Windmills & Stars & Bubble Yum

[XRe]

I no longer have much fear of the star but I am not thrilled that I get to shoot one as my first stage at Double Tap.

You got it easy - I get to negotiate the Hell-A-Ports first thing in the morning.... heh heh

Oh no, I think activated targets are fine! Drop-turners: same movement every time. Swingers: same movement every time (and slows/degrades at the same rate for every shooter). Clamshells/Beartraps: same movement every time.

All of those change speed and/or direction, though... Wind can influence a clamshell severely - I've definitely seen this happen. Swingers can also be affected - well, at least as much as a windmill...

Here's something to consider - do we have any classifiers that use activated targets? (I don't know. I can't think of any and I don't have time to look.) Why not?

No, we don't - but it's not for the reason that you're getting at. All of those targets you mention can be made to function the same for every shooter in the match (well, in as much as they aren't affected by the wind).

Classifiers have to be consistent everywhere for them to work. Making activated props work exactly the same from club to club across the nation such that every shooter everywhere gets exactly the same presentation is borderline impossible. It requires that everyone have the same brand of prop and maintain it in exactly the same way... Even poppers can sometimes be dicey, this way....

Also - prop intensive classifiers tend to see limited usage - a lot of clubs don't have the required props, or can't build them just to shoot one match.

I'm trying to pin you down on what you think a viable activated target should be Make up your mind Sounds like you're more in the camp that thinks stars and windmills are unfair, in the end - after all, a windmill is even more consistent than a swinger (it starts at rest, quickly accelerates to a speed, moves in the same direction constantly, and gradually slows down in a consistent, predictable fasion), and the star is only as unpredictable as the shooter....

[Loves2Shoot]

Just an obervation, windmills have 4 times the surface area for the wind to hit (4 target windmills.) It can get REALLY windy at our range and activated targets have to be thoughtfully placed if we don't want a headache.

[Ron Ankeny]

I wonder, would it do me any good to to take the time to explain exactly why I dislike the idea of a Star in a major match, or should I just let guys keeps telling me why they think I must dislike them and why I am wrong?

Would it be appropriate for me to start a thread on validity and reliabilty in shooting assessments or would that just create two poop storms?

Edited March 3, 2006 by Ron Ankeny

[BigDave]

I'm trying to pin you down on what you think a viable activated target should be Make up your mind

Damn it, Dave!!! I know you are.

I believe the TX star is an unfair target. It is a judgement call, I know, but I'm making it. It isn't that it is variable, so is a swinger, drop turner, etc. My problem is that it is too variable for a competition. The variability of the other activated targets in our sport are not influenced by how the target itself is engaged. That is the problem I have with the star.

I think some people see the star as one target. The star isn't the target. The 5 plates are the targets. Once one plate is engaged, the shooting challenge changes for the remaining four, and so on.

[XRe]

The variability of the other activated targets in our sport are not influenced by how the target itself is engaged. That is the problem I have with the star.

Ok, cool - I get where you're coming from Thanks for being pinned

I think some people see the star as one target. The star isn't the target. The 5 plates are the targets. Once one plate is engaged, the shooting challenge changes for the remaining four, and so on.

This is the best argument I've seen against using a star, at this point... I still like 'em, personally, but this definitely makes a lot of logical sense.

What gets me are props that move so darn quickly that even top GMs plan lots of extra shots because even they can't be marginally sure that they've hit the target... Some of the crazy-fast windmills do that, to me... That's not to say everything should be easy for a GM - but if it's *that* hard for them... how hard is it for everyone else?

[Ron Ankeny]

This is going to be a bit long winded, but if you want to know why I don't think a Star has any place in a big match, then read ahead. BigDave pretty much nailed it and I agree with him, but I'll take it one step farther.

