My posting about my impressions of the shooting events at the Munich World Cup 2003, seems to have been misunderstood a bit.
I submitted it at Scott's request and the thrust of what I wrote wasn't about how to make the sport more popular per se but how to encourage more people to want to view it as spectators at the Olympics and how to make it more attractive to the TV media.
I don't endorse the idea of changing the sport so that it becomes more attractive to TV/spectators.
However the ISSF, as I understand it, was forced (?) to implement changes to the shooting format (ie the introduction of the finals format) so that TV would want to broadcast them.
Fact is, I've never seen any coverage of the shooting events here in Australia, except for Michael Diamond's win in the 2000 Olympics and I guess only because he was Australian and had a chance to win gold.
As for the rest, you could be forgiven for thinking that shooting wasn't part of the Olympics.
All that said, however, it still begs the question of why it is so necessary to make the sports more TV/spectator appealing, if it is still not getting the air time.
From what I have read, the ISSF was pressured into the changes by the IOC (?), in the interests of retaining the shooting sports in the Olympics and that current changes under consideration are also being forced on the ISSF for the same reason.
Is the ISSF under such pressure? The changes they have made so far have done nothing, as far as I can determine, to make the TV stations any more interested in broadcastiing the events than they were before.
If they aren't going to broadcast our sports even when we make serious changes to it, then why do we persist with the changes?
Is our retention in the Olympics SOLELY based on the sports capacity to attract a TV viewing audience? If so, then I suggest our time in the Olympics is limited, unless huge changes are made to how our sports are conducted at these events.
IF NOT, then why do we keep going through these silly exercises, changing our sports in such a way that they become pale shadows of what they once were. Why can't we simply revert to the old format and to hell with the TV media?
This really is the key question, in my mind, and it would be nice to know exactly what the TRUE position is in relation to the shooting sports retention or otherwise in future Olympics.
Regards
Tom
twoodle1-at-bigpond.net.au.47339.47336
Observations About Major ISSF Events
Moderators: rexifelis, pilkguns
-
Bob LeDoux
Re: Observations About Major ISSF Events
When I first read this, I thought it was a lot of BS. I shoot because I like to. If the Olympics go this way, then the International competition, not the Olympics can become the real competition scene.
Then I stopped and thought. California only allows some of our international type guns because they are associated with the Olympics. Great Britain will apparently allow new free pistol designs because they are for the Olympics.
If we give up the Olympics bandwagon, we may lose an important foundation that keeps anti-gun generalists at bay. Let's support the Olympic efforts, if only because it continues to improve access to target firearms.
.47345.47251
Then I stopped and thought. California only allows some of our international type guns because they are associated with the Olympics. Great Britain will apparently allow new free pistol designs because they are for the Olympics.
If we give up the Olympics bandwagon, we may lose an important foundation that keeps anti-gun generalists at bay. Let's support the Olympic efforts, if only because it continues to improve access to target firearms.
.47345.47251
-
David Levene
Re: Observations About Major ISSF Events
: Great Britain will apparently allow new free pistol designs because they are for the Olympics.
Although I fully agree with you that the shooting sports need to support the Olympics I would like to correct you about Free Pistols in GB.
The new designs are allowed because, with their 300mm (minimum) barrels and overall length of 600mm (minimum) they do not contravene the existing laws. The court cases were to prove that they were in accordance with existing law rather than to change the law (which I am sure would have failed). That is why Rapid Fire and 25m Pistol (Ladies) guns are still banned.
While shooting is part of the Olympics it is very difficult for anti-gunners, of whatever nationality, to claim that shooting is not an international sport. There are also a great many countries where any form of governmental funding is dependant on Olympic participation, aspirations and expectation.
dalevene-at-blueyonder.co.uk.47418.47345
Although I fully agree with you that the shooting sports need to support the Olympics I would like to correct you about Free Pistols in GB.
