Scoring question

[West Texas Granny]

Can someone explain why both B and C areas score the same. The B area is much smaller than the C and harder to hit. One would conclude that this would make hitting the B area a higher point value.

[remoandiris]

To match IPSC's three scoring zones; 5 pts, 3 pts, and 1 pt.

[bbbean]

When the targets were originally conceived, the idea was that B hits could be used in a tiebreaker. To the best of my knowledge, this has never been necessary.

[wgnoyes]

yes, it used to be for tie-breaks, and that was taken out of the rulebook some time back. And the scoring zones are 5-4-2 for major, 5-3-1 for minor.

[West Texas Granny]

It just seems strange that a smaller area has fewer points then a larger one. Just curious.

[wide45]

A hit in the B zone was not supposed to be better than a C, just different.

[West Texas Granny]

A hit in the B zone was not supposed to be better than a C, just different.

Yet the B area is smaller and more difficult to hit vs the C area. Stands to reason then that a B Zone hit should be scored higher. At least that's how I view it.

[racerba]

Yet the B area is smaller and more difficult to hit vs the C area. Stands to reason then that a B Zone hit should be scored higher. At least that's how I view it.

Same reasoning - why should the upper A-zone be worth the same as the lower A-zone then... Well, it's not the size of the B-zone that you are aiming for, you are aiming for the A-Zone. Anything just missing the A-zone should be the same points, should it not? Therefore the B-zone = C-zone for just missing the A-zone.

[West Texas Granny]

Yet the B area is smaller and more difficult to hit vs the C area. Stands to reason then that a B Zone hit should be scored higher. At least that's how I view it.

Same reasoning - why should the upper A-zone be worth the same as the lower A-zone then... Well, it's not the size of the B-zone that you are aiming for, you are aiming for the A-Zone. Anything just missing the A-zone should be the same points, should it not? Therefore the B-zone = C-zone for just missing the A-zone.

Well now that you brought it up it shouldn't just as the B zone should score higher than a C zone hit but I know no one will re evaluate the scoring method. Maybe scoring the smaller A zone higher will bring more balance to the accuracy side of the equation. Who knows? Just my thoughts.

[centermass]

It's a completely arbitrary assignment... B/C are interlocked, just surrounding different A zones. Really there are only 3 scoring zones since B/C have the same point value. The original rule makers could have been wacky obscure with "naming" the zones and scored as prime numbers only, but it doesn't matter since it's consistent. It would though make it much easier to score if there were only ABC on scoresheets...

[Poppa Bear]

Another way to look at it is that one does not usually go for the upper A/B zone unless the lower scoring zones are hidden by hard cover or soft cover. Any shots that impact the upper zone while the lower zone is fully available (area actually shot at) are lucky hits by the competitor.

The upper A/B zone is really just a cardboard plate which unlike the steel ones, edge hits do not score the same as a good center hit but you still need to hit it to get the score. Unlike steel though you need to really call your shot because the upper zone is not going to fall over when hit. This makes me think of a good stage, alternate 2 square plates and 3 head shots as am 8 round short course.

[Skydiver]

Think of the B zone as the X's in the 10 ring. The X's are meant to be tie breakers in most bullseye style competition, but the X's don't garner you any extra points.

As IPSC/USPSA evolved the tie breaker zone remained, but the need for tie breakers based on the B zone hits disappeared and went to a shoot-off format.

[West Texas Granny]

Think of the B zone as the X's in the 10 ring. The X's are meant to be tie breakers in most bullseye style competition, but the X's don't garner you any extra points.

As IPSC/USPSA evolved the tie breaker zone remained, but the need for tie breakers based on the B zone hits disappeared and went to a shoot-off format.

I understand what you are saying but when you view the target in light of the area contained in each zone the B zone should still score higher simply because you are engaging a smaller portion of the target. This is how I would set the scoring if I was in charge.

Major PF

Small A zone = 6 points

B zone = 5 points

Large A zone = 4 points

C zone = 2 points

D zone = no shoot

Minor PF

Small A zone = 5 points

B zone = 4 points

Large A zone = 3 points

C zone = 1 point

D zone = no shoot

[aztecdriver]

Think of the B zone as the X's in the 10 ring. The X's are meant to be tie breakers in most bullseye style competition, but the X's don't garner you any extra points.

As IPSC/USPSA evolved the tie breaker zone remained, but the need for tie breakers based on the B zone hits disappeared and went to a shoot-off format.

I understand what you are saying but when you view the target in light of the area contained in each zone the B zone should still score higher simply because you are engaging a smaller portion of the target. This is how I would set the scoring if I was in charge.

Major PF

Small A zone = 6 points

B zone = 5 points

Large A zone = 4 points

C zone = 2 points

D zone = no shoot

Minor PF

Small A zone = 5 points

B zone = 4 points

Large A zone = 3 points

C zone = 1 point

D zone = no shoot

This plan is fail... 1. you can't have more points available for one type of scoring in a division than another. Done. 2. We don't have B zones and A zones with a different size on Classic targets -- what then? 3. Penalties and scoring hits on the same piece of cardboard? NWIH...

[West Texas Granny]

Think of the B zone as the X's in the 10 ring. The X's are meant to be tie breakers in most bullseye style competition, but the X's don't garner you any extra points.

As IPSC/USPSA evolved the tie breaker zone remained, but the need for tie breakers based on the B zone hits disappeared and went to a shoot-off format.

I understand what you are saying but when you view the target in light of the area contained in each zone the B zone should still score higher simply because you are engaging a smaller portion of the target. This is how I would set the scoring if I was in charge.

