Grand Slam Achievers and other Stats

I compiled a list of Grand Slam Achievers from data I got from the HOF website. I have only seen data through October 2013. If you know where more recent data is posted please let me know the site.I added the target angel under which the GS was achieved.

 

This is Grand Slam by State:

 

Number of Grand Slams shot under the different target angles and period:

 

Grand Slams quit being grand after '96. And just before that the cheating by many of the better in the game was rampant and in the sport.

 

Thanks for posting Mike J, Interesting to say the least ... Kind of makes the peoples point on the different target angles thats for sure ... WPT ... (YAC) ...

 

Trap and Field usually has a listing in the magazine at list once a year with Grand Slams it also has those that have completed Grand Slams at the Grand.

 

The forum caught them doubling the number of participants at the grand.

See the bogus numbers article by Merlo.

http://americantrapshooter.com/inde...numbers-to-trap-and-field-and-you-again.3160/

 

I haven't subscribed to T&F for a while, but you would think the ATA website should have the most up to date information. They don't have anything on Grand Slam only the HOF has information through October 2013.

 

Note that the last column to the right has the year when shooters achieved their Grand Slam at the Grand. Any of this achieved after 1996 was shot under the 17 degrees format. From what I heard, some places cheated and shot 17 degrees targets PRIOR to 1997, but I wouldn't know of those instances.

 

Is that correct that Sean Hawley lived in California in 1992 when he completed his first GS?

 

Here are the shooters who achieved the Grand Slam at the Grand by Year:

 

Here are the shooters who achieved the Grand Slam at the Grand by STATE:

 

Awesome info thanks for posting

 

The last listing I'm aware of was in the April 2017 issue of Trap & Field. Here are the names of those achieving Grand Slams from 2014 to the date above.

Note the sequence will be off by one number. This is because subsequent to the THOF's last update to their list, T&F added a name that appears to have been overlooked.

Carl Miner of NV is #331 because Michael Hone of UT was moved into the #330 spot.

I suspect the next full list of Grand Slams might be out in the March or April issue. (Just a guess)

This will at least provide the names up to February 2017.

​

Enjoy Our History !

HB

 

Thank you HB!

 

With the latest information provided by HB here is the Grand Slam by State through February 2017:

 

Grand Slam by Target Angle through February 2017:

 

Grand GS by Date through February 2017:

 

Grand GS by State through February 2017:

 

*The above lists are merely lists that need an asterisk for era of previously illegal shells *
**The above lists are merely lists that need two asterisks for an era of easier targets **
***The above lists may also need three asterisks to note from the 18 or 19 yard line. ***
****The above lists may also need four asterisks to note an era where you get extra targets to get 100. ****

 

Good job Mike J,

However, I don't know just how accurate your listing is regarding the assigned 22° and 17° angles. You are correct with the years the rules stipulated those angles, but, a number of clubs were known to have been violating the rules at least back to the late 1950s.

1958 – Vic Reinders article discussed “legal targets” as in accordance with the 1958 rule book, calling for targets to be thrown 48 to 52 yards, which included doubles too. These measurements were to be made in terms of level ground and still air. Angle targets were required to be thrown as straightaways from position 1 and 5 and angles 25 degrees outside of this were still legal. Vic advised that shooters’ scores might be refused registration under easy conditions and asked that they insist on standard targets. He asked all Delegates, State and club officials to check targets at all their shoots to conform to the rules.

1959 – The ATA Executive Committee discussed “legal target” requirements at their November meeting at the ATA office in Vandalia, OH. Under the heading of “Rules” the minutes state: Legal target angles were redefined to require that the extreme angles be at least straightaways from positions 1 and 5. This change was made to help eliminate the practice in some places of throwing easy targets. Targets at the 1960 Grand will conform to this rule.

Vic Reinders again discussed “legal targets” in the December 1959 Trap & Field: “Unfortunately there has been quite a tendency the last few years for clubs to throw narrow angles targets, usually using the #2 hole in the Western electric trap instead of the #3 hole, or setting other traps in a similar way. I know of one state shoot at which they used the #1 hole!”

