I think there are many areas that need addressing in the USAS program. One part is the number of top shooters. one is the over all number of competitors, including juniors, D class, C class, B class, A, AA, new and old.
Why is it that the person that introduced me to International shooting still goes the Camp Perry but does not attend USAS events? He spoke passionately about International shooting; Bullseye was just convienent. He is gone but had been a big advocate.
Why is it that so few shooters that I meet at the Nationals and elsewhere have nothing positive to say about USAS? I am talking about life members.
I have positive comments to make about the competitions and membership people at USAS. They have been pleasant and helpful at the National and when I scheduled a PTO. I have always gotten new classification cards etc on time.
To return the favor and what I feel I owe to the sport and support USAS, I have scheduled a PTO in my area, the first in a long time. That cost me over $500 to join a local club only for the purpose of having a place to hold a PTO. I heard someone I am developing great respect for (Doc Sexton) make the point at the Nationals is that we need more local PTO's.
But I do not get positive vibs from USAS. There always seems to be a lot of negative energy.
The focus always seems to be making the National team and who is going over seas. Grass roots? Mr. Mitchell anounced the purchase of 50 air pistols now that attendance at the nationals is almost dismal. Did we have 15 shooters attend the Olympic selection matches? Congradulations, this change is a shuffle in the correct direction, perhaps recognition of a problem.
When somebody as significant as the National Pistol coach leaves, What a reputable organization does is have a polite anouncement.
I think the membership has much to do to make improvements in USAS and international shooting. We have to make the Nationals a fun event to attend. We can not wait for the Natinal team coach to do something or the USAS to do something to improve the sport. If there are no PTOs in your neighborhood, YOU have to have one. If there are, YOU have to help the organizer.
interview with Bob Mitchell
Moderators: pilkguns, m1963, David Levene, Spencer, Richard H
-
Mike McDaniel
Several comments:
First, it's obvious that the claims for six possible medals were WAY out of line. The US did better than we had done in twenty years - three medals. To double a best-in-twenty-years performance is absurd.
Second, the brutal fact is that there is a tremendous amount of hostility toward the international disciplines in the US. I've run international pistol matches in two clubs - and at both, the animosity of the NRA conventional bullseye shooters was palpable. The ISSF disciplines are a reminder of the Dirty Little Secret - that Camp Perry is a dead end. So we're not very welcome.
Third, the professional IPSC shooters are a lost cause. They want BIG money - hell, you could take somebody off the street, give them a gun and 100K rounds of ammo, and win medals. No need for big-name IPSC shooters.
Fourth, I don't think that USAS has made the connection - that if your shooters never get exposure at the international level, they are very likely to choke under the pressure of a World Championship or Olympic Games.
Fifth, I think that RF may be unsalvagable in the US. The bays are just too costly - even turning targets are beyond the price of the average shooter, and only a handful of clubs have the money for such things. Using an IPSC-style timer is workable and cheap, but hasn't been accepted by the shooting community.
Sixth, the future may well be FP and AP. Those events require an absolute minimum of equipment, and even the smallest clubs can host a match. We may need to focus the efforts on these matches for the time being.
Seventh, the arguments over the NRA forget the reasons why USAS was set up to begin with - an ugly fight over money. Personally, I think that USAS is very top-heavy. Too many paid positions, too few dollars spent on facilities and shooters. Certainly it's incredibly top-heavy compared to the U.S. International Muzzle-Loading Team, where the competitors handle the administrative tasks.
First, it's obvious that the claims for six possible medals were WAY out of line. The US did better than we had done in twenty years - three medals. To double a best-in-twenty-years performance is absurd.
Second, the brutal fact is that there is a tremendous amount of hostility toward the international disciplines in the US. I've run international pistol matches in two clubs - and at both, the animosity of the NRA conventional bullseye shooters was palpable. The ISSF disciplines are a reminder of the Dirty Little Secret - that Camp Perry is a dead end. So we're not very welcome.
Third, the professional IPSC shooters are a lost cause. They want BIG money - hell, you could take somebody off the street, give them a gun and 100K rounds of ammo, and win medals. No need for big-name IPSC shooters.
Fourth, I don't think that USAS has made the connection - that if your shooters never get exposure at the international level, they are very likely to choke under the pressure of a World Championship or Olympic Games.
Fifth, I think that RF may be unsalvagable in the US. The bays are just too costly - even turning targets are beyond the price of the average shooter, and only a handful of clubs have the money for such things. Using an IPSC-style timer is workable and cheap, but hasn't been accepted by the shooting community.
