Fixing the handicap system

Another year, another meeting, and once again we have fewer playing the money. What are the chances the BOD meeting produces a change or a change for the better?

 

Fargo2,
The chances are about a million to one and next to none. They seem to have a problem fixing much of anything and making it better. Roger C.

 

Excuse me for trying to understand something, but what is this fixation on "playing the money" and why is it a recurring theme in just about any discussion I read here about the handicap system?

 

Mah66....your quote should be "recruiting theme" not "recurring theme." When the money left many of the shooters left.

How is that hard to understand?

 

What could be changed in the handicap system that would encourage more shooters to play options?

WL

 

The problem with the "handicap system" is the lack of desire to win.

It is interesting to see the new "goal" of Trapshooting is "to make it to the 27 and learn to shoot there".

Here is a clue for the clueless, if you are not shooting good scores from long yardage when you get there, "practice" from the 27 is not going to do much.

Start throwing wild enough targets that a 25 from 22-yards pays a few hundred bucks, then people will be able to start "sandbagging" threads again. Until then, people can join the 'occupy the 27' movement and hope a score of 63 with 5 shooters gets you to the 27. You know, so you can shoot on a squad with your Kool Aid Crew.

 

Add concrete!

 

More "concrete" is something that is needed, as the past has shown .... but, alone will not make a big impact.

Look at current "shoot reports", they tell the "number of yardage punches" and All American points. Both have little to no value to the past competitive shooter.

Trapshooting grew for a hundred years as a money driven sport, and has almost become extinct with "yardage punches" an All American points. Not hard to figure out.

At least at a "meat shoot" I can win something that has some value to me .... the "yardage punches" and All American points can finish sinking the S.S. Kool Aid.

 

The ATA mixed in the Professional shooters to compete with the Amateur shooters so the Amateurs quit playing the money ... There have been article after article written that shows the percentages and possibility of the average shooter coming out on top, best bet is to bet on the Pro's ... Daro Handy is the only shooter who has ever called himself a Pro, the others eliminate the word from their vocabulary ... Take all of the Pro's out of the Amateur money and watch what happens ... They know who they are and so does the ATA ... WPT ... (YAC) ...

 

Mah66, The worst thing that happened to the money options is when the words HIGH GUN was added to the option. Prior to that there were many options that paid down, up to 10 places. It was a ties divide system. The only real option left for the average shooter is the lewis class. The 25's and 50's option used to pay 25 and 24 the 50;s paid 50-49-48, that was because there were enough players to do it that way. When most shooters quite playing the options is when they were loaded to the top scores. Why play if you know going in that you do not have much of a chance of even breaking even. Add in the cost of targets ammo and travel expences and the field of players is narrowed down quite a lot.
There has always been excellent shooters in this game, so called pro's. They are not the problem, they are just better than the average shooter. the problem is the money divisions. They need to be revisited to give the average shooter a chance to win some money back. I do not think we will ever return to the days of money shooting in our game. It would be nice to see a car shoot again. Roger C.

 

Dawg, you know I like most of your comments, but I still can't get behind you on this one. Not because I'm opposed to longer yardage.

As a self-proclaimed historian I know that during the live-bird days the handicaps were from 25 - 33 yards, with only about 3 shooters standing on the 33 during the GAH tournaments. I'm all for more challenging targets . . . . and while that theme from competitors (trap is monotonous) has carried on since the early days (late 1800's), the sport has moved to a more boring game of endurance and high scores. Its a far cry from the old 25 live-bird days with a chance to win a lot of money.

My opposition to your call for more concrete is largely due to what history has shown us. As the difficulty increases due to shooters earning yardage . . . . well intended leaders (who don't know our history) mistakenly initiate changes to bolster higher scores in belief that it will keep shooters in the game. They completely seem to overlook the despair of Class D shooters with less than a 90 average who have a good day and breaks 10 targets over their average in a 200-bird State Championship, only to see 4 scores of 196 in their class.

So, if you get your wish and additional concrete pads are instituted . . . . . I look to our history and see new well-meaning leaders calling for another reduction in target angles and/or distance & speed. Remember, angles were officially reduced from 45° right & left of the stake in (1955) to just 22° on each side of the center stake. Then reduced again in 1997 to 17° . And don't forget the reductions in outside normal target area that was still a legal target, as well as height and distance. In short, legal targets have been reduced from 65° right and left to the current 27° or a total legal area of 130° down to just 54° . Add these changes to the other improvements (shells, voice-calls) and rule changes (once lost targets now failure to fires, shorter distance and shots established in doubles) and while higher scores do make shooters feel good, they are not necessarily good for the game and will never trump the winning scores of 96, 97, 98 and the occasional 99's of the past in my opinion.

