I am not trying to make the team, as my results are not worthy I feel. (yet)
My questions are, how do we make sure the best of the best is sent each year to represent USA? How are team selections made?
How are they funded by our membership fees? What fees do they have to pay out of pocket?
In 2021 if we do host the worlds how many shooters are we allowed?
I bring this up to shine light on a subject that I hear at every large match. But never get an answer to.
It has been said you either have to know someone and / or pay your own way. If this is the case it is wrong.
I will suggest that starting this year we send only our best shooters. Say we take a look at the GP scores for top 6 or we hold the Nationals before the Worlds. Placing in the top 3 of WFTF classes wins you a spot on the team.
Sponsors from the industries should be covering fees for top shooters. Not employees, I won't use names but you companies know who you are.
Nothing personal against anyone but if you are not a top shooter you should not be going to the worlds.
This is the last published info on the selection process that I'm aware of:
https://aafta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=28&t=286
You might want to contact Greg Sauve directly if you have other question about that process.
As far as numbers for 2021 it's too early to know. It's barely out of the gate on planning.
This was sent to us by Greg,
"For all WFTF'ers,
This is the criteria that are presently being used to qualify Team USA members for World's participation. It is criteria based, so if a shooter meets criteria #1 he/she is qualified, then those that meet criteria #2, and so on. In the case of a tie, the shooter meeting the criteria most recently would qualify first. The shooter must shoot in WFTF to qualify (exception, committee selection).
At present, there are 8 PCP spots and 6 Springer spots. That could be decreased as we now have 40 countries in the WFTF and have been adding about 2 per year.
1. Top 10 in one of last 4 Worlds
2. Top 5 in one of last 3 US Nationals
3. Top 20 *last 3 Worlds
4. Top 10 *last 3 Nationals
5. Committee selection (a committee appointed by AAFTA may select a shooter who does not qualify under the above criteria, based on past performance, experience, or success in a related division)
6. Top 20 finish *last 4 Worlds
7. Top10 finish *last 3 US Nationals
8. Top 5 in *last 2 US Grand Prix finals
9. Committee selection
10. Top 30 finish *last 4 Worlds
11. Top 15 *last 3 US Nationals
12. Top 10 *last 3 Grand Prix finals
13. Top 40 *last 3 Worlds
14. Top 20 *last 4 US Nationals
15. Top 15 last 4 Grand Prix finals = one of
Greg"
People/ companies aren't lining up to throw money at an airgun team. The fact that a Pyramyd Air was generous to help with team uniforms was very much welcomed in my opinion.
I did accept that this was going to be on my dime. Between flight, rental car, food, and hotel it cost about what a 6 day vacation to Europe should. It's a hobby, not a career. If someone wants to help I'd be interested.
Maybe now that we have had some gold brought home a few other companies would be interested if the teams would sport hats, or have iron on adverts for them on our shooting attire or uniforms.
"Nothing personal against anyone but if you are not a top shooter you should not be going to the worlds."
A lot of top US shooters don't have the time/ means to travel to a worlds event. That's why we have a criteria set by AAFTA for choosing team members. I was really only able to be a part of the team because a team member dropped out and being recommend by a team member. I was signed up as an individual, and crossed my fingers that I'd make it on the team. From what I heard AAFTA helps support the team by covering some of the costs, but I was already paid up as an individual and didn't pursue any type of reimbursement.
I believe anyone should be able to attend worlds, not everyone is cut out for the team but like the criteria shows, it is not a simple task. If a spot on the team opens, and someone shows interest then I see no problem making exceptions.
Hope some of this info helps brother man!
Cam
Thank you for the info gentlemen.
I would make the argument that #2 should be GP scores. It is just an opinion, the Nationals being a weekend event. Any one person could have a good day / weekend if you will. And win or place in that slot, the GP score shows consistency.
Again nothing personal against any of the shooters from any of the years I have looked back on. But should there be a year hold on selection for the next Worlds if you do not perform? The loss of equipment being one of a few exceptions. Unless you can prove your equipment failed, it was a bad performance and should not be rewarded with another attempt. The next top 5 shooters should get a chance to make the trip.
The BOG would have to decide on what a cutoff would be. I feel it should be if you do not make the top 20. Or maybe by percentage.
Other than that I agree with the selections.
"At present, there are 8 PCP spots and 6 Springer spots. That could be decreased as we now have 40 countries in the WFTF and have been adding about 2 per year."
This makes me feel like the worlds team should get love from sponsors like NRA and such. If the higher uppers go through the proper channels there will be supporters. Need to get team USA springer to do a tour lol sorry Cam.
Again thank you for the info.
Jacob,
So far we have not had to use the selection criteria to determine who can go or not go to Worlds. Everyone who has signed up has been able to go each year, including this year. The criteria does decide who's scores count for the team competition.