Reinders sent out 250 letters and included a postcard for reply. These were sent to shooters who had shot 1000 or more 16-yard targets in 1958 but were otherwise picked at random. Three letters were returned undelivered, but from the other 247 he received 181 answers, or a 73% response.

Ninety said to leave the angles as they have been, 87 said make them wider, four gave qualified answers making them impossible to count either way. Numerous letters were also received with various comments and suggestions.

Such a vote indicated that no great change should be made in the rules on angles, but it did indicate that shooters wanted the extreme angles to be at least as great as straighaways from positions 1 and 5.

In fact, many shooters who voted to leave angles as they have been stated that in their area targets were thrown that way. Only one said to make them easier.

Many years illegal targets were thrown at the Grand American tournaments and leaders openly stated so in the annual ATA minutes.

​

Great shooters like Vic Reinders, Frank Little and Kay Ohye wrote about it in Trap & Field.

Ohye’s Outlook
By Kay Ohye​

The comments, remarks and opinions expressed in this column are strictly mine and do not necessarily reflect the position of any official of the ATA or representative of the magazine.

Trapshooting is a sport and as such attracts participation because of the challenge and the thrill of a possible win. Shooting a high score should guarantee winning or, at least, placing in an event.

In recent years, however, there has been a trend toward throwing a softer target at our national championship, the Grand American. Delegates seem to have mixed feelings about throwing the old standard 50-yard three-hole bird versus the 48-yard, two-hole bird recently thrown at the Grand. The two-yard difference in length plus the reduced angle of the two-hole bird result in a less-challenging target.

Does a shooter want to shoot a winning score or merely a higher score? No one likes to shoot poor scores, but I feel that a shooter should win on the basis of his ability, not because the game is getting easier. It’s fine to tell the gang back home that you shot 97x100, but it seems very hollow when gauged against the number who also shot the same score. In addition the score did not probably win any trophies or money.

The two-hole target has also given a definite advantage to the long-yardage shooter – more so than any advancement in ammunition and guns. Many top shooters “read” the trap, and the elimination of the deep-angle target has further increased these shooter’s competiveness.

There has also been some discussion in recent years about making the one-ounce load mandatory. Although I believe that the incentive to do this is to decrease the long-yardage shooters’ potential to win, I think it will hurt all medium-yardage shooters as well. It will favor the short-yardage shooter. Again, I do not think any rule should favor one yardage group over another.

The one-ounce load for recoil reduction and reduced reloading price has helped many shooters. But I will continue to shoot 1 1/8-oz. loads as long as they are legal, since shooting one-ounce loads at 27 yards is equivalent to shooting a 20-gauge, which would give my competition too great an advantage.

The purpose of the handicap event is to equalize potential and to insure equal competitiveness on any given day. The return of the 50-yard, three-hole target would further enhance this equalization, rather than turning toward a reduced shot load for a hope of the same results.

Let the winning score be a meaningful one for whoever is fortunate to shoot it. Let that person know he was truly the best in his class or yardage group. That’s what the game is all about.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *​

There are some shooters who are continually turning down angle targets as fast or slow pulls. This is obviously unfair to those shooters who shoot all the angle targets thrown. If the pulls are on time and are continually turned down, the puller should ward the shooter that the puller believes the pull was good and that if such a pull is turned down again, it will be marked as a lost target. Any squad may request to have an inadequate puller removed if he or she is too slow!!

Trap committees and club managers should periodically check the traps during an event to be sure the targets are being thrown the legal distance and to insure that traps are properly set. Each shooter should have the opportunity to shoot “good” targets. I have often been reluctant to ask to have a trap changed in height, length or angle because I know that not all shooters have the leverage to have these changes made. For example, I have seen traps that were throwing targets low an to the right, but when the C and D class shooters complain, they get no response from the puller or trap committee. However, when a “top notch” squad complains, the trap is changed immediately.

A periodic check of the trap may slow down the match a little, but it would equalize the field for all shooters. In addition, I don’t think there would be many changes after the first few squads shot over the field. I had an opportunity to run a trap club and know the problems involved, but I think that we still must consider the shooter and give all who participate the same advantage.