Sixth, the future may well be FP and AP. Those events require an absolute minimum of equipment, and even the smallest clubs can host a match. We may need to focus the efforts on these matches for the time being.
Seventh, the arguments over the NRA forget the reasons why USAS was set up to begin with - an ugly fight over money. Personally, I think that USAS is very top-heavy. Too many paid positions, too few dollars spent on facilities and shooters. Certainly it's incredibly top-heavy compared to the U.S. International Muzzle-Loading Team, where the competitors handle the administrative tasks.
-
HBP
Surely this debate should have started by asking the question as to whether US shooters wish to compete in international competitions?
If the answer is yes, then one has to have a body which governs, administers, and grows those events nationally. If not, then go with the local programmes.
There is a strong move these days for some countries to view their national athletes as marketers / ambassadors for their country. They invest in these athletes, and their sporting codes and programmes. Many of these sporting codes are not the traditionally high profile sports (such as athletics, swimming, etc). In return the athletes are called upon to perform on the international stage. A great deal of mileage is derived from good performances.
The US needs to decide whether it wishes (or needs to) market itself on the international sporting stage. The US has a tendency for "local" sports, i.e. ice hockey, baseball, basketball, gridiron, nascar. Sure, they are played in other countries, but really as secondary sports. In the US they're big, elsewhere not. It is easy for US shooting to fall into the same groove.
If the answer is yes, then one has to have a body which governs, administers, and grows those events nationally. If not, then go with the local programmes.
There is a strong move these days for some countries to view their national athletes as marketers / ambassadors for their country. They invest in these athletes, and their sporting codes and programmes. Many of these sporting codes are not the traditionally high profile sports (such as athletics, swimming, etc). In return the athletes are called upon to perform on the international stage. A great deal of mileage is derived from good performances.
The US needs to decide whether it wishes (or needs to) market itself on the international sporting stage. The US has a tendency for "local" sports, i.e. ice hockey, baseball, basketball, gridiron, nascar. Sure, they are played in other countries, but really as secondary sports. In the US they're big, elsewhere not. It is easy for US shooting to fall into the same groove.
-
mikeschroeder
- Posts: 488
- Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2004 10:56 am
- Location: Kansas
Hi
Based on the pathetic "DREAM TEAM" from the NBA this year, the following comment:
"That is true, and it is needed for NRA to remain a tax-exempt entity. Nonetheless, to many of NRA's activities are in conflict with the Amateur Athletic Act and USOC policies for it to be a workable arangement."
mystifies me. If we can put together a group of millionaires to play international basketball, what is different about the Bianchi cup shooters etc. I used Bianchi cup as an example because I know they get sponsored. I also read that Mr. Koening received a whopping $7,000 for winning everything he won. That includes side matches. You figure that Allen Iverson gets that much in a week, not just once a year......
Later
Mike
Wichita KS
Based on the pathetic "DREAM TEAM" from the NBA this year, the following comment:
"That is true, and it is needed for NRA to remain a tax-exempt entity. Nonetheless, to many of NRA's activities are in conflict with the Amateur Athletic Act and USOC policies for it to be a workable arangement."
mystifies me. If we can put together a group of millionaires to play international basketball, what is different about the Bianchi cup shooters etc. I used Bianchi cup as an example because I know they get sponsored. I also read that Mr. Koening received a whopping $7,000 for winning everything he won. That includes side matches. You figure that Allen Iverson gets that much in a week, not just once a year......
Later
Mike
Wichita KS
Mike,
I think some are your comments are absolutely dead on, namely number 2,3,5and 6, However, I think your other points are dead wrong, Let me elaborate.
1:, yes two Golds and a Silver was better than 20 years, but we were in striking distance of 4 more medals, Collyn Lopers 4th , Lance Bades 5th, Beki’s late shot, and Matt’s infamous crossfire. That’s 7 medals we could of easily had. Not counting other disciplines like MDT and WSK where we had a current World Champion and a former World Champion competing and the potential for even more medals. I can’t fault the six prediction, based on how the atheletes were competing in world cups, etc. What I fault is USOC, hinging a NGBs operating funds on prediction made 4 years in advance on the whims of Olympic medals. It should look at the overall 4 year experience, and did we have atheletes winning in the various disciplines to have the realistic potential to win 6 medals at the Olympics, or as it turned out this year, 9 medals or more
4: (good that it follows #1) All 3 of the Olympic screwups, Anti, Snyder, Emmons, were done by experienced shooters who have won numerous medals on the world stage. I believe our atheletes with potential get plenty of world experience.
