OzFclass

I wanted to let readers know of a sponsorship method we have begun to push here in WA. This is about getting more people to shoot in competitions, and shooting in general. It should help F Class as much as it will TR.

We wanted to try and do something about the falling numbers attending prize meetings, and particularly the bigger ones. We decided that a whole rifle should be enough of an impetus to get people either shooting again if away from the sport, or maybe get new shooters into the game.

Obviously, there is something in this for us as a business - marketing and positive response. This is the idea anyway. The main benefit for us, is to have our products, the rifles we build, being sold to the people that are vying for the prize.

The main difference in our approach, is that we are not providing the rifle for the meeting winner, but the shooter that shoots the highest above their own average, in other words, a handicap winner. So far, we are looking at the Christoe system, which we use locally, and works very well for pretty much any discipline.

Although we are providing the prize with no huge strings attached, we would expect that people turn up and have a go. Not much to ask we feel.

This is based on our thinking from our own experience in prize meetings, where lots of people pay for the prizes to go to only a few. Although sounding socialist, this is aimed at upping shooter numbers, pure and simple.

What are the thoughts of forum readers?

It'll work well Rod, particularly if the organisers start advertising it WELL in advance.

Alan

Be nice if the people reading the forum would post comments, make suggestions, provide alternatives...........


Our sport is dying from apathy, lets do something about it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Alan,

65 views and it is still just you and I. Shows the sort of committment people have these days about their own sport....

Hey Woody,

How does the Christoe system work?

Woody,

I have concerns with the winner being the one who exceeds his handicap the most as it has the potential for a degree of creativity with the assigned handicap.

Some time back, my club sponsored a growler's handicap which made allowances for the grading percentage of the TR shooters, by assigning V bull credits according to their grade performance. However, the shooter nominated his own handicap & the winner was the shooter who came closest to a possible score without exceeding it. Shooters whose score exceeded the possible were penalised 2 points for every point above the possible value.

I reckon that that concept, viz the shooter's off rifle score plus chosen handicap can't exceed the possible score without penalty is less liable to manipulation or dissatisfaction from the losers. However, it's entirely possible that newer, less credentialled shooters might have difficulty nominating a handicap that truly reflects their performance.

it's a slightly sad, but well known circumstance that we have more professional lower grade shooters in our sport than their performance at premier events would suggest.

John

Woody, John,

My opinion about handicapping (and grading for that matter) is that they are patronising, clumsy and sometimes inequitable methods for spreading success across shooters of all performance levels.

I think the introduction of a greater element of luck into our sport would do more for attracting shooters than either of the above. And by that I don't mean drawing the winners names out of a hat, but perhaps formatting the shoots such that weather can play a bigger part in the outcome (e.g. by removing the wind flags), or using target designs which are more likely to cause the top shooters to have disasters, and the battlers to have lucky breaks. Some might say this will cause the top shooters to lose interest, but if it was done sensibly, then the top shooters would still win in the long run, whilst allowing more of the others to have occasional success.

If you look at soccer, which I assume is the most popular sport in the world, you often see a lowly rated side have a lucky break or two, and become a giant-killer. This is what keeps the fans of the lesser teams coming back - there is always the hope of an unlikely victory. So why not apply the same principal to our sport? It could breathe new life into it, particularly for those who currently just go along without any real hope of success. These are the people who will stay at home because of the tighter economic climate - the winners will still make the effort because they will get rewarded, but they may get smaller and smaller fields to shoot in.

Alan

As a newcomer(awaiting completion of my rifle) to target shooting the concept mentioned to get more butts to the range(no pun intended) i see as a great idea.

I am curious though as to how the handicap systems would work in regards to people who maybe regular shooters using rifles built with all the trimmings and hand loaded ammo etc.

For eg: both shooting on the day and scoring 57,56,30(very bad wind change) for an agg of 143 but has shot 3 possibles over their last 4 ranges at previous matches,
Compared to a new shooter such as myself who has only shot on the day for a score of 44,47,52 for an agg of 143 using a hunting rifle with harris bi-pod and ammo obviously more suited to killing pigs than target work.

