Snowgun wrote:I wonder if this situation was started when they decided to make a separate division for optics on heavy metal. This prompted everyone who wanted to try heavy metal automatically gravitate toward the optics division (probably for all the reasons J Schmitt just mentioned for RDS's being popular). Plus those already in HM division who liked optics jumped ship. Viola! a marked decrease in iron shooters.xd ED wrote:Not to disagree with any of the 'level playing field arguments' presented, nor to dismiss the competitive spirit as a motivation to train/ improve, but, in regards to a measure of improvement/ gauge of effective training- isn't the scoring system an objective means to do so?
As I (slightly) understand scoring, it reflects speed, accuracy, and power in reasonably objective numerical value, does it not?
Ed, Scoring is a relative metric. Run 8.5 miles. Find your time. How well did you do? 8.5 miles is a random distance. Stages are random and change for every match. You will probably say "well just divide my time by miles and I'll see how I did per mile". You are using a benchmark, which was developed by many people running miles. There is no such thing for comp shooting that can be applied to stages. Now if run with other people on this 8.5 mile with only one shoe, you can compare how you did, but what will you be thinking when you see the scores post?
A red dot is even more of an advantage on a rifle than on a pistol. Long distance the advantage might be less, but the majority of rifle targets are not long distance.
I think if you want to shoot heavy metal than do it with irons. Don't even have a options HM division. That will make people man up and use irons if they want to shoot that fun division.
I am glad that J Schmitt and Co are keeping an open mind on this. Hopefully more shooters buck show up to buck this red dot trend and make this a moot point.
Perhaps I used the wrong terminology to make my point. I should have wrote, that rather than using one's match scores, use the raw performance data from the stage: the elapsed time, and your accuracy hits, and if one, at a later time, uses the same gun, on the same course of fire, after specific training/ practicing- the positive, or negative effect of that training should be apparent. Regardless of how any other shooter is doing.
To continue your analogy of running:
One can run a given course as a competitive event against other runners, or the same course could be used as a measure of training effectiveness: Run the 8.5 mi course. Train for a month doing intervals, over-distance, hills, or whatever. Run the same course again and compare times, for better or worse.
