TargetTalk

Looks like Rapidfire stays in the Olympics 2028 LA with minor changes.
Final will increase from 6 to 8.

details
https://www.issf-sports.org/news/4610

sad :(

Good news. Be interesting to see how they organise 8 instead of 6. Does it mean that there will have to be 4 sets of targets instead of 3? It seems simple to increase the number of finalists but under the current ISSF rules it will require quite extensive logistical changes.

It could reduce it to 2 bays. it depends on the final format they will decide.
I can see 2 bays and athletes taking their position for their shot then going back and so on (like long jump for example).
spectators could see body language etc ..

Although I think that Sport Pistol would be better to develop new shooters, specially at club level, Rapid Fire is WAY more TV friendly.
And that matters a lot for the sport.
I think the new final would require 4 sets of targets, with two shooters per five targets, as it is now.
Not a big deal for the Olympics and Word Cups, but a real pain for club matches...

rmca wrote: ↑Fri Apr 11, 2025 4:01 pm And that matters a lot for the sport.

Really? I strongly disagree with this mindset of making decision for the entire sport based on the like 15 minutes of coverage this gets every four years... in the summary segment. Even with the social media boost at the last Olympics every non-shooting person I know knew the memes but hadn't watched any of the actual competitions. Whether they see RFP, the 25m Womens or 10m final doesn't make any difference in interest as far as I can tell.

Realistically the only ones watching this are people that already care for the sport... and those don't really identify with RFP since it's such an outlier no one casually participates in.

I'm pretty sure if I ran a poll in my club "why did you get into target shooting?" then "I saw it on TV/Olympics" would come up like once among our most recent new members and zero times for any of the long timers. And a solid zero would mention RFP in any form.

Really? I strongly disagree with this mindset of making decision for the entire sport based on the like 15 minutes of coverage this gets every four years. Even with the social media boost at the last Olympics everyone non-shooting person I know knew the memes but hadn't watched any of the actual competitions.

Realistically the only ones watching this are people that already care for the sport... and those don't really identify with RFP since it's such an outlier no one casually participates in.

I strongly disagree. Rapid fire is more than the Olympics as it is a discipline at all the ISSF events, coverage of which is available on YouTube. I shoot rapid fire at the two clubs of which I am a member. Yes, at one of them it is certainly in the minority but at the other there is a strong following.

May I suggest respectfully that most of the opposition to rapid fire I have read on this forum have come from US based shooters. There is more to ISSF shooting than the US, even if they are to conduct the next Olympic Games.

I'm in Switzerland where every other village has a RFP capable 25m range. Yet participation is so low that we pretty much autoqualify for national championships just by showing up. So I'm basing this on this observation that somehow in the entire country (which had Olympic medalists in this event in the past) there are less people putting effort into RFP than there are sports pistol shooters just in our club alone.

Edit: I should also clarify that the main thing I disagree with is this notion that "RFP is more interesting for the audience". I have seen nothing to indicate that in practice... To outsiders RFP is just as exotic as all our other ISSF events. At the Paris Olympics the "general public" was just tunnelvisioning on Yusuf having a cool stance and other shooters using funny equipment. Meanwhile people that are hobbyists in the sport themselves usually care more about who is competing than how often per second a trigger is pulled.
Also attractiveness to audiences just doesn't matter in my opinion. This is a great sport to participate in but even most participants don't bother actively watching it unless someone they have an immediate connection to is competing. That is why it doesn't make sense to make rules based on the tiny amount of exposure we get once every four years when any of this gets televised.
So my big disagreement is really with the notion that decisions about the sport should be made based on what someone thinks is attractive to an imaginary audience. It's a sport about moving as little as possible until magic numbers show up on a screen. It's a lost cause from a viewer perspective. And ticking over by a couple of degrees between shots in quick succession doesn't really save that.

