The ATA Handicapping System

The goal of a handicapping system is to equalize the competition, regardless of the skill level of each shooter. The goal of a handicap system is not to give everyone an award of some kind, it's not to insure the hardest worker gets more and it's not to insure the best shooter wins.

Is the current ATA handicapping system equalizing the competition?
Is anyone on the ATA management team measuring the performance of the current handicapping system to quantify the effectiveness of the current system? If the metrics show that the current system is not very effective, I hope that most shooters would agree that changes need to be made to the current handicapping system.

What to change?
One of keys in identifying what to change, is to remember the goal of a handicapping system is to equalize the competition, regardless of the skill level of each shooter. Another key is to think outside the traditional box. Some of the changes in the traditional box are more concrete, faster and wider targets. The problem with picking a change(s) from the traditional box is these changes often handicap the less skilled shooters more than they handicap the more skilled shooters which creates a bigger in-balance in equalizing the competition.

So the question becomes how can the handicapping system be made more effective in equalizing the competition, regardless of the different skill levels, without putting an unnecessary burden on the gun clubs hosting ATA shooting? There are answers out there to this question. Set aside the current handicapping system and start with a blank sheet of paper.

Regardless of the changes made, it's always best to implement and measure one change at a time on a trial basis with an end date. When two or more changes are implemented at the same time, it's almost impossible to determine which change did what in terms of performance. In the competitive environment we live in today which will get even more competitive in the future, measuring and reporting the performance of systems and processes should be an on-going activity assigned to someone.

 

The one and only answer is more concrete. No one but the best shooters are adversely affected. The vast majority of ATA affiliated clubs will never see a single shooter beyond the 27. One field with the 30 yd. line should be adequate even at the largest venues. We're ready here in PA. Bring it on!

 

I wonder if the idea of additional yardage would gain traction if it were added straight back, and not continue the same path as the current post .....

The idea of some old flinching has-been on post one standing 10 yards, or possibly more, behind someone to their left on post five doesn't thrill some, and more so if you decrease the safety distance by the additional side to side movement.

 

The answer is 1) improvements can be made, 2) somebody will be dead set against any change that is made, and 3) no handicap will ever equalize shooters. Best you can do is make it "more even".

That is why, generally speaking, a handicapped event is looked "down" upon in many competitive sports. How many sports have a prestigious championship that is handicapped? (yes I'm sure you guys will point some out). Yeah, the lower flights might be handicapped, but the championship is generally not. Commonly looked at as a haven for sandbaggers, and any winner but a top level player is often cast as a sandbagger - just like we see in trapshooting.

Just that in trapshooting, the handicap is (or was) the most prestigious event to many. I never felt that way, but it undoubtedly has been, probably because of the gambling factor. In any sport, the complaints will always be there, It will either be "too many sandbaggers" or "the best are not handicapped enough." Sound familiar?

 

My biggest change would be the elimination of almost any earned yardage at shoots with attendance below say 100. This would likely increase attendance and also take out some of the obvious sandbagging occurring at almost every small club. It would additionally help "Legit" short/mid yardage shooters, by not having them over Handicapped when attending Larger shoots, because they broke a 91 at a shoot with 15 shooters and earned yardage. Along with this, lowering the "1000" target review to say 500. Still a legit criteria and again designed to help, and not punish your legit shooters. I understand the Sandbagging aspect is still a factor, but with the quickly available shoot info online, the onus would be on the State Delegates to watch for the "sandbaggers" more closely. JMHO

 

It is very simple. Move them back until they need reductions.

Hi Graupp

 

I hate to remind you of an incident at the Grand American many years ago. I reported a well known sandbagger to the central handicap chairman. The individual was called in and claimed he was being discriminated against because he didn't have a good command of the English language. The chairman put his tail between his legs and did nothing. Mr. sandbagger played the ticket the next day and broke a 99. So much for police work.

