Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

RANK POINT SCORING


Hells Comin

Recommended Posts

The Wild Bunch has made decisions with which I don't agree.

 

But their decisions are not stupid.

 

Certainly, no member of the Wild Bunch is stupid.

 

Just my opinion, of course.

 

 

Also, My opinion is everyone's opinion or preference is equal, neither right or wrong.

If someone has a different preference (or opinion) than I, does not mean they are wrong - just different.

 

 

I still believe the debate over Total Time and Rank Points is about personal preference because -

if it were about numerical analysis, the debate would have been settled, long ago.

As the numerical analyses are facts that have not changed opinions on the issue (preferences remain the same).

 

Why preferences on each side of the issue are so strong, is a more interesting question.

And likely the route to resolution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 168
  • Created
  • Last Reply

whine on........ I think it's time the Wild Bunch did something about all this cold weather!

We're in the middle of a blizzard right now, the wind blowing about 40 mph, snowing so hard visiblilty is limited to less than 100 feet, and we can't go shoot/why we can't even get oughta the house with the temps at 8 degrees and wind chill to -15 degrees.

I know their supposed to be global warming 'cause Al Gore said so, so it's gotta be the WB and our current rules. <_<....... whine off!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

whine on........ I think it's time the Wild Bunch did something about all this cold weather!

We're in the middle of a blizzard right now, the wind blowing about 40 mph, snowing so hard visiblilty is limited to less than 100 feet, and we can't go shoot/why we can't even get oughta the house with the temps at 8 degrees and wind chill to -15 degrees.

I know their supposed to be global warming 'cause Al Gore said so, so it's gotta be the WB and our current rules. <_<....... whine off!

 

No body said you can not go out side and shoot. :rolleyes: You choose not to. :unsure:

 

The Duke would've shot,,,,,, in the barn. Heeeehee

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Wild Bunch has made decisions with which I don't agree.

 

But their decisions are not stupid.

 

Certainly, no member of the Wild Bunch is stupid.

 

Just my opinion, of course.

 

 

Also, My opinion is everyone's opinion or preference is equal, neither right or wrong.

If someone has a different preference (or opinion) than I, does not mean they are wrong - just different.

 

 

I still believe the debate over Total Time and Rank Points is about personal preference because -

if it were about numerical analysis, the debate would have been settled, long ago.

As the numerical analyses are facts that have not changed opinions on the issue (preferences remain the same).

 

Why preferences on each side of the issue are so strong, is a more interesting question.

And likely the route to resolution.

 

Really...Moving EoT to the middle of no where and facing the stages due East? Not realizing that they don't have Water Rights?? Deciding that the EoT winners don't need special winners buckles??

 

How's about kicking one of the hardest working waddies ever off your "Ranch"????

 

I could go on...but you have it in your mind that there MUST be some rational reason why the WB insists on Rank Points...cuz afterall, they'z real smart.

 

Sorry to bust yer bubble, but the WB are not a group of gods...they're just human.

 

Preferences...keep pounding on that drum...love the emperor's new clothes!!!!

 

:FlagAm:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...horse is dead...

 

...why keep riding it...

 

...it ain't going anywhere...

 

...IMHO...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hang in there Phantom.

 

Different opinions are fun.

 

I did not say the Wild Bunch decisions were smart.

 

I said They were not stupid.

 

Big difference.

 

 

Anyway back on topic.

 

Each stage is a Total Time Match, meeting the logic for Total Time.

The issue seems to be how the scores in each Total Time Stage are accumulated across a series of stages for a Match.

 

If the individual stages are NOT considered discrete unique competition events but instead continuous competition,

then Total Time is a good method to obtain an individual score for each competitor. This seems to be the argument for Total Time.

 

But if each stage is considered a discrete unique event, then some other means than Total Time can be used

to obtain an individual score for a series of such events (stages). Rank Points is one way to make such an addition of unequal unique events.

 

Is the Game, a Match of continuous competition or a series of discrete competitions?

 

I am sorta locked in to one's preference for the scoring system being how one views the nature of the Game.

 

If there could be agreement on what the game is today, then maybe there could obtain agreement on the scoring system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This discussion is only germane to a hand full of regional and national level matches.

 

Everybody else can use total time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What the hell do the danged Germans got to do with it?

 

I miss Jackie Gleason........

