Reply to the article on Page 49 of ISSF Journal 3:2010
Posted: Fri Jul 16, 2010 12:04 pm
Dear shooters, coaches,
I believe the most of you have had the opportunity to read the article posted on the page 49 of ISSF Journal 3/2010 written by former shooter of Argentina shooting team.
I do not need to write anything else in addition to brilliant reply of Bill Murray. You can read the letter (with Bill's approval to be posted on forum) to ISSF (I expect to be posted in the following issue of ISSF Journal) here:
Gesendet: 14.07.10 16:28 Uhr
An: munich@issf-sports.org
Betreff: Article New Rules by Prof. Rio
Dear ISSF, dear sports colleagues,
I would like to reply to the article on Page 49 of ISSF Journal 3:2010 by Professor Rio.
I too am a former member of the Great Britain Shooting Team during the years 1990-1994, and have since worked as a professional coach in Great Britain, Australia (as Head Coach to the Australian Shooting Team) and in Germany, where I currently work as State Rifle Coach for Hessen - a number of shooters I work with will represent Germany at the next World Championships. During my time in Australia, I was based at the Australian Institue of Sports and worked closely with some of the world's top sports scientists.
I wish to challenge the assumption in Professor Rio's article, which is that stiffer clothing is the cause of higher scores in rifle shooting. I have never seen one iota of evidence which objectively proves this assumption. At the very least, the people like Professor Rio who believe this to be true, should be able and willing to back up their statements with hard evidence. Sure, the scores in rifle shooting have gone up in leaps and bounds in recent years, above all in the standing position. I would argue that this is due largely to three factors:
1. The introduction of electronic targets.
I began working in Hessen in April 2002, when we were still shooting on paper targets. I work mainly with a squad of about 12 young shooters aged 14-18. In October 2005, we installed electronic targets at our Training Centre in Frankfurt. The increase in economy, efficiency and (for the coach) feedback from these systems led within one year to an average increase in performance of more than 4 points for a 3x20 programm, across the entire squad.
2. The improvement of coaching knowledge and the use of infra-red and video analysis.
Without any shadow of a doubt, the knowledge and ability of good coaches to achieve fast improvements in performance has increased dramatically, aided by modern technology, publications and coach education initiatives such as the ISSF Training Academy. It is, if I may say so, an insult to coaches the world over, to simply ascribe increases in performance to clothing. Of course, the more people from within our sport make this mistake, the more people outside our sport will be inclined to arrive at similar over-simplified judgements.
3. The improvements by manufacturers - and also as a result of enlightened rule changes - to the construction of target rifles.
These changes - together with improvements to the clothing - have contributed to the huge growth worldwide of rifle shooting, especially at high level. In short, where in the 1970s it was absolutely necessary for the shooter to possess certain anatomical advantages in order to adopt an effective shooting position, advances in equipment have permitted many more shooters, with strongly varying anatomical characteristics, to reach high levels of performance. This is, however, exactly the strength of our sport - the participant base. If this is undermined, and we return to a situation where only a few anatomically (genetically) advantaged people can be capable of achieving high results, then our sport will lose its biggest - perhaps its only - advantage in comparison to other sports, with which we have to compete for future participants.
As a full-time professional rifle coach, and advisor to my athletes, one of my tasks is to help them choose equipment. In this capacity I have been able to compare, with objective measures such as steadiness of hold on the Scatt System, the differences between 'conventional' leather and canvas clothing and 'modern' rubberised/artificial fibre/plastic clothing. I am firmly convinced that the stiffest plastic clothing is nothing but a hindrance to good performance, because the different postures the shooter needs to adopt cause tension in the clothing against which the shooter's body struggles. This conviction is borne out by the fact that very few top shooters have in fact chosen to use this clothing. With the less stiff, but still stiffer than canvas/leather, modern clothing, the only advantage seems to be that artificial fibre does not change its stiffness characteristics with long use or with relative humidity; these clothes then offer security for the clothing controls. They do not, repeat do not, improve performance when compared with well-fitting leather/canvas clothes: I challenge anyone to prove objectively that I am wrong.
