1. Attention: We have put together a thread with tips and a tutorial video to help with using the new software. Please take a moment to check out the thread here: Trapshooters.com Tutorial & Help Video.
    Dismiss Notice

More 3 hole FACTS

Discussion in 'Uncategorized Threads' started by Hauser, Mar 15, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Hauser

    Hauser Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    860
    Since Wanker has gone AWOL on his own thread I did some more research and came up with some more facts regarding the 2 vs. 3-hole debate. I looked at two 4 year timeframes (1979-1982) and (2004-2007) to see if there was anything in those years that indicated how the average shooter faired during the time of the dreaded 3-hole target.

    I went to the “High Handicap Shooters” section in the average books and counted down from 1st to 100th place then added up all the non-27yard shooters in that group.


    The data is as follows: Year / # non-27 yard shooters


    Three hole years first.


    1979 / 31


    1980 / 54


    1981 / 64

    1982 / 59


    Two hole years.


    2004 / 7


    2005 / 2


    2006 / 4


    2007 / 5


    Two things are apparent.


    1) The average shooter faired much better when the 3-hole target was in place. The more difficult target presentation resulted in fewer punches, which resulted in more non-27 yard shooters staying competitive for longer periods.


    2) When the change was made the earned yardage table should have been overhauled to accommodate an easier target presentation. As it stands the earned yardage table is just expediting shooters back to the 27-yard line where they become frustrated and eventually quit (my opinion).


    Jerry Hauser
     
  2. dynapro

    dynapro TS Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2008
    Messages:
    130
    The ATA is currently using the 3 hole target standard in 2008? Is that what you're saying.

    I didn't know that 03-07 was back to 3 as I have not been shooting ATA for a while.

    However, I did shoot back in the day of 3 hole and I am also in favor 3 hole if it was up to a vote.....
     
  3. crusha

    crusha TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    5,762
    Jerry,



    A couple flaws are immediately apparent:


    1. You started out trying to assess the status of the "average" shooter over time, but chose to do it by looking (only) at the elite "High Handicap shooters" as your data set. How does one make any conclusions at all about the fate of the "average shooter," from studying a data set that, by definition, doesn't _contain_ any average shooters?


    2. How do you elevate your conclusion above the equally supportable one, based on the same data, that the level of competition "at the top" simply got higher over a 15 year time period?


    Now come on, Jer...this is a pur-ty lazy conclusion on your part. You well know that TS.com is a repository of scientific rigor.


    Neil expects better of you.
     
  4. Hauser

    Hauser Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    860
    Without access to the entire ATA data base for each shooter I was limited to what was available. Your correct about using the word "average" to describe the purpose of the thread. "Non-27 yard shooters" would have been more accurate.


    As to the level at the top getting higher I would have thought that was a foregone conclusion given the easier target presentation and the high averages that followed.


    Jerry Hauser
     
  5. jakearoo

    jakearoo Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2006
    Messages:
    1,652
    Jerry, Your analysis is what it is. Buzz may not like it. And, I suspect many others won't. But it certainly shows that the easier the targets got, the less competitive the short yardage shooters were in overall averages.

    If you even care to do so, I suppose you could try to see what percent of 27 vs. shorter yardage shooters won significant events which kept results that are obtainable for the years in question. My bet is it will show the same pattern.

    Isn't the real question whether the people in charge want to make it more "feel good" for the trapshooters who shoot much and often? I mean, the reason that two hole and shorter targets became the standard was because clubs that threw soft targets had lots of return business and those that threw difficult ones starved.

    Or, should we not be honest here.

    But again, this has all been hashed out over and over.

    7 1/2s or 8s?

    Jake
     
  6. Shooting Coach

    Shooting Coach Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Messages:
    8,358
    Location:
    Nashville Tn
    For those who want good scores without dedication, no argument about three hole targets will be accepted.

    For those willing to dedicate themselves in a two hole world, they will quickly reach the 27.

    Getting to the 27 in a three hole world at today's prices will stop many from getting there. Maybe we have forgotten how much fun we had at short yardage when we first started shooting registered.

    For those who want more challenging target presentations, it is not going to happen in the ATA.

    I love the game, the people I shoot with, and those I train. However, when I want the most challenging targets, I shoot Intl' disciplines.

    No flame, just fact. Shooting and fellowshipping with my old friends is the cake. Shooting a couple rounds of Bunker is the icing.
     
  7. Hap MecTweaks

    Hap MecTweaks Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    9,229
    Location:
    Mesquite, Nevada
    Shooting Coach, what in the world are saying with this statement?

    "For those who want good scores without dedication, no argument about three hole targets will be accepted."

    Are you saying one will shoot better scores with tougher angled and longer distanced targets without dedication? If so, you've missed the point by a mile! Hap
     
  8. 870

    870 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    2,390
    We can post all the facts and it won't make any difference. The way I see it, the ONLY question is what will happen if a change is made?

