I presume that the statement posted by jhmartin is an official one? if so what a glorious piece of arragance!
The minutes are as written, if there was more background detail in the original minutes we could comment on them.
"First the minutes are discussion topics and recomendations. Nothing in them has yet been approved by the ISSF."
Discussion? thats what we and many other forums around the world are doing or does he not include us, it's just for him and his cronies to discuss?
Recomendations? What the hell does he think recomendations are!!!?They are the proposals that the committee wants approved, and the approval will be done by whom? Many of the same people who have made the recomendation! So they will certainly vote against it them, I think not!
The scary bit is that they are proposing to change time spans for rules that are not due to be discussed until 2013 and make some immediate.
The rules now as they are written allow the administration to disallow overstiff materials, and products with artificial support, just enforce the current rulles as they are written thats all it needs.
The arragance in the statement sums up the proposals.
Best regards
Robin
New irrational proposals of the ISSF committees
Moderators: pilkguns, Marcus, m1963, David Levene, Spencer
Enforcement Seems to be the Real Failure
Hello all,
With regard to Gary Anderson and Bob Mitchell's response:
"First, the minutes are discussion topics and in some cases recommendations. Nothing in them has yet been approved by the ISSF. ISSF Rules do not change until the ISSF Administrative Council approves those changes. Considerable discussion will take place among various committees between now and when they are submitted for approval.
Second, those minutes contain preliminary proposals that are designed to address some serious abuses that appeared in rifle shooter clothing in the last year. At least two, and possibly more, clothing manufacturers have attempted to introduce new jacket and trouser materials that would, if accepted, clearly circumvent current stiffness rules. When a new model of shooting trousers can stand up by themselves and not collapse even after substantial pressure is placed on them, something is wrong. When manufacturers abuse the rules to the point where trouser seat pads become back supports, there is reasonable cause to make rule changes. Such clothing clearly violates IOC and ISSF rules which prohibit artificial support.
Continued efforts by manufacturers to stretch rule specifications and even circumvent rifle clothing stiffness standards are, in effect, the same kind of 'technological doping" that FINA (international swimming federation) fought last summer when it banned a whole series of new swimwear that resulted in making a shambles of their world records. The ISSF would be derelict in its responsibilities if it does not act to control similar developments in shooting."
I can easily see WHY certain recommendations are made. The goal of the recommendations seems quite clear. What seems to be the real problem, according to the response above, is that the ISSF officials have not put their foot down or demanded the absolute adherence to the rules they themselves established. All of us realize that each manufacturer is trying to get the "one-up" by providing new, exciting materials. It is the natural way of things in a competitive business environment. But how do they "stretch" or "circumvent" the rules if the rules are being enforced? Am I missing something here? And where is the "sensability" in a few of these "reommendations"? The mention of the seatpads becoming back supports is a reasonable to me, but where does the kneepad removal come into play without removing the elbow pads? Is that 'sensible' to anyone? Sticking with the existing thickness standards seems reasonable to me. I mean...how does removing .5mm to a single layer really do anything except jam up a bunch of shooters financially? And how are we supposed to get INTO our shooting pants if there are no zippers?
It just seems like there needs to be a device that tests an acceptable STIFFNESS rule to be used in unison with the THICKNESS rule. In an obvious (and ridiculous) comparison: If I had 2mm of aluminum wrapping my torso, it would obviously be the right thickness, but the Stiffness is really the overriding issue. Right? And we all know that our "new" materials are more stiff than the canvas and leather (and we know they don't break down as fast). If those materials conform to the thickness standard, it seems like all it would take is a brainy engineer sort to come up with a clever device to add to the arsenal of testing apparati to force a STIFFNESS Standard.
OR...to accept that mistakes were made in the past, stick to the exsiting standard, and disallow new materials (keeping the manufacturers in line).
Gary or Bob...I may be missing something...but how, exactly, are the manufacturers "circumventing" the stiffness rules? Is it in the piping? The seams? Am I simply unaware of a measureable stiffness standard?
