Will Hewland
Well-known member
So.. We had a new level of course difficulty at WLSS today. It came via 14 stands, with maybe two or three being a bit tricky and the other eleven or twelve being properly tough. (Terminology is relative and I relate to the "usual" ESP Reg shoot). What made this shoot so hard was its maintained difficulty. No stand was daft, but there was just nowhere where an inexperienced shot could expect to straight a stand. If you take "market leader" shoots that I know, such as Weston Wood or EJ Churchill, there are usually three easy stands, three pretty tough stands and a middle section that is interesting but medium level. The mixture of medium stands will catch out a beginner but equally an experienced shot should hit most targets.
So, has the industry got it wrong? Should all Registered shoots be as tough as WLSS today? We hear much from shooters on social media about how people enjoyed it, how much it makes you better, how we like a challenge. I have a theory: Those that do well like to talk about it (fair enough, well done them). Those who want to improve know that you do need to be stretched. Another crowd actually feel beaten up but their ego will only allow them to praise the shoot. Another large portion feel horribly beaten up and don't say a word as they don't want to talk about their low ability or failure.
The CPSA average system clearly affects / concerns some shooters. Again, many talk publicly about the quality of the shoot being everything but actually the scores matter to them. I seem to recall that Weston wood was very tough about 6/7 years ago, then they backed it off a bit and entries increased significantly.
I believe the issue is consistency. If EVERY shoot was as tough as WLSS was today then nobody would blink. That would just be how shooting is. Cut off points for classes are based on top 5% being AAA, C class being lowest 25%. These points would just move. The only thing to factor in is that.. well let's say it.. It's more fun to pull the trigger and watch a clay break than to see it fly on undamaged. Certainly for beginners! One top shooter was critical of WLSS today because it did little for encouraging beginners. I believe her opinion was well balanced and untroubled by defensive testosterone.
Just to offer my opinion, I think today wasn't actually an experiment or statement by WLSS. It was just an example of a ground that does not hold regular Reg ESP competitions. They have a lovely ground and can set lovely targets but got it wrong last year by making it too soft. That was an accident. Their inexperience showed again this year by toughening ALL the stands ( rather than three) and not realising that this makes a colossal difference. I'm sure that they had no handle on where the scores would end up last year or this.
I have done about 700 ESP registered shoots and believe that the usual standard we have now is about right, where good beginners hit around 50% and top folk hit 95%. It covers all bases.
So, given that our system needs to cover the needs of all shooters, should we step shoot difficulty up, or is it about right now..? Should ESP Reg shoots properly conform to a similar level of difficulty? After all, we all shoot different shoots on a day, yet the CPSA just receives our score. Should we be advantaged or penalised by our choices of shoot? (As some may know, I devised a grading system that looks at where you place, not how many clays hit, but that ain't going to be adopted, so shoot difficulty remains critical to averages).
I'm sure this debate will turn up nothing new, but it's a chance to vent..
So, has the industry got it wrong? Should all Registered shoots be as tough as WLSS today? We hear much from shooters on social media about how people enjoyed it, how much it makes you better, how we like a challenge. I have a theory: Those that do well like to talk about it (fair enough, well done them). Those who want to improve know that you do need to be stretched. Another crowd actually feel beaten up but their ego will only allow them to praise the shoot. Another large portion feel horribly beaten up and don't say a word as they don't want to talk about their low ability or failure.
The CPSA average system clearly affects / concerns some shooters. Again, many talk publicly about the quality of the shoot being everything but actually the scores matter to them. I seem to recall that Weston wood was very tough about 6/7 years ago, then they backed it off a bit and entries increased significantly.
I believe the issue is consistency. If EVERY shoot was as tough as WLSS was today then nobody would blink. That would just be how shooting is. Cut off points for classes are based on top 5% being AAA, C class being lowest 25%. These points would just move. The only thing to factor in is that.. well let's say it.. It's more fun to pull the trigger and watch a clay break than to see it fly on undamaged. Certainly for beginners! One top shooter was critical of WLSS today because it did little for encouraging beginners. I believe her opinion was well balanced and untroubled by defensive testosterone.
Just to offer my opinion, I think today wasn't actually an experiment or statement by WLSS. It was just an example of a ground that does not hold regular Reg ESP competitions. They have a lovely ground and can set lovely targets but got it wrong last year by making it too soft. That was an accident. Their inexperience showed again this year by toughening ALL the stands ( rather than three) and not realising that this makes a colossal difference. I'm sure that they had no handle on where the scores would end up last year or this.
I have done about 700 ESP registered shoots and believe that the usual standard we have now is about right, where good beginners hit around 50% and top folk hit 95%. It covers all bases.
So, given that our system needs to cover the needs of all shooters, should we step shoot difficulty up, or is it about right now..? Should ESP Reg shoots properly conform to a similar level of difficulty? After all, we all shoot different shoots on a day, yet the CPSA just receives our score. Should we be advantaged or penalised by our choices of shoot? (As some may know, I devised a grading system that looks at where you place, not how many clays hit, but that ain't going to be adopted, so shoot difficulty remains critical to averages).
I'm sure this debate will turn up nothing new, but it's a chance to vent..