New irrational proposals of the ISSF committees

Rajmond

Shooters, coaches!

Please read the attachment. I call you to comment mostly the proposals of new equipment restrictions.
I was shocked reading those irrational ideas of the committee members. If the ISSF accepts something like that, we all can throw away our jackets, trousers, boots...we 've just bought, worth thousands of Pounds or Euros.
I can't find out the interest which suppose to lead them to bring out such ideas. On a first glance it looks like some producers with good conections want to increase their income on this way, but I simply can't believe it.

My personal opinion is clear for a long time - we don't need any changes without reasonable cause. Any change should serve only to comercialisation and increasing the professionalism of shooting sport. So called 'experts' from the committees have many ideas but I really can't see development getting for example thinner trousers without padding on butt and knees and other proposals.

Best regards,

Rajmond Debevec

Sparks

For those who don't know, by the way, Rajmond Debevec is rather a big name in ISSF shooting, holding a gold medal in 50m rifle from the 2000 games and a bronze from the 2008 games.

Sparks

From the earlier thread (because I can't figure out how to put them in this thread after Rajmond's post):

ezridax wrote: »

Is it deemed to give an unfair advantage with positioning, hold, etc?

Sparks wrote: »

The argument is that it's to prevent an 'arms race' between manufacturers, and return to a more classical, 1970s 'golden age' of ISSF shooting. The new materials pass all the tests in the equipment contol handbook, so they don't give any untoward advantage to the shooter (beyond not changing stiffness characteristics with temperature like canvas does and being easier to clean and longer-lasting). Coronal has one of the new jackets, I've seen it - it's very good, but he gets more from the fact that it's properly tailored than he does from its materials.

ezridax wrote: »

I don't understand their problem so. Its not like they are putting scafolding poles into the sleeves and effectively turning the shooter into a trigger puller only. In other words removing the human component.

I've seen lads shooting before (all calibers) and when they get up from the bench or what ever they are shooting from the rifle is still in the exact same position. A lad once told me that some people have such over the top set ups that effectively you could put a complete novice behind the butt and he could achieve top scores because of the "locked in" positioning of the rifle.

If the new jackets do not add to the shooters form, hold or ability to maintain that hold for longer periods, then i do not see the problem with them. Again this is coming from a novice point of view having never shot this discipline.

Sparks wrote: »

Committees. Some things are the same all over

Never did get the appeal of that kind of thing - the benchrest shooting you see in the states with 20lb rifles on rails bolted to the bench just confuses me. Why would you go to all that trouble for something that has so little challange to it?

From the point of view of those in the sport, it only penalises those who've bought kit already. I can understand some changes every now and then - some of the jackets that were around five years ago in Korea were taking the mickey entirely - but we've just changed all the rules after the '04 games for equipment control, making it far more strict. Besides which, there's a recession on - now is not the time to dump this on shooters, retailers and manufacturers, all of whom would have to spend a lot to get re-tooled, re-stocked and re-equipped!

It wasn't me!

Reading the minutes there, it's difficult to see the motivation alright. Hopefully they'll leave bloody well alone. Don't intend completely changing my kit after the London Olympics!

Sparks

From my training log:

January 6, 2010
ISSF to ban new composite materials for jackets and trousers?

From Stirton.com and shooting.boards.ie and TargetTalk, the following disturbing bit of news comes from Rajmond Debevec:

Shooters, coaches!

Please read the attachment. I call you to comment mostly the proposals of new equipment restrictions.
I was shocked reading those irrational ideas of the committee members. If the ISSF accepts something like that, we all can throw away our jackets, trousers, boots…we ‘ve just bought, worth thousands of Pounds or Euros.
I can’t find out the interest which suppose to lead them to bring out such ideas. On a first glance it looks like some producers with good conections want to increase their income on this way, but I simply can’t believe it.

My personal opinion is clear for a long time - we don’t need any changes without reasonable cause. Any change should serve only to comercialisation and increasing the professionalism of shooting sport. So called ‘experts’ from the committees have many ideas but I really can’t see development getting for example thinner trousers without padding on butt and knees and other proposals.

