Junior Investment - Is it worthwhile?

[Jan Powell]

I'd be interested to know what others think about this. The CPSA and other shooting organisations at a national and local level invest a good deal of time and money encouraging colts and juniors to the sport. They do so on the basis that they're the future of the sport and, consequently, the investment will pay dividends in years to come.

I'm not convinced. Over the years i've worked and shot with a fair few juniors, some of them achieved a high standard. Almost all of them have left the sport for one reason or another. Whilst some returned after a few years, most have found other interests and no longer shoot.

I used to sit on my counties committee and we bent over backwards to bring juniors into the sport offering free coaching, lifts to competitions and half price entry. At the end of the year we had very little to show for it. You may even say we alienated those paying full price.

Should we continue to pump time and money into the junior cause in the hope we encourage another Peter Wilson or should we leave them to find the sport in their own time?

 

[newbie]

i dont think juniors are the ONLY future of the sport. Barriers to entry are too high. I think they need to look within existing pool too as 18-40 also have much to offer. point of entry to this sort of sport shouldn't be constrained by age within reason as it doesnt require youth for physical advantage (thinking athletic ability here) but does require good faculties e.g., eyesight.

Having done other sports to international level, Shooting is NOT physical. The term athlete with a shooter is not quite the same as other 'athletic' sports. What shooting requires from its 'athletes' is a different physiological make up and that, IMHO, is not age constrained. In fact even in other endurance sports some of the best world class athletes are c40-44!

i think what the CPSA requires is a decent feeder system and talent spotting mechanism. Its not about age but point of entry (which can be any age) and then a structured approach and set of schemes to develop the talent. It doesnt have that. It needs to spread funding to hedge its chances based on olympic gold potential and get as many chances as possible. If we can get 2 places for each of the 3 sports, we need to do it to secure funding, in turn develop the sport. (lots of other barriers here as SCSG are finding).

I know a few mid 20's-35yo that are very capable of attending RIO, why should they not be selected as they are not Youth....

 

[WelshKen]

Not sure about England, but in Wales Juniors are between the ages of 16 and 21 years old.

Most grounds give them half price shooting and cheaper tuition etc.

Some of these youngsters earn a great deal more than a lot of adult shooters (or have wealthy parents), and I (and a lot of my friends) often wonder why the rest of us subsidise them.

Not all shooters start at an early age, in fact I'd guess that the majority are 30 plus when starting off, don't they deserve the same support?

And as you say, so many lose interest once they find other things in life.

 

[Kentskeet]

I think if someone is a naturally gifted shooter and they are young, then definately throw whatever they need their way to help them realise their full potential, most coaches and or instructors can spot raw talent that they can work with. However like most sports very few ever make it to the top, for every premiership football player there are probably 1000 Sunday league players who were good but not good enough, but still enjoy the game as a hobby rather than making it a profession.

We all from time to time do reasonably well at our chosen hobby/sport but the reality for most of us is, especially as time goes on that we will be "also rans", enjoying shooting on a weekly basis but probably not going to make the shooting history books, however it is the money we are spending each week and our enthusiasm that keeps the sport alive and kicking.

You need to encourage new blood to the sport but I don't think you can teach an 'average joe' to become a great champion shotgun shooter, regardless of how much cash and training you put their way, they need to have that something extra.

Money used to find and bring on new young shooters with TRUE championship/ medal winning potential would be very well spent.

 

[RobertBeard]

I am pretty sure that all sports subsidise juniors and usually at about half price so we would certainly turn youngsters off if they did not get that subsidy.

You need a large pool of talent from which to find a couple of very talented individuals who have the time and devotion to put their life and careers on hold whilst they try for Olympic Gold or Commonwealths or World Cups etc.

It seems with the CPSA Club, Ground, County, Region and National setup the CPSA has the infrastructure to find the talent by the registered shoot scores.  I then assume that there are squads, training weekends etc to bring them on.  They do not have to be juniors but it is best to try and get them young before they become committed to family life, mortgages and lack of money which restricts their shooting.

