Benchrest A radical idea for 100Y BR scoring.

[Centercut]

Have you questioned why all cards including qualifying cards aren’t used to determine the best overall BR shooter at RMAC, PAC, or EBR?

Currently the qualifying cards are used as a two day aggregate to select the top shooters from each group that shoot at the same time. Then they shoot a finals card (or two) to determine the winner, but the two card qualification aggregate cards are not used, since they are shot at various times and conditions.

Here’s a way to use those scores fairly to make it a three (or four) card championship.
Since the qual rounds are shot as separate relays, for example 20 shooters each at RMAC, why not compare each relay’s score to the others in the relay?

So for example, relay 1 has 20 shooters. Average score of top 5 scores is 220. Each shooter gets points based on his performances compared to the top 5 average. Shooter 6 has a 225, he gets 5 points. Shooter 13 has a 216, so he gets -4 points.
Each relay would have a +/- score for both qualification days.

The top 20 scores, regardless of relay number, would make it to the finals. However, in the finals, that score would carry over, and the same process would be used, except the finals +/- would be added to the qualification +/-, whether one or two card finals, to determine the winner and top shooters. Now you have a three day, three (or four) card competition, totally fair and eliminating weather luck.

You may be surprised at the results from previous competitions using this method. None of the previous RMAC winners would have won a three card competition scored in this manner.
But it is as fair as possible except having a 150 bench facility and everyone shooting at the same time.

 

[hameditor]

Have you questioned why all cards including qualifying cards aren’t used to determine the best overall BR shooter at RMAC, PAC, or EBR?

Currently the qualifying cards are used as a two day aggregate to select the top shooters from each group that shoot at the same time. Then they shoot a finals card (or two) to determine the winner, but the two card qualification aggregate cards are not used, since they are shot at various times and conditions.

Here’s a way to use those scores fairly to make it a three (or four) card championship.
Since the qual rounds are shot as separate relays, for example 20 shooters each at RMAC, why not compare each relay’s score to the others in the relay?

So for example, relay 1 has 20 shooters. Average score of top 5 scores is 220. Each shooter gets points based on his performances compared to the top 5 average. Shooter 6 has a 225, he gets 5 points. Shooter 13 has a 216, so he gets -4 points.
Each relay would have a +/- score for both qualification days.

The top 20 scores, regardless of relay number, would make it to the finals. However, in the finals, that score would carry over, and the same process would be used, except the finals +/- would be added to the qualification +/-, whether one or two card finals, to determine the winner and top shooters. Now you have a three day, three (or four) card competition, totally fair and eliminating weather luck.

You may be surprised at the results from previous competitions using this method. None of the previous RMAC winners would have won a three card competition scored in this manner.
But it is as fair as possible except having a 150 bench facility and everyone shooting at the same time.

Mike, very interesting. As you know, I'm a big fan of the "Centercut Factor" and this is a great example of how it could be implemented for benchrest competition. But (fortunately) I'm not responsible for running these competitions...

 

[JoeWillie]

Have you questioned why all cards including qualifying cards aren’t used to determine the best overall BR shooter at RMAC, PAC, or EBR?

Currently the qualifying cards are used as a two day aggregate to select the top shooters from each group that shoot at the same time. Then they shoot a finals card (or two) to determine the winner, but the two card qualification aggregate cards are not used, since they are shot at various times and conditions.

Here’s a way to use those scores fairly to make it a three (or four) card championship.
Since the qual rounds are shot as separate relays, for example 20 shooters each at RMAC, why not compare each relay’s score to the others in the relay?

So for example, relay 1 has 20 shooters. Average score of top 5 scores is 220. Each shooter gets points based on his performances compared to the top 5 average. Shooter 6 has a 225, he gets 5 points. Shooter 13 has a 216, so he gets -4 points.
Each relay would have a +/- score for both qualification days.

The top 20 scores, regardless of relay number, would make it to the finals. However, in the finals, that score would carry over, and the same process would be used, except the finals +/- would be added to the qualification +/-, whether one or two card finals, to determine the winner and top shooters. Now you have a three day, three (or four) card competition, totally fair and eliminating weather luck.

You may be surprised at the results from previous competitions using this method. None of the previous RMAC winners would have won a three card competition scored in this manner.
But it is as fair as possible except having a 150 bench facility and everyone shooting at the same time.

Agreed, as I’m sure you’re aware, Mike from Thomas Air has been very vocal about a BR competition being decided on one card only. In the vast majority of BR competitions it’s 3 Cards to determine A winner!

