This meme is funny but they are pretty similar. The only “gear” Yejin is wearing is the shooting glasses, which is basically a prescription lens (no magnification is allowed) on a frame that allows more adjustment than normal eyeglasses, with a piece of plastic instead of lens over the other eye. You can achieve something very similar by taping a piece of paper to the left lens.
No other gear is allowed in this event - shoes cannot go above the ankle, clothing cannot restrict movement. Most people wear some sort of flat-soled shoes, whatever clothing you wear literally doesn’t matter except to keep you warm/cool.
And before anyone mentions it, putting their hand in the pocket is the standard stance for air pistol shooting. Only one hand is allowed on the gun. And in a sport where your breathing and heart rate interferes with your accuracy, having one hand free means it might move around and cause micro movements to your body, so everyone puts their other hand in their jacket/pants pocket.
It does look badass though.
Source: I used to compete in ISSF air pistol events like these
Thanks for posting this. He looks bad ass and she looks bad ass.
Fuck anyone comparing the two for whatever reason, especially if you actually watch and notice the majority of competitors are wearing the shooting glasses, which is why the guy is unique. Even his teammate (he won a team medal) is wearing special gear. And he’s been doing this for decades!! He was at 2008 Olympics
The korean shooter Yeji Kim became a (positive) meme first for her cyberpunk aesthetics, which many people found cool.
Shortly after the turkish shooter Yusuf Dikeç also became a meme for his own, very different aesthetic.
I’m not the one making the comparison. This post is… It names her in the description. I’m not talking about other posts. I’m talking about this one.
I’m saying the post could have been “this bad ass from Turkey came with no specialized gear and took home silver!” Or even “vs All the other teams decked out in gear!” Not singling out “South Korea sent this knitted out player” when she was wearing what the vast majority were.
She and her partner also won gold and silver. There was a more positive way to make them both sound awesome, not making him sound like he’s better than her by comparison because he does it without gear
I talked about the other posts to provide context. These are not unknown people and she is not the only one who gets compared to the turkish shooter.
The poster likely chose the korean shooter as counterpart, because she already garnered attention beforehand for her aesthetic. She is already relatively famous, so I don’t think it is surprising if somebody chose (and named) her over other, less known athletes.
The poster also described her as “record-breaking” in the description, so I do not think it was the intention to make her look bad.
What would a person do who needs prescription glasses? Put me there with ±0 glasses, and I’d be just a threat to the environment, because I had a hard time to know where I’m roughly pointing that thing…
Eyeglasses unblur the world to those who need them, but there’s no magnification.
Look through binoculars and things look a lot closer because of the magnification. But you can also make it look blurry if you turn the adjustment the wrong way.
Prescription glasses don’t magnify stuff. Those lens can correct for short sightedness, astigmatism etc, but they’re the exact same lens you find in eyeglasses, what I meant was you can’t put optics on it so it works like a 2x scope.
Well, then I guess they wouldn’t be allowed to wear them backwards.
Glasses actually make everything we see smaller, though the effect is lessened the closer the glasses are to the correct distance from our eyes. And the reason glasses change the perceived size of the wearers’ eyes is because they specifically are bending light to change how it hits our eyes.
If the glasses are for someone who is farsighted, they make their eyes look bigger, if they are to correct nearsightedness, they make the eyes look smaller.
And actually, despite what I say in my first sentence, they don’t even make stuff bigger when you wear them backwards. That effect is limited to the distance eyes are away from the lenses normally, beyond that things are actually still smaller even when looking through them backwards. How much smaller depends on how far they are from your eye.
I did look at the picture again, and those glasses seem a lot more custom then that guy explained.
Like, in something where eye sight is so important, corrective lens/surgery/contacts/whatever does seem like a super grey area.
Like, they could “dial it in” so her vision is perfect for the set range. And having adjustments be possible on the fly makes it seem that’s what they’re doing. 20/20 isn’t “perfect” it’s average. I got LASIK and right after mine was like 20/15 from being 20/200 or something ridiculous. How do you prove corrective lenses only bring them up to average eyesight? And it’s safe to assume people without them are better than 20/20, so should they be allowed to go as high as them?
And honestly, that elephant was just a joke the first time I saw it, but it’s tied tight around her finger.
That makes pulse a lot more noticeable, and controlling heart rate and breathing is also important here.
So like, she’s not cheating, she’s just going up exactly to the line. Which is why it makes the old dude more impressive
I have had some involvement in very similar rifle shooting and there is obviously crossovers with pistol shooting. Honestly the fact that you consider those glasses a “gray area” of cheating made me snort laugh. No one in that sport would consider that even close to cheating. Full stop. I’m not trying to be rude but you clearly know nothing about this sport. Those glasses are ubiquitous in many types of competitive shooting at this level especially air pistol/rifle.