7: the last part anyway, given the programs and requirements, I am not sure there is much excess if any. I’m sorry but I really can see no real logistical correlation or comparison between USIMLA and USAS
But this is good discussion, keep it up
I think some are your comments are absolutely dead on, namely number 2,3,5and 6, However, I think your other points are dead wrong, Let me elaborate.
1:, yes two Golds and a Silver was better than 20 years, but we were in striking distance of 4 more medals, Collyn Lopers 4th , Lance Bades 5th, Beki’s late shot, and Matt’s infamous crossfire. That’s 7 medals we could of easily had. Not counting other disciplines like MDT and WSK where we had a current World Champion and a former World Champion competing and the potential for even more medals. I can’t fault the six prediction, based on how the atheletes were competing in world cups, etc. What I fault is USOC, hinging a NGBs operating funds on prediction made 4 years in advance on the whims of Olympic medals. It should look at the overall 4 year experience, and did we have atheletes winning in the various disciplines to have the realistic potential to win 6 medals at the Olympics, or as it turned out this year, 9 medals or more
4: (good that it follows #1) All 3 of the Olympic screwups, Anti, Snyder, Emmons, were done by experienced shooters who have won numerous medals on the world stage. I believe our atheletes with potential get plenty of world experience.
7: the last part anyway, given the programs and requirements, I am not sure there is much excess if any. I’m sorry but I really can see no real logistical correlation or comparison between USIMLA and USAS
But this is good discussion, keep it up
-
mikeschroeder
- Posts: 488
- Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2004 10:56 am
- Location: Kansas
O.K.
Going with what Pilk started, where do we go from here????? I believe (but am willing to be corrected) that I can't shoot USAS in Kansas because I'm not a Junior. We have a lot of matches here, mainly run by the NRA and 4-H, FOR JUNIORs. 4-H is obviously only for Juniors and the NRA matches aren't International for the most part.
The 4-H Matches are mostly on the CMP rulebook which isn't bad.
If you want more international shooters then you have to have more International style local shooting matches. I've only shot ONE Bullseye match, my ONLY competition, and there were six of us. It was a monthly event. I don't see monthly international matches.......
I feel that in order to win the Olympics, two things need to happen: 1. American's need to shoot international style at the local level and 2. American manufacturers need to produce the necessary equipment. Between the import duty, Euro / Dollar difference, and just the name (Anschutz), smallbore is out for the normal American. I would be willing to bet the the problem is as bad if not worse for International Pistol.
Will continue later....
Mike
Wichita KS
Going with what Pilk started, where do we go from here????? I believe (but am willing to be corrected) that I can't shoot USAS in Kansas because I'm not a Junior. We have a lot of matches here, mainly run by the NRA and 4-H, FOR JUNIORs. 4-H is obviously only for Juniors and the NRA matches aren't International for the most part.
The 4-H Matches are mostly on the CMP rulebook which isn't bad.
If you want more international shooters then you have to have more International style local shooting matches. I've only shot ONE Bullseye match, my ONLY competition, and there were six of us. It was a monthly event. I don't see monthly international matches.......
I feel that in order to win the Olympics, two things need to happen: 1. American's need to shoot international style at the local level and 2. American manufacturers need to produce the necessary equipment. Between the import duty, Euro / Dollar difference, and just the name (Anschutz), smallbore is out for the normal American. I would be willing to bet the the problem is as bad if not worse for International Pistol.
Will continue later....
Mike
Wichita KS
-
Mike McDaniel
I tend to be more of a "glass-half-full" guy, so I tend to regard the performance in Athens as a portent of better things to come, not as a failure. That being said, I think the USOC is out of its collective mind to demand that NGBs promise medals four years in advance. There are too many variables.
My concern with the focus on the handful of top-level shooters is one of depth. It's the same problem that has dogged U.S. fencing for decades - pump up a handful of competitors, ignore the grass roots, and wonder why you keep losing. It's because the "top-flight" athlete you put the money into wasn't the one with the most potential - but your support kept the up-and-coming competitors with real possibilities from rising to the top. I'd rather send more shooters to the big international matches and get them inured to the experience. If nothing else, at least let competitors shoot on their own nickel.
My observation of the top-heaviness of USAS is based on a simple fact - the United States International Muzzle-Loading Team has been doing quite well (we just got done hosting a World Championship) on a total budget of ~$35K a year. We do without a full-time paid staff - the competitors themselves handle the operations. Is this ideal? No. But it stretches the few pennies we get as far as they can possibly be stretched. I may be mistaken, but I haven't seen that determination to wring the most out of every penny from USAS. Any group with a "mission statement" and a "vision statement" has gone into the management blather tar pits.
