The ISSF Pants issue

[Donald McIntosh]

Not being a 3-P (or 4-P) shooter, I don't really understand how a pair of pants (canvas or otherwise) can help aleviate back problems in the standing position. Do they come up higher that normal pants? Are they tighter than normal pants? I can see where they might help in kneeling (Ok I lied. I have done some 3-P shooting, but not serious competition.) A knee pad could be helpful over a long period of time.

Yes, they come up above the hip bones, and while they can't be too tight, they are stiff therefore they provide support as you can lean into them a little.

There is excellent medical evidence - at least some of it in the public domain - from a number of countries that says trousers are needed for long term health of the athletes. The ISSF "evidence", which allegedly says they aren't needed remains unpublished despite many requests to see it over many months. I've also heard a rumour that the same ISSF doctor produced evidence just a few years ago to the effect that trousers were essential...

[DSchrankJr]

To Guest:
As a competitor in both international and conventional highpower comptetion I would like to address your previous post.
You are comparing two very different games and types of jackets.
Unlike highpower jackets, International type jackets can not have straps to cinch them tight, can not have quilted lining, and must be flexible in nature. They do provide a support it is not nearly as much as provided by an NRA coat. There are also very detailed rules about the construction of the jackets. Also the longest offhand match in highpower is 22 shots. The longest in International is 75+.
Since you mentioned Dave Tubb (who shot smallbore quite well in college), I'll throw a few more names out that have shot both games quite well: Carl Bernowsky, Eric Uptagraff, Lance Hopper, Tim Manges, and many others. How many shoot highpower w/ an International jacket. NONE, because the NRA jacket gives alot more support and therefore an advantage. In fact I would say the NRA jacket gives 30% more support by itself than the International jacket and pants do combined. David.

[Donald McIntosh]

The other knee gets your elbow on top of it, and a lot of padding in between from the shooting jacket.

Thousnads of people shoot standing without special shooting pants. In the USA, they're called highpower shooters. Ask David Tubb (sp?) if he needs one.

Not that much padding - ISSF jackets don't have particularly thick pads.

Thousands of people may shoot non-ISSF events without trousers in the US, but hundreds of thousands shoot ISSF events with them in Europe and other parts of the world, and we don't want to lose them.

[mikeschroeder]

[Thing is, Spencer, that eliminating trousers is going to cause medical problems, no matter what you do as a coach. Anderson's already admitted as much - that 3P shooters without the trousers will pick up serious knee problems in the kneeling position -

Hi

I'll take these one at a time. I can sort of understand the back problems, but I don't understand the kneeling problem. I don't remember seeing that the kneeling roll is going away, just the pants. Additionally, isn't it the use of a pad allowed, both on the ground, and between the heel and your backside??

Mike
Wichita KS

[Oren]

To Jim B

Have you ever tried shooting with pants on before. If not you might want to borrow a good pair of pants (and maybe a jacket because yours might not be fit to go over pants) and try them, then say they don't add support in standing.

[JohnD]

Does anyone have a link to an actual study of the back injury problem? All I've seen is mention of "studies by German doctors" but no actual published reports.

[Jim B]

Oren,

You're right. I never have shot standing or kneeling with pants, and I think you might have misunderstood me. I didn't say that pants don't provide support, I said that I didn't understand how they provided support. Maybe I could borrow some pants from someone to try. Sounds like a good idea. Like I said in my original post though, I'm primarilly a prone shooter, so I'm not sure if they will do any good.

Jim

[deleted1]

I see that some persons afformentioned have admitted that these pants provide artificial "support" ---the argument is opened and closed right there. No further word is necessary---ISSF does not want this artificial "support" quite apparently---doesn't mean they are right or wrong. Why won't ISSF rules permit an "tennis elbow" gel pad during ISSF pistol matches---again the artificial "support" argument. I can see people becoming angry at this "war of the pants"---especially if you already own or have recently purchased or manufacture these items---it hits you right in the wallet or pocketbook. Four years ago while attending a coaches conference I heard mention of the elimination of the International Rapid Fire as we know it---I did not hear too many loud complaints here---and the investment in a world class RF pistol is a lot more than a pair of pants---what about those who have invested in this event? I for one unloaded my RF pistol three and one half years ago, based upon just a "rumor". I can only say I sympathize with those who are most deeply involved in this recent miscarriage of the ISSF. Let's see what eventually happens and their reasons, other than the letter that started this furor.

