Shoots are too easy nowadays

Help Support :

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Hamster

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 30, 2011
Messages
5,197
Location
Kent
A claim I have never adhered to myself but seeing as it keeps raising its comical, nay deluded head, perhaps we could have a little discussion as to why you think that may be the case ?! In preparation I spent a few minutes on CPSA stats and have surmised that during the last period a SINGLE person (Olympic hero RF no less) managed to achieve an average of 95 in ESP, a further 8 shooters behind him broke through the 93 barrier, the total number of shooters in the entire country who have an average exceeding 91 is 27, twenty seven people in the whole country broke 91% or more of the targets they tackled ! (ps. these are based on a min 1000 targets shot by the way which is realistic). Some rather well known names have averages that only just clear 90 ! 

Somebody tell me what I'm missing here because the figures seem to suggest all is well in the world. 

 
From a statistical perspective how do we compare with other countries? Can we even make a comparision assuming like for like events and access to relevant data?  

 
I'm not qualified to answer directly but I know several 30+ year shooters and they all pretty much agree that there are too many vanity shoots these days.
The trouble is with 30+ year shooters is that they are extremely capable shots. Time more than anything is the secret to proficiency in sporting shooting. It’s always those in AAA who say ‘toughen it up and abolish classes”

 
I'm not qualified to answer directly but I know several 30+ year shooters and they all pretty much agree that there are too many vanity shoots these days.
I was hoping for some facts and figures to back up the rhetorics, no disrespect. 😁 I'm a 30+ year shooter myself and can't say the old shoots were anywhere near the technical difficulty of todays targets.

That's not to say there aren't "vanity" layouts in every county but I am talking averages and experienced shooters tackling well know grounds targets across the country. 

 
everything associated with clay shooting  has improved   for the shooter   ( long list )     having said that    I quote chris childerhouse    " the shoots I attend  aint got any easier "

 
The trouble is with 30+ year shooters is that they are extremely capable shots. Time more than anything is the secret to proficiency in sporting shooting. It’s always those in AAA who say ‘toughen it up and abolish classes”
I know plenty of shooters who have shot as long if not longer than myself who struggle to break into A class or have yet to break 90 and if I'm honest I think there are plenty of lower class shooters who jump on the "make'em harder bandwagon when the stats simply don't add up. 

 
Looking at the cut off points from issue 40 to present, there isn't that much difference getting from A to AA, but getting from C/B and B/A the cut off points have risen by almost 3%. Make of it what you will, what ever target presentation is given still needs to be hit. Variety is the name of the game.

 
This sport is affordable to many. There are a lot of shooters around who dedicate themselves to progressing and a lot of good scores come in, but I’m sure the shooting standard has risen in the last decade rather than the courses becoming easier. The class averages have risen in the last decade, but mainly for C class. AAA has barely changed, which you could read as a better general shooting standard.

 
This post obviously comes off the back of a post put on FB by one of the target setters. Why can't target setters just set whatever they think fit, and stop worrying what Billy Big Bollox wants.

 
I did go down memory lane and studied some 10 year old shoot results a while back. I was actually surprised to see that actually I did hit SOME high scores back then, but my average was 10 lower than now. It’s consistency that forms the major part of your average progressing. So when B class gets won on an 87, it’s daft to damn the shoot for it. Look at that shooters scores, it’s usually a PB you’re looking at. 

 
I was hoping for some facts and figures to back up the rhetorics, no disrespect. 😁 I'm a 30+ year shooter myself and can't say the old shoots were anywhere near the technical difficulty of todays targets.

That's not to say there aren't "vanity" layouts in every county but I am talking averages and experienced shooters tackling well know grounds targets across the country. 
I think there are 2 topics here. Old timer "Jethro" certainly didn't have the technical targets, probably because the traps weren't capable enough, but as I understand it, they also didn't get 'gimme' targets and card fillers meaning that 90+ scores were virtually unheard of yet last year I saw results from at least 3 shoots where over 20 competitors shot 90 or better.

It strikes me that the "softer" shoots benefit B/C much more than AAA/AA because there might be 9 or 10 stands of nothing too testing and 2 or 3 really tough stands. The superstars can then shoot maybe 2 or 3 above their average whereas many of the lower classes may well be 10 or 15 above their average.

No names, no pack drill but in the last couple of years I've both shot and reffed at such shoots.

 
I don't get it really. If you shoot well, then bloody well shot. Seems like someone always wants to undermine the achievement.  

So when we go to the EO skeet has someone made the targets harder. Err no.

Kreighoff dtl. Make it harder. Err no.

Yet 100 straights at these events are applauded and you become an instant god.

Shoot 95  at sporting and straight away the keyboard warriors shout "easy shoot"

Usually they have been nowhere near the shoot in question. 

I'm with tiptop on this . Variety.

One man's fat is another man's lean.

Jasper.

 
I think there are 2 topics here. Old timer "Jethro" certainly didn't have the technical targets, probably because the traps weren't capable enough, but as I understand it, they also didn't get 'gimme' targets and card fillers meaning that 90+ scores were virtually unheard of yet last year I saw results from at least 3 shoots where over 20 competitors shot 90 or better.

It strikes me that the "softer" shoots benefit B/C much more than AAA/AA because there might be 9 or 10 stands of nothing too testing and 2 or 3 really tough stands. The superstars can then shoot maybe 2 or 3 above their average whereas many of the lower classes may well be 10 or 15 above their average.

No names, no pack drill but in the last couple of years I've both shot and reffed at such shoots.
Agree John. An easier shoot benefits the C class way more. What we will never know is how a group of shooters time-travelled from 1995 would perform at a shoot of today. It’s a bit like the Stirling Moss or Lewis Hamilton comparison. However, I agree, no point having a shoot where almost all the C class can straight half the stands easily. I often judge a shoot by how many failed to hit 60. If it’s only a handful then the shoot prolly was too soft. The West London Prem shoot that was stupidly tough a few years ago had half the entry failing to hit 60. That’s a better measure than what HG was by far.

 
The cream will always rise. Beat up the little people and you have no shoots . Not viable without the lower classes. 

Jasper.

 
I think there are 2 topics here. Old timer "Jethro" certainly didn't have the technical targets, probably because the traps weren't capable enough, but as I understand it, they also didn't get 'gimme' targets and card fillers meaning that 90+ scores were virtually unheard of yet last year I saw results from at least 3 shoots where over 20 competitors shot 90 or better.

It strikes me that the "softer" shoots benefit B/C much more than AAA/AA because there might be 9 or 10 stands of nothing too testing and 2 or 3 really tough stands. The superstars can then shoot maybe 2 or 3 above their average whereas many of the lower classes may well be 10 or 15 above their average.

No names, no pack drill but in the last couple of years I've both shot and reffed at such shoots.
The reason fewer people hit really high scores back then is simply because there were far fewer shoots available for a start and very few people shot the kind of volume we consider almost the norm today. You were lucky to find one or at best two 50 birders in the old days whereas today many will shoot three different 100 birders in a single day and some will have shot another reg during the week and who knows how many practice. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Agree with Hammy. I shoot with guy who has been round the block😉. He reckons shoots are harder now. But shooters are better now too.

Jasper.

 
This post obviously comes off the back of a post put on FB by one of the target setters. Why can't target setters just set whatever they think fit, and stop worrying what Billy Big Bollox wants.
I won't deny that had something to do with it but this has been on my mind for a good while, I just love blowing myths with facts.

 
Back
Top