TargetTalk

Oooops!
Wrong again!
I stand corrected.
I just looked and there ARE USAS 50ft National Records.
I'll go back to sleep now...
JLK

Hi David

I agree that a change is needed. I live in Alaska and it is rare to get more than 5 together to shoot any pistol match. Large geographic area, small population means low participation rates. We are gearing up with 4-H to participate in the first PTO's for air pistol in the state and will be happy if we can get 5 or 6 in the first few years. We also want to take some jrs. to the jr olympics in a year or two. The shooting sports in general will need to take a hard look at their goals, if they want more participation then they need to promote it. I just left a silhoutte shooting sport that was full of silly arbitrary rules that drove the participation levels to the lowest level in the history of that sport. The low participation at the nationals is a symptom of the problem of low participation locally. Promote the sports, drive out silly barriers and enjoy the growth that will result. The simplest solution is to have a national match record that is for that one location or match, and a national high score for all matches regardless of the location that has a witness requirement of a few members in good standing. Simple, easy to police and may add participation. The leaders will follow when the members lead ;~)

David Blankenship wrote:If the national championships were the only venue for setting national records, we would be taking away the thrill of possibly breaking a record for a lot of juniors that eventually may attend the national championships, but are not likely to attend in the beginning stages. There is motivational value in the "possiblity" of establishing a record, motivation that should be used as a tool to lead juniors along a path to developing their game.

Also, 50 ft events are not part of the national championships, but are the foundation of our shooter base. Between 4H, NRA Bullseye & International, CMP and ROTC programs, there's a lot of 50 ft venues out there, several times as many as 25/50 meter courses. Whatever resolution comes out of this review will hopefully take 50 ft record setting into account, as that's the grassroots course of fire for all of the paper punching sports.

In some of the posts regarding this issue of national records, I am reading people claim the lack of participation in shooting has to do with the inability of the shooter(s) to set national records.

If that is the case, how ridiculous of an idea is that? It may be important to a very small group of the shooters who leave, but I hardly believe it's a major concern.

What really motivates shooters to stay in the sport? Things like "it's fun", "they have Olympic aspirations", "keeps them busy and out of trouble". The list could go on. I never once said to myself that I was in shooting to set National records.

I know there are other TT posters that probably have more national records than me. When I set those records it was the icing on the cake. A shooters goal is usually to shoot the best they can and win. A record is a nice thing to have, but I doubt it will keep people in the sport longer.

Let's face it, shooting has low turnout numbers. The sponsorships are also limited. This is a limited pool, unlike Nascar which has anything from beef jeky to Viagra as sponsors. That's the way it is. The money USA Shooting raises is from the shooting industry. Whenever you tell someone you are a shooter, you get all sorts of snide comments and you get labeled a mercenary as well.

The point I am making is one reason there is low turnout, is there is not much incentive to go into shooting. One reason I quit shooting was due to money. The $100 a month stipend from USA Shooting and the part time income I was making was not cutting it. I had a life to get on with and actually use the degree I went to college for. There is not incentive for me to give up what I have now to come back to shooting at the competitive level I left at. A gold medal will not pay for a house and other life debts. You'll just be a "poor" gold medalist. Just like many of the other shooters here, there are things like loan payments from school, house payments, car payments, etc. The amount of training required makes it hard to work full time and pay for these things. Travel just complicates it even more. So money is issue number one.

The second problem is shooting is not politically correct. We all know this and there is no need to spend much time on it. These days, the more athletic events are more attended. It's proper to be healthy. Things like soccer, football, running, biking (look at Lance Armstrong and what he has done for cycling). And also, look at the money potential invovled if you are successful. Endorsements are crazy these days. Shooting does not have the "health" title with and it's not something many people are interested in. It's sad but true.

If there is little interest and little incentive for people to join, it's easy to see why there is lacking participation. I think there are somethings that can be done logistically to get more compeititors to get in AND stay longer, but I don't see shooting becoming mainstream like the professional sporting events on television.

I would love someone to prove me wrong. These are just my ideas looking from the outside in.

