I noticed that the Air Rifle scores from the USASNC this year have posted finally.
Any thoughts on the effect of the decimal scoring system on classifications? For example, AA is 95% which for women was a 380/400. Now it is a 414.2/436.
As a real life example, I shot a 387/400 but it was only a 406.1/436.
USAS classifications and decimal scoring
Moderators: pilkguns, Marcus, m1963, David Levene, Spencer
Hi Abi,
as i mentioned in some older postings, this new decimal scoring the whole match brings more luck and fortune in the game, but at this time most of the shooters and also the non shooters don't agree with me at this point. Maybe they don't really understand statistical processes in the role of target shooting. ;-)
The statistical influence is much greater with decimal scoring every shoot, because none of our ammo will shoot hole in hole. This is more valid for small bore, but also true for air rifle. If you test your rifle with some lot of ammo, you will always have have a more or less different tight group with 10 shoots and also the groups with 40 testing shoots will differ. For small bore with an really good barrel and ammo combination ca. 0.5 of the scores are only statistical. A shooter has no influence of that part of the score if he shoot perfect shoots. He can get a 10.9, but he can also get a 10.5. Surely, you can say there will be an average score after many shoots and this is true, but the standard variance is to big jet after 60 shoots. So the winner of a match of world class shooters with the best equipment will be the shooter with the more luck at this time.
If it comes to statistical processes a probe of only 10 is much to small for a valid statement. If you throw a dice ten times, you can't say anything about his quality, but with thousands throws you can.
I'm sure, we will see in the future much more change in the places in the international prone matches and also in the air rifle matches. Maybe this is desired from the ISSF, you know they will more drama and so.
Some examples: At the world cup 2013 in Munich one prone shooter with the highest score of 597 did not make it in the final. He was ranked on place 14. On the other hand a shooter with 'only' 591 in the qualification won the match after the final.
Regards and good shooting or should i say good luck
Frank
as i mentioned in some older postings, this new decimal scoring the whole match brings more luck and fortune in the game, but at this time most of the shooters and also the non shooters don't agree with me at this point. Maybe they don't really understand statistical processes in the role of target shooting. ;-)
The statistical influence is much greater with decimal scoring every shoot, because none of our ammo will shoot hole in hole. This is more valid for small bore, but also true for air rifle. If you test your rifle with some lot of ammo, you will always have have a more or less different tight group with 10 shoots and also the groups with 40 testing shoots will differ. For small bore with an really good barrel and ammo combination ca. 0.5 of the scores are only statistical. A shooter has no influence of that part of the score if he shoot perfect shoots. He can get a 10.9, but he can also get a 10.5. Surely, you can say there will be an average score after many shoots and this is true, but the standard variance is to big jet after 60 shoots. So the winner of a match of world class shooters with the best equipment will be the shooter with the more luck at this time.
If it comes to statistical processes a probe of only 10 is much to small for a valid statement. If you throw a dice ten times, you can't say anything about his quality, but with thousands throws you can.
I'm sure, we will see in the future much more change in the places in the international prone matches and also in the air rifle matches. Maybe this is desired from the ISSF, you know they will more drama and so.
Some examples: At the world cup 2013 in Munich one prone shooter with the highest score of 597 did not make it in the final. He was ranked on place 14. On the other hand a shooter with 'only' 591 in the qualification won the match after the final.
Regards and good shooting or should i say good luck
Frank
-
David Levene
- Posts: 5617
- Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 12:49 pm
- Location: Ruislip, UK
It's now a different match.
Yes, decimal scoring might give different results from integer scoring, but that doesn't mean that it is worse.
Integer scoring relies on some (mythical) magical property of the size of the scoring rings that penalised someone shooting a 9.9 instead of a 10.0 more than it penalised someone shooting a 10.0 instead of a 10.1.
Decimal scoring punishes such distance differences from the centre equally.
Equipment induced errors have always played a part in the results. How many times have you heard shooters, using integer scoring, complaining of shooting too many 9.9s or just missing the X too often. Gun/ammunition errors will surely have been responsible for some of that.
