WHAT'S THE SCORE?

[P.E. Kelley]

Scoring

A view from multiple perspectives

My goal here is to OBJECTIVLY illustrate the differences in balance between accuracy and speed using;

USPSA Scoring

Time Plus

Horner method.

I will use 6 full paper targets for all examples.

Two shots on each target as needed for a total of 12 shots.

USPSA Scoring (major caliber)

Shooter #1

All 12 shots went into the A zone. (Each “A” is worth 5 points). These 12 shots were fired in 6 seconds.

Now for the math involved to determine the score.

12/A’s (times) 5 points per A = 60 points

Divide this by the 6 seconds it took to fire the shots

60 points (divided by) 6 seconds = 10 HF

10 is called a Hit Factor. It IS the number of points per second that shooter #1 shot.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Shooter #2 also shoots a Hit Factor of 10 but he shot 7/A’s and 5/C’s (C’s are worth 4 points)

55 points in 5.5 seconds. 55 (divided by) 5.5 seconds = 10 HF

Are you following???

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Shooter #3 also shoots a Hit Factor of 10 but he shot 2/A’s and 10/C’s

50 points in 5 seconds. 50 (divided by) 5 = 10 HF

<< IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT EACH OF THESE SHOOTERS HAS EQUAL SCORES. >>

This is USPSA’s way of balancing Accuracy Power and Speed. (maybe not the way but a way)

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Using the above we will now use Time Plus to score.

Time Plus requires two hits OR one “A” on each paper target to Neutralize and avoid penalties

Shooter #1

12/A’s easily neutralized the 6 paper targets so the shooter’s time of 6 seconds is his score.

Shooter # 2

Also easily neutralized the 6 paper targets so the shooter’s time of 5.5 seconds is his score

Shooter #3

Also neutralized the 6 paper targets so the shooter’s time of 5 seconds is his score.

Here the balance shifts to more speed than accuracy in comparison to USPSA scoring.

Shooter #3 earned 100%

Shooter #2 earned 90%

Shooter #1 earned 83%

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Again, using the same values we apply Horner Scoring.

Under Horner two A’s are required on each paper target to Neutralize and avoid penalties.

C’s add .5 seconds and D’s add 1.5 seconds.

Shooter #1

12/A’s are required to neutralized the 6 paper targets so the shooter’s time of 6 seconds is his score.

Shooter #2

7/A’s and 5/C’s C’s carry a time penalty of .5 seconds per C’s this is added to his shoot time of 5.5 seconds.

5/C’s (times) .5 seconds = 2.5 seconds (plus) 5.5 second shoot time = 8 seconds for score.

Shooter # 3

2/A’s and 10/C’s C’s carry a time penalty of .5 seconds per C’s this is added to his shoot time of 5 seconds.

10/C’s (times) .5 seconds = 5 seconds (plus) 5 second shoot time = 10 seconds for score.

Here that balance shifts greatly toward accuracy in comparison to USPSA and Time plus scoring.

Shooter # 1 earned 100 %

Shooter #2 earned 75%

Shooter #3 earned 60%

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

This is neither an indictment nor an endorsement of these scoring methods. I have posted this because a great many shooters AND a number of match directors are not aware of what effects each scoring method has on the competitor.

I have opinions but will hold them until you have a chance to digest.

Patrick

Edited to reflect 6 paper targets only

Edited July 17, 2008 by P.E. Kelley

[AikiDale]

Question: In a match using Time Plus scoring, would it be appropriate for shooter #1 to have skipped a reload and 9 shots to neutralize the 3 targets or would there be other incentive/motivation to shoot all 12 shots with the reload?

[Benelli Chick]

Really, in time plus scoring, you shouldn't make the shooter reengage paper as neutralizing the target only takes 1. Sometimes for local matches, you might score El Prez in time-plus as needing to be nuetralized twice.

El Prez doesn't make a good shooting challenge in time-plus. PK was just using it as an example for the scoring comparison.

Ft Benning is going to allow one shot for He-Man as long as they don't take another shot on paper.

Just my two cents, but time-plus gives the shooter more options, and yes decisions:

Do I take the time to hit 3 A's? If the targets are too far away to see, do I take time and be careful or do I just shoot two (or more) at them? Do I shoot 2 at the first few, then just one each to save a mag change? Do I shoot that little guy just past my muzzle with one, and do I shoot the head shot with two or more, but there's that no shoot there? Do I shoot just one quickly at the clamshell that comes up faster than... and then Not reengage it and hope for the A?

To be honest, taking just one shot at paper is a risk in time plus. If it's just outside the A, you get a 5 second penalty same as if it's in the edge of the D. You really have to know what you're good at and shoot the stage the way that works for you best.

