New 3-Gun Scoring System

[MarkCO]

Not scoffing at Jesse, he certainly has some good ideas and sees a TON of stages every year, and he has proven he can take a few jabs and still smile.

Top shooters are not tripped up, but certain skillsets can be accentuated. I have 2 guys in mind...if I built one stage with a TON of long range points, one would be 10 - 15% behind the other. If I avoid close hoser pistol targets in the match, it will be virtually impossible for the other to overcome that deficit. There are certain top pros who skip matches that do not play well to their specific skills...sure, they might finish in 5th or 6th, but they can win a different match and so that is the one they choose. While the top guys have varied contracts/sponsorship/contingency money based on match performance, a tinker here and a tinker there can cost a top guy a good chunk of change. With close to 30 majors, do not think for a second that the top guys do not look at who is shooting each match, their chance of wining, cost of the trip and the financial benefit. Shooting on some Supersquads, some Poopersquads and some ROsquads has done a lot for my ideas about stage design and match management.

I still say that good stage design and balance outweighs the scoring system everytime.

[toothandnail]

Pistol shooting is an easy thing to have in a 3 gun match which is why theres alot of it. Everyone has room for pistol targets on their grounds. Match directors seem to limit shotgun shooting because most competitors like it the least (because of reloading), and shooting a rifle like a rifle requires some distance otherwise you're treating it like a bigger louder pistol when used at close range.

If you're going to "weight" targets based on difficulty then WHO's difficulty is going to be the base for the measurement? It would seem to me that to be fair each round fired would be worth X points no matter what the target is, and there would be an equal amount of targets for pistol / shotgun / rifle in every course of fire - AND they'd take generally the same amount of time to neutralize, require the same accuracy standard across all 3 disciplines.

Otherwise its just going to be skewed one way or the other anyway and lack balance.

So your saying a full size rifle paper at 10 yds is the same skill level as a 2/3 target at 300yds ?

A SG steel plate at 7yds , the same as a flying clay ?

[P.E. Kelley]

Not scoffing at Jesse, he certainly has some good ideas and sees a TON of stages every year, and he has proven he can take a few jabs and still smile.

Top shooters are not tripped up, but certain skillsets can be accentuated. I have 2 guys in mind...if I built one stage with a TON of long range points, one would be 10 - 15% behind the other. If I avoid close hoser pistol targets in the match, it will be virtually impossible for the other to overcome that deficit. There are certain top pros who skip matches that do not play well to their specific skills...sure, they might finish in 5th or 6th, but they can win a different match and so that is the one they choose. While the top guys have varied contracts/sponsorship/contingency money based on match performance, a tinker here and a tinker there can cost a top guy a good chunk of change. With close to 30 majors, do not think for a second that the top guys do not look at who is shooting each match, their chance of wining, cost of the trip and the financial benefit. Shooting on some Supersquads, some Poopersquads and some ROsquads has done a lot for my ideas about stage design and match management.

I still say that good stage design and balance outweighs the scoring system everytime.

Damn, it always comes down to this^^^ and it should!!!

[toothandnail]

Not scoffing at Jesse, he certainly has some good ideas and sees a TON of stages every year, and he has proven he can take a few jabs and still smile.

Top shooters are not tripped up, but certain skillsets can be accentuated. I have 2 guys in mind...if I built one stage with a TON of long range points, one would be 10 - 15% behind the other. If I avoid close hoser pistol targets in the match, it will be virtually impossible for the other to overcome that deficit. There are certain top pros who skip matches that do not play well to their specific skills...sure, they might finish in 5th or 6th, but they can win a different match and so that is the one they choose. While the top guys have varied contracts/sponsorship/contingency money based on match performance, a tinker here and a tinker there can cost a top guy a good chunk of change. With close to 30 majors, do not think for a second that the top guys do not look at who is shooting each match, their chance of wining, cost of the trip and the financial benefit. Shooting on some Supersquads, some Poopersquads and some ROsquads has done a lot for my ideas about stage design and match management.

