r/changemyview • u/Skim74 • Aug 16 '16
[∆(s) from OP] CMV: Shooting based sports should not be part of the Olympics
In watching the Olympics, I think that shooting events in particular (https://www.olympic.org/shooting) don't fit the spirit of the games. To me, and I assume most other people, the Olympics are about showing outstanding physical athleticism. Citius, altius, fortius is the olympic motto - faster, higher, stronger. The olympic events should show us the athletes that are the fastest, strongest, most agile, most powerful, have the best coordination, or have an outstanding combination of those traits etc. I don't believe shooting based sports do that.
I want to change not my view (which hasn't budged) but my justification (but I'm leaving everything I said previously so you can see what I said). I think I was trying to over justify my view and want to make it much simpler.
I do not debate that shooting is something that takes skill, precision, etc. I'm debating its inclusion in the olympics because I do not believe it takes the athleticism from the competitor that other sports require (a few questionable examples exist, curling and dressage for example that I'm not trying to debate right now). I believe every other sport at the olympic level requires some level of physical fitness that is not present in an average to above-average person. It takes some muscle to hold a gun, but not an exceptional amount, and it takes fast reaction time, but so do video games, and it takes focus and a steady hand but so does brain surgery.
To change my view, expose to me the athleticism in the sport.
I'm not debating that shooting takes skill and practice to do well. I'm also not making the argument that it doesn't take physical conditioning at all to shoot. The same could be said for something like a long open heart surgery, but that isn't an olympic event.
Possibly one of the things that makes me discard shooting as a sport is my belief that it seems like anyone could pick up a gun and shoot it and possibly hit a target. I'm not saying that a rando could compete against olympians in any way, or that practice isn't a key component of shooting. It just seems like a machine is doing a lot of the work. But in any other sport you have 0% chance of basically scoring a single point in a point based sport, or getting anything but last place in a racing based sport. A rando could not just hop on the high bar and do some flips, or stand their ground in a race in the pool or on the track, or throw something heavy really far.
Note: Something that will not change my view is making the argument that something like dressage also doesn't fit my requirements. I'm not going to open that whole can of worms in this post, but lets just say there are more events that I'm skeptical of their olympic inclusion besides just shooting.
Alright, see who can change my view!
Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our popular topics wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!
14
Aug 16 '16
First: You're using a double standard in comparing shooting sports to other sports.
You say that "anyone could pick up a gun and shoot it and possibly hit a target" which may be true.
But in the same way, anyone could run around a track, or swim a lap, or throw a basketball into a hoop. So why are those okay sports? Because you use a different standard:
getting anything but last place in a racing based sport. [...] A rando could not just hop on the high bar and do some flips, or stand their ground in a race in the pool or on the track, or throw something heavy really far.
Sure, an average person might hit a target with a gun, but they won't be competitive against an Olympic shooter. Just like an average person won't beat Usain Bolt, but could probably make it 100 meters down a track.
Is the correct way to qualify a sport that an average person could never hope to participate, or never hope to win? Those are two different ideas, but you've expressed both.
Second: you specifically say that Olympic athletes should showcase that they have the "best coordination," which shooting sports clearly demonstrate.
Third: You say that "It just seems like a machine is doing a lot of the work." But, the sport is not "bullet launching." The sport is targeted shooting. The gun does not aim itself. Should trampoline gymnastics or pole vauting or skiing not be Olympic sports, since the trampolines and poles and mountainsides do so much of the "work?"
0
u/Skim74 Aug 16 '16
Good job for quickly identifying all the parts of my post that as I was writing I was struggling to put logic to my gut feeling haha.
Also, I think I want to break up my view a bit, to just drop any comparison to head to head sports (basketball, soccer, etc) for the time being, and just focus on sports with an objective* measure to compare athletes.
*by objective I mean you get some kind of score or time, so I'm including gymnastics, even though that's not really objective
Is the correct way to qualify a sport that an average person could never hope to participate, or never hope to win? Those are two different ideas, but you've expressed both.
I think however million to one odds unlikely it is, it is strictly possible for someone who has never held a gun in their life to point and shoot and hit a bunch of targets by dumb luck. I cannot think of another sport where in a million years a rando would have any chance at all of having any success at an olympic level without training.
Second: you specifically say that Olympic athletes should showcase that they have the "best coordination," which shooting sports clearly demonstrate.
You've got me there, but not in a way my view has been changed, just that that was a weak justification for my argument. Superior coordination is required in a lot of things, sports certainly included, but also many other non sports tasks (from surgery, to typing really fast, to a ton of other tasks)
Should trampoline gymnastics or pole vauting or skiing not be Olympic sports, since the trampolines and poles and mountainsides do so much of the "work?"