That's my only reason for disagreeing with you. Sorry

Respectfully,

HB

 

All the improvements with guns, ammo and especially the addition of voice activated systems made high scoring from the current fence much easier. Any addition of target difficulty negatively affects the recreational shooters (most shooters fall into that group today). I'm not opposed to wider angle targets but I'm also not sure it'll get us where we want to be. Both of us want to get back the money shooters but they left many years ago while the rest are happy collecting All-American points and belt buckles.

That said, before approaching wider angle targets it's more important to affect scoring of top ATA shooters. Those who've lived on the 27 yd. line for decades while collecting thousands of unanswered yards and dominating the handicap events are screwing up the system. Both of us remember when hand pulls while shooting from the fence was often a recipe for disaster. Moving the "big dogs" back should be our first priority while attempting to change shooters perception of ATA trap. We should look at the Krieghoff Handicap event attendance in PA and realize shooters will participate heavily in an event where something of value is awarded.

Add concrete first with more changes as needed!

 

What I don't understand but find interesting (not that it should be an issue to anyone but me) is why and how shooting for money became an integral part of only 1 of the three games in amateur trapshooting. The same options could easily be applied to singles and doubles as well but apparently never were, for whatever reason.

 

"Handicap" was the Trapshooting money game because of this ..... google "handicap in gambling" ..... "a sporting event in which there are varied odds into an even money contest, by giving a virtual advantage or disadvantage to certain competitors in order to even the field."

Or ..... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handicapping ..... "Handicapping, in sport and games, is the practice of assigning advantage through scoring compensation or other advantage given to different contestants to equalize the chances of winning." ..... " In principle, a more experienced player is disadvantaged in order to make it possible for a less experienced player to participate in the game or sport whilst maintaining fairness."

Now it is a race for everyone to get to the 27, with zero interest to "even the field"

 

Trapshooting matches and tournaments were initiated under the proviso of handicapping shooters. Without some method of somewhat equalizing the contest, those with less ability would never enter challenge matches or tournaments of which both offered the possibility of winning back the cost to enter, ammunition, travel as well as gate money in some of the old matches where hundreds and sometimes thousands of spectators paid to watch and place bets.

Back in those days, the 16-yard line was not for singles . . . it was a mark for the handicap game. Take a quick look at any Grand American Handicap program and you'll see that the GAH at targets started out in 1900 and was strictly for handicap shooting.

Singles came along in 1906 and doubles was an event that finally debuted at the Grand in 1912 but wasn't very popular. (Both were shooting events earlier but held a fraction of the interest in handicap shooting.)

Those options were applied to singles and doubles but there were more shooters with high scores and that meant more splitting of the pot. Winning scores failed to produce enough to cover entrance fees.

The handicap event was always where most shooters decided to put up their money due to the payouts. Singles and doubles never came close to the money available in the yardage game. Again, this was because all competitors knew it was easy for the great shooters to post a lower score from their longer handicap placement and therefore had a better chance of getting "in the money." Of course the figures always showed that the number of short yardage shooters winning money was few in comparison but they believed they had a chance. That belief has long faded and was one of the major factors in money leaving the game.

Here's a little history on handicapping from 1907. Mr. Crosby is none other than the great William R. (T-Bill) Crosby, of O'Fallon, Illinois, one of the first inductees in the Trapshooting Hall of Fame back in 1969. Mr. Heer, William H. (Silent Billy) Heer, of Concordia, Kansas, in my opinion, should have been inducted many years ago. Mr. Gilbert (The Wizard of Spirit Lake) is none other than the great Fred Gilbert, of Spirit Lake, Iowa, also a 1969 THOF enshrinee.

Hope you enjoy the read and understand that equitable handicapping has been a topic discussion for about 125 years now: Oh, and note the use of the 14 yard mark.