 

Yep, remember this well! The previous day he "mysteriously" dropped 5 targets on the last Trap after being down only 2 in 75. He was given 2 yards additional on the 99 and I believe to this day is "coded" at the 25 yard line, even after requesting a reduction due to age.

 

Hey DAWG message the name to me.

 

Someone posted yesterday the follow using 2016 data::
"If you consider only shooters with 500+ singles, 39.8% have an average less than 90.
20 yards is beyond the ability of these shooters."

So my question is how much how farther back are they going to have to move the high average handicap shooters to get closer to the goal of equalizing the competition, when 40 percent of the shooters average of less than 90 percent from the 16 yard line in Singles?

 

According to the late great Frank Little and his observations many years ago each yard of handicap would result in a 1% reduction in averages. The 30 yd. line, by his calculations should get top shooters closer to a 90% average. I believe we should see similar results today.

 

32 yards ought to do it. If the ATA does not want a 32 yard line. Give out a reduction every 500 targets for any average less than 92%

 

The answer is not MORE CONCRETE, More Competetive Target Speed and Angles, that is the Cheapest 1st thing to try.
52+ Yard 45+ Degree angles, if 27 Yard 100s lot's of them, Then Try 30 yards.

I have been preaching this for years, they dumbed down to 46yd 30 degree target settings.

They used the 30 yard targets for 25 targets in the Grudge Match, 30 degree angles and I creamed them with Win Super Hdcps.

Gary Bryant................................Dr.longshot

 

My numbers might be off a little ??

For Grand Week:

It looks like:
P. Lamont averaged 97.00
R. Marshal 96.75
J. Kelly 96.50
M. BARTHOLOW 96.75
F. BARTHOLOW 96.00D. BRINGELSON 97.00

IMO more yardage is needed

 

No good. This will make everyone shoot lower scores. I need yards off or the big dogs need yards on. Do that and any target setting will work.

 

Doc, the old rules called for targets to be thrown no less than 48 nor more than 52 yds. Current rules call for targets to be thrown between 49 and 51 yds. Not much difference there. Many trap ranges were totally unable to throw any targets within those parameters because of terrain. Hence, the radar gun is today used by most. If target distances were beyond 52 yds they were illegal by the rules. You couldn't determine legality without using a radar gun.
The biggest boost to back yardage scoring was the introduction of voice callers. Most of us remember the disaster shooting from the fence with young kids doing the pulling. Cross calls were the norm and very frustrating.

 

I need to look up the highest averages for 1954 the year they went from 25 to 27 yards was 1955.

 

Maybe go back to 1200 fps ammo. The hot loads that Dr. LS uses are part of the problem.

 

But 40 percent of the shooters have an average of less than 90 at the 16 yard line. So to make the handicap system more equal, wouldn't the shooters with high averages have to be moved back farther than 3-5 yards, so those with averages less than 90 percent would be competitive?

 

What would happen if all handicap shooters were required to shoot from the 27 yard line and assigned to a 27 yardage class A to E, based on their average score from their current assigned yardage. This would result in a winner for each handicap class.

The overall event winner would then be based on the shooters actual scores plus their handicap points.

For example, if all the handicap shooters who average under 88 at their assigned handicap yardage were placed in 27 yard class D, their actual score would be used to determine the winner of 27 yard class D. However their actual score plus their handicap points/targets would be added to their actual score to determine the overall event winner. How many handicap points should a class A, B, C, D and E shooter receive? Enough to be competitive with the shooters with high handicap averages.

Then the available money for the event needs to be distributed in a fairer manner with each class winner receiving their share based on the percentages of shooters in each class. The over all event winner would receive more money than the individual class winners. Option money would only be available to those who played the options in each class.

This seems like a much fairer way to equalize the competition than the current system. I still believe that going to faster and wider targets will handicap the less skilled shooters more than they handicap the more skilled shooters which creates a bigger in-balance in equalizing the competition.

What would be the issues of changing to a 27 yard class system and changing the was the available money is distributed? How could these issues be resolved?

 

No way to make someone that has not learned how to shoot competitive.

