ISSF Report - Summary of IOC Sports Department - ISSF Mtg

[j-team]

To follow the ideal of universality, 5.2, they could always drop RFP and include Standard Pistol.

Standard is the most popular 25m event here in NZ. What about a final format? Hit/miss in 10 seconds I suppose?.

Another option would be Men's Sport pistol (which is becoming popular here as most men are too girlie to shoot Centre Fire)

[Mike M.]

RFP is just about the ONLY exciting rifle and pistol event that is TV worthy.

I disagree. The key is having competent color commentary. Possibly with a final that is fired one competitor at a time, to permit for more commentary.

[jhmartin]

I disagree. The key is having competent color commentary. Possibly with a final that is fired one competitor at a time, to permit for more commentary.

For those who missed the Men's Junior Olympics this year, probably the best color commentary I've ever seen/heard was in the Men's Prone final. I think one of the keys was having a fellow competitor who did not make the final, but who was very familiar with each of the competitors. Knowledgeable about the final itself, a great sense of humor who could offer relevant "fun" tidbits that were not offensive to the shooters and raised the "drama".
A congrats to Mr. Will Anti.

[Hemmers]

Off the top of my head I can't think of any Olympic sport where men and women compete together.

Racquet sports mostly. Mixed doubles badminton, tennis, etc.

I believe FINA trialled mixed relays into their last World Swimming Championship, which no doubt is down to similar discussions with the IOC and a notion of introducing mixed team events.

What bewilders me here in this thread, is that nobody - not a single one - of the commentators seems to have even remotely tried to understand the challenges under which the IOC operates, and the concerns that the IOC expressed. Some of which are rather unreasonable (e.g. laser), and some of which are VERY reasonable.

Instead, discipline myopia reigns supreme. This is a rather sad testimony for shooters; and not for the IOC.

Alexander

This is a key consideration. Every sport is getting this treatment. The Olympics are limited to 10500 competitors. If you introduce BMX or Downhill MTB, you have to cut athlete quotas somewhere else. You also increase your venue count and you may even need to cut other medal events. The IOC already has a hard enough time soliciting credible host bids due to the difficulties, disruption and expense. They can't allow the Games to bloat.

Now, the ISSF have retained 15 medal events, which of course makes the notion of 8 single-sex disciplines impossible - they don't have 16 medals, and they're certainly not going to surrender one and have 7 men's and 7 women's events.

Every discipline has a challenge - there are 5 events in each of rifle, pistol and shotgun, and each subset has 3 men's and two women's events. So the question is what are we going to bin or merge?

In Shotgun, Men's DT is a low-participation category - but replace with a mixed DT event, or a different mixed/team event? The Commonwealth Games have just dumped the Pairs Shooting events.

In Pistol, it's 50m pistol, and in Rifle it's Prone. So... just call them mixed? Minimum 33% quota for each gender? Instant parity. Lots of women shoot 50m Prone, almost none shoot 50m Pistol.

But if we do that, it's only going to be the same number of overall athletes - we're not going to get Elimination Heats through to the Qualification stage because the Games are limited to 10500 athletes. And what does that do to the flag count. If each country can win two quotas, then what happens if every country's best prone shooters are men/women - who is going to go to a country and tell them they must select their second-best shooter because the event needs it's gender quotas. So you make each quota gender-specific, so you win a women's or men's quota place. But when it comes to selection, maybe your star female shooter has dropped off and your best shooter is a guy - but you only have a Women's quota. Under the current system you have the right to assign your quota place to any Qualifying athlete. It's often the one who won it, but not always.

That's quite hard to manage because you end up with a nonsense where you may not end up with the best shooters actually competing.

Or we just start chopping disciplines and replace with team versions of existing disciplines.

I dunno, but it is hard.

Laser guns on the other hand. No. That just needs to be consigned to the bin immediately - a sensible sit down with the ISD to explain why it's a total non-starter.

I'll add that the laser-toy has a BIG problem...targets. A laser powerful enough to burn holes in a paper target would be considered a weapon. A target sensitive enough to pick up a laser pointer-strength beam will increase cost. Paper targets are cheap, ISSF needs to push back on that front. Shooting needs to be a sport cheap enough to enter.

I don't think there's any suggestion of trying to shoot lasers at paper targets. It would be electronics like Modern Pentathlon have decided to play with.