In fact if you think this is cheating you need to see what rifle shooters wear because those rules allow way more gear (including your “grey area” glasses).
Also you don’t need something tied to your finger to feel your heart rate…You can clearly see your heart rate in your sights (yes, even irons).It could be a counter balance if it was measured perfectly but that’s risky because if her stance changed at all it could pull her off. I’m honestly surprised her coaches let her risk having that thing at all. It looks like a liability to me.
Edit: I just went back and looked a d there’s no way that things a counter weight. It would need to be close to the weight of that pistol to be helpful. Air pistols are light but they aren’t “stuffy” light.
Eyesight is not the issue here - this isn’t an eye test. At 10m the target looks like a small circle, there isn’t any further detail to see. Air pistols can only have iron sights, so there are three things to look at while shooting: the rear sight, the front sight, and the target. If you’re focusing on the right thing (your sights), the target will be slightly out of focus anyway.
So yes, anyone with perfect eyesight can get lenses made, but it doesn’t help much.
The glasses are custom in the sense that nobody wears them outside of shooting, but anyone can buy them - this is the first result I found on Google, there are tons more:
As for cheating… The real cheating occurs with stuff like heart medication to make your heartbeat slower, and beta blockers to reduce anxiety. A lot of shooting is a mental game. At a high enough level, nearly every shot needs to be a bullseye, so it’s about maintaining that consistent standard and not letting the occasional 9/10 shot creep into your head and affect the rest of your shots.
If you’re focusing on the right thing (your sights), the target will be slightly out of focus anyway.
One description I found said that the lens part of her glasses contains an adjustable “iris that can be adjusted to change the perceived depth of field” - which sounds to me like an adjustable aperture in photography. With a smaller aperture (larger f-number in photography) I believe she would potentially be able to have both the sights and the target in focus? Otherwise I’m not sure what the point would be.
Edit; Oh - and the elephant is her daughter’s. :-)
As someone else already said, you don’t see the target anyway. You focus on your sights, not the target, because unlike stuff like hunting, it’s much more important to line up the shot perfectly than keeping track of what you shoot at (the discs tend to not run away). And at 10m, the palm-sized target is just a black circle.
Iirc most people aim below the target on purpose (and adjust the sights) anyway. That stuff confuses the hell out of me when I pick up someone else’s gun. Is it set to aim dead center? Is it set to aim just below? Is it set to aim at 4.20 mm to 69° down to compensate for that dude’s preference? Who knows!
Yeah - I read the other comments thanks - it would be helpful if you read mine.
So you don’t look at the target at all? Like you’re only looking at the sights and hope there is a target downrange somewhere? No - right? Because “most people aim below the target” right? And near-sighted people wouldn’t need glasses at all if they “didn’t look at the target”. I don’t doubt that the focus is on the sights, but the sights are pointing at something… right?
So what I’m wondering is - what is the point of an adjustable aperture on her lens then? I was speculating that it’s because it would keep the tiny distant target in focus while she also lines up the sights. Or maybe it helps keep the near and far posts of the sights in focus at the same time? Human vision can have a pretty narrow depth of field.
“Because the light is reduced, the shooter’s eye acts like a camera lens and adjusts the depth of field (range of distances at which objects appear in focus) to the maximum. That’s what keeps both the sight picture and the bullseye in sharp focus, but the shooter wants the front sight to be in the sharpest focus, because it’s what he focuses on.”
So you get a sharper target while focusing on the very close (by comparison) sight.
Improving your vision means being able to differentiate details better. Magnification means that you can make something look bigger.
Having a prescription glasses that adds detail but not magnification means that the small target will still look just as small to you as it would to a person with perfectly healthy vision. How do you think this gives them an advantage over someone with normal vision?
This meme is funny but they are pretty similar. The only “gear” Yejin is wearing is the shooting glasses, which is basically a prescription lens (no magnification is allowed) on a frame that allows more adjustment than normal eyeglasses, with a piece of plastic instead of lens over the other eye. You can achieve something very similar by taping a piece of paper to the left lens.
No other gear is allowed in this event - shoes cannot go above the ankle, clothing cannot restrict movement. Most people wear some sort of flat-soled shoes, whatever clothing you wear literally doesn’t matter except to keep you warm/cool.
