TargetTalk

Ulrich Eichstädt wrote:There is a life behind the olympic rings... ;)

Very happy to be behind on the other side :-)

Sorry for 100-200 professional shooters who will lose their dream soon.
Unfortunately not every country have special adaptation programs for sportwomen and sportsmen after Olympic career. They need new profession.

P.S.: Best part of the ISSF website ever.

"Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely" - Lord Acton

C'mon: 36 years as President? And all those under & behind him cheering his candidature every 4 years in exchange for 5 star hotels and first class flights (at the least)?

Talk about Havelange and Blatter!!!

I can't remember a single sensible sport decision by the Exec Committe of the ISSF, as their ukases are not an answer to the athletes' needs but to other "powers that be".....................................

pcw wrote:I know that no one here wants to hear it, but I think if you want to improve viewing, ditch the jackets and pants.

It might improve viewing, but it would put large numbers of competitors at a higher risk of serious injury.

pcw wrote:Personally, the costs of the clothes kept me from steering my kids into the sport. I think that most people can understand the money spent on a firearm, but the costs of the clothes keeps people out of the game.

As I've said elsewhere a couple of times, if the cost of the kit (rifle, jacket, whatever) is a problem then realistically you can't afford to compete at a high level. Flights, ammunition, accommodation and entry fees will burn through way more cash. Yes, the up front costs of kit are bigger but you can amortise them over a longer period. Depending on your circumstances you can often make do with hand-me-downs and borrowed kit for quite a while too, which reduces the need to spend it all at once.

My nearest retailer can sell you an off-the-peg suit for under $350 (Gehmann, jacket = £120, trousers = £110). You'd have burned through that in ammunition costs before the jacket was even properly broken in!

If your plan is to compete locally/domestically only then the calculus of the costs changes quite dramatically, I'll give you that. But the rules are made (and have to be made) for WC/WCH/OG level competitors where training loads mean that even with jackets and trousers and boots many of the shooters are suffering from long term back injuries. Yes, we could change the rules to attempt to avoid that but realistically you're looking at starting from a blank sheet of paper to do that. And if you think the griping about cost is bad now, imagine what it would be like if all the current kit was made illegal for being too stiff (clothing) or heavy (rifles)!

IRLConor wrote:

pcw wrote:I know that no one here wants to hear it, but I think if you want to improve viewing, ditch the jackets and pants.

It might improve viewing, but it would put large numbers of competitors at a higher risk of serious injury.

A predictable response. But, if you got rid of the special clothing, the rifles would evolve to be lighter and the positions less stressful on the body. Then you would have a sport that looked more like a "sport" and it would be more a test of skill and less a test of equipment. Have you noticed that there isn't endless equipment debates in shotgun or pistol?

j-team wrote:A predictable response. But, if you got rid of the special clothing, the rifles would evolve to be lighter and the positions less stressful on the body.

But to get to that point you need to get all the people currently competing to replace every single piece of gear they own (and all bar the rifles would have no resale value). You're talking about trying to attract new competitors by inflicting financial losses on the people who already participate. I can't imagine there being much support for that.

Besides, there are already sports which fit the "almost no gear, light rifle" niche (gallery rifle & silhouette shooting for example) and people who want to shoot like that already do.

IRLConor wrote:Besides, there are already sports which fit the "almost no gear, light rifle" niche (gallery rifle & silhouette shooting for example) and people who want to shoot like that already do.

Yes, and they manage to shoot that way without moaning about the "need" for special clothes to avoid injuries! Now, if there was an admission that the clothing is wanted in order to win, rather than "needed" to avoid injuries then we might get somewhere with this discussion. The point being that smallbore shooting has taken itself down this path and to get out there will have to be some short term pain (the rejigging of equipment) for long term gain. Or, just carry on and don't change, that's the other option.

pcw wrote:Have you noticed that there isn't endless equipment debates in shotgun or pistol?

