I agree. Cardinal Shooting Center has the space and accommodations on site to handle Nat's. It's a 12 hour drive from the edge of the earth in the east. The course can certainly handle the attendance and has been vetted well.
Upvote 0
AAFTA GP course optimization
- Thread starter Scotchmo
- Start date
No dog in the fight for Nationals here, but anybody that thinks Ohio is centralized needs to take a look at a map of our nation.
Upvote 0
How about Sioux Falls South Dakota ..
This site has facilities and looks good on Google maps. If we get serious, it's a spot to research.
I think we need to think about the risk of severe weather and stay further north. South Dakota might have the safest weather in October
www.google.com
This site has facilities and looks good on Google maps. If we get serious, it's a spot to research.
I think we need to think about the risk of severe weather and stay further north. South Dakota might have the safest weather in October
Gun range in Sioux Falls, SD
www.google.com Upvote 0
All well and good trying to come up with a centralized national match location in the USA. But it’s a big country geographically, with a large portion of the population living near the perimeter, so it would still be a long distance every year to travel for most, and it would be that way every year. I prefer that the national match location move substantially every year. That way, those less inclined to travel long distances can hope to attend a closer national match every few years.
The GP is a different thing, setup so that you do not necessarily compete head to head with all of the other contestants. You can limit your travel to local and regional GPs and still have a chance in the GP competition.
In the past, every GP match was worth 100 GP points to the winner at that venue, regardless of where it was held. That’s not the case anymore. The number of points available now varies, and has a lot to do with local conditions and how the course was set, and how the conditions are reported.
The purpose of this thread is how to address that GP point discrepancy between venues/matches.
The GP is a different thing, setup so that you do not necessarily compete head to head with all of the other contestants. You can limit your travel to local and regional GPs and still have a chance in the GP competition.
In the past, every GP match was worth 100 GP points to the winner at that venue, regardless of where it was held. That’s not the case anymore. The number of points available now varies, and has a lot to do with local conditions and how the course was set, and how the conditions are reported.
The purpose of this thread is how to address that GP point discrepancy between venues/matches.
Upvote 0
I think an example score comparison expresses the concern of current scoring system, these are two examples of national points I received.
91pts for 11th place Hunter PCP at 2024 Sonoran Desert Grand Prix (actual points 66)
74pts for 1st place Hunter PCP and high match score 2024 Nevada State Championship & Grand Prix (actual points 88)
The AAFTA BOG are taking a very difficult task to normalize scores for national ranking and I definitely appreciate their efforts. I only consider in person competing to be the actual competition and where the fun is.
91pts for 11th place Hunter PCP at 2024 Sonoran Desert Grand Prix (actual points 66)
74pts for 1st place Hunter PCP and high match score 2024 Nevada State Championship & Grand Prix (actual points 88)
The AAFTA BOG are taking a very difficult task to normalize scores for national ranking and I definitely appreciate their efforts. I only consider in person competing to be the actual competition and where the fun is.
Last edited:
Upvote 0
I think we will find with the current methodology, if you didn't shoot the 2024 Sonoran Desert GP, you will not be winning the national GP series award. The Sonoran Desert GP is super overweighted and provided a significant number of bonus points to those in attendance, so many points that it became a "must attend" event. There were so many additional points earned for that no one can make up the points via attending a collection of other matches that did not exploit the difficulty calc value.
Also, if we removed the course difficulty value from the equation, and only used raw score, we also create over-weighted, must attend events; like if there is an easy course where everyone shoots perfect scores. So, it flips the problem the other way, where easy events become must attend events since they are more important (more weighted) than the difficult events.
Upvote 0
I don’t normally jump into these conversations, but as someone who just started last year, I’ll give a new guy perspective.
I live in Jacksonville, FL, and attended several GP’s as far north as New York. I also traveled back to Ohio to shoot the Nationals.
For me, getting to shoot the National’s for a chance to be the National Champion in the class I’m shooting is extremely important and a goal, as long as I qualify. However, I do think to be the National Champion, you need to compete in the National’s. You may not necessarily have to win the National’s based on a point system, but you do have to compete to have any chance.
I do think we should try to obtain a central location for the National’s to give everyone a fair chance to make it. Not everyone gets or has a ton of vacation days to be able to spend 6 of those days just in travel time, and that’s pushing long driving days.
I spent 32 days of vacation time traveling to contests last year. Once I retire from the Navy at the end of this year, I can almost guarantee my contests to be cut down, because I will not be able to waste valuable vacation days just driving. Just my $.02.
