Finals & rule changes

[jliston48]

Please, people, DO NOT compare the noble sport of shooting with other sports when discussing the way competitions should be organised and run - eg. finals.

Most sports are different in the way that winners are determined. Runners and swimmers can and DO ease off in the heats if they are winning because they automatically qualify for the next round. Not so with boxers. Gymnasts don't have finals for individual events - but do for All Round comp. Hockey, basketball, etc compete in pools to determine finals qualifiers.

If a shooter eases off, then s/he is missing a great and rare training opportunity (to shoot well under pressure) and they would be taking a great risk if they assumed that 560 (in 50m) will get them into the finals? It might - but there are no guarantees. They would have to know what scores everyone else in the detail are shooting. Not something you want to think about in a competition - I think they would be focusing on technique - not scores.

Personally, I don't like the finals series for competitions. They are great for media coverage but where do you find live media coverage of these events? I think that the discipline (and soul) of our traditional matches has been lost. I don't think anyone thought about what a shooting match is supposed to be before they changed the rules. If it was for the media, then soon we'll have ad breaks in the competitions - like American/Canadian football. But then I shouldn't be comparing sports, should I?

[Rover]

You're too logical and reasonable for the IOC to consider your opinions.

[lastman]

I'm not quite sure what your point actually is, but a couple of things.

Gymnastics does have finals for individual events.

There's no benefit to easing off during competition regardless of what type of final you have.

Personally, I love finals. I get bored shooting qualification matches, especially FP. But once the final starts, there's nowhere I'd rather be.

I would rather see all finals where each shooter starts at 0. It means that the person who shoots best under pressure will win.

Finals are somewhat designed for media coverage. Shooting is a sport that generates little public interest outside of Europe and if they are to generate any interest they need to present a media friendly formant. The more people who see shooting being covered, the more likely it is that more people will enter the sport.

In Australia, Foxtel covered every final of every shooting match live, even though we only had 1 Australian across 15 finals. You can't really blame Channel 9 for not showing events where no Australian's are competing and the general public has little interest in.

[conradin]

If anyone in IOC and ISSF reads this post, they will now demand to add a 30 seconds commercial break between each shot in the finals.
"Be back for the next shots after these words from our sponsors".

[conradin]

Personally, I don't like the finals series for competitions. They are great for media coverage but where do you find live media coverage of these events? I think that the discipline (and soul) of our traditional matches has been lost.

Can't disagree more.

Why don't we go back to the REALLY original traditional 1900s way of competition: 60 shots, 3 hours, 50M, any type of sidearm or caliber you like with no restriction at all whatsoever. Wearing a nice dress suit with a bowler hat optional. Of course, no TV. They did not have it back in the first decade of 20th century.

I just want to see what sort of pistols people will design and will be using if the ancient format is revived, it will be fascinating.

Do you know that Karl Hess won the 1902 World Championship using a Revolver, Benjamin Segura used a large caliber pistol to win the 1904 World Championship, while Konrad Stäheli used the semi-automatic Luger Parabellum 7.65mm to win the 1906 world championship?

Come to think of it, why do you need three hours if you choose a semi-automatic? Train an RFP person to shoot for 50M, give him a Pardini HPE with a custom made 20 round double stacked capacity magazine and he will finish his 60 shots within a minute, with enough time to light a cigarette afterwards. I bet Christian Reitz would have won the FP event in London given enough time to train, if the old rules were used.

[jliston48]

The thing that concerns me about finals in shooting is that they are different competitions to the qualification matches.

I really find it hard to justify that a competitor who wins the competition (now called qualification!) may go home empty handed because s/he comes 4th or worse in the finals (ie a different competition).

In RFP, the competition is 2 x 30 round courses of fire in 8, 6 & 4 secs. At the end of that, the top scoring shooters enter a different competition where they shoot courses of 4 secs only on different sized targets (ie 9.7 is the only scoring "ring" on the target - and no one can see it!) until the winner emerges. It is a totally different competition. Why didn't they make the finals series 8 secs with X-ring scoring and all others as misses? It's just as illogical - and at least the scoring ring is already on the target!