Have you noticed that the cost of ALL the equipment (rifle, jacket, pants, ammo for years) for rifle is substantially less than a K-80 or SO-9.
If you are going to compare costs, then it should be pointed out that shotgun is a very expensive Olympic sport, second only to equestrian.

I agree that the costs of the jacket and pants will discourage many from participating in the rifle sports, but it is substantially less expensive than the ammunition that the shotgun shooters pay for.
Regards.

Banning jackets, clothes will actually only ruin the rifle discipline.
It's not about tuning the discipline to your liking.

j-team wrote:Yes, and they manage to shoot that way without moaning about the "need" for special clothes to avoid injuries!

Their courses of fire are usually much shorter.

Look, we can keep going down this conversational cul de sac for as long as you want, but if you want ISSF rifle to be pretty much the same as gallery/silhouette then why try and make ISSF change? If you don't enjoy ISSF stuff and you do enjoy those other sports then maybe ISSF isn't for you?

I'm not intersted in changing anyones sport, but if the sport no longer has enough participation or viewership it will die on its own. From what people are posting on this thread, it seems like it is a possiblilty that this could happen to ISSF shooting. As far as tuning the discipline to someones liking, it seems that the IOC is doing just that. ISSF rifle has evolved considerably since I was first introduced to it in the 70's, back then the jackets were of light canvas with rubber elbow pads. A lot has changed since then. If there are barriers to entry that are holding back participation I would think stake holders would look towards removing those barriers.

At the international level, clothing is the least of the barriers as stated before.
1) Ammo at ~$0.50/shot (adds up quick)
2) Rifle at ~$3000-$5500 (add a bit more for 3-P related stuff)

A $400-$1400 shooting suit (top of the line) is the least of the shooters worries.

Where is ISSF focusing on the changes ... the Rifle, the #2 item in cost ... YIKES!, they are looking at FORCING the replacement of the stocks

You are quite right about the costs of clothing being minimal at an international level. I'm thinking of barriers to new participants.

I'm sorry, but I've seem to have created a distraction to the main point of the post.

Not too long ago, I was helping with a 4H shooting program and was interested in moving it in the direction of ISSF shooting. As I started to persue it, I realized that while the Club could afford the costs of a few used rifles and ammunition, the Club and none of our growing kids would be able to afford the costs of the clothes.

Really? .... in a 4-H program? We have had no issues. If a kid want's to progress to International style, they will find a way ... all a matter of priorities. Heck if they ski, a set of skis costs more. A saddle costs more ... feeding the dog for a year costs more ... not to mention feed for goats, horse, sheep etc. Shooting sports can be one of the most inexpensive projects, even if they shoot international.

Look at some of the other 4-H projects ... i.e. horse ... rodeo, even some of the fashion projects ... all can add up to more than a set of pants & jacket ... you don't have to go full custom. Off the rack will start them just fine. Every one of our international shooters has (and most still are) wearing used items (some items older than 10 years). Do we have success .... uh, yeah. Priorities.....

if you want it without the jacket, you need to propose a new discipline to the ISSF

call it "simple rifle" or something, change the distance to 11 or 12 meters for air to avoid confusion, same rules as pistol shooters regarding clothes, maybe even add minimum trigger weight for fun, bigger size of the target.

It is indeed easier to play soccer ($20 for a good soccer ball) and you're good to go.

hundert wrote:if you want it without the jacket, you need to propose a new discipline to the ISSF

call it "simple rifle" or something, change the distance to 11 or 12 meters for air to avoid confusion...

What??? And build a whole new set of shooting ranges!

Introducing some element of snap shooting, turning targets etc would make rifle shooting 10 times more interesting.

10 Times not a lot is still not a whole lot but there you go.

It seems 'the pinnacle of each sport' has given over to 'whatever looks good on TV', we adapt or die.

JamesH wrote:Introducing some element of snap shooting, turning targets etc would make rifle shooting 10 times more interesting.

10 Times not a lot is still not a whole lot but there you go.

It seems 'the pinnacle of each sport' has given over to 'whatever looks good on TV', we adapt or die.

