Can the big guys shoot the wide angles?

I hear this talk about a new org or new Series of Championship Tournaments. Do you think the big dawgs can shoot the wider angles they are talking about? Big stocks, heavy guns, and big bellies might be a problem. Or not?

 

Some lesser specimens might need switch to lighter guns like Model 12's, 870's, BT-99's or Browning Lightnings.

 

They are big dawgs b/c they shoot easy targets. Put them to shoot bunker. Game over.!

 

Artur,
You need to compare apples to apples, not apples to avocados!

American trap and bunker are two entirely different games.

 

Harlan will dodge any tournament with challenging angles. jmho

 

Yep, without blinking an eye!

 

spactularsparta, And on what evidence do you base that statement? I shot with Harland at a small club a couple of years back. IT WAS A 200 BIRD HANDICAP, WITH OPTIONS ON EACH. HARLAND BROKE 99 ON BOTH HUNDREDS. Missing on the last field of each. When we left the field, I said to him man you made so serious bucks today. I mentioned the perfect fifties on both hundreds. I will never forget his answer. It was oh no Roger, that would not be right for me to come in and take that purse money. The local shooters put that in there not me. Each one of those purses had well into the four figures in dollars. A man with that sense of fair play is not afraid of any competition. ROGER C.

 

I base that statement on shooting with Harlan for over a decade, breaking bread with him at large shoots and getting my ass whipped for too many years in shootoffs.

And are you inferring that I implied that Harlan is afraid of competition? If so, please point that out to me.

 

Love the sign on name. spectacularsparta.

Kinda like that guy Leonidas with his anti CC avatar. Maybe the same guy, maybe not? He claimed the avatar was because he didn't like the cardinals baseball team or some such nonsense but he was just a liar.

In any case, tell your friends on that old site to pick a name championing that place in Il. and join in.

You could answer one question for me if you don't mind. With the pathetic turn out for the GAH, what was once the largest and best event of the entire year, just WHAT is so spectacular about "sparta". You must think there is something. OR, you are being sarcastic and you really don't think there is anything.

The numbers shooting the GAH, and the SCTP pulling out, sure don't support it being "spectacular". A white elephant and a money pit but not much more.

 

3-hole targets in 1996 only cost the top 40 big dogs half-a-point in their handicap averages, as a group; the best ones were hardly affected at all. I think they handle wider angles pretty well.



N1H1

 

There it is. I was waiting for a repeat of that moronic graph. Neil would like you to believe the handicap averages stayed about the same and the big dawgs were not shooting targets out west that year. And that year / era there was rampant cheating in the west.

The graph doesn't give you that fact.

The graph doesn't tell you the shooters had to have a good average to get those free shells. And many did not care what it took to get that high average. Easy two or one hole targets out west were the ticket.

The other thing Neil does not tell you is that the big dawgs fell on their face again at the GAH and all other shoots in the east where the targets were harder. Flat on their face. The graph doesn't tell you that fact. But Neil doesn't want you to know that.

If you want the real story you have to ask Neil what FG keeps asking. "Are you proud of the lifetime achievement award you were given"....and Neil was instrumental in getting the 3-hole target rule rescinded. ..MN HOF Induction

Graph that N1H1...duck me too.

 

Kay Ohye's handicap average went UP .5% the year we threw 3-hole targets.

 

So....?
Empty statement. Post a list of his targets. Otherwise that statement is as worthless as Neil's graph.

 

butterly wrote:

"The other thing Neil does not tell you is that the big dawgs fell on their face again at the GAH and all other shoots in the east where the targets were harder. Flat on their face. The graph doesn't tell you that fact. But Neil doesn't want you to know that."

Actually, I do want you to know what happened at the 1995 Grand American shot over 3-hole targets under the close supervision of the 1995 EC. ALL the handicaps were won by 27-yarders save the Vandalia, which was won from the 26.

George S. McCarty Handicap Ray Stafford (27) 98

Bill Petras Handicap Dan Bonillas (27) 99

Ohio Handicap Daro Handy (27) 98

Trap & Field Handicap Jim Forsach (27) 99

Neal Crausbay President's H. Ray Stafford (27) 100

Budweiser Handicap Leo Harrison III (27) 100

Grand American Handicap Jason Booker (27) 99

Vandalia Handicap Jerry Stafford (26) 100

I suggest readers here check my post and butterly's and decide who has the facts.

One of the reasons the 3-hole was discarded was that it did not lead to the increased competitiveness of short-yardage shooters that had been promised. My graph above is accurate. The very best ATA handicap shooters were little affected by the change to 3-hole targets as the results from the 1995 Grand American prove.

