# Comparing NAA classes to proposed NFAA classes



## comp1 (Dec 18, 2007)

I think the Odds of the NFAA making that radical change is some were between "Zip and 0".


----------



## Collins (Feb 18, 2005)

Assuming you have described this correctly ,I would bet it is save to say that the person or persons responsible for these suggestions is not a recurve shooter


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Arcus said:


> The change would have sighted recurves competing against sighted compounds, and barebow recurves competing against barebow compounds. In comparing this to how the NAA separates the classes, there appears to be a fundamental difference of opinion about which is more critical to performance - sights/no sights or recurve/compound.


As described this is an incredibly stupid idea. We already know empirically from scores in competition that compounds with sights shoot better than recurves with sights. It's like suggesting that formula 1 cars should race against super stock because they both have steering wheels and gearboxes. Equipment classes do matter. The scores prove it.


----------



## Dave T (Mar 24, 2004)

The idea that barebow recurves will shoot against barebow compounds is not new, or even a proposal. It is the way it is right now in the NFAA. I know this because I shoot Barebow style and have shot aganst compounds with no sights and no releases.

As the proposed change was described/explained to me by our regional rep, they feel there is very little participation by sighted recurves (Olympic recurves if you prefer) so they (NFAA) won't loose much if they all quit in a huff instead of shoot against compounds, and the NFAA will have to give out one less silver bowl at the nationals.

My said at the time (and still think) alienating a class of shooters who have been involved with NFAA for decades sounded like a way to reduce participation not increase it. 

Dave


----------



## RecordKeeper (May 9, 2003)

Warbow said:


> As described this is an incredibly stupid idea. We already know empirically from scores in competition that compounds with sights shoot better than recurves with sights. It's like suggesting that formula 1 cars should race against super stock because they both have steering wheels and gearboxes. Equipment classes do matter. The scores prove it.


In the same timeframe that Easton awards a $1.5 to $2 million grant to build an Olympic recurve style training facility at the new Yankton headquarters, a certain regional director actually allows this proposal to go to a vote. 

This is one of the most ironic and silly proposals I have ever seen. Shameful....rediculous...pick your adjective. It's just plain dumb.


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

Recordkeeper said:


> In the same timeframe that Easton awards a $1.5 to $2 million grant to build an Olympic recurve style training facility at the new Yankton headquarters, a certain regional director actually allows this proposal to go to a vote.
> 
> This is one of the most ironic and silly proposals I have ever seen. Shameful....rediculous...pick your adjective. It's just plain dumb.


Left hand....meet right hand. Right hand, let me introduce you to left hand.


----------



## Arcus (Jul 7, 2005)

Dave T said:


> The idea that barebow recurves will shoot against barebow compounds is not new, or even a proposal. It is the way it is right now in the NFAA. I know this because I shoot Barebow style and have shot aganst compounds with no sights and no releases.Dave


NAA barebow is more akin to NFAA traditional, except that NAA allows stringwalking and NFAA traditional does not. If you stringwalk in NFAA, then you're in the barebow class, which pits you against the compounds. Oh, the humanity!


----------



## Dave T (Mar 24, 2004)

Arcus said:


> NAA barebow is more akin to NFAA traditional, except that NAA allows stringwalking and NFAA traditional does not. If you stringwalk in NFAA, then you're in the barebow class, which pits you against the compounds. Oh, the humanity!


Don't forget us face walkers either. Just because I use different anchor points for different distances I must compete against barebow compounds with half again the velocity and consequently a visibly flatter trajectory.

As for NAA (actually FITA) their classification system is infinitely more reasonable and logical. There's compound, there's Recurve (Olympic if you prefer) and there's Barebow. For field they also have a Longbow class that again is more reasonable and logical than either the NFAA or the IFAA.

As much as I love NFAA Field archery, the organization and class/style system they have is idiotic and these proposed changes do nothing to improve it.

I have told me State rep and our Regional rep I would like to see a score based system, so those who shoot...say 400-450 on a 28 target field course compete against other shooters who shoot between 400-450 on the same round...who cares what equipment they use or how they aim!

The two board memebers I mentioned above liked the idea but say it will never fly with the rest of the board.

Dave


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 19, 2006)

On the other hand, can just go out, shoot, and when the wheelies start crying that the freakcurves are beating them up, NFAA would feel obligated to either further remove us, or return the freaks to a class of their own


----------



## RecordKeeper (May 9, 2003)

[email protected] said:


> On the other hand, can just go out, shoot, and when the wheelies start crying that the freakcurves are beating them up, NFAA would feel obligated to either further remove us, or return the freaks to a class of their own


snicker, snicker....

Now you and I both know this is way too pragmatic a solution for actual consideration.


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

Recordkeeper said:


> snicker, snicker....
> 
> Now you and I both know this is way too pragmatic a solution for actual consideration.


 Well given the barebow numbers Vittorio's Bernardini driver posted, Maybe a little embarrassment would settle the Nabobs down a little


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Hutnicks said:


> Well given the barebow numbers Vittorio's Bernardini driver posted, Maybe a little embarrassment would settle the Nabobs down a little


You mean all we have to do is fly in "FITA Field as well as 3D Bare Bow reigning World Champion Giuseppe Seimandi" to shoot in some NFAA shoots?

