Hi All
Scott Pilkington asked me to post this here. It's a series of observations I made about various aspects from the Munich 2003 WOrld Cup, which I had posted on a UIT Discussion FOrum:
"I've just been watching some streaming video files from the Munich World Cup 2003 and there are some observations I 've made about equipment and presentation. The URL for those who haven't seen these is: http://www.watchsport.com/index.php
Firstly, I was surprised at the number of Anschutz 2013 actions that were being used by the men and the women, particularly since I have read so many bad things about that action and was beginning to think I should throw mine away and start again. So much for "expert" opinion
Secondly, the majority of shooters were using sight extension tubes (bloop tubes) and that really surprised as I have seen nothing but bad press on these tubes. Ditto about "expert" opinion.
Thirdly, and this relates to prone technique, every shooter in the prone finals moved his right elbow off the mat to reload. In fact, none of them seem to care very much about how much movement they made with their right arms. So much for coaches instructions "never to move the right elbow to reload".
Finally, regarding the spectator appeal of these events. They are of great interest of shooters, fairly naturally of course, but as I viewed them I tried to imagine myself as an average viewer with no knowledge of the shooting sports and I was trying to think of things that would make me want to watch these events. Some thoughts came to mind and these are just my impressions, so I don't intend to enter into a fight about whether they are acceptable or not. I'm sure each of us has his/her own opinions.
1. Shooters need to get rid of the shooting caps and eyeshades. They look odd to the uninitiated (and in some cases, bloody stupid even to a shooter) and do nothing to enhance the appearance of the shooter. Head sweatbands are OK.
2. Shooting glasses have to stay, I suppose, but they do detract froom the shooters appearance and again look weird to the uninitiated. Since the ISSF permits corrective lenses for shooters, why can't they be mounted in the rifle sights? I can't see how doing so would create any "unfair" advantage to anyone.
3. Is an eyeshield for the non-aiming eye absolutely essential? If it is, then it should be mounted on the rifle sight. Mounted on shooting frames or headbands detracts from the appearance of the shooter.
4. Shooting clothing is a problem. Looked at from an aesthetic point of view, the jackets and trousers look weird and I don't know what the average viewer makes of them. The trousers need to go and I think the ISSF is addressing this, but the jacket is also a problem in terms of viewer appeal. Perhaps someone needs to consider how the jacket can be modified so that it doesn't look so way out?
5. During the finals, while we are waiting for a shooter to prepare, there should be some sort of fill in, for viewer interest. Perhaps some comments about the shooter him/herself or the shooter's rifle (most people have never seen a target rifle before and I'm sure a little segment explaining what they are all about would be interesting to most viewers). Lengthy views of the shooters face before and after the shot would be quite boring for the average viewer.
6. It helps if the shooter displays some emotion following each shot. The men are quite bland during the finals but the women seem to allow their personalities and feelings to show through and this is quite appealing to a viewer.
7. It would be great if there could be some sort of reactive target, which shows the bullet impact, but the present electronic system doesn't permit this. I suggest that this is an area that ought to be fully investigated by the ISSF technical people. I don't know how it could be done, but I am certain a viewer would get a "kick" out of seeing the round land on the target, in some way.
That's probably enough to start a first class brawl, so go to it, if you feel so inclined.
Best regards
Tom"
twoodle1-at-bigpond.net.au.47251.0
Observations About Major ISSF Events
Moderators: rexifelis, pilkguns
-
Avianna
Re: Observations About Major ISSF Events
Although more publicity may do good for the shooting sports as a whole, I doubt ISSF shooting will ever be a spectator sport. I think someone said, "it's like watching paint dry", I concur, and if it wasn't, then it wouldn't be the precision ISSF shooting sport that we know. If you want action, go watch IPSC or PPC or IDPA, if you want absolute precision and performance under pressure, come to ISSF.
As for all the strange things we wear and how they look dumb to the uninitiated, you know, in our overly commercialized, media crazed society, I _am_ glad that at least one sport still cares more about substance than appearance. There is a reason for wearing all the paraphernalia we wear, and that is to help us perform better. Performance is king, the rest, who gives a sh*t.
And as for showing emotion after a shot, I think all would agree that is highly detrimental and high performance shooters train for years to stop that. If you want to see emotions after each shot, just go visit your local club match, I am sure you will see plenty of cursing and self muttering.
As for reactive target, well, we sort of have it with the 5 plate rapid fire air pistol event.
Overall, since I don't think the masses will truely appreciate ISSF shooting, no more than they will appreciate a Piccaso. However, for the limited number of people who get it, I think it is pretty good as it is, because those people really do appreciate when during the finals, on the last shot, 0.1 points separating the top 5, and someone shoots a 10.9 to clinch the gold. I don't know about you, but I think that's more dramatic than any falling plate.
Just my $0.02.
Avianna
.47252.47251
As for all the strange things we wear and how they look dumb to the uninitiated, you know, in our overly commercialized, media crazed society, I _am_ glad that at least one sport still cares more about substance than appearance. There is a reason for wearing all the paraphernalia we wear, and that is to help us perform better. Performance is king, the rest, who gives a sh*t.
And as for showing emotion after a shot, I think all would agree that is highly detrimental and high performance shooters train for years to stop that. If you want to see emotions after each shot, just go visit your local club match, I am sure you will see plenty of cursing and self muttering.
As for reactive target, well, we sort of have it with the 5 plate rapid fire air pistol event.
Overall, since I don't think the masses will truely appreciate ISSF shooting, no more than they will appreciate a Piccaso. However, for the limited number of people who get it, I think it is pretty good as it is, because those people really do appreciate when during the finals, on the last shot, 0.1 points separating the top 5, and someone shoots a 10.9 to clinch the gold. I don't know about you, but I think that's more dramatic than any falling plate.
Just my $0.02.
Avianna
.47252.47251
-
TomW
Re: Observations About Major ISSF Events
Avianna
As a shooter I agree with everything you say. Shooting is a participant sport not a spectator sport.
However, that doesn't change the fact that the shooting sports are under very real pressure from the IOC to make their events more appealing to spectators - or be dropped from the Olympic program.
Therefore, I looked at the World Cup finals as though I was an uninformed viewer who was watching the sport for the first time and tried to analyse the factors that would influence me to want to view the event as an ordinary spectator.
What I felt were simply my views on what appeared to be wrong with the shootiing events from that point of view. It's no use telling me I'm wrong - I'm telling you how I felt under a given set of circumstances and as such there is no right or wrong - just perceptions.
