New 3-Gun Scoring System

[Jesse Tischauser]

According to the people that put matches on Jesse, there is a best way to score things. Its the way they choose to do it, which is why there are 4-5 or 5-6 different scoring methods. the problem with being a problem solver is that you are solving what you construe to be a problem, when others do not. If you truly want to see if your ideas have merit or work, then you need to apply them, either by holding or running a match and using your ideas. much the same way my idea of using softballs for close range knockdown rifle targets, in "my" testing they worked, but on the larger scale they didn't.

your analogy to close range targets is based on "easy" shots but many matches make close shots tough by using no shoots, or awkward positioning, the issue is that every time you do that you need HELP, and lots of it to pick up and set up stages and targets. Far too many people don't want to HELP set up or tear down, far too many people want "EASY", far too many people want to take care of only themselves and thier own concerns, like VIDEOing instead of resetting!!! Far too many people want to armchair quarterback, or keyboard quarterback things without knowing,helping, or showing honest appreciation for the effort it takes.

Everybody seems to want to do what "they" want to do, or have the type of targets "they" want to have, to truly make a match fair across the board, a mix of targets and distances is necessary.

As I said in the beginning, the only way to truly know if your ideas have merit, is to apply them, so step up and run a match. When HPSC folded, you were talking about taking over, at first, then it seemed that you wanted someone else to take over instead?? Step up, run something firsthand, I'm not refering to helping out behind the scenes like with 3rd gen 3 gun, but take the reins be a MD/RM, of a major match. Then you can apply all your ideas,...........

Trapr

I'm not sure what you are getting at with the close/hard shots thing? Should we abandon them because people are busy video taping their buddy shooting? Am I understanding that right?

Edited August 2, 2014 by Jesse Tischauser

[BigTPractical]

I like the fact of stage points based on target difficulty as well as I do like the points per gun used. I recently did a club match with 3 stage of mainly 2 guns each so shotgun/rifle- shotgun/pistol-rifle pistol. Over all I think it should be 5 points a target for any target under 100 yards, award a extra 5 points for targets beyond 100 yards for a hit on a or b. Shotgun slugs would be worth more do to difficulty and pistol targets would also have a + point bonus for any target over a set range. It would take some working out but mainly the more targets a stage has = high total points granted I just starting with the game so what do I know lol. But some great ideas in this thread keep it up.

[bigbrowndog]

Jesse,..............try rereading it with a more open mind????

I was trying to get you to understand that there is a reason why there are different scoring methods

I was trying to get you to understand that there is a reason why some matches do things easy, many matches are put on by people that are simply burned out but feel a sense of obligation to the sport.

I was trying to get you to understand that coming up with what you (not you personally, you as in people), think are good ideas, may not wind up being good ideas. (I even gave an example of one of mine)

I was trying to get you to understand that I know you are involved with a match giving organization, but its a completely different veiwpoint from being involved firsthand. I'll give you analogy. Ham and eggs, the chicken is involved,....but the pig is commited!!!!

and yes, I was trying to get you to understand that far more can be accomplished without a video camera in your hand FOR THE GOOD OF THE SPORT, than with one.

Now, if you're trying to hurt my feelings by calling HPSC a "useless" name of a match, you're going to have to try harder.

trapr

Edited August 1, 2014 by bigbrowndog

[kurtm]

Ok Jesse the blown motor may or may not apply, but how about a flat tire that forces you into the pits for a change. You get to fix it and complete the race, but it is going to cost you. Does that make my statement more agreeable?

How about we make all paper targets worth 10 points for an A, 8 points for a C and 4 points for a D, For minor we could do 10, 6, 2. Best two hits scored All steel will have to fall to score and be worth 10 points. A no shoot would be -20 points. How does that sound?

[Jesse Tischauser]

Ok Jesse the blown motor may or may not apply, but how about a flat tire that forces you into the pits for a change. You get to fix it and complete the race, but it is going to cost you. Does that make my statement more agreeable?

How about we make all paper targets worth 10 points for an A, 8 points for a C and 4 points for a D, For minor we could do 10, 6, 2. Best two hits scored All steel will have to fall to score and be worth 10 points. A no shoot would be -20 points. How does that sound?

Flat tire makes more sense but it's still only one big race not 10 small ones.

