interview with Bob Mitchell

[Guest]

As the world's athletes wind-down from the 100th Olympic Games in Athens, Greece, the United States is feeling pretty good about the overall performance of our Olympic teams. There were the usual disappointments and pleasant surprises - a characteristic that makes all Olympic Games exciting. For USA Shooting, it was the best performance since 1984, winning a pair of golds and a silver medal, although it fell short of a projected six-medal performance. Last week, The Outdoor Wire spoke with Robert K. Mitchell, Executive Director of USA Shooting, regarding team USA's performance in Athens and the state of USA Shooting in general.

TOW: Mr. Mitchell, the stated goal of USA Shooting was six medals in Athens, but you didn't get there. How do you answer the critics?

MITCHELL: On day four of the games, I was panicking, but we came through with our best performance since 1984. We've certainly improved, and I think we should take a lot of satisfaction from the games. The shooters represented us well, and, all in all, it's not like we shot badly. We had other medals in our hands, but, well, for example, Matt Emmons, who did bring home a gold, had a second medal virtually locked up. One shot to go and a three point lead. Then, a crossfire - his first in years. There goes the medal. Becky (Snyder) should have had a medal, but she had a late shot. There's two medals, and Jason Parker, one of the finest men's air rifle shooters in the world- without a doubt - gets to the finals and shoots 594. The winners shot 599, with that differential, a medal's just not realistic.

TOW: You've led me to the criticism…observers have said that USA Shooting's not trained to win. They're technically proficient, but haven't had enough head-to-head competition to stand up to finals pressure…what about that?

MITCHELL: We need to find out what's wrong with our conversion of finals appearances to medals. In shotgun, for example, there are only 6 finalists. If you get in the finals and have a solid performance, you should have an even chance of winning a medal. We need to give our athletes whatever we can to give the chance to win more medals - we owe them that.

TOW: Address those critics who have said the coaches can't take the athletes to the medal stands…

MITCHELL: We'll have a quadrennial review in October. Inside, outside; and all aspects of USA Shooting's performance will be included. We'll look at what we've done and how we must change to get our shooters to the medal stands. We're still in the middle of a change from an entitlement-based organization to a performance-based organization.

TOW: Explain that, please.

MITCHELL: Sure. We've made fundamental changes in how athletes are treated. It used to be that the top shooter in each discipline was sent to competitions, even if they weren't really competitive with the rest of the world's shooters. Today, we don't do that. We're spending our budgets on the shooters who are getting results. That doesn't mean we're getting away from developing new shooters or bringing along USA Shooting Team members, it just means that we're spending more on sending those shooters with a chance to win to more events. We're not giving everyone the same level of support, we've become far more performance based. We've made some tough decisions and I think we've been successful. Our board and the USOC seem to agree, but we know there's still a lot of work to do. We don't have all the answers, but I'm reasonably satisfied with how we've done.

TOW: OK, here's a question I've been asked since the Games. The United States has two hundred million residents; it's the easiest country in the world in which to purchase and use a firearm, why do we not dominate the world shooting competitions?

MITCHELL: Our game is very difficult. How many other shooting competitions are there? Dozens? Hundreds? Plenty, whatever the total number. Unfortunately, our shooter pool is one of the smallest groups. We only have a pool of about 5,000 Olympic-style shooters.

TOW: So why not grow the pool?

MITCHELL: International shooting requires some particularly expensive systems. If you want to compete in rapid-fire target, the electronic system is about $20,000. If you want to shoot international trap, that bunker system is $80,000 compared to a fraction of that for U-S versions. The electronic targets are great for spectators - makes it very interesting - but those cost $4,000 each. You can't expect small clubs to make that kind of financial commitment. We're very limited in that respect. With the loss of Atlanta's facilities, Fort Benning, Georgia is the only other facility left. We have access, but that can be closed down at any time. We'd love to have our own facilities, but it would cost around $4.5 million to build one. But there's more to it than simply having facilities. For example, swimming has one of the largest athlete pools in the country - they're a huge governing body - but one of their top rules is 'grow the base' - as big as their base is, they're always looking to add more swimmers to the pool.

TOW: OK, what's that mean?

MITCHELL: We haven't made participation a priority. Participation is, in fact, decreasing and we need to build it. A continuing challenge is the fact that all the other shooting sports see USA Shooting as a threat to take their people- I'd like to see that change so that all shooting sports support our team.

TOW: What about converting our existing world-class shooters in other competitive categories - like speed shooting, for example, to Olympic shooting?

