whom did the 34 degree angles help the most #2

If you cannot answer the question avoid the thread

 

Well, since no one has any data either way, can we imagine a corollary comparison in another sport?

Let's imagine that the administrators of the Track & Field athletic industry wanted to make sure everyone could have an enjoyable time participating in the sports they oversee, but realized that someone just half as good at the 100 yard dash as the top players would be getting beat by five seconds or more and that can't be fun at all.

So they shorten the event to 50 yards and those half-as-good competitors now just lose by two or three seconds and so are "more competitive."

The lesson applies to ATA Trapshooting as well. On the other 37-yard thread I posted a graph showing that the top 40 ATA averages only gained about half a bird when the target spread was changed from 44 (1996) to 34 degrees (1998.) That's because they hit almost all the targets anyway, and dropping off a few hard angles per event makes little difference to them. Assuming that the vast majority of trapshooters, that is the 85% who average under 90 at handicap, miss more hard angles than they do straightaways, they would benefit more significantly - relatively speaking - for having to shoot fewer of them.

Thus, "average" (in contrast to "top") shooters get a bigger (relative) boost from 34-degree than do the best. The converse is also true, that is, the less-accomplished shooter's average is more reduced by a change from 34 to 44-degree target spreads. And they knew that. The drop in participation in the 3-hole target years of (most of) 1995 and all of 1996 can only be explained by the withdrawal of a lot of average shooters, not by the very few who dominate the upper end of scoring.



Yours in Sport,

Neil

Readers who can't understand the Track and Field example above might try to speculate who (good golfers or less-good) most benefit from easy courses or why the Masters is played on a tough course rather than a par three. It's greater challenges which spread a field out, not lesser challenges.

 

I can say that the overwhelming increase of Grand Slams since the implementation of the 34 degree angles, has helped the 27 yard shooters the most. If you look at the other thread I listed 6 items, and a To Be Determined TBD for other postings. The short yardage shooters took the biggest hit moneywise by the modified payouts favored the top shooters.

 

Well Neil, in your example you are saying the only thing that changed is perception.

In Trapshooting the perception is always needing a perfect score to win ... and most shooters know they do not break a perfect score often, if ever.

It worked better when people lost to a 97 with a 93, than lose to a 100 with a 96. They 'think' on a rare day the 97 may be possible ... but the 100 is not. Same performance levels ... different perceptions.

 

I apologize Dr. Longshot, but what is the 37 degree issue you keep bringing up? I'm assumed you meant 34 degrees but you keep repeating it in different threads so it does not seem to be a typo?

 

Typo error

 

The biggest withdrawal of shooters during that era likely came from the demise of popularity of marathon shooting-not average shooters missing a few more targets. Marathoners wanted targets as fluffy as possible. I use my ex-wife as the classic example who broke her one and only 100 straight on three hole targets in 1996!

 

Imaginative, Ollie, as usual, but how come shooting picked back up in 1997 and folllowing years? You aren't going to tell us marathons came back, are you?

Neil

 

Neil, no more imaginative than blaming reduced numbers on inferior shooters inability to break a slightly wider angle target. I suppose we can blame those same reduced numbers of today result from continually throwing a narrower angle target.

Lower target numbers came primarily from crybaby marathoners who refused to shoot a tougher target. Marathons were quite popular in those days as I'm sure you can attest.

We can simply use ATA member 4418185 as a prime example.(a premier marathoner of that era). This particular individual shot 31,900 targets in 1996 (his lowest total in eight years) but 67,500 in 1997. He certainly wasn't the only one who protested.

See, that's where a real club manager from the trenches can easily spot trends instead of someone speaking only as a shooter!

 

Well, it must be a Pennsylvania thing, Ollie. Marathon shooters in the upper Midwest and Texas are the farthest thing from the "crybabies" you apparently thought your paying customers to be. Here they just go out and shoot all they can and are the best customers a gun club could hope for. No complaints about target setting or wind or target price or the classification of other shooters. They come in, pay, shoot, and say "Thank you" when they leave for home.

