# USA Archery Field Championships



## Bigjono (Apr 21, 2009)

Great shooting JD [emoji4]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Mengtian (May 5, 2016)

I wish they could streeam that competiton on You Tube or somewhere online.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Demmer is making a point. Very well I might add. I'm sure he's glad he finally broke down and got some real competition arrows. 

What's interesting to me is that the next two guys are both old enough to be his father - each of them in their 60's and shooting scores that all but the best recurve archers would be proud of.

It's going to be very interesting to see who makes that 3-person team. Pity Alan Eagleton couldn't be there. Talk about some barebow horsepower.


----------



## granite14 (Nov 10, 2014)

and John shot 2 birdies on the wrong column, missing 11 points.


----------



## rsarns (Sep 23, 2008)

limbwalker said:


> Demmer is making a point. Very well I might add. I'm sure he's glad he finally broke down and got some real competition arrows.
> 
> What's interesting to me is that the next two guys are both old enough to be his father - each of them in their 60's and shooting scores that all but the best recurve archers would be proud of.
> 
> It's going to be very interesting to see who makes that 3-person team. Pity Alan Eagleton couldn't be there. Talk about some barebow horsepower.


With 2 points separating 2-4th place it should be a nerve fest tomorrow. Not sure what point John has left to prove, after shooting with/against him over the last several years, he has proven just about everything... LOL


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

granite14 said:


> and John shot 2 birdies on the wrong column, missing 11 points.


Wow. That's amazing.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

rsarns said:


> With 2 points separating 2-4th place it should be a nerve fest tomorrow. Not sure what point John has left to prove, after shooting with/against him over the last several years, he has proven just about everything... LOL


Yea, but he was sick in Croatia, and wasn't able to make the 3-man team event. I doubt he will let that happen again. Plus he is probably tired of hearing about how good the European barebow field archers are.


----------



## rsarns (Sep 23, 2008)

limbwalker said:


> Yea, but he was sick in Croatia, and wasn't able to make the 3-man team event. I doubt he will let that happen again. Plus he is probably tired of hearing about how good the European barebow field archers are.


Good point!


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

I'm very proud and happy for Rick. He's worked hard to become one of the best barebow archers in the U.S. Just a few years ago, he was hardly shooting anymore even though he at one time had been one of our top recurve archers, routinely giving Rick and Darrell a run for their money. Rick has been described as the best U.S. Recurve archer to have never made an Olympic team since the return of the event in '72. He has contributed so much to this sport, including his famous "Tuning for Tens" guide, which is still used every day by archers worldwide. It's been a real honor to compete shoulder-to-shoulder with him down here in Texas for that past several years.


----------



## TomG (Dec 4, 2002)

limbwalker said:


> I'm very proud and happy for Rick. He's worked hard to become one of the best barebow archers in the U.S. Just a few years ago, he was hardly shooting anymore even though he at one time had been one of our top recurve archers, routinely giving Rick and Darrell a run for their money. Rick has been described as the best U.S. Recurve archer to have never made an Olympic team since the return of the event in '72. He has contributed so much to this sport, including his famous "Tuning for Tens" guide, which is still used every day by archers worldwide. It's been a real honor to compete shoulder-to-shoulder with him down here in Texas for that past several years.


I agree, Rick is a heck of a shooter.

And Guss (shooting up from Cadet) is giving Colin a run for his money. Go Texans! 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

TomG said:


> I agree, Rick is a heck of a shooter.
> 
> And Guss (shooting up from Cadet) is giving Colin a run for his money. Go Texans!
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk


I saw that. Last year at our state field I had to work my tail off just to stay ahead of Gus. He's a heck of a field shooter.


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

These are some awesome scores. Thanks for the link Ren.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Best of luck to all the shooters today. Cool and damp is the forecast - a precursor to Ireland? 

Sure wish we could talk more young ladies into shooting the junior barebow division at this event. Only three participants in that division.  I can't say much since my daughter Allison chose drum major camp over field nationals though.


----------



## Mengtian (May 5, 2016)

Thanks for the link as well. It is actually fun to root for someone you know.


----------



## Arcus (Jul 7, 2005)

Tomorrow are the elimination rounds. Are these head-to-head or are they total score for each elimination round?


----------



## Mengtian (May 5, 2016)

What does unmarked and unmarked arrows mean?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Day one are unmarked distances. They are on average, 5 meters closer than the marked, but still - you have to figure out the target size and the distance. Day two is marked, which is pretty straightforward except for the slopes and the footing and the longer distances. For example, senior recurve shoots up to 60 meters on an 80cm face, and senior barebow shoots up to 50 meters on an 80cm face. Not exactly a chip shot.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Quite possibly the best assemblage of U.S. barebow archers ever at this event. Sure wish I could have made it. Darn shame that Alan Eagleton couldn't be there too. But the pedigree of Demmer, Stonebraker, Rogers and Applegate alone. Geez.


----------



## Bigjono (Apr 21, 2009)

limbwalker said:


> Quite possibly the best assemblage of U.S. barebow archers ever at this event. Sure wish I could have made it. Darn shame that Alan Eagleton couldn't be there too. But the pedigree of Demmer, Stonebraker, Rogers and Applegate alone. Geez.


Don't forget Jason too.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Bigjono said:


> Don't forget Jason too.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Agreed, but he has a ways to go still (as do I) to run up the track record of USArchery/World Archery barebow achievements of those four (five if you include Alan).


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

Congrats and great shooting John, Rick, and Ben


----------



## Arcus (Jul 7, 2005)

Final team selections:

http://www.teamusa.org/USA-Archery/...-Field-Championships-Team-Selected-for-Dublin


----------



## gitnbetr (Jan 17, 2007)

Why is Stonebraker not on the team going to Ireland?


----------



## Arcus (Jul 7, 2005)

gitnbetr said:


> Why is Stonebraker not on the team going to Ireland?


Because of the head-to-head following the eliminations rounds.

http://www.rcherz.com/en/competitions/allLiveResults?id=6230


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

There were some "interesting" results today alright. Congrat's to those who made it through to Ireland. 

We have 3 from our "little 'ol" club making the trip and I couldn't be more proud of them.

Stonebraker was the victim of some very bad draws, having the 2nd highest score of the four two rounds in a row, but losing both matches, placing him 4th. That's the down side of head-to-head matchplay when selecting these teams. Having said that, all four of them are worthy competitors who have tremendous skill and experience. Darn shame all four can't go, but someone had to miss out. The 2-4th places were only separated by a few points all weekend, Ben, Mark and Rick were that close.


----------



## Tbarkeriii (Jun 24, 2016)

Did they really do an OR for field archery? Why not just do rock paper scissors?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Tbarkeriii said:


> Did they really do an OR for field archery? Why not just do rock paper scissors?


Ah, stealing the famous Fairweather quote from Athens. 

It looks like they did a SINGLE OR for team selection, and on a flat level field too. I don't get that at all, but then I wasn't there. Someone who was can clarify. At a minimum, if they want to select a world championship team, they need to have round-robin matches. A single OR just isn't enough. Rick Scored 99 points in the two head-to-head rounds. Rogers and Applegate scored 93, and Rick won't make the trip. Weird.


----------



## Tbarkeriii (Jun 24, 2016)

I just think it diminishes the results from the first two days, especially the unmarked round.

