# just another poll on arrows lol



## 2fingers (Feb 2, 2006)

I felt each poll already done was missing one or more of the questions needed. The reason i added the size restriction on the inside out scoring is how many peope want to spend $200+ on real small arrows?


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

Since your poll doesn't offer an option for DOWNSIZING over the course of a few years...which is ONE OPTION that was "entertained" byt the IBO, ASA, and also NFAA...and is still a viable one...

I chose 2712 or 2613 as the limit.

The FIRST option of UNLIMITED shaft size...has already been clearly demonstrated by previous polls that it is NOT a viable option. It hasn't garnered more than 15% before...People have ALREADY indicated they WANT A LIM"IT.

The last option makes lightweight bow shooters shoot FAT SHAFTS, since 1713 is NOT the smallest or weakest spined arrow being made...so that option is NOT realistic.

Inside out scoring, or any "toughening up" of the scoring on the target has been PROVEN to REDUCE PARTICIPATION...and only favors the elitsts...and the average joe is the one that pays the bill.

Personally, for many, many, reasons, I don't consider I/O scoring a viable option at all.

If one is going to shoot OUTDOORS or _FITA/NAA indoors or out_...most ARE going to spend money on "smaller arrows", plain and simple. ALthough some will still shoot 24's 25's 26's 27's OUTDOORS...it is being done at 3-D shoots now.

Also, since when is a 2315 a "real small" arrow?

As one can clearly see...one must be careful with WORDING and options when putting out a poll...it can easily be devised so that the author of the poll gets what they want to see and "lead 'em" almost like the "carrot on the string" approach...:wink::tongue:

JMO,

field14


----------



## 2fingers (Feb 2, 2006)

Offering a downsize in 2 years is most likly when any change, if any, would happen. If a smaller shaft size is voted in late 2008. It should not go into affect untill the next year. Asking someone to switch arrows 2 weeks or 2 months before a shoot would be a major setback for any tournament on attendance. How many people that did not hear about the change would be very upset and never come back to the nfaa? And wheater its a 1713 or a 3L18 or another smaller arrow size should there be a limit on how small you go if inside out scoring is voted in. If someone shows up with arrows the size of a hair(lol) would that be buying a score like fat shafts? I never said a 2315 was a small shaft!??


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

2fingers said:


> Offering a downsize in 2 years is most likly when any change, if any, would happen. If a smaller shaft size is voted in late 2008. It should not go into affect untill the next year. Asking someone to switch arrows 2 weeks or 2 months before a shoot would be a major setback for any tournament on attendance. How many people that did not hear about the change would be very upset and never come back to the nfaa? And wheater its a 1713 or a 3L18 or another smaller arrow size should there be a limit on how small you go if inside out scoring is voted in. If someone shows up with arrows the size of a hair(lol) would that be buying a score like fat shafts? I never said a 2315 was a small shaft!??


I think that is what killed the first vote at the National meeting...they whacked it ALL AT ONCE, by June, 2008...and gave NO response time to the retailers, manufacturers, etc....and personally...they should have re-done it, and made it 2712's FOR NOW....and then looked into the downsizing option.

Can't make a limit on how small....when some people could NEVER get a 1713 or a 3l-18 to SPINE OUT....I know many shooting 2L-04's and 1516's....and you can't leave THEM out in the cold...and then what about the X-10's...?? Their diameters are even smaller?

No, it would not be buying scores with the skinny shafts...to head dead center with them...the gotta be CLOSER to dead center than the 2315...and afterall isn't CLOSER TO DEAD CENTER the BETTER? It is a contest of Prowess....NOT SHAFT DIAMETER...shoot 'em in the MIDDLE of the MIDDLE.

You are confusing PROWESS vs. BUYING a score with your arrow selection


How many people that are thinking NFAA...want nothing to do with it when there are only a FEW that can make the mega-shafts begin to work for them, and then even getting a 26 or 27 is very difficult for them due to not being able to handle high poundages, AND having a short drawlength to boot? 

Then of course comes the bickering on inside out...when you start taking POINTS away (and not just a "X")...I will guarantee you...you had better triple up on line judges and get them trained properly. You had better nearly DOUBLE the line time it will take, TRIPLE the target face inventory, and add an hour or more between line times....all for WHAT?....so that the hot dogs can score inside out and drive the masses away? Pretty SELFISH, IMHO...all to avoid establishing a RULE on shaft size...we change the entire thing? NONSENSICAL...IMHO.
field14


----------



## AlChick (Mar 5, 2003)

*2315*

I voted for the 2315 limit; making the assumption that if such a limit was imposed, after so much discussion, the timing of the rule will be intelligent. (That may be a grotesque leap of faith, but for the sake of argument...) 

