That one little tweak you would make.

If you had the opportunity to make just one tweak to registered shooting what would it be/ Not looking for a rant. Just a tweak.

 

Mandatory reductions.

 

30 yd. line.

 

Some mandatory purse shoots, not all, but some.

 

A pro class.

 

Handicap 20 yard minimum for everyone.................period.

 

Purse on Championship events mandatory , but Pro shooter are eliminated and have to shoot against other Pro Shooters in a separate purse ... WPT ... (YAC) ...

 

a pro class

 

WPT (above) has the best suggestion I've seen so far! The 30 Yd. line would just eliminate many thereby reducing the purses, and our shells are only so good. Try some from the 30 yd mark and see the results. We once had an Industry class that was eliminated for who knows what reason.

 

The only way to achieve the 30 yd. line is through earning yardage-you'll never get there with a cute smile. If shells were ineffective past the 27 then no one would ever get there. Wanna bet the 30 would be reached rather quickly?

 

Yes on 20 yd. Handicap for everyone. Class for pro shooters.

 

I fail to see how no less than the 20 yard-line would help "registered shooting" at this time.

Is there some kind of mad dash to the 18 that is taking everyone's lunch money ????? If so, other than target-gate it has been a well kept secret.

Now, the self over-handicapped local-only social-club mentality, has turned ALL "registered" shooting into a "targets only" waste of time.

Everyone seems to agree that "Big Dogs" are motivated by money ..... but, somehow non Big Dog shooters are not, and should not be.

"Just a tweak" would be get it back to a TRUE competition ..... the fat boy social club would dry up and blow away, when they are made to look the non competitive fools they are .....

 

I would say mandatory reductions. If you want a pro class I believe the only FAIR way to do it is to to issue two different types of yearly membership cards.One card you shoot for trophies only and if you choose a pro card you are eligible to shoot for the purses. I believe that many shooters who preach for a pro class want to shoot for money, but they don't anyone who is a better shooter to be able to shoot for these same purses. Am I right or wrong?

Dave Berlet

 

Move 'em back a few yards and maybe it'll be more difficult to maintain mid-90's handicap averages. Since Joe Average is typically carrying a mid 80's average he might be more eager to plunk down some option money if he feels he's not always paying Harlan's weekly grocery bill. Mandatory reductions are meaningless when as soon as a shooter gets to a comfortable yardage he'll likely gain some back and be just as non-competitive as before. Shooters carrying high averages from the current fence while living there for decades killed the system-not the short yardage wonders with one or two victories and never be seen in the winner's circle again!

 

We shoot 30 yard games all the time and the present day Nitro's, Federal Handicaps, and similar shells do a terrific job from there. The guys who think they need to heavier shells eventually succumb to standard trap handicap loads. I've beaten many a shooter with those "special shells".

I believe just going to the 30 YL will only temporarily stymie shooters, but after a while those that are good will be just as competitive as they were on the 27. IMHO.

I've even shot 27 yard double to settle so long-run shoot-offs. More difficult, yes, but still possible.

WW

 

I used to shoot games every Friday night, we used to shoot from the 30 yard line and beyond and it was actually surprising the number of short yardage shooters who excelled from there ... I used to buy one particular shooter in the Calcutta's at the registered shoots because he shot from the 20 yard line and was always in the money at our games ... I never won a dime on him, not once or even come close but he was very competitive at the games ... Like Whiz said, Nitro's or Federal Handicap shells will break them from as far back as you can see them ... We used to shoot 5 for $5 from approx. 45 yards (maybe 50) and it was not the guys shooting the big boomers that would usually win ... One of the posters on Americnatrapshooting .com was a killer on them Roger C. , besides that he used to like picking on me ... (lol) ... WPT ... (YAC) ...

 

"Am I right or wrong?"

More wrong than right ..... In the "past" an "average" shooter had a GREAT day just "shooting in the money". That is when a 97 may be high score, making 95 a possible "pay score" more often than not.

Point being, people no longer travel to shoot ANY large "ATA" shoots ..... not because they know "the very best will always win", but a "Joe Average" score is not even a plastic duck, pay 20 bucks score. The "practice more", "get better", "like it or leave", has taken "ATA" shooting to where it is.

As I keep saying ..... my 95 "in the money", beats the hell out of my 97 being "out of the money". And, Yes, Yes, Yes ..... the best will always win ..... but, if you want my lunch money, give me a "chance" at something ..... The Kool Aid Crew keeps saying all these "Big Dogs" will stay on top without the best banks, best time of day, from the 30, and so on ..... And I say OK, I'm "back in" to pay you to do it ..... but, somehow it seems "they" never to want move back, or take those "bad banks", and so on, like sheep they want for the wool .....

