Posted: Sun Oct 10, 2010 1:26 pm
ian,
the fairest way i have found to compare scores relates to the degree of difficulty of disciplines and their targets.
do we compare the winners or the averages?
over time it has become apparrent that the degree of difficulty comparing open with fullbore is fairly close if open is scored out of 50.10 on the super v target and fullbore is scored out of 50.10 as they do.
open shooters have tended to score high b grade to high a grade fullbore under this system.
doing it this way would also suggest that open was punching a bit above its weight at the queens.
such comparisons are probably not a positive thing in the overall scheme of things, as we need to be promoting togetherness of all disciplines.
history has taught us that open can easily be seen as outsider interlopers who think they are better than everyone else, and we have moved away from that a little since the demise of the champ target.
bruce moulds
the fairest way i have found to compare scores relates to the degree of difficulty of disciplines and their targets.
do we compare the winners or the averages?
over time it has become apparrent that the degree of difficulty comparing open with fullbore is fairly close if open is scored out of 50.10 on the super v target and fullbore is scored out of 50.10 as they do.
open shooters have tended to score high b grade to high a grade fullbore under this system.
doing it this way would also suggest that open was punching a bit above its weight at the queens.
such comparisons are probably not a positive thing in the overall scheme of things, as we need to be promoting togetherness of all disciplines.
history has taught us that open can easily be seen as outsider interlopers who think they are better than everyone else, and we have moved away from that a little since the demise of the champ target.
bruce moulds