Trapshooters Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
41 - 60 of 107 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,950 Posts
dverna,

I believe that the master class at big shoots should receive 10% of all the money played in all the other yardages. However, all the competitors in master class should have to shoot on master class squads that go out last so that the majority of the other shooters can watch the "big dogs" compete head-to-head against each other.

The concept of actually having spectators come out and watch the master class squads might encourage some sponsors to start purchasing some of the real estate on the backs of the big dogs.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,706 Posts
Neil if you can't phase them with intelligence, dazzle them with Bulls*it.



1200fps is not Bullsh*t it is plain fact. As well as 3 Hole Targets





Gary Bryant
Dr.longshot
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
995 Posts
I thought the 3 hole target did spread the winning of handicaps events out to more different shooters at the Grand and State shoots that year. Maybe Neil's stat's would prove that wasn't true but that is the way I remember it.

The graph shows shooters did not like it but that bit of a boycott might not have lasted. I would have liked it to have seen a longer test period for the wider target. My main point is try something! You can always change back like they did in that case if you have to. To do nothing year after year is ridicules, they knew they had a major problem back in 1995.

I shot a 99 from 27 yards in the Krieghoff handicap at this years Grand I was not even high in my squad, the game has changed.

Neil put a graph up that shows the attendance at the last 3 Grands at Sparta and everyone will know how bad the problem really is, we are losing shooters like crazy.

My thanks to Phil Kiner for stirring this up, it makes for great reading and it might produce some changes in future years.

Terry.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,941 Posts
Terry, it spread it out some places. Not others, where it was, if anything worse. In all, you couldn't point to one outcome or another.Or, or course, maybe it didn't do anything at all and all of us were confusing natural variation with an "effect" either way.

Jim, you asked:

"... Neil, is there any rule in our rulebok that was written after such a study was done? It seems to me that you are requiring an exhaustive study to fix a problem that was created by anecdotal evidence at best. "

The answer is yes, and I did it. It was the long trek to establish whether chronographs (and later radar guns) could set targets to match our existing rules. Phil will remember when I drove from St. Paul to Denver and arrived Saturday evening of the last even at the Mile High. I tested high-altitude targets' speed vs distance, drove home the next day. I took all the results and published them in two issues of T&F with all the detail so an interested shooter could replicate my results.

The results were contrary to then-current theories (except Phil's; he predicted at the club that day that there would be no altitude difference.) Jerry Hauser rented a high-performance radar gun and repeated the tests in Arizona and confirmed my findings.

It took many, many thousands of (my) dollars and seven years. But it was a case where a study _was_ done. I consider it the gold standard of rulemaking among technically-grounded regulations. Not all are, of course. In fact, as you infer, in most cases what's done has just been what seemed like a good idea at the time. And sometimes it was. But the change of Vet from 70 to 65 was a case when a bit of analysis beforehand would have avoided a lot of trouble.

Neil
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,473 Posts
Thanks Neil, of course I remember now, all the painstaking work you did to get the rule in the rule book. But, you knew there would be a but, there is no hunan error to take into consideration like there would be for any study that would try to prove a definitive outcome for a change in the handicap rules. Thanks for the reply. Jim
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,782 Posts
We should remember also, the prior increased yardages from the 23 to the 27 over the years was mainly due to shooter improvement alone. When the 27 yard line was mandated in 1955, shooters still used cardboard and felt wads behind softer shot than we shoot today. It took 9 years or so before anyone broke a 100 from the 27 yard line during that time frame? It wasn't till 1965 that shotshells and harder lead became available to reloaders, hence the scores were drastically improved with Winchester's AA one piece wads and the door was opened to more consistent scores due to that improved advancement in loads.

In my humble opinion, our change to an easier format brought on by or through a cheating scheme by some club operators was a drastic mistake! Beginning in 1965, the scores and averages climbed overall and should have been watched by those elected to watch over the well being of our sport! History says they should have increased the yardage again not long after all the ammo improvements and high handicap scores became the norm.

After going in reverse with so many rule changes toward easier feel good shooting, our sport may not survive or even grow at all. We've taken away something our sport needs, to attract new shooters to the game for the long haul. We absolutely have to dispel the notion they have (right or wrong) that our game is one of perceived perfection!

With all the ammo and specialized gun improvements our sport has had since 1965, a two yard addition may not even be enough! Considering all those improvements, it may take even more drastic measures to dispel that notion and right our sport!

If you personally think nothing is wrong with our sport, you're correct! If you think we have room to improve it or grow it by whatever means necessary, you too are correct! Doing nothing has never been considered an improvement in anything!

Hap
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,593 Posts
t jordan

"My main point is try something! You can always change back like they did in that case if you have to. To do nothing year after year is ridicules, they knew they had a major problem back in 1995."

Terry I will agree they felt they had a problem but it would seem to they didn't feel that the target angle was a sufficient reason to leave the rule in place.

After saying that what would be the effect of changing it again for a longer period of time. If the results were the same and then it was put back.