I believe there should be more consistency in setting the traps from one club to another (including East and West Coast clubs). Setting traps by using a weight scale on the throwing arm would allow for consistent setting of traps over any terrain – including areas where you cannot us a 50-yard marker. At clubs where the terrain drops off sharply or where shooters shoot over water, there is no way to correctly set the distance. Our current method of setting traps can cause a significant variation in the target. A shooter can be just plain unfortunate and draw a long 55- to 60-yard target which decreases his competitiveness.

In addition, I don’t think a shooter has a fair chance to break a good score at clubs where the targets are cranked up for an incoming wind.

Let’s be more specific in standardizing the rules throughout the country so that each shooter has an equal opportunity to shoot well in any championship.
[ TRAP & FIELD, January 1981, page 39 ]

ATA NEWS
MINUTES OF THE ATA EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING
COMMENCING ON AUG. 10, 1983​

The following discussion of the policy with respect to the target setting for the 1983 Grand, upon the motion of Mr. Duncan and the second of Mr. Scott, the following resolution was unanimously passed:

RESOLVED, that the Trap Setting Committee set the targets to their discretion for the 1983 Grand.

Note: A case where the ATA Executive Committee gave approval for members of the target setting committee to set illegal targets to be set for the Grand in violation of ATA Rules.
[ TRAP & FIELD, March 1984, page 42 ]

So while I believe most of the Grand Slams when the 22° (straightaway from post 1 & 5) target rule was in effect, there are probably a few shooters who obtained their Slam on illegal targets, of which, some never even knew it.

Enjoy Our History !

HB

 

It is difficult to capture cheating in the statistics. I just tried to capture what the rules mandated in the year the GS was first achieved. I am all for difficult targets. Frankly, only GS shot in the Northeast should count because targets there are more difficult as proved by the stats. Just joking, I don't want to start an argument with anyone

 

Was there any discussion on why it is reasonable to give punches for scores below 96? I shot many 95s at big shoots and got no punch, but got punched couple times for a 93 at a small local shoot. To me this does not make sense.

 

Mike J, a few things about your list, I actually did mine on August 28, 1977 with a straight in handicap at Great Eastern Gun Club, but that's not important. And I would like to state that targets in the East were harder back in the day, and Fla was even worse.

I think that the 52 to 55 yard target was more the killer than the 22 degree angle and that trap resetting was almost unheard of. We shot what the trap was throwing so you'd get a wide difference from field to field on the speed, a lot like hitting a good fastball followed by a change up.

Also another major major factor is the fact of hand pulled vs voice pulled targets. When you faced slow and fast pulls along with fast targets it was easy to have a got-ya moment. So you should figure in the advent of voice pulls into your reasoning.

Another personal side-note every club I ever broke a 100 handicap at is now closed down. Makes me feel old. Brad Dysinger

 

Brad, The HOF database I got the information from has the date in the table. However, I looked at a hardcopy of a T&F and it indicates the date that you mentioned. I'll change it, thanks.

Granted some GS were shot over much more difficult conditions. People will have to bear in mind all what you and others stated when looking at the data.

 

So . . . my question is: "With all the factors, ie. voice releases, improved ammunition, rule changes, etc., why would anyone in their right mind want to also make the sport (as it relates to championships and records of achievements) easier?

Note on Rule changes: - at one time shooters lost targets if they failed to load a shell in their gun, had a shell that did not discharge, shot at a broken target and missed, flinched, etc. There were no do overs. I maintain that this was also a significant factor for higher scores.

Lastly, I see that Trap & Field has also included Grand American Grand Slams for those shooters who achieved their GS at a place other than the GAH. Britt Robinson got his Slam August 11, 1973 but is also credited for a GA Grand Slam in 1988; Dan Bonillas, a GA Grand Slam 1975; Ray Stafford, a GA Grand Slam in 1984; Kay Ohye, a GA GS in 1992; Steve Carmichael, a GA Slam in 1976; and Brad Dysinger a Grand American Grand Slam in 1992.

HB

 

I think the Grand American GS only applies to those shooters that completed all three legs at the Grand. Of the 477 shooters with GS as of February 2017, only 43 completed all three legs at the Grand.