MITCHELL: Two years ago, NSSF gave us a grant to explore that idea. We contacted about a dozen top shooters. (Rob) Leatham and (Doug) Koenig passed, but others came, learned about our sport, and I think they enjoyed themselves.

TOW: And?

MITCHELL: I told them they had the winning experience we needed. They asked if we would pay them. When I said no, they wanted us to buy their guns and give them 100,000 rounds of ammo to practice.

TOW: So they couldn't contribute?

MITCHELL: I didn't say that. Rapid fire (pistol) is changing. It looks like it will be going to .22 long-rifle round, and pistols with no muzzle breaks. That sort of game now fits their style of shooting better. We may look at re-opening that discussion.

TOW: Right now, it sounds like you're saying what every administrator in any sport says they need to be more competitive: bigger athlete pools, more support, more facilities, basically, more money. How do you answer those sponsors who want to know why they should increase support - or want to know how their money has been spent so far?

MITCHELL: Any sponsor can ask those questions at any time. We need to show value to all our sponsors. We think our athletes do that. USA Shooting athletes participate in their advertising, attend their events and represent our country well. Our direct mail campaign has also been very successful in raising support money. But, we do have to compete for sponsors in a finite money pool. I think we do that.

TOW: Let's talk about Bob Mitchell for a minute. Grade your own performance report card.

MITCHELL: We're much stronger than when I came to USA Shooting. As an organization, we've made some tough decisions. I think they've been successful. We still have work to do. I'm reasonably satisfied with how we've gone to a corporate-style board. It wasn't that way before. When I agreed to this position, that was one thing I said was required. Before, this position didn't make the final decisions. I asked that if I had the responsibility for managing the organization, I had the authority to make the final decisions and would answer to the Board of Directors. They agreed, and I think it's been good for everyone.

TOW: Some criticize you as being autocratic. Are you?

MITCHELL: I am in charge. Like I told you before, I'm paid for making final decisions and policy. But, when we make decisions we try to look at all options. We talk, and when we disagree, and I have an open-door policy. If someone thinks we're wrong, athletes, coaches or administrative staff, they're welcome to sit down with me and we'll discuss it. But, that having been said, I do make the final decisions. Sometimes people don't like the that. But that's not unique to USA Shooting. But it's come a long way from the 90's when it was 'like it or leave it'.

TOW: Thanks.

EDITOR'S NOTE: Since this interview, USA Shooting has undergone some coaching and staff changes. National Pistol Coach Erich Buljung has been dismissed. As TOW reported last week, former Marketing Director Leaha Wirth has resigned her position, effective September 17. She will assume a brand manager position with Armor Holdings (a USA Shooting sponsor) September 20.


http://www.theoutdoorwire.com/towIssue. ... &year=2004

[PETE S]

Participation is dropping, the metal count was below what was promised to the USOC and this was a condition for future funding from the USOC, and the person responsible (Leaha Wirth) for the only marketing program USAS has had is leaving, fewer shooters are being allowed to participate in world cup events, and Mr. Mitchell indicates that things are stronger? Stronger than when first setup perhaps but certainly not healthy or growing.

Local programs can use turning targets for Rapid fire and sport pistol, electronics are not required, so that does not relate to the drop in participation.

Does anyone outside of Mr. Mitchell's circle participate in the Quadrennial review?

[Barry Markowitz]

I have a very good feeling about this interview. It wasn't full of fluff, as the interviewer asked and followed up with some very solid questions. My respect for Bob Mitchell is vastly increased because he gave straight-up answers, and didn't seem to duck the questions. Living as far as you can get from Colorado Springs, here in the islands, I'm sure I am not aware of everything that is going on, or questions that should have been asked. But I feel that Mitchell replied honestly, including dealing with America's deficiencies in energizing an interest in ISSF style shooting, and the way financial resources are allocated. I hope this frank discussion will promote constructive efforts by we, the shooting community, to help provide solutions.

[Blankenship]

I've heard Mitchell say that we used to have plenty of funding under the NRA system and much more participation as well. I'd like to see the NRA put back in charge of the international shooting sports, with NRA funding and a vastly greater competitive memebrship to draw from.

In the old days you shot three courses of fire for each event at the national championships to determine the national team; that system drew many more participants than the current fall and spring selection matches are experiencing. We are missing out on many talented shooters that make Camp Perry each year, but won't consider consuming the rediculous amount of time and separate trips it takes each year just to tryout for the national team. The current selection procedure is obviously not working and USA Shooting is not meeting the funding needs of our sport.

In this instance, going backwards would actually be a giant leap forward!

