Jake Di Vita Posted January 8, 2003 Share Posted January 8, 2003 Jack, Very well worded, I really enjoyed reading that post. Correct me if I'm wrong. To condense this into one sentence (or make a sad attempt to) basically you are saying that everyone's performance is based on what they were prepared to do? Remember the 7P's : Proper Previous Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted January 8, 2003 Share Posted January 8, 2003 The question remains: "How do you identify a perfect double?". The "almost" perfect double is easier to spot because of the additional arcing but, if it's truly perfect there should, by definition, be a single hole. Hence a perfect double and an "Alpha-Miss" look identical, right? Apart from scoring overlays, I always carry a credit card magnifier to examine bullet holes but, without a forensics lab, my call is always based on what I can see, after a careful examination. In my experience, once a competitor sees me using my magnifier and taking the time to check (with an open mind), he's satisfied with my call. And, yes, if an RO merely dismisses a challenge without checking, he should be dismissed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Di Vita Posted January 8, 2003 Share Posted January 8, 2003 Since the benefit always goes to a shooter, if someone had to use a magnifying glass to check on a target the shooter had shot, I'd have to say that it's close enough to where the shooter would get the benefit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TravisT Posted January 8, 2003 Author Share Posted January 8, 2003 Patrick-Doh! I’m so sorry, the magazine is Handguns. I'm sorry for any confusion. Flex- Did he really? That’s funny. I’m not really sure who he had in mind. Jack- That was really well said, but I want you to know that I didn’t take your post as whining at all!! These things have happened (and are happening), and skew the results. That's flat out wrong. I’m not passing judgment on anyone though. Some day I’d like to hold a match using Classic targets, one round per, and scoring like Patrick described. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bgary Posted January 8, 2003 Share Posted January 8, 2003 Hey, T - I'm up for that. Lets put on a match at Marysville this spring! It'd be fun just to see how people wrap their heads around it. Bruce Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TravisT Posted January 8, 2003 Author Share Posted January 8, 2003 Great idea B!! I'm also interested in people's response after they've tried it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricW Posted January 8, 2003 Share Posted January 8, 2003 OK, I know this is kind of beside the point, but here I go anyway.... If someone had a whole lot of time, ammo, and a ransom rest on their hands, I'll just bet that they could come up with the mathematical probability of an "immaculate double" occurring. (i.e. one hole with two indistinguishable arcs) My guess is that the odds of a true double are right about up there with getting a hole in one or being hit by lightning. In other words: zero. A little science just might end the "double" discussion entirely. I think we'd come to realize that very few shooters would be truly penalized by just refusing to acknowledge "immaculate doubles" at all. That said, I still want to shoot Travis' match. Sounds like fun! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bgary Posted January 8, 2003 Share Posted January 8, 2003 I'd have to hunt to find it, but I think our sport's own rocket scientist, Wil Schuemann, already did that... and, as you say, found that the statistical probability is just about zero. Certainly higher than one in all-the-shots-taken-everywhere-in-all-the-USPSA-matches-in-a-single-year. Bruce Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loves2Shoot Posted January 8, 2003 Share Posted January 8, 2003 If it looks like one hole "odds" are it probably is, although it amazes me when I can miss at 3 feet. Perfect doubles score as Alfa/Mike, so I try not to shoot too strait Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted January 8, 2003 Share Posted January 8, 2003 Jake, The "benefit goes to the shooter" concept is widely misunderstood and abused. A "perfect double A" is worth +10 points while an Alpha-Mike is worth -10 points (nett). This is a huge difference and worth the investigation time, even if I look like a nerd with a magnifier. I have nothing to win or lose by my final call, but the outcome of the match could be hanging in the balance because of it. But hey, let's just consider applying the "benefit of doubt" to a borderline A/C hit, OK?. It's only a difference of 1 point in Major, right? Do you know the difference in match points between 2nd & 3rd place at WSXIII? Todd Jarrett (2nd) 2870.5695 match points Brodie McIntosh (3rd) 2870.5689 match points. Difference: 0.0006 match points. Now, if you were one of those guys, would you be happy with "benefit of doubt" or would you expect the RO to take the time to check each hit properly? It's a rhetorical question but I hope you see my point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Di Vita Posted January 8, 2003 Share Posted January 8, 2003 I retract this statement. Misread your post. (Edited by TheItlianStalion at 5:19 pm on Jan. 8, 2003) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Thomas Posted January 8, 2003 Share Posted January 8, 2003 I believe Vince's point is not that the magnifying glass is necessary - he could do the job just fine without it - but he's using it as a way to make the shooter feel good about the call. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Detlef Posted January 8, 2003 Share Posted January 8, 2003 TIS, a simple back-of-the-envelope calculation shows that *any* win by such small margin is completely by chance and has nothing to do with (meaning: cannot be resolved by) consistent officiating: Assuming a global 5 HF, 0.0006 points equates to 0.00012 sec (0.12 msec). But we measure time only to the nearest 100th of a sec, or equivalently to 0.05 points. In other words, our time measurement is more than two orders of magnitude too sloppy to tell who *won*.... The WS had 35 such time measurements and so (again, back-of-envelope, and neglecting stage weighting) we need to measure competitor's points accurately to about 1 or 2 points (35 times 0.05) to balance the errors. Can't be too sloppy there, either. --Detlef (Edited by Detlef at 5:30 pm on Jan. 8, 2003) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noname Posted January 9, 2003 Share Posted January 9, 2003 Here is the scenario: we have a target (T1) with a noshoot butted up against the side of the lower A zone. The competitor fires 2 rounds at T1. The RO finds a single hole in the noshoot, and no holes in T1. Should the RO assume that the competitor fired a "perfect double" in the noshoot and score the target 2 mikes and 2 noshoots? I expect that the competitor would disagree quite strongly with the RO's call, and claim that one of the shots missed the targets completely. If the hole had been in T1, why would the competitor, or the RO, treat it any differently? It should be scored a hit and a mike. There is no benefit of the doubt issue here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ankeny Posted January 9, 2003 Share Posted January 9, 2003 I have never been to a big IPSC match, but I have seen contested targets scored at big PPC matches. In other disciplines, scoring judges utilize optical scoring devices with substantial magnification. These are used to see if the shot touches the next highest ring as well as to end the "double" debates. Aren't these optical devices also used in USPSA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j1b Posted January 9, 2003 Share Posted January 9, 2003 Jake - ok . . . so you can summarize a hell of a lot better than I can : ) No wonder I can't win - I take the long road! TT - Thanks - I know this crap happens. It's difficult to rationalize what is right and wrong - I just know that the times I've lost - there were other contributing factors that I have to accept accountability for. I do, and always will regret never having won a national championship. I can't and won't hide that. Of all the nationals I lost - I lost. Someone else didn't take it away from me. Noname - you sir - are absolutely correct. It's why I wish the game were like golf. Integrity makes golf - the sport depends on it. Ron - the premis is that it is possible for two bullets to go through the same hole - and since the corrugate doesn't tear the same it often times can give the impression that it is possible for two bullets to have gone through THAT hole. I don't know that any magnifying glass is going to resolve that possibility (just my opinion though) On the statistical likelyhood that a bullet would go through the same hole? Hey - it happens. I don't know what the statistical likelyhood of snake eyes happening is - but I would guess its similar to that of going through the same hole - and I for one have had thousands of snake eyes on targets. I am certain I've had credits for hits when I've had misses and I've gotten misses when there was probably two hits. When in question - how can you NOT give the shooter that benefit of the doubt? I believe at that point in time though the shooter needs to fall out of the equation. The RO (maybe a random RO who has no idea who the shooter is or where the target was) makes the call and the shooter lives with it. TT - your match? Can we make it single stack .45's? I'm there! JB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted January 9, 2003 Share Posted January 9, 2003 Thanks Duane. Yes, I want the competitor to know that I take his challenge seriously and I'm looking for evidence of a second hit to assist him. My naked eye says "1 Miss" so I'm just trying to help him. And Noname is right-on as I cannot recall ever gauging or magnifying a hit on a no-shoot looking for a double. But, hey, that's the kinda sweet 'n' cuddly guy I am Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Thomas Posted January 9, 2003 Share Posted January 9, 2003 And don't think we don't realize it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TravisT Posted January 9, 2003 Author Share Posted January 9, 2003 JB- SS .45? Even better! An "all skill" match. BTW, killer idea regarding an independant/random RO calling the target! BE needs to give Noname the subtitle "Mr. Logical" Good stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noname Posted January 9, 2003 Share Posted January 9, 2003 Quote: from noname on 7:21 pm on Jan. 8, 2003 Here is the scenario: we have a target (T1) with a noshoot butted up against the side of the lower A zone. The competitor fires 2 rounds at T1. The RO finds a single hole in the noshoot, and no holes in T1. Should the RO assume that the competitor fired a "perfect double" in the noshoot and score the target 2 mikes and 2 noshoots? I expect that the competitor would disagree quite strongly with the RO's call, and claim