TargetTalk

Telecomtodd wrote:I'm surprised no one has mentioned this before, but there seems to be a need to end the "penguin walk" (really - read the document). Maybe that's why all these changes were needed?

Yes.
But it is not always sensible to ask the frogs how to dry out a pond. Or the penguins? ;-)

Alexander

Hello
What mean "pinguin walk" the name is funny? is it a rifleman walk with special shoes :-))
I purpose more news rules.
-shoot back to the target on one foot only with a miror.
Have a niece day from France.
Gerhard

The main problem of the ISSF rifle minutes (but of course this is the opinion of a reader whose profession it is to interpret and to draft regulations, and whose view is thus myopic... in a way) is the lack of English language familiarity in that committee (often, the reader simply cannot make out what at all is meant, and is reduced to guessing); and the legal ineptness and lack of clarity in formulating, on top of that.

Alexander

Hello Alexander
I understand what you mean, but it's important to understand what the change made. It s not very difficult to understand or a explain a technical rule. I m not a super in english langage (you have read this :-)) but i can understand what is explain on the minutes of the PdF doc.
But when i see the member of the comitée and the name of the commission, i read only one shooter (pershaps a dont know every body but ..)it s Gary Anderson a 60th good American shooter.
I dont undersatand ?? it's pershaps the reason of irrationals and no needed changes in the rules.
I try to understand. Is somedy can bring the light ..
Gerhard from old Europe

It happens in many sports, they try and make it ever more difficult for the elite and destroy it for the grass roots. The English rep on the Technical committee is Dave Parrish, he's certainly older than me and I'm 62 and he was nothing as a shooter 40 years ago.
The problem is that gripping on this site will achieve nothing, it needs hundreds of shooters to complain to the ISSF, which is unlikely to happen. Their e mail addresses are on the ISSF web site, complain to your own rep on the Technical committee and/or send it to the president Vasquez Rana, ( ovr.sport@issf-sports.org ), I have, not had a reply yet, wonder if I will?
Best regards
Robin

RobinC wrote:It happens in many sports, they try and make it ever more difficult for the elite and destroy it for the grass roots.

The ideal would be to make it more difficult for the élite, AND more attractive / accessible for the grass roots. Rifle shooting has become much more of an equipment battle than pistol shooting, and that is NOT a good development, from an athletic standpoint. "Penguin parade", "Kasperlejäckchen" and "armour suits" are all ungood signs.

Whether the measures that ISSF envisions, are at all the right ones in the right direction, certainly would be disputable. And should be discussed, openly and with copious feedback.

I have had a communication from a GB team source who is aware of this and agrees that it would be disastrous, he says these are draft minutes which are being circulated, and that is all they are at this time. There are aparantly many people in a number of countries working against it.
Mr Parish is involved and I'm sure he would love to receive emails from shooters expressing their polite but firm views, after all his email is listed on the ISSF website!
Don't just grumble, protest!
Best regards
Robin

I m not ok with you Alexander.
In the rifle shooting it's possible to have the same equipment than the elite shooters, it's expensive but accessible.
If you have the correct material base, you can shot correctly : a rifle, a jacket, a trousers, a glove , pellets, are enough.
It's not because a have the last new rifle, a new gear that i shall shoot better.
I think that i have the same gear than some champion or almost.
By an other way, it's more difficult for the basic shooter to have a good coach, corrects installations or some help for travels and hotel when we sht in other places than your club.
I have the chance to have a very good club with coachs and electronics targets. A serious help given , but it's not the same for all, and i think it's the principaly difference between shooters.
Finaly, i dont think that the rifle is the battle for equipment. But if we have to change a big part of the gear, it's an other think.
Best regards from France and Excuse my English
Gerhard

Lets not panic just yet as its only a draught proposal. Having said that why do they keep tinkering and meddling with the clothing rules. Leave the rules as they are now with no more development allowed.

Its about time that the ISSF realised that they are not a democratic body and we shooters should tell them. We should all be allowed to have a say rather than being dictated to by a bunch of out of touch old men.
Has David Parrish asked any British shooters for their opinions, i don't think so.
JSB

On the penguin walk - as I said elsewhere, we don't do that because we can't walk any other way in the shoes; we do it because if we don't walk that way, we'll break the shoes. If you change the rules on the shoes, you won't eliminate the penguin walk. It'll remain - and I'd be dollars to doughnuts that the only time those shoes will bend at the ball of the foot will be when they're in equipment control, and like now, they'll live in boot clamps the rest of the time. So it'll be the penguin walk or the barefoot walk - the rule change won't change the behaviour.

JSBmatch wrote:Lets not panic just yet as its only a draught proposal. Having said that why do they keep tinkering and meddling with the clothing rules. Leave the rules as they are now with no more development allowed.

Its about time that the ISSF realised that they are not a democratic body and we shooters should tell them. We should all be allowed to have a say rather than being dictated to by a bunch of out of touch old men.
Has David Parrish asked any British shooters for their opinions, i don't think so.
JSB

With respect, once the proposals switch from draft to actual it's too late to protest, now is exactly the time to voice our opinions.

The 'penguin walk' statement is one persons comment I believe but it is a very ill conceived 'argument' on which to consider changing shooting rules that affect the whole world !

Let's be honest, how many people ever see shooting on TV never mind complain about the 'strange walks' of some of the rifle shooters ?

