Why save the Olympic events? Get the ISSF in line first.

[SlartyBartFast]

Why does the men's 50m prone event deserve to be saved when the women don't have a 50m prone event of their own?
And if 50m pistol is saved (I understand the historical significance), what other men's discipline gets dropped?

It's points I keep asking, but it seems no one wants to answer.

Easy to complain and blame "anti-gunners", but much more difficult to propose alternatives.

I'll stay out of the reincarnation of the petition threads. It's obvious that my views will have no impact on the aggressive confrontational wording or the have them reflect the points above.

I don't see anyone clamouring to create a petition to make the ISSF change their rulebook and competitions to be gender neutral.

[David Levene]

And if 50m pistol is saved (I understand the historical significance), what other men's discipline gets dropped?

Ragnar Skanaker's suggested keeping 50m Pistol and dropping Mens individual Air Pistol. I can imagine how popular that would(n't) be.

At least his suggestion didn't involve increasing the number of events or introducing mixed individual events, neither of which would work under IOC recommendations and rules.

[renzo]

Not every event in the OG program has to be neccesarily gender neutral: for example, in gymnastics there is no rings, pommel horse or paralell bars for women, for reasons better known to the IAF members but probably are influenced by tradition and raw muscle power.

The main reason (apart from the obvious) for dumping the two events you mention is that those are the most difficult to appreciate from the viewer standpoint, and offer the less thrill excepto for the cognoscenti.

In return, they are the most technically demanding, bar none, so there´s a fundamental reason to keep them.

But to replace them with mixed gender aleatory teams? You´re kidding me!!

Maybe your cool objective analysis derive from the lack of enough time dedicated to Olympic shooting, so you´re not still attached to the meaning of every event.

Anyways, the ISSF´s tail is going to wag anyhow the IOC dictates. And I´m really tired of hearing the same names over and over (take the Schreiber family as an example, and grandaddy Olegario as another). It must be very amusing to travel in first class, be received as a dignatary and lodge at expensive hotels, and having an expense account......................... and as for me, that applies from now on to Mr. Bindra!!

[Chia]

Why does the men's 50m prone event deserve to be saved when the women don't have a 50m prone event of their own?
And if 50m pistol is saved (I understand the historical significance), what other men's discipline gets dropped?

It's points I keep asking, but it seems no one wants to answer.

Easy to complain and blame "anti-gunners", but much more difficult to propose alternatives.

I'll stay out of the reincarnation of the petition threads. It's obvious that my views will have no impact on the aggressive confrontational wording or the have them reflect the points above.

I don't see anyone clamouring to create a petition to make the ISSF change their rulebook and competitions to gender neutral.

That's because those points are not relevant to the discussion or the petitions. The petitions have a specific goal, which is to save those sports. It is a direct counterargument to what the ISSF decided on: that free pistol should be axed due to a number of factors, not least of which is popularity. You are asking why they should be saved at all, or what alternatives there should be. That's a different question, but one I'll try to answer.

Also, these questions are both beyond the ability of a mass group of people to appropriately discuss and agree upon, particularly in a petition. There would be too much fractiousness to put together a cohesive petition.

That said, here's my view. I'm talking strictly in the pistol context because I don't have a damn clue about rifles and, even though I'm a lawyer, I try not to B.S.:

I don't blame anti-gunners for this. I blame logistics. From what I read, 10,500 athletes is the maximum that may attend the Tokyo Olympics. The IOC made it clear that the ISSF had to achieve certain requirements: gender equality and reduction in the number of participants. The Olympic games, at their heart, are now commercial. This explains the emphasis on air pistol and why the other alternative, rapid fire pistol, was not axed. The rapid-fire pistol event is more "exciting" to watch, because you never know what's going to happen in the final (when you see world class athletes score 0/5 and 5/5 the next time, it really hits home just how tight the tolerances are...) Air pistol is popular to a degree throughout the world except in the U.S.

That, of course, leaves free pistol. It is not widely watched in the U.S. because we have other precision sports, and in many countries (including the UK) obtaining even a single-shot pistol is difficult, limiting the number of athletes. Technological progress for free pistol has stagnated. We reached the limits of what the 22lr cartridge could do a long time ago (as in, early 20th century). The only recent improvements are to the interface that the shooter's body connected with, and to be honest with you, Bullseye as a sport is living proof that the interface between the user and the gun is not the ultimate deciding factor in accuracy. 1911s, while comfortable to hold, sure as hell are not anatomical, nor can you adjust the barrel to compensate for your posture's natural point of aim. That doesn't change the fact that many bullseye shooters can and do achieve high masters scores at ranges comparable to free pistol. And a .22 is generally considered much easier to handle compared to a .45. Additionally, free pistol is similar (granted not the same) to air pistol, a sport that is much more widely accessible.

