# Olympic trials bow choices - women vs. men...



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Interesting to see how many of the top 16 men (nearly all, if not all) are shooting Hoyt vs. how many of the women are.

There has to be something to this. It's no coincidence.


----------



## RMBX10 (Jun 20, 2002)

It's also interesting that there appears to be a wider range of participant ages in the women's field than in the men's field.


----------



## DarkLightStar (Apr 7, 2016)

Just because Hoyt sponsors some of the top shooters doesn't necessarily mean they make the best risers and limbs. Jim Easton is on the Olympic board, yes? And the Olympics are no longer an "amateur" only contest since the advent of the "Dream Team." We certainly know that some countries heavily sponsored their athletes, in the past, despite "amateur" status.

Owning a few different risers and limbs...and having been given a few others from a great athlete, my personal opinion is that there are some very talented manufacturers that reside outside SLC.

Hoyt makes a great bow, and they are fantastic with sponsorship. Easton makes a great arrow, and they are fantastic with sponsorship. 

...and I'm glad that the x10 has won countless victories and all of the gold medals since 1996. I'm shooting x10s right now. But I think back to the days of owning my first Nanos and I remember they were a superb arrow. I'm tempted to go back. They really were that good. And that was back when they were at 40 ton carbon or less.

No, I don't think it means anything other than a statistic.

I remember when the B-Stinger revolution hit this board. Since then some talented shooters moved on to other stabilizers. And yet B-Stinger is the best, right? Why would they change then?

Why would Reo Wilde switch to Elite Archery when Hoyt has more overall wins? Crazy stuff.


----------



## J-Shooter (Jul 12, 2007)

Illuminati?

(Maybe PSE and the Koreans makes lighter bows which are more to their liking? I remember a lot of the big names in US women's archery have shot X-Factors and X-Appeals for quite a while. Although it isn't necessarily fair, I assume sponsoring men's athletics is usually a more profitable venture than sponsoring women's. Perhaps Hoyt pushes harder or pays more for men to use their products.)


----------



## DarkLightStar (Apr 7, 2016)

Given that professional archery doesn't exactly pay big money, I'm sure plenty of archers are appreciative of sponsorship from a manufacturer that can afford to divert a few products their way. Smaller manufacturers, like Borderbows, sell a fantastic product but probably cannot afford to give the kind of sponsorship that Easton does.

Easton makes aluminum products, and I'm guessing Humvees sold pretty well in the first decade of this millennium. I think archery is small potatoes to their company. Other companies exclusively make archery products.

Illuminati or Satanism. I'll bite.


----------



## jmvargas (Oct 21, 2004)

not surprised at hoyt's dominance in these elite events...they give away a lot of free stuff!!..

much like Titleist balls in the pga tour..

both make make good stuff and hey! when you can get it for free or at a big discount it's a no brainer..

for the women i guess the korean stuff and lighter risers also make sense..


----------



## StarDog (Feb 17, 2007)

Sponsorship. Khatuna is sponsored by Win & win. They're coming on strong.


----------



## dangeruss (May 10, 2010)

I think Hoyt hands out a lot of free bows in sponsorship but its mainly based on a return basis, for example, if they give 10 away to 10 archers recognizable winners they probable sell quite a few more than if they didn't sponsor.


----------



## Zombie_Feynman (Jun 27, 2014)

I think that the point limbwalker is trying to make is that of course there are sponsorships, but that it's pretty curious that all (or almost all) the men seem to be sponsored by hoyt, but among the women there isn't such dominance. I don't think it's a weight issue, because hoyt bows do not weight more than comparable korean bows.


----------



## st8arrow (Apr 25, 2005)

Many women can't shoot a 25" riser due to a shorter draw length. Last time I looked Hoyt's only 23" riser is an EXCEL. It's a very good riser, but if I'm a top level woman shooter needing a 23" riser, It will be a top level riser.

I'm guessing Hoyt dropped the shorter riser because of numbers.


----------



## toj (Aug 22, 2012)

I suspect the womens game has less influence on sales and men tend to follow suit.
For example give the top 5 guys hoyts and the next 5 will buy them to compete.
Women aren't that gullible.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

It is an interesting dynamic to observe, that's for sure. There is something going on there. Is Hoyt not supporting the women to the same degree that they do the men? Are the women just more objective? Do W&W and PSE support the women more? Is there some push back against Hoyt by certain women that have led others to follow suit? 

I don't have the answer, but it's obvious that there is a big difference in equipment selection from one side of the field to the other, except of course for the RA women who will surely be pushed to shot a Hoyt bow.


----------



## StarDog (Feb 17, 2007)

Other than Khatuna (who has two set ups, the latest with the US flag color scheme) I met two JOAD ladies who have high end free W&W stuff. one shoots with Joy Lee Academy and her personal coach (she's Korean, he's Korean) got W&W to send her the USA flag painted riser and hot shot limbs and stab system. Likely they'll see a return on their investment because she was top in her age group for outdoor.

The other belongs to the Road Runner club, has a blog, wrote something and the next thing she knew a high end W&W riser showed up in the mail.

My guess is it's marketing to get some traction in the US market Hoyt . And if Hoyt isn't handing out "stuff" to the ladies then W&W has a great opportunity.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> And if Hoyt isn't handing out "stuff" to the ladies then W&W has a great opportunity.


I guess this is what I have wondered about for over a decade now... why Hoyt appears to have such a bias toward the men. It appears they will go out of their way to reach down to the 10th, 15th or 20th ranked male archer, while the 4th or 5th ranked female archer has to beg for support. 

I guess they are okay with a foreign company supporting our women? If this really is the case (that Hoyt is willing to support several times more men than women) then it sure seems sexist to me and in a sport with as much (potential) gender equality as archery, why is that tolerated from the main equipment sponsor?


----------



## Sosius (Feb 5, 2014)

How can you tell what equipment they are using? Is the event being streamed somewhere?


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

Sosius said:


> How can you tell what equipment they are using? Is the event being streamed somewhere?


USA Archery has been posting photos. 


Chris


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Also noticed a conspicuous absence of "stealth shots" this year. Guess they went the way of the B-stinger and Pilla, eh?