I still say that good stage design and balance outweighs the scoring system everytime.

I AGREE 100% , but not very many matches are that way.

the MD can not have 50 long range rifle targets to off set the 50 pistol targets, thus the FAVOR goes to the GM pistol shooter.

IMO the weighted stages evens out this discrepancy.

Mark, I didn't mean to infer that you were the one discounting it because of JT, but I knew there would be those who would. and told the OP that would happen.

[LoganbillJ]

The biggest thing that triggered the idea was the fact that no one seemed to like total time matches. I prefer them. I know in a total time match I placed how I did because I shot to the best of my ability on every stage. If I have a malfunction its on me and my gear. If I lose, its on me.

Everyone else seems to like points matches since you get a bit of forgiveness if you have a malfunction or butcher a stage. Or that's the reasoning I heard over and over again. I do agree the top guys are gonna be on top regardless of the scoring system used. I felt that the weighted points shifted both systems to a middle ground.

Maybe I am just completely off base but I posted this to get good discussion on a great forum. I know I am not the most experienced competitor, nor the most experienced MD/RM. Which is why I posted here for the wiser crowd to weigh in. We are in the beginning stages of our range, but plan on hosting a major or two next year. We want our matches to be around for the long haul which is why discussions like this are created. Thanks again for your input!

Joshua Loganbill

[MarkCO]

I AGREE 100% , but not very many matches are that way.

the MD can not have 50 long range rifle targets to off set the 50 pistol targets, thus the FAVOR goes to the GM pistol shooter.

One reason is that "every" match gets the "best match ever" review here on Enos, even if people think it was terrible. A friend of mine, who is a pistol GM takes the time to write to the MD of every match he attends...points out, from his view of course, the good, bad and ugly. Very rarely does he get a reasonable reply. I do the same thing, and while no one really cares which matches I attend, there are some I can not support in any manner due to their course design and their responses. In stark contrast to most, when I provide my feedback to some MDs, they respond and make changes if I make a good argument. In the last year, this has happened at RM3G, SMM3G and the Nordic Shotgun match, and Kudos to them for listening, adapting and improving.

I think you should try your plan for a year and then see what the shooters, stats and stage designers think. I've been told stuff won't work before just to be spurred to prove it will. Kudos for the effort regardless of the outcome.

[toothandnail]

Pistol shooting is an easy thing to have in a 3 gun match which is why theres alot of it. Everyone has room for pistol targets on their grounds. Match directors seem to limit shotgun shooting because most competitors like it the least (because of reloading), and shooting a rifle like a rifle requires some distance otherwise you're treating it like a bigger louder pistol when used at close range.

If you're going to "weight" targets based on difficulty then WHO's difficulty is going to be the base for the measurement? It would seem to me that to be fair each round fired would be worth X points no matter what the target is, and there would be an equal amount of targets for pistol / shotgun / rifle in every course of fire - AND they'd take generally the same amount of time to neutralize, require the same accuracy standard across all 3 disciplines.

Otherwise its just going to be skewed one way or the other anyway and lack balance.

THAT is not going to happen , I don't think it's possible. And the reason for a weighted system. It attempts to even the score across all 3 guns, close rang and distance.

You CAN have more pistol , fewer SG/rifle, and not have a biased match.

As far as what point value to assign each target, THAT is where I figured the debate would come.

We have crunched the numbers on several old matches, and are trying it in our monthly matches.

Too soon to tell how it will work out in the end, but so far we've not had any complaints, The guys who seem to understand it, think that it's the best of both systems.

Edited July 22, 2014 by toothandnail

[Moltke]

To clarify your question -

A full size rifle paper at 10 yards is not much of a test of accuracy, but what makes it hard to be the best at it? Speed.

A 2/3 target at 300 yards is a high test of accuracy, and what makes it hard? The right gear, zero, knowing wind conditions, and speed.