Telling spectators to either like it or lump it is not going to do much to preserve our participation in the Olympics. Is this important? For some countries it is. In my country, Australia, gun ownership for the target shooting community is almost wholly dependant on the fact that there are shooting events in the Olympics. When that ceases to be a fact, an awful lot of shooters here will probaly have their guns confiscated. Remember we have no entrenched right of gun ownership here, unlike the US.
There are other compelling reasons to stay in the Olympics, not the least of which is the fact that we can point to the Olympics as evidence that the shooting sports are valued and prestigious events on the world stage and as such - at this stage - are still relatively safe from the "ban all guns" movements world wide.
So like it or not we can't just bury our heads in the sand and say it isn't a problem. How the public perceives our sport IS a problem and one that needs to be resolved, if we wish it to continue in future Olympics. That is the issue and it would be nice if everyone, including the ISSF, started to focus seriously on this issue, instead of avoiding it.
Regards
Tom
twoodle1-at-bigpond.net.au.47254.47252
As a shooter I agree with everything you say. Shooting is a participant sport not a spectator sport.
However, that doesn't change the fact that the shooting sports are under very real pressure from the IOC to make their events more appealing to spectators - or be dropped from the Olympic program.
Therefore, I looked at the World Cup finals as though I was an uninformed viewer who was watching the sport for the first time and tried to analyse the factors that would influence me to want to view the event as an ordinary spectator.
What I felt were simply my views on what appeared to be wrong with the shootiing events from that point of view. It's no use telling me I'm wrong - I'm telling you how I felt under a given set of circumstances and as such there is no right or wrong - just perceptions.
Telling spectators to either like it or lump it is not going to do much to preserve our participation in the Olympics. Is this important? For some countries it is. In my country, Australia, gun ownership for the target shooting community is almost wholly dependant on the fact that there are shooting events in the Olympics. When that ceases to be a fact, an awful lot of shooters here will probaly have their guns confiscated. Remember we have no entrenched right of gun ownership here, unlike the US.
There are other compelling reasons to stay in the Olympics, not the least of which is the fact that we can point to the Olympics as evidence that the shooting sports are valued and prestigious events on the world stage and as such - at this stage - are still relatively safe from the "ban all guns" movements world wide.
So like it or not we can't just bury our heads in the sand and say it isn't a problem. How the public perceives our sport IS a problem and one that needs to be resolved, if we wish it to continue in future Olympics. That is the issue and it would be nice if everyone, including the ISSF, started to focus seriously on this issue, instead of avoiding it.
Regards
Tom
twoodle1-at-bigpond.net.au.47254.47252
-
Avianna
Re: Observations About Major ISSF Events
I am sorry if I was rude, I know you were giving those opinions if you were an uninitiated viewer, and as one, yes, your observations are quite likely. It just pisses me off to no end that target shooter, some of the safest people in the world, are always getting picked on. Damn, wouldn't it be great if the world wasn't so BS driven?
Instead of banning guns used by target shooters, why don't they ... ack, it's no use, what "they" SHOULD do to reduce violence and war and poverty and hate and all that bad stuff is a whooole different story.
I wonder if we can target shoot on Mars... or if the lost Beagle would come and attack :-p
Avianna
.47256.47254
Instead of banning guns used by target shooters, why don't they ... ack, it's no use, what "they" SHOULD do to reduce violence and war and poverty and hate and all that bad stuff is a whooole different story.
I wonder if we can target shoot on Mars... or if the lost Beagle would come and attack :-p
Avianna
.47256.47254
-
Paul
Re: Observations About Major ISSF Events
I have never attended, much less partcipated in a world class match but I have thought about what it would take to attract spectators to the shooting sports.
Like many of the rest of you, I share your concerns for the future for our beloved sport whose survival depends upon attracting people both as participants and spectators.
There's no denying that Tom's observation that some of the tools of our trade look weird to the uninformed. But, I think suggesting the shooter either modify or outright discard clothing, optics, occluders and even their match demeanor is not the answer.
I'm certain that a competitor who has progressed to the level of shooting witnessed by Tom at a world class event did so by developing her/his own system - not just the shot process itself but a carefully designed system which encompasses deliberate and conscientious choice of equipment as well as development of the shooter's own "match personality."
Changing that for the sake of audience interest is a bit like the tail wagging the dog.
Instead, I think we need to EXPLAIN to spectators what all those odd (and wonderful) looking things are in a way that stimulates and piques their interest. If can find a way to explain function and importance in a way that educates and informs - suddenly weird becomes waaaayy cooool.
What looks odd one moment makes perfect sense the next if its function and purpose is entertainingly conveyed and understood. People love to learn.
Any good story teller or someone with good communication skills can explain the function of things even as mundane as an occluder in a way that can both fascinate and educate.
We should take great pride in and capitalize on the uniqueness of our sport before we ask a competitor discard what has them taken years to determine works best for them.
We have to find a way to tell the shooter's story in an interesting and captivating way - not change it.
paul-at-figlialaw.com.47259.47251
Like many of the rest of you, I share your concerns for the future for our beloved sport whose survival depends upon attracting people both as participants and spectators.
There's no denying that Tom's observation that some of the tools of our trade look weird to the uninformed. But, I think suggesting the shooter either modify or outright discard clothing, optics, occluders and even their match demeanor is not the answer.
I'm certain that a competitor who has progressed to the level of shooting witnessed by Tom at a world class event did so by developing her/his own system - not just the shot process itself but a carefully designed system which encompasses deliberate and conscientious choice of equipment as well as development of the shooter's own "match personality."
Changing that for the sake of audience interest is a bit like the tail wagging the dog.
Instead, I think we need to EXPLAIN to spectators what all those odd (and wonderful) looking things are in a way that stimulates and piques their interest. If can find a way to explain function and importance in a way that educates and informs - suddenly weird becomes waaaayy cooool.
What looks odd one moment makes perfect sense the next if its function and purpose is entertainingly conveyed and understood. People love to learn.
Any good story teller or someone with good communication skills can explain the function of things even as mundane as an occluder in a way that can both fascinate and educate.
We should take great pride in and capitalize on the uniqueness of our sport before we ask a competitor discard what has them taken years to determine works best for them.
We have to find a way to tell the shooter's story in an interesting and captivating way - not change it.
paul-at-figlialaw.com.47259.47251
-
Richard H.