(BTW, who wants to try to tell Mr. Seimandi that 3D shooting isn't "real target shooting" because it doesn't favor the "best shooter?" I think that idea would be a rather hard sell given his accomplishments  )


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

Warbow said:


> You mean all we have to do is fly in "FITA Field as well as 3D Bare Bow reigning World Champion Giuseppe Seimandi" to shoot in some NFAA shoots?
> 
> (BTW, who wants to try to tell Mr. Seimandi that 3D shooting isn't "real target shooting" because it doesn't favor the "best shooter?" I think that idea would be a rather hard sell given his accomplishments  )


No Now don't go blowing the ringers cover, there be serious side bet money to be had here. We'll tell em he's from Jersey to hide the accent Good thing "those other" guys don't wander over here to FITAland.


----------



## FS560 (May 22, 2002)

Recordkeeper said:


> a certain regional director actually allows this proposal to go to a vote.


Please explain what you mean by this. If you mean NFAA regional director, there are no NFAA regional directors. Do you mean councilman? There are eight, representing sections of the country.

If you mean councilman, no councilman has any control over agenda items for the NFAA meeting.

If you are talking about that NFAA agenda item, any state director, councilman, NFAA president, NFAA vice president can submit anything they want as an agenda item. Nothing can be considered "allows this proposal to go to a vote" unless and until it goes through the full procedure at the meeting and then may be voted upon or not.

Your remark above could be considered inflammatory since no single individual in NFAA can allow any proposal to go to a vote or not.


----------



## RecordKeeper (May 9, 2003)

FS560 said:


> Please explain what you mean by this. If you mean NFAA regional director, there are no NFAA regional directors. Do you mean councilman? There are eight, representing sections of the country.
> 
> If you mean councilman, no councilman has any control over agenda items for the NFAA meeting.
> 
> ...


Now Jim, you know I don't do the inflammatory thing here on AT. My point was more toward the incredible irony of the proposed rule change. I certainly trust that when you and the other state directors meet in Vegas next month, the referenced silly proposal will be shot down.


----------



## target1 (Jan 16, 2007)

why are NFAA officers, so uptight?


----------



## target1 (Jan 16, 2007)

Recordkeeper said:


> In the same timeframe that Easton awards a $1.5 to $2 million grant to build an Olympic recurve style training facility at the new Yankton headquarters, a certain regional director actually allows this proposal to go to a vote.
> 
> This is one of the most ironic and silly proposals I have ever seen. Shameful....rediculous...pick your adjective. It's just plain dumb.


Since the NFAA and the Olympics are not connected (unlike the NAA as the governing body). Why would Easton give money to the NFAA? Is it reasonable to conclude that the NFAA will respond to the "olympic" shooters in exchange for this money?


----------



## RecordKeeper (May 9, 2003)

target1 said:


> Since the NFAA and the Olympics are not connected (unlike the NAA as the governing body). Why would Easton give money to the NFAA? Is it reasonable to conclude that the NFAA will respond to the "olympic" shooters in exchange for this money?


That's a great, great question. There are so many different possibilities, not to mention rumors floating around. I suspect first and foremost, this "grant" from Easton to the NFAA is indicitave of their support for archery and the future of Olympic style archery here in the United States.

It may also be Easton hedging their bet, as the current condition of the NAA isn't what it really needs to be. There are other possibilities as well, but discussion of them would be pure speculation on my part since I'm not in the know.


----------



## FS560 (May 22, 2002)

Recordkeeper said:


> Now Jim, you know I don't do the inflammatory thing here on AT. My point was more toward the incredible irony of the proposed rule change. I certainly trust that when you and the other state directors meet in Vegas next month, the referenced silly proposal will be shot down.


As someone else already stated, it is highly likely that this one will go nowhere, probably "no action".

Of all the agenda items submitted each year, less than 20%, usually between 10% and 15% are ever adopted.


----------



## target1 (Jan 16, 2007)

Recordkeeper said:


> That's a great, great question. There are so many different possibilities, not to mention rumors floating around. I suspect first and foremost, this "grant" from Easton to the NFAA is indicitave of their support for archery and the future of Olympic style archery here in the United States.
> 
> It may also be Easton hedging their bet, as the current condition of the NAA isn't what it really needs to be. There are other possibilities as well, but discussion of them would be pure speculation on my part since I'm not in the know.


It would be nice if we could get an NFAA official to respond to this question.


----------



## CHPro (May 21, 2002)

You guys are too funny ! First you complain about NFAA proposals that would combine olympic-style recurve with compound fingers and recurve barebow with compound barebow. Then you suggest sending several different recurve archers in these two styles to an NFAA tournament and have them compete and beat the compound archers. By doing so aren't you just proving there really isn't, or shouldn't be, any difference in the scores for these current equipment breakouts and hence no reason for the classes to be separate ! I seem to recall seeing some scores shot over the years, Frangilli for example at the IFAA Indoors a few years ago, Shane Parker (?) at NFAA Outdoor several years ago, Applegate shooting Vegas or NFAA field, who have all posted scores that would sufficiently competitive against any compound archers shooting fingers as well. I've seen some of the Distance scores being posted here as well and there are several of you not missing that yellow Vegas spot very often, you saying that's not competitive against a compound finger shooter? I don't recall seeing too many compound finger guys shooting consistently clean on the yellow on a Vegas face either, not even amongst the Pro caliber FSL archers.

Not seeing why there is such a strong rationale for splitting out these finger classes just because one chooses to shoot with a recurve versus another with a compound. I've read some arguments regarding outdoors and speed? Last FITA field I attended most of the US recurve guys were shooting well over 200fps with their set-ups, and a couple into the 220's or 230's. Compound fingers aren't shooting that much more speed-wise....and besides, the NFAA rounds are marked distance, usually without a lot of wind issues, so what does an extra 20-30 fps benefit you?