The reason the GP's don't count higher is that the GP's are varied in difficulty and participation. Some have 3-5 shooters in WFTF, some have 35 shooters. The way that percentages are assigned if you shoot in a GP that has a stand out hunter or open shooter your WFTF GP percentage is based on that score. So you may win WFTF but only score 90%, while another shooter wins WFTF in a GP that doesn't have the highly competitive open and hunter shooters. That shooter could get 100%. Also, some parts of the country have multiple GP's, while others have to travel extensively to get to just one. Nationals is a straight "head to head" competition that has most of the shooters, and to score at Worlds, you must be really on your game.
There are 35 countries participating in Worlds 2019 in England. England has 450 spots for shooters. They divided the spots by the number of countries, with the host country getting double. Each country received 11 spots for round 1 of registration, but only 11 countries paid for all 11. For registration round 2 the 11 countries that paid for all spots received 16 more spots. Those that pay for those will receive an allotment of the spots left for round 3. Bottom line, all 27 USA shooters who indicated an interest in attending Worlds can do so. We will have additional spots available for round 3, but have no one interested at this point. The selection criteria will only determine who's scores count for the team competition.
Thanks for the interest and input into the process, it's new and not perfect and I expect it will be tweaked some along the way.
Greg Sauve, WFTF USA RGB rep
Greg, Excellent explanation! I was told by a U.S WFTF competitor that a couple years ago it cost him about $3500 to attend a world game. That's a big hunk of change for the average FT shooter. How much does out AFFTA org assist in this cause? I know it can't be much because they don't take in that much. Any plans for AFFTA to attempt to get sponsors to help our the US qualified competitors that attend, or would that be on the individual competitor?
Greg,
As you said, it looks like any FT shooter from the USA that expresses an interest (and has the time and financial resources) can have a spot at the next World WFTF match. So the selection criteria is not so important at this time. If there were more people that wanted to go, then the selection process should change.
In the Worlds selection criteria, items 7 and 9 are repeats of items 4 and 5, so those items could be removed. Also, once you get to item 5, the remaining items (6 through 10) should not even be there. If there were enough people actually vying for spots, and item 5 were employed, it ends up looking like favoritism to those that meet the subsequent criteria.
As far as the GP standings as a qualifying criteria, you said:
“...So you may win WFTF but only score 90%, while another shooter wins WFTF in a GP that doesn't have the highly competitive open and hunter shooters. That shooter could get 100%. ...”
A GP match usually attracts the best shooters in a region. Scores among top national shooters are about the same in all Divisions. The top score sets the standard for a GP match. If the WFTF shooter beats the best in the field at a GP match, why does it matter which Division those OTHER shooters chose to shoot in?
“...Also, some parts of the country have multiple GP's, while others have to travel extensively to get to just one. ...”
That problem is even more pronounced for the National match.
Looking at the WFTF shooters performances, the top GP standing each year shows a strong correlation to performance at the Worlds, at least as much correlation as the National match shows. The piston team won the worlds this year. If the team were based solely on National match performance in the last few years, that team would not have existed. Based solely on GP performance, they would all have been able to attend.
The “committee” should try to add the AAFTA GP as at least one of the main qualifying criteria. Before the worlds match comes to the USA.
For World match qualification, AAFTA uses the World match as the main qualifier. Were USA teams to become very successful, that criteria has the potential to become a closed loop.
I think that England uses it's own GP as the only criteria for their selection.
Scott
Thanks for the input! You seem to have a great eye for these things.
You are correct on the criteria redundancy. I believe I erroneously sent a draft to the shooters, I will fix it.
The committee selection was put in to allow selection of top Lady, Junior, or Veteran shooters who have a chance at placing at Worlds. Or for the special circumstance such as a shooter who is receiving a WFTF Service Award etc.
As for the GP’s, percentages are awarded to shooters based on their score as compared to the match high score regardless of class. For example,shooter A scores 50/60 and wins WFTF and shooter B scores 55/60 to win Open and have match high score. Under the present system the 55 is considered 100% and all other scores from all classes are calculated from that. So shooter B’s 50, which won WFTF, gets a 90.9%. Shooters who attend a GP with a couple of “heavy hitters “ in Open or Hunter (usually the bigger matches) will have lower percentages than those who went to a GP where those few names did not participate ( generally smaller, more local GP’s. ) We should probably take a look at this system, but need an alternative.
In England there are only two classes, PCP and Spring, and they also must attend certain qualifying shoots. Some countries use one shoot for qualification.
I understand your concern about using Worlds results for Worlds qualifications becoming a “closed loop” but we have had only a few shooters over the years make top 10 or 20 or even 40.
Finally, if we manage to pull off hosting Worlds in the US, I believe all interested US shooters will be able to participate.
Greg
Here is a link to the NRA sponsor info and stuff. https://competitions.nra.org/
I am not sure how we would go about it. Or what if any control of competitions and stuff they would want. This would cater to a centrally located Nationals and level playing field for all.
As for the GP scores two suggestions. Percentages are done by the highest score in WFTF for springer and pcp. Open, Hunter, freestyle or any of the other groups by high score in a separate bracket.
I know this would be hard at most if not all matches. Because the attendance of each class varies so much. And I understand the majority of people in the USA shoot in Hunter or Open. This is an issue of us trying to change the game to what we like. Or disabilities forcing shooters to choose a position they are able to shoot in.