The handicap distances of the Interstate Association contests up to 1907 were stipulated as 14 to 22 yards and the short distance was so seldom used as to be superfluous. At the second Southern Handicap, held in Richmond, Va., this year (1907), the program conditions of the banner handicap events were mentioned 16 to 23 yards. Crosby and Heer attended, but their 21 yards handicap bringing forth no qualifying scores the first day, a yard less was their position the next day, when Mr. Crosby put in a good 92 along with the other leaders. However those watching the progress of events this was considered merely a slight evasion of the advertised conditions, as the experts could not compete for the trophies and purses, but were merely shooting for targets only. Thus at the open to all Grand American Handicap it was expected that the stated conditions would be lived up to, but the same flat disregard of the 1907 change prevailed. May we ask the object of increasing those distances from 14 to 22 to read 16 to 23 if they were not to be used in the best event of the year when the best of America’s trap shots were present?

Among the 500 contestants coming under the handicapper’s supervision we think seven yards slight enough gradation of skill between the crackerjacks and the also rans.

And the fact that the former cut such poor figures at the comparatively easy marks they did get merely proves that they do not stand at their rightful distances often enough to make fine records. Do they practice at 21 and 22 yards? No, because they get a 21-yard mark but twice or thrice a year and it isn’t worth while preparing for a position which is distasteful. 97 out of 100 targets were broken from 21 yards rise during the Chicago week, proving that it was not an impossible feat even on acknowledged difficult grounds. Many of the experts at the back marks are beaten before they start through mental effect as evidenced by the remark "No use trying at such a distance, it cannot be done" which will have a familiar sound to many shooters.

If the same experts instead of crying quits ere at the firing line would indulge in more practice at the long marks they would make a far better showing. There is, however, a common belief (largely exaggerated) that it spoils their shooting at 16 yards and they prefer not to run any such risk. As records made from the long distance marks are eagerly sought as valuable advertising data, and a long run or win from the 21-yard mark receives much more attention from the amateur consumer, one would expect that the experts, who understood their business, would court opportunities to stand on the long distance marks where additional credit is given successful performance. Successful results, by the way, that we believe are well within the limits of attainment through their superior skill.

The handicap committee’s idea of "equity" as against "expediency or convenience" may be all right, but we are of the opinion that they value top notch skill too lightly and our idea of "equity" would demand recourse to the full limit specifically set forth, 16 to 23 yards, which is really far too narrow a margin of distance to do full justice to the less skillful but equally desirable, solicited participant in these important shooting events. The professionals and manufacturers benefit by the amateurs’ consumption of their goods and taking into consideration the advantages today’s professional has over the majority of amateurs we think in the handicap should lie the power of equalization.

We note Mr. Waters’ remark that 21 yards on some grounds might be as hard as shooting from 23 yards on other grounds. As the handicappers have to consider distinct grounds situated in the North, East, South and West, it would be absurd for the Association to prejudge the handicapping by arbitrarily placing any shooters on a certain mark." All quite correct, but where you find grounds of this character it is equally true that 16 yards would approach 18 yard ordinary conditions with the chances in favor of the added difficulty proving less an obstacle to the skillful expert. Fairness to the varying degrees of skill toeing the marks demands the full range of distances.

"Discretionary power to fix the back mark" is certainly the prerogative of a handicap committee, but when the easy grounds were a fact did the marks vary an iota? Not that we could see. Chicago was admittedly a poor selection as regards background, but 23 yards would not have committed an injustice against the champions at that.

At Wellington, in the Eastern Handicap, the ideal grounds were found. A clean sweep of land and sky, 50 yard targets, clear background, and Crosby, Gilbert and Heer all present. The same old 21 yards for first day from which distance Gilbert broke 96 and Crosby 95 in the Preliminary. This cost them one yard each in the Eastern Handicap. Crosby broke 90 from 22 yards, and if he practiced a little from the 22 peg or even the "skidoo" mark we think he could materially improve on that figure. Gilbert stubbed his toe and fell badly, but Billy Heer broke 96 from 20 yards. Did any 16 or 18 yard amateur approach these high scores within two targets either day?

Not that the records show. Handicaps should be based on shooter’s normal or average ability, and local or temporary conditions cut little figure with a handicap committee. Allotment of distances at the different handicaps show an odd mixture of the two and scarcely that attention to local effects which is emphasized so strongly in the argument.

The final argument as to the over handicapping of the back mark men at Chicago strikes our funny bone. Of course, results figure always in showing comparisons, but the fact that one-fifth of the 21-yard men drew money is termed hard lines. How about the greater percentage of 16-yarders who put up their money with far less chance of return. The figures given as to percentage of money winners in Handicap are not quite correct or sufficiently complete.

