We were not allowed to use SAR 21 ? Now if this is
true, then the rifle results are seriously flawed
! And if so why not ? Was this in the rules of the
competition ? Can someone verify as I wud have thought
that standard issue rifles wud be allowed . In this case the
Malaysians wud also have been disadvantaged if they were not
allowed to use AUGs with standard 1.5 X scopes.
The rules of the competition are in the same website that I
linked you to for the competition results. They specifically
state "no iron sights" [edit: The
rules states "Only Iron Sights"] ...
although they do allow quite a bit of leeway in other
aspects. The idea is not to let technology (of the rifle)
overly influence what is primarily a shooter competition.
If you look at the results of the Rifle category, Malaysia did
as badly as Singapore did. I don't know if any inference can
be made from that with regards to disadvataged for these 2
contingents with scoped service rifles.
Cyberpioneer need not report lame excuses - Was
the SAF the only contingent that were affected by the
"conditions" ?
No. All shooters are equally affected by these
conditions.
However, I believe that the SAF shooters may be the only
contingent that trains predominantly in baffled ranges as opposed
to outdoor ranges. So perhaps the SAF contingent is more
significantly affected by windy conditions since windage adjustment
is not something that they are sued to ... as compared to a shooter
who's been shooting outdoors all their life.
Unfortunately, competitions DO reflect the level
of skill / competence in the organization. After all,
the best in the organization are sent to participate in these
competitions. Correct me if I am wrong, but it
looks as if the SAF contingent in this meet comprised a vast
majority of regulars. Regulars & good NSF shooters are
given time and resources to train for these competitions & they
are the best shooters the SAF has to offer.
We need not come out 1st for events , but I think a good
showing will be when we have MANY of our
particiapants ending up in the top five positions in many
events. This kind of outcome then really shows that the
organization as a whole has many good shooters. Being
first is great but it may be because the individual is
just plain exceptional.
If you re-read my post, you will find that I did not say that
Individual Performances DO NOT reflect competence of an
organisation. I merely stated that they are not a fair
evaluation and offered other, IMO, better measures of
organisational competence.
The performances of a FEW selected individuals (the BEST
shooters), only represent one end of the bell curve that reflects
the organisation's performance level. What is more important
is the shape of the bell curve behind those top few ... which will
then indicate more concisely the true level of the organisation's
competence.
To take another example, let's assume 2 fictitous units 7 PDF HQ
and 999 Battalion Singapore Guards.
7 PDF HQ is mostly PES C personnel but with 3 NSF National Grade
runners attached, so that their training does not interrupt unit
training. 7PDF HQ has an overall 50% pass rate for IPPT
with only 3% Gold.
999 BSG is a combat unit with no National Grade athletes
attached. They managed a 97% IPPT Pass rate with 50% Gold
standard.
In the Army Half Marathon, each unit is invited to send their 3
best runners for a inter-unit competition.
The 7PDF runners come in 1,2 and 5th ... the 999 BSG runners
come in 8, 15 and 21st.
Is it fair to infer from the Army Half marathon results that 999
BSG has issues with fitness that need to be addressed? Or is
it better to use the IPPT results?
The larger your sample population, the better your
correlation.
But I do agree that a good showing is important ... if for
nothing other than "face". Explaining a lose is just poor
form.
