# USA Archery Barebow Survey



## Ms.Speedmaster (Dec 10, 2010)

If you were recently at a sanctioned USA Archery event, shooting barebow, chances are you would have received the survey from USA Archery. It basically asks about preferred outdoor distance for your division, and which shoots you will be participating in for 2016.

Normally I hate surveys - you know - every time you buy something online they send a survey that quickly finds it's way to the trash can. However, I was very pleased to see this one, and took the time to complete it. It was a survey where the outcome was meaningful to me and my tribe of BB archers, not just to the sender. 

Well done USA Archery, for reaching out to the membership to gauge needs and desires on the hot topic of barebow.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

?Preferred outdoor distance for your division?

Are we looking at a format change for barebow at Outdoor Nationals in just it's 2nd year?

As the former barebow committee chair, I'm a little surprised and disappointed that USArchery chose not to involve their own barebow committee members in the development of this survey, or at least give us a chance to look at it first. I received a call from another committee member last night about this survey. They also were not aware it was coming out.

I am not at all opposed to surveying the membership. In fact I am usually the one begging USArchery to be more proactive in this area and use surveys like this one to better serve its membership. Just would have been nice if they had included/involved the barebow committee members that worked so hard to come up with products for the organization just one year ago.

Well, I would encourage every barebow archer to speak up and respond. And despite bypassing the barebow committee they themselves requested, I think it's great that USArchery is finally using these tools to take the pulse of the membership as a whole.

It's just getting harder and harder to figure out how USArchery is doing business. One minute they want feedback, the next minute they don't. I pray for the day we start seeing more consistency from the administration of this organization.


----------



## SBills (Jan 14, 2004)

I did the survey.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

May I make a slightly educated comment and say that this may be the result of the board meeting that was recently held?

-Steve


----------



## Azzurri (Mar 10, 2014)

And they left out those of us who signed up for trad divisions this year.


----------



## Wobbley (Sep 26, 2014)

Azzurri said:


> And they left out those of us who signed up for trad divisions this year.


You mean NFAA Trad shoots? 

It would be good to survey everybody who shoots NFAA Trad also. I think they surveyed from a list based on USAA Barebow shoots.

I filled it in and sent it back. Was glad to see they were taking comments.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Beastmaster said:


> May I make a slightly educated comment and say that this may be the result of the board meeting that was recently held?
> 
> -Steve


At the beginning of the survey, some discussion as to the logic used by the barebow committee to arrive at the 2015 distances would have been nice. There is a very good reason that several divisions were grouped at the same distance. It was to give the barebow archers the best opportunity to contest all three competitions (individual, team and matchplay). The requirements for competition (created by the tournament director) for the team and matchplay events included a minimum number of participants. That is a reasonable requirement, but to provide for the best chance of meeting those numbers, the barebow committee agreed to lump archers from more than one division at the same distance.

Provided there will be plenty of contestants at outdoor nationals, then sure, why not see if each division has its own preferred distance. That seems to make sense. But if we separate the distances based on each division, then later don't have the numbers to contest the team and matchplay events, I hope nobody comes to me as the former barebow committee chairman and decides to ask why.


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

I never got a survey. I shot the Oregon Barebow Challenge which was a USAA Sanctioned event last January. We had over 40 barebow shooters at one venue in one single shoot. Or is this survey going only to USAA members? I am an NFAA member but use the reciprocal where NFAA and USAA members can shoot in each others events.

I want to get in on this survey because I am getting sick and tired of non barebow shooters dumbing down barebow distances.

This past weekend was my first time outside beyond 20 yards to find gaps for long distance shooting. I started at 40 meters (my point on distance), then worked my way up, 50 yd, 50m, 60yd, 60m, 70yd, 70m, then 80yards. Then looking at the trends of where I was aiming, and where the arrows were hitting, I moved to 101 yards/92meters (we have a Safari tournament this weekend with a max 101 yard target). Based on the trend, I picked a new aiming spot and shot three arrows at a 65cm target - Bam 2 scored and one just off the side of the paper at 9'oclock. Oh yeah 

Its not hard to shoot distance with a barebow. People have been doing this with longbows and wooden arrows for centuries before the invention of a compound or a recurve.

How do I get in on this survey to add one more data point that there are barebow shooters that can, and are very happy with, shooting the longest distances.

I thought what John group came up with a 60m format on a 122cm target was a good compromise. I wanted 70m, but 50m or shorter is just an insult to those of us that shoot well at standard 720 rounds.


----------



## Azzurri (Mar 10, 2014)

Wobbley said:


> You mean NFAA Trad shoots?
> 
> It would be good to survey everybody who shoots NFAA Trad also. I think they surveyed from a list based on USAA Barebow shoots.
> 
> I filled it in and sent it back. Was glad to see they were taking comments.


I did Trad instead of BB at USAA Indoor Nationals. Small classes, forgotten about, but another set of barebow shooters they might want to survey as well. I assume they got the information from the Indoor Nationals entries, and we were entered in the same tournament. I'm drifting back towards Olympic after a year's BB experiment but having done a mix of NFAA BB (Vegas), NFAA trad, USAA trad, and WA BB -- just not Indoor Nationals -- I am reacting to them being a little bit inside the box thought-wise on this one. Need to be casting as wide a net as possible if the aim is to increase participation, and part of the deal there to me is actually not accepting all the little definitional cubbyholes for barebow and traditional.

So I definitely agree with your broader point, we have some excellent NFAA Trad people in Texas, only a few of whom are either John's or X10, people I had never heard of in USAA circles and who I don't see at USAA shoots. There were 23 people who did our SYWAT series in Trad class and maybe a few I remember from the USAA events. The others do NFAA and 3d. Maybe a hunting thing. Some of them shoot 250-280 NFAA, which I know would be strong in USAA. I don't know how you "survey" or reach them but you could probably double WA BB numbers in this state, which are already good, just by getting people to cross sanctioning lines. And I'm sure the best of them could shoot 50/60/70. One guy was on my bale at a 900, which is getting awfully close to shooting USAA BB distances.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Most likely just USAA members, although I shot in a sanctioned event in the past year (I guess being the reigning outdoor national champion counts, right?) and serving as the chair of the USArchery barebow committee I didn't receive a survey. So don't feel bad.

I'll ask Mary about who did or didn't get the survey, and why.

The distances our committee came up with for last year's outdoor nationals were well thought out, deliberated and discussed and many members of the committee compromised several times for the good of the barebow division. There was a very good reason behind those distances, even if it wasn't understood by everyone at the time.


----------



## Demmer (Dec 1, 2012)

I voted 50. KISS. We all could shoot our field bow that we are shooting all year. Lol. 60m throws in a wrinkle for one shoot. 😊

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## J. Wesbrock (Dec 17, 2003)

Demmer said:


> I voted 50. KISS. We all could shoot our field bow that we are shooting all year. Lol. 60m throws in a wrinkle for one shoot. &#55357;&#56842;
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


That's a good point. I just answered that I didn't have a problem with it. But I can see why 50m would be preferred. 

As long as they don't make it 72 arrows of 15m bunny targets.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Demmer said:


> I voted 50. KISS. We all could shoot our field bow that we are shooting all year. Lol. 60m throws in a wrinkle for one shoot. &#55357;&#56842;
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


But I enjoyed watching you struggle with that extra 10 meters so much!


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Big announcement for barebow and masters archers on the USArchery website today. This is gonna be cool to watch.

And Mary replied that the survey would be going to everyone who competed in barebow in the past year, so if you have, you should be seeing it. 

Man I suck at being patient... I thought I was supposed to get more patient as I aged, not less. LOL.


----------



## Ms.Speedmaster (Dec 10, 2010)

limbwalker said:


> Big announcement for barebow and masters archers on the USArchery website today. This is gonna be cool to watch.


Oh. My. Gosh! That is amazing news. Am I dreaming? If you haven't already, go over there right now and read it. 

So, I had said I wasn't competing outdoors, this season to focus on coaching. Erm... can I change my mind? Lol. Not that it will matter until I get my US citizenship. 

Having won outdoor nationals last year, indoor nationals this year... both as a GB guest. And also winning TX state, I probably should pull my finger out. 

Oh, and I would get to vote in the Presidential election. 

All personal stuff aside, again... Well done USA Archery. What a great time to be an archer!


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

Just a personal observation here...

This is barebow's chance...and opportunity to either make huge gains, or lose big.

-Steve


----------



## Ms.Speedmaster (Dec 10, 2010)

Beastmaster said:


> Just a personal observation here...
> 
> This is barebow's chance...and opportunity to either make huge gains, or lose big.
> 
> -Steve


You are so right, Steve. I'm trucking already, rallying the tribe and putting on the game face. 

Hey John... smile. I think you are. And well done you, for all your efforts. Worth every bit.


----------



## Demmer (Dec 1, 2012)

limbwalker said:


> Big announcement for barebow and masters archers on the USArchery website today. This is gonna be cool to watch.
> 
> And Mary replied that the survey would be going to everyone who competed in barebow in the past year, so if you have, you should be seeing it.
> 
> Man I suck at being patient... I thought I was supposed to get more patient as I aged, not less. LOL.


