TargetTalk

Anonymous wrote:But...
Is Rule 51 'new', or is a result of the actions of Smith and Carlos (USA) at the 1968 Olympics?

_ Don't think so - but the ioc is very determined to keep the olympics a "problem free zone" ie nothing that by anyone at anytime may be felt "offensive" is allowed.

Olympics.......yawn.........

Jose Rossy wrote:Olympics.......yawn.........

well for some of us -it's the biggest games around

And oh yes - there is a world outside the Us -:)

Einar wrote:

Jose Rossy wrote:Olympics.......yawn.........

And oh yes - there is a world outside the Us -:)

An uncalled for remark. Just as you are free to enjoy the Olympics, others are free to prefer other sporting venues.

There are a lot of United States military personnel who died in Europe because they cared about the world outside the U.S.

Fred Mannis wrote: There are a lot of United States military personnel who died in Europe because they cared about the world outside the U.S.

I bet the strategy was then, as now, to fight them on their soil instead of ours.

Fred Mannis wrote:There are a lot of United States military personnel who died in Europe because they cared about the world outside the U.S.

With due respect Fred, there are just as many military personnel who died fighting with the US (and in the US, for the US for that matter, just not in modern times - though their sacrifices are no less worthy of note). Personally, given the large numbers of people world-wide whose family tree include people who died in the line of duty to defend noble goals, I suspect this aspect of this thread is one which might become uncivil rather quickly and might be best dropped.

Spencer wrote:The system at the Olympics is:
- if several million shooters in USA demanded coverage, they would get it (networks are reactive)

Out of the millions of gun owners in the USA, I presume that less than 500,000 are active competitors in any kind of shooting sport.

Once you remove the practical and cowboy action shooters, I bet we have less than 150,000 who are into traditional rifle & pistol shooting sports. Of those, only a tiny fraction have any interest in smallbore and air rifle.

Shocking, isn't it?

Jose Rossy wrote:

Spencer wrote:The system at the Olympics is:
- if several million shooters in USA demanded coverage, they would get it (networks are reactive)

Out of the millions of gun owners in the USA, I presume that less than 500,000 are active competitors in any kind of shooting sport.

Once you remove the practical and cowboy action shooters, I bet we have less than 150,000 who are into traditional rifle & pistol shooting sports. Of those, only a tiny fraction have any interest in smallbore and air rifle.

Shocking, isn't it?

I do wonder what the ACTUAL statistics are for Olympic "demand." The amount of people who actually watch the Olympics on TV in the US has dropped dramatically over the years. How many Americans on average are curlers, or want to watch it, or even know what it is for that matter? How about synchronized swimming?

Its as much political as it is lack of interest, but to the average viewer, lets be honest, shooting is NOT a spectator sport. Short of watching the shot-by-shot final with results, to the average person, it equates to watching a "who can stand the most still" contest.

Hey ... if ALL we could get the networks to cover was the FINAL, that would be a HUGE step....

Yup.

Part of the issue is the size of the Olympic Games. You heve so much going on that one channel can't cover everything.

But the real problem is that the IOC signed a devil's bargain with NBC Sports. This effectively put NBC Sports in the driver's seat - and they have a very narrow view of sporting events. They will cover the Spandex Sports - and NOTHING else. With ABC's coverage, they would try to cover everything...and these days, with ESPN and ESPN2 as ABC affiliates, they could do a bang-up job on the Olympic Games.

It's not just shooting, either. Go over to the fencing BBs and ask - they are just as frustrated as shooters are, and have a more telegenic event to boot. And there is a LONG list of other sports that are unhappy.

Hopefully, this will get straightened out in the next television contract. But somebody needs to get the IOC to some arm-twisting.

FWIW, if I were puttign together the coverage, my policy would be that the finals in ALL sports get covered. Maybe not in prime time, but covered. You could do some really interesting background stories on just how much stuff is really going on at the Olympics...it's a six-ring circus.

Maybe a coalition of the "under-covered" sports could be formed that could attempt to influence the TV coverage of their sports.

I believe Europe (Germany in particular) does show much more of the shooting during the Olympics, than say for example is shown in Canada.

It is also based on the success of the nations participants. Obviously everyone in Germany wants to see Ralf Schuman(sp) win the gold in Rapid.

Australia did show a lot of shooting during Sydney, what with Michael Diamond and Rusell Mark in the shotgun, Anne Marie in the Air Pistol.

As long as US coverage is dictated by the marketing gurus of NBC, shooting coverage will continue to be left by the wayside. Perhaps one day we'll get to see it via OnDemand cable or somesuch, won't hold by breath for that one.

Hi

I'd watch the fencing, heck I'd fence, but the local club is $100 a person per month. I'm 46, it's a bit late to take up sport that expensive.

I won't be watching much shooting even if they do show it. Watching other people shoot is like watching grass grow. I would like to GO to the Olympic shooting matches to TALK to the shooters. I've done that twice at the Bianchi cup which is close and on my way to my parents. Watching then shoot was BORING, but discussing the guns used, where they trained etc was a lot more fun. Met Scott at the air gun tent. Checked out one of the first S and W 500's.

Mike
Wichita KS

mikeschroeder wrote:I would like to GO to the Olympic shooting matches to TALK to the shooters.

So go and talk (well, obviously after their matches :-) ). These guys and ladies are generally as far from being stuck up as you can get.

PaulT wrote:The Olympic Games provides a focal point for our sport and irrespective of the merits or otherwise, the Games offers every participating nation the opportunity to showcase its shooting athletes and promote ISSF/Olympic style shooting in a positive light.

Did you really mean that in earnest, in view of the double obstacle of MQS and quota system? Hardly so. I wonder why ISSF is so seclusive, contrary to the practice in many other Olympic sports.

Alexander

in view of the double obstacle of MQS and quota system?

Well I suppose all of us would like to see an increase in the total number of quota slots, I don't see an issue with the MQS's.

If the issue is getting to an ISSF event to perform, that is an issue with the respective NGB, not the ISSF.

Alexander wrote:

PaulT wrote:The Olympic Games provides a focal point for our sport and irrespective of the merits or otherwise, the Games offers every participating nation the opportunity to showcase its shooting athletes and promote ISSF/Olympic style shooting in a positive light.

Did you really mean that in earnest, in view of the double obstacle of MQS and quota system? Hardly so. I wonder why ISSF is so seclusive, contrary to the practice in many other Olympic sports.

Alexander

Which sports are you eluding to that don't have a quota system and/or MQS or a qualifying of some sort? I'm sure you'll find that almost all if not all have these obstacles, they were instituted after the "Eddy The Eagle" winter Olympics, I believe they (IOC) felt he took too much attention from the actually good athletes. There was also a move to limit the size of the games aswell as they were getting out of hand.

Occasionally you may see athletes from countries that don't meet these criteria when they are given hardship quotas. The MQS isn't really that big of an obstacle.

The ISSF is allotted a certain number of quota slots by the IOC for each Olympics. It is then up to the ISSF to distribute the slots as they see fit, but they can't do anything to increase the number. So any complaints about "not enough shooters" really should be made to the IOC, not the ISSF. However, it's doubtful the IOC would listen unless you were from NBC. (How's that for throwing acronyms around?)

FredB

That's somewhat true but the IOC sets the quotas with the ISSF's participation.