Jim Norman Posted March 13, 2006 Share Posted March 13, 2006 OK, I have put on my flame retardent suit and I am strapped in tight. I have my parachute, and a back-up, so here we go. How many times have you been at a match and heard something along the lines of, "It is only a small stage, if I screw it up, it doesn't hurt too bad.?" My suggestion is to do as we do in 3-Gun, Make all stages woth 100 points. You will still set up a stage exactly as you do now., It will have how ever many stage points based upon the number and type of targets contained, but when all is said and done, the winner gets 100 points and everyone else gets their points assigned equal to their percentage of the stage winner. Now a "Bill Drill" counts towards the match exactly as much as a 32 round long field course. You have to be all around good or you go down in flames. A seven stage match is worth 700 points, seven stages times 100 points per stage. HHF is figured exactly as it is now, just take the shooters percentage of the HHF and convert it by multiplying by 100 and you have match points. Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LPatterson Posted March 13, 2006 Share Posted March 13, 2006 I don't have a flame retardent suit and I gave up my parachute but except for the stats hassle that is not that bad an idea. I would like to see a break down in the differences between your idea & Ezwinscore for something like El Presidente'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shred Posted March 13, 2006 Share Posted March 13, 2006 Doesn't that devalue the big stages so a miss or bad points there is less important? "Don't worry, it's a 32 round stage.. that miss is only 6 points down?" (100/160 * -10 = -6.25) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crusher Posted March 13, 2006 Share Posted March 13, 2006 How many times have you been at a match and heard something along the lines of, "It is only a small stage, if I screw it up, it doesn't hurt too bad.?" Srewing up on a small stage is the same as screwing up a bigger (more points) stage. Either can KNOCK you down a position or two. ... "it doesn't hurt too bad.... It ALL hurts. But hey, if some feel it doesn't hurt I encorage them in this mindset. It gives me one more edge. Additionally more are likely to ZERO a small stage and recieve no points as compared with a larger (more targets/more points) stage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vincent Posted March 13, 2006 Share Posted March 13, 2006 This thread should have a poll. I vote thumbs down on the idea. I think the current system is better than the proposed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted March 13, 2006 Share Posted March 13, 2006 I happened to be talking to Matt Burkett the other day after he finished shooting a 3-gun match that scores with the stages weighted equally. he related how he was able to make up some points because he burnt down a speed stage. Field courses test more skills (at once, even), plus there is more riding on them (the way we currently score them) so there is a bit of "practical pressure" to go with them. If you go to equal weighting, then shooters that are good in one aspect, but lacking in overall skills, will move up the score sheet. I don't think that is what we want to see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mactiger Posted March 13, 2006 Share Posted March 13, 2006 I agree, Flex. Making all stages worth XXX points sort of waters down the competition. Troy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bgary Posted March 13, 2006 Share Posted March 13, 2006 Plus, it changes the "math" that is at the core of the scoring now. Right now, an A-hit is worth 5 points. Period. No matter what else changes (stage size, complexity, etc) If all stages are worth 100 points, then -- an A-hit on a 32-round stage is effectively worth (approximately) 3 points -- an A-hit on a 6-round stage is effectively worth (approximately) 16 points. I, personally, like things as they are. In fact, I think the way Comstock balances accuracy, power, speed *and* the relative size/complexity of various stages is remarkably elegant. $.02 Bruce Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricW Posted March 13, 2006 Share Posted March 13, 2006 Poll: All in favor of not continually dickering around with the rulebook (thus keeping the sport in an endless state of turmoil) and shooting more instead say "Aye!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Cheely Posted March 13, 2006 Share Posted March 13, 2006 Aye! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlin Orr Posted March 13, 2006 Share Posted March 13, 2006 Jim, Jim, Jim...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Posted March 13, 2006 Share Posted March 13, 2006 Aye! Making all stages worth XXX points sort of waters down the competition Agreed also. I personally hate it when matches do that (Time+ Scored 3gun) and prefer to get the actual points from the targets that I shoot on every stage ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clay1 Posted March 13, 2006 Share Posted March 13, 2006 Eric, I couldn't agree with you more. AYE is the short answer. Rick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigbadaboom Posted March 13, 2006 Share Posted March 13, 2006 "Aye" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clay1 Posted March 13, 2006 Share Posted March 13, 2006 Dan, when you responded to this thread, I received 4 seperate notifications about your response. That's a first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Sweeney Posted March 13, 2006 Share Posted March 13, 2006 "Hi, my name is Patrick, I'm an old fart. It's been twelve minutes since my last grumble." Jim, we used to do it exactly that way in the old days. When stages were timed by stopwatch and the scores crunched on a desktop calculator, it's all we could do. And there was no end of complaining about who designed a stage or stages to advantage themselves or their friends. Then we went to telling shooters "this stage is worth X points, and that is worth Y points" and the complaining was over who decided. I think using the number of rounds to assign points is just fine, easy to understand, and makes the whole thing easier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AikiDale Posted March 13, 2006 Share Posted March 13, 2006 AYE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregory_k Posted March 13, 2006 Share Posted March 13, 2006 aye. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Norman Posted March 13, 2006 Author Share Posted March 13, 2006 Ok, HF it is. However, in our three-gun it is what we do and it has received accolades from those that shot it. Every skill set is equal. It is especially good where timplus is used. Perhaps with our current USPSA HF scoring, it is not needed. We cam up with it since at many non-USPSA 3-guns time-plus is what is used and if there is only one long stage, a shooter can win the match by either gaming the long stages or cleaning them. THink about it, average pistol stage or short carbine stage 25-25 seconds, 300 yeard stage 300 seconds, average around 200, one guy that is REALLY good cleans it in 95. As long as he is reasonabley OK on the rest, he has 100 plus seconds to give away. Again, this refers to matches scored by time and yes, I eralize that tie is only a factor in our scoring system, but by making all stages worth the same, that sort of gaming goes away, you have no choice but to be all around good and that is what we should be looking for. I have run HF scoring and compared it to this proposal, there are only a few flips in scoring and only if someone trashes a stage. The best shooter overall wins, which is as it should be. But I will put my idea away for now. Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dunn Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 Aye Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 Jim, I'm not going to bust your ballz for floating an idea. This is a discussion forum afterall. But, I certainly agree with the majority. We have something that works and works well (and it isn't natural, so somebody already put the thinking cap to it). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loves2Shoot Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 Jim, I think the tough part is rewarding per stage versus per shot. It really doesn't work in the speed stages because it put a huge emphasis on them. All Jake has to do is burn down a 'el Pres shoot in 3.5 and he just gained 30 match points instead 18 over the guy who cleaned it in 5 seconds for 6 shots. It isn't a fair reward/penalty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ankeny Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 If you go to equal weighting, then shooters that are good in one aspect, but lacking in overall skills, will move up the score sheet. Hey, I could benefit from that idea, let's go for it. I agree with Flex. Look at it this way, which should count for more on your report card, a 5 minute quiz or a semester final exam? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bwana Six-Gun Posted March 17, 2006 Share Posted March 17, 2006 AYE! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chriss Grube Posted March 17, 2006 Share Posted March 17, 2006 Ok Jim time for you to go back to sleep! The doctor warned you that trying to think might be dangerous... now take your meds and be a good old codger. 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