I'm a prone shooter. I know full well that my Monard jacket, which has a composite material making up the panels on my back, will most likely NOT fall inside the new recommendations. Also know that the material doesn't assist me in the prone position. I ordered the jacket for 3P durability but have been resigned to shooting only prone. However, if I was only a prone shooter when I bought the coat, I'd STILL want that material on the back. It's durable and I like things that last. I just hope that the rest of my comrades in this sport (3P and Air Rifle) have adequate time to use up the existing life of their equipment before they are asked to comply to any new rules. It's a whole lot less expensive to get rid of a smimming suit than it is a complete shooting kit.
If anyone can expand on my questions, I'd love it. Bp
With regard to Gary Anderson and Bob Mitchell's response:
"First, the minutes are discussion topics and in some cases recommendations. Nothing in them has yet been approved by the ISSF. ISSF Rules do not change until the ISSF Administrative Council approves those changes. Considerable discussion will take place among various committees between now and when they are submitted for approval.
Second, those minutes contain preliminary proposals that are designed to address some serious abuses that appeared in rifle shooter clothing in the last year. At least two, and possibly more, clothing manufacturers have attempted to introduce new jacket and trouser materials that would, if accepted, clearly circumvent current stiffness rules. When a new model of shooting trousers can stand up by themselves and not collapse even after substantial pressure is placed on them, something is wrong. When manufacturers abuse the rules to the point where trouser seat pads become back supports, there is reasonable cause to make rule changes. Such clothing clearly violates IOC and ISSF rules which prohibit artificial support.
Continued efforts by manufacturers to stretch rule specifications and even circumvent rifle clothing stiffness standards are, in effect, the same kind of 'technological doping" that FINA (international swimming federation) fought last summer when it banned a whole series of new swimwear that resulted in making a shambles of their world records. The ISSF would be derelict in its responsibilities if it does not act to control similar developments in shooting."
I can easily see WHY certain recommendations are made. The goal of the recommendations seems quite clear. What seems to be the real problem, according to the response above, is that the ISSF officials have not put their foot down or demanded the absolute adherence to the rules they themselves established. All of us realize that each manufacturer is trying to get the "one-up" by providing new, exciting materials. It is the natural way of things in a competitive business environment. But how do they "stretch" or "circumvent" the rules if the rules are being enforced? Am I missing something here? And where is the "sensability" in a few of these "reommendations"? The mention of the seatpads becoming back supports is a reasonable to me, but where does the kneepad removal come into play without removing the elbow pads? Is that 'sensible' to anyone? Sticking with the existing thickness standards seems reasonable to me. I mean...how does removing .5mm to a single layer really do anything except jam up a bunch of shooters financially? And how are we supposed to get INTO our shooting pants if there are no zippers?
It just seems like there needs to be a device that tests an acceptable STIFFNESS rule to be used in unison with the THICKNESS rule. In an obvious (and ridiculous) comparison: If I had 2mm of aluminum wrapping my torso, it would obviously be the right thickness, but the Stiffness is really the overriding issue. Right? And we all know that our "new" materials are more stiff than the canvas and leather (and we know they don't break down as fast). If those materials conform to the thickness standard, it seems like all it would take is a brainy engineer sort to come up with a clever device to add to the arsenal of testing apparati to force a STIFFNESS Standard.
OR...to accept that mistakes were made in the past, stick to the exsiting standard, and disallow new materials (keeping the manufacturers in line).
Gary or Bob...I may be missing something...but how, exactly, are the manufacturers "circumventing" the stiffness rules? Is it in the piping? The seams? Am I simply unaware of a measureable stiffness standard?
I'm a prone shooter. I know full well that my Monard jacket, which has a composite material making up the panels on my back, will most likely NOT fall inside the new recommendations. Also know that the material doesn't assist me in the prone position. I ordered the jacket for 3P durability but have been resigned to shooting only prone. However, if I was only a prone shooter when I bought the coat, I'd STILL want that material on the back. It's durable and I like things that last. I just hope that the rest of my comrades in this sport (3P and Air Rifle) have adequate time to use up the existing life of their equipment before they are asked to comply to any new rules. It's a whole lot less expensive to get rid of a smimming suit than it is a complete shooting kit.
If anyone can expand on my questions, I'd love it. Bp
Re: Enforcement Seems to be the Real Failure
Just on that point, I first heard of that concern when I got my judges licence back in 2006 - and the equipment control rules were all changed before then for just that reason.BartP wrote:The mention of the seatpads becoming back supports is a reasonable to me
So if the EC rules were changed to prevent it, why do we need to do this again?
