American Creedmoor Cup / Regional Creedmoor

Jim Kidwell · Post by **Jim Kidwell** » Tue Mar 22, 2011 9:59 am

Steve & Keith,

The scoring system sounds great. The scorer can also monitor the number of rounds that are exposed and monitor crossfires more closely. I cannot remember how many times when running the line, mysterious holes appeared in a target, but "no one" shot it. LOL

This should really make the Match Directors job much easier and give him a feeling that the scoring is fair for all. I will definitely be using it it at all future BPTR matches with or without NRA approval, because it is the right thing to do.

Thanks Keith for the idea and Steve for validating it. Good Stuff.........................Jim

Brent · Post by **Brent** » Tue Mar 22, 2011 10:02 am

Steve Rhoades wrote:Brent,
HUH???

Back at ya - huh to what?

Oregon Bill · Post by **Oregon Bill** » Tue Mar 22, 2011 10:02 am

Steve: Thanks for sharing those details of Mr. Mate's equipment. Is there any chance we will see some photo support of this thread?
Bill

Tasmanian Rebel · Post by **Tasmanian Rebel** » Tue Mar 22, 2011 10:10 am

I also forgot to thank Steve for incorporating these somewhat radical changes to the old system. It takes a match director with a lot of confidence in their ability to run a match to try something like this. We were pretty sure it would work great but you just never know until it actually happens to see if it works.
Keith Lay

Steve Rhoades · Post by **Steve Rhoades** » Tue Mar 22, 2011 10:14 am

Bill,
I have a limited amount of pictures I'll post on www.arizonasharpshooters.com along with the results.
Should be up in a couple of days.
Brent,
What does three relays and 15 shots have to do with the scoring method?
Steve R.
AZ.

Brent · Post by **Brent** » Tue Mar 22, 2011 10:28 am

Your scoring method, as I see it, requires 4 relays. One shooter, one spotter, one scorer, one target puller. And 4 relays at 15 shots per relay is probably too long to work. If the spotter and scorer are combined as they often are, then there could be 3 relays, allowing more time for doing what we like to do best, pulling triggers.

But I'm just blowin' smoke in the direction of Raton. I don't expect it to catch on, although I do feel that the National Creedmore Championship should be decided on the basis of 90 shots for score instead of the current 60. But that's just me.

Brent

Steve Rhoades · Post by **Steve Rhoades** » Tue Mar 22, 2011 10:45 am

Brent,
That's sorta how the Cup works but it takes more targets for three relays and having a partner helping with the wind calls would be eliminated. Having a shooting partner is what makes BPCR special!
The way we did it retains the same pairing for the shooters but only one of the other pair on the target goes to the pit to pull. The other one of that pair stays on the shooting line and scores for those shooting. That allows an unbiased scorer, relieves one of the shooters from having to score, allows the scorer to observe other shooters spotting methods and eliminates "creative scoring" by the pair shooting.
It's has all the earmarks of a win-win situation.
As I told the few who questioned this method, "don't just say you don't like it, offer suggestions".
Steve R.
AZ

Brent · Post by **Brent** » Tue Mar 22, 2011 10:50 am

Steve,
I like your method a lot over the current 4-relay situation at Raton. I just like shooting more shots - at Raton. There are no shortages of target positions, so that's not a problem and guys can partner up in 3-man teams instead of 2-man teams (e.g., Lodi). But like I said, I'm just barking at the moon.

Steve Rhoades · Post by **Steve Rhoades** » Tue Mar 22, 2011 10:59 am

Brent,
For me, at Ben Avery in March, shooting more shots isn't pratical as we are now finishing the match around 4:00 in the afternoon.
Shooting earlier or later creates lighting problems.
Also if you had to pay for and make the additional targets you would understand my reluctance in that area!
Steve R.
AZ

Brent · Post by **Brent** » Tue Mar 22, 2011 11:04 am

I understand about the making of targets and cost. But the time thing would be no problem.

Steve Rhoades · Post by **Steve Rhoades** » Tue Mar 22, 2011 11:13 am

Brent,
You're correct on the time; 3-relays at 30 minutes each is shorter than 2-relays at 1 hour each.
The problem that would not be eliminated is the one we are trying to solve, which is having shooters using "creative scoring methods" for their team mates!
Steve R.
AZ.

Brent · Post by **Brent** » Tue Mar 22, 2011 11:17 am

Yes, I agree about "creative scoring' (So PC-speak!

). But a 3-man team is marginally harder to corrupt than a 2-man team so there is a little gain even at that.

Anyway, I didn't know that scoring was a big problem, and so it seems to be an okay trade off (to me) in exchange for more shots for score. Trade offs are the way of life, and that's how I would play this one. But for the nationals, it would be EVEN BETTER, to have a dedicated score keeper at each shooting station just like in the BPCR Nationals. Of course, that costs money (another trade off). I'm just looking for a way to get more support for a 90-shot national championship.

Steve Rhoades · Post by **Steve Rhoades** » Tue Mar 22, 2011 11:27 am

Brent,
Shooting 5 days in a row last week was more than enough for me.

Tasmanian Rebel · Post by **Tasmanian Rebel** » Tue Mar 22, 2011 12:10 pm

Another guy I would like to mention is Richard Wood(Woody). I was working on this scoring system last year with trying to make it fairer, easier, and simpler and coming up zeros. The more I worked with it the more convoluted it seemed to get. Woody was one of the many shooters I consulted and he suggested doing what the highpower guys do-damn, didn't think of that! The only kind of competition I had ever shot is BP events and that was only 7 yrs ago-starting in 2004 so I wasn't aware what the other disciplines were doing. I incorporated a LOT of what he suggested into the scoring system. I told Steve several months ago if there was alot of bitching and moaning about this I/he could always "blame it on Woody!"

. The rules committee wanted to put all rule changes on hold for economic reasons reportedly but also said we didn't neccessarly need any rule changes to incorporate this scoring method. Also want to commend Lee Shaver for the work he did on that committee. Lee probably heard most bitching and moaning from the BP crowd but he did alot of scut work behind the scenes that went largely unrecognized by most of us I think and next time you see Lee you need to thank him.
Keith Lay

Brent · Post by **Brent** » Tue Mar 22, 2011 12:34 pm

Steve Rhoades wrote:Brent,
Shooting 5 days in a row last week was more than enough for me.

Well, yes, you got to have that. But you had 2 matches in addition to a practice day. I understand.