TargetTalk

A number of shooters I befriend started talking in the last times about the rule changes concerning the new final format AFTER the London games.

Specifically, the question posed by the defining value of the olympic final and the discarding of the qualification score.

We were comparing the effect of such a rule change at the top world level compared to the various national levels. At the nationals (at least in my country) it's not that unusual to find that in certain specialties (v.g., Free Pistol or 50 meters Free Rifle) the first and second shooters to enter the final are distanced by 5 or even 10 points.

This difference will be discarded under the new rules, and so a 0.1 point margin of the second-classified shooter over the first one would give the championship to the former.

This format "may" make sense at the World Cup levels where such margins are infrequent, but we thought could denaturalize completely certain lower (but still important) levels of competition, namely national cups.

I would like to hear from the shooters here on their take on the subject, putting apart the primary question that the rules are the same for everybody and that the same format has been in use for the preliminary rounds for a long time already.

We were thinking something along the lines of: "Wait, Melentiev got his gold with a 13 point margin in '80; Potteck got his with a 6 point margin in '76 .............. what would had happened if those scores were disregarded in the finals and they (both champions) even fell out of the podium by a decimal difference?? Wouldn't the real value of the Olympic gold (or WC, or else) be vastly diminished in such a case???

Thanks a lot for your patience...........................

Unless I've missed the announcement, the discarding of the qualifying score only applies to rapid fire, which then has a different finals format. I dislike the philosophy because as you say it devalues what you have shot to get there. And in national competitions could wipe out a large score difference meaning the winner could well have shot 20, 30 or more points less than others.

Rob.

Rob:

I hope someone better informed could clear the issue, but from what I know ALL the finals will discard qualification scores AFTER the London Games.

They (the ISSF) only hurried up implementation of the RF finals to the 2010 World Championships, for reasons better known to themselves.

Renzo

renzo wrote:Rob:

I hope someone better informed could clear the issue, but from what I know ALL the finals will discard qualification scores AFTER the London Games.

They (the ISSF) only hurried up implementation of the RF finals to the 2010 World Championships, for reasons better known to themselves.

Renzo

I'd like to know where you've heard that from because it doesn't appear on the ISSF website (AFAIK) and if they haven't said so then it's just speculation.

Rob.

Recently I finished my refreshinf course as Judge.

The teachers - both Class "A" ISSF judges - told us that.

Wheter it's only unfounded gossip o something that is only talked about behind closed doors, I can't tell.

The source is reputable as such (no old lady's tales, I mean) and furthermore, it makes sense within the present scope of ISSF policies.

That's why we were "speculating".

Not that it matters anyhow what the shooters think about something when it's time to make a decision!!!!!

Given that many sports discard heats and semi results for the final, I really don't see why this is such a big deal.

I would say an even starting point for the final make it somewhat more exciting.

Personally I don't see a problem with it, it rewards consistency. I find it hard to believe that a shooter that shoots 20-30 points higher during qualification which is an order of magnitude better won't shoot equal higher during the finals too. It will definitely make finals more exciting as there will be more movement amoungst those that are close. I doubt it will change who wins at the top level. Yes there will be occasions where some one who has trouble during qualifications, will win in the finals and vice versa but it will be the exception and not the rule.

Why not do this in other sports - I find the end of the marathon a bit boring; so lets take the top 8 finishers and make them run an extra 100m race to determine the medals.

Oh, and don't get me started on the uniform rules and 'presentation of athletes' - have a look at the presentation of athletes at the start of a final, you can't see most of them as they are still wearing their shooting glasses and are hiding behind their 'blinders'.
(You need to see the full video of the finals, not the highlights on the ISSF youtube site.)

Richard H wrote:Personally I don't see a problem with it, it rewards consistency. I find it hard to believe that a shooter that shoots 20-30 points higher during qualification which is an order of magnitude better won't shoot equal higher during the finals too. It will definitely make finals more exciting as there will be more movement amoungst those that are close. I doubt it will change who wins at the top level. Yes there will be occasions where some one who has trouble during qualifications, will win in the finals and vice versa but it will be the exception and not the rule.