N1H1

 

N1H1....I was there that year

We were talking about '96 and you post results for '95. Find a dumber crowd to misinform.

As per '95. I was there. Those targets were far from 3 hole targets and yes they were supervised by the EC.
----------------

Again the above graph is accurate only that it does not reflect where the targets were shot, making the graph pure crap. Much like the rest of his graphs.

Crappy data leads to crappy graphs.
---------------

And he never did say if he was proud of his lifetime achievement award...and Neil was instrumental in getting the 3-hole target rule rescinded. ..MN HOF Induction.

Ducking me too?

 

They were 3-hole in 1995, I set some of them. I shot them too. They were 3-hole.

The 1996 Grand American Handicap and Vandalia Handicap were shot with 2-hole since the vote Thursday night did away with the 3-hole and shooters couldn't wait to get beck to what they liked better.

You still have to explain

"The other thing Neil does not tell you is that the big dawgs fell on their face again at the GAH" since I have proven that it wasn't true.

N1H1

Readers here are urged to notice that I supply the numbers, butterly does not. Numbers are facts. You can look them up. You can use those numbers to find out who is telling the truth, who isn't.

 

So who is posting "empty statements"? butterly 's comments are summarized as: blah, blah, blah... Where is the documentation...? Ed

 

BS...your EC pals kept the targets easy.
N1H1 posted a response for '96 and the showed us '95 data instead. Graph that!

Show us where we can find where the shooters got their targets? Numbers may be factual and misleading making your graph worthless.

 

And how about the response......still ducking the question by FG?And he never did say if he was proud of his lifetime achievement award...and Neil was instrumental in getting the 3-hole target rule rescinded. ..MN HOF Induction.

Misleading graph not needed.....just respond.

 

I case you don't have any idea Kay was from NJ and I'm quite sure he shot most of his targets on the East coast. Prove he didn't!

 

I am sure he didn't register many winter targets in Jersey. Betting he shot the easier chain shoots too. Probably Vegas too back then. I think you would lose that bet. Good for you it cant be proved. Great material for another meaningless graph. Title it "Graph of targets we don't know were shot."

 

Kay shoots for money-always did. I know of no good paying shoots in NJ the dead of winter. If you know anything about FL, shoots you'd know they never paid squat, targets generally suck and great places to lower your average.

That said, I once saw a shootoff at Elysburg PA with the late Frank Little and lesser specimens. Targets were eventually set in the 4-hole and speeded up. Frank just hammered 'em. I also watched him break a 25 straight with one shot over a wobble trap.

Quite frankly, you know nothing of what you speak.

 

The East Coast shooters who cut their teeth on targets back east can go about any place in the country and fare reasonably well ... Many times its more difficult to slow down your game than pick it up so they would miss some until they got back dialed in ... Kay said at the Spring Grand (Old Phx Club) the targets almost seem like they are hardly moving, yet they were set on the higher side of legal limits ... Records of targets and where they were shot are on the ATA web site, not sure how far back they go but it is quite a ways so they can be looked up ... The cream will always rise to the top, that you can be sure of ... WPT ... (YAC) ...

 

Oledawg
First you agree implying Kay's home NJ could not have been where he shot targets in the winter. Good call on taking that back. Then you say he might have shot in Florida. Did he? When? It's not my story. Frank never won the GAH. Not sure he had better than a 97 in Vandalia. But it is your story. Give us the facts. Tell us what shoot Kay was in that year. '96

 

What is a 1, 2, 3, and 4 hole target?

 

I see you never saw the base plate on an old Western hand set trap. Trust me, there never was a squirrel on a treadmill that loaded those targets.

 

I've never seen Kay duck a difficult venue-nor Frank Little. I believe it was you who suggested he shot his targets in FL.

 

You said 2 hole was '98 and 3 hole '96. Then you showed some shooter scores for '95. How does '95 prove 96? Stats are of little value without the same data about the same shooters the following year(s). Stick to shooting.

 

I looked at Kay Ohye's records, didn't want to post them because the number of shoots and targets are endless all over the United States, most on the east coast ... The amount of space it would take just back to the year 2000 is incredible and would waste a lot of space to prove a point on this site ...Anyone can view his records if they go to the ATA site and punch in his name (Ohye) ... Before the year 2000 they are archived and can be viewed and downloaded ... Good Luck and Happy Hunting ... WPT ... (YAC) ...

 

You cant see where he shot in the above years. Only the average.

 

Stanman, I never said that 1995 was not 3-hole. The 3-hole was introduced in March, 1995 and continued until the Annual Meeting of the BOD the night before the GAH in August, 1996.

