TargetTalk

All,
As a newer participant in the Olympic-style pistol shooting disciplines (AP), I have run across several references to pressure being applied to the ISSF/IOC to reduce the number of shooting disciplines in the Olympics. Which disciplines seen to be the most threatened, and why?

In general, everything. You have to remember that the IOC made a devil's bargain with NBC Sports that effectively gave NBC Sports great influence - and all they are interested in is spandex and hardbodies.

As a result, the IOC is demanding ratings of ALL sports. Not just shooting - you should see the antics the fencers have been jumping through for the last twenty years.

On the other hand, the shooting sports have one BIG advantage - they have the broadest participation of all the sports. It's not like figure skating or baseball, where there are only a handful of countries with serious participants. And the ISSF has done its utmost to keep it that way. It's one reason why they only allow two competitors per country in a given event.

Now, to get to your question......I would figure that Rapid Fire is probably the most vulnerable. But not by much. Under normal circumstances, RF is very difficult due to the expense of the target bays. On the other hand, all the Olympic events are shot on the Suis-Ascor electronic targets, and I would surmise that putting a RF bay together with those is simply a matter of putting the single targets together and plugging them into the scoring box.

AP is almost certainly in the strongest position. Not only is it less politically incorrect, but you can set up to shoot it in any large hall.

I agree rapid fire will probably be the first to get axed (unless they somehow get the Air Rapid fire events in). Followed closely by every other shooting sport, as shooting isn't politcally correct.

I agree rapid fire will probably be the first to get axed (unless they somehow get the Air Rapid fire events in). Followed closely by every other shooting sport, as shooting isn't politcally correct.

I think everyone has worries about Rapid Fire. The only problem is, if it goes then the only 25m event is 25m Pistol (aka Ladies Sport Pistol).

Build a 25m range for 1 event? Somehow I doubt it.

As I mentioned previously, I think shooting is actually in fairly good shape, due to the breadth of participation. I hadn't thought of the fact that if RF got the chop, SP would be the only 25m event. Given the pressure for women's events, SP could be leveraged to keep RF in.

Not that I think we're in that much trouble. I suspect that there are a lot of other sports that are far worse condition. The real question is the number of competitors that would be permitted.

That being said, I remain of the opinion that the IOC needs to be thinking outside the box. The Summer Games have become unmanagable - and there are sports and events that OUGHT to be in the Olympics, but aren't.

I think that there are two possible solutions.

The first would be to shift many of the indoor sports to the Winter Games. The problem with this is that it affords very limited relief. The IOC's public statements indicate that the Summer Games are running ~12,000 competitors, the Winter Games ~4500 competitors. However, the IOC has also stated that they really consider 10,000 competitors to be the maximum that can be handled without overstressing the host city. Even assuming unlimited capability to shift events, you wind up only being able to create 3,500 new openings - and that at the cost of making the Winter Games so large that only the largest cities can bid.

The second would be to split the Summer Games into a Spring Games, Summer Games, and Fall Games. Which breaks neatly into one Olympics per year. This would offer the chance for tremendous growth in total participation, while simultaneously shrinking individual events to a managable size.

Think about it - a Fall Games with ALL the shooting events. Rapid, Air, Free, Sport Pistol - and Centerfire and Standard, too.

Mike
You must be dreaming! - The IOC vary the time honored four year cycle - never?
But you got me thinking. Maybe we should do away with those sports that have airy-fairy judging methods such as gynmastics, synchronised swimming and diving. Nadia Comenchi (?) scored those perfect 10s in gynmastics all those years ago. Can anyone really tell the difference between a 10 and a 9.2?
I am punting here that not too many gymnasts, synchronised swimmers and divers are also shooters.
The main point is that is some of these sports were pushed aside there might be more room for other shooting events.

ColinC wrote:Mike
You must be dreaming! - The IOC vary the time honored four year cycle - never?
But you got me thinking. Maybe we should do away with those sports that have airy-fairy judging methods such as gynmastics, synchronised swimming and diving. Nadia Comenchi (?) scored those perfect 10s in gynmastics all those years ago. Can anyone really tell the difference between a 10 and a 9.2?
I am punting here that not too many gymnasts, synchronised swimmers and divers are also shooters.
The main point is that is some of these sports were pushed aside there might be more room for other shooting events.

Unfortunately the Olympics is a business, the business is entertainment. Those "airy-fairy" sports as you call them are what the networks want to televise. Television and money is what its all about. How much money do the shooitng venues bring in, in either ticket or television revenue? I doubt there will never be any more shooting events added to the Olympics.

I'm really not big on bad mouthing others chosen sport to make mine look better. Those people belong there and have worked every bit as hard as any other athlete. I hate to tell you people say the same about our sport, "who wants to watch guys standing perfectly still in their exo-skeletons holding a rifle and then a hole appears in a piece of paper."


The best thing that probably could happen is if the ISSF stoped focusing on the Olympics as the Holy Grail of our sport. Instead actually asssited in promoting the sport, stopped making rule changes to appease people how know or care nothing about the sport, stopped cutting events ie running target and promoted the World Cups and World Cup Championships as the premier event not as an Olympic try-out and held more all over the world.

