No one's mentioned yet the limit on the heel of the butt plate. In the same way the hook has a maximum length from the butt (and in air rifle there is a maximum 20mm "depth" to the curvature of the plate), they have now applied a 25mm limit to the top heel on 50m rifles butt plates. I've been measuring people's plates in my club and not yet found one that complies. Neither of my two plates comply (neither my Gemini for Prone nor my Anschutz for S&K), despite neither really using much of their available travel or adjustment. They're really set rather conservatively, but apparently I need to be more conservative still.
They can be made to comply - I don't have to drop a large wedge of money on new plates, but I don't quite know how they reached a 25mm figure. Probably plucked it arbitrarily out of thin air. If they had actually looked at what's on the market, 40-50mm would seem a reasonable limit, which will include most people's current configurations, but act as a preventative measure against some exotic customisation that clamps around the shoulder or some such like to provide a genuinely unfair advantage.
As for finals, I'm not convinced. The "boring" final of the London Olympics where Martynov led from the start (10.8) and dominated throughout with no swap of leader would not have been improved by start-from-zero, meanwhile some of the very best finals (Ladies Air Pistol) started out with a (small) gap amongst the top finalists, that evaporated after one shot. You could almost touch the tension and excitement in the hall during that one. I can see how they're trying to mix up the shooters, but I'm not convinced it'll actually work.
I agree media-friendliness is important if we are to promote the sport, and especially if it is to retain an important position in the media-led IOC. Hwever, I'm not convinced by the format proposed. If you want to go the knock-out/shoot-off route then go the whole hog to a proper Archery style tournament. I kind of like the fact that someone can spanner their shoot on the last shot if they don't retain their composure (since this is a mental sport). Matt Emmons has done it, and Celine Goberville spannered out an 8 on her last shot to cost herself the Gold. Of course, being in a 2-man shoot-off is no less pressure, because in your mind all you want is the Gold. That's what you're (literally) aiming for, but I don't like the fact people can go into their final stage guaranteed a medal due to others being knocked out administratively, even if they were only .1 behind (I would contend Kim Rhode's Skeet final was different, she was guaranteed a medal about 6 shots from the end because she had such a stonking shoot, more power to her).
Other suggestions include ones from Ireland to use SCATT/Noptel style systems so spectators can track the point of aim, and the possibility of heart rate monitors. Of course this requires finalists to wear said monitors and clamp scatt tracers to their barrels, however if it's feedback to the audience, these will do far more than fiddling with finals formats or how many belt loops you're allowed.
ISSF rule change from 1st January 2013
Moderators: pilkguns, m1963, David Levene, Spencer, Richard H
As a physicist I can only state that this is ANYTHING you attache to the barrel, rifle, pistol. More advanced - springs with weights, for example. Even a ring rest you put between the system and the stock before fixing it.Spencer wrote:....
From you comments, you seem to understand what "Vibration Reduction Systems" means: I do not - and openly admit that I do not.
Please explain what "Vibration Reduction Systems" means.
Ok, ISSF probably plans to "define" Vibration Reduction Systems somehow in the rules, but from the very biginning the idea is simply WRONG and against positive development of the shooting sport.
-
nahscoach
new ISSF approved changes
I read the changes this morning and was really shocked at the new equipment rules. I understand the uproar over the final changes. I can understand the ISSF wanting to make the sport more spectator appealing but they are making it hard for small club and school teams to keep up with the new equipment rules. As I interpret it, all shoes currently in use, all trousers and all jackets will need to be modified to stay in compliance with USA Shooting and CMP matches. When your yearly budget depends totally on how many candy bars the teams sells and the good will of others it will be hard to pay for modifications or new gear. I'm afraid the trickle down will be more like a downpour.
Grzegorz and Joel, et.al.,
The major difference between the start from zero events Joel listed above and the new proposed finals is that the "race" is over the same distance in those other sports. Essentially, I do tend to agree that it is similar it the marathon being stopped outside the stadium until the top eight get there and then they run the last 400 meters (800 meters) as the finish.