Keith
I live in Jacksonville, FL, and attended several GP’s as far north as New York. I also traveled back to Ohio to shoot the Nationals.
For me, getting to shoot the National’s for a chance to be the National Champion in the class I’m shooting is extremely important and a goal, as long as I qualify. However, I do think to be the National Champion, you need to compete in the National’s. You may not necessarily have to win the National’s based on a point system, but you do have to compete to have any chance.
I do think we should try to obtain a central location for the National’s to give everyone a fair chance to make it. Not everyone gets or has a ton of vacation days to be able to spend 6 of those days just in travel time, and that’s pushing long driving days.
I spent 32 days of vacation time traveling to contests last year. Once I retire from the Navy at the end of this year, I can almost guarantee my contests to be cut down, because I will not be able to waste valuable vacation days just driving. Just my $.02.
Keith
Upvote 0
The prior scoring method gave the winner of any GP match 100pts. So every match was worth the same. My opinion - > It wasn’t really broken, so it did not really need the current fix.
I agree with your views on some recent “must attend” matches. In time, match directors will figure out the new scoring requirements, and, if they want their matches to also be “must attend” events, they will adjust their course setting and reporting methods. The point of this thread is to speed up that process. I bet some match directors are already planning on how to best set future courses under the new system.
Upvote 0
Sub threads here : nats location, optimization, gp vs nats, Sonoran bias
I'll say it again ... Variety is the spice of field target.
Nationals is a head-to-head competition. Two days, one chance.
The GP is the negotiation of variety and variability in different conditions over the long haul.
To pivot slightly...
Each celebrates different challenges. In my humble opinion, "the best shooter in the country" will be found and determined at the Nationals, every year. And yes, if you don't show up, you don't earn the title. Some say you are only the "National Champion." and not the "best shooter." But, the "best" expression is often used to highlight one who surpasses all others in a given context. The most uniform context is one, same, match.
However, a GP Champion shows different qualities. Some may argue that it demonstrates skill over a multitude of conditions, which should be valued more. But again, it's the competition in a given, uniform context that's the differentiating element. Which is celebrated.
For a GP, hence, the assignment of difficulty ratings to the match is the attempt to provide a comparable context. Although ultimately not the most similar as a head-to-head, it is yet the most valiant effort to do so. Perfect? no. The question then becomes, how deep in the rabbit hole do you want to go? Well, the popularity of this thread is a testament. Here we are keyboard warriors, but when it comes to match execution and application of theory, nearly all directors are not vaguely interested in the effort required to dive deep into it and apply all imaginable equalizing variables to a quantitative context.
The Grand Prix series is a great thing—probably one of the best things to happen in FT. It gets people out of their microcosm and lets them experience the variety that exists beyond their horizon. And it adds a little sugar to sweeten the deal.
Personally, I think travel is one of the best things about FT. The joy of remembering a great match at a different location and meeting new friends is the lifeblood of this sport.
Scott, in the last post it says the winner, gets 100 points. That was from the person who shot the highest points of the match from any of the classes, setting the curve. So, essentially, a WFTF spring piston's scores were based on what a hunter pcp shooter did if they shot the highest, for example.
Meb, the claim that the Sonoran was "super over-weighted" is not true. It accurately reflected all the difficulty factors that applied and did not "exploit it" as you claim.
I'll say it again ... Variety is the spice of field target.
Nationals is a head-to-head competition. Two days, one chance.
The GP is the negotiation of variety and variability in different conditions over the long haul.
To pivot slightly...
Each celebrates different challenges. In my humble opinion, "the best shooter in the country" will be found and determined at the Nationals, every year. And yes, if you don't show up, you don't earn the title. Some say you are only the "National Champion." and not the "best shooter." But, the "best" expression is often used to highlight one who surpasses all others in a given context. The most uniform context is one, same, match.
However, a GP Champion shows different qualities. Some may argue that it demonstrates skill over a multitude of conditions, which should be valued more. But again, it's the competition in a given, uniform context that's the differentiating element. Which is celebrated.
For a GP, hence, the assignment of difficulty ratings to the match is the attempt to provide a comparable context. Although ultimately not the most similar as a head-to-head, it is yet the most valiant effort to do so. Perfect? no. The question then becomes, how deep in the rabbit hole do you want to go? Well, the popularity of this thread is a testament. Here we are keyboard warriors, but when it comes to match execution and application of theory, nearly all directors are not vaguely interested in the effort required to dive deep into it and apply all imaginable equalizing variables to a quantitative context.
The Grand Prix series is a great thing—probably one of the best things to happen in FT. It gets people out of their microcosm and lets them experience the variety that exists beyond their horizon. And it adds a little sugar to sweeten the deal.