[Marcus]

Bob,

The jacket provides artificial support too. How about the boots, glove and the ultimate in artificial support, the sling all provide it. Why don't you advocate the elimination of all those items too??

There is a difference between "legal" and "illegal" artificial support. Up to this moment the current pants (and jacket, sling, glove and boots) have been "legal". Now someone is trying to change the rule without fixing the underlying problem, which is, I believe, the equipment control jury. The rules are admittedly somewhat vague, but so is the proposed rule about pants and it doesn't address the interpetation problems of the juries.

The bottom line is that pants are an easy target for someone trying to impress the IOC.

[pal177]

Has there been any talk by ISSF about what kind of pants the new rules will allow?
Shooters WILL be wearing some sort of pant (snide remarks aside!) - sweatpant, blue jeans, etc - and there's certainly got to be some rules to keep the field reasonably even. Otherwise you'll see starched stiff jeans with high rise and tight legs in standing, and thickly padded sweatpants for kneeling, etc. Just the other week, I was eyeballing some leather fashion pants at the "big box" clothing store and wondering if they'd be legal under the new rules.

[TomW]

I've already posted this on other topics, buit since the questions still keep croppiing up, I'll republish it here.
As I said earlier, I find the whole argument bizarre. If the proposed bans are based on the so-called "artifical support" issue, then there is no basis for them as the following shows:

" "7.4.9 Clothing Regulations
The use of any special devices, means or garments which immobilize
or unduly reduce the movement of the shooter's legs, body or arms is
prohibited in order to assure that the performance skills of the shooters
are not artificially improved by special clothing."

All clothing used in high level competitions including World Cups and Olympic Games must pass inspection based on these rules and since the competitiors wear these clothes during their matches, it follows that what they wear has been approved by the Equipment Inspectors and therefore has the imprimatur of the ISSF on their use. Is that not so?

Therefore, and in view of what the above rule says, the clothing concerned obviously does NOT "immobilize or unduly reduce the movement of the shooters legs, body or arms" nor clearly, under the same rule does the clothing "improve the performance skills of the shooters". How could it? It would be banned under these rules if it did.

Or are you trying to tell me that the ISSF, in violation of its own rules is condoning the use of equipment which they KNOW to be illegal?

You can't have it both ways. Since the gear IS used currently by shooters and since Rule 7.4.9 is so clearly prescriptive, and since we must assume that the ISSF would not deliberately defy its own rules, then how can there be any talk of banning the equipment in question? The gear being used obviously does NOT provide artificial support for shooters, so why the talk about banning it? It simply defies logic."

However, I understand that the main reason for the proposed bans is because of the appearance of the shooter - seen by the ISSF as being perhaps "outlandish" or "strange" or whatever. Now that is a bloody stupid reason to force shooters worldwide to give up millions of dollars worth of clothing simply on the whim and tastes of the select few who make up these rules.

This should be an issue that shooters world wide are get angry about and they should be drowning the ISSF with e mails and letters of complaint - because if this one gets through, then you can be certain that jackets, boots and gloves will be next.

Tom

[Ryan Tanoue]

then we can all go back and shoot sporter....now that would be fun!

[Ryan Tanoue]

i think that the bottom line is this...the ISSF wants to change the "image" of shooting. yup we look wierd in our suits, pants, gloves, slings, glasses(and before hats with blinders), etc.... and they feel that if they get rid of the pants, at least we'll walk normally......too bad we still wear the boots....but oh well. The looking normal thing is an issue, but i think also that the best shooters make it look too easy to do what we do. when we have someone shooting a 400 womens air every world cup(there have been 7 400s fired since 2002 out of only 16 issf sanctioned events. world record with final is a 400+104.9, set in 2003 Zagreb world cup) it seems pretty common place and easy to do....so the point of eliminating the pants may not be to "lower the scores", but scores are going to go down as a result of not having the pants. This will make everyone look a bit more human so in essence the issf can kill two birds with one stone. you gotta look at is this way...when someone is setting a new world record every match(or every other match), then the world record is a bit too easy i would think.....you dont see this happening in any other sport....so maybe its time to change up the rules and have some new world records under the new rules.