Yup, and there is one. Here it is in action back in 2005:It just seems like there needs to be a device that tests an acceptable STIFFNESS rule
Stiffness Tester
By the look of the tester, it uses compression to test the material's stiffness. If this is true, then there must be a compression standard that was proposed and ratified. As far as one can see, the drawings of the equipment in the ISSF rules are quite clear. It just seems as though this should be enough to prevent the "circumventing" problems Mr. Anderson and Mr. Mitchell refer to in their response.
Perhaps the REAL test of stiffness should come from measuring a FOLDED portion of a panel at a prescribed distance inward from the edge of the fold - say at least 1.5 cm (a guess, of course). This would enable the tester to more accurately measure the true stiffness and keep the manufacturers in line. If the material is too stiff to fold and measure to a standard at that prescribed distance, it is disallowed. The only other limitation would have to come in the number of seams in the panel sections - especially on the back of the jacket.
Just ideas...in case we do get jammed...and don't want ANOTHER change to kill us down the road. Bp
Perhaps the REAL test of stiffness should come from measuring a FOLDED portion of a panel at a prescribed distance inward from the edge of the fold - say at least 1.5 cm (a guess, of course). This would enable the tester to more accurately measure the true stiffness and keep the manufacturers in line. If the material is too stiff to fold and measure to a standard at that prescribed distance, it is disallowed. The only other limitation would have to come in the number of seams in the panel sections - especially on the back of the jacket.
Just ideas...in case we do get jammed...and don't want ANOTHER change to kill us down the road. Bp
This proposal is a classic example of people trying to reinvent the wheel. The existing rules have a catch all to cover any of the issues raised in the responce from Mr Anderson.
6.4.2.1.1
The use of any special devices or garments which imobilise or unduly reduce movement of shooters legs, body or arms is prohibited in order to ensure that the performance skills pf the shooter is not artificially improved by special clothing.
What is wrong with that rule? Its clear enough,regardless of other rules on stiffness, or dimensions, if this is breeched , the the kit is illegal, end of discussion, why do they need any more?
If they feel they do need more then most sports have a clause to catch clever rule benders with a "spirit of the rules clause".
Could it be that there are old school people who have always disagreed with the current rules and there are different motives at play here? It is well known that the chairman of the Tech Committee has said for many years that canvas should be illegal.
Best regards
Robin
6.4.2.1.1
The use of any special devices or garments which imobilise or unduly reduce movement of shooters legs, body or arms is prohibited in order to ensure that the performance skills pf the shooter is not artificially improved by special clothing.
What is wrong with that rule? Its clear enough,regardless of other rules on stiffness, or dimensions, if this is breeched , the the kit is illegal, end of discussion, why do they need any more?
If they feel they do need more then most sports have a clause to catch clever rule benders with a "spirit of the rules clause".
Could it be that there are old school people who have always disagreed with the current rules and there are different motives at play here? It is well known that the chairman of the Tech Committee has said for many years that canvas should be illegal.
Best regards
Robin
Idea
If the ISSF wants to control the expansion of new materials and stiffness before they get out in the shooting committee why don't they require the manufactures to submit their designs for approval? They already do this for electronic target systems for the Olympics. They way they are currently controlling the problem is akin to going to a job and your boss is telling everybody everyday for years that you might be laid off. It is also like shutting the gate or door to the barn after the livestock has left the barn or corral.
I noticed one thing in the proposals is that mentioned that these changes would have minimal costs. Well I have many sets of jackets that I have accumulated over the years for our club and I can tell you that it won't be a minimal cost to us. The cost to acquire this equipment is not minimal to these young kids especially now days. These changes will have the potential to discourage some of the existing clubs and shooters from continuing with the program.
I noticed one thing in the proposals is that mentioned that these changes would have minimal costs. Well I have many sets of jackets that I have accumulated over the years for our club and I can tell you that it won't be a minimal cost to us. The cost to acquire this equipment is not minimal to these young kids especially now days. These changes will have the potential to discourage some of the existing clubs and shooters from continuing with the program.
The only thing I don't understand is why they can't just change the rules to stop the extra stiffening, and leave the thickness alone. If they do that, and stay with the current thickness, then most equipment will still be legal.
