# Why isn't traditional archery in the Olympics



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

Actually, it is all traditional archery. There are no compounds in the Olympics.


----------



## 4nolz (Aug 17, 2011)

it is traditional

I'm surprised there isnt a compound competition


----------



## dashanque (Feb 12, 2014)

Actually by "traditional" I meant bare bow. No sight and stabilizer. Sorry about the confusion I'm still new to archery.


----------



## GBUSA (Jun 6, 2013)

4nolz said:


> it is traditional
> 
> I'm surprised there isnt a compound competition


The archery organizations, governing bodies likely fear they will lose the future recurve Olympians if they let compound in. 
I definitely think more kids would go the compound route and deprive the recurve ranks of potential medal winners.
Can't have that now can we.


----------



## Arrowzen (Feb 14, 2014)

dashanque said:


> Actually by "traditional" I meant bare bow. No sight and stabilizer. Sorry about the confusion I'm still new to archery.


Don't worry, I'm sure plenty of experienced archers have a hard time considering such tricked out unwieldy bows as traditional as well.


----------



## GBUSA (Jun 6, 2013)

dashanque said:


> Actually by "traditional" I meant bare bow. No sight and stabilizer. Sorry about the confusion I'm still new to archery.


Would they have to be wood risers and limbs too?
It would be good fun to watch for the small percentage of people who would care.
I just don't see anyone taking the technological step backwards, especially when archery is given so little air time as it is.
Well, unless you are up at 3am to watch the matches broadcast


----------



## Azzurri (Mar 10, 2014)

4nolz said:


> it is traditional
> 
> I'm surprised there isnt a compound competition


I don't think they've worked out the kinks internationally between recurve and compound. Why on earth would compounds shoot shorter distances? Right now in the outdoor World Cup/ USAT events it's 50 compound 70 recurve, compound with a smaller face. Since compound is easier, why doesn't it shoot the same distance or longer, and either same face or smaller? That only makes too much sense based on relative accuracy. But then they'd be treating the two as equivalent, and bringing this tangent back to your question, the establishment seems to fear treating recurve the same as compound, perhaps because the compounders would come in and shoot higher and steal thunder. So it has to be treated like the kid brother, shorter distance, not in the Olympics.

On the FITA board we also recently discussed that maybe there should be a field competition in the Olympics (which would seem to be the sort of competition where trad bows could maybe come in). If you can cover golf you can follow archers around a course.


----------



## Rick Barbee (Jan 16, 2013)

And make the draw weight a minimum of 65#. 

Rick


----------



## J. Wesbrock (Dec 17, 2003)

> Why isn't traditional archery in the Olympics


Because no country can find three people who hunch, snap, pluck and can hit a target at 70 meters?


----------



## Azzurri (Mar 10, 2014)

In terms of domestic recurve versus compound, you might lose some people who can do both but have trended recurve to pursue the Olympics. But a lot of that divide IMO is cultural.

I think the idea of people jumping on compound as a short cut is oversold. In our NFAA tournament series standings in TX, the top 7 FS people all have perfect scores across their 5 counted performances, with no less than roughly 52 Xs per round. The guy in 15th averaged a 299 46x. And that's not even getting into the nation as a whole, what it takes to compete at Vegas or on the USAT. But scores in the high 200s would make you internationally competitive in recurve. If you slide over into compound it's a never ending battle to be the guy doing 300 60x. People act like olympic recurve is too much stress but I go to tournaments, guy makes one 4 with a compound (or maybe even one too many ordinary 5s) and he's done for the weekend. It seems like a fast track for a deep pool of people -- and we'd be good at it -- but it would be 3 guys going and a huge bench.


----------



## Fury90flier (Jun 27, 2012)

Rick Barbee said:


> And make the draw weight a minimum of 65#.
> 
> Rick


For recurve or compound? For recurve I doubt it would make a difference. Now make a holding weight limit on compund, say 40#....now we've got something.




J. Wesbrock said:


> Because no country can find three people who hunch, snap, pluck and can hit a target at 70 meters?


much easier than you think.

oddly, I was shooting my bare bow at 50 yesterday better than my Oly rig...that gets a bit frustrating. Not shooting much at 70 but have done the same thing shooting BB. Some days it just doesn't pay to aim...lol


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

WA Field rounds would be fun and interesting to watch, it covers Freestyle Recurve, Compound and Barebow so something for everyone.


----------



## GBUSA (Jun 6, 2013)

I'd rather see them keep the recurves shooting at 70 or 90 with apertures and the wheel bows going for more precision with the magnified scopes on smaller targets at 50.
It just seems the natural order of things. 
I love the laser beam accuracy of the compounds and glorious flight of arrows on a long recurve field.
But watch either contest, It still always comes down to the individual archers game that day, for both disciplines.
Bring on the field rounds as well.


----------



## Rick Barbee (Jan 16, 2013)

Fury90flier said:


> For recurve or compound?


Recurve or longbow of course. 
I was just teasing about the draw weight, although it wouldn't hurt my feelings any. 

Rick


----------



## centershot (Sep 13, 2002)

J. Wesbrock said:


> Because no country can find three people who hunch, snap, pluck and can hit a target at 70 meters?


Kind of what I was thinking........who would want to watch a bunch of guys missing the target repeatedly?


----------



## LongStick64 (Aug 29, 2009)

If they really wanted to do something exciting they would add Horse Archery events, that would be a real treat to watch vs the boredom involved with archery now in the Olympics


----------



## Viper1 (Aug 21, 2003)

dash - 

Define "traditional" archery and you'll have your answer.

Viper1 out.


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

They are traditional bows in the Olympics


----------



## Bigjono (Apr 21, 2009)

J. Wesbrock said:


> Because no country can find three people who hunch, snap, pluck and can hit a target at 70 meters?


PMSL [emoji3][emoji3][emoji3][emoji3]


----------



## Bigjono (Apr 21, 2009)

The more "traditional" you make it the more the word "hunting" might get mentioned and that's the last thing anyone needs. It would do endless harm to target archery if Joe public associated it with hunting.


----------



## dashanque (Feb 12, 2014)

Well back in the days the whole army of Genghis Khan can do it  
It shouldn't be hard at all if athletes around the world put in the same amount of effort as they did for modern archery.


----------



## dashanque (Feb 12, 2014)

Bigjono said:


> It would do endless harm to target archery if Joe public associated it with hunting.


How so?


----------



## dashanque (Feb 12, 2014)

Viper1 said:


> dash -
> 
> Define "traditional" archery and you'll have your answer.
> 
> Viper1 out.



I was talking about bare bow when I said traditional.


----------



## dashanque (Feb 12, 2014)

Just want to clarify, I was talking about *bare bow archery* when I said "traditional archery" in my original post...sorry it's been confusing people.:wink:


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

Bigjono said:


> The more "traditional" you make it the more the word "hunting" might get mentioned and that's the last thing anyone needs. It would do endless harm to target archery if Joe public associated it with hunting.


That's makes me sad to hear that the word hunting is the last thing anyone needs to hear 

Yes it is true the hunting channel has done a fine job making us all look like idiots but as a hunter it makes me sad 

I think it would be best to have kept the spirit of the Olympics alive and what the Greeks intended and that was games to keep their warriors practiced 

Maybe human silhouettes would be more fitting  

I don't like the word traditional either thou 

But I got news for ya all 

The bow and arrow were not made to shoot at targets , unless the targets you are describing are flesh and bone, man and beast 

Target practice was practice for war and hunting 

True story 

Btw here is arguable the best target archer in the world Reo Wilde and his target that day was a deer 










Brady hunts and openly talks about it also


----------



## dashanque (Feb 12, 2014)

centershot said:


> Kind of what I was thinking........who would want to watch a bunch of guys missing the target repeatedly?


If so then move the target closer 
To me the more unpredictable a sport gets, the more worth-watching. My gut is watching a guy hitting bullseye in one shot and totally missed it in the next is way more interesting than watching him hitting 9 or 10 every other shot.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

dashanque said:


> Just want to clarify, I was talking about *bare bow archery* when I said "traditional archery" in my original post...sorry it's been confusing people.:wink:


Yeah, but bare bow archery means compound bows more than it does recurves, as most shoot compounds in bare bow class  That's what's maddening about putting labels on this stuff. Maybe we can define it by the target. 

Maybe they can set pine cones out along a trail and if someone "says" they hit every one of them from 50 yards, then he's considered shooting Traditional.


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

You can learn more from watching Olympic archery for an hour about how to shoot a bow than a life time of watching your average stick bow shooter 

Jake Kaminski 









If your talking about bare bow than to hit the mark at the distances they shoot the shooters would shoot a bare bow like this 

The great Ben Rogers 










Or John Demmer 










These are the types of bare bow shooters that can shoot at the required distances 

Hope this helps


----------



## Bigjono (Apr 21, 2009)

JParanee said:


> That's makes me sad to hear that the word hunting is the last thing anyone needs to hear
> 
> Yes it is true the hunting channel has done a fine job making us all look like idiots but as a hunter it makes me sad
> 
> ...


