What makes, say, running more appealing than shooting? All they do there is one repetitive task - moving one leg in front of another. The answer is - the spectator can see relative positions of participants in real time.
What about individual sports, say, trampoline? There the spectator can see the stuff happening - it is interesting to look at, even though the competitive factor is not apparent, as opposed to sports where several compete at once.
Both of these contributing factors can (in theory) be taken advantage of if the shooters in final will be monitored by any tracing system. Lets consider the doability aspect of that.
Can we require every participant on the WC or Olympics level to have specified type of trigger with pressure sensor and tracing sensor attached to the equipment apriori and have corresponding monitoring devices in addition to regular electronic targets down the range for every shooter? Does not look cheap, but not impossible. The problem is, however, is that there will be more opportunity for the hardware to go wrong, and the tracing is not really needed during relays anyway.
Alternatively, the monitoring may apply to the finals only (where it is needed), and the tracing hardware is to be attached to the rifles immediately before the finals. The current technology will allow for the design of the tracing sensor to be sufficiently compact and lightweight, and a simple clamping system (on accessory rail, for example) should allow for easy installation and removal. (For the pistol the matters are more complicated, since the sensor would have to be ultra light, and located close to center of gravity of the pistol in order not to disturb balance, so it may not be doable at all.) Having the tracing system interfaced with the normal electronic targets will allow for easy automatic calibration during the sightings. However, I don't see how the trigger pressure sensors can be installed on the spot in similar manner, and the alternatives are not to use them at all, or require the participants to have them installed beforehand.
Now lets consider the benefits of the tracing. Needless to say that the tracing alone will tremendously increase the spectator appeal factor. Having the bar showing the percentage of pressure required for the sear to engage near the image of the trace is all that is needed for a spectator to see the shot unfold.
About the competitive factor: suppose shooter A just fired we are moving to the trace of a shooter B; electronic system knows by now that in order for the shooter B to advance in rank over shooter A, he/she needs to fire at least, say, 10.2. The corresponding hit zone can be marked on the trace with a green circle, so a spectator can easily see where the shooter needs to hit. Suppose the shooter C fires, and the system knows by now that if shooter B scores below, say, 8.7, he/she will drop in rank below C, so the system can mark the corresponding hit zone with a red circle. Now a spectator has an idea where B is with respect to A and C.
The technology to make things work as described is certainly there, and in order for the shooting sports to survive it will have to be taken advantage of, sooner or later. Will we live to see that?
.45078.0
Ideas for increasing the appeal factor of shooting sports
Moderators: rexifelis, pilkguns
-
Spencer C
Like the ISSF is already proposing???
Take a look at the ISSF powerpoint display at http://www.issfnews.com/default.asp?fil ... les&id=198
.45093.45078
.45093.45078
-
Val
Re: Like the ISSF is already proposing???
Whoa, it looks like they want to make it about as complicated as the ranking system.
.45095.45093
.45095.45093
-
akihmsa
Re: Ideas for increasing the appeal factor of shooting sport
Appealing to the coach potato crowd may be important to some. I would rather plink cans at the dump than watch the best in the world run a marathon or ride a bicycle etc. Shooters tend to be participants and not watchers in my experience.
To most shooters a bad day shooting anything is better than a great day in front of the TV!
: What makes, say, running more appealing than shooting? All they do there is one repetitive task - moving one leg in front of another. The answer is - the spectator can see relative positions of participants in real time.
: What about individual sports, say, trampoline? There the spectator can see the stuff happening - it is interesting to look at, even though the competitive factor is not apparent, as opposed to sports where several compete at once.
: Both of these contributing factors can (in theory) be taken advantage of if the shooters in final will be monitored by any tracing system. Lets consider the doability aspect of that.
: Can we require every participant on the WC or Olympics level to have specified type of trigger with pressure sensor and tracing sensor attached to the equipment apriori and have corresponding monitoring devices in addition to regular electronic targets down the range for every shooter? Does not look cheap, but not impossible. The problem is, however, is that there will be more opportunity for the hardware to go wrong, and the tracing is not really needed during relays anyway.
: Alternatively, the monitoring may apply to the finals only (where it is needed), and the tracing hardware is to be attached to the rifles immediately before the finals. The current technology will allow for the design of the tracing sensor to be sufficiently compact and lightweight, and a simple clamping system (on accessory rail, for example) should allow for easy installation and removal. (For the pistol the matters are more complicated, since the sensor would have to be ultra light, and located close to center of gravity of the pistol in order not to disturb balance, so it may not be doable at all.) Having the tracing system interfaced with the normal electronic targets will allow for easy automatic calibration during the sightings. However, I don't see how the trigger pressure sensors can be installed on the spot in similar manner, and the alternatives are not to use them at all, or require the participants to have them installed beforehand.
:
: Now lets consider the benefits of the tracing. Needless to say that the tracing alone will tremendously increase the spectator appeal factor. Having the bar showing the percentage of pressure required for the sear to engage near the image of the trace is all that is needed for a spectator to see the shot unfold.
: About the competitive factor: suppose shooter A just fired we are moving to the trace of a shooter B; electronic system knows by now that in order for the shooter B to advance in rank over shooter A, he/she needs to fire at least, say, 10.2. The corresponding hit zone can be marked on the trace with a green circle, so a spectator can easily see where the shooter needs to hit. Suppose the shooter C fires, and the system knows by now that if shooter B scores below, say, 8.7, he/she will drop in rank below C, so the system can mark the corresponding hit zone with a red circle. Now a spectator has an idea where B is with respect to A and C.
: The technology to make things work as described is certainly there, and in order for the shooting sports to survive it will have to be taken advantage of, sooner or later. Will we live to see that?
.45119.45078
To most shooters a bad day shooting anything is better than a great day in front of the TV!
: What makes, say, running more appealing than shooting? All they do there is one repetitive task - moving one leg in front of another. The answer is - the spectator can see relative positions of participants in real time.
: What about individual sports, say, trampoline? There the spectator can see the stuff happening - it is interesting to look at, even though the competitive factor is not apparent, as opposed to sports where several compete at once.