British Shooting funding for elite shooters is about enough for someone to live like a university student from what I have heard what with sponsored ammo, gear, flights etc. b ut its ruthless.  If your performance drops off your money gets chopped!

 

[blaser f3]

This talk of 'money' being spent bringing on colt/junior shooter's ,i believe is generally a phallacy,(it would be nice if it was'nt) or if there is money being invested it is in very,very small amount's . My son has represented England 4 times from the age of 16 and i can tell you it has cost a fortune ,going all over Britain for the last 4/5 years to shoot at the level required .About 4 year's ago Phil Boakes CPSA held a youngster's day at Dartford Gun Club at the end of the day he held a meeting ,where he went on to inform the gathered throng that if your child was going to achieve something in the shooting world , it was going to cost the family ect. of these children a lot of money/time and dedication from all involved as there would be no money (or help it would seem)to be got from the CPSA and the only money available (i think from sport England) was small and was spread like a pyramid i,e those at the top got the most and those at the bottom (if you very ,very fortunate) got the crumbs.This is further annoying when you find you have spent a fortune to get to the level required to represent your country , to be presented with a tie and badge and then be told you must buy an England skeet vest £80.00 (top gun vest ehh...) polo shirt/ tracksuit top /blue blazer /grey trouser's so after spending another £300 your allowed to represent England (you would think with all the great commercial /busines brain's in the association ,they would be able to get gun/cartridge supplier's to sponsor the vest's at least ) Most youngster's that i know get their sponsorship (the small amount generally that's involved)from friend's and acquaintances often outside the shooting world.I think if there were proper sponsorship/coaching available from a governing body you have to say sensibly you should look to colt's junior's in the first place but in saying that that should not stop older shooter,s from recieving help , but the chances are that older shooter's would not be able to dedicate /focus their time in the quantities required to get to the top level ,e work / family commitment's . I'm not saying for one moment it can't be done but as we're talking about newish shooter's be they 12 or 30. The youngsters can normally commit a lot more time ect. to the sport with a lot less thing's to worry /distract them from the goal .You only have to look at Peter Wilson to see the commitment/ time required to get to be an Olympian ,most new shooters late 20's onward's could not afford to do this .

 

[jake.keeling]

This is an interesting subject and can as had been suggested expand into attracting and keeping any shooters. My local club has done all of the above, cheap juniors rates etc etc. we used to hold a country fair on the ground with have a go stands and coaching, all with almost no difference to active shooter numbers. Then on Sunday in the freezing cold when two committee members had muddled together a rough compact sporting under the trench layout we got four people who joined the club and about another four who had a go and will come again, 50% where Juniors. There's no sense to it, it's just word of mouth and people motivating themselves.

 

[Dog Tyred]

The previous but one post sums the situation up very nicely.

As the father of a 14 year old shooter I'm all in favour of any consessions for youngsters but alas they are somewhat limited.

My local club charges £10 less for yearly club membership but a round of 25 costs the same for all ages.

Shooting comps at Rugby does bring a welcome reduction in entry fee but as Harry is the only colt shooting there is no colt class for him to enter so he goes in D class and the chances of him winning against seniors is pretty slim at the moment.

Lets not forget that cartridges cost the same whether I shoot them or he shoots them. Just imagine your shooting costing twice as much each week cos thats what it costs me! Not looking for sympathy here as its my choice.

Young shot coaching days? Great but you'll have to take a day off work as they are usually mid week during school holidays :huh:   Oh and you'll have to drive miles to get there and hand over £40 for some bloke to expalin how dangerous shotguns are.

Lets not forget clay shooting IS an expensive pastime compared to some and probably out of the reach of most youngsters without mum and dad's involvement. I would be proud for Harry to shoot for Staffordshire (assuming they have a colts team? -  I'll be checking out the Staffordshirdshire CPSA website just as soon as they update it with next years fixtures (come on peeps its nearly next year already, surely you have dates for your selection shoots)). Ultimately for England too for that matter (even if I have to buy a bloody skeet vest, blaser, etc :angry:  Come on CPSA sort that out now!!).

