Interesting ATA Minutes

It was disclosed that the Economic impact to Southern Illinois from the GAH was $10-12 Million dollars and adding other events would double this impact.

Other news was Twitter, instagram, and Pinterez continue to grow and serve as a great way to inform members of the ATA the news, announcements.

Why isn't this being utilized now with the goings on at Sparta?

At the Tuscon Autumn Grand targets were set wider than ATA specs as all the 2 hole bars were missing.

President Taylor whom attended told club officials to replace the bars immeaditly.

Looks like they wanted Competetive Targets . Interesting isn't it?

Gary Bryant Dr.longshot

 

First I've heard of this.

Please post your source of information!

 

I found it on page 30.

Can't delete the above post #2

 

Please correct me if wrong but the bars keep the targets wide. To remove them allows the angles to be smaller or easier targets. Saying the bars were missing does not mean the targets were harder. It may or may not mean they were easier either.

 

Butterly: I said the TARGETS WERE WIDER, The #2 hole bars were missing, Looks like they WERE MISPLACED, HaHa pun intended,

You can find the info in ATA minutes, latest minutes of the EC

Everyone can read them, it says "INTERESTING ATA MINUTES"

The targets were checked, they were WIDE ANGLES.

There are 2 bars, one for 44 degree angles, and one for 17 degree angles
Pat Traps are shipped w/both

GB DLS

 

What makes you think, based on the minutes, what the targets were too wide? I suggest you read the two sentences very carefully and see exactly what they say and then think about the rulebook and what it says. I was as surprised as you to read that when the minutes came out since they assert a policy that I have never heard of.

N1H1

 

N 1 H 1 : R e a d t h o s e m I n u t e s v e r y s l o w l y.

Target setting were found not to be ATA regulation Targets T O O W I D E.

Pres> Rob Taylor Told Shoot Mgmnt to immeaditly get 2 hole bars.

Taylor, Burke, Radway and one other were discussing issues.

GB DLS

I suggest you read the minutes several times, several times N1H1 your comprehension must be low after a few drinks.

The minutes does not mention any rules, Just replace those bars immeaditly.

Did you take them for inspection and identification? They were gone.
GB DLS

 

Here's the text which still confuses me. It's from lines 924-6 of the December EC minutes.

"The targets were not set according to ATA guidelines. The two hole bars were missing, and hence, the angles were outside of ATA guidelines. "

1. First of all, what exactly are "ATA Guidelines?" I imagine the word guidelines was used because according to rules, there was no problem. I guess the "guidelines" referred to is from the drawing on page 56, which delineates an area BEFGB as the "MOST DESIRABLE AREA IS (sic) WHICH TO THROW TARGET.'

2. There is no rulebook requirement that two-hole bars be used. Also, the statement in the text "The two hole bars were missing, and hence, the angles were outside of ATA guidelines. " is not necessarily true as written. The word "hence" here is inappropriate, since, as butterly noted above, there is no necessary connection between the use or non-use of the two-hole bars and the angles the birds fly at. It is entirely possible to set two-hole targets without the bars; in fact, I never saw bars for years after they were introduced with the G model traps.

3. It seems to me that the angles could have been outside ATA guidelines by being too narrow as easily as being too wide. Since we are apparently stuck with "guidelines" and not rules, which in my opinion is a big mistake, all we can go on is the drawing and assume, since we are not given direction either way, that the targets did not conform to "MOST DESIRABLE AREA IS WHICH TO THROW TARGET" by being too wide or too narrow.

I hope that this does not signal a decision by the EC to enforce "guidelines" rather than rules. This is what I was referring to when I wrote, above "I was as surprised as you to read that when the minutes came out since they assert a policy that I have never heard of."

Yours in Sport,

N1H1

 

N1H1 why are you always looking for excuses and infer that angles were not greater, maybe they were straight-a-ways from 3, God forbid they were wider than the #2 Bar from Pat Traps.

Why did they disappear? Were shoot Mngmt. making a statement?

