Olympic Minimum Qualifying Score

[Marianne Rieckmann]

New info received from AA
Minimum Qualifying Score
The minimum qualifying score (MQS) for inclusion into the Nomination Events for the Olympic Team is -
Men 645
Women 635
The round to be shot for the MQS is a FITA 70m Ranking Round (72 arrows at 70m).
This score can be shot from 1st March 2007 to 15th November 2007.

Archery Team Nomination Procedure Overview
Archery Australia will be conducting a series of nomination shoots to select the archers who will be nominated to the Australian Olympic Committee for team selection.
1st Nomination Shoot 7th - 9th December 2007 To be advised
2nd Nomination Shoot 5th - 7th January 2008 To be advised
3rd Nomination Shoot 8th - 10th February 2008 To be advised

What do you think?
Clubs will need to program in some FITA 70m Ranking Rounds for any archers trying out.

[archerybob]

ive been looking at all the scores shot over the past few months and there is many archers who have either achieved the mqs or are knocking on the door (1250 ish mark) would be fantastic to see olympic trials with 20 or 30 folks turn up and make it a show case of aussy elite archery.....as for the double 70 as a ranking shoot marianne i thinks its a tops idea they would be short and sharp and you could get two out in a day i guess........would love to shoot a few and maybe even get that elusive mqs

[Sandy Hancock]

ive been looking at all the scores shot over the past few months and there is many archers who have either achieved the mqs or are knocking on the door (1250 ish mark) would be fantastic to see olympic trials with 20 or 30 folks turn up and make it a show case of aussy elite archery.....as for the double 70 as a ranking shoot marianne i thinks its a tops idea they would be short and sharp and you could get two out in a day i guess........would love to shoot a few and maybe even get that elusive mqs
1250ish for a FITA is about 7 rating points below a 645 Olympic (roughly equivalent to 1295). If you can step up, go for it :thumb:

[Ja]

if it the olympics, it makes more sense; the shoots are 70m rounds anyway.

[Flame]

New info received from AA


What do you think?
Clubs will need to program in some FITA 70m Ranking Rounds for any archers trying out.

Please NOTE :

Scores from FITA 70s can not be submitted for the AA Target Ranking Lists
Only Full FITAs can

AA is looking at the current QRE Guidelines and will make changes shortly.

[grantwomack]

This is on par with the British system, although you have to shoot two FITAs equalling 2580 or one FITA and two FITA 720s equalling the same. This roughly equates to 645 FITA 720s. Trying to do all that in one season can be difficult though... I'd prefer the single-score system that you've proposed.

[Marianne Rieckmann]

1250ish for a FITA is about 7 rating points below a 645 Olympic (roughly equivalent to 1295). If you can step up, go for it :thumb:

Interesting that for the women 635 Olympic is roughly equivalent to 1310 Ladies FITA. Not many women are shooting that...

The current Australian record for Women Recurve for a FITA 70m Round (72 Arrows) is 632.

I think the MQS for men should be set at 3 points above the current Australian record of 676. That should be 679 :wink:

[Marcus]

just shows that our women have not been performing on par with teh rest of the world doesn't it. The MQS's are usually based on what was shot at teh last event.

[Marianne Rieckmann]

just shows that our women have not been performing on par with teh rest of the world doesn't it. The MQS's are usually based on what was shot at teh last event.

From the Athens Olympics 2004 the Ranking round of 72 arrows.
Mens 645 score placed 38th...
Womens 38th place scored 622... not 635

This MQS is NOT based on what was shot in the last event.
.

[Matt Gray]

So the scores are up.

In recent times the qualifying scores have changed (to get a few more numbers), yet the current scores seem to be alright, although only a handful of women will be capable of making the score, I don

[James Park]

The scores match those required for 1300 FITA's. (And are hence not unreasonable).
The 70M round is exactly what is used for the Olympics, and hence is also a good choice.

In fact, if our archers cannot get those scores they have no chance at the Olympics, and should not go.

[Eberbachl]

In fact, if our archers cannot get those scores they have no chance at the Olympics, and should not go.

I think that's a valid point.

Why lower the scores just to get a larger pool from which to select?

If we can't be competitive, should we send a team?

[James Park]

That's right: we want "competitors" not "participants".

In fact the scores are not overwhelmingly high - even 2Dogs and I could get them (well I know he could, I used to be able to do so). I would expect our top archers to get much higher.

[Eberbachl]

That's right: we want "competitors" not "participants".

In fact the scores are not overwhelmingly high - even 2Dogs and I could get them (well I know he could, I used to be able to do so). I would expect our top archers to get much higher.

I'm not sure 2dogs could withstand a fourth place at the Olympics!

