2 months ago
51
Former national rifle coach and Olympian Joydeep Karmakar discusses the chances of the Indian shooting contingent at the Paris Olympics, the changes in the trial process, lessons learnt from Tokyo 2020 debacle, and how the shooting sport ecosystem has evolved over the years. read more
 "Olympian Joydeep Karmakar")
A former National Rifle coach, Joydeep Karmakar finished fourth in the Men's 50m Rifle prone event at London Olympics. AFP
The Tokyo Olympics will always be fondly remembered by Indian sports fans, considering the last edition of the Games marked India’s most successful outing ever, with seven medals, including a historic individual gold in athletics. But no active athlete or coach worth their salt would ever want to rest on past laurels or look back. It’s all about looking ahead. And what’s coming up next is the Paris Games, another chance for Indian athletes to write their names in the history books of the world’s oldest sporting competition.
While experts and fans alike are expecting India’s tally to potentially outstrip the Paris medal haul, the biggest question mark perhaps remains on the sport of shooting. The sport became one which every Indian expected at least a medal or two from, after the success of athletes like Rajyavardhan Rathore, Abhinav Bindra, Gagan Narang, Vijay Kumar and Joydeep Karmakar. But then came the lull — two consecutive editions in Rio de Janeiro and Tokyo where no Indian shooter could finish on the podium. The Tokyo outing was nothing short of a debacle, with only one out of 15 Indian shooters making it through to the final of an event.
Paris Olympics Complete Coverage: Click here for news, schedule, explainers and more
This time, India are once again fielding an unprecedented number of shooters at the Olympics, after securing as many as 21 quota places. But what can we realistically expect from India’s shooters in Paris? What are the lessons they learnt from the heartbreak in Tokyo? What were the changes that were made in the qualification process for the Olympics this time? How much has India’s shooting landscape changed over the years?
Road to Paris, Shooting: Who is going, how the team was picked and top medal contenders
To look for the answers to these questions and more we spoke to one of the finest shooters the country has produced, someone who is giving back to the sport in more ways than one — Olympian and former Indian national rifle coach Joydeep Karmakar, who finished fourth in the Men’s 50m Rifle prone event at the London Olympics in 2012.
Excerpts…
Joydeep, going into the Paris Olympics, what are your own, personal, realistic expectations from the Indian shooting contingent?
Joydeep: First-up, going by the statistics - 21 athletes in an Indian shooting contingent, that’s by far the highest ever. So, if we go by raw stats, I think the probabilities (of winning medals) are very high. I would say the maximum number of finalists will be what counts. What I (can) guess is that there will be many finalists this time and the conversion to medals will come from that. That is the first thing I am looking forward to. I can expect 6-7 (Indian shooting) athletes to go to the finals, of which there is a very high possibility of winning 2 to 3 medals. I cannot of course talk about the colour of the medals, because that is too specific. As little as 0.1 mm can be the difference between the gold and the silver or bronze and 4th place. So, I think that the probabilities are very high, our shooters are doing well. But again, I will be a little sceptical here. In the recent past, the Indian shooters have been doing very well, but let me tell you that other countries are also doing very well.
Apart from the Chinese, some European countries, specifically Scandinavian countries are doing extremely well and we have seen a sudden surge in their performances in the last couple of years. It will be a very tough fight (in Paris) and they (Indian shooters) can’t even (afford to) shoot even one loose shot, which can actually cost them a medal. So, they (Indian shooters) have to really be in top form on that day, in that moment to win a medal. It won’t be easy.
There have been editions in the past where Indian shooters have gone in, being in red hot form, but the pressure of the Olympics has got to them. But having as many as 21 athletes in the shooting contingent, same as China — could that knowledge be a psychological boost? (last time for Tokyo also there were an unprecedented number of Indian shooters at the Games, 15)
Joydeep: Honestly, it would add an edge to the confidence levels. However, that doesn’t mean anything until it is converted (into medals). But I would still say, that (in the past) when Indian (shooting) teams have taken part in the Olympics, they were small teams. But this time if you have 21 shooters around you, there will be a positive psychological edge for the team. But then again, it is a very individual sport, it is a very lonely sport. But the positivity will be there. They (Indian shooters) had a good run-up to the Olympics, they had some very good scores, and they won medals at the Worlds, so that confidence will be there. There are also a few shooters who are going (to the Olympics) for the second time. They saw the Tokyo debacle and I think they learnt a good lesson. They will have that experience with them. Someone like Aishwary Pratap Singh Tomar, he is young but this is his second Olympics and I think he is well-poised to do something special.
We have a positive team, and there isn’t too much hype like there was for the Tokyo Games. That is because people are sceptical. They hope and believe that the shooters will do well, but I think the hype is a little realistic this time, there isn’t too much of it. If you remember, we had a lot circulating about the World Number 1s and World Number 2s last time. Now, nobody is talking about the World rankings anymore. It is about winning quotas and winning big competitions. This is the reality that the shooting team has created and it is well deserved.