No, you get more openly opinionated as you get older. LOL

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Beastmaster said:


> Just a personal observation here...
> 
> This is barebow's chance...and opportunity to either make huge gains,* or lose big.*
> 
> -Steve


<sigh>

I don't really see it that way Steve. Barebow is not going anywhere. It's here to stay. Now that we have a seat at the table, I think there will be more surprises in store for those who aren't as familiar with the discipline and all those who have been shooting it for many, many years.

You know, in a strange ironic twist, had there been a Barebow USAT in 2004, I never would have tried out for the Olympic team (because I only entered that event for USAT ranking points anyway) and the cascade of events that followed in USArchery may not have been set in motion.  LOL.


----------



## ShooterPhill (Feb 23, 2015)

limbwalker said:


> Big announcement for barebow and masters archers on the USArchery website today. This is gonna be cool to watch...


Cue the exodus from OR to BB? 

Many may see this a their best shot to make a national team, considering the factors discussed over in the "Professional" recurve thread going on. This is not to say that the talent and level of competition within BB is less than OR, but many with "day jobs" already see making an OR national team as impossible.


----------



## Hank D Thoreau (Dec 9, 2008)

I have not shot FITA target for a couple of years, focusing instead on FITA field. I was a real fan of the standard FITA: 90, 70, 50, 30. I liked the fact that each shot was distinctly different. My favorite for a single distance would be 70 meters, but I really would rather have the test of shooting multiple distances. It is especially interesting for barebow where we do not have a sight aperture to adjust. Figuring out how to take the various shots requires some creativity (nothing unique since it has all been worked out already).


----------



## Laurie Borealis (Mar 10, 2012)

Mr. Roboto said:


> I want to get in on this survey because I am getting sick and tired of non barebow shooters dumbing down barebow distances.


Pete, don't assume it's non-barebow archers who are making a case for 50 meters. There are highly respected, highly skilled barebow archers who are voting for 50 and there are highly respected, highly skilled barebow archers who are voting for 60.

The most important thing to me is that men and women, senior and masters and juniors, shoot barebow at the same distance. We are a small community and we love shooting with each other and learning from each other. The Barebow Bunker behind the shooting line at last year's outdoors nationals was a fun place to be. It wouldn't have been nearly as fun with the women and the masters segregated on a different field. There is nowhere to express this on the survey. I will vote for 50, but I would rather struggle at 60 and miss the bale than shoot a different distance than the men.

But the other really important thing to me is to grow barebow. I feel sure more people will participate at 50 meters, especially more women. If you guys were slamming them into the 10 ring all the time at 50, I'd say, yeah, too easy. How accurate are you at 50 meters (55 yards)? The other thing about 50 is that it's the max barebow distance in fita field, so you get to practice a distance that could come in really handy.

To me, the choice between 50 and 60 meters at outdoors nationals isn't even one of the biggest issues in barebow, and I hope it doesn't do anything to tear the community apart. When I hear people say that those who would like the outdoor distance to be 50 meters are "dumbing down" the sport, that wording bothers me. It feels like a dis to some of the people who've been tireless barebow advocates and who just have a different opinion on how to bring more people into the sport. Do you feel dumb shooting at 18 meters? (I do, too! And not because I'm acing it!) At any rate, I like that USA Archery is surveying the barebow archers! And the USAT thing is such great news! I predict that will greatly add to the influx of barebow archers. A huge thank you to the USA Archery board and to all those who had a role in making that happen. A big shoutout to Skip Trafford! And Becky Nelson-Harris! (Note to Ms Speedmaster: Uncle Sam wants you! Better start studying the Constitution.)


----------



## Demmer (Dec 1, 2012)

Here is why I voted 50m. Like I said before. KISS (Keep it simple stupid). 50m is the farthest we shoot in field. Why add another wrinkle to the bb class. We as archers can really work on our craft by fine tuning it and shoot at the target nationals with the same bow. If we have it at 60m or 70m, we have to take time away from our main setup to shoot one shoot. To me, it's actually a hindrance to our progression as archers. If we keep it simple, we might actually get more shooters to go to fields or visa versa target nationals. To me, I feel that 50m is in best interest for the class. What i mean is i feel its in the shooters best interest for the development of thier one bow tune, and for the biggest potential in numbers for the class.
I hear this "it's about the challenge". Score is a number and that is it. A 600 at 60m might be 630 at 50m. It's still a number and that is all. Just a different number at best. Here is what I see in the Ibo. We are constantly shooting smaller and smaller targets further and further away. There is a great challenge in that, but also a downfall in numbers. When a newbie comes to the challenging shoot, a lot of times get discouraged and doesn't come back. 


Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

John, for recurve, 60 is the furthest shot in field but they shoot 70 in outdoor target. The argument that was made for 60 was that the target is much larger for outdoor target than for field (122 vs. 80) and mathematically, it's actually easier to shoot 60 on a 122 than 50 on an 80cm face.

For me at least, I shoot the same setup at 60 that I do for everything else. I just aim higher. Same is true for Rick.

Laurie and I were discussing this earlier and what barebow archers who plan to shoot outdoor nationals really need to keep in mind here is that there are three events contested - Ranking, Matchplay and Team. In order for Matchplay and Team to be contested, there must be at least the minimum number of required archers. For 2015, we ended up lumping Masters and Senior, Juniors and Cadets, and Cub and Bowmen with the understanding that they could combine divisions for the team round or matchplay. We want those events contested as well. 

Just like the Juniors shooting matchplay in the US Open with the Seniors, combining divisions for matchplay (and team) in the barebow ranks needs to be an option, so that archers who pay their registration fees get the full experience. Nothing is more sad than having to "sit out" 1/3 or 2/3 of an event you've paid a full registration fee to shoot. And if we're not careful here, that's exactly what's going to happen for a lot of barebow archers. So we need to think about that before we start splitting up distances too much.


----------



## Demmer (Dec 1, 2012)

Recurve has sights and shoots 70m for everything In target. That's quite a big difference. If my point on was 50m, my draw ild have to aim at least a foot over the flag without changing anchor. That can really mess up ones shooting and not be a great service to the members that plan on shooting field. How are we going to help those who plan on shooting against the Europeans if we have to change anchor and setup for the one and only 60m shoot? I still say, if you have to keep the 122cm face, stick it at 50m and help the field shooters out. 

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## Ms.Speedmaster (Dec 10, 2010)

Laurie Borealis said:


> To me, the choice between 50 and 60 meters at outdoors nationals isn't even one of the biggest issues in barebow, and I hope it doesn't do anything to tear the community apart. When I hear people say that those who would like the outdoor distance to be 50 meters are "dumbing down" the sport, that wording bothers me.


It did me a little, too. But I totally understand where some of the more established trad and BB, old school type folks are coming from. Yes, it is very satisfying to shoot longer distances. I love it! But, to maintain the interest, competitive BB needs to be accessible. Keeping it at a reasonable distance does just that, and that's why I voted 50m. Demmer makes a great case for 50m also. In thinking about the gobs of BB archers around me, there are several who would probably balk at the thought of 60m. But 50m is easier to swallow, and I've had many of them shooting that distance through the fall and winter.

Besides, we wouldn't want to upstage the guys with wheels at 50m, now would we?! :tongue:



> At any rate, I like that USA Archery is surveying the barebow archers! And the USAT thing is such great news! I predict that will greatly add to the influx of barebow archers. A huge thank you to the USA Archery board and to all those who had a role in making that happen.


Hear, hear.

I think this was a very well thought out strategy. In an Olympic year, we know there will be gobs more archers coming into the fold, and how easy will it be to get BB archers up and running? Very easy. This I know. That, and the NASP archers who will be migrating our way, too.



> (Note to Ms Speedmaster: Uncle Sam wants you! Better start studying the Constitution.)


Yes, ma'am! I have the 21 page N-400 document open as I write. :wink:


----------



## Demmer (Dec 1, 2012)

Also, Yao Ming can probably reach 90m point on, so why don't we just stick it at 90m then. 😂😂😂. 

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> That, and the NASP archers who will be migrating our way, too.


We've thought that in the past. Several years ago, we in TSAA chose to allow NASP Genesis bows into our barebow division for our state events and TOTS series with the idea that we want to offer a place in TSAA events for those archers. It was and still is a good idea. I wish USArchey had followed suit by allowing "basic compound" into the barebow division. However the numbers have never materialized. We have had a few masters archers take advantage of this so they could reach the longer outdoor distances with very light arrows, but to my knowledge, fewer than 5 youth archers brought Genesis bows to our TSAA events to compete in the barebow division. Maybe even just three, in three years.

For whatever reason, NASP archers have just never transitioned well into USArchery style events. There needs to be a different approach to attract them IMO. One of the great appeals of NASP for those school kids is the team atmosphere. We just don't have that opportunity in USArchery events, so the kids who are not as interested in competing only as individuals, just don't come over.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Demmer said:


> Also, Yao Ming can probably reach 90m point on, so why don't we just stick it at 90m then. &#55357;&#56834;&#55357;&#56834;&#55357;&#56834;.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


Actually John, Kim Hartman was string walking at 60. 

