TargetTalk

I wish I could send Matt a congratulations. That is awesome to medal with all the other great shooters he was up against not to mention other life changing external factors! Job well done, I am with Ted. He gets better every four years. I wish I could say my shooting was getting better every 4 years :)

Way to go Matt!

My point of bringing up other sports is even though you might now they are in the Games, rules and competition formats are not always easy to understand and the random person on the street probably won't get many correct answers. Track cycling usually contains some great TV but with formats being so different from other sports also harder to follow (and in my mind, much more interesting).

I probably shouldn't have mentioned streaming since it's different from TV. A stream is of interest to those who already know about it and won't really gain any appreciation outside of the already interested. For that, TV-coverage is pretty much necessary. Or a buzz of some kind that draws people to the stream. Could be a final format you just can't miss, but I can't really see what that would be.

Before changing a format, there has to be enough data supporting it (in the form of surveys/studies/reports). Money, interest, participation etc are all important. The data should be visible for everyone to check and as little as possible be based in opinions. That is my opinion about pretty much everything in the world. If that can be produced and the obvious change to fix the problem is to move formats, I'd happily back it up.

See the problem is everyone thinks the grass is greener on the other side. I'm also involved in cycling and they aren't happy with the tons of changes they have made for the Olympics many events were dropped and some others included that many can't figure out why cause they are pretty obscure.

I disagree that streaming won't introduce people to the new or different sport. That may be true amongst older folk, but the youth get a lot of their info and entertainment through the internet and streaming. The younger generation (precisely the ones you want) prefer to be able to watch it when they like not when a broadcaster decides they should watch it. This is one of the resins I think Archery viewership is up.

Thats your problem somehow you believe there is no data showing that shooting is in trouble, when all the indicators show it very much in trouble. You aren't going to find data by asking a bunch of old guys on a web forum what they think. You have to look at various other things and see what works for them and what doesn't and if any of the elements could or should be incorporated.

A prime example is the feed back of media that comment on shooters attire. Does it make a difference if you shot in jeans? No, but does it change the perception that others have of the sport if people look like they just wondered in off the street (that was an actual comment). By making them at least dress in athletic clothing they at least look like they might be athletes.

I've introduced many other athletes from different sports to shooting who initially didn't think of it as a sport but after trying it see that its difficult. I've sat through close finals with people that didn't know anything about shooting and were on the edge of their seat.

The problem is with current finals you can't ensure a close final, but by changing them they definitely increase the odds of a close final dramatically.

I fear the rifle shooters are going to bear the brunt of a lot of changes this time around. The rifle clothes have been a contentious issue for a long time now. I also think you will see finals changes as well most likely across the board. I suspect something like the superfinals, which oddly enough we run at many junior training camps and the juniors love them, and everywhere I've seen them that had an audience they seemed to like them too.

Richard H wrote:See the problem is everyone thinks the grass is greener on the other side. I'm also involved in cycling and they aren't happy with the tons of changes they have made for the Olympics many events were dropped and some others included that many can't figure out why cause they are pretty obscure.

I watch most cycling out there and enjoy the different events for what they are but am not involved in it more than on a recreational level. It's interesting that the same discussion usually comes up everywhere with only slight variations.

Richard H wrote:I disagree that streaming won't introduce people to the new or different sport.

How do you draw people to a smaller sport when they can decide to watch a bigger one? The thing about TV is that they normally put together sections of what happened during the day and can therefore reach a larger crowd which in turn will find it interesting (or not). You have to treat streaming the same way for a similar result. It's still size of the sport that counts. Smaller countries have an advantage where a sport (any sport) with a medal chance will be aired. People are more interested when medals are more rare. Usually that also means the sport will increase in popularity among kids for a few years before dropping back (or keep increasing with more medals in upcoming championships/Olympics)

Richard H wrote:Thats your problem somehow you believe there is no data showing that shooting is in trouble, when all the indicators show it very much in trouble. You aren't going to find data by asking a bunch of old guys on a web forum what they think. You have to look at various other things and see what works for them and what doesn't and if any of the elements could or should be incorporated.

That's not what I believe. I believe that if it is the case, it should be visible and I'd like to see it. I don't like a change without a thorough explanation to why it came. I can then agree or disagree, but without the data to back it up it's just down to guessing. Since you are the one saying everything points in that direction, I am asking you.

Richard H wrote:A prime example is the feed back of media that comment on shooters attire. Does it make a difference if you shot in jeans? No, but does it change the perception that others have of the sport if people look like they just wondered in off the street (that was an actual comment). By making them at least dress in athletic clothing they at least look like they might be athletes.

An even bigger problem is that you in general doesn't have to be in a good physical shape to post high scores (even though most are) and that doesn't look like an athlete either.
That comment is a good example of an anecdote, which won't cut it. Many anecdotes (on the same topic) and we have something to work with.

Richard H wrote:The problem is with current finals you can't ensure a close final, but by changing them they definitely increase the odds of a close final dramatically.

Why do you necessary need a close final? But with that said, most (rifle) finals right now are close (unless people set new records..) I enjoy watching Bolt run because he's so far ahead of everyone else when he's in form.

I coach juniors and work with them, it's not hard to get them to click on something and watch it for a few seconds, but if they click on it and it's as boring as watching paint dry good luck getting the to click on it again.

I've traveled, talked to other coaches, from all over, the vast majority of the ones I've spoken with have the same problem attracting juniors. They'd rather play first person shooter games online or paintball or Airsoft.

The only shooting sport that I've seen considerable growth in is in IPSC.

We have funding for athletes between $7000--$3500 and we have a hard time getting enough applicants. None of these things are a sign if a healthy sport. We also have to fight the for lack of a better term political in correctness of our sport ( we use big bad guns).

Have you ever contacted anyone frome the ISSF? If you want data and explanations ask them, they may give you the answers. I know you aren't going to get them here with regards to official data and explanations.

Well I've explained the reasoning behind why you want close finals, you don't want to except the reason well not much I can do. As for Bolt yes he's interesting to watch, the average person only sees him every 4 years and he has and can be beaten. His skill is almost superhuman so it's interesting. Plus he only has to hold you attention for 10 seconds. If you watched him do it over and over for 2 hours probably wouldnt be a big draw.

Richard H wrote:Have you ever contacted anyone frome the ISSF? If you want data and explanations ask them, they may give you the answers. I know you aren't going to get them here with regards to official data and explanations.

Not yet, but will most likely do that once the new rules are out. This hits the nail on one of my problems though: I shouldn't have to. Publish all data on the website for anyone to read and discuss. Everything already exists in an electronic format so it wouldn't involve any extra effort (since the website isn't handicap accessible with all the extra work that follows).

Anyway, for the discussion as a whole, see my response in the other thread.