I look forward to recieving their soonest reply...Dear Webmaster,
I believe that ESC is a democratic organisation with one of its tasks to inform shooters, coaches and other interested with everything which is of a great interest for shooting sport.
I'm wondering why the attached document hasn't been published yet???
Why the committee members want to keep their proposals as a top secret until become valid??? Are they afraid of somebody's revolt?
I would appreciate if the esc web page becomes an active forum where everyone could contribute with ideas for the progress of our sport.
You have a good opportunity now to post attached 'Minutes' and open a wide discussion.
With best regards
Rajmond Debevec
Slovenia
New irrational proposals of the ISSF committees
Moderators: pilkguns, Marcus, m1963, David Levene, Spencer
How to inform everyone?
This is my mail sent yesterday to European Shooting Confederation website webmaster (with attached PDF file):
Actually, I tend to use my ear defenders and earplugs a lot outside of the range, and my eye protection gets used for both shooting pistol and protecting my eyes when using power tools.Philadelphia wrote:The same use ear and eye protection has in the shooting sports.
Point is, a lot of sports are exceptionally popular despite requiring specialist equipment. And so long as that equipment is there for the safety of those in the sport, we should strongly resist the idea of losing that equipment, especially when the sole reason for losing it is the mere possibility that we might, maybe, perhaps, gain a little coverage on TV.
This is a reply with an idea of a friend I recieved these days:
Sounds interesting!How can we fight?
These proposals will cost every rifle shooter in the world at least 2000 Euros. If every rifle shooter were to donate 10 Euros to a fighting fund, we could engage a top firm of London lawyers to fight the ISSF by challenging the correctness and legality of every decision they make, up to and including an investigation of the zone between ISSF 'sponsorship' and bribery.
-
Philadelphia
- Posts: 170
- Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 4:52 pm
You have a good counterpoint but I think we still need to consider the future of the sport. Is it growing or fading? If it seems to be fading, why? Etc.Sparks wrote:Actually, I tend to use my ear defenders and earplugs a lot outside of the range, and my eye protection gets used for both shooting pistol and protecting my eyes when using power tools.Philadelphia wrote:The same use ear and eye protection has in the shooting sports.
Point is, a lot of sports are exceptionally popular despite requiring specialist equipment. And so long as that equipment is there for the safety of those in the sport, we should strongly resist the idea of losing that equipment, especially when the sole reason for losing it is the mere possibility that we might, maybe, perhaps, gain a little coverage on TV.
Pat
Yes a lot of what you say is probably right, I was witness to a GB training session back many years, where they did a "your kit has been lost in transit" exercise with air rifle, every shooter had to swop or borrow kit from others including the rifle. I witnessed the late great Malcolm Cooper shoot 395 when the world record was 393, with a borrowed non adjustable rifle and wearing casuals, not even a jacket.
The supportive kit has benefited the lower levels of shooting most, it has brought many people into air rifle or 3P who would never have started or who would have lost interest as they could not achieve a standard at which they felt happy. This is another reason why it must not be changed, but the surely the biggest underlying reason is that millions of shooters will have to scap their kit and buy new if they wish to continue, and many will pack up.
Talladega
Yes, any thing that helps, although I think standard letters can lose impact, they can be recieved with the "another one of those" attitude and ignored. Individual letters or emails give a more personal impact of protest, It's simple to do, all the principal facts are on this site and the ISSF president's e mail adress I have put on this thread ovr.sport@issf-sports.org If every one wrote a few personal lines, he would certainly get the message. Go for it.
Best regards and good shooting
Robin
Yes a lot of what you say is probably right, I was witness to a GB training session back many years, where they did a "your kit has been lost in transit" exercise with air rifle, every shooter had to swop or borrow kit from others including the rifle. I witnessed the late great Malcolm Cooper shoot 395 when the world record was 393, with a borrowed non adjustable rifle and wearing casuals, not even a jacket.
