Olympic Rapid Fire, London Oddsmaker lines

[BenEnglishTX]

...assumption is true for SOME shooting functionaries in SOME countries.

"Some"? Really? Not "most"?

Perhaps I'm reading too much into it, but to me the use of "some" implies a minority. If you actually meant it that way, well, that's rather sad.

[Alexander]

...assumption is true for SOME shooting functionaries in SOME countries.

"Some"? Really? Not "most"?

Yes.

If you actually meant it that way,

Yes.

well, that's rather sad.

Yes.

Alexander

[Mike M.]

Fencing works that way. For a normal tournament, you fence pools for seeding...then go to direct elimination.

I think the greater issue is that shooting is customarily NOT a man-vs-man event, but man-vs-himself. Different philosophy.

I understand but I only partially agree. All sports is, in some sense, man-vs-man. Additionally, the martial origins of many Olympic sports is undeniable, howevermuch it's been well swept under the rug for appearances sake. I seem to remember vaguely humanoid RF targets in the distant past and I know that direct, man-vs-man shooting sports have many participants using simunitions, paintballs, and airsoft. Man-vs-himself isn't the be-all and end-all of the shooting sports.

If any Olympic shooting sport is a proper fit to a man-vs-man finale, it seems to me that rapid fire pistol is the best suited.

I am well aware that this sort of thinking disappeared from the sport a long time ago. I bring it up only to point out that I think it could make for a more TV-friendly, fun-to-watch finals. And a TV-friendly, fun-to-watch sport stands a better chance of attracting new participants.

An interesting point. I shot RF on the "coffin" targets just before the switch...and understand that the pre-war targets were explicitly man-shaped.

But making it work right would require a very different approach. Hit/miss scoring all the way through, just like in the prewar period. Maybe even revive the old two-second string. It might have potential.

[Eaglemitch]

Jeez,
I can't remember and cannot confirm but was Pupo of Cuba better than 50-1 odds to win Gold? I wish I threw a 1000 Euros on him for that. Kumar came out of nowhere for Silver as well!!

[j-team]

Well, the hit/miss format for the final is a bit of a lottery anyway, so betting would be risky.

I feel sorry for Klimov, shooting a world and olympic record, then ending up 4th.

[Richard H]

Well, the hit/miss format for the final is a bit of a lottery anyway, so betting would be risky.

I feel sorry for Klimov, shooting a world and olympic record, then ending up 4th.

Then again one would think if he can get those scores he shouldn't have had a problem hitting 9.7 either.

[jliston48]

...and understand that the pre-war targets were explicitly man-shaped.

That would be pre-Vietnam war! I started shooting RF in 1972 on person-shaped targets with distinctive shoulders and head. They changed sometime in the mid to late 1970's, I think to the coffin-shaped targets.

[ruig]

Well, the hit/miss format for the final is a bit of a lottery anyway, so betting would be risky.

I feel sorry for Klimov, shooting a world and olympic record, then ending up 4th.

Fresh comments found in newspapers:

http://toz35.blogspot.co.at/2012/08/ale ... oesnt.html

[Richard H]

Yes finals in general are unfair, a shooter shot the whole match to come out on top now his nearest 7 competitors get 10 more shots to beat him.

[Brian G]

Yes finals in general are unfair, a shooter shot the whole match to come out on top now his nearest 7 competitors get 10 more shots to beat him.

But he also has 10 more shots to stay in front.

[Richard H]

Yes finals in general are unfair, a shooter shot the whole match to come out on top now his nearest 7 competitors get 10 more shots to beat him.

But he also has 10 more shots to stay in front.

Yes but I'm talking about the whine here. It's unfair because he already won so he can only lose where the others are getting more chance to improve.

Just to be clear, my comment was sarcasm.

I like the new finals format, it makes for far more excitement for what little amount of spectators it gets. Many other sports have had to re-jig thier finals too, Archery now has sets instead of direct count of points. In rapid fire for years leaders went in with such a lead the finals were useless. Yes as shooters that's really impressive, but for spectators not very exciting.

In the end it is fair because they all are playing by the same rules.

[David Levene]

In the end it is fair because they all are playing by the same rules.

I couldn't agree more.

The rules we have today are different from those we had 5 years ago, and they are different from those we had 30 years ago.

Rules have changed, and they will no doubt change in the future. They will still be fair because they will be the same for everyone.

[Richard H]

I don't think people also realize what the options were either. Basically the ISSF had to change Rapid Fire or simply it wouldn't be in the Olympics, that was the choice. I think if they could have easily gone to knock down targets they would have.

I myself have been critical of the ISSF in the past but, over the last few years I think they have tried hard to improve the sport, from the consolidation of pistol and the other rapid fire rules to little things like improving their website, coming up with smartphone apps and just overall improving their communication.

People complain because the changes don't have immediate effects, like getting rid of 22 shorts the comments are that people aren't flocking to rapid fire. The truth is it will take time but I guarantee more people have tried it, and the more that try it more will find they like it and are good at it.

