Team Archery Finals--did you see it?

[Roy Hill]

Did anyone else catch any of the men's or women's Team Archery Finals?

I think air rifle (maybe smallbore, too) could learn a few things about making shooting more spectator friendly from the team archery finals.

Three people on a team. Teams take turns firing. Scores immediately shown, 5000 people in the stands going crazy on each shot.

With electronic scoring systems, and big-screen TVs, something very similar could easily be set up for air rifle shooters.

What do you think?

[Richard H]

Similar format to the Bundesliga, head to head competition, with immediate scoring.

[RobStubbs]

You could totally change the format of the finals but in archery the qualifyers are also one on one. Again that would be acheiveable in shooting but you couldn't shoot 60 shot matches in every eliminator.

Rob.

[robf]

In my mind, getting into the shoes of the finalist is the way to get it over to the viewer.

Hooking up the participant to a heart rate monitor and scatt type would allow the viewers to see and 'feel' the shots and experience. Perhaps some high speed shots / slow capture of the muzzle as well.

[Sparks]

You could totally change the format of the finals but in archery the qualifyers are also one on one. Again that would be acheiveable in shooting but you couldn't shoot 60 shot matches in every eliminator.
Rob.

Not quite Rob, the qualifiers in archery are a standard FITA match (144 arrows, 36 at each of 4 distances (30m, 50m, 70&90m for men, 60&70m for women). They then take the top 64 and go into one-on-one elimination rounds (12 arrows @ 70m), half the number out each time until you're down to four, then you have the bronze medal match and the gold medal match.

In shooting terms, that'd be a standard 60-shot match (or series of them), take the top 64 and do a bunch of head-to-head elimination rounds.

Could be done, but it'd take forever.

The archery is instructive though, as I understand it the chap who thought up the format was both the head of FITA and the guy who owned Easton. And at the time, FITA knew that archery was up for the chop because it wasn't tense enough for the TV crews. So maybe the combination of economic interests and imminent exile from the olympic programme can be a good thing :D

[terrypchan]

Not quite Rob, the qualifiers in archery are a standard FITA match (144 arrows, 36 at each of 4 distances (30m, 50m, 70&90m for men, 60&70m for women). They then take the top 64 and go into one-on-one elimination rounds (12 arrows @ 70m), half the number out each time until you're down to four, then you have the bronze medal match and the gold medal match.

You are describing the way outdated qualifying round for Olympic Archery. The current Olympic qualification round for Archery (and it has been this way since at least the 1996 games and quite possibly even longer) is everyone shoots at 70 meters only and they shoot two rounds of 36 arrows. So max possible score would be 360 for each round, 720 total for the qualification rounds. Everyone is ranked by total score and only the top 64 proceed to the elimination rounds.

The FITA match of 144 arrows is only shot at the World Championships and of course National Championships are free to choose which ever round they want.

[Sparks]

You are describing the way outdated qualifying round for Olympic Archery. The current Olympic qualification round for Archery (and it has been this way since at least the 1996 games and quite possibly even longer) is everyone shoots at 70 meters only and they shoot two rounds of 36 arrows.

D'Oh. I'd been misreading that competely (the World Championships bit is what confused me), thanks Terry.

[TomN]

You can call me a fossile, but I still don't like the way sport governing bodies have caved in to television. The entire finals format is structured for entertainment value, and seems to corrupt the sport. Let's face it: Shooting is a participant sport, not a spectator sport. Nothing is going to change that, and there is nothing wrong with that. Quite honestly, with the Olympics now focusing on beach volleyball and synchronized diving, I don't particularly care if shooting remains part of the Olympic movement or not. The Olympics have become a farce.

[jhmartin]

Well, I'm not going to complain too much ... at least some very interesting things are being broadcast on the net.

I'm a swimmer from my early days, so I keep the tube on to watch interesting swimming heats and finals, but I find myself sitting much more in front of the computer watching the Air Rifle finals, Trap, Dbl-Trap, soon to be skeet and rifle. Even the "re-runs" are better than much of the stuff on the TV

If none of that's on I usually have an archery comp pulled up ... no interest in the basketball, vollyball, etc (COME-ON they're pros, you can watch them on pay per view later..)

[Richard H]

You can call me a fossile, but I still don't like the way sport governing bodies have caved in to television. The entire finals format is structured for entertainment value, and seems to corrupt the sport. Let's face it: Shooting is a participant sport, not a spectator sport. Nothing is going to change that, and there is nothing wrong with that. Quite honestly, with the Olympics now focusing on beach volleyball and synchronized diving, I don't particularly care if shooting remains part of the Olympic movement or not. The Olympics have become a farce.

Ok you're a fossile.

Well it easy for you to say, if it's not in the Olympics then lots of shooters all over the world would soon find themselves with out a sport. Many countries only allow shooting because it is an Olympic sport.

What the old way of counting back was good, give me a break, things change everything can't be like it was back in the good old days (which really weren't that good). How dare they try to bring some excitement to the sport.

I agree with Basket Ball and tennis, man these guys are on TV all the time, I'd prefer if they didn't focus so much on those multi million dollar athlete's

Since taking up shooting at a competitive level it has taught me to appreciate the work involved in all sports. I find myself watch and appreciating sports that I really paid no attention to in the past.

[methosb]

I dunno, I think the rifle/pistol finals are very exciting. They are extremely tense and what makes it exciting is being able to see the scores and positions change as soon as the shots register as well as a knowledgeable commentator.

The ISSF tv finals have been great recently, extremely exciting and I think that is much to do with the commentating and the graphics they have put together to be displayed in the broadcast. The broadcasts I have watched for the Olympics have been very bad. The commentator doesn't seem to know much about the sports and the camera and graphics work is awful. Half the time the name of the shooter that the camera is on isn't even correct, the shots don't register in the graphics in the right place, it doesn't give a running total of the two shooters on the screen as they shoot, just a big mess really.

As for live spectating. Again I think the finals are quite entertaining now when the scores are close and they have the electronic boards above the shooters showing exactly what they shoot when they shoot, and a running total/rank on the side wall that updates after every shot.

I think plenty of people would find it good to watch assuming they ever got to watch it...

[Richard H]

I agree ISSF TV has come along way since they started. The quality of the broadcasts are very good now. The camera work, the graphics and the commentating including other athletes this year has been really good.