TargetTalk

Just curious on the thoughts of the 2013 Air Rifle results with the new format. From what I can tell:

Wang Tao - Gold - Started in 3rd
Sergey Richter - Silver - Started in ?
Peter Sidi - Bronze - Started in First
Nicco Campriani - 8th - started in 2nd

Just interesting...What will coaches around the globe look for in team qualifiers a better prelim or better finals? Nicco would have had the same problem in London with the new format and he is exceptional. Is the new world standard a 596-597 shooter who hits deep 10's?

COBelties wrote:Is the new world standard a 596-597 shooter who hits deep 10's?

Although it's still officially "experimental" this year it's a fair bet that full ring scoring at world level in Air Rifle will be a thing of the past.

Decimal scoring is a much better indicator of overall shooting performance.

1. Tao Wang (3) - 623.9/593
2. Sergey Richter (5) - 623.3/597
3. Peter Sidi (1) - 627.8/597
4. Bayaraa Nyantai (6) - 622.5/595
5. Michael Janker (7) - 622.3/596
6. Nemanja Mirosavljev (8) - 622.0/594
7. Pascal Loretal (4) - 623.4/594
8. Niccolo Campriani (2) - 627.7/597

Agree with the decimals, much better scoring system. I am surprised of the relatively low scores though, only top 2 with a 10.45 average during qualification. I expected to see 625-ish for most going into the final. On the other hand, it's still early in the season.

Edit: updated with scores

I know the ISSF considered going to decimal scoring after the 2000 Olympics. IMO, they should use decimal scoring in all events which use electronic targets. It is simply a more accurate way of measuring who is the better shooter on that day.

BTW, the discarding of the qualifying scores is a disservice to the shooters. It bends the sport too far into the desires of TV people (who apparently still don't want to televise it).

Stan

David Levene wrote:Decimal scoring is a much better indicator of overall shooting performance.

Agreed, and with the electronic targets it's much easier. It makes it even more of a shame that they throw away the qualifying score in the finals and make a mockery of the whole thing.

I watched the youtube video of the Changwon AR60 finals; it was not impressive. It was muddled, there was no tension, Campriani going out in the first elimination, IMHO, devalued the medals -- hooray, you bested Campriani for two or three shots instead of 70. Big whoop, I've bested Haman for three shots; at the time I couldn't hit the MQS and couldn't maintain the lead for four shots, but for those three, I was all of 0.2 points ahead and that would have been enough for him to be eliminated under these daft rules, instead of being the funny story from training it should rightly be.

We're not giving the gold medal to the best shooter on the day anymore :(

And add to that, even allowing for the Changwon RO being a lousy announcer compared to the London Games, and even allowing for the logistical problems they had, this final was just not exciting. It was too much like American Football - the game runs for a few seconds and then it stops and we all stand round and talk about those few seconds and prep for the next few. That breaks the flow and makes the whole thing more boring for a spectator than it already was. And even an underdog winning it isn't exciting anymore either - you don't get to watch them work up the ranks against the favorite anymore because we're all starting from zero so there's no favorite/underdog to start with (hooray, we've thrown away a key part of what every reporter looks for in a sports story), and then we don't so much see the underdog fight up, we just watch the top lads get eliminated and then it's "oh, they're gone. Who's left? Who's that guy? Oh well, I guess he's winning now so".

Not good.

Not so sure Sparks, you have to shoot all good shots in the Final.
Nicco didn't on that day but he still qualified as did all the others in the final.
Because he went out just proves that he didn't shoot to his best in that Final doesn't make the person who got Gold lucky, he just shot a better Final, he still had to qualify to get there so on that day he was better than Nicco on all the shots that count.

I think it's kinda dumb that they have their scores reset. I mean what's the point of having to even shoot a qual if it doesn't even count for anything?