Personally, I think travel is one of the best things about FT. The joy of remembering a great match at a different location and meeting new friends is the lifeblood of this sport.
Scott, in the last post it says the winner, gets 100 points. That was from the person who shot the highest points of the match from any of the classes, setting the curve. So, essentially, a WFTF spring piston's scores were based on what a hunter pcp shooter did if they shot the highest, for example.
Meb, the claim that the Sonoran was "super over-weighted" is not true. It accurately reflected all the difficulty factors that applied and did not "exploit it" as you claim.
Upvote 0
There are different GP awards for the high totals in the different AAFTA Divisions/Classes.
But, ultimately, any shooter’s GP score ends up being a percentage of the top shooters score. And the new scoring system is no different in that respect. It does not matter one bit which Division/Class shot the high score. It didn’t matter before, and it doesn’t matter now.
What is different now, is that the available GP points for different matches can vary significantly.
Upvote 0
This is exactly what I was saying in this thread way back in the beginning.... There needs to be a scale for each of the environmental factors... mild wind (3-5mph), medium wind 6-9mph, strong wind 10 plus mph.. (in Nevada you need very strong wind 20mph plus some years)
Same with elevation up or down: mild 7-12 degrees, medium 13-18 degrees, steep 19-25 degrees.. and same for shaded.
The conditions are so extreme in Nevada a 30T course without factors that might be 36T with factors, is gonna be a lot harder to shoot 80% on than a course with a 36T that becomes a 42T with factors at any other venue I've ever seen... but as shown above, the Nevada match competitors get screwed in the GP points under the new scoring system.
Last edited:
Upvote 0
A QUOTE: The conditions are so extreme in Nevada a 30T course without factors that might be 36T with factors, but it's gonna be a lot harder to shoot 80% on that course than a 36T course that becomes a 42T with factors at any other venue I've ever seen... but as shown above, the Nevada match competitors get screwed in the GP points under the new scoring system.
Shoot Nevada just once, fair conditions or less so you will as a FT shooter realize what is truly a Full & Complete "Wild" field target experience !!!
Honestly weighing the nevada FT experience side by side to an open field or in the woods type venues ... Wow that's a tough one IMO.
Nevada is other worldly and then some !
Shoot Nevada just once, fair conditions or less so you will as a FT shooter realize what is truly a Full & Complete "Wild" field target experience !!!
Honestly weighing the nevada FT experience side by side to an open field or in the woods type venues ... Wow that's a tough one IMO.
Nevada is other worldly and then some !
Upvote 0
How about instead of having a centralized Nationals, we have two Nationals. East Nationals and West Nationals. On even years, the East Nationals winner is THE national champion, odd years it's the West winner. Make the GP points for both championships worth more to encourage participation for the shooters that are in the GP hunt. I would also encourage clubs to rotate north and south as much as possible, so one year it would be Oregon and Georgia, next year Ohio and Arizona.
Upvote 0
If we can agree the intent of the GP calculation was to allow a maximum of 120 points to be achieved from any single GP event, then being able to score a 124 is exploiting the system.
If we can also agree that one event can garner more possible points than any other event, then there is an issue with the calculation that over-weights (or under-weights) certain events.
Scoring a 124 at Sonoma has no means for any other event to catchup to that score, unless that other event had a 36T course with difficulty boosted beyond 36 when using subjective measures. For example, even the perfect score at a less than 36T course has zero chance of catching up.
The GP calculation is broken because it has varying maximum scoring potential solely based on the troyer difficulty factor, and doing so it over weights (or under weights) events' potential to score GP points. This creates a must attend event, or it encourages everyone to set a 36T course.
A more functional calculation, assuming it needs to use the troyer number, would equate a perfect score on a 28T course with a less than perfect score on a 36T course. And, however this needs to be calculated, it needs to consider the top 2% of shooters, not the average shooter. We are trying to separate the top 2% of shooters.
For example, you might choose to use an equation that awards buffer points as difficulty rises.
Consider:
S = the percent of points scored at an event. pts earned / pts possible
T = Course difficulty
GP = (S * 120) + 0.5(T - 28)
S*120 normalizes the score to a 120 point scoring system.
0.5(T-28) determines an amount of points awarded due to the perceived difficulty of the course. You can think of this as points you are not expected to earn in score alone, some may call it a handicap.