Of the five at 21 yards one took money and so far so good. There were 18 on 20 yards, of whom four took money, not three out of 16. There were 71 (not 64) on the 19-yard mark, of whom 20 took money, but the 18, 17 and 16 yard ratio is not mentioned. Probably because it did not read well. Here are the returns. There were 129 at 18 yards, of whom 23 drew money. There were 114 at 17 yards, of whom 10 figured in the purse division and of the 122 16-yard aspirants only eight drew down.

We have only to repeat that one of the 21-yard squad, four of the 18-yard men, 20 of the 71 at 19 yards, 23 of the 129 18-yard contestants, 10 of the 114 17-yard, and 8 of the 122 16-yard aspirants were recompensed to show who encouraged trap shooting the most at their own expense.

The addition of two yards to each and every 19, 20 and 21-yard man, in the wholesale fashion quoted to prove "the men would practically have been put out of the competition so far as the matter of equity is concerned" is going to extremes. We admit some of the 19, 20 and 21-yard men were rightfully judged. We do think there were experts and amateurs at the Grand American and Eastern handicaps whose abilities were slightly underestimated by the handicap committee and maintain that the West interests of trap shooting in directly and Interstate meets in particular can be best served by using the full distances as specified.

We can scarcely hope for more attention ,at the capable trap editor’s pen and while thanking him for his "Re Handicaps" we consider our remarks on The "Skidoo Handicap" of inestimable service in having drawn forth so interesting an editorial opinion even though ours were a "post mortem criticism."

[ SPORTING LIFE, August 24, 1907, page 29 ]

Enjoy Our History !

HB

 

The system needs revising. I went in and looked at the results on the caps. On almost every event 25% of the shooters received yardage. Granted we have the best shoooters at this event, but 25% is way to high. When 25% of the shooters in a handicap event shoot 96% or better the system is not working. Roger C.

 

Roger, you must be confused. MS petitioned the ATA at last years meeting to reduce the number of shooters needed to attain a 1/2 yd. punch to 15. Not only that, a bunch of mentally challenged delegates approved the proposal. These guys proved they know little about what drives ATA participation. I suppose those fools believed shooters are standing in line for a 1/2 yd. punch for an 89/100 to get their name in Trap & Field magazine. Gosh, I'm glad I no longer run small club ATA shoots since way too many are already packing in registered shooting for lack of participation!

 

Why did they get rid of yard groups. At least then each yard group played for its own money. I think the "big boys" didn't like they were not getting a part of that and it was ended. Not saying you have to give trophies but it would seem reasonable that people would play to shoot against shooters of their own caliber.

 

Who is "they" and what shoot are you talking about?

 

At the Cardinal Classic there were 6 handicap events. (3) were won by 27 yarders, and (3) were won by short yardage shooters (21, 20.5, and 18 yards). Not sure, but I think it took a 99 in 4 of the events, and 100 straight in 2 of them to win. There were some excellant shooters there.

It still amazes me when a short yardage guy with an 85 something average, all of a sudden has "a good day" at a big shoot and shoots a 99 or 100, and plays the options!

Sandbegging is just as much a deterant of handicap money as the pros.

 

Sandbagging by the rules also applies. If you're carrying a mid 90's average from the 27 you're usually taking advantage of 90% of the lesser specimens and taking their money. You might want to call that taking advantage of a flawed system. Until you move those under-handicapped top shooters from the current fence no system nor angle of targets will change anything!

 

The only way to bring back the Integrity of Handicap shooting is bringing back the 45Degree+ angles and distance of 52 yards. And purchasing of Trap Machines that can produce those angles and distances on a regular basis.

We do not need more CONCRETE, just the re institution of the above target standards.

I have been preaching this for years, we have had enough of the xxxxx targets, and Trap Machines that cannot Project, Expel, Send those targets at those angles and distances.

Amen

Yours in Sport
Gary Bryant...................................Dr.longshot

 

The above should be the FIRST ORDER OF THE ATA, AND NO EXCEPTIONS.

GB.........................................DLS

 

You want to know how ridiculous it has been? I was on the 27 yard line and moved back and forth as yardage was reduced and then earned right back.

This was done on the EASY targets that was instituted in mass during the Neil Winston Era.

I even tried to get harder target angles instituted when I was on the 27 yard line.

Even now with a Prosthetic Foot I can handle the longer yardage than the 22 yard line I have been reduced to.