With decimal scoring, unless you deserve a 10.9 with every shot, there is a fair chance that the number of decimal points you lose will be reasonably balanced by the number of decimal points you gain. You win some, you lose some.
Yes, decimal scoring might give different results from integer scoring, but that doesn't mean that it is worse.
Integer scoring relies on some (mythical) magical property of the size of the scoring rings that penalised someone shooting a 9.9 instead of a 10.0 more than it penalised someone shooting a 10.0 instead of a 10.1.
Decimal scoring punishes such distance differences from the centre equally.
Equipment induced errors have always played a part in the results. How many times have you heard shooters, using integer scoring, complaining of shooting too many 9.9s or just missing the X too often. Gun/ammunition errors will surely have been responsible for some of that.
With decimal scoring, unless you deserve a 10.9 with every shot, there is a fair chance that the number of decimal points you lose will be reasonably balanced by the number of decimal points you gain. You win some, you lose some.
Hi David,
target shooting was ever a game about avoiding mistakes. If an outstanding shooter in the past was able to hold and release all the shoots in the 10 ring, then he could do the maximum. Surely there was ever this influence of the ammo and there was ever this sharp border between a 10 and a nine, but if a shooter was able to hold and release really tight tens, say all over 10.5, then he could overcome this border with only his one's skills. Surely, if it comes to lower shoots in the ten, then it is because of the statistical influence of the ammo possible, to get sometimes a nine. But for good shooters these errors a not so often and only than the luck plays also a role.
With the new decimal scoring the moment of luck plays now every shoot a role and this is the big difference. Yes, it doesn't make such a big difference for an average shooter with an hold in the nine or doing a lot mistakes, but it makes a difference for the real best shooters.
As i said, an outstanding shooter was and is able to shoot a 600 in a prone match and he can do that only with his one's skills. But no shooter is able to shoot a 654.0. Even the best will get an average score much lower than the theoretical maximum and with also much standard variance. So can we really say, the guy or the girl with the highest decimal score is the best shooter at this match, or had they only more luck at this day?
By the way, we haven't talked jet about the new finals with scoring from zero at this moment. You know, less shoots with decimal scoring means more statistical variance. We can it also call more or less luck. But is shooting really such a kind of gambling? I mean only, if we score much over the skills of the best shooters and the accuracy of our ammo.
Here in Germany we have a kind of luck shooting with long tradition. It is called 'Teilerschießen'. Every shooter has only one shoot and the winner is the shooter with the nearest shoot in the middle of the target. In the past we used some special paper targets and the measurement was done with some special dial gauges with 1/100 mm resolution. Now most clubs do it with electronic targets. Also crap, because it was never really serious to measure bullet holes in paper with 1/00 mm or jet 1/1000 mm resolution, as some new electronic targets now give. But after that game we have a winner and sometimes this is even the blindest guy of the whole club or event. ;-) And all are happy. And also most do not really understand the difference between resolution and accuracy. They see only the numbers and numbers with more counts are always better.
Regards
Frank
target shooting was ever a game about avoiding mistakes. If an outstanding shooter in the past was able to hold and release all the shoots in the 10 ring, then he could do the maximum. Surely there was ever this influence of the ammo and there was ever this sharp border between a 10 and a nine, but if a shooter was able to hold and release really tight tens, say all over 10.5, then he could overcome this border with only his one's skills. Surely, if it comes to lower shoots in the ten, then it is because of the statistical influence of the ammo possible, to get sometimes a nine. But for good shooters these errors a not so often and only than the luck plays also a role.
With the new decimal scoring the moment of luck plays now every shoot a role and this is the big difference. Yes, it doesn't make such a big difference for an average shooter with an hold in the nine or doing a lot mistakes, but it makes a difference for the real best shooters.
As i said, an outstanding shooter was and is able to shoot a 600 in a prone match and he can do that only with his one's skills. But no shooter is able to shoot a 654.0. Even the best will get an average score much lower than the theoretical maximum and with also much standard variance. So can we really say, the guy or the girl with the highest decimal score is the best shooter at this match, or had they only more luck at this day?