It will be interesting to see the results. I suspect the vast majority will vote for 50. But if all the recurve archers nationwide were polled, would they vote for 70 meters? Would the female archers vote for 70? I seriously doubt it, since that was their longest distance when we all shot four-distance fitas. 

Let's not forget there was a time when archers shot wood longbows and wood arrows, anchoring under their jaw and hitting (and sometimes not hitting) bales at 100 meters. I think this is where the "dumbing down" comments originate although as Laurie points out, that term is a bit insensitive.

Modern target recurve bows with modern small-diameter precision arrows are certainly capable of shooting small groups at 60 meters if the proper technique is used. Outdoor target is not field archery. It has always featured longer distances than field archery, esp. when we shot 90 meters. Some of us on the barebow committee felt 60 meters was a compromise. Most of the men I shot with had no issues with 60, but it sounded like most of the women did have an issue with it. So if the solution is to move adult (and masters and junior) barebow to 50, then so be it. We will just shoot 320's and 330's instead of 300's. 

Then if someone is up for a real challenge, they can come to Texas and shoot our TOTS round where we shoot 60 meters on a 122, 50 meters on an 80, and 30 meters on a 60cm face.  Despite (or because of) the challenging format, it has become the most popular outdoor target round shot statewide, and events often fill up in less than 5 days. Go figgur.


----------



## Demmer (Dec 1, 2012)

Not an ideal field setup then. 😕

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## Demmer (Dec 1, 2012)

I'm not saying I ain't going to do something to try to touch 60m, but I'm speaking for what I feel would be best for us as a whole. 

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

I don't shoot my field setup for 70 meters with my recurve.

I get what you're saying - esp. this year when field and outdoor nationals are SO darn close together. But we really shouldn't design an entire national championship format around that one circumstance IMO.

As for setups, there is stringwalking and then there is facewalking. Some of the most successful 60 meter barebow shooters I know are doing both, and have a different anchor for 60 than they use for field or indoors. There is a way.

For years, I've been challenged with indoor target events because of my comparably low anchor, long draw length and preference for heavier draw weights. In other words, I shoot an "outdoor" setup indoors and try to compete with it. I know I could be more competitive if I changed my setup and technique, but I'm not willing to, so I accept the fact that when I shoot indoors, I am at a disadvantage to guys who use a higher anchor and lower draw weight.


----------



## granite14 (Nov 10, 2014)

I agree with John on distance but would also like the 80cm face


----------



## Laurie Borealis (Mar 10, 2012)

granite14 said:


> I agree with John on distance but would also like the 80cm face


And I REALLY like that idea. 50 meters, 80 cm face. The guys who want the challenge can face the same challenge as the compounds. The distance will accommodate lower draw weight and/or heavier arrows, and just seems less daunting even with a smaller target. Fewer bale misses than at 60. The field archers can shoot the same size target as in field and use the same equipment. Let's not discount the importance of field to barebow. Except for 3D, where USA Archery does not even designate a team, field is the only World Archery championship that barebow can compete in. With very little support, our barebow archers have brought home world championship medals in a bow category dominated by Europeans. World field is the Olympics to barebow. Field is the roots of the barebow movement. Just as so much of the Oly recurve world is focused on the Olympic format, let's help out our archers who want to shoot in barebow's big event.


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

if the change to 50m occurs, it better be on an 80cm target. The 1440 round has the 50m distance on the 80cm target which non-sighted recurve shooters have shot for many years. Otherwise getting to shoot that whale is still dumbing it down on the monster target.

Okay, I am not politically correct, but that is how I see it. Lets not make the event super easy so it can attract people. If we go to 50m, then there will be a cry about that is too far, we should make it 40m.

John makes a great point about the max distance for Field being 50m and following that standard. I can understand that. But again, if it goes to 50m then it better be on an 80 cm target. That is the field target size at that distance.

Now back to the dumbing it down. How many FITA/USAA barebow shooters only shoot FITA/USAA events? Then we should ask how many NFAA and IFAA Traditional/RU are out there that shoot only NFAA/IFAA event? Then of all those, how many cross over. The reason I bring up NFAA/IFAA is that we still have to shoot targets in field between 55 to 80 yards. For Safari events, targets go out to 101 yards. So we are already shooting distances beyond 60m.

A few years ago the NFAA stabbed Trad archers in the back by shortening the distances for NFAA shoots to 50 yards max for all events except sectionals and nationals. Here they are telling all the traditional shooters to go ahead and develop all their skills on the short youth distances. But when you want to grow up and shoot sectionals, you have to shoot the adult full distances. At first they made the mistake of allowing the archers to have the choice of shooting the shorter distances or the longer distances. They the powers within the NFAA got mad because there are too many rebel Traditional shooters that choose to shoot the longer distances, so last year they took that choice away and said the state has to choose for the archer what distance they have to shoot. Fortunately, for Washington State, we chose that for all state shoots, we will follow the same rules for sectionals and nationals. This insane experiment within the NFAA to shorten the distances to attract new shooters didn't work in my state. The new Trad shooters that has come up in the last couple years prefer the longer distances. They didn't take it up because of the shorter distances.

What drives me crazy is that there are a lot of people trying to affect the rules for NFAA Traditional who don't even shoot the class.

It is nice to hear that USAA is sending out the survey to actual Barebow shooters. I find that encouraging.


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

Personally, I want to shoot 70 meters so I can compare my scores against the Oly style archers. And, yes, it is dumbing down the class by constantly trying to reduce the maximum distance we shoot. To me, it is pathetic that our forerunners in this sport circa 1935 could shoot up to 100 yards with much inferior bows and arrows yet todays barebow archers whine constantly to reduce the sport to bare minimum distances. I'm going to compete at whatever distance is decided on, I just prefer that distance be 70 meters. Field and target have never been one and the same and as for me, Viva La Difference. Thank you to everyone who has worked behind the scenes and with USA archery to make these additions happen. Future generations of barebow archers are indeed lucky because of your efforts.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

itbeso said:


> To me, it is pathetic that our forerunners in this sport circa 1935 could shoot up to 100 yards with much inferior bows and arrows yet todays barebow archers whine constantly to reduce the sport to bare minimum distances.


To be fair, the _expectations_ were radically different. When the 60, 80 and 100 yard distance York Round was created in the mid 1800s, they set the number of arrows at 24, 48 and 72 arrows based on the idea that an archer who was a "fair shot" would miss the entire _bale_ half the time at 80 and 2 out of 3 shots at 100. Horace A Ford, the greatest archer of his day, never managed in a York Round to hit the bale every time, not even in practice. Ask Jim C how much he enjoys people missing the bale


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

Warbow said:


> To be fair, the _expectations_ were radically different. When the 60, 80 and 100 yard distance York Round was created in the mid 1800s, they set the number of arrows at 24, 48 and 72 arrows based on the idea that an archer who was a "fair shot" would miss the entire _bale_ half the time at 80 and 2 out of 3 shots at 100. Horace A Ford, the greatest archer of his day, never managed in a York Round to hit the bale every time, not even in practice. Ask Jim C how much he enjoys people missing the bale


Why would competition expectations be different. You either want to win or you don't. If you are there to do your best, how are expectations different? If the top competitors miss the target, then that happens, it doesn't diminish winning. This dumbing down phenomenon is prevalent in all sports nowadays. Everyone has to get a participation award, archery has to have 100 classes so everyone can go home a winner. If the winner of the outdoor target nationals only hits the target 50% of the time, how does that diminish their win? Enquiring minds want to know.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

itbeso said:


> Why would competition expectations be different. You either want to win or you don't. If you are there to do your best, how are expectations different? If the top competitors miss the target, then that happens, it doesn't diminish winning. This dumbing down phenomenon is prevalent in all sports nowadays. Everyone has to get a participation award, archery has to have 100 classes so everyone can go home a winner. If the winner of the outdoor target nationals only hits the target 50% of the time, how does that diminish their win? Enquiring minds want to know.


My point was about expectations of being able to hit the bale. I think most competitors these days want to be at a distance that allows them to at least hit the bale consistently rather than miss it 2 out of 3 times. But, that is speculation on my part. I haven't done a survey. :dontknow:

But, that being said, I think you are disproving your own argument about "dumbing down" of competition. By your own words it's the beating your competitor that matters, not the distance or target size: "If the winner of the outdoor target nationals only hits the target 50% of the time, how does that diminish their win?" So, likewise, it doesn't matter if the distance is 50M and they hit the bale every time, as long as they win with a higher score.

You also wrote, "This dumbing down phenomenon is prevalent in all sports nowadays. Everyone has to get a participation award, archery has to have 100 classes so everyone can go home a winner." Yet I don't get the impression that you think a *barebow* class is a bad idea, even as you bad mouth the idea of classes for other people and other bows.

However, I'm not making an argument for a specific distance, target size or number of bow classes. What I am saying, though, is that your arguments don't necessarily say what you think they do, so you might make your case better with different ones.