As to equipment, I'm not sure there IS an answer. The cartridge and black powder communities share the same problem - American gun makers are focused on the hunting, plinking, and self defense markets. High-end target firearms are not on their agenda. It's not personal, just a business decision. But it means that fundraisers can't go to manufacturers and offer the possibility of a US shooter with a gold medal around his neck, the vendor's product in his hands, and the legend, "Joe Schmo won this gold medal with OUR product." I'm not sure that there is anything that can be done about the problem.
My concern with the focus on the handful of top-level shooters is one of depth. It's the same problem that has dogged U.S. fencing for decades - pump up a handful of competitors, ignore the grass roots, and wonder why you keep losing. It's because the "top-flight" athlete you put the money into wasn't the one with the most potential - but your support kept the up-and-coming competitors with real possibilities from rising to the top. I'd rather send more shooters to the big international matches and get them inured to the experience. If nothing else, at least let competitors shoot on their own nickel.
My observation of the top-heaviness of USAS is based on a simple fact - the United States International Muzzle-Loading Team has been doing quite well (we just got done hosting a World Championship) on a total budget of ~$35K a year. We do without a full-time paid staff - the competitors themselves handle the operations. Is this ideal? No. But it stretches the few pennies we get as far as they can possibly be stretched. I may be mistaken, but I haven't seen that determination to wring the most out of every penny from USAS. Any group with a "mission statement" and a "vision statement" has gone into the management blather tar pits.
As to equipment, I'm not sure there IS an answer. The cartridge and black powder communities share the same problem - American gun makers are focused on the hunting, plinking, and self defense markets. High-end target firearms are not on their agenda. It's not personal, just a business decision. But it means that fundraisers can't go to manufacturers and offer the possibility of a US shooter with a gold medal around his neck, the vendor's product in his hands, and the legend, "Joe Schmo won this gold medal with OUR product." I'm not sure that there is anything that can be done about the problem.
Hi Again Mike , Well were getting closer together :)
I still can't see your grassroots complaint. What about JO's (in 4 different disciplines yet), 3P Air, and now the Junior Air Pistol program, all of these are USAS initiatives and are part of the expense of running the program.
this statement "I'd rather send more shooters to the big international matches and get them inured to the experience. If nothing else, at least let competitors shoot on their own nickel." is also totally wrong . First, competitors that did not make the top slots have been allowed to pay the thier own way to events, providing the were in the third or fourth position or 5th position, I am not sure of all the parameters, but I know this happend during the 2002 World Champs in Finland and other events I have been to. Second, one of the heard complaints against USAS is that they spend too much to take to many relative beginners (with potential of course) to world events to get practice.
As to your top heavineness quote, I just read on the USIMLT website that the estimated annual budget is $350-400K a year, and you are not sending 8-15 people at a time to events around the word 5-8 times a year (or MORE of both people and events) . USAS also junior programs in 4 diffrent disciplines, has grass root efforts in 4 different disciplines, (OK thats going to 3 now) and must do significant fundraising to pay for these events. This starts to make USAS's budget look pretty lean in comparison. And even with that USAS is still dependant on a lot of volunteer labor, both at matches and in Colorado Springs.
For the most part, I don't think you can't fault USAS for foolishly spending the money they have.
.
I still can't see your grassroots complaint. What about JO's (in 4 different disciplines yet), 3P Air, and now the Junior Air Pistol program, all of these are USAS initiatives and are part of the expense of running the program.
this statement "I'd rather send more shooters to the big international matches and get them inured to the experience. If nothing else, at least let competitors shoot on their own nickel." is also totally wrong . First, competitors that did not make the top slots have been allowed to pay the thier own way to events, providing the were in the third or fourth position or 5th position, I am not sure of all the parameters, but I know this happend during the 2002 World Champs in Finland and other events I have been to. Second, one of the heard complaints against USAS is that they spend too much to take to many relative beginners (with potential of course) to world events to get practice.
As to your top heavineness quote, I just read on the USIMLT website that the estimated annual budget is $350-400K a year, and you are not sending 8-15 people at a time to events around the word 5-8 times a year (or MORE of both people and events) . USAS also junior programs in 4 diffrent disciplines, has grass root efforts in 4 different disciplines, (OK thats going to 3 now) and must do significant fundraising to pay for these events. This starts to make USAS's budget look pretty lean in comparison. And even with that USAS is still dependant on a lot of volunteer labor, both at matches and in Colorado Springs.
For the most part, I don't think you can't fault USAS for foolishly spending the money they have.
