Comment on HANDICAP

This one is guaranteed to start a scrap!! Recently I took State Shoot booklets and reviewed the Handicap section. In three States (not to be named) with histories listed from about 1930 to present there were 212 years listed with ONLY 4 FOUR 100 straight scores posted. Keep in mind this is not 212 entrants but 212 YEARS of entrants. There were not many more 99's. So---I guess my opinion is that the handicap program ain't too bad. Give your State an honest look and see what you find. Just a thought---

 

Let me guess .... the "three States (not to be named) " .... were NOT Ohio, Kentucky, and Pennsylvania ....

 

No but states with relatively small numbers of shooters.

 

Jim,
And your point is that there is not much wrong with the present Handicap system, if this is so then a great number of shooters here diagree with you. But again that is your right.

 

Jim those were years before NW pushed for the Narrow Targets, Faster Shells. Those were Competetive targets. Look at what has happened now
use those years and numbers, it is EYE AWAKENING.

GB DLS

 

What year was that---change to three hole targets?? I would like to look at the numbers. I can tell you that the three States I looked at only one of the 100's was year before last and it was many years before that that there was another 100. I still think that the numbers would be compelling that the system is not too bad. As far as disagreement OK go ahead but have you LOOKED at hard numbers and applied them to actual entrants. Remember people who want to outlaw guns and such use irrational emotional arguments. It's sort of like the old adage--"Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind's made up"! and "Often wrong---never in doubt" I will agree wit you and say I'm wrong IF you will tell me where to look for the facts---and you may well be right!!!

 

I looked at winning scores at N.Y. State Shoot and found 2 100's... N.Y. is no where as big as other shoots....

 

I looked at Handicap championship scores of these State shoots :

Utah - 1- 100 out of state - Ray Stafford

California, no 100 score

Maryland, no 100 score

Nebraska, no 100 score

Colorado, 1- 100 score 18 yrd SJ

Illinois, no 100 score

Tennessee, no 100 score

Kansas, 2 - 100 score 21.5 and 23.5 JR'S

Missouri, no 100 score

Great Lakes Grand, no 100 yd score

Some of these State shoots have some real good shooters.

I don't believe 100 scores in handicaps is as common as some people want others to believe!

 

I never saw a shoot that had a 100 until I was in a shoot that had close to 4000 shooters. Then the targets were changed.

While we are here and I see Neil is lurking and posting likes I will give him a shout.

Did your lifetime achievement of making the targets easier have the effect you wanted? You keep ducking the question as if you are not proud of the lifetime achievement award.

Who would be proud of taking the sport out of trapshooting?

 

Is Neil emailing stats to posters again? lol

Leonidas doesn't do research.

 

I am familiar with the states from which Jim drew his data, there are, and have been some very good shooters in that mix. In looking at MS records since 1918, here have been two - 100 straights in handicap (1947, 2013), of those I know the 2013 score was shot from the 27, I was not there in 1947 to see. Also, since 1918 there have been eighteen - 97's, seven - 98's, and three - 99's.
I do not recall when the angles changed (to the current (17 degrees left and 17 degrees right) 34 degrees spread minimum- the max can go as much as 10 degrees on either side beyond that... i.e. a max of 27 degrees left or 27 degrees right). I seem to recall that the only modern change in shell velocity was not really a change in velocity but a change in verbiage. I can remember when the rule stated the max charge was a 3 dram equivalent for the 1 1/8 ounce of shot no larger than 7 1/2 . The SAAMI spec for a 3 dram- 1 1/8 ounce shell is 1200 pfs with an allowable range of +/_ 90 fps in an extended test. Today, the rule for a 1 1/8 shell just states a maximum velocity of 1290 pfs. with no +/- range.
So, from that data (from one state) the handicap system seems to work OK. MS is a very small trap shooting state in a large pond. However, while I have not look extensively at, nor attempted to do any statistical analysis of data from other state shoot records, it appears that the score range in state shoots is not different among the states Jim looked at.
Also note, the information I am referring to in this post and the data Jim referenced in his OP is data from the State Championship Shoot - not every shoot at every club in the states...... I have no intention of taking the time to look at that.

 

Let's see .... the records show the number of people breaking 100's in handicap events at State Shoots seems to be few .... and the number of "Grand Slams" seems to be growing at a fast rate, compared to the past ....

Makes One wonder how this works ... would it be possible, like some say that some 'Home Clubs' may be helping in some way ????

 

What is the old addage " figures can lie, and liars can figure" I would hope that somewhere in this topic is the truth. But where and who will tell it. Inquiring minds would like to know.

 

I'm not sure the Kentucky Shooters read this thread. I think I read 19 One Hundreds, and a large number of 99 's. In the results. Must not be raining, windy, or cold for their State Shoot....

 

Brent, the thread is about handicap. Is that what you are referring to?

 

Neil is the one with a username that closely resembles Swine Flu?