----------



## BubbaDean1 (Dec 20, 2014)

Limbwalker help me out here. I have never shot a USAA event. Please explain how each event works( #of arrows, target size, distance etc). Thanks


----------



## Demmer (Dec 1, 2012)

80cm👍

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## Demmer (Dec 1, 2012)

Now mathematically harder than [email protected]😆😈

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## pilotmill (Dec 10, 2008)

I have heard that argument in 3D shooting that the course is too easy and we need the smaller targets greater distances and really challenge the masses. It seems to me what it does is cause the middle pack shooters to become fustrated and not shoot those events. I feel like shoots where a lot of changes in form or equipment is not necessary to be challenging, the good shooters will always rise to the top in any competition. Let's get more folks to want to attend and shoot.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Demmer said:


> Now mathematically harder than [email protected]😆😈
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


Yup. I have a few years of experience putting archers (compound,barebow and recurve) on 80cm faces at 50 meters in our popular TOTS series here in Texas. The round was my design and I knew I would hear the wailing and gnashing of teeth when we all shot 50 meters on an 80cm face. It is the most difficult of the three distances/target faces for the TOTS round and we typically score 30-50 points less on that face at 50 than we do on a 122 at 60. At 50 meters on an open field in the wind, that 80cm face looks like the head of a pin. 

Remember folks, we're not trying to recreate field archery here. In fact, we don't do ourselves any favors if we continue to compare outdoor target to field because the elites would have barebow remain in field archery and exist nowhere else. So like Ben says, viva le difference! Indoor/Field/Outdoor are all unique challenges as some discovered last year in Decatur. Each of us will have our favorite and our least favorite, but we need the diversity within the division and we need them to be distinctly different from one another for two reasons. First - as I said - there are those who wish to see barebow only in field, if it's seen at all, and second, people enjoy variety and just throwing an 80cm face up at 50 meters "because that's what we have in field" just isn't allowing the outdoor target round to stand on it's own feet.

Just my opinions of course, as a former barebow committee chair, an archer and someone who's designed a few outdoor target rounds for archers. I get a lot of feedback from barebow archers on a weekly, if not daily, basis. Not saying I have all the answers (there is no one "right" answer here) but I do hear a lot of comments at our events and from barebow archers around the U.S.

We'll see how the votes stack up, but again I would ask, if every single recurve archer in the U.S. voted on the distance and target size, do you think 70 meters on a 122 would be the chosen format?


----------



## Demmer (Dec 1, 2012)

Hey, if 60m is perfect for our numbers and growth, I'm all for it. I'm just still excited that we have a usat team now

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

As someone here in Texas just pointed out, whatever the format is, we all need to rally around it. I'll shoot 122's at 10 meters or 60cm faces at 90 if that's the game. What's more important to me when looking at formats for Outdoor Nationals is what is going to provide the most opportunity for every archer who registers, to compete in EVERY event. Not just the ranking round. That is only 1/3 of the Outdoor Nationals event, and nobody wants to pay full price (and believe me, we will) just to shoot 1/3 of the events, then stand on the sidelines while the recurve and compound archers shoot matches and then team.

There are three National Championship titles up for grabs at every US Outdoor Nationals. Barebow archers should have an opportunity to compete for all of them just like their compound and recurve counterparts.

If for some reason all three events (most likely the team round would get whacked first) are not offered to every barebow archer, then I would argue that the Clout round should be barebow-only since the recurve archers already have three titles to compete for at Nationals.


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

Warbow said:


> My point was about expectations of being able to hit the bale. I think most competitors these days want to be at a distance that allows them to at least hit the bale consistently rather than miss it 2 out of 3 times. But, that is speculation on my part. I haven't done a survey. :dontknow:
> 
> But, that being said, I think you are disproving your own argument about "dumbing down" of competition. By your own words it's the beating your competitor that matters, not the distance or target size: "If the winner of the outdoor target nationals only hits the target 50% of the time, how does that diminish their win?" So, likewise, it doesn't matter if the distance is 50M and they hit the bale every time, as long as they win with a higher score.
> 
> ...


Warbow, my arguments do say exactly what I mean them to say. Barebow class? When our National Organizations were formed, Barebow was the only class!!!, all the others were created to give people a better chance to take home an award. You state that "most competitors want to be at a distance that allows them to at least hit the bale consistently". How do you know this to be a fact? Again, your argument is a dumbing down of the barebow class as you would make it easier for the class to feel good about themselves rather than work to improve their craft. JMHO. Another example of " instant Gratification", rather than putting in time and " paying your dues". I think it is very obvious that bare bow is an extremely hard class to excel in because it does take a lot of practice and time to get proficient at it, hence the former lack of competitors in that discipline. Now that the class is getting recognition and some archers are putting up exceptional scores, people are beginning to realize this is a worthwhile endeavor .


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Sorry Warbow, but Ben is correct here. Remove the word barebow and plug in any discipline, then move the targets closer and there is only one way to describe what's happening. 

I don't think we want any archers, regardless of discipline, to spend an inordinate amount of their time behind the bales looking for arrows. There were plenty of recurve archers that spent a LOT of time behind the bales at the most recent Olympic Trials event in College Station. I didn't see any of them smiling back there either.

But this is a National Championship event we're talking about, not some developmental event or even a state tournament. What I'm tired of seeing "dumbed down" are our premier National Championship events. The idea that just anyone should be able to show up and compete without having shot a qualification score at a sanctioned event is still just stunning to me. It diminishes the stature of those events, not just in my mind, but in the mind of every spectator and media rep. that asks the question "what do these archers have to do to qualify for this event?"  It's also amazing to me how many archers feel entitled to compete in National Championship events without having to qualify for them. What other sports do this? Okay, what other sports that anyone follows, does this? I can't just show up at the golf course for the U.S. Open and request a tee time. I don't get to show up at Arthur Ashe stadium in New York and sign up to compete against Djokovic. Serious sports need serious championship events. Anything less is a "dumbing down" of our sport as a whole. Why are we so willing to accept stringent qualification criteria for National Championship events in other sports, but not our own? Do we not think more highly of our own sport than this?


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

limbwalker said:


> Sorry Warbow, but Ben is correct here. Remove the word barebow and plug in any discipline, then move the targets closer and there is only one way to describe what's happening.
> 
> I don't think we want any archers, regardless of discipline, to spend an inordinate amount of their time behind the bales looking for arrows. There were plenty of recurve archers that spent a LOT of time behind the bales at the most recent Olympic Trials event in College Station. I didn't see any of them smiling back there either.
> 
> But this is a National Championship event we're talking about, not some developmental event or even a state tournament. What I'm tired of seeing "dumbed down" are our premier National Championship events. The idea that just anyone should be able to show up and compete without having shot a qualification score at a sanctioned event is still just stunning to me. It diminishes the stature of those events, not just in my mind, but in the mind of every spectator and media rep. that asks the question "what do these archers have to do to qualify for this event?"  It's also amazing to me how many archers feel entitled to compete in National Championship events without having to qualify for them. What other sports do this? Okay, what other sports that anyone follows, does this? I can't just show up at the golf course for the U.S. Open and request a tee time. I don't get to show up at Arthur Ashe stadium in New York and sign up to compete against Djokovic. Serious sports need serious championship events. Anything less is a "dumbing down" of our sport as a whole. Why are we so willing to accept stringent qualification criteria for National Championship events in other sports, but not our own? Do we not think more highly of our own sport than this?


:thumbs_up:thumbs_up


----------



## midwayarcherywi (Sep 24, 2006)

I've no dog in this fight, but the better archer will always want the hardest challenge. It is an edge for the better shooter. The job of USAA is to figure out what is best for the class. That is no easy task.


----------



## Azzurri (Mar 10, 2014)

I'd encourage use of an Olympian pin style thought process. At last year's outdoor nationals, 1 BB master male and 1 BB senior male broke 300. Half the master male, 40% of the senior male, all master female, and all senior female were <200/round average. Similarly, in our local winter series, at 50m, you have 1 archer over 300, and everyone else in the 200s or 100s. Before pushing out another 10m. Looks to me like no one is putting up Brady/Korean type scores and a lot of the field is struggling. Would 50m be dumbing down or would it be more like bringing it into alignment with Oly and compound scores at their distances and face sizes? [added thought: we shoot further than compound???]

I found 70m Oly easier than 50m BB my first tries at each. I think 50m would get you bigger field sizes by scaring fewer people off, and the top end of the field still has room to improve. Not that any of this is easy, but the reality and aesthetics of competence would improve, undercutting stereotypes of BB archers hunting arrows in the grass.

I also encourage people to think about this like they are one of the substantial set of local archers who tried our winter series, thinking about whether they can hack Decatur. Participation went up by leaps and bounds in BB but to get the advantage of that it needs to be a distance that doesn't scare people off. There are lots of local events but nothing yet but Decatur at a higher level where one can test themselves to see if they are ready.

We had like 10 senior men in BB at state and then 3 at US Indoors regional. Nationals is a scary idea for many and involves expense. You're wanting to increase that throughput while still having a challenge. Based on the scores I see, I think 50m is challenge enough for the best without scaring off the rest of us.


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

midwayarcherywi said:


> I've no dog in this fight, but the better archer will always want the hardest challenge. It is an edge for the better shooter. The job of USAA is to figure out what is best for the class. That is no easy task.


