TargetTalk

EJ really its one in the same the IOC gets its money from the media rights so it really doesn't matter exactly if it comes from the media or the IOC directly, its the same result. The Olympics are under pressure to add new sports yet keep the size down, so the only way to do that is get rid of some sports. Which sports would you get rid of, the ones that are popular and have large audiences or the niche sports that few watch and many are surprised that are even sports that are in the Olympics.

Many of the sports have had to change, Archery for one has changed their format from one that all the arrows counted in the match total to a set system where three arrows/each count as a set, the highest gets 2 points for winning the set, if they tie they get 1 point each, first to 6 points wins.

I cannot resist... :-)

One of my colleagues from Germany says to his wife (both are engaged in shooting sport):
- Listen, Bolt has got 9.63 in the final!
- Really, they already count finals in hundredths???

PS.
Who knows, who knows, everything is possible :-)

That's of course a tricky one to answer. The notion that the Games are directed towards sports with the most money (broadcasting rights and sponsorships) is one I'm opposed to. But that's not exactly what they are trying to do either. The idea is to have a wide range of sports that has a wide base of participating countries (then if it's interesting to watch doesn't hurt). Where to draw the line has to be between how high the interest might be, ease of broadcasting and number of participants as well as how similar the sport is to others. Looking at it from this point of view, target sports has a wide base (granted, Africa and South America are missing), easy to broadcast and are different from other sports. Swimming for example has the disadvantage of having several events looking almost the same but with a large fan base and interesting competitions. For broadcasting reasons and an American point of view, American football and baseball would definitely be in it, but not enough countries are interested or are to far away competition wise. You also have cricket (and golf, but that's part of Rio now)
Do you know if the interest surrounding archery went up in the 90's?
I don't actually think interest will go up even with a changed format. The understanding of what's required for the performances we see is too low in the average person. We have all tried an all-out run for 100m, been swimming and can appreciate the intricate moves a gymnast executes. But shooting on an international target is for few people to have tried and know.

Another way of working around this problem is to change the rules for the winter games. Take away the requirements of ice or snow and move the inside summer sports over like handball, basket ball, gymnastics etc. That's a stretch though, but doable.

EJ actually archery has a huge fan base in many Asian countries.

Saying shooting is only absent from South America and Africa is not totally true. Thats pretending like International style shooting is some how popular in North America which is simply not the case. Now if the turned it to Action shooting it would different.

Good! but did that come from the changed format, at the same time but not correlated or was it big before? Those are questions in need of answers before changing any formats.

Archery has always been popular in many of the Asian countries. The format change seems to have made it more popular viewer wise though, (NBC reported it was the most watched in week 1). I myself watched the whole thing for the first time and am considering giving it a try. The pace at which the competition went at was good and held ones interest.

It's nice to think the games aren't about money but hey they are thats a simple truth, yes there are sports that might not have much viewership, those are being supported by the ones that do. There are other sports chomping at the bit to get into the games, other popular sports that would like to expand their slate of events. The only way this can happen and still keep the barely manageable Games barely manageable is by getting rid of something. If I was a gambling man I wouldn't gamble on them cutting popular/ financially successful sports.

Here's some info. Read the last sentence about teen viewers which is very important because this is what might drive decision in the future

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local ... 46126.html

Another promising thing for shooting is technology. Seeing as this is really the first olympics with lots of streaming option, some might discover shooting. I think the streaming option coupled with tablets have increased peoples access to all events, which is a good thing.

If ISSF is to successfully get rifle and pistol shooting into an appearance somewhere near noon, they ought to have a Team format also, as has been done in archery. Biathlon in winter competition, has done very well, but that sport is more set up for TV. The worst part of the Olympics is that NBC gives them more money to broadcast the events than any other country by a wide margin and they have more say about the events than any other country. My guess is that China and India are developing more shooting interest, and other interests, which is a really good thing for us as they might break the American money monopoly on the Olympic committee. It would be interesting to see if Anchutz and Walther are selling more guns to the Pacific rim and India lately. Just my thoughts for now.
Chris

Levergun59 wrote:... My guess is that China and India are developing more shooting interest, and other interests...Chris

Good 'guess'

When I came back from China in 1989-90 I told people to get used to the Chinese National Anthem at sporting events - they were 'streaming' all primary school kids to identify which Olympic sport they might be suited for; and had a mentor/coach set up for every new shooter.