The new designs are allowed because, with their 300mm (minimum) barrels and overall length of 600mm (minimum) they do not contravene the existing laws. The court cases were to prove that they were in accordance with existing law rather than to change the law (which I am sure would have failed). That is why Rapid Fire and 25m Pistol (Ladies) guns are still banned.
While shooting is part of the Olympics it is very difficult for anti-gunners, of whatever nationality, to claim that shooting is not an international sport. There are also a great many countries where any form of governmental funding is dependant on Olympic participation, aspirations and expectation.
dalevene-at-blueyonder.co.uk.47418.47345
-
Matt
Re: Observations About Major ISSF Events
I haven't read everyone else's comments, but here are mine.
Some people believe the 20-series action is junk, but that's not true. You can get one to shoot just as good as a round action. A good barrel and a good ammo match is all you need.
Extension tubes are fine. If you can deal with the weight and don't mind seeing a little more movement, it works well. I don't think it makes the gun shoot any better or worse (at least not drastically). They will make you more precise with a longer sight radius, however.
Moving your right arm in prone is a matter of personal preference. I don't move it off the prone mat, but plenty of shooters do and plenty don't. I find I get less disturbance of my position by not moving it.
Shooting caps and eyeshades are there for a reason. They serve two purposes, mainly: they keep glare off of the glasses and rear sight from lights that are usually above the firing point. They also block out disturbances that may come from around the shooter and allow easier focus downrange.
Shooting glasses must stay. If one is to shoot rifle with normal glasses, you end up looking through the frame and not the lenses while trying to look through the sights. Shooting glasses allow the shooter to move the lense so that he is looking through the optical center of the lense.
A blinder for the non-aiming eye is essential. Whether is be mounted on the rear sight or on the headband/glasses is up for debate. For the shooter, it is easier to have it on the glasses or the headband. This way it is closer to the eye and blocks out more area than if it was on the sight.
Clothing: of course, this has been a hot topic. Bottom line, whether we do or don't have them, performance is all relative. Good shooters will shoot good with or without them. The only difference is that the scores will be lower without them. I am no doctor so I can't say whether getting rid of pants would be detrimental to a shooters back from shooting standing, but even with clothes, almost all shooters experience back pain and stress. When or if pants go, the guns will most likely have to become lighter. I will not attempt shooting a 16 pound gun in standing with no pants for 40 shots. Another thing, whether we do or don't have shooting clothing, the action of rifle shooting is the same. The shooter shoots from a stationary position for a certain amount of shots at a stationary target. The action of shooting is the same and would it really be more appealing to the general public if we didn't have leathers?
Most top shooters don't display emotion because it easier to focus that way. Displaying emotion (especially negative) is merely wasting energy that the shooter should be using to focus themselves for the next shot. These shooters are so wrapped up in what they are doing they don't need to display emotion after a shot. One of the German shooters has a habit of displaying negative emotion on the line. Some call it childish. Positive emotion....that's a good thing. It's reinforcing good actions.
All in all there are three basic ingredients to media appeal: lots of people do the sport, it's understood, and there is money in it. This is a large generalization and perhaps not completely true, but mostly is. How can billiards or a poker championship be shown on ESPN and shooting isn't?? With the exception of involving guns, lots of people play pool and cards, it's easy to understand, and there is a lot of money on the line. The same goes for golf.
.47491.47251
Some people believe the 20-series action is junk, but that's not true. You can get one to shoot just as good as a round action. A good barrel and a good ammo match is all you need.
Extension tubes are fine. If you can deal with the weight and don't mind seeing a little more movement, it works well. I don't think it makes the gun shoot any better or worse (at least not drastically). They will make you more precise with a longer sight radius, however.
Moving your right arm in prone is a matter of personal preference. I don't move it off the prone mat, but plenty of shooters do and plenty don't. I find I get less disturbance of my position by not moving it.
Shooting caps and eyeshades are there for a reason. They serve two purposes, mainly: they keep glare off of the glasses and rear sight from lights that are usually above the firing point. They also block out disturbances that may come from around the shooter and allow easier focus downrange.
