# Barebow questions....



## Letdownagain (Dec 1, 2015)

Looking for the rules about what is allowed when shooting barebow with indoors/outdoors with usa archery. Looked on the world archery site where usa archery directed me to but they list nothing.

Can a regular clicker be used?

Multiple anchors?

String walking?

Thanks....


----------



## J Wesbrock (Jul 6, 2016)

No clickers, yes to multiple anchors and string walking. The Barebow rules are in the field / 3-D rule book. I think it's book four.


----------



## tkaap (Nov 30, 2009)

Book 4, rule 22.3 covers barebow.
https://worldarchery.org/Rules

And naturally the rule is precisely as you've said.


----------



## rambo-yambo (Aug 12, 2008)

Under Division section 4.3.2, only recurve division, compound division and standard bow division are listed. Does it mean Barebow is only part of field archery and not part of the target archery?


----------



## Ms.Speedmaster (Dec 10, 2010)

There's a pdf at the bottom of this page with the NFAA / IFAA / WA rules all in one document.


----------



## >--gt--> (Jul 1, 2002)

rambo-yambo said:


> Under Division section 4.3.2, only recurve division, compound division and standard bow division are listed. Does it mean Barebow is only part of field archery and not part of the target archery?


That's correct at the WA level. Every national governing body has different applications of the rules for their events, but internationally, barebow is exclusively a field discipline.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

>--gt--> said:


> That's correct at the WA level. Every national governing body has different applications of the rules for their events, but internationally, barebow is exclusively a field discipline.


Which this day and age, I find simply amazing. Archers shot target barebow for centuries. And in less than 100 years, they can't seem to function without sights, stabilizers, clickers, releases and scopes and the world governing body seemingly forgets the roots of the sport. Modern barebow archery has come a long, long way. It's time WA returned barebow into the indoor and outdoor world championship events.


----------



## tdn0602 (Apr 14, 2015)

Hi all, I was reading through the barebow rules and was confused be a particular section. I was hoping someone here can help me with the clarification. Please see rule below and my focus is the sentence in *BOLD*. "Marks or lines may be added directly to the tab and shall be uniform in size, shape and colour." Does this mean we can mark lines on our tab to measure our string walking as long as those marks are uniform in size, shape and color?

Section: 22.3.8.1. A separator between the fingers to prevent pinching the arrow may be used. An anchor plate or similar device attached to the finger protection (tab) for the purpose of anchoring is permitted. The stitching shall be uniform in size and colour. *Marks or lines may be added directly to the tab and shall be uniform in size, shape and colour*. Additional memoranda is not permitted. On the bow hand an ordinary glove, mitten or similar item may be worn but shall not be attached to the grip of the bow.


----------



## Azzurri (Mar 10, 2014)

tdn0602 said:


> Hi all, I was reading through the barebow rules and was confused be a particular section. I was hoping someone here can help me with the clarification. Please see rule below and my focus is the sentence in *BOLD*. "Marks or lines may be added directly to the tab and shall be uniform in size, shape and colour." Does this mean we can mark lines on our tab to measure our string walking as long as those marks are uniform in size, shape and color?
> 
> Section: 22.3.8.1. A separator between the fingers to prevent pinching the arrow may be used. An anchor plate or similar device attached to the finger protection (tab) for the purpose of anchoring is permitted. The stitching shall be uniform in size and colour. *Marks or lines may be added directly to the tab and shall be uniform in size, shape and colour*. Additional memoranda is not permitted. On the bow hand an ordinary glove, mitten or similar item may be worn but shall not be attached to the grip of the bow.


I think it's actually the opposite, that you can have regular, uniform stitching or applied regular marks but can't put your own individualized marks on it. I think the "added directly" allows tabs where faux stitching is etched on after the fact to provide a measuring device, but not part of the tab construction.


----------



## Keeshond (Sep 13, 2016)

I always wondered why exact, self-applied, yardage markings were verboten with everyone in the game understanding we use existing marks on the tab as reference points anyway. Everyone knows stitching is enhanced on BB tabs for this very purpose and this is OK. Just don't add your own marks after the fact.

Weird rule.


----------



## toj (Aug 22, 2012)

I've seen a few archers add marks to their tabs and shoot rs field events unchallenged.


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

limbwalker said:


> Which this day and age, I find simply amazing. Archers shot target barebow for centuries. And in less than 100 years, they can't seem to function without sights, stabilizers, clickers, releases and scopes and the world governing body seemingly forgets the roots of the sport. Modern barebow archery has come a long, long way. It's time WA returned barebow into the indoor and outdoor world championship events.


Exactly.

It would be interesting to see a comparison between barebow archers and olympic archers that put in the same amount of practice time and compare their scores for the same target and field rounds. I contend that the barebow archers shoot as well if not better than the olympic recurve.

Cant compare olympic hopefuls to barebow archers because there is an order of magnitude difference in hours of practice. Compare the people that put, say, 10 hours a week to people that put 10 hours a week of practice. Or 20 to 20, or 5 to 5.


----------



## J Wesbrock (Jul 6, 2016)

Barebow archers are allowed to add their own marks to their tabs so long as the marks are within the published rules. That is how it is enforced at nationals and the WAFC.


----------



## taz00 (Jun 28, 2015)

Mr. Roboto said:


> Exactly.
> 
> It would be interesting to see a comparison between barebow archers and olympic archers that put in the same amount of practice time and compare their scores for the same target and field rounds. I contend that the barebow archers shoot as well if not better than the olympic recurve.


For that comparison you can check the scores is Vegas.
FWIW in 2016 the nr.1 qualifier in barebow would place 59th in the Olympic recurve division.


----------



## Captain Kirk (Sep 11, 2016)

Mr. Roboto said:


> Exactly.
> It would be interesting to see a comparison between barebow archers and olympic archers that put in the same amount of practice time and compare their scores for the same target and field rounds. I contend that the barebow archers shoot as well if not better than the olympic recurve.


A courageous theory. In Europe, as there is in most countries the barebow class quite popular and sometimes on par with participants with oly recs in tournaments, you can see people switching between the two season to season or tournament to tournament and shooting same good (or not so good ;-) )
But as both archer types are "only" humans i really doubt why barebow archers should outperform oly recs. I see no reason - whether in target rounds or field rounds. It's nice to see that there is an upcoming hype for field archery and barebow in this forum, but there is nothing magical in this discipline - as in oly rec. The magic is named training


----------



## Captain Kirk (Sep 11, 2016)

limbwalker said:


> Which this day and age, I find simply amazing. Archers shot target barebow for centuries. And in less than 100 years, they can't seem to function without sights, stabilizers, clickers, releases and scopes and the world governing body seemingly forgets the roots of the sport. Modern barebow archery has come a long, long way. It's time WA returned barebow into the indoor and outdoor world championship events.



