CPSA Rankings

[Salopian]

To quote ips,

' I am not sure to what you refer but I can tell you that cheating in any way in trap is virtually impossible.'

Sorry ips  but it is possible to cheat with your classification at Trap,  it is done all the time and if I told you who by and how, you would never believe me.

 

[altnipper]

way I read that was not calling Guierini Guy fat I think he meant that we don't want to be in a position of not competing just so some people don't feel left out as they can't compete. I don't think it was a personal comment?

 

[Guerini Guy]

My friends just call me "cuddly"  :wub:

 

[Lock Stock & Barrel]

is it right that shooters who have only shot 100 or even 200 targets in a discipline should be ranked at all. Each year we see shooters ranked no 1 in something having only shot one comp surely this is not right. The top 20 listing has the right idea a minimum 500 (I think) from a minimum of 3 grounds now that gives a better indication.

If you look at your ranking in a given discipline and remove these one off shooters you may be suprised were you are in reality.

Even the top 20 are a joke. Look at some of the people who get in and they shoot 3 local grounds god knows how many times and thats it. Make it 2000 birds from 6-7 grounds and it might be half sensible.

Whilst I'm all in favour of variety and learning one's craft, whether an entry-level shooter has shot 1 ground or 17 grounds is, I suspect, largely immaterial - the only criteria on which they can and should be judged is, "can they shoot and how many?"

If they can nail every bird at their local ground with a metronomic repetitiveness which borders on the boring, then they stand to be caught out at the next new ground at which they shoot, surely?

 

[SP Clay]

I think a removal of rankings below a thousand shots would at least help counties establish some of their better shooters for team selection.

Back on thread

Now up to top 30 in Cheshire

Now for some more criteria to get me in the team!

 

[ips]

To quote ips,

' I am not sure to what you refer but I can tell you that cheating in any way in trap is virtually impossible.'

Sorry ips but it is possible to cheat with your classification at Trap, it is done all the time and if I told you who by and how, you would never believe me.

well call of me naive but other than the obvious deliberately shooting cack to end in a low class which personally i never understood then i cant see how. Would be interested to know purely out of curiosity.

A pm maybe ?

 

[Les53]

well call of me naive but other than the obvious deliberately shooting cack to end in a low class which personally i never understood then i cant see how. Would be interested to know purely out of curiosity.

A pm maybe ?

It's known as "sandbagging" Ian. I was accused of it in the old Bisley League back in 1980's/1990's. Basically you intentionally shoot scores below your normal ability/class so as to get into a lower class, that way you have a better chance of a class win or even an overall win based on a handicap system. It's often done if the prize money is good or if you want a tin cup or a gong!!!

 

[ips]

Yes i get that les as i said thats the obvious but we are talking rankings so you would have to some how increase your scores or lose the bad ones. I cant see how ?

 

[pete121]

Using our flexible website ‘Rankings’ tool; you can set the minimum targets threshold and in the future you will also be able to set the number of grounds…  

e.g. https://www.cpsa.co.uk/classifications/rankings?submit=1&countryCodeH=EE&memberIdH=44234&issue=43&disciplineId=10&class=&shootingCategory=&countryCode=&regionId=&countyId=49&birds=500

Pete :smile:

 

[ips]

Cool, thanks Will go have a play

 

[Darkside]

So what does everyone think a minimum number of grounds/targets should be? 8 grounds/1000 targets?

 

[Will Hewland]

I would set a realistic rule. 4 grounds 500 targets. Maybe more targets but not more grounds..

 

[Darkside]

8 grounds/1000 targets not realistic? 6/800 as absolute minimum...

 

[Will Hewland]

I guess you have to consider those not living near many grounds. Don't want to force folk to drive 100 miles..

 

[ips]

Depends on discipline. Very difficult if not impossible to shoot more than 4 ot grounds 2 or possibly 3 would be more realistic. Dtl and sporting is a different matter as many many more grounds to choose.

 

[Michael]

So what does everyone think a minimum number of grounds/targets should be? 8 grounds/1000 targets?

As a relative newcomer to English sporting, I think 1000 targets is a sensible starter, some might struggle to do it at 8 different locations however. The point made above about being a 1 ground expert is a good one. We have a straw baler 5 mins from the house, it doesn't change much so it's possible to get very high scores. Other shoots we visit change every month a decent score there means so much more. Shoot as often as possible at as many different venues is our rule, stretch the envelope. As for deliberately shooting a score less than your capable of, that seems pointless to me, low self esteem in my view.

 

[pete121]

For the ‘Top 20s’ depending on discipline it’s either a minimum of 500 (e.g.  OSK) or 1000 (e.g. ESP) targets (to be precise these thresholds are adjusted targets attempted counting towards classification), over a minimum of three grounds.

As you have said, it does very much depend on discipline: taking into account the number of shooters who shoot each discipline, the number who have actually shot over that minimum threshold and the diversity of locations available.   

 

[paulos]

My two-penneth - I think they're all about right as they are for the Top 20, except sportrap. There are so few grounds that put it on regularly that I think the targets threshold should be dropped to 500.

 

[altnipper]

For 'SANDBAGGING' Would you not have to constantly shoot low scores? as the raw average thing by the cpsa should cover those trying to do this? I can't imagine the monetry benefits outweigh the longterm cost of number of shots you'd have to intentialy miss to keep in a lower class, must be very sad way to live your life.

 

[Guerini Guy]

As I have already clearly stated, I don't have an interest in the actual rankings because of the reasons I have previously made. I still stand by my comments but will not go further on here. However, if Ian really wants to know then I can enlighten him by PM - but I still will not name names !

However, I can see that the Rankings may be of interest to some, and that's fair enough.

Now my opinion may be of little concern but, for what its worth, if a ranking system is to be given any creedence, it should be based upon a minimum of 4 x grounds and a minimum of 1000 targets.

If anybody is truly serious about wanting to make a top 20 ranking, then 10 x comps in a year should be very easy to achieve IMHO.