TargetTalk

I have attached a graph showing the oddsmakers lines for the Gold Medal Winner of the 25M Rapid Fire Event. It appears that Russia'a Alexei Klimov is a heavy favorite at 2/1 or better folllowed by Germany's Christian Reitz, China's Jian Zhang, Chinas Feng Ding, South Korea's Dae Kyu Jang and Germany's Ralf Shumann.
Emil Milov of the USA is next at about 14-1 and Keith Sanderson is at 20-1. There are a lot of factors that go into making odds so we have to take this with a grain of salt. It amazes me that those Brit's will really bet on anything. No less that 10 companys have posted odds for this event. After I hit send here I will check on the Womens 25M event. http://www.oddschecker.com/olympics/sho ... tol/winner

Thanks for the information. Indeed, the new finals rules make the end result a lot more of a BET than before, I would think... ;-)

Alexander

I don't think it has anything to do with what the 'Brits will bet on'. You'll find a lot of those sites are probably not British (I can't search at work for obvious reasons), but also a lot of Asian nations gamble on pretty much anything.

If I was to put my money on anyone then I'd go Germany > China > USA, but that has nothing to do with what the form books say. My observations lead me to believe some nations are much better at holding their heads together than others. Whether that's partly a cultural thing or a reflection of better coaching around sport pschology, I have no idea.

Rob.

Not so sure how good the research is with the competitor list - one of the Australians listed is not even competing in London (Quick) and another Aussie (Repacholi) only shoots 50m and Air. I would not be putting any money on either of those two for Rapid Fire! (Mind you, the guy who is not even there has some better odds than someone who acutally is !?!?!?)

I dont know why they constantly tweek rapid fire pistol. They get rid of ,22 shorts, but then companies make a LR that barely makes 900fps. No turning targets, Why? And now a cockamanie light system. Its probably easier with the lights, because you constantly see the target. So, u break your butt to get into the final only to have your score wiped out. Nows its silohuette shooting, hit or miss. They claim its for the fans, What fans! The only people who watch these things are other shooters and family members. It will never make TV. Guns are bad, dont you know? I was RF competitor a few years ago and went to the Empire State Games in New York every year. Thats until they squashed the shooting program. There are exactly NO matches within a few hundred miles and if u can find one, its usually a state championship once a year. So, I'll run out and buy a $2500 pistol to shoot once or twice a year, LOL ridiculous. Olympic shooting now a days is for the lucky few who shoot for a college or the Army team.

tenx9 wrote:I was RF competitor a few years ago and went to the Empire State Games in New York every year. Thats until they squashed the shooting program. There are exactly NO matches within a few hundred miles and if u can find one, its usually a state championship once a year. So, I'll run out and buy a $2500 pistol to shoot once or twice a year, LOL ridiculous.

Well. Exactly THAT is the reason why the ISSF changed the rules so that you can now use your normal .22 lr sport and standard pistol.

Alexander

Of course, and that's why clubs nowadays really can't handle the masses that come storming through the door, wanting to shoot rapid fire. Who wants to do something were you come out at like 527 with the amount of practice a normal working person can afford?

tenx9 wrote:I dont know why they constantly tweek rapid fire pistol. They get rid of ,22 shorts, but then companies make a LR that barely makes 900fps. No turning targets, Why? And now a cockamanie light system. Its probably easier with the lights, because you constantly see the target. So, u break your butt to get into the final only to have your score wiped out. Nows its silohuette shooting, hit or miss. They claim its for the fans, What fans! The only people who watch these things are other shooters and family members. It will never make TV. Guns are bad, dont you know? I was RF competitor a few years ago and went to the Empire State Games in New York every year. Thats until they squashed the shooting program. There are exactly NO matches within a few hundred miles and if u can find one, its usually a state championship once a year. So, I'll run out and buy a $2500 pistol to shoot once or twice a year, LOL ridiculous. Olympic shooting now a days is for the lucky few who shoot for a college or the Army team.

They ditched the .22 short to consolidate pistol types. One gun is good for Standard, Rapid, and Sport Pistol. Bigger potential market.

The fixed targets are a concession to the limits of electronic scoring. I still think they need to tweak the rules to better accomodate shot timers. Electronic scoring targets are backbreakingly expensive, turning targets are scarce. IPSC shot timers are about $100. RF is strangling on the cost of target bays.

The finals format? That's a good argument. Especially with a 9.7 being a hit...which leaves everybody asking what's up? I could see a 10/miss final. But there is a good argument for going back.

