Can you miss fast enough to do good?

[Chris iliff]

Looking at the results for the OPEN Nationals I see tons of MIKES/PENALTIES for everyone. It seems to fly in the face of "You can't MISS fast enough it win". I am curious as to what everyone else has to say.

Soooo, what say you?

[Thomas H]

Looking at the results for the OPEN Nationals I see tons of MIKES/PENALTIES for everyone. It seems to fly in the face of "You can't MISS fast enough it win". I am curious as to what everyone else has to say.

Soooo, what say you?

1st Place shot 94.42% of the possible points, and that's including penalties.

Exactly one person in the top ten shot less than 90% of the total possible points. The average of the top ten shooters in Open division (and this is including penalties) was 92.78%.

So no, I'm thinking that you still can't miss fast enough to win. This doesn't mean that errors can't occur. However, if they are still shooting over 90% of the possible available points, then they aren't missing much.

Edited to fix the "two" that I had instead of "one". There were two in the top 15, but only one in the top ten under 90%.

Edited September 30, 2013 by Thomas H

[JakeMartens]

maybe at a local or smaller sectional you can place "ok"

but ultimately there is a balance that has be achieved to win

And it is not about shooting fast it is about doing everything smooth, efficient and shooting l alphas as fast as you can see what you need to do that.

The problem is that many of us, including me, accept Charlies.

Here is an example

30 course of fire, 15 alphas, 15 charlies

135 points, you gave up 15 points, which is basically what a mike would cost you (-10 for the miss and -5 of the possible points)

But with 15 A's and 15 C's many of us would walk away from that stage happy, not even realizing that those 15 c's were the same as a miss.

Now throw time in there

135 points/ 20seconds = 6.75hf

150 points/ 20seconds = 7.5hf

So where is the breaking point?

shoot slower

150/22sec = 6.81

how about doing faster transitions on 15 targets

15x .10 = get's you an addition 1.5 seconds but pull the trigger the same

150/21.5 = 6.97hf

you can do this all day with numbers and there will be times when faster is going to come out with a better hit factor, but overall it comes down to more points is better with not shooting (pulling the trigger) any faster, but cutting time off of transitions, draws, reloads, moving....anytime you save when you are not shooting is how you spend more time pulling the trigger on alphas

and that is a hard thing to learn for alot of people, this sport makes you think that pulling the trigger as fast as you can is going to get you to the promise land

and sometimes it does, depending on the stage and the targets, throw some hard cover in there, no shoots, and distance and those same fast trigger pullers that blaze away on 5 yard targets and amaze us, usually end up in the middle of the pack and not at the top when the difficulty rises

Edited September 30, 2013 by JakeMartens

[whitedog]

Mathematically...no. Very fast C's won't beat consistent A's. A truth I'm learning myself.

Not that I'm very fast at anything.

For example. I'm at 50.88%. So mathematically I have to shoot 9.12% better or faster to make B. Shooting that much faster without improved accuracy will probably result in delta hits, which is counter productive.

[Hi-Power Jack]

I'm at 50.88%. So mathematically I have to shoot 9.12% better or faster to make B.

Big mistake I used to make is thinking that I had to "shoot faster".

I've since learned that I can shoot at the same speed, and do everything

else "faster" and my overall score will improve.

The biggest thing that helps is shooting on the move - BIG difference:)

[Chris iliff]

Well, the army guy had 7 mikes. He muffed 1/3 of the total stages. I know all the math, I was looking at the overalls and just thought it was an awful lot of penalties per shooter. Usually, the closer to to top finish wise, the less penalties you see from each shooter. Which I always took as supporting the mantra "you can't miss fast enough to win". Doesn't seem to be the case so much with this particular match.

So anyways, as the title states, I'm thinking the army guy missed fast enough to do darn well.

Edited September 30, 2013 by Chris iliff

[outerlimits]

Points are huge. Look an the numbers. If you really wanna be humbled, think about shooting 22 stages and only having 5 D's and a mike.

[motosapiens]

Having a mike is not a disaster or a 'muffed' stage. depending on the stage, it's similar to going 1-3 seconds slower. If you can speed up 1-2 seconds per stage, and only throw a mike every few stages, you'll probably do better than if you have to slow down to get all your hits.

If you get 95% of the points, it doesn't really matter whether the 5% you didn't get were due to c's and d's or mikes or no-shoots or whatever.

There were alot of not-easy shots compared to a local match. When I look at the top finishers, I see very few mikes or penalties. Maybe we have a different definition of a 'ton'. To me, 7 mikes out of 500+ shots is pretty accurate.

Edited September 30, 2013 by motosapiens

[whitedog]

Hi-Power Jack, that's what I meant. Said it wrong. That 9.12% has to come somewhere. Stage planning. Shooting on the move. Target transitions. Just shooting faster, in my case, is not going to do it. Have to shoot smarter-not just faster.