Re: Observations About Major ISSF Events
It is a very fine line to follow, change the whole sport to make it friendly for veiwers (who still might not like it) at the expense of the participants (who may no longer participate). This is the the problem with the Olympics themselves, they use to be for the athlete now they are for Joe the beer swilling couch potato. I agree that some are using the Olympics to fight gun bans (which is not always effective (see the UK)). Maybe we have to rethink our sport and see if we want to stay in the Olympics at the expense of destroying the sport. Shooting isn't the only marginal sport that is facing this issue, maybe we could band together with all the other unpopular sports and stage our own Olympics (like the island of misfit toys).
.47260.47254
.47260.47254
-
Mike McDaniel
My tuppence
OK, I'll put in my two cents.....
You're not going to get shooters to deep-six the headgear and shooting glasses. Be hard to write rules around them anyway. Personally, I figure that they are no different from the headgear used in other sports. The pants and jackets? I'm a pistol shooter, so the most that we might bother with is a back brace.
Reactive targets? Not for the high-precision events. Might get it to work for RF.
Probably the biggest problem is that shooting coverage demands editing for television. You can't get away with showing the raw footage. My advice:
1. Don't bother showing the preliminaries, just the finals. Kindly note that this allows the prelims to be held at a different range, and on cheap paper targets instead of expensive electronic ones.
2. Get the ability to pick data off the electronic scoring system. You want the ability to show a split screen, with the shooter on one side, the target display on the other. Then manage it like golf coverage - who's in the lead after X number of shots.
3. Interviews. Yes, top shooters try to maintain the Great Stone Face during competition, but anyone who's shot at the top levels can tell tales of being barely able to stand midway through a match because their knees were shaking so much (got one of my own, BTW). Also explain the rules and equipment.
Now, if you REALLY want photogenic, allow me to recommend the World Muzzle-Loading Championships (last week of August of 2004, in Batesville, Indiana). Flintlock pistols, matchlock rifles - THAT'S photogenic :-)
HMSLion-at-aol.com.47262.47251
You're not going to get shooters to deep-six the headgear and shooting glasses. Be hard to write rules around them anyway. Personally, I figure that they are no different from the headgear used in other sports. The pants and jackets? I'm a pistol shooter, so the most that we might bother with is a back brace.
Reactive targets? Not for the high-precision events. Might get it to work for RF.
Probably the biggest problem is that shooting coverage demands editing for television. You can't get away with showing the raw footage. My advice:
1. Don't bother showing the preliminaries, just the finals. Kindly note that this allows the prelims to be held at a different range, and on cheap paper targets instead of expensive electronic ones.
2. Get the ability to pick data off the electronic scoring system. You want the ability to show a split screen, with the shooter on one side, the target display on the other. Then manage it like golf coverage - who's in the lead after X number of shots.
3. Interviews. Yes, top shooters try to maintain the Great Stone Face during competition, but anyone who's shot at the top levels can tell tales of being barely able to stand midway through a match because their knees were shaking so much (got one of my own, BTW). Also explain the rules and equipment.
Now, if you REALLY want photogenic, allow me to recommend the World Muzzle-Loading Championships (last week of August of 2004, in Batesville, Indiana). Flintlock pistols, matchlock rifles - THAT'S photogenic :-)
HMSLion-at-aol.com.47262.47251
-
Paul
Re: His tuppence
Great advice and damn sure worth more than .02 cents.
: OK, I'll put in my two cents.....
: You're not going to get shooters to deep-six the headgear and shooting glasses. Be hard to write rules around them anyway. Personally, I figure that they are no different from the headgear used in other sports. The pants and jackets? I'm a pistol shooter, so the most that we might bother with is a back brace.
: Reactive targets? Not for the high-precision events. Might get it to work for RF.
: Probably the biggest problem is that shooting coverage demands editing for television. You can't get away with showing the raw footage. My advice:
: 1. Don't bother showing the preliminaries, just the finals. Kindly note that this allows the prelims to be held at a different range, and on cheap paper targets instead of expensive electronic ones.
: 2. Get the ability to pick data off the electronic scoring system. You want the ability to show a split screen, with the shooter on one side, the target display on the other. Then manage it like golf coverage - who's in the lead after X number of shots.
: 3. Interviews. Yes, top shooters try to maintain the Great Stone Face during competition, but anyone who's shot at the top levels can tell tales of being barely able to stand midway through a match because their knees were shaking so much (got one of my own, BTW). Also explain the rules and equipment.
: Now, if you REALLY want photogenic, allow me to recommend the World Muzzle-Loading Championships (last week of August of 2004, in Batesville, Indiana). Flintlock pistols, matchlock rifles - THAT'S photogenic :-)
paul-at-figlialaw.com.47264.47262
: OK, I'll put in my two cents.....
: You're not going to get shooters to deep-six the headgear and shooting glasses. Be hard to write rules around them anyway. Personally, I figure that they are no different from the headgear used in other sports. The pants and jackets? I'm a pistol shooter, so the most that we might bother with is a back brace.
: Reactive targets? Not for the high-precision events. Might get it to work for RF.
: Probably the biggest problem is that shooting coverage demands editing for television. You can't get away with showing the raw footage. My advice:
: 1. Don't bother showing the preliminaries, just the finals. Kindly note that this allows the prelims to be held at a different range, and on cheap paper targets instead of expensive electronic ones.
: 2. Get the ability to pick data off the electronic scoring system. You want the ability to show a split screen, with the shooter on one side, the target display on the other. Then manage it like golf coverage - who's in the lead after X number of shots.
: 3. Interviews. Yes, top shooters try to maintain the Great Stone Face during competition, but anyone who's shot at the top levels can tell tales of being barely able to stand midway through a match because their knees were shaking so much (got one of my own, BTW). Also explain the rules and equipment.
: Now, if you REALLY want photogenic, allow me to recommend the World Muzzle-Loading Championships (last week of August of 2004, in Batesville, Indiana). Flintlock pistols, matchlock rifles - THAT'S photogenic :-)
paul-at-figlialaw.com.47264.47262
-
TomW
Re: My tuppence
Good stuff - maybe we should be shooting 3 position with muzzle loading fliintlocks. Now there would be a challenge!
Regards
Tom
: OK, I'll put in my two cents.....
: You're not going to get shooters to deep-six the headgear and shooting glasses. Be hard to write rules around them anyway. Personally, I figure that they are no different from the headgear used in other sports. The pants and jackets? I'm a pistol shooter, so the most that we might bother with is a back brace.
: Reactive targets? Not for the high-precision events. Might get it to work for RF.