:rofl:

[apexrob]

I'm not sure 2dogs could withstand a fourth place at the Olympics!

:rofl:

:rofl:
or afford to throw another bow into a river!!

[markm]

If we can't be competitive, should we send a team?

This is a philosophical question and depends on what you think the Olympics is all about. Is it just to win or even "be competitive"? Is that the most important thing? Or is it to paticipate and do the best we can - even if it is NOT "competative"? For my money, I think we should always send the best team we can and be happy if they perform to their best - regardless of where they finish in the field. Winning is not everything - and if we lose the fun of participating and doing our best then we have, in fact, lost - no matter where we finish.

[Marcus]

Nice sentiments, but here is reality

The government pays for these teams because it wants medals. Medals gets them votes. If AA said 'you know, we don't want to win, just to participate' then funding would go quick smart and we'ld be back to everyone for themselves. Also we would be unlikely to win places in the olympics.

Face it, the olympics is about professional sports. If you don't have the time or talent to be professional then don't worry about making the team. Sorry, but that's life in sports. (I'm not getting upset because I couldn't make the Olympic basketball team)

[2Dogs]

I'm not sure 2dogs could withstand a fourth place at the Olympics!


Trust me!.... if I ever got 4th at the Olympics, I would start firing into the crowd :D

....then throw my bow into the river while making my escape ;)

[Eberbachl]

This is a philosophical question and depends on what you think the Olympics is all about. Is it just to win or even "be competitive"? Is that the most important thing? Or is it to paticipate and do the best we can - even if it is NOT "competative"? For my money, I think we should always send the best team we can and be happy if they perform to their best - regardless of where they finish in the field. Winning is not everything - and if we lose the fun of participating and doing our best then we have, in fact, lost - no matter where we finish.

I don't think the Olympics is simply to participate and do the best we can. I think the Olympics is all about elite sports, and winning (and as Marcus suggested, the winning attracts funding, 'cause the government wants medals).

I think participating, doing your best, and having fun is what saturday morning school sports is for.

I think if you're going to the Olympics, and representing the nation then you have to be at least competitive with the best in the world.

[James Park]

I guess it gets back to what we want done as tax-payers.
Do we want our hard-earned money to be spent to send "participants" to the Olympics, or is it that we want it spent on "competitors" who have a chance of winning something for us?
That is: are we happy that we pay for "I went to an Olympics" to be added to someone's CV, even if they had no chance of getting a medal, or do we want something more than that for our money?

I guess it is the attitude of the people we pay for that is of interest.
If the person has the attitude of "I got in the team, I have achieved what mattered" and is not "going there to win", then I think we have wasted our money. If they are "going there to win" even if the chance is slim, then it is a better investment.

We should certainly not forget that it is "our money" that is being used for all this.

[Matt Gray]

Now can anyone tell me if or not we would be able to run as many 72 arrow ranking rounds on one day, hence it is a new round. And if so would we be able to include another 45 mins practice.

Can anyone please answer this question?

[James Park]

Matt,
That is still to be decided, but I hope the answer will be "yes".

[Matt Gray]

Thanks Jim,

I hope the answer is also 'Yes'

[The One]

If the question is what I think it is, then of course you can shoot as many rounds on one day as you want, as long as you register them all. I can't see any logical reason for anyone to have issue with this.

As they are separate rounds, each should require their own practice/sighters.

[The One]

Stirring as well, just to play devil's advocate ;)

If all countries only send competitors with high expectations of getting a medal, there would be a small, and somewhat embarrassing number of competitors in many of the sports.

All depends where you make the cut and what each country determines is 'appropriate'. For instance, some countries may be happy with only gold, some a medal, some top 5, others top 10. Of course the physical award of the medals means that a lot of countries do aim for top 3.

[James Park]

I thought that the Olympics Games were actually an event for team management, coaches, and TV commentators and crew, and that the athletes were just an annoying necessity. Hence, you would want as few as possible. Perhaps I could be wrong, but from all the politics that is the impression I have gained.

(Also stirring, naturally).

[James Park]

I am certain there was an excellent post here by Rachel C just a moment ago, on which I was going to comment. However, it seems to have mysteriously vanished!

[Clare Barnes]

I thought that the Olympics Games were actually an event for team management, coaches, and TV commentators and crew, and that the athletes were just an annoying necessity.

WRONG - it is just for IOC "family" and sponsors...:p

(Me stir? Never ;))

[frommy]

Oh how the good Baron would turn in his grave today!

THE OLYMPIC MOTTO

A friend of Baron Pierre de Coubertin, Father Henri Martin Didon, of the Dominican order, was principal of the Arcueil College, near Paris. An energetic teacher, he used the discipline of sport as a powerful educational tool.

One day, following an inter-schools athletics meeting, he ended his speech with fine oratorical vigour, quoting the three words "Citius, Altius, Fortius" (faster, higher, stronger).

Struck by the succinctness of this phrase, Baron Pierre de Coubertin made it the Olympic motto, pointing out that "Athletes need 'freedom of excess'. That is why we gave them this motto … a motto for people who dare to try to break records."

This phrase, "Citius, Altius, Fortius" is the Olympic Motto.

(Edit- I just realised that the motto does not mention "more accurate")

This then led to the Olympic creed:

THE OLYMPIC CREED

Pierre de Coubertin got the idea for this phrase from a speech given by Bishop Ethelbert Talbot at a service for Olympic champions during the 1908 Olympic Games. The Olympic Creed reads:

"The most important thing in the Olympic Games is not to win but to take part, just as the most important thing in life is not the triumph but the struggle. The essential thing is not to have conquered but to have fought well."

The creed and motto are meant to spur the athletes to embrace the Olympic spirit and perform to the best of their abilities.


Great stuff, but in reality it takes high powered coaching and dedication. Oh, and a lot of money as well. :eek:

Very good posts earlier from Marcus, Jim and others re funding. Without government support through the AIS we would not be represented at the OG's, and without results there will be no funding. :(

Just my .02c worth.

Brian

[reversehaven]

one side of the coin says that we should send as many as possible, because it's in the spirit of the olympics.

the other side says it's plainly not practical.

me? i'm a debater and i argue on the side of the toss of a coin :)

[The One]

In matchplay, the more competitors you have, the better your chances :cool:

[mdavi53583]

So will we now see each state running the 70m qualifying rounds from march through nov ?

[2Dogs]

WRONG - it is just for IOC "family" and sponsors...

(Me stir? Never )


You should be repremanded for that!..... Again :):):).

As punishment you shall be sent to WA for the rest of your life ;)

[Flame]

You should be repremanded for that!..... Again :):):).

As punishment you shall be sent to WA for the rest of your life ;)

Wearing white pants :D

[Marcus]

With nothing but jeans on so she is scorned everywhere she turns.

"Yes ma'am I would sell you this tonic of of Coca-Cola, however as you are a self loathing jean wearer I am afraid I can not. Good day to you."

[Kerrie W]

:rofl: Trust me!.... if I ever got 4th at the Olympics, I would start firing into the crowd :D

....then throw my bow into the river while making my escape ;)

[Barracuda]

Oh how the good Baron would turn in his grave today!
(Edit- I just realised that the motto does not mention "more accurate")
This then led to the Olympic creed:
Great stuff, but in reality it takes high powered coaching and dedication. Oh, and a lot of money as well. :eek:
Very good posts earlier from Marcus, Jim and others re funding. Without government support through the AIS we would not be represented at the OG's, and without results there will be no funding. :(
Just my .02c worth.
Brian

Good points all of them Brian, However, the baron was hardly 'good' in terms of being a sports enthusiast with an egalitarian nature. The first modern Olympics were supposed to be in Paris to coincide with the expo for which the Eiffel Tower was built and (for the cynics) were about showcasing Paris! They were very much class based and exclusive. It's only recently (in overall terms) that the OG's have become more inclusive. Look at Australia's successes in athletics through the 50's and 60's (particularly the women). You won't see any African or East European/Communist Bloc runners, swimmers, etc, etc.
The Olympic's are about excellence (you mention the motto which I didn't see in the text - Citius, Altius, Fortius (Faster, Higher, Stronger)). At no point is there reference to Nearlius, Not quite enuffus or Got on the Pissus! Although I know for a fact that the latter is certainly hotly contested, by management and athletes. I agree with Jim Park, lets keep the prerequisites high and if athletes want to go to the Olympics then they need to reach the standard. Lovely to wear an Olympic uniform I'm sure but pointless if you're going to be close to dead last (unless you're Eddie the Eagle or Eddie the Eel (can't remember where that swimmer was from). No matter how much you thought "good on ya mate", you still had a laugh at his expense). That's my two bob on top of your 0.02c Brian. Cheers,
P.S. I reckon 2D would end up fourth in the Got on the Pissus as well!

[James Park]

Of course, if 2Dogs were to compete at the OG, he would need to comply with the OG's millenia-old dress code, as it was back in Greece of old.
Anything less (actually "more") would be quite contrary to the true Olympic Spirit.

[The One]

Of course, if 2Dogs were to compete at the OG, he would need to comply with the OG's millenia-old dress code, as it was back in Greece of old.
Anything less (actually "more") would be quite contrary to the true Olympic Spirit.

Are you trying to bury a stake into archery's heart? :eek:

[Marianne Rieckmann]

New info that I received from AA board member
The Olympic Nomination process was discussed at the Board meeting in Brisbane and, subject to finalisation of details acceptable to the AOC, adopted.