[Flexmoney]

So anyways, as the title states, I'm thinking the army guy missed fast enough to do darn well.

Yet, he lost to the guy that shot nearly as fast, but with a lot more points.

[old506]

I would like to see Ben shoot major just to see how he would do. Just kind of my guess but I think his level of accuracy in the last few years is what put him "over the top" in production.

[carlosa]

If you shoot a mike you need to shoot 2 to 3 seconds faster than the next guy to absorb it, and be no more than a couple of points down..

Some of the guys, at the top shoot 3 to 4 seconds faster than the average master..

They do throw the occasional mike..

Which they absorb preaty easily..

Most of the time they are only 3 to 5 points down and clean which with 3 to 4 seconds over the average shooter it's almost as if everyone one else now has to start with a mike or two their name..

Can you miss fast enough to win?? Sometimes.. But you need to be shooting preaty damn fast..

Some of this cats is the super squad are just unreal..

You try to point out how many times they miked, but if you look at how many stages they ran clean and and how fast they did it, their presence at the top is not so much of a mistery..

Shane coolie ran the Zombie stage in 16 seconds clean..

He had a 2 second lead on most of the super squad..

A descent time on that stage for a master shooter was 20 seconds..

When you look at it that way.. After Shane shot that stage.. Everyone that shot that stage clean in 18 was basically one mike behind Shane..

That is some crazy fast shooting..

[carlosa]

By the way you realty had to be there to appreciate just how hard the shooting was at this years nationals..

Made last years stages look like a 5 yard hose fest

[motosapiens]

If you shoot a mike you need to shoot 2 to 3 seconds faster than the next guy to absorb it, and be no more than a couple of points down..

I need to shoot 2-3 seconds faster to absorb a mike, but the top gm's are shooting HF's in the 9-11 range pretty frequently on the field stages. Figuring that a mike costs you a 14 pts (the charlie you didn't get plus the penalty) that's only about 1 1/2 seconds for them.

If you don't miss occasionally, you're probably not going fast enough.

Edited September 30, 2013 by motosapiens

[mpeltier]

Can you miss fast enough to win? Only if everyone else misses slow enough to loose.

But generally speaking the answer is no...

[beltjones]

This is racing of a sort after all. You have to be at or near "the limit" in racing terms in order to place well, and occasionally that means you miss. It's just like a driver missing the apex on a turn or tracking out occasionally - it's just a byproduct of racing.

[carlosa]

This is racing of a sort after all. You have to be at or near "the limit" in racing terms in order to place well, and occasionally that means you miss. It's just like a driver missing the apex on a turn or tracking out occasionally - it's just a byproduct of racing.

Yup..

And just like another racing sport the guys at the top are the ones than can not only race the fastest but also keep the disaster factor contained

Edited September 30, 2013 by carlosa

[carlosa]

If you shoot a mike you need to shoot 2 to 3 seconds faster than the next guy to absorb it, and be no more than a couple of points down..

I need to shoot 2-3 seconds faster to absorb a mike, but the top gm's are shooting HF's in the 9-11 range pretty frequently on the field stages. Figuring that a mike costs you a 14 pts (the charlie you didn't get plus the penalty) that's only about 1 1/2 seconds for them.

If you don't miss occasionally, you're probably not going fast enough.

It's all staged dependent..

The stages this year were not high hit factor stages at all..

The average run on the 32 rounds stages was in the 8 hf for super squad..

Also a mike is 15 down not 14..

-10 minus the "alpha" you failed score..

Some of the lower point stages had really low hit factors.. Like the speed shoot next to the chrono which was a 30 point stage with awesome runs being on the 5 second mark..

Anyway... 2 seconds 1.5 doesn't really matter..

If I could shoot regularly within .5 of the match winner I would be pretty happy

[Chris iliff]

So anyways, as the title states, I'm thinking the army guy missed fast enough to do darn well.

Yet, he lost to the guy that shot nearly as fast, but with a lot more points.

But you would have to say, he did darn well at nationals,.....right?

[Chris iliff]

By the way you realty had to be there to appreciate just how hard the shooting was at this years nationals..

Made last years stages look like a 5 yard hose fest

This is what I was really wondering about. That explains why, to me, there seemed to be more MIKES and PENALTIES this year.

[carlosa]

By the way you realty had to be there to appreciate just how hard the shooting was at this years nationals..

Made last years stages look like a 5 yard hose fest

This is what I was really wondering about. That explains why, to me, there seemed to be more MIKES and PENALTIES this year.

Every stage with only 2 or 3 exceptions had either head shots with no shoots, alpha zone only targets with hard cover, alpha zone only with no shoots on both sides..

This dirty targets were found often more than twice in each stage.. With distances from 10 to 20 yards..