: Both of these contributing factors can (in theory) be taken advantage of if the shooters in final will be monitored by any tracing system. Lets consider the doability aspect of that.
: Can we require every participant on the WC or Olympics level to have specified type of trigger with pressure sensor and tracing sensor attached to the equipment apriori and have corresponding monitoring devices in addition to regular electronic targets down the range for every shooter? Does not look cheap, but not impossible. The problem is, however, is that there will be more opportunity for the hardware to go wrong, and the tracing is not really needed during relays anyway.
: Alternatively, the monitoring may apply to the finals only (where it is needed), and the tracing hardware is to be attached to the rifles immediately before the finals. The current technology will allow for the design of the tracing sensor to be sufficiently compact and lightweight, and a simple clamping system (on accessory rail, for example) should allow for easy installation and removal. (For the pistol the matters are more complicated, since the sensor would have to be ultra light, and located close to center of gravity of the pistol in order not to disturb balance, so it may not be doable at all.) Having the tracing system interfaced with the normal electronic targets will allow for easy automatic calibration during the sightings. However, I don't see how the trigger pressure sensors can be installed on the spot in similar manner, and the alternatives are not to use them at all, or require the participants to have them installed beforehand.
:
: Now lets consider the benefits of the tracing. Needless to say that the tracing alone will tremendously increase the spectator appeal factor. Having the bar showing the percentage of pressure required for the sear to engage near the image of the trace is all that is needed for a spectator to see the shot unfold.
: About the competitive factor: suppose shooter A just fired we are moving to the trace of a shooter B; electronic system knows by now that in order for the shooter B to advance in rank over shooter A, he/she needs to fire at least, say, 10.2. The corresponding hit zone can be marked on the trace with a green circle, so a spectator can easily see where the shooter needs to hit. Suppose the shooter C fires, and the system knows by now that if shooter B scores below, say, 8.7, he/she will drop in rank below C, so the system can mark the corresponding hit zone with a red circle. Now a spectator has an idea where B is with respect to A and C.
: The technology to make things work as described is certainly there, and in order for the shooting sports to survive it will have to be taken advantage of, sooner or later. Will we live to see that?
.45119.45078
-
TomW
Re: Like the ISSF is already proposing???
: Take a look at the ISSF powerpoint display at http://www.issfnews.com/default.asp?fil ... les&id=198
Since the shooting sports' existence at Olympic level now seems to be wholly dependent on spectator/TV appeal, then the people who should be asked to contribute ideas to achieving that end should be those involved in the entertainment industry/TV.
I've had a look at the ISSF PP display and the proposals and they seemed to have missed the point. The proposal is doomed to failure for most of the events because they are still too boring for a spectator and still too complicated for the average couch potato.
Has anyone ever wondered why trap/skeet shooting and archery attract such large crowds? The answer is simple. There is some action involved and more importantly, the viewer can actually see for themselves the result of the shot ie a puff of orange or two in the case of trap/skeet and the flight/landing of the arrow in archery.
In other words, there is instant feedback and gratification for the viewer. Golf is the same. The audience can see the ball in flight and see it land and experience the emotion of seeing it fall near to/into the hole or into trouble.
In the target shooting events, there is no instant feedback for the viewer. They can't see the projectile, they can't see it land and all they get is a TV simulation of what happened at the target end accompanied by a complex scoring system. With the best will in the world, it simply won't work. How do you tell if a rifle shooter is doing well? Simple. Absolutely nothing appears to be happening. The shooter/rifle is as still as a statue, there is nothing on the shooters face except a look of blandness and the rifle does virtually nothing when it is fired especially in the case of air rifle. In addition it is nearly impossible to tell from the shooters expression if the shot was a good one or a bad one. Speaking as a viewer and not a shooter (although I do shoot), it's bloody boring except for shooting afficionados.
I don't know fully how to change things for the better but I do have a few ideas that I think are essential. Firstly, the targets in ALL events need to be made "reactive" ie, when they are hit, something obvious to the viewer needs to happen - just as in trap/skeet. Secondly, too much time is given to the shooter to complete a shot. Viewers don't mind some sort of preparation period, providing that when the start signal is given, some instant action takes place. - again like trap/skeet. Give all shooters a small reactive target to fire at, make them start from a ready position which is not the normal firing position and give them a very brief time limit, say 3 seconds (except for the pistol Rapid Fire event, which could stay at 4 seconds) to lift the firearm, aim and fire. When the shot has been completed, encourage the shooter to show some reaction (they're going to have to learn to act a little). Get rid of the fancy clothing ie the shooting jackets. The audience can't relate to them and they reinforce in the viewers mind that this is a sport heavily dependent on specialised equipment. The shooter needs to look like an ordinary person, in an extraordinary situation.
The major thing that needs to be changed is the target for the rifle/pistol sports. As a consequence of this, there will need to be a change in shooting style for the finals for the rifle shooters in particular. Remember, this has got nothing to do with shooting per se - it's all about creating audience appeal and excitement. In other words, the ISSF, if it wants to save the shooting sports at Olympic level, then it needs to start behaving more as entertainment entrepreneurs rather than shooting managers.
And don't get pissed off with me for suggesting this. I wasn't asked if I wanted my sport prostituted so that it would have greater TV appeal. I simply say to everyone that since TV appeal is now the governing factor for Olympic sports then we all need to stop thinking like shooters and start thinking like entertainers - IF we want to stay in the Olympics, that is.
twoodle1-at-bigpond.net.au.45122.45093
Since the shooting sports' existence at Olympic level now seems to be wholly dependent on spectator/TV appeal, then the people who should be asked to contribute ideas to achieving that end should be those involved in the entertainment industry/TV.
I've had a look at the ISSF PP display and the proposals and they seemed to have missed the point. The proposal is doomed to failure for most of the events because they are still too boring for a spectator and still too complicated for the average couch potato.
Has anyone ever wondered why trap/skeet shooting and archery attract such large crowds? The answer is simple. There is some action involved and more importantly, the viewer can actually see for themselves the result of the shot ie a puff of orange or two in the case of trap/skeet and the flight/landing of the arrow in archery.
