Competition Classes

[Bigweed]

at the risk of inflaming a topic with a subject that I am sure has been done to death on the forum...

 

I am currently trying to shoot at harder shoots - graduating from just practice rounds at Dartford & west kent.... together with shooting the likes of Robin Hood at Bluebell Hill..... & now moving on to Gatton Bottom, Keston, Caterham clays. These are in my opinion harder shoots.

 

However, I am only entering birds only. Reason being that

 

a. Upon my 1st visit to each..... I didn't feel that my 55-70 score that I thought I was capable of would be good enough to win my class

b. from having shot each one a couple of times.... I KNOW my current scores will not win my class.... as crazy scores in the mid to late 80's are taking C Class. Surely, if you look at the CPSA scores for classifications.... these scores should be in A / B class??? so why are they being allowed to win C class?

 

therefore, if a ridiculously high score is being allowed to win the bottom class..... why should I pay an extra £5-6 to shoot, when I know that my score will not be good enough?

 

If i thought that the comp would be run on a fairer basis.... I would enter the comp..... but at present I view it as a complete waste of money. shooting is getting expensive enough....!

 

 

 

Couldn't agree more - did a PB of 80/100 at Keston this weekend and thought i was in with a shout - nope 86 takes first in C class !!!!

[Marcus]

The practice of entering a competition, but not the 'pool' is not unique to shooting.

 

Its quite common on the Coarse fishing club circuit. I can see both sides of the argument, frustrating possibly for those experienced shooters, daunting for the beginners, financial for others maybe.

 

For the future of any sport, participation is key. I have seen it first hand in fishing, participation and enjoyment comes first, as their ability and confidence grows they will eventually, 9 times out of 10, enter the pool (most of us have a competative side) If they dont it still doesnt matter, the sport still wins.

 

Short sighted or the bigger picture? I am sure with the pressures the shooting community faces in this country in the comming years, the more participants the better. It would be a shame for any sport to 'go under' even more so if they were put off the sport due to the 'pools' issue or in this case the 'birds only' one.

[Chard]

The practice of entering a competition, but not the 'pool' is not unique to shooting.

 

Its quite common on the Coarse fishing club circuit. I can see both sides of the argument, frustrating possibly for those experienced shooters, daunting for the beginners, financial for others maybe.

 

For the future of any sport, participation is key. I have seen it first hand in fishing, participation and enjoyment comes first, as their ability and confidence grows they will eventually, 9 times out of 10, enter the pool (most of us have a competative side) If they dont it still doesnt matter, the sport still wins.

 

Short sighted or the bigger picture? I am sure with the pressures the shooting community faces in this country in the comming years, the more participants the better. It would be a shame for any sport to 'go under' even more so if they were put off the sport due to the 'pools' issue or in this case the 'birds only' one.

 

I have only ever heard one honest comment made against birds only shooters, and that was by Beretta. He told me that there is a tendency for birds only shooters, as they have nothing to lose and are not committed to winning the competition, to muck about on the course. This is distracting for serious competitors who just want to get their heads down, concentrate and compete.

 

I can see the truth in this, I may have even been guilty of it myself in the past.

 

Other arguments over the size of the prize pot, don't interest me at all. My views on the practice of birds only shooting being a way of introducing more shooters into competitive sport still stand. If you take away birds only, you won't see a huge increase in the prize pot, because many novice shooters will just stay away. The impact on the ground, and therefore their willingness to host regular registered competitions would be significant (I believe).

 

I would just reiterate my belief that "birds only" should mean just that. The idea of a birds only shooter being allowed to win High Gun is absurd. Likewise, their birds only score should not be allowed to help them in qualifying for some other competitive event/team or whatever. If people shoot birds only, they must understand that they will walk way from the shoot with nothing more than a bit of experience gained.

Edited July 30, 2009 by Chard

[beretta]

unless they are sponsered prizes, in which case i believe birds only shooters can take them.

[Chard]

unless they are sponsered prizes, in which case i believe birds only shooters can take them.

