TargetTalk

any update on this?

john bickar wrote: ↑Fri Jun 21, 2024 11:44 pm Having been involved in this sport for going on three decades, ISSF seems hell-bent on destroying Rapid Fire Pistol.

"Start from zero" in the finals is straight garbage.

"...presenting results in a more friendly way for a better understanding and more exciting final competition" - give me a freakin' break. That's a mealy-mouthed way of saying that it's going to be watered down. Again.

John, are you suggesting that the RF competition at an event such as the Olympics should only consist of the present qualification stage? If so, then the sport will disappear. The current final round of 6 competitors shooting over 8 series on a hit or miss basis is easily followed by a non-shooter. Should it be scored on top of the qualification round then it would exclude some of the final competitors from having any chance of success. My understanding is that at present to qualify for an ISSF final in RF, you need a score of at least 280 or better. That would mean that those competitors who only just qualified would have no chance of overhauling someone who qualified 290 or better. I stand to be corrected.

If someone gained a significant advantage in qualification I don't see how it's wrong that they benefit from that. This idea that we need to make shooting more "interesting" by having more volatile finals irritates me to no end.

It's a sport about consistency and endurance... but the moment it gets televised (once every 4 years... probably in the summary segment) we throw all that out the window to present more excitement for an audience that barely cares?

Shooting is a sport for participants. I hate this mindset that we warp it for the benefit the 10minutes coverage it gets at the Olympics. The extra absurd thing is that the most likely people to watch shooting are people that do participate. And to them the ever changing finals formats are actually less recognizable than the qualification would be.

If you ask someone "what's your record?" no one gives you their best finals score. Everyone considers "qualification" the main event and finals some oddity that gets tacked on once in a while. At least over here.

Actually people are starting to pay more attention to finals scores.

Shooting is/was the oddball sport in that qualification scores are added to final scores to determine the results.
100m runners etc don't add up their times from the heats to their final run, its the final which matters.

The only chance shooting has is to make it mildly interesting and the new finals do that.
30 People in a line blasting away with the total tallied at the end is completely unwatchable and has no hope.

Finding a 25 meter range in my neck of the woods was impossible, so I had to jerry rig something up, which is not ideal. Standard PIstol is much easier to shoot in a number of areas including commercial ranges. It also translates well for a number of Bullseye Shooters that could adapt to the Standard Pistol format.

ISSF general assembly took place saturday (30.12) https://issf-sports.org/news/4525

any news of the changes?

By the press release it looks like all the changes are about the working of the organization not competition rules

Wait for the new rules for he next Olympic period, usually published in Feb.

Standard Pistol is logistically more feasible and in the US, Collegiate already shoots it as well as it would be similar to bullseye .22 course of fire and 4H. Rapid Fire has too many infrastructure requirements where there is almost no range in my area of the country that has one nor does there appear to be many individuals who compete in it or has the .22 target pistols that can handle that type of course of fire. I also used to love getting yelled at in commercial ranges "shooting too fast" when I was hitting all tens. Standard Pistol does not usually draw that much attention from range officers/owners.

Gentlemen, I do not see that Olympic pistol disciplines should be structured around what is common or available in the USA. Just because there is a dearth of facilities for the discipline where you live is not a reason to delete it entirely. There is considerable history and infrastructure for shooting Rapid Fire internationally. Nor do I understand why Rapid Fire is men only and 25m Pistol is women only. Both should be competed by both sexes. Already at ISSF shoots there are mixed team events for Rapid Fire should it thought desirable to combine the sexes at the Olympics.

To my knowledge, getting rid of Standard, Free Pistol and Center Fire in the Olympics had nothing to do with the U.S., and the U.S. is going to host the Olympics in LA in 2028. The ones hosting the Olympics are always going to skew the events,rules and infrastructure in their favor. If you look back in Olympic history one can find patterns of this occurring. For example, Tokyo in 1964 had judo as an Olympic sport. Do you want to guess who founded judo? There is no coincidence in these occurrences.

In this case the U.S. has way more standard ranges than they do ranges that can handle rapid fire pistol events as well as collegiate shooters and bullseye competitors that shoot standard pistol.

On your second comment I completely agree. I am all in favor of mixed teams and actually had women shoot on my starting collegiate teams in Standard, Free and Air as far back as 1991. My second best competitor was female and qualified for collegiate nationals.

The rules and changes for the next 4 year period up to the next Olympics are due on Jan 1st and usually published in Feburary.
The ISSF nominates the events and they are endorsed by the IOC, not the host country.
Extract from ISSF general rules.