We could gather all kinds of solutions. Was this your test being done on the sly.

You sure like to come on strong defending the ATA, it's always somebody elses fault.

Maybe I hobbled down there and took them for scrap aluminum.

Maybe I had them stretched for wider angles, Maybe a drunk needed the scrap for WINE.

all kinds of scenerios here? Maybe a new policy mstarted w/o your knowledge N1H1!!!!!!!!

Gary Bryant Dr.longshot

 

What a paradox .... the King of semantics, "I hope that this does not signal a decision by the EC to enforce "guidelines" rather than rules." ....

 

What does "semantics" mean, user1? Specifically, I mean. Does it have the negative connotations your post seems to imply? I'm not familiar with it. (This is not the "baiting" others accuse me of when I ask a direct question here; I really, really, don't know. Cross my heart.)

N1H1

 

"negative connotations" .... no .... just an observation ....

 

. . . but what does "semantics"mean in the context of your post? Really, I've been holding off looking it up, hoping for help with it from you. I don't, after all, want to "go behind your back" as Dr. L likes to put it.

I am, after all, the "King" of them; I'd like to know more about my kingdom.

Neil

 

Doc, why would anyone have to remove the 2 hole bar to widen the angles? Of course, the bars were removed so that the angles could be narrowed.

On a side note, I recently attended a shoot a club that hasn't held registered shoots for a number of years. The new owner has not shot many registered targets and was throwing the equivalent of 3 hole targets off the old style Pat traps (with the sensors on the curved bar-no provision for the #2 spacer bar). The complaining was loud and clear, but so were the results. The 2 best shooters there were not affected. One shot all 300 singles and the other shot 2 97s in handicap from 27 yards. Many shooters in the lower classes and at short yardage handicap saw their scores suffer. Are these results that you have been pushing for?

 

"I'd like to know more about my kingdom" .... then start a new thread about that topic ....

My 'comment' was about something you said about this topic.

Sharing my thoughts on 'your kingdom' is not something I am shy about .... I will 'join in ' a thread about it if you like.

 

Once again everyone's looking for a conspiracy that doesn't exist. The bars were removed because the Tucson club decided to use a new system they were sold on (protractor) angle set up. They felt they were in total agreement with the rules but a couple shooters felt the targets were too wide and complained to Rob Taylor without ever asking shoot management any questions. Total over reaction by all involved, the bars were sitting on the shelf in the maintainence shed and were replaced and other system done away with. I was there and if anything the targets may have been a tad wide which today is a terrible thing. HARD targets heaven forbid. It was also a top singles shooter who started the complaining, I guess to maintain his high average and not be challenged. Evidently even some top shooters hate to see those pesky angles.

 

Jo
You got it wrong!
You said....

Seitz9010 was there.

Jo if you are looking to take more of the sport out of trapshooting you are a bit late to the party.

 

N1H1: You have that Phd. and you do not know what it means Sire? I mean your Highness
Gary Bryant Dr.longshot

 

Definitions of education: BS=Bull Shit, MS= More Shit, PHD= Piled Higher and Deeper
H1H1= Nearly 1st, Hardly 1st

Gary Bryant Dr.longshot"s Humor for Today

 

Wasn't that Protractor Trap Settings Neils Idea?proposal?

GB DLS

 

Didn't I say they were wider Hap, you must have NARROW Vision you shotem, every body makes mistakes/misjudgements, but the real truth comes through.

AND IT HAPPENED IN TUSCON, during AUTUMN GRAND Hap, you do not know it all.

Gary Bryant Dr.longshot

 

Dr. Longshot in the post above

"Didn't I say they were wider Hap, you must have NARROW Vision you shotem, every body makes mistakes/misjudgements, but the real truth comes through."

Dr. Longshot, first post in this thread:

"At the Tuscon Autumn Grand targets were set wider than ATA specs as all the 2 hole bars were missing."

