AAFTA GP course optimization

[Scotchmo]

…
At the end of the year, every point matters at each match to help you win the GP series.
…

That’s not really true under the new system. You go to matches where even the best shooters can’t earn 100 GP points. Someone else goes to matches where lots of competitors earn over 100 GP points. Those sub 100pt matches will not help you win the GP series.

There are venues where the hit rates are substantially lower across the board (like Battle Mountain), when compared to other venues (Sonoran GP?). The Sonoran has a higher Troyer average. I’ve shot both venues. Regardless of what’s on paper, the Battle Mountain course tends to be more difficult.

I’m not saying that the Sonoran GP is easy - it’s not. I’m saying that you can’t compare venues using a Troyer average.

The various GP matches no longer have equal weight.

Under the new system, if all match directors strive for a 36T average with minimal numbers of 40T to 50T targets, and include all and any applicable environmental factors, the weights will be closer than otherwise (though it still won’t be enough.). That’s what I stated in the first post of this thread. It still stands.

 

[Airgunoregon]

Folks, the system isn't flawed. It's a different system.

The old system had it's flaws, although great for its time. Your points were based on what the person next to you shot. Even if they shot with different power or different assistive devices, it effected your score. The one and only person it didn't effect was the highest overall score of that match of all classes combined.

Garrett,

You don't see flaws in the new system? The new system totally discriminates against a course like the Nevada st GP, that has extreme environmental factors that count the same as very lame courses that would also be allowed to check the same boxes? ?

How is THAT not a flaw? The LACK of a sliding scale as described a few times above in this thread is a major flaw in the new system. PLEASE Fix it if you really want to keep the new system... please..

Or revise the old system to count the high PCP score and the high Piston score as 100%.
You have to admit that all the PCP class are fairly equal now if you look at the winning scores around the nation.

 

[scotton]

The main consequence of this whole GP points change for me is a total lack of desire to shoot in GP matches (or Nationals). I tied for 1st at Cajuns in Open PCP and that was worth 99 GP points. But shooters at other matches are getting up to 124 points for winning their class? So, to be competitive in the GP race, I'm supposed to figure out which GPs are gaming the system to maximize GP points and go to those GPs instead of attending shoots based on the quality of the actual match? No thanks. Y'all have fun, I can save a bunch of money and just make a plaque for myself that says I'm the best FT shooter in my zipcode.

 

[Scotchmo]

… I tied for 1st at Cajuns in Open PCP and that was worth 99 GP points. But shooters at other matches are getting up to 124 points for winning their class? …

Lots of competitors got over a 100 GP points at this year’s Cajun match. Some over 110pts. If you only got 99 GP points, then you were not near the top shooter at the match. You were outscored by 15 others including a piston shooter. You would have faired no better under the old system.

Being the high scorer in your class has never been the avenue to the highest GP points. Never before, and not now. You must be the high scorer at a GP match to get the most GP points.

You might be one of those who thinks that a class winner should get the maximum GP points. This year’s Cajuns are actually a good example of why that shouldn’t be the case.

There is the fact that the Cajuns only gave 116 GP points to the high scorer, while at the “other match” the top shooter got 124 GP points. What about the top shooter at other matches that can’t even get 100 GP points?

That said, I’m also more inclined to stay closer to home for FT matches than in years past.

 

[Kdog]

Here's where I have a problem with this maximizing a course for GP points. My number one goal for having a GP is to raise money for my club to keep it running. We are a totally self supported club which is 75% supported by airgun matches. So I want people to come back to my club. Now your probably thinking at this point I make ultra soft courses and that is farthest from the truth. I have shot plenty of GPs that had a high Troyer rating and let's face it those are tough courses especially when you consider uncomfortable sitting positions due to uneven terrain. Now why would I want to set up a course at a very difficult Troyer just so a very small percentage can optimize GP points? I believe a GP should be in the 32-34 Troyer rating so it's challenging but fair course that most shooters won't come off the course feeling defeated and saying damn that's the toughest course I ever shot.

By forcing MDs to try to optimize GP points just so a very few that care about these points can maximize their score, is that really what I want out of my GP? If I want people to come back to my club and we had a outstanding showing of 50 shooters in our first ever GP at Sherwood Airgunners, l think it's best to keep the Troyer at a reasonable rating. The long shots and conditions will dictate who shoots well and most will still have a great experience if we do things the right way.