So what should be our best selection tool again in my opinion. (GP) scores are hindered by high scores in hunter and open classes.
Bare with me! Might I suggest we lower all power levels to 12 ft lbs. in competition. Take restrictions off scopes and level the playing field. Having shot off of a bucket with sticks, and a bum bag with a hamster. I can say shooting from sticks is not easier. I would even say shooting up hill is tougher from sticks and bucket.
A 20 ft lb gun can knock down a target with a split at 100y. It is not fair to have a normalized scoring system with such an unfair advantage.
If I am correct the first worlds match was between USA and England? The furthest distance was 35y and guns were way far behind what they are now. Progression is a beautiful thing but we should have a limit on things. The world has picked 12 ft lbs as the limit for competition. So who are we to try and change the game?
Like where this discussion is going and happy it has been cordial.
You do not need to worry about changing the rules. Shoot better and you'll be fine.
Assuming you mean rules for selection criteria. Currently, there is no worry as anyone is welcome. That may not always be the case. When/if that time comes, the selection criteria should be such that it is open to the best new shooters, and does not become an exclusive club that requires a legacy to enter.
Greg,
You said:
"Shooters who attend a GP with a couple of “heavy hitters “ in Open or Hunter (usually the bigger matches) will have lower percentages than those who went to a GP where those few names did not participate..."
There is a minimum standard for GP participation (15 competitors), and looking at this last year, almost all of them had one or two past National champions in attendance, and even more top 5 from the three Divisions. That's enough heavy hitters to set a reasonable scoring standard at each match. I don't see the problem matches that you describe. Also remember that the GP is a series, not just one match. You'll usually need to shoot consistently well at multiple GP matches in order to make it into the top three in the GP series.
"I understand your concern about using Worlds results for Worlds qualifications becoming a “closed loop” but we have had only a few shooters over the years make top 10 or 20 or even 40."
Just this years piston team had 3 in the top ten. That's already half the available piston team spots. It's certainly possible that three more USA piston shooters could make the top ten at a Worlds match. That would effectively lock up all piston team spots making them only available to people that already shot in the worlds match.
I did a little more research on England's criteria. Besides the GP standings, anyone that makes the top 3 in the prior Worlds match is automatically offered a team spot. Even if that were to happen, it always leaves spots open for new blood to qualify.
All stuff to think about should the BOG decide to formalize any selection criteria.
"...
As for the GP scores two suggestions. Percentages are done by the highest score in WFTF for springer and pcp. Open, Hunter, freestyle or any of the other groups by high score in a separate bracket.
..."
We have GP matches where only two or three are in WFTF. There is often not enough WFTF competitors to set a reasonable scoring standard (same for piston). Drawing on all Divisions (Hunter/Open/WFTF) is a good way to have reasonable numbers.
I don't buy the argument that the "heavy hitters" in Hunter and Open set too high a standard for WFTF shooters. They are shooting the same course and the scores are usually close enough. Even when a Hunter or Open shooters sets the high match score, the competition for World spots would still only be the other WFTF shooters.
You do not need to worry about changing the rules. Shoot better and you'll be fine.
Thank you for the tip. Can you tell me a few to make my scores better?
Buy more pellets. When I find pellets that work I usually buy an entire Lot number which is usually 50 tins at a time. I specified to Pyramyd Air that I want all the same Lot number. I've even asked Tyler to make sure that happens. And I often do this multiple times a year. Then comes the most important part of the entire process. Use them all (in the same gun) in a short period of time. Hit every match you possibly can between the beginning of the season And the start of the Worlds. I went to a match every single weekend this year prior to the world's to be prepared. There is nothing like practice during competition. So you need to practice and also compete. I don't get stressed out at competitions anymore because I've been to so many. I've been in shoot offs at Nationals and at Worlds multiple times. I've shot off against national champions and World Place finishers . There's nothing like constructive experience.
Jacob;
I do not know ANYTHING about you, nor have you let us know anything that would be relevant to the discussion, so forgive me if I write down some obvious or trivial things, they come out not of condescension, but out of MY self declared ignorance of your abilities/experience/character.
Having clarified that, I'll make some comments:
1.- Being a good shot is only PART of what it takes to perform well/medium well at a large Match. There are exceptions, mostly in the teenage bracket that can go into a World's and be so oblivious about the competition itself that they perform very well, like the WFTF PCP Champion in New Zealand. MOST other shooters need a lot of CONSTRUCTIVE experience (as Ray told you above) to really perform even to their normal standards. I've seen more than a few top shooters, from many countries, "melt" at a World's. Partly the reason is that the World's usually entails a long flight, a foreign language, living in a hotel off a suitcase, eating unusual food and keeping unusual hours. Just consider that Physiologists recommend one DAY of adjustment for every hour of time zone change. So, going to New Zealand (as an example) needs an 18 day adjustment period PRIOR to the match. England should be allowed 5 days of adjustment. ¿Are there ways around this? yes, but not really feasible for most of us. On top, the FORMAT is different. I've heard of a few US shooters loose a point (or two) at their first World's because habit makes them shoot TWICE the same target, OR shoot out of order (WFTC's are shot BY THE NUMBER, not left to right, or near to far). The shooting order in a squad (sometimes fixed, some times cycling), the long distances involved in MOST shots (as opposed to tiny kill zones near/up close). Different rules and, above all, different Marshalling practices (Warnings, then Points Off), makes for an interesting experience. Add to that the THREE day aspect where you MAY be a good ONE day shot, you could even shoot well the second day, if you melt on the third, it's a disaster, you really need a special kind of mental stamina to just keep on going to the best of your abilities after two days of punishment (and believe me the MD's WILL offer you a punishing challenge on EVERY lane). SO, my point is that, paraphrasing some financial booklets: Past performances are no guarantee of future yields. Even so, AAFTA has defined some criteria and we are all subject to them.
