Shotgun Forum banner
  • Whether you're a greenhorn or a seasoned veteran, your collection's next piece is at Bass Pro Shops. Shop Now.

    Advertisement
61 - 80 of 106 Posts
xsshooter said:
If Mule Driver was down classed, then the re-classification system failed miserably in trying to get people in the correct class.
I'm not sure if that's sarcasm or not, but I think it probably is.

For the record, my shooting has dropped off the last two years, and I really don't deserve to be in Master Class right now. I have no problem with that, and it's why I WILL NOT refuse my downgrade reclassification -- like many others say they are going to do.

I DO have a problem with the way the NSCA retroactively, after the fact, implemented this reclassification. I think that's wrong, and it's my opinion.
 
And in this case, your opinion is 100% correct.

State whatever the rules are before the season starts, and leave them alone for the remainder of the season. Change them again if needed, but again.....not during the season. Especially not near the end of the season.
 
MD, not being sarcastic.

From what I know of your shooting ability, you definitely are an M class shooter, and in these parts would be the top of the leader board.

If you feel the down class is warranted, then I am not going to question it.

Good luck this year {hs#
 
xsshooter said:
MD, not being sarcastic.

From what I know of your shooting ability, you definitely are an M class shooter, and in these parts would be the top of the leader board.

If you feel the down class is warranted, then I am not going to question it.

Good luck this year {hs#
Thanks for the clarification, Jim. I appreciate your kindness and thoughts.
 
Rooster booster said:
State whatever the rules are before the season starts, and leave them alone for the remainder of the season. Change them again if needed, but again.....not during the season. Especially not near the end of the season.
OK, so let's say the NSCA came out with the 40% rule in the beginning of the year. How are you going to know if you're in the top 60% or the bottom 40%? Are other people going to shoot worse because you're in the bottom 40%, because that's what they'd have to do. Are you going get to the bottom 40% and say "oh ****, I better start winning some punches"? And what would prevent other people from doing the same and keeping you in the bottom 40%?

I don't know exactly when the rule was published, but I've known about it since at least November. Did that affect how I shot or what tournaments I entered? No.
 
I'm sorry, I should have been more specific. in addition to publishing the 'season rules', they should also make available the data, so you can see where you stand each month.

If the system is going to be based on punch volume, rather than raw performance, then yes, I know a number of shooters capable of picking up more punches simply by shooting more.

At least the 'moving goalposts' would be visible. And once again.......I was not affected by this last minute change, but know some fine shooters who were. Until the holiday season arrived (when many throttle back), most M class shooters believed if they had 3 or more punches, they were good for the next year. Please tell us how changing that yardstick after the season was well underway was a good thing?
 
Rooster booster said:
I'm sorry, I should have been more specific. in addition to publishing the 'season rules', they should also make available the data, so you can see where you stand each month.

If the system is going to be based on punch volume, rather than raw performance, then yes, I know a number of shooters capable of picking up more punches simply by shooting more.

At least the 'moving goalposts' would be visible. And once again.......I was not affected by this last minute change, but know some fine shooters who were. Until the holiday season arrived (when many throttle back), most M class shooters believed if they had 3 or more punches, they were good for the next year. Please tell us how changing that yardstick after the season was well underway was a good thing?
So are you saying that everyone should have an entire years notice before changes. That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. They gave us 2-3 months notice that this was coming you only had to have 6 punches in master maybe less in other classes surely that was enough time. Unless your saying guys would get out and shoot more or try harder if they knew about the rule. If so then maybe this new system will generate more shooting.
 
No. What I am saying is you do not change the guidelines during the year. If the system needs changing, change it. Announce it. Show the data to all concerned, and leave it alone for that season.

In addition, the 'number of punches needed' was an unknown. If I was one of the affected shooters, and I decided or for other reasons skipped the last three months of the season thinking I had enough, only to find out I missed the cut by one or two, I would be less than pleased.

Make the rules. Stick to the rules. Publish the data as it pertains to the rules. Leave it alone for at least that season. Stating 'only the computer can determine that number' is an insult. Computers know only what humans tell them to know. Are you saying NSCA couldn't compile a class ranking list that runs during the year showing each shooters punch totals? Sorry, but announcing the change 3/4 (if not later) through the shooting year was bush league at best.
 
marist89 said:
Rooster booster said:
State whatever the rules are before the season starts, and leave them alone for the remainder of the season. Change them again if needed, but again.....not during the season. Especially not near the end of the season.
OK, so let's say the NSCA came out with the 40% rule in the beginning of the year. How are you going to know if you're in the top 60% or the bottom 40%? Are other people going to shoot worse because you're in the bottom 40%, because that's what they'd have to do. Are you going get to the bottom 40% and say "oh sh*t, I better start winning some punches"? And what would prevent other people from doing the same and keeping you in the bottom 40%?

I don't know exactly when the rule was published, but I've known about it since at least November. Did that affect how I shot or what tournaments I entered? No.
It's pretty simple, Jeff.

The NSCA should have formally introduced this system to the membership at the beginning of the season, not at the end of it. What is so difficult about that to understand?

Since last November? That's the end of the season.

I don't think it's unfair to know what's expected in terms of performance before you are judged on said performance. Would I have tried harder if I knew I need to get 6 punches and not 3? Yes, I would have.
 
Rooster booster said:
No. What I am saying is you do not change the guidelines during the year. If the system needs changing, change it. Announce it. Show the data to all concerned, and leave it alone for that season.