I think we can all agree that the USPSA/IPSC target points and hit factors don't work for 3-gun. Isn't that why USPSA abandoned it? What is your preferred method of target and match scoring? You've seen a lot more matches than most of us and have run more and you're smarter than the average bear too. Surely the random 100 point per stage thing doesn't sit well with you does it?

[GentlemanJim]

Some folks come to the party, and in two minutes think they know more than the folks that had been there for decades.

Sad and arrogant.

[kurtm]

Well the reason USPSA went away from it was because they had a hard time recognizing Major and Minor power factor in the same stage, Ie, shotgun scores major, as does pistol but rifle is minor...etc. They had the McCoy method which used penalty points to make up the difference between power factors. I thought worked very well, but a lot of folks complained.

I don't really like the two hits anywhere concept and really do like a point system like the one I posted above. I think that power factor should be recognized, and with the system above there would be no need for heavy metal or heavy tactical. Hit factor is nothing more than points divided by time, and nothing to be feared, and then each person gets a percentage of the winner per stage. notice in this system you aren't penalized for misses you just don't get the points.

If you are going to do two anywhere I feel that the 100 points per stage is just fine. Easy to use easy to score, easy to program. I do feel every test/stage should have equal weight and it is up to the M.D. to balance the match. But that is just me.

[bigbrowndog]

edited due to ease of irritation

Trapr

Edited August 2, 2014 by bigbrowndog

[TRUBL]

Before I get into this....I LIKE TIME PLUS!!!!!

So lets look at a variation of hit factor (USPSA scoring) AND time plus (3 gun) with the following changes to make it easier:

1) no major/minor

2) on paper, it's either neutralized or not

3) paper targets are worth 10 points

4) 'other' targets are worth 5 points up to 10 points.....depending on difficulty. IE....200yd steel would be 10 points

5) penalties are not 'down points'...rather 'up time' IE: 5 seconds for not neutralized, 10 seconds for not hit, 15 for not engaged

6) you get the points you score (as it is now)

Your points on the stage would scored paper points plus scored 'other target points'

Sooooo...a simple stage:

5 pistol targets (50 points possible)

5 clay birds (25 points possible)

5 steel (all over 200yds 50 points possible)

Winner of the stage gets 125 points.

Results:

Kurt Miller runs a fast time of 43 seconds.....neutralized 4 paper targets, only one hit on the last paper (45 points),

nails all the clays (25 points, 5 second penalty) and Mr Eagle Eye dings all the steel (50 points)

TOTAL POINTS 120 Sooo....he just acheived

a rate of 2.50 points/second (120/(43+5seconds penalty))

My good friend Trapr shoots a little faster at 34 seconds, but his pistol skills are lacking today.....neutralized 3 targets,

only one hit on another and never hit, but engaged the last one (35 points, 5+10seconds penalty), breaks all the clays (25 points) and nails all the steel (50 points)

TOTAL POINTS 110 and Trapr ends up with

a rate of 2.24 points/second (110/(34+5+10 seconds penalty))

I get up there....run a conservative time of 63 seconds and neutralize ALL the targets

TOTAL POINTS 125 for

a rate of 1.98 points/second (125/63 seconds)

The GAMER comes in, Mr. GAMER is fast!!....does a blazing 23 seconds, hits all the paper (50 points), dusts the birds (25 points) keeps missing on the steel....

so he engages them all fast and stops, the blind squirrel found an acorn and actually hits 2 steel (20 points, 30 seconds penalties).

TOTAL POINTS 95 and he ends up

a rate of 1.79 points/second (95/(23+30 seconds penalty))

So Kurt wins and gets 125 points for the stage

Trapr ends up with 112 points (2.24/2.50 * 125)

I get 99 points (1.98/2.50 * 125)

The GAMER gets 89.5 points (1.79/2.50 * 125)

Yeah.....allot like the hit factor scoring, but can be done on a spread sheet pretty easy.

Penalties for time plus are in place, adding points per target would be new.....but a little different on paper than the way USPSA does it (yeah, 2 to neutralize on paper Kurt, sorry)

Bottom line, like I said before......no perfect system, and I'm all for time plus, as long as ONE stage doesn't have so much weight that it could be the match.

But if you really want to get a way from it, take a look the perceived best of all the scoring systems out there.......still won't perfect, nor is the method I described.

Hit factor really isn't that hard to score from a stats stand point......it can be an issue in a target heavy environment from a recording stand point (at the stage).....so eliminating the A,B,C,D marks could be a way to speed things up.

