Single target score versus final score

[Steevyg]

Has anyone seen anything that suggests a correlation between the highest single target score (out of 100) and the final score out of 600?

[Gwhite]

Nope. Everyone is different. There are a million different ways to torpedo your final score...

Some people don't warm up enough, and start out slowly, and figure things out on their last target.

Others start out great & run out of steam before the end.

Some start out great, freak themselves out, crash & burn in the middle, and once all hope of winning is lost, they recover & shoot their average...

[David M]

Best thing is NOT to add up or score during the match.
That is the job for after the match.
Do not shoot in ten shot groups, best shoot one or two shots per card, on electronics shoot odd number series.
Take your mind off the score, play mind games.

[Steevyg]

I did a little bit of analysis on a 60 shot competition with 33 entrants. I looked at their 6 10 shot scores and their totals.
Competitors who scored a high of 89 on one card, went on to finish no higher than about 511. Competitors who scored a high of 90 on one card, went on to finish no higher than about 522.
To cover the whole competition, went something like this :-

89 - upto about 511
90 - upto about 522
91 - upto about 530
92 - upto about 535
93 - upto about 537
94 - upto about 554
95 - upto about 554
96 - upto about 562
97 - upto about 566
98 - 562+
99 - 567+

If a competitor scored multiple single card highs, ie 3 x 92, instead of just one 92, then their final score could be higher than the score shown for just one 92.

Of course these ‘maximum’ scores are only reflective of this competition, but it would be interesting to cross reference these figures with other forum members scores.

[Green_Canoe]

I did a little bit of analysis on a 60 shot competition with 33 entrants. I looked at their 6 10 shot scores and their totals.
Competitors who scored a high of 89 on one card, went on to finish no higher than about 511. Competitors who scored a high of 90 on one card, went on to finish no higher than about 522.
To cover the whole competition, went something like this :-

89 - upto about 511
90 - upto about 522
91 - upto about 530
92 - upto about 535
93 - upto about 537
94 - upto about 554
95 - upto about 554
96 - upto about 562
97 - upto about 566
98 - 562+
99 - 567+

If a competitor scored multiple single card highs, ie 3 x 92, instead of just one 92, then their final score could be higher than the score shown for just one 92.

Of course these ‘maximum’ scores are only reflective of this competition, but it would be interesting to cross reference these figures with other forum members scores.

The way those scores add up it looks as if the high score was a fluke until the score hit about 94. i.e. They did not score a high of 92 on one target with the other five targets between between 89 and 91. In the case of the 92 / 535 the other five targets averaged approximately 88. I suppose it makes sense. A shooter tends to gain consistency as their scores increase (or their scores increase as they gain consistency) and the variation of scores they produce narrows.

[Steevyg]

Best thing is NOT to add up or score during the match.
That is the job for after the match.
Do not shoot in ten shot groups, best shoot one or two shots per card, on electronics shoot odd number series.
Take your mind off the score, play mind games.

Cheers David, thanks for advice.

[Steevyg]

Nope. Everyone is different. There are a million different ways to torpedo your final score...

Some people don't warm up enough, and start out slowly, and figure things out on their last target.

Others start out great & run out of steam before the end.

Some start out great, freak themselves out, crash & burn in the middle, and once all hope of winning is lost, they recover & shoot their average...

Thanks for your input Gwhite.

[Steevyg]

I did a little bit of analysis on a 60 shot competition with 33 entrants. I looked at their 6 10 shot scores and their totals.
Competitors who scored a high of 89 on one card, went on to finish no higher than about 511. Competitors who scored a high of 90 on one card, went on to finish no higher than about 522.
To cover the whole competition, went something like this :-

89 - upto about 511
90 - upto about 522
91 - upto about 530
92 - upto about 535
93 - upto about 537
94 - upto about 554
95 - upto about 554
96 - upto about 562
97 - upto about 566
98 - 562+
99 - 567+

If a competitor scored multiple single card highs, ie 3 x 92, instead of just one 92, then their final score could be higher than the score shown for just one 92.

Of course these ‘maximum’ scores are only reflective of this competition, but it would be interesting to cross reference these figures with other forum members scores.

The way those scores add up it looks as if the high score was a fluke until the score hit about 94. i.e. They did not score a high of 92 on one target with the other five targets between between 89 and 91. In the case of the 92 / 535 the other five targets averaged approximately 88. I suppose it makes sense. A shooter tends to gain consistency as their scores increase (or their scores increase as they gain consistency) and the variation of scores they produce narrows.

Thanks for your input GC.
Two people scored 554 and came 8th and 9th out of 33 competitors.
Your right about consistency, it did generally improve towards the higher scores, although the competitor who came 3rd with 567, had a high of 99 and a low of 92 - a spread of 7.