Shotgunworld.com
https://www.shotgunworld.com:443/bbs/

A better way to refer to Shooters in A, B, C, D, or E Class
https://www.shotgunworld.com:443/bbs/viewtopic.php?f=95&t=517088
Page 11 of 11

Author:  lt0026 [ Wed Aug 19, 2020 11:22 am ]
Post subject:  Re: A better way to refer to Shooters in A, B, C, D, or E Cl

Annabelle Ayres can go toe to toe with just about any top shot in the US. But she is the exception, not the rule.

Author:  Skeet_Man [ Wed Aug 19, 2020 11:31 am ]
Post subject:  Re: A better way to refer to Shooters in A, B, C, D, or E Cl

Notice how I never added age into the equation, nor it's attendant physical HANDICAPS. Obviously you can take the best case scenario on one end and the worst case on the other to try and make a point, however I guarantee there are plenty of 90 year olds out there that could beat plenty of 16 year olds, esp if the 16 year old has never picked up a gun before.

oneounceload wrote:
So, if I take a young 16 year old kid who plays sports and is in great shape, and an 85 year old who has been shooting for almost 80 years and have them both shoot two back to back 100 bird tournaments in this Florida 98 degree heat and 99% humidity, you're saying that muscle mass and endurance won't matter? BS


Is or was the 85 year old ever a world class shooter? Do or did they ever shoot as much as the 16 year old? Shooting 100 targets a year for 80 years doesn't mean much compared to someone who shot 80k targets over the course of 2-3 years.

oneounceload wrote:
So, that same gent (who is a friend of mine and closer now to 90 than 80) and has been hunting and shooting for 80 years should be the world champ while a young kid like Joseph Fanizzi, who's been a Master Class shooter since he was about 12-13 or so and goes toe to toe with the very best anywhere shouldn't be that good because, IYO, there's no such thing as innate ability? Again, BS


There's a decent chance Joe has shot or at least seen more targets fly in his life than your 90 year old friend has.

Author:  oneounceload [ Wed Aug 19, 2020 11:39 am ]
Post subject:  Re: A better way to refer to Shooters in A, B, C, D, or E Cl

I doubt it; one of those old gents is in the HOF

Author:  Skeet_Man [ Wed Aug 19, 2020 11:45 am ]
Post subject:  Re: A better way to refer to Shooters in A, B, C, D, or E Cl

Who?

Author:  Skeet_Man [ Wed Aug 19, 2020 11:52 am ]
Post subject:  Re: A better way to refer to Shooters in A, B, C, D, or E Cl

So you’re saying that before the ravages of age, he was able to compete against anyone else? Doesn’t that kinda prove my point?

Author:  oneounceload [ Wed Aug 19, 2020 12:03 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: A better way to refer to Shooters in A, B, C, D, or E Cl

Skeet_Man wrote:
So you’re saying that before the ravages of age, he was able to compete against anyone else? Doesn’t that kinda prove my point?

One was, the other was not. MY point was is that you DO have to factor in some natural ability to go along with time, money, and practice.

Author:  moishepipick [ Wed Aug 19, 2020 12:31 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: A better way to refer to Shooters in A, B, C, D, or E Cl

oneounceload wrote:
Skeet_Man wrote:
Most if not all of the shooting sports are great equalizers.

None of them require exceptional speed, endurance, eyesight, muscle mass, ect.

They are also one of the few sports sectors for which being male vs female offers no clear advantage one way or the other.

Sure, previous life experiences can help with FACTORS in shooting (you played college baseball, so you have a better honed sense of eye/hand coordination, ect), but in my opinion shooting neither involves or requires any innate "talent" or ability that you received by luck, and more so than just about any other athletic endeavor requires mostly time, desire, and dedication. The younger you start is obviously advantageous as well, if for no other reason than giving you the opportunity for more raw trigger time.

If you've already given up because you think everyone else got the magical "talent" at birth and you weren't given any, you've already lost.


Sorry, I do not agree with this.

Quote:
None of them require exceptional speed, endurance, eyesight, muscle mass, ect.


So, if I take a young 16 year old kid who plays sports and is in great shape, and an 85 year old who has been shooting for almost 80 years and have them both shoot two back to back 100 bird tournaments in this Florida 98 degree heat and 99% humidity, you're saying that muscle mass and endurance won't matter? BS

Quote:
shooting neither involves or requires any innate "talent" or ability that you received by luck, and more so than just about any other athletic endeavor requires mostly time, desire, and dedication.


