Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

How the game has changed...And a tip of the hat to long-suffering match directors!


Recommended Posts

I recognize that this post indicates that I've been at this game for a good long time...

 

But check how the categories have blossomed into near-unmanageability, in 20 years... :-o.

Cheers,

FJT

 

2003 WR.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Frederick Jackson Turner changed the title to How the game has changed...And a tip of the hat to long-suffering match directors!

And to think I'd been playing for 18 years at that point in time!  My 1st EOT was in 1986, Winners were:

Overall: Tex

BP:  Smucky

Lady:  Montana Belle

 

Edited to note:  To the best of my recollection there were 300+ entrants that year.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Assassin said:

Back when buckles had meaning, not just participation awards.

 

I was curious as to how many 1st places there were at EOT so I counted the ones under "Category placement". As best as I could tell, there was 52.:o:(

 

And people wonder why State and above matches cost so much...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Cypress Sun said:

As best as I could tell, there was 52.

And that does not count Wild Bunch or the side matches.  The cost of awards is becoming a major financial issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Assassin said:

Back when buckles had meaning, not just participation awards.

 52 winners - 688 shooters.

On average the winners had to best a minimum of 12 other shooters

Some categories much heavier - others lighter.

 

But to belittle anyone who attended this match (or any other), performed their best and emerged hand raised is petty.

 

A person can only compete against the others in their category that show up to play - and cannot be held accountable for the quantity or abilities of their competitors.

 

A World Championship is a feat to be proud of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Creeker, SASS #43022 said:

 52 winners - 688 shooters.

On average the winners had to best a minimum of 12 other shooters

Some categories much heavier - others lighter.

 

But to belittle anyone who attended this match (or any other), performed their best and emerged hand raised is petty.

 

A person can only compete against the others in their category that show up to play - and cannot be held accountable for the quantity or abilities of their competitors.

 

A World Championship is a feat to be proud of.

I'd be proud to win a major category, a well populated category. When people get on the wire or FB and basically collude with others in order to get enough shooters for a category it should make one pause. Nothing against those shooters, it's just mind boggling to me that things have gotten so far out of hand.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Assassin said:

I'd be proud to win a major category, a well populated category. When people get on the wire or FB and basically collude with others in order to get enough shooters for a category it should make one pause. Nothing against those shooters, it's just mind boggling to me that things have gotten so far out of hand.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Surely you’re not talking about my recruiting l to have a class of 5 for Lady Frontier Cartridge Gunfighter at Land Run?!  I’ve recruited for this (minor?) category at Winter Range 2020, EOT 2021 and Land Run 2023. At two of those three, I recruited the shooter who bested me. Collusion? Not hardly, to quote Big Jake. 
 

What about my actions “give you pause”?  Is Lady Frontier Cartridge Gunfighter not “major” enough of a category? Do five ladies not constitute “well populated”? How has what I’ve done “gotten so out of hand”. 

 

Scarlett

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Assassin said:

I'd be proud to win a major category, a well populated category. When people get on the wire or FB and basically collude with others in order to get enough shooters for a category it should make one pause. Nothing against those shooters, it's just mind boggling to me that things have gotten so far out of hand.

Four points...

 

One - is 52 categories "too many"?

I can agree that "perhaps" we have gone too far with segregation and protections.

 

That is a fair debate and deserves consideration from both a competition dilution aspect AND the cost aspect of awards.

 

But...

Two - The CURRENT rules say we have these segregations and protections and NOBODY should have their accomplishment belittled because anyone feels the winner had insufficient competition in their category.  The shooters played by the rules as they exist today and won under the current format.

 

And 

Three - the QUANTITY of competition is immaterial; a well populated category means only there were more shooters.

The QUALITY of the competition is infinitely more important to assigning prestige to the title.  

Topping a category against 25 mediocre shooters would mean much less than winning a category against the 3 best shooters in the world.

But without the addition of qualifiers or other matrixes - there is no way to prove one category was more competitive (or more prestigious) than another simply by population.

 

Lastly

Four - Our current format is based on allowing anyone who wishes to participate as opposed to requiring a qualifying skillset for entry.  There is always going to be a wide swing of skillset and ability within the same category.  

But you can only shoot against those who show up.

Matt Black was the fastest shooter on the range out of 688.

And would have been just as fast, just as skilled in a field of 3. 

Would his performance been less significant if only 3 had shown up?

 

A category champion is no different.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Creeker, SASS #43022 said:

Four points...

 

One - is 52 categories "too many"?

I can agree that "perhaps" we have gone too far with segregation and protections.

