TargetTalk

Sorry for falling into the "Off Topic" trap.

Paying for good coaching (or even bad coaching for that matter) is entirely appropriate and necessary.

This of course works best in an unsubsidized, capitalist economy where good coaching can be rewarded and bad coaching not rewarded (or rewarded less). That stimulates innovation and excellence.

Socialist systems, where coaching is subsidized and standardized results in inefficiencies of course.

However, reality teaches us that subsidized mediocrity beats indifference any day. However inefficient the standardized mediocrity may be, it will certainly outperform apathy!

I say we need to create a government-run cadre of competitive bird whistling schools- the Tyroleans have been kicking our butts in the world bird whistling championships for years!!

Steve Swartz

Steve Swartz wrote: Paying for good coaching (or even bad coaching for that matter) is entirely appropriate and necessary.

This of course works best in an unsubsidized, capitalist economy where good coaching can be rewarded and bad coaching not rewarded (or rewarded less). That stimulates innovation and excellence.

Socialist systems, where coaching is subsidized and standardized results in inefficiencies of course.

However, reality teaches us that subsidized mediocrity beats indifference any day. However inefficient the standardized mediocrity may be, it will certainly outperform apathy!

Steve,
It's early Sunday morning, so perhaps my brain is not yet awake.

Let me see if I understand your train of thought:

Socialist systems (governments?)=>subsidized coaching=>standardized coaching (meaning same coaching for all athletes?)=>mediocre results

So the scores posted by shooters from the socialist governments in the world cup and olympic competitions are mediocre? I think not.

Fred

At least what we can start with is to do something by...is it to "Copy" Successful Olympic Rifle program and "Paste" this system to Olympic Pistol Program.
It will take for a while.... and then after that we can do some other things to improve this system...
After that we can see some changes in scores of medals in Olympic and World level competitions. In front of that....we only have to pray to USAMU, single organization for the entire country which can produce top level performance. They are in lack of competition inside of the country and this makes them pretty comfortable in all major selections for world class events inside the US.

There is no quick fix that's for sure.

When you go to places like Germany and see the different league (liga) systems? How well they work and the quality that those systems produce. One part of the North American problem is shear geography, both US and Canada are big countries with few competitive shooters that are spread across large countries.

Russ got it.

Steve

Russ wrote:At least what we can start with is to do something by...is it to "Copy" Successful Olympic Rifle program and "Paste" this system to Olympic Pistol Program.
It will take for a while.... and then after that we can do some other things to improve this system...
After that we can see some changes in scores of medals in Olympic and World level competitions. In front of that....we only have to pray to USAMU, single organization for the entire country which can produce top level performance. They are in lack of competition inside of the country and this makes them pretty comfortable in all major selections for world class events inside the US.

What is the USAS doing now that is so bad? Seeking much needed funding?

Fred:

" . . . However inefficient the standardized mediocrity may be, it will certainly outperform apathy! . . . "

In the USA we have "apathy" (indifference?), and I am certainly on record as being among the wailing/gnashing/rending crowd when it comes to the status quo of our national pistol program [sic].

Worldwide we see that a program of apathy/indifference does not fare well against the "socialized mediocrity" (my words) of most other countries . . .

. . . but between "socialized mediocrity" (again, my inflammatory choice of words) of the big state funded programs and the apathy/indifference of the USA and others, what other choices do we see out there?

Ahhh, Germany . . . the Third Way?

Being members of a system that will never adopt the Big State Solution (state funding of coaching systems; where coaches are "developed" by the governemnt), we need to look elsewhere for our solutions.

A while back (in this same thread?) I posited the thought experiment: "Wave a magic wand and create a network of state-funded training centers, all within a 4 hour drive of anywhere in the USA, where top-notch coaching was available free of charge to any interested competitor."

Would the USA begin to capture medals as a result?

I say no. Simply having "free" (paid for by taxes) world-class coaching readily available isn't the answer in and of itself.

Steve Swartz

And having no coaches no matter what you want or can pay is working?

The only system that is working in the US is the USAMU which is a socialized system.

How are you going to develop a capitalized system for a sport that basically no one is ever going to make any money at. What sort of business plan could you come up with to sell to a bank to secure financing to open one training centre let alone a string of training centres?

