Indians For Guns

Dear all,

I have always wondered why the 'Minimum Qualifying Score' system is applied in a shooting match (in certain countries). If asked why, I would say that I find it to be an obstacle to performance for an average shooter and it poses a serious problem for him/her to look beyond. The word 'Mimimum' is well worth the term; look for minimum and stay mediocre... so to say.

Most of the shooters like us, on the D day, are forced to think of or aim a certain score. Shooting, being a mental game, this MQS is translated as a mental barrier. Many capable shooters, being technically good, get this mental barrier imposed on themselves and can not help but think of it, as it is ingrained in the sub conscious mind since the beginning of the shooting days. The result is that we keep on running for the 'MINIMUM'. On the contrary, it is well known and experienced by many shooters amongst us that if we keep our mind at bay from scoring and keep on meticulously applying the basics during a shooting session, the result at the end is a pleasant surprise scorewise.

The alternative system is quota based. For example, The top 100 scores of AP in GVM will qualify for the nationals. There, one should be motivated to achieve the 'MAXIMUM' instead of eyeing for the minimum. In that particular context, the average shooter like most of us, will do his/her best to excel because no goal is fixed and yet he/she will have to be among the best on that day. There are 100 places, fight and take your's. This will certainly bring out better performance.

What do you say?

Best regards
tirpassion

You have raised a very good point.

Absolutely agree with you.

Since getting the right equipment for the sport is just a little below the virtually unobtainable,why does not the NRAI keep the MQS at a level that is easily achievable. After all the body was set up to promote shooting sports.

Totally agree with you.

Regards,

Dev

tirpassion,

Kudos to you for bringing this up.

Agree with all that has been said. I have also been advised from "I should enjoy shooting in a match" to "focus on your basics, do they right and you will score well automatically". I do follow the latter but it is hard to ignore the MQS

Frankly what I discovered so far here (In Mumbai) is that unless you have an MQS in your category, you are nobody in the shooting community. Hell, even the durban at the range might ask me to take a hike if I did'nt drive in, in my new car.

Nothing is being done to promote shooting sports in the countries by the shooting bodies. Then there are others in it for the business opportunities. It is only certain individuals who are the true promoters of the sport in the country. These are the true unsung heroes and heroines of our community.

Thanks for bringing this up.....

M.

The alternative system you propose does sound more positive than the MQS system but will the compulsion of being in the first 100 not cause performance anxiety ? and might result in bad performance again ?

Also,

What should be the strategy to not get overwhelmed by the MQS bogie and put in one's best performance ??????

M.

tirpassion wrote:
The alternative system is quota based. For example, The top 100 scores of AP in GVM will qualify for the nationals. There, one should be motivated to achieve the 'MAXIMUM' instead of eyeing for the minimum. In that particular context, the average shooter like most of us, will do his/her best to excel because no goal is fixed and yet he/she will have to be among the best on that day. There are 100 places, fight and take your's. This will certainly bring out better performance.

What do you say?

Best regards
tirpassion

a) The "first 100" system will not work well for many disciplines where the total number of shooters in the Nationals is very close to/ less than 100

b) As fantumfan has pointed out, the pressure to place within the first 100 would negate any relief (from mental pressure) that the removal of MQS may provide

c) Most importantly, if thinking about MQS causes you to shoot below par, then you really need to work harder at your "mental game". Match pressure is a fact of shooting and unless you have conquered it, you cannot hope to shoot at your best!

Just thinking aloud... along with the usual ISSF type disciplines + MQS system there should be additional categories where shooters can come & participate using ordinary (non-match grade) firearms. These categories should serve as a way to discover new talent, (in absence of any changes being made to the current import laws) participants may be "incentivized" by applying a lower MQS standard which allows them to import match grade firearms & ammo thus allowing them to pursue the sport more seriously.

Cheers!
Abhijeet

Hear...hear...NRAI?

It is already there in UK and US for air rifle.

http://sporter.homestead.com/Introduction.html

They are called sporting category and precision category

Our bodies are working in the opposite direction. Open sight category was removed by them last year.