My graph covers 1996 because was almost a full target year of shooting, while 1995 was not, having missed the winter Satellite Grands and a lot of Arizona and Florida shooting. The 1995 Grand was all 3-hole but the last three weeks; that's where the data which disproves butterly's claim: "The other thing Neil does not tell you is that the big dawgs fell on their face again at the GAH and all..." came from. They did anything but "fall on their faces" at the 1995 Grand American. They won everything but the Saturday Vandalia Handicap which was won from the 26,

My graph is about the top 40 handicap shooters in 1996 and 1998 and so is the opposite of your complaint

"Stats are of little value without the same data about the same shooters the following year(s)."

You and other posters here are welcome to post their own data. So far, no one has.

What this thread lacks is a trace of actual data from the supporters of the 3-hole. Get on it, Stan and the rest of you! Only data, not mere assertions, count in a discussion like this,

N1H1

 

Imagine the torture and guilt one must have to accept a HOF lifetime achievement award for removing the sport from trapshooting. In a way I can see why he would avoid the subject.

We need a graph of guilt.

 

Correct me if wrong....the saying they were three hole targets only implies 3 hole targets were legal not that they were set that way.

 

So your graph does not cover a "full year of shooting" ? Hmmm
And 1996 is not a full year of shooting.
And the most regulated handicap event, the GAH, is the event the big shooters had problems.

Your data then is worthless.

 

They were set in the 3-hole at the shoots I went to. They were set that way when I set them, as I sometimes did and did at the Grand. I see no evidence that they were set any differently at other clubs. I say "Prove it,"

It didn't work the way is was supposed to, that shorter-yardage shooters would be more competitive against the big dogs. Of course it didn't. Who would think that more difficult targets would be a greater challenge for really good big-dogs than their less-talented opposition? It makes no sense and the proof is the 1995 Grand. It just widened the gap between the stars and the rank and file and the BOD returned to the 2-hole.

N1H1

 

Stan, the 1996 data I graphed was a full year minus the last two weeks when not much shooting takes place. That's better than the data in the Average Book (my source) for 1995, which lacked about 60% of the target year and so relected only 40% of the year with 3-hole shooting.

Post your own data if you don't like mine. The thing is, no one around here but I knows much of anything about the whole affair and can prove less. Can you correct that?

N1H1

 

Yea ..... most "shorter-yardage shooters" would "call for" 100 targets and shoot at them .....

How about a "graph" with the scores of 99/100x175 ..... it was crazy how many "slow pulls" were hard angles .....

Take away the Mulligans if you want to see how "hard targets" will work ..... it is POINTLESS information without some SERIOUS POLICING .....

 

Neil, Were there any clubs in the mid west that were throwing 0NE, hole uninterrupted, registered targets at about that same time? How would they fit in with summary of averages? Roger C.

 

The above post shows this guy still does not comprehend the damage he and his cronies did to the sport. He took the sport / challenge out of the game. He was instrumental in this despite a century of work done to make the sport more challenging....he helped destroy it.

What is narcissism? Re-read this statement ---

Do you think this guy is proud of his lifetime achievement?

 

H1N1

By your own admission you do not have data from a whole target year to compare to data from a whole target year. You don't have similar shoots to compare to data from similar shoots of another year. Bad data is bad data. Bad data results in graphs that lead to faulty decisions / mistakes.

It isn't my job to find better data. We can see the results. You use 95 results to justify what you imagine happened in 96. But (conveniently) no data for that 96 period. Again worthless data leading to weak conclusions.

Congratulations on the award.

 

Can you name one, Roger? I never ran into any.

N1H1

 

If you clik on the years it will open to the clubs he shot at which is why I didn't post them being as the clubs and number of targets are endless and would take more space than it would be worth to prove a point ... You can open each individual year and see which clubs he shot at, prior to 2000 you would have to download it out of the archives and then open them ... I did it, I know it can be done ... WPT ... (YAC) ...

 

Spec. Sparta, I reread your post about Harlan You are inferring that he is not a true sportsman, and is only in the game for the money, Not a very complimentary statement about a friend. Do not disparage about someones motivations, it is not the brightest thing to do. Roger C.

 

What's that guy's name out west that was suspended for throwing easy targets?

 

Neil, Yes my field guy did in Wis. When the ATA wanted all machines certified that they had interuptors in them. One club not only did not have interuptors in them, but Mike could tell only the one hole was ever used. The only fields that were interupted were the two practice fields. I"m sure it was just an over sight. Roger C.

 

Sounds like a lot of shooters with little or no talent are being picked on by shooters with an unfair advantage, namely talent.
It must suck to live in a world where the only thing that makes you feel better about your shortcomings is to blame someone else for your lack of talent.

