Patrick Sweeney Posted January 3, 2003 Share Posted January 3, 2003 Travis? Article? Photo? I'm still coming down from an eggnog high, so I don't know what you're talking about. Where is this place? (The staff hasn't sent me my copy, so I guess I'll have to go to the newstand and browse.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TravisT Posted January 3, 2003 Author Share Posted January 3, 2003 Pat- It’s on the stands now! My dad has it - I believe it's called "Guns". There’s some really cool stuff in there. Great work!! Vince-"Action" LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j1b Posted January 4, 2003 Share Posted January 4, 2003 Everyone has lost big matches because some dude got the perfect double - sometimes more than once. I feel like I've experienced all the emotions as it relates to this (As I know most of you have too). One time at a match I saw a shooter get several perfect doubles - and in the end I still came out ahead. It was a most rewarding experience because I knew deep down that I was meant to win that match - no matter what. Ironically it was one of the last big matches I shot several years ago. I've also lost big matches that I thought I should have won as a result of this. I can think of one where another shooter was reported to have had 4 perfect doubles - WOW! All I needed was two to dissappear. I don't know how many of those doubles were doubles - and how many were misses. I also know that I've benefitted from scraggly holes too. One shot per target is a great idea from the standpoint that there can be no doubt about hit or not hit. Round count will come into question though. Net net - I have no idea what I think about it. JB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted January 4, 2003 Share Posted January 4, 2003 Which one of the following is the odd man out?: 1) Santa Claus 2) The Easter Bunny 3) The Tooth Fairy 4) Pink Elephants 5) A perfect double bullet hole Answer: (5) because I've seen all the others ........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noname Posted January 4, 2003 Share Posted January 4, 2003 I believe that those who claim to be shooting perfect doubles on their scoring targets would quickly acknowledge their imperfections if the target happened to be a no shoot. 9.4.2 mentions all visible hits on penalty targets shall be scored. Why not use the same wording that all visible hits on scoring targets will scored. A single hole has only 1 visible hit. Perfection is an illusion experienced by those with limited vision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted January 4, 2003 Share Posted January 4, 2003 Rule 9.5.1 says "best two hits to score". Hence if you only see 1 hit, that's all you can score (plus a miss). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TravisT Posted January 4, 2003 Author Share Posted January 4, 2003 Hi JB! I believe one of the instances you experienced is part of what got me thinking. ---------- So does this concept stand a chance? I’m thinking the biggest hurdle is the fact that so many shooters are brainwashed with the idea that high round count equates to quality. Would a nine round field course really mean the end of the world? I don’t think it would. In fact, I think it would be great! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Posted January 4, 2003 Share Posted January 4, 2003 Vince, 9.5.1 says "Unless otherwise stated in the written stage briefing" two hits to score. We need some variety in stage design. Bill Nesbitt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck D Posted January 4, 2003 Share Posted January 4, 2003 Travis, you have some refreshing new ideas. I'm REALLY enjoying hearing someone else question why we do certain things or cling to certain ideals as if they were carved in stone. I've long advocated giving the classic target a fair shake and mixing up the round count in certain instances to bring a variety to the "2 on each from no farther than 12 yards run-n-gun" USPSA field course stage. While I'm not looking for wholesale changes I'd like to see some variety and some new ideas/theories tried to see if they would work or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2alpha Posted January 5, 2003 Share Posted January 5, 2003 I have to admit most of my comments on the one shot per targer thing have been tongue in cheek and thought that others were also. Now I'm not so sure, my true feelings are that this falls into the catagory of a non problem. Nothings perfect, all sporting events have scoring problems or bad calls from time to time thats a fact. Not that we shouldn't try our best every time to have a fair competition. Travis you're a talented shooter with a great future in front of you, more damage is done to your own score by being concerned about something someone else may or may not have gotten away with. There's a group of shooters, I call em range rats, that are more concerned with carrying tales and stiring up rumors than shooting, I guess they get their kicks from ruining others performance. Bottom line, stay focused on what you're doing and everything else will work out. Remember you're a competitor not a umpire. The sport already allows one shot per if you want, we don't need to make it manditory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noname Posted January 5, 2003 Share Posted January 5, 2003 I'm wondering if the concern for hits being called "perfect doubles" is really one of the ROs being pressured by some competitors to give in to their insistance that "there is no way I could have missed that target". At worst, it is a bad case of partiality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bgary Posted January 5, 2003 Share Posted January 5, 2003 I ran a stage last year at ... well, a match I'm still getting grief about, but that's a different story. Stage was a wall across the bay, with ports in it. Engage targets through port one, go to port 2, open the door, shoot the targets, etc. At the last port, you had to go to your knees and lift a door upward, and when you did there were 4 targets "right there" about 4 feet behind the wall. People were really hosing those things, strong-hand only (still holding the door up), as fast as they could pull the trigger. Only problem is, a fair number of them didn't aim. There were a surprising number of mikes on those targets. Even with new targets every couple of squads, so no question about tape being blown off or whatever. And, it