In other words, there is instant feedback and gratification for the viewer. Golf is the same. The audience can see the ball in flight and see it land and experience the emotion of seeing it fall near to/into the hole or into trouble.
In the target shooting events, there is no instant feedback for the viewer. They can't see the projectile, they can't see it land and all they get is a TV simulation of what happened at the target end accompanied by a complex scoring system. With the best will in the world, it simply won't work. How do you tell if a rifle shooter is doing well? Simple. Absolutely nothing appears to be happening. The shooter/rifle is as still as a statue, there is nothing on the shooters face except a look of blandness and the rifle does virtually nothing when it is fired especially in the case of air rifle. In addition it is nearly impossible to tell from the shooters expression if the shot was a good one or a bad one. Speaking as a viewer and not a shooter (although I do shoot), it's bloody boring except for shooting afficionados.
I don't know fully how to change things for the better but I do have a few ideas that I think are essential. Firstly, the targets in ALL events need to be made "reactive" ie, when they are hit, something obvious to the viewer needs to happen - just as in trap/skeet. Secondly, too much time is given to the shooter to complete a shot. Viewers don't mind some sort of preparation period, providing that when the start signal is given, some instant action takes place. - again like trap/skeet. Give all shooters a small reactive target to fire at, make them start from a ready position which is not the normal firing position and give them a very brief time limit, say 3 seconds (except for the pistol Rapid Fire event, which could stay at 4 seconds) to lift the firearm, aim and fire. When the shot has been completed, encourage the shooter to show some reaction (they're going to have to learn to act a little). Get rid of the fancy clothing ie the shooting jackets. The audience can't relate to them and they reinforce in the viewers mind that this is a sport heavily dependent on specialised equipment. The shooter needs to look like an ordinary person, in an extraordinary situation.
The major thing that needs to be changed is the target for the rifle/pistol sports. As a consequence of this, there will need to be a change in shooting style for the finals for the rifle shooters in particular. Remember, this has got nothing to do with shooting per se - it's all about creating audience appeal and excitement. In other words, the ISSF, if it wants to save the shooting sports at Olympic level, then it needs to start behaving more as entertainment entrepreneurs rather than shooting managers.
And don't get pissed off with me for suggesting this. I wasn't asked if I wanted my sport prostituted so that it would have greater TV appeal. I simply say to everyone that since TV appeal is now the governing factor for Olympic sports then we all need to stop thinking like shooters and start thinking like entertainers - IF we want to stay in the Olympics, that is.
twoodle1-at-bigpond.net.au.45122.45093
-
fred
Re: Like the ISSF is already proposing???
I agree with Tom W's basic point - it's all about entertainment - but would like to suggest a different direction that wouldn't require changing targets, timings etc. Let's assume that only finals would be televised. The scoring system could be changed so that the score for each finals shot would be the actual whole-number value of the shot, plus an additional amount from .0 to .9, based on a panel of international judges' ratings of the theatricality of the shooter's reaction. The camera could show the (electronic facsimile of) the shot result, move to the shooter's reaction, and then to the panel of judges' scorecards (just as in diving or figure skating). Additional benefits of this system would be that the shooter reactions could be replayed and dissected in slow motion, that commentators could speculate on the political in-fighting between judges of different nationalities, and that, both before and after the finals, the camera could show the shooters interacting with their theatrical coaches and practising their reaction moves.
: : Take a look at the ISSF powerpoint display at http://www.issfnews.com/default.asp?fil ... les&id=198
: Since the shooting sports' existence at Olympic level now seems to be wholly dependent on spectator/TV appeal, then the people who should be asked to contribute ideas to achieving that end should be those involved in the entertainment industry/TV.
: I've had a look at the ISSF PP display and the proposals and they seemed to have missed the point. The proposal is doomed to failure for most of the events because they are still too boring for a spectator and still too complicated for the average couch potato.
: Has anyone ever wondered why trap/skeet shooting and archery attract such large crowds? The answer is simple. There is some action involved and more importantly, the viewer can actually see for themselves the result of the shot ie a puff of orange or two in the case of trap/skeet and the flight/landing of the arrow in archery.
: In other words, there is instant feedback and gratification for the viewer. Golf is the same. The audience can see the ball in flight and see it land and experience the emotion of seeing it fall near to/into the hole or into trouble.
: In the target shooting events, there is no instant feedback for the viewer. They can't see the projectile, they can't see it land and all they get is a TV simulation of what happened at the target end accompanied by a complex scoring system. With the best will in the world, it simply won't work. How do you tell if a rifle shooter is doing well? Simple. Absolutely nothing appears to be happening. The shooter/rifle is as still as a statue, there is nothing on the shooters face except a look of blandness and the rifle does virtually nothing when it is fired especially in the case of air rifle. In addition it is nearly impossible to tell from the shooters expression if the shot was a good one or a bad one. Speaking as a viewer and not a shooter (although I do shoot), it's bloody boring except for shooting afficionados.
: I don't know fully how to change things for the better but I do have a few ideas that I think are essential. Firstly, the targets in ALL events need to be made "reactive" ie, when they are hit, something obvious to the viewer needs to happen - just as in trap/skeet. Secondly, too much time is given to the shooter to complete a shot. Viewers don't mind some sort of preparation period, providing that when the start signal is given, some instant action takes place. - again like trap/skeet. Give all shooters a small reactive target to fire at, make them start from a ready position which is not the normal firing position and give them a very brief time limit, say 3 seconds (except for the pistol Rapid Fire event, which could stay at 4 seconds) to lift the firearm, aim and fire. When the shot has been completed, encourage the shooter to show some reaction (they're going to have to learn to act a little). Get rid of the fancy clothing ie the shooting jackets. The audience can't relate to them and they reinforce in the viewers mind that this is a sport heavily dependent on specialised equipment. The shooter needs to look like an ordinary person, in an extraordinary situation.
: The major thing that needs to be changed is the target for the rifle/pistol sports. As a consequence of this, there will need to be a change in shooting style for the finals for the rifle shooters in particular. Remember, this has got nothing to do with shooting per se - it's all about creating audience appeal and excitement. In other words, the ISSF, if it wants to save the shooting sports at Olympic level, then it needs to start behaving more as entertainment entrepreneurs rather than shooting managers.