M.

mundaire wrote: Just thinking aloud... along with the usual ISSF type disciplines + MQS system there should be additional categories where shooters can come & participate using ordinary (non-match grade) firearms. These categories should serve as a way to discover new talent, (in absence of any changes being made to the current import laws) participants may be "incentivized" by applying a lower MQS standard which allows them to import match grade firearms & ammo thus allowing them to pursue the sport more seriously.

Cheers!
Abhijeet

Dear all,

Thanks for your replies.

a) The "first 100" system will not work well for many disciplines where the total number of shooters in the Nationals is very close to/ less than 100

It was just an example of 100. .

b) As fantumfan has pointed out, the pressure to place within the first 100 would negate any relief (from mental pressure) that the removal of MQS may provide

In a positive attitude thinking (which is of foremost importance in shooting sport), I would say that it should motivate to be in the top 100 . The pressure will always be there and it must be there. A certain degree of pressure and stress during a match is always beneficial. It allows the mind to stay awake, concentrate and work correctly. But this pressure is to excel and not achieve a minimum.

c) Most importantly, if thinking about MQS causes you to shoot below par, then you really need to work harder at your "mental game". Match pressure is a fact of shooting and unless you have conquered it, you cannot hope to shoot at your best!

That is exactly what I am trying to say. That is the biggest problem of all of us, average shooters. Thnking of the MQS makes us shoot below par. There are hundreds who score regularly more than the MQS during practice matches but fail to achieve the same during an official match. For me, the MQS is a barrier to the average shooter who is looking forward to do better and explore more.
As explained earlier, I would suggest optimal positive utilisation of the match pressure rather than conquering it entirely.

I find a subtle note in these two systems. When one targets the 'MINIMUM' (MQS), the other talks of the MAXIMUM (quota). So the approach is totally different; one being negative and the other positive.
Excellence can be best pursued through a quotabased method, in my opinion. Just as you see the Entrance Examinations for the elite educational courses. In the IIT JEE, there is no place for minimum because it is the temple of excellence. Whosoever takes the exam, fights with determination and motivation to be among the top 2000 or so (I do not know how many seats are there).
Hence, I believe that the quota based system will show the path of excellence to the average shooters while the MQS will only get them stagnated.

My viewpoint is obviously destined to the competitive sports shooters.

best regards
tirpassion

Well, let's just look at the empirical evidence then, shall we? Till 2007-08 a system of "first x" ranks was followed, IIRC it was the first 20-25 would qualify as renown shots while the rest got to try again next year. Once this system was replaced with the MQS system the number of renowned shots has increased manifold, so one can only draw the conclusion that it seems to be working out better for more/ most shooters.

As to shooting MQS in practice, but shooting below the mark in the match - this happens to most shooters and is directly related to match pressure. Till the time you are able to master your mind, the only way around it is to set higher goals for your self in practice. That way even when you shoot below par in the match, you would have easily crossed the MQS. For e.g. If the MQS is 90, don't consider yourself ready unless you can consistently hit 100 in practice.

Once again I repeat, start working on your mental game sooner rather than later. As a dear friend (and several time national champion in his chosen discipline) is fond of saying - shooting is one third skill, one third physical and one third mental.

You NEED to work on all three aspects equally.

Cheers!
Abhijeet

Hi,
Very good topic. I sincerly appreciate all IFGians initiations for such a sport healthy debates.
But Opinions are A** H**ls, every one has one.
Its my opinion :
I am against quota system, because its quota is fixed and a restriction for it.
Where as in MQS any number can achieve and get the benefit. No limit only barrier cross MQS.
Some one showing example of competitive exams, there you are, there you have a quote, to achieve it there is a qualifying mark or cut off mark or some thing like MQS, which acts as a hurdle, all those achieved seats (quota) must pass MQS too.
So why break our head twice? MQS is enough. Regards

Dear friends,

I am against quota system, because its quota is fixed and a restriction for it.
Where as in MQS any number can achieve and get the benefit. No limit only barrier cross MQS.

Once this system was replaced with the MQS system the number of renowned shots has increased manifold, so one can only draw the conclusion that it seems to be working out better for more/ most shooters.