was interesting to me to note who asked for doubles, and who didn't. The "really good guys" looked close, shrugged, said "wow, I guess I missed" and signed their scorecard. Part of the game, you run on the edge and sometimes you step over. It was the people who are "always looking for an angle" who were clamoring for "perfect doubles", saying "there's no way I could miss that target." My guess is, most people know where their shots went. The difference is whether or not they admit it... maybe even to themselves. Bruce (Edited by bgary at 12:17 am on Jan. 5, 2003) (Edited by bgary at 12:18 am on Jan. 5, 2003) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Dunlop Posted January 5, 2003 Share Posted January 5, 2003 Thats a bit of a hard call Bruce, on 3 occasions in my competitive career I have pulled targets, I've never won the call, and on 2 occasions witnesses have told me afterwards that the shot went wherever, so I don't bear a grudge. I have always been embarrased for the attention I have drawn, and would have rather accepted the miss without question if I thought anyone would doubt my intention to simply have the stage scored fairly. Hoping to get to one of your matches one day,preferably as one of the 'really good guys' P.D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bgary Posted January 5, 2003 Share Posted January 5, 2003 Phil.... I don't at *all* have a problem pulling targets to look at them closely, and give every possible chance to the shooter. If I can detect the slightest hint of a second "arc" through the overlay, I'll give the benefit of the doubt... for *any* shooter. My point (badly phrased), was not about the process, but about the mindset. Some shooters, when you have looked at it from every angle, accept that it is a miss, and move on. They "accept the miss", as you say. Other shooters, when you have looked at it from every angle, want you to keep looking, or call other people to look, or want you to give it to them anyway, or call your integrity into question or... whatever. The difference is not in whether the hole is there or not. The difference is in the mindset of the shooter... some accept the outcome and move on, others aren't happy until they "get something" they *think* they "deserve". Dunno. I still feel like I'm phrasing this badly, but not sure how to say it better, so I think I'll shut up ;-) Bruce Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TravisT Posted January 5, 2003 Author Share Posted January 5, 2003 Chuck- Thank you for the feedback. I’m right there with you about no wholesale changing. Again, thank you and very well said. ------------- "more damage is done to your own score by being concerned about something someone else may or may not have gotten away with. " 2Alpha (I think it’s JJ?)- Thank you for the advice. You are so totally right. When this happened at the RGN, I was less than 20 behind him for the lead. I very immaturely went into "right-that-which-is-wrong" mode, and shot a miss on over half of the remaining stages. I really don’t know that my response was any different than giving up (?). My goal is to handle it different next time. Anyway, I just wanted to thank you for taking the time to pass that on. ------------ B- I know exactly what you’re saying. Please don’t ever shut up!! Anyway, I just got home from an indoor match - my ears are ringing, and I'm ready to crash.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Dunlop Posted January 5, 2003 Share Posted January 5, 2003 thanks Bruce, I understand that its not easy for the R/O, CRO, RM etc, just wanted to illustrate that its not always easy for the competitor either, and despite the best of intentions, both get it wrong from time to time. P.D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted January 5, 2003 Share Posted January 5, 2003 I think Bruce hit the nail on the head. It's not the fact that there may only be one hole in a target - it's the attitude of some competitors who, despite match officials "going the extra mile", just refuse to accept the decision and they start casting dispersions on the officials. These guys need to read Section 10.4 of the rulebook. I spent a few hours one day trying to shoot a perfect double using my SIG 210-6 (basically a rifle with a 4" barrel), on a ransom rest, at a paper target placed 10m away, with a friend on a spotting scope watching where my shots went. There were lots of "almost" doubles, but no Monica. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted January 5, 2003 Share Posted January 5, 2003 One shot per target removes a couple of small shooting tests for guys at my level. - I don't have to worry as much about fast splits...I can just ride the recoil wave right into the next target. (Which would benefit me and my light Glock.) - Shooting on the move would be much easier for me. I have been known to have a perfectly centered Alpha...and then a Mike. My second shot, while shooting on the move, must apparently be coming on a footfall. (hmmm...maybe those are perfect doubles. ) Another aspect is that you'd need more targets (which would be tough on the pocket book and on stage design). Or, with less targets per stage...you'd have less rounds fired. The implication here is that you wouldn't have as much seperation of the various skill levels. For example...on a stage with ten paper targets, a shooter that shoots 0.20 splits would pick up half a second on the shooter that can hit splits in 0.15 (ten shots multiplied by the .05 difference in splits). Interesting proposal though. Thanks for putting it forth. Gets a guy thinking. On those shooters who try to weasel a double... Other than their integrity, what do they have to lose by questioning the call? If I were the MD, I'd make it known in the shooters meeting that if they disagree with a call...that's fine...bump it up the chain of command. But...know that if they do, they will more than likely become the next shooter at the chrono stage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noname Posted January 5, 2003 Share Posted January 5, 2003 All targets that are being called "perfect doubles" by a competitor should be removed from the COF, signed by the RO and the competitor, and sent to the RM for later examination, and a final ruling as per 9.6.7. These disputed targets should then be displayed at the range, along with the final ruling, so that the rest of the competitors can have a clear understanding of who is claiming