What is a Competitive Event?

Note: This discussion emerged in another thread and is best sown as its own thread.

The question: What does it mean to say an event is "competitive?" Is an easy event truly competitive, or is a more challenging event that which is rightfully called "competitive?"

A comparison: Is International Trap competitive, or is an event in which you stand at the line, call "pull" and point your gun downrange while the target is in the air more competitive? A good score in International Trap might be 92/100, while in the second event, we could see several competitors tied at 100,000/100,000. Which of the two events is more competitive?

Let's not. That's not how educated people conduct enquiry. If you have an OED, I'd be interested in a review of their entry.

We're discussing competitive sports and activities. If we want to make an activity more competitive, how would we go about it?

Of course, it is. The problem was created by letting that unworthy majority into the event.

 

Does it seem then that a move toward "invitational" events might be in order? Or perhaps events open to 95% and above with a handicap of 25+ yards? Under current ATA/PITA if you are a dues paying member you pay your fees and take your chances and it seems to me under that format it would remain "status quo". Larry

 

smoking 357,

The only way to have an absolute competitive competition is to have all entrants with an equal amount of ability. Even an intitational would not in the letter of the word accomplish this. This could drive a socialist crazy. That may not be a bad idea. Roger C.

 

Why do y'all respond to a troll? He can't afford to shoot and lives in seattle wa

 

Its where those who have amassed more than 27 yards have to shoot .410 shotguns in singles.

 

Oh, heavens, yes, but who wants to watch an invitational at an easy event? The Masters is tough. Wimbledon is tough.

I don't believe in handicap. If the target is tough enough, 16 yards is just fine.

There is certainly no reason why Trap can't handicap by gauge.

 

It takes two to "tango".

 

There is a game that uses different gauges. It's called skeet.

Lefty

 

I think it should read what is a Competetive Trap Target.

The target settings now are not a competitive target like Dan Bonillas has pointed out in his Interview w/FG

 

Two, actually.

Sporting Clays has 20 Ga., 28 Ga. and .410 events.

Well, make that three.

As we all know, International uses loads that are 22% lighter than ATA, effectively putting the 12 Ga. into 20 Ga. loading.

American Trap is late to the party. It's the only shotgun discipline in which the load is always a full-house 12 Ga. load.

But you're off-topic. The discussion is of competitiveness. You said not a word on that subject.

 

If this discussion is going to produce positive inputs some definitions are needed so folks are talking (typing) the same language.
Easy, hard, long, qualified shooter, all represent general terms that mean different things to different shooters. A different thread indicated there could be no true competition at small shoots........ What is a small shoot?
Handicap means what? Tough target? If posters are not on the same page then a dialogue is impossible.
Who defines "Troll"? and just what constitutes a qualified poster? Income level? Place of residence? Type of shotgun?
Without some sideboard shooters will adhere to this will simply deteriorate into another thread with no substance.......... Larry

 

An anchor around the foot of the fastest guy to allow the slower guy to keep up.

"Handicap" is just that, an impediment.

I don't know why the ATA's biggest event is a handicap. It's not in other sports. In the World Series, the Yankees don't spot the Dodgers two runs a game. Handicap seems to be a destroyer of competition.

Of course, there can be true competition at a small shoot. A "true competitor" is one who is at the top of his game at the top of the sport. If at least two such participants enter, you have a real competition.

If a large portion of participants score at the top of the sport, the sport isn't sufficiently competitive.

Competition demands that the top be difficult to attain.

 

Perhaps something we overlook while thinking of competition is a shooters view of themselves and what they think is competition. Three old friends went to the range last night, no audience, no other shooters, just a fierce competition between three men...... Each of those three is competing WITH THEMSELVES at each shot they take. No money, no plaque, no trophy, no audience...... Larry

 

That was not much of a competition, no one lost anything, Like Money. In a real competition you are competing for something, nobody else knew about a competition.