 

Garry, having already poor shooters flailing away at 27 yd. targets and breaking 50's out of a 100 won't create happiness-just more frustration.

 

Even if they are given handicap points to add to their actual score to determine the winner of the event. Plus distributing the available money by their 27yd class and the ability to win their 27 class by shooting against others in their same class?

 

Since the goal of a handicapping system is to equalize the competition, regardless of the skill level of each shooter, and if there is not a good way to make the handicapping more effective in equalizing the competition, then maybe the solution is to to remove the word Handicap from the ATA vocabulary. Instead, call it a Longer Yardage Event in honor of someone. The Grand America Handicap would become the Grand America Longer Yardage Event. All shooters would then be assigned to 1 of 5 whole number yardages based on their average, regardless of sex or age. All shooters would compete only against those assigned to the same yardage with the exception of those who choose to shoot at longer yardage than assigned. So each of the 5 yardages would have a yardage winner for a total of 5 winners. Distribute the total available to each of the five yardage groups based on the percent of shooters in each of the 5 groups. Allow a shooter to shoot from a longer yardage than their assigned yardage so they can still shoot with friends who were assigned a longer yardage. But for the purpose of distributing the available money to the yardage groups, they should be counted as shooting from the assigned yardage to keep from inflating the number and thus the money available to higher yardage shooter actually assigned to that group. This will allow those who want to shoot with friends to do so but the higher yardage group will not receive any more money.
Each yardage group could have an their own optional purse and other options. Also, change the way additional yardage is assigned. Something like no additional yards unless there are at least 100 entries in the event and do away with the half yards.

Your thoughts please.

 

The ATA has less interest in governing a class system than a yardage system ..... You need only to look here ..... http://rjstuart.com/Trophies/2018/classic.htm ..... at the winning B,C, and D Class winning scores to get the idea .....

There would be no reason to believe the ATA would feel any different about governing a type of yardage/class shoot .....

 

The only way to come close to equalizing handicap shooting is MORE concrete. Go back to the older target setting rules,and enforce them. Any other changes will hurt the less accomplished shooters more than the good long yardage shooters.
Remember the good shooters did not start out that way, they worked and paid their dues to enter the elite group of good shooters. Many of the low average shooters do not shoot as many targets in a year as many did at SPARTA DURING GRAND WEEKS.
Vernal gun club has all of their fields poured to the 30 yard line. They must think it is the wave of the future. Roger C.

 

You guys in favor of more concrete are most likely correct, but it looks to me like it's going to take more than 3-5 additional yards to bring the scores of the 26-27 yard shooters down low enough so the 40 percent of the shooters who average less than 90 percent from the 16 yard line can compete on an equal or close to equal basis.

It would be interesting to see the results of a special 30 yard event at held at the Vernal gun club and limited to 27 yard shooters, with enough money in the pot to keep them from sandbagging. Target speed or angles remain the same. Only thing that changes is they shoot from 30 yards instead of 27.

I thank you all for your inputs.

 

If handicap shooting positions were to move beyond 27 yards, the problem with cross calls would be overwhelming. Do the math. Just sayin..

 

Go to wider harder targets. No need to spend money on concrete. Shooters aren't shooting handicap as much today because of no money.

The new shooters shoot 16 yard targets so let them be set soft and then set handicap targets wider and stronger. The newbie's trinket and practice shooters can break a lot of singles on easy birds to feed their ego and then with harder wider handicap targets you have the chance to get money back in the sport. Without the money shooters trap is dead.

I think the idea of concrete is a costly idea that will not work as long as you shoot easy targets. Brad

 

Good observation, BUT how many of these shooters DOMINATED the championship trophies or the high gun winnings?

 

Good idea Brad! Different angles for singles and handicap...I don't think I heard this suggestion before. Another thing they could do if they don't want to increase the angles for Handicap is to move handicap shooters with 93 plus average, one yards back at the Grand. They already have the concrete there. No 28 yds in NY because we don't get high scores here from even the best.

