90-95% Of Points?

[Flexmoney]

You know...we often talk about having a goal of getting 90-95% of the available points on a stage (or match).

The idea seems to be that if you are getting more points than that, you need to speed up...if you are getting less points, you need to slow down.

Perhaps that is a way we need to think about it so that we can grasp the subject and move on. But, at some point (this may be well above B-class), I wonder if we aren't doing ourselves a disservice...

Thinking about getting a certain percentage of points sounds like a focus on accuracy (and maybe it is, if that is how you truely see it). But, if we look at it as a need to slow down or speed up to achieve the goal, then aren't we really still focusing on speed???

A few weeks ago, I was talking with one of our newly minted GM's. He was talking about working with one of our B-shooters. He had been looking over the stage for an upcoming match that the B-shooter was going to compete in. In going over the stages, he had (realistically) gave a prediction of what the shooter would likely get in ponits...or, what his goals should be in points. Within that, there was a miss and some D-hits (which was an improvement for the shooter).

Out of nowhere, the first thing that popped into my mind was..."which target are we planning the miss on"?

In another thread, Erik Warren suggests that Accuracy is speed. The expand on that a bit, I think vision and knowing are speed.

[Jake Di Vita]

In point of fact...I'm starting to believe even 90% of the points isn't enough...

On subject though.

In my case when I am shooting I am not consciously thinking "Ok if I want to get at least 90% of the points I need to go slow here, speed up here, etc."

I figure out my percentage of points at the end of the match so it has nothing to do with how I'm shooting during the match.

I don't necessarily believe this translates towards accuracy but more towards visual patience and consistency. If you understand the fundamentals of shooting, you can shoot an A on any target at any time...once you can do that it is no longer a question of accuracy, but a question of seeing what you need to see to do it.

I believe that the 95% of the points goal is not accuracy based....In our sport there is nothing based on only accuracy or only speed...it is both or nothing.

I guess what I'm trying to say is for me, I akin the percentages of points I shoot to my focus...not my speed. In that respect I don't believe we need to slow down or speed up to hit the goal, just shoot when the damn sights say it is ok to shoot.

Now I have sufficiently confused myself to where I will spend days thinking about this.

[Loves2Shoot]

To this end, for me I will decide which targets (partials most often, or long distance targets) that C's are "ok" during the walkthough, the rest I try to get A's. I don't do the it's ok to drop points for speed, until the buzzer goes off that is You can't really go fast enough to afford dropping lots of points if you want to win.

[short_round]

In point of fact...I'm starting to believe even 90% of the points isn't enough...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How about 90% of the points 100% of the time? Looking over match results it seems that the most consistent win the match over those that won individual stages.

[MikeFoley]

OK, here is an observation I have made through empirical analysis:

Background: I am A class and have been for a year. I shoot every weekend with 2-3 other A class shooters, one Master, one B sandbagger, and occasionally a GM.

Observation: Our times are all very close on any particular stage assuming similar strategy. It is not easy for any of us to beat the others.

Test: I started doing an excel spreadsheet for match results retrospectively. I used each stage and listed the points possible, then how many actual points each competitor got(not stage points, just points). Then I totaled each row for total of the available points in a match. Then I calculated the percentage of points possible for each competitor. The next two columns were penalties and total time for the match.

Results: I noticed that when I got more than 90% of the points possible, I won the match. I often had the slowest or one of the slowest raw total times. When I had a low stage time, it was from doing what I needed to get the points without making costly mistakes associated with rushing. Many of times that I won, I never won a single stage in the match. When I got less than 90% of the points, I did not fare so well in the rankings. This focused me back to the points every time. We used my spreadsheet for several months before I decided not to do it anymore.

What was learned?: I had learned that in order to succeed, I needed to let my vision guide my shooting, period. Others saw that though they were fast, that they were really not getting the points they needed. I didn't want to beat a dead horse, so I stopped doing the analysis. I still calculate each match for myself to reinforce that I am progressing the right way. I never win a five yard bill drill contest with these guys anymore, and one of them shoots El Presidente a full second faster than me every time, but I always get better hits on it.

Application: I have had a tremendous 6-8 week run recently, and I hope it is because of doing the right thing and not just everyone else's bad luck. I feel like I made to A, and really didn't know how to play this game. I have learned a lot in this last year, and I still have a lot to learn. I intend to shoot this way throughout the tournament season.

BTW: I hate it when someone says, "I did that in 3 seconds, but I had a Mike."

