Originally Posted by rich
Slightly at a tangent then, if our local regional courses are kept potentially clearable and with encouragement for newer competitors, both concepts very desirable, are they as they stand a proper basis for grading for those who do the tougher GP circuit?
I believe the solution is regional weighting. Complex, but I believe possible. If the GP scores for say X shooter shows he hits 80% in national, but 90% av in regional, then fudge regional by a factor of 8/9 when they are entered and same for all others in the region... unlikely that it would be the other way around, but nothing to say you couldn't do it that way if needed.
You can't measure the difficulty of a course, and grade doesn't do that, all it does is measure your standing against the winner of the day. One could argue that if GP shooters attended say a Swefta shoot then the grades would drop back down anyway. I'd say SDOR was probably clearable on that last round. I would expect that or 39's, definitely 38's to come off with a national field shooting that. Top was 35? Tricky wind albeit, but high 30's was my expectation. The ones i missed were all sitters. I don't know what Si, Mark and Tony missed, but I'd put money on what say Jack, Justin or any other top AA shot that springs to mind wouldn't.
I'm not sure length is anything to do with it. More exposure to wind and having surroundings that are conducive to reading changing exposures and wind. I think at the last time I went to Sheb, 5 yds could have been pulled off every target and the results would have been broadly the same in terms of placings, but people would have hit more targets.
Conditions and course are hard to separate, which it's why it's a black art as to building a 'good' course. But generally scores compact when things are easier, and expand when not. Question is, what courses are doing that, what is the top score on that day, and who did it?
I don't know. The feeling I get from some Swefta shoots is that sometimes courses are put out with the view in mind of "now lets see someone try and hit that" and that's repeated across a lot of targets. Where as in my view it should be about separation by who misses what rather than who manages to hit what, with a bit of fun thrown in the middle. I'm not sure there is a need to gut punch someone twice in a lane... if someone misses the 50+ 40mm target one, chances are they aren't going to fair well on a high 30-40 yd mini for target 2, assuming same exposure. Chances are that the one that hits no.1 will hit no.2, but it takes someone who at least knows what went wrong on no.1 to have a better chance on no.2
My suggestion would be rather than courses which are quite linear in arrangement that then ramp up the difficulty to compensate, is to make targets easier on their own but get some angles and variation in so that shooters start to think about just the target in front of them, not how the wind subtly changes from target to target along a line. I think SDOR could benefit from that just as much as any.