the new "Horner" Scoring Method

[LChico]

One System=Whether it is the Horner System, Time Plue, USPSA, IDPA or otherwise, we need a standard set of rules. Should matches be allowed some freedom in the rules? I am OK with that since it makes little sense to tie someone's hands in everything when the needs of specific matches have some variation. But unless and until we have some standard system, shooters are never going to be completely comfortable at all the matches because of the rules variations, scorers are not going to be completely comfortable with radically different systems (Linda Chico knows the Horner System but what does the match do if she has to be somewhere else on the date of the match) and range officers should not be expected to be sharp on their calls if the work a match on weekend one using one set of rules and have to apply a totally different set the following weekend.

Actually, there is ALWAYS a strong possibility I may not be able to be at the match -- ANY match. My husband has leukemia, and the course of his disease is very unpredictable. I always discuss this with the match director before I agree to work a match. Everything will go on as planned if I am not there. There is nothing that I do in stats that Sandra can't handle. She & Aaron get copies of literally everything I do pre-match (spreadsheets, schedules, confirmation letters, etc) so that someone else can fill in if I am not able to work on the match. No one person can be indispensable to the match, or you are setting yourself up for a potentially huge problem.

That said, match scoring is not like nuclear physics. The 'data entry,' 'verify' & 'calculate results' portions of the scoring program are so easy to use that Aaron has said we could teach monkeys to enter scores. Tammi Horner had it down after about 3 minutes of instruction at the Blue Ridge 3 Gun & Tony Ely at Ft Campbell had it work with no problems after a few phone conversations. At Ft Benning, both Sandra & Lee will have time to practice well before the match.

All of the RO staff at Ft Benning regularly shoot & work pistol or multi-weapon matches where A-B-C-D hits (or 0, -1, -3 hits) are assessed on paper targets. It is hardly new ground for them, and I don't expect them to be overly confused when they are asked to score targets that way at Ft Benning.

In September of each year, all RO & stage staff get a multi-page instruction booklet from stats. Each page of the booklet has a graphic example of hits on targets (paper & steel) with a corresponding score sheet that is marked to show how to correctly score the targets in the picture & an explanation from the rules. Last year I think the booklet ran 8 pages. The staff is familiar with the rules, the score sheet design, and how to correctly record scores for stats, well before they get to Ft Benning. And, yes, we do expect them to be sharp on their calls.

Linda Chico (L-2035)

2008 Ft Benning 3 Gun Statistician

Edited June 23, 2008 by LChico

[Mick]

After shooting 3 gun with USPSA and "San Angelo Rules" there has to be an easier way.

Locally, an IDPA club has been running a carbine match using straight IDPA scoring.

I'm not affiliated with IDPA in any way but I like how they score it and I have added a stage where

a pistol was also used. It is very simple and the scoring is done at the same time the match is.

Accuracy is required but you have to go fast to win.

I'm for it.....

[TRUBL]

Personally.....it aint the scoring system, pretty much any of the IMGA style (time plus) are pretty much the same and are pretty easy to score. And eveyone knows up front how they are going to score the match and be scored in the match. Infact, last year and this year, I've been to pretty much ALL the major major 3 gun matches.....only ONE was totally screwed up, and by that, I mean the scoring, the stages, the RO's, etc. Infact, it was probably the single most worst mutli gun match I ever attended.

I guess if anything was in real need of change....the scoring systems are not a show stopper. Equipment could be, well that and having great RO's. RM3g, Benning, Blue Ridge, FNH, DPMS, High Plains....all had some of the best RO's in the game. Scoring was easy and was done in record time!!!

Mick....the san angelo rules, while a great idea....don't hold a candle to the ease of scoring in either IMGA or the "Horner" method. Just remember though....its a game, it they didnt keep score, we wouldnt have as much fun. But keeping the scoring easy, and fair keeps up the fun factor.

