6 Shotgun knock downs split 3 and 3?

[Madd Mike #8595]

this problem has an easy fix...ban doubles. problem solved. you're welcome.

 

 

 

 

 

thats why I carry both types of shotguns, and use either when I want ta

no gun ban necessary LOL

punn intended

[PECOS PETE, SASS#16437]

Unlike most replying, I did shoot this match. My posse had more doubles than 97's. During the walk thru, there was the normal how to shoot talk. No whinning - no nothing - life went on. Most shot 2-1 open move 1-2. No matter what you shoot, when the plan goes bad all bets are off.

[Rance - SASS # 54090]

A plan to fail and miss is never a good thing.

 

I don't go into it thinking I will miss. If you do. You will.

 

Advantage to the 97 shooter that pulls four.

He only goes to his belt twice.

A double shooter has to 4 times.

 

Shot a match not long ago that had two stages with odd number SG targets.

A few shooters that are good with both. Went and grabbed there 97 for those stages.

There was a reason for that ya know.

 

You'll notice it was "if" I miss. It's not having a plan to fail; it's having a back-up plan. Nobody plans to drop a pistol, but it happens. Nobobdy goes to the line and says to themselves "I hope I don't shoot a prop", but it happens. Are you so confident in your abilities that you go to the line with only four shotshells in your belt for four knock downs? Because you have NEVER dropped or fumbled a reload or even dare I say, miss? Do you carry an extra rifle/pistol reload on your gunbelt? Because you have NEVER had a dead primer in a pistol and wanted to finish with a clean match or have NEVER jacked out a live round out of your rifle? Somehow I doubt it. Loading both tubes on an odd number set of targets is a back-up plan no more so than going to the line with a full shotgun belt and having a rifle/pistol reload handy. Because when that train wreck happens, and it will, it happens in a hurry and it's better to have a back-up plan than no plan at all and then just have to say "oh well, there went five seconds".

 

Boothill

 

Thinkin' I've heard an ol' sayin' regarding somethin' like this...

Let's see... How the heck does it go..

Goes somethin' like...

"A man that fails ta plan... Plans ta fail.."

 

Rance

Thinkin' I think I plan ... I always load 2

Never thought of it as a "Hail Mary Load" but it works..

[Branchwater Jack SASS #88854]

So, maybe Patagonia Pete has something here. Or perhaps Cherokee sgt. is right.

 

I don't really know. However, I thought that it would be interesting to look through the scores and see what they tell us - if anything. Real numbers, from the match. Cold numbers tend to take as much speculation and feelings out of it as is possible.

Please note that the match was scored with rank points. All of these computations and analysis done below followed the same method that the match was scored.

 

So, let us attempt to prove the hypothesis that this stage and the way that it was split favored the 97 over the double. For this hypothesis to be true, then this stage and this stage alone must have had a great impact on the outcome of the match, presumably favoring the 97 shooters.

 

 

First look at the overall category winners.

 

There were 37 Categories that received awards. Seven of those categories were uncontested victories.

Not taking anything else into account, if you just removed that stage from the match and scored it based on the nine other stages, only four categories winners would have changed, or 13%.

However, that in itself does not prove anything......

In one of those categories, the actual drop in score on that stage was due to one shooter having 2 more misses and a P over the other. In one other of those categories, one shooter had a miss and a P compared to the other.

So, for these two categories, misses and procedurals had more to do with the impact of this stage than an advantage of firearm.

 

Truthfully, in the other two categories, I don't know enough about the each person's equipment and whether they had SG makeups or not to really tell you what made the difference. If they would like to step up and tell us all about it, we might be able to learn some more here to further our hypothesis.

So, taking out the knowns from all the categories, we find that we have less than 7% (total of two) of the categories that we would need to investigate further to see if there was an actual issue or not caused by the 97 is faster on this type of stage hypothesis.

But this was a state match. So we'll also look if any state champions would have changed.