We are not talking about some shooter shooting 30,000 fewer, you have to account for a quarter million, before and after.

But really, what difference does it make if the ones who pulled out where the sort of low-life marathon scumbags whose contributions to club and ATA finances you so airily dismiss or "real shooters?" The message for the ATA was (and remains) that you can't make anyone shoot trap. Nobody has to go to the gun club this weekend. If they don't like what's happening they do not have to just shoot anyway; all they have to do is spend their time and money somewhere else. And clearly that's what happened in the abortive "three-hole" years of 1995 and 1996.

Neil

 

Just think, probably 3/4 of those marathoners are deceased or no longer shooting and most of the remnants couldn't tell which which hole they're in. Besides that, how would a non-club manager (a simple shooter) know what marathoners all over the country prefer when we all know PA is one of the largest states holding ATA shoots with more places to shoot and probably more marathoners at that time. I sure wouldn't protest either if the club gave me and my litter mates our own preferred trap set to our standards, as short as possible and certainly not in the three hole. Surprising to some, not all marathoners attending our shoots in PA were from here. Of course, if you never signed 'em up you wouldn't know!

 

Yes.....certainly that was the prevailing attitude when the softer targets were changed. Prevailing attitude when the life members were screwed over the sale of Vandalia. It was the prevailing attitude when the ATA execs ignored the members and relocated everything to Sparta.

You got it right Neil.... you know. You were there for a lot of it. jmho

 

We must be doing something right according to some. The 1997 average book is 1" thick while the 2013 book is around 3/4". The ATA numbers are surging-backwards!

 

Neil is correct, again. The main benefactors of the narrow targets are the average, to below average shooter- and that includes the 27 yard shooters who can't average 90 (the ones who refuse reduction after reduction). Those shooters who have the ability to average over 94 in handicap with a narrow target presentation, don't attain that average by accidentally hitting targets that they throw the gun at in hopes of breaking it. These individuals are technically perfect (or nearly) shooters, who do everything right and would also do everything right on the 3 hole target. As Neil pointed out on the previous thread, the top 40 averages were virtually the same with the 3 hole targets compared to the 2 hole target.

So the ATA did not mandate the 2 hole targets to make it easier for the big dogs, but rather, it was an attempt to make the average shooter more competitive (at least on paper).

 

Yup, it sure did work as planned. Out of the top 100 handicap averages in 1997 only 3 weren't standing on the 27 yd. line. Tell us again how successful that idea was!

Just for sh--s and giggles "crybabies" are shooters who refused to shoot because the angles were a little wider!

 

. . . and in 1996, a three-hole year, there were similarly three or four.

Ollie, do you really, really not understand that a holder of a very high handicap average will have gotten a lot of punches due to his or her high scores (leading to that high average) and so is likely to be on the 27?

I expect that the men's All-State team in Pennsylvania is mostly 27-yarders as well and for the same reason. Does this bother you too? More specifically, what plan do you offer to correct both the ATA and PSSA problem? Please be specific.

Neil

 

8 out of 10 shooters would probably not even notice a switch from 2 hole to 3 hole between sub events.

 

. . . Especially since if there is much side-wind at all the right or left bird is going to be wide and the other narrower. And with Pat Traps relatively few of the very sharpest angles are thrown. If you want to be sure to see one, you generally have to watch a whole squad shoot most of a sub-event. (Though, of course, that hard right may be the first target thrown - it's all chance, after all.) The result is that the 34 and 44 degree spreads are little different in terms of most of the targets shot at, with the wider setting just adding a few more challenging birds.

Neil

 

nobody is answering the question

 

I'll get to it, Gary. There is an answer which most will understand and I'll post it anon, though not necessarily today.

Neil

 

All most people look at is how high the bird is.

Only a few will also look to see how far it is flying.

Most can't tell if the bird was straight from 1 or 5 or straight from between 1 &2 and 4&5.

Some will comment that the color (all orange, orange dome or NY style) is the wrong choice for the light conditions.

