Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

Archived

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

fannerfifty 59504

Targets too close/far Easy Remedy

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, Dantankerous said:

 

 You shoot a 10-10-4 in the high teens and that is average where you come from?

 

Good Lord...

 

:o;):D

I live in Las Vegas.

I'm fortunate to shoot with the great shooters (and wonderful folks) from southern California, southern Utah and Arizona regularly...

 

Also I get to play with our home grown champions like Pecos Nick and Quickly Downunder...

 

I'm good friends with amazing shooters like Damascus John...

 

Sadly, sometimes high teens feels like I'm stuck in molasses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Creeker, SASS #43022 said:

<snip>

 

The club president approached me after I had won the match (remember only a small monthly match) and asked my opinion of the shoot.

I told him I thought the targets were out too far and the sequences questionable.

"But you won."

I replied, "Winnings great; but I shoot cowboy to have fun and this match just isn't fun for me.  And it can't be fun for your shooters who are struggling".

He stated, "Well, we set them up this way to slow down you fast guys".

I responded, "I beat the 2nd place shooter by 90 seconds over a six stage match...  How's that slowing down the fast guys working out for you?"

 

<snip>

 

And that right there is the issue in a nutshell.  The urban myth that putting things in to "slow down the fast guys".  Doing this just increases the gap between the fast guys and the not so fast folks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Doc Shapiro said:

A sample size of more than 1 match would be needed to validate.

I'm unsure why you say that. 

A single test match certainly could be set up to do the kind of test you are suggesting.  If your thesis statement is correct, then IN ANY SINGLE MATCH, the longer and harder stages should end with the same shooters on top and by nearly the same time differentials as are observed on the closer, bigger targets and easier stages. 

 

(Speaking now as a trained statistician).  A larger sample of matches would introduce many masking variables, and set up a more complex (multiple apples v. oranges) type comparison.  A much better and purer way to increase sample size would simply be to use a much larger sample of individual shooters, all shooting the same courses of fire (i. e., same match) and under similar conditions, thus limiting the number of variables being tested.  Why not just use the recent EOT results for the analysis.  Objectively rank the stages according to distance, size and difficulty and examine the differentials in individual shooter placement and time separation stage by stage.  Did, with statistical confidence, the same individuals win by the same time differential in every stage, regardless of difficulty or skill sets tested by the stages?  If so, then your thesis is demonstrated to be correct.  If not, then your thesis statement is less so.    

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Dusty Devil Dale said:

<snip> Did, with statistical confidence, the same individuals win by the same time differential in every stage, regardless of difficulty or skill sets tested by the stages?  If so, then your thesis is demonstrated to be correct.  If not, then your thesis statement is less so.    

 

 

Not by the same actual time margins, but by larger time margins (expected as harder matches amplify the time differences).  There was some variation among shooters at similar skill levels, which is to be expected.

 

Hence the reason above I called the concept - of putting in stuff like complicated sequences and smaller and/or farther targets to "slow the fast guys down" - as a myth.  It doesn't hold.

 

IMO, Match Directors are in the entertainment business.  They should put on entertaining matches if they want to attract shooters.

 

Back to the original topic.  I think giving shooters an idea of what to expect is wise.  Here's the description of one club I shoot at, taken from the website (https://cagunslingers.com/Clubs/SloughhouseIrregulars.html):   We are a black powder oriented, SASS-affiliated "Irregular" cowboy action shooting club. Our matches take place on 5th weekend days. Matches will all be very different in character. Some will be up close, others with targets out. Some will involve the use of props. Some will have significant movement. Join us for some out of the ordinary fun!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Doc Shapiro said:

 

 

Actually, you won't.  Shooters that rise to the top have solid fundamentals and can still hit the far targets at a very high speed.  You can't get really fast without solid fundamentals.  Moving targets out really doesn't change the rankings much, if at all.  And leads to more frustration for many.

 

We regularly have far targets at Sloughhouse Irregulars matches.  It doesn't affect the rankings at all.  Feel free to test the hypothesis you set up above and please let us know the results.  A sample size of more than 1 match would be needed to validate.