If I shoot from a STOOL am I a Chair Shooter? I am not stable on my prosthetic, I have no natural control of my left foot as it was amputated 4/14/2015.


GB.........................................DLS

 

Doc, Harlan will eat up any 3-hole 52 yd. targets you can throw at him. I once shot with Frank Little at a wobble trap event with cranked up oscillating targets and he broke all 25 with one shot. The 27 yd. line was designated in an era of hand pulled black and white targets, Model 12 and 870's loaded with cardboard wads and soft shot-not Seitz's, K-80's, Perazzi's with all adjustments and target angles you could easily read. I was there and I can still remember!

 

Well you could start with each yardage group competing only against itself. Using only factory 7/8 ounce #8's from the 25,26 and 27 yard lines. Wobble Trap cranked up and angles opened up as far as they can go. No mounting of the gun until the bird is thrown.

 

How much are you willing to contribute to replace all existing traps with wobble traps?

 

So why is your only comment about "Wobbble". Maybe the title of the thread should have been how to fix the handicap system without spending money and then of course the thread would have ended with the initial post because whatever is done to "fix" the system is going to cost money. So either accept the fact that a fix will cost money or quit complaining about the way the system is setup now.

 

Ollie I would like to see Harlan or anyone else break 85-90 % of the targets set at suggested angles and distance.

Action is the proof in the pudding

GB........................................DLS

 

I don't know who got rid of it but I haven't seen it at a shoot in years.

 

Doc, if, as you say, Harlan won't be able to break 85-90% of those targets as you recommend what'll you think you and the rest of the mere amateurs will break?

 

As an experiment suggested at our club, I shot from the 30 yd line (in the parking lot) and broke 9 of 10. Sure, it was only 10 targets, but even I was surprised at the breaks. I'm a 27 yarder, and have a decent average, and can shoot fairly fast, but I'm no Howard or Ricky. I can see where our top shooters would not be handicapped much by 9 feet. May have to do both, wider angles and added yardage, and perhaps reduce payload, but we want this to be a game of skill, not luck, so determining at what distance a pattern can still be maintained is important.

The problem is that the majority of ATA shooters struggle with our current target angle. A large percentage have never broke 100 or average above 90 on singles let alone handicap. I also notice that no one complains about the handicap system at the shoots, or that it's unfair, so I assume most are happy with the status quo, trinkets for winnings, and just beating their squad mates. I do however hear a lot of bitching about this guy or that guy that is sandbagging.

We have a different mentality out there now.

 

9/10 equals 90/100. Now we're getting somewhere. Just add some wind and poor visibility!

 

Really Rosey?

How do you interview the 30,000 members that left? Don't they count anymore? Is it because many of those remaining cant remember or never saw the system when it worked? I am sure there were not too many complaining in Sparta....of the few left.

The sport is fine. Don't change darn thing. It is the ATA that failed.

 

Now there is a real scientific study. How many tournaments will you win with a 90? Time for graph.

 

Doc while I don't want to disagree with you but I would say that anyone with the skill set that Harlan has won't have any trouble adjusting to the new settings.

 

We need Traps that can conform to target presentations, 45+ degree angles and 52 yards.

Non readable w/ interrupter.

Electronic Voice Calls.

A large shoot east of the Mississippi, where moisture is a normal situation.

The only 2 places I feel can handle it is Missouri State Grounds and Cardinal Center.

The PAT TRAPS do not qualify.

An across the board Handicap event 20-27 yards.

Yours in Sport
Gary Bryant..............................Dr.longshot

 

Lady T Harlan will be one of the top shooters, I do not hold anything from him, Skill is Skill and it takes skill to shoot a Competetive Target, like playing Competetive Golf on a Competetive course.

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

 

Lady T how many absolutely top shooters do you feel there are?

GB.............................DLS

 

butterfly, It WAS AN EXPERIMENT. Nothing more, nothing less. I don't practice at the 30, so to randomly go out and shoot there was just for chit and giggles.

Most of those 30,000 are dead and gone. Many of them were gone before the 2 hole existed. they just remained on the roster.

Our current group of shooters under 40 only know the current system and now have different goals.

Please tell us what it'll take to get new members. The old ones are here no more.

