How Can Anyone Not See the Problem?

From the results at the Grand:

Let's look at the Hodgdon Powder Singles

723 Entries

99 shooters, 14%, shot at least 99/100

387 shooters, 53.5%, shot at least 95/100

595 shooters, 83%, shot at least 90/100

671 shooters, 93%, shot at least 85/100

The Simple Mean Average is 93.04%

This is competition? This is as difficult a sporting challenge as picking doughnuts off a plate. In what other sport can 723 entrants average 93% success?

 

Need to limit entries to a max of 100 of best shooters in the country. Then no problem.

 

Look, Doctor Longshot in another thread today said it is not the intent of his movement to make the targets harder, just to return the target setting to what they once where......which any club can do right now. You guys are confusing me again.

 

It is amazing, I think it is so they can look at the past and say, "I am as good as any Hall of Famer", feel good about themselves and carry on. That is how you grow a sport, not on competitive values.

Just looking at the first 3 pages of the Handicap. I appears in the game of equality, is not quite equal. Well, maybe the less than 27yd shooters.

27 yard - 55
26 yard - 5
25 yard - 12
24 yard - 11
23 yard - 3
22 yard - 12
21 yard - 9
20 yard - 6
19 yard - 7
18 yard - 3

AZCOTRAP,

No they cannot, it would be against the rule book of the ATA "desirable field", purposely setting it (target angle) greater then the ATA desirable field would be against the desires of the ATA, understand? As happened in Tucson, it appears, someone complained, it was fixed, I hear.

I guess you still believe the carefully crafted wording of "normal".

If a club set, as it appears Tucson did, wider than rule book specified, consequences can occur. Please explain how far outside "normal" a target can be?

John

 

No jhunts, not hung up on it, just repeating what some experienced people have written. You should try to get your hands on the article if you can, maybe read the rule book, tell me how you understand the word minimum actually means maximum.

Besides, DLS also admitted on another thread here he is shooting at places holding Registered shoots at wider angles.

 

Can you answer the question asked?

What is normal, and how far outside normal can a target be?

Pretty easy, isn't it.

ADDED: There is an argument you could make, but YOU have not made it.

 

No, you don't want to answer my questions why should,I answer yours.


I really don't think you have been paying attention. N1H1 told us what the use of normal said, and the rule says the targets can be set to wider angles than normal, but not to exceed 10 degrees more. You said in another post you read that as 27/54, remember? Why don't you answer my question? Since when does minimum mean maximum?


I am not going to change my understanding of the rule and you are not either. Why don't you just leave it alone?

 

Please quote me that rule, verbatim?

Ah, but were getting close to YOU understanding. I have posted here before. You can use N1H1's information, but I would advise against it. I always have to ask myself, were they mistaken understandings or purposeful misunderstandings.

ADDED: Before you get to far into it. What is your definition of "significantly outside normal"?

 

Have even looked at the diagrams in the rule book?

Look at page 55 you will see that straightaways from posts 1 and 5 which were old 3 hole settings are described in the parameters as "legitimate."

How can a diagram straight out of the rule book be a misunderstanding?
Perhaps you don't believe your lying eyes.

 

Well you just said, you can go 10 degree outside normal. Assuming a purposeful set straightaway target is set as "normal" can a target go to 32 degrees and be legal?

 

Jhunts, above quote from post of Doctor Longshot of thread he started today. If you look at the diagram from the rule book on page 55 showing the angles and fall zone, this is exactly what he is ranting about and what the rule already provides, is what he wants.

 

Jhunt, just look at the diagram for page 55 from rule book. Will answer all you questions, unless you just don't want to believe what you are seeing.

 

I think you should really study them, cause it appears your understanding it not correct, I am trying to help you.

Please could you verbatim, quote the rule you cited above? It does not say what you are thinking or are lead to believe.

 

Jhunts, you cannot help me if you do not know what you are talking about.

Look at the diagram on page 55 of the ATA rule book and you will see the legitimate angles for ATA targets. I am forbidden to supply you with a link in my post, but the site has furnished a link for you which you will have to click on and scroll down.

Page 55 of the ATA rule book, legitimate angles of ATA targets, reference D on page 54 to the diagram. This diagram shows what I have been posting about.

 

AZCOTRAP,

Your are not following what you are saying.

I think you believe as someone told you a club can set their own "normal". Is that correct. Now we have set a new club "normal" of 22 degrees. You said, you can go beyone 10 degrees from "normal", remember. Is that possible?

Now, why can't you just post what you say the rules say. I will try again.

Please post that rule.