What ISSF have done over the past three decades is to create a separate event to determine the winner. It is not the tradition of shooting that had been experienced in the previous 100 years. This is the further "logical" extension in their minds. As ISSF once propetically stated, "Someone will win." I think it may not be the best shooter.
I had the distict pleasure to coach at a junior international match in Suhl this past summer. One of my shooters shot an outstanding 1176 in the qualification. He had a 15 point lead going into the final! But SFZ, his 99.4 in the final would have given him only the silver medal because another shooter (2nd place with a fine 1161 qualification) shot 100.0. I ask who was the better shooter?
Why have a qualification at all? How about these fast 3x10s as heats moving the top 4 through to the next round? Isn't that where this is headed?
I agree whole heartedly that having better video of the shooters via traces of their holding etc. would be fantastic, but I still don't see how that would push shooting over the top as far as becoming mainstream sport TV like Biathlon in Europe. Media friendliness is good and proper, but the notion that IOC is demanding we change is basically false. Top ISSF officials have told me so. This is being driven internally.
Marcus
The major difference between the start from zero events Joel listed above and the new proposed finals is that the "race" is over the same distance in those other sports. Essentially, I do tend to agree that it is similar it the marathon being stopped outside the stadium until the top eight get there and then they run the last 400 meters (800 meters) as the finish.
What ISSF have done over the past three decades is to create a separate event to determine the winner. It is not the tradition of shooting that had been experienced in the previous 100 years. This is the further "logical" extension in their minds. As ISSF once propetically stated, "Someone will win." I think it may not be the best shooter.
I had the distict pleasure to coach at a junior international match in Suhl this past summer. One of my shooters shot an outstanding 1176 in the qualification. He had a 15 point lead going into the final! But SFZ, his 99.4 in the final would have given him only the silver medal because another shooter (2nd place with a fine 1161 qualification) shot 100.0. I ask who was the better shooter?
Why have a qualification at all? How about these fast 3x10s as heats moving the top 4 through to the next round? Isn't that where this is headed?
I agree whole heartedly that having better video of the shooters via traces of their holding etc. would be fantastic, but I still don't see how that would push shooting over the top as far as becoming mainstream sport TV like Biathlon in Europe. Media friendliness is good and proper, but the notion that IOC is demanding we change is basically false. Top ISSF officials have told me so. This is being driven internally.
Marcus
adly worded... again... they don't learn from their past mistakes do they? Is there any point in specifying a few?
Malfunctions in 10m, 50m and 300m Events. Malfunctions in 10m, 50m and 300m Rifle and Pistol events may be repaired or a disabled gun may be replaced with Jury approval, but no extra time will be allowed to repair or replace a malfunction or disabled gun.
... and then it says...
Only One Rifle. The same rifle must be used in all Elimination, Qualification and Finals Rounds of one event. The action, barrel and basic stock cannot be exchanged...
... it continues with no definitions...
Vibration Reduction Systems. The installation of any type of vibration reduction system in or on the rifle is prohibited.
... so what is, the rubber on a butt?
Air Rifle Pistol Grip. The pistol grip may not extend more than 60mm from a plane perpendicular to the centerline of the barrel (also applies to 300m Standard Rifle)
... i think they mean parallel don't you... a plane perpendicular would be like a wall along the firing line... 60mm from it could be anywhere... 60mm in what direction, down?
Rifle Weights. Weights in the lower part of stock or the butt may not extend further from a plane perpendicular to the centerline of the barrel than the maximum extension of the cheek-piece from that plane.
... the maximum extension allowed by the rules or the the maximum extension designed and built? The extension distance, or the outer sihouette edge?
Chest Rests. Any attachments (Brustanlagen) projecting forward from the lower portion of the butt plate are prohibited
...what if they're not attached to the the lower portion, what if they're 1mm above that?