Midway, we are talking about competition, a lot of times National and International. Is it not the goal for archers to want to better themselves in those areas. If we are talking about casual archery on a local basis, then do as you will, but make the real competitions just that. I remember when I first got into archery, NFAA field. I loved to watch the flight of my arrows at the 80 yard target. Hard to hit?, not really, it just took a little practice and dedication. My opinion is that making things too easy is a recipe for disaster as most will just say, well I did that, what's my next sport to try. This is very evident in the compound release class where people can hit the bullseye in a few easy lessons and soon get bored. I think it is telling that the archers who have been around the longest are, in many cases, those who started and stayed with fingers and no sights.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

midwayarcherywi said:


> I've no dog in this fight, but* the better archer will always want the hardest challenge. It is an edge for the better shooter.* The job of USAA is to figure out what is best for the class. That is no easy task.


They may want the hardest challenge, but it's not because it provides an edge. Better archers will score higher regardless of the format. If we shoot 300's at 60, we will just shoot 330's at 50 and so on. One thing about archery is that it's a fairly linear mathematical progression, as Brady often proves when he wins at 18 meters and then again at 70.  Of course, having one anchor and a moveable sight makes that a lot simpler than what us barebow archers often have to deal with when making the same journey through the distances.

Jay, you make a great point about using available data to determine the correct distance/target size. No need to get too tied up in the emotions of the moment when simple math can give us a pretty good answer. That data, combined with some consideration for maximizing opportunity through all three events at Nationals, should help us arrive at a logical conclusion for the best possible outcome.


----------



## TomB (Jan 28, 2003)

> No need to get too tied up in the emotions of the moment when simple math can give us a pretty good answer. That data, combined with some consideration for maximizing opportunity through all three events at Nationals, should help us arrive at a logical conclusion for the best possible outcome./QUOTE]
> 
> bingo


----------



## Laurie Borealis (Mar 10, 2012)

Look at it this way for a moment: The NFAA added outdoor target nationals in 2014. They chose what is a very popular format: 40/50/60 yards. The average distance is 50 yards. At 60 meters, the distance is about 65.5 yards, or 30 percent farther out than the average in the NFAA nationals. At 50 meters we would still be above the average NFAA outdoors nationals distance. Are people clamoring for NFAA nationals to be a longer distance, say 55, 65, 75 yards, which would be more comparable to 60 meters? Do people think it's dumb and it's insulting to their skill level to shoot 40/50/60? I haven't heard any talk like that. I suspect the reason people want to shoot 60 meters, or better yet, 70 meters at USAA nationals is... because the Olympic recurve shoots that distance. We want to show that we can shoot just as far as they can, by God, even if our pool of participants shrinks and we lose our bow class. (And even though compound shoots at 50!) There is a reason they have all that stuff on Olympic bows, and my understanding is, the further out you shoot, the more significant a stabilizer becomes. Of course barebow archers can shoot that far (and there are lots of safaris and nfaa shoots where you can shoot 80 or 100 yards; go for it). But accuracy and participation levels, for men and women, should be a consideration when you set distances for a target championship and when you are interested in growing the sport. I think the NFAA recognized that in their choice of outdoor target format. But let's see how people vote and then, in the end, let's support the decision with our participation, whatever that decision is.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

I'm not arguing for 70 for barebow. 

But there is an historic precedent for 60 meters for barebow shooters for outdoor target. What is it you ask? None other than the very popular 900 round, which features 60 meters as the furthest of the three distances (and has for 100+ years). Arguing we need to use the middle of those three distances from the popular and historically significant 900 round is a fine argument. Really no different than settling on 70 meters for the recurvers, even though the men used to shoot 90. I can live with that, but let's look around a little at our history too, and draw some comparisions to what's being done in the other divisions. Granted, the 50 meters for compounds is still a riddle to most. LOL.

I think a good question is whether it's the job of a National Championship format to "grow the sport?" 

There are developmental events, and then there are championship events. Rarely are both the exact same format, so I have no problem with the idea of a National Championship event being a little more of a test in the same way that the "majors" in golf tend to feature lower scoring than the standard tour event.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> I'm not arguing for 70 for barebow.


But John, anything less than a complete York Round is "dumbing down" barebow! 



limbwalker said:


> I think a good question is whether it's the job of a National Championship format to "grow the sport?"


I think that depends on how rigid the organization is about promulgating the national championship format down the org. The most recent pin matrix shows that USAA is being very rigid down to the level of recreational archer. So I do think that currently the NC format has a much wider impact than for just those who shoot the event.


----------



## TomB (Jan 28, 2003)

limbwalker said:


> I'm not arguing for 70 for barebow.
> 
> But there is an historic precedent for 60 meters for barebow shooters for outdoor target. What is it you ask? None other than the very popular 900 round, which features 60 meters as the furthest of the three distances (and has for 100+ years). Arguing we need to use the middle of those three distances from the popular and historically significant 900 round is a fine argument. Really no different than settling on 70 meters for the recurvers, even though the men used to shoot 90. I can live with that, but let's look around a little at our history too, and draw some comparisions to what's being done in the other divisions. Granted, the 50 meters for compounds is still a riddle to most. LOL.
> 
> ...


Good points John for all divisions, OR, compound and bare bow. But, is now the time to do that when the bare bow metric we are being measured by is entries? Every entry for the next couple of years is crucial to get bare bow as a legitimate, long term division. After that, then let's have that discussion of whether the national championship should be the best of the best and challenge them. I have feeling that discussion is going to occur in its own natural course as participation grows beyond the capacity of the venues.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> I have feeling that discussion is going to occur in its own natural course as participation grows beyond the capacity of the venues.


I suppose that is true. However in the interest of being consistent, I have argued for qualification criteria for nationals for a long time now, long before barebow ever arrived at the party. So to make an exception for barebow seems a little strange to me, possibly because I've always considered it a legitimate, serious division and have always known those who take the championship events very seriously (Pelfry, Applegate, Eagleton, Demmer and so on...).

But of course you make a good point. I'm just not 100% sure that the goalposts won't move when the final numbers do arrive Tom.  Pretty easy to do if the numbers are arbitrary to begin with, and the same standard isn't applied consistently across all disciplines and divisions anyway.


----------



## Azzurri (Mar 10, 2014)

If Masters is being added to USAT series events, why not BB? Or at least some similar events outside and regionally accessible? An Oly shooter doesn't have to jump from local and state to nationals and trials, he or she can go to TAMU or Socal first.

But if you have only one event of that level, and the idea is set it at a challenging distance that is not necessarily designed to accommodate the more novice and intermediate archers......and then basically all you have to prove interest is indoors numbers, which almost begs the question what happened.......


----------



## Demmer (Dec 1, 2012)

I don't know why some are bent on thier self inflecting term "dumbing down". Makes no sense to me. Our pinnicle for barebow outdoors is field worlds and world games. Period. No where else is 60m ever shot. Not in the American 900 round, and not even in the 1440 round, so to me from a logical stand point, 60m isn't ideal. 50m in my honest opinion will get the most shooters, and still is at a respectable distance. Recurve pinnicle, is the Olympics and the trials that take place. Do you think the numberd at nationals would suffer if they went to 80m for the recurve class??? I would bet money on it. 
Also, like I said before, this will do noting but help the interest in field as well. You need to look at the whole forest and not just a select few trees to see the big picture. 50m would just up the scorers numbers a little. That is all.
Again, in my honest opinion, this would be the ideal distance for barebow to grow and help our shooters progress. 

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Demmer said:


> I don't know why some are bent on thier self inflecting term "dumbing down". Makes no sense to me. Our pinnicle for barebow outdoors is field worlds and world games. Period. No where else is 60m ever shot. Not in the American 900 round, and not even in the 1440 round, so to me from a logical stand point, 60m isn't ideal. 50m in my honest opinion will get the most shooters, and still is at a respectable distance. Recurve pinnicle, is the Olympics and the trials that take place. Do you think the numberd at nationals would suffer if they went to 80m for the recurve class??? I would bet money on it.
> Also, like I said before, this will do noting but help the interest in field as well. You need to look at the whole forest and not just a select few trees to see the big picture. 50m would just up the scorers numbers a little. That is all.
> Again, in my honest opinion, this would be the ideal distance for barebow to grow and help our shooters progress.


Well, I like 50M. Time to boot compounds off it.  Granted, my personal preference is for 50 because I shoot better with my current rig at 50, and because it is a handy distance for the lightly bowed BB shooters at our club. It isn't something I can say is right for everyone else and for every reason, nor necessarily for NC shoots. But neither is it inherently wrong. Target size doesn't matter so much to me, so long as it is a full 10 ring target and 80 or above.

What I can say, though, is that it takes a while for opportunities to trickle down and have an effect. What people like is often as much based on what they are used to as anything else. So no matter what distance USAA decides upon, it will still initially be hard to say in the first years if the increase or decrease in shooters is directly related, or if other factors are at play.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

John, field is considered the pinnacle for barebow shooters currently but only because it offers the biggest prize. Suppose for a minute that outdoor target became very popular for barebow shooters. Or even indoor target. Then suppose that World Archery began to take notice and one day there was a barebow division at the Indoor World Championships or Outdoor World Championships. Then would we still feel the same way about barebow in field? 