 

I'm not saying our present shells won't shoot that far, I'm just saying the ability of the majority of the shooters wouldn't handle the distance. A handful will reach the 30 yd mark but the crowd will be small! If they get there, let them shoot for a yardage purse!
And, yes Whiz, 27 yd doubles are a blast!

 

Jack: 27 yard doubles with 0.010" and 0.018" chokes is even MORE challenging.

Thank God, I shoot damn quickly, but 20-10 vision helps too!

 

A rule that would make spectators stay quiet while in hearing distance of the shooters on the line........

 

One tweak that would help our game overall would be wider and slightly quicker on the speed targets. Why the speed increase? To help stabilize the targets in slight head or tail winds with higher rpms.

HAP

 

My one tweak would be; A younger body with 20/20 vision and lots of money to shoot more targets. Roger C.

 

HAP: Maybe even a longer throwing arm. This would keep the target against the rail longer and could possible even generate for rpm's.

This is one thing I experimented with when Tom Houghton of H-S Precision here in Rapid City acted on my suggestion to buy out the Winchester trap and skeet division. Once here the division was here, I played around with the V1524 hand set machine and the V1583's carousel machine throwing arms. About all I ever accomplished was to toss long target onto the roofs of adjacent neighbors. I never pursued that experimentation, unfortunately.

WW

 

Whiz,
In order to put a longer arm on an existing machine would be a major over haul of the machine. With a longer arm the target would be thrown to the extreme left. So the machine would have to be turned in the house to center the field. Roger C.

 

I was aware of that. We did quite a bit of experimentation and it really was dependent upon where the arm stopped, how to control its inertia, adequate buffers, plus some other factors.

Trap houses would had to have been modified, and all sorts of changes. It was a futile experiment, but one that I wanted to play around with. We also experimented with raising the carousel rods on the V1579 and V1583, springs, etc., to load more targets.

The Beomat came on scene, and then the Pat, so things died at H-S.

WW

 

I've never thought our problems lie with using PAT traps at all! PATS can throw a target a long ways with a lot of target RPMs, a truly stable target in slight winds.

The problem is with our low speed limits (Rule Book) for singles, caps and especially the ridiculous low speed limit for doubles! 39 mph is way too slow to stabilize targets with ANY head or tail winds! What we see is shooters demand a reset on heights only, another huge waste of good targets! Along with that waste comes a price increase in shooting fees?

Savvy club target setters know where the stable target problem lies and fix it accordingly! Some abhor changing the speeds and do not touch the speed once set! They certainly don't pay much attention to violating the height rule but the speed limit is off limits! The masses have been convinced slow is better, not true at all for the average shooters! The top shooters will break them regardless of how they are set! Fact.

HAP

 

One reason I learned to shoot damn fast.

I get to break targets before God gets to play with them.

WW

 

Whiz, Myself and another machine manufacturer told Pat that he needed a longer arm and solenoid on his machine before he ever went into production. He told us go---- your self I will not change my machine for anyone. The long arm puts less jerk on the target with more spin if you use rubber in place of plastic. Roger C.

 

Absolutely agree. W-W used black rubber.

Also, the old W-W V1524 threw the best damn doubles, as long as the setter was doing his/her job. Seemed like the Pat's first birds would always come out differently and non-predictably.

I've even been told there is a "scheme" with the Pats and some folks have figured it out.

WW

 

I've never shot at Earl Scripture's club, but some of my buddies have. I was told that Earl raised the front of the W-W machines UP at about the highest angle he could and still get the target out of the house without it hitting the underside of the roof.

My now-deceased traveling buddy said it really gave you more of the target to see as it left the house.

I tried that here at my club when I was president, but the old farts (I am one now) didn't like one single thing changed. They were all used to shooting slow, 38-40 yard targets. I've said this before, but those same guys shot poor scores at out state shoots, because the state directors set the targets and those targets were 100% ATA spec.

Since I traveled all the time shooting, I normally saw good targets.

I also borrowed a State Highway Dept. transit (I worked for DOT while in college) to set stakes at 49 yards and the tops of the stakes were all set to be level with the target on the throwing arms. We own 105 acres, but out past the "drop zone" we have a barbed wire fence to keep cattle and horses out. The old gumballs continually thought that that if a target landed at the fence, it was too long. They just couldn't grasp the idea of geometry. If a target was legal it would travel to and past the fence... so they would always back down the tension of the machine. I also set stakes for doubles targets as well.

