TargetTalk

I have been 'on the road': did anyone notice that http://www.issf-sports.org/theissf/rule ... ation.ashx - ISSF Enforcement Procedures for Shooters’ Shoes applies to rifle and PISTOL

Really, they have too much time on their hands don't they.

j-team wrote:Really, they have too much time on their hands don't they.

do you mean the ISSF, or the footwear manufacturers, shooters and coaches that have brought this about?

Spencer wrote:I have been 'on the road': did anyone notice that http://www.issf-sports.org/theissf/rule ... ation.ashx - ISSF Enforcement Procedures for Shooters’ Shoes applies to rifle and PISTOL

I did and since we have some guys shooting in Benning we've had some feedback as to what shoes are passing ok etc. Corami's apparently will be interesting, pistol and rifle as they are amongst the stiffer soled shoes - I'll try and find out if any of our pistol shooters are using them. With only one testing machine in existence though it will be very hard for shooters and coaches to check before a match, and if they're not at Benning but going to Munich then the first they'll know is if their footwear is prohibited.

Rob.

Sensible at last rather than the silly walk test, but I hope the pass standard has been tested and arrived at on small sizes which are stiffer than large ones as it would be just as ridiculous for a small size to fail while a large of the same model failed. They show Kustermans on the rig so I would presume they have had input, but my wifes Kusterman size 5 1/2 after two years use are considerably stiffer than a club colleagues new large size Kustermans.
Robin

I meant large size "passed"
Robin

Direct link to PDF

From the doc:

The ISSF decision to also test pistol shooter shoes arose from recent discoveries that a few pistol shooters were using steel plates or other inflexible inserts in the soles of their shoes.

This is why we can't have nice things.

RobStubbs wrote:With only one testing machine in existence though it will be very hard for shooters and coaches to check before a match

Should be pretty easy, actually. Just hold the ball of the foot (shoe) flush to the ground and see if you can lift the heel to 22.5º.

What a crock, who came up with 15nm and 22.5 degrees? Why not 20 nm and 25 degrees? They come up with numbers so that it looks scientific without any science behind them. Steel plates in the shoes of pistol shooters? I call BS, I'm sure we'd have heard of this find prior to these new rules (which they are) these are not simple interpretations, mid quad. As for pistol shooting, let's see the advantage I'm standing on steel plates in my shoes on a concrete floor and somehow this gives me some form of advantage over just standing on the concrete floor? Me thinks that they just want to play and use their new tangled machine more.

Just look at the issf website, looks like a lot of people at the top enjoying the good life at the shooters expense.

Just like WADA, they spend more money trying to catch a few cheats and administering that then some sports actually spend on the sport. Do they really want to stop doping? Lose all those nice jobs?

A true crock of pseudo-physics. The "newton-meter" is not even a measure of force. It is a unit of torque. It will mean that a long shoe will fail at lower force than a short shoe.

Do these people not even have science advisors to help them?

Yes and even at that the best you can usually get accuracy wise from a torque wrench is about 10% of full scale. So a 50 nm torque wrench would give you +\- 2.5 nm. They are also damaging the shoes by clamping them down and not letting the upper move with the sole, but hey who cares it's just someone elses money

Spencer wrote:

j-team wrote:Really, they have too much time on their hands don't they.

do you mean the ISSF, or the footwear manufacturers, shooters and coaches that have brought this about?

The ISSF.

I still remember watching Kezel of France win a three way shoot off for the silver in Centre Fire at the 94 WCHs wearing socks and sandals!

The stiffness of the sole makes no difference in pistol shooting as we can't have a shoe above the ankle!

j-team wrote:...The stiffness of the sole makes no difference in pistol shooting as we can't have a shoe above the ankle!

Well, it cannot be a fashion statement.

Makes you wonder why some shooters have taken to, and coaches allow/encourage 'funny' shoes for pistol shooters.

I tend to train in bedroom slippers on a flat concrete floor. My feet are flat, flat, flat, and no inserts are needed. My feet conform to the floor.

Spencer wrote:Makes you wonder why some shooters have taken to, and coaches allow/encourage 'funny' shoes for pistol shooters.

Because they've been brainwashed (marketing/advertising) into thinking that they make a difference.

Spencer wrote:

j-team wrote:...The stiffness of the sole makes no difference in pistol shooting as we can't have a shoe above the ankle!

Well, it cannot be a fashion statement.

Makes you wonder why some shooters have taken to, and coaches allow/encourage 'funny' shoes for pistol shooters.

Of course it makes some difference, just not as much as for rifle.

john bickar wrote:Should be pretty easy, actually. Just hold the ball of the foot (shoe) flush to the ground and see if you can lift the heel to 22.5º.

Really John, I'd love to know how you calibrate yourself to 15nm ?

Rob.

Richard H wrote:Yes and even at that the best you can usually get accuracy wise from a torque wrench is about 10% of full scale. So a 50 nm torque wrench would give you +\- 2.5 nm. They are also damaging the shoes by clamping them down and not letting the upper move with the sole, but hey who cares it's just someone elses money

And to what torque do you tighten down the toe clamp? it will effect the result. Boots laced or not? that will effect it. Where do you place the clamp in relation to the different boot length? That will effect it. Where do you place the boot in relation to the hinge, there is no stop shown on the picture? That will effect the result.
This should be better than the silly walk test if thought through but I think it may need a little more engineering input.
Robin

RobinC as Guest wrote:This should be better than the silly walk test if thought through but I think it may need a little more engineering input.
Robin

Replacing one poorly thought out test with another is hardly an improvement. It's also too late to influence it as it has been rolled out in Benning and will be used for DQ purposes in under a months time in Munich.

I will be out in Munich so I'll take a look at what the test looks like in practice. No doubt having one single device to test all pistol and rifle shooters shoes will mean long queues at equipment control.

Rob.

Well it's never too late, but I agree at this stage it's much more difficult to get changed.

The ISSF has been making new rules under the guise of interpretations for the last few years. Shooters some how need to put a stop to this the ISSF exists for shooters not the other way round.

I've been to numerous competitions from World Cups on down and have sat and listened to those that conduct equipment tests and it's become a competition unto itself to see how they can screw competitors over. They laugh and giggle like schoolgirls amongst themselves on how many people they have screwed and to what level they've made people destroy good equipment.

Yes, yes it's all in the name of fairness, but unfortunately when rules are enforced without any common sense you get bad rules. As they try to regulate every aspect of the sport this sillyness will only get worse.