TargetTalk

Given that 50m pistol requires its own range that isn't used for any other event (and the skills kind of crossover with 10m AP), what are the odds it will be dropped as an Olympic event?

If that were to happen, what effect do you think it would have on free pistol events internationally and in the U.S., where there are already very few?

I'm interested in maybe getting another free pistol, but after being burned by the rapid fire switch to .22lr (resulting in resale value for my Walther OSP dropping quite a bit), I'm a little hesitant.

sparky wrote:Given that 50m pistol requires its own range that isn't used for any other event ......

It doesn't. It uses the same range as the 50m rifle events.

I would be surprised though if that would be enough to save it as an Olympic event.

FP doesn't require much in the way of range facilities, so I don't see much happening. The lack of ranges is what's strangling Rapid Fire.

Mike M. wrote:FP doesn't require much in the way of range facilities, so I don't see much happening.

The IOC want equality, without increasing the number of competitions. That means we'll lose one of the Mens pistol events:-

AP60 - Not a chance.
RFP - Unlikely as that would only leave SP needing a 25m range.
FP - Must be the favourite to be dropped.

No inside knowledge, just my personal theory.

And replace it with gay events like snowboard, curling and all that other crap?

FP60 and AP60 are totally two different events. Many who do well in AP suck in FP, because FP is much harder.

Also, what the f^#k is with this equality talk bullshit? You do know every guy shoots better than every girl right? Look at the freaking scores, all guys who reach the finals shoot 390 in AP converted into women's scores. How many women consistently shoot 390?

If today, you mix both genders into qualification of AP, maybe ONE female will make it into the final. Maybe. Just imagine how much it will demotivate females. Nobody's gonna make the final, and if, they have a very small chance to win.

Whether it's a genetic advantage (like in other events), or simply because there aren't as many female shooters as there are men that they have lower score, mixing the events is a complete nonsense.

Curling hahaha, who watches that crup????

Robert Mitchell, the USA Shooting CEO, had a letter about this in the May issue of USA Shooting News. The IOC has announced a plan titled “Agenda 2020” calling for full gender equality in the 2020 Games with equal representation by number from men and women, as well as an equal number of men’s and women’s events. Since there are currently more men’s than women’s shooting events, three men’s shooting events are planned to be dropped:

“While no decisions have been made at the time of this article, consensus is for the following events to be dropped from the Olympic program:
• Men’s 50m Prone (too dependent on technology and lack of action)
• Men’s 50m Pistol (duplicates 10m skills)
• Men’s Double Trap (low and declining participation).
These events would be retained as ISSF competitions. Every effort will be made to retain shooting’s 15 Olympic events by adding three mixed team-events which is endorsed by the IOC.”

As David mentioned above, the decision was to keep RFP instead of FP since women’s SP uses the 25m range (and SP cannot be cancelled since it’s a women’s event) and they can’t have a range built for just one event. Also, RFP is more “TV/spectator friendly”. I am not sure what the mixed-team events are that are being proposed.

It is very much a shame that free pistol, which is one of the original shooting events from 1896, is to be ended over this contrived issue.

A more reasonable alternative might be to at least make free pistol coed (or women’s 40 shot free pistol?), as is already done in the USA at the collegiate level. Of course, this would possibly necessitate that the other events become coed as well. However, by consolidating the events, this might possibly open up spaces for other non-Olympic ISSF events (center-fire pistol, standard pistol, running target, etc). But given how the IOC in general is seems to be against the shooting sports, I doubt this is a solution they would accept. Also making the events coed might actually reduce overall female representation.

In any case, I do not think the solution is eliminating an event with so much history simply to satisfy an arbitrary quota. Surely, participation and support for free pistol will suffer is it is no longer an Olympic sport.

The full magazine can be accessed here: http://content.yudu.com/web/y5b2/0A1zos ... g.org%252F

hundert wrote:And replace it with gay events like snowboard, curling and all that other crap?