The three hole target was implemented with good intentions to even up the handicap game and make it easier for shooters with no talent to compete. As one very good 27 yd. shooter said to me " The three hole might cost me a target once in a while but it will cost the the short yardage shooter 2 or 3 or more every time they shoot".

 

Actually the three hole target setting is much easier than the target settings before that. For decades the leaders of the sport feared the monotony and high scores and fought to keep the scores down. Then came Neil.

Below is one of History Buffs' diagrams from 1931

 

In the interest of accuracy Neil could have mentioned the following.

* '95 had an 11 month target year. '96 was one year plus one month. Not comparable. Some clubs never changed target settings and were confused.

* despite the 3 hole setting the participants in '95 was 54,462.

* '97 was the first 2 hole setting for a complete year. Participants totaled 53,787.

He could have mentioned the above if accuracy was important. What is important is a misleading graph to justify his lifetime achievement award.

 

The Statement by that 27 yard shooter pretty much sums it up, actually makes the argument more in favor of 3 hole targets ... WPT ... (YAC) ...

 

In the interest of accuracy as requested we can look at total targets registered. Neil has not included those numbers either.

In 1997 there were 81,669,910 targets registered.

By 2014 there were 30 million less targets registered. Now that's a lifetime achievement.

 

Hey Roger, the guy you are arguing with is one of the big dawgs and an all american to boot.

I saw him at the dollar just about every day until he left to head back north about ten days ago.

 

These hole numbers referred to the "angle changing disc" on the V1524A Western White Flyer Trap used from about 1950 up and into the early 2000's. And some clubs may still be using them. The disk had threaded holes the letter D center hole providing for a straight away during target setting and for doubles, and numbered holes 1 - 5, that adjusted targets to the desired minimum flight path in accordance with the rules. Under normal conditions, the No. 3 hole would throw the targets at the minimum straight away paths in line with shooting stations No. 1 and No. 5.

Number 1 & 2 holes were permitted in severe incoming wind conditions as long as the minimum angle was still equal or greater to the straight away target from Posts 1 & 5 requirement.

Number 4 & 5 holes were permitted when strong tail winds prevailed . . . again only if the extreme right and left angle requirements could be attained.

What is most important for you to understand is that the hard right and left targets from 1955 to 1996 had to be a minimum of a straight away from Post 1 & 5. Anything less was not in compliance of A.T.A. rules and these targets as well as shooter scores should have been disqualified.

So you are aware, over the years, trapshooting rules have been amended to reduce the angles from 45° to 22° to 17.14°. This action has been one of the factors responsible for high number of top scores in Singles, Doubles and Handicap shooting.

​

Both Ohye and Little advocated compliance of the rules at the straight-away from posts #1 & #5 angle setting, commonly referred to as the 3-hole target.

Actually, the 3-hole was the normal angle adjustment used to conform to A.T.A. rules from 1950 until August 15, 1996.

 

The motion and vote did allow for Friday and Saturday's Grand American targets to be set using the 2-hole and the effective date for all other registered shoots was the first day of the 1997 target year (September 1, 1996).

I don't understand the statement "shooters couldn't wait to get back to what they liked better." If that means they wanted to get back to shooting narrower targets than the minimum right & left angles being straight aways from Posts 1 & 5, then they must have been use to shooting targets that did not comply with A.T.A. rules.

 

Spec. sparta, He may be a big dawg, but dicing an other shooter will not make him a nicer person. If you can not say something good about some one then say nothing. All big dawg's are not champions, they may be winners , but a champion is also a gentleman. Even if Harlan does feel that way it is not anyone elses place to advertise that, that is a personal thing.
Many would never have made the grade when Jimmy Robinson did the selections for the honors. Roger C.

 

For those interested, here is a bit of history that I am mostly in agreement with.

​

Enjoy Our History !

 

HB, at the risk of a select few thinking I am Neil again, I will point out what I believe is a misunderstanding in the posts above. First, I think most shooters certainly were used to shooting narrower targets than the rules called for, and that went on for decades. Based on many of your posts, 2 hole targets were even thrown at the Grand dating back to the late 50's it sounds like. Could be different in different parts of the country, but by the 90's my belief is that the vast majority of shooters were used to 2 hole targets. So yes, I think that is what Neil is saying.

I'm reading Neil's mention of March 1995 as the date the EC mandated enforcement of the rules (3 hole) which continued until the BOD took action in August 1996, not that that was the entire period the rules called for 3 hole equivalent targets.

And again, I just do not believe for a second that the big dawgs have any fear whatsoever of three hole targets. That's my view, I do understand others differ.

 

Big guys are rarely good hard angle shooters and always get themselves bought for the minimum in calcuttas! Lmao

 

Some great quotes from HB's posted article:

"I know of at least one state shoot that throws 1 hole targets."

