TargetTalk

renzo wrote:After all (I´m not rubbing my finger in the wound, but posing an example) that "respectability" was of no use to you Britons when the axe chop came on handguns, nor it will be to any of us if we don´t increase our ranks dramatically.

What it does, at least in the UK, give scouts groups and schools sports associations to include shooting in their programmes.

jhmartin wrote:

David Levene wrote:

jhmartin wrote: Either ironic or simple stupidity that they would use this example and then in the same timeframe release rules that guts the international youth program with the 140mm rule.

Are you saying that you have the advantage over most of us in having read the FULL rule?

I have read the 140mm rule, yes. And most of the youth stocks do not conform.
Now ... if they have changed the rule again (i.e. originally 130, then 140) - no, I have not seen a change, only a condesending note saying that only one wood stock in the finals.......

So you haven't read the full rule. Hopefully we'll all be able to read it in the near future.

renzo wrote:Martin: I already said it was nonsense......................................

I know ... agreeing with you.

It's that these "nonsensical rules" are going to drive folks away from the sport at the rate they are coming out.

Here in the US, our NCAA coaches were finally convinced that aligning with the ISSF/USA Shooting rules was the way to keep the rulebook in order. Now... after only 1 quad changes are being made that the NCAA is having to distance itself from and begin excluding these "nonsense" rules from their rulebook.

As you said even the National Federations are doing the same as to not destroy their feeder programs. If this is happening at the National levels, whay are'nt our National Reps pushing back here ...??? (Answer: Go back to David's #2 point)

David Levene wrote:So you haven't read the full rule. Hopefully we'll all be able to read it in the near future.

I've read everything that ISSF has released ... both the rules that encompassed the OG and the announcement that ISSF put on their website as well as the rules that the shooting federations here in the USA have already implemented. (USAS & CMP)

Now, if you have a set of rules or releases that have not been published (and specifically on the 140mm rule and anything related to behind the grip) that has changed, boy, I'd be willing to read it.

And should be noted ... I don't hate everything that has come out ... the 90 --> 120mm airgun rule is great and will solve almost all the problems that the 140mm rule is trying to fix.

Someone suggested we combine Air and Free into one single event

jhmartin wrote:Now, if you have a set of rules or releases that have not been published (and specifically on the 140mm rule and anything related to behind the grip) that has changed, boy, I'd be willing to read it.

I wish I had. I would hope (and expect) to be reading them in the near future.

renzo wrote:In times when we need more formal events (and dynamic ones for it) to counterbalance the spread of spray-and-prey, cinematographic disciplines like TS (haven´t you noticed everything is "tactical" nowadays?), PPC, IPSC, what do we offer to the newbie? We give them a .22 semiauto and tell him that if he really, really works hard, he can shoot a national once a year and a WCH every four?

I wasn't aware that anything "tactical", PPC, or IPSC offered Olympic competition. If those disciplines can flourish without Olympic representation in any of their disciplines, why do ISSF disciplines need to be represented at the Olympics for them to survive?

As a newbie, after working really, really hard I'm unlikely to make much of a dent at the local club level. IMO, for a successful grass level sport you need to make the sport interesting for more semi-skilled dolts of all ages like myself.

"The IOC is now working with all international federations to achieve 50 percent female participation in the Olympic Games and to stimulate women's participation and involvement in sport by creating more participation opportunities at the Olympic Games by Tokyo 2020. The IOC encourages the inclusion of mixed gender team events."

Of all the shooting events we shoot it is only the ISSF that has Men only and Women only events.
Why not remove the gender from all ISSF events and mix all events.
At National level Free, Standard and Sport are mixed.

David Levene wrote:Has anybody bothered reading the IOC's Agenda 2020.
Rio had 11544 athletes: the IOC want it limited to 10500.
Rio had 306 events: the IOC want it limited to 310.
If the ISSF can keep us in the Olympics with 15 events then they will have done extremely well.

I wasn't even aware the document existed. Good to know. That explains a lot more about what's really going on here. If this is the case, I understand why the ISSF did what it did, and to some extent I agree. They probably could have saved some confusion by referencing this in their public communications, but not a huge deal.