FP60 and AP60 are totally two different events. Many who do well in AP suck in FP, because FP is much harder.

Also, what the f^#k is with this equality talk bullshit? You do know every guy shoots better than every girl right? Look at the freaking scores, all guys who reach the finals shoot 390 in AP converted into women's scores. How many women consistently shoot 390?

If today, you mix both genders into qualification of AP, maybe ONE female will make it into the final. Maybe. Just imagine how much it will demotivate females. Nobody's gonna make the final, and if, they have a very small chance to win.

Whether it's a genetic advantage (like in other events), or simply because there aren't as many female shooters as there are men that they have lower score, mixing the events is a complete nonsense.

Curling hahaha, who watches that crup????

Curling and snowboarding are Winter events which have no effect on the Summer Games.
Using "gay" as a pejorative isn't the way to win friends and influence people.
If you look at past shooting Olympics where there *have* been mixed events, women have won medals against men. IIRC, it's happened in one or two of the shotgun events and free pistol.

While I don't like the idea of losing an event, I see no problem in opening up free pistol and sport pistol as mixed events.

A pity if one of the oldest competitions pistol competitions would be banded. If equity is important, why not make the all disciplines accessible to men and women? It has been done before (from 1964 till 1980?).

Regards,
Guy

sparky wrote:
If you look at past shooting Olympics where there *have* been mixed events, women have won medals against men. IIRC, it's happened in one or two of the shotgun events and free pistol.

While I don't like the idea of losing an event, I see no problem in opening up free pistol and sport pistol as mixed events.

Nope, sorry to contradict you. There has never been an Olympic female shooter in FP, notwhitstanding her scores.

Margaret Murdock lost a gold in Three positions 50 meter rifle with the same score as Lanny Bassham, and losing in a tie breaker, had to settle for silver.

Women didn´t improve their harvest by rubbing elbows with men, and that´s why the relatively brief period of mixed participation events in Olympic shooting was dropped, returning the separate courses.

I think the ISSF will push back hard. Make FP mixed is a no-brainer...and probably RF as well. But FP is the one pistol shooting event that has been part of every Olympiad.

The mixed-team events sound like a crock to me. Especially since they will probably be mixed in type, as well as gender. I've shot team events, they're good sport...but trying to combine rifle and pistol? Rifle and shotgun? Too contrived.

Mike M. wrote:But FP is the one pistol shooting event that has been part of every Olympiad.

I don't think that's true. 1924? 1932?

I believe that RFP has been in more Olympiads (but could be wrong).

All of this is pure conjecture.

It is somewhat problematic that 50m and 10m Pistol look rather the same, and have a lot of skill overlap.

Probably the largest problem is the current format it is rather uninteresting to watch because there are no perspectives or angles shown to give an idea of distance and perspectives.
I strongly believe this is a presentation issue as opposed to a core sport issue.

There are no details, it is all rather bland to watch - it is not very sexy. It is certainly not the 100m Sprint final.

hundert wrote:Also, what the f^#k is with this equality talk bullshit? You do know every guy shoots better than every girl right?

Really? The Women's 3P World Record is higher than the equivalent Men's record. The 10M Air Rifle Records are almost exactly equivalent, and in the shotgun events, the world records for both sexes are maxed out on the HPS. The 3P is particularly impressive considering female rifle shooters are saddled with arguably inferior gear due to EC limiting barrel/rifle weight, etc.

The point is, of 15 shooting events, there is a 9-6 split of Men's to Women's. This is not tolerable to the IOC. So are you going to stick your head in the sand or come up with a creative solution instead of calling it "gay".

Here's the issue:

1. There are 5 events in each of the Rifle/Pistol/Shotgun categories with a 3-2 Men-Women split in each.

2. Shooting will NOT get a 16th event to do a nice 8-8 split.

3. The OG is capped at 10,500 athletes. Given pressure for space from new sports like Downhill MTB, Shooting is not going to get extra quotas, because the Athlete Village is full. So an event that doesn't include existing athletes who can multiple-start is going to cannibalise the other shooting events for quotas.

