[perga1]

Stirring the pot thread is closed so I am posting here looking for your thoughts.
Something that has always bothered me is the practice of coding a shooter. It seems to me that all the CHC/EC is trying to accomplish here is to take the shooter out of the competition which is something they often accomplish. Take a shooter who performs above their normal ability and shoots a score good enough to get a punch for 1.5 yards and moves from the 23.5 to the 25 and is coded. That shooter must now compete for 2 years from the new yardage where they may have never been before. If the code is required or assigned by the CHC/EC shouldn't it be from the yardage where the abnormal score was shot and not the new yardage where the shooter may have never been before or may have demonstrated and inability to cpmpete at the new distance? Just looking for other opinions on this because it just doesn't make sense to me. Yes. I have experienced this. JRM

 

[perga1]

Bob Lawless, you wrote "If I understand you correctly you wish to allow the shooter who has just shot a 100 at a major shoot from the 23.5 to be frozen at 23.5 for 2 years. At the same time make the shooter who has shot a 97, 98, or 99 get a yard and be moved back."
I hear what you are saying but the ability to break a good score, perhaps only the one time was at the 23.5. I didn't say he should not get the punch. Shouldn't the freeze, if required, be from where the "known ability" was demonstrated? In other words he moves back but cannot be reduced below the 23.5 for 2 years. How is it fair to freeze someone for two years at a yardage they have never been able to master or may have never been there before? That is a message to the shooter that you are not allowed to win or shoot a winning score until you can master your new yardage or for 2 years or perhaps never again. The shooter who gets a punch for a 97, 98, or 99 must only wait for a 1,000 target review. JRM

 

[Gary Waalkes]

The two year freeze applies to earned yardage of 1 1/2 yards or more for any event. This was added because the BOD sees sandbaggers behind every big shoot handicap win made by a short yardage shooter. I don't know how true it was, but there were many stories about short yardage shooters hitting good scores and winning big money and then laying down again, get reduced and start over again.

So before jumping on the BOD with both feet (one foot is OK), remember that it is not easy to get that big punch. You need to be first at a shoot with more than 250 shooters, or second place with 500 or 3rd place with 1500 shooters - or you have to run-em at a smaller than 250 shooters or just win at least $1200.00 in one event. So it is not score biased, the 1 1/2 yard increase is about shooting a great score at a big shoot.

Two years is a long time, but "they" don't want you to show back up at the "big handicap" shoot next year at the same yardage you cleaned their clock from this year. Can you blame them? Affects so few shooters that it is kind of in the noise when discussing shooter retention.

 

[perga1]

I agree it's a minor thing until it happens to you. TexShooter, the freeze does not prevent punches to longer yardage and would have no effect on the shooter moving back. JRM

 

[ivanhoe]

perga1

"The shooter who gets a punch for a 97, 98, or 99 must only wait for a 1,000 target review."

Jim so you are say that you wish to freeze the shooter with 100 at 23.5 to that yardage for 2 years. After he has demonstrated an ability to break the best score possible at any yardage.

You obviously believe that this is fair or you would not be questioning the process. I can't believe that anyone would think your suggestion is correct after all the discussion on these threads about the 27 yd shooters dominating the handicap and shorter yardage shooters not being competitive.

Your suggestion say to me that a perfect score in caps from any yardage(except 27 from what your past posts reflect)should be rewarded. After all the guy/gal that shot a 99 will have to try to struggle with a new yardage for at least a thousand targets. While the shooter that shot the 100 is frozen at the yardage he shot it from for 2 years. If he can do it again at that yardage again he is there for another 2 years. Jim you have got to be kidding me with all the time you have in ATA shooting and you can't see this as a perfect opportunity for a good sandbagger????????????????????????

One other thing Gary said "The two year freeze applies to earned yardage of 1 1/2 yards or more for any event." I stand corrected I did not know that had been change to any single handicap event. Even though the way the rule is written the 2 years is not etched in stone. If you read it there is latitude in the rule for an earlier reduction.

 

[Gary Waalkes]

If you are the WINNER of a big handicap (250 or more shooters) you will get 1 1/2 yards and a 2 year freeze (and the yardage increases with 500 and again at 1500 participants. It has nothing to do with your score - just because you beat all those people. If your 95 is the hi score - you get 1 1/2 yards and a 2 year freeze.

Yes, there is discretion for removal of the freeze. Good luck with that one though. If you just outshot everyone at a big shoot, you will have to shoot a lot more more than 10 crummy scores to convince a person like me that you deserve a break. Perhaps if you shot another 4,000 over a year and averaged less than 89 plus had 4000 crummy singles, I might consider the request.

