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

New thought on 16 yd classification

Discussion in 'Uncategorized Threads' started by Dr.Longshot, Jun 11, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Dr.Longshot

    Dr.Longshot Banned Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    5,722
    What you break on your first hundred on a 200 16yd event is the class you are in.

    100-99 AA
    98-97 A
    96-94 B
    93-89 C
    89- and under D

    This is just an Idea w/no agenda involved.
    Your first 100 score classifies you. For the second hundred total score.

    Dr.longshot
     
  2. Harold

    Harold TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    247
    Why? A sandbagger could shoot whatever score he wanted in the first 100 to "classify" himself in a lower class, then shoot 100 to win the class.
     
  3. hubcap

    hubcap TS Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    417
    Screw the sandbaggers - I'm not shooting to win D class..........and I don't mean any offense to D class shooters.

    If someone has so little self esteem that they've got to sandbag so they can brag about winning D class then they need help. I think they're pathetic miserable little creatures.

    Hubcap
     
  4. Harold

    Harold TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    247
    188 would win dr. longshot's D class, by definition. Anybody shooting better would be C class or above.
     
  5. OhioBob

    OhioBob TS Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    136
    The only scenario I can think of where it might be unworkable is when a shooter shoots a great first 100 targets and then falls apart in the second 100.

    It happens to me on a regular basis!!! I could be AA with an 89 on the second 100. Oh well...food for thought anyway. I like creative thinking.

    Bob
     
  6. BIGDON

    BIGDON Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    6,624
    Location:
    Michigan
    Dumb!!!

    Don
     
  7. smsnyder

    smsnyder Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    4,830
    This is were 16 yard averages and classifications fails. A shooter at the pa. state won B class in singles event last year 2006 with a 195. This year 2007 he won a singles event again in B class with a 198. He was moved to a class A yesterday and won with a 99. Now the pa state shoot is rated as a 9. It is rating according to the ATA one rating behind the grand american. This is one of the hardest shoots to win because of compitition. Why was this guy allowed to shoot in b class again after winning at a major shoot? The answer is his averages were low through out the year. This is wrong. His averages were in the low 90's and he won a major event. He should have shot in A class minimum for 2 years. It is not necessary sandbagging but a lack of proper classification.
     
  8. smsnyder

    smsnyder Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    4,830
    This is were 16 yard averages and classifications fails. A shooter at the pa. state won B class in singles event last year 2006 with a 195. This year 2007 he won a singles event again in B class with a 198. He was moved to a class A yesterday and won with a 99. Now the pa state shoot is rated as a 9. It is rating according to the ATA one rating behind the grand american. This is one of the hardest shoots to win because of compitition. Why was this guy allowed to shoot in b class again after winning at a major shoot? The answer is his averages were low through out the year. This is wrong. His averages were in the low 90's and he won a major event. He should have shot in A class minimum for 2 years. It is not necessary sandbagging but a lack of proper classification.
     
  9. Neil Winston

    Neil Winston Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    7,849
    dr.longshot, that's an interesting proposal. But as Harold points out, it would do nothing about the supposed sandbagging problem talked about else where in these threads. If fact, since it would involve only one score, it would make sandbagging easier. But if there were no sandbagging it seems, without using other information, just about perfect. But then so does the present system, again if there were no sandbagging.

    The problem is, as with so many proposals I read here, you provide no supporting data. If you want it taken seriously, you have to _show_ that it would work better. Results from a few dozen shoots with 200-bird singles events should be enough. How would the outcome have been different if your system had been in effect? It the winner changed, and if so, is the result an improvement and how do we know it is?

    This lack of supporting data is one of the reasons that few take seriously what is written on TS.com. People want 1-oz. loads without showing any systematic data of the effect of it. sm above wants a two-year class lock when we no already have a similar system in handicap (the "H" code") and it is a _terrible_ rule.

    Try using the "data standard" with anything you see suggested here. You'll not find any (except, perhaps my 1-oz and 7 1/2 test) and that's why nothing is ever going to happen as a result of being simply written about here. You need proof of improvement, or at least some numbers related to the change or you are wasting your typing.

    It should not be hard to get what you need. The Ohio state shoot is about to start. Why not get the data- the winner vs the "alternate winner - and post it here so we can see how it might work.

