Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Irish Sports Council Carding Grants 2006
Options
-
10-02-2006 1:16pm#1
Comments
-
-
les45 wrote:Any feedback on what went wrong, perhaps the associations are going to divey up the money themselves!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The associations don't actually have that option les, as the money is meant to go direct to the athletes, bypassing the NGBs. Not sure of the ICPSA story, but I did say a few months ago that this was a very likely outcome of the opposition to the carding grant reform shown by the NRPAI. We could have had a more equitable and workable grant scheme to promote competitive shooting in all disciplines, both ISSF and otherwise; now we have no-one getting carding grants, a still-unfair grants scheme which acts as a reward scheme for winning a medal rather than a support scheme to let those with potential work towards winning one, and noone that shoots non-olympic disciplines (which includes a lot of ISSF disciplines like 300m, center-fire pistol, standard pistol and a few others, by the way) being even considered for funding. And all we're left able to do is sit around going "I told you so"
Fecking depressing state of affairs, if you ask me.0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
I don't know that they have that far to go, to be honest. With PBs like 397/400, I'd say they were only in need of experience.rrpc wrote:I know you're justifiably proud of the results the Juniors are getting, but they still have a way to go to achieving World Cup medals, and unfortunately, that's the currency that the ISC has come to expect for their money.
Yes, but I was saying it in the context of "this needs to change"I agree, but as you've said yourself on many occaisions, the system is a catch-22
All clubs should definitely be doing it, but they can't realistically do it all the time, or even often enough to let someone train at International level. A match like this weekend is a twice-a-year thing at best.Agreed again, but this is what we as clubs should be doing all the time, and finding the funds to do it.
Who said that this sport is or should be any different?Bleh yourself!. All sports require individual sacrifice and investment.
I'm trying to point out that you could put in a proper training effort, only to find yourself passed over because of the decision of people you don't ever see - which is a complete antithesis to the whole ethos of the sport.
Amen.Target Shooting is a (relatively) expensive sport, and we as clubs need to start investing in kit and caboodle to get people started.
How can there be competition for places when those places are awarded by a committee behind closed doors with no open competition for them, and when they're announced at most a month in advance? For the major competitions, you need a year's run-up of training or more - the Olympics is a 6-year training cycle, but our last Irish shooter got less than a few week's warning he was going. What's needed is an open competition for places that are announced months in advance. It's not that hard - decide you'll send a team of three to a World Cup, announce this a year in advance (WC calendars are published up to four years in advance), then pick out a few competitions over a 6-8 week stretch prior to the competition and the three who post the highest average over three competitions in that timeframe (at approved matches) go, provided they're over the cut-off score.Head Office needs to provide the coaching support, and that appears to be their intention this year, but the roots of the sport need to grow first, so that there is actually competition for places.
That way, it's a target shooting competition, not a who's-our-bestest-mates competition.
Agreed. But look to up north if you want competition. Is it expensive to do postals? or shoulder-to-shoulder in comber or downshire or EARC? Not as much as going to Bisley in August, that's for certain! And when you've beaten everyone up north, look to the UK. And when you've beaten everyone there, look to germany, and then to China. There are postal matches, club-level international matches like intershoot, there are a *lot* of options out there. And yes, you'll have to fund-raise, but what club doesn't?Competition scores in .22 have been dropping gradually over the last number of years, and my belief is that this is caused by lack of competition. Richards 590 last week in Rathdrum, is the first 590 scored there since March 2000 FFS.
No, you don't. You need to set up a set of procedures and do them when they're needed, that's it. It doesn't need this continual fire-fighting crap of "Oh, we got an invite for such-and-such a competition, we'd better send someone, who can go? Right, now go redo the budget to allow for that" that we saw for years. It's just making more work!You need something to administer first:D
So where are the juniors in RRPC? The scouts? The pony clubs? What postal matches are you in? How do the people in the club communicate with one another? How do they know an event is coming up? What reminds them that they're in the club and let's them know what's going on there?Back in 2000, there was good competition for the top places, and scores went up. Same administrative structures in place, but we had a 595 in Rathdrum during that period. Now we have lost people out of the sport, and scores have gone down.
But we don't (compete amongst ourselves). We train for international competition, not domestic. That's the key. A wider field of competition, with better shooters than yourself to test yourself against. Otherwise, it becomes a hobby and people drop out quickly.Look at what you have achieved in Wilkinstown, simply because you have a lot of people interested and competing amongst themselves.
Who's there to compete against? DURC train, and the squad are getting good results, and there were a few of them there last competition in RRPC (I wasn't but that was because I was training for Bisley at the time, it being the last weekend before we left). But where's the training in UCD? Where's the squad? Who's coaching? And it's bloody hard to get other colleges to take up shooting. So far we've had no success in that regardI'm actually disappointed with the college clubs, for not providing more competition at that level. There's something head office could be doing, but you need to have the other 90% of your job squared away before you can do that part 0 -
That's pretty good, but still not World Cup standard. You need to be getting PB's of 400/400 to have a chance of getting to a final in a world cup seeing as the competitive pressure always drops your scores.Sparks wrote:I don't know that they have that far to go, to be honest. With PBs like 397/400, I'd say they were only in need of experience.
Do you think the ISC will listen?Yes, but I was saying it in the context of "this needs to change"
Then you do it twice a year.All clubs should definitely be doing it, but they can't realistically do it all the time, or even often enough to let someone train at International level. A match like this weekend is a twice-a-year thing at best.
I thought that the winner of the last Air Rifle nationals was sent to a World Cup, did somebody else go?I'm trying to point out that you could put in a proper training effort, only to find yourself passed over because of the decision of people you don't ever see - which is a complete antithesis to the whole ethos of the sport.
See aboveHow can there be competition for places when those places are awarded by a committee behind closed doors with no open competition for them, and when they're announced at most a month in advance?
That was because we got a wildcard, nobody knew in advance.For the major competitions, you need a year's run-up of training or more - the Olympics is a 6-year training cycle, but our last Irish shooter got less than a few week's warning he was going.
We already have that, they're called registered shoots.What's needed is an open competition for places that are announced months in advance.
Correct, see aboveThat way, it's a target shooting competition, not a who's-our-bestest-mates competition.
But if we have the shooters here, why not compete here. Do you hold open competitions in Wilkinstown, and how often?Agreed. But look to up north if you want competition. Is it expensive to do postals? or shoulder-to-shoulder in comber or downshire or EARC? Not as much as going to Bisley in August, that's for certain!
Start here first, and then do the travelling.And when you've beaten everyone up north, look to the UK.
Stop harping back to the past, it's tiresome. We need to stop spending money sending unprepared people away, and instead spend it on preparing them first. Right now, we do not have anyone that we should be sending to World Cups, and even if we had one, it would not be enough. We need at least five or six people regularly competing for places before we should even look to international competitions. It's been nothing short of embarrassing looking at some of the scores acheived at World Cup events.No, you don't. You need to set up a set of procedures and do them when they're needed, that's it. It doesn't need this continual fire-fighting crap of "Oh, we got an invite for such-and-such a competition, we'd better send someone, who can go? Right, now go redo the budget to allow for that" that we saw for years. It's just making more work!
Good question. I don't know. The colleges seem to have them, but they're not showing up at competitions in any of the sort of numbers that are being bandied about. Any juniors that we've had have come either from the sporting rifle ranks or are ex-collegiate (only one of those in the last ten years). We don't do postals any more, for reasons I've discussed with you previously. We've approached some of the schools about juniors, but so far with no success although I'm hopeful that the new training cert will help in that regard.So where are the juniors in RRPC?