Just my $.02

Mike Douglass

Hi Mike

Setting records isn't a major concern but it very well could be a minor issue. You claim rightly that you got out of shooting because it was anymore. Having to spend a lot of money to travel to a better attended match in order to set a record will not address the issue of affordabilty. The costs can be dramatically reduced simply by adjusting the rules of the game. AP is perhaps the most affordable of all the shooting sports. Why run the cost up in order to be recognized for setting a record? Splitting the records into one for a national match venue, such as the olympic venues, and a national record for those who shoot at their local ranges makes sense to me. Certainly it needs to be witnessed by members in good standing, but can this number be somewhat less than it currently is today?

As for the anti gun reteric, it is fading outside of the mainstream press. Look at the number of states that one can carry a firearm today compared to just 15 years ago. Clearly public concern over guns is much less than you have been lead to believe. I am running into more and more parents that want there sons and daughters to learn how to shoot safely and well. They know that folks that will expel a student for pointing a finger and thumb at another are acting silly. Zero tolerance is making zero sense to more and more folks everyday. Shooting sports is making a comeback. Being able to set records at a local range will help that comeback.

aurorapolice02_11 wrote:In some of the posts regarding this issue of national records, I am reading people claim the lack of participation in shooting has to do with the inability of the shooter(s) to set national records.

If that is the case, how ridiculous of an idea is that? It may be important to a very small group of the shooters who leave, but I hardly believe it's a major concern.

What really motivates shooters to stay in the sport? Things like "it's fun", "they have Olympic aspirations", "keeps them busy and out of trouble". The list could go on. I never once said to myself that I was in shooting to set National records.

I know there are other TT posters that probably have more national records than me. When I set those records it was the icing on the cake. A shooters goal is usually to shoot the best they can and win. A record is a nice thing to have, but I doubt it will keep people in the sport longer.

Let's face it, shooting has low turnout numbers. The sponsorships are also limited. This is a limited pool, unlike Nascar which has anything from beef jeky to Viagra as sponsors. That's the way it is. The money USA Shooting raises is from the shooting industry. Whenever you tell someone you are a shooter, you get all sorts of snide comments and you get labeled a mercenary as well.

The point I am making is one reason there is low turnout, is there is not much incentive to go into shooting. One reason I quit shooting was due to money. The $100 a month stipend from USA Shooting and the part time income I was making was not cutting it. I had a life to get on with and actually use the degree I went to college for. There is not incentive for me to give up what I have now to come back to shooting at the competitive level I left at. A gold medal will not pay for a house and other life debts. You'll just be a "poor" gold medalist. Just like many of the other shooters here, there are things like loan payments from school, house payments, car payments, etc. The amount of training required makes it hard to work full time and pay for these things. Travel just complicates it even more. So money is issue number one.

The second problem is shooting is not politically correct. We all know this and there is no need to spend much time on it. These days, the more athletic events are more attended. It's proper to be healthy. Things like soccer, football, running, biking (look at Lance Armstrong and what he has done for cycling). And also, look at the money potential invovled if you are successful. Endorsements are crazy these days. Shooting does not have the "health" title with and it's not something many people are interested in. It's sad but true.

If there is little interest and little incentive for people to join, it's easy to see why there is lacking participation. I think there are somethings that can be done logistically to get more compeititors to get in AND stay longer, but I don't see shooting becoming mainstream like the professional sporting events on television.

I would love someone to prove me wrong. These are just my ideas looking from the outside in.

Just my $.02

Mike Douglass

Ok, the first point. You state that because there is more ability to carry a firearm in the US, the shooting sports are on the rise?? I don't see the correlation of carry ability and the rising number of OLYMPIC style shooting competitors. Personal protection and recreation are two different things. Maybe you can clarify this for me, I'm not seeing it. I WILL stand on my statement the shooting sports are not politically correct. I have talked to enough people over my shooting career to see what kind of a response I get...it's not positive. You claim you are talking to parents who want their children to learn how to shoot. They are a captive audience which really is not that hard to convince the positive aspects of shooting. If the shooting sports are so politically correct, why is it that we as shooters continually have to justify our sport with, "it's an Olympic sport" and "it builds discipline". If it were really politically correct we would just have to say, "I compete in shooting" and that would be the end of the discussion. I tell you what, go up to ten random people and ask them what they think about competitive shooting, let me know what you get back from them.

