Parker Wins Challenge

[6pt-Sika]

What’s this “new format” ??? I’d be intrested to hear the particulars of this ! You mean it’s no longer based on the five best scores ?

[Dean Romig]

I got a pic of him running away.

This is what a fox looks like when he’s been whupped.



.

[Mike of the Mountain]

TEAM PARKER!!

Dennis Downs, Mal MacGregor, Mike Koneski, Chuck Bishop and Dave deFernelmont.

[John Davis]

Originally Posted by Mike Koneski

TEAM PARKER!!

Dennis Downs, Mal MacGregor, Mike Koneski, Chuck Bishop and Dave deFernelmont.

The Five Horsemen of the Apocalypse.

Way to go team Parker!

[Mike Franzen]

It’s an interesting discussion with good points on either side you agree with. I wasn’t there so I can not judge it from first hand experience. But I think trying new ideas is healthy. Nothing has ever grown or lasted without change.

[Mike of the Mountain]

Parker won with the format of top 5 vs top 5, the way it should be. Parker won with top 2 plus random 3 vs top 2 plus random 3 with a lesser format. I’d rather see it go back to the original format instead of having it more a “luck of the draw” process. And yes, I missed an unprecedented 5 targets, four of them being a lazy right to left crosser!! I felt bad for the Parker shooters who shot mid-40s in qualifying and were left out because it was deemed better to have a lucky draw instead of performance dictate the squads. That’s my two cents worth. I know there are plenty of shooters from both organizations who prefer the original format. Just sayin’.

[Mark Kircher]

Perhaps We should consider a format of just more shooters on each team.
Perhaps 10 or even 15 on each.
I watched the entire event and it took less than 45 minutes.
I agree with the competitive shooters that it should be best not random.
Having 10 or 15 shooters might solve the problem of more inclusion and the problem of the best against best that day.

[Mark Kircher]

Maybe even have 5 big bores for each team and 5 small bores for each team with total combined for winner.

[Mike of the Mountain]

Originally Posted by MARK KIRCHER

Perhaps We should consider a format of just more shooters on each team.
Perhaps 10 or even 15 on each.
I watched the entire event and it took less than 45 minutes.
I agree with the competitive shooters that it should be best not random.
Having 10 or 15 shooters might solve the problem of more inclusion and the problem of the best against best that day.

Mark, with 10 shooters it took 45 minutes to an hour. Doubling that will just be a problem. Now you need two hours late day Friday (which I liked. Friday works better than Saturday) and most shooters and the range help have other things to do. This isn't the Smith-Parker where you have hundreds of qualifying rounds shot and there is a culture of participation among both groups.

[Craig Larter]

One difficulty Fox ran into was fielding a team under the top 5 score method. After a few years most average shots realized making the team by score was futile, it's nearly always the same guys. So many average shots never shot for score since shooting not for score is cheaper and the chances of qualifying were nil. The pool of Fox shooters is much smaller the Parker, the paid membership is one third.
One change I liked was holding the shoot off on Friday since many leave Friday to be home for the weekend.