 

 

Docs got it right, the cream will always rise to the top. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DDD,

I ain't discounting your post above and your obvious good knowledge of those things you speak of.

Heck, I probably don't even fully understand some of that stuff.

 

But DOC has been around a long time doing all sorts of calculations and testing within this game we

play.   And his big advantage in this tried and tested conclusions is that he was able to get most

of this testing with Badlands Bud.  Not only was Bud an incredible Traditional style shooter, but

also GF.   It would be like having Matt Black and Missouri Lefty together for your testing and the

SASS/CAS stage designs would be your laboratory.    

 

Lot of GOOD post above.   Thank you Pards for your input and information.

 

..........Widder

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Widder, SASS #59054 said:

DDD,

I ain't discounting your post above and your obvious good knowledge of those things you speak of.

Heck, I probably don't even fully understand some of that stuff.

 

But DOC has been around a long time doing all sorts of calculations and testing within this game we

play.   And his big advantage in this tried and tested conclusions is that he was able to get most

of this testing with Badlands Bud.  Not only was Bud an incredible Traditional style shooter, but

also GF.   It would be like having Matt Black and Missouri Lefty together for your testing and the

SASS/CAS stage designs would be your laboratory.    

 

Lot of GOOD post above.   Thank you Pards for your input and information.

 

..........Widder

 

OK--When I look back at the 2019 EOT Results (absent having the data in an active spreadsheet where statistical functions can be done easily, without the need of retyping in the entire data set) I see just a couple patterns. 

 

Only two shooters, Matt Black and Missouri Lefty, did really well on every stage, regardless of stage difficulty.   A handful or others shot all the stages except one or two very well.  So those top-end  shooters appear to be able to handle just about any challenges.  Something in a couple of stages (or in their individual gear, health, or whatever--no way to tell) evidently challenged some very good shooters more in some stages than in others.   But there was no particular stage where that occurred with more frequency.  

 

About a dozen others made the top ten in about half of the stages, and there was no particular stage or stages where many different names appeared in the top ten.  There didn't appear to be any single stage that gave nearly everyone problems, or more strongly separated shooters.  

 

Then when I looked at the overall time arrays for each stage, there were no real break-offs in any stage.  The frequencies of stage times  appeared to be about the same (and distributed quite evenly) across all of the stages, with no breaks or "wide margins" evident for any particular stage, in which there was more than a one second interval not shot by somebody. 

 

Looking down the ranks more broadly, except for the several shooters who excelled at every stage, the names do move around the ranks a lot, across the different stages.  Stage difficulty differences apparently did bring some different people up into the top ten, top twenty, top thirty, and top forty shooter ranks.  Those occurrences were sporadic, and did not appear to be associated with any particular stages.  As expected, it appears that individual skill sets vary quite a bit, and when a stage matches up well with someone's skills, they shot well.  (or good or bad luck became involved) But it is an individual pattern, not associated with particular groups  (fast shooters, gunfighters, etc, etc.) Nothing appeared to be stage-related. 

 

Seeing the names within the top ten vary so much across the stages does suggest that different stage designs can influence who shoots well or poorly, and that only a very few exceptional shooters can handle everything that comes at them exceptionally well.  That Flux in names/ranks is more pronounced as we look at ranks 20-30, 30-40, and below.  Below rank 100, I couldn't see any patterns in the morass of mixed data.  People shot some stages well and others poorly, but no particular stages appeared to be associated with good or poor performance by different shooters.  

 

I was handicapped by not having been there to see the stages, so I could not score the stages for difficulty.  Had I been able to do that, it would be possible to run regression analysis, and really see if particular stages were associated with more rank variability. 

-- Another time perhaps.  

A study of the question of how stage design affects shooter rank distribution, and comparison from year to year, could make an interesting Doctoral dissertation in statistics.   That may be the only objective way to settle the ongoing debate. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread has digressed into the realm of the bizarre.

 

Why folks want to make such a simple game so complicated is beyond my comprehension.