: And don't get pissed off with me for suggesting this. I wasn't asked if I wanted my sport prostituted so that it would have greater TV appeal. I simply say to everyone that since TV appeal is now the governing factor for Olympic sports then we all need to stop thinking like shooters and start thinking like entertainers - IF we want to stay in the Olympics, that is.
frbauer-at-msn.com.45124.45122
: : Take a look at the ISSF powerpoint display at http://www.issfnews.com/default.asp?fil ... les&id=198
: Since the shooting sports' existence at Olympic level now seems to be wholly dependent on spectator/TV appeal, then the people who should be asked to contribute ideas to achieving that end should be those involved in the entertainment industry/TV.
: I've had a look at the ISSF PP display and the proposals and they seemed to have missed the point. The proposal is doomed to failure for most of the events because they are still too boring for a spectator and still too complicated for the average couch potato.
: Has anyone ever wondered why trap/skeet shooting and archery attract such large crowds? The answer is simple. There is some action involved and more importantly, the viewer can actually see for themselves the result of the shot ie a puff of orange or two in the case of trap/skeet and the flight/landing of the arrow in archery.
: In other words, there is instant feedback and gratification for the viewer. Golf is the same. The audience can see the ball in flight and see it land and experience the emotion of seeing it fall near to/into the hole or into trouble.
: In the target shooting events, there is no instant feedback for the viewer. They can't see the projectile, they can't see it land and all they get is a TV simulation of what happened at the target end accompanied by a complex scoring system. With the best will in the world, it simply won't work. How do you tell if a rifle shooter is doing well? Simple. Absolutely nothing appears to be happening. The shooter/rifle is as still as a statue, there is nothing on the shooters face except a look of blandness and the rifle does virtually nothing when it is fired especially in the case of air rifle. In addition it is nearly impossible to tell from the shooters expression if the shot was a good one or a bad one. Speaking as a viewer and not a shooter (although I do shoot), it's bloody boring except for shooting afficionados.
: I don't know fully how to change things for the better but I do have a few ideas that I think are essential. Firstly, the targets in ALL events need to be made "reactive" ie, when they are hit, something obvious to the viewer needs to happen - just as in trap/skeet. Secondly, too much time is given to the shooter to complete a shot. Viewers don't mind some sort of preparation period, providing that when the start signal is given, some instant action takes place. - again like trap/skeet. Give all shooters a small reactive target to fire at, make them start from a ready position which is not the normal firing position and give them a very brief time limit, say 3 seconds (except for the pistol Rapid Fire event, which could stay at 4 seconds) to lift the firearm, aim and fire. When the shot has been completed, encourage the shooter to show some reaction (they're going to have to learn to act a little). Get rid of the fancy clothing ie the shooting jackets. The audience can't relate to them and they reinforce in the viewers mind that this is a sport heavily dependent on specialised equipment. The shooter needs to look like an ordinary person, in an extraordinary situation.
: The major thing that needs to be changed is the target for the rifle/pistol sports. As a consequence of this, there will need to be a change in shooting style for the finals for the rifle shooters in particular. Remember, this has got nothing to do with shooting per se - it's all about creating audience appeal and excitement. In other words, the ISSF, if it wants to save the shooting sports at Olympic level, then it needs to start behaving more as entertainment entrepreneurs rather than shooting managers.
: And don't get pissed off with me for suggesting this. I wasn't asked if I wanted my sport prostituted so that it would have greater TV appeal. I simply say to everyone that since TV appeal is now the governing factor for Olympic sports then we all need to stop thinking like shooters and start thinking like entertainers - IF we want to stay in the Olympics, that is.
frbauer-at-msn.com.45124.45122
-
Val
Re: Like the ISSF is already proposing???
I liked the idea of adding boxing among the finalists between the shots. I.E. a shooter gets an opportunity to punch all the other ones who got the lower score for that shot.
.45125.45124
.45125.45124
-
TomW
Re: Like the ISSF is already proposing???
: I liked the idea of adding boxing among the finalists between the shots. I.E. a shooter gets an opportunity to punch all the other ones who got the lower score for that shot.
My suggestions were quite serious but if you want to add an element of the absurd, you could change all of the shooting finals to duels between finalists - not using real firearms, of course (the sport would soon lose its participant appeal) but using paintball guns.
In any event, whatever is decided, we have to stop thinking like shooters and start thinking like an audience ie what would give them pleasure and a desire to watch the event. Generally speaking, shooters are the worst judges of this.
twoodle1-at-bigpond.net.au.45126.45125
My suggestions were quite serious but if you want to add an element of the absurd, you could change all of the shooting finals to duels between finalists - not using real firearms, of course (the sport would soon lose its participant appeal) but using paintball guns.
In any event, whatever is decided, we have to stop thinking like shooters and start thinking like an audience ie what would give them pleasure and a desire to watch the event. Generally speaking, shooters are the worst judges of this.
twoodle1-at-bigpond.net.au.45126.45125
-
David Levene
Re: Like the ISSF is already proposing???
Isn't the instant feedback exactly what the ISSF were thinking of when they introduced the rule 8.20.3 5 target event. Unfortunately (in my opinion) the take-up of this event can best be described as "extremely limited".
dalevene-at-blueyonder.co.uk.45133.45122
dalevene-at-blueyonder.co.uk.45133.45122
-
Mark Dennehy
Re: Like the ISSF is already proposing???
: In any event, whatever is decided, we have to stop thinking like shooters and start thinking like an audience ie what would give them pleasure and a desire to watch the event. Generally speaking, shooters are the worst judges of this.
Well, if I was asked to think of a way to turn our sport into a parody of what it is now and make it something I wouldn't ever want to do in my free time, that idea for giving up to .9 points for a judge's subjective decision would be it. I do this sport precisely because it is NOT subjective - all I have to do to know how well I did is look at the hole in the piece of paper. No wondering "did I get the point 'cos the judge likes me or my country?". No self-deception. Just an objective, brutally honest evaluation of your skill, right there punched into the card.
