WAP Travesty

john bickar · Post by **john bickar** » Mon Jul 13, 2015 12:20 am

Courtney Anthony was miles ahead of everyone else at the Pan Am Games.

She was way better than everyone else in the competition for all of the 50 shots she fired, until she was commanded to stop. What gives?

This "start-from-zero in the finals" nonsense is bad enough for one-time, high-level events like a World Cup (where spreads are narrow), but in continental championship events where quota places are picked???

Yeah, I'm a USA homer, but how do you walk out of that match as the "champion" holding your head high, knowing you got your ass handed to you for all but 10 shots that day?

More to the point - is this an equitable way to award Olympic quotas? By drawing lots among those who can shoot between 370 and 386??

shaky hands · Post by **shaky hands** » Mon Jul 13, 2015 1:19 am

john bickar wrote: Yeah, I'm a USA homer, but how do you walk out of that match as the "champion" holding your head high, knowing you got your ass handed to you for all but 10 shots that day?

One way to hold your head high is to tell yourself that you wisely expended the right effort at the right time and did not screw up mentally. Or, as the great 3-time Formula 1 world champion Jackie Stewart formulated, you should drive as slow as needed to ensure a win. Or, as a great John Bickar used to say, it is a marathon, not a race. Or, more precisely, it is a race after a marathon.

SamEEE · Post by **SamEEE** » Mon Jul 13, 2015 1:43 am

Satire? I can't quite tell...

At any rate travesty is the wrong word. She had equal chance to win, as everyone else.

Thing is.... she didn't!

Well done to Keijko to hold out Zavala. She had an infant at the Comm games last year and came 5th there. Surprised not to see her sister on the start-list, she is also a class-act.

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/panamga ... oting.html

Spencer · Post by **Spencer** » Mon Jul 13, 2015 2:41 am

shaky hands wrote:... Or, as the great 3-time Formula 1 world champion Jackie Stewart formulated, you should drive as slow as needed to ensure a win...

Predating Jackie Stewart, I can remember Jack Brabham saying it in the 1950s

jmdavis · Post by **jmdavis** » Mon Jul 13, 2015 4:49 am

The marathon example doesn't really work for the finals format. To relate it to a marathon, you would have to have the leader stop at the 25 mile mark, let everyone catch up and then hold a sprint for the last mile.

It's not even about husbanding your energy. It's about creating drama.

The US bullseye championships is more like a marathon. 3 days, 270 shots for score, 2 or three pistols (which must include a 22 and 45), precision stages and rapid stages, outdoor conditions, but no score reset. Sanderson won it, by the way, beating the next closest competitor by 14 points.

JamesH · Post by **JamesH** » Mon Jul 13, 2015 6:44 am

I don't like any of the new finals, its a different kind of sport now, but there we go.
Its not a test of who can shoot 60 shots under pressure, then extend it to 70.
Its a test of who can shoot 10 shots under a different kind of pressure, (using a hit/miss measuring stick for some events).

^This is probably trite but I'm out of ideas.

shaky hands · Post by **shaky hands** » Mon Jul 13, 2015 9:29 am

jmdavis wrote:It's not even about husbanding your energy. It's about creating drama.

Those are not mutually exclusive. Sure, for ISSF it is about creating drama, but for a shooter it is about going the distance, not getting carried away by the success in the qualification, not burning out, getting enough rest and developing the right mindset to shoot in an arguably very different mode when you have to shoot now, on the first attempt, not when your hold is optimal.

Dr. Jim · Post by **Dr. Jim** » Mon Jul 13, 2015 9:45 am

As a Canuck, I have to say congratulations to Lynda (Keiko) a second generation world class competitor. Lynda really,REALLY, gets up for finals. I've seen her beat the national champions (male) in open finals here in Alberta on more than one occasion. She always does well on the final stress test!

Cheers!

jmdavis · Post by **jmdavis** » Mon Jul 13, 2015 11:16 am

Congratulations to the winner. Winning is winning. And the rules were followed. But sometimes, the sense behind the rules seems arbitrary at best.

With electronic scoring and immediately available aggregate, what is the purported logic of the reset?

David Levene · Post by **David Levene** » Mon Jul 13, 2015 12:15 pm

jmdavis wrote: With electronic scoring and immediately available aggregate, what is the purported logic of the reset?

So that they can televise a competition without having to explain that the winner of the bit you see isn't the one who wins the Gold Medal.

I like the general start from zero idea. The qualification stage is now exactly that. It qualifies you to shoot in the bit that actually counts.

