Windreading Performance Comparison

[GSells]

I can shot fast but today at the 1000 yd final if you machine gunned you were going to get a 3 then a 5 then maybe a 6 then a 3 on the other side !! Horrendous vertical on erratic wind changes ! I wind read my Hinnie of to pull a second place for the range . Took 21 mins . There was about 5-10 seconds for the condition that was able to get into the 6 ring to 1 or if you were lucky 2 shots off . Then it would disappear for up to 5 mins . So sort take bit of offence to say that I only chase the spotter and don’t know how to wind read !
You can’t machine gun Belmont at the longs , especially this time of the year ! It’s very much like NorthArm and maybe that’s why the past two Queens winners have come from there !

That’s how I crashed today ! I found the conditions I wanted , and was going ok . Saw the conditions changing and corrected and it held , thinking that I could muscle my way in . Then Belmont just pulled me into not stoping thinking I could get the job done , chewed me up and spat me out ! It hurt I was close to tears coming from leading the comp ! So much like trentham!
So there are time to attack and then stop ( which I didn’t , I panicked and payed for it ! Lack of confidence in myself ) and times to wind read the , stuffing out of conditions!) the 2 Dave’s did masterfully ! And me an alleged Machine gunner got taught a painful lesson!

So please don’t just plainly think that people who can shoot fast can’t wind read ! It’s very much A skill and one just like Apostle Paul , I use to persecute Machine gunners with vigour . Now am converted and my apologies for past transgressions!!!

[GSells]

Also I support our National wind coach ! I saw how he handled Perth and was masterful ! He knows how to wind read !!

[Gyro]

True Graham. Those us us who 'know' understand that machine gunning will not always work. Damn sure. Sometimes it will though and will allow a shooter with poor wind reading skills to do well. That's probably what pisses some off as there really aint much wind reading going on when shooting fast like that and I personally have no desire to take part in it. Watching how your group is trending on a small screen aint wind reading. Bloody hard on your barrel too.

[bruce moulds]

graham,
being close to tears is being defeatist.
a better place for the mind is wondering how to overcome the problem.
and if those tears are coming from not winning, mind in the wrong place again.
get things right, and winning will take care of itself.
and we all need to remember that this is just a game.
bruce.

[wsftr]

shoot fast or slow - are strategy's used thats it.
how you arrive at the strategy to use....thats wind reading...
when to start and when to stop (be it shooting fast or slow) thats wind reading.

IMO anyways

[Gyro]

shoot fast or slow - are strategy's used thats it.
how you arrive at the strategy to use....thats wind reading...
when to start and when to stop (be it shooting fast or slow) thats wind reading.

IMO anyways

True. Sort of. If the rules allow it then folk will do whatever they think will provide the best result. I have thrown some bricks with my above comments. They are just my 'opinions'. F Class is a relatively new sport and perhaps the rules are not right yet ? I dunno ....

[wsftr]

shoot fast or slow - are strategy's used thats it.
how you arrive at the strategy to use....thats wind reading...
when to start and when to stop (be it shooting fast or slow) thats wind reading.

IMO anyways

True. Sort of. If the rules allow it then folk will do whatever they think will provide the best result. I have thrown some bricks with my above comments. They are just my 'opinions'. F Class is a relatively new sport and perhaps the rules are not right yet ? I dunno ....

Yip - thing is we agree
I can't be bothered crapping on with my views on no dealys and shooting fast - suffice to say I agree with you - rules - yeah worth thinking about.

[jasmay]

People always look for a rule change to solve an issue, why?

The rules, when studied and applied are quite good.

You don’t need any rules changed if you want to introduce “more” wind reading into the sport, just change the structure of your comps, i.e. shoot Bisley style.

As for this overall thread, how one could even attempt to deduce who is the better wind reader through scores alone is beyond me, it lacks accounting for so so many things it is not funny.

Always good to see how these threads degrade....

[bruce moulds]

has it degraded, or have more ingredients been put in the pot?
bruce.

[jasmay]

has it degraded, or have more ingredients been put in the pot?
bruce.

Just like “too many cooks spoil the broth”....

[bruce moulds]

makes your brain hurt.
bruce.

[AlanF]

People always look for a rule change to solve an issue, why?

Many (most?) sports tweak the rules periodically to address issues of concern and to improve the appeal of the sport.

...if you want to introduce “more” wind reading into the sport, just change the structure of your comps, i.e. shoot Bisley style.

Agreed. I'm in the process of trying to introduce more Bisley days at Rosedale, but am still in favour of something like a 5 second delay with ETs.

... As for this overall thread, how one could even attempt to deduce who is the better wind reader through scores alone is beyond me, it lacks accounting for so so many things it is not funny.

Have you actually read and understood the methodology described in my first post Jason? With respect it was more than just looking at individual scores.

[jasmay]

Alan, yes, I had a good read, as one that doesn’t like getting political on topics, I think you’ve done a good job of creating a very political (possibly divisive) topic.

1) Squadding: For a healthy period of time many have pushed for Squadding for obvious reasons, the main is getting a single discipline shooting in as close to the same condition as possible as this does a good job of leveling the playing field, something the study doesn’t account for very well.

2) the 4 Disciplines are quite different, those differences have an impact of how one can perform.

3) average scores of those assessed, using a random sample of shooters doesn’t really give a clear indication of overall performance.

That’s a few that I can see.

I know you have attempted to do the best that can be done, but I think it could easily be interpreted as a tad bias/divisive, I thought we tried to stay away from those types of discussions for obvious reasons.

[AlanF]

From what you say Jason, I still think you need to read my first post again. In response to your 3 points:

1) The effect of squadding was eliminated by choosing an event for the analysis that did NOT involve squadding, being the 2016 QRA Queens.

2) Yes the 4 disciplines are different, particularly TR from the other 3. But the methodology of the analysis either eliminates or drastically reduces nearly all of those differences via (a) analysing the change in performance in different wind conditions rather than actual performance and (b) by applying typical ballistics in each discipline to the final figure so they can be directly compared.

3) Average scores were NOT used for the analysis.The horizontal component of shot positions were used because they are a better indicator of windage performance. Nor was a random sample of shooters used. It was the top approximately 25% of finishers in very good Queens level fields.

From most of the comments on this thread, you could hardly call it a divisive subject? It was meant to be an unbiased and reasonably scientific analysis of wind performance differences between the disciplines. Are you saying its not appropriate in this increasingly politically correct world?

[wsftr]

From what you say Jason, I still think you need to read my first post again. In response to your 3 points:

1) The effect of squadding was eliminated by choosing an event for the analysis that did NOT involve squadding, being the 2016 QRA Queens.

2) Yes the 4 disciplines are different, particularly TR from the other 3. But the methodology of the analysis either eliminates or drastically reduces nearly all of those differences via (a) analysing the change in performance in different wind conditions rather than actual performance and (b) by applying typical ballistics in each discipline to the final figure so they can be directly compared.

3) Average scores were NOT used for the analysis.The horizontal component of shot positions were used because they are a better indicator of windage performance. Nor was a random sample of shooters used. It was the top approximately 25% of finishers in very good Queens level fields.

From most of the comments on this thread, you could hardly call it a divisive subject? It was meant to be an unbiased and reasonably scientific analysis of wind performance differences between the disciplines. Are you saying its not appropriate in this increasingly politically correct world?

To what point? To say shooters in one discipline are better than the others?
I think the fact that its not divisive so far is more a reflection of the maturity of those commenting than the topic and approach used to determine some sort of conclusion.