About the back problems issue....the only reason we would get back problems without the pants would be if we left our rifles the same weight they are now. my air rifle weighed in at 5.350kg(11.8lbs) in thiland which is pretty close to the max weight....if they get rid of the pants all that weight has to go, and pretty much the air rifles will have to be as light as possible to prevent back problems....yes...if you shoot a rifle that weighs 11-12lbs without pants you will have back problems, but if you make the rifles lighter this would pretty much solve this problem. you dont see sporter shooters complaining about back problems. They have no pants, jackets or anything close to what we have, but their rifles only weigh about 6-8lbs.

[TomW]

So what you are saying is that not only do shooters world wide have to lose the money they spent on the trousers PERMITTED by the ISSF but now because the ISSF wants to change things for APPEARANCES sake, that we will also have to get rid of our current smallbore rifle and air rifles and buy something newer and lighter. My, my! Perhaps you should be applying for membership of the ISSF Executive. Your attitude seems to be perfectly in tune with theirs.

As for the issue of appearance, if this is an issue why then does it not apply to other sports, such as cycling (those helmets are just tooooo silly for words), downhill skiing, ski jumpiing, beach volley ball (or do you like to see the women flashing their parts while playing?), fencing (I mean those uniforms and masks are just too much), runners with body hugging running suits, swimmers with their high tech swimming suits to cut drag - do I have to go on???

We are what we are and we wear what the ISSF has said we can wear and now they want to move the goal posts again for the most frivolous of reasons - appearance. How long before they change the rules again, without the concurrence of the shooters. Who gave them the authority to do this? No one asked my opinion or the opinion of thousands upon thousands of shooters world wide. Who said the ISSF committee is the font of all wisdom on these issues and don't go telling me that they were democratically elected. I and I guess thousands of shooters world wide weren't asked to cast our vote and I certainly didn't see the ISSF members producing policies which we could examinie and vote on.

It isn't good enough and the ISSF is not going to convince a lot of shooters world wide that they are doing the right thing.

[Sparks]

I see that some persons afformentioned have admitted that these pants provide artificial "support" ---the argument is opened and closed right there. No further word is necessary

Yes, it is. If artificial support is against the grain for sports, then what of american football's body armour? Weightlifting's kidney belts? Fencing's helmets and gloves and kevlar jackets? What of boxing's gloves, gumshields and helmets? Of field and track event's special shoes? Of cycling's helmets? All of these provide support at various points - and yes, they are all meant to be safety devices to prevent injury to athletes. But so are shooting trousers. If the ISSF have a problem with the gear, fine. Let them state the problem and work out a rational solution with medical expert advice - but I'm not going to risk my health or that of those who train under my supervision just so a group of non-active ex-shooters can make a kneejerk decision and push it through with the majority of the shooting community screaming blue murder over it!

And the best reason put forward for the change so far? Appearance!!!!
I hate to break it to them, but I do the PR for my local club and my national association. Right now I can go to a sports editor and tell him I'm representing target shooting and the first image in his mind is :



Which is grand if you're in Texas - but the kiss of death for coverage in Europe. What we want is this image :



I want to show a highly technical, novel-looking, non-threatening sport. Which in countries which don't have liberal firearms regulations, is of primary importance. I mean, us shooters know that firearms are dangerous if abused, but safe if treated like power tools or cars or aircraft - but the general public? In Ireland, the average person on the street (the guy the politicians make the rules to satisfy), hears that you use firearms and he has one of five ideas about who or what you are:
1) Military/Armed Police
2) Hunter (as in, the nasty chap who killed bambi's mother. Most people here think chicken comes from supermarkets, don't forget)
3) Criminal
4) Terrorist (we've had the IRA kneecapping people for thirty years over here, don't forget)
5) Nutter

I need to be able to show them the photo above to show them that there's a sixth category - olympic athlete. Taking away the trousers gets us a step closer to the pistol lineup at the olympics. And the pistol lineup does not look as technical as the rifle lineup. Which is a significant disadvantage from a PR point of view, allegedly the point of view of the ISSF in this case.

Four years ago while attending a coaches conference I heard mention of the elimination of the International Rapid Fire as we know it---I did not hear too many loud complaints here---and the investment in a world class RF pistol is a lot more than a pair of pants---what about those who have invested in this event?

