Shoots are too easy nowadays

[Hamster]

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. 

[AW13]

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?  

[Westward]

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.

[jasper]

Which of course they all put 100 straights in at 😁

 

[Will Hewland]

5 minutes ago, Westward said:

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”

[Hamster]

6 minutes ago, Westward said:

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. 

 

[Doctor Lecter]

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 "

[Hamster]

2 minutes ago, Will Hewland said:

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. 

[tiptop]

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.

[Will Hewland]

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.

[tiptop]

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.

[Will Hewland]

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. 

[Westward]

1 minute ago, Hamster said:

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.

[jasper]

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.

[Will Hewland]

1 minute ago, Westward said:

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.

[jasper]

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

Jasper.

[Hamster]

34 minutes ago, Westward said:

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. 

[jasper]

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.

[Hamster]

28 minutes ago, tiptop said:

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.

[Sian]

I think there’s a place for all sorts of shoots and I think it’s more a question of personal taste whether you like things on the end of your gun or in the next county or a bit of both.  Balance is the key for me.  Shot the Cheddite the other week and Richard Bunning won only missing 3 of the same bird which was the most difficult on the course.  It would probably be in the Billy Bollox category.  I never got anywhere near it but I enjoyed trying.  What made it a good shoot and okay to be spanked by that clay was that there were degrees of difficulty for the mixed entrants and it was okay not to get that one.  The Barbury shoot this weekend was a good shoot, I missed a fair few but included in those misses were what we usually refer to as the easier, steadier presentations and yet I scored higher on a particular stand than the first seven top ladies - Cheryl, Amy, etc.  My score was 66 which at first I was upset with but when I looked at the scores I felt okay about.  We’re a hard bunch to please.  I also shot Horne on Sunday after Barbury.  Haven’t managed a 100 there yet somI obviously need more practise on those types of clays as well.  There were two stands of following clays.  Lazy?  Boring?  I still missed one on each stand.  To me that is about having a lapse of concentration so they are good for my concentration.  

[Jonny English]

Shoot Grimsthorpe and Orston and you will find the targets are set to challenge the majority of the time. Everybody moaned about the English being too hard, if you shot Grimsthorpe/ orston esp or fitasc on a regular basis the English was a lot easier to take on, with maybe only 2 or 3 exceptional birds.

[Clynt]

Is it not about what you enjoy ? if you like ego massaging closer slow targets , theres loads on offer ? if you want to test your ability to take on flying birds at 40-50m then choose those grounds that supply them ?? forget scores , total meaningless, Barbury  ETSS seemed to find a very good balance ??  

[charles275]

Has anyone shot in the USA bigger FITASC or sporting comp's. How do they compare target wise. Are we keeping up with the rest of the world in target setting? Any views??

[Hamster]

17 minutes ago, Clynt said:

Is it not about what you enjoy ? if you like ego massaging closer slow targets , theres loads on offer ? if you want to test your ability to take on flying birds at 40-50m then choose those grounds that supply them ?? forget scores , total meaningless, Barbury  ETSS seemed to find a very good balance ??  

I hate the close stuff, the slow ones are even worse but paradoxically it doesn't always mean they're easy to hit. It's a fact that patterns don't develop to their best potential until at least 25+ yards and maybe even much further than that, so hitting a slow/close quartering away rabbit for instance can be very testing as can a fast crosser with a short but sensible window. 

It's also pretty much established fact that most shooters (OK maybe not the top 30-40) will miss a mixture of both hard/medium/easy presentations, crucially the figures I supplied at the outset back this up. 

It seems to me that people look at the winning scores in B/A and forget the reason they're often unusually high is that the shooters are improving and in transition, it's much easier to mock their progress and assume it must have been easy. 

2 minutes ago, charles275 said:

Has anyone shot in the USA bigger FITASC or sporting comp's. How do they compare target wise. Are we keeping up with the rest of the world in target setting? Any views??

Our shooters do very well over there so little reason to think we're lagging behind in target setting. 

[charles275]

Be interesting to see how the top Americans do at Churchills !!... My view on recent shoots is that the targets are generally getting closer but certainly not easier. The result for me is that I enjoy shooting at the close ones less than the long ones thus I'm  enjoying English Sporting less than I used to. I think this is a common view. My moan is  why do course setters put a green clay on against  a green background. Southdown have recently put blue clays against a clear blue sky. Surely the idea of coloured clays is to make them more visible not less so. As you get older this becomes more significant..