Ben asked...

[Flexmoney]

Ben asked on another forum, I had some sign in issues (on my end) and thought it would be good here anyway...

Stoeger was wondering if anybody had shot a Production match and pulled 96% or 98% of the points. I think he was asking about local matches, but lets do the math for a Major.

An Area match might have 300 shots.

300 x 5pts per Alpha = 1500 possible points.

96% of 1500 = 1440 pts.

98% of 1500 = 1470 pts.

For 96%, assuming no Deltas, that is 30 Charlies for the match.

For 98%, assuming no Deltas, that is 15 Charlies for the match.

You can apply that any number of ways, lets look at a 30 round field course.

96% would allow for 3.0 Charlies, for a 30 round course of fire.

98% would allow for 1.5 Charlies, for a 30 round course of fire.

====================

To further work the math, I'd suggest taking past match results and recording a bunch of the hit factors that were actually shot. Once you know your hit factor, you know how many seconds a point is typically worth to you. (and, since we are talking Minor for Production, multiply that time x2 since a Charlie is 2 points down)

[mhop]

I have only seen it dont in sectional's nothing any higher. Corey Estill did 96% at alabama sectional this march and i have a 97% at 2010 Mo state.

[mhop]

Ben has 2011 area 3 at 96% and 2011 area 5 at 95%. Kale has a 96% at 2011 area 4

[Ben Stoeger]

I got about 97 at Space City this year.

I think breaking into the 99.XX will be tough.

[Flexmoney]

I wonder where EG is landing?

[Ben Stoeger]

I wonder where EG is landing?

I heard he won the EC this year with 97% of the points.

[Flexmoney]

Wow. I gotta assume that match had lots of movers. partials, etc. That is a lot of Alphas. Couple that with his ability to navigate a stage...

Our top Production shooters will really need to focus on getting all the points, I'd think?

[Ben Stoeger]

Wow. I gotta assume that match had lots of movers. partials, etc. That is a lot of Alphas. Couple that with his ability to navigate a stage...

Our top Production shooters will really need to focus on getting all the points, I'd think?

Uhhhh yeah... I don't see anyone beating Eric anytime soon.

[Flexmoney]

(I had to look it up. ) EG at the Extreme Euro Open, 2012, Production (533 rounds)

http://2012.extremeeuroopen.eu/media/eeo12_stages.pdf

2560 / 2665 = 96% (If my numbers are right)

[steel1212]

I got about 97 at Space City this year.

I think breaking into the 99.XX will be tough.

Here is the question though, would it be worth it? How much speed would you have to sacrifice to get 99.X% points. I know at Alabama this year I just was in a groove that last all day. I was quite honestly shocked at the outcome. I felt I was shooting slow motion but came out on top. Its another instance where somebody, me, wasn't on the super squad of the match. They all shot the same day but I didn't really know any of them and just wanted to shoot with friends so I stayed on my squad when I was asked if I wanted to shoot with them.

[Flexmoney]

I got about 97 at Space City this year.

I think breaking into the 99.XX will be tough.

Here is the question though, would it be worth it? How much speed would you have to sacrifice to get 99.X% points.

That is the second half of my opening post. We can all check it against our own actual results.

[Flexmoney]

Take Ben's A5 from 2011. He got 95.5% of the points. His hit factor average was ~ 6.93 (that is 6.93 points per second)

The inverse of that: 1 / 6.93 = 0.144 (seconds per point)

Since we area talking 2 points down per Charlie shot: 0.144 x 2 = 0.288 seconds (lets call that 0.3 seconds...which it will be at least that amount of time for anybody that isn't beating Ben on a regular basis).

What can we do in 0.3s ??

- We can likely make up a shot (or two) in that time, if we are still on target.

- We probably can't transition back to a target in that amount of time, but...we might be able to do so if we are still able to make forward progress through the stage.

- What it really gives us is a bit more visual patience and a bit more follow through...which we should have plenty of time for with that 0.3s.

Thoughts?

[Ben Stoeger]

I got about 97 at Space City this year.

I think breaking into the 99.XX will be tough.

Here is the question though, would it be worth it? How much speed would you have to sacrifice to get 99.X% points?

I am not planning on slowing down, I am just going to learn to shoot better.

[MarkCO]

I got about 97 at Space City this year.

I think breaking into the 99.XX will be tough.

Here is the question though, would it be worth it? How much speed would you have to sacrifice to get 99.X% points?

I am not planning on slowing down, I am just going to learn to shoot better.

And people wonder why we should not be happy with a pistol that only shoots 3" groups at 7 yards.

[CHA-LEE]

Take Ben's A5 from 2011. He got 95.5% of the points. His hit factor average was ~ 6.93 (that is 6.93 points per second)

The inverse of that: 1 / 6.93 = 0.144 (seconds per point)

Since we area talking 2 points down per Charlie shot: 0.144 x 2 = 0.288 seconds (lets call that 0.3 seconds...which it will be at least that amount of time for anybody that isn't beating Ben on a regular basis).

What can we do in 0.3s ??

- We can likely make up a shot (or two) in that time, if we are still on target.

- We probably can't transition back to a target in that amount of time, but...we might be able to do so if we are still able to make forward progress through the stage.

- What it really gives us is a bit more visual patience and a bit more follow through...which we should have plenty of time for with that 0.3s.

Thoughts?

I think that would make sense if the capacity wasn't limited to 10 rounds in Production. Most of the time production shooters are pushing each mag to 10 rounds leaving only one round left in the chamber. So if they make up a C with an A they usually end up getting stuck into slide lock death the rest of the stage which would cost way more time.