Add to that the fact that the field out past the trap houses was not level and varied up and down quite a bit. I guess it was just too much rocket science for those fools to figure out. I am a firm believer in "Perfect Practice" and shooting those targets was not that. When I worked on the week-ends, I set the targets by the rule book as recommended and I practiced those targets. Sure, we threw quite a few clays to get things right, but that's what it takes to do things right.

I often wonder if some of the smaller clubs start the day by placing the machine to throw #3 straight-a-ways, then take their pole and set it up at 10 yards and throw targets through the 9' rectangle... and then throw for distance. Some guys can't understand that occasionally when you do the 9'-10 yard thing, when you go for distance, the 9'-10 yard thing changes, and you either have to redo some of it. When I was Zone Director, I made damn sure anyone doing that had supervision. We had a couple of guys who traveled with us who were pros at the setting procedure.

When I finally quit shooting registered there, and at my last shoot, the targets were terrible. As squad leader (I normally was the squad leader), I had asked the setter who set the targets. Don't remember her answer, but when I asked if they used the "pole", she looked bewildered like I'd asked her what the atomic number of Plutonium was. She said she didn't know what I meant, and said she'd never, ever seen a "pole". I pointed out the pole hanging on one of the light poles down the line. She said she wondered what that was for and had never, ever seen it used. Now that's scary. Someone just came out, threw a couple of targets and said "They look fine." That person was not a AA-AAA-27 yarder either, more like a good intentioned worker non-registered shooter.

I can't count the number of times I walked to the line in a registered event having to ask for someone to check the targets. I tried to be part of that routine prior to the start of the shoot to ensure they used the 10 yard pole and 9' setting checker, and then ensure the target flew the required distance. Unfortunately, some clubs take offense to letting an "outsider" be part of that process, and then other clubs welcomed it with open arms.

Whew, TMI here, so I'll quit.

WW

 

When they take the 50 yard sticks out.......LQQK out.....

 

How about the 50 yd. stakes and the bench mark for the height pole both. Tucson T&S did both. Many ATA officials shoot there and do not say a thing about the rules being flaunted. All of their targets start out high, they will adjust for any one, but that usually only makes things worse. I'm not sure about their radar gun, as to the power. The ability of the help comes to be a little suspect also. One or two good ones the other below average. At $34.00 a hundred the shooters are being short changed. Roger C.

 

Roger,
Let me know when you are going to be up at Avery, I'll buy you lunch ... I'm feeling much better released from Doctor but with restrictions for now, much better ... WPT ... (YAC) ...

 

Bill,
I just came back. Give me a call 623 935 2581. Roger

 

Before the squad begins to shoot, have the Scorer announce to the squad to have ALL cell phones either on MUTE or OFF.

Believe it or not, still all too many times I have had phones go ringing as I or someone on my squad is about to call for the target or pull the trigger...

I know leaving these on are not intentional, but a Reminder from the scorer would jog the memory bank of some, and not possibly cost fellow squad mates a target by a surprise noise.

That is my one tweak suggestion.

 

The one common theme that I have heard ad nauseam since registering my first target(s) in 1972 is that; "you can't compete with the Big Dogs". They get free guns, free shells, shoot the best traps yada, yada, yada. The one thing you seldom hear however is the amount of dedication, time and effort they put in not only to reach that level but to maintain it. Many posts in this thread argue for more concrete, harder targets or a pro class as means of making it a "fairer" competition with the Big Dogs. But, instead of continually jumping through hoops to try and bring the Big Dog down to the average Joe level I suggest the following as my "tweak". For the major ATA Tournaments; Grand American, Satellite Grands and Zone Shoots all handicap events included in the HOA will have a compulsory entry for any shooter handicapped at the 27 yard line. This would be a flat fee lets say $250-$500 per event which pays for targets/fees and all options similar to a Flyer Shoot entry. The 27 yarders then shoot only against their own money. Forget the targets only option. If your on the 27 you pony up the money and go out and shoot. No need for more concrete, harder targets or a pro class. Also I doubt mandatory reductions would be necessary. My guess is given that format the "wannabes" would be coming off the 27 voluntarily in droves. And, I doubt it wouldn't take long before there would be significant changes to the earned yardage criteria. Not too many boys would be quite as anxious to get to the 27. Would the true Big Dogs have a problem with this type of format, I doubt it. In, fact it might even bring some like "old" Mr Dysinger out of retirement??

 

If the ATA wanted to equalize the difficulty of handicap they would have an exploatory non registered event at the grand of 30 yard handicap. It could be a split of 40-30-20-10% of total purse. $5000.00 added money with a $27.00 entry fee. Not top gun, each division shoots for the percentage. Only current 27 yarders are eligible for the event. Hold it in front of the grand stand as the 30 yd. line can be lined off there.