 

[Billm]

And then we ask why we might want/need an unbiased, democratic (all participants involved), governing body to regulate and promote benchrest and Field Target competition. Maybe take on some good ideas/feedback like this.

 

[GHairgunner]

Mike I agree most of the comps have come down to a weather bench draw contest for just one card. I haven't been to PAC (hopefully this year). Most of the comps benchrest is just a small part and getting smaller.

I would love to see the benchrest comps better define the best shooter but I don't like combining qualifying with finals you just can't factor in all the bench draws and weather favoring over 3 days.

I would rather see 2 cards per day 2 days of qualifying benchrest and then a minimum 2 cards on finals day. With bench movement for the finals. Yes I know you could draw a bench early for the down canyon winds at RMAC then get the favored bench for the afternoon session. I guess God would have been favoring you that day.

The fact of the matter is the 3 big ones put on great shoots but their goals are different from growing the sport into who is the best shooter. We have long talked about someone that can come in and run comps, but it is tons of work and the money isn't there to maintain the effort it takes to do these competitions.

It would be super great to have a governing body that ran very small shoots to qualify for regional shots to qualify for the national shoot but nothing really exist for that. Maybe the closest is NRL22 but even that I don't know that you need to qualify for the big event at the end of the season. It has been tried and nothing ever happens because everyone demands big prize money, raffles and tons of evens at every shoot. AAFTA has a GP events and I don't see tons of money but I do see lots of competitors. If someone had a benchrest comp where it was 6 cards over 2 days all you got for the win was a handshake and a medal I would be there and maybe 2 others.

Lets think about how to grow the sport and get tons of people competing and in that we will find the method to determine the best shooter (at least for that day). Here is some suggestions. We got away from the smaller calibers in search of a 100 yards and further. Lets make it so people that compete don't have to buy 4 guns for all the events and distances. A super skilled shooter can shoot a 22 in high wind and still score well, so lets keep it to 22 caliber max. Have just 2 categories. 1. Anything goes any rest, trigger, ammo (yes even slugs), any power. 2. a gun, pellets, front bipod and rear bag that's it. Now start a league 3 people or more equals a league. Put 3 leagues or more together and now you have a regional event. Put enough money into the pool so you can help top guys travel to a national event. There we didn't need a governing body, just simple rules and good times. You want I will run nationals right here in Kansas in the middle country so everyone has a chance to come.

I forgot local events 3 cards in one day. You get a picture and results by email in 3 days or less. Regional events 2 days 2 cards per day and a cook out to wait for cards to be scored. Nationals 3 days 3 cards per day everyone is in it until the end come back on 4th day to find out what all the scores are and party. Hopefully develop electronic scoring and then, Mike this will kill you no protesting...........

 

[Centercut]

Mike I agree most of the comps have come down to a weather bench draw contest for just one card. I haven't been to PAC (hopefully this year). Most of the comps benchrest is just a small part and getting smaller.

I would love to see the benchrest comps better define the best shooter but I don't like combining qualifying with finals you just can't factor in all the bench draws and weather favoring over 3 days.

I would rather see 2 cards per day 2 days of qualifying benchrest and then a minimum 2 cards on finals day. With bench movement for the finals. Yes I know you could draw a bench early for the down canyon winds at RMAC then get the favored bench for the afternoon session. I guess God would have been favoring you that day.

Hopefully develop electronic scoring and then, Mike this will kill you no protesting...........

Hi Glenn, I think you missed the point of my new scoring, which was to allow all cards shot at an event to count towards the winner, and eliminates wind bias totally. What it doesn’t do is eliminate bench bias, but if shooters were to change benches for qualifying, and have a draw in the final(s), that would be as fair as possible.
With my proposed method you’d identify the best overall shooter for that competition, not just for one card or one day…

 

[GHairgunner]

Hi Glenn, I think you missed the point of my new scoring, which was to allow all cards shot at an event to count towards the winner, and eliminates wind bias totally. What it doesn’t do is eliminate bench bias, but if shooters were to change benches for qualifying, and have a draw in the final(s), that would be as fair as possible.
With my proposed method you’d identify the best overall shooter for that competition, not just for one card or one day…

No I got that part. Your adjusting the rounds depending the average score of your wave. I just didn't like that as the plus minus facture has a function of no control for the individual shooter. Personally I would rather stick to the qualifying for finals vs sitting at an awards knowing you shot super great (maybe the best raw score) and still didn't win. To me its like Rank Choice Voting the best guy never wins.