Edit: I had a hypo posted here, but my law partner answered it for me. One less thing to worry about.

David M wrote: Why not remove the gender from all ISSF events and mix all events.

Because that won't equate to equal participation. There is a difference between opportunity and participation.

Think of the 2 best shooters per discipline in Aus and tell us what percentage you think would be female.

I'm not defending any of these proposals, but the constant suggestion of making all shooting mixed gender will not work because it will be dominated by men. Not saying that women can't shoot as well as men, but take a look around your clubs, more men shoot, therefore more men will become top shooters.

j-team wrote:
I'm not defending any of these proposals, but the constant suggestion of making all shooting mixed gender will not work because it will be dominated by men. Not saying that women can't shoot as well as men, but take a look around your clubs, more men shoot, therefore more men will become top shooters.

I completely agree.

For reference,Recommendation 11 from the IOC's Agenda 2020:-

Foster gender equality
1. The IOC to work with the International Federations to achieve 50 per cent female participation
in the Olympic Games and to stimulate women’s participation and involvement in sport by
creating more participation opportunities at the Olympic Games.
2. The IOC to encourage the inclusion of mixed-gender team events.

Chia wrote:I wasn't even aware the document existed. Good to know.

The Agenda 2020 Recommendations

I heard there's an Agenda 2040 document, where they have 25/25/25/25/ men, women, trans-men and trans-women and small portion will be those who identify themselves as dolphins trapped in a man's body.

Anyway, in my country, and it's a rapid fire country!, the participation in rapid fire events is basically zero, because the gun's freaking expensive and you need at least 3x times more ammo per training than on other events. I need close to 10 minutes for 10 shots with FP, but I waste 10 shots on RPF in less than one minute. Expensive, unattractive, but respectable event...

hundert wrote:I heard there's an Agenda 2040 document, where they have 25/25/25/25/ men, women, trans-men and trans-women and small portion will be those who identify themselves as dolphins trapped in a man's body.

Not far from today, maybe men will have to fight for gender equality for ourselves.........................................

renzo wrote: Not far from today, maybe men will have to fight for gender equality for ourselves.........................................

Equality is if you want to participate, you can. Inequality is when you can't for reasons of affirmative action, segregation, quotas,...

Maybe we should grow coffee in Canada, it won't grow, but it needs to be 50/50 with potatoes!

If they really have to cut down the number of athletes and hence have to cut some events while encouraging participation in the sport, I think, as much as it sucks, it makes more sense to cut the 3P events. If you weight the quota places by number of participants around the world it makes no sense to keep 3P but dump prone.

Bindra?

Blink twice if you are safe, buddy.

David Levene wrote:

j-team wrote:
I'm not defending any of these proposals, but the constant suggestion of making all shooting mixed gender will not work because it will be dominated by men. Not saying that women can't shoot as well as men, but take a look around your clubs, more men shoot, therefore more men will become top shooters.

I completely agree.

For reference,Recommendation 11 from the IOC's Agenda 2020:-

Foster gender equality
1. The IOC to work with the International Federations to achieve 50 per cent female participation
in the Olympic Games and to stimulate women’s participation and involvement in sport by
creating more participation opportunities at the Olympic Games.
2. The IOC to encourage the inclusion of mixed-gender team events.

Can this not be achieved in mixed gender events by having 50% participation quota for both genders?
This way everyone participating will have equal chance to be successful. Is this not what equality means?

It is correct that there are much more men involved in our sport, but I am not convinced that this is a reason for separating events by gender. Are there actually any credible studies which claim that females will not be able to be successful in mixed gender shooting events?

J R wrote:
Can this not be achieved in mixed gender events by having 50% participation quota for both genders?
This way everyone participating will have equal chance to be successful. Is this not what equality means?

Google some international results. You will find that other than air rifle, the men beat the women most of the time. Therefore it does not result in the "gender equality".

J R wrote: Can this not be achieved in mixed gender events by having 50% participation quota for both genders?

That sounds like, at some stage in the process, you might have to discriminate against the better shooter because of their gender.
Quota places should be based on performance rather than gender.