Added concrete and mandatory reductions are the only way to equalize our handicap system. Nothing else will do the job properly. If you know a more equal way, please let us know what it is. Roger C.

 

The ATA is the only sport where true amateurs can compete against true professionals ... The amateur in Amateur Trapshooting Association is in name only ... I do believe there should be Mandatory purse's in Championship events at all shoots, but also feel that anyone qualified to make part of their living giving lessons, selling DVD's, should be shooting against each other and their money, or it will drive away a lot of shooters (HOOTERS) that might normally shoot those events ... There are not many people who can afford to put in the time and dedication it takes to become one of the Pro Shooters if they have other obligations to attend to ... If as you suggest they put a $250/$500 mandatory entry fee the only ones shooting that event will be the Pro's any way and attendance will drop like a ton of lead, it would not cause an increase in attendance, that you can bet on ... Apply common sense and logic and they can attract shooters, not drive them away ... When the grand cannot attract 2000 (1745) shooters to the premier event (GAH) anyone with 10 cents worth of brains don't need an adding machine to figure out there is a problem ... A flat fee of $250/$500 and you can cut that in half and every body can get done early on that day ... WPT ... (YAC) ...

 

Bill, I never want to see anything that will drive away the HOOTERS. Do not let them do that. Roger C.

 

WPT,
The mandatory entry would only be for shooters handicapped at the 27 yard line. There would be no change to the entry or option criteria for any other yardage. I don't see how this would drive away shooters except maybe those that in my opinion do not belong on the 27 yard line to begin with. And yes, I agree that only those who would be willing to compete under that format at the 27 yard line would be your so called "Pros" but isn't that the virtually the same concept as a Pro Class? I suppose in addition you could also have all inclusive options which would be nothing more than what the jackpot purses are now and how many of your "hooters" and/or lower handicap shooters jump into them? I guess I'm a little confused as to why you feel the ones shooting that event would be limited to the Pros.Why should it effect the lower handicap shooters in any way? If anything that type of format takes the "pros' or top guns out of the monies for the average Joe which I would think would be more attractive to those shooters.How many times have I heard that by playing the options all I'm doing is donating to the likes of Harlan , Ray or Kaye.Well, if they're exempt from the money what would be the new excuse for not playing? I've been at the 27 yard line and back again. The best average I was ever able to maintain there was about 89%. Now you can give me the best guns, all the free shells, time and money in the world and I will be the first to admit I still would not be competitive there. If I move to the 24/25 I can usually maintain a 90+ average and manage to find an acorn or two which puts me back in la la land with the Big Dogs. Unfortunately then I have to start all over. The problem I have with the Pro Class is where do you draw the line? You point to those earning incomes through giving lessons or selling DVD's. Okay , thats easy. But what about shooters like Hardy Musselman, Sharred Oaks, James Richardson, Keith Ditto, Tim Robb, Samantha Foppe, Fred Nagel, Travis Iksic, Martin Wilbur etc, etc etc. Are they Pros? How much income do you think they're getting from lessons or DVD's? Back in the day when you only had a handful of pros it was relatively simple to create an Industry/Pro class to separate them from the amateurs. However as the sport began to grow and as history shows most of your Big Dogs did not shoot nor were they required to shoot in the Industry Class. With all do respect I just don't see how a legitimate Pro Class could be created today.

Roger,
My friend I believe you and I had a prior debate regarding the issue of "more concrete". Rather than rehash it again lets just agree to disagree. However, what I believe what we do agree on is that the current ATA leadership has little if any interest in taking any actions which would return trapshooting to the competitive sport that it once was. I fear we are moving more and more toward the way of the "Skeeters" where everybody shoots a perfect score and wins a trinket.

 

10guns,

You can not pick out certain people that excel at any sport and put restrictions on them and not the other people that contend in that sport. The handicap system was instituted to make the difficulty even out for all competitors. The class system was the same way, but the AAA class was added to the game. The only answer to the problem was taken when the 25 yd. line was no longer a challange for many shooters. Yardage was added as it should be again. The height and target spread should be changed back to the old rules before they were fudged with. The 50 yd. stakes should be used again, not that new age way that really does not work very well.
Can you give us an idea of how to make the game more even with out the dicing of the really good shooters. Or putting restriction on only them? Nothing will happen until the members relieve, the do nothing BOD and EC from office.
The reason the Skeeters are in the mess they are in is because they thought everyone should be a winner. Is that what you would like to see in our game of trap? If not then lay out a plan to even up the handicap system. Many shooters do not have the ability to be top guns, not even practice can do that for them. Some things are just not possible.. Try pushing tooth paste back into the tube. Roger C.