I still regret the disappearance of 50m Free Pistol. It was a real sport discipline, no connection at all with 'defense'. Men and women could participate in the same ranking. Cfr. Grippy's comment: also in our club RFP is practiced very little though all equipment is available.

Grippy,

The only thing we disagree is the importance of being a TV friendly sport.
In my opinion this is the best way we can dissociate from the violence associated with guns. And we should do everything we can to show it.
While this may not be as relevant in the USA or Switzerland, because of your specific cases, it pretty much is in every other country in the world.
The Olympics, is the only reason some countries even allow some guns in the first place. Specially pistols.
I would argue that without it, we would have a harder time with this sport, and probably even not being able to shoot at all.
But this is another topic...

Unfortunately, RF is also pretty much dead in Portugal as well. We have the facilities, but not the shooters...
My opinion is that Sport Pistol would be a better alternative.
It is more beginner friendly, more club friendly, and at higher levels, it still maintains a moving aspect for TV.
And it's already in the Olympics!!
It doesn't make sense that men shot one discipline while women shot another... it's not in keeping with modern times... ;)

Anyway, until 2028 we will have RF, but I suspect that we will have this conversation again after LA...

rmca

Grippy,
I agree in general with your point of view. But when is a sport TV-friendly?
When there is something to see. Eg. clay-shooting: the hit can be seen. The result of the shot in target shooting is less visible, though with the actual electronic targets the result is brought much closer to the spectator. And I wonder what the difference is with e.g. archery, fencing ? These sports have also their origin in fighting. How about boxing: two men or women punching each other on the face? But that seems to be OK, while the sportive use of a firearm is not so appreciated?
Something it's hard to understand.
But let us continue enjoying our sport.

gn303 wrote: ↑Sun Apr 13, 2025 9:50 am But that seems to be OK, while the sportive use of a firearm is not so appreciated?
Something it's hard to understand.

I don't think it has anything to do with social acceptance really. Biathlon clearly doesn't have that issue. I like to joke that if you were to intentionally make a sport that is the least interesting to watch it would be similar to target shooting.

It's a sport about moving as little as possible and then a number shows up on a screen. There just isn't anything to observe other than the score itself. And even that part is boring because it's all tens and occasional nines.

Most other sports have something for the viewer to observe and then there is some tension until the outcome is revealed. In other "boring" sports like snooker or curling there is an observable state of the table you can speculate about. There are strategic decision to take a more or less risky shot. In racing the standings are made physical and again you can see risks being taken in overtaking maneuvers etc. In boxing the the state of the fighters changes and you can watch every punch being executed and countered. In skiing you can observe the lines taken and wonder how much time some mistake cost until the next split etc. There is also no chance for something amazing happening. There is no shooting equivalent to out dribbling three defenders and scoring a spectacular goal.

In shooting, even if you are an expert you can't externally observe a shooters execution of technique and guess what the result will be unless they are a beginner and make very obvious mistakes. And then there is no moment of tension or so. There is just an instantaneous result, that stands in no obvious relation to what you just saw the athlete do.

There is also no observable strategy or risk taking. Every shot is taken with the same technique and the expected outcome is always a 10.
It's as interesting as watching people flip coins and entering 10 on heads and 9 on tails into a spreadsheet.

That is why I'm so upset when people keep arguing that rapid fire, faster finals or creative scoring schemes will fix this. They mistake "volatile results" and "more of the same thing happening" for "excitement". The act of shooting is just intrinsically boring to watch. Something inherently boring happening more often in the same amount of time doesn't make it more interesting. If you aren't interested in watching coin flipping then you probably aren't interested in rapid coil flipping or head to head coin flipping either.

If we want to make the sport more interesting to watch we need to figure out a way to externalize the actual struggle of the shooters and the details of the technique. Because all the stuff I said above shooting lacks is actually there. It just isn't externally observable. If we get nervous and become shakier from one final shot to the other that totally changes the dynamics. But no one outside our head can see this. We'd need something like a non-invasive SCATT system that can quantify and show movement. Maybe show shooters heart rates.

