Free Rifle prone event remove from the Tokio 2020 OG

[SlartyBartFast]

I think the activities being introduced in 2020 for the vast majority of participants meet the definition of hobby, not sport.

I think that's being highly dismissive and derogatory of the sports and the participants in the world events that exist in those events. Many might say the same of lying around and putting holes in paper. We don't do our cause any good by being elitist and putting down others.

The athletes participating in those sports are putting as much dedication into their sport as shooters, gymnasts, and others do to theirs.

And I don't see a single penny of Olympic generated money at the local level. And without a local level, there's little incentive for anyone to compete.

I disagree to a certain extent. If your country is huge and have a huge gun/shooting culture that's true (e.g. UK, Canada, US) but for smaller nations where their sport is also small like mine their country only support Olympic events.

Shooting certainly isn't popular or well supported in Canada where I am.

You can't compare non-Olympic sports that flourish without considering whether it's popular by nature or not.

Then we have to make the sports more popular. I see very little evidence that the Olympics is a driving force in the popularity of many sports. And I don't think the IOC sees their role as one of keeping unpopular sports alive.

And this discussion is certainly making me learn a lot about Olympic history.
History of inclusion and exclusion of sports: http://www.topendsports.com/events/summ ... hanges.htm
Rules for inclusion: http://www.topendsports.com/events/summ ... ection.htm

Note that shooting is still a core sport. According to the article "There needs to be exceptional circumstances for a core sport to be dropped from the program, such as a drug scandal, corruption or a massive drop in popularity."

And wow, what a list of dropped events: http://www.topendsports.com/events/disc ... d/list.htm

From shooting:
Dueling Pistol 1906
100m Running Deer 1908 - 1948
25 and 30 metre military pistol 1896, 1912, 1920
200m, 300m, 600m military rifle 1912, 1920
25 and 50m rifle 1908, 1912, 1920
25 yd rifle, disappearing and moving target 1908
50 yd + 100 yd rifle, stationary target 1908
300m, 600m, 100yard rifle 1896, 1900, 1908, 1912, 1920, 1924
10m and 50m running target 1992-2004
50 metre running target 1972-1988
pistol, team 1900, 1908, 1912, 1920
trap, team 1908, 1912, 1920, 1924

[Olympic Dreamer]

Henri's latest post: https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php? ... 8607047880

After reading that post and many comments that followed, I think that the best compromise or deal we can have with ISSF is to change 50m prone men to 10m air rifle prone mixed. At least we get to prone, since they want to slowly eliminate 50m events.

[SlartyBartFast]

At least we get to prone

People seem to keep forgetting that women don't have OG prone. Something that the male dominated discussion seems to continuously be overlooking.

And once you understand that little fact, why is it so important for men to have prone and not the women? How about eliminate one male event and bring womens prone into the OG?

since they want to slowly eliminate 50m events.

Have an objective look at 50m events and equal gender participation. There are 5 ISSF 50m events. Only 2 of the 5 bother to be inclusive and allow for a women's competition.

Of the two remaining, only ONE has both men's and woman's competition in the OG.

It's not about eliminating the 50m. It's about eliminating the inequality. Seems the ISSF can do one of two things with respect to 50m prone at the OG. Include the women's event or eliminate the men's event.

And 50m pistol doesn't have a womens international competition. So therefor, no 50m pistol competitors to include at the OG. So, no 50m pistol.

[Olympic Dreamer]

At least we get to prone

People seem to keep forgetting that women don't have OG prone. Something that the male dominated discussion seems to continuously be overlooking.

And once you understand that little fact, why is it so important for men to have prone and not the women? How about eliminate one male event and bring womens prone into the OG?

since they want to slowly eliminate 50m events.

Have an objective look at 50m events and equal gender participation. There are 5 ISSF 50m events. Only 2 of the 5 bother to be inclusive and allow for a women's competition.

Of the two remaining, only ONE has both men's and woman's competition in the OG.