And before anyone mentions it, putting their hand in the pocket is the standard stance for air pistol shooting. Only one hand is allowed on the gun. And in a sport where your breathing and heart rate interferes with your accuracy, having one hand free means it might move around and cause micro movements to your body, so everyone puts their other hand in their jacket/pants pocket.
It does look badass though.
Source: I used to compete in ISSF air pistol events like these
Thanks for posting this. He looks bad ass and she looks bad ass.
Fuck anyone comparing the two for whatever reason, especially if you actually watch and notice the majority of competitors are wearing the shooting glasses, which is why the guy is unique. Even his teammate (he won a team medal) is wearing special gear. And he’s been doing this for decades!! He was at 2008 Olympics
Ugh. All I see is misogyny in this.
The korean shooter Yeji Kim became a (positive) meme first for her cyberpunk aesthetics, which many people found cool. Shortly after the turkish shooter Yusuf Dikeç also became a meme for his own, very different aesthetic.
Also there is a bunch of other memes in circulation that compare the turkish shooter with various other people, e.g. https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/002/873/956/0f7.png
Just because you are comparing a woman and a man does not make it misogyny. This is basically just a crossover of two recent memes.
I’m not the one making the comparison. This post is… It names her in the description. I’m not talking about other posts. I’m talking about this one.
I’m saying the post could have been “this bad ass from Turkey came with no specialized gear and took home silver!” Or even “vs All the other teams decked out in gear!” Not singling out “South Korea sent this knitted out player” when she was wearing what the vast majority were.
She and her partner also won gold and silver. There was a more positive way to make them both sound awesome, not making him sound like he’s better than her by comparison because he does it without gear
I talked about the other posts to provide context. These are not unknown people and she is not the only one who gets compared to the turkish shooter.
The poster likely chose the korean shooter as counterpart, because she already garnered attention beforehand for her aesthetic. She is already relatively famous, so I don’t think it is surprising if somebody chose (and named) her over other, less known athletes. The poster also described her as “record-breaking” in the description, so I do not think it was the intention to make her look bad.
Interesting!
What would a person do who needs prescription glasses? Put me there with ±0 glasses, and I’d be just a threat to the environment, because I had a hard time to know where I’m roughly pointing that thing…
Eyeglasses vs binoculars.
Eyeglasses unblur the world to those who need them, but there’s no magnification.
Look through binoculars and things look a lot closer because of the magnification. But you can also make it look blurry if you turn the adjustment the wrong way.
Prescription glasses don’t magnify stuff. Those lens can correct for short sightedness, astigmatism etc, but they’re the exact same lens you find in eyeglasses, what I meant was you can’t put optics on it so it works like a 2x scope.
If they don’t magnify why do they make people’s eyes look bigger
Well, then I guess they wouldn’t be allowed to wear them backwards.
Glasses actually make everything we see smaller, though the effect is lessened the closer the glasses are to the correct distance from our eyes. And the reason glasses change the perceived size of the wearers’ eyes is because they specifically are bending light to change how it hits our eyes.
If the glasses are for someone who is farsighted, they make their eyes look bigger, if they are to correct nearsightedness, they make the eyes look smaller.
And actually, despite what I say in my first sentence, they don’t even make stuff bigger when you wear them backwards. That effect is limited to the distance eyes are away from the lenses normally, beyond that things are actually still smaller even when looking through them backwards. How much smaller depends on how far they are from your eye.
Lose.
Oh yeah, just act like the stuffed elephant tied to her finger isn’t an advantage…
/s
Illegal counterbalance.
I did look at the picture again, and those glasses seem a lot more custom then that guy explained.
Like, in something where eye sight is so important, corrective lens/surgery/contacts/whatever does seem like a super grey area.
Like, they could “dial it in” so her vision is perfect for the set range. And having adjustments be possible on the fly makes it seem that’s what they’re doing. 20/20 isn’t “perfect” it’s average. I got LASIK and right after mine was like 20/15 from being 20/200 or something ridiculous. How do you prove corrective lenses only bring them up to average eyesight? And it’s safe to assume people without them are better than 20/20, so should they be allowed to go as high as them?
And honestly, that elephant was just a joke the first time I saw it, but it’s tied tight around her finger.
That makes pulse a lot more noticeable, and controlling heart rate and breathing is also important here.
So like, she’s not cheating, she’s just going up exactly to the line. Which is why it makes the old dude more impressive
I have had some involvement in very similar rifle shooting and there is obviously crossovers with pistol shooting. Honestly the fact that you consider those glasses a “gray area” of cheating made me snort laugh. No one in that sport would consider that even close to cheating. Full stop. I’m not trying to be rude but you clearly know nothing about this sport. Those glasses are ubiquitous in many types of competitive shooting at this level especially air pistol/rifle.