I will continue to try to help you. Might I suggest post 186 of the below link.

http://americantrapshooter.com/inde...es-to-handicap-and-shootoff-rules.1340/page-2

 

I don't want or need your help and I am not going to post the rule for you, again. There is a link to it on this site for you to use. Go to the diagram on page 55 and you will find your answer.

What has happened here is you and others jumped on the DLS Hate ATA Bandwagon 10 years ago, only find that it has no wheels and no horses. You have lived with a complete misunderstanding of the settings rule and in order to save face, all you can do is ask inane questions, ridicule and try to confuse the issue.

The only thing you have left in your insane hate club is the move to Sparta which would never have happened if you were really serious about it and found another home in Ohio. Your failure to act quickly was the reason for the move. If Sparta had not have happened, we,would have been 10 years,without the Grand waiting for a suitable place in Ohio.

 

I thought it was a simple question.

I am not sure any of the above is true. You might think it is, but it is not. I don't know DLS and am not a ATA Hater. As a matter of fact through the ATA my family has been part of many accolades. It was the start of my oldest shooting career when he was 9. He had is first 100 straight at 10, 200 straight at 12, state championship (overall) at 15 (lost shoot off at 12) and now again at 18. I don't have any misunderstanding and don't need to save face. I am in these discussions to help in the resurrection of the SPORT of trapshooting however that ends up. I would like it to be the ATA as it has many things in place. My family is involved with USAS Trapshooting as well, as a matter of fact my son will be representing the US as part of the US JR National team in Italy next month. It is a good team, I think of the boys (3), anyone of them can get on the podium. It has been since 1997 (from what I have noticed), strangely enough since the US Jr. Men team have put a person on the pedestal at a World Championship. Is this the year?

I am not a Sparta Hater, I was just there a few weeks ago with 2 kids and my eldest will be there during Grand week. I am not part of any hate club, other than disliking the direction the ATA had taken in the 90's. I have yet to fully understand why. As you pointed out from others it is just between the ears. If that was the case WHY?

Your last sentence is just FALSE, it least as it appears to me. Whether it ended up in IL, OH, AZ or FL as it (ATA) was part of my kids life, I am sure I would have gone. Had a great aunt that lived just NE of Sparta, I was able to visit her during the Grand or other events when held there. I shoot as well, not as much as the kids, time and money. Yes, money, I am probably one of the people that should not be doing it, as you apparently want. I did do my once a year tournament at the CA State shoot, 197, ended up 3rd AA.

In another thread, I stated it was the SPORT not the venue per se that brings people. The game of Handicap is not equal, either it needs be rebranded or equipment rules need to be put in place to recreate equality. As a simple, simple start, 1200fps and 22 degree targets. When the 3dr load was mandated it is of my opinion the most guns were of the 30inch and less variety. I could be wrong. With barrel length increased, velocity also increased. With that in mind I think the ATA might want consider a 1145fps variety. It has proven to break 100's at the Grand. I would also seriously think of 1oz or less loads. The 27 is supposed to be just a spot, not a home plate to get better from, no other yardage gets that luxury. I might even propose a ELITE class. 27 yarders that have been punched further than the 27 they are now elite and compete against each other at the Grand and competitions where there is 10 or more. Maybe 2 GAH winners, 1 Elite Amateur and 1 Amateur, or something like that.

When people make the argument the best win, that is true except for handicap, then they (the best) should about average what everyone else does. Without it there really is not a need to bet, the odds are against you, unless you happen to register thousands of phantom targets to get to the 18.

My son as an example, never won a handicap event until he was on the 27 (actually 26.5 to get to the 27) seems odd doesn't it. That is supposed to be the point in which it is extremely hard to win an event. Came close one time, shot a 99 (from 19) when he was 10, unfortunately there were 3 100's.

Then it wasn't until I had him go to a faster shell than 1200fps. Two years of 27 with 1200, just about break point, this year 93+. It all matters, shorter field of targets at less angle with faster shells. Predominately assists one who points correctly time after time. Apparently that is the proficient 27 yard shooter.
=============================================
As posted earlier

Just looking at the first 3 pages of the Handicap. I appears in the game of equality, is not quite equal. Well, maybe the less than 27yd shooters.
27 yard - 55
26 yard - 5
25 yard - 12
24 yard - 11
23 yard - 3
22 yard - 12
21 yard - 9
20 yard - 6
19 yard - 7
18 yard - 3

Shoot well.

John

 

I told you that about yourself, just the other day.

 

That's because I have landed in Babel.