Just curious..................

>>-------->


----------



## FS560 (May 22, 2002)

Regarding the Easton financial involvement with NFAA, there are as many rumors and speculations as carter has little liver pills.

We may hear some of the reasons why and some idea of the long range plans at the meeting in February and again we may not. I am certain that there is an objective at play probably known by Eric Watts, Jim Easton, and Bruce Cull.


----------



## JAVI (Jun 19, 2003)

FS560 said:


> Regarding the Easton financial involvement with NFAA, there are as many rumors and speculations as carter has little liver pills.
> 
> We may hear some of the reasons why and some idea of the long range plans at the meeting in February and again we may not. I am certain that there is an objective at play probably known by Eric Watts, Jim Easton, and Bruce Cull.


Ya' think


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

CHPro said:


> You guys are too funny ! First you complain about NFAA proposals that would combine olympic-style recurve with compound fingers and recurve barebow with compound barebow. Then you suggest sending several different recurve archers in these two styles to an NFAA tournament and have them compete and beat the compound archers. By doing so aren't you just proving there really isn't, or shouldn't be, any difference in the scores for these current equipment breakouts and hence no reason for the classes to be separate !


Actually, no. The idea of bringing the reigning FITA Field champion in to serve some local compound shooters is a funny one, but it is a humorous fantasy. It is quite possible that with the proper disparity of talent (by bringing in the current _world's best_) a recurver would best the compounds at an NFAA sanctioned event, but among archers of equal talent the compounders will win. You don't class Formula 1 and stock race cars in the same class just because they all have speedometers and you shouldn't class recurves and compounds in the same class because they have sights. Equipment classes matter. The scores prove it beyond all doubt and it isn't possible to even pretend otherwise except to have some fun at the NFAA's expense.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

CHPro said:


> Compound fingers aren't shooting that much more speed-wise....and besides, the NFAA rounds are marked distance, usually without a lot of wind issues, so what does an extra 20-30 fps benefit you?


It isn't just a speed issue, it is an issue of how much weight you are holding at anchor. With 65-80% let off, compounders can spend all year aiming while recurver's cannot. Compound bows also have hard stops, so they get _consistent_ power regardless of the archer's technique or consistency, and so on, ad nauseam. Compounds aren't even in the same class as recurves--and that is the point.


----------



## RecordKeeper (May 9, 2003)

Warbow said:


> It isn't just a speed issue, it is an issue of how much weight you are holding at anchor. With 65-80% let off, compounders can spend all year aiming while recurver's cannot. Compound bows also have hard stops, so they get _consistent_ power regardless of the archer's technique or consistency, and so on, ad nauseam. Compounds aren't even in the same class as recurves--and that is the point.


No worries Warbow....I'm thinkin' that Jeff's just yankin' my chain a bit.:tongue: I'll invite him to trade bows with me for a match the next time I see him.:wink:


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Recordkeeper said:


> No worries Warbow....I'm thinkin' that Jeff's just yankin' my chain a bit.:tongue: I'll invite him to trade bows with me for a match the next time I see him.:wink:


Thanks, sometimes it is hard to know how serious people are, even if they use smileys


----------



## FS560 (May 22, 2002)

JAVI said:


> Ya' think


Actually, I think there will be a million foot high stone wall.


----------



## ShakesTheClown (Jan 25, 2003)

No one is pulling anyone's chain.

The disparity between Oly. recurve and compound *fingers* isn't that great, IMO. There is some advantage to the compound, I admit, but it wouldn't take a world class recurver to be competitive at most shoots. Years ago, I shot both ways and in fact was pretty competitive at some local shoots with my recurve....and I wasn't that good.

Again, no one is suggesting that Olympic recurves shoot against the compound release guys. 

I doubt this proposal will see any action, but at least lets be reasonable and compare apples to apples.

Oh, I forgot, this is the internet...reason has no place here!


----------



## RecordKeeper (May 9, 2003)

ShakesTheClown said:


> No one is pulling anyone's chain.
> 
> The disparity between Oly. recurve and compound *fingers* isn't that great, IMO. There is some advantage to the compound, I admit, but it wouldn't take a world class recurver to be competitive at most shoots. Years ago, I shot both ways and in fact was pretty competitive at some local shoots with my recurve....and I wasn't that good.
> 
> ...


Take a look at the results from the Lancaster Archery Supply tournament...2006 I think. They grouped the compound and recurve finger shooters together. You'll see that Butch and Vic...both multiple time US Olympic team members...were crushed by their compound shooting opponents.

http://www.lancasterarchery.com/shop/classic_scores/2006/ml_06.html

Though I think the proposal is very unlikely to pass, I wonder just what Easton would do with their grant money if it does pass? I certainly won't attend another NFAA event if the Oly style recurve class is eliminated. Quite frankly, I find the proposal insulting.


----------



## ShakesTheClown (Jan 25, 2003)

And, at the 07 Stan, Chris Olsen won the FSL recurve flights and would have been third vs. the compounds. :wink:

I would think there would be a much bigger advantage for the compound guys indoors than outdoors, but that's mostly speculation.

I'm confident that here locally the best recurve guys would beat or be very competitive with the top compound finger guys.

BTW, the national star fita record for Masters 50+ compound fingers...and most of the finger shooters left in compound are over 50...is 1329. Butch and the boys would crush that.