It was great.. In my opinion it was the type of hard shooting we all should expect at a national championship.

I talked to Ken about it after day one of the limited match..

He said his goal was to make a match where no one got away clean..

This was the best nationals In the last 4 years In my opinion..

I'm looking forward to doing it again next year..

I hope Ken will continue to make it so no ones gets away clean

[motosapiens]

If you shoot a mike you need to shoot 2 to 3 seconds faster than the next guy to absorb it, and be no more than a couple of points down..

I need to shoot 2-3 seconds faster to absorb a mike, but the top gm's are shooting HF's in the 9-11 range pretty frequently on the field stages. Figuring that a mike costs you a 14 pts (the charlie you didn't get plus the penalty) that's only about 1 1/2 seconds for them.

If you don't miss occasionally, you're probably not going fast enough.

It's all staged dependent..

The stages this year were not high hit factor stages at all..

The average run on the 32 rounds stages was in the 8 hf for super squad..

Also a mike is 15 down not 14..

-10 minus the "alpha" you failed score..

Some of the lower point stages had really low hit factors.. Like the speed shoot next to the chrono which was a 30 point stage with awesome runs being on the 5 second mark..

Anyway... 2 seconds 1.5 doesn't really matter..

If I could shoot regularly within .5 of the match winner I would be pretty happy

ok, so you agree with me. that's good.

I would also add that it is shot-dependent. On some targets (particularly the 'winger'), it's just not worth it (even for an A or to sit around and wait for it to present again. If one of your first two shots is a mike, that is not significantly worse than waiting and shooting another charlie (or even alpha) on it, and if you did make both shots, then shooting again is considerably worse.

[carlosa]

If you shoot a mike you need to shoot 2 to 3 seconds faster than the next guy to absorb it, and be no more than a couple of points down..

I need to shoot 2-3 seconds faster to absorb a mike, but the top gm's are shooting HF's in the 9-11 range pretty frequently on the field stages. Figuring that a mike costs you a 14 pts (the charlie you didn't get plus the penalty) that's only about 1 1/2 seconds for them.

If you don't miss occasionally, you're probably not going fast enough.

It's all staged dependent..

The stages this year were not high hit factor stages at all..

The average run on the 32 rounds stages was in the 8 hf for super squad..

Also a mike is 15 down not 14..

-10 minus the "alpha" you failed score..

Some of the lower point stages had really low hit factors.. Like the speed shoot next to the chrono which was a 30 point stage with awesome runs being on the 5 second mark..

Anyway... 2 seconds 1.5 doesn't really matter..

If I could shoot regularly within .5 of the match winner I would be pretty happy

ok, so you agree with me. that's good.

I would also add that it is shot-dependent. On some targets (particularly the 'winger'), it's just not worth it (even for an A or to sit around and wait for it to present again. If one of your first two shots is a mike, that is not significantly worse than waiting and shooting another charlie (or even alpha) on it, and if you did make both shots, then shooting again is considerably worse.

My general rule for moving targets.

Is call two shots on paper then move on..

The amount it takes to see a second show of most moving targets is basically a mike..

Cheers,

Los

[motosapiens]

My general rule for moving targets.

Is call two shots on paper then move on..

The amount it takes to see a second show of most moving targets is basically a mike..

Cheers,

Los

Those are wise words, and I either hadn't seen them before, or more likely just skipped over them when I read them somewhere else. I sort of learned that through the school of hard knocks last week, so now it seems like a profound revelation. I hope you enjoyed your match. I don't remember seeing your name (but I saw alot of names). I was working stage 8 (cornfusing). Looks like you had a good but not spectacular run there, with solid points.

[carlosa]

My general rule for moving targets.

Is call two shots on paper then move on..

The amount it takes to see a second show of most moving targets is basically a mike..

Cheers,

Los

Those are wise words, and I either hadn't seen them before, or more likely just skipped over them when I read them somewhere else. I sort of learned that through the school of hard knocks last week, so now it seems like a profound revelation. I hope you enjoyed your match. I don't remember seeing your name (but I saw alot of names). I was working stage 8 (cornfusing). Looks like you had a good but not spectacular run there, with solid points.

I had my magazines fall out of my belt without noticing on my last stage of day 1 (stage 10)..

Went into the last array trying to reload from an empty belt..

I ended up running back to pick up one of my magazines of the ground but ended up 3 rounds short on steel.. (3 mikes 3 FTE)

Pretty much destroyed me for the match..

The match was quality was great dough..

Having my gear blow up on my face, kind of sucked all the fun out of it..

Stage 8 was ok, I screwed up the clam order and ended up having to shoot the clam on the right after it closed.. (Alpha, bravo)..

I was two seconds behind the pace on that stage.. My buddy perry through down a 14 second run on that stage but through a mike..

I think that got me a little over confident on the clams