A difficult access to the theme i think. As gt mentioned several countries in europe e.g. include in their target tournaments compound, oly recurve, barebow, instinctive, longbow. male & female and several junior and senior classes. If you say we bring barebow back because of history, there are cogent arguments to bring also "instinctive" and longbow (which were the first bows shot in olympic games). Extrapolate the participants for an national tournament in USA....


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

I've been doing this a long time, and I'm still waiting for an objective definition of "instinctive." LOL. 

Rules are for equipment, not how you use it. Barebow should be in the WC events, both indoor and outdoor. Just so much bias against it by the elitists within the sport, and I've never fully understood what they are afraid of.


----------



## Rylando (Jul 30, 2016)

taz00 said:


> For that comparison you can check the scores is Vegas.
> FWIW in 2016 the nr.1 qualifier in barebow would place 59th in the Olympic recurve division.


There is no "barebow" in NFAA (vegas) as we know it in FITA/USAArchery/World Archery.


----------



## Captain Kirk (Sep 11, 2016)

limbwalker said:


> I've been doing this a long time, and I'm still waiting for an objective definition of "instinctive." LOL.


Haha. This was for sure not the best idea coming from FITA/WA naming it "instinctive". (you see, i put the word in quote). Nonetheless "instinctive" and longbow are inside WA events and national events in almost every european country with athletes shooting great scores.



limbwalker said:


> Rules are for equipment, not how you use it. Barebow should be in the WC events, both indoor and outdoor. Just so much bias against it by the elitists within the sport, and I've never fully understood what they are afraid of.


No problem her in Europe. And i realy can't see much bias from "elitists". Maybe in the US?
But again, what makes barebow better than the other disciplines excluded from WC? This would be a contradiction to your last sentence. Not easy...


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Because they already recognize it (WA) and it has a very strong reputation for serious target archery both in the U.S. and in Europe. If it were added to the WC's we would see some very good international competition.


----------



## Rylando (Jul 30, 2016)

Captain Kirk said:


> No problem her in Europe. And i realy can't see much bias from "elitists". Maybe in the US?
> But again, what makes barebow better than the other disciplines excluded from WC? This would be a contradiction to your last sentence. Not easy...


It's more populous? Everyone I know of in the USA generally their first time at archery/taking lessons starts with a barebow. Plus it's recognized more widely, I think?


----------



## Captain Kirk (Sep 11, 2016)

limbwalker said:


> Because they already recognize it (WA) and it has a very strong reputation for serious target archery both in the U.S. and in Europe. If it were added to the WC's we would see some very good international competition.


I would rather have a international field archery series included. With comp, bare & rec. Would also be more interesting to watch for publics instead of the 70m events due to the abandoned FITA rounds...
Your opinion to?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

We already have a WC for field. Two in fact.

And viewers are largely sheep. 70M was to simplify the viewing and the set system was so they could use smaller numbers to keep score. LOL. Just kidding, but a non-archer would easily be confused by field. 

Shooting a barebow at 60 meters though? Easy to follow and even easier for the non-archer viewer to understand than when they turn on the tele and see long rods, clickers, sights scopes and releases on "bows."


----------



## Keeshond (Sep 13, 2016)

Mr. Roboto said:


> Exactly.
> 
> It would be interesting to see a comparison between barebow archers and olympic archers that put in the same amount of practice time and compare their scores for the same target and field rounds. I contend that the barebow archers shoot as well if not better than the olympic recurve.
> 
> Cant compare olympic hopefuls to barebow archers because there is an order of magnitude difference in hours of practice. Compare the people that put, say, 10 hours a week to people that put 10 hours a week of practice. Or 20 to 20, or 5 to 5.


Very tough for a barebow person to overcome a stabilized bow with the shooter using a clicker. Those wands out there in space are much better able to slow down bow movement than weights on a riser. I'd be impressed to see any barebow archer shoot with a fully outfitted recurve shot by somebody who could shoot well.


----------



## Captain Kirk (Sep 11, 2016)

limbwalker said:


> We already have a WC for field. Two in fact.
> 
> And viewers are largely sheep. 70M was to simplify the viewing and the set system was so they could use smaller numbers to keep score. LOL. Just kidding, but a non-archer would easily be confused by field.
> 
> Shooting a barebow at 60 meters though? Easy to follow and even easier for the non-archer viewer to understand than when they turn on the tele and see long rods, clickers, sights scopes and releases on "bows."


I thought of a "world cup", a tour just like the existing target events.

And, really another single distance? Just boring.
Where would be the benefits for barebow being more accepted? 
Shooting one distance, with equipment nearly the same as the olys use minus stabilizer/sight/clicker but same high end limbs, risers, arrows, plunger, wire rests.
And finding the only one string mark for the only one distance even asleep
And for sure it will not be 60m as the other distances also were reduced (70 and 50 for oly and comp)
Barebowers shoot on a FITA round 50, 40, 30, 20 - so most likely the single distance would be 40 or 30 meters. 
Meh...

I just wrote this conscious rational. Just like some decision makers would do...


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

Keeshond said:


> Very tough for a barebow person to overcome a stabilized bow with the shooter using a clicker. Those wands out there in space are much better able to slow down bow movement than weights on a riser. I'd be impressed to see any barebow archer shoot with a fully outfitted recurve shot by somebody who could shoot well.


This is why I am trying to quantify level of training. There are Oly shooters that smoke me on a 1440 round with my barebow. And there are archers that I out shoot on the same round. The ones that slaughter me also practice much much more than I can. And the ones that I beat, I practice more than they do, and there are others that I beat that practice more. Its hard to make relative comparison because training and intensity of training is so very different.

World Archery (as written in their training manuals) that barebow is a beginning point for people to transition from pure novice to Recurve or Compound. The World Archery treats barebow as some second class hobby that cant shoot. There is a constant effort to shorten the distances and increase the target size. Barebow archers are fully capable of shooting all the distances on all the targets. But generationally World Archery, USAA, and many other organizations have pushed it aside for so long that there are not many people left that really know how to shoot it well, and be able to teach it to others. There are those that still shoot well. And those that shoot well also take it serious like Recurve and Compound archers do. Those of us that take it serious, do shoot well, and score well in comparison to Recurve archers. If Barebow was in the Olymics and shot at world championships and there were similar sponsorship opportunities for Barebow, you would see them shooting comparable scores as the Recurve shooters.


----------



## Keeshond (Sep 13, 2016)

Mr.Roboto, I see your point now about training levels. 

What would be interesting is to see how well a current elite-level recurve archer could shoot a barebow setup at just one distance. Never mind working with crawls. How well could Brady shoot 50 yards for groups without sights and a high anchor shooting 3-under. I suspect his basic form and ability would allow for better grouping than most current string walking field archers but I seriously doubt he'd match his group size if using his recurve setup. 

