Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Hamster

Shoots are too easy nowadays

Recommended Posts

bob

Hi Charles

The dark blue clay is matt unlike the black standard so when the sun shines on it it wont reflect and become  difficult to see.

simples

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sian
1 minute ago, bob said:

Hi Charles

The dark blue clay is matt unlike the black standard so when the sun shines on it it wont reflect and become  difficult to see.

simples

it worked for me although in honesty I only knew it was blue because Tony told me it was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bebo
27 minutes ago, Sian said:

it worked for me although in honesty I only knew it was blue because Tony told me it was.

Was so misty when I shot that stand on Friday morning I couldn't have told what colour it was, just that I could see that one enough to hit it.  Good idea to use something that doesn't reflect the sun, it's a bugger to see them when they turn almost silver in the reflected sunlight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PP

I think if shoots get much harder the mere mortals will start to be put off..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
schmokinn
20 minutes ago, PP said:

I think if shoots get much harder the mere mortals will start to be put off..

Really i am a mere mortal but i miss the bigger targets we used to see,when Purbeck  could actually be bothered to put on proper reg. years ago and Wylye existed i used to enjoy the challenge.

I shoot Southdown regularly but i would say 50% of the targets are to close to be true sporting targets.

Seems to me that it isn't shooting and the ability to hit the target that is tested most of the time now but concentration/focus on close technical targets.

I can find one shoot in 2012 there where i scored 67  at Purbeck probably about right as i shot less and it would have been a reasonable C class score.

Is it possible to go back further in CPSA records?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Hewland
6 minutes ago, schmokinn said:

Really i am a mere mortal but i miss the bigger targets we used to see,when Purbeck  could actually be bothered to put on proper reg. years ago and Wylye existed i used to enjoy the challenge.

I shoot Southdown regularly but i would say 50% of the targets are to close to be true sporting targets.

Seems to me that it isn't shooting and the ability to hit the target that is tested most of the time now but concentration/focus on close technical targets.

I can find one shoot in 2012 there where i scored 67  at Purbeck probably about right as i shot less and it would have been a reasonable C class score.

Is it possible to go back further in CPSA records?

The old website had records to about 2001 I think. They tell me it’s still there, but couldn’t see it and haven’t checked lately. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
schmokinn

Well it appears i can only find scores since i rejoined apparently in 2012!

I can though find scores of somebody else by name all the way back to 1992?

You have to look it up in scores and rankings and go by issue number or scores and then wind the calendar back manually as the drop down only goes back 5 years and whn you get their go back through 70 or so pages clicking next.....WTF designed this crap!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Westward

Over the last 15 years talking with people who run shoots, whether Sunday morning straw balers or monthly registered, I hear much the same story. What matters most to them is happy customers who keep returning and for that they have to find the right balance of big difficulty v big scores. Human nature normally prefers a flattering score to getting dispirited by monster targets so some places vary the difficulty level from shoot to shoot to avoid being labelled and certain grounds that were getting a name a couple of years ago for being soft have certainly upped their level.

At most shoots you only have to hit all the straightforward targets and you've got a score of 75 or 80 right there. :whistle:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jasper

Your average is 80+ then.?😉😀

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tiptop

Issue 15 

  • Scores included from 01/11/1992 to 31/10/1993 
    English Sporting 30 ESP 100.00 to 86.80 86.79 to 82.40 82.39 to 75.10 75.09 to 67.90 67.89 and below

Issue 54

  • Scores included from 01/05/2017 to 30/04/2018
  • English Sporting 30 ESP 100.00 to 87.73 87.72 to 83.58 83.57 to 76.80 76.79 to 70.00 69.99 and below

Looks like the shoots these days are a whole 2 clays (maximum) easier looking at the cut off points..........:wink:

May be the target presentation has changed as the sport, and equipment has evolved, but they don't appear to be as soft as some people might like to think they are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hamster
28 minutes ago, tiptop said:

Issue 15 

  • Scores included from 01/11/1992 to 31/10/1993 
    English Sporting 30 ESP 100.00 to 86.80 86.79 to 82.40 82.39 to 75.10 75.09 to 67.90 67.89 and below

Issue 54

  • Scores included from 01/05/2017 to 30/04/2018
  • English Sporting 30 ESP 100.00 to 87.73 87.72 to 83.58 83.57 to 76.80 76.79 to 70.00 69.99 and below

Looks like the shoots these days are a whole 2 clays (maximum) easier looking at the cut off points..........:wink:

May be the target presentation has changed as the sport, and equipment has evolved, but they don't appear to be as soft as some people might like to think they are.

Just as I found a few years ago when comparing AA cut-offs going back 10 years, the figures blip up and down by practically nothing, certainly not the huge jumps some would have you believe. Also don't forget to factor in the undeniable rise in peoples general skill sets brought about by more of us shooting higher volumes and being exposed to a lot more variety. In the old manual trap days it would have been nearly impossible to set up and pay for twenty different trappers in anything other than major shoots, today it's the norm, in fact it's the norm to shoot 12 stands which would have meant 24 trappers ! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tiptop

But then again........The cut off points were static up until issue 49, when obviously they changed the way classifications were done and the cut off point has slowly risen. Even so, the static cut off points were not that far away.

Obviously a static cut off gave the old baggers a target to aim for.:eek:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Hewland
3 minutes ago, tiptop said:

But then again........The cut off points were static up until issue 49, when obviously they changed the way classifications were done and the cut off point has slowly risen. Even so, the static cut off points were not that far away.

Obviously a static cut off gave the old baggers a target to aim for.:eek:

No Martin, they were never static. Always new each period. Maybe the new site is misleading you? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tiptop
Just now, Will Hewland said:

No Martin, they were never static. Always new each period. Maybe the new site is misleading you? 