Shooting glasses must stay. If one is to shoot rifle with normal glasses, you end up looking through the frame and not the lenses while trying to look through the sights. Shooting glasses allow the shooter to move the lense so that he is looking through the optical center of the lense.
A blinder for the non-aiming eye is essential. Whether is be mounted on the rear sight or on the headband/glasses is up for debate. For the shooter, it is easier to have it on the glasses or the headband. This way it is closer to the eye and blocks out more area than if it was on the sight.
Clothing: of course, this has been a hot topic. Bottom line, whether we do or don't have them, performance is all relative. Good shooters will shoot good with or without them. The only difference is that the scores will be lower without them. I am no doctor so I can't say whether getting rid of pants would be detrimental to a shooters back from shooting standing, but even with clothes, almost all shooters experience back pain and stress. When or if pants go, the guns will most likely have to become lighter. I will not attempt shooting a 16 pound gun in standing with no pants for 40 shots. Another thing, whether we do or don't have shooting clothing, the action of rifle shooting is the same. The shooter shoots from a stationary position for a certain amount of shots at a stationary target. The action of shooting is the same and would it really be more appealing to the general public if we didn't have leathers?
Most top shooters don't display emotion because it easier to focus that way. Displaying emotion (especially negative) is merely wasting energy that the shooter should be using to focus themselves for the next shot. These shooters are so wrapped up in what they are doing they don't need to display emotion after a shot. One of the German shooters has a habit of displaying negative emotion on the line. Some call it childish. Positive emotion....that's a good thing. It's reinforcing good actions.
All in all there are three basic ingredients to media appeal: lots of people do the sport, it's understood, and there is money in it. This is a large generalization and perhaps not completely true, but mostly is. How can billiards or a poker championship be shown on ESPN and shooting isn't?? With the exception of involving guns, lots of people play pool and cards, it's easy to understand, and there is a lot of money on the line. The same goes for golf.
.47491.47251
-
Mike Schroeder
Re: Observations About Major ISSF Events
: Although more publicity may do good for the shooting sports as a whole, I doubt ISSF shooting will ever be a spectator sport. I think someone said, "it's like watching paint dry", I concur, and if it wasn't, then it wouldn't be the precision ISSF shooting sport that we know. I _am_ glad that at least one sport still cares more about substance than appearance. There is a reason for wearing all the paraphernalia we wear, and that is to help us perform better. Performance is king, the rest, who gives a sh*t.: Just my $0.02.
: Avianna
Hi Avianna
I think I wrote the "like watching paint dry" comment about the Bianchi cup, which is much more active than 3-P. I'm not sure you can do much in the way of visually enhancing the sport.
I did have a comment on the style over substance though. I've shot informally for years, and now that the kids are older, I'm a 4-H Instructor, and am getting a little more competitive. I'm looking at shooting coats, if "style over substance" is king, they why are all of the Anschutz, Sauer, etc jackets the colorful "disco" coats. Is there something wrong with a basic khaki colored shooting jacket? Black would look cooler, but looks would be all that's "cool". I haven't EVER worn teal, and the fuschia polo shirt went away quickly.
Another $0.02
Mike
Wichita KS
mschroeder5-at-cox.net.47550.47252
: Avianna
Hi Avianna
I think I wrote the "like watching paint dry" comment about the Bianchi cup, which is much more active than 3-P. I'm not sure you can do much in the way of visually enhancing the sport.
I did have a comment on the style over substance though. I've shot informally for years, and now that the kids are older, I'm a 4-H Instructor, and am getting a little more competitive. I'm looking at shooting coats, if "style over substance" is king, they why are all of the Anschutz, Sauer, etc jackets the colorful "disco" coats. Is there something wrong with a basic khaki colored shooting jacket? Black would look cooler, but looks would be all that's "cool". I haven't EVER worn teal, and the fuschia polo shirt went away quickly.
Another $0.02
Mike
Wichita KS
mschroeder5-at-cox.net.47550.47252