I'm with you Joe but outside of the good old USA hunting is not a big thing and the majority will be against it. The likes of Hoyt, W&W and MK etc don't show camo clad Bambi killers in there target stuff, it is now 2 different worlds. Target archery derived from hunting weapons for sure but it's a mainstream family sport now. I think the iBO is the only federation left that promotes hunting, WA which is the Olympics certainly doesn't. I like both sides but the need to be kept apart now I think.


----------



## Bigjono (Apr 21, 2009)

dashanque said:


> How so?


Because many parents wouldn't get their kids involved if they thought they would get exposed to hunting. I ran an archery club here in Canada and learned to keep all hunting references out of the way on open days because people just wouldn't sign up for lessons. Sad but true.


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

I understand Jono 

But it still makes me sad 

I especially like the folks that are wearing leather and eating cheeseburgers who do not want their children to hunt


----------



## Arrowwood (Nov 16, 2010)

Last year Brady got a deer, there was no bow or anything in the picture. Probably has to appease the sponsors or USAA.


----------



## J. Wesbrock (Dec 17, 2003)

bigjono said:


> i think the ibo is the only federation left that promotes hunting...



nfaa


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

I keep hearing rumors from various people that compounds will be an exhibition event at the next olympics. Once that happens, the Oly style shooters will become the same type of outcasts as us old school shooters that use fingers an no sights.

If people really want to be honest, the olympics and many of the world archery events are more about developing robots shooting on well manicured flat ranges where the only upsetting thing that could happen is a little wind or rain.

When I say robots, its in regards to testing the shooters ability to repeat the same function over and over and over again. Granted to get good scores one has to be very good at repeating the same thing over and over. But the events and gear are being designed around improving the final score from fixed stationary shooting positions. 70m round? really? Once the compounds get in, it will become even more of a technology driven event, even the tools needed to score the rounds.

If the olympics really wants an event that truely tests the overall ability of the archer, then shoot field events where the terrain is not nice to people and you have wicked up and down hill shots, thin openings to look around, times you need to be on the knees to shoot to avoid tree branches, and ranges 5 to 100 yards. If they really really want to test the archer, have them shoot several different types of bows, compound, recurve, and long bow without sights and releases during the course of the event. But none of this will ever happen because ultimately it is about achieving the perfect score. That is why the compounds will replace the recurves within the next generation.

As to why no Trad bows? Look at the sponsors of the events. Events are designed to force people to buy the high technology gear/hardware. When you go to tournaments that allow your basic traditional (barebow-recurve), and longbows, you will see a large percentage of the gear still being hand made, and the shooters are shooting scores as good, if not better, than the people with the CNC machined aluminum carbon fiber laminated bows. So why develop events that enable people that can show up with their hand made bow and shoot as well as the people that dump thousands of dollars on multiple sets of gear to go to the tournaments? Sponsors don't like that. How many people can make a compound bow in their garage? Which is another reason you will see the push towards compounds in the future. Follow the money.

As for me, I will stick with my traditional bow


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

The event you are describing sounds like the Muzzy Shoot  






A shoot like that would not lend itself to spectator viewing 

I hate to see compounds enter into the Olympics I think the format is just fine as is


----------



## voodoofire1 (Jan 24, 2006)

I tend to agree with Mr. Roboto..... If you could just figure out a way for them to make money off of people who would make and shoot their own equipment, the Olympic commitee would jump on it with both pockets..... But hang in there fellas, once compounds hit the Olympics, trad bows will be hitting the auction block in record numbers...


----------



## ranchoarcher (Sep 26, 2013)

The olympics was supposed to be a forum for testing the skills and abilities of contestants, not a trade show. With how high tech and commercialized it's become it won't be long before compound replaces recurve and we'll be one more step removed from mainstream. I'm with Roboto on what it should be about. After all, what was the intended purpose of the bow to begin with? It was to hunt and do battle. Two very naughty words in our brainwashed sensitivity trained society. The lawn dart game they have now is a merchandising campaign. A 3D course would more in keeping with the spirit of archery.


----------



## Arron (Nov 18, 2012)

I think some people think once you put a sight on a recurve bow all your problems are licked. Putting on a sight doesn't magically make you hit the mark at 70-90M or even the target.


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

Arron said:


> I think some people think once you put a sight on a recurve bow all your problems are licked. Putting on a sight doesn't magically make you hit the mark at 70-90M or even the target.


This


----------



## SS7777 (Mar 17, 2012)

I doubt many of us would be selling our bows, if compounds became the Olympic bow of choice. Maybe the venues / organizations would change, but we would still shoot leagues, local tournaments, etc. Maybe the nine or so guys who go to the Olympics ever twenty years or so would care, but I doubt it would stop anyone else from shooting target bows. Most of us shoot for the pleasure.

Speaking of history in martial sports, what about fencing? C'mon, a guy can get hit five times and still walk off the strip, no worse for wear.


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

SS7777 said:


> I doubt many of us would be selling our bows, if compounds became the Olympic bow of choice. Maybe the venues / organizations would change, but we would still shoot leagues, local tournaments, etc. Maybe the nine or so guys who go to the Olympics ever twenty years or so would care, but I doubt it would stop anyone else from shooting target bows. Most of us shoot for the pleasure.
> 
> Speaking of history in martial sports, what about fencing? C'mon, a guy can get hit five times and still walk off the strip, no worse for wear.


It takes awhile to bleed out with a rapier


----------



## Bigjono (Apr 21, 2009)

JParanee said:


> I understand Jono
> 
> But it still makes me sad
> 
> I especially like the folks that are wearing leather and eating cheeseburgers who do not want their children to hunt


Me too Joe. We tend to talk to the kids a little about hunting when mummy isn't there but from what I see most kids going into hunting do so because dad or mum hunt. If they don't then kids won't.


----------



## Bigjono (Apr 21, 2009)

J. Wesbrock said:


> nfaa


I bow to your knowledge oh lofty one. NFAA doesn't exist here so I know nothing about it. IFAA has it's BowHunter champs but not sure how many shooters actually hunt, not many I would guess.


----------



## J. Wesbrock (Dec 17, 2003)

Bigjono said:


> I bow to your knowledge oh lofty one.


I prefer the term "leaf eater."


----------



## Bigjono (Apr 21, 2009)

J. Wesbrock said:


> I prefer the term "leaf eater."


Oh yes, I forgot that one


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

Bigjono said:


> Me too Joe. We tend to talk to the kids a little about hunting when mummy isn't there but from what I see most kids going into hunting do so because dad or mum hunt. If they don't then kids won't.


Jono you bring up a very valid point 

I have found that if I can sit down and speak to someone in a non confrontational way and if they are a person other than say a Vegan and even when it gets to that extreme if I can state reasons that I hunt and and about hunting in general I can usually get at least a I understand your point comment 

Truly the machine that is the hunting industry while they do well in the fold show and display hunting in such a poor manner that even I scratch my head 

Sorry to drone on but I believe as well as I think you do that when presented in a non wack um and stack um kinda way we can at least not make as many enemies 

Lotsa people eat meat ....... They just forgot where it came from


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

Compound will be in the Olympics. That is actually going to happen, there has been much discussion in the FITA forum and a few people in the know have dropped hints. Why do you think Korean manufacturers and archers have started producing and using them?
Compound may replace recurve in the minds of North Americans, but it will not make significant inroads in the rest of the world. It's popularity is very easily traced to countries where bow hunting is a major influence. Everywhere else is much more biased towards single-string archery.

I personally feel that Field would make an excellent televised sport, especially in the World Archery format.

As for people winning championships with home-made equipment: unless you are shooting Longbow that just isn't happening (even then it's really not). The guys who are winning Barebow are every bit as invested in the equipment race as an Olympic or Compound shooter if not moreso since basically nobody has an equipment sponsor that requires them to shoot a particular bow.

-Grant


----------



## marcelxl (Dec 5, 2010)

Archery was omitted completely from the last commonwealth games (The Olympics where USA, Russia and China don't get invited) and I believe it will be from the next.

They did have both the wheels and recurve too so it was a bit of a blow for the sport in general IMHO. So any arrow flinging is better than none. For all of us!

I also believe (for what it's worth) that having multi discipline archery viewing for the masses would be counter productive and they have it right just having "Olympic" recurve shooting as a great showcase for shooting skills…….biased? probably, coming from the UK and cutting my teeth so to speak doing that but as pointed out earlier, those guys got skills and we could all learn walking down that route at some point……. makes you a stickler for form!


----------



## Bigjono (Apr 21, 2009)

JParanee said:


> Jono you bring up a very valid point
> 
> I have found that if I can sit down and speak to someone in a non confrontational way and if they are a person other than say a Vegan and even when it gets to that extreme if I can state reasons that I hunt and and about hunting in general I can usually get at least a I understand your point comment
> 
> ...


Again I agree Joe but the mainstream has no stomach for it so the target side flourishes by keeping it hidden, Sad really.