Or just as a beginning making the actual coverage not meaningless. If you watch the shooting events as televised it's always just showing the shooters without creating any relation to where the targets are or what size they are. So it just presents as "people stand there wearing funny glasses while magic numbers and circles are shown in a graphic". As long as that isn't improved there is no point in trying to make it more watchable with rules changes.

I'll accept if I'm in the minority here but I find watching the ISSF competitions pretty nice. Yeah it's not as much of a spectacle as other sports but if you pay attention you can definitely see the athletes work through the psychological pressure, and it's neat to see different holds, techniques and grip modifications.

KZMNT wrote: ↑Sun Apr 13, 2025 1:15 pm I'll accept if I'm in the minority here but I find watching the ISSF competitions pretty nice. Yeah it's not as much of a spectacle as other sports but if you pay attention you can definitely see the athletes work through the psychological pressure, and it's neat to see different holds, techniques and grip modifications.

Which requires that you have experienced the sport yourself and understand the intricacies.

Grippy wrote: ↑Sun Apr 13, 2025 1:17 pm

KZMNT wrote: ↑Sun Apr 13, 2025 1:15 pm I'll accept if I'm in the minority here but I find watching the ISSF competitions pretty nice. Yeah it's not as much of a spectacle as other sports but if you pay attention you can definitely see the athletes work through the psychological pressure, and it's neat to see different holds, techniques and grip modifications.

Which requires that you have experienced the sport yourself and understand the intricacies.

Yeah I get that. It's not the most accessible sport to outsiders, but I wouldn't call it unwatchable either. I actually think it's slowly breaking more into the mainstream as time goes on (Dikec and Ye-ji aren't the first pistol shooters to go viral, I remember Batsarashkina also doing the same years before), but at the end of the day we have to accept that any sport that isn't one of the truly major ones is going to mostly be upheld by the communities of people who enjoy it and participate in it.

While I personally think that rapid fire should have been replaced by 25m centerfire or rimfire, I also think that making the finals group larger also works towards the spirit of that. It creates more opportunity for the athletes, which is a net benefit.

Grippy wrote: ↑Sun Apr 13, 2025 1:17 pm

KZMNT wrote: ↑Sun Apr 13, 2025 1:15 pm I'll accept if I'm in the minority here but I find watching the ISSF competitions pretty nice. Yeah it's not as much of a spectacle as other sports but if you pay attention you can definitely see the athletes work through the psychological pressure, and it's neat to see different holds, techniques and grip modifications.

Which requires that you have experienced the sport yourself and understand the intricacies.

Or, if you are watching on television, a commentator who knows the sports intricacies and can explain them. Quite frankly, the two commentators that the ISSF use for their YouTube channel are appalling.

Even then it's hard. I think "show don't tell" applies here too. The commentary still needs to teach you something you can then observe yourself. It takes quite some times for actual participants in the sport to be able to digest said intricacies when just explained.

From the 25 meter matches, I only watch (on YouTube) the 25 meter women pistol matches.

I think rapid fire is an attempt to ride on the hipness of dynamic shooting, but that the effect is opposite.

It takes a bit out of the essence of the sport (precision).
And it scatters the sport (into less meaningful parts).
It's a shame, while precision shooting is the coolest.
The precision shooters are the best shooters on the planet.

I think what Grippy says about using a non-invasive Scatt to show the shot coming off has some merit. We also need a knowledgeable commentator to explain the intricacies of shooting a shot. I don't watch golfing because it's boring to me, but look how big it is on television. It is just one guy shooting a ball into a hole in the ground ( Pasture Pool). It is romantic to some people who see it played on beautiful grass fields with some hazards that impede the way if they misplace a perfect hit on the ball. Well that in a way can be said of precision shooting sports only we don't play on green grass.
Stan