The Women's MQS is now 630, which addresses the inequity issues.


Please notify any women that may be trying out for Olympic team selection.

I think it is good to know what the MQS is before the qualifying period starts (from 1st March ).


BTW, does anyone know what the MQS is for the World Field 2008?
(that is for the Australian team )

[Hannah]

This is a philosophical question and depends on what you think the Olympics is all about. Is it just to win or even "be competitive"? Is that the most important thing? Or is it to paticipate and do the best we can - even if it is NOT "competative"? For my money, I think we should always send the best team we can and be happy if they perform to their best - regardless of where they finish in the field. Winning is not everything - and if we lose the fun of participating and doing our best then we have, in fact, lost - no matter where we finish.
Hmm. Interesting points. I think that sometimes we forget that a lot of people enjoy winning. Therefore, lowering the standard to include more people would possibly be just frustrating more people.

Whoever said that winning is not fun? Does not the "we should only play to have fun" statements insinuate the same?

[Jazza]

Doesn't anyone have enough faith in the Australian team to believe that they will be competitive? Ive also noticed that the womens 70m national record is 330, and a couple of them is good enough to qualify for the olympic trials by a long way. Maybe the reason why the 72 arrow record is lower is because of the lacking in events to shoot 72 arrows at 70m.

[Hannah]

Doesn't anyone have enough faith in the Australian team to believe that they will be competitive? Ive also noticed that the womens 70m national record is 330, and a couple of them is good enough to qualify for the olympic trials by a long way. Maybe the reason why the 72 arrow record is lower is because of the lacking in events to shoot 72 arrows at 70m.
I think that is essentially what a lot of people are saying - we do think our team can/would be competitive and to lower the requirement is ridiculous.

[Marcus]

Doesn't anyone have enough faith in the Australian team to believe that they will be competitive? Ive also noticed that the womens 70m national record is 330, and a couple of them is good enough to qualify for the olympic trials by a long way. Maybe the reason why the 72 arrow record is lower is because of the lacking in events to shoot 72 arrows at 70m.
you mean that no one shoots the international target standard in double fita obsessed Australia?

[Clare Barnes]

Flame has updated the AA calendar and it looks as though SA has already registered regular FITA 72 arrow QREs to be run in conjunction with ordinary FITA 144 arrow rounds.

[Ed]

Doesn't anyone have enough faith in the Australian team to believe that they will be competitive? Ive also noticed that the womens 70m national record is 330, and a couple of them is good enough to qualify for the olympic trials by a long way. Maybe the reason why the 72 arrow record is lower is because of the lacking in events to shoot 72 arrows at 70m.

Why do you want to shoot 72 arrows at 70m? AA has almost 9000 members according to Jim Larven. What percentage will ever get to the World Championships or Olympics? Only 6 archers can achieve this.

[Brocky]

Now can anyone tell me if or not we would be able to run as many 72 arrow ranking rounds on one day, hence it is a new round. And if so would we be able to include another 45 mins practice.
So are we able to run 2 on the same day or are we restricted to 1 per event.

[James Park]

Register as many as you want for a day - but they all need to have the appropriate documentation.

[Brocky]

Why do you want to shoot 72 arrows at 70m? AA has almost 9000 members according to Jim Larven. What percentage will ever get to the World Championships or Olympics? Only 6 archers can achieve this.
Only because they are told they will never achieve such a thing. Alot of archer I know dont shoot Fita's because of 90 meters but love shooting 70 meters.

[Brocky]

Register as many as you want for a day - but they all need to have the appropriate documentation.
Thanks Jim :thumb:

[Clare Barnes]

But if it's being run in conjunction with a FITA 144 QRE you can only run one FITA 72 arrow round with the morning long distances as the afternoon short distance 3 arrow ends wouldn't match.

[Jazza]

Why do you want to shoot 72 arrows at 70m? AA has almost 9000 members according to Jim Larven. What percentage will ever get to the World Championships or Olympics? Only 6 archers can achieve this.
What if you want to be one of those 6?

[Hannah]

What if you want to be one of those 6?
I was going to say a similar thing.

If you use that argument then why bother shooting at all...there is, after all, only a small chance that you will be any good without practicing.

[The One]

Why do you want to shoot 72 arrows at 70m?

Because FITAs are boring and outdated. Only a matter of time before they get dropped from the World Champs.

[puddin]

Because FITAs are boring and outdated. Only a matter of time before they get dropped from the World Champs.


yeah very true. dont get me wrong i enjoy shooting 90m even tho im hopeless at it, but the time it takes just to shoot one fita makes it boring. the 72 arrow 70m round is more enjoyable