AAFTA GP course optimization

[rich177]

In my 35 years of shooting FT I have only shot in one national match BUT I really like Scotten's comment about requiring attendance at the National Championship Match to actually get to be the National Champion! Wow! What a concept!
Rick B.

 

[Motorhead]

In my 35 years of shooting FT I have only shot in one national match BUT I really like Scotten's comment about requiring attendance at the National Championship Match to actually get to be the National Champion! Wow! What a concept!
Rick B.

National "GP" Season long "Class" Grand Prix Champion .. AND
NATIONAL Event "Class" CHAMPION are different things.

Having won both 2 different times it is not an opinion, but a honest truth

 

[Scotchmo]

In my 35 years of shooting FT I have only shot in one national match BUT I really like Scotten's comment about requiring attendance at the National Championship Match to actually get to be the National Champion! Wow! What a concept!
Rick B.

The overall GP champion is different than the National match champion.

The AAFT National match is one GP match in the GP circuit.

You can be a “champion” at any of the GP matches. That does not make you a GP champion.

 

[scotton]

The overall GP champion is different than the National match champion.

The AAFT National match is one GP match in the GP circuit.

You can be a “champion” at any of the GP matches. That does not make you a GP champion.

Correct. The National Champions are the class winners at the National Championship. The GP Champions are the class points winners over a number of GP matches, including the national championship. My suggestion is that we should do away with the GP points champions and just have National champions.

Here is another example:
Last year, the top 4 Hunter PCP shooters were separated by 9 GP points. Who was the best Hunter PCP shooter last year? According to GP points it was Bill Rabbitt. Oddly enough, Bill beat Philip Hepler by 4 points at the National Championship to beat Philip by 1 point in the GP championship. If Bill wouldn't have shot at Nationals, would that make Philip the best Hunter PCP shooter last year? According to GP points, yes, although he was beaten at the National Championship by Ryan Parks. If Scott Hull or Randy Ebersole had attended Nationals, would they have shot better than Bill or Philip? We'll never know. That's what bothers me. I want our National Championship to be more than just another GP. I want our National Champions to be actual champions, not over shadowed by point gatherers.

I realize we have had the GP system for a long time. And every few years, someone gets twisted up about it and it gets overhauled to be more fair. Why are we fighting so hard to keep an ill-fitting system in place? It feels like when the college football national champion was decided by voting. We all knew it was dumb, but no one could explain why it had to be that way. Turn the GPs into qualifier events and the attendance will still be there. Turn the Nationals into the event where you can win national recognition and watch attendance increase.

 

[Motorhead]

Correct. The National Champions are the class winners at the National Championship. The GP Champions are the class points winners over a number of GP matches, including the national championship. My suggestion is that we should do away with the GP points champions and just have National champions.

Here is another example:
Last year, the top 4 Hunter PCP shooters were separated by 9 GP points. Who was the best Hunter PCP shooter last year? According to GP points it was Bill Rabbitt. Oddly enough, Bill beat Philip Hepler by 4 points at the National Championship to beat Philip by 1 point in the GP championship. If Bill wouldn't have shot at Nationals, would that make Philip the best Hunter PCP shooter last year? According to GP points, yes, although he was beaten at the National Championship by Ryan Parks. If Scott Hull or Randy Ebersole had attended Nationals, would they have shot better than Bill or Philip? We'll never know. That's what bothers me. I want our National Championship to be more than just another GP. I want our National Champions to be actual champions, not over shadowed by point gatherers.

I realize we have had the GP system for a long time. And every few years, someone gets twisted up about it and it gets overhauled to be more fair. Why are we fighting so hard to keep an ill-fitting system in place? It feels like when the college football national champion was decided by voting. We all knew it was dumb, but no one could explain why it had to be that way. Turn the GPs into qualifier events and the attendance will still be there. Turn the Nationals into the event where you can win national recognition and watch attendance increase.

Most shooters won't travel to the extent of chasing such accolades doing so coast to coast .. IMO
It sounds good, reads good if such events happen fairly close to any given shooter, but reality has proven otherwise for all but a very select few who can afford too travel great distance or have put it on a bucket list .. again IMO.

 

[Scotchmo]

Correct. The National Champions are the class winners at the National Championship. The GP Champions are the class points winners over a number of GP matches, including the national championship. My suggestion is that we should do away with the GP points champions and just have National champions.

