Irish Sports Council Carding Grants 2006

Sparks

rrpc wrote:

Not reply at all???

You know me better than that I always think stuff can be talked out, usually until I learn otherwise to my cost

I won't rise to your bait, but if I was asked on merit to represent my country, I would be proud and delighted to accept.

It wasn't intended as bait, rrpc. I want to point out that those putting in huge amounts of effort over the past few years have expressed serious problems with the system, not just me; but that those who are not investing that much into training for the international level won't ever run into these problems.

Maybe so, I can't see into the minds of those in the ISC, no more than you I would think.

Nope. I'm just going by what they've done with regard to funding and "focus sports" and the athens and sydney reviews.

And I've made a number of arguments that I think are valid for not supporting that contention.

None of which I felt stood up to scrutiny, and hence the table-tennis postings.

Hopefully? I would think long and hard about it, and see if my plans could incorporate it. That's what I would do.

You're surely not suggesting that that wasn't done in this case!

phantom_lord

rrpc wrote:

And the Pony Club decided they were better at coaching than we were

Just wondering, but when was that?

rrpc

phantom_lord wrote:

Just wondering, but when was that?

I don't want to get into specifics P_L, but it was a couple of years ago. The training methods they used were to say the least slapdash, and when we suggested changes that had proven results, we were politely told to butt out. That's a simnplification, but it's close enough.

rrpc

OK, I'm dropping the quotes again, as it has got needlessly complicated. I've also noticed that sometimes when a post is dissected, certain sections are left out, for whatever reason.

Some of your statements are contradictory; You said that people who have invested time and effort into international training have had problems with the selection system in the past. At the same time you also say that the system has to be flexible enough to take into account work and training schedules. Further on you say that people who have trained for Bisley cannot switch from that to the European Championships ten days later when given a couple of months notice. Entry fees to Bisley are refundable, as I well know. Travel arrangements can be changed. You do not accept nor have you replied to my contention that athletes in other sports adopt a training schedule and fit competitions into it. You call for flexibility from the system, but do not expect it from the shooters

Golf Professionals are constantly entering and withdrawing from competition depending on circumstances, but they take part regularly in competition. There are competitions in shooting regularly spaced throughout the year. Everyone knows roughly when they will be held, and therefore training schedules should not be so inflexible as to exclude any of them at all. You have said in the past, that International competition is important purely for the purposes of exposing shooters to the rigours of such competitions even if they have no chance of making the finals. Now you are saying that seven or eight months, is not sufficient time to prepare for the Worlds, even as you admit that these shooters are following a set training schedule at the moment.

In that case, what are they training for?, The NTSA nationals are in early July, The GB juniors are in early August, Bisley week is in mid August. Taking the GB juniors as a case in point; The juniors shoot in this competition, and then also take part in the NSRA competitions in Bisley the following week!. You are well aware of this, as you have lodged with the Danish juniors who come over to compete with their British counterparts for those very competitions. If other competitors in other jurisdictions are able to take such back to back competition in their stride, what makes ours so precious that they cannot emulate their counterparts?

You are also quoting from me selectively. I suggested that coaching at competitons was an 'As well as' rather than 'instead of'. You clipped that bit, but left out the explanatory part. Anyone reading your reply

Sparks wrote:

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!

would not have understood my point and taken yours as eminently reasonable. What I was saying is this: Coaching at competitions is something that should be done as well as coaching at training sessions. By disagreeing with me, you are saying that coaching at training sessions should be dropped entirely. My illustration of this further on in the post was snipped by you, which leads me to believe that you were purposely trying to misquote me. In fact, you did the same thing with my illustration to bolster your erroneous point.

As rgards the late Malcolm Cooper, he quite openly and in my hearing stated that he spent the money on sending engineers to Seoul to take drawings of the Range there, and to recreate the exact same conditions back at home for Malcolm to train on. He even went to the level of only shooting on his Range at times in the day that exactly mirrored the lighting conditions that would be experienced on competition days there. This fundamentally disagrees with two of your contentions, that (a) you can't buy a medal, and that (b) range conditions have no effect on the shooter. If range conditions didn't matter, he could have as well prepared standing in a field in Surrey.

You continue to trivialise my contention that range conditions can affect a shooter. Apart from Malcolm's example, it is well known that distractions have a detrimental effect on shooters. You have agreed with this by describing the so called 'video games effect' described by international coaches with regard to electronic targets, yet then dismiss the distractiion of having to break down every twenty shots on the three card system, whether you are in a good shooting groove or not. and then have to regather your concentration again for a further twenty shots when you have to break down again.

Those who have shot on the ten bull card at twenty five yards, in the main agree that this is one of the most testing disciplines in this regard, as not only do you have to break your position six times, but you also have to move your point of aim for each shot of sixty. I could continue with other distractions and difficulties that are purely range related, but if you don't get my point now, I think you are never going to, and you are continuing the argument out of a desire to be right at all costs.

Sparks

rrpc wrote:

OK, I'm dropping the quotes again, as it has got needlessly complicated. I've also noticed that sometimes when a post is dissected, certain sections are left out, for whatever reason.

Chunks are left out by your implied requests for brevity rrpc. I've included enough to give the context of the reply and not included the rest. If you'll read the posts above, you'll note that your original post is there for all to see in black and white.

Some of your statements are contradictory; You said that people who have invested time and effort into international training have had problems with the selection system in the past. At the same time you also say that the system has to be flexible enough to take into account work and training schedules.

How is that contradictory? Those are seperate statements on seperate topics!

Further on you say that people who have trained for Bisley cannot switch from that to the European Championships ten days later when given a couple of months notice.

Firstly, it was not a couple of months notice (this is the second time I've told you this, by the way). I don't know to whom you've been listening rrpc, but I was there in WTSC when the call came in. It was not a few months notice - it was at best a few weeks. Travel arrangements might be changable; but why would you bother when you know you wouldn't put in an appropriate level of performance? We were committed at that stage to going to Bisley; there was no way we could have had a respectable showing in the Europeans. This idea that we'd drop nine months of work by our support people and several months of training by ourselves and change all our plans and arrangements on the strength of one offhand phone call with no prior notice or consultation is the height of arrogance on the part of those that would make the call.

You do not accept nor have you replied to my contention that athletes in other sports adopt a training schedule and fit competitions into it.

I don't accept that that is a valid model for us in the manner in which we train. We're not semi- or fully-professional athletes, we're amateurs who must fit competitions and training into a working life. This notion that we'd train at 100% all the time and then pick competitions at random is not one that works. 20 years of coming in at the bottom of the pile in international shooting shows it doesn't work. You pick a match, plan your training to build up to the match, arrange travel, time off from work and a dozen other things. But the key to it all is that you plan well ahead of time. This idea of dropping it all at the drop of a hat is not a good one.

You call for flexibility from the system, but do not expect it from the shooters

I do expect it from the shooters - when they're shooting. I don't expect them to run themselves ragged making and breaking travel arrangements and holiday plans and so on and so forth.

Golf Professionals

We're not professionals rrpc.

There are competitions in shooting regularly spaced throughout the year.

Not on the NTSA calendar. They clump. Rather akwardly as it happens. And as you know, and as we've discussed at length, I have serious problems with that calendar anyway. It was built around the principle of shooting only a few domestic matches two years ago; but instead of having the person who suggested this build his personal training plan by selecting from a pool of competitions, instead the calendar was set up to be convienent to his training plan. I can't start (and shouldn't have to) tell you how incorrect that approach is.

Everyone knows roughly when they will be held, and therefore training schedules should not be so inflexible as to exclude any of them at all.

That's not what Barry's said in the past. Constantly, all we heard from him is that you plan your training and select your competitions, not just attend everything that comes up willy-nilly. Matt and Geoff both agree with this. As does pretty much any coach you'll ever find who knows how to coach.

You have said in the past, that International competition is important purely for the purposes of exposing shooters to the rigours of such competitions even if they have no chance of making the finals. Now you are saying that seven or eight months, is not sufficient time to prepare for the Worlds, even as you admit that these shooters are following a set training schedule at the moment.

Where's the contradiction?
Yes, it's important to expose shooters to international competition; expecting a medal first time out is daft.
No, seven or eight months is not sufficient time for the World Championships. Are you kidding? This is a higher level competition than the Olympic Games and those have a six-year training cycle!