that one of the shots missed the targets completely. If the hole had been in T1, why would the competitor, or the RO, treat it any differently? It should be scored a hit and a mike. There is no benefit of the doubt issue here. continuing......and the RO insists that the competitor hit the noshoot twice, as he saw the target "quiver" twice, as if it where being struck. The competitor pleads, "I'm only a C class shooter, I'm not that good of a shot. How can I possibly make a single hole with 2 bullets? I don't think I was even looking at my sights when I let the second shot go. Absent of any empirical evidence I think you should score me a mike and a noshoot." The RO counters, "If I rule for you in the manner that you see fit, how can I possible rule the opposite when a highly skilled competitor, such as Joe DeadOn, asks me to give him 2 hits when all that I see by way of evidence is a single hole? Surely you see my dilemma." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ankeny Posted January 9, 2003 Share Posted January 9, 2003 j1b: I am with you on the possibility of the perfect double, but I don't understand why this seems to be more of an issue in IPSC than in PPC or Bullseye. In the other games, if the official can't find signs of two points of entry, well...it's a miss and that's just the way it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
38supPat Posted January 9, 2003 Share Posted January 9, 2003 Quote: from TravisT on 11:23 pm on Jan. 7, 2003 Patrick-Doh! I?m so sorry, the magazine is Handguns. I'm sorry for any confusion. Flex- Did he really? That?s funny. I?m not really sure who he had in mind. Jack- That was really well said, but I want you to know that I didn?t take your post as whining at all!! These things have happened (and are happening), and skew the results. That's flat out wrong. I?m not passing judgment on anyone though. Some day I?d like to hold a match using Classic targets, one round per, and scoring like Patrick described. You should come up and shoot the Canadian Nationals one year (hint, its in Alberta this year) Its all 10 round max cap. You'd have a blast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TravisT Posted January 10, 2003 Author Share Posted January 10, 2003 I want to shoot that match Pat! Been wanting to shoot your Nats for some time. I did shoot the North American Championship when it was in Canada. I look back on that as probably the best match I’ve ever been to. Of course, it was also the first time I saw Todd, Jack, Rob, Jojo, and Matt McLearn shoot in person. Talk about an incredible experience! Ron- <but I don't understand why this seems to be more of an issue in IPSC than in PPC or Bullseye> That's a real good question. My first inclination is that in PPC and Bullseye there aren’t nearly as many misses. At a major IPSC match it’s frequent that there’s a miss (double ) every other shooter. In my time in the super squad, I've seen two nationals won where the winner received two hits for one hole. I've also seen two individuals whom are idolized on this forum receive doubles on swingers LOL. I'd like to see Will Shuemann's probablity on that. PS The people I really sympathize with are the poor RO's in these situations; it's a no-win call. One round per would solve this. (Edited by TravisT at 7:59 pm on Jan. 9, 2003) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
38supPat Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 Quote: from TravisT on 6:57 pm on Jan. 9, 2003 I want to shoot that match Pat! Been wanting to shoot your Nats for some time. I did shoot the North American Championship when it was in Canada. I look back on that as probably the best match I?ve ever been to. Of course, it was also the first time I saw Todd, Jack, Rob, Jojo, and Matt McLearn shoot in person. Talk about an incredible experience! That would have been '95, I missed that one, I shot the '92, '98' and Pan Ams. I heard it was a good one though. We usually have a good Nationals, 20 stages, every thing from 6 round speed shoots to 32 round long courses, more than once we've had a stage (92 North Americans even had a 32 round field course) with 1 per target, and one stage in BC two years ago had a mix of 2 and 3 rounds per on one stage Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j1b Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 Pat Are you sure it was '95? I don't recall where I placed at that match - but I knew it was important and I don't remember doing as well as I did at the '94 US nat's. I was thinking '92 or '93 seemed more in-line on the timeline. I've only shot north of the border once - however I would say it was one of the best matches I ever shot! I do recall an 18 or 20 shot - one hole per target stage. It was awesome - partly due to the fact that I think I won it - or placed high. I don't know why we question RO's on hits - probably because one guy did it one time and now we know it can happen. I think the shooter should have almost nothing to do with scoring targets. I understand why we are allowed to walk the targets - but really - shouldn't we just let the RO's score them and go from there? The shooter is personally involved - the RO is just doing what they do best. If you want to eliminate the problem then don't allow shooters down range after the stage. I've seen plenty of RO's look real hard for shots for me - you know they will always do this. Leave 'em alone if you ask me - let them do what they know to be right! 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