30 State Champions were crowned. Of those, 7 were uncontested.

Again, if you just removed that stage from the match and scored it based on the nine other stages, you will find that the stage had 0 impact on the results.

 

So, let us expand the sample.

 

 

Look at the overall top 10. I already laid out the top 6, how they shot, and their guns of choice in a previous reply. But let us look at how jumbled up everything will get if you take out that one stage.

 

What we find, however, is that only 1 person would be affected if you pulled the stage. Don't be quick to jump up and yell 'AH HA! We found our proof.' This change in place was due to the fact that the shooter had a miss. If you recalculate the top 10 on raw time alone for the subject stage, and you use that as your 10 stage baseline prior to removing the questioned stage, the top 10 does not change.

Even going down to the top 20, adjusted for misses, you wouldn't affect a change in the score except for two people. However, even on those, you would again have to go back and see what else, including a difference in equipment, shotgun misses, etc, may have caused their score to deviate from their norm.

 

Down to the top 25, we'll see one other change if you kick out that stage. And that change would switch shooters who were shooting the 97.

Could the double shooters have been faster on one type of stage than 97, 87, or single shot shooters or vice versa? Sure. But looking at the numbers, those people - whoever those people are - were still faster on the other 9 stages as well. Whether it be because of equipment, preparation, practice, wind, sun angle on the stage when they shot it, youth, longer arms, bigger hat, medically altered eyesight, rotation of the earth on its axis, whatever.

 

Or maybe there was not a great impact by this stage at all. That, or everyone is now shooting the same shotgun.

 

 

I don't know that comparing the fastest 97 shooter running his fastest attempt at a speed shotgun sidematch stand-and-deliver against the fastest double shooter running his fastest attempt at a speed shotgun sidematch stand-and-deliver is necessarily a sound argument for testing the hypothesis of there being an advantage of one over the other on one stage during one match. There are too many variables that this ideal comparison does not take into consideration including target placement, movement, nerves, sweat, distractions, energy level, etc in a match situation to use comparitive numbers from individual peak performance in an ideal environment to prove a point.

 

Maybe this is just me seeing the world through my Frontier Cartridge Gunfighter tinted glasses. But looking at the numbers, I'm just not seeing where this type of stage in the configuration it was in made a difference in the results using this match as an example.

The question you may be wondering, however, is how would all of this stack up if the results were scored Total Time and not by Rank Points. I'll let you figure that one out on your own.

[Colt McAllister]

So, maybe Patagonia Pete has something here. Or perhaps Cherokee sgt. is right.

 

I don't really know. However, I thought that it would be interesting to look through the scores and see what they tell us - if anything. Real numbers, from the match. Cold numbers tend to take as much speculation and feelings out of it as is possible.

 

Please note that the match was scored with rank points. All of these computations and analysis done below followed the same method that the match was scored.

 

So, let us attempt to prove the hypothesis that this stage and the way that it was split favored the 97 over the double. For this hypothesis to be true, then this stage and this stage alone must have had a great impact on the outcome of the match, presumably favoring the 97 shooters.

 

 

First look at the overall category winners.

 

There were 37 Categories that received awards. Seven of those categories were uncontested victories.

 

Not taking anything else into account, if you just removed that stage from the match and scored it based on the nine other stages, only four categories winners would have changed, or 13%.

 

However, that in itself does not prove anything......

 

In one of those categories, the actual drop in score on that stage was due to one shooter having 2 more misses and a P over the other. In one other of those categories, one shooter had a miss and a P compared to the other.

 

So, for these two categories, misses and procedurals had more to do with the impact of this stage than an advantage of firearm.

 

Truthfully, in the other two categories, I don't know enough about the each person's equipment and whether they had SG makeups or not to really tell you what made the difference. If they would like to step up and tell us all about it, we might be able to learn some more here to further our hypothesis.

 

So, taking out the knowns from all the categories, we find that we have less than 7% (total of two) of the categories that we would need to investigate further to see if there was an actual issue or not caused by the 97 is faster on this type of stage hypothesis.

