TargetTalk

Where are the finals for air and free pistol?
The world Cup ended last week and they still haven't uploaded the videos?
Or I'm not looking in the right place?

http://www.youtube.com/issfchannel

They are there, just scroll down to Recent Uploads.

While it is easy to say the videos are there, my twice-daily visits to their channel over the past week have shown no air pistol videos for this match. I emailed the person responsible 3 days ago and so far no answer. I have been checking with my PC using Firefox and regularly clearing the cache and also with my Android phone's YouTube app. The same handful of videos remain. No free pistol, no air pistol, although of course there are many from previous matches.

mahoak wrote:They are there, just scroll down to Recent Uploads.

I was referring to the men's events. They are still missing...

10m AP women has been uploaded since I first posted...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DuoD1NN_ ... 1yMp6x_C0Q

rmca wrote:

mahoak wrote:They are there, just scroll down to Recent Uploads.

I was referring to the men's events. They are still missing...

10m AP women has been uploaded since I first posted...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DuoD1NN_ ... 1yMp6x_C0Q

Ah, thank you for that. I'm downloading a copy of the women's final now, something to watch once my long work day is done. Strangely, the video shows that it was uploaded 7 hours ago, but I searched the recent uploads during my comment above and it was not there. I suppose Youtube might 'roll out' uploads on different schedules depending on region or something.

I am most interested in these particular finals as both the results were surprising, with unexpected gold medalists. Together with a few other odd results this year it has some potential for calling into question the nature of the new finals format, when relatively inexperienced or lower-ranking shooters end up with top honours. Or perhaps it is fair enough, only reflecting the value of pursuing a different strategy. Previously the long haul of 70 shots scoring provided advantage to those who could shoot 60 + 10 very consistent and excellent shots. The new final makes for a more compact, focused scoring opportunity which might provide a different sort of shooter with better advantage. Someone who qualifies for the final, obviously, and is thus already a very capable shot, but who is then able to 'step up' and bring superior focus to these last 20 shots.

Gerard wrote:I am most interested in these particular finals as both the results were surprising, with unexpected gold medalists. Together with a few other odd results this year it has some potential for calling into question the nature of the new finals format, when relatively inexperienced or lower-ranking shooters end up with top honours.

With respect they are hardly 'inexperienced or low ranking shooters', if they were they wouldn't have been invited to the World Cup Finals in the first place.

Rob.

RobStubbs wrote:With respect they are hardly 'inexperienced or low ranking shooters', if they were they wouldn't have been invited to the World Cup Finals in the first place.
Rob.

Not a lot of 'with respect' involved when deliberately mis-quoting someone for effect Rob. I said "relatively inexperienced or lower-ranking shooters" which is rather different from 'inexperienced or low ranking' isn't it? Lower, as in scoring less well generally in WC finals if showing up in the finals at all, and as in having substantially smaller collections of medals at that level than the 'usual suspects' at the WC finals level. At every level of shooting sports there are relatively greater and lesser lights, as compared to those in their immediate vicinity. Hence the 'relatively' which I used fairly prominently.

At any rate, the men's AP and 50m finals are up:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLNopBqJfm4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-3RgASGHIY

Gerard wrote:

RobStubbs wrote:With respect they are hardly 'inexperienced or low ranking shooters', if they were they wouldn't have been invited to the World Cup Finals in the first place.
Rob.

Not a lot of 'with respect' involved when deliberately mis-quoting someone for effect Rob. I said "relatively inexperienced or lower-ranking shooters" which is rather different from 'inexperienced or low ranking' isn't it? Lower, as in scoring less well generally in WC finals if showing up in the finals at all, and as in having substantially smaller collections of medals at that level than the 'usual suspects' at the WC finals level. At every level of shooting sports there are relatively greater and lesser lights, as compared to those in their immediate vicinity. Hence the 'relatively' which I used fairly prominently.

At any rate, the men's AP and 50m finals are up:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLNopBqJfm4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-3RgASGHIY

No deliberate miss quoting intended 'for effect' or for any other reason. Whether you said relatively or not is frankly irrelevant, the words 'inexperienced' and 'lower ranking' were used, and are incorrect. Inexperienced or relatively inexperienced shooters don't make World Cup finals.

Rob.

It would seem we have different perceptions of the definition of the word 'relative'. That's a pity. I took the meaning to be rather clear. Oh well, no use continuing a debate on the semantics. Better to say, perhaps, that it seems there are 'new' or 'unfamiliar' names amongst the WC medalists under the new finals arrangements? Or is this, too, offensive to some of us? Should I just say that nothing has changed at all under the new rules? That would be false, but perhaps less offensive to some.