Grading System - 8 scores to count

[bartman007]

I just thought I'd ask this question, to see how others feel about the new grading system.

I for one agree with the system, however I'm a little concerned that 1 bad shoot can have a big effect on the average.

I know, that when I was the handicapper many years ago, that we would cut the best and worst shoots, then average over the rest. That way if a shooter had a lucky day or a bad day, that their average was not skewed.

Our current system takes all shoots and averages over them. Should we not drop the highest and lowest and average over the remainder? Except where there is a limited number of scores to average over e.g. 3 or less.

Should we take this to the NRAA or VRA for consideration?

[Barry Davies]

That's why the averages are over 8 shoots. One bad one in 8 won't affect the averages very much.
Think about the cutting out of the highest and lowest -- If you add the highest and lowest together and divide by two ( average ) the average would be very close to the same figure that you would get if you left the highest and lowest in the equation.-- so it seems pointless to cut the highest and lowest.
The other point is that with this system you are not working on actual scores to obtain an average -- you are working on percentages relative to the highest score on the day-- makes a big difference in the relativity of one shooters performance to another's.
And yes I know that is not always necessarily so and anyone can come up with a set of hypothetical figures to prove or disprove the theory -- have a look at some actual figures and see how it works out over a period of time.
Barry

[AlanF]

Almost any handicap system ignores the extreme scores, and grading has the same general aim as handicapping i.e rate the shooter's recent performance level. Do you know what the thinking was behind this Barry?

Alan

[bartman007]

Hi Barry,

While it is true about the averaging, what brought it to my attention was the effect 1 bad shoot had on my own F Open average.

When averaging just over 99/100, all of a sudden Rosedale happened

With 96/109 = 88%, that dropped the average from 99.x to 97.36 and consequently way down the ranking list. Now it will take another 8 shoots to erase that result, which at the current rate of prize meetings could be the end of this year.

Lesson learnt, don't shoot F Open at Rosdale 1000 yards [Only kidding.....maybe I'll shoot F Std this year instead.....]

We had similar things occur back in the 90's, and the idea of cutting the worst and best I felt overcame this issue.

Of concern now, is that if a shooter was close to a Grade cut off point (i.e TR or F Std), then to sacrifice a prize meeting just prior to a Queen's event may be the easy way to ensure you are in the grade you want to be in. Even better, have two bad PM's and you ensure you drop further down the averages. Cutting the 2 extreme scores (high and low) would minimise the effect of this behavior too.

IMHO

[johnk]

Bart,

Sounds to me that the system is working. If you shot so badly compared to the winner, then I would expect that your grading would reflect that - or are you rating your score as a percentage of a possible score?

John

[AlanF]

John,

The system may be working, but perhaps it could work better if extreme scores were disregarded. If having the highest grade average was a competition, yes include all 8 scores, but for grading purposes, I would argue that an average of 6 intermediate scores would a better way of avoiding surprise results in B Grade, and there's been a few at Queens lately.

Alan

[bartman007]

John,

I got the wrong column in the results, I have edited the values now to what the winner got, and what I got.

I think what I'm trying to highlight, is that it takes just 1 extraordinary result, to have a significant effect on ones grading.

If instead of the issue being me not being able to deal with the mirage, that it was actually an equipment malfunction (e.g. barrel going south), or a marker missing a shot and giving you a ZERO, should this be accepted as a potential flaw in the system? What if my reload process had a bug, and I had a big group, which consequently dropped me 10 points for the day? Or that each case neck bulged as I full length resized them, causing me chambering issues during my shoot? There are a number of causes for 1 bad performance, therefore I think it is worth consideration.

What is the grading system trying to achieve?

In my mind it is to give a reasonable understanding of the average score that a shooter would achieve based on current events. And to place groups of people into grades based on those values.

To have people jump between grades due to and extreme event, can be detrimental to the grading system and more importantly a prize meeting or Queen's event.

[Barry Davies]

Your 134 at Rosedale needs to be viewed in the whole context -- ie what about the other shooters? did they all shoot good scores or was the general scoring low?
The other thing to look at is --although your average percentage dropped to 97.36 you did not go out of grade-- sure your ranking fell, as it should, but for all intents and purposes you are still A grade. Yes, it will take another 8 shoots to erase that one bad one ( gives you time to reflect ) but assuming your relative scores are better then your average will rise, if it does'nt then you are heading for B grade.
As I said, cutting the highest and lowest is much like cutting an average score.
Now, if you want to make your averages higher and ranking looking better then you can cut out all low scores, but that's cherry picking and gives a false sense of security.
The reality of it is that we do not shoot enough long range -- if we shot more our averages would be much lower - not necessarily our grading as the cut off point would then be less.
I know Alan does'nt agree with this but your grading or whatever should reflect your ability relative to others, not how good or bad your scores are.