Best regards,

Rajmond Debevec

Attached was the following set of minutes from the ISSF technical committee. In short, the proposals are for the ISSF:

• to ban shooting boots which rise above the ankle or which do not flex at the ball of the foot
• to ban the use of the new composite materials in jackets and trousers and to require all new materials to be pre-approved by the ISSF
• to reduce again the thickness of shooting trousers and the shooting jacket (from 2.5mm/5mm to 2mm/4mm)
• to remove all pads from the shooting trousers, but allow seperate pads between heel and seat and between knee and ground when in kneeling
• all changes to take effect from Jan 1, 2010

Here’s the PDF file of the minutes to download and read.

Some of the other minor points from the document:

• Floppy hats, visors and the like definitely may not touch the rearsight as part of your shot routine
• The pocket on the jacket gets to stay
• No more reinforcement on trousers - they must be 2mm/4mm thickness all over
• Undergarment thickness limits are also reduced from 2.5mm/5mm to 2mm/4mm
• Kinesio taping is banned
• The ISSF technical committee needs to create its own private internet forum to host discussions as emails with salient details are being lost
• No sponsor/manufacturer marks permitted on rearsight (or foresight) blinders anymore
• The deduction of 2 points for applying any kind of sticky substance to the jacket, pads, shoes or floor is now removed and rules 6.10.6.5.1 and 6.10.6.5.2 cover everything (prior to this, it was 2 points deducted for rifle, but not for pistol - now it’s all down to the Jury to issue warnings and deduct points)
• No removable inserts in boots - so no more odour eaters? Kitbags are going to reek even more than they do now.
• New finals procedures were proposed (but not decided upon), which are almost the same as for Olympic Recurve Archery, where after the qualification round, you have a pairs knock-out tournament for the medal places

Sparks

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Reading the minutes there, it's difficult to see the motivation alright. Hopefully they'll leave bloody well alone. Don't intend completely changing my kit after the London Olympics!

Makes no sense at all, especially since they're talking about bringing in the changes before London, and since Parish (the head of the committee) specifically said to us when we were doing our judges' course that he thought canvas should be banned from ISSF jackets under rule 7.4.6.2:

7.4.6.2 wrote:

All shooting jackets, shooting trousers and shooting gloves must be made of flexible material that does not materially change its physical characteristics, that is, become stiffer, thicker or harder, under commonly accepted shooting conditions. All lining, padding and reinforcements must meet the same specifications...

Since ranges can go from near- or sub-zero temperatures on one hand to 40 degrees on the other, and canvas changes stiffness enormously in the process, Parish felt it wasn't right to use it as a material and we only did it for lack of an alternative. Now we see that alternative and he wants to ban it? What?!?

Bananaman

Irrational over-regulation can affect any shooting sport.

Be careful that it is not deemed combat training.

B'Man

Coronal

I thought that the major advantage of the new materials was that it required less breaking in time? From what I've read, the new jackets are less stiff than canvas, and have never had any problems in EC...

Which leads us to question of why exactly this is happening? Who is benefitting from this? Is this the beginning of an attempt to make shooting look cooler for the T.V.? References to the penguin march are understandable, but that's not to do with the stiffness, just the conservation of the equipment used, as Sparks pointed out in another forum.

Since both the new materials and canvas change mechanical properties with temperature, why are they not suggesting to get rid of canvas and adpot only the new materials? Tradition? At this point in time, the proportion of people with plastic jackets has to be fairly large as many new jackets bought in the past year or two would be of this type. Either way, since they are also talking about reducing the thickness of the equipment, everybody gets hit, new materials or not.

Anyway, rant aside, where is the best place to formally voice our concerns? To the NTSA, Olympic Council, Sports Council, NSRA, ISSF directly? The more voices speaking out, the better.

Sparks

Coronal wrote: »

I thought that the major advantage of the new materials was that it required less breaking in time? From what I've read, the new jackets are less stiff than canvas, and have never had any problems in EC...