How did Cousins make the team when he lost the "bronze" match to Don Jasa according to rcherz?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Tbarkeriii said:


> I just think it diminishes the results from the first two days, especially the unmarked round.
> 
> How did Cousins make the team when he lost the "bronze" match to Don Jasa according to rcherz?


I'm not sure we're seeing the whole picture Tom. Must be a weighted points system for placement in each round? Lord I hope so. Otherwise, there are some serious questions about this selection format.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

And I agree that the first two days should carry a lot of weight, esp. as you say the unmarked round. 

Would like to see some clarification on the team trials process for this one. I'll get the full story in a couple days.


----------



## Demmer (Dec 1, 2012)

The 16 targets we shot today could have been worth 180% more than the first 48 targets. 

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## Demmer (Dec 1, 2012)

First to days were worth 10 for first, 9 for 2nd, 8 for 3rd all the way to 8th place. Then the first eight targets we shot today were worth the same points as the first 48 targets. 10 for 1st, 9 for second and so one. Head to heads.... gold 8, silver 6, bronze 4 and forth 2. 

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## Demmer (Dec 1, 2012)

First two days are pretty much worth crap in weight compared to everything else. 

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## Tbarkeriii (Jun 24, 2016)

Thanks for clarifying John D.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Demmer said:


> First two days are pretty much worth crap in weight compared to everything else.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


maybe the best solution is to use the two day nationals to pick the team rather than having this "separate" trials


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Jim C said:


> maybe the best solution is to use the two day nationals to pick the team rather than having this "separate" trials


As both will be shot at world field, then both should be used to select the team. Just sounds like they have the weighting off a bit. There needs to be some value in selecting archers who are good head-to-head shooters. I have at least one archer who made this team for that reason - because they are very strong head-to-head competitors and that will help them at the WC's, and their team if they are on the 3-discipline team.

However, like Tom suggests, the unmarked round should be very key to selecting the team. IMO It's the toughest skill to master.


----------



## Demmer (Dec 1, 2012)

Here is the tricky thing.... there is still a disparities in barebow. You can have a legitimate competitor that can make the shootoffs in worlds not make it and have a lucky shooter sneak in that has no chance in heck to make the shootoffs. Sorry, but in worlds you have to make the cut period, or you go no where. Weighting system is wayyy off if they want to keep this. It was possible for one to win the 2day and the first 8 and still not make the team. 

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## gitnbetr (Jan 17, 2007)

In West Texas we have some words to describe that kind of thing which I won't share in this genteel company. Same words we used to yell at the end of "Cotton-eyed Joe". 
No disrespect intended toward Ben or Mark.


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

Considering the standards required to make the cut that weighting is all off.


----------



## Demmer (Dec 1, 2012)

The barebow side is starting to get a lot better. On the men's side, I wouldn't be surprised to see a bunch of 650+ shooters next trials. 
Hopefully an adjustment is made for the next one. 

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## UtahIdahoHunter (Mar 27, 2008)

What a great experience and shot with some great guys over all the 3 days. This will be on my schedule every year from now on.


----------



## Azzurri (Mar 10, 2014)

I think this should be done like every other trials we seem to hold, some mix of quali scores, round robins where everyone plays everyone, and maybe even average arrows to reward consistency, weighted out to not overly privilege any segment. That does not over-privilege a straight knockout on day 3, and gives everyone a chance to face everyone.

That being said, and nothing against Rick who has been helpful to me before, objectively, he had a rough third day that would have shown up in any system counting H2H. The guy who wins the event and passes him for a spot is 2-0 on H2H, even if reconfigured as round robin, and he's 0-2. If you finish the round robin the only person left to face is the guy who had a similar quali score and won both his other H2H against the same people he lost to. I think they should fix the format because I could see where with the low turnout and win-and-in format someone with a truly low score could get in by being top 4 and lucking through a semi. But setting aside knowing Rick if one guy has 96 and the other 95 in quali, and the other goes on an H2H run and Rick has a bad day 3....and the two other guys in 2nd and 3rd had higher quali scores and better H2H.....not a travesty in practice. Even a weighted formula would have achieved a similar mathematical result. He'll get em next time.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

What was missing here was round-robins. Simple elimination bracket doesn't capture enough data to be relevant. Each of the top four archers should have had to shoot three matches - one with each of the other archers - plus an elimination bracket, then add that to their two day score. I would have weighted the unmarked round x2 vs. the marked. But nobody asked me. LOL.


----------



## mudcat dale (Sep 9, 2015)

Hard to say Rick had a bad day 3 .... If I read the results right, he actually scored more points in the H2H than anyone else (99 vs 95,93,93). I would call it more of a hard luck day 3. The other guys shot some really good ends at just the right times. This is not a gripe, just trying to give credit where credit is due. All four guys shot well, congratulations to them all for a game well played.


----------



## Demmer (Dec 1, 2012)

Round robins are crap in my book. Looks like every year, every shoot is leveling the playing field for everyone. The old format wasn't broken. We ALWAYS got the best team. But hey, what do I know. Lol

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## Demmer (Dec 1, 2012)

You know... I don't know any other country thay does it even remotely like this. They take an aggregated 3-5 best rounds and tally them up. No head to heads, no round robins, no point system, no luck involved. Seems like they always get the strongest team possible. Huh

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

I am with John here. Selecting representatives for a national team should be based more on how the shooters shoot over multiple rounds. We all have good days and bad days. The top archers are the ones that have fewer bad days. To eliminate someone because of 1 bad day, or 1 bad end over someone that happened have 1 good day, or one good end just isn't right. I don't want to take anything away from Mark, he is an outstanding shooter, and play favorites with Rick. It is just that we should be fielding the best teams that have a history of doing well. The top 4 have a strong history at shooting excellence. But the way the system was designed, I being an absolute nobody in the world of field archery could have made the team is I shot unsually well at the right time though by historical average I suck when compared to these guys.


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

limbwalker said:


> What was missing here was round-robins. Simple elimination bracket doesn't capture enough data to be relevant. Each of the top four archers should have had to shoot three matches - one with each of the other archers - plus an elimination bracket, then add that to their two day score. I would have weighted the unmarked round x2 vs. the marked. But nobody asked me. LOL.


Up in my neck of the woods, most of the archers I know that don't shoot FITA Field is strictly because of the Unmarked. I really suck at unmarked. Easton makes a fortune off of me because I suck at range estimating. And yet, the Unmarked is why I like FITA field more than NFAA Field. A 5m error in range estimating can turn a 5 or a 6 in to a 1 or a miss. Hard to make up those points when shooting against the best of the best. Unmarked should be part of the equation.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Bottom line, the margin was very, very close so I know for a fact that even Rick himself wouldn't waste any time crying over who was in, who was out, and why. He's already moved on, as any veteran of archery events has to learn to do. Ben and Mark are world class barebow archers (as is of course Rick) and any of them deserve to be on the team. This was a case of just too close to call really. Kinda like spots 3,4 and 5 at the Olympic trials. Any one of them would have been just as good, but someone had to go and someone had to stay.

As for "strong team" keep in mind that only one of these three will get to shoot for "Team USA" with the top compounder and the top recurver, so it's not like there is a three-person barebow team. Rather, there are three guys competing individually, and one will get to compete in the team event with two completely different archers. For that reason, it makes just as much sense to focus on how the 3rd place recurver or compounder might affect "the team."


