Qualification then Finals Format? (spoiler alert)

[sparky]

What do folks think about this Qualification round, then elimination Finals format?

Looking at the results of the men's 10m AP, the qualifying round results of the top 8 ranged from 578-21x to 586-28x.
In the Finals, the two folks to shoot 586s ended up 6th and 7th. Meanwhile, the bottom three folks who made the Finals (places 6th - 8th in Qualifying) ended up medaling! Something similar happened in women's 10m AR.

Something about the format rubs me wrong. It just seems wrong that someone can do well for 60 shots, then lose to someone in a final that's a max of 20 shots, depending on how far you advance.

What do y'all think?

[JamesHH]

Its a bit like running a marathon to qualify then a sprint for the final, not everyone is going to do well at both.

There's extra pressure in the finals. Its also 'different' with every shot called, and the time is very constrained, not done at your own pace.

Maybe there's a case for making the qualification 30 shots or otherwise changing the format a bit.

[David M]

Wait until you see the Rapid and Sport pistol finals...
The 25m Womans Team final at Croatia W/C went 14 series,
thats 70 rounds rapidfire stage.
The match is only 30 shots precission and 30 shots rapidfire.

[Ramon OP]

I love it. The finals are thrilling. I just wish that for team events they went back to having everyone in the same final instead of doing two matches.

[atomicgale]

What do folks think about this Qualification round, then elimination Finals format?
What do y'all think?

Love it! Allows for shooters like me who "totally suck," to barely creep into the Top 8. Scores re-set. Then, the other seven "world class" finalists look at me and huff "What is this scumbag doing here?" Then, the sky's the limit for the next 24 shots.

[Pat McCoy]

Something about the format rubs me wrong. It just seems wrong that someone can do well for 60 shots, then lose to someone in a final that's a max of 20 shots, depending on how far you advance.

They ALL shot 60 shots which each averaged from 9.6 to 9.7, pretty similar as far as I am concerned. The bug difference came in the mental pressure added to each shot called in the finals. They can ALL shoot, but a few handle the mental pressure better.

[JamesHH]

What do folks think about this Qualification round, then elimination Finals format?
What do y'all think?

Love it! Allows for shooters like me who "totally suck," to barely creep into the Top 8. Scores re-set. Then, the other seven "world class" finalists look at me and huff "What is this scumbag doing here?" Then, the sky's the limit for the next 24 shots.

I'm nothing special as a pistol shooter, but a few times now I've scraped into the rapid final then crept up to 2nd or 3rd somehow.

Its somewhat fun, I have zero expectations so I relax and enjoy it and by some means it seems to happen occasionally.

To begin with I thought finals were terrible but in fact they're are a good thing to have happened in shooting.

[David M]

One thing I noticed with the new format (start from scratch) was a attitude change that said
"I don't need to shoot really top scores...just need to make the final."
So in local, State and Nationals the scores dropped.

[Hemmers]

From a hard-nosed point of view, our opinions are irrelevant. It's more or less impossible to televise 60 people shooting a match. To "tell a story" you have to focus on 6-10 athletes. For the Olympics therefore they're a fact of life.

Whether or not the final should be a different format to qualifying - I don't see the point in a do-over of shooting 60shots (say, for AP) and then the top-8 doing another 60 shots just the same. That would be tedious to watch and doesn't really "prove" anything. Shooters should be more robust and a bit multi-disciplinary. Being able to focus on process in a distracting finals environment is a reasonable demand to make of an athlete.

I do wonder whether the start-from-zero is a good format. When finals were just 10shots, it was quite common (especially in longer matches like 3x40s) for the lead qualifier to win without ever dropping off the top spot. With longer finals (20+shots of decimal scoring), it seems like they could find a balance of rewarding the top qualifiers whilst also giving everyone a chance to move up the ranks and even win. Heck, the 3P finals are practically a 3x20 in themselves.

I'd also argue they can be overrated. If your complex doesn't have a dedicated finals range then it's a trade-off between running more matches or halving your shooting capacity for the day by running finals on the Quali range - which is a waste of a detail if you're blocking out a 40+lane range for an hour or so to run an 8-person final. If it's not being televised then there's no point busting a gut to run finals below, say the National Championships (where you would want a reasonable simulation of what athletes will face in WChamps/Olympics - no good having a national champion based on Quali scores who can't shoot finals to save their life at a World Cup/Champs/Olympics).