I disagree fundamentally with that reasoning. The competition starts with the guy shooting beside you, and builds up to a higher level. But it's your clubmates that you shoot against the most often, and it's that which will drive you to train more and achieve higher scores. All sports work on that principle, with the best going forward to international level.But we don't (compete amongst ourselves). We train for international competition, not domestic. That's the key. A wider field of competition, with better shooters than yourself to test yourself against. Otherwise, it becomes a hobby and people drop out quickly.
That's my point, we need more here and now to provide the competition to drive all our shooters forward.Who's there to compete against?
Really?, the highest DURC score at the last competition was a good 583 followed by a 558.DURC train, and the squad are getting good results
Good question.But where's the training in UCD? Where's the squad? Who's coaching?
I would have thought that such a drive would have to come from the student body itself, isn't that how DURC and UCD started?And it's bloody hard to get other colleges to take up shooting. So far we've had no success in that regard There's something head office could be doing, but you need to have the other 90% of your job squared away before you can do that part 0 -
-
Well obviously I'm the exception soSparks wrote:Not so true. This is part of the whole mental game thing - understand, I'm not saying that that isn't what happens now, I'm saying that this is something we talk ourselves into believing. Don't forget, ten years ago, you couldn't train someone to shoot a 540 inside of six months. It wasn't possible. Not because it wasn't possible, but because we'd trained ourselves to believe that.
And I think that that was a political decisionI think that they were asking for people to come into them and present how the NGBs wanted to see the carding grant system changed. I also think that the whole point of the carding grant system is to be a support mechanism, not a reward mechanism.
Results first, international experience secondFor a club, sending a club team, that's excellent and should be done.
For an individual, looking to go to a World Cup with a chance of a good performance, it's far, far, far, far too little international experience.
Well that's not strictly true, we sent one person to compete in a number of events, which is what has been happening for a number of years now. And that person was the National Prone and 3P champion, as well as having the highest mens score in the National Air Rifle Comp.The winner of the last air rifle nationals wasn't sent. And we have never sent anyone for winning the last air rifle nationals. At least, we haven't done so in the sense of announcing it ahead of time and following through; instead there's been the "I've heard of him/her lately, they must be good" principle at play.
Yes but it was a wildcard, and you never know whether you're going to get one or not until it arrives. The person who turned it down, had experienced a major change in personal circumstances that could not have been foreseen in advance.It wasn't because of the wildcard, it was because everyone expected the first choice of person to accept the place, and when he turned it down, there was a fair bit of double-takes and delays before Alan got the nod. By which time he couldn't even ship his batch-tested ammo home for the flight to Sydney.
What's wrong with that?Not any more we don't - now all shoots are registered shoots.
I don't follow your logic. They are open competitions, it's a level playing field and everyone has a chanceand let there be a fair, open competition. That's not what the registered shoots do.
Only if you agreeNot correct, see above.
That's my point. It's up to us to get the people into the sport, to provide the pyramid to push people to the top. Anything else is artificial and will fail. We brought people from the North into the equation, and they competed well, but there was absolutely no knock-on effect for shooting in the rest of the country. If anything, it became worse.Because we don't have the shooters here, they're elsewhere and until you're as good as they are, they won't come to you.
Yes, but that's because the emphasis has been external for too long. We haven't genuinely tried with any degree of consistency to bring up the standard at home.Doesn't work. It's not what we do, it is what you do and you've said yourself how that's working out.
Substitute coaching for training and I'll agree. But training and coaching are not substitutes for competition, and that's why I am saying that you need to have regular home competitions to hone the edge of the training and to provide regular benchmarks. PB's are good in themselves, but if you are not matching them in competition, something's wrong.And the money that would have gone into those teams needs to be funnelled into the clubs for training instead.
Yes, but why do we have to import postals?, just something else we can't do for ourselves?I don't know if that's a good thing. They seem to be the only kind of match we can get a lot of the college students to enter easily enough, because of the lack of logistics needed.
Read that paragraph again Sparks and see how wrong it sounds!!! We don't have a big enough base, so instead of helping to develop one, we boycott a home competition to go to a foreign one, and then moan about the lack of competition at home??? And domestic matches being just excercises Ask some of your foreign counterparts how many domestic competitions they attend. Some of the English shooters I've spoken to, are constantly taking part in competitions; Either postals or away matches or whatever.Sure, if you have a wide enough pyramid at the base. We don't. So we instead look to get a leg-up before we start competing against others by training instead of practising and looking at international matches as being the real matches and other domestic matches as being not much more than exercises. I mean, look where WTSC is - they go to Bisley so they can't go to the UCD Open, and so the UCD Open can't run as it can't cover its costs. When you're in that position, who the hell is there to compete against? You have to look further afield!
Of course you won't, but how are you going to develop shooting without bringing in novices and training them. I can't believe you're saying this! You said it yourself, the best you can hope for is to send your shooters away maybe twice or three times a year. That's not enough to develop them for competitions, so the alternative is to give them the competition at home.But you won't get good shooters here and now; you'll get novices.
Thirty or Forty would be a good number to start with. It's up to us to get those numbers involved right now!If you want the top end to go up, you have to have the top shooters competeing in a wider field than just the twenty or so top shooters on this island!
So that just contradicts your previous argumentBTW, that's a 583 with less than a full year's training.
So what you need is some crosstalk between the student bodies to get the ball rollling in other universities without clubs.Not quite. You did have students looking to start the club - three of them in DURC, and not much more in UCD. You also had strong statements of support from outside clubs and bodies0 -
Obviouslyrrpc wrote:Well obviously I'm the exception so
Caused by the Athens Review, yes. But the decision was nonetheless the best chance in years to do this and it was thrown away.And I think that that was a political decision
It's not quite that binary - you start sending someone to international club-level matches like Bisley long before they would be up for competition in a World Cup because otherwise, their first international would be a WC and it could destroy them, mentally.Results first, international experience second
But he wasn't the National Air Rifle champion and he wasn't sent because of winning the championships.Well that's not strictly true, we sent one person to compete in a number of events, which is what has been happening for a number of years now. And that person was the National Prone and 3P champion, as well as having the highest mens score in the National Air Rifle Comp.
Nothing's wrong with it, rrpc, it's what we suggested months ago. Now we just need to pick one shoot per club that gets financial support from head office, and we'll have what was put forward and rejected at the AGM...What's wrong with that?
Nope. Everyone has a chance to achieve the selection criteria. But, to quote from the Selection Critera document :I don't follow your logic. They are open competitions, it's a level playing field and everyone has a chanceSelection is undertaken by the Selection Committee
...
Qualification does not guarantee selection.
I think you have to have both though; one feeds off the other. Too much in the bottom of the pyramid, and you get a lot of plinkers and no competition; too much in the top and you get stagnation and too few people and a good ol'boys atmosphere.That's my point. It's up to us to get the people into the sport, to provide the pyramid to push people to the top. Anything else is artificial and will fail. We brought people from the North into the equation, and they competed well, but there was absolutely no knock-on effect for shooting in the rest of the country. If anything, it became worse.
Thing is, everyone has to do that, not just one club or two.Yes, but that's because the emphasis has been external for too long. We haven't genuinely tried with any degree of consistency to bring up the standard at home.
True - but then, when we had the girl juniors shooting the ladies' 40-shot match, we were just excluded from competition, so we need to change that before we can use competitions properly. Set the class scores to the 40-shot match instead of the 60-shot, for example. There are other things, but you get the idea - a competition on it's own isn't the answer.Substitute coaching for training and I'll agree. But training and coaching are not substitutes for competition, and that's why I am saying that you need to have regular home competitions to hone the edge of the training and to provide regular benchmarks. PB's are good in themselves, but if you are not matching them in competition, something's wrong.