 

[ivanhoe]

Gary Waalkes

"The two year freeze applies to earned yardage of 1 1/2 yards or more for any event."

"If you are the WINNER of a big handicap (250 or more shooters) you will get 1 1/2 yards and a 2 year freeze (and the yardage increases with 500 and again at 1500 participants. It has nothing to do with your score - just because you beat all those people. If your 95 is the hi score - you get 1 1/2 yards and a 2 year freeze."

Gary I will explain each of the points of your that I have quoted above in the order that I quoted them.

The optimum word is in the first quote is ANY.

This is not strictly true in some cases it does have to do with your score. Below I have two rules that you should read an understand it.

"Any score of 97, 98 and 99 or winning a total of $750.00 or more
(option and added money) in a single handicap event will automatically
earn 1 yard, and a score of 100 or winning a total of $1,200.00 or more
(option and added money) in a single handicap event will automatically
earn 1-1/2 yards provided these scores do not earn at least that much
under the earned yardage table."

This one means any score at any shoot. Even if there are only 20 shooters a 100 will get 1.5 yds and a 2 year freeze as stated in the next rule I have posted. You don't have to win a handicap with 250 shooter to get 1.5 yds if you shoot a 100 straight. The 250 shooters applies when your score is less than a 100.

"Earned yardage of 1.5 or more yards for any single event will not be
removed in part or whole by 1,000 target review for a minimum period
of two (2) years from the date the yardage was earned. This restriction
on reductions may be removed after one year for a shooter by the
State Delegate sending a request to his or her Zone Central Handicap
Committee Member who will make the final decision."

It does say that if your Delegate agrees and can get your Zone Handicap Committee person to agree you can be granted a reduction after one year.

Now Gary are you a Delegate or Zone CHC member If you are not a Delegate or Zone CHC member your opinion doesn't enter into the decision.

Gary I am not trying to bust your nads just explaining why I said what I did above. Also I have included a link to the on line rulebook maybe if you wish further clarification you should read Section VI in it's entirety it is pretty lengthy.

Bob Lawless

 

[perga1]

Bob Lawless, you should go back and re-read my post. I never said a coded shooter should not get a punch if earned. You cut and paste and site more rules from the rule book than anyone else on this site so you should know that a code does not prevent additional punches. You are quick to jump on posters for errors in their posts but you do not always comprehend what they write. My point was/is a code is assigned to the new yardage with no demonstrated ability to break good scores from that yardage, "known ability". Again the code should freeze he shooter, if freees are considered a good tool, at the yardage they shot from ,which is to say they get punched to the new yardage but can be reduce to the yardage where the punched score was shot but not below that yardage. Clear? Freezing a shooter at a yardage where they continually miss targets is counterproductive in more ways than one.JRM

 

[ivanhoe]

perga1

"Bob Lawless, you should go back and re-read my post. I never said a coded shooter should not get a punch if earned. You cut and paste and site more rules from the rule book than anyone else on this site so you should know that a code does not prevent additional punches"

Jim take a deep breath don't get all up set and show me where I said that you did say a coded shooter should not get a punch. I never anywhere said that a code prevents additional punches.

I did however say that following your train of though.

"Shouldn't the freeze, if required, be from where the "known ability" was demonstrated? In other words he moves back but cannot be reduced below the 23.5 for 2 years. How is it fair to freeze someone for two years at a yardage they have never been able to master or may have never been there before? That is a message to the shooter that you are not allowed to win or shoot a winning score until you can master your new yardage or for 2 years or perhaps never again."

Jim you and I both know that if you earn yardage for any reason you get a punch not to the same yardage where you shot the score. To where your score or the earned yardage table says you go. With that being said I again ask.

"Jim you have got to be kidding me with all the time you have in ATA shooting and you can't see this as a perfect opportunity for a good sandbagger????????????????????????"

You are being more than a little anal about this if you were complaining about the "Y" code I would agree with you. If you were lobbing to do away with the "H"(the one you are complaining about)I would support you. You however have made a choice to try to circumvent the system and enable a shooter who has just shot the best score one can shoot from any yardage. The chance to stay right where he is for 2 years(barring further wins or automatic yardage)an opportunity the shooter that shoots a lowly 99 doesn't get. If this shooter is allowed to stay right there and again shoots a 100 he will be (according to what you are saying)frozen there for another 2 years. If it happens once it should be the rule for a second 100.

Jim in all honesty if you looked at yardage as more of a reward than a punishment you might not get these off based ideas. You are looking at a direct result of why all the whining and the complaining do no good for the shooters in the ATA. This "H" code is a direct result of all the complaining about sandbagging. If you feel the code is unjust remember it the next time you here the complaining about sandbagging. You will here it as soon a the big shoots get started which should be next month in your neighborhood.