Rob.

Rob is spot on, its the point I've made all through this thread, sit and see and you will be shafted!
I will not name the senior GB man as it would be unfair to him, but he is not a shooter, he thinks its disastrous, says that Parish will not listen to reason, and that there is a lot of opposition to it, but it is no good just sitting and watching.
I have emailed the president of the ISSF, he was a shooter, a world champion, he has not replied to date, I hope its because he has a thousand other complaints! Would be nice if everyone added to them.
We wore the same spec boots 40 years ago, they were no problem then? or when President Vasquez Rana wore them!
The even more stupid thing is that changing the thickness by 0.5mm here and 1 mm there will not change anything to scores or the way any walks in them, it will just mean every ISSF shooter will have illegal kit.
PROTEST NOW OR SUFFER THE RESULTS!!!!
best regards
Robin

One way round it is boycot all ISSF run shoots until they come to their senses. That would have a far greater impact than E mailing the ISSF. They never replied to my E Mails in the past, but i'm not surprised as they have a non existant customer care policy or even the courtesy to reply.
That says heaps in my book as to the type of orginisation we are dealing with.
As for a boycot, i doubt we would get many to take part especially from the Eastern nations.
JSB

I think that if the german federation who is the most important in the issf world move, the issf listen.
In France we are few about 180 000 members. And the most part said we must wait, they dont understand that the decision is on the desk.
Happy to see that others people, English in first move on the protest.
Nice evening every body.

If you will remember, similar changes were proposed a quadrennial ago. The push comes partly (mostly??) from the IOC, to have shooters look more like other athletes (after all, that is what shooters are supposed to be). IOC expressed concerns with shooting (notably rifle) becoming something the average TV viewer could not sympathize with.

Last time this came up there was much discussion of possible back problems without the "support" of the pants and jacket. Of course current rules forbid anything giving artificial support, but have been ignored by the equipment checkers and judges.

Chane is always hard to accept. But this change may be for the better, as there will be lower costs involved for new shooters to get involved. The top shooters now seem to be the most vociferous in their disagreement with any change (perhaps worried they will not longer be at the top?), but I'd bet $100 against a nickel that the top shooters will still be the same group after any changes. It isn't their equipment that makes them different from the lower level shooters, but their dedication to training (mental and physical).

Ask yourself if you would wager $100 against any top shooter in the world on one shot by each of you, in street clothes, with a rifle neither of you had seen before (but is sighted in). If not it isn't the equipment stopping you. top shooters, ask yourself the same question, and I bet you'd jump at the opportunity.

Excluding special boots (I don't agree with the no replaceable insole, due to many folks NEEDING orthopedics for normal stance and walking), and limiting pants to simple thin flexible canvas would help every junior club by allowing them to use their limited funds for ammunition.

It would be nice if someone (who is good at writing) could write up a somewhat generic letter of complaint to the ISSF and post it here so we can all email them the same letter. Maybe, just maybe if we get a few hundred people sending the same thing complaining about these ridiculous rules, they will listen.

A good idea???

Pat McCoy wrote:IOC expressed concerns with shooting (notably rifle) becoming something the average TV viewer could not sympathize with.

And just as soon as the average TV viewer (a) actually has the option to see us shooting; and (b) actually does watch us shooting; they might have a point. But right now, there's a nearly direct correlation between how much TV time an olympic sport gets and how skimpy a bathing suit it uses. Beach volleyball, for crying out loud, reduced the size of it's bikinis purely to get more TV time.

And let's face facts here, given the way TV companies like NBC think, there's only one way we're ever going to get more TV coverage.

Besides, when the average TV viewer is some couch-bound, fox-news-watching, cheeto-eating muppet (who probably thinks firearms are evil anyway), I don't want to change my sport to suit their tastes...

Pat McCoy wrote:But this change may be for the better, as there will be lower costs involved for new shooters to get involved.

Doesn't the future of the sport really depend on this?

I'm an outsider and this is clearly an outsider's point of view but in my mind, equipment for shooting should not include a bunch of very expensive specialized "clothing" with absolutely no practical use outside of the specific event. If the object is to continually refine a bunch of equipment that seems to want to evolve toward just strapping yourself to a bench vice, save lots of time and money and just evolve to the vice without spending more decades getting there. The farther the sport gravitates from its roots (as something that still has practical purpose -- military, hunting, etc.), the more it becomes no less ridiculous than olympic beach volleyball. If a service member or hunter can't possibly wear it in the field or use whatever it is, it's a legitimate question to ask what it's for.

The more accessible the sport and the more relevance it has to the "real world," the more likely it will continue to flourish. The more abstract and esoteric it becomes, the more it fades into a self-created oblivion.

Philadelphia wrote:I'm an outsider and this is clearly an outsider's point of view but in my mind, equipment for shooting should not include a bunch of very expensive specialized "clothing" with absolutely no practical use outside of the specific event.

I know it's an Irishman asking this, but exactly what practical use are these items outside of the specified event?

Sparks wrote:

Philadelphia wrote:I'm an outsider and this is clearly an outsider's point of view but in my mind, equipment for shooting should not include a bunch of very expensive specialized "clothing" with absolutely no practical use outside of the specific event.

I know it's an Irishman asking this, but exactly what practical use are these items outside of the specified event?

The same use ear and eye protection has in the shooting sports.

Is football an Olympic event now? ;)