 

Leonidas, sorry I posted the wrong info. Yes it was for the singles, I guess I was just amazed at those scores. But on their Friday scoreboard I did see 4 X 100's. I just thought those were pretty good numbers. I'll pay better attention. Thanks for the catch..

 

The ATA added 500 more Grand Slams to the list, where were those approx. 500-100 straights shot at? We are talking Hdcp. here. And I said Approx. 500 - 100 straights in Hdcp to complete Grand Slams.

Where are the gun clubs that had those 100s in Hdcp?

GB DLS

 

Five-hiundred more, Gary? Added by the ATA when? Since what date, more or lees? It seems like a lot.

You can check "where" by yourself I should think. . . or maybe Historybuff can help for the last few years; the locations are in T&F, as I recall. I'll make a prediction: 80% of the 100's from the 27 will have been shot at high-altitude clubs. Any bets?

N1H1

 

Handicap should be the number of targets or strokes you give to an opponent, not where you stand on the playing field.

It really is quite comical to say, in response to a weak target, "well, just back up."

Make the target more difficult, and you do away with so much handicap silliness.

It needs to be noted that handicap events are betting events. In a championship match, there is no handicapping. We should give a moment to consider whether the most important event of the championship meet should be a wagering affair.

 

357, by all of Your postings on this site. I wonder? Do You even shoot trap, own Your own shotgun, or do you just Stir the pot?

 

Every post from you has absolutely nothing to offer. I talk about an issue, and you talk about me. I don't see where you have the intellect to improve future postings, so to the "Ignore" list with you.

Buh-bye.

 

He's a re-incarnate of 221 on the other site. No, he does not shoot Trap but believes we should all convert to 28 GA's to make it more challenging. Best to ignore!

 

just to add to the conversation, I was looking at the WI State Shoot program yesterday. The HCP championship has been won by a 100 straight 1 time in each of the past 6 decades (1967,1975,1980,1998,2007,2013). Keep in mind, this is just in state shooters. There may be have been other out of state 100's too. The average winning score per decade (50s, 60s, etc) increased from 96.4 to over 98.

 

Nope

 

Since 1982 when there was only 42 Grand Slams, It does not show where the 100s in Hdcp Happened, they couldabeen done at High Altitude Clubs on the easy 17 degree angles, and AA Super hdcps shells and Rem Nitro 27s for added insurance.
But I will bet most were done on the easier 17 degree angles, wanna bet on that Neil?

Gary Bryant Dr.longshot

 

I thought History Buff posted something a while back regarding less than 3 hole targets dating back to the 60s or 70s at some clubs, may even have been the Grand. Wonder how many of the those first 42 prior to 1982 were on "easy" targets? If they happened at the Grand it sounds like it was possible, if my memory is correct.

 

Iowa guy, there's been some that have cheated in one way or other since day one of trap's beginnings. Hardly nothing new there at all?

Adopting a cheating practice, some clubs did while others adhered to the letter of the rule, was a mistake for our sport of competition trap shooting in my less than humble opinion. Regardless of whether or not Delegates questioned the wishes of their constituents, a few paid no attention and voted with the easier is better crowd to make our target presentations easier. That decision leads to these questions. Has it improved our sport? Has it helped our sport grow with higher membership numbers? Were those voting Delegate's actually looking out for the best interest of our sport according to our By-Laws? Personal egos are suspect in my view!

That decision passed into law in our rule book with their vote regardless of reasoning. The only comparison we have to judge the effectiveness of that decision is a historical comparison. When researched, there really isn't a comparison, it was a vast mistake. We lost a very valuable tool we once had to attract members to stay with our sport longer. We certainly don't have any problems at all attracting new shooters to try our fun game, we lose so many it's pitiful though. Perception of our game has gone from one of missing a target and keep trying to one of practically a miss and out competition. Our retention rate is dismal at best for the comparison years. All this certainly isn't forgetting other contributing negative factors either!

HAP

 

LOL I think we know the answer.
The guys that want 3 hole targets haven't registered a target in a long time.

 

scott calhoun - all good comments and your reading of the rule is the same as mine. In fact I have used the rule to answer a few shooters when they question the width of targets at some of out state shoots........stakes are set at the "minimum" dispersal distance - just outside that stake is still a "legal ATA target".

 

Why not create a totally new event with 2-3-4-5 hole targets (increasingly wider targets on subsequent traps). Put in some good options and it might eclipse the other events, appease the 3-hole and Sporties crowd!

 

Scott, it was possible targets could be thrown a little beyond those parameters and still be a legal target, ( that must be shot as a legal angle.) At the time, a Winchester hand set trap set in what's referred to as "3 hole' would throw a straight from posts 1 and 5 if the trap was in good operating condition. Those targets were hopefully set to be straights from posts 1 and 5 which amounted to a 22 degree angle. Wear on that "3 hole" would throw targets even beyond that setting. For that reason alone, we amended the rules to allow for that wear throwing a "wider" angle.