Would that mean a shoot-off if there were no central bulls shot for a count out.
Stuart

Alan,

I tend to be a bit ambivalent to handicapping myself but if it's a bonus to regular shooting, it could have merit.

I mentioned on another forum where Woody raised this possibility that one Queensland club includes in its PM (which is relatively quite successful) additional to the usual grade & discipline prizes a rifle barrel and a watch drawn out of a hat by entry number. The usual prizes are by way of badges, medals & cash acording to participation and the barrel & watch are promoted & accepted as a thank you for attendance.

Before they went this route, the shoot was considered to be one to be missed because limited attendances meant that it was barely worth coming. These days, it's one of the bigger & better shoots in my neck of the woods.

John

John

John,

Yes I have seen big door prizes at several Vic OPMs and they do attract interest and I'm sure boost numbers, particular if well advertised. However I can't help thinking that the most elegant solution is to increase the element of luck in the competition itself, so that the winner will be able to have sense of achievement as well as good fortune.

In practice this may require rule changes, although my understanding of the SSRs is that OPM organisers are only strictly obliged to adhere to the SAFETY related rules (that came from a NRAA Director).

Alan

Great stuff guys, thanks.

Stu, to try to answer your questions:

As a newcomer(awaiting completion of my rifle) to target shooting the concept mentioned to get more butts to the range(no pun intended) i see as a great idea.

That is what we want to hear....

I am curious though as to how the handicap systems would work in regards to people who maybe regular shooters using rifles built with all the trimmings and hand loaded ammo etc.

The handicap has changed a little since I first thought of the marketing plan. Originally it was going to be a straight Christoe handicap, but this wont work, due to the big discrepancies in the averages of shooters. The Christoe handicap is one used by Wurgabup RC, and works well for the purpose - it works like this:

To use myself as an example, I have an average (over the last 5 shoots) of 97 (no centers are included in TR), which in turn, is taken from an overall possible score of 101. This makes my handicap 4, and being from 101, the lowest handicap is 1. The averages are reviewed every 5 shoots I think....which is a compromise between lots of work for the handicapper, and keeping up with shooters - particularly newer ones.

This is too simple for something like a Queens meeting, for many reasons I wont go into here. My more recent proposed handicap is to use the following equation: (I will give an example following)

Shooter average (obtained from NRAA data) is the basis of this. In WA, this is used to grade shooters into divisions.

Over the whole shoot, it is the square root of the difference in the shooters average score, over their pre-competition average, minus 0.2 point for every point their average is below 100. The latter bit is used to even up big handicaps, which no matter whom holds them, will always be easier to make up than a smaller one.

An example would be:

Shooter one has an average of 95, and shoots 2 points above their average for the meeting.

Shooter two has an average of 90, and shoots 7 points above their average.

Shooter three has an average of 99, and shoots 0.5 points above their average.

Worked like this: (averages have four decimal places)

S1 - sqrt 2 = 1.4142 minus 1 = 0.4142 hcp

S2 - sqrt 7 = 2.6457 minus 2 = 0.6457 hcp

S3 - sqrt 0.5 = 0.7071 minus 0.2 = 0.5071 hcp

This clearly shows that a person with a low average has to make a huge improvement to get anywhere, and the top guys only have to make a small improvement to get there. The idea is that making a small improvement at high level, is equally difficult to making big improvements at low levels.

Shooting at 90, then averaging 97 is a big ask, so is 99 to 99.5 - thats one point every four ranges!!!

FOr F class (standard, there is no open in WA currently), it is the same, except that it is from 120, and the score is brought back to 100, by subtracting 20.

This is just my workings, nothing set in concrete yet.

For eg: both shooting on the day and scoring 57,56,30(very bad wind change) for an agg of 143 but has shot 3 possibles over their last 4 ranges at previous matches,
Compared to a new shooter such as myself who has only shot on the day for a score of 44,47,52 for an agg of 143 using a hunting rifle with harris bi-pod and ammo obviously more suited to killing pigs than target work.

Would that mean a shoot-off if there were no central bulls shot for a count out.

