interview with Bob Mitchell
Posted: Tue Sep 07, 2004 10:56 am
As the world's athletes wind-down from the 100th Olympic Games in Athens, Greece, the United States is feeling pretty good about the overall performance of our Olympic teams. There were the usual disappointments and pleasant surprises - a characteristic that makes all Olympic Games exciting. For USA Shooting, it was the best performance since 1984, winning a pair of golds and a silver medal, although it fell short of a projected six-medal performance. Last week, The Outdoor Wire spoke with Robert K. Mitchell, Executive Director of USA Shooting, regarding team USA's performance in Athens and the state of USA Shooting in general.
TOW: Mr. Mitchell, the stated goal of USA Shooting was six medals in Athens, but you didn't get there. How do you answer the critics?
MITCHELL: On day four of the games, I was panicking, but we came through with our best performance since 1984. We've certainly improved, and I think we should take a lot of satisfaction from the games. The shooters represented us well, and, all in all, it's not like we shot badly. We had other medals in our hands, but, well, for example, Matt Emmons, who did bring home a gold, had a second medal virtually locked up. One shot to go and a three point lead. Then, a crossfire - his first in years. There goes the medal. Becky (Snyder) should have had a medal, but she had a late shot. There's two medals, and Jason Parker, one of the finest men's air rifle shooters in the world- without a doubt - gets to the finals and shoots 594. The winners shot 599, with that differential, a medal's just not realistic.
TOW: You've led me to the criticism…observers have said that USA Shooting's not trained to win. They're technically proficient, but haven't had enough head-to-head competition to stand up to finals pressure…what about that?
MITCHELL: We need to find out what's wrong with our conversion of finals appearances to medals. In shotgun, for example, there are only 6 finalists. If you get in the finals and have a solid performance, you should have an even chance of winning a medal. We need to give our athletes whatever we can to give the chance to win more medals - we owe them that.
TOW: Address those critics who have said the coaches can't take the athletes to the medal stands…
MITCHELL: We'll have a quadrennial review in October. Inside, outside; and all aspects of USA Shooting's performance will be included. We'll look at what we've done and how we must change to get our shooters to the medal stands. We're still in the middle of a change from an entitlement-based organization to a performance-based organization.
TOW: Explain that, please.
MITCHELL: Sure. We've made fundamental changes in how athletes are treated. It used to be that the top shooter in each discipline was sent to competitions, even if they weren't really competitive with the rest of the world's shooters. Today, we don't do that. We're spending our budgets on the shooters who are getting results. That doesn't mean we're getting away from developing new shooters or bringing along USA Shooting Team members, it just means that we're spending more on sending those shooters with a chance to win to more events. We're not giving everyone the same level of support, we've become far more performance based. We've made some tough decisions and I think we've been successful. Our board and the USOC seem to agree, but we know there's still a lot of work to do. We don't have all the answers, but I'm reasonably satisfied with how we've done.
TOW: OK, here's a question I've been asked since the Games. The United States has two hundred million residents; it's the easiest country in the world in which to purchase and use a firearm, why do we not dominate the world shooting competitions?
MITCHELL: Our game is very difficult. How many other shooting competitions are there? Dozens? Hundreds? Plenty, whatever the total number. Unfortunately, our shooter pool is one of the smallest groups. We only have a pool of about 5,000 Olympic-style shooters.
TOW: So why not grow the pool?
MITCHELL: International shooting requires some particularly expensive systems. If you want to compete in rapid-fire target, the electronic system is about $20,000. If you want to shoot international trap, that bunker system is $80,000 compared to a fraction of that for U-S versions. The electronic targets are great for spectators - makes it very interesting - but those cost $4,000 each. You can't expect small clubs to make that kind of financial commitment. We're very limited in that respect. With the loss of Atlanta's facilities, Fort Benning, Georgia is the only other facility left. We have access, but that can be closed down at any time. We'd love to have our own facilities, but it would cost around $4.5 million to build one. But there's more to it than simply having facilities. For example, swimming has one of the largest athlete pools in the country - they're a huge governing body - but one of their top rules is 'grow the base' - as big as their base is, they're always looking to add more swimmers to the pool.
TOW: OK, what's that mean?
MITCHELL: We haven't made participation a priority. Participation is, in fact, decreasing and we need to build it. A continuing challenge is the fact that all the other shooting sports see USA Shooting as a threat to take their people- I'd like to see that change so that all shooting sports support our team.
TOW: What about converting our existing world-class shooters in other competitive categories - like speed shooting, for example, to Olympic shooting?