To be honest, if I were the committee, and I were faced with the choice of axing one of those events, I would have voted that Free Pistol would be the one to go. It would be a hard choice, but now that David Levene has shared some of the relevant documents, it makes a lot more sense why it occurred. I do not like the decision, and I wish it did not have to be made, but that is economic reality.

I will not speak on the gender issue because I haven't thought about it enough to contribute anything meaningful. Hope this post helps.

[SlartyBartFast]

Not every event in the OG program has to be neccesarily gender neutral:

But the OG program does need to be gender neutral.
Shooting before the changes has 9 men's events to 6 women's events.

Then I see you stoop to bashing me personally on how much shooting I've done.

Perhaps people who so bothered that their sport is going to be removed are TOO involved to see the issue from the point of view of others.

There are LOTS of disciplines that are not present at many international competitions.

they are the most technically demanding, bar none, so there´s a fundamental reason to keep them.

I don't see anyone using that argument to get women's 50m prone represented at the Olympics. Or using that argument to promote women's 50m pistol in ISSF sanctionned events.

What's your opinion on what should be dropped if these two are kept?

[JJJJJJ]

Without the Olympics shooting will not be what it is today, many countries only support shooting because of the games. As we know, hosting an Olympics has become a challenge with increasing cost and resource. If no countries want to host then there is no more Olympics.

The cheapest range is 10m, anywhere any time and IOC likes this plus our multinational involvement and youth development, it keeps us in the games and gives us leverage over other sports that's trying to take our spot.

Resistance to this long term goal will get us kicked out, for me I rather shoot 10m then not be able to shoot in the games. I don't like the changes but we are living under IOC's roof.

[renzo]

That, of course, leaves free pistol. It is not widely watched in the U.S. because we have other precision sports, and in many countries (including the UK) obtaining even a single-shot pistol is difficult, limiting the number of athletes.

That is even more true concerning semiauto pistols, Nearly every country which has restrictions on handguns have one or another alibi for FP, including the UK, as awful as it seems to watch the "longarm" Morini; but they´re not axing RFP...............

Technological progress for free pistol has stagnated.

THAT could be one powerful reason: the industry is NOT interested in FP. A talented and well-trained shooter with a 50 year old, $ 400 TOZ-35 can gat to the Finals at any International Match. There´s not much equipment you can sell to him, and he can score over 570 (believe me, that´s a lot) with middle ground match fodder. Not many oportunities for money grabbing designers. In FP, the shooter topples the balance much more forcefully than in other events.

That doesn't change the fact that many bullseye shooters can and do achieve high masters scores at ranges comparable to free pistol. And a .22 is generally considered much easier to handle compared to a .45. Additionally, free pistol is similar (granted not the same) to air pistol, a sport that is much more widely accessible.

It seems to me that you haven´t had a FP in your hands in your entire life. Please compare (and I admit the difference in controlling a .45 and a .22) the size of the scoring rings and you´ll notice the difference in technical difficulty. Mind it, with all the Bullseye shooters grassroots base the USA has, this country has only one Olympic Gold and one Silver in FP (not counting the early modern OG´s when rules were different and participants fewer). This is widely apart from the US´s shooters performance in RFP, CF and SP events, much more alike Bullseye, where thay have left a sizeable mark.

[renzo]

Not every event in the OG program has to be neccesarily gender neutral:

But the OG program does need to be gender neutral.
Shooting before the changes has 9 men's events to 6 women's events.

Then I see you stoop to bashing me personally on how much shooting I've done.

Perhaps people who so bothered that their sport is going to be removed are TOO involved to see the issue from the point of view of others.

If I gave you that sensation, I apologize. I was NOT bashing you, just pointing to a component in the analysis process, in fact, I must also concede yours in the sense that deep involvement does not favor objectivity either.


There are LOTS of disciplines that are not present at many international competitions.