 

As expected, there have been varied answers given by well respected and accomplished trapshooters to my question: How can the handicapping system be made more effective in equalizing the competition, regardless of the different skill levels, without putting an unnecessary burden on the gun clubs hosting ATA shooting?

I am now more convinced than ever that the ATA or someone with access to the data needs to start measuring the effectiveness of the current handicapping system to quantify how effective this system is in equalizing the competition. Having metrics will go a long ways in removing the perceptions and the emotions that are the driving the various theories provided in this thread. Metrics will or should keep the decision makers focused on one of their major responsibilities - changing the current handicapping system to significantly make it more effective in equalizing the competition.

But we did learn that the 30 yard theory could be tested at the Vernal Gun Club in Utah and this should be do. The wider targets theory could also be tested for a target year at all ATA shoots, measured and the resulted reported. The faster target theory could be tested at all the ATA shoots the following target year, measured and reported.

It is my opinion that if the right changes can be made to make the current handicapping system significantly more effective in equalizing the competition, then the money many talk about will follow. Stated in another way, I believe the ineffectiveness of equalizing the competition in handicap events is the major reason the money dried-up.

Thanks again for your time and comments.

 

If you wait until ol'N1H1 gets over being pissed-off, he will be quick to point out that the "Clubs" refuse to throw wider angles "allowed" by the ATA ......

Any "change" is useless under the current enforcement level at different shoots .....

 

Move them back, straight back to prevent "cross calls" no concrete needed. Just paint a line on the ground. Changing the target settings will lower the scores of the average shooter more than it will lower the scores of the "big guns". If I break 96 or above I move back. If a 27 yarder breaks a 96 or above nothing happens. Why doesn't anyone talk about the shells? Back to 1200 fps might do something. Maybe I'll try to get PA to have a 30 yard shoot at the Hogans in two weeks.

 

We also must take into consideration that many of these low average shooters are lax in their desire to be more competitive. It is not fair to try and handicap the dedicated for the lack of desire from the average or below average shooters. Try leaving the targets at the older parameters and increase the yardage to 30 yds and see how it all shakes out. Roger C.

 

Just my opinion, but NO handicap system can work unless it works both ways. If you have mandatory yardage given you must have mandatory reductions to make the system work regardless of how long or wide you throw the targets or what yardage you have the shooters stand to compete.

Dave Berlet

 

Then why are they throwing 46-48 yard, 30 degree, I am man enough to shoot Wider Angles, and 50-52 yard targets. This is the ONLY SPORT WHERE I FIND MAKING IT EASIER. IT IS DESTROYING A SPORT WHERE OUR ELDERS SHOT HARDER TARGETS, HAND PULLED, SHOOTING TIGHT CHOKE TRAPGUNS, THAT WERE NOT THE QUALITY OF TODAY. v
VOICE CALLS, HIGH QUALITY GUNS, PLASTIC WADS, ADJ. RIB, ADJ. COMBS, ADJ. PADS, AND THEY MAKE THE TARGETS EASIER, BS.

Brad, Dave, WPT, Roger, Flyers, shot those harder targets, now you might as well ask for a 27 yard pin, they will give it to you, you sure as hell did not earn it, over 50 % of the Sparta GAH were 27 yard shooters.

They make up the rules almost every year now. Like I told N1H1 numerous years ago, do a test of 50-52 yd targets set at 45+ Degree angles and see if any of these now so called 27 yard shooters can break and keep a 92% average, there will be FEWER 27yd 100 Strts, The ATA Disgraced Trapshooting w/todays Target Settings. I said it and I stand behind it.
I have never seen so much acceptance of todays EASY target settings..

Hey join the ATA they will be shooting ALL STRAIGHTAWAY TARGETS SOON.

Gary Bryant.......................................Dr.longshot

 

But Dave, "I want to shoot with my friends we are all big guns on the 27 with 84 averages". Besides "I'll earn yardage and be back of the 27 in a few shoots".