 

The name for any shooter with a typical 87% handicap average from the fence while playing a $500 mandatory purse against others with mid-90's averages is SUCKER!

 

Olealliedawg, If they are smart enough to own a gun, they should be smart enough to only play the class money, or the lewis class. Any option that states high gun they should stay away from. I wonder if they were ever told this? Roger C.

 

I DIS-AGREE on the PRO-Class, any shooter earning an income from Giving Lessons, shooting Paraphenalia, furnished Trapguns, Having Shells Given to them, being sponsored by any corporation, receiving any stipend, MUST BE A PRO_CLASS SHOOTER.no exeptions. Once a Pro-Shooter they must hold that category for 2 years, after leaving Pro-Class. No Exceptions. Shooters for Winchester, Remington, Federal, Estates, and any other shell Mfgr, White Flyer,
Federal Targets, or any other Target Mfgr, are Pro Class Shooters, Selling Trapguns and supplies and being Compensated in Wages,No Exceptions.,This is a cut and Dried Category List I may have missed a category, these shooters have the responsibility to inform the ATA of their position, and be assigned Pro-Class.

 

A Pro Class Shooter may not enter any ATA Options, or Categories except Pro Class w/ Pro Class Options

GB..............................DLS

 

Whats the penalty for not fessing up and admitting to being a Pro, thats if there are any ..? WPT ... (YAC) ...

 

I was informed by the ATA that I had to shoot in the industry class, this was many years ago just before it was abolished. Could not play options or win anything but ind. class trophies. It really did not bother me at that time as I really was industry. Roger C.

 

Roger,
If you mean by "restrictions" that current ATA rules require that all shooters will be charged the same target and option fees, then sir you are correct. And I agree with WPT, any attempt to charge a compulsory purse across the board would probably cut entries by 40%-50% if not more. But if the idea is to level the playing field and attract more shooters then maybe its time think outside of the box and change the rules. I agree that the handicap system was instituted to even out the difficulty factor and give the average Joe a reasonable chance of winning. However, as you know from its inception the "system" was flawed in that it did not adequately separate the amateur from the Pro and/or more accomplished shooter. The initial decision to improve the system was to create a Pro class, just as WPT suggests we should do today. Unfortunately instead of refining and making the PRO classs more inclusive it morphed into the more limited and less inclusive Industry Class in essence defeating the very purpose for which it was created. Since then the only significant change(s) have been to move the fence back from the 23 to the 25 to the 27 and all for what? Was there any substantial increase to tournament attendance/entries? Was there a spike in purse/option monies? How about averages and scoring, did these changes have any material impact on either to level the playing field? I may be 100% wrong(perhaps HB can correct me) but I believe that if you check out the statistics for the immediate year(s) where these changes were made you will conclude that the answer is no. Actually the years having the greatest entries in the Grand American (excluding 1999/100th anniversary) 1988-1995 correlate with the same years most of the Big Dogs held there highest handicap averages to that date. If you honestly believe that it was more concrete that triggered the popularity and increasing membership throughout the hay-days(s) of the sport, then with all due respect sir might I suggest that you may reside a bit to close to the Colorado state line!
When it comes to the 30 yard line, I am in WW's camp. Yes, there would be a learning curve but in the long run the "Dogs" would figure it out. Moving the fence was never the answer. How far back are we going to go? Why not just make it the 50 now and save yourself further grief and aggravation a few years down the road? You know what they say about doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result? IMHO WPT's suggestion of a Pro/Master Class is a better option, my only question would be what would be the criteria for such a class? As I alluded to in a previous post there are many, many elite shooters that are not involved in a "shooting business" or compensated in any way to shoot.
In reality with all the advancements to the game in guns, shells, voice calls, automatic traps etc combined with the "easier" target presentations of today the disparity between the average Joe and accomplished shooter has been increased substantially. The handicap system is now more than flawed, it is broken and should probably be scrapped altogether. No handicap system is ever truly going to level the playing field between the amateur and the PRO. The only fair way is to set up handicap on a class system similar to 16's which would be average based. As an example, average of 81% and below shoots novice at 20 yds, 81-85 @ 23 yds, 85-89 @ 25 yds & 90 and above @ 27 yds. Each group shooting for its own monies. There would be no earned yardage tables. Any advancements and/or reductions would be strictly average based perhaps on a 500-1000 target review.
Personally I believe the two primary factors that have resulted in the decline of tournament shooting is the volume of high scores and the absence of purse/option monies. Except for the AA point/Trophy fanatics and those that enjoy shooting glorified practice there is little if any incentive for the average Joe to spend the money it costs to attend any major tournament today. Unfortunately, Roger, as you correctly point out the current ATA leadership is either to ignorant or to incompetent to adequately address the problems. Until we can get "new blood" in the leadership roles that will work for the good of the sport/membership instead of their personal agendas I fear we are all just preaching to the quire.