Edited June 23, 2008 by TRUBL

[Mick]

"Mick....the san angelo rules, while a great idea....don't hold a candle to the ease of scoring in either IMGA or the "Horner" method. Just remember though....its a game, it they didnt keep score, we wouldnt have as much fun. But keeping the scoring easy, and fair keeps up the fun factor. "

You've got that right....

[Charles Bond]

IMO most of us like one set of rules or another because those are the ones we just like. Some of us order tea with our meals and some orderwater. There may not be an objective reason why except that is what we like. For the most part that is what I am seeing in many of these posts.

[jobob]

IMO most of us like one set of rules or another because those are the ones we just like. Some of us order tea with our meals and some orderwater. There may not be an objective reason why except that is what we like. For the most part that is what I am seeing in many of these posts.

No, I think you're wrong there. Most of us like some version of time+, not because we just like it, but because it's simple and easy to administer and it's easy for the competitor to keep track of his/her scores as they go, while being fair and still rewarding speed and accuracy. Most things work best when the KISS principle is applied.

[StealthyBlagga]

My 2 cents worth as both an RO and a shooter: I am resistant to any scoring that requires the ROs to record scores for each target. The beauty of IMGA time+ is that the ROs can quickly review the targets and only have to make a note of penalties... this is way faster, and lets the match organizers run more elaborate and interesting stages because of the time saved. If you feel that accuracy needs greater emphasis, increase the time penaty for misses and use smaller targets... problem solved !

[springy]

The beauty of IMGA time+ is that the ROs can quickly review the targets and only have to make a note of penalties... this is way faster, and lets the match organizers run more elaborate and interesting stages because of the time saved.

time+ make note of penalties this is way faster Yep, it's way faster as long as everyone shoots all A's, otherwise you're scoring every target, just like USPSA. And I have (untested) a fear of RO's walking thru a stage and applying multiple - and different - penalties for different hits (based on how far the target is???) at 1600hrs with 2 squads backed up. I believe it would be much fairer for the RO's to record the hits, and stats calculate the penalties - just like USPSA, except that USPSA rewards more points for better accuracy (instead of punishments). I'm starting to get confused - why was it that everyone doesn't like USPSA scoring?

[RiggerJJ]

No Springy, you are wrong.

IMGA scoring on paper targets only require 2 hits or 1 A/B. walk past the target, make sure it has 2 holes and move on. If it only has 1 hole, make sure it is an A or B and move on. It does NOT require scoring each target on the competitors scoresheet. If it has no holes, = 10 second miss. If it has only one and its not an A or B, = 5 second FTN.

Stealthy, you are right on! smaller targets make for forcing the competitor to slow down, its a great method of adding "hardcover" without the pain of painting partial targets, etc. And those baby tgts with no-shoots in front of em, well they are diabolical!!!

jj

RM3G

ADDED: at most 3 gun matches, only about 1/4 of the targets are paper.

The Horner method is only slightly slower than IMGA because you must talley each non A hit, but you are still not writing down each targets hits on the score sheet.

Edited June 27, 2008 by RiggerJJ

[springy]

No Springy, you are wrong.

IMGA scoring on paper targets only require 2 hits or 1 A/B. walk past the target, make sure it has 2 holes and move on. If it only has 1 hole, make sure it is an A or B and move on. It does NOT require scoring each target on the competitors scoresheet. If it has no holes, = 10 second miss. If it has only one and its not an A or B, = 5 second FTN.

whoops, sorry, I was talking about the Benning - .5 added for a "C", 1.5 for a "D", and different if beyond a certain distance. I shoot a few time only matches, and am good to go with the 2 holes nutralizes. And I've shot several matches that use a reduced target (all of the rifle matches I set up use the small USPSA style targets) and I believe that is a great answer to the accuracy problem.

[jobob]

Yeah, the Benning IS the Horner method, iirc. The Horner may slow down scoring a bit. Guess I'll see at R&R how it works. I like rewarding accuracy, but if it causes a scoring bottleneck, then maybe not so much.

[springy]

No Springy, you are wrong.

ADDED: at most 3 gun matches, only about 1/4 of the targets are paper.

