Shotgunworld.com

Bryan,
While this thread is labeled "fix master class" it is really a debate about the class structure and punches. We have used master class to look at the bottom of the class, and those scores as a demonstration of how out of shape the class structure has become. If you look at any of the classes C through Master it's obvious the class rating is not placing folks into a class of their peers.

I also think fewer classes would be better!

For oneounceload and others who are all about this "average" or "handicap" system... there's really only one question as to whether or not it is a feasible option:

Who's going to manage it?

One of our Nat'l Delegates explained the system to me, as he'd heard it, and by 1/2 way through the explanation I was bored and no longer interested in it. Too much detail.

Whatever is done - it has to be simple and easy to use or it won't get used at all.

Since I've been vocal lately I'll chime in again.... In a word, EVERYONE. Truthfully, Most of the masses probably don't need to bother with KNOWING the entire process unless they WANT to learn the minutae of the details... a working knowledge of what it's supposed to do and what THEY need to do for their end of the process to work is all that's needed. Now if you are RUNNING the tournaments, you might just need to learn the whole process. Sorry no free lunch unless you eliminate the classes and handicaps and pay the guy that breaks the most birds..... But that would be an "Open" competition, wouldn't it.

But in all seriousness, A whole lot of this could be set up to be computerized as far as reporting and administration... the bugaboo is whether there are course ratings and who\how would do them... That would end up falling back on those running the tournaments and how honest they are in rating their course....

How hard would it be to manage? You shoot a tournament, you get whatever your score is sent to national. it is then added and averaged with your previous scores for the year. (Call a year from national to national). They you start over. As I said, make it so no more than half can come from one course to prevent some sandbagging - (not like we don't have some of that now anyway), and have the larger shoots like state, regionals, certain big blasts count as 2 or 3 and the Nationals count as 5. That way, someone shooting easy targets all year get his averaged changed somewhat. No punches, less classes. If necessary you could break your basic class into three sub groups - just like school. B-, B and B+ would be something like 80-83.99, 84-87.99, and 88-89.99 or similar.

It would be, IMO, LESS hassle - a simple Excel spreadsheet would handle it

Oneounceload... the only thing I don't like with straight percentages is that it does not account for differences in course difficulty. If the process is to allow one to compete against like ability as well as measure oneself against those who are more skilled then it needs to do this. To use golf as an example again, the handicap used to be 85% of the average of the best 10 of your most recent 20 rounds... now it also takes the course rating into account when calculating so that you get a better indication of your ability given the toughness of any course.

To put it back in shooting terms, an A shooter from "bust yer stones gulch" that throws very hard targets is gonna be a whole lot better - IMHO - that the A shooter from "creampuff valley" that throws soft\easy targets....

Yes simple is usually better, but you will still have shooters in classes that are over their heads if they get easy stuff locally..... depends if you consider this acceptable 'cuz this is basicaly where things are now - just under a different name.

The NSCA already keeps the information on your ranking in your class in every shoot.

I think that all additional information that would be be needed to set up a reasonable handicap system would be a way to rate the different courses as to difficulty. That could be done by the average scores on the course. I think we all could probably agree that if you have say 30 shooters in Master class and the average score is 87 and in some other tournament 30 master class shooters averaged 84, we could find a way to handicap not only the shooters, but the courses and then we could get to what we all want. We could also average the scores for ALL the shooters to get a difficulty rating for that course.

Everyone could have a chance to compete against anyone else. For instance, a "D" class shooter who had a great day could, with the handicap, beat Scotty or Kruger. I think that kind of system could help keep a lot more shooters competiting.

One way to handicap the COURSE, is to use the shooters handicap vs the course. It would take a little while for the input to be valid, but after several months and most shooters "establishing" an average vs. class percentile ranking. ie. Say the "course" average for Master Class ( or even pick the largest class on that day, AA or A ) and that class average( for the course that day) was 82%. Then take the ranking mean of everyone in the choosen class that shot the course that day, and for arguement sake say the class rank( average of all shooters) is 76%. The course was a +6% ( soft ). Or if the class ranking percentile was 88%, the course was -6% ( hard ).

Again it would be easier to "tweak" tha ranking system after collecting data for a period of time.

So you are ranked against the highest 5 scores, class percentile, and then corrected again against the course ranking. A computer progrm would be easy enough to write to accomplish those handicaps. And output a new average for each shooter.

The end result would be a class based on both percentile in class and ranking against the course.

It is not as complicated as it might first appear.