I know, I shoot some of them (CF, SP and MSP). One thing that must be pointed to the ISSF (as if it matters to its Nomenklatura) is that since the 80´s (when the WC were presented) all International ISSF sanctioned matches for those events excluded from the SOG´s were dropped from the program except for a quadriennial WCh. When airgun competitions were developing in the 70´s, they had separate WCh more often than regular ones occurred. If not even happy with FP´s chopping from the Games, I would be more tranquil if shooters from those barred events could compete at the top level every year, maybe as a separate WC (as do shotgunners). But kowtowing to the IOC takes too much of their time, I believe.................

they are the most technically demanding, bar none, so there´s a fundamental reason to keep them.

I don't see anyone using that argument to get women's 50m prone represented at the Olympics. Or using that argument to promote women's 50m pistol in ISSF sanctionned events.

To get women´s prone at the OG takes only a pen stroke, they already shoot the position in 3-P. And FP, as I understand, is physically too demanding for the average woman physique. Here it applies the comparison I made with some gymnastic events, clearly not designed for women´s muscles.

What's your opinion on what should be dropped if these two are kept?

You´re posing me the same question the jesuit fathers used to pose when I was a child: who would save you from a sinking boat in a raft with room for only one: your mother or your father? That´s a logical phallacy. First of all, we should have never allowed us to be cornered into that decision, and my opinion is that we were allowed to by the present ISSF authorities and their dictatorial management, in order to be able to justify the means by the ends

[SlartyBartFast]

I wrote the following a couple of days ago and I think I should post it now. I forgot about it in my ToDo bin and had a facepalm moment when I went looking for some information. It's what I should have started this thread with.:

Have any women contributed to the threads on the OG events changes? Are there even many women members of this forum?

It's very easy as a man to glibly comment that mixed gender events mean that women have equal opportunity. But it doesn't erase the fact the sport is dominated by men from the bottom up and in many countries women aren't represented at all.

A mixed gender event (other than a mixed team event) doesn't meet the IOC/OG goal. Equal PARTICIPATION. Promoting participation was the initial goal of Pierre deCoubertin and the Olympic movement. For all the ills the IOC and national Olympic committees have perpetuated by moving away from amateur sport and promoting participation over world records the drive to make the Olympics more inclusive might be one bright light. The original OG relegated
women to participation in traditional women's activities and their performance to a traditional woman's place in society. Now they're coming into the modern era where women can do the same things, wear and use the same equipment, and perform the same as men (think grunting in tennis, unwomanlike to grunt, but was it ever "ungentlemanly"?)

Because of the physicality and speed, ice hockey isn't a good analogy for competition with shooting, but it is a good analogy for participation. The fact that there are now international and world competitions for womens ice hockey teams means that women's ice hockey is gaining in participation and respect around the world. If women don't have women athletes to look up to, they won't be as inspired to participate and become their best as well.

Even here in the west we can't say shooting sports is as appealing to women as it is to men. My ISSF style shooting focused club must be 15 or 20 to one as far as men to women. Worldwide, the participation of women in any organised sport is worse than that in many places.

Was there any concern within the shooting community about gender equality before the OG decided they wanted equal participation? I'd say there has that 50m pistol and 50m prone rifle are targeted. There are 18 mens ISSF disciplines and only 12 women's ISSF disciplines. Who decided the women can't compete amongst themselves in the events only the men have?

Women have been shut out of ISSF 50m pistol completely for years (forever?) and no one lamented the fact that men have a prone rifle event at the OG and the women don't. Face it. The ISSF have their sexist policies and male privilege built into their competition events and rules as well.

Why is it so often repeated on this forum that elimination of men's prone will be detrimental to the sport locally while the fact that women are excluded in OG 50m prone is just accepted?

Why is it accepted that the ISSF competitions don't have equal competition for women?

Before trying to explain:

• Why women can shoot the same number of shots as men in 50m prone, but only half as many in 3p.
  Why 10m AP and AR the ratio of shots is 2/3 not 1/2.
  Why the pistol event is so different.
  Why women can manage 60% more shots in double versus single trap while men can handle only a 20% increase.
  Why in mixed running target women are capable of the SAME course of fire as men, but otherwise can only handle 2/3 of the shots.

Explain why women are INCAPABLE and UNWELCOME to compete in:

• 300m Rifle 3 Positions
  300m Rifle Prone
  300m Standard Rifle
  50m Pistol
  25m Rapid Fire Pistol
  25m Center Fire Pistol
  50m Running Target
  50m Running Target Mixed

All that to say: Wake up!
As far as the IOC/OG are concerned if the grassroots can't lobby and change towards equal participation, the IOC is forcing it from above. Participation must reach gender parity within the defined envelope of total number of athletes and total number of events.
Local clubs should be promoting equal competition and gender awards. National associations should be lobbied to make all disciplines available to both genders. And differences in the competition between genders should be eliminated where there is no justification.