It's only the pinnacle of barebow because it's the only WC event offered for barebow at the moment. 

60M is shot everywhere in the metric 900 round, across America (I've actually never shot an "American" 900 round, but I've shot dozens upon dozens of metric 900's at Hoyt Days in STL, for the Illinois State Games (my very first competition with an Olympic bow), and several state archer org's use the metric 900 in their state championships. The metric 900 is also a very popular round overseas and has a long history there too.

60 meters was chosen to set barebow apart from recurve and compound and to provide a championship distance that most all juniors, women, men and masters can reach without becoming boringly easy for our best barebow archers (many of whom are point-on outdoors at 50). 

It's also a distance and target face that's already in use in USArchery events for the Masters Recurve, and Cadet Recurve, giving event organizers the flexibility of putting adult barebow archers on those bales or fields if they wish. At a state-level shoot for example, would you rather shoot on the same bale as a masters recurve archer, or a cub recurve archer? 

As much as we all love our barebow field, we need to make sure outdoor target stands on it's own feet if we want it to succeed long term and associating it with field IMO is not the answer any more than associating indoor barebow with field. 

Ultimately, a lot of this is out of our hands. I think the survey has a lot of people excited, and that's great, but let's see what the decision is at the end of the day before we get too upset or excited. I'm willing to bet right now that you get your wish John. In fact, I've already told my counterparts here in TSAA that I feel it's inevitable. So that will mean another change in format for our state and TOTS events in two years. <sigh>


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

As another data point, the NFAA added the Outdoor Target to their national championship list. Day 1 is 60, 50, 40 yards on a 122 cm target. But wait, it gets better, on day 2, its 40, 50, 60 yards on a 96cm target but only the 6-10 rings count for score. So on day 2, if you can not get your arrows on the 8 ring or better on a 122cm target, you are shooting zeros on the 96cm target. So here is an event where the Day 1 part of the event is a dumbing down version of the day 2 event. Same archers, same distances but vastly different target difficulty. I actually like this format. I am going to try to get our State to change its 900 format to the NFAA Outdoor National Target format.

Reducing 60m on a 122cm target to 50m on a 122cm target is making the wrong move because there is no other event that shoots that big of a target on that short of a distance (except the American 900 round). But and 80cm target at 50m has a long history for recurve, compound, and even barebow because barebow used to shoot with all the other recurve archers at the nationals.

Reducing to 50m is one thing. But reducing to 50m on a 122cm target is dumbing down the event.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

You all can see what an easy decision it was for our barebow committee a year ago.  LOL.

It's like deja' vu listening to all these points of view, most of which were brought up to and from the members of our committee. Kinda funny watching the same movie twice and yet still wondering how it's gonna end.


----------



## Demmer (Dec 1, 2012)

Lol. Me too. I do hope that target will have its own pinnacle soon enough. 
One last jab at distance, you didn't fully separate recurve, cause the Masters shoot the same distance for bb and recurve. 😇
I do love the passion this has fully brought on. I hope for even bigger numbers at Target nationals this year. 
Exciting times in bb. 😆😆😆

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## Demmer (Dec 1, 2012)

There is a lot of hard work behind the scenes for this all to happen. We as archers, need to show up and do our part, as well as those that are battling behind the scenes. 👍

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

I am going to bring up one little, teensy, minor thing.

USADA. 

How many Barebow archers (and Masters) are going to need to file TUE's?


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

limbwalker said:


> You all can see what an easy decision it was for our barebow committee a year ago.  LOL.
> 
> It's like deja' vu listening to all these points of view, most of which were brought up to and from the members of our committee. Kinda funny watching the same movie twice and yet still wondering how it's gonna end.


Isn't the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome. This is funny.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Mr. Roboto said:


> Isn't the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome. This is funny.


I have run a JOAD program for over 12 years now. I think that's the definition of insanity. 



> I am going to bring up one little, teensy, minor thing.
> 
> USADA.
> 
> How many Barebow archers (and Masters) are going to need to file TUE's?


'splain. You're suggesting that to compete for USAT ranking points, archers will need to contend with USADA? At the same events they are already shooting (indoor/field/outdoor, etc.)?


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Mr. Roboto said:


> Isn't the definition of insanity is *doing the same thing over and over again* and expecting a different outcome.


Uhm, you mean archery?


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

limbwalker said:


> 'splain. You're suggesting that to compete for USAT ranking points, archers will need to contend with USADA? At the same events they are already shooting (indoor/field/outdoor, etc.)?


There is always the risk of a pee test and breathalyzer. I know that for most major USAT events, there are at least 6 drug tests scheduled (at a minimum) per USAT event. 

Get on the podium, your "chances" of getting chosen for a drug tests go up a ton. Yes, the tests are supposed to be "random", but we all know that it's not random - they choose from those that are on the podium. So, now that you have Masters and Barebow categories, the winners have the risk of getting tossed into the testing pool.

So, let's look at the statistical issues regarding Barebow and Master's aged shooters. They all tend to be older, statistically they are on some sort of drug for either hypertension, cholesterol, or whatnot.

Using myself as an example, post Bone Marrow Transplant, I'm on three different drugs that require me to be on a TUE...not that it gets denied. If I look at others in my same age group - most of them are on some sort of med that's on the WADA banned list. Beta Blockers, diuretics, diabetes meds, cholesterol meds, whatnot.

So - how many are going to play the game of filing TUE's? You personally know the fun one has in the WADA/USADA world. How many will play in that field for a shirt with their name on it?

-Steve


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Beastmaster said:


> Using myself as an example, post Bone Marrow Transplant, I'm on three different drugs that require me to be on a TUE...not that it gets denied. If I look at others in my same age group - most of them are on some sort of med that's on the WADA banned list. Beta Blockers, diuretics, diabetes meds, cholesterol meds, whatnot.
> 
> So - how many are going to play the game of filing TUE's? You personally know the fun one has in the WADA/USADA world. How many will play in that field for a shirt with their name on it?
> 
> -Steve


I had to look that up. I couldn't figure out what you needed to do on a Tuesday... :embara:

So, therapeutic drugs that non-atheltes wouldn't consider performance enhancing require a Therapeutic Use Exemption in advance? :mg:




> DD/ADHD (stimulants)
> Adrenal Insufficiency
> Anaphylaxis
> Androgen Deficiency / Male
> ...


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> So - how many are going to play the game of filing TUE's? You personally know the fun one has in the WADA/USADA world. How many will play in that field for a shirt with their name on it?


Thank you for bringing back those memories.  ha, ha.

I don't think we need to scare anyone with threats of TUE's or worse. Plenty of people make USAT every year without any knowledge whatsoever of USADA rules. Some will get tested. For a few, that will be problem and they will have to learn about TUE's and the RTP. But not many, if even any. Some may decide in time that the juice isn't worth the squeeze. Upside for me is I'll have more things in common with some of my fellow archers. Bwahaha. 

But I'm excited at the prospect of once again being "randomly" harrassed by USADA. Yay!


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

You do help illustrate my point however that USArchery is really caught between the elite athlete and the amateur archer, and this is just one example of how being associated with USArchery and the USOC, is a downside for purely recreational archers within the org.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

Warbow said:


> I had to look that up. I couldn't figure out what you needed to do on a Tuesday... :embara:
> 
> So, therapeutic drugs that non-atheltes wouldn't consider performance enhancing require a Therapeutic Use Exemption in advance? :mg:


To be safe - yes. Or, you run the risk of getting banned.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> Thank you for bringing back those memories.  ha, ha.
> 
> I don't think we need to scare anyone with threats of TUE's or worse. Plenty of people make USAT every year without any knowledge whatsoever of USADA rules. Some will get tested. For a few, that will be problem and they will have to learn about TUE's and the RTP. But not many, if even any. Some may decide in time that the juice isn't worth the squeeze. Upside for me is I'll have more things in common with some of my fellow archers. Bwahaha.
> 
> But I'm excited at the prospect of once again being "randomly" harrassed by USADA. Yay!


OK, so this doesn't effect me directly, but I am curious. What happens if someone fails at "random" test. Can they file a TUE then? Or does the TUE have to be beforehand? Not knowing anything about this process makes me wonder if someone could get banned from USAA for a valid therapeutic drug because they didn't file paperwork in advance.

EDIT: "To be safe - yes. Or, you run the risk of getting banned. "

Ah! So, kind of important to get the word out on exactly who's eligible and at what events, and of the need to file for exemptions. The tests might not be common, but it sounds like it could hit an unwary archer hard. It only has to hit one person for this to suck big time.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

limbwalker said:


> Thank you for bringing back those memories.  ha, ha.
> 
> I don't think we need to scare anyone with threats of TUE's or worse. Plenty of people make USAT every year without any knowledge whatsoever of USADA rules. Some will get tested. For a few, that will be problem and they will have to learn about TUE's and the RTP. But not many, if even any. Some may decide in time that the juice isn't worth the squeeze. Upside for me is I'll have more things in common with some of my fellow archers. Bwahaha.
> 
> But I'm excited at the prospect of once again being "randomly" harrassed by USADA. Yay!