But isn't that a rather subjective, not objective measurement?

Case in point - I now live in FL where hills and mountains are considered the overpasses on the interstate, but we have a LOT of dense green background and tree overhangs (big live oaks) - takes more perception to see in the light/shade transition. Used to live in NV where the one tree is protected by law but mountains are everywhere and distance perception is needed. If you only shoot a certain type, you might do very well, but then go to something as drastically different, even shooting the same targets, and it's going to be a nightmare - so how do you judge that? The course I will be shooting this Sunday can be made as different as night and day, even though the level of difficulty may remain the same. Some targets will drive me nuts, and some will just kick my a$$ silly , but their difficulty rating could vary a lot.

Personally, to keep shooters more honest, I would think that needing a minimum of , for example, 600 targets AND having no more than 50% of a year's total from any one course would help in that regard. Again, adding in a factor or multiplier for state, zone/regional, and national shoots and several strategically-placed big blasts would further smooth the average out and act as an equalizer. KISS management has always worked the best...... JMO

oneounce, it would be based off the top score so regardless of personal challenges, it should wash. The only way to lower a difficulty is if everyone is having difficulty, which returns a harder ranking.

That wouldn't work well either, particularly in smaller shoots where there are only a few "good" shooters in the area. If the top shooter in the area shows up that day, the top score may be a 94, but if he doesn't show up, the next highest score may be an 88.

So, in effect, everyone else's rating on how well they did that day vis-a-vis the "top score" would all depend on whether the top shooter decided to attend or whether he had other things to do that day.

Also, IMO, no "averages" type system is ever going to be voted in in the future because averages don't encourage shooters to shoot more targets. In fact, it may even DIScourage some shooters from shooting in order to protect their average.

The averages wouldnt discourage participation. You would have to shoot several bad rounds for an effect. Our current punch system has already discouraged participation.

Sorry, but I disagree and I don't think that the statistics will bear you out. No one can "lose" any punches regardless how poorly they shoot. It doesn't matter if it takes them 8,000 registered targets to accumulate 10 punches as long as they get those punches within a 2 year period, they can move up to the next class. But, if they were shooting that poorly using the averages system, they would be moving down rather than up.

All you have to do is look at some of the trap shooters who are trying to protect their averages. If it's a little windy, looks like it might rain, range has a poor visual background, or they have the sniffles that day......... some trap shooters won't shoot.

I do know one bad round wouldnt hurt an average. Several maybe, but that is the point. Also, averages works elsewhere - the NSCA is the only system using punches.

I can name you over 20 people at just my club that quit shooting because of the way the class system is setup now, so I know some quit because of it. Would that number be less or more using averages? Couldn't tell you. I personally feel less, but just my opinion.

edit: Just wanted to add another note. If punches works better then use it. If averages works better than use. Don't try to design a system for a handful. It is the same thing when people want changes because some cheats. Address those people and don't make the rest suffer.

I think a system that is setup to truly be competitive on multiple levels would increase participation.

We currently have two clubs close that throw registered shoots - one being more popular then the other. Went to one today (targets only for me), but several WERE shooting for registered birds. All three are in E class, and were the only E class shooters there. They are having a hard time getting punches because there aren't many in their class shooting. One reason I suggested an average - it doesn't matter how many in a class show up - your average gets recalculated every shoot and you move accordingly.

Oneounce, if all three shot in a registered shoot, one should have won and gotten a punch. If all three tied, I believe all three would get punches.

Yes they would!

Who recalulates these averages?

You can shoot in 4 shoot befor any of them are recorded at the National office.

Example: I shot in a tournment last and year and it was 156 days before the club turned in the scores, in that case what effect would that have on ones average?

Let me make it clear, I will be shooting no matter what system is used for classification purpose's, BUT as an example, today I shot an event that would have been an average buster

The targets were difficult (not stupid) it was windy and very overcast - this led to some pretty low scores. I would think that many would be reluctant to shoot these type's of events if a average system were being used.


RTA48

The club I shot at this morning had results posted for both AM and PM shoots by the time I got home this afternoon. They do a great job of things like that, which is why folks like that club.

And yes, one did get 1 punch today; however, not all three make this monthly shoot so most of the time there aren't enough shooters to allow them that. Mega punches at clubs like it sounds you folks in Houston have are great - for your area. However, it doesn't seem that a large percentage of folks who shoot at smaller venues get those opportunities. If those aren't addressed, IMO, you'll see even more folks dropping out in those lower classes. JMO

Declare up to D, problem solved.