these "perfect doubles", and how they are being ruled on. The results of these types of calls could very well have determined the outcome of the match. Maybe peer pressure will solve some of the problem, then maybe not. The "win at any cost" attitude is hard to overcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shred Posted January 5, 2003 Share Posted January 5, 2003 The perfect-est double I've ever seen was one Miculek shot at Area 4 this year, and it was totally invisible until the paper was folded back into place. At that point, the second arc could be seen. Maybe part of the problem is a reluctance on the part of RO's to pull targets and have somebody deal with it under much less time pressure while the match continues? If we had one of those cool radar bullet-tracking systems we wouldn't even need to patch targets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2alpha Posted January 6, 2003 Share Posted January 6, 2003 I think any competitor has the right to question any target he shoots and shouldn't be made to feel like a pita by officials. He should keep a good attitude about it and accept the final ruling with good sportsmanship. We do have shooters that cop an attitude and we have officials that also display a bad attitude when asked to check a bullet hole. We need improvements in both areas. Displaying questioned targets might help, but what about the RO's who get an attitude when you ask them to check a target? I think too many RO's have taken the attitude that a perfect double is impossible or so very rare that it's practically impossible. Test's in Ransom Rests and the theory put out by Schueman are all flawed because of the simple fact that a perfect double is a random event. The shooter is trying to put all his shots in the same area of the target but usually fails but it can and does happen. The Ransom rest tests the pistols ability but does not have the random affect that the shooter ads. Schuemans theory, that a lot of RO's believe in, is wrong because it looked at the target as a whole and figured the odds of two shots in one hole for so many shots fired. It didn't take into account the shooter in not trying to fire shots all over the target and we get back to the human element that can't be duplicated by a random generated number. Perfect or near perfect doubles happen, they are seldom scored because of flawed theory's and the bad image put out by a few unsportsmanlike shooters who try to get a call they know they didn't deserve. If you shoot a " perfect" double you're both lucky and unlucky at the same time because you'll probably not get the shot counted. It's hard to swallow as a competitor to lose a shot that you know for sure is there just because of an attitude. What's the answer? I think we should realize that " perfect " doubles can and do happen and try to get a change in RO's attitude about them. I think we as shooters need to police our ranks by putting pressure on our brother shooters that try to abuse the system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shred Posted January 6, 2003 Share Posted January 6, 2003 That some very occasionally happen (Miculek's was the first I'd ever seen in years of matches that was undetectable from six inches, yet still a double) was one reason I suggested giving everybody one "free double" card per match and then ruling anything undetectable from six inches away a miss-- maybe a shooter will throw one in a match, but the odds of two? Of course then there will appear a whole strategy of when to use your double card if you haven't shot one yet and it's the last stage of the match.. I do like the idea of posting the targets and decisions on them.. That would be fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TravisT Posted January 8, 2003 Author Share Posted January 8, 2003 Thanks for all of the input gentlemen. I’ll second the Shredmeister regarding the posting of disputed targets. That's a swell idea noname. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted January 8, 2003 Share Posted January 8, 2003 Travis, I notice that Mike V. (his Front sight column) mentions a shooter asking for more than a few "doubles" in a match. Same guy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j1b Posted January 8, 2003 Share Posted January 8, 2003 This is such a dangerous relm to deal in - because quite simply the people that win matches position themselves to be there because they are flat good. Its a fact. Very few major matches have been won by individuals who have not a) won before or been in contention before. That said it is difficult to say "Hey, Jack should have won x match because of this" Yeah, maybe he should have - but you take away the performance of another shooter who must have done a few things right during the week to get there. If the individual did some "shady" things to get there - I think it is sad, and only they can determine the legitimacy of the win. I mentioned in an earlier post that I felt I should have won a match due to some things I'd heard. I'll take that statement away. The matches I lost I lost to damn good shooters who I'm not certain I could've beat the next day. Maybe they did deserve the win I thought I deserved. I don't know that changing the way things are done is the solution. Trully, if I wanted to win more then I should have done a few things better. I had every component to win every match I shot later in my time, if I lost it is because I let it happen, because I did something wrong. I can't justify changing the way things are because I wasn't strong enough to get the job done in the original format. I know Travis isn't proposing this to "make-up" for some fault of his (because he has none). I guess I wanted to refute my earlier (whiny) post and get us all thinking about that thing called execution. I wish I had the mental fortitude to be able to execute on all those skills I had worked so hard to hone in practice. I didn't - so I didn't win. In every match I lost I can easily go back and find the 15, 20 , or 30 points I needed to win in lapses in my own performance that would have got me there. Granted I felt like something else took place that prevented me from winning - but I had the tools in the bag that if I had executed then the other situations would have been non-issues. Anyhow - a long post to say I was wrong before. I didn't lose any match that I didn't deserve to lose. JB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now