By the way, we haven't talked jet about the new finals with scoring from zero at this moment. You know, less shoots with decimal scoring means more statistical variance. We can it also call more or less luck. But is shooting really such a kind of gambling? I mean only, if we score much over the skills of the best shooters and the accuracy of our ammo.
Here in Germany we have a kind of luck shooting with long tradition. It is called 'Teilerschießen'. Every shooter has only one shoot and the winner is the shooter with the nearest shoot in the middle of the target. In the past we used some special paper targets and the measurement was done with some special dial gauges with 1/100 mm resolution. Now most clubs do it with electronic targets. Also crap, because it was never really serious to measure bullet holes in paper with 1/00 mm or jet 1/1000 mm resolution, as some new electronic targets now give. But after that game we have a winner and sometimes this is even the blindest guy of the whole club or event. ;-) And all are happy. And also most do not really understand the difference between resolution and accuracy. They see only the numbers and numbers with more counts are always better.
Regards
Frank
-
David Levene
- Posts: 5617
- Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 12:49 pm
- Location: Ruislip, UK
How often do/did you see X-ring scores that reflected that quality of shooting? Would it have been worse shooting if the 10 ring had actually been the size currently given to the 10.5 ring. A major part of integer scoring is dependant on artificially selected ring sizes. The logical step from integer scoring is hit/miss scoring. For top shooters it's the same; 600 scored = 60 hits.FrankD wrote:......but if a shooter was able to hold and release really tight tens, say all over 10.5, then he could overcome this border with only his one's skills.
Why wouldn't you want lower level 10s to score lower than perfectly central 10s; they are a worse shot after all.FrankD wrote:Surely, if it comes to lower shoots in the ten, then it is because of the statistical influence of the ammo possible, to get sometimes a nine.
Only if the 10 ring is the right size. If it is smaller then fewer shooters would be able to shoot a 600. If it is larger then more shooters will be able to do it.FrankD wrote:As i said, an outstanding shooter was and is able to shoot a 600 in a prone match and he can do that only with his one's skills.
Back in the 1980s our national association in the UK decided to alter the scoring ring sizes on our 20 yard pistol card. What was the 9 became the 10, the 8 became the 9 etc. Scores improved dramatically, but not because of shooting ability.
Shooting ability should be judged using the shot distance from the centre of the target, rather than by artificial ring sizes.
I don't think we're going to agree on this Frank ;-)
my interest is with the USAS classification system and how decimal scoring relates (not international competitions with only world class shooters). According to the USAS classification system for Air Rifle, AA class starts at 95%. Looking for example at the USASNC this year, about half of the women were AA. On day one, only 3 shooters shot above a 414.2 and on day two, only one shooter was able to score above a 414.2
David,David Levene wrote:
Why wouldn't you want lower level 10s to score lower than perfectly central 10s; they are a worse shot after all.
Shooting ability should be judged using the shot distance from the centre of the target, rather than by artificial ring sizes.
The problem with decimal scoring comes primarily with what group size a top level shooter's gun will produce. Air rifles and pistols can usually shoot a one hole group with select pellets (all 10.9 scores if held perfectly by the shooter).
I do not believe most .22;s (rifle or pistol) can shoot a group where all shots would be scored a 10.9, yet all shots are probably at least a 10 on regular targets. Accepting this, then the only way a perfect score could be shot is for the shooter to be extremely lucky, and mis-aim most shots off center in the direction to offset the ammo inaccuracy. This would clearly allow a better shooter to lose to a less accurate (but lucky) shooter. As has been pointed out, the new finals format increases the chance that a shooter can be lucky for enough shots and err on each shot to offset the ammo inaccuracy and win over someone who shoots a perfectly centered shot each time.