All they know is if they are having a good day or bad day.

 

I've put that plan forward many times. Add three yards of concrete and if that doesn't make handicap more competitive consider making handicap a 1oz. load event or return to the 3-hole target. Even a current standing EC member agrees it's the best alternative and we're ready in PA for an ultimatum!

 

Good luck I think we know how ultimatum's usually turn out.

 

Yup, the last brilliant ultimatum coming from the top gave everyone a two or three yard reduction and we all know how good that worked!

 

I think if longer yardages pass my proposed test at the Grand it might work.* One-ounce loads need to be tested before they could be imposed too, of course. Three hole targets are worse than nothing, as a future post I will put here will prove.

* But the ATA has to be careful and understand that big changes are often more political in their outcome than the practical effect they intend to have. I see 30-yard concrete as an "unfunded mandate" that states so reasonably object to. If the ATA asks a lot of clubs to pour concrete at their own expense, how many will just forego hosting registered shoots altogether? The ATA would be remiss not to factor such a possible response into its cost/benefit analysis.

And the same for one ounce loads too. Look what happened in 1995 and 1996. How many shooters would say "The ATA has taken away my only chance to be competitive with the big dogs! I need the full 1 1/8 ounce of shot to keep up with them! One-ounce loads favor better shooters and give the Big Dogs a big jump on me before the first shot is fired! I'm hanging this game up and going fishing!"

Really, Ollie, when I had a hand in the rules I always considered not just what was intended to happen, but what else might come along unbidden. That's one reason why my administrations changed so few rules!

Neil

 

It helps the 27 yd. shooter the most...because they had more talent going into the event.

 

Neil, if clubs go out of business because they need to pour additional concrete on multiple fields to accommodate legions of 30 yd. shooters ATA shooting is doomed anyway.

Maybe if you haven't noticed more and more clubs are already foregoing holding ATA trapshoots because of dwindling participation. Way too many shooters have figured out it's not necessary to shoot enough targets to qualify for so little return.

So what do you propose to increase participation-more trinkets/categories/free reductions etc? All your charts and graphs will show is everyone at the 27 carrying a 90+ average should stay there while everyone else should be reduced to the 18-20 yd. line to remain competitive. I got it-a two tiered handicap system called Super Singles that gives everyone a chance to be GA handicap champion!

 

Its not an ultimatum when it comes from the top.

If PA try's to give the ATA an ultimatum that could be interesting.

 

Wishbone, PA does not issue ultimatums but accept the wishes from the top!

 

How could it be an ultimatum if everyone had the opportunity to refuse the reduction?

By the way it wasn't "everyone" who got the opportunity for a 2 yard reduction. A person still had to be below a certain percent in average to qualify. Those above the reduction percent wasn't offered a reduction, ask me how I know this for a fact!

 

I received my 3 yards and didn't turn 'em down. One more yard and I'll be back on the fence again!

 

DR.
Common sense should tell you the only way to make the game more equal is to increase the yardage. Changing shell speed or reducing the shot charge will make the game more difficult for the less accomplished shooters in the game. The rumor that our equipment is inferior after 27 yards is one mans opinion.
If the ATA wants to insert smaller gauge guns into our sport it will be the death of trap shooting. It sounds like Mike Hampton and others, want to turn this into a feel good spot like Skeet. How many of you can afford to own multiple gauge trap guns?
Behind every move of this sort there is an ulterior motive, try and figure out who will benefit from this action.
Thats my opinion on this subject. What is yours??? Roger C.

 

I believe that if we pour 3 more yds of concrete, in a couple of years the 30 yarders will domimate again. then what 33?

 

Neil,
I just went back and read most of you posts on this thread. If you were part of the ATA team that changed our target setting criteria, then you must accept part of the blame for the demise of this sport.
I just came back from the Spring Grand ant the targets were the toughest I have seen in a long time. Most everyone that I talked to said that they enjoyed the shoot. It sounds to me that you are trying to justify a very poor decision on the part of the team that made this terrible change to our sport.
This was never meant to be a sport where every competitor shot perfect scores and received a ribbon as a prize.
Have you ever made a graph comparing sporting clays to trap? They shoot tough targets and I have never heard them whining about it. Roger C.