In fact if you think this is cheating you need to see what rifle shooters wear because those rules allow way more gear (including your “grey area” glasses).
Also you don’t need something tied to your finger to feel your heart rate…You can clearly see your heart rate in your sights (yes, even irons).It could be a counter balance if it was measured perfectly but that’s risky because if her stance changed at all it could pull her off. I’m honestly surprised her coaches let her risk having that thing at all. It looks like a liability to me.
Edit: I just went back and looked a d there’s no way that things a counter weight. It would need to be close to the weight of that pistol to be helpful. Air pistols are light but they aren’t “stuffy” light.
Eyesight is not the issue here - this isn’t an eye test. At 10m the target looks like a small circle, there isn’t any further detail to see. Air pistols can only have iron sights, so there are three things to look at while shooting: the rear sight, the front sight, and the target. If you’re focusing on the right thing (your sights), the target will be slightly out of focus anyway.
So yes, anyone with perfect eyesight can get lenses made, but it doesn’t help much.
The glasses are custom in the sense that nobody wears them outside of shooting, but anyone can buy them - this is the first result I found on Google, there are tons more:
https://buinger.com/Shooting-Glasses
As for cheating… The real cheating occurs with stuff like heart medication to make your heartbeat slower, and beta blockers to reduce anxiety. A lot of shooting is a mental game. At a high enough level, nearly every shot needs to be a bullseye, so it’s about maintaining that consistent standard and not letting the occasional 9/10 shot creep into your head and affect the rest of your shots.
One description I found said that the lens part of her glasses contains an adjustable “iris that can be adjusted to change the perceived depth of field” - which sounds to me like an adjustable aperture in photography. With a smaller aperture (larger f-number in photography) I believe she would potentially be able to have both the sights and the target in focus? Otherwise I’m not sure what the point would be.
Edit; Oh - and the elephant is her daughter’s. :-)
As someone else already said, you don’t see the target anyway. You focus on your sights, not the target, because unlike stuff like hunting, it’s much more important to line up the shot perfectly than keeping track of what you shoot at (the discs tend to not run away). And at 10m, the palm-sized target is just a black circle.
Iirc most people aim below the target on purpose (and adjust the sights) anyway. That stuff confuses the hell out of me when I pick up someone else’s gun. Is it set to aim dead center? Is it set to aim just below? Is it set to aim at 4.20 mm to 69° down to compensate for that dude’s preference? Who knows!
Yeah - I read the other comments thanks - it would be helpful if you read mine.
So you don’t look at the target at all? Like you’re only looking at the sights and hope there is a target downrange somewhere? No - right? Because “most people aim below the target” right? And near-sighted people wouldn’t need glasses at all if they “didn’t look at the target”. I don’t doubt that the focus is on the sights, but the sights are pointing at something… right?
So what I’m wondering is - what is the point of an adjustable aperture on her lens then? I was speculating that it’s because it would keep the tiny distant target in focus while she also lines up the sights. Or maybe it helps keep the near and far posts of the sights in focus at the same time? Human vision can have a pretty narrow depth of field.
And in fact it seems that my speculation may be correct: https://www.pyramydair.com/blog/2008/06/10-meter-pistol-shooting-part-4/
“Because the light is reduced, the shooter’s eye acts like a camera lens and adjusts the depth of field (range of distances at which objects appear in focus) to the maximum. That’s what keeps both the sight picture and the bullseye in sharp focus, but the shooter wants the front sight to be in the sharpest focus, because it’s what he focuses on.”
So you get a sharper target while focusing on the very close (by comparison) sight.
Gee, maybe that’s why she’s wearing those crazy glasses in the picture…
It’s already been explained that the glasses cannot have magnification, so what advantage do you think they offer when looking through iron sights?
And also that theyre prescription…
And 20/20 isn’t “perfect” vision, it’s perfectly average.
So someone can get glasses to improve their vision (especially at a certain distance) to better than 20/20 and have an advantage.
While still not having magnification.
Do you think glasses that help you see further are working via magnification?
The point is that there’s nothing further to see beyond a tiny solid black dot.
Nobody said anything about 20/20 vision.
Improving your vision means being able to differentiate details better. Magnification means that you can make something look bigger.
Having a prescription glasses that adds detail but not magnification means that the small target will still look just as small to you as it would to a person with perfectly healthy vision. How do you think this gives them an advantage over someone with normal vision?
Apparently it’s her daughter’s elephant.
Those air rifle outfits look like bad anime cosplay.