The musings of R.J. Law, Territorial Governor and Captain of the Michigan Wolverine Rangers

[Fireball #7709 Life]

Many of you probably know R.J., the well dressed Classic Cowboy that is the Captain of the Wolverine Rangers. For those who may not, R.J. is a consumate gentlemen, someone to ride the river with, someone I'm proud to call friend. R.J. has taken the time to put down his thoughts on the scoring of our game and it was recently added to the Rangers website. With R.J.'s permission, I'd like to share it with you.

 

"I have been thinking about the rank scoring system utilized by SASS in major matches and I thought that I would share some of my thoughts. Rank scoring assigns a rank number for each shooter based on where he or she finished in relation to the other shooters for each stage shot in a major match. It is my opinion that Rank Scoring is in effect a handicap system used to reward the consistent shooter at the expense of a faster but perhaps less consistent shooter. I am under no illusions that SASS will discontinue Rank Scoring but I decided to offer my 2 cents on this for whatever it is worth. The main problem that I have with it is that it is different from just about any other competition that I am familiar with. I will state that I am not an IPSC shooter and the only shooting competition I have ever been involved in is Cowboy Action Shooting. I therefore do not know how this fits in with the other shooting disciplines.

 

 

 

If we were to look at other typical athletic competitions such as track and field, swimming, baseball, football, golf, etc., the competitor with the fastest time or the highest score or the lowest score (golf) is the winner. No one cares which competitor was the most consistent if he or she did not cross the finish line ahead of all of the other competitors. I realize that we participate in a fantasy game which is based on the theory that we are, in effect, reenacting gun fights from the Old West. One may say that it doesn’t matter who is the fastest in a gunfight if he or she doesn’t shoot the other person in the gunfight. That may be true but if one shooter gets off 2 shots and the second one hits the other shooter before the slower shooter hits with his first shot then the faster shooter wins.

 

 

 

One of my favorite past times is golf. (In fact I would be a better shooter if I practiced shooting as much as I practice golf. I am okay with that.) If one golfer shoots all pars and another shooter shoots some bogies but also has some birdies and maybe an eagle, the par shooter doesn’t win unless he has the lowest score or won the most holes if it is match play. Why should Cowboy Action Shooting be any different? To me, rank scoring is a way for someone who is not the fastest shooter to be able to beat the faster shooter. What is the policy reason for rewarding the slower but more consistent shooter? I have not been able to figure that one out.

 

 

 

We have penalties for missing. If the faster shooter can finish with a faster overall time then the slower shooter even if he or she has a miss or two, then I think that faster shooter should win. Maybe it is a little bit of ageism at work. We older guys have a hard time keeping up with the young whippersnappers. Maybe rank scoring is a way for the old guys to have a more level playing field with the younger guys? This, however, seems to go against our goal of getting more younger shooters involved in our sport. Speed is good. I wish I had more of it.

 

 

 

I would say that I have no personal investment in this one way or the other because I hardly ever win anything. Rank Scoring versus Total Time probably doesn’t result in much of a difference in who wins a match in most cases. Why not let our shooters let it all hang out and go for broke or “FREESTYLE” as the notorious Fireball sometimes calls it? If is fun to watch someone go all out. Rank Scoring tends to force some shooters to dial it back somewhat because they get penalized for mistakes. Again, I don’t understand the policy reason for that. I think that we should let the shooters loose and let them have at it. If someone can miss and still be the fastest shooter then why shouldn’t they win?

 

 

 

Anyway, those are the musings of Cowboy Action Shooter.

 

 

 

R.J. Law –SASS Life #15466

 

Territorial Governor – Wolverine Rangers - Michigan"

[Campo Kid]

So true, and very well said.

 

Kid

[Gunner Gatlin, SASS 10274L]

Highest respects to RJ Law...

 

GG ~

[Marauder SASS #13056]

Similarly, a baseball game should be by total number of hits should it not???....

[Ketchum Quick, SASS #72923]

R.J. you are spot on again. Well put!

 

KQ

[Deuce Stevens SASS#55996]

Similarly, a baseball game should be by total number of hits should it not???....

 

One bad inning does generally not dash all hopes of coming back and winning the game either. Well put RJ ,he wrote this for the chronicle several months ago , wonder why it hasn't shown up yet,they publish everything else.

[Cheyenne Culpepper 32827]

The only thing rank scoring accomplishes is it keeps everyone guessing up until the awards....not a good enuff reason to keep it!