While it must be appreciated that some shooters achieved their GS under more difficult conditions, so far only less than 1% of all shooters ever achieved the GS. I know many of today's all All Americans who have only completed 2 legs of the GS so it is by no means an easy task. This is a major accomplishment for those shooters with GS.

 

I attached the PDF for anyone interested. I compiled it for my own interest so you might not like the way the information is presented.

 

HB, most of the situations above were changed with the FTF rule. But when was a target scored "lost" when a broken target was fired at? I've been shooting and scoring for nearly 40 years and thought the broken target thing was always a "no target". Also, as long as I can remember the shell not discharging rule was, dented primer = No Target, no dent = Lost. Wasn't the whole reason for the FTF rule to relieve the score keeper of needing to check the shell?

I do disagree with your statement that the above rule changes are a significant factor in higher scores. It may for a very few number of shooters, but the general masses....no. And, I would bet that it rarely, if ever, has created a Grand Slam qualifying score.

 

Brad, I was at the shoot when you broke the 100 on the caps. Was that the same day you ran 199 out of 200 from the 27? As I remember the puller, a cute little thing, said what is so great about that? I think she got your attention, did she not?
I can remember when the Great Eastern club would pull more shooters for a calcuta than we now see at most satalite Grands today. You are just a baby yet, I'm old. Roger Coveleskie

 

One of the shooters on the list had two legs of the slam on the same day AUG. 9TH. 1993. 200 16's, and 100 caps from 27 yrd line. + 75 straight to win the shoot off for the 16's. Not to bad for an ole country boy. Brad, I'm sure you remember who it was. Roger Coveleskie

 

I remember that back in the early 60's if you shot at a broken target the results were scored. Also I remember in the early 70's at the Michigan State Shoot I didn't have my 870 comp closed and I lost the first target and finished the event with a 199. I really don't remember when these rules were changed,but they were in the rule book back in those days.

Not shooting at that first target qualified me to be one of the first winners of Brad Dysinger's brass banana award. Sometime not too long before that Brad had won a brass banana for a trophy and his wife Ann dressed it with bright plaid pants and shirt and when someone did something really stupid they became the winner of Brads brass banana award. Lots of fun back in those days.

Dave Berlet

 

Roger our boy Pat would be the answer to question number 2 and number 1 is I broke a 198, I missed two in a row on field two of the first 100, and Ann was pulling that trap too. Brad

 

Dave I just happen to still have the "Joe Powell Brass Banana" named by me in our good friend's honor who pulled some lulu's over the years. I miss Joe but his STYLE lives on in the BRASS BANANA, notice his blue hat and signature pants. And Dave you were deservedly so one of the first winners. Brad

 

Brad, Do you remember dragging a skid and placing it on the 27yd. line so we would not have to stand in puddled water at Steves shoot in Vegas. I wonder if that was a legal move or should we have been put in the penalty box? These new guys to the sport missed the best days of trap shooting. I'm thankful I was there. Oh by the way I quit donating to the indians. Roger C.

 

Dave, the broken target rule must have changed somewhere between the 60's and 1975 when I started shooting. The lost target for failing to have a closed action, no shell, wrong barrel, safety on etc was always a loss until the FTF rule. I think they should still be lost targets.

 

Anyone gotten a GS other then the 27?

 

It has to be done from the 27 to count as a GS.

 

I agree. The rule book should be rolled back a few years and it should be followed instead of being used in many situations only as a book of suggestions. Just my opinion.

Dave Berlet

 

1. Vendor pressure. A shell / gun manufacturer can't justify his representative being put on the 26 or not consistently shooting in the upper 90's from the 27.

2. Having one of the faces of the ATA develop a flinch and need more targets to stay at the top.

3. Pressure from shell vendors. Ties equal more shootoffs = more ammo.

4. Pressure from shoot managers. Those with tie scores on Tuesday may be forced to stay 2 more days.

5. As User-1 says "the occupy the 27 movement". It only takes a few EC members to shoot at the 27 getting easy yardage in the west or Mississippi to whine they cant tie the better shooters with sporting birds. Time for a graph

 

Most situations were changed well before and only reaffirmed by the 1992 FTF rule. The FTF rule simply removed the last obstacles that could cause a lost target other than voluntarily not firing at a legal target which is still ‘lost’ according to the rules (but often taken as an allowable FTF). Now the dreaded ‘flinch’ was finally acceptable in granting the shooter another target.