Dr. Longshot, later:

"Butterly: I said the TARGETS WERE WIDER, The #2 hole bars were missing, Looks like they WERE MISPLACED, HaHa pun intended,"

"The targets were checked, they were WIDE ANGLES."

"Target setting were found not to be ATA regulation Targets T O O W I D E."

I looks to me like, in spite of the denial above, he did say that the targets were wider. He is indeed, as I posted elsewhere, drifting farther and farther out.

N1H1

 

N1H1 they were using your Protractor system at the Autumn Grand, come to find out.

GB DLS

 

Oh for heaven's sake, Gary. Give it a rest! Lies (like your last post) , trolls, non-facts, nonsense. Everyone here is sick of it. As a result, they are becoming sick of you.

Tone it down for a while. Get off my back, for a start.

N1H1

 

A little help for the Phd Professor,semantics, logic concerned w/sense and meaning, logical sense of meaning, and aspects of meaning.
your Highness. You also have an ignore preference

GB DLS

 

All the targets my squad and I shot at Tucson during the Autumn Grand were legal ATA targets, period. How do I know? Because, they could have been 44 degree angles and yet still legal ATA targets! You know, the old straights from posts 1 and 5 are still legal targets? Could have been but they weren't. I could care less if a couple shooters complained to Rob Taylor that the targets looked a little wide to them. The fact that Taylor found the bars missing makes it a big deal I guess, especially to you it seems. As usual, open mouth, insert foot before knowing all the facts. I think that ignore feature works both ways?

HAP

 

Well I will take Haps word on the targets as he was actually there.

It's amazing how guys who were not think they know more about the targets then actual shooters. LOL

 

Sounds like the fear of the missing bars could have led to a problem that had not happened and a system in use people were not familiar with.

 

dr longshot
I have always thought your were full of IT now I know it for sure. Did you shoot the Autumn Grand? Didn't think so! I did and I can tell you that the targets were not any wider than any other shoot.

 

Hap, as I recall cleaned house and took names at the Tucson club ... I guess he just wasn't thinking about wide angles or any other angles than the ones he broke ... A persons mind can play games with them if you give it any amount of doubt to stumble on, it will help you confirm what your thinking ... The gun don't know ( or care) the shells can care less and go where you send them, but the shooter is a totally different thing ... I cannot imagine the people at the Tucson Club doing anything outside of the rules intentionally ... WPT ... (YAC) ...

 

I shot the Autumn Grand and the targets looked just fine to me but then again I don't look for excuses when I miss a bird, I just spend more time in practice.

 

Why was the Autumn Grand Target situation in the ATA minutes? If something was not in compliance, Why did the ATA president Rob Taylor not consult management? Was this Top Dog a friend of RT? Strange things happen in the Good Ole Boys Club. Can we trust what was written in the ATA Minutes as FACT? According to the ATA Minutes something was awry.
It took Your Highness's Supreme God to fix it!!! (pun)

GB DLS

 

You don't trust what was written in the ATA minutes.
You don't trust the shooters who were actually at the club.
You weren't there.
Your paranoia might be getting the best of you.
You don't know what a pun is.

 

Seitz9010 is correct,i was there it was started by a all-American shooter who had a bad day in a singles event ,he complained to Taylor ,Taylor went to shoot manager and said if bars where not replaced he would shut down shoot. TTSC employes worked there butts off trying to get the bars back in the next morning . They got the first two fields on each bank done and then worked on the other two while we were shooting . They used a device called angle master ,they felt like it set more true angles than the bars and yes the angles on all events was what they were complaining about not just doubles.

 

ATA now owns T&F mag. so it's up to them to write whatever suits them when it comes to "thingies" in the minutes.

I think it just so happened; a good friend of RT complained that ( HE FELT) the targets may be a tad wide. On inspecting the settings, it was discovered the spacer bars weren't on the machine. Does that mean the targets suddenly became illegal? Of course it doesn't. It did mean that RT can make a big huha out of such a find to do what's right for the masses while validating his buddy's keen observations?? I call BS on this regardless if it's in the minutes or not!

