View Single Post
Old 15th June 2015, 05:56 PM
Brian.Samson's Avatar
Brian.Samson Brian.Samson is offline
Allowed in Sales
Join Date: Jun 2009
Member of: Pontefract, Doncaster Airgun Range
Location: Doncaster
Posts: 2,324

Originally Posted by Yorkshiretea View Post
I think we are talking a cross purposes on some of this Bri, I'm still interested the movement data and keeping/publishing data - we don't do enough of it and it will make a nice record of the sport. Talking of records, are there any world records in FT? Most wins, highest scores etc etc. If not, why not and should I get my shovel and dig Roy Castle up?

I can go with match metrics, I'd also do one for the course, someone who isn't shooting it measures and logs each target/type, cross match that with the score card data and you've got the makings of a good couple of pages and probably enough to spin a few news stories which coupled with pictures would all be good for the big picture of the sport.
Yeah that's the sort of thing I'm thinking of, with a slightly different spin.
One if the biggest problems we've always had in FT is finding people to actually do the work.

It's great when someone like Shaun writes up a report for a GP and Chris Large's FT Review publication used to be just a brilliant piece of work. The problem is that individuals soon get fed up with the unpaid workload.

So my different spin on things is to provide a website where shooters can log in and add their own comments to individual targets or a general comment on the course etc. That way instead of one poor sod being lumbered with the job, the workload is spread out to all the shooters. And I'll tell you one thing I know about FT shooters - they love to tell you all about those targets they hit or missed etc.

Take Gilly for example - he'd be able to log in an put a comment against target 2 - about 53/54 yards up the top of the bank (a target location that's been the bane of his Winter league scores for 11 years!)

That's ultimately where I'd like to take us.

A GP is a reasonably level playing field on which to measure your performance, the problem with the grading list isn't just the calculation, it's the regional variations that make it such an inaccurate measurement. That''s why I don't think there's any useful comparisons to be made by thinking of it as a league table, and in its current form it does a reasonable job of giving a rough prediction of your future performance but it relies heavily on shooters electing a higher grade when the prediction is clearly wrong. Unfortunately that doesn't happen often enough and this trend towards thinking of it as a league table that you shouldn't override until you've 'officially earned' the grade is damaging to the real goals of the system.
Reply With Quote