To me, decimal scoring will just drive everyone to engage in a technology war to get more accurate guns and ammo so group size is closer to the size needed for each shot to be scored at the highest value. This is one of the reasons I preferred pistol to rifle - you don't have to spend a fortune to get a gun and ammo that will shoot well inside the 10 ring - if you didn't shoot a perfect score using scoring rings, then there was no one to blame but yourself.
I am not too concerned about scoring rings 1-9 decimal, but I believe that at least for .22's, the 10 ring should not be any smaller than a reasonable group size, and it not be scored to tenths (anything inside that area is just scored a ten). Max score would still be 600, which would make it easier for spectators to follow. If we insist on decimal scoring, why not just score a perfect shot as a 10.0 and divide the distance to the 0.1 score by 100? How does a perfect shot being scored as 10.9 make sense to anyone not expertly familiar with shooting?
Hi Abi,
excuse me for my more general answer at first.
After looking and comparing the results of the last four world cups 10m air rifle w this year it is obvious for me, that this linear scaling from 380 <> 9.5 for normal scoring to 414.2 (80% of 436) doesn't work. 414.2 will give an average of 10.35 and this is much more difficult to shoot than the old average of 9.5. It means, you have to shoot a score with 0.85 points higher with each shoot. This assumption is wrong, because the mean value between two full points is only 0.5. So i would say, a correct new classification score were max. 400.0 and i'm also sure, also this may be more difficult for an average 380 shooter normal scoring. We shoot on concentric circles, so the linear assumption with adding 0.5 point to the normal average may also to optimistic. The probability to hit the better sore is near 3/4. So an addition of 0.5 * 3/4 will give 395.0 points. This seams to me the most realistic score for the new classification and it is fare away from such a absolute wrong score like 414.2.
If you take a closer look to the ISSF results from the last four world cups, you will see that only 10 - 20 of the world best female air rifle shooters reached a decimal scoring result over 414.2 in the qualifications and all these shooters scored more or less high in the 390 the old scoring way.
Hope this will help you a little more.
Regards and always good shooting
Frank
excuse me for my more general answer at first.
After looking and comparing the results of the last four world cups 10m air rifle w this year it is obvious for me, that this linear scaling from 380 <> 9.5 for normal scoring to 414.2 (80% of 436) doesn't work. 414.2 will give an average of 10.35 and this is much more difficult to shoot than the old average of 9.5. It means, you have to shoot a score with 0.85 points higher with each shoot. This assumption is wrong, because the mean value between two full points is only 0.5. So i would say, a correct new classification score were max. 400.0 and i'm also sure, also this may be more difficult for an average 380 shooter normal scoring. We shoot on concentric circles, so the linear assumption with adding 0.5 point to the normal average may also to optimistic. The probability to hit the better sore is near 3/4. So an addition of 0.5 * 3/4 will give 395.0 points. This seams to me the most realistic score for the new classification and it is fare away from such a absolute wrong score like 414.2.
If you take a closer look to the ISSF results from the last four world cups, you will see that only 10 - 20 of the world best female air rifle shooters reached a decimal scoring result over 414.2 in the qualifications and all these shooters scored more or less high in the 390 the old scoring way.
Hope this will help you a little more.
Regards and always good shooting
Frank
-
David Levene
- Posts: 5617
- Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 12:49 pm
- Location: Ruislip, UK
I had a similar question if we get back a little more to USAS classifications and records. Looking at the rankings I noticed (for example) Mcphail was a 599/600 or .998 shooter in prone but now he's a 623/654 which has him at .952. Seems there will need to be some sort of classification adjustment. This also bleeds into how will National Records be evaluated and of course my favorite how the autoqualifier score for NJOSC is determined. Obviously from the example above there isn't an apples to apples good transition to compare based on percentage.
-
bluetentacle
- Posts: 139
- Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 12:38 am
- Location: Los Angeles, CA
@COBelties yes I was only referring to the USAS classification system and how it is effected. I'm curious what happens now with matches shot on paper targets, as those scores are still entered as whole numbers. Individuals who shoot on paper targets may have a much higher ranking than those that shot on electronics. In my previous example a 387 would be a 96.75% if shot on paper, but as it was a 406.1 on electronics it is only 93.14%. During the actual match all competitors are scored using the same method so the results list for that particular day will reflect the competitor's skill in comparison to the other entries, but when those results are fed into the national ranking things get muddled.