The Olympics should be about sport and the athletes, not about money and entertainment.

On a side note does anyone watch the Hawian Ironman coverage on TV. Probably three quarters is devoted to the top athletes, who when something goes wrong and they cant win they quit. My favorite part is when they show the stories of the others, the people who are just like you and me who if luck will finish before midnight. Their stories actually put a lump in my throat and my eyes fill-up, like the story about the father who competes with his son who has ALS an tows him around, this year there was another young man who has another horrible affliction and he knows this will be it, soon he won't be able to walk let alone run. To me that is what sports is about and that is what the Olympics should be about. I don't care if the guy trained in the hotel pool and comes in last, good for him, its the best he could do.

I think that there were a lot of big clues dropped (leaked) after Australia re: Rapid Fire---I am kinda glad I was in line for that early info as I sold off my RF HPE within 8 months of Sydney---just before the other shoe started to drop. Eric Buljung didn't say much when asked, but his body language and the hesitant way he "answered" the question, gave lots of clues. I think we have to wait until the China games are over when we shall start hearing more info. The high participation level in the shooting sports may preclude any massive changes for a while after the fact. The new version of RF still needs a wee bit more exposure, and after all the gun manufacturers haven't really done enough testing to avoid the infamous MG-2 fiasco of a couple of years back. The SSP which is getting into the hands of the Europeans we will soon start to hear more about it's foibles, right now it's sotta voce ( you know ssssh). There will be one at the Shot Show, but that doesn't mean anyone will have a chance to play with one over here till mid-summer.

I have heard people speculate that perhaps removing the 25M comps would be an option. From a logistical perspective it cuts down the ranges required by 1/3 so would seem to make sense and it still leaves the more popular (?) 50M events and airgun. I would personally like to see them all stay but I doubt that will happen.

Rob.

Possibly. On the other hand, there is a big push by the IOC for women's events - and deleting Sport Pistol would kill one of the women's events with the widest participation. Let's face it, most events are dominated by a handful of nations. Shooting is one of the very few with a truly worldwide competitor base.

Personally, I do not think the shooting sports are under any more pressure than most other sports. The only ones that are truly safe are the Spandex Sports, which are the big moneymakers.

So...to increase the relative untouchability of the shooting sports and make them more visible, have the women shooters wear spandex? ;)

On the more serious side, I was really hoping IPSC would be showcased at least as an exhibition sport to help increase the visibility of shooting at the Olympics. Instead of watching folks stand still and holes appearing in targets, people would get to see shooters running around, shooting fast at varying distances with targets that move and spin and steel plates that fall over.

sparky wrote:On the more serious side, I was really hoping IPSC would be showcased at least as an exhibition sport to help increase the visibility of shooting at the Olympics.

Not a hope in hell.

Agreed.

One of the issues discussed in this thread was the preference by the IOC to have 10,000 or less competitors per Olympic Games. Could the air events be shifted to the Winter Games to facilitate that concern to a degree? The awkward part would be that most AP shooters also shoot FP.
I would prefer to see a shift of some events to the Winter Games than to lose any event.

Barry Markowitz wrote:One of the issues discussed in this thread was the preference by the IOC to have 10,000 or less competitors per Olympic Games. Could the air events be shifted to the Winter Games to facilitate that concern to a degree? The awkward part would be that most AP shooters also shoot FP.
I would prefer to see a shift of some events to the Winter Games than to lose any event.

I can't see why air gun shooting would be appropriate for the winter games. It has nothing whatsoever to do with winter. Better would be to perhaps eliminate an(other) event.

Rob.

IIRC, IPSC was in the Athens games.

The case for moving some sports to the Winter Games is very simple - there are many Olympic events which take place indoors, and therefore have no season at all. They may therefore be placed where convenient.

Mike McDaniel wrote:IIRC, IPSC was in the Athens games.

Not as far as I know. If it was then it was a total PR flop.

There is no way that IPSC will get into the games. The IOC will only deal with one governing body for shooting, the ISSF.

Even if the ISSF wanted to get involved with practical shooting can you see the IPSC giving up control.

Barry Markowitz wrote:One of the issues discussed in this thread was the preference by the IOC to have 10,000 or less competitors per Olympic Games. Could the air events be shifted to the Winter Games to facilitate that concern to a degree?

With the quota places as they are at the moment that would mean moving just 106 shooters to the winter games. You would then need additional range staff as those at the summer games would still be needed for the other events.

If they then wanted to keep the competitor numbers for the events at the summer games at the same level they would have to increase the number of quota places for them as those with air event quotas would not be able to double up. They would probably also want to increase the number of air quotas for the same reason.

If we assume an additional 50 QPs at each games to make up for the inability to double up the nett results would probably be something like:-

Summer - Competitors -56
Winter - Competitors +156, Officials +30

The numbers probably don't make it worthwhile.

Mike McDaniel wrote:IIRC, IPSC was in the Athens games.

Mike,

Where was IPSC? Here are the results from Athens:

http://www.athens2004.com/en/resultsSho ... =SH0000000

Stan