 

My suggestion for some, get off the Wire and go shoot more.

 

Phantom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dusty Devil Dale said:

 

 

Looking down the ranks more broadly, except for the several shooters who excelled at every stage, the names do move around the ranks a lot, across the different stages. 

Top fast shooters

 

1 hour ago, Dusty Devil Dale said:

 

Stage difficulty differences apparently did bring some different people up into the top ten, top twenty, top thirty, and top forty shooter ranks.  Those occurrences were sporadic, and did not appear to be associated with any particular stages. 

I dont follow. Stage difficulty changed things but not the stages?

1 hour ago, Dusty Devil Dale said:

 

As expected, it appears that individual skill sets vary quite a bit, and when a stage matches up well with someone's skills, they shot well.  (or good or bad luck became involved) But it is an individual pattern, not associated with particular groups  (fast shooters, gunfighters, etc, etc.)

Yes, skill sets vary quite a bit. This is why for example, a top shotgunner likes to have more shotgun knockdowns. It gives them more of a spread on a particular stage(in general all other things equal). 

But, it does also have to do with particular groups as well. For example, a stage that has one target for pistol and rifle that is just dumped on will favor a traditional shooter over a duelist. A stage with farther targets will favor the faster traditional shooter. Thats why nobody writes 5 stages of dump targets. 

1 hour ago, Dusty Devil Dale said:

Nothing appeared to be stage-related. 

 

 

Everything is stage related.

 

I couldnt follow most of your post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/26/2019 at 6:29 PM, Dodge City Dixie said:

Case in point to Roy's Creek Dan's post regarding 29 clean shooters and "the difficulty of the match compared to the last 5 or so years".  Does anyone remember why T.A. Chance became the match director for EOT a few years ago?  It is my understanding it was related to a major decline in attendance due in large part to difficult stages and/or distant targets, etc.

 

T.A. Chance is the match director for Bordertown/Arizona State Match, which is one of the most popular in the country, i.e. it sells outs every year shortly after apps are available.  Bordertown is known as a "big and close" match, which is popular with a lot of shooters. He designed stages for EOT that were well received and the attendance numbers began increasing.  Those stages had lots of variety with a mixture of target size and distance along with interesting scenarios.  T.A. retired after being co-match director with Lassiter the final year, which I believe was 2017. 

 

So, I believe what Phantom and Creeker as well as others including me are looking at regarding EOT this year is that it was changed quite a bit from what those of us attending for the last 5-6 years had become accustomed to.  Also, please remember SASS is a business and that business is selling entertainment.  If people are not having fun - the majority that is - they will go elsewhere to spend their time and money.  We all know you can't possibly please everyone, but if you don't please the core group the business cannot survive.

 

In comparing this year's scores with 2018 and 2017 (rank scoring final year) here is what I saw:

                      

Place     2019          2018          2017   

1st         181.21       180.77       179.09

5th         217.86       195.27       186.61

10th       228.34       202.23       204.93

15th       237.38       206.52       210.51

20th       243.65       210.91       224.24

30th       253.27       222.30       220.96

50th       272.85       236.92       244.09

100th     298.76       266.43       266.86        

150th     326.22       288.31       286.04

200th     351.10       311.66       309.19

 

As has been said many times, the top shooters will be the top shooters regardless of the stage setup.  However, you will notice a sharp increase in total time even at 5th place and going higher through 200th place and beyond.  Also, what do these higher scores do to the overall time required to complete the match when you have 500-600 shooters?

 

PLEASE DO NOT take this in any way other than pointing out how the change this year may very well have a huge impact on future attendance.  My main concern is the future of EOT and SASS.  We all enjoy the game and want to bring in more people to join in the fun!

 

11 hours ago, Dusty Devil Dale said:

I'm unsure why you say that. 

A single test match certainly could be set up to do the kind of test you are suggesting.  If your thesis statement is correct, then IN ANY SINGLE MATCH, the longer and harder stages should end with the same shooters on top and by nearly the same time differentials as are observed on the closer, bigger targets and easier stages. 

