I don't wear most of them to work or ride horses in.  But that is me, not the real historic or (later) movie cowboys.  Does anybody really know what they wore at different times? Does anybody really care? 

 

I'm just posing questions here. 

I really don't know the answers.  Thinking about it conjured up a funny vision of all of us shooting a match in "brothel attire". EEEEEEW! 

On second thought, scratch that one.  

 

 

 

If you really want to make the gunfights "authentic", Turn the targets around so you're shooting them in the back. Oh, when you ride a horse to the match, can you take video? I'm interested in how you attached your cart, ammo and guns to the horse. Thanks in advance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They lost me when tearing the sleeves off a shirt turned what was left into a vest..................

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Creeker, SASS #43022 said:

It appears to be visually modeled after leather moccasins

 

That's the statement from your list I question. At best, I'd call it a very modern interpretation of a moccasin. But I'm curious about the ROC's explanation, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cypress Sun said:

If you really want to make the gunfights "authentic", Turn the targets around so you're shooting them in the back.

or as in B-Westerns, Western movies or TV series....

 

1 hour ago, Cypress Sun said:

Oh, when you ride a horse to the match, can you take video? I'm interested in how you attached your cart, ammo and guns to the horse. Thanks in advance.

The SHB doesn't say anything about transportation of firearms between stages (besides sweeping etc.) or how you get to the range, but it definitely says something about clothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Equanimous Phil said:

or as in B-Westerns, Western movies or TV series....

 

The SHB doesn't say anything about transportation of firearms between stages (besides sweeping etc.) or how you get to the range, but it definitely says something about clothing.

I think Cypress Sun is making the point that we don't make rules based on how cowboys would have really done things.  We're a fantasy sport, we're not reenacting. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just gonna say that the ruling is the ruling. No arguing that. I do think that it would be common courtesy to offer up a why it's so.

We are about "the cowboy way" after all. 

 

Now on to important issues. 

About them soiled doves, got any more pics?

:ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ace_of_Hearts said:

They lost me when tearing the sleeves off a shirt turned what was left into a vest..................

 

That was the best call ever, and going to test it this year and see how it goes with the elite crowd....yup best call ever!  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Branchwater Jack SASS #88854 said:

 

Yes. It is one of the attires allowed in Classic Cowgirl shooting category.  Separately, there is even a costume category award for it.

 

Untitled.png.3d44838cf617f80f46848e037c2154e0.png

 

Of course, I have been known to shoot looking like I just got out of bed, too!

 

nightshirt.jpg

I’m starting a gun cart build that will be a salute to the saloon girl, madam, soiled dove. That’s what  I was seeking the brothel tokens in the Classifieds last week for. It may offend some but if we’re talking the old west the above mentioned ladies must be embraced. Stay tuned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Captain Bill Burt said:

I think Cypress Sun is making the point that we don't make rules based on how cowboys would have really done things.  We're a fantasy sport, we're not reenacting. 

 

Thanks Bill, that's the point exactly. I guess I should be more direct so that folks don't have to "read between the lines". Problem is that usually when I am direct and to the point, people get offended.

 

I didn't think the footwear in the original post would be acceptable. My opinion had absolutely nothing to do with riding horses, period correctness or any other criteria other than.....it just doesn't look right. I would like to know what the criteria of the ROC had in declaring the shoe unacceptable and some other calls in the past but somehow, I don't think I'm in on the loop.

 

The whole "They didn't do that in the REAL WEST" statements just burn my chaps or it would if I wore them. No one here knows what they wore in 1880 in some forlorn town of 25 people back then, nor do they really know what they wore in some town of 200. The truth is probably that people had to wear whatever their kinfolk made for them to wear or whatever they could scrounge up to wear. No one owned four guns, let alone carry them around if they did. They sure as hell didn't defend themselves in a certain order and preordained amount of shots per target. If someone is taking SASS shooting as the "way they did it in the REAL WEST"....to me that's just sad....and they need to get a real life.

 

Is that to the the point enough?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Captain Bill Burt said:

I think Cypress Sun is making the point that we don't make rules based on how cowboys would have really done things.  We're a fantasy sport, we're not reenacting. 

Pls See SHB P 2, Clothing & Accoutrements:

 

"Cowboy Action Shooting is a combination of historical reenactment and Saturday morning at the matinee."... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Cypress Sun said:

Oh, when you ride a horse to the match, can you take video? I'm interested in how you attached your cart, ammo and guns to the horse. Thanks in advance.

It's a Josie Wales horse, with guns sticking out of scabbards all over the place.  It doubles as a cart, with ammo, tools, squib rods, snacks, first aid supplies, glasses, loading strips, etc., all loaded into two max 250-lb  saddle bags.  It's always fun to watch all the other folks pulling carts and dodging the poop. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I once went to a "Shoot" A Big One and Lost the Best dressed Classic Cowboy Contest to a fellow Who's oldest item worn was 3 Years old ,,, I was wearing all items that were Worn By My Grandad in the late 1870's  ( Before he got to Plump , and put them in a trunk ) From the Skin out...

So it seems that Sometimes folks don't know what Real Cowboys / Ranchers Wore at all... 

 

Jabez Cowboy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Equanimous Phil said:

 

You often read on the Wire: "What would Johne Wayne do?" Let's just say: "What would John Wayne wear without looking odd?" r

 

 

Interesting that you brought this up, because another "arbitrary rulling" the ROC made recently was a complete ban on John Wayne style finger grips. They at one time allowed a certain make and model of those grips to be used, then reversed the decision when it was brought to their attention (by me) that other grips existed that were much closer to the original John Wayne grips. So what would John Wayne do/wear/use obviously isn't all encompassing in decision making

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/24/2020 at 12:19 PM, Branchwater Jack SASS #88854 said:

We have subjectivity in our rules now...Just look at the BP smoke standard.

That's for sure.  Most of the rules are "just because."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.