I personally feel that the inside/out rule is not viable. I wonder if those who advocate this realize that not only would an X need to be inside out, so would a five etc. This rule derives even less consensus than an arrow size restriction and as such promises to be even more divisive than restricting the diameter of an arrow. 

An important point about defining a maximum diameter is that not every archer (not even most) can effectively shoot the larger diameters and so this tilts the playing field unfairly and favors the larger stronger individual rather than the best archer. Setting a minimum restriction has no such effect and is unnecessary. Archers shoot smaller diameter arrows outside because they limit the effects of the elements to which every archer is subject; hence the field remains level regardless.

The 9.3 mm rule has worked effectively for FITA because it is a fair standard that favors no one in particular except the archer with the greatest ability and isn't that what we imagine a fair tournament to be?


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

AlChick said:


> I voted for the 2315 limit; making the assumption that if such a limit was imposed, after so much discussion, the timing of the rule will be intelligent. (That may be a grotesque leap of faith, but for the sake of argument...)
> 
> I personally feel that the inside/out rule is not viable. I wonder if those who advocate this realize that not only would an X need to be inside out, so would a five etc. This rule derives even less consensus than an arrow size restriction and as such promises to be even more divisive than restricting the diameter of an arrow.
> 
> ...


Might also mention that with the carbon arrow technology...a "23" diameter arrow can be maufacturered with a spine that fits EVERYONE....from the short DL/low poundage person, right on up to the Long DL, heavy poundage person...so EVERYONE could take advantage of the "23" diameter if they so chose to do so.

With the 27 being the limit...a MINORITY of shooters can really get them working on a regular basis and still have a FORGIVING setup...and those of course are...as always...the elitist, and those with heavier poundages and longer drawlengths....

field14


----------



## voxito (Apr 16, 2006)

field14 said:


> I You are confusing PROWESS vs. BUYING a score with your arrow selection
> 
> How many people that are thinking NFAA...want nothing to do with it when there are only a FEW that can make the mega-shafts begin to work for them, and then even getting a 26 or 27 is very difficult for them due to not being able to handle high poundages, AND having a short drawlength to boot?
> 
> field14



Yes! You're making some real sense now. *But you talk about target face usage, what's a 27 gonna do to the x on a 40cm when a pro shoots it 5 times?* It's not there anymore! When an x10 puts a 3/16 hole in a target, you can always pull the target back and groom it, you know, pushing the paper back to fill in the hole, and the target will last a competition easy if you shoot a multi spot. Sure this will take a little more time, but what about the discerning of arrow holes when that guy won't move his sight a few clicks and keeps stacking all of his arrows at 7 o'clock in the x? I've been on that target, and it takes a while wondering where that paper should be so we know what score to give him.

I agree with you that not everybody will buy x10s, and I agree with you that not everybody will get 27s to tune. But there are other options. ACCs cover most of the spectrum, and they cost little more than aluminums, and they are plenty small to make I/O feasible. 

Everybody could also drop weight for indoors to spine out a small arrow, it's only twenty yards, and just get lower letoff on their bows. That's what I'd be doing.

But I'm glad to see somebody put inside out as a option, but the size limits makes no sense to me. Plus, physics can determine how small a shaft can get, unless somebody comes in with a solid carbon rod, but that'll probably never happen.


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

voxito said:


> Yes! You're making some real sense now. *But you talk about target face usage, what's a 27 gonna do to the x on a 40cm when a pro shoots it 5 times?* It's not there anymore! When an x10 puts a 3/16 hole in a target, you can always pull the target back and groom it, you know, pushing the paper back to fill in the hole, and the target will last a competition easy if you shoot a multi spot. Sure this will take a little more time, but what about the discerning of arrow holes when that guy won't move his sight a few clicks and keeps stacking all of his arrows at 7 o'clock in the x? I've been on that target, and it takes a while wondering where that paper should be so we know what score to give him.
> 
> I agree with you that not everybody will buy x10s, and I agree with you that not everybody will get 27s to tune. But there are other options. ACCs cover most of the spectrum, and they cost little more than aluminums, and they are plenty small to make I/O feasible.
> 
> ...


Guarantee you that if I/O scoring is in effect...even me with my GT CAA 500's...>I'm going to CHANGE that target face if I get a hole NEAR the line...I don't want to chance losing a POINT cuz of a torn up line...And I'll be calling line judges on EVERY SINGLE "close one" too...

So beef up for target replacements, beef up MORE line judges, change line time gaps, and plan on LONGER line shooting times too.

