Competition for competition’s sake is about the truth. In shooting, too many people show up with built-in excuses why the results don’t mean anything.
It’s arguable that gym and fitness activity likely has as much myth and misinformation floating around as shooting and gun activity. Competition is the ideal, and sometimes the only, way to sort through the nonsense and find truth. Something proven to consistently work in competition is proven to consistently work.
Here’s an example from champion powerlifter Layne Norton.
“If you only compete in competitions you know you can win, you’re a coward. That says something about your level of integrity. It’s disrespectful to your competition and to yourself to avoid showing up.”
-Layne Norton
I’d also add to Mr. Norton’s wisdom, if you never compete (regardless of the excuses for avoiding doing so) you’re still a coward. Developing a winning a mindset requires going out and trying to win at something challenging. Cowering from such challenges can never develop a winning mindset.
Listen to more.
Here is Layne Norton winning his class at the 2014 USAPL Nationals.
Firearm User Network 
Patrick T
Nov 02, 2015 @ 21:46:22
This is something I’ve been pondering over the last couple days. I went to my first USPSA match yesterday, and it felt way different than what I’m used to, both in terms of the general vibe/culture and how the shooting stages go themselves. I’m used to IDPA and some 3-gun, so by comparison, USPSA seemed much faster paced, with more close targets.
Now I absolutely get the value of being able to shoot fast and transition from target to target quickly. No question there, it’s something I will continue doing when my schedule allows it, because it is a solid skill building event. But what’s the general consensus on the line between competition for the purpose of training and building skill, and competition simply to get the best score?
For me, I think it would be when it comes to guns and gear. I don’t have any expensive race guns that require a bag over them between stages and require the magazines disassembled and brushed out between stages. To me, that’s where it’s lost the plot. I’d prefer to stick with guns and gear that I know I can rely on in real-life bad situations. Glocks and ARs, in other words. To me, they’re practical guns first, competition guns second.
Am I making any sense? It’s been a long day. Where do others find this line?
LikeLike
John M. Buol Jr.
Nov 03, 2015 @ 07:53:45
Yes, you’re making sense. There will be a differing emphasis, vibe, culture, etc. at different sorts of events. My advice to everyone is finding the sort of event that appeals to them and go, not on why a particular event is “better.”
>> But what’s the general consensus on the line between competition for the purpose of training and building skill, and competition simply to get the best score?
The highest levels of performance in competition require game-specific preparation. At some point competitors trying to win will be doing things and using peculiar match-legal equipment to earn better scores that may not apply elsewhere. For example, top Powerlifters may use different, specialized bars for each of their three competition lifts along with specialized gear. Those bars are different than what top Weightlifters use in their competitions. And none of this specialized stuff is necessary for us peons using barbells to get stronger following a simpler, more generalized program. Identical parallels exist in the shooting competition and marksmanship world.
The point where this “need” for specialized competition preparation occurs is much higher than most people realize.
Foolish, low-skilled people see top performers using specialized, “unrealistic” gear and erroneously conclude the performance is due to the gear. That geared Powerlifter using specialized gear and complex, periodized, months-long training cycles is beast-strong and first got that way by remaining disciplined with a more basic approach. That Grand/High-Master competitor is an outstanding marksman and is capable of out shooting non-competitors with their own guns (if we could ever get the cowards to show up…)
It will take specialization to secure a national title, but everyone can earn a higher skill classification and can do so by improving fundamentals with practical, unspecialized equipment. Most people don’t because their fundamentals are low. Rather than acknowledge their own lack of skill and ability, they blame equipment. Everyone that is stronger must be on steroids. All better shooters must be using unrealistic, “trick” guns. In reality, those better performers have better fundamentals and a higher work ethic. And they don’t make excuses.
>> For me, I think it would be when it comes to guns and gear. I don’t have any expensive race guns… I’d prefer to stick with guns and gear that I know I can rely on in real-life bad situations… practical guns first, competition guns second.
Hence the reason for Production, Stock, and Service equipment divisions. Military-sponsored Service Conditions, what NATO militaries call Combat matches, require all gear used to be as-issued.
Open/Unlimited pushes the envelope and drives future development. Red dot optics were first considered “unrealistic” for real world use when first used in competition in th 1970s. Then they proved durable enough for long guns in the 1990s. Today they’re also small enough for handgun use and have become a factory option.
https://us.glock.com/mos
https://firearmusernetwork.com/2011/10/04/ipsc-ftw/
https://firearmusernetwork.com/2015/07/05/competition-shooting-ftw/
LikeLike
John Tate
Nov 04, 2015 @ 08:20:22
EXCELLENT
LikeLike