TargetTalk

One interesting point about this discussion point is there is a small group of people who are demanding changes. Some of these people want the changes so they can shoot more events in a shorter time and really do not care about how it affects on of the goals of USAS...Olympic Medals.

Mike I completely agree with you.

I have seen it many times where people complain until something is done to shut them up and they do not want to help out what so ever to help themselves out.

Larry,
It does not matter if Mike is not a current card carrying member. Mike has put in his time and effort to help USAS and knows what it takes to get to the top. He also has seen the USAS from the inside and knows and has a different point of view from all the people who thing USAS does not know what is going on.

. . . some of the "changes being demanded by a small group of people" are being demanded BECAUSE we care about Olympic medals.

We disagree on what specific policies, procedures etc. will GET US THERE however.

For example, *some* focus on developing "true amateurs" (the so-called "hobbyists" according to USAS) might HELP the performance, level of competition, and pool of talent at the top.

Ya think maybe?

I could never understand the "I got mine, now let's shut the door behind me" mindset of those who earn entry into a coveted position, then argue for changes to make it more difficult for anyone else to follow them.

I see some of that in motion with the arguments presented in this forum on occasion. For example, the upcoming quadrennial "Put The Least Number of Eggs In The Smallest Basket" strategy based on a point system. However, it is just as wrong for me to read motive into your positions- as it would be for you to read motive in mine (shorter nationals, indeed!).

Steve Swartz

And of course we have those that stand on the sidelines and throw rocks at those who want to make it better for the future. These threads start with some poor soul that gives a damn, and progresses until the 'shut-up and don't criticize' crowd jumps on everyone.

Mike wants to “call out” the complainers, but what he really needs to do is call out himself. The most useful thing he could bring to these discussions is why he can't bring himself to still be part of the organization any more.

There is a persistent group here that seems to think that the purpose of USAS is to win medals. It isn't. If one bothers to read the bylaws that govern what USAS does, You'll see:

General Purposes. The general purposes of USA Shooting are to foster national and International Amateur Athletic Competition in the Shooting Sports with emphasis on ISSF-type Shooting and to support and develop Amateur Athletes for national and international competition in such sports, all within the meaning of Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (hereinafter the "Code"). Subject to the limitations of the Articles of Incorporation and solely in furtherance of such purposes, USA Shooting may engage in any lawful act or activity authorized by the State of Colorado Nonprofit Corporation Act. It is intended that USA Shooting will be a "Qualified Amateur Sports Organization" within the meaning of Section 501(j) of the Code.

It goes on about fostering, promoting, training and such. Not a word about medals. The word doesn't appear even once in the bylaws. Some wise person probably figured out that a healthy, thriving pool of shooters would generate medals as a mater of course. Instead we have a few mostly military shooters, a declining national match program, no full spectrum civilian range facilities, and a mostly ignored “hobby” population trying to support it all. USAS can do better... we can do better... and if we don't, winning medals will be the least of it.

Larry

Bingo!

Seriously, I've seen this sort of reasoning before. For forty years, the U.S. Fencing Association has been plowing every dollar it could raise into a handful of elite fencers, and neglecting the base to do so. The idea was that if they could win one Olympic medal, that medal could be leveraged to transform the program.

It hasn't worked. A few medals have been won - but no transformation of the sport. No broadening of the base. What real headway has been made has been in new disciplines, such as women's epee and saber.

USAS seems to be sliding down the same path of putting all the money into a handful of shooters - except that there is not even the illusion of one gold-medal winner being a propaganda lever to promote the sport.

Part of it, I think, is momentum. A bigger grass-roots effort means less money for the supported shooters. And a few years later, more high-end self-supported shooters who mean to challenge the old pecking order and get on top themselves.

Another factor is the U.S. Olympic Committee. Frankly, the USOC doesn't give a damn about sport, they care about money and medals. Largely because the big corporate donors want to see results for their advertising "donation". Any organization that is relying on the USOC for a significant portion of its budget is hard-pressed to avoid the temptation to pump money into the current top competitors and hope they produce.

Which, of course, they won't. Not against programs with a broader base. The result is a death spiral - poor results producing poor funding, which produces still worse results.

Larry,

Apparently you did not want to take my suggestion of contacting me personally to dicuss this issue further, that's fine...we'll do it in this forum.