 

That is a fair debate and deserves consideration from both a competition dilution aspect AND the cost aspect of awards.

 

But...

Two - The CURRENT rules say we have these segregations and protections and NOBODY should have their accomplishment belittled because anyone feels the winner had insufficient competition in their category.  The shooters played by the rules as they exist today and won under the current format.

 

And 

Three - the QUANTITY of competition is immaterial; a well populated category means only there were more shooters.

The QUALITY of the competition is infinitely more important to assigning prestige to the title.  

Topping a category against 25 mediocre shooters would mean much less than winning a category against the 3 best shooters in the world.

But without the addition of qualifiers or other matrixes - there is no way to prove one category was more competitive (or more prestigious) than another simply by population.

 

Lastly

Four - Our current format is based on allowing anyone who wishes to participate as opposed to requiring a qualifying skillset for entry.  There is always going to be a wide swing of skillset and ability within the same category.  

But you can only shoot against those who show up.

Matt Black was the fastest shooter on the range out of 688.

And would have been just as fast, just as skilled in a field of 3. 

Would his performance been less significant if only 3 had shown up?

 

A category champion is no different.

 

 

4 hours ago, Creeker, SASS #43022 said:

Four points...

 

One - is 52 categories "too many"?

I can agree that "perhaps" we have gone too far with segregation and protections.

 

That is a fair debate and deserves consideration from both a competition dilution aspect AND the cost aspect of awards.

 

But...

Two - The CURRENT rules say we have these segregations and protections and NOBODY should have their accomplishment belittled because anyone feels the winner had insufficient competition in their category.  The shooters played by the rules as they exist today and won under the current format.

 

And 

Three - the QUANTITY of competition is immaterial; a well populated category means only there were more shooters.

The QUALITY of the competition is infinitely more important to assigning prestige to the title.  

Topping a category against 25 mediocre shooters would mean much less than winning a category against the 3 best shooters in the world.

But without the addition of qualifiers or other matrixes - there is no way to prove one category was more competitive (or more prestigious) than another simply by population.

 

Lastly

Four - Our current format is based on allowing anyone who wishes to participate as opposed to requiring a qualifying skillset for entry.  There is always going to be a wide swing of skillset and ability within the same category.  

But you can only shoot against those who show up.

Matt Black was the fastest shooter on the range out of 688.

And would have been just as fast, just as skilled in a field of 3. 

Would his performance been less significant if only 3 had shown up?

 

A category champion is no different.

 

Well said and absolutely true!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Scarlett said:

Surely you’re not talking about my recruiting l to have a class of 5 for Lady Frontier Cartridge Gunfighter at Land Run?!  I’ve recruited for this (minor?) category at Winter Range 2020, EOT 2021 and Land Run 2023. At two of those three, I recruited the shooter who bested me. Collusion? Not hardly, to quote Big Jake. 
 

What about my actions “give you pause”?  Is Lady Frontier Cartridge Gunfighter not “major” enough of a category? Do five ladies not constitute “well populated”? How has what I’ve done “gotten so out of hand”. 

 

Scarlett

Well........yes, that is one example. The category harvesting has been going on for years.  No only do we have categories we now have sub sub categories. Ladies, frontier cartridge, gunfighter. Nothing against you Scarlet, it's just an example. Heck, let's add senior to the same category; senior ladies frontier cartridge gunfighter. I'm not saying all the categories should go away, the parameters are just too wide. Guess I won't be getting my hug again.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Assassin said:

Guess I won't be getting my hug again.

I would never use that against you or anyone. 
 

Hugs,

Scarlett

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Assassin said:

Well........yes, that is one example. The category harvesting has been going on for years.  No only do we have categories we now have sub sub categories. Ladies, frontier cartridge, gunfighter. Nothing against you Scarlet, it's just an example. Heck, let's add senior to the same category; senior ladies frontier cartridge gunfighter. I'm not saying all the categories should go away, the parameters are just too wide. Guess I won't be getting my hug again.

 

 

If you could convince the TGs to allow participants in the Frontier Cartridge category to shoot in the gunfighter style, you might have an argument about removing one of those parameters. However, right now, the rules require folks who shoot in the gunfighter style to shoot in segregated categories or in B-Western. 