 

cheyenne

[slate mike sass#29204]

Well said,RJ. Total time is total time,and should be all that counts.

[Allie Mo, SASS No. 25217]

Hello Folks,

 

R.J. is a very smart man.

 

I've heard his wisdom many times at various TG Summits. Some of us listened. Others not so much.

 

Whether you agree or not, his opinions are well considered and are based on valuable legal experience/expertise. When offered, they should be considered before making an informed decision.

 

Regards,

 

Allie Mo

[ethan callahan]

Well put R.J. I agree with you 100%.

 

For the past 6 years or more I have expressed my opinion on Rank Points on the wire. Let me give a brief review and feel free to quote me on it.

"Rank Points Suck".

 

It is time to let regional/national/EOT match directors decide based on how the shooters want to be scored. Let them have the choice to use total time or rank points. Rank points have been obsolete since their inception in cowboy action shooting. State/local matches allow total time so it is time for the regionals, national and world matches to also have a choice.

 

The time for a choice is now...

[Fireball #7709 Life]

More thought's (not mine, I'm not this smart )

 

"I know that this is a little tongue in cheek but I think that Rank Scoring is contrary to the American way. The American way is to take a risk and to gamble on your talent. If Americans were not risk takers we would not be where we are today. Failure is often just one of the steps to success. In every other aspect of American life we celebrate someone who stumbles but then pulls himself or herself up by his or her bootstraps. If a shooter takes a risk and he fails but is able to pull himself or herself together and get to the finish line first, why shouldn’t he or she win? Overcoming adversity is the American way. Rank scoring rewards the shooter not willing to take a risk. Sounds too much like Communism to me."

[Marauder SASS #13056]

That's interesting Fireball, because on of the biggest complaints I hear about rank scoring is that folks don't like that they are not willing to take the loss for taking the risk on a fast stage. So folks knowing the way rank score works and they still don't want to accept the consequence of their taking the risk.

So from my view, that concern is more like Communism to me.

 

Now saying that, I don't think of any cowboy as being a communist, but since you brought up the comparison in the thought process.

 

Rank is a slightly different way to play the game. I agree that it isn't perfect, just as total time is not perfect.

 

Maybe the proposed scoring process would be best.

 

And I normally preferred Chevys...

[Deuce Stevens SASS#55996]

That's interesting Fireball, because on of the biggest complaints I hear about rank scoring is that folks don't like that they are not willing to take the loss for taking the risk on a fast stage. So folks knowing the way rank score works and they still don't want to accept the consequence of their taking the risk.

So from my view, that concern is more like Communism to me.

 

Now saying that, I don't think of any cowboy as being a communist, but since you brought up the comparison in the thought process.

 

Rank is a slightly different way to play the game. I agree that it isn't perfect, just as total time is not perfect.

 

Maybe the proposed scoring process would be best.

 

And I normally preferred Chevys...

If you don't mind can you explain the imperfections of total time?

[Fireball #7709 Life]

 

Now saying that, I don't think of any cowboy as being a communist, but since you brought up the comparison in the thought process.

 

 

And I normally preferred Chevys...

 

If you reread, you will notice 2 things. 1)No one was calling anyone, much less a cowboy, communist. It was an ideological comparison 2) The opening line says "a little tongue in cheek", to clarify; that means don't take it too seriously.

 

Being we are ideologically opposed, I suspect we'll not agree though. I'm a Dodge man.

[Boone]

Just take a look at the scores for GUNS OF AUGUST.

 

A perfect example of the fallacies of rank scoreing.

[Campo Kid]

If you don't mind can you explain the imperfections of total time?

My thoughts exactly.

[Pickaway Tracker, SASS #52070]

I absolutely agree 100%. The Wild Bunch seems to have been listening to it's members on other matters, I fail to see why they refuse to listen to their membeship when it comes to rank scoring. I don't agree with it and never will. I wish the TG's could force the issue to a vote. If we refused to attend any SASS competition that uses rank scoring maybe that would get their attention. They can try to justify it anyway they want, but as far as I'm concerned it's a lot of smoke.

Respectfully

Pickaway Tracker

[Korupt Karl]

As you all know...I'm one of the slow guys and didn't think one way or the other about rank scoring vs total time. A year or so ago I shot two handed at a monthly and had a good shoot. I was best on TT by a couple of seconds....but, I had one stage with a couple of shotgun makeups....and lost by 1 rank point. That sucked...

 

I remember a fast shooter saying that a miss on a stand and deliver or a speed stage could cost him the match....cause in rank points he could lose a ton of points that could not be made up....so, in some cases they actually needed to be "under more control" to avoid that....and maybe not go all out....