Interesting thoughts and perspectives.

Richard, agree, but money is not the only motivator.

Many people spend a lot of time and effort at things they will never make *any* money at.

I'm not trying to obtuse here (for once); I'll try to put it plainly and clearly.

1. You need a pool of participants with the motivation, drive, and desire to excel at your activity.

2. You need an "infrastructure" of "opportunity" that will help them develop and excel.


1.a. Something needs to motivate potential participants; it could be "prestige" or "honor" or "opportunity to break out of poverty" for that matter. Some motivators of course are better than others. How about "It's fun for me and I like to do well at it?" which tends to motivate the bulk of north american hobby activities- live competitive shooting.

2.b. The "infrastructure" whatever form it takes should provide valence (I desire what the effort will result in) and instrumentality (my effort will result in the desired outcome). Maybe it takes the form of our existing rifle development program (good idea Russ- what would it take?). Maybe it takes the form of local clubs holding activities/matches with bragging rights.

In the US we have problems with both 1. and 2. There aren't a whole lot of shooters beating down the doors to shoot international pistol, period. There are a small number of participants in the first place. In addition, the instrumentality and valence provided by the current policies and procedures adopted by the NGB for our sport seems to be lacking. The infrastructure does not seem to support development of "hobby" shooters* (maybe "true amateurs" is more accurate but a coupla folks have issues with that description too) and barely supports success as it is.

How do we increase motivation?

How do we improve infrastructure?

(without any coercive funding . . . assume a total budget equal to the current NGB budget, static with respect to inflation)

Steve Swartz

*indeed, the term "hobby shooters" is frequently used as a derogatory term. Hmmmm. If there is value to point #1 (in north america, competitive shooting is a hobby), then we are left with only "occupational shooters" (USAMU) and those juniors who *are* being rewarded under the current infrastructure. What happens to our juniors when they are no longer being "rewarded?" They can enlist in the army I 'spose . . .

Since support development of "hobby" shooters*, was mentioned - does anyone have a better schedule for the USASNC at Benning than the spreadsheet just released by our NGB? The fact that it is going to run from June 28 to July 6 does not help me in developing travel plans for the events I want to participate in.

Not yet Fred that I am aware of- I'm trying to get information on the selection matches to be held in March- at the OTC?

Steve Swartz

This is not to disparage a sport or those who have worked to gain proficiency in it but the fact is that the shooting sports are not doing badly at all, only formal ISSF matches are. I was a participant in the UIT matches in the era when Moses wore shorts :) but these days at both ranges that I shoot at, in Northern Illinois and in Southern Wisconsin, membership is booming but no one really cares much about formal target sports. There is an interest in informal shooting that helps in hunting and in big bore pistol matches and the cost of some of the guns and ammunition is at least as high as in ISSF matches if not more. Cost does not have much to do with this.

In Europe as well, benchrest competition is becoming increasingly popular. Again, cost is no issue. It is not an easy job running a sport that keeps members from several countries shooting under similar circumstances and with a certain degree of uniformity, but I do think that ISSF matches have become a victim of their own success by being unable to adapt to what many are interested in doing. A poster spoke about Cowboy Action and SASS matches - one of the bigger events would have more shooters than all of the ISSF events in a whole year in the US. Methinks the head honchos at the ISSF need to think seriously about where they are taking this sport or else it would continue to lose participants worldwide.

Just imagine - would anyone have expected Anschutz to start making rifles for Weatherby under subcontract if all were going well in ISSF sport? Or, for that matter, for them to offer their 2000 actions to people to build custom guns on instead of selling complete rifles?

Yes, point well taken.

At our local range the (pistol) Cowboy Action and IPSC/IDPA matches and (shotgun) Sporting Clays matches are SRO and wildly popular.

I stand at the 50m line with my Free Pistol very much alone.

Every couple of months or so I have to "explain" how what I'm doing should not be banned for safety reasons. The 50m line is a rifle range. You can't shoot pistols safely at the rifle range.

Steve Swartz

Steve - where do you live??

In defense of the range - here in Florida at the Public ranges most pistol shooters set their targets at about 20 to 25 feet (and they still cannot hit it!!!).

