OzFclass

I believe that all out of character scores should be noted and ultimately excluded from the equation-- if I am aware of it I do so. If I am not aware of it but see what looks like an out of character score I query it, --but that's me.
If the day at Rosedale was a real " bitch" then possibly ALL scores should be deleted from the equation,-- done that too.
Current SSR's ( TR only ) state--
"Any shoots out of character with a competitors normal performances may be eliminated, the intention being that grading will be a true assessment rather than a straight out calculation of ability"

Cannot quite figure that one as if grading is not related to ability what then is it related to?
Ability comes in many forms.
Who decides what is out of character and what is not? If you cannot read the wind on a particular day -- is that out of character? I don't think so.
If you put a shot on the wrong target --is that out of character --well for some it is'nt, but generally could be considered so. It's a bit like the rule that if a shot leaves the barrel it counts - the fact that you may have somewhat underloaded it is no excuse, and who would know anyway.
"Out of character" is a contentious point.

Barry

Barry,

While we assess subsequent F class shooters' performances as a percentage of the winning shooter's score, it doesn't matter if everybody shot crap. It's the relativity what counts.

At the moment, it's not the case with TR, but that method of grading is carrying far too much baggage.

John

Bartman, What effect does averages have on a result in F open anyway? F Open remains ungraded, the rankings have little to do with anything, apart from (and excuse my expresssion) Ego! Untill Fopen is graded, you have no reason to have any interest in A or B grade. Just as is the case with National rankings, you only have a rank if you shoot a Queens, all other results are ignored.

All good comments.

I did take the time to re-read the F Class grading process just now, and it seems that it doesn't have the option "at present", to determine a shoot as not being characteristic of a shooters ability (across a 2 year period), and cut it from the calculation.

I can see that some shooters may have an issue with the idea of someone else determining that a particular shoot of their's is uncharacteristic of their ability. That is why, the process of cutting the top and bottom score has some merit.

On another note, if a shooter retires part way through an event, does the score count against their average. The calculation process doesn't mention what to do in that case.

Retiring can be as simple as someone shooting in the morning, then deciding to leave the range to pursue other activities in the afternoon. This did occur recently, so should we simply add up the ranges and give them 0 for the rest of the prize meeting? I think in this case common sense will prevail and the shooter will simply have their results calculated over the first 3 ranges of the day.

Sickness can affect ones ability to perform, especially if the eye's are affected, or you spend half the time running back to the toilet. With this in mind, if it is a one off then the cut top and bottom will overcome this aberration. If a person suffers over a number of months, then their scores would reflect that.

If a F Std B grader attends a prize meeting where there is little to no wind, and subsequently gets in amoungst the A grade scores, they too would benefit from deleting the top score. Because a shooter's skill is made up of a few key area's, one of which is reading wind, if you take out that element due to easy conditions, you won't reflect their abilities appropriately.

In TR I would say a day with easy conditions may still trip up most C Graders, as all of a sudden they need to deal with the possiblity of shooting multiple possibles, and the poor old ticker would be working overtime. Especially that LAST SHOT. Damn that last shot!!!

So much to consider, and so much time to debate it. After all, how many years have we been competitively shooting (100+ in Victoria). The wheels of progress are moving. However, some handicapping systems prevail due to their clever design so many decades ago.

Good night all, I think its time for sleep. Need to get some reloads done tomorrow.

Cheers.

TOM wrote:Bartman, What effect does averages have on a result in F open anyway? F Open remains ungraded, the rankings have little to do with anything, apart from (and excuse my expresssion) Ego! Untill Fopen is graded, you have no reason to have any interest in A or B grade. Just as is the case with National rankings, you only have a rank if you shoot a Queens, all other results are ignored.

Feeling good about one's rank is part of the reason (Ego). It drives some people (myself included) to improve in their chosen sport. But then, why bother having the Ranking's pages if they don't mean anything?

Everyone has an ego. It is the feeling that you get when you do something really well. I'm sure we all get it when we achieve something that is important to us. "EGO is not a dirty word" Tom, are you old enough to know where that reference comes from?

