Why IPSC can't use METRIC targets in Europe

The Goofy and Cool Shooting Targets Used by the World's Armies | WIRED:
(By Margaret Rhodes - August 04, 2014)

Years ago, on a cold, dark morning outside of Munich, Herlinde Koelbl noticed a shooting target that had been battered with bullet holes. “In a way, you could see death and aggression and power in it,” she remembers. But Koelbl, a professional photographer, couldn’t help but notice the eerily beautiful way the early morning sun filtered through the punctures. She snapped a photograph.
 That image was never published, but it stayed in the back of Koelbl’s mind. Eventually, it inspired her new series and recent book Targets. Over the course of six years, Koelbl traveled to 30 countries and took thousands of photographs of shooting targets used during military training. Seen as a series, the images are a fascinating and somewhat unsettling window into how militaries around the world use visuals to groom their soldiers for battle.

One of the most INTERESTING things about IPSC is the way a couple of years ago (okay, more than that), when the sport of Practical Pistol Shooting became a worldwide interest, it sort of ... morphed.

The thing is, as soon as this became an International Sport, European (and other) countries began to complain the they couldn't practice it in their home countries.

The fact is: some countries had laws which prevented people from shooting at "humanoid" or "Human Shaped" targets.  And that was that.

There was also the expected national rules which prohibited their subjects from owning "powerful semi-automatic firearms with high-capacity magazines", but there were work-arounds for that.

Examples: Japanese participants practice with paint-guns and air-soft guns; Canadians practice with diminished-capacity guns; British practiced with God-Knows What, but these and other subjects had one thing in common ... they stored their REAL "competition" guns in neighboring, more enlightened countries, and only used them in those countries where the national gun regulations permitted more freedom.

But one thing was universally clear:  "IPSC teaches people how to kill people!"

So they couldn't use the classic .. now called the "Metric" target.  Instead they now use the stop-sign ... now called the "Classic" target.

The first (Metric) target is roughly rectangular (about 3' tall x 2' wide), with a 4" x 4" tab centered on the top, which critics have chose  to call "A Human Head", which makes the target "Humanoid" in nature.


Hence the accusation that "IPSC is teaching people to kill people".  Which is clearly an evaluation which is in the mind of the beholder.  We're shooting Cardboard, folks.  And .. okay .... sometimes we shoot at steel targets, too.

However, people in Europe go right on shooting targets which are not only 'reminiscent' of humans, but are clear depictions of humans.

At this time, no recent Internet searches complain about targets which are obviously intended to teach people how to kill people.

"People Targets", Shooting, and the Olympics:
However, it is worth considering that the singular issue of "humanoid targets", which has caused a schism in the noble sport of Practical Pistol Shooting, has proliferated.  People continue to want to shoot at targets that look like people, and although this issue has been the reason why IPSC competition was rejected as the candidate for International Olympics several years ago, (2005)  with some comments from shooters, which seemed to go nowhere, it seems odd that .. well, people will be people.  And that they want to shoot at targets that look like people even though the International Olympics Commission considers this to be .. TERRIBLE!

Never mind the facts: We Deal In Feelings, Friend! 
Ignore that fact that there are several shooting sports gladly accepted by the IOC:  Skiing and Shooting; Small-bore target shooting (both pistol and rifle) are accepted without comment.  Trap and Skeet (shotgun shooting at flying targets)?  No problem.  Air Rifle?  The same skill sets, except using 'reduced power ammunition"?  Fine! Javelin?  Teaching people to throw spears at people?  No problem.

So why not IPSC competition?

Because it is teaching people to shoot people.  Bad.  So the International Practical Shooting Confederation (IPSC) introduce a new target, which they call the CLASSIC target:



Notice it doesn't look anything at ALL like a person.

Well, but yes it does. If you use your imagination ...  it MAY define the human torso, with the A-zone in the approximate area of the heart/lungs/spine, the "C-zone" as the lungs and other semi-vital organs, and the D-zone as "non-fatal but otherwise sometimes debilitating and painful hits, maybe".

The good news is there is not "Upper A/B-Zone" area, which would define a brain/spine hit on a human.