----------



## Bigjono (Apr 21, 2009)

grantmac said:


> Compound will be in the Olympics. That is actually going to happen, there has been much discussion in the FITA forum and a few people in the know have dropped hints. Why do you think Korean manufacturers and archers have started producing and using them?
> Compound may replace recurve in the minds of North Americans, but it will not make significant inroads in the rest of the world. It's popularity is very easily traced to countries where bow hunting is a major influence. Everywhere else is much more biased towards single-string archery.
> 
> I personally feel that Field would make an excellent televised sport, especially in the World Archery format.
> ...


Good points Grant. I think compound is headed to the Olympics soon too.
I really think Field could make good TV but it's not mass spectator friendly. They are the guys to look at for what equipment works best too. No money no sponsor, just self funded and self chosen kit.


----------



## GBUSA (Jun 6, 2013)

JParanee said:


> Jono you bring up a very valid point
> 
> I have found that if I can sit down and speak to someone in a non confrontational way and if they are a person other than say a Vegan and even when it gets to that extreme if I can state reasons that I hunt and and about hunting in general I can usually get at least a I understand your point comment
> 
> ...


There will always be anti hunters and no rational argument will ever change their minds, that's just a given.
I'm not a big game hunter myself, just a target shooter who shoots with hunters from time to time.
I eat meat and understand the need for game management. While I buy my meat at the butcher I believe hunting is more honest.
I think a bit of population control is necessary in all species actually.
The problem I see on the local hunting front is in the education and ethics of some of these hunters.
I can't tell you how many times I hear of animals that have been shot and then not recovered.
That happens, I understand this. The problem I have is that if this is truly about management by ethical hunters, I don't believe you have a right to shoot another dear on that tag.
As far as I'm concerned, that tag is filled. 
You don't like that program, then perfect your craft. 
Pulling your bow out a week or two prior to hunting season a bow hunter it does not make.


----------



## Brian N (Aug 14, 2014)

The most watched event (according to Field & Stream August 3, 2012) at the London Olympics was .........Archery. Whatever the reason (Hollywood movies) archery is still riding that crest. Forget about shooting at the local range on weekends; it is booked. Most evenings and late afternoon are packed. And it is not the hunting crowd. Mostly 20 something and teens. There is a waiting list for the leagues and JOAD. Also lots of Dads (including me) and Moms shooting along with their kids. I would say they are split 2/5 traditional, 3/5 compound. As for the tricked out Olympic bows and shooting styles, it does not diminish the skills needed or the years of practice devoted to the sport.


----------



## Hank (Jul 5, 2003)

I don't think anyone can question the skill of the top Olympic Style Shooters, but with all the stuff hanging on their bows, is it really the essence of human sport?


----------



## Jeb-D. (Sep 21, 2011)

Hank said:


> I don't think anyone can question the skill of the top Olympic Style Shooters, but with all the stuff hanging on their bows, is it really the essence of human sport?


I understand what you are saying and used to think that way, until I tried using an Olympic recurve. I was expecting the bow to practically shoot itself and thought I would be tearing out the gold in no time. I was wrong.

A bad release is a bad release, a weak bow arm is a weak bow arm, bad alignment is bad alignment, ect, ect. Those things show with an olympic recurve just as they do trad. The mistakes are masked a little by the equipment, but you are shooting against others that have the same amount of masking. And as far as aiming goes, you know if it were people shooting naked bows, every competitor would adjust their setup for a 70m point-on and adjustable nock points for fine tuning.

Though I will agree the bolt on's look a little goofy and are cumbersome. But the technique involved is the same. They use a finger release and the bows don't have let-off. So I do consider the olympic archers; traditional archers.


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

Couldn't the same argument be said for compound shooters? Bad form equals poor results?

You know there is a world of difference when shooting off the shelf, with no mechanical sights and fingers than shooting with all the freestyle hardware attached to the bow. I wonder how long it will be before "they" allow mechanical releases with the Oly bows?

Yeah, a simple barebow shooter can tune their bow and arrows to be point on at 70m, and shoot great scores. And it still requires a lot of skill to pull that off. But when shooting a 90/70/50/30m qualification round things start to get a bit trickier when they either have to stringwalk/facewalk, or gap shoot the different distances with the same rig and arrows. Technology is removing one of the most importance skills in shooting: the aiming. When they allow mechanical releases, the release part of the game will go away.

Anyways, a lot of the Trad shoots don't just shoot 1 distance all day long, like in the 70m round, they shoot many different distances with up and down hill shots. Okay, this is a divergence from hardware to event style discussion, but it is an important part of the big picture. The olympic archery is moving more and more towards cloning robotic archers. They shoot the same 3 arrows at the same target on the same manicured flat range, and people do golf claps all day long. It is an event designed to test the archers ability to be repeatable. Manufacturers use robots because they are more repeatable than people. The olympics is moving that way. When the people skill gets to a certain point, technology begins to differentiate one from another.

Now the Olympics gives the impression that it is an athletic event that celebrates the best of the best athletes in a sport. The 70m round is just one tiny part of archery as a whole, and yet it has a lot of competitors because that is what the olympics is only interested in. Now a better test of the athlete would be more of an all around test, like what is seen in field events, which is more on the traditional style of archery (I am not talking equipment here). In the field events you do see a lot more barebow shooters than in the flat range events. At times barebow shooters out number Oly shooters. This is even more so in Europe than in the US. If the Olympics when to field style events, I would suspect there will be a lot more Oly shooters doing field events.

Now if you take the sights away, the field events becomes even more challenging. Now if you really want to hamstring them, don't allow stringwalking or face walking.

People talk about how much field events are not that spectator friendly. Well, what is the olympics about? testing the best of the best athletes? or is it about making the armchair quarterback happy? With television coverage, field events are extremely exciting to watch. When courses are set up, they can be made extremely challenging, and they will all be different from course to course. Shooting in bright areas, into dark areas, wicked 45 degree uphill shots, and nasty 60 degree down hill shots, between and under tree branches, even shots from the knees. Now this is traditional archery, and it is the ultimate test of the athletes.


----------



## Corene1 (Apr 27, 2014)

Mr. Roboto said:


> Couldn't the same argument be said for compound shooters? Bad form equals poor results?
> 
> You know there is a world of difference when shooting off the shelf, with no mechanical sights and fingers than shooting with all the freestyle hardware attached to the bow. I wonder how long it will be before "they" allow mechanical releases with the Oly bows?
> 
> ...


 NFAA field round shooting bowhunter division. 10 to 80 yards flat shots uphill shots and downhill shots side hill shots shaded shots. One anchor , no sights no clicker and the index finger must stay in contact with the nock 12 inch stabilizer. This is close to what you are suggesting and is quite a challenge in itself. My favorite type of shoot.


----------



## Arrowwood (Nov 16, 2010)

Mine too, but hardly anyone wants to shoot field, let alone watch it as an olympic event.


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

When you say, hardly anyone wants to shoot field events, is it because it is a difficult event, or is it because it is hardly publicized?

The Olympics is a major event that gets the vast majority of the publicity. What archery events that they feel is important enough to allow, has a significant impact on young people and greatly influences their direction in the sport. And because of their influence, it has the trickle down effect to country, state, and local events. A lot of people have dreams about being in the Olympics, and thus they choose to develop the skill needed to be able to compete in a particular Olympic event.

If the Olympics decided to have a field event, then we will see a huge jump in the number of people competing in field events.

Then there is the other side of the coin, people generally migrate towards activities that maximize the fun at the same time as minimizing the amount of work required to participate in the activity. It takes a lot of time and effort to become proficient in shooting well on well manicured flat ranges. But it becomes a whole lot more difficult when you add hills, shooting into dark areas with the sun in your face, etc. So field shooting requires a lot more work to become proficient at it.

Then one asks, why does one want to spend all the time and effort to become proficient at an event that for all practical purposes is just a local event? How many national (US) field events are there? Two? How many FITA/WA events are there? dozens? Then why are there more FITA/WA events than Field events? It all points back to the Olympics.

People argue that compounds are not that popular outside the US. When the Olympics brings in the compounds in 2016 as an exhibition event, the world will respond in force and the competition will be fierce. If the olymipcs allow barebow shooters, all of our clubs will explode with new barebow shooters.

Unfortunately, the Olympics seems to be more interested developing events that is more towards achieving theoretical perfect scores (i.e. x-counting) than overall excellence in shooting skills. The USAA just eliminated the barebow division from their national target event. Thus the beginning move to completely move the traditional shooter to being a foot note in future text books.

As for spectator watching, how many events in the Olympics that are conducted outside the coliseums are spectator friendly? How spectator friendly are the biatholon events? And yet with TV/Internet coverage we can see every single moment through the entire event. The same type of coverage can be made with field events. Granted, it would be hard to have 10,000 people watching it live on the course but millions can watch it live in TV/Internet with cameras placed all over the course. If you look at the WA Field Championships that is going on right now, the finals at an Olympic event can be set up where thousands can watch it live and in person. Field events can be very spectator friendly. Maybe some of the spectators should bring binoculars with them like most of the field shooters carry with themselves.


----------



## Arrowwood (Nov 16, 2010)

> When you say, hardly anyone wants to shoot field events, is it because it is a difficult event, or is it because it is hardly publicized?


I don't know why it is; you tell me. I shoot as many as I can. It's fair to say it's "difficult", and the publicity leaves a lot to be desired. 