[iweiny]

I think the speed is a trap that many shooters fall into therefore we give ourself a goal for accuracy. I think this is a good thing IMHO (In my humble opinion). Points are a hard and fast measure of weather or not the time you posted was indeed enough time for you to see and call your shots. If we only look at HF or place in a match then I feel it becomes all too easy to fall into the "speed trap".

I never think to myself "boy you got 100% of the points, you could have gone faster." But I also don't get upset when I get 95% of the points. 90% I start to get worried I messed up. And under 90% I get upset I was not patient enough to do better.

Does this make sense?

Ira

[j1b]

Wow - I've never approached any stage like this. Never judged how many points I should be getting before the stage.

Afterwards I generally assess the stage points to determine if I feel like I dropped too many (never really giving any value to having too many points - I've never felt that too many points was bad regardless of time (because I was already going as fast as I thought I could))

A performance on one stage may cause me to revise what I need to see on the next - but by in large I never pre-determine how many points is "acceptable" for a stage.

Interesting.

JB

[Loves2Shoot]

I never pre-determine how many points is "acceptable" for a stage.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What about 60 pointers? But then you know you can't afford to drop points on those so you don't think about it?

[PaulW]

After the State Match 2 weekends ago I went back to see where Chris Tilley really kicked our butts. Yes he was faster on almost every stage but really stood out was when I calculated his total match point percentage. He shot a tad over 95% of the possible points for the entire match!!!!!!

I shot a little over 90% and got killed. Why did I drop so many points?

1- Lack of Trigger control

2 - Lack of follow through

3 - RUSHED way to much

Overall I think my raw speed is there. However what I feel I need to work on is shooting the A's faster, not just shooting faster. I have shot with the super squad and what impressed me the most is how few points they drop while maintaining their speed. They have the CONFIDENCE in calling their shots.

For me, getting to the level that I want to obtain I better work on getting those points. Is this something I think about at the line? Now way but it is something I can work on in practice and even smaller club matches.

Again I believe; "Speed comes from the confidence that you made an accurate shot".

Shooting steel is a prime example. If you have the habit of watching steel fall then you have not obtained the confidence in your shooting that will take you to the next level.

[TRNinTX]

Why go for 90-95% of the points? My goal is to never be more than 6 points down on any stage.

::sigh:: I wish I would start looking at the screenname....

BJ Norris

[sfinney]

Great stuff.... I grasped the 90% or better rule for points in theory (and some times actually do it!) but this thread is helping crystalize it better for me.... time to set some new goals.

[Ron Ankeny]

Threads like this make my head hurt. After all these years, I finally feel like I am starting to get a grasp on my shooting. See what I need to see. Remain focused. Trust my shooting. Remain fluid. The time will be what it is and the points will be there. Now I find out I need to be a mathematics guru.

[Flexmoney]

tee-hee...Brian is away for about a week...I told him I would keep you guys busy with some actually shooting talk (not that pictues of everybody's pets aren't nice ) Wait until you see what I hit you with next...

OK..back to the thread. GREAT responses. And, really, what I am looking to drive home (from my perspective) is that the vision should be the focus of the shooting. When you are seeing well, you get the best feedback...you are in the most control...

But, it is hard to allow the vision to take over when we are focused on speed...we lack trust.

(Ron...you got one of those tactical calculators, right ???)

[eric nielsen]

Great posts on this thread.

Just a thought: You can gain more time by leaving some mediocre points out on the distant targets [18-30 yards] than you can gain by leaving bad points up close.

For me, calling and leaving A/C and A/D on a pair of really far targets might save me noticeable time vs trying to be perfect, but shooting anything but 4 A's on 2 close hoser targets is just a screw-up: it saves no time at all.

If I'm going to shoot C's I want them all far away and shot while moving.

[Dalmas]

I've been paying alot af attention to this recently. I'm due to the braindead lawmakers limited to minor in standard division so this is in my mind even more important to me.

But as several of you points out the balance between points and time is crucial for success but as a minor shooter in std division the points have to come first. My goal is to shoot 93% of all possible points. With practice that can be done in ample time to be in contention at the top.

I just wrote an analysis on my webpage.

match stats

[Kevin Kline]

I agree, and I think Production is even more of a points race. I think you can sometimes get away with dropping a few points and only getting 90% or even survive and not crash and burn if you get 85% of the points for that stage. You can really go hose it.

After getting back into shooting, I've switched to Production (as opposed to shooting Limited and Lim 10) for 10 years. When I started back shooting again about 5 months ago, I picked up right where I left off. But wow!! The shots and hits are there, but now if you pick up a few C's or God forbid a D here or there, in Production, you're hurting, where you can at least survive it in Lim and Lim 10.