Starting only a little later, India has set up a strong coaching and national identification structure for Olympic shooting (along with numerous other sports)

Richard H wrote:Archery has always been popular in many of the Asian countries. The format change seems to have made it more popular viewer wise though, (NBC reported it was the most watched in week 1).
...
Here's some info. Read the last sentence about teen viewers which is very important because this is what might drive decision in the future

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local ... 46126.html

In case this is true (this only shows for views for this year were high, not the development since the change), do you think the same would happen to shooting with a similar change? Again, the two sports are different in the sense it's easier to understand archery (Robin Hood, The Hunger Games etc) and you can see the arrow in flight. I'm not saying the format hasn't helped, just wonder if you think it'll do the same for rifle.

Of course money talks, but if it talked the loudest, then why is men's football limited at 23y of age? or it took so long to add golf? Tennis didn't really gain speed until 2004 with the ATP change (my opinion). My point is that there are changes they can do to bring in money which they haven't. The idea of the amateurs competition is still in there somewhere.

Richard H wrote: Another promising thing for shooting is technology. Seeing as this is really the first olympics with lots of streaming option, some might discover shooting. I think the streaming option coupled with tablets have increased peoples access to all events, which is a good thing.

I have to add it's not that new, I streamed 50% of my viewing in 2008 (and about the same this year).
Something the sport can do (and should in my mind) is to add electronic trainers to the mix. Everyone is required to have a Bluetooth transmitter on the barrel showing where it's pointing. Lay that over the targets (not for the shooters, but spectators or only broadcasts) would add a level to the viewing. You cut the transmission just before the shot and still count the actual shot. One problem tough: the audience might say something in the case of a shooter aiming on the wrong target (like in Athens). This is of course not limited to the current final format.
Something else is to do like the equestrian sports, everyone in the same class. That would probably boost some interest on the international level, but might hurt the national level in some parts of the world.

As I've said before, if they have to change to tackle drops in interest, do so. It's more important to be part of the Games than sticking to any "old ways" of doing competitions.

Well watch the archery you can't see the arrow in flight normally, you only see it when they use slow motion. Being strict head to head match-ups you also have the opportunity learn about the participants which also the viewers to pick and choose who they like. What did we learn about any of the male 3P rifle shooters aside what they won in the past. Considering one had a very compelling store but I never heard word won about it. Who's' their home coach, What range do they call home, how much do the practice?

Well you can look at it as how long it took to get golf or tennis in but the really thing is to look at the increasing speed of change.

I didn't say streaming was new what I said was that this Olympics had more streaming options, I stand by that.

I don't think it requires dumbing down with technology, the idea of seeing where they are aiming reminds me of the failed attempt to get Americans outside the North east to understand hockey. They said they could follow the puck so on TV they put this bloody stupid blue dot on the puck, wasn't very successful. The problem is to the non shooting spectator its boring, a guy stands there and shoots at a target for an 105 minutes. Now to people who understand the sport thats different, it's also unrealistic to think that somehow your audience wants to expend the effort to learn all the intricate details that make it interesting to us.

The best way is to create drama and build a cast of characters, the present format of the finals doesn't easily lend themselves to this.

Of course I meant the slow motion footage, it's good TV (or stream).
Why would a different format change how commentator approach the final? Since I only streamed the team competition without comments, I assume all those facts were told by the commentator? In that case, nothing changes that the same approach could be used in the current format. That's already done in track and field for example. The main problem here is there are too many bad commentators.
But not everything can be put on commentators. If no talk or buzz in media/social media/forums etc before the actual competition it's a hard task doing all that yourself directly on air. It will always be an inferior end-product compared to sports where you have this.

I, on the other hand, think it will be required to bring up the understanding for what we see on the screen. What does a scatt value of 7.8 over the last second mean if you can't see it? But even then it's hard for the average person to get it. I have another example for you: in bandy (a small sport in northern Europe), they increased the size of the ball because it didn't go through the TV very well. The game became slightly slower but was in overall a positive change.
A knock-out tournament would bring up interest directly from the start but a 40/60/120 shot match is, and will continue being, boring (I like to watch, but assume I'm the only one). Most people don't watch the full marathon, triathlon or the road race either.

and i can only see a slight increase in the number of streams today compared with four years ago (but I have moved countries since then which might explain it). What is worse though is the TV-coverage where I currently live.

Since the shooting is generally tape delay anyway, do you think it would be more exciting to watch if NBC used the kind of hyper slow motion that History Channel did with "Top Shot?"