In that case, what are they training for?

The British Airgun Championships in Bisley. And now they're in the last phase of that plan, the post-match winddown. No shooting for a fortnight. Otherwise, they burn out - that's what happened to Damien last year. Came back too early and it completely threw him and it took a year for him to regain his form.

The juniors shoot in this competition, and then also take part in the NSRA competitions in Bisley the following week!

Ours don't.

You are well aware of this, as you have lodged with the Danish juniors who come over to compete with their British counterparts for those very competitions.

No, I haven't.

If other competitors in other jurisdictions are able to take such back to back competition in their stride, what makes ours so precious that they cannot emulate their counterparts?

That they aren't in fulltime training with the level of support their competitors enjoy. And the competition doesn't take those competitions "in their stride", they train a lot longer and a lot harder than our shooters because they're able to. There are support mechanisms in place in other nations that aren't in place here - residential athletic courses, proper coaching programs, tutors to prevent shooters falling behind in schoolwork and so on.

I suggested that coaching at competitons was an 'As well as' rather than 'instead of'. You clipped that bit, but left out the explanatory part.

You put forward your thesis and a justification. I replied with my reasoning as to why you were wrong. That's the idea with this kind of debate rrpc.

Anyone reading your reply would not have understood my point and taken yours as eminently reasonable.

Dare I suggest that mine was reasonable? Especially since it was taken nearly verbatim from several different ISSF-qualified coaches with years of experience behind them?

What I was saying is this: Coaching at competitions is something that should be done as well as coaching at training sessions. By disagreeing with me, you are saying that coaching at training sessions should be dropped entirely.

No, I am saying that without coaching at competitions, coaching at training sessions will never prepare you for shooting competitions. Right now, the National Squad is never seen in a stressful competition by the National Coach; so what's the point?

You continue to trivialise my contention that range conditions can affect a shooter.

RRPC, can you not see that the logical conclusion therefore is that all ranges distract the shooter?
The ISSF rules lay out what standards the range must meet. Once it meets those standards, there is no justification for discounting scores shot on that range that stands up to scrutiny. You talk about shooting on the three-card system, but that breaks the ISSF rules. You talk about shooting from a 40' container, but if the floor slopes or flexes or is too short so the shooter touches the rear wall, then it breaks the ISSF rules. You talk about sodden shooting mats, but if the weather impinges on the shooter, then the range is breaking ISSF rules. Therefore the solution is simple; count scores shot on ISSF-standard ranges for ISSF matches, and don't count scores that aren't.

rrpc

Sparks wrote:

Chunks are left out by your implied requests for brevity rrpc. I've included enough to give the context of the reply and not included the rest. If you'll read the posts above, you'll note that your original post is there for all to see in black and white.

So you agreed with me about the need for brevity, without actually saying so. In any event, clipping part of my quote in some cases, lost the meaning of them entirely. Read on, and I will demonstrate why.

How is that contradictory? Those are seperate statements on seperate topics!

Oh!, I thought they were the same (selection systems)

Firstly, it was not a couple of months notice (this is the second time I've told you this, by the way). I don't know to whom you've been listening rrpc, but I was there in WTSC when the call came in. It was not a few months notice - it was at best a few weeks.

Well tell me exactly when it was. I said three months initially going by the draft calendar, then two months going by the final calendar.

I don't accept that that is a valid model for us in the manner in which we train. We're not semi- or fully-professional athletes, we're amateurs who must fit competitions and training into a working life.

I still don't understand your model. Are you saying you train less and aim the training at specific competitions, or that you train at particular times of the year only?

This notion that we'd train at 100% all the time and then pick competitions at random is not one that works.

I am not suggesting picking competitions at random. Point out where exactly I said that.

I do expect it from the shooters - when they're shooting. I don't expect them to run themselves ragged making and breaking travel arrangements and holiday plans and so on and so forth.

I don't see how else it can be done. You have asked for an open competition for places, based on performance throughout the year at open competition. By that definition, people may move in or out of contention for international competition at quite short notice. Funding for these competitions comes from sources outside the control of the NTSA, and therefore it is very difficult to assess what competitions and where it will be possible to attend until funding is in place to cover it. Clubs are actually in a better position to plan, as by and large, their funding remains the same from year to year, and shortfalls can be made up by means of local donations, collections and other fund raising efforts. What is the situation now for the people who were invited to attend the Europeans? Are they now not willing or able to attend any further internationals this year?

Not on the NTSA calendar. They clump. Rather akwardly as it happens. And as you know, and as we've discussed at length, I have serious problems with that calendar anyway. It was built around the principle of shooting only a few domestic matches two years ago; but instead of having the person who suggested this build his personal training plan by selecting from a pool of competitions, instead the calendar was set up to be convienent to his training plan.

And yet, places at the Europeans were rejected as being inconsistent with training plans. even though those training plans were only ten days off. What you are essentially saying is that the calendar has been rejected, full stop.

That's not what Barry's said in the past. Constantly, all we heard from him is that you plan your training and select your competitions, not just attend everything that comes up willy-nilly. Matt and Geoff both agree with this. As does pretty much any coach you'll ever find who knows how to coach.

And I did not say that either, I certainly didn't suggest a 'willy-nilly' approach. I asked should training be set up in order to avoid any of the competitions

Where's the contradiction?Yes, it's important to expose shooters to international competition; expecting a medal first time out is daft.
No, seven or eight months is not sufficient time for the World Championships. Are you kidding? This is a higher level competition than the Olympic Games and those have a six-year training cycle!

On the one hand saying experience is essential, and on the other saying don't go, because you haven't been training for six years. Selection for the Olympic Games can be as late as April or May of the same year, and I am not talking about professional athletes here. So how is that circle squared. To mention a six year training cycle is nonsense, what you are saying essentially is that 12 year old swimmers will be training for an Olympic place six years hence.

The British Airgun Championships in Bisley. And now they're in the last phase of that plan, the post-match winddown. No shooting for a fortnight. Otherwise, they burn out - that's what happened to Damien last year. Came back too early and it completely threw him and it took a year for him to regain his form.

I know that, I do read your posts. I meant what next?

Ours don't.

Obviously not. But that doesn't mean they're right not to. Others do.

No, I haven't.

Well perhaps you weren't staying in th HAC. In any case you would have to have been blind not to have seen them wandering around Bisley in their nice red and white tracksuits.

That they aren't in fulltime training with the level of support their competitors enjoy. And the competition doesn't take those competitions "in their stride", they train a lot longer and a lot harder than our shooters because they're able to. There are support mechanisms in place in other nations that aren't in place here - residential athletic courses, proper coaching programs, tutors to prevent shooters falling behind in schoolwork and so on.

Those things aren't in place here because of legislation. Maybe it will change in the future. However I believe that regular competition is an aid to shooters, not the hindrance you seem to make out that it is. Bisley is a very exhausting and demanding week, but my experience of it is that it always improved my performance afterwards. Granted I had a layoff of about two weeks after Bisley before I shot the next competition, usually the Autumn Open in Rathdrum, but if I look back at my scores at such competitions, there was always a significant improvement. My discussions with other competitors from the British Isles always left me with the feeling that we were never taking part in enough competitions over here. Seamus Cullen, when he shot for Chobham, could not turn up at the range without having a sheaf of cards to shoot for comptitions over there thrust at him, and Seamus consistently broke 590 at 50 metres.

You put forward your thesis and a justification. I replied with my reasoning as to why you were wrong. That's the idea with this kind of debate rrpc.

You are so patronising at times, it's breathtaking. You are in such a rush to disagree with me, that you have actually contradicted yourself. Here's your quote below:

No, I am saying that without coaching at competitions, coaching at training sessions will never prepare you for shooting competitions. Right now, the National Squad is never seen in a stressful competition by the National Coach; so what's the point?

And here's mine

I suggested that coaching at competitons was an 'As well as' rather than 'instead of'.

I thought the meaning was quite clear, but obviously not. To clarify matters here's your original statement

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!

You were seriously disagreeing with my statement that coaching at competitions is something that should be done as well as coaching at training sessions. If you can't follow that, go back and read the posts one by one in chronological order and digest them carefully, whilst sitting on your hands.