International and Bullseye disciplines are NOT easy and most casual pistol shooters are not able to hit the paper backer at 50 yards/meters, much less the black.

That said, it is not a great surprise that the range officers would look askance at one who is shooting pistol at 50 yards on a designated rifle range.

" 'Tis true, 'tis sad; 'tis sad, 'tis true."

Tillman in Florida

Tillman:

It's been my (very limited, I'm sure) experience that two key problems exist for 95% of the "typical shooters" IPSC, IDPA, Cowboy Action, saturday plinkers, etc. etc. etc. (and still, 50% for the dedicated competition shooters):

1. Trigger control (they just don't get it) and
2. Sight Alignment (they just don't get it x 2)

Sigh.

I spend 20 minutes of ball and dummy drills with the typical "I've been shooting silhouettes for 20 years and can't group with this gun" types and bring them from "minute of barn door" to "minute of angle" in one easy lesson and they think I have invented Cold Fusion or something . . .

[THOSE WITH MILITARY/LAW ENFORCEMENT EXPERIENCE ARE THE WORST! Do they even teach sight alignment-trigger control in the military anymore!?!?!?]

Yes, it's an ego booster for sure but criminees I weep for our nation if a competent enemy were to ever test us.

I am working with the college students where I teach now but man alive, the climb is steep!

Steve Swartz

Steve,

That's a mighty broad brush you just used to paint us military and law enforcement types with.

You are welcome any time to visit our classes and witness firsthand.

VR,
Keith

I think he's talking the overall level of marksmanship in the both the military and LE, sure there are some that are trained properly and shoot well. The overall performance is not good, this isn't just a US thing or a North American thing, anecdotely people all over the world seem to have the same opinion of their military and LE. It might just be stereotypes but unfortunately there is always some truth in stereotypes, thats why they are stereotypes.

Our border guards are a good example, they want sidearms now they are failing (over 20%) can't qualify. Beleive me the qualification isn't that difficult either.

I agree with the fact that MOST, not all LE have trouble shooting well. I witnessed first hand qualifications for FEMA armed security. WOW! Very scary for sure.The head cheese of sorts saw me standing watching these folks shooting at silouhettts that were as big as Andre The Giant, and hitting them VERY poorly at a mere 7 yards, so he comes over to me and spouts off,,,,,,I bet you wish you could shoot that well! Yeppers,,,,,sure do.However in defense of LE ,,,,,,it is not politically correct to be a good shot. They have an image to uphold. Don't everyone get your knickers in a twist here, I am speaking from experience. I work with failing LE on a monthly basis as I am a NRA trainer. Quite honestly, I would prefer the general public any day of the week. Like I said, they are not trained to shoot well. Just my 2 cents worth, nothing more, nothing less. I agree with Steve 100%,,,,,,,it's all about trigger control and sight alingment.

Keith:

OUCH! Of course, there are quite notable exceptions. And you are right, it was an unfairly broad brush. Certainly I would need to apologize and issue exceptions to:

- FBI in general
- Some Treasury dept units
- USMC in general
- Some Army SF units
- The USAMU of course
- Some Navy SF units
- Some USAF SF units
- A small handful of big-city SWAT team members

. . . and the list grows . . .

Yep, I really stepped in it this time!

Steve "Oh S**t" Swartz

I dont know much about shooting but I do know alittle about L.E training.I worked at the academy during my college days and attended it after college. I had never shot anything bigger than a daisy BB rifle at that time and had to borrow a SW model 66 to shot with. The first days of shooting were training and I had a marine shooting instructor shooting next to me, (that did help, but after day one he wouldnt help me any more, he wanted to win top shooter) Shooting at 15 /20 ft. I blew the middle out of the target. (any of US could do that ).16 of my shots couldnt be accounted for(they were all in the middle)but me and my shooting partner didnt know how to score and counted them all as 0, I still won best shooter by 1 point and have the award to prove it. Like I said ANY OF US could shoot perfect scores when lots of LE cadets we couldnt even get to pass by cheating.P.S. my neighbor is the local l.e. range master and swat team leader , not long ago put a 45 round through his hand, WE CALL THAT A BARNEY,