I realise that there were 4-sec shoot-offs for ties. At least the ranking of all other shooters from the competition was preserved.

Free/50m Pistol was one of the purest forms of competitive shooting: a competitor, a pistol, 60 rounds of ammo, and a target. Let the winner emerge after 2 hours. What was so wrong with that? (BTW, I don't mind minor changes such as 50m pistol time being shortened if competitive shooters finished early. That doesn't change the character of the competition.) Why do the top shooters have to come back for a mini 50m match? The winner has already been decided! Would we be so much in awe of Melentiev's score if he shot it today and didn't win the final? What IS the world record in 50m pistol?

[David Levene]

I really find it hard to justify that a competitor who wins the competition (now called qualification!) may go home empty handed because s/he comes 4th or worse in the finals (ie a different competition).

The competition we have now is different from the competition we had 5 years ago, and that was different to the one we had 25 years ago.

I have little doubt that there will be more change in the coming years.

It's a fact of life I'm afraid, things change.

[Spencer]

... any type of sidearm or caliber you like with no restriction at all whatsoever...

I think the pistols were required to be of the 'usual calibre': i.e. .44". Back then .44 Russian ruled supreme.

[Richard H]

The thing that concerns me about finals in shooting is that they are different competitions to the qualification matches.

I really find it hard to justify that a competitor who wins the competition (now called qualification!) may go home empty handed because s/he comes 4th or worse in the finals (ie a different competition).

In RFP, the competition is 2 x 30 round courses of fire in 8, 6 & 4 secs. At the end of that, the top scoring shooters enter a different competition where they shoot courses of 4 secs only on different sized targets (ie 9.7 is the only scoring "ring" on the target - and no one can see it!) until the winner emerges. It is a totally different competition. Why didn't they make the finals series 8 secs with X-ring scoring and all others as misses? It's just as illogical - and at least the scoring ring is already on the target!

I realise that there were 4-sec shoot-offs for ties. At least the ranking of all other shooters from the competition was preserved.

Free/50m Pistol was one of the purest forms of competitive shooting: a competitor, a pistol, 60 rounds of ammo, and a target. Let the winner emerge after 2 hours. What was so wrong with that? (BTW, I don't mind minor changes such as 50m pistol time being shortened if competitive shooters finished early. That doesn't change the character of the competition.) Why do the top shooters have to come back for a mini 50m match? The winner has already been decided! Would we be so much in awe of Melentiev's score if he shot it today and didn't win the final? What IS the world record in 50m pistol?

Different? From the shooters perspective your not asking for anything different he's shooting on the exact same target with the exact same timing. Yes they are scored different but that really has no bearing on what the shooter needs to perform.

Yes you and I'll be generous, 100000 other people in the world would be in awe, the rest of the 6 billion people could care less. Thats the problem that's being discussed. The fewer people that are interested the higher the chances are it will be replaced with something else. So the question isn't if you like the finals in it present form, the question is would you rather change it or replace it with ballroom dancing?

[gn303]

Finals have been introduced for TV. Can you imagine a reporter focusing on say Matsuda, when Choi wins qualification? Even the finals were tricky for guessing.
In the UK there was a fuss about the empty seats on many events. The shooting hall, especially during finals seemed to me well filled. David witnessed that there was even a line up. That is in favor of our sport, especially on events like the Olympics, where shooting is in competition with other sports. Only in the RF finals I think there is much room for improvement. But that’s a topic that discussed elsewhere on TT. And if commercials would be necessary to keep shooting on TV, I would be able to live with that.
Anyhow, I was lucky to be able to watch the finals and I‘ve enjoyed it a lot.
Have fun shooting.
Guy

[David Levene]

The shooting hall, especially during finals seemed to me well filled. David witnessed that there was even a line up. That is in favor of our sport, especially on events like the Olympics, where shooting is in competition with other sports.