I believe Production is a 95% points (at least) game. I was dropping points like crazy when I first started, but I had damn good times. Production is more of a points race than the other divisions. I'm learning that the hard way.

[ong45]

I have felt lately that 90% is not enough. Watching Eric (Grauffel not Warren ) shoot this weekend, i'm starting to think 95% is the starting point.

James

[MikeFoley]

I want to clarify that the points observation cames after the match. You don't need to be a math god to know if you got the points or not. The calculation merely points out that you did or didn't do your part on shooting A's. No one is saying you can't be fast, just get your hits. If that means you have to slow down at first, then you will eventually get faster at doing the right thing.

Sometimes I see stages broken down like this:

60 points possible

60 points in 12 seconds=5 hit factor

50 points in 10 seconds=5 hit factor

40 points in 8 seconds=5 hit factor

If this were three shooters, they tied the stage. BTW, the guy who does this clean in 10 seconds gets a 6, and so does the guy with 48 in 8, so points do make a difference, and you can get them fast by shooting as fast as you can see, not as fast as you can pull the trigger.

If you can't shoot to begin with, then speed is nothing. I worked backwards for years trying to go fast, and I see guys do it every match. If you do it right, then it will be fast on its own without you jerking your ass through the stage like someone set your pants on fire.

[dirtypool40]

Well, wherever you're at right now is the starting point, that's obvious.

TO improve you gotta know where you are now. Shoot your local match and go through it afterwards. You might be surprised (I was) at how stages I shot poorly on were the ones with weak points not a weak time.

When your plan (or your gun or what ever) goes to hell, you CAN hang onto the points. Speed evaporates, points are there for the taking.

When squadded with some super duper GM, you can guarentee to shoot as many points as they do. Think about it.

Watch Sal Kirsch's dvd. The stage winners are AVERAGING about 3 Alphas for every Charlie, that's 95%.

I mentioned you had to know where you are now. Go through your match and add 'em up. If you're shooting 80% points now, going right to 100% points "MIGHT" slow you down too much and interrupt your rythym.

Use the 90-95% goal as a kind of "traction meter", when you go below that you are going too fast and have lost control. If you go above it, you are probably not pushing. You'll have to check scores and remember how it felt, like slightly delayed feedback. Eventually you'll get to know what 95% speed feels like.

I'll let you know if I ever get there.

[diehli]

A/C on every target (90% of the points) won't win you the match, will it?

Didn't think so.

[Jasonub]

i discovered what we all know, shoot fast a's and dont make mistakes. see what you need to see and move on.

in recent matches that i win i get at least 1 perfect stage. 0 down and with a very good time. If this happens that stage is usually mine or ill hit about 95-97% off the stage winner.

95% seems to be right. imho

[XRe]

I know where Jack's coming from - I've never walked up to a stage and tried to gauge how many down I could be and still do well. In my head, that just gives me permission to hose, instead of make controlled, aimed shots that hit the targets. I do similar stuff re: post-stage, too. I let that desire to hit As quickly drive my engagement, and then focus on being efficient between shots.

I did have a period (and probably will again) where I was experimenting with speeding up. For me, that was necessary to experience how that felt. My points started sucking (< 80%), but I learned a lot about my shooting, and that led to me learning how to regulate my shooting w/ my vision.

I agree with Cullen and DP, too - at 90% of points, I'm Ok, but not ecstatic. At 95%, I'm happy that I did what I needed to do. At > 95%, I'll smile about it Either way, though, I consider a clean stage - all hits, no penalties - a success. But, my goal is to have the points - I won't ever win at the top level (when and if I get there) w/o the points....

Realize, too, that on your average field course (say, 28 rounds), a miss is a 10% penalty!!! The lower the round count, the bigger that gets. An FTE is a 29% penalty!!! Wow... They look worse when I look at them that way

[kevin c]

We're mainly talking about full targets at any range, here, right? What if you are dealing with high risk partials? Say the target has a NS bordering the A zone; how many are going to use the center of the A zone as their POA, as opposed, say, to the away A/C border? The A zone is still the same size, and therefore the chance of hitting it with a shot using a centered POA is the same as a full target, but the cost of a less than perfect shot is much higher now.

How many here would take the extra time to get the points, as opposed to accepting fewer in less (in my case, much less) time?

Kevin C.

[Cameron]

Flex,

Great post. Great responses.

Wonder if the B shooter is meeting the new GM's expectations??

Cameron

[PaulW]

Mike's are never acceptable!! D's really should not make one very happy either, all they are are misses that landed on paper.