MITCHELL: Two years ago, NSSF gave us a grant to explore that idea. We contacted about a dozen top shooters. (Rob) Leatham and (Doug) Koenig passed, but others came, learned about our sport, and I think they enjoyed themselves.
TOW: And?
MITCHELL: I told them they had the winning experience we needed. They asked if we would pay them. When I said no, they wanted us to buy their guns and give them 100,000 rounds of ammo to practice.
TOW: So they couldn't contribute?
MITCHELL: I didn't say that. Rapid fire (pistol) is changing. It looks like it will be going to .22 long-rifle round, and pistols with no muzzle breaks. That sort of game now fits their style of shooting better. We may look at re-opening that discussion.
TOW: Right now, it sounds like you're saying what every administrator in any sport says they need to be more competitive: bigger athlete pools, more support, more facilities, basically, more money. How do you answer those sponsors who want to know why they should increase support - or want to know how their money has been spent so far?
MITCHELL: Any sponsor can ask those questions at any time. We need to show value to all our sponsors. We think our athletes do that. USA Shooting athletes participate in their advertising, attend their events and represent our country well. Our direct mail campaign has also been very successful in raising support money. But, we do have to compete for sponsors in a finite money pool. I think we do that.
TOW: Let's talk about Bob Mitchell for a minute. Grade your own performance report card.
MITCHELL: We're much stronger than when I came to USA Shooting. As an organization, we've made some tough decisions. I think they've been successful. We still have work to do. I'm reasonably satisfied with how we've gone to a corporate-style board. It wasn't that way before. When I agreed to this position, that was one thing I said was required. Before, this position didn't make the final decisions. I asked that if I had the responsibility for managing the organization, I had the authority to make the final decisions and would answer to the Board of Directors. They agreed, and I think it's been good for everyone.
TOW: Some criticize you as being autocratic. Are you?
MITCHELL: I am in charge. Like I told you before, I'm paid for making final decisions and policy. But, when we make decisions we try to look at all options. We talk, and when we disagree, and I have an open-door policy. If someone thinks we're wrong, athletes, coaches or administrative staff, they're welcome to sit down with me and we'll discuss it. But, that having been said, I do make the final decisions. Sometimes people don't like the that. But that's not unique to USA Shooting. But it's come a long way from the 90's when it was 'like it or leave it'.
TOW: Thanks.
EDITOR'S NOTE: Since this interview, USA Shooting has undergone some coaching and staff changes. National Pistol Coach Erich Buljung has been dismissed. As TOW reported last week, former Marketing Director Leaha Wirth has resigned her position, effective September 17. She will assume a brand manager position with Armor Holdings (a USA Shooting sponsor) September 20.
http://www.theoutdoorwire.com/towIssue. ... &year=2004
TOW: Mr. Mitchell, the stated goal of USA Shooting was six medals in Athens, but you didn't get there. How do you answer the critics?
MITCHELL: On day four of the games, I was panicking, but we came through with our best performance since 1984. We've certainly improved, and I think we should take a lot of satisfaction from the games. The shooters represented us well, and, all in all, it's not like we shot badly. We had other medals in our hands, but, well, for example, Matt Emmons, who did bring home a gold, had a second medal virtually locked up. One shot to go and a three point lead. Then, a crossfire - his first in years. There goes the medal. Becky (Snyder) should have had a medal, but she had a late shot. There's two medals, and Jason Parker, one of the finest men's air rifle shooters in the world- without a doubt - gets to the finals and shoots 594. The winners shot 599, with that differential, a medal's just not realistic.
TOW: You've led me to the criticism…observers have said that USA Shooting's not trained to win. They're technically proficient, but haven't had enough head-to-head competition to stand up to finals pressure…what about that?
MITCHELL: We need to find out what's wrong with our conversion of finals appearances to medals. In shotgun, for example, there are only 6 finalists. If you get in the finals and have a solid performance, you should have an even chance of winning a medal. We need to give our athletes whatever we can to give the chance to win more medals - we owe them that.
TOW: Address those critics who have said the coaches can't take the athletes to the medal stands…
MITCHELL: We'll have a quadrennial review in October. Inside, outside; and all aspects of USA Shooting's performance will be included. We'll look at what we've done and how we must change to get our shooters to the medal stands. We're still in the middle of a change from an entitlement-based organization to a performance-based organization.
TOW: Explain that, please.
MITCHELL: Sure. We've made fundamental changes in how athletes are treated. It used to be that the top shooter in each discipline was sent to competitions, even if they weren't really competitive with the rest of the world's shooters. Today, we don't do that. We're spending our budgets on the shooters who are getting results. That doesn't mean we're getting away from developing new shooters or bringing along USA Shooting Team members, it just means that we're spending more on sending those shooters with a chance to win to more events. We're not giving everyone the same level of support, we've become far more performance based. We've made some tough decisions and I think we've been successful. Our board and the USOC seem to agree, but we know there's still a lot of work to do. We don't have all the answers, but I'm reasonably satisfied with how we've done.