It's not about eliminating the 50m. It's about eliminating the inequality. Seems the ISSF can do one of two things with respect to 50m prone at the OG. Include the women's event or eliminate the men's event.

And 50m pistol doesn't have a womens international competition. So therefor, no 50m pistol competitors to include at the OG. So, no 50m pistol.

Fully agree with gender equality for women. What event men has in the olympics women should have too.

But if you've read Bindra's letter, having a 50m prone and FP mixed event was their initial proposal. However, new requirements from IOC came it and they decided to go away with it citing cost and many other factors. So they're bent on removing 2 of the 50m events. So if 50m was one of their issues like I said the best compromise I can think of is to change to 10m air rifle prone. It's certainly cheaper than 50m only problem is the target has to be movable.

Having said that, Bindra's letter with regards of what new requirements that came in was rather vague he just mentioned the factors and there're no details how those factors lead them to vote 4-2 for the removal of classics. It's really disappointing that athletes themselves voted to remove prone and FP. Certainly not representing most of the athletes as I've not seen a single athlete that supports it. Literally all are against it. However, if IOC was dictating this decision behind the scene and this voting process is just a show than we can't really blame them.

[SlartyBartFast]

But if you've read Bindra's letter, having a 50m prone and FP mixed event was their initial proposal.

There have been so many psots that I'm not following all the details.
It would have been a very tall order to create a truly mixed FP event considering there are ZERO ISSF approved FP events for women. If one of the added IOC requirements were that there actually be equal participation that would certainly nix the idea of mixed FP trying to qualify as gender equality.

Look at the RIO shooting facilities (10M air, 25M, 50M, and 300M ranges and trap and skeet). Or the Toronto Pan AM. Regardless of what the OG includes, the ISSF should be pushing for OG venues to support all ISSF events.

And to get FP back in the Olympics, start NOW with ISSF women's FP. And before and after the OG and para-OG run competitions in all events that are not part of the OG and para-OG.

There's a history of many mixed shooting events in the OG. And a woman won a silver in '76. But participation was FAR from equal.

I would have thought equalising the number of shotgun events would have been first before getting stuck with just one 50m event. But range size and useage issues come into play no doubt.

The ISSF really needs to be more transparent on the issues.

[David Levene]

Rio had 306 events. The IOC want to limit it to 310 events, including the new sports. Does anybody really think that adding any more shooting events is likely. The ISSF will be doing very well if they keep 15.

Mixed individual events are a non-starter as, to ensure 50% female paticipation (an IOC requirement) you would need some form of gender discrimination (againt IOC rules).

[SlartyBartFast]

Rio had 306 events. The IOC want to limit it to 310 events, including the new sports. Does anybody really think that adding any more shooting events is likely. The ISSF will be doing very well if they keep 15.

Mixed individual events are a non-starter as, to ensure 50% female paticipation (an IOC requirement) you would need some form of gender discrimination (againt IOC rules).

Totally agree David. Those are the facts and anyone arguing otherwise is ignoring the current ISSF and OG gender discrimination and dreaming in technicolour wishing events and athletes to be added instead of events changed or eliminated at the OG.

And IMO the ISSF needs to get cracking on their events and world championships in regard to gender equality ASAP.

I still don't get why prone is so critical as a separate event but not kneeling or standing. And the ISSF only considers AR standing to be competition worthy.

[Tim S]

I still don't get why prone is so critical as a separate event but not kneeling or standing. And the ISSF only considers AR standing to be competition worthy.

Very simply because it's the only smallbore match for many shooters, especially in anglophone countries. Kneeling and Standing are not shot as independent matches in the same way as Prone; medals were awarded for the separate positions for many years, but as part of the 3x40. Here in the UK, our National Championship is very much a Prone event (and includes 100 yard stages, not just 50m); the ISSF riles 50m Championship is a smaller affair.