To qualify for the Final, you could say whats the point of a final, you just came first qualifying.
But it's the way it's done and that's it

But if you are, for example, 8.3 points a head of eighth place and shoot an OK final but this shooter, who before the final was far behind you, shoots a slightly better final than you do, would win. IMHO this makes no sense as you were the better shooter who perhaps shot a little worse than normal in their final.

Jury still out, but Sparks made me laugh, my 10 year old beat Campriani in 1 shot with a 10.8 over Campriani's 10.4. However that is such a memorable awesome day, how many days do you get to shoot next to an inspirational figure for you? As a coach I appreciate the interaction with the Olympic level athletes and the upcoming youth of today.

Colin wrote:But it's the way it's done and that's it

When it's a deliberate choice and brand new "it's the way it's done and that's it" is a monumental cop-out of an answer!

COBelties wrote:Jury still out, but Sparks made me laugh, my 10 year old beat Campriani in 1 shot with a 10.8 over Campriani's 10.4.

Exactly!

However that is such a memorable awesome day, how many days do you get to shoot next to an inspirational figure for you? As a coach I appreciate the interaction with the Olympic level athletes and the upcoming youth of today.

Yes, but now you're talking about something completely different...

Sparks wrote:

Colin wrote:But it's the way it's done and that's it

When it's a deliberate choice and brand new "it's the way it's done and that's it" is a monumental cop-out of an answer!

Sparks, you've been very vocal in you dislike of the new system on this site and others, what I'm pointing out is that's the way it is and most athletes are training hard to get get used to the new system, and to succeed at it, because moan as we like, it ain't going to change back.

Listen to what Jason Parker said in the women's 3p final about the old school shooters and the new ones coming up, they will only know this new system and the older ones like him will have to learn it or just become extinct

Colin wrote:

Sparks wrote:

Colin wrote:But it's the way it's done and that's it

When it's a deliberate choice and brand new "it's the way it's done and that's it" is a monumental cop-out of an answer!

Sparks, you've been very vocal in you dislike of the new system on this site and others, what I'm pointing out is that's the way it is and most athletes are training hard to get get used to the new system, and to succeed at it, because moan as we like, it ain't going to change back.

Listen to what Jason Parker said in the women's 3p final about the old school shooters and the new ones coming up, they will only know this new system and the older ones like him will have to learn it or just become extinct

Okay, now apply that same argument to the replacement of rifles with lasers (as in modern pentathlon)...

Not every change is a good change, and not every change should be kept.

I don't do modern pentathlon, do you, so can't comment on that one.
But I suppose the new Athletes doing that will learn quicker than the senior ones.

Yes, but now you're talking about something completely different...

Yeah...I know... but I didn't want someone totally misinterpreting the thought.

I'm with Sparks on this.

I don't think the new finals format does result in the best shooter winning the event. Over the small number of shots fired, it is a bit of a lottery as to who wins.

I actually think the decimal scoring makes this worse. A smallbore rifle will clearly not hold a 10.9 group - there is a natural spread of shots. You can't say that the person who averages 10.5 over 6 shots has necessarily shot better than someone who averages 10.4. In fact, if someone fired 6 10.9s I would say they are likely to have fired some poor(ish) shots as 6 perfectly executed shots would be very unlikely to all go in the 10.9.

I don't particularly like the decimal scoring in qualification either because I don't think it is the right measure of what constitutes a good shoot. Given the natural grouping capability of the rifles/ammo, I'd say that someone who fires 60 tens has shot better than someone who fired 55 tens and 5 nines even if the latter has a higher score when measured decimally.

The size of the target is designed to reflect the capability of the rifles/ammunition. Measuring it more accurately brings in an element of luck.

If the scores weren't reset to zero then it wouldn't be so bad, because over 70 shots it probably is right to say that the person who averaged 10.5 has shot better than the person who averaged 10.4.

I'd be very interested to hear views of those who have been taking part in events using the new system - did you feel the right person won, did you feel hard done by, did you feel it was a worthy test of skill or is there too much luck involved etc.?