TargetTalk

Stan Pace wrote: It would seem to me that the ISSF and the Olympics need to re-visit how slots are earned in the future. If you're going to have an Olympic match only every 4 years, at least you can have full relays!

I hate to say it but I think you may have the wrong idea of what the quota place system is all about. Its goal is not to restrict the number of competitors in any particular event, it is designed to limit the number, in effect, of beds needed in the village.

I am sure that the ISSF would love to see an Olympic Games where each event needed 3 elimination relays. The problem is that they are told the total number of competitors they are allowed by the IOC, 390 for this Olympics.

The normal reason that the full number of quota places is not taken up is because of the desire to spread the places around a bit. If, for example, shooters from outside of Africa were allowed to win quota places in the African Championships then the representation from the African countries would be greatly reduced. The problem comes where there are no shooters from the quota place winning nations with qualifying scores. You end up with normal quota not being taken up, in which case they are converted to Tripartite or Universality slots.

Stan Pace wrote: Perhaps the rule not allowing a competitor to double-earn a slot should be re-visited.

As you say, we are probably on different wavelengths on this one.

I certainly cannot see how allowing a single shooter to win his/her country more than one slot will bring any benefits. As I said earlier, the slot is really a bed in the village. Once there, a shooter can enter as many different events as his nation wants him to, provided that he has a qualifying score.

As examples:-
Mikhail Nestruev has a quota place in Air Pistol. It would be crazy to believe that he will not also be entered for the 50m Pistol (where he is currently ranked no 2 in the world).
Frank Dumoulin has a quota place in 50m Pistol. It would be crazy to believe that he will not also be entered for the Air Pistol (where he is currently ranked no 2 in the world).

What possible advantage, or increase in numbers, would have been gained by allowing these 2 brilliant shooters to gain a 2nd quota place (which the records clearly show they would have done).

The plain fact is that tinkering with the system will not increase the numbers attending. Barring last minute accidents/withdrawals there will be 390 shooters in the village. However much you try you will not find a system that will get more shooters there, the IOC will not allow it.

The system is designed to get the top shooters to the Olympics whilst allowing a few "also rans" to maintain the Olympic Ideal. If you were to just take, for example, the top 25 world ranked shooters in each event then the US would only have 1 male and 1 female in the pistol events.

Whichever way you look at it, the IOC say there will be 390 shooters so 390 shooters there will be.

I know this at a slight tangent to discussions, but whatever quota places are awarded, it is up to the particular country how they use them (and to some extent I believe in what event). I seem to recall Canada are not allowing some shooters to go despite there being a quota place for them. I also hear that Ragna Skanakar <sp?> has been told he is too old to go by his country although that one may well be changed due to polical pressure.

Rob.

RobStubbs wrote:I know this at a slight tangent to discussions, but whatever quota places are awarded, it is up to the particular country how they use them (and to some extent I believe in what event).
Rob.

Partially true. Countries are allowed to send whoever they want to fill a quota place in an event providing that the shooter has qualifying score.

If they want to swap the QP for one in a different event then they have to apply to the ISSF and hope that there is a spare one available in the event they want.

The procedure for all of this is covered by article 3.12.3.1 Annex "Q" of the ISSF rules

Observations on this topic.
I have to agree with David. The Russians had won all six of their pistol quotas as of April 2004. The final tally shows 5 which would lead me to believe that they swapped out, it looks like they did quite a bit of swapping for trap and skeet quotas. They do this because by this time their team is selected and they return (swap) quotas that will be used by the double starters and thus not required.
The bottom line is the IOC has set the 390 limit. About 40 will shoot Air and Free. An increase of these numbers would mean a decrease in some other discipline. (17 total)
In my opinion, the current Olympic quota system does allow the best consistent shooters to make the cut. It does unfortunately kill the chance of most countries second best and lower shooters which might still be considered the finest in the world. In Lahti, 3 Chinese and 2 Russians were in the Free pistol finals. This will not be the case in Athens. The Olympics are not based on this chosen few concept. Thats why the World Championship (where the top 5 or 6 win quota's in FP and AP) should be considered the top shooting prize albeit not the most glamorous.

I would agree with Stan that there are some inconsistencies in the quota system. Such as:
All World Cups are brutally competitive but;
Oceanian Championships are a (generally) shoe-in for the top Aussie.
African championships have very few MQS holders.
Pan Am Games (my best shot) are a US and Cuba show.
So we can agree that countries have different roads to the Olympics, some more difficult than others. Is that bad and how can it be changed and still keep the Olympic ideal. I've been told that shooting is one of only three sports to be represented by more than 100 nations. If we used only World Cups for selection, I don't think we would have more than 30.

I am in both of your words an "also ran" and one who "filled" versus "earned" a slot. I came down the "wild card" route. A lot of others have done it before me and more will follow in the future. I am in the right place at the right time. I have a MQS, my Olympic Committee has few athletes and ISSF wants to break the 100 nation mark. There are far more dynamics in this whole Olympic idea than we can imagine and I lucked out. I would love to win a quota flat out and not have to listen to the grumblings of others on the larger teams but that is not the case this time. Maybe in the future.

This system has its issues, but in its current format it supports the Olympic ideal and promotes ISSF shooting on a worldwide basis which is what this sport needs to survive. The Olympics do not revolve around shooting and as such, the IOC sets the rules and the ISSF has little choice but to go along with the program.
Sincerely,
Chris Rice

The ISSF is also under pressure to cut events as well as limit the number of competitors, recent posts and ISSF news regarding the cuts are evidence for the significance of this.

Chris Rice makes an important point regarding MQS. One matter not aired is that for an event to be considered an Olympic event it requires minimum participation levels throughout the world and for this to succeed the quote places as I understand can only be obtained in a competitors zone. The Australians understandably focused excelled at the oceanic cup matches and Africa is another example.

The system in operation is serving two objectives well, maintaining the number of events through competitive participation and the level of competition. Turning the thread on its head, how many shooters who through their world rank standing, that want to compete at the Olympics in the event(s) they have their standing are not. This is irrespective of the use of doubling up?

I was sorry to learn the wild card issued to the Swedes for Ragnar Skanaker was returned. He would have made the record books in a few counts and brought positive publicity, much needed in many countries.

Paul T wrote: Chris Rice makes an important point regarding MQS. One matter not aired is that for an event to be considered an Olympic event it requires minimum participation levels throughout the world and for this to succeed the quote places as I understand can only be obtained in a competitors zone. The Australians understandably focused excelled at the oceanic cup matches and Africa is another example.

I believe there is a locality restriction for regional championships, i.e. the Russians couldn't come shoot at Oceania and walk away with all the quota spots. But at World Cup level and higher, there is no geographical restriction for quota spots. Otherwise the Europeans would have a tremendous advantage. And I agree that the World Champs are a better event, I love CF and Standard and it's a shame they aren't in the Olympics. Most likely we will be losing more events in the future, not adding more in.