What we can deduce from the above statements is that the MQS has brought in numbers, quantity, mass. I am sure it has and that is the goal precisely. The formula is simple, reduce the MQS you will have more mass, increase it, the number will be less. So the MQS can also be a tough challenge, huge obstacle if increased. This leads to the question of defining the MQS. How and on which criteria??? The right compromise, the right concoction of judgement, prudence and generosity? Now what are we looking for (read what is our sporting body looking for)? Quality or quantity? If quantity is the main objective the MQS can also be further reduced or even disposed off and everything can be organised in an open category at the national level. To have quantity, the quota can also be increased; 150 instead of 100 for example.

Here, I would like to add that I find it ridiculous that only the Renowned Shots can import weapons. Whosoever willing to take up the shooting sport should have the liberty to select and have legal easy access to his/her desired equipments and accessories, be it imported or locally made.

When we are talking about mastering the mind to master the match pressure, we are already discussing excellence and we are already a bit above the average. Although, I do not support the idea of an increased mental MQS (set a goal of more and be content with less? This is in no way the path of excellence), I have been trying to inculcate a 10 point + MQS to everyone who is subject to the MQS system. But the MQS imposed by me is so flimsy compared to that of the NRAI, that it vanishes in no time .
Increasing again the mental MQS is also a form of setting a score to achieve which is not a good objective in a shooting match. Do you go to shoot with a score in mind? Most of the excellent shooters will say NO. Thinking about any kind of score is a negative thought during the match and must be shunned. Top shooters do not score, they perform.
Excellence is always quota based in sports. There are only 8 finalists in shooting. There is no MQS for it. The first 8 places are to be taken on the D day. Think about other individual sports also. Most of them do not have any MQS for the quaterfinals, sem-finals or the final.
There is also one more interesting thing in the quota based system. For example, the last score to enter the quota of 85 places in the French nationals in Men's AP (20 to 45 yrs category) in 2012 was 559 (It was 558 in 2011). There were 2 more shooters with the score of 559 who did not qualify because of the last series scores. So, the score does not necessarily assure you of a place even if you imagine that it hovers around 558/559.

In France, the MQS is followed only in the Muzzleloader shooting championships. I am only enumerating some figures from the most popular events.
ML percussion pistol (MQS 94/100): Total number of qualification in the Nationals 2008 = 85
ML percussion revolver (MQS 93/100): Total number of qualification in the Nationals 2008 = 69
ML percussion rifle 50m standing (MQS 93/100): Total number of qualification in the Nationals 2008 = 62

The MQS was reduced by 1 point in 2009 and the Nationals were also changed to OPEN category (no national classification for the participants in OPEN category but an honorary medal in case of the first 3 places) at the same time. The number of participants increased manifold due to the OPEN category. But after 3 years of experimentation (2009, 2010 & 2011), they have cancelled the OPEN category from 2012, while the reduced MQS stays intact. This is what happened in 2012.

ML percussion pistol (MQS 93/100): Total number of qualification in the Nationals 2012 = 88 (+3 wrt 2008)
ML percussion revolver (MQS 92/100): Total number of qualification in the Nationals 2012 = 57 (-12 wrt 2008)
ML percussion rifle 50m standing (MQS 92/100): Total number of qualification in the Nationals 2012 = 62 (same wrt 2008)

Did the reduction of the MQS help the cause? The statistics do not say so. Hardly any increase in quantity if not sharp decrease in one and definite overall decrease in quality. On the contrary, the number of ML shooters have gone up since 2008 in the popular events.

MQS is good for mass if kept low and a score in mind (be it low or high depending on the shooter's abilities) during a match is definitely an obstacle to performance. Any good shooting coach or good shooter will confirm the same. The mindgame is to brush aside any form of score in order to perform and stand out from the mass.

Once again I repeat, start working on your mental game sooner rather than later. As a dear friend (and several time national champion in his chosen discipline) is fond of saying - shooting is one third skill, one third physical and one third mental.

Thanks for your advice Abhijeet. I am workin on it.
I define Shooting as a mental sport which needs excellent technical skill and very good physical back-up. This is certainly not radically different from your friend's quote. I am hereby assured of thinking on the right line.

Best regards
tirpassion

Hello,
If the MQS be applied in Cricket, How would it be ???
If sachin (for example) could not score a MQS he will not be allowed to participate in any National/International Matches, so He has to keep Practicing for the MQS Will that prove that he is a poor Batsman ?
So much in the Name of PROMOTING Shooting Sports . . .
Thanks