A shotgun steel at 7 yards is not much of a test of accuracy, but what makes it hard? Speed.

A flying clay in 3 Gun is not much of a test of anything related to shooting clays, but what makes it hard? Speed.

If you want to "weight" the targets for difficulty then who's level of difficulty?

Was this weighted by you, or Jesse, or some bottom ranked shooter at your club?

A precision rifle shooter who comes to 3 gun probably thinks the long range isn't hard but running a pistol fast up close is, so they pray for those long range targets to be there & be "hard" for everyone else.

It seems that you want to achieve balance in scoring which I'm all for.

But I'm curious about what you think is "harder" because I think a better way to do that is let the SPEED decide what's hard & not hard - all you need to do is make the point value per shot fired equal across the board & maintain the same accuracy standard across all 3 disciplines.

What I mean by accuracy standard is something like 4x the mechanical accuracy of a "3 gun pistol" or shotgun or rifle.

For example

Pistol - 2 inch group from a bench at 25 yards x 4 = appropriate target is a 8 inch target like a plate rack, or 32 MOA at any distance

Shotgun slugs - 6 inch group from a bench at 50 yards x 4 = appropriate target is 24 inch target like a BC steel, or 48 MOA at any distance

Rifle - 1 inch group from a bench at 100 yards x 4 = appropriate target is a 4 MOA target at any distance

Now of course these are minimum sizes at these distances but by managing what targets you put downrange, you effectively balance the shooting across disciplines & keep time as the factor that separates shooters.

And to increase the speed of shooting, bigger is better, and bigger "easier" targets also gets people to throw misses and make mistakes because they're "going fast".

Things will become unbalanced in favor of one of these disciplines if targets are made larger / smaller because the accuracy requirement has changed in relation to the other apects. Like putting a 25 yard 4x4 inch steel for pistol only... only a great pistol shooter is going to hit that quickly, or possibly at all. The same with putting a 2 MOA steel at 400 yards... only a great rifle shooter is going to tag it quickly, or possibly at all. Higher accuracy standards screws the average shooter and rewards a specific discipline but raising / lowering all accuracy equalizes people quickly.

Anyway, its another way to go about "weighting" the scores, without actually weighting the scores, and you can still run a very easy "timed" competition that is balanced because accuracy requirements are balanced - which at many competitions they are generally not balanced with sloppy up close and fast pistol work, sloppy up close fast shotgun work with a focus placed more on reloading than shooting, and looking at long range rifle shooting as the only technical aspect of the sport. Sad. Equalize the accuracy requirements between the disciplines and you just "weighted" all the shooting while allowing for competitors to manage their game according to their personal speed limits & managing their mistakes.

Aside from that, when somebody makes a mega mistake and it blows their match, well.. welcome to 3 gun - this is not USPSA. However if you can integrate a working version of that too, cool, I'll buy into it.

But then suggesting standard accuracy requirements is like suggesting a standard rule set or in your case some new scoring mechanism - and some people will hate it, some people will like it, but nobody will agree. Like I said earlier, match directors are going to do whatever the hell they want so just go do whatever the hell you want. I think you're on to something.

[EaZeNuTZ33]

Dillen, I can agree to an all shotgun stage, especially since we can do some cool things w/ the shotgun since it has short range. But for a match to include an all pistol stage, I think it needs to be either under water, under ground or up in the air, and have some 100 + yard targets.

100 yard pistol you say.........sounds like fun!

[alma]

Pistol shooting is an easy thing to have in a 3 gun match which is why theres alot of it. Everyone has room for pistol targets on their grounds. Match directors seem to limit shotgun shooting because most competitors like it the least (because of reloading), and shooting a rifle like a rifle requires some distance otherwise you're treating it like a bigger louder pistol when used at close range.

If you're going to "weight" targets based on difficulty then WHO's difficulty is going to be the base for the measurement? It would seem to me that to be fair each round fired would be worth X points no matter what the target is, and there would be an equal amount of targets for pistol / shotgun / rifle in every course of fire - AND they'd take generally the same amount of time to neutralize, require the same accuracy standard across all 3 disciplines.

