TargetTalk

The korean shooter did what has never been done before: winning both Golds at AP and FP at the OG, mounting against a 7 point difference with the first classified and shooting a 100.0 final (his WORST shot was a 9.5).

Amazing and laudable!!!

I was talking to my wife about how great Jin was today.

But her answer was, "if he is that great, why was he losing by 7 points coming into the final?"

I could only say Jin was great in overcoming 7 points, but I could not really rebut her why Jin was losing by 7 points coming into the final.

If the finals format does not exist, back in the old days, I am sure it will be a different story. Now the competitors just want to make sure making the cut.
I don't think Melentiev's record will ever be broken, there is no incentive to shoot that much of a high score anymore. As you could see today, once you are in the 560s, you are safety into the finals.

If I had the chance of going into the finals with a 15 point lead, I would take it. If this was Rapid Fire, yes, get it, but in FP there is no reason to "just" make the finals but to go there with an insurmountable lead.

conradin wrote:If the finals format does not exist, back in the old days, I am sure it will be a different story. Now the competitors just want to make sure making the cut.
I don't think Melentiev's record will ever be broken, there is no incentive to shoot that much of a high score anymore. As you could see today, once you are in the 560s, you are safety into the finals.

This is a silly statement, for starters unlike sprints you can't see or know what your competitions are doing so how the hell would you know what just enough is to make the finals. I guarantee you no matter what discipline they are shooting for a ten every time. Also unlike athletics a ten doesn't require more energy expenditure than a 9.

Richard H wrote:

conradin wrote:If the finals format does not exist, back in the old days, I am sure it will be a different story. Now the competitors just want to make sure making the cut.
I don't think Melentiev's record will ever be broken, there is no incentive to shoot that much of a high score anymore. As you could see today, once you are in the 560s, you are safety into the finals.

This is a silly statement, for starters unlike sprints you can't see or know what your competitions are doing so how the hell would you know what just enough is to make the finals. I guarantee you no matter what discipline they are shooting for a ten every time. Also unlike athletics a ten doesn't require more energy expenditure than a 9.

Agreed. The thought of an athlete intentionally "taking it easy" in any competition is silly, much less the Olympics.

There are sports that they do track and field is a prime example, but they know the top 3,5 or whatever make it from the heat and they know exactly what those around them are doing, but shooting is a bit different.

SeanM wrote:The thought of an athlete intentionally "taking it easy" in any competition is silly, much less the Olympics.

No, it isn't. It doesn't happen in shooting (that I know of) at this level, but if the elimination method is structured poorly then competitors will throw matches. This is actually common in some sports like badminton; four badminton doubles teams were DQ'd and sent home for deliberately trying to lose their matches in London.

<<<Accidental text removed>>>

BenEnglishTX wrote:

SeanM wrote:The thought of an athlete intentionally "taking it easy" in any competition is silly, much less the Olympics.

No, it isn't. It doesn't happen in shooting (that I know of) at this level, but if the elimination method is structured poorly then competitors will throw matches. This is actually common in some sports like badminton; four badminton doubles teams were DQ'd and sent home for deliberately trying to lose their matches in London.

Ok, but exceptions to the rule (and certainly ones that exploit group stage rules) don't disprove the rule. They're just exceptions.

BenEnglishTX wrote:

SeanM wrote:The thought of an athlete intentionally "taking it easy" in any competition is silly, much less the Olympics.

No, it isn't. It doesn't happen in shooting (that I know of) at this level, but if the elimination method is structured poorly then competitors will throw matches. This is actually common in some sports like badminton; four badminton doubles teams were DQ'd and sent home for deliberately trying to lose their matches in London.

It only happened in doubles badminton because those teams had earned their spot in the next round so any play after that was used to determine seeding so by manipulating winning and loosing they could manipulate the next rounds draw. I wouldn't call it common in any sense, and I suspect after the spectacle that was caused it will be fixed quickly.

The last paragraph quoted above was not authored by me. Note the change in voice and viewpoint. Apparently someone with admin privileges was attempting to respond to me but instead of responding, they edited my original post. To that admin - I'll leave the paragraph in this post and remove it from the original.

Hey Ben that was mine I entered it on my iPad and it disappeared and then gave an error message. Don't know how the heck it ended up at the bottom of your post.

SeanM wrote:Ok, but exceptions to the rule (and certainly ones that exploit group stage rules) don't disprove the rule. They're just exceptions.

Most people would agree with you. Note that the following text was inserted accidentally into my original posting by someone with (temporary, it appears; see below) admin privileges:

"It only happened in doubles badminton because those teams had earned their spot in the next round so any play after that was used to determine seeding so by manipulating winning and loosing they could manipulate the next rounds draw. I wouldn't call it common in any sense, and I suspect after the spectacle that was caused it will be fixed quickly."

However, I'm forced to ask "Just how common does this have to become for people to accept the notion that top-level athletes are not above deliberately turning in sub-optimal performances?"

During the commentary on swimming, several mentions were made of how times were not as fast in certain races as they could be due to the athlete saving him/herself for later competition. It's already been mentioned above that such is common in track and field. Gamesmanship regarding weightlifting attempts is accepted as normal strategy in that sport. And the history of badminton is that similar spectacles, usually initiated by the Chinese to exploit the depth of their talent, have been happening for years...just not at the Olympics.

I see a lesson here for shooting sports, one that harkens back to my earlier mention in another thread of the advantages of "stepladder" finals. To wit: If you throw away all the work done in the preliminaries before the finals, there will inevitably be folks who don't push themselves in the prelims. I believe that whatever finals format is adopted in any sport should, where at all possible, reward high placement during the qualifications stage and not throw all that away for the finals.

Note to Richard H: Whatever the iPad error was, it temporarily gave you elevated privileges or messed up the ability of the board to distinguish between posters. Whichever it was, the board admin needs to look into it.

OK, makes sense now...but that means that the RPF Final format (TV friendly) is wrong because the top qualifier and the sixth will start on equal footing.

BenEnglishTX wrote:Note to Richard H: Whatever the iPad error was, it temporarily gave you elevated privileges or messed up the ability of the board to distinguish between posters. Whichever it was, the board admin needs to look into it.

Richard is a Moderator.

Probably not a board problem; more likely to be a fruity one.

conradin wrote:OK, makes sense now...but that means that the RPF Final format (TV friendly) is wrong because the top qualifier and the sixth will start on equal footing.

Why is that wrong. In most sports with qualifying stages you start the final on a level footing.

David Levene wrote:Why is that wrong. In most sports with qualifying stages you start the final on a level footing.

Yes, that is true but, in "most sports" the qualifying round is the same as the final. In RF we have qualifying in 8, 6 and 4 seconds on 10, 9, 8 etc targets , then a final in 4 seconds on hit/miss targets. The current format for RF is like making a swimmer swim a 200m medley to qualify for the 50m freestyle final.

Sorry, drifting off the original topic!

j-team wrote:Sorry, drifting off the original topic!

Indeed. I apologize for contributing to that drift. No matter the format of the finals (or even whether a finals should exist), Jin's achievement was wonderful. As I watched the finals and saw him advance a place every shot or two, I was filled with admiration. He was steady under pressure in a way that truly defines an Olympic champion.