----------



## RecordKeeper (May 9, 2003)

ShakesTheClown said:


> And, at the 07 Stan, Chris Olsen won the FSL recurve flights and would have been third vs. the compounds. :wink:
> 
> I would think there would be a much bigger advantage for the compound guys indoors than outdoors, but that's mostly speculation.
> 
> ...


:lol:

Shakes gets mega points for that response!:thumb:


----------



## spangler (Feb 2, 2007)

ShakesTheClown said:


> Oh, I forgot, this is the internet...reason has no place here!


Indeed. Any clown with a computer can make his voice heard.

My wife shoots her recurve against the local FSL crowd. She does well against them. 

And Shakes' point is probably true also...without being very good he was able to compete FSLR with *local* FSL people. 

At the nationals where you are pitting the best in FSL against the best in FSLR/L the FSL people have a big advantage.

*sigh*


----------



## ShakesTheClown (Jan 25, 2003)

Ouch, Spanky...

Let me expand on the part of that post you chose to ignore.

US record in a Star FITA by Rusty Mills Masters 50+ compound fingers: 1329

US Nationals FITA record by Davy Hyrn 50+ compound fingers: 1301

These guys _*are*_ two of the *best* at shooting a compound with fingers. I can't imagine how many national championships they have won between them.

Indoors, I'm not sure it's a fair fight, I'll concede that...different game for each style.

Outdoors, playing your game the top recurves win more often than not I bet.

I might even go so far as to suggest that the modern compound bow is poorly suited to being shot with fingers compared to the recurve. The shorter axle to axle and the higher let-offs do not really lend themselves to being shot with fingers. When I shot fingers, a short bow was 48" and high let-off was 50%. And, dont underestimate the power of the clicker, something compound finger shooters never really embraced.


----------



## ShakesTheClown (Jan 25, 2003)

Ok, here's another one for you.

Vegas '07

Freestyle Limited Championship

Top three scores: 888, 887, 885

Classic Limited Male Championship

Top three scores: 886, 883, 877

Clearly an advantage to the compound guys, hardly the blood bath portrayed here.


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

ShakesTheClown said:


> Ouch, Spanky...
> 
> Let me expand on the part of that post you chose to ignore.
> 
> ...


Interesting points. Fingers on the compound is largely a discipline which has has little or no development (cannot imagine why). Little more to it than tossing the release aside and going gung ho. Recurve shooters have had a lot more R&D into the form that is required to maintain consistency (and the clicker) quite possibly they are of the advantage here. It would make for an interesting grudge match to see em all square off


----------



## ShakesTheClown (Jan 25, 2003)

And, while we are pointing fingers...

FITA does not have a place for compound finger shooters, unless you're over 50. Nor do they have a place for non-sighted compounds.

Just sayin'.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

ShakesTheClown said:


> And, while we are pointing fingers...
> 
> FITA does not have a place for compound finger shooters, unless you're over 50. Nor do they have a place for non-sighted compounds.
> 
> Just sayin'.


well for a couple years-the ladies recurve FITA record was higher than the ladies compound record

why? probably because there was more overall talent in the Korean recurve ranks than there were in the world lady compound ranks.

However, I know several recurve shooters who will never shoot 1250 with a recurve who will be in the mid 1300s with a compound. 

if the NFAA ever wants to be NGB for archery they best not pss off the recurve shooters


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

ShakesTheClown said:


> And, while we are pointing fingers...
> 
> FITA does not have a place for compound finger shooters, unless you're over 50. Nor do they have a place for non-sighted compounds.
> 
> Just sayin'.


never quite got the purpose of shooting a machine with another machine and not using sights :wink:


----------



## ShakesTheClown (Jan 25, 2003)

Jim C said:


> never quite got the purpose of shooting a machine with another machine and not using sights :wink:



Nor did I really, just thought I'd throw that out there.


----------



## Selil (Sep 5, 2005)

There are a few reasons for classes within a competition and they often get tossed together for no apparent reason if they are contradictory. You create classes to foster competition and in some cases create technological advancement. In some cases you create competition of like-minded equipment or competitors so enhance the scope of the competitors themselves like in track and field. While in other cases you segment and define a series of metrics or equipment choices to better analyze or realize inter-athlete competition.

If you separate recurve from compound you have enhanced the competition between the equipment groups. If you categorize based on sites, or release aids in some ways you enhance the competition between archers. When you create oranges to oranges type classes that are fairly stringently defined it becomes easier to say this person is best as like in good science all of the elements are controlled. Unfortunately such constraints artificially degrade competition. Arguments over the validity that a great archer with fingers can/can not compete against release aids at the elite level are not answered. 

About the only way to find out if an archer is all around elite would be to make them shoot a variety of equipment (rercuve, traditional, compound) and then evaluate across the field of archers for the best. Because often that is what we are looking for, the best archer, and unfortunately often constrained inappropriately. This rating is further diluted when the targets or rules are less/more stringent for any particular group.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Selil said:


> There are a few reasons for classes within a competition and they often get tossed together for no apparent reason if they are contradictory. You create classes to foster competition and in some cases create technological advancement. In some cases you create competition of like-minded equipment or competitors so enhance the scope of the competitors themselves like in track and field. While in other cases you segment and define a series of metrics or equipment choices to better analyze or realize inter-athlete competition.
> 
> If you separate recurve from compound you have enhanced the competition between the equipment groups. If you categorize based on sites, or release aids in some ways you enhance the competition between archers. When you create oranges to oranges type classes that are fairly stringently defined it becomes easier to say this person is best as like in good science all of the elements are controlled. Unfortunately such constraints artificially degrade competition. Arguments over the validity that a great archer with fingers can/can not compete against release aids at the elite level are not answered.
> 
> About the only way to find out if an archer is all around elite would be to make them shoot a variety of equipment (rercuve, traditional, compound) and then evaluate across the field of archers for the best. Because often that is what we are looking for, the best archer, and unfortunately often constrained inappropriately. This rating is further diluted when the targets or rules are less/more stringent for any particular group.