The question comes up, therefore - do you want to give up that, in order to satisfy the IOC or ISSF, neither of which I've ever seen on my local range, neither of which have ever helped my local club, but both of which are requiring me to buy all new gear with their new rules just to try to get TV coverage which never turns up anyway for entirely different reasons.
Want to know why we don't make the sports news more often? Because (and I'm quoting a sports editor of one of our more respectable broadsheets in Ireland now) guns get on the news when they're used on *people*, not in a safe sport.
Golf gets in because golf is money. So does sailing, but it's also sexy. Football, Rugby, American Football, Soccer, Hockey - all filled with big guys in shorts or tight uniforms. Swimming? Women in bikinis. Running gets in because you can get a three-second, action-filled ending shot for the news with fit (and usually quite attractive) people dressed in lycra and not much of it - I don't want to think how much time on the Nine-O-Clock News was a result of Linford Christie wearing spandex shorts...
But shooting? Shooting, specifically our kind of shooting, isn't sexy. Oh, a deep ten may give you a better-than-bad-sex feeling, but the sport *never looks sexy*. (With the exception of when the ladies teams are changing into their gear on the line, and that's never on TV :) )
And frankly, I'm happy with that. I'm not sure we want to go down the road that makes our sport sexy. That way leads to a sport that tries to look like a John Woo gunfight scene from a movie, or towards the beach volleyball "sport" side of things. And frankly, I don't look good in a thong...
.45134.45126
Well, if I was asked to think of a way to turn our sport into a parody of what it is now and make it something I wouldn't ever want to do in my free time, that idea for giving up to .9 points for a judge's subjective decision would be it. I do this sport precisely because it is NOT subjective - all I have to do to know how well I did is look at the hole in the piece of paper. No wondering "did I get the point 'cos the judge likes me or my country?". No self-deception. Just an objective, brutally honest evaluation of your skill, right there punched into the card.
The question comes up, therefore - do you want to give up that, in order to satisfy the IOC or ISSF, neither of which I've ever seen on my local range, neither of which have ever helped my local club, but both of which are requiring me to buy all new gear with their new rules just to try to get TV coverage which never turns up anyway for entirely different reasons.
Want to know why we don't make the sports news more often? Because (and I'm quoting a sports editor of one of our more respectable broadsheets in Ireland now) guns get on the news when they're used on *people*, not in a safe sport.
Golf gets in because golf is money. So does sailing, but it's also sexy. Football, Rugby, American Football, Soccer, Hockey - all filled with big guys in shorts or tight uniforms. Swimming? Women in bikinis. Running gets in because you can get a three-second, action-filled ending shot for the news with fit (and usually quite attractive) people dressed in lycra and not much of it - I don't want to think how much time on the Nine-O-Clock News was a result of Linford Christie wearing spandex shorts...
But shooting? Shooting, specifically our kind of shooting, isn't sexy. Oh, a deep ten may give you a better-than-bad-sex feeling, but the sport *never looks sexy*. (With the exception of when the ladies teams are changing into their gear on the line, and that's never on TV :) )
And frankly, I'm happy with that. I'm not sure we want to go down the road that makes our sport sexy. That way leads to a sport that tries to look like a John Woo gunfight scene from a movie, or towards the beach volleyball "sport" side of things. And frankly, I don't look good in a thong...
.45134.45126
-
Goggle-eyes
ever been on a 50m range when the shooters are changing clot
while the on-range changing of clothing is frowned upon, it still happens (occasionally bringing a wistful sigh of nostalgia from this old Jury member)
Don't know what the female Jury members look at during preparation time for W50Prone / W3x20; but then they have the Mens events....
.45135.45134
Don't know what the female Jury members look at during preparation time for W50Prone / W3x20; but then they have the Mens events....
.45135.45134
-
Mark Dennehy
Re: ever been on a 50m range when the shooters are changing
: while the on-range changing of clothing is frowned upon, it still happens (occasionally bringing a wistful sigh of nostalgia from this old Jury member)
: Don't know what the female Jury members look at during preparation time for W50Prone / W3x20; but then they have the Mens events....
Yes, been there, seen that, but my point stands - aside from the prep time, which won't ever be filmed as there wouldn't be any pretence at all about what was being filmed (*david attenborough voice* "and now we see the swedish ladies team as they prepare for the womens 10m air rifle elimination round. We can see that Ulrika has opted for the black lacy underwear to complement her Anschutz 2002CA with the black aluminium frame, and Sonya has decided to go for the naturalist approach, claiming that it allows for a better inner position...").
In other words, the sport's not sexy, unless you want to get the TV crew to play Peeping Tom...
.45142.45135
: Don't know what the female Jury members look at during preparation time for W50Prone / W3x20; but then they have the Mens events....
Yes, been there, seen that, but my point stands - aside from the prep time, which won't ever be filmed as there wouldn't be any pretence at all about what was being filmed (*david attenborough voice* "and now we see the swedish ladies team as they prepare for the womens 10m air rifle elimination round. We can see that Ulrika has opted for the black lacy underwear to complement her Anschutz 2002CA with the black aluminium frame, and Sonya has decided to go for the naturalist approach, claiming that it allows for a better inner position...").
In other words, the sport's not sexy, unless you want to get the TV crew to play Peeping Tom...
.45142.45135
-
TomW
Re: Like the ISSF is already proposing???
: : In any event, whatever is decided, we have to stop thinking like shooters and start thinking like an audience ie what would give them pleasure and a desire to watch the event. Generally speaking, shooters are the worst judges of this.
: Well, if I was asked to think of a way to turn our sport into a parody of what it is now and make it something I wouldn't ever want to do in my free time, that idea for giving up to .9 points for a judge's subjective decision would be it. I do this sport precisely because it is NOT subjective - all I have to do to know how well I did is look at the hole in the piece of paper. No wondering "did I get the point 'cos the judge likes me or my country?". No self-deception. Just an objective, brutally honest evaluation of your skill, right there punched into the card.