In my work life, I design a lot of performance assessments. A performance assessment allows a student to demonstrate what they know, and what they can do, preferably through an authentic problem solving activity that allows them to demonstrate their ability. To properly assess a student's skills, whether those skills be welding, driving a car, or shooting, the assessment must be reliable, valid, meaningful, and fair. The student should also have multiple opportunities, delivered in diverse formats, over time, to demonstrate their ability. The problem I have with a Star in a major match is a personal belief that the assessment format is inappropriate for maintaining the health of the sport.

As BigDave pointed out, the shooting test is equal for all shooters (that is the targets are presented the same way) right up until the first plate is removed. Even though I got my butt jumped for using inexperienced shooters as an example, I am going down that road one more time.

Let's say little Johnny Wannablaster goes to an Area match with his father. Johnny is young, exubberant, and he has been looking forward to attending his first big match. Johnny starts shooting the Texas Star by shooting the very bottom plate. Johnny has just demonstrated he can hit the plate, but he has also shown he is not familiar with the prop. Johnny throws a couple more rounds downrange and hits another plate, but now he has the prop off balance and spinning like crazy. Like any good assessment, Johnny will now be provided with multiple opportunities to show his ability, or lack of ability.

Unfortunately, the faster the prop spins, the more difficult the assessment becomes. Even when Johnny is successful in hitting a plate, if it's the wrong plate, his reward is to be faced with shots of increasing difficulty levels. By contrast, the better a person shoots, the easier the task. I suppose one can say that of any target, but this especially true of stars and windmills. With a static target, if the shooter has difficulties, they have the opportunity to take another shot at the same difficulty level. This is not necessarily so with a spinning target.

Is this type of assessment necessarily a bad thing? Well I suppose that depends on the intent of the test. Some of the most notorious tests that I have personally encountered that posed increasingly difficult questions (in the event of a missed question) were made by the IT certification industry. It was not unusual to take an on-line certification test that was scored on the fly. If a fundamental question was missed, the next question generated would be at a higher level of difficulty. If that question was missed, the next question was even more difficult. The intent was to weed folks out, fail them in their tracks, and send them back to square one if they missed due to a lack of fundamental knowledge. Their only salvation was to prove superior mastery of content if they missed a question as a result of just screwing the pooch.

My personal belief is the Texas Star can be excessively punitive to shooters who lack fundamental skills. I have no problem with putting a shooter in a position to demonstrate their ability, but I do have a problem with punishing a shooter by increasing the difficulty level beyond reasonable expectations after they have already failed. I don't believe such actions are in the best interest of attracting and retaining shooters.

[Carmoney]

should I just let guys keeps telling me why they think I must dislike them and why I am wrong?

For the record, in my original post, which has been moved over here, I was referring to Ron Avery, not Ron Ankeny! Just thought I better clarify....

[Carmoney]

So Ron, when you administer tests in your classroom, do you ensure that they can be negotiated by all of your students, even those "who lack fundamental skills"?

[BigDave]

So Ron, when you administer tests in your classroom, do you ensure that they can be negotiated by all of your students, even those "who lack fundamental skills"?

Mike - I think what Mr. Ankeny was saying is a student who fails a test is one thing, but a test that fails the student is quite another. - Dave

[Ron Ankeny]

Suppose I assess a couple of kids using the Texas Star system. I could compare Johnny D. Shooter with G.M Hotshooter. The test will end for each student when they have given the correct response to five questions. Each question will be worth five points and the questions must be answered in a timely fashion. A slow response time, or a missed question will result in the next question being more difficult than the previous question.

I would begin by asking both kids question number one. The question would be an easy one for young Hotshooter but it would be a bit on the difficult side for Johnny (say a star at xx yards). Both kids would get the first question correct (nail the first plate) and they would get identical questions for question number two (the second plate). But because Johnny D. Shooter was a bit slower than G.M. in responding to question number two, Johnny's third question will not be the same as Hotshooter's third question. In fact, Johnny's question will be much more difficult. G.M. Hotshooter will nail the third plate, I mean question, right away. Unfortunately, Johnny D. Shooter will miss the third question. But don't worry, Johnny will be given additional opportunities, they just won't be the same as G.M.'s opportunities. Because little G.M. is so bright and so fast in shooting his plates, darn it I mean answering his questions, his last two questions will be only slightly more difficult than the previous questions, and he will answer them correctly in a timely fashion.