Because we don't have the competition in Ireland; the postals are just a way to bring that competition to us without having to leave the country physically.Yes, but why do we have to import postals?, just something else we can't do for ourselves?
Boycott? There was no boycott. Bisley was planned and announced months before the NTSA calendar was announced, and the UCD Open was originally on the calendar for Feb 12 and we were going as the last check before Bisley; and then it was bumped forward a week in the next version of the calendar and we couldn't go, and then it was cancelled.Read that paragraph again Sparks and see how wrong it sounds!!! We don't have a big enough base, so instead of helping to develop one, we boycott a home competition to go to a foreign one, and then moan about the lack of competition at home???
Yes, but with higher scores than here. Look on the wall in UCD at the last year's shoots. All the top three shooters rotate between four or five people, but the scores are all the same - mid to high 70s, an occasional (as in, two in the last year) low 580. We need higher levels of competition.And domestic matches being just excercises Ask some of your foreign counterparts how many domestic competitions they attend. Some of the English shooters I've spoken to, are constantly taking part in competitions; Either postals or away matches or whatever.
[quore]Of course you won't, but how are you going to develop shooting without bringing in novices and training them.[/quote]
You can't; you have to do both!
That's not what I said. I said that two big away trips per year is all a club can expect to do; not that individuals couldn't go away on much smaller trips. I'm talking about nearly 30 people on a four-day trip to Bisley, not a shooter and his coach going to Intershoot.I can't believe you're saying this! You said it yourself, the best you can hope for is to send your shooters away maybe twice or three times a year.
Are you comparing 583 in prone with 540 in air rifle?So that just contradicts your previous argument
And support from gun dealers and clubs and administrative bodies outside the colleges.So what you need is some crosstalk between the student bodies to get the ball rollling in other universities without clubs.0 -
Agreed, but the point is valid nonethelessSparks wrote:It's not quite that binary - you start sending someone to international club-level matches like Bisley long before they would be up for competition in a World Cup because otherwise, their first international would be a WC and it could destroy them, mentally.
[HAIRSPLITTING]But he wasn't the National Air Rifle champion and he wasn't sent because of winning the championships.[/HAIRSPLITTING]
I don't agree, competitions should be self financing.Nothing's wrong with it, rrpc, it's what we suggested months ago. Now we just need to pick one shoot per club that gets financial support from head office, and we'll have what was put forward and rejected at the AGM...
Don't denigrate the plinkers. Some of them can improve, some don't want to, some haven't the time, but the cream will rise to the top. Back when competitions had entires in the thirties, the competition at the top was intense.I think you have to have both though; one feeds off the other. Too much in the bottom of the pyramid, and you get a lot of plinkers and no competition; too much in the top and you get stagnation and too few people and a good ol'boys atmosphere.
So let's set an example and support each otherThing is, everyone has to do that, not just one club or two.
Every exception has a ruleTrue - but then, when we had the girl juniors shooting the ladies' 40-shot match, we were just excluded from competition, so we need to change that before we can use competitions properly. Set the class scores to the 40-shot match instead of the 60-shot, for example. There are other things, but you get the idea - a competition on it's own isn't the answer.
I was talking about postalsBecause we don't have the competition in Ireland; the postals are just a way to bring that competition to us without having to leave the country physically.
That's not what your post suggestedBoycott? There was no boycott. Bisley was planned and announced months before the NTSA calendar was announced, and the UCD Open was originally on the calendar for Feb 12 and we were going as the last check before Bisley; and then it was bumped forward a week in the next version of the calendar and we couldn't go, and then it was cancelled.
Hence more competitorsYes, but with higher scores than here. Look on the wall in UCD at the last year's shoots. All the top three shooters rotate between four or five people, but the scores are all the same - mid to high 70s, an occasional (as in, two in the last year) low 580. We need higher levels of competition.
But you did not seem to be saying that.You can't; you have to do both!
More power to them if they can, but I'd like to see them going with some prospect of a result, and not wasting everyones time and money. So lets see them putting in WC final winning scores in home competitions firstThat's not what I said. I said that two big away trips per year is all a club can expect to do; not that individuals couldn't go away on much smaller trips. I'm talking about nearly 30 people on a four-day trip to Bisley, not a shooter and his coach going to Intershoot.
Would they not be relatively the same?Are you comparing 583 in prone with 540 in air rifle?
But they have to get up on their hind legs first. If the demand does not come internally what chance of success will it have?And support from gun dealers and clubs and administrative bodies outside the colleges.0 -
Yes, just not so "deliver or else" in nature!rrpc wrote:Agreed, but the point is valid nonetheless
It certainly is not hairsplitting, it's the fundamental point - he wasn't sent because he'd won a competition, he was sent because of a decision made by the selection committee.[HAIRSPLITTING]But he wasn't the National Air Rifle champion and he wasn't sent because of winning the championships.[/HAIRSPLITTING]
That's the whole point of this - we're in a sport where a judge's decision has no bearing on the result that comes back from the target line (apart from catching cheating, of course). It's all down to what the shooter does, how good he or she is. But the selection criteria is nothing like that; it's about how well the shooter is thought of by others.
And I say you have to spend money to make money. Provide a better match, you get more entries; eventually. But first comes that initial investment. It's in the best interest of the sport, so why shouldn't head office invest some of our money in our sport? They're out of a post otherwise!I don't agree, competitions should be self financing.
I'm not denigrating them. I'm saying if all there is on the line is plinkers that the cream won't float too far from the bottom.Don't denigrate the plinkers. Some of them can improve, some don't want to, some haven't the time, but the cream will rise to the top.
See, we're being nostalgic about less than 40 entries. That's just wrong. Let's aim for a hundred, not 40!Back when competitions had entires in the thirties, the competition at the top was intense.
Hence DURC being encouraged to go to RRPC shoots, WTSC turning up to almost every shoot going and hosting national squad training and so on.So let's set an example and support each other
But there has to be an effort from both sides!
What I mean is, try a postal like the Celtic League - wider competition area, higher scores, a bigger pull towards the top. Not, "we don't do postals, ever" and then complain when scores fall off. Not everyone has free weekends; postals are ideal for them to compete in.I was talking about postals
It was what it said! WTSC is making up the bulk of the competitions in air rifle these days; if they can't get to a competition, odds are that competition gets insufficient people to cover costs and if DURC can't go as well, forget it. That's a Bad And Wrong(tm) state of affairs!That's not what your post suggested
Won't do it - we've added more competitors since, and those on top have been replaced twice over - there's simply not enough of a pull to get the winning score higher. You are seeing the cut-off for the finals climbing up healthily, but that's not pushing the top enough. The top's got to be pulled up as well as pushed!Hence more competitors
Sorry, my bad.But you did not seem to be saying that.
They won't get everyone's time and money without achieving certain performance levels, but it's not like they should be waiting till they shoot 590 in competition before looking to going to bisley! 560-570 would seem to be the point where you should be looking at club-level matches over on the continent or Bisley. And since we can get people to 540 in less than a year...More power to them if they can, but I'd like to see them going with some prospect of a result, and not wasting everyones time and money.
A winning score in a WC would be 597/600 or higher. Most probably higher, actually. That's way too high to wait for. Take someone at 560ish. Throw them and their coach at Bisley, let the coach watch them break under the strain (or not, both have happened) and then change how they coach them and then go away and train and then do it all over again.So lets see them putting in WC final winning scores in home competitions first
You can't just send people to UCD every other weekend until 590s magicly appear, nor can you throw in a high-level coach like Barry once a month for six hours and hope it'll magicly make everything all better. We need club-level coaches who have that dream of seeing their shooter on a podium in a World Championships and who's cracked enough to push every moment of their waking lives towards that goal; and we need shooters cracked enough to commit to that dream and put in as much or more time into it as well.