Otherwise its just going to be skewed one way or the other anyway and lack balance.

I think this is much closer to how things should be but let me suggest a few minor modifications.

The original proposal's heart is in the right place but it's too complicated and furthermore, the point values on which target hits are based share no relationship with actual penalties given, points, awarded, or anything else dealing with the actual scoring of the individual stage. Furthermore I would expect that the 3,4,5 point valued targets would end up averaging out to around 4 over any given course of fire for the most part of it meaning that the only significant difference might be in rifle targets at distance. I personally don't like point values for gun transitions. That is just stuff you have to do to get to the shooting. What happens if a shooter has the option of not shooting guns on a stage? Would that decrease the value of that stage if I can just use my pistol instead of going to my shotgun? Should the stage be worth more points if I have a mandatory reload? I think you get points only for shooting targets regardless of how you get that done.

I would propose assigning the point value of each target on based on the penalty for a miss on that target. This assumes that 3 Gun rulesets already have additional, standardized time penalties for rifle and slug targets at distance.

Five points for each paper target that would garner you a five seconds penalty for FTN. If its a 200 yard rifle target that is assigned a 15 second penalty for a miss then it adds 15 points to the stage value.

This would not only give you scoring that appropriately weights the value of longer range hits but it would do so in a way that makes sense within the context of the rest of the stage scoring. This type of scoring might drive for a more in depth discussion about proper standard miss penalties across different target types and distances but I think that is a conversation we should be having anyway.

[toothandnail]

Pistol shooting is an easy thing to have in a 3 gun match which is why theres alot of it. Everyone has room for pistol targets on their grounds. Match directors seem to limit shotgun shooting because most competitors like it the least (because of reloading), and shooting a rifle like a rifle requires some distance otherwise you're treating it like a bigger louder pistol when used at close range.

If you're going to "weight" targets based on difficulty then WHO's difficulty is going to be the base for the measurement? It would seem to me that to be fair each round fired would be worth X points no matter what the target is, and there would be an equal amount of targets for pistol / shotgun / rifle in every course of fire - AND they'd take generally the same amount of time to neutralize, require the same accuracy standard across all 3 disciplines.

This is were we figured the disagreement/discussion would center, and is the hard part to determine.

Our thinking is there is a big difference in target difficulty, therefore necessitating a difference in value. There is a big time difference for every shooter, beginner to Pro, between a full size paper at 5-20yds and a 4MOA target at 300

Otherwise its just going to be skewed one way or the other anyway and lack balance.

I think this is much closer to how things should be but let me suggest a few minor modifications.

The original proposal's heart is in the right place but it's too complicated and furthermore, the point values on which target hits are based share no relationship with actual penalties given, points, awarded, or anything else dealing with the actual scoring of the individual stage. Furthermore I would expect that the 3,4,5 point valued targets would end up averaging out to around 4 over any given course of fire for the most part of it meaning that the only significant difference might be in rifle targets at distance. I personally don't like point values for gun transitions. That is just stuff you have to do to get to the shooting. What happens if a shooter has the option of not shooting guns on a stage? Would that decrease the value of that stage if I can just use my pistol instead of going to my shotgun? Should the stage be worth more points if I have a mandatory reload? I think you get points only for shooting targets regardless of how you get that done.

I would propose assigning the point value of each target on based on the penalty for a miss on that target. This assumes that 3 Gun rulesets already have additional, standardized time penalties for rifle and slug targets at distance.

Five points for each paper target that would garner you a five seconds penalty for FTN. If its a 200 yard rifle target that is assigned a 15 second penalty for a miss then it adds 15 points to the stage value.

This would not only give you scoring that appropriately weights the value of longer range hits but it would do so in a way that makes sense within the context of the rest of the stage scoring. This type of scoring might drive for a more in depth discussion about proper standard miss penalties across different target types and distances but I think that is a conversation we should be having anyway.