I often make the remark that the scoreboard does not lie, and it doesn't. If you are a newer shooter, chances are your average is lower than a more experienced one. The gear has nothing to do with the way the handicap works, but will obviously make it hard to win against hard core shooters with all the fruit. We are not talking about winning the open meeting, this is about your average, and you shooting against yourself.

On the rule changes, it may well help the issue of attendance, but not a realistic expectaton for the timeframe, and the purpose our our sponsorship. The overall idea is a good one though...

The idea of a self nominated handicap is beautifully nasty, I love it. Having spent years watching drag racing, and in certain classes, they having to nominate their own hcp, it makes a lot of sense. So many times the guys would beat their time by 0.002 seconds or something crazy, and being miles ahead of the other guy, but they still lose....kind of weird satisfaction there.

Now you have mentioned the self nominated handicap, how would this work in practice? People nominate for TR or FS, either full entry or trophies only, then nominate a number to bring their score to 100? This could not be a single figure, as the averages are 4 decimal places...more likely 2 or 3 decimal places at least. If I was to do mine, my comp average is 95.6 or something like that - I would set it at maybe 3.99 to give me some room and not go under 100????

Decided comment not needed

Having second thoughts about the handicap idea. Might be too much work for somebody to work it all out - I can easily do it, but that is not really practicable, due to the conflict of interest.

Im not convinced a door prize will up the entry numbers, or the same for a lottery. Overly complex mathematical formulae will be lost on some that dont understand such things.

Maybe I can make it a straight shootoff? Everyone with an average less than mine is eligible, but has to beat me to win, the highest score wins. This is sort of like handicapping, as the higher averages are not eligible. If I pull my finger out, I might even post a decent score, making it even tougher for people to win!! My average is 95.6 or something like that, so gives plenty of opportunity for shooters????

I can pick the range at random, thereby making it hard to get a line on who might be in with a chance....I like long ranges:) Maybe letting the RO know in advance, so he can announce it.

Ideas, discussion, ridicule?

Rod,

Here's something we do at our OPM and again at our Xmas shoot and it is a lot of fun.

After the day's shooting, and before any rifles are cleaned we all go to the mound of the longest range (in our case 1000yds). We put up one target, and each shooter gets a single shot at it. After each shooter, the target is lowered, and the distance of the shot from the exact middle of the target is measured, then the shot is patched and target raised (with no spotter) for the next shooter. Two lists are kept while the shoot is in progress - at the mound a list of shooter name and order is made, and at the butts a list of distance from middle and shot order is made. Security is tight, and the two lists are kept seperated until the presentation. At the presention, the butts list is read out in order from furthest to closest to the middle. As each is read out the shooter is read from the mound list, so it becomes quite a suspenseful event as one by one the shooters names are read out and they drop out of the contest. Eventually it gets down to 3 then 2 left in the contest, and finally the winner is known. The good thing about this is that in our experience, anyone can win, and there doesn't seem to be any advantage to scope shooters.

Our prize is usually a bottle of good Scotch, but it would go even better if the prize was something as grand as a rifle! (you might want to have a rehearsal using a lesser prize to iron out any teething problems).

Alan

That sounds like an interesting idea Alan. We now use all electronic targets at the Queens in WA, which could make it easier and harder to make this idea work.

There is no reason to make the prize easy to win, especially since it is worth more than the prize for the Queens winner....

On a previous post:

....most elegant solution is to increase the element of luck in the competition itself, so that the winner will be able to have sense of achievement....

I disagree that a person would have a sense of achievement on winning something by lottery - I wouldnt. They might be happy about it, but wont have actually won it by skill, which is the only way to achieve things in my opinion. This is especially so if there has been no outlay for the prize - a doorprize so to speak.

I think there should be less luck, not more. In a long competition, luck gets less and less involved really, as the shooter will eventually shoot to their ability. The idea that one shooter has bad luck with wind changes or whatever, needs to get over their tears and see that it happens to everyone.

This is an idea to get more people to attend the Queens prize in WA, so far it doesnt sound like it will make much difference.