Getting onto USAT on the compound or recurve side doesn't necessarily mean you get to a spot to where you get tested, either. In the Senior Rolling Rankings, one can shoot and be in 8th position across every USAT and Indoor/Outdoor Nationals and theoretically never get tested because they never got on the podium.

In the updated USAT Selection documents, Masters has the least theoretical possibility (out of Masters and Barebow) of getting chosen to go pee in a cup. In the Barebow side of the world, they only choose top 3 in Cadet, Junior, Senior, and Master. This pretty much means you better be on the podium for Field, Indoor Nats, and Outdoor Nats. That increases your statistical chances of whizzing into a cup by a lot.

But, on the flip side - the archers should know. I don't think we're going to see a Sharapova level of issue here, but the archers do need to know that they are having to play in a different sandbox than what they are used to playing in.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

limbwalker said:


> You do help illustrate my point however that USArchery is really caught between the elite athlete and the amateur archer, and this is just one example of how being associated with USArchery and the USOC, is a downside for purely recreational archers within the org.



Looking at the other side of the coin - when you go and try to get a USAT shirt, are you still a recreational archer?


----------



## mcullumber (Jul 31, 2006)

When it comes to drug testing at a USAT tournament, the only time this will happen if it is connected to a world team trial or a WRE like the AZ Cup. Those athletes who are already in the testing pool can be tested at anytime. USA Archery does not need to spend, nor do they want to spend the money to test athletes at USAT events. Drug testing is very expensive (around $5000.00 for eight tests).


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

Warbow said:


> OK, so this doesn't effect me directly, but I am curious. What happens if someone fails at "random" test. Can they file a TUE then? Or does the TUE have to be beforehand? Not knowing anything about this process makes me wonder if someone could get banned from USAA for a valid therapeutic drug because they didn't file paperwork in advance.
> 
> EDIT: "To be safe - yes. Or, you run the risk of getting banned. "
> 
> Ah! So, kind of important to get the word out on exactly who's eligible and at what events, and of the need to file for exemptions. The tests might not be common, but it sounds like it could hit an unwary archer hard. It only has to hit one person for this to suck big time.


In most cases, the athletes will tend to be "Non-National" level athletes that doesn't require TUE's beforehand. The one major exception is Field Nationals, where Field Nationals also determines who goes to the World Championship. In that case, TUE's are going to be needed beforehand.

It's confusing, not easy to track, and is a royal pain in the rear. I have to track it just because I have kids that occasionally will do International competition. And the total pain is where USADA and WADA can theoretically retroactively ban something (see - Sharapova again) that used to be allowed.

Heck, Rick McKinney and I were talking earlier today about when certain caffeine levels were banned, and that two Diet Cokes plus an aspirin could elevate caffeine levels beyond what WADA allowed at the time.


----------



## Hank D Thoreau (Dec 9, 2008)

Demmer said:


> Recurve has sights and shoots 70m for everything In target. That's quite a big difference. If my point on was 50m, my draw ild have to aim at least a foot over the flag without changing anchor. That can really mess up ones shooting and not be a great service to the members that plan on shooting field. How are we going to help those who plan on shooting against the Europeans if we have to change anchor and setup for the one and only 60m shoot? I still say, if you have to keep the 122cm face, stick it at 50m and help the field shooters out.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


I can understand the logic to what John says. I shoot three under out to 50 meters and go to split at 70. I can shoot three under at 70 using my shelf to aim since I have a 20 meter difference going from point to shelf. I also like the point that Ben made. 70 allows us to measure our performance against the best scoring recurve shooters. Despite the fact that I am focused toward field, I have to vote for 70 because I like the distance so much. I used to do 95% of my practice at 70, probably 500 or more arrows per week. Still, going to a single distance is why I don't like indoor archery. I think we lose something in barebow specifically, when we don't change distance. In barebow you can't just adjust a lead screw. We have to figure out how to make the different distances work. I might consider returning to indoor if we had 18/25 meter shoots. And better yet, hold them outdoors. We can call in outdoor indoor. Heck, I live in Southern California. I don't want to be holed up in an indoor range when it is sunny and beautiful outdoors.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Seems to me that the survey is smart in that it is surveying people who have proven that they will show up at a Barebow shoot. On the other hand, the survey leaves out the larger pool of archers who might come to future events, possibly under different circumstances. So the survey is sort of self selecting for the status quo.


----------



## superkodiaks (Mar 14, 2016)

Sorry, I am coming in late. What are the qualifications to compete in bare bow? Is there a website or more information available?


----------



## Hank D Thoreau (Dec 9, 2008)

Warbow said:


> Seems to me that the survey is smart in that it is surveying people who have proven that they will show up at a Barebow shoot. On the other hand, the survey leaves out the larger pool of archers who might come to future events, possibly under different circumstances. So the survey is sort of self selecting for the status quo.


I shot barebow target but moved to field when the change was made to one distance. I may return anyway, but I would definitely be more likely to return if there were multiple distances. Shooting 144 shots that are all the same is just not that interesting to me, as much as I like 70. So consider me as the voice of someone who used to do it but left.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Hank D Thoreau said:


> I shot barebow target but moved to field when the change was made to one distance. I may return anyway, but *I would definitely be more likely to return if there were multiple distances.* Shooting 144 shots that are all the same is just not that interesting to me, as much as I like 70. So consider me as the voice of someone who used to do it but left.


Was that an option on the survey?


----------



## Hank D Thoreau (Dec 9, 2008)

And one reason I would consider returning is that we have such a good WA program in California.


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

Warbow said:


> Seems to me that the survey is smart in that it is surveying people who have proven that they will show up at a Barebow shoot. On the other hand, the survey leaves out the larger pool of archers who might come to future events, possibly under different circumstances. So the survey is sort of self selecting for the status quo.


This statement makes no sense. How in the world would USA archery ,know who these phantom people are in order to send them a survey. And yes, the people who do attend should have their input given preference over some group that you think exists, but may not. Sometime being the devils advocate takes a little thought.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

itbeso said:


> This statement makes no sense. How in the world would USA archery ,know who these phantom people are in order to send them a survey. And yes, the people who do attend should have their input given preference over some group that you think exists, but may not. *Sometime being the devils advocate takes a little thought.*


Ahem. Membership roles.

:embara:

Also, branched survey. How do you know? _You ask_. The survey then proceeds with questions based on previous answers. With the online survey tools available for no or low cost, this is now almost trivially easy to do.

I should also point out that the biggest opportunity for growth in target BB is not with the people who already showed up to shoot BB, it is with the people who shot in other classes, and people who weren't at the event at all. You are not the biggest opportunity for growth in BB, the vast majority of people who are not you are.


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

Warbow said:


> Ahem. Membership roles.
> 
> :embara:
> 
> ...


I assume you meant membership rolls. I and others like me Definitely ARE the biggest opportunity for growth in the Barebow class. This has been proven without question over the last four years. The tremendous growth in Barebow can be directly linked to the emergence of Alan Eagleton, then myself, the classic duels Alan and I had, then John Demmer coming onboard from the 3-d ranks, success at the world Chamionships the last two times they were held. Those successes, however, pale in comparison to the helpful attitude of all the top bb archers in dealing with up and coming bb archers, archers who didn't shoot BB, but now do because someone took them under their wing and showed them the basics to get them started. It certainly doesn't hurt that Coaches like John Magera and Rick Stonebreaker have shown their students the fun side of archery. There is no other class of archers who are more helpful and willing to share their knowledge, than the top tier BB archers in America. So don't tell me I am not a growth opportunity for the Barebow Class. I don't get on here every time I introduce someone to barebow or coach someone to a championship, but I will put my record up against yours anyday. And while I'm ranting, there is a major ingredient to this barebow resurgence and its name is validation. Because of past exploits shooting without sights, archers took an instant notice of the recurve barebow division when I joined those ranks in 2012. People I had shot against previously picked up their recurves and things started happening. Couple that with Alan winning a silver and gold in France and interest really began to translate into bodies with barebow recurves in their hands. Barebow just needed a kick start and someone with a history to give it validation as a desirable way to shoot a bow. Now, there are nationally known coaches who have taken the bull by the horns and look where we are headed. I'm proud of my part in this resurgence, as all that have taken the challenge should be.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

itbeso said:


> I assume you meant membership rolls.


Yup. On that you have me 



itbeso said:


> I and others like me Definitely ARE the biggest opportunity for growth in the Barebow class.


Yeah, others "like you" wasn't part of my argument. So you are responding to something I never wrote.



itbeso said:


> The tremendous growth in Barebow can be directly linked to the emergence of Alan Eagleton, then myself, the classic duels Alan and I had, then John Demmer coming onboard from the 3-d ranks, success at the world Chamionships the last two times they were held.