Here is another example:
Last year, the top 4 Hunter PCP shooters were separated by 9 GP points. Who was the best Hunter PCP shooter last year? According to GP points it was Bill Rabbitt. Oddly enough, Bill beat Philip Hepler by 4 points at the National Championship to beat Philip by 1 point in the GP championship. If Bill wouldn't have shot at Nationals, would that make Philip the best Hunter PCP shooter last year? According to GP points, yes, although he was beaten at the National Championship by Ryan Parks. If Scott Hull or Randy Ebersole had attended Nationals, would they have shot better than Bill or Philip? We'll never know. That's what bothers me. I want our National Championship to be more than just another GP. I want our National Champions to be actual champions, not over shadowed by point gatherers.

I realize we have had the GP system for a long time. And every few years, someone gets twisted up about it and it gets overhauled to be more fair. Why are we fighting so hard to keep an ill-fitting system in place? It feels like when the college football national champion was decided by voting. We all knew it was dumb, but no one could explain why it had to be that way. Turn the GPs into qualifier events and the attendance will still be there. Turn the Nationals into the event where you can win national recognition and watch attendance increase.

At any given AAFTA National match, a Division/Class is lucky to have even half of the top shooters in attendance. A winner at that match is certainly the National Match Champion of their Division/Class, but not necessarily proof that they are the best in the country. The GP evolved partly because of that.

Both the GP series and the National match have their own merits. The GP series is just a talley of scores/pts from matches that are likely to happen anyway. Those matches have to meet a specified standard. I personally think the standards have gotten out of hand.

 

[Airgunoregon]

Most shooters won't travel to the extent of chasing such accolades doing so coast to coast .. IMO
It sounds good, reads good if such events happen fairly close to any given shooter, but reality has proven otherwise for all but a very select few who can afford too travel great distance or have put it on a bucket list .. again IMO.

To the end of "Deciding the best shooters in the US" I've suggested before that we should have a central location that has a low chance of a weather event to disrupt the match. A location that AAFTA leases to host the National at every year.

Clubs could request to host the event in a rotation of some kind, and they don't have to have access to their own venue anymore. The club that hosts the Nationals would use the AAFTA targets, (probably they could be kept onsite), to set the course. Hopefully the location has good terrain and wind challenges to work with for the course setters.

Then, there is "No Home Court Advantage" for the hosting club. AND we have a much better chance to entice the top shooters around the Nation, to come and compete.... which in turn allows us a better chance to decide who are the top shooters that year in the AAFTA organization.

I also think that competitors must qualify to attend. The clubs should send their best teams and you have to be on one of those teams to attend. Think how that would grow the clubs and the skill sets of the clubs... you actually have to work at becoming a team member if you are serious about attending the Nationals.

The GPs are how you qualify. And they still represent your level of skill, even if you choose not to join the team attending the Nationals. The winners of the National GP should still get awards. The teams send the best shooters they have that are willing or able to attend.

 

[Centercut]

IMHO, the GP winner(s) is(are) the National Champions anyway...

 

[Bramezy]

Most shooters won't travel to the extent of chasing such accolades doing so coast to coast .. IMO
It sounds good, reads good if such events happen fairly close to any given shooter, but reality has proven otherwise for all but a very select few who can afford too travel great distance or have put it on a bucket list .. again IMO.

This is very correct for all the shooters ive spoken with, including myself. I might travel once out of state for a GP for fun but its so expensive to do so that its just not worth it. There is no return of any type from it. Points aren't worth it. There is no monetary prize on the line at ANY of these events so other than the experience, why go? Some have more time and money and kudos to them, but not all of us do and choose where and how to spend that time wisely. I can shoot every weekend in some type of airgun shoot within 4hrs of me, so why spend well over $1,000 to travel to one? The airgun community is very small, field target shooters in the USA even smaller, like real small. I think you have limitations in general no matter what you do just due to that fact that there are only so many shooters nationwide anyway. More local events will help this but it take time and people and clubs willing to listen and open up.
I think your fighting an uphill battle. Get 10,000 field target shooters and your chances are much better at pulling this off.
From what ive heard there less than 2,000 active FT shooters in the US across all classes and active could mean shot only once. How many regular shooters are there? Not many, a few hundred i bet. Now rethink things.
Keep it fun guys, screw all these rules and stuff, you are only appealing to the .1%. Try and appeal to the masses and grow the sport!