The Horner method is only slightly slower than IMGA because you must talley each non A hit, but you are still not writing down each targets hits on the score sheet.

ADDED......is that like a do-over? Just got home from the FNH-Midway 3gun. 103 paper targets, 54 rifle/pistol shots on steel (includes multiple engagements on the steel). The Benning last year was 68 paper, 48 rifle/pistol shots on steel. The "not writing down each target's hits" is saying there will only be a few targets per shooter that won't be 2 alpha. Maybe on the Super Squad, but I'm thinking the squads with mostly C and B shooters (who make up the bulk of all matches?) will be getting lots of non-alpha hits.

I just happen to like USPSA scoring, and feel it covers all the bases really well, and does it with rewards instead of punishments.

[hopalong]

I'll be a range officer at Benning again !

and this is what I'm expecting to see on the score sheet

Something really similar to a USPSA pistol score sheet with boxes to mark for each hit. THEN the SUPER SMART and HIGHLY INTELIGENT scorering staff will enter it in their computers, push a button and the finished score is right there for all to see !!!!!

The score sheet and computer will do all the time penalties for not hitting the "A" zone with your rifle shots thus the actual "scoring" will be no different than any other match we shoot.....................go to target, see two hits, call "Alpha, Mike, No-shoot" !!!!! and then MS. Kitty and Mrs. Chico will take care of the rest !

See Ya'll there,

Hop

[RiggerJJ]

Hop,

thats not the way it was done at Blue Ridge. There was a box for the RO to talley 1/2 seconds down, IE a C hit was 1 talley mark, a D hit was 3 talley marks. these were added up and added to the raw time. There was not a line for each target like an IPSC scoresheet. The only marks made on a Horner scoresheet (or IMGA at that matter) are penalities and raw time. That is what makes it quicker on the stage.

Springy,

Not sure what you are saying... sorry

you left out shotgun steel/clays? some steel some paper for rifle, some steel some paper for pistol, some steel/clays (maybe a few paper for slugs) for shotgun... well maybe 1/4 is a low estimate, maybe 1/3 of the tgts are paper is a closer estimate, but paper is not as abundant in 3 gun as a pistol match...my point here was that we are concentrating on paper targets, which is just a portion of a 3 gun match.

jj

RM3G

[bigbrowndog]

Now to throw a "spanner" into the works..............I think it will run fine at Benning, except that there will be a variance allowed for HM shooters, (one I'm glad to see, but it may cause problems) so now everybody that is "familiar" with the current Horner method will have to adjust, and the RO's that are just learning will have to make sure that the competitor is scored properly.

So as I understand it, there are 2 different methods of using the Horner method, the proposed FB3G way and the current Horner way.

How is that for confusion!!!!!

I get to RO at FB3G, again. I'm looking forward to it.

Trapr

[Charles Bond]

Now to throw a "spanner" into the works..............I think it will run fine at Benning, except that there will be a variance allowed for HM shooters, (one I'm glad to see, but it may cause problems) so now everybody that is "familiar" with the current Horner method will have to adjust, and the RO's that are just learning will have to make sure that the competitor is scored properly.

So as I understand it, there are 2 different methods of using the Horner method, the proposed FB3G way and the current Horner way.

How is that for confusion!!!!!

I get to RO at FB3G, again. I'm looking forward to it.

Trapr

Good point. The FB3G has come way too far to suffer a set back especially on something so basic as scoring. Despite the fact that we have extremely talented folks scoring the match, the match is too established now to risk the type of confusion you reference with shooters or range staff. But the FB3G revision of the Horner way it is.

[BigHamp]

Now to throw a "spanner" into the works..............I think it will run fine at Benning, except that there will be a variance allowed for HM shooters, (one I'm glad to see, but it may cause problems) so now everybody that is "familiar" with the current Horner method will have to adjust, and the RO's that are just learning will have to make sure that the competitor is scored properly.

So as I understand it, there are 2 different methods of using the Horner method, the proposed FB3G way and the current Horner way.