It seems to me really absurd, that clothing materials which have only been introduced in order to ensure a more consistent compliance with the ISSF's own Rules, should now be the subject of over-simplified judgements which, to my mind, serve only to bring a wonderful sport into disrepute.
In writing this, I do not want in any way to imply that there is no need for a close and careful monitoring of equipment - and all other Rules - to preserve the principle of fair play. However, it is clear to me that anyone wishing to cheat by unfairly stabilising themselves in the shooting position, would do this (perhaps some are already doing so) by the direct application of tapes or support bandages on the body and not through the external protective clothing.
Our sport has grown precisely because of the equipment which enables many people of different anatomical characteristics and ages to learn the necessary technical skills (so that, in the end, the mental strength of the athlete on the day of competition becomes the deciding factor). Isn't this something we should celebrate and preserve?
I must also take issue with Professor Rio's statement "...it is seriously questionable that rifle shooters should find it easier to improve their scores by using a more rigid shooting jacket than by investing hours of training in a gymnasium in order to improve their strength...". Strength is definitely not a characteristic which improves rifle shooting performance. Otherwise slimly-built girls would not be capable (as they are) of producing scores which can shame the strongest of men. Hours spent strength training in the gymnasium are as useless as a fully rigid shooting jacket for improving rifle shooting performance.
I believe that rifle shooting will die out if we, the shooters, add to our own - already considerable - difficulties. Our sport exists as strongly as it does because it is a sport which can be successfully practised all over the world - there are at present almost no genetic barriers - and athletes can stay at high level for a considerable number of years. Destroy our strength and we will destroy our sport. Ban rifle shooting clothing, and inevitably the sport will become dominated by a very few genetically advantaged people. Some sports such as Biathlon are highly commercially successful even though they have almost nil participant base, the elite exists as a circus which performs to large audiences. Is this what we want shooting to become? And can shooting ever compete for public attention and survive in this way? The sport I have served for 30 years has survived and grown on a completely different principle and I applaud all developments which mean that even more people can compete at the highest level and so drive world records even faster upwards.
Yours sincerely,
Bill Murray
State Rifle Coach, Hessen
Former Head Coach, Australian Shooting Team
Former Director of Coaching, Great Britain
Former British recordholder
Commonwealth Games silver medallist
I believe the most of you have had the opportunity to read the article posted on the page 49 of ISSF Journal 3/2010 written by former shooter of Argentina shooting team.
I do not need to write anything else in addition to brilliant reply of Bill Murray. You can read the letter (with Bill's approval to be posted on forum) to ISSF (I expect to be posted in the following issue of ISSF Journal) here:
Gesendet: 14.07.10 16:28 Uhr
An: munich@issf-sports.org
Betreff: Article New Rules by Prof. Rio
Dear ISSF, dear sports colleagues,
I would like to reply to the article on Page 49 of ISSF Journal 3:2010 by Professor Rio.
I too am a former member of the Great Britain Shooting Team during the years 1990-1994, and have since worked as a professional coach in Great Britain, Australia (as Head Coach to the Australian Shooting Team) and in Germany, where I currently work as State Rifle Coach for Hessen - a number of shooters I work with will represent Germany at the next World Championships. During my time in Australia, I was based at the Australian Institue of Sports and worked closely with some of the world's top sports scientists.
I wish to challenge the assumption in Professor Rio's article, which is that stiffer clothing is the cause of higher scores in rifle shooting. I have never seen one iota of evidence which objectively proves this assumption. At the very least, the people like Professor Rio who believe this to be true, should be able and willing to back up their statements with hard evidence. Sure, the scores in rifle shooting have gone up in leaps and bounds in recent years, above all in the standing position. I would argue that this is due largely to three factors:
1. The introduction of electronic targets.
I began working in Hessen in April 2002, when we were still shooting on paper targets. I work mainly with a squad of about 12 young shooters aged 14-18. In October 2005, we installed electronic targets at our Training Centre in Frankfurt. The increase in economy, efficiency and (for the coach) feedback from these systems led within one year to an average increase in performance of more than 4 points for a 3x20 programm, across the entire squad.