Shooting Shoe Sole Flexibility. The soles of athletes’ shoes must bend at least 22.5 degrees when a force of 15 Newton-Meters is applied to the heel area while the boot or shoe is clamped in the testing device.
... which way? You can make a boot very stiff in a direction it doesn't have to bend. Just because the machine tests in a direction doesn't imply it's following the rule...
Inner Soles or Inserts. Athletes may use removable inner soles or inserts in their shoes, but these inserts must be flexible at the ball of the foot.
... no measurement of flexibility here all of a sudden...
Normal Walking Test. To demonstrate that their shoe soles are flexible, athletes must walk normally at all times while on the field of play. Repeated violations can result in a 2-point penalty or even disqualification.
... i can walk normally in ski boots... again, no definition... and if you can't walk normally to start with?
Shooting Jacket Left Side Panel (right handed shooter). The construction of the side panel of the jacket may not have any seam that lies under the support arm in the standing position.
... lefties can get away with it though... ;)
Shooting Jacket Sleeves. The athlete must be capable of fully extending both arms (to straighten sleeves) while wearing the jacket.
... whats the test for, the althlete being able to extend the arms, or to ensure a jacket can enable them to do so...?
No Shooting Trousers in Prone Events. Shooting trousers may not be worn in prone rifle events, but they may be worn in the prone stages of three-position events.
... define non shooting trousers...
I expected a lot better of a professional sporting body like the ISSF... the old rules were bad enough, these are just amateur.
Malfunctions in 10m, 50m and 300m Events. Malfunctions in 10m, 50m and 300m Rifle and Pistol events may be repaired or a disabled gun may be replaced with Jury approval, but no extra time will be allowed to repair or replace a malfunction or disabled gun.
... and then it says...
Only One Rifle. The same rifle must be used in all Elimination, Qualification and Finals Rounds of one event. The action, barrel and basic stock cannot be exchanged...
... it continues with no definitions...
Vibration Reduction Systems. The installation of any type of vibration reduction system in or on the rifle is prohibited.
... so what is, the rubber on a butt?
Air Rifle Pistol Grip. The pistol grip may not extend more than 60mm from a plane perpendicular to the centerline of the barrel (also applies to 300m Standard Rifle)
... i think they mean parallel don't you... a plane perpendicular would be like a wall along the firing line... 60mm from it could be anywhere... 60mm in what direction, down?
Rifle Weights. Weights in the lower part of stock or the butt may not extend further from a plane perpendicular to the centerline of the barrel than the maximum extension of the cheek-piece from that plane.
... the maximum extension allowed by the rules or the the maximum extension designed and built? The extension distance, or the outer sihouette edge?
Chest Rests. Any attachments (Brustanlagen) projecting forward from the lower portion of the butt plate are prohibited
...what if they're not attached to the the lower portion, what if they're 1mm above that?
Shooting Shoe Sole Flexibility. The soles of athletes’ shoes must bend at least 22.5 degrees when a force of 15 Newton-Meters is applied to the heel area while the boot or shoe is clamped in the testing device.
... which way? You can make a boot very stiff in a direction it doesn't have to bend. Just because the machine tests in a direction doesn't imply it's following the rule...
Inner Soles or Inserts. Athletes may use removable inner soles or inserts in their shoes, but these inserts must be flexible at the ball of the foot.
... no measurement of flexibility here all of a sudden...
Normal Walking Test. To demonstrate that their shoe soles are flexible, athletes must walk normally at all times while on the field of play. Repeated violations can result in a 2-point penalty or even disqualification.
... i can walk normally in ski boots... again, no definition... and if you can't walk normally to start with?
Shooting Jacket Left Side Panel (right handed shooter). The construction of the side panel of the jacket may not have any seam that lies under the support arm in the standing position.