GB>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>DLS

 

"I don't know why the ATA's biggest event is a handicap."

The allure of "Trapshooting handicap" WAS money.

If someone 'wins' 500 bucks they will spend 5,000 more over days, weeks, months, and even years trying to do it again if they feel their 'chance' is good. Handicap scores WERE low enough to get lucky. Now they are at miracle or cheating levels for most people.

When 500 bucks turned into 5 bucks on your 'lucky-day', for ALL the reasons that have been beat to death, people stopped trying.

"competing WITH THEMSELVES at each shot they take" is why the Grand is at the current participation levels. You can do that on a 'local level', without spending thousands of dollars and days away from work and family.

If there is no gold at the end of the rainbow, just sit on your porch and admire it.

 

How were the targets set, when you shot?

Competitive events, are when everyone has the same chance at winning.

In baseball, the Reds have the same chance at winning the NL central as the Cardinals, yet which one wins more often?

 

Duff,
It is impossible to find two traps set the same at clubs today. The height rule has been over ruled by idiots. Clubs are afraid to enforce the 8 to 10 ft. rule on target height. Neil has insinuated that not having a bench mark to set the target height is in no way a violation of the ATA published rule. If the ATA does not rid it's self of it's enlightened leaders it may reach the point of no return. Now I understand they are advocating a protractor to set the angles with. What happened to line of sight and common sense? Lets put the old X1524 machines back in the trap houses and when you put the center pin in the 3 hole you know what you are getting. Scrape out all of those Pat Traps and put people back to work setting targets on the arms. Maybe if someone could figure a way to financially benefit from such a move it would get done.

Then maybe we could start setting competitive targets again. But what do I know. I only have been shooting ATA trap for 40 years. I also built clay target machines for 20 years. I do know what a properly set target looks like. Roger Coveleskie

 

Roger,

We all shoot at the same target, to some degree. It doesn't matter what way you do it, trap to trap will never be exactly equal. That's why, you shoot 25 on a trap, before the bank system.

Personally, I don't see any reason why the bird should be anymore than five feet above the house, yet the squad I shoot with likes them fifteen feet. At the end of the day, we all get something we like, on the smaller shoots, that move you every 25.

In other words, and more succinct, everything equals out, sooner or later, no one shooter has an advantage, he/she is just better.

 

Roger, I agree, the old winchester x1524 had some advantages over the Pat trap. Mostly, you were able to centre the field and set the height all in the same operation. It was easier to level doubles and, some say, that they threw a better target, though that is a hard one to prove. That, unfortunately, is where the advantage of the x1524 ends, as far as I am concerned.

Putting people back to work setting the target on the arm is one thing, but what about that poor SOB that was tasked with changing a main spring, while standing on his head in a trap, while a squad of shooters wait to shoot and another is waiting behind them? Or worse yet, that main spring blows the front of the trap out, now you have to change the trap out and probably can't get that trap repaired before the end of the shoot. Most clubs were not fortunate enough to have a guy like you who knew their way around a trap, so they put shoots on with traps that were cobbled together, at best, and prayed that they would get through it with a minimum of problems. My memory of the old hand bomber, was that of the trap mechanic, pulling on a pair of coveralls over the clothes he had been shooting in minutes before, running toward the golf cart with two spare traps on the back, and preparing to try and keep things running if at all possible.

You, and people like you, who knew the x1524 are the only people who would ever benefit financially, from reinstating these traps. In my experience, (I started registering targets in 1976) the Pat trap, while not without its' issues, is a far better alternative than the old Winchester trap.

 

Just shoot the target that is presented.

Whom ever can do it the best, wins.

Simple

 

Jo2;
All target setting criteria came from the old X1524. When the Pat's showed up on the scene it all had to be changed to acomadate the PAT'S. If all you require is a target in the air a Pat will get the job done, if you want a quality target in the air it does not comply.
I would not benefit from reinstating any machine. I have been out of the machine business for the last 13 years. What do you do when a Pat breaks down? How long does it take to change out one of them? If it can not be fixed in the house you loose a whole bank. If you do not have a spare, the shoot it stopped. This is not only with Pat's but with any large automatic machine. The only machine that had all the adjustments of the X1524 was the GMV. and Peter will not ship to the U.S.A. any more. Roger C.