 

The TGs regulated us into this position, made 'better or worse' by the SASS addition of new, protected age divisions last year. But ultimately, the only ones who can do anything about it are the ones who created the condition in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have always said, too many categories and too many trophies.   Winners should be like the olympics, gold, silver and bronze and that's it.  Some state matches have given out 5 place trophy awards, (basically participication awards)  as there were only 5 people in that category, something is wrong with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe as far as awards go, you have to beat someone in your category to get an award.  Example, you give awards  to 10 places in a men's category.  There are only 10 shooters in that category so you give out 9 awards.  You have to beat somebody, not just get a participation trophy.  Shooters in the top 9 come in the top 20% percent overall, but shooter number 10 is in the bottom 5%.  The way it is now shooter number 10  gets a participation award.

Just a thought.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point of not allowing a frontier cartridge or any other open/age based category to shoot gunfighter makes no sense. I am no where skilled enough to be a competitive gunfighter but there are plenty of times that I've thought a particular stage would be a blast if only I could shoot it gunfighter. I personally think any open age category should also be allowed to shoot gunfighter, duelist or any other style at will. Some may argue that it would dilute the GF category allowing open age groups to do it but if you're a dedicated GF and that's the only way you want to shoot then keep it as a seperate category. I'm also a TG and during our discussions concerning the proposed rule change granting an exception to a junior shooter was pretty much unanimously voted no. Everyone thought why give just one group an exception to the rule but not others? IMHO the bottom line is to have fun not rule ourselves into obscurity. The most fun I've had shooting a match is during the "All around Cowboy" matches. It's hilarious watching people shoot outside of their box just for the fun of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hate when a banquet MC makes the comment “choose your category wisely”. If it’s an offered category, you sign up for it, you take on all comers. Don’t demean the shooter. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that some of you lack the perspective of time.  There were a number of years that Gunfighter or Duelist (for that matter) were not allowed.  It took a number of years of making specific stages to demonstrate that Duelist, then Gunfighter, could be safely shot to the powers that be at the time.  It was an uphill battle.  Both styles take a bit more manual dexterity to shoot safely and effectively.  

 

However, 1st, as most matches are designed (hopefully), with a mix of stages that appeal to and can showcase the abilities of both two- and single-handed shooters, you have a situation that by allowing the Gunfighter style in any category, you effectively create a situation where shooters are not competing against folks in their chosen or prefered style.  I think it's patently disingenuous to claim that it's simply to allow folks to shoot gunfighter when it appeals to them in a traditionally non-gunfighter category.  I believe that it's human nature that most wannabe gunfighters will only choose to play gunfighter when they think it's to their advantage to do so.  And, from this cowboy's horse, that appears to make this change appeal mostly to those that know they can't compete to their satisfaction in a "Gunfighter" category, but can possibly improve their standing in an age category. 

 

One of the most important aspects about the continued popularity of this game is avoid unintended consequences with changes to the rules.  While I'm sure that no one felt that making targets bigger and closer would have any unintended consequences, the simple fact is, it has.  It has allowed speeds to increase to the point that a major factor in placing is being able to manipulate the guns at blazingly fast speeds.  It's the most common complaint I hear from those that have quit playing the game.  While I believe that attitude is their loss, for those that still feel if targets required the use of sights they could still be competitive.  And while I obviously, as I haven't, don't necessarily believe that to be a valid reason to quit, it is their perspective of the situation, therefore, for them, true.

 

The number of categories isn't the problem many think.  It is something that we the shooters have asked for.  Whose ox do you suggest we collectively gore, by eliminating some.  Yes, giving awards to 10th place is probably overkill, but, when you enter a National or World event, one would expect that most categories are going to populated well in excess of a 10th place finish.  I typically enter one of the least populated categories anticipating that I'll be in that top ten.  If awards were summarily reduced to only 5 places, I'd still enter that same category.  Other folks might not.  Sometimes that is the case, sometimes... okay, usually, not!  Like many other entrants to these "larger" events, the larger desire is for a "clean match".  I recall that when EOT was limited to 300-350 shooters, there were five categories, and place awards were given to the top five in each category.  I have a couple of those buckles.  If EOT was attended by 688 shooters this year, and gave awards in (my count), 42 categories.  That's an absurd number of categories to give out awards to 10th place.  Or even to 5th!   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Griff said:

...One of the most important aspects about the continued popularity of this game is avoid unintended consequences with changes to the rules.  While I'm sure that no one felt that making targets bigger and closer would have any unintended consequences, the simple fact is, it has.  It has allowed speeds to increase to the point that a major factor in placing is being able to manipulate the guns at blazingly fast speeds.  It's the most common complaint I hear from those that have quit playing the game.  While I believe that attitude is their loss, for those that still feel if targets required the use of sights they could still be competitive.  And while I obviously, as I haven't, don't necessarily believe that to be a valid reason to quit, it is their perspective of the situation, therefore, for them, true....