a couple years ago, one of our favorite instigators claimed that a certain 3D shooter-who was also an excellent indoor spot compound archer-was the BEST all round archer in the world. I disagreed and cited Michele Frangilli who has won-the world indoor, the world outdoor and the world field in recurve-

I offered a ten K challenge-each archer would shoot Olympic recurve, olympic barebow and freestyle unlimited compound on a FITA, a NFAA indoor 120 arrow spot even-a 40 target IBO event and an unmarked FITA field.

the challenge was not accepted

the best compound archers in the world may well be as TALENTED as the best recurve archers. the fact is-without months of training, a hook shooter is not going to compete against an olympic recurve archer in the latter's event as well as a recurve shooter is going to do in compound unlimited

I really don't have a problem with the alphabet soup championships we see in the NFAA-if it gets more people to the nationals then that it good.

certainly the sponsors and the archery afficionados aren't going to confuse someone who wins a class with 4 shooters with Jimmy Despart, Terry Ragsdale or Erika Anschutz


----------



## ShakesTheClown (Jan 25, 2003)

The question isn't so much about who is the better archer, Selil.

Many NFAA members feel that there are too many divisions. That this places an unreasonable burden on organizers of local tournament...too many awards to give away and track. Others feel that we need to simpilfy field archery, that the huge number of divisions and complicated rules is keeping people away.

The NFAA has a Freestyle Limited division, a Bowhunter Freestyle Limited division and a Freestyle Limited Recurve/Longbow division (think Olympic). All three of these divisions are for bow shot with fingers and some kind of sight.

The numbers of shooters in the FSL, BHFSL are shrinnking. Outside of indoor nationals Olympic recurvers haven't supported the NFAA much at all. Hence a proposal on the table that would eliminate FSL Recurve/Longbow forcing them to shoot FSL...against compounds.

That is not the route I would probably choose.

My only point is that the the FSL Recurve/Longbow (Olympic) shooters are more competitive with the FSL guys than some on here think. And, additionally, if I shot Olympic recurve and I really wanted to shoot NFAA stuff, the lack of a separate division wouldn't stop me, and didn't when I shot that way once upon a time.

And, spangler, when I said I wasn't that good I didn't mean I sucked!

I shot qualifying scores...of course, qualifying scores where much lower than today but I never had a machined riser or carbon arrows and maybe only one pair of limbs that were anything other than glass and wood.


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

Jim C said:


> well for a couple years-the ladies recurve FITA record was higher than the ladies compound record
> 
> why? probably because there was more overall talent in the Korean recurve ranks than there were in the world lady compound ranks.
> 
> ...


Sweet jesus, Jim. NFAA and NGB go together like Swarzenegger and President I mean were talking about an org here, that cant decide whether arrows made from Linkin Logs should be legal or not


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

Jim C said:


> a couple years ago, one of our favorite instigators claimed that a certain 3D shooter-who was also an excellent indoor spot compound archer-was the BEST all round archer in the world. I disagreed and cited Michele Frangilli who has won-the world indoor, the world outdoor and the world field in recurve-
> 
> I offered a ten K challenge-each archer would shoot Olympic recurve, olympic barebow and freestyle unlimited compound on a FITA, a NFAA indoor 120 arrow spot even-a 40 target IBO event and an unmarked FITA field.
> 
> ...


I remember that thread, CANT have been that long ago.

It's just the type of confusion you mention in you last paragraph that has the NFAAers in a tizzy. That the cost of too many trophies and the fact that someone shooting as the only barebow shooter in a state could be state champ without having shot against a competitor. Just about every non relevant argument in the book has been tried in support of the notion. If it's that big a deal maybe any one with a non wheeled rig ought of seek out the trad guys for field shoots


----------



## ShakesTheClown (Jan 25, 2003)

Hutnicks said:


> I remember that thread, CANT have been that long ago.
> 
> It's just the type of confusion you mention in you last paragraph that has the NFAAers in a tizzy. That the cost of too many trophies and the fact that someone shooting as the only barebow shooter in a state could be state champ without having shot against a competitor. Just about every non relevant argument in the book has been tried in support of the notion. If it's that big a deal maybe any one with a non wheeled rig ought of seek out the trad guys for field shoots


As a very active NFAA shooter and officer in my club, it's a little more complicated than a few awards. Although cost of awards for local clubs does count. My club, for example, has gone from giving out very nice belt buckles to ribbons with pins at our big shoots.

If having all of these divisions were doing anything to help grow the NFAA then, great, I'm all for it, but they aren't. The one division that just might have some potential for growing NFAA field archery is the one that we're talking about, FSL recurve. I don't think it's huge, but at least there is some potential. The other finger divisions are clearly dying a slow but inevitable death. Having both Barebow and Bowhunter divisions, for example, isn't doing anything to grow the NFAA. At best we're keeping some members from going away. I can't think of a single new member we've ever sworn in that shot anything other than BHFS or FS.