Horner really does stress accuracy, and if that's what you really want and don't have any little baby targets, you might want to use it, but it's a lot tougher on the non-A than USPSA!

[warpspeed]

my take:

USPSA makes accuracy & speed equal partners in the deal. Go faster and be less accurate is OK.

Time plus says speed is more important than accuracy. Go faster but just get 2 on.

Horner says accuracy is waaaaay more important than speed. If you go faster, you had better not drop any points or else.

Edited July 17, 2008 by warpspeed

[Flexmoney]

PK...sorry...you ran that by me before you posted it. I saw the El Prez and figured somebody would bring up the ppoint of view on skipping the targets on the second pass, but didn't think it would happen right off and didn't see it becoming the focus of the discussion.

How about...instead of 3 targets that are engaged twice...just think of PK's example as having 6 targets...?

[P.E. Kelley]

PK...sorry...you ran that by me before you posted it. I saw the El Prez and figured somebody would bring up the ppoint of view on skipping the targets on the second pass, but didn't think it would happen right off and didn't see it becoming the focus of the discussion.

How about...instead of 3 targets that are engaged twice...just think of PK's example as having 6 targets...?

Yes, let us discuss in terms of 6 targets.

Thank you Flex.

Patrick

[J-Ho]

Thanks for posting this. It is very interesting, but at the same time I think it is a good illustration of why different scoring systems are going to stick around. Different scoring system each have their own focus. Some are evenly balanced, some allow full throttle, some lean toward accuracy. I think it is good to be able to tell someone, "hey scoring system A is an accuracy game so slow down and make your hits." or "go as fast as you can, just neutralize the targets." I know which I prefer, but to have the choice and to know which one leans toward what is handy.

Please don't let this turn into "unification v. outlaw" fight.

[AikiDale]

PK...sorry...you ran that by me before you posted it. I saw the El Prez and figured somebody would bring up the ppoint of view on skipping the targets on the second pass, but didn't think it would happen right off and didn't see it becoming the focus of the discussion.

How about...instead of 3 targets that are engaged twice...just think of PK's example as having 6 targets...?

Yes, let us discuss in terms of 6 targets.

Thank you Flex.

Patrick

Patrick,

Thank you for posting this analysis. I certainly did not mean for the focus of the discussion to revolve around gaming the stage. Having never shot such a match I was curious how it would actually work using your example, hence my question. Benelli Chick did a great job of explaining; thanks BC!

There is no "best" scoring system nor associated game unless one also asks "best for what purpose?"

Each would lend itself to different aspects of one's shooting development. One would need to have what Sensei calls "a mind to fight" to insist one be superior to another. The important thing for a competitive shooter is simply to understand which tactics best apply for any given system and Patrick has made that crystal clear.

Thanks again Pat!

[P.E. Kelley]

The scoring system can change the flavor of a match.

Some flavors, favor some.

What flavor are you?

Patrick

[tgibson]

Great topic PK!! Last weekend at the R and R was the first time I have ever shot a Horner scored match. To tell you the truth, I really enjoyed it. On a bunch of the target arrays, there was either hard cover or a NS right there with it anyway so it wasn't that big of a deal to shoot head shots. Believe it or not, I can shoot accurately when I want to .

With all of this being said, I do feel like some matches might be better off running a different type of scoring. I am going to use the only one I am very familiar with for an example. The Ironman would be ROUGH on the shooters if we used the Horner method, and it would be killer on the RO's and score keepers if we used USPSA rules. For this example, I would say our modified IMG rules work best.

To answer your question, at this point in my shooting, I would say prefer the Horner flavor. Again PK, GOOD DISCUSSION!!!

Adios,

TG

Edited July 17, 2008 by tgibson

[el pres]

Dont make me pick between blond or brunett !! I wont do it !!

I like all the scoreing methods, I like to be challenged by shooting for points very much but

I would hate to see all out hose fests like Superstition change. There's just something about

going down stage 5 gulley in a blur and not remembering what just happened !!

[bgary]

Dont make me pick between blond or brunett !! I wont do it !!

Dang, that one's a no-brainer: redhead!

[Religious Shooter]

My preference:

1. Modified (everybody shoots major) USPSA Comstock scoring.

2. USPSA/IMGA Time Plus.

3. Horner Scoring.

The 2 and 3 spots can change spots... sometimes you feel like a nut... sometimes you don't.

USPSA/IMGA Time Plus puts the emphasis in getting a hit. But it does not reward the quality of the hit. The fastest and easiest to score.

Horner scoring is a "head shot" scoring system. Very accuracy oriented.

I think modified USPSA Comstock blends speed and accuracy better than the other two methods and allows relatively speedy scoring.

USPSA SA method... we should get rid of it.