AS I've said prior, each and every target my squad shot at the Autumn Grand were legal ATA targets. Does the fact those bars were missing prove the targets were illegal? Nope. Is it possible, since they were missing does that further validate our President's being there was absolutely necessary to find such vitally important things?

I wonder now what decisions RT may have been made had those bars been left on? It didn't change the targets thrown at all? As usual, much to do about nothing, again.

HAP

 

"it was started by a all-American shooter who had a bad day in a singles event" .... NO WAY !!!!

N1H1 has spent years, graphs, charts, and a bunch of cyber-land preaching to PROVE beyond any doubt .... that CAN NOT HAPPEN ....

An ALL American can break targets AT ANY SETTING .... ask him .... while drinking a nice cold glass of his Cool Aid ....

 

I've given a bit of thought to the whole escapade that took place regarding the targets and a couple individuals involved acted like complete assholes. The club felt they had found a reliable system they had confidence in and it appeared everyone agreed until a whinny ass all-American had a bad day and started looking for excuses. Then we had Rob Taylor acting like a pompous ass declaring he was shutting the shoot down immediately unless the bars were replaced before the days shooting started at 9:00 AM. At the time I was almost hoping the idiot would shut the shoot down and see how that played out with the shooters. Fortunately for Rob Taylor and his all-American whinny ass buddy most shooters were unaware anything had happened and the club, it's management and employees got everything changed and Rob Taylor got away with acting like a complete ass. Unfortunately the action taken by Taylor seems to be quite common among the EC now. As Hap said there was nothing wrong with the targets and they were in complete agreement with the rule book. Taylor's reaction and demands were totally out of line but I'm sure it made him feel important. I personally harbor the thought that Taylor allowed his jealousy of the Martins and Tucson to cloud his judgement. Very unprofessional behavior.

 

If I would of been calling the shots I would of let him shut the shoot down and make damn sure I announced it over the public address system and why ... I was threatened once by the ATA prior to a Spring Grand at the Old Phx club and I told them I will have a shoot and use the money we would of paid the ATA for added money ... They had second thoughts about it and changed their mind about a few things in a damn quick hurry ... I swear, God as my Judge I would of had the shoot with or without the ATA ... No more problem ... WPT ... (YAC) ...

 

The chicken sh*t thing that Taylor did was he did not inform management he was going to shut down the shoot until about a hour before the morning event was going to start !!!!!!!!!! Apparently the whinnying shooter had talked to him the day before , management said if he would have told them then they would have had plenty of time to make the changes BUT NO !!!!!!! he comes up to them right before the shoot is going to start with this BS !!!!!!!! And yes i believe jealousy and dislike for Bill Martin had a big role in this !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

How can "Taylor" shut down a shoot ????? what happened to, you must file a complaint, complete with details, put it through the 'system', following all the necessary Parliamentary procedures spelled out in the rule-book, and wait and see if any 'action' is needed ?????? ...

That is the way ALL membership has to handle their complaints .... why would this be any different ????? Maybe someone knows the passage in the rule-book that says the shoot can be shut down because a member is having a bad day. Shoot management is in charge during a shoot and the ATA only has a duty after the fact, if a complaint is filed on time and is deemed actionable.

The high-horse has a new rider.

 

User 1

I guess he's like OBAMA

Executive privledge ?

 

Wishbone I will allow you to retract your statement
on my thread, if you like, it appears in all reality I was right.

Gosh I was right again, and still got piled on!!

Gary Bryant Dr.longshot

 

Garry you were not right. I will let my statement stand. Hap,Seitz 9010 and smoke-um were right. They tried to educate you. But you wouldn't listen.
I'm off to shoot.

 

I'm like you user 1 i did not know he had the authority to shut down a shoot . And how did he determine the angle where too wide ??? There are no stakes in the ground at TTSC ,i guess he just eyeballed them !!!!!!! LOL…….. And the compliant was too wide not too narrow .

