Article: How To Fix Olympic Shooting In The U.S.

[mcole95]

Found this article recently. It was written by Lones Wigger, apparently in April of 1997.

Amazing what has, and hasn't changed in the last 7 years.

Maybe this can spawn some more discussion in light of the recent topics about: growing the sport, participation at major matches, winning more medals on the world scene, cancelling the selection matches, establishing performance averages for travel, compressing the schedule at Nationals, and all the other things that have come up since the Olympics ended.

http://www.gun-tests.com/performance/apr97fix.html

--Matt

[Mike McDaniel]

Some of it's good, but I believe very strongly that nobody who came up through the ranks of the professional military shooting teams have ANY idea of what the demands on a civilian shooter are like. Claiming that people need to re-prioritze their lives? Nice - IF you have a supportive professional military team paying the bills.

I will agree that the biggest problem with pistol is the near complete lack of anything resembling a grassroots program. Part of this is money - try buying a RF bay. More of it, however, is the hostility shown by the conventional bullseye crowd to the international disciplines. I've hosted shoots at two different clubs - and you could cut the hatred with a knife.

[Blankenship]

Matt,

Except for the junior program funding, which still needs to be improved, the action items he calls for have come to pass and been in place long enough to judge their effectiveness. The medal count continues to be very low in spite of the selection matches and the performance standards for team travel.

Thanks for posting this interesting retrospective article.

Dave

[Alex]

Sorry guys,

Wig is 100% right.

The argument that he "came up through the ranks of Military Shooting" doesn't hold water. He put in the effort and earned it all. I've met many shooters that had the money, could make the time, and didn't. That's not to say there aren't people out there that would put in the time if they had the support. Most of us just aren't that fortunate. Besides, last I checked the USAMTU was still a Unit of Choice. Go for it. I would if I had it to do over again.
Those that can remember the LA Olympics know the story of Florence Griffith Joyner. She ran like no other woman ever had. When asked how she did it her answer was simple : "You want to run like a man. you have to train like a man." You guys want to shoot like the rest of the world, you have to "train" like them. Read Matt Emmons' letter after Athens on this post and note the kind of facility they trained at in Germany. That holds true for most of Europe. Shooting is a real SPORT in other parts of the world, not just a hobby.
In late 1979 I moved in with my Dad in Puerto Rico to shoot on the range build for the Pan Am Games. To my supprise there were four other international style clubs on that tiny island that would rival anything in the States. If you wanted to shoot three gun you had to go to the National Guard base.
We simply have too many games available. Imagine if everyone that shoots three gun(2700) shot only International pistol. Some shooter base.
However I live here and I wouldn't trade that for anything. So I'll trade everything available elsewhere and train as best I can.
I do disagree with Wig on one point. I think pistol shooters get better with age and experience, physical ailments notwithstanding. I had open heart surgery just before my 55th birthday last April and but now that I'm retired, nothing will hold me back except me.

Hold center,

Alex

[Ryan Tanoue]

like someone posted earlier the things that wigger suggested have been tried and tested. although i dont think that the system is perfect, i dont know how people can say the medal count for the united states is "very low" in the past 4 years i have seen scores much improved in open and jr matches and am looking to see continued improvment heading into the world championships in 2006. I personaly dont think that the way we select who goes to what matches has anything to do with how those people do when they actually get to the match. i would have to say that match performance has nothing to do with selection process and everything to do with personal training and match preparation. trust me, no matter how many selection matches you shoot in, the pressure is nothing compared to the actuall world cup, world championship, olympics etc....we cannot expect usa shooting to get back to the top in a year or even a few years(as we've seen). we're getting better and hopefully will continue to do so.

list of medals since world championships in finland.

world championships:
-OPEN
-2 gold medals(Parker in air and Emmons in prone)
-4 finals made(Paker, Emmons, Anti(4th in 3X40), Caurso(4th in air)
-2 team medals(silver in mens 3X40, bronze in mens air)
-JUNIOR
-1 gold, 1 silver and 1 bronze(Hein in mens prone, Beyerle in womens
3x20, Tanoue in mens air)
-3 team medals(bronze in jr mens air, prone and womens prone)

world cups since 2002:
-Emmons, Parker, Uptagrafft, Tamas, and Beyerle have won medals

and as we know, emmons and anti won gold and silver at the olympic games this past summer. emmons also won gold and bronze at world cup final in october.

I think that everyone needs to be a whole lot less pessimistic about the whole situation and at least give credit where credit is due. we have people saying that our medal count is "very low" go and tell that to the people who have won medals. yes maybe the count is not as high as we would like, but no matter how many we win, the count will never be enough. in the end i think it really just comes down to training....and many of us just dont practice hard enough.

ryan

[Dick Poore]

Some of it's good, but I believe very strongly that nobody who came up through the ranks of the professional military shooting teams have ANY idea of what the demands on a civilian shooter are like. Claiming that people need to re-prioritze their lives? Nice - IF you have a supportive professional military team paying the bills.