: Probably the biggest problem is that shooting coverage demands editing for television. You can't get away with showing the raw footage. My advice:
: 1. Don't bother showing the preliminaries, just the finals. Kindly note that this allows the prelims to be held at a different range, and on cheap paper targets instead of expensive electronic ones.
: 2. Get the ability to pick data off the electronic scoring system. You want the ability to show a split screen, with the shooter on one side, the target display on the other. Then manage it like golf coverage - who's in the lead after X number of shots.
: 3. Interviews. Yes, top shooters try to maintain the Great Stone Face during competition, but anyone who's shot at the top levels can tell tales of being barely able to stand midway through a match because their knees were shaking so much (got one of my own, BTW). Also explain the rules and equipment.
: Now, if you REALLY want photogenic, allow me to recommend the World Muzzle-Loading Championships (last week of August of 2004, in Batesville, Indiana). Flintlock pistols, matchlock rifles - THAT'S photogenic :-)
twoodle1-at-bigpond.net.au.47265.47262
Regards
Tom
: OK, I'll put in my two cents.....
: You're not going to get shooters to deep-six the headgear and shooting glasses. Be hard to write rules around them anyway. Personally, I figure that they are no different from the headgear used in other sports. The pants and jackets? I'm a pistol shooter, so the most that we might bother with is a back brace.
: Reactive targets? Not for the high-precision events. Might get it to work for RF.
: Probably the biggest problem is that shooting coverage demands editing for television. You can't get away with showing the raw footage. My advice:
: 1. Don't bother showing the preliminaries, just the finals. Kindly note that this allows the prelims to be held at a different range, and on cheap paper targets instead of expensive electronic ones.
: 2. Get the ability to pick data off the electronic scoring system. You want the ability to show a split screen, with the shooter on one side, the target display on the other. Then manage it like golf coverage - who's in the lead after X number of shots.
: 3. Interviews. Yes, top shooters try to maintain the Great Stone Face during competition, but anyone who's shot at the top levels can tell tales of being barely able to stand midway through a match because their knees were shaking so much (got one of my own, BTW). Also explain the rules and equipment.
: Now, if you REALLY want photogenic, allow me to recommend the World Muzzle-Loading Championships (last week of August of 2004, in Batesville, Indiana). Flintlock pistols, matchlock rifles - THAT'S photogenic :-)
twoodle1-at-bigpond.net.au.47265.47262
-
TomW
Re: Observations About Major ISSF Events
I like what you are saying. Perhaps that's the area the the ISSF needs to concentrate on - selling our story to the media and not just reacting to uniformed criticisms.
Regards
Tom
: I have never attended, much less partcipated in a world class match but I have thought about what it would take to attract spectators to the shooting sports.
: Like many of the rest of you, I share your concerns for the future for our beloved sport whose survival depends upon attracting people both as participants and spectators.
: There's no denying that Tom's observation that some of the tools of our trade look weird to the uninformed. But, I think suggesting the shooter either modify or outright discard clothing, optics, occluders and even their match demeanor is not the answer.
: I'm certain that a competitor who has progressed to the level of shooting witnessed by Tom at a world class event did so by developing her/his own system - not just the shot process itself but a carefully designed system which encompasses deliberate and conscientious choice of equipment as well as development of the shooter's own "match personality."
: Changing that for the sake of audience interest is a bit like the tail wagging the dog.
: Instead, I think we need to EXPLAIN to spectators what all those odd (and wonderful) looking things are in a way that stimulates and piques their interest. If can find a way to explain function and importance in a way that educates and informs - suddenly weird becomes waaaayy cooool.
:
: What looks odd one moment makes perfect sense the next if its function and purpose is entertainingly conveyed and understood. People love to learn.
:
: Any good story teller or someone with good communication skills can explain the function of things even as mundane as an occluder in a way that can both fascinate and educate.
: We should take great pride in and capitalize on the uniqueness of our sport before we ask a competitor discard what has them taken years to determine works best for them.
: We have to find a way to tell the shooter's story in an interesting and captivating way - not change it.
twoodle1-at-bigpond.net.au.47266.47259
Regards
Tom
: I have never attended, much less partcipated in a world class match but I have thought about what it would take to attract spectators to the shooting sports.
: Like many of the rest of you, I share your concerns for the future for our beloved sport whose survival depends upon attracting people both as participants and spectators.
: There's no denying that Tom's observation that some of the tools of our trade look weird to the uninformed. But, I think suggesting the shooter either modify or outright discard clothing, optics, occluders and even their match demeanor is not the answer.
: I'm certain that a competitor who has progressed to the level of shooting witnessed by Tom at a world class event did so by developing her/his own system - not just the shot process itself but a carefully designed system which encompasses deliberate and conscientious choice of equipment as well as development of the shooter's own "match personality."
: Changing that for the sake of audience interest is a bit like the tail wagging the dog.
: Instead, I think we need to EXPLAIN to spectators what all those odd (and wonderful) looking things are in a way that stimulates and piques their interest. If can find a way to explain function and importance in a way that educates and informs - suddenly weird becomes waaaayy cooool.
:
: What looks odd one moment makes perfect sense the next if its function and purpose is entertainingly conveyed and understood. People love to learn.
:
: Any good story teller or someone with good communication skills can explain the function of things even as mundane as an occluder in a way that can both fascinate and educate.
: We should take great pride in and capitalize on the uniqueness of our sport before we ask a competitor discard what has them taken years to determine works best for them.
: We have to find a way to tell the shooter's story in an interesting and captivating way - not change it.
twoodle1-at-bigpond.net.au.47266.47259
-
TJ
Re: Observations About Major ISSF Events
Dump the Olympics!
They ruin every sport they touch.
ISSF should not bow to the bunch of power crazed bureaucrats that run the Olympics.
Fishing is the #1 participation sport(yes it is referred to as a sport) world wide and it is not an Olympic sport. LOL! But maybe soon. LOL!
: It is a very fine line to follow, change the whole sport to make it friendly for veiwers (who still might not like it) at the expense of the participants (who may no longer participate). This is the the problem with the Olympics themselves, they use to be for the athlete now they are for Joe the beer swilling couch potato. I agree that some are using the Olympics to fight gun bans (which is not always effective (see the UK)). Maybe we have to rethink our sport and see if we want to stay in the Olympics at the expense of destroying the sport. Shooting isn't the only marginal sport that is facing this issue, maybe we could band together with all the other unpopular sports and stage our own Olympics (like the island of misfit toys).
shootingsports-at-ev1.net.47267.47260
They ruin every sport they touch.