BTW, I have taken every reduction offered and might hold the record for times punched to the 27. Anyone know a way to look that up?

 

Some of us do take the reductions,but to make the system work everyone needs to take the reductions the same as taking the yardage when earned. At the grand I earned my way back to the 27yd line again.This makes 54 consecutive years that I have been on the 27 for at least part of each target year.

Dave Berlet

 

Roger, that is the reason for my post about taking removing the word Handicap and replacing it with Longer Yardage or something similar to get rid of the ATA definition of handicap.

 

I forgot about guys like you. I made the 27 about 43 years ago, but have not been there every year.

 

Gary, I think that's what Dave was getting at when he said:

There are too many people shooting from the 27 yard line who do not carry the average to shoot there, but they refuse a reduction. A short yardage shooter is allowed to request a longer yardage up to the 25 yard line and as far as I know, no one has been denied. Some ask what's the harm in letting someone shot at a longer yardage, it's their money and they most likely will not win at the longer yardage. Well, Dave Berlet just answered that question. Allowing someone to over-handicap themselves farther than their demonstrated ability will never allow a handicapping system to achieve a high level of performance of equalizing the competition and that is the goal of a handicapping system isn't it?

 

Anyone care to comment on the need for more concrete based on the table below?

 

Look at the small numbers under the column "Number of Shooters".

 

Dave - They gave me a reduction for an 88 average over 1,800 targets from my current yardage and I refused it. I made changes recently and is still working on things. Do you think I did the wrong thing?

 

All the best trap shooters in the world were there so what's your point?? We are talking about the need for more concrete based on "professional shooters" who dominate handicap.

 

Yup, I took mine today. On the 25 and moving forward.

 

This sport is all ready challenging, why make it harder?

 

In my opinion you should have taken the reduction. Realistically you should not have been given a choice. The reduction should have been mandatory if the handicap system is expected to work.

Dave Berlet

 

Huh? They "All" were? Were did you get the "all" statistic?

That is all? What is in a number right? Some times the number is huge. Sometimes the number is small. And sometimes that is all?

 

Where does Shooter ability come in? Some could not hit a barn if you put him/her in it and closed the door.


GB............................DLS

 

Dave - So at what average should mandatory reductions begin? If everyone is expected to maintain a 90% average then there will be a lot of people at the 19 yards line. I believe if there is to be mandatory reductions it should be a look back of about 3,000 rounds. BTW, I do favor mandatory reductions for those people sitting on the 27 yds line forever with low 80s averages.

 

Dave , I have been saying the same thing for years. A handicap system can't work just one way. Everyone complains about the Kentucky sandbaggers. Why do they want yardage? Can't they just shoot with their friends? That's all they want and besides they'll be UP there again soon anyhow.

MikeJ I would have taken that reduction in a heart beat and I think the break point should be what ever the HANDICAP committee sets it at, not the EC. In theory that is what the handicap committee was/is supposed to do. I really do think the 2 settings for singles and handicap is worth a try but now that I've put it out there the EC who lurk on here will never do it. It makes to much sense it's easier to let registered keep going to hell. Brad

 

There's not a line close enough to the traphouse to make many shooters competitive with top 27 yd. shooters. If so many shooters can't break a 16yd. average above 90% while top handicap shooters average in the mid-90's then how far front should they be placed? There is only one answer-move 'em back!

 

Once when I asked a Lady Hall of Famer if I was wrong by refusing a reduction, she told me "Yes" I was.

She said she was like a yo-yo for a few years but took the reductions to gain her confidence back to the 27 level.

Today she couldn't get a low enough score to ever get off the 27.