RRPC, can you not see that the logical conclusion therefore is that all ranges distract the shooter?

*Sigh* there you go again. I make a relevant point, backed up by good examples, and quotes from you and other shooters, and you choose to take my argument as a blanket description of all ranges and all conditions. It's a tiresome way of conducting an argument. As soon as a valid point is made by me, you either choose to ignore it completely (as in the Malcolm Cooper example), take the argument at face value without reference to the supporting examples and thus turn it into a generalisation, or just plain patronise me. If all else fails, you turn to the rule book, and point out the obvious, that no 50m range in this country complies with ISSF regulations, and therefore scores shot here should not be used to qualify shooters for international competition. The alternative being to ship everyone out of the country at regular intervals to shoot on ISSF standard ranges (a proposition you have by inference rejected yourself as being too costly and onerous on people with travel and holiday arrangements to be made), or alternatively, to find the millions needed to build one of our own here (a proposition which is unfeasible financially).

rrpc

I just want to say that when referring to the late great Malcolm Cooper, I used the phrase that he bought his medals. I was actually quoting Sparks who had used that very phrase to describe the purchase of equipment as an aid to shooting in such terms. I used it in the same context. In his preparations for the Seoul Olympics, Malcolm as well as recreating the range, also employed dieticians, psychologists and personal fitness trainers as well as the usual coaches to prepare himself. I believe that he was the first to employ such holistic methods in preparation for the Olympics, and the payoff was two back to back 3P gold medals at Seoul and Barcelona; a feat never acheived before or since.

Malcolm devoted his life to shoting, and was unbeatable in the standing discipline. In fact, Jock Allen states that at Barcelona after the prone and kneeling matches, when Jock was ahead of Malcolm at that point, he (Jock) walked over to Malcolm and shook his hand congratulating him on his second gold medal! Obviously he was right, as Malcolm passed him out in the standing phase. He had a unique style of shooting in the standing position, swinging the rifle continuously from left to right and back again, and it was impossible during a match to know when he had shot, as his follow through was impeccable.

My last memory of Malcolm is when wandering around Bisley with a couple of the lads, I was behind them as I was setting up my video camera, whilst approaching the black powder range. I had no ear plugs in, and didn't realise anyone was shooting there, and just as I approached the firing point a tremendous shot rang out which lifted me off my feet in shock. Malcolm had been testing a barrell he had developed for the British Army and when he saw my white face, he had a good chuckle along with the other lads, who had known what was going to happen. I can't for the life of me find that video tape, but if I ever do, be assured I will let anyone interested have a look.

Sparks

rrpc wrote:

So you agreed with me about the need for brevity, without actually saying so.

Actually, no. But you wanted brevity, so I gave it to you and the problems I mentioned immediately cropped up. We're misunderstanding what the other is talking about, stuff is lost, and immediately in walk the accusations of cherry-picking parts of posts to respond to. Can I say "I told you so" yet?

Oh!, I thought they were the same (selection systems)

No. The first statement said that there were problems expressed by our shooters over past years with the system in place. The second said that a better system would have the flexibility in it to allow shooters to organise training plans that let them train and at the same time hold down a job and have a family life.

Well tell me exactly when it was.

It would have been late January. I was told of the call on the range on a Wednesday evening; I didn't start training on Wednesday evenings until mid-January.

I still don't understand your model. Are you saying you train less and aim the training at specific competitions, or that you train at particular times of the year only?

The former (and "train less" as in "train less than professional athletes"). We don't have the time available to us that professional athletes would have (which is why shooters like Derek Burnett took a year off work to train for the olympics - he simply needed that extra time). As a result, we need to pick our targets and work towards them in a very focussed way or we don't succeed. (Sometimes, even so, we don't succeed - but it gives us the best chance we can have).

I am not suggesting picking competitions at random. Point out where exactly I said that.

You said we should attend every match; quite a few of these matches (though not all) tend to be scheduled almost at random from my experience with watching them being scheduled ("Can we do it this weekend?" "yeah, but lets do it next weekend instead" "no, no good for me, how about over here?" "yeah, why not"). I'll happily say that there are competitions that are set months in advance and properly organised; but they're sadly not the majority

I don't see how else it can be done. You have asked for an open competition for places, based on performance throughout the year at open competition.

Not quite. I was very clear in what I was asking for, rrpc, and that wasn't it. See the example I gave here.

By that definition, people may move in or out of contention for international competition at quite short notice.

Nope. That can and does happen with the current system, but not with the one I proposed.

Sparks

Funding for these competitions comes from sources outside the control of the NTSA, and therefore it is very difficult to assess what competitions and where it will be possible to attend until funding is in place to cover it.

Firstly, it is part of the NTSA's job to locate funding. That's where the current funding comes from; the NTSA has to apply for it, it's not just handed out. Second, the funding is in place by the start of the year. Thirdly, we have sufficient funds in the bank to give us a healthy buffer for long enough to raise funds during the year so that we break even in the long term. Fourthly, if we continually revert to "it'll cost too much", then we need to reassess what exactly it is that we're doing, hoarding cash or shooting for medals.

What is the situation now for the people who were invited to attend the Europeans? Are they now not willing or able to attend any further internationals this year?

Certainly not for the next month at least. The next realistic date would be the GB Juniors. After than, the Europeans next year.

And yet, places at the Europeans were rejected as being inconsistent with training plans. even though those training plans were only ten days off.

You're assuming at a very basic level, that the shooters would discard months of preperation and planning and legwork by those supporting them and elect to go to the Europeans instead, off the back of a single phone call which was preceded by no discussion whatsoever with the shooter's coaches on their training status. Frankly, if the NTSA can't even call the shooter's coach and see if they're training before selecting them to represent Ireland in a Continental Championships, then I'd call into question whether they can get other basic stuff right like the logistics of the trip.

What you are essentially saying is that the calendar has been rejected, full stop.

No, I'm saying we find it daft. We still show up for the matches, don't we?

And I did not say that either, I certainly didn't suggest a 'willy-nilly' approach. I asked should training be set up in order to avoid any of the competitions

To "avoid" competitions? No. Should training be set up to try to go to all of them though? No, definitely not. Matches should be attended in accordance with your training plan, not just because they're on.

On the one hand saying experience is essential, and on the other saying don't go, because you haven't been training for six years.

And not a contradiction in sight, unless you think that going to Bisley and then Intershoot and then an MQS entry in a WC or the EC, and then a full entry in a major competition is somehow not a progression.

Selection for the Olympic Games can be as late as April or May of the same year, and I am not talking about professional athletes here. So how is that circle squared.

It's not a circle to begin with. Selection by competition can be trained for. Selection by committee cannot. Therefore if you have selection by competition, doing it with a few months to go to the Games is acceptable.
In fact, if you reread what I proposed a few posts ago, that's precisely what I'm saying should happen.

To mention a six year training cycle is nonsense, what you are saying essentially is that 12 year old swimmers will be training for an Olympic place six years hence.

Go tell that to the ISC. They're the ones who stood up at the Sports Development Conference after Sydney and said that if you hadn't started training two years ago, you could effectively forget Bejing.

I know that, I do read your posts. I meant what next?

There's going to be a split in the squad between the juniors who will be aiming at the GB ISSF Junior match in August and the seniors who will be choosing the next competition over the next month or so with Matt and Geoff. The seniors will probably have different goals as well; one of us is moving to prone rifle from air rifle, for example.

Obviously not. But that doesn't mean they're right not to. Others do.

And ours, on instruction from their coaches who know their abilities better than anyone else, do not. It might not be absolutely right not to do so; but it certainly is right for them.

Well perhaps you weren't staying in th HAC. In any case you would have to have been blind not to have seen them wandering around Bisley in their nice red and white tracksuits.

I'd have needed good eyesight - I've never been in Bisley during the GB Juniors match, I was too old when I started shooting competitively.

Those things aren't in place here because of legislation. Maybe it will change in the future. However I believe that regular competition is an aid to shooters, not the hindrance you seem to make out that it is. Bisley is a very exhausting and demanding week, but my experience of it is that it always improved my performance afterwards. Granted I had a layoff of about two weeks after Bisley before I shot the next competition, usually the Autumn Open in Rathdrum, but if I look back at my scores at such competitions, there was always a significant improvement.