----------



## Demmer (Dec 1, 2012)

under this point system one could be the top scorer in the first day, second day, 8 target, and run into two hot shooters and still might not make the team even tough they have outscored everyone on day one, two, the 8, and combined 8 targets head to head. Does that make sense? Not in my book. Soo... if that does happen and the top guy in any class doesn't make the team, then yeah it really does hurt our team of three. Anyone can shoot 4 targets good enough. 

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Sounds like USArchery needs to hear about the process from those who were there.


----------



## Demmer (Dec 1, 2012)

Absolutely😃

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## UtahIdahoHunter (Mar 27, 2008)

Demmer said:


> under this point system one could be the top scorer in the first day, second day, 8 target, and run into two hot shooters and still might not make the team even tough they have outscored everyone on day one, two, the 8, and combined 8 targets head to head. Does that make sense? Not in my book. Soo... if that does happen and the top guy in any class doesn't make the team, then yeah it really does hurt our team of three. Anyone can shoot 4 targets good enough.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


Just so you know this was my first field shoot EVER! and I showed up to gain some experience, because I feel like I can almost be competitive with the top 5 guys, I just lack the experience. So after the unmarked day I was in 6th, after the marked day I was sitting in 5th, after the 8 target I barely missed the 4 man shoot off. So keep in mind that if I could have bumped Applegate after the 8 target and shot H2H with a struggling Demmer then I would have been in Applegate's spot on the World Team (I could be wrong, but that was my understanding). Haha. A guy that has 0 field experience and has no business being on that team. Honestly I had the most to gain by the system this year and I agree with Demmer 100% The system has a huge flaw. Now in two years I will be serious and have a couple of these under my belt and be ready.


----------



## Demmer (Dec 1, 2012)

In two years, you will be a major factor. That I believe 100% without a doubt. 

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## Demmer (Dec 1, 2012)

I think I remember glassing your 15m bunny on the 8 target round. 6,6,3. I was like, thatboy is showing up today

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## UtahIdahoHunter (Mar 27, 2008)

Demmer said:


> In two years, you will be a major factor. That I believe 100% without a doubt.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


Ha, We will see, just wait until stage 2 of my OCD kicks in.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> A guy that has 0 field experience and has no business being on that team.


Don't laugh. I know a guy who made an Olympic team that way.


----------



## UtahIdahoHunter (Mar 27, 2008)

limbwalker said:


> Don't laugh. I know a guy who made an Olympic team that way.


Seriously? Was that you?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

UtahIdahoHunter said:


> Seriously? Was that you?


There is a very good chance it was. 

It's not uncommon in this sport for people to have one of their best performances at their first attempt. At the Texas Shootout in 2004 - my very first National-level outdoor event - I shot a 647 ranking round in a pretty good wind. That was 9 months after I started shooting Olympic Recurve. I think it was a year or two before I beat that score. 

No expectations and a "just glad to be here" attitude combined with no baggage and no scars, can work wonders for a person's mental game. I see it all the time actually. So the goal is to keep working at your craft and manage to maintain that same attitude.


----------



## J Wesbrock (Jul 6, 2016)

Seeing as this was my first USAA national event (I shoot a lot of state stuff under their umbrella) I'm very much reluctant to offer any suggestions here. Personally, I'm just glad they had the event and are taking field archery seriously. Apparently this wasn't always the case. Kudos to them for that. And aside from a snafu in the women's Barebow class it seemed like a very well run event. I know I enjoyed it a lot (aside from my poopy shooting  ).

I suppose there's no perfect system that will make everyone happy, and I'll be glad to come again and throw my hat into the ring whatever they decide. But I kind of agree that the Nationals should be weighted a little heavier. At the end of the day the right four people were into the final round in Senior Male Barebow, and the team was decided based on the criteria laid out well in advance. I think the team would be just as strong no matter which three of the final four made it. They are all that good and seasoned.

Speaking as someone who shot in the "short bus group" for the trials (bottom four instead of top four), I think the team would have been weaker had any of us uncorked a monster score and knocked out either John, Ben, Mark or Rick. So the system worked as designed, I suppose, but I suspect it'll be tweaked a little for 2018. I'll leave it to those more active in USAA to split whatever hairs need splitting. At the end of the day the only thing I want is a process that assures what's best for the team, not me personally.


----------



## UtahIdahoHunter (Mar 27, 2008)

J Wesbrock said:


> At the end of the day the only thing I want is a process that assures what's best for the team, not me personally.


I agree 100%. Jason are you still eating Crayons?


----------



## Demmer (Dec 1, 2012)

Glad you finally came out Jason. I knew you would enjoy it. You liked nfaa field, so I knew you would like this as well. Nothing like shooting a lot of arrows during a tournament. 😃 I am kinda excited to see 2018s class. Lot more wild cards will be in play I'm sure. 

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## J Wesbrock (Jul 6, 2016)

UtahIdahoHunter said:


> I agree 100%. Jason are you still eating Crayons?


Crayons, Elmer's glue, whatever.


----------



## J Wesbrock (Jul 6, 2016)

Demmer said:


> Glad you finally came out Jason. I knew you would enjoy it.


Awkward...:embarres:


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

J Wesbrock said:


> Seeing as this was my first USAA national event (I shoot a lot of state stuff under their umbrella) I'm very much reluctant to offer any suggestions here. Personally, I'm just glad they had the event and are taking field archery seriously. Apparently this wasn't always the case. Kudos to them for that. And aside from a snafu in the women's Barebow class it seemed like a very well run event. I know I enjoyed it a lot (aside from my poopy shooting  ).
> 
> I suppose there's no perfect system that will make everyone happy, and I'll be glad to come again and throw my hat into the ring whatever they decide. But I kind of agree that the Nationals should be weighted a little heavier. At the end of the day the right four people were into the final round in Senior Male Barebow, and the team was decided based on the criteria laid out well in advance. I think the team would be just as strong no matter which three of the final four made it. They are all that good and seasoned.
> 
> Speaking as someone who shot in the "short bus group" for the trials (bottom four instead of top four), I think the team would have been weaker had any of us uncorked a monster score and knocked out either John, Ben, Mark or Rick. So the system worked as designed, I suppose, but I suspect it'll be tweaked a little for 2018. I'll leave it to those more active in USAA to split whatever hairs need splitting. At the end of the day the only thing I want is a process that assures what's best for the team, not me personally.


Very well put.


----------



## Demmer (Dec 1, 2012)

Lol jason

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## UtahIdahoHunter (Mar 27, 2008)

J Wesbrock said:


> Crayons, Elmer's glue, whatever.


It was a pleasure shooting with you and hope to do it again soon.


----------



## J Wesbrock (Jul 6, 2016)

UtahIdahoHunter said:


> It was a pleasure shooting with you and hope to do it again soon.


Likewise. I've got two points to get back.


----------



## UtahIdahoHunter (Mar 27, 2008)

J Wesbrock said:


> Likewise. I've got two points to get back.


Fair enough.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

So guys, (since we have a few of our top barebow archers watching this thread) why can't we get more good barebow archers out there competing in these events? I mean, shouldn't we as a nation be able to muster at least ONE decent barebow archer from each state? That's not asking too much, is it? I mean how nice would it be to have 50 skilled barebow archers competing for these world field teams! 

Not to take anything away from anyone, but it's not really THAT hard to get to at least a decent level of aptitude is it? Take for example William (Skip) Hartman. A couple years ago, he didn't even shoot archery. I trained him up from scratch with literally zero prior experience. His wife Kim has shot for only 18 months now. She had never shot archery before either. And they were both able to get to a very respectable level in that amount of time even though they are working parents with busy lives. We gotta get better about "training our replacements" as my good friend Tom Barker would say. I don't know about the rest of you, but I like having good competition in my local area, even if I have to "grow my own!"