"The most resistance to complying....long yardage shooters...and those refusing reductions"
--------------

Tell me more about fake averages.

Not much changes. Isn't that what a bunch on this forum have been saying? I look forward to a new org or that new Championship Series being discussed.

 

Bat,

I don't believe either of us can prove our statements and you may be right that "the vast majority of shooters were used to 2 hole targets," but I sure hope you are incorrect and that the majority was shooting target angles in compliance with our rules (minimum right & left angle flights in line with Posts 1 and 5).

Many readers today think the Executive Committee was attempting to institute a new rule making targets more difficult. Nothing could be farther from the truth. They were attempting to amend the language to insure that all ATA members knew the Flights & Angles rules since more and more clubs (even at the GAH tournament as you stated), were starting to use the 2-hole setting exclusively.

I totally agree that a return to the 22° wider target will not discourage any of the "big dawgs" but what I believe it will do is reduce the number of top scores, especially in the handicap events. There is no reason for the 72 200-straight scores I recall counting one year at the Grand American. Many of the top shooters didn't play the options on those single events. And as I've stated in the past, "a 100-straight in handicap should be a rare occurrence."

In my early days of shooting I believed in the theory of setting targets to raise shooter's scores in order to keep them in the game or continue their membership. It seemed like logical conclusion.

I have abandoned that line of thinking. Shooters don't stop trapshooting because the targets are hard and/or they are unable to break only a few out of 25. If that were true most would never return for a second round. The Sporting Clays game would never have evolved since in the late 80's a score of 72x100 would win some State Championships. I think I won A-Class with a score in the 60's in 1989 as a USSCA member.

The all day monotonous shooting event is what drives members away from registered shooting in my opinion. It's been that way for over 100 years and discussions favoring targets that present more challenge and lower winning scores were being discussed way back in 1885, shortly after the sport moved from the glass ball era to domed targets. I've talked about challenging novelty events conducted during tournaments and even the early Grand American's had the Joker Traps going all day. The 1922 Grand American almost had a grouse shooting event with crossing and incoming targets on the recommendation of George S. McCarty who oversaw construction of the A.T.A. homegrounds at Vandalia in 1924.

While some of today's top shooters believe narrowing the targets is better for the poorer shot, I'll side with the opinions expressed by Kay Ohye and the late Frank Little.
In Kay's Outlook article in Trap & Field's January 1981 issue he writes:

"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 competiveness 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."

In his October 1983 Trap & Field article "The 27-Yard Line," Frank Little made the following comments:

"Recent years have produced a trend toward higher scores, especially at handicap. This year’s Grand was a prime example of what is transpiring across our nation. We had five 100 straights, 28 99s and 48 98s, while 400 scores earned yardage in this year’s Grand American handicap, most of which were shot at close-yardage (less than 24 yards) shooters. Many people think it’s the gun and ammo that caused the higher scores. This shoot/writer feels it is primarily due to the recent changes in the handicap system."

"When I first started shooting, it was an honor to be on the 27-yard line, Class AA. However, the trend with many shooters now is to get as close as you can along with friends. This is a real way of life in the Midwest, i.e., Indiana, Ohio, Kentucky, Michigan, Illinois and I’m sure, some other states as well. Several clubs offer $8.00 registered week-night practice with virtually no discipline of the scores. I recently attended one near me where targets, in my estimation, are intentionally dropped to keep from earning yardage just before the state or Grand. One of the individuals appeared to drop numerous targets to assure that he shot in Class D at the Grand for both doubles and singles. I checked the Class D scores, and sure enough, there he was in Class D with Class AA scores in both events, and he played all the options. The only reason he did not win was because he was outshot by another individual, probably doing the same thing. In both cases, those people won more money than the Class AA champions who broke perfect scores."

"Recently it has been said that it is not fair for the 27-yard shooter to win and not be penalized. The answer to that problem at that time was to make it considerably easier to get reductions. The strategy recently was to no longer use 16-yard averages to help determine ability. This is what the system was 20 years ago, and the leadership decided to go back to it. It resulted in Class A and AA shooters shooting closer than 22 yards. Needless to say the results are and have been devastating to the handicap system."

"Another rule change that was equally devastating but seldom realized is the raising of the average for reduction eligibility from 87% to 89%. The leadership raised it to allow yardage off if you average less than 89% at handicap. Where I come from, if you average 89%, you have to break in the mid-90s now and then, which is a pretty darn good handicap score."

"I personally feel that if we are going to fix the handicap system, we need to take the following three steps:"

1) Throw legal targets.

