misc stuff about matches, classifiers, etc...
- Thread starter omen
- Start date
- Location
- On the firing line
And the Lord said " let there be more Level 3's "
mrclean said:
Well, there's another thing here, which I am very open with when chatting to people during matches, might as well voice it here...
a) Thanks for the above complement, by the way
b) I don't take level 2 matches seriously, from a competition point of view. I use them as practice, to try things, to see how they'll work. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't, sometimes they result in me doing very well on stages, sometimes they result in really crappy stage results... as such, operating on the assumption that we have a bunch of good shooters just on my heels, I totally see upcoming level 2s failing to meet this new rule - all it takes is for, say, me to really kick ass on a couple of stages, and someone else do the same on a couple of other ones. Looking at all the level 2s last year, I won very few of them - enough to get the average, but that's about it. Looking at the level 3s, I won 3 out of 5. In level 3s people can't afford to take silly changes, so I don't think we'll need to worry about this, but in level 2s, we will have problems.
For example, this upcoming weekend in Waterford - I'll be shooting ammo which I KNOW is problematic - I'll be using up some of the my bad winchester. That ammo works very well in my SP01, when it works, so I figure I'll have some good stages, but I expect at least 1 jam/stovepipe, so I know I'll have at least one bad stage. M-Bomber is coming too - if I kick ass on a couple of stages, and if he does well on whatever stage(s) I have problems on, regardless which one of us wins, it will not be a classifer. again. I heard about 39 times "you did not have a consistent match in Wentworth, that's why it's a soft classifier" - guess what, my level 2s are inconsistent almost as a rule... I'm not going to change how I shoot them, to suite the chosen classification system, the system needs to deal with the reality of the scores we have... if people want to blame me for doing either not well enough to win convincingly enough for the system, OR not doing poorly enough to let someone else win convincingly enough, well, that's how it will be, but nothing I can do about it...
Ohh, well... we'll have to wait and see...
Last edited:
omen said:Well, there's another thing here, which I am very open with when chatting to people during matches, might as well voice it here...
a) Thanks for the above complement, by the way
b) I don't take level 2 matches seriously, from a competition point of view. I use them as practice, to try things, to see how they'll work. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't, sometimes they result in me doing very well on stages, sometimes they result in really crappy stage results... as such, operating on the assumption that we have a bunch of good shooters just on my heels, I totally see upcoming level 2s failing to meet this new rule - all it takes is for, say, me to really kick ass on a couple of stages, and someone else do the same on a couple of other ones. Looking at all the level 2s last year, I won very few of them - enough to get the average, but that's about it. Looking at the level 3s, I won 3 out of 5. In level 3s people can't afford to take silly changes, so I don't think we'll need to worry about this, but in level 2s, we will have problems.
For example, this upcoming weekend in Waterford - I'll be shooting ammo which I KNOW is problematic - I'll be using up some of the my bad winchester. That ammo works very well in my SP01, when it works, so I figure I'll have some good stages, but I expect at least 1 jam/stovepipe, so I know I'll have at least one bad stage. M-Bomber is coming too - if I kick ass on a couple of stages, and if he does well on whatever stage(s) I have problems on, regardless which one of us wins, it will not be a classifer. again. I heard about 39 times "you did not have a consistent match in Wentworth, that's why it's a soft classifier" - guess what, my level 2s are inconsistent almost as a rule... I'm not going to change how I shoot them, to suite the chosen classification system, the system needs to deal with the reality of the scores we have... if people want to blame me for doing either not well enough to win convincingly enough for the system, OR not doing poorly enough to let someone else win convincingly enough, well, that's how it will be, but nothing I can do about it...
Ohh, well... we'll have to wait and see...
and that's been my arguement all along... the requirement of 90% in any division could possibly make all matches non classifiers... rare sure but possible nonetheless.... it also puts undue pressure on the top shooters not to try things ... not to game it more... push the envelope etc... pretty much not screw up...
because then you'll hear....if he didn't blow by those targets in order to gain time it would have been a classifier .... if his ammo was good... and with Omen's comments it accurately brings this to light.
He knows his ammo may be an issue but we sure will "BLAME" him because he didn't go out and spend more money on ammo so he could win with a big enough margin.
I say BLAME Winchester for putting out a faulty Product not OMEN and most of all not the system.....
Last edited:
Ok so here is a thought.. The way the classifiers are done now, the "responsibility" is on the top shooters to be up to par, otherwise everyone else is penalized (by not being a classifier). Now you have have some top shooters who are intentionnaly not bringing thier "A game", and using the match to try different things or equipment.. (Talking Level 2's here).
Should they not be held to a higher standard if they don't meet the end of the year criteria for # of clasifiers in each level.. ??
Should they not be held to a higher standard if they don't meet the end of the year criteria for # of clasifiers in each level.. ??