Should one wipe out the qualifying score before starting the final round? Arguments, good ones, both ways. But I notice that in the running events they do exactly that. In the finals of the foot races the guy in lane 8 has the same chance to take a medal as the fastest guy in lane 4. So it's not an unprecedented idea.

pz

peterz wrote:Since the shooting is generally tape delay anyway, do you think it would be more exciting to watch if NBC used the kind of hyper slow motion that History Channel did with "Top Shot?"

Should one wipe out the qualifying score before starting the final round? Arguments, good ones, both ways. But I notice that in the running events they do exactly that. In the finals of the foot races the guy in lane 8 has the same chance to take a medal as the fastest guy in lane 4. So it's not an unprecedented idea.

pz

Possibly on say live fire, but on air you see very little movement because of the lack of recoil. Apart from shot reaction, there's not much gained from slo mo of a still shooter, they look even stiller. You want fast things slowed down, not slow things slowed further ;)

Scatt traces for all shooters in the finals would be interesting, as would heart rate monitors.

I was mostly thinking about slo-mo footage of the pellet in flight. God knows, the shooters don't move much.

Agreed, Scat or equivalent traces in the final would be interesting to shooters and maybe even the public, esp. if overlaid next to a pic of the shot going off.

peterz wrote:I was mostly thinking about slo-mo footage of the pellet in flight. God knows, the shooters don't move much.

Agreed, Scat or equivalent traces in the final would be interesting to shooters and maybe even the public, esp. if overlaid next to a pic of the shot going off.

There's some really high speed stuff mythbusters used picking up bullets in flight so the technology is there, but i'm not sure if the data has to be downloaded before it can be replayed... all the sequences i've seen it used in have not been live. Ok for play back, but after a final it's a bit old news (unless it's a timezone orientated repeat). Guess it would depend on how quick they could edit that in.

Would be awesome, but stretching tech me thinks... and I suspect slo mo may lose it's appeal after a while, it's a bit of a fad at the moment... :)

EJ good point about social media, how many shooters are really active on twitter or have a have a face book page where they interact with the public? There are a few but nothing like some other sports I follow.

Being a cyclist I can tell you they almost all are on twitter, they actively interact with there followers. They answer questions and generally are available.

I'm find archery very similar.

robf wrote:

peterz wrote:I was mostly thinking about slo-mo footage of the pellet in flight. God knows, the shooters don't move much.

Agreed, Scat or equivalent traces in the final would be interesting to shooters and maybe even the public, esp. if overlaid next to a pic of the shot going off.

There's some really high speed stuff mythbusters used picking up bullets in flight so the technology is there, but i'm not sure if the data has to be downloaded before it can be replayed... all the sequences i've seen it used in have not been live. Ok for play back, but after a final it's a bit old news (unless it's a timezone orientated repeat). Guess it would depend on how quick they could edit that in.

Would be awesome, but stretching tech me thinks... and I suspect slo mo may lose it's appeal after a while, it's a bit of a fad at the moment... :)

After you seen a pellet in flight once or twice and watch it punch a hole in paper I doubt it would have much value, as competitor 1's pellet in flight ain't going to be much different from competitors 2 thru 8's pellet in flight.

Richard H wrote:EJ good point about social media, how many shooters are really active on twitter or have a have a face book page where they interact with the public? There are a few but nothing like some other sports I follow.

That's why they are at the top of their game they spend more time training than they do tweeting!

remmy223 wrote:

Richard H wrote:EJ good point about social media, how many shooters are really active on twitter or have a have a face book page where they interact with the public? There are a few but nothing like some other sports I follow.

That's why they are at the top of their game they spend more time training than they do tweeting!

Thanks for your intelligent contribution to this discussion.

Well if you happen to open you eyes you'd probably notice that most athletes spend a fair amount of time promoting their sports. Some top shooters do this but they seem to spend time promoting it to other shooter, what's called preaching to the choir.

Richard H wrote:EJ good point about social media, how many shooters are really active on twitter or have a have a face book page where they interact with the public? There are a few but nothing like some other sports I follow.

Agree. Did a search some months ago but could barely find anything. In the meantime, most of my friends in other sports on a reasonable/high level have blogs. Strange how big the difference is.

For the discussion: I feel it has stalled now. I would just redo my arguments from now on and that won't move the discussion forward. So thank you, and I'm out.