I did not know there was that much cheating going on!!

After reading the History Buff & Roger Covelski's threads I never knew there was that many clubs throwing 34 degree angles and short distance. Living here in Ohio and shooting here our clubs were throwing straight a ways from posts #1 and #5. I thought all clubs were doing the same. Maybe some of those earlier Grand Slams were shot on 34 Degree angles, but I can say not here in Ohio, at our small clubs.

These southern Ohio clubs that shoot buddy shoots still throw those 44 degree angles.

I love trapshooting and the integrity of the harder 44 degree angles, as Trapshooting is a sport that loves competitive shooting. This is what Vic Reindeer's and Kay Ohye and Phil Kiner and Our ATA President Neal Crausaby supported.

Why in the hell would Neil Winston and others want to screw with the target angles and distances?

They served their achievement for over 80 years.

This sport is like horse racing, Golf, Soccer, and football. A sport of competition not perfection.
Trapguns have been modified for correct fit and shot placement and softer recoil.

Anyone believing the 44 degree targets is going to drive young and new shooters away
are very, very mistaken. It is not happening here in southern Ohio.
Gary Bryant Dr.longshot

 

It was an affirmative vote by the body with the power to run things, taken at a properly-called meeting in August 1996, which "screwed with the target distances and angles," to use your words. Anyone who does not like the present rules has but to secure an affirmative vote by the same body in a similar meeting. Bitching and complaining about me or anyone else won't do it.

 

What clubs were cheating? The two names you mentioned can only vouch for the clubs they attended so again, what other clubs were there to support the title of "so much cheating going on"?

I can tell you that the little two trap home club where I shoot always threw straightaways from 1 and 5 and still do to this day!

 

I have read the same posts you have, I don't think you can say for sure they weren't throwing 2 hole targets in Ohio,

They were throwing 2 holes in Vandalia according to what I read.
And you didn't seem to notice even though you were there.
They could have been else where as well.

As long as you spend your time playing the blame game you will change nothing.

But then I don't think you really want to lead the change.

 

They were not throwing two hole targets in Vandalia when I helped set them.
The actual number of three hole targets that the machines threw in a round of 100 targets was by comparison relatively small. It was enough to keep the game competitive and interesting.
What was the good that came out of all the changes to the sport of trap shooting?
Neil, Can you give us some insight on this question? No graphs, just some of the changes that moved the sport forward, and made it a more enjoyable recreational endeavor. Roger

 

Roger, we need some clarification. First you said that they were not throwing 2 hole targets at Vandalia, then I believe you say that the number of 3 hole targets
were relatively small, which I take it as at Vandalia, which would mean they were throwing 2 hole targets.
Not sure what you are really saying, can you please explain this.
Birddog

 

I can say for sure my targets on the traps I shot were 3 hole, I had straight-a-ways on 1 "& 5, I shot that 100 in Hdcp in 1970 July 4th at Sportsmans Club Springfield, Ohio, They always threw a tough target,
same hard angles in their big Calcuttas.

 

Roger....you confused me there also.

 

lew and family guy, Rogers's comment was pretty simple. While the traps were set in the three hole, that results in very few( as a percentage of the total) targets that would be thrown at the extreme angles. Then he goes on to say that it was enough to make it competitive and interesting.

I'm not sure what his point is because the first part of that statement is true for every hole setting except the 0 hole.

 

By admission of your famous nemesis, Grand targets were set soft for quite a number of years and you didn't realize/recognize such. I would conclude that other Ohio and adjacent states clubs were also throwing soft targets as were clubs across the US for a substantial period.

What period of years were you responsible for?

 

I believe Roger is speaking of the Pat Traps, throwing fewer hard angles, at least I understood that, correct me if I am wrong.
Dr.longshot

 

The last year the Ohio State Southeast Zone shoot was held at Airport Gun Club the OSTA told them they had to throw White Flyer Targets, Or they could not hold the zone shoot. The Central Hdcp Chairmen was in volved in setting the target angles, distance and speed. The was still a problem, due to lack of Trap maintenance by APG they ended up with about half of the traps not working, that caused a squading problems, and a very late shoot, that was APG problems and I doubt they will ever hold the Southeast Zone shoot. The club is now closed w/ a lot of broken down traps.

 

He is not talking about Pat Traps. I will agree that the club that is now closed w/ a lot of broken traps is not likely to host the SE Zone shoot again.

 

Birddog,
What I was referring to is the amount of hard angles that you would get if the trap was set in the 3 hole. That is where the luck of the draw comes in in our sport. No one with a properly maintained trap can read the targets 100% of the time. There were ways to help out. Grind some of the lobe off of the enterupter gear so it only interrupted half as much was the most used way.
Doc. I was referring to the W.W. 1524 hand set machines in my post about setting targets in Vandalia.

