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

Put everyone at the 27 yard line and ---

Discussion in 'Shooting Related Threads' started by harpo_old, Jul 10, 2010.

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

    harpo_old Guest

    sounds to simple and they would loose shooters as the short yardage shooters would cry like a baby..
     
    Rick Barker thanked this.
  2. Sportshot

    Sportshot Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    529
    Location:
    ... somewhere out west, in the Rockies
    Except that there really are people out there that can't shoot a handicap yardage, any handicap yardage. It is various reasons, mostly due to confidence and experience. They struggle thru E class averages, and you move them back a little and they totally freak. You really can't discount these people out of the game, and you would if they went to that distance.

    I have seen inexperienced shooters playing around in practice, shooting with squads at longer yardage and miss every target they shot at, an absolute zero.

    Not too likely to register 2,500 handicap targets a year at 25 yards.
     
  3. phirel

    phirel TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    9,556
    DB Bill- We now have many fine Gentlemen who can't compete with 27 yard shooters if they shot handicap from the 16 yard line. Some wish to change the rules in a way that these shooters could compete.

    Pat Ireland
     
  4. grnberetcj

    grnberetcj Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    5,680
    Another way would be to set up a "Handicap System" similar to the type used in golf.

    Curt
     
  5. Sportshot

    Sportshot Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    529
    Location:
    ... somewhere out west, in the Rockies
    I believe it would be good for the game to allow the short yardage group any shell up to 1.18 oz. The mid yardage can have one ounce, and the long yardage are limited to shooting 7/8's.
     
  6. Pocatello

    Pocatello Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    1,547
    Back on July 1 I posted the following on another thread relating to changing handicap:

    A while back Neil Winston supplied me with a copy of the raw data from the 2008 Average Book in MS Excel format, and I posted several threads about what the data showed. The threads seemed to garner quite a lot of interest at the time. Here is some more based on the handicap data.

    First a disclaimer - the yardage shown in the average book is the yardage the shooter FINISHED the year on. There is no guarantee, indeed there is no way to tell, how many targets were shot from what particular yardage. Also the following includes only those shooters who shot at least 1000 ATA handicap targets during the year. I could supply the numbers for all who shot handicap during 2008, but don't think including those who shot a few targets is meaningful.

    That being said, there were 9710 shooters who registered at least 1000 ATA handicap targets in 2008. The largest group (1917/19.7%) finished the year on the 27 yard line. For the other groups I lumped the whole and half yards together, because that is where they actually stand, i.e. both 20 and 20.5 shoot from the 20 yard line. The totals:

    939/9.7% shot from the 26

    1119/11.5% shot from the 25

    982/10.1% shot from the 24

    932/9.6% shot from the 23

    1006/10.4% shot from the 22

    924/9.5% shot from the 21

    1320/13.6% shot from the 20

    548/5.6% shot from the 19

    23/0.2% shot from the 18

    Of the 27-yarders, 24/1.3% averaged at least 95% on their handicap targets. One shooter who was listed at 24 yards averaged that high. No other shooter averaged at least 95% on 1000 handicap targets. 774/40.4% of the 27 yard shooters averaged at least 90% but under 95% on at least 1000 handicap targets. 58.4% of the 27 yard shooters averaged below 90% on their handicap targets.

    Here is where the striking difference is seen:

    90.3% of 26 yard shooters averaged below 90% in handicap;

    90.1% of 25 yard shooters averaged below 90% in handicap;

    88.0% of 24 yard shooters averaged below 90% in handicap;

    84.5% of 23 yard shooters averaged below 90% in handicap;

    86.0% of 22 yard shooters averaged below 90% in handicap;

    87.1% of 21 yard shooters averaged below 90% in handicap;

    95.9% of 20 yard shooters averaged below 90% in handicap;

    99.1% of 19 yard shooters averaged below 90% in handicap;

    100.0% of 18 yard shooters averaged below 90% in handicap.

