Jesse Tischauser Posted October 12, 2015 Author Share Posted October 12, 2015 I come from a motor-sports racing back ground, didn't matter if you lead every lap but something failed the last 50' and you got passed. Your just the first loser. In my mind this is racing, whoever comes in first wins, if your junk breaks at the beginning, or the last second - better luck next time. I don't have that background so we will have to respectfully disagree.Still going to have to buy one of your open shotguns! No problem, I'll shoot them ALL ! And stage points vs time, has helped my placement more than once. Call anytime on the Shotgun. Any match we're at anyone is welcome to shoot ours, don't be hesitant to ask. Don't you guys use stage points at the Missouri state match? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fullauto_Shooter Posted October 12, 2015 Share Posted October 12, 2015 Stlhead, I've been a member of this forum since 2004 and visit almost daily, so your assertation that I "must not read this forum much" simply isn't true. I shoot matches with both types of scoring (cumulative time and points) and when I sign up for a match I willingly accept whichever system is in play. I personally prefer points over time, but scoring methods have nothing to do with why I said your statement "Stage points is the socialist method of scoring" is the dumbest I've ever seen on this forum. Your statement is dumb because you attempt to link a very popular and widely used scoring method with a failed political ideology that the vast majority of hard-working, wage-earning, flag-waving, gun-loving, patriotic Americans find utterly distasteful. By doing so, you also imply that Match Directors who use this method and Shooters who compete in these matches are also Socialists. Down here in Texas, calling someone a Socialist (and meaning it) would be considered fighting words. I'm sure you're a great guy (you obviously like guns and competitive shooting), but you should really find a less offensive way of debating the relative merits of scoring systems rather than slapping a label as offensive as "Socialist" on a large portion of the shooting community. Just my two cents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fullauto_Shooter Posted October 12, 2015 Share Posted October 12, 2015 (edited) This will be my last post on this subject. Edited October 12, 2015 by Fullauto_Shooter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vlad Posted October 12, 2015 Share Posted October 12, 2015 (edited) I come from a motor-sports racing back ground, didn't matter if you lead every lap but something failed the last 50' and you got passed. Your just the first loser. In my mind this is racing, whoever comes in first wins, if your junk breaks at the beginning, or the last second - better luck next time. You analogy only works if the match consists of ONE stage. A multi-stage match is more like a race series, with points awarded according to finish in each race. This, ever so loving much. I there ANY racing series, in any bloody sport, where cumulative time applies over multiple events? Because we sure shoot multiple individually scored heats in our type of racing? Self edit: I guess there those things where they delay your start on the next stage by whatever, so I suppose there are some. It is still a silly way of doing things, in my opinion. Edited October 12, 2015 by Vlad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garmil Posted October 12, 2015 Share Posted October 12, 2015 He used socialist and capitalism as analogies to explain his views on the subject. I'm really confused how someone can think that means he thinks any competitors or match directors are socialists in a derogatory way. I don't think socialism is a good way to describe cumulative time but either way its nothing to be upset about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoganbillJ Posted October 12, 2015 Share Posted October 12, 2015 I come from a motor-sports racing back ground, didn't matter if you lead every lap but something failed the last 50' and you got passed. Your just the first loser. In my mind this is racing, whoever comes in first wins, if your junk breaks at the beginning, or the last second - better luck next time. I don't have that background so we will have to respectfully disagree.Still going to have to buy one of your open shotguns! No problem, I'll shoot them ALL ! And stage points vs time, has helped my placement more than once. Call anytime on the Shotgun. Any match we're at anyone is welcome to shoot ours, don't be hesitant to ask. Don't you guys use stage points at the Missouri state match? Yes we do. We did this based on the preferences of the shooters. Pretty simple if you ask me, matches are about customer service. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesse Tischauser Posted October 12, 2015 Author Share Posted October 12, 2015 I actually prefer total time based scoring because it rewards consistency and reliable equipment. I think every scoring system rewards consistency and reliable equipment. You can't win with either scoring system without it. What concerns me is seeing a new shooter struggle and be punished for not having his new AR and shotgun setup right because he watched my shitty YouTube videos on how to modify his guns for 3-gun rather then sending them off to a good gunsmith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesse Tischauser Posted October 12, 2015 Author Share Posted October 12, 2015 (edited) Clamoring for a win because you want the score calculated differently is no different than wanting the penalty for a missed target or a failure to engage penalty reduced. I will assume the Clamoring for a win comment was a dig at me. Thanks for Keeping