TOW: OK, here's a question I've been asked since the Games. The United States has two hundred million residents; it's the easiest country in the world in which to purchase and use a firearm, why do we not dominate the world shooting competitions?
MITCHELL: Our game is very difficult. How many other shooting competitions are there? Dozens? Hundreds? Plenty, whatever the total number. Unfortunately, our shooter pool is one of the smallest groups. We only have a pool of about 5,000 Olympic-style shooters.
TOW: So why not grow the pool?
MITCHELL: International shooting requires some particularly expensive systems. If you want to compete in rapid-fire target, the electronic system is about $20,000. If you want to shoot international trap, that bunker system is $80,000 compared to a fraction of that for U-S versions. The electronic targets are great for spectators - makes it very interesting - but those cost $4,000 each. You can't expect small clubs to make that kind of financial commitment. We're very limited in that respect. With the loss of Atlanta's facilities, Fort Benning, Georgia is the only other facility left. We have access, but that can be closed down at any time. We'd love to have our own facilities, but it would cost around $4.5 million to build one. But there's more to it than simply having facilities. For example, swimming has one of the largest athlete pools in the country - they're a huge governing body - but one of their top rules is 'grow the base' - as big as their base is, they're always looking to add more swimmers to the pool.
TOW: OK, what's that mean?
MITCHELL: We haven't made participation a priority. Participation is, in fact, decreasing and we need to build it. A continuing challenge is the fact that all the other shooting sports see USA Shooting as a threat to take their people- I'd like to see that change so that all shooting sports support our team.
TOW: What about converting our existing world-class shooters in other competitive categories - like speed shooting, for example, to Olympic shooting?
MITCHELL: Two years ago, NSSF gave us a grant to explore that idea. We contacted about a dozen top shooters. (Rob) Leatham and (Doug) Koenig passed, but others came, learned about our sport, and I think they enjoyed themselves.
TOW: And?
MITCHELL: I told them they had the winning experience we needed. They asked if we would pay them. When I said no, they wanted us to buy their guns and give them 100,000 rounds of ammo to practice.
TOW: So they couldn't contribute?
MITCHELL: I didn't say that. Rapid fire (pistol) is changing. It looks like it will be going to .22 long-rifle round, and pistols with no muzzle breaks. That sort of game now fits their style of shooting better. We may look at re-opening that discussion.
TOW: Right now, it sounds like you're saying what every administrator in any sport says they need to be more competitive: bigger athlete pools, more support, more facilities, basically, more money. How do you answer those sponsors who want to know why they should increase support - or want to know how their money has been spent so far?
MITCHELL: Any sponsor can ask those questions at any time. We need to show value to all our sponsors. We think our athletes do that. USA Shooting athletes participate in their advertising, attend their events and represent our country well. Our direct mail campaign has also been very successful in raising support money. But, we do have to compete for sponsors in a finite money pool. I think we do that.
TOW: Let's talk about Bob Mitchell for a minute. Grade your own performance report card.
MITCHELL: We're much stronger than when I came to USA Shooting. As an organization, we've made some tough decisions. I think they've been successful. We still have work to do. I'm reasonably satisfied with how we've gone to a corporate-style board. It wasn't that way before. When I agreed to this position, that was one thing I said was required. Before, this position didn't make the final decisions. I asked that if I had the responsibility for managing the organization, I had the authority to make the final decisions and would answer to the Board of Directors. They agreed, and I think it's been good for everyone.
TOW: Some criticize you as being autocratic. Are you?
MITCHELL: I am in charge. Like I told you before, I'm paid for making final decisions and policy. But, when we make decisions we try to look at all options. We talk, and when we disagree, and I have an open-door policy. If someone thinks we're wrong, athletes, coaches or administrative staff, they're welcome to sit down with me and we'll discuss it. But, that having been said, I do make the final decisions. Sometimes people don't like the that. But that's not unique to USA Shooting. But it's come a long way from the 90's when it was 'like it or leave it'.
TOW: Thanks.
EDITOR'S NOTE: Since this interview, USA Shooting has undergone some coaching and staff changes. National Pistol Coach Erich Buljung has been dismissed. As TOW reported last week, former Marketing Director Leaha Wirth has resigned her position, effective September 17. She will assume a brand manager position with Armor Holdings (a USA Shooting sponsor) September 20.
http://www.theoutdoorwire.com/towIssue. ... &year=2004