That's true in some events but not in others. Rapid is a good example - the qualification is 3 series of 3 different times, the final just the fastest. The same with 25M pistol ladies - just the duelling phase and in 3p it's just the standing. So you would essentially just need to be good enough in the other phases to make the top 8 and not aim for the 1st place spot.

Rob.

The new finals format in rapid fire simply rewards mediocrity. All you have to do is be good enough to make the final and then you have a chance at a medal. Heck, I think they only have 20 shooters in the Olympics, so you darn near have an even chance at a medal anyway.

While I don't really give a darn about what rapid fire does, I sure hope this plague doesn't spread to the rifle or other pistol events. Getting a lead going into a prone, 3p, air, or precision pistol final should be rewarded. In Korea a few days ago, Sergei Martynov had a two point lead on me going into the final. Why should he be penalized by an even start when he clearly was the class of the field in tough qualification conditions and should be rewarded by that performance? Should he be knocked back to the same level as the guys that barely made the final, five points back? I shot a pretty good match too, and am glad I had a point on third and three on those who squeeked in. The difference is even bigger in 3p.

I completely disagree with Richard H, it doesn't reward consistency, just mediocrity. Any lead at all in a world level final is a tough thing to get. Especially in prone or air. Outstanding performances are currently rewarded by carrying over the qualification scores into the final...but not in rapid fire. I'm hoping this new finals format is just the last nail in the coffin of rapid, not the last nail in all of shooting.

The only people who could possibly want this format are TV people because it might be more exciting to an uneducated TV audience, and mediocre shooters who might then have a chance against the good ones.

Just my humble opinion,
Eric U

I think shooting is the only sport which carries points from qualifiers into the final, from that point of view its inevitable it will go.

The whole point of the Olympics is the best person on the day wins.

Richard H wrote:Personally I don't see a problem with it, it rewards consistency. I find it hard to believe that a shooter that shoots 20-30 points higher during qualification which is an order of magnitude better won't shoot equal higher during the finals too. It will definitely make finals more exciting as there will be more movement amongst those that are close. I doubt it will change who wins at the top level. Yes there will be occasions where some one who has trouble during qualifications, will win in the finals and vice versa but it will be the exception and not the rule.

I think it depends heavily on the nature of the event. In terms of rifle, it'd maybe work for 3P where you have a greater score spread and the finals can sometimes be a bit irrelevant as the leader is streaks ahead anyway.

The extra 9 points available from the decimal scoring is irrelevant - if the leader is maybe 10 points ahead of the 8th man, then the 8th man can have a blistering final and probably won't climb into the medals, even if the leader only has an average final.

By contrast in Prone, the scores tend to be much closer anyway, and the typical spread across the finalists is only a couple of points. 2 or 3 points can easily be made up with the extra 9 points available from the decimal scoring, leading to a game of catch-up, which I would contend is more interesting than if everyone starts on level pegging.

However, now we stray into the idea of pandering to the media - creating a "more interesting" finals format. Yes, the sport should be interesting to attract new talent, but at the end of the day, with the exception of clays, biathlon and arguably RF pistol, shooting is not a great spectator sport and never will be. It's a bunch of people standing in a line shooting at static targets. Participation is the game, not spectating.
Finals must not get sidetracked into some misguided attempt to put them on a par with spectator sports and punish the competitors in the process.


As Eric U says, there is also the idea of rewarding mediocrity - all you have to do to get into medal contention is squeak into the final.
Personally I think if someone shoots a 600 and no one else has bettered a 597, then that person has done outstandingly well in the prevailing conditions and should be rewarded for that when going into the finals.
If they louse it up and someone makes up the 3 points, then that's their fault for not being consistent. If they shoot an identical final to the 2nd or 8th man, then their initial lead is a fair and worthy tie-breaker - contested as it is over 60-shots.

One of the reasons I got into international shooting is that results were pretty much clear - whoever puts the most points up on the board that day wins. And, the person who scores highest is the best shooter that day.