The supportive kit has benefited the lower levels of shooting most, it has brought many people into air rifle or 3P who would never have started or who would have lost interest as they could not achieve a standard at which they felt happy. This is another reason why it must not be changed, but the surely the biggest underlying reason is that millions of shooters will have to scap their kit and buy new if they wish to continue, and many will pack up.
Talladega
Yes, any thing that helps, although I think standard letters can lose impact, they can be recieved with the "another one of those" attitude and ignored. Individual letters or emails give a more personal impact of protest, It's simple to do, all the principal facts are on this site and the ISSF president's e mail adress I have put on this thread ovr.sport@issf-sports.org If every one wrote a few personal lines, he would certainly get the message. Go for it.
Best regards and good shooting
Robin
-
Telecomtodd
- Posts: 221
- Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2008 12:15 pm
- Location: Saint Charles, MO
That's me, except I'm pro-guns. Oh, and I eat generic Cheetos to save money for ammo...Sparks wrote:Besides, when the average TV viewer is some couch-bound, fox-news-watching, cheeto-eating muppet (who probably thinks firearms are evil anyway), I don't want to change my sport to suit their tastes...
-
Telecomtodd
- Posts: 221
- Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2008 12:15 pm
- Location: Saint Charles, MO
You know, that may be a lot of fun to try. It's always fun to see what your core competencies are, and whether you are relying on some specific "trick" from your kit - I know I have mine but I'm not telling anyone! It may also add some fun to the sport, although it may have to be done after a real match as it would probably destroy your mental part of the game. One thing we did with our better-shooting Juniors was a Necco challenge - small sugar wafer candies that are slightly smaller than a 50-foot USA50 bull. Attached with double-sided tape, each shooter was asked to shoot each target sheet, first to finish won bragging rights. When you shoot them, they go "poof" and become sugar powder (better to do this outdoors). It broke up the monotony of serious shooting for a couple hours straight, but more importantly, it stressed consistent shooting under stress - and how to have fun.RobinC wrote:Pat
Yes a lot of what you say is probably right, I was witness to a GB training session back many years, where they did a "your kit has been lost in transit" exercise with air rifle, every shooter had to swop or borrow kit from others including the rifle. I witnessed the late great Malcolm Cooper shoot 395 when the world record was 393, with a borrowed non adjustable rifle and wearing casuals, not even a jacket.
The supportive kit has benefited the lower levels of shooting most, it has brought many people into air rifle or 3P who would never have started or who would have lost interest as they could not achieve a standard at which they felt happy. This is another reason why it must not be changed, but the surely the biggest underlying reason is that millions of shooters will have to scap their kit and buy new if they wish to continue, and many will pack up.
Lastly, I wonder if the ISSF proposed changes would affect US NCAA rules.
Has anyone seen the new ISSF compliant shooting shoes on the Intershoot website, the price is a bit heffty at 1000 pounds !!!
http://www.intershoot.co.uk/acatalog/Footwear.html#a555
http://www.intershoot.co.uk/acatalog/Footwear.html#a555
-
Guest
-
Telecomtodd
- Posts: 221
- Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2008 12:15 pm
- Location: Saint Charles, MO
Sparks - it's more of an offline discussion, but you would have to be over here to understand the Fox/CNN/MSNBC differences. Aside from their absolutely stunning female talent (my wife fully sympathizes with my need to see Gretchen Carlson tell me about the news every morning, she could be her sister) - they were the only ones able to tell the world about the ACORN Bravo Sierra and a lot of other interesting things the "mainstream press" here in the US otherwise simply glosses over. One interesting tidbit, a CNN correspondent was taped accidentally by Fox at a Tea Party story where she outright said something to the effect of "I only want to talk to the wackos" since that was the story she wanted to tell. Come try our Kool-Aid, it's refreshing.
Enough of that, back to eating my generic cheetos while watching tapes of riflemen penguin-marching to their targets.
Enough of that, back to eating my generic cheetos while watching tapes of riflemen penguin-marching to their targets.
