Whom did the 34 Degree Angle help the most?

Since we're trying to get the "average" joes shooting at a much higher level, maybe we should compare the average ATA shooters singles averages of the 70s/80s to those of today? I feel we need to make our game a tad more easy to attain that goal.

News flash! That just ain't hapenin now or ever!

HAP

 

Hap well then we all will shoot straight a ways, move up to the 12 yard line use open chokes, move the Hdcp to the 18 yd line max distance, that make you happy? Just kidding

 

Frank Little wrote that it would favor the 27-yarder. And he had some other recommendation in his 1983 article.

The 27-Yard Line
By Frank Little​

Recent years have produced a trend toward higher scores, especially at handicap. This year’s Grand was a prime example of what is transpiring across our nation. We had five 100 straights, 28 99s and 48 98s, while 400 scores earned yardage in this year’s Grand American handicap, most of which were shot at close-yardage (less than 24 yards) shooters. Many people think it’s the gun and ammo that caused the higher scores. This shoot/writer feels it is primarily due to the recent changes in the handicap system.

When I first started shooting, it was an honor to be on the 27-yard line, Class AA. However, the trend with many shooters now is to get as close as you can along with friends. This is a real way of life in the Midwest, i.e., Indiana, Ohio, Kentucky, Michigan, Illinois and I’m sure, some other states as well. Several clubs offer $8.00 registered week-night practice with virtually no discipline of the scores. I recently attended one near me where targets, in my estimation, are intentionally dropped to keep from earning yardage just before the state or Grand. One of the individuals appeared to drop numerous targets to assure that he shot in Class D at the Grand for both doubles and singles. I checked the Class D scores, and sure enough, there he was in Class D with Class AA scores in both events, and he played all the options. The only reason he did not win was because he was outshot by another individual, probably doing the same thing. In both cases, those people won more money than the Class AA champions who broke perfect scores.

Recently it has been said that it is not fair for the 27-yard shooter to win and not be penalized. The answer to that problem at that time was to make it considerably easier to get reductions. The strategy recently was to no longer use 16-yard averages to help determine ability. This is what the system was 20 years ago, and the leadership decided to go back to it. It resulted in Class A and AA shooters shooting closer than 22 yards. Needless to say the results are and have been devastating to the handicap system.

Another rule change that was equally devastating but seldom realized is the raising of the average for reduction eligibility from 87% to 89%. The leadership raised it to allow yardage off if you average less than 89% at handicap. Where I come from, if you average 89%, you have to break in the mid-90s now and then, which is a pretty darn good handicap score.

I personally feel that if we are going to fix the handicap system, we need to take the following three steps:

1) Throw legal targets.

If we have shooters who are breaking 94% and above from 27 yards, we should use three- or four-hole settings on most popular brand traps to increase the angle to throw a straightaway from one and five. Allowing hole two at nearly all shoots and even hole one, which was reportedly done at one of the satellite Grands, allows the outstanding shot a definite advantage through reduced angles. Hard angles require a large lead from 27 yards. The greater the distance between the gun and bird, the harder it is to measure; consequently, more angle targets will be missed form 27 yards. I believe that hole three or equivalent angles will have a greater impact on the long-yardage ones. Most 27-yard shooters will agree with me on this point.

Another factor about the legal target is the distance. The rule says the target should be thrown from 48 to 52 yards in still air. I can’t remember when I’ve seen a target go 52 yards in recent years. Most clubs are now throwing 45- to 48-yard targets. If you couple one- or two-hole birds and 45-to-48-yard targets with a 94%+, 27-yard handicap shooter, the results will be favorable to the 27-yarder, and I agree it should not be allowed. Thirty yards is not the answer. A legal target is.

2) A managed handicap system.

I don’t necessarily preach that we go back to the exact highly-disciplined system we had 10 years ago; however, something similar is certainly better than what we have today. For example, the following recommendations are based on at least 1,000 16-yard targets before being used. IT’s relatively easy to understand and manage.