Bob Lawless

 

[perga1]

Bob, you are still mis-reading my post so I will not try to explain it any further. You wrote: "Jim you have got to be kidding me with all the time you have in ATA shooting and you can't see this as a perfect opportunity for a good sandbagger????????????????????????", That's the rational for all the changes in the handicap system since I started registering targets in 1987 and those changes effect the regular rank and file member more than the cheat they are aimed at. I have been hearing about the dreaded sandbagger since 1987 and guess what, Sandy is still around but many other shooters are not. The best way to take Sandy out of the game is to make more shooters competitive. JRM

 

[ivanhoe]

perga1

"Bob, you are still mis-reading my post so I will not try to explain it any further."

If I am mis-reading your posts you are going to have to show me where my mistake is. As I have read and reread your submission over and over and still get the same message.

"The best way to take Sandy out of the game is to make more shooters competitive."

So you think the best way to do this is allow a shooter that has demonstrated that he can break the best score that can be broken. To stay on that yardage for 2 years while the guy that has only shot a 99 must move back.

Now tell me how this will make more shooters competitive?

You are say I am mis-reading your posts. Well I will tell you what I don't know what you are referring to I do however know what you have said;

" Take a shooter who performs above their normal ability and shoots a score good enough to get a punch for 1.5 yards and moves from the 23.5 to the 25 and is coded. That shooter must now compete for 2 years from the new yardage where they may have never been before. If the code is required or assigned by the CHC/EC shouldn't it be from the yardage where the abnormal score was shot and not the new yardage where the shooter may have never been before or may have demonstrated and inability to cpmpete at the new distance?"

Two problems with this train of thought(I will say it again because maybe you are mis-reading my posts)one you are forgetting that the rule not the codes say earned yardage is paid on winning and mandatory yardage scores. You are trying to get around this pay off. Two you are incorrect in your assumption that he has perform above their normal ability. I think what you mean is a shooter that has performed above his known ability. You are assuming that the shooter that shoots the very best one can shoot does not have the ability to do so.

I have said all I can with out going over and over the same thing if you decide you want to explain it (what you mean)to me feel free to do so. Even though I don't see a way that you can erase what you have already said.

Bob Lawless

 

[Delbert]

"Bob, you are still mis-reading my post so I will not try to explain it any further."

If I am mis-reading your posts you are going to have to show me where my mistake is. As I have read and reread your submission over and over and still get the same message.

"The best way to take Sandy out of the game is to make more shooters competitive."

So you think the best way to do this is allow a shooter that has demonstrated that he can break the best score that can be broken. To stay on that yardage for 2 years while the guy that has only shot a 99 must move back.

Now tell me how this will make more shooters competitive?

You are say I am mis-reading your posts. Well I will tell you what I don't know what you are referring to I do however know what you have said;

" Take a shooter who performs above their normal ability and shoots a score good enough to get a punch for 1.5 yards and moves from the 23.5 to the 25 and is coded. That shooter must now compete for 2 years from the new yardage where they may have never been before. If the code is required or assigned by the CHC/EC shouldn't it be from the yardage where the abnormal score was shot and not the new yardage where the shooter may have never been before or may have demonstrated and inability to cpmpete at the new distance?"

Two problems with this train of thought(I will say it again because maybe you are mis-reading my posts)one you are forgetting that the rule not the codes say earned yardage is paid on winning and mandatory yardage scores. You are trying to get around this pay off. Two you are incorrect in your assumption that he has perform above their normal ability. I think what you mean is a shooter that has performed above his known ability. You are assuming that the shooter that shoots the very best one can shoot does not have the ability to do so.

I have said all I can with out going over and over the same thing if you decide you want to explain it (what you mean)to me feel free to do so. Even though I don't see a way that you can erase what you have already said.

Bob Lawless

 

[perga1]

Bob, "So you think the best way to do this is allow a shooter that has demonstrated that he can break the best score that can be broken. To stay on that yardage for 2 years while the guy that has only shot a 99 must move back."

No where did I ever say or imply that. You may read and read but you assign your own interpretation to the words.

Bob: "Two problems with this train of thought(I will say it again because maybe you are mis-reading my posts)one you are forgetting that the rule not the codes say earned yardage is paid on winning and mandatory yardage scores."

That is not what they say in this case. What it says, and I paraphraes, punches awarded for 1.5 yards or more will be frozen for two years.

Bob, "Two you are incorrect in your assumption that he has perform above their normal ability. I think what you mean is a shooter that has performed above his known ability. WHAT???

No where did I ever say or imply that. You may read and read but you assign your own interpretation to the words.!!!!