Remember that AR started as a standing match. It was well established as an International discipline before 3-P AR came along,

[Martin Catley]

Totally agree with Tim down here 3P is a very small part of the scene, including Smallbore and Fullbore. We do have programs training Juniors in 3P but very much in an early stage.

[j-team]

And the ISSF only considers AR standing to be competition worthy.

AR is standing most likely is because back when it started they were spring and SSP so had levers to crank to load. Try doing that prone!

But now with the PCP rifles, air rifle prone is possible. But, beware, get AR prone going and all the sandal wearers will ask "why do they need .22 rifles at all?".

[FabioRifleRio]

..."why do they need .22 rifles at all?".

No surprise if they slowly eliminate .22 rifles and 50m ranges, replacing with Air 3P and Prone in the future Olympic programs.

[SlartyBartFast]

I still don't get why prone is so critical as a separate event but not kneeling or standing. And the ISSF only considers AR standing to be competition worthy.

Very simply because it's the only smallbore match for many shooters, especially in anglophone countries. Kneeling and Standing are not shot as independent matches in the same way as Prone; medals were awarded for the separate positions for many years, but as part of the 3x40. Here in the UK, our National Championship is very much a Prone event (and includes 100 yard stages, not just 50m); the ISSF riles 50m Championship is a smaller affair.

Remember that AR started as a standing match. It was well established as an International discipline before 3-P AR came along,

Okay, that I get. What I don't understand then is why women's OG events included 3p but not prone.

[Tim S]

Okay, that I get. What I don't understand then is why women's OG events included 3p but not prone.

That I'm not exactly sure. I suspect it''s related to when the 3-P events were separated into the 3 x 40 for men and the 3 x 20 for women, women also got lumbered with the Standard Rifle, when men kept the Free Rifle.

[Xman]

And the ISSF only considers AR standing to be competition worthy.

AR is standing most likely is because back when it started they were spring and SSP so had levers to crank to load. Try doing that prone!

But now with the PCP rifles, air rifle prone is possible. But, beware, get AR prone going and all the sandal wearers will ask "why do they need .22 rifles at all?".

You beat me to the punch Jteam.

The moment I saw PCP air rifles years ago I knew that 3PAR and Prone would follow and could and would be the death knell for .22 at the SOG in years to come. Dont get me wrong now, I was all for PCP devices in Rifle and Pistol. But with the habit of the SOG dumping shooting events (300m -too militaristic) eliminating running boar targets for bulleyes ( the poor animals), changing human silhouettes to bulleyes ( how horrible to feature a human like figure!!). It just stands to reason to kill the 22s also.

But I dont get it..are not javelins a representation of a spear? A weapon of WAR?

The marathon the representation/message of victory of a very gory battle? 1000s of live lost! How dare we honor it with a sporting event!! The horror of it all!

And archery too? Millions have been killed with arrows!

And the hammer throw is just a ball and chain..another weapon of war.

And boxing is fighting too!! As is judo, wrestling, fencing ....

Are there others?

So many double standards.

[SlartyBartFast]

So many double standards.

For all the complaining, the number of shooting events at the Olympics remains near the all-time high.
• 1896: 5 events (men’s)
• 1900: 8 events (men’s)
• 1908: 15 events (men’s)
• 1912: 18 events (men’s)
• 1920: 21 events (men’s)
• 1924: 10 events (men’s)
• 1932: 2 events (men’s)
• 1936: 3 events (men’s)
• 1948: 4 events (men’s)
• 1952-1956: 7 events (men’s)
• 1960-1964: 6 events (men’s)
• 1968: 7 events (men’s)
• 1972: 8 events (mixed)
• 1976-1980: 7 events (mixed)
• 1984: 11 events (6 men’s, 3 women’s, 2 mixed)
• 1988-1992: 13 events (7 men’s, 4 women’s, 2 mixed)
• 1996: 15 events (10 men’s, 5 women’s)
• 2000-2004: 17 events (10 men’s, 7 women’s)
• 2008-2016: 15 events (9 men’s, 6 women’s)

And when was the last time archery was run with human shaped targets? Archery was absent from the Olympics for 52 years (1920 - 1972) BTW.
The stylised hammer, spear, and other outdated implements are only judged on distance. And except when the occasional judge gets hit (the inadvertant sport of javelin catching), difficult to mistake as a warsport.

