TargetTalk

gn303 wrote:Just an idea:
Why don't we, ISSF minded shooters, write to ISSF to show them our (dis)approval.

Write to the ESC. They are collecting opinions, and are asking for them.

ghostrip wrote:i don't think its doable on paper targets. the scoring process would take too much and plus it would need new targets with the 9.7 zone printed.

Nah!
simple enough with an overlay

Spencer wrote:

ghostrip wrote:i don't think its doable on paper targets. the scoring process would take too much and plus it would need new targets with the 9.7 zone printed.

Nah!
simple enough with an overlay

....but you would lose the whole idea of the new format; rapid continous progress with 2 shooters per target bank.

Even knock-downs wouldn't truly replicate electronics as there would be more shooter feedback during the series.

this format is purely a tv product and is only achievable with electronic targets.

David Levene wrote:....but you would lose the whole idea of the new format; rapid continous progress with 2 shooters per target bank.

I've said it before, if I wanted to shoot the Bianchi Cup, I'd shoot the Bianchi Cup. Nothing wrong with the Cup, it's just not my cup of tea (pardon the pun).

I think perhaps people are trying to solve the wrong problem the wrong way here. the reason shooting has no spectators but football does is that you can see the game progress in football - the arena's large, the ball is visible, and the pace is slow enough that you can see things progress unaided. Same's true of golf, of swimming, of boxing (though less so of the less popular-on-TV sports like athletics, fencing and so on where either it's too fast as in fencing or too monotonous as in long-distance track events), and it's not true at all of shooting - but I still think the idea of strapping all the electronics and sensors we can to a shooter will give the audience that visibility of what the shooter experiences on the line. That is how you make things interesting, not by changing round when the introduction happens. The audience doesn't care who a shooter is, beyond some basic stats (at most). They want to watch something interesting. So get in a better commentator (seriously, listen to any narration on the FITA Archery youtube channel - that's what we need), strap on all the sensors we can, present their data in a nice overlay graphic, and run audience tests.

If we're going to do something like this, then do it right.

I like the reply and suggestion by James. I will have to think a bit more about it:

JamesH wrote:Maybe RF should just be replaced by Mens Sport Pistol, or Centrefire, then it would be comparable with Ladies Sport Pistol and the ranges and procedures would be identical, range space would be much more efficiently used.

Alexander

God beware. Scores would climb to > 590, and we would end up shooting precision at stage at today's AP targets, and duel on today's precision targets. Never mind that rifle shooters are doing 600 all day long, such scores have always been grounds for rule changes in pistol shooting...

Sparks wrote:

David Levene wrote:....but you would lose the whole idea of the new format; rapid continous progress with 2 shooters per target bank.

I've said it before, if I wanted to shoot the Bianchi Cup, I'd shoot the Bianchi Cup. Nothing wrong with the Cup, it's just not my cup of tea (pardon the pun).

I'm not defending the new format, I haven't made my mind up yet. I was just pointing out how difficult it would be to replicate without electronics.

I agree with your sentiment. If I wanted to shoot a non-ISSF event, I'd shoot a non-ISSF event.

It is interesting to note that the summary of the rule changes issued so far only says they will apply "in 2011 and 2012 ISSF World Cups and Continental Championships as well as in the 2012 Olympic Games in London." We will have to wait for the detailed rules to see if the new RF Finals format applies to other matches.

Tycho wrote:Never mind that rifle shooters are doing 600 all day long, such scores have always been grounds for rule changes in pistol shooting...

I can't remember the ISSF ever changing pistol rules for that reason.

David Levene wrote:

Tycho wrote:Never mind that rifle shooters are doing 600 all day long, such scores have always been grounds for rule changes in pistol shooting...

I can't remember the ISSF ever changing pistol rules for that reason.

Then what has been the reason for the changed (and smaller) rapid fire target?

Alexander

Alexander wrote:

David Levene wrote:

Tycho wrote:Never mind that rifle shooters are doing 600 all day long, such scores have always been grounds for rule changes in pistol shooting...

I can't remember the ISSF ever changing pistol rules for that reason.

Then what has been the reason for the changed (and smaller) rapid fire target?

To bring all pistol targets to the same round shape required for decimal scoring and electronic targets. It would have been possible on the old "oval" rings but a bit of a nightmare, especially when needing to use the holes in the rubber strip to resolve disputed shot scores.