In Decatur later this month, there will be more archers in just the Cadet female recurve division than all barebow archers combined. There has to be something more we can do.


----------



## Bigjono (Apr 21, 2009)

J Wesbrock said:


> Awkward...:embarres:


[emoji15][emoji15][emoji15]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Demmer (Dec 1, 2012)

I'm trying to get others to go, but, bad weekend for some that would have. Trad worlds same weekend. 😞 

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## Demmer (Dec 1, 2012)

We are making progress for field. Competition is rising and more barebow shooters are coming. I think 2020 will be huge with worlds in the states. 

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## granite14 (Nov 10, 2014)

I think this explains the local scene here in Oregon. Once you take the limited pool, and filter out for interest, awareness, know how, and again for costs, you don't have many left over that would go. 

Reason 1: low number of barebow shooters that take it past the recreational aspect (interest)
We had 38 or so barebow folks for the Oregon BB challenge. Some don't do outdoor, some switch to other bows (longbow), some just have other stuff to do in the summer. There are not that many barebow shooters left that I know of in Oregon and Washington that would have the commitment to go travel to shoots.

Reason 2: awareness
I also started 18 months ago. The only reason I knew about this was due to Laurie advocating for it. 

Reason 3: barebow specifics and coaching
I had to scour these forums to figure out what the heck I was doing with barebow... and I still think I had it wrong for Yankton. I think something is wrong when my arrows fly down the field sideways at times (even though they bareshaft). There is nobody around to help. 
I work full time, and when I do get to a range.. I don't have a practice area in town, I rarely see another barebow shooter as well to ask questions. I have to bug people over email. 

Reason 4: Costs (monetary/time/tradeoffs)
I have a lot of fun at the tournaments, but I do say, after this initial year of traveling, I've been getting pressure from home that I'm overdoing it (thus some of my gear is up for sale to cover costs), and I need to prioritize much more.
I think next year will be max 2 flights, most likely 1, so I have to choose wisely. The reward is getting to do what I like, and I've met lots of cool people doing this, but every time I get home, I am always evaluating what it is I missed. This last weekend, I missed my kid getting his personal best at swimming butterfly. I feel pretty selfish going off to shoot sometimes. I know some parents that go off to Vegas for a weekend once a year, but how many shoots are there per year? lots to choose from.

I started out with reasons...and some sort of logic, but the more I typed, the more I could go on and on. You really have to love it to overcome these obstacles on your own. 

Then when we get out on the course..can't even take pictures out there..


----------



## Bigjono (Apr 21, 2009)

Well as far as I know barebow hasn't had a single shooter in the Ontario champs for years. It isn't even a class at the nationals I don't think so how is it ever going to grow?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

Bigjono said:


> Well as far as I know barebow hasn't had a single shooter in the Ontario champs for years. It isn't even a class at the nationals I don't think so how is it ever going to grow?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


It's a single day of 24 marked for CDN Nationals, I shot it (poorly) BB in 2014 and was the only competitor.


----------



## ccwilder3 (Sep 13, 2003)

Would 40% qualification, 40% elimination and 20% average arrow score be a better way to do this?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> There are not that many barebow shooters left that I know of in Oregon and Washington that would have the commitment to go travel to shoots.


I wonder what we can do about that. I mean, compounders travel to shoots. Recurvers travel to shoots. But why so few barebow archers? It's not like all those compound and recurve archers who travel are paying their bills. They are out just as much $ as a barebow archer would be. Compounders and Recurvers often work, often have other (family, etc) obligations... 

I know at least for compound, there are plenty of other major events besides the USArchery events. Dare I say for MOST compounders, the USArchery events are still much of an afterthought. Same for many barebow archers. Is it that there are just so few barebow archers in general?

Why is it that in the US, the major "barebow" shoots are not conventional target tournaments, but rather 3D events? I know 3D is hugely popular among compounders, but still a lot of compounders still shoot "spots" and attend conventional target events too.


----------



## Bigjono (Apr 21, 2009)

grantmac said:


> It's a single day of 24 marked for CDN Nationals, I shot it (poorly) BB in 2014 and was the only competitor.


I have been told they have now scrapped the class. I was going to enter anyway but with no class and being told a PR isn't allowed to win a national title anyway, I just didn't bother.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Arcus (Jul 7, 2005)

J Wesbrock said:


> And aside from a snafu in the women's Barebow class it seemed like a very well run event.


Would you, or someone else, care to explain?


----------



## Azzurri (Mar 10, 2014)

limbwalker said:


> I wonder what we can do about that. I mean, compounders travel to shoots. Recurvers travel to shoots. But why so few barebow archers? It's not like all those compound and recurve archers who travel are paying their bills. They are out just as much $ as a barebow archer would be. Compounders and Recurvers often work, often have other (family, etc) obligations...
> 
> I know at least for compound, there are plenty of other major events besides the USArchery events. Dare I say for MOST compounders, the USArchery events are still much of an afterthought. Same for many barebow archers. Is it that there are just so few barebow archers in general?
> 
> Why is it that in the US, the major "barebow" shoots are not conventional target tournaments, but rather 3D events? I know 3D is hugely popular among compounders, but still a lot of compounders still shoot "spots" and attend conventional target events too.


8 people for Field is decent numbers relative to recurve or compound. Any turnout issue there is more general. I don't think that's awful for Yankton and having to fly into an airport an hour out of town or more, or drive hundreds or thousands of miles.

In terms of target, in my experience 18-70 Oly was an easier jump than 18-60 BB. With the right limbs and arrows (after writing you) I could make 70 most of the time my first day. I can't hit the broad side of a barn at 60 BB yet. I know much better BB archers than me barely breaking 200 at 50m, much less 60m. There are some new people like Mr. Post making the jump, but to me it should be telling that big indoor bubble that is growing hasn't gone as much outdoors (at least for the high level stuff). 

Y'all need to ask them why. At least for me it was like after a couple amusing attempts at 50 and 60 I just kind of laughed at the idea any time soon. [To be fair, I was also being magnetized back to Oly, but at least one consideration was, I saw no short term ability to make the 60m outdoor target distance in a competitive sense]

Another issue I see is there is not any intermediate step of USAT like what exists for Oly and compound. An oly shooter can go to TX shootout or AZ or Socal as a one-off test or as a building process before making the jump to Decatur in the hot summer against all the Big Boys. So there is a step in between local events and Palestine, and Decatur. BB needs to either be in USAT or have its own regionally available grand slam where people can prove themselves before they travel from all over the place to Decatur.

I also think it couldn't hurt to have some Texas BB tournaments at a single distance, outdoors primarily but perhaps also indoors, outside of TOTS, where it's a mix of bb community and a competition at the same time. If you had that and/or Texas Shootout BB then people could raise things another level and meet the good BB shooters without having to make a long trip.

To me it's 60m plus there not being much in between/additional to local/state vs Decatur. But there are a ton of new local BB people and maybe 1 trying to make the jump, so it might be beneficial to ask them also why they aren't out there. And that's not a slam, it's really a, there were quite a few new, and good, BB archers who came in, but not many doing the state or above level events outdoors, or even nationals indoors.


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

Granite14 (Rob) hit this on the nose.