[Flexmoney]

Anoybody's personal preference is a drift from the topic. Lets keep this one on track.

Scoring

A view from multiple perspectives

My goal here is to OBJECTIVLY illustrate the differences in balance between accuracy and speed...

[Religious Shooter]

The scoring system can change the flavor of a match.

Some flavors, favor some.

What flavor are you?

Patrick

Just for the record... this is what I was responding to. I was stating what flavor I was.

[Jim Norman]

I like HF scoring as it balances the fast with the accurate and allows fast accuracy to triumph overall.

The problem is with mixed PF on a given stage. Ex:Major PF Rifle and Minor Pistol or opposite. My take here would be this: Just like at Chrono, if you minor, you are minor all through the match, if you elect to shoot minor rifle, then you are also shooting minor pistol regardless of actual PF. Score the HM shooters in a separate division. Now, you can score the stage and not concern yourself with which target was engaged by what gun. Allows the shooter to choose. Obviously we need to require that the shooter use both guns and maybe switch at a certain point regardless, but from a scoring point of view it would work.

Edited to add the following:

Set the steel heavy so that a minor pistol load wil take it down, but so that only high hits will. This way the shooters that elect to game the stages by shooting a minor load to shoot faster will also have to tkae the chance of not taking a steel down. Set the calibration at say 150PF?

End Edit

The second item I like is to have all stages count the same. Score HF, then percentages become your stage points. High number wins. All challenges are equal in the end.

For the record, I'll shoot any system, as long as it is properly applied. One of the big problems with time plus scoring is that on long range targets some shooters at some matches have fired two quick shots at a long rifle target and taken the miss figuring that the 5 seconds penalty was less then the time required to make the shot. This needs to be addressed in order for Time-Plus to work. Same can happen with Comstock unless we add the higher values to the long targets.

Jim

Edited July 18, 2008 by Jim Norman

[outerlimits]

while driving home from the R & R match, we were musing we should have packed our steel guns gamed it and shot sub-minor for the pistol. in fact, for tac optics, i would think a hi-cap 9 svi/sti would be the shi$&ole for the pistol.

Edited July 18, 2008 by outerlimits

[sargenv]

I didn't ses San Angelo scoring mentioned... maybe because no one has scored that way before.. and it is a little more complex... I ran it this weekend at our local match..

Here are the premises that made it work.

Score sheets custom made for each stage.

Rifle, Pistol, and shotgun targets defined on score sheets (slug targets, Clays, and Steel).

Clays that flew were counted and non-penalty misses.

Clays that are stationary are counted as frangible. misses and hits were either counted as -10 for a miss, or 1 alpha for a hit.

Rifle scored Major or Minor

Pistol scored Major or minor.

So the whole equation was used, speed, power, and accuracy.

Shooters were all entered into EZ Winscore as Major. I used Open, Limited, and Tactical. Limited 10 was designated as Heavy metal in case there were any Limited minor rifle shooters.. and there were not.

Here is an example of a very mixed stage - 5 rifle targets, 5 pistol targets, 5 static clays, 2 thrown clays, and 4 slugs.

Heavy metal (all major PF) - Enter all targets into EZ Winscore as written down.. no changes or additions needed. 31 rounds needed, just like a pistol stage.

Minor rifle, Major Pistol - Enter all targets into EZ Winscore as written down, any B, C, or D hits via rifle targets, add them up and place that # into Additional Penalties and on to the next shooter.

Minor rifle, minor pistol - Enter all targets into EZ Winscore as written down, Any B, C, or D hits under Rifle and Pistol are added up and that # is entered into additional penalties, and then on to the next shooter.

There can be some confusion if you count slugs as two alpha, or flying clays as two alpha, but that tends to happen when the stage is being scored and we can run into that problem in any normal scoring issue. So long as people are informed, there doesn't seem to be a problem.

Once you finish the match, it's just like a pistol match, it tallies everything for you and you find out who won by doing your totals. It is what I prefer despite having to make custom score sheets (I made them between Sat afternoon and Sun morning after everything had been built).

I did have some interesting stages this weekend. The Rifle portion had several targets shot Mozambique (3 per target) and the pistol targets only required 2 per target. I was able to make it work in the stage setup by designating an even # of paper targets and adding an extra steel to make things add up right. EZ Winscore didn't seem to care so long as I got the round count right when entering them. I might run one of the stages through the other scoring methods to see if there were really any changes. As usual, the person who was fastest and most accurate is likely the person who is going to win. I think the other scoring systems might reward some shooters who were inconsistent and they might place a little differently. If/when I do those tallies, maybe I'll post back to here. I didn't shoot the match so I had all day to enter scores and chase people down for inconsistencies. It was an experiment that I feel was a success.

Edited July 29, 2008 by sargenv