TargetTalk

luftskytter wrote:Archery felt threatened and did a total redesign of their competition rounds to make it more spectator friendly and exciting.

Good for them.

Rifle and pistol shooting, however, will never be "spectator friendly and exciting" unless the powers that be chuck the entire program and start over with something where performance is instantly and easily recognizable and understandable by the naked eye of a spectator who's never before seen the sport. With all due respect to those who have stated different opinions in the past, no amount of competent commentary or of realtime posting of data (essentially making the job of the spectator to read constantly updated spreadsheets) can save a sport if it needs to be "spectator friendly and exciting" but that is also as inherently boring to watch as the ISSF rifle and pistol disciplines.

There are plenty of alternatives; here's one from the Dutch: http://www.youtube.com/v/z_wKJDz7J64

If that's too many shots at one time, here's something that uses 5-shot strings from the U.S.: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfibKBQM2Vs

I could easily sketch out the basics of something that used a block of miniature biathlon targets. The qualifications format would be easy to understand with accuracy being foremost but time being a factor. A fun-for-TV ladder-format finals would also be easy to envision.

The possibilities are endless if someone decides that a redesign for television and easy spectating is mandatory and is willing to throw out the rule book and start over. Such a move would require ditching most or all of the equipment owned by everyone and all the training everyone has ever done. Still, there's definitely precedent for such a move. I'm sure the shooters who lived during the transition off of .44 caliber revolvers kicked up a heck of a fuss. I'm sure some 300M Rifle shooters also groused but, for the love of shooting and a chance at a medal in the big show, at least gave it a go with a rimfire.

My questions are - Is making the sport into something "instantly and easily recognizable and understandable by the naked eye of a spectator who's never before seen the sport" a valid goal? If it were clear that such would be required to keep shooting in the Olympics, could the ISSF adapt?

Personally, I like things as they are. I understand what's happening and find it exciting to watch. But everyone who reads TT is completely different from the clueless once-every-four-years spectators whose willingness to watch appears to be the only prize sought by the folks who run the sports, the TV coverage, and the Olympics.

I hope somebody comes back and tells me that the sentence immediately preceding this one is completely wrong.

I agree archery is a good example of what can be done. I know myself I never paid more than a passing glance to archery. I found the Archery at the Olympics very entertaining, the match point sets in the finals all lead to dramatic finishes. I even went back and watched the last season or so of their World Cups on YouTube. I liked it so much I went and bought a new compound bow and have started to take up archery myself. It simply looked like fun. The Hunger Games had nothing to do with my interest in the sport.

I can only assume those previously involved in archery probably bitched and whined just like the shooters have, that's just human nature very few like change and the unknown.

To most people archery is an "inner game" just like other forms of shooting where the performance is invisible to the uninitiated. I realize this is the case with many sports: when watching TV, I "project" mentally and get "inside" the performer in sports that I've tried myself, and I can instantly recognize little mistakes or good performance. This makes the experience very different and much more exciting for the "insider", but unfortunately this is often a minority thing.

Closeups of targets etc. is no substitue for this. "Extreme" action sports may add another kind of drama and appeal that makes them a winner in the media, because there's always a chance someone will crash!

As shown by archery, what remains is:
Lobbying, where they've done extremely well.
Added drama thru "sudden death", shoot-outs etc.
The latter may seem unfair from a participant point of view, but this only makes it more exciting. The public loves gambling, triumph, tragedy and tears more than a fair game.

So, the threat to wrestling may seem strange: it contains all the things you want. But I think one reason may be too many similar sports and too little public participation in some of them. The dress code may differ, but I believe there are many more parents sending their kids to Judo training than to classic wrestling, and there are many similarities that make these sports competitors for a place in the Olympics.

Wrestling suddenly got news coverage in my country this last week. And it only lasted for a day or two, even if we can look back on a medal.....

Don't forget this is Circus and Show Business and Sponsorship.

Cobbslane wrote:Sorry I should have made it clear that I was refering to the UK Sport decision to reduce funding by 25% pre-Rio due to poor past performance.
That will surely create a downward spiral of performance over time. As I said it is about money. Talent is secondary.

They had poor performance at Beijing and didn't have their funding cut when shooting's was slashed by 75%.
Nevertheless, we landed a medal in London and they did not (although that's thanks in no small part to Sheikh Ahmed Al Maktoum).
Nevertheless, Archery's UKSport funding is still inexplicably higher than shooting's!

I don't have anything against Archery, that paragraph might sound a but "us vs them" but it's not intended to. My point being their performance has been below that of shooting's yet they still receive more funding. Yes they've had a cut but frankly, they haven't got much reason to feel hard done by.

I'm not sure their performance will spiral (any further than it already is). They'll have to cut a couple of their supported athletes sure, which is a shame, but if shooting managed on a 75% cut I don't think archery are going to keel over from a 25% cut. Especially as they're a bit more politically correct than shooting in the UK and probably have an easier time finding some semblance of sponsorship to augment their UKSport income.

Some quotes from Olympic greats:
(sound familiar?)

Rulon Gardner

The Olympic movement has gone astray,” he said. “It’s moving in the direction not of history but of ratings. Is it about mainstream and money, or is it about amateur sports competing at the highest level on the world stage?”

“We need to make some drastic changes in the sport, make it more attractive, especially for TV audiences,”

Mikhail Mamiashvili, a 1988 gold medalist told Reuters.

Article:
http://www.ncaa.com/news/wrestling/arti ... de-me-sick