World Record!

BPBrinson · Post by **BPBrinson** » Sat Apr 11, 2009 10:10 pm

Changwon, Korea WC: Jong Oh Jin of Korea, qualifing 594- 100,99,99,99,99,98, 31 inner tens. Brian Beaman, 13th, 578-19x. Is this a new WR because of the scoring rule change or matched the previous WR?

David Levene · Post by **David Levene** » Sun Apr 12, 2009 3:09 am

BPBrinson wrote:Is this a new WR because of the scoring rule change or matched the previous WR?

Neither. It's a fantastic new World Record because it beat the previous one of 593 set in 1989 by Sergei Pyzhianov. (The number of inner 10s is only used in tie breaking)

Jin was actually beaten in the match by Leonid Ekimov who shot a 104.0 in the final giving him 691.0 against Jin's 689.7.

Ekimov's "worst" shot in the final was a 9.8.

deadeyedick · Post by **deadeyedick** » Sun Apr 12, 2009 4:30 am

What event are we talking about ?

trinity · Post by **trinity** » Sun Apr 12, 2009 5:51 am

deadeyedick wrote:What event are we talking about ?

men's air pistol:

http://www.issf-shooting.org/xmlresultp ... 0.1.AP60.0

Skidis50 · Post by **Skidis50** » Sun Apr 12, 2009 5:52 am

10 metre air pistol

deadeyedick · Post by **deadeyedick** » Sun Apr 12, 2009 6:25 am

Thank you...thats a helluva score !

Reinhamre · Post by **Reinhamre** » Sun Apr 12, 2009 8:12 am

And before we all ask ourselves what gun he used, he did have a mediocre final, 91 with a 7! Does this not tell us that the shooter is the key when we are talking result?
Kent

mmxx100 · Post by **mmxx100** » Sun Apr 12, 2009 12:40 pm

BPBrinson wrote:Changwon, Korea WC: Jong Oh Jin of Korea, qualifing 594- 100,99,99,99,99,98, 31 inner tens. Brian Beaman, 13th, 578-19x. Is this a new WR because of the scoring rule change or matched the previous WR?

which weapon he used. Any ideaa

David Levene · Post by **David Levene** » Sun Apr 12, 2009 12:59 pm

mmxx100 wrote:which weapon he used. Any ideaa

As Kent suggested above, it must have been a terrible gun; it shot a 7 in the final.

We all know that good guns don't shoot sevens ;-)

Tycho · Post by **Tycho** » Sun Apr 12, 2009 1:07 pm

What do you mean, any idea? Go watch issf.tv!

greentangerine · Post by **greentangerine** » Sun Apr 12, 2009 1:19 pm

j-team · Post by **j-team** » Sun Apr 12, 2009 3:52 pm

greentangerine wrote:LP10

Ahh, you actually answered the question without smart ass comments. Unlike the two previous posters, well done.

Negrin · Post by **Negrin** » Sun Apr 12, 2009 5:22 pm

The Korean shooter seems to have some technical problem toward the end.

What was the commotion toward the last two shots?

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sun Apr 12, 2009 5:36 pm

Negrin wrote:The Korean shooter seems to have some technical problem toward the end.

What was the commotion toward the last two shots?

Must be LP10 breaking down. If he would use Morini, he wouldn't have these problems.

David Levene · Post by **David Levene** » Mon Apr 13, 2009 2:01 am

Negrin wrote:The Korean shooter seems to have some technical problem toward the end.

What was the commotion toward the last two shots?

The black paper roll had not advanced on his target, hence the multi-shot hole in the centre.

It is a little confusing why they gave all shooters an additional 5 minutes of unlimited sighters as that procedure, presumably applying rule 6.16.6.5.5.1, should be used when there is a failure of all targets.

When there is a failure of a single target then only the affected shooter should have had additional sighters after being moved to a reserve target, and then only 2 minutes (rule 6.16.6.5.6.1).

Of course we only got abbreviated highlights on ISSF-TV so something else might have happened, or the Jury might have applied a common-sense approach.

jipe · Post by **jipe** » Mon Apr 13, 2009 5:30 am

David Levene wrote:
Negrin wrote:The Korean shooter seems to have some technical problem toward the end.

What was the commotion toward the last two shots?
The black paper roll had not advanced on his target, hence the multi-shot hole in the centre.

It is a little confusing why they gave all shooters an additional 5 minutes of unlimited sighters as that procedure, presumably applying rule 6.16.6.5.5.1, should be used when there is a failure of all targets.

When there is a failure of a single target then only the affected shooter should have had additional sighters after being moved to a reserve target, and then only 2 minutes (rule 6.16.6.5.6.1).

Of course we only got abbreviated highlights on ISSF-TV so something else might have happened, or the Jury might have applied a common-sense approach.