One or two trad shooters show up at most state field championships, if any. Sectionals are worse. My club gets more shooters for our monthly 3D shoots than some NFAA outdoor sectionals did this year. The olympics haven't created any big craze for outdoor "target" archery around here, as far as I know - I doubt field would be any different if it became an olympic format. As if it would ever happen..


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

GBUSA said:


> There will always be anti hunters and no rational argument will ever change their minds, that's just a given.
> I'm not a big game hunter myself, just a target shooter who shoots with hunters from time to time.
> I eat meat and understand the need for game management. While I buy my meat at the butcher I believe hunting is more honest.
> I think a bit of population control is necessary in all species actually.
> ...


It's not about game management. The state (s) grows game for us to hunt and invests in land for us to hunt on. It brings in lots of money and supports numerous bureaucratic agencies, helps get votes for politicians and pumps a ton of money into a fairly wide range of private sector businesses.

Your proposed definition of a "filled" tag is no way to get my money or my vote. Besides, good luck trying to enforce such a thing. The hunter doesn't have to tell anybody about a miss or bad hit...which is why bag limits (and possession limits) are based on what game you actually possess.


----------



## Arrowwood (Nov 16, 2010)

Not always - ask Ted Nugent how that works in AK.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

Arrowwood said:


> Not always - ask Ted Nugent how that works in AK.


Nugent published video evidence of his "crime". Most folks wouldn't do that. I'm not scratching a tag unless I "bring home the bacon".

My main point was that it's mostly about votes, selling tags, gear and assorted tourist products and services. As always, follow the money. IMO, we should stop presenting hunting as primarily being a management tool. It can be but that's not why most of us hunt and it isn't why the government grows game and sells tags.


----------



## webster2 (Nov 24, 2013)

You posed a legitimate and actually pretty interesting question, dashanque, and you make some good points re gear. With all the artificial 'stuff' hanging off bows used by olympic archers it does seem to present a conflict with the original (simple) olympic theme...to determine the best athletes based on athletic skill, not on equipment advantages. Politics (rules) was likely as big factor then as it is now. It's just that now the politics end often comes shaped like a gimungus bag of money, lol.

Barebow would certainly take some of the guesswork out of the question of who's 'really' better. At the very least it might offer something that today's olympic and target archery competitions have a hard time generating...public (non-shooter) interest. Would the recent spike in archery interest have occurred if Katniss had been shooting a tricked out olympic bow under church-like shooting conditions? Probably not. Because as others have mentioned, despite it's perks 'target style' (like paint drying) is simply too boring for most people to watch.

I'll bet the 70M distance could easily be adjusted by the olympic committee to meet the practical needs posed by a less mechanical but far more challenging barebow competition. They might even provide a larger seating section and more TV airtime. The fewer people sleeping in the audience the better the product, right? Olympic committee members may be biased, but they ain't stupid.

Speaking of being biased, on behalf of the few who responded above with somewhat toolistic (that's like sarcastic but with an air of superiority thrown in) anti-trad digs instead of constructive discussion of the question posed, I apologize. Apparently they either forgot to order manners for lunch today or didn't read the forum rules. :read2:


----------



## Dewey3 (May 6, 2012)

webster2 said:


> I'll bet the 70M distance could easily be adjusted by the olympic committee to meet the practical needs posed by a less mechanical but far more challenging barebow competition.


Why shorten the distance ???

Did you see the World Archery Field Championships this weekend ???
They were shooting up to 60 meters barebow just fine - so you wouldn't have to reduce the distance by too much, if at all !!!


----------



## J. Wesbrock (Dec 17, 2003)

For what it's worth, Barebow shoots shorter distances in World Archery field. Maximum distance is 60m for Recurve and Compound, 50m for Barebow.


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

In the NFAA championships the barebow/traditional/longbow shooters shoot the same distances everyone else does. That includes the 80 yard targets. I am of the opinion that if you are shooting adult/senior age group, then you shoot the same distances everyone else does. No shorter distances because you don't have a sight. But that is my opinion. People have been shooting long distances long before these mechanical sights ever were invented.


----------



## Corene1 (Apr 27, 2014)

70 meters barebow is not really a problem . I shoot it quite often with a SF forged riser win &win winnex limbs at 34 pounds on the fingers shooting ACE 520's. Point is on the bottom of the blue ring at 30 meters, point on at 50 meters. top of the blue at 60 meters and front of the shelf at 70 meters. So essentially I have an aiming point at all the distances. As far as the high tech equipment goes . I believe they are all playing on a level playing field so skill of the archer does determine the winner. Technology does advance but the skill of the athlete determines the winner. Look at the tracks or the running shoes the starting blocks even the design of the swimming pools. they all increase the abilities of the athlete but again it is a level playing field. My FITA bow is as nice as Ki Bo Bae's but I sure can't shoot a 1404 round. I would imagine if Olympic archery was shot barebow they all would have the best bows and arrows available and the best archer would still win. I know it is not representative of the original equipment of 776 BC but times change and you are seeing the best Olympic archers in the world and I am betting they can shoot barebow at the same level as they do a FITA bow. Would it make barebow shooting more popular I just couldn't answer that question but if they are bringing in compounds as a demo sport I would love to see barebow FITA in there also. Maybe even a team round of combined equipment . Just my thoughts.


----------



## J. Wesbrock (Dec 17, 2003)

Yes, in NFAA/IFAA distances are determined by age, not equipment. I share your opinion about that, and hope they never change. But the question was about World Archery, and in WA field Barebow archers shoot somewhay shorter distances. It's a slightly different game, but no less challenging. Truth be known, I think the scoring in WA field makes it much less forgiving of mistakes.


----------



## webster2 (Nov 24, 2013)

Respondents not supporting a barebow class for olympic competition seem to be saying that distance doesn't matter and neither do bow add-ons because the best archers would eventually win anyway. Well if that's true, wouldn't the same apply for ANY archery gear used? In that instance there would be little need to continually 'upgrade' the competition through equipment advancements (ever more complicated bow designs, sights, stabilizers, wrist slings, compounds, etc. etc.) since in the end the winners would always be the same. Right? I don't think so. 

The real question is, why make today's olympic archery approach more complicated than it ORIGINALLY was, and more complicated than it needs to be to cover the 'test for skill' issue? Unmasked skill against skill, using the simplest of gear where gear is needed (like it used to be...?), makes perfect sense if the olympic theme of determining who's best (not who's bow is best) is legit. 

Why not at least have a SEGMENT of the olympic competition devoted to only simple gear and methods (call it 'traditional archery competition'), including simple restrictions for barebow competition levels as is already done at today's local, regional and international competitions. Maybe even use the NASCAR approach...everyone in a given class is provided exactly the same bow and allowed to tune/practice with it before competing...assuring that the athlete ('driver') is the biggest difference maker, not their equipment. A barebow olympic class would certainly make the overall archery product more palatable to watch, and probably expand the pool of archers who might qualify.

Let's put the 'arc' back into olympic archery, lol.


----------



## J. Wesbrock (Dec 17, 2003)

No, what is being said is that the best archers will still be the best archers no matter where you draw the equipment line. No one is saying that the best barebow archers can outshoot Brady Ellison with his Recurve setup, but if you give Brady a year to train Barebow I guarantee he'd come out of it toward the top of the pack. A good archer is a good archer. It seem only in the "traditional" archery community do such a high percentage of folks not understand that fact.

But hey, if you really think Olympic archery is all about the equipment and not a test of human skill, here's a simple idea. Buy the best equipment on the market, show up at the next Olympic trials and show those boys how it's done. It shouldn't be that hard, right?


----------



## GBUSA (Jun 6, 2013)

What archer doesn't want to see more archery in the Olympics. Perhaps only those who's style of archery is already represented in the games.
Guess we'll soon see what impact a compound exhibition has on that.

That said, what non archer cares if there is more or less archery in the games. Trust me when I say it's about as exciting to a non archer, as golf is to the non golfer.

I'd personally love to see something like a 70, or 90 meter Bare Bow match in the games. Because you would still have the best of the best shooting the matches.
But I understand that they are using the most precise style of archery to determine who gets to play for the gold, silver and bronze medals at the moment.
None can really argue that a sight isn't used in BB, it's just a different sighting method. So if the Olympic commission is allocating X amount of time and space to precision recurve archery, you really can't argue with their choice.
Perhaps if we continue to see this amount of growth in archery, we will also see more time allocated to the sport at the games and then perhaps some of the other disciplines.


----------



## shiftydog (Apr 18, 2013)

Unless the IOC thinks they can make money, I wouldn't expect trad archery to be making an appearance any time soon. The so-called "purity" of trad archery over Olympic-style recurve or compound is meaningless. Hell, the IOC tried to dump wrestling out of the Olympics. Wrestling isn't my bag, but it's about the purest sport there and a mainstay since the original games. Unfortunately, people just weren't watching it and that was enough to put it on the chopping block (though it was eventually saved).

I'd love to see the IOC dump about 2/3 of the swimming events. I'll never understand why there are medals for backstroke/butterfly/breaststroke. You don't see any backwards running events, though if the IOC thought they could make a dime off of it, it would be there.