 

Duff,

Show your squad the rule book. Target height 8 to 10 ft above the 16 yd. pad 30 ft. in front of the trap house. Does you club have a height pole? set the targets at 9 1/2 ft. and get them used to shooting them. I'll bet their averages will improve. The game has been compromised by lax rules enforcement. The game was never meant to be what each person liked it was to be this is what the rule says we shoot. The game would be more fair if everyone followed the rules. Roger C.

 

That's the very definition of what "competitive" is not. See my first post in this thread.

That's a very wrong way of looking at the question. You could hang the target on a stick and continue to make Trap less and less competitive.

"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."

H. L. Mencken

 

Gary,
Do you really believe it takes money to have a competition? Do you really believe someone has to loose something before there is a competition? I believe competition has to do with the desires of the individual to excel in an activity.
The competitive spirit is something that is in an individual not something created by dollars or fear of loss. One man shooting by himself without an audience or prize money and attempting to beat his own last best score is (my opinion only) competitiveness....... Larry

 

Duff:You are very naïve if you think everything equals out, those that shot the higher targets have a higher score, or they would not have had the targets re-set. In the end the target re-setters have had the advantage, RE: N1H1 on the height T bars not setting target height is violating his very own Rule on Target setting procedures. This person cannot call him a man as he has no balls in standing up(sic) for Real Target Settings, He couldn't break our forefathers COMPETETIVE target settings so he goes an end around play to get them changed so his 24yd max trap gun can break some targets.

Gary Bryant........................Dr.longshot

 

DUFF: That name fits him Duffer, Duffers never shoot great scores.

 

FAR BETTER ALTERNATIVE WOW, Neil Winstons choice of traps, was the only one considered, and all of the ATA members are stuck with his choice, By a person that that started trapshooting in 1982, and knew nothing about trapshooting/ and does his END AROUND stabbing Neal Crausaby in the back/read the article in T&F. and sets up setting xxxxx/easy targets
so everyone can get a trophy, He alone and w/cooperation of the EC & BOD of that time took the COMPETETIVE target out of REAL ATA shooting, just look at the amount of GRAND SLAMS since his target setting guidelines, from 44 Grand Slams to now over 544, this could not of been done/ that many on a COMPETETIVE TARGET, LIKE THE ONE'S OUR FOREFATHERS SHOT

Gary Bryant................Dr.longshot

 

First of all Smoker, I hope that you are just too stupid to edit your initial post when you say several competitors are tied at 100,000/100,000 and actually meant 100/100.

No, it is not that the sport is not sufficiently competitive that results in higher scores, it is that it is not sufficiently difficult that results in higher scores. We have been over this very topic ad nauseam since this site opened. If the majority of shooters in the organization want more difficult targets, let's throw more difficult targets. If what you are requesting is an international target presentation by the ATA, well, I would suggest that since there is already a game with an international style target setting called International Trap, that that option is already available to the ultra small handful of shooters who want that target presentation.

To me, a competitive target is a target presentation that is the same for everyone. A less difficult target results in slightly higher scores and possibly a smaller range of scores from highest to lowest. A more difficult target will change only the range of scores from the highest to lowest-the best shooters will still be the best shooters with perfect or nearly perfect scores and the poorer shooters will have lower scores because their shooting technique does not allow them handle the more difficult target presentation as well.

In a previous thread, you state that 85% of shooters score 90% or better with our current presentation. That figure is closer to 50% from what I understand, based on the median ATA average.

 

You truly should hie thee back to Third Grade and learn what a "numerator" and "denominator" are.

The ATA will now adopt the format their members prefer of "Target on a Stick."