Now that I see what has happened with this new system im all in favor of going back to how it was or trying something different. Something that can't be manipulated by a MD just so they can maximize GP points.

 

[Chas DiCapua]

Keith, if you want people to come back to your GP's, you've got to supply tasty snacks.

 

[Bill Day]

I hear you Bill, but we still have the issue of traveling up to 3,000 miles for all of the top shooters to go "head to head" in a match. Most of the best shooters don't travel that far to compete, so it's near impossible to really know "who is the best" shooter in the nation any given year. It's just not worth it when the prize is a ribbon or plaque and the cost is a couple grand to attend.

We could increase the odds of getting the all the top shooters attending if the Nationals was held each year somewhere in the middle of the country. So, until then we'll just have to wonder who might have whooped who if they were there at the match.

But we shouldn't discount the winners who do make the effort to attend even if they don't have to travel 3,000 miles to prove their skills.

The middle of our Country likely has the least amount of Airgun Competitors. AFFTA use to spread it out (East, West, South, PR) based on which club wants to host it and have the land and facilities to handle a 100 + shooters. As I understand last year there were only two clubs that matched those requirements. MRA was awarded Host this year and Rockville, Ct next year. I expect the Nationals this year will likely be the smallest Evah! I believe Washington State in 2005 to this point held that statue with about 65 attendees. Obvious reason because many shooters are planning to attend the Worlds in November in AZ and can't afford to do both. Bottomline, our game is a small niche of the American airgun population and there is not a lot of effort anywhere to grow the game. This is a older population game here we have more shooters over 50 than under. Maybe the World's this year will charge things up but it didn't seem to in 2007 when it was last held here. Two years later the WFTF class was born but from a club standpoint it really hasn't grown much.

 

[Airgunoregon]

The middle of our Country likely has the least amount of Airgun Competitors. AFFTA use to spread it out (East, West, South, PR) based on which club wants to host it and have the land and facilities to handle a 100 + shooters. As I understand last year there were only two clubs that matched those requirements. MRA was awarded Host this year and Rockville, Ct next year. I expect the Nationals this year will likely be the smallest Evah! I believe Washington State in 2005 to this point held that statue with about 65 attendees. Obvious reason because many shooters are planning to attend the Worlds in November in AZ and can't afford to do both. Bottomline, our game is a small niche of the American airgun population and there is not a lot of effort anywhere to grow the game. This is a older population game here we have more shooters over 50 than under. Maybe the World's this year will charge things up but it didn't seem to in 2007 when it was last held here. Two years later the WFTF class was born but from a club standpoint it really hasn't grown much.

Bill, like Scott said above that's not the topic of this thread. Start another one for that topic... I'd love to talk about it.

But, I want to hear what YOU think about the new GP scoring system?

 

[Kdog]

Keith, if you want people to come back to your GP's, you've got to supply tasty snacks.

So the peanut butter pie wasnt good enough?

 

[scotton]

Being the high scorer in your class has never been the avenue to the highest GP points. Never before, and not now. You must be the high scorer at a GP match to get the most GP points.

You might be one of those who thinks that a class winner should get the maximum GP points. This year’s Cajuns are actually a good example of why that shouldn’t be the case.

I'm absolutely one of those that thinks GP points should be based on performance in class. For years, AAFTA has been telling us that Hunter class is not competing against Open class is not competing against WFTF. But the GP system was setup to create competition (and crying) between the classes. So they "fixed" it by making the GP points based on match difficulty, which has created a whole new set of issues. I've outlined how I think the GP points system should work a few times, I won't re-hash it since no one seems interested in it.

I am curious why you think this year's Cajuns would have been a poor choice for basing GP points on class placement. All of the classes were well represented in both numbers and quality of shooter. Even Open Piston had 4 shooters. To me, Cajuns is a good example of why class-based GP points would work better then the current or previous systems. A potential issue I could see would be having a bunch of people in each class with 300 points at the end of the year. My ideal solution would be to use your score at Nationals as the tie breaker, but I've already seen how unpopular the idea of the National Championship having any real meaning is. So we could expand the GP to use the top 5 scores. That would encourage participation in GPs, which I assume is the point of having a GP system. Or we could use a different tie-breaker, like off-hand performance or something (my preference would be shooter height).