 

What did the shooters do in the 1920-30s do, they had 1 1/4 oz loads, and they shot competetive targets using a CLine Pull Target thrower, your too young to know what they were, and they were Hand pulled , no electronic voice activated. I do not remember what year they made 1 1/8th oz loads mandatory. Any shooters here that are 70+ years old and shot in the 60s knows what Real Competetive targets are. Try Live Pigeon Shooting a few times. Now that is COMPETETIVE SHOOTING AT IT's Best, next is REAL International Bunker w/15 trap setup. Like the one at Cardinal. I took my brand new CG 34-32 combo w/double release triggers, and had not shot it yet, put on the 32"in Bbl, and I beat their best Intl shooter w/48 out of 50 and only used the 2nd shot twice, It takes fast target recognition and positive gun moves to be good at it. And KNOW where your gun shoots(POI), in 1970 there were only a few Grand Slams, The change to the 30 degree, 46-48 yard settings there is over 600 grand slams now, 200-16s, 100 in doubles, 100 from the 27 yd to earn grandslam. The mere cheap way of controlling Handicap Averages is to go to 50-52 Yard Targets, @ 45+ Degree angles set w/Radar Gun@ 44-46 mph I believe the speed is @ a 10'ft high Target, and a Quality Trap Machine Equal to giving specs like the old Winchester 1524 trap.
Roger Covelski knows what I am talking about here. There would be no need for 30 yard walks, The Pat Traps cannot
EFFECTIVELY throw enough hard left & Right angles, their throwing arm is TOO SHORT, Rubber Bands will never EQUAL SPRINGS., but you are not old enough to have the expierence that, Roger, Brad, Leo, Dave, Britt, Sears, Bonillas, Orhlic,
and others have in the past. They all broke 100s from 27 back then, not as many asthey break now, Pardon the Expression (P-SOFT TARGETS )

GB.............................DLS

 

It seems that no one will talk "shells". Why are you all afraid of 1200 fps??

 

One ounce 1180 fps. Good luck being consistent from the 27.

It wont happen due to the occupy the 27 movement.

 

I gotta tell this story. I was shooting from the 27 at the PA State Shoot this year. On one of the early events I just jumped on a squad with people I didn't know. When I opened my shell bag a fairly new 25 yard guy looked at my shells and said "do you know that this is handicap"? I said "yes, why". He said "you have 1145 loads". I then explained that I have shot more than 100,000 registered targets from the 27 and at least half were shot with light loads. I only broke 90, but was high on the squad.

 

Why does everyone worry about making everything equal? Has the Democrats share the wealth mentality infested you all. Hell just admit that some people are better than others and try harder. That's what I did when I was 19 years old. I didn't set around and bitch about how bad someone else was screwing me. I practiced. Trap Shooting will never be a sliver of the old days with Obama type thinking. I never shot the Grand that I didn't think I was going to win or loose on my own ability.

Get back to the Competition and if you want to shoot practice do it at your local club. State Shoots and the Grand were held to crown champions not so a bunch of old men could shoot with their friends. Brad

 

Good point.

 

When it got to the point of shooting against Full-Time Pro Shooters ..... Shooting under the protection of the ATA .....

Things like eliminating the 18-yard line and a High Gun Purse, are needless to say "against" the "little guy" with a job and family .....

"Equal" means different things to different people .....Common sense says a Full-Time Pro Shooter will ALWAYS have an advantage on the Week-End Warrior ..... So, that needs some attention to become more "equal" ......

 

Because of the word Handicap which strives to make the competition equal. Why not just do away with the Handicap system and handicap events? Replace it with 27 yard singles using the same system used today for 16 yard singles?

 

Why not create a long over due "Pro Class" ?????

If you are better at OUR HOBBY/SPORT, you are welcome to my lunch money ...... If you want me to support you under less than "equal" standards, not going to happen ......

 

User 1, what would be the criteria for membership in in Pro-Class? I understand the part about Pro's competing for there own money but it's not clear to me yet, how a Pro-Class would equal out the competition among the non-pro's.

 

The same way as it has worked in past Trapshooting, and works in many other Hobby/Sports ..... As has been beat to death, I can not go compete at a "Pro Level" in most Sports, "just because I want to" .....

