And the guy shot the top qualifying score of 581 in rapid, just missing out on gold in the finals.
10M AP will be interesting to see :)
Rob.
European Championships.... "Kids Free pistol scores....
Moderators: pilkguns, m1963, David Levene, Spencer, Richard H
Forum rules
If you wish to make a donation to this forum's operation , it would be greatly appreciated.
https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/targettalk?yours=true
If you wish to make a donation to this forum's operation , it would be greatly appreciated.
https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/targettalk?yours=true
-
David Levene
- Posts: 5617
- Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 12:49 pm
- Location: Ruislip, UK
Re: Shooting Range, Sports Authority of Thailand/ Bangkok 20
He took the gold with 585 + 101.5 = 686.5Russ wrote:Nice score ..... Let's see about AP performance at Monday, 13 August 2007?
Yesterday he only took bronze in the Standard Pistol with 571, missing the tie-shoot for gold/silver by 1 point. Maybe he is human after all ;-)
Thailand/ Bangkok 2007
Nice harvest after all :)
-
.donthc
just voicing out my comments on the issue, my observations as a third party.
i think it is real ironic to hear you guys out there complaining about shooting losing popularity in the US. The US is one of few countries in the world where people are permitted to own guns legally. Whereas, China, Russia and Brazil (?) have much stricter gun control rules, where people caught with possessing any firearms will be put on the death row.
from my impression, there shouldn't really be any decline in the popularity of the sport, especially in the US, well known for the rights to bear arms.
or is it rather that people are attracted to shooting, but are turn off by the concept of precision shooting? that should be the case, i think.
People generally are more interested in scoring hits (i.e. on a metal can), rather than to be "agonize"(you know what i mean) to hitting bullseye the size of a penny.
Afterall, precision shooting doesn't seems that fun anymore when you have "shoot-em-ups" computer games and arcade games about, where it is cheaper, more fun and not to mention, easier to hit the target.
maybe the approach is to not get beginners in shooting to derive joys from shooting (that i mean by merely pulling the trigger and releasing the shot). we should instead condition them to become addicted into trying to improve their standards, to achieve victory over themselves or others.
just my 2¢ worth as a non-american.
i think it is real ironic to hear you guys out there complaining about shooting losing popularity in the US. The US is one of few countries in the world where people are permitted to own guns legally. Whereas, China, Russia and Brazil (?) have much stricter gun control rules, where people caught with possessing any firearms will be put on the death row.
from my impression, there shouldn't really be any decline in the popularity of the sport, especially in the US, well known for the rights to bear arms.
or is it rather that people are attracted to shooting, but are turn off by the concept of precision shooting? that should be the case, i think.
People generally are more interested in scoring hits (i.e. on a metal can), rather than to be "agonize"(you know what i mean) to hitting bullseye the size of a penny.
Afterall, precision shooting doesn't seems that fun anymore when you have "shoot-em-ups" computer games and arcade games about, where it is cheaper, more fun and not to mention, easier to hit the target.
maybe the approach is to not get beginners in shooting to derive joys from shooting (that i mean by merely pulling the trigger and releasing the shot). we should instead condition them to become addicted into trying to improve their standards, to achieve victory over themselves or others.
just my 2¢ worth as a non-american.
Popularity of precision shooting spors, i think, correlates with the culture of hard work and discipline (USSR, China, Japan). Yes, Japan is not big on ISSF shooting, but the kyudo federation in this tiny country the size of California has half a million members and a range is usually a stone throw away.
When Russia in recent years followed the steps of democracy, corporations and the culture of instant gratification, shooting popularity declined by orders of magnitute and the ranges are empty now. Anatoliy Piddubniy left coaching in Ukraine because there was noone left to coach.
When Russia in recent years followed the steps of democracy, corporations and the culture of instant gratification, shooting popularity declined by orders of magnitute and the ranges are empty now. Anatoliy Piddubniy left coaching in Ukraine because there was noone left to coach.
-
Steve Swartz
. . . continuing slightly off-topic ramble to somewhat vaguely defined topical thread . . .
But Don, as has been mentioned before in this forum- shooting was popular in the fUSSR when "membership had it's priveleges" so to speak. When some body else is picking up the tab, and/or even rewarding you for your participation, participation is high. [there is an economics lesson about taxation vs. subsidy in here somewhere].
It has long been noted in the shooting sports in the USA that "funded team members" (ie, USMC, USA, etc team members) tend to not continue the sport after they are no longer with the unit. The percentage of "Joe Generic" shooters who make it a lifelong passion is much higher than the percentage of "Joe Team Member" types who do.
The counterpoint of this is obvious and anecdotal- yes, their are countries with high level of "participation" without these incentives; just as there are individual shooters who commit great resources without support who achieve great heights.
I think those cases are generally exceptional cases though.
Thought Experiment: What happens to level of Chinese "participation" when earning gold medals is no longer a party priority?