 

(Speaking now as a trained statistician).  A larger sample of matches would introduce many masking variables, and set up a more complex (multiple apples v. oranges) type comparison.  A much better and purer way to increase sample size would simply be to use a much larger sample of individual shooters, all shooting the same courses of fire (i. e., same match) and under similar conditions, thus limiting the number of variables being tested.  Why not just use the recent EOT results for the analysis.  Objectively rank the stages according to distance, size and difficulty and examine the differentials in individual shooter placement and time separation stage by stage.  Did, with statistical confidence, the same individuals win by the same time differential in every stage, regardless of difficulty or skill sets tested by the stages?  If so, then your thesis is demonstrated to be correct.  If not, then your thesis statement is less so.    

 

 

Dusty Devil Dale, you say you are speaking as a trained statistician, but from what I've read on the 3 threads that are all somewhat related, you appear to ignore

statistics.  I was at EOT this year and the last 4 years. There was not a huge difference between stages this year so I think you are wasting your time trying to look at that.  The bigger difference is between this year and the previous few years and you choose to ignore or discount the statistics on those.  Look at the statistics above.   You also seem to ignore the folks who've been around long enough to see many try to "Slow Down The Fast Shooters". Many of the folks and clubs with that attitude are not around anymore.

 

Matt Black (1st Place) shot 2019 EOT .44 seconds slower than 2018. The 200th Place shooter shot it 39.44 seconds slower than the 200th Place shooter in 2018. This years match was more difficult than last years and there was almost no difference in the best shooters time but a huge difference in the 200th place shooters time.

 

Whether you accept it or not doesn't change the fact that if you try to slow down the fast shooters you have a much greater impact on the middle of the pack and slower shooters. All Clubs have the right to put on any type of match they want but as others have mentioned some of us would like to know how it will be so we can decide where we will spend our money and time.

 

Thanks

Randy

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Phantom, SASS #54973 said:

This thread has digressed into the realm of the bizarre.

 

Why folks want to make such a simple game so complicated is beyond my comprehension.

 

My suggestion for some, get off the Wire and go shoot more.

 

Phantom

I think maybe some just like to type....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Dantankerous said:

 

 You shoot a 10-10-4 in the high teens and that is average where you come from?

 

Good Lord...

 

:o;):D

Ha,  around here you can average in the 17-18s and still finish 5th overall at a monthly.  Bunches of good shooters.

 

Triple D you have world champions, match directors for big time matches, shooters with decades of experience, and the guy who literally wrote a book on how to be successful shooting SASS, all telling you you're mistaken, yet you persist in the idea that making stages harder will narrow the gap between the top shooters and the average shooters. When I took statistics in college my professor required us to read "How to Lie with Statistics'.  Surprisingly interesting book.  I'm not at all suggesting that YOU'RE lying, I'm merely pointing out that numbers can be deceptive, both in how you present them and in how they are interpreted.

 

Keep shooting, get some experience. You may choose not to accept what you're being told here, but it will be empirically borne out if you shoot long enough. 

 

To the OP's point and Creeker's response.  I think many of you are missing Creeker's point, which makes sense to me.  Run the type of match you want to run, but let the shooters know what to expect.  If I go to a Steak House, I want steak, not tofu.  I don't think that's too much to ask. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tennessee williams said:

Everything is stage related.

Actually the opposite was true, as many here have posted.  There were very few stage-related patterns evident in ranking data.  There were no particular stages where the names in the top ten were remarkably different.  They varied more as you look further  down the rank listings.   I would say from the data that stage design probably affected lower rank shooter performance much more than it affected the top 20 or so shooters.  

That is no surprise to many here.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Captain Bill Burt said:

When I took statistics in college my professor required us to read "How to Lie with Statistics'.  Surprisingly interesting book.  I'm not at all suggesting that YOU'RE lying, I'm merely pointing out that numbers can be deceptive, both in how you present them and in how they are interpreted.