Everyone can then shoot the desired 175,000/175,000. <- See, I changed the numbers to help you in your Math lesson.

There's nothing inherently competitive in an equal object.

 

Well Smoker, if you really wanted to make your point, why didn't you say 1,000,000,000,000,000,000/1,000,000,000,000,000,000.

I would doubt that there are many competitive shooters who would actually prefer a "Target on a Stick" over the current target presentation or the former "3" hole target presentation. I guess this argument is all academic, as there are people out there who prefer to sit on their ass in front of a computer typing pointless posts endlessly, with no intention of participating in the sport, regardless of the target presentation. What category would you fall under Smoker?

 

Why not? It's equal for all shooters.

That's what you want.

I choose the category of tougher targets and real competition. It's a shame you don't want either.

 

221's son from the other site, another non-shooter, continues to babble nonsense!

 

Gary,
As a new shooter I have no idea at all what the "Old ATA" was but I find it hard to believe that if the association was as good as folks say it was it would be impossible for one individual to bring it to the level you feel it is at today.
But the topic is "what is a competitive event?". If I look at all the posts it is an absolutely huge event with nothing but the long yardage quadruple A shooters with huge prize money and a likewise huge group of people that have to loose something......and of course it is not competitive unless the traps and angles and birds and so on are those that were used way back when......... If that is the case then there has not been a competitive event of any sort since the "Pre-Neil Winston" days.
Larry

 

I choose the category of tougher targets and real competition. It's a shame you don't want either.[/QUOTE]

Smoker, since you reject everyone's definition of what competitive is, why don't you grace us with the correct definition.

If you prefer the tougher targets that are thrown in international trap, why don't you do everyone a favor and go over to international trap and don't shoot over there, the same way you don't shoot here. Then you can seek out a forum on international trap, and if there isn't one, start one.

 

Try reading before posting.

What's this "here" stuff? Since when is Americantrapshooter.com solely devoted to ATA Trap?

Sounds like you're afraid of a competitive target.

 

A competitive shoot is where it is ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE to break all the Handicap Targets

A good Handicap Average of 94% should be the Goal of the very Top Shooters.

And no Yardage given for any score less than a 97.

Mandatory Yardage Reductions if a shooter cannot Maintain a 94% Hdcp Average.

Gary Bryant........................Dr.longshot

 

What defines almost impossible? General terms and phrases leave multiple openings for interpretation...... I guess that since most folks do not break all the targets now that our current conditions fit the definition? Same targets for long and short handicap? Larry

 

Seriously?

 

No answer? If the game is going to go that way then there has to be a concrete objective........ there has to be something concrete to build the rules around....... hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. concrete is an interesting term............. Larry

 

Bowling and golf both have a handicap system, unless you are a pro or in a scratch league. If there wasn't a system like this, only the top participants would show up, participation is down, and there would be no money in it.

 

Neither Golf nor Bowling handicap by distance. If Trap is to keep a handicap, the sport needs to handicap as other sports do.

 

I think golf handicaps by distance. Blue tees pro, white tees men, red tees women, purple tees MN.

 

Yes, there are different tee boxes, and in informal play, you'll occasionally see players use different tee boxes. In tournament handicap play, the handicap is calculated by stroke, not distance.

 

Everyone shoots from the same yardage...... a competitor gets one extra shot for every point under a 96 average. That ought to even things out a bit. Larry

 

Hmmmmm....... Extra shots. Can't rule out.

 

I read a few articles on events held in Wallowa County, Walla Walla Washington and Flora Oregon. It seems there were events that required different number counts. What they were I have no idea but there were 20 bird matches, 10 and 30 bird matches. These events took place 100 years ago so there is no one to ask but I noticed not everyone shot the same number of shots...... Perhaps they shot till they were out of shells. There are more ways to "handicap" than just yardage and angles....... Lord knows they have been beat to death....... Larry

 

Not true, all women tee of from their own tees, unless it's a PGA tournament. So do senior men, or those that were granted the right by the USGA they tee of forward as well.