ISSF should not bow to the bunch of power crazed bureaucrats that run the Olympics.
Fishing is the #1 participation sport(yes it is referred to as a sport) world wide and it is not an Olympic sport. LOL! But maybe soon. LOL!
: It is a very fine line to follow, change the whole sport to make it friendly for veiwers (who still might not like it) at the expense of the participants (who may no longer participate). This is the the problem with the Olympics themselves, they use to be for the athlete now they are for Joe the beer swilling couch potato. I agree that some are using the Olympics to fight gun bans (which is not always effective (see the UK)). Maybe we have to rethink our sport and see if we want to stay in the Olympics at the expense of destroying the sport. Shooting isn't the only marginal sport that is facing this issue, maybe we could band together with all the other unpopular sports and stage our own Olympics (like the island of misfit toys).
shootingsports-at-ev1.net.47267.47260
-
Avianna
Re: Observations About Major ISSF Events
I concur, instead of dumbing down the sport, we should smarten up the audience. Good idea indeed :-)
: I have never attended, much less partcipated in a world class match but I have thought about what it would take to attract spectators to the shooting sports.
: Like many of the rest of you, I share your concerns for the future for our beloved sport whose survival depends upon attracting people both as participants and spectators.
: There's no denying that Tom's observation that some of the tools of our trade look weird to the uninformed. But, I think suggesting the shooter either modify or outright discard clothing, optics, occluders and even their match demeanor is not the answer.
: I'm certain that a competitor who has progressed to the level of shooting witnessed by Tom at a world class event did so by developing her/his own system - not just the shot process itself but a carefully designed system which encompasses deliberate and conscientious choice of equipment as well as development of the shooter's own "match personality."
: Changing that for the sake of audience interest is a bit like the tail wagging the dog.
: Instead, I think we need to EXPLAIN to spectators what all those odd (and wonderful) looking things are in a way that stimulates and piques their interest. If can find a way to explain function and importance in a way that educates and informs - suddenly weird becomes waaaayy cooool.
:
: What looks odd one moment makes perfect sense the next if its function and purpose is entertainingly conveyed and understood. People love to learn.
:
: Any good story teller or someone with good communication skills can explain the function of things even as mundane as an occluder in a way that can both fascinate and educate.
: We should take great pride in and capitalize on the uniqueness of our sport before we ask a competitor discard what has them taken years to determine works best for them.
: We have to find a way to tell the shooter's story in an interesting and captivating way - not change it.
.47283.47259
: I have never attended, much less partcipated in a world class match but I have thought about what it would take to attract spectators to the shooting sports.
: Like many of the rest of you, I share your concerns for the future for our beloved sport whose survival depends upon attracting people both as participants and spectators.
: There's no denying that Tom's observation that some of the tools of our trade look weird to the uninformed. But, I think suggesting the shooter either modify or outright discard clothing, optics, occluders and even their match demeanor is not the answer.
: I'm certain that a competitor who has progressed to the level of shooting witnessed by Tom at a world class event did so by developing her/his own system - not just the shot process itself but a carefully designed system which encompasses deliberate and conscientious choice of equipment as well as development of the shooter's own "match personality."
: Changing that for the sake of audience interest is a bit like the tail wagging the dog.
: Instead, I think we need to EXPLAIN to spectators what all those odd (and wonderful) looking things are in a way that stimulates and piques their interest. If can find a way to explain function and importance in a way that educates and informs - suddenly weird becomes waaaayy cooool.
:
: What looks odd one moment makes perfect sense the next if its function and purpose is entertainingly conveyed and understood. People love to learn.
:
: Any good story teller or someone with good communication skills can explain the function of things even as mundane as an occluder in a way that can both fascinate and educate.
: We should take great pride in and capitalize on the uniqueness of our sport before we ask a competitor discard what has them taken years to determine works best for them.
: We have to find a way to tell the shooter's story in an interesting and captivating way - not change it.
.47283.47259
-
George Cire
Re: Observations About Major ISSF Events
I am new to shooting (pistol) and an avid reader of this forum. The dicipline I am involved in is 10 m pistol.
Here is my take on the topic: I personally was drawn to shooting sports by all the auxillary stuff I obsevered shooters using (Shooting glasses, Leather pants and jackets etc.) I am a self professed geek when it comes to the gear or equipment we use. In a former life I was into FITA style archery and got there by way of freestyle field archery with compound bows etc. I remember attending tournaments and was overwhelemed by the amount of equipment one must have to keep all that stuff working. One of my shooting friends in Archery was a one time Pam Am medal winner in prone rifle and a member of the US Army Marksmanship unit. He told me if you thought that free style archers have a lot of gear, you should see what you need for Olympic ISSF rifle! I was drawn to FITA style archery beacuse it seemed more pure to me. In retrospect, the bare bow archers that shot with just a bow and arrow with no sight is the most pure form of archery. BTW, this in no way diminishes the practice, training, skill etc. that anyone puts into any shooting dicipline. In short we do what draws to us.
I chose pistol beacuse I didn't have to purchase or use all that gear. If the IOC wants a TV draw to any and all olympic sports, then maybe the pure form with just the weapon (opps wrong term not PC)and a target at a distance where the viewer can see the shooter and the target might be the way to go. Just open sights. This would probably be precived by the rank and file viewer as pure skill. I have heard comments from those that have no experience with the shooting sports that "all that stuff just makes hitting target easier" We all know that couldn't be further from the truth, try it some time!
I know that this might be a no win discussion but I really want to see ISFF or international shooting not only survive but florush. In my mind it is a real shame that Running Target has been dropped from IOC list. IMHO that dicipline had the best TV sex appeal of any shooting diciplines.
George Cire
gcire-at-earthlink.net.47290.47251
Here is my take on the topic: I personally was drawn to shooting sports by all the auxillary stuff I obsevered shooters using (Shooting glasses, Leather pants and jackets etc.) I am a self professed geek when it comes to the gear or equipment we use. In a former life I was into FITA style archery and got there by way of freestyle field archery with compound bows etc. I remember attending tournaments and was overwhelemed by the amount of equipment one must have to keep all that stuff working. One of my shooting friends in Archery was a one time Pam Am medal winner in prone rifle and a member of the US Army Marksmanship unit. He told me if you thought that free style archers have a lot of gear, you should see what you need for Olympic ISSF rifle! I was drawn to FITA style archery beacuse it seemed more pure to me. In retrospect, the bare bow archers that shot with just a bow and arrow with no sight is the most pure form of archery. BTW, this in no way diminishes the practice, training, skill etc. that anyone puts into any shooting dicipline. In short we do what draws to us.
