TargetTalk

Hi, From Igors blogg:
"Thumb up!
It obvious that new final format is not ready and has nothing to do with fairness.
Only happy winners say «I like it». What else should they say? «I am not happy to win being 10 points behind qualification leader»!?!? But today's happy winners must remember, that next time being 10 point ahead in qualification they can be last after new «media-internet-publicity-social-facebook-youtube friendly» final.
In the meantime we will enjoy old style final format at German Championship 2011.
http://www.dsb.de/deutsche_meisterschaf ... 30_10.html
"

What is going on here??

Kent

Not sure what's going on there, but it does sound a lot like someone is whining because they choked.

If ever pistol shooting wants to capture attention of people who aren't just shooters there needs to be an element of unpredictability.

Who wants to watch an old style final where someone is ahead by 10 points, it's a foregone conclusion unless something extreme happens.

Good luck

I understand why a new final has been invented.
But, why does Germany use an obsolet final, Germany is a huge shooting community i Europe.
Kent

Why do both men and women shoot 40 shot AP and AR matches in Germany? I guess the answer is maybe their governing body does what their membership wants.

A lot has been said about new final format. Some like it, some don’t.
Starting the finals from zero, without counting the selection result, finds its idea from athletics. The times ran during the eliminations, isn’t taken into account either. But that’s athletics! I think as far as spectators can hope for the electronic scoring with the impacts shown on a screen is as far as shooting can go for a spectator. If ISSF really wants publicity they could think about changing the target: use Coke bottles or Budweiser cans instead of electronics! Would be cheaper and the Coca Cola or Budweiser companies would push the media to transmit the cans with their logo :-)
Regards.
Guy

lastman wrote:Who wants to watch an old style final where someone is ahead by 10 points, it's a foregone conclusion unless something extreme happens.

Good luck

So based on that thinking, we should stop a game of football (or any sport for that matter) if one team gets too far ahead at half time and reset the score board, or just decide it on who scores in the last few minutes?

j-team wrote:

lastman wrote:Who wants to watch an old style final where someone is ahead by 10 points, it's a foregone conclusion unless something extreme happens.

Good luck

So based on that thinking, we should stop a game of football (or any sport for that matter) if one team gets too far ahead at half time and reset the score board, or just decide it on who scores in the last few minutes?

Well, isn't it pretty much like that anyway? No resets in the middle of the final game, but the winner is the winner of the final, the goals scored before that are not counted. Actually, I guess shooting is one of the few sports where the final hasn't been a separate deciding game until recently in RF.

I guess this is a question of taste and heavily influenced by how long experience you have in the sport. It may be against tradition, impractical in club environment and some may find it unfair, but comparing it to the other sports, I think it's quite similar to what we see in most of them. Continuing the football example, we must remember that the major football games consist of several rounds of elimination and at the end, the team that has been better by any measure still has to win the final game to get the gold medals. If they don't, well, is that unfair?

I don't have a strong opinion about the new final structure, but then, I haven't seriously shot RF for that long. In any case, I hope it won't cause more people to leave the sport. It could attract some more, though, if it is received well by the audience. Shooting has never been such a great spectator sport.

mika wrote:Well, isn't it pretty much like that anyway? No resets in the middle of the final game, but the winner is the winner of the final, the goals scored before that are not counted.

The final in football is usually played on the same size field and the games goes a normal length. To make football like the new RF final, you would have to say, OK, the teams in the final will now have to play the final for just 15 minutes each way (after having qualified for the final playing 45mins each way) and we are using different size goals! All so it is more exciting for the spectators.

I can tell you from experience, that the only people who come to watch shooting, are people who are interested in shooting already. Should shooting change it's rules purley in the desperate hope that it will become a spectator sport, on the one occasion each 4 years that the Olympics are held and in the process aleinate the 99.9% of those who shoot at local, regional and national level?

j-team wrote: I can tell you from experience, that the only people who come to watch shooting, are people who are interested in shooting already. Should shooting change it's rules purley in the desperate hope that it will become a spectator sport, on the one occasion each 4 years that the Olympics are held and in the process aleinate the 99.9% of those who shoot at local, regional and national level?