TV coverage? Get the Olympics away from NBC Sports and you have a fighting chance. Of all the American networks, NBC is the least capable of handling the variety of sports in the Olympic Games. That was the great strength of ABC (and honestly, of Jim McKay) - they understood that there were sports that didn't involve balls and money. With the plethora of cable channels, there is no reason not to broadcast the finals in every event. Maybe not a live broadcast or in prime time, but a broadcast just the same.

Mike M. wrote:So, u break your butt to get into the final only to have your score wiped out
The finals format? That's a good argument. Especially with a 9.7 being a hit...which leaves everybody asking what's up? I could see a 10/miss final. But there is a good argument for going back.

Does Usain Bolt have to carry forward his accumulated time from the 100m heats?

Which other sports carry forward times, distance, heights etc from the preliminary rounds?

IMHO all shooting finals should start from zero.

I am going to duck down behind a wall now before the bricks start coming my way.

Brian G wrote:Which other sports carry forward ...<results>... from the preliminary rounds?

Perhaps I should step carefully, here, but please understand that while I do not compete (much or seriously) I am one of those apparently rare folks who likes to watch shooting competitions. I've actually gone to my local range, put out a chair, and watched benchrest rifle matches, something roughly as boring as watching paint dry for most folks. I don't mean to step on the toes of serious, involved folks but as an avid observer, this question struck me as particularly interesting.

To answer the question, a Professional Bowlers Association tournament that uses the stepladder finals format is the only sport I can bring to mind. The stepladder format is TV-friendly (which is, I suppose, why the PBA has used it so extensively for televised tournament finals) and oddly applicable to the shooting sports. I'm really surprised no shooting sport (that I know of) uses it. For rapid fire pistol, especially, it would harken back to duelling roots rather well.

PS for people who don't watch bowling on TV - In the stepladder format, a field of finalists are selected. The bottom two finalists compete. The winner competes against the next up the ladder. Continue until a winner is determined. No one can finish worse than one place below their qualifying rank, yet any qualifier can work up the ladder and win. The format preserves the work done in the preliminaries while still making it possible for anyone to come from behind to win. The primary disadvantage is that the top seeds have to sit around and wait until their time, a mental challenge that occasionally leads to spectacular and unexpected failures.

BenEnglishTX wrote: In the stepladder format, a field of finalists are selected. The bottom two finalists compete. The winner competes against the next up the ladder. Continue until a winner is determined. No one can finish worse than one place below their qualifying rank, yet any qualifier can work up the ladder and win. The format preserves the work done in the preliminaries while still making it possible for anyone to come from behind to win. The primary disadvantage is that the top seeds have to sit around and wait until their time, a mental challenge that occasionally leads to spectacular and unexpected failures.

That would be pretty cool to watch, and is a better starting point to build on than our current system, IMHO. However, I can only imagine how exhausted a shooter's arm would be by the third, fourth, fifth, or Heaven help them, sixth run.

tedbell wrote:...I can only imagine how exhausted a shooter's arm would be by the third, fourth, fifth, or Heaven help them, sixth run.

Fatigue is an issue and qualifying well has obvious advantages. In the PBA, generally only 5 people make the finals when this format is being used in a televised tournament. It's still tough on the bottom qualifier but s/he can still, theoretically, come from behind to win before fatigue knocks them completely out. It has (rarely) happened.

BenEnglishTX wrote: To answer the question, a Professional Bowlers Association tournament that uses the stepladder finals format is the only sport I can bring to mind. The stepladder format is TV-friendly (which is, I suppose, why the PBA has used it so extensively for televised tournament finals) and oddly applicable to the shooting sports. I'm really surprised no shooting sport (that I know of) uses it. For rapid fire pistol, especially, it would harken back to duelling roots rather well.

PS for people who don't watch bowling on TV - In the stepladder format, a field of finalists are selected. The bottom two finalists compete. The winner competes against the next up the ladder. Continue until a winner is determined. No one can finish worse than one place below their qualifying rank, yet any qualifier can work up the ladder and win. The format preserves the work done in the preliminaries while still making it possible for anyone to come from behind to win. The primary disadvantage is that the top seeds have to sit around and wait until their time, a mental challenge that occasionally leads to spectacular and unexpected failures.

Fencing works that way. For a normal tournament, you fence pools for seeding...then go to direct elimination.

I think the greater issue is that shooting is customarily NOT a man-vs-man event, but man-vs-himself. Different philosophy.