A ripple effect of favoring the elitists and using a bandaid to try to fix a problem that ONE rule change would help with most of the situation. People will follow the rules...or they won't play...just as simple as that.

Makes no sense to you until it is YOU that has to put up with someone smacking 1" or larger diameter shafts down range...and hitting the edge of the WHITE and getting an X out of it...wow...superb ACCURACY that way...and such prowess to mis by 2" and still get an X....wow wee, I'm impressed. Or your shooting costs double or triple to cover the costs of ruined bales, more targets being used, AND losing points because your arrow tracked down a 1" hole or bigger...and kicked the wrong direction..then watch YOU HOWL TO HIGH HEAVEN on how you just got ROBBED out of some points because of all this.

field14


----------



## voxito (Apr 16, 2006)

field14 said:


> Guarantee you that if I/O scoring is in effect...even me with my GT CAA 500's...>I'm going to CHANGE that target face if I get a hole NEAR the line...I don't want to chance losing a POINT cuz of a torn up line...And I'll be calling line judges on EVERY SINGLE "close one" too...
> 
> So beef up for target replacements, beef up MORE line judges, change line time gaps, and plan on LONGER line shooting times too.
> 
> ...



woah woah woah man, I am more strongly against shafts over 23 than anybody! I'm disgusted when I think about that what you're saying could possibly happen if no limits are put in effect. What skill is involved if anybody gets to shoot shafts that are 1"? You just point your bow at the white and you'll get an x, that's not even fair.

You say cost will double or triple on ruined bales, but I'm the strongest supporter of inside out scoring here! A 27 will put a hole that 5 of my x10 550s will fit in. So in theory, a bale will last 5 times longer shooting small diameter than with a 27.

I said you could groom your target, that will make it last 3 times longer if you do it every end versus just shooting the crap out of it. 

As it is, people have to tell if an arrow is touching a line to get a point, what's so hard to see if it's touching a line to lose a point? It's really not that hard, it's either on it or not, that's it, what's to argue about?


----------



## AlChick (Mar 5, 2003)

*Inside/out is out*

I still say that the merits of inside/out scoring are irrelevant. What is relevant are those changes that are politically possible. As anyone can see from the poll above, a different scoring rule does not have support. I think there is little doubt that, should the Board of Directors ratify such a rule, there would be even more dissent than there is now. It would seem that the majority of the membership favors an arrow size limit, although there may be disagreement about what that size should be. That is an argument that is a reasonable one for debate. 

To debate a change in scoring rules might be intellectually satisfying, but it is unlikely to gain traction with either the membership or the Directors.


----------



## voxito (Apr 16, 2006)

AlChick said:


> I still say that the merits of inside/out scoring are irrelevant. What is relevant are those changes that are politically possible. As anyone can see from the poll above, a different scoring rule does not have support. I think there is little doubt that, should the Board of Directors ratify such a rule, there would be even more dissent than there is now. It would seem that the majority of the membership favors an arrow size limit, although there may be disagreement about what that size should be. That is an argument that is a reasonable one for debate.
> 
> To debate a change in scoring rules might be intellectually satisfying, but it is unlikely to gain traction with either the membership or the Directors.


As soon as there is a vote among all participating members of the NFAA, not people on AT, we'll know for sure.


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

voxito said:


> As soon as there is a vote among all participating members of the NFAA, not people on AT, we'll know for sure.


I agree..BUT>>>>>The AT polls are a very, very POSITIVE indicator of what the directors/councilmen should expect...and should help them to ISOLATE their choices to offer on such a "poll"...notice I did NOT say VOTE...

Since I already know that the NFAA leadership is opposed to a "NATIONAL VOTE"...but they are NOT opposed to each state polling their membership to find out what their constituents want...

Such a "poll", however to be "equal" MUST, IMHO, be the SAME THING, and WORDED THE SAME....for each and every state to keep it statistically HONEST...and to avoid some states getting their poll "worded" or skewered according to a pre-conceived NOTION of what a "special interest group" or particular person/group of people WANT TO HAVE as a result.

this really needs to be a coordinated effort; which in and of itself....the way things work...might be just about insurmountable.. SOME states and people will stand steadfast to maintain the status quo and NOT MAKE ANY CHANGES...so that their "turf" is still protected. Some states have falling membership, club affiliation, and number of particpants...and still say "nothing is wrong and it isn't broken." Whaddaya do but to keep on trying, and keep getting accused of "not being for the good of the organization or archery in general"???? So you try again...and ask them to define what "good of the organization and archery" means to THEM????

The AT Polls...COULD also be used as an "indicator" of