So, that same gent (who is a friend of mine and closer now to 90 than 80) and has been hunting and shooting for 80 years should be the world champ while a young kid like Joseph Fanizzi, who's been a Master Class shooter since he was about 12-13 or so and goes toe to toe with the very best anywhere shouldn't be that good because, IYO, there's no such thing as innate ability? Again, BS

I do agree that being a female makes no difference - Kim win her first Olympic Gold at 16 - so why do we still continue to separate the top women and men?

I think having all competitions mixed gender would do wonders for the sport. I will point out that if there is any reason that women and men can’t compete on a level playing field, then my thesis is proved: there is a genetic underpinning or talent factor that all else is built on. I happen to think it actually doesn’t separate men and women in shooting sports. Which is kind of a shame, because if it did, I would be proved correct.

Author:  GE-Mini-gun [ Thu Aug 20, 2020 9:15 am ]
Post subject:  Re: A better way to refer to Shooters in A, B, C, D, or E Cl

I've only read a couple post in this thread and one thing comes to mind...I remember when people had thicker skin...

Author:  tanks [ Sat Sep 19, 2020 10:17 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: A better way to refer to Shooters in A, B, C, D, or E Cl

Lacyb wrote:
I am a new registered shooter and therefore a "lower class" shooter. I don't really have any problem with that terminology....i do think there a too many classes without enough separation of skill levels between classes.
...


I don't have a problem either as a brand new spanking shooter. I have been a USPSA competitive shooter for a while and familiar with moving up in classes.

That being said, in USPSA just by looking at the scores one can tell the difference in classes in major matches in USPSA. Looking at overall scores they would naturally be grouped by classes with very few outliers.

A friend was shooting at the recent Utah State match, so I looked at the results. The scores for the top 3 shooters in D class were about the same as the top 3 shooters in A, B, and C classes. To me that was puzzling. It seemed there really was not much delineation in scores for classes below AA.

So, I'll agree with the bolded part of the quote above.

Author:  mwr01 [ Sun Sep 20, 2020 8:32 am ]
Post subject:  Re: A better way to refer to Shooters in A, B, C, D, or E Cl

How does USPSA define its classes?

Author:  tanks [ Sun Sep 20, 2020 11:33 am ]
Post subject:  Re: A better way to refer to Shooters in A, B, C, D, or E Cl

mwr01 wrote:
How does USPSA define its classes?


You shoot classifier stages in matches. Average of last 6 that is in your class or higher. The high score (100%) is established by the top shooters in the country. Then based on that < 40% is D, 41 - <60 is C, 60 - <75% B, 75 - <90% A, 90% - <95% Master >=95% Grandmaster.

Major matches like State, Regionals and Nationals also count as a classifier score. You can also get a match bump in class if you shoot 5% above your class in a major match. There are caveats but too much to list here.

Author:  mwr01 [ Sun Sep 20, 2020 12:40 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: A better way to refer to Shooters in A, B, C, D, or E Cl

tanks wrote:
mwr01 wrote:
How does USPSA define its classes?


You shoot classifier stages in matches. Average of last 6 that is in your class or higher. The high score (100%) is established by the top shooters in the country. Then based on that < 40% is D, 41 - <60 is C, 60 - <75% B, 75 - <90% A, 90% - <95% Master >=95% Grandmaster.

Major matches like State, Regionals and Nationals also count as a classifier score. You can also get a match bump in class if you shoot 5% above your class in a major match. There are caveats but too much to list here.


Thanks, have never shot USPSA and wondered how it worked.

Author:  Battue0626 [ Mon Sep 21, 2020 7:15 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: A better way to refer to Shooters in A, B, C, D, or E Cl

GE-Mini-gun wrote:
I've only read a couple post in this thread and one thing comes to mind...I remember when people had thicker skin...


It is the new way....Some college students don't think there should be letter grades. Everyone should either get a pass or fail...For some it is all about feelings....I suppose the more liberal institutions will soon think it makes sense....

Author:  Mule Driver [ Mon Sep 21, 2020 10:57 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: A better way to refer to Shooters in A, B, C, D, or E Cl

It’s amazing where something like this can go. What started out as a suggestion to make newer shooters feel more comfortable, turns into something crazy it wasn’t intended to be.

If you’d rather refer to those in Classes A, B, C, D, and E as “lower class shooters” go right ahead and have at it. No big deal. Most shooters do have “thick skin” and I doubt there’s very many who will get too butt hurt about it.

Personally, I’m going to refer to this group by name, just as a courtesy. And, I’m certainly not a liberal, or anything close to it. This just seems like a common sense concept. Nothing more.

Your ideas may vary.

Page 11 of 11 All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/