Just a feeling.


----------



## Captain Kirk (Sep 11, 2016)

Mr. Roboto said:


> uals) that barebow is a beginning point for people to transition from pure novice to Recurve or Compound. The World Archery treats barebow as some second class hobby that cant shoot.


Sorry, thats not true.
But someone has to accept that olympic recurve is the only admitted discipline at olympic games and therefore the main focus from WA is just fair.


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

Captain Kirk said:


> Sorry, thats not true.
> But someone has to accept that olympic recurve is the only admitted discipline at olympic games and therefore the main focus from WA is just fair.


If that is the case, then why is compounds part of the world championships?


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

Keeshond said:


> Mr.Roboto, I see your point now about training levels.
> 
> What would be interesting is to see how well a current elite-level recurve archer could shoot a barebow setup at just one distance. Never mind working with crawls. How well could Brady shoot 50 yards for groups without sights and a high anchor shooting 3-under. I suspect his basic form and ability would allow for better grouping than most current string walking field archers but I seriously doubt he'd match his group size if using his recurve setup.
> 
> Just a feeling.


I am pretty sure Brady would make an awesome barebow shooter. But comparing Brady in the mix is difficult to make a comparison. He is an outstanding archer. But ask this question, if he spent the last 5 years training as hard as he does with all the same incentives and if barebow was an olympic/WC event, and his competition did the same, how much different would his scores be as compared to his recurve scores?

Barebow shoots just don't have the incentives to train at the same level as elite recurve archers shoot. I know quite a few barebow shooters that can break 800 on a 900 round. Some people will say "so what", 800 is not that big of an achievement for the top recurve shooters. But compare the training regiment of the recurve shooters that break 800 vs the training barebow archers that break 800. They are both putting in a lot of hours to get to that point.

I believe that when one is comparing equal levels of training and incentives, barebow archers will scores will be comparable with recurve shooters. Yeah, clickers and stabs play a role, but most of the work is all in the archer, not the hardware.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Mr. Roboto said:


> If that is the case, then why is compounds part of the world championships?


Winner.


----------



## Rylando (Jul 30, 2016)

Mr. Roboto said:


> I am pretty sure Brady would make an awesome barebow shooter. But comparing Brady in the mix is difficult to make a comparison. He is an outstanding archer. But ask this question, if he spent the last 5 years training as hard as he does with all the same incentives and if barebow was an olympic/WC event, and his competition did the same, how much different would his scores be as compared to his recurve scores?
> 
> Barebow shoots just don't have the incentives to train at the same level as elite recurve archers shoot. I know quite a few barebow shooters that can break 800 on a 900 round. Some people will say "so what", 800 is not that big of an achievement for the top recurve shooters. But compare the training regiment of the recurve shooters that break 800 vs the training barebow archers that break 800. They are both putting in a lot of hours to get to that point.
> 
> I believe that when one is comparing equal levels of training and incentives, barebow archers will scores will be comparable with recurve shooters. Yeah, clickers and stabs play a role, but most of the work is all in the archer, not the hardware.


This.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Well, it's fun to daydream, but as someone who has shot fairly well with both barebow and recurve, I can tell you it ain't happening. A clicker and set of stabilizers is just too much of an advantage. Sight? Not that big a deal actually.


----------



## Captain Kirk (Sep 11, 2016)

Mr. Roboto said:


> If that is the case, then why is compounds part of the world championships?





limbwalker said:


> Winner.


I'm wondering why some can't remember that the WA puts some effort into bringing compound to olympics since years now.
And since compound is the best selling market - this is not illogical if you comprehend the correlation of olympics


----------



## blackshadoe (Oct 17, 2016)

Has anybody used a Best Mercury for Barebow? Opinions between a Best Mercury or Bernardini Nilo, 20st?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Both would work very well, I think.


----------



## Demmer (Dec 1, 2012)

Nilo has the ball grip doesn't it? 

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## Keeshond (Sep 13, 2016)

Demmer said:


> Nilo has the ball grip doesn't it?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


Yes. Not something I like but many do. Other grips must fit or be easily adapted.


----------



## Demmer (Dec 1, 2012)

That grip and throat is the only tricky thing with that riser. I shot one even with other grips and don't particularly care for it. Others do. 

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## Osiris155 (Jun 27, 2016)

All of those risers have the same grip. I believe the Mercury has a lateral limb alignment system.


----------



## blackshadoe (Oct 17, 2016)

Can anybody explain the lateral limb alignment system on the Best Mercury? Is is a good thing?


----------



## Keeshond (Sep 13, 2016)

blackshadoe said:


> Can anybody explain the lateral limb alignment system on the Best Mercury? Is is a good thing?


I cant see any provision for limb alignment in photos. Was wondering about this myself. Hope it's not eccentric limb bolts. That's a horrible system.


----------



## Captain Kirk (Sep 11, 2016)

Keeshond said:


> Hope it's not eccentric limb bolts.


Your hope is not fulfilled. Eccentric bolts on all Best risers. Main reason why i finally didn't buy a Best Moon years ago (Not for barebow, but oly rec shooting) when this system already was ditched by the big companies. 

If you want a riser exclusively designed for bare bow - look at Stolid Bull too. German precision...


----------



## Demmer (Dec 1, 2012)

limbwalker said:


> Well, it's fun to daydream, but as someone who has shot fairly well with both barebow and recurve, I can tell you it ain't happening. A clicker and set of stabilizers is just too much of an advantage. Sight? Not that big a deal actually.


100% fact. Clicker is single handedly the biggest advantage there is. It's way bigger than some like to admit. The long rod is a large advantage as well, but not as much as the clicker. 

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Yea, I can nearly duplicate the effect of a longrod with a 12" stab that is heavy enough. When I set the TFAA indoor trad record a few years ago, my "traditional" bow had a hold and forward roll nearly identical to my Olympic rig. LOL.

So I would agree it's 1) clicker, 2) stabilizers and 3) sights in that order of importance.


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

But how far off will the scores be if you had a barebow and a recurve archer training at the same intensitiy, dedication, and motivation, with the same exact long term incentives?

I understand how certain pieces of hardware helps with the process, but the human element is the biggest variable in the whole process.

I still believe when we can compare barebow and recurve archers that put the same level of dedication to their craft, they will be shooting similar scores. The problem is, that type of comparison is hard to make because the motivations and incentives are not the same, even if the hours on the range is.

In my neck of the woods, I outscore all of the recurve archers that put less time in than I do with my barebow, and the recurve archers that put in more hours than I do generally out score me. I shoot the FITA distances that they do so its a direct comparison.

This is why I bring up the training comparison.