Mike –

I understand your point but I don't think you can discount his view so easily. I know of two civilian shooters who have prioritized their lives to reach their shooting goals. Bill Demarest (single parent) is one -- he started shooting pistols in the early 90's, basically trained after work, paid his own way to matches, made the USA National Team in 97/98 and later the 2000 Olympic Team. John Zurek of Arizona is another. John is a contractor in Phoenix and works like a dog (and trains) between big matches. Then he closes his business and pays his own way to the selection matches (and Camp Perry). He made the National Team last year and was selected to compete in the WC in Thailand as an MQS entry -- but he had to pay his own way to Thailand.

Even if you join the AMU there is a personal cost -- nearly all the AMU shooters are college graduates who elect to enlist (rather than become officers) so they can shoot. Additionally, their rank structure is capped at the AMU -- so guys like Szarenski top out at E-7 (MSgt). Then when they retire after 20-years (you can't live on E-7 retired pay...trust me) just think about what their resumes will look like and how employable a 20-year competitive shooter is outside the military.

I think Lones Wigger has a point --- if you want to be one of the big dogs in shooting put in the time and make it a priority.

Dick Poore, Major
USAF International Pistol Team

PS: Yes -- I do receive some monetary support from the USAF (ammo, match fees, some airfare etc). But I have a full-time non-shooting job, buy my own guns, and give-up vacation time every year to attend matches. Not too mention training when I get off work (yes, I have a family..they support). I've got a ways to go but eventually Szarenski, Turner, Zurek, and Steve Swartz will be on my right in the finals line! That's the goal anyway......

[Mike McDaniel]

Dick:

Trust me, I know full well the kind of sacrifices it takes. I've shot with the U.S. International Muzzle-Loading Team for the last decade. The 2002 World Championships cost me nearly $3,000, every penny out of my own pocket, every hour out of my vacation time. 1996, 1998, and 2000 were the same story, just a bit cheaper. 2004 was in the USA, so my finances didn't take quite as much of a beating, but my leave sure did. We have just barely enough funds to cover match entry fees. For us, getting ammo and airfare support would be wealth beyond our wildest dreams.

The problem is that the professional team (the AMU today, the Marine Corps team when they had an international program - I'll concede that the USAF and Navy teams are at most semi-pro) members frequently lose track of the fact that John Q. Competitor has neither the time nor the money to track across the country to a series of qualification matches - and then go overseas for the major international events. We're sacrificing what we can - but you can't squeeze water out of a rock.

[mikeschroeder]

Hi

One thing that the ATA (Trap Guys) do is give out big prize money. I help out at the Kansas Trap Association matches since our 4-H Group shoots there. A lot of the guys travel every weekend, all summer, in $250,000 motor homes, with custom gun drawers for all of their trap guns.

The money thing does create more of a reason for cheating, but these boys aren't hurting for the dollars to go to the Nationals.

Just reporting what I saw, no opinion here.

Mike
Wichita KS

[Troy]

Good point Ryan, but what is being held back is the fact that Mithcell told the USOC that we would bring back 6 medals from the Olympics. Three medeals were won; however how many of those medals was USA Shooting responsible for. Answer None.

Yes we have some success since Finland, but don't forget the US used to dominate shooting. The game and the world has changed, but if people think we are going to have a better showing in China than this past Olympics, I would like to know how.

The organization has to change and provide the support needed for the shooters; otherwise all this talk is just that, talk. Truth is nothing is going to change. I wish shooters like you and Matt Rawlings the best, you are the future!

Troy

[Jose Rossy]

Forgive what may be an ignorant (but obvious to me) question.

Why do we not model our national shooting programs to those that consistently produce winners (Europeans)?

If their civilian shooters are consistently world class, why don't we do as much as we can like they do?

[PaulB]

In Europe and Asia top shooters receive significant financial support from either their government or their national shooting federation, or both. They basically shoot as a job. If you want to do the same thing in this country you have to join the Army Marksmanship Unit, which of course has the extra added attraction of being in the Army (and all the "extras" you may get from that). After the Army, you could try being a resident athlete at Colorado Springs, but the support that you get there beyond your shooting expenses is rather meager. Bottom line: our government is certainly not going to pay our athletes directly and USA Shooting does not have the resources to do so.

[RobStubbs]

I think it's fair to say the latter only applies to some parts of Europe and Asia. Perhaps the majority - I don't know, but for sure in the UK it doesn't apply.

I wouldn't be at all suprised if the more successful international shooters weren't full time and effectively professional athletes though, in other parts of Europe (and the world).

Rob.

[Jose Rossy]

Bottom line: our government is certainly not going to pay our athletes directly and USA Shooting does not have the resources to do so.

I have a feeling that most western European nations do not subsidize their atheletes directly, they rather heavily finance their national shooting federations which in turn make the athletes' lives easier.

If we aren't willing to do that, then maybe we need to stop expecting world class performance on a broad scale.

Being a realist here.