----------



## StarDog (Feb 17, 2007)

Khatuna has a facebook page you can follow and she has two W&W set ups. The other two pieces of info are from personal experience here in San Diego talking with JOAD archers at comps or at my local outdoor range.

Seems to me Ariel had a stunning pink bow at the pre vegas shoot that looked like a W&W paint scheme IIRC, hence she may be shooting W&W as well. but a picture would verify that.

the best revenge is shooting well.

as in : one young lady in our club didn't make the JDT. coach said, "then make them wish they'd picked you," meaning "Shoot better than anybody on the JDT."

So if the US ladies can bring it despite being overlooked, someone is gonna suddenly sit up and want in on the game.

Just MY feminist opinion.......


----------



## toj (Aug 22, 2012)

Is it not just market driven?

The majority of archers and probably hunters are men, so it makes sense to advertise to the market.
We will buy stuff advertised by women but not stuff used by women to kick our arses on the competition field.

Hoyt are largely a marketing company, archery gear is simply the subject they market to us.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

limbwalker said:


> Also noticed a conspicuous absence of "stealth shots" this year. Guess they went the way of the B-stinger and Pilla, eh?


So lol ! I hope Jake is using them. 


Chris


----------



## beefstew27 (Mar 18, 2008)

I think Hoyt's line, especially with the Tec bar, tends to favor male anatomy (no more high end 23inch risers, only 25 and 27, tec bars). Where as W&W has more female friendly options (more smaller risers, even the color schemes). But ultimately, I think it has to do with mental performance, people THINK they'll do better with one brand, over the other, for one reason or another, and they do (for example, I THINK I'll shoot better with a Tec bar, I usually do, but when I THINK I can group just as well without, I usually do).


----------



## mcullumber (Jul 31, 2006)

FYI - On the line today.

Women - Hoyts - 9
W & W - 5
PSE - 2

Men - Hoyt - 12
W & W - 2
PSE - 2


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Mike, thanks for the numbers. Do you have names to go with the numbers as well?

Esp. interesting to note which archers are breaking away from the herd.

One well known coach suggested that W&W limbs are simply better for the women because they can reach the same speeds with less draw weight. 

And Chris, no SS's even for Jake. Guess he cleaned up his release.


----------



## stick monkey (Mar 9, 2015)

There are only a small handful of quality 23 inch risers left...x appeal and cxt and possibly fiberbow


----------



## stick monkey (Mar 9, 2015)

All of which are hard to find used and unaffordable new.


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

23" market is small, just a bit more than 27" and a bit less than 25" LH. Then, majority of customers for 23" risers are children/beginners, so the average 23" riser available is a cheap basic one. I'm handling the exports for Fiberbow, and can confirm their FB5.3 ( 23" carbon, around 0.55 kg mass weight) is selling 1 to 9 to the FB 6.3 (25" version, 0.65 kg). Probably percentage for cheap risers is much more than this.
In 1990 I have purchased an Hoyt TD5 (23" version of TD4) and used it with long Hoyt C+ limbs for some years. It was a fantastic, soft a and stable combination I remember with pleasure. Only draw back, I could not see the sight in the window under 18 mt of distance, so in Field i had to countersight at short distancies. But nowdays 23"+long limbs does not seem to be on fashion anymore.... and this limits a lot 23"riser market


----------



## RMBX10 (Jun 20, 2002)

Vittorio said:


> 23" market is small, just a bit more than 27" and a bit less than 25" LH. Then, majority of customers for 23" risers are children/beginners, so the average 23" riser available is a cheap basic one. I'm handling the exports for Fiberbow, and can confirm their FB5.3 ( 23" carbon, around 0.55 kg mass weight) is selling 1 to 9 to the FB 6.3 (25" version, 0.65 kg). Probably percentage for cheap risers is much more than this.
> In 1990 I have purchased an Hoyt TD5 (23" version of TD4) and used it with long Hoyt C+ limbs for some years. It was a fantastic, soft a and stable combination I remember with pleasure. Only draw back, I could not see the sight in the window under 18 mt of distance, so in Field i had to countersight at short distancies. But nowdays 23"+long limbs does not seem to be on fashion anymore.... and this limits a lot 23"riser market


Mid-to late 1990's the short riser + long limbs combination was popular with men in the U.S. Rod White and Butch Johnson (perhaps Huish did too, but I cannot recall definitively) used that combination at the 1996 Olympics and many followed suit afterwards. The Radian, Avalon, Elan, and Aerotec were all produced in a 23" version. PSE made a custom 23" Universal riser for Rod. Earl Hoyt's Sky Conquest riser was 24" and it was a fantastic riser!


----------



## Sosius (Feb 5, 2014)

Bows aside, is anyone is shooting arrows other than X10s?


----------



## RMBX10 (Jun 20, 2002)

Sosius said:


> Bows aside, is anyone is shooting arrows other than X10s?


I saw a couple of pictures of A/C/Es in targets at the trials. I haven't seen any non-Easton arrows in pictures. But that might be influenced by USA Archery's official or implied editorial guidelines as Easton does give a lot of money to USA Archery.


----------



## StarDog (Feb 17, 2007)

RMBX10 said:


> Mid-to late 1990's the short riser + long limbs combination was popular with men in the U.S. Rod White and Butch Johnson (perhaps Huish did too, but I cannot recall definitively) used that combination at the 1996 Olympics and many followed suit afterwards. The Radian, Avalon, Elan, and Aerotec were all produced in a 23" version. PSE made a custom 23" Universal riser for Rod. Earl Hoyt's Sky Conquest riser was 24" and it was a fantastic riser!


 Hoyt Matrix also came in a 23" version as I used to have one and shoot it with medium limbs.

I prefer a 25" riser and short limbs cuz I like a snappier feel.

and as a woman, I am now wondering about the W&W thing that these limbs providing faster speeds at the lower draw weight.

re: the x10's

this raises an interesting question?

What would an Olympian shoot or if they had the money to spend and bought their own gear, riser, limbs and arrows. Like a Brady Ellison or a MacKenzie Brown. Same or different stuff?


