As an outside observer and someone that doesn't compete on the GP circuit, I don't agree with the Troyer number being promoted as truth in a calculation. As indicated in the prior posts in this thread, there is not enough granularity in the calc to make it a true representation of a course such that one course can be compared to any other course. Averaging the value across all targets on the course also removes all the details of the difficulty.
Observing the scores that have been posted to date, I have noticed what I would claim as abuse of the scoring system, where at least one GP tacked on a ton of environmental factors to inflate the difficulty such that someone was able to score higher than the perceived max score of 120. If the course was as hard as it was claimed, no one should be able to score more than the weighted number of targets presented on the course. This means there would need to be a cap on the reported Troyer value, such that even if the environmental factors pumped this number to above 36, you can only report 36. After placing a cap, the next level of abuse is everyone will just report a 36, like I made a 32 difficulty and just tacked on environmental mods until I got it to 36. If everyone is going to report a 36, then the number means nothing in the scoring calculation. There would need to be very specific and objective way to derive the difficulty so there is no room for interpretation, and possibly need to be calculated by a third-party not competing for GP points so an impartial result is formed.
The Troyer value is a very useful tool to help design courses and provides some great guide lines to help the course designer setup a balanced course, but it is a tool, not a truth. At our club, I usually setup courses that are between 28 and 30T difficulty, but the scores seem to reflect what people score on 34T courses at other clubs. So, there is some special sauce at our club that is not captured in the Troyer calculation.
Here are some examples of difficulty that may not be captured in the Troyer calc:
- Weather: Rain, Sun, too hot, too cold
- Are uphill shots harder than downhill shots. To me, it seems more uncomfortable to shoot uphill compared to downhill.
- As previously mentioned, degrees of intensity for wind and angle of shot.
- Uneven shooting pads.
- Wind may not be a factor if the wind is consistently blowing from the same direction as the sight in targets. So, heavy wind is not the same as inconsistent wind.
- Physical fitness requirements, like length of walk to get through the course
For GP scoring it can be difficult to come up with a number that fairly represents all pockets of talent and further separated by their given classes and across the fragmented and regionalized pockets of competitors. The scoring system used in prior years, scoring as a percent of max score, was reasonably fair, and is a methodology incorporated in other shooting sports where no comparable course of fire between events exists. On a given day, everyone shot the same course, so we know what is possible on that day by the highest score recorded. A few things that needs to hold true for the % of max method is the expectation an experienced shooter will be in attendance at the match to set the benchmark, and there is an adequate quorum of shooters at the match per any delineations to determine the benchmark. If we can agree there is reasonable parity amongst the most experienced shooters regardless of division, then this methodology should work.
Perhaps a better answer isn't within a magic calculation, instead, the only way to declare a winner is to shoot head to head. Use a qualification scoring methodology, and the top 3 shooters in each division/class get squadded together at nationals. Which ever of those 3 come out on top at nats gets the GP season win. If you don't go to nats, you can't win the GP season. Alternatively, the GP series can be regionalized, and each region can declare its own champion, and there is no national GP winner; separately there is someone that wins nationals.