 

This discussion is only germane to a hand full of regional and national level matches.

 

Everybody else can use total time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This discussion is only germane to a hand full of regional and national level matches.

 

Everybody else can use total time.

 

Yer right on this...but Regionals, National and World Championships are the pennicle of our game when it comes to the Competition side of things...and they also have the largest potential PR impact.

 

And Cockroach - As I said before, if you want to start giving out Top-Ten awards for each category on every Stage...then Rank is okay.

 

:FlagAm:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is the Game, a Match of continuous competition or a series of discrete competitions?

How one answers that question is the determiner (real word?) of how one decides, yes, a preference for the scoring method.

 

I fall into the series of discrete events that are lumped together for the naming of a "match" winner. However, I'm not sure that either total time nor rank points is fair. I KNOW rank points isn't fair in it application of penalties from one stage to the next. However, in the same vein, I don't think it's fair that simply out runnin' the competition on one stage should impact the importance of out runnin' the competition on another stage, as it can in a total time match. A 1st place finish on one stage is, IMO, no more important than a 1st place finish on any other stage.

 

Frankly, the only way to resolve the problem is the rank each stage based on a percentage of the 1st pace finisher in that stage vs. the simplicity of rank points based on the number the shooters.

 

This then, would give equal weight to all 1st place finishes, but any finishes behind first would be dependent on well you performed in comparison to that winning time. I.e.: if the 1st place finish was 20 seconds for a stage and you shot 2/10s of a second slower, you'd accumulate 99 points to 1st place's 100. If you were 2 seconds behind 1st, you only accumulate 90 points.

 

Doc Shapiro & I had discussed this methodology at some point, and while it still has some issues as to application of fixed penalties for a miss or procedural, it should be the intent of each shooter to avoid those. And while I didn't react well when he first proposed it, I hadn't taken time to study it's cumulative effects. I had been stuck that a second (or any other placement) finish on a stage ought to be equal to that same placement on EVERY stage. Maybe that was too simplistic on my part. It might still not be perfect, but, while it still makes finishing anywhere behind first less than desirable, it does take away that time differential between stages. I.e.: (for discussion's sake I'll use Doc & I), if Doc shoots stage 1 in 20 seconds and is 1st, and I shoot stage 2 in 27 seconds and am 1st, and let's assume that we've shot each of our non-win stages in the same 2 seconds off 1st, we each have 190 points for our cumulative score. Whereas under straight total time he would have a 7 second lead on me going into stage 3, under this scoring each of our scores would have equal value for our performance ON THAT stage. Yet, if we both go the balance of the match and end up tied, AND he still has the lower total time, THEN he should be declared the winner. Likewise, if someone has shot certain stages far better than I, and accumulated fewer points that I, whether I shot the entire match faster or not should be immaterial to my overall finish. Whinning about the fact that someone shot an entire match slower than I, yet on average, his placements were higher than mine, would be unseemly to me.

 

Under the above, an SDQ would net a competitor 0 points for a stage. That makes a very tough row to hoe. And frankly, if that competitor can overcome THAT, and still place in his category, then IMO, he's EARNED that place. A SDQ shouldn't be a defacto MDQ.

 

Let me say this for the Wire, as I believe that Doc & I agreed, this doesn't have to be simply a choice between Rank Point and Total Time. There ARE other methods out there, and ones that might be easily adapted to this game (lack of scoring circles, nor the addition of hit ratios and exceedingly complex mathematical formulas).

 

I've been a died-in-the-wool RP guy since Tex explained it use to me back in '86 or '87, for the simple reason that a score on one stage shouldn't carry over to any other, except in the event of a tie. And I've been an opponent of TT since before then. On those few ocassions where it's been used, I simply view it as a method to judge my performance in individual stages... it seems inherently unfair in applying unfactored time to scoring the overall. The simple fact that not all stages are created equal should make this apparent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Preference,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Cockroaches are vile little things ,,,,Best pressed between your heel and the ground ..... Just my preference .......

 

Now that is a preference ,,,,,,,,,, some choose to grind them under the pad of da boot .....

 

In this Game we have Catigories,,,,,,,,, Some require more SKILL than others ,,,,, Some are slower to Shoot !!!! THESE ARE FACTS ,, not preferences..

 

RANK POINTS Punish these folks ,,,,, FACT !!! And I would PEFER that,that not be the case ....