Without a classification adjustment, a fair amount of competitors may be reclassified down. Will class A become the new (popular) class AA?
I'm not asking a question or complaining, I just find it interesting and worth discussing.
Without a classification adjustment, a fair amount of competitors may be reclassified down. Will class A become the new (popular) class AA?
I'm not asking a question or complaining, I just find it interesting and worth discussing.
I dont think the thread started off as complaining, it took a bit of a turn, but the original subject is more curiosity. Personally I like the decimal system, so not really complaining there, it separates the people who shoot deep versus those who dont.
The thought of how everything compares came about this weekend as I was looking at the Railstation 12 month avg results and thought it was interesting that a J1/J2 scoring a 587 in prone was ranked higher than McPhail. It wasn't until I started reviewing the scoring that it became clear the decimal system "percentages" aren't equivalent, as other have pointed out.
It would be nice to hear something out of USAS this fall before it becomes an oh my goodness, we dont know moment. Obviously the classification systems will get worked out along with everything else. I'm sure others on this board may provide a bit more insight than what us common folks understand. My guess for JO will be scores submitted will not be in decimal to keep paper vs electronic even keel.
The thought of how everything compares came about this weekend as I was looking at the Railstation 12 month avg results and thought it was interesting that a J1/J2 scoring a 587 in prone was ranked higher than McPhail. It wasn't until I started reviewing the scoring that it became clear the decimal system "percentages" aren't equivalent, as other have pointed out.
It would be nice to hear something out of USAS this fall before it becomes an oh my goodness, we dont know moment. Obviously the classification systems will get worked out along with everything else. I'm sure others on this board may provide a bit more insight than what us common folks understand. My guess for JO will be scores submitted will not be in decimal to keep paper vs electronic even keel.
-
redschietti
- Posts: 386
- Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2011 4:31 pm
-
redschietti
- Posts: 386
- Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2011 4:31 pm
Hi,
But the big question is, are those deep shoots really the result of better skills or only more or less luck because of the statistical influence of the ammo at that day in that match?
Take a closer look at the following ammo test. It shows a 40 shoots test with different lots of the at this time most successful match ammo Eley Tenex and the rifle is is also an outstanding Bleiker with an factory build in Lilja barrel. The first lots show some normal results of good ammo and barrel combinations and the last lot is absolute outstanding. Eley claims on their site an old world record of 13.9mm with 40 shoots and an FWB 2700 from world record holder Rajmond Debevec.
But this is an ammo test without the influence of an shooter and it shows more then clearly, the precision of our .22 lr ammo will never give us an repeatable small hole in the near of a 10.9. It is far away from there.
Only 4 shoots of the last shown test were a 10.9, each 8 a 10.8 and a 10.7, 12 a 10.6, 5 a 10.5 and even 3 gave only a 10.4. But this is only an statistical process, the next test will give a different result with an other spreading. And you can't never predict when the deep tens come.
Some of the best shooters were able to shoot results in this region and even slightly higher. But the big question was and is, is such a score really the result of better skills or only more or less luck in that given match?
As i said, it was and is possible to shoot a 600 and the shooter was able to do this because of his skills, but it will never possible to shoot a 654.
Regards
Frank
sure, it does.COBelties wrote:... it separates the people who shoot deep versus those who dont.
But the big question is, are those deep shoots really the result of better skills or only more or less luck because of the statistical influence of the ammo at that day in that match?
Take a closer look at the following ammo test. It shows a 40 shoots test with different lots of the at this time most successful match ammo Eley Tenex and the rifle is is also an outstanding Bleiker with an factory build in Lilja barrel. The first lots show some normal results of good ammo and barrel combinations and the last lot is absolute outstanding. Eley claims on their site an old world record of 13.9mm with 40 shoots and an FWB 2700 from world record holder Rajmond Debevec.