----------



## kdts330 (Aug 14, 2015)

Does overall length play a factor with these shooters? Meaning, referenced here is 25" risers for men mostly, why not 23" riser with longer limbers? Or are the guys already shooting 25" risers with the longest possible limbs?


----------



## kdts330 (Aug 14, 2015)

Does overall length play a factor with these shooters? Meaning, referenced here is 25" risers for men mostly, why not 23" riser with longer limbers? Or are the guys already shooting 25" risers with the longest possible limbs?


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

My doughter is shooting ACE's at 24.5" and 37# .. Technical choice, better speed, very good in the wind. In Windoek African Champs in January she has dominated the field in the strong wind were all other ladies were shoooting X10 only. FOC as usual was the key factor in the wind with her relatively low poundage.
Short arrows, you can not use them too heavy with bad foc without a lot of poundage. Look to Korean Olympic Team announcement on WA website... the top lady shoots close to 43#, the weaker 40# ...


----------



## toj (Aug 22, 2012)

I also suspect easton qc on x10s isn't what it used to be.


----------



## StarDog (Feb 17, 2007)

Vittorio said:


> My doughter is shooting ACE's at 24.5" and 37# .. Technical choice, better speed, very good in the wind. In Windoek African Champs in January she has dominated the field in the strong wind were all other ladies were shoooting X10 only. FOC as usual was the key factor in the wind with her relatively low poundage.
> Short arrows, you can not use them too heavy with bad foc without a lot of poundage. Look to Korean Olympic Team announcement on WA website... the top lady shoots close to 43#, the weaker 40# ...


Very interesting. Around here people tend to shoot what "so and so shoots" without realizing that "so and so" had a bunch of x-10's mailed to them or whatever some sponsor sent them.


----------



## rharper (Apr 30, 2012)

toj said:


> I also suspect easton qc on x10s isn't what it used to be.


Based on what?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Didn't start this thread to bash equipment, but rather to ask why it "seemed" at least that more women were choosing bows other than Hoyt, or conversely, why more men seemed to be choosing the Hoyt bows. 

Mike's numbers were helpful, as it appears the images shared by USArchery may have made it seem more one sided than it is. I guess since several of the more prominent women are using W&W but none of the more prominent men (not meant as a slight, just what it is...), it's more noticeable on the women's side.

Might say more about W&W than it does about Hoyt.

One thing is for sure, there is a trend with the top US Women...

Khatuna - W&W
Jenny - PSE
Miranda - PSE
Ariel - W&W

Still waiting for Mike's list of names. I can't find all the non Hoyt archers in the pictures released by USArchery.


----------



## toj (Aug 22, 2012)

rharper said:


> Based on what?


Buying x10s for both myself and the other half.
You can feel a difference in both nock and point fit from shaft to shaft in a set.
The last set i bought included a shaft that misses the boss at 70m, all the others are inside the 8 ring.
Shaft is straight and has been rebuilt twice.

I don't buy x10s to index them like wooden shafts!


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

It has been well known to all archers, and even admitted by those who are free to be honest, that X10's tend to always have a few fliers in the dozen. Some top archers get hand-selected shafts, while others can get enough dozens to sort out a competitive group of shafts from the larger batch. 

In 2007, I was given three dozen X10's to select from, and out of those three dozen, about 10 bare shafts would not find the red or gold no matter what I did. They were set aside for blank bale and formaster practice. I had better luck with consistency when I used A/C/E's, often having 10 or 11 of the 12 that would bare shaft group at 70. 

The reason I switched from X10 to Nano Pro in 2007 was that Nano Pro's gave me 12 good arrows out of a dozen shafts. I could routinely put all 12 bare shafts into the red or better at 70 meters. A few times, I managed to put all 12 in the gold, again, bare shafts from 70 meters. This is the consistency I was looking for from a top quality target arrow, and they fell between the A/C/E and X10 in weight so that was good for me because of my 32.25" arrow.

I still use Nano Pro's (X-tremes) and believe they are the equal to X10's, although the last few dozen I have received were not as consistent as the ones I was getting in 2007. I believe those were hand-selected prototypes and that could be why I saw such great consistency. I'm sure that with hand-selected X10's or A/C/E's, one would see the same thing. But how many non-sponsored archers get to shoot hand-selected shafts? None that I know of... So that leaves us non-sponsored types sorting arrows the best we can if we want the most competitive arrows we can shoot. This is particularly important during matchplay when you're probably only shooting three arrows all day long. You want to know those are your most consistent three arrows.

There are easy ways to sort arrows and expensive premium target arrows from Easton or Carbon Express are still always worth the money - even if you do have to sort them. There are other advantages they hold over less expensive arrows besides pure consistency. Things like weight, diameter, variable spine, premium components, etc.

I still use my NPX because they are great arrows, but if I had the chance to sort some A/C/E's or even X10's (although I'll probably never shoot X10's again strictly because of the heavy weight and poor FOC of such long stiff arrows), I'm sure they would shoot just fine. I have put several of my students in A/C/E's (esp. the ladies) over the years and had them go on to win national titles and earn spots on world teams. I've also put some of my barebow archers in McKinney II's and do the same thing.

We are blessed with an embarrassment of riches these days when it comes to arrows. We have better choices for less $ than ever before.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

It's also a well-known fact that if Carbon Express sponsored more recurve archers, you would see more recurve archers shooting Nano Pros. It's just not as important to CX as it is to Easton that they can say all the top recurve shooters shoot their arrows. Not enough market there for them to worry about, so they focus on the compound archers instead, where they do quite well.


----------



## Cephas (Sep 7, 2010)

Non Hoyt, Yamaguchi, Lorig, Eich, Gibilaro, Miscione, Mickelberry.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk


----------



## Cephas (Sep 7, 2010)

Men's side from what I can see Wunderle, Yamaguchi and Stanwood.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

I know Nathan and Thomas are shooting W&W, is Vic shooting the PSE still?


----------



## Cephas (Sep 7, 2010)

limbwalker said:


> I know Nathan and Thomas are shooting W&W, is Vic shooting the PSE still?


Yes he is.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

That's good. I figured he would after the ridiculous score he shot at 70 last fall.