I chose pistol beacuse I didn't have to purchase or use all that gear. If the IOC wants a TV draw to any and all olympic sports, then maybe the pure form with just the weapon (opps wrong term not PC)and a target at a distance where the viewer can see the shooter and the target might be the way to go. Just open sights. This would probably be precived by the rank and file viewer as pure skill. I have heard comments from those that have no experience with the shooting sports that "all that stuff just makes hitting target easier" We all know that couldn't be further from the truth, try it some time!
I know that this might be a no win discussion but I really want to see ISFF or international shooting not only survive but florush. In my mind it is a real shame that Running Target has been dropped from IOC list. IMHO that dicipline had the best TV sex appeal of any shooting diciplines.
George Cire
gcire-at-earthlink.net.47290.47251
-
walt young
Re: (OT) casting as sport.
[quote] ''Fishing is the #1 participation sport (yes it is referred to as a sport) world wide and it is not an Olympic sport. LOL! But maybe soon. LOL!''
Another one of my sports is Distance Casting. If they can get enough countries to participate, it will be an Olympic sport. (btw, the world record cast of 5oz. weight is over 900 feet) And it is very good fun to watch. If anyone is interested, email me for links to the sport.
(wallyyoung642yahoo)
.47296.47267
Another one of my sports is Distance Casting. If they can get enough countries to participate, it will be an Olympic sport. (btw, the world record cast of 5oz. weight is over 900 feet) And it is very good fun to watch. If anyone is interested, email me for links to the sport.
(wallyyoung642yahoo)
.47296.47267
-
Richard H.
Re: Observations About Major ISSF Events
There is the problem, running target became a target because participation was too low. So we have to watch how much we bastardize the other sports because if we drive off the participants they will just drop them as well.
.47297.47290
.47297.47290
-
Mike McDaniel
Interesting point about purity
You know, the gadgets DON'T make hitting much easier. I've done my best work not with my AP or FP, but with a cap-and-ball revolver. Just me and the gun. Helps you focus on technique. and not take the gun's performance for granted.
HMSLion-at-aol.com.47301.47290
HMSLion-at-aol.com.47301.47290
-
Larry
Re: Observations About Major ISSF Events
I try to skip these because nobody pays much attention to us any way... but what the hey?
Much of the original suggestions are not workable for pistol and aren't applicable to shotgun at all. Additionally I don't think the premise holds up very well.
If weird looking gear put off viewers, then nobody would watch football of hockey, both look kinda strange to the uninitiated. If not seeing the competitors face during competition was so terrible, then why do people watch the many sports that use helmets? As a sport, we have more than most. We have pretty women, handsome men, action, skill, and a real chance for the little guy to win. We aren't saddled with the politics of something like figure skating or the youth limits of gymnastics. We have a lot to offer if it was made available.
The boredom concept is over rated. Golf is boring. Tennis is incomprehensible and boring. Golf and Tennis are hugely successful media sports, and if you're viewing for the first time, the commentators will usually give you enough information to let you understand what is going on, as well as the life history and moral weaknesses of all of the competitors.
Here in the US, with hundreds of cable channels, there is a critical need for something to fill the air time. We have outdoor channels that show the murder of defenseless poor animals on a weekly basis. How much more politically incorrect than killing Bambi can you get? Our sport isn't missing from TV in this country for the usual reasons we think of, it is missing because our leaders have little imagination and even less understanding of media. Every few months these discussion yield solid ideas for presentation of our sport but our leaders seem more concerned with the size of blinders than lining up sponsors for a weekly half hour show.
Allow me to wipe the foam from my mouth... Its not because we are politically incorrect, or boring, or weird looking. its because we have forgotten how to market ourselves.
.47302.47251
Much of the original suggestions are not workable for pistol and aren't applicable to shotgun at all. Additionally I don't think the premise holds up very well.
If weird looking gear put off viewers, then nobody would watch football of hockey, both look kinda strange to the uninitiated. If not seeing the competitors face during competition was so terrible, then why do people watch the many sports that use helmets? As a sport, we have more than most. We have pretty women, handsome men, action, skill, and a real chance for the little guy to win. We aren't saddled with the politics of something like figure skating or the youth limits of gymnastics. We have a lot to offer if it was made available.
The boredom concept is over rated. Golf is boring. Tennis is incomprehensible and boring. Golf and Tennis are hugely successful media sports, and if you're viewing for the first time, the commentators will usually give you enough information to let you understand what is going on, as well as the life history and moral weaknesses of all of the competitors.
Here in the US, with hundreds of cable channels, there is a critical need for something to fill the air time. We have outdoor channels that show the murder of defenseless poor animals on a weekly basis. How much more politically incorrect than killing Bambi can you get? Our sport isn't missing from TV in this country for the usual reasons we think of, it is missing because our leaders have little imagination and even less understanding of media. Every few months these discussion yield solid ideas for presentation of our sport but our leaders seem more concerned with the size of blinders than lining up sponsors for a weekly half hour show.
Allow me to wipe the foam from my mouth... Its not because we are politically incorrect, or boring, or weird looking. its because we have forgotten how to market ourselves.
.47302.47251
-
TJ
Re: (OT) casting as sport.
Small world!
I do long distance casting too with SFCCI. It is a blast. And I hope the Olympics never gets its hands on it! They will ruin it!
Come to South Padre Island, Texas for the SFCCI Worlds in Sept '04.
: [quote] ''Fishing is the #1 participation sport (yes it is referred to as a sport) world wide and it is not an Olympic sport. LOL! But maybe soon. LOL!''
: Another one of my sports is Distance Casting. If they can get enough countries to participate, it will be an Olympic sport. (btw, the world record cast of 5oz. weight is over 900 feet) And it is very good fun to watch. If anyone is interested, email me for links to the sport.
: (wallyyoung642yahoo)
shootingsports-at-ev1.net.47307.47296
I do long distance casting too with SFCCI. It is a blast. And I hope the Olympics never gets its hands on it! They will ruin it!
Come to South Padre Island, Texas for the SFCCI Worlds in Sept '04.
: [quote] ''Fishing is the #1 participation sport (yes it is referred to as a sport) world wide and it is not an Olympic sport. LOL! But maybe soon. LOL!''