: The question comes up, therefore - do you want to give up that, in order to satisfy the IOC or ISSF, neither of which I've ever seen on my local range, neither of which have ever helped my local club, but both of which are requiring me to buy all new gear with their new rules just to try to get TV coverage which never turns up anyway for entirely different reasons.
: Want to know why we don't make the sports news more often? Because (and I'm quoting a sports editor of one of our more respectable broadsheets in Ireland now) guns get on the news when they're used on *people*, not in a safe sport.
: Golf gets in because golf is money. So does sailing, but it's also sexy. Football, Rugby, American Football, Soccer, Hockey - all filled with big guys in shorts or tight uniforms. Swimming? Women in bikinis. Running gets in because you can get a three-second, action-filled ending shot for the news with fit (and usually quite attractive) people dressed in lycra and not much of it - I don't want to think how much time on the Nine-O-Clock News was a result of Linford Christie wearing spandex shorts...
: But shooting? Shooting, specifically our kind of shooting, isn't sexy. Oh, a deep ten may give you a better-than-bad-sex feeling, but the sport *never looks sexy*. (With the exception of when the ladies teams are changing into their gear on the line, and that's never on TV :) )
: And frankly, I'm happy with that. I'm not sure we want to go down the road that makes our sport sexy. That way leads to a sport that tries to look like a John Woo gunfight scene from a movie, or towards the beach volleyball "sport" side of things. And frankly, I don't look good in a thong...
The posting that started all of this addressed the issue of trying to make the shooting sports more appealing to spectators, particularly at the Olympics/WC.
My personal view is that this is not possible without a major shift in what shooting is all about. I like shooting the way it is. In my view it isn't a spectator sport - it's a sport for participants. In that respect I agree with everything you say.
However, the shooting sports weren't asked by the IOC if they would LIKE to change their formats to make them more appealing for TV audiences. They were TOLD to change or be dropped from the Olympics. The last two sentences of my first posting make my position clear ie:
"I wasn't asked if I wanted my sport prostituted so that it would have greater TV appeal. I simply say to everyone that since TV appeal is now the governing factor for Olympic sports then we all need to stop thinking like shooters and start thinking like entertainers - IF we want to stay in the Olympics, that is."
The key point in this is the final part - "IF we want to stay in the Olympics"
If the shooting sports are to survive at Olympic level, then they have to become entertaining - like it or not. Personally I think that stinks, but since I'll never make an Olympic squad, then those shooters who have the potential PLUS the ISSF are going to have to address this issue. If they can't come up with a successful formula then you can be certain that most of the shooting sports will eventually be dropped from the Olympic program. Again, personally, I think that would be a good thing, because the Olympics have become nothing more than a highly commercialised circus, which bears no resemblance to what the founder of the modern Olympics, Pierre de Coubertin, had in mind.
twoodle1-at-bigpond.net.au.45146.45134
: Well, if I was asked to think of a way to turn our sport into a parody of what it is now and make it something I wouldn't ever want to do in my free time, that idea for giving up to .9 points for a judge's subjective decision would be it. I do this sport precisely because it is NOT subjective - all I have to do to know how well I did is look at the hole in the piece of paper. No wondering "did I get the point 'cos the judge likes me or my country?". No self-deception. Just an objective, brutally honest evaluation of your skill, right there punched into the card.
: The question comes up, therefore - do you want to give up that, in order to satisfy the IOC or ISSF, neither of which I've ever seen on my local range, neither of which have ever helped my local club, but both of which are requiring me to buy all new gear with their new rules just to try to get TV coverage which never turns up anyway for entirely different reasons.
: Want to know why we don't make the sports news more often? Because (and I'm quoting a sports editor of one of our more respectable broadsheets in Ireland now) guns get on the news when they're used on *people*, not in a safe sport.
: Golf gets in because golf is money. So does sailing, but it's also sexy. Football, Rugby, American Football, Soccer, Hockey - all filled with big guys in shorts or tight uniforms. Swimming? Women in bikinis. Running gets in because you can get a three-second, action-filled ending shot for the news with fit (and usually quite attractive) people dressed in lycra and not much of it - I don't want to think how much time on the Nine-O-Clock News was a result of Linford Christie wearing spandex shorts...
: But shooting? Shooting, specifically our kind of shooting, isn't sexy. Oh, a deep ten may give you a better-than-bad-sex feeling, but the sport *never looks sexy*. (With the exception of when the ladies teams are changing into their gear on the line, and that's never on TV :) )
: And frankly, I'm happy with that. I'm not sure we want to go down the road that makes our sport sexy. That way leads to a sport that tries to look like a John Woo gunfight scene from a movie, or towards the beach volleyball "sport" side of things. And frankly, I don't look good in a thong...
The posting that started all of this addressed the issue of trying to make the shooting sports more appealing to spectators, particularly at the Olympics/WC.
My personal view is that this is not possible without a major shift in what shooting is all about. I like shooting the way it is. In my view it isn't a spectator sport - it's a sport for participants. In that respect I agree with everything you say.
However, the shooting sports weren't asked by the IOC if they would LIKE to change their formats to make them more appealing for TV audiences. They were TOLD to change or be dropped from the Olympics. The last two sentences of my first posting make my position clear ie:
"I wasn't asked if I wanted my sport prostituted so that it would have greater TV appeal. I simply say to everyone that since TV appeal is now the governing factor for Olympic sports then we all need to stop thinking like shooters and start thinking like entertainers - IF we want to stay in the Olympics, that is."
The key point in this is the final part - "IF we want to stay in the Olympics"
If the shooting sports are to survive at Olympic level, then they have to become entertaining - like it or not. Personally I think that stinks, but since I'll never make an Olympic squad, then those shooters who have the potential PLUS the ISSF are going to have to address this issue. If they can't come up with a successful formula then you can be certain that most of the shooting sports will eventually be dropped from the Olympic program. Again, personally, I think that would be a good thing, because the Olympics have become nothing more than a highly commercialised circus, which bears no resemblance to what the founder of the modern Olympics, Pierre de Coubertin, had in mind.
twoodle1-at-bigpond.net.au.45146.45134
-
Mike McDaniel
Wrong approach, I'm afraid.