Todays choice of trap machines, the PAT traps, are a pretty good machine if properly set. One of the primary differences between the traps of old and the PAT today is in the timing cycles. PAT traps don't tend to stay at the extreme angles nearly as long as the old traps did/do.

Written as such above, outside normal is merely guess work and open to interpretation, first by the shooter himself, by the scorekeeper, then possibly by management? That decision falls into the same realm as a fast or slow called clay. The shooter is first to make his statement on either. Threats of a lawsuit concerning this brought about our voice release callers also! We would never subject our rulebook to any court system over such decisions because the courts would side with the shooters interpretation of the rule as written.

Wishbone, I feel our sport was mislead in changing our rules to throw an easier target, period. I still shoot and have approx. 5000 targets so far this year. I'd continue shooting if they made them even easier but not nearly as much. How others perceive our sport is mighty important. This perfectionist attitude drives away more shooters than we should lose and that's a pure shame!

DOC, speaking of voluntary tougher angles and difficulty, what club operator in his right mind would throw tougher targets when the neighbor club threw them with less gusto? Yeah, it's in the rulebook alright as legal but no one ever would do such a thing because of averages? Our sports growth is mandated, not our own personal shooting egos.

HAP

 

Hap you are one of the few who talks change and still competes. I really respect that.

I don't think we were mislead I believe the average shooter wanted an easier target.
Maybe its just easier to blame a select few for the down turn. But I think we brought it on ourselves.

Damn I hope they don't make the targets any easier.

Competition is not for most people anymore.
I don't know if it is the time, the cost, the travel the ...
At our club the trap skeet and sporting fields are busy 5 days a week.
But make it a competition and watch the crowd disappear.

Just my thoughts, looking forward to the weekend.
My son tells me it is time to get his grandfather out and shoot a couple rounds of skeet.

As always I am looking forward to the August.

 

I read an article in the current issue of American Trapshooting. USA talking about the "angles issue" and was given some insight as to other factors. The first being the preferred use of a radar gun instead of the 50 yard stake can make for easier targets. The second being the higher target height setting (9-1/2 feet) from 10 yards from the trap. When the lower setting was used (8-1/2) feet, you saw very little of the top of the target and more of the edge, making for a smaller target than the new height setting, which shows more of the target. Seems hard to believe a difference of one foot setting would make much difference, but the contributors to the article seems to think it was an important difference.

A few well known shooters commented on this and gave the opinion that wider angles or more concrete are not be needed if the radar guns were not used, but more spring was to reach the stake and less target area presented to shooters. This sounds like a very simple solution to make handicap more challenging than all the talk of increased angles, minimum yardage and additional concrete. I can tell you from personal experience, one thing I find boring are the guys at the weekly club shoot who lift the trap angle up to the point the targets are 25 feet in the air at 10 yards. Fine for them as most do not shoot ATA, but more difficult to make practice closer to registered shooting. BTW been shooting as a life member since 1976.

 

"outside normal is merely guess work and open to interpretation, first by the shooter himself, by the scorekeeper, then possibly by management" .... can not say it any better than that ....

It is a shame that the mass target turn-down times gets omitted in these conversations ....

The days of people calling for twice as many targets as were shot at, gets shadowed by the rule-book wording.

The rule-book is toilet-paper without enforcement ... and enforcement is not some kid keeping score telling a fat Trapshooter the target was "legal" so it is "lost" .....

"Easy targets" slowed people down from turning down what they do not like.

 

I'd bet if YOU put the money up and held the event at the end of the day as a non ATA event at a major ATA shoot there would be people shooting it.

Then you could have something valid to bring to the BOD of the ATA.

 

We do hold those shoots here at various clubs in PA and sometimes the turnouts are pretty good. Please don't tell me a 5-hole right angle off #5 position isn't challenging and not a whole lotta fun. Break a score in the 90's and consider it a good day. My personal high was 96 many years ago at the Norry gun club. I must have drawn plenty of the easier angles that day!

 

It's only human nature to take the easy road out of any situation and the rule today reflects that choice in a precise manner. Not everyone wants a more difficult target at all and our current President at one time wanted an even easier target! Thank goodness our Delegates put a halt to that line of thinking pretty quick!

The popularity of how our current rule came to be is the decision to be questioned? It was a cheating practice of violating the rule book mandate of straights from 1 and 5 that was so vital we had to change it to the easier format for the lesser shooters. That, sir, was nothing more than hot air from a bunch of so called self proclaimed experts on ATA matters.

Old time target settings?, already tried at the old Las Vegas GC by Steve Carmichael. He had several play the game but not enough of the average conscience top shots were interested. Todays dedicated trap shooter want no part of anything not directly related to shooting their best under the current rule, period.

I'd love to shoot either registered or not the format the Dawg came up with. 2, 3, 4 and 5 hole targets. There would be but very few of the top shooters interested because of it being a totally foreign game. I'd love that game myself!

HAP

 

Limit the shells for Handicap to 7/8 ounce #8 @1200 fps and make sure the targets fly 50 yards