For our USAS brothers and sisters (competitors of other nations please look on with amusement; or contribute please with your ideas!):
Seems like we delight in poking holes in the imperfections in our team selection, match selection, travel team, etc. policies and procedures leading up to fielding an Olympic team.
Me too.
It's easy to find fault in a complex (suspiciously so, to some!) process that takes place over a four year period leading up to Olympic Team selection. Especially when the good old USA (Planet Earth Central for Gun Crazies of All Stripes) doesn't seem to do that well- at least in Pistol; maybe not so much Rifle and Shotgun.
So here's the deal: If You Were the Emperor of USAS, what policies/procedures would you put in place?
Maybe a good place to start would be an agreed-upon objective?
I offer the following:
"The purpose of the USAS Selection Process is to establish a system for developing and identifying a sustainable pool of World Class (Medal Winning) athletes."
?????
Steve Swartz
(The next quadrennial approacheth. Perhaps our ideas could provide "unofficial feedback" to USAS in prep for London 2012?)
Your Vision of the Perfect Selection Process
Moderators: pilkguns, m1963, David Levene, Spencer, Richard H
Any system has downfalls, so I think there should be multiple ways to make the team; hedge the bets, so to speak.
Pick one athlete based on long term performance in the international competitions over last 2-4 years. Pick another athlete based on intra-team selection match of at least two courses of fire.
If the best shooter can't afford the time and resources to compete at international level often, they still can make it if they really are the best.
If the best shooter that invested a lot of effort competing at the international level, even if they don't do well at the selection match due to unforeseen events or simply a bad luck that day - they still make the team because they have a proven record.
Pick one athlete based on long term performance in the international competitions over last 2-4 years. Pick another athlete based on intra-team selection match of at least two courses of fire.
If the best shooter can't afford the time and resources to compete at international level often, they still can make it if they really are the best.
If the best shooter that invested a lot of effort competing at the international level, even if they don't do well at the selection match due to unforeseen events or simply a bad luck that day - they still make the team because they have a proven record.
-
2650 Plus
Basis for selection
First, only hits count. The oldest score is averaged into the next oldest intil you are averaging into current scores. Scores are weighted with competition scores counting three times as much as training / practice scores and the weighted scores are averaged into the matrix with the practice scores. Nothing else counts at all. just scores because any other criteria permits the charge of politics and .politics are totally corupting of any process. Top score shoots for the nation in international competitions and the team is composed of shooters in decending order, No Exceptions Not even for strap hangers from the State Department or the CIA Good Shooting Bill Horton
Let’s get first things first.
Let’s get first things first.
What is main reason of selection process? Is the reason to get selected to take advantages of traveling with the US National team or to get selected to take advantages to win the gold medal to your Country?
Russ
What is main reason of selection process? Is the reason to get selected to take advantages of traveling with the US National team or to get selected to take advantages to win the gold medal to your Country?
Russ
-
Steve Swartz
From previous:
"The purpose of the USAS Selection Process is to establish a system for developing and identifying a sustainable pool of World Class (Medal Winning) athletes."
If that is not acceptable, offer another.
(p.s. I believe the USAS already has a charter/mission statement . . . ?)
Steve Swartz
"The purpose of the USAS Selection Process is to establish a system for developing and identifying a sustainable pool of World Class (Medal Winning) athletes."
If that is not acceptable, offer another.
(p.s. I believe the USAS already has a charter/mission statement . . . ?)
Steve Swartz
-
Guest
My conversation starter:
"The purpose of the USAS Selection Process is to establish a system for developing and identifying a sustainable pool of World Class (Medal Winning) athletes."
The USAS Mission Statement:
"Prepare American athletes to win Olympic medals, promote the shooting sports throughout the U.S., and govern the conduct of international shooting in the country."
Perhpas we should assume- or we can choose to assume- that a "Selection Process" (narrowly or broadly defined in terms of the overall USAS mission) should at least support and/or be complemenatry to the above?
If not, why not? Should the mission statement be changed?
Time is running out for London 2012. These decisions will be made without our input if we sit back . . . (they may be made in spite of our input- but that's "on them," not "on us.")
Steve Swartz
"The purpose of the USAS Selection Process is to establish a system for developing and identifying a sustainable pool of World Class (Medal Winning) athletes."
The USAS Mission Statement:
"Prepare American athletes to win Olympic medals, promote the shooting sports throughout the U.S., and govern the conduct of international shooting in the country."
Perhpas we should assume- or we can choose to assume- that a "Selection Process" (narrowly or broadly defined in terms of the overall USAS mission) should at least support and/or be complemenatry to the above?
If not, why not? Should the mission statement be changed?
Time is running out for London 2012. These decisions will be made without our input if we sit back . . . (they may be made in spite of our input- but that's "on them," not "on us.")
Steve Swartz
"Time is running out for London 2012...."
I'm agreeing with this statement: ...."Time is running out for London 2012"....
But it is more important for my view to establish pool of 10-15 US athletes at least, who can constantly perform at national level scores: (560-570 Free Pistol) and (580-590 Air Pistol)…..before that :(….. Any changes in the selection process can’t make any difference in medal counting for USA.