Cost is a huge factor. I really wanted to go to the FITA Field Nationals, I also wanted to go to the FITA Outdoor Target, and Vegas this year. I only get 2 weeks of vacation. The family got 1 week, and the other is going to the NFAA field nationals - its in my home state this year so it won the cost war. I was really debating on going a week without pay to go to one of the other shoots, but some unexpected bills came up and I needed to buy my wife a new barebow rig because she is transitioning back from Oly to Barebow/Trad. Yeah sad story and who cares right?

There are different motivations for Oly Recurve and Compound to travel a lot and spend more money competing. There are a lot of people that want to exposure and practice to shoot for the Olympics. The Olympics causes, I would say, most of the Olympic Recurve shooters to travel to all these tournaments - there is hope and dreams to try to get on a team. If Recurve archery wasn't in the Olympics, there will hardly be that many shooters.

Compounds - There is a lot of potential money to be made. That draws a lot of people to it. There are those that get paid and sponsored to go, and there are those that want to get the exposure so that they can get paid and sponsored. There is a lot of prize money across the country for compounds. 3D shoots all over the place offer prize money to the compound people. Not to the rest. Again, different motivations. When Compound becomes an Olympic event, there will be an even bigger explosion in shooters.

Barebow - this class is filled with those who love the sport in itself. There are no external incentives to travel and shoot. People who shoot barebow get nothing in return except the enjoyment of shooting and meeting great people. Barebow is a very expensive sport to compete in because there is zero financial return on investment. The guys/gals going to Dublin are paying their own ride. That is true love of the sport.


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

One of the biggest weaknesses with Barebow is the lack of training. People are not taught how to aim or set up their equipment for Barebow or even NFAA Traditional. Most locations around this country, its all learned by trial and error. Most people give up early in the process and want the easy way to hit what they are aiming at and put a sight on. Then all of a sudden there are a boat load of people available to help them improve there shooting.

So after discussions with several other people, I have decided to start putting together Barebow/Traditional Clinics after the field nationals to teach other people how to aim up here in my state. I may be far from being an accomplished shooter, but it is better than the nothing that is going on now.

This is going to have to be a ground up build process. I am willing to help it along.


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

Then there is the crazy rules differences between NFAA, IFAA, USAA/WA. Talk about confusing and discouraging. Its hard enough to learn and be come proficient with a system, and then have to change that system and gear to shoot in different tournaments.

We need to get a unified set of rules for barebow-recurve across all these different organizations. We need to get people to look at the big picture - growth of sightless recurve.

There is a pool of shooters within the NFAA that won't shoot USAA events. There is a pool of USAA people that wont shoot NFAA events. A lot of this has to due with the different rules. A unified set of rules opens the doors for cross over. The cross over will help be a catalyst to help grow.


----------



## J Wesbrock (Jul 6, 2016)

Arcus said:


> Would you, or someone else, care to explain?


There were some errors made by one or more judges that were later resolved. Stuff happens.


----------



## Bigjono (Apr 21, 2009)

I'm all for one set of barebow rules to make things easier.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Osiris155 (Jun 27, 2016)

Mr. Roboto said:


> Then there is the crazy rules differences between NFAA, IFAA, USAA/WA. Talk about confusing and discouraging. Its hard enough to learn and be come proficient with a system, and then have to change that system and gear to shoot in different tournaments.
> 
> We need to get a unified set of rules for barebow-recurve across all these different organizations. We need to get people to look at the big picture - growth of sightless recurve.
> 
> There is a pool of shooters within the NFAA that won't shoot USAA events. There is a pool of USAA people that wont shoot NFAA events. A lot of this has to due with the different rules. A unified set of rules opens the doors for cross over. The cross over will help be a catalyst to help grow.


Amen to that.


----------



## Azzurri (Mar 10, 2014)

Mr. Roboto said:


> Then there is the crazy rules differences between NFAA, IFAA, USAA/WA. Talk about confusing and discouraging. Its hard enough to learn and be come proficient with a system, and then have to change that system and gear to shoot in different tournaments.
> 
> We need to get a unified set of rules for barebow-recurve across all these different organizations. We need to get people to look at the big picture - growth of sightless recurve.
> 
> There is a pool of shooters within the NFAA that won't shoot USAA events. There is a pool of USAA people that wont shoot NFAA events. A lot of this has to due with the different rules. A unified set of rules opens the doors for cross over. The cross over will help be a catalyst to help grow.


I agree, we have the same issue in Texas, bunch of people in TFAA including some excellent ones, don't see them cross over, bunch of WA shooters, only a handful cross over.

To be fair, NFAA has the same (or probably worse) problem as USAA getting people enthused to do their target nationals.

Some of it is a distant, single national site someplace else than where most of us live. But at least some of it is the lack of a regional bridge to the national level, along with the shorter distance competitive bridge. Australia has a 900 round at target nationals. For Oly such a thing is a useful bridge out to the competitive distance. But getting out to 60 BB is tough. What I think is lacking is the "in-between" or nominally "novice" stuff. You could even meld it together with John's desire for qualifying scores for the big events by providing a novice day/class for people whose ambitions are perhaps bigger than their present skill level and distance capabilities, but maybe not quite ready for prime time. 

I feel like at least part of the issue is an elite challenge distance that is going to be a grabber for, well, mostly, elite shooters. 5 of the 11 Target and 8 Field registrants are the same set of guys who dominated Field. That might be fine for a serious Field championship and Trials but if you want to grow the class you might not want the distances set by them and for them. That may actually be scaring off people who are otherwise on the fence. To me the limited amount of people scoring over 300 at the competition distance suggests it could be brought up 10m without undermining the competition. The scores would fall in line with elite recurve and compound more, and you might start getting more of our local crowd who can shoot 200 or so at 50. Otherwise I think it's going to be slower growth. Our Nationals contingent outdoors is similar to the same people who went to TAMU indoors, which is a fall off from the people who shot state. It's the best handful. The best handful may grow over time but ideally you'd want it attractive to a broader array of archers. Not wanting to water it down, it's still going to be decided by score. But not everyone doing Oly USATs is that great. I'm not. But if you did a FITA and I had to shoot 90 I'd be done. It does matter to field size where you draw the lines.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

J Wesbrock said:


> There were some errors made by one or more judges that were later resolved. Stuff happens.


One of the biggest errors was made by an archer, who put those judges in a very tough position. How two archers can walk away from a target without writing down the scores for one archer's arrows is beyond me. I still haven't figured that one out.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Mr. Roboto said:


> Granite14 (Rob) hit this on the nose.
> 
> Cost is a huge factor. I really wanted to go to the FITA Field Nationals, I also wanted to go to the FITA Outdoor Target, and Vegas this year. I only get 2 weeks of vacation. The family got 1 week, and the other is going to the NFAA field nationals - its in my home state this year so it won the cost war. I was really debating on going a week without pay to go to one of the other shoots, but some unexpected bills came up and I needed to buy my wife a new barebow rig because she is transitioning back from Oly to Barebow/Trad. Yeah sad story and who cares right?
> 
> ...


Okay, playing devil's advocate here for a minute (since I don't really disagree with what you wrote, but there is another way to view this...) -

Cost is the same regardless of what equipment one chooses. So I don't feel that argument holds water. What makes the expense "worth it" to a compound or recurve archer, but not a barebow archer? I think Jay hit some of the highlights regarding ROI, but for the VAST majority of compound and recurve archers, there is no hope for an ROI and yet they still spend the $. So, that plays into the argument that many people make that barebow archers are just not "serious" about their sport. And it's hard to argue against that when the numbers just don't prove otherwise.