How is that for confusion!!!!!

I get to RO at FB3G, again. I'm looking forward to it.

Trapr

Good point. The FB3G has come way too far to suffer a set back especially on something so basic as scoring. Despite the fact that we have extremely talented folks scoring the match, the match is too established now to risk the type of confusion you reference with shooters or range staff. But the FB3G revision of the Horner way it is.

Thanks for your concern Charles, now feel free to dismiss it. We are confident in the selection of our scoring system, and have no concerns of it breaking the match. For the record no shooter should be concerned with the scoring, only the rules. I could see a lot of concern if for some reason the scoring system somehow favored one shooter over the other, but EVERYONE will be scored the same, save HM and they will be scored only against one another. At the end of the match I guarantee that the competitor that shoots the fastest and the most accurate will win, period. This thread should be about the merits of one scoring system vs another, FB3G has made the decision to score this way, we have yet to cash a single check in case you do not want to play this way. There would be no hard feelings, we did this so everyone that shows up will be happy and excited, not feeling as though they where dooped into some scoring experiment. We have attempted to come up with what we feel is the best scoring for the competitors, not the staff. I feel that accuracy is the most important thing, and if it takes a miss penalty to make you shoot at a far target, so be it. If you are not prepared to run your gun and yourself hard...take up high power or bulls eye, or go to the match that you know and love. Everyone is being scored the same way, as long as the match is IMGA, USPSA, Horner, Modified Horner, modified IMGA, or HAMPDIZZEL fo shizzel and every competitor is scored under the same one, how does it matter. Get out of your comfort zone, come shoot the FB3G! In the end just remember, there are NO tears in 3-GUN!

[outerlimits]

+1 bighamp.

we'll be trying this one out next week on the left coast.

[bigbrowndog]

Hamp, you always take the fun out of fo schizzel discussions. as for the tears part, Benny was almost in tears after watching mr. miller shoot that boat stage from last year, from laughter!!

see you in December, Trapr

[LChico]

The only concern that I have with the Blue Ridge rules is speed of scoring. The nice thing about and IMGA match is that the RO doesn't have to spend 2 minutes looking at that A/C line hit, whipping out the scoring overlay to see if it's an A or a C. The RO can loosely examine the target, see if there are two hits, or an A and move on. With this scoring system, there will have to be at least some communication between RO and scorekeeper. How much would depend on the number of paper targets. Conservatively it could add a minute or two per shooter. I'm not sure how big the Blue Ridge match was, but I'm concerned that a match the size of Benning or SMM3G might bog down a bit with scoring. Is there anyone that has shot this that noticed that?

I'm a bit late responding to this. Summer Blast is keeping me a bit busy. To get things back to a discussion of the merits or difficulties of the new scoring system:

The only concern that I have with the Blue Ridge rules is speed of scoring.

And you can bet that I had strong concerns about that, too.

Yes, it DOES take more time to score the targets when compared to IMGA, but not as much as "one to two" minutes per shooter. Many have shot USPSA multi-gun matches that use 'San Angelo' scoring. It takes nearly the same amount of time, but since the issue of 'minor' vs 'major' hits are not considered, it does save some time on stages that use more than one firearm. It also saves the time in stats where points do not have to be deducted for 'minor' firearms, like at USPSA multi-gun with SA scoring.

Blue Ridge was the first major test of this system, and the scoring took a long time. It probably ran over by that 'one to two minutes per shooter,' but NOT because of any problems inherent in the scoring system. Our time problem at Blue Ridge was less the time it took to score a stage, but rather the fact that we were VERY short on RO staff (with about half the number we wanted), and the stages were long (both in terms of number of targets and the amount of ground they covered). It also took a lot of time to paste and re-set. It was a very physical match that beat the staff to death. Because he made use of the beautiful natural terrain, Andy Horner had stages spread out across a sizable section of real estate. Even getting from one stage to another took a bit of time. A run to collect score sheets took over an hour.