"If we have shooters who are breaking 94% and above from 27 yards, we should use three- or four-hole settings on most popular brand traps to increase the angle to throw a straightaway from one and five. Allowing hole two at nearly all shoots and even hole one, which was reportedly done at one of the satellite Grands, allows the outstanding shot a definite advantage through reduced angles. Hard angles require a large lead from 27 yards. The greater the distance between the gun and bird, the harder it is to measure; consequently, more angle targets will be missed from 27 yards. I believe that hole three or equivalent angles will have a greater impact on the long-yardage ones. Most 27-yard shooters will agree with me on this point."

"Another factor about the legal target is the distance. The rule says the target should be thrown from 48 to 52 yards in still air. I can’t remember when I’ve seen a target go 52 yards in recent years. Most clubs are now throwing 45- to 48-yard targets. If you couple one- or two-hole birds and 45-to-48-yard targets with a 94%+, 27-yard handicap shooter, the results will be favorable to the 27-yarder, and I agree it should not be allowed. Thirty yards is not the answer. A legal target is."

2) A managed handicap system.

"I don’t necessarily preach that we go back to the exact highly-disciplined system we had 10 years ago; however, something similar is certainly better than what we have today. For example, the following recommendations are based on at least 1,000 16-yard targets before being used. IT’s relatively easy to understand and manage."

16-Yard Class Yardage Handicap

Class AA not less than 25 yards
Class A not less than 23 yards
Class B not less than 21 yards
Class C not less than 20 yards
Class D not less than 19 yards

"Before anyone goes below the 19-yard line, a manual review should take place by the delegate and Central Handicap Committee member within the zone."

"The same theory can be applied to the class system. For example, if you’re punched from 23 to 25 yards, your class will automatically go from Class A to AA, etc. In addition, people known to purposely drop targets would be severely penalized."

3) Equalize the purse.

"Today’s system allows the Class B and C and close-yardage shooter to win more than the 27-yard or Class AA champion; the reason is that each class shoots for its own money, and most of our shooters are in Classes B and C. A pro-rated purse based on the number of entries in each class or yardage fattens the lower classes and yardages with purse money and reduces the Class AA to an embarrassing figure. The consequence of that is we have people purposely lowering their class to raise their dollar potential, which is again wrong from an ethical standpoint. These same individuals are using the analogy with the handicap system; i.e., the lower the score now, the higher my winnings later. We need to stop this, and the only way to really put a handle on it is to reduce the more lucrative purses in the lower classes and yardages. If we create an incentive to lower the class and/or yardage, there will be someone there to take advantage of it. It the incentive is equal at all yardages and classes, we will have less of a tendency to have people trying to lower their class and/or yardage for monetary reasons."

"Another item which is not necessarily related to the handicap system, class system, etc., but which is certainly important to the integrity of the sport is our referees. Too many of our referees (scorekeepers) do not know the rules. Our clubs are hiring anyone who will work for a minimum wage, and their priority is someone that does not shot. High school kids seem to be the most popular and also the more carefree. Many don’t know the rules and don’t care. They also don’t even care who wins. How many times have you seen the high school trap help watching a shootoff to see if they scored the individuals who are in contention? You probably never will. They could not care less about what you score. When rules are violated, they don’t’ know or even care."

"If a lost target is scored dead, it usually goes unchallenged, etc. Only a few shooters in today’s environment correct these situations when they happen, and most of them seem to be the better shots, interested in fair play. However, when you intervene to straighten out the score, your concentration is broken, and the results are often missed targets. Referees should be qualified by passing a rules test. If referees are not firm and accurate, they should be replaced."

"One answer to this might be to go back to using shooters or dedicated non-shooters as scorekeeping referees. It will require a managed system to allow the scorekeeper time to shoot; however, when considering the cost of the sport, we deserve the best."

HB

 

THANK YOU HB

Much better than a "graph"

 

Oh no. The best trapshooters would be totally befuddled by wider angles. The B and A class shooters would take over. A complete reversal.
Yea, right.

 

The Camp Troy targets were wider than the Grand Targets. They were set at straight-a-ways from Post #1 and #5, for the Night Shoot, I saw them set em.

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

 

Correct, those are just our observations, but I will say that if I am correct about the vast majority of shooters being used to 2 hole targets back in those days, they were also used to shooting targets that were not set in accordance with ATA rules at the time. No two ways about it. That's my observation, and I believe most shooters would agree with me, if they had any idea what we are talking about. Most clubs were not throwing straights from 1 and 5 for decades up through the 90's, that's my opinion.

Then in 1995 the EC mandated enforcement of the existing rule, as you stated, and that lasted for awhile until the board was charged with either sticking with the EC mandate or changing the rule, and they changed the rule in August 1996.