----------



## jmvargas (Oct 21, 2004)

limbwalker said:


> Didn't start this thread to bash equipment, but rather to ask why it "seemed" at least that more women were choosing bows other than Hoyt, or conversely, why more men seemed to be choosing the Hoyt bows.
> 
> Mike's numbers were helpful, as it appears the images shared by USArchery may have made it seem more one sided than it is. I guess since several of the more prominent women are using W&W but none of the more prominent men (not meant as a slight, just what it is...), it's more noticeable on the women's side.
> 
> ...


FWIW the PSE limbs used ny jenny and miranda were also made by W&W....


----------



## Kyudo Novice (Sep 9, 2014)

Guys, some of you restate the actual reason why more top male athletes are shooting Hoyt than are females. Again, I will repeat it;
More people follow male trends than female trends in sports. Top established manufacturers know their best bank for buck will be with blanketing the male side. What money they have left will go to the women at the very top. And they stop where they can afford to. This leaves only second tier women available to the foreign manufacturing competition (usually of lesser finances, and sometimes lesser equipment) to pick up as sponsored athletes, and makes the top sponsor look even better in comparison. 

This is the case in every established sport that is performed with specialty equipment. I write from experience in another industry. This sport is no different. It's bidnis bruh, deal with it.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Sounds logical to me - from a business standpoint of course. From the standpoint of gender equality and decency, maybe not so much.


----------



## Kyudo Novice (Sep 9, 2014)

When the observers of the sport keep speaking the names of women athletes, watching their tournaments and placing their daughters in JOAD, the markets will follow. The marketeers follow the market. It's up to us, the sports observer (aka the market) to show the marketeers what you want in a variety of ways, the most important of which involves spending money.

If any long lasting and honest change is to come, it must come through individuals supporting athletic girls and paying attention to women's sports...the sponsorships will follow. If anyone is unkind, unequal or indecent, it's the public market. We have to change ourselves, not others.


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

Breaking news! Porsche sells more cars to men than women! 

There has to be something to this. It's no coincidence. Why don't we start a hatchet job on Porsche. Never mind, wrong bulletin board.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Seattlepop said:


> Breaking news! Porsche sells more cars to men than women!
> 
> There has to be something to this. It's no coincidence. Why don't we start a hatchet job on Porsche. Never mind, wrong bulletin board.


Nothing to see here - move along... Exactly what you'd expect from someone trying to ignore a problem. If you want to characterize questioning the status quo as a "hatchet job" then that's on you. I suspect the truth is probably closer to what Kyudo is describing, and they make a good point - that we as the consumers need generate more interest in the women's game, which is (in my own way) what I've tried to do for over a decade now. 

I guess the major sponsors and the organization have a choice. They can just "follow the market" and maintain the status quo or they can be leaders on the issue of gender equality in this sport.

The "nothing to see here... just following the "market"" got the NCAA into a lawsuit that resulted in Title 9. In other words, sometimes businesses have to be forced to provide for gender equality in sports. I don't think Title 9 would have ever come about if everyone just shrugged their shoulders and said "well there's just more men interested in college sports than women..."


----------



## vvid29 (Sep 26, 2015)

Didn't someone make/post an excel chart of what equipment people were using? I cannot seem to find that post anymore.
EDIT: Nevermind, That list was formulated in 2008 based off of the 2008 Olympics


----------



## R&B (Oct 4, 2006)

*Respect*



limbwalker said:


> Sounds logical to me - from a business standpoint of course. From the standpoint of gender equality and decency, maybe not so much.


Most women through out the world are marginalized. Gender inequality in sport is not solved until you address the bigger issue. Salaries and promotions are small issues when we are talking about basic human rights. Women throughout history have faced this. Women are resilient..... in the grand scheme of things they continue to endure. We are all here because they have. They are way stronger than you think and it is not really up to men to try to save them. The job as a man is to respect them. Through respect will we see equality. 

-R&B


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Good post R&B. Of course you are correct. I have been married to a strong, educated, professional woman for over 25 years now. So was my mother, and my sisters, and I expect my two daughters will follow in the footsteps of their grandmother and mom. I am very sensitive to the inequality because I've been surrounded by strong women most of my life who speak out about it. 

I am very hopeful that in a sport like archery, that is so unbaised, that our organizations, sponsors and media will strive to be the same. As for me, I will continue to point it out wherever I see it. If someone doesn't like that, then that's just too bad.


----------



## R&B (Oct 4, 2006)

*Common Ground*



limbwalker said:


> I am very hopeful that in a sport like archery, that is so unbaised, that our organizations, sponsors and media will strive to be the same. As for me, I will continue to point it out wherever I see it. If someone doesn't like that, then that's just too bad.


You're a good man as I have mentioned a few times before. I too have been surrounded and raised by strong intelligent women my whole life. I'm a better human being because of it. I do all I can to encourage any women and especially young women whenever I get the chance. I treat them with respect and encourage them as much as I can. In time I think we will see a change. People like Khatuna Loring and Hye Youn Park are great ambassadors for the equality in the sport. People who are courageous in their efforts and exhibit passion for the sport are the best champions for change. I'm especially proud of Hye Youn and her husband Joon. They are special people and have done a great job of taking target archery to the next level here in California. 


-Cheers
-R&B


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

here is data from the Shanghai World Cup on what riser and limbs were in the team rounds. 

http://www.theinfinitecurve.com


Chris


----------



## Sosius (Feb 5, 2014)

Thanks for that link Chris. All the same 3 brands, with the exception of a Fivics that snuck in somehow!


----------



## Zombie_Feynman (Jun 27, 2014)

Fivics has been sponsoring many juniors in Spain and it is starting to show at the top of national competitions and in the national team.


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

limbwalker said:


> Nothing to see here - move along... Exactly what you'd expect from someone trying to ignore a problem. If you want to characterize questioning the status quo as a "hatchet job" then that's on you. I suspect the truth is probably closer to what Kyudo is describing, and they make a good point - that we as the consumers need generate more interest in the women's game, which is (in my own way) what I've tried to do for over a decade now.
> 
> I guess the major sponsors and the organization have a choice. They can just "follow the market" and maintain the status quo or they can be leaders on the issue of gender equality in this sport.
> 
> The "nothing to see here... just following the "market"" got the NCAA into a lawsuit that resulted in Title 9. In other words, sometimes businesses have to be forced to provide for gender equality in sports. I don't think Title 9 would have ever come about if everyone just shrugged their shoulders and said "well there's just more men interested in college sports than women..."