If World Archery would allow barebow in the Target championships, that opens up a huge incentive. Why would a barebow archer devote, 10, 20, 40 hours a week to develop their skills when all they can do is show that they are king of their pond. USAA did a wonderful thing by allowing barebow to be part of the USAT. That is a good incentive which has caused me great pain in trying to figure out my priorities for next year. But what is next beyond the t-shirt? Going back to the pond. But World Championships, now that opens up a bigger incentive. You are not going to get to the level to be a competitor at the world championships with a casual level of training, It will require much more dedication and focus, and many more hours. When that happens scores go up. When a barebow archer is training at the level of being a world cup champion, they are going to be shooting some awesome scores.


----------



## Captain Kirk (Sep 11, 2016)

Mr. Roboto said:


> But how far off will the scores be if you had a barebow and a recurve archer training at the same intensitiy, dedication, and motivation, with the same exact long term incentives?


Limbwalker and Demmer statet it absolutely true - the lack of certain aids will never let barebowers score as good as oly recurvers at the same performance level. This is simply not worth discussing.

You write that human element is the biggest variable and this is true. So better we compare hypothetical how good Brady Ellison e.g. would be if he switches to barebow or how good Demmer would be if he dedicates all his training to oly recurve with all the support others get.
But (hopefully) everyone chooses what he wants to choose 
I know some archers which didn't get elite results it in target so they switched to field and are international successful. Some switched from a successful carreer as a barebower to oly recurve and struggling with form. This will bring us back again to human form and personal conditions being suited for some things better.

Just my personal opinion about this tiresome theme comparing lines because i would see much rather a bigger recognition of field archery where barebow can shine 

PS: you shoot the 90m FITA distance barebow? Wow, whats your string gap to the shorter distances?


----------



## granite14 (Nov 10, 2014)

Pete, you should shoot an olympic rig for awhile.
You can believe what you want, but you are lacking data in your assertions. The advantage will go to recurve always.
The clicker is a huge advantage. Also, having a dot on the sight for 70M and 90M is way more accurate than using gaps with a large arrow tip, or using a landmark like a reset wire.
Even my 1 month attempt this summer was enlightening, and I was able to group much better at 50yds than barebow as long as my form was good.


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

Captain Kirk said:


> Limbwalker and Demmer statet it absolutely true - the lack of certain aids will never let barebowers score as good as oly recurvers at the same performance level. This is simply not worth discussing.
> 
> You write that human element is the biggest variable and this is true. So better we compare hypothetical how good Brady Ellison e.g. would be if he switches to barebow or how good Demmer would be if he dedicates all his training to oly recurve with all the support others get.
> But (hopefully) everyone chooses what he wants to choose
> ...


At my last 90m I shot a 198 with only 3 misses. I shoot split finger, forefinger to the corner of the mouth, and I use the shelf on the dot. Works great when I execute the shot properly. 

This year I shot my best 1440 round with a 981. First time I string walked that event. Its nice when you are not aiming at the blue sky above the target. I only started putting in any real practice for this event starting two weeks before it. 

With 2 weeks of string walking practice I was able to shoot the 981. Now what could I have shot if this was the only thing I practiced? Day in and day out?


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

Keeshond said:


> I cant see any provision for limb alignment in photos. Was wondering about this myself. Hope it's not eccentric limb bolts. That's a horrible system.


The Bernardini risers all have a steel dowel that the limb bolt (well stud actually) threads into and that dowel can be adjusted for limb alignment. If you don't mind the grip they are simply one of the best risers I've ever shot.


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

I am not trying to dismiss the value of a clicker or a stabilizer.

Those devices will not, by themselves, make a poor archer into a good archer, or a good archer into a great archer.

What gets me is that there are so many people that think barebow is only good for field or 3D. The FITA coaching manual says that barebow is just a beginner step before moving to compound or recurve. I just fundamentally disagree with that. When people try to compare scores of Barebow archers on target events with recurve archers on target events they use those scores as evidence that barebow archers just cant compete. I am trying to argue that there is a fundamental difference between most barebow target archers and recurve archers other than hardware, and that is the dedicated time put into the sport.


----------



## Rylando (Jul 30, 2016)

Mr. Roboto said:


> At my last 90m I shot a 198 with only 3 misses. I shoot split finger, forefinger to the corner of the mouth, and I use the shelf on the dot. Works great when I execute the shot properly.
> 
> This year I shot my best 1440 round with a 981. First time I string walked that event. Its nice when you are not aiming at the blue sky above the target. I only started putting in any real practice for this event starting two weeks before it.
> 
> With 2 weeks of string walking practice I was able to shoot the 981. Now what could I have shot if this was the only thing I practiced? Day in and day out?



You can only advance in those big point gaps for so long before it becomes more about accuracy and consistency, which is where a clicker is the advantage.


----------



## Keeshond (Sep 13, 2016)

Mr. Roboto said:


> I am not trying to dismiss the value of a clicker or a stabilizer.
> 
> Those devices will not, by themselves, make a poor archer into a good archer, or a good archer into a great archer.
> 
> What gets me is that there are so many people that think barebow is only good for field or 3D. The FITA coaching manual says that barebow is just a beginner step before moving to compound or recurve. I just fundamentally disagree with that. When people try to compare scores of Barebow archers on target events with recurve archers on target events they use those scores as evidence that barebow archers just cant compete. I am trying to argue that there is a fundamental difference between most barebow target archers and recurve archers other than hardware, and that is the dedicated time put into the sport.


Respectfully, I think you're now starting to simply ignore basic geometry and how important consistent arrow speed is at long range. No way a bow riser weight can slow down bow movement like a wand out in space. Lateral bow movment gets projected out exponentially as you go down range with the arrow. And no way the vast majority of even elite archers can attain the same draw length, and thus arrow speed, without a clicker. That is hard fact no one can "train" away. Drop 2 fps of arrow speed at 70 meters and I think the arrow drops 6-8 inches out of the group. That's on two perfectly released arrows but for arrow speed. You can't overcome that margin.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> a bigger recognition of field archery where barebow can shine


I have heard this over and over again from some of the recurve elite in this country, and I cannot understand why they say it. Esp. since none of them have ever shot barebow at a competitive level. Barebow can "shine" in field? Huh? Sounds to me like a clever way of saying "we don't want barebow anywhere else."


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

limbwalker said:


> I have heard this over and over again from some of the recurve elite in this country, and I cannot understand why they say it. Esp. since none of them have ever shot barebow at a competitive level. Barebow can "shine" in field? Huh? Sounds to me like a clever way of saying "we don't want barebow anywhere else."


Exactly


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

Keeshond said:


> Respectfully, I think you're now starting to simply ignore basic geometry and how important consistent arrow speed is at long range. No way a bow riser weight can slow down bow movement like a wand out in space. Lateral bow movment gets projected out exponentially as you go down range with the arrow. And no way the vast majority of even elite archers can attain the same draw length, and thus arrow speed, without a clicker. That is hard fact no one can "train" away. Drop 2 fps of arrow speed at 70 meters and I think the arrow drops 6-8 inches out of the group. That's on two perfectly released arrows but for arrow speed. You can't overcome that margin.