Unless I'm misunderstanding what your saying.

How are the RO's supposed to keep track of how many points each target is worth ? They would need a detailed score sheet with tally marks, very hard, if not impossible, to keep up with in a fast paced stage.

This is for 3gun only. There are no penalties, for hit factor, or whatever it's called in other shooting sports. Targets are either neturalized or not.

Edited July 23, 2014 by toothandnail

[Moltke]

The same way you mark misses and penalties now, built into whatever device you're currently using for scoring. X seconds for this, Y seconds for that.

Just add penalties based on close range steel left standing, long range targets unhit, or misses on paper - according to what you used to define the stage value or "weight".

[alma]

Unless I'm misunderstanding what your saying.

How are the RO's supposed to keep track of how many points each target is worth ? They would need a detailed score sheet with tally marks, very hard, if not impossible, to keep up with in a fast paced stage.

This is for 3gun only. There are no penalties, for hit factor, or whatever it's called in other shooting sports. Targets are either neturalized or not.

It is definitely not complicated and it utilizes scoring and practices already in place at many 3 gun matches.

Basically most targets would be worth 5 stage points since you get 5 seconds for a miss on those targets. A select few long range targets might incur additional time penalties for misses and these targets would have a point value equal to the time added for a miss. For example maybe there is a 300 yard target that the WSB says incurs a 20 second penalty for misses. This single target would be worth 20 points towards a stage point value. Adding additional time for select long range targets is already a common practice so it isn't a stretch to add similar stage point values using the same measure.

Shooters don't directly shoot "points" on each stage. Shooters shoot the stage for time plus applicable penalties. The few targets that have additional penalties have their own separate "miss" sections in PractiScore (already a common practice). The MD adds up the total points for each stage and the shooter with the lowest time after penalties on each stage is assigned full stage points with all the shooters earning a percentage of stage points relational to the top shooter. Stage points are added for total match points to determine the finishing order. This really isn't a stretch.

Edited July 23, 2014 by alma

[StealthyBlagga]

I don't get this obsession certain folks have for making some stages worth more than other stages. Why SHOULD a stage with fewer targets should be worth less than a stage with more targets? Why SHOULD a shorter-time stage be worth less than a longer-time stage? Why not the other way around?

As a MD and stage designer, I believe my job is to put on a match that tests the fullest range of shooting abilities - all guns and multiple guns, close targets and far targets, small targets and big targets, fast/short stages and slow/long stages, no movement and lots of movement. By presenting these many diverse challenges, all equally weighted, I feel I am creating a forum in which the shooters with the broadest skills and greatest adaptability will rise to the top.

If we are going to weight some stages (and thus some types of shooting skills) more highly than others, who is going to be the final arbiter of which skills are more important than which other skills? If we go down this path, before you know it we will all be shooting IDPA

Oh, and THIS:

I still say that good stage design and balance outweighs the scoring system everytime.

Edited July 23, 2014 by StealthyBlagga

[kellyn]

Richard, I didn't think that I was obsessed about it! But there is a HUGE discrepancy in points when stages have wildly different times. In a 10 second stage, a second is 10 points. In a 100 second stage, a second is worth one point. One malfunction may mean a loss of nearly an entire stage worth of points on a quickie burn it down stage.

Now I get the idea that a malfunction on a quickie stage should hurt but the idea that ones match should be over seems a little out of balance. Now I'm not saying that each stage should be the exact same amount of time but they shouldn't be wildly different if we are to use 100 points per stage scoring. But what do I know, I like Horner and Comstock better than the commonly used scoring system (2Ds is good shooting!) now!

But keep up the good work, I love your matches!

[Bryan 45]

But what do I know, I like Horner and Comstock better than the commonly used scoring system (2Ds is good shooting!) now!

You're not the only one that likes Horner better!