 

O-Dawg,
My point exactly. Once they have to put some skin in the game through a compulsory purse the pretenders who have camped out on the 27 yard line for years would disappear. Or as you say, they would be just plain stupid to think they could compete against the mid-90's boys. And it's not only the 27. Virtually all shooters who are shooting any significant amount of targets are over handicapped. Check the current average book and see just how many shooters with more than 1000 handicap targets last year held a 90+ average in your state. In my state of FL, there were 12. Time for mandatory reductions!

 

Why does so many care what yardage some shoot on? If not sandbaging let them spend their money and shoot where they are. I would like to see 3hole & 50yd targets.

 

For the same reason they don't have bowling tournaments with 8 ft wide lanes and 20 pins.

 

10guns, Look back at all past Grand handicap champions and see what yardage they won from and what was the maximum yardage at the time. I have shot the grand just about every year beginning in 1974. The long yarders did not dominate the game until the ATA and their minions started messing with the rules and the target criteria. 10guns, I am from the,old school. 10 ft. height, 50 yd. length, peg hole three. This was the,norm for many years, that is until the people that could not measure up started messing with the nature of our sport. They are using the play book set up by the skeet shooters. If you can not excel under the conditions and rules, lower the standards. It did not go in the fantastic direction that it was supposed
to for them so the ATA decided that maybe they could make it work. You can see how well it is working, we are loosing shooters and very few play the options. How can anyone playing with a full deck not see the fallacy in this.

I have shot about 135,000 handicap targets in my life time probable 100,000 or more were from the 27yd. line. I'm now on the 24 1/2 yrd. line this old body does not respond as it used to. It is just shy of 81 yrs, young, but I would very much like to see the sport revert to a place where all can compete and have a chance of winning and make it a competitive sport not a politically correct activity. Some people are not capable of winning under any conditions, and we must not ruin a sport trying to make it possible for them to excel.

Sooner or later it will sink in that the only way to equalize the handicap system is to add yardage to the field. Also make yardage reductions mandatory. Like the old cereal commercial on TV.. TRY IT YOU MAY LIKE IT. Roger C.

 

Dr. Not many shooters are getting shells and guns any more. Many that are not selling guns or ammo or any shooting related products would just not enter the pro class. The Ind. class was not able to play options, not because they were winning everything but because the manufacturers did not want their help competing with their customers. It is next to impossible to start a pro class. The problem is todays competitors think it is government and people in places of authority to make it easy for them o be champions. It does not work that way, PRACTICE, DILLIGENCE, AND DESIRE AND ABILITY are the determinating factors in who wins. Roger C.

 

What does 8ft lanes & 20 pins have to do with anything? We all shoot the same targets! So if I shoot at 27yd with a 85ave. I'm not going to win. But it's my money & targets. Over last 10 years 5 have been short & 5 have been long yd! So what?

 

T shot, I do not care where you stand to shoot. The people that are not capable of winning, and then whine about the people that are capable of winning are the ones that I refer to. I did not refer to the last ten years. I refered to the total list. Over the last ten years the game has morphed into a political correct game. Where the untalented complain about the shooters that are at the top of the field. They want to make changes to make them selves on an equal basis with them, but they do not want to work to get there. Its called the gimmie generation. Roger C.

 

Mandatory reductions while leaving under-handicapped others alone accomplishes absolutely nothing. Lose a yard and gain it back while Joe Pro sits on the 27 yd. line with mid 90's averages for 30 years. Silly way to fix a broken system!

 

The 30 yard line along with mandatory reductions, would be a game changer. Many of those on the 27 yd. line that cannot stay there may just step into the winners circle again. It may bring out their competitive nature again.

You will never see a compulsory purse put on the 27 yd. shooters. We can not get the ATA to enforce the target setting rules, and you guys are wanting a purse to chastise the incompetent 27 yard shooters. Quit rolling you own smokes. Roger C.