¿Do I agree with AAFTA criteria? Hell No! LOL! For example, we do agree that the GP should be among the DOMINANT criteria to be used, but we disagree on what a GP is. MOST countries that HAVE a GP scheme, have a number of matches that are COMPULSORY within the GP (usually one by region). And that sets the tone for all other GP matches. Under our current regime, some regions have enough GP Matches that the travel aspect is severely curtailed and the STYLE of the matches becomes more homogeneous, in detriment of the WFTF style of matches.
¿Should we all start shooting at sub 12 ft-lbs? NO. Pushing the limits of technology is one of the more interesting aspects of FT and setting the power limit to 12 ft-lbs would curtail that aspect.
¿Should we all shoot the WFTF STYLE of matches with only 3 KZ sizes (3/4", 1", and 1 1/2") and a lot of longer ranges? YES. There is enough diversity in just using those hole sizes to make everyone happy and still prevent the courses from being cleaned. And just to give you a great example: Up to a few years ago, what is now the Crosman All American FT Championships was shot with ALL targets at full size (1.5"/40 mms). NOBODY ever came even close to cleaning the course. And that was using just one KZ size, using three well. . . you can imagine! Another good example was Poland, this year. The average distance was not so long, but the positioning of the targets and the use of the smaller KZ's for forced position targets at the legal limit of distance, created a very tough course. In the rest of the world, our difficulty calculating system has very little meaning.
2.- The link you posted to the "NRA Sponsoring" is not really about sponsoring SHOOTERS to go elsewhere to shoot. It is about those shoots WITHIN the USA where part of the costs of organizing and running the shoot is borne by the NRA. In order to have a shoot fall into that category, the "modality/style/rules" of the shoot has to be an NRA recognized specialty. FT is NOT one of them. Perhaps you were thinking more of "Shooting USA" which is an organization dedicated to helping the shooters of OLYMPIC specialties train, prepare, and travel to the OLYMPIC games. Again, FT is not one of them. There HAVE been SOME approaches to manufacturers to get some financial help, but then there are "ties" between the manufacturer and the shooter. Undoubtedly, as FT progresses, there will be a "professionalization" of the sport and we will see MUCH more than just jackets, shirts and hats (like Air Arms and others). Where will it end? I don't know, and let me give you one more difference between the USA and some other countries: SOME countries (not the majority, or even many by any stretch of the imagination) DO give the shooters in the Team a financial "help". In a FEW cases, that "help" covers uniforms, flight, hotel, meals, local transportation (car rental), and includes a person to "manage" the Team, freeing the shooters from a number of chores. Do note that I am saying "countries" not "governments".
Will Team USA ever achieve that level of sponsorship? I doubt it VERY much. To achieve that level of sponsorship the shooters need to give up some of their independence. A properly sponsored Team: TRAINS together, TRAVELS together, LODGES together. Has specialists supporting the Team but, above all, those Teams have true "Captains" that, most of the time ,do not shoot but are very alert to anything that can affect the score of the shooters. I've seen other countries' Captains argue with Marshalls to the point of reversing a penalty, or getting a piece of gear approved. And with the current state of affairs where the PCP's shoot mostly in the mornings and the springers shoot mostly in the evening, the Captain has a 14 to 16 hour day of hard work for every day of the competition.
Team USA is VERY thankful to the AAFTA for fronting/re-imbursing the entry fees (depending on the procedures established by the host country) , we are also VERY grateful to Pyramyd Air for all that they do, not only for the sport in general, but also for the Team in specific (they sponsor part of the uniforms). Team USA has received in the past additional partial sponsorships from LL Bean, The Flag Shirt Company and JSB. If you add the value of those sponsorships, you might end up with about $400, out of a total needed expenditure of about $3-4,000, all-in, you still need to come up with a fair chunk of cash.
And last, but not least, not everyone has the 1.5-3 weeks needed to get in on one of these ventures.
3.- No human endeavour is perfect. IMHO, FT comes close because the shooters are a special breed. Yes you find the occasional "bad apple" here and in all other countries as well as in the WFTC's. But the vast majority of FT shooters are really good persons. SO, we'll take it one day at a time, one WFTC's at a time, we'll work internally to improve the understanding and communication between ourselves and we will try to slowly start creating that "Team" spirit that is what, in the end, not only clinches the Team medals, but also makes the sport grow because the younger generation sees a group of people doing something that is not only fun, but also rewarding.