[StealthyBlagga]

... there is a HUGE discrepancy in points when stages have wildly different times. In a 10 second stage, a second is 10 points. In a 100 second stage, a second is worth one point. One malfunction may mean a loss of nearly an entire stage worth of points on a quickie burn it down stage.

Now I get the idea that a malfunction on a quickie stage should hurt but the idea that ones match should be over seems a little out of balance. Now I'm not saying that each stage should be the exact same amount of time but they shouldn't be wildly different if we are to use 100 points per stage scoring....

I get what you are saying, but I don't agree with the premise that all stages should equally weigh the balance of speed and accuracy. The only real basis we have to guide such discussion is the martial origins of the sport (a quaint idea, I know); if we wanted to go down that rabbit hole, I think a coherent case could be made for stage points being independent of stage length and target numbers (the dynamics on an Afghan hillside are VERY different from those on an American city street, yet the stakes are typically the same).

Even if there were a consensus that this is a problem that needs to be fixed, I don't see a better solution out there. We are all familiar with Comstock, which allocates points in proportion to the number of targets, but hit factors still vary wildly. The downside with Comstock, and indeed all the other methods that use the scoring zones on paper targets, is that stage reset is significantly slowed, meaning we stage designers have to scale-down our stages to meet competitor throughput goals.

If the stage designer does their job well, all of the aspects folks are concerned with - physical speed and endurance, shooting speed and shooting accuracy with different guns and at different distances - can be tested in a diverse way that allows the most well-rounded shooter to prevail across the totality of the match. Again, it all comes down to keeping stage designs fresh, and keeping the shooters on the back foot... seeing that "WTF" look in a competitor's eyes when they walk up to one of my stages really warms my heart

Edited July 23, 2014 by StealthyBlagga

[Rookie]

The good news is... most matches define the scoring system that is to be used before registration opens. I care much less how the match is going to be scored, than how challenging the stages are expected to be. I have shot one match wherein the scoring system that was advertised was changed on the last day of the match (changed from point system to total time). I will never return to that match... or shoot one put on by that MD (that's a choice that I can control).

As a "competitor" nearing the end of my 7th decade, I am not expecting to win any large matches (but I do enjoy putting a scare into my fellow competitors every once in a while). If there is much movement on a "hoser" stage, I am at a decided disadvantage relative to the younger (fit?) crowd. If we are interested in rating the difficulty factor for a stage... here's another opportunity. At the end of the day... (my perspective) any scoring system that is fairly applied to every shooter in a match is acceptable.

As a Range Master... I'm all for systems that are reasonably "bullet proof" and "idiot resistant" relative to accurate and quick scoring by my RO staff. Time plus is about as simple (and quick) as it gets for scoring on the stage, and easy to enter for the stats department. For the record, I have never had a competitor tell me that they thought our scoring system (100 points for each stage) was unfair or biased.

Bottom line: Run with it! Test your system at a match, and solicit comments from your customers (Shooters, ROs and Stats). Let us know how it worked out.

Edited July 23, 2014 by Rookie

[toothandnail]

Here's a big match 100 pt stages , I think between 200 -250 shooters (very low rnd count for a big match IMO, but that's me)

10 stages

round count

Rifle 71

Pistol 114 correction 123

SG 81

Pistol is used on all 10 stages

Rifle - 7

SG - 7

Tell me how that is not a pistol biased match ?

That same match with weighted stages, could be much closer to judging all skill levels instead of leaning toward one.

Which is what we are trying for, and will continue, with our monthly matches.

For RO's scoring it is the same as most every other outlaw 3gun. Neutralized, FTE, FTN, Procedural

For the MD it takes maybe an extra 10 minutes total(5 stages, a 10 stage match, 20 min.) when setting up the match (to add up the stage points)

Everything else is figured by Practiscore, or your spread sheet. program. I have yet to see / be shown a down side. ? ? ?