 

While some folks Think Shunks is cute, and I agree,,,,,,,,,,,,, When they come around my buildings ,,,,,,, My PREFERNCE is that they become dead ....

 

The Fact is Mostly they do !!!

 

I also Prefer my own Kids over most others .... But not over my Granddaughters !!!

 

 

Jabez Cowboy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being a somewhat newb could someone tell me why they have Ranking scores at all? I just dont get how someone who seemingly does not deserve a win gets one. What am I missing?

 

Much Obliged

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It depends on who you ask.

 

Some say that it is because a match is a series of contests and the score of each contest should not effect who was best overall at all the contests. In a 7 game World Series, team A may score more runs over seven games but team B will win because they won more games. This falls apart since there are more than two contestants and more than 15 categories.

 

Some say it causes people to slow down and aim. You do not hear that one much from the folks that win.

 

Some say it is to give equal meaning to short and long stages when in fact, it tends to make short stages do or die.

 

Some say it is because that is the way we have always done it (tradition) and we are too inflexible to change. There is the ring of truth to my ears when I hear that.

 

Finally, my own personal opinion is that it adds a certain randomness that makes awards ceramonies more exciting.

 

Cheers,

BJT

 

Being a somewhat newb could someone tell me why they have Ranking scores at all? I just dont get how someone who seemingly does not deserve a win gets one. What am I missing?

 

Much Obliged

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It depends on who you ask.

 

Some say that it is because a match is a series of contests and the score of each contest should not effect who was best overall at all the contests. In a 7 game World Series, team A may score more runs over seven games but team B will win because they won more games. This falls apart since there are more than two contestants and more than 15 categories.

 

Some say it causes people to slow down and aim. You do not hear that one much from the folks that win.

 

Some say it is to give equal meaning to short and long stages when in fact, it tends to make short stages do or die.

 

Some say it is because that is the way we have always done it (tradition) and we are too inflexible to change. There is the ring of truth to my ears when I hear that.

 

Finally, my own personal opinion is that it adds a certain randomness that makes awards ceramonies more exciting.

 

Cheers,

BJT

Some say it is because SASS does not listen to it's customers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But if each stage is considered a discrete unique event, then some other means than Total Time can be used

to obtain an individual score for a series of such events (stages). Rank Points is one way to make such an addition of unequal unique events.

Even if each stage is considered a discrete unique event, even then, within each discrete unique event, using rank point scoring, there will be many different penalties for violations of the same safety rules. In fact, throughout each discrete unique event there can be one or even many shooters who receive no penalty for violations of safety rules. Would anyone who either supports rank point scoring or doesn't care which scoring method is used please address this point.

 

Badlands Bud

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Cinch, SASS#29433

Even if each stage is considered a discrete unique event, even then, within each discrete unique event, using rank point scoring, there will be many different penalties for violations of the same safety rules. In fact, throughout each discrete unique event there can be one or even many shooters who receive no penalty for violations of safety rules. Would anyone who either supports rank point scoring or doesn't care which scoring method is used please address this point.

 

Badlands Bud

 

Your kiddin right...

 

How would you score a 1 stage match in:

 

Total Time and then Rank

 

If you and I take a penalty in this one stage match we will be "ranked" according to our "Total Time" (includes penalties, misses, fumble fingers) on this stage. The rank will be determined then by our total time to shoot the stage, and the total time that it took every other shooter to negotiate the stage including misses, penalties, fumbles, general dexterity, etc. This 1 stage match can be this simple... Now if I shoot the stage in 20 seconds and you shoot it in 9.99 then its true that you would still be in 1st place but its also true in either scoring method and truly not likely ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Badlands Bud;

 

I know We ain't met ,,,,,,,,,,,, but ,,,,,,,, I think I would like You if we was to meet ....

 

Ya got's a brain and does some thinkin on yer own accord !!!!

 

Good Luck to Ya younker ....

 

Jabez Cowboy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This 1 stage match can be this simple... Now if I shoot the stage in 20 seconds and you shoot it in 9.99 then its true that you would still be in 1st place but its also true in either scoring method and truly not likely ;)

 

Why is this so hard to understand?

Bud shoots the stage in 9.99 seconds - There are 5 shooters that shoot the stage between 9.99 and 19.99 seconds.

Cinch shoots the stage in 20.00 - there are 200 shooters that shoot the stage between 20.00 and 30.00.