I agree that awesome BB shooters are one of the greatest ways to raise interest in the sport, especially when you and others beat people shooting in more technical bow classes. However, and don't be surprised by this, many people interested in Barebow have never heard of you. :wink:

But, again, *you* are not the biggest area of growth in BB. You and your skill may be a *draw*, a spectacle, but you aren't the people who could attend but currently aren't. Those people haven't been surveyed. USAA could even ask them if they've heard of you and, if so, that makes them want to attend a future BB shoot 

Anyway, nothing I write is meant to diminish or dismiss your skill or accomplishments in any way. But I am saying that just because you like something doesn't mean that something will attract other people.


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

Warbow said:


> Yup. On that you have me
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Good Grief!!! You win.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Beastmaster said:


> Looking at the other side of the coin - when you go and try to get a USAT shirt, are you still a recreational archer?


Oh for pete's sake of course you are. One shirt and an honorary designation is nothing compared to room/board/travel/fees and stipends. Not to mention those who are on contract. Good grief.

Thank you Mike for injecting some common sense in this discussion.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> The tremendous growth in Barebow can be directly linked to the emergence of Alan Eagleton, then myself, the classic duels Alan and I had,


Jesus Ben. Alan made waves alright, but many of us were wowed by Ty and Mark long before we ever knew who you and Alan ever were. Ty and esp. Mark showed up, shot 4-distance fitas and supported the NAA back when NOBODY was shooting 4-distance fitas at Nationals with a barebow.


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

limbwalker said:


> Jesus Ben. Alan made waves alright, but many of us were wowed by Ty and Mark long before we ever knew who you and Alan ever were. Ty and esp. Mark showed up, shot 4-distance fitas and supported the NAA back when NOBODY was shooting 4-distance fitas at Nationals with a barebow.


John, just when I thought it was safe to go back in the water, you show up with your dorsal fin above the surface. I consider Mark a friend but if you were wowed by Mark and especially Ty, then you must be blown away by the current crop of shooters. Whether you ever knew who I was is irrelevant to me because I, and all my peers shooting NFAA archery considered Fita to be second rate archery and it was, compared to the scores we were shooting, albeit with compounds. The irony of it all is that I wouldn't be shooting it now if not for blowing my bow arm to pieces in 2009. The simple fact is that I started shooting recurve again In 2012, after a 39 year absence, and won the USA world trials 6 months later. That was the state of barebow at the time. We all know it has improved greatly since then. John, I appreciate what you have done to get barebow recognized by USA archery, but the fact still remains that I have never met you and wouldn't know you from Adam if we did. You, on the other hand, seem to get some odd pleasure in trying to slight me at every opportunity. I think I am going to do a little serious practicing for this year. Whatever USA archery decides, good luck to all.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

itbeso said:


> John, I appreciate what you have done to get barebow recognized by USA archery, but the fact still remains that I have never met you and wouldn't know you from Adam if we did. You, on the other hand, seem to get some odd pleasure in trying to slight me at every opportunity.


Well, I'd say that we all know each other by our words and actions here in the forum. We are all much more than just that, but what we say and how we say it is something we can justly be judged by, for good or for ill. "For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned."


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

Warbow said:


> Well, I'd say that we all know each other by our words and actions here in the forum. We are all much more than just that, but what we say and how we say it is something we can justly be judged by, for good or for ill. "For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned."


Anyone who judges people by what is said on these forums needs to get out a little more often.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

itbeso said:


> Anyone who judges people by what is said on these forums needs to get out a little more often.


Anyone who thinks they shouldn't be judged on what they post here shouldn't post here.


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

Warbow said:


> Anyone who thinks they shouldn't be judged on what they post here shouldn't post here.


Anyone who cares whether you are judging them must be a little insecure. Of course, a troll by any other name is still a troll. You do have a nasty habit of bringing absolutely nothing to these threads though and since you have managed to bring this one down a level or two, I'll exit and leave you to your own lonely little world. Judge That.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

itbeso said:


> Anyone who cares whether you are judging them must be a little insecure. Of course, a troll by any other name is still a troll. You do have a nasty habit of bringing absolutely nothing to these threads though and since you have managed to bring this one down a level or two, I'll exit and leave you to your own lonely little world. Judge That.


itbeso, you have the chops to bring a lot to these threads and this forum, but let's not pretend that you aren't prone to being cantankerous at times. I know I can be at times, too - something I can reasonably expect to be judged on.

In the mean time, it was not my intent to get into a back and forth spat with you and side track Ms.Speedmaster's thread, and for that I apologize to her.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Ben, I'm sure we will get along just fine when we do finally have a chance to shoot together. But you can't throw statements like "The tremendous growth in Barebow can be directly linked to the emergence of Alan Eagleton, then myself, the classic duels Alan and I had" and expect people who know better to just sit there and read them without responding. Not only is that an incredibly arrogant statement to make, it's not truthful and a lot of people here on this forum (where you chose to post it) know better.

Probably best to just let your accomplishments in this little game we play speak for themselves. As much as Alan has accomplished, or John D or others, you won't ever find them taking credit for anything more than just shooting a decent score, if even that much. Best to leave it to others to measure what impact those scores have on the sport as a whole.

Finally, it's a more than a little disrespectful to those who were shooting USArchery events in the barebow division before you. I mean, how many US Outdoor Nationals or Indoor Nationals have you shot now? Pelfry and Applegate were carrying the banner for barebow for a long, long time within USArchery before any of us ever saw Rogers or Eagleton or Demmer, so you may want to consider that before you start claiming to be the salvation of the division.


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

I haven't as of yet competed barebow at a national event, only NFAA local tournaments. So take my comments with a grain of salt if you will. 

I think that whatever distance and target size is selected, I would like it be unique compared to field, so that the target event won't end up being a practice event for shooting the longest distance one encounters in field. 

60 or 70 meters would be enticing to me coming back from OR. I would prefer 70m, but John made some good points about why 60 was chosen. 

It sounds like the committee that chose 60m put a lot of thought in the process. I think they should stick with it for at least a few years to see how it rolls, unless there was a lot of complaining to USAA by the participants.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## target1 (Jan 16, 2007)

I see all the children have all showed up. Come on kiddos play nice.

We all know the resurgence in BB is due to the media. The resurgence in competitive BB is due to great shooting. But on the other hand great shooting can be discouraging to those that want to but can't.


----------



## Ms.Speedmaster (Dec 10, 2010)

Warbow said:


> In the mean time, it was not my intent to get into a back and forth spat with you and side track Ms.Speedmaster's thread, and for that I apologize to her.


Thank you, Warbow. That's thoughtful and appreciated. 

Something for everyone to keep in mind, is that many of those new BB archers are going to be reading threads like this as they move forward, seeking answers and direction. Just like we all did and do. When I know for sure that the archery community - on the field - is one of the nicest bunches of folk to be around, it would be easy to give quite the opposite impression when reading threads like this. As I jokingly tell some of the kids at JOAD, I'll knock your heads together, if I have to. :tongue: 



target1 said:


> We all know the resurgence in BB is due to the media. The resurgence in competitive BB is due to great shooting. But on the other hand great shooting can be discouraging to those that want to but can't.


Yes!! None of us are in a position to take credit for something that has just come about through London Olympics and the massive exposure through pop culture media. Watch out for another wave this year. 

As I also tell my JOAD kids, just like we can't choose family, we can't always choose who we shoot next to on the line. So we just have to do our best to get along. I also tell them that it would be boring if we were all the same. The fruit basket of life is made up of all kinds of fruit. Which fruit are you? Haha. 

Carry on.


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

limbwalker said:


> Ben, I'm sure we will get along just fine when we do finally have a chance to shoot together. But you can't throw statements like "The tremendous growth in Barebow can be directly linked to the emergence of Alan Eagleton, then myself, the classic duels Alan and I had" and expect people who know better to just sit there and read them without responding. Not only is that an incredibly arrogant statement to make, it's not truthful and a lot of people here on this forum (where you chose to post it) know better.
> 
> Probably best to just let your accomplishments in this little game we play speak for themselves. As much as Alan has accomplished, or John D or others, you won't ever find them taking credit for anything more than just shooting a decent score, if even that much. Best to leave it to others to measure what impact those scores have on the sport as a whole.
> 
> Finally, it's a more than a little disrespectful to those who were shooting USArchery events in the barebow division before you. I mean, how many US Outdoor Nationals or Indoor Nationals have you shot now? Pelfry and Applegate were carrying the banner for barebow for a long, long time within USArchery before any of us ever saw Rogers or Eagleton or Demmer, so you may want to consider that before you start claiming to be the salvation of the division.


Being PC and only saying things that people want to hear is definitely not my style. The problem doesn't lie with me, it is in the minds of people who can't handle the blunt truth. There is a big difference between carrying the banner for something and actually promoting it to bring in other competitors. Some of us actually enjoy the competition rather than trying to keep it a secret in order to be a big fish in a small pond. I stand by my "arrogant"comments as to why this barebow class has taken off. In the past, we had "Rambo", Robin Hood, and other movies that had no effect on the barebow class. Don't tell me that the current crop of movies have been the reason behind the resurgence of the barebow class. That is an insult to me and every other hard working barebow archer out there. What is telling to me is that the critics on here are not those that show up and compete on a championship level, or for most, any level. There is always a few who try to knock anyone at the top. Sad.


----------