 

To be honest, I even believe that they should be excluded from these. If they want a chance at winning something, then they should pay to enter a competition. If they are happy to shoot the course, just to get experience at more testing targets/birds then birds only is for them. I think that if you are going to have this system, it needs to be all or nothing. I think any overlap just leads to confusion and ill feeling.

[Marcus]

I agree with the point about, birds only possibly spoiling for others, and it should not be tollerated. That goes for all sports.

 

Isn't the competition, the 'competition, and the pool, the 'pool'. Separate in their own right?

 

So if a birds only shooter, breaks the most clays, then he has won the competition, but wont share in any of the spoils as he/she has not entered the pool. If second place in the comp has entered the pool, he comes second in the comp and takes top prize money? I think thats fair really.

 

Skill to win a comp must come above ability / desire to pay pools.

Otherwise those with the means are more likely to take the honnors over someone with skill / ability. I dont know of any sport run on that premis so would have to dissagree with you on that point.

 

I think the club scene has to cater for all. Then have another level where it clearly states, if your playing your paying (pools) everyone knows where they stand and all are happy. I am new to clays so dont know if this structure exists, it does in coarse fishing.

[Marcus]

unless they are sponsered prizes, in which case i believe birds only shooters can take them.

 

I agree, its done like that in a few clubs (fishing), where the club puts up a 'sponsored prize' usually money. Whoever wins the comp takes the sponsored prize (whether they are in pools or not)

[Chard]

The pool in clay shooting is different from fishing, or at least it is at the competitions I've been to. The Pool Shoot is a separate "side show" You pay an entry fee into the pool and you shoot a small number of completely separate targets/birds away from the actual competition course.

 

I used to do a lot of competitive beach fishing and the pool was an optional extra charge on top of the entry fee. The payout from the pool was judged on the same bit of fishing. The winner of the overall competition scooped the pool, in addition to the ordinary prizes, assuming he had entered the pool. It is almost like betting on yourself to win the comp. Whereas a pool shoot at clays is not part of the main course, it's an extra few clays on a separate stand.

[beretta]

well put chard.

 

'pool' shoots are a seperate shoot to the main comp. usually 10/20 bird from various traps. e.g. £5 entry for 20 birds, £2 of which goes in the pot. whoever hits the most by the end of the day (some do every hour) wins what is in the pot. this is open to anyone.

 

the point i made to chard about birds only shooters is this. if i was doing the british open in a squd of 6, and looking at trying my very best, and 5 were birds only shooters and best friends out for a bit of experience, the chances are that they would be giving it plenty of yap and laughs while i was trying to concentrate. it is very unsettling when this happens and your chances of building a good score are drastically cut.

the open golf comps would never allow this, imagine tiger woods going round with a group of 18 handicappers???

 

i have no objection to birds only shooters at all as its a matter of costs to some and 5 birds only shoots can equal an extra shoot if you save £5 each time.

in major comps where they are squaded why not keep birds only shooters together and let the seriopus guys get on with there own.

[jonnyoftheboy]

well put chard.

 

'pool' shoots are a seperate shoot to the main comp. usually 10/20 bird from various traps. e.g. £5 entry for 20 birds, £2 of which goes in the pot. whoever hits the most by the end of the day (some do every hour) wins what is in the pot. this is open to anyone.

 

the point i made to chard about birds only shooters is this. if i was doing the british open in a squd of 6, and looking at trying my very best, and 5 were birds only shooters and best friends out for a bit of experience, the chances are that they would be giving it plenty of yap and laughs while i was trying to concentrate. it is very unsettling when this happens and your chances of building a good score are drastically cut.

the open golf comps would never allow this, imagine tiger woods going round with a group of 18 handicappers???

 

i have no objection to birds only shooters at all as its a matter of costs to some and 5 birds only shoots can equal an extra shoot if you save £5 each time.

in major comps where they are squaded why not keep birds only shooters together and let the seriopus guys get on with there own.

 

a fair point put beretta.....

 

if i was shooting a comp & trying to really concentrate, I would find it very off putting to be with those just their for the craic

[jonnyoftheboy]

I have only ever heard one honest comment made against birds only shooters, and that was by Beretta. He told me that there is a tendency for birds only shooters, as they have nothing to lose and are not committed to winning the competition, to muck about on the course. This is distracting for serious competitors who just want to get their heads down, concentrate and compete.

