Prizes???

[jkmccoy]

This is a topic that is obviously of substantial concern to people trying to host "major" matches. It would be great to be able to attract not only a lot of shooters, but also some of the "top" shooters. Thus, it becomes a bit of a balancing act to try to make everyone happy.

I understand that the "top" shooters have paid their dues and put in the practice and are looking for some level of payback. (Even as one of the middle-class shooters I find prize tables by order of finish satisfying.) But for many of us this sport is just a hobby and I would really hate to see it become more mercenary than it is. I (personally) would rather pay a modest entry fee with a chance of winning a plaque than pay an exhorbitant entry fee to provide a great prize for the semi-pro shooter who wins the match.

I also understand that for many shooters who have no realistic chance of winning their class or finishing in the top 10 (I won't even comment on the semi-pro sandbaggers out there) that a prize table by random drawing may be of interest. OK, you didn't "win" or "earn" the prize but the drawing is still fun and you may take home something useful.

I don't know if it's the best way, but for the Texas State 3-Gun match last year we actually worked sort of a hybrid. The match was advertised as "trophy only" with a very reasonable entry fee and we spent a lot of money on really nice trophies. A bunch of sponsors jumped in and provided prizes that we could award on a prize table. Since we already had trophies to recognize division and class winners, the prize table was awarded by random drawing.

It might not be a reasonable expectation, but this was our attempt to have our cake and eat it too. Seemed like everyone had a good time with it.

Although I would really like to have all the "top" shooters come to our match I really don't want to be in the position of paying people to shoot the match. I much prefer having people shoot the match because they love the sport and want to compete on some innovative and fun stages to having people come to shoot because they might win a lot of money (or a prize worth a lot of money).

Cheers,

p.s. I have great fun pointing out to students (especially unruly students) that the trophy on a shelf in my office is for rifle/pistol/shotgun shooting. Probably more fun than I would have gotten from a prize I picked up in order of finish.

[wide45]

How many at the top are in it for the prizes? If only trophies were ever awarded, would anyone quit shooting?

Would there be more sponsored shooters?

I vastly prefer awards by placement, to random givaway. Better now is a low entry fee, and no prizes at all.

[shred]

1- It's not about the "big money" value of the prize.

2- It's about getting what you want based on what you earned.

3- It's about vendors and sponsors getting their products into the hands of shooters that want them.

Random giveaways are fun, but don't meet qualifications 2 or 3. Super-high value prizes that only a couple people are ever in contention for don't meet qualifications 1 and 2. Cash-only payback fails 1 and 3.

At the Steel Challenge, _everybody_ walked away with at least $300 or $400 worth of stuff. The first ~30 shooters got better prizes ($500+), but then the prizes pretty much leveled off, though the higher finishers got first pick. The Handgunner was similar, but based on your classification-- Good stuff for winning 1st & 2nd, then a pretty flat distribution from there on. Maybe not every big match gets this kind of sponsor support, but the concept works.

Entry fees shouldn't be used to pay for prizes (see #1 & 3, above)

[Bear1142]

I think we need to redefine this topic. The issue in not whether or not there should be a prize table system as opposed to an award or plaque system, the issue is IF its a prize table match, should it be order of finish or random drawing. The top shooters compete for titles, not for prizes. But if prizes are available, it should be order of finish. Not some "feel good", outcome based finish. Rob stated it best, the free market will determine which of these styles is more attractive. I personally tend to shy away from plaque matches. I'm willing to pay the higher fees for the better prize tables, my choice. I don't always get something, but I like the reward based system. If I perform, I get the title and something nice. On a side note, I always get a better reaction from a new shooter or when introducing someone new to the sport when they learn the pistol their shooting was one I won in competition. I always see their eyes light up with thoughts of them, one day, winning a gun. I never see that with a plaque.

Erik

[Garfield]

To me, the reputation of the match - ie how good the stages and match administration are determines whether I'm going to fork over my money to shoot it - not what kind or how they give out prizes.

"Yeah what she said"

But I also feel that if prizes are given out, they should be a reward for achievement, not for turning up and joining the lottery.

[ToddS]

Let me tell all of you, I'm not into shooting for the prizes, I'm in it for the WOMEN. They all think I'm cool because I shoot. Do most of you guys get the same reaction?

As far as prizes, I think the wealth should be spread out. The top shooters should be awarded, but not everyone in order by place of finish.

I realize that some sports have classes, but others do not. My favorite system is the one created by Kyle Lamb. ( his wife probably thought of it because I don't think Kyle is smart enough), but in his Tactical 3-Gun matches, no classes exist prior to the match. The top three shooters are awarded, then the next guys, #'s 4-6 are 1st - 3rd Gold. He goes down 25% then the next three are 1st- 3rd Silver, then the 25% later the next are 1-3 bronze. He then goes back to #4 Gold, #4 Silver, #4 Bronze.

It's a really fair system, the top guys get their prize if they perform, and the rank and file gets some really nice stuff too. Sandbagging is eliminated.

IPSC can't do it that way because of the class rankings.

I don't like random either.

The match I hate most is when you get charged a large entry fee, and the match staff gets phat off the proceeds while giving lame excuses as to where all the expense went. One well known 3-Gun match come to mind anyone? Thats why most of the top shooters are not going there this year.

[TriggerT]

So, say for example, a C class shooter (I know there are no classes, but I am saying a beginner to average shooter) goes out and shoots better than he ever has in his life; just has one of those days where everything goes right, and finishes at say 23%. Does he then get nothing? And again, say a shooter who is well known to be on a GM level goes out and, figurativley speaking, shoots himself in the foot and finishes at 49.5%. Is it fair for him to win #1 bronze?

This reminds me alot of the scoring system that is used at a "1911, non-high capacity" (you get my meaning) only event. Let me state right up front that I don't claim to have a better system for eliminating "Sandbaggers", but I know quite a few shooters who won't go to these type of events. The year I went to this event, a well known M class shooter took the high B award. there is just something wrong with that.

I think the people who loose the most in these type of situations are the new shooters. What chance does a new, again about D class, shooter have of winning anything? He might, but the odds are against it.

I don't think there is any easy solution to this problem. Maybe eveyone has to shoot in their HIGHEST class? Kind of like the U.S. government. Is it flawed, you bet. Has anyone come up with anything better so far, not that I know of.

[Gwhiz]

There should be plaques and some cash for class winners. But a prize table should be order of finish.

More importantly what ever method that is used should be stated before the match. No suprises.