Sponsorship? I wish! Sounds like its all gonna cost me a fortune if he is going to shoot for England.

On a very positive note a fellow forum member has very kindly offered to give up his time to give Harry some coaching at UT/OT which we will be gladly taking up later this month hopefully.

DT

 

[blaser f3]

Be assured it will cost you , but you will be chuffed/ proud with his acheivment's also dependant with your own level of shooting you will improve ,i,e shooting England team selection shoot's ect.you'll be dragged to, you will also find you'll very quickly build up friendship's /comeraderie with shooter's from all over the country (makes a great change from shooting the same couple of ground's all the time ) Although after a time when your returning yet again at 10/11 or even later on a sunday night' thinking of getting up for work the next morning , the gilding of your "being away again at the weekend again"does become slightly tarnished . But as i say the high's do make it worthwhile. One last thing i've found with my son ,shooting (being a solitary sport)is a great discipline for showing youngsters you only get out what you put in, plus the realisation of how the right mental attitude can change not just your result's in shooting but in life. Best of luck to yourself and your son

 

[clayclouter]

one major reason for limited interest is that the 2 most popular shotgun pursuits Sporting and Fitasc do not figure in Olympics and Trap and Olympic S

 

[clayclouter]

SORRY POSTED BEFORE I WAS READY A NIT LIKE MY SEX LIFE !!

Trap and Olympic Skeet are very intensive and the only ones funded by the recognised bodies if you want to get funding get recognition and get on the coaching schedules it is these two options or nothing that severely limits the appeal

 

[ips]

I fully agree with the OP

I very good friend of mine spent an absolute frotune on his son in the 80s he started at about 12 and was beating many of us at DTL by the age of 13 he progressed to shoot for GB at OT and travelled abroad many times, he was a fantastic shooter and destined for very good things. Dad even bought him an SO4 when he was about 15 (allright for some) anyway by the time he was 18 he had met girls and drink and clubs and gave up, never touched a gun since as far as I know. What a waste of money for the dad who put his own shooting carreer on hold to some degree.

Now the point is this, its all well and good for a father too choose to spend loads of money on sons or daughters but do we really want to spend CPSA members money on it, I am particularily thinking about the recent posts about CPSA spending money unwiseley here, so be interesting to get some responce form members who voiced concerns over the spending of "members" money ??  

 

[Hamster]

Well said ips.

 

[Dog Tyred]

I guess it all depends on just how much members money is being spent? I suspect not very much in the scale of things. I don't know if all the funding is from members or whether the CPSA recieves grants for this type of activity from the Sports Dev Council or similar? 

Be interesting to know how many colt and junior members there are in the CPSA compared to seniors?

The lifeblood of any sport is newbies and if encouraging them into the sport by making a small financial concessions then all well and good. The grounds know this cos if they charged full price for all shooters dad might not turn up either.

If 20% of youngsters stay in the sport after discovering girls/boys (delete as appropriate) then thats 20% more than there would have been. I guess football clubs do the same in giving consessions on matchday and season tickets for youngsters, hoping that they continue as adult members.

I choose to take Harry shooting because its a way of spending time together doing something we both enjoy. Not looking for any handouts from anybody..............although a free skeet vest would be a bonus if he ever reached the level to shoot for England. I think he would have earned it and I would have paid for it in getting him to that level!!

Nobody is in this sport for the potential wealth and riches it brings ( if thats what you are after take up tennis or golf) but I bet the father to whom you refer has enormous pride in the fact that his son once shot for his country at international level.......I know I would be!!