[alanms]

I guess I just don’t understand why it’s necessary to have a qualification and then a final(with different formats for that matter). What would be so bad(wrong, unfair etc,) with just firing a straight up plain old 3x40 course and awarding the top three? All of these shooters are highly skilled and they’ve all proven themselves. They deserve to be there. It should be like an NCAA championship (at least how I remember it, it’s been awhile) or any other match.Keep it simple.
Just my opinion for what little it’s worth.

[jhmartin]

It should be like an NCAA championship (at least how I remember it, it’s been awhile) or any other match.Keep it simple.
Just my opinion for what little it’s worth.

NCAA uses the International Finals format for both smallbore and air rifle.

It was a stunner when the formats came out and involved into what we have now. Yes, absolutely, no doubt, no argument that the quals and the final are two separate, different events. (SBR not so much as the air rifle ... think of it as a 3x15 mostly ... with timed changeovers).

The mental aspect of the qual and the final are different.

Here in the USA (and maybe Germany) our Governing Body (USAS) currently uses a 1-8 point addition in smallbore or a 1-4 point addition for air rifle (in 1/2 point increments) that add on to the qual for our selections. The problem in past years is that if the leading competitor coming out of the qual is enough ahead, they have not even shown up for the final & still win the selection. I'm not a fan of that at all.

In my mind, yes --- getting into the final is the goal, but then you have to have the mental ruggedness to win that final. Those are the athletes we need to send. (again IMO..... I'm willing to accept that many will disagree)

[alanms]

Hi, jhmartin,
I was actually referring to the way the NCAA finals were back when I was in school(when dinosaurs roamed the earth) We had a straight 3 x40 course for smallbore (no decimals) and a 60 shot air rifle. Pretty straightforward.
I can appreciate what you’re saying about the added pressure and excitement of of the final, just don’t think it’s necessary. By the way, in the interest of full disclosure, I never really got on board with the decimal scoring either.
Glad I don’t shoot international, too complicated for me

[JamesHH]

30-60 people shooting simultaneously is unwatchable and untelevisable.

You can have a dynamic leaderboard I guess, thats about it.

These days people want to see personalities performing.

[nmondal]

What do folks think about this Qualification round, then elimination Finals format?

Looking at the results of the men's 10m AP, the qualifying round results of the top 8 ranged from 578-21x to 586-28x.
In the Finals, the two folks to shoot 586s ended up 6th and 7th. Meanwhile, the bottom three folks who made the Finals (places 6th - 8th in Qualifying) ended up medaling! Something similar happened in women's 10m AR.

Something about the format rubs me wrong. It just seems wrong that someone can do well for 60 shots, then lose to someone in a final that's a max of 20 shots, depending on how far you advance.

What do y'all think?

Depends.
I did an analysis - in here.

https://qr.ae/pGbGf0
=====
It requires a neo classical strategy. Get only 580. That is more than good enough. Chillax. If you can qualify with less, do with less.
Now, the next 20 shots, shoot like your life depends on it.
=====

Now onto the rubbing off bad thing. How it is any different than a champion team that won all matches and qualified in quarterfinals and then lost?
As one of the great books about history said :
"Justice can never be done, only injustice - the amount and the people are only in question!"

[BobGee]

I did an analysis - in here.

https://qr.ae/pGbGf0

Nice, Nabarun. Trouble is knowing when to stop putting in your best efforts in the quals.

Bob

[nmondal]

I did an analysis - in here.

https://qr.ae/pGbGf0

Nice, Nabarun. Trouble is knowing when to stop putting in your best efforts in the quals.

Bob

Thanks. Actually I did think about... that. In fact I was watching replay of world cup - and they were saying

96 is OK. 97 is GOOD. 95 is bad..but you can recover.

so I am pretty sure.. they "knows" the same. Otherwise why you would even stop at 97? Why not a 100/100?
In Pistol that is, in Air Rifle it is really hard to do so, but in Pistol :
97 -> 582.
Seems like more than good enough to qualify. Just chillax.

[spektr]

Shoot 60 rounds, keep the top half of the field. Set up a bracket #1 against last, #2 against next to last etc.... Go to man on man eliminations, 5 shots in 3 minutes, i like this a lot better.... It pays you to shoot well for a good seeding it also gives you 5 shots to prove your merit as opposed to 2.....