As you were then, not as easy/soft as people think. 

I must admit I do prefer the bigger targets, but we all have to evolve with the sport as it moves forward. Whether people think that it is good or bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Westward
18 hours ago, jasper said:

Your average is 80+ then.?😉😀

That'll be the day...🤣🤣

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Steve Lovatt

What I am trying to get at is clays need to be enjoyable to shoot at , give shooters of all ages and abilities time , vision and interesting combinations to shoot at , in my own opinion nowadays far too many are just flung up sky wards left to their own devices and fall away or as an opposite hammered into the floor at about 20 yards off the trap .

ive never looked at cut off points , not a clue what my average is and to be honest I don't care , I want to shoot good sporting presentations and I'm sure there must be another 160ish people in England that want to do the same .

we are always going to get one person that goes daft on a day with a score example mr Myers in a shoot off I did at the Classique last week shot 9x10 on a 70 yard battue and a 80 yard battue , but you wouldn't want to see that as a stand on a normal course , would you ????

see you at Westfield this Sunday for a sporting course with good combinations oh and yes £100 first in each class 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
shootinguru

A lot of these coloured clays are bad sellers!grounds get them cheap so they use them! False economy?

 

A lot of these coloured clays are bad sellers!grounds get them cheap so they use them! False economy?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nimbusgb

Add to all of the above that these days there is a wealth of help available to help a participants shooting, books and videos, people are more used to using coaches and even sports psychologists. Eyewear has improved. Guns and cartridges may have improved. Even the reliability of electric traps over the old manual trappers which contributes to mental attitude may have affected scores.

Given all the above it's bloody surprising that averages have not gone up by 10 or more! I'd say targets have actually made very little change in scores, peoples approach to shooting has changed dramatically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JER2
On ‎6‎/‎5‎/‎2018 at 3:25 AM, charles275 said:

Be interesting to see how the top Americans do at Churchills !!... 

If recent history is any measure, there's a good chance of a three-peat.

Our top guys are shooting incredibly well.  I had the pleasure to be squadded with David Radulovich on a 50 target FITASC side event a few weeks back.  I wouldn't put it past Team USA to do a three-peat on the World FITASC too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FreeShot

There is a European Championship this weekend in Piancardato (FITASC tho) - will be interesting how it turns out. I was there in spring and HOA managed to get 182/200, only 3 managed above 180 and only 10 above 170...it was hard enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bill.rosa

Try podimore

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hamster

Oops 😂  lost another "friend" who hates facts. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wonko the Sane

Just like here, in sporting and trap both the Holy Average and class assignment have become the goal of losers and the target "managers".  The concept of some meaningful "average" in sporting in totally ridiculous as there is no standard field of fire to base it on.  Judicious selection can make for impressive, or the opposite as desired, averages that contain no real indication of ability.

As I have mentioned many times and in many places the only class system that has any relationship to reality is a placing points based system.

 

As to the OP question, I think that the obvious wins of big time events by a  relatively few individuals points out that "high averages" by others may not be indicative of skill and soft courses whether they exist or not have no influence on who wins Big$ events.  Ah, well.  What it really comes down to it seems is that if a shooter wants to fixate on average then that is a fine goal.  I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nimbusgb
13 hours ago, Wonko the Sane said:

 The concept of some meaningful "average" in sporting in totally ridiculous as there is no standard field of fire to base it on.  

Golf seems to manage it pretty well. Different courses, altitudes, weather, grass, terrain and a hundred other variables for every round. And yet they seem to come up with a pretty workable handicap system.

The secret is in handicapping the course as well. 

If the results off a days shoot don't fit a standard distribution then everyones results are adjusted until they do fit before feeding in to the classification system. 

I straighted my local club shoot twice in two years. 50x50. In 4 years I've never come close to straighting a reg 100 ........... not by a long way. I'm under no illusions that I'm an A class shooter on anything but that local shoot. If scores from that shoot were included in classification calculations I would be though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hamster
14 hours ago, Wonko the Sane said:

Just like here, in sporting and trap both the Holy Average and class assignment have become the goal of losers and the target "managers".  The concept of some meaningful "average" in sporting in totally ridiculous as there is no standard field of fire to base it on.  Judicious selection can make for impressive, or the opposite as desired, averages that contain no real indication of ability.

 

Whilst I agree the system has room for improvement, as ever studying actual figures will prove that it is perfectly possible to rely on it as it is to separate the men from the boys https://www.cpsa.co.uk/rankings/search?issueid=39&disciplineid=2&classificationid=&categoryid=&adjtargets=1000&mingrounds=5&membershipno=EE65335

Every one of those names will be familiar to the more experienced shooters and if you care to flick through the pages you will come to the inevitable conclusion that DESPITE its flaws and the "logical" critique of the non standardised format for ESP (that's the whole point why we love it in the first place) making classifications a lottery, the facts on paper tell a very different story to assumptions. 

The reason is of course in the concept of "averages" itself, meaning that in the end so long as you select a fairly representative number of targets V grounds shot (1000 & 5 in this case) then things will average out in time, everyone gets the odd easy floppers day as well as a "hard" one, poor performances that are below your accepted norm are also dropped out to make figures more genuine. 

Sorry but I'm afraid there really is no conspiracy out there with people who seemingly gather around "easy" grounds to falsely get themselves a higher class than they deserve, not saying there aren't one or two if you spend weeks analysing stuff but certainly not how things are in real life. There perhaps used to be a case where the better shots binned their poor cards but even that is now no more, I always personally thought people did it out of embarrassment but accept it may have had more to do with sponsorship in some cases. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×