... lefties can get away with it though... ;)
Shooting Jacket Sleeves. The athlete must be capable of fully extending both arms (to straighten sleeves) while wearing the jacket.
... whats the test for, the althlete being able to extend the arms, or to ensure a jacket can enable them to do so...?
No Shooting Trousers in Prone Events. Shooting trousers may not be worn in prone rifle events, but they may be worn in the prone stages of three-position events.
... define non shooting trousers...
I expected a lot better of a professional sporting body like the ISSF... the old rules were bad enough, these are just amateur.
Marcus ... his final score with a 3-p SFZ would have included both prone and standing position scores as well ... hard to compare the two, my guess if you add those positions in you would have probably very easily seen a +.6 increase over the other shooter.Marcus wrote:I had the distinct pleasure to coach at a junior international match in Suhl this past summer. One of my shooters shot an outstanding 1176 in the qualification. He had a 15 point lead going into the final! But SFZ, his 99.4 in the final would have given him only the silver medal because another shooter (2nd place with a fine 1161 qualification) shot 100.0. I ask who was the better shooter?
I'll concede the point that a 3x10 final is not the same as the qualifying round ... but then why not the uproar about the current 10 shot standing ... that to me is putting excellent prone & kneeling shooters at disadvantages.
Actually, to me, running a finals match (complete) makes more sense with the top eight (SFZ), but I don't even think that was considered.
I'm not saying at all I like the rules that are now approved. I think ISSF should be much less secretive and share these ideas over something like maybe 2 years to get comments (oh, and listen to them).
There are some of these we've heard hints of, but way too many are (nice phrase here) pulled out of thin air.
From a juniors coach perspective, of a small club, yes --- this will certainly stunt our moving more kids into precision ... we'll have to recover over the next few years in terms of repairing/fixing/purchasing new equipment. This is the last year for my youngest daughter, she moves on to college next year ... this just reinforces my thoughts of moving back to shotgun sports.
Last edited by jhmartin on Thu Sep 13, 2012 9:53 am, edited 1 time in total.
Just depends on rules. Take into account that you discuss situation that happend BEFORE changes. Your shooter knew perfectly that he just needed shot more or less in the middle to win, and even one "0" was not a problem. He certainly would not shoot in that way within new rules and probably he would win too. If not, the second one would be a better shooter.Marcus wrote:... One of my shooters shot an outstanding 1176 in the qualification. He had a 15 point lead going into the final! But SFZ, his 99.4 in the final would have given him only the silver medal because another shooter (2nd place with a fine 1161 qualification) shot 100.0. I ask who was the better shooter?
...
Marcus
Simply tactics changes. Surely coaches must change some elements of the training. They must find something new to provide their shooters with a scuccess. Shooters, having their habits must change something, look for any new solutions. Particularly older ones... Maybe this is a main problem...
I would like to stress, that my positive opinion about the changes, concerns new rules for Finals, not all the changes. For others, I agree with "10point9".
-
David Levene
- Posts: 5617
- Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 12:49 pm
- Location: Ruislip, UK
-
westerngriz
Of course the final was fired under the 2009-2012 rules, but I still have not seen an answer to the question of who was the better shooter on the day. Is that not what the tradition is? Now, is it reduced to a 3x10 rapid-fire/rapid-change event with a commentator chiding shooters for running behind in the change over to increase the entertainment value? Are we throwing out more traditon to accomodate a pipe dream of more TV coverage?
In my example we had seen the previous day a 3x20 final with a German shooter who lost an initial 8 point lead ultimately ending third (I believe). I was determined that we would not see anything like that in the 3x40 final. We talked about the approach to the final, with the advice being to go as hard as if it was only a couple of points difference. Sure, he had sealed the victory after the 9th shot and a miss would not have made a difference, but everyone else in the final was going for it. I recognize that this is an unusual score distribution, one not likely seen in a WC, WCH, Continental, or Olympic event, but the comment I overheard made by the ISSF GS to an ISSF VP, (I paraphase) "This is exactly the situation we need to resolve."