.
Last edited by pilkguns on Thu Sep 09, 2004 12:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Mike McDaniel Said:
As far as lack of a pool of shooters, I think one other problem is that the whole International Shooting structure is too uptight...too serious. It seems that everyone is focused on getting people to the Olympics. Let's face some reality here. Chances are, most of the people shooting are NEVER going to be one of the one or two people per event on the Olympic team. We need to have an organization that fosters International Style shooting as a weekend or monthly fun event to be enjoyed by folks who will never shoot at the Olympics too.
I think this is part of the problem. I've never seen so much "can't do" attitude in any other sport. Whether it's the idea that everyone is convinced we can't shoot AP/FP/RF because we don't have electronic/targets, or the number of people that think that a gun or brand of ammo is horrible (why not just play with different spring rates, check and see what kind of extractor tension you have, tweek your magazine's feed lips, etc.) It just seems that, generally speaking, people shooting the International events here in the U.S. look for excuses to fail.Fifth, I think that RF may be unsalvagable in the US. The bays are just too costly - even turning targets are beyond the price of the average shooter, and only a handful of clubs have the money for such things. Using an IPSC-style timer is workable and cheap, but hasn't been accepted by the shooting community.
As far as lack of a pool of shooters, I think one other problem is that the whole International Shooting structure is too uptight...too serious. It seems that everyone is focused on getting people to the Olympics. Let's face some reality here. Chances are, most of the people shooting are NEVER going to be one of the one or two people per event on the Olympic team. We need to have an organization that fosters International Style shooting as a weekend or monthly fun event to be enjoyed by folks who will never shoot at the Olympics too.
Last edited by sparky on Fri Sep 10, 2004 12:31 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
Troop
US shooting
Trere seems to be 3 issues...Administration, Matches, & Equipment.
There needs to be more support from Administration in setting up an running local matches. Though with a compatition staff of 2, Mary Smith would be hard pressed to do more. The other major problem I ran into was at the local club level. To compeat in a local match you need to be a member of USAS. Most gun clubs are NRA membership required and they object to matches held at their facilities where their own members can't compete unless they are USAS as well, but outsiders who aren't club or NRA members can compete. But we still need more local matches...Maybe a professional match holding team employed by usas, paid for with dues & match fees, that woudl cover a region and set up and run matches on the weekends. Put 1 match in 1 state in each region to be run on Saterday and/or Sunday. A different state ech weekend.
just some thoughts.
There needs to be more support from Administration in setting up an running local matches. Though with a compatition staff of 2, Mary Smith would be hard pressed to do more. The other major problem I ran into was at the local club level. To compeat in a local match you need to be a member of USAS. Most gun clubs are NRA membership required and they object to matches held at their facilities where their own members can't compete unless they are USAS as well, but outsiders who aren't club or NRA members can compete. But we still need more local matches...Maybe a professional match holding team employed by usas, paid for with dues & match fees, that woudl cover a region and set up and run matches on the weekends. Put 1 match in 1 state in each region to be run on Saterday and/or Sunday. A different state ech weekend.
just some thoughts.
-
Bill Poole
- Posts: 435
- Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:50 pm
- Location: Scottsdale, AZ
- Contact:
Rapid Fire
Someone commented "that RF may be unsalvagable in the US. " I don't shoot ISSF rapid fire (yet)....
but the new rules changes that have just been announced open the door for introducing "new" shooters to that event and ISSF pistol in general.
Somehow we have to let all the shooters who shoot on the public range or shoot rocks in the desert find out about this stuff!
NOW, we can spread the word that the fancy $1400 european .22 Short pistols are no longer permitted and ANYONE with a Ruger MkII or Browning Buckmark can come out and try an Olympic Shooting Event!
(we'll tell them later that the fancy $1400 european .22 LR pistol IS still permitted)
of ALL the OLYMPIC rifle and pistol events, this one (and Women's Sport Pistol) might be the easiest to introduce new people to.... I mean guys from the NRA pistol range and from the public range.... this event they "can" shoot it with a gun almost everyone already has!
We don't need a fancing turning target system (although we have TWO on phoenix, one hasn't been used in years) use the timer from the IPSC range, or rig up light bulbs so it "looks" like the electronic targets (bring spares on the day you invite the public range shooters over :) )
I think I'll discuss this with Zurek this evening and see if we can't get more participation at our next PTO!
(We can hold a fun match in parallel with the PTO so those who are not USAS members can shoot too)
Poole
http://arizona.rifleshooting.com/
but the new rules changes that have just been announced open the door for introducing "new" shooters to that event and ISSF pistol in general.