That tallies with all I've read on it, all the opinions I've heard from those using them internationally, and with what I've seen of them myself both from yours and from the ones that were being used in Finland. There are other major benefits though - for a start, it's not that the jackets take less breaking in time, it's that some (at least) don't break in - they pass EC right off the bat and stay at the same stiffness for life, whereas canvas wears out and has to be replaced (often every year at high level). And they're meant to be more thermally stable than canvas (they do change slightly, no material is unaffected by temperature, but it's so small that it's supposedly negligible for most temperature ranges).

Which leads us to question of why exactly this is happening?

My money is on good intentions being uncoupled from common sense in an environment where those making the decision are not required to live with it...

Anyway, rant aside, where is the best place to formally voice our concerns?

I'm not sure - there isn't really a mechanism for this sort of thing.

To the NTSA, Olympic Council, Sports Council, NSRA, ISSF directly? The more voices speaking out, the better.

Personally, I'd say both the NTSA and ISSF directly, but as I said, there isn't really a mechanism for this sort of protest. That's not to say it wouldn't work - this was tried before when ISSF wanted to ban trousers and everyone repulsed the idea because they didn't much like the idea of long-term spinal damage. The idea was dropped in the end, but this seems like a part of it being snuck in the back door.

Coronal

Sparks wrote: »

... there isn't really a mechanism for this sort of protest.

I thought that alright. Well, no harm in saying it I guess. I'll just have to hope that I haven't wasted a graduation present on something that I'll only get another 12 months out of :eek:

Though I guess you're right, there is good intention behind it, I was somewhat rash and didn't really give it much thought, tbh.

It wasn't me!

Coronal wrote: »

Though I guess you're right, there is good intention behind it, I was somewhat rash and didn't really give it much thought, tbh.

On the other hand, you shouldn't really have to. I mean, when making that purchase, it hardly seems right for you to have had to go "Oh wow, a brilliant innovation. I wonder whether I'll get any use out of it before they ban it..."

Sparks

Coronal wrote: »

I thought that alright. Well, no harm in saying it I guess. I'll just have to hope that I haven't wasted a graduation present on something that I'll only get another 12 months out of :eek:

And we get to hope we don't have to shell out a few hundred quid apiece in the midst of a global recession, retailers get to hope they don't have to take the hit that the FUD of all this represents to sales, or the hit that they'd take when dumping old stock they can't sell and restocking with new kit, and manufacturers get to hope they don't have to do the same dumping their material stocks and jigs and writing off the once-off costs of developing all this new stuff...

Though I guess you're right, there is good intention behind it, I was somewhat rash and didn't really give it much thought, tbh.

No, I think you had the right idea. There might be good intentions behind it, but you know what they say about the road to hell...

Rajmond

All changes to take effect from Jan 1, 2013.

Sparks

Very funny demonloop

fat-tony

Following statement received from ISSF to all affiliated organisations - first paragraph printed below, with full text attached as a PDF:


Draft minutes from the 2009 ISSF Technical and Rifle Committee meetings on 08/09
November 2009 were recently posted on the Internet without authorization.
Unfortunately, this posting made no attempt to explain any of the reasons for these
proposals. This premature and incomplete posting created confusion and led to much
discussion among shooters, trainers and equipment manufacturers. The ISSF is
releasing this statement to give everyone concerned a full explanation and explain
actions that will be taken regarding rifle shooter clothing in 2010.

Sparks

Yeah, that popped up on a few other sites as well, but for my money it still doesn't justify the measures.

demonloop

From what I've read on other forums the concensus amongst the shooters (conspiracy theorists ) seems to be that the IOC had a hand in all of this.

There's certainly one statement on the ISSF site with a nod towards this theory, although the ISSF will never admit this, of course.

The 'penguin walk' catchphrase seems to have originated from the IOC from the conversations I've had with a commitee member of the ISSF recently.

Sparks

As pointed out elsewhere, this penguin walk thing is ridiculous. You'll never find ice skaters or cyclists or skiers walking normally in their kit, not because they can't, but because it'd destroy the blades/clips/clamp points on their footwear.

Take cycling - there's not one successful international level cycler who doesn't use clips on their boots, but you don't need them to cycle, the rest of us manage just fine without them. And they shouldn't be banned on the grounds that you walk funny in them because the sport is cycling, not walking normally. Same goes for shooting. I can walk normally in full kit, and you'll often see newbies doing just that until someone tells them that they're damaging kit they paid a lot of money for and then they immediately adopt the penguin walk. It's nothing to do with the kit and everything to do with the wallet.