I know and have shot with a lot of compound archers in my shooting career, and I can tell you that money isn't the motivation. Overwhelmingly not. But they still compete very hard and pay their fees and expenses. Why barebow archers for the most part won't do the same... that's the question we all need to answer.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> I feel like at least part of the issue is an elite challenge distance


...



> But if you did a FITA and I had to shoot 90 I'd be done.


So. Along those lines. When we shot full FITA's out to 90 meters, there were still a LOT more recurve archers than barebow archers. Now, maybe understandably so since not too many folks want the challenge of shooting barebow to 90 meters. BUT, 90 meters with a recurve is really not much different than 60 meters with a barebow IMO. I score about the same most days. So, if so many recurve archers were willing to shoot 90 meters with their recurve, why would so few barebow archers be willing to shoot 60 meters? Esp. considering that when USArchery was nothing but barebow (back in the day), they shot further than that!


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

60m on the 122cm target really isn't a big deal at all. It's easier than most Field (especially NFAA) shots.
The 900 round is an excellent way to get into outdoor distances.


----------



## J Wesbrock (Jul 6, 2016)

I suppose I don't understand the big problem with 60m Barebow. NFAA field rounds have been shot out to 80 yards since 1942. Going even further back, the York round was shot out to 100 yards, and this was with solid wood longbows and wood arrows. So why is it so hard to shoot 60m with machined risers, carbon/foam limbs, elevated rests, plungers and carbon arrows? That being said, if shorter distances will bring more people in, so be it.


----------



## Bigjono (Apr 21, 2009)

I think the 3D shooting here has got many guys into the mindset of shooting 30yd or less, 40yd is a Hail Mary. Those guys will never try field because they never practice past 30yd so that leaves just the guys who enter the sport in the recurve division and the odd few like us who look for different challenges. It's not a big pool to pick from.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Bigjono said:


> I think the 3D shooting here has got many guys into the mindset of shooting 30yd or less, 40yd is a Hail Mary. Those guys will never try field because they never practice past 30yd so that leaves just the guys who enter the sport in the recurve division and the odd few like us who look for different challenges. It's not a big pool to pick from.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Good point. 

And I admit that I was caught up in that "trad" realm for a good 15 years where 40Y was a "Hail Mary" for sure. Pity that sometime in the 70's or 80's, barebow became more about someone's idea of "tradition" than it did about accuracy using one's own skill sets.


----------



## iArch (Apr 17, 2015)

Azzurri said:


> But getting out to 60 BB is tough.


Is it really? It doesn't seem very hard _for recurve_. To be fair I'll have to give it a try some time and see for myself before I judge. 

I can't imagine the distance being a big factor of low participation. Yes when things are 'tough' less people will play, but BB archers seem to be the kind that thrive on challenges like that - not run away. Sounds to me more like the discipline itself does attract the 'shoot for the love of shooting' crowd and they get enough fulfillment out of that alone. I'm guessing only a number of those find the desire to go beyond that and compete 'seriously'.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> and compete 'seriously'.


Where have I heard that before? LOL.


----------



## iArch (Apr 17, 2015)

limbwalker said:


> Where have I heard that before? LOL.


Hmmm I think here to be exact: http://www.archerytalk.com/vb/showthread.php?t=2430616 :wink:


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Precisely.


----------



## iArch (Apr 17, 2015)

On that note, just to clarify my last sentence: "I'm guessing only a number of those find the desire to go beyond that and compete 'seriously' *within that division*."
It could be read a different way that wasn't intended!


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

I don't understand why people think 60m is hard. three under middle finger to mouth, my arrows are point on at 40m. At 50m forefinger to corner of the mouth I am aiming at the red ring at 6' . At 60m shelf is on the blue ring. At 70 meters split finger, I aim at the blue ring at 6'. At 90m split finger, shelf on the dot. People just need to learn how to aim. 60m isn't hard.


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

limbwalker said:


> Okay, playing devil's advocate here for a minute (since I don't really disagree with what you wrote, but there is another way to view this...) -
> 
> Cost is the same regardless of what equipment one chooses. So I don't feel that argument holds water. What makes the expense "worth it" to a compound or recurve archer, but not a barebow archer? I think Jay hit some of the highlights regarding ROI, but for the VAST majority of compound and recurve archers, there is no hope for an ROI and yet they still spend the $. So, that plays into the argument that many people make that barebow archers are just not "serious" about their sport. And it's hard to argue against that when the numbers just don't prove otherwise.
> 
> I know and have shot with a lot of compound archers in my shooting career, and I can tell you that money isn't the motivation. Overwhelmingly not. But they still compete very hard and pay their fees and expenses. Why barebow archers for the most part won't do the same... that's the question we all need to answer.


I know, its more of a general statement. There are many different reasons to compete and spend the money to compete. There are just far more incentives for compounds and Olympic recurve archers to spend the money to compete.

If World Archery would open up their Target shoots to barebow, I would suspect we will see more barebow archers because there are bigger shoots beyond our local shoots. If the Olympics had a barebow class, there will be a huge jump in competitors. These are powerful incentives. Right now World Archery only lets the Compounds and Recurves play in the Target championships - part of the incentive for them.

Not everybody is drawn to things by incentives. But I suspect that most are, whether or not they will admit to it or not.

The barebow numbers are not just one thing, its a combination of many things.


----------



## toj (Aug 22, 2012)

I regularly shoot compound, recurve and barebow and the truth is barebow is the hardest to reach a competent level.

In the UK everybody starts shooting barebow yet almost always change immediately on joining the club.

Recurve is pushed heavily as being the category that matters and even compound is still looked upon as the poor cousin.
It gains shooters because it's easy, not to be competitive but to hit 90m easily compound has no peers.

Barebow is the greatest challenge in archery and most people don't like a challenge.


----------



## AdAstraAirow (Aug 22, 2011)

An issue I faced when learning to shoot barebow at longer distances was actually logistical. 60 meters distance requires a larger target butt set in an even larger and longer safe area in a location where archery shooting is not prohibited. Additionally, the area needs to be groomed so that expensive arrows do not get lost on errant shots during the learning process. For many folks, there are no clubs conveniently located with such a set-up. If you want to train at shorter distances, taking a bag target out into a rural area or in your fenced back yard is easy, and you are less likely to miss and lose arrows. Long distances takes *commitment* to either drive distance (time) to a designated archery area or do it yourself and set up a legal area and haul around and then muscle a Whitetail target up every time you want to train. 

Mark


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Mr. Roboto said:


> I don't understand why people think 60m is hard. three under middle finger to mouth, my arrows are point on at 40m. At 50m forefinger to corner of the mouth I am aiming at the red ring at 6' . At 60m shelf is on the blue ring. At 70 meters split finger, I aim at the blue ring at 6'. At 90m split finger, shelf on the dot. People just need to learn how to aim. 60m isn't hard.


This is largely true. I think a big reason many barebow shooters are fearful of longer distances is that they have just never been taught how to aim properly. The other major issue I see is learning how to anchor consistently. It's not that hard to hold paper at 18M on a 40cm face, even for a relative beginner, if they have proper instruction. A 122cm face at 60 meters really is no different than a 40cm face at 18 meters, proportionally. Sure, throw in wind and that's another ballgame, but from a purely shooting and grouping point of view, it's basically the same thing. 

