The illustration I have is by Simon Bening from the Hennessy Book of Hours November, from around 1530. I made enlargements of the targets on both pages andMessage 1 of 61 , Apr 5View SourceThe illustration I have is by Simon Bening from the "Hennessy Book of Hours" November, from around 1530.I made enlargements of the targets on both pages and then printed them (See attached). I then used a compass to complete the circles of the targets. The drawings of the targets in the illustration are a bit oval. A "guesstimate" shows the targets as being a little over five feet in diameter. They most likely have five rings with the outer most ring having about 28 numbered scoring areas. If the scoring areas remain the same width throughout, the rings have 24, 18, 12 and 6 scoring areas per ring going inward. With, perhaps, a full circle in the very center. This would be a total of approximately 88 scoring areas, not counting the center full circle. It is impossible to "guesstimate" the placement of the scoring areas that are not visible.It is also possible that the scoring areas do not remain of constant width, but taper inward like a dart board. This would mean a major increase in scoring areas.Sometime before I became interested in archery history and knew of "lucky targets" I had been given a print of a period painting that showed a lucky target under its covered building. It showed the face of the target clearly. However, I then misplaced it and have never been able to locate it. Has anyone ever seen a period illustration of the round "Lucky Target"?Jon
Iurii, To answer your question, yes the system is working properly you are currently ranked higher then the Archos, but then currently the system does not haveMessage 61 of 61 , Apr 30View SourceJonathasHey, be happy and brag about the accomplishment! YOU are ranked higher then the Archos!!! As I said to one of my local archers, "Right now you are the best handbow shooter in the entire SCA!!! Based on the current SSAC anyway." Which was a true statement, since she had submitted the only handbow score at that point. Enjoy it while it lasts!Iurii,To answer your question, yes the system is working properly you are currently ranked higher then the Archos, but then currently the system does not have the full picture.
Don't forget that right now the GAT is based on a *VERY* limited data set, that is only the SSACs and IKACs. If you shot all of these and the Archos in question only shot one of them, then yes in the GAT you would rank higher, as you have been more active in shooting. Now once you both have 5 shoots, if the Archos does better in those shoots then he will rank higher then you. Here in lies one of the BIG differences between the RR rankings that everyone is used to and the GAT. In the RR you do not have a rank (aka average) at all until you have 3 scores, with the GAT as soon as you have one score you have a rank although it is not all that it could be since it is truly based on 5 scores. This was choosen to encourage people to shoot more, yet not allow someone who enters absolutely everything yet does very poorly to come out on top. A decent active archer should enter at least 5 events a year, especially with the SSAC and IKAC filling in the gaps, and if they enter more events then only the best five are used.
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Chris Ivins <yuriilev@...> wrote:
I'm a bit confused about the ranking order on the current list, according to it's system, I'm actually ranked higher than an Archos in my local area, and his scores are much higher than mine, by any comparison. Is this just because the system is getting ironed out, or am I missing something critical in the formula?- In Service,Lord Iurii Levchenich, Junior TAMDeputy to the Honorable Lady Johanna Trewpeny, Adiantum Archery MarshalArcuarius to Gawin of Kevelioc