The lower volume there is because of the lower number of shooters and the fact that they're not eliminating the event, but changing the pistol. The shooters shooting it now are just as angry about it as we are. They're just being drowned out. And they have good reason to be angry - that decision was made the same way this one was - by a semi-anonymous small group of men that most of us never heard of and didn't elect. That kind of thing tends to set teeth on edge everywhere and I don't understand why they don't appreciate this.

Let's see what eventually happens and their reasons, other than the letter that started this furor.

I'd rather not wait until I get chronic nerve damage again because of the trousers being eliminated, thanks.

I can say, however, that at the NTSA's recent AGM, it was voted on by the membership to vote against the change at the ISSF vote on April 18. Hopefully, enough associations will do the same and this will have to be rethought and perhaps done more sensibly. There are at least three other ways to do this that not only work better, but cost less.
(Namely, in order of my personal preference, scoring the qualification round with decimals, as per the finals; increasing the number of shots; and decreasing the size of the scoring rings and scoring the targets with an inside guage rather than an outside one)

Has there been any talk by ISSF about what kind of pants the new rules will allow?

In short, no. There are rumours of proposed comprimises for trousers being shown around, but the only offical word on the trousers is that the ISSF wants them eliminated, as well as the shoulder straps and pocket on the jacket.
(By the way - can anyone tell me what competitive advantage there is in having a pocket? I mean, I know I use mine as a facecloth holder during the match, but it's made of a suede-like material and provides no support whatsoever.)

And as to the medical references someone was looking for, they were on the European Shooting Page a while ago, but they should be available from the German Shooting Federation's website...

[Ryan Tanoue]

yes yes yes....all of those points are true.....the shoes, helmets, masks, etc all create "artificial support", and yes the "image" of shooting as i would like to see it is a line full of shooters with matching suits and pants and nice rifles to go along with it

TomW: My, my! Perhaps you should be applying for membership of the ISSF Executive. Your attitude seems to be perfectly in tune with theirs. for APPEARANCES sake, that we will also have to get rid of our current smallbore rifle and air rifles and buy something newer and lighter.

do you really think that i would want to do this....yes....maybe my stance seems in line with the issf, but you have to admit that they have a point. why do you think that there is not more opposition to this rule change?( for one like my pants very much, and have sent several letters of suggestion to the issf)....but maybe some shooters feel as though there should be some new direction in shooting....maybe it will level the field and create more parity in our sport(how would you like to have to shoot a 400 +103.5 to win every single match you showed up to?)....and maybe it wont. yes we'll loose how ever much money we paid for our current set of pants, but our loss is small compared to that of the manufacturs. and no i didnt say we had to get new rifles....when you want your rifle to be heavier...you dont go out and buy a new "heavier" one, you just make yours heavier...you can do the opposite and make it lighter.

we are here arguing about how sad it is that we are going to loose our precious pants and have to change a little to adapt to it, when running target is loosing their whole sport period. for those of you that dont know the issf is eliminating running target from the shooting sports after the olympics in august. not only will they be loosing thier clothing, rifles, scopes, etc but the sport they love as well. some of us really need to step back and see how lucky we still are to be able to compete in our sport and not loose it entirely.

Like i said in an earlier post, i think they will take away the pants for a year, and after the first set of world cups, they will re-instate them because of opposition, and because of people bending the new pants rules. for those who remember....there were thousands(maybe tens of thousands) of letters, comments, complaints sent to West Virginia University about how they should not eliminate their (uncountable) ncaa championship rifle team because of a minimal amount of money. and what happened....they still eliminated it.....and this year comming up, they will be back. step back and look at where we're at....we're still here, we can still compete and i think we need to appreciate this a bit more.

[Guest]

Because the kneepad on the trousers protects and pads the knee in the kneeling position. There's precious little support involved there - it's just a big fancy kneepad. But you try firing 40 shots from a .22 rifle on a concrete floor in the kneeling position without a pad, and if you haven't picked up a fair amount of pain in your knee, I'll be surprised.

[TomW]

I don't know how many time I have to say this, but since the gear currently being worn by shooters at the highest level has been passed by Equipment Inspectors appointed by the ISSF, then by definition, this gear CANNOT be in breach of rule of Rule 7.4.9 which is the overriding governing rule. Therefore if the gear is legal, again, by definition, it CANNOT be providing artifificial support.