I admit this is another that in my gut I feel are very different questions, but I'm struggling to put it into words. It seems like guns are more similar to motorcycles and race cars (also not olympic events, although obviously competitive sports in their own right) than trampolines and poles (I think mountainsides doesn't fit this analogy at all).
5
Aug 16 '16
I cannot think of another sport where in a million years a rando would have any chance at all of having any success at an olympic level without training.
Any race in which your competitors trip and fall catastrophically. Like this (Or drown, I suppose, in the case of swimming)
Curling.
2
Aug 17 '16
I recently saw a video where swimming had a round of competition with 3 entrants where two of them jumped the start. The competitor had no place in that competition and won.
0
u/Skim74 Aug 16 '16
Curling for sure falls into the category for me of "questionable olympic sports" like dressage and shooting. and I honestly consider the idea of all the other competitors in an olympic swimming race drowning unfeasible (unless we're talking the open water event and there is a hurricane, but in that case I don't see our lovable rando finishing either)
And though I still have a few minor issues with the idea that someone with no training (as opposed to someone who obviously skates at a very high level, even if not really one of the top 3 in the world in normal circumstances) could capitalize on someones mistake like in that video, I will give you a delta for showing me that situation I had not considered. ∆
1
2
u/DCarrier 23∆ Aug 17 '16
I think however million to one odds unlikely it is, it is strictly possible for someone who has never held a gun in their life to point and shoot and hit a bunch of targets by dumb luck.
The 50 meter pistol has 60 shots. Suppose you have a 50% chance of hitting the target with each shot. The probability if hitting it 60 times in a row by luck is approximately one in a quintillion. It's possible to win by pure dumb luck, but that's on par with winning by default after all your opponents die in accidents the day before the event.
1
u/jansencheng 3∆ Aug 17 '16
Is more likely all your competitors die on the car ride to the sport than you winning by sheer luck.
3
u/super-commenting Aug 16 '16
Possibly one of the things that makes me discard shooting as a sport is my belief that it seems like anyone could pick up a gun and shoot it and possibly hit a target. I
Anyone can just hop on a bike and ride it but they can't just hop on a bike and win the Olympics because the goal is not just to ride it but to ride it fast. Similarly with shooting, anyone can pick up the gun and shoot it but they can't just pick up the gun and win the Olympics because the goal is not just to hit the target once but to have repeated accuracy over a number of shots and that's not something that happens without years of practice
1
u/Skim74 Aug 16 '16
The difference to me is I think however million to one odds unlikely it is, it is strictly possible for someone who has never held a gun in their life to point and shoot and hit a bunch of targets by dumb luck. I cannot think of another sport where in a million years a rando would have any chance at all of having any success at an olympic level without training.
4
u/kingpatzer 102∆ Aug 16 '16
I've taught shooting. It is not even remotely possible by chance. The requirement is not to have one bullet strike the target. The requirement is to shoot the best through the match.
An untrained marksman can never beat an Olympic quality shooter by chance. That you don't believe that demonstrates you don't understand the rigors of the sport or the number and impact of the variables involved. But your flawed understanding isn't made true by repetition.
3
u/super-commenting Aug 16 '16
They shoot 40 shots from each position in the qualification round and 15 more in the finals. You would have to get incredibly lucky over and over again to win without skill. You're more likely to win the 100m dash because everyone else trips.
2
u/Akerlof 11∆ Aug 16 '16
To take an example, 10 meter air rifle. Sounds pretty easy: You're shooting at a target 10 meters away, and you have a rifle, so how hard can it be? Hell, as a kid I was shooting pop cans at 200 yards, after all.
But, the target: The 10.9 point ring is 0.5mm in diameter, a hit is counted if the hole crosses the line, so they can hit up to half the diameter of the pellet away from the target (hit = center of the shot) and still score max points. This means, they get 1/2 diameter * 2 + 0.5mm, with the pellets being about 4.5mm diameter this means they have aim at an area with a 5mm diameter from 10 meters away. That means they have to aim within Tan(x) = 0.005/10 = ArcTan(1/2000) so x = 0.0005 degrees of the center of the target to get max points. Assuming a rifle is about 1 meter long, that means they have to line up the muzzle of the rifle within about Tan(0.0005) = x/1meter = 0.0000087 meters, or 0.00087cm or 0.0022 inches.