Now, let’s talk about that one thing that is synonymous with shooting — mental strength. We know that often the difference between two shooters who are competing at the highest level and who are matched evenly skill-wise is the mental aspect of things. Now, the mental strength aspect comes into the picture both during competition and also post-competition, especially if things haven’t gone well. In that context, I wanted to talk to you about how badly the Indian shooters suffered in the aftermath of the Tokyo Olympics. As someone who is an integral part of the Indian shooting fraternity, your take on how difficult it was for the shooters. Not winning a single medal and that too at what were the ‘Covid Games’…According to some reports, Aishwary had a breakdown, Manu (Bhaker) went back to the junior circuit, etc…
Joydeep: I think it was very difficult for them. There were many people who criticised and said negative things, but I think the ones who suffered the most were the shooters. It was heartbreaking for everybody. Moreover, an athlete going to the Olympics and not winning a medal is something very different from scoring miserably there. You are in form, you are at the Olympics, you know you have to do your best, you are capable of doing the best, you are expecting the best from yourself. Now, how you expect that from yourself, without putting pressure on yourself is an individual thing. But then going there and absolutely crashing, with scores which were below par even in comparison with the National level, that was something that must have shocked the shooters. I am sure they must have been shocked, because they put up very poor scores there. Only one shooter made the finals, which was Saurabh (Chaudhary). This time around, it’s a guesstimate of course, but I think 6 to 7 (Indian shooting) athletes should make it to the finals. Making it to the finals is a big thing in the Olympics, And when you start from zero in the finals, it’s anybody’s game. So, I think they (Indian shooters) have learnt a lot from Tokyo and they are poised and more mature and they are not defensive anymore.
Last time, they were doing good, but were over-protected by the people around them so they are cocooned, sort of put in a treasure box and the keys thrown away. But that didn’t work for the athletes. They lost their individuality. So, what happened was that they started to defend, they wanted to be very good, and they didn’t want to make any mistakes. There’s a huge difference between the mindset — ‘I will not make a mistake’ and ‘I don’t care if I make a mistake, I can still win’. In the defensive mode, it’s very difficult to shoot at that high level. You need to be on the offensive. This time the trials were very good for the shooters and that was an acid test. We have seen a few shooters break down. They (Indian shooters at the trials) actually faced an Olympic-like situation. It was a do-or-die kind of thing. Those who rose to the occasion were the ones who were mentally strong. So, that was one good filter. And now, I think the Indian shooters are no longer defensive, they are more practical and they believe that it’s not about protecting their performance, but about unleashing their performance there (at the Paris Games). That mindset might make a big impact this time.
Since you mentioned the Olympic selection process that was followed this time, what was your observation of how it unfolded? Someone like Elavenil (Valarivan) actually said that the level of competition at the Tokyo Olympics was easier than that at the trials this time…
Joydeep: This was exactly what was on my mind when I proposed the selection trials and thankfully the federation approved my proposal with the draft policy when I made it in 2022. My first point was to make the trials fair and square. Everybody has to start at zero, there should be no preference anywhere because, with the quota points and all, we had seen that there was a disaster in (the) Rio (Games) also. Yes, there were a few people who were talking about the negativity of the trials, but I think that if you are mature enough and if you are one of the best countries in the world in shooting, you should have a proper filter process. It cannot (run) on privilege and emotion. You see all the big countries — the US, China, Germany — everybody has selection trials. There is no emotion attached. You’ve won a quota? Thank you — but it is for the country, now you perform well in the trials, before the Olympics you (get to) go, or else it will be somebody else because it is about the country. It’s about putting the best foot forward.
Let’s talk a little more about the exact selection process which was put in place for the Paris Games. For all those who might not be very well versed with the process that was followed this time vis a vis the older system, if you could shed some more light on that and also your own contribution to this process…
Joydeep: Previously there was a lot of weightage (given) to a quota winner or a World ranked shooter or getting double or triple benefits from one performance. Say if you performed at the World Championships, you get some bonus points and with that, you get a higher rank and you get some bonus points for that and if you are a quota winner, you get a triple benefit. I think that was unscientific. So, what I pointed out there was that a bonus point is something which has a different numeric value than an actual shooting score, so you cannot add a mile to a litre, the units are different. So, actually what was seen here was that say some shooter whose current score was 625 or 626, his score was shown as 632 or 633, adding up the bonus. So that was wrong because you cannot add those bonus points to your performance points or your scoring points to show your current form. It’s a ghost number. And everybody knew that that shooter was perhaps not ready for the Olympic Games, but we had to (send that shooter to the Olympics).