Unfortunately, Johnny D. Shooter misses three questions in a row, and now the plates, I mean questions, are spinning by at warp drive, and with each instant that passes, the questions become increasingly difficult. At last young Johnny has answered correctly five times. Of course those questions took longer to answer and were more difficult than Hotshooter's plates (questions) because young Johnny is a bit slower on the draw (no pun intended).

Time to enter grades in the grade book. Let's see, G.M. got 25 points in 3 seconds for a hit factor of 8.333. According to my scoring guide that's an A. Hmmm, Johnny got 25 points in 8 seconds for a hit factor of 3.125 and that's only 37 per cent of G.M.'s score, or an F. In fact, the grade is an F minus.

Was the test meaningful, fair, valid, and reliable? Can I justify asking more difficult questions of a lower performing student than I asked of the higher performing student by claiming both students controlled their own destiny? Did I set one student up for success and the other for failure? Oh screw it, give the kid an F, it's what he earned.

Edited March 4, 2006 by Ron Ankeny

[Carmoney]

Dang, Ron, all I could think of as I read your little parable is that it sounds like Sam's dad should cash in some of Sam's college bonds and buy him a nice open gun!

[Chris Keen]

Isn't young little Eric French a GM Student, and Sam only a C student ????

Why then are they in the same classroom

Edited March 4, 2006 by Glock24Shooter

[Ron Ankeny]

Mike:

I have had a crap week and I apologize for letting it bleed over into the forum. I went back and did some editing.

Ron

[Carmoney]

Ron, no worries...the weekend is finally here!

(And, by the way, I thought your analogy made some good points.)

But can you please edit it again, and this time make Sam the smart one?

[Ron Ankeny]

Personalizing the analogy with your kid's name was bush league. BTW, both kids are in the same class and taking the same test because of the No Child Left Behind Act.

I am blaming this whole mess on Ron Avery. I refuse to take responsibility for my own actions.

[caspian38]

I like the stars and windmills ... how can we use them fairly ? can they be modified to be fair ? maybe some kind of brake system after 4 seconds ?

I agree they are unfair ...after watching shooter after shooter struggle with a star a few weeks ago. I think anything that moves is good for the sport but most of them are unfair to begining shooters. a drop turner is no big deal to me but the new guy that can't transition fast is going to think it is harder than S#$%.

maybe the answer is no penalty misses ?... 5 targets 25 points if i just skip it all together do I come out ahead if I'm not very good ? its sort of that no child left behind thing .I don't if it works at making them any smarter or better at shooting but it might make it more fair... not that I care about fair shooting OPEN.

c 38

[Wakal]

OK, if I'm following along correctly, the argument is now that some target arrays are "too difficult" and punish...incompetence... To recap: because a target array like a Texas Star presents the exact same shooting opportunity to each shooter at the start of the engagement, and because the shooter's influence in the Star is the lone variable (gravity being a constant ), a Star should not be used in competition because...it punishes the incompetent with more difficult and/or lengthy shooting challenges than it does the competent shooter.

Well, OK then. Let’s just extend this little theory out to the logical conclusion.

-- It has been postulated on this thread that (completely due to) the shooter's lack of technical competence, match-successful engagement of a Texas Star or Windmill is rendered difficult if not impossible. Since that argument would mean that anything that exposes a shooter's incompetence at basic skills is bad, thus:

- We must remove the Dale Alcorn Bear Trap (and other, lesser, copies and rip-offs of the same design) from match play. After all, while a competent shooter thinks nothing of shooting an activator and perhaps some static targets before successfully engaging a moving Bear Trap, an incompetent shooter is hard pressed to activate and then engage the Bear Trap. Thus, the incompetent shooter may miss or get edge hits in a much longer time than the competent shooter and that isn't fair.