: Another one of my sports is Distance Casting. If they can get enough countries to participate, it will be an Olympic sport. (btw, the world record cast of 5oz. weight is over 900 feet) And it is very good fun to watch. If anyone is interested, email me for links to the sport.
: (wallyyoung642yahoo)
shootingsports-at-ev1.net.47307.47296
-
Zollman
My weird take...(longish)
Perhaps I've not paid enough attention, but are the proposed changes in clothing regulations and finals procedures meant to make to the events more tele-genic and in turn draw more people to the shooting sports (promoting the sport for the sake of the sport?), or are the rules meant to make more people interested in the sport so a potential television audience might exist (promoting the sport for revenue?) I know this seems a little chicken-egg, but bear with me.
The strange comparison comes to my mind when I compare an event like 3 position rifle to a relatively popular grass roots shooting sport in teh U.S.- Cowboy Action Pistol. People have owned single action pistols and side by side shotguns forever, but low-and-behold, you dress up in an outfit you probably wouldn't wear everyday, and compete with your favorite firearm, and all of a sudden thousands are interested and you can see the results of big matches on TV and read about new gear in a dozen U.S. magazines every month. If the UIT thinks that the pants and jackets are a hinderence to the sport because of the way they the apparel makes the competitor look, I think they've missed the point. It's not the clothes and the hats and the shooting glasses. Again, take teh example from the Cowboys. If they're trying to make the sport more exiting, then they should scrap the history, traditions, and rules of International Shooting and create new shooting sports with rifle and pistol cams, sound effects built into targets for shots scoring below 9, and gloop that drops out of the ceiling when you fail to make a 10.0 or above in the finals.
Are the Olympic shooting sports boring to watch? My own opinion is, maybe a little to the untrained eye. It is simply the nature of the disciplines. For many disciplines, International shooting is a matter of fractions of milimeters over a relatively long period of time. They require finesse, precision, concentration, mental discipline, and minute and fluid movements; none of which are easy to capture on a camera. For the other popular televised events, i.e. wrestling, boxing, track and field events, etc... recognizable action happens in intervals of seconds or minutes, mixes gross and fine motor skills, and can be somewhat explosive and unpredictable in there undertaking and endings; they are very telegenic. As creepy as this sounds, the action pistol games are more tele-genic than most current UIT shooting sports because of the dynamics. Again, and without indictment, most UIT disciplines "appear" to be static and rigid in form and execution. Even Rapid Fire Pistol, with 5 separate targets and a short duration for each string, is so rigid in execution, that after the 1st shooter, one might become uninterested. The same might even be said about Trap and Skeet. Sure there is a moving target that breaks when hit, but after 3 stations of Skeet, it all looks about the same to the untrained audience.
Consider this; With all of the firearms that are owned in the United States, and all of the accessible ranges on which to practice, the relative ease with which one can purchase, own, and transport firearms, and the economic ability of a large percentage of U.S. firearms owners to purchase firearms and ammunition to practice, why do we have such a hard time generating interest in the International disciplines?
I am sure that more than a few individuals spend thousands each year on cowboy boots, hats, leather gear, cast bullets, single action pistols, lever action rifles, and period shotguns, in order to participate in the comparison example Cowboy Shooting. Face it, it "looks" like fun. Standing perfectly still and repeating the same movements 70-100 times over 2 hours doesn't "look" like "fun". Is more "fun" for pistol and rifle shooters needed? I guess the UIT and the IOC will answer that question. The sad fact remains that, although the tradition of the modern Olympics stems from the testing of skills needed for a warrier to exceed in combat, it has turned into a commercial payday for the IOC and the individual governing bodies every 4 years. Will taking the hats and pants away from rifle shooters, and making rapid fire shooters shoot .22 lr open the floodgates of interest and save Olympic shooting sports from the chopping block? No! Will it make for more interesting television? No! Does UIT need the Olympics? Maybe? It seems apparent that the IOC doesn't "need" International Shooting events anymore.
Don't get me wrong. I am not opposed to the rule changes. Making it a little more difficult to shoot makes it more challenging for the competitors. We would simply have to adapt and move on. Changing the rules to generate revenue via television coverage, when the rule changes will probably not have a measurable impact on the interest in the events is what I find suspect!
Just My 2 Cents,
Zollman
.47310.47251
The strange comparison comes to my mind when I compare an event like 3 position rifle to a relatively popular grass roots shooting sport in teh U.S.- Cowboy Action Pistol. People have owned single action pistols and side by side shotguns forever, but low-and-behold, you dress up in an outfit you probably wouldn't wear everyday, and compete with your favorite firearm, and all of a sudden thousands are interested and you can see the results of big matches on TV and read about new gear in a dozen U.S. magazines every month. If the UIT thinks that the pants and jackets are a hinderence to the sport because of the way they the apparel makes the competitor look, I think they've missed the point. It's not the clothes and the hats and the shooting glasses. Again, take teh example from the Cowboys. If they're trying to make the sport more exiting, then they should scrap the history, traditions, and rules of International Shooting and create new shooting sports with rifle and pistol cams, sound effects built into targets for shots scoring below 9, and gloop that drops out of the ceiling when you fail to make a 10.0 or above in the finals.
Are the Olympic shooting sports boring to watch? My own opinion is, maybe a little to the untrained eye. It is simply the nature of the disciplines. For many disciplines, International shooting is a matter of fractions of milimeters over a relatively long period of time. They require finesse, precision, concentration, mental discipline, and minute and fluid movements; none of which are easy to capture on a camera. For the other popular televised events, i.e. wrestling, boxing, track and field events, etc... recognizable action happens in intervals of seconds or minutes, mixes gross and fine motor skills, and can be somewhat explosive and unpredictable in there undertaking and endings; they are very telegenic. As creepy as this sounds, the action pistol games are more tele-genic than most current UIT shooting sports because of the dynamics. Again, and without indictment, most UIT disciplines "appear" to be static and rigid in form and execution. Even Rapid Fire Pistol, with 5 separate targets and a short duration for each string, is so rigid in execution, that after the 1st shooter, one might become uninterested. The same might even be said about Trap and Skeet. Sure there is a moving target that breaks when hit, but after 3 stations of Skeet, it all looks about the same to the untrained audience.
Consider this; With all of the firearms that are owned in the United States, and all of the accessible ranges on which to practice, the relative ease with which one can purchase, own, and transport firearms, and the economic ability of a large percentage of U.S. firearms owners to purchase firearms and ammunition to practice, why do we have such a hard time generating interest in the International disciplines?