Just pick a "Pro Sport", then try to guess why someone with a job and family would waste their time trying to compete ..... To participate at the same time, in the same location, is much different than compete with an honest chance to win .....

There is no silver-bullet cure for something so far off track as ATA/registered shooting ..... A class, yardage, or anything else system will never "equal" "Pros" to Week-End Warriors in ANY SPORT ..... Trapshooting seems to be one of the ONLY Sports with people that are dumb enough and willing to try .....

 

Where is "history buff" when you need him? Back in the beginning they had "pros", did they shoot for the same trophies & money as armatures? The pros we had in the 70's did not. Don't remember when they stopped the pro class.

 

Brad - The next time I get a reduction I might consider to take it.
I was on the 25 yds then took 2 reductions to get to the 23 yds before I stopped shooting for 5 years. During the 5 years they gave me reductions to the 20 yds line. When I started back I got to the 21 yds after 400 targets and to the 22 yds after a further 600 targets. I have been on the 22 yds for 1,800 targets with an 88.2 average over those targets. My average at the recent Grand was 92.25 over 400 targets from 22 yds. I thought I could not take a reduction in good conscience because I thought I had a decent average, maybe I should re-consider next time.

 

Garry,

A while back they had an industry class. Anyone that made a living at the shooting sports had to shoot in that class. They were not allowed to play the options. They could bring that back and Make it a pro class. Then they could shoot for their own money, but industry should put added money in the pot for them only. There could also be an option where non pro shooters could some how play an option on their favorite shooter. split 50-50 shooter gets 50% and 50% split with the option players, sorta like a lewis. If those excellent shooters get tossed under the bus, that will be the end of our sport. Roger C.

 

Do Mike. I got a reduction to the 26 but I had quit shooting registered events before it came in the mail but that would be my yardage if I ever shot ATA again.

 

Good post Roger, but how do we decide who will be in the "Pro Class?" All American first team, men and women or strictly by Handicap average from the 27 yds? The chart I posted shows only 2 "pro shooter" would have been affected in terms of winning championship handicap events if you went by Handicap average over 93.

I do like the idea of the "pro" shooting for their own money with industry adding money for them so as not to lose them. This might actually put them in a better position than today where "non-pros: take the major dollars.

 

Boy, I can see the torture I will get from my friends if I ever win anything big from the 21 yds line On of my friend who is an All American does not believe anyone should be handicapped below 23 yds. I have heard many top shooters complain in NY that "a short yardage shooter won again."

 

Mike J, If they make a living from shooting or giving lessons or selling DVD or derive income from any other venue related to the shooting sports they would be PRO class. I repeat we can not toss them under the bus because of their greater ability to perform so much better than the average shooter. Roger C.
PS non of this will ever happen, the EC and BOD are to set in their narrow minded ways to ever try something that may grow our sport.

 

Roger, I am an old timer, but not quite as old as you. I was born in Dec. 1945 and shot the Grand when I was 19. I remember the Industry Class very well. I am not opposed to having a Pro Class but I don't understand how a Pro Class would equalize the competition of those competing as a non-pro.

 

I agree there is no silver bullet. If you were starting a new trapshooting organization, what would it look like in reference to the events available to the competitors?

Thanks

 

I'll check this out when I get home and have access to my average books (I have all of them). I think for most of the ATA's history (and it was growing) the Pros/Industry did not compete against the armatures.

 

There is not a need to re-invent the wheel ...... Just re-balance it to stay on the road ......

So, "events available" doesn't need to change ......

 

Would the handicap events would stay the same?

 

Are you asking about "Events", or the "system" ?????? Two different questions .....

 

The handicapping system that is off the tracks. Sorry I wasn't clear.

 

The Industry class did not compete with the rank and file shooters. They only competed among them selves. I seem to remember in the ATA association. No one could be put in the pro class unless they themselves declared as such.
Years ago all industry shooters were considered pro's, they all were on a company payroll at that time.
I do not advocate for an industry class, a pro class would be more fair to the better shooters Maybe the ATA could ear mark a percentage of all daily fees and put that money in a pot to be used for added money in the pro class. 10% of those daily fees would be an incentive for turning pro. It would be best if was only awarded at the grand and the satalite grands on all championship events. Then anyone that made a living from the sport would be a PRO. Roger C.