BOTH Bud and Cinch shoot the pistol targets out of order - BOTH recieve a "P" on that stage.

Buds penalty is 5 additional rank points - Cinchs penalty is 200 additional rank points.

 

Same infraction - same stage - DIFFERENT PENALTY.

Bud received a penalty - no one can say he got away scot free, but 5 rank points is nothing - even against like skilled shooters.

In Cinchs case - 200 rank points can be a match ending penalty - assuming Cinch is shooting against like skill level shooters.

 

No reasonable person can look at that and say that Rank is a FAIR scoring method.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your kiddin right...

 

How would you score a 1 stage match in:

 

Total Time and then Rank

 

If you and I take a penalty in this one stage match we will be "ranked" according to our "Total Time" (includes penalties, misses, fumble fingers) on this stage. The rank will be determined then by our total time to shoot the stage, and the total time that it took every other shooter to negotiate the stage including misses, penalties, fumbles, general dexterity, etc. This 1 stage match can be this simple... Now if I shoot the stage in 20 seconds and you shoot it in 9.99 then its true that you would still be in 1st place but its also true in either scoring method and truly not likely ;)

I am not kidding.

In this one stage match, if I shoot the stage in 9.99 seconds and have a MSV, I will have a penalty of 10 seconds. If you are the only other shooter at the match and you shoot the stage in 20 seconds, I will win utilizing either scoring method. However, if we use total time, the 10 second penalty will have added 10 seconds to my score. If we use rank points, the 10 second penalty will have added 0 rank points to my score. So while I have won the stage/match using either method, in total time scoring the safety penalty meant I won by 0.1% of the margin that I would have without the safety violation. In rank point scoring I won by the exact same margin I would have without the safety violation (this could also be rephrased "the safety violation incurred no penalty in rank points").

 

You see, in total time, there is never an instance where a penalty for a MSV is anything but 10 seconds. No matter what, this ten seconds will affect both your stage score and your overall score by 10 seconds. Using rank point scoring, the penalty for a minor safety violation could be anywhere between 0 rank points and X rank points, X being the number of shooters at the match minus one (is is impossible to get a score of fewer than one rank point). So no, this phenomena is not present in both scoring methods.

 

As to how often a shooter incurs no penalty for a safety violation, I don't have any statistics, but I do know that I have outrun safety violations in rank point matches before. I also know that whatever shooter comes in last on any particular stage would receive no extra rank points if there were another 10 seconds added to their score. If you want to know where else it could happen take a look through some scores and find all the places there is a ten second gap between a shooter and their nearest competitor on each stage. If you want to know how often this happens, you should start poring over results.

 

For me, knowing that as a consequence of the mechanics of rank point scoring minor safety violations have variable or even no penalty is enough for me to know that it is a flawed scoring system.

 

Badlands Bud

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is this so hard to understand?

Bud shoots the stage in 9.99 seconds - There are 5 shooters that shoot the stage between 9.99 and 19.99 seconds.

Cinch shoots the stage in 20.00 - there are 200 shooters that shoot the stage between 20.00 and 30.00.

BOTH Bud and Cinch shoot the pistol targets out of order - BOTH recieve a "P" on that stage.

Buds penalty is 5 additional rank points - Cinchs penalty is 200 additional rank points.

 

Same infraction - same stage - DIFFERENT PENALTY.

Bud received a penalty - no one can say he got away scot free, but 5 rank points is nothing - even against like skilled shooters.

In Cinchs case - 200 rank points can be a match ending penalty - assuming Cinch is shooting against like skill level shooters.

 

No reasonable person can look at that and say that Rank is a FAIR scoring method.

 

For gods sake will someone frame this post!

 

 

RRR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me add that whether or not it is okay to have variable or no penalty for misses (which is also a consequence of rank point scoring) I find to be open to interpretation. If the wild bunch felt that a scoring system which penalizes different shooters on the same or different stages differently for misses based on where their scores appear in the distribution, I wouldn't understand, but I would see it as the way the game is played.

 

Procedurals are slightly more complicated, as I believe that they should also incur the same penalty for all shooters. While perhaps a shooter should be able to outrun a miss, or even be penalized extremely harshly for a miss on a certain stage, a procedural has nothing to do with the shooter's performance, and is a penalty issued for not following the stage instructions. I don't personally believe that this is right, as I believe that all shooters who do not follow the stage instructions should incur the same penalty.