My conclusion is that until FT grows to the point where you can REALLY pick shooters from a LARGE pool of GOOD shooters and then decide who among all of them has the best chances of performing well in the WFTC's, the system we have is "good enough".
Where MOST improvement can come, is in getting more sponsors lined up, and/or in participating on the organization of matches that are designed specifically as training-grounds for WFTC's (see Keith Knoblauch/Mike Niksch efforts with the support of some very worthwhile MD's).
If YOU really want to get into this, AAFTA is collecting volunteers for the organization of the WFTC's in the USA in 2021, maybe you can put down your name as "Sponsor promoter"? Write to bog@aafta.org
Keep well and shoot straight!
HM
-
Hector, all good info, but is this correct?:
"(WFTC's are shot BY THE NUMBER, not left to right, or near to far)"
I know they don't always follow their own rules, but I would expect that targets are supposed to be by the number AND arranged left to right. At least that is what their course rules imply.
From the WFTF Core Rules:
2.5.4 All targets shall be clearly numbered (per course from left to right) at the target and the firing line
Scott;
While the rules are correct, and the order is fairly recent, once a target is laid out, and shot for the first time, it stays there for the three days, so if inadvertently the order is reversed, or if the numbers are wrongly placed, YOU still need to follow the numbers.
Also if the targets are up in the cliff, it is hard to tell what is right or left.
Lastly, do remember that there are THREE courses on the same real estate, so a number and a target may be visible from more than one lane, creating confusions.
😉
As any good Boy Scout, "Be Prepared".
HM
Scott;
While the rules are correct, and the order is fairly recent, once a target is laid out, and shot for the first time, it stays there for the three days, so if inadvertently the order is reversed, or if the numbers are wrongly placed, YOU still need to follow the numbers.
Also if the targets are up in the cliff, it is hard to tell what is right or left.
Lastly, do remember that there are THREE courses on the same real estate, so a number and a target may be visible from more than one lane, creating confusions.
😉
As any good Boy Scout, "Be Prepared".
HM
Good advice as I was recently looking at the Poland course details and noticed that many the course setting "rules" are not really rules:
2.5.1
Targets (Max distance)
Positional targets 40mm - 40 metres
2.6.1
The total number of targets with reduced diameter hit zones may not exceed 25% (12 targets) of the total targets on a 50 target course.
I see a kneeling shot at 48 meters (not 40 meters) and I count 17 reduced targets (not 12).
Edit: looking deeper, that kneeling target may actually have been 38m but was listed incorrectly as a 48m. But there were definitely more than 12 reduced targets. If they had something like our AAFTA spreadsheet, those mistakes would be automatically flagged for correction.
From the WFTF Core Rules:
2.5.4 All targets shall be clearly numbered (per course from left to right) at the target and the firing line
I am relatively sure that the left to right refers to the movement of shooters between lanes. On the lane you shot the lower number target first and higher number target second, regardless of the distance or placement left to right. When you are finished in a lane, you always move right to the next lane.
That is the way I set my WFTF type courses up.
Tim
From the WFTF Core Rules:
2.5.4 All targets shall be clearly numbered (per course from left to right) at the target and the firing line
I am relatively sure that the left to right refers to the movement of shooters between lanes. On the lane you shot the lower number target first and higher number target second, regardless of the distance or placement left to right. When you are finished in a lane, you always move right to the next lane.
That is the way I set my WFTF type courses up.
Tim
Obviously, the targets are shot in numerical order. When I watched videos from Wales, and looked at pictures from Poland, I did NOT see a single lane where the targets were arranged right-to-left. The targets are always left-to-right. As far as I'm concerned, that's what the rules say, and that's how they intended them to be. I signed up for the course-setting and course-marshaling seminars at the England WFTF Worlds so hopefully, I'll learn more.
Targets weren't left to right, it was definitely numerical.
It certainly would have been nice to have you with us in Poland Scott, your talent for rule retaining and knowledge is always beneficial.
From my calculations just by collecting the top scores from all three courses the black course was harder than the white and blue. Black was hardest, white was the middle and the blue was the easiest just based on the top piston scores. Out of the top ten piston shooters there were only two who had shot the black course.
I'm almost done converting the course/ target info over to troyer. So far I have the white and black done, I only used the inline/ decline multiplier on targets that were greater than 10°.
White: 35.52 T
Black: 35.39 T
The white and black were the only two courses I shot. They are extremely close as far as Troyer rating, but the black had 17 reducers and the white had 15. The total combined angles for the white course added up to 115° and the black added up to 190°. Maybe black seemed harder due to more incline shots.
It's 12:03am Friday the 16th here in Queenstown, NZ. Can't seem to get the airguns out of my mind while on vacation haha. I guess I'm in the future.
Message from the future, no new sponsors for the airgun team. Dangit! Lol
Finished blue.
35.87T, apparently I was 100% Incorrect. Blue course average was the most difficult, then white, then black. All three were within .48 troyer. I think the designer did a very consistent average course difficulty.