 

To create a optimal handicap "system", you need understand "knowledge vs wisdom" ...... "knowledge is a tool, and wisdom is the craft in which the tool is used" ......

The ATA chooses to ignore the "wisdom" some have spent most their life acquiring ...... Someone who has spent half a century shooting "ATA handicap", could give much better guidance, "use of the tool", than someone spending many years on useless charts and graphs .....

 

1909
​

 

​

 

1982

​

 

Nice report "history buff".

 

Industry Class Eliminated

​

 

I do not believe the Pro Class definition will capture all the top guns that need to be separated out if that's the wish. Pat Lamont is a full time engineer, I doubt whether he gets any compensation other than from us LOL.

Brad's idea of using wider angles for just handicap seems to be the best. What does it take to change the angles on pat trap from singles to a wider handicap? Will it take too much time or is it a simple adjustment?

 

In 1919 the Executive Committee voted to reduce the maximum allowable shot charge to 1-1/8 oz. for the 1920 target year. The majority of Delegates voted to rescind the decision and return to 1-1/4 oz.

The ATA reduced the shot charge and it was in the 1940 rule book.

A resolution to change the standard load in registered shoots was passed at the annual meeting : “that after April 1, 1940, the maximum load under the A. T. A. rules will be three drams of powder and one and one-eighth ounce of chilled lead shot.” Several spoke in favor of the resolution including R. A. King, Wichita Falls, Tx., C. Thomas Marshall, Yorklyn, De., and Sam Sharman. Former A. T. A. President Rock Jenkins was vigorously opposed. The resolution carried 22 to 6.

Enjoy Our History !

HB

 

I agree.

Which group of shooters will wider angles hurt the most?

 

The rule was never enforced during my time shooting (1972 - 2018). No wish to separate out anyone, just thinking that the people being supported by "sponsors" should not be shooting against amateurs. In the 70's & 80's sponsorship was hidden now it is announced (example Blue/Gray Shootout). Let the sponsored shooter compete with each other & let the amateurs compete with amateurs.

Wider angles will do nothing (IMO) except lower everyone's score.

 

I thought wider angles were supposed to make the handicap more competitive. Guys like me would be most likely 19 yds shooters and may stand a better chance. Any change suggested has to be practical. Adding more concrete is not practical at many locations including NY.

 

Possibly the 27 yds because the common guys will most likely be on much lower yardage than they are now.

 

Mike J. Can you break 95 and above now in 'caps? Wider angles may lower the 27 yarders score 5%- 10%. So the 27 yarders that have a good day will break 96 or above. If you are a 19 yarder do you think you will be able to compete with them? If yes, you shouldn't be on the 19.

 

Mike, 40 percent of the shooters have an average of less than 90 from the 16 yard line shooting two hole targets. Wouldn't you expect their averages to decrease even more shooting three hole targets from their shorter handicap yardage ?

 

Currently the ATA uses yardage to handicap the better shooters.Yardage is probably the best way if yardage was not limited to 27 yards. Would putting 27 yard shooters with X number of honorary punches into a Pro Class help or hurt attendance? This implies that there would be a Pro Class winner and a non-pro class winner.

I like it. Would sponsored shooters include the ATA delegates, the EC and the ED who are sponsored by the membership?

 

Broke many many 95s. Had a 94 at the Grand this year from the 22 yds. At 19 yds I should be able to break a 96 with wider angels.

 

That's what he is saying!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

GB.........................DLS

 

The same rules as set back when, it was Industry, Do know what INDUSTRY CLASS WAS? If not do some studying


GB................................DLS

 

Yes, these specific shooters averages will drop but do they have any business shooting handicap even today lol? Not sure how many of these shooters are in the handicap pool today.