More About the Shooting Events at the Olympics

[TomW]

My posting about my impressions of the shooting events at the Munich World Cup 2003, seems to have been misunderstood a bit.
I submitted it at Scott's request and the thrust of what I wrote wasn't about how to make the sport more popular per se but how to encourage more people to want to view it as spectators at the Olympics and how to make it more attractive to the TV media.
I don't endorse the idea of changing the sport so that it becomes more attractive to TV/spectators.
However the ISSF, as I understand it, was forced (?) to implement changes to the shooting format (ie the introduction of the finals format) so that TV would want to broadcast them.
Fact is, I've never seen any coverage of the shooting events here in Australia, except for Michael Diamond's win in the 2000 Olympics and I guess only because he was Australian and had a chance to win gold.
As for the rest, you could be forgiven for thinking that shooting wasn't part of the Olympics.
All that said, however, it still begs the question of why it is so necessary to make the sports more TV/spectator appealing, if it is still not getting the air time.
From what I have read, the ISSF was pressured into the changes by the IOC (?), in the interests of retaining the shooting sports in the Olympics and that current changes under consideration are also being forced on the ISSF for the same reason.
Is the ISSF under such pressure? The changes they have made so far have done nothing, as far as I can determine, to make the TV stations any more interested in broadcastiing the events than they were before.
If they aren't going to broadcast our sports even when we make serious changes to it, then why do we persist with the changes?
Is our retention in the Olympics SOLELY based on the sports capacity to attract a TV viewing audience? If so, then I suggest our time in the Olympics is limited, unless huge changes are made to how our sports are conducted at these events.
IF NOT, then why do we keep going through these silly exercises, changing our sports in such a way that they become pale shadows of what they once were. Why can't we simply revert to the old format and to hell with the TV media?
This really is the key question, in my mind, and it would be nice to know exactly what the TRUE position is in relation to the shooting sports retention or otherwise in future Olympics.
Regards
Tom

twoodle1-at-bigpond.net.au.47340.0

[mako]

In Europe at least (China?) ... I do believe that they do show some of the big matches (can some one confirm this). They use remote control cameras to look back at the shooters. Reducing the size of the blinders does make it a bit easier to see the shooters faces/expressions. Since not much else is happening action-wise ... you can't blame the media for trying to get sometype of shots.
makofoto-at-earthlink.net.47342.47340

[Richard H.]

Take a look at the media in all your countries. I know here in Canada and in the US, anyone or anything that has anything to with guns is not normally portrayed in a good light. The people are swamp with negative gun press. Just the last 2-3 days there were 4 homocides on the news in T.O., 2 with guns and 2 without, the gun ones got way more press including the police chief saying "that we have to crack down on gun violence", I guess other violence is ok in his view. Yesterday there was an accidental shooting, two kids playing with a rifle, one kid was killed. Last week on the news I saw reports of 50 or more vehicles that had there windows shot out with BB guns in Ohio (a few hundred miles away) and they mentioned the Ohio sniper in the same report. Everytime I hear these stories I cringe because I know the next thing is the cry of the liberal left to remove all guns and I know they are not going to stop. I was watching the news and there was a talking head talking about gun control in Afganistan, I think they have a few more problems there than that but that is what they are worrying about. Until this changes and the media portrays a balanced view ( I wouldn't hold my breath) we can change the sport until the cows come home and it won't get us on second more TV coverage. It's not the sport that has to change.
.47343.47342

[TomW]

Richard
Everything you say about the situation in Canada applies equally here in Australia. There is a large multi-national media and marketing firm - no names - but the initials are S&S and they have gun control as one of their major tenets. It seems their intervention in the UK lead to the banning of all pistols in that country, when only a partial ban had been proposed and they sponsor The National Coalition for Gun Control in Australia and have a large influence in the media. I don't know how anyone fights this sort of thing.
Nevertheless, the issue still is whether the ISSF is really under pressure to change the TV appeal of our sport or doesn't it matter?
Tom

: Take a look at the media in all your countries. I know here in Canada and in the US, anyone or anything that has anything to with guns is not normally portrayed in a good light. The people are swamp with negative gun press. Just the last 2-3 days there were 4 homocides on the news in T.O., 2 with guns and 2 without, the gun ones got way more press including the police chief saying "that we have to crack down on gun violence", I guess other violence is ok in his view. Yesterday there was an accidental shooting, two kids playing with a rifle, one kid was killed. Last week on the news I saw reports of 50 or more vehicles that had there windows shot out with BB guns in Ohio (a few hundred miles away) and they mentioned the Ohio sniper in the same report. Everytime I hear these stories I cringe because I know the next thing is the cry of the liberal left to remove all guns and I know they are not going to stop. I was watching the news and there was a talking head talking about gun control in Afganistan, I think they have a few more problems there than that but that is what they are worrying about. Until this changes and the media portrays a balanced view ( I wouldn't hold my breath) we can change the sport until the cows come home and it won't get us on second more TV coverage. It's not the sport that has to change.


twoodle1-at-bigpond.net.au.47346.47343

[Richard H.]