"The ISSF establishes Technical Rules for the shooting sport to govern
the conduct of shooting events recognized by the ISSF (ISSF General
Regulations, 3). The objective of ISSF Technical Rules is to achieve uniformity
in the conduct of the ISSF Championships and those Competitions authorised
by the ISSF. Olympic Games shooting events are authorised by the IOC.

ISSF General Technical and Discipline Rules are approved to be
effective for a period of four (4) years beginning on 1 January of the year
following the Olympic Games."

We will know soon......

M-1903A4 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 04, 2024 11:39 am Standard Pistol is logistically more feasible and in the US, Collegiate already shoots it as well as it would be similar to bullseye .22 course of fire and 4H.

I seem to remember reading somewhere that the ISSF Standard Pistol discipline was designed and introduced to suit North American shooters.

Bob

I believe Bob to be correct on that issue. There are the written rules quoted above and the politics on what is actually being negotiated. As Anthony Downs describes, Agency Theory 1967 A Theory of Bureaucracy, everyone operates to attain their own agenda and their own goals. I am sure the rules and event are being formulated to attain the driving force behind the working agendas on in this case for the ISSF, the IOC and the host country. For example where and when firearms had to be stored and how they could be accessed when the Olympics were hosted in London.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-16614875

I will be waiting to see what happens before I just take those rules at face value on those policies being straight forward and clear cut. You may be correct, and then again you may not be. Even when the rules come out, it will be open to interpretation on what occurred to put those rules to the IOC.

So apart from the 10m pistol. Which events would people prefer to be in the olympics?
Personally I'm surprised we don't have 25m, 50m and 100m, for both sexes. Not sure if this could be done with air pistol, probably not strong enough for the 100m.

All events have a qualifier and the final could be the same as current 10m final?

I'd love to do the 25m RF, but wish could be air pistol to make it more accessible. Can't do in UK.

Just my thoughts.

Re-reading some of the comments. And also being forced to watch the World Darts championships, and surprised how a dull sport could be made to be watchable. There are a few ways you could hold a watchable 10m (or any distance) shooting competition.
You could do a knock out format. Two competitors shooting a match. A match would be made up of, first to win 3 sets, each set is first to win 3 games and each game is 10 shots, each shot has to be taken in turns, highest score wins. If scores are equal after 10 shots each then go to an extra shot each until there's a winner. Has this format ever been tried?

I know this will upset the purists in the shooting field, but shooting competitions have changed a lot over the last 120 years. While it might be upsetting to hear, but the current format is fun to do but it's dull for an audience to watch.
This would make it far more watchable and getting more viewers could mean a higher profile.

Would be interesting to hear what people think. Or to hear different formats.

Happy New Year to everyone.
X

Bret P wrote: ↑Sat Dec 28, 2024 6:21 pm is fun to do but it's dull for an audience to watch.

And? Shooting has failed to become a mainstream viewer sport for over 100 years of being in the Olympics. It has always been a participation sport more than a viewer sport. I hate it when rules are made for hypothetical viewers against the wishes of very real and already existing participants... sorry, "purists".

It just seems so forced.

Thanks for the reply.

I really enjoy shooting. But watching the qualifiers is dull, even I don't watch it. The final is much more viewable.

I just think shooting is missing a trick.

Has head to head, or match pistol ever been tried?

May give it a go at my local club.

Forget the Olympic television coverage for a moment. They only concentrate on what is easy to film hence the massive coverage of track and field and swimming events where the results are always win or lose. Where a sport is determined by subjective standards the public lose interest except for the cognoscenti.

The ISSF by changing some of the disciplines to a hit or miss has increased the public interest. Their coverage of their Rapid Fire events in their YouTube channel is far more interesting to follow rather than the score counting one needs to indulge in with air pistol for example.

If the IOC is going to fiddle with shooting then I suggest they look at Rapid Fire as a model for the other disciplines that don't follow a hit or miss final and for pity's sake make them available to both sexes to compete in.

RF is more watchable for sure.

You have said something I just don't get, which why there are seperate events for men and women? Ive never understood why, just ridiculous. I think at the last olympics women 10m pistol scored higher than the guys. Also I think I'd be just as good at 25m as I am at 10m.
When I hold a local comp, we all shoot together, shooting is one of the few sports where there doesn't need this separation. I think would be good to see longer distances as well 50m and 100m but I think this maybe too far for air pistol?