I found this website. Someone should write up a petition and link it here and everywhere you know so we can get people to sign it and forward to this ISSF.
http://www.petitiononline.com/
http://www.petitiononline.com/
Is there anyway to find out if these proposed equipment changes are being driven by the IOC or the media telling the ISSF what they want (just as the change to electronic targets was started) or is it the ISSF being proactive, anticipating that such changes will make the sport "better" in the eyes of the IOC and television people? Pretty obviously these changes don't make things "better" for the shooters and the sport, in my opinion.
Think football is, but then it doesn't use any of that stuff.Philadelphia wrote:The same use ear and eye protection has in the shooting sports.Sparks wrote:I know it's an Irishman asking this, but exactly what practical use are these items outside of the specified event?Philadelphia wrote:I'm an outsider and this is clearly an outsider's point of view but in my mind, equipment for shooting should not include a bunch of very expensive specialized "clothing" with absolutely no practical use outside of the specific event.
Is football an Olympic event now? ;)
American football however isn't.
That's superb! :DBarney wrote:Has anyone seen the new ISSF compliant shooting shoes on the Intershoot website, the price is a bit heffty at 1000 pounds !!!
http://www.intershoot.co.uk/acatalog/Footwear.html#a555
Comments Regarding ISSF Rifle Shooter Clothing Issues
Reply for a request for information:
Comments Regarding ISSF Rifle Shooter Clothing Issues
Gary Anderson, ISSF Vice President, USA Shooting President
Robert Mitchell, ISSF Executive Committee, USA Shooting CEO
A copy of draft minutes from the November 2009 meetings of the ISSF Technical and Rifle Committees was recently posted on Target Talk under the heading "new irrational proposals of the ISSF committee." Unfortunately, the post made no attempt to understand the topics discussed or the reasons for these proposals. Two things can be said about these minutes.
First, the minutes are discussion topics and in some cases recommendations. Nothing in them has yet been approved by the ISSF. ISSF Rules do not change until the ISSF Administrative Council approves those changes. Considerable discussion will take place among various committees between now and when they are submitted for approval.
Second, those minutes contain preliminary proposals that are designed to address some serious abuses that appeared in rifle shooter clothing in the last year. At least two, and possibly more, clothing manufacturers have attempted to introduce new jacket and trouser materials that would, if accepted, clearly circumvent current stiffness rules. When a new model of shooting trousers can stand up by themselves and not collapse even after substantial pressure is placed on them, something is wrong. When manufacturers abuse the rules to the point where trouser seat pads become back supports, there is reasonable cause to make rule changes. Such clothing clearly violates IOC and ISSF rules which prohibit artificial support.
Continued efforts by manufacturers to stretch rule specifications and even circumvent rifle clothing stiffness standards are, in effect, the same kind of 'technological doping" that FINA (international swimming federation) fought last summer when it banned a whole series of new swimwear that resulted in making a shambles of their world records. The ISSF would be derelict in its responsibilities if it does not act to control similar developments in shooting.
The ISSF has worked hard since 2004 to control rifle clothing thickness and stiffness standards through stricter and consistent equipment control testing. The ISSF Athletes Commission and athletes generally have lauded the "level playing field" that resulted and we do not want to return to the embarrassing situation we faced before and during the Athens Olympics (many of the jackets and trousers used in 2004 definitely would not pass ISSF equipment control tests today).
The proposals of the ISSF Rifle and Technical Committees will be carefully studied and thoroughly discussed in the coming months. Those discussions will include both athletes and equipment manufacturers. When final proposals are developed, more information and reasoning will be available.
What the hell are they on about? I've seen the new jackets and trousers with my own eyes, they're no stiffer than the canvas ones we have now - in fact they're less stiff than cold or new canvas!
And it's good that they're not set in stone and we're talking about them - if they were through the ISSF admin committee already, it'd be too late to talk about them!
Good grief, are people really thought so little of that someone would release the above as an actual official statement?
And it's good that they're not set in stone and we're talking about them - if they were through the ISSF admin committee already, it'd be too late to talk about them!
Good grief, are people really thought so little of that someone would release the above as an actual official statement?