----------



## Bigjono (Apr 21, 2009)

J. Wesbrock said:


> No, what is being said is that the best archers will still be the best archers no matter where you draw the equipment line. No one is saying that the best barebow archers can outshoot Brady Ellison with his Recurve setup, but if you give Brady a year to train Barebow I guarantee he'd come out of it toward the top of the pack. A good archer is a good archer. It seem only in the "traditional" archery community do such a high percentage of folks not understand that fact.
> 
> But hey, if you really think Olympic archery is all about the equipment and not a test of human skill, here's a simple idea. Buy the best equipment on the market, show up at the next Olympic trials and show those boys how it's done. It shouldn't be that hard, right?


Lol, I can see Brady and Vic etc shaking in their boots now at the prospect Jason.
Anyone who thinks what they do is easy is a fool, those guys are freaky good.


----------



## Azzurri (Mar 10, 2014)

I can beat a pretty good BB/trad guy in a 900 shooting OR, and I'm a pretty new and mediocre OR person. Those kind of shots are gapped and dropping in, and I have the advantage of a sight and clicker.

I'm sure the Wunderles of the world would be good BB types too. Most of them grow up shooting all sorts of stuff and some already gap sideways for windage. The interesting thing to me would be, should you then stagger the trials to let those squeezed out of recurve shoot BB also, or maybe even have people hedging their bets in both. Whereas, compound vs. recurve I don't see many trying both.

Now, the argument I usually make when recurve people get defensive about compound scores, is those who "get it" know which one is harder and respect what you're doing. Same applies for BB/trad. Whether that would sell WA/ IOC is another story.

I think the better play is to argue that compound gets in as a second target bow and then have field and both sets of recurves do that. 2 venues and roughly 2 weeks for everyone. I think it could be done easily.


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

shiftydog said:


> Unless the IOC thinks they can make money, I wouldn't expect trad archery to be making an appearance any time soon. The so-called "purity" of trad archery over Olympic-style recurve or compound is meaningless. Hell, the IOC tried to dump wrestling out of the Olympics. Wrestling isn't my bag, but it's about the purest sport there and a mainstay since the original games. Unfortunately, people just weren't watching it and that was enough to put it on the chopping block (though it was eventually saved).
> 
> I'd love to see the IOC dump about 2/3 of the swimming events. I'll never understand why there are medals for backstroke/butterfly/breaststroke. You don't see any backwards running events, though if the IOC thought they could make a dime off of it, it would be there.


Exactly.

In my opinion, the IOC can keep all of the swimming events. My problem is that the stupid TV stations spend 90% of their coverage covering every single minute detail of the swimming events. There are other events out there that deserve some coverage, say the Pentathlon for example.

Anyways, the IOC follows where the money really is. Running the olympics is a bloody expensive venture that will never get any cheaper with country's trying to out do each other when they host the event.

So on that line, the archery parts of the olympics will fall to the money side of things, and that means compounds will rule the game. I personally have no problem with compounds being in the olympics. But since the olympics has a tendency of having multiple styles, why not Oly styles and barebow styles? Wait, they can even have team events. Crazy idea.

The original topic was about traditional archery in the olympics. One can argue equipment all day long. Yes, it does requires skill to shoot what ever piece of gear in your hands. Some pieces of gear tends towards higher scores than others. But part of traditional archery also includes the type of courses that are more traditional to archery, and these tend to be more the field events. One tends see a lot more Barebow/Traditional/Longbow shooters in field and 3D events than at the flat range events. These are more challenging and more exciting to participate in, and watch on tv/internet.


----------



## Hank D Thoreau (Dec 9, 2008)

I was one of only about 125,000 subscribers to the Olympic Triplecast for the Barcelona Games. The Triplecast provide three cable networks that showing Olympic Coverage almost like you were there. You saw warmup, rotations, consolation races...etc. You also saw the non main stream Olympic Sports. The problem is that a huge investment went into it and few people bought it. By later in the games they were trying to sell single day packages to boost the viewership. The web provides our best opportunity for minor sports viewing. Things like ArcheryTV. The Wikipedia article says the final tally was 200,000. I bet that included the late arrivers who purchased as the games were in progress. By the way, I am an Olympic junkie and really loved the coverage. Barcelona was great since the time zones lined up perfectly with the west coast. I would get up in the morning and watch the night events before I left for work. By the time I got home, the morning sessions were starting. I rarely turned on NBC coverage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympics_Triplecast


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

That was the best coverage of the Olympics I have ever seen. I remember it well, and have wished they continued doing it. I wasn't shooting bows back then, I was more into pistols and high powered rifles (the year before I was invited to try out for the Marine Corps rifle team - I didn't make the cut but it sure was a blast shooting with the best of the best). That year I subscribed to two of the channels for the 2 weeks to get the field, shooting, and equestrian events. It was awesome.

At the London Olympics, I was up at 2 am watching the archery events live on the internet. I would have even paid for it if I knew they would cover 100% of it.


----------



## webster2 (Nov 24, 2013)

Wow. The original question was "Why isn't bare bow archery in the Olympics?". Somehow it morphed into a free-for-all with everything from 'trad archers stink' to long dissertations on the unarguable superiority of mechanically aided style as the holy grail of proper archery technique. Really now.

Here's the rub. Technical (olympic style) archery, regardless of how it's painted or disguised, is flat-out boring for MOST people except those who actually participate in it (which would mean a drop in a bucket's worth of the world's population). From the AVERAGE MEDIA WATCHER'S perspective (that's you, me Aunt Mirdle and Joe the couch potato) it's just another yawn in a sea of olympic snorefests. So, why not try a different kind of archery...one that the GENERAL PUBLIC has already shown at least SOME level of interest in watching (see movie reviews). One that involves imperfect (like normal) bows and arrows, room for some user error (imagine that) and yes, even MISSING THE BULLS EYE once in awhile (Oh my goodness slap my butt and call me Judy). Maybe have people actually looking, moving, talking and demonstrating people-like symptoms and reactions during the actual competition...win or lose. Last I checked, turtle-slow robotic prep steps followed by stoic post-shot indifference, and then more of the same, doesn't exactly evoke unbridled excitement for the viewing masses. 

Olympic archery competition needs a kick in the arse, if only to show the public that competitors are actually alive and that Robin Hood wasn't a robot. Emotion is part of athletics like beef is what's for supper. The simple question with target style is, where's the beef?


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

Webster, not sure what any of what you describe has to do with equipment being used. How the competitors compete is separate from what they compete with. There's Field, 3D or Line - take your pick, but line shooting is about the oldest style, traditionally-competitive speaking.


----------



## Azzurri (Mar 10, 2014)

One thing that would need to be straightened out, also, is what would we call BB/trad. That description can cover everything from wood selfbows and wood arrows without much manufacturing or fanciness, all the way over to ILF setups with high tech risers, aluminum or carbon arrows, stabs, clickers, etc. You also have people who want to define the area by technique, eg, no stringwalking. I bought what I thought was a vanilla and inoffensive bow and aluminum arrows, and have found that it would be behind the technical curve for NFAA (because they allow so much), have the wrong string for USAA, and have the wrong arrows for both the tech hunter end (IBO-type) or the RenFest end (wood old school). And here I thought I was basic beyond complaint.

You could accept the WA definition of BB but then that's almost OR without a few trinkets. Is that enough difference where IOC says that's a unique sport to recognize?


----------



## centershot (Sep 13, 2002)

J. Wesbrock said:


> No, what is being said is that the best archers will still be the best archers no matter where you draw the equipment line. No one is saying that the best barebow archers can outshoot Brady Ellison with his Recurve setup, but if you give Brady a year to train Barebow I guarantee he'd come out of it toward the top of the pack. A good archer is a good archer. It seem only in the "traditional" archery community do such a high percentage of folks not understand that fact.
> 
> But hey, if you really think Olympic archery is all about the equipment and not a test of human skill, here's a simple idea. Buy the best equipment on the market, show up at the next Olympic trials and show those boys how it's done. It shouldn't be that hard, right?


Love it!


----------



## webster2 (Nov 24, 2013)

But but but centershot (and J. Wesbrook)....if that is true, and I read it on the internet so it's quite possibly irrefutably true but I'll try anyway, then why...WHY...draw an equipment line at all? Using your logic (here goes nuthin'), why not just make it sort of a 'shoot what ya' brung' affair and let the engineers/archery weapons designers sort out the gory details later. After all, the best archers are always the best archers no matter what they shoot. How bout' a tricked-out Hoyt vs. a rocket powered computerized arrow launcher with lock-on technology pads. Now that might be exciting. I got dibbs on guy #2. Once he presses that launch button (not as easy as you might think, I hear it takes seconds of practice to master) it's all over but the medal presentations.

Me traditional archer. Me understand robot men but me no like forked tongue. Me like olympic rock throwing. Me not like olympic rocket launching. Robot men boring. Me like make meat, not like make rocket boom boom.

Lol.


----------



## J. Wesbrock (Dec 17, 2003)




----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

webster2 said:


> Me traditional archer. Me understand robot men but me no like forked tongue. Me like olympic rock throwing. Me not like olympic rocket launching. Robot men boring. Me like make meat, not like make rocket boom boom.
> 
> Lol.