Many decades ago, when I did post-graduate work and taught statistics in college (3 years), the emphasis was always on TESTING -- performing careful analysis of data variability as the means to ask questions and/or understand and quantify real world relationships.   There was no emphasis on bending the questions or on cherry picking the data set in order to prove or disprove preconceived notions. 

 

It is possible --even easy-- to skue study design, boundary conditions of models, or data set selection to achieve a preconceived result.  But that is more the science of Politics or Persuasion, not Statistics. 

Unfortunately, skued practices are too common these days and they can lead to some terrible decision making.   It can be hard to differentiate that kind of garbage from the more pure science of Statistics.  

 

Here I only tried to look over the EOT data set and spot/point out trends and patterns.  It is a far cry from doing a proper statistical data analysis.  Unsurprisingly, most of the trends and patterns seen were at least partially contradictory or confusing.  There was much variation within and between individuals, more so than there were predictable patterns associated with stage designs.   I just tried to describe and share what little I saw. 

 

So let's try to drift back to the O. P. 

I agree 100% with Fannerfifty.  Knowing what kind of match to expect just seems fair to me.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dusty Devil Dale said:

Actually the opposite was true, as many here have posted.  There were very few stage-related patterns evident in ranking data.  There were no particular stages where the names in the top ten were remarkably different.  They varied more as you look further  down the rank listings.   I would say from the data that stage design probably affected lower rank shooter performance much more than it affected the top 20 or so shooters.  

That is no surprise to many here.  

 

 

(Now speaking as a trained common senser)

Actually, all these posts everybody is replying with on here are not agreeing with you. Last week you said something about moving targets back to equalize the competition. That doesn't work no matter how you a analyze it. You keep changing up what you're saying. Even on the above statement you disagree with me saying the stage has everything to do with the time(how can it not). Then you say the stage design affected lower rank shooters than the top ranked shooters. That is what the majority on here has said!

  You cant say they sky is orange and then when everybody else says they think its blue say, I told you it was blue. You got to pick a color.

I need a drink too

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Phantom, SASS #54973 said:

I need a drink...

I'm buyin' the first round...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Tennessee williams said:

(Now speaking as a trained common senser)

Actually, all these posts everybody is replying with on here are not agreeing with you. Last week you said something about moving targets back to equalize the competition. That doesn't work no matter how you a analyze it. You keep changing up what you're saying. Even on the above statement you disagree with me saying the stage has everything to do with the time(how can it not). Then you say the stage design affected lower rank shooters than the top ranked shooters. That is what the majority on here has said!

  You cant say they sky is orange and then when everybody else says they think its blue say, I told you it was blue. You got to pick a color.

I need a drink too

If I drink enough...the sky turns green...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope you folks are starting to realize it's simply a waste of time and energy to trying to explain ANYTHING to a TROLL.  

 

DON'T.     FEED.     A.     TROLL.  :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Colorado Coffinmaker said:

I hope you folks are starting to realize it's simply a waste of time and energy to trying to explain ANYTHING to a TROLL.  

 

DON'T.     FEED.     A.     TROLL.  :ph34r:

I'm not trying to feed him...I'm trying to get him drunk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Tennessee williams said:

Actually, all these posts everybody is replying with on here are not agreeing with you. Last week you said something about moving targets back to equalize the competition. That doesn't work no matter how you a analyze it. You keep changing up what you're saying.

 

I will try to be clearer.   (Even TROLLS need to be clear) 

 

The key thing that many here have  missed is that when I looked closely at the actual EOT data, It did in fact support what you and others are saying, that at least in the top ranks, the positions do not seem affected very much by stage difficulty.  In my last four posts here, I've been agreeing with you, but somehow it went past you.   So now I guess I'm branded as a "TROLL".  Sorry if I tried your patience.  I can certainly stop posting here if that would be better. 

 

By way of explanation, what different individuals believe  is going to differ.  But the data shows actual shooting performance.  So what I was trying to do was get some kind of an objective and factual basis to understand how stage design does or does not affect shooter rankings. 