Barry

[Lynn Otto]

There are many things that can affect the grading but on the whole I think what we have is the best compromise for the given circumstances. We may end up with some exceptional B graders but there are equally A graders who are not really such. As an example, prior to the last SA Queens I had shot at only a few OPMs and had hand picked which ones I would shoot at, so good conditions only, no rain, extreme heat (mirage) or windy stuff that needed a lot of concentration. Anyone with a good rifle could have and did do well, as a result my grading was A grade despite me knowing that I am now a B grade shooter when it comes to actually having to shoot in what nature usually dishes up ( the why and where for being a long story). Result, I would not have even placed in B grade at the Queens let alone A grade, but I had inadvertently caused this, it was not a failing of the grading system. I have not even looked at the gradings since then.

That is just one individual situation just like the others listed above and I'm sure we could all have circumstances where the system could fail us but nothing is going to work perfectly all the time for every person.

[Barry Davies]

Bartman.
You ask the question " What is the grading system trying to achieve"
Answer.
A grouping of shooters of roughly equal ability -- with the emphasis on ability.

Your idea of grading would work if everybody shot on the same range at the same time, then, and only then can you make fair comparisons between shooters.

In reality this does not happen and as an example of how bad the current NRAA grading system is you have people graded on their SCORES at Bacchus Marsh shooting against people graded on their SCORES at Castlemaine --where's the fairness in that?

The grading system used in F Class goes a long way in eliminating those discrepancies as shooters are compared one to another on the same range on the same day.--average percentages are relative.

You cannot accommodate all contingencies ie incorrect loading, bad barrels, wind gusts, light changes, shots on the wrong target etc. They are there whatever system you use, BUT you can take it out of the equation if it is grossly out of character.

Barry

[AlanF]

...BUT you can take it out of the equation if it is grossly out of character...

In the Rosedale handicap system, the handicapper can use his/her disgression to include or exclude uncharacteristic scores. Shooters are advised to let the handicapper know if they shoot on the wrong target or have equipment failure for example. Of course for some shooters equipment failure and shooting on the wrong target is a common occurrence, so the score remains .

Alan

[bartman007]

Hello Barry,

I appreciate your comments, however in regard to your last comment "BUT you can take it out of the equation if it is grossly out of character. ", this is my point. Currently it is not taken out of the calculations.

The grading rules state that it is the last 8 shoots. I didn't read anything relating to "out of character" shoots being omitted. Please correct me if I missed it

In regard to the scores on the day, they varied from 109 to below what I shot, with the top 2/3 of the field being above my score.

I suppose the issue would be more relevant where the shooter has an average near the F Std A cutoff point, and then has 1 bad shoot. Conversely if the shooter was near the top of the F Std B cutoff point, and then has 1 score that equals the F Std A score for that day.

The handicap system that we used at Moe I believe was in line with the standard that had been around since Moses was a boy. That is why I highlighted its rule of eliminating the top and bottom scores when calculating. It seemed a simple way of dealing with aberrations.

[bartman007]

Hey Alan,

Did I tell you what happened to me at Warrnambool?

Much to the other shooters amusement, I placed my first sighter on Target 8 (which I believed was mine ) which came up as a 6, which was scored for me as a 0.

I then queried which target I should shoot on, and was advised that Target 9 would be good

Fortunately for me my last shot was an X.

So, can say that I cut a 6 ..... well maybe not

I hope the shooter on Target 8 was happy with the assistance. You can send through the $$$ any time

[RMc]

Alan Wrote
In the Rosedale handicap system, the handicapper can use his/her disgression to include or exclude uncharacteristic scores. Shooters are advised to let the handicapper know if they shoot on the wrong target or have equipment failure for example. Of course for some shooters equipment failure and shooting on the wrong target is a common occurrence, so the score remains

Must be a F-Class rule as I have never heard of this.

[AlanF]

Alan Wrote
In the Rosedale handicap system, the handicapper can use his/her disgression to include or exclude uncharacteristic scores. Shooters are advised to let the handicapper know if they shoot on the wrong target or have equipment failure for example. Of course for some shooters equipment failure and shooting on the wrong target is a common occurrence, so the score remains

Must be a F-Class rule as I have never heard of this.

Richard,

Probably needs to be better advertised.

Alan