After adapting to the slightly different technique required for the round target I don't remember (and it was over 20 years ago) the scores being significantly lower.

IIRC, the other reason was to make RF appear less 'militant'. Like renaming "duel" fire in CF.

It bothers me. Other martial sports are open about their heritage, why not us?

And I don't think we need to festoon shooters with sensors. We just desperately need color commentary.

Mike M. wrote:It bothers me. Other martial sports are open about their heritage, why not us?

Speaking from personal experience, it's a damn sight harder to get parents to let juniors try target shooting if you talk about using firearms on other humans. At least in Ireland. Something about 30-odd years of terrorism on our doorstep. I understand things are different in the US, but it's the International Shooting Sports Federation, and lots of places have the same problem with the martial aspect of things.

Besides, the martial aspect of our kind of pistol shooting died out in the 18th century, and the origins of our rifle shooting aren't really martial, they're pub-based (as in, an alternative to darts for working men in the pub in the early 1900s).

And I don't think we need to festoon shooters with sensors. We just desperately need color commentary.

Well, I have to disagree - I think we need to show the spectators what the shooters are seeing, rather than have the shooters look like they're just standing still and shooting (that image is why everyone seems to think shooting's not a "real sport" around here) but there's no reason not to try both approaches - neither's likely to be a silver bullet, so do both!

Mike M. wrote:IIRC, the other reason was to make RF appear less 'militant'.

I think that was started when the head-box was tapered off and then finished when the top and bottom of the target were removed (1985?).

I have no problem with "de-militarising" (is that a word?) our sport. When talking to parents of youngsters who are keen to try shooting, "Air Rifle/Pistol/Gun" always seems to be better received than "Air Weapon".

I always thought "duel" was an incorrect name anyway. The "real" thing favoured the fastest (if accurate); our version didn't.

Of course shooting comes from the military aspect, as does fencing, javelin, jumping and even running. I’ve always felt it was great to be able to practice these military crafts in a very peaceful way.
Replacing the silhouette, by first the coffin, and then removing the head and legs had in my opinion all to do with the bad impression that ‘shooting at a man shaped target’ would give. If I not mistaken, that is why the practical pistol courses changed their targets too at least in my country. (Only the police and the military are allowed to practice with man shaped targets.
Guy

gn303 wrote:Of course shooting comes from the military aspect

Of course, none of us are homicidal and thus just enjoy the shooting seperately from the military aspect and so prefer the more abstract targets to the human-shaped ones.


What? My argument's as detailed and worked through as yours...

David Levene wrote:

Spencer wrote:

ghostrip wrote:i don't think its doable on paper targets. the scoring process would take too much and plus it would need new targets with the 9.7 zone printed.

Nah!
simple enough with an overlay

....but you would lose the whole idea of the new format; rapid continous progress with 2 shooters per target bank.

I must say that, since anyway the shooters never shoot simultaneously during the final = they all shoot one after the other, I do not know what is the benefit of having two shooters per target bank excepted that there are only three sets of targets needed instead of six. But if this is the reason, then it would be possible to use a singlke set of tragets instead of three.

For the rapid continuous progress, it is may be continuous but surely not rapid: you have to wait for 24 series of 5 shots before the first shooter is eliminated.

Don’t get me wrong Sparks, I was supporting your arguments. I have always wondered why the general public somewhat admires the martial arts practitioners although they do punch each other and sometimes, unintentionally, the kill their opponent.
The article on the pub-base shooting is very interesting, but in Belgium and the Netherlands things were different. After 1945, the government was in support of shooting clubs and made military ranges available to the civilians. Reading articles from that period, I have the impression that our politicians studied the second amendment. A pity they have a short memory!
Guy

Well, it's worth remembering that martial arts do not consist solely of two people beating the tar out of each other in a ring. Most of the more advanced techniques do serious injury - and can't be pulled.

On the other hand, I know several high-level karateka (meaning 4th-8th dan). They spar very little, if at all. Katas? They'll do those continually - probing, questioning, perfecting both the technique and their understanding of it.

It's not about fighting at that level. It's about the search for perfection.

Which sounds identical to ISSF shooting.

True, an 8th dan karateka will not seek to kick your ass; but if he or she did, you'd get your ass kicked. It's about their choice, not their ability.

Whereas with Olympic foil fencing, or Olympic shooting, the martial aspect of the sport was pretty much erased over a century ago by design; so it's not inability, not choice.