There most likely will be some target points that need to be added or adjusted,

Edited July 23, 2014 by toothandnail

[MarkCO]

Round counts do not tell the story of a match, nor it's bias...not even close.

In the Noveske match I have 85 rifle, 107 pistol, 78 shotgun and 68 choice targets. A pistol wizard will likely shoot about 45 of those choice targets with pistol. But based on my skillset, I will likely shoot about 115 rifle, 115 pistol and 108 shotgun. Under your proposed scoring system, that is a total nightmare. ROs will have to be changing point values based on what target I shoot with which gun. Completely unworkable. Choice IS a test of skills and stage planning. So yes, that is a HUGE downside. Making everyone shoot all the stages the same way is not only boring, it subtracts options from stage designers and competitors alike.

[alma]

I wonder how many shots will be fired to get those 71 rifle targets.

My bet is a lot more than 71.

Edited July 23, 2014 by alma

[gose]

Round counts do not tell the story of a match, nor it's bias...not even close.

In the Noveske match I have 85 rifle, 107 pistol, 78 shotgun and 68 choice targets. A pistol wizard will likely shoot about 45 of those choice targets with pistol. But based on my skillset, I will likely shoot about 115 rifle, 115 pistol and 108 shotgun. Under your proposed scoring system, that is a total nightmare. ROs will have to be changing point values based on what target I shoot with which gun. Completely unworkable. Choice IS a test of skills and stage planning. So yes, that is a HUGE downside. Making everyone shoot all the stages the same way is not only boring, it subtracts options from stage designers and competitors alike.

This would be the absolute biggest negative of the system. I love when stage designers give you flexibility in what guns to use. Taking that away, or making it even harder would make this a definite non-starter for me.

For example, there was a stage at SMM3G a few years ago where you got to choose to shoot the stage with a rifle or pistol. With this point system, that would be almost impossible.

A full size paper with pistol is 3points no matter the distance, but with rifle you get 4 points if its beyond 20 yards?

7 points for a 10" steel flasher at 100 yards, 9 points for a skinny popper at 190 yards that you have to shoot with your rifle leaned 9 degrees?

This point system seems somewhat arbitrary, will only make it harder to build stages with options and offers very few, if any, benefits and some serious drawbacks over existing scoring methods.

kudos for trying, but no thanks

Also, how do you count targets partly covered with no shoots or hard cover?

[CJW]

While good stage design is the primary component of a balanced match, harsh reality (like availability of shooting locations on the range) may end up driving one towards a few long-range stages that are going to take the top shooters about 70 seconds and many shooters over 120 sec with more than a few par outs, while also having several hoser stages in bays that Horner and Jordan are going to run in about 20--25 seconds.

If everything is worth 100 points, I am okay with that. On the other hand, I personally think (and while I have not worked any majors, I have designed stages and run matches for local stuff) that a bit more can be eked out of the scoring system. That's why I like the idea of the MD simply assigning points on...call it hunch, experience, whatever. Six of my stages are 100 points, but this one is only 50, that one is 75, and the really long one is 150. Whatever.

They've scored the Rockcastle Shotgun match this way and I though it worked well. The short stages (10 rounds) don't get lost in the noise like they would in Time-Plus, but neither is winning that stage going to mean quite as much in the match results as winning the 40 round jungle run. I don't need a spreadsheet and a shot tally to see that. I don't need to know that this a 268 point stage and that is a 156 point stage—I, as a shooter, just need to know that "this stage is worth twice as much as that stage", where we all agree that an "average" stage for the match is still worth 100 points.

So, give me that—a few different point values centered around a "typical" value of 100 points—and make me really happy, or give me every stage normalized to 100 points. I will take either of those over Time-Plus!

[toothandnail]

Round counts do not tell the story of a match, nor it's bias...not even close.