What are some of the unintended consequences of this new system? At lower levels of competition (junior especially) totally unexpected results may become commonplace. This could cause team selection/support issues. How does one identify the best shooters (not just the winner) for team selection? It will certainly complicate things.
I highly doubt anyone commenting on here has seen this 3x10 spectacle before. I have. At the Suhl match ISSF ran two of these test events as a demonstration. It took about 50 minutes from start to finish. Does anyone know if ISSF did any other of these tests, or was that it?
Under these new proposed finals it is indeed two separate and distinctly different events. Certainly, both athletes and coaches will need to add and modify training to adapt to this new competition just as they did in 1985-86 when the finals were first introduced.
Why not the 3x10 heats? Is that where we are going? I actually prefer that to the current SFZ idea.
Once again, "someone will win."
In my example we had seen the previous day a 3x20 final with a German shooter who lost an initial 8 point lead ultimately ending third (I believe). I was determined that we would not see anything like that in the 3x40 final. We talked about the approach to the final, with the advice being to go as hard as if it was only a couple of points difference. Sure, he had sealed the victory after the 9th shot and a miss would not have made a difference, but everyone else in the final was going for it. I recognize that this is an unusual score distribution, one not likely seen in a WC, WCH, Continental, or Olympic event, but the comment I overheard made by the ISSF GS to an ISSF VP, (I paraphase) "This is exactly the situation we need to resolve."
What are some of the unintended consequences of this new system? At lower levels of competition (junior especially) totally unexpected results may become commonplace. This could cause team selection/support issues. How does one identify the best shooters (not just the winner) for team selection? It will certainly complicate things.
I highly doubt anyone commenting on here has seen this 3x10 spectacle before. I have. At the Suhl match ISSF ran two of these test events as a demonstration. It took about 50 minutes from start to finish. Does anyone know if ISSF did any other of these tests, or was that it?
Under these new proposed finals it is indeed two separate and distinctly different events. Certainly, both athletes and coaches will need to add and modify training to adapt to this new competition just as they did in 1985-86 when the finals were first introduced.
Why not the 3x10 heats? Is that where we are going? I actually prefer that to the current SFZ idea.
Once again, "someone will win."
-
bluetentacle
- Posts: 139
- Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 12:38 am
- Location: Los Angeles, CA
I guess we'll need to see what they mean by "anti-vibration devices". I'm not optimistic.
Their intent is likely to tone down the equipment race. However, in doing so, they are merely directing the sport in another undesirable direction--turning it into more of a game of chance. If you can find a lot of ammo that exactly fits your rifle as it comes from the factory, you have a huge advantage. If your rifle-ammo combo is a bit suboptimal, you are screwed and there's nothing you can do about it by tuning. That is, unless you are part of a large shooting organization that can afford to test dozens of factory rifles and pick out the choice pieces--talk about reducing cost!
Due to the nature of rimfire ammunition, technology actually serves to level the playing field. I wonder if this has ever occurred to the ISSF.
My jacket, a Kustermann, has a prominent seam running down the left side. I don't think it helps me any, but apparently it's illegal.
The new buttplate curvature rule doesn't affect me personally, but it's against the spirit of the free rifle discipline.
I agree with the general sentiment that the current final format is sufficiently exciting. I've seen the elimination format as it is practiced in the pistol sports, and frankly, can't see how it's any better. It seems to take a lot longer too.
If the final equipment rules require me to make drastic changes to my equipment, particularly the rifle, I'll have to seriously re-evaluate my participation in this discipline.
Their intent is likely to tone down the equipment race. However, in doing so, they are merely directing the sport in another undesirable direction--turning it into more of a game of chance. If you can find a lot of ammo that exactly fits your rifle as it comes from the factory, you have a huge advantage. If your rifle-ammo combo is a bit suboptimal, you are screwed and there's nothing you can do about it by tuning. That is, unless you are part of a large shooting organization that can afford to test dozens of factory rifles and pick out the choice pieces--talk about reducing cost!