16-Yard Class Yardage Handicap

Class AA not less than 25 yards
Class A not less than 23 yards
Class B not less than 21 yards
Class C not less than 20 yards
Class D not less than 19 yards

Before anyone goes below the 19-yard line, a manual review should take place by the delegate and Central Handicap Committee member within the zone.

The same theory can be applied to the class system. For example, if you’re punched from 23 to 25 yards, your class will automatically go from Class A to AA, etc. In addition, people known to purposely drop targets would be severely penalized.

3) Equalize the purse.

Today’s system allows the Class B and C and close-yardage shooter to win more than the 27-yard or Class AA champion; the reason is that each class shoots for its own money, and most of our shooters are in Classes B and C. A pro-rated purse based on the number of entries in each class or yardage fattens the lower classes and yardages with purse money and reduces the Class AA to an embarrassing figure. The consequence of that is we have people purposely lowering their class to raise their dollar potential, which is again wrong from an ethical standpoint. These same individuals are using the analogy with the handicap system; i.e., the lower the score now, the higher my winnings later. We need to stop this, and the only way to really put a handle on it is to reduce the more lucrative purses in the lower classes and yardages. If we create an incentive to lower the class and/or yardage, there will be someone there to take advantage of it. It the incentive is equal at all yardages and classes, we will have less of a tendency to have people trying to lower their class and/or yardage for monetary reasons.

Another item which is not necessarily related to the handicap system, class system, etc., but which is certainly important to the integrity of the sport is our referees. Too many of our referees (scorekeepers) do not know the rules. Our clubs are hiring anyone who will work for a minimum wage, and their priority is someone that does not shot. High school kids seem to be the most popular and also the more carefree. Many don’t know the rules and don’t care. They also don’t even care who wins. How many times have you seen the high school trap help watching a shootoff to see if they scored the individuals who are in contention? You probably never will. They could not care less about what you score. When rules are violated, they don’t’ know or even care.

If a lost target is scored dead, it usually goes unchallenged, etc. Only a few shooters in today’s environment are correct these situations when they happen, and most of them seem to be the better shots, interested in fair play. However, when you intervene to straighten out the score, your concentration is broken, and the results are often missed targets. Referees should be qualified by passing a rules test. If referees are not firm and accurate, they should be replaced.

One answer to this might be to go back to using shooters or dedicated non-shooters as scorekeeping referees. It will require a managed system to allow the scorekeeper time to shoot; however, when considering the cost of the sport, we deserve the best.
( TRAP & FIELD, October 1983 )

 

We make targets easier to break so short yardage shooters can compete with the 27 yarders, but now the birds are also easier for 27 yarders.
So we try to manipulate the shorter yardage handicap system to make it easier to beat the 27 yarders, and in short time, they are battling the 27 yarders again.

Then we do it over and over again.

When you continue to do the same thing over and over agian with the same result, it's called....?

 

Who was that Little guy? Not even a resident expert or charts and grapher. Must have been a skeeter!

 

Andy you know full well who that Little guy was. He offered a lot of ideas for the betterment of the sport.

As you know, I'm in agreement with Mr. Little's opinion on the 30-yard mark not being the answer. Not that I'm absolutely against it but I know that shortly after the introduction of a new back fence (to 30 yards) will come the call to narrow the targets again. Reducing angles and adding yardage has been the history of the sport and unfortunately, I don't expect that to change. After all, the reasoning has always been to permit higher scores for the less-skilled shooters in order to equalize their chances of winning against those, who for a variety of reasons, have been more successful at obtaining higher scores.

Stay warm up there in PA. I'm still shoveling out.

Kenny Ray

 

Kenny I am still shoveling too, we got 12-14 inches, now we are faced with flooded roads, rivers out of their banks, Where is this GLOBAL warming the politicians are talking about, have a great day, take it easy.
Dr.longshot

 

That Little guy, Frank whatever, was one fine gentleman, fabulous shooter and good friend. Unfortunately, improvements in gun quality and voice pulls occurred after 1983 that may have changed his thinking toward the 30 yd. line. He always considered the 27 yd. line his greatest challenge!