 

 

But this was a state match. So we'll also look if any state champions would have changed.

 

 

30 State Champions were crowned. Of those, 7 were uncontested.

 

Again, if you just removed that stage from the match and scored it based on the nine other stages, you will find that the stage had 0 impact on the results.

 

 

So, let us expand the sample.

 

 

Look at the overall top 10. I already laid out the top 6, how they shot, and their guns of choice in a previous reply. But let us look at how jumbled up everything will get if you take out that one stage.

 

What we find, however, is that only 1 person would be affected if you pulled the stage. Don't be quick to jump up and yell 'AH HA! We found our proof.' This change in place was due to the fact that the shooter had a miss. If you recalculate the top 10 on raw time alone for the subject stage, and you use that as your 10 stage baseline prior to removing the questioned stage, the top 10 does not change.

 

Even going down to the top 20, adjusted for misses, you wouldn't affect a change in the score except for two people. However, even on those, you would again have to go back and see what else, including a difference in equipment, shotgun misses, etc, may have caused their score to deviate from their norm.

 

Down to the top 25, we'll see one other change if you kick out that stage. And that change would switch shooters who were shooting the 97.

 

Could the double shooters have been faster on one type of stage than 97, 87, or single shot shooters or vice versa? Sure. But looking at the numbers, those people - whoever those people are - were still faster on the other 9 stages as well. Whether it be because of equipment, preparation, practice, wind, sun angle on the stage when they shot it, youth, longer arms, bigger hat, medically altered eyesight, rotation of the earth on its axis, whatever.

 

Or maybe there was not a great impact by this stage at all. That, or everyone is now shooting the same shotgun.

 

 

I don't know that comparing the fastest 97 shooter running his fastest attempt at a speed shotgun sidematch stand-and-deliver against the fastest double shooter running his fastest attempt at a speed shotgun sidematch stand-and-deliver is necessarily a sound argument for testing the hypothesis of there being an advantage of one over the other on one stage during one match. There are too many variables that this ideal comparison does not take into consideration including target placement, movement, nerves, sweat, distractions, energy level, etc in a match situation to use comparitive numbers from individual peak performance in an ideal environment to prove a point.

 

Maybe this is just me seeing the world through my Frontier Cartridge Gunfighter tinted glasses. But looking at the numbers, I'm just not seeing where this type of stage in the configuration it was in made a difference in the results using this match as an example.

 

The question you may be wondering, however, is how would all of this stack up if the results were scored Total Time and not by Rank Points. I'll let you figure that one out on your own.

 

The most amazing stat I see out of this is 7 out of 30 categories were uncontested. That's 23%! You think we might have too many categories? Or not enough people?

[Widder, SASS #59054]

Dang BJ, that was some dern good homework you done.

 

And it verifies what I was thinking..........its a wash. All things being considered, NO ADVANTAGE, atleast due to firearm usage.

 

Shooter preperation, practice and reliable equipment is probably the big factor on WHO might have an advantage on any type stage.

 

Heck, I'm not even convinced that a SxS shooter has an advantage on a stage with only 2 KD's.

 

Your good top shooters with a 97 can start at port arms and still get 2 shots off in about 1.7 seconds.

 

Your good top shooters with a SxS is gona do about the same.

 

THe 97 shooter will probably get the 1st shot off faster (about 1.10-1.20 seconds, with splits anywhere from high .3's to low .6's) but the SxS will gain on the 1st to 2nd shot split. which could be as low as .15 - .20 seconds.

 

A few of your top 87 shooters will be right in the mix of these time frames also.

 

 

..........Widder

[Blackwater 53393]

What Widder said! After watching guys like Big Six Henderson and Okaw run the '87 I think it's down to who is proficient with their chosen shotgun!!

[Bramble Mountain Buzzard]

OK, on page one Mack Hacker mentioned that for the fight with Goliath, David had 5 stones for one target. That's not true! David had 5 stones because Goliath had 4 other brothers. He brought along just enough for one on each target... If necessary.