But, then, you could always show us "me" hitting anywhere near a 10-ring at 90 meters, or the bale for that matter, with the best OLY rig out there. Till you master and report back on that one, you're out on this one as to knowing what archery talent it takes for what. Yep, most of us have read the net too!


----------



## centershot (Sep 13, 2002)

webster2 said:


> But but but centershot (and J. Wesbrook)....if that is true, and I read it on the internet so it's quite possibly irrefutably true but I'll try anyway, then why...WHY...draw an equipment line at all? Using your logic (here goes nuthin'), why not just make it sort of a 'shoot what ya' brung' affair and let the engineers/archery weapons designers sort out the gory details later. After all, the best archers are always the best archers no matter what they shoot. How bout' a tricked-out Hoyt vs. a rocket powered computerized arrow launcher with lock-on technology pads. Now that might be exciting. I got dibbs on guy #2. Once he presses that launch button (not as easy as you might think, I hear it takes seconds of practice to master) it's all over but the medal presentations.
> 
> Me traditional archer. Me understand robot men but me no like forked tongue. Me like olympic rock throwing. Me not like olympic rocket launching. Robot men boring. Me like make meat, not like make rocket boom boom.
> 
> Lol.


Why stop with bows, just move on up to rifles, etc...............no I disagree Webster. Point is give Brady your bow (or mine) and a couple hours and he would very likely show you how well it can be shot. I'd bet he could even shoot it off his knees and canted if you would like. You like to make fun of 'robot' shooting, well whatever - the rest of us call is consent form and enjoy the consistency and accuracy that come along with it. And if it's not true, then why don't we see a hunched over snap shooting "Trad Hero" winning the Olympics?


----------



## Azzurri (Mar 10, 2014)

To put my point differently, there is occasionally a definitional issue with what is traditional or barebow. How far we go up or down the tech scale. My two cents is the closer it is defined to OR, the less likely IOC or WA are to add it as an Olympic event. "That's barely different than OR and we already have OR." Which will also beg score comparisons with OR, which will never be favorable (an Olympian shooting BB would still be worse than top level national or state shooters shooting OR, it's always going to be catchup.....you instead need to sell the challenge). So part of the game is defining BB to be different enough to be attractive but competitive enough to draw attention.

Compound obviously having the advantage then of being significantly different on the tech scale. Closer to your rocket powered concept. But then if you go far enough that way does it embarrass recurve. Which to me is why OR is in all forms, but compound is in WA but not Olympics. I think the establishment is worried compound would take over with higher scores and high tech bows.

To me, the way out of the "tech" argument is to get outside target archery where it's like OK what would you get at 70 with this -- and like I said, I think that always favors the higher tech sight divisions -- and gun for new ground like field, where you're not judged against how people have shot at 70 for decades, but instead against a course that would change every time.


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

The only people who think OR is easy are people who haven't tried OR.

-Grant


----------



## Mo0se (Sep 24, 2002)

J. Wesbrock said:


> Because no country can find three people who hunch, snap, pluck and can hit a target at 70 meters?


I spit coffee on this one lol!


----------



## Mo0se (Sep 24, 2002)

View attachment 2027580


View attachment 2027581


----------



## webster2 (Nov 24, 2013)

No fair. The robot people have cheated and captured the board by unleashing the insurmountable 'Bald-Headed Capt Kirk Stupid Rerun Humor' strategy. Robot technology once again rears it's ugly...errrr...bald head. Damned army.

Be sure to tune in next time as we debate the merits of fart control during target shot execution. Film at eleven. 

This discussion was sponsored by the Society for the Preservation of Archery Boredom (SPOAB). 
"IT"S NOT THAT WE DON"T LISTEN TO REASON. WE JUST DON"T CARE"
Robert Armpit, CEO, SPOAB


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

The most remarkable thing about this thread is it's total civility - couldn't have pulled it off a month ago.


----------



## High Plains (Feb 29, 2008)

Archery Biathlon would be a good addition.


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

I believe they do that in Europe - looks like fun.


----------



## webster2 (Nov 24, 2013)

That's not a bad idea, High Plains. At least an archery biathlon would involve, like, movement. The winter biathlon has a nice variety of interesting (and demanding) tests for the participating athletes. Not a bad idea at all. Maybe even throw a longbow and back quiver into the mix. Bonus points.

What say you, Robot People? Are you up for some skill tests involving something other than blinking and breathing?


----------



## Arrowwood (Nov 16, 2010)

What kind of archery skill tests do you do, webster2?


----------



## Corene1 (Apr 27, 2014)

I really enjoy all types of archery and see the challenge in every form. There are so many different classes and styles it would be impossible to include them all in the Olympics, but to call these archers Robots does them an injustice. I have been to the Olympic training center and have seen the work and  dedication that these archers put into their style. 4 to 6 hours of shooting a day 400 to 500 arrows a day, everyday, sometimes even more. That is some dedication, I would like to call it striving for perfection. I have shot Olympic FITA and it is a very difficult form to perfect, I went back to non sighted recurve because it is easier for me to be at a competitive level but still not going to be a top level shooter by any means. I said it earlier and a couple of others have said it also. I am betting that any of the Olympic archers can take any type of equipment and with a little time be ultra competitive. Go get a full Olympic setup , get it tuned up real good and go shoot a 1200 on a full FITA round 90m-70m-50m- 30m . Then think about the fact that you still need to add 150 more points to even think about being competitive at the Olympic level. Ki Bo Bae from Korea has the womens record at 1404. Peter Elzinga has the mens record at 1419. These are for the 1440 round. Is it a boring round to watch ? I guess it is for some that are just casual observers ,but then again I probably won't be watching the finals of Kurling. Again , just my thoughts.


----------



## High Plains (Feb 29, 2008)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdKULcQ8llw

I haven't been on skis since the late 80's when I was stationed in Alaska but this does look like fun.


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

webster2 said:


> Wow. The original question was "Why isn't bare bow archery in the Olympics?". Somehow it morphed into a free-for-all with everything from 'trad archers stink' to long dissertations on the unarguable superiority of mechanically aided style as the holy grail of proper archery technique. Really now.
> 
> Here's the rub. Technical (olympic style) archery, regardless of how it's painted or disguised, is flat-out boring for MOST people except those who actually participate in it (which would mean a drop in a bucket's worth of the world's population). From the AVERAGE MEDIA WATCHER'S perspective (that's you, me Aunt Mirdle and Joe the couch potato) it's just another yawn in a sea of olympic snorefests. So, why not try a different kind of archery...one that the GENERAL PUBLIC has already shown at least SOME level of interest in watching (see movie reviews). One that involves imperfect (like normal) bows and arrows, room for some user error (imagine that) and yes, even MISSING THE BULLS EYE once in awhile (Oh my goodness slap my butt and call me Judy). Maybe have people actually looking, moving, talking and demonstrating people-like symptoms and reactions during the actual competition...win or lose. Last I checked, turtle-slow robotic prep steps followed by stoic post-shot indifference, and then more of the same, doesn't exactly evoke unbridled excitement for the viewing masses.
> 
> Olympic archery competition needs a kick in the arse, if only to show the public that competitors are actually alive and that Robin Hood wasn't a robot. Emotion is part of athletics like beef is what's for supper. The simple question with target style is, where's the beef?


Movies are entertaining, but utter nonsense. People wouldn't want to see a guy shooting at a round target, regardless of whether he's shooting a tricked out 6' recurve with sight or stabilizer or an English D bow made of only wood. Both are boring, and trust me, both would have "robots" doing it because that's what anyone who actually tries to shoot well strives for: perfect consistency. They're not going to replace what has been in practice for some 40+ years to bring in an event where participants have to climb a wall, jump down, swing on a rope (all while carrying their bow) and then snap off three shots at moving mannequins armed with machine guns, with extra points being allotted to the one who's explosive tipped arrows blow the targets up best. That's what people want to see, but that's not really feasible, practical, or realistic. 

Oh, and since this is aimed at the "majority" of viewers, they'll have to shoot compounds. Here in the States compounds outnumber single strings, so why both catering to the minority? I mean, to heck with the rest of the world, the US viewership is all that really matters!


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

That's a good point. Some of my coworkers think the Olympics are shot with compounds. Horseback shooting has been around a long and it is not in the Olympics because it boring to watch.
Dan


----------



## Azzurri (Mar 10, 2014)

Matt_Potter said:


> I believe they do that in Europe - looks like fun.


I've seen ski archery on video.


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

I don't think anyone is saying that the current olympic style isn't difficult, especially competing at the world level. Regardless of what ever the sport is, dedicating 5+ hours a day 6+ days a week, year after year is a serious life style and dedication to a sport. And to be the best of the best, one generally has to put this kind of dedication into the effort. And yes, if a top olympic competitor put their oly bow down and picked up a trad bow, compound, or even a longbow, and put that same level of dedication they will also shoot awesome scores. I don't think anyone will contest that.