 

Ok while i'm on my soap box ,Taylor did not come to the largest satellite Grand in the nation the sring grand , was told by a close friend of his the reason was THEY DONT LIKR ME OUT THERE …. and that he is not going to serve a year as ex official a duty of past presidents ,he took all the perks and now not going to finish his responsibilities!!!!! Also the western Grand was in Vernal Utah this year when the programs came out he had Lynn Gibson wrote the presidents message in the front of the program !!!!!!! He refused to write it because it happens to be Bill Martians home club !!!!!!!Very Childish and unprofessional !!!!!!!

 

This kind of proves the point that the legal minimum setting for the target field is 34 degrees and the maximum setting for the target field is 34 degrees.

Targets thrown at a greater angle than straightaway from 1 and 5 are legal, as per field depiction. They are however out side of the most desirable area. The bar (2 hole bar) just sets the MINIMUM angle/field allowed by rule, 17/34 degrees. Now if the switches were set less than the bar, 4 1/4" switch spread, it is an illegal setting. If not most likely all targets thrown were within the legal field but the additional 10 degrees would be somewhat less. It is only an additional 10 degrees when the field is centered and set at 34 degrees. So angles set beyond a 34 degree field would also could be considered illegal, as a setting though, less the 27/54 would normally throw a legal target.

When I heard of this I thought they must have been set narrow, I am beginning to see that may not have been the case. It amazes me, that in this instance and it looks like in WI where complaints of a right targets may have been illegal because of a crosswind, no one complains when the targets are set to narrow. So a little wider than minimum and complaints come from an All-American even when individual targets thrown are within the legitimate field, but when set and thrown to narrow (illegal), it seems nothing is said.

When targets are set at the minimum and there is virtually any wind other than a headwind +- 30 degrees, one or both minimum set angles are illegal for the description of where it (the target field) counts, 15 - 20 yards. Since I do not know of field adjustments occurring during a match for a crosswind, it would be better to set the field wider than minimum to accommodate such changes during a days or weeks events.

Trap is a great sport, it should be brought back to what a sport should be, competitive and fair, to the greatest extent possible.

I could be wrong.

Shoot well.

John

 

I would imagine his authority would of been limited to what ever amount the club wanted to cave in to and give way for ... The rules are clearly written and if the targets would of been within the limitations of the rules he would of had a really hard time shutting the shoot down ... If someone has a personal vendetta against another person that would not be good reason to all of a sudden cause problems for the club that person has an interest in (Mr. Bill Martin) in this case ... The Martins have donated a major amount of money in the game of trapshooting as well as the Hall of Fame, knowing the Martins as I do, I sincerely doubt they did it to incite a riot and cause problems ... Tucson Trap and Skeet has built a reputation for hosting and running shoots that they can be proud to make claim to, seriously doubt they did anything intentional to cause problems ... WPT ... (YAC) ...

 

This statement I will have to disagree with.

Shoot well

John

 

While we're on the subject of Rob Taylor perhaps someone can help me understand how he benefits the ATA and its shooters when he carries a personal dislike for a major contributor. Another story I'm sure not many are aware of, Bill Martin went to Taylor with an idea regarding better participation throughout the Grand week. He proposed an idea of contributing $250,000+ in a manner to encourage participation in more events by adding significant money to the Lewis purses that would be available to shooters who played the Lewis in say all the last 5 or 6 events. Without any thought to the manner Taylor said he had some better ideas on how to use the money so it would be better if you just gave us the money and let us make the decisions. At that point the discussion stopped and I doubt they've had much conversation since. Bill Martin has done a lot and more would have been done but when you treat a good person poorly no one benefits, especially the ATA and its shooters.

 

Jhunts,
I stand corrected, should of said if the target were within the legal limits ...

"If the targets would of been within the limitations of the rules he would of had a really hard time shutting the shoot down" ...

WPT ... (YAC) ...