[Widder, SASS #59054]

OK, on page one Mack Hacker mentioned that for the fight with Goliath, David had 5 stones for one target. That's not true! David had 5 stones because Goliath had 4 other brothers. He brought along just enough for one on each target... If necessary.

 

I knew that the Bible referenced 4 sons, even by name.

 

And during my life time, I have heard Southern Baptist Preachers mention '4 brothers' from the Pulpit.

 

BUT, I've never been able to find any Biblical reference to show that Goliath had 4 brothers.....and neither have any of those Preachers been able to show me where they got their information.

 

For a reference to those 4 sons (of which one was also his brother), check out I Chronicles, 20: 4-8.

 

p.s. - whether he had brothers or sons, I don't think any of them were covered under the 'Affordable Healthcare Act'.

 

 

..........Widder

[Possum Skinner, SASS#60697]

Ok. I was wrong about the stage writer. I figured he shot a '97 because I felt that a double shooter would have realized the '97 advantage and would not put it in an annual. Not the first time I was wrong and probably won't be the last. Heck, I've written stages the put one variety of shooter or another at a disadvantage, but only for monthlies and then, rarely. Try really hard to make annual scenarios even for all.

 

It never occurred to me that a SxS shooter might shoot 2, shoot 1, open and move. That would make it more even. However, a shooter can't do that at clubs with plant and poke.

 

And, just for the record, I wasn't trying to disparage this match or the stage writer. I write scenarios every month and understand the difficulties very well. I never considered the other scenarios or whether they made things more fair overall, as that's not what the OP was asking about.

 

I hope you all have a great day.

Possum

[Blackwater 53393]

Knowing the stage writer, I'd say from past experience that he's one who thinks a match should have a little something for everybody. That might include a little challenge at times. He must be doing something right. The match has sold out for several years in a row, and many of the same people come back again and again.

[Randy Saint Eagle, SASS # 64903]

Ok. I was wrong about the stage writer. I figured he shot a '97 because I felt that a double shooter would have realized the '97 advantage and would not put it in an annual. Not the first time I was wrong and probably won't be the last. Heck, I've written stages the put one variety of shooter or another at a disadvantage, but only for monthlies and then, rarely. Try really hard to make annual scenarios even for all.

 

It never occurred to me that a SxS shooter might shoot 2, shoot 1, open and move. That would make it more even. However, a shooter can't do that at clubs with plant and poke.

 

And, just for the record, I wasn't trying to disparage this match or the stage writer. I write scenarios every month and understand the difficulties very well. I never considered the other scenarios or whether they made things more fair overall, as that's not what the OP was asking about.

 

I hope you all have a great day.

Possum

Possum, I was 1 of those who shot 2, loaded, shot 1 then opened, moved, shot 1, loaded and shot the last 2. But as you said about the plant and poke, I went back to the range last Sunday and shot it again and on the second load shot 1 and shucked before I moved because I'm heading to Comin' At Cha and I wanted to get moving with 1 in the chamber out of my head before I head to Texas.

 

Randy

[Korupt Karl]

I'm not as experienced as some at stage writing but I make an effort to be fair....... but a GF can always complain about split pistols, a S X S can complain about uneven number of targets, a 97 shooter can complain about shotgun targets in 2's and it goes on. The only complaint that I would have is if it's excessive or deliberate to gain an advantage.

 

Just my too scents.

 

KK

[Cowboy Junky]

Unlike most replying, I did shoot this match. My posse had more doubles than 97's. During the walk thru, there was the normal how to shoot talk. No whinning - no nothing - life went on. Most shot 2-1 open move 1-2. No matter what you shoot, when the plan goes bad all bets are off.

+1 That's because most of the Top shooter's you talk to are really good folks and just accept things as they are. Big & close, small & far, spread apart, slight advantages etc the good ones always float to the top every time.

 

Plus one GREAT stage won't win a match anyway.........but 1 bad stage can sure lose you one.