Somehow we have to let all the shooters who shoot on the public range or shoot rocks in the desert find out about this stuff!
NOW, we can spread the word that the fancy $1400 european .22 Short pistols are no longer permitted and ANYONE with a Ruger MkII or Browning Buckmark can come out and try an Olympic Shooting Event!
(we'll tell them later that the fancy $1400 european .22 LR pistol IS still permitted)
of ALL the OLYMPIC rifle and pistol events, this one (and Women's Sport Pistol) might be the easiest to introduce new people to.... I mean guys from the NRA pistol range and from the public range.... this event they "can" shoot it with a gun almost everyone already has!
We don't need a fancing turning target system (although we have TWO on phoenix, one hasn't been used in years) use the timer from the IPSC range, or rig up light bulbs so it "looks" like the electronic targets (bring spares on the day you invite the public range shooters over :) )
I think I'll discuss this with Zurek this evening and see if we can't get more participation at our next PTO!
(We can hold a fun match in parallel with the PTO so those who are not USAS members can shoot too)
Poole
http://arizona.rifleshooting.com/
Sparky has seen the light
I think Sparky hit the nail on the head. There is too much negative energy in this group though there is so much positive effort. The sport is fun!
I went to the local club board of Directors and most have never heard of USAS One member suggested the club should be a member of the organization that sponsor the Olympic shooting team.
Two phone calls and a fax and the PTO was scheduled including the club jioning USAS. Can't be any easier. Can't ask for more support from USAS.
We (including each of you) need to be the grassroots. Emotional support from USAS that they (this includes Mr. Mitchell) care that we hold the PTOs.
I went to the local club board of Directors and most have never heard of USAS One member suggested the club should be a member of the organization that sponsor the Olympic shooting team.
Two phone calls and a fax and the PTO was scheduled including the club jioning USAS. Can't be any easier. Can't ask for more support from USAS.
We (including each of you) need to be the grassroots. Emotional support from USAS that they (this includes Mr. Mitchell) care that we hold the PTOs.
-
Guest
Is it USAS versus USAMTU?
Just finished reading the press release from the Us Army marksmanship Training Unit. Got to wondering - it sounds like the USAMTU was the only "unit" at the Olympics. It must be tremendously hard to get any synergy out of your athletes if they are beholden to an organization other than USAS, eh? Is some of the "problem" with USAS that there are actually TWO shooting bodies that support athletes for the Team? And could they not be working at cross purposes sometimes? Clash of titans?
-
Don
Participation, etc
I have been harping for years about the lack of motivated people to put on and run matches of all kinds, not just USAS/ISSF bur even NRA and other areas of the various shooting sports. I think it would be a good idea for someone, perhaps the NSSF, in conjunction with the other shooting groups, to put together 4-6 training teams/cheerleaders/etc to work in various regions in the country to contact every group that has any kind of ranges, and ask them to put on a slide/video show and talk on how to set up and run all sorts of matches, along with sample programs, bulletins, results, etc. This would not be real expensive, since the people in the 4-6 regions would not have to travel far. I think it is something that the shooting sports groups should think about and discuss and put together. I would help if asked.
I remember several years ago that the Australian's got the practical pistol and ISSF pistol shooters together for a clinic. They each went through how their particular discipline is done, then had people from each group shoot the other's event. It went over great, and wonder of wonder, the pistol shooters found out that they each had to do pretty much the same things in order to be successful!! How about that? Anyway, more of this must be done to get more people involved.
What about displays at county and state fairs? What about a booth at any kind of show or exhibit for young people? There are all kinds of ways to introduce new people to the sport, you just have to think about it and pay attention to what is going on in your area and then act. Don't sit back and wait for someone else to do something, or it most likely will never get done.
Enough of my ranting.
I remember several years ago that the Australian's got the practical pistol and ISSF pistol shooters together for a clinic. They each went through how their particular discipline is done, then had people from each group shoot the other's event. It went over great, and wonder of wonder, the pistol shooters found out that they each had to do pretty much the same things in order to be successful!! How about that? Anyway, more of this must be done to get more people involved.
What about displays at county and state fairs? What about a booth at any kind of show or exhibit for young people? There are all kinds of ways to introduce new people to the sport, you just have to think about it and pay attention to what is going on in your area and then act. Don't sit back and wait for someone else to do something, or it most likely will never get done.
Enough of my ranting.
-
Troop
match
pilkguns, Prior to my running matches you had to be a member of USAS to shoot. Got to the point we were faced with being bounced from the club or allowing club members to shoot without being USAS members. When I left that's the way we were trying to run it, but managing two paralel matches at the same time is a lot harder and a lot more work than just one.
