Although what V10 posted is correct (taken directly from the RULE BOOK Pg. 26 and Pg. 65) ......... I don't think that info is what 635G is asking .....

There is no "CLASSIFICATION" with reference to Handicap events ....... 635G must be referencing Singles and/or Doubles .........

A PURIFIED AVG. for CLASSIFICATION purposes would mean the classifiers will throw out abnormally HIGH and abnormally LOW scores and AVERAGE the rest of the shooters scores to find his Classification for that shoot .....

Rudy

MOTRAP, there is no mention of high scores being ommitted, only low scores.

"PURIFIED AVERAGE is best explained as the shooter’s handicap average after disregarding up to two handicap scores that deviate more than 10% below the shooter’s average."

G. REVIEWS 1. 1000 TARGET REVIEW The shooting record of each member will be automatically reviewed for possible yardage changes after each successive 1000 or more registered Handicap targets shot in the current and previous year if no yardage was earned. See 1000 Target Review Summary, Page 65. a. A shooter with a low purified handicap average (the average with abnormally low scores deleted) accompanied by a relative 16 yard average, will receive a one yard reduction" JRM

They oughta throw out the exceptionally high score too.

GneJ

Hippie, those show 'known ability'

Mine ain't "purified" but it is Definately "pathetic".

Mine is putrid............my average that is.

Sorta sounds like ATA is learning lessons from NASCAR... tinker and fiddle with the rules and procedures until you get things to come out the way you want them to. Since when is an "average" figured by using only some of the data? Are they afraid feelings will be hurt?

Keller

All my scores are average, except the ones that are higher and the ones that are lower.

Chip

Unknown1 - it is common to toss aberrant measurements in statistical analysis. There is significant benefit because those observations which are outliers obscure the real meaning in the data. For instance, 1,5,6,5,6,7 should have the 1 yanked because it will skew the variance and mean. This is not to say it isn't without controversy, but more from laymen that statisticians.

The it's really a case of the ATA doing the sandbagging for the shooter... "Oh, poor guy. He had sme bad days and shot a couple really low scores. We should just kick those under the table so nobody sees and figure his average without them."

That's what I said... fiddle around with the data to get the results you think you ought to get. Isn't the 1 a valid part of the data whether YOU think it belongs there or not?

Keller

"The it's really a case of the ATA doing the sandbagging for the shooter..."

The purified Average in this case is listed under the 1000 target review summary simply explaining how the reduction or the lack of one is arrived at.

Why try to make something more of it. As far as the sandbagging aspect of it is concerned. More lower scores and being divided by a larger number will promote sandbagging. Less lower scores divided by lower number should make it more difficult. By helping to keep the average higher and therefore harder to get a reduction.

Bob Lawless

Mine gets kinda fishy,especially when I try to shoot the day after a fishing tournament.Really stinks..

Doug H.

"The it's really a case of the ATA doing the sandbagging for the shooter... "Oh, poor guy. He had sme bad days and shot a couple really low scores. We should just kick those under the table so nobody sees and figure his average without them."

There is a poster-boy statement showing someone does not understand what he is talking about when bringing ATA into the discussion.

There is no mention of "purified average" in classifying a shooter, and how in the world do you arrive at the statement that it helps a sandbagger? It is designed to accomplish the complete opposite in reality.

Yeah... you're right. Sandbagging was a bad choice of terms. I shoulda said "average managing".

If a shooter did it themselves it would be "cheating". If the organization does it for him it's "average purification".

Just consider this as an observation, nothing more. End of input. I'm going fishing...need supper.

Keller

You still don't get it. What does "if the shooter did it themselves it would be cheating" have to do with yardage reductions? Yardage reductions are the only place "purified average" comes into play in ATA rules.

The OP is describing a situation that has nothing to do with "purified average."

Yes, perga1 - Exactly what I said

"There is no "CLASSIFICATION" with reference to Handicap events ....... 635G must be referencing Singles and/or Doubles .........

........ then went on to explain what many classifiers do (calling it "Purified Average" ) to get a better/more accurate classification (in their opinion) ...... not necessarily condoned by ATA ....

Rudy

Mine too Jim!