 

KK

[Marauder SASS #13056]

If you don't mind can you explain the imperfections of total time?

 

Sure. First, the two scoring methods are both quite simple, regardless of some complaints.

In total time, the least time wins, no matter how many gunfights (stages) you win or loose.

In rank, you win by winning the most gunfights regardless of the time you took.

 

I see both as being "fair". In one you had the least time overall. In the other, you beat out the most opponents.

 

I learned from watching a good shooter that had developed mobility problems. He could still shoot with the best, but only run with the worse. He explained that now he could finish near the top on many stages, but almost never win his category in total time matches anymore since he could not mover as well. With total time, he got only a little credit for beating out folks, but that was normally lost on one stage that required significant running.

 

On rank scored matches he could still hold his own because he got credit for the fast stages often with quite a few less rank points and suffer only moderately on the movement stages.

 

He could win the faster stages, sometimes by up to a second. He would have a good lead going in a six stage match for 4 and sometimes 5 stages. Even on stages with a little movement, he could hobble around well enough not to loose too much time. Then there would be stage with a 8 - 10 yard run. He could only hobble after getting his cane, while the good runners could gain up to 15 seconds over his hobbling. So that one or two stages would eliminate him, even though in mere shooting, he was much better.

 

So I enjoy total time matches because I do not have to worry quite as much about a miss. I can make up for the mistake better in total time than I sometimes can with rank. So I like that total time encourages pure speed.

 

But I still see a different type of fairness in merely counting how many cowboys I beat in gunfights as well. To me, it encourages a little more precision/gun handling in critical situations - just as an up close gunfight actually requires. A miss at 10 feet can often be fatal. Which is also a good thing.

 

A miss at 10 feet can often be fatal while "cover fire" is an effective tool at longer ranges.

 

But the debate has become almost like one on religion or politics where we no longer listen to alternate points. So I would hope that the suggested new point scoring methods may help to address the weaknesses of both methods.

[Campo Kid]

Sure. First, the two scoring methods are both quite simple, regardless of some complaints.

In total time, the least time wins, no matter how many gunfights (stages) you win or loose.

In rank, you win by winning the most gunfights regardless of the time you took.

 

I see both as being "fair". In one you had the least time overall. In the other, you beat out the most opponents.

 

I learned from watching a good shooter that had developed mobility problems. He could still shoot with the best, but only run with the worse. He explained that now he could finish near the top on many stages, but almost never win his category in total time matches anymore since he could not mover as well. With total time, he got only a little credit for beating out folks, but that was normally lost on one stage that required significant running.

 

On rank scored matches he could still hold his own because he got credit for the fast stages often with quite a few less rank points and suffer only moderately on the movement stages.

 

He could win the faster stages, sometimes by up to a second. He would have a good lead going in a six stage match for 4 and sometimes 5 stages. Even on stages with a little movement, he could hobble around well enough not to loose too much time. Then there would be stage with a 8 - 10 yard run. He could only hobble after getting his cane, while the good runners could gain up to 15 seconds over his hobbling. So that one or two stages would eliminate him, even though in mere shooting, he was much better.

 

So I enjoy total time matches because I do not have to worry quite as much about a miss. I can make up for the mistake better in total time than I sometimes can with rank. So I like that total time encourages pure speed.

 

But I still see a different type of fairness in merely counting how many cowboys I beat in gunfights as well. To me, it encourages a little more precision/gun handling in critical situations - just as an up close gunfight actually requires. A miss at 10 feet can often be fatal. Which is also a good thing.

 

A miss at 10 feet can often be fatal while "cover fire" is an effective tool at longer ranges.

 

But the debate has become almost like one on religion or politics where we no longer listen to alternate points. So I would hope that the suggested new point scoring methods may help to address the weaknesses of both methods.

Not an unreasonable argument. But awards are given to those who score the best after all 12 stages.

You can't consider each stage it's own match (or gunfight) if all 12 stages together are used for final scoring. Awards aren't given to a stage winner, they're given to a match winner.

 

If a top shooter can have a bad stage(i.e. gun malfunction or miss) but still pull it together to outrun the other shooters in total time, he should win.

 

It's a timed competition, let the fastest time win,

Kid

[Cheyenne Culpepper 32827]

The is one time that rank scoring is as good as total time,,,,,If someone won every stage .

 

Comparing rank scoring to seperate gunfights has one fatal flaw,,,,somewhere along the way you lost a gunfight,,,guess what? yur dead!!!

