Proposed new Sporting clays classification system

[tiptop]

Easiest way is to have short irregular cut off points, all based on scores that are already in.

No manipulation, and bang up to date form, people in their right classes.... oh so simple.

All this cobblers about easy/hard shoots, how many times do we hear " I should of done better, hit all the hard ones and missed the easy ones" what a load of toosh.

 

[Guerini Guy]

Interesting stuff. I am already used to a similar system that Will has proposed. 

As many of you will know, I am still lucky enough to shoot Practical Pistol overseas, and although your shooting creates "stage points", which are all then added together after all stages are completed, the final positioning is then dictated as a percentage of the top score.

High Gun is classed as 100% but the bottom score is not 0% (unless of course they scored no points - which is highly unlikely)   -  everybody's score is then processed as a percentage of that 100% score.

It is a system that seems to work fine - at least in that environment.

However, I also see some positives in "tiptop"s idea of creating random cut off points AFTER scores have already been recorded, even though I find his often derogatory language unnecessary.

This would also catch out any alleged "sandbaggers" but would also more speedily elevate those shooters who are genuinely caught up in a lower class than their quickly improving ability.

This system of random cut offs could therefore happen at least three times per year, preferably even four times, and would result in all competitors shooting in a class more representative of their current shooting ability, rather than simply pandering to the apparently easily bruised egos of the top shooters !

I also believe that if shooters were not given a classification at all unless they had shot at least 5 registered competitions in any 6 month period and, until that point is achieved, would have to shoot all competitions (including the bigger shoots such as Essex Masters) as "Unclassified" and not eligible for the High Gun Prize, should there be one. That would certainly sort out a lot of the cheating and sandbagging.

If they want the big bucks then put something in first ?

If shooters wish to trick themselves by obtaining a AA class by only shooting soft shoots, then they are likely to win bugger all in the bigger events anyway !

 

[RobertBeard]

Eh what? My system leaves people in class for 6 months at a time. (Would consider three months) This is not anything like that ghastly Lewis system or any other classed-on-the-day nonsense..

Will

If somebody turns up with say a c class classification or no classification at all and shoots to AA standard do you have a fallback position to enable the organisers to re-classify on the day if the shooter has deliberately kept away from reg'd comps to become a bit of a bandit?

In other words classify the shooter based on an unknown selection of the targets on the day?

Robert

 

[Will Hewland]

Will

If somebody turns up with say a c class classification or no classification at all and shoots to AA standard do you have a fallback position to enable the organisers to re-classify on the day if the shooter has deliberately kept away from reg'd comps to become a bit of a bandit?

In other words classify the shooter based on an unknown selection of the targets on the day?

Robert

I haven't worked out every element, but I would think:
No classification = shoot UC, birds only, you are shooting for fun and to get classified after 5 shoots minimum. Classified on day is daft I think.

Low class shooters will always put in the odd surprising score. Usually this is genuine; due to rapid progress or returning to shooting after a poor health period etc. Not worth the policing and good scores will get them upgraded before long anyway. I suppose you could write in that if somebody shoots x amount above their class three times in a period then upgrade would happen, but the trouble is letting the grounds know. Some struggle to update their data base every six months. But perhaps in a better era of data..

 

[RobertBeard]

Dare I say if you want to put up an alternative you need to have all the angles covered!

 

[ips]

As good a system as this sounds and imo without doubt better than the existing it seems to me that any system in place is never going to have every conceivable angle covered. Only scratch is totally fare and totally closed to any form of management.

 

[Will Hewland]

One of the plus elements of my scheme is that actually it integrates as an update to the existing system. Very little would need to be done from scratch, so lots of the peripheral rules can stay, certainly for the first year (if that ever happens). It's really just a programming change for CPSA I feel.

 

[Will Hewland]

Just thought I would look at the last four counties results (as a mate asked how he would have been viewed under my system).

Under my percentage system, here are the scores you would need to have hit to contribute towards each class at THAT particular shoot:

AAA: 85+ (Top 5% of list)

AA: 82-84 (85% to 95% up the list)

A: 71-81 (55% to 85% up the list)

B: 63-70 (25% to 55% up the list)

C: 0- 62 (0 to 25% up the list)

So, if you had hit a 63, the CPSA would log you as going towards B class. (At an easier shoot this cut off point could well be 70 for instance)

The percentages used are the same as the CPSA use NOW to work out classification cut offs at grading time.

 

[tiptop]

Ahahaha...... Briliant so C class was won with an A class 71, B class with AA 83, and A class with AAA 86.....Ahahaha sorry Will, pmsl nothings changed much then,  still have to shoot a score 2 classes above to win.

Poor old Johnny C class has walked away with a ranking in A class and under the present would only be B class.Quick way to hike everyone up a couple of clases i suppose though.

 

[Will Hewland]

I was illustrating that on average, no, not much changes, which is fine overall. We are not after huge change, just eradicating system dodgers and to balance results from overly tough / overly easy shoots. (Which this one appears not to be..)

I think we have long established that C class will be won with a score that belongs in a higher class. That's progress.

There can be no disproportionate amount of shooters hiked up a class, it's all still done at end of period by percentages, exactly as now.

