# World Archery Proposes Compound for LA Olympics



## EHartkopf (Aug 7, 2017)

My favorite event to watch is thew World Field Team events where each team consists of one compound, one olympic recurve, and one barebow. The average viewer just doesn't seem to appreciate seeing archers shoot at a known and constant distance.


----------



## stick monkey (Mar 9, 2015)

My son shoots compound and I honestly have never liked the idea of compound in the Olympics. Compound shooters have plenty of opportunities elsewhere to compete and more profitable opportunities as well. If the compound payout and the Olympic payout in Vegas were switched would we see a spike in recurve participation? Who the fu.. really knows. I personally don’t think kids these days want to do anything that is that hard…they see a new compound archer become fairly proficient in a short period of time and that is the route most kids these days are going to take.


----------



## FerrumVeritas (Oct 9, 2020)

EHartkopf said:


> My favorite event to watch is thew World Field Team events where each team consists of one compound, one olympic recurve, and one barebow. The average viewer just doesn't seem to appreciate seeing archers shoot at a known and constant distance.


Adding team field would have been a better choice


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Indoors at 18M, which is where I've said it makes the most sense to include them in the Olympics all along. 

I was laughed at here in '06 when I suggested the mixed team format, and I've been laughed at here for saying indoor compound was the right format for compounds in the Olympics too. 

But what do I know.


----------



## 1/2 Bubble Off (Dec 29, 2016)

I don't think the "Sky is falling" because of adding a Compound division. 

I remember folks getting worried that Compound Classes would die if they added a Crossbow Class to 3D archery.... That never happened.

In my humble opinion, the only way Compound in the Olympics would negatively impact Recurve is if the IOC ELIMINATED the Recurve divisions and made it Compound ONLY. (according to the article I read this morning, this is NOT what they're doing)


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

FerrumVeritas said:


> This move is short sighted. Adding compound to the Olympics will kill recurve within three Olympic cycles (12 years).
> 
> From a spectator standpoint, there is no visual difference between compound and recurve competition.
> 
> ...


Respectfully, I couldn't disagree more. Indoor compound competition has been the top level for that discipline since about the same time the Olympic recurve was officially "born." 

It's the right place for compounds in the Olympics and it doesn't threaten 70M recurve at all. Two VERY different skill sets, as it should be.

Introducing outdoor compound to the Olympics would have created a giant sucking sound in the recurve ranks, but not indoors. This is a common sense move and I applaud Tom and others for recommending it.


----------



## FerrumVeritas (Oct 9, 2020)

limbwalker said:


> Respectfully, I couldn't disagree more. Indoor compound competition has been the top level for that discipline since about the same time the Olympic recurve was officially "born."
> 
> It's the right place for compounds in the Olympics and it doesn't threaten 70M recurve at all. Two VERY different skill sets, as it should be.
> 
> Introducing outdoor compound to the Olympics would have created a giant sucking sound in the recurve ranks, but not indoors. This is a common sense move and I applaud Tom and others for recommending it.


I hope you’re right. More archery is good. But if more archery now means less archery later, that’s not a good trade.


----------



## Rick McKinney (Mar 4, 2008)

If you go with the premise that compounds would end recurve archery, then recurve should have ended barebow. It didn't and the compound bow would be a nice touch to the Olympics. The fear I had for years was that most compound shooters did not represent athleticism. You know...Olympics....Athleticism... They go together. However, that has change to the point that the compound archers are just as fit as the recurve archers. Adding a discipline to the Olympics will just add more opportunity to the sport of archery overall. This means more medals for countries who excel in compounds but have no recurve archers. Yes, there will be some countries who dominate but again, they will not dominate all disciplines and the teams can only win one medal per discipline thus giving an opportunity for other counties to win medals.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

FerrumVeritas said:


> I hope you’re right. More archery is good. But if more archery now means less archery later, that’s not a good trade.


I agree with that and I hope I'm right. 

Watching indoor compound shoot-offs at Vegas are one of my "must see archery TV" events. And I don't shoot compound.


----------



## FerrumVeritas (Oct 9, 2020)

Rick McKinney said:


> If you go with the premise that compounds would end recurve archery, then recurve should have ended barebow. It didn't and the compound bow would be a nice touch to the Olympics. The fear I had for years was that most compound shooters did not represent athleticism. You know...Olympics....Athleticism... They go together. However, that has change to the point that the compound archers are just as fit as the recurve archers. Adding a discipline to the Olympics will just add more opportunity to the sport of archery overall. This means more medals for countries who excel in compounds but have no recurve archers. Yes, there will be some countries who dominate but again, they will not dominate all disciplines and the teams can only win one medal per discipline thus giving an opportunity for other counties to win medals.


Barebow did kind of die for about 20 years, didn’t it? Participation didn’t really show growth until the past 15 years or so, if my understanding is correct.

I do think compound being indoor is better than outdoor in this context.


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

Ages ago Compound was on the table as Indoor specialty for ... Winter Olympic Games...
Then when it was removed from Field competition at World Games, also was on the table to become an Indoor specialty there, but it was transformed in a Target event instead, going to happen also this year in Birmigham.
If they say 3 days, it means it can't use LV format, but also can't use WA format as well as basically you will not need any sort of ranking round for the very few archers competing (and a ranking based on 60 arrows only with present rules will be useless). The challenge now is to design a new formula that can work inside 18 mt matches at top TV level, starting from pure draw among participants... But, everything can change, from max poundage to arrows to targets to time... Not so much time available for experiments ...


----------



## midwayarcherywi (Sep 24, 2006)

I'm hopeful for compound inclusion. My issue is the format. It's boring. Elimination rounds are boring. Qualification is unwatchable, as is recurve qualification, to be fair. Differentiate it. make it more compelling for spectators. Heck, I love archery and can barely watch eliminations. I don't have a long enough attention span to watch all 5 ends.


----------



## lees (Feb 10, 2017)

Well I guess hell did finally freeze over after all..... I didn't think I'd see this even be formally brought up in my lifetime.... 

I agree that making 20 yds/18m indoor the compound olympic game is the best idea. If for no other reason that its a good way to protect oly recurve from the "giant sucking sound" of compound away from olympic style. 

But also, indoor spots is the most tooth-grinding archery TV you can imagine, especially Vegas style matches. Even Lancaster is innovating with their 12 ring thing placed on the 7/8 ring line. It doesn't add much to barebow or recurve, but for freestyle compound, it can offer some really tooth-chattering options to the shooter. And can be fun to watch people taking their chances....

In my heart of hearts, I'm uplifted that the compound might finally become a full first-class citizen in target archery by inclusion in the Olympics. But I've always been somewhat concerned about what it might do to oly recurve. This looks like a good compromise to achieve both?

lee.


----------



## FerrumVeritas (Oct 9, 2020)

Vittorio said:


> Ages ago Compound was on the table as Indoor specialty for ... Winter Olympic Games...
> Then when it was removed from Field competition at World Games, also was on the table to become an Indoor specialty there, but it was transformed in a Target event instead, going to happen also this year in Birmigham.
> If they say 3 days, it means it can't use LV format, but also can't use WA format as well as basically you will not need any sort of ranking round for the very few archers competing (and a ranking based on 60 arrows only with present rules will be useless). The challenge now is to design a new formula that can work inside 18 mt matches at top TV level, starting from pure draw among participants... But, everything can change, from max poundage to arrows to targets to time... Not so much time available for experiments ...


They’re Olympic athletes. They can shoot 90 arrows in one day for qualification. 
Then eliminations, head to head to top 8.
Then a top 8 Vegas style shoot down (first to miss is out). The problem with that is that it’s not a good format for TV, even if it’s the most exciting to watch, because time is too variable.


----------



## stick monkey (Mar 9, 2015)

I think an 18 m indoor event would be the most entertaining to the public…final shoot downs and good commentary is the only thing that makes it fun to watch…seeing hundreds of archers pounding x’s for 10 ends not so much…at the same time, most people still have no idea how hard that is to put up a 300 30x to make it to a shoot off


----------



## lees (Feb 10, 2017)

stick monkey said:


> My son shoots compound and I honestly have never liked the idea of compound in the Olympics. Compound shooters have plenty of opportunities elsewhere to compete and more profitable opportunities as well. If the compound payout and the Olympic payout in Vegas were switched would we see a spike in recurve participation? Who the fu.. really knows. I personally don’t think kids these days want to do anything that is that hard…they see a new compound archer become fairly proficient in a short period of time and that is the route most kids these days are going to take.


I think of it as like comparing the guitar to the bass. The guitar is just plain hard to learn to play period, from the very start, and just stays hard forever. The bass, OTOH, is much easier to learn to play at first, but it's probably even more difficult than the guitar to really master and get to "maestro" level with.

This is a similar misconception about compound, at least in my opinion. It's significantly easier to get to a decent level with in a dramatically shorter period of time than recurve. But to really get to the Sarah Lopez/Mike Schlosser level is where the work/dedication/skill etc. required really starts to catch up. And in my view, approach parity with recurve.

Like on recurve, the truly elilte-level shooters just make the compound look so easy. But it's deceptively *not* easy to *actually *get to that level. And that holds of all bow types, really.

I've had my ups and downs with compound too, going through long periods of lack of interest in it, getting tired of messing with the equipment, etc. I'm still kind of in that doldrums too with it.

Then I go out and try to just keep em all on the proverbial paper plate at 50 yards and I instantly remember, whoa.... this is a lot harder than it looks and I suck a lot harder than I thought......

As for participation, I don't see anything wrong with more inclusion over less inclusion. The compound is far more accommodating physically than the recurve is, so it's less likely to discourage beginners if they're introduced to it properly. If we drop the folklore that elite level compound shooting is "too easy", then this worry about it being too overly permissive of insufficiently "athletic" or "talented" shooters can simply be dismissed and not given any more thought.

The equipment is probably going to be a big hurdle, though. There's so much of it of so many varying types, there will probably have to be some means of leveling the playing field as far as equipment goes.... That'll be interesting to see how that's solved....

lee.


----------



## FerrumVeritas (Oct 9, 2020)

Eh, WA’s rules are good enough for equipment limitations.

The issue is talent and attention. You can live for a year off of compound tournament winnings, not counting manufacturer payouts. That’s absolutely not true for recurve. So if people are considering shooting full-time to get to the Olympics, an indoor sport where you can train year round and make decent money is far more appealing than a sport that only gets attention and support every 4 years.

So even if nothing changes for recurve, the talent pool will shrink dramatically in most countries.

I have nothing against compound. I mean, I don’t want to shoot it, but I respect it. I just think that recurve is in a deceptively tenuous position already. Participation is shrinking. That’s not a good thing.


----------



## lees (Feb 10, 2017)

limbwalker said:


> I agree with that and I hope I'm right.
> 
> Watching indoor compound shoot-offs at Vegas are one of my "must see archery TV" events. And I don't shoot compound.


Agree. This year I was just riveted to the women's final match for example. I'd just never seen anything quite like that before... it was great TV and if olympic compound indoor is like that, I think it will be a winner....

lee.


----------



## Brian N (Aug 14, 2014)

Viewership and money - plain and simple. Can we attract more viewers, charge more to the TV networks for coverage and commercial sponsors? If the answer is yes, compounds are in. As an example, the America's Cup yacht race has been totally transformed into a drag race of sorts, mainly to draw viewers and sponsorship. Forget "core values" and concept of the original contest as a "friendly competition between Nations". Money, greed, sensationalism will rule what we see at the Olympics. I apologize for the negative view, but "purity" of sports, for the sake of competition is not something we see much of today.


----------



## lees (Feb 10, 2017)

FerrumVeritas said:


> Eh, WA’s rules are good enough for equipment limitations.
> 
> The issue is talent and attention. You can live for a year off of compound tournament winnings, not counting manufacturer payouts. That’s absolutely not true for recurve. So if people are considering shooting full-time to get to the Olympics, an indoor sport where you can train year round and make decent money is far more appealing than a sport that only gets attention and support every 4 years.
> 
> ...


Well, maybe that's actually a downside - only one shot at a medal every 4 years I can see being a strong disincentive too. Depending on the shooter and what their goals are, etc., some might perceive that as a low ROI on the work required to get there. 

If the rewards are better and more plentiful on compound for the same investment in time/effort, I'm not sure that's a negative reflection on that choice. In fact, that seems pretty sensible to me. People know what their time and effort is worth, so I don't see how recognizing that is a bad thing.

lee.


----------



## FerrumVeritas (Oct 9, 2020)

Lee, there’s no question that this is good for compound. There’s a decent argument that it’s good for elite archers who don’t care what bow they shoot.
But this is bad for amateur recurve and barebow.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

midwayarcherywi said:


> I'm hopeful for compound inclusion. My issue is the format. It's boring. Elimination rounds are boring. Qualification is unwatchable, as is recurve qualification, to be fair. Differentiate it. make it more compelling for spectators. Heck, I love archery and can barely watch eliminations. I don't have a long enough attention span to watch all 5 ends.


Guess I'm someone who finds the shoot-off format at Vegas to be incredibly exciting. I tune in every year.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

FerrumVeritas said:


> Lee, there’s no question that this is good for compound. There’s a decent argument that it’s good for elite archers who don’t care what bow they shoot.
> *But this is bad for amateur recurve and barebow.*


Can you explain how? I don't follow.


----------



## FerrumVeritas (Oct 9, 2020)

limbwalker said:


> Can you explain how? I don't follow.


I still think manufacturer attention and money is going to be significantly diverted away from recurve. Less equipment development, less equipment availability, and potentially less quality. 
Ultimately manufacturer support is necessary to keep a division alive. Look at barebow compound. It’s essentially dead for anyone under 40 as it is very difficult to find usable equipment. WA recognized this and made changes to the Instinctive/Trad rule set in order to try and breathe new life into that division (at least for 3D competition).


----------



## Ray.L (Apr 29, 2021)

lees said:


> [...]If we drop the folklore that elite level compound shooting is "too easy", then this worry about it being too overly permissive of insufficiently "athletic" or "talented" shooters can simply be dismissed and not given any more thought.
> 
> The equipment is probably going to be a big hurdle, though. There's so much of it of so many varying types, there will probably have to be some means of leveling the playing field as far as equipment goes.... That'll be interesting to see how that's solved....
> 
> lee.


Trying to communicate that compound isn't easy (at the level top archers shoot) can be difficult to do with other archers, much less the general public and their pop culture understanding of archery. 

The current rules have created a pretty level field in terms of equipment. A lot of top compounders settle on similar setups (unless you're Tim Gillingham). If you mean in terms of cost... I think a flagship recurve setup is within a couple hundred dollars of a comparable compound setup, if not nearly the same.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

FerrumVeritas said:


> I still think manufacturer attention and money is going to be significantly diverted away from recurve. Less equipment development, less equipment availability, and potentially less quality.
> Ultimately manufacturer support is necessary to keep a division alive. Look at barebow compound. It’s essentially dead for anyone under 40 as it is very difficult to find usable equipment. WA recognized this and made changes to the Instinctive/Trad rule set in order to try and breathe new life into that division (at least for 3D competition).


exactly how much attention and money do you think the compound manufacturers give to recurve already?


----------



## Rael84 (Feb 22, 2016)

Limbwalker beat me to the punch. Most large manufacturers give zero attention to target recurve already -- which has lead a number of smaller manufacturers to produce some incredibly innovative products and address very niche consumer concerns. I'd be shocked if adding compounds to the olympics has a negative long term effect on the sport.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

i personally think compound should be added as a winter sport. Its indoor, gives archery a presence at every olympic games which would cycle every 2 years for the sport and further separates it from the recurve outdoor 70 meter competition. 

Chris


----------



## FerrumVeritas (Oct 9, 2020)

chrstphr said:


> i personally think compound should be added as a winter sport. Its indoor, gives archery a presence at every olympic games which would cycle every 2 years for the sport and further separates it from the recurve outdoor 70 meter competition.
> 
> Chris


That wouldn’t bother me actually. Then you might see archers trying to do both.


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

chrstphr said:


> i personally think compound should be added as a winter sport. Its indoor, gives archery a presence at every olympic games which would cycle every 2 years for the sport and further separates it from the recurve outdoor 70 meter competition.
> 
> Chris


The problem there is that ALL Olympic winter sports involve sliding around on snow or ice in some manner, and just having something take place indoors won’t make the list.


----------



## FerrumVeritas (Oct 9, 2020)

limbwalker said:


> exactly how much attention and money do you think the compound manufacturers give to recurve already?


Hoyt: Not enough, but some. They like their shirts on podiums. More attention than money.

W&W: A fair amount, if you’re in Korea. Some in Europe. I think they do a decent amount of R&D.

Fivics and MK: Not a lot of money, but since recurve is their whole business as much attention as they can at least


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

chrstphr said:


> i personally think compound should be added as a winter sport. Its indoor, gives archery a presence at every olympic games which would cycle every 2 years for the sport and further separates it from the recurve outdoor 70 meter competition.
> 
> Chris


I thought about that a while back and then someone reminded me that winter sports have to be played on ice or snow.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

FerrumVeritas said:


> Hoyt: Not enough, but some. They like their shirts on podiums. More attention than money.
> 
> W&W: A fair amount, if you’re in Korea. Some in Europe. I think they do a decent amount of R&D.
> 
> Fivics and MK: Not a lot of money, but since recurve is their whole business as much attention as they can at least


If all you watch is recurve archery, one could get the impression that recurves are important to companies like Hoyt. If all you do is shoot 3-D or hunt (the vast, vast majority of "archers" in the U.S.) recurve archery isn't even on your radar.

I suspect Hoyt's recurve budget is a rounding error compared to their compound production. I'm pretty sure the only reason Hoyt even messes with recurve is because of the history and personal interest of the Eastons. 

What this will do for companies like W&W and MK and Fivics is give them a reason to start producing compounds. So we'll see an expansion of their lines if this works.


----------



## FerrumVeritas (Oct 9, 2020)

limbwalker said:


> If all you watch is recurve archery, one could get the impression that recurves are important to companies like Hoyt. If all you do is shoot 3-D or hunt (the vast, vast majority of "archers" in the U.S.) recurve archery isn't even on your radar.
> 
> I suspect Hoyt's recurve budget is a rounding error compared to their compound production. I'm pretty sure the only reason Hoyt even messes with recurve is because of the history and personal interest of the Eastons.
> 
> What this will do for companies like W&W and MK and Fivics is give them a reason to start producing compounds. So we'll see an expansion of their lines if this works.


W&W already does. But the American compound companies have managed to keep major US retail networks from selling them. They started doing so in anticipation of this.

I’m fairly certain that Hoyt makes recurves solely to say people have won Olympic medals with them


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

Stash said:


> The problem there is that ALL Olympic winter sports involve sliding around on snow or ice in some manner, and just having something take place indoors won’t make the list.


had no idea that was a requirement. 

Chris


----------



## Hikari (May 15, 2021)

Well, if you want viewership, they should introduce Ultimate Archer.y Just add skateboards, a half pipe, and a little foam, and you have got everything to entertain the masses:






I don't think indoor 18m compound is a bad idea--compound is the largest class in archery. It certainly is a lot more interesting to watch than 10m air rifle (which is pretty intense BTW).


----------



## cerelestecerele (Aug 5, 2019)

Stash said:


> The problem there is that ALL Olympic winter sports involve sliding around on snow or ice in some manner, and just having something take place indoors won’t make the list.


Easily solved by requiring ice skates during competition. It would also make arrow collection quicker, and hopefully reduce scores a bit too, making it more exciting to watch.


----------



## bahboric (Aug 22, 2013)

compound biathlon?


----------



## woof156 (Apr 3, 2018)

Ahh heck lets compromise- drop compound from the Oly and put in barebow 50 M- there solved it.


----------



## Ray.L (Apr 29, 2021)

woof156 said:


> Ahh heck lets compromise- drop compound from the Oly and put in barebow 50 M- there solved it.


Barebowers gotta show up locally before they get invited internationally.


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

Perspective of indoor CO at the Olympic Games are very different if seen from Europe, America or Asia. 
Also very different if seen from companies making already Compound bows or not, yet.
And definitely different for those making arrows.

Adding CO to Olympic Games as an outdoor sport was not going to change anything, the process was already running an consistent with European, Asian an Pan Am games already having Target Compound together with Recurve.
Changing it suddenly to an Indoor Summer sport is going to change everything everywhere in ways no one still can forecast.


----------



## woof156 (Apr 3, 2018)

Ray.L said:


> Barebowers gotta show up locally before they get invited internationally.


they do at Lancaster AC, barely even invited to LasVegus but even then they did show (not sure it even made a video but not their fault) so* build it they will come... *the big money isn't with BB so there is that but still a lot of devoted shooters world wide..in Europe they aren't excluded quite as much as they are on this side of the pond.


----------



## Rylando (Jul 30, 2016)

If Compound can "kill off" Olympic Recurve and/or Barebow in 3 Olympic cycles... do Olympic Recurve and/or Barebow really deserve to stick around? 

Of course Compound killing off anything except a furry woodland mammal seems fairly far fetched. 
I would prefer Compound to be indoors, it would fit right in with all the precision rifle shooting.

Compound 18m, Olympic 70m, Barebow on a Field course, now that is the perfect format for each bow type.


----------



## Since1985Tx (Jan 19, 2021)

FerrumVeritas said:


> This move is short sighted. Adding compound to the Olympics will kill recurve within three Olympic cycles (12 years).
> 
> From a spectator standpoint, there is no visual difference between compound and recurve competition.
> 
> ...


*BS*_.....(jmo)_


----------



## Ray.L (Apr 29, 2021)

woof156 said:


> they do at Lancaster AC, barely even invited to LasVegus but even then they did show (not sure it even made a video but not their fault) so* build it they will come... *the big money isn't with BB so there is that but still a lot of devoted shooters world wide..in Europe they aren't excluded quite as much as they are on this side of the pond.


I don't know how the tournaments look like it your area, but compound outnumbers recurve who outnumbers barebow where I live. This is reflected in national rankings, where barebow participation is well below compound and recurve.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Ray.L said:


> I don't know how the tournaments look like it your area, but compound outnumbers recurve who outnumbers barebow where I live. This is reflected in national rankings, where barebow participation is well below compound and recurve.


Barebow just hasn't caught on in Canada for some reason. Not sure why really. It has taken off here in the states and is very popular in Europe and Aus. I would have thought Canadians would find an interest in Barebow.


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

limbwalker said:


> Barebow just hasn't caught on in Canada for some reason. Not sure why really. It has taken off here in the states and is very popular in Europe and Aus. I would have thought Canadians would find an interest in Barebow.


Same as for Compound, perspective for Bare Bow is very different if seen from Europe, America and Asia and country by country. .
In Europe, modern Archery developed rapidly mainly because of the introduction to the Olympic Games. Money from governments to Olympic committees generated wide promotion concentrated to the Olympic bow shooters. But, as National federations could not discriminate any registered member, and FITA same, competitions by nations have been organized, and everyone at the beginning of the 90's started to talk about Compound as a possible Olympic specialty. So, compound was supported by public money too, had national teams and started its diffusion. Almost no hunting in Europe, so none was coming from hunting , all were formerly target (recurve) shooters, as they 90% are also nowadays.
BB in Europe was for Field only at international level, so very few Federations supported BB, but these had National funded teams. BB archers were coming form Long bow or traditional, very rarely form Recurve Olympic. Then you have to mix up development with cost of the equipment, and add the help received from exposure to easily available modern media, mainly Youtube in he more recent years.
In short, money from Olympic committees drives the development in Europe, in terms of existence of funded National teams down to Junior and Cadet level.(and same in Korea, Taiwan, Australia and South American countries)
Hunting (compound sales) drives USA, added to National Olympic federation and exposure ot media
Free development happens in other countries were Olympic committees only fund very small professional national teams dedicated to IOC recognized competitions, like China, and many others, Then, following the (lack of) money, BB is booming, Olympic recurve is considered useless and Compound have no hope.
Finally, do not underestimate the Sport ambassadors, those top level archers having top internaitonal level results and therefore becoming promoter of the specialty in their country.
Sebastian Flute Gold in Barcelona 1992 meant doubling registered archers in France in a couple of years, but also John Demmer's performances in Ireland 2016 and Italy 2018 World Filed champs account most probably for a great part of the development of WA BB in USA. IMHO.


----------



## lees (Feb 10, 2017)

BTW, maybe I shouldn't bring this up, but how likely is it that this will actually get approved? I know nothing about the workings of the OC, etc. so I have no idea about whether it'll actually come to pass, even tho it's finally been proposed formally: is it a slam-dunk? Or only a snowballs chance in hell? Or somewhere in between?

None of the speculation means anything unless it actually passes and compound definitely will be in the '28 games.

Anyone know the drift on that?

lee.


----------



## woof156 (Apr 3, 2018)

Ray.L said:


> I don't know how the tournaments look like it your area, but compound outnumbers recurve who outnumbers barebow where I live. This is reflected in national rankings, where barebow participation is well below compound and recurve.


To add to what limbwalker and vittrio have said I wonder if the name does not spell out some of the problem- bare bow in competition. Now with the allowance of some stabilizing weights in competition things are changing a bit but really BB is cheap compared to compound and OL. So outside of tabs, arrows what is there to sell?? I think we can't ignore the sellmanship of these sports from skiing to archery-- brand brand brand. Also both OR and compound offer the non archery viewer striking hits on BE from large distances-- BB is more of challenge where BE are not the norm at 50 M--i.e. the non archery fan won't see as many BE hits will they be as interested??? That said the popularity of BB here is growing even from excompounders who want the challenge- and for those of us who love the sport,we have learned to appreciate failure as a stepping stone in the journey. and to paraphrase W. Churchhill again--_the road to success in BB is to chase failure after failure with no loss of enthusiasm._. odd but more and more people are enjoying that.. I do hope if we build it they will come--and as Vittrio says lets not underestimate our sport ambassadors--


----------



## Arrowbender (Nov 7, 2018)

FerrumVeritas said:


> Lee, there’s no question that this is good for compound. There’s a decent argument that it’s good for elite archers who don’t care what bow they shoot.
> But this is bad for amateur recurve and barebow.


Call me a sweet summer child all you want, but I'll stand by this:
The average EU recurve shooter, from amateur to including competitive ones, is not shooting that style because they think they'll make it to the olympics one day. 
If that were a real factor, at least where the EU with its limited to no bowhunting is concerned, no one would ever have picked up a compound to begin with.
It's simply their preferred discipline.
No recurve archer I know is going to drop archery or switch disciplines because of this potentially happening.


----------



## TER (Jul 5, 2003)

They shoot Olympic Recurve because it's in the Olympics. Even though they know they will never get to the Olympics. Many people just enjoy doing what's in the Olympics.

It is true nobody is going to drop OR to change to indoor compound while OR is still in the Olympics. But if OR ever got dropped from the Olympics, OR would vaporize. Cease to exist. Everyone would switch to compound and barebow.


----------



## FerrumVeritas (Oct 9, 2020)

I’m not concerned about current archers. Some elite ones will switch to follow the money. Some may switch to try to medal in the inaugural event.
My concern is for future archers. 18m compound seems a lot more accessible for a lot more people than 70m recurve. And it has better rewards. If you lose the prestige advantage, you’ll see numbers decrease.

I may be wrong in some predictions. The diminishing of Olympic recurve may accelerate the growth of barebow provided the equipment is still produced


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

The IOC gets requests from most international sport governing bodies to add events every Olympics cycle, and they have to decide based on what’s best for the Games which to accept. They also make decisions to delete events.

Please note the difference between “events” and entire sports. They’re apparently adding breakdancing and making surfing, skateboarding and rock climbing will be permanent, and boxing, weightlifting and modern pentathlon are probably out.

The main practical factors in adding/deleting entire sports, as Brian N and others have pointed out, is viewership and money. However, obviously there are other factors. Bad publicity from doping, violence, harm to animals? Unequal representation for females? (No, let’s not go there in this thread 😄)

But events within sports are probably decided exclusively by viewership and money.

Of course, we all view archery as interested archers, not as the 99.9% of the viewing public who are not archers and will have next to zero interest in watching compound shooters pound the X ring arrow after arrow with absolutely nothing exciting happening.

I don’t see the IOC wanting to add another 128 (or whatever number) of athletes doing something not particularly interesting to the schedule. I’m pessimistic about the likelihood of 18M compound being there in 2028.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

TER said:


> They shoot Olympic Recurve because it's in the Olympics. Even though they know they will never get to the Olympics. Many people just enjoy doing what's in the Olympics.
> 
> It is true nobody is going to drop OR to change to indoor compound while OR is still in the Olympics. *But if OR ever got dropped from the Olympics, OR would vaporize. Cease to exist. Everyone would switch to compound and barebow.*


Been saying this for years. The OR is a antiquated "unlimited" target bow from the days before compounds. Barebow will always exist because of it's simplicity and affordability. But if OR ever got dropped from the Olympic schedule, we'll all hear a big sucking sound.


----------



## TER (Jul 5, 2003)

FerrumVeritas said:


> I’m not concerned about current archers. Some elite ones will switch to follow the money. Some may switch to try to medal in the inaugural event.
> My concern is for future archers. *18m compound seems a lot more accessible for a lot more people than 70m recurve. And it has better rewards.* If you lose the prestige advantage, you’ll see numbers decrease.
> 
> I may be wrong in some predictions. The diminishing of Olympic recurve may accelerate the growth of barebow provided the equipment is still produced


Ok, now I see what your saying. Sorry it took me a while. Yes, 18M compound is immensely more accessible than 70m recurve. A newbie could shoot 18M with a compound on Day One of their archery journey. Getting to 70M with a recurve takes a bunch of effort over time. I could see this causing the slow death of OR.


----------



## Hikari (May 15, 2021)

I am not sure accessibility (as in anyone can do it) or popularity is the only deciding factor in what get included in the Olympic Games. It is also an international decision, not just what Americans might think (important, but not the only perspective). There are plenty of sports in the Olympics that are not popular sports and have very limited participation. 

I don't think it will be that easy to "kill off" Olympic recurve. There are archers that simply prefer that discipline. Just like people still shoot longbow or Asiatic bows.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Hikari said:


> I am not sure accessibility (as in anyone can do it) or popularity is the only deciding factor in what get included in the Olympic Games. It is also an international decision, not just what Americans might think (important, but not the only perspective). There are plenty of sports in the Olympics that are not popular sports and have very limited participation.
> 
> I don't think it will be that easy to "kill off" Olympic recurve. There are archers that simply prefer that discipline. Just like people still shoot longbow or Asiatic bows.


Kill off in the international competitive sense. And longbow and Asiatic bows have a bit more than a 50 year history.


----------



## FiFi (Dec 4, 2002)

limbwalker said:


> Barebow just hasn't caught on in Canada for some reason. Not sure why really. It has taken off here in the states and is very popular in Europe and Aus. I would have thought Canadians would find an interest in Barebow.


We have records for BB going back to 1969 when everyone shot the 1440, its funny when they see a 50m BB record of 290 and then realize it was on an 80cm face, most are finding that what it takes to be competitive will require just as much effort as any other discipline and then they look for the next shinny objects


----------



## Hikari (May 15, 2021)

limbwalker said:


> Kill off in the international competitive sense. And longbow and Asiatic bows have a bit more than a 50 year history.


That's kind of my point. We keep shooting old bow types that either no long have a purpose or have been replaced by for more effective or efficient technology. (I might argue that Olympic recurve is more popular than Olympic 10m air rifle--the bow was made obsolete by the gun historically speaking.)

Compound target is an international class. Not all international sports are Olympic sports. I don't see World Archery dropping OR because the Olympics do--they might rename it to Hyundai recurve.

Naturally, none of this can be proven--it is just conjecture. But people are funny. They maybe rational, but they are not logical. Buggy whips are still manufactured.

_(And if Olympic recurve is dropped and goes extinct, what do we call barebow? Its name is in reference to OR...)

(Actually, if the Olympic canned OR, the trad guys might pick it up as Olympic traditional...)_


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Asiatic bows have been in use for thousands of years. English longbows have been in use for 100's of years. Are you really comparing the Platypus of the archery world (the OR) to those historically and culturally significant bows?


----------



## Hikari (May 15, 2021)

limbwalker said:


> Asiatic bows have been in use for thousands of years. English longbows have been in use for 100's of years. Are you really comparing the Platypus of the archery world (the OR) to those historically and culturally significant bows?


No.


----------



## whynotv2 (Oct 5, 2010)

I can agree that 18m indoor would be a better place for it, though if it were to remain outdoors either really mess with target shooters by holding it outdoors (rain, shine, wind, etc.) or push the distance out to 90m on an 80cm target. Basically, make the distance match the technology. It still irritates me a bit when I'm at a shoot and as a recurve shooter I'm shooting 70m without a mechanical release, without a peep, without a let off, and with no magnification, but look toward the other end of the field to see shooters with all of those things shooting at 50m. They always say "But our target is smaller!" Yeah, but obviously it's not posing that much of a challenge given there are no other holes outside of the 8 ring!!!

Maybe a "hybrid" or "relay" team type of format. First leg is Barebow at 18m followed by 3D compound (to make it more exciting, push the targets out farther, no maximum distance range of 50yds or whatever. Get them out there even if it's a smaller target that shouldn't be at that distance ie. Dart Frog at 50yards.) Last "leg" of the relay is the recurve division. Each individual leg gets their own medals, with a final medal for the overall team/country similar to the gymnastics team competition. After typing this out, I kind of like the idea!

All in all, I support more archery in the Olympics as the hope is to continue growing the sport in all disciplines.


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

The OR style only exists because of the Olympics. It's inevitable that the Compound will enter the Olympics. Compounds are very popular to people who can care less about the Olympics. Nobody takes up the OR by itself and trains to master it in of itself. For that reason the OR is already a dying class. But the compound class continues to grow. If the Olympics continues to keep Archery, then it must have compounds.

Compounds gives the sport the ultimate test in precision. But the test needs to be a true test where getting a perfect score is virtually impossible.

If one wants to have an archery event that is all about the archer and not about the equipment technology race, then it's barebow, or better yet, longbow (with allowing modern arrows).

In my area the OR is already dying, barebow now outnumbers the OR.

For archery to continue in the Olympics it will need the compound, or it will just fade away.

If one wants a challenging sport that will be more exciting to watch on TV, then have a field style of a shoot with the challenges of variable distances and angles of shooting. When there are more opportunities of a mistake, then it gets more exciting to watch.

Pete


----------



## AzureSkydiver (Sep 13, 2021)

bahboric said:


> compound biathlon?


3D shoots in the snow.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Mr. Roboto said:


> The OR style only exists because of the Olympics. It's inevitable that the Compound will enter the Olympics. Compounds are very popular to people who can care less about the Olympics. Nobody takes up the OR by itself and trains to master it in of itself. For that reason the OR is already a dying class. But the compound class continues to grow. If the Olympics continues to keep Archery, then it must have compounds.
> 
> Compounds gives the sport the ultimate test in precision. But the test needs to be a true test where getting a perfect score is virtually impossible.
> 
> ...


That's a strong argument for barebow.

I find the "cannot afford to miss" nature of compound makes for compelling viewing - especially in shoot-offs. It's as high pressure as you can get. Take all the perfect scorers and put them on the same line at the same time and then broadcast that. People will watch.


----------



## FerrumVeritas (Oct 9, 2020)

They won’t do it, but if we’re having indoor compound I wish they’d require smaller (or even skinny) arrows and/or inside out scoring. WA complains a lot about ties, but doesn’t do the one thing that would significantly reduce ties.


----------



## Duckhunterfl (Jan 13, 2020)

The best news I've heard in years it's finally about time


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

limbwalker said:


> That's a strong argument for barebow.
> 
> I find the "cannot afford to miss" nature of compound makes for compelling viewing - especially in shoot-offs. It's as high pressure as you can get. Take all the perfect scorers and put them on the same line at the same time and then broadcast that. People will watch.


I was at the edge of my seat watching the Vegas shoot off this year. Miss the X and your done. 
I like what Lancaster did this year with adding a 12 ring in middle of the red. A chance to make up points, but a miss will be a 7 or an 8.
ASA shootouts are awesome to watch because of the 14 ring. Lots of strategy there, do I lead off with a 14 to put force to other guys to do it or get eliminated because I missed and got a 5.


----------



## Arcus (Jul 7, 2005)

Mr. Roboto said:


> For that reason the OR is already a dying class.


Is it dying world-wide?


----------



## Ray.L (Apr 29, 2021)

Putting a further distance on outdoor compound wouldn't introduce any more granularity in scoring. As it is, no one has shot a perfect 720 in competition. You'd see less perfects in the match play, but that would likely mean less shoot-offs as well.

Regarding indoor, WA already somewhat accounts for the 300 scores you see in Vegas by having only the X-ring count as 10, and having a smaller maximum arrow diameter than Vegas. If you look at the last Nimes, no one shot a 300.

I do like the wildcard spot they put in Lancaster and the WA lockdown indoor series. I think it makes the matches more exciting for the viewer.


----------



## bucco921 (Jan 2, 2012)

[QUOTE="Ray.L, post: 1114709256, member: 965643"
I do like the wildcard spot they put in Lancaster and the WA lockdown indoor series. I think it makes the matches more exciting for the viewer.
[/QUOTE]

Part of me likes it and part of me hates it lol. I like the added strategy, the fact you can make up a bad shot, or even just bury your opponent. But it still feels "gimmicky". I'm still torn on how I feel about it long term.

I think for possible indoor compounds in the Olympics, a 22 or 23 diameter limit coupled with inside out scoring would suffice.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Maybe I'll be proven wrong, and maybe I'm biased, but I would like to believe that indoor compound will be more interesting for viewers than 10M air rifle because frankly, it's hard to tell exactly what those athletes are DOING when they shoot their rifles. At least in archery, people can watch the act of drawing the bow and see the release and the impact of the arrow. They will be able to SEE just how close an arrow is to a line, instead of just seeing an electronic representation of the impact.

I think there is a chance (again, probably too optimistic) that Olympic indoor compound archery could become as popular to watch as outdoor recurve. Eventually.


----------



## lameduck (Jul 24, 2019)

Rick McKinney said:


> This means more medals for countries who excel in compounds but have no recurve archers.


Can you list down these countries who excel in compound but don't have recurve archers? I find this really odd.


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

I’m wondering...has anyone ever heard non-archers, maybe around the office water cooler or at the local pub, talk about watching Olympic archery on TV without first being prompted by you or another archer? I know I have not. 


Also wondering how much of this sort of discussion goes within other sports. Did people argue that adding women’s Sabre and Epee would lead to the death of Foil?


----------



## bucco921 (Jan 2, 2012)

Stash said:


> I’m wondering...has anyone ever heard non-archers, maybe around the office water cooler or at the local pub, talk about watching Olympic archery on TV without first being prompted by you or another archer? I know I have not.
> 
> 
> Also wondering how much of this sort of discussion goes within other sports. Did people argue that adding women’s Sabre and Epee would lead to the death of Foil?


Can't say that I've ever heard anything but running and swimming disciplines and athletes mentioned at work in regards to summer games.

Humans are humans, so I can guarantee these discussions happen


----------



## FerrumVeritas (Oct 9, 2020)

Stash said:


> I’m wondering...has anyone ever heard non-archers, maybe around the office water cooler or at the local pub, talk about watching Olympic archery on TV without first being prompted by you or another archer? I know I have not.
> 
> 
> Also wondering how much of this sort of discussion goes within other sports. Did people argue that adding women’s Sabre and Epee would lead to the death of Foil?


They added women’s saber without increasing medal count, meaning that for multiple cycles either a foil or epee event was dropped. It was not particular popular (even though it was universally agreed that adding womens’s saber was the right idea).

To your first point: occasionally. Only ever the medal matches. You left off gymnastics, which is IIRC the highest rated Olympic event.


----------



## Gabbler1 (Aug 22, 2013)

bahboric said:


> compound biathlon?


Could even be a summer sport using “Rollerskis”…just a thought 🤔


----------



## "TheBlindArcher" (Jan 27, 2015)

Well, in the real Olympics [i.e. the Paralympics] both compound and recurve are included outdoors... and in one category [and two categories within WA], the archer has the choice of shooting either... Y'all just need to catch up [right after y'all adopt the doubles formats]... While I don't know about the W1s, the VI archers tend to gravitate towards recurve... So, maybe if done right we can all just get along...


----------



## Arrowbender (Nov 7, 2018)

TER said:


> They shoot Olympic Recurve because it's in the Olympics. Even though they know they will never get to the Olympics. Many people just enjoy doing what's in the Olympics.
> 
> It is true nobody is going to drop OR to change to indoor compound while OR is still in the Olympics. But if OR ever got dropped from the Olympics, OR would vaporize. Cease to exist. Everyone would switch to compound and barebow.


You're saying people only shoot a bow type as long as it's in the olympics, and if it weren't in the olympics, they'd... switch to bow types that... aren't in the olympics either.
Which are being shot, a lot, despite not being in the olympics.
It's not an olympic recurve. It's a fita target recurve setup.
No fita target recurve shooter I know offline even watches archery in the olympics, except maybe a few seconds here or there just to observe techniques.
If archery dropped out entirely, they would not care. Maybe it's a US vs EU thing, because we have little to no bowhunting, so less of a compound culture.


----------



## Arrowbender (Nov 7, 2018)

Arcus said:


> Is it dying world-wide?


No. But then again, my experience is limited to one EU country, so take it with the entire salt shaker.

If anything, it's barebow that's non-existent here, probably because we have absolutely zero of that "I wanna be "trad" maaan" culture that exists in the US.
It's viewed (very wrongly) as an entry thing, before you "get serious" and slap on sights and stabs (again: I absolutely do not share this point of view at all, the opposite in fact, but it's prevalent).

The local club is roughly 50-50 on archers shooting fita target setup recurves and target setup compounds.
I am the only person there who shoots hunting setups as well.
There is only one dedicated barebow archer in the whole club, and she shoots for fun and relaxation only.

None of the recurve archers I know would switch to compound because of one or the other being in the olympics.
All the recurve archers I know have tried compound - it's part of the "let's figure out your preference" training for new members, they made their choice simply because they find it more enjoyable. 
I've only ever known one to switch from recurve to compound later on.

Let me turn this around: 
if you're currently shooting target recurve- would you drop it if it's no longer in the olympics?
Not in the abstract, you personally.

If the answer is yes- are you quite sure you enjoy what you do to begin with?

There's also a difference between countries that take lots of archery medals and those that don't, though.
Yes, that absolutely will lead to more recruitment. 
But the big rep leading to big recruitment doesn't necessarily need to be related to the olympics, as long as it's publicized.
Soccer's our biggest sport, and again, no one cares whether it's in the olympics or not.


----------



## FerrumVeritas (Oct 9, 2020)

Again, it's not that I think current shooters would drop recurve (although some top level shooters might--Mack did). It's that I think new shooters would see 18m compound as both more accessible and potentially more lucrative than 70m recurve. The "Olympic dream" is very much a thing for young archers. Older archers (and older people entering archery) are more disillusioned.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Recurve also takes a beating on one's body. At the elite level, it is extremely physically demanding.

I do hope recurve always remains in the Olympic program and that indoor compound is added and is very successful. Olympic recurve at 70M will always represent the most athletic form of competitive archery and for that reason it belongs in the greatest athletic competition in the world.


----------



## Hikari (May 15, 2021)

FerrumVeritas said:


> It's that I think new shooters would see 18m compound as both more accessible and potentially more lucrative than 70m recurve.


I think if you are thinking about getting into archery purely based on economic criteria, you will be disappointed. I am sure some archers do do that. However, I can't see that as a driving motivation for most. That is like saying someone would chose the 100m sprint over the hurdles or cross country because it is more accessible and lucrative.

In the US, we seem to rationalize things purely through a funny free-market economic lens--popularity and market share determine worth. If that were the case, then the Olympics would just be another FIFA World Cup. But the Olympics has never been about what drives traffic at the local sports bar, and, let's face it, the most popular sports are dominated by spectators in a strange form of tribalistic entertainment, not practitioners that spend time on the field of play.

People will pickup an Olympic bow for its intrinsic value, just like most Olympic sports. I think David Nguyen sums it up well:






The fact that archery is pursued for something other than utilitarian values, even to the point of shooting archaic forms such as the longbow, shows people are not shooting for the best payday. OR is just another form of archery and the most technically advanced form of the recurve, both physically and technically. People will pursue the discipline precisely because of that.


----------



## Arrowbender (Nov 7, 2018)

FerrumVeritas said:


> Again, it's not that I think current shooters would drop recurve (although some top level shooters might--Mack did). It's that I think new shooters would see 18m compound as both more accessible and potentially more lucrative than 70m recurve. The "Olympic dream" is very much a thing for young archers. Older archers (and older people entering archery) are more disillusioned.


Mack didn't drop recurve because of whether it theoretically may or may not be dropped or replaced on the olympics.
Compound isn't more accessible, at least when you get down to where actually real competitive scores are concerned, outside of the happy smurf fantasy land that is the general archery forum where supposedly everyone shoots a group that would make all current real competitors retire in shame.

Contrary to popular belief there, 18m (25m, whatever) compound is not a matter of lol, I just put the thing in the thing and everyone can do it, so it's sooo accessible.
It doesn't even matter that you think you theoretically can, or that it's theoretically far easier- 
because, this is important: 
all of that applies to all other competitors as well.
It becomes more of a consistency thing.

You have to be able to do it each and every time, literally dead center every time, consistently, to be competitive.
I can think of at least two AT "coaches" who claim they can train someone up to that in a day.
Perfect accuracy at 18m with compound.
They're idiots. 
And they have not one single student to prove it.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Hikari said:


> I think if you are thinking about getting into archery purely based on economic criteria, you will be disappointed. I am sure some archers do do that. However, I can't see that as a driving motivation for most. That is like saying someone would chose the 100m sprint over the hurdles or cross country because it is more accessible and lucrative.
> 
> In the US, we seem to rationalize things purely through a funny free-market economic lens--popularity and market share determine worth. If that were the case, then the Olympics would just be another FIFA World Cup. But the Olympics has never been about what drives traffic at the local sports bar, and, let's face it, the most popular sports are dominated by spectators in a strange form of tribalistic entertainment, not practitioners that spend time on the field of play.
> 
> ...


A major economic benefit to archers in countries that allow bowhunting, like the US, is that an archer can begin shooting indoor spots with their hunting bow up to a rather competitive level. This is why we have so many compound target archers in the US. Most if not all of them started out shooting spots with their hunting bow.


----------



## FerrumVeritas (Oct 9, 2020)

Indoor compound is more accessible than 70m recurve not because one is easier than another, but because 18m ranges are way more common than 70m ones. And 18m doesn’t care if it snows 8 months out of the year.

It’s not easier, but it is less physically demanding.

Granted, I’d argue that it’s way more mentally demanding. I’ve seen decent recurve archers bounce back from a miss at 70m, while I’ve seen a 7 break compound shooters in practice.


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

Regardless of how we (archers in general) view the merits of compound, there’s still the matter of convincing the IOC to add another 128 (or even 64) more bodies, plus support staff to the Olympic Village. 

To keep the numbers the same, imagine the outcry if compound replaces recurves. Not gonna happen.

Then there’s the issue of allocating placings to the various countries. It’s complicated enough with recurve, but at least we have lots of international events to establish ranking points for the outdoor recurvers. Nothing close to that for indoor compounders.


----------



## TER (Jul 5, 2003)

Arrowbender said:


> You're saying people only shoot a bow type as long as it's in the olympics, and if it weren't in the olympics, they'd... switch to bow types that... aren't in the olympics either.
> Which are being shot, a lot, despite not being in the olympics.
> It's not an olympic recurve. It's a fita target recurve setup.
> No fita target recurve shooter I know offline even watches archery in the olympics, except maybe a few seconds here or there just to observe techniques.
> If archery dropped out entirely, they would not care. Maybe it's a US vs EU thing, because we have little to no bowhunting, so less of a compound culture.


The defining characteristic of OR is the clicker. Shooting with a clicker has no intrinsic charm. The clicker is not fun. If OR gets dropped from the Olympics there will no longer be a reason to tolerate this miserable device. Shooting barebow is intrinsically fun and enjoyable, if you can tolerate how much more difficult it is than OR and compound to learn to shoot good groups. I've never shot compound, so I can only guess people like how super accurate you can get with it, and as a beginner you can keep all the arrows on the target much more quickly. That's what accessible means.
Your first argument about about quitting OR to do something else not in the Olympics is invalid because you use a false premise. Your false premise is that compound is not in the Olympics, in the scenario we are discussing compound is in the Olympics.
It is an Olympic Recurve bow because that's what it has been officially named and called by everyone in the world for a good decade. FITA has not existed for over 10 years. There is no such thing as FITA anymore. 
There are millions of people in the world who do Olympic sports just because they enjoy doing an Olympic sport and following it. Your anecdotal claim that all of the OR archers you know in real life don't watch or follow OR is, number one, anecdotal so it provides no evidence for anything, and number two, does not ring truthfully. Bottom line, an anecdote proves nothing, it cannot even be used as a little evidence toward a conclusion.


----------



## AzureSkydiver (Sep 13, 2021)

FerrumVeritas said:


> Granted, I’d argue that it’s way more mentally demanding. I’ve seen decent recurve archers bounce back from a miss at 70m, while I’ve seen a 7 break compound shooters in practice.


Yup, just like 10m air rifle. With a 0.5mm 10 ring, getting a 7 or lower can be a stunner that for me required a lot of mental resilience to just use that shot as feedback for the next shot, but at the same time forget about that shot and move on to the current shot.


----------



## AzureSkydiver (Sep 13, 2021)

TER said:


> The defining characteristic of OR is the clicker. Shooting with a clicker has no intrinsic charm. The clicker is not fun.


The clicker is used to as a draw length check. Need that consistent draw length to get arrows to group consistently at that 70m distance.

If the rules changed to allow electronics in Olympic recurve, I suspect that there may be a small revolution in draw length devices and/or sights. Imagine a heads up display like sight that shows when you've reached the correct draw length.


----------



## TER (Jul 5, 2003)

AzureSkydiver said:


> The clicker is used to as a draw length check. Need that consistent draw length to get arrows to group consistently at that 70m distance.
> 
> If the rules changed to allow electronics in Olympic recurve, I suspect that there may be a small revolution in draw length devices and/or sights. Imagine a heads up display like sight that shows when you've reached the correct draw length.


Yeah, I know a clicker is a draw check. I've been shooting with a clicker for 39 years. But I've also consistently shot groups at 70M barebow, so it can be done without a clicker. Clicker isn't necessary to shoot groups in recurve even at 70M. At 90M though, not so many groups for me at that distance without a clicker.
Jeez, I hope no discipline of archery ever becomes like a video game with a heads-up display.
Learning that the 10 in 10M air rifle is 0.5MM so surprised me I googled it, because I was sure you must have meant 0.5CM. But you posted what you meant to post, an 0.5MM dot. That's crazy.


----------



## MrPillow (Apr 9, 2021)

I enjoy the clicker 🤷🏻‍♂️


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

Clicker is not a “draw length check”. It’s mental trigger. You react to it, sort of like the starter gun for a race.

It’s the cure for the most common form of target panic, and not being allowed to use it is the main reason (in my opinion) that keeps Barebow from growing even more. I know I’m useless at target barebow without it.


----------



## TER (Jul 5, 2003)

Okay. A clicker is not a draw check. A clicker has nothing to do with draw length. Okay. Great. It only has one purpose. Not two. Okay.


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

If it was only a draw length check, then a small mirror would do the job without the risk of deflecting the arrow if you mess up. Yes, it does ensure the same draw length if used properly, but there are a few people who use it as a draw length check but don’t instantly release, and sometimes creep forward after the click, thus defeating the purpose.

I’m sure there are many out there, but I’ve only personally known two top-level (national team/national champion) recurve archers who could shoot well without the “click”.


----------



## TER (Jul 5, 2003)

I never said it was only a draw length check. I said it's a miserable device with no intrinsic charm.


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

Only if you’re incapable of using it properly. 😄

In my case, there was a time when if you asked me to accurately show you where 27.995” was on my 28” arrow, I could do that on pretty much every important shot.


----------



## hockeyref (Jun 2, 2006)

Stash said:


> Regardless of how we (archers in general) view the merits of compound, there’s still the matter of convincing the IOC to add another 128 (or even 64) more bodies, plus support staff to the Olympic Village.
> 
> To keep the numbers the same, imagine the outcry if compound replaces recurves. Not gonna happen.
> 
> Then there’s the issue of allocating placings to the various countries. It’s complicated enough with recurve, but at least we have lots of international events to establish ranking points for the outdoor recurvers. Nothing close to that for indoor compounders.



This broken down old ice-zebra is stranding on the outside looking in and he wonders - tongue in cheek.... "what if the number of archers is not increased, but is kept the same with all archers required to compete in both disciplines for individual and team medals"? OR, "What if they bring the 18m compounds on board but they have to shoot fingers"? Now retreating to the popcorn gallery and donning nomex undies for actually voicing such silly ideas..


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

TER said:


> The defining characteristic of OR is the clicker. Shooting with a clicker has no intrinsic charm. The clicker is not fun. If OR gets dropped from the Olympics there will no longer be a reason to tolerate this miserable device. Shooting barebow is intrinsically fun and enjoyable, if you can tolerate how much more difficult it is than OR and compound to learn to shoot good groups. I've never shot compound, so I can only guess people like how super accurate you can get with it, and as a beginner you can keep all the arrows on the target much more quickly. That's what accessible means.


LOL that's funny. The clicker is literally the only reason anyone here knows my name.

The clicker is miserable only for those who don't do the work required to master it. 

Barebow is truly enjoyable until you develop TP. And given time, everyone who shoots competitive barebow will develop some form of TP. After that, it's more work than most want.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

MrPillow said:


> I enjoy the clicker 🤷🏻‍♂️


I damn sure do as well. Makes my shooting so much more relaxing.


----------



## TER (Jul 5, 2003)

limbwalker said:


> LOL that's funny. The clicker is literally the only reason anyone here knows my name.
> 
> The clicker is miserable only for those who don't do the work required to master it.
> 
> Barebow is truly enjoyable until you develop TP. And given time, everyone who shoots competitive barebow will develop some form of TP. After that, it's more work than most want.











This has been going on for years. I've politely asked you to stop taking shots at me and trying to pick fights. When I don't respond to you, you just keep taking shots unanswered. I ask again, let's not reply to each other ever.


----------



## TER (Jul 5, 2003)

That's enough off topic stuff in this thread. If you need to discuss anything with me for some reason, send me a PM. I again ask, we don't reply to each other in threads.


----------



## Arrowbender (Nov 7, 2018)

TER said:


> The defining characteristic of OR is the clicker. Shooting with a clicker has no intrinsic charm. The clicker is not fun. If OR gets dropped from the Olympics there will no longer be a reason to tolerate this miserable device. Shooting barebow is intrinsically fun and enjoyable, if you can tolerate how much more difficult it is than OR and compound to learn to shoot good groups. I've never shot compound, so I can only guess people like how super accurate you can get with it, and as a beginner you can keep all the arrows on the target much more quickly. That's what accessible means.
> Your first argument about about quitting OR to do something else not in the Olympics is invalid because you use a false premise. Your false premise is that compound is not in the Olympics, in the scenario we are discussing compound is in the Olympics.
> It is an Olympic Recurve bow because that's what it has been officially named and called by everyone in the world for a good decade. FITA has not existed for over 10 years. There is no such thing as FITA anymore.
> There are millions of people in the world who do Olympic sports just because they enjoy doing an Olympic sport and following it. Your anecdotal claim that all of the OR archers you know in real life don't watch or follow OR is, number one, anecdotal so it provides no evidence for anything, and number two, does not ring truthfully. Bottom line, an anecdote proves nothing, it cannot even be used as a little evidence toward a conclusion.


It's possible, in fact polite, to just agree to disagree without also implying the other side is a liar.

I don't understand why you've spent 40 years shooting in a way you describe as miserable, or why you would assume that therefore, everyone else must also find it miserable. 
That's barely even anecdotal.
And anyway, it's kind of difficult to drag up empirical evidence for a hypothetical situation.

Your argument was that people shoot OR only because it's in the olympics. 
My point was that people shoot other archery styles that aren't in the olympics, so "in the olympics" is not a determining factor there.

People who do soccer, basketball, tae kwon do, judo, boxing, cycling, tennis, volleyball and so on, do not do so based on whether it's in the olympics or not.
If there's never another olympic competition - these sports will still do just fine.
For the most part, high level competition in these sports does not even involve the word "olympic" at all.

If I'm not misunderstanding you, your point is that "it's in the olympics" overrides "it's fun" as a determining factor as to whether someone participates in a sport or not.

I have literally never (here we go with the ol' anecdotal evidence again) heard anyone say "this isn't fun, but I'll keep at it cause it's in the olympics" until now.

(As for your disagreements with that other user, we can at least agree on that one. My recommendation: click user name, click the three dots to the right, and use the ignore function. I'm only even aware they're in the thread because you print screened it - and I know our ignore listing is very happily mutual).


----------



## "TheBlindArcher" (Jan 27, 2015)

Stash said:


> Regardless of how we (archers in general) view the merits of compound, there’s still the matter of convincing the IOC to add another 128 (or even 64) more bodies, plus support staff to the Olympic Village.
> 
> To keep the numbers the same, imagine the outcry if compound replaces recurves. Not gonna happen.
> 
> Then there’s the issue of allocating placings to the various countries. It’s complicated enough with recurve, but at least we have lots of international events to establish ranking points for the outdoor recurvers. Nothing close to that for indoor compounders.



It's not just a matter of number of archers allocated to the Olympics, but the event as a whole [i.e. all events inclusive] has a cap... It's not simply "lose 64 recurves to gain 64 compounders," but also in a larger scheme losing 64 other Olympic athletes to gain 64 'pounders. 

True about designing the whole quota system provided there are so few competition opportunities relative to the outdoor season; but IIRC WA has included the option of shooting the "indoor" format outdoors, so perhaps this may play into providing more opportunities.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

"TheBlindArcher" said:


> It's not just a matter of number of archers allocated to the Olympics, but the event as a whole [i.e. all events inclusive] has a cap... It's not simply "lose 64 recurves to gain 64 compounders," but also in a larger scheme losing 64 other Olympic athletes to gain 64 'pounders.
> 
> True about designing the whole quota system provided there are so few competition opportunities relative to the outdoor season; but IIRC WA has included the option of shooting the "indoor" format outdoors, so perhaps this may play into providing more opportunities.


I'd be okay with losing 64 trampoline gymnasts or 64 equestrian riders or 64 synchronized swimmers or... well you get the idea.


----------



## FerrumVeritas (Oct 9, 2020)

limbwalker said:


> I'd be okay with losing 64 trampoline gymnasts or 64 equestrian riders or 64 synchronized swimmers or... well you get the idea.


I’m sure you are. I doubt that people engaged in those sports agree, however.


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

limbwalker said:


> I'd be okay with losing 64 trampoline gymnasts or 64 equestrian riders or 64 synchronized swimmers or... well you get the idea.


I've always wondered how horses came to be considered Olympic athletes.


----------



## woof156 (Apr 3, 2018)

Seattlepop said:


> I've always wondered how horses came to be considered Olympic athletes.


 Next doggie agility will be there...and now that you mention it why not horse races??


----------



## "TheBlindArcher" (Jan 27, 2015)

limbwalker said:


> I'd be okay with losing 64 trampoline gymnasts or 64 equestrian riders or 64 synchronized swimmers or... well you get the idea.



Breakdancing, kite surfing, and sailing get my vote...


----------



## AzureSkydiver (Sep 13, 2021)

Are the X-Games still on going?


----------



## "TheBlindArcher" (Jan 27, 2015)

I know this could get way sensitive, so hopefully it stays simple and polite... What are thoughts if compound is introduced as an "open" [no men's/women's] event? There are arguments that, indoors, gender/DW/DL aren't as influential as generally in 70m OR [at least that's a comment floating around], but then I look at Vegas results and can't help but notice, and without exploring any reasons, that the women are shooting fewer 900s, and rarely do the women compete in the open class on the big stage... Not implying the women's finalists couldn't hold their own in the open class, and maybe it's simply averages and competitor pool size; maybe it's as simple as there being 7-8x more competitors in the open class over the women's class, but I'm still a little hung up on the "it's a wash" conversation; in practice is indoors truly the great equalizer at the potentially Olympic level?


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

As far as I understand (could be wrong), but aside from Equestrian and for some reason a single sailing event, there are no Olympic sports where men compete directly against women. Not talking about mixed teams here - just individuals.

Shooting used to have “open” events where women could enter, but these were all switched to men’s events, and separate women's events were added.

I doubt if the IOC would go for something like that, especially in a sport where the statistics clearly show men generally having a competitive advantage. I think we can all agree that there are a few women archers who can compete equally with men at the top level, but the depth of the field isn’t there. Yet.


----------



## Ray.L (Apr 29, 2021)

GT, in the most recent Easton target archery podcast, mentioned the possibility of it being open. But the scores don't reflect a fully equal playing field. I think there is still some issue of physicality at the top level, even at 18m. For example, IMO, if you can hold more weight on your stabs on compound, you're at an advantage.


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

Ray.L said:


> GT, in the most recent Easton target archery podcast, mentioned the possibility of it being open. But the scores don't reflect a fully equal playing field. I think there is still some issue of physicality at the top level, even at 18m. For example, IMO, if you can hold more weight on your stabs on compound, you're at an advantage.


Equipment can be regulated. Why not set equipment standards at some male/female median?


----------



## FerrumVeritas (Oct 9, 2020)

The real problem with an open category is that men get more attention and funding.


----------



## Arrowbender (Nov 7, 2018)

FerrumVeritas said:


> The real problem with an open category is that men get more attention and funding.


Potentially really stupid question but I genuinely don't know: would that still be the case in an open division, that has direct competition between genders?


----------



## FerrumVeritas (Oct 9, 2020)

Arrowbender said:


> Potentially really stupid question but I genuinely don't know: would that still be the case in an open division, that has direct competition between genders?


It does at Vegas. Even when women compete in the open category. 
It's generally assumed that men drive bow sales more than women, because women will buy a bow men use, but men rarely buy bows that women are the primary spokespeople for.


----------



## lees (Feb 10, 2017)

FerrumVeritas said:


> Indoor compound is more accessible than 70m recurve not because one is easier than another, but because 18m ranges are way more common than 70m ones. And 18m doesn’t care if it snows 8 months out of the year.
> 
> It’s not easier, but it is less physically demanding.
> 
> Granted, I’d argue that it’s way more mentally demanding. I’ve seen decent recurve archers bounce back from a miss at 70m, while I’ve seen a 7 break compound shooters in practice.


I've said this for years too. If you graph the level of progress vs effort required for each bow, the compound curve looks more like the proverbial "hocky stick" than does the recurve bow (which is just constant bloody brutality at all times and levels). You make huge strides in progress with very little effort in the beginning, and for quite a while. But then all of a sudden, kinda around the time you're about to shoot your first 300 on a Vegas face in practice, the progress just hits a brick wall and you sit there at 298 for like 2 years or something. And the amount of blood, sweat and tears just to get those last 2 points starts to shoot hyperbolically upward. And it just gets worse from there.

That's kind of why you have, like, 60,000 perfect scores in freestyle every year at Vegas, but the finals are a total nail-biter between the same 4 or 5 guys and gals year after year, once they get to the inside-out part at the end. You can hear a pin drop in there, even though it's the same replay for the last 4 years....

And I agree about the mental game. When I put a shaft in the woods with a recurve, it's just routine. Because every shot has a 98% chance of going into the woods when I shoot a recurve.... But when you miss on compound - because you already know how to "shoot your 10", but you don't because of some little BS mistake - it's really mentally punishing...

Compound is an ice-in-the-veins type of game where psychopathy and a rough past in your life can really help you, much more so than just a big blob of muscle in your arms, back and chest....

So I agree it's not so much of a purely athletic contest of physical strength like olympic recurve is. It's more of a heartbreaking kind of thing when the first guy or gal finally cracks after 35,421 X's and finally puts shaft 35,422 in the 9. But I think indoor 18m will, if it's approved, be the right olympic venue for compound, because that's its chief appeal spectator-wise...

lee.


----------



## lees (Feb 10, 2017)

"TheBlindArcher" said:


> I know this could get way sensitive, so hopefully it stays simple and polite... What are thoughts if compound is introduced as an "open" [no men's/women's] event? There are arguments that, indoors, gender/DW/DL aren't as influential as generally in 70m OR [at least that's a comment floating around], but then I look at Vegas results and can't help but notice, and without exploring any reasons, that the women are shooting fewer 900s, and rarely do the women compete in the open class on the big stage... Not implying the women's finalists couldn't hold their own in the open class, and maybe it's simply averages and competitor pool size; maybe it's as simple as there being 7-8x more competitors in the open class over the women's class, but I'm still a little hung up on the "it's a wash" conversation; in practice is indoors truly the great equalizer at the potentially Olympic level?


The short answer is nobody actually knows.

The long answer is as follows:
Separate male/female divisions in our sport are "traditional" and "it's just always been that way". Male and female shooters have never been treated as peers in archery and accordingly they've never actually participated as peers. So there's no way to really *know *if the disparity in scores and participation has anything to do with any athletic performance difference inherent between male and female compound shooters.

So any and all evidence we have currently that some inherent difference separates male and female shooters is essentially anecdotal. Basically, it's ultimately still just a food fight between the guys who are certain that archery is a sport of strength and therefore males always have an advantage, and the other guys who deny that, and everybody else in between.

That's pretty much the sum total of what we got right now on this particular question. Lots of guesses but snake eyes on real, reliable data.

The only acid test is just such an open class, setup in such a way that participation between men and women is as level a playing field as we can make it. And then observe the results. For a long time.

Course, I doubt that'll ever happen, but until then nobody really knows for sure.

lee.


----------



## lees (Feb 10, 2017)

TER said:


> I never said it was only a draw length check. I said it's a miserable device with no intrinsic charm.


It's certainly miserable and utterly not charming at all to learn how to use. I can definitely vouch for that. But its true value is as a means of timing the shot for the shooter (so that (s)he doesn't have to). And indeed, that misery still has to be traded in for the misery of command-shooting, as still seems to be required in disciplines like barebow. 

For me that would more than equal out, given I'm one of the unfortunates that is physically incapable of command-shooting. That means the difference between shooting arrows in totally miserable directions and shooting no arrows in any direction at all. So it's a little more than 6 of one/half-dozen of the other. 

OTOH, if I'm allowed to use a grip-sear technique for externally timing the shot, I can shoot BB. But the legality of that still seems to be questionable.

So when I do shoot recurve, it has to have a clicker on it for me to be able to execute a shot at all. But I wouldn't say it's a miserable device with no charm. There's a whole technique there to it that can keep you busy for your entire life just getting it down to where you can repeat it for 3 arrows. I can do 2 in a row after about 30 years of trying, 3 arrows in a row with good execution, on purpose, in still on the Bucket List....

lee.


----------



## fdog (Feb 17, 2018)

Augh.

After 7 pages, that's 20 minutes I'm not getting back...

All the best, James


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

And while we discuss, Target Compound archery is from 2013 an official sport at the World Games that are starting tomorrow. Just a step under Olympic Games, the World Games are recognized to be the test event for many sports cueing to enter the OG program.
The top level target compound event in the world is there, strange that the t proposal for 2028 is for Indoor and not for Target.
And, Field archery with Recurve and Bare bow are also there ...








Beginners guide to archery at the Birmingham 2022 World Games


The programme includes target and field archery.




worldarchery.sport


----------



## lees (Feb 10, 2017)

Arrowbender said:


> If I'm not misunderstanding you, your point is that "it's in the olympics" overrides "it's fun" as a determining factor as to whether someone participates in a sport or not.
> 
> I have literally never (here we go with the ol' anecdotal evidence again) heard anyone say "this isn't fun, but I'll keep at it cause it's in the olympics" until now.


Not meaning to throw chum in the water, but at one point in time I remember an interview with Brady Ellison where he more or less said this. Something to the effect of he hated recurve when he first switched to it from compound, but he gritted his teeth and kept shooting it simply because it was the olympic bow and he had olympic aspirations as a shooter, etc.

That may be an anecdote, as my memory is getting faulty in my old age, but I think I'm remembering that more or less correct.y

But I do wonder if there are others who were similarly motivated to shoot oly initially because of its status, even if it wasn't their preferred bow type? And maybe it's one of those deftly hidden secrets at least for some?

Obviously, Brady Ellison became one of the GOATs of recurve archery, which I don't think you can do if you keep on hating it, even if you hate it at first.

Fortunately, I've achieved no status or mastery with either bow due to overall lack of athletic talent combined with the infirmities of aging. So I'm free to shoot whichever one I can operate at all and doesn't rip my arms out of their sockets. And discard it for the other as I wish. Without a future on either one, I'm not bound to persist with something that doesn't compel me in some way.

But for shooters that do have that special something that could lead to them becoming a true champion, I do wonder if "this isn't fun, but I'll keep at it cause it's in the olympics" is more prevalent than we might actually realize?

lee.


----------



## FerrumVeritas (Oct 9, 2020)

Brady said it. Jake said it (although he's also said that the clicker was the only way to deal with his TP). Mack said it. 
People pick up recurve because it's the Olympic bow. That may not be why they stick with it, but that's why a lot of kids start.


----------



## lees (Feb 10, 2017)

FerrumVeritas said:


> Brady said it. Jake said it (although he's also said that the clicker was the only way to deal with his TP). Mack said it.
> People pick up recurve because it's the Olympic bow. That may not be why they stick with it, but that's why a lot of kids start.


I saw that a few times when I lived in NM. A couple of the compound kids switched. One day I came into the shop and there was one of them with an Olympic bow.
He had been an excellent compound shooter who seemed to always be having a good time.

But he was not a happy kid anymore. He looked positively ticked off now….

I don’t live there anymore so don’t know if he stuck with it.

As for Jake Kaminsky, I have the same form of TP that he does, and I also can’t shoot a bow of any kind without some means of externally timing the release. A clicker, grip sear or a surprise release with a release aid is mandatory for sufferers of our type. I’m sure that’s another draw of the Olympic bow, over a discipline like BB…

Lee.


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

... and there was my self that was shooting compound with release AND cliker in the old days ...


----------



## lees (Feb 10, 2017)

Vittorio said:


> ... and there was my self that was shooting compound with release AND cliker in the old days ...


I shot my Hoyt Prostar that way for a while. I’d probably still be shooting it if the equipment didn’t get stolen. Lots of fun…

lee.


----------



## Arrowbender (Nov 7, 2018)

lees said:


> Not meaning to throw chum in the water, but at one point in time I remember an interview with Brady Ellison where he more or less said this. Something to the effect of he hated recurve when he first switched to it from compound, but he gritted his teeth and kept shooting it simply because it was the olympic bow and he had olympic aspirations as a shooter, etc.
> 
> That may be an anecdote, as my memory is getting faulty in my old age, but I think I'm remembering that more or less correct.y
> 
> ...


Not sure what to say that doesn't move in circles, so I'll drop it after this with an "agree to disagree".
You can always point to one or two exceptions to any rule, but most people that pick up a hobby, even if that hobby has the potential to turn into something more, do not stick with it for years if they hate it.
Again: most do it, and keep doing it, without any chance whatsoever of being an olympic candidate, ever. It doesn't factor in. Because they enjoy it. Ask a boxer why they box. Ask a taekwondoin or whatever why they do what they do.

I fully believe Brady Ellison at some point said he hated it at first.
I also fully believe he wouldn't have stuck with it if he kept hating it. Why would he? It's not exactly his only occupational or entertainment opportunity in life.

As for kids pick up a recurve because it's in the olympics- I'll disagree as well.
By that reasoning, those kids might as well take up curling. But they don't.
Kids pick it up because they saw it in a movie or a tv series or a comic book or they like Robin Hood.
This whole thing is weirdly self-defeating and circular and handwringy over a... hypothetical situation, of all things.

"WA recurve is doomed if it's not in the olympics!"
"No, it's not. People do it because they enjoy it, and most sports are not in the olympics, and thrive just fine."
"Nu-uh! Never mind the simple fact that there are plenty of non-olympic sports with more practitioners! Everyone HATES doing recurve! They're all masochists, they'd wear a gimp suit on the line if they could!"
"No, really, everyone I know that shoots recurve does so because that's their preferred..."
"NO NO NO that's anecdotal, no one likes it! Because I said so! And that's totally not anecdotal!"

I have the weird feeling that if it gets dumped from the olympics tomorrow, the actual remaining number of practitioners worldwide would make no difference whatsoever in some of this subforum's participants urge to declare it dead and buried because doom doom doom things used to be better nyarnyar get off my lawn more than anything else.

I'll put it differently: if you really really think no one does it except because it's in the olympics...
Because you think no one enjoys it for what it is....
Then really, all the more reason to put it out of its misery asap.


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

I think it’s a matter of the culture of coaches and instructors, plus the equipment itself.

Most coaches and instructors (in my experience) are certified by national associations, whose main function is, and funding comes from Olympic based sources. So these coaches learn to and tend to want to teach Olympic style, and therefore that’s what most beginners are taught. I know that’s what my own club teaches, and it’s (sort of) what I used to teach when I did a lot of instructing/coaching.

Even though compounds (in North America) are prevalent, there are not many instructors who teach that style to beginners. Plus, the cost of acquiring, adjusting and maintaining “beginner” compound equipment compared to basic wood recurves is prohibitive.


----------



## lees (Feb 10, 2017)

Arrowbender said:


> Not sure what to say that doesn't move in circles, so I'll drop it after this with an "agree to disagree".
> You can always point to one or two exceptions to any rule, but most people that pick up a hobby, even if that hobby has the potential to turn into something more, do not stick with it for years if they hate it.
> Again: most do it, and keep doing it, without any chance whatsoever of being an olympic candidate, ever. It doesn't factor in. Because they enjoy it. Ask a boxer why they box. Ask a taekwondoin or whatever why they do what they do.
> 
> ...


Can’t think of anything you said that I disagree with.
I actually took it up the very first time because it looked cool. Also, it was the first bow I shot without target panic. I had a clicker on my TD4+ from the start, and I was instantly able to shoot it TP-free. I didn’t know why at the time but I was totally amazed.

I still tinker with it, but I’m just physically unable to do it regularly.

lee.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

lees said:


> Not meaning to throw chum in the water, but at one point in time I remember an interview with Brady Ellison where he more or less said this. Something to the effect of he hated recurve when he first switched to it from compound, but he gritted his teeth and kept shooting it simply because it was the olympic bow and he had olympic aspirations as a shooter, etc.
> lee.


If my memory serves me correct from that time period.

I also remember that interview. He said he hated recurve at first when he switched and it was really frustrating because he would make a good shot and the arrow would not go anywhere in the center. But he stuck with it because everyone said that recurve was in the Olympics and that was the goal. To shoot in the Olympics. Everyone was pushing him to go to the Olympics. 

Initially for his switching from compound .....his bow didnt show up at a tournament and he borrowed a spare recurve setup to shoot the tournament. He shot pretty well with it, had a good score and thats when coaches and others suggested he switch and try for the Olympics. Up until that time, he was a junior compound world champion. 



Chris


----------



## lees (Feb 10, 2017)

Stash said:


> I think it’s a matter of the culture of coaches and instructors, plus the equipment itself.
> 
> Most coaches and instructors (in my experience) are certified by national associations, whose main function is, and funding comes from Olympic based sources. So these coaches learn to and tend to want to teach Olympic style, and therefore that’s what most beginners are taught. I know that’s what my own club teaches, and it’s (sort of) what I used to teach when I did a lot of instructing/coaching.
> 
> Even though compounds (in North America) are prevalent, there are not many instructors who teach that style to beginners. Plus, the cost of acquiring, adjusting and maintaining “beginner” compound equipment compared to basic wood recurves is prohibitive.


Agree. But I would add that the more comprehensive reason, which I've written about before, is the pedagogical history of the compound vs. recurve. Namely, the stick-with-a-string-on-it is many 10's of 1000's of years old, and even the "modern" olympic bow has been the 1st class citizen in target archery pretty much from the very beginning. Accordingly, we as a species just simply know that much more about how to shoot it and hit stuff with it than we do the compound bow.

The modern compound bow is scarcely only 60 years old. It was also first invented in various forms almost back into prehistory, but it didn't get any serious attention as a target weapon until literally only a few decades ago. Even as late as the early 80's it was still kind of a Red Headed Step Child of target archery, and the Pinky-Extended Posh target shooting was all done with "real bows" - olympic recurve. Compounds were run off "serious" target ranges, and you didn't see the big mix of compounds and recurves on the typical target line that you see today.

So, that's why coaching on the compound bow is basically, well..... since I can't say anything polite I just won't say anything at all.

Except, the short answer there is.... Most of the time, by the time you manage to find competent coaching which will even halfway be able to help you at all, you could have just taught yourself, through regular old trial-and-error, how to shoot compound/release aid well, and would already be well on your way in your compound career, shooting tournaments and having a great time.

Not really true of recurve, where the overall "knowledge base" is much wider and deeper, and your chances of success at finding a good coach who really can help you are far higher than with the compound bow.

Of course, that's putting aside the lack of suitable equipment issue, which I do agree is a major problem with compound. Just the simple recognition of being 20 or even 30lbs overbowed is missed by the vast majority of compound shooters today, whereas getting at least in the ballpark of a proper poundage for a beginner is a well-established method on recurve. And etc.

That's an additional reason you have so much more variation in approaches to compound that actually work well. We're still figuring the compound bow out, and are much further away for the "correct" way to shoot it than we are the olympic recurve....

lee.


----------



## Rick McKinney (Mar 4, 2008)

I think that Brady was extremely comfortable with his compound and when you try something entirely different you are very uncomfortable with the major change. Obviously he had a lot of learning to do with the recurve and he eventually adapted and has done extremely well with it. Not only that, the compound bow demands perfection where the recurve allows for small errors. He had to change his entire mindset when changing over. Not an easy feat. However, I think his first passion is the compound since that is what he started with and won with so easily. He possibly could have been a Levi Morgan in the 3D world if he had stuck with it. But the Olympics for some is an incredible draw. It's a magnet that just doesn't stop for some. I shot Barebow in the beginning, along with my 4 other brothers, one sister, mom and dad. Three of them became national or international champions in the barebow field. I switched over to the recurve rather quickly since my body could not function in tandem with my brain. I fell in love with the recurve (this was at least 6 years before the Olympics announced that archery was inviting archery back into the Games). I still love shooting that recurve bow although I shoot a compound in the indoor league with the kids. I coach all three disciplines and am proud that I have National Champions in all three disciplines and a couple of world records. I make every effort to encourage the archers to decide what they enjoy most and what their goals are with that discipline. Unfortunately many eventually head to the recurve bow because that is who I am. I don't push it but I probably exude recurve without any effort. When I was on the Athlete's Committee with US Archery, I pushed for the committee to encourage US Archery to push for World Archery to get the Compound bow into the Olympics. There is room for them and maybe some day barebow if it continues to grow. South America is ripe with compound archers and successful ones which is a good omen for the IOC including it. Europe has a fairly large body of compounds and Asia is fast catching on, so there is a strong possibility that the bow will finally be welcomed into the Olympic family. Africa is the big challenge but it is a big challenge for all three disciplines. Will the compound hurt recurve? No. If you ever take the time to talk with different people with the different disciplines you will find the culture of each discipline. Each has a passion for that particular bow they shoot and most will not understand the love another has for a different discipline unless you are one of them.


----------



## lees (Feb 10, 2017)

chrstphr said:


> If my memory serves me correct from that time period.
> 
> I also remember that interview. He said he hated recurve at first when he switched and it was really frustrating because he would make a good shot and the arrow would not go anywhere in the center. But he stuck with it because everyone said that recurve was in the Olympics and that was the goal. To shoot in the Olympics. Everyone was pushing him to go to the Olympics.
> 
> ...


Ok, I wasn't just imagining it then lol. That's roughly the account I recall also. 
On the topic, there was another interview with him on the World Archery Youtube page, I believe it was, where they asked what he would do if compound were introduced to the olympics. He said something like he'd try out for both, but he felt his prospects for male compound weren't that bright because mens compound is so crazy high-leve now.... That's another video I can't find at the moment either. 

He competed with compound a little bit a few years ago when he was having problems with his fingers and couldn't shoot recurve as much as he wanted. Don't know if he'll ever switch back or not.....

lee.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Stash said:


> I think it’s a matter of the culture of coaches and instructors, plus the equipment itself.
> 
> Most coaches and instructors (in my experience) are certified by national associations, whose main function is, and funding comes from Olympic based sources. So these coaches learn to and tend to want to teach Olympic style, and therefore that’s what most beginners are taught. I know that’s what my own club teaches, and it’s (sort of) what I used to teach when I did a lot of instructing/coaching.
> 
> Even though compounds (in North America) are prevalent, there are not many instructors who teach that style to beginners. Plus, the cost of acquiring, adjusting and maintaining “beginner” compound equipment compared to basic wood recurves is prohibitive.


Are you not familiar with NASP?


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

Familiar in that I’m aware of it, but I have no personal experience with it. It does have a presence in Ontario, but I just don't know if it exists in other Canadian provinces, and I’m pretty sure it isn’t a thing elsewhere in the world. Would like to know if I’m wrong about that.

An honest question - are there any current “top” competitive target archers who got their start with NASP? What was their progression to regular compound shooting after leaving high school?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Stash said:


> Familiar in that I’m aware of it, but I have no personal experience with it. It does have a presence in Ontario, but I just don't know if it exists in other Canadian provinces, and I’m pretty sure it isn’t a thing elsewhere in the world. Would like to know if I’m wrong about that.
> 
> An honest question - are there any current “top” competitive target archers who got their start with NASP? What was their progression to regular compound shooting after leaving high school?


you would be wrong about it not being " a thing" in any other part of the world. It's massive in the U.S. Mackenzie Brown started out in NASP. She was a national champion. I'm sure there are others in the compound world but that's not my wheelhouse. Point is, it's arguably the most successful archery training program in the world, and they use entry level compound bows. Not only are they not prohibitive, they are excellent tools for group instruction for beginners (being exactly what they were designed for).


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

With no doubts, the Wolrd Games 2022 are the top level competition ever existed for Compound
Quarter finals clearly show that:

there is no difference between men and women at really top level, with Ella Gibson on top with 150
shoot off are the norm and you can loose 149 /149 by few cm
145 is a useless score, the game starts >147 (around 706 in qualify)
This automatically reflects to mix team
USA is no more the dominant nation in Target Compound
A lot of material to discuss in terms of 2028 OG

P.S. can't comment about Italy, as we simply did not qualify and our level is presently the lowest in Compound in relative terms we ever had . A lot of discussion running here about actions to be taken, of course.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Vittorio said:


> With no doubts, the Wolrd Games 2022 are the top level competition ever existed for Compound
> Quarter finals clearly show that:
> 
> there is no difference between men and women at really top level, with Ella Gibson on top with 150
> ...


The only answer of course is to find a Korean coach who has recently written a book about their unique and groundbreaking method. LOL


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

limbwalker said:


> you would be wrong about it not being " a thing" in any other part of the world. It's massive in the U.S.


I meant, any other part of the world besides US and some of Canada. Is NASP in any other countries? 

As for “most successful archery training program in the world”, I’d need to see a lot more data on that before I’d agree. First thing - how would you define “success”?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Stash said:


> I meant, any other part of the world besides US and some of Canada. Is NASP in any other countries?
> 
> As for “most successful archery training program in the world”, I’d need to see a lot more data on that before I’d agree. First thing - how would you define “success”?


I would define success by teaching kids to shoot a bow.

NASP is worldwide but of course is most popular here in the U.S.

If there is a more popular introductory program anywhere in the world, I'd love to hear what it is.


----------



## FerrumVeritas (Oct 9, 2020)

limbwalker said:


> I would define success by teaching kids to shoot a bow.
> 
> NASP is worldwide but of course is most popular here in the U.S.
> 
> If there is a more popular introductory program anywhere in the world, I'd love to hear what it is.


Korea's inclusion of archery in physical education programs?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

FerrumVeritas said:


> Korea's inclusion of archery in physical education programs?


Perhaps so. But NASP is the American equivalent, and it puts a "compound" bow into the hands 1.3 Million beginners every year.


----------



## lees (Feb 10, 2017)

limbwalker said:


> Perhaps so. But NASP is the American equivalent, and it puts a "compound" bow into the hands 1.3 Million beginners every year.


Ah, yes, thanks for reminding me... 

The bow you're referring to is the Dark Horse entry to learning to shoot the compound bow. AkA the humble Mathews Genesis (now called simply the Genesis Archery Genesis). In actual point of fact, this is the only compound-like bow currently mass produced with a peak weight suitable for beginners and that is *not* a total piece of junk. And I mean of all ages, not just younger or older shooters. And I also mean if your aspirations are compound/release aid as well (in addition to finger shooting).

The last time I came back to archery after my multi-year layoff, I used a Genesis set at 10lbs to do it. Even if I didn't have permanent right shoulder damage, I would have used the same bow to come back to compound shooting brand new. It's even quite good enough to fit a d-loop and peep sight and shoot indoor tournaments with once you get to that level. You can fit a string stop to it (hopefully still can in the newer one), allowing you to learn popular release aid shooting techniques like "back tension", etc.

So credit where credit is due: NASP has at least figured out what no other starter program in compound archery has - a suitably low draw weight bow for beginners in compound to start from scratch in the sport. And with a non-zero chance of actually sticking with it without injury and a total loss of investment in the equipment.

It's a shame that they're the only ones to have figured out the beginner bow for compound, and that no one else seems to have caught on to what Mathews did. But them's the breaks, I guess.

I finally donated mine to my local shop in NM after I stripped out the threads in the stab hole in the handle. But I shot it with a release and peep for quite a while until I got strong enough to shoot another bow...

lee.


----------



## lees (Feb 10, 2017)

Stash said:


> I meant, any other part of the world besides US and some of Canada. Is NASP in any other countries?
> 
> As for “most successful archery training program in the world”, I’d need to see a lot more data on that before I’d agree. First thing - how would you define “success”?


Not meaning to jump in, but to me, "success" on the compound is if you can actually, physically, draw and shoot the bow more than twice in a row.

I'm not kidding. That's the #1, top of the list, barrier to entry on compound that still pervades the entire industry: Can a raw beginner get the bow back to full draw and then back down to brace height again in the usual way for a full 3 arrow end *without *a trip to the Chiro (or ER) afterwards.

Literally.

I know we talked about that earlier, but it bears repeating, I think. Like I said earlier, NASP appears to be the only outfit properly equipped to permit this for beginners.

Even Uncle Ted Nugent has been chastising the hunting bow industry, and for even longer than I have and yes there is such a thing, for blocking new archers from entering bowhunting disciplines by not supplying them with proper equipment for starting from scratch.

When I lived in NM, the local shop in ABQ used a rack of Genesis bows to start beginners and kids on both compound and recurve. Saturday and Sunday mornings were absolutely nuts in there with soccer moms and kids blasting shafts into the wall and light fixtures.

They had caught on too....

lee.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Anyone who knows me knows that I'd be the last person to put a compound in a kid's hands when there are perfectly good recurves to be had. 

That said, I've argued many times in favor of 4-H clubs and JOAD clubs using Genesis compounds for their intro to archery classes because they essentially do what a lightweight recurve does, without the risk and wasted time of assembling and stringing/unstringing them. I've now lost chunks of my life to hours upon hours spent finding the right limbs and strings for lightweight recurves, then stringing them or re-stringing them because a well meaning parent or student strung them upside down or backwards, etc. All of that could be avoided with a Genesis bow and the kids would get a lot more practice in during their hour of instruction, not to mention the volunteers could go home sooner.


----------



## Quailbil (Mar 11, 2019)

The Genesis bow as used in NASP competition is closer to barebow then a compound. For being a one size fits all bow the students can become quite proficient. My son at over 6' @14 became frustrated with it and now shoots barebow. He did win a couple of state Championships and placed as high as 3rd Nationally along his journey with it.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Quailbil said:


> The Genesis bow as used in NASP competition is closer to barebow then a compound. For being a one size fits all bow the students can become quite proficient. My son at over 6' @14 became frustrated with it and now shoots barebow. He did win a couple of state Championships and placed as high as 3rd Nationally along his journey with it.


The late Tom Barker and I made that argument to the TSAA board and got Genesis bows (bare) into the barebow category at our state shoots. The hope was that we would attract some of the NASP kids who wanted to shoot indoor and outdoor USArchery style competitions. Trouble was, the NASP crowd is mostly in North and East Texas and the USArchery crowd was mostly in South and Southeast Texas, so there was very little overlap. Regardless, there were a few who took advantage of it, not the least of which was one Wanda Newsome - who now in her 80's was having trouble shooting a recurve barebow that would reach 50 meters. The Genesis bow allowed her to do that few a few more years and she really enjoyed herself.


----------



## FerrumVeritas (Oct 9, 2020)

You're the second Texan who has talked about shooting a Genesis bow 50m. How? Surely not with the standard, too stiff, Genesis arrow?


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

I once set one up for fun for indoors with scope/release. Got something like a 295 on the 5-ring (was a 50-55X 300 shooter at the time). I could see being able to shoot a decent score with one of these, with a bit more tuning and practise.

Haven’t shot a Genesis with fingers more than a couple of ends, though.

BTW, my club owns 3 of them for their instructional program. They haven’t been used in at least 3 years, that I’m aware of. We have about 65 various recurves, almost all get used.

.


----------



## Quailbil (Mar 11, 2019)

FerrumVeritas said:


> You're the second Texan who has talked about shooting a Genesis bow 50m. How? Surely not with the standard, too stiff, Genesis arrow
> 
> You would never do it with the model used in NASP competition.
> Genesis makes a Gen X with a draw weight up to 40lbs. That must be the bow they are using.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

FerrumVeritas said:


> You're the second Texan who has talked about shooting a Genesis bow 50m. How? Surely not with the standard, too stiff, Genesis arrow?


No. With suitable arrows.

And no, it wasn't the higher draw model.

My daughter shot 50 meters in the wind as a 12 year old pulling 25# at 25" using 1214 Jazz arrows with a recurve for pity's sake.

Ya'll need to learn to aim higher.


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

Compound Target competition in Birmigham is over
Medal standings:


https://www.ianseo.net/TourData/2022/11365/MEDSTD.pdf



To be noted: 

Taipei, Russia, China, Italy missing
Korea sent a kind of B-team

Discussion about LA 2028 should start from this situation. 

There is one more consideration to do about Compound going to the Olympic Games: availability of equipment's and their country of origin. 
Presently top level target compound bows are from USA at a very high average selling price.
Situation may change under OG pressure, moving great part of the market to China origin. It can happen in less than 3 years. Win & Win, Sanlida and Topoint already offer excellent target compound bows, and majority of cheap compound hunting bows are already made in China.
China is ready to make (good) target compound bows in volumes if the demand increases, and can do it in few months at prices that will kill any other maker anywhere in the world. .


----------



## Ray.L (Apr 29, 2021)

The availability of Chinese OR components hasn't killed Hoyt, so I doubt it would happen for compound. An Invicta isn't a crazy price proposition when you consider just a Formula Xi riser + Velos is literally the same price.


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

Ray.L said:


> The availability of Chinese OR components hasn't killed Hoyt, so I doubt it would happen for compound. An Invicta isn't a crazy price proposition when you consider just a Formula Xi riser + Velos is literally the same price.


Am I wrong, or Hoyt is the last maker of Recurve Olympic bow standing in USA? My first TD bow was from Bear, but I had Bear, Wing and Hoyt to choose from USA, then PSE, Mathews , Sky and others came. At medium to low level at present 100% of Recurve bows are from Chinese makers or in any case made in China.In any market, you have a strong brand recognition, you can try to survive moving to premium products, only. But volume is another thing. Apple I-phone is a clear example of this. But were's Motorola ?


----------



## Arrowbender (Nov 7, 2018)

Stash said:


> I meant, any other part of the world besides US and some of Canada. Is NASP in any other countries?
> 
> As for “most successful archery training program in the world”, I’d need to see a lot more data on that before I’d agree. First thing - how would you define “success”?


Genesis bows are commonly available here but to the best of my knowledge, there is no NASP in Europe. 
At least not in my country. The N is national, after all, and the SP for school program... I've never seen archery in schools, and boyscout archery is with a 10 Euro bow from Decathlon stores.

But to play devil's advocate on semantics:

They might still be considered wildly succesful as far as recruitment numbers go, even "globally"...
Seeing as it... well, exists, to begin with, and my country for example doesn't have anything much at all other than intro lessons at the local club.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Vittorio said:


> Situation may change under OG pressure, moving great part of the market to China origin. It can happen in less than 3 years. Win & Win, Sanlida and Topoint already offer excellent target compound bows, and majority of cheap compound hunting bows are already made in China.
> China is ready to make (good) target compound bows in volumes if the demand increases, and can do it in few months at prices that will kill any other maker anywhere in the world. .


You keep talking like that and one major American manufacturer may just torpedo the compound's introduction into the OG.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Vittorio said:


> Am I wrong, or Hoyt is the last maker of Recurve Olympic bow standing in USA? My first TD bow was from Bear, but I had Bear, Wing and Hoyt to choose from USA, then PSE, Mathews , Sky and others came. At medium to low level at present 100% of Recurve bows are from Chinese makers or in any case made in China.In any market, you have a strong brand recognition, you can try to survive moving to premium products, only. But volume is another thing. Apple I-phone is a clear example of this. But were's Motorola ?


I don't think you're wrong. What a sad day really. PSE and SKY and even Martin made some outstanding target recurves not so very long ago. I shot everything these three makers produced in only the last 15 years.


----------



## lees (Feb 10, 2017)

Vittorio said:


> Am I wrong, or Hoyt is the last maker of Recurve Olympic bow standing in USA? My first TD bow was from Bear, but I had Bear, Wing and Hoyt to choose from USA, then PSE, Mathews , Sky and others came. At medium to low level at present 100% of Recurve bows are from Chinese makers or in any case made in China.In any market, you have a strong brand recognition, you can try to survive moving to premium products, only. But volume is another thing. Apple I-phone is a clear example of this. But were's Motorola ?


I worked for Motorola for a while back during the "dot-bomb" bust (through acquisition - they bought my employer at the time).

Motorola died through sheer idiocy, robbery of its shareholders and employees and incompetence in its ownership and upper management. Its various CEO's and management staff couldn't have found their rear ends in a dark solitary confinement jail cell with a flashlight. The whole outfit committed suicide through pure stupidity, kleptomania and do-lessness. Economic Darwinism did its job and took the whole place out during the dot-bomb. It nearly killed all of the communities that were dependent on it, like Austin, TX in my case, in the process, but when it finally died that at least limited the damage. So it's good the outfit is dead now. I don't what the thing currently named Motorola is, though.

So there's no comparison between Motorola and anything that is actually run competently or makes a decently functioning product like an archery manufacturer.

Well, that out of the way: turning to the subject of spreading the compound around the world:

It seems like the most common compound bow I see in the elite levels is the Hoyt, pretty much every year. This year the Invicta. It seems to outnumber even Mathews bows by a large margin. PSE's you see here and there, the occasional RTX and Citation, but Hoyt seems far and away the most popular.

So my initial thought is Hoyt is likely giving them the bows, or steeply discounting them, at a higher rate than the others?

Not that that's a bad thing - if it's putting good bows in the hands of more competitors around the world for either free or at an affordable cost, that's a good thing, definitely....

lee.


----------



## lees (Feb 10, 2017)

limbwalker said:


> No. With suitable arrows.
> 
> And no, it wasn't the higher draw model.
> 
> ...


Yeah, you can do 50m with a Genesis. Kind of. Maxed out at 20lbs and with a suitably light recurve arrow, it's doable. It's not the prettiest thing in the world, and make sure there's no tree branches reaching over above the path to the bale, but it can be done.

lee.


----------



## AzureSkydiver (Sep 13, 2021)

lees said:


> and make sure there's no tree branches reaching over above the path to the bale


Truly putting in the "arch" in archery.


----------



## Kaos200 (Jul 3, 2020)

Compound at 18m and Recurve at 70m? It's backwards! Should let the compound shooters outside at longer distance.


----------



## SHPoet (Nov 13, 2009)

Kinda sad but it you look at the latest compound world rankings the US Men have three archers in the top 30 and only one in the top 10. Braden is 6th. The women Paige is 5th and Linda is 27th. Not a lot of hopes for medals.


----------



## lees (Feb 10, 2017)

SHPoet said:


> Kinda sad but it you look at the latest compound world rankings the US Men have three archers in the top 30 and only one in the top 10. Braden is 6th. The women Paige is 5th and Linda is 27th. Not a lot of hopes for medals.


Probably because the rest of the world has gotten so much better on compound in the last few decades. I think our shooters are still top-class, it's just that now everyone else is so much more top-class too.

I have a feeling that was one of the things waiting for proposing the Oly Compound - more worldwide acceptance and participation in it. 

When I started shooting back in The Good Old Days, the compound was kind of a Red-Headed Stepchild, which was only respectable as a hunting weapon. For target archery it was still kind of a backwater where the bow wasn't a "real bow" and the shooters weren't "real archers". 

Fortunately, we don't live in those times today. But because of that, now the US has to make hay if we want to dominate on our own bow again....

lee.


----------



## G.Lizard (3 mo ago)

Barebow is already big in Europe. Fastest growing in the US. I would not be surprised to see that too, in time. I second the mixed field competition! Best game to watch IMHO. This may have an unforeseen benefit if it catches on. It may kill Olympic Recurve. We will see--it WILL make it in eventually.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

G.Lizard said:


> Barebow is already big in Europe. Fastest growing in the US. I would not be surprised to see that too, in time. I second the mixed field competition! Best game to watch IMHO. This may have an unforeseen benefit if it catches on. It may kill Olympic Recurve. We will see--it WILL make it in eventually.


I'm going to go ahead and say that barebow will never make it in. Ever. And don't confuse "fastest growing" with popular. It just means there weren't many to begin with.

Barebow needs to stay small or it will lose its appeal.


----------



## G.Lizard (3 mo ago)

limbwalker said:


> I'm going to go ahead and say that barebow will never make it in. Ever. And don't confuse "fastest growing" with popular....
> Barebow needs to stay small or it will lose its appeal.


I agree with your sentiment but not with what will actually happen.

It WILL loose its appeal for the laid back crowd because big manufacturers ARE in it. Bigger prize check$ WILL change the sport. It is already happening.

Again, I sympathize and wish it was as you say. But just because something 'needs' to stay a certain way does not mean it will.

Just like Compound may 'needs' stay out of the Olympics. It eventually will get it.

Also, again, etc. Barebow is already bigger in Europe ( in a respectable sense of being a valid high level form of archery). America may ruin it on the world stage with its propensity to merchandize vs. promote for the good of the sport.


----------



## FerrumVeritas (Oct 9, 2020)

limbwalker said:


> I'm going to go ahead and say that barebow will never make it in. Ever. And don't confuse "fastest growing" with popular. It just means there weren't many to begin with.
> 
> Barebow needs to stay small or it will lose its appeal.


Barebow needs to stay amateur. 


G.Lizard said:


> I agree with your sentiment but not with what will actually happen.
> 
> It WILL loose its appeal for the laid back crowd because big manufacturers ARE in it. Bigger prize check$ WILL change the sport. It is already happening.
> 
> ...


Popularity isn’t the issue. So long as you don’t have full-time archers, barebow maintains its appeal as an accessible, amateur sport. Even the best have day jobs right now (or they’re kids, like Ollie and Leo). That means that everyone feels like they have a chance to do well based on their ability and effort.

Recurve doesn’t feel that way internationally (state-sponsored archers) or even domestically (resident athletes). If you didn’t make it to an elite level as a kid, there’s a whole system kind of designed to keep you from getting there as an adult. So why would I pick up a bow and bother to compete at higher than a regional level? You see this mindset in registration for large events. 

Compound prize money and manufacturer support makes it feel like there’s very little one can do if one isn’t already elite. You're competing against people who made this their full time job.


----------



## G.Lizard (3 mo ago)

FerrumVeritas said:


> Barebow needs to stay amateur.
> ...So long as you don’t have full-time archers, barebow maintains its appeal as an accessible, amateur sport...That means that everyone feels like they have a chance to do well based on their ability and effort.


Totally agree and hope for the best...that isn't what's happening though. 

Barebow IS growing in JOAD, too. Form IS being refined and analyzed, a younger generation is taking it more 'serious' etc etc et al ad naseum carpe diem

I really really hope I'm wrong. It just seems like the wind has already started blowing that way, whether it 'needs' to or not, whether you or I like it or not. 

But it is not the end of world, just a change that's inevitable. 

The plain truth is, it IS appealing as a sport that is accessible and affordable for the commoner. Professionals won't necessarily change that. It just won't be so cultish/niche/fringe. People didn't stop sport fishing just because there are now professional fishermen and there is no way Evenrude will ever sponsor them personally. No more than a rock climber who will never receive one free piece of gear. Thats silly. They keep doing it because they love doing it. It becomes a lifestyle. 

The cookie crumbles and Hoyt has seen it. So has LAS. So have professionals charging for seminars and video lessons... 

Olympics? BMX Surfing Rock Climbing Snowboarding. Goodnight people, what planet have you been living on? I would not wager a penny on something NOT EVER being in the Olympics.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

G.Lizard said:


> I would not wager a penny on something NOT EVER being in the Olympics.


You just made me recall the reaction that the women's softball catcher had in Athens when she learned they were testing trampoline as an event. LOL It was an epic, profanity-filled reaction that cracked up everyone in the training room.


----------



## Rick McKinney (Mar 4, 2008)

In 1975 there was a lot of talk that the compound would get into the Olympics due to it's popularity. That was a United States understanding. Most of us that were familiar with the International Olympic Committee and FITA (today it is WA) knew they had a long road to go before they would even be considered. In 1993 compound bows made it into WA at the World Championships for the first time. Nearly 20 years later than what Americans thought for sure it was a slam dunk. 29 years after WA accepted the compound bow they are asking the IOC to accept it. It might or might not get in the first round but eventually it will get in. As for barebow getting in? Probably but it has a very long road to go before it is accepted by the IOC. I don't believe the manufactures have influence in the decision making nor do I believe that recurve will die. Archery is growing in all disciplines and that's a good thing. It just takes time.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Rick McKinney said:


> In 1975 there was a lot of talk that the compound would get into the Olympics due to it's popularity. That was a United States understanding. Most of us that were familiar with the International Olympic Committee and FITA (today it is WA) knew they had a long road to go before they would even be considered. In 1993 compound bows made it into WA at the World Championships for the first time. Nearly 20 years later than what Americans thought for sure it was a slam dunk. 29 years after WA accepted the compound bow they are asking the IOC to accept it. It might or might not get in the first round but eventually it will get in. As for barebow getting in? Probably but it has a very long road to go before it is accepted by the IOC. I don't believe the manufactures have influence in the decision making nor do I believe that recurve will die. Archery is growing in all disciplines and that's a good thing. It just takes time.


You certainly have much more experience in this arena than anyone else on this forum. That said, I think recurve's days are numbered once compound gets in. Think of all the current Olympic recurvers who started with compound. Jake. Brady. Mac. Not to mention folks like Reo and Braden and even Rod that tried their hands at recurve with the hopes of making an Olympic team. None of that would have been necessary had compounds been in the Olympics. There is a good chance we never would have seen Brady or Mac shoot a recurve, ever.

Recurve may not disappear anytime soon, but that will be a function of two things - first, that the IOC and WA move so slowly to change, and second, that so long as ANY discipline is allowed in the Olympics, there will be those who compete with it in the hopes they can make an Olympic team. 

What I am interested in seeing is how Compounds in the Olympics affects the athleticism that people bring to the Compound game.


----------



## Rick McKinney (Mar 4, 2008)

John, you have made your opinion very clear in several posts over the past few years that recurve would die. The one thing that perplexes me is that if it were true as you say, then why do so many older archers still shoot recurve? They have no chance in going to the Olympics but they still shoot what they love. That's been my point. I think we will have all three disciplines but they may shift is size over the years but I don't think the Olympics determines this shift. It is more of what people like and don't like. I have brought this up about barebow before, but to reiterate barebow was the dominate discipline for years since there were no sights no compounds. But when the sights came into play there was that shift. Then when the compounds came into play there was another shift but still barebow was still around. it didn't die but it dropped down in numbers and now it is having a new surge which is good for those who like it. I hope they all get into the Olympics but it just takes so long to get there. I doubt that the barebow division will make it during my time but I am sure it will get there. The compound has earned that right due to the numbers in so many different countries.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Rick McKinney said:


> John, you have made your opinion very clear in several posts over the past few years that recurve would die. The one thing that perplexes me is that if it were true as you say, then why do so many older archers still shoot recurve? They have no chance in going to the Olympics but they still shoot what they love. That's been my point. I think we will have all three disciplines but they may shift is size over the years but I don't think the Olympics determines this shift. It is more of what people like and don't like. I have brought this up about barebow before, but to reiterate barebow was the dominate discipline for years since there were no sights no compounds. But when the sights came into play there was that shift. Then when the compounds came into play there was another shift but still barebow was still around. it didn't die but it dropped down in numbers and now it is having a new surge which is good for those who like it. I hope they all get into the Olympics but it just takes so long to get there. I doubt that the barebow division will make it during my time but I am sure it will get there. The compound has earned that right due to the numbers in so many different countries.


Just an opinion Rick. Probably not as well informed as your own, no doubt.

I think a lot of older archers continue to shoot recurve because of its position as "the" Olympic bow. A lot of older recurve archers have also taken up barebow because they lack the strength or interest in dealing with a clicker, as - as you well know - it is much more physically demanding than either compound or barebow.

Some folks will continue to shoot the recurve if for no other reason than that's what they are used to, or for the historic connection to the Olympic games. Just like in trad archery, the purists have their reasons that are unique to them. That doesn't mean they bring the numbers to competitive events that afford them their own divisions though. And that's what I think will happen. Fewer and fewer people will shoot Olympic recurve until shoots no longer support separate divisions due to a lack of numbers, and then those archers will lose what little interest they have in the discipline.

The only reason the Olympic recurve exists as we know it is because it was "frozen in time" in the late 60's. It has no other practical application. The compound unlimited bow is the natural progression of the target bow in the ultimate pursuit of accuracy. It's what the Olympic bow would have become had the Olympic concrete not set.

Like you, I think the more the merrier and I hope they all have their day in the sun. Just don't be surprised if the sun starts to set on a piece of kit that was by rule alone, frozen in time. The firearm analogy would be an AR-15 with open sights and a 5 round magazine. I guess there are competitions that limit people to a semi-auto with open sights and a 5-round magazine, but I doubt they are very popular.

Imagine for a minute if the Olympic bow had been "set" to not include clickers. I know (and I'm sure you do as well) quite a few older guys who to this day refuse to use a clicker on their sighted recurve because they think it's a form of cheating. Talk about purists! How many guys and gals would have given up on the Olympic bow before they ever started if the clicker wasn't allowed. I know I would have. My point being is it's just so arbitrary. One small group of people's definition of a target bow that has somehow managed to persist for 50+ years for no other reason than a resistance to change.


----------



## lees (Feb 10, 2017)

limbwalker said:


> What I am interested in seeing is how Compounds in the Olympics affects the athleticism that people bring to the Compound game.


I think we already know the answer to that one. You’ll see characters that look like me (tho about 20 or more years younger)… 

But I agreed this will be a point of interest. The Olympics is and always has been more of a test of strength and physical fitness, as well as an exercise in the worship of youth (to state it honestly and out loud).

Compound tho tends to be more of a mental game that really favors grit and ice flowing in the veins. That’s how you see guys like Dan McCarthy taking third in Vegas this year, and he looks just like a regular guy. And getting grey around the gills like we are too.

So it’s a “culture” change too - putting a different type of athleticism on a pedestal vs the usual 19 year old flat bellies….

The question is how spectators will take to it. Seeing regular folks like Dan McCarthy or Sarah Lopez, etc. that may not conform to the original idea of Olympic athlete. But can kick anyone’s butt in a match no matter what they look like.. 

I think it’ll be really interesting..

Lee.


----------



## Ray.L (Apr 29, 2021)

It's not exactly out of line with other shooting sports in the Olympics. Olympic trap and skeet shooters aren't quite the spitting image of Greek gods themselves.


----------



## Hikari (May 15, 2021)

Discus, javelin, hammer, shot put...

Just sayin'...


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Hikari said:


> Discus, javelin, hammer, shot put...
> 
> Just sayin'...


You have a point


----------



## Hikari (May 15, 2021)

... no pun intended... 

Now, I don't and probably will never shoot Olympic recurve. But I greatly admire it and enjoy seeing the athletes that compete. It is also the ultimate development, up to this point in time, of the recurve bow for shooting distance. That does not take away from the skill. For me, it does encapsulate the Olympic ideal of perfection of form for its own sake. (Kim was just not going to lose that day...)






Besides, that 70m is a leveler. Now, this is an exhibition match so there is no outcome but having a bit of fun and the compound archers don't normally shoot 70m. But in the hands of a highly skilled archer, the Olympic recurve can still hold its own.


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

There are 3 tipes only of bow, the Traditional "1 piece" bow of any kind and from any country, the Modern "2 pieces" take down and the Compound "pulely assisted" of any kind.
Then rules have drawn boxes around some specific limits in accessories for each of them, and we ended up were we are, with FITA moving from 2 to 3 division, then to 4, then to 5. Not to mention IFAA/NFAA, and other organizations, sometime also adding shooting style limits in each box. 
But bow types are still of 3 kind only, and many will also say 2 kind only, 1 string or pulley assisted being the real difference.
So it is how strong is the box, that makes a specific definition of bow surviving or not at the Olympic Games, Adding other boxes needs not years but ages, or huge money involved, that is unexisting in the archery industry.
The strongest box , existing since the 60's, is the Olympic Recurve (can you shoot with LB style limbs in it ? That's the question !), and around that box WA has built archery federations in > 150 nations, brought it back to the Olympic Games and made archery recognized as an international sport.
Adding another box on par with it is something that took already around 50 years and is not happened, yet. Adding a third box in few years is really unrealistic , I don't expect to see it in my age, same as Rick said already. But may happen in a far far future, may be forgetting about target archery for the new box to come.

P.S.
The weakest boxes today in WA are LB and Traditional. There are discussions running about unifying them to "une piece only" stick bows. This can happen very very fast, as only involves drawing new boxes on paper for World Field and 3D championships. No big money or investments involved, just choose what can allow a 4th division to survive as clearly there is no space for 5 as now are.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Vittorio said:


> There are 3 tipes only of bow, the Traditional "1 piece" bow of any kind and from any country, the Modern "2 pieces" take down and the Compound "pulely assisted" of any kind.
> Then rules have drawn boxes around some specific limits in accessories for each of them, and we ended up were we are, with FITA moving from 2 to 3 division, then to 4, then to 5. Not to mention IFAA/NFAA, and other organizations, sometime also adding shooting style limits in each box.
> But bow types are still of 3 kind only, and many will also say 2 kind only, 1 string or pulley assisted being the real difference.
> So it is how strong is the box, that makes a specific definition of bow surviving or not at the Olympic Games, Adding other boxes needs not years but ages, or huge money involved, that is unexisting in the archery industry.
> ...


The strongest box will always be the one that does not allow any changes. Compound has changed so much in the past 50 years that the box has effectively changed along with it, leaving developing nations behind. By fixing the Olympic recurve in time, that allowed developing nations to catch up.

Creating the barebow box is orders of magnitude simpler than compound and even recurve because everyone who shoots Olympic recurve by definition already has a WA barebow in their hands, and as they purchase new bows and take their accessories with them, they leave behind a perfectly good WA barebow for a newer archer.


----------