I do not feel I need to justify myself to you, but I will answer your concerns so you can sleep at night. I am no longer a member because I no longer compete. The fact that I am no longer a member does not mean I don't contribute to shooting. The fact that I do contribute to the sport entitles me to make the kinds of posts that have sparked your dislike with me.

I continue to assist with coaching and have gone back to Illinois to help with shooting sessions. Matter of fact I will use my vacation time AGAIN this year to go back for a longer camp type session. The whole purpose of my joining the Arvada Rifle and Pistol Club was to eventually assist with the junior program when my schedule allows for that. I answer emails to advise people of shooting techniques. I also have provided legitimate/insightful answers to new shooter's concerns on this forum.

Don't you dare imply that I am on the sidelines, when the fact is I still involve myself and do take time to help shooters. I merely don't pay $35 a year to USAS, which is apparently a big deal to you. What do you do for the sport besides pay $35. Have you used vacation time to help junior shooters? Matter of fact, I have never heard your name before, so I question your involvement in the sport. I have explained myself at your request, I ask the same of you now

Now about your understanding of the focus of USAS. That's great, I'm glad you sifted through the bylaws. But, have you ever heard the concept of "unwritten rules/laws"? Lemme tell you, I have sat through numerous resident athletes meetings conducted by Bob Mitchell. Mitchell would regularly talk about medal count and how the budget depended on how many medals the US won. You won't find that in the bylaws. I have also been to Board meetings as an interested athlete and the same concerns I just mentioned were discussed. Were you at any of these meetings, which you are entitled to as a concerned USAS member, or are you going to depend on the bylaws to inform you?

I am glad my comments sparked debate, that was their intention. Hopefully it will motivate those who are not happy with USAS to do something more than complain.

Mike Douglass

P.S. I am finished with this tirade. My apologies to Scotty and the other TT posters for the direction this post went.

Mike Douglass

Mike McDaniel wrote:Bingo!

USAS seems to be sliding down the same path of putting all the money into a handful of shooters - except that there is not even the illusion of one gold-medal winner being a propaganda lever to promote the sport.

Part of it, I think, is momentum. A bigger grass-roots effort means less money for the supported shooters. And a few years later, more high-end self-supported shooters who mean to challenge the old pecking order and get on top themselves.

Another factor is the U.S. Olympic Committee. Frankly, the USOC doesn't give a damn about sport, they care about money and medals. Largely because the big corporate donors want to see results for their advertising "donation". Any organization that is relying on the USOC for a significant portion of its budget is hard-pressed to avoid the temptation to pump money into the current top competitors and hope they produce.

Which, of course, they won't. Not against programs with a broader base. The result is a death spiral - poor results producing poor funding, which produces still worse results.

I'll have to agree with you about the USOC. Their commitment to profit at the expense of many of the minor amateur sports doesn't help. USAS, on the other hand, isn't all bad. I've talked to Bill M. and others in the springs on occasion and their ideas for the future are impressive. They just don't have the resources to pull it off and still satisfy the USOC. They have made quantum improvements recently, especially in marketing themselves to corporate sponsors. With a bigger membership they could get even more money flowing in. In the long run, bigger membership is more important than medals. Its a lot easier to get a sponsor to cut loose with money when you have their name in front of 50,0000 shooters than when you have 5000. Reps and dealers aren't going to bother to show up at a NC attended by a handful of people. Put a thousand shooters there and it becomes an advertising opportunity. Growing the hobby shooters needed to support the beast and still get enough medals to satisfy the USOC is a conundrum I'm glad I don't have to wrestle with. I have enough trouble getting people to show up for range repair parties.

So like it or not everybody, being a USAS member is important. Buddy needs all the bodies he can get in order to sell us to the people that just might finance a wholly owned national range, or a monthly magazine again, or (horrors) a fully funded development team... or we can continue to bicker while even more shooters quit in disgust.

Larry

Larry:

Yup.

And there is another nasty problem that USAS has to contend with - the lack of competitive American-made equipment.

We've got to always keep in mind that while businesses may cough up a few bucks out of pure goodness, the really big donations are pure advertising. The donor companies are looking for the American shooter with the medal around his neck, the donor's product in his hands, and the words, "Joe won this Olympic medal with OUR product". Unfortunately, there are very few "our products" fit for competition. No guns, little ammunition. Paper targets. Which plays hob with fundraising.