 

The point I'm trying to get across, the point I'm trying to stress is that safety violations incur variable or no penalties when using the rank point scoring system. This is something which I cannot but see as wrong and which it is puzzling to see so many participants in a shooting sport simply gloss over.

 

Badlands Bud

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Cinch, SASS#29433

Bud,

 

Margins and percentages aside in the one stage two man match it would go on paper as

 

Bud 1st

Cinch 2nd

 

This is ranked according to time? (more likely you would shoot it in 13.00 + 10.00 = 23.00 (2 rank points) and Ol'Cinch would shoot it in 17.50 and get 1st (1 rank point)

 

Now there are endless "possibles" ;) there are also endless cases of "it ain't likely"

 

I know all the angles and if I had some mexican agriculture (or Timothy Leary stuff)and was shooting against midgets I could come up with a few more...

 

Creeker,

 

You nailed it!! Now how do I avoid my 200 rank points in our 1 stage match? God I hate taking 206th place or 206 rank points so save me!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cinch, you're avoiding addressing the actual issue. In a two-shooter one-stage match, yes, the shooter that wins by 10.01 seconds will win using either scoring method. The fact that with one scoring method the outcome doesn't change at all (1 and 2 rank points respectively whether there is a MSV or not) and with the other it does dramatically (9.99 seconds and 20 seconds vs. 19.99 seconds and 20 seconds respectively) is what you have chosen to completely ignore (set aside) in your argument. I suppose if this is the case it would be futile to point out to you that in that same scenario you would also have received no penalty in rank points for a MSV. Indeed in the scenario you outlined you would have received no penalty for a SDQ or a MDQ. These are the infractions for which it is much less likely to receive no penalty, and this is why I have so far left them out of this discussion. However, since you have brought me exactly the sort of scenario in which a SDQ or a MDQ would have no penalty on a shooter, I thought I'd mention it now.

 

While having a penalty of zero rank points for a MSV is uncommon, it is certainly not impossible. It has happened. I would venture to say that it will happen again if rank points continue to be used. What is actually very likely is that two shooters who receive the same MSV on the same stage are going to receive different penalties when scoring the match with rank points.

 

So, instead of coming up with scenarios which are much more ridiculously unrealistic (a two-shooter one-stage match?), ignoring the fact that rank points do not in any way take into account the varying sizes of the margins between rank points (as measured in seconds, the only unit measured during the shooting of a stage), or claiming that variations in penalties are "unlikely" which they are not, would you please address the issue of whether or not it is right for two shooters on the same stage at the same match to receive different penalties for the same minor safety violation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I again reiterate, this need not be solely about Rank Points vs. Total Time. There may be other, scoring methods that provide a reasonable middle ground that all can, if not agree, maybe agree to compromise?

 

So how do you reconcile the differences in stages lengths under total time. It's quite feasible for a shooter to really cook thru several longer stages, building up a lead, then on the short, quick ones, just settin' it on autopilot and cruisin' in to his overall win? There needs to be some methodology where each stage stands alone. Carrying over a 0.1 or a 10 second lead from one stage to another seems plainly wrong on the face of it.

 

I went thru an old match record and re-scored it based on Rank Points, Total Time and Percentage of Top Time... There were differences and apparent inequities thru all three scoring methods... I agree that penalties should affect all equally. However, when applying a fixed X-second penalty to a miss, procedural means that under any scoring method, those will have far more dramatic impacts on a shooter's standing on a stage where you stand and deliver 10-10-4, vs one where you have 3 or more shooting positions spread by distances where the fleet of foot will have much lower split times between guns than an old, slow phart like myself. The quick 'n dirty stage will be far more difficult to overcome a single miss on subsequent stages under both total time and rank points. Whereas on a long, more complex stage involving movement and possibly more transistions (in the case of split handguns), a single miss may not be as onerous due to the inherent tendency of longer stages to have greater spreads between the fastest and slowest shooters.

 

I can see only one way around that... and it still may be that slower shooters will be impacted more than a faster shooter. Then again, maybe not. If the penalties for misses, procedurals and MSVs were percentage of the fastest time shot on a stage, that percentage will equate to a different value on a fast, stand n' deliver stage, than on the more movement oriented stages. But... all shooters earning that penalty would be penalized that same percentage regardless of where they fell in the standing for that stage.