 

If anyone does not have the same opinion of the lack luster performance of the facility in Sparta, Ill you are a Sparta Basher, I learned that a long time ago ... The people who say that you do not even shoot do not have any idea of how much another person shoots other than they are not shooting registered and supporting the ATA and or the State of Illinois ... There are a few people who never shot at the facility in Vandalia from Illinois and have only shot at the facility in Sparta because its in their back yard ... The number of shooters who turned their back on the ATA far outnumber the amount of shooters who now shoot trap and live in the State of Illinois ... There are 3 or 4 shooters who live in southern Illinois who make claim to being the offset differencial that was caused by the ATA relocating to Illinois (must be the new math) ... The ATA has caused its own demise, the numbers tell the true story and cannot be disputed ... I think we should all forget about Sparta, the Grand and the ATA for that matter and just get on with our lifes and let them sink and swim ... WPT ... (YAC) ...

 

AZCO,

You were born confused and never recovered.

 

Maybe not AZCO but you need a lot of help from some where or from someone

No that is not true, there would have been a GRAND somewhere, it would have been better than the Non-Gun State of Illinois

GB DLS

 

How about making Handicap a 2 step process.

Step 1 is everyone shoots from their assigned yardage/class. No special categories just class.

Step 2 is the winners of step one compete against each other in the regular Handicap setup. Your short, mid and long yardage.

Is it a doable process?

 

To eliminate any and all confusion all handicap should be shot from the 24, 25, 26, or 27 yard line and shooters be classified like they are in singles and or doubles ... The Big Guns would then be classified and shoot pretty much against each other for class and added monies, and so would others ... I never felt handicap was 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 yards, and shot from 22 when I started shooting ... You can use classification rather than add 2 or 3 yards of concrete ... If it works for the singles and doubles why would it not work for the handicap ..? WPT ... (YAC) ...

 

Regarding the legal target rules - I'll weigh-in here, I guess I disagree with JHunts, AZCO, and Neil here. Great spot to be in!

From my perspective, the rule itself is not really clearly written because there is no definition of "normal parameters" that I am aware of.

In a sentence dealing with target setting, the rule mentions the trap shall be so adjusted that "...within the normal distribution of angles as thrown by the trap..." which I take to simply mean the range of angles the trap is expected to throw based on the particular setting in use. While "flyers" and other unusual targets might be thrown by this trap occasionally, they would clearly not be considered within "...the normal distribution of angles..." so we would only consider the angles the particular setting is expected to throw. In other words, a properly maintained trap throwing 2 hole targets would have a normal distribution of angles of roughly 34 degrees. We would not say it was improperly set just because it threw an occasional wild target. This part of the rule goes on to say that this trap's setting has to be one that is expected to throw not less than 17 degrees either side of center within its normal distribution. Again, I think that is quit clear, it gives us a minimum of 17 degrees each side. That is all this part of the rule provides.

Later it describes setting stakes marking the 17 degree angles out on the field. Then it says that no target is declared illegal unless "significantly" outside "normal parameters", apparently defined parenthetically as more than 10 degrees outside "normal." Now, this is the section that is not clear on its face. What is normal? This wording immediately follows the description of setting 17 degree stakes, so it certainly is not far-fetched to take "normal" as referring to the 17 degree stakes.

Additionally to back this up, in law, if a statute is unclear on its face, courts will generally try to determine what the writer intended from other sections, preambles etc. In this case, ATA provided Diagram II, labeled "Legal Target Area for Single (sic) and Doubles Shooting." This diagram clearly refers to legitimate and legal targets no less than 34 degrees and no more than 54 degrees max. The diagram is very clear, and I believe would generally be used to interpret any unclear wording in the rule.

So, that leaves us with a properly maintained trap set to throw within its normal distribution of angles, targets (not unusual, unexpected targets) with a spread of not less than 34 degrees and not more than 54 degrees max. This range would legally include both what we commonly refer to as 2 hole and 3 hole targets.

The fact that an ATA officer caused a stink at a Satellite Grand has no bearing on what the rule says. If they were throwing targets in this range, they were legal. I also get Neil's point about "normal" being whatever setting you are using, and especially in the earlier portions of the wording I can see a possibility of that, but as the rule goes on the wording gets farther away, and by the time it gets to telling us what is not legal, it is simply not clear. In that case you have to go to the chart provided by the same persons writing the rule, and it seems clear, 54 degrees is a max. That doesn't mean the ATA didn't intend "normal" to be any particular setting within the 34 to 54 degree range with an additional 10 percent add on, but in my mind, they didn't say that and should include specific wording if that is the intent.