In addition, the 'number of punches needed' was an unknown. If I was one of the affected shooters, and I decided or for other reasons skipped the last three months of the season thinking I had enough, only to find out I missed the cut by one or two, I would be less than pleased.

Make the rules. Stick to the rules. Publish the data as it pertains to the rules. Leave it alone for at least that season. Stating 'only the computer can determine that number' is an insult. Computers know only what humans tell them to know. Are you saying NSCA couldn't compile a class ranking list that runs during the year showing each shooters punch totals? Sorry, but announcing the change 3/4 (if not later) through the shooting year was bush league at best.
Exactly.

Couldn't be said any better or clearer.
 
I think the NSCA should consider abandoning the entire class system and go to a lifetime achievement system, say Level 1, Level 2, Level 3, Pro Class. The system should award points based on the shooter's score as it relates to the high score for that shoot with a multiplier based on the number of total shooters participating. Very simple and would encourage all shooters to shoot more to continuously rise to a higher level.
 
REG said:
I think the NSCA should consider abandoning the entire class system and go to a lifetime achievement system, say Level 1, Level 2, Level 3, Pro Class. The system should award points based on the shooter's score as it relates to the high score for that shoot with a multiplier based on the number of total shooters participating. Very simple and would encourage all shooters to shoot more to continuously rise to a higher level.
I think you're on to something here..............you could award points to every place, do well in bigger shoots, get more points. Accumulate over your shooting career X number of points, and you earn X ranking.

I would still have classes, but they would look like this; Young boys and girls, Men and women, old men, and gracefully matured, but still elegant and beautiful women. That's it.
 
REG said:
I think the NSCA should consider abandoning the entire class system and go to a lifetime achievement system, say Level 1, Level 2, Level 3, Pro Class. The system should award points based on the shooter's score as it relates to the high score for that shoot with a multiplier based on the number of total shooters participating. Very simple and would encourage all shooters to shoot more to continuously rise to a higher level.
I like it :D Best alternative someone's come up with that I can recall {hs#
 
REG said:
I think the NSCA should consider abandoning the entire class system and go to a lifetime achievement system, say Level 1, Level 2, Level 3, Pro Class. The system should award points based on the shooter's score as it relates to the high score for that shoot with a multiplier based on the number of total shooters participating. Very simple and would encourage all shooters to shoot more to continuously rise to a higher level.
You have essentially just described the NPR system that was so soundly rejected a few years ago.
 
Mule Driver said:
marist89 said:
Rooster booster said:
State whatever the rules are before the season starts, and leave them alone for the remainder of the season. Change them again if needed, but again.....not during the season. Especially not near the end of the season.
OK, so let's say the NSCA came out with the 40% rule in the beginning of the year. How are you going to know if you're in the top 60% or the bottom 40%? Are other people going to shoot worse because you're in the bottom 40%, because that's what they'd have to do. Are you going get to the bottom 40% and say "oh sh*t, I better start winning some punches"? And what would prevent other people from doing the same and keeping you in the bottom 40%?

I don't know exactly when the rule was published, but I've known about it since at least November. Did that affect how I shot or what tournaments I entered? No.
It's pretty simple, Jeff.

The NSCA should have formally introduced this system to the membership at the beginning of the season, not at the end of it. What is so difficult about that to understand?

Since last November? That's the end of the season.

I don't think it's unfair to know what's expected in terms of performance before you are judged on said performance. Would I have tried harder if I knew I need to get 6 punches and not 3? Yes, I would have.
The system has not changed in the over 20 yrs. I've been shooting sporting clays as they have always had this end of yr. review. What changed this yr. was they upped the amount of punches required to stay in M class and maybe others classes as well. From what I have gathered this amount may not be determined until the end of yr. or at least late in the yr.
 
Illini Shooter said:
They gave us 2-3 months notice that this was coming you only had to have 6 punches in master surely that was enough time.
You are misinformed on a key point --- nobody knew it was going to be *6* punches until after the computer calculated it -- until then, it was 3 punches, and then a few months ago it was: "an unknown number that only the computer can calculate after the season is over."

That last bit is the nit.
 
JacksBack said:
REG said:
I think the NSCA should consider abandoning the entire class system and go to a lifetime achievement system, say Level 1, Level 2, Level 3, Pro Class. The system should award points based on the shooter's score as it relates to the high score for that shoot with a multiplier based on the number of total shooters participating. Very simple and would encourage all shooters to shoot more to continuously rise to a higher level.
You have essentially just described the NPR system that was so soundly rejected a few years ago.
Exactly and you carried 3 different classes, one for sporting one for sub-gauge one for Fitasc. No punches, no refuse (if I remember right) and a difficult to make top class. Again if I remember right only about 4% of shooters needing about 92% or higher averages to be in the top class..
 
Fitasc2 said:
Exactly and you carried 3 different classes, one for sporting one for sub-gauge one for Fitasc. No punches, no refuse (if I remember right) and a difficult to make top class. Again if I remember right only about 4% of shooters needing about 92% or higher averages to be in the top class..
And wouldn't that be absolutely lovely to have in place up and running right now?
 
With the Level system you would have no more whining, no down classing, not much sand bagging maybe. You will be classed based on exactly the scores you shoot. Shoot with 50 participants and you come in tied for 10th you get 40 points. Come in last you get 1. The bigger the shoots the more points you achieve.
 
61 - 80 of 106 Posts