 

The years that I helped had to have been in the mid 80's as I left Ohio in 1988 David Bopp was still with tha ATA when I helped.
Iowa guy,
Would not the angles be less extreme from the 2 hole? That was my point. How many of the extreme angles from any hole do you think you would encounter in a 100 bird race? I hope this clears up any misunderstanding.

 

Roger, I always seem to get 5 hard rights from post 5 and 5 hard lefts from post 1 every time I shoot. Will that help average it out?

Or do I need to shoot more? LOL

 

Leonidas
Thanks for taking all the tough targets.
It may be hard on your scores but we appreciate it.

 

Truth be told I hit more hard angles on average than quartering and straightaways. I need to keep the concentration up and eye on the targets better.

 

Leonidas,
That is called the luck of the draw. Maybe the trap GOD is punishing you for being bad. LOL Roger

 

Roger,

Of course the extreme angles thrown by a different hole setting would be different. How many in a 100 target round at the extreme angles? Like you said, luck of the draw. Maybe a better question might be, how many targets would be thrown in the 5 degree difference (on either side of the field) between the three and two hole.

I just wasn't sure if you were basically saying there really isn't that much difference between the two and three hole with respect to where the majority of the targets actually fly.

 

To be clear, I have never used the word cheating regarding the use of the #2-hole target. And I don't know that I could personally tell the difference between #2-hole & #3-hole anyway due to my lack of experience regarding target setting. What I know is miniscule compared to the rest of you.

All I did was add written verification by some of our great shooters and leaders that there were an unknown number of gun clubs across the country who were throwing targets that did not comply with our written rules. I find it very troublesome that there were so many reports of violations to the Flights and Angles rule as well as the many idle threats of having scores DQ'd and sanctions placed on clubs, yet the problem continued.

Equally striking is the fact that these violations were reported in the ATA official minutes which also show some Executive Committees choosing to remain neutral and allowing the Target Crew at the Grand American to set targets as they wished.

Regarding the Grand Slams:

There is no way to identify who made their Grand Slam on regulation targets and who did not. The only people who would really know are the gun club management and those shooters who allegedly traveled a great distance to a club known to throw soft targets for those looking for their G. S. I've heard this rumor for years but have no knowledge that it is true.

The point is that there is no use in even hinting that some of those on the Slam list achieved their goal on targets set very narrow. The overwhelming majority of those named on the Grand Slam list have no idea at all and assume that the facility where they made their Slam was throwing regulation targets. And after the rule change for the 1997 target year, even those Slams were on regulation targets. They were just more narrow than the previous regulation. I should add that there is still the possibility that some of the Post-1996 Slams were shot at clubs who still decided to use the old angle setting (straightaway from Posts 1 & 5) which was still a legal because they were wider than the minimum and still did not violate the maximum 25 degrees, and then the reduced area of 10 degrees.

So I tip my hat to all the Slamers' for a great achievement. Sure wish I could do it. Not likely since I lost the desire to shoot and put the old shotgun in the closet. I'm hoping that burning feeling returns soon but its been a couple years now and I'm worried.

I will say that there should be more thought and care given to the achievements of the real real old-time shooters from 1900 to 1950s. When Charley "Sparrow" Young broke his 100 straight at the Grand from the 23yd mark (from recollection) the rules called for 45 degree targets and an additional 20 degrees which still was within the regulation. I would assume that he had some monster angles on his "century"that today's shooters would howl about.

That's the way the game used to be played. Target angles were established to approximate hunting and live bird shooting. Then all of a sudden, somebody decided to take some of the difficulty out of it because some shooters could not break good scores. A good score is a score near the top of your average group (Class) or assigned handicap yardage. Class D shooters with an 88 average should not expect to win the Clay Target Championship which takes 200 straight. If the angles were so extreme at 45 degrees or when they went to 22 degrees, why has there remained an abundance of Class D shooters? Some theorize that they would have left the game due to the extreme challenge. I say perhaps some; but not the majority who enjoy trap shooting.

Kenny Ray

 

Iowa Guy,
That is exactly what I was saying. Knowing that the extreme angle is available is enough to keep a shooter on his toes. That is only one of the tweeks that I have mentioned before. Now add ind soft targets 44 yd. doubles. The slightest wind affect a soft target much more than it affects a stiffer target. The rubber band on the Pat's will give you a soft target when it has to set for only a very short time. Watch the first target on every station. Especially if the squad is slow on moving.
Go up and read Kenny's last two paragraphs. He said it as good as it can be stated. One other thing to consider, the average shooter can not adjust to changing conditions on the line. When the target presentation changes from field to field it leave them in never never land they are missing and do not know why. That is one reason why easier and soft targets do not work for the lessor accomplished shooters. Give them as close as possible the same target on every field and at every club and most will improve in their sport.

 

FLU.GOV:
N1H1 is a flu virus. When it was first detected in 2009, it was called “swine flu” because the virus was similar to those found in pigs.