    The problem is none of us knows the answer to that question. Personally, I think 3-hole targets is a non-issue. 2 or 3 hole makes absolutely no difference to me. Any decent shooter makes the adjustment in a very short time. I also believe many shooters, especially in the lower classes, perceive 3 hole targets to be much much harder, even if they have never shot them. Many would not know they were shooting 3 hole targets unless someone told them about it. The problem is, once told about it, a new population of complainers is born.

    Everyone keeps using handicap for all the statistics, and in my view, you should be looking at singles. If we are talking about getting and keeping new shooters, for most of them Singles is Trap! I'll take a guess that most of these new shooters don't even try handicap before dropping out.

    I am not saying any of Hauser's points are wrong, I'm just not sure that the handicap issues really address overall growth of the sport. I can understand that established shooters may be getting frustrated with handicap, and maybe quitting because of that. Valid point. It all depends on which problem is the one we need to address.

    I think pouring extra concrete is a valid option to address the handicap concerns. If the system is tweaked slightly, most clubs could get by with only adding yardage to one or two traps. Are there really that many clubs that couldn't add concrete to one field?
     
  9. $$90-T$$

    $$90-T$$ Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2007
    Messages:
    88
    Regardless of 2 hole or 3 hole targets,the competition will be the same. If your AA and don't handle the 3 hole target well, you will drop to A with the rest who didn't either. "A" will drop to B and so on. You will still be competing with over all the same people, just probably on class lower. What's the difference.
    That being said, it is far more fun to hit targets than to miss. Smoking a target is what fires people up to come back for more. Its the way we are. Last but not least, all you in favor of 3 hole targets are AAA and 27 yarders I assume. Because if your not you are not ready for 3 hole, as you have not mastered the infamous 2 hole yet.
    I personaly love the sport and would shoot if it were "33" hole. Just my perspective and I'm sure somebody will let me know where I'm wrong. Josh
     
  10. Hauser

    Hauser Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    860
    Tal/IL


    They simply did not shoot scores high enough to get any yardage. Back in 1979 the earned yardage table worked as it was intended. Handicap scores of 96 were considered very good and deserving of an automatic 1/2 yard if they did get more yardage for high score.


    Today a shooter that breaks a 96 is unlikely to win anything but they are still going to receive a 1/2 yard.


    Today its possible a new shooter can make to the 27yard line and never win or tie an event. That is not how the system should work and it has the effect in my opinion of frustrating shooters to the point where they quit.


    Jerry Hauser
     
  11. Shooting Coach

    Shooting Coach Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Messages:
    8,358
    Location:
    Nashville Tn
    Dear Hap

    Read the post again. Those who want to shoot high scores, and be on the 27 WITHOUT dedication, do NOT want the three hole targets.

    Fact is, there is precious little difference in two or three hole targets.
     
  12. Fast Oil

    Fast Oil TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    918
    And how do you factor in that in the 70"s the targets were released by a person and now we have electronic voice release?
     
  13. bacon

    bacon TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    22
    shot same scores with both. I liked three hole targets.could not tell much difference.
     
  14. Hap MecTweaks

    Hap MecTweaks Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    9,229
    Location:
    Mesquite, Nevada
    I got it now Coach, thanks. According to my memory and Jerry's numbers above, there is a difference between the two settings and how shooters handle them. From all the distances which includes the 16s. Hap
     
  15. miketmx

    miketmx Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    2,969
    I have been shooting registered since 1964 and I recently looked at my averages over the years in question on the ATA website. My averages stayed pretty much the same in fact my Handicap average was a little higher and close to 90% with the 3 Hole targets. I always liked 3 Hole targets better because I think Singles especially is Not so much of a "Miss and Out" as it is with 2 Hole targets. I agree with 870 that today's average shooter is intimidated just by the thought of a 3 hole target. I don't have any more "Facts" on my personal preference but I do believe the game of Trapshooting would be better with more challenging targets.
     
  16. crusha

    crusha TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    5,762
    Endless axe-grinding...backed up by nothing.
     
  17. Shooting Coach

    Shooting Coach Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Messages:
    8,358
    Location:
    Nashville Tn
    Dear Buzz gun

    Civil bantering about ways to get more shooters involved is NOT backed up by nothing. If we don't get more fresh blood into the sport, there will not BE an axe to grind.

    You and I will shoot the targets as long as they are HALFWAY set to ATA specs, and neither one of us really care what those specs are. If they stay two hole, I will continue to shoot. If they go to six hole, I will continue to shoot. You probably will too.

    I, for one would like to see the game changed so it is not "miss and out". It would be refreshing to see a hard won and well deserved 96 win a major championship in good weather conditions.

    Even a living legend of Golf like Tiger Woods will NEVER shoot a perfect score! I don't believe even TWO consecutive holes-in-one have ever been accomplished in a round of tournament golf.

    If anyone can come up with a way to get new blood into our game, other than by providing free rounds, I will support them! I bet you will too.
     
  18. Hauser

    Hauser Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    860
    Buzz


    I don't know you or anything about you except you live in Ohio (I think) and your this sites resident cynic. The nice part about your job with regard to this site is its easy. All you have to do is sit back and make some funny/cynical comment about anything or anybody. You may never have shot a registered target for all I know and thats fine.