 

All did was report on what the ATA Minutes said, I did not condemn the Protractor system used by Tuscon, It was stated by numerous posters here that ANGLES were wider, I did not say personally they were ILLEGAL, Rob Taylor was in THE WRONG,
Using his Supreme Position saying they were wider than the #2 Bar Allowed. The PROTRACTOR system
was used. Now did several posters not say they, the targets were wider? Are we not supposed to trust the ATA Minutes? That's the EC and BOD Bible.
If you misread my post I am sorry.

Gary Bryant Dr.longshot

 

I agree and to add, though the current rule is unclear as to it's adaptation and understanding to the currently depicted field. At one time, the rule was really pretty clear.



This seems about as clear as it gets. "not less than a straightaway from firing point 1...", and yet, I guess people much smarter than I, could not get that right, to the point the rule needed to be changed for perception of achievement, not sport and competition.

Shoot well.

John

 

Agree 100% ... Would love to know who the complainer was so we can all expect the same treatment in the future ... WPT ... (YAC) ...

 

I heard that the Tucson club used the Pierce Angle Master to set the field on the Pat traps. I know that Brian Pierce has been doing their Canterbury repair work so I would think he would use his own invention to set angles for them. Along with this many believe that this device sets the angle too wide as there is a slight drift in the hydraulics after making the proximity switch. If this device was used and the angles were set it would have space at the bar end so as not to indicating the angle is wider than the factory bar setting the bars were removed.

 

What are you talking about, is the below what you are talking about, I can't visualize what you are saying.

From TS.com Dated April 11, 2009

"Pictured here is a new product I developed to help set the angles on a Pat Trap. With the relay plugged into the relay socket of the trap and the mini twist lock connecter plugged into the release plug you can throw a hard right or hard left target on command. Set the toggle switch right and hold the angle button. the trap will throw a right hand target. Toggle switch right and hold the angle button the trap will throw a left hand target
This unit can also be used to set the Hi and Low target on a Pat wobble Trap.
The price of this unit is $295 Plus shipping.
http://uploads.xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/uploads/arrow_2008_0303.jpg


Bryan Pierce
Pierce Sales & Repair
e-mail piercesales@frontier.com
Phone 608 617 6631
arrow, Apr 7, 2011 Report"

==================================

From website, http://piercesalesandrepair.com/pierce_angle_masters

Pierce Angle Masters

The answer to any issues you have setting angles on a pat trap. Throws the hard right and left targets on command. Sold for $295.00 plus shipping. Can be adjusted as you please. Any questions feels free to call or email.
===================================

It appears just to be an electronic unit that commands a hard right or left to confirm extreme angles quickly while setting switches. The problem with the rules as written is that there are a few sections to which to understand. One is for a setting of not less than 17 degrees without regard to field. This can be done easily with the bar supplied, or a 4 1/4" spread of the switches. The factory submits that setting is 17 degrees.

The next is judging what appears to be 17 degrees from a point inside of post 1 or 5. In order to accurately depict the viewing perception would be to place a marker at the 1.5 foot rear of the front of the house to conclude what line the point inside of post 1 or 5 coincide with. I have noticed people tend to naturally use the front of the house and set switches narrower than the 4 1/4" described as 17 degrees.

Added: Another thing the visual aspect of the of what may appear 17 degrees is that I don't notice markers on the field where 3.5ft is, no markers where the reference point of the traphouse is and the absence of stakes at 15 to 20 yards. With the relative precision of a WW all fields were kept consistent with the 3 hole setting, in which the same could be true with a PAT Trap in using a 5 3/4" spread to provide approximately a 44 degree field. The rule could eliminate viewing other than replacing no less than straightaways from 1 and 5 with machines other than PAT Trap. Eliminating the need for viewing any targets at 15-20 yards.

One thing this tool would be great for is centering the field quickly. The 17 degree min is easily set with the bar or other way of getting the desired spread of the switches. The to confirm center of the field with this tool would be great and quickly done. The switches are designed to move together (bar in place) to move the field left and right to keep the minimum field angle intact.