I am not trying to down play hardware. My point is more about comparing based on levels of training. For a 45# bow, 2 ft/s is about 1/4 inch variation is draw length that is a lot. But so is the launch angle. So what has a bigger influence at 70m? being 0.1 degrees off in the anchor, vs 1/4 inch variation is the draw length? what about creeping vs expanding, What about head tilt? What about how clean the string leaves the fingers, is the air flow turbulent or laminar or to what extent the variation's influence on the drag coefficient along the flight path.

I am not trying to make a comparison about hardware. Its more about a comparison about training levels. One can not compare archers that put 40 hours a week in training with archers that put 10 hours a week.

There is a false perception that Barebow archery can not shoot. There is a push to shorten the distances and increase the target size because of this perception. I say its a false perception because we are comparing scores of those that put in the long hours every week, week after week, year after year with those who put in a few hours a week. There are not that many people that will devote their lives to shooting barebow when the only incentive is being king of their pond. Open up the World Championship Target events to allow Barebow, and we will see a jump in participation and a jump in skill levels because there will be a high level incentives. That is all that I am trying to say.


----------



## Keeshond (Sep 13, 2016)

Mr. Roboto, you should do your own testing. Shoot both types of bows and techniques over time and keep careful score. It will not matter how many hours you put in.

As long as you give both styles equal work the resulting scores you accumulate will be very representative of the differences between the two kinds of archery. You don't need an elite archer. Any solid shooter using both types of equipment will be just as good for comparison purposes.

I've never shot with a clicker. I'm strictly a 3-under barebow shooter but I do shoot with recurve men with all the clickers and stabs. I shoot far more than my friends do with 

their Oly setups and yet I can't compete with them indoors or out. I average 256 on the NFAA 300 round. Have shot into the 270s in practice. Yet I cannot keep up with the others shooting what they do and I shoot much more than they do. I shoot almost everyday year round.

You seem obsessed by this. Stop talking about it and do something. It's that easy.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

So - for reference (since we're talking 300 NFAA, barebow vs. recurve) - My best indoor NFAA indoor traditional score ever was 286 (that I am very proud of). The state record I set a few years ago was a 2-day 280 average for a 560 (which I am also very proud of). Tonight at league I was shooting recurve and despite shooting less than 300 arrows with a recurve THIS YEAR, I managed a 297 with 34x's .

There really is nothing else I can say.


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

Why does WA/USAA have some sort of driving need to arrange outdoor rounds so that the scores are similar across all disciplines? Can't barebow simply score less and that be okay?


----------



## Rylando (Jul 30, 2016)

grantmac said:


> Why does WA/USAA have some sort of driving need to arrange outdoor rounds so that the scores are similar across all disciplines? Can't barebow simply score less and that be okay?


This is something that has also puzzled me.


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

Keeshond said:


> Mr. Roboto, you should do your own testing. Shoot both types of bows and techniques over time and keep careful score. It will not matter how many hours you put in.
> 
> As long as you give both styles equal work the resulting scores you accumulate will be very representative of the differences between the two kinds of archery. You don't need an elite archer. Any solid shooter using both types of equipment will be just as good for comparison purposes.
> 
> ...


I am obsessed with trying to be the best that I can be? There is no point in going Oly which my wife has tried to get me to do for 12 years because that is what she shoots. No passion for it. During the summer months I can get, maybe 10 hours a week in practice due to the sun being out longer. During the fall, winter, spring, I can get maybe 4 hours of practice a week depending on how much I want to shoot in the rain. It doesn't make sense to split what little time I have to be okay with both versus better with one. I just have way too much stuff that gets in the way of shooting, like work, family, and serving at my church. So I prioritize my time towards my passion. My goal is to retire at 75. So in 21 more years, I will get to devote full time to archery. They you all can watch out


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

grantmac said:


> Why does WA/USAA have some sort of driving need to arrange outdoor rounds so that the scores are similar across all disciplines? Can't barebow simply score less and that be okay?


I don't think there is this driving need to do this. I just think that when there are equal passions with equal intensity with equal incentives, the scores will be a lot closer.

Is there something wrong with believing that a barebow archer can shoot a 300 on a 300 round? or break 1200 on a 1440 round? or 650 on a 720 round? Anybody here think there is anything wrong with this?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Not "wrong" - just unrealistic. I don't understand what purpose it serves to daydream like that. 

I guess I'm starting to understand Yoda better as I age. There is either do or not do. No try.


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

I don't know. John Demmer shot a 299 for the NFAA 300 round. Alan Eagleton shot a 1158 for a 1440 round. Granted these guys are really good, but they are showing that these scores are within grasp.


----------



## Captain Kirk (Sep 11, 2016)

limbwalker said:


> I have heard this over and over again from some of the recurve elite in this country, and I cannot understand why they say it. Esp. since none of them have ever shot barebow at a competitive level. Barebow can "shine" in field? Huh? Sounds to me like a clever way of saying "we don't want barebow anywhere else."


Useless discussing this anymore with you. 
You are not willing to accept other opinions and twisting words since you HAVE to be right. (Obviously - you state often enough what "you" are and what "we" not)
Too bad. Too boring....


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

Demmer said:


> 100% fact. Clicker is single handedly the biggest advantage there is. It's way bigger than some like to admit. The long rod is a large advantage as well, but not as much as the clicker.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk



Real advantages:

Recurve Olympic over BB in Field: 1) clicker, 2) stabilizers, 3) sight (fully agree with John & John)
Recurve Olympic over BB in Indoor : 1) clicker, 2) stabilizers

Compound over Olympic in Field: 1) let-off , 2) mechanical release, 3) sight level 
Compound over Olympic in Indoor: 1) let off, 2) mechanical release
Compound over Olympic in Target: 1) let off, 2) mechanical release

Any kind of draw check system gives much more consistence to shooting than any other accessory.

Any kind of mechanical release will improve consistency over fingers release

Any kind of sight pin wil help consistency over gap shooting or stringwalking

Poundage reduction at full draw is for sure an absolute advantage 

Scope lens and peeps are overrated IMHO.


Top level indoor 18m indoor scores BB are not yet at 580, Recurve Olympic are not yet at 600 (close to 580 with inner ring) 
Compound indoor scores are at 600 already with the inner ring.

These are absolute world scores that define the differences between divisions.


----------



## >--gt--> (Jul 1, 2002)

Mr. Roboto said:


> At my last 90m I shot a 198 with only 3 misses. I shoot split finger, forefinger to the corner of the mouth, and I use the shelf on the dot. Works great when I execute the shot properly.
> 
> This year I shot my best 1440 round with a 981. First time I string walked that event. Its nice when you are not aiming at the blue sky above the target. I only started putting in any real practice for this event starting two weeks before it.
> 
> With 2 weeks of string walking practice I was able to shoot the 981. Now what could I have shot if this was the only thing I practiced? Day in and day out?