It wasn't just the numbers that were encouraging, they could have sold the tickets several times over.

It was the thirst for knowledge about the sport from the non-shooters in the crowd. Whenever other duties permitted we tried to send a couple of Range Officers into the spectator seating areas on the range, just to explain what was about to happen and to answer questions.

Who knows whether some of them might try the sport having seen it at the Olympics. We can only hope so.

[conradin]

... any type of sidearm or caliber you like with no restriction at all whatsoever...

I think the pistols were required to be of the 'usual calibre': i.e. .44". Back then .44 Russian ruled supreme.

1896 Olympic Report:

Revolverschiessen freihändig auf 30 Meter. An dem Wettkampf beteiligen sich 6 Bewerber, darunter 2 Griechen, N. Morakis und I. Phrangudis,
Hauptman der Artillerie. Jeder von ihnen darf 30 Schüsse abgeben. Als Sieger geht hervor der Amerikaner Sommer Paine mit 24 glücklichen
Treffern und 442 Points; zweiter ist der Däne Jensen

1900 Olympic Rulebook:
The competition is actually known as "Free Revolver 50M"
The only rule about the Revolver is:
"Pour le revolver, le tir doit avoir lieu à bras franc; l’emploi successif des six cases du barillet est obligatoire."
The organizer can provide ammo if needed, and these are the choices for the pistol competition:
Cartouches réglementaires pour revolver d’ordonnance (le paquet de 6 balles)
Cartouches pour revolver de précision (le paquet de 6 balles)

1908 Olympics Rulebook:

REVOLVER AND PISTOL SHOOTING
(j) INDIVIDUAL COMPETITION.
Limited to twelve individual entries from each territory having
separate representation on the International Olympic Committee, or, where no such representation exists, any territory under one and the same sovereign jurisdiction. Competitors participating must conform as to nationality with Articles 19 and 20 of the General Regulations.

1. Weapon.— Any revolver or pistol with open sights.
2. Ammunition.— Any with metal cartridge case.
3. Distance.— 50 yards.
4. No. of Shots.— Two sighters and sixty shots in ten series of six
5. Target.— White, 0 m. 50 c. diameter ; central black, 0 m. 20 c.
The whole target is divided into ten equal zones, counting from 1 to 10 shots each. A fresh target will be provided for each series.
6. Position.— Standing; right or left hand, with arm extended.
7. On the afternoon of the day preceding the competition targets will
be at the disposal of competitors for practice.
8. The edge of the shot-hole will determine the value of the shot."
*Notice that there is no time limit for making the 60 shots.

Interestingly, the Olympic Report concerning the competition noticed that competitors were switching from Revolvers to "Saloon Pistols".
"Amongst incidental shooting, the work with the pistol is extremely
interesting again, because more elastic conditions widen the area to which
appeal is made. Great as is the interest of revolver shooting, its natural
place is to follow practice with the ·22 pistol, otherwise the saloon pistol,
to use a term which has ceased to be familiar. The benefit derived from
the use of the small calibre is the power to practice in odd places and the
avoidance of the recoil and report, both of which enhance the difficulties
of the initial stages."

1912 Olympic Rule Book:

INDIVIDUAL COMPETITION WITH REVOLVER AND PISTOL.
DISTANCE 50 METRES.
Monday, 1 July.
Any revolver or pistol with open fore- and back-sights. Ammunition
with metal cartridge case. The use of hair trigger not permitted.
Number of shots: 60 shots in series, with 6 shots in each series.
2 sighters.
Time: 4 minutes for a series of 6 shots.
Target: white, 50 cm. in diameter. The target divided into IO
zones each; 2I/, cm. in breadth. Centre, black; 20 cm. in diameter;
The highest possible number of points was 600.

1920 Olympic Report:
No rules were listed, but for the first the free pistol event finally is officially named:
"Pistolet, armes libres, 50 mètres"
This is because there is another event called
"Révolver, 30 mètres".