 

[Bramezy]

To the end of "Deciding the best shooters in the US" I've suggested before that we should have a central location that has a low chance of a weather event to disrupt the match. A location that AAFTA leases to host the National at every year.

Clubs could request to host the event in a rotation of some kind, and they don't have to have access to their own venue anymore. The club that hosts the Nationals would use the AAFTA targets, (probably they could be kept onsite), to set the course. Hopefully the location has good terrain and wind challenges to work with for the course setters.

Then, there is "No Home Court Advantage" for the hosting club. AND we have a much better chance to entice the top shooters around the Nation, to come and compete.... which in turn allows us a better chance to decide who are the top shooters that year in the AAFTA organization.

I also think that competitors must qualify to attend. The clubs should send their best teams and you have to be on one of those teams to attend. Think how that would grow the clubs and the skill sets of the clubs... you actually have to work at becoming a team member if you are serious about attending the Nationals.

The GPs are how you qualify. And they still represent your level of skill, even if you choose not to join the team attending the Nationals. The winners of the National GP should still get awards. The teams send the best shooters they have that are willing or able to attend.

Nice idea but its the same rotation of people every year lol. How many new shooters are there that are shooting all the time and going to GP points and care about it? Very few and its the same small pool of guys. MOST FT shooters, hunter anyway, dont care. Most shoot to enjoy the sport and BS with friends. Just saying my experience. CLubs are more worried about growing attendance just to stay operational than worried about who is the best shooter. I like the idea of it all but the sad fact is there just arent that many seriously interested in it.
Examples:
Only 23 GP pistol shooters so far this year.
Only 122 Hunter PCP (supposedly the l;argest class) GP shooters so far this year, of the 122 only 18 have shot 2 GPs. 18!
Im not even getting into the other classes.
Numbers dont lie. I think time spent on how to grow the sport and get more new shooters into the local clubs will eventually lead into more shooters into GPs but you have to start at the bottom to "FIX" the problem. It is what it is basically. Keep the rules simple, clear and easy so people can attend and enjoy themselves and then let it go from there.

You want more shooters? Put prizes on the line but has a whole other host of issues with it and really dampens things. GFuess everyone looks at it differently.
Just dont kill the new love I have, thats all Im asking.

 

[Motorhead]

Prize moneys come from Entry fees .. generally. A lot of GP's are already $80-$100 which is too much IMO.

 

[Bramezy]

Prize moneys come from Entry fees .. generally. A lot of GP's are already $80-$100 which is too much IMO.

It is stout, I agree there and to tack on more for prizes could deter attendance. Totally agree and im not suggesting that.

 

[Airgunoregon]

Nice idea but its the same rotation of people every year lol. How many new shooters are there that are shooting all the time and going to GP points and care about it? Very few and its the same small pool of guys. MOST FT shooters, hunter anyway, dont care. Most shoot to enjoy the sport and BS with friends. Just saying my experience. CLubs are more worried about growing attendance just to stay operational than worried about who is the best shooter. I like the idea of it all but the sad fact is there just arent that many seriously interested in it.
Examples:
Only 23 GP pistol shooters so far this year.
Only 122 Hunter PCP (supposedly the l;argest class) GP shooters so far this year, of the 122 only 18 have shot 2 GPs. 18!
Im not even getting into the other classes.
Numbers dont lie. I think time spent on how to grow the sport and get more new shooters into the local clubs will eventually lead into more shooters into GPs but you have to start at the bottom to "FIX" the problem. It is what it is basically. Keep the rules simple, clear and easy so people can attend and enjoy themselves and then let it go from there.

You want more shooters? Put prizes on the line but has a whole other host of issues with it and really dampens things. GFuess everyone looks at it differently.
Just dont kill the new love I have, thats all Im asking.

I totally agree there are very few competitors in the AAFTA game that are willing to travel to GPs, especially more than a 10 hour drive one way. It better be a great event and lots of fun besides the good competition. That has not changed much in my near 20 years of competing... and it's unlikely to change much in the future unless the BoG and clubs figure out a plan to change it. The plan has to be to make it more worth it... and more fun to attend.

At the Oregon State Championships & Grand Prix, we have been giving out modest prizes donated by the sponsoring vendors... The more a club can document the event and vendor donations on forums & social media, the more the vendors are willing to donate prizes... think trading exposure for goods.. That's how they think.