But then again I don't shoot production so maybe I don't know crap about how it really works out from a round count perspective. I only shoot Limited and I know that I can shoot more aggressively and take overall less time to make up poor called shots with extra shots if I know I have an extra 4 - 5 rounds in the mag before a reload. When I am pushing the round count to 18 - 20 rounds before the reload I will not shoot as aggressively and live with marginally called shots because I know I don't have a bunch of extra rounds to make up poor shots with.

[CHA-LEE]

I also want to point out that how much of the lower A zone is available to shoot at makes a big difference in how many points can be captured. Keeping an aggressive shooting speed on a partial target is more than likely going to yield more B or C zone hits in most cases. If you have a partial target heavy match the percentage of points captured across all shooters will be lower than a match which has very few partial targets.

We all want as many A's as we can capture. But its not worth spending extra time to ensure A's verses fast B's or C's on partial targets. Or flirting with hard cover or no shoots next to the A zone and risking a miss or no shoot hit.

Minor Scoring Math

2 partial A's at a .30 split = 33 HF (Way more risk flirting with hard cover & no shoot)

2 partial B's or C's at .20 split = 30 HF (Way less risk flirting with hard cover & no Shoot)

If you spread this across 10 consecutive shots the "A's" would yield a 3.3 Hit factor and the B's & C's would yield a 3.0 Hit Factor. Is the risk of flirting with hard cover or no shoots worth the 0.3 hit factor advantage? I would say it isn't. The disaster factor is too high if you do end up with a penalty.

I would much rather take the B's & C's all day long knowing that I can shoot them aggressively and not risk getting a shooting penalty by clipping a no shoot or dropping a shot into the hard cover.

Edited August 27, 2012 by CHA-LEE

[steel1212]

I got about 97 at Space City this year.

I think breaking into the 99.XX will be tough.

Here is the question though, would it be worth it? How much speed would you have to sacrifice to get 99.X% points?

I am not planning on slowing down, I am just going to learn to shoot better.

Very well said!

[Flexmoney]

I think that would make sense if the capacity wasn't limited to 10 rounds in Production. Most of the time production shooters are pushing each mag to 10 rounds leaving only one round left in the chamber. So if they make up a C with an A they usually end up getting stuck into slide lock death the rest of the stage which would cost way more time.

In my experience, that is rarely a factor. Though it can be.

Besides, my real point wasn't about make-up shots. It was that shooting a C-minor is exactly the same as wasting 0.3 seconds (or more).

Maybe a better way to say that is that shooting the Alpha-minor (in the first place) is the same as saving three tenths of a second.

[Flexmoney]

I also want to point out that how much of the lower A zone is available to shoot at makes a big difference in how many points can be captured. Keeping an aggressive shooting speed on a partial target is more than likely going to yield more B or C zone hits in most cases. If you have a partial target heavy match the percentage of points captured across all shooters will be lower than a match which has very few partial targets.

Yep, and add in movers too...and any other thing a stage designer can throw in.

We all want as many A's as we can capture. But its not worth spending extra time to ensure A's verses fast B's or C's on partial targets.

Hold on there. It very well could be worth the time. Every point is worth a certain amount of time. It is the way our hit factor scoring works, right? That amount will be variable, depending on the stage and on the shooter (and especially depending on Major or Minor).

So, two things there:

- Do the math.

- Lets not assume it is "extra time" to ensure the Alpha.

Minor Scoring Math

2 partial A's at a .30 split = 33 HF (Way more risk flirting with hard cover & no shoot)

2 partial B's or C's at .20 split = 30 HF (Way less risk flirting with hard cover & no Shoot)

Wrong math? Your split speed doesn't determine your hit factor for the stage. And, your stage hit factor is what counts, right?

[sdm74]

I believe the title of this thread does not accurately reflect the body of this thread.

[Ben Stoeger]

Wrong math? Your split speed doesn't determine your hit factor for the stage. And, your stage hit factor is what counts, right?

In my experience... the best stage factors come from the runs with the best points. In practice or in a match, I always do the best with more points. Once you accept that (with training) it is possible to hit an A just about as fast as you can hang hits on paper anywhere, it really doesn't make sense to accept dropping points.

[Flexmoney]

Wrong math? Your split speed doesn't determine your hit factor for the stage. And, your stage hit factor is what counts, right?

In my experience... the best stage factors come from the runs with the best points. In practice or in a match, I always do the best with more points. Once you accept that (with training) it is possible to hit an A just about as fast as you can hang hits on paper anywhere, it really doesn't make sense to accept dropping points.

My sig line on another forum:

"I refuse to accept the notion that you have to give up accuracy to get speed."

[Steve Anderson]

"I felt I was shooting slow motion but came out on top."

Here we go again.

Corey's statement proves AGAIN that the notion of CHOOSING speed or accuracy is ridiculous.

He wasn't even capable of knowing how fast he was performing, so how could he make a choice in an environment full of flawed data?

Speed thinking is for practice.

Point thinking is for matches.

The local experience causes a lot of these (internal and external) debates, because there are a lot of "local legends" who shoot fast and sloppy and win locally. They've never had to shoot against somebody as fast as they are...

When I shoot against Chris Keen, (and to a growing extent, Bill Seevers) we both know that every point is gonna matter, and any mistake at all will hurt very much. Our times will be similar and the speed issue will likely be settled by the absence or presence of errors.

Good way to present my most hated topic, Flex.

btw, What's the BEST chain lube?

[Flexmoney]

btw, What's the BEST chain lube?

This one goes to eleven.

[diehli]

btw, What's the BEST chain lube?

Shaft drive. But it sucks that you won't be able to wheelie it.

1st runner up: http://www.amazon.com/DuPont-Teflon-Chain-Saver-Lubricant-CS0110101/dp/B003OBP63S

2nd runner up: WD-40.

</end discussion>