2. The improvement of coaching knowledge and the use of infra-red and video analysis.
Without any shadow of a doubt, the knowledge and ability of good coaches to achieve fast improvements in performance has increased dramatically, aided by modern technology, publications and coach education initiatives such as the ISSF Training Academy. It is, if I may say so, an insult to coaches the world over, to simply ascribe increases in performance to clothing. Of course, the more people from within our sport make this mistake, the more people outside our sport will be inclined to arrive at similar over-simplified judgements.
3. The improvements by manufacturers - and also as a result of enlightened rule changes - to the construction of target rifles.
These changes - together with improvements to the clothing - have contributed to the huge growth worldwide of rifle shooting, especially at high level. In short, where in the 1970s it was absolutely necessary for the shooter to possess certain anatomical advantages in order to adopt an effective shooting position, advances in equipment have permitted many more shooters, with strongly varying anatomical characteristics, to reach high levels of performance. This is, however, exactly the strength of our sport - the participant base. If this is undermined, and we return to a situation where only a few anatomically (genetically) advantaged people can be capable of achieving high results, then our sport will lose its biggest - perhaps its only - advantage in comparison to other sports, with which we have to compete for future participants.
As a full-time professional rifle coach, and advisor to my athletes, one of my tasks is to help them choose equipment. In this capacity I have been able to compare, with objective measures such as steadiness of hold on the Scatt System, the differences between 'conventional' leather and canvas clothing and 'modern' rubberised/artificial fibre/plastic clothing. I am firmly convinced that the stiffest plastic clothing is nothing but a hindrance to good performance, because the different postures the shooter needs to adopt cause tension in the clothing against which the shooter's body struggles. This conviction is borne out by the fact that very few top shooters have in fact chosen to use this clothing. With the less stiff, but still stiffer than canvas/leather, modern clothing, the only advantage seems to be that artificial fibre does not change its stiffness characteristics with long use or with relative humidity; these clothes then offer security for the clothing controls. They do not, repeat do not, improve performance when compared with well-fitting leather/canvas clothes: I challenge anyone to prove objectively that I am wrong.
It seems to me really absurd, that clothing materials which have only been introduced in order to ensure a more consistent compliance with the ISSF's own Rules, should now be the subject of over-simplified judgements which, to my mind, serve only to bring a wonderful sport into disrepute.
In writing this, I do not want in any way to imply that there is no need for a close and careful monitoring of equipment - and all other Rules - to preserve the principle of fair play. However, it is clear to me that anyone wishing to cheat by unfairly stabilising themselves in the shooting position, would do this (perhaps some are already doing so) by the direct application of tapes or support bandages on the body and not through the external protective clothing.
Our sport has grown precisely because of the equipment which enables many people of different anatomical characteristics and ages to learn the necessary technical skills (so that, in the end, the mental strength of the athlete on the day of competition becomes the deciding factor). Isn't this something we should celebrate and preserve?
I must also take issue with Professor Rio's statement "...it is seriously questionable that rifle shooters should find it easier to improve their scores by using a more rigid shooting jacket than by investing hours of training in a gymnasium in order to improve their strength...". Strength is definitely not a characteristic which improves rifle shooting performance. Otherwise slimly-built girls would not be capable (as they are) of producing scores which can shame the strongest of men. Hours spent strength training in the gymnasium are as useless as a fully rigid shooting jacket for improving rifle shooting performance.
I believe that rifle shooting will die out if we, the shooters, add to our own - already considerable - difficulties. Our sport exists as strongly as it does because it is a sport which can be successfully practised all over the world - there are at present almost no genetic barriers - and athletes can stay at high level for a considerable number of years. Destroy our strength and we will destroy our sport. Ban rifle shooting clothing, and inevitably the sport will become dominated by a very few genetically advantaged people. Some sports such as Biathlon are highly commercially successful even though they have almost nil participant base, the elite exists as a circus which performs to large audiences. Is this what we want shooting to become? And can shooting ever compete for public attention and survive in this way? The sport I have served for 30 years has survived and grown on a completely different principle and I applaud all developments which mean that even more people can compete at the highest level and so drive world records even faster upwards.
Yours sincerely,
Bill Murray
State Rifle Coach, Hessen
Former Head Coach, Australian Shooting Team
Former Director of Coaching, Great Britain
Former British recordholder
Commonwealth Games silver medallist