Blue: 35.87t
13 reducers
9-25Mtr : 7 targets
26-40Mtr : 15 targets
41-50Mtr: 28 targets
9 targets at an angle totaling 161°
6 kneeling/ 4 standing
White: 35.52T
15 reducers
9-25Mtr : 6 targets
26-40Mtr: 18 targets
41-50Mtr: 26 targets
8 angled targets totalling 115°
6 standing/ 4 kneeling
Black: 35.39T
17 reducers
9-25Mtr: 12 targets
26-40Mtr: 14 targets
41-50Mtr: 24 targets
11 angled targets totalling 190°
6 kneeling/ 4 standing
Cam
Cameron,
Average Troyer is one comparison. But it's not the average targets that get missed very often. It's the difficult targets. The White course had about half as many "expert" targets, and consequently, a lower SD associated with it's average. Also the I think the Blue course had one free target which throws off the Troyer average and SD somewhat, and raises the average score slightly.
I know that the targets are shot in numerical order, but did you see a single lane where the targets were NOT also left-to-right?
Cameron,
Average Troyer is one comparison. But it's not the average targets that get missed very often. It's the difficult targets. The White course had about half as many "expert" targets, and consequently, a lower SD associated with it's average. Also the I think the Blue course had one free target which throws off the Troyer average and SD somewhat, and raises the average score slightly.
I know that the targets are shot in numerical order, but did you see a single lane where the targets were NOT also left-to-right?
I totally agree, averages are only averages. I wanted to put that together because I didn't see anyone else do it.
There were multiple lanes that weren't left to right, they kept you on your toes.
The best way would be to average the top scores for each and see what course had more hits.
Ten scores were collected starting from the top shooters from each course (piston).
White
39 39 39 42 37 36 33 31 32 34 = 362 (36.2 hit average)
Black
40 32 30 30 34 30 29 33 33 30 = 321 (32.1 average)
Blue
42 39 34 38 39 41 41 39 35 35 = 383 (38.3 average)
Cameron,
...
I know that the targets are shot in numerical order, but did you see a single lane where the targets were NOT also left-to-right?
..
There were multiple lanes that weren't left to right, they kept you on your toes.
..
Is there ANY evidence of that?
Looking at these videos from Wales, they always shot left-to-right. There are no lanes with targets arranged right-to-left.
From Poland, there are lots of pictures of targets arranged left-to-right:
I even see some that look to be almost in a straight line:
I can't find a single one that is obviously right-to-left. Can you?
I think you need to put away the analysis and work on how to shoot at Worlds, not how to fight it Scott.
I'm not fighting it. I want to learn it. And I hear/see too much conflicting info.
The comparison I was making on this issue is that both courses appeared to follow the left-right rule. Some people believe that has nothing to do with the rules.
The left-right "rule" appears to have been followed at both matches (Wales and Poland) . The left-right requirements of that particular rule only really matters to me if I am setting a course. There are some other rules that were obviously not followed (number of reducers for instance). Those other rules might actually affect a shooter.
As far as "work on how to shoot at the Worlds", for me that involves a full analysis of what to expect. I am doing that, and am already making changes to my setup to be more conducive to a course that is set to World rules (and England expectations). It's good to know which "rules" are really followed for course design/layout.
I looked at the Wales course as much as I could find. After reading the BFTA course setting guide, I would expect the England course to be closer to the Wales course as far as layout. I did not shoot at Wales, or at Poland, but I'm still going to compare them, for my own education.
Many people will say to just practice more. Until I determine a setup (including pellets) that I believe to be optimal for the expected course/conditions, more practice can be a waste time for me.
I think you need to put away the analysis and work on how to shoot at Worlds, not how to fight it Scott.
Scott just likes to have a full grasp of everything. It's better to know than to not. I certainly didn't know all of the rules while in Poland and luckily with Ray's help I was able to learn some on the fly and it really helped me.
Ray,
The average distance according to the posted course distances is 40.71 yards with 30% reducers.
I created a spreadsheet with a link below with all of the calculations.
2018 WFTC Poland Course Distances-Troyer-KZs
Regards,
Leo
For anyone interested in analysis, I too did a spreadsheet of Poland courses (AAFTA planner in ODS format). Here is a link:
http://www.scotthull.us/Field%20Target/WFTF2018/Planner25-Poland.ods
Cameron, what was the scope height that you used? I've been looking into optimal scope heights under various conditions.
I believe I'm at 2.3 or 2.4", it's been a good height for me. We use the same UTG dovetail/ picatinny adapter and I use the 1.5" Burris XTR Signature rings.
I also used a 2.3" scope height all of last year on my 12fpe piston gun. That is a little higher than I have run in the past but lower than most other WFTF shooters. I did a spreadsheet that integrates course data, and rifle data. It determines variance from zero measured over the whole course. By varying the scope height in the spreadsheet, the object was to minimize the variation from zero (clicks). Assuming that minimum variation is optimum for a particular course, I got this for the Poland courses:
White course – 3.6” optimal scope height
Blue course – 3.8” optimal cope height
Black course – 2.8” optimal scope height
Among the piston shooters, it looked like you had the 2nd highest score on the Black course. And on the White course 9th. Do you think that your relatively low scope height had anything to do with that?
