Shooting events, have they gone too far with technology?

[mmj_uk]

I've been watching a few of the archery/shooting events over the past few days and it strikes me that a lot of the human element has been taken out of these events.

The bows have all sorts of contraptions attached to them to aid with aiming and stability and the shooting athletes have scopes and cyborg style contraptions fitted over their eye.

My point is that if you gave these athletes a simple no frills bow/gun would they even be able to hit the target? do these events rely too much on technology? It is rare to see an archer score less than 8pts (out of 10) I'd like to think this is down to the skill of the athletes but I suspect most OCUK members could be scoring 6+ after a few hours of practice.

So I guess my basic question is have these events become too easy due to the addition of technological aids?

 

[touch]

If you ban all of the aids, etc, it wont change anything.
The scores may be a little lower, but the best athlete will still win.

 

[Morba]

If you ban all of the aids, etc, it wont change anything.
The scores may be a little lower, but the best athlete will still win.

Lets do that then

 

[NuclearWinter]

It is rare to see an archer score less than 8pts (out of 10) I'd like to think this is down to the skill of the athletes but I suspect most OCUK members could be scoring 6+ after a few hours of practice.

Are you having a laugh?

 

[mmj_uk]

No I am being serious although perhaps I am exaggerrating and overestimating the average OCUK member.

Once you are familiar with equipment it's just a matter of looking down a sight and letting go, the hardest part today is probably judging the wind.

It's not like the archery of old where there were no assists and real skill was required.

 

[Vonhelmet]

It is rare to see an archer score less than 8pts (out of 10) I'd like to think this is down to the skill of the athletes but I suspect most OCUK members could be scoring 6+ after a few hours of practice.

The 6 ring is 61cm across and you are shooting at it from 70m away. The angle in which you are attempting to strike is therefore (trigonometry, yo!) pretty much 1 degree of your vision. Factor in the effects of gravity and possibly a bit of a breeze and I'd say most of us would struggle to even hit the target, assuming we could even send an arrow 70m in the first place.

 

[InertProtocol]

I can see the point the OP is trying to make. But let's not take away any of the skill that these folks have.

I'd be happy to even hit the target in the first place.

 

[mmj_uk]

I guess I just don't like the fact that in my view these events have been dumbed down by the addition of technology, Olympians should not need or be given such aids.

Take darts for example (the pub game), if a 'dart launcher' was invented (and adopted) which enabled players to aim at the board down a sight and launch their darts at the board more accurately, would Phil Taylor still have an edge over everybody? I do not think so and he would most likely have to join the rest in using such a device just to remain competitive. Darts would reach a much higher standard from the viewers standpoint but would the players coming through the ranks still be as talented with technology now playing such a big role in things?

 

[InertProtocol]

I'm presuming it's because the distance is a lot shorter in Darts and there's not so much wind

 

[Vonhelmet]

If you want to start on technology, then you're talking about runners going barefoot, yeah?

 

[InertProtocol]

If you want to start on technology, then you're talking about runners going barefoot, yeah?

Does this also mean nekked swimming?

 

[Maccapacca]

Watching the 10m air pistol this weekend I couldn't give a monkeys as long as everyone has the same availability to the technology then what's the problem? when the gold medallist pulled out a 10.8 on his final shot was skill.

 

[Bennie-Mac]

Watching the 10m air pistol this weekend I couldn't give a monkeys as long as everyone has the same availability to the technology then what's the problem? when the gold medallist pulled out a 10.8 on his final shot was skill.

Exactly this, if everyone participating has the same technology, whats the problem? They are still the top of their fields regardless, removing the technological advantage would produce the same results, just with worse scores. The most skilled marksmen will still win.

 

[Xinn]

I kind of agree, I would rather see them reduce the distance they are shooting/firing and remove the aids.

 

[One]

Didn't archery actually used to havee way more tech than they do now but they did scale it back down because it was getting silly?

 

[Weebull]

I'd like to think this is down to the skill of the athletes but I suspect most OCUK members could be scoring 6+ after a few hours of practice.

Arf.

 

[Maccapacca]

Doesn't advanced technology (assuming even) reduce mechanical tolerances and failure thereby even more relying on personal skill

 

[Shoei]

? It is rare to see an archer score less than 8pts (out of 10) I'd like to think this is down to the skill of the athletes but I suspect most OCUK members could be scoring 6+ after a few hours of practice.

At 15-20yds probably, but out to 70meters with the added bonus of crosswinds, me thinks not. Even with a scope on my compound bow, the gold is pretty small & doesn't take much movement of my bow to make a big difference at the target.

 

[Vonhelmet]

I guess I just don't like the fact that in my view these events have been dumbed down by the addition of technology, Olympians should not need or be given such aids.

Take darts for example (the pub game), if a 'dart launcher' was invented (and adopted) which enabled players to aim at the board down a sight and launch their darts at the board more accurately, would Phil Taylor still have an edge over everybody? I do not think so and he would most likely have to join the rest in using such a device just to remain competitive. Darts would reach a much higher standard from the viewers standpoint but would the players coming through the ranks still be as talented with technology now playing such a big role in things?

I've just caught up and read this... I'm not sure you could evolve darts in that way. A modern bow is still a bow. A dart launcher sounds a lot like a gun to me, and we already distinguish between target shooting and darts, if only because one is frowned on in the pub.

I appreciate your point, but I think you need a better example with which to make it before you'll convince me.

 

[One]

I've just caught up and read this... I'm not sure you could evolve darts in that way. A modern bow is still a bow. A dart launcher sounds a lot like a gun to me, and we already distinguish between target shooting and darts, if only because one is frowned on in the pub.

I appreciate your point, but I think you need a better example with which to make it before you'll convince me.

Prosthetic robotic arm?