Those are immutable facts.


If an event doesn't go mixed, then in at least one subset of shooting, the 3-2 ratio is going to have to flip to get a more even Men-Women ratio overall. The only way to get a completely even ratio with an odd number of medals is to have 7 gendered events and a mixed event (or mixed team). Or 12 gendered events and 3 mixed (1 for each R/P/S).

Or, y'know, we can give up a medal event so we have 14 events and figure out a 7-7 split.
That's never going to happen.

So, lets look at it from a venue perspective, the Shotgun events use different trap layouts on the same field of play, and the majority of rifle/pistol take place on an increasingly combined 10M/50M range that gets reconfigured (e.g. London OG, Glasgow CWG), or is at least the same basic facility duplicated

So scrap RFP/SP, give the women a FP event, and you get to 8/6 and save the expense of a 25M venue. Make DT a mixed event - that's 7/6 plus a Mixed event. Sound good?

Nah, didn't think so! We don't want to lose 25M Pistol, even though it needs it's own range for just 2 events.


Being entirely hard-nosed about it, we have to accept that loads of Women shoot Prone (and many already attend for 3P, so we're not increasing the quota of athletes by adding women's Prone. You'll only have a few specialists added). By contrast, almost no women shoot FP (as was evidenced at the Commonwealth Games when they slung in a Women's FP event as a panacea for cutting the Pairs events). Additionally, Women and Men do compete on equal terms in shotgun.

If we're keeping RFP/SP, then the numbers say you should bin FP in favour of a new Women's Prone event. Turn Double Trap into a Mixed event. That's 7 Men's and Women's Event, plus a Mixed event, whilst minimising additional athlete quotas.

Of course that's infeasible because it would mean 6 Rifle events and only 4 Pistol events, and the politics of that are never going to fly, so we're going to end up with three Mixed Team events of some sort so each subset of shooting can have their 5 events.

It's gnarly.

Hemmers wrote:By contrast, almost no women shoot FP (as was evidenced at the Commonwealth Games when they slung in a Women's FP event as a panacea for cutting the Pairs events).

No they didn't.

Hemmers wrote:Of course that's infeasible because it would mean 6 Rifle events and only 4 Pistol events, and the politics of that are never going to fly, so we're going to end up with three Mixed Team events of some sort so each subset of shooting can have their 5 events.

I would tend to agree. Lose one Men's event from each of rifle, pistol and shotgun and then add a mixed team event in each.

That meets the main criteria; maintains 15 events, gender equality, discipline parity, 3 mixed team events, does not increase competitor numbers, does not increase the number of days.

You can probably forget mixed individual events, the IOC don't like them. I believe they only exist in equestrian and sailing.

Hemmers wrote:
Here's the issue:

2. Shooting will NOT get a 16th event to do a nice 8-8 split.

3. The OG is capped at 10,500 athletes. Given pressure for space from new sports like Downhill MTB, Shooting is not going to get extra quotas, because the Athlete Village is full. So an event that doesn't include existing athletes who can multiple-start is going to cannibalise the other shooting events for quotas.

Those are immutable facts.

I'm not sure they are immutable.

I don't think the IOC gives a damn about the number of events, as long as the number of shooting days and quota slots remains the same. Women's FP could be organized. Right now, women don't shoot much FP, mostly because it's NOT an Olympic event. But setting up Women's FP in the Olympic Games would require taking the quota slots from other events.

It's worth pointing out that the fencers were confronted with the same problem, and solved it by rotating events in and out of the Olympic Games. It's not perfect, but it works.