Maybe for you, regular competition works rrpc. There's enough individual variation to allow for Raymond Debevec, so it wouldn't be that big a stretch But I know it wouldn't work for me - I'd just expend all my energy on a series of matches with no time for serious training in between. And I know that when I was going to every match run during the year, my progress was much slower than the last nine months, when I just trained.

My discussions with other competitors from the British Isles always left me with the feeling that we were never taking part in enough competitions over here.

You and I have heard different things so; I keep hearing that we need more competition over here, not exactly the same thing

And here's mine I thought the meaning was quite clear, but obviously not.

Mainly because your original comment related to the NTSA coaching weekends for the National Squad which I said didn't work because Barry didn't get enough time with us, nor did he see us in competition. That doesn't mean that all coaching in training sessions is bad; just that the NTSA coaching weekends don't work.

If all else fails, you turn to the rule book, and point out the obvious, that no 50m range in this country complies with ISSF regulations, and therefore scores shot here should not be used to qualify shooters for international competition.

That's not the case. Comber complies with ISSF regulations, so does the Midlands, so did Fassaroe, so does East Antrim, so does Downshire, so will the new Rathdrum range, so does Fermoy, so does pretty much every 50m range in the country that has a covered, level firing point; so long as you shoot on the gehmann boxes.

That is, however, a side matter. The point is that you cannot say that you can just buy a better result by flying over to Bisley for a weekend and using the LRC. It just doesn't work that way. You might get a prettier looking range building; you might get more convienent target changers. But those should not affect your score, and if they do you're in trouble; what happens when you go to Milan or Changwon, where they don't use Suis Ascor?

So if you can't just buy a better result, then why the opposition to use scores shot in competitions outside the state that are run on ISSF-standard ranges to the ISSF rules? You seem to imply that there's a cadre of super-rich shooters out there with the free time to take holidays whenever they want and jet off to Munich or Ft.Benning to train. I wish it were true, but the best examples I can think of in the past few years have been a college student whose course was in Scotland, a graduate who had to move to Wales for work, and a junior whose father was invested enough in to sacrifice a family holiday to enter him in a match in Bisley. None of these carry any unfair advantage over a shooter like yourself or any of the other National Squad members, or indeed any of the other shooters on the ranges.

rrpc

Sparks wrote:

Firstly, it is part of the NTSA's job to locate funding.

I'm not arguing that that's not the case, only that it varies from year to year, and it's a finite amount. The fact that it's at the start of the year would explain why selections are made at that time.

You're assuming at a very basic level, that the shooters would discard months of preperation and planning and legwork by those supporting them

I'm assuming a small number would. The work would not be in vain, and surely there would be others to take the places?

No, I'm saying we find it daft. We still show up for the matches, don't we?

Good, but not the internationals?

It's not a circle to begin with. Selection by competition can be trained for. Selection by committee cannot. Therefore if you have selection by competition, doing it with a few months to go to the Games is acceptable.
In fact, if you reread what I proposed a few posts ago, that's precisely what I'm saying should happen.

But the selections that were made were on the basis of scores, they were announced by a committee, what's the difference?

Go tell that to the ISC. They're the ones who stood up at the Sports Development Conference after Sydney and said that if you hadn't started training two years ago, you could effectively forget Bejing.

Oops, that's me out of the equation so

I'd have needed good eyesight - I've never been in Bisley during the GB Juniors match, I was too old when I started shooting competitively.

I was talking about Bisley week, I've never attended the Juniors either, but the Danes were attending both.

You and I have heard different things so; I keep hearing that we need more competition over here, not exactly the same thing

That sounds like the same thing

Mainly because your original comment related to the NTSA coaching weekends for the National Squad which I said didn't work because Barry didn't get enough time with us, nor did he see us in competition. That doesn't mean that all coaching in training sessions is bad; just that the NTSA coaching weekends don't work.

Did you read what you and I said?, because it looks like you didn't. I agreed that coaching at competitions was ideal, but shouldn't exclude coaching during training sessions. You disagreed with me which to me implied that you didn't think coaching during training was any good.

That's not the case. Comber complies with ISSF regulations, so does the Midlands, so did Fassaroe, so does East Antrim, so does Downshire, so will the new Rathdrum range, so does Fermoy, so does pretty much every 50m range in the country that has a covered, level firing point; so long as you shoot on the gehmann boxes.

I said 'this country'. Sending people to the North is almost as expensive as sending them to Britain. Also, it is difficult to get range time in the north, as the ranges are not as big, and as their members will get preference, it's pretty hard to organise. There have been difficulties in the past with organising the Nationals in Comber for example, as you can only shoot the three card system there.

That is, however, a side matter. The point is that you cannot say that you can just buy a better result by flying over to Bisley for a weekend and using the LRC. It just doesn't work that way. You might get a prettier looking range building; you might get more convienent target changers. But those should not affect your score, and if they do you're in trouble; what happens when you go to Milan or Changwon, where they don't use Suis Ascor?

Why in heavens name do you continue to use this 'buying scores' business. I have illustrated many of the difficulties of shooting under poor conditions. You yourself have commented on the vagaries of different ranges in the past. If you're only option is to train on the DRC range, with the nearest windbreak in Wales(tm), how can you expect the scores to be the same as those in Chobham or Munich or Milan or even my own range?. And I'm not calling it 'buying scores' FFS, I'm calling it the elimination of all other distractions to the shooter bar his sights and the target. It's far easier for you and those who shoot Air Rifle to make that statement, as by and large all air rifle ranges are the same. The wind blows from the same direction, The sunlight shines exactly the same way, the rain falls in exactly the same pattern, The point of aim cycles from one to one with alarming regularity and the space available to the shooter expands and contracts uncomfortably.....not!

So if you can't just buy a better result,

This is a phrase you have introduced, and which you now ascribe to me.

why the opposition to use scores shot in competitions outside the state that are run on ISSF-standard ranges to the ISSF rules?

Because it's not a level playing field. It's as simple as that. And just in case you try and twist this around, this applies just as equally to the overseas shooter. There are many instances of shooters who travel abroad to competition only to put in a score significantly worse than their PB. You yourself did much the same in Bisley last week. (unless I misread your report).

You seem to imply that there's a cadre of super-rich shooters out there with the free time to take holidays whenever they want and jet off to Munich or Ft.Benning to train.

I've implied nothing of the sort. If that were the case, why can't they jet back here for the qualifying competitions?. I did however point out that if a well off club wanted to, they could cherry pick times and places for their shooters to put in qualifying scores. In support of this, I pointed out that I had always achieved better scores on the Malcolm Cooper range and the old Rimfire Range than I ever got in Fassaroe, Century Range, DRC (any of it's incarnations), Fermoy and Comber.

Sparks

rrpc wrote:

I'm not arguing that that's not the case, only that it varies from year to year, and it's a finite amount. The fact that it's at the start of the year would explain why selections are made at that time.

But you don't have to select people at that time, just how many places in what competitions will be made available for competition.

I'm assuming a small number would.

To be honest, I'd rather think none of our shooters would treat the club or the country's image so shabbily. To go to a match you're not prepared for and simultaneously throw away months of work towards another competition, off the back of an off-the-cuff phone call from someone who's never even seen you train?
It wouldn't be something I would do, and the other shooters felt the same way. And I know there's a fair amount of feeling about the NTSA amongst the shooters anyway - and with just cause, frankly - but that actually wasn't the motivation in this case.

The work would not be in vain, and surely there would be others to take the places?

From where? Every competitive shooter in WTSC went to Bisley, with the exception of a few who were in the middle of exams. The other WTSC shooters are not competitive, but recreational.

Good, but not the internationals?

Not unless we'd trained for them. You're there representing everyone in an International match; there's an onus on you to not go unless you'll give it your all, and unless your all will be good enough to put in a respectable score.
The days of "we can't beat you on the range so we'll beat you in the bar" need to be well and truly dead and in the ground.

But the selections that were made were on the basis of scores, they were announced by a committee, what's the difference?

The difference is that you and I have no idea what the basis for the selection was. We know that the people involved hit the minimum criteria somewhere in the previous year, but that's all. The selection criteria is quite explicit; the committee selects, and achieving qualifying scores is not sufficient to be selected. If, as you said, the committee just announced those who won their places by open competition, that'd be one thing; but it's not what happens.