It's time to face it. Shooting is not a terribly telegenic sport, AND THERE IS NOTHING TO BE DONE ABOUT IT!
To be brutally honest, the Olympic Games have become about one thing - spandex. Spandex sells. Spandex makes good ratings. Good ratings bring in TV revenues. And the IOC is pretty well a subsidiary of NBC Sports, these days.
You can play with techno-gizmos all you want, and try to hype up the pressure of competition with different finals formats all you please, but it's not going to hide the fact that shooters don't bother with spandex.
What to do?
First, we can band together with the OTHER "minor" sports. We're not alone in being ignored - the fencers, boaters, and a whole slew of other sports are in the same boat. Threaten a mass exodus, and the IOC will feel it. Take 60% of the competitors, and you just might be able to snag the Olympic name, too.
Second, consider breakable/falling targets, easy for watchers to follow. The biathletes have done this for years. 5-target RF air went that way, but the IOC hasn't pushed the event. And it would not be too hard to set up a similar system for the precision events. No more decimal scoring in a finals - you take 10 shots at a 9 or 10-ring sized falling target. Settle ties with a shootoff.
Third, you (and the choice of pronoun is deliberate) could throw away those silly air guns and get hardware with character. Muzzle-loaders. Percussion, flintlock, and even matchlock. Ever try shooting a rope-burner? :-)
HMSLion-at-aol.com.45147.45078
To be brutally honest, the Olympic Games have become about one thing - spandex. Spandex sells. Spandex makes good ratings. Good ratings bring in TV revenues. And the IOC is pretty well a subsidiary of NBC Sports, these days.
You can play with techno-gizmos all you want, and try to hype up the pressure of competition with different finals formats all you please, but it's not going to hide the fact that shooters don't bother with spandex.
What to do?
First, we can band together with the OTHER "minor" sports. We're not alone in being ignored - the fencers, boaters, and a whole slew of other sports are in the same boat. Threaten a mass exodus, and the IOC will feel it. Take 60% of the competitors, and you just might be able to snag the Olympic name, too.
Second, consider breakable/falling targets, easy for watchers to follow. The biathletes have done this for years. 5-target RF air went that way, but the IOC hasn't pushed the event. And it would not be too hard to set up a similar system for the precision events. No more decimal scoring in a finals - you take 10 shots at a 9 or 10-ring sized falling target. Settle ties with a shootoff.
Third, you (and the choice of pronoun is deliberate) could throw away those silly air guns and get hardware with character. Muzzle-loaders. Percussion, flintlock, and even matchlock. Ever try shooting a rope-burner? :-)
HMSLion-at-aol.com.45147.45078
-
Val
Re: Wrong approach, I'm afraid.
:Third, you (and the choice of pronoun is deliberate) could throw away those silly air guns and get hardware with character. Muzzle-loaders. Percussion, flintlock, and even matchlock. Ever try shooting a rope-burner? :-)
It will require corresponding outfit :)
.45149.45147
It will require corresponding outfit :)
.45149.45147
-
Chris L in NC
Okay, I traded my air pistol for a matchlock
Now there's a .68-cal hole in the pellet trap. And burn spots on the floor where ash dribbled off the fuse. And the cats went deaf.
chrisatty-at-hotmail.com.45154.45147
chrisatty-at-hotmail.com.45154.45147
-
Mike McDaniel
You're off to a good start.... :-)
Now you need to keep practicing. Shoot until your shirt looks like Swiss cheese with the burn-holes. Then try out for the International Muzzle-Loading Team.
P.S. Do not shoot the cats. Do not let the cats play with burning match. Unlit match is OK for a cat toy.
HMSLion-at-aol.com.45170.45154
P.S. Do not shoot the cats. Do not let the cats play with burning match. Unlit match is OK for a cat toy.
HMSLion-at-aol.com.45170.45154
-
Mike Schroeder
Re: Like the ISSF is already proposing???
: : In any event, whatever is decided, we have to stop thinking like shooters and start thinking like an audience ie what would give them pleasure and a desire to watch the event. Generally speaking, shooters are the worst judges of this.
Hi based on what you've said here, the shooting sport that would most match trap and skeet would be silhouette shooting. No fancy clothes, no blinders, you can see their face, no strange scoring system, just shoot and it falls over. The problem would be space, especially since Rifle Silhouette shooting requires a 500 meter range.
On a side note, I attended the Bianchi cup in Columbia MO this May (didn't shoot), watched about 5 guys shoot at moving targets. I really like shooting, and I really hate watching other people do it. These guys are shooting at a less than 3 inch x-ring, more than 10 yards away with a pistol and the target's moving at about 5 or 10 miles per hour. The winner hit all 10's and only missed 5 x-rings of about 200 shots. It's still like watching paint dry. Can't beat babes in spandex for a spectator sport. Sorry, it's a sexist comment, but that's the way it is.
Mike
Wichita KS
mschroeder5-at-cox.net.45189.45134
Hi based on what you've said here, the shooting sport that would most match trap and skeet would be silhouette shooting. No fancy clothes, no blinders, you can see their face, no strange scoring system, just shoot and it falls over. The problem would be space, especially since Rifle Silhouette shooting requires a 500 meter range.
On a side note, I attended the Bianchi cup in Columbia MO this May (didn't shoot), watched about 5 guys shoot at moving targets. I really like shooting, and I really hate watching other people do it. These guys are shooting at a less than 3 inch x-ring, more than 10 yards away with a pistol and the target's moving at about 5 or 10 miles per hour. The winner hit all 10's and only missed 5 x-rings of about 200 shots. It's still like watching paint dry. Can't beat babes in spandex for a spectator sport. Sorry, it's a sexist comment, but that's the way it is.
Mike
Wichita KS
mschroeder5-at-cox.net.45189.45134
-
the rifle streak
shoot naked! maybe we could get pilkguns to sponsor a nudist
: : while the on-range changing of clothing is frowned upon, it still happens (occasionally bringing a wistful sigh of nostalgia from this old Jury member)
: : Don't know what the female Jury members look at during preparation time for W50Prone / W3x20; but then they have the Mens events....