Question is what should be accomplished to get those 10-15 athletes ready to perform those scores?
But it is more important for my view to establish pool of 10-15 US athletes at least, who can constantly perform at national level scores: (560-570 Free Pistol) and (580-590 Air Pistol)…..before that :(….. Any changes in the selection process can’t make any difference in medal counting for USA.
Question is what should be accomplished to get those 10-15 athletes ready to perform those scores?
-
2650 Plus
Developing The winners
We have valid sites for training the shooters Russ talks about. The USAMU, is my first choice. The USAS is making progress in rifle and air rifle and has made a radicle change in their approach to pistol, having assigned a non pistol shooter but with winning experence in international competition. The Marine Corps has the potential to rival or surpass the army with Brian Zins as the nucleus of their program. Russ and his college program can also have the potential to develope shooters to the required level of excellence,. Now I have a but... But all must be ruthless in moving lower performers out of the way to make room for shooters that can WIN. And the choices must be based on scores, and nothing but scores.Not my humble opinion,just necessary. Good Shooting Bill Horton
-
CR10XGuest
Zins is planning on leaving by next spring, I heard somewhere....
Grey is shooting some international, nice to see his name on the list.
So, I held out as long as possible, but tounge in cheek here....
One development process is to find a person or persons of substantial interest in getting some gold medals for the US and who want to get good shooter(s) motivated and find out how they can put up say $100K or so and some training / travel expenses over the next couple of years to see who's interested in shooting REALLY good scores.....
I believe the selection process will take care of itself after that.
Hummm....I seem to remember someone saying Zins will be looking for some work sometime soon......
Grey is shooting some international, nice to see his name on the list.
So, I held out as long as possible, but tounge in cheek here....
One development process is to find a person or persons of substantial interest in getting some gold medals for the US and who want to get good shooter(s) motivated and find out how they can put up say $100K or so and some training / travel expenses over the next couple of years to see who's interested in shooting REALLY good scores.....
I believe the selection process will take care of itself after that.
Hummm....I seem to remember someone saying Zins will be looking for some work sometime soon......
-
Steve Swartz
Barring the Deus Ex Machina (white knight, cavalry riding in, etc) we are stuck with nibbling at the edges of "policy" issues.
So how do we select individuals to 1) develop the pool, and 2) increase probability for medals?
I agree, everyone should be able to enlist in the Army and go straight to the AMU . . . and the USMC should start an international program and do the same . . . and Bill Gates should recruit all the best coaches in the world and give out scholarships for shooters to attend full time . . . but then our alarm clock goes off and here we are.
The argument was presented (not by me, but I agree) that our team selection/travel selection/etc. policies might not be stimulating 1) development or 2) competition at the higher levels.
O.K., so what would the perfect process look like? Assuming radical change is a different question, with different answers.
Or is this not an interesting question? The rules for the next quadrennial are being written NOW. If we want something better, we need to speak up NOW.
Once the rules are written, all we can do is sit back and bitch again/still.
Steve Swartz
So how do we select individuals to 1) develop the pool, and 2) increase probability for medals?
I agree, everyone should be able to enlist in the Army and go straight to the AMU . . . and the USMC should start an international program and do the same . . . and Bill Gates should recruit all the best coaches in the world and give out scholarships for shooters to attend full time . . . but then our alarm clock goes off and here we are.
The argument was presented (not by me, but I agree) that our team selection/travel selection/etc. policies might not be stimulating 1) development or 2) competition at the higher levels.
O.K., so what would the perfect process look like? Assuming radical change is a different question, with different answers.
Or is this not an interesting question? The rules for the next quadrennial are being written NOW. If we want something better, we need to speak up NOW.
Once the rules are written, all we can do is sit back and bitch again/still.
Steve Swartz
-
Steve Swartz
For example . . .
Some have argued that the team structure is flawed in that it reserves too many spots for juniors. Some have argued the opposite.
Some have argued that the 4-year point system unfairly penalizes shooters who are improving over time and may actually be "hotter" come olympiad time; but we end up sending someone who is on the downswing.
Some have argued that by not allowing promising shooters to travel (some matches we don't field a full team!) we are ignoring the opportunity to develop the talent pool. Ohters argue that by letting a (perhaps unprepared) shooter travel before they are "ready" we are setting them up for failure, and our country for embarrassment.
What say you all?
Steve Swartz
Some have argued that the team structure is flawed in that it reserves too many spots for juniors. Some have argued the opposite.
Some have argued that the 4-year point system unfairly penalizes shooters who are improving over time and may actually be "hotter" come olympiad time; but we end up sending someone who is on the downswing.
Some have argued that by not allowing promising shooters to travel (some matches we don't field a full team!) we are ignoring the opportunity to develop the talent pool. Ohters argue that by letting a (perhaps unprepared) shooter travel before they are "ready" we are setting them up for failure, and our country for embarrassment.
What say you all?