DT

 

[Les53]

I fully agree with the OP

I very good friend of mine spent an absolute frotune on his son in the 80s he started at about 12 and was beating many of us at DTL by the age of 13 he progressed to shoot for GB at OT and travelled abroad many times, he was a fantastic shooter and destined for very good things. Dad even bought him an SO4 when he was about 15 (allright for some) anyway by the time he was 18 he had met girls and drink and clubs and gave up, never touched a gun since as far as I know. What a waste of money for the dad who put his own shooting carreer on hold to some degree.

Now the point is this, its all well and good for a father too choose to spend loads of money on sons or daughters but do we really want to spend CPSA members money on it, I am particularily thinking about the recent posts about CPSA spending money unwiseley here, so be interesting to get some responce form members who voiced concerns over the spending of "members" money ??  

Well I personally don't think the CPSA should use funds on youngsters. If a youngster shows promise then I think that initially the parents should help the person in question, thereafter it should be up to Sport for England or whatever it's called, after all they help people in lots of sports. It may also be possible to get some form sponsorship from companies such as gunmakers, cartridge makers, gun shops etc.

 

[RobertBeard]

What the parents spend is up to them and the example above is certainly not the norm and should not be used as part of the argument not to try and foster juniors into the sport in the hope of finding replacements for our Olympic successes.

Please remember that its like a funnel - you put a lot bodies in at the top to get a few out of the bottom.  Those at the top of the funnel get little support other than half price entries, subs etc.  The Olympic standard candidates should be supported by British Shooting.  We have to decide how much the CPSA spends on those few who have the potential for European & Commonwealth competition, squads, training weekends etc but in my experience the young hopefuls have to fund a lot of this themselves so that they have a vested interest to keep them hungry to progress.

 

[Skeetfreak]

This for me is a confusing one as Juniors / colts are the future of our sport and we should do everything possible to encourage them but there is no point in throwing money down the drain. So i find myself in the odd position of being slightly split.

I would like to see the CPSA spend money on "have a go" and "free first time days"

But then...

there needs to be a decision made - in that there is little point in spending grants and members money on juniors who will fall into two camps that are not likely to lead to them staying in the sport long term.

If a junior shows an amount of dedication in that they progress to a "level" then they should access local support for representing the county. In inter-counties events for example. I have no issue with say the region / local CPSA committee funding a "birds only" entry for juniors when they are representing their county. I would have an issue if that was upgraded to "competition" as they are being funded to take money off other full paying members. They can if they wish then ADD their own money to upgrade to Competition entry.

I also like the idea of grounds giving reduced rates for juniors but this is a "ground" choice and nothing to do with taking funds from CPSA / Grant coffers to subsidise juniors. I also do not see it as fair that grounds would charge extra to full paying adults to subsidise juniors. If the ground wants to subsidise juniors GREAT but not at the expense of others for standard registered shooting. I also see it as it should be "birds only" too and they have to top up if they wish to shoot competition.

Now it isn't ONLY juniors that have a tough time affording shooting but at least most shooting adults are out there earning a wage to pay for there shooting but i do agree with the points made about representing ENGLAND - i found it amazing that you achieve the honour of getting into the ENGLAND / GB team and it costs you a damn fortune - WHOEVER YOU ARE.

Scenario's -

i). You make the ENGLAND team for a home international event and like others have said you get a tie, badge and a hat. The rest is up to you to buy and then you get a "top up" off the CPSA which amounts to a fraction of the total cost what you have spent. Sure you get the satisfaction of "the badge" and i am proud to say that i have done it - even to this day - but that doesn't help the bank balance.

ii). You make the GB team - pretty much repeat scenario as above but now you can often add in - flights, hotels etc etc. Making it even more expensive for ANYONE whether they be a junior or not.

So for me i would prefer to see a STOP to junior grants / funding at the "mid level" where they might or might not make it / lose interest due to outside reasons. I say that attracting them to the sport is a MUST and then offering support at the higher levels is a MUST but the bit in the middle could mean we are spending money the wrong people at the wrong time.

So what about the funding we do get - how do i see we use that?