And they still get to use the GHIN.

 

Larry,
That sounds like a live bird match. The 10,20,30, Sounds like a 1 2 or 3 ring match 10 birds to a ring. Roger C.

 

And that is very possible... it was a long time ago. I sat in the trap house as a boy in the mid 50's and it was clay's by then. The world has changed much and other than some scores posted in old ODFW newsletters there has been no history kept. My good friend Clayton died a few weeks ago at 97 and had told stories of his Dad and neighbors getting together to shoot and do a pot-luck and "drink a little whiskey". The world has changed..... Larry

 

A competitive event? Could be applied to almost anything we do in life. Making weak feeble comparisons to other sports is just chatter about other things not apt to comparing anything to our sport of trap shooting.

Bowling? A score of 300 is a perfect score. Golf, a par on the course is a perfect score, made better by an even lower stroke count. We must ask what is a perfect score in our game and address that if we're looking for comparisons from within? Well, it's a 400x400 in our sport! There is no other sports methods of handicapping we could use and keep in line with our sports history!

We must rely on our sports history when we make these kinds of comparisons. We must also accept the fact that forever we've had those wanting to make it easier to attain our perfec.t score! To do so, we only have to go back to the very last added difficulty made to our sport to see exactly how many perfect scores have been attained? The very first in our sport of trap shooting was completed by Dan Orlick in the late 60s. That score was shot during a PITA championship shoot in the west. Would that score have happened if trap machine interrupters been in place at the time? Maybe, maybe not but that score was shot under the existing rule for our game at the time.

Our sport was changed during the early 80s with acceptance of rule bending. Some clubs did and some didn't bend those setting rules which were finally adopted by legal vote in 96. The amount of perfect scores shot is still very limited but accomplished by a few.

A true measuring stick of our sports accomplishments further come from the numbers of shooters attaining our sports Grand Slams. Looking at those numbers during our sports history reveals a vital change that took place which allowed many more to attain that feat in much greater numbers. Making our target settings less difficult led directly to that increase by leaps and bounds! Regardless, Grand Slams and the true perfect scores shot in our game is very difficult to attain and I applaud all who've accomplished the feat, since day one.

HAP

 

Hap,

Most of what you say is valid. However, there are some that just come up with a singular view of things. There is a plethora of reasons for every issue perceived, yet some only think it's this one thing or that one thing.

By the way, most aficionados of golf consider a 59 as a perfect score, that has been argued back and forth my whole life time, as well.

 

Duff....face it the sport was dumbed down. If NW was a golf delegate the holes would have been made bigger and the tees moved closer.

 

duff06, is my invalid statement of a perfect score in golf is only one you disagree with? My statements concerning our sport is backed by our sports history and must be parts of what you do agree with? It would be foolish to think only one thing in particular is responsible for our sports downturn in my less than humble opinion!

BTW, concerning a perfect golf score, if it's a 59, what would we call a 58?

HAP

 

Hap

Not to worry his defintition of a perfect golf score appears to be wrong, even among aficionados, well at least Wikipedia. Though it appears that is the best any golfer in a major tournament has achieved, 58 and 59.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_round

Perfect round

In golf, a perfect round is a round of eighteen holes where all holes were played at one under par (birdie on every hole) resulting in a score of 55 on a par 73 course, 54 on a par 72 course, 53 on a par 71 course, and 52 on a par 70 course. While the lowest possible score is 18, the term 'perfect round' is used for a 54 as the lowest score generally accepted as being in the realm of possibility among professional golfers on a par 72 course. This has remained the standard and has never been achieved by a professional golfer in a professional event.


On a side note, apparently a perfect score in put put golf is 18.

Shoot well

John

 

The number 18? Putt-Putt golf and a past GAH winner.

 

Yes.

 

Then, I'm sure your average is 100%.