Thread: HFT Grading
View Single Post
Old 14th May 2009, 12:47 PM
Ian Harford's Avatar
Ian Harford Ian Harford is offline
Anyone seen Ted today?
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Doveridge, Derbyshire
Posts: 34

Originally Posted by Scooby View Post
Hi Steve,

If we were to use a grading system for next year we would use this years scores to get an average for everyone, then we would need to group them into specific grades.

We couldn't use the same system as FT as our Average score for the first 3 rounds is over 80% of the winners total. We have a lot of shooters over 90% so that could be one grade, whereas at each round we have very few shooters under 60%.

Off the top of my head you could look at a split like this:

Shooters averaging 90% or above would be AA Grade
Shooters averaging between 80 & 90% would be A Grade
Shooters averaging between 70 & 80% would be B Grade
Shooters averaging below 70% would be C Grade.

We would have to look at how to place new shooters as they may be experienced shooter who just haven't done UKAHFT before, we could therefore use a system like they do down south for FT, new shooters go in the top grade until they have a few scores, after this you have an average to grade them.
This would seem to work pretty well alongside the badge system.

I am not sure I understand the issues with .22 and springers. I think what the proposed system does is to get everyone shooting against those of a similar ability, regardless of their choice of equipment or the depth of their pockets. I shot with Patrick at Tawd who posted a very respectable 54 with his HW97, to my 55 with an EV2. His efforts were still rewarded with a Gold.

If the issue is that potentially less .22s and springers will compete without seperate clases I would be very surprised. If people shoot .22 or springers just so they can win an "easy" trophy against a small number of competitors then this doesnt make sense to me, and should be discouraged anyway. The huge differences between scores within these classes actually demonstrates that it is the shooter, not the equipment that should be categorised.

I sponsor the .22 Junior and recoiling trophies at the UKAHFT events, and I am in discussions with Pete & Pete about how we can get more involved in supporting the sport in the future. What is important from my point of view is that the structure recognises the achievements of shooters at all levels, and encourages greater participation. The system should be fair to all, and be able to take into consideration the amount that people can afford to invest in their sport. It should reward dedication, and recognise improvements in performance brought about by an investment in time and practice.

If people choose not to spend time practicing, then that is up to them. It should not limit the opportunity of those who choose to invest more into the sport. Equally, they should be able to compete against those with a similar amount of time and/or money to invest. As with all sports, their should be the opportunity to develop and progress. This is where the real achievement lies.

What is immediately apparent to anyone shooting HFT is the spirit and supportive nature of the people involved. I have been around many different types of competitve shooting for a long time as a competitor, sponsor and organiser. It is refreshing to be around such a mutually supportive group of competitors who genuinly enjoy each others company and want each other to do well, even at the very top.

My initial vote on this was "no", why fix what wasnt broken, but now I am leaning towards a "yes". Provided the badge system is still in place (which is an essential part of the sport) the more competition that exists for each ability level the better. You don't get into the Champions League by winning promotion from the First Division, but you tell anyone returning triumphant from Wembley this year that their achievement was just celebrating mediocrity and you will get a few bemused looks!

Here endeth my longest forum post in history!


Reply With Quote