Yes, in ALL olympic disciplines, the role of the "True Amateur" is miniscule under today's climate.
If you want a lot of dedicated shooters, there must be "Something In It For Them."
So the question is: what's in it for them?
Steve Swartz
But Don, as has been mentioned before in this forum- shooting was popular in the fUSSR when "membership had it's priveleges" so to speak. When some body else is picking up the tab, and/or even rewarding you for your participation, participation is high. [there is an economics lesson about taxation vs. subsidy in here somewhere].
It has long been noted in the shooting sports in the USA that "funded team members" (ie, USMC, USA, etc team members) tend to not continue the sport after they are no longer with the unit. The percentage of "Joe Generic" shooters who make it a lifelong passion is much higher than the percentage of "Joe Team Member" types who do.
The counterpoint of this is obvious and anecdotal- yes, their are countries with high level of "participation" without these incentives; just as there are individual shooters who commit great resources without support who achieve great heights.
I think those cases are generally exceptional cases though.
Thought Experiment: What happens to level of Chinese "participation" when earning gold medals is no longer a party priority?
Yes, in ALL olympic disciplines, the role of the "True Amateur" is miniscule under today's climate.
If you want a lot of dedicated shooters, there must be "Something In It For Them."
So the question is: what's in it for them?
Steve Swartz
-
.donthc
the issue at hand is not about not performing well in shooting, but the decline in popularity of shooting.
True, that countries such as China enjoyed popularity in shooting sports, due to their funding of their sportsmen.
however, you must understand that extensive funding is not available to the bulk of these shooters. furthermore, those sportsmen, being professional sportsmen, are pressured to perform well, or to face the consequences, such as cutting down their allowance.
From what i heard, there are 4 levels of shooters in China, from the average "Joe-generic" shooters, to the City team level shooter, then to the provincial team level shooter, and finally the elite national team shooter.
Can you imagine hundreds of thousands, if not million of people, trying hard to get into the national team? usually the teams have around 10 places for each event. and to get into the team, for air rifle, one has to constantly shoot above 595-596 for a place in the team. Scores above 595 are the norm for provincial level match. it is not surprising that many people drop out of the sport.
the funding these shooters receive from the state is also miniscule. just barely enough to cover the cost of cards and pellets. Bear in mind that, despite of their low income, they have to purchase their own equipments, such as guns and jackets, and these do not come cheap.
AAlex has a point, that this fervour may have come from their culture of discipline, but my point is that there are many shooters out there who shoots not for the funding, but also as a hobby. look at China's Wang Yifu, from his interview, he state that he join shooting because he is interested in the sport, not for the money.
AND, it seems that the original context of the issue is not about getting enough delicate shooters, but also those "shoot-as-and-when-they-like" shooters.
True, that countries such as China enjoyed popularity in shooting sports, due to their funding of their sportsmen.
however, you must understand that extensive funding is not available to the bulk of these shooters. furthermore, those sportsmen, being professional sportsmen, are pressured to perform well, or to face the consequences, such as cutting down their allowance.
From what i heard, there are 4 levels of shooters in China, from the average "Joe-generic" shooters, to the City team level shooter, then to the provincial team level shooter, and finally the elite national team shooter.
Can you imagine hundreds of thousands, if not million of people, trying hard to get into the national team? usually the teams have around 10 places for each event. and to get into the team, for air rifle, one has to constantly shoot above 595-596 for a place in the team. Scores above 595 are the norm for provincial level match. it is not surprising that many people drop out of the sport.
the funding these shooters receive from the state is also miniscule. just barely enough to cover the cost of cards and pellets. Bear in mind that, despite of their low income, they have to purchase their own equipments, such as guns and jackets, and these do not come cheap.
AAlex has a point, that this fervour may have come from their culture of discipline, but my point is that there are many shooters out there who shoots not for the funding, but also as a hobby. look at China's Wang Yifu, from his interview, he state that he join shooting because he is interested in the sport, not for the money.
AND, it seems that the original context of the issue is not about getting enough delicate shooters, but also those "shoot-as-and-when-they-like" shooters.
I'm lost....
Who can help me to understand the difference between:
"True Amateur", "True Recreational Shooter with Olympic style pistol" and "Olympic Style Pistol Athlet"?
Russ
True Recreational Shooter with Olympic style pistol
"True Amateur", "True Recreational Shooter with Olympic style pistol" and "Olympic Style Pistol Athlet"?
Russ
True Recreational Shooter with Olympic style pistol
-
Steve Swartz
"True Amateur" is an unsupported shooter.
One Perspective ("Old School" way of looking at it):
You know, like the western countries (well, o.k., maybe only the USA and UK) used to insist on "back in the day" before countries started appointing their athlestes to military commissions, etc.
Big scandals when athletes like Jim Thorpe were known to have been "paid" (won bets, actually) racing horses and trains and the like. USA and UK interpretation of "Amateur Athletes" was pretty strict- you couldn't accept any remuneration for activities related to your sport.