 

Roger,
I totally agree with 90% of what your saying. I know you will probably find it hard to believe but I too come from the old school. Started in 1972. Worked my way up to AA/25 but after a few years of getting my a$$ kicked from one end of the trapline to the other I realized it was going to take a lot more time and money if I was to be competitive at that level. With a wife, two kids and a mtg that wasn't about to happen and in 1983 I took a hiatus from registered shooting for about 18 years. In 2001 with the wife (1st), kids and house gone I decided to give it another go. Although I did manage to make the 27, the eyes (diabetic) and reflexes had long since deserted me. Throw in a rotator cuff problem and bad hip and about the best I can hope for these days is the proverbial acorn. I'm 69 and would love to make it to 81 and be able to shoot as well as you do. I made most of the Grands during the 70's although being low man on the totem pole at work limited me to the last 3-4 days at best. Since coming back I've shot the two weeks of every Grand since 2006. For the past twelve years the wife (also a shooter) and I at a minimum have tried to attend 3-4 state shoots, the Southern or Southwestern Grand, Southern Zone and Grand American. Because of my hiatus from the game your target totals far exceed mine. At best I think I may have about 150K-175K in aggregate. For several years I bounced back and forth between the 25-27 but always took my reductions when offered. The last year or two has been a struggle and like you I am currently at the 24.
I would have no problem going back to the old three hole target. I believe a faster, flatter, wider target presentation would go a long way in reducing the high scores we see today. However, I'm hesitant to agree with you on the dominance of the "long yarders" in todays game vs yesteryear. I believe if you look beyond the GAH champions to the top 15-25 scores you will would find the "long yarders" to be well represented no matter what year it was. In fact my old squad mate, may still hold the distinction of being the only 27 yarder to break two 99's in the GAH and not win it. That was back in the 70/80's. The bigger problem that I see is the volume of high scores from all yardages. And, again with all due respect I just I don't see how moving a handful of elite shooters back nine feet is going have any significant impact to that problem. There were roughly 116 scores of 96 or better at last years GAH. 46 were 27 yarders. Assuming that adding concrete takes most if not all of them out of the picture it still leaves 70 scores 96+. Where is the incentive for the average Joe to get back in the money? I find it hard to believe that just because Harlan, Ray, Kaye et al may not be shooting their usual 96+, that it will loosen the wallets of the average Joe. Sorry Roger, I guess I'm just a stubborn old cracker, but I don't think I can ever be an advocate for more concrete.
However, I do agree that once the "crybabies" gained control of the ATA leadership the change to a softer target presentation and the loosening of the rules and standards which held the sport to a higher competition has now reduced it to a jamboree. Where once there was added money now you get medallions and/or trinkets. Trying to spread the wealth through the addition of ridiculous categories and hundreds of trophies is ludicrous. Does anyone really care about a trinket for 10th runner-up? It's true that not everyone is capable of winning but most competitors like to believe that they can. That was the perception back in the day when the sport truly was a competition. For the average Joe, the payoff far outweighed the risk of throwing a few bucks in the pot and even if he didn't pop a big score he knew that usually a low to mid 90's, a score that to him was reasonably attainable would still get him a fairly good payday. Today that perception is gone and with it so are the attendance/entry levels and purse/option monies. I managed to dig out my 2001 GAH program (older records are long gone). There was a total of $25K in added money "compliments of the ATA". Every event of Grand week had added money ranging from $1800-$4K with the GAH having $10K payable over the top top 20 places (trophies only went to 12th). Total entries for the GAH that year were 3,699. It appears, if the payoffs are big enough, they will come despite the Big Dogs. Sadly however, I'm afraid those days are long gone.

 

Those 70 scores with 96 or above all got yardage while the 46 27 yrd, shooters live to fight another day without moving back an inch. Chances are most of those short yardage wonders will be begging for a 1,000 target review to be competitive again. Move 'em back 3 yrds and you won't need mandatory reductions 'cause the average 27 yd. glory shooter will no longer have a reason for bragging rights!

 

"I'm afraid those days are long gone."

Just think if "Trapshooters" of the 30's, 40's, and 50's felt that way, I doubt the 60's, 70's, and 80's would have been as great as they were .....

Handicap, targets, and many other things are "fun" to talk about ..... but, never forget about those who ran those great shoots. They never gave a damn about "feelings", you went to shoot what was offered, or was shown the door. Bad targets, a bad "puller", too far to WALK, no water, or kicking empty "hulls" out of your way, WAS all part of the "game" .....

Now the great effort to "please everyone", has taken things the wrong direction. Just run things as in the past ..... when the weeds die, the grass will grow. The "snowflakes" can find a new "social" gathering sport to "dumb-down", for those who melt or break if things are not to their liking.

Golf Carts belong on Golf Courses ..... load the voice calls in them and send them to RV Parks where they belong. A "Bank" is a place to keep money, not a preferred place for fat "Big Dogs" to take advantage of those dumb enough to try beating the "system" .....

 

Oleolliedawg,

What do you suggest doing that will even out the handicap problem in our sport? Complaining about the good 27 yd. shooters has not had much of a fix. Please elaborate for us. Roger C.