 

Roger, as HistoryBuff posted on another thread, it was a motion by Indiana Delegate Jon Moore which set the present target angles. I did not do it; I did not speak at that meeting at all (at least on that subject.)

In neither my article in Shotgun Sport or my presentation to the BOD in 1995 did I ever address the angles themselves or say which I thought was better or urge anyone to vote either way. My whole aim was to ensure that the By-Laws of the ATA be followed. Since then I have, as a delegate and EC member, carried out the directives of the BOD. That's what the By-Laws required me to do.

I'm glad to hear people at Tucson had a good time. Maybe they will take wider target-setting back to their home clubs and we will see how they are received by shooters in general.

It is true that I think that the harder targets favor better shooters and really, I can't see how anyone can argue against that. However if the BOD were somehow moved to require targets be set to 44 degrees I would shoot them, as I did in 1995 and 1996. I don't think it would be a good idea, but I wouldn't say much beyond that. And, of course, were I a Delegate I'd ensure the directives of the BOD were carried out in Minnesota, just as would the presently-sitting Delegate, MS, regardless of his personal feeling about it. It's something that comes with the job.

Yours in Sport,

Neil

 

Pat traps are here to stay. Easier target presentations are here to stay. Everyone enjoys shooting better scores, always have and always will.

So, we accept that nothing much will change in our sport except higher scores and averages as equipment and ammo continues to be improved.

In my less than humble opinion, regardless of who changed the game of trap, they managed to destroy a once held perception our trap games were not ones of perfection. In attaining that goal, we lose more new shooters at a more rapid rate than at any time in our trap shooting history!

Should my first three sentences be true and I feel they are, why not further handicap the most gifted shooters in our sport breaking 100 straights at the major shoot venues? Break the 100 from 27 and receive your earned yardage at the same rate everyone below that max does depending on shooter numbers! No advancement for a mere yardage score, just winners and ties! Once there they must maintain a standard average or be mandated to take their reductions back to the 27.

HAP

 

Well, I hope you guys are happy with running off our resident expert and having him delete his posts. All I ever asked him for was his suggestions on eliminating the ATA membership decline while offering a few of my own and he disappeared. Not fair.

two dogs wonders what will happen when top shooters master the 30 yd. line. I'll soon be 67 yo and seriously doubt I'll be here when that happens!

 

I agree and dis-agree with HAP I agree Pat Traps are here to stay, I believe the MFGR of the Pat Trap can make a longer bar to set the angles more closely to the 44 degree angle we used to have as our standard angle, I dis-agree the easier target presentation are here to stay, they the target presentation should be returned to the way they were in the 1950s & 1960s, there was nothing wrong with them.

Short yardage shooters will return to be more GAH winners, Britt Robinson I believe was a 27 yard winner of the GAH don't quote me on this as I am not sure, if he can do it any 27 yard shooter can do it, if Dan Ohrlic, and George Snellenberger can break a 100 from the 27 anyone can do it, But I believe it is easier out west where there is less humidity, drier climate, which makes targets drier and easier to break.
The climate has something to it I believe. A shooter may have to re-locate to a better shooting climate, that is just my opinion. A movement needs to take place to make the targets more competitive before pouring more concrete, and mandate yardage reductions if you cannot maintain a 27 yard average of what a 93 or 94 or is it actually more? I don't know, but there is an average out there in ATA statistics.
Dr.longshot

 

That is hilarious.
Obviously you are unaware that the 3 men you mentioned are Giants of the game.
Very few will ever accomplish what these men did.

To reduce everyone with an average of less then 93 or 94. LOL That is great. My average last year was 93 from the 27 but I am ready to move up just tell me how far.

 

Doc,

Kay Ohye's handicap average went up .5% in 1996. 3-hole targets worked to his advantage!