TargetTalk

David Levene wrote: The IOC also want to limit the Winter Olympics to 100 events. Sochi had 98 and Pyeong Chang has 102 planned.

They are scared that if the Olympics, both Summer and Winter, get any bigger then even fewer cities will be prepared to bid for them.

This is why I'm a proponent of breaking the Summer Games up into Spring, Summer, and Autumn Games. The Winter Games are manageable, but the Summer Olympics are truly daunting logistically. A breakup, with one of each Games per quadrennium, would significantly increase the number of potential bidders.

Mike M. wrote:This is why I'm a proponent of breaking the Summer Games up into Spring, Summer, and Autumn Games. The Winter Games are manageable, but the Summer Olympics are truly daunting logistically. A breakup, with one of each Games per quadrennium, would significantly increase the number of potential bidders.

IMO, forget the Olympics entirely. Work to make the various World Cups and World Championships more visible.

It boggles my mind that so many sports struggle for coverage in the day and age of 24/7 sports channels and the f'n sports channels use poker as filler.

SlartyBartFast wrote:IMO, forget the Olympics entirely. Work to make the various World Cups and World Championships more visible.

In many countries it is only the fact that shooting is in the Olympics that their athletes/NGBs receive any funding. In others it is only the fact that shooting is in the Olympics that private ownership of firearms is permitted.

David Levene wrote:

SlartyBartFast wrote:IMO, forget the Olympics entirely. Work to make the various World Cups and World Championships more visible.

In many countries it is only the fact that shooting is in the Olympics that their athletes/NGBs receive any funding. In others it is only the fact that shooting is in the Olympics that private ownership of firearms is permitted.

Have some hard evidence of this? The Olympics didn't save pistol sports in the UK. So I wouldn't hold the Olympics up as any great bastion defending the shooting sports.

Is there a country out there that provides good national funding to a large development program to create competitive shooter for the Olympics?

Defending shooting sports needs to come from grassroots participation in the sports. Which, it would seem obvious to me, requires a competition structure that has many more competitions than a couple of competitors per country on a mere once per 4 years schedule.

And I meant forgetting ALL of the Olympics. Billions of dollars spent on ridiculous national tribalism and one-up-manship is ridiculous IMO. Spend the money on grass-roots sports participation.

SlartyBartFast wrote:

David Levene wrote:

SlartyBartFast wrote:IMO, forget the Olympics entirely. Work to make the various World Cups and World Championships more visible.

In many countries it is only the fact that shooting is in the Olympics that their athletes/NGBs receive any funding. In others it is only the fact that shooting is in the Olympics that private ownership of firearms is permitted.

Have some hard evidence of this?

http://britishshooting.org.uk/news/titl ... cle&d=1271

David Levene wrote:http://britishshooting.org.uk/news/titl ... cle&d=1271

It wasn't the funding aspect I was focusing on. It was the owner aspect that I was focusing on.

The British are the worst example for the Olympics asking private firearm ownership possible. They threw all pistol shooters under the bus with their anti-pistol legislation. Being in the Olympics didn't keep pistols in Britain.

Personally, I don't care for Olympic funding. It only helps the top tier athletes and IMO doesn't help the average athletes or the grassroots sport.