The biggest thing (change) in the new policy was fair and square trials. The four trials. But it is not easy to get into the trials. It is not an open trial, because many people thought that if it is an open trial, then anybody can shoot, anybody can have a flash in the pan (performance) and come in (make the team). So, there also I proposed that it cannot be an open trial because there are a few shooters who have been performing consistently for two to three years. Now, if you make it open, then over four trials there could be a spike from a new comer and that greenhorn will then be going to the Olympics, without any experience. There is a very high possibility (of that happening). So, there were very rigid conditions about how you make it to the top seven or eight. Later it was converted to top five. There was some amendment that I was not a part of. It made it a little tougher for shooters to get in.
So, initially, the policy had the possibility of having 7/8/9 shooters. So, your performance is protected, but it’s not protected to the extent that you get complacent. You have to go through the trials. That was one of the biggest things which was introduced and the various criteria that ran throughout the Olympic cycle (was for the shooters a reminder) that you are getting yourself ready to qualify for the trials. It was not about qualifying for the Olympics, it was about qualifying for the trials. The best out of the best.
In that context your take on Sandeep Singh. Till about April-May of this year, he wasn’t really someone people were talking about as a potential medal prospect at the Olympics. Not too many people would have in fact thought that he would make the selection cut. But the Naib Subedar in the Indian Army beat the likes of Arjun Babuta, Rudranksh Patil and Divyansh Singh Panwar to top the men’s 10m Air Rifle selections. He also fought a doping allegation successfully…And he made the cut for the team, ahead of Rudranksh, who secured the quota…
Joydeep: I wouldn’t say that he qualified with some flash-in-the-pan scores. Previously also he did well, but not the best. But you have to understand here that actually if you go by the scores of the Air Rifle trials, you could not name anybody who was lacklustre there. Sandeep scored some brilliant scores in those four trials and definitely we have to respect that. The same thing that we were discussing earlier about the policy that it (trials) should not be an open one, but Sandeep’s is definitely a surprise name here. because he was not being talked about in the recent past that he would make it to the trials even. But he met all the criteria to be fairly in the selection trials and then this happened. So, I think that you cannot (pinpoint) one shooter who can win a medal, there are always surprises. If you remember all the medals (that were won by Indian) shooters, I would tell you that nobody was a favourite going into the Olympics, not even Abhinav Bindra.
Abhinav Bindra was a (medal) favourite in London (2012, after his gold in Beijing in 2008). Nobody thought about Gagan Narang at that time, that he will win a medal there. Yes, he was definitely one of the best in the world, but winning a medal? Vijay Kumar - coming from nowhere and winning a medal there (London, 2012). I was never talked about, but then I came fourth (in Men’s 50m Rifle Prone at London, 2012). All the (Indian) shooters who have won, the spotlight was not on them. Sandeep is being talked about after the trials, but definitely he can have some surprises for us also. Who knows? It’s sport and anything can happen. I would definitely like the favourite to win and the non-favourite to win also.
Let’s talk about the overall competition that India will face at the Games this time in shooting. There’s no Russia, who had finished third in the Tokyo Games in shooting, behind China and the USA. Shooters from which countries will challenge Indian shooters the most in Paris? Is that something that is easy to predict, going by current form etc. or is it absolutely impossible?
Joydeep: Shooting is very unpredictable. You don’t have any real favourites, as such. You never know from where somebody might come up and win the gold medal. Definitely Russia not being there increases the chances (of Indian shooters) of getting into the medal bracket. But getting to the gold is extremely difficult. You need your day, for you to do your best and then expect others to also falter. A few Scandinavian countries are doing very well, China is already there at the top. Every time, the USA team is not talked about. This time many new, young shooters have come through the US trials and they are very good at winning medals at the Olympics. They might not win every other World Cup, but they prepare something, somewhere, somehow that they have that knack of winning medals in shooting. So, we can have a lot of competition from many countries and it won’t be easy for any Indian shooter.
You had a fourth-place finish at the Olympics in 2012, you were a junior National Champion in your first Nationals in 1994. From 1994 to now, when you look at the overall landscape of Indian shooting, across age categories, how big a change do you see — what all has changed?
Joydeep: A lot. A sea change, I would say. Apart from the young generation getting smarter and smarter, the facilities have gone up, the support system has gone up. The federation is doing much more, the government is doing much more. Schemes like ‘Khelo India’ - there is a lot of support for athletes from the grassroots level. One point that I would like to mention here - those unknown academies and small clubs in villages and towns have mushroomed. Mushrooming might sound a little negative, but it’s not, because whether that coach from a village academy or small club under a tin shed might not have been an international level shooter, might not be a highly decorated shooter, but they at least set-up that basic facility, that basic infrastructure where a normal kid can get into shooting. So, the base of shooting (in India) has become immensely broad. So, we are also getting a lot of quality from the quantity. I have heard that shooting is a sport that not everybody plays.