    Given that the 90% threshold will bring a reduction offer to most shooters, it seems to me that almost all shooters under 27 yards are over-handicapped. It also seems to provide evidence that a significant proportion of shooters who have reached the fence, and can't be punched further back, benefit from the opportunity to "learn the yardage" while they stay there. Increasing the maximum yardage would make things more difficult for the current, proficient, 27 yarders. However, it will have no effect on those shooters who are not at 27 yards, while other proposals such as three-hole targets, faster targets, lower payloads, and the like, will also effect those at shorter yardage. The problem that no one ever seems to want to discuss is that a significant proportion of our current shooters would not be competitive in handicap even if they were shooting handicap from the 16 yard line! As evidence, there were 6822 shooters in 2008 who shot at least 1000 handicap targets and 1000 singles targets, and who had handicap yardages under 27 yards. Of those 6822 shooters, 1502 ((22.0%) had SINGLES averages under 90%, i.e. they would qualify for a reduction from 16 yards. So do we need to move the maximum back past 27 yards, and also the minimum up closer than 16 yards?

    I submit that the reason ATA powers have not changed the maximum yardage is not because they are evil, stupid, or a combination of the two. The problem is that changing the handicap system to make it fair to all is an intractable problem. The only way I know how to do it is to award trophies by selecting a random score as the winner, and not base it on performance at all. If the winner is based on performance, some will be better, and some worse. That's life.

    End of quotation.

    As Pat said above, many, at least 22%, would not be competitive if they shot handicap from 16 yards.
     
  7. mixer

    mixer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,386
    Location:
    Coral Springs, Florida
    We were having this exact discussion at the club yesterday. We all seemed to agree with the theory that eliminating all the in between yards and making everyone shoot h'cap from the (in our discussion, the 30 yd line)and setting up classes like singles was the way to go. Basically it would be singles from 30 yards. We also felt that singles & doubles should be shot from the 18 yd line.


    Eric
     
  8. BDodd

    BDodd TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,594
    The trouble with Eric's idea above is that we already have two games where classes shoot against others with like averages; limiting the field of competitors to a portion of the whole field. As it is now, as flawed in some manner as you may suggest, Handicap is the ONLY trap game where every shooter competes against the entire field of participants. Is it perfect? Heck no but it still is the only game we play where you have the opportunity to win against the entire field and it should be kept alive.....breakemall....Bob Dodd
     
  9. mixer

    mixer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,386
    Location:
    Coral Springs, Florida
    BDodd has a valid point. Perhaps using the handicap system used in golf is the way to go if everyone shot from the 30yd line. You could be classified as a scratch shooter or have up to a 10 shot handicap. Interesting topic for discussion to be sure.


    Eric
     
  10. smsnyder

    smsnyder Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    4,830
    I bellieve the answer is combined 3 hole targets and decrease handicap yardage to 17 to 18 yards. This will cover pros or good shooters to poor shooters.
     
  11. smsnyder

    smsnyder Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    4,830
    I bellieve the answer is combined 3 hole targets and decrease handicap yardage to 17 to 18 yards. This will cover pros or good shooters to poor shooters.
     
  12. OldGoat

    OldGoat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2008
    Messages:
    1,567
    Location:
    Overland Park KS
    Many public school systems have found a solution to the negative aspects of competition...too few winners and too many who seldom, if ever, win anything. By not keeping score and awarding prizes for just showing up and being a part of the event, everyone is happy....aren't they? I'm not saying I agree with this at all...but this is what they are teaching our kids and grandkids. What do you think? Best Regards, Ed
     
  13. smsnyder

    smsnyder Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    4,830
    The problem is the short yarders according to your facts. The majority of your shooters. Decrease yardage for them. 17 to 18 yards. Give them a reason and condifence to shoot more handicap targets. I believe stats will stay about the same but you will have happier shooters.
     
  14. smsnyder

    smsnyder Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    4,830
    The problem is the short yarders according to your facts. The majority of your shooters. Decrease yardage for them. 17 to 18 yards. Give them a reason and condifence to shoot more handicap targets. I believe stats will stay about the same but you will have happier shooters.
     
  15. gotbass

    gotbass Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    734
    Sportshot - Although your suggestion is well intended, what you will wind up with is a bunch of short yardage shooter that flinch and no impact (no pun intended) to the long yardage folks. My thought is that you can make some of the shooters happy all (most) of the time and all of the shooters happy some of the time, but you can't make all of the shooters happy all (most) of the time.
     