[PaulB]

I would tend to agree with this opinion, but it is my understanding that the NRA, as a "multipurpose" organization and with an organizational structure that is contrary to IOC regulations for NGBs has no chance of becoming the NGB again. Does anyone know what changes the NRA would have to make to make it eligible to be the shooting NGB?

[Guest]

USA Shooting should take a lesson from the NRA in how their competitors are respected, ie. when I shoot enough shots in a new disipline, or if I shoot in a higher classification, NRA has my new card to me pronto! USA Shooting has never even recognized that I have shot their matches nor do I have a clue if classification cards exist in their world. I support them, they ignore me.

[PETE S]

I am not sure what the difference is but I get new cards from USAS every year with a printout of my scores used to generate the average etc.

I have regularly attended the Nationals and have shoot a few PTO during the year. I receive the cards in January or February as I recall.

[athlete fan]

The USOC would never allow a political body to run USAS. Forget that idea.

[GOVTMODEL]

I would tend to agree with this opinion, but it is my understanding that the NRA, as a "multipurpose" organization and with an organizational structure that is contrary to IOC regulations for NGBs has no chance of becoming the NGB again. Does anyone know what changes the NRA would have to make to make it eligible to be the shooting NGB?

NRA would have to give up being RKBA organization entirely to satisfy the requirements of the Amateur Athletic Act and the USOC.

[Guest]

The need for a bigger base is obvious. The high cost of techy equipment reduces the base. When will they learn, simpler is better in athletics?

As a professional sport the olympics doesn't cut it with enough fans. Look at the stands in Athens. Often they were very vacant.

[Jim B.]

As a bullseye and international pistol shooter, I agree with the sentiment regarding the superior manner in which the NRA handles competitive shooting. The concept of "entitlement" is still very firmly entrenched at USAS, as the guest post on Sept. 7th reflects.
One idea I'd like to contribute regards the shooting industry. We have virtually no domestic source of competitive firearms or ammunition (Federal Gold Medal being one exception). Exclusive distribution, higher cost, and limited availability of these products reduces public exposure and thus leads to the small pool of participants. I would like to see some US manufacturers take the lead. Remember High Standard's RF pistol program in the 60's? They devoted considerable time and resources to help America bring home the gold. (I believe the estimate for the the experimental pistols was about $30,000 per gun in terms of labor and research.) Without such products and the attendant publicity and support, the position of professional shooters such as Leatham and Koenig is understandable.

[Guest]

I would tend to agree with this opinion, but it is my understanding that the NRA, as a "multipurpose" organization and with an organizational structure that is contrary to IOC regulations for NGBs has no chance of becoming the NGB again. Does anyone know what changes the NRA would have to make to make it eligible to be the shooting NGB?

NRA would have to give up being RKBA organization entirely to satisfy the requirements of the Amateur Athletic Act and the USOC.

The NRA Institute for Legislative Action is a different legal entity than the NRA.

[mikeschroeder]

Hi

The following is true, but is probably considered irrelevant by others:

The NRA Institute for Legislative Action is a different legal entity than the NRA.

Is our problem here with the US Olympic committee, or internationally?

Mike

[E Kuney]

Jim B

It's my understanding that Federal has discontinued their match ammunition production -- at least in the upper grades. (Their website no longer lists anything 'better' than 711B.)
Have you -- or anyone else on the board -- heard otherwise?

[Bill]

....that so many are talking about USAS joining up with the NRA, i.e., going back to the old days... because that's where "the money was/is".

I am not an NRA employee, but it is my guess is that the NRA does not have lots of funding for ISSF-style shooting programs. When Gary Anderson was Dir. Ops, NRA, in those days he made sure money was available for ISU shooting disciplines (for better or worse, depending who you talk to). I have heard that many of the competitive and coaching programs at the NRA need to be self-funding under the current guidelines, which in itself has positive and negative aspects.

Now we have no fewer than three bodies competing for resources: USAS, NRA, and CMP, and in reality the pot is smaller to split.

I think by having USAS, we offer even more programs to shooters and it gives the sport separation from the NRA. However, specialization (in this case, ISSF-style only shooting) creates its own set of limitations, both with regard to membership as well as funding.

This is a tough nut to crack!

Bill

[GOVTMODEL]

I would tend to agree with this opinion, but it is my understanding that the NRA, as a "multipurpose" organization and with an organizational structure that is contrary to IOC regulations for NGBs has no chance of becoming the NGB again. Does anyone know what changes the NRA would have to make to make it eligible to be the shooting NGB?

NRA would have to give up being RKBA organization entirely to satisfy the requirements of the Amateur Athletic Act and the USOC.