Oops, that's me out of the equation so

And me. But maybe not one or two of our juniors, who *have* been training that long towards this goal.

I was talking about Bisley week, I've never attended the Juniors either, but the Danes were attending both.

Never gone for Bisley week either, never was able to afford it.

That sounds like the same thing

No - more competitions is not the same as more competition. One is more matches, the other is higher scores.

You disagreed with me which to me implied that you didn't think coaching during training was any good.

Close enough; just change "training" to "NTSA training weekends" and you'd have my thoughts on this, so long as you remember that I think this way because of the limits the format puts on Barry. Some people have told him I think he's a rubbish coach; which is flat-out wrong, and which I'm still quite angry about.

I said 'this country'. Sending people to the North is almost as expensive as sending them to Britain.

Depends on how you do it. The Bisley trip cost us in the region of six grand this weekend. Going to the East Antrim festival is something even college students can do (I know, we did it a few years back, and we've been to comber several times). Drive up the night before, stay in a B&B, shoot the next day and drive home.

There have been difficulties in the past with organising the Nationals in Comber for example, as you can only shoot the three card system there.

That's not correct, we've shot there quite often with the gehmann boxes.

Why in heavens name do you continue to use this 'buying scores' business. I have illustrated many of the difficulties of shooting under poor conditions. You yourself have commented on the vagaries of different ranges in the past. If you're only option is to train on the DRC range, with the nearest windbreak in Wales(tm), how can you expect the scores to be the same as those in Chobham or Munich or Milan or even my own range?

DRC's a pretty special case though rrpc, you have to admit. It's seriously outside the ISSF regs at the moment and will be until they can build a proper firing point like they had on the last range.

And I'm not calling it 'buying scores' FFS, I'm calling it the elimination of all other distractions to the shooter bar his sights and the target. It's far easier for you and those who shoot Air Rifle to make that statement, as by and large all air rifle ranges are the same. The wind blows from the same direction, The sunlight shines exactly the same way, the rain falls in exactly the same pattern, The point of aim cycles from one to one with alarming regularity and the space available to the shooter expands and contracts uncomfortably.....not!

RRPC, the whole point of 50m shooting is to learn how to counter changes in light and wind and environment so that you hit the ten ring every time. Remember, you guys don't have to stand and hold the rifle, unless it's 3P, in which case you're afforded far more leeway with the rifle's setup (free rifle, remember? )
Different discipline, different challanges.

Because it's not a level playing field. It's as simple as that. And just in case you try and twist this around, this applies just as equally to the overseas shooter. There are many instances of shooters who travel abroad to competition only to put in a score significantly worse than their PB. You yourself did much the same in Bisley last week. (unless I misread your report).

Yes, I shot much worse than my PB but that was down to my poor handling of the match pressure far more than the shortcomings of the range. Had the whole thing been transposed to UCD, you'd have seen a similar problem in my scores. The question I can't wrap my head around is how is it not a level playing field? We can't control the weather much (we can put up wind nets but that's about it). All we can control is the firing point setup and if they're both ISSF standard ranges, those are the same. Seriously, forget the in-between-shots bit. Forget the post-shooting hamburger in the cafe or twenty-mile trek back home, forget all that and tell me why EARC or Comber or MRC are so inferior for that one shot to the Cooper Range or the Sinclair range or the Milan range without citing the things that we cannot control on a range in the first place

I've implied nothing of the sort.

But you have! You've said that it's unfair because others can't go abroad to compete because they can't afford it in either time or money!

I did however point out that if a well off club wanted to, they could cherry pick times and places for their shooters to put in qualifying scores.

And you're saying this doesn't happen now with shooters not shooting registered matches in DRC?
Frankly, if a club has that much dosh to fling about, more power to them. And if it means we get a better shooter in the International circuit because of it, excellent. But I don't forsee it happening RRPC, I really don't.

In support of this, I pointed out that I had always achieved better scores on the Malcolm Cooper range and the old Rimfire Range than I ever got in Fassaroe, Century Range, DRC (any of it's incarnations), Fermoy and Comber.

And yet, I've never put in a score in the LRC that beat my PBs set on the Wilkinstown range. So if it's anecdotal evidence you're looking for, there it is.
Me, I think the disparity is down to how we're affected by match pressure. Some people get a boost from it; others have to overcome it.

rrpc

I am sorry to have to call a halt to this, but this will be my last post on this thread, as (a) I think it's been trashed to death and back again (b) Because I really don't have the time to devote to this and (c) I doubt that anybody else is reading this bar ourselves

Sparks wrote:

But you don't have to select people at that time, just how many places in what competitions will be made available for competition.

Yes, but how many places wil dictate how many people and therefore if you have a squad, some will have to be dropped or others added. How does that work?

To be honest, I'd rather think none of our shooters would treat the club or the country's image so shabbily.

And I would suggest that to turn down selections in those kind of numbers is just as shabby.

To go to a match you're not prepared for and simultaneously throw away months of work towards another competition, off the back of an off-the-cuff phone call from someone who's never even seen you train?

My contention is that as they were preparing for another competition 10 days earlier, they were prepared. And are you now suggesting that selctors go around to training sessions?

And I know there's a fair amount of feeling about the NTSA amongst the shooters anyway - and with just cause, frankly - but that actually wasn't the motivation in this case.

So why mention it, if it wasn't a factor?

From where? Every competitive shooter in WTSC went to Bisley, with the exception of a few who were in the middle of exams. The other WTSC shooters are not competitive, but recreational.

You could have asked some of the other clubs, DURC or UCD for example. Especially DURC, as you have contact with them yourself. There should be no obstacles for a willing mind.

Not unless we'd trained for them. You're there representing everyone in an International match; there's an onus on you to not go unless you'll give it your all, and unless your all will be good enough to put in a respectable score.

The obvious inference being that they were going to Bisley without the intention of giving their all?

The difference is that you and I have no idea what the basis for the selection was.

Did nobody ask in the course of the phone call?

We know that the people involved hit the minimum criteria somewhere in the previous year, but that's all. The selection criteria is quite explicit; the committee selects, and achieving qualifying scores is not sufficient to be selected.

That sounds contradictory, we don't know, but they hit the minimum criteria

Never gone for Bisley week either, never was able to afford it.

OK you were there for the weekend aggregate, or is my memory playing tricks with me?

No - more competitions is not the same as more competition. One is more matches, the other is higher scores.

They can sometimes mean the same thing. If we in Rathdrum shot against each other all the time, then you could say that there was a lack of competition, on the other hand if we shoot in other open competitions, we are getting both more competitions and more competition.

Some people have told him I think he's a rubbish coach; which is flat-out wrong, and which I'm still quite angry about.

Well have you told him that yourself?

That's not correct, we've shot there quite often with the gehmann boxes.

We shot there in 2003 and 2004. In one of those years we did not use the Gehmann boxes. I was not there for the other year.

DRC's a pretty special case though rrpc, you have to admit. It's seriously outside the ISSF regs at the moment and will be until they can build a proper firing point like they had on the last range.

That wasn't a proper ISSF firing point either.

tell me why EARC or Comber or MRC are so inferior for that one shot to the Cooper Range or the Sinclair range or the Milan range without citing the things that we cannot control on a range in the first place

If you're referring to wind, then yes you can control it. If you build a range in a sheltered area like the rimfire range in Bisley, then you can control the effect of the wind to a great extent. My range is built into the ground. The firing point is 2 metres below ground level, and the shelter there is very good (unless the wind is coming form the North-East).

But you have! You've said that it's unfair because others can't go abroad to compete because they can't afford it in either time or money!

But that's not 'buying scores' If time was the only currency, then you could make the same statement about one person training more than another.

And you're saying this doesn't happen now with shooters not shooting registered matches in DRC?

Thank you for making my point for me.

And yet, I've never put in a score in the LRC that beat my PBs set on the Wilkinstown range. So if it's anecdotal evidence you're looking for, there it is.
Me, I think the disparity is down to how we're affected by match pressure. Some people get a boost from it; others have to overcome it.