    If, and only if, you follow through on this and post the "results" and "alternative results" from the 200-bird events at the Ohio State Shoot, I'll do the same for some others and we'll all see how it would work. This is a potentially interesting project and since it's your idea, it should be worth the small effort to secure the data which will promote or bury it.

    Neil
     
  10. halfmile

    halfmile Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    15,642
    Location:
    Green Bay Wisconsin
    I am a much better shooter than my averages suggest.

    If I manage to fend off the mental demons that cause low scores would I be a sandbagger?

    the Idea that I would spend at least 500 dollars to attend 10 shoots and shoot low scores to win 200 at a major event is moronic.

    HM
     
  11. lumper

    lumper TS Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2007
    Messages:
    3,586
    Ya know it could be done kind of like a modification of bracket racing. You shoot outside your bracket by to much and BAM ... your disqualified or your instantly moved into the next bracket if you wish to compete.

    It might be possible but I find it very strange and very questionable that class "C" or "D" shooter could be having that great of a day and just blow his class out of the water by busting 198 birds. Not even if the moon was properly aligned with the equator and the rings of Saturn and the moons of Uranus were properly in magnetic geosinked orbit of the planet of Utopia could it be ... well if it were all lined up with Utopia it might be possible but still unlikely to happen.

    No matter what rules if any rules at all ever would be changed the question is not what or how they will be changed but instead how and who will enforce them. With the ATA leaving most everything up to the interpretation of the club holding the shoot nothing will ever actually change unless the ATA sets the rules in stone and tells the clubs to either follow them or they cant have registered shoots which will never ever happen ... except with that Utopia factor above ... and also because the ATA likes the money.
     
  12. Neil Winston

    Neil Winston Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    7,849
    Jim, anything can pass. Of dr.longshot were a delegate, who knows, this might pass. Many of the rule changes work out fine, many are irrelevant, many are no good at all. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to raise the standard, does it? All the really, really bad rules were passed without consideration of the result.

    Over the last couple of years, the only serious rule change involved Grand American penalty. Compare last year's minutes with those five years ago. There's been a dramatic improvement.

    Neil
     
  13. perga1

    perga1 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    1,474
    Wow Neil. I hit submit by mistake because I couldn't remember Tom Ford's last name and you caught it, great. Changes in target requirements, penalty, safety, dues etc., I am sure get scrutinized pretty well and I will take your word for it that it made a difference. I just think that most rules are made to get the dreaded sandbagger with no consideration to their effect on the non-sandbagging member. Of course we're all baggers when we shoot a good score every three or four years. Two rules that I find rediculous are the 2 year freeze and punching for dollars. Winning money with less than winning scores should not affect someone's yardage. It only means the better shooters don't gamble or didn't have enough faith in their ability to wager on themselves. A serious shooter who is capable of turning in a good score now and then who faithfully plays a few purses should not get punched or frozen because he/she gets lucky and shoots a good score or a score good enough to get back some of the money they've wagered over the years, JMHO. Jim
     
  14. ivanhoe

    ivanhoe Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    7,538
    Location:
    Oxford MA
    smsnyder you said "He was moved to a class A yesterday and won with a 99." you then said "This is one of the hardest shoots to win because of compitition." Well from what I have observed if you can win in A Class at a major shoot with a 99 there is no competition I have yet to see a major shoot where it takes less than a 100 to win A class.

    You further stated "The answer is his averages were low through out the year. This is wrong. His averages were in the low 90's and he won a major event. He should have shot in A class minimum for 2 years." Just for the record this is not wrong this is as stated in the rules. In your opinion this is wrong please don't mislead the newer shooters that don't fully understand the classification yet.

    You complain that you want to see the newer/younger shooters grow and yet you put a lot of information on this site that is note clear. Such as the difference between what the rules are, and what you think the rules should be. Just how many people that don't understand that you are complaining about what you feel the rules should be. How many are leaving these threads with the impression that you are saying that the ATA is not following the present rules of classification

    Bob Lawless
     
  15. Twinbirds

    Twinbirds TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    1,144
    I have mulled this over for a few years and I guess, just as well air it out now. What would be wrong with "bracket" shooting? Basically a shooter would be allowed to shoot a few targets over his avg, but not to exceed the avg excess of his class, if they do they are automatically competing in a higher class. Yes it would be more number crunching but computers could certainly be programed to handle the job impartially and effectively. A program set this way does a couple of things, it would virtually eliminate the need to sandbag,because you don't know where you stand.(part of the problem with classification.) You are forced to do your level best to keep the avgs high for those who you are really competeing against, it would also give someone who has had an outstanding day and busted out a chance to be in with the big dogs for a show down. Major drawbacks?.........kinda my brainchild and I'm having problems......Help?
     