- We must then remove multiple static target arrays from competition. After all, while a competent shooter thinks nothing of engaging each target with two well-aimed shots and proceeding swiftly to the next target, an incompetent shooter may engage the targets in a sub-optimal order, fail to use well-aimed fire, and may not transition in an expedient fashion. Thus, the incompetent shooter may miss or get edge hits in a much longer time than the competent shooter and that isn't fair.

- We must then remove all that is left, a single static target, from competition. After all, while a competent shooter thinks nothing of executing a draw and single target engagement in an expedient and forthright fashion resulting in solid hits in minimal time, an incompetent shooter may bobble the draw, fail to secure a proper shooting grip, and thus engage the target poorly in a time best described as "glacial." Thus, the incompetent shooter may miss or get edge hits in a much longer time than the competent shooter and that isn't fair.

Logic, followed to its full conclusion, makes a bit of a farce of the whole "A Star may be too hard for an incompetent shooter" argument. IMO, of course.

As long as the shooting challenge is the same for each shooter, and the shooter's own actions are the only variable (shooter to shooter), then said shooting challenge is fair.

After all, to use real world (instead of people's children ) as examples...when I shoot the same stage...call it all static paper...as Max, I end up with a longer time due to my incompetence. The stage itself does not change; the variable is the shooter. How the shooter transitions from place to place, how the shooter transitions from target to target, how the shooter transitions from shot to shot...these things are variables in the shooter's span of control. Because of my incompetence in transitions, due to factors I (as the shooter) control, Max will beat me on this stage.

So too with the Texas Star. The Star, unactivated, just sits there. A hundredweight of iron and steel, inert, and without control of its own action. The shooter, with control of their own action, chooses which plate to engage. The shooter chooses where, on each plate, they engage. And thus, when the Star consistently, in a measurable and repeatable fashion, reacts to the shooter's input, the Star is under the shooter's control!

I've experimented a few times ( ) with Texas Stars. I've tried to make them move faster by varying the plate engagement order, I've tried to make them move slower depending on plate engagement order, and I've tried to make them not move at all due to plate engagement order...and guess what, gentle readers, the competent (or in my case, marginally competent) shooter can do that at will.

Pandering to the incompetent is not one of the tenets of IPSC or USPSA. There are otherwise entertaining "dress code" shooting sports for that sort of thing, after all.

Alex

Edited March 4, 2006 by Wakal

[Loves2Shoot]

I think there is some serious sight lost that some people don't have the carnival props to practice with, some do. If we keep to standard targets it makes it a leveler field for the average joe who can afford a few target stands and steel plates.

The star isn't hard now that I've shot it enough, not that I am much more competant than the first time I shot it. It's just I've shot it a few times, and it hardly even moves now because I know the trick.

It is akin to local folks shooting an array of wierd swingers that rely heavily on timing, some things just give to much of an advantage to those who get to practice with them, but I don[t see them going away.

[Wakal]

I don't have the classic Bianchi Cup “Carnival” match built in my backyard...as some people do. I can’t practice the exact layout on the exact targets, over and over and over and over and over…nor I can I afford to drive my RV (if I had one) to the match two weeks early so I could practice on the range over and over and over and over…

Thus, I should not be held to the same standards at Bianchi…my 1800 should be good enough to win!

In the same vein, how many people flew to Ecuador and shot at the World Shoot’s host range for a whole month prior to the World Shoot? Was that an advantage? (aside: having your own ammo was a huge advantage, too, but that is another discussion ).

Target placement, activation systems, walls, ports, and the like are huge variables even with the same target arrays. Texas Stars, Windmills, Dale Alcorn Bear Traps (and inferior copies), single swingers, double swingers, banked swingers, drop turners, level turners, movers (paper), movers (steel), powered movers…

I submit that no single club has all of the varied target designs that the simply amazing (if sick) minds of the folks in this, penultimate shooting sport, have come up with. Complaints about a specific club's lack of same is disingenuous and intellectually dishonest.