There is always the possibility that those that do not wish to shoot the wider angle targets will not come back at all. That of course would have the opposite affect on attendance.

Bob Lawless
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
995 Posts
Bob.

I am not saying that I think it was the answer but I personally would have liked to have seen results over another year.

A lot of shooters were thinking about it way too much and complaining to everyone about it from day one. You know when anyone goes to the line with that kind of attitude that their scores will suffer. I remember lots of the All-Americans at the meet the All-American party at the Grand wearing t-shirts that said "a 3 hole target needs a bit more lead and less whining"

There was not a lot of talk back before the rule was put in amongst the average shooter that they were trying to fix the handicap problem. Most shooters just figured that the executive personally shafted them.

That same group will still bitch with less shot, slower loads, faster targets or sharper angles. The only move that will keep that group from bitching will be adding a couple more yards of concrete.

Terry.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
840 Posts
Ok guys since no one else has approached this, I will put it out for your consideration. I'll let you guys crunch the numbers, I just got the data.

Western zone has 11 delegates. 8 of these are on 27 yd. 2 have avg over 90, 5 are 85 to 90, rest are below 85.

N W zone has 10 delegates. 8 of these are on 27 yd . 4 avg over 90, 4 avg 85 to 90, restnot on 27

S W zone has 8 delegates. 5 are on 27. Of these 4 avg over 90, 1 avg 89.20. 3 not on 27

Southern zone 9 delegates. 6 on 27 yd, 2 avg 90 plus, 3 avg 85 to 90, 1 below 85, and 3 not on 27.

N.E. zone 11 delegates. 6 on 27. 4 avg 90 plus, 2 below 90, and 5 not on 27.

Well before I get corrected I missed a delegate some where but to make the sumations, of 49 delegates, 33 are on 27 yd, 16 avg 90 or better.

It is my contention that if you dont avg 90 at your assigned yardage you are not competetive at that yardage. Now then We actually expect those people that have given their time and money (it aint cheap being a delegate) to strip themselves from the presteige of being on the 27. Obviously some have accepted reductions or have not yet made it back to the fence, plus lets not forget the good ole boy factor of those that are delegates, and figure that those who are at 90 plus arent going to cause any ripples (dont make waves) amoung those who aren't competetive. We ain't likely to get any votes to cure these inequities until we can get those we elect as delegates to let go their egos. Just like in congress, I hear you but I'll vote the way I want.

Just my 2 cents

Bob W

PS check and see where your delegate rates on the over 90 or undr 90.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,593 Posts
Terry

"The only move that will keep that group from bitching will be adding a couple more yards of concrete."

Well terry I am beginning to believe that more concrete might be the only real solution to the problem. Unfortunately when you look at the records from the past. I think maybe a couple of yards may not be enough.

I lot of people talk about the move from 25 yds to 27 yds they say it was because the top shooters of the day were breaking to many top scores. Others say it is because of one man.

When the change was made the first shooter on the 27 happened approximately 6 months after the change. BTW it wasn't the man that e some say the rules were changed because of.

Now the big question I have is if the Big guns(Big dogs which ever you prefer)of the day were shooting the kind of scores that we are seeing now. Why did it take 9 years for someone to break 100 from 27 for the first time. It fascinates me that is for sure.

To elaborate a little more if it took 9 years for the first hundred what kind of scores were they breaking. The score that got to the 27 first was a 97 and by all that I have read here. By todays standards that is a shabby score?

Makes you think doesn't maybe just a little bit.

Bob Lawless
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
863 Posts
t jordan

Two notes about the 3 hole target.


1) You may not be aware but it wasn't just tried for just one year. I shot from 1965 until 1981 and shot nothing but 3 hole targets. The 44 degree included angle (3 hole target) was the rule for over 50 years until it was changed to the current 34 degree included angle in the mid 1990s. That said there is plenty of history available if you take the time to look.


2) I have posted the following several times. It's the number of the non-27 yard shooters that were listed in the top 100 handicap averages in the average book.


The format is Year-----number of non-27 yard shooters-------active members


You can draw your own conclusions.


Jerry Hauser


1972--- 86 ---- 46610


1973--- 54---- 49206


1974--- 55 --- 48734


1975--- 45 --- 46964


1976--- 18 --- 46800


1978--- 38 --- 46560


1979--- 40 --- 43200


1980--- 54 --- 38400


1981--- 64 --- 37680


1982--- 59 --- 35760


1984--- 27 --- 37320


1985--- 35 --- 36120


1986--- 22 --- 36840


1987--- 15 --- 36600


1988--- 15 --- 36480


1989--- 12 --- 37320


1990--- 10 --- 41040


1991--- 8 --- 40080


1992--- 6 --- 39840


1993--- 2 --- 39480


2000--- 7 --- 38880


2001--- 9 --- 39600


2002--- 7 --- 38880


2004--- 2 --- 36360
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,593 Posts
texaszephyr

" Obviously some have accepted reductions or have not yet made it back to the fence, plus lets not forget the good ole boy factor of those that are delegates, and figure that those who are at 90 plus arent going to cause any ripples (dont make waves) amoung those who aren't competetive. We ain't likely to get any votes to cure these inequities until we can get those we elect as delegates to let go their egos. Just like in congress, I hear you but I'll vote the way I want."