Haven't had time to respond to this, but I can’t let nonsense like this pass unaddressed. 

First of all, suggesting that I am trying to ignore the problem of gender bias is laughable. I worked for 22 years in social services programs including Child Support Enforcement, Assistance to Needy Families, Child Care, Child Care Development, Head Start, The JOBS Program, and for ten years I worked with Tribal communities in AK, WA, ID, and OR. My program team consisted of four women and myself. So I repeat with emphasis, that there will never be the day that you will be in a position to lecture me on women’s rights or issues around gender bias. Not ever.

Business following the market isn't he problem. Business 101 should have told you that a business that doesn’t follow the market isn’t. Creating markets though expansion across gender lines? Absolutely, we see it all the time. There is no evidence to suggest Easton/Hoyt is not doing that, or did I miss the LAS section "For men only"? I agree that the promotion of women’s interests, all interests, through consumerism is good advice. 

Fact checking Title IX: You are completely wrong. “Following the market” had nothing to do with Title IX or the NCAA. Please review: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_IX to see that the NCAA protested the law and attempted to get it amended, and failed, only after the actual impact of the implementing regulations became clear. The work on Title IX began several years earlier. 

This thread started as a hatchet job on Hoyt. It was nothing more than a conspicuously pointed question the expected response to which was blatantly obvious. I'm sure you also know that Hoyt has provided bows to women at the "lower tiers" or whatever you called it. I personally know of two in my club alone. Hoyt never pressured them to use the equipment nor asked its return if not used. You also know why some of the women noted use PSE and it has nothing to do with Hoyt, so throwing numbers around to prove gender bias is somewhat dishonest to begin with in my opinion. 

You have been after Hoyt as long as I can remember, and I've been on this board as long as you have. There are so many ways you can and have been helpful. Obsessively attacking Easton/Hoyt isn’t one of them. Imho, of course.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

<sigh> a broken record I'm afraid...

This thread started for no other reason than to point out the obvious differences in choices between the men and the women.

SP, what you will never respond to are the final equipment choices of the past five female Olympians from the US (I'll help you - it goes Jenny/Stephanie/Janet/Miranda/Khatuna and it looks like PSE/PSE/PSE/PSE/W&W). I understand how It may be inconvenient for your narrative though.

And while I may not be in a position to lecture you on equality, I suspect I've had a little more interaction with the top female archers in the US, hearing first hand *why* they made the choices they did, more than you have. 

Respond to that if you'd like.


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

I don't think the World cup statistics about Bows use has nothing to do with the preferencies by single ordinary archer and by gender. Major national teams have all members sponsored by major manufaturers, smaller and less famous teams tend to follow what major teams do. Korean archers are all coming from business teams that have sponsorship agreement with specific manufactures , so their archers, with few exception, shoot what they are given to shoot. 
Then you go to sponsorship budget. It is usually a percentage of the volume of production, and in terms of units, it is obvious that for instance 3% of 1000 bows is more than 10 % of 100 bows. A small maker making few hundred pieces/year can not give around too many bows in sponsorship, so it ends to make very careful choices about the benficiaries of his sponsorship, giving bows free to locally recognized good archers only, that by themself can generate a ROI by shooting and promoting the bow at local level. And it is clear that those archers, in any part of the world, are men only. Men are more than women in archery, they are spending more money than women and they tend to be examples in sport much more than women, for other men.
Back to major brands, sponsorship goes as said first to national teams that can (probably) grant medals) and/or are open to use your bows only, in exchange to some special conditions on purchase of other bows. Than of course to some few specific arches that are recognized as market leaders in terms of promotion at national and international level and are independent form their federation for the choice of their bow, and these for sure are only men, at present.
There is no discrimination because of the gender in archery sponsorships, but simply because of the reality that men only are a reasonable market target for archery equipment, in the open market.
P.S.
Contingency money for world level medals is only offered by major manufacturers, ant this drives top archers to them much more than any other reason.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> There is no discrimination because of the gender in archery sponsorships, but simply because of the reality that *men only are a reasonable market *target for archery equipment, in the open market.


I think this is exactly my point. Some call it business, others see discrimination. It's interesting to me that in this day and age of uber PC everything - particularly within public organizations like USArchery, that this phenomenon is still viewed as an acceptable business practice. I would have thought by now someone would have made a point to shine a little brighter light on this inequality within the market/sport.

I wonder how long it will be before fans of the sport demand more transparency in this area.


----------



## toj (Aug 22, 2012)

There is no discrimination here. Hoyt simply support the greatest return.

They don't control the womens game or the following or lack of following it may have.

If they could shift as many bows on a 50/50 split they would
If they could shift as many bows on a 70/30 split in favour of women they would

I'll bet the compound recurve split isn't equal either.

They only care about the split at all because it affects sales.

To say "you get nothing because you're a woman" is prejudice 
To say "you get nothing because we get nothing back" is business 

I'm not seeing any evidence that hoyt (or anyone else in archery ) is saying the former.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> To say "you get nothing because we get nothing back" is business


Is that not the reason Title IX was necessary - to force schools to support the genders equally? I'm no title IX expert, but this sure sounds similar to me.

But regardless of the parallels with Title IX (or lack thereof) - one cannot both argue that they "fully support women" in this sport AND at the same time argue that "it's just business." Sorry.


----------



## toj (Aug 22, 2012)

No one has argued that women are supported by sponsors to the same extent as the men.

It's just not always prejudice, for that you need intent to exclude on basis of gender.
And thats different.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> No one has argued that women are supported by sponsors to the same extent as the men.


Actually, I think several people have argued just that.

So how is that logic different than title IX? Honest question... 

I see a lot of similarities.


----------



## toj (Aug 22, 2012)

As i read it title IX is specific in its relationship to federal activities.
Hoyt are a private enterprise.

Even if we remove any federal involvement, women are not excluded from archery or even shooting internationally on condition of sponsorship. 