No, you have also the complete final including the target problem, click on "documentation" (confusing name !) to see it.

David Levene · Post by **David Levene** » Mon Apr 13, 2009 9:30 am

jipe wrote:No, you have also the complete final including the target problem, click on "documentation" (confusing name !) to see it.

Many thanks for pointing that out Jipe. I have thoroughly enjoyed the last 45 minutes of watching the final.

Unfortunately, sitting in the comfort of my own home (and not with all the spectators around) it does seem that the Jury might have (technically) got it wrong.

The only reason I can think of for them giving everyone 5 minutes additional sighting is that they took so long in making a decision in the first place. Common sense would then say that it was only fair to give everyone the same chance to get their brains back in gear.

John Hadjichristou · Post by **John Hadjichristou** » Wed Apr 15, 2009 7:49 pm

Some observations and some questions too. This is the first time I've seen a final of a WC and whilst it was a bit stop and start due to my internet speed being quite slow, I did notice that many of the shooters 'held' for quite a long time - up to 20 seconds or more. Still scoring well too. Is the sub conscious and the continuous trigger squeeze able to team up without any conscious intrution over that time? Guess it must be.
But whilst this new WR is fresh and so remarkable given the number of years it has taken to be set, I wonder if anyone who has extra info could contribute so we can piece together exactly how it happened. For me, I'm just interested in all aspects of WR's and the WR champion. Plus we can guarentee that for months and years to come this forum will have posters asking the 'usual'. What pistol did he use, what pellet size etc.
So - we know it was an LP 10. And we know it's not the LP10E. (that'll be a question asked over and over again in the next few years - surely). We know he had 2 x 10gm weights positioned along the barrel. It appears he has the sight radius set at the maximium. We know he shoots with 'regular framed' glasses without a binder. A right hander. He uses a pellet box and does not take pellets from a tin as some others do. His CA cyclinder appears to be very low. Trigger finger position appears to be pretty central of the first index joint. Holds between 5 - 15 seconds. (some/most of this info taken from watching the final - so may not necessarily be correct for his 60 shot WR qualifier admittedly)
So here's what I'd like to know - for interests sake, not for wanting to duplictae his 'method'. Just Interested!
He had 31 out of 60 inner 10's. WOW - imagine if that was on paper targets and gathering up the 31 and holding them in one stack. Nice hole!!
How many inner 10's each series? That'd be great to know. For example, first series was 100. If we knew that these 10 x 10's didn't have one inner 10 amongst them - that'd be interesting. or maybe 8 of the 10 were inners - he starts well then!! What was his longest string of 10's? Waht about the 9's? Sure they aren't scored in decimals, but were they 'wide' 9's - or neasrly 10's? (9.8, 9.9) Any 8's in his score of 594? I'm guessing probably not - but possible. Does he take a break during the 60 shots? After a series of 10 - or ad hoc? What's he do? Sit down, stretch, have a drink, go to the toilet? What about the last series of 98. Could he have been thinking of the WR? We'll never know, but I'd like to know the sequence of his last 10 shots. Wouldn't you? Were the last two shots 9's? Maybe the first 2? Heck with a score well into the 590's - what would be going thru ones head? We saw what can happen in final - even though we don't know what he was thinking. Back to the LP 10. Was it the ball bearing model? What brand of pellet? All this info isn't going to affect or improve my shooting (or yours?) but it would be a great 'story'. Heck, the WR stood for 20 years!!! I guess we'll only get to know some of these answers from someone who attended or who has access to the 'shot by shot' results. But if like me, your intrested and have extra info to contribute, I for one would appreciate that.

Reinhamre · Post by **Reinhamre** » Thu Apr 16, 2009 4:26 am

I will be surprised if this record will be older than 2 years.
Leonid Ekimov will not rest until he is there!
I do not think that Jong Oh Jin was thinking of word record when he was in the qualification, they are used to these high scores.
In the final he probably thought the game was over and he already had the gold medal and all had talked about his new world record. And THEN it was easy loose with a 91! Most of us could have beaten him in that final. It is all in our heads, not stance, shoes, gun, pellets or you name it...

Kent

jipe · Post by **jipe** » Thu Apr 16, 2009 6:45 am

Reinhamre wrote:I will be surprised if this record will be older than 2 years.
Leonid Ekimov will not rest until he is there!
I do not think that Jong Oh Jin was thinking of word record when he was in the qualification, they are used to these high scores.
In the final he probably thought the game was over and he already had the gold medal and all had talked about his new world record. And THEN it was easy loose with a 91! Most of us could have beaten him in that final. It is all in our heads, not stance, shoes, gun, pellets or you name it...

Kent

Indeed, he did a pretty bad score in this final. The fact that it was in Korea = his home country surely not helped him.

TargetTalk

World Record!

World Record!

Re: World Record!

Re: World Record!

Re: World Record!