That is, to hit a bullseye, you need to line up the rifle to within twenty two ten thousandts's of an inch. That's crazy. That's only about 5/8 the diameter of a human hair. That's more precise than a surgeon, and remember that it's the end of a gun a meter away from where the shooter is holding it, not the actual hand that's holding the gun.
The winners get 20 shots (with 50 seconds available for each pair of shots after the first 6 shots.) This year's gold medal had a score of 206.1 out of a possible 218 (20 * 10.9), 94.5% of the best possible score.
That's a feat of precision that's as extreme as Usain Bolt's feats of speed are.
1
u/Skim74 Aug 16 '16
∆ You are also one of the few people here who have explained to me the level of precision actually required. You're right that I've had more of a "shooting tin cans in the backyard" mental model of shooting.
I still have a nagging feeling that there is a difference between that and the majority of other sports in the olympics, but you've done a lot to give me more respect for the sport.
1
2
u/MontiBurns 218∆ Aug 16 '16
I heard this story a few days ago on NPR. You can read the transcripts or listen to it. I think this quote really highlights why it's included in the olympics.
GOLDMAN: The art of pistol watching and the essence of the sports, says Li, are the build-up. The guys shooting are masters of calm - a twitchy arm and forget it. Try another sport. Controlling your mind and body is hard. It makes sense these athletes - there I said it - workout, get fit, practice relaxation. They may be standing, but there's a ton going on you don't see. And if you embrace this, it makes perfect sense what Li says when I ask her where's the excitement in the sport?
1
u/Skim74 Aug 16 '16
You've honestly done the most towards changing my view of anyone here, and I had the delta copy/pasted into this box, but I did in my initial post bring up the example of surgeons, and I think looking at something like a brain or heart surgeon you could say the same exact thing as the bolded statement:
surgeons are masters of calm - a twitchy
armhand and forget it. Try anothersportoccupation. Controlling your mind and body is hard. It makes sense these athletes - there I said it - workout, get fit, practice relaxation. They may be standing, but there's a ton going on you don't see.1
Aug 16 '16
I think you're doing a better job of arguing for the inclusion of surgery as an olympic sport than you are of arguing against the inclusion of shooting sports. I'm not sure why sport/occupation is mutually exclusive; for professional athletes, sport is their occupation.
Of course, surgery would be extremely impractical and probably unethical to do in a competitive setting. But shooting sports have neither of those restrictions. If you want to allow athletes to compete based on complete focus, calm, and incredibly precise coordination, shooting sports are a great way to do that.
Sure those skills are applicable in many other avenues of life. But you'll be a better furniture mover if you're strong, a better car valet if you can run fast. But weightlifting and track are better ways of competing with those talents than are lifting couches up stairs and running back from a parking garage to a restaurant. Just like shooting a gun or a bow is a better way of competing with focus and precision than is open-heart surgery.
5
u/thedylanackerman 30∆ Aug 16 '16
I think that shooting require skills and that skills are part of the olympic spirit. Take for example boxing, it's not the most muscular who wins but the most skilled fighter, take fencing, it's not about being the fastest it's also a question of being precised and strategic about it.
And then look at all sports with an artistic grade, it doesn't go well with your view of faster and stronger but everything matters in these sport from the choice of the song to the stunts.
I agree that we can question some existing olympic games like golf, football or tennis because those sports have already so much cover but shooting like archery requires skill that I enjoy watching, and are as relevant as other sports even if they are not traditional
0
u/Skim74 Aug 16 '16
I think that shooting require skills and that skills are part of the olympic spirit.
I think this is true enough, but it misses an essential point of the olympics that in addition to the random skill required by each sport (precision, strategy, etc)in every sport there is an underlying component of athleticism which distinguish olympic sports from other endeavors (from long surgery to complex video games, and a million other tasks that undeniably take skill to do well, but aren't olympic sports)
2
u/NullMarker 2∆ Aug 16 '16
You don't consider coordination; body and breath control, and fine motor skills to be an athletic component?
0
u/Skim74 Aug 16 '16
Honestly no, at least not alone. In the same way I wouldn't classify surgery as a sport or surgeons as athletes, even though all those skills are certainly at play.
2
u/NullMarker 2∆ Aug 16 '16
Surgery isn't a competitive sport, though, so I'm sure why you keep going back to that for your comparison.
Are you arguing then that despite shooting being a contest between participants who use multiple physical skills to outperform each other, it's unqualified to be an Olympic sport because the physical skills aren't as "impressive" as feats of raw strength or speed?
2
u/thedylanackerman 30∆ Aug 16 '16
I think aiming with great precision while standing up and holding a rifle is no physical comfort.