For me it needs to spend results based and dependant - goal setting is important BUT it needs to be clear. If there were specific written targets that if applied for and met would mean that a basic funding was available. Failure to meet the progression goals - funding stops - not keep funding irrespective just because they qualified for it once or have a track record in a different discipline - new discipline = new goals and starting again.

We also need to know if the funding is for what disciplines - for me the sports profile is for now focussed on the Olympics - should it be?

I find myself in conflict here as no doubt pursuing that dream is "allegedly" the very pinnacle of our sport - but has probably the smallest participation rate of the disciplines. So we take from the majority and give to the few. I find this difficult as the spaces are so limited in any given four year period in fact:-

1 x Ladies Olympic Trap

1 x Ladies Olympic Skeet

2 x Men's Double trap

2 x Men's Olympic Trap

2 x Men's Skeet

So that is only a maximum of 8 shooters in a four year period (assuming they gain a quota place). In all reality it is not likely that these shooters will be juniors due to the high stress demands and time frame that it takes.

Would we be better off funding the GB / England teams that are creating the Olympic stars of the future - rather than putting money into 8 people for 4 years?

Helping ALL shooters make the transition at GB / ENGLAND level - surely this makes it possible for more to "afford" this level of shooting. Thereby generating more potential champions of the future - Olympics included. The more people we can help up the ladder the better chances of our future success. This has to work down the chain if the Olympics is to be the CPSA / BICTSF focus then the structure of getting people there needs to be looked at - help people when they make the break through - not when they are already there maybe?

I ask the tough question here last.....

Would removing funding from any of our Olympic shooters and giving to the England  / GB teams  have stopped / made any difference to who competed at London 2012 (by this i mean - have financially prevented them going)?

Could they have all done it on their own?

Look at how Dave Brailsford has re-shaped British Cycling and the success they are having - specific targets and goals and a recognised way to monitor the progress of the athlete's. A very structured atmosphere built around those on the fringe as well as those who have made it. How they divide their funding i don't know but to me its no co-incidence that they have taken the approach from the "professional" side in the way Team Sky work.

I realize there are no professional contracts in shooting and this counts against us but are we set up to be professional in our approach?

 

[Lock Stock & Barrel]

Do we have, or are there any available figures for how much the respective shooting bodies (CPSA, BASC etc.) spend on/invest in encouraging junior shooting talent?

Another question: are there any examples of a colt coming up through the ranks via these investment programmes to win at national or international level?

 

[RobertBeard]

For those funded under the World Class programme by British Shooting for the 2012 Olympics you need to see here http://britishshooting.org.uk/athletes/sub=World_Class_Programme_Athletes

You will all know better than I how the shotgun shooters have developed over time and perhaps what CPSA might have done for them in the past.

British Shooting was very rigorous in the goals set and what scores had to be achieved etc to get funding.  I know that on the target shooting side funding was chopped from some and given to others.  The athletes were very controlled and had to perform.  You do it our way or not at all and you perform to the set targets or we'll find someone else.

We didn't put in a free pistol shooter in the men's event.  As I understand it Mick Gault is our best pistol shooter and has won more Commonwealth Games medals than anyone else ever and whilst there is some debate that he met the required standard but he was not allowed to perform as his scores were not up to standard for an Olympic podium finish and he is at the end of his career not a youngster who would have benefitted from the experience for the future - hard, brutal even but they were ruthless!  Abbey Burton was another one who appealed but was turned down.  Neil Stirton was dropped late in the day and he is about 30 ish and has devoted his life to shooting to try to get to the Olympics and missed by a mere whisker - all those years gone - was it worth it?  Neil for example just does enough work to keep body and soul together and to pay for his shooting.  He is lucky to find employers to let him come and go as his international competition and training camps etc require.  Mostly these people give blood to be where they are.

Therefore I don't begrudge them having as much support as we can give along the way as its certainly no bed of roses.

Just remember that whilst our sport is up in lights due to Peter Wilson and other medallists in the past that glow will soon tarnish if we don't have medallists and the sport will suffer and risk more pressure from the antis and government  as a result.