 

I.e.: If the fastest raw time for a stage is 13 seconds, make the penalty value at 5% per miss, and 10% for a procedural or MSV. Each miss any competitor has will cost that shooter 0.65 seconds/miss, a procedural will cost 1.3 seconds for that stage. Whereas on a stage where the fastest time is 22.4 seconds, that miss value would change to 1.12 seconds per, and a procedural at 2.24 seconds. Using the fastest shooter's raw time, reduces the impact of their misses or prodecurals may play on the penalty for the rest of the field.

 

That was the only problem I find with my re-scoring, was that I don't have the raw time and penalty data for these old scores. Therefore I couldn't apply the total of my suggestion... or was that Doc's...? Doc?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...would you please address the issue of whether or not it is right for two shooters on the same stage at the same match to receive different penalties for the same minor safety violation?

IMO, "right" or "wrong" doesn't enter into it. It's sorta like driving by that highway sign... at 15 miles per over the speed limit... Is there, or is there not a policeman behind it? Yes, if the X place shooter finishes 10.01 seconds ahead of his next best competitor, he does in effect, incur no penalty. Is that necessarily not reflective of the nature of competition? Is that shooter somehow responsible for the performances of others? Regardless of scoring method, there are going to be inequities, some element of luck, to the order of finish, especially so in the application and effect of fixed time penalties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been sitting on my fingers and refraining from comment as I don't think there are any minds to be changed now. We keep rehashing the same arguments over and over. While some of the arguments are valid, no one on the other side (whichever side that is) is convinced.

 

Personally, I think the WB keeps rank point scoring around so that no one knows who won anything until the awards.

 

I'm sure we could come up with a new scoring system that would keep that mystery, but would also apply the same penalty for misses, proceduals, MSV's, etc. to every shooter (which is the biggest problem with RP scoring - as Bud succinctly pointed out). In addition, it would minimize the impact of other shooters on the final score.

 

I've got a few ideas on that and would be willing to share them with the WB or representative. But debating it here on the Wire I think won't accomplish anything.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

I've got a few ideas on that and would be willing to share them with the WB or representative. But debating it here on the Wire I think won't accomplish anything.

 

Either way is an exercise in futility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Cinch, SASS#29433

Bud,

 

Trust me I know that this can be looked at in any possible way. These are not per usual however and that is my point. In your one discrete scenario (which brought up my weird example) the outcome does not change regardless. You are pointing to subtleties and a way of looking at the severity of a penalty which doesn't change the outcome. Pointless!!

 

When the score sheets are printed in Creeker's example my situation doesn't change regardless of the scoring method. 206 rank and 206 TT are so close to being the same that one would have to begin to question the alkaline content in the timer batteries to wonder where the disparity is between the two.

 

Now your point is that I received 200 rank points and you received none but that is the situation a shooter finds himself in because the luck/skill level of shooting in proximity to 200 shooters that can pass me by if I screw up (either scoring method cuz if 200 pass ya they pass ya). If this were to happen I would learn not to screw up and to try to get my skills to the point where I only let 50 shooters get past me or none.

 

I always wonder if it is a scoring issue if 200 shooters pass me... or is it a shooting issue? At this point in my life I do not appreciate the subtle difference of 1 rank point and 19.99 seconds and just realize it is what it is and that if I get a "P" I gotta stand tall, walk straight, go look in the mirror, and blame the scoring method!!

 

Good Luck!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When the score sheets are printed in Creeker's example my situation doesn't change regardless of the scoring method. 206 rank and 206 TT are so close to being the same that one would have to begin to question the alkaline content in the timer batteries to wonder where the disparity is between the two.

 

But there is where you are incorrect.

200 rank points is NOT the same as 10 seconds.

If you drop 200 rank points on stage one, I cannot tell you how to make that up (beyond - shoot really fast, don't miss and hope for the best).

 

If you drop 10 seconds on stage one - I can tell you EXACTLY what is required to recover.

You simply have to accumulate 10.01 fewer seconds than any of the 200 shooters that passed you due to your penalty over the remaining stages.

And since out of that 200 - only 13 were in your category, now you only have to worry about beating those 13 by 10.01.

 

In rank, every shooter at the match will continue to affect YOUR match and YOUR placement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.