There's no doubt that women don't recieve the same level of support in all sport, probably even in life but thats not hoyt (or any other sponors) fault or responsibility to rectify.

I wonder if you look at this proportionally it may seem different.

What percentage of male recurve archers receive support vs women.
Men out number women many times over in this sport.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Proportionally, you may be correct. That's a good point. 

So, who wants to take a crack at why the past five female Olympic archers from the US have chosen PSE or W&W? Anyone?


----------



## toj (Aug 22, 2012)

With out knowing exactly what deals are on offer it's pure speculation.

It could simply be a case of more money/equipment. 

The very fact they have less influence on market trends could also mean they're under less pressure to appear patriotic in their selection.
Perhaps it is Korean manufacturers who are discriminated against, if you're offered the same deal by two manufacturers but choose one based on their nationality..........


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Uhm, you realize PSE is an all-American company, right?


----------



## ssxd (Apr 15, 2015)

I'm curious to hear about the PSEs, but I know that Khatuna was shooting Hoyt until recently. I'm assuming that W&W gave her a sweet sponsorship deal to switch, which she totally earned with her years of experience and fame (hunger games trainer, etc.).


----------



## rharper (Apr 30, 2012)

Devils advocate. Marketing at pse says, hey, hoyt isn't doing it for the ladies, let's try hitting a nitch by supporting them. Hoyt has the top men all locked up.


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

limbwalker said:


> <sigh> a broken record I'm afraid...
> 
> This thread started for no other reason than to point out the obvious differences in choices between the men and the women.


Uh, no. The OP was a pointed argument "There has to be something to this. It's no coincidence." "There is something going on there." "Why Hoyt appears to have such a bias toward the men." You are clearly saying, and the thread response supports this, that you are accusing Hoyt of gender bias and discrimination. You don't just point out that more men shoot Hoyt, you imply STRONGLY that there is a hidden agenda of discrimination. 

The argument so conspicuously set in motion in the OP is based on a logical fallacy I believe called "Begging the question". Can you answer "why does there have to be something to this?" "Why can't it be coincidence?" You have provided nothing to support your allegations. If you did, I wonder if you would be liable for defamation through libel? Instead you cleverly posit the leading question and wait for someone to come along a do your dirty work. You have been accused of passive-aggressive trolling before if memory serves. 



limbwalker said:


> SP, what you will never respond to are the final equipment choices of the past five female Olympians from the US (I'll help you - it goes Jenny/Stephanie/Janet/Miranda/Khatuna and it looks like PSE/PSE/PSE/PSE/W&W). I understand how It may be inconvenient for your narrative though.
> 
> And while I may not be in a position to lecture you on equality, I suspect I've had a little more interaction with the top female archers in the US, hearing first hand *why* they made the choices they did, more than you have.
> 
> Respond to that if you'd like.





limbwalker said:


> I think you know very well that Jenny, for one, has a link to PSE, and so may others or have been influenced by her or may have simply tried it and liked it. My point is that people no doubt sometimes select a bow, from among all the world-class bows available on the market, simply based on familiarity and comfort with a company or individuals whether they be coaches or industry reps or an influential friend. It has nothing-what-so-ever to do with gender bias or discrimination.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## toj (Aug 22, 2012)

limbwalker said:


> Uhm, you realize PSE is an all-American company, right?


Do we even know if PSE has ever even offered recurve men a deal at all?

There's an awful lot of assumption in this argument, i think you maybe seeing what you want rather than whats there.


----------



## Ar-Pe-Lo (Oct 16, 2011)

limbwalker said:


> Is that not the reason Title IX was necessary - to force schools to support the genders equally? I'm no title IX expert, but this sure sounds similar to me.
> 
> But regardless of the parallels with Title IX (or lack thereof) - one cannot both argue that they "fully support women" in this sport AND at the same time argue that "it's just business." Sorry.


John,

I'm not sure where you try to get with this one....do you propose that Hoyt should sponsor as much women as men even if they loose money by doing that? Sponsoring is part of the business not charity or to be nice. Why they should do that? It's private company. You cannot force them to spend their money where you(or someone outside of company) want it.

Do you know if Hoyt is different to Mathews/PSE/Win&Win/Elite/etc. ?


----------



## toj (Aug 22, 2012)

Title IX actually prohibits sponsoring women because they are women.

It's intention was to outlaw positive discrimination as much as anything else and actually prohibits "quota" style selection.

I wish the UK had that kind of foresight in the seventies.
We're still filling government positions based upon gender and race.

Not that title IX applies here anyway as the acused are not a federal body.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

So we're all in agreement that the "market" prefers male athletes and that it's the sponsors "right" to put more money toward male archers than female archers? 

Have we agreed on that much? 

SP, do you have a problem with that statement?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

toj said:


> Do we even know if PSE has ever even offered recurve men a deal at all?
> 
> There's an awful lot of assumption in this argument, i think you maybe seeing what you want rather than whats there.


PSE has offered men deals. Vic and Jeremiah Cusick (RA for some time) are probably the most well known in the US. Each of them told me why they chose PSE, so it's not just an assumption.


----------



## rharper (Apr 30, 2012)

limbwalker said:


> So we're all in agreement that the "market" prefers male athletes and that it's the sponsors "right" to put more money toward male archers than female archers?
> 
> Have we agreed on that much?
> 
> SP, do you have a problem with that statement?


We are in agreement that private companies like getting the highest ROI for their money. These private companies personal marketing departments have steered the sponsor money in a way that they feel they can get the highest ROI. That is their job and if they were not doing that to the best of their knowledge, they would be out of that job. 

It does not correlate with equality of the sexes in any way. Would it be cool if it did, yes. But private companies are not looking to throw away dollars for non-profitable reasons.


----------



## toj (Aug 22, 2012)

limbwalker said:


> PSE has offered men deals. Vic and Jeremiah Cusick (RA for some time) are probably the most well known in the US. Each of them told me why they chose PSE, so it's not just an assumption.


That doesn't mean anyone has turned one down though, maybe pse offer amazing perks but are very selective about who gets them.

For target recurve who has the ability to even offer deals to the top archers, it can't be many.
Do those shooting for hoyt have much of a choice?