So are you saying that because your average is 90 plus(vague in this discussion)they won't vote in favor of the proposed changes. BTW all 16 of them coupled with those that aren't on the 27 and then the good old boy factor fits into them also not voting according to you the way they are told.

So with the possible exception of 16 delegates you figure that 33 get their butts kick on a regular basis by the top 50 shooters in the country. And for reason that range from the prestige of being on the 27, to good old boys club also their egos. We are not getting enough votes to cure the inequities in the Handicap system.

They are saying Screw you guys we like getting our butts kick and we aren't going to vote to change it just because you tell us to.

I have a problem with this line of thought I would be more likely to believe that they aren't getting these signals from their state associations. I know I have not seen it presented at my State Association meetings.

Has it been presented at your State Association meetings?

Bob Lawless
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
840 Posts
Bob How prestegious is the AA27AA pin I know it is one of the goals that most shooters try to obtain. If we chaange the top yardage, that goal will have no meaning since it will be no longer the standard to be accomplished. If you arent shooting for the money, then it has to be the personal satisfaction, comraderie or just the wonderful smell of burnt gun powder. Have you noticed that there are some that post here who are strongly against any change. It is a mindset "dont mess with my game" I like it just the way it is. It is human nature to be resistant to change. I feel that my delegate would not be against going back to the wider targets, Im not so sure that other delegates woould be willing to do that, and would not persue a program to do so. Lets face it by and large the majority of the shooters in ATA dont care what or how things are done. If it's something they dont care for, they'll bitch n moan for a while, but most will keep on shooting. On the other hand if their delegate suggests a change most will gladly follow his lead. In our state, our president usually changes from year to year. Our delegate has been the same for seveal years. Face it, The delegate is truly the leader of our state organizations, The go to guy for questions, and the one we look to to take care of us. I dont think that anyone in our stte would go to our delegate and tell him "look this is how we want you to vote". I just dont see it happening here. Your state may be different but I dont really thiink so

Bob W
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,388 Posts
Why are you worried about the non-competitve 27 yarder. Why do you care where the delegate shoots. What damage are they doing other than pissing off some you. They certainly are not hurting the sport and it's their money. If you worried more about yourself you would be better off.

Personally make them as tough as you want and I'll decide if I will compete or not. I really don't care where or how you throw them though as I will keep shooting the bloody things as long as I can let go of a trigger.

Don
The YOYO shooter, some days up, some days down but having fun everyday.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
10,106 Posts
Don, I'll bet over 90% of the shooters who complain about non-competetive 27yd, shooters never sniffed at the fence in their entire short lived shooting career!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,593 Posts
texaszephyr

"Bob How prestegious is the AA27AA pin I know it is one of the goals that most shooters try to obtain. If we chaange the top yardage, that goal will have no meaning since it will be no longer the standard to be accomplished."

I have a hard time figuring out where people actually stand on the issues as I read statements such as this. First of all I am hearing that we made a major mistake when we made the target angles easier and it was the ruination of the sport.

Then you accuse the people that represent us in the national association(ATA)of standing on the prestige of AA27AA. Well tell me wouldn't it be just as prestigious to be AA30AA or AA29AA not mention more challenging?

I mean isn't that what we have been discussing all this time? Putting the difficulty back in the game you know three hole targets, more concrete, smaller payloads.

AS far as your stand on the Delegate is concerned I don't agree but that is why we discuss thing. You said:

"The delegate is truly the leader of our state organizations, The go to guy for questions, and the one we look to to take care of us. I dont think that anyone in our stte would go to our delegate and tell him "look this is how we want you to vote". I just dont see it happening here. Your state may be different but I dont really thiink so."

Well my contention is if your take on the Delegate position is truly as stated above then you don't have a Delegate and you don't need a BOD you have your Delegate to make your decision for you.

The way I see it if the shooter in my state association think that something needs changing and go to a meeting at their club and vote to change it. Then instruct their club delegate to vote that way at their State meetings and the club Delegate does as he is told. The Delegate over rides that vote(with out the issue being changed)I think the state Delegate is going to catch some Flack in this state. I don't know about yours.

Bob Lawless
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,719 Posts
Neil, I have a question, actually two.

What kind of study was performed and by who/whom before a decision to establish present degree of flight path was established?

Second, what type of study was performed prior to mandating the 1290 fps ruling on 1.125 loadings??
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,593 Posts
Barry C. Roach

"Give up the "more concrete" solution. It will never pass muster."

Well what would you expect the cure that has been used in the past with success now won't pass muster.

Bob Lawless
 
41 - 60 of 107 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top