I realize that many offering opinions here have vast experience, much more than me, but I was looking to see if those opinions were factually supported.  And they were--at least in part. 

 

I do need to point out some ambiguity in postings here, besides my own.   Just about a week ago, re: "EOT Stages", the posts made by many of the same folks posting now on this item, complained loudly about some of the EOT stages having difficulty issues that they felt had affected people's scoring differentially.  They indicated that CAS participation would drop if stage difficulty increases as the norm.    

 

I was just following up on that, trying to see if the results indicated yes or no.  At best that was inconclusive.   And opinions varied.  The top shooters said "No",  they did well on all of the stages and said that they liked the added variety and challenges.   Others appeared to say "Yes", that some of the stage designs, angles, target spacing, etc., had been difficult for them, and implied at least that those difficulties had affected their performance.   

 

But now, those same people are insisting  that the "good shooters" rise to the top, regardless of stage difficulty".   So forgive me if I'm confused or if I probed too deeply and frustrated folks to the point of name calling.  I'm doing my best to look, analyze, and learn.  

 

I am sorry for kidnapping Fannerfifty's O. P..  It was never my intent.  DDD

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DDD don't let them keep you from being curious and posting here. There is room for everyone.

 

That said your post seemed to completely dismiss some posts from some very experienced and very talented shooters. 

 

I'll shoot pretty much any stage, anywhere, but if you move the pistol targets out past 15 yards I'm not coming back; unless you tell me this is a one time thing. 3 yards too close, 12 yards too far. 4-7 yards with the average closer to 4.5 than 6 is great imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Dusty Devil Dale said:

 

I will try to be clearer.   (Even TROLLS need to be clear) 

 

The key thing that many here have  missed is that when I looked closely at the actual EOT data, It did in fact support what you and others are saying, that at least in the top ranks, the positions do not seem affected very much by stage difficulty.  In my last four posts here, I've been agreeing with you, but somehow it went past you.   So now I guess I'm branded as a "TROLL".  Sorry if I tried your patience.  I can certainly stop posting here if that would be better. 

 

By way of explanation, what different individuals believe  is going to differ.  But the data shows actual shooting performance.  So what I was trying to do was get some kind of an objective and factual basis to understand how stage design does or does not affect shooter rankings. 

I realize that many offering opinions here have vast experience, much more than me, but I was looking to see if those opinions were factually supported.  And they were--at least in part. 

 

I do need to point out some ambiguity in postings here, besides my own.   Just about a week ago, re: "EOT Stages", the posts made by many of the same folks posting now on this item, complained loudly about some of the EOT stages having difficulty issues that they felt had affected people's scoring differentially.  They indicated that CAS participation would drop if stage difficulty increases as the norm.    

 

I was just following up on that, trying to see if the results indicated yes or no.  At best that was inconclusive.   And opinions varied.  The top shooters said "No",  they did well on all of the stages and said that they liked the added variety and challenges.   Others appeared to say "Yes", that some of the stage designs, angles, target spacing, etc., had been difficult for them, and implied at least that those difficulties had affected their performance.   

 

But now, those same people are insisting  that the "good shooters" rise to the top, regardless of stage difficulty".   So forgive me if I'm confused or if I probed too deeply and frustrated folks to the point of name calling.  I'm doing my best to look, analyze, and learn.  

 

I am sorry for kidnapping Fannerfifty's O. P..  It was never my intent.  DDD

 

I think where part of the problem lies is in comprehension vs self conclusions. I dont think the conversation about EOT had anything to do with difficulty. It was the fact that it was not what people expected vs the prior years in layout. That evolved into some people wrongly stating that farther targets would shorten up the gap in top shooters vs mid pack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Tennessee williams said:

I think where part of the problem lies is in comprehension vs self conclusions. I dont think the conversation about EOT had anything to do with difficulty. It was the fact that it was not what people expected vs the prior years in layout. That evolved into some people wrongly stating that farther targets would shorten up the gap in top shooters vs mid pack.

