[Border Bandit]

"Now they have to go another step further and readjust their age limits for the Vet category to 65-74 rather than the narrow 65-69. Sub-Vet has a 10 year span...whynot Vet. SeniorVet should be 75 to infinity."

John's proposal would resolve the looming Super Sr. Vet issue, and would eliminate yet another unnecessary category. (I can think of at least 3 they could get rid of, now). Extending vet to 10yrs, 65-75 and starting Sr. Vet at 75 - forever, makes sense to me.

 

[shot410ga]

Not to me as I'm turning 70 in a few weeks.

 

[slide action]

I am DEAD SET against moving SV to 75!!!! How many people are still able to shoot or be competitive at that age ? My guess is not a whole heck of a lot. 75 ????A lot of people (including myself )will probably be DEAD by then!

 

[Ross]

Well given that I'm already 75+ it wouldn't affect me, but I personally know a few older than me that are darned good shots, I'm no competition for any of them. My back problems pretty well take me out of consideration.

 

[Swampjohn]

Slide Action, I doubt you'll be dead by then. Hopefully not anyhow. Look at the current swelling in the Senior Vet ranks. At most of the shoots I attend the SV category has by far the most entrants. Vet, Ladies, Jr classes have very few participants in comparison. Remember 65 is the new 75....there are a lot of highly competitive shooters in the over 75 crowd that will be going strong well into their 80's. Life doesn't suddenly cease at 70. I firmly believe they should revise those categories, yep, you betcha.

 

[o-hale]

Do not see it happening but I could be wrong.
There are a lot of very strong shooters in both Vet and Sr. Vet in my neck of the woods..

 

[slide action]

Slide Action, I doubt you'll be dead by then. Hopefully not anyhow. Look at the current swelling in the Senior Vet ranks. At most of the shoots I attend the SV category has by far the most entrants. Vet, Ladies, Jr classes have very few participants in comparison. Remember 65 is the new 75....there are a lot of highly competitive shooters in the over 75 crowd that will be going strong well into their 80's. Life doesn't suddenly cease at 70. I firmly believe they should revise those categories, yep, you betcha.

I certainly beg to differ. First off, At shoots I attend Sub Vet and Vets GREATLY exceed SVs . Secondly, the Life expectancy for US males is 76 years TOTAL (official figures NOT MINE,) and Many who make it far are not active by that time. Since I have Diabetes and it has killed over 90% of the males in my family by age 75, I'll go with my prediction. Yes there are "SOME" who will make it and be fairly competitive past 75 ,they are not the norm and the odds are against it. They are the Exception ,not the RULE. Also if you look at the obituaries in the back of Trap and Field you will find a host of shooters passing on before 75 and many among those who lived passed it quit shooting long before then! s As far as the swelling of the ranks of SVs ,that reflects the AGING of America in general. WE can argue but, I doubt if you will find wide spread support for your idea and I seriously doubt if the ATA will support it. At any rate we will always disagree on this. Good luck to you and Shoot well.

 

[BIGDON]

Dumb idea. Because there is a significant drop off in skill level after 70 for most shooters. Big difference between a shooter 74 competing with a shooter 65. More medical problems start happening after 70. Why don't you just leave it alone unless you're fearful of some old phart beating your butt occasionally. Leave the categories alone unless you are going to get rid of sub-vet and junior gold,. two worthless and not needed. No we don't need a super senior, they already have that in Florida for some shoots. If they have the SS then let the clubs use it at there choice and don't make it part of the All American program.

As far as the number of older shooters at the shoots you attend. Sadly that's the make up of the ATA today get used to it and it will get older before it gets younger. Lowers the number of competitors you have to beat.

You might consider that a large number of SV's don't declare category because they feel that they are more competitive in class, yardage and have a better chance of winning. Me I'm just screwed because of average, age(76) and yard line (27). Just picking up occasional crumbs. Been there and done that and didn't even get a T-shirt.

Don

 

[Tron]

Who the Hell is swampjohn?

Not to be a Troll or anything.

 

[Jim Tyner]

I say get rid of the age categories and set up weight categories. Just show your shirt label at the classification desk.

 

[jansonuhl]

Colorado has some very competitive and active shooters in the 75+ age group. They are still winning on a regular basis here. I am almost 77 and am not one of them.

 

[Ed C]

Who the Hell is swampjohn?

Not to be a Troll or anything.

He's this guy (from another thread):

I just read in September's Trap and Field in ATA Rulebook reminder that:

"An exception to the above paragraph (that is....must take runner-up award in category rather than class) occurs when the category award at stake is an All-American points pin ONLY. In that case, a shooter may win both a pin and a place (runner-up or lower) class or yardage-group trophy."

If that is correct, it sure addresses a sore point I brought up in a previous thread. Glad they woke up and corrected a shortcoming to one of their directives. Now they have to go another step further and readjust their age limits for the Vet category to 65-74 rather than the narrow 65-69. Sub-Vet has a 10 year span...why not Vet. Senior Vet should be 75 to infinity. I've already written to my Directors (even my buddy Neil) about this a number of times so don't come down hard on me for not following protocol. Good going ATA.

You're welcome!

 

[slide action]

Who the Hell is swampjohn?--------- Evidently somebody who wants to change the rules in order to put "most" older shooters in Vet class until they're dead!