The NRA Institute for Legislative Action is a different legal entity than the NRA.

That is true, and it is needed for NRA to remain a tax-exempt entity. Nonetheless, to many of NRA's activities are in conflict with the Amateur Athletic Act and USOC policies for it to be a workable arangement.

[PETE S]

I find it interesting how Mr. Mitchell states: "We're much stronger than when I came to USA Shooting. As an organization, we've made some tough decisions. I think they've been successful."

But many people here are asking if international shooting should go back to the NRA.

What is wrong with USAS?

What is Mr. Mitchell not seeing?[/quote]

[R.M.]

Perhaps Mr. Mitchell's trying to save his own job/ hide!

[pilkguns]

"What is Mr. Mitchell not seeing?" I think question should be "What are the questioners not seeing?"

I don'nt think anyone will disagree including Bob Mitchell that there was more "money" during the NRA days. There was no need to go market yourself to the industry to get cash to carry out the program. But as has already been said in this thread and it is correct to my understanding (NRA staffers correct me if I'm wrong) but the money in the other competitive shooting programs is less in recent years and issued more on a pay as you go basis. So even if we were back under NRA's wings, its doubtful that the "money" would be the same. AND has already been mentioned too, going back under NRA is not possible given USOC guidelines for NGB's so this part of this discussion is wishful thinking. Yes, I wish the the two organizations I love were one and the same, or at least united, but they are'nt and I don't see any possibility that they will again.Sooooooooooooo.....

lets get back to a productive discussion of what can be improved at USAS. I think they are doing many things right, and a lot of that came about Mitchell's leadership. I have absolutely no doubt that things are much better all the way across the board since Mitchell's leadeship of USAS. Two Golds and a Silver is the best Olympic results in 2O years, and we had 4 narrow misses at other medals. Program wise, 3P Air has caused an explosion of young shooters across the country. USAS just invested in bunch of junior air pistols to try to do something similar for the pistol side of the house. Are there things that can be improved at USAS? are there things I don't like at USAS? Sure, yes to both, but overall the program is MUCH improved over what it was 4 years ago. If you' ve got suggestion on what should be changed, lets hear them. We've got a few of our own that might be utilized now that we are 48 months from the next Olympics not 18 months out.

But this discussion of NRA rule either past or future is a waste of time and bandwith. Let's move on folks.

[Steve Swartz]

I'm not sure the Bob Mitchell interview was relevant to the issues that need to be addressed. Allow me to throw down the gantlet here; and i'm not pointing a finger of blame at anyone. I myself am "part of the problem" as you will see below.

The real issue isn't money- or at least not directly. But there are interesting comaprisons to be made between the NRA and the USAS Competitive Models. Consider what I mean please by "Competitive Models."

In order to be the National Champ in Bullseye (NRA model), what do you face? You have to be better than an awful lot of people- local, state, and national- and those people are all *really* good shooters. The competition is powerful adn tough every inch of the way- and the difference between the top 10, 20, 30 shooters nationally is maybe 15 points out of 2700. Easily the rankings of the top 50 shooters (or even top 10 shooters) is within flux and subject o change daily. Throw in squadding and weather at Camp Perry and every year there is a real dogfight from #1 down to DFL in all categories . . . a real competitive spirit.

What's the competitive environment in the international pistol discipline(s)? Be honest now- our competitive "pyramid" is hugely different.

Why?

Finally- once you realize the Competitive Model is very different- What effect does our competitive structure (inside the US) have on our competitiveness internationally?

Let's be honest here "Top US Pistol Shooters"- once you make the national team- by consistently shooting mid-570s with gusts to 580- what (or who) pushes you to shoot 590? 600?

And at the next level- let's be honest here "Wannabe Almost Top US Pistol Shooters" (and we know who we are)- once you settle in at your plateau of 560s with occasional gusts to 570- what motivation do you have to take on the existing members of the National Team?

And how do we develop a competitive infrastructure that will create the healthy dynamism needed to motivate both groups?

How do we create the conditions that lead to healthy, dynamic competition at the top two echelons of pistol shooters in our discipline? With a larger- perhaps much larger- pool of aggressive competitors striving to reach the top positions, all will benefit.

Maybe someday in the US you will need to shoot a 575 or better to make finals. And on that future day maybe there will be at least twice that many shooters above 570 who didn't make finals; but will sure as heck make finals next match . . . and 30 or more hot heads in the 560s just waiting to take your place. Then we will see some medals.

O.K., thanks for listening. Back to my Beijing Training Plan. We're burning daylight here.

Steve Swartz