Feck's sake. It's called target shooting, not power walking. I didn't start this sport so I could walk around normally wearing canvas and leather, if that was my aim I joined the wrong sort of club!

fat-tony

Sparks wrote: »

Yeah, that popped up on a few other sites as well, but for my money it still doesn't justify the measures.

I think the point of the press release is that the "measures" haven't been approved yet. There is a special meeting scheduled for December this year to thrash out the issues concerning rifle shooter clothing particularly. The ISSF General Assembly before that, in July, will hear the concerns from the NGBs regarding these proposals.

rrpc

Sparks wrote: »

As pointed out elsewhere, this penguin walk thing is ridiculous. You'll never find ice skaters or cyclists or skiers walking normally in their kit, not because they can't, but because it'd destroy the blades/clips/clamp points on their footwear.

Take cycling - there's not one successful international level cycler who doesn't use clips on their boots, but you don't need them to cycle, the rest of us manage just fine without them. And they shouldn't be banned on the grounds that you walk funny in them because the sport is cycling, not walking normally. Same goes for shooting. I can walk normally in full kit, and you'll often see newbies doing just that until someone tells them that they're damaging kit they paid a lot of money for and then they immediately adopt the penguin walk. It's nothing to do with the kit and everything to do with the wallet.

Feck's sake. It's called target shooting, not power walking. I didn't start this sport so I could walk around normally wearing canvas and leather, if that was my aim I joined the wrong sort of club!

The 'penguin walk' phrase is just a description of the possible outcome of having equipment that exceeds the rules. Trousers standing up on their own is a far more accurate description of the perceived problem.

And skiers do walk around in their boots, it's not easy because there's no flexibility in the ankle or sole, so it looks ungainly, but it's done on snow, so no damage is incurred. You often see the techs cleaning the snow off their boots before the skiers start their run. Cyclists also walk around in their shoes, else they would have to go everywhere on their bikes or with a spare pair of shoes in their pack; the cleats stand up to a great deal of abuse.

Sparks

In the latest ISSF magazine:

demonloop

Looks like its being shot to death already, thank god

http://forum.stirton.com/index.php/topic/4273-reply-to-the-article-on-page-49-of-issf-journal-32010-by-professor-rio/page__pid__38184#entry38184

Sparks

Just to quote that for those who're not members on stirton:

Dear ISSF, dear sports colleagues,

I would like to reply to the article on Page 49 of ISSF Journal 3:2010 by Professor Rio.

I too am a former member of the Great Britain Shooting Team during the years 1990-1994, and have since worked as a professional coach in Great Britain, Australia (as Head Coach to the Australian Shooting Team) and in Germany, where I currently work as State Rifle Coach for Hessen - a number of shooters I work with will represent Germany at the next World Championships. During my time in Australia, I was based at the Australian Institue of Sports and worked closely with some of the world's top sports scientists.

I wish to challenge the assumption in Professor Rio's article, which is that stiffer clothing is the cause of higher scores in rifle shooting. I have never seen one iota of evidence which objectively proves this assumption. At the very least, the people like Professor Rio who believe this to be true, should be able and willing to back up their statements with hard evidence. Sure, the scores in rifle shooting have gone up in leaps and bounds in recent years, above all in the standing position. I would argue that this is due largely to three factors:
1. The introduction of electronic targets.
I began working in Hessen in April 2002, when we were still shooting on paper targets. I work mainly with a squad of about 12 young shooters aged 14-18. In October 2005, we installed electronic targets at our Training Centre in Frankfurt. The increase in economy, efficiency and (for the coach) feedback from these systems led within one year to an average increase in performance of more than 4 points for a 3x20 programm, across the entire squad.
2. The improvement of coaching knowledge and the use of infra-red and video analysis.
Without any shadow of a doubt, the knowledge and ability of good coaches to achieve fast improvements in performance has increased dramatically, aided by modern technology, publications and coach education initiatives such as the ISSF Training Academy. It is, if I may say so, an insult to coaches the world over, to simply ascribe increases in performance to clothing. Of course, the more people from within our sport make this mistake, the more people outside our sport will be inclined to arrive at similar over-simplified judgements.
3. The improvements by manufacturers - and also as a result of enlightened rule changes - to the construction of target rifles.
These changes - together with improvements to the clothing - have contributed to the huge growth worldwide of rifle shooting, especially at high level. In short, where in the 1970s it was absolutely necessary for the shooter to possess certain anatomical advantages in order to adopt an effective shooting position, advances in equipment have permitted many more shooters, with strongly varying anatomical characteristics, to reach high levels of performance. This is, however, exactly the strength of our sport - the participant base. If this is undermined, and we return to a situation where only a few anatomically (genetically) advantaged people can be capable of achieving high results, then our sport will lose its biggest - perhaps its only - advantage in comparison to other sports, with which we have to compete for future participants.