 

perhaps a boycot of shoots the use rank scoring would change things....just sayin

 

Cheyenne

[Marauder SASS #13056]

Folks, both rank and total time include all the stages.

 

When SASS started, the game was different. The stages varied much more than modern matches.

 

It was very common to have some stages without a rifle or a shotgun. Several stages had only one pistol. On one stage you had to start standing then jump under a wagon and shoot from there, or maybe run to different stations and do different "tricks". So it was more like a decathlon than out shoots where each stages is very similar. As such, with total time, you mixing apples and oranges. Comparing a 100 yard sprint to a half mile run. As such total was definitely NOT fair. As the half mile run would totally obscure the results of the sprint. Even then rank was not perfect but it worked much better for those matches than total time - that is why the founding fathers used rank. It was needed then to even out the impact of the widely varying stages. Rank was used in an attempt to measure a non-linear field of events. Where total time, in effect, didn't include all the stages - only the longer, more complicated ones. The difference in performance was only significant in those longer stages.

 

As the game has changed, total time is a very good option - especially at a smaller match that doesn't have the sampling needed for rank scoring.

 

To a large extent, it shows how the game has changed. Now it is more of a series of sprints only. Not necessarily a bad thing, but it has a completely different feel in many ways.

[Rooster Ron Wayne]

Wow just show up shoot and injoy spending the day with good friends and shooting guns.

Have a good meal and tell stories and be thankful you was hear to injoy it.

[Cowboy Rick, SASS #49739L]

I'll shoot either one and settle for the results. The golf analogy is probably the closest to what we do. In stroke play, low score wins. In match play, whoever wins the most holes wins. a player who wins one up can have lost one hole by 4 or 5 strokes, won 2 holes by a stroke each, and halved the rest, making him two or three strokes worse in the last column, but winner on the card.

 

How ever this shakes out, I'd rather have the discussion than no SASS.

 

CR

[Buffalo Dick, SASS #12880]

I'll shoot whatever they offer and accept whatever scoring method they use. I've won and lost under both. But just for the sake of discussion I'll throw out the following example.

 

Nascar has a ten race series. Jeff Gordon wins one race and Dale Jr. finishes fifth. The time gap between Gordon and Jr. is ten seconds. Dale Jr. wins the other nine races and Gordon finishes fifth in each of them but because of the close racing with the lead pack running nose to tail, Gordon finishes each of the nine races less than one second behind Jr.

 

Who's the champion?

 

If you score the race series on total time, it's Gordon. If you use rank scoring, it's Jr.

 

Interesting? Once again, I don't really care, let's just shoot.

[Ketchum Quick, SASS #72923]

Wow just show up shoot and injoy spending the day with good friends and shooting guns.

Have a good meal and tell stories and be thankful you was hear to injoy it.

 

Those are some powerful words right there mister!

 

KW

[Deuce Stevens SASS#55996]

Wow just show up shoot and injoy spending the day with good friends and shooting guns.

Have a good meal and tell stories and be thankful you was hear to injoy it.

 

Agree with ya, anyone that knows me even just a little bit knows where my heart is at. But it still an important topic within the game because the competition is also a huge part of the fun for a lot of folks.

[Campo Kid]

Wow just show up shoot and injoy spending the day with good friends and shooting guns.

Have a good meal and tell stories and be thankful you was hear to injoy it.

Oh heck yeah!!

 

That's what I do, be it a RP match or TT I have loads of fun. Just cause a match uses rank points doesn't mean I won't go to it. I'd just prefer it be TT, but I'll shoot either way.

 

Kid

[Straight Arrow Hombre]

I'll shoot whatever they offer and accept whatever scoring method they use. I've won and lost under both. But just for the sake of discussion I'll throw out the following example.

 

Nascar has a ten race series. Jeff Gordon wins one race and Dale Jr. finishes fifth. The time gap between Gordon and Jr. is ten seconds. Dale Jr. wins the other nine races and Gordon finishes fifth in each of them but because of the close racing with the lead pack running nose to tail, Gordon finishes each of the nine races less than one second behind Jr.

 

Who's the champion?

 

If you score the race series on total time, it's Gordon. If you use rank scoring, it's Jr.

 

Interesting? Once again, I don't really care, let's just shoot.

Now ya got me thinking in terms of NASCAR and I figger the camparison this way: laps led would be the equivalent of rank scored stages won and crossing the finish line first (shortest amount of time) would be a victory in a total time match.