To which end, the IOC don't care - Sius Laserscore at £5k per lane, or whatever a laser system costs (which won't be any more). The cost is not relevant given that there will have to be a venue, and a bank of targets. They don't care what the grassroots implications would be (and note that Modern Pentathlons dalliances have not trickled down very rapidly - certainly in the UK, the Pony Club still do their Triathlon stuff with air pistols, and I would imagine that outside of National Championships level events, most Pentathlon associations will just carry on with all their existing gear.

[David Levene]

Off the top of my head I can't think of any Olympic sport where men and women compete together.

Racquet sports. Mixed doubles badminton, tennis, etc.

I believe FINA trialled mixed relays into their last World Swimming Championship, which no doubt is down to similar discussions with the IOC and a notion of introducing mixed team events.

Those are mixed team events.

If we are talking about mixed individual events then I think it's only Equestrian.

[Mike M.]

There are two other options I can think of.

First, do what the FIE did with fencing - they were forced to eliminate an event, and chose to rotate between all their events. Each Olympics, one event does not get held. This would help with the number of competitors, if not the venues.

Second, hold preliminaries at a separate site. I know that in 1996, soccer preliminaries for the Atlanta Games were being held as far away as Annapolis, MD - a good 1,000 km away. It would be desirable to hold the finals close to the main venues, but the preliminary matches could be run at a more convenient location. Note that the soccer games have already established precedent.

[conradin]

Off the top of my head I can't think of any Olympic sport where men and women compete together.

Racquet sports. Mixed doubles badminton, tennis, etc.

I believe FINA trialled mixed relays into their last World Swimming Championship, which no doubt is down to similar discussions with the IOC and a notion of introducing mixed team events.

Those are mixed team events.

If we are talking about mixed individual events then I think it's only Equestrian.

Sailing has open events as recently as 2008, while in 2004 they still have one event that is a one sailor open class competition.

[ShootWithStyle]

What bewilders me here in this thread, is that nobody - not a single one - of the commentators seems to have even remotely tried to understand the challenges under which the IOC operates, and the concerns that the IOC expressed. Some of which are rather unreasonable (e.g. laser), and some of which are VERY reasonable.

Instead, discipline myopia reigns supreme. This is a rather sad testimony for shooters; and not for the IOC.

Alexander

This is a key consideration. Every sport is getting this treatment. The Olympics are limited to 10500 competitors. If you introduce BMX or Downhill MTB, you have to cut athlete quotas somewhere else. You also increase your venue count and you may even need to cut other medal events. The IOC already has a hard enough time soliciting credible host bids due to the difficulties, disruption and expense. They can't allow the Games to bloat.

Well if it IOC weren't so driven by money, power, and lunacy maybe all of us would be better off...and not just the shooting athletes. Remember when the Games were about the athletes and the spirit of International competition with some very heated international rivalries (think USA vs. USSR), but it wasn't the media, corporate, sponsor driven circus it's become now.

Has anyone ever seen the IOC list of "demands/requirements" for a potential host city. It's 8000 pages long!

And then theres the demands for the IOC members themselves, like the ones for Norway when they were thinking of hosting the 2022 Winter Games.

•They demand to meet the king prior to the opening ceremony. Afterwards, there shall be a cocktail reception. Drinks shall be paid for by the Royal Palace or the local organizing committee.
•Separate lanes should be created on all roads where IOC members will travel, which are not to be used by regular people or public transportation.
•A welcome greeting from the local Olympic boss and the hotel manager should be presented in IOC members' rooms, along with fruit and cakes of the season. (Seasonal fruit in Oslo in February is a challenge ...)
•The hotel bar at their hotel should extend its hours “extra late” and the minibars must stock Coke products.
•The IOC president shall be welcomed ceremoniously on the runway when he arrives.
•The IOC members should have separate entrances and exits to and from the airport.
•During the opening and closing ceremonies a fully stocked bar shall be available. During competition days, wine and beer will do at the stadium lounge.
•IOC members shall be greeted with a smile when arriving at their hotel.
•Meeting rooms shall be kept at exactly 20 degrees Celsius at all times.
•The hot food offered in the lounges at venues should be replaced at regular intervals, as IOC members might “risk” having to eat several meals at the same lounge during the Olympics.