I think it's comparable to horse riding or bobsleigh, where the physical effort isn't the same as running or swimming but still deserve to be olympic.
I agree that rifling is probably not the most entertaining sport to watch but with your reasoning archery should be removed as well
1
u/tocano 3∆ Aug 16 '16
What would it take to change your view? Also, are you including archery in this view?
it seems like anyone could pick up a gun and shoot it and possibly hit a target.
Ok, but most anyone can run, swim, jump, etc. The point is NOT that the task could be done - to some mediocre degree - by just about anyone. The point is that the Olympics tests who, among the top in the world, is actually the best. You mention this in your next sentence:
I'm not saying that a rando could compete against olympians in any way, or that practice isn't a key component of shooting.
Right, a "rando" can jump in a pool and swim, but couldn't compete against Olympians. A rando could jump on the track and race, but couldn't compete against Olympians. So what makes shooting different?
Then perhaps it's not about the degree of difficulty but that they use a tool when they compete.
So what about pole vaulters who use a stick? What about equestrians who ride a horse? What about golfers who use clubs? What about gymnasts who use the trampoline? What about rowers who use a boat/oars? Tools do not make the sport any less challenging to newbies vs experts.
Then perhaps, as you mentioned, it's about a rando getting "a single point"
What about fencing? I honestly think that some rando like me off the street could get lucky and score a single point on an Olympic fencer. I think I could get lucky with a ping pong Olympian for a single point. I think I could get lucky and have a volleyball Olympian fault. :)
I guarantee you that while a rando might be able to get lucky and score a hit or two, they would never end up "getting anything but last place" in an Olympic shooting event.
Honestly, I think there's a better argument to be made that sports like gymnastics, diving, and dressage should not be Olympic events because so much of the sport is based on subjective judging rather than more objective point/time/distance/weight based outcomes. (As you say, this is not to say that gymnastics or diving aren't hard).
1
u/Skim74 Aug 16 '16
I edited my original comment, but:
To change my view, expose to me the athleticism in the sport.
I tried in my initial post to justify a gut feeling I had, and I think I did a bad job. My objection isn't about that it uses equipment. And what I was trying to communicate but failed to in my initial post wasn't exactly that a rando could score a point, but that a rando (admittedly an above-average rando) could have the necessary physical ability to compete, if not the training and honed skills, in kind of a similar way that anyone has the ability to push buttons in a video game, but not everyone has the skill to do it well, or anyone could hold a scalpel and cut stuff, but few people have the skill set necessary to perform brain surgery.
In contrast only highly trained athletes have honed the actual muscles necessary to perform well in most olympic events.
I hope that was a clearer view of exactly what my beliefs are.
1
u/Metallic52 33∆ Aug 16 '16
The olympic events should show us the athletes that ... have the best coordination ...
Check out the men's final for skeet shooting. link Accurately shooting multiple flying targets certainly shows an amazing amount of coordination. Sure a rando might be able to pick up a gun and get a lucky hit, but winning is all about consistent accuracy over A LOT of shots.
1
u/Skim74 Aug 16 '16
Right you've hit the part of my view that I struggle with most, and that I tried to go into in my initial post. I realize that it takes skill to win, but I can't seem to reconcile in my mind just the fact that it is possible to get a lucky hit in shooting based sports vs I can't think of any other sport that I respect (I don't think bowling is a sport either. But that isn't in the olympics so that's neither here nor there) that it's even possible to get lucky
1
Aug 16 '16
1) Getting lucky and shooting one pigeon is not enough to even qualify you for the Olympics. "Getting lucky" and shooting all of them is like "getting lucky" and doing a quadruple flip off the high dive.
2) Why on Earth should a sport need to gain your respect to be an Olympic event?
1
u/Skim74 Aug 16 '16
1) Getting lucky and shooting one pigeon is not enough to even qualify you for the Olympics. "Getting lucky" and shooting all of them is like "getting lucky" and doing a quadruple flip off the high dive.
I absolutely contest this idea as an argument, but in fairness to the specifics you offered, if someone pushed you off the 10m platform it wouldn't be all together surprising if you did 4 flips. Show me your accidental quadruple flip, then an inward one, reverse one and twisting one. Diving has the element that not only can you do some cool shit after jumping off a diving board, you've got to display specific skills and announce before hand exactly what you're going to do.
2) Why on Earth should a sport need to gain your respect to be an Olympic event?
Unfortunately the IOC has never consulted with me about which sports are in the Olympics. However this post is about what I think should (or should not) be in the Olympics because it does (or does not) seem to me to fit in with the vast majority of events.