As I said before, I don't really care about 2 or 3 hole issues personally, makes little difference in my experience. I do not know what the ramifications of change would be for the sport though, although I know it is a complicated issue. My point here is that some posters make it sound like the big dawgs are afraid of 3 hole targets etc., and I really think that is an uninformed opinion.

 

HB, let me modify part of that. I don't necessarily believe "most clubs" had been throwing illegal targets for "decades" leading up to the 90's. I believe many clubs, including at the Grand, had been doing it for decades (at least off and on), but overall it was a gradual thing, and by the 90's most were doing it.

 

Much has happened to make the 27 yd. line easier than when Little wrote that article. The number one reason was the introduction of voice activated systems. I wish Frank was still alive today as I'm sure he wouldn't miss being at the mercy of a gum chewing, prepping for her Saturday night date, sixteen yo puller with little attention span. Yes, some of us were there when it wasn't uncommon to get three targets without calling for any of 'em. With that in mind I'd say Sir Neil's comments get my vote.

 

Gee Oleolliedawg..........Frank Little said the Big Shots including him have problems with the wide angles at the 27. Obviously Frank and I know far less than you. Talk on dawg, talk on!

 

Thirty yards is not the answer. A legal target is
Frank Little back when there were wide angles.

 

Did you even know anything about Trapshooting a mere 35 years ago? I was there and almost 20 years before that.

 

Gee dawg.....With all respect due to the elderly, Frank says you are wrong regardless how long your teeth are. Wide angles dawg. Wider angles.

 

I have to think based on the posting by HB by Frank Little and Kay Ohye that there is some Merit to what they are saying or said in the past, don't think that has changed yet today ... The cream is still going to rise to the top and they will more then likely win without a perfect score but the way the game was initially designed would increase the challenge and put some degree of Honor back into the game for all ... WPT ... (YAC) ...

 

I recall watching Frank Little many times prior to his passing. Bad pulls may have bothered him but he didn't let it affect his shooting much. Boy, could he smoke targets from the back fence. Voice activated calls are a welcome improvement to the game but it removed one of the many challenges from the sport.

I too wish Mr. Little was still with us.

 

I know Kay and knew Frank and have the most tremendous respect for their shooting abilities and achievements. However, I feel pretty confident in saying that those two individuals in particular were hardly supporters of the average shooter getting into their cookie jars. In fact, they would most aggressively advocate against anything that would take money out of their pockets and have the opposite reaction to the contrary.

 

Son, please refer to my earlier post of actually watching Little eat up lesser specimens on wider, longer targets in shootoffs. Simply treat it as an education from your elders!

 

Yes, I miss him too. Frank shot many of our winter leaque shoots back east. Said it helped him to preare for the ATA shoots.
One of my favorite memories of Frank was when he was the first to walk up to me and shaked my hand when i broke a 97 from the 26 for my final punch to the 27 on Sat and again on Sun to win the long yardage from the 27 my first year shooting.

 

Dawg.....take the time to read what Frank said himself. Frank knew what targets he had trouble with. You use Frank as a reference and Frank says you are wrong. It doesn't matter how old you are. Frank said he and the other big shooters had problems with wide angles from the 27. Now tell me again how really old you are. It will make a difference.

Put your teeth in and read what he said.

 

The three hole target was implemented with good intentions to even up the handicap game and make it easier for shooters with no talent to compete. As one very good 27 yd. shooter said to me " The three hole might cost me a target once in a while but it will cost the the short yardage shooter 2 or 3 or more every time they shoot".

(reposted from J Baileys posting above )

No truer words have ever been spoken ... WPT ... (YAC) ...

 

Maybe you should open your eyes and ears and try to understand what Frank might have said when confronted with targets that actually appear on time. Listen son, I shot with Frank and against him and I know what he was capable of doing on any presentations.

 

Years ago there was a young friend of ours at one of the clubs we belonged to who was one of what we considered a "Big Dog" shooter.

Many days after shooting just for the fun of it at the club, he would go alone to a field and set the trap to extreme angles, and then shoot from the 27, changing his timing, shooting fast and slow. One day I asked why he was doing that, and he told me he was practicing for the windy days when he was shooting registered targets, and the birds would get pretty wild. He didn't want a "Timing Thing" to interfere with his concentration on the target.

Shooting them when he was on them, not at any particular distance from the trap house. That was his practice for that particular scenario.

Today this fellow is in that State HOF as well as the National THOF.

His solid practice workouts worked for him, and he had no fear of wind, rain, nor snow.

And you should see him shoot Wobble for practice..very common to see 25 straights from him at the 16 yard line, and most usually in the 20's from the 27. We even saw him hit a straight from the 27 one day at Wobble.. This Guy is a machine !