You're strangely delusional in these varied comments you've been making lately. Clicker alone is worth 100 points.


----------



## ButchD (Nov 11, 2006)

Mr. Roboto said:


> I am not trying to dismiss the value of a clicker or a stabilizer.
> 
> Those devices will not, by themselves, make a poor archer into a good archer, or a good archer into a great archer.
> 
> What gets me is that there are so many people that think barebow is only good for field or 3D. The FITA coaching manual says that barebow is just a beginner step before moving to compound or recurve. I just fundamentally disagree with that. When people try to compare scores of Barebow archers on target events with recurve archers on target events they use those scores as evidence that barebow archers just cant compete.  I am trying to argue that there is a fundamental difference between most barebow target archers and recurve archers other than hardware, and that is the dedicated time put into the sport.


Wouldn't comparing barebow to say, compound, score wise, be similar to comparing compound to Olympic rifle scores? It is simply a different approach to shooting.
Just sayin...


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Captain Kirk said:


> Useless discussing this anymore with you.
> You are not willing to accept other opinions and twisting words since you HAVE to be right. (Obviously - you state often enough what "you" are and what "we" not)
> Too bad. Too boring....


Interesting reply. Did you also disagree in this manner with everyone who agreed with my point? Or just me?

I'm telling you what I've heard over my career and substantial involvement in USArchery. Your experience may be different. Not sure why there has to be an argument.


----------



## Azzurri (Mar 10, 2014)

limbwalker said:


> So - for reference (since we're talking 300 NFAA, barebow vs. recurve) - My best indoor NFAA indoor traditional score ever was 286 (that I am very proud of). The state record I set a few years ago was a 2-day 280 average for a 560 (which I am also very proud of). Tonight at league I was shooting recurve and despite shooting less than 300 arrows with a recurve THIS YEAR, I managed a 297 with 34x's .
> 
> There really is nothing else I can say.


I would be interested what sort of blue target scores and records we would see if participation flowed back and forth between the two entities USAA and NFAA, both at national and state levels. In Oly it's like the people who could put up even higher scores kind of graduate out of NFAA/TFAA recurve events and become USAA shooters. In BB the rules differences seem to throw things off. There was only moderate overlap between, say, TFAA state and who went to TAMU nationals. Ditto at the national level. It would be interesting to have a single event with a single site (USAA comes close but then even though most people show they aren't in the same hall) and see what numbers were put up then. I'd like to see how the best SYWAT gappers would do against the best stringwalkers in the state. I'd also like to see what numbers the best USAA shooters would do in TFAA.

I think if everyone was in one place and class in a NFAA event you'd see 600s in Oly and 580-590 in BB. It wouldn't be many but someone would get the score to win.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Jay, in the early-mid 2000's, the top US men were shooting NFAA indoor nationals nearly every year. In fact, in 2004, there were five Olympians and one Olympic alternate who competed in Louisville in the recurve division. Either Butch or Vic won that event nearly every year for a long span. Once they stopped shooting it, things seemed to change and now none of the top US men are there anymore, which is very sad. I am so thankful for having that 2004 event be my first national level tournament. It was an experience I'll never forget - shooting with Jay Barrs, Butch Johnson, Jason McKittrick, Justin Huish, Rod White and others gave me a lot of confidence that year.


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

Now back to the argument on training level.

If World Archery allowed barebow to shoot in the Target Championships, and if the Olympics had barebow as and event both shooting the same distances, and if there were identical sponsorship opportunities for barebow as with recurve. What would happen?

There would be an explosion of barebow shooters. There will be barebow shooters that train at the same intensity as recurve shooters, day in and day out, week in and week out, year in and year out. What the top shooters are shooting today will be shot by hundreds, if not thousands of shooters around the world. The false perception that barebow shooters cant shoot will be crushed.

This isn't a question about clickers, or wheels or what ever accessory that helps with improving consistency. This is about allowing barebow shooters the same opportunities at the highest levels. We all know that iron sharpens iron. Stiffer competition makes better archers. More competition makes more better archers.


----------



## >--gt--> (Jul 1, 2002)

Mr. Roboto said:


> Now back to the argument on training level.
> 
> If World Archery allowed barebow to shoot in the Target Championships, and if the Olympics had barebow as and event both shooting the same distances, and if there were identical sponsorship opportunities for barebow as with recurve. What would happen?
> 
> ...


You could substitute "longbow", "crossbow", "atlatl", or "slingshot" for "barebow" in your statement. 
You made a choice to follow a discipline with limited high level opportunity for competition. No one forced you into it.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> You made a choice to follow a discipline with limited high level opportunity for competition. No one forced you into it.


Again, an area where gt and I agree.

In 2003, I entered the target archery arena shooting NFAA "traditional" with a group of archers at the local range. I enjoyed it but was also fascinated by the opportunity to compete at the national and international level with a recurve bow - in the form of O.R. 

Now, at the time I was just "coming off of" being a dedicated "trad" guy - shooting only a hunting weight longbow and ridiculously heavy arrows. It was a stretch already for me to be shooting a metal risered recurve in the target league. I resisted the jump to O.R. for some time, particularly because of things like the clicker, stabilizers and sight. One day, Larry Skinner finally convinced me to try a legitimate Olympic recurve, and the rest as they say, is history. 

But I had to make a conscious decision to put aside my biases and compete with the tools of the trade so I could play with the "big boys." I'm very glad I did.

Thankfully barebow has come a long way in USArchery since then, and there are opportunities to compete for national championships among world class barebow archers, right here in the U.S. today. But if one wishes to compete with Olympic archers, then they need to dispense with the pretense and just get an Olympic bow and get to it. This is what I did in '03, and what Demmer did in '15, so I don't understand the argument against it. 

Finally, there is nothing saying you can't do both, even at the same time. Just this year, I've shot >300/360 at 60 meters barebow, and 297/300 last night with the recurve. 

That's how I feel about it anyway. The more disciplines should be viewed as more opportunity. Not "us vs. them."


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

There is no "false" perception that barebow shooters can't score as well as Olympic shooters, they simply can't. I shot Olympic for about 3 months and beat my (not horrible) barebow scores.

Even the very best training full time just won't produce anything like the same scores.


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

As far as equipments are concerned, we have to call Martin O. here to comment... I remember him shoting once in Nimes in Recurve Olympic division with long rod & cliker but no sight ...