 

Prior to the change to softer targets and angles handicap wins from 3 hole 52 yd targets was considered an accomplishment, today the idea of a trophy for everyone almost just to attend and softer targets is what has in my opinion degraded our sport. This used to be a sport of accomplishment meaning the top score was the winner, bring back the harder targets, eliminate the non-essential categories and award for shooting ability within the yardage groups and we will begin to rectify some of the problems with the handicap system. My opinion others may differ.

 

I don't know and really don't care. My guess is that you would need some kind of metric in place that defines a top shooter and since there isn't one in place it's impossible to answer your question.

Now as to the question to whether you are a chair shooter or not all I can say is send the letter in requesting said classification. See what happens. After all your foot is not going to grow back thus your situation is permanent.

 

oldphart, ...I was gonna slam ya with the "so you are AAA27AA" typical answer, but I'm not here for that A-hole response.

There are 3 kinds of shooters now, and maybe they were here all along, but the media or ATA didn't lead us to believe that way.

One bunch knows they can't compete with the elite shooters or the sandbaggers, and just shoots against their buddies.....with side bets.

Another bunch just shoots to be social. they love the camping and personal fellowship, but they're here because they're life and family was shotgun based.

Both of the above mentioned groups can be heard all day long at the Pavillions at Cardinal, Mason or anywhere else. They just love the sport, like the group above, but know their limits. Both groups might hit the winners circle once in a while if the stars align and they're feeling good, but don't bet on it.

Then there are the "competitors". They may not have the time or money to shoot as much as they want, but they're good, want prove it, and hopefully get better. They won't make the State team, or be All Americans, but it's only because they have a job, support a family, or some other reason.

All the above are ATA members. All have different goals, but we tend to dwell on Ricky and Harlan and their winnings.....Whoop-D doo!

 

I have never dwelled on Harlan or Ricky, Kay or the Late Leo. Personally I think they would like a Competetive target, The numbers are astronomical of ties in events, and the ATA loses money throwing so many shootoff targets, that are absolutely not needed.

I enjoy shooting competitive targets, but more concrete is not needed, the ATA Throws and easy target, The Pro Golfers hit a ball from a greater distance, PRO Distance.

There is no BIG scores in Soccer, it is a rigorous sport.

When there are 40+ 200 strts in sgls it's time to toughen up the Targets.

We have 60 bird buddies, shooting difficult targets and very seldom is there a 60 or 90 Straight more money is won.

GB..................................DLS

 

If there was any interest in fixing or making the handicap system work it would of been done a long time ago ...
The big attraction now is getting a trinket for showing up which eliminates a lot of peoples desire ... The Big Dogs play all of the money, every once in awhile some sucker puts his or her money up against them and more times than not loses it, by percentage the odds are against you beating them if you cannot shoot big scores reasonably consistently, then have a good day ... The first few times I went to the grand I played all of the money and broke close to even based on the way I put a few 25's in the mix with some pretty dismal scores ... I got bored shooting singles, only liked to shoot doubles for fun, so I turned to handicap and put all of my eggs in that proverbial basket ... I have shot good and bad scores and never gave the big dogs any more thought, took Kiners Clinic and tried to apply it, came to the conclusion if I do my job it all works, though not consistently .... I enjoy shooting trap and hand guns, put a rifle in the mix every so often ... I quit registering targets because I am not pleased with the actions of those elected to head the ATA and the way they do business ... I joined as a Life Member at the second shoot I attended 40 years ago, and felt as if I was really a part of something worthwhile , until greed and benefits (expenses, etc) raised its ugly head within the EC, CHC, and some of the BOD (Association) that claim to be in it for the "Love of the GAME" ... I have seen, shot with and watched some great shooters, the one I was always most impressed with was Leo Harrison III, always seemed casual but quite intense as he stood there breaking targets like a machine, Steve Carmicheal (?) would be another in his day ... The game has changed, problem is it was fine the way it was and it and those involved in it made it what it was ... The same holds true yet today and thats not good ... WPT ... (YAC) ...

 

WPT. We need to meet someday. Our "Twisted Views" are almost identical.

As for the big money returning I agree it's over.

For years I saw shooter friends play all the money only to shoot a low score time after time.

Those people are now Dead, to old to shoot, quit, or are Sporting Clay, or Buddy shooters.

Last week at the Cardinal I registered my 300th target in the past 3 yrs.

I shoot for the love of the game.

Regards.....Gerald

 

Nevada State Shoot, It has the money distribution on options much the same as many years ago. Check them out///// Maybe this is a start of a new trend. Roger C.