Shoot difficulty. And the elephant in the room.

Morning all.

So just recently  there has been lots of discussion on shoot difficulty(esp).  Do we want difficult shoots and so on and so on. .

There's lots of bravado around with some folk talking out of their arses ,(look how great I am) and then moaning stuff is too hard minutes later. And then seeking out an "easy" shoot.Whatever.  Let the shooting do the talking. 

There maybe an answer. The shoot results now have stats on each and every shoot. This gives the average of each shoot.(all entries) Now it's not perfect but it gives a good indication on shoot difficulty.  

For example. Last year's British  open . 72% average . Which most folk think was spot on. (For a major)

This weekend there have been shoots showing a 62% average. 

10% harder than the british.

And some up towards 80%. 

So I guess what I'm trying to say is this. There is a massive difference  in shoot difficulty.

Proving that the current average system is not fit for purpose (esp) .

So is it really  time that the cpsa sought a new averages system that takes this into account?

Maybe incorporating the average from each shoot ?

Or something better.....

Perhaps the cpsa is already looking . Who knows. 

It's a win win.

The shoots set whatever targets they want. If its difficult then the difficulty index (tm) will allow for this. If its easy then the index also compensates  for that too.

Shooters will be happier (well most) A true average will then be generated which accounts for factual shoot difficulty. (as a pose to percieved)  Along as ALL the cards are handed in. 

Just to be clear. I'm not moaning and I don't have all the answers.

Discuss. 

Jasper. 

A topic that just keeps giving..

For sure, until shoots can be roughly levelled a classification system is flawed.

Well I think there are two solutions. Option 1 is adopt the system I wrote a few years ago (just for fun) which does account for course difficulty by awarding shooters for where they finish, I.e. first last or in the middle of the pack, as with a motor race or almost any other sport (and not by how many clays they hit). We all know hitting an 85 can win you the shoot or place you 40th, depending on the course. My system gives you 100% for winning and 0% for coming last. 
 

But actually, now the CPSA stats are clearly shown and that the system is so embedded, I would suggest that the CPSA step up and stipulate shoot difficulty standards, by dictating that a registered shoot should have a stat average target of 76, then allow +/-4, (so between 72 and 80). OK so we then need a system to enforce it, such as stating that a ground must not have three shoots in a row that fall outside of these parameters or some such. 
 

To be fair it can be difficult to regulate the difficulty factor of a shoot. For example it could be set up to be moderately difficult and then the wind changes or the sun comes out unexpectedly and makes either more difficult or easier. Also the ground owners are running a business and they know what level of difficulty they want to set to bring in the right number of customers.

The easiest way to me would be to use the average statistic from the shoot but weight it appropriately against the numbers in each class attending and then factor that in against your average. 

Jasper, some well made observations there, own thoughts being ESP has too many variables and one can’t really gauge one shoot against another, they are all stand alone events whereas the trap & skeet fellows all have guidelines / restrictions on targets which one can pretty accurately measure oneself against other shots regardless of where shooting. Sadly such is lost at ESP. 
Will CPSA look at overhauling the classification system for ESP, short term I doubt it, we’ve not long gone to quarterly periods so think they will run with those for few years, maybe a look at how the system gets manipulated is due, sanctions, if any seem rare and most of us know that low level card management still occurs.

I have to say I think an experienced course setter can fairly accurately set a course soft medium or hard, it’s not black magic, especially with a track record of previous shoots at their ground.  (I’m talking the average of the shoot, not whether HG sets an exceptional score etc., that’s a notoriously unreliable yardstick). Once I’ve shot a shoot, my prediction of what the top few scores will be is rarely far wrong. 

Having shot Kegworth at the weekend, where the average was 62, I would agree that some form of algorithm is required to level out a shoot with high or low averages. I found Kegworth frustrating initially and then a great learning curve and I will probably be back there this Sunday to do it all again. It would be easy to find the grounds with higher averages in my area and then look to push myself into the A's but that wouldn't make me a better shot - probably just the opposite. 

Looking at the Kegworth numbers for the 8th it is interesting that there were only 5 entrants at AAA and a further three at AA out of 75. That might be close to what you expect (10%), but for those at a lower grade and chasing their average (which may well be wrong in itself) demand may reduce as a result. The CPSA may think letting supply & demand decide is a good option.

Finally, if a shoot is hard, the frustration for me comes from not hitting anything on a particular stand/trap. I know its not an easy ask, but it would be nice to come back and have another go to complete the learning curve.

Freddypip said:

Finally, if a shoot is hard, the frustration for me comes from not hitting anything on a particular stand/trap. I know its not an easy ask, but it would be nice to come back and have another go to complete the learning

Click to expand...

Garlands have some good stuff on from last weekend,if i had the money i would be there hammering the hell out of em.

Richard59 said:

Jasper, some well made observations there, own thoughts being ESP has too many variables and one can’t really gauge one shoot against another, they are all stand alone events whereas the trap & skeet fellows all have guidelines / restrictions on targets which one can pretty accurately measure oneself against other shots regardless of where shooting. Sadly such is lost at ESP. 
Will CPSA look at overhauling the classification system for ESP, short term I doubt it, we’ve not long gone to quarterly periods so think they will run with those for few years, maybe a look at how the system gets manipulated is due, sanctions, if any seem rare and most of us know that low level card management still occurs.

Click to expand...

I rarely shoot sporting, but you are dead right about trap and skeet. I wonder if sporting targets could be standardised in some way? Or would that possibly detract from the apparent fun or variety of sporting? From what I’ve seen, course setters can do pretty much whatever they want, is that right do you think? 
Im a trap shooter so I don’t really know. 

Les53 said:

I rarely shoot sporting, but you are dead right about trap and skeet. I wonder if sporting targets could be standardised in some way? Or would that possibly detract from the apparent fun or variety of sporting? From what I’ve seen, course setters can do pretty much whatever they want, is that right do you think? 
Im a trap shooter so I don’t really know. 

Click to expand...

The TOTAL point of sporting is surprise variety and creativity. So no!

Will Hewland said:

The TOTAL point of sporting is surprise variety and creativity. So no!

Click to expand...

I had a feeling someone would say that Will. And I guessed it might be you.

So honesberie today has thrown up somewhat of an anomaly I think. 81% overall average. It certainly didn't feel like an overeasy shoot. Then when you dig down a bit you see that 93 shooters out of 141 entries were A class or above. So a big proportion of quality shooters looks like it has exposed the averages again.
Sporting shooters make up the large proportion of competition shooters. Isn't it about time they had a proper, fit for purpose average system. Pretty please.
Jasper.

jasper said:

So honesberie today has thrown up somewhat of an anomaly I think. 81% overall average. It certainly didn't feel like an overeasy shoot. Then when you dig down a bit you see that 93 shooters out of 141 entries were A class or above. So a big proportion of quality shooters looks like it has exposed the averages again.
Sporting shooters make up the large proportion of competition shooters. Isn't it about time they had a proper, fit for purpose average system. Pretty please.
Jasper.

Click to expand...

MrJ have felt that the numbers of B (30% of membership) & in particular C (25%) in theory 55% of the entry are actually far less frequent shooters than the A and you AA AAA chaps, so yes the shoot average is disproportionately high. Can’t see any further changes to the existing system being implemented anytime soon though.