Just goes to show you that hard, dedicated practice, can make the Big Dogs fearless of any conditions.

So I don't believe anything presented to inhibit the abilities of the Big Dog shooters will be as much of a problem to them, as it would be to the weekend warriors who shoot Registered.

 

When the targets were wide and the weather was bad, wine etc, I remember many a day when they sat in the clubhouse playing cards. A breeze and wide angles kills at the 27.

 

The targets used to get set by the club and you would shoot them unless they got totally outside of the legal limits during the course of the day ... If you asked for a re set they would come out with a hoop and check them, 8 out of 10 times you had to shoot them as they were ... Today I see certain squads walk up, look at a target and re set them to their liking, this practice has to be stopped, if you touch them you are DQ'ed period ... No more of this set them so you like them and the hell with every body else, no matter who you are ... WPT ... (YAC) ...

 

Agree completely

 

There is one important thing to remember : Do not ever take the Big Gun, Top Gun, Big Guys, Seasoned Pros, and anything else you can think of lightly ... These people (men and woman) have dedicated much time, money, and what ever else it takes to get the game down "Pat" so little if anything gets by them ... The guys and girls giving clinics got there by doing what works under any and most circumstances ... I do not care how difficult you make the target presentation or where you shoot from they have created an advantage for them self against all odds, so when push comes to shove beware ... WPT ... (YAC) ...

 

H.B. Your repost of the letters by Vic, Frank and Kay are spot on. The EC has known what needs to be done for many years to keep this sport alive. They do not have the BALLS to put rules in place and then enforce them. They have skulked around the edges of some of the suggestions, but have never enforced the rules for target flights.
If the EC does not change their way of thinking we can kiss the registered target game goodbye. It is now on life support, when the old timers like me pass on there is no one to replace us, many of the young shooters are opting for Sporting Clays, and local meat shoots. Trap shooting it's self will not go away, but registered trap shooting may. I have noticed for many years that any business that is lead by people with no ambition to keep the business moving forward always end up folding it up.
Giving out our name and locations to outside business interests is not beneficial to the sport of trap shooting. It may bring in money, but that is not how the members should be exploited.
If this new champion ship agenda is as successful as it looks like it is going to be, the EC may have waited to long to wake up. Roger C.

 

Roger the big problem with ATA is the registered target stupidity.
You can get more money if you open the participation without any conditions( like registered) and ask for membership fee only..
You won't believe how many will sign up just to be a member. and the ATA will get more money.also.
Of cause it's a little work to be done( and wise) but the outcome will pays off.

Get the idea and leave the spelling...and read " Curing trigger freeze and flinching" book to get smarter!

 

artur,
There are many things wrong with the ATA, much to many to mention on this forum. Lack of leadership is one of them, on this we agree on. They have lost sight of the reason for A the existence of the ATA. It is not the same organization that was founded many years ago. Roger C.

 

Everybody know the problems but nobody takes action.
This attitude is emblematic for organizations where the folks "work" like the gov does..
There are three reasons for that:
1)There is no interest
2)Incompetence
3)They don't care

You can add more.

 

To lay down your money that you can take the ''the big dogs'' money when the weather is perfect as in little wind...remember this...A fool and his money are soon departed. I don't care how wide the targets are.

 

Case in point to my above post. Many decades ago I used to hunt and guide goose hunters on Marylands eastern shore. The Nightingales and Webbs hunted there also. They brought in some All American trapshooters {the best of the best} including Britt R. Some were not used to this kind of hunting and missed the first few that they thought were closer then they appeared .
But after they figured out the correct lead...it was a thing of beauty to watch these guys double up on pass shooting these high flying geese.

 

Then do the Pro class and bring sponsors in, but for that you need the game to be seen on TV and amateur class where the little guys grab they own money.
...but I am confuse about "big guys" when a 10 years old can shoot 100 straight from 16 or more.
Talking about about " big guys" and wide angles, Two guys shot , one 299/ 300 the other one 300/300 on the ATA field.
Coming over to shoot bunker, they shot 12/25, 14/25, first round and 15/25 and 14/25 second round.
Where the "big guy" attribute starts then?

 

Please be careful! I'm a "Big Guy" pushing 400#, and I enjoy what is being referred to as "Wide Angle Targets". IMHO: it takes a little more skill, and is more rewarding. The game has gotten to easy in my opinion. Thanks for allowing me to post my opinion!

 

It is time to move on and do some changes.One more thing, for that leadership is needed!
Lets separate the recreational trap from advance ATA.
A little speed and angle will motivate people to get interested!
Making mega tournaments from recreational trap like 400/400, 500/500 is boring.
Get rid of registered target and open the competition.
In 2118 you will agree with me! See you then!