It only takes someone in the clubs time to do the social media stuff, so it's not super hard to get donations for the GP matches if effort is put out to establish a relationship with the vendors and support them on social media.

AAFTA is now doing a pretty good job of working with vendors for the Nationals, that can help to motivate some of the top shooters to travel a little more, but probably not 3,000 miles across the nation... so that's only one reason why I'm suggesting a central location, AND more prizes.

 

[cavedweller]

Most shooters won't travel to the extent of chasing such accolades doing so coast to coast .. IMO
It sounds good, reads good if such events happen fairly close to any given shooter, but reality has proven otherwise for all but a very select few who can afford too travel great distance or have put it on a bucket list .. again IMO.

Time and money will even overshadow practice and skill at some point… especially for those who must work for a living.

 

[Scotchmo]

Back to course optimization. In the past, it did not matter how a GP course was set. It used to be that the winner got 100 GP points and that is the most that anyone could get at a match. Now, how a course is set has a substantial affect on the number of GP points that will be available to an individual. Does this prove out in reality?

I compared two GP matches for this 2024 GP season. The Republic of Texas GP and the Cajun GP. There were 9 individuals who attended both matches. In every case, the individual earned more GP points at the Cajun match. The % increase amongst individuals did vary a lot but the trend was obvious.

competitor) TX GP pts, Cajun GP pts
1) 85, 88
2) 100, 101
3) 77, 90
4) 88, 109
5) 38, 85
6) 77, 107
7) 90, 95
8) 97, 102
9) 84, 105

If I was attending GP matches trying to garner enough GP points to win the series, that TX match would be a poor choice. I can't blame the match director as the Texas match occurred before the new GP scoring rules were published, so they did not have the benefit of adjusting their course spreadsheet before it was scored under the new GP scoring rules. Now they know. It will be interesting to see what happens next season.

 

[shootermeb]

Maybe we should make a guide to perfectly optimize your GP course for maximum Troyer difficulty benefit. Here are some suggestions.

1. Find land that has a 15 degree slope so you can shoot at targets down hill (it's easier to shoot downhill than uphill, but they get the same multiplier). This will allow you to add the extreme angle multiplier to all targets.
2. Make sure your land is shaded, like in a wooded area. This will allow you to, post planning, add a lighting modifier greatly boosting the difficulty number above the planned 36.
3. Try to also have a wind problem, but a consistent wind from the same direction. When looking for land you want to have an open field in the predominant up-wind location from the wooded area you are shooting in. This will allow you to additionally, post planning, boost the difficulty by declaring any day a windy day.
4. Ensure all lanes shoot in the same direction. Keeping the shooting direction consistent also keeps the wind condition consistent, maybe to the point we can sight in for the wind condition.
5. When designing your course, focus putting 1.5 in KZ targets at 46 yards or further, this will allow you to apply the 45+yd modifier to the calculation. A 1.5in KZ target, extreme downhill at 46 yards is a 42.2T difficulty. This will leave room to mess around with other target distances to manipulate the average and the standard deviation.
6. Pick two forced position targets (one for standing and one for kneeling) and make them stupid difficult (~50T). People were going to miss these anyway, might as well make the miss worth something by manipulating the average.
7. We need some easy targets to pull the average from like 45T down to 36T. Do this by adding some super easy targets, like 1.5in KZ targets at 15 yards or less. This will help manipulate the average, but it will also boost your Standard Deviation into the 10+ range.

If executed correctly, you will have a 36T difficulty course with mostly 1.5in KZ targets in the 46-48 yard range, with a few targets that are really easy, and with reasonable variance to hit the target average difficulty number and with many targets boosted with modifiers.

Since we can't truly plan for environmental factors, they are not part of the planned 36T difficulty. But, we have technically planned for these to ensure we have them. So on game day, or date of reporting, we can further boost every target with a wind and lighting modifier; doing so will get us a course difficulty in the 48T+ range. Bonus points for the win.

With already having proof that 36T is not the true ceiling for how GP points are calculated, we now get to have a 48/36 multiplier to our score (sweet). It doesn't matter how easy or hard our course was on that day, as long as we can claim it was hard by invoking every possible multiplier available. Consider if we can shoot a 100/120 on our now 48T course, we will be awarded 133 GP points, that's 13 bonus GP points over the theoretical 120 maximum, and we don't need to shoot a perfect score to earn those points. Remember we might only expect the best of shooters to miss 6 shots out of 60 (4 for our stupid difficult forced position shots, and maybe 2 on a 50 yard target) - so really, we'd expect our top shooters to come up with a 105-108 score. Scoring a 108 would get you 144 GP points - even sweeter - 24 points above assumed maximum.

