(edited 8-Dec-2009) It looks like we have confirmed at the DCRA Executive meeting this past weekend that we will not be offering the 300m ISSF-style match in 2010.
(edited 3-Nov-2009)
As things stand, it looks to me as if the ISSF match is "broken". I think it's a good match, I love the challenge of shooting on such a demanding target, it's nice to shoot something with a common link to our SFC brethren, in fact I think it's a good idea all-around. But the "customers" are telling us that they aren't interested, and year after year they have stayed away in droves from this nice match. While 2009's attendance was probably unusually low because it was a two-day event that was used to select a Canadian team to the 300m CSFC match in India, the event's attendance hasn't been any more than about 20 shooters for the past number of years.
There are many good reasons for a shooter at the Canadian Championships to *not* shoot the ISSF match. It's one of our more expensive matches to run, and the entry fees reflect this. It is quite demanding of a shooter's mental and physical resources, which deters a number of shooters from starting ten days of shooting by firing seventy-plus shots in a single sitting.
I propose that DCRA not offer an ISSF-style 300m match in 2010, and to basically "retire" it from our shooting programme. We'd only re-introduce it in the future if someone wishes to step forward with a proposal to run the match in some way that would draw enough shooters to make the exercise worthwhile. In its place in the shooting schedule (1st Friday morning) we would hold other kinds of warmup matches at 300m on "D" range, on standard DCRA targets, without a shelter tent being set up.
There are some complications with retiring our 300m ISSF-style shooting. One big one is that Sierra has generously sponsored the match (its official name has been the "Sierra Canadian 300m National ISSF Championship") with a prize list of several thousand bullets, and has also sponsored similar provincial-level matches to go along with it (with many more thousands of bullets for prizes). The provincial "Sierra 300m Championships" matches have been very popular, and I suggest that they definitely *not* be cancelled.
I suggest that Sierra's sponsorship for the Canadian Championships be moved to some other significant match that we fire. One possibility would be to assign the Sierra sponsorship and also the bullet prizes to our "Short Range Agg" (all 300m firing during our Grand Agg). Another would be to assign it to our Long Range Challenge Match. Yet another would be to assign it to the (proposed) coached Warmups (see elsewhere for details) in some manner.
I'm interested in hearing feedback on all of the following:
-- My initial thoughts are that we should move the Sierra sponsorships and prizes to the Long Range Challenge, and/or to our coached Warmups. I will contact Sierra and see if they are interested in continuing their sponsorship, and what their preferences might be. If they choose the LR Challenge, it ought to be renamed to be something like the "Sierra Canadian Long Range Challenge (or Championships, etc)". Or if they'd like to support coached shooting development and training perhaps they would rather sponsor the all-new "Sierra Canadian Coached Fullbore Shooting Clinc"?
-- Prizes could be allocated to the winner (or the top two or three places) of each class with sufficient entries (TR-Master, TR-Expert, TR-Sharpshooter/Greenshot, F-Open, F-TR).
-- I will further suggest that we eliminate the cash prizes from the Long Range Challenge - at present, $25 of the LRC's $120 entry fees go toward funding a cash prize pool. It is my thought that it would be better to have fees at $95 and have no cash prizes, but lots of bullet prizes. I'd really appreciate hearing some of your thoughts on this though...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Re: the cash awards in the LRC. We used to do the same thing in the ISSF, but dropped the awards and lowered the entry fee a few years ago. It did little to increase the level of entry. The concept of the LRC awards was to try to have a few quite large prizes to encourage "greed". When the event started, it seemed to be a good thing. Now, perhaps, the cash has outlived the usefulness. I'm happy with the other changes. Jim
ReplyDeleteDan - I'll wade in here for what its worth, most of my shooting background has been ISSF disciplines. However I did not shoot the ISSF 300m event in Ottawa this year, nor will I shoot it in 2010, due to the time / energy drain. I will shoot the ISSF 300m event at the PRA level when the ISSF 300m event is shot as a stand alone event - for the same reason as above. However if the event is retired from the DCRA National Championship how would a Canadian ISSF 300m champion be named?? No doubt you have considered that.
ReplyDeleteBob Kierstead
As much as I like ISSF 300M, I haven't shot it for 6-7 years, even at the provincial level (it's a matter of committment to smallbore). At the same time, I agree with the 'use it or lose it' approach. In these days, participation level should justify the events in the programme. Clearly the diversity of events added to the programme didn't attract more shooters and should be reconsidered.
ReplyDeleteI would also take a long and hard look at the .223 matches and also F-class which is thriving at the provincial level but doesn't raise interest at the national level (I know I'm going to get flak over this but that's just the way it is, look at the numbers).
Time to get back to our 'core business' and for a reality check. Thanks for your efforts.
Gale Stewart
Bob,
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't worry too much about this whole 300M national champion thing as this year's matches aren't even being considered for selection to the 2010 World championships (the fall selection matches that took place last week in Ft. Benning are). Furthermore, I have great doubts about the current selection for CSF championships providing any self-funded shooters in 300M to India. The only likely participants will come from the fullbore participants if any.
The problem here is the 2 solitudes (DCRA and SFC) that are an old couple (they live together but don't talk to each other). I won't get further into this as it is another can of worms.
Gale Stewart
The overlap between the 300m match and the smallbore nationals is also an issue here, as they were shot on the same days -- but the smallbore nationals were in Calgary. So any chance of cross-over was instantly removed due to scheduling.
ReplyDeleteWhile we only had one shooter at the Fort Benning match (Glynn Loftin), he shot an 1186, a not unreasonable score. Glynn spends the vast majority of his training in smallbore, so this was a great peformance.
Like Gale, I wish the DCRA and SFC would learn to play nicer together. Not just for the sake of 300m shooting -- which appeals more to me as a smallbore shooter than traditional TR -- but also better engagement/retention of cadet shooters.
Jason Jarvis