Part of what we struggle with in barebow is just a lack of good information. A lot of barebow archers, myself included, got some very bad shooting advice early on that keeps them from being competitive beyond 20M. Being overbowed, short drawing, failing to anchor, being told "don't aim", and having no idea how to select arrows for a barebow target rig are all very common issues I have seen for decades. Hopefully with the resurgence of target barebow in this country, enough good information is getting out there and enough mentors are being made to turn the tide.

I think it's happening. The traditional archery forums I once frequented are now much more accepting of GOOD advice and full of archers who are smart and know the difference between "poking and hoping" and having a successful method.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

toj said:


> I regularly shoot compound, recurve and barebow and the truth is barebow is the hardest to reach a competent level.
> 
> In the UK everybody starts shooting barebow yet almost always change immediately on joining the club.
> 
> ...


See, I disagree with this. I also shoot them all, and with the correct instruction, barebow is actually the easiest of the three to get to a decent level of competence (compared with one's peers). Much of that is due to the relatively low level of shooting among average barebow archers, and that is getting better. But I can take a decent archer, teach them barebow, and within a year or so have them shooting in the top 10 in the U.S.. I've done that about 5 or 6 times now in the past few years. On the other hand, I can't take a decent archer and have them shooting in the top 10 in the U.S. in the recurve or compound divisions in a year. That takes several years because the competition is so much greater in those divisions. 

If you take away other competitors and just consider the achievement system within JOAD/AA programs, the same is true. I can get a new barebow archer to the yellow level in about a year if they shoot enough. With compound or recurve, that would take me much longer to do.

At a high level, compound, recurve and barebow are all an equal challenge. In my experience, people leave barebow due to a few common factors. 

1) For many, the difficulty becomes apparent very quickly. Those same archers will also leave compound or recurve eventually, once they plateau and figure out they really have to work hard to get any better. They just face that stage sooner with the barebow than either compound or recurve.

2) Most people shoot archery to socialize (whether they admit it or not) and when you're in the minority, it's tougher to keep showing up for practice. So eventually many barebow archers switch because "everyone else" is shooting compound or recurve. 

3) Many coaches don't want to teach barebow because they either don't understand it, or they don't feel a student shooting barebow will bring them (the coach) enough recognition, or they won't make enough $ off that student. I'm sure in this country many coaches have figured out that recuve and compound is where the $ is at, for a number of reasons, so that's where they steer new students. And why not? They can point to the Olympics (which always impresses parents and they are the ones writing the checks) and that makes it easier to recruit an archer to recurve. They can point to Vegas if the student is interested in compound. They can point to college programs like A&M who have won a dozen or more consecutive national championship titles even though they all but discourage their students from shooting barebow. And finally, those coaches know that getting a recurve student to a high level is a long term process that will generate revenue for years. 

Having said all that, it is getting better. My club has switched over from mostly recurve to now mostly barebow in the past 3 years and it's pretty neat to see.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

AdAstraAirow said:


> An issue I faced when learning to shoot barebow at longer distances was actually logistical. 60 meters distance requires a larger target butt set in an even larger and longer safe area in a location where archery shooting is not prohibited. Additionally, the area needs to be groomed so that expensive arrows do not get lost on errant shots during the learning process. For many folks, there are no clubs conveniently located with such a set-up. If you want to train at shorter distances, taking a bag target out into a rural area or in your fenced back yard is easy, and you are less likely to miss and lose arrows. Long distances takes *commitment* to either drive distance (time) to a designated archery area or do it yourself and set up a legal area and haul around and then muscle a Whitetail target up every time you want to train.
> 
> Mark


This challenge is not unique to barebow however.


----------



## toj (Aug 22, 2012)

Sure there's far more top level competition in recurve and compound but i think most club archers are not really interested in UK top level.
For one we have no vegas so compound archers have little to no funding options
For recurve we have Olympic funding but this is heavily favoured towards the junior development program.

Everybody wants to race out to 70/90m asap and the easiest way to do that is compound.
I would argue that the next easiest would be barebow but reaching and hitting are two different things.

Compound has always been my switch off and shoot go to bow, a bit like watching Die hard over the
da vinci code.
For recreational archers thats a hard draw to ignore over the hours of graft hitting distance with anything else.

If there was a plan to get greater numbers in barebow categories i'd gladly follow it but i think we may just have to accept it a minority in archery circles.


----------



## Bigjono (Apr 21, 2009)

I also think a lot of guys don't know how to tune and set up a bow well enough to group at 60m+, me included and if there's no experienced barebow field shooters to shoot with, it's tough to learn.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Bigjono said:


> I also think a lot of guys don't know how to tune and set up a bow well enough to group at 60m+, me included and if there's no experienced barebow field shooters to shoot with, it's tough to learn.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


The principles for tuning barebow at a single distance are the same as they are for recurve. It's all included in the age-old Easton Tuning Guide. There is no black magic for tuning a barebow for a single distance event.

As for shooting the longer distances, the other day, one of my students wanted to shoot a match against me but I didn't bring a bow to practice. So another student offered to loan me her bow and her arrows. Despite having to draw 4" less than normal, I was on the bale at 60 meters in two arrows, and once I figured out where to aim, went on to win a set vs. this skilled recurve archer, shooting barebow with someone else's 30# bow. 

Good technique at 18 meters will work fine at 60. People just have to get over the fear of missing, get used to creative aiming techniques, and spend some time at that distance and they will be fine. In fact, I would say they will learn to enjoy it so much that 18 meters will become rather boring to them.


----------



## toj (Aug 22, 2012)

"Creative aiming techniques"
Thats the essence of target barebow right there.


----------



## UtahIdahoHunter (Mar 27, 2008)

"Tuning" a Barebow to shoot different crawls is about like a Broken Clock. It's even correct twice a day. hehe


----------



## Azzurri (Mar 10, 2014)

I'm going to agree to disagree on the distance thing but acknowledge it involves work and that in my case it's a question of the amount of work I felt like I would need, and how I feel like that compared to ramping up to 70 OR. Harder. I switched back over to OR because I felt happier with what I was doing there and that's probably because I have more time and coaching invested in it. I get the commitment/ work discussions, I just wonder if the distance requires so much apprenticeship it's a little bit of a deterrent to bigger numbers. We had a ton of new BB shooters locally but only so many out to 60, and only one new local at Nationals. That's all I am getting at. It's not like too difficult I am scared. I will gun for it some other time. It's more like difficult where it's gonna take work. Takes enough work we are shrinking the registration pool.

I'll probably switch back at some point and see if I can ramp up to 60 then. It's just y'all were kind of asking aloud why more people don't do BB national target and at least on a personal, anecdotal level, the distance and how far I felt like I needed to go in quality to be competent at it were factors to me. I grant I could do all the different things recommended and will put them in the memory bank. But I did briefly entertain why not Decatur and then change my mind and figured I should give my two cents. I come from a more admittedly intermediate perspective and feel like I can speak sometimes for some of us. Felt like I was hearing more of the already-strong shooter perspective.

