TargetTalk

Richard H wrote:That's somewhat true but the IOC sets the quotas with the ISSF's participation.

In what way does the ISSF influence the number of quota slots allocated by the IOC? Are you saying that there could be more slots if only the the ISSF asked for them? Why would the ISSF not ask for more?

FredB

Like everything else they are negotiated. No it's not as simple as just the ISSF asking for them, which I never said. They would have to present a case as to why there should be more for whatever event, they may loose in other events to get that, they could even loose whole events. I love the sport but they'd have a hell of a time trying to justify more quota spots for shooting, because yes money has a lot to do with it both in revenue and expenses. Shooting is not in a very strong negotiating position.

Biggest reason that the MQS and other qualification systems are in place in shooting sports is very similar to that in most other sports - size of the overall Olympic Games. I'm a rowing coach by day, and a recreational target shooter. Rowing gets x number of athletes - full stop. They get there by qualifying at the world champs the year before, or regional qualification regattas the year of the OG.

All sports qualify the best shooters, sailors, runners, cyclists, etc., up to the individual sports allotted number of participants, and then the door gets closed. Elevator full. Sorry, take next car (Olympics) please...

Now... Some sports that are judged by interested spectators could go away, and more spaces could be allotted to sports that are judged by measurable performance, and some of us would be happier. For example - really fit, attractive women with their hair plastered back and nose clips waving their legs in the air while swimming, little bendy girls waving ribbons, don't belong in the Olympics - no matter how skilled the performances, or how fit the participants - they're doing ballet with judges, not competing against each other against anything measurable. While I think it's stupid, beach volleyball has a true points system, and it has a better argument for staying. Shooting sports have measurable outcomes and belong. Racing in its many forms (foot, boat, bike, swim), lifting, throwing, combative (well, some of them), jumping, team competition sports have a better footing than things like dressage, rhythmic gymnastics, synchronised swimming, figure skating ice dance, etc. I'm not sure about the more traditional judged sports such as gymnastics, diving etc. - which is where the discussions break down.

Anyway - the number of people at the Olympics is capped, and distributed amongst the sports. The sports then decide how people qualify for their little corner of the Olympics.
Walter

David Levene wrote:

Dogchaser wrote:.....and loves the $$$ in advertising that we pump into the Olympic sports from top to bottom.

IMHO it's those very dollars that will kill off Olympic shooting.

The Olympics are now much more about satisfying the television audience, and therefore the accountants, than they are about sport.

If you are in a sport that can draw large TV audiences, with frequent breaks for the adverts, then you are pretty safe.

Which leaves us with clay targets, practical shooting/falling-plate type stuff, and biathlon (which does actually get quite a bit of time on EuroSport in the winter - fantastic viewing!)

Which leaves us with clay targets, practical shooting/falling-plate type stuff, and biathlon

I'm not sure that you will ever see action/practical or falling plate in the olympics. Way too many countries give little/no allowance for their people to own or practice with those types of firearms.

In terms of the biathalon .... do we here in the US take shooters and teach them how to ski, or instead I think we take skiers and teach them to shoot. The conditioning required for that must start young I think.

Clay targets .... here the US is hurtin' eddy .... while it's somewhat easy to crank up a skeet field, how many true bunkers do we have in the entire US ... hardly any (<30? maybe). The only one in New Mexico that was built I think a few years ago, was pretty much paid for by the shooter in the club that shoots bunker.

jhmartin wrote:

Which leaves us with clay targets, practical shooting/falling-plate type stuff, and biathlon

I'm not sure that you will ever see action/practical or falling plate in the olympics. Way too many countries give little/no allowance for their people to own or practice with those types of firearms.

You forget the 5-shot air pistols that we in the UK use a lot. Falling plate etc at 10M is regularly shot here, and it's conceivable that moving away from cartridge guns could be seen as a bonus to allow a wider shooter base. I personally would much rather stick with cartridge guns, but I can see a future where they are replaced with airguns.

Rob.

Our club may reactivate our old outdoor 10 metres range (20+ stands, but mostly decrepit and overgrown by brambles and nettles, unused in the last 25 years) for allowing soft-air IPSC. Seems appropriate for attracting youngsters.

If any other readers already have experience with such programs, I would much appreciate any feedback.

Alexander

[quote="
Indeed.

While many in Europe think there is no target shooting going on in the USA (at least the form of target shooting Euros think is "appropriate")...

...

And to further compound matters, we have embraced target shooting sports in which the object is not to shoot the highest score on round targets but to engage humanoid targets in the shortest amount of time with only deductions for hitting outside the vital area with firearms capable of rapid fire and capable of holding a vast amount of cartridges in their magazines.[/quote]

Seen from below the equador: in the first para above the thing is more or less summed up: they don't think it is "proper" to go around simulating battles for the week end fun.

It is very easy to buy an arsenal in the US, and a pain in the neck in most of the world. So, in EU small is beautifull.

And the second para is the reason I quit trying to get shooting on TV, around here. The last time we tried, took the tv team to a skeet match. They filmed and talked to the people, and then were taken to see the rest of the club.

Some people were shooting IPSC, were filmed. Next day, on tv there was the "gang of violent nuts trainning to kill bandits", quoting the reporter.

Please understand that I have nothing against shooting vast amounts of powder and lead around humanoid targets, I don't do because of the huge cost of it here in Brazil, but it is clarly "politically incorrect", and whenever made public generates reactions.