That certainly was a part of the discussion, but there were also  plenty of comments from different folks criticizing the stage difficulty, as a factor driving people away. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Dusty Devil Dale said:

That certainly was a part of the discussion, but there were also  plenty of comments from different folks criticizing the stage difficulty, as a factor driving people away. 

...as opposed to the previous years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Dusty Devil Dale said:

I do need to point out some ambiguity in postings here, besides my own.   Just about a week ago, re: "EOT Stages", the posts made by many of the same folks posting now on this item, complained loudly about some of the EOT stages having difficulty issues that they felt had affected people's scoring differentially.  They indicated that CAS participation would drop if stage difficulty increases as the norm. 

Your understanding of the dissension is faulty.

 

Geeze...we've seen what works...what doesn't...what bring folks back to shoots and what kills clubs/matches.

 

Oy...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Tyrel Cody said:

DDD don't let them keep you from being curious and posting here. There is room for everyone.

 

That said your post seemed to completely dismiss some posts from some very experienced and very talented shooters. 

 

I'll shoot pretty much any stage, anywhere, but if you move the pistol targets out past 15 yards I'm not coming back; unless you tell me this is a one time thing. 3 yards too close, 12 yards too far. 4-7 yards with the average closer to 4.5 than 6 is great imo.

 

Thank you. 

 

I really wasn't intending to discount anybody's opinions, or insult their huge experience.   Here is why I hung on so tenaciously -- I guess fanatically appearing to some.  

 

I am really not a Troll.

I am fortunate to be semi-retired and to live just 10 min from our Kings River Regulators range.  I do some occasional stage writing, and I am one of the folks who assist with monthly stage review.   Due to my physical proximity, I also am an active partner in construction of our stages and props, and I usually have been the one who pre-sets the target stands/racks, table positions, etc, and stakes everything down for of our monthly matches -- often by myself.   So I was keenly interested in opinions whether or not target distance and placement could create unfairness. 

 

I am always a careful listener to shooters' comments on our match design and set-up.  The challenges I posted here were a really a relay of comments I've repeatedly gotten from folks following our matches.  Many of them are experienced and accomplished CAS shooters.  Some are past and current champions. 

 

There truly is a mix of folks who prefer very different kinds of stages, and who really do believe that some kinds of stage design afford differential advantage.   I needed to factually understand whether or not those perceptions reflect reality. 

 

Like it or not, there are a number of folks in CAS who are looking for "traditional" matches--ones with western flavor props, card shuffles, pouring whiskey on the clock, targets in motion, individual shooting order judgments, distance targets, moving ore cart shooting, and other western thematic things.  It's a large part of the sport to many.   So as a club, we try hard to define what a "traditional" match is.  It seems to boil down mostly to a desire for shooting variety.  We try hard to build that into matches, to the extent it does not afford a differential advantage among shooters or shooter categories, or diffract the match too far from being a test of shooting skills.  

 

I needed to explore whether or not stage-design related unfairness is really a factor for consideration.

That is also why I pursued clarification of the apparent ambiguities posted here - - yes, I can be bluntly honest at times.  

Sorry if my approach was offensive or condescending to some.  Again, it wasn't intended.  

 

I personally like to shoot ANY CAS stage.  But I keep trying to help our Club to design the most fair, fun, western thematic, varied, and popular matches possible.  I got a lot of useful info here, for which I am extremely thankful. 

DDD

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Phantom, SASS #54973 said:

 Your understanding of the dissension is faulty.

Possibly so.  I will save folks the embarassment of going back and pulling quotes.   

 

I note I wasn't the only one who read parts of the dialog as critical of the stages, target layouts, complexity, etc.  Long Hunter apparent did too, if you re-read his separate thread posting, along with several others.   Enough said on that facet (hopefully).  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Dusty Devil Dale said:

Possibly so.  I will save folks the embarassment of going back and pulling quotes.   

 

I note I wasn't the only one who read parts of the dialog as critical of the stages, target layouts, complexity, etc.  Long Hunter apparent did too, if you re-read his separate thread posting, along with several others.   Enough said on that facet (hopefully).  