While I like the idea of a final to add excitement, throwing away the qualifying points is an awful idea. Starting everyone from zero effectively eliminates the goal of measuring who the best shooter was that day.

I doubt that I will ever be convinced that a RF shooter, who hits a new WR in the qualifying portion of the match, is not better than the 6th place qualifier who happens to get hot for the finals and is declared the winner.

Stan

I personally can't see a shooter holding back to just make the finals, for starters what score is just enough to make the finals. The top of the world cup rankings is pretty similar (top twenty) depending on who shows up to the event, I really don't see the top changing much.

Basically you're now shooting two matches now a 60 shot match and then the top 8 get to shoot a 10 shot match. The best shooters is still going to win it's not like they are changing it into a judging sport

What are the alternative ideas to make the sport even remotely interesting to spectators? Everyone has lots of complaints (I've been guilty of that myself) the simple fact is they've (ISSF) been told to change by the IOC (from my understanding). The rifle clothes will be changing too, that will be the next thing, which I'm sure are going to prompt lots of complaints.

Eric U wrote:

I completely disagree with Richard H, it doesn't reward consistency, just mediocrity. Any lead at all in a world level final is a tough thing to get. Especially in prone or air. Outstanding performances are currently rewarded by carrying over the qualification scores into the final...but not in rapid fire. I'm hoping this new finals format is just the last nail in the coffin of rapid, not the last nail in all of shooting.

The only people who could possibly want this format are TV people because it might be more exciting to an uneducated TV audience, and mediocre shooters who might then have a chance against the good ones.

Just my humble opinion,
Eric U

I agree Eric any lead is tough to get at the elite level thus its almost impossible to surmount during the finals too unless someone makes a mistake.

All these changes are driven by the IOC and TV, I thought that was a given. I was under the impression that the ultimatum was make changes that make it more interesting and look more like a sport or you're gone. This includes hat, blinder, pistol clothing, rifle clothing , and walking rules. So the only thing is to come up with alternatives that make the sport interesting to viewers. So we can complain about the change all we want but someone needs to come up with alternatives because the status quo that we all like just isn't going to cut it with the IOC.

The one thing I greatly disagree with you Eric is that somehow a mediocre shooter is going to make it to the top 8. Give me the starting list of any World Cup and I can probably give 15 out of the top 20 every time and the other 5 would fall within a pool of ten or fifteen. Someone who finishes outside the top 30 or so now will not get into the finals because of the finals changes.

brucefav wrote:Why not do this in other sports - I find the end of the marathon a bit boring; so lets take the top 8 finishers and make them run an extra 100m race to determine the medals.

Oh, and don't get me started on the uniform rules and 'presentation of athletes' - have a look at the presentation of athletes at the start of a final, you can't see most of them as they are still wearing their shooting glasses and are hiding behind their 'blinders'.
(You need to see the full video of the finals, not the highlights on the ISSF youtube site.)

Very well said. The real problem is the reason behind these changes: TV in the Olympics. But, if you forget the TV, the Olympic Organization drops shooting...

Shooting is not a TV sports, will never be. Lasts too long, repetitious, unknown to the big public, not simple to film. One very long dimension, no large views. I tried to watch a full baseball game on tv. ALMOST as boring as shooting. If a new sport, without the kids playing it in school, nobody would watch.

On top of that, here in Brazil (and almost anywhere else) a shooter is the crackpot that spends the last two years visitng muslim sites and then goes on to shoot 12 kids on his former school. Maybe thats why I bought a Radio controled glider...

RobStubbs wrote:That's true in some events but not in others. Rapid is a good example - the qualification is 3 series of 3 different times, the final just the fastest.

Rob.

You seem to have forgotten that there is now a completely different scoring system employed in the RF final. The qualification round (what we used to call the match!) is a target shooting event, the final is effectively a falling plate elimination event.

jacques b gros wrote:
Very well said. The real problem is the reason behind these changes: TV in the Olympics. But, if you forget the TV, the Olympic Organization drops shooting...