We're rather short on both of those!
Not really. Chalk and Cheese. I don't think this standing/prone comparison works too well. The skillsets are too different.Would they not be relatively the same?
It's bootstrapping though. They have to know that if they push, we'll push with them. And from what I've seen from the PTB, they'd be pushing on their own for quite some timeBut they have to get up on their hind legs first. If the demand does not come internally what chance of success will it have? 0 -
I'm not going to quote you, as I've actually lost the thread a couple of times reading your quotes and wondering what you were quoting and what it was I said that you quoted that I replied to that you quoted. And if that's my experience, pity anyone else trying to follow this.
Essentially your argument boils down to this:
Selection for internationals should be done only on the basis of results of certain qualifying competitions (not specified) but not restricted exclusively to registered shoots. No final decision should be made outside these criteria by any committee or person.
Needless to say, I don't agree: Registered or home shoots should only be considered, as any other shoot would by definition exclude those not being able to participate either for financial or logistical reasons. Scores in external shoots could be considered only as a means of seperating two equally qualified competitors where such an exclusion has to be made for reasons of cost or logistics. There are obvious reasons for this. A score in an external competition may have been achieved under highly favourable conditions, which could not have been replicated at home.
To put it succinctly, it would not be a level playing field for all potential competitors. To put it another way, a financially well-off club, could influence selection by subsidising their best shooters to attend external competitions. Other less well-off clubs could quite rightly scream blue murder at this 'chequebook' qualification. As it is, there is enough grumbling from people who maintain that the wind got up later in the day when they were shooting their details.
As for selection committees, the above scenarion quite succinctly shows why there is a need for them. But the main reason, is the fact that there is not much money available for external shoots and the criteria has always been to try and send people who are multi-disciplinary in order to get the most bang for your buck. I personally don't think that we should be sending anyone at all to World Cups until we have sufficient competitors of a high enough standard to constitute a squad, and before we send them to a World Cup, they should be sent to some of the lower ranking competitions to give them the requisite experience.
The minimum numbers for the squad should be at least two for each discipline, with another two reserves for each as well. Positions would be interchangeable depending on performance, but the squad should remain largely intact with few changes from year to year. This is one of the main reasons why a selection committee is important, because if you went solely by raw scores, the squad could be damaged by frequent changes.
To get to that stage however will require an awful lot of work to bring up the numbers to the required level. I laughed when you said we should be aiming for 100 active shooters, when we find it hard to get 20. If we don't set realistic goals we are setting ourselves up for failure. In the good ol' days(tm) when we had 30 or more entries to competitions, there was a field of over 50 shooters available. That's a more realistic goal, and should be achievable in the short to medium term, if we put our backs into it. Then we can look at doubling that figure. At present Rathdrum has just over 30 members of which less than half are target shooters (NTSA). Realistically, we can't expect to attract more members without some spending on infrastructure, which is what we are focussed on for the coming year. Then we'll see....
That's my tuppenny hapenny worth, bash away.....:p0 -
rrpc wrote:And if that's my experience, pity anyone else trying to follow this.
That's a pretty okay rough cut, but the devil's in the details. An example:Selection for internationals should be done only on the basis of results of certain qualifying competitions (not specified) but not restricted exclusively to registered shoots. No final decision should be made outside these criteria by any committee or person.
World Cup in Munich this year in May. (It's way too late to do this for this year's WC for real, but you've until December this year to do it for the 2007 Munich WC, so it's not a bad example). Start date is May 22. Decide (a year in advance) to send X number of shooters (let's say one in AR60, one in AR40, one in 3x40 and one in SP for example). Give the shooters two weeks for final preperation for the match (ie, resting up and so on rather than training hard to qualify); that takes you back to May 8. Give yourself a week for announcing the decision as to who's going. That takes you back to May 1. Now, over the preceeding 6-8 weeks make sure that there are at least three matches in each discipline on the calendar or run to acceptable standards somewhere outside the country. If you have to have non-competition shoots to ensure this, then run them, spaced at least a fortnight apart. That takes you back to around the start of March. Now, you list all this out up to a year ahead of time (that bit's easy, the calendars are published years in advance at this level). All you have to have ready by the start of March is a list of competitions over the next 6-8 weeks where a score shot will count towards the selection competition. You still have selection criteria; take the average over the last three shoots in that period for any shooter applying to go. If their average is below the MQS, they're not eligible to go. If you have more applying shooters than places, then the shooter with the highest average goes (or top two or three, depending on how many team places there are).
The advantages of this system are that:- Noone feels (as I and many others do now) that there's no point in training to go international because a small group of people who have nothing to do with your training or progress can decide to veto your entry without cause being given;
- The best shooters go to represent us internationally, chosen in fair and open competition;
- Budgeting for the year can have a far more sane approach to planning, as the NTSA treasurer has been asking for for years;
- Shooters can organise training plans around competitions months in advance and have a real chance at taking medals, as opposed to being asked if they want to go with only a month or less to spare;
- Shooters have far more flexibility in their training plans to cope with work, college and other such factors;
- If no shooters make the grade, noone is tempted to say "well, we have to enter somebody" which has had bad results in the past.
The downside is that you'd have to spend time drafting out all of this months in advance; but that amount of time shouldn't be more than a few hours per major competition, and face it - if you don't have that amount of time to devote to organising a World Cup entry, then you shouldn't be volunteering for the NGB anyways. Besides, we're not talking weeks of work here - you're looking at two or three hours with a few calendars and a refill pad to roughly organise an entire year's shooting. That is what the selection committee ought to be doing - setting out the criteria for selection and the competitions to try to meet them at; not picking out shooters who may not be training at all and giving them a week or two's notice that they're going abroad (which has happened quite regularly over the past decade).
And for Irish shooters who have to live abroad, permanently or temporarily? I can give you an example right now from last year, and several others from preceding years for Irish juniors whose college courses were outside the country, but who could train with the local squads abroad and compete in competitions run to a higher standard than here and with the rules applied far more strictly. If anything, they were at a disadvantage! Yet, they're expected to pay for flights home to go shoot a weekend match several times a year or not be qualified to represent their country, even if they're the best in it?Needless to say, I don't agree: Registered or home shoots should only be considered, as any other shoot would by definition exclude those not being able to participate either for financial or logistical reasons.
That's a very good argument - for a lower limit on acceptable match standards. It's no argument at all for upper limits. For example, the LRC in Bisley has a very large and expensive air rifle range with suis ascor targets; but they have a horrible sight picture and the floor bounces and frankly you'd put in higher scores in Wilkinstown because it's a home match and not so intimidating.To put it succinctly, it would not be a level playing field for all potential competitors. To put it another way, a financially well-off club, could influence selection by subsidising their best shooters to attend external competitions. Other less well-off clubs could quite rightly scream blue murder at this 'chequebook' qualification. As it is, there is enough grumbling from people who maintain that the wind got up later in the day when they were shooting their details.
Obviously, I strongly disagree that a need for their current role exists.As for selection committees, the above scenarion quite succinctly shows why there is a need for them.
I agree.I personally don't think that we should be sending anyone at all to World Cups until we have sufficient competitors of a high enough standard to constitute a squad, and before we send them to a World Cup, they should be sent to some of the lower ranking competitions to give them the requisite experience.
I think there's a bit of confusion here between Squads and Teams. The Squad will be large, ideally, a pool of shooters committed to training and from whom we draw the Team for each competition. The Team exists only for that competition; the Squad is a long-term training group.The minimum numbers for the squad should be at least two for each discipline, with another two reserves for each as well. Positions would be interchangeable depending on performance, but the squad should remain largely intact with few changes from year to year. This is one of the main reasons why a selection committee is important, because if you went solely by raw scores, the squad could be damaged by frequent changes.