Geeze dude, said in the context that some are afraid it'll hurt the attendance of EOT based on years of experience and historical knowledge of EOT New Mexico.

 

Oy!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread reminds me that several years ago some golf pros complained about how a US Open course was set up.  A USGA official commented that the US Open was not trying to frustrate the best golfers in the world, just identify them.  The EOT match results appear to have accomplished that goal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find both sides of this "issue", (is it really?), rather comical.  big close, small distant, or any combination of those will favor those shooters that do one thing... Do it religiously, often and in huge amounts.  It starts with a "P", ends with an "E" and has 6 letters in-between.  Period, end of discussion, 'cause there's no arguin' with fact.  I once had a shooting coach that liked to espouse the theory that you practiced on targets smaller & farther away than those found in the match... for pistols use a 25yd NRA target set @ 50 yards.  For rifle use a 100 yard NRA target set out to 200 yards.  A practical application of the "aim small, miss small" theorem.  It works.  

 

I like targets... be they big or small... but I will admit to a preference for irregularly shaped targets.  I'm not bashful about my abhorrence for total time, and feelings of "warm & fuzzy" for some other system that doesn't remove the fact that stage 1 and 2 are separate and distinct parts of a match... not the same long race...   But, frankly, that has to do with my preference for shooting and not racing.  Everyone's read of the fear of T-Bone's "Chickens"... I love 'em!  They have a big ol' body, some spindly little tail "feathers" and relatively small heads... When my time comes up to shoot at this stage, I'm assured that I'll have really clean, un-marked targets... regardless of HOW MANY shooters have already shot this stage.  Ok, the shotgun chickens will be pretty well paint-less, but the rifle and pistol chickens will have nice clear painted "heads".  I shoot for the heads.  Okay, it takes me longer... SO WHAT!  I'm competing against myself... can I get thru the stage "clean"?  It's a challenge... so... if you like a challenge... using only that part of the target I see as a challenge.

 

Don't ask that EVERYONE shoot a match you'd like... shoot one that you make up... I like accuracy... shooting T-Bone's big huge buffaloes in the foot reduces their ease immensely.  Talk about no target too big or too close to miss;  yet folks miss these 6' behemoths!  You use "Harpers" as targets?  Try shooting 'em the "foot"   or the brim of the "hat"... 

 

I'm often asked "why" I shoot slow and interrupt myself during a stage, drawing the out to obscenely long times... it's because I'm a VERY competitive person... if I can't be fastest... I don't like to play.    But, I do not practice.  Even if I had the time, (place etc. is not a problem), I'd rather reload more ammo.  But, I love cowboy action shooting... it's my entertainment!  TO's, don't get all flustered when I ask how much time is showing on the clock... I just want to know if I'm shooting too fast!

 

By the way... I wish rifle sequences were 11 shots... that way I could try to play "Jingle Bells" with the shot par times!  Tune up them targets Match Directors!  Too many of 'em are way too flat... include a few sharps!  A few in another key would be good also!  :P:P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Phantom, SASS #54973 said:

Geeze dude, said in the context that some are afraid it'll hurt the attendance of EOT based on years of experience and historical knowledge of EOT New Mexico.

You did, in fact, say that, and I wasn't referring to your posts, in particular.  But others went some distance outside the bounds that you set.  

Here is just one example (text only, no attribution) 

 

"The way things were laid out and those extreme angles did throw you off and made things unnecessary difficult for their distances. The targets should have been angled towards where they were shot from rather than always straight forward. There was leeway on where to shoot from but it was very difficult to figure out exactly where to shoot from that gave you the best balance of distance, angle and least amount of movement. I think that did make it too confusing for less experienced shooters and some stages didn't have any good choices. They need to limit it to just a few choices. 

 

I also want to add that the stages highly favored those shooting doubles over a 97. There were way too many stages that you had the ability or requirement to take steps between shooting pairs of targets allowing the double guys to shuck and load in between."

 

 - - - Now perhaps we can let this poor dead horse rest, and move on.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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