I make robots for a living. And using robots as an analogy is a pretty good analogy. It is actually more of a compliment than an insult. This has nothing to do about being mindless. Companies switch to robots because robots are extremely repeatable. Notice the key word here "repeatable". Precision is a whole different beast and any archer knows, if you are perfectly repeatable, it is easy to make a small adjustment for precision. But you can not get precision without being repeatable. When we shoot our scores are directly related to how repeatable we can be in our shot execution. When we shoot, its the group repeatability that is far far more important than the exact location of that group. So robots is a good analogy when it comes to shooting. I wish I was a good robot. Just the other day, I dumped 5 arrows into the gold at 50m, then the next end I was spraying them all over the place. Then I am saying to myself why cant I do the previous end all the time? Well, I know why, I am not very good at being repeatable.

But with robots, the uncertainty of their repeatability is directly related to the uncertainty in the variables in their environment. So if one increases the uncertainty magnitude to say the draw length (no clicker), and sight picture (no mechanical sights). The overall uncertainty of the repeatability increases. Then add uncertainties to the environment, variable distances, knowing the distance, changing light conditions, levelness of the ground, stability of the footing, all add additional uncertainties to the process.

Can a world class Oly shooter shoot a good field round? Absolutely. I don't think anyone will even question that fast. But what is more of a test, a fixed distance shoot, or a field round? If people dedicate the same amount of time for either events, which one is more challenging?

Every 70m round is the same, but every field course is different.

Which one would be more exciting to watch on TV?

Traditional doesn't just mean using a barebow/longbow, but it also implies more of a field type of an environment.


----------



## webster2 (Nov 24, 2013)

Here's what we know. Archery isn't a wildly popular sport (compared to most others) and politics/money define oylmpic protocol at all levels, so the question originally posed may be somewhat rhetorical (unanswerable). But why bash non-olympic style (call it what you will...casual style, traditional style, hunting style) as a viable means of enjoying and showing the sport to olympic viewing audiences?

There was some playful poking going on here, I took the bait too and admit it was kinda' fun poking fun at those who don't seem to have much fun when they shoot...there, I did it again, lol. But a few stepped over the line into bashing and insults, and even expanded on that approach as the discussion went on. That's not a credible way to win a point, and I'm sorry but it just sounds kinda' snobby. And if you are an advertiser and want to sell archery gear to normal folks (like me, I guess) who shoot mostly for fun and recreation instead of medals and trophies, it would...just a hunch...be more productive to ease up on the attitude pedal. A little friendly banter aside, name calling and divisiveness loses in any forum. Anyone can have ugly moments in how they express an opinion (human nature), but opinions have a limit. We all need to be careful that we don't value our own so highly that we forget to respect someone else's.

I wish more people could experience (and see) the fun side of archery, which to me is much more important than constantly trying to punch arrows into the same hole using complicated methods and equipment. And if any good comes of this thread I hope that respecting other's legal and ethical archery choices heads the list.


----------



## Arrowwood (Nov 16, 2010)

webster2, have you ever shot any kind of archery competition?


----------



## webster2 (Nov 24, 2013)

Arrowwood, have you ever shot with someone who cares nothing about archery competition?


----------



## Arrowwood (Nov 16, 2010)

I'll take that as a "no".


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

webster2 said:


> I wish more people could experience (and see) the fun side of archery, which to me is much more important than constantly trying to punch arrows into the same hole using complicated methods and equipment. And if any good comes of this thread I hope that respecting other's legal and ethical archery choices heads the list.


There's a lot more fun to be had consistently placing arrows exactly where you mean to.


----------



## GBUSA (Jun 6, 2013)

webster2 said:


> Here's what we know. Archery isn't a wildly popular sport (compared to most others) and politics/money define oylmpic protocol at all levels, so the question originally posed may be somewhat rhetorical (unanswerable). But why bash non-olympic style (call it what you will...casual style, traditional style, hunting style) as a viable means of enjoying and showing the sport to olympic viewing audiences?
> 
> There was some playful poking going on here, I took the bait too and admit it was kinda' fun poking fun at those who don't seem to have much fun when they shoot...there, I did it again, lol. But a few stepped over the line into bashing and insults, and even expanded on that approach as the discussion went on. That's not a credible way to win a point, and I'm sorry but it just sounds kinda' snobby. And if you are an advertiser and want to sell archery gear to normal folks (like me, I guess) who shoot mostly for fun and recreation instead of medals and trophies, it would...just a hunch...be more productive to ease up on the attitude pedal. A little friendly banter aside, name calling and divisiveness loses in any forum. Anyone can have ugly moments in how they express an opinion (human nature), but opinions have a limit. We all need to be careful that we don't value our own so highly that we forget to respect someone else's.
> 
> I wish more people could experience (and see) the fun side of archery, which to me is much more important than constantly trying to punch arrows into the same hole using complicated methods and equipment. And if any good comes of this thread I hope that respecting other's legal and ethical archery choices heads the list.


Well said!


----------



## GBUSA (Jun 6, 2013)

kegan said:


> There's a lot more fun to be had consistently placing arrows exactly where you mean to.


Honestly, that might not be true for everyone.
For example: does the hunter give a **** if he hits the left ventricle or the right ventricle? Doubtful, probably just more than happy he made a heart shot. And probably still would have been fine had it been a lung shot.
For me shooting my compound at 20 yards I don't much care what part of the ten ring I'm in just so long as they are all in the ten ring. Sure I like when I squash the spider but I'm not losing sleep when I don't.
When I'm shooting crappy YMCA recurves with frayed strings and unmatched arrows I'm not worried so long as they are all in the gold on a 120cm target at 20 yards.
Now if I was shooting one of my freestyle bows then I'd want them to be all inner ring with an allowance for the occasional flyer.
The work and training that would be required to do better than that for me would take it out of the fun zone and archery would become a chore.
I've got enough chores, I'll just go shoot for fun with Webster and leave the gold medals to all the Olympic hopefuls. 
Happy shooting.


----------



## Aronnax (Nov 7, 2013)

kegan said:


> There's a lot more fun to be had consistently placing arrows exactly where you mean to.


When I read webster2's comment differently. 

Granted, I have not read this whole thread, but to me, shooting different targets at different ranges is a lot more fun than punching paper. For example, my groups tighten way up if I'm shooting at a rusty hotwheel the kids left on the lawn than when shooting an NFAA face or even a paper plate. Halloween and Thanksgiving are approaching, which means when they are past I'll have a dozen or so different sized gourds and pumpkins I can scatter across the lawn and shoot at. A while back there was small stuffed animal that the dog claimed as a chew toy, a little mallard duck, in the back yard. When I'd shoot it, most times the arrow would not penetrate it but instead bounce it across the yard. Each time presented a different target at a different range. It was incredibly fun to shoot at. 

It is still about putting arrows where you mean to, just not all stacked up in the same hole.

BM


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

Webster2 did more than just "poke fun". If the previous comments made were over the line then his were as well. 

If you're not interested in higher levels of accuracy that's fine, there isn't a single thing wrong with that, but to expect organizations that do stress accuracy to suddenly change to cater to the entertainment of that kind of crowd seems a bit silly. I don't particularly care for golf, but I wouldn't suggest they change just so it's more entertaining for me.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

Shooting bigger targets and balloons is what we do to keep the kiddo's interests up. Surely, we shouldn't suggest Olympic sports do the same just to keep the spectator interests up. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there's no gold medal award for most fun, is there? Doesn't matter what you shoot, it's going to be about precision or it's not. The medal awards are for precision, and yes, no matter the equipment, it's all up to the athlete. The silly notion was that the person who participates with more primitive equipment is more skilled - that's neo-trad fantasy talk is all that is.


----------



## centershot (Sep 13, 2002)

kegan said:


> Webster2 did more than just "poke fun". If the previous comments made were over the line then his were as well.
> 
> If you're not interested in higher levels of accuracy that's fine, there isn't a single thing wrong with that, but to expect organizations that do stress accuracy to suddenly change to cater to the entertainment of that kind of crowd seems a bit silly. I don't particularly care for golf, but I wouldn't suggest they change just so it's more entertaining for me.


Well said - I agree with you Kegan, hitting what your aiming at consistently is much more rewarding and fun than flinging arrows..........the real magic is when you can shoot in total control with a defined system and execute - then do it again and again, no luck involved.


----------



## centershot (Sep 13, 2002)

Sanford said:


> Shooting bigger targets and balloons is what we do to keep the kiddo's interests up. Surely, we shouldn't suggest Olympic sports do the same just to keep the spectator interests up. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there's no gold medal award for fun, it there? Doesn't matter what you shoot, it's going to be about precision or it's not.


Sounds a lot like more excuses for mediocrity.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

centershot said:


> Sounds a lot like more excuses for mediocrity.


Yeah, the joys of pie plate grouping at 10-yards is just soo underrated!


----------



## trevorpowdrell (May 8, 2012)

No matter what you do Archery is rarely a spectator sport. 
Archery is a participation sport. 

Go out and shoot in anyway you want and have fun.