Yeah, and people laughed when we said we could win medals in air rifle too.To get to that stage however will require an awful lot of work to bring up the numbers to the required level. I laughed when you said we should be aiming for 100 active shooters, when we find it hard to get 20.
Want to see the medals we've taken home from Bisley since?
And if you set goals too low, you don't need to do any work.If we don't set realistic goals we are setting ourselves up for failure.
I think you're setting your aim too low. Give those sights a good few clicks upIn the good ol' days(tm) when we had 30 or more entries to competitions, there was a field of over 50 shooters available. That's a more realistic goal, and should be achievable in the short to medium term, if we put our backs into it. Then we can look at doubling that figure. At present Rathdrum has just over 30 members of which less than half are target shooters (NTSA). Realistically, we can't expect to attract more members without some spending on infrastructure, which is what we are focussed on for the coming year. Then we'll see....
That's my tuppenny hapenny worth, bash away.....:p 0 -
I will continue to not quote you in the interests of clarity
I won't argue with the detail of your proposition, as it largely agrees with what I was suggesting with the exception of the overseas shooters, a subject that I discussed with you previously, and with which I fundamentally disagree. For those not cogniscent with that argument, my position is that it is more cost effective to ship a smaller number than a larger number, and in the interest of fairness, selection should be done on the basis of shoots here. Many overseas athletes who represent Ireland and live abroad frequently travel home for national meets, on the other hand, National meets are never held abroad. I know that's a simplification of the situation, as results in overseas meets are taken into account for national qualification, but in those circumstances it's a much more level playing field, as the facilities are by and large relatively similar, and times achieved at (for example) track meets are influenced by a number of other factors besides available facilities.
Your point regarding the NSRA Air Rifle Range is well made, but you could have also said that in Bisley, the shooter is firing on an electronic target and does not have to change cards as is the case in Wilkinstown. Never having shot at either venue, I will bow to your superior knowledge of those conditions, however on a previous visit to Bisley, the Wilkinstown boys and girls achieved some very good results. There are many other Air Rifle facilities in the UK that would not be subject to the problems experienced in Bisley. In addition, the Malcolm Cooper Range downstairs is an eminently superior range to anything we have on this island, and anyone shooting on it regularly would expect to see better scores than they would achieve at home.
As for selection committees, to accept your argument would be to accept a situation that would make us unique in sport. Pretty much every sport in this country comes under the auspices of a selection committee as a subset of it's NGB. There have been many cases of athletes being selected for national duty, not having reached the raw selection criteria, usually on the basis of expected levels of improvement, or because a layoff through injury prevented attendance at qualification trials and many other reasons which can only be dealt with objectively by a commitee. Your dislike of selection committees stems from your disagreement with decisions on selection made by our committees in the past. To turn your own argument around, a selection committee could in the future select an overseas competitor on the basis of consistent scores achieved abroad where no scores were achieved at home.
I am not confusing squads with teams, the team is drawn from the top ranks of the squad, and the squad is drawn from the top levels of the shooting pool. At present, we do not have the numbers to constitute a team let alone a squad. That's why I am saying that we should be working at increasing the numbers in the pool first.
I also refuse to click my sights up any further. I am pointing at the target, and don't want to overshoot.
Having spent 14 years in this sport, I know how difficult it is to bring just one person into the ranks and keep them there and motivated. Realistically the only place we can draw new shooters in any kind of quantities from at the moment is the colleges (and hopefully the schools in the future). This is where we should be focussing our efforts. Many shooters go through the ranks in colleges only to fall off at the end of their tenure there. We should be working at encouraging them to continue after their college terms have ended.
At present Rathdrum can count four ex alumni in their membership, and this is far too small a number when you consider the membership of DURC in any one year. You are best placed to explain how this is so, but my belief is that as they are subsidised through their college years, many are not prepared either financially or through time or travelling constraints to continue their sport after graduation. In order to combat some of this, we have introduced a fee structure that attempts to encourage such graduates to join, however the other costs (rifles and clothing) are still prohibitive. Hence my proposition that we must spend money on infrastructure to give these shooters a 'soft' landing.
I have also started an initiative to bring the current members of DURC who are interested in .22 target shooting to Rathdrum on a regular basis to give them much needed range time and coaching in order to improve their scores and to give them a feel as to how thay can continue their sport after graduation. Sometimes it can be as simple as feeling welcome at an external club that can tip the balance. I may be wrong on this, but I'm willing to give it a try and it will cost nothing more than a little time and effort. So bah sucks to your contention that I'm trying to avoid work
Tell me honestly, would it not be a landmark achievement, if we could get a regular turnout of thirty or more shooters at competition regularly by the end of the year?0 -
Advertisement
-
rrpc wrote:I will continue to not quote you in the interests of clarity Well, I'll continue to quote a line or two to give context to replies in the interests of clarity
Here, we have no disagreement - large club shoots do great things for esprit de corps in the club and for the recreational shooters can be a highlight of the year, but for serious training they're too infrequent and too costly....with the exception of the overseas shooters, a subject ... with which I fundamentally disagree ... my position is that it is more cost effective to ship a smaller number than a larger number
And I maintain that that sentence contradicts itself. The interests of fairness demand that shoots not be limited to those on the calendar. Several of our national champions have for various reasons (usually to do with work or college) had to live abroad for various lengths of time; allowing these to train and shoot abroad while living there is only fair.and in the interest of fairness, selection should be done on the basis of shoots here
National meets which are rather a larger deal than ours, to be frank. I've known only two shooters who've done this, and they timed their returns home to coincide with family visits, even for the Nationals. And even then had far more trouble with shipping firearms than was reasonable. It's also ironic that you can train and be selected on the basis of a score in a range like UCD or DRC and then set a new Irish record in Munich, say, yet that score would not qualify you to go to another international match, even if it won us a quota place in the Olympics. It's discontinous.Many overseas athletes who represent Ireland and live abroad frequently travel home for national meets
An argument which applies equally well to target shooting. A 10m airgun firing point is relatively the same world-wide. Some have better sight pictures than others (the LRC's is particularly bad), but mostly it's around the same. Same with 25yd and all other indoor disciplines. As to 50m/300m/other outdoor training, we already have an odd situation at home, with shoots like Downshire not being considered for selection despite Comber and EARC being considered. Again, the basic firing points are the same world-wide; 50m from you to the target. Some of our domestic ranges, it is true, are substandard as defined by ISSF, but that is not a valid or fair reason to exclude ranges which are not! It is a valid reason to exclude substandard ranges, but a better solution would be to assist them in finding funding to bring their ranges up to standard and to not count scores on those ranges until they are up to spec. We already demand of the shooters that their equipment be ISSF-standard; why would we demand anything less of the ranges they shoot on?in those circumstances it's a much more level playing field, as the facilities are by and large relatively similar, and times achieved at (for example) track meets are influenced by a number of other factors besides available facilities.Your point regarding the NSRA Air Rifle Range is well made, but you could have also said that in Bisley, the shooter is firing on an electronic target and does not have to change cards as is the case in Wilkinstown. When the ease of changing your card is the primary factor in your final score, I think that you have to reexamine your technique
Seriously, electronic targets can shave a few moments from your time; but equally can drag down your score by distracting you and getting you to "play video games" as one coach put it. Shortens your follow-through, encourages you to watch the score and not the technique, keeps the last shot right in your face during prep for the next one, and so on. It's very much a case of swings and roundabouts.
And in Ireland as well. But, shooting on the air rifle range on the Cooper range, the thing that struck me was how similar it was to WTSC. Again, the overall range may be better or worse, but the firing point is a constant defined in the ISSF rules.There are many other Air Rifle facilities in the UK that would not be subject to the problems experienced in Bisley.