FWIW: I've gone to higher rings for 2019. My scope is now at 2.6" high. I'll likely be testing out that and some other changes to my piston gun starting in December or January.
I think the flatter trajectory is beneficial of a taller scope height. But I think having your numbers be perfect is more important. I was extremely confident that my pellet was going to hit where my clicks were. I have considered trying he Burris extra high rings to bring me up to 2.6/2.7 but as a clicker I am not a fan over risking over rotation.
I don't think my scope height was the main contributor to me scoring higher on the black course than the white, I am unsure how many piston shooters shot black. I believe the shooting conditions were better on the day I shot black.
Are you clicking now?
Scott, your file has a password, What is it? Thanks for sharing it.
Scott A.
I did not create it so I don't know what the password is. Here is a link where I found the original:
http://www.aafta.org/Assets/resources/documents/Planner25.ods
I don't need a password to save it and enter data. Some things cannot be changed without a password.
Can you open the file and read it? Save it on your own computer and you should be able to change/enter most of the pertinent data.
I think the flatter trajectory is beneficial of a taller scope height. But I think having your numbers be perfect is more important. I was extremely confident that my pellet was going to hit where my clicks were. I have considered trying he Burris extra high rings to bring me up to 2.6/2.7 but as a clicker I am not a fan over risking over rotation.
I don't think my scope height was the main contributor to me scoring higher on the black course than the white, I am unsure how many piston shooters shot black. I believe the shooting conditions were better on the day I shot black.
Are you clicking now?
Ray Apelles does well at World matches and his scope looks to be 3 to 3.5" high. I saw Hans Apelles using a VERY high scope around 2012. I remember Ray using a lower scope prior to 2013. Ray if you are reading - What is your take on scope height for WFTF?
I tried clicking at one match. The scopes I have now are MOA/MOA for the reticle/turret, so the dope for clicking always matches the holdover. I can do either, but still prefer hold-over for most shots. I might try clicking for just positionals.
With my 2.6" high scope and 1/4moa turrets, I'm well under one turn at 10yards. If I went over 3" high, I would need more than a full turn.
If you are relying on scope height to get the pellet in I think you're missing the point more than missing the target. Range find correctly and click or hold correctly And the pellet path at the Target will be in the center of the Killzone. That is true weather the scope is 1 inch high or 7 inches high. if you are off by one yard It won't really matter much. If you are off by 3 yards then it will become a problem. I'm usually not off by more than one or two yards if I follow all of my range finding rules correctly. I do not have a choice in lowering my scope. If I lower my scope I cannot get to the scope. So I'm forced to have a high scope height when I would actually prefer it to be at least an inch lower than it actually is. It's currently at 3.4 in. and I shot Worlds at 10.5 ft lb. my new rule is to set all my guns up at 11 foot pounds instead of 11 and a half foot pounds. I almost got disqualified in Wales when all of the Spring Gun velocities went up on the first day in the rain. The extra half a foot pound is just plain not worth it. So from now on my goal is 11 ft lbs. And I don't care about the scope height. I care that my trajectory is correct and I range find correctly. And get a very Comfortable hold on the target. I think people are worrying way too much about scope height. there are other things that are way more important In order to compete successfully overseas.
Poland Worlds course Troyer difficulties from Cameron's post
White: 35.52 T
Black: 35.39 T
Blue: 35.87 T
Essentially completely equal courses to the untrained eye.
Based on Leo's spreadsheet
Black course 38.74 yards average
White course 41.23 yards average
Blue course 42.16 yards average
So we can see that the black course was shorter and that's why it was easier.
I never shot the black course. I only shot the white and blue.
I have been saying for quite a while now that the average Target yardage is what is important on a course. Not the apparent difficulty based on any system.
We need to be practicing on much longer courses to prepare for worlds. We need to be prepared for the wind. Preparing on Tiny killzone's up close only tells you that your trajectory is working, it will fail you at a World's course.
Ray, I agree with you about target distance being a key factor. We have switched all our courses away from smaller KZs closer to mostly all full size kill zones at greater distances. Our courses are set up like a worlds course would be. Ranging and Reading the wind is the key to success on our courses.... and adjusting for up and down hill angles. It really is a different shooting world than a normal AAFTA course.
But, as far as scope height is concerned, we have always gone for the lowest scope height possible and still load the gun and get a comfortable shooting position. The room for ranging error is lowered. That's just a basic fact of life. Sure it works fine if you have everything right, but there is more room for error when the scope is higher. About 2.25" is about as low as one can go with a 60 mm objective on a USFT. I wish I could get lower.
For Hunter class, we recommend smaller objective scopes and getting it to 1.5" if possible. Then every mil dot is in the kill zone for most shots. Room for ranging error is lowered a lot.
Wayne
Sounds good to me Scott. Though you may want to look into past BFTA Championships, EFTA and WAFTA championships as well to get a better idea of how the English are going to set up the course.