Hell, I have NO USPSA/ISPC shooting here at all, yet I just sent in my application to Area 4. I will not have touched a competition firearm in six months prior to two days before the match. Does that mean that I get a "pass" on all targets because my current "home club" doesn't even have...paper...targets?

I think not.

Alex

[Chris Keen]

Maybe I am looking at the easy way out of this conversation, but I wonder if all this time spent "pondering" the good, the bad, and the ugly sides of Texas Stars, windmills, and such isnt just alot of hot air.

[BigDave]

Difficulty isn't the issue, neither is practice and neither is ability. The issue is that once one target on the star is engaged, a different (and variable, meaning not identical opportunity for each competitor) shooting challenge is presented and the challenge changes with each target engaged.

[HSMITH]

I really don't have anything to add to the discussion other than the perspective of a new shooter looking at what seems to be the most controversial prop out there.

OK, I am a relatively new shooter. Been shooting a long time but just started USPSA not quite a year ago.

I have shot the Texas Star a whole whopping 2 times. The first time I was intimidated, but smart enough to ask what to do. A couple squadmates had shot it before, told me the general theory, and I went to the line. Well, I rushed it and missed the 3rd plate, and it got a pretty decent spin going. Still took less than 10 rounds to clear it and less than 6 seconds. The second time I didn't miss and cleared it in about 3 seconds.

I also saw shooters, some new and some not, absolutely masacre the stage, 10 seconds plus and a really hot gun.

I don't have a problem with the star, in fact I think it is one of the most fun props I have ever shot.

[Liota]

BigDave,

Because the Star responds according to the laws of physics, what you're saying is impossible. If it is engaged in exactly the same manner by two or more competitors, the Star will respond in the same fashion. It is not affected greatly by wind or other weather-type phenomena.

The only variant involved with regards to the Texas Star is the competitor. I've seen D-Class and unclassified competitors clean the clocks of GMs on the Star. I've seen the opposite as well. The ONLY variant is the competitor.

This all being said, USPSA did rule that the Texas Star is just another plate rack.

v/r,

Liota

[BigDave]

BigDave,

Because the Star responds according to the laws of physics, what you're saying is impossible. If it is engaged in exactly the same manner by two or more competitors, the Star will respond in the same fashion. It is not affected greatly by wind or other weather-type phenomena.

The only variant involved with regards to the Texas Star is the competitor. I've seen D-Class and unclassified competitors clean the clocks of GMs on the Star. I've seen the opposite as well. The ONLY variant is the competitor.

This all being said, USPSA did rule that the Texas Star is just another plate rack.

v/r,

Liota

Yeah, and USPSA also ruled that 11 rds in a mag in Production at LAMR was illegal at one time.

You're right, it is impossible for the Star not to be enaged the same way. But, in my opinion, it is so improbable that it would ever occur to the point that each shooter was presentated with the same challenge that it should not be used in competition. Not because it isn't a challenge - it is and we'll know that. But, because it is so prone to variability once it is engaged (which can increase as it is engaged further) that it is an inconsistent measurement of ability on the competition field.

[AikiDale]

Shooting the Texas Star is not the problem for me. There have been many excellent points made in this thread and I can not pick a side to jump in on.

There is one problem with the star however which has yet to be mentioned. Although shooting the star can be fun, challenging and educational as well as frustrating and intimidating, setting the darn thing up unassisted is all that and more. Getting it from the steel shed to the truck is a lesson in physics. If the wheel has not been secured the kinesthetic awareness of a gymnast and the juggler’s dexterity are required. Advanced calculus is helpful to prevent random accelerations and the resultant injury to human tissue. Worst of all may be the disappearing spring halfway through the match which prevents resetting a plate that had been successfully held on by one spring for the last two shooters....

That said, thanks to a suggestion from Airedale we use it in steel matches with one plate painted a different color to designate it as the stop plate.