However, my point really had nothing to do with that rule, I was merely pointing out that there were a number of factors that once caused lower scores that are no longer part of the game. Those factors taken collectively created a higher level of difficulty to the sport. Removing those once required statutes and adding improvements such as the Voice Controlled Release (VCR) produced higher scores and in the opinion of many, lessened the value of the achievements.

From the time the amateurs assumed control of the organization in 1923 until January 1968 the result of shooting at a broken target had to be scored. (In checking I see it was also the noted back in the 1889 trapshooting rules.

Here’s the 1924 rules from a March 1924 SPORTSMEN’S REVIEW:

​

Here is the rule printed in 1965 ATA Rulebook on page 14:

​

And the new 1968 rules from the January issue on page 23, issued by the Executive Committee.

​

HB

​

 

Personally, I don’t recall ever hearing of a rule “dented primer = No Target, no dent = Lost.” I believe all rules since the 1880s placed defective shells in the “No Target” section. Now, if a shooter tried to re-shoot a bad shell and the shell failed again, it was considered a lost target. The below are the applicable rules from 1889 and 1991. You’ll notice that defective shells allow the shooter another target.

Rule 19 verifies my contention regarding shooting at a broken target being in earlier rules. This shows the rule was in place since at least 1889 until 1968.

​

1991 ATA Rules (see NO TARGET; a (1), Misfire (Dud Shell)

​

I believe that was the main reason but there were those who did not want their occasional flinch to be scored as a lost target as well.

I respect your right to disagree.

I will agree that when considering each factor on an individual basis they are small in comparison to reducing the difficulty in the setting of targets, but all these factors had an accumulative impact, important enough to cause long-standing rules to be amended in order to produce higher scores. Rules rarely get changed if the problem appears insignificant to the majority.

I believe it most likely happened a few times but I have no verification to back up my statement.

I appreciate the discussion and your interest Iowa Guy.

Enjoy Our History !

HB

 

How can anyone imply that getting extra birds or "do overs" doesn't create higher scores?
And how can anyone imply that easier targets do not create higher scores?
And how can anyone imply that higher scores do not have a direct correlation on more grand slams?

 

FG,

Do overs may result in higher scores. HB labeled it a SIGNIFICANT factor. I simply disagree with that part of it.
Nothing about easier Targets in my reply.
I simply do not believe the people capable of shooting GS qualifying scores would be impacted by the 'do over' rule changes that HB referenced.

 

HB, thanks for the rules references. I never doubted you, I just remember how I was trained as a scorer in the 70's. It's good to see the rules of yesterday and try to make sense of why they were changed.

With regard to dented primer thing. I was either trained wrong or didn't remember correctly. Either one is a real possibility.

Thanks for the reply.

 

iowa guy, I appreciate your questions as well as your opposing view, offered respectfully. Glad you liked seeing the old rules. I've enjoyed collecting them over the years and only wish I had a copy for every year of trapshooting so I would know all the rule changes and when they happened. I'll never know why some of them were approved.

Regarding how we learned or was taught trap rules all I can say is that many of us have been informed of a rule only to later learn that we were told something incorrect. I always tried to read the rules myself and sometimes carried the little book in my back pocket while shooting. I always went by those rules too. Took myself out of a couple important (to me) shoot-offs because I had one sip of a beer before learning I was in a shoot-off. One was for my State Zone HOA Championship. Gosh how I loved shooting off too.

Thanks for not doubting me, but I don't mind a respectful challenge at all. Like everyone else, I too am very capable of making a mistake. My integrity depends on me being truthful and accurate. Questions such as yours aid in that way.

HB

 

Huh? Grand slams are about being "perfect" a perfect 100 - 3 of them. How would they not be the most affected since giving do overs would give you another and another and maybe another chance at being perfect? How many do overs do you want to have a perfect round. Is 6 enough? 20? At what point does it affect them?