  16. dmarbell

    dmarbell Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Messages:
    1,572
    Has consideration ever been given to a handicap system based on percentage of birds missed? I'll try to post a chart later, but it would work like this.

    Say shooter A has a handicap average of 95%, and shooter B an average of 90%. If shooter A shoots a score of 96, he has shot 20% of his percentage of birds missed. That is, he usually misses 5, he missed one fewer, or 20% fewer.

    Shooter B would have to shoot 92 to match the 20%. That is, he usually misses 10, he missed two fewer, or 20% fewer.

    This would help account for the greater (perhaps) variability among the shooters with lower averages.

    Under that system, by the way, shooter B would have to shoot 98 to match shooter A's score of 99 (80% of birds missed).

    Yardages would be determined by punches? Or, everyone would shoot from the same yardage?

    Danny
     
  17. ivanhoe

    ivanhoe Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    7,539
    Location:
    Oxford MA
    Well I of course have an opinion on this subject but I also have some questions. Such as it would appear that that in every yardage the majority would seem to have less than a 90% average in caps.

    Every yardage, that is except 27 yards. Now if the yardage average for all yardages were where the majority is now under 90% wouldn't that mean that the high gun for the event would win and take yardage instead of all the 95 plus average shooters winning all the time???? Something like a level playing field as it should be

    Bob Lawless
     
  18. Setterman

    Setterman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2007
    Messages:
    11,143
    I wonder if the 27 yarders have practiced more?...or take the competition more seriously? Hmmmm.

    I'm sure some are simply not capable of shooting long yardage for one reason or another, but how many of the complainers are not willing to sacrifice the time, money, or effort to improve? We'll never know.
     
  19. Herb Roach

    Herb Roach Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    240
    It is interesting that everyone wants to change. I don't shoot registered, but I did some time ago. They said, "you're a beginner, so you shoot from the 20 yd. line, also, you are in class D for singles and doubles". To me that seemed simple enough, the rules of the game, like baseball, Three strikes and you are out. So I shot from the 16 yd line in my class, and I didn't win, but that was OK, I didn't expect to. And I shot from the 20 yd. line and I didn't win, but that was OK too, I didn't expect to. Most of the guys shooting had been competing for 10 years to 40 years and a lot of the older guys were not on the 27 yd. line. So I just shot to hear the gun go off, enjoy the sport and eat bad food, generally cooked where the most flies were. Did I want to change anything? Nope, It's like three strikes and your're out. These are the rules you have to live with if you shoot registered. I respect those who have earned their way to the Back Fence. I always wished I could shot well enough to be there, but I didn't want to change the rules to get there. I didn't play the options, as a matter of fact, I don't remember there being any. They just gave away shells or a trophy to the class and yardage winners. I don't even know what hole the machine was set for, everyone shot the same targets. Change is good sometimes, but change for the sake of change doesn't make a hell of a lot of sense to me. Just my two cents worth, and it ain't worth anymore than that. Herb Roach
     
  20. no5shooter

    no5shooter Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    453
    I have to say, I don't know if Herb is right or not but I like his attitude. I'm in about the same boat, except I seem to manage to shoot "a few" registered targets most years. Not near enough to be competitive, and I don't practice near enough to expect to be good, so whose fault is that? I think I know, and it ain't George Bush.
    That said, I don't particularly like the idea of change for change's sake either, but I do wish we'd go back to 3-hole targets and give that a serious try for a while, say two or three years, before we decide it's time to mess with the yardage system. We all know the story about how clubs started "sneaking" their traps into the 2-hole to lure shooters and then 2-hole targets became the standard. I kind of liked the old "harder" targets. I was shooting more then and if it was appreciably harder I didn't notice it - my hope would be that a change back to supposedly harder targets would give everybody a little more of a challenge, including the 27-yard folks. If Pocatater's stats are right, and I have no reason to doubt them, most of us don't shoot 'caps worth sour owl poop anyway so we probably wouldn't notice the change all that much, and it might just keep some of the long-yardage shooters on their toes a bit more. Wouldn't cost much to try, nobody has to pour new concrete, no computer programs have to be changed. Just my .02 worth.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Search tags for this page

26 yard line trap shooting