Specifically for the OG solution:
The OG 50m pistol event might have been saved if there was such a thing as women's 50m pistol at the ISSF level.
Then men could have been gracious and eliminated a men's only event from their events and women's 50m pistol could have taken its place.
Would still have left eliminating another men's only event to include the 50m prone women's event.
And some king of gender neutral solution for the odd number event.

[SlartyBartFast]

You´re posing me the same question the jesuit fathers used to pose when I was a child: who would save you from a sinking boat in a raft with room for only one: your mother or your father? That´s a logical phallacy. First of all, we should have never allowed us to be cornered into that decision, and my opinion is that we were allowed to by the present ISSF authorities and their dictatorial management, in order to be able to justify the means by the ends.

BS. Every international event can't have every international discipline of every international sport. FACT.
Which disciplines have been at the OG changes over the years. FACT.
The OG has a limit on the number of althletes and events they'll support. FACT.

There is no logical fallacy involved.

If you think it's about being cornered, what makes shooting so special that our events are sacred and don't have to bend to equality decisions, numbers of events, or numbers of athletes?

Why are the 15 events at the last OG the only ones worthy, why should they never change?

[Chia]

Rather than quote down the line, I'll respond to each of your responses in turn.

Paragraph 1: You raise a good point, which is why rapid fire has fewer athletes compete. The difficulty is there, but not insurmountable.

Paragraph 3: You're taking those sentences out of context. Yes, you are correct that I have never held a free pistol before, and I likely never will, unfortunately. Almost no American has or will, with the exception of people on this forum. I didn't even know that free pistol even existed until six months ago. That's a major part of the problem: bad P.R. And I am well aware that our country has a horrible track record with precision events: it's why I decided to take up AP in the first place! You either put up or...you get the idea. I was using bullseye as an example, but if you think it's inappropriate, I have no problem retracting that. I trust your superior experience.

Now as to your post overall: You make some good points, but the arguments don't address the heart of the issue: that the IOC, a commercial organization with commercial concerns, is calling the shots, that the IOC directed action that required removal of at least one sport, and that I would have chosen Free Pistol as well presented with the same set of problems. I don't believe the comments you made (or my responses) would change any of those points.

That said, you are definitely posing questions that require discussion. Thanks as always for engaging. I think I'll shut up and let y'all figure the rest of this out.

[renzo]

BS. Every international event can't have every international discipline of every international sport. FACT.
Which disciplines have been at the OG changes over the years. FACT.
The OG has a limit on the number of althletes and events they'll support. FACT.

To the first: I didn´t say that EVERY int´l event should have them, at least once a year.

To the second: a lot, and obviously some of them are not with us today, but in some cases the buidgetary reasons were crystal clear: 300 meter ranges were expensive and had to be built in far away places from the central games; the same goes for running deer. Team events were dropped in 1932 alledging there was no team players interaction but simply an adding of scores (why this criteria wasn´t applied to running or swimming relays is obviously related to the attarctive of those sports, the real cornerstones of the SOG´s as far as the IOC is concerned, the rest of us just complete the schedule)

To the third: I was led to believe we were talking about the possibility of giving barred events´ shooters more chances to compete EVEN if complying with the IOC extorting move is inexorable.

There is no logical fallacy involved.

Yes there is, and also some twisting of the facts.

If you think it's about being cornered, what makes shooting so special that our events are sacred and don't have to bend to equality decisions, numbers of events, or numbers of athletes?

I´m not a runner or a weightlifter, so I don´t know the full history of that sports and their respective SOG´s disciplines. But I´ve been a competitive swimmer, and I can tell you (just check the IOC´s website, don´t trust me) that since 40 years ago the number of events and participants have grown out of proportion with anything except - obviously - TV revenues. It´s far easier (not inherently easy) to get to be an Olympian in swimming or running than in shooting, they have only what we know as MQS and a VERY flexible system of quotas. For a shooter to go to the OG´s he (or she) has to WIN a pre-determined step in top-level championships. For Rio, a female shooter from the club I preside got her OQ by taking SILVER at the PAG Toronto 2015, and that only because the gold winner already had hers. If she hadn´t, our athlete would´ve stayed home, with her continental medal in a box. No, shooting is in no way sacred, but to ignore that we´re being treated as the poor country cousin is blindness.

Why are the 15 events at the last OG the only ones worthy, why should they never change?