Only "True Amateurs" were considered "Real Olympic Athletes" and professional athletes (those receiving pay for practicing their sport) were not considered eligible for Olympic competition.
Since most other countries interpreted the rules (shall we say) "differently" eventually the UK and USA went along with the crowd and relaxed their interpretations as well.
Not saying one interpretation was "better" in any way; just that most other countries considered ability and medals much more important than the so-called "purity" of following the rules of "amateur" stated in the IOC rules. And the USA and UK "cheated" as well on many occasions after the 1960s.
But this is all pretty much ancient history- the olympics are certainly quite different today in many respects.
Not sure what your other terms mean. Since you coined them, perhaps you can provide a definition?
Steve Swartz
One Perspective ("Old School" way of looking at it):
You know, like the western countries (well, o.k., maybe only the USA and UK) used to insist on "back in the day" before countries started appointing their athlestes to military commissions, etc.
Big scandals when athletes like Jim Thorpe were known to have been "paid" (won bets, actually) racing horses and trains and the like. USA and UK interpretation of "Amateur Athletes" was pretty strict- you couldn't accept any remuneration for activities related to your sport.
Only "True Amateurs" were considered "Real Olympic Athletes" and professional athletes (those receiving pay for practicing their sport) were not considered eligible for Olympic competition.
Since most other countries interpreted the rules (shall we say) "differently" eventually the UK and USA went along with the crowd and relaxed their interpretations as well.
Not saying one interpretation was "better" in any way; just that most other countries considered ability and medals much more important than the so-called "purity" of following the rules of "amateur" stated in the IOC rules. And the USA and UK "cheated" as well on many occasions after the 1960s.
But this is all pretty much ancient history- the olympics are certainly quite different today in many respects.
Not sure what your other terms mean. Since you coined them, perhaps you can provide a definition?
Steve Swartz
Just hoping if I'll fit well....
... "Since you coined them, perhaps you can provide a definition?"...
...Just hoping if I'll fit well to the second level "True Recreational Shooter with Olympic style pistol" and successfully passed first one: "True Amateur".... ;)
Next my goal will be: The True Paid "Olympic Style Pistol Athlete"!
...Just hoping if I'll fit well to the second level "True Recreational Shooter with Olympic style pistol" and successfully passed first one: "True Amateur".... ;)
Next my goal will be: The True Paid "Olympic Style Pistol Athlete"!
Born and raised in Japan, I must say that I find shooters in most western countries extremely lucky. Guns are basically banned in Japan, and if you wish to own even an air rifle, for example, you will have to pass a national written examination and apply for a permit for each and every rifle you would like to own (the police have the authority to approve or deny your application). It took me over a month to obtain my first air rifle permit.
As to pistols, only 500 air pistols and 30 smallbore/center fire pistols are allowed in the country(!). To my knowledge, only 8 civilian-owned free pistols and 2 center fire pistols exist in Japan, and the pistols must be kept at the owners' local police stations.
Hence, most "amateurs" do not even get a chance to try this fine sport, and almost all Japanese Olympians in pistol shooting have been police officers or military personnel. Talk about popularity of the sport.
As to pistols, only 500 air pistols and 30 smallbore/center fire pistols are allowed in the country(!). To my knowledge, only 8 civilian-owned free pistols and 2 center fire pistols exist in Japan, and the pistols must be kept at the owners' local police stations.
Hence, most "amateurs" do not even get a chance to try this fine sport, and almost all Japanese Olympians in pistol shooting have been police officers or military personnel. Talk about popularity of the sport.
-
jacques b gros
- Posts: 174
- Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2007 9:54 am
- Location: Rio Grande do Sul - South Brazil
As for Brazil: if you kill someone with a knife, and is caught in the act, you'll get bail. Shoot him, no bail. The cost of registering a gun here is, sometimes, higher than the price of a gun. Plus a bureaucratic mess..donthc wrote:
i think it is real ironic to hear you guys out there complaining about shooting losing popularity in the US. The US is one of few countries in the world where people are permitted to own guns legally. Whereas, China, Russia and Brazil (?) have much stricter gun control rules, where people caught with possessing any firearms will be put on the death row.
It is becoming politically incorrect to like guns around here, but the newer shooters are going the same way your's: just hit it with a cannon. And that kind of shooting looks real bad seen out of the range: "look at those madman running around shooting".
I think (my 0,02) that the complications to buy a heavy caliber in EU has something to do with the number of new shooters in precision: just buy an air pistol and find a 10m range that you will be able to use all year.
Now, in the US you buy a cannon with your ID card. Why buy another, expensive gun, if you can shoot with the cannon?
Last evening went to the range I used to shoot. The sports shooting area had more people at a range some 30km outside town than I've ever seen in the precision range.
Sorry this go too long.