    Now to your statement "Endless axe-grinding...backed up by nothing".


    What would you like to see to prove or disprove your point of view on the future of the sport if you actually have an opinion??


    Jerry Hauser
     
  19. crusha

    crusha TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    5,762
    Jerry,


    I'll offer an opinion (and this is only an opinion - I'm not trumping it up as "FACTS"). I believe that simple demographics have made it harder for the "average guy" to compete in this sport.


    When I look at photos of registered shoots and league photos from years gone by, something stands out. These guys are all shooting Model 12s, most of the time. Nobody has a gun that is very much more expensive than the other guy's. To look at the photos, it looks like Tuesday night Bowling League in Milwaukee...in many cases, blue collar guys, white socks, red arms, their team vest and little flat Winchester hat cleanly pressed, "50 straight" patch and the like. When these guys shot registered, they didn't register anywhere near the number of birds that most hard-heads today do. Back then, you could get onto the All-American team based on nothing more than your average, and you didn't have to shoot a certain number of "point shoots"...in fact, the target requirements were so forgiving, you didn't even have to shoot outside your own state to be an average leader, if you didn't want to. You didn't have to be a touring semi-pro to get your face in the paper.


    Now how did we reach the age of $13,000 trap guns and people who travel thousands of miles a year to compete in tournaments? Simply this. The Baby Boom generation went to college, came of age, took their place in high-paying careers (ie didn't just follow their daddies into the local factory), and started looking for ways to spend their wealth and 5 weeks of vacation. Target minimums went up. Number of targets registered by the serious shooters went up. A points system was developed. "Some" people simply got a whole lot more serious, in proportion to what their finances would allow. Since their wives were working, things were not as tight. The $252,000 median house, the $17,000 Harley, the Hummer, you get the picture.


    Now - you want to hang all of this on the 2-hole target?


    ...Really?


    You're right about one thing - the "average" guy doesn't have much chance for glory. Occasionally, maybe; regularly? Forget it. And it has been that way for quite a while.


    But you and "Shooting Coach" have a logic problem you need to resolve among yourselves. As his argument against 2-hole targets goes, he says 2-hole targets make it EASIER for the average guy who "lacks dedication." You, on the other hand, say that 2-hole birds make it HARDER on the "average guy."


    Now which one of you - if either - is right? You both seem to have the same opinion about what should be done, but your logical arguments contradict each other 180 degrees. Now which is it? And that's my whole point about this 2-hole/1-ounce/fill in the blank argument. Everybody has an opinion. Everybody is sure "their" opinion is THE one that "saves the future of the sport." They can all reach the same conclusions using opposite logic, or opposite conclusions using the same logic - depending on the day and how many drinks they've had. Now who is right?


    What I have seen, is that the people who complain the loudest about the easy perfect scores, are those who AREN'T SHOOTING THEM. And it begins to look like some kind of Marxist, "let's drag the good shooters down to our level" type of argument.


    The good shooters have the dedication. They have more money to devote to the sport than the rest of us. They have more time to devote to the sport than the rest of us. That's just how it is. So be it. I don't blame them one bit...and I wouldn't trade places with them for anything. They deserve it. They have earned it. 3-hole or 2-hole, the cream rises to the top. That's how it should be. I shoot my league, I have my fun - and I'm getting everything out of trapshooting that I deserve. I have other things that I enjoy doing which compete for my firearm time, and trapshooting simply isn't going to be my sole source of enjoyment anymore.


    If somebody is going to get run out of the sport because they don't win with a 96...chances are they weren't going to be around long anyway.


    If you want to frame up this issue in terms of, "Anyone who doesn't agree with me doesn't care about the future of the sport," fine...knock yourself out. But who made YOU the arbiter of what is good for the sport? You need to allow for the possibility that your "cynical detractors" are simply not convinced by your reasoning, are pointing out some weaknesses in it (which you should be grateful for), and feel you have more work to do, that's all.
     
  20. Hauser

    Hauser Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    860
    My advocacy is based on a couple simple facts.


    Most people get in to this game because they want to compete. Compete with themselves, compete with their friends, but above all compete.


    Most if not all want to win when they compete.


    When a new shooter has shot enough they find they are going to have to devote a considerable amount of time and money in order to win. I don't think many will make that commitment and subsequently leave the sport.


    Its harder to win now simply because the easier target presentation ensures more shooters are going to shoot a good score on any given day. I know I would never have spent the time or money to get reasonably proficient if I was getting beaten by perfect or near perfect scores every time I shot an event. That to me is a daunting prospect to a new shooter.


    I cant change or influence any of the things you say are external influences that have an effect on the game.


    All I have been doing is pointing out a time period where attendance was at its highest and the sport was actually competitive. That was a time when the "Tuesday night Bowling League in Milwaukee" guys you mentioned actually could come out and win.


    Those days with rare exceptions are gone unless the format changes.


    Jerry Hauser
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.