The USIMLT suffers from the same problems, but not to quite the same degree. A lot of us are shooting Hornady bullets, Ox-Yoke patches, and GOEX powder - three of the major donors. It's the guns we have problems with.

That being said, I wonder if there is any way for USAS to get coverage in the glossy gun magazines? You would have thought that the Olympic Games would have gotten at least SOME coverage - and USAS ought to be able to use the USOC connections to raise their PR profile. Frankly, I'd rate a good article in a major magazine as better for fundraising than an Olympic medal. Good for recruiting, too.

interesting reading...

good points being on several "sides". in general, i am agreement with Mike, but <i should say that the main "agitators" as it were for the shorter nationals, myself, Doc Sexton, Stan Pace, Steve Swartz are all in the doer category, and none of us have any desire to see a lessened impact on national team selection. However, this issue is a moot point at this time, but I would that between now and 2006 it perhaps can be explored in more depth and implented if the overall match logistics allow it.

Ok, I am tired of typing on this strange German keyboard. hOPEfully tomorrow I can access the web from my own laptop. So manz corrections to make when the keys are not in their normal place

Here are some facts:

FACT: Each year the format has been the same and fewer and fewer people come.

I have shot the Nationals for 4 years including a selection match. There will be no fifth with this format. If the format isn’t working, why keep doing it? Obviously, we as a group of competitors care about this organization and put OUR money where the mouth is. I spent approxmately $5K last year on this sport.

FACT: The main events for NT members is air and free. Anything else just doesn’t matter. They don’t need them and probably don’t do them at the USASNC.

FACT: The support for a compressed schedule by those of us who are actively shooting was overwhelming.

People want to shoot. Spending time doing nothing is not acceptable. Give them what they want and they will give you what you want. This will only increase participation and revenue. The main events are AP and Free. The new schedule puts training in the afternoon. Big deal. This should be no discomfort to the NT shooters. I shoot five international events in a single day and I am State Champion in several. Others are just for fun because I have no facility to shoot them. Do you mean to tell me pistol NT members are is going to shoot RF? Or care about Standard or CF?

A junior shooter, now returning to shooting as an adult, came to the Nationals then went to Perry. He never returned to USAS but is at Perry every year. Perry is just a single 2700 but there is more shooting and activity that week than anyone can handle.

FACT: Even the competitors “BBQ” is held the day after FP ends when most people have already gone home. What sense does that make unless the competitors are a nuisance to the staff?

FACT: Not to be viewed as nasty but Mike, your $35 DOES matter.

How many people support USAS and don’t shoot at all? How many give beyond that? I have, and I don’t get any of the bennies like you did. The fight is how that money is spent and the direction USAS needs to take.

The best thing is it doesn’t take much to make a big difference, a win win deal.

Scott is offering cash awards, there were Olympic Trials grants. Shotgun sports pay big money, pistol and int’l pistol in particular, pays nothing.

FACT: There is little or no accomodation towards growing the base.
I know Bill D and John Z have gone through. There are others who can shoot well. Why should they bother? This is an easy case study for business school. You decide.

Great points Bruce.

Let's create a vital, dynamic, robust group of competitors at the world class and near world class levels (WC: 580+ NWC: 570+).

Let's open the various selection algorithms to create TRUE "opportunity" within those classes.

Let's spend some effort thinking about how we can DEVELOP shooters from the 540s into the 550s . . . 550s into the 560s . . . 560's into the 570s . . .

Hey, let's apply the talent pool against gaining the maximum number of quota slots; NOT sacrificing quota slots in order to give more "experience" to a smaller (increasingly smaller) number of shooter(s).

Let's give *more* shooters (not fewer) international level experience.

Let's create; heck, let's actually USE a national ranking system to give the talent pool a chance to demonstrate talent and show- and be rewarded for- improving their skills.

Does anyone- anyone?- at USAS see the benefit in having MORE 550+, which leads to MORE 560+, which leads to MORE 570+, which leads to MORE 580+ shooters?

Anyone?