I'm still talking about 50m shooting, I've already made the point about Air Rifle being largely the same from range to range (It's in my last post). But thanks anyway for reinforcing my point for me

I went back over the scores that I recorded for our various shoots in Bisley between 1995 and 2001. The data I have encompasses seven years and up to six competitors in any year. The total data pool is about twenty. In all cases bar one, everyone who had shot on both century range and the Rimfire/Malcolm Cooper had better scores in a sixty shot match on the Rimfire/MC than they had on Century. The difference in most cases was in the order of 10 ponts. The exception whom we both know is an exception to most rules ever devised by man I went a bit further and had a look at scores that I have on file from 50m shoots in this country for each competitor, and found that in the same year, they had not beaten their Bisley scores either. In other words; People who had shot on the Rimfire/MC in any year, had recorded their PB on that range for that year. In fact, the only place I have recorded a better score than achieved in Bisley, is indoors in Rathdrum. For the record that's 576 at 50m and 588 at 25 yards. They were both recorded in the same twelve month period.

I would also say that I fall into the category of shooter that shoots better in competition conditions. I observed this because for some time I used shoot the Rathdrum competitions in advance, because of the workload I have on competition days. One particular competition, I had to shoot on competition day and noticed an improvement, mainly in my concentration levels and ultimately in my scores. The difference is marginal now, as I have not spent as much time training as I used to.

Sparks

rrpc wrote:

Yes, but how many places wil dictate how many people and therefore if you have a squad, some will have to be dropped or others added. How does that work?

It works like I've said; open competition for those available places. If you don't win the competition, hard luck, try again next time. At least you know it was down to your performance and not personal bias in the selection committee.

And I would suggest that to turn down selections in those kind of numbers is just as shabby.

You'd prefer another dead last finish for an Irish shooter?

My contention is that as they were preparing for another competition 10 days earlier, they were prepared.

And mine is that they were preparing for another competition ten days earlier, had been for months, and to assume that you can get them to drop everything and jump with one single off-the-cuff phone call is arrogant and wrong, and more to the point, is not going to get you the best performance in international competition because they won't have been preparing for that.

And are you now suggesting that selctors go around to training sessions?

No, I'm now suggesting that selection be done through an open competition; not by a group of people in a closed room who don't even go to the trouble of talking to the prospective competitors' coaches.

So why mention it, if it wasn't a factor?

So you wouldn't think it was a factor. I realise it sounds a bit odd, but past experience with the people involved has left me in no doubt that they would dismiss real problems with the system as being a personal grudge, so I want it made clear that that is simply bogus in this case.

You could have asked some of the other clubs, DURC or UCD for example. Especially DURC, as you have contact with them yourself. There should be no obstacles for a willing mind.

In case you've missed the posts on it, we had senior DURC and UCD shooters with us. DURC and UCD had no other shooters who were ready for that level of competition in air rifle.

The obvious inference being that they were going to Bisley without the intention of giving their all?

No, the obvious inference being that if you train for Bisley for six months and then change to the ECh with only a few weeks to go, then you won't have the same level of build-up to it.

Did nobody ask in the course of the phone call?

No, the phone call was an announcement, not a dialogue.

That sounds contradictory, we don't know, but they hit the minimum criteria

RRPC, for heaven's sake! The whole crux of the problem is precisely summed up by that sentence! We don't know why they were selected; we merely know they hit the minimum criteria in the year leading up to the selection meeting! Hitting that criteria puts your name on a list and the committee, with no oversight or guidelines or accountability or explanation to anyone, then picks names from the list to go. That is the main reason why it's not a fair system, and why people feel there's no point competing for places to go.

OK you were there for the weekend aggregate, or is my memory playing tricks with me?

Nope, never was in Bisley in August, ever. Simply never was able to afford it.

They can sometimes mean the same thing. If we in Rathdrum shot against each other all the time, then you could say that there was a lack of competition, on the other hand if we shoot in other open competitions, we are getting both more competitions and more competition.

Depends on who you shoot against in those open competitions though. They really are seperate things, rrpc.

Well have you told him that yourself?

Yes, but let's just say I have no faith in those involved to not repeat the accusation.

We shot there in 2003 and 2004. In one of those years we did not use the Gehmann boxes. I was not there for the other year.

The Gehmann boxes were used for 3P in '04 and I think '03 as well. They weren't used for the prone match because of an insufficiency of targets.

That wasn't a proper ISSF firing point either.

The one with the solid concrete base in a farmer's field? I don't remember it being badly sloped, though I could easily be wrong here, I only shot there once or twice before it was closed.

If you're referring to wind, then yes you can control it. If you build a range in a sheltered area like the rimfire range in Bisley, then you can control the effect of the wind to a great extent.

You're not controlling it though, you're just going where it usually isn't. And from what I've heard from the GB squad, the wind on the Cooper range can be quite squirrelly because of the enclosed nature of the range causing lots of turbulence, in the same way that the trees in Comber often cause a vortex to the left of the range (with the wonderful result of your wind flag doing a slow circle in the vertical plane...).

Thank you for making my point for me.

So you're saying then, that the problem of shooters picking a better range to shoot on is one that we already suffer from, but you'd rather we didn't let college students stuck abroad shoot on foreign ranges because it might create an unfair scenario where shooters pick a better range to shoot on?
RRPC, that's just plain incorrect.

I'm still talking about 50m shooting, I've already made the point about Air Rifle being largely the same from range to range (It's in my last post). But thanks anyway for reinforcing my point for me

So you're saying that it doesn't matter what range you shoot on for air rifle? So why not let foreign-shot scores count then?

People who had shot on the Rimfire/MC in any year, had recorded their PB on that range for that year. In fact, the only place I have recorded a better score than achieved in Bisley, is indoors in Rathdrum. For the record that's 576 at 50m and 588 at 25 yards. They were both recorded in the same twelve month period.

I would also say that I fall into the category of shooter that shoots better in competition conditions.

I would have to say that the first statement could be adaquately explained by the latter; so saying that your point (that you can gain points just by choosing a more comfortable range, as opposed to a better mental state when shooting) is proven is a tad premature...

rrpc

Against my better judgment, and my statement to the contrary, I am replying to this, but just on a couple of topics for reasons of time constraints.

Nope, never was in Bisley in August, ever. Simply never was able to afford it.

OK, well you'll have to take my word for it that it was the case with the Juniors.

Depends on who you shoot against in those open competitions though. They really are seperate things, rrpc.

Only if you look for differences, why else would you go to Bisley?

The Gehmann boxes were used for 3P in '04 and I think '03 as well. They weren't used for the prone match because of an insufficiency of targets.

Actually, I think it is for the lack of firing points that could accommodate the Gehmann boxes. If you recall, Comber has a fixed target frame, that can't be removed.

You're not controlling it though, you're just going where it usually isn't.

That's a distinction without a difference, The range construction has controlled it.

And from what I've heard from the GB squad, the wind on the Cooper range can be quite squirrelly because of the enclosed nature of the range causing lots of turbulence

Only on certain firing points.

I would have to say that the first statement could be adaquately explained by the latter; so saying that your point (that you can gain points just by choosing a more comfortable range, as opposed to a better mental state when shooting) is proven is a tad premature...

No, because my first point referred to a number of shooters and my second point referred to myself. And in both cases I was comparing like with like. i.e. competition scores only.

Sparks

rrpc wrote:

Actually, I think it is for the lack of firing points that could accommodate the Gehmann boxes. If you recall, Comber has a fixed target frame, that can't be removed.

Yup, I know. It wasn't removed for the points using the boxes, they just stand on the ground in front of the frame. I spoke with the NTSA chairman on the day; they just didn't have enough targets. I remember because a few people who'd actually trained for the target changers were quite annoyed at having to shoot on the three-card system.

That's a distinction without a difference, The range construction has controlled it.

I'll grant you that you can orient and site the range for optimally calm and even conditions; I won't agree, however, that the LRC was sited for the calmest wind possible because it's location was chosen so that it would be within Bisley Camp, not in the most sheltered location possible! Besides which, I seem to recall a finals being shot in the World Cup a few years ago that was shot during a thunderstorm and was only called off when lightning struck and disabled the suis ascor system half-way through. To say that international conditions are always better is to ignore such things.

