TargetTalk

Also,

what's with this new argument of skill crossover required for FP and AP??? Why does it matter?
Look at Swimming, Michael Phelps 8 Gold medals in 2008. You can't do it in shooting, even with a sex change operation between the events. The difference between FP and AP is far greater than between any swimming event.

hundert wrote:Also,

what's with this new argument of skill crossover required for FP and AP??? Why does it matter?
Look at Swimming, Michael Phelps 8 Gold medals in 2008. You can't do it in shooting, even with a sex change operation between the events. The difference between FP and AP is far greater than between any swimming event.

The difference is millions of people will watch Phelps swim some slightly different races on TV. Who will watch the free pistol? Only other free pistol shooters.

Also, worth noting is that from an industry point of view, only Morini could possibly complain, as they are basically the only current manufacturer of a decent free pistol. I don't know the figures, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to wok out how many standard pistols are sold each year, compare to the number of free pistols.

j-team wrote:..... only Morini could possibly complain, as they are basically the only current manufacturer of a decent free pistol....

"j-team", that is a surprisingly lame statement from you.

slofyr wrote:

j-team wrote:..... only Morini could possibly complain, as they are basically the only current manufacturer of a decent free pistol....

"j-team", that is a surprisingly lame statement from you.

Care to expand on that?

Okay, I'll bite. Pardini and Walther/Hammerli make "decent" 50-meter pistols, too. I've shot them all and would rate the Pardini and FP60 [and Morini] as excellent products. If you are one of those elitists who think anything not high profile in the rarified air of top tier competition is less worthy, get over it. The other 90% of us mortals don't see it that way.

Not to mention the MG5.

In the Norwegian Pistol Championships, events like Free Pistol and Centrefire arent's exclusively men's disciplines. Unless you are a veteran or a junior, you shoot in "open". Last year there were 33 competitors in Free Pistol Open, and three of them were women. Two of them made the finals, and they placed third and eighth. So it could be done, and I assume the best female shooters would make quite an effort if it were possible for them to compete in Free Pistol in the Olympics.

As an aside, there were 50 competitors in CF. and eight of them were women. The best two placed third and fourth. Their scores were 572 and 570.

It is not uncommon to have female medalists in these disciplines in our National, Regional og County Championships, which should prove that if the ladies practise they will shoot well. Also well enough to beat most guys.

slofyr wrote:Okay, I'll bite. Pardini and Walther/Hammerli make "decent" 50-meter pistols, too. I've shot them all and would rate the Pardini and FP60 [and Morini] as excellent products. If you are one of those elitists who think anything not high profile in the rarified air of top tier competition is less worthy, get over it. The other 90% of us mortals don't see it that way.

Telling me (someone you don't know) to "get over it" and then accusing me of being an elitist, perhaps you should check the mirror.

It's nothing to do with what's used at the top tier, if you go back and read my post, you will see I said "from and industry point of view", simple economics. How many free pistols do you think Pardini and Walther sell compared to Morini?

BTW, "90% of us mortals" need no worry about what happens in the Olympics.

I’m inclined to think that women would enjoy FP, if more matches would be accessible to them. If internationally FP would be open to women, women would be stimulated to take up 50-m FP. So rather than abolish a discipline, it would be better to open up a sport to the ‘weaker sex’. I don’t think it would be an extra cost: the range and the equipment are the same as for rifle disciplines.
The spectators have never been so close in the match since the electronic score boards were introduced. We all know that shooting is not a spectator’s game as is e.g. football or boxing, but with the electronics it can be followed closely.
Let’s hope the IOC and ISSF show some reasonable attitude.
Btw. A Belgium shooter (Anne Goffin) participated in FP in the Olympics. I think she was originaly selected only for AP but I presume there were lines availble she took the opportunity to participate (scored 515, not bad for someone who isn't a FP shooter) QED! (which is what had to be proven)

Keep your fingers crossed; Best regards.
Guy

gn303 wrote: Btw. A Belgium shooter (Anne Goffin) participated in FP in the Olympics. I think she was originaly selected only for AP but I presume there were lines availble she took the opportunity to participate (scored 515, not bad for someone who isn't a FP shooter) QED! (which is what had to be proven)

See here: http://www.issf-sports.org/athletes/ath ... 0000000013

Couldn't have been selected for AP though as AP didn't come in until 1988. She must have been selected only to shoot Free Pistol.

hundert wrote:And replace it with gay events like snowboard, curling and all that other crap?

I concur both with the likelihood assessment and with the choice of adjective (which I have outlined above).
Gay, merry and blitheful events that are nicely televisable (ideal would be 10 metres air pistol falling plates in the Youth Olympic Games) will always have IOC precedence over utterly boring and unwatchable events like 50 metres free pistol and 50 metres prone smallbore rifle.

And you know what? They are right.
Although I would be personally sorry about FP being relegated to the ISSF sphere only, because it is one of the oldest still existing and very little changed Olympic events, and because it still favours skills over equipment.

Alexander

hundert wrote: replace it with gay events like snowboard, curling and all that other crap?

Snowboard doesn`t deserve the label "gay" event, I recon. There`s nothing "crappy" about curling, btw.
Curling is a nicely televisable sport, - the large stones move slowly and are highly visible. Curling is a dicipline demanding a high level of precision, too. I find it intriguing, but icehocky, on the other hand,- the puck is small, moves fast, and is less visible.