I am sure that more than a few individuals spend thousands each year on cowboy boots, hats, leather gear, cast bullets, single action pistols, lever action rifles, and period shotguns, in order to participate in the comparison example Cowboy Shooting. Face it, it "looks" like fun. Standing perfectly still and repeating the same movements 70-100 times over 2 hours doesn't "look" like "fun". Is more "fun" for pistol and rifle shooters needed? I guess the UIT and the IOC will answer that question. The sad fact remains that, although the tradition of the modern Olympics stems from the testing of skills needed for a warrier to exceed in combat, it has turned into a commercial payday for the IOC and the individual governing bodies every 4 years. Will taking the hats and pants away from rifle shooters, and making rapid fire shooters shoot .22 lr open the floodgates of interest and save Olympic shooting sports from the chopping block? No! Will it make for more interesting television? No! Does UIT need the Olympics? Maybe? It seems apparent that the IOC doesn't "need" International Shooting events anymore.
Don't get me wrong. I am not opposed to the rule changes. Making it a little more difficult to shoot makes it more challenging for the competitors. We would simply have to adapt and move on. Changing the rules to generate revenue via television coverage, when the rule changes will probably not have a measurable impact on the interest in the events is what I find suspect!
Just My 2 Cents,
Zollman
.47310.47251
-
Mark Dennehy
Re: Observations About Major ISSF Events
Ah, the perennial question - what can we do to make the sport more popular?
Thing is, it's not the right question.
To explain it, let me be anecdotal for a moment.
I don't shoot because it looks cool. I shoot because it interests me in a technical sense and because I enjoy the challange and the activity itself. I like going to the 50m range to do some shooting on a sunny day. I enjoy the challange of doing the same on a windy day for 3P shooting! And the sense of satisfaction I get from putting a deep ten down the range deliberately is one that I've not seen rivalled by too many things that you can do on your own with all your clothes on...
So as far as the sport goes, I don't care about the publicity, I'm happy shooting on my own or with one or two others.
With my other hat on, I've been the PRO for the irish national target shooting association (and will be again soon). It's not a difficult thing to produce fantastic-looking photographs that promote the sport or the shooters:
http://durc.tcd.ie/~dennehym/Rhona_1_640.jpg
http://durc.tcd.ie/~dennehym/Rhona_2_640.jpg
And that's with nothing more advanced than a point-and-click camera, in a rather "rustic" range setting :)
Given proper equipment and time, much better photos can be created. And a good photo is an easy lead-in for print media. As to TV and Radio, we have to acknowlege that it's just never going to be possible to film the qualifying round and dump the raw footage to a TV news station. Not because it's too boring - but because it's too complicated, there's too much going on. Take the Munich World Cup for example - those of you who've seen the range know what I mean, you have a hundred shooters all firing at once, often in different disciplines. There's no way that you can present that data all at once on a normal TV screen - even if you took just the top five shooters, how would you get enough cameras in the
range to follow them when they could be all over the range, and also show the top five in the scoreboard along with their suis ascor outputs?
What you need to do is to do what radio and TV do best - inteviews. We've all seen the interviews on the main site here: those are without a doubt the best way to present our sport. You're talking about a well-edited section where segments from the qualifying round or finals are shown, overlain with suis ascor/SCATT data and with the interview
with that shooter running in the background showing what's going on in his head at the time.
In other words, we give a digest version of the match for the TV or radio news. Which is all they really want anyway - the same thing is often done for football and other sports.
Thing is, none of that requires you to change the equipment. The colourful shooting suits are beneficial from a photogenecity point of view. Changing the shooting hats rule may be a good idea - but the blinders don't need to be shrunk as much as they have been. And the very idea of getting rid of the trousers is plain daft - I'm not going to train juniors in air rifle without them, ISSF rules or no ISSF rules. I'll be damned if I cause some kid to develop serious spinal problems because some committee somewhere thinks that the trousers can be eliminated easily.
mark.dennehy-at-cs.tcd.ie.47336.47251
Thing is, it's not the right question.
To explain it, let me be anecdotal for a moment.
I don't shoot because it looks cool. I shoot because it interests me in a technical sense and because I enjoy the challange and the activity itself. I like going to the 50m range to do some shooting on a sunny day. I enjoy the challange of doing the same on a windy day for 3P shooting! And the sense of satisfaction I get from putting a deep ten down the range deliberately is one that I've not seen rivalled by too many things that you can do on your own with all your clothes on...
So as far as the sport goes, I don't care about the publicity, I'm happy shooting on my own or with one or two others.
With my other hat on, I've been the PRO for the irish national target shooting association (and will be again soon). It's not a difficult thing to produce fantastic-looking photographs that promote the sport or the shooters:
http://durc.tcd.ie/~dennehym/Rhona_1_640.jpg
http://durc.tcd.ie/~dennehym/Rhona_2_640.jpg
And that's with nothing more advanced than a point-and-click camera, in a rather "rustic" range setting :)
Given proper equipment and time, much better photos can be created. And a good photo is an easy lead-in for print media. As to TV and Radio, we have to acknowlege that it's just never going to be possible to film the qualifying round and dump the raw footage to a TV news station. Not because it's too boring - but because it's too complicated, there's too much going on. Take the Munich World Cup for example - those of you who've seen the range know what I mean, you have a hundred shooters all firing at once, often in different disciplines. There's no way that you can present that data all at once on a normal TV screen - even if you took just the top five shooters, how would you get enough cameras in the
range to follow them when they could be all over the range, and also show the top five in the scoreboard along with their suis ascor outputs?
What you need to do is to do what radio and TV do best - inteviews. We've all seen the interviews on the main site here: those are without a doubt the best way to present our sport. You're talking about a well-edited section where segments from the qualifying round or finals are shown, overlain with suis ascor/SCATT data and with the interview
with that shooter running in the background showing what's going on in his head at the time.
In other words, we give a digest version of the match for the TV or radio news. Which is all they really want anyway - the same thing is often done for football and other sports.
Thing is, none of that requires you to change the equipment. The colourful shooting suits are beneficial from a photogenecity point of view. Changing the shooting hats rule may be a good idea - but the blinders don't need to be shrunk as much as they have been. And the very idea of getting rid of the trousers is plain daft - I'm not going to train juniors in air rifle without them, ISSF rules or no ISSF rules. I'll be damned if I cause some kid to develop serious spinal problems because some committee somewhere thinks that the trousers can be eliminated easily.
mark.dennehy-at-cs.tcd.ie.47336.47251