I guess what puzzles me is that the NFAA wants, and maybe needs to streamline a bit and everyone is up in arms. Yet, the NFAA has more equipment divisions than the NAA. The NFAA has a handicap system or alternatively in some states a class system. The NFAA flights it's tournaments. The NFAA has a Pro division, which is, effectively another handicap. The NFAA does a lot to make sure that as many people as possible have a chance to bring home an award. The NAA doesn't do any of that (although they do have more age divisions) but no one is saying they are too restrictive and chasing away members.


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

ShakesTheClown said:


> As a very active NFAA shooter and officer in my club, it's a little more complicated than a few awards. Although cost of awards for local clubs does count. My club, for example, has gone from giving out very nice belt buckles to ribbons with pins at our big shoots.
> 
> If having all of these divisions were doing anything to help grow the NFAA then, great, I'm all for it, but they aren't. The one division that just might have some potential for growing NFAA field archery is the one that we're talking about, FSL recurve. I don't think it's huge, but at least there is some potential. The other finger divisions are clearly dying a slow but inevitable death. Having both Barebow and Bowhunter divisions, for example, isn't doing anything to grow the NFAA. At best we're keeping some members from going away. I can't think of a single new member we've ever sworn in that shot anything other than BHFS or FS.
> 
> I guess what puzzles me is that the NFAA wants, and maybe needs to streamline a bit and everyone is up in arms. Yet, the NFAA has more equipment divisions than the NAA. The NFAA has a handicap system or alternatively in some states a class system. The NFAA flights it's tournaments. The NFAA has a Pro division, which is, effectively another handicap. The NFAA does a lot to make sure that as many people as possible have a chance to bring home an award. The NAA doesn't do any of that (although they do have more age divisions) but no one is saying they are too restrictive and chasing away members.


 I understand the complexity Shakes. I was merely re iterating some of the detritus that comes out in the general forum whenever the classes get discussed.

Streamlining and a restructure are certainly in order, and I am not sure the NFAA is leaning to the right direction. It may well be high time that archers as a whole look to the entire picture of how Field Tournaments are prosecuted and how and what determining a champion is. Less verbosely are purely equipment based classes obsolete? Should age limits be revisited? Would cadet, bowman, marksman. expert type classifications be a better place to start? I have this feeling in my lower vertebrae that technology, peoples new commitment to personal fitness (50 is the new 30 and all that), more understanding of sport technique and psychology, has in fact changed the overall game. The course layouts may be the same (another topic there) but the way in which the sport itself is practiced is quite different. Perhaps we need to look there before becoming obsessed or target fixated with slotting equipment into holes.

NAA has the leverage of saying FITA makes the rulings (nice to have a dictator) so they are spared a lot of the bickering. Being held to a world standard means you had better have a good case for a new _*anything*_ before you start lobbying. We know this going in and pretty much accept it. FITA learned long ago to stick to minimums when you have so many participants.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Selil said:


> If you separate recurve from compound you have enhanced the competition between the equipment groups. If you categorize based on sites, or release aids in some ways you enhance the competition between archers. When you create oranges to oranges type classes that are fairly stringently defined it becomes easier to say this person is best as like in good science all of the elements are controlled. Unfortunately such constraints artificially degrade competition. Arguments over the validity that a great archer with fingers can/can not compete against release aids at the elite level are not answered.


I thought the question of fingers vs. release aid was pretty much answered. Given equal skill level between archers and equipment, the release aid wins. If competition is to be between archers then the equipment classes much match archers equipment in a meaningful way. I don't think "oranges to oranges" competitions "degrade" competition. I think you are talking about lumping in disparate equipment so that the point spread is higher. That isn't what I'd call competition, but perhaps I misunderstand your point.



Hutnicks said:


> Perhaps we need to look there before becoming obsessed or target fixated with slotting equipment into holes.


It is hard to know what to do. This same question is an issue in other sports as well, especially racing sports. In those cases, the idea is generally to build your car to the max specs and not to try and lump disparate groups of equipment together. Few people would argue that these "oranges to oranges" races artificially degrade competition or suggest putting Formula 1 cars and stock cars together together to "enhance the competition between" drivers.

The idea of equipment classes is to enhance the competition between archers rather than have the winner based on having disparate equipment. Competition is discrimination. Discrimination against equipment and discrimination of winners and losers based on score. It is pretty hard to decide which way to discriminate is the best way to make the discrimination the fairest.


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

Warbow said:


> I thought the question of fingers vs. release aid was pretty much answered. Given equal skill level between archers and equipment, the release aid wins. If competition is to be between archers then the equipment classes much match archers equipment in a meaningful way. I don't think "oranges to oranges" competitions "degrade" competition. I think you are talking about lumping in disparate equipment so that the point spread is higher. That isn't what I'd call competition, but perhaps I misunderstand your point.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Interesting argument you pose there. If one looks closely at Formula 1 and their 10 year development freeze on engines then look again at their "commitment to explore alternative fuels" within that same time frame. We see the same form of bi polar management. Then again it was a visionary like Gilles Villenueve who said in the turbo car era "get rid of ground effects and give us 750 horsepower and you'll see some racing." Pity he never lived to see that actually happen, and his son win with that formula

We seem to lack visionaries in the archery field. Far too much reminiscing about the "golden age" which I apparently lived through and managed to miss at the same time

I am suggesting we take a few steps back from knee jerk rules changes and look at the entire package. Archer, equipment, venue and see what the actual goal of the organization is and what it should / could be. Competition is about exploring limits and I think Archery in general has lost sight of what limits it set out to explore.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Hutnicks said:


> We seem to lack visionaries in the archery field. Far too much reminiscing about the "golden age" which I apparently lived through and managed to miss at the same time
> 
> I am suggesting we take a few steps back from knee jerk rules changes and look at the entire package. Archer, equipment, venue and see what the actual goal of the organization is and what it should / could be. Competition is about exploring limits and I think Archery in general has lost sight of what limits it set out to explore.