Besides which RRPC, consider the ludicrious nature of the current system. I could shoot qualifying scores in the next two competitions, then crate my rifle and not pick it up for twelve months, at which time I could be selected to go to the World Championships to represent Ireland! And let's say I'm the reincarnation of Malcolm Cooper and I accept and go and win the gold medal, a quota place for Ireland and equal the world record in air rifle (600/600). The next day, I would not be eligible for selection to the next match because my score in the World Championships would not count towards selection!
How assinine and wrong does a system have to be before we drop it and come up with something better???

Only on certain firing points.

Which are meant to be drawn by lot during a competition as I recall.

No, because my first point referred to a number of shooters and my second point referred to myself. And in both cases I was comparing like with like. i.e. competition scores only.

And in both cases you failed to prove that your increase in score was due to the physical construction of the range as opposed to the rise in your mental game from shooting there.
( And as an aside, it'd be very hard to prove that, it's one of the difficulties in our sport - did moving the sights that last click put us in the ten ring, or was it just the sop that our mental game needed to calm down and shoot properly? It's the kind of question that means that at that level, changes to technique take a long time of experimentation and comparison )

rrpc

I have to reply to this, just to clear up a misunderstanding that seems to have developed

Sparks wrote:

And in both cases you failed to prove that your increase in score was due to the physical construction of the range as opposed to the rise in your mental game from shooting there.

In my first point I referred to a number of shooters all of whom (bar one on one occasion) experienced a higher score on those ranges than on any range they had shot on that year. The numbers varied from year to year, but if you take each year as a separate data point (not unreasonable) multiplied by the number of shooters in each year, it gave me 32 data points. If you took me as an example, that was seven different results. If you took one of the others who had been there for six different years that's 13 data points. Do you follow my reasoning? It's quite a weight of data supporting my contention. Not all of the competitors I took the data from could be characterised as finding competition an enhancement to their scores.

( And as an aside, it'd be very hard to prove that, it's one of the difficulties in our sport - did moving the sights that last click put us in the ten ring, or was it just the sop that our mental game needed to calm down and shoot properly? It's the kind of question that means that at that level, changes to technique take a long time of experimentation and comparison )

Which is why I looked at all the people who had competed in Bisley over a number of years and for whom I had scores recorded.

Sparks

None of that proves your case though rrpc, because you're not looking at why they did better, merely noting that they did!

rrpc

Sparks wrote:

None of that proves your case though rrpc, because you're not looking at why they did better, merely noting that they did!

There are none so blind as will not see :rolleyes:
It's enough data to make a convincing case, especially as a good chunk of the comparative data is taken from the same time. But then it's not just a case of raw data either, I was there, I spoke to the people involved, regularly, at length, over pints . They all expressed a preference for those ranges, and cited the improved scores as a reason for that preference. Both those who had shot there before as well as first timers. Other people who I do not have scores for said much the same things. In fact, it was taken as a given that scores would be better. Some of those spoken to include two who reresented Ireland at the Olympics. The gripes about the wind on the MCR are minor ones, it's human nature to look for excuses when comparing scores. It's so prevalent in fact, that one year I wrote a number of humorous excuses to be used when explaining bad scores in Bisley.

rrpc

Looking back at this argument, I get the impression that however cogently I put my case, with whatever evidence I can muster to support it, you just change tack, and argue from a different perspective.

First you say my conclusion is faulty, beacuse you mistakenly assume that my data refers to myself alone, and explain it away as an enhanced mental state from shooting under competition conditions, even though I am comparing with other competitions.

Then you say that the data could be interpreted a different way by saying that there could be a myriad of different conditions coming together to give a coincidental increase in scores which cannot be explained by better range conditions regardless of the weight of data.

This, after saying that some people get a boost from competition pressure, while others suffer under it. So if some people suffer under match conditions, how come you are not accepting that some of the data I have presented would by definition refer to such competitors, and therefore makes their improvement all the more dramatic?

Sparks

There are none so blind as will not see

I'm starting to feel the same way about your good self! You've just said that "it's human nature to look for excuses when comparing scores". I heartily agree - I'm just trying to point out that it's also an effect of human nature that distinguishing between good performance on a range purely because of the physical characteristics of the range from good performance because of mental factors is exceptionally difficult. You don't have good data RRPC, because every data point in there is skewed as they were all at a competition on an "away" range when shooting.

And until
a) someone can prove conclusivly that one ISSF-compliant range gives better results purely because of it's construction than another ISSF-compliant range;
b) that all shooters in Ireland currently compete on a level playing field; and
c) that allowing foreign shoots (ignoring the technical point that Comber and EARC are already foreign shoots) to be considered for selection would bring an end to (b);

then, well, your idea that such a system would be unfair is simply without grounds. Meanwhile, we continue to operate under a system that is both unfair on many levels, and which does not select the best shooters to represent us; and it needs to be changed!

rrpc

Sparks wrote:

I'm starting to feel the same way about your good self! You've just said that "it's human nature to look for excuses when comparing scores". I heartily agree - I'm just trying to point out that it's also an effect of human nature that distinguishing between good performance on a range purely because of the physical characteristics of the range from good performance because of mental factors is exceptionally difficult. You don't have good data RRPC, because every data point in there is skewed as they were all at a competition on an "away" range when shooting.

And some of the scores I was comparing with were also on "away" ranges. This is what I'm talking about changing the point of attack every time I counter. I was there when Gary Duff scored a 597 (equal British Record) on one of those ranges. But you'll just point out that he wa exceptionally focussed at the time. Maybe so, but consistently high scores were recorded there regardless of conditions and always (according to my data) exceeded scores achieved in the same week on different ranges in the same complex.

And until
a) someone can prove conclusivly that one ISSF-compliant range gives better results purely because of it's construction than another ISSF-compliant range;

It can't be proved conclusively, just as much as you can't prove conclusively that the bouncing floor and bad sight picture was the reason for your poor scores this year at the LRC.

b) that all shooters in Ireland currently compete on a level playing field; and

They do, as much as one can possibly do, when shooting on the same day at the same range.

c) that allowing foreign shoots (ignoring the technical point that Comber and EARC are already foreign shoots) to be considered for selection would bring an end to (b);

Only if you don't agree with (b)

Sparks

rrpc wrote:

It can't be proved conclusively, just as much as you can't prove conclusively that the bouncing floor and bad sight picture was the reason for your poor scores this year at the LRC.

I can actually be very sure that those weren't the reason for my poor scores; that it was down to mental factors far more than range factors.

They do, as much as one can possibly do, when shooting on the same day at the same range.

But you don't do that for selection in Ireland at present!

Only if you don't agree with (b)

If you don't agree with (b), rrpc, why would you defend the current system?

rrpc

Sparks wrote:

I can actually be very sure that those weren't the reason for my poor scores; that it was down to mental factors far more than range factors.

But you did cite them, which means you were aware of them, so how con you know that they were not one of the mental factors?

But you don't do that for selection in Ireland at present!

You select based on scores achieved in open competition here. Which by definition means that those competing for places would be competing against each other at the same time and place, or would have the opportunity to do so.

The ISSF recognise the need for equality of conditions, their technical rules state

6.5.5.1 Individual shooters and teams (nations) should be able to shoot under conditions that are as near to equal as possible.

And that refers to conditions within the same competition.

If you don't agree with (b), rrpc, why would you defend the current system?

I said 'you', not 'I'

Sparks

rrpc wrote:

But you did cite them, which means you were aware of them, so how con you know that they were not one of the mental factors?

Because we changed my shot plan before the last match and despite shooting on the same firing point with the same rifle and sight picture and so on, I shot better than before. Plus, we spent time looking at what was going wrong and it came down to just dealing with the match pressure. I wouldn't say that it was all mental factors, but they would be the dominant part of the problem.

You select based on scores achieved in open competition here.

That's rather the point RRPC, we do not. We have no idea why person A is selected to go and person B is not. We know both must hit the minimum criteria, but as to how one is selected over the other, we have absolutely no information. It's as far from open competition as you can get.

Which by definition means that those competing for places would be competing against each other at the same time and place, or would have the opportunity to do so.

No, it would mean that those competing for places would do so on the basis of performance in competition which everyone can see; not a decision made in a back room somewhere.