 

[Centercut]

Not seeing your point. The shooter has total control of how he does compared to other shooters in his relay without wind differences affecting their outcome. How could that get any more fair?

 

[GHairgunner]

Not seeing your point. The shooter has total control of how he does compared to other shooters in his relay without wind differences affecting their outcome. How could that get any more fair?

That system only works if it take into account more of the factors. Ski racing would be a great example and even that can be cheated for benefit. There they take in points of the top 10 skiers, the finish position of the top 5 of the ten best points, length of hill, its homologation, the winning time, your time, and a couple other I have forgotten. From that you get your points compared to the fastest in the world (which is 0).

That being said each shooter would need to be rated with points. Only the best is a 250, everyone else would be less than a 250, a new guy would be zero (no a fence but you got to start somewhere). Each wave would then have a average points rating. The weather and wind would get a factor in the formula. The range would get a formula, The bench you sat at and the direction of the wind would have a factor (RMAC would get a high factor since its typically hard to shoot at). Your bench would get a factor, wind blowing up canyon and you got bench 20 that is way easier then the other side of the range. Because the guy at bench 20 that shot a 237 is not better then the guy in lane 4 that shot a 230. So then you would have to invent some math and take your score factor to the high score factor by bench rating. Now take that and add in weather, wind, and range factors and you would get your score for the first card.

Now find 3 people that agree all the factors work and are fair, and I will buy you dinner Mike!

Warning you will still have a guy like me load your son up and take him to Wisconsin for a 5 race series where the hills are mild and the finish line is half way into the parking lot to get enough gates. And even if you finish 30th you get great points so when you get back to the big hill you get to start further up in the field.

Don't get me wrong I like the idea of points and rankings. Its just developing the system will be interesting. Anyone got any ideas on a points system.

 

[Centercut]

That system only works if it take into account more of the factors. Ski racing would be a great example and even that can be cheated for benefit. There they take in points of the top 10 skiers, the finish position of the top 5 of the ten best points, length of hill, its homologation, the winning time, your time, and a couple other I have forgotten. From that you get your points compared to the fastest in the world (which is 0).

That being said each shooter would need to be rated with points. Only the best is a 250, everyone else would be less than a 250, a new guy would be zero (no a fence but you got to start somewhere). Each wave would then have a average points rating. The weather and wind would get a factor in the formula. The range would get a formula, The bench you sat at and the direction of the wind would have a factor (RMAC would get a high factor since its typically hard to shoot at). Your bench would get a factor, wind blowing up canyon and you got bench 20 that is way easier then the other side of the range. Because the guy at bench 20 that shot a 237 is not better then the guy in lane 4 that shot a 230. So then you would have to invent some math and take your score factor to the high score factor by bench rating. Now take that and add in weather, wind, and range factors and you would get your score for the first card.

Now find 3 people that agree all the factors work and are fair, and I will buy you dinner Mike!

Warning you will still have a guy like me load your son up and take him to Wisconsin for a 5 race series where the hills are mild and the finish line is half way into the parking lot to get enough gates. And even if you finish 30th you get great points so when you get back to the big hill you get to start further up in the field.

Don't get me wrong I like the idea of points and rankings. Its just developing the system will be interesting. Anyone got any ideas on a points system.

It’s not rocket science. But the above sounds that way. And it’s not even close to what I suggested. My suggestion is simple and fair. No factors, no points, no season points, just 3 or 4 cards in an event, where each shooters score is normalized to the average of the top performers in each relay, plus the finals. That’s it. We wouldn’t need to complicate it any more than that.
Your explanation above tells me you either didn’t read my first post, or didn’t understand it.

 

[GHairgunner]

It’s not rocket science. But the above sounds that way. And it’s not even close to what I suggested. My suggestion is simple and fair. No factors, no points, no season points, just 3 or 4 cards in an event, where each shooters score is normalized to the average of the top performers in each relay, plus the finals. That’s it. We wouldn’t need to complicate it any more than that.
Your explanation above tells me you either didn’t read my first post, or didn’t understand it.

Unfortunately I read it a number of time and simple would never work. Here is a great example I went to 2024 RMAC and looked at the Qualification score for 2 round and used your system? I only did 3 of the 7 waves so I won't describe or use names but it is clear that there would have been some hot people on who would have won given your system. Group 1, G1 top 5 averaged 413.8 and the entire wave averaged 385.8. G2 top 5 avg 451 and entire wave 427.4. G3 top 5 avg 436.4 and entire wave 403.7.