I could be wrong.

Shoot well.

John

 

jhunts, That is the unit. I have seen it in action and I really don't care for it.

 

Why not?

I think this must be the mis-named "protractor" system Longshot is going on about and has attributed to me, though that has been edited out. It is, in fact, the ONLY (realistic, from a targets-thrown perspective) way to determine what angles a PAT trap is actually throwing. You can't "watch" it from the bench; you can't even tell for sure by shooting targets over it. Yes, you might be a straightaway from one but what was the wind and what does the shooter on five get?

But I don't faintly believe in setting vertical angles by protractor. Give me an experienced target-setter every time and I'll shoot 'em. Protractors are just things that "must work" but don't; 4 1/4" spacers are in the same category for me, though I have no reason to say so. If people want to use them, fine, but the apparent claim (the use of "hence" in the minutes) that traps that don't use them are not set according to the rulebook (not guidelines, for heaven's sake; there is no such thing!) is not reasonable.

N1H1

 

I agree with having an experienced shooter doing the actual target settings day in and day out. Then again, it depends on that shooters preference for abiding by the rule or their own personal preferences? What I can't agree with is if that experienced shooters preferences of setting targets higher than what our height setting rule calls for. (This is a rule; 8 to 10 feet high at 10 yards out) and not a mere suggestion as a starting point as some think. It's my view setting targets other than by the rule is a direct violation of our rule book.

But wait; how can those super target setters set breakable targets in most any conditions without violating a written rule? Answer is, they can't if all rules are followed to the "T". Target height set according to the rule only works is there's an allowable adjustment for the speed rule. The experienced shooters setting targets already know this and make the necessary adjustments without broadcasting exactly how they accomplish the job! This applies to all three games we use in our sport. No where does this become so apparent as it does in our doubles game.

When one rule is changed, another may be affected in some degree or other. It would be better for our game overall if we adopted an amended rule to cover the height and speed rule to make them both better for our sports average "B, C and D" class shooters. The top shooters will break anything you throw, not so for the average shooters playing our games.

HAP

 

Hap
What rule do you see violated when setting singles / handicap targets?

What I see is setting the speed and then adjusting the height.

8 - 10 feet at ten yards is a pretty good size window to go through.

What am I missing?

Thanks

 

"The top shooters will break anything you throw, not so for the average shooters playing our games."

Who complained ?????? Was it B,C, or D Class shooters ??????

The reason most are B,C, or D shooters is because they are willing to shoot ANYTHING and NOT complain .... the "top shooters" are the one's who reset the traps to what they prefer, NOT the lower class shooters. The "top shooters" are NOT as great as some think, they are just more willing to tilt the 'odds' in their favor.

 

Wishbone, not all clubs violate the setting rules, some however do. Singles and caps rule violations? Targets may be set extremely high depending on the club and who is doing the setting. That violates the height rule? YES it does. To make both the height and speed rules to work in harmony, both should be amended to what people are doing when setting targets.

User 1, those B C and D shooters have no realistic idea on why their scores suffer when Mother Nature comes calling. More would shoot doubles if their second shots weren't at falling second targets! N1H1 knows what's going on and possibly he can tell you also. Some clubs won't change the target settings which depends on who is asking a lot of times.

If we're not willing to abide by all of the rules for all, why can some violate the rule and get by with doing so to "tilt" the odds in their favor? That's why I say we need to amend the setting rules for the sake of our sport, not the top dogs.

HAP

 

Thanks for the reply, I don't see targets set extremely high or low but that doesn't mean it don't happen.
Typically what I see are targets set pretty good and shooters of all skill levels asking for them to be raised or lowered based on there preference.

The clubs generally move the targets up or down at the shooters request. These field changes never use a TBar.


Thanks

 

"That's why I say we need to amend the setting rules for the sake of our sport, not the top dogs." ....

And until the "Top Dogs" are treated the SAME, "rules" are useless. Again ... WHO complained ????? Many B,C, or D Class are tired of being 'low-class' in more ways than one.