Archery is only about exploring limits with a very narrow set of parameters--all of which focus on landing an arrow exactly where it is supposed to go. I'm certainly no visionary, but I question how radically you can change archery--I don't know what those limits are. Is anyone trying to radically change Track and Field? Perhaps mini-tramps to give the long jump a little more distance? Or maybe the hurdles should be on fire? I'm not trying to shoot down the idea of re-thinking archery tournaments by making the comparison, only pointing out that the "re-thinking" that is needed isn't necessarily about how a competition is executed but about archery in general. In many ways archery is a very basic sport like running but it also has an equipment aspect that can become ridiculous.

If we are going to "re-think" archery competition we have to also re-think Field, 3D, FITA, Indoor, etc. Also, archery is really boring to watch on TV though it is still better to watch than Olympic fencing, where the action is so fast you can't see it even on the regular slo-mo replay (the really need the Super SloMo that has been available since the 80's...)


----------



## RecordKeeper (May 9, 2003)

NFAA vs. NAA

I'll be writing an in-depth comparative article later this month. On a national level, however, it seems to me that the NFAA has a governmental structure that is cumbersome and given the number of people involved has to be pretty expensive to operate. Nonetheless, it seems to be able to get things done, and is...in my opinion...prett well positioned to pick up the NGB status and pieces of the NAA should it be unable to get its act together.

The NAA on the other hand appears to be seriously disorganized and troubled, and its recordkeeping is weak at best. But it is a much more streamlined entity with fewer classes and a much smaller governmental structure. The fractures within the NAA's governmental system are much more obvious, and may well become its downfall...and its recent board election was nothing short of a disaster.

In either case, it is heartening to see that Easton looms large in the background willing to support both organizations in order to ensure that the Olympic style of archery remains as healthy as possible here in the USA. 

For those of us who love Olympic style archery...these are not good times. We see the NAA in disarray and an NFAA proposal to eliminate the division all together. 

It's sad.


----------



## Dave T (Mar 24, 2004)

Hutnicks said:


> ...maybe any one with a non wheeled rig ought of seek out the trad guys for field shoots...


The "trad guys" don't shoot field, at least not in my part of the country. For 14 months I tried to get a monthly field shoot going through a local club that is mostly about 3D. Not a single, solitary "trad" shooter ever even tried field. All those I invited said the targets were too far and we shot too many arrows. Sad considering field was founded (back in the late 30s and early 40s) by people shooting longbows and static recurves with no sights and wood arrows.

I am on the board of our State NFAA affiliate and the "field coordinator" for two clubs. All this as part of my efforts to promote field archery, or in the case of the NFAA to keep field from dying. Our state organization puts on 4 "state championships" each year, the Indoor, the Outdoor, an International round and starting this year a Marked 3D Trail shoot. We have gone to a score based classification system and it is working out very well. Five classes based on how well you can shoot, with no regard to what you shoot or how you aim it. We no longer are giving out "State Champion" plaques to the one person who showed up for their class. We actually have competition between archers who shoot at about the same skill level. What a concept! Any chance the NFAA would consider this? No, I didn't think so either. Just dreaming.

Dave


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

Warbow said:


> Archery is only about exploring limits with a very narrow set of parameters--all of which focus on landing an arrow exactly where it is supposed to go. I'm certainly no visionary, but I question how radically you can change archery--I don't know what those limits are. Is anyone trying to radically change Track and Field? Perhaps mini-tramps to give the long jump a little more distance? Or maybe the hurdles should be on fire? I'm not trying to shoot down the idea of re-thinking archery tournaments by making the comparison, only pointing out that the "re-thinking" that is needed isn't necessarily about how a competition is executed but about archery in general. In many ways archery is a very basic sport like running but it also has an equipment aspect that can become ridiculous.
> 
> If we are going to "re-think" archery competition we have to also re-think Field, 3D, FITA, Indoor, etc. Also, archery is really boring to watch on TV though it is still better to watch than Olympic fencing, where the action is so fast you can't see it even on the regular slo-mo replay (the really need the Super SloMo that has been available since the 80's...)


Most sports are quit basic in their stated goals Track and field has largely NOT been influenced by technological advances. But at the time we build an athlete who can clear the pit, it may indeed be time to change the long jump.

Yes a review of the whole sport may be in order but FITA and FIELD are my only self centred concerns here. Look at the change in Oly archery with the OR and the elimination of 90m from the menu. That was a change in an attempt to get tv friendly that failed miserably. But it was a change none the less.

When you look at delivering and arrow to the x, is that really all it it about? Is that the total test of an archers skill? Should we be looking at endurance (which the OR format took out of play)? Does Field archery need to look at new technologies in the design of a Field course? Can they be laid out more efficiently in the same space? Would a new design decrease the overall time it takes to shoot a round for a newbie? Should in fact timed rounds be considered in the sport? Should distances be increased to reflect advancements? Is 20 yards obsolete as an indoor format?

There are a lot of areas included in a shoot that do not really get considered when we become fixated on the equipment/class issue, and I believe we do the sport a disservice by not looking at the overall picture.