 

There will always be top dogs and better shooters. Some earn it through practice and paying attention to improve it, and some have more natural ability in their mental processor and eye/hand coordination. It is and always has been that way.

What percentage of shooters average 92 or better from the 27, or a 98/99 on singles or doubs? A very small percentage.

Maybe it should be harder to get a punch or a reduction? Truly earn the punch through a higher score against a competitve number of shooters, and each shooter will spend more time at their yardage and learn to master it......anyway, they will if they care.
Making reductions harder to get will quill sandbagging, and force more shooters to learn their yardage and the game. Maybe a 2.5 hole, 50 yard bird is a enough added difficulty to pull the 2 hole vs 3 hole advocates together, and make the game a bit more difficult. Most shooters wouldn't know the difference or care anyway.

Just my thoughts.

 

Rosey,
The only way to make the handicap more even is to ADD yardage. Any thing else will be harder on the less accomplished shooters. Very few will ever advance past the 24 yd. line, so how could the 30 yd. line be a deterrent to them.
The cost to the clubs would be minimal. Most will never have a shooter past the 27 yd. line and they already have that poured.
The B$$L shYt that our guns and ammo is maxed out at the 27 yd. line is myth. dreamed up by one person kicked to death like the proverbial dead horse. If any major gun and ammo mfgr. said that I might give it some serious consideration, but one mans opinion is bunk. Roger C.

 

Roger, I think a quick shooter could deal with longer yardage past the 27. The slower, guys not.

If I am correct you'll cut the long yardage ranks substantially. Egos will take over common sense. Many will question if competitive scores are reasonably possible at the 30. You're bound to lose some shooters till one shooter or a group shows it's possible, and guns and ammo have the capability.

Personally, I don't think it's necessary. Widen the birds, 1oz shot, a "professional/Industry catagory", and/or reduced speed of the legal loads should all be tried before pouring concrete. The 2 clubs I frequent don't have the room for a 30 yard line, and we barely have 1-2 squads of 27 yarders at our ATA shoots since the 4 yard "give away".

I wish the ATA or someone at a big shoot would have a 30 yard event (at the Grand?) with some added money so the Big Dogs would give it a shot in front of everybody.

 

There will be no changes at all to the current presentations, if anything, it will be toward an even easier target!

I've made my suggestion for a new max of 30 with stipulations. No easy advancement, only winners advance with a win or tie. Yardage table is already in place. Those winning/tying advance at the going rate but are mandated to average such n such or mandated to take an automatic reduction back toward the 27. Only the top shooters will advance and give real meaning to a new max yardage once again. No cheap rides to that new max and no camping out there either.

In adopting that, we're only further handicapping those mastering our current max of 27 yards. Who would be first? Who could stay? How much concrete would be needed and how many traps would it take at points where the major handicaps are shot? Who would be game?

There will be some great scores shot from 30 yards!! Just not as many as the 27 today!

HAP

 

Does it not say that 17 deg. is normal, but a target = + - 10 deg. on either side is legal. But they are not to be set at the greater angles? Roger C.

 

Roger, 34 degree settings are the absolute minimum/17degrees each side of the straight from post 3. Actually it's 34.xx degrees. Our rule also allows us to set 44 degree angles and it's legal to do so.

What club operator in his right mind would set a more difficult angle in todays world? This recommended 34.xx setting and a maximum angle setting is a total waste of good rule book space. When it was adopted, they knew every club would choose the minimum settings for higher scores and averages. Targets no more than 10 degrees outside of the normal 17 degree setting is considered a legal target. Shooters turning down such targets within these degrees should be counted with a loss instead of getting a do over. The claim is it's out of the normal flight pattern mentioned in section E. 8 of the no target section. It's not an illegal target but treated as such.

