TargetTalk

Has the ISSF lost the plot by not controlling crowd behaviour at its finals?
After watching the Air finals at the ISSF junior cup, it appears to be getting worse.
Tennis controls its crowds very well and shows respect for its players.
Excessive noise, bugles and slow clapping is more reminiscent of hooligans at a soccer
match.

It helps separate the men from the boys.

David M wrote:Has the ISSF lost the plot by not controlling crowd behaviour at its finals?
After watching the Air finals at the ISSF junior cup, it appears to be getting worse.
Tennis controls its crowds very well and shows respect for its players.
Excessive noise, bugles and slow clapping is more reminiscent of hooligans at a soccer
match.

I (haven't|can't be arsed to) looked up the final to which you're referring, but I've almost completely lost interest in everything ISSF since the switch to zero-based finals and decimal-based scoring.

Maybe I'm an old soul. Maybe I'm an old man yelling at a cloud.

But I used to know what a 400 or a 600 meant.

I used to know that a 690.2 was 1 point better than a 689.2.

I didn't have to do projection math to figure out why a 32 was better than a 10 when the 32 shot 40 shots and the 10 shot 20 shots, and a 201.4 is better than a 76.7, but only because the guy with the 201.4 was better after 6 shots (no, not really better, but kind of better after 60 shots, and then we're gonna throw that away, but better after these 6 shots right here that we've decided are important, at this point in time).

Yeah, ISSF has completely lost the plot.

I quite like the new finals format but, I have to admit that when I see results on the ISSF website, the first thing I do is scroll down and click on the qualification results to see what everyone actually shot in the match!

I think it makes it good for viewing. If no body want to watch it then it will get dropped from the olympics and eventually the sport will die. It already has an aging base of competitors.just the other day i was showing non shooters how the finalls can be fun to watch and it was this final with all the slow clapping ect that i used

I was at various finals, as an official/helper, for the Nordic championships in the '90s and that was fairly rowdy, I'm not sure much has changed.

Shooting should be fun, banter, good-humoured rivalry all add to it, not detract.

I agree that the scoring system has become incomprehensible, how 3x10s, a 7 and a 5 can be 'better' than 2x10s and 3x9s is baffling and turns the whole principle of sustained skill that shooting was supposed to be on its head. You might as well allow unlimited shots to achieve the 5 hits, let people use AR15s with 30rnd magazines and laser sights and give up on any further pretence that its a skill sport....

In my observations there are two types of these sorts of activity: fun and unsportsman like.

The Indians were bad for it at the Commonwealth Games gone almost to a point of being unsportsman-like. Probably the worst I have seen.
Jeering etc. deliberately trying to put off the other non-indian competitors in my view.

I suppose up to a point it is fun and good spirited, and past that point it is a dick move. I agree with JamesH on the point that shooting should be fun.

Pernally: I quite enjoy the added pressure - sharpens me up I think?

David M wrote:Excessive noise, bugles and slow clapping is more reminiscent of hooligans at a soccer
match.

Ever witnessed a German Bundesliga shooting event?
This is taken into account and actually desired by ISSF.

Ditto per John B's comments. I've tried to watch a few finals since the changes but get so bored so quickly I just can't be bothered. Tend to skip through, maybe watch 5 minutes in all. Lately I've not even bothered downloading the videos. The new finals format has, for me, trivialised the main match, made it seem almost irrelevant. Frankly I'd rather see highlights from the qualifying rounds than the finals at this point. Having the crowd act like idiots to garner ratings is moving things in the wrong direction. What next, snooker matches with beer throwing? Golf with paper airplanes for everyone?

Crowd getting excited and rowdy is great. Just look at those biathlon races. Shooters at the world levels should be able to wear proper ears and bee used to not get distracted. As I once asked a fellow competitor in another sport why anyone would want to compete in the middle of summer which competitors can pass out, the answer was "if you want it bad, you will outlast the other guy.." So it is a mental game also! Let them jeers! We need "villains" and "personality".

I am absolutely against the idea of decimals other than air rifle in which the 10 is a dot. That's what counting inner x and count back was for, and it was part of a mental game (count back). If everyone is fr60pr scores 600, then the winner and also the world record should go to the one with the most X.

In match crossbow, there is no decimals, nor inner 10s. The winner simply is usually the one with the fewer 9s. Typical one or two 9s out of a 10 shot series will win you a regional competition. It does not bother those guys, after all many of them also happened to be world class .22lr 3p and air rifle shooters.