Shooting is not a TV sports, will never be. Lasts too long, repetitious, unknown to the big public, not simple to film. One very long dimension, no large views. I tried to watch a full baseball game on tv. ALMOST as boring as shooting. If a new sport, without the kids playing it in school, nobody would watch.

On top of that, here in Brazil (and almost anywhere else) a shooter is the crackpot that spends the last two years visitng muslim sites and then goes on to shoot 12 kids on his former school. Maybe thats why I bought a Radio controled glider...

Well you're sort of right but lets look at something like golf which is extremely popular on tv, play is slow, repetitive, takes place on a hugh golf course, plays out over 4 days. It has a lot to do with marketing, TV makes golf interesting they spend multi millions of dollars so that viewers can watch the event, from the flight of the ball to the reactions of the player.

What have we get in shooting usually, if it's on TV you get to see the back of a shooter.

I do have to say ISSF TV has made leaps and bounds in their coverage since when they first started video coverage.

I introduced a new person to shooting this year at the Canada Winter Games in Halifax, she was our mission staff person. She was amazed at the level of excitment in the finals (of course the field was very close and there was lots of movement back and forth).

Things like split screens with various angles of the shooter (some ranges do have remote cameras in front of the shooters) as well as real time results (which are available) goes a long way in allowing people to see what is actually going on. I know it's not a popular idea but maybe the shooters need to add a little emotion and showmanship when possible, look at the famous Tiger Woods fist pump.

The cry of "why are they picking on my sport" really isn't going to change anything the fact of the matter is, target shooting is under the spotlight so we can either rise to the occasion and make changes that may meet the needs of IOC (and TV) or the other alternative which is a valid one is to do nothing and call their bluff. I'm sure shooting will survive outside of the Olympics at least in some countries.

I feel conflicted I sound like an apologist for the ISSF, when in the past I think I've been accused of just the opposite. I really don't agree with all the ISSF rule changes but at least as of late I look at the organization and I honestly think they are trying to change and do have the popularity of the sport in mind. So I'm willing to give it a try, if it doesn't work theres nothing stopping them from returning to the past.

Richard H wrote: I know it's not a popular idea but maybe the shooters need to add a little emotion and showmanship when possible, look at the famous Tiger Woods fist pump.

I'm sure shooting will survive outside of the Olympics at least in some countries.

Richard:

I picked two of your points because I think you hit the nail right on the head.

First, it's true they (the ISSF, by themselves or pushed around by IOC) are trying to make shooting more "spectacular" and enjoyable by non-shooters. This idea in itself is quite annoying to me, because ours is not a sport of physical display, only a shooter knows the amount of sacrifice in training and conditioning lying behind that neat "ten" the screen shows. Most people that enjoys a NBA playoff match could hardly lift their buttocks from the sofa, but to appreciate the prowess of the basketball athletes is within the reach of any normal person, just for the sheer difficulty of the movements they accomplish. That will never be achieved by an unknowing TV shooting contest viewer, no matter how long and detailed the explanations given by the announcer are, at least in formal disciplines.

Second, I understand that the funds and resources available at International and even national levels to Olympic sports are way out of comparison with those sports that the IOC does not recognize, so being dropped from the OG apparently is not an option, at least from the organizational and institutional point of view.

Seems that we are between a rock and a hard place.............................

To me its really not about agreeing with the ISSF's ideas or changes it's more about just understanding the reasons why changes are needed. I don't have any real better ideas that would drive up viewership so I'm not about to criticized theirs.

Recent things that I've seen come out of the ISSF that I give them A marks for are their use of social media, Twitter, and Facebook, their iPhone app. They've brought hese out way ahead of some other sports that do have bigger budgets and they did them well not some half measure. Their video and live video coverage has really been stepped up and is much improved, they are involving athletes which might start making shooting personalities that some viewers might identify with.

In all honesty I think the vast majority of the opinions expressed by everyone are valid (other than that athletes are going to sandbag it to just squeak into the finals).