You have to be BLIND, or never attend, to have not seen in person how the current leaders treat their Idols. UNTIL you stop THAT a 'rule amendment' will ONLY apply to the unwashed masses.

GET REAL .... How many B,C, or D Class shooters will an 'ATA Official' threaten to shut down a shoot for ?????? The idea that "Top Shooters" have earned special treatment has to go .......

PLEASE ANSWER .... Who complained ??????????????????????????

 

User 1, I've heard many complaints from lesser shooters about not being able to shoot a decent score and at the same time the top dogs are breaking them all. A score well below their already low average during windy weather.

I agree, there's a ton of top dog envy and even some of our EC members are in the top dogs class themselves. No one will ever stop that type of envy ever! Our silly speed limits tie a setter's hands when it comes to setting a breakable target for those lesser shooters, especially in our doubles game.

Another point, those supposedly leading our organization should realize some of these problems without anyone making a complaint? As is, they certainly aren't looking out for any B,C or D class shooters for sure. As long as the fees keep rolling in, no changes. I'm about as real as you'd want someone to be that's concerned for his sport.

HAP

 

I thought "Doc" was going to leave this site?

 

That is what the TOP DOGS have been doing for years

That's what happened in Tuscon Autumn Grand

Gary Bryant Dr.longshot

 

I have (over heard) heard people (shooters) complain about being treated differently than if it was "so and so" for many years ... That can be a problem for any club if its that obvious because all customers should be treated equally and with the same respect as any one of or all of the Big Gun's for that matter ... People are people and money is money, if you are going to offer a product to anyone you better treat all people the same or pay the ultimate price ... Not defending anything but I cannot see the people at Tucson doing anything that would be considered outside of the rules intentionally after they build a reputation for hosting one of the best shoots in the country over many years ... WPT ... (YAC) ...

 

Gary
So what are you accusing the Tucson Gun Club of doing?
It is a club with an excellent reputation.
Please take a deep breath and try to be clear.

 

The reason most are B,C, or D shooters is because they are willing to shoot ANYTHING and NOT complain .... the "top shooters" are the one's who reset the traps to what they prefer, NOT the lower class shooters. The "top shooters" are NOT as great as some think, they are just more willing to tilt the 'odds' in their favor.[/QUOTE]
My experience is just the opposite. A few years ago, in a doubles event, at the Grand, I shot on a squad right after Ricky Marshall's squad. The targets were set way right. One of the shooters on my squad insisted that the targets be reset, equally on the field, even though Ricky had just shot 100 straight on the same traps. I consider Ricky Marshall to be a "Top Shot".

 

Martin,
I have had a similar experience.
The big dog was Phil Kiner and yes he shot whatever came out of the house and broke 100 straight.

 

This validates to some degree what I said was true concerning that top shooters can shoot any settings and break them all? I'd guess after getting turned down for a reset while watching the best shooters either shootem or reset the field, B,C and D shooters just shoot.

I shoot AA and A class, my squad mate, Roger Coveleski is classed about the same, we were turned down when we asked the targets be reset because of wind. The right target was headed down almost as soon as it left the trap! Some clubs will reset targets and some won't. The B,C and D shooters that shot didn't bother to even ask and shot crappy scores on diving targets well below their dismal averages! Think they'll encourage their buddies to shoot doubles? He!! guys, they may even quit themselves! For the special ones, this isn't an ATA bash, it's a club practice that needs some attention from higher up the chain!

HAP

 

When I go to the line I tell my squad mates to look closely at the targets. If they need to be reset I will ask for them to be reset to our liking, with in the limits of the rules. I'm an A B shooter.

 

If Tuscon used the Protractor system, good for them, they had a wider angle, and I believe they draw for starting banks, good for them, no complaints for Tuscon.

Gary Bryant Dr.longshot

 

The Bars were removed so there would be no reason to have them they were using the protractor system(wider targets)

Gary Bryant Dr.longshot