As for F Open not requiring this at present, my comment really relates to both parties in F Class as it is the one system that affects both. And it can cause some contention when individuals appear in what could be perceived as the wrong grade. We all hear the murmur's at various events.

I'm happy to say that I will be shooting F Std again soon as I enjoy both. I'll need to make the stock heavier again though, as I took out 800+ grams to get under 10Kg with the new barrel. Damn those 7mm's mmmmmmmmmm

You will need to ask the NRAA about the rankings mate, They reflect some good performances but in general, they show you who gets around to more Queens events, I know some very fine shooters who are not even listed because they dont shoot at any Queens. The NRAA rankings are really superfluous and dont reflect who is actually the best. This could be applied to almost every sport though.

Our own ego's are better fed by our last performance, your only as good as that!

TOM wrote:You will need to ask the NRAA about the rankings mate, They reflect some good performances but in general, they show you who gets around to more Queens events, I know some very fine shooters who are not even listed because they dont shoot at any Queens. The NRAA rankings are really superfluous and dont reflect who is actually the best. This could be applied to almost every sport though.

Our own ego's are better fed by our last performance, your only as good as that!

No need to bag the rankings Tom. People understand what they are. They encourage good shooters to travel interstate to attend Queens shoots, which is not a bad thing. In the past I've asked the editor of the ATR to consider including F-Class rankings alongside the TR ones. I might make another attempt soon.

Alan

You say I bagged them Alan?, I say I Just gave an opinion you can disagree with. A National ranking would be worth more if it were calculated using prize meeting results as well as Queens, thats a big job but if the state associations were to gather results and the NRAA were willing to calculate rankings from these we would get a more concise indication of who is better than who. If shooters are so worried about their ranking they may travel to more prize meetings in an attempt to boost it, on the other hand, they may also stay away if the range is a difficult one or a place they have not had much sucess, to keep the rank they already have. The system could be easily manipulated which in turn reduces its worth but it is what it is.

Bartman ( Mike )
PM sent
Barry

This just seems to be going round and round in circles.

If the shooter is graded B as per the grading system used, and they feel they were hard done by because of one or more bad scores which counted for the grading process, they always can shoot up a grade if they feel the need!

There is nothing wrong with that. I personally have been graded B Grade TR for 2 years, but every Queen's or OPM I have shot since that grading (up to 3 months ago, because I knew I was going through a bad patch) I have shot in A Grade, because I would feel happier winning a badge in A Grade vs a B Grade badge.

Only my thoughts.

Phill

Phill,

I think that you & I are both suffering under the same misapprehension, that they are talking about grading, when in actual fact what it seems is being discussed is NRAA ranking.

John

It's not the NRAA ranking that interests me, as it seems to severly limit the number of rifle ranges that it is calculated on. As well as requiring one to encounter large cost just to compete. I can afford 1 and maybe 2 Queen's per year, however I can easily go to 10 or more prize meetings in a year.

To bring it back to the original idea, it was about the ability to delete the top and bottom scores and average over the middle group. To give a more accurate average for a shooter. And to delete the extreme events that may otherwise detract from the real average.

If I just shot at sheltered prize meetings all the time and went nowhere else, then my calculated average would not have much value. However, I do travel to many different ranges (Rosedale / Moe / Lang Lang / Stawell / Bendigo / Port Campbell / Warrnambool / Castlemaine / Karramomous / Glenrowan / Canberra). Shhhhhh don't tell the misus, now she will be able to track me down on weekends

TOM wrote:Our own ego's are better fed by our last performance, your only as good as that!

Hi Tom,

That old adage that you have quoted has a lot to answer for

OK so I won my last OPM, write me up for 100%. Next week I may have a stuck round causing me to retire, and I end up with 32%.

Talk to me next week, as I'll be entering C grade. Let's hope the C graders don't get too upset After all, averages are averages.

Cheers.

You said your average is 97.36, hardly C grade.

Tom,

My point being that if I was handed a 32% for one of my shoots, my average would plummet below 90%. This is based on calculations of my current 8 shoots.