From a national perspective I think the guy mentioning the 30-40 yard 3d notions has his finger on something. We in Houston have Hot n Cold and TOTs outdoor series. You can use those to bridge your game from easy to hard distances. I wonder how much of that is out there in other states or how many barebow people basically have a state tournament and then whatever else they can dig up. I feel like that speaks to my discussions of both novice distances/900s that USAA doesn't set up on a more global level, as well as the need for a BB USAT available regionally. I wasn't dissing the local resources in saying we need a bridge, it has helped me over time get up to 70 for OR and would probably do the same over time for me in BB (my thing there being more feeling like it's a long distance that requires a fair amount of work, where OR I could get the bale the first day I had carbons to do it, and that one then is more accessible than the other to the learner archers).

I also had heard about the indoor BB tournament in Oregon and thought Texas could use indoor and/or outdoor equivalents. Community building, might encourage some of the new strong archers to travel some, something short of State where barebow archers can compete, and without having to squeeze in with the compounds and recurves at normal events. Ones who enjoy it might even get ambition to try the bigger events and do the travel. I know I got the itch for tournament travel after Arizona last year. I think if you do that level of thing you want to do things like that again.

Cost will remain an issue but organizers can try and keep costs down (more like Arizona than Vegas) to make it as accessible as possible.


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

You are over thinking it, just aim higher.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

UtahIdahoHunter said:


> "Tuning" a Barebow to shoot different crawls is about like a Broken Clock. It's even correct twice a day. hehe


Indeed. But single distance barebow shouldn't scare anyone. It's not that complicated.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Jay, of course 70M OR is "easier" than 60M BB. Of course it is. Neither are "easy" but those terms are relative. There is no rule that every shot must hit the bale. 100 years ago, the best archers in the world routinely missed the bale and they still weren't afraid to shoot. What has happened since?


----------



## Bigjono (Apr 21, 2009)

limbwalker said:


> Indeed. But single distance barebow shouldn't scare anyone. It's not that complicated.


Is there any single distance barebow tournaments, there certainly isn't here, we have a bit of IFAA field at most.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## wiatrog (Dec 27, 2014)

I agree with Granite14 and Mr. Roboto - there doesn't seem to be a lot of training available for aspiring barebow archers. Outside of these forums and the odd Ty Pelfrey DVD, it seems like most organizations focus on trad or oly.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Bigjono said:


> Is there any single distance barebow tournaments, there certainly isn't here, we have a bit of IFAA field at most.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


These days, since USArchery welcomed back their barebow archers, we shoot a single distance outdoor round at US Outdoor Nationals. And of course, indoors is always a single distance event.


----------



## Laurie Borealis (Mar 10, 2012)

limbwalker said:


> One of the biggest errors was made by an archer, who put those judges in a very tough position. How two archers can walk away from a target without writing down the scores for one archer's arrows is beyond me. I still haven't figured that one out.


Well hmmm... this needs a little context before publicly condemning the two archers who forgot to score one archer's arrows. When the round of 8 archers was cut to four archers in women's barebow, the officials announced the wrong person for the No. 4 position. The person with the fifth highest ranking score was sent out to shoot against the No. 1 archer in the head to head. The process for the ranking system was not well understood by the archers, and it took awhile for the actual No. 4 archer to question what had happened. When she did, they took her out to the field and pulled the other person after the two archers had already shot some targets. No. 1 had to reshoot targets she'd already shot, against a new competitor, and No. 2 and 3 continued on the course, so the scoring groups now only had two people. People got discombobulated by the reshuffle and I think there were a lot of questions and discussions going on (I believe including about whether it was right for scoring groups of just two people) during the arrow pull. After they realized they hadn't scored No. 4's arrows, they did a reshoot of that target, the third time for No. 1 (I believe the judge on the course advised them to do that, which was an error because there are no reshoots in fita field -- except that No.1 had to reshoot targets with No. 4, huh?). The reshoot score on that target changed the winner of the head to head, which at the time the archers thought could put the No. 1 archer, who was clearly the best shooter, out of contention for the team. Like I said, the process was not well understood. There was a lot of angst. Eventually, the No. 4 archer got all zeroes for that target because the reshoot was thrown out and no judge had witnessed the original arrows that weren't scored. No. 4 filed a protest, which a jury denied. As the last place finisher at No. 6, I was the only one who wasn't involved, but that is my understanding of what happened from talking to the archers. And yeah, mistakes happen, by judges and by archers, but there were a number of judging errors. It was a complex situation.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

What makes that a condemnation Laurie? It's not like I've never made a mistake on a scorecard before. That's just a new one to me. I honestly can't understand how two people shoot a target, and only one of them walks away with numbers on their scorecard. In all my tournament archery as an archer, coach, and event organizer with archers from 8 to 80, I've never seen that happen.


----------



## Laurie Borealis (Mar 10, 2012)

limbwalker said:


> What makes that a condemnation Laurie? It's not like I've never made a mistake on a scorecard before. That's just a new one to me. I honestly can't understand how two people shoot a target, and only one of them walks away with numbers on their scorecard. In all my tournament archery as an archer, coach, and event organizer with archers from 8 to 80, I've never seen that happen.


I've seen it happen a couple of times in field tournaments, even in a scoring group of four people, but not on the national level. Something happens to distract people, and sometimes people are tired and glazed over after a lot of high pressure shooting. It's kind of like walking away from the target without your bow, which happens a lot. I found it very understandable in this situation based on what was going on. Have you seen a situation before in which the wrong person was sent in to shoot in the final four and shot some targets in a head to head, then the top archer had to do reshoots?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

No. I've never seen that either. All I can say is that I'm very sorry the officiating wasn't better than it was. Certainly not national championship or world team selection worthy.


----------



## Laurie Borealis (Mar 10, 2012)

limbwalker said:


> No. I've never seen that either. All I can say is that I'm very sorry the officiating wasn't better than it was. Certainly not national championship or world team selection worthy.


Heck, stuff happens. The judges and other officials were really nice and worked hard. It was a new ranking system for everyone, and there are so few fita field tournaments in this country that it's hard to know all the rules inside out, much less how to deal with the aftermath of a kind of freak mistake. This is just a great tournament and I hope all y'all can make it next year. If there's just one tournament I can travel to, this is the one where I put my money.


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

On quite a few occasions when I (a barebow/Trad shooter) was assigned to a target with 3 other compound shooters, they would quickly call their arrows start to pull them and walk off like I wasn't event there. So I say, what am I swiss cheese? They say sorry and come back. It happens at least once a year to me. I generally try to be a score keeper to keep them at bay. But it happens. Its funny though. People get so absorbed in their scores, they forget about others around them.


----------



## wa-prez (Sep 9, 2006)

Mr. Roboto said:


> On quite a few occasions when I (a barebow/Trad shooter) was assigned to a target with 3 other compound shooters, they would quickly call their arrows start to pull them and walk off like I wasn't event there. So I say, what am I swiss cheese? They say sorry and come back. It happens at least once a year to me. I generally try to be a score keeper to keep them at bay. But it happens. Its funny though. People get so absorbed in their scores, they forget about others around them.


HUH???

It is a rule that ALL arrows in a target are called and recorded before ANY of the arrows or the target are touched or the arrows are pulled. Those guys should have had a tight rein applied quickly.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Mr. Roboto said:


> On quite a few occasions when I (a barebow/Trad shooter) was assigned to a target with 3 other compound shooters, they would quickly call their arrows start to pull them and walk off like I wasn't event there. So I say, what am I swiss cheese? They say sorry and come back. It happens at least once a year to me. I generally try to be a score keeper to keep them at bay. But it happens. Its funny though. People get so absorbed in their scores, they forget about others around them.


I've seen this before as well, but never with only two archers. That's still a mystery to me.


----------