Without the decimal scoring we can still keep the sport accessible by using paper target and backstop trap. Now I have inquiries from tiger dads asking me how to buy an electronic targeting system at home for their 12 years old.....<sigh>. The dad has too much money, and the daughter neatly shoots everything around the bull. (4s). Needless to say the rifle is the newest and the most expensive junior you can ever purchase.

conradin wrote:I am absolutely against the idea of decimals other than air rifle in which the 10 is a dot. That's what counting inner x and count back was for, and it was part of a mental game (count back). If everyone is fr60pr scores 600, then the winner and also the world record should go to the one with the most X.

Decimal scoring is just a more accurate way of scoring, in terms of distance from the target centre, in the qualification stages at major international matches and in finals.

Start from zero, a very good idea. It makes the qualification stage just that. It qualifies you to get into the final, which is where the medals are won and lost.

The final as it sits now is obviously where it is won or lost. But it seems to me not to select for the better shooter on the day, rather it's the more fortunate shooter for that very short match who takes the gold. In a game where extremely tiny differences in consistency make all the difference between one top level shooter and the next, does it really seem sensible to reduce the number of shots required in picking the better shooter? If anything I'd have opted for an increase in shot count to determine the final outcome, not a decrease which makes the actual skill level of the individual shooter disappear into the less important (in my opinion, for air pistol, which is not terribly closely related to 'action' shooting sports where dealing with outside stressors would seem more appropriate) theatrics and showmanship elements of the televised, marketable version of the sport. Testing the ability of a variety of top level AP shooters to cope with crowd nonsense seems irrelevant in what is essentially a meditative pursuit and a game of statistics, better measured when using larger sample sizes, not smaller.

I think naturally the cream rises to the top regardless; this will become more true as the next generation of shooters come through where this new finals system is all they have known.

The larger the match the smaller the discrepancies should be, so the closer the finalists should be matched - statistically speaking.

I won the National title here with a qualifying score of 548 (8th place) - smallish match. Perhaps even getting into the final with such a meagre score was luck, but winning a final is winning a final.

I tried to watch the 50m men's pistol final from Suhl tonight and could not sit through all of the horns and music. I have no interest whatsoever in watching shooting with dance club music in the back ground. Clapping, foot stomping, cheering, I am all for. But what I tried to watch tonight was just stupid.

Link for those interested: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsuAsAEsRV8

Pretty obnoxious. What's up with the giant chicken, also? Is the ISSF trying to be the 'cool dad'?

ISSF needs to watch this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pd2RI0zgfE

At the last Fort Benning 50 meter Mens Pistol someone brought along and used a large wooden clacker once. I think someone whispered in his ear about a magic trick that would be performed with the clacker if the individual did it again, as he seemed to have lost his enthusiasm to use it a second time.

The Suhl videos were over the top. Is it really a good idea to heckle people with firearms?

I think something like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cnAwRJc7Sw

It's from Norway and has a very nice atmosphere. A fun, almost fair like atmosphere between events and when introducing the shooters. Then everyone is quiet when once it's time to shoot. Once the shooting is done, everyone can be loud again.

I think one thing that Olympic type shooting events have against them, is most of them are relatively long. It's sort of like watching a chess tournament, you have to REALLY like chess to sit there and watch to players stare at a board and not wander off. The finals are an attempt to get around that, but the scoring can be so incomprehensible as to confuse the audience, and the "action" isn't particularly "active. Sort of like watching speed chess.

Personal opinion time: The ISSF isn't going to attract a bigger audience of non-shooters to Olympic events, they just don't play well to an audience that doesn't understand the sport through personal experience. Just like chess isn't going to attract an audience of non-chess players, they don't care or understand why a particular move was such an amazing gambit. The ISSF should instead concentrate on creating more shooters, who can then be knowledgeable spectators.

Also there shouldn't be a finals that is different then what the spectators are used to shooting. Spectators want to compete in the same sport (and for the younger ones, aspire to reach the level of Olympic or WC competitors) as the folks there watching, not see a variation of their sport. If professional baseball in the US went to a 9th inning home run derby format instead of playing the inning, but all the amateurs still played a 9th inning there would be a big push for change. Either for the amateur game to match the pro's or the other way around. While there is nothing preventing clubs from having an Olympic style finals at every match, all the one's I'm familiar with still just simply score out the match.

-Jenrick

Dear David M,

There is lots of golf to watch on TV. Why don't you join the crowd.

Best boring wishes,

Don