[SlartyBartFast]

But renzo, you're arguing for an impossibility.

There will not be more shooting events added. And far more popular sports are fighting to be included in the OGs.

The other ISSF events ARE in other ISSF competitions and have their annual competitions.

[renzo]

What's your opinion on what should be dropped if these two are kept?

If you ask me, I think forum member JJJJJJ a few posts above hit the nail in the head.

I´m convinced that sooner or later (most probably sooner) all cartridge events in the SOG´s will be barred, in part due to the logistics involved, partly due to legal reasons in most countries (IDK how they will arrange things in Tokyo, in a country were weapons possession is largely forbidden), not forgetting the economical consideration: I can shoot 500 H&N Pistol Finale Match for about U$D at the presente exchange rate in my country, but a single 50-round box of R-50 or Eley Pistol Match .22 ammo puts me back exactly for the same amount, that´s a 1000 % difference!!

In the 90´s, when the ISSF was developing 10 meter air pistol repeating events (that´s why the LP5 and LP50 were made for) the rules already have provisions for a SP match, a CF/WSP type match with precision and duel stages and even a RFP, all of them air matches.

If it was left to my decision, I´d make for a strong support in the coming years for that events, justo to be prepared for when the IOC decides bangs are not welcome anymore at tha Games.

Also such a measure will bring back and add some new shooters who could/would be able to stay in shape to shoot the original cartridge events, even at national levels.

Infrastructuraly, all you´d need at an OG would be a 10 meter stand (leave apart the shotgunners, they have their own troubles to deal with) and could design a gender-equally agenda while retaining grassroots support (as if they cared about).

[renzo]

But renzo, you're arguing for an impossibility.

There will not be more shooting events added. And far more popular sports are fighting to be included in the OGs.

The other ISSF events ARE in other ISSF competitions and have their annual competitions.

Maybe, but please read my next-to-last message which I was writing while you posted yours.

And I don´t recall that non-Olympic shooting events have annaul competitiions.

[SlartyBartFast]

And I don´t recall that non-Olympic shooting events have annaul competitiions.

That's the ISSF events.

IMO, the very important missing focus is to make the ISSF events more gender neutral by eliminating differences between events to make competitions more comparable adding women's events for all men only events.

[TenMetrePeter]

...(IDK how they will arrange things in Tokyo, in a country were weapons possession is largely forbidden)...

In London 2012 where cartridge pistols of the type used in OG are forbidden to most civilians they used Army barracks some miles away. So no "Olympic legacy" for shooters.

[David Levene]

...(IDK how they will arrange things in Tokyo, in a country were weapons possession is largely forbidden)...

In London 2012 where cartridge pistols of the type used in OG are forbidden to most civilians they used Army barracks some miles away. So no "Olympic legacy" for shooters.

To say that they used Army barracks is a bit misleading.

It was officially the Royal Artillery Barracks but in reality it was a large open field in front of the barracks.

Before the shooting complex was built it was open to the public and used for dog-walking, horse-riding etc. After the complex was removed it reverted to being just a large open field.

It could just as easily have been built in any similar sized field with reasonable transport links.

I am glad that the ranges were removed after the Olympics/Paras. There is no requirement for such a large facility in the UK and would have quickly bankrupted any organisation that tried to run it.

[django]

OK...let's women play 50 meter and prone but in 60 shoot equal time. There is no gender limitation on this event. women and man have same opportunity to win. This will end problem.

[gwsb]

I agree with someone above who said that all cartridge events will be gone, at least by 2032 OG. With the exception on shotgun events. I don't of many countries that don't have private ownership of shotguns.

It is obvious that by ditching 2 of 4 50 m events they are moving to do away with the 22 events. I even think that the air gun matches will move to laser only in the future.

The ISSF with its entrenched, superannuated leadership needs to rethink the idea of the World Cup having only OG events and expand its program. Why not have men's and women's prone and center fire pistol and double trap shotgun? All the ranges are there, shooters are there, interest is there.

Lastly, and I will get down from my soap box. Chia I disagree with your assertion that 22 ammo has not advanced since the "early 20 th century". There are those, myself included that believe the Eley Red from the 70s in paper boxes was amazing ammo and Eley took a dive in the 80 s and 90s with their new manufacturing process. However the strides made by Eley and Lapua in the last 15 or so years are so great that they put prior ammo to shame.

I can assure you that the R50 that Lones Wigger used in 64 to win a gold and silver in the Olympics would not win a regional today.