Poppycock. Once you get above a certain fundamental level of acceptable conditions (ie, not exposed to hurricane force winds or blinding light all day), a firing point is an approximate constant. The Cooper range, the Sinclair range, the Midlands range, Comber, EARC, Downshire, the planned RRPC range; all the same from the bullet's point of view. You'll see far more improvement from proper training than you will from moving from the Midlands to Bisley camp!In addition, the Malcolm Cooper Range downstairs is an eminently superior range to anything we have on this island, and anyone shooting on it regularly would expect to see better scores than they would achieve at home.
No, it would make us similar to most other nations in target shooting. In fact, we'd have a fairer system than the US, for example. They just use the one national shoot to qualify, the above system is far more flexible.As for selection committees, to accept your argument would be to accept a situation that would make us unique in sport.
BTW, we already are unique in Irish sport. No other sport (and I'm counting the tetra/pentathlon amongst us) uses firearms in Ireland, for a start...
Not so much, as by the process by which those decisions were arrived at and the poor notice that the shooters got and the subsequent suboptimal or even non-existant training plans that they could follow for their match.Your dislike of selection committees stems from your disagreement with decisions on selection made by our committees in the past.
They might; but they have flat-out refused to do so in the past, even when aspiring shooters have travelled at their own expense to try to put in qualifying scores in time for an international match because no domestic shoot was available.To turn your own argument around, a selection committee could in the future select an overseas competitor on the basis of consistent scores achieved abroad where no scores were achieved at home.
I agree we should be increasing the numbers; I don't agree that people will want to work under a system that means that the committee can veto your progression in the sport. Look at the examples of our past olympic and international shooters. Many of them have just walked away in disgust at the NTSA's procedures and now shoot for Northern Ireland alone or just don't compete any more.At present, we do not have the numbers to constitute a team let alone a squad. That's why I am saying that we should be working at increasing the numbers in the pool first.
And the pony club.Realistically the only place we can draw new shooters in any kind of quantities from at the moment is the colleges (and hopefully the schools in the future).
And the scouts are a rather untapped resource.
Been saying that for years. I just don't think that it means we can ignore the other problems.We should be working at encouraging them to continue after their college terms have ended.
Certainly not to the level of throwing a few grand at it immediately on graduating!my belief is that as they are subsidised through their college years, many are not prepared either financially or through time or travelling constraints to continue their sport after graduation
I was talking last night during squad training to O_P about this. It does sound like an excellent idea. Hopefully it will get us back up to where we were a few years ago.I have also started an initiative to bring the current members of DURC who are interested in .22 target shooting to Rathdrum on a regular basis
Honestly, "landmark" is going a step too far. It would be a good thing to see and something to be happy about; but landmark would be three figures in the entry totals.Tell me honestly, would it not be a landmark achievement, if we could get a regular turnout of thirty or more shooters at competition regularly by the end of the year?0 -
Never of course in the interests of brevitySparks wrote: Well, I'll continue to quote a line or two to give context to replies in the interests of clarity
I think I've woken up in the wrong sketch... What are you talking about????Here, we have no disagreement - large club shoots do great things for esprit de corps in the club and for the recreational shooters can be a highlight of the year, but for serious training they're too infrequent and too costly.
We're talking about fairness in the area of squad selection. If you are shooting in Ireland from a 40 foot container in the middle of a field, you might be forgiven for feeling a bit miffed as you squeeze the rain from your sodden shooting mat, that you are going to be pipped again by someone whose idea of changing a target is to increase the zoom on their sius ascor monitor.And I maintain that that sentence contradicts itself. The interests of fairness demand that shoots not be limited to those on the calendar. Several of our national champions have for various reasons (usually to do with work or college) had to live abroad for various lengths of time; allowing these to train and shoot abroad while living there is only fair.
Anyway, this is a bit academic, as AFAIK, one of the people selected to go to the European Championships was an external competitor living abroad. Which backs up my contention that selection committees do work in the manner in which they're intended.
No it does not, as you well know. People have been known to eschew some ranges in this country because they are so bad. No blame attaching to the clubs that run them btw, it's just the financial situation we all find ourselves in. You yourself, complained in another post about the LRC in Bisley, and that's a very cushy range nonetheless. But 10m shooting is not like 50m shooting, It doesn't require a lot of space and therefore not such a great expense. I could set one up inside my house FFS. There are far more factors in play in creating a 50m range.An argument which applies equally well to target shooting.(snippage)
How amusing.. Did you miss my point?? When the ease of changing your card is the primary factor in your final score, I think that you have to reexamine your technique
They improve things considerably for distances in excess of 10m: for a start, you have a single point of aim throughout the competition, and there isn't the tiresome changing cards ritual. But again we're getting bogged down in details. Can you not agree with me without qualification?Seriously, electronic targets can shave a few moments from your time; but equally can drag down your score by distracting you and getting you to "play video games"...(snippage)Poppycock.... Really???? Would you put money on that?, because I certainly would. Right here and now, I'd bet any money you like, that you could not duplicate your scores at 50m in Bisley, on the DRC range or Midland for that matter, given the same amount of time on each. Anyway, the bet is moot as it's already proven. You shot in Bisley as did I, and I know for a fact that my 50m scores on the Malcolm Cooper Range were significantly better in two comptitions than in any of the competitions I shot on Century Range. and that goes for the old Rimfire Range shot on Gehmann boxes as well.
btw i said 'unique in sport' not unique in the sport.
Well they have had almost three months notice for the Europaean 10m, and seven months for the World Championships. How much notice do they need?Not so much, as by the process by which those decisions were arrived at and the poor notice that the shooters got
And as I said above, one such competitor was selected for the EuropeansThey might; but they have flat-out refused to do so in the past, even when aspiring shooters have travelled at their own expense to try to put in qualifying scores in time for an international match because no domestic shoot was available.
I agree that a lot of mistakes were made in the past, though some of the decisions made were forced on the NTSA, due to a lack of interest from the shooters themselves. Again AFAIK, five shooters were selected for the Europeans, and four elected not to go!. One person turned up for the last coaching session in Rathdrum. This sort of apathy has it's own reward.I agree we should be increasing the numbers; I don't agree that people will want to work under a system that means that the committee can veto your progression in the sport. Look at the examples of our past olympic and international shooters. Many of them have just walked away in disgust at the NTSA's procedures and now shoot for Northern Ireland alone or just don't compete any more.
Yeah, we've worked with themAnd the pony club.
Them too.And the scouts are a rather untapped resource.
Saying that isn't enough. Something needs to be done, although if you're constantly looking for other problems, I can see how you'd lose focusBeen saying that for years. I just don't think that it means we can ignore the other problems.
Now I've said that too, and I've come up with a few solutions. One is to equip the other clubs with enough clothing and rifles to keep them going until they can afford their own. We'll be starting on that in Rathdrum, as soon as we get a decision on our SCG app.Certainly not to the level of throwing a few grand at it immediately on graduating!
That's the general idea.I was talking last night during squad training to O_P about this. It does sound like an excellent idea. Hopefully it will get us back up to where we were a few years ago.
Is this some sort of defense mechanism to excuse failure?, because each time I mention a realistic goal, you immediately factor it to an unacheivable level. For this year, I'll call thirty odd a landmark. Next year, I'll be calling fifty the landmark. Meanwhile you work away, and give me a call when you've got your 100 odd shooters, and I'll take my hat off and bow to you.Honestly, "landmark" is going a step too far. It would be a good thing to see and something to be happy about; but landmark would be three figures in the entry totals.0 -
I find brevity hides a multitude of sins that later bite you squarely in the ass...rrpc wrote:Never of course in the interests of brevity
You were referring to large club trips when you said "...it is more cost effective to ship a smaller number than a larger number", weren't you?I think I've woken up in the wrong sketch... What are you talking about????