As to the Olympic Village, there are several potential solutions.

a. Break up the Summer Games into a Spring Games (indoor sports), Summer Games (water sports), and Autumn Games (outdoor sports). Each has ~5,000-6,000 competitors. This cuts the logistics of hosting an Olympic Games dramatically, allows more countries and cities to bid, and effectively increases the number of competitor slots in a 4-year period by around 50% (excluding the Winter Games). FWIW, this is my preferred solution.

b. Lodge competitors in certain sports at a second Olympic Village. The Games tend to be spread across a fairly large area, perhaps it's time to spread out the lodgings as well. Ship everybody in for the opening and closing ceremonies.

Mike M. wrote:
I'm not sure they are immutable.

I don't think the IOC gives a damn about the number of events, as long as the number of shooting days and quota slots remains the same. Women's FP could be organized. Right now, women don't shoot much FP, mostly because it's NOT an Olympic event. But setting up Women's FP in the Olympic Games would require taking the quota slots from other events.

It's worth pointing out that the fencers were confronted with the same problem, and solved it by rotating events in and out of the Olympic Games. It's not perfect, but it works.

As to the Olympic Village, there are several potential solutions.

a. Break up the Summer Games into a Spring Games (indoor sports), Summer Games (water sports), and Autumn Games (outdoor sports). Each has ~5,000-6,000 competitors. This cuts the logistics of hosting an Olympic Games dramatically, allows more countries and cities to bid, and effectively increases the number of competitor slots in a 4-year period by around 50% (excluding the Winter Games). FWIW, this is my preferred solution.

b. Lodge competitors in certain sports at a second Olympic Village. The Games tend to be spread across a fairly large area, perhaps it's time to spread out the lodgings as well. Ship everybody in for the opening and closing ceremonies.

Two thoughts:

1) Women didn't shoot FP even when it was a mixed event, so why suppose they will now? Remember, it's very hard, and there are few matches for women to arouse enthusiasm.

2) I think that elaborating on the different possiblities the IOC MIGHT have if you were making the decisions is wishful thinking. Any idea that means more expense, time, or management is going down the flush, as those people aren't interested, and have shown it clearly.

Never wondered how about swimming? Being a former competitive swimmer (very long ago) I remember thet even then only gymnast and swimmers could gather large quantities of medals in a single game, and that is because there are a lot of sponsors backing it and buying TV time slots in those sports, which have INCREASED the number of eventes thru the years.

Unfortunately (It's been 30 years since I started shooting FP) I think David Levene is right: it's a doomed event. And frankly, even for us FP shooters, a match is as fun to watch as paint drying, as they say in the US, except you are a fan of one of the shooters.

David Levene wrote:

Mike M. wrote:But FP is the one pistol shooting event that has been part of every Olympiad.

I don't think that's true. 1924? 1932?

I believe that RFP has been in more Olympiads (but could be wrong).

If my research is correct, RF has been let out of (only) one Olympiad as well. But I don’t think that is the point. As far as I can check, the criteria of the FP, nor the targets, have been changed? In RF the guns have changed (dramatically: caliber, barrel vents, trigger weight) and the targets as well).
The results in RF are difficult to compare with the points achieved in earlier competitions. No so for Free Pistol.

Best regards,
Guy

The Olympics is guided almost entirely by politics. What isn't guided by politics is guided by television revenue, and I suspect there aren't a lot of people outside the shooting community who find 50m pistol exciting to watch.

Mike M. wrote: a. Break up the Summer Games into a Spring Games (indoor sports), Summer Games (water sports), and Autumn Games (outdoor sports). Each has ~5,000-6,000 competitors. This cuts the logistics of hosting an Olympic Games dramatically, allows more countries and cities to bid, and effectively increases the number of competitor slots in a 4-year period by around 50% (excluding the Winter Games). FWIW, this is my preferred solution.

That's never going to happen. In principle yes, it means you can build a smaller athlete village and your supporting infrastructure - transport/logistics/etc has less pressure on it.