Major PF

Small A zone = 6 points

B zone = 5 points

Large A zone = 4 points

C zone = 2 points

D zone = no shoot

Minor PF

Small A zone = 5 points

B zone = 4 points

Large A zone = 3 points

C zone = 1 point

D zone = no shoot

This plan is fail... 1. you can't have more points available for one type of scoring in a division than another. Done. 2. We don't have B zones and A zones with a different size on Classic targets -- what then? 3. Penalties and scoring hits on the same piece of cardboard? NWIH...

1.You can do whatever you want if that is what you want to do.

Plus the only difference here is if one shoots major or minor. Shoot major you get rewarded. Shoot minor you don't.

2. Don't use the classic targets.

3. You already do it now and this excuse is nothing more than a reason not to change.

[ac4wordplay]

Think of the B zone as the X's in the 10 ring. The X's are meant to be tie breakers in most bullseye style competition, but the X's don't garner you any extra points.

As IPSC/USPSA evolved the tie breaker zone remained, but the need for tie breakers based on the B zone hits disappeared and went to a shoot-off format.

I understand what you are saying but when you view the target in light of the area contained in each zone the B zone should still score higher simply because you are engaging a smaller portion of the target. This is how I would set the scoring if I was in charge.

Major PF

Small A zone = 6 points

B zone = 5 points

Large A zone = 4 points

C zone = 2 points

D zone = no shoot

Minor PF

Small A zone = 5 points

B zone = 4 points

Large A zone = 3 points

C zone = 1 point

D zone = no shoot

[aztecdriver]

removed

Edited December 1, 2011 by aztecdriver

[Nik Habicht]

Think of the B zone as the X's in the 10 ring. The X's are meant to be tie breakers in most bullseye style competition, but the X's don't garner you any extra points.

As IPSC/USPSA evolved the tie breaker zone remained, but the need for tie breakers based on the B zone hits disappeared and went to a shoot-off format.

I understand what you are saying but when you view the target in light of the area contained in each zone the B zone should still score higher simply because you are engaging a smaller portion of the target. This is how I would set the scoring if I was in charge.

Major PF

Small A zone = 6 points

B zone = 5 points

Large A zone = 4 points

C zone = 2 points

D zone = no shoot

Minor PF

Small A zone = 5 points

B zone = 4 points

Large A zone = 3 points

C zone = 1 point

D zone = no shoot

And fortunately, you're not in charge...... :devil:

[Thomas H]

stuff

I was going to respond to this, part by part, but I decided it wasn't worth it.

However, I will say this: Your scoring scheme is interesting, and I think you should indeed put together a shooting association with all of the various other rules choices you have espoused over time in this forum.

This, however, is USPSA, and many of the things that you have stated not only bear no resemblance to actual USPSA rules, but more importantly, have contained no logical sufficient reason to attempt to create changes in the rules USPSA currently uses.

People in this forum have (several times) caused changes in actual USPSA rules due to logical, reasoned discourse that came to a solid, definitive conclusion, which was then communicated to people's respective Area Directors, who then acted on them.

If you want a rule change, reasoning for it must be more than "that's how we do it at my club" with a followup later of "but it isn't a sanctioned USPSA match but you should do it this way anyway".

So---in the spirit of attempting to make the last several posts relevant: What is it about your new scoring scheme will cause a reasonable, logical improvement in how competitors are scored against each other, and in a similar fashion, cause there to be a reasonable difference between major and minor that isn't already handled appropriately?

After all, rules changes are significant events. Making a change just because we like something else better is not sufficient reason. However, if there is a substantive difference (and improvement) possible in the way we score shooters that more accurately judges the differences in their level of practical shooting---then 1) we should do it, and 2) you should be able to articulate that appreciable difference in discussion.

So---why would your new scoring scheme be an improvement? (Note: just because an area is smaller doesn't automatically mean it should be worth more.)

[Nik Habicht]

To answer your original question: Once upon a time the sport was scored with stopwatches, primitive stop clocks (often involving stop plates), and scores were either calculated longhand or with a calculator.....

At that point ties were a reality, at least occasionally. Ties were broken on the basis of the number of A-zone hits. If the competitors were still tied, ties were broken on the basis of the number of B-zone hits, followed by C and D zone if necessary.

Then along came the modern shot timer, as well as computerized scoring that will figure hit factor and stage points to four places beyond the decimal. Ties are statistically unlikely, and now require a shooting test to break. This is evolution.....

Is the B-zone redundant? Sure. Could it be called the C-zone just as easily? Sure -- but the folks who manufacture the targets would need to change their machinery, and competitors and ROs would need to be reeducated. Why put them through that expense or effort, when it can be addressed by simply continuing with the rules that are already in place?

[remoandiris]

This is how I would set the scoring if I was in charge.

Then run for office.

[remoandiris]

stuff

I was going to respond to this, part by part, but I decided it wasn't worth it.

However, I will say this: Your scoring scheme is interesting, and I think you should indeed put together a shooting association with all of the various other rules choices you have espoused over time in this forum.

This, however, is USPSA, and many of the things that you have stated not only bear no resemblance to actual USPSA rules, but more importantly, have contained no logical sufficient reason to attempt to create changes in the rules USPSA currently uses.

People in this forum have (several times) caused changes in actual USPSA rules due to logical, reasoned discourse that came to a solid, definitive conclusion, which was then communicated to people's respective Area Directors, who then acted on them.

If you want a rule change, reasoning for it must be more than "that's how we do it at my club" with a followup later of "but it isn't a sanctioned USPSA match but you should do it this way anyway".

GREAT reply, Thomas!

[Flexmoney]

WTG, this is one of your best questions to date.

I've often thought there could be some tweaking on the points (Minor Bravo = 4pts was one thought). Fact is, this isn't something that is broke though.