I'll even go an extra step further and state that the Olympics are not that important to people anymore either. The doping cases have soured the taste of the Games these days. People are not inclined to watch a group of what they call "cheaters". We know this is not the case, but the general public does not. I watched anything I could during the Olympics. At work when we would go end of watch, my co-workers continually passed over the Olympics to watch MUSIC VIDEOS. Even with all the supposed partiotism people have these days, people refused to watch atheletes represent their country in the world's most prestigious sporting event. Hmmmm...??

I still do not see how setting records keeps people in the sport. I would think winning, making the national team and a possible Olympic medal would be more of a draw than a National record. I think you are using your view of the national record as an excuse for lower attendance at matches.

Do you really think if USA Shooting changes the national record rules, more people will be shooting? I can't see that in a conversation. "Hey Paul why aren't you shooting anymore?" "Well Tom, USA Shooting's rules for setting a national record don't make sense. If they change the rules maybe I'll come back." OR "Hey Paul why aren't you shootiing anymore." "Well Tom, it's so expensive to travel to the big matches and the training is time consuming. I have a family to support and a full time job I want to keep."

Which makes more sense, HONESTLY?

Finally if you are going to imply that I am wrong, don't hide behind the "guest" post.

I would love for Olympic shooting to become more popular. It's going to take a lot more than changing the national record rule...

Michael Douglass

aurorapolice02_11 wrote: on the other hand, if i compete against a larger group where there might be more chance of more proficient shooters, there might be a little bit more pressure.

True - but this can be event specific. Rapid Fire Pistol is shot very much at an individual level. Each shooter requires 5 pistol targets arranged in a row (one bay apart) and the competitors are positioned many meters away from each other. Most of the club ranges I've seen are only big enough for 2 shooters to shoot at once, and the largest I've seen can hold four shooters (requires 20 shooting bays with turning or electronic targets). How many ranges in the world would be big enough to allow 10 rapid fire shooters (which would require 50 shooting bays) to shoot at once? Probably no more than a very small handful and those would likely be Olympic or ISSF World Champs venues. As it is highly unlikely that 10 people will at the shooting line at the same time, to say that a RF record couldn’t stand because less than 10 people in total competed is nuts.

Fortitudo,

You are missing the point here. The number of competitors is not based on how many are on the line at one time. It is based on how many are entered in the match. Even at Olympic venues like Wolf Creek there were usually less than 6 rapid fire shooters on the line at one time. But there may have been 20 competitors across several relays. The point is they are all shooting the same match at the same competition.

Hope that clears it up a little.

Same thing goes for Running Target. They only have 2 bays at most venues. They can still accomodate 20 or 30 shooters.

Marc

Hi Marc,

I understand and agree with what you are saying - it's just that one of the arguments which I have heard put forward (and I don't mean to belittle aurorapolice - I've heard this from a few quarters), is that the minimum number of 10 competitors to set a record is in part because having more shooters at the line increases pressure. This is most certainly the case with something like AP or AR (I well remember my first "away" formal Air Pistol competition - away from the comfort of my home range and with about 20 other shooters at the line, I was shaking like a leaf!). But for Rapid Fire (or as you quite rightly point out Running Target), this argument really doesn't hold much water.

Regards,

FD

Has there ever been a record set for "Veteran" class - shooters over age 64?
I would doubt that there have ever been 10 such shooters at any one match ever.

The required minimum is for competitors in the match, not in each category!

Hi Mike

Things run in long cycles. Being an old fart, I remember when I was allowed to bring my rifle to school and we shot in the basement boiler room area. During the last of the 60's and all through the 70's and early 80's guns were demonized, the NEA took a radical turn to the left and shooting, even pointing a finger in school became bad. During the last half of the 80's things began to turn around. The lowering of crime because of gun control did not happen, actually the oposite did (disarming the population in general is a bad idea) then carry laws started to spread. The mainstream media predicted blood in the streets or fender benders ending up in gun battles. Well they were wrong again, crime started going down and carrying became exceptable again. Shooting is starting back up in many schools but you don't hear much about it. With this will be a rise in competition because by and large sports participants tend to be younger in general.

Things have turned around but shooters have been conditioned to being on the defense for so long are not recognizing the victory. Shooting is not a bad thing anymore to the average guy who for years was not proclaiming that he shot for fun.

The shooting sports have so many positives going for them, they can't be kept down unless legislated out of existance. The fact that guns are now being carried by the general population proves that the politicians know that "gun control" is death to their political carriers. Even the left posses with a shotgun now and then! A grass roots push will get the sports back into the mainstream where they were 50 years ago. The first thing to make that happen is to explain to the shooters "we won" and will continue to win thru truth and logic and promoting civil rights.

