Good for them.luftskytter wrote:Archery felt threatened and did a total redesign of their competition rounds to make it more spectator friendly and exciting.
Rifle and pistol shooting, however, will never be "spectator friendly and exciting" unless the powers that be chuck the entire program and start over with something where performance is instantly and easily recognizable and understandable by the naked eye of a spectator who's never before seen the sport. With all due respect to those who have stated different opinions in the past, no amount of competent commentary or of realtime posting of data (essentially making the job of the spectator to read constantly updated spreadsheets) can save a sport if it needs to be "spectator friendly and exciting" but that is also as inherently boring to watch as the ISSF rifle and pistol disciplines.
There are plenty of alternatives; here's one from the Dutch: http://www.youtube.com/v/z_wKJDz7J64
If that's too many shots at one time, here's something that uses 5-shot strings from the U.S.: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfibKBQM2Vs
I could easily sketch out the basics of something that used a block of miniature biathlon targets. The qualifications format would be easy to understand with accuracy being foremost but time being a factor. A fun-for-TV ladder-format finals would also be easy to envision.
The possibilities are endless if someone decides that a redesign for television and easy spectating is mandatory and is willing to throw out the rule book and start over. Such a move would require ditching most or all of the equipment owned by everyone and all the training everyone has ever done. Still, there's definitely precedent for such a move. I'm sure the shooters who lived during the transition off of .44 caliber revolvers kicked up a heck of a fuss. I'm sure some 300M Rifle shooters also groused but, for the love of shooting and a chance at a medal in the big show, at least gave it a go with a rimfire.
My questions are - Is making the sport into something "instantly and easily recognizable and understandable by the naked eye of a spectator who's never before seen the sport" a valid goal? If it were clear that such would be required to keep shooting in the Olympics, could the ISSF adapt?
Personally, I like things as they are. I understand what's happening and find it exciting to watch. But everyone who reads TT is completely different from the clueless once-every-four-years spectators whose willingness to watch appears to be the only prize sought by the folks who run the sports, the TV coverage, and the Olympics.
I hope somebody comes back and tells me that the sentence immediately preceding this one is completely wrong.