Maybe we can keep prone in the games if we allow the IOC members to watch the final from a luxury suite built into the finals hall. They can be led there on a red carpet lined with velvet robes. During the finals introductions they will be identified to the crowd so they can soak up our undying love and adulation and all in attendance shall bow or curtsy in their presence.

J.

[mbradley]

What bewilders me here in this thread, is that nobody - not a single one - of the commentators seems to have even remotely tried to understand the challenges under which the IOC operates, and the concerns that the IOC expressed. Some of which are rather unreasonable (e.g. laser), and some of which are VERY reasonable.

Instead, discipline myopia reigns supreme. This is a rather sad testimony for shooters; and not for the IOC.

Alexander

As near as I can tell, the challenges the IOC operates under are how to blow out personal expense reports, get kickbacks, and avoid indictment.

If you think anyone who works for the IOC gives a damn about a International Shooting you are a fool.

[David M]

Welcome to the IOC's Five Ring Circus.
A couple of good reads and insight....
http://www.amazon.com/Five-Ring-Circus- ... B006ZIO0NY
https://www.amazon.ca/Five-Ring-Circus- ... 0865715920

[FabioRifleRio]

Regards lasers, I do believe lead projectiles are problematic & one day in the long term future they will be dealt with. You could also throw in firearms security, customs & freight, insurance and firearms licensing into that same pot. Would be a sad day though.

Yes, it must be a sad "robotized" future...

One of the main challenge of shooting sports is to throw a piece of lead from a firing point to a target at some distance and find a narrow place to acheive more points or hit a flying/moving targets.

How laser weapons will give the "ballistics" or the crucial time between trigger release and bullet leaving the barrel involved, as we are shooting at speed of light?

Lets eliminate all sports and buy Xboxs and Playstations to organize the Games.

It is the end of times...

[Hemmers]

Well if it IOC weren't so driven by money, power, and lunacy maybe all of us would be better off...and not just the shooting athletes. Remember when the Games were about the athletes and the spirit of International competition with some very heated international rivalries (think USA vs. USSR), but it wasn't the media, corporate, sponsor driven circus it's become now.

Has anyone ever seen the IOC list of "demands/requirements" for a potential host city. It's 8000 pages long!

Of course it is. We're talking about the biggest sporting event in the world. The host country is going to spend multi-billions on building venues, which the IOC will fill. The IOC needs the delivery of the Games to be underwritten at a Governmental level, because they can't afford for it not to happen if they award the Games and then sponsors flake or the organisers run out of money.

It is deeply unfortunate that the media have taken over. But the option is to have fewer sponsors, or smaller sponsors. That means the teams have to pay more per athlete to enter them and put them up in the village. The money has to be found from somewhere. Or the Games starts culling events and shrinks - 8000/6000/5000 athletes instead of 10500. Would shooting do well out of that? I think not.

And of course there is a reason the Games became commercialised in the first place - as they grew (and with it, not only an increased burden by the competitions on local infrastructure, but a need for larger venues to accommodate more spectators, house the press, etc), it became harder to find host cities. We can bemoan the commercialisation, and wish they had taken a different path in the 80s, keeping the Games compact and affordable. But they didn't, and any shrinkage today is going to impact the less-watched sports first, leaving media-friendly and "adrenaline" sports.

•They demand to meet the king prior to the opening ceremony. Afterwards, there shall be a cocktail reception. Drinks shall be paid for by the Royal Palace or the local organizing committee.
•Separate lanes should be created on all roads where IOC members will travel, which are not to be used by regular people or public transportation.
•A welcome greeting from the local Olympic boss and the hotel manager should be presented in IOC members' rooms, along with fruit and cakes of the season. (Seasonal fruit in Oslo in February is a challenge ...)
•The hotel bar at their hotel should extend its hours “extra late” and the minibars must stock Coke products.
•The IOC president shall be welcomed ceremoniously on the runway when he arrives.
•The IOC members should have separate entrances and exits to and from the airport.
•During the opening and closing ceremonies a fully stocked bar shall be available. During competition days, wine and beer will do at the stadium lounge.
•IOC members shall be greeted with a smile when arriving at their hotel.
•Meeting rooms shall be kept at exactly 20 degrees Celsius at all times.
•The hot food offered in the lounges at venues should be replaced at regular intervals, as IOC members might “risk” having to eat several meals at the same lounge during the Olympics.

Look, some of those demands are a bit dubious and schmoozie, but a lot of them have realistic backgrounds.