My expience was...
On the AP portion, occasionally a club member would show up then not do as well as they thought they should, and complain about being under guned.
On the 50' FP portion the iron sights were an issue ("My old eyes can't see....) and lord the BMC about not being able to use a scope.
The big 'fagettaboutit' came when pistol cost got brought up, sticker shock doesn't seem adiquite to describe it. And I don't even want to talk about moaning over match fees being high (they paid the same rates as classified shooters).
My expience was...
On the AP portion, occasionally a club member would show up then not do as well as they thought they should, and complain about being under guned.
On the 50' FP portion the iron sights were an issue ("My old eyes can't see....) and lord the BMC about not being able to use a scope.
The big 'fagettaboutit' came when pistol cost got brought up, sticker shock doesn't seem adiquite to describe it. And I don't even want to talk about moaning over match fees being high (they paid the same rates as classified shooters).
To take a page from the IPSC folks, why not have different divisions within the events?
When IPSC shooting in the US started moving from people shooting single stack .45s to fully tricked out compensated and scoped .38 supers, the US national governing body (USPSA) created different divisions to keep costs down for new shooters. Some of the divisions have gone a little astray (Limited guns are now pretty steep) but things like Production Division are doing well.
Why not do something like this for the International events (at least on a national level)? That way, people can show up with their Ruger Mk IIs, Buckmarks, etc. and still be competitive in their own division without having spent and arm and a leg. They could shoot FP, SP, and RF. The scores will obviously be lower, but since they're competing against each other, it's no big deal. They still get to learn the fundamentals of the game. It gets them hooked on a few of the events and it gives them a division to "graduate" from.
Of course, there will have to be some tweaking of the rules for this US-specific division as compared to those for world events. But it shouldn't be a big deal. As a matter of fact, it's not without precedent in the IPSC world too. The US has its own Rule Book that, while closely paralleling the international body's rules, has a few rules found only in the US. It's no big deal. US IPSC shooters just keep in mind that if they travel to an international match, there are a few things that are done differently.
Given that most shooters won't ever be competing in World Cups and Olympics overseas, this should be a pretty workable thing to do.
When IPSC shooting in the US started moving from people shooting single stack .45s to fully tricked out compensated and scoped .38 supers, the US national governing body (USPSA) created different divisions to keep costs down for new shooters. Some of the divisions have gone a little astray (Limited guns are now pretty steep) but things like Production Division are doing well.
Why not do something like this for the International events (at least on a national level)? That way, people can show up with their Ruger Mk IIs, Buckmarks, etc. and still be competitive in their own division without having spent and arm and a leg. They could shoot FP, SP, and RF. The scores will obviously be lower, but since they're competing against each other, it's no big deal. They still get to learn the fundamentals of the game. It gets them hooked on a few of the events and it gives them a division to "graduate" from.
Of course, there will have to be some tweaking of the rules for this US-specific division as compared to those for world events. But it shouldn't be a big deal. As a matter of fact, it's not without precedent in the IPSC world too. The US has its own Rule Book that, while closely paralleling the international body's rules, has a few rules found only in the US. It's no big deal. US IPSC shooters just keep in mind that if they travel to an international match, there are a few things that are done differently.
Given that most shooters won't ever be competing in World Cups and Olympics overseas, this should be a pretty workable thing to do.
-
mikeschroeder
- Posts: 488
- Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2004 10:56 am
- Location: Kansas
HI
Being challenged I guess, I didn't copy who wrote this, BUT AMEN...
As far as lack of a pool of shooters, I think one other problem is that the whole International Shooting structure is too uptight...to serious. It seems that everyone is focused on getting people to the Olympics. Let's face some reality hear. Chances are, most of the people shooting are NEVER going to be one of the one or two people per event on the Olympic team. We need to have an organization that fosters International Style shooting as a weekend or monthly fun event to be enjoyed by folks who will never shoot at the Olympics too.
If we want to win at the Olympics, then a lot more shooters need to try Olympic style shooting. IDPA and USPSA do VERY well because they cater to the Wyatt Earp in all of us. They don't even shoot carry guns in USPSA anyway, BUT that's what it's all about.
I remember seeing that VERY expensive targets are "required" for Rapid fire pistol. Can someone explain this one please? I just shot a Bullseye match with stationary targets, and you just don't shoot until you're told. Not a big deal, but still a MATCH.
Mike
Wichita KS
Being challenged I guess, I didn't copy who wrote this, BUT AMEN...