It would be so much better to have some constructive discussion about which events should be at the games (respecting gender equality and being open to the largest number of nations) and how all shooting sports should be able to take advantage of international competitions and the development of top class training and competition facilities.

[Xman]

So many double standards.

And when was the last time archery was run with human shaped targets? Archery was absent from the Olympics for 52 years (1920 - 1972) BTW.
The stylised hammer, spear, and other outdated implements are only judged on distance. And except when the occasional judge gets hit (the inadvertant sport of javelin catching), difficult to mistake as a warsport.

It would be so much better to have some constructive discussion about which events should be at the games (respecting gender equality and being open to the largest number of nations) and how all shooting sports should be able to take advantage of international competitions and the development of top class training and competition facilities.

Slarty .. You missed the point
I was illustrating the fact that the IOC and others (you know the usual suspects) are seeking to void and destroy the "gun sports" at the OGs as a whole due to the the history of violence and death (human and otherwise) associated with them. While they keep other "sports" that have their histories in human and animal destruction for eons. Arrows, spears, hammers (ball and chain) and so forth. That is the double standard. What is good for one should be good for the others as well.

Nothing was said about archery with human like targets in my post..was referencing pistol events.
Your so called "stylized" hammer, spear were originally instruments of death and are still fully capable to do so now in the wrong hands ...just like "guns". Does "stylized" mean they have left their original intended purpose behind can can no longer be harmful? Then they would need to be made of Styrofoam to be truely "stylized" and not be as they were intended.

[SlartyBartFast]

Slarty .. You missed the point

I got your point. You missed mine.

You're complaining that we should still be using human silhouette targets. Archery would lose a lot of support if they started shooting at human or animal targets.

So drop that complaint. There's no double standard.

Not once have I heard the ISSF or IOC issue any statement about the violence of guns. There's been no movement to get rid of biathalon. A really militaristic sport.

Shooting has 15 spots at the Olympics. They need to be balanced by gender, fit the schedule, limit required extra facilities, attract viewers (and thus sponsorship).

Any ISSF discipline that doesn't have a men's and women's event is doomed from the Olympics. The ISSF has to get cracking at making the ISSF events balanced on gender.

Any ISSF event that is gender balanced, but doesn't have equal representation at the OG is in trouble (at the OG, running target, 300m, and all the other ISSF events are still part of world competition). Beacause if it has been acceptable for so many years for the women to have no 50m prone rifle, it shouldn't be a problem for the men to drop 50m prone rifle.

[Modena]

Just a thought, but is there room to add some shooting events to the Winter Olympics?

[David Levene]

Just a thought, but is there room to add some shooting events to the Winter Olympics?

No.
Sochi had 98 events and 2873 athletes
PyeongChang has 102 events

The IOC want a limit after 2020 of 100 events and 2900 athletes

[556Griff]

I think we need to look at this from the same position that the IOC is coming from which is inclusion. The Olympic committee wants to have 50% female participation in the 2020 Olympics so we have a more equal Olympics. They want to eliminate the built in biases of some sporting events that create gender discrimination. I don't think they would like to know that by eliminating a sport in an effort to end discrimination that they are creating more discrimination. I'm talking about age discrimination. Let's face it, there are few Olympic sports that people of age are completitive in so eliminating one of them, that being prone, is just furthering the exclusion of a class of people we shouldn't exclude. Prone is the great equalizer in shooting sports. There are few events that are better at including every class of people( gender, age, race, or whatever factor you want to include). The ISSF missed by not recommending 50m prone as a mixed gender event, individual or team. I personally think it should be individual so that regardless of who wins, female, male, young or old, they did it based on their own skill.

Just thinking outside the box here.