Canadian Grand Prix FITASC

D

DucksNDogs

Member
EE Expired
Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Location
Sudbury Ontario
Was at the Canadian GP this weekend and a lot of people were complaining about the targets being to hard, and saying how the setter was unrealistic in his target setting. Was wondering what other people who shot the FITASC event thought?? Personally I thought they were extremely hard seeing masterclass shooters shot a under 10 is almost unheard of and there were a few scores. For me personally I shot pretty good and thought although the targets are hard they were all hittable and you could figure them out, for instance there was a long long crossing A bird on parcour 3, they used it 2 times on each peg, I figured it out by peg 3 and crushed it on the single and double there (if only I was a little quicker to doing it). so although hard its doable. People are saying since the Dubai shoot targets are getting harder and harder, Opinions?
 
I have heard many people complain about peckham's targets. Famous for dying targets (they die and drop right at the break point). They are tough targets. But you don't get good by shooting at targets always set by the same guy. The more target setters you shoot off, the better you will get
 
I don't like Peckam targets as I have shot them in the UK, US and Canada. He repeats much! He uses the most difficult targets on doubles which is not permitted by FITASC rules. His targets were so good at Southdown that he went bust. His son now works for Promatic Traps. BTW I told him that he was a sod at last year's World English! Not pinning the pallets holding the traps into the ground! Give me a break for such an amateur setters mistake! I don't think I missed much at the CDN GP! I will be off to shoot the World in Portugal! I BTW GD won the Hungarian GP 6 ahead of very good Hungarian shot Andras!
Henry
 
hnachaj said:
I don't like Peckam targets as I have shot them in the UK, US and Canada. He repeats much! He uses the most difficult targets on doubles which is not permitted by FITASC rules. His targets were so good at Southdown that he went bust. His son now works for Promatic Traps. BTW I told him that he was a sod at last year's World English! Not pinning the pallets holding the traps into the ground! Give me a break for such an amateur setters mistake! I don't think I missed much at the CDN GP! I will be off to shoot the World in Portugal! I BTW GD won the Hungarian GP 6 ahead of very good Hungarian shot Andras!
Henry
Click to expand...

Peckham didn't set the targets for the grandprix. I believe he was suppose to but with the low registration they ended up bringing Tony Olivieri, much different style, not as many floating targets more under power and long distance. I don't think he is a national setter but he usually sets more reasonable targets then that! Good luck In Portugal, If I had the money would be there in a second!

Hudson
 
I wonder if any of the shooters that dropped in class due to the tougher course will come to the CNSCA Nationals in Hanley Sask Aug 1-3?
 
fwow said:
I wonder if any of the shooters that dropped in class due to the tougher course will come to the CNSCA Nationals in Hanley Sask Aug 1-3?
Click to expand...

It's Possible.... That New CNSCA system is out to lunch!!! Like 74 average puts you in master class that's BS, I'd be a AA shooter and i'm C in NSCA!! I like the NSCA system better anyway makes it harder for people to sand bag.
 
DucksNDogs said:
It's Possible.... That New CNSCA system is out to lunch!!! Like 74 average puts you in master class that's BS, I'd be a AA shooter and i'm C in NSCA!! I like the NSCA system better anyway makes it harder for people to sand bag.
Click to expand...
And there was much rejoicing! In all fairness there are issues with both classing systems (NSCA vs CNSCA), but for a competitive organization the NSCA system has more pro's than cons; I can't say the same for a strictly percentage based system.

On another note; anyone have an idea how many people are attending the FITASC Ref Course going on in parallel to the nationals in Hanley?
 
DucksNDogs said:
74 average puts you in master class that's BS, I'd be a AA shooter and i'm C in NSCA!!
Click to expand...

The Masters class in the CNSCA is based on the top 10% of the shooters in the organization. If only 10% of all the competitors in the organizations can shoot 74% then 74% is a good bar to set as the cutoff into Masters.

If only 10% of the shooters can hit 90%, then 90% would be the cutoff - and rightly so. If only 10% of the shooters could hit 50% then 50% would be the cutoff - and rightly so.
If you can beat 90% of all the other shooters in the organization, then I would say that you qualify as a Master class shooter.

The cutoff for each class is based on percentages. But those percentages are not fixed - they change based on the number of shooters with that average. The top 10% of shooters is Master class. The low guy in Masters sets the cutoff mark. AA has the next 15% of the shooters. A has the next 15% of the shooters. You are always competing against a class of shooters that represents an even distribution of shooter averages. There are the same number of shooters in D class as there are in C class and B class.

Personally I like that concept better than the NSCA where you end up in a higher class just because you shoot a lot - even if your average doesn't go up.
 
Last edited:
As previously stated, both systems have pro's and con's

In the NCSA system, yes people who shoot more move up faster, and it's much easier to go up than it is to come down. But it's also based on competition: it doesn't matter how what you're actual score was, if you shot better than everyone else in your class, you move up. It's not like trap or skeet where it's the same every time; on Course A 75% might be a really good score, on Course B 90% might be a really good score; think about it like the Green and Blue at Silver Willow; just because you shoot a 90 on Green, doesn't mean you will on Blue.