But this is an ammo test without the influence of an shooter and it shows more then clearly, the precision of our .22 lr ammo will never give us an repeatable small hole in the near of a 10.9. It is far away from there.
Only 4 shoots of the last shown test were a 10.9, each 8 a 10.8 and a 10.7, 12 a 10.6, 5 a 10.5 and even 3 gave only a 10.4. But this is only an statistical process, the next test will give a different result with an other spreading. And you can't never predict when the deep tens come.
Some of the best shooters were able to shoot results in this region and even slightly higher. But the big question was and is, is such a score really the result of better skills or only more or less luck in that given match?
As i said, it was and is possible to shoot a 600 and the shooter was able to do this because of his skills, but it will never possible to shoot a 654.
Regards
Frank
- Attachments
-
Regarding the USAS and the shooter rankings:
As it is now the ranking are far from being very meaningful because 1) They only cover a 12 month period, 2) They do not factor in the world class/location matches (WCs, Olympics, etc), and 3) They do not factor in (only display) the number of events fired.
If meaningful in the future they will have to have separate qualifier and finals (both air & smallbore) as the shooting in these are totally separate and distinct events ... for the final they would have to (and I have no clue how to do it) somehow account for the elimination, but the final as an event really needs to be considered ... sure you have to qualify for the final, but you need to be able to shoot a good final there as well ... again, it is a separate event.
EVERYONE has the opportunity to call the ammo test centers, make an appointment, shoot and find the best ammo for their rifle ... yes, it's expensive, BUT EVERYONE IS ALLOWED TO DO IT.
I'm pretty sure that almost every top air rifle shooter does this now ... doing this on a 10m range and a good stiff bench is easy. Just because it is XXX% harder to do it with the smallbore gun does not mean you cannot/should not do it.
Yes, there may be a bit more variation in any specific score due to ammo, but again w/o the hard 600 ceiling, I think the results are truer. This is especially true with the para shooting where the 600 ceiling did indeed obscure results.
(Oh and as a nod to some ... the above is only my opinion)
As it is now the ranking are far from being very meaningful because 1) They only cover a 12 month period, 2) They do not factor in the world class/location matches (WCs, Olympics, etc), and 3) They do not factor in (only display) the number of events fired.
If meaningful in the future they will have to have separate qualifier and finals (both air & smallbore) as the shooting in these are totally separate and distinct events ... for the final they would have to (and I have no clue how to do it) somehow account for the elimination, but the final as an event really needs to be considered ... sure you have to qualify for the final, but you need to be able to shoot a good final there as well ... again, it is a separate event.
To me this is an argument FOR decimal scoring ... it allows the shooters to spread out and not be effected (however it was possible) by an artificial 600 ceiling.FrankD wrote:As i said, it was and is possible to shoot a 600 and the shooter was able to do this because of his skills, but it will never possible to shoot a 654.
EVERYONE has the opportunity to call the ammo test centers, make an appointment, shoot and find the best ammo for their rifle ... yes, it's expensive, BUT EVERYONE IS ALLOWED TO DO IT.
I'm pretty sure that almost every top air rifle shooter does this now ... doing this on a 10m range and a good stiff bench is easy. Just because it is XXX% harder to do it with the smallbore gun does not mean you cannot/should not do it.
Yes, there may be a bit more variation in any specific score due to ammo, but again w/o the hard 600 ceiling, I think the results are truer. This is especially true with the para shooting where the 600 ceiling did indeed obscure results.
(Oh and as a nod to some ... the above is only my opinion)
-
bluetentacle
- Posts: 139
- Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 12:38 am
- Location: Los Angeles, CA
Except it was never a contest of who can shoot a perfec score. It's a contest of who can shoot the highest score. This hasn't changed with the decimal scoring system.FrankD wrote: As i said, it was and is possible to shoot a 600 and the shooter was able to do this because of his skills, but it will never possible to shoot a 654.
Like I said, some people are thinking way too much about how they are getting screwed by the new system. That's a sure way of not doing well under it.