I'm a new shooter, and was thinking about buying my first jacket, but I guess I'll use the clubs jackets until this gets resolved. I don't want to spend hundreds of dollars on something that might be obsolete in a year.
I'm a new shooter, and was thinking about buying my first jacket, but I guess I'll use the clubs jackets until this gets resolved. I don't want to spend hundreds of dollars on something that might be obsolete in a year.
I've worked the stiffness tester during equipment checks at the US OTC.
On thing that concerned me (about the new materials) is what has been introduced as a "time limit" that I cannot find in the rules.... specifically 7.4.6.4.2. Now, at the time we WERE NOT running running ISSF rules.
Some of the material took up in the range of 1 minute to "conform" in the test device, and I was told I could give the material up to 3 minutes.
The problem here that I see is that the conditions in which the test is conducted (temp, humidity, etc) could greatly effect the results test.
We had shooters coming in from the cold that had to let their gear warm up to pass (this was normal canvas & leather). The new material, I'm pretty sure, if it had not been at room temp would not have passed even the "3-minute" allowance.
I do agree with the point that the committee(s) should decide whcich of what is out there now is allowed and clean up the rules so that we don't have to make drastic changes (purchasing new or hacking up). But I do see the need to crack down on some of this gaming that is going on.
Make no mistake ... there is "gaming" of the materials going on here.
I don't see any reason to change the 2.5mm thickness to 2.0. From my use of the thickness gauge, it looks to me that about 60-80% of the gear would need to be scrapped. Much of it is in the 21-23.5 range. We don't write all these down on the equip check form, so I am "recalling" on that point.
Scrapping non-conforming gear would devistate the youth programs here in the US
On the "Penguin Walk" .... to me it's bad form to cave into the TV and make a major change in the rules because of the "asthetics". TV coverage of rifle and pistol shooting sports will never be high enough to really make this silly change justifiable. If they want to dump the "Penguin Walk" give the shooters an extra 3-4 minutes of prep so that they can carry their boots in and put them on ... maybe I'm too simplistic here ... simple things for simple minds
On thing that concerned me (about the new materials) is what has been introduced as a "time limit" that I cannot find in the rules.... specifically 7.4.6.4.2. Now, at the time we WERE NOT running running ISSF rules.
Some of the material took up in the range of 1 minute to "conform" in the test device, and I was told I could give the material up to 3 minutes.
The problem here that I see is that the conditions in which the test is conducted (temp, humidity, etc) could greatly effect the results test.
We had shooters coming in from the cold that had to let their gear warm up to pass (this was normal canvas & leather). The new material, I'm pretty sure, if it had not been at room temp would not have passed even the "3-minute" allowance.
I do agree with the point that the committee(s) should decide whcich of what is out there now is allowed and clean up the rules so that we don't have to make drastic changes (purchasing new or hacking up). But I do see the need to crack down on some of this gaming that is going on.
Make no mistake ... there is "gaming" of the materials going on here.
I don't see any reason to change the 2.5mm thickness to 2.0. From my use of the thickness gauge, it looks to me that about 60-80% of the gear would need to be scrapped. Much of it is in the 21-23.5 range. We don't write all these down on the equip check form, so I am "recalling" on that point.
Scrapping non-conforming gear would devistate the youth programs here in the US
On the "Penguin Walk" .... to me it's bad form to cave into the TV and make a major change in the rules because of the "asthetics". TV coverage of rifle and pistol shooting sports will never be high enough to really make this silly change justifiable. If they want to dump the "Penguin Walk" give the shooters an extra 3-4 minutes of prep so that they can carry their boots in and put them on ... maybe I'm too simplistic here ... simple things for simple minds
They will never shake the penguin walk unless they ban the wearing of shooting footwear when off the firing point, and make you put them on right before you start! People don't walk like that because they have to. The boots do bend, as I'm sure you know.jhmartin wrote:If they want to dump the "Penguin Walk" give the shooters an extra 3-4 minutes of prep so that they can carry their boots in and put them on ... maybe I'm too simplistic here ... simple things for simple minds
They walk like that so as not to flex them (or the trousers), and of course when they're not wearing them, they put them in rigid flat brackets.
The only time boots or pistol shoes get bent is Equip Control. Even if specially made footwear of all types was banned, you'd still see people penguin-walking in their high street trainers to preserve the soles and stop them flexing as much as possible!