I suspect there will be more changes to the various disciplines, there are sports fighting to get into the games, and I wouldn't want to bet on the fact that shooting has always been there to keep us there. The sports will need to evolve to keep relevant or it will be replaced. Some of the changes will work and some won't, some competitors will like and some won't.

I guess the next big change will most likely come in rifle clothing, but I wouldn't be surprised if there were some sort of elimination typ final or head to head introduced into some of the pistol events. The drama it creates is just good for the spectator.

[Tycho]

I'll tell you what's going to happen: RF will be dead in 8 years, at the latest, and SP the olympic disipline for everybody, IF shooting manages to to stay olympic at all. For outsiders, the current RF finals are as interesting as all the others - like watching paint dry. No drama at all, because they simply don't get it. No instant visibility of a result. It's abstract as hell. The ISSF can change whatever they want, their suit and ties won't be on TV, and Coke isn't going to sponsor them. Trampoline jumping gets more TV time than shooting, and the width of the blinders and the prohibition of jeans didn't change a thing about that. I agree that not everyting the ISSF is doing is useless, their Videos are great to watch, the website much improved (why t.f. didn't the olympic guys allow the ISSF to run their final videos??), but the overall strategy is hopeless, and they're pissing off their base with their constant tinkering, which is going to hurt them big time, way more than the TV figures.

There were how many starters in RF? They could handle five times as much in SP, on the same range. You think all those countries coming into international shooting now are going to hope for one of 15 or so starting places? They'll vote that crap RF has become out of the Olympics at Mach 3, and put SP in.

[BenEnglishTX]

Again, as an outsider I must apologize in advance if I offend anyone with this question, but you bring up a point I've often wondered about.

I think if they could have easily gone to knock down targets they would have.

I've often looked at those biathlon target racks (and looked back at my years of experience shooting long range pistol silhouettes) and thought that something like that could be adapted to rapid fire pistol. Instant, real-world-at-the-target scoring results would be visible to spectators, something fundamentally different and more satisfying than waiting for a computer display to be updated. If the cost of a bay is a limiting factor in the popularity of rapid fire (and such an opinion has already been posted in this thread) then the cost would surely be less for such a simple mechanical device compared to all the microphones and electronics currently in use. Polymer knock-down targets that can safely be used indoors without spraying lead dust in the air are now easily available. Knock-down targets are surely different but jarring changes in procedure and equipment have previously been accepted, such as short to LR, coffin target to round, counting holes in paper to electronic scoring.

Your statement seems to indicate that knock-down targets have been considered and that there were obstacles to their adoption.

If I'm reading you correctly, then, what prevents knock-down targets from being seriously considered, experimented with, or adopted?

[Richard H]

I don't know if hey were truly considered, I'm speculating that they were most likely tasked with changing the final to make it more interesting without any added expense.

Tycho I do agree to a point, so really the conversation should be do we want to even try to stay in the Olympics and change the sport, or do we just want to keep it exactly the ways it is and do what we want and most likely get the boot from the Olympics?

The other issue is, are youth beating down the door to enter shooting? If you can't go to the Olympics would we loose the few young people that do seek it it out?

I don't see Sport pistol being our saving grace.

I could see them going to something more like archery. Have a seeding round a round of 64, 32, 16 ect all head to head, could have five ends in each round best of 5 moves on. The same could be done for any event. The head to is always more exciting.

[Brian G]

There were how many starters in RF? They could handle five times as much in SP, on the same range.

Not quite due to target spacing (750mm) and firing point width (1000mm) and the angles. If it were not for RF then the targets could be on the same spacing as the FPs, then without the gaps between banks of targets that would increase the range capacity, one of our club ranges is set up in this manner.

[David Levene]

There were how many starters in RF? They could handle five times as much in SP, on the same range.

As I understand it, the problem is not with the available range space, more with the IOC's attempts to keep the OGs to a reasonable size. That was why the QP system was introduced in the first place (for Seoul '88).

Incidentally, the Olympic range firing point was set up to only use targets 1, 2, 4 & 5 on a bank for 25m Pistol. The angles were therefore negligable.

[Sparks]

For outsiders, the current RF finals are as interesting as all the others - like watching paint dry. No drama at all, because they simply don't get it. No instant visibility of a result. It's abstract as hell.

Did you actually watch any of the finals this past week? The crowds were going insane in the ranges, just look at how they cheered Gray on her 10.9, and it's been like that all week.

The RF finals could be hugely entertaining, but the ISSF has gone in the wrong direction - they're dumbing down the finals, making it hit/miss instead of showing where the shot landed as they do for all the other finals.

And the one thing that I hope people have learnt in this past week is that that announcer who's been commentating on the finals is the best thing to happen to the spectator's experience in olympic finals in a good twenty years or so. Someone who understands audiences, who feeds energy into the event like that? Invest in that. Hire the guy as the permanent commentator for the ISSF youtube channel and any other match ISSF ever hold. That'd do more, pound for pound, dollar for dollar, euro for euro, than any other single change they could make.

[Orpanaut]

Christian Reitz shoots rapid fire AND free pistol? Wow!