This one rule isn't going to make a lot of difference one way or the other, but it will adress a little the high cost you keep coming back to. Air guns lower the cost of shooting dramatically by opening up the number of places people can shoot reducing the travel costs significantly. This is also the key to getting shooting back into the schools becasue special air handling equipment is not needed. You can easily practice in your home with live fire due to air guns. The practice will also improve ones abilities in the powdered gun sports as well.

I would suggest you contact a local American Legion, Elks or other civic group and start the ball rolling to get some youth shooting right in your community and push lowering the cost of the shooting sports. A positive attitude is contagious. 4-H, the Jay cees and many others will be glad to get you going. Use your Olympic shooting past to your advantage, you will be happy you did. Build the base and the top will naturally expand.

aurorapolice02_11 wrote:Ok, the first point. You state that because there is more ability to carry a firearm in the US, the shooting sports are on the rise?? I don't see the correlation of carry ability and the rising number of OLYMPIC style shooting competitors. Personal protection and recreation are two different things. Maybe you can clarify this for me, I'm not seeing it. I WILL stand on my statement the shooting sports are not politically correct. I have talked to enough people over my shooting career to see what kind of a response I get...it's not positive. You claim you are talking to parents who want their children to learn how to shoot. They are a captive audience which really is not that hard to convince the positive aspects of shooting. If the shooting sports are so politically correct, why is it that we as shooters continually have to justify our sport with, "it's an Olympic sport" and "it builds discipline". If it were really politically correct we would just have to say, "I compete in shooting" and that would be the end of the discussion. I tell you what, go up to ten random people and ask them what they think about competitive shooting, let me know what you get back from them.

I'll even go an extra step further and state that the Olympics are not that important to people anymore either. The doping cases have soured the taste of the Games these days. People are not inclined to watch a group of what they call "cheaters". We know this is not the case, but the general public does not. I watched anything I could during the Olympics. At work when we would go end of watch, my co-workers continually passed over the Olympics to watch MUSIC VIDEOS. Even with all the supposed partiotism people have these days, people refused to watch atheletes represent their country in the world's most prestigious sporting event. Hmmmm...??

I still do not see how setting records keeps people in the sport. I would think winning, making the national team and a possible Olympic medal would be more of a draw than a National record. I think you are using your view of the national record as an excuse for lower attendance at matches.

Do you really think if USA Shooting changes the national record rules, more people will be shooting? I can't see that in a conversation. "Hey Paul why aren't you shooting anymore?" "Well Tom, USA Shooting's rules for setting a national record don't make sense. If they change the rules maybe I'll come back." OR "Hey Paul why aren't you shootiing anymore." "Well Tom, it's so expensive to travel to the big matches and the training is time consuming. I have a family to support and a full time job I want to keep."

Which makes more sense, HONESTLY?

Finally if you are going to imply that I am wrong, don't hide behind the "guest" post.

I would love for Olympic shooting to become more popular. It's going to take a lot more than changing the national record rule...

Michael Douglass

TT Readers,

The following has been submitted to USAS, and is posted here for your input and suggestions. I think is represents a workable middle ground that addresses most or all of the concerns thus far expressed on TT.

I encourage each of you to make your own thoughts heard at USAS. This is your sport and your national governing body. Your membership dues fund this operation. You have both a right and a responsibility to speak up on issues that are important to you as an athlete.

Scott




19 October 2004

To: Bob Mitchell

From: Scott Engen

RE: Comments on USAS National Record Criteria Policy

Bob,

Here are some quick thoughts on USAS National Record Criteria Policy.

Clearly the current ‘10 competitors per match’ policy is shown to be unworkable and is not well received by the athletes. Requiring a specific number of competitors in a sanctioned match to recognize a national record performance is beyond the control of either the athlete or the event organizers, and creates a disincentive for participation.

Perhaps the following criteria might be a better solution.

1-Open Class Individual and Team national records at full metric distances may only be set at an ISSF sanctioned event, or at the US National Championships, Selection Matches or Cluster matches (i.e. 3X Pistol or Rocky Mountain Rifle) and will require a minimum number of competitors, in all age groups and skill classes combined, equal to the number of competitors required to fill a final round for that event, or a total of 6 competitors overall in non-final events.

