Pair firing in the USA

[KWeigel]

It isn't about changing the game.. is about actually getting more shooters used to and prepared to shoot against "international" teams.. whom are used to shooting on the mount.. here in the States, shooters have a trend to rebuff the "shooting on the mound" concept.. and we wonder why we don't do better! Hmmmm

Is it different than how we normally shoot? Yes, for the matches I attend.

The amount of competitors preparing to shoot in another nation is only a fraction of the population. I understand your position, just don't relate.

 

[DE-F-Open]

Thanks for the info John. We may be including 2 man team soon locally and considering mixing the disciplines so everyone has a partner. It will be part of the match for one relay with separate awards. I can see several ways to do this for fun but if it becomes officially recognized with record keeping then that will become the course of fire standard.

Mike,
Interesting thoughts on mixing of rifles within a team. This is a concept several members of the High Power Committee have been kicking around for some time but the concept has not matured into a truly workable concept and was not brought to the table for discussion this year due to time constraints. One thought was that by mixing the rifles with the teams more teams could be formed, thus more people shooting teams and perhaps enhanced inter-club and/or intra-club competition could result - maybe?

John

 

[Jay Christopherson]

I enjoy pair fire, though I still prefer the solitary game of string fire. That said, there is some gamesmanship (that doesn't exist in string fire) that I don't care for. If it was offered at matches in the US, I'd probably go shoot it though, just for the extra experience.

 

[Immike]

Mike,
Interesting thoughts on mixing of rifles within a team. This is a concept several members of the High Power Committee have been kicking around for some time but the concept has not matured into a truly workable concept and was not brought to the table for discussion this year due to time constraints. One thought was that by mixing the rifles with the teams more teams could be formed, thus more people shooting teams and perhaps enhanced inter-club and/or intra-club competition could result - maybe?

John

It fits a small match budget really well John, only need one set of trophies....
The plan so far is to pair up with another discipline at the match so uneven numbers are not a problem and all teams are in the same class.

 

[BT1]

I enjoy pair fire, though I still prefer the solitary game of string fire. That said, there is some gamesmanship (that doesn't exist in string fire) that I don't care for. If it was offered at matches in the US, I'd probably go shoot it though, just for the extra experience.

Jay, I could not agree more with your position. Had to go to a special pair firing match at Port Malabar to just know what I was going to have to deal with in Canada. The Port Malabar experience was so, so to poor. Shooting paired with a good shooter in Canada, was a whole different and better experience. "Should have" gained a point or 2 by just paying attention to my partner. To be honest shooting with the guys from abroad was better than from the US. I think it was they were just more comfortable with the format. Do I prefer string fire, yes. Would I go to a big match again that was all pair firing also, you bet. It's all good when you paly with something that goes BANG Steve

 

[Matthew Schwartzkopf]

I've been wanting to start a match at Ben Avery that would include pair firing.

Basically the match would be shot at 1000 yards and with a Round Robin format. All participants would be put into a bracket (like March Madness) and you would only be shooting against your partner. The winner would move on in the bracket. This would work great with electronic targets because those not shooting can watch the targets on their tablet. You could do double or single elimination and dwindle it down to a final champion. One thing nice is you could have some payouts since no stat office is needed.

Just a thought that has been floating around in my head.

 

[Erud]

I believe that would still be considered coaching.

I've been wanting to start a match at Ben Avery that would include pair firing.

Basically the match would be shot at 1000 yards and with a Round Robin format. All participants would be put into a bracket (like March Madness) and you would only be shooting against your partner. The winner would move on in the bracket. This would work great with electronic targets because those not shooting can watch the targets on their tablet. You could do double or single elimination and dwindle it down to a final champion. One thing nice is you could have some payouts since no stat office is needed.

Just a thought that has been floating around in my head.

That's an interesting idea, sounds like fun.

 

[Ian]

I believe that would still be considered coaching.


That's an interesting idea, sounds like fun.

That sounds like a LOT of fun!

 

[Jay Christopherson]

I've been wanting to start a match at Ben Avery that would include pair firing.

Basically the match would be shot at 1000 yards and with a Round Robin format. All participants would be put into a bracket (like March Madness) and you would only be shooting against your partner. The winner would move on in the bracket. This would work great with electronic targets because those not shooting can watch the targets on their tablet. You could do double or single elimination and dwindle it down to a final champion. One thing nice is you could have some payouts since no stat office is needed.

Just a thought that has been floating around in my head.

Sign me up.

 

[jkl]

Put that together Matt. I would be up for that and would be a great way to let some other shooters enjoy the electronic target pair fire mode.
John

 

[Matthew Schwartzkopf]

Looks like there is an interest. i will start working on it

 

[Keith Glasscock]

Me too! Can we do something around BSWN?

 

[Erud]

Matt,
Just thinking about your round robin idea some more. Would you try to do some sort of seed squadding like the NCAA tournament? 16 seed vs 1 seed, 15 vs 2, etc. If you paired up shooters of like skill levels in the first round you’d end up eliminating half of the contenders right off the bat. On the other hand, if you used seed squadding, you’d probably get complaints from the lower-classed shooters that they would never have a chance to get out of the first round. Maybe make it a double elimination format or something. I suppose you could always just keep pairing everyone up who wants to keep shooting even after they’ve been eliminated for more trigger time.

Just some food for thought, as I’ve been thinking about how I would approach running a match like this. I do think it would be a ton of fun.

 

[Berger.Fan222]

Matt,
Just thinking about your round robin idea some more. Would you try to do some sort of seed squadding like the NCAA tournament? 16 seed vs 1 seed, 15 vs 2, etc. If you paired up shooters of like skill levels in the first round you’d end up eliminating half of the contenders right off the bat. On the other hand, if you used seed squadding, you’d probably get complaints from the lower-classed shooters that they would never have a chance to get out of the first round. Maybe make it a double elimination format or something. I suppose you could always just keep pairing everyone up who wants to keep shooting even after they’ve been eliminated for more trigger time.

Just some food for thought, as I’ve been thinking about how I would approach running a match like this. I do think it would be a ton of fun.

In tennis, there are several formats used to ensure losers in their first match are not eliminated. (These are non-elimination formats.) One approach is to use a consolation draw - essentially all the losers prior to the semi-finals are put into a second bracket and essentially playing for 5th place. A second approach is a compass draw - it is a complex format that allows playing more than two rounds even if both are a loss. A third approach is a round robin, but it is limited to 4-5 players unless there is a play-off format for winners of separate round robins.

An appropriate google search will bring up the USTA details on these formats, and I think they should all be applicable to head to head rifle matches.

 

[Immike]

This sport could use some fresh ideas... Excellent work Matthew!!!

 

[Turbulent Turtle]

I've been wanting to start a match at Ben Avery that would include pair firing.

Basically the match would be shot at 1000 yards and with a Round Robin format. All participants would be put into a bracket (like March Madness) and you would only be shooting against your partner. The winner would move on in the bracket. This would work great with electronic targets because those not shooting can watch the targets on their tablet. You could do double or single elimination and dwindle it down to a final champion. One thing nice is you could have some payouts since no stat office is needed.

Just a thought that has been floating around in my head.

There are many reasons why this format would not be popular.

We try to make F-Class as inviting as possible in hopes of recruiting new shooters. The NRA's system of classifications makes it such that a lot of people can come to a match and get some form of recognition. The other thing is that everyone is expected to shoot the same number of rounds. I don't know about you, but when I get to a match, especially the bigger ones, it's costing me time, money and so on and I don't relish being eliminated right off the bat because I've had a bad relay. When that occurs, I tell myself, there's still a lot of shooting to do and that's why I'm there.

I have seen more times than I can remember someone fumbling at the start, yet winning the match. I have also seen people shooting badly one day and the next day shooting brilliantly and winning these individual matches. I've also seen people starting off great and crashing the next day. These big matches are an endurance run and consistency wins, but everybody shoots the same amount and shooting is the name of the game for most people, I would think.

We already have enough issues with lane assignment and relay assignment and people grumbling how they "wuz robbed" because they were on a "bad relay" whereas the winner was on a "good relay," and that's unfair.

But with your method, you cut 50% of the population off after the first match. They can go home now, no reason to stay. Yuck. After the next match, you cut off 50% of the remaining and they can also go home now. One more match and 50% of the quarter of the starting number are gone also.

Also, the chances of eliminating one or more top contenders early on is very high. A single mistake (crossfire) or going up against the eventual winner or final four or whatever and they are gone. Then you have the issue of deciding the pairing and the inevitable ensuing grumbling.

So you say, "Denys, we'll come up with different mechanisms and round robin or square crow to let people have a chance at going for the 9th place after they have a bad start." Excellent, let's go ahead and complicate things even further.

What we need to keep in mind here is that we competitors are not professionals. We do not make money doing this, indeed we spend lots of money doing this. I think most of us would like to get our money and effort's worth going to a big match and your proposal is contrary to that.

I look at the members of Team Bayou at the Worlds and I know how much it cost in terms of time, effort, travel, fees, accommodations and it was all worth it, because we all go to shoot the whole FCWC, just like everybody else. We had a few members medal in individual matches. I struggled mightily and shot rather poorly the whole week (my whole focus was on the team matches,) but I go to shoot at the same level as everybody else. With your system I would have been gone right away and pounding grass the rest of the week until the team matches.

If you want to do that at local club levels, have at it; I prefer the way we have it now. It's predictable, is pretty level and it's the same everywhere we go. We have been talking at Bayou to maybe introduce a some matches with pair firing, but with the next Worlds 4 years and 10,000 miles away, the immediacy is somewhat less. And going back to Canada is not something that many of us at BRI are contemplating right this minute.

 

[jkl]

I spoke to Matt today at the State Palma Match about going forward with something like this. I guess you may want to over think this but no one is making a living here and why not mix it up with something different and it just may be a good time.

That is what I enjoy the most about Long Range Shooting I have never seen people work so hard for the first line of printer ink that said Match Winner and 12 bucks.

John

 

[Recko555]

I like this idea as a side match. Like to see how one of these turn out.

Turbulent Turtle,
I don't think the intent is to change all events to this format, but to add to in addition.

 

[ngb1787]

I spoke to Matt today at the State Palma Match about going forward with something like this. I guess you may want to over think this but no one is making a living here and why not mix it up with something different and it just may be a good time.

That is what I enjoy the most about Long Range Shooting I have never seen people work so hard for the first line of printer ink that said Match Winner and 12 bucks.

John

I dont want the $12, i just want to shoot next to the great JKL, lol,

 

[Berger.Fan222]

There are many reasons why this format would not be popular.

We try to make F-Class as inviting as possible in hopes of recruiting new shooters. The NRA's system of classifications makes it such that a lot of people can come to a match and get some form of recognition. The other thing is that everyone is expected to shoot the same number of rounds. I don't know about you, but when I get to a match, especially the bigger ones, it's costing me time, money and so on and I don't relish being eliminated right off the bat because I've had a bad relay. When that occurs, I tell myself, there's still a lot of shooting to do and that's why I'm there.

I both agree and disagree. I think the objections can all be solved with a non-elimination format so that the shooters who lose their first match or two of the day can keep shooting.

Most shooters I know are going to need to be assured of 60 rounds of record for a one day event and 120 rounds in a 2 day event to have a chance of progressing toward their classification goals and get in their desired quantity of firing. Otherwise, the prep and travel effort are not worth it.

On the other hand, they tend not to care so much about whether the format and scoring of the match leads to prizes, money, or recognition and some are eager for alternatives to the current (nearly universal) grand aggregate approach. There will likely always be enough matches with the grand aggregate approach, so that a small number of alternatives would be appreciated.

The NRA Classification system for making awards is great in principle, but other than regional and national events there are seldom enough shooters to have awards in each class. Some kind of bracketed pair-firing approach with a non-elimination format might be a nice intermediate for participation levels from 8-32 shooters in F-TR and F-Open. Once there are more than 32 shooters in a division, the Classification system seems to make more sense. (Depending on the breakdown of participants in each classification, it might make more sense at over 16.)