Hoyt don't sponsor many women because they don't have to and don't need to.
They are a marketing machine selling this years thing, that requires advertising.

Is it right?, it's certainly not illegal


----------



## bobnikon (Jun 10, 2012)

It would be interesting to see the deal that pulled Khatuna away from Hoyt (and the deal she had with Hoyt). I am sure Hoyt didn't just drop her. Though I could be wrong. She has been a great representative for Hoyt and I am sure she will do the same for W&W. W&W seem to be amping up their sponsorship game and I will bet they offered her a pretty good deal. 

So, one can say that Hoyt is not the "choice" of any of the top women or that they don't support any of the top women, or whatever conjecture one wants to draw. But in at least one case, it really is a recent development, and frankly just "currently". Who is to say what will happen next year. 

Frankly, without full disclosure, all of this is conjecture. We can not prove causation in any of it without knowing all of the details. And... as was said above, it is not up to the company to do something that is not in the best interest of the company (ie ROI). It is up to the perceived subjected group to make the company take notice through their results and make it in their best interest to throw equipment and money at them.

Just my $0.02


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

I don't recall anyone saying it is illegal. I don't think I ever said that. And as much as some would like to believe this is some kind of "hatchet job" (it isn't) I'm really just thinking out loud here and seeing how others feel about it. I think my wife calls it "external processing." If it's uncomfortable for some to discuss, then I'm sorry but facts are facts. And the most glaring fact to me is the primary sponsor for the past five US female Olympians. SP thinks it's just personal preference. Maybe it is but then that doesn't line up with what I personally know. 

I stumbled into a weird sport in '04 and quickly realized that while it was perfectly fine to talk about how much Tiger Woods or Peyton Manning made in endorsements, for some reason you can't even talk about it in archery. As soon as you do, everyone gets upset. LOL. I wonder how we know how much Tiger or Peyton made from an endorsement, but we have to guess what Khatuna or Brady make. Funny little sport this archery is.


----------



## bobnikon (Jun 10, 2012)

limbwalker said:


> I don't recall anyone saying it is illegal. I don't think I ever said that. And as much as some would like to believe this is some kind of "hatchet job" (it isn't) I'm really just thinking out loud here and seeing how others feel about it. I think my wife calls it "external processing." If it's uncomfortable for some to discuss, then I'm sorry but facts are facts. * And the most glaring fact to me is the primary sponsor for the past five US female Olympians.* SP thinks it's just personal preference. Maybe it is but then that doesn't line up with what I personally know.
> 
> I stumbled into a weird sport in '04 and quickly realized that while it was perfectly fine to talk about how much Tiger Woods or Peyton Manning made in endorsements, for some reason you can't even talk about it in archery. As soon as you do, everyone gets upset. LOL. I wonder how we know how much Tiger or Peyton made from an endorsement, but we have to guess what Khatuna or Brady make. Funny little sport this archery is.


Who was the highest finishing female archer (for the US) in 2012 (Olympics) and what brand was she shooting?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

bobnikon said:


> It would be interesting to see the deal that pulled Khatuna away from Hoyt (and the deal she had with Hoyt). I am sure Hoyt didn't just drop her. Though I could be wrong. She has been a great representative for Hoyt and I am sure she will do the same for W&W. W&W seem to be amping up their sponsorship game and I will bet they offered her a pretty good deal.
> 
> So, one can say that Hoyt is not the "choice" of any of the top women or that they don't support any of the top women, or whatever conjecture one wants to draw. But in at least one case, it really is a recent development, and frankly just "currently". Who is to say what will happen next year.
> 
> ...


Some very good points there.

Some of it is conjecture, but some of us have a few more facts too. What I know about PSE and the archers they have sponsored is probably more than most here as I was on their staff at one time along with a few I mentioned. But I'll be the first to admit that everyone's situation is unique and I only know what I was told by PSE and a few of their archers. 

I think a lot of people would like to know two things - why Butch showed up at the 2012 trials shooting W&W (after being the primary archer for Hoyt for so long) and then switched back, and why Khatuna left.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

bobnikon said:


> Who was the highest finishing female archer (for the US) in 2012 (Olympics) and what brand was she shooting?


The same woman who just switched to W&W.


----------



## bobnikon (Jun 10, 2012)

limbwalker said:


> The same woman who just switched to W&W.


Yeah, I would be REALLY interested (though I doubt it would ever happen) to see the reasons, comparisons of contracts, etc when a switch like that happens. I still think it was a matter of a better deal not Hoyt dropping her (but that is purely conjecture on my part).


----------



## mahgnillig (Aug 3, 2014)

Until female athletes get paid the same as men and get the same amount of media coverage there will always be inequality. Just look at the recent lawsuit filed by the US women's soccer team. IMO, as a woman who participates in a number of sports, archery seems to be better than many other sports at being equal, especially where equipment is concerned. I think this is largely down to the equipment being similar across the board, at least on the target end of the sport... women might prefer lower limb weights or a smaller riser, but the other equipment used is generally the same across the genders. With many sports (including some women's compound hunting bows) the tendency is for manufacturers to 'shrink it and pink it' (and then charge a premium price for it) and only provide mid range gear instead of the really high end stuff for women. Since a high end riser is usable by anyone this is less of a problem in archery than, say, mountain biking. 

This doesn't really address the issue of whether some manufacturers are failing to offer sponsorship for the top women as that is a hard thing to quantify. What I'd really be interested in finding out is what all the top shooters would choose if they weren't being sponsored by anyone. 

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## bobnikon (Jun 10, 2012)

I absolutely think that the government funding should be equal across the genders. 

I also absolutely think that it is up to each gender to earn the sponsorships, again by demanding by their results - and consequently their influence on the purchasing public. 

In the commercial sector, if there is an inequality, I think it rests primarily on the shoulders of the consumer and the athletes. There is a vicious cycle of results and rewards that is hard to break. If we celebrate and are influenced by the wins and let the sponsors and corporations know that the female athletes are as important to us as the male, then there will be more money pumped into supporting them. But for that, the women have to win. If they don't win they don't get the support, if they don't get the support they don't win... 