I happen to agree with your point there.........................

mika wrote:I guess shooting is one of the few sports where the final hasn't been a separate deciding game until recently in RF.

10m Running Target men was first the event.

j-team wrote:I can tell you from experience, that the only people who come to watch shooting, are people who are interested in shooting already.

Agreed.





I think the goal of the shooting sport is to hit 10.9 with every shot.
But now it is not so important in RF.

10.9 + 10.9 + 10.9 + 10.9 + 9.6 = 53.2 (4 points)
9.7 + 9.7 + 9.7 + 9.7 + 9.7 = 48.5 (5 points).

Now it is not so important to have 97-98 in four seconds in qualification. 94 is enough. 582 is enough to enter automatically every final (99 + 98 + 94 => 291 x 2 => 582 ). 300 or 291 ...no matter. No advantage for shooter. Nothing. Zero. No matter how many years you trained for these 300 :(

ruig wrote:I think the goal of the shooting sport is to hit 10.9 with every shot.
But now it is not so important in RF.

10.9 + 10.9 + 10.9 + 10.9 + 9.6 = 53.2 (4 points)
9.7 + 9.7 + 9.7 + 9.7 + 9.7 = 48.5 (5 points).

Now it is not so important to have 97-98 in four seconds in qualification. 94 is enough. 582 is enough to enter automatically every final (99 + 98 + 94 => 291 x 2 => 582 ). 300 or 291 ...no matter. No advantage for shooter. Nothing. Zero. No matter how many years you trained for these 300 :(

I agree totally with your sentiments but don't forget the final is shot in 4s strings so you need to be good enough to hold the 9.7 ring.

I also dislike the fact that 60 shots are discounted and only the final <up to> 30 (?) matter in terms of medal placement.

Rob.

ruig wrote:I think the goal of the shooting sport is to hit 10.9 with every shot.
But now it is not so important in RF.

Apart from under the old final rules it has never been important to hit a 10.9 with every shot. Even in the qualification stage the important thing is to hit a 10.0+ with every shot.

ruig wrote: I think the goal of the shooting sport is to hit 10.9 with every shot.
But now it is not so important in RF.

I guess I must be getting unpopular pretty soon now... Remember, I'm not saying the new finals are better, but I'm not convinced that everything must always stay the same, either.

All shooting sport does not revolve around hitting 10.9. Remember, we even have shotgun shooting in the olympics. That's another hit/miss thing. Of course, the guns are totally different and it has been that way "forever", but it is an example of shooting where hit and miss can make the difference between great sportsmen. No need for pinpoint accuracy, but for extreme reliability and repeatability in one's performance. The same goes for biathlon, although there is the skiing aspect of the sport as well.

Other examples exist as well, although outside the olympic sports. I find IPSC extremely enjoyable sport, and with metal targets it's hit/miss, and even with the paper targets the A area is bigger than the 9.7 ring. Time plays much more complicated part than in the fixed time strings in RF, but again, this is an example of a shooting sport where 10.9 is not the goal.

I do understand the objections when things change. And maybe they shouldn't change in this way. But I'd also like people to look around a bit and notice that not all shooting sport is identical and there are different values in different disciplines. And you cannot say that one is better than another, except for personal preferences. For example, I personally enjoy RF, CF and IPSC (all three, pistol, rifle and shotgun) the most, but I cannot say that they are any better than smallbore rifle (much more accurate than "my" disciplines) or skeet (they shoot much faster moving targets).

I would find it more fair to fight against stupid changes without pointing out why the new scoring methods are so stupid and against everything the shooting sport is and should be. There are other highly appreciated disciplines that use those same or similar scoring methods, with lots of shooters that think it's just right for their sport.

Mika

Back to Germany...

German Federation have own rules. ISSF changes aren't automatically applied for nationals (in some other federations it happens automatically).

All changes only after meeting, act and decision of German Federation.

No written decision - no changes.