Here is where it all goes to #$@%#%. The G2 wave average was 427.4 and the best score in G1 was 426. The best score in G1 was 426 and he scored 13 points as he was 13 points above the average. He also won the entire match as the G2 best score was only 10 points above the average but he out shot G1 by 35 points. Poor guy in G3 out shot G1 by 19 point but only got 3rd because he was 9 points above the average.

Sorry we will never determine the best shooter with that system in fact the guy that won would have been the 12th best shooter in G2.

How about a double elimination tournament like the F-Class guys? Head to head 10 shots 2 sighters, ready set go...

 

[Centercut]

How about we agree to disagree? Your numbers in first two paragraphs prove my point t. I still don’t think you get it.

 

[Northeastbeast]

Here is what I see is wrong with 100BR. There is no one sanctioning body to keep everyone to one set of rules and also to do the scoring We should have a Team of retired world benchrest shooters and they do the scoring at every single event across the board. If we are going to change it I agree make it a 3 card score. No finals just everyone shoot 3 cards and the top agg score wins.

 

[Billm]

It seems this discussion is really about the business sponsored events such as EBR, Air Cup, RMAC etc.. They are what they are, and for 99% of airgunners wanting to get into 100yd benchrest are just something to aspire for and so their rules/procedures are of little impact for the average shooter. Sticking to the original topic, a simple three card aggregate score would seem to be a more consistent way to score the events.
It is very interesting to hear actual participants discussing their varying perspectives.
Growing 100yd airgun benchrest in the U.S.A. Is a whole other topic and deserves its own thread.

 

[GHairgunner]

How about we agree to disagree? Your numbers in first two paragraphs prove my point t. I still don’t think you get it.

There is the numbers. Tell me how G1 position 1 was the best shooter over 2 cards. Show your math.........

 

[Centercut]

That’s good, but everyone would have to shoot at the same time. So you’d need a facility with 150 benches…. I’m trying to make it fair if your facility only has 20 or 40 benches and everyone can’t shoot under the same conditions.

I’ve always questioned why when EBR was the only 100Y BR, and others joined in, the newcomers (RMAC and PAC) didn’t use the same targets. Their targets are slightly larger than the ones used at EBR.

 

[Centercut]

View attachment 19883
There is the numbers. Tell me how G1 position 1 was the best shooter over 2 cards. Show your math.........

Where is your Finals chart? Show the math please. It’s not two cards. It’s ALL cards. It might work better with the top 3 average in each relay. Please show the math for that also. Thanks!
PS., G1-1 was certainly the best shooter over the two qualification cards. He did relatively better that G2-1 or G3-1.
My math. 13>10>9. A fifth grader could do it.

 

[GHairgunner]

Where is your Finals chart? Show the math please. It’s not two cards. It’s ALL cards. It might work better with the top 3 average in each relay. Please show the math for that also. Thanks!
PS., G1-1 was certainly the best shooter over the two qualification cards. He did relatively better that G2-1 or G3-1.
My math. 13>10>9. A fifth grader could do it.

I will do the math for you..... I just know if someone told me I paid $400 entry fee and out shot someone by 35 points but I lost to them I would be hot!!!!!!!!!!!!! Much rather go head to head on more then 2 qualifying cards and 1 finals card.

There is a 50 yard card with an app you take a picture of the card and it gets scored. Now we can use the time scoring to shoot more cards. We need a 100 yard card app.............

 

[Centercut]

You do realize the various relays shoot under differing conditions, right? That 426 could be way better than that 461. That’s the whole point of normalized scoring.
Thats why Jeffrey Hernandez 229 in 2022 EBR finals was a better performance than Thayne Simmons 241 at 2024 RMAC finals. Jeffrey was way ahead of the top 5 average where Thayne was only a small amount above the top 5 average.

 

[GHairgunner]

You do realize the various relays shoot under differing conditions, right? That 426 could be way better than that 461. That’s the whole point of normalized scoring.

Can you imagine the guy the shot 461 in G1 he would got 48 points. Yes I know its different rounds at different times but with your method the person running the match could easily rig it in favor of one or two people. What I'm saying is the formula to make things even across all the groups is not detailed enough to keep this from happening. All you need to do is get one person in your wave to score terrible and the average drops way down and who ever is at the top automatically wins the match on the first day even before finals starts. Look at group 3 above 1 person scored low and the average dropped low and the people at the top score higher then they should have. With that much money on the line you know teams will do anything to win. Like that team that shot the same big bore gun and took all the podium spots.