-
mikeschroeder
- Posts: 488
- Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2004 10:56 am
- Location: Kansas
Hi
We're discussed the nature of what the public sees on TV on this forum quite a lot. Last time it was blinders. I never understood that one either, you shouldn't be able to see a competitor's face while shooting cause they're facing DOWNRANGE and it ain't safe to be able to see their face DUH. I don't understand the problem with leathers either. No one on watching on TV cares about the Penguin walk anyway cause they're probably not watching it. Shooting, (with the possible exception of shotgun) is like watching paint dry. I watched the steel plate championships at the Bianchi cup, and the shooting part is still dull. The interesting part was watching the guys psyche each other out before the match.
First of all, I'm a bullseye shooter and 4H Rifle / Pistol / Shotgun coach, so you can treat this comment with it's "due respect". I thought that the whole difference between precision and sporter was the level of support available. In sporter, you don't have tight leather outfit, boots, the long hand hold (forget the name), or the hook. In precision, you get those. Since there isn't a regulation concerning how tight the leathers can be, it's the whole stiffness issue a non-issue? If they want to REALLY change precision shooting, get rid of the pants OR jacket OR shoes all together. All of the rule changing is annoying (Captain Obvious).
Rant mode off.
Mike
Wichita KS
We're discussed the nature of what the public sees on TV on this forum quite a lot. Last time it was blinders. I never understood that one either, you shouldn't be able to see a competitor's face while shooting cause they're facing DOWNRANGE and it ain't safe to be able to see their face DUH. I don't understand the problem with leathers either. No one on watching on TV cares about the Penguin walk anyway cause they're probably not watching it. Shooting, (with the possible exception of shotgun) is like watching paint dry. I watched the steel plate championships at the Bianchi cup, and the shooting part is still dull. The interesting part was watching the guys psyche each other out before the match.
First of all, I'm a bullseye shooter and 4H Rifle / Pistol / Shotgun coach, so you can treat this comment with it's "due respect". I thought that the whole difference between precision and sporter was the level of support available. In sporter, you don't have tight leather outfit, boots, the long hand hold (forget the name), or the hook. In precision, you get those. Since there isn't a regulation concerning how tight the leathers can be, it's the whole stiffness issue a non-issue? If they want to REALLY change precision shooting, get rid of the pants OR jacket OR shoes all together. All of the rule changing is annoying (Captain Obvious).
Rant mode off.
Mike
Wichita KS
Mike
I don't think any one disagrees with your first paragraph.
In the second para, yes there is a regulation on the tightness of jackets, but that is irrelavent, the real issue here is that the ISSF have formulated strict rules from which manufacturers have invested, tooled and produced from, and from our perspective we as shooter have bought in good faith at a fairly high degree of expence and now the ISSF is proposing to change those rules inside the time span declared in those rules.
It was due for review in 2013 and these changes would probably still have been contentious then, but when they are suggesting bringing changes forward to 2011 and in some aspects to this year it is just plain crazy.
We all have to accept that rules change, but the revision dates are published and we buy knowing that the equipment may be out of date when it is revised at those dates. I for instance have items on order awaiting delivery, and reading the current ISSF rules as they appear on their site was totaly unaware that one item may be illegal before I recieve it, and another may have a life of only 11 months.
These proposals were not public, they have been leaked, by concerned people and it is clear from the tone of the statement from the ISSF that they are not amused that it has been leaked. I am not amused that they have considered bringing forward changes in secret.
Best regards
Robin
I don't think any one disagrees with your first paragraph.
In the second para, yes there is a regulation on the tightness of jackets, but that is irrelavent, the real issue here is that the ISSF have formulated strict rules from which manufacturers have invested, tooled and produced from, and from our perspective we as shooter have bought in good faith at a fairly high degree of expence and now the ISSF is proposing to change those rules inside the time span declared in those rules.
It was due for review in 2013 and these changes would probably still have been contentious then, but when they are suggesting bringing changes forward to 2011 and in some aspects to this year it is just plain crazy.
We all have to accept that rules change, but the revision dates are published and we buy knowing that the equipment may be out of date when it is revised at those dates. I for instance have items on order awaiting delivery, and reading the current ISSF rules as they appear on their site was totaly unaware that one item may be illegal before I recieve it, and another may have a life of only 11 months.