The current rule book is twice as thick as my 1974 rule book?

HAP

 

Good point Hap. We don't have to change the target angle, just define it and administer it!

Many (most) of our small meat shoot clubs shoot 3 hole targets. Some have 20-25 squads on a Sunday. When it's nice, we might have 2-3 "50's" (25 @16 and 25 @ 20 yard), but it's seldom "nice" and backgrounds are challenging.

And these guys are serious. Bragging rights involved.

 

Your most likely right Hap in that the targets will not be widened, at least not anytime soon. The reason is going to be somewhat political and somewhat fear...

 

When we changed the speed and distance targets should be thrown, no thought was given to exactly how a Pat trap operated. The throwing arm on the Pat is shorter, not suitable for slow speeds at all! That way clubs yo-yo the heights so much on Pats during windy days attempting to get the targets into a breakable pattern. The top shots in the country handle about any target presentation pretty darned well! Not so for the average ATA shooter though.

When 34 degree angles began, my first experience with them was in 1982, trap machines were Winchester hand-sets. A target set 34 degrees and thrown at least 48 yards with those old traps looked almost the same as the 44 degree angles to most. The Winchester's longer throwing arm gave the target a lot more rpms even though it was slowed down not throwing the targets as far as usual. In other words, adhering to the then rule books standard of 44 degree angles thrown 48-52 yards.

So, in my views, it wasn't the fact we adopted the Pat trap as our standard trap machine, it was the Einstein leadership monkeying with our rules further by reducing the speeds and distances targets should be thrown! Always thinking if easy is good, easier is better? The Pat trap isn't the best machine for easy for day in and day out shooting all year long under the current speed limits. All that in addition to reducing the standard angle degree and distance to boot!! Pats on a bluebird day are just fine but when mother nature wants to play with us, things go awry in a hurry! Not the Pat traps fault at all in my opinion, it's the rules monkeyed with that's at fault here.

HAP

 

Dr.
Shimming up the front of the hand set machine did not show more face if the targets were properly set to the rule book. I see you making this mistake over and over. You are wrong. Earl was a friend of mine and I told him the same thing. He understood what I said you do not.
Shimming up the front of the machine caused many machines to crack the main housing casting, I repaired a lot of them for the clubs that practiced doing that. That is just another old wives tale that to many believe.Roger C.

 

Hap
Not saying you are wrong on this. Do you have inside information?

 

tm9222, inside information, if I may call it that, is our sports history since 1969 as that was the last date any attempt was made toward a little more difficult target. Trap machine interrupters were mandated that year to help prevent "trap reading" so I'd say that counts.

A further study of our sports history will also reveal which group benefited most from the easier set targets. Delving a tad deeper into our sports history will also tell us our sports growth has stagnated since the late 70s. There are many contributing factors involved with that chain of events but the destruction of how our game of handicap was perceived by newcomers must have some effect also. Denying that is merely placing one's head in the sand and hoping for better results with an easier set target. Outsiders perceptions of our sport as one too close to perfection has a bearing on our continued growth, that wasn't always true decades back either.

My first shots at clay was the dirt clods in the cornfield after hunting season closed so any way they decide to throw clay targets, I'll take my shot at them.

HAP

 

The Cream is always going to rise to the top no matter what changes are made in target presentation ... I have seen Top Guns shoot very competetive scores in adverse conditions on many occasions at many clubs ... I firmly believe that if targets are set at 37/44 degrees and 50/52 yards that part of the equasion will remain the same ... The only proof I have is what I saw with my own two eyes as I said, several times over the years ...