At the institutional level the same thing can happen, but for teams/organizations supported by government money this isn't excusable.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

bobnikon said:


> Yeah, I would be REALLY interested (though I doubt it would ever happen) to see the reasons, comparisons of contracts, etc when a switch like that happens. I still think it was a matter of a better deal not Hoyt dropping her (but that is purely conjecture on my part).


Very well could be right. But I'm sitting here thinking ... She was our #1 female Olympic archer, and the most high profile one we have had in a long time, if ever. So how/why could Hoyt let her go if this is a simple marketing choice. That move really surprised me, and I guess simmered in my head until I created this much-derailed thread.

I think if recreational archers really had a way to know what kinds of contracts that pro or semi-pro archers are getting, it would be very interesting.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

bobnikon said:


> I absolutely think that the government funding should be equal across the genders.
> 
> I also absolutely think that it is up to each gender to earn the sponsorships, again by demanding by their results - and consequently their influence on the purchasing public.
> 
> ...


Thank you. You are spot-on with these comments IMO. Yes, part of this is on the women themselves to shoot better, and I think I said that very early in this thread. But it's also up to USArchery to be fair with their promotional material (they should be showing equal consideration to both male and female archers in all their media and social media releases) instead of just showing the same 5 or 6 (usually male) archers over and over and over again. I guess to be fair, Khatuna did soak up a large chunk of social media presence on USArchery feeds for years.

I think people underestimate the power of the images that come out of USArchery. Teresa certainly understood and was often reminded. But I hope her replacement can be as objective as she was.


----------



## SHPoet (Nov 13, 2009)

bobnikon said:


> I absolutely think that the *government funding* should be equal across the genders.


Title IX insures that it will be. That has nothing to do with private company sponsorship.


----------



## bobnikon (Jun 10, 2012)

But I am thankful that it was Khatuna not Brady in the ESPN Body issue :wink:


----------



## SHPoet (Nov 13, 2009)

bobnikon said:


> But I am thankful that it was Khatuna not Brady in the ESPN Body issue :wink:


Now that's FUNNY!!!!!


----------



## bobnikon (Jun 10, 2012)

SHPoet said:


> Title IX insures that it will be. That has nothing to do with private company sponsorship.


Regulating something and actually having it happen are two different things. As was discussed above, whether or not the equality is there in the government sponsored organizations could easily be argued, but the media representation is lopsided and the coaching situation is only starting to catch up. 

Not sure exactly what you were referring to though in what you bolded in my post and your response. Two different subjects far as I can tell.


----------



## Sosius (Feb 5, 2014)

bobnikon said:


> But I am thankful that it was Khatuna not Brady in the ESPN Body issue :wink:


Amen, brother!


----------



## Sosius (Feb 5, 2014)

limbwalker said:


> I stumbled into a weird sport in '04 and quickly realized that while it was perfectly fine to talk about how much Tiger Woods or Peyton Manning made in endorsements, for some reason you can't even talk about it in archery. As soon as you do, everyone gets upset. LOL. I wonder how we know how much Tiger or Peyton made from an endorsement, but we have to guess what Khatuna or Brady make. Funny little sport this archery is.


OK, now I'm very curious. What is a sponsorship worth anyway? Thousands, tens of thousands, a hundred thousand, more? 

How much money would it take for a world-class archer like Khatuna Lorig to switch bows in an Olympic year?

This inquiring mind really wants to know!


----------



## SHPoet (Nov 13, 2009)

bobnikon said:


> Regulating something and actually having it happen are two different things. As was discussed above, whether or not the equality is there in the government sponsored organizations could easily be argued, but the media representation is lopsided and the coaching situation is only starting to catch up.
> 
> Not sure exactly what you were referring to though in what you bolded in my post and your response. Two different subjects far as I can tell.


Just to emphasize the Title IX only applies to government funding.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

Sosius said:


> OK, now I'm very curious. What is a sponsorship worth anyway? Thousands, tens of thousands, a hundred thousand, more?
> 
> How much money would it take for a world-class archer like Khatuna Lorig to switch bows in an Olympic year?
> 
> This inquiring mind really wants to know!


less than 10K i would imagine. Probably two free bows that she liked. $5000 or less would do that deal.

Chris


----------



## bobnikon (Jun 10, 2012)

SHPoet said:


> Just to emphasize the Title IX only applies to government funding.


Roger, we were agreeing then.


----------



## mahgnillig (Aug 3, 2014)

For what it's worth, I did a class with Khatuna a few months back and someone asked about her switch from Hoyt to W&W. She seemed pretty enthusiastic about W&W and said it was a very good bow. 

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## Ar-Pe-Lo (Oct 16, 2011)

limbwalker said:


> Very well could be right. But I'm sitting here thinking ... She was our #1 female Olympic archer, and the most high profile one we have had in a long time, if ever. So how/why could Hoyt let her go if this is a simple marketing choice. That move really surprised me, and I guess simmered in my head until I created this much-derailed thread.
> 
> I think if recreational archers really had a way to know what kinds of contracts that pro or semi-pro archers are getting, it would be very interesting.


So you saying Hoyt must give her most? Why if they think it's not worth?

Anyway you say no one want to talk about money/deals....so you can be firts who will spill the beans as it seem you know some details.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

bobnikon said:


> Regulating something and actually having it happen are two different things. As was discussed above, whether or not the equality is there in the government sponsored organizations could easily be argued, but *the media representation is lopsided and the coaching situation is only starting to catch up. *


That's an understatement, but yes, very true. I've said for a decade now that I'll only be convinced that USArchery is serious about the women's program when we have a women's head coach who has equal credentials to Lee and does not report to him. Anything less is an insult to our women.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

mahgnillig said:


> For what it's worth, I did a class with Khatuna a few months back and someone asked about her switch from Hoyt to W&W. She seemed pretty enthusiastic about W&W and said it was a very good bow.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


It is a very good bow. The only true amateur male archer (Thomas Stanwood) still in the top 8 for the 2016 trials is shooting one.

The Hoyt bows are also very good, as evidenced by Brady and Zach's exceptional scores of late. The question really isn't which bow is better, but rather which archers do either sponsor pursue, and why.


----------