Due to the nature of rimfire ammunition, technology actually serves to level the playing field. I wonder if this has ever occurred to the ISSF.
My jacket, a Kustermann, has a prominent seam running down the left side. I don't think it helps me any, but apparently it's illegal.
The new buttplate curvature rule doesn't affect me personally, but it's against the spirit of the free rifle discipline.
I agree with the general sentiment that the current final format is sufficiently exciting. I've seen the elimination format as it is practiced in the pistol sports, and frankly, can't see how it's any better. It seems to take a lot longer too.
If the final equipment rules require me to make drastic changes to my equipment, particularly the rifle, I'll have to seriously re-evaluate my participation in this discipline.
Yes & Yes ... emphasis on pipe dream (and advertising revenue).Marcus wrote:Now, is it reduced to a 3x10 rapid-fire/rapid-change event with a commentator chiding shooters for running behind in the change over to increase the entertainment value? Are we throwing out more tradition to accommodate a pipe dream of more TV coverage?
(Off the top of my head here) In trials and selections I'd suggest toss the Finals if all they are intended for is "entertainment value". Go with 2-3 days of matches and just combine the scores ... if for "entertainment value" you have a Final ... fine, but the selection is decided on the full match combined score w/o the final.Marcus wrote:What are some of the unintended consequences of this new system? At lower levels of competition (junior especially) totally unexpected results may become commonplace. This could cause team selection/support issues. How does one identify the best shooters (not just the winner) for team selection? It will certainly complicate things.
In terms of the unintended consequences ... I'm just closing my eyes and riding along. Depending on how the rules flow down into the major junior program here in the U.S., it could be devastating.
Posted elsewhere by Jen McIntosh (shot for TeamGB in the London Games), posted with permission:
Ok, so some of what I'm about to say may upset some people but it's my opinion, based on my experiences so I don't expect everyone to like it or agree with it. Say what you will but the following are my thoughts on the matter. (I'm also not going to comment on Pistol/Shotgun since I know nothing about them).
1. Range scoreboards/internet service. Awesome idea. Definitely a way of bringing the sport into the 21st century... but I think it says a lot about the people in charge that it's taken them this long to think this up.
2. Sighting time. I actually think this could be made to work and I can see the logic behind it. My only question is how they're going to make it work in 3P. I would not object to them splitting it so that you had prep/sighting time and then x amount of time to shoot each position (kind of like how the guys do it). Although I like being able to just get on with my match, I can see that the way the men's 3P is currently shot makes it easier to follow for spectators.
3. Ties. Glad they got rid of the shoot off. It was just an added complication to an already complicated sport. Although it was fun and added an extra element, they're right - it's difficult to schedule and therefore difficult to prepare for as an athlete.
4. Rifle rules. Thankfully, these are just a summary so we can't expect to understand exactly what they're on about because they're pretty much gibberish at the moment. But depending on the interpretation there could be some major (and expensive) problems in this. Vibration reduction system. At best, people will have to get rid of some accessories. At worst, almost every air rifle and a number of the stocks currently on the market are illegal. Could be very expensive. Air rifle pistol grip. Once again, the ISSF are proven to be run solely by old men. I had to ask myself if any of them have every actually looked at a woman when I read this rule. We have these things called breasts and while I'm very attached to mine, they do have a tendency to just get in the way. And I'm not that well endowed. I hate to think of the problems larger chested women are going to have if this rule comes in to play - it's not like they're detachable. Chest rests. Well, there's an easy way round this. Old wooden stocks anyone? Pathetic attempt to meddle and hasn't been thought through at all. Clothing stiffness and thickness testing (minimum area measurement). This rule is going to suck if you're really small... great for getting juniors involved. Not. Normal walking test. Define normal. Morons. Shoe sole contour. So new boots for everyone. Manufacturers will be pleased. My bank balance won't be. Shooting jacket left side panel (for right handed shooter). So that's a new jacket to add to my new boots and new air rifle... except that with my figure, there's no way on this planet that I'm going to be able to get a jacket to fit me if there isn't a seam there. Once again, proof that the ISSF bigwigs have never seen a woman. We have these things called hips. Along with breasts, they make tailoring shooting jackets for us a bit of a challenge. Take out those seams and it's going to become damn near impossible. Time limits. Personally, I think that's great but that's because I shoot fast so I fully appreciate that other people might struggle with the new time limits... which, from a selfish point of view is awesome Overall, I feel like the changes to the rifle rules are the ISSF just tinkering because they can. There's no real need for any of it and as I've pointed out, it's going to cause major issues for women in particular as well as causing massive financial issues for everyone involved. Nobody benefits - not even manufacturers or dealers because they are going to be left with a whole load of stock that they're not going to be able to shift.