As a full-time professional rifle coach, and advisor to my athletes, one of my tasks is to help them choose equipment. In this capacity I have been able to compare, with objective measures such as steadiness of hold on the Scatt System, the differences between 'conventional' leather and canvas clothing and 'modern' rubberised/artificial fibre/plastic clothing. I am firmly convinced that the stiffest plastic clothing is nothing but a hindrance to good performance, because the different postures the shooter needs to adopt cause tension in the clothing against which the shooter's body struggles. This conviction is borne out by the fact that very few top shooters have in fact chosen to use this clothing. With the less stiff, but still stiffer than canvas/leather, modern clothing, the only advantage seems to be that artificial fibre does not change its stiffness characteristics with long use or with relative humidity; these clothes then offer security for the clothing controls. They do not, repeat do not, improve performance when compared with well-fitting leather/canvas clothes: I challenge anyone to prove objectively that I am wrong.

It seems to me really absurd, that clothing materials which have only been introduced in order to ensure a more consistent compliance with the ISSF's own Rules, should now be the subject of over-simplified judgements which, to my mind, serve only to bring a wonderful sport into disrepute.

In writing this, I do not want in any way to imply that there is no need for a close and careful monitoring of equipment - and all other Rules - to preserve the principle of fair play. However, it is clear to me that anyone wishing to cheat by unfairly stabilising themselves in the shooting position, would do this (perhaps some are already doing so) by the direct application of tapes or support bandages on the body and not through the external protective clothing.

Our sport has grown precisely because of the equipment which enables many people of different anatomical characteristics and ages to learn the necessary technical skills (so that, in the end, the mental strength of the athlete on the day of competition becomes the deciding factor). Isn't this something we should celebrate and preserve?

I must also take issue with Professor Rio's statement "...it is seriously questionable that rifle shooters should find it easier to improve their scores by using a more rigid shooting jacket than by investing hours of training in a gymnasium in order to improve their strength...". Strength is definitely not a characteristic which improves rifle shooting performance. Otherwise slimly-built girls would not be capable (as they are) of producing scores which can shame the strongest of men. Hours spent strength training in the gymnasium are as useless as a fully rigid shooting jacket for improving rifle shooting performance.

I believe that rifle shooting will die out if we, the shooters, add to our own - already considerable - difficulties. Our sport exists as strongly as it does because it is a sport which can be successfully practised all over the world - there are at present almost no genetic barriers - and athletes can stay at high level for a considerable number of years. Destroy our strength and we will destroy our sport. Ban rifle shooting clothing, and inevitably the sport will become dominated by a very few genetically advantaged people. Some sports such as Biathlon are highly commercially successful even though they have almost nil participant base, the elite exists as a circus which performs to large audiences. Is this what we want shooting to become? And can shooting ever compete for public attention and survive in this way? The sport I have served for 30 years has survived and grown on a completely different principle and I applaud all developments which mean that even more people can compete at the highest level and so drive world records even faster upwards.

Yours sincerely,

Bill Murray
State Rifle Coach, Hessen
Former Head Coach, Australian Shooting Team
Former Director of Coaching, Great Britain
Former British recordholder
Commonwealth Games silver medallist