The CNSCA system does not reward volume shooting the same, but at the same time artificially rewards people that shoot well on soft courses, while penalizing people on tough courses; theoretically you can win your class, and be moved down a class. Using an average also penalize volume shooters: you shoot 5000 targets and average 60%, puts you in D(?). You take a break, practice and come back, your next 1000 targets you average 80%, 80% is theoretically enough to put you in AA or Master; however because it gets averaged out, 5000@60 + 1000@80 only averages to 63%. The cut off's may be variable, but that is part of the issue, there is no clear way to move up or down; it's a black box that the average shooter has no info about. To be fair, I do appreciate the idea that the CNSCA will class people down, that is something I think the NSCA system should implement (negative punches if you will).
 
Personally, I prefer the CTSCA or Travellers method. It uses percentages but only reclassify twice a year. So if one shoots a soft course and does well or has a good day, it will not affect his classification unless he does not shoot much.
Henry
 
Sapper33 said:
As previously stated, both systems have pro's and con's

In the NCSA system, yes people who shoot more move up faster, and it's much easier to go up than it is to come down. But it's also based on competition: it doesn't matter how what you're actual score was, if you shot better than everyone else in your class, you move up. It's not like trap or skeet where it's the same every time; on Course A 75% might be a really good score, on Course B 90% might be a really good score; think about it like the Green and Blue at Silver Willow; just because you shoot a 90 on Green, doesn't mean you will on Blue.

The CNSCA system does not reward volume shooting the same, but at the same time artificially rewards people that shoot well on soft courses, while penalizing people on tough courses; theoretically you can win your class, and be moved down a class. Using an average also penalize volume shooters: you shoot 5000 targets and average 60%, puts you in D(?). You take a break, practice and come back, your next 1000 targets you average 80%, 80% is theoretically enough to put you in AA or Master; however because it gets averaged out, 5000@60 + 1000@80 only averages to 63%. The cut off's may be variable, but that is part of the issue, there is no clear way to move up or down; it's a black box that the average shooter has no info about. To be fair, I do appreciate the idea that the CNSCA will class people down, that is something I think the NSCA system should implement (negative punches if you will).
Click to expand...

I do Like the Idea of averages in general I just find there % are off... As stated the way they came to master class average score in CNSCA... Then why do you see most masterclass shooter's in NSCA shooting 87+??? I find the difference's between classes to small as well, as was stated courses vary in difficulty and you have better days. If I don't shoot a lot of registered targets and my average is 62 after 200 targets(puts me in B class) have had super on days where targets look like flying saucers and I shoot 87, does that bean I move up to AA class because I have one amazing day then drop to my usual 60's score and am screwed for that shoot?? Vice versa with bad days. The other thing I can see happening and I have seen it happen in skeet is people will go to small registered shoots and drop targets on purpose then when they are at the big shoot they are in C instead of A....
 
DucksNDogs said:
Then why do you see most masterclass shooter's in NSCA shooting 87+???
Click to expand...
The guys in Masters class shooters in the CNSCA are not necessarily in Master class in the NSCA. The CNSCA has roughly 1500 members with about 400 actively competing in any given year. Out of the 400 that competed last year, the top 40 (10%) ranged anywhere from 84% down to around 76%. That's why the master's class range was set at 76%. If we had more shooters and more Bill McGuire's and more Wendell Cherry's then the bottom end of Masters class would be higher. But we don't. Our top 10% of active shooters shoot 76% and up. With the group we have, I can't see a more fair way to divide the classes. Should the CNSCA set the Master's class cutoff at 80% so that there are only 10 guys (2.5%) in that class? Maybe. But that just would push down the other 7.5% of the masters class shooters into AA. By splitting the group we have into top 10%, next 15%, 15%, 15%, 15%, 15%, 15%, you get an even spread of competition within the group that exists.
 
again pro's and cons to each; and one of the big downsides to doing it solely on statistics is sample size. The CNSCA currently has 249 active members; and a total (including non-active/will never be active ever again) member ship of 1180 (your numbers, not mine). The lack of contributing data shifts the scores by itself; there were twice as many shooters at the Seminole Cup as there are currently in the CNSCA.

Yes, if more guys were shooting 85, then the masters "cutoff" would be higher; the fact that there aren't really explains why, in general, NSCA class score are higher than the equivalent CNSCA score. Day to day, it doesn't matter; but when you get big shoots (i.e. the Worlds at Galt in 2011) it creates some serious issues.
 
I get the pros and cons and how the system works, but for example the Grand Prix was registered on winscore but using CNSCA classing, so everyone with an NSCA number was under NSCA classing and everyone with a CNSCA number was in CNSCA classing so you have people shooting 62 average and people shooting 82 average in AA because the NSCA shooters don't have an average on NSCA.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom