# 2014 NFAA Meeting Agenda Items posted



## ccwilder3 (Sep 13, 2003)

I'm in the process of writing my director an email right now. about the only one I agree with is creating a national target championship.


----------



## r49740 (Dec 7, 2006)

A couple don't make sense to me. The first is counting x's as 6. Even at the pro level, there wasn't ever a whole lot of 560s shot in either of the rounds. Just my opinion. The second, and seems really, really pretty lame to me is buying a championship bowl. If a class doesn't have more than a couple people to cover the cost, then the class should be eliminated to begin with, or combined with something else. But to go to a National event, and buy a championship bowl?? It was stated a couple times on the first few pages that other major sports don't get a mulligan day.. well I'm pretty sure that no other sport, major or minor, allows participants to buy championship bowls. Just out of curiosity, how many archers in a class are needed to cover the cost of a bowl to begin with?


----------



## spotshot (Jan 18, 2005)

The NFAA has to just cut or combine classes with only a handful of shooters or just give out medals and maybe get rid of the flights why give out a first place medal for coming in 75th place that makes no sence to me.The 3/5 at nationals is another thing if you shoot a 545 on weds and you want to shoot sat then give up your 545 and shoot sat and if you shoot a 510 oh well,why have the choice for taking the higher score.


----------



## KMBH (Aug 6, 2012)

Good point on the lack of 560's r49740.

I cannot believe that making the x a 6 is on the table. I have heard many changes to scoring and number of arrows proposed to get more participation back in field. The response is always not to mess with tradition. If the x is now a six, then break up the other rings so the guys shooting a 16 just out of the bull can get scoring separation from the guys all over the 4 ring.


----------



## wa-prez (Sep 9, 2006)

I was wondering when people would get around to discussing the NFAA Agenda Items. Washington has had them posted on our web site forum with polls for each of the Agenda Items, so we can let the State Director know our opinion.

I also didn't see many of these items that I'd like to see passed.


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

KMBH said:


> Good point on the lack of 560's r49740.
> 
> I cannot believe that making the x a 6 is on the table. I have heard many changes to scoring and number of arrows proposed to get more participation back in field. The response is always not to mess with tradition. If the x is now a six, then break up the other rings so the guys shooting a 16 just out of the bull can get scoring separation from the guys all over the 4 ring.


I don't think there has been even ONE 560 in any of the amateur divisions...barring Jesse Broadwater when he was a CUB years ago. So, why the need to mess with the scoring by going to the X as "6" points? Just remember the huge target change of 1976...and what it did to NFAA membership and participation at major outdoor events...State, Sectionals, and Nationals. The NFAA has never recovered from it.

As far as the Pros go, that is fine. It sure didn't allow them to be closer and for people to stand a chance to "catch up" if they shot a 4, however...last year's outdoor nationals was over in the Men's Pro division after Day 1...the winner was cut and dried, as was 2nd place...it was, last year, basically a slaughter.

The easier thing to do, if they want to feed people's egos by "score separation" is simple...the round is already on the books anyway. EXPERT scoring on the field round of 5-4-3-2-1 by using ALL of the rings. Then, it is a simple process to put the scoring lines onto the hunter faces and score the hunter round 5-4-3-2-1 and make people pay for "big misses." No need to pull off what was pulled off in 1976 and make the already difficult rounds more difficult just because the Pros want it that way...and they really only want it that way for the PROS ONLY.

With regard to the Senior Division...it took years for the NFAA to standardize the ages with the rest of the planet. Why would "they" want to go back now, after only one year? 56 year olds (some of them) don't like being out-scored by 50 year olds...and the mainstream Pros perhaps don't want to lose the "easier pickings" by the 50-54 year olds moving to Senior Pro?

Some of the other items are so unclear and vague that they likely won't get anywhere.

If you are interested, and want the items either passed or defeated...only YOU can determine this by telling your Director your feelings and how you want them to vote on each and every agenda item. If you don't get involved, then don't pee and moan when/if the changes get passed through.

field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## Rolo (Dec 16, 2002)

I can see some amendments coming...


----------



## KMBH (Aug 6, 2012)

Tom D,

I am unsure if you got my poor attempt at being facetious. My only point was that I have listened to about a bazillion (literally) suggestions on how to "save" field archery (I did not start until 1985 so I was not participating in '76). And the other side that refuses to change anything. I would like to see it stay the way it is. BUT, if changes are going to be made to something as fundamental as scoring (and thereby eliminating a longstanding course record for my club), then go ahead and change it to something with mass appeal...whatever that is.


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

KMBH said:


> Tom D,
> 
> I am unsure if you got my poor attempt at being facetious. My only point was that I have listened to about a bazillion (literally) suggestions on how to "save" field archery (I did not start until 1985 so I was not participating in '76). And the other side that refuses to change anything. I would like to see it stay the way it is. BUT, if changes are going to be made to something as fundamental as scoring (and thereby eliminating a longstanding course record for my club), then go ahead and change it to something with mass appeal...whatever that is.


If you and I, and the paid up members of the NFAA just sit back and don't give our State Directors and our Councilmen feedback on what we want them to do, then you and I and paid up members of the NFAA have only ourselves to blame when "changes" are made that we no more wanted changed than the man in the moon!

Myself, I'm not afraid to say that as far as the proposal to change to the "X" counting 6 points for "everyone" goes, I'm vehemently against it. It is fine for the Pros to go that route, as, IMHO, finally, there is a "graduation step" to turning Pro. Sorta like moving back to a longer distance in trap shooting, etc., or moving to the Championship Tees in golf. Fine and dandy...for the PROS.
However, memories of 1976 still haunt me (and a lot of those that were around back then), and forcing the 6-ring scoring down to everyone, IMHO is a very dangerous and unnecessary change and should be avoided.
There isn't a high enough % of perfect 560's being shot to warrant this in all divisions across the board, period. People may disagree with this, and so be it; they have that right. Simply no need to make the rounds tougher than they already are.

field14 (tom D.)


----------



## SonnyThomas (Sep 10, 2006)

Tom, you and some others made some good points. Just about the time I try to talk myself back into shooting spots something comes up and pffttt, I've got better things to do. Just like our state, Illinois, the Outdoor target championship was cut to a one championship and more people shot it and paid the same price for two days and not one word objecting. A step in the right direction and I doubt there will another.
I liked shooting Field/Hunter, but 6 for the X? Since the new target, how many 560s have been shot?
Isn't there a target that was approved for one venue and has never been used?


----------



## rn3 (Jan 4, 2008)

field14 said:


> If you and I, and the paid up members of the NFAA just sit back and don't give our State Directors and our Councilmen feedback on what we want them to do, then you and I and paid up members of the NFAA have only ourselves to blame when "changes" are made that we no more wanted changed than the man in the moon!
> 
> Myself, I'm not afraid to say that as far as the proposal to change to the "X" counting 6 points for "everyone" goes, I'm vehemently against it. It is fine for the Pros to go that route, as, IMHO, finally, there is a "graduation step" to turning Pro. Sorta like moving back to a longer distance in trap shooting, etc., or moving to the Championship Tees in golf. Fine and dandy...for the PROS.
> However, memories of 1976 still haunt me (and a lot of those that were around back then), and forcing the 6-ring scoring down to everyone, IMHO is a very dangerous and unnecessary change and should be avoided.
> ...


You are right, that scoring change pretty much killed field archery imo


----------



## rsw (May 22, 2002)

Buying bowls? Just like the local shoots where a club can't afford the awards for the 4 times too many classes and divisions. It is high time the NFAA eliminates all these crazy award requirements. Modernize the organization and just go to sights and barebow - one senior division - eliminate bowhunter FS as it is just an offshoot of FS - and so on. At the national level, there should be only a minimal number of champions, not 100 or more. Here, we have several people who are state champions every year because they are the only shooter in their class - it is ridiculous.


----------



## rsw (May 22, 2002)

I am not so sure we shouldn't make a significant change again, like 1976. The organization is dying on the vine anyway. Change the competitive structure, change the rounds to save time, money, resource, asset, and maintenance requirements and then just start over again. I wish I could be the czar but I would probably kill field archery by eliminating the animal round, which has almost become the only determinant round today, and changing the spot rounds to international hunter and field.


----------



## rn3 (Jan 4, 2008)

Go to a class system and take equipment out of it. If you win a major competion in your class you automatically move up and can't go down till you shoot a number of scores in competition below your present class.


----------



## SonnyThomas (Sep 10, 2006)

rn3 said:


> Go to a class system and take equipment out of it. If you win a major competion in your class you automatically move up and can't go down till you shoot a number of scores in competition below your present class.


??????????????


----------



## Pete53 (Dec 5, 2011)

lots of good ideals,the dying vine thing could change if the NFAA would open their eyes change some rules get the MSAA in Minnesota and those other states back in the NFAA. "simple thing to do but the NFAA is just to stubborn for change " we are talking about a few thousand members maybe ?


----------



## TNMAN (Oct 6, 2009)

Pete53 said:


> lots of good ideals,the dying vine thing could change if the NFAA would open their eyes change some rules get the MSAA in Minnesota and those other states back in the NFAA. "simple thing to do but the NFAA is just to stubborn for change " we are talking about a few thousand members maybe ?


I honestly don't understand. 

You have posted this numerous times. Can/Will you explain exactly what is this "simple thing" that the NFAA needs to do or change to gain these few thousand new members in MN.


----------



## ccwilder3 (Sep 13, 2003)

The NFAA is growing. Membership was up 4.5% last year. It is not dieing.

The NFAA is unique from USA Archery in that it has many classes that allow shooters to compete against others who shoot the same equipment.

Despite the Olympics and the press coverage that USA Archery receive they still only have about 60% of the membership that the NFAA has.

I've yet to hear how eliminating the different classes and all the members that shoot in those classes will help the NFAA.


----------



## rn3 (Jan 4, 2008)

SonnyThomas said:


> ??????????????


Shoot whatever equipment you like, you are classed by your scores not equipment.


----------



## rsw (May 22, 2002)

Eliminating classes with one or two shooters, which is rampant in many states, has forced many clubs to forego field archery events. Registration fees to cover awards for all those classes eliminates those who would like to shoot. Today there are awards for 1 out of 3 shooters because of all the goofy classes. It may not be necessary to eliminate those classes, but make them compete against related classes if there are not 5 or more shooters in the class. Then the club could afford to host a shoot. As it is today, the club loses money over award costs (and because too few can afford to pay the registration fees anymore so there are only 15 or so shooters that come). The cost of maintaining a field archery range in terms of manpower, land, and maintenance can no longer be regained from tournament income - most field archery clubs have closed down or changed to 3d to survive. The few remaining field archer facilities are now just membership practice ranges where no events are even held.

If NFAA membership is growing (I doubt it), the sectional, state, and national events don't reflect it. Most of our members only do so to get the club insurance. Field is dying (or dead) in most states (not all). Our hostoric 12 field archery clubs is now down to three. There are a few states with no field clubs anymore. There are lots of other reasons besides the NFAA structure itself, but refusal to modernize is a significant part of the problem. All issues combined make it virtually impossible to bring field archery back to its glory days. 

Field archery is much more fun than target archery, but USA has it right with the minimal number of divisions and classes where a winner can almost be determined whereas at a field event there is no winner.


----------



## SonnyThomas (Sep 10, 2006)

rsw said:


> *The cost of maintaining a field archery range in terms of manpower, land, and maintenance can no longer be regained from tournament income - most field archery clubs have closed down or changed to 3d to survive.* The few remaining field archer facilities are now just membership practice ranges where no events are even held.
> .


Here ^^^^

Almost killed a club and left it crippled. Yeah, some "Charged up NFAA" members who came into power wanted Field and "robbed" money from the 3D side of the club to upgrade the Field side. As a result, no money to keep 3D targets upgraded and 3D crowd started complaining and went to "greener pastures." The club never had outstanding attendance for Field to begin with and never really had outstanding attendance even for the State Championship. 
Years have past now and still the club is hard pressed to draw 35 shooters for a 3D where at one time a 80 to 100 was the norm. What didn't help was another 3D range start up that gave the club's former attendies a place to shoot. Another thing that didn't help was going with ASA rules when the club had been NFAA since starting up. Okay, people came expecting the class they normally shot in and then faced with something new. People don't like new... People want to have fun, not faced with a "different" class or different stake to shoot from. Me, I've shot so many clubs and went with NFAA, IBO, and ASA rules so much I don't care.
Class names I've competed in; Unlimited, Free Style, MBO, Special Equipment and all with the same bow set up. 

How "Charged up" were the those that came into power? One went so far to try to tell me (Sec/Trea at time of another NFAA club) that we weren't going by NFAA rules. And it was said rather sternly. What it was, our club has had a Women's stake for years and years, where by the NFAA rules women shoot from the mens' comp stake. My reply was; "The NFAA doesn't run our club. We do." 
IE, club rules rule.....These are put in place because they work and support the majority of the club's attendance. 

I would note that the club I'm first member of foremost has never changed one dang thing even though we are now solely a ASA club (once a solely NFAA club). Our colored stakes are the same and our classes are the same. We never even changed class names when the NFAA changed them back in ??? 1997, I think. Not at the club to see, but I had the classes posted for years. Unlimited, CBFSR, CBFSF and so on.... I can get a copy that shows exact dates. 

Whatever it is, our club continues to be the highest drawing club in a surrounding area of at least 70 miles. Within this 70 mile range there are some 18 clubs..... This year our club will be celebrating it's 50th Anniversary.


----------



## Rolo (Dec 16, 2002)

rsw said:


> Eliminating classes with one or two shooters, which is rampant in many states, has forced many clubs to forego field archery events. Registration fees to cover awards for all those classes eliminates those who would like to shoot. Today there are awards for 1 out of 3 shooters because of all the goofy classes. It may not be necessary to eliminate those classes, but make them compete against related classes if there are not 5 or more shooters in the class. Then the club could afford to host a shoot. As it is today, the club loses money over award costs (and because too few can afford to pay the registration fees anymore so there are only 15 or so shooters that come). The cost of maintaining a field archery range in terms of manpower, land, and maintenance can no longer be regained from tournament income - most field archery clubs have closed down or changed to 3d to survive. The few remaining field archer facilities are now just membership practice ranges where no events are even held.


Admittedly, I waffle back and forth on the issue. Too many classes, and too many awards...eliminate some of them. Too many classes and too many awards...combine some of them. Too many classes and too many awards...get rid of them all and go with the World Archery format.

I have no idea what the solution is, if there is even one. I think part of it comes down to what is viewed as the 'purpose' of the NFAA...which is the only member driven archery organization that I am aware of. It was not intended to be a business like other orgs...heck, it's modeled after the government, which may have been a good idea when the government made sense.

But, like with the government, everyone, at least it appears, in the NFAA wants to have their own piece of the pie. Long bow guys wanted a separate class from the recurve guys...they got it. Traditional, old school, shooting methods, that the NFAA was founded on, have long since lost their luster and their participation. Yet, they hang on, and have a pretty vocal following.

So, with the premise that the NFAA exists to promote archery and provide venues to shoot archery, the elimination of classes would seem to run counter to that purpose. It either eliminates the person, they chose to quit competing or requires the person to change their style. Or of course, assuming a rule tweak, they could keep right on shooting in a different class, even though they don't shoot with all the 'advantages'. But, everyone wants to 'compete' for a bowl, so that hinders them, and since it is a member driven org, and since those who yell the loudest are often the ones who are rewarded...the cycle continues.

I y tending to the solution that similar classes are combined based on the number of persons registered for those classes as potentially the best way to go. Have no idea what the minimum number is. However, I think the thought is that the older classes, those that are not as popular, will be the ones that are combined with a 'higher' class. For example only (cuz I got no idea how it would be broken down of what to combine with what based on numbers) but let's say that bare bow and recurve are to be combined when registration numbers for one of those do not meet the minimum. Can you imagine the circus that would be created if the recurve registration was well in excess of the minimum, but there were only 2 or 3 bare bow registrants? They all get grouped together, and a technological advantage is created to few over the many, who don't want to shoot in that 'higher' class to begin with.

The same example could apply to FS and Bowhunter FS. I agree that for the indoor game, they are pretty darned similar. For the outdoor game, especially Field, not so much.

I'm rambling now, but it is a difficult issue, and I don't see a simple solution. Elimination of classes makes good business sense, but doesn't make sense when the historical purpose of the NFAA is examined. That is not to say history rules the day, just that there appears to be a conflict between the two, and the purpose may still have a legitimate place in the decision making process today, regardless of the history.


----------



## montigre (Oct 13, 2008)

rsw said:


> Buying bowls? Just like the local shoots where a club can't afford the awards for the 4 times too many classes and divisions. It is high time the NFAA eliminates all these crazy award requirements. Modernize the organization and just go to sights and barebow - one senior division - eliminate bowhunter FS as it is just an offshoot of FS - and so on. At the national level, there should be only a minimal number of champions, not 100 or more. Here, we have several people who are state champions every year because they are the only shooter in their class - it is ridiculous.


Agree 100% and I have not been shooting nearly as long as the majority posting. I bothers me to no end that a state or national championship has little meaning now because of the fact that anyone who can point a bow at a target and have their arrow stick somewhere on the face can end up being called champion because they were able to enter or jump to a class/division with no competition. Allowing so many champions of 1 hurts the entire organization and minimizes the effort made by those archers who practiced hard, put in the string time, and shot in competitive classes. 

NFAA really needs to cut the chaff and eliminate those classes with fewer than 10 participants at a national competition.


----------



## Rolo (Dec 16, 2002)

montigre said:


> Agree 100% and I have not been shooting nearly as long as the majority posting. I bothers me to no end that a state or national championship has little meaning now because of the fact that anyone who can point a bow at a target and have their arrow stick somewhere on the face can end up being called champion because they were able to enter or jump to a class/division with no competition. Allowing so many champions of 1 hurts the entire organization and minimizes the effort made by those archers who practiced hard, put in the string time, and shot in competitive classes.
> 
> NFAA really needs to cut the chaff and eliminate those classes with fewer than 10 participants at a national competition.


All good points. Though, I'm not much the number of champions actually hurts the organization. Within the org and archery community, there is certainly a perception of a watered down significance. However, I think within the archery community, at least the informed portion of it, the significance of the championships is also recognized. With no intent to offend anyone, most all archers, at least those with a modicum of knowledge, recognize the significant difference between the FS champion and the bare bow champion. Maybe there is some significance, probably ego influenced, between the FS champion and comparisons to the BB champion, but I'm not sure it matters in the big scheme.

Maybe, rather than cutting classes, or combining them, re-defining them is a better way of doing it. I have no idea, but these are obviously issues that need to be discussed, with all ideas on the table, without feelings getting hurt, and some plan coming from it.

I'm not sure that is even reasonably possible based of current structure of the NFAA. Vegas, for example, seems to run a lot smoother and with limited classes. That was all arrived at with fewer people making the decisions...


----------



## ccwilder3 (Sep 13, 2003)

Florida gives medals. They cost practically nothing. A single entry fee will pay for the medals for that class. If clubs are buying big expensive trophies, that's their own fault.

What would be the purpose of the NFAA if all they did was mirror USA Archery. Why would anyone want to join the NFAA?


----------



## Rolo (Dec 16, 2002)

ccwilder3 said:


> Florida gives medals. They cost practically nothing. A single entry fee will pay for the medals for that class. If clubs are buying big expensive trophies, that's their own fault.
> 
> What would be the purpose of the NFAA if all they did was mirror USA Archery. Why would anyone want to join the NFAA?


All good points on the other side of the spectrum. No a simple solution at all.

I get the sense, and this is just my impression, that ego plays a role. A "national champion" is different, and should be recognized as being different, if there are 300 people in a class, compared to 1 or 2. I also think there is ego on the other side too, people who want to be "champions" and seek out the class that is the easiest route to becoming one, so they can call themselves "champions". I don't think this applies to everyone who shoots in the less populated classes, but also know that it does apply...


----------



## target1 (Jan 16, 2007)

Howabout just 3 classes: Compound, Recurve and Trad. 3 age groups: Kids, Adults and Seniors. That's it, period. No gender classes or any other group, unless you want para.


----------



## ccwilder3 (Sep 13, 2003)

Rolo said:


> All good points on the other side of the spectrum. No a simple solution at all.
> 
> I get the sense, and this is just my impression, that ego plays a role. A "national champion" is different, and should be recognized as being different, if there are 300 people in a class, compared to 1 or 2. I also think there is ego on the other side too, people who want to be "champions" and seek out the class that is the easiest route to becoming one, so they can call themselves "champions". I don't think this applies to everyone who shoots in the less populated classes, but also know that it does apply...


I understand what you are saying and agree that there may be some who do this. However should we punish someone who has dedicated most of their adult life to a particular shooting style just to keep one or two less competitive people from winning a class. If it bothers someone so much let them get the same equipment and shoot in that class if it is so easy and take that trophy away from the others.

For my part, I'm happy with every person who comes to compete, regardless of the class they shoot in or how many shoot in that class. At least they cared enough to show up. I hope to compete in the in the indoor nationals this year knowing that I have little chance of winning. It doesn't bother me at all that there will be some classes where there are only 2 or 3 participants and they will all place. They will get a pat on the back from me and a heartfelt congratulations.


----------



## ccwilder3 (Sep 13, 2003)

target1 said:


> Howabout just 3 classes: Compound, Recurve and Trad. 3 age groups: Kids, Adults and Seniors. That's it, period. No gender classes or any other group, unless you want para.


That is pretty close to how USA archery does it. At the USA Archery National Field Championship they had 68 participants. At the NFAA National Field Championship 326 showed up. Which do you prefer?


----------



## Rolo (Dec 16, 2002)

ccwilder3 said:


> I understand what you are saying and agree that there may be some who do this. However should we punish someone who has dedicated most of their adult life to a particular shooting style just to keep one or two less competitive people from winning a class. If it bothers someone so much let them get the same equipment and shoot in that class if it is so easy and take that trophy away from the others.
> 
> For my part, I'm happy with every person who comes to compete, regardless of the class they shoot in or how many shoot in that class. At least they cared enough to show up. I hope to compete in the in the indoor nationals this year knowing that I have little chance of winning. It doesn't bother me at all that there will be some classes where there are only 2 or 3 participants and they will all place. They will get a pat on the back from me and a heartfelt congratulations.


I can't say I disagree with any of that. That's why I don't think there is a simple solution to this issue, and a workable solution is way above my grade. :darkbeer:


----------



## Bees (Jan 28, 2003)

what does this one mean?? 
looks like the President wants to have the Board of directors dictate what you will shoot at the Outdoor Nationals Championship. .
Or is this the creation of a totally different outdoor national target championship, in addition to the one already existing???
View attachment 1845744


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

I interpret it as having a separate "outdoor National Target" tournament in addition to the NFAA Outdoor National FIELD Tournament.

THere is also an agenda item to prevent changing the Indoor Nationals to a different target face. There was a "move" attempted to change the NFAA 5-spot target now used and to put in a "new" tougher target face where an inside out X would be 7 points, and X would be six points, etc.
I have seen and shot the target, and while it is nice, it sure isn't needed. The % of 60X rounds is far too low, based upon total scores shot to merit making it any "tougher" on the Average Joes that pay the bills for the tournaments. The % of perfect 120 X 600's at the National Indoor is even LOWER...as in approximately 0.75% (based upon 2,000 shooters and 4,000 scores actually shot)...WHY would anyone in their right minds want to make the indoor target tougher for only 0.75% of those participating?

Of course, that is just my take on this, and I know there are those that think that indoor shooting on the NFAA 5-spot face is as boring as watching paint dry..but most all of those that are bored rarely shoot 60X 300's and even fewer shoot 120X 600's, so.....

The item to which you refer is vague, however, and I sure can see the room for interpretations of a change to the NFAA National Outdoor FIELD tournament; in addition to everyone having to score 6 for the X, 5 for the spot, etc. Again, the % of perfect 560's is extremely low, especially for the Amateur Divisions..as in ZERO 560's being shot in Amateur in all the National Outdoor Field tournaments held since 1977??? Or if there have been any 560's, you can count them on one hand. So why go to 6-ring scoring to please such a low % of scores? Memories of 1976 should come flowing forth and set this proposal back to reason.


----------



## Bees (Jan 28, 2003)

field14 said:


> I interpret it as having a separate "outdoor National Target" tournament in addition to the NFAA Outdoor National FIELD Tournament.
> 
> THere is also an agenda item to prevent changing the Indoor Nationals to a different target face. There was a "move" attempted to change the NFAA 5-spot target now used and to put in a "new" tougher target face where an inside out X would be 7 points, and X would be six points, etc.
> I have seen and shot the target, and while it is nice, it sure isn't needed. The % of 60X rounds is far too low, based upon total scores shot to merit making it any "tougher" on the Average Joes that pay the bills for the tournaments. The % of perfect 120 X 600's at the National Indoor is even LOWER...as in approximately 0.75% (based upon 2,000 shooters and 4,000 scores actually shot)...WHY would anyone in their right minds want to make the indoor target tougher for only 0.75% of those participating?
> ...


So your thinking it's an additional outdoor tournament, not a replacement for the existing Outdoor National tournament.
the agenda is very vague.


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

Bees said:


> So your thinking it's an additional outdoor tournament, not a replacement for the existing Outdoor National tournament.
> the agenda is very vague.


Yes. But don't bank on me being correct...Talk with your NFAA State Director, maybe he/she would know what this means, but then again...it is so vague that....he/she may not know its intent either. Normally, vague or improperly written agenda items are tossed and never make it to the floor for a vote.

field14


----------



## Rolo (Dec 16, 2002)

Bees said:


> So your thinking it's an additional outdoor tournament, not a replacement for the existing Outdoor National tournament.
> the agenda is very vague.


That's how I am interpreting it too.


----------



## Bees (Jan 28, 2003)

field14 said:


> Yes. But don't bank on me being correct...Talk with your NFAA State Director, maybe he/she would know what this means, but then again...it is so vague that....he/she may not know its intent either. Normally, vague or improperly written agenda items are tossed and never make it to the floor for a vote.
> 
> field14


Well since this particular one was submitted by the President of the NFAA, I would think it has a better than average chance of making it to the floor for a vote..


----------



## target1 (Jan 16, 2007)

Bees said:


> Well since this particular one was submitted by the President of the NFAA, I would think it has a better than average chance of making it to the floor for a vote..


Bruce has a way of getting what he wants


----------



## Rolo (Dec 16, 2002)

Bees said:


> Well since this particular one was submitted by the President of the NFAA, I would think it has a better than average chance of making it to the floor for a vote..


I'd venture a guess that every agenda item makes it to the floor, regardless of what the committee does...


----------



## wa-prez (Sep 9, 2006)

Bees said:


> So your thinking it's an additional outdoor tournament, not a replacement for the existing Outdoor National tournament. The agenda is very vague.


Yes, use of the word "Target" in the Agenda Item would imply that this is an event similar to the NFAA's "American 900" round or the "Classic" round they now shoot.

The American 900 is 90 arrows, shot at three distances - 60, 50, and 40 yards for adults. 30 arrows are shot at each distance, in 5 ends of 6 arrows each, sometimes going to 3-arrow ends at the closer distance. Target is the 122cm diameter international target.

The Classic is very similar, except the distances are shot with the closest first, and the target is (I think) 92cm diameter.

This would be IN ADDITION to the "Outdoor" (field) tournament.

Or maybe they would do a Field in some years, Target in others?


----------



## rock monkey (Dec 28, 2002)

target1 said:


> Bruce has a way of getting what he wants


you have to pass it to find out what is in it.

call me a kook, but leaving an agenda item so vague on purpose just doesnt seem right.

somethin in the outhouse dont smell right.


----------



## archer_nm (Mar 29, 2004)

All agenda items will get to the floor this year, since there are no committees


----------



## rohpenguins (Dec 2, 2012)

I like the idea of having an x count as 6. It rewards better shots and leaves some room for recovery from one errant shot. Look at the indoor 300 round at 300 with 0x beats a 299 59x. or make the 5 ring smaller like a fita compound 10 ring. As for participation most people shoot tournaments because they enjoy the format and being around other shooters. Look at the r100 3d novelty shoots. Scoring is easy limited classes and really no winner and these events are packed. Wonder why????? Because they are fun and isn't that the real reason to be shooting to begin with.


----------



## Rolo (Dec 16, 2002)

archer_nm said:


> All agenda items will get to the floor this year, since there are no committees


Well that makes sense...since they pretty much all get there anyway. :wink: It also explains a lot.


----------



## SonnyThomas (Sep 10, 2006)

rohpenguins said:


> I like the idea of having an x count as 6. It rewards better shots and leaves some room for recovery from one errant shot. *Look at the indoor 300 round at 300 with 0x beats a 299 59x.* or make the 5 ring smaller like a fita compound 10 ring. As for participation most people shoot tournaments because they enjoy the format and being around other shooters. Look at the r100 3d novelty shoots. Scoring is easy limited classes and really no winner and these events are packed. Wonder why????? Because they are fun and isn't that the real reason to be shooting to begin with.


In bold, not a impossibility, but getting beat my 1 point is better than getting slapped in the face with a 58 point win. And then have the front runners run that much more out front and those in the back just might "play" elsewhere....or not at all.


----------



## Pete53 (Dec 5, 2011)

yes, i agree with the x counting as a point, example again x as 1 point possible 360 makes more sense makes archery kinda more exciting and yes it does help maybe with one small mistake for an amatuer.we all know the pro`s will be clean anyway so why not. a another example a sloppy- lucky 300 30x in my book should never beat a 299 50 x ! when a sloppy 300 low x-count wins it does kinda hurt target archery. but i suppose its hard to change and make it better for our future archer`s.also look at the lucky dog class in Vegas isn`t that kinda letting in a person with a mistake back in to compete again with the top pro`s?but i would also like to see the arrow size go back to the 23 size if they change scoring to 360 in a 300 game.


----------



## Rolo (Dec 16, 2002)

SonnyThomas said:


> In bold, not a impossibility, but getting beat my 1 point is better than getting slapped in the face with a 58 point win. And then have the front runners run that much more out front and those in the back just might "play" elsewhere....or not at all.


Same scoring example...a 275 55x still wins...even though five '0s' were shot. So, shoot the wrong face after the switch 5 times, and you can still win...


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

Pete53 said:


> yes, i agree with the x counting as a point, example again x as 1 point possible 360 makes more sense makes archery kinda more exciting and yes it does help maybe with one small mistake for an amatuer.we all know the pro`s will be clean anyway so why not. a another example a sloppy- lucky 300 30x in my book should never beat a 299 50 x ! when a sloppy 300 low x-count wins it does kinda hurt target archery. but i suppose its hard to change and make it better for our future archer`s.also look at the lucky dog class in Vegas isn`t that kinda letting in a person with a mistake back in to compete again with the top pro`s?but i would also like to see the arrow size go back to the 23 size if they change scoring to 360 in a 300 game.


IF everyone knows which scoring system is used going in, then absoutely a 300 with ONE X should and will beat a 299 with 50X...the one with 50X screwed up. Don't miss the big picture or you will lose to somebody that doesn't miss the big picture but may not hit the pixels.

Doesn't hurt target archery at all when somebody with a lower X count but hits all 60 into the main bullseye wins over somebody that screws one up but hits the big middle all 60 times. I"ve seen it happen many, many times...and happens all the time at the indoor nats, too. I know people that have shot 59X 295's, too. I know people that have scored 60X, 299's because they shot a six arrow end by not paying attention...all 61 shots in the X-ring...BUT...you score the lowest 5 arrows and deduct one point for the extra arrow! So are you saying that the guy shooting the 60X 299 because of a "little snafu" should WIN over a guy with a 59X -300? I don't think you'd like that at all.

There was a Vegas win only a few short years ago in the shootoff. Everyone had scored 900's at Vegas. Fine. The guy that ultimately won....had by far the lowest "X-count" of anyone that shot the perfect 900...and he kicked butt in the shootdown. The rules were known up front...and he pulled out the victory by shooting the X's, "the way they are counted at the time."

We could go on and on for hours...and get nowhere. We just gotta quit thinking so much about making it tougher for the best shooters and making it discouraging, or nearly impossible for the average joes. We cannot afford another debacle with regard to targets and scoring like the debacle created in 1976. Don't need to ruin INDOORS and have it suffer the fate of the FIELD shooting and the subsequent loss of membership and participation because it became utterly too difficult for the average joes...so they flocked elsewhere...and straight to 3-D instead or took up fishing, ha


----------



## r49740 (Dec 7, 2006)

rohpenguins said:


> I like the idea of having an x count as 6. It rewards better shots and leaves some room for recovery from one errant shot. Look at the indoor 300 round at 300 with 0x beats a 299 59x. or make the 5 ring smaller like a fita compound 10 ring. As for participation most people shoot tournaments because they enjoy the format and being around other shooters. Look at the r100 3d novelty shoots. Scoring is easy limited classes and really no winner and these events are packed. Wonder why????? Because they are fun and isn't that the real reason to be shooting to begin with.


We have a shooter in our neck of the woods that wants the same thing, probably because he never has and won't practice correctly to shoot a 300. But how is the shooter that missed the biggest spot the better shooter of the two?


----------



## SonnyThomas (Sep 10, 2006)

Rolo said:


> Same scoring example...a 275 55x still wins...even though five '0s' were shot. So, shoot the wrong face after the switch 5 times, and you can still win...


Lost me. You're saying that a person that major screwed up should win over the person that shot clean and no Xs?

At least in the NFAA if there is a tie there's a shoot off to determine a winner. And there is the ASA with taking X number of the top shooters, regardless of score, and having a shoot off to determine 1st thru whatever. Personally, if I shoot high score then I shot high score and I don't want to shoot off with anyone to prove that I won. But, the ASA rules are there to read and you don't like them, don't shoot....


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

r49740 said:


> We have a shooter in our neck of the woods that wants the same thing, probably because he never has and won't practice correctly to shoot a 300. But how is the shooter that missed the biggest spot the better shooter of the two?


He isn't...but HE/SHE that shot the low x-count 300 didn't make the BIG mistake...not even once, but you did so get over it. Do NOT miss the next time or it will happen to you again, haha.

Just like in any sport...the BEST doesn't always win, period. He/she that makes the fewest BIG mistakes usually comes out on top...and sometimes not even then. The way it is with any competition. You know the requirements are to NOT MISS the BIG spot and if you do and somebody else doesn't...regardless of the "little things" you LOSE...you knew it before you started...so get on with life...and don't make such a HUGE mistake the next time. You hear it all the time about "the best one didn't win." So? Obviously the "best" wasn't quite the "best" and made too many mental errors, or goof ups, played bad defense, or whatever...and Lost...Lots of people think Auburn was the "better team"...well...not quite good enough on "D" and "O" last night, so they lost.

I cannot count how many times I shot 299's with higher x-counts than the winner(s) that shot 300's. Same with Vegas 450's too. Higher baby X count, but I made one or two BIG mistakes and paid the price. Same thing can be expanded upon...with X-count, too. So, what's next, counting Inside outs...expand that...what's after that, "My inside outs were more "in" than yours were, so I should win instead of you?"
Shrinking the target hurts the average joe and discourages them enormously! They would rather quit than have to grind through standing absolutely Zero chance of even competing at all. They WILL leave archery if this make it tougher idea is allowed to continue.
Then you hot dogs will be by yourselves...with a mere pittance of participation...and how will you pay the bills? With your egos? That won't get you far.

field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## r49740 (Dec 7, 2006)

field14 said:


> He isn't...but HE/SHE that shot the low x-count 300 didn't make the BIG mistake...not even once, but you did so get over it. Do NOT miss the next time or it will happen to you again, haha.
> 
> Just like in any sport...the BEST doesn't always win, period. He/she that makes the fewest BIG mistakes usually comes out on top...and sometimes not even then. The way it is with any competition. You know the requirements are to NOT MISS the BIG spot and if you do and somebody else doesn't...regardless of the "little things" you LOSE...you knew it before you started...so get on with life...and don't make such a HUGE mistake the next time. You hear it all the time about "the best one didn't win." So? Obviously the "best" wasn't quite the "best" and made too many mental errors, or goof ups, played bad defense, or whatever...and Lost...Lots of people think Auburn was the "better team"...well...not quite good enough on "D" and "O" last night, so they lost.
> 
> ...


Actually I'm not a hot dog, and I pay the bills based on my career. Maybe you misread what I wrote, but if you read it again, you will probably see that you didn't need to write a paragraph degrading me when we are saying the same thing.


----------



## markdenis (Sep 7, 2010)

Counting 6 for the X wouldn't be to bad if everyone had their own target to shoot at. But that is not the way it is in field archery. If you put four pros shooting at one 40 yard target, there is a very good chance all would hit the X-ring. That would be 16 arrows in the X-ring which by the way won't fit. In my opinion, counting 6 for an X with four people shooting at the same target will many times come down to luck and hope you are not the one with kiss-outs. 

The invention of five spot indoor targets is a result of kiss-outs. Maybe we should just go back to the single indoor target too!

I think it is a rule with not much thought put into it. It makes me think it is a rule put into place because of a top shooter winning most of the time, and the only way to beat him/her is change the game, turn it into luck and hope a different winner ends up on top.


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

r49740 said:


> Actually I'm not a hot dog, and I pay the bills based on my career. Maybe you misread what I wrote, but if you read it again, you will probably see that you didn't need to write a paragraph degrading me when we are saying the same thing.


Nobody intended upon degrading anyone...period...please don not take it as degrading...I didn't intend upon that at all, so if you feel offended, then I apologize, OK? 
Sometimes saying the same thing in different ways gets through to more people...and that, I'm sure we would both like to see, for sure. Some folks just cannot see the forest due to the trees.

Take care...

Tom D.


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

markdenis said:


> Counting 6 for the X wouldn't be to bad if everyone had their own target to shoot at. But that is not the way it is in field archery. If you put four pros shooting at one 40 yard target, there is a very good chance all would hit the X-ring. That would be 16 arrows in the X-ring which by the way won't fit. In my opinion, counting 6 for an X with four people shooting at the same target will many times come down to luck and hope you are not the one with kiss-outs.
> 
> The invention of five spot indoor targets is a result of kiss-outs. Maybe we should just go back to the single indoor target too!
> 
> I think it is a rule with not much thought put into it. It makes me think it is a rule put into place because of a top shooter winning most of the time, and the only way to beat him/her is change the game, turn it into luck and hope a different winner ends up on top.


In red above...YES, they WILL fit, I've personally been on 40, 45, and even 50 yard targets where our entire group 4X-20'd the target many times over the years...and before the advent of skinny shafts, sometimes there would be a mixture of 17XX's, 19XX's, and some 21XX's out of those 16 X's, too. 
You are right, however, there is a high risk of a kiss out...but that can happen on your 15 yarder, too to where you kiss clean out of the 5-ring...has happened to me more than once...and part of the game is kiss-outs, ha.
NOT belittling you, just sayin' that there is room for those 16 arrows in the Xring at 40 yards, 45 yards, and 50 yards...and a whopping lot of room for 16 in the X, which is common on the 55 yarder and the 58 walkup, only not so many kissouts or busted up arrows.

About the single target for indoors...or ONE spot...that would be cool...we dun it for years that way before the 5-spot came into being. One thing for certain...there wouldn't be many people shooting FAT SHAFTS indoors anymore...like voting incumbents out of office as "voter induced term limits"...we could have "target face induced shaft size limits" really fast by going to a single spot target face, hahahah. 

OF course that is RIDICULOUS, it will never happen...but I know a lot of people that have shot 60X on a single spot face, and this here guy is one of them. Did it out of spite just to prove to myself that it could be done...but...it was done with 1714 shafts, too, and NOT fat shafts, ha. I have seen others do with with 2512's however on the single spot target! 5 of them will fit into the X, ha. But you'd better be ready with spare arrows to replace those with cracked or bent walls and busted out back ends, and some potential glance outs. The people that did it with 2512's however obviously were NOT using any type of pin nock...pin nocks weren't around back then, ha. Uni-bushings and G-nocks...lead to lots of robin hoods, too.
Enjoy.

field14


----------



## r49740 (Dec 7, 2006)

field14 said:


> Nobody intended upon degrading anyone...period...please don not take it as degrading...I didn't intend upon that at all, so if you feel offended, then I apologize, OK?
> Sometimes saying the same thing in different ways gets through to more people...and that, I'm sure we would both like to see, for sure. Some folks just cannot see the forest due to the trees.
> 
> Take care...
> ...


Then maybe you should stop with all the "you", "they", "he", "she" stuff every time you give an opinion. Gets old and yes, people take offense to it based in the implied tone every time you do it. Not sure why that that hasn't caught on yet.


----------



## markdenis (Sep 7, 2010)

field14 said:


> In red above...YES, they WILL fit, I've personally been on 40, 45, and even 50 yard targets where our entire group 4X-20'd the target many times over the years...and before the advent of skinny shafts, sometimes there would be a mixture of 17XX's, 19XX's, and some 21XX's out of those 16 X's, too.
> You are right, however, there is a high risk of a kiss out...but that can happen on your 15 yarder, too to where you kiss clean out of the 5-ring...has happened to me more than once...and part of the game is kiss-outs, ha.
> NOT belittling you, just sayin' that there is room for those 16 arrows in the Xring at 40 yards, 45 yards, and 50 yards...and a whopping lot of room for 16 in the X, which is common on the 55 yarder and the 58 walkup, only not so many kissouts or busted up arrows.
> 
> ...



If there was a way to put a slow motion camera on 16 arrows headed for the X-ring on a 40 yard target, I would be willing to bet you would have more kiss-outs of the X than you would have all the arrows staying in the X. 

Oh, and when I shoot the 15 field, 15, 14 hunter, 20 field, 19,17 hunter I place my arrows around the dot in different places to keep from tearing up my arrows and avoid kiss-outs. Yes I miss one every once in awhile, but I also avoid kiss-outs and destroyed arrows.

Again, in my opinion counting 6 for the X brings way to much luck into the game.


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

r49740 said:


> Then maybe you should stop with all the "you", "they", "he", "she" stuff every time you give an opinion. Gets old and yes, people take offense to it based in the implied tone every time you do it. Not sure why that that hasn't caught on yet.


Not to argue, but how's about people stop being like CSI and interpreting everything literally and without using simple "common sense". So many people these days interpret things on the words...taking offense to the choice of words, because they don't "like" the WORDS or the terms. Why can't people realize that not everyone is trying to be offensive whenever they don't necessarily agree with you 100% or whatever? Good Gawd, don't you realize how silly "politically correct" and "avoid offending anyone at any time" has become?

Again...no offense intended or implied...YOU interpreted it that way, apparently out of political correctness, So which 2nd or 3rd person pronoun replaces the "you",'They', "he", or "she" stuff? Can't use the 1st person singular or plural, unless you are discussing yourself...in which case I'd be accused of bragging or being egotistical...There aren't any other pronouns to use...that I can think of.


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

markdenis said:


> If there was a way to put a slow motion camera on 16 arrows headed for the X-ring on a 40 yard target, I would be willing to bet you would have more kiss-outs of the X than you would have all the arrows staying in the X.
> 
> Oh, and when I shoot the 15 field, 15, 14 hunter, 20 field, 19,17 hunter I place my arrows around the dot in different places to keep from tearing up my arrows and avoid kiss-outs. Yes I miss one every once in awhile, but I also avoid kiss-outs and destroyed arrows.


Well, since I've personally been with and on those targets up close and personal where the group of 4 of us did actually have 16X's in the log jam and we all took our 4X-20's...many times over the years, what does it matter what High speed photography shows...the arrows did all fit in to the x-ring and with room to spare, too. Now with the skinnier shafts out there, there is even more room for 16 shafts to get into the X-ring.
I'm not saying there are not kissouts...but fewer now than there were with the much larger aluminum shafts that were used.
We of course didn't care about what it looked like on slow motion camera...but I will say that there were a lot fewer kissouts than you would suspect...you may kiss off of an outlier in the group or an arrow that wasn't into the bale as far as the others, or one that was lying helter skelter...but if you hit the outlier...well...shoulda been tighter.
Kiss outs are part of the game, and I know you know that, hahaha.

Most all good, solid shooters do not try to cram all four shots into the cross of the x-ring on those shots where you have your own target face to shoot at..they are solid enough to put one into each leg of the X and avoid ruining arrows. Done that for years, and yep, every once in a while you get sloppy and pull, push, ginch, scrunch, collapse or whatever one into the 5 ring, and even on occasion into the 4-ring when you really got sloppy. We all have bad memories of those 19's on the close ones and even some 18's and 17's, too, hahaha. That is what it is about and makes it challenging. 
Doncha just love this sport and its nuances.
Politically correct or not...opinions are like butt-holes...everyone has one, ha.

But, we digress, what does this really have to do about any of the agenda items? There aren't any that I know of that will change how many target faces there on on the bale for the field and hunter rounds, that is, unless I missed an item?


----------



## r49740 (Dec 7, 2006)

field14 said:


> Not to argue, but how's about people stop being like CSI and interpreting everything literally and without using simple "common sense". So many people these days interpret things on the words...taking offense to the choice of words, because they don't "like" the WORDS or the terms. Why can't people realize that not everyone is trying to be offensive whenever they don't necessarily agree with you 100% or whatever? Good Gawd, don't you realize how silly "politically correct" and "avoid offending anyone at any time" has become?
> 
> Again...no offense intended or implied...YOU interpreted it that way, apparently out of political correctness, So which 2nd or 3rd person pronoun replaces the "you",'They', "he", or "she" stuff? Can't use the 1st person singular or plural, unless you are discussing yourself...in which case I'd be accused of bragging or being egotistical...There aren't any other pronouns to use...that I can think of.


Actually, not csi when you, yes you, reply to someone directly via that little button you click on that says reply with quote. You, yes you, did that and then proceeded with saying "you" as in me, being a hot dog or I will lose or whatever else. We said the same thing, except I wasn't the one that spoke to someone in a degrading tone. So yes, someone talks to me line that, I don't like the words or the tone. You don't like it, talk to someone like they're another person


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

:set1_fishing:t::deadhorse:deadhorse:deadhorse


Again, we digress, what does this really have to do about any of the agenda items? There aren't any that I know of that will change how many target faces there on on the bale for the field and hunter rounds, that is, unless I missed an item?


----------



## rohpenguins (Dec 2, 2012)

r49740 said:


> We have a shooter in our neck of the woods that wants the same thing, probably because he never has and won't practice correctly to shoot a 300. But how is the shooter that missed the biggest spot the better shooter of the two?


I am not sure I understand your point. I would be all for making the current x ring a five and make a new x 1/2 dime size and make the rest of the white a 4 and so on. I prefer the fita inner 10 scoring for vegas faces.


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

rohpenguins said:


> I am not sure I understand your point. I would be all for making the current x ring a five and make a new x 1/2 dime size and make the rest of the white a 4 and so on. I prefer the fita inner 10 scoring for vegas faces.


And with your above proposal being accepted and put into place....how many of the "average joes", especially newbies and upcoming shooters and many mid-levels as well, that pay the bills...are going to be motivated by this new scoring system and/or target? How many of them do you suppose will be encouraged to continue to come to the tournaments when the scoring gets harder and their scores drop like a rock?
Back to 1976 all over again along with a likely huge participation and membership drop.

Don't think about what "I" prefer or what the top guns prefer...but more what is right for the average joes that pay the bills and what can we do to motivate them to continue to attend and practice without making things more difficult than they already are?
Do I have those answers? No, I don't, but also, based upon the experiences since the 1960's...making scoring more difficult, shrinking the target, etc have not worked in the past to increase the participation.
I think it was 1992 at Vegas the target face was changed to where the "gold" was the size of the babyX ring, the red the size of the current remaining gold and 8 ring, and the blue went out to the current 6 ring. The contrast was great and you could clearly see the gold. THAT move just about killed the Vegas shoot that year...and thanks to the griping, complaining and I think, decline in the number of shooters, that target was abandoned muy pronto and back we went to what we are using now, the change being getting rid of the totally black background and going to the color of background we now have.

Gotta think FIRST about damage done to the motivation and desire to continue to compete and to keep the participation on the upswing.

Perhaps the graduating system to "make it to pro" where you do indeed have to shoot for the 6's and "11's" PRO ONLY would do that; perhaps not. I don't know if it would encourage or discourage upper echelon shooters from advancing to the pros or not. Sure cannot force them to do so; that would never work.

Just saying: Think about the overall picture and not about how "I" can win...no "I" in team....and as NFAA members we should be thinking about the betterment of participation and the sport as a "team."


----------



## rohpenguins (Dec 2, 2012)

field14 said:


> And with your above proposal being accepted and put into place....how many of the "average joes", especially newbies and upcoming shooters and many mid-levels as well, that pay the bills...are going to be motivated by this new scoring system and/or target? How many of them do you suppose will be encouraged to continue to come to the tournaments when the scoring gets harder and their scores drop like a rock?
> Back to 1976 all over again along with a likely huge participation and membership drop.
> 
> Don't think about what "I" prefer or what the top guns prefer...but more what is right for the average joes that pay the bills and what can we do to motivate them to continue to attend and practice without making things more difficult than they already are?
> ...


There no easy one size fits all solution to the challenges that our sport faces. I see it on the 3D side as well.


----------



## Rolo (Dec 16, 2002)

SonnyThomas said:


> Lost me. You're saying that a person that major screwed up should win over the person that shot clean and no Xs?


You got it 1/2 right. :tongue: What I am saying is that if the 'X' counts as a 6, then it is possible, though not probable, that someone who shoots a 275 55x, would over another person who shot a 300 0x.

I am not in favor of such a possible outcome, and do not think this SHOULD happen...just saying it could.


----------



## Pete53 (Dec 5, 2011)

with what i have read in this discussion i do now agree just leave it as a 300-x count for x`s ,but these huge 27 shafts in my book are wrong 23 size should have been the limit.that would eliminate those sloppy 300`s ! glad to read the other view points very good,never gave it much thought about a 275 could win with a good x count ??


----------



## Bees (Jan 28, 2003)

Pete53 said:


> with what i have read in this discussion i do now agree just leave it as a 300-x count for x`s ,but these huge 27 shafts in my book are wrong 23 size should have been the limit.that would eliminate those sloppy 300`s ! glad to read the other view points very good,never gave it much thought about a 275 could win with a good x count ??


Maybe possible , but I have never seen a 275 shooter with a good X count. :noidea:


----------



## Pete53 (Dec 5, 2011)

275, no i have never either: but someone could shoot at wrong target and lose 5-25 points ,i think that`s what he means? but back to those 27 size arrow shafts i have seen some very sloppy 300`s with less than 30 x`s.


----------



## Bees (Jan 28, 2003)

Pete53 said:


> 275, no i have never either: but someone could shoot at wrong target and lose 5-25 points ,i think that`s what he means? but back to those 27 size arrow shafts i have seen some very sloppy 300`s with less than 30 x`s.



I seemed to remember The NFAA members telling the directors that 23 size was big enough, And the directors even voted to limit the size. But the President called an emergency meeting and informed all of them they wanted the 27 size so that's what we got. Just like the President wants a different outdoor tournament so that's what your going to get.


----------



## Rolo (Dec 16, 2002)

:BangHead:



Bees said:


> Maybe possible , but I have never seen a 275 shooter with a good X count. :noidea:


I don't know any "275 shooters" that shoot high X counts. I know of 2 instances where "300 shooters" shot 275s and still had high X counts. (54 and 52, if I recall correctly). A few more with 280s, 285s, 290s, etc. So, typing slowly...I never implied that "275 shooters" shot high X counts...quite the contrary...that "300 shooters" could have a boneheaded round, still shoot a high X count, and COULD ultimately win the tournament if Xs counted as a 6. 



Pete53 said:


> 275, no i have never either: but someone could shoot at wrong target and lose 5-25 points ,i think that`s what he means? but back to those 27 size arrow shafts i have seen some very sloppy 300`s with less than 30 x`s.


Exactly...an example of why I personally am not in favor of the X counting as a 6, that your were in favor of originally.


----------



## Rolo (Dec 16, 2002)

Bees said:


> I seemed to remember The NFAA members telling the directors that 23 size was big enough, And the directors even voted to limit the size. But the President called an emergency meeting and informed all of them they wanted the 27 size so that's what we got. Just like the President wants a different outdoor tournament so that's what your going to get.


To be accurate...the size limit vote you are referring to was brought as a 15 signature item at the meeting. The general membership was unaware that it was an agenda item or was going to be voted on. To say that the members wanted this at the time, defies the facts of what happened...the members, at least the vast majority were unaware of it, had not commented on it, or given their directors input on it prior to any vote on it.

Personally, it the membership wants a 23 restriction, I'm fine with it. But, since there has not been an agenda item on this issue (max diameter of 23/64ths) since 2008, it does not appear that a majority of the membership cares, or wants a 23/64th size restriction.

Is it possible to put the past in the past and move on, on this issue? There has been ample opportunity to impose this restriction since 08, and not once has the issue been on the agenda. Contrary to conspiracy, if the membership really wanted a 23/64ths size restriction, they could get it done regardless of what the President of the NFAA personally wanted...


----------



## Pete53 (Dec 5, 2011)

the main reason some like the size 27 its much easier to shoot 300`s and it`s also much easier to shoot a better x count with a 27 shaft. if you only used a size 23 shaft there would be fewer shoot offs ,would be fewer 300`s, lower x counts , if you screw up a little with a 27 shaft you still might nick the 5 spot too for a 300. so is easy always the best way. so in a few more years will the shaft size be 30 or 35 ,that`s why i wonder kinda about scoring too ? some used to shoot 300`s with 1914 maybe smaller now its 2712 for a 300,the future who knows 3010 size ? bows are better arrows are bigger so really are the pro shooter`s today better ?amatuers better ? is it as hard today to shoot a 300 ? some of us know the answer don`t we ?


----------



## Rolo (Dec 16, 2002)

Well...considering there have been arrows already used that were much larger than 27/64ths, and the person that used them did not win...

And considering that a number of people use arrows smaller than 27/64ths and do win...

And considering that there is a maximum arrow size restriction of 27/64ths for the NFAA, IBO and ASA (and Regions I think) unless the rule(s) is changed, or a new organization with new rules comes into existence, I'm not sure what it is you are talking about...


----------



## SonnyThomas (Sep 10, 2006)

Bees said:


> Maybe possible , but I have never seen a 275 shooter with a good X count. :noidea:





Pete53 said:


> 275, no i have never either: but someone could shoot at wrong target and lose 5-25 points ,i think that`s what he means? but back to those 27 size arrow shafts i have seen some very sloppy 300`s with less than 30 x`s.


Illinois Archery Association Indoor Championship, 2004 or 2005. Person in my class, Sr Adult Free Style did do just what was noted 275 with a goodly amount of Xs. He blew it at the line change, shot the top target and was to be shooting the bottom target. Cleared the way for me to take 3rd place and him somewhere down the list....Wasn't too far down though. I don't think there were 10 of us in Senior Adult FS.


----------



## JF from VA (Dec 5, 2002)

Sonny, I have seen that happen several times at the Indoor Nationals in Louisville, almost always at the target change. About three years ago, some poor guy shot the wrong target and lost 25 points. Then he turned around and did it again on the next end, losing a total of 50 points.


----------



## SonnyThomas (Sep 10, 2006)

JF from VA said:


> Sonny, I have seen that happen several times at the Indoor Nationals in Louisville, almost always at the target change. About three years ago, some poor guy shot the wrong target and lost 25 points. Then he turned around and did it again on the next end, losing a total of 50 points.


2001 or 2002? Indoor Qualifier, Vegas face. I shot KD's target for a 10, same line, KD asked the judge if he could score my arrow for himself. Said it scored better than his


----------



## JF from VA (Dec 5, 2002)

I am thinking it was 2011.


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

JF from VA said:


> Sonny, I have seen that happen several times at the Indoor Nationals in Louisville, almost always at the target change. About three years ago, some poor guy shot the wrong target and lost 25 points. Then he turned around and did it again on the next end, losing a total of 50 points.


to lose all 25 points, he would have had to shoot ALL 5 of his arrows into the wrong target face, not just one, but all five. If his bale partners just let him do this, then they should be whipped! That is ridiculous for competitors to just sit there and do nothing about it. SOMEBODY had to see this after the FIRST arrow...and they chose to do nothing about it? That is sneaky and rotten, and most unsportsman-like. Since you must have at least 3 people on a bale, then the others sure weren't about to "cover for him" and let him know about his FIRST mistake each time. Then for them to let him shoot all 5 into the wrong target again is about as sneaky and unsportsman-like as it gets! Shame on them!

Just sayin'.


----------



## JF from VA (Dec 5, 2002)

Agreed. On this particular instance, the shooter involved was about 5-10 bales down from me, I was shooting the second line or top target. When we got up to shoot, the line judge held the line and pulled the guys arrows. They all looked like X's from where I was. Whenever I am shooting with a group indoor or outdoor and there is a target change involved, I make it a point to remind the others of the change.


----------



## wa-prez (Sep 9, 2006)

There are several Agenda Items this year I haven't seen any discussion of - probably COULD be a thread in itself.

Some of these have to do on whether the NFAA Outdoor National will be a straight 5-day tournament as it had been for several years (shoot two fields, two hunters and an animal, and all 5 rounds count) or if it will continue to be a 3-day / 5 day event as it has been for the most recent few years (shoot at least one of two offered fields, at least one hunter and the only animal - count the better field, better hunter and animal) or if it will change that you shoot three days for score period - must declare before shooting that this is a scoring or a practice round.

And a few other Agenda Items address the ORDER in which the rounds will be offered - either Field, Hunter, Animal, Field, Hunter or Field, Hunter, Field, Hunter, Animal or something else.

On the 3-day / 5-day issue, I had originally been against that (as opposed to a straight 5-day event) but I have found the option to sit-out a day and rest or to leave early or come late beneficial to me personally a couple times.

Having the animal round on the last day has the advantage that the archers finish early, and awards can be presented at a reasonable time. BUT having the only animal round on the last day requires all competitors to stay for that day. When the Wednesday - Sunday schedule is used, that means everyone must shoot on Sunday and that takes away the advantage of 3/5-day shooting. We can't use the weekend as a travel day to get back to work Monday morning.

Anyone else have opinions on these items?


----------



## SonnyThomas (Sep 10, 2006)

field14 said:


> to lose all 25 points, he would have had to shoot ALL 5 of his arrows into the wrong target face, not just one, but all five. If his bale partners just let him do this, then they should be whipped! That is ridiculous for competitors to just sit there and do nothing about it. SOMEBODY had to see this after the FIRST arrow...and they chose to do nothing about it? That is sneaky and rotten, and most unsportsman-like. Since you must have at least 3 people on a bale, then the others sure weren't about to "cover for him" and let him know about his FIRST mistake each time. Then for them to let him shoot all 5 into the wrong target again is about as sneaky and unsportsman-like as it gets! Shame on them!
> 
> Just sayin'.


Tom, the man in that I noted had been shooting spots one heck of a lot longer than me. I don't remember what bale he was on, just that he noted it to me and big L.D. between lines. In fact, that was my first Indoor Championship. As for the one mentioned that did it twice.....Hey, stupid twice...
Everyone paying attention to the bottom line and not looking up....It could happen.. Two years ago, A.S. drew back his Carbon Hoyt. I stopped him with, "Let down." He looks at me and asks why. Well Art, you need bullets to shoot them critters. Yeah, no arrow and him letting down and still not realizing it. Said he'd buy me a 12 pack and I declined as I felt pretty good in not having to pick up the pieces


----------



## Rolo (Dec 16, 2002)

field14 said:


> to lose all 25 points, he would have had to shoot ALL 5 of his arrows into the wrong target face, not just one, but all five. If his bale partners just let him do this, then they should be whipped! That is ridiculous for competitors to just sit there and do nothing about it. SOMEBODY had to see this after the FIRST arrow...and they chose to do nothing about it? That is sneaky and rotten, and most unsportsman-like. Since you must have at least 3 people on a bale, then the others sure weren't about to "cover for him" and let him know about his FIRST mistake each time. Then for them to let him shoot all 5 into the wrong target again is about as sneaky and unsportsman-like as it gets! Shame on them!
> 
> Just sayin'.


I think you need to slow down a little. From personal experience, when I am on the line shooting, the only thing I am paying attention to is what I am doing and where my arrows are going. Looking to see where the guy next to me is shooting his arrows is a distraction to what am doing. When I'm on the bench, I am not watching the guys on my bale, or others for that matter shooting all the time. Sorry, I'm either talking to those around me, or thinking about what I need to do. So to imply that the other 4 guys on the bale have some sort of obligation to pay attention to what everyone else on the bale is doing, and if they don't, then they ought to be 'whipped' is similar to your past statements about what you would do if a stool showed up on the line...ludicrous. 

Now, If I happen to see someone shoot the wrong target, yeah, I'm going to tell them. Just like at the switch, and for at least the 2nd end after the switch (which surprisingly enough is also when a lot of wrong targets are shot) I remind those next to me which target we are shooting.

That's a far cry different than implying that everyone else on the bale has an obligation to watch to see where everyone else is shooting, and if someone shoots the wrong target and is not told, then those on the bale sat there and did nothing. Sorry, someone did NOT have to see it and did NOT chose to do nothing about it. No one has an obligation to concentrate on anything but their own game. If they do see it, then yes, say something. To assume that people do see it and say nothing about it, labeling them as being sneaky and unsportsman-like, is, IMO worse...


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

Rolo said:


> I think you need to slow down a little. From personal experience, when I am on the line shooting, the only thing I am paying attention to is what I am doing and where my arrows are going. Looking to see where the guy next to me is shooting his arrows is a distraction to what am doing. When I'm on the bench, I am not watching the guys on my bale, or others for that matter shooting all the time. Sorry, I'm either talking to those around me, or thinking about what I need to do. So to imply that the other 4 guys on the bale have some sort of obligation to pay attention to what everyone else on the bale is doing, and if they don't, then they ought to be 'whipped' is similar to your past statements about what you would do if a stool showed up on the line...ludicrous.
> 
> Now, If I happen to see someone shoot the wrong target, yeah, I'm going to tell them. Just like at the switch, and for at least the 2nd end after the switch (which surprisingly enough is also when a lot of wrong targets are shot) I remind those next to me which target we are shooting.
> 
> That's a far cry different than implying that everyone else on the bale has an obligation to watch to see where everyone else is shooting, and if someone shoots the wrong target and is not told, then those on the bale sat there and did nothing. Sorry, someone did NOT have to see it and did NOT chose to do nothing about it. No one has an obligation to concentrate on anything but their own game. If they do see it, then yes, say something. To assume that people do see it and say nothing about it, labeling them as being sneaky and unsportsman-like, is, IMO worse...


When somebody shoots the wrong target on the bale, many people see it; it is blatantly obvious, period. No _obligation_ to tell them, but.....all 5 arrows into the wrong target twice? Gimme a break. Of course the final blame does belong onto that shooter's shoulders, too! Nobody completely ignores that shooter next to him or her on the line. Especially outdoors (even tho we are talking indoors), when normally two people are shooting and two people are spotting...yet, I have heard of shooters allowing a fellow shooter to shoot the wrong target more than once, and in some cases...all four shots before telling the person they shot the wrong target! Happened in the 1989 National Outdoors at the Glen..and word got around quickly about it, too. Those other 3 people got one heck of a talking to by the NFAA President at the time, too.


----------



## SonnyThomas (Sep 10, 2006)

Tom, if the shooter has spotters, yeah, somebody needs dressed down. In Field I've had the pleasure of shooting with some very nice people and we related shots as they were taken. Outdoor target, never worried about it.

For those I shoot 3D with, don't ask me the distance because I'll tell you....something


----------



## Rolo (Dec 16, 2002)

field14 said:


> When somebody shoots the wrong target on the bale, many people see it; it is blatantly obvious, period. No _obligation_ to tell them, but.....all 5 arrows into the wrong target twice? Gimme a break. Of course the final blame does belong onto that shooter's shoulders, too! Nobody completely ignores that shooter next to him or her on the line. Especially outdoors (even tho we are talking indoors), when normally two people are shooting and two people are spotting...yet, I have heard of shooters allowing a fellow shooter to shoot the wrong target more than once, and in some cases...all four shots before telling the person they shot the wrong target! Happened in the 1989 National Outdoors at the Glen..and word got around quickly about it, too. Those other 3 people got one heck of a talking to by the NFAA President at the time, too.


Please tell me how you know that "many people see it"? Please tell me how you know that many people see it after the first arrow? Please tell me where these people are in relation to the shooter? Please tell me how acceptable it is for someone not shooting that end to approach the shooting line while a whole bunch of other people are shooting? It is "blatantly obvious" if a person is looking for it, or looking at the specific target. It is not "blatantly obvious" otherwise.

There is a distinct difference between people, especially in a group that may be spotting arrows, seeing it happen and letting it continue without saying something, from random people, including people on the same bale, who do not see it. Sorry, most shooters pay attention to what they are doing, and ignore what is going on around them. And yes, unless the shooter next to me is interfering with my shot, I don't have a clue what they are doing, or where they are shooting. So yeah, I am aware of their presence, but I sure as heck ain't thinking about where they are shooting their arrows, and I don't look to see where they shot their arrows, because I am focused on where I am shooting mine. Which, seems to be a pretty universal position...


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

Rolo said:


> Please tell me how you know that "many people see it"? Please tell me how you know that many people see it after the first arrow? Please tell me where these people are in relation to the shooter? Please tell me how acceptable it is for someone not shooting that end to approach the shooting line while a whole bunch of other people are shooting? It is "blatantly obvious" if a person is looking for it, or looking at the specific target. It is not "blatantly obvious" otherwise.
> 
> There is a distinct difference between people, especially in a group that may be spotting arrows, seeing it happen and letting it continue without saying something, from random people, including people on the same bale, who do not see it. Sorry, most shooters pay attention to what they are doing, and ignore what is going on around them. And yes, unless the shooter next to me is interfering with my shot, I don't have a clue what they are doing, or where they are shooting. So yeah, I am aware of their presence, but I sure as heck ain't thinking about where they are shooting their arrows, and I don't look to see where they shot their arrows, because I am focused on where I am shooting mine. Which, seems to be a pretty universal position...


In an indoor venue, it is very, very obvious when someone shoots the wrong target face, upper or lower. It is, of course more obvious when someone on the lower target shoots the upper...so, allowing someone to shoot all five of their arrows...is ridiculous.
So, would you, who are oblivious to everything going on around you, ever fall victim to this...and NOT be po-d if someone(s) let you shoot all of your arrows into the wrong target before saying anything, if at all? Your level of concentration must be super human in being able to totally ignore all that is going on around you and be buried into your own little world all the time. You are honestly saying that you've never looked over at your competitions' targets to see what they've done? Gimme a break...

One or two shots, I can believe...but all five...something fishy going on. Enough said...Let's get back to the agenda items, and discussion thereof...although, indirectly "target changes" on the field and hunter rounds is "sort of" mentioned in a particular agenda item, somewhat vaguely and indirectly, but I"m not taking the time to go back through them and quote that item. It does involve the "target change" on field shooing rounds, however.

field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## SonnyThomas (Sep 10, 2006)

Tom, what about the person shooting the wrong bank? Was he looking after the first shot or two? Obviously not. Two edge knife thing...

Agenda stuff. Seems no matter what the NFAA decides what's best and that's what we get. Back stabs allowed because the yo-yos didn't know how to deal with the STS. Adjustable sight frames allow in Bow Hunter Free Style. What needs done is just eliminate Bow Hunter Free Style. $5 says if a agenda was brought to elminate Bow Hunter Free Style or regulate it back to what it was the roof would be blowed off.....


----------



## ccwilder3 (Sep 13, 2003)

SonnyThomas said:


> Tom, what about the person shooting the wrong bank? Was he looking after the first shot or two? Obviously not. Two edge knife thing...
> 
> Agenda stuff. Seems no matter what the NFAA decides what's best and that's what we get. Back stabs allowed because the yo-yos didn't know how to deal with the STS. Adjustable sight frames allow in Bow Hunter Free Style. What needs done is just eliminate Bow Hunter Free Style. $5 says if a agenda was brought to elminate Bow Hunter Free Style or regulate it back to what it was the roof would be blowed off.....



Since you would be kicking out a lot of members along with their dues, yeah, that won't be happening. The NFAA is trying to grow, not destroy itself.


----------



## SonnyThomas (Sep 10, 2006)

ccwilder3 said:


> Since you would be kicking out a lot of members along with their dues, yeah, that won't be happening. The NFAA is trying to grow, not destroy itself.


Was doing fairly good until, what, 2005? And then the Ted Nugent venture (Ted swept Archery Magazine for something of 5 pages every month for a period of time), insurance jump, dues jump, removal of fixed sight length after 2002?, addition of back bars 3 years ago?, Bruce given unlimited number of terms and I'm sure a bunch more. 2004 or 5membership stood at over 16,000 (16,500?) without the TNUSA members (which had shoved the NFAA over 20,000) and then fell to under 14,000 a few years back. Unknown number of members today...Some one noted the NFAA grew by maybe 4% of recent times.

Iowa Open. Seems the new rules for Senior classes wasn't going to be until right before the Open. Somebody didn't like or somebody just mess up?


----------



## Rolo (Dec 16, 2002)

field14 said:


> In an indoor venue, it is very, very obvious when someone shoots the wrong target face, upper or lower. It is, of course more obvious when someone on the lower target shoots the upper...so, allowing someone to shoot all five of their arrows...is ridiculous.
> So, would you, who are oblivious to everything going on around you, ever fall victim to this...and NOT be po-d if someone(s) let you shoot all of your arrows into the wrong target before saying anything, if at all? Your level of concentration must be super human in being able to totally ignore all that is going on around you and be buried into your own little world all the time. You are honestly saying that you've never looked over at your competitions' targets to see what they've done? Gimme a break...
> 
> One or two shots, I can believe...but all five...something fishy going on. Enough said...Let's get back to the agenda items, and discussion thereof...although, indirectly "target changes" on the field and hunter rounds is "sort of" mentioned in a particular agenda item, somewhat vaguely and indirectly, but I"m not taking the time to go back through them and quote that item. It does involve the "target change" on field shooing rounds, however.
> ...


LOL...the person who started this diatribe and tangent all of a sudden wants to get back on topic. When was the last time you shot competitively?

Oh...If I shot the wrong target 1 or 5 times, regardless of who saw or didn't see, there is only one person I would blame...me. Personal responsibility is apparently a precious commodity, much easier to rely on others, and expect them to do something about it apparently. I have no problem accepting responsibility for my actions and what I did...not sure why anyone else is responsible for it...And yes...when I am shooting I purposely ignore other peoples targets...I don't need the distraction of knowing what they did or didn't shoot, and thus, what I need to shoot...which is a tip I have received from a number of very good and well recognized shooters...


----------



## rsw (May 22, 2002)

I have a better idea regarding the BHFS/FSU issue. Let's move FSU into BHFS - pins or scopes, full length stabs, etc. That is what the BHFS shooters seem to want anyway. Let's join forces!!!


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

rsw said:


> I have a better idea regarding the BHFS/FSU issue. Let's move FSU into BHFS - pins or scopes, full length stabs, etc. That is what the BHFS shooters seem to want anyway. Let's join forces!!!


Sounds like a great idea. However, notice that this time around, there is what, only one agenda item related to BHFS and rules of same?
Once again, from the chatter on this thread, and some comments made, people still want to blame the NFAA for things...but have those same people contacted their Directors concerning what said members WANT their Directors to do with regard to these agenda items.

I think NOT...or at least a very low percentage have done so. The NFAA IS the Membership...but too many today think that the NFAA (and the government) are just gonna do it anyways, so stay outside and shuck the responsibilities to take action...and say or do nothing to change the course of things.
It is the MEMBERS' faults that things aren't changed or that things pass that don't please people. Yes, some Directors won't or don't follow what they are being told to do...but again...why do they stay in office, then? Because those members of that State association won't do anything about a Director that is not doing what they are asked (told) to do.

Rolo, I've likely been in this game longer than you have been on this planet, and I can sure see you've been duped into believing a lot of baloney. I fully agree that it is YOUR responsibility to keep your head in the game and to make sure you shoot the correct target. BUT, on the other hand when it comes down to shooting and entire end indoors or an entire target outdoors and nobody says something about you shooting the wrong face...something is really amuck, and it isn't just YOU either. Courtesy on the line these days has gone South, too...but since they've shortened up the time allottment, many shooters think they don't have time to be courteous on the line, so they are drawing up when the other ones next to them are at full draw, walking off the line when the ones next to them are at full draw, etc. So that is part of this. That and being coached and taught to used psyche jobs and distractions and trash talking to throw their competition off their game...instead of just shooting their stick and let their arrows' impact points tell the tale.
field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## Pete53 (Dec 5, 2011)

BHFS class has plenty of shooter`s why change that class ? get rid of those classes with only a handful of shooter`s first if the NFAA needs to save money,otherwise leave it all alone.Gentleman tom`s right, line courtesy and respect to the other shooter`s needs improvement PERIOD !


----------



## rock monkey (Dec 28, 2002)

let me try to understand this so far......

outdoors, it's all about personal responsibility and preparation.
indoors, it's more about group awareness and polite etiquette.

the membership is in control of the ship but shady and vague agenda items that are presidential pets are ok and generally brought up as 15 signature items subject to emergency revote till the result is acceptable to the president.

when the membership :bs: , it's just morally wrong to question the process and motivation.


am i right so far?


----------



## deer_slayer1982 (Sep 8, 2008)

It's not going to hurt too combine the classes with less than 6 people at nationals. Even if they all quit it would not be that devastating to the nfaa. But you start messing with the classes with a bunch of people it's not going to go over well.


----------



## deer_slayer1982 (Sep 8, 2008)

It's easy make it fun and they will come and play. Make it hard and they will stay on the couch. Need a balance between the two to get people started. I vote for FUN! If you want it hard, buy a pro card.


----------



## SonnyThomas (Sep 10, 2006)

Pete53 said:


> BHFS class has plenty of shooter`s why change that class ? get rid of those classes with only a handful of shooter`s first if the NFAA needs to save money,otherwise leave it all alone.Gentleman tom`s right, line courtesy and respect to the other shooter`s needs improvement PERIOD !


I believe I brought up the BHFS. This class have been changed to the point there is little to separate it from FS. In other words, the BHFS boys and girls are of the wanna be FS, but don't want to deal with the FS competition. Let them have a lens and little longer stabilizer and they are FS.

There is line courtesy and there is competition. Everyone shooting is there to shoot their best and hopefully win. They are not there to help their competitor beat them. For the on-going discussion, there are no rules for spotting in the NFAA. Yes, if I saw a arrow wrong I would say so, but only if the person is behind or in front of me. I'm not going to disrupt other shooters by yelling up or down the line. 

Again, the person in error of shooting, especially indoors, should be aware of his error. 30 people on the line, 29 arrows in the lower bank and his arrow the only arrow in the upper bank should say he is in error. The more arrows and the more the person in error should know. In the cases given here the shooter went 5 shots in a row and the other shooter did it twice for 10 shots.


----------



## ccwilder3 (Sep 13, 2003)

SonnyThomas said:


> I believe I brought up the BHFS. *This class have been changed to the point there is little to separate it from FS*. In other words, the BHFS boys and girls are of the wanna be FS, but don't want to deal with the FS competition. Let them have a lens and little longer stabilizer and they are FS.
> 
> There is line courtesy and there is competition. Everyone shooting is there to shoot their best and hopefully win. They are not there to help their competitor beat them. For the on-going discussion, there are no rules for spotting in the NFAA. Yes, if I saw a arrow wrong I would say so, but only if the person is behind or in front of me. I'm not going to disrupt other shooters by yelling up or down the line.
> 
> Again, the person in error of shooting, especially indoors, should be aware of his error. 30 people on the line, 29 arrows in the lower bank and his arrow the only arrow in the upper bank should say he is in error. The more arrows and the more the person in error should know. In the cases given here the shooter went 5 shots in a row and the other shooter did it twice for 10 shots.


So why don't you move to BHFS and show us how easy it is. BHFS is 5 fixed pins that can't be changed during a round. BHFS is a 12 inch stab. To get the same amount of stabilization on a 12 inch as a 36" you have to use 3 times the weight. These have been part of BHFS from the beginning and are still in place.

But I'll go along with your making one class. Lets do away with the scopes and long stabilizers. Lets have the competition truly represent the vast majority of archers in this country.


----------



## ccwilder3 (Sep 13, 2003)

Pete53 said:


> *BHFS class has plenty of shooter`s why change that class ?* get rid of those classes with only a handful of shooter`s first if the NFAA needs to save money,otherwise leave it all alone.Gentleman tom`s right, line courtesy and respect to the other shooter`s needs improvement PERIOD !


Because some FS'ers absolutely hate it when they get beat by a BHFS'er.


----------



## Pete53 (Dec 5, 2011)

BHFS class,here in Minnesota are youth archer`s have one bow and its usually a hunting bow so they shoot in the class BHFS ,they have a great time and have a chance at a trophy or maybe a medal.only a few have a target bow . we have alot of youth BHFS more than a 100 in those classes.why get rid of that class ? why not have a few more restrictions on equipment instead ? and like i said earlier there are alot of classes with just a few.one example is the b.b. class really are they after a trophy with the very few in that class ?that`s just an example like i said don`t jump all over BHFS class they have plenty of shooter`s maybe it needs some restrictions ?? archery is suppose to be fun just leave all the classes alone ,really if someone wants to shoot in class is it hurting you ? if you want change run for a director`s job or ------ ?? no ones perfect- now complain some more.....


----------



## archer_nm (Mar 29, 2004)

The chances of BHFS being touched is slim at best, the turnout is stronger than FS in some areas. Don't be surprised if it doesn't become it's own Pro Style in the future.


----------



## SonnyThomas (Sep 10, 2006)

ccwilder3 said:


> So why don't you move to BHFS and show us how easy it is. BHFS is 5 fixed pins that can't be changed during a round. BHFS is a 12 inch stab. To get the same amount of stabilization on a 12 inch as a 36" you have to use 3 times the weight. These have been part of BHFS from the beginning and are still in place.
> 
> But I'll go along with your making one class. Lets do away with the scopes and long stabilizers. Lets have the competition truly represent the vast majority of archers in this country.


My fault. I was referring to Indoor. I was BHFS up until someone "pushed" me to go with a sight frame. After the change many noted I shot better as a BHFS than FS, but I didn't want to change back, but then I didn't shoot Field at the time when BHFS. If remember correctly John Wheeler set a new Indoor record with his BHFS set up, what 3 years ago?

Words omitted make for conflict as you and I have found out. The vast majority of archers in this country are BHFS, but the vast majority don't have back bars or extended sights per sa.....and aren't bowhunters actually BHFS. See?


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

archer_nm said:


> The chances of BHFS being touched is slim at best, the turnout is stronger than FS in some areas. Don't be surprised if it doesn't become it's own Pro Style in the future.


Didn't it used to be a "style" in the Pro Division? I know of several tournaments that have a Money BH Freestyle Division; Normally about 1/3 the numbers of those in Money Men's Freestyle, but viable.

T


----------



## SonnyThomas (Sep 10, 2006)

archer_nm said:


> The chances of BHFS being touched is slim at best, the turnout is stronger than FS in some areas. Don't be surprised if it doesn't become it's own Pro Style in the future.


This has been talked of ever since I first started competing, 14 years at least. It'll probably happen about the time the Olympics allow compound bows...after many of us are gone....


----------



## rsw (May 22, 2002)

Off topic but I believe that ASA has est. a pro pins class this year. Not sure.


----------



## SonnyThomas (Sep 10, 2006)

rsw said:


> Off topic but I believe that ASA has est. a pro pins class this year. Not sure.


I haven't down loaded the 2014 rules as of yet, but, yes, a Pro pin class was to start and a couple more classes. Always Mike is willing if there is proof of want or something that might grow the ASA. Understand, Mike owns the ASA, but he has conferences with Directors and listens.

And the problem with the NFAA is shown right here. NFAA meaning members. How many have made comment? Tom might remember this; I was on the Board and I wanted a "voice" from the members of my Zone. I was "pointed to" in the next meeting. I couldn't do this, ask the people I represented. A Questionaire did come about, but the membership didn't respond and what was brought forth was by the more of Officers than members. I felt the outcome would have been different if gone about on a somewhat Zone member and members of a Zone. And I could be wrong, still if one person gives something are their others if the "Want of" is the topic of the next question. I was willing to do the "leg work." No skin off the IAA....


----------



## darksidemxer (Feb 2, 2013)

So some1 save me the trouble of sifting through 5pages trying to figure out what is bs and what isnt....what is on the agenda about bhfs? What is the proposed changes. I am new to nfaa only a member for a few days and bhfs is the class i shoot because i only have 1 bow and little money for expensive gear so its a do it all set up lol. If there is going to be crazy changes propesed to change this class from what i believe it should be id like to send a message to the director with my views. Thank you.


----------



## archer_nm (Mar 29, 2004)

Styles are what equipment you have on your bow or don't have on your bow, Freestyle, Freestyle limited, BHFS, BB ect. Divisions are Pro, Adult, Senior ect.


----------



## darksidemxer (Feb 2, 2013)

I get that, but what are the changes they wish to make to bhfs? I like my 5pins and 12in stab lol if u want more gadgets move to fs lol my wife is in fs using a infinite edge with a trophy ridge useless stab cuz she wont give up that dang hha sight.


----------



## SonnyThomas (Sep 10, 2006)

darksidemxer said:


> I get that, but what are the changes they wish to make to bhfs? I like my 5pins and 12in stab lol if u want more gadgets move to fs lol my wife is in fs using a infinite edge with a trophy ridge useless stab cuz she wont give up that dang hha sight.


You can relax. BHFS was brought up as a example, not that is was a agenda item....


----------



## darksidemxer (Feb 2, 2013)

Lol thank u for putting my mind at ease. I cant view the agenda file on my phone so im SOL. Much appreciated sonny.


----------