See, this is why I say context matters!
So put up a canopy. As far as the bullet's concerned, for the first 50 metres, it's all the same.We're talking about fairness in the area of squad selection. If you are shooting in Ireland from a 40 foot container in the middle of a field, you might be forgiven for feeling a bit miffed as you squeeze the rain from your sodden shooting mat, that you are going to be pipped again by someone whose idea of changing a target is to increase the zoom on their sius ascor monitor.
Wrong. He's back home, and was selected on the basis of scores shot over a year ago in Ireland. Which exposes another fault in the current system - at least one of those chosen to go to the europeans hadn't picked up his rifle once in almost a year.Anyway, this is a bit academic, as AFAIK, one of the people selected to go to the European Championships was an external competitor living abroad.
One in particular and that wasn't for creature comforts, but because the nearest windbreak was Wales. From the bullet's point of view, that range wasn't the same as the others.No it does not, as you well know. People have been known to eschew some ranges in this country because they are so bad.
It's not about cushiness. It's about shooting on the range. The LRC's floor bounces, the sight picture is testing and it's intimidating to the shooter. EARC on the other hand, is none of those things. Yet a score shot in the LRC doesn't count and one in EARC does...You yourself, complained in another post about the LRC in Bisley, and that's a very cushy range nonetheless.
You could do so with a 50m range too, were the house big enough...But 10m shooting is not like 50m shooting, It doesn't require a lot of space and therefore not such a great expense. I could set one up inside my house FFS.
Nope. You seem to have missed mine though.How amusing.. Did you miss my point??
Any ISSF match is shot with a single point of aim. You're confusing our practise of shooting ISSF matches on NSRA cards (in clear violation of ISSF rules) with shooting an ISSF match on ISSF cards (like with the gehmann target changers).They improve things considerably for distances in excess of 10m: for a start, you have a single point of aim throughout the competition, and there isn't the tiresome changing cards ritual.
No, but I could disagree with you without qualification if that would helpBut again we're getting bogged down in details. Can you not agree with me without qualification?
No bet for DRC, given their range layout, as you know. Midlands though, if using the target changers, I wouldn't be in the least surprised. Remember, the UK 50m record score was not set in the Cooper range (which reportedly has rather squirrelly wind, which is why the GB squad don't seem to want to train there much). Really???? Would you put money on that?, because I certainly would. Right here and now, I'd bet any money you like, that you could not duplicate your scores at 50m in Bisley, on the DRC range or Midland for that matter, given the same amount of time on each.
Proves nothing given that you only shot two matches. You need to shoot a lot more than that to prove it wasn't because of mental factors or good wind/light or another environmental factor unrelated to the kind of target changers you have. Remember, the equipment doesn't make the score - you cannot just buy a medal! There were more than enough people in the LRC this weekend proving that with the latest FWB and Anschutz rifles and new jackets and trousers and all the new-fangled kit money could buy; and they still didn't break 540. Meanwhile, our kids, with old jackets and FWB 601 rifles, put in 540s and higher. Yes, there are advantages to new kit; but equally, there are disadvantages. You just can't buy a medal in this sport!Anyway, the bet is moot as it's already proven. You shot in Bisley as did I, and I know for a fact that my 50m scores on the Malcolm Cooper Range were significantly better in two comptitions than in any of the competitions I shot on Century Range. and that goes for the old Rimfire Range shot on Gehmann boxes as well.
The need far more than seven months for the World Championships, an event that as you well know, has a higher competitive standard than the Olympics. And as to the three months notice for the Europeans, I know they didn't get that much, and when it did arrive, it did so in the middle of a training plan for Bisley that ended too close to the Europeans to let them build back up again in time. That kind of arrogance on the behalf of the committee is another problem with our system - "oh, we said you could go so you should obviously drop everything and go". Hmph.Well they have had almost three months notice for the Europaean 10m, and seven months for the World Championships. How much notice do they need?
And as I pointed out, you were wrong.And as I said above, one such competitor was selected for the Europeans
Four chose not to go because they knew they couldn't give a good performance with that much notice to change their training plans. That's a good choice on their part, not a display of apathy. If anyone's apathetic, it's the selection committee for not moving on the Europeans until the point where a proper training plan would be in it's closing stages.I agree that a lot of mistakes were made in the past, though some of the decisions made were forced on the NTSA, due to a lack of interest from the shooters themselves. Again AFAIK, five shooters were selected for the Europeans, and four elected not to go!
Again, not apathy, but a feeling that those coaching sessions just don't work because Barry doesn't have enough time with them to find out what's going wrong or to track their progress, or watch them shooting in a stressful competition. A feeling I happen to think is rather accurate. Matt and Geoff learnt more about how I shoot in the five or six hours of shooting we did this weekend in Bisley under stress than in a month of shooting at home. If Barry never sees this, how can he do any good for us? We know he's able to coach - his record in the UK juniors shows that - but he doesn't have here what he had to work with there in terms of time with the shooters.One person turned up for the last coaching session in Rathdrum. This sort of apathy has it's own reward.
And?Yeah, we've worked with them.
Them too.
Looking for them? No, more like being kicked in the gut by them, repeatedly...Saying that isn't enough. Something needs to be done, although if you're constantly looking for other problems, I can see how you'd lose focus
Nope, it's a defence mechanism to avoid complacency.Is this some sort of defense mechanism to excuse failure?, because each time I mention a realistic goal, you immediately factor it to an unacheivable level.
If your goal is higher than you think you can easily reach, you won't sit on your arse doing nothing. You know this rrpc. Besides, last year's airgun open in WTSC had 56 entries, 100 is a pretty straightforward push from there...0 -
-
-
-
Brevity provides clarity. However if it's waffle you want...Sparks wrote:I find brevity hides a multitude of sins that later bite you squarely in the ass...
No I wasn't. This was a discussion about shooters based abroad, and the feasability of bringing them home for qualification shoots. If you were to accept scores shot elsewhere than you would have pressure to allow all potential qualifiers the same facility.You were referring to large club trips when you said "...it is more cost effective to ship a smaller number than a larger number", weren't you?
See, this is why I say context matters!
But not for the shooter.So put up a canopy. As far as the bullet's concerned, for the first 50 metres, it's all the same.
Well there you go then. Foreign based shooters can get selected based on scores shot here. The second is a communication problem, the onus should be on the shooter to indicate their willingness or otherwise to participate in the sport.Wrong. He's back home, and was selected on the basis of scores shot over a year ago in Ireland. Which exposes another fault in the current system - at least one of those chosen to go to the europeans hadn't picked up his rifle once in almost a year.
I don't know why you keep balthering on about the bullet's point of view. It is completely irrelevant to the discussion on ranges, or does the shooter not have any input?One in particular and that wasn't for creature comforts, but because the nearest windbreak was Wales. From the bullet's point of view, that range wasn't the same as the others.
Where's the bullet now?It's not about cushiness. It's about shooting on the range. The LRC's floor bounces, the sight picture is testing and it's intimidating to the shooter. EARC on the other hand, is none of those things. Yet a score shot in the LRC doesn't count and one in EARC does...
My point was about the ease of use of electronic targets vis a vis the three card system or even Gehmann boxes. I believe I referred to the fact that the changing cards ritual can be detrimental to scores, you then said that if it was the primarycause of bad scores I had a problem. I dismissed that statement as being needlessly simplistic and insulting. If you need me to point out exactly why it may be detrimental, you had only to ask. However, knowing your experience in shooting, I felt that such an explanation would be unnecessary and patronising. Obviously I was wrong.Nope. You seem to have missed mine though.