Some of the finals need "fine tuning" but, with crowd participation, we now have a sport that can be televised to the general public.

renzo · Post by **renzo** » Mon Jul 13, 2015 1:06 pm

David Levene wrote:
jmdavis wrote: With electronic scoring and immediately available aggregate, what is the purported logic of the reset?
So that they can televise a competition without having to explain that the winner of the bit you see isn't the one who wins the Gold Medal.

I like the general start from zero idea. The qualification stage is now exactly that. It qualifies you to shoot in the bit that actually counts.

Some of the finals need "fine tuning" but, with crowd participation, we now have a sport that can be televised to the general public.

Well, yes, but I'd like it to keep some resemblance to the one I chose so many years ago..............................................

jmdavis · Post by **jmdavis** » Mon Jul 13, 2015 1:44 pm

OK, can someone explain the difference between 0+x and score+x as a starting point. There doesn't need to be any explanation. You take the top 8 from the match and you have them shoot a final without a reset. That's not too difficult to understand, is it?

I would think that explaining the shootoffs which don't count toward score would be more difficult than explaining a final where the participants start with their match score and the x shot final is added to it. But what you do lose is the DRAMA.

john bickar · Post by **john bickar** » Mon Jul 13, 2015 1:53 pm

I suppose the unasked question is whether the goal is to determine the best shooter on a given day, or have the best TV-friendly spectacle.

john bickar · Post by **john bickar** » Mon Jul 13, 2015 1:55 pm

Dr. Jim wrote:As a Canuck, I have to say congratulations to Lynda (Keiko) a second generation world class competitor. Lynda really,REALLY, gets up for finals. I've seen her beat the national champions (male) in open finals here in Alberta on more than one occasion. She always does well on the final stress test!

Cheers!

Yes, no disrespect meant to the winner. Good for her for seizing the moment.

My gripe is with the process, particularly as it pertains to doling out quota slots.

Dr. Jim · Post by **Dr. Jim** » Mon Jul 13, 2015 2:13 pm

The previous final process - qualifier plus final score for all finalists- also had a large number of complaints. The difference of final performance would often change the overall placement just as much as this newer final scheme does. But as David points out TV and publicity rules today, so you have a choice of seeing this finals scheme (or some other next year) or you can see shooting events eliminated from the big international games scene. I happen to be pessimistic enough to expect the latter. I would expect that most nations have already maxed out their allowed quota places, not so?

Dr Jim

Andre · Post by **Andre** » Mon Jul 13, 2015 3:16 pm

I prefer carry-over finals. Makes you work during the ENTIRE match, not allowing yourself to settle to 8th knowing it'll be fine later.

dschaller · Post by **dschaller** » Mon Jul 13, 2015 5:03 pm

If other sports were to come up with rules like the ISSF, then the finals for a swimming event would be just one length of the pool instead of the same distance they swim in the preliminary heats, and the marathon final would be a 50 yard dash......

grmdaddyo · Post by **grmdaddyo** » Mon Jul 13, 2015 5:45 pm

I was participating when the changes started.
Make no mistake about it, it's all about TV $$ for the IOC. If the shooting sports didn't make it more "viewer" friendly, they were going to eliminate the sports.
60 shot free pistol match......Paint Dry.....Grass Grow???
What about the limitations on the Glasses Blinders, and the Hat Blinders. All to allow the TV's Face viewing.... NO Other Reason.
There were limitations on Shooting Pants and when the Rifle Shooters "marched" onto the line... Wasn't good "viewing appeal" seeing a bunch of stiff legged people walking onto the line.

I guess the ISSF had to make the best of the $$ pressure. No, not what some of us were doing "in the day".

Some of you might recall why they opened up a "women's" rifle classification for the Int competitions.... Let's see who can give us that answer.... I don't want to give it all away...

GRM

john bickar · Post by **john bickar** » Mon Jul 13, 2015 5:48 pm

So what channel can I watch the Pan American Games shooting events on?

grmdaddyo · Post by **grmdaddyo** » Mon Jul 13, 2015 5:53 pm

Ha...Ha.... Let me know when you find it..... Even the ISSF isn't covering it.... so far.... Oh after all....it's only the "Americas".....

TargetTalk

WAP Travesty

WAP Travesty

Re: WAP Travesty

Re: WAP Travesty

Re: WAP Travesty

Re: WAP Travesty

Re: WAP Travesty

Re: WAP Travesty

Re: WAP Travesty

Re: WAP Travesty

Re: WAP Travesty

Re: WAP Travesty

Re: WAP Travesty

Re: WAP Travesty

Re: WAP Travesty

Re: WAP Travesty

Re: WAP Travesty

Re: WAP Travesty

Re: WAP Travesty

Re: WAP Travesty

Re: WAP Travesty