Now, you may think that is a nice legality which can be ignored but for shooters it must surely be the overeridiing factor in this issue. How can the ISSF ban equipment which they have already declared does NOT provide artificail support, because it provides artifical support. That is simply too absurd, even for the ISSF.

So I for one, wish that people would stop talking about the so-called support given by the clothing. It isn't an issue, if one goes by the rules and what the ISSF has permitted to date.

It's a bit late now for the ISSF to say that they made a mistake many years ago and we are now going to change the rules to something totally different, regardless of the effect it has on millions of shooters world-wide. It's akin to a young person who has lost their virginity, stating they didn't mean to do that and want to go back to the way things were.

Obviously, the ISSF will dream up another reason for the change, such as the completely fatuous one of APPEARANCE, because they can't be seen to look like the fools they are by declaring that they gear that THEY have said is legal is now illegal. Shooters bought this gear in good faith that it was legal under the rule I quoted above so why should they be disadvantaged in such an arbitrary fashion by the very people who allowed them to buy it?

It appears, too, that the ISSF doesn't like the way shooters walk in their boots!! If appearance is allowed to become the governing factor for shooting equipment, then they must go too, as must the jackets. Since when has fashion and the subjective issue of appearance become the governing factor for what a shooter needs to successfully participate in this sport?

Perhaps they won't like the way you stand in a shooting match - some stances look quite strange, so will there be rules about how far one can lean one way or the other? Should shooters be allowed to spread their legs beyond a certain angle in prone, for appearances sake? Where do you draw the line with APPEARANCES?

As for making a rilfe heavier or lighter. It is easy to add weight to a rifle. Taking a lot of weight off is another matter. Have a good look at say a modern air rifle. Where would you begin to remove say, two kilos from the weight? I've had a close look at mine and I'm damned if I would know where to start without mutilating the thing beyond all recognition and thereby destroying its resale value. Not that cost would EVER be an issue for the ISSF.

So glib solutions, without any sort of sound reasoning, are not going to work. The ISSF should realise that the clothes, as they are at present, are the result of THEIR decisions and should be left as they are. They are legal, they are sport specific, and recognisable as such and they do NOT look strange or silly when compared to the other sports involved in the Olympics.

[Bill]

Pants or no pants, that has been the question.

What concerns me is the method by which this potential change will be made. First comes an unsubstantiated announcement, in various publications, making one believe that rule changes have already been passed. That way, when and if the change actually happens, everyone has already been warned. Classic marketing, or perhaps misinformation.

===>>>An interesting tactic to say the least- something one gets used to in politics. This is the equivalent of walking up to a friend and asking the question, "Are you still cheating on your taxes?". Step one is inference, step 2 is conclusion. How does one challenge this type of logic?

Second, it is the few who seem to be in control that concerns me the most. The ISSF has far-reaching implications, as it potentially reaches the NCAA in the U.S., and to a larger degree, all 3-P/International type shooting worldwide. Yet it seems that just a few have the power to control such a large group. I hope my friends in the EU don't take exception, but this is NOT the democracy I am used to in the USA. I have been a director on Boards of organizations, and in every case the organization is (supposed to be) first and foremost there to serve the membership of said group.

My personal belief is that all of this has absolutely nothing to do with shooting pants, per se. I believe it has everything to do with power in the ISSF, and who can affect change. I'm not going to comment further on this, as it is merely speculation.

Another problem I have is the logic that somehow changing clothing with increase media attention to the sport. Does anyone really believe this?
If you do, can you please tell me how? By allowing shooting boots, won't we still walk like ducks? (No offence to duck lovers out there!)

In summary, my hope is that if the rules do change, and the majority are not in support of said changes, these members of the ISSF will be replaced promptly with individuals who will listen. I personally have written many of the ISSF Board members, and when my e-mail is not returned as "undeliverable", I seem to be ignored. I can only hope that their in-boxes are being flooded with our thoughts they don't have the time to reply. But I must say that every Congressman of the United States of America seems to have the time to reply to comments via signed letter; they at least "act" concerned about serving the public, or perhaps getting re-elected, depending on your views.

Has ANYONE else in this forum heard from ANY member of the ISSF, and if you did, were you give clear, susbstantiated information?

Bill


P.S.- These are my personal views ONLY.

[Sparks]

I hope my friends in the EU don't take exception, but this is NOT the democracy I am used to in the USA.

We don't - this is not the democracy we invented! ;)