We don't shoot ISSF matches on the three card system. AFAIK the only match we shoot as an ISSF match is the Nationals, and they are shot on Gehmann boxes. All Rathdrum shoots are shot under NSRA rules.Any ISSF match is shot with a single point of aim. You're confusing our practise of shooting ISSF matches on NSRA cards (in clear violation of ISSF rules) with shooting an ISSF match on ISSF cards (like with the gehmann target changers).
They were shot in the same week and on the same days that i shot on Century Range.Proves nothing given that you only shot two matches. You need to shoot a lot more than that to prove it wasn't because of mental factors or good wind/light or another environmental factor unrelated to the kind of target changers you have.
That's not what Malcolm Cooper (RIP) said, he used to say that his first Olympic Medal cost him £50,000Remember, the equipment doesn't make the score - you cannot just buy a medal! There were more than enough people in the LRC this weekend proving that with the latest FWB and Anschutz rifles and new jackets and trousers and all the new-fangled kit money could buy; and they still didn't break 540. Meanwhile, our kids, with old jackets and FWB 601 rifles, put in 540s and higher. Yes, there are advantages to new kit; but equally, there are disadvantages. You just can't buy a medal in this sport!
As far as notice goes, I've dealt with that in another post, but the draft calendar was puiblished in early November and all the external competitions were listed on it at that time.
Or they could have switched from the Bisley trip, I'm sure there were some that would have gladly taken their places. Anyway, I still find it odd that people chosen on merit to represent their country, gain much needed experience at a european championships when their training was aimed at a peak merely two weeks previously would refuse to go. This btw is a personal opinion, and I've often said to you that if we are going to send people to championships, we should send a bunch rather than one or two, and when it actiually happens, the people concerned turn it down???Four chose not to go because they knew they couldn't give a good performance with that much notice to change their training plans. That's a good choice on their part, not a display of apathy. If anyone's apathetic, it's the selection committee for not moving on the Europeans until the point where a proper training plan would be in it's closing stages.
Well he had plenty of time with one person present :eek:Again, not apathy, but a feeling that those coaching sessions just don't work because Barry doesn't have enough time with them to find out what's going wrong or to track their progress, or watch them shooting in a stressful competition.
That may be true, but that's an 'as well as rather than an "instead of".A feeling I happen to think is rather accurate. Matt and Geoff learnt more about how I shoot in the five or six hours of shooting we did this weekend in Bisley under stress than in a month of shooting at home.
You might well ask the same question of Matt and Geoff. "Don't bother helping us on training nights lads, just turn up for the competitions"If Barry never sees this, how can he do any good for us? We know he's able to coach - his record in the UK juniors shows that - but he doesn't have here what he had to work with there in terms of time with the shooters.
And the Pony Club decided they were better at coaching than we were, and the scouts couldn't get licences.And?
Problems are only opportunities in another guise.Looking for them? No, more like being kicked in the gut by them, repeatedly...
Did something I say indicate complacency?Nope, it's a defence mechanism to avoid complacency.
I know that if people are set unreachable goals, they just give up.If your goal is higher than you think you can easily reach, you won't sit on your arse doing nothing. You know this rrpc.
Well we can compare notes at the end of the year, and I'll start polishing my knees.Besides, last year's airgun open in WTSC had 56 entries, 100 is a pretty straightforward push from there...0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
Is someone talking about banning all potential qualifiers this facility?rrpc wrote:No I wasn't. This was a discussion about shooters based abroad, and the feasability of bringing them home for qualification shoots. If you were to accept scores shot elsewhere than you would have pressure to allow all potential qualifiers the same facility.
The shooter can adapt.But not for the shooter.
You're dead wrong. Why don't you see that? The selection decision was not taken on recent data but from scores shot nearly a year prior to the match. The fact that the shooter was back home and training was conincidental.Well there you go then. Foreign based shooters can get selected based on scores shot here.
No, the second problem has nothing to do with communication. According to the selection process, that selection was totally valid and above board; the problem therefore is with the selection process.The second is a communication problem, the onus should be on the shooter to indicate their willingness or otherwise to participate in the sport.
Ask David Parish. He'll point out that the LRC's floor is a valid concern as it puts the LRC in violation of ISSF rules. Thus the bullet (pellet in this case) is being bounced around by the firing point.Where's the bullet now?
Yet, it's not. The simple fact is this; not every ISSF match is shot on suis ascor. Milan and most of the asian venues still use target changers, even for 50m. (Though Milan is in the process of changing over). So long as you have a firing point that conforms to the ISSF rulebook then, you have an equal playing field with everyone else. If you need to shoot on suis ascor to hit your PB, the problem is you and not the firing point. I'm sorry if you feel insulted by this, but this isn't a sport that provides many excuses. If you shoot a 9 on an ISSF firing point, it was down to you and not equipment.My point was about the ease of use of electronic targets vis a vis the three card system or even Gehmann boxes. I believe I referred to the fact that the changing cards ritual can be detrimental to scores, you then said that if it was the primarycause of bad scores I had a problem. I dismissed that statement as being needlessly simplistic and insulting.
Only intermittently. Last year saw Gehmann boxes; the preceding year saw the 3-card system, and the year before that.We don't shoot ISSF matches on the three card system. AFAIK the only match we shoot as an ISSF match is the Nationals, and they are shot on Gehmann boxes.
Except the Indoor Nationals and the Spring Special, which are listed as being NTSA rules.All Rathdrum shoots are shot under NSRA rules.
It's still only two data points. You know better than that, rrpc.They were shot in the same week and on the same days that i shot on Century Range.
Which referred to costs of equipment, ammunition, time spent training, travel expenses and so on. You cannot (and Malcolm would have, and Barry or Jock will tell you the same) simply hand over a cheque and win a medal as a result.That's not what Malcolm Cooper (RIP) said, he used to say that his first Olympic Medal cost him £50,000
They certainly were not and the calendar was not publicly distributed. The result of that has been serious confusion regarding the UCD Open this year.As far as notice goes, I've dealt with that in another post, but the draft calendar was puiblished in early November and all the external competitions were listed on it at that time.
Rather than turn in a bottom-of-the-pile performance? Yes. And they'd do it again. You don't just trapse off to these competitions RRPC, you work towards them with a specific plan in mind. By the time the offer came in, several hundred euro had already been invested in going (travel costs, entry fees and so on) in Bisley, not to mention hundreds of training hours. If the NTSA feels that a casual phone call should get the shooters to drop their preperations at that advanced stage, they need to get a good solid reality check.when it actiually happens, the people concerned turn it down???
No, he didn't. He got at most 12 hours. On one day. That's a pittance, and if it's all you get per month, you're not training. For Bisley alone, each serious shooter that went was putting in a minimum of 10 hours a week on the WTSC range for the final few months, on top of the daily half-hour or more of dry-firing we were doing. And that was still not enough for a proper international level performance.Well he had plenty of time with one person present :eek:
I seriously disagree. Watching a shooter under stress shows all the latent flaws in how he or she shoots, and particularly shows how they handle competition stress - and you know that that's more than 80% of the match at these levels rrpc!That may be true, but that's an 'as well as rather than an "instead of".
I have. They concur.You might well ask the same question of Matt and Geoff.
Bugger. Well, I'd talk to the Pony Club again for a few minutes if you've not talked to them recently. The record of the PCs training in Wilkinstown is being noticed in the IPC.And the Pony Club decided they were better at coaching than we were, and the scouts couldn't get licences.
Perhaps, but not everyone likes the solutions...Problems are only opportunities in another guise.0
Advertisement