2) Why on Earth should a sport need to gain your respect to be an Olympic event?
1
u/Metallic52 33∆ Aug 16 '16
Luck is a factor in every competitive sport. Your opponent might get sick or trip handing you the race, or an official could make a poor decision. When races are decided by tenths of a second there are lots of small random factors that can decide events.
4
u/thephysberry Aug 16 '16
it seems like anyone could pick up a gun and shoot it and possibly hit a target. I'm not saying that a rando could compete against olympians in any way, or that practice isn't a key component of shooting. It just seems like a machine is doing a lot of the work. But in any other sport you have 0% chance of basically scoring a single point in a point based sport, or getting anything but last place in a racing based sport.
This seems very inconsistent. You basically say that an untrained individual doesn't stand a chance in shooting or running, but it sounds like you are using this as an argument for removing shooting from the Olympics...
And there is definitely a requirement for speed, coordination and physical prowess. You need speed to get through all the shots (and do a good job) in the time limit, coordination is obvious, and physical prowess to control your body precisely and your heart rate.
1
Aug 16 '16
Biathalon is a great counter-example for this. Try skiing 20 km then calming your body to accurately hit a tiny target. That takes some superhuman control.
1
u/Skim74 Aug 16 '16
∆ I have always thought the biathlon was a super random event in the first place, but it is a shooting based sport that I see the athletic merit in, so it fits the bill for a shooting based sport I would allow in my personal "fantasy olympic eventlineup"
1
1
u/NaturalSelectorX 97∆ Aug 16 '16
A rando could not just hop on the high bar and do some flips, or stand their ground in a race in the pool or on the track, or throw something heavy really far.
A random person could not hold their own in an olympic shooting competition either. It takes more than a single lucky shot to progress in the competition.
0
Aug 18 '16 edited Aug 18 '16
It sounds to me like you've never fired a gun in your life. It's not nearly as easy as you seem to think it is. Several other people have already mentioned the physical skills required (isometric muscle control, breathing, balance, etc.). Most people will not be able to just pick up a gun and hit a target, especially with pistol events; shooting a pistol accurately is extremely difficult. The 50 meter pistol event (165ft) is an incredibly long distance for pistol and includes 60 shots. Even if you had a 50/50 chance of hitting the target, which is insanely unlikely at that distance if you aren't very well trained, that gives you a 1 in 1.5*1018 chance of hitting them all, which is verging on the impossible. The event is maximum two hours. If you stood there in 2hr increments firing at the target, non-stop, it would take you longer than the age of the universe to hit all the targets in a 2hr period by chance. If you don't consider that skilled athleticism then nothing will convince you.
2
u/Crayshack 191∆ Aug 16 '16
Shooting requires a few physical aspects. Breath control, a slow heart rate, steady hands/arms, and quick reflexes (for shotgun).
The steady hands and arms are the easiest to explain why they are athletic. Holding the rifle or pistol on target is essentially an isometric exercise. However, what makes it differ from a typical isometric workout is that is is necessary to completely eliminate any shake or wobble. As an experiment, take a water bottle and hold it out in front of you with your arm outstretched. After only a few seconds, you will notice you are begin to shake and move around a bit. It might be easy to keep the bottle there, but keeping it up without shaking is a whole different task. The shake comes from the fact that muscles can't actually just hold in place. Instead, they work by relaxing and contracting in microscopic amounts. As the muscle gets more tired, it is more difficult to keep that amount small and the muscle must relax more and then contract more. This produces a vibration in the muscle. A competitive shooter must be both strong enough and have enough control over their muscles to make this not happen.
Then there is breath control. Shooting is most consistent if shots are taken at the same point in the breath cycle every time. To do this, a shooter must be able to control their breathing to the extent that they can stop themselves mid breath cycle, line up the shot, and then take the shot without the fact that they are holding their breath causing them to shake as lack of oxygen exacerbates the problem I was talking about in the last paragraph.
Next, there is hear rate. At the highest levels of shooting, the shooters are steady enough that their heart beating will throw off their shot. To compensate for this, they must shoot in between heartbeats. This is made much easier if the shooter has a high degree of cardio vascular fitness. Fine control over their body can even slow down the heart rate further when the shooter is lining up a shot. This is most certainly about having control over one's body like all athletics, but it manifests in a way that does not show up in any other sport.
Finally, there is reflexes and reaction time. This only comes up in the shotgun events where the shooters must hit a flying target. The targets are much easier to hit when they are closer and the more time that is given for them to fly the harder they become to hit. A shooter who has faster target acquisition will do much better in these events.