Coca Cola is a prime sponsor. It is not an unreasonable requirement that Official Hotels stock Coke rather than Pepsi. If I was a sponsor and I was dumping tens of millions of dollars into an event I would be fucking pissed if I walked into an official venue or hotel and they were serving a rival's product.

Extended opening hours for hotel facilities? Of course - the actual IOC officials "at the coal face" will be working 18+ hour days ensuring the whole gig runs smoothly. They need to be able to come in and get food whenever organisational and media demands allow them to grab food. For each of the people swanning around glad-handing VIPs, there are a bunch of assistants, flunkies and underlings working their asses off, and they have to eat sometime.

Hot food buffets? Certainly in the UK, food hygiene standards legally require that a buffet can only be out for two hours. Food can only be out for two hours before it must be removed/replaced so that everyone doesn't get food poisoning. If you have an all-day buffet out in the official lounges for people to grab between duties, then yes, that buffet will be replaced at regular intervals and evolve - breakfast stuff in the morning, to be replaced by brunch-lunch stuff and changing through the day.

Main Dining will do the same thing for athlete and team food.

This is not a surprise.

Separate exits? Yes, the main airport in the host city will usually have a separate Games terminal which is part of the Games Security Bubble. IOC delegates and VIPs will use it, as will athletes getting onto buses to the Games Village.



Avery Brundage (former IOC President in the post-WW2 years) very laudably worked to keep the Olympics un-commercialised, and declared the IOC "should have nothing to do with money".

The question though is whether that's realistic. It's a laudable ideal. The reality is that host cities certainly can't foot the bill of the enlarged games (5k athletes in 1952, 7k in 1972, 10500 today). One can suggest that maybe host cities could be responsible for their own sponsorship and media rights, rather than having the IOC managing that on an ongoing basis (with the potential backhanders and corruption that goes alongside such massive sums). In either case though, the gig has to be paid for. Someone somewhere has to foot the bill.

[jhmartin]

OK ... maybe I'm a cynic, a glumbody and a doomsayer.

You really cannot "Make", "Force", "Reconfigure" R&P events to be more television friendly.
And yet ISSF is being forced, going along, whatever of changing the sports.

I see the only real way to increase viewership is to go grassroots and build up the programs in the member nations to increase interest interest and viewership that way ... do I see that happening, no - just the opposite.
Some in the ISSF are using this opportunity to push thru their own agendas, which is & will continue to make it harder to get new people into the sport ... pushing these massive changes in equipment and event concept rules and then being condescending about it.
I'll admit it's the easier way to go & run it out and ride the perks as long as they'll go ... versus building up programs in the nations of the ISSF ... does anyone see these new rules proposals as helping here?

Me ... I'd be shocked if, except for shotgun, in 2028 or 2032 there are any more R&P (projectile) events left in the Olympics ... and the shells of the programs left behind after all the rules changes will have been gutted.

I'd really like to be wrong ... tell me why I am.

[Mike M.]

Shooting has one massive advantage over other sports - it's truly trans-national.

Most sports have Olympic-level athletes from only a few nations. Basketball is a "gimme" medal for the USA. The short-distance runners come from the USA and the Caribbean. Swimmers from the USA, Australia, and a handful of European countries. Figure skaters from the USA, Russia, China, South Korea, Japan, and the occasional top-flight competitor from Western Europe.

Shooting isn't like that. There are top-quality shooters from all over the world. It's one of the very few sports that isn't dominated by a handful of countries. Which is why I think it has a good chance.

Much of the problem is that the IOC signed a "devil's bargain" contract with NBC for the television rights...and that network is the least capable of handling the Olympics. I'm old enough to remember the ABC coverage, and Jim McKay understood the Olympics. In particular, the idea that some of the best stories were the lesser athletes in low-profile sports who got to the Olympic Games on sheer grit.

NBC wants to cover the opening ceremonies, the closing ceremonies, a handful of sports...and toss the rest on the ground. An American won the 50m rifle event in 1992, the first time it had been done in thirty years. CNN Headline News covered it...NBC didn't even mention the fact.

Shooting isn't the only sport being dumped on - sports like fencing are under every bit as much pressure.

[randy1952]

OK ... maybe I'm a cynic, a glumbody and a doomsayer.

You really cannot "Make", "Force", "Reconfigure" R&P events to be more television friendly.
And yet ISSF is being forced, going along, whatever of changing the sports.