Not trying to be a smarta**, but I am at a bit of a loss seeing how the order that targets are shot affects how one practises. The part about choosing the right pellet etc. makes perfect sense as I am currently doing that also. If there are two targets on a lane and they have consecutive numbers on them, well....
...And the pellet path at the Target will be in the center of the Killzone. That is true weather the scope is 1 inch high or 7 inches high. if you are off by one yard It won't really matter much....
...I think people are worrying way too much about scope height. there are other things that are way more important In order to compete successfully overseas.
I have run the numbers and 1" vs 7" makes a significant difference. We get about a 10yard span for a line of sight tangency to the trajectory. Distance estimates are least critical in that range. A 1" scope puts that tangency at about 18 yards. A 7" scope puts it at about 45 yards. If I though most all targets were between 10-25 yards, I'd go as low as possible. If I thought most all targets were at 40-55 yards, I'd get a lot closer to 7". Hopefully not losing too many points on the few other targets.
A lucky coincidence that your 3.4" scope height is what I would have set as the optimal (based on clicks/holdovers) for the three courses at the Poland match. Obviously a good height for a gun dedicated to the WFTF world match. Maybe not ideal for a typical AAFTA GP or National match. I'm trying a compromise height of 2.6".
I'm not worrying about scope height. It's just one detail that I need to setup on my gun. About the "other things that are way more important" than scope height - I want to work on those as well.
...
I have been saying for quite a while now that the average Target yardage is what is important on a course. Not the apparent difficulty based on any system.
...
Ray, I think we have argued that point in the past.
What really makes a difficult course? It's not the average distance targets that cause most misses. It's not the average Troyer targets either. Not usually for the top shooters.
The targets with a high difficulty factor (>~ 40T?), and targets that are far (>~ 45m?) both make a course difficult. All three Poland courses had almost exactly the same far targets and same number of high Troyer targets. One noticeable difference was that the White and Blue courses had only (3) 15mm targets, while the Black course had (8) 15mm targets. But without seeing a hit rate for each target, no way to tell if that contributed to lower scores on Black. The "average" that best indicates difficulty is the average scores on a course. Among the piston shooters, the Black course had the lowest average scores on day1 and the lowest average scores on Day2. Based on the scores, I'd have to say that the Black course was more difficult than the other two.
Not trying to be a smarta**, but I am at a bit of a loss seeing how the order that targets are shot affects how one practises. The part about choosing the right pellet etc. makes perfect sense as I am currently doing that also. If there are two targets on a lane and they have consecutive numbers on them, well....
... then shoot them in numerical order. We don't use target numbers at most of our matches, but we run them left-right (same as WFTF). Practicing on courses where they specify near-far, far-near, or right-left is not good conditioning.
I guess I just feel that shooting targets in any specified order is good. Being mindful of the order is part of the game whether you are at the worlds or a club match. The world targets are numbered and I cannot think of a simpler way to shoot. Absolutely no guessing for which one is the closest or which one is more left or right.
Scott,
I personally felt the black course was more difficult.
A part of the reason it was more difficult was due to me shooting the black course during the evening match two full hours late. The sun was going down and it was extremely difficult to range and even find the targets.
The only two other USA piston shooters that shot black was Leo and Matt S. Leo shot black as his first course and I'm sure he could agree with me that it was getting dark.
Proof is in the pudding, if there were less average hits on a specific course and conditions were similar it might be more difficult, or the shooters that shot it had a bad day.
When I "talked" to Pawel G. about the layout published, he commented something like:
"Those were design numbers and the end layout was not exactly that one". There was, for a time, a note in that sense in the website, but I cannot find it anymore.
So, what was the final layout? I don't know, and I am sure neither does anyone else. LOL!
I do know that the Blue course seemed more difficult to me because the dark blue color chosen did not show your hits. Italy, where the color was first selected and used, used a LIGHT blue. Poland used a rather dark blue, and since we were shooting that course in the afternoon, it got to the point where it was difficult to see the KZ's themselves.
The white course had some targets that were in a gully and I had to take them kneeling because I could not see the target from my usual sitting position, still, white course was a little better for me, but we shot it in a hurry with Marshalls screaming at the top of their lungs to hurry, not the best situation. Skies were also darkening, foreboding sign of the impending storm that would pummel the PCP shooters in the afternoon.
In any case, whatever you think you may prepare for, the WFTC's will throw a curve ball to you that you didn't expect.
Flexibility and adaptability are as important as anything else in your battery of tricks and knowledge.
And knowledge of the rules doesn't pay too much either. If you need to discuss with a Marshall in the middle of the match you will not be as even keeled as if you hadn't. It WILL affect you. Marshalling, as much as the "courses" want to make as uniform as possible is a human activity and, as such, subject to all the vagaries of human nature.
In England, of all places, we need to be prepared to face the guys that think they invented the sport (though that is highly debatable) and therefore, own it.
Pride will be a factor, if not also prejudice.
It may or may not happen (hopefully it will NOT), but we need to go there with the mindset that matches are won with POINTS, not rules.
I am not against as much analysis as anyone wants to perform. Just be consciously aware that reality cannot be argued with.
My $0.02
Keep well and shoot straight!
HM