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

Dave T said:


> The "trad guys" don't shoot field, at least not in my part of the country. For 14 months I tried to get a monthly field shoot going through a local club that is mostly about 3D. Not a single, solitary "trad" shooter ever even tried field. All those I invited said the targets were too far and we shot too many arrows. Sad considering field was founded (back in the late 30s and early 40s) by people shooting longbows and static recurves with no sights and wood arrows.
> 
> I am on the board of our State NFAA affiliate and the "field coordinator" for two clubs. All this as part of my efforts to promote field archery, or in the case of the NFAA to keep field from dying. Our state organization puts on 4 "state championships" each year, the Indoor, the Outdoor, an International round and starting this year a Marked 3D Trail shoot. We have gone to a score based classification system and it is working out very well. Five classes based on how well you can shoot, with no regard to what you shoot or how you aim it. We no longer are giving out "State Champion" plaques to the one person who showed up for their class. We actually have competition between archers who shoot at about the same skill level. What a concept! Any chance the NFAA would consider this? No, I didn't think so either. Just dreaming.
> 
> Dave


Sad times indeed Dave, when the founding class of a sport will not participate.

The score or skill based class system is really a great idea in my opinion. I'll be interested to see how that evolves over time. 

Funny indeed, that when someone refers to being out_*classed*_ by another shooter, it is rarely a reference to the hardware being used


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

Recordkeeper said:


> NFAA vs. NAA
> 
> I'll be writing an in-depth comparative article later this month. On a national level, however, it seems to me that the NFAA has a governmental structure that is cumbersome and given the number of people involved has to be pretty expensive to operate. Nonetheless, it seems to be able to get things done, and is...in my opinion...prett well positioned to pick up the NGB status and pieces of the NAA should it be unable to get its act together.
> 
> ...


 Might just be time to review how some other countries with a sucessful OLY program administer it. Perhaps a new NGB model is in order.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Hutnicks said:


> Sad times indeed Dave, when the founding class of a sport will not participate.


Well, much as I like Trad shooting I think that is an awkward position to take. I don't expect car racing to still support Model T racing nor to I blame Model T drivers for not participating in the same races Model T's used to race in. If compounds of the same quality as today's had existed in the "golden age of recurve" there might well have been few if any recurve shooters at the field archery course. People who are competitive, anal, obsessed with perfection tend to want to shoot the most accurate equipment, so the people who would be interested in field archery are already there, they just happen to be shooting compounds. I don't know if their is a way to reverse that process, especially when Olympic recurves have almost as many gadgets so it is a hard sell to convince people that OR is really more desirable than compound on a "simpler, back to basics" sort of appeal.


----------



## Dave T (Mar 24, 2004)

Warbow,

Sounds like you're saying field archery is no longer suitable for recurves or longbows. As a Barebow Recurve shooter I hope like (expletive deleted) you are wrong. Oh, and don't tell that to the IFAA Longbow crowd. They are one of the biggest classes at major IFAA events.

Dave


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Dave T said:


> Warbow,
> 
> Sounds like you're saying field archery is no longer suitable for recurves or longbows. As a Barebow Recurve shooter I hope like (expletive deleted) you are wrong. Oh, and don't tell that to the IFAA Longbow crowd. They are one of the biggest classes at major IFAA events.
> 
> Dave


No, Dave, I think recurves are still suitable for field archery 

But I think that the archers who are suitable for field archery in this country have generally bought compounds. I don't think it is an equipment issue directly, but a social one and it is a difficult one to answer because you are asking how does one make one's favorite sport more popular with other people who already prefer a different aspect of it and how do you gain momentum to create a swell of popularity. That is a question I don't have an answer to and I know it is one you struggle with to keep field archery going in your own locale.

As to the IFAA crowd, I can't speak to that too much, only that I assume that a class that meets their needs has attracted longbow shooters to those shoots and they draw from a fairly large field. But, that success hasn't really helped your cause in your area and I don't know what the IFAA teaches us. Perhaps that other countries are doing a better job with non-compound classes, but I don't know why or how that success, if that is the case, could be translated to the US.

So, I'm not trying to shoot down field archery or recurve archery (I only own longbows and recurves) but I am trying to honestly question how and why compounds are successful because, perhaps, that will give us some insight into what makes archery attractive and how to successfully recruit people into our favorite branches of archery (a somewhat selfish evangelical indulgence I practice on a regular, low key basis  )


----------



## Greg Bouras (Nov 17, 2006)

I have shot both recurve and compound bows for quiet a few years without a bow sight. Shooting these styles I used to be part of the crowd.
Not any more. A compound bow shot without sights was quickly found to be definite advantage over the recurve when the scores were added up. Those who shot recurve evolved into compound shooters and that exodus was because of the score (winning), quite natural.

When sights and release aids entered the scene another portion of the recurve shooters was lost, bare bow shooters opted for more repeatable equipment and a whole generation of new archers never even considered a recurve bow.

These things happened voluntarily as a natural part of competitive progression.

Forcing a sighted recurve archer to compete with a sighted compound archer does not take a propulsion engineer to predict the future of recurve competitive archer.

Organized archery does not in my opinion need to create rules that force a division between classes and/or inadvertently (being kind here) promoting one style of shooting over another.

.
If the NFAA has truly taken the time to analysis the present situation as a necessary prerequisite to advancing archery and cost cutting, and has found that the low hanging fruit lies in a reduction in competitive classes by mixing the recurve and the compound ( compound vs. recurve if preferred). 
THEN
Please go back to the target line, pull another arrow from the quiver and try again. That arrow is not even on the paper.


----------