ON THE OTHER HAND

Let's just focus on giving more opportunities to those who have already "arrived;" let's just ignore those "knocking at the door" and put up roadblocks in fornt of them as they struggle to achieve; let's create a quadrennial selection process that kills true competition and focuses on "rewarding" those who have already been "rewarded." [Case in point: the upcoming point system for Putting The Fewest Number of Eggs In The Smallest Possible Basket].

Yeah, that makes much more sense.

Let's make the talent pool smaller.

You know, we can't give you opportunity until you have experience; and you can't get experience without having been given opportunity; and you can't be given opportunity without experience . . .

That'll work; it sure has been working like gangbusters up till now . . .

Steve Swartz

Steve,

There is already a system that rewards the shooters for shooting well. Every year if you shoot high enough scores, you can make the National Team or the Pan Am, Olympic, WC, or CAT teams. With making those teams comes the chance to gain International experience. Once you make a National or International team you open yourself to funding from USA Shooting for travel/training needs.

As far as developing shooters, there are camps available. I know Erich used to run a Maters camp every year. Remarkable, there were small turn outs. We'll see what Sergey does for camps. There is also no rule that you can't go to the OTC on your own and train along with the residents. I did this for every Spring Break while I was in college. Instead of going to Daytona Beach or Mexico and getting wasted, I went and let Erich beat up on me for a week.

You can get plenty of experience at the National level that will eventually lead to being sent overseas.

Some shooters think that going overseas it going to make them shoot better. A 550 AP shooter is not going to magically start shooting 580s because he went overseas. Keep in mind, you only go overseas to compete in matches. You can only expect to do as well in a match as you have in training. A shooter who shoots 550s in training will shoot 550s overseas. All gong overseas does is exposes you to match pressure. Training at home is what improves your scores, not International experience.

Once again, it comes down to how hard you are willing to work for what you want.

Mike Douglass

Steve Swartz wrote:Case in point: the upcoming point system for Putting The Fewest Number of Eggs In The Smallest Possible Basket.

Huh?

Yeah, that one lost me too ...

I heard bits & pieces of it, it seems to be like going distinguished, you get LEG points for placing in WC's and other international matches and when you get enuf points you are on the Oly team. Problem is, instead of being limited to 3 or 4 LEG matches a year, you have to be on the National Team to go to the WC's. I think when I see the full formula laid out I will be able to count backwards and identify the latest date to qualify for the NT in order to have any hope of making the oly team... last quad that was May before the olympics, this quad it may well be this year or next year.

I think the idea is to get those who perform consistantly well under the pressure of international matches to over a period of years on the Oly team.

The unintended consequence will be to discourage mid-level shooters who would have wanted to be working towards an ambitious goal.

Poole

Maybe they can give higher weight (more points) to the winners of events that are closer to the Olympics - so someone on their way up will rack up more points by performing better the nearer to the Olympics they get.

Yes, that would be a great idea.

Especially when we consider that among the elite shooters, performance cycles vary between the peaks and troughs and the "best" shooter in early 2008 might not be the "best" shooter in Ausgust 2008 . . .

Why not actually build- and use- a useful, meanignful system for national ranking?

Many other sports do this. Since shooting is much more objectively measured than, say, gymnastics or figure skating, it should be easy (or at least straightforward) to manage a national ranking system based on weighted scores and performance averages.

The problem is getting folks to agree on how exactly we define "meaningful" and "useful" . . .

The proposed system for 2008 will be heavily skewed in the "If you aren't already picked to go, you can't go" direction.

Also, I can't see how sending people who are ineligible to earn a quota slot (because they already earned one) over and over again earns us any more slots than the "pity rule" minimum. A closely related issue; if you haven't earned the points by earning the points already, you won't be given an opportunity to earn the points . . .

Sheesh. I thought only military could come up with logic like that.

Steve Swartz

Hello everyone, a wonderful discussion with many important points. I'm glad to see good support for USAS in both those that praise it and those that loyally criticize the management. A few comments and a few questions:

USAS in its current situation is too small in base and program strength to significantly grow either short-term. It is stuck with a terrible set of options as to either grow its base, or kill off its remaining support to focus on elite athletes. I don't envy the management's position, as I believe the fencer that posted above had it dead to rights. 5000 individual menbers is about half the size of this Midwestern state's Lion's Clubs, if you really want to get an idea how tiny USAS is. But it is what it is. Grab the bootstraps and pull!