I see the only real way to increase viewership is to go grassroots and build up the programs in the member nations to increase interest interest and viewership that way ... do I see that happening, no - just the opposite.
Some in the ISSF are using this opportunity to push thru their own agendas, which is & will continue to make it harder to get new people into the sport ... pushing these massive changes in equipment and event concept rules and then being condescending about it.
I'll admit it's the easier way to go & run it out and ride the perks as long as they'll go ... versus building up programs in the nations of the ISSF ... does anyone see these new rules proposals as helping here?

Me ... I'd be shocked if, except for shotgun, in 2028 or 2032 there are any more R&P (projectile) events left in the Olympics ... and the shells of the programs left behind after all the rules changes will have been gutted.

I'd really like to be wrong ... tell me why I am.

Unfortunately, I would generally agree with the trend that will happen. The turmoil that happened at USAS between the board and higher ups was only a symptom that goes all the way up to the ISSF. I say again the problem can be alleviated by cooperation between the manufactures and ISSF before a product is put out on the market and sticking the cost to the shooters and sellers and as I said before the grass root organizations or clubs are not bottom pits of cash that can keep paying for these rule changes. You know what happened to Queen Marie Antoinette after she supposedly said "..Let them eat cake.." just before the starving people stormed the palace.

[jhmartin]

Shooting isn't the only sport being dumped on - sports like fencing are under every bit as much pressure.

True ... but fencing takes some spectacular photos! In real estate it's location, location, location.
In the Olympics is perception, perception, perception.

[David Levene]

I say again the problem can be alleviated by cooperation between the manufactures and ISSF before a product is put out on the market and sticking the cost to the shooters and sellers

Are you suggesting that only "approved" equipment could be used, precluding any home made/modified items?

Individuals are just as capable as the recognised manufacturers, possibly even more so, of pushing/stretching the rules to bursting point.

[randy1952]

I say again the problem can be alleviated by cooperation between the manufactures and ISSF before a product is put out on the market and sticking the cost to the shooters and sellers

Are you suggesting that only "approved" equipment could be used, precluding any home made/modified items?

Individuals are just as capable as the recognised manufacturers, possibly even more so, of pushing/stretching the rules to bursting point.

That maybe true, but that expense is then on that individual not the whole group.

[mbradley]

To make shooting somewhat acceptable for television, it will need to take a lesson from Formula 1 and Golf: Make it seem glamorous, and use dramatic television shots to paint the picture. And without question, this would require a return to 300 meter rifle. It is the only event in which you could fulfill those requirements.

Imagine camera shots that start in close on the line and then pull back far and high above the 300 meter range. The announcer stating "At well over the length of three football fields..." and plenty of interest stories on the complexity of the equipment.

This can be done, but it cannot be done with air rifle or pistol because the average person has no way of relating to the scale of the event and the targets. Being indoors it comes across as too antiseptic. Smallbore loses out to every person who has plinked a .22, because that is what they think of - plinking a .22.

Bring back the big bore, make it coed, and broadcast only the finals. With a couple of good broadcasters and a good TV producer, it could be made compelling and dramatic.

[randy1952]

To make shooting somewhat acceptable for television, it will need to take a lesson from Formula 1 and Golf: Make it seem glamorous, and use dramatic television shots to paint the picture. And without question, this would require a return to 300 meter rifle. It is the only event in which you could fulfill those requirements.

Imagine camera shots that start in close on the line and then pull back far and high above the 300 meter range. The announcer stating "At well over the length of three football fields..." and plenty of interest stories on the complexity of the equipment.

This can be done, but it cannot be done with air rifle or pistol because the average person has no way of relating to the scale of the event and the targets. Being indoors it comes across as too antiseptic. Smallbore loses out to every person who has plinked a .22, because that is what they think of - plinking a .22.

Bring back the big bore, make it coed, and broadcast only the finals. With a couple of good broadcasters and a good TV producer, it could be made compelling and dramatic.

Unfortunately, you would be working against a trend of reducing the number of shooting sports. The electronic targets have helped make televising shooting better. If you can justify televising a poker game then shooting should be just as watchable but if the media isn't willing to televise the program then it will be hard to sell it to the general public let alone to the Olympic committee. The last couple of Olympics they have at least televised the final events, but they were late at night here in the US when most people are asleep.