Shotgun Forum banner

A better way to refer to Shooters in A, B, C, D, or E Class

13K views 211 replies 42 participants last post by  Mule Driver 
#1 ·
The recent thread "what can we do to support lower class registered shooters" got me to thinking after someone mention in a post there that "first of all, don't refer to them as Lower class to begin with".

I think that's a very good point.

I'm personally not into being or worrying about being Politically Correct. Never been much of a thing to me. Prefer to be just like Howard Cosell and "tell it like it is". But, calling another shooter "lower class" doesn't set well with me.

But, I couldn't come up with another good name of reference, either. In a recent article in ClayShooting USA magazine, the author of an article used the term "lower level shooters", which I think sounds and feels better.

Anyone else given this much thot? If so, come across what you might think would be a better way to refer to these shooters who are looking to be the next George Jefferson and "are movin' on up".
 
#177 ·
Lt, I served on the board and have a lot of friends still there. NSCA ain't perfect , but they do an OK job for an almost all volunteer unit.

I assure you that everyone on the board is devoted to the game and each in their own way is trying to do a good job.

PLUS they are it. No other entity offers what they offer. And the target tax is tiny.

Some well meaning people (incl friends of mine) have tried a few new things. And the good clubs are working daily to make things better.

It ain't all bad. Buck up.
 
#178 ·
The best parts of the entire shooting experience occur because of the clubs and shooting grounds that throw our targets and the other shooters we share it all with

NSCA is just the basic structure behind the scenes. In my opinion the NSCA does a decent enough job providing base services and record keeping. I don't look for anything more than that.
 
#180 ·
NSCA board members are not consulted by NSSA for decisions on paid staff.
 
#183 ·
sera said:
NSCA board members are not consulted by NSSA for decisions on paid staff.
Exactly my point. Again from the Charter: Notwithstanding the terms of this Charter or the NSCA Rules and Regulations, ultimate approval
and authority with respect to all governance and operations of the NSCA will rest with the NSSA
Executive Committee. The NSCA was gutted aa few years ago with the Charter change and all the NDA activity.
 
#184 ·
I'll ask the question more pointedly since it hasn't attracted an answer thus far: What exactly are the national delegates doing if not taking time to visit shoots and going down their list of new members, seeking them out and asking about their experiences thus far?

If new members were of any sort of importance to NSCA i would think this should be an absolute must do for the delegates.
 
#186 ·
Battue0626 said:
Some of the top group are shooting 40,000 to 50,000 shells per year counting practice. I hear more than a few say they are born with skills most don't have. Yea they do, it's called effort. And that thing called money unfortunately.

Any that practice seriously and pay their dues with normal ability should blow thru the D, C and B rather quickly. Staying competitive at the big shoots in AA and Masters is were the "shooters" separate.

Then age kicks you, and you have to complete against the McGuires and Duffy's in Veterans, because the young bucks have essentially kicked them of the top 10 to 20. But they are still out there digging for every target.

You gotta have the heart for it. Other than just accept it as a weekend of screwing around and accept the class you let yourself reside in.
You are just plain wrong. There are differences in talent, not just in effort. Unless you think this game is somehow different from every other...
 
#188 ·
True, but excellent eyesight is something that does make a difference, and some folks are born with the eyes of an eagle..........
 
#189 ·
oneounceload said:
True, but excellent eyesight is something that does make a difference, and some folks are born with the eyes of an eagle..........
Very much agree. But I've known some true champions in many shooting disciplines that are blind as a bar. Not many, but it can be overcome.

I'd still rather inherit good peepers.:)
 
#190 ·
Rooster booster said:
No one is born with many of the 'talents' to whack clay targets Mooshie.......
Nah.... I'll disagree. I think there are many that have the talent spoken of. Its what people do with it. Hard work and education can overcome talent deficiencies, Couple hard work, desire, education with talent....now you're cooking. Getting the most one can with what you've got, is a cool thing.
 
#192 ·
Well, no matter how hard I work at it, I can't sing a lick. I'm sure there are many ball players that work just as hard as Mays ever did.....but being a 5 tool player you don 't see often. Heck, look at Machado. If he worked or had the right attitude he'd be in a class all by himself....he gets by, on talent. Now Trout? He's what Machado could be.
 
#193 ·
moishepipick said:
Battue0626 said:
Some of the top group are shooting 40,000 to 50,000 shells per year counting practice. I hear more than a few say they are born with skills most don't have. Yea they do, it's called effort. And that thing called money unfortunately.

Any that practice seriously and pay their dues with normal ability should blow thru the D, C and B rather quickly. Staying competitive at the big shoots in AA and Masters is were the "shooters" separate.

Then age kicks you, and you have to complete against the McGuires and Duffy's in Veterans, because the young bucks have essentially kicked them of the top 10 to 20. But they are still out there digging for every target.

You gotta have the heart for it. Other than just accept it as a weekend of screwing around and accept the class you let yourself reside in.
You are just plain wrong. There are differences in talent, not just in effort. Unless you think this game is somehow different from every other...
You can think I'm wrong, but none has ever reached the pinnacle of their chosen field on talent. In Sporting many mention eyes, and good vision certainly helps, but as another mentioned there are many top shooters with average vision. It is also the excuse of those for one reason or another never make it close to the top.

Repetition and instruction is the key. And the sooner it starts the better, because at a young age the developing brain is a sponge. An infant brought up in a home were multiple languages are spoken, will learn all of them..It is the rare individual that will ever become fluent in Russian if they start when adult..

I talked with Wendell Cherry and he mentioned he has shot over 1 million rounds in practice.There is the repetition, and he also has taken lessons and has been instructed and applied-ingrained-the foundations of shotgun shooting Then there are the tricks. Tricks being a better or easier way to shot specific targets. And the top guns often still take instruction from each other.

Would be a boring book for many, unless one is interested into how the prodigies are made.....and they are made....

It addresses the fact that shooting is no different than any other skill or sport...Be it playing the violin or shooting..And shooting is a skill....a made skill....Most never even come close to making the required commitment to being the best they can be.



In endeavors that require speed or strength, there are those born with the advantage of slow or fast twitch muscle fibers, which most definitely would be a DNA advantage depending on the sport. Shooting falls in neither situation.
 
#195 ·
moishepipick said:
I agree that none has ever reached the pinnacle on talent alone. But I also believe none has ever reached the pinnacle without it.
Much depends on ones definition of talent....Is talent an innate gift that is obvious....or possibly a latent gift that was never nourished at a young age and subsequently died...

Number two is my horse...It is way many children of skilled athletes or violin players become skilled themselves..The talent is given a chance to develop by close association and early instruction from the parent when the brain is a sponge.

Running fast is an example of a fast twitch muscle talent some are born with..Many other skills we are not born with, shooting being one, they are essentially made....

Addition: I agree with you that there are those born with talents that apply to shooting....But i think there are more great shooters who had nothing more than average ability, who were fortunate enough to have been given the opportunity and instruction, combined with their desire, which enabled them to be the equal and exceed the more naturally gifted.
 
#196 ·
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.
 
#197 ·
Skeet_Man said:
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.
Bingo!
 
#198 ·
Skeet_Man said:
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.

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

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?
 
#200 ·
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 said:
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 said:
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.
 
#201 ·
I doubt it; one of those old gents is in the HOF
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top