International is only as alive as those of us that do it, folks. And guys like Ted Malone in Louisville, Lee Fisher in Columbus and the late Wayne Reid kept International's candle burning in this state through some pretty dark times here in the last ten years or so. God bless them for doing it. We need another 500 like them tomorrow to run matches and show kids and adults alike what shooting can be. USAS is doing the best it can with a two-cylinder engine and a horrible structure. The NRA/USAS split's scar is still a raw wound for a lot of shooters. So for those of us still doing it, the fact the game still exists is a gift.

Question 1: How does USAS successfully develop funding from animal conservation groups like Wild Turkey Federation and Mountain Sheep? While I'm grateful, I wouldn't want to be an exec of those groups that are funnneling money away from their donor member's intentions.

Question 2: How is the USAS Board elected? What turnover have they had in the last eight years?

I'll leave the USASNC issues for another night. Keep up the good fight. See you at Benning.

Sorry to jump into the discussion a little late here.. been in South America.

I think I'm still a USAS member, but I can't be sure.. too many moves lately, but take this for what it's worth anyhow..

Back in the early 90's, placing in the top 1 or 2 at Collegiate nationals used to get you a spot on the development team, earning a little help coaching and making some matches. One of my teammates at the time made it onto the program, and to the olympics in Australia. (She's got red hair, if you can figure out who that is.)

Seems that went away, and I think that was a bad idea. Not sure who to point the finger at (I have thoughts, but I won't pull the trigger.)

When I went back to coach the team at my Alma Matter, I had several shooters who could grow to the next level with some help. Of course, the reward and encouragement isn't there any more.

Most of the College coaches are very capable of taking someone who's never held a pistol before, and getting the "naturals" to 530FP, 565AP, and 560 Standard pistol. I, personally, didn't have the coaching skills to get them to the next level. Heck, I had lots of trouble just getting some of them to graduation.

Staying involved in shooting after graduation, and moving beyond that level requires some interdiction, and I think USAS needs to promote this (in some way.) I won't pretend that I have the perfect answer to this.

I give lots of credit to Doc Sexton, and Kathy at USNA (who had a bigger budget than me) for promoting this avenue. But, the collegiate programs at schools with very small budgets, and even the moderately funded collegiate programs can't pick up the load.

Seems like the only ones who continue with the sport are the independently wealthy ones, had family support before going to college, or those who are supported by local (big) clubs. Unfortunately, all the shooters that I coached started at college, and had no parental or local club support. So, once out of college, there's no support network for them, and they flail.

So, that's my thought for growth.. Go back to snagging the best college shooters and try to keep them interested. NURTURE them a little bit. They've already shown promise, so it's not like throwing money away.

Greg C.

Hi Coach,

I totally agree with you. Heather and I have been keeping current by shooting bullseye and Katina has shot the Fleet Matches the past two years, but we're hibernating (hopefully not permanently!) with olympic shooting. Part of our shooting enjoyment is the community, and the olympic community isn't as accessible as bullseye's - the matches, informal coaching, cost, etc.

Call me lazy and undedicated if you will, but year-round matches 30 minutes from my house trump 1-2 hour one-way trips for monthly matches (at best). Compare that with a 2-3 hour investment on a near-weekly basis with team win/loss, ranking, silly little tokens at the end of the 'season', lots of people to talk & compare notes with, and possibly increasing one's NRA classification. Life is busy and throwing away most of a day once a month to shoot an olympic-style match is a significant investment with no clear return - I've read the USAS website 6 times and STILL cannot tell you in clear terms what it takes to make the olympic team without being a resident at the training center. If my wife and I could see a path to the olympics, at least a reasonable path, there might be a reason to make the extra effort. Regardless, bullseye will still be more fun because it's easy to find live competitions and the company is good. If olympic style shooting isn't fun and accessible (which are closely linked for us), I think that growing the shooting base will be difficult at best. As Greg mentioned, if USAS is losing trained collegiate shooters, how can they hope to attract new shooters who don't have so much time and energy invested?

I haven't tried postal matches yet but as I'm moving to Juneau, I think it'll be worth a try. I just can't see them as being as satisfying as bullseye is now.

- Nick