That said, on 'close' targets the benefit of the doubt went to the shooter (very little use of overlays) & any questionable targets were pulled for the Range master & the match continued. Stats added up all the penalties (rather than staff on the stages). Even with only one person working on data entry, we had lots of free time in stats. Data entry was very simple.

With adequate staff, I do not think it will add appreciable time to the match because of scoring.

Linda Chico (L-2035)

2008 Blue Ridge Mountain 3 Gun Statistician

[3gungal]

I really appreciate the effort by all to find a scoring method that is equitable. Three gun is relatively young and it is evolving constantly. It is this evolution that affords us as competitors the option to participate in a particular match. As a shooter, I like IMG but find it doesn’t do much for my accuracy. I think the modified horner method is a good balance of speed and accuracy.

As far as scoring a match, nothing is more tedious then the SA method. I want a program that is easy to use and quick to enter. The modified horner method seems to be just that. We used this method at our last 3-gun glub match and it really worked well. No complaints from competitors or from the RO’s

[Benelli Chick]

I've been trying to stay out of this, but I think you'll be surprised by the reason why.

Linda's points are well taken. Lot's of matches are trying different things to fit what they want their match to be and what they value. RM3G has started using smaller targets to work on the accuracy. It seems to work for us, and as Linda says, we have long stages with number of targets and distance travelled. (Not as many or quite as long as that one of Andy's, but you know!)

ALL these methods work for some people. I am a school teacher, and I get really sick of people telling teachers that this works for teacher A, so ALL the teachers need to do it that way. Teachers are different, and different methods work for different ones. Kids are different, and different methods work for them as well.

Well, matches are different, and different scoring and rules work for different ones for different reasons. Shooters are different. Some scoring methods work for some, but annoy others!

Ft. Benning is trying to be on the cutting edge with a new scoring method. Taking Andy's method and adapting it for He-Man. If you really hate it, you probably shouldn't go. We will probably not be using it any time soon at RM3G or Johnson, but I'm looking forward to trying it out and seeing how it goes. I'm going to have to get my brain in the right place, but we ARE supposed to think before we shoot. I'm worried because Cheryl shoots lots more A's than me!

I think we ought to savor the differences between matches. Each one is a new experience. I'm not so thrilled with the idea of the same rules for everyone. I like variety!!! Someone said, variety is the spice of life!

More power to Ft. Benning! More power to the ones who use San Angelo! More power to the IMGA scorers!! Let's let people do what they do best! Difference is GOOD!

I encourage people to keep coming up with ideas to improve their 3-Gun matches! But, don't try to make them all the same! And don't try to tell people how to run their matches. People need to experiment to improve!

That's my 2cents, and I probably get a 1/2 cent penalty for rambling!!!!

Denise

Oh yeah! P.S. I do disagree Aaron when you say the shooter need only worry about the rules and not about scoring. The shooters need to understand the scoring to be able to have the appropriate mindset for the match and to be sure their score sheet is correct before they sign it!!!

[kurtm]

DANGER is the spice of life, NOT variety, and I have yet to feel threatened by any scoring system. Let,s shoot...OKAY???

[LChico]

Oh yeah! P.S. I do disagree Aaron when you say the shooter need only worry about the rules and not about scoring. The shooters need to understand the scoring to be able to have the appropriate mindset for the match and to be sure their score sheet is correct before they sign it!!!

Thanks Denise!

Aaron's point was that competitors needed to be aware of the rules (and how that scoring impacted their shooting strengths or weaknesses). What he was trying to stop was all the comments and concern about new scoring rules confusing the staff, and how smoothly (or not) the actual process of recording and calculating scores would be. Of course we want the shooters to understand the scoring.

My point was that the additional time to score & re-set stages at Blue Ridge did not have much to do with the scoring system. JJ was at the match, and I'm sure he can attest to the LONG stages & long distances between stages.

Linda Chico (L-2035)

2008 Blue Ridge Mountain 3 Gun Statistician

[Benelli Chick]

Danger, Variety, Nutmeg! Whatever! You say tomatoe, I say pomegranite ????