Yes, now we're talking. A rifle version of sport pistol shot with these: http://www.targettalk.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=52523

jhmartin wrote:Really? .... in a 4-H program? We have had no issues. If a kid want's to progress to International style, they will find a way ... all a matter of priorities. Heck if they ski, a set of skis costs more. A saddle costs more ... feeding the dog for a year costs more ... not to mention feed for goats, horse, sheep etc. Shooting sports can be one of the most inexpensive projects, even if they shoot international.

Look at some of the other 4-H projects ... i.e. horse ... rodeo, even some of the fashion projects ... all can add up to more than a set of pants & jacket ... you don't have to go full custom. Off the rack will start them just fine. Every one of our international shooters has (and most still are) wearing used items (some items older than 10 years). Do we have success .... uh, yeah. Priorities.....

It is a matter of priorities. I had one parent tell me that the sport was to expensive for his kids. I looked at the street where he was parked and he had six four wheelers on a trailer that cost $10,000 alone. Altogether he probably had about $100,000 of toys parked on the street which included a brand new heavy duty pickup and this was about 20 years ago. We have boys all over the area that dream of being star baseball players and those kids aren't playing in their street cloths like when I was a kid. They are using baseball gloves that are at least $200 to $300 and heaven knows how much parents have to pay for uniforms for growing kids. A few of the kids that play year round have a benefactor who has provided the kids with their own indoor practice field and their own bus to take the kids around the country to pay. We are talking about kids that aren't even in high school. I had one parent tell me 15 years ago she spent a $1000 on her daughters cheerleading cloths. I have a kid now who's father has built a few full size basketball court in the basement of his house for this boys. His boy is one of the most popular person's in the neighborhood. The average income in this area is about $26,000 and the parents seem to find the money if it's important to them.

The rifle coach for the University of Akron,Newt Engles, told me a story about when he first got his daughters involved in shooting rifles. He talked to the junior program coach after his daughters had finished a introduction session. Newt mentioned to the jr coach how expensive the equipment was and the junior coach's response was how expensive would it be for an early unplanned pregnancy, getting involved in drugs, jail or death. Then that put that expense into a different perspective and in the end his daughters ended up being valuable members for a university shooting team. They graduated from the university and are now leading productive happy lives.

j-team wrote: What??? And build a whole new set of shooting ranges!

no, you just move the athletes back one meter...

It's very true that people will find the money to do the things that they want. It's also true that the infrastructures around you can contribute to expence or lack of expence to do those things. The 4H shooting program I helped with seemed to attract the kids from the most impoverished families in the very poor area I live in. I think that it was due to the fact that the program was free and the hunting/fishing orientation of the parents. I had hoped to take some of the energy the kids had for deer hunting and guns, and focus it on shooting and getting them to understand focus, discipline and concentration. I would have been starting the program from scratch and the closest precision shooting clubs in the area are over 3 hours away. I had experience in precision shooting from a CMP/NRA program I was in as a kid in the 70's, one of the other instuctors had shot silhouette for years and the third was mostly a hunter. Trying to start up a program with so little support was daunting, but I was willing to try until I started looking at the costs for the parents. I'm sure the if a kid in need walked in to one of the larger precision programs they could easily be set up for very little money, that wasn't the case here.

Noel brings up skiing which is another case of infrastructure. I help with both Alpine and Nordic ski programs and in my area it is remarkably cheep or free to outfit a kid in ski gear. There are also numerous scholarships available. All the local mountains have 6 week lessons for about 50 bucks and very reduce ticket prices after the lessons. We also have a community ski hill where the cost of a Family season pass is 65 bucks. I'm often given more race skis than I can find homes for. The families that came to our shooting progam were the the ones who still couldn't afford to ski. It has always seemed remakable that a half hour drive south is a competely different economic zone, but thats where the main ski areas are.

I enjoyed the shooting program I was in as a kid so much and I was really hoping to introduce others to precision shooting, at this point it just isn't fiscally possible in this area.