One last time, I never said the punch for the 1.5 yards should not be given, but to code that person for two years from the NEW yardage is not fair if the shooter has never been to that yardage before or has never demonstrated a "known ability" from that new disrance. Punch him from the 23.5 to the 25 but code him so he doesn't get reduced below the 23.5 where an ability (perhaps just once) has been demonstrated. Please read and take every word literally and do not insert any interpretations into what I write/wrote.

One more thing, you keep saying that I said a shooter that shot the best score possible should not be punched, that is a stretch even for you. I never once mentioned any score in my original post. In a later post I cited the ability of any shooter who shoots 97, 98, or 99 need only wait for a 1,000 target review. You assumed I was talking about a score of 100 for the 1.5 yard punch, I was not! I simply cited a shooter who got a 1.5 yard punch from the 23.5 to the 25. That is possible by either score or placement and the circumstance I was recalling was a 1.5 yard punch for placement and the score happened to be a 99 at the Grand.
I'm done!!!!!!!!!!!! JRM

 

[ivanhoe]

perga1

"No where did I ever say or imply that"

Well Jim just how would you interpret this quote of your.

"If the code is required or assigned by the CHC/EC shouldn't it be from the yardage where the abnormal score was shot and not the new yardage where the shooter may have never been before or may have demonstrated and inability to cpmpete at the new distance?"

It would appear to me that this qualifies as an implication of consequences of just what I have been saying to you. Yet you seem to ignore the fact that you have said this. I have quoted this before this is the second time. Yet you say.

"You may read and read but you assign your own interpretation to the words."

Well Jim I will tell you what if you feel I am misinterpreting this quote you tell me what will result. If we agree with what you have said in this quote. Please show me where I am not seeing what I have said will happen if the code is applied the way you describe in that quote.

You are right if you don't see what I am describing in that quote you are done.

BTW Jim you said "You assumed I was talking about a score of 100 for the 1.5 yard punch, I was not! I simply cited a shooter who got a 1.5 yard punch from the 23.5 to the 25. That is possible by either score or placement and the circumstance I was recalling was a 1.5 yard punch for placement and the score happened to be a 99 at the Grand."

The way the rule and the Code are written it makes no difference if the shooter get 1.5 for the win the score or a placement that pays 1.5 yards. Also interestingly in an handicap event with 500 or more shooters second place also gets the "H" code so it doesn't matter how the yardage is acquired.

Bob Lawless

PS Delbert if you are having so many original thought that you have to repost my post you need serious help.

 

[Popgun]

Hi All

I am in this same problem, I shot a 99 at the WVA State shoot the 1/an1/2yard from 22/1/2 is a 2 yard punch.I now shoot from 24 and I can not break in the 80 .As far as winning something 50 dollars and a belt buckle.


My Problem Bob

 

[hmb]

Why don't we use a persons average in handicap to move him foward or back. It works for singles classes and doubles classes. Why should it be different for handicap. HMB

 

[ivanhoe]

hmb

"Why don't we use a persons average in handicap to move him foward or back."

Seem to me we already do use their average to move them forward. So if a shooter goes to a big shoot with an 80 average and 800 targets and he shoots a 99 now he has a whopping 82.1 average.

If we are using his average to move him back how would that relate to this situation and how many more time can he shoot this kind of a score before he reaches the trigger point to move him back.

I am just curious as to how it will work?

One more thing there is a provision in the rule for "Special Reviews" and part of it has to do with average.

"A Special Review may be used:

(1) To determine possible yardage increases for shooters showing
high-purified handicap averages on a 1000 target review.

Bob Lawless

 

[hmb]

Bob,

So what you are saying is the system does not work for singles, doubles, or handicap. That is truly a sad state of affairs. I guess that is why the ATA is having a hard time getting people to shoot registered targets. HMB

 

[ivanhoe]

hmb

"So what you are saying is the system does not work for singles, doubles, or handicap. That is truly a sad state of affairs. I guess that is why the ATA is having a hard time getting people to shoot registered targets."

Are you putting words in my mouth? I don't recall saying anything of the sort. I do recall explaining that parts of the rule apply to exactly what you were referring to.

I also recall asking you to explain your position as to the workings of your proposal.

So please don't try to insinuate that I an knocking the class system used in Singles and Doubles. I simply would like to know how your plan would apply to the handicap system.

Maybe you don't have a plan, possibly you are just an idea man.

Bob Lawless

 

[hmb]

Bob,

Read the third sentence of your posting that I responded too. You described exactly what takes place in the singles and doubles class system. What score do you need to win in class C or D at a big shoot? It's just like you said, he shoots a 99 and now his average is a whopping 82.1. HMB