 

I can see the truth in this, I may have even been guilty of it myself in the past.

 

Other arguments over the size of the prize pot, don't interest me at all. My views on the practice of birds only shooting being a way of introducing more shooters into competitive sport still stand. If you take away birds only, you won't see a huge increase in the prize pot, because many novice shooters will just stay away. The impact on the ground, and therefore their willingness to host regular registered competitions would be significant (I believe).

 

I would just reiterate my belief that "birds only" should mean just that. The idea of a birds only shooter being allowed to win High Gun is absurd. Likewise, their birds only score should not be allowed to help them in qualifying for some other competitive event/team or whatever. If people shoot birds only, they must understand that they will walk way from the shoot with nothing more than a bit of experience gained.

 

agreed. "birds only" should just be "birds only"... no prizes at all.

 

still can't see a way around the sand bagging.

[Chard]

still can't see a way around the sand bagging.

 

There is a way, but it's far too extreme for most people to stomach

 

If you are classified permanently on your best-ever score, with no going backwards, then sooner or later even the sandbaggers are going to have to put in a good score and that traps them in a class that reflects their true ability. If you attain an 88 in a competition, you should automatically and instantly go up to AA - permanently.

 

In these softly-softly times, it is never going to be acceptable though, because there are all sorts of reasons why somebody might drop in form and ability permanently. Things like ageing, failing eyesight, worsening health etc would mean that you could no longer compete at the class you attained when you were at your peak. I'm not interested in allowing people to drop a class when they suffer a temporary drop in form. The answer to that is to get their finger out and get back up to their former class.

[Nicky T]

There is a way, but it's far too extreme for most people to stomach

 

If you are classified permanently on your best-ever score, with no going backwards, then sooner or later even the sandbaggers are going to have to put in a good score and that traps them in a class that reflects their true ability. If you attain an 88 in a competition, you should automatically and instantly go up to AA - permanently.

 

In these softly-softly times, it is never going to be acceptable though, because there are all sorts of reasons why somebody might drop in form and ability permanently. Things like ageing, failing eyesight, worsening health etc would mean that you could no longer compete at the class you attained when you were at your peak. I'm not interested in allowing people to drop a class when they suffer a temporary drop in form. The answer to that is to get their finger out and get back up to their former class.

 

Single highest score ever might be a bit harsh, but a system whereby you are classified on your [insert appropriate number here] highest scores over a set period of time then it might have some mileage. ..

 

..another option could be to have bigger prizes in the higher classes creating a natural desire to progress

[paulos]

In relation to sandbaggers, I feel that it is an area which is difficult to resolve. If people want to cheat, they will always find a way. Even changing the classification system would only be a short-term measure and would only put a potential cheat off until they found a way around the new system. The only system that I could envisage which may work would be to have a Jury Committee at the CPSA, made up of staff, directors and regional managers/reps who could consider claims of ‘sandbagging’, and then if necessary amend classifications or issue sanctions. At least then there would be a level of human discretion involved and not left solely to an automated system which can be easily taken advantage of. The obvious downside to this of course is the organisation of such a jury and whether it is justifiable given the relatively few occurrences of the problem?

[Yellow Bear]

In relation to sandbaggers, I feel that it is an area which is difficult to resolve. If people want to cheat, they will always find a way. Even changing the classification system would only be a short-term measure and would only put a potential cheat off until they found a way around the new system. The only system that I could envisage which may work would be to have a Jury Committee at the CPSA, made up of staff, directors and regional managers/reps who could consider claims of ‘sandbagging’, and then if necessary amend classifications or issue sanctions. At least then there would be a level of human discretion involved and not left solely to an automated system which can be easily taken advantage of. The obvious downside to this of course is the organisation of such a jury and whether it is justifiable given the relatively few occurrences of the problem?

Sadly this would also be open to abuse quite easily by the few for their mates seeing how far the "top" shooters seem to be up each others fundimental orifice.

 

Let's say clasification/handicap should be based on last 10 highest scores not just scores over a 2 year period then if you start winning odd comps. you class rises on those only.