Something like this assumes a shooter capable of perfecting a 28T course can expect to shoot 4 points worse on a 36T course. Or 10.5 points worse on a 49T course. The weight (the 0.5 number) can be adjusted to achieve an appropriate effect following a study to determine what is within reasonable top shooter capability. Maybe there is a different weight (handicap) that needs to be applied depending on the division being shot, like for piston shooters it might be 0.8, for PCP 0.5 might be right.
With this revised calc, every event has the ability to score 120 points. The amount the resulting GP score can be above 120 is limited by how much a shooter is capable of besting the handicap scoring system.
What we are still missing are the untold truths]the troyer number does not capture, like Nevada have where their course seems harder than other courses with equivalent difficulties. But, with the weight of the troyer value muted in this revised calculation method, it may not matter that these unknowns are not included.
Upvote 0
I really don't think the "exploit" word is the correct term here. It suggests that the environmental factors were not registered correctly.
The factors are only "On or Off". There are no rules of when to turn them on or off... So, it's totally fair for a match director to check the wind box on a target if the wind is 3-5 mph.... or the elevation check box if the angle to the target is what??? 5 degrees?
Heat mirage was also a factor at the Sonoran Desert GP. Should the MD check extreme dark or light box? That GP was a really hard course both in terms of kill zone size and wind and heat mirage. I know, some will say actually if you know how to use it the mirage can help the shooter... IF.
Yes, the match, under the new scoring system became an over weighted match, especially since almost all the other MDs in the country had no idea of how the new scoring system worked or how important it was to set a course that's close to 36T where environmental factors are present.
Upvote 0
The top shooters score tends to reflect “the untold truths the troyer number does not capture”. That top shooter method was used before and worked really well.
Under the new rules, the course design has a strong influence on the number of GP points available. High Troyer and high hit rates, that’s the game now. Things that were discussed earlier that can be done to better equalize/maximize available GP points:
1) make the Troyer average high. 36T before light and wind is the highest average allowed.
2) a course with a lower standard deviation will have a higher hit rate. So don’t use expert level (>40T) targets as they have a lower hit rate. ***
3) report all environmental factors as that will raise the number of GP points awarded. If the environmental factor is borderline, still best to include it. Don’t set targets that are subject to severe environmental factors as that will not add anything to the available GP points and it will reduce the hit rate.
*** exception. If the course Troyer average is under 36T, say 35T, there are instances where we could replace the easiest standing shot with the most difficult target allowed, 50T. And maybe as high as 75T if we had light and wind conditions. Because that raises the average Troyer, even if everyone misses that target, their GP score will still be higher than if they had hit the easier target. The single high Troyer target also makes your course SD look better without hurting the GP points.
If “gaming the system” is possible, then it will be done. Best if everyone knows the game. It’s not “exploiting”, it’s adapting.
Under the new rules, the course design has a strong influence on the number of GP points available. High Troyer and high hit rates, that’s the game now. Things that were discussed earlier that can be done to better equalize/maximize available GP points:
1) make the Troyer average high. 36T before light and wind is the highest average allowed.
2) a course with a lower standard deviation will have a higher hit rate. So don’t use expert level (>40T) targets as they have a lower hit rate. ***
3) report all environmental factors as that will raise the number of GP points awarded. If the environmental factor is borderline, still best to include it. Don’t set targets that are subject to severe environmental factors as that will not add anything to the available GP points and it will reduce the hit rate.
*** exception. If the course Troyer average is under 36T, say 35T, there are instances where we could replace the easiest standing shot with the most difficult target allowed, 50T. And maybe as high as 75T if we had light and wind conditions. Because that raises the average Troyer, even if everyone misses that target, their GP score will still be higher than if they had hit the easier target. The single high Troyer target also makes your course SD look better without hurting the GP points.
If “gaming the system” is possible, then it will be done. Best if everyone knows the game. It’s not “exploiting”, it’s adapting.
Upvote 0
Scott, the top-shooter method in the prior GP points system was interpreted by many shooters as "penalizing" them when their scores were normalized to the HOA of that match if that HOA was significantly higher than their scores, even if they were first in their class. I recall one complaint of a Hunter shooter competing against a National Champ and Worlds Contender and having his score of first place end up lower than another Hunter shooter at another GP who didn't have to compete against that top-level shooter. My opinion is that your statement that the top-shooter method was unbiased and truly represented all shooter performances at a GP is not accurate.
Upvote 0
It wasn't our intent that the maximum number of GP points scorable at a match is 120. The maximum number of shots at a GP is 120, on that we agree.
Upvote 0
So why not change to the "highest score in each class equals 100%" and the other scores in that class are a percentage of that high class score?
The new system is working worst than the one you are trying to fix imho...
Upvote 0