TargetTalk

Am I reading this correctly? Is the US NOT entering anyone in the pistol events? ONLY air pistol?

Probably not what you think. The US should get one slot in each pistol event based on participation in World Cups. At this point they might not have a quota slot, which would be the second slot. They have time to get them. This year and part of next year. The US get many at the Pan Am games. The should have a FP slot from Daryl last year I think. There are over 200 slots still up for grabs.


http://www.issfsports.org/results/og_qu ... umber.ashx

See this is where I show how I do not understand international and olympic shooting. How are the slots "grabbed"?

Greg Derr wrote:The US should get one slot in each pistol event based on participation in World Cups.

I don't think you're right there Greg.

There are (normally) only 3 ways of getting a starting slot: winning a quota slot in one of the nominated competitions, Host Nation slots and Tripartite Commission places.

Tripartite Commission places, a total of 24 for 2012, are normally only given to NOCs who do not already have a shooting slot by one of the other methods.

Similarly, slots which are not taken up are normally only redistributed to NOCs who do not already have a shooting slot by one of the other methods.

I think it fair to say that the US will have to win any slots they want.

DukeShooter wrote:How are the slots "grabbed"?

See the attached rules.

Greg Derr wrote:The should have a FP slot from Daryl last year I think. There are over 200 slots still up for grabs.


http://www.issfsports.org/results/og_qu ... umber.ashx

I don't think Daryl gained one in FP - the only match with quota places would have been the world championships last year.

I did though think that keith may have got one in RF in one of the world cups but I could be wrong.

Rob.

RobStubbs wrote:I don't think Daryl gained one in FP - the only match with quota places would have been the world championships last year.

The US currently have the following Pistol QPs:-

50m Jason Turner CAT 2010
RFP Keith Sanderson Changwon WC 2011
AP60 Brian Beaman CAT 2010

Ok, thanks. I have to admit I never paid much attention to this stuff when I was shooting. Too much to think about shooting.

Another quota for the pistol in rapid fire added in Munich.
Watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jfJkkG9Rn8.

Emil

Congratulations, Emil. Nice shooting!
Roger Mar

That was fun to watch. Nice work Emil!

Thanks, it felt great!

milevsport wrote:Thanks, it felt great!

So Emil, what's your honest opinion of the new finals format?

j-team wrote:

milevsport wrote:Thanks, it felt great!

So Emil, what's your honest opinion of the new finals format?

For me personally feels better. The old final was running too fast and there was no room for mistakes. In this one if you shoot 7 or 9.6 is the same. Also 9.7 or 10.7 is the same.
Everyone I ask likes the new final better to watch.
What you think about it?

milevsport wrote:What you think about it?

I haven't shot much rapid fire in the last few years, so I haven't actually tried the new finals. But, to me it looks a bit like a lottery as to who will win rather than a test of marksmanship.

milevsport wrote:

j-team wrote:

milevsport wrote:What you think about it?

It is certainly more entertaining to watch. No one can sit on a lead, that's for sure. From the start of the final, all participants have a chance to win or medal. That final point is the biggest selling point for any shooter who wants to win.

I choose not to look at the switch in a negative light. If you have constructive suggestions, contact the ISSF. I provided feedback to the ISSF executive committee. I received more than a couple of thank you notes back for my thoughts and they tweaked the test format a bit afterword. I believe they are truly trying to boost participation in an event that has seen declining numbers for more than a couple quandrenniums. At least they're trying something.

Again, nice shooting Emil.

Roger

RMar wrote: It is certainly more entertaining to watch. No one can sit on a lead, that's for sure. From the start of the final, all participants have a chance to win or medal. That final point is the biggest selling point for any shooter who wants to win.

I choose not to look at the switch in a negative light. If you have constructive suggestions, contact the ISSF. I provided feedback to the ISSF executive committee. I received more than a couple of thank you notes back for my thoughts and they tweaked the test format a bit afterword. I believe they are truly trying to boost participation in an event that has seen declining numbers for more than a couple quandrenniums. At least they're trying something.

Roger

That's all very well intentioned , but you need electronic targets to run this properly. That alone kills it as far as I'm concerned. We have no electronic target ranges in New Zealand, there's one in Australia, probably only 2 in the southern hemishphere!. How many in USA?

If ISSF were smart, they would perhaps look into designing and using some biathalon type of "falling plates" to achieve the same effect. Then give (not sell) the plans for these to all ISSF member federations.

If anyone reading this has tried it on paper targets, I'd like to hear your opionion and/or suggestions?

j-team wrote:

RMar wrote: That's all very well intentioned , but you need electronic targets to run this properly. That alone kills it as far as I'm concerned. We have no electronic target ranges in New Zealand, there's one in Australia, probably only 2 in the southern hemishphere!. How many in USA?

If ISSF were smart, they would perhaps look into designing and using some biathalon type of "falling plates" to achieve the same effect. Then give (not sell) the plans for these to all ISSF member federations.

If anyone reading this has tried it on paper targets, I'd like to hear your opionion and/or suggestions?

So to whom have you suggested this at the ISSF and when? Maybe they are working on accommodations that can work on a local level and you don't even know about them. If it's important enough for you to post something on this forum, spend the time elevating constructive feedback to the ISSF. If you don't, well, who do you have to blame for things you don't like but yourself?

Is that you Roger?

RMar wrote:If you don't, well, who do you have to blame for things you don't like but yourself?

I haven't blamed anyone, just offered my opinion. I haven't shot RF for a number of years now so it doesn't effect me personally. I was just making comment, is that not what this forum is for?