5. New finals rules. Now this could take a while. Firstly, I disagree completely with their reasoning. "Olympic sports today must become more dynamic, attract more fans, engage the public with more drama and provide great shows for youth, spectators, television and the media". I'm wondering if any members of the ISSF were actually at the London Olympic Games (I know they were, because I saw them... maybe they walked around with their eyes closed). In case they hadn't noticed, it was sold out. The venue was full. So there's clearly the potential there. Yes, media coverage could have been better. But I don't think it's got anything to do with the format of the matches. The broadcasters just don't have the knowledge or the experience to be able to show shooting in the best way. ISSF TV is going in the right direction but it's still missing something (maybe a commentator who knows what she's actually talking about). Now, I don't normally watch ISSF TV - most of the time, I don't need to see the finals again because I was in the range watching them live in the first place. But after I made the final in Munich, I decided to watch my final back again (the whole thing was a bit of a blur to me and my boyfriend had said that the commentary was good). So I sat down to watch it and low and behold, who was commentating but my good friend Petra Zublasing. Her commentary was brilliant. There was so much personality to it - she talked about the personalities of the shooters, their strengths and weaknesses (she was quite disparaging about my standing as well, if I remember correctly), their history (or lack of in my case). And that's when I realised what was missing. Personality. Because our sport is so introverted and so self-contained, to the outsider there's no personality in it. But there is. And that's why it's fun to watch finals if you're a shooter. Because you know the history and the personalities. And if you had a commentator who could pass that knowledge on to the spectators, it would become a lot more interesting.
But I've gone a bit off topic... the new finals format is unfair. Some people may think it's a great idea because it gives more opportunity to shooters who didn't do quite so well in the qualification. And as a shooter who has been in that position, I can understand the appeal. I'd have got bronze in Munich under the new rules. Sure, there was some element of skill involved in that, but I finished 2 points behind 3rd - not the 0.2 points I would have been ahead under the new rules. The best three shooters on the day won the medals. That's what it's all about. You're not good enough to win a medal by shooting a good qualification? You don't deserve a medal. Under the new rules, Nicco wouldn't even have medalled in London - despite shooting a score 8 points better than the guy in 2nd and 12 points better than the guy in 8th. Sport is about the best person winning. There's no two ways about that. And what the ISSF haven't realised, in the obsession with trying to attract media attention, is that they're making it even harder for grassroots sports. This new format of final demands to be shot on electronic targets which many clubs (and even some countries) don't have the facilities for. Much as we may like for there to be electronics in every club/range in the world, that just isn't the case and this rule would make the sport even less accessible to new shooters. Also, at domestic level, the gap between first and eighth can but much greater than the one or two points that you see at World Cups. But is it really fair that at a national championships, someone can go in ten, twenty or even thirty points in front and that count for nothing?
[url]http://www.petitiono...F/petition.html[/url]
I have signed this petition and I think it makes an interesting point.