As far as training level is concerned, for sure WA Recurve archers tarining professionally worldwide are much more than WA Compound archers, and these are a large multiple number of those shooting WA Bare Bow professionaly (very few). Then you have WA long bow and WA Istinctive bow in order of ...unexistance. 
But, if you want to compare absolute results, Field archery Word Cahmpionships gives a good meter for it, too. http://www.ianseo.net/Details.php?toId=1350 
Those on top of the qualification rankings are for sure of absolute world value in the 3 divisions, but despite BB shooting shorter distancies, top scores 2016 have been in the order: CO 829 (Cousins) , RE 761 (Ellison) , BB 701 (Demmer) 
No matter how much you train, equipments establish the limits.


----------



## lowellhigh79 (Aug 3, 2012)

How many Olympic recurve shooters would compete in their events with a pure barebow setup? None.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

lowellhigh79 said:


> How many Olympic recurve shooters would compete in their events with a pure barebow setup? None.


I guess I don't understand the question. If they are shooting barebow, they are barebow shooters, not Olympic recurve shooters. For example, when I shoot recurve, I'm an Olympic recurve archer. When I shoot barebow, I'm a barebow archer. 

Are you suggesting that not many barebow archers choose to compete in the recurve division? I'm sure that's true, but a few have. Demmer of course, would have scored very well in the recurve division at Louisville (NFAA indoor nationals) in recent years. 

But as Vittorio (and myself, and Demmer) suggest, the comparison really isn't worth discussing. Maybe daydreaming about, but not seriously discussing.

If a person wants to compete with the recurve archers, they need to get a recurve setup. Then the excuses are gone, and the playing field is level. If they don't, then thankfully there is very high level barebow competition in this country at many events now.


----------



## lowellhigh79 (Aug 3, 2012)

limbwalker said:


> I guess I don't understand the question. If they are shooting barebow, they are barebow shooters, not Olympic recurve shooters. For example, when I shoot recurve, I'm an Olympic recurve archer. When I shoot barebow, I'm a barebow archer.
> 
> Are you suggesting that not many barebow archers choose to compete in the recurve division? I'm sure that's true, but a few have. Demmer of course, would have scored very well in the recurve division at Louisville (NFAA indoor nationals) in recent years.
> 
> ...


We're on the same page. Mr. Roboto's contention, that the real difference is talent/training, discounts the mechanical advantages already discussed. You would never find any Olympic recurve shooter intentionally competing with a barebow rig (instead of his/her oly setup) at any Olympic event, for just those very reasons. In other words, don't bring a knife to a gun fight.


----------



## Azzurri (Mar 10, 2014)

The basic argument is fairly obvious. An elite Oly person competing on equal terms with an elite BB person whoops them. Just like an elite compounder makes moosh out of the other two. However, an elite BB shooter would probably beat mediocre me at an Oly competition even at the 70m distance. Just like on a good day I can now beat a lot of modest compound archers at 18m. So if we come down from the heights the hierarchy muddles.

Beyond that, the idea there's only one way to go about it all is a circular argument which assumes its conclusion. By defining it as any "Olympic recurve shooter" before the analysis is made, you already know how it will come out. If you are committed to Oly why approach it another way. But a barebow shooter can do recurve flights at Vegas or Arizona Cup. They might want to have fun, to have a challenge, and/or if they are good enough be content with less than winning but more than missing the cut like even some recurve shooters like me will do. So, yeah, a recurve archer who wants to win would adopt an Oly setup for an Oly competition, for all the advantages we've discussed. However, 130 people might sign up across the 70m classes at a USAT and only 1 wins it, and he and the other people chasing him probably have other drives and motivations besides winning.

Ben Rogers was going to be on my bale at Az Cup. He no-showed that year but I wonder what rig he would have had. Even if he showed up Oly, he still could have made his own game out of it and tried to make an Oly cut with BB equipment. We don't all win, some get personal bests, and others find some other take-away. Particularly since the vast majority of us won't win, it need not all be defined in terms of optimizing your ability to win using the same setup as those expected to win. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if the level of archer who wins those things, themselves shows up with other goals besides winning, and is maybe at a training stage ironically pointed further down the road to some other even bigger international event.

I also worry that dialing the concept too much into what wins and scores and nothing else starts wandering towards mentalities that result in burnout. There needs to be an element of creativity or fun, even sometimes about how one competes. I tried barebow last year. I'll probably come back another time and pursue it with more seriousness. Friend of mine now in Chula Vista started out BB, tried compound during an injury break, and is generally doing OR. I don't see what's wrong with that or even with trying "my thing" in "your event" just for a challenge. It might be suboptimal in a sense but it's also can be fun and fun can be an end in itself.


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

Why would a barebow shooter spend the money to go and compete at the Arizona cup and shoot in the recurve division? What would be the motivation?

Why are there so few barebow shooters that are willing to spend $1000+ in travel, food, hotel, fees, etc to compete at the US Outdoor Nationals?

Then contrast that with the FITA Field Nationals. Barebow draws many of the top shooters, just to get to the opportunity to spend $1000's of their personal money to shoot at the World's?

If World Archery opened up the World Championships/Cups to barebow, then there will be a lot more barebow people showing up at the US Nationals, Arizona Cup, Gator Cup, etc. Its about getting better through experience. Getting better though experience requires more time in in training. The more experience and training, the better the scores.

Take a look at all of the recurve archers out there. If the same opportunities for them were available with barebow, how many of them would be shooting barebow now?

Without similar incentives and goals, you can not develop the same level of focused intensity at developing ones skills.

Everyone wants to focus on the elites and how this doo dad vs that doo dad makes all the difference. I am not going to contest that. But you have trained people that know how to us it to their advantage.

My contention is that when the incentives are there, there are more and more shooters putting in more and more work at excelling. This is shown through scores.


----------



## Keeshond (Sep 13, 2016)

Mr. Roboto, I don't think you understand, and I don't think you want to understand. One method is superior to another no matter how much the BB person trains. It has nothing to do with motivation or practice time.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Barebow is in a classic "chicken or the egg" situation right now. If barebow archers cannot produce numbers, they won't get major championship events. If major barebow championships don't exist, then barebow won't draw the numbers. 

If anyone has the fix for that, I'm all ears. I fought as hard as anyone to get barebow included into USArchery's indoor and outdoor National Championship events, but I won't blame them a bit for dropping it if barebow archers don't attend. 

I mean, if you get what you ask for, you should be happy to participate IMO. Otherwise, it's just whining for the sake of whining.

Barebow archers have always been the romantic dreamers of the archery world. Sometimes that is at odds with practicality and simple business.


----------



## Atascaderobow (Nov 4, 2014)

I don't think Mr. roboto is saying that a Barebow shooter will out score a O.R. or Compound bow. That would be like saying my .22 could outshoot my 7mag at 500 yards, different technology advantages. What I think he is saying and I tend to agree with him is... Barebow should be included in all the big venues to get exposure and give archers another creditable archery disclipine. Please correct me if I am wrong Mr. Roboto. 