  16. balance365

    balance365 TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    70
    First, I think that the current singles classification system has its "beauty marks". I firmly believe that there are target managers out there who manage to stay in D or C class despite some terrific scores. Those few set the reputation for many. Persons with 45,000+ registered targets, registered for 30+ years, with a yearly average nearly always between 90-91, shoots a 98 being classed in D is, in my mind, a target manager.


    The two issues, as I see them are, 1) the probability that someone with a D class average suddenly hits a 98/100, or 197/200. Its a simple binomial distribution where you plug in the average and the score, and you know the probability. It can happen, and does happen, using the simple math involved, though the probability is lower than the actual results seen. 2) Bigger issue, and the one that throws #1 out of whack, is the standard deviation of scores in the lower classes. The standard deviation is (granted without the proper mathematical proof attached) much higher for the lower classes than the A/AA classes. This standard deviation will lead to higher scores being possible becasue the distribution being wider with lower class shooters. Of course, there must be a non-normal distribution in the upper classes since there is an upper limit on the score (you can't break 101/100), as the result is skewed heavily.


    I believe (said it before, probably will say it again) that a breakout system would benefit the sport. Here's why (again subjective right now): First, if you are fortunate enough to shoot a great score, a breakout system (say a D class shooter breaks higher than a C class average, that shooter is reclassed, for the shoot in question only, to C class) would truly deter the target manager, since they would be bumped out of their sweet spot for trophy hunting. If a person breaks a good score, the breakout moves them into a more competitive class, but often times that 98 in D class puts you in the running for C class trophy, everyone still goes home happy. Second, it does handle, albeit in a crude fashion, the standard deviation issue. It doesn't penalize a good day with a long term change. The next shoot, the person is back to being classified by their average, which represents their long-term ability.
     
  17. Twinbirds

    Twinbirds TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    1,144
    Did you ever stop to think where the lower classes would be without target management? I have always seen them at leagues and derbies, flat running away with everything until the local Sunday ATA shoot rolled around, now they shoot almost pathetic scores only to shoot good during the week and the next big shoot.They are out there and they are the ruination of this sport.

    At the point where there are high avg the mean numbers would be smaller.But it is very hard to target manage and maintain an avg in the high 90's. But if they do the avg excess could offset their management.
     
  18. Jim101

    Jim101 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    1,942
    Location:
    Knob Noster, Mo
    When are you guys going to figure it out, Regardless of class, Average scores don't win.



    Jim
     
  19. ivanhoe

    ivanhoe Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    7,538
    Location:
    Oxford MA
    balance365 It sounds to me like you have thought about this quite a bit. I do however have a criticism of your proposal. Does this mean that you believe all the D and C class shooters should be classified after they shoot? If they are classified before(the present method)all scores and and classes have to be reviewed and shooters with high scores must be placed in higher classes. Now with that being said why not take the shooter with the 97, 98 and put him in A and the shooter with 95, 96 and put him in B class if you shoot 93, 94 put them in C and if you have had a really great day and shoot 99, 100 you get to go in AA.

    Now the sandbagger doesn't even have to worry all the competition is farm out of class all he has to do is memorize the numbers and shoot late and it is even easier to manage targets. I will say this I am not in favor of classifying a shooter any shooter after they have fired the first shot of the event in question. I also should say I don't care what the reason is.

    Bob Lawless
     
  20. Twinbirds

    Twinbirds TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    1,144
    Exactly Jim 101!! Nobody wants to win on an average day, it needs to be an outstanding day. But because of the undesirable element that is involved in this sport, a honest class shooter doesn't have much of a chance by simply having an outstanding day.
    Ivanhoe classifying after you shoot,? well ok just suppose a great AAA shooter has a bad day drops 2 birds in the back 100 and posts a 198. You on the other hand are a class B shooter and just posted your best ever score of 198. Feeling lucky heading into that shoot-off? Yes, I know almost anything can happen and it does at times.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.