From: "E.J. Totty", [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[...]
I'm not too sure about this. Yes, bigger prize
funds will probably see more People shooting but is this
the way we want to see the sport going? I don't think I
want to see this happening. I want shooting to be about
shooting *not* simply about making money.
-snip-
Amateur Footballers never get to play with or
against the likes of Beckham or Shearer and amateur
Tennis player don't get a Game against Samprass or Becker,
the gap created by the Money is just too great.
-snip-
Shooting, Rifle shooting in particular, is a sport
which requires a lot of space and there simply is not the
money availible to acquire suitable pieces of land. This I
presume has all been brought about by charitable status in
the past, which restricted clubs from making a profit.
[...]
Jonathan,
I do not believe that your nation or any other's
for that matter, will ever suffer the quandary of a super
paid team of competition shooters - any century soon.
Look at Switzerland: do they have such a
'problem'?
Shooting, as you already know, requires much
practice, dedication, and solemn self control. Other sports
aren't much like that. Shooting is not a team sport. There
are shooting teams, but their competitive events are solo.
By bringing a greater amount of money or other
prize that provides incentive to compete, the average person
who might not otherwise be interested, will become attracted
to shooting, in the hope of perhaps wining a share of the prize.
And, as you are already aware, in order for the
competitors to remain interested in shooting, there must be
many levels of prize. If there is only one prize, not many
people will ever show interest beyond the superficial, as they
will consider it much beyond their ability of attainment.
And that would serve to kill the sport faster than
anything, as it will be viewed largely as an elitist event.
The trick here is in the undertaking of attracting
greater numbers of people to shooting, because if you do not
attract more people, your sport will die, and sooner than you'd
like.
The biggest problem of introducing new shooters
to shooting is the trepidation that invariably one encounters,
both in the idea (in the modern sense) of pursuing a politically
incorrect art form, and the inertia of overcoming the newcomer
syndrome that is felt, especially by the newbie who gets from the
old timers, the distinct impression that he or she is intruding
on sacred turf. There is nothing worse than getting a cold
shoulder from someone who could well be a learned mentor.
Yes, you will be inundated with new shooters from
all walks of life, and the range fees will increase, and the times
that the lanes are open will be a challenge for you to arrange,
but it's all in a day's restoration of a sacred right.
As to the availability of shooting ranges, some
enterprising group of people could well design an underground
shooting range deep in the heart of an city, town, or other place
to accomodate the needs of the growing number of shooter.
ET
--
All you've got to do is compare the number of shooters in places
where there are big prizes to the places where there aren't.
I remember the Southern Classic in Florida, the biggest entry
we ever had was in 1993 when there were the most prizes. This
isn't rocket science.
Who cares if it is "bribery", it's not exactly a criminal offence,
does it matter how we get more people shooting?
Speaking for myself I would enter more comps if the prize table
was bigger. It's great having your name engraved on a trophy but
at the end of the day you if you can't get a return on the money
you're putting into it you're going to compete less.
Steve.
Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org
List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___________________________________________________________
T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16
Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