These proposals were not public, they have been leaked, by concerned people and it is clear from the tone of the statement from the ISSF that they are not amused that it has been leaked. I am not amused that they have considered bringing forward changes in secret.
Best regards
Robin
-
David Levene
- Posts: 5617
- Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 12:49 pm
- Location: Ruislip, UK
It depends how you read the minutes which were never intended for public consumption.RobinC wrote:It was due for review in 2013 and these changes would probably still have been contentious then, but when they are suggesting bringing changes forward to 2011...
I read "Noted for Rule Book 2013 – bring it forward 2011" as meaning "we will discuss it again in 2011 for inclusion in the 2013 rule book", but I could be wrong.
-
mikeschroeder
- Posts: 488
- Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2004 10:56 am
- Location: Kansas
Hi
Well, this makes me happy about being a bullseye shooter. The only reason we even have clothes is to have a pocket to put the "other" hand in. Well, that and most of us have guts...
Maybe it would be a good idea to ask what the ISSF thinks is WRONG with the sport and get suggestions on how to change it. I mean shooting sports just aren't rhythmic gymnastics or skating. It happens...
In the past few years, the only rule changes from the NRA have been about the Distinguished Revolver match which is only 2-5 years old anyway.
Mike
Wichita KS
Well, this makes me happy about being a bullseye shooter. The only reason we even have clothes is to have a pocket to put the "other" hand in. Well, that and most of us have guts...
Maybe it would be a good idea to ask what the ISSF thinks is WRONG with the sport and get suggestions on how to change it. I mean shooting sports just aren't rhythmic gymnastics or skating. It happens...
In the past few years, the only rule changes from the NRA have been about the Distinguished Revolver match which is only 2-5 years old anyway.
Mike
Wichita KS
David
Sadly much of the problem of this is that is so unclear, I and many others read it as noted for the rule book in 2011, but we may be wrong! There is reference to boots changing in 2010 but the current rule book is unchanged and there is no reference in the impending change section.
I agree it was not intended for publication but due to the massive impact on millions of shooters I think that it was right that it was leaked as it certainly does give the impression that changes are imminent and massive. Perhaps they are'nt?
I e mailed the ISSF on this matter two weeks ago and have recieved no reply, perhaps if it was an inocent discussion they would have been better to have made a statement and clarified the situation, but their silence and Gary Andersons statement clearly biased towards defending the proposed changes in the leaked document just makes the situation worse. I suspect the ISSF is working on the principle of " if you don't listen you don't hear"and that we will lose interest eventualy.
Best regards
Robin
Sadly much of the problem of this is that is so unclear, I and many others read it as noted for the rule book in 2011, but we may be wrong! There is reference to boots changing in 2010 but the current rule book is unchanged and there is no reference in the impending change section.
I agree it was not intended for publication but due to the massive impact on millions of shooters I think that it was right that it was leaked as it certainly does give the impression that changes are imminent and massive. Perhaps they are'nt?
I e mailed the ISSF on this matter two weeks ago and have recieved no reply, perhaps if it was an inocent discussion they would have been better to have made a statement and clarified the situation, but their silence and Gary Andersons statement clearly biased towards defending the proposed changes in the leaked document just makes the situation worse. I suspect the ISSF is working on the principle of " if you don't listen you don't hear"and that we will lose interest eventualy.
Best regards
Robin
While I have a lot of concern with all these issue'e too, as we are in a Olympic cycle I dont think they can change or implament any of these changes until after the London Olympic's??? but I may be wrong??
As for Gary Anderson, I dont want to offend an American's out there, but as good as a shooter he was, one of the legend's of the sport, he's just an old man now who wants to change everything back to the way it was in his hay day so he can reminisce about the good old days and to hell with the progress of modern day technology in shooting and tring to take the sport into the future.
If you were to get a group of new juniors shooters and say to them, you have the option of shooting this spaceage looking air rifle in just your jeans and T shirt with a pair off sneakers or you can get dressed up in a pair of special boots and matching jacket and pants, I know if I was a junior it would be the later, because to a junior it would be "Cool".
As juniors are our future, we cant go back into the dark ages or the sport will be dead, or is this the legacy Gary Anderson and many others want to leave us with.