 

[tiptop]

To be honest Will, to me all it shows is, as long as there is a class structure in place you are going to have to shoot your **** off to win it. Now is that not what the game is all about ???? shooting to the best of your ability, and if you're the best you will win.  :bb:

You will never get rid of system dodgers, fact of life that.

Believe it or not something that is completely random that nobody knows about, or when it will happen(wow didn't see that coming) is the easiest way to eradicte any kind of dodgey goings on, if it even happens at all, and believe it or not it will actually put people in their right class, think about it, its all done on current form none of this cut of date that everyone knows about, and waiting a month before releasing the new classification. Pick dates from x-y, dont have to wait for the slow grounds sending in scores, re-classify job sorted, release the following week. :rtfm:

As for this hard shoot, soft shoot thing you keep on about if someone wants to shoot 'soft shoots' all the time to boost their ego then so beit, but they will still be the ones bleating at the majors that it was to hard, and can't win anything.

Its all topical discussion as naff all will change. :good:

 

[dashman1]

Totally agree enough said atb

 

[Will Hewland]

Not sure you have taken the system on board Martin tbh. It changes almost nothing for the likes of you and I, who shoot lots of grounds on lots of occasions.

And personally I plain disagree that people should be allowed to get into a high class by choosing to shoot just some familiar or soft shoots. Equally choosing only hard ones to stay down a class is not right. Why on earth would you want to condemn a system that nails that issue? You seem to have a dismissive fear of change, which as I say, I suspect is down to not having understood the new system. So, it's easier to condemn it rather than understand it? Sorry if I'm wrong mate but I am struggling to understand your concerns about as much as I believe you are struggling to understand my system..

 

[tiptop]

I've no concerns at all with it Will not afraid of any change, if it ever happens or not we will all just have to get on with it, simple as that.

Surely the person that shoots the so called harder shoots is going to be the person that is more in line with their class, and more readily prepared for the majors, and the big shoots????? :bb:

Its the softer shooters that are not prepared and will do the whining, as they have got themselves in the elevated position so its their own fault.

In fact Will, as for the dodgy shooter they only needs to turn up towards the end of the shoot look at the current H/G, L/G and work out exactly what they have to shoot, and you will still have a cut off point at the end of the classification period, that everyone knows about.

I do see what you're getting at Will about being graded on the scores that are shot at the shoots, believe me.

RANDOM RULES....Will....nobody knows when it will happen, and just let Johnny soft shot get on with it......the people that shoot the toughies will be the people at the top of their game........at the end of the day you still have to bust that clay :biggrin: :hunter:   :hunter:   :hunter:  .

 

[Lee Roberts]

Not sure you have taken the system on board tbh.

Hi Will
Didn't get to say hello today at owls today hope you had a great shoot?
I'm a little confused on the soft and hard grounds.....?
Here is a list : Urchfont , fourcounties, gunsite, western wood, west fields,
Owls lodge, Upavon, churchhilllshoot, coleys, hornet ......
Please could you put these in there categories hard or soft grounds... ?




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Will Hewland]

Hi Lee,

Sorry to miss you mate. It was a good shoot today. No easy stand!

Only a few grounds are consistently hard or easy; by which I mean that they hold high-scoring or low-scoring shoots. Many grounds hold shoots of differing difficulty, so it's not about grounds, it's about shoots (regardless of where they are). Almost any ground I know has held a high scorer and a low scorer at some point. My system would actually allow them to hold varied shoots with less fear of being criticised for it.

"Same for all" is a cry we often hear if we comment to a ground owner if we criticise their shoot for being too soft or too hard. Well, it's only the same for all at THAT shoot, but our present system directly compares those shooters with others at other shoots. At CPSA on Monday morning, our scores are sent in. Imagine that there are two of me, identical twins, same shooting ability. (Horrifying thought I know..) My twin, Will 2, goes to a soft shoot and clocks a nice 94. Will 1 goes to a real toughie and hits 74. The CPSA sees Will 1 as a B class shooter for that days evaluation. Will 2 is viewed by CPSA as a top flight AAA.

Yes, I know it averages out over lots of shoots, but only if you shoot lots of different shoots. Presently, it is up to the shooter to travel round and put in the variety so as to establish a fair average. I just suggest we make every shoot a fair representation of a shooters average by disregarding number of clays hit.

 

[Rob C]

Will its becoming apparent that it is proving difficult to get  a group of shooters on this forum to agree a change to the current system is really needed.  God forbid how anybody expects the governing body to except it.....just saying.

( Do not think they give a toss anyway)

 

[Will Hewland]

It's clear that many shooters don't really grasp the PRESENT system. (I'm not saying they are daft, more that most don't worry or pay attention to the detail). For many if it was changed, they wouldn't notice.

My take is that I believe in my idea because it is SO the obvious way to do it. But I'm not that passionate about seeing it implemented, or I would have been banging on the CPSA door for years. Happy to help them if they see a benefit from it.

 

[Hamster]

You need to write to them officially and ask them to evaluate it, the least they can then do is gauge members reactions and thoughts via Pull.

 

[Will Hewland]

You need to write to them officially and ask them to evaluate it, the least they can then do is gauge members reactions and thoughts via Pull.

What's my fee?