"We as the shooters and coaches around the world, appreciate the effort of the ISSF in order to make shooting a better sport but at the same time we believe that such important decisions should not be taken without the agreement of the majority of shooters and coaches."
This is our sport and as such we should have a say in how it's run. I encourage anyone and everyone to sign this petition - or at least, to read the rather eloquent points made my Nicco and Rajmond. Ours is one of the oldest sports in the modern Olympics... let us try and keep the essence of it in tact
So the second shooter was able to handle the pressure better. This will become a more important part of the sportMarcus wrote:Of course the final was fired under the 2009-2012 rules, but I still have not seen an answer to the question of who was the better shooter on the day. Is that not what the tradition is? Now, is it reduced to a 3x10 rapid-fire/rapid-change event with a commentator chiding shooters for running behind in the change over to increase the entertainment value? Are we throwing out more traditon to accomodate a pipe dream of more TV coverage?
In my example we had seen the previous day a 3x20 final with a German shooter who lost an initial 8 point lead ultimately ending third (I believe). I was determined that we would not see anything like that in the 3x40 final. We talked about the approach to the final, with the advice being to go as hard as if it was only a couple of points difference. Sure, he had sealed the victory after the 9th shot and a miss would not have made a difference, but everyone else in the final was going for it. I recognize that this is an unusual score distribution, one not likely seen in a WC, WCH, Continental, or Olympic event, but the comment I overheard made by the ISSF GS to an ISSF VP, (I paraphase) "This is exactly the situation we need to resolve."
What are some of the unintended consequences of this new system? At lower levels of competition (junior especially) totally unexpected results may become commonplace. This could cause team selection/support issues. How does one identify the best shooters (not just the winner) for team selection? It will certainly complicate things.
I highly doubt anyone commenting on here has seen this 3x10 spectacle before. I have. At the Suhl match ISSF ran two of these test events as a demonstration. It took about 50 minutes from start to finish. Does anyone know if ISSF did any other of these tests, or was that it?
Under these new proposed finals it is indeed two separate and distinctly different events. Certainly, both athletes and coaches will need to add and modify training to adapt to this new competition just as they did in 1985-86 when the finals were first introduced.
Why not the 3x10 heats? Is that where we are going? I actually prefer that to the current SFZ idea.
Once again, "someone will win."
-
westerngriz
Another thing that they didn't think about was explaining the finals process to nonshooters. This new process is so freaking complicated that it is just going to confuse all the people watching. If I was at an event that was confusing to me, I don't think I would go back. So maybe they will lose viewers over this.
Matt
Matt
It would be insane to suggest that the second shooter was the best on the day and deserved to win, having been beaten by fifteen points in the qualification and winning the final by 0.6. That's less than a tenth of a point per shot. No way is that fair or representative of the best shooter on the day, and if the final doesn't determine that, then it's a complete waste of time.Muffo wrote:So the second shooter was able to handle the pressure better. This will become a more important part of the sport
I agree sport use to be the cutting edge of technology from there it would trickle down to the masses. This seems to be a trend in all sports this longing for nostalgia. They've basically ruined Formula 1, look at the BS with FINA and swimsuits. They banned the high tech suits and what happened, they went out and broke records that were said to have been set because of the high tech suits and were therefore unbreakable now with the current suits.Grzegorz wrote:As a physicist I can only state that this is ANYTHING you attache to the barrel, rifle, pistol. More advanced - springs with weights, for example. Even a ring rest you put between the system and the stock before fixing it.Spencer wrote:....
From you comments, you seem to understand what "Vibration Reduction Systems" means: I do not - and openly admit that I do not.
Please explain what "Vibration Reduction Systems" means.
Ok, ISSF probably plans to "define" Vibration Reduction Systems somehow in the rules, but from the very biginning the idea is simply WRONG and against positive development of the shooting sport.
Last edited by Richard H on Thu Sep 13, 2012 8:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.