As far as lack of a pool of shooters, I think one other problem is that the whole International Shooting structure is too uptight...to serious. It seems that everyone is focused on getting people to the Olympics. Let's face some reality hear. Chances are, most of the people shooting are NEVER going to be one of the one or two people per event on the Olympic team. We need to have an organization that fosters International Style shooting as a weekend or monthly fun event to be enjoyed by folks who will never shoot at the Olympics too.
If we want to win at the Olympics, then a lot more shooters need to try Olympic style shooting. IDPA and USPSA do VERY well because they cater to the Wyatt Earp in all of us. They don't even shoot carry guns in USPSA anyway, BUT that's what it's all about.
I remember seeing that VERY expensive targets are "required" for Rapid fire pistol. Can someone explain this one please? I just shot a Bullseye match with stationary targets, and you just don't shoot until you're told. Not a big deal, but still a MATCH.
Mike
Wichita KS
-
SDF
Re: interview with Bob Mitchell
I am really confused by this interview. I am hoping that someone can help me to understand.
First if funding is only going to shooters that are winning how is USAS to build a base of up and coming shooters?
As for the Olympic Medals - I think the athletes did great with their 4 yr record. You do not see swimming blaming their athletes for not performing, no, because they gave their athletes help to win before the games. How can USAS kick their athletes for not winning when they do not help the athletes to win in the 4 years before the games?
In the finals - it refers to Shotgun in that there were ONLY 6 finalists - are there not only 9 possible final slots? I think these odds for Shotgun are pretty good 2/3 I think is the highest out of all the areas. Also, that we need to give them whatever it takes "we owe them that" - should this not have been done 4 yrs ago? Isn’t thinking about this after the fact to late? I guess I hope that the Shooting community and USAS see this before it is too late for 2008.
In treating the athletes and only paying for those that are winning and not the top athlete, shouldn't the top athlete be winning or are they new winners not funded because they are only on top and have not had the chance to win other places?
If only sending those winning, what about the grassroots to build the base?
To grow the base and USAS so specialized – why would other organizations be threatened or feel USAS is a threat why not be friends to help each other?
NSSF grant – Rapid Fire pistol, new athletes asking to be paid? Are these athletes not funded by sponsorships? Would their sponsors not carry them over to become Olympic Champions? Does the other organization they shoot in pay them? I have heard of award money, but not paying an athlete to compete by an organization, just sponsors, is there a problem with this at USAS?
On the administration end, it sounds like Bob makes the final decisions and if someone disagrees and talks to him then his decision still stands. If the discussion with athletes, coaches, and staff does not help in making a decision, there is no open door policy, just something to make them think USAS cares about their thoughts. In this case it sounds like the ‘like it or leave it’ policy is still in effect, just hidden better. How is this an open door policy?
First if funding is only going to shooters that are winning how is USAS to build a base of up and coming shooters?
As for the Olympic Medals - I think the athletes did great with their 4 yr record. You do not see swimming blaming their athletes for not performing, no, because they gave their athletes help to win before the games. How can USAS kick their athletes for not winning when they do not help the athletes to win in the 4 years before the games?
In the finals - it refers to Shotgun in that there were ONLY 6 finalists - are there not only 9 possible final slots? I think these odds for Shotgun are pretty good 2/3 I think is the highest out of all the areas. Also, that we need to give them whatever it takes "we owe them that" - should this not have been done 4 yrs ago? Isn’t thinking about this after the fact to late? I guess I hope that the Shooting community and USAS see this before it is too late for 2008.
In treating the athletes and only paying for those that are winning and not the top athlete, shouldn't the top athlete be winning or are they new winners not funded because they are only on top and have not had the chance to win other places?
If only sending those winning, what about the grassroots to build the base?
To grow the base and USAS so specialized – why would other organizations be threatened or feel USAS is a threat why not be friends to help each other?
NSSF grant – Rapid Fire pistol, new athletes asking to be paid? Are these athletes not funded by sponsorships? Would their sponsors not carry them over to become Olympic Champions? Does the other organization they shoot in pay them? I have heard of award money, but not paying an athlete to compete by an organization, just sponsors, is there a problem with this at USAS?
On the administration end, it sounds like Bob makes the final decisions and if someone disagrees and talks to him then his decision still stands. If the discussion with athletes, coaches, and staff does not help in making a decision, there is no open door policy, just something to make them think USAS cares about their thoughts. In this case it sounds like the ‘like it or leave it’ policy is still in effect, just hidden better. How is this an open door policy?
-
Steve Swartz