Of course, yes. Not like popular sports like cricket or football. But, as I have already told the federation (NRAI), to contact the Guiness book of World Records - I think there is only one country in the world in one sport - shooting, where as many as 18000 to 19000 people participate in the National Championships in the (overall) qualifying three tier competitions. I don’t think in any other sport in the whole world, in an official National Championship you have 18000 to 19000 athletes. It’s a huge number. So, that (number of athletes taking part in the Nationals) has grown. That’s thanks to the federation, thanks to the small clubs and committees who have promoted the sport. Thanks to ex-athletes, like us who have tried to promote the sport, support the sport, and give back to the system. And thanks to those clubs again, because those clubs I would say are the supply chain of Indian shooting. I think that has made a huge impact vis a vis what shooting is now compared to what it used to be in our time.
Now, here’s something that has been discussed before, but I wanted to get your take on it. Shooting is overall viewed as an expensive sport. As someone who has competed at the highest level, then coached, what would your advice be for budding shooters, who want to take up the sport, but are unsure about the finances?
Joydeep: I would not say that shooting is an expensive sport. There are events which are expensive of course, but there are events which are affordable (as well). Let me tell you that (of the) around 1 lakh registered shooters in India, more than 50% come from humble backgrounds. I run my academies (JKSA) in Kolkata. We have around 400 students there. I would say 60% or more are from this background.
So, how would you say is that becoming possible? Say I am a budding shooter and I want to take up 10m Air Rifle. The equipment — the gun, even a basic one for a shooter who is just starting off, the pellets, the suit etc will cost x amount of money. Then I need money for coaching. If I don’t have that kind of money to put in, what do I do? Nowadays certain schools have also started putting up shooting ranges, which is helpful. But to go from level A to level B and then to level C — a lot of people might be unsure. I wouldn’t say that they will be discouraged entirely, but they could be unsure. The coaching, the equipment, the travel, facilities etc. In your opinion as a coach and as someone who has shot at the highest levels, how do you think the shooters who aren’t from well-off backgrounds manage to pursue it?
Joydeep: Now, here come these small academies and clubs who support these shooters. Now, if I ask — swimming is not a very expensive sport. You need some food and you need a pair of trunks, that’s it. Now, if I gather say 20 kids and say — ‘ok, let’s start swimming’ — but first you need to build that swimming pool, you have to spend on that, so it becomes an expensive sport. Say for football I will ask them to purchase land for a football field, set it up and then start playing football, it becomes expensive. Exactly the same thing is happening in shooting. If you don’t have the infrastructure, the cost will be high, including the moveable infrastructure which is the rifles. If the academies and clubs are provided with some sort of support to buy rifles, the basic ones, then you don’t need to buy the rifle when you start shooting. The parents (of kids who want to take up shooting) don’t need to buy the rifles, they can hire them. So, what could cost Rs 2 lakh or Rs 3 lakh, they can start shooting by paying Rs 2000-Rs 4000. This is the same thing we do in our academy. You don’t need to buy the rifles. We have the rifles. You just need to pay a small rent.
Now, keeping the costs low — as you mentioned about Air Rifle. Air Rifle or Air Pistol — these are the two events which are the cheapest ones I would say. The pellets, which is the consumable and recurring cost will cost you around Rs 1.50 (per pellet). That is affordable. If you do 100 rounds, that is around Rs 150. Which is not much. Now, if you think about the stages, since you mentioned climbing the ladder — every parent has some projection (in mind) for their kid. They are educating their kid. They need to buy books, they need to buy a laptop perhaps, so this is where the priority comes in. I remember I had taken a personal loan to buy my own rifle. There was no support, nothing. I didn’t have my own rifle for 13 years. I had to struggle, borrowing from others.
I also won a few medals at the Nationals with borrowed rifles. At that time, we didn’t have that much support. I used to shoot five rounds a week. That is the struggle period we had. But then, if I have the same mindset, that I have struggled, so let them (young shooters) struggle, it will not work. So, what I and several others like me decided was that — ‘what we suffered, we cannot afford to let this generation suffer like we did’. Let us come in, let us contribute, let us give back. I bought 8-10 rifles and started my academies, saying — ’let them come and shoot’. You don’t need to buy a rifle. So, that is how it becomes a little cheaper and affordable for athletes.
There are events like the 50m, and the more expensive ones are the shotgun events, these are very expensive because the recurring cost of the bullets is massive. So, you can choose your events. I think Air Pistol is the most popular discipline in India, with the maximum number of participants because of the cost factor. The best pistol in the world will cost you around Rs 1.5 lakh, you don’t need any special clothing and just Rs 1.50 per pellet.
Akaash is a former Sports Editor and primetime sports news anchor. He is also a features writer, a VO artist and a stage actor see more
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
English (US) ·