New shooters may not even know the real technical aspects of of a competive Barebow until they are exposed to the real thing. Picking up a Barebow at the local range is nothing like the true Barebow shooters skills. At least I was that way until I watched the recent World Field Championships. The team rounds can show just how good a Barebow shooter can be. We may never get great Barebow exposure until the various organizations agree that it doesn't matter how you shoot a Barebow. Putting limitations on how you shoot a bow, be it string walking, gap shooting or instinctive will affect tournament popularity. The limitation is like telling an Oly they can only shoot 3 under or a compond can only use a trigger.

I am probably way off base, but you are still stuck with my $.02


----------



## bobnikon (Jun 10, 2012)

It is, as Limbwalker said, an interesting conundrum. Lack of competition venues = lack of archers= lack of competition venues. 

That being said, OR is my favourite discipline. I shoot barebow (don't think it is trad ) and compound, and love both, but OR is what I would choose if I could only choose 1. That being said, I will not ever (likely) compete with any prospect of being an elite. I shoot because I love to, and because I need to. My wife calls it my Weaponized Yoga (trademark pending)! 

I would be curious to see how many people aren't motivated by these high level competitions or lack there of, and just shoot because they love to do so. 

Count me as 1.


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

Keeshond said:


> Mr. Roboto, I don't think you understand, and I don't think you want to understand. One method is superior to another no matter how much the BB person trains. It has nothing to do with motivation or practice time.


I think the misunderstanding is the other way around. Let's take indoors as an example.

If I practice 1 hour a week, is it crazy to think i can shoot a 200 on a 300 round?

If I practice 2 hours a week, those scores should be in the 220 range.

4 hours a week scores up to say 240-250 average?

8 hours a week scores up to 260ish

20 hours a week 280s

40 hours a week 290s?

Then, what motivates a person to change their training from 4 to 8 a week? A bunch of us already do this.

But jumping from 8 to 20, that is a big jump, what motivates a person to do that? 

Then to essentially full time training at 40+ hours a week. There has to be a big incentive to make that kind of dedication.

I will never say a barebow shooter putting in 40+ hours a week is going to outscore Brady or Dave Cousins. But one would think with that level of work that they would be putting up scores in the 280+ range?

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Bob, you aren't the only one. I would say the majority of 20+year old archers choose a discipline because it's what they enjoy shooting most, nevermind how "elite" the competition is. For the teens and their parents though, being able to look up the food chain to a major international event is very important. I've seen it many, many times. And if the coach doesn't think it's that important, they will leave that coach and find one who does. The "Olympic" and "Vegas" championships have a lot of pull in many circles - usually with those who don't compete, and certainly with those who don't compete purely for the love of competition.


----------



## Azzurri (Mar 10, 2014)

bobnikon said:


> It is, as Limbwalker said, an interesting conundrum. Lack of competition venues = lack of archers= lack of competition venues.
> 
> That being said, OR is my favourite discipline. I shoot barebow (don't think it is trad ) and compound, and love both, but OR is what I would choose if I could only choose 1. That being said, I will not ever (likely) compete with any prospect of being an elite. I shoot because I love to, and because I need to. My wife calls it my Weaponized Yoga (trademark pending)!
> 
> ...


Maybe a dozen BBM are signed up for TAMU's upcoming Aggie Invite tournament. By the time that got down to nationals last year at the same site it was 3. Something happens in between there and that's what needs to be boosted. More colleges involved. Lamar down here started a team and that accounts for a few people across each class. They already showed up for our local series. At least some TAMU people, no matter how good, seem to follow the schedule on through to the end. Beyond that, my impression is the "team" impetus seems to break down some as the events ramp up, and you start to get more individual archers. I'm used to going to events by myself or just with my girlfriend. But a lot of people who do the early events en masse, it's a question of that continuing on to nationals. Which to me is either about promoting individual ambition or finding a way to re-create the group ethos for events when the teams tend to reduce down to 1 or just a few individuals. That people who are going try to somehow take people along. Particularly if for outdoor nationals they are going to insist on single site stuff a long car ride or a plane ride away. The groups that seemed to persist through that were rare and often either families or certain specific ranges.

At least one thing they could consider is regional qualifiers for outdoor target. The USATs for the senior events outdraw Nationals and that's because, say, I can go do TAMU's a 2 hour drive away. At least one difference between indoors and outdoors is how far you have to go to do it, and I think that shows up in the field size differences.

In terms of carrots like John was saying, hmmm, one friend of mine was top 10 her first nationals season in BB but switched to OR because she thought it was silly to win regionals just by showing up, that she wanted the challenge of competition. I think that's changing but at least one quasi-circular catch 22 barebow faces is getting high level competitors to see it as a populated, competitive class that they themselves will help populate. Bangkok drew up a barebow tournament to go alongside the indoor World Cup event. This would have mirrored Vegas. That's the sort of thing that needs to happen, is barebow getting into all sorts of international target, national, regional, local, just like Oly. FWIW that BB event got canceled for lack of interest.

I see a ton of growth in BB at local levels. It used to be there were a handful of people who did things at the state level, John, Hartman, etc., you knew them all. It has exploded well beyond that just at my range now. The question is pushing that boom up to higher competitive levels, and whether they even want that, how to do it, etc.

In terms of the "Vegas pull," to someone wired like me, who is also drawn to OR, and in part because you can ramp up and compete against people at a variety of levels, you kind of want some big events. That may not be inherently how most BB people feel but that had its attractions to me. I know I'm not that great but I like the ability to go to some big event with a huge class and try and do my best in a pressure situation. That probably reflects I come to this from other, team sports usually played in front of crowds. I like a little intensity to it. I think my friend, who came from tennis, wanted a big competitive class, if not the drama. I wouldn't discount the value of the big events outside OR. Some people who could do BB want that, and if they don't see it, they might go to OR instead where they know it exists. That's not, OR inherently has something BB doesn't, that's it doesn't now and it alters the calculus if you're conflicted. I think it would help to be in some of these series, USAT, WA indoor, but people then have to show up.


----------



## WDWILHELM (Jul 2, 2009)

Mr. Roboto said:


> Then, what motivates a person to change their training from 4 to 8 a week? A bunch of us already do this.
> 
> But jumping from 8 to 20, that is a big jump, what motivates a person to do that?
> 
> ...


If you are interested in reading about motivation, I found the following very informative.

http://www.archerytalk.com/vb/showthread.php?t=1958778&page=6&p=1066622946#post1066622946

http://redirect.viglink.com/?format...ww.humankinetics.com/excerpt...on-for-success

Wyndell


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

WDWILHELM said:


> If you are interested in reading about motivation, I found the following very informative.
> 
> http://www.archerytalk.com/vb/showthread.php?t=1958778&page=6&p=1066622946#post1066622946
> 
> ...


Excellent information - Thanks


----------