 

FG, you're question isn't worth a response.

 

Iowa Guy -
How perfect is a second or third chance at perfection? Leo and Frank Little had flinches. I wonder how many more perfect scores Little would have had if he had some "re-dos". Could be he would not have changed to a release trigger.

 

Still thinking on this. The people that would be affected as per GS "close to qualifying scores" would be those capable of shooting "98's and 99's. I am wondering how many 99's the better shooters like Dysinger and his pals had in the 70's, 80's and 90's. How many of those scores would have gone from a 98 or 99 to a 100 and finishing another grand slam?

How many folks are out there from that era that lost a bird due to a flinch or didn't put a shell in the gun?

 

After reading the words and opinions about do over's to achieve a Grand Slam I can't help but think that of all of the hundreds of Grand Slams that at least a few of them have benefited from a do over. This isn't accusing anyone of cheating. With the rule changes allowing do over's it does make achieving any perfect score a little easier to achieve. Just my opinion.

Dave Berlet

 

SMS/Dave, yes, the possibility is there that some perfect scores benefit from the FTF rule, where those targets would have been lost previously. We'll never know for certain what that number is. Of that number there is a smaller subset that would have occurred in a GS qualifying event.

 

Iowa Guy - first you said

Then your position reverses

Really....that is the best you can do? "Subset" Common sense works better than the word "subset". Give anyone enough do overs and they can have a perfect score. Make the angles narrow enough and the scores will go even higher. Common sense.

Time for a graph.

 

I could use a graph

Had my right hip replaced Wednesday and could use something funny to laugh about.

 

FG, I have not changed my position. The two quotes you referenced do not contradict themselves.

Why don't you put together a chart or graph that shows how many perfect scores have been shot since 1992 where there was a FTF and that FTF would have been previously scored a lost target.

There is really no sense in continuing this debate as the absolute truth will never be known. There is no doubt the FTF rule has aided some in increasing their average. Like most of you, I don't really care for the rule. But in the context of what this thread was meant to be, a Grand Slam discussion, I just don't believe it has had a very significant impact. I don't consider myself a Grand Slam quality shooter and I can tell you that have had no instances of a FTF that would have previously been scored a loss under the prior rules. Fortunately, I haven't developed a flinch and I do recognize that those that do flinch can benefit a great deal from the FTF rule.

So at this point we'll just disagree and leave it at that.

Flyers,

Sorry I couldn't generate a graph for you. Hope your recovery is fast and complete.

 

Do every thing that the Doc. and Therapist tell you to do. Do not do anything more than they tell you to do as this can be bad for the correct healing process. Good luck with the rehab. Roger C.

 

Roger if I understand your above post correctly you are now a therapy Dr. besides being a dietary Dr. Since you keep prescribing the 8 Sisters donuts for some of your patients. LOL

Dave Berlet

 

Thanks for the concern guys. I plan on doing everything by the book.

Iowa Guy, I didn't expect you to provide the graph. I thought the resident, "graphmaster" would chime in and add his 2 cents.

 

Grand Slams easy 17 Degree Targets almost Tripled on the xxxxx TARGETS. This is why I did not Support the Easy Target Change in the First Place, and the Turmoil it
Caused by me w/ NEIL WINSTON's wanting the chage, there is NOT A FAIR COMPARASION, on the later 1964 xxxxx targets.There was ABSOLUTELY no reason for a change. Maybe they could have changed the Minnesota Targets for Neil Winston!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

For Your HUMOR ROGER.

Gary Bryant................................DLS

 

David, I have the happiest patients in town. They love my advise about eating more donuts. Medicare will not honor my bills, so all advise is free.
I just finished therapy for my shoulder replacement, now I start for my neck and lower back. I keep them working regularly.. Roger C.

 

The # of Grand Slams TRIPLED From approx. 1964-2017 Vs the first Grand Slam to 1963, the answer is The Voice Calls, & 17 degree xxxxx Targets, that should have never ever been changed. Football Fields have not been Shortened, Look what throttle Plates did to Racing at Indianapolis, And NASCAR Racing. Golf did not move the Tees closer,

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