In the Noveske match I have 85 rifle, 107 pistol, 78 shotgun and 68 choice targets. A pistol wizard will likely shoot about 45 of those choice targets with pistol. But based on my skillset, I will likely shoot about 115 rifle, 115 pistol and 108 shotgun. Under your proposed scoring system, that is a total nightmare Optional targets are accounted for. ROs will have to be changing point values based on what target I shoot with which gun. NO, RO's score the same as very other match, Completely unworkable.So an extra 10 min as a MD is unworkable? EVERYTHING else is the same. Choice IS a test of skills and stage planning. Shooter STILL has choice So yes, that is a HUGE downside. Making everyone shoot all the stages the same way is not only boring, it subtracts options from stage designers and competitors alike. Give the MD many more options for stage design, without having a biased match

ETA: My apologies. Got a little flustered.

I wonder how many shots will be fired to get those 71 rifle targets.

My bet is a lot more than 71.

So if I have a stage with 2 rifle targets off hand at 500 yds or a 500 sec penalty, that makes up for no other rifle in the match?

There are quite a few others( PM's and emails) that are seeing the possible benefit, "it just needs more testing" , to which I agree.

Edited July 23, 2014 by toothandnail

[LoganbillJ]

Round counts do not tell the story of a match, nor it's bias...not even close.

In the Noveske match I have 85 rifle, 107 pistol, 78 shotgun and 68 choice targets. A pistol wizard will likely shoot about 45 of those choice targets with pistol. But based on my skillset, I will likely shoot about 115 rifle, 115 pistol and 108 shotgun. Under your proposed scoring system, that is a total nightmare. ROs will have to be changing point values based on what target I shoot with which gun. Completely unworkable. Choice IS a test of skills and stage planning. So yes, that is a HUGE downside. Making everyone shoot all the stages the same way is not only boring, it subtracts options from stage designers and competitors alike.

This would be the absolute biggest negative of the system. I love when stage designers give you flexibility in what guns to use. Taking that away, or making it even harder would make this a definite non-starter for me.

For example, there was a stage at SMM3G a few years ago where you got to choose to shoot the stage with a rifle or pistol. With this point system, that would be almost impossible.

A full size paper with pistol is 3points no matter the distance, but with rifle you get 4 points if its beyond 20 yards?

7 points for a 10" steel flasher at 100 yards, 9 points for a skinny popper at 190 yards that you have to shoot with your rifle leaned 9 degrees?

This point system seems somewhat arbitrary, will only make it harder to build stages with options and offers very few, if any, benefits and some serious drawbacks over existing scoring methods.

kudos for trying, but no thanks

Also, how do you count targets partly covered with no shoots or hard cover?

If you look at the break down I take into account the option targets. In my brief outline I neglected to add the yardages to the pistol side. This is exactly why I posted here. For everyone to look it over, and find flaws. I understand it and it works. You may not understand it because I will admit it is tough to grasp unless you can see it in person and see how the breakdown works.

Specific targets may need to be tweaked. Its not difficult to say, this full size paper is covered by hard cover other than the head so make that target worth the same as a steel target. Size and difficulty determine the point value. Its simple.

In general, pistol paper and rifle paper have the same value, thus making up for those option stages. Same goes for shotgun/pistol steel. The scoring does not change depending on which gun a shooter chooses. Having the options are taken into account when setting the stage points. Both matches we have held at our range have had option stages. Each option stage was shot in every combination of ways possible. There was no negative effect of our scoring system based on that.

Also the transition points are only added for the minimum amount of guns used. So lets say you have a stage where you have rifle/pistol paper and shotgun steel. You have the option to use all 3 guns or just 2. So you only add 10 points for the single forced transition. The shooter must weight what is best for them. The shooter is not aware of what the target values are, all he knows is stage 2 is a 170 point stage. This is no different than the 100 point system everyone uses other than the fact that the MD has to do a bit more figuring before the match.

ETA: It works great for us. We will continue to use it at our matches. I am planning on getting the data from the Gen III match and running the same system on it to see how it stacks up on a major match. That will be the true deciding factor.

Edited July 23, 2014 by LoganbillJ