 

While that is not really on the topic at hand of categories, it is so true.  Based on thousands upon thousands of world-wide comments on youtube videos, the close targets make us the laughing stock of the shooting world.   I know the reasons given for big/close being popular, but is it possible that this also prevents some folks from joining up?  Not for me to say, but hmmm... When I started in '99 it took me 83 matches before my 1st clean one, and almost that many more for the 2nd one.  Now I'm clean quite often.  I averaged 1/3 down from the top at local matches then, and the same now.  It is different, but I still enjoy it.

 

BTW, on the subject of categories, the Tejas Caballeros in the beginning had those same few categories mentioned above, but they did also divide Traditional into ..32/.38 and .44/.45  :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Abilene, SASS # 27489 said:

 

While that is not really on the topic at hand of categories, it is so true.  Based on thousands upon thousands of world-wide comments on youtube videos, the close targets make us the laughing stock of the shooting world.   I know the reasons given for big/close being popular, but is it possible that this also prevents some folks from joining up?  Not for me to say, but hmmm... When I started in '99 it took me 83 matches before my 1st clean one, and almost that many more for the 2nd one.  Now I'm clean quite often.  I averaged 1/3 down from the top at local matches then, and the same now.  It is different, but I still enjoy it.

 

BTW, on the subject of categories, the Tejas Caballeros in the beginning had those same few categories mentioned above, but they did also divide Traditional into ..32/.38 and .44/.45  :)

  Well said

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How the game has changed?? When I went to my first match in 1996 we had, Modern, Traditional, (which meant fixed sights) black powder, juniors and Ladies. The next year they introduced Duelist, which I been shooting anyway. We've come a long way with all these categories! Oh well, whatever makes ya happy!;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Rye Miles #13621 said:

How the game has changed?? When I went to my first match in 1996 we had, Modern, Traditional, (which meant fixed sights) black powder, juniors and Ladies. The next year they introduced Duelist, which I been shooting anyway. We've come a long way with all these categories! Oh well, whatever makes ya happy!;)

 

image.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I started out, the club I shot at placed target 2-3 times further out than what's typical today. Some rifle out near 40-50 yards. I had all kinds of fun! Coulda almost pooped when I went to my first state match and there they were, right up close and personal. I still have a lot of fun either way and miss just as much if not more now as it's hard to remember to actually use the sights when I can damn near touch them. Wouldn't mind one bit if they were back out a ways and surely wouldn't miss getting hit by the splatter!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like to shoot. So long as we are all shooting the same stages I don’t really care where the targets are placed. I can miss close or far. As for being the laughing stock of shooting disciplines? If ALL shooting disciplines were as friendly as cowboy shooters there would be a far better understanding between gun people and not gun people. 
 

I think using 4 magazines to clear 25 plates is hysterical! 
 

Hugs!!

Scarlett

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L said:

 

image.jpeg

The shoots I went to here in Ohio didn’t have duelist until 1997. It must’ve taken awhile to get the rules right. There was only a couple shoots here back then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/8/2023 at 1:06 PM, Frederick Jackson Turner said:

I recognize that this post indicates that I've been at this game for a good long time...

 

But check how the categories have blossomed into near-unmanageability, in 20 years... :-o.

Cheers,

FJT

 

2003 WR.jpg

California and Colorado shooters were very dominant back then. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a shoot book from WR2002. Split pistols, different sequences for pistols and rifle, small targets at distance. Different sequence for each pistol. It was a very difficult match. Only 10 stages back then. Not many clean shooters, procedurals were common, misses were just part of the game. One miss didn't cost you the match like today's matches.

There was room for a few mistakes and one could recover. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L said:

 

image.jpeg

Actually in '96 the shoot I went to we only used ONE pistol! The next year '97 was 2 pistols and they started Duelist. We were so happy!! Looks like that shoot, which was one of the biggest in Ohio at the time, was way behind times. We found other shoots in 97 -98 and they were following SASS rules. Maybe the Telegraph from California was not working real good or the MD didn't care! :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Abilene, SASS # 27489 said:

Maybe the MD only had one pistol. :)

Funny thing about that MD, he wrote a stage that called for 13 rifle rounds. I said I have a Rossi that only takes 10. He said “ Buy a Henry that’s what I have “ :angry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Rye Miles #13621 said:

Funny thing about that MD, he wrote a stage that called for 13 rifle rounds. I said I have a Rossi that only takes 10. He said “ Buy a Henry that’s what I have “ :angry:

One of the vast improvements of the game has been the elimination of attitudes like that!  Or, if not elimination, the hiding of them!  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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