If they are under pressure it is just subterfuge. There is no money in shooting thus the networks have no interest in showing it. The IOC wants money, shooting venues are relatively expensive. If they force the ISSF to change the sport against the wishes of the members of the NGB's then they may just shut the sport down without ever having to look like the bad guys, we just look like we are unco-operative. I grumped about the new blinder rules when they first came out, I just started using a new legal blinder and actually I like it. Human nature for the most part is that we all hate change, it takes less energy to go the same direction then it does to change directions. Shooting will survive the loss of pants, blinders, jacket thickness, going to .22 LR in rapid fire and any ohter changes they come up with. But I really fear our days are numbered in the Olympics they will just keep pushing until we self destruct and then we will be replaced by Dance Sport or bungy jumping.
: Richard
: Everything you say about the situation in Canada applies equally here in Australia. There is a large multi-national media and marketing firm - no names - but the initials are S&S and they have gun control as one of their major tenets. It seems their intervention in the UK lead to the banning of all pistols in that country, when only a partial ban had been proposed and they sponsor The National Coalition for Gun Control in Australia and have a large influence in the media. I don't know how anyone fights this sort of thing.
: Nevertheless, the issue still is whether the ISSF is really under pressure to change the TV appeal of our sport or doesn't it matter?
: Tom
:
: : Take a look at the media in all your countries. I know here in Canada and in the US, anyone or anything that has anything to with guns is not normally portrayed in a good light. The people are swamp with negative gun press. Just the last 2-3 days there were 4 homocides on the news in T.O., 2 with guns and 2 without, the gun ones got way more press including the police chief saying "that we have to crack down on gun violence", I guess other violence is ok in his view. Yesterday there was an accidental shooting, two kids playing with a rifle, one kid was killed. Last week on the news I saw reports of 50 or more vehicles that had there windows shot out with BB guns in Ohio (a few hundred miles away) and they mentioned the Ohio sniper in the same report. Everytime I hear these stories I cringe because I know the next thing is the cry of the liberal left to remove all guns and I know they are not going to stop. I was watching the news and there was a talking head talking about gun control in Afganistan, I think they have a few more problems there than that but that is what they are worrying about. Until this changes and the media portrays a balanced view ( I wouldn't hold my breath) we can change the sport until the cows come home and it won't get us on second more TV coverage. It's not the sport that has to change.


.47347.47346

[Mike McDaniel]

The IOC is, for all effects, a wholly owned subsidiary of NBC Sports. Which has no interest in sports that don't involve spandex, celebrity pro athletes, or both.
The big thing is that shooting IS NOT ALONE. I KNOW that fencing got hammered even harder than shooting with demands to cut events. And while I won't swear with 100% accuracy, I'd bet long odds that three-quarters of the Olympic events are under pressure. It's not a matter of "Eeekk, guns!", but of, "Where are the hardbodies? Where's the sex appeal? And where's the spandex?"
We've got to remember that we're dealing with a TV sports outfit here. If a sport doesn't involve a ball, they have a real hard time comprehending.
HMSLion-at-aol.com.47351.47347

[TomW]

Hmmm. Perhaps we are on the wrong track altogether then. The ISSF should perhaps bring in new clothing rules for all shooters. Full length Spandex body suits for all competitors, with large codpieces for the men to attract a female audience. The women will look terrifc just as they are.
Tom

: The IOC is, for all effects, a wholly owned subsidiary of NBC Sports. Which has no interest in sports that don't involve spandex, celebrity pro athletes, or both.
: The big thing is that shooting IS NOT ALONE. I KNOW that fencing got hammered even harder than shooting with demands to cut events. And while I won't swear with 100% accuracy, I'd bet long odds that three-quarters of the Olympic events are under pressure. It's not a matter of "Eeekk, guns!", but of, "Where are the hardbodies? Where's the sex appeal? And where's the spandex?"
: We've got to remember that we're dealing with a TV sports outfit here. If a sport doesn't involve a ball, they have a real hard time comprehending.

twoodle1-at-bigpond.net.au.47352.47351

[Paul Benneche]

Since the TV networks and the commercial firms wanting TV exposure are paying 100's of millions, if not billions, of dollars to the IOC and the OOC they will get what they want, simple as that.
peb-at-virginia.edu.47372.47340

[JT]

I still contend that if they want an audience they should get rid of the clothes completely.
That should just about eliminate the men's sports, and the networks will make billions.
Not sure if it will do much for shooting, but so far I have not seen any evidence that the direction we are headed in is going to help either.
: Hmmm. Perhaps we are on the wrong track altogether then. The ISSF should perhaps bring in new clothing rules for all shooters. Full length Spandex body suits for all competitors, with large codpieces for the men to attract a female audience. The women will look terrifc just as they are.
: Tom
:
: : The IOC is, for all effects, a wholly owned subsidiary of NBC Sports. Which has no interest in sports that don't involve spandex, celebrity pro athletes, or both.
: : The big thing is that shooting IS NOT ALONE. I KNOW that fencing got hammered even harder than shooting with demands to cut events. And while I won't swear with 100% accuracy, I'd bet long odds that three-quarters of the Olympic events are under pressure. It's not a matter of "Eeekk, guns!", but of, "Where are the hardbodies? Where's the sex appeal? And where's the spandex?"
: : We've got to remember that we're dealing with a TV sports outfit here. If a sport doesn't involve a ball, they have a real hard time comprehending.

shootingsports-at-ev1.net.47382.47352

[Patrick]

No, we need a shooting shoe made by Nike. If they see a buck to be made, then our Olympic dreams will be guaranteed!

Patrick
haynes-at-targetshooting.ca.47383.47382