All these issue's that have been dsicussed in this forum so far I feel are going to have a impact on how we promote the sport into the future, let alone all the problems we are or maybe faced in changing our equipment.
Some argue that with jackets and pants and high tec rifles, it takes all the skill out of shooting, well I bet if you were to give those people a trial with and without the bells and whistles they would quite quicky go for the later, the same option as the juniors would go for.
The same sort of thing has happened in Formular one racing, not so long ago they had a free for all on all the latest gagets and gizmo's and it was great, you would be sitting back and waiting for which team would be the first to bring out some new and improved part or electronic device that would give them the edge.
Now its boring as bat $$%#@# becuse everything is set to a budget and all the teams have to be the same, they are now mearly oversize go carts.
Just my two dollars
Barney
As for Gary Anderson, I dont want to offend an American's out there, but as good as a shooter he was, one of the legend's of the sport, he's just an old man now who wants to change everything back to the way it was in his hay day so he can reminisce about the good old days and to hell with the progress of modern day technology in shooting and tring to take the sport into the future.
If you were to get a group of new juniors shooters and say to them, you have the option of shooting this spaceage looking air rifle in just your jeans and T shirt with a pair off sneakers or you can get dressed up in a pair of special boots and matching jacket and pants, I know if I was a junior it would be the later, because to a junior it would be "Cool".
As juniors are our future, we cant go back into the dark ages or the sport will be dead, or is this the legacy Gary Anderson and many others want to leave us with.
All these issue's that have been dsicussed in this forum so far I feel are going to have a impact on how we promote the sport into the future, let alone all the problems we are or maybe faced in changing our equipment.
Some argue that with jackets and pants and high tec rifles, it takes all the skill out of shooting, well I bet if you were to give those people a trial with and without the bells and whistles they would quite quicky go for the later, the same option as the juniors would go for.
The same sort of thing has happened in Formular one racing, not so long ago they had a free for all on all the latest gagets and gizmo's and it was great, you would be sitting back and waiting for which team would be the first to bring out some new and improved part or electronic device that would give them the edge.
Now its boring as bat $$%#@# becuse everything is set to a budget and all the teams have to be the same, they are now mearly oversize go carts.
Just my two dollars
Barney
Is nobody able here to read and understand simple English? Or is it just a case of lemmingesque mass hysteria without engaging the brains?!RobinC wrote:It was due for review in 2013 and these changes would probably still have been contentious then, but when they are suggesting bringing changes forward to 2011 (...) and another may have a life of only 11 months.
So, which of the two parts "bring" and "forward" do - supposedly! - native speakers not understand?
Alexander
The attacks on Gary Anderson are unfair. He has done more to promote junior shooting on his watch as Director of the Civilian Marksmanship Program, than had been done in it's previous entire existence as the DCM. He's experience as a world class competitive shooter is invaluable to the shooting sports.
His appointment to position as president of USA Shooting is bound to be an improvement. Although I have noticed a marked improvement of their program as of late, previously the organization appeared to have been run like a ship without a rudder.
Gary Anderson's day-to-day contact with competitive shooters can only be an asset to the ISSF. I can't think of anyone better to serve our interests.
I am not a personal friend or even acquaintance of Gary. I've never been introduced to him. I've never competed against him. I am only an observer of what he has accomplished and what his vision is for the shooting sports.
His appointment to position as president of USA Shooting is bound to be an improvement. Although I have noticed a marked improvement of their program as of late, previously the organization appeared to have been run like a ship without a rudder.
Gary Anderson's day-to-day contact with competitive shooters can only be an asset to the ISSF. I can't think of anyone better to serve our interests.
I am not a personal friend or even acquaintance of Gary. I've never been introduced to him. I've never competed against him. I am only an observer of what he has accomplished and what his vision is for the shooting sports.
-
David Levene
- Posts: 5617
- Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 12:49 pm
- Location: Ruislip, UK
The big problem is that the way it is written, "bring it forward 2011", means nothing in the English language.Alexander wrote:So, which of the two parts "bring" and "forward" do - supposedly! - native speakers not understand?
For it to make sense there needs to be a word between "forward" and "2011". There are many words that could fit, for example "to" or "in".
The former would mean the change would happen in 2011; the latter meaning (probably) that it would be discussed again in 2011 or (less likely) that it would happen at some point during 2011.