I said 'you', not 'I'

So do you think that (b) is correct?

rrpc

Sparks wrote:

That's rather the point RRPC, we do not. We have no idea why person A is selected to go and person B is not. We know both must hit the minimum criteria, but as to how one is selected over the other, we have absolutely no information. It's as far from open competition as you can get.

I said you select based on scores, not limited only to scores. You yourself pointed out why this is necessary, when you stated that some people have not picked up their rifle since the score was shot. But there are plenty of other criteria that could and should be taken into account. For example, lack of training, not turning up for squad training sessions, unavailability for any number of reasons, lack of consistency, inability to perform under competition conditions... need I continue? You cannot just look at scores and say "All these people are qualified to go abroad". However you seem to be looking at the scores and saying precisely that and at the same time, excercising your own judgment on the ability of people to represent us abroad, whilst denying the selection committee the same right.

No, it would mean that those competing for places would do so on the basis of performance in competition which everyone can see; not a decision made in a back room somewhere.

The difficulty here is that I could see from the scores of your chosen competitors that their performance met criteria, but without your input that they were not ready to go to the Europeans, I would be left scratching my head as to why they weren't going. Everyone can't see everything. I had to ask you why they weren't going.

rrpc

Sparks wrote:

Because we changed my shot plan before the last match and despite shooting on the same firing point with the same rifle and sight picture and so on, I shot better than before. Plus, we spent time looking at what was going wrong and it came down to just dealing with the match pressure. I wouldn't say that it was all mental factors, but they would be the dominant part of the problem.

It could also be because you were more comfortable on a second trip to the range, and therefore felt less pressure. Sometimes coaches will make minor changes to take the mind of the competitor off external factors that are affecting their performance.

Sparks

rrpc wrote:

I said you select based on scores, not limited only to scores.

Why, do you get prizes for something other than scores in World Cups these days?

You yourself pointed out why this is necessary, when you stated that some people have not picked up their rifle since the score was shot.

And that's why I suggested that the competitions where the scores be shot be no more than ten weeks from the international match.

But there are plenty of other criteria that could and should be taken into account. For example, lack of training, not turning up for squad training sessions, unavailability for any number of reasons, lack of consistency, inability to perform under competition conditions... need I continue?

Yes, and here's why. Lack of training, lack of consistency, inability to perform under competition conditions, all of these would prevent you from shooting the best score for consideration under that procedure I laid out above. And if you can shoot the best score without squad training sessions, then the problem is that the squad training sessions aren't that good, not that you didn't turn up. Exactly why would it matter that you didn't show up to them if you could shoot the scores? We're not doing this for any reason other than to win medals, are we?

You cannot just look at scores and say "All these people are qualified to go abroad".

Doesn't stop the US team and last I checked, they were some of the best shooters in the world in 50m at present. Doesn't stop the Chinese, or the Germans either.

at the same time, excercising your own judgment on the ability of people to represent us abroad, whilst denying the selection committee the same right.

By which you mean I pointed out that the committee selected someone who hadn't trained in nearly a year, a simple error that one phone call to their coach would have prevented? That's not exercising judgement, that's pointing out a fact.

The difficulty here is that I could see from the scores of your chosen competitors that their performance met criteria, but without your input that they were not ready to go to the Europeans, I would be left scratching my head as to why they weren't going. Everyone can't see everything. I had to ask you why they weren't going.

There's the thing RRPC - you asked about their performance. The committee just decided on the basis of whatever they decided on and then announced their selection to their coaches, instead of asking about performance levels.
Thing is, this wouldn't arise if it was just an open competition as outlined above. You shoot the highest scores; you go. Simple as that.
If you're not training; you won't shoot the highest scores.
If you can't handle match pressure; you won't shoot the highest scores.
If you're not consistent; you won't shoot the highest scores.
See what I mean?

rrpc

Sparks wrote:

Why, do you get prizes for something other than scores in World Cups these days?

There you go again, simplifying something I say (in order?) to lose the meaning entirely

And that's why I suggested that the competitions where the scores be shot be no more than ten weeks from the international match.

That may not be convenient or practical. There are always complaints about the calendar every year that it is published. Choice of World Cup events etc. are usually restricted to European based ones, for reasons of cost, travel and acclimatisation needs. Click back ten weeks from there, and you might find you're in the middle of exams, holidays, competing events here or in Britain and any number of other reasons as to why you can't get a full complement of attendees as you invariably get every time you run a competition here anyway.

So you publish a calendar at the end of the year, spend two months redrafting it due to the factors described above, and everyone knows in advance what competitions they need to attend in order to be considered for international duty. There are enough of them spread through the year (in 22 target anyway), that you wont be too far outside a ten week timeframe of whatever international competitions are available and suitable to send shooters to.

And if you can shoot the best score without squad training sessions, then the problem is that the squad training sessions aren't that good,

Really?, that's a proven fact is it?

Exactly why would it matter that you didn't show up to them if you could shoot the scores? We're not doing this for any reason other than to win medals, are we?

So now you're saying that coaching is never necessary, if you have the scores to prove it?

Doesn't stop the US team and last I checked, they were some of the best shooters in the world in 50m at present. Doesn't stop the Chinese, or the Germans either.

And you have stated that the US system is worse than ours, so why quote it?

There's the thing RRPC - you asked about their performance.

No I asked why they didn't go.

If you're not training; you won't shoot the highest scores.

But that may not be evidenced in scores for some time after the training has stopped.

If you can't handle match pressure; you won't shoot the highest scores.

Yes, but more match experience can mitigate that. And sometimes this won't be evident until they go, and sometimes not even then, as the low scores (as you said) can be attributed to other things. It's a question of comfort zones. You might be comfortable shooting a qualifying competition on your home range, but the real match pressure only exerts itself on foreign soil. I pointed out that that could have been the factor in your own scores in Bisley.

If you're not consistent; you won't shoot the highest scores.

No, you won't shoot the highest scores consistently

See what I mean?

See what I mean?

Sparks

rrpc wrote:

There you go again, simplifying something I say (in order?) to lose the meaning entirely

No, I'm trying to point out that you're treating this as if it were a way to knit the community together. It's not. It's meant to be the way of chosing the best shooter, nothing more. Currently, it's not doing that, it's chosing the shooters the committee thinks the most of. Different ballgame alltogether.

That may not be convenient or practical.

Did you read my proposal at all?
6-8 weeks to shoot three competitions. Nowhere in there does it say which ones, it just says that you shoot three and the decision is made on the basis of your average score. Highest one goes, so long as it's over the cut-off.

you wont be too far outside a ten week timeframe of whatever international competitions are available and suitable to send shooters to.

And yet, that's precisely what happened for the ECh and the WCh selection.
The system does not work rrpc.

Really?, that's a proven fact is it?

Are you saying that if you shoot a 590 in a match without coaching that you shouldn't be eligible to go?

So now you're saying that coaching is never necessary, if you have the scores to prove it?

IF. It's a rather large if.
Thing is, if I train with Matt and Geoff (both ISSF-qualified), but not with Barry, I'm not eligible to go. Even though I get better results with them because I've more time with them training and competing. So how's that fair?

And you have stated that the US system is worse than ours, so why quote it?

I didn't say it was worse than ours, I said it was better than what we have now, but not as flexible than the one I was proposing.

But that may not be evidenced in scores for some time after the training has stopped.

Who cares so long as the scores go in? If you're the best we've got, then even if you're at the top of the curve, you're the best we've got.

You might be comfortable shooting a qualifying competition on your home range, but the real match pressure only exerts itself on foreign soil.

So you'll send someone with a lower score because they'll hold the lower score rather than risk sending someone with a higher score who might slip?
Psh.
That's not trying to win, it's trying not to lose!

See what I mean?

Frankly, no. Mind stating what exactly you're trying to say?

oldzed

Anyone have any clue whats going on here? simply put we dont have the shooters, facilities, funding or intrest to field effective teams in the issf disciplines or many others, I know one of the us olympic team coaches who lives in montana and he whinges about their funding and facilities but we are 300 years behind them. we are sending out individuals who are doing really well considering the circumstances buts thats the way it will stay unless the funding is sorted. shooting at a high level is expensive and isnt easy on your own . 2 years ago when i shot a lot of sils i spent 12500 that year not counting sports council grants. very few can maintain that level of spending for long