2-All other Individual and Team national records, for all age groups and at reduced ranges may be set at any scheduled and sanctioned USAS event, including local affiliate club PTO’s, regardless of the number of competitors, provided that the match sponsors certify the match consisted of a full course of fire and was conducted according to the rules of USAS.

3-USAS will recognize and maintain national records in ALL events and age groups for which the current USAS rulebook provides a specific course of fire, and publish such records on a regular basis on the USAS website.

Based on my own experience and the comments of fellow competitors, I think this sort of criteria better reflects the current realities of USAS competition participation in the United States and will create additional incentives for participation among our meager athlete base without the significant expenditure of additional resources by USAS.

I hope these suggestions might be given serious consideration and be adopted as the national record policy of USAS in the near future.

Scott Engen

Scott,

Please forward this very well stated proposed rule change to John Bickar as well, as he has committed to bring this issue up on behalf of the membership in his capacity as our athlete representive on the board of directors.

Thanks for your efforts on this,

Dave

Excellent idea Scott!

If they do it we will participate in Alaska. We have just got started with 10 meter AP and are having fun.

Scott wrote:TT Readers,

The following has been submitted to USAS, and is posted here for your input and suggestions. I think is represents a workable middle ground that addresses most or all of the concerns thus far expressed on TT.

I encourage each of you to make your own thoughts heard at USAS. This is your sport and your national governing body. Your membership dues fund this operation. You have both a right and a responsibility to speak up on issues that are important to you as an athlete.

Scott




19 October 2004

To: Bob Mitchell

From: Scott Engen

RE: Comments on USAS National Record Criteria Policy

Bob,

Here are some quick thoughts on USAS National Record Criteria Policy.

Clearly the current ‘10 competitors per match’ policy is shown to be unworkable and is not well received by the athletes. Requiring a specific number of competitors in a sanctioned match to recognize a national record performance is beyond the control of either the athlete or the event organizers, and creates a disincentive for participation.

Perhaps the following criteria might be a better solution.

1-Open Class Individual and Team national records at full metric distances may only be set at an ISSF sanctioned event, or at the US National Championships, Selection Matches or Cluster matches (i.e. 3X Pistol or Rocky Mountain Rifle) and will require a minimum number of competitors, in all age groups and skill classes combined, equal to the number of competitors required to fill a final round for that event, or a total of 6 competitors overall in non-final events.

2-All other Individual and Team national records, for all age groups and at reduced ranges may be set at any scheduled and sanctioned USAS event, including local affiliate club PTO’s, regardless of the number of competitors, provided that the match sponsors certify the match consisted of a full course of fire and was conducted according to the rules of USAS.

3-USAS will recognize and maintain national records in ALL events and age groups for which the current USAS rulebook provides a specific course of fire, and publish such records on a regular basis on the USAS website.

Based on my own experience and the comments of fellow competitors, I think this sort of criteria better reflects the current realities of USAS competition participation in the United States and will create additional incentives for participation among our meager athlete base without the significant expenditure of additional resources by USAS.

I hope these suggestions might be given serious consideration and be adopted as the national record policy of USAS in the near future.

Scott Engen

All,

Thank you for your feedback on this proposal. The athlete response has been very positive thus far. I hope you would also circulate the proposal to other USAS members who might not visit TT often for their review.

It is VERY important that the people at USAS who can put this proposal into action hear from you directly. If you support this concept, please take a moment and jot down a line or two and send it to Bob Mitchell and Mary Smith.

They can be reached at USAS via e-mail at:

robert.mitchell@usashooting.org

mary.smith @usashooting.org


Thanks!

Scott

I will go even farther Scott and will join USA Shooting IF they adopt the changes. Currently our club is just shooting 10 meter informally but many will be more inclined to join if they may be recognized.

Scott wrote:All,

Thank you for your feedback on this proposal. The athlete response has been very positive thus far. I hope you would also circulate the proposal to other USAS members who might not visit TT often for their review.

It is VERY important that the people at USAS who can put this proposal into action hear from you directly. If you support this concept, please take a moment and jot down a line or two and send it to Bob Mitchell and Mary Smith.

They can be reached at USAS via e-mail at:

robert.mitchell@usashooting.org

mary.smith @usashooting.org


Thanks!

Scott