The "televisability" of shooting disiplines , like FP and AP, has improved much due to the introduction of electronic scoreboards and graphics.

j-team wrote:

gn303 wrote: Btw. A Belgium shooter (Anne Goffin) participated in FP in the Olympics. I think she was originaly selected only for AP but I presume there were lines availble she took the opportunity to participate (scored 515, not bad for someone who isn't a FP shooter) QED! (which is what had to be proven)

See here: http://www.issf-sports.org/athletes/ath ... 0000000013

Couldn't have been selected for AP though as AP didn't come in until 1988. She must have been selected only to shoot Free Pistol.

Hello j-team!
You are absolutely right!
Mrs. Goffin participated (and did well!) in many international matches in AP and SP. In Belgium she is especially known for her performances in AP. But she did indeed perform pretty well in other disciplines. I just couldn't retrace it :-( and couldn't trace selection results from that time either. And the press stays silent when it is about shooting. I have the impression that some reporters felt bad when L.Cox won a medal.
Thank you for clarifying this.

Having recently read the New York Times coverage of the Olympic doping scandals, I noticed that the most "liked" comments called for the complete disbandment of the Olympic games while citing too much corruption and nationalism being promoted. A sentiment was voiced that participating in a sport is beneficial for one's health and personal development while watching the same on TV, and otherwise "following" it, only incentivizes bad things. I find it hard not to agree. I run, swim, and shoot, but I consider watching Bolt or Phelps a waste of time and emotions. For this reason I do not worry about whether IOC thinks high or low about free pistol. If they drop it, fine with me, the price of old TOZs for me will only go down. For the same reason I never donate "to support our athletes." Whatever infighting for money, positions and prestige my donation would promote within my USAS has no effect on my enjoyment of shooting, not any more than on my enjoyment of running or swimming.

shaky hands wrote:...complete disbandment of the Olympic games while citing too much ... nationalism being promoted...

I'm sure I'll be turning in my red white and blue "USA Shooting" shirt for a nondescript grey "Shooting" one any day now.

I didn't read every reply in this topic....

But Free Pistol should be open to Male, Female, LBGTQ, and misc.

It would certainly make the event much more exciting.

gn303 wrote: The spectators have never been so close in the match since the electronic score boards were introduced. We all know that shooting is not a spectator’s game as is e.g. football or boxing, but with the electronics it can be followed closely.

Actually, paper was much better. They used to film bullet holes, and in sun you could see the bullet fly. Now the athletes are shooting at a roll of black toilet paper.

example video 1
example video 2 (must watch)

electronic targets made everything much much much worse

Thank you for the link to these films. I find them very interesting as promotional documents. But I can hardly see how a spectator can follow a performance shot by shot as finals are shot today. Therefore I prefer the electronic target were you can follow the match…even from the seat in the cantina.
I’m sure you remember the time when the judges walked to the targets and showed the impacts in rapid fire. That, in my opinion, brought some suspense for the public, unless you were following the match with binoculars. But for 50-m shooting you had to wait for the judges to finish the calulus.
Each may have his preference, but the electronic targets brought the shooting much closer to the public. Just my point of view.
Best regards,
Guy

gn303 wrote:Thank you for the link to these films. I find them very interesting as promotional documents. But I can hardly see how a spectator can follow a performance shot by shot as finals are shot today. Therefore I prefer the electronic target were you can follow the match…even from the seat in the cantina.
I’m sure you remember the time when the judges walked to the targets and showed the impacts in rapid fire. That, in my opinion, brought some suspense for the public, unless you were following the match with binoculars. But for 50-m shooting you had to wait for the judges to finish the calulus.
Each may have his preference, but the electronic targets brought the shooting much closer to the public. Just my point of view.
Best regards,
Guy

I agree with all of this.

I'm part of the team who runs the electronic target system for all of the Scottish Target Shooting 10 & 50m events.
I've yet to meet any competitor or spectator who thinks that paper targets provided a better experience.

I can understand why they want to balance the quota places, but can't understand why choose free pistol to drop instead of rapid fire pistol.

The most logical for the pistol discipline i think is drop rapid fire pistol as i takes much more time and effort to complete a competition with less competitors than free pistol.
If you want to make it more spectator friendly, just drop RFP and FP and bring back center fire, or just let the men shoot sport pistol, separate or with the women.
Sport pistol can be done pretty spectator friendly with little effort, just place a LED or anything that can notify if it's a hit or not with the total above the target. You will be having more competitors less investment in range for pistol that is and less days.

Maybe if some info can be displayed down range above the target without disturbing the shooter this will help make it a little more exciting for the people that are not shooting.

This way for pistol you will only need the 25M range. Competition duration in days will be less.
Pistol Events and Rifle events can be done on the same day even because no pistol events will take place on the 50M ranges no more.

Don't get me wrong i would love to keep it as it is and also bring back CFP and Standard Pistol. But in this situation i really am not understanding the reasoning to drop FP and Keep RFP.

I think there is more reason to drop both and add another 25 meter event, i just hope that this isn't the case as i only shoot AP and FP.

This is what i think about the whole situation. But once again if it was up to me i would leave everything as is.