 

I still don't get it. You complain about people that are not winning not taking reductions. The short yardage shooters not winning. Easy targets voice pulls. And no money! How does that make the system broken?? There's no money because you whiners don't play anything! JMO.

 

Not too complex Roger. Add concrete! Making targets longer and wider typically penalizing the shooters you're trying to help. The original rule called for targets 48-52 yds.but was changed to 49-51 yds.-no biggie there. Are you suggesting at least 55 yds. distance? That sure won't increase attendance. Heck, except for the one year three hole target year the last time most clubs threw wider targets was in an era of hand pullers and Model 12's. Other factors that made the game easier like improved guns and shells. Peoples perception the "big dogs" win all the money won't go away until you first address that one issue.

 

T Shot,
As Roger, User 1 and others have previously stated the sport of trapshooting was designed around a set of rules and standards which through continued refinement and enforcement resulted in the growth of the sport to an elite competition. The Grand American Handicap was billed as the premier and largest event in the shotgun shooting world. Frank Little once said that breaking a perfect score from 27 yards was the most difficult challenge in all of the shotgun shooting sports. When I started shooting in 1972, everyone played at a minimum the lewis and 25 options. It was not unusual for major tournaments to have purses of $25K+ and the GAH typically paid $30K-$50K. I believe I read somewhere that Dan B's payoff for winning the 1981 preliminary hdcp at the Grand was about $28K. Doesn't seem like all that much until you factor in that today that would equate to a "spending value" of about $75K. Also I don't recall shooters having such an obsession with yardage. I'd be more than happy to go back to the 20 and camp out there for the rest of my shooting days. It has only been since the ATA leadership has failed to enforce the rules and continually lowered the standards in an effort to placate the "wannabes" who couldn't be bothered to put in the time, effort and dedication necessary to become an accomplished shooter that the sport has evolved from an elite competition to a social jamboree. A few examples; the change to shell ballistic restrictions, softer target presentations, elimination of mandatory reductions, he$$ you can even call the ATA now and request to be put at any yardage up to and including the 25. There are more issues but I think you get my point.These actions and/or inactions taken by the ATA leadership have created a greater disparity between the average Joe and the more accomplished shooters. Scoring has ballooned, the challenge is gone and with that so went the money. The GAH is now a mere shadow of what it used to be and attendance numbers continue to decline. The system is broken and there does not appear to be any effort or desire by the current ATA leadership to address the problems. You will find that most of us "old timers" may disagree, bicker and rant over the best options to repair the system. But, I think most all would agree that the sport is headed in the wrong direction and new blood is needed in the ATA to turn the ship around and bring the sport back to the true competition that it once was.

T Shot, since I'm an advocate of mandatory reductions I guess I may fall into your "whiner" category. You're right, I don't play half the options I once did. Over the past few years I've slowed down a bit and now only shoot about 8K-10K targets a year mostly hdcp and doubles. I don't usually shoot 16's unless my wife's squad is short or there's enough added money to make shooting for the HAA worth while. If the lewis pays "one money" each class I'll play it. If its 60/40 hi-gun I only play it on the championship events. The GAH is the only shoot that I will play all the lewis purses and if I'm shooting well I may play the class/yrdge purse. I don't play any options on 16's and haven't for at least the past 10 years. 99% of my shooting is tournament shooting, state, zone, satellite grands and the Grand American. With the scoring at most major tournaments today, if 50% of the entries play the options it's a lot and you will be hard pressed too find any tournaments having a winners payoff of $5K-10K. IMHO there are three things most shooters/competitors take into consideration; cost, convenience and competition/reward. Today the competition/rewards are nominal at best and when you consider the cost for most shooters to attend any major tournament today, where is the incentive for the average Joe?

T Shot one last thing regarding my advocacy for mandatory reductions. Yes, you are correct that anyone who earns yardage has a right to shoot at that yardage be it the 22, 24 or dare I say the almighty 27! But how many times have I heard, "It's my money why should anybody care." Personally, I could care less if it's your money, your partners or your grandmothers. To me the sport deserves a certain degree of integrity and respect. There are standards to the game, the "threshold average requirement" being one of them. There are no "entitlements". If you look back at the record books many of the greatest shooters of the sport, Reinders, Lilly, Henry, Hiestand to name a few were given reductions. I'm sure that they weren't thrilled about it but they accepted and abided by the standard(s) of the day. You may have earned the right to shoot a certain yardage but in my opinion you also have to earn the right to stay there. Who does it hurt? It hurts the game. Why bother to even have a handicap system? Why not just have everybody tell the classifier where they would prefer to shoot that day. That way nobody's feelings are hurt and we can all join in and sing kumbaya.