Steve Swartz
-
Tim Conrad
- Posts: 44
- Joined: Sun May 06, 2007 10:04 pm
- Location: Colorado Springs
I believe the process is weighted already. Scores fired in the Pan Am year, count more heavily than scores in the year before. and so on. Doesn't really matter if you have only one quota (or none!). As for travel (outside the U.S.), this has gone on for years. There is a clearly specified procedure to secure travel funding. Shoot a Performance Standard score. Or shoot several scores above or at the Performance Standard Average score. If you can't do that in U.S. competitions, going to Europe probably won't help. As for making the National Team, you can do that at Nationals, 3xAir, etc. Clearly specified in the Policies and Procedures.
Is it perfect ? No, but nothing is. You can look back and say we should have sent so-and-so to the Games. If they couldn't shoot as well before or at the selection match, would they really have done better than the folks who went to the big event ? No way to determine that.
P.S.: I had a 'cut' score for seven years in a row. And never came close to making the Olympic team, nor the National team. It really isn't that hard to do. (the performance standard score, that is)
Is it perfect ? No, but nothing is. You can look back and say we should have sent so-and-so to the Games. If they couldn't shoot as well before or at the selection match, would they really have done better than the folks who went to the big event ? No way to determine that.
P.S.: I had a 'cut' score for seven years in a row. And never came close to making the Olympic team, nor the National team. It really isn't that hard to do. (the performance standard score, that is)
Excuse my confusion, but is the selection process the reason for winners in Rifle versus the less successful pistol program?
Last time I was at the Nationals, the place was swarming with teenage rifle shooters which are fewer in the pistol ranks.
To Mr. Swartz first question which I think was refering to the
!. Making the "Team" which I am not sure means all that much except bragging rights. The team member does not get much from what I gather.
2. the traveling team: which means USAS helps pay your way to overseas competitions.
3. the Olympics
My understanding is it is all based on score and doing better than a current team member. I think the information is available for all of these on the website for those that have the reason and desire to find them. But I suspect it is a bit difficult to understand until you have had some involvement in the process.
My suggestion is that it should be based on score at well documented and listed events that are held by approved clubs. Presently the list of those clubs is very limited.
Last time I was at the Nationals, the place was swarming with teenage rifle shooters which are fewer in the pistol ranks.
To Mr. Swartz first question which I think was refering to the
!. Making the "Team" which I am not sure means all that much except bragging rights. The team member does not get much from what I gather.
2. the traveling team: which means USAS helps pay your way to overseas competitions.
3. the Olympics
My understanding is it is all based on score and doing better than a current team member. I think the information is available for all of these on the website for those that have the reason and desire to find them. But I suspect it is a bit difficult to understand until you have had some involvement in the process.
My suggestion is that it should be based on score at well documented and listed events that are held by approved clubs. Presently the list of those clubs is very limited.
-
2650 Plus
Ref purpose and mission statement
Both the stated purpose and mission statement are just self serving propaganda if the organization is unable or unwilling to take the hard steps to accomplish the stated tasks. The dedication necessary for a shooter to excel at the level we are discussing is illustrated by something I witnessed over fifty years ago. I was on duty one night about 1960 and noticed that the keys to the small bore range were missing from there place in the key control box. In a panic I grabed a flash light and ran to the range. There I found Sergeant Gary Anderson standing in front of a mirrow dry firing his international rifle at two o'clock in the morning after already spending the day shooting on the range. No one gave him a thing. He took the gold medals away from every shooter in the world. Until the whining stops and the hard work begins we are not likely to consistantly win those medals. Good Shooting Bill Horton
-
Steve Swartz
Hmmm . . . Alex, "my bad" . . . I thought based on (not only yours, but some others as well) recent posts that somehow "politics" were involved in the selection process for various things. Including who gets picked for "quota earning slots" at various world-level events.
I guess that's not the case.
Disregard everything after "hello" then!
Steve
(I personally like the idea of having both a "history based" [point system] and "wild card" [winner of selection match right before olympics] system. Allows for those with demonstrated long-term performance *and* someone who might be "peaking" to get a chance to earn a position on Olympic team.)
I guess that's not the case.
Disregard everything after "hello" then!
Steve
(I personally like the idea of having both a "history based" [point system] and "wild card" [winner of selection match right before olympics] system. Allows for those with demonstrated long-term performance *and* someone who might be "peaking" to get a chance to earn a position on Olympic team.)
Hi Steve
I have seen all types and been involved in most of the selection systems going round.
Politics can play a part in the setting up of the system, it can favor this or that, even seen court cases happen, but in the end it only upsets your performance.
There does not seem to be one outstanding system that works everytime.
From my point of view as a shooter, shooting current top score's, breaking a few record's and winning events, that's what makes it difficult to be omitted.
And it is the only way for a shooter to go.
As a coach, put the time and effort into lighting the fire and creating the hunger to win.
David
I have seen all types and been involved in most of the selection systems going round.
Politics can play a part in the setting up of the system, it can favor this or that, even seen court cases happen, but in the end it only upsets your performance.
There does not seem to be one outstanding system that works everytime.
From my point of view as a shooter, shooting current top score's, breaking a few record's and winning events, that's what makes it difficult to be omitted.
And it is the only way for a shooter to go.
As a coach, put the time and effort into lighting the fire and creating the hunger to win.
David