1936 Olympic Report:
ANY TARGET PISTOL AT 50 m.

Weapon: All kinds of pistols were permitted without restriction. The weapons were tested in respect of their safety only. Glasses could not
be attached to the weapons.—Distance: 50 m.—Target: Model of the “Union Internationale de Tir,” of 0.50 m. outside diameter with bull’seye
of 0.20 m. The target was divided into 10 rings, counting 1 to 10 points. The central circle was of 5 cm. diameter and counted 10 points.—
Position: Firing was carried out standing and off-hand. By the latter was understood that the hand was stretched out, completely free, and
that the butt-end had no prolongation which could serve as a support to the hand beyond the wrist.—Number of shots: 60 shots to be fired
in 6 series, each of 10 shots. Each series of ten shots was to be fired without interruption. 18 sighting shots were allowed.—Time: Every
marksman was allowed two hours in which to complete his targets including trial shots. The order of shooting for each marksman was decided by lot.-

This is for the very first time the Free Pistol Competition resembles to what we have now.

1948 Olympic Report:
50 METRE PISTOL
CONDITIONS
The event is contested in 60 shots (6 series of 10 shots each), with a break of 30 minutes after 3 series.
The time allowed for each series of 10 shots is 20 minutes.
The target has a diameter of 50 cm. with a black bullseye of 20 cm., the whole target being divided
into 10 zones with values varying from 1 to 10 points.

(Hence 2.5 hours)

Notice the tie-breaking procedure:
...R. Schnyder (Switzerland), T. Ullman (Sweden) and H. Benner (U.S.A.) who finished second, third and fourth, respectively, all totalled 539 points, the first two with 60 hits on the aiming mark as against 58 by Benner, while Schnyder had 21 tens as against Ullman's 16.

While there is no rules about the pistol in the FP competition, for the RPF event it does have rules for the equipment:
All pistols or revolvers of calibre .22 are allowed, once they have been passed as safe, provided that no telescope sights are fitted. Cartridges of any make .22 short, long, or long rifle are allowed; the bullet must be of uncovered lead, weighing not more than 40 grains.

[Sparks]

The competition we have now is different from the competition we had 5 years ago, and that was different to the one we had 25 years ago.
I have little doubt that there will be more change in the coming years

It's been a fact of life since before Heraclitus, but the change itself isn't the problem.

It's the what, the why and the how of the changes that's the problem.

Change the air rifle match by dumping the trousers, for example. A change to the match itself isn't even news - we've changed the technology in the rifles and the suits and the targets quite a bit since I started, which wasn't that long ago. But in this case, the what is a concern - because the trousers have medical reasons for being used, in preventing chronic injuries; the why is a major concern because there didn't seem to be any "why" that held up to even half-hearted logical analysis; and the "how" was completely daft - changes that major coming in and forcing millions of people to buy new kit in the middle of the worst economic depression in history, not to mention that it was originally being mooted for the middle of an olympic cycle.

I mean, if you had a real problem to fix - and therefore a good reason for a change; and a plan to bring the change in in a way that caused the least pain possible; and you could see the change had a decent shot at solving the initial problem; then that change wouldn't see any serious criticism. But we've just not seen that in most of the recent changes from the ISSF, and that's really deeply worrying.

[tenx9]

Personally I dont like finals in general. Especally, the RF finals. You break your butt, practice 1000's of rounds and you finally break into the top three for a medal, then your score is zeroed. After a bad shot or two, your done. Apparently, 9.6 is a bad shot. I find it funny that finals were supposedly setup for the spectators. What spectators? There is no TV coverage of any kind and only friends, family and a couple of fellow shooters show up and watch you. Then, they changed the caliber for the match and got rid of the .22 short. Why? The new pistols fire a reduced recoil ,22lr and they have all sorts of anti-recoil shock absorbers in them. I bet they kick less than a .22 short, but I'm not paying $2500 to find out. Also, try and find a RF match...Good luck. I think the ISSF is totally going in the wrong direction.