For everybody else however, costs start to skyrocket. If you're now accommodating 15000-18000 competitors over the year (as opposed to 10500 over a fortnight), the national federations are now faced with an increase of 40-50% more athletes to send. Moreover, their support staff, physios and team management are going to be doing multiple round journeys with the seasonal squads. Same goes for media - you're going to have to convince the broadcasters and world press that they want to send their reporters to three seasonal Games, and of course by spreading the Games, you reduce the "impact" of a once-every-four-year global gathering, which has an impact on sponsorship and news coverage.

And your local residents are now looking at a solid year of Games disruption - nevermind rolling works in preparation - the Games themselves are now going to be rumbling on for months instead of a fortnight of hell (when you go on holiday and put your house on AirBnB for a million pounds a week) and then it's all over.

Mike M. wrote:b. Lodge competitors in certain sports at a second Olympic Village. The Games tend to be spread across a fairly large area, perhaps it's time to spread out the lodgings as well. Ship everybody in for the opening and closing ceremonies.

Satellite venues and villages are already used. The sailing at London was held on the South Coast and sailors did not commute daily from London! The football was held around the country with designated hotels block-booked as Games venues and used as satellite accommodation where necessary as teams travelled to their matches.

The issue - as you allude to - is the Opening and Closing ceremonies when everyone piles into the main Village and you have to find rooms for them all. Which means your Village can't be that much smaller, unless you're going to have remote athletes sleeping on teammate's floors and couches

Hemmers wrote:

Mike M. wrote: a. Break up the Summer Games into a Spring Games (indoor sports), Summer Games (water sports), and Autumn Games (outdoor sports). Each has ~5,000-6,000 competitors. This cuts the logistics of hosting an Olympic Games dramatically, allows more countries and cities to bid, and effectively increases the number of competitor slots in a 4-year period by around 50% (excluding the Winter Games). FWIW, this is my preferred solution.

That's never going to happen. In principle yes, it means you can build a smaller athlete village and your supporting infrastructure - transport/logistics/etc has less pressure on it.

For everybody else however, costs start to skyrocket. If you're now accommodating 15000-18000 competitors over the year (as opposed to 10500 over a fortnight), the national federations are now faced with an increase of 40-50% more athletes to send. Moreover, their support staff, physios and team management are going to be doing multiple round journeys with the seasonal squads. Same goes for media - you're going to have to convince the broadcasters and world press that they want to send their reporters to three seasonal Games, and of course by spreading the Games, you reduce the "impact" of a once-every-four-year global gathering, which has an impact on sponsorship and news coverage.

And your local residents are now looking at a solid year of Games disruption - nevermind rolling works in preparation - the Games themselves are now going to be rumbling on for months instead of a fortnight of hell (when you go on holiday and put your house on AirBnB for a million pounds a week) and then it's all over.

Mike M. wrote:b. Lodge competitors in certain sports at a second Olympic Village. The Games tend to be spread across a fairly large area, perhaps it's time to spread out the lodgings as well. Ship everybody in for the opening and closing ceremonies.

Satellite venues and villages are already used. The sailing at London was held on the South Coast and sailors did not commute daily from London! The football was held around the country with designated hotels block-booked as Games venues and used as satellite accommodation where necessary as teams travelled to their matches.

The issue - as you allude to - is the Opening and Closing ceremonies when everyone piles into the main Village and you have to find rooms for them all. Which means your Village can't be that much smaller, unless you're going to have remote athletes sleeping on teammate's floors and couches

You are (incorrectly) assuming the new Spring and/or Fall games would be hosted by the same country as the summer games and that national governing bodies would be supporting the same athletes during the entire period. Rather, I'm sure he meant the new Games would be hosted in different countries (like currently done with Summer vs. Winter Games) and the athletes for a given event would only be attending one of the games instead of staying overseas for all of them as you appear to suggest. Heck, if you have a Spring, Summer, Fall, and Winter Games, you could stagger them and have one per year (greater visibility for the Olympics brand) and maintain the "once every four years" exclusivity of each event. Overall, the reduced foot print (by dividing the events up over four Games instead of two), would minimize the logistical problems and reduce costs to each hosting city, which have proven to be incredibly costly.