----------



## Dewey3 (May 6, 2012)

Actually, I found the recent World Field Archery championship format very entertaining - it was reasonably fast paced, used different yardages (ok, meters) and targets, and displayed different bow classes (barebow, recurve and compound). Maybe the Olympics should look into this format for archery. It sure won me over - had me on the edge of my seat watching our American team compete !

Plus, of course, it was on the internet commercial free - that helped, too !!

When it was over for the day, just had to grab the bow and go out to shoot !!!!


----------



## GBUSA (Jun 6, 2013)

kegan said:


> Webster2 did more than just "poke fun". If the previous comments made were over the line then his were as well.
> 
> If you're not interested in higher levels of accuracy that's fine, there isn't a single thing wrong with that, but to expect organizations that do stress accuracy to suddenly change to cater to the entertainment of that kind of crowd seems a bit silly. I don't particularly care for golf, but I wouldn't suggest they change just so it's more entertaining for me.


I don't think anyone in this thread is looking for the Olympic archery committee to make archery any easier, or less precise. But precision is measured differently for sighted and unsighted as it should be.
The OR guys are all acting like someone is suggesting a replacement for their sport, none are.
Some people would just like to see more and different types of archery in the games. 
Too bad if you feel it will take away from your Olympic archery monopoly. 
I'm all for a field comp for BB, or even flights. It's still going to be the same level Olympic shooter, not some instinctual snap shooter that some here like to ridicule.
Compound, BB archery + Olympics
Bring it on I say.


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

GBUSA said:


> Too bad if you feel it will take away from your Olympic archery monopoly.


My _what_?

I have zero affiliation with anything Olympic.


----------



## GBUSA (Jun 6, 2013)

kegan said:


> My _what_?
> 
> I have zero affiliation with anything Olympic.


Not yours specifically Kegan, I know your more of a trad guy anyway 

Just saying none here wants a low end BB shoot.
We want Olympic quality shooters with their own Olympic BB event.
I'm not looking to take anything away from the OR archers, just seems like some of them are standing against adding another discipline next to theirs.
Perhaps it's just an irrational fear that they will be judged harshly against a shooter without sights? Perhaps they just don't want to share the lime light.
Or maybe they just feel it will water OR down, idk.
I'm only a spectator, and wouldn't mind seeing some more archery variety at the games.


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

I am. I'm just a dusty stick-sander. Truth is I don't watch Olympic archery much. I don't watch much of any professional sport. I find football more boring than golf. However, they all require a great deal of dedication and effort. I may not be much more than a deer shooter (be they real or foam) I do build professionally. I am at this 7 days a week, and constantly trying to improve. When it comes to building, good enough is never good enough for me. I can only imagine it's the same for any other professional. So for that reason alone I will give them the benefit of the doubt, as it were.

I agree whole heartedly that to me barebow archery, something along the lines of FITA perhaps, would be more interesting... _to me_. Just because I would find that more appealing doesn't me I don't have a great deal of respect for the effort already put forth. I work hard on my shooting for personal satisfaction, and I can only imagine how hard Olympic shooters work to reach the levels of accuracy and precision they posses.

I just find it incredibly insulting to detract from those efforts; efforts which would be made regardless of the weapon limitations or allowances. I see it as no different than an insult to my efforts as a builder. I know my business has a limited appeal but I still put forth a great deal of time and work into it. I also find it very insulting to say that because I do make a living at it I shouldn't voice that opinion. My attitude is exactly what got me to where I am, and I can easily see it being the same for those competing on a professional level, if in mindset if nothing else.

That's all.


----------



## Aronnax (Nov 7, 2013)

Let me just add this-

What does Olympic marksmanship look like? Pretty much the rifle version of OR... and it's boring.

How many of you have watched a IDPA or a 3gun, run and gun, etc., type of event on tv? Which looks like more fun to do, and more importantly, what's more fun to watch?

I haven't read every post in this thread, but I don't understand the animosity towards the idea of adding different archery disciplines to the Olympics. I mean, how many snow boarding events are there? Does one detract the entrants form competing in another? Didn't look like it to me. Seemed more like the same athlete competed in every snowboarding events- and ski events, and figure skating. I could not even comprehend how or why they have SO many different figure skating disciplines. I had a difficult time even telling some of them apart!

Why is it automatically assumed that a BB event (I think a 3d shoot would be cool) would require everyone to bend over and snap shoot, wildly flinging arrows down a range, hoping one might hit a target, even if it's not the one he's aiming at??

And as long as its a bare bow, what does it matter if it's made of wood or aluminum? Carbon over foam core or glass over wood? Does the construction method automatically make one inherently more accurate than another? Who cares if one guy wants to string walk, the next guy wants to gap, another face crawl- I mean so what? 

I guess I'm just confused at all the fighting over hypothetical semantics like any of us have any input on what they do in the Olympics anyway.

BM


----------



## Bigjono (Apr 21, 2009)

I'm all for any archery on TV, anywhere, anytime. Compound and field at the Olympic Games would be great but I can't see field getting there. Maybe a mixed event televised archery series could work. Shooting Oly, field and 3D to really find the best all round archer.


----------



## Corene1 (Apr 27, 2014)

I have been reading this thread and listening to what everyone has to say and it occurred to me that many of the people that want to get a traditional class in the Olympics don't shoot competitions , they shoot for enjoyment, and that is OK with me. I was reading another thread and it was mentioned that I should go to Las Vegas and shoot the traditional class there and that if enough of us showed up we might get our own traditional class at some time and not have to shoot with the compound shooters and this got me to thinking. If we , as a traditional group want a traditional class in the Olympics we need to start shooting in competitons to show our numbers. Only large turnouts of traditional shooters at tournaments will get the attention needed to get traditional promoters. If we stay in the woods and the backyards where no one sees us, those classes that we want will just fade away.


----------



## GBUSA (Jun 6, 2013)

Corene1 said:


> I have been reading this thread and listening to what everyone has to say and it occurred to me that many of the people that want to get a traditional class in the Olympics don't shoot competitions , they shoot for enjoyment, and that is OK with me. I was reading another thread and it was mentioned that I should go to Las Vegas and shoot the traditional class there and that if enough of us showed up we might get our own traditional class at some time and not have to shoot with the compound shooters and this got me to thinking. If we , as a traditional group want a traditional class in the Olympics we need to start shooting in competitons to show our numbers. Only large turnouts of traditional shooters at tournaments will get the attention needed to get traditional promoters. If we stay in the woods and the backyards where no one sees us, those classes that we want will just fade away.


But why if Bare Bow is so popular around the globe should it take archers in the US doing anything to get it into the Olympics? Do we hold that much political sway in the worlds Olympic Games?

Perhaps Europe has enough BB competitions that they don't feel the need to push for it in the Olympic Games. 
I do understand what your saying about being proactive. I also think that if it was in the games archers in the US would rise up to meet the challenge. 

Here is a quote from Limbwalker that might quiet the OR shooter anti Bare bowers down a little 

[quote name="Vittorio" post=1070886564]Martin Ottoson is a contributor on AT ... His posts are surely worth to be read ...[/QUOTE]<br />
<br />
His performance these past two days has been nothing short of incredible. There are many recurve archers who wish they could shoot those scores.<br />
<br />
It's refreshing to see how seriously the sport of barebow archery is taken in some parts of the world. We are trying here in the U.S., but it is not easy to fight the "traditional" stereotypes that have been associated with shooting without sights for the past 30 years.<br />
<br />
John


----------



## Corene1 (Apr 27, 2014)

I really can't answer that question . I am just a small town shooter that truly loves to shoot any type of archery. I am certainly not anti any style I think they are all equally hard to be proficient at and equally enjoyable. I have never been to Europe or any other part of the country for that matter so I couldn't respond to the question of European popularity. 
You are possibly correct when you say that Europe has enough competitions to keep them satisfied and that the USA would rise up to meet the challenge. But maybe we need to rise up and make the challenge. Will it happen? I don't know, but I for one am going to shoot all the competitions that I can with my recurve as are a few others in my area. Club shoots, indoors shoots, novelty shoots, 3D shoots , the scores are not going to be really high but I will be shooting my recurve and people will see and maybe join in.


----------



## T2SHOOTER (Feb 26, 2014)

A very interesting thread (haven't read them all) and good banter on having Traditional as an Olympic sport. I'm one who hasn't shot anything but club events--will change in the coming year. And I won't be viewed as credible, but after taking up this sport, at age 71, four months ago, I've watched tons of videos including Olympic style shooting. Yes, they're boring--rather be shooting--but they show archers doing what they love to do. After being in competitive sport my entire life, I can appreciate their skill, and I, for one, can learn by watching.

In four months, I've tried almost every type of set up, and the most fun I've had is walking the range shooting the recurve. It's challenging, and yes, I'm sure if someone spends 5/6 hours a day 7 days a week, they could end up shooting perfectly, however, there will always be the human element. Archery is an Olympic sport; yes it's boring like so many others, but it doesn't define what we love to do. Just love what you do, and do what you love. Doing is the key word, and after watching Redding's shoot, and can say it would have nice to see a shoot off in the traditional class--not taking anything away from the compound shooter. Like Corene said, we need to get out there and attend--"Join in". It's not promoted here, so why would it be an Olympic sport?


----------