Happy course designing. Make sure you use as many target modifiers as possible. Keep it shaded and windy my friends.

 

[Scotchmo]

…
Pick two forced position targets (one for standing and one for kneeling) and make them stupid difficult (~50T). People were going to miss these anyway, might as well make the miss worth something by manipulating the average….

That’s a brilliant observation for the “stupid difficult” positional shots. I just did a quick calculation using a 36T average course where those 4 positional shots are 50T and everyone misses them all. Changing just those targets to a 10T might make it so that everyone hits them all, but it lowers the course average to 33T.

The 36T course has 120 possible GP points. The 33T course has 111 possible GP points.

In the above case, the courses are the same except for those positional targets. I could clean the course with the easy positional targets and get 111 GP points. In the course with the harder positional shots where I missed them all, I’d get 112 GP points.

In the above case, missing the hard targets gets more GP points than hitting the easy targets. Great catch for optimizing a GP course.

That’s an artifact of basing difficulty on the “average”.

 

[Cloud9AG]

Back to course optimization. In the past, it did not matter how a GP course was set. It used to be that the winner got 100 GP points and that is the most that anyone could get at a match. Now, how a course is set has a substantial affect on the number of GP points that will be available to an individual. Does this prove out in reality?

I compared two GP matches for this 2024 GP season. The Republic of Texas GP and the Cajun GP. There were 9 individuals who attended both matches. In every case, the individual earned more GP points at the Cajun match. The % increase amongst individuals did vary a lot but the trend was obvious.

competitor) TX GP pts, Cajun GP pts
1) 85, 88
2) 100, 101
3) 77, 90
4) 88, 109
5) 38, 85
6) 77, 107
7) 90, 95
8) 97, 102
9) 84, 105

If I was attending GP matches trying to garner enough GP points to win the series, that TX match would be a poor choice. I can't blame the match director as the Texas match occurred before the new GP scoring rules were published, so they did not have the benefit of adjusting their course spreadsheet before it was scored under the new GP scoring rules. Now they know. It will be interesting to see what happens next season.

Actually @Scotchmo , as the MD for the ROT, I did know, but I chose to set a good course for the shooters rather than max it out. We did add a wind multiplier for one of our courses because the wind blew about 7-10mph all day in the more open lanes. The Cajuns chose to max theirs out, but they had few environmental factors. In this instance, the shooters got a few more points for the Cajuns that reflected the more difficult course layout. I enjoyed both and wouldn't change anything about my layout!

 

[BrazosbyNemo]

To the end of "Deciding the best shooters in the US" I've suggested before that we should have a central location that has a low chance of a weather event to disrupt the match. A location that AAFTA leases to host the National at every year.

Clubs could request to host the event in a rotation of some kind, and they don't have to have access to their own venue anymore. The club that hosts the Nationals would use the AAFTA targets, (probably they could be kept onsite), to set the course. Hopefully the location has good terrain and wind challenges to work with for the course setters.

Then, there is "No Home Court Advantage" for the hosting club. AND we have a much better chance to entice the top shooters around the Nation, to come and compete.... which in turn allows us a better chance to decide who are the top shooters that year in the AAFTA organization.

I also think that competitors must qualify to attend. The clubs should send their best teams and you have to be on one of those teams to attend. Think how that would grow the clubs and the skill sets of the clubs... you actually have to work at becoming a team member if you are serious about attending the Nationals.

The GPs are how you qualify. And they still represent your level of skill, even if you choose not to join the team attending the Nationals. The winners of the National GP should still get awards. The teams send the best shooters they have that are willing or able to attend.

I tend to think the same as you. I have brought it up before that I think the Whittington Center in Raton, NM would be perfect for this. It has everything we could want And be on neutral ground.

 

[Motorhead]

I tend to think the same as you. I have brought it up before that I think the Whittington Center in Raton, NM would be perfect for this. It has everything we could want And be on neutral ground.

Near 1400 miles each way .... TOO FAR to go shoot BB guns IMO.
GP's work, centralization is a dream that is not realistic for many.