FYI.....I reserve the right to delete this at any time LOL and I sure hope my math is correct....or I'm double screwed!!!

Tim

Edited August 2, 2014 by TRUBL

[Jesse Tischauser]

Well the reason USPSA went away from it was because they had a hard time recognizing Major and Minor power factor in the same stage, Ie, shotgun scores major, as does pistol but rifle is minor...etc. They had the McCoy method which used penalty points to make up the difference between power factors. I thought worked very well, but a lot of folks complained.

I don't really like the two hits anywhere concept and really do like a point system like the one I posted above. I think that power factor should be recognized, and with the system above there would be no need for heavy metal or heavy tactical. Hit factor is nothing more than points divided by time, and nothing to be feared, and then each person gets a percentage of the winner per stage. notice in this system you aren't penalized for misses you just don't get the points.

If you are going to do two anywhere I feel that the 100 points per stage is just fine. Easy to use easy to score, easy to program. I do feel every test/stage should have equal weight and it is up to the M.D. to balance the match. But that is just me.

I think a big reason we were discussing this initially was your second to the last sentence. The balanced match thing. After shooting a few of the classifier type stages that are much shorter I started to question the value in a 10-20 second stages mixed in with 40-60 second stages in a cumulative time system like 3GN is using in their regional matches. Those quick stages really only set you up for an opportunity to lose time because not much can be gained even with a perfect run. But if you assign them a point value you eliminate the chance for a huge gain of time due to a failure. Edited August 2, 2014 by Jesse Tischauser

[Bryan 45]

Jesse, you're right. That's why sub-20 second stages have no place in a major match. In my opinion.

[GentlemanJim]

5

Edited August 2, 2014 by GentlemanJim

[Jesse Tischauser]

I am actually curious why outlaw matches went away from USPSA/IPSC scoring in the first place. I wasn't around to be a part of that.

Edited August 2, 2014 by Jesse Tischauser

[Jesse Tischauser]

Jesse, you're right. That's why sub-20 second stages have no place in a major match. In my opinion.

I have only shot one regional but I was not a fan of the two small stages. They felt like stages we shoot at our club match because they actually are. Much like I never liked shooting a classifier at an area USPSA match. They have reasons for wanting to get more shooters they the Classifiers so I understand why the Classifiers are there.

Edited August 2, 2014 by Jesse Tischauser

[Bryan 45]

Jesse, if we set up sub 20 second stages even for our locals, I feel like I'm ripping off my shooters that are only paying $25 for the local match. If it's a major match, the stages need to be special. Now, if all stages are 60-100 seconds for the winner, there is no need for a system more complicated than we have now.

This isn't an issue w scoring, this is an issue with what we're willing to accept at major matches. If someone is charging major match fees, we deserve stages that are worth the cost.

[Jesse Tischauser]

Jesse, if we set up sub 20 second stages even for our locals, I feel like I'm ripping off my shooters that are only paying $25 for the local match. If it's a major match, the stages need to be special. Now, if all stages are 60-100 seconds for the winner, there is no need for a system more complicated than we have now.

This isn't an issue w scoring, this is an issue with what we're willing to accept at major matches. If someone is charging major match fees, we deserve stages that are worth the cost.

I hate you Bryan! Your club at the Rock is natural terrain. All we have are bays. We only get small stages most months.

The 3GN region matches are cheaper and there are less stages then say blue ridge and less days too but they have prizes and lots of them. The match I shot in Vegas was all in bays much like the Arkansas sectional match and it felt a lot like a regional or state size match as compared to say FNH or ProAm.

So the scoring thing still exists despite what we call a major or a regional or an outlaw match as there are matches with 20 second stages and then 60+ second long range stages and such. I agree with you that if the stages are all huge and all have 2-3 guns then 100 pts per stage works well. Big stages do solve most problems don't they.

[bigbrowndog]

nevermind its really not worth it.

Jesse you're absolutely right!!!

Trapr

Edited August 2, 2014 by bigbrowndog

[Jesse Tischauser]

nevermind its really not worth it.

Jesse you're absolutely right!!!

Trapr

Right about what? I'm still confused about your original post about video taping and resetting targets.

[Bryan 45]

We only run about every other match as natural terrain. Bay stages can be challenging too w hard cover, no shoots, 1/2 size IPSC targets, support side shooting w long guns, unconventional positions, etc.

You're right, there are a lot of variation in stages, but that's the problem, not the scoring. If we as shooters refuse to accept these 3 gun light stages at majors, and let the MDs know it, things will change.

Local matches? I don't even care if the timer is going, it's all just practice any way.

[Moltke]

No. No it won't change because match directors are under the impression that since their matches fill up that they must be doing it perfect. Even if you say well I'm not going then someone else will go in your place.

[Bryan 45]

Did you vote in the last two presidential elections? I did, my vote didn't count, but I'm still going to vote in the next one. And in the mean time, I'm also going to write elected representatives of my displeasure with the direction our elected officials are dragging us.

Is our sport much different?

[Jesse Tischauser]

Local matches? I don't even care if the timer is going, it's all just practice any way.

I agree heck I've only shot 1 or 2 club matches this year unfortunately. But the majority of shooters only shoot locals or maybe one regional or state match that's close to home it if they are lucky they travel to a big major like ProAm. Only a lucky few get to shoot as many as you and I.

[kurtm]

Jesse, Outlaw matches didn't "go away" from USPSA scoring, they were around LONG before USPSA dabbled in 3-gun and S.O.F. had their own scoring system, hint it looks a lot like what I posted a while back, and there was International Multi-gun Association which is what Dan Furbe took over and used. USPSA was never in 3-gun until very late, so these scoring systems were what was used.

It also looks like you aren't wanting to "fix" most major matches which usually have a nice balance, but you are wanting to fix the 3GN regional matches. Maybe you know someone?

Edited August 2, 2014 by kurtm

[Jesse Tischauser]

Jesse, Outlaw matches didn't "go away" from USPSA scoring, they were around LONG before USPSA dabbled in 3-gun and S.O.F. had their own scoring system, hint it looks a lot like what I posted a while back, and there was International Multi-gun Association which is what Dan Furbe took over and used. USPSA was never in 3-gun until very late, so these scoring systems were what was used.

It also looks like you aren't wanting to "fix" most major matches which usually have a nice balance, but you are wanting to fix the 3GN regional matches. Maybe you know someone?

My bad Kurt I was referring to the IPSC pistol scoring that was used before SOF. I am also assuming that the original IPSC used the same or a similar scoring system to waft we shoot in USPSA pistol now. Did SOF use the original IPSC scoring or did the SOF guys come up with 100 pts per stage on their own? Or was it originally different altogether in SOF?

3GN is a different animal. The cumulative scoring isn't perfect from what I've seen. I also don't see the 100 pts per stage thing working in all instances either. But the Nordic shotgun scoring which is very similar to Ipsc shotgun worked great from what I saw.

Edited August 2, 2014 by Jesse Tischauser

[toothandnail]

Well the reason USPSA went away from it was because they had a hard time recognizing Major and Minor power factor in the same stage, Ie, shotgun scores major, as does pistol but rifle is minor...etc. They had the McCoy method which used penalty points to make up the difference between power factors. I thought worked very well, but a lot of folks complained.

I don't really like the two hits anywhere concept and really do like a point system like the one I posted above. I think that power factor should be recognized, and with the system above there would be no need for heavy metal or heavy tactical. Hit factor is nothing more than points divided by time, and nothing to be feared, and then each person gets a percentage of the winner per stage. notice in this system you aren't penalized for misses you just don't get the points.

If you are going to do two anywhere I feel that the 100 points per stage is just fine. Easy to use easy to score, easy to program. I do feel every test/stage should have equal weight and it is up to the M.D. to balance the match. But that is just me.

I think a big reason we were discussing this initially was your second to the last sentence. The balanced match thing. After shooting a few of the classifier type stages that are much shorter I started to question the value in a 10-20 second stages mixed in with 40-60 second stages in a cumulative time system like 3GN is using in their regional matches. Those quick stages really only set you up for an opportunity to lose time because not much can be gained even with a perfect run. But if you assign them a point value you eliminate the chance for a huge gain of time due to a failure.

Exactally what we've seen and why we wanted something to reduce that problem

Jesse, you're right. That's why sub-20 second stages have no place in a major match. In my opinion.

I agree 100%, but we've all seen them(been screwed by them).

Ironic thing, even if 80%+ of the 3gun MD's adopted a more balanced scoring system . . . . .

the MD's who design unbalanced matches would still do the same unbalanced match, with 100 pt stages