I firmly believe that handicap should be Ladies and Juniors shooting from the 25 yardline and by classification much like the 16's and men shooting from the 27 yardline (or maybe 26 for starters) by classification also ... It would be a possible cure for some of the problems that exist as far as handicap is concerned (maybe and or maybe not) ... The moneys can be divided accordingly and all of the "Big Guns" would then be shooting for their own monies as would the other classification shooters ... I cringe at the thought of 18 yard being called handicap and if there is going to be a short yardage handicap it should be no less than 22 yards as it was when I started classified as man and ladies to level the field to some degree ... I do not know all of the answers but do know if you change nothing the result will most probably be the same ... If something is not tried it cannot be said that it won't work with any certainty ... Anything sometimes is better than nothing at all ... WPT ... (YAC) ...

 

but Kay Ohye's handicap average went UP .5% the year they mandated 3-holers again. The biggest problem with the back fence in the old days was lousy pulling. That has since been eliminated with voice calls.

I watched the late Frank Little in a shootoff many years ago when the targets were put in the 4-hole and sped up. The results weren't pretty-for the other guy as Frank just ate 'em up.

At a fun shoot organized by our good friend and very capable shooter John Muir, Frank also broke 25 straight over the wobble trap with 1 shot and beat the 'dawg by 1 with two shots. Widening angles will NOT appreciably affect top shooters!

 

Ray Stafford's averages went up a little also that year.

Until that so called try out year and a year or so prior, clubs all across the country were fudging on the setting rule. Why should we believe every club adhered to that mandate when they didn't pay much attention to the setting rules prior? Without enforcement or penalties for not adhering to our written rules, using words such as mandate means little.

The best of the best shooters we have will always be the best, they work at it while the rest of us play at it!! No rule change is going to change that, let's just not say we're making it easier for the lesser shooter!

This question should be asked, did Kay and Ray shoot only clays set according the that mandate or is it possible they may have shot a few other settings in addition? The correct answer, who can say for sure?

HAP

 

The year prior both sides of the argument were complaining that the "big dogs" did not shoot three hole targets except at the grand. The averages for the big shooters at the grand that year may have confirmed that. So to say that the fact that Ohye's average went up the following year is not the smoking gun you two are looking for.

Widening the angles will not have the impact it would have had if we were mandated to shoot 1200 fps loads.

More concrete would be good but somewhere we have to stop with the payload. I see the distance we are throwing the target shrinking to be problematic as well.

 

Ok FG, three questions.

1- If the clubs did not adhere to the 3 hole target rule when it was mandated in the 90's, what makes you think that they would suddenly fall into line today?

2- One more time, how many targets, on average, would 1250 fps benefit a shooter over 1200 fps?

3- How much less distance does a 49-51 yard target travel (new rule) compared to the old 48-52 yard target (old rule), remember we are talking about singles targets here not doubles? If the clubs are throwing targets less than 49 yards as mandated, (again) what makes you think that they will follow the 3 hole rule if that is mandated?

 

Jo2,

1. They wouldn't now either.

2. About .002.

3. Distances thrown varies club to club. 3."b" they wouldn't today either.

Kinda sounds like a damned if we do and further damned if we don't scenario? To get to this point in our shooting history, did we actually need to increase the size of our rule book by triple to allow clubs to set exactly what the customer wants? I kinda like those 13 degree angles myself so we should strike the "no less than" portion from the book. Easier on old bodies too.

HAP

 

Isn't that just one of the issues Roger Coveleskie was implying or the opposite?

 

FG, I think when we changed the rule, some Pat traps were already installed.

Throwing doubles with the Pat works ok on a bluebird windless day at the current setting. Breezes from either the back or front plays havoc with the clays because the speed governs the clay target. Adding speed to the Pat will also widen them somewhat, how much is too much should be the question on such days? Speed rules seem to be cast in stone at most clubs attempting to adhere to the 39/40 mph limits. Wise club operators know better and adjust accordingly. Tucson won't increase them to even 40 once set at 39 mph!!

Dropping targets give the average doubles shooter fits and has a drastic effect on their scores. Adding a touch of speed increases the number of breaks they get. The best shooters? They will break their share regardless of how we set them!

HAP

 

A good read. Back when Neil was amongst us. Sometimes I miss picking on him.

 

TTT