Thats just silly. The new RF pistols are not standard pistols. They are designed to work with low fps ammo. I think 909fpson a pistol at last look. Normal .22lr ammo is 1080fps and not all pistols will operate that low. These pistols have tungsten weights, bbl spring dampners...etc. Its a silly agrument. I bet the new Pardini (with an eletric trigger, LOL) probably kicks less and muzzle flips less than my Walther OSP. Its money plain and simple. Something new has to be created to sell to the public. Frankly, I was pretty good at it, winning a few team and individual golds, but I still wounldnt spend $2500? on a pistol to use a couple times of year. Plus have u seen the price of that ammo? I not funded by anyone but my own bank account. Like I said, only for the few, They continually change the rules so me, u and the guy down the street gives up because its too expensive.

I know I am probably guessing wrong here, but I like Sanderson for all the psychological reasons. This guy is match tough through long years of conventional pistol competition, and has the confidence required to shoot well in the new finals format.

tenx9 wrote:Thats just silly. The new RF pistols are not standard pistols. They are designed to work with low fps ammo. I think 909fpson a pistol at last look...

Actually a smidgen over 820fps required for RFP

tenx9 wrote:...Normal .22lr ammo is 1080fps and not all pistols will operate that low...

All the ISSF 25m 'Rim Fire' pistols I know of will use this (and lower velocity) ammunition

tenx9 wrote:... These pistols have tungsten weights, bbl spring dampners...etc. Its a silly agrument. I bet the new Pardini (with an eletric trigger, LOL) probably kicks less and muzzle flips less than my Walther OSP...

equally allowed for the other ISSF 25m events

tenx9 wrote:...but I still wounldnt spend $2500? on a pistol to use a couple times of year...

these pistols can be used very successfully for all the ISSF 25m rimfire events, not only RFP

tenx9 wrote:... Like I said, only for the few, They continually change the rules so me, u and the guy down the street gives up because its too expensive.

and there were crowds of shooters lined up every weekend to shoot RFP before the rule changes? I think not.

and there were crowds of shooters lined ... think not.

On local and national level, we lost a whole bunch of shooters who didn't make the switch. And almost nobody started to shoot RFP. So the whole balance was way negative. Means, the rule change was just another nail in the coffin. Rule changes that don't improve anything are not only useless, they will piss people off, and it's not as if our sports has a mile wide base. Of course, that won't impress a member of the Commonwealth, who are famous for sacrificing everything for Queen and Country, no matter how much sense it actually makes.

Tycho wrote:they will piss people off, and it's not as if our sports has a mile wide base. Of course, that won't impress a member of the Commonwealth, who are famous for sacrificing everything for Queen and Country, no matter how much sense it actually makes.

Let me correct that, so it will make more sense:
Of course, that won't impress a "British Shooting" functionary, who are famous for sacrificing any of their shooters for no good reason whatsoever.

See now Morgan Cook's public rebuttal to Phil Scanlon. Methinks Scanlon is even worse than "Major" Hoare (not a thief as Hoare, but worse)... and that is quite some achievement. One cannot claim it easily, one must earn it.

Alexander

Mike M. wrote:Fencing works that way. For a normal tournament, you fence pools for seeding...then go to direct elimination.

I think the greater issue is that shooting is customarily NOT a man-vs-man event, but man-vs-himself. Different philosophy.

I understand but I only partially agree. All sports is, in some sense, man-vs-man. Additionally, the martial origins of many Olympic sports is undeniable, howevermuch it's been well swept under the rug for appearances sake. I seem to remember vaguely humanoid RF targets in the distant past and I know that direct, man-vs-man shooting sports have many participants using simunitions, paintballs, and airsoft. Man-vs-himself isn't the be-all and end-all of the shooting sports.

If any Olympic shooting sport is a proper fit to a man-vs-man finale, it seems to me that rapid fire pistol is the best suited.

I am well aware that this sort of thinking disappeared from the sport a long time ago. I bring it up only to point out that I think it could make for a more TV-friendly, fun-to-watch finals. And a TV-friendly, fun-to-watch sport stands a better chance of attracting new participants.

Then again, my natural tendency is to assume that anyone in any capacity in any sport would like to attract new participants. Whether that holds from top to bottom, for everyone involved in any way, in rapid fire pistol is an open question for which I will never be sufficiently "inside" to gain any meaningful insight. I'm just a guy who likes to (mostly) sit in the stands and watch and who wishes more people would join me.

BenEnglishTX wrote:Then again, my natural tendency is to assume that anyone in any capacity in any sport would like to attract new participants.

This benevolent assumption is true for SOME shooting functionaries in SOME countries.

Alexander