 

[Scotchmo]

scotton,

When the AAFTA GP rules were formalized and added to the rule book in 2015, it was decided that scores from 15 shooters would be a sufficient talent pool from which to gauge the course difficulty. Otherwise the match would not qualify for the GP. Even though it doesn’t matter under the new system, the 15 competitor minimum was retained.

The Cajuns had good turnout, but the Open PCP class did not have 15 shooters. Open PCP could not qualify as a GP match on their own.

Many of the once Open PCP shooters are now in WFTF. And anyone shooting WFTF is also compatible with Open, if they chose to check that box. The fact that even with the 12fpe restriction, they outscored the Open PCP shooters is telling of the current state of the Open Division. As it is, the Open Division hit rates were lower, so they deserved less match points and less GP points. That’s how it’s always been and I believe that’s how it should continue to be.

You might believe differently, and that’s fine.

Note: the Open PCP ranks might rebound some after the WFTF world match, as some temporary WFTF shooters return to their origins. I know of a few from both Hunter and Open.

In the present day Open PCP, 99 GP points is good.

 

[Airgunoregon]

I'm absolutely one of those that thinks GP points should be based on performance in class. For years, AAFTA has been telling us that Hunter class is not competing against Open class is not competing against WFTF. But the GP system was setup to create competition (and crying) between the classes. So they "fixed" it by making the GP points based on match difficulty, which has created a whole new set of issues. I've outlined how I think the GP points system should work a few times, I won't re-hash it since no one seems interested in it.

I am curious why you think this year's Cajuns would have been a poor choice for basing GP points on class placement. All of the classes were well represented in both numbers and quality of shooter. Even Open Piston had 4 shooters. To me, Cajuns is a good example of why class-based GP points would work better then the current or previous systems. A potential issue I could see would be having a bunch of people in each class with 300 points at the end of the year. My ideal solution would be to use your score at Nationals as the tie breaker, but I've already seen how unpopular the idea of the National Championship having any real meaning is. So we could expand the GP to use the top 5 scores. That would encourage participation in GPs, which I assume is the point of having a GP system. Or we could use a different tie-breaker, like off-hand performance or something (my preference would be shooter height).

The main problem I see with a "by the class" GP is what Scott also is seeing. There isn't enough competitors in each class at even the largest GPs let alone one with the minimum number of 15 attending. That's why I propose a compromise of combining ALL PCP classes at a GP and ALL Piston classes with each of those subgroups high score getting 100%.

What's wrong with that?

 

[Scotchmo]

The main problem I see with a "by the class" GP is what Scott also is seeing. There isn't enough competitors in each class at even the largest GPs let alone one with the minimum number of 15 attending. That's why I propose a compromise of combining ALL PCP classes at a GP and ALL Piston classes with each of those subgroups high score getting 100%.

What's wrong with that?

There’s not enough piston shooters for that to work well under the old system. It would work, just not fair across the board. I don’t see any piston shooters complaining, so why propose it?

 

[shootermeb]

You might be able to split such that open PCP and hunter PCP are one score setting division and all the others are a separate score setting division (WFTF, open piston, and hunter piston). This is basically splitting on 20fpe vs 12 fpe. I don't think there are many hunter piston shooters shooting a piston gun near 20fpe, and if they are, I am not sure it's an advantage.

 

[Franklink]

You might be able to split such that open PCP and hunter PCP are one score setting division and all the others are a separate score setting division (WFTF, open piston, and hunter piston). This is basically splitting on 20fpe vs 12 fpe. I don't think there are many hunter piston shooters shooting a piston gun near 20fpe, and if they are, I am not sure it's an advantage.

This sounds familiar. Lol. Seems common sense to me to have a division line between sub20 and sub12fpe. I realize this is in reference to GP points, but it's at least a step in the right direction towards some logic/minimizing all the divisions with 1, 2, 3 shooters in each. 15 shooters at a typical monthly match and 7 possible classes/divisions is simply ridiculous.