[j-team]

The new pistols fire a reduced recoil ,22lr and they have all sorts of anti-recoil shock absorbers in them. I bet they kick less than a .22 short, but I'm not paying $2500 to find out.

Ummm, I think you should fire a Walther OSP or Pardini GP in .22 short, and then any of the latest .22lr pistols before making that statement.

There is a big difference in recoil. The 1000gr trigger is also a huge difference.

[j-team]

Change the air rifle match by dumping the trousers, for example. A change to the match itself isn't even news - we've changed the technology in the rifles and the suits and the targets quite a bit since I started, which wasn't that long ago. But in this case, the what is a concern - because the trousers have medical reasons for being used, in preventing chronic injuries.

The only reason the trousers are needed to prevent injury is the weight of the rifles. Ban trousers (and jackets, slings and gloves) use lighter rifles I say. Might turn rifle shooting into more of a test of riflemanship rather than the equipment race that it currently is.

[tenx9]

J-team. After competing with a Walther OSP for many years, I dont intend to spend another $2500 on a pistol that I will only shoot a couple of times a year, if and when I can find a match. Couple that with the price of that ammo and the game becomes cost prohibitive. Since nobody shoots this sport around here, I cannot say for a fact of their recoil properties. However, due to the slower fps ammo, tungsten weights and spring recoil systems, I can conserverately say, its probably a lot less than my Walther GSP. Sorry to insult you, but I do have lots expierence in this game, just not with the new pistols.

[Sparks]

Change the air rifle match by dumping the trousers, for example. A change to the match itself isn't even news - we've changed the technology in the rifles and the suits and the targets quite a bit since I started, which wasn't that long ago. But in this case, the what is a concern - because the trousers have medical reasons for being used, in preventing chronic injuries.

The only reason the trousers are needed to prevent injury is the weight of the rifles. Ban trousers (and jackets, slings and gloves) use lighter rifles I say. Might turn rifle shooting into more of a test of riflemanship rather than the equipment race that it currently is.

...and now you want millions of people to buy new trousers *and* new rifles? And you've eliminated the value of their old rifles because they're no longer useful for the sport? In the middle of a depression?

Not a good thing for the sport, that...

[brakarzac]

J-team. After competing with a Walther OSP for many years, I dont intend to spend another $2500 on a pistol that I will only shoot a couple of times a year, if and when I can find a match. Couple that with the price of that ammo and the game becomes cost prohibitive. Since nobody shoots this sport around here, I cannot say for a fact of their recoil properties. However, due to the slower fps ammo, tungsten weights and spring recoil systems, I can conserverately say, its probably a lot less than my Walther GSP. Sorry to insult you, but I do have lots expierence in this game, just not with the new pistols.

You could always do what everyone else does, buy a decent .22LR and shoot Rapid Fire and Standard match with the one gun!

I dont know too many people who have one gun for every event, but most will have a centrefire, free pistol, air pistol and a decent .22LR semi Auto...

I enjoyed the days on .22 Short, but those days are gone and its time to move up with the big boys and sell you old OSP

Cheers
Brad

[conradin]

Change the air rifle match by dumping the trousers, for example. A change to the match itself isn't even news - we've changed the technology in the rifles and the suits and the targets quite a bit since I started, which wasn't that long ago. But in this case, the what is a concern - because the trousers have medical reasons for being used, in preventing chronic injuries.

The only reason the trousers are needed to prevent injury is the weight of the rifles. Ban trousers (and jackets, slings and gloves) use lighter rifles I say. Might turn rifle shooting into more of a test of riflemanship rather than the equipment race that it currently is.

Let's make sure all women's air rifle competition need new uniforms: trousers not needed, but mini-skirt is a must. Jacket not needed, tank top is a must. Just have them wear the same thing a beach volleyball team wear.

Cute girl$ with rifle$. IOC and I$$F TV revenue time $$$$$