: Yes, been there, seen that, but my point stands - aside from the prep time, which won't ever be filmed as there wouldn't be any pretence at all about what was being filmed (*david attenborough voice* "and now we see the swedish ladies team as they prepare for the womens 10m air rifle elimination round. We can see that Ulrika has opted for the black lacy underwear to complement her Anschutz 2002CA with the black aluminium frame, and Sonya has decided to go for the naturalist approach, claiming that it allows for a better inner position...").
: In other words, the sport's not sexy, unless you want to get the TV crew to play Peeping Tom...
.45192.45142
: : Don't know what the female Jury members look at during preparation time for W50Prone / W3x20; but then they have the Mens events....
: Yes, been there, seen that, but my point stands - aside from the prep time, which won't ever be filmed as there wouldn't be any pretence at all about what was being filmed (*david attenborough voice* "and now we see the swedish ladies team as they prepare for the womens 10m air rifle elimination round. We can see that Ulrika has opted for the black lacy underwear to complement her Anschutz 2002CA with the black aluminium frame, and Sonya has decided to go for the naturalist approach, claiming that it allows for a better inner position...").
: In other words, the sport's not sexy, unless you want to get the TV crew to play Peeping Tom...
.45192.45142
-
mako
At least show live running totals, to the tenth .... :-(
: What makes, say, running more appealing than shooting? All they do there is one repetitive task - moving one leg in front of another. The answer is - the spectator can see relative positions of participants in real time.
: What about individual sports, say, trampoline? There the spectator can see the stuff happening - it is interesting to look at, even though the competitive factor is not apparent, as opposed to sports where several compete at once.
: Both of these contributing factors can (in theory) be taken advantage of if the shooters in final will be monitored by any tracing system. Lets consider the doability aspect of that.
: Can we require every participant on the WC or Olympics level to have specified type of trigger with pressure sensor and tracing sensor attached to the equipment apriori and have corresponding monitoring devices in addition to regular electronic targets down the range for every shooter? Does not look cheap, but not impossible. The problem is, however, is that there will be more opportunity for the hardware to go wrong, and the tracing is not really needed during relays anyway.
: Alternatively, the monitoring may apply to the finals only (where it is needed), and the tracing hardware is to be attached to the rifles immediately before the finals. The current technology will allow for the design of the tracing sensor to be sufficiently compact and lightweight, and a simple clamping system (on accessory rail, for example) should allow for easy installation and removal. (For the pistol the matters are more complicated, since the sensor would have to be ultra light, and located close to center of gravity of the pistol in order not to disturb balance, so it may not be doable at all.) Having the tracing system interfaced with the normal electronic targets will allow for easy automatic calibration during the sightings. However, I don't see how the trigger pressure sensors can be installed on the spot in similar manner, and the alternatives are not to use them at all, or require the participants to have them installed beforehand.
:
: Now lets consider the benefits of the tracing. Needless to say that the tracing alone will tremendously increase the spectator appeal factor. Having the bar showing the percentage of pressure required for the sear to engage near the image of the trace is all that is needed for a spectator to see the shot unfold.
: About the competitive factor: suppose shooter A just fired we are moving to the trace of a shooter B; electronic system knows by now that in order for the shooter B to advance in rank over shooter A, he/she needs to fire at least, say, 10.2. The corresponding hit zone can be marked on the trace with a green circle, so a spectator can easily see where the shooter needs to hit. Suppose the shooter C fires, and the system knows by now that if shooter B scores below, say, 8.7, he/she will drop in rank below C, so the system can mark the corresponding hit zone with a red circle. Now a spectator has an idea where B is with respect to A and C.
: The technology to make things work as described is certainly there, and in order for the shooting sports to survive it will have to be taken advantage of, sooner or later. Will we live to see that?
makofoto-at-earthlink.net.45195.45078
: What about individual sports, say, trampoline? There the spectator can see the stuff happening - it is interesting to look at, even though the competitive factor is not apparent, as opposed to sports where several compete at once.
: Both of these contributing factors can (in theory) be taken advantage of if the shooters in final will be monitored by any tracing system. Lets consider the doability aspect of that.
: Can we require every participant on the WC or Olympics level to have specified type of trigger with pressure sensor and tracing sensor attached to the equipment apriori and have corresponding monitoring devices in addition to regular electronic targets down the range for every shooter? Does not look cheap, but not impossible. The problem is, however, is that there will be more opportunity for the hardware to go wrong, and the tracing is not really needed during relays anyway.
: Alternatively, the monitoring may apply to the finals only (where it is needed), and the tracing hardware is to be attached to the rifles immediately before the finals. The current technology will allow for the design of the tracing sensor to be sufficiently compact and lightweight, and a simple clamping system (on accessory rail, for example) should allow for easy installation and removal. (For the pistol the matters are more complicated, since the sensor would have to be ultra light, and located close to center of gravity of the pistol in order not to disturb balance, so it may not be doable at all.) Having the tracing system interfaced with the normal electronic targets will allow for easy automatic calibration during the sightings. However, I don't see how the trigger pressure sensors can be installed on the spot in similar manner, and the alternatives are not to use them at all, or require the participants to have them installed beforehand.
:
: Now lets consider the benefits of the tracing. Needless to say that the tracing alone will tremendously increase the spectator appeal factor. Having the bar showing the percentage of pressure required for the sear to engage near the image of the trace is all that is needed for a spectator to see the shot unfold.
: About the competitive factor: suppose shooter A just fired we are moving to the trace of a shooter B; electronic system knows by now that in order for the shooter B to advance in rank over shooter A, he/she needs to fire at least, say, 10.2. The corresponding hit zone can be marked on the trace with a green circle, so a spectator can easily see where the shooter needs to hit. Suppose the shooter C fires, and the system knows by now that if shooter B scores below, say, 8.7, he/she will drop in rank below C, so the system can mark the corresponding hit zone with a red circle. Now a spectator has an idea where B is with respect to A and C.
: The technology to make things work as described is certainly there, and in order for the shooting sports to survive it will have to be taken advantage of, sooner or later. Will we live to see that?
makofoto-at-earthlink.net.45195.45078