it classy. I could have easily used the results for the practical division to show that stage points versus cumulative time often does matter to the overall finish. As a socialist 3-gunner I feel one thing worth mentioning Is all big matches are shot over 2-3 days. More often then or one day gets better or worse weather then the other day or two. Using socialist scoring you limit the negative effects of a shitty day of weather somewhat. Edited October 12, 2015 by Jesse Tischauser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan 45 Posted October 12, 2015 Share Posted October 12, 2015 Another consequence of total time scoring is it's inability to accommodate for a match that has to be called short due to weather. And yes, we've all seen it happen, and it's not solely due to poor planning. Josh- thanks for listening to the customer. That's why I'm signed up to come back to Missouri in March. You guys are focused on the people who play the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lead-Head Posted October 12, 2015 Share Posted October 12, 2015 (edited) I Don't usually let these enos posts get to me but now I am really pissed. Because of all the online chatter, the Bernie Sanders rally, scheduled concurrently at Rockcaslte during Blue Ridge this week, has been cancelled. Something about, too many socialist events in one 7-day period. (BRM is points) Way to go guys...I hope you are proud of yourselves. Edited October 12, 2015 by Lead-Head Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkCO Posted October 12, 2015 Share Posted October 12, 2015 "Stage points is the socialist method of scoring." It's official - this the dumbest statement I've ever read on this forum. Choke yourself. . . He has plenty more of equal quality.I do not like total time for 3Gun for several reasons and I do not shoot those matches that use it. Steel Challenge it seems to work okay, but all the stages are about the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Therealkoop Posted October 12, 2015 Share Posted October 12, 2015 This is a race is never an argument that Ive agreed with when it comes to raw time matches. The game is more technical than getting from point A to point B the fastest. Saying this is a race is like racing in a slalom and ignoring all the poles, and hitting the bottom the fastest to proclaim victory. Ive also never 100% agreed with the "You cant come back from bombing a stage" argument for points. That just makes it seem like you want a pass for poor performance. My issue with points vs raw time comes from how the stages are weighted, and how competitors approach those stages based upon that weight. When there are multiple stages that range from 40-100 seconds, running raw time makes the match LARGELY decided upon how a competitor shot the "passing lane" stages, and negates the performance of the shorter stages. A competitor can really hook up a passing lane stage, and then play the short stages very conservatively knowing that the competition cannot possibly pass them. You can shoot 80% on a 100s stage, and then be required to 80% your competition on 3 40s stages just to break even. Running raw time puts a large emphasis on the performance of long range rifle stages, and heavy shotgun count stages. Im of the opinion that all skills in 3 gun are equally important, and should be treated as such. Now, I agree that points can create the same effect in the opposite direction if the stages are hyper short. It doesnt matter however if you use raw time or points, having a match with huge extremes in stage times (10 vs 100 for example) will always cause problems. Points is a much better representation of your match as a whole than raw time. Raw time is just your time at the end of the day, which ignores the complexity of the sport and the stages. Points represent your performance directly based upon the performance of your peers, and thats my main reason for supporting it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan 45 Posted October 12, 2015 Share Posted October 12, 2015 This is a race is never an argument that Ive agreed with when it comes to raw time matches. The game is more technical than getting from point A to point B the fastest. Saying this is a race is like racing in a slalom and ignoring all the poles, and hitting the bottom the fastest to proclaim victory. It SHOULD be more technical than just getting from A to B the fastest. But that's not always the case. Some shooters like the only challenge within a stage or match to be quickest time. I am not one of them though. Glad we have variety within our sport so that everyone has something they enjoy. Now, who is going to put on a 24 hour 4 stage match to include night time land nav with map and compass? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stlhead Posted October 12, 2015 Share Posted October 12, 2015 It seems that my use of a political analogy has so inflamed the Enoverse that the intent of my post is lost. Let me be clear on this, I am not saying that anyone who supports or chooses to participate or organize a match with one style of scoring over another is in any way unpatriotic, anti-American, Marxist, or anything else. I am not even saying that one system of scoring is inherently better than the other, just that they are different and that the difference will affect the outcome of our matches. I do not choose matches based on if they are total time or stage points. I do still think that my analogy stands, unfortunately it seems to have been so inflammatory to some that it has now overshadowed the point of the discussion. It seems that people think I am insulting them personally if I am supporting a scoring method they don't like, when I am not supporting any over the other let alone insulting anyone for choosing when I don't see a value in choosing myself. Jessie, the clamoring for a win comment was not for you, or anyone specific, it was for anyone in general who embraces one of the two systems over the other because they think it will improve their place in the majority of matches they participate in. Much like advocating the reduction in the number of slug targets by a shooter who feels he or she is not good with slugs. Will that change make the match for fun for many shooters? Sure would. Would it take away an advantage from the shooter who is a slug master? It would do that as well. Is the game better with less slugs? Or just different? This whole thing boils down to a philosophical debate, again tastes great or less filling. In my limited experience you will get screwed by one system just as often as you will benefit from it in the long run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurtm Posted October 12, 2015 Share Posted October 12, 2015 I can say that anytime you post something like this. "This post is in no way meant to take anything away from X" and then go on to give examplesof how another way takes away from X's achievement it is going to demean that accomplishment. I can see why Jesse thought Steelhead's comment was about him, especially after his premiere post on this subject. Perhaps it would have been better just to start with "I hate total time scoring" and not bring in any names right away. It certainly looks better that way Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClutchUSMC Posted October 12, 2015 Share Posted October 12, 2015 There are so many flavors of 3gun these days and so many matches you can go shoot it doesn't even really matter. Just pick what you like and don't worry about the rest. I've only been playing this game 7-8 years now and I would have never guessed how many "major" matches we'd have the opportunity to shoot. I can remember the last time I shot a total time match... it's been a few years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sarpau Posted October 12, 2015 Share Posted October 12, 2015 Up here in Socialist Canada , we mostly shoot IPSC, Hit factor based scoring works well in my opinion. Assigning a point value per target, divide you total points earned by your total time and get your points per second. Was your hit factor greater than everyone else's? Great, you get 100% of the available points. If not, you get your percentage relative to #1. You keep what you earn and every stage is its own thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Anderson Posted October 12, 2015 Share Posted October 12, 2015 As much as I hate to do it, I have to disagree with Comrade Kelley. If you don't finish the race, you didn't win. I've seen lots of guys in the lead, dominating the match, until the last stage and blow it. The scoring system doesn't really matter if you DQ on the last stage, or just tank it. I watched an unnamed Junior Shooter from St. George, UT run around on his last stage trying to find shotgun shells off the ground to avoid 5 seconds in penalties. He spent about 15 and lost the match by about half that. The person with the lowest time/best score at the end of the match is the winner. Not the guy who's leading going into the final stage. Of course that's the only thing that saves me. I rarely win stages, but i'm usually consistently not sucky. By the end of the match, I just hope I suck less than everyone else. As far as the difference between total time and stage points, I prefer stage points, but don't really care that much. What I usually see is total time has the most effect on Newbs. Guys that can take a single stage and spend more time on it than the winners total match time. It just sucks to come in as a new guy and get beat down that hard. At least with stage points you can say, "Hey, you got 30 points on that stage, good job!" For the guys at the top it rarely has significant effects on the overall outcome of a match. I've seen it have some changes but it's more the exception than the rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurtm Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 I really like hit factor! GO SOCIALISM! This two anywhere blowz, but I love the sport so I carry on. I do vote with the old check book and time aloted and personally don't do the total time thing, but to sign up for a total time match and then bitch about the outcome seems a bit tawdry, after all you already knew what you were signed up for. Now if you are trying to change how an entire match series is scored, a la 3-gun nation, and you are gathering support from the shooters of said series, I am your guy!! I detest total time. Every stage stands alone as an event and should be scored that way. After all these years I still consider each stage a separate test of a certain skill set. To time the whole thing kind of reminds me of a D.E.R.O.S. date. You might get crushed in a truck wreck going to the airport, but you won every fire fight you were in. In the end you were "timed out", but you were never "combat ineffective"! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jadeslade Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 I love seeing this argument every 6 months. This is a new wrinkle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesse Tischauser Posted October 13, 2015 Author Share Posted October 13, 2015 So the only good argue bet for cumulative time is it's easier to understand and it doesn't matter what scoring is used some folks will shoot anyway. Thanks folks. That's what I was thinking too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigsampson Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 The whole argument of socialism is just ig nert and using a name with negative connotations to enforce their arguments. Unless you start taking points from Daniel, Jesse and other top shooters and then giving them to me and the other pack shooters, it isn't socialism. It is simply giving equal weight to each stage and making it more of a series of competitions rather than a total time scenario. More of a Grand Prix concept vice one long competition like the tour de france. I have benefitted by the points system, beating shooters with a slightly faster time, and I have also been on the short end of the stick (this weekend), but overall, I would much rather go with points. Several months ago I shot in a 7 stage match where my first stage was a total disaster. Procedurals, misses, all sorts of problems. In a total time match, I might as well have packed my crap and gone home (not that I would). In a total time match, there was no way to recover. But, in a points match, Ii knew that if I did consistently well, and maybe pulled off a stage win or two, i could do very well. That is exactly how it played out. Jesse is right on point. Take a shooter that is paying several hundred dollars for entry fees, hundreds in gas and hotels, and has a bad stage to start off a match. It's nice to know that it is at least possible to dig out of the hole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcloudy777 Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 In a pre-practiscore (or even pre-computer) world, the simplicity of cumulative time scoring made some sense. Nowadays it just makes shorter stages irrelevant to final outcome. If a shooter shoots a given stage twice as fast as everyone else, it should count the same toward the total match outcome whether that time was 30 seconds or 130 seconds.... he/she was still twice as fast as everyone else. And it's not like I have some personal stake in any of this. Until some match introduces "Dan's timer starts on the next-to-last-target" scoring system, I'm not clamoring for anything except a good spot in the chow line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stlhead Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 (edited) So where do you think the points that that shooter who is having a bad stage come from? They come from being shaved off the top of the guy that actually won a stage by a wide margin. The result of using stage points actually mathematically redistributes the efforts of other shooters to support the poor performance of a shooter who's scores on a a particular stage drop below their average performance at the match. Taking advantage away from those that excel above their average performance on a single or small number of stages and giving advantage to those that drop considerably below their own average performance. How about we call it the Robin Hood scoring method instead? Everyone likes Robin Hood. We can take advantage from those competitors that where fortunate enough to kick everyones ass real bad on a stage (they probably didn't deserve to the extra advantage the only reason they could do so well was the support of the rest of the competitors anyway) and reward any competitors that have a real bad stage that is far below their regular performance (Everyone has a bad day once in a while, why should they be punished for their poor performance, I was probably someone else's fault anyway). There are very valid reasons to use the stage points method over total time that can overpower the scoring fairness issue, but there is no way that giving someone a break because they spent money to attend a match and you want them to feel good is among them. Paying the match fee, and showing up no matter how much you spend on travel should not entitle a competitor to an advantage in and of it's self. The advantage is variable, and available to any competitor equally in theory, but in practice only those that suck balls on a stage avail themselves of it, and at the cost of the competitor that did not have a poor stage, and certainly to the competitor that had an exceptional stage. I am not going to win any stage by a large margin at a major match. I am far more likely to have a colossal melt down and stage points will and have saved my bacon or total time has sealed my fate. But I have had a match where I was in the hunt the whole time and a competitor who had a horrible stage was helped immensely by stage points and very nearly beat me. Again I personally have benefited from and been victimized by both systems. Stage points can help account for conditions outside a competitors control, and can also equalize the values of wildly unequal stages, and can make each stage a stand alone portion of an event, all of these are legitimate and worthwhile reasons to choose it. Total time scoring has only two overriding benefits, it makes every second on every stage worth the same amount and is brutally if not too fair, and it is simple to do and understand. Unlike many who have posted in this thread, I do not use the total time or stage points scoring choice as a decision factor in what matches i choose to attend. I don't think it effects my ultimate match satisfaction at all. There are so many things that are more important that it will never even enter into my decision making process. It does make an interesting debate, far better than the 55 grain vs the world debate, and it certainly separates the sheep from the goats. Edited October 13, 2015 by Stlhead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TonytheTiger Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 I agree with the above. I didn't want to say so till the political analogy storm blew over though, I didn't feel like getting burnt at the stake... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now