And so, the IOC is unlikely to accept this target, either even if IPSC is willing to accept a minimal position as a "Demonstrations Sport" at the Olympics.

Olympic Sport: Sheep Sheering?

Australia targets Olympic sheep shearing

Peter Artridge, of Sports Shear Australia, one of the industry's governing bodies, said: "We think shearing has as much right to be called a sport as any Commonwealth or national games event.

"Shearers should be up there with other Australian sporting champions.

"Some of these guys train for months to be at their physical best. They're going to the gym and doing yoga and following special diets. They're outstanding athletes.

"If people could see the skill that is involved, they'd be interested."

Sheep Shearing? And the IOC doesn't think that Practical Pistol is a worthy addition to the Olympic Games?

Bloody Hell!

De Agony of De Feet

Taekwondo athlete faces lifetime ban for kicking referee in the head

One-time Olympic taekwondo champ Angel Matos of Cuba was booted from the sport for life after angrily kicking a referee in the face following his disqualification in a bronze medal match.

Matos - who took the gold in 2000 - flew into a rage Saturday after referee Chakir Chelbat disqualified him for exceeding the one-minute limit for injury treatment.

There's a lot that we can say about this. We can decry Matos' obvious failure to understand the concept of "Sport". We can talk about his not "being a good loser". And we can discuss the many ways in which his intemperate reaction has put his chosen sport (which was his life) in "Ill Repute".

Let's roll it all up into Door Number Two: "Being a Good Loser".

Many serious competitors will respond with this acerbic quote: "Show me a Good Loser, and I'll show you a Loser."

For the most keenly competitive, there is no acceptable alternative to winning. That is what makes them good competitors. They don't know how to lose "gracefully". They will not allow the concept of losing to taint their determination, and it is all part of their plan to win. Often, this is the critical 'edge' which turns a stellar performance (in a field of stellar performers) into a Win.

And win they do.

Matos won in the 2000 Olympics.

He came in at 11th place in the 2004 Athens Olympics. Clearly, he was disappointed in this finish, and his determination was even more powerful than it had been in 2000; back then, he didn't have a reputation to protect. Today, he did.

When he was knocked down today, he was either unwilling or unable to regain his feet after the 60-second countdown. (Boxers only have 10 seconds!) The referee "disqualified" him, which we can only assume was vaguely similar to being "Disqualified" in IPSC/USPSA shooting competition. (Note the vague nod to the notional theme of the blog.)

Matos reacted badly. He physically assaulted the referee who had DQ'd him ... more than once. And then he spit on the mats to further express his extreme disgust at what he must have perceived to be an unfair judgment which had nothing to do with his competence at his sport.

He really thought he could win.

After all, he was fighting with two broken toes. The endurance of pain in pursuit of victory is a primary indicator of excellence in all sorts of competition.

I'm not excusing Matos' out-of-control behavior. I'm only trying to understand it.

At that level of competition, nobody is a "Nice Guy". To Win, is everything. And in his pain, and disappointment, and sense of having not being dealt with fairly he lashed out against the perceived author of his loss ... the referee.

The referee just ... walked off the floor.

After Matos departed, Cuban coach Leudis Gonzalez said the decision to disqualify the Olympian was "too strict" - and suggested the match was fixed. Gonzalez claimed he was offered cash for Matos to throw the fight.

The World Taekwondo Federation announced a lifetime ban on both athlete and coach, ruling neither can ever participate in any championships sanctioned by the organization.

And the WTF could do nothing less, to defend the sport.

He did The Wrong Thing, so they Did The Right Thing. This is one time that "Throw Him Under The Bus" was needful.

Matos, of course, is ruined. As is his coach. And this is as it should be, because at the extremely high level of competition, it must not only be fair, but it must be seen to be fair.

Moving back to the world of IPSC/USPSA, if a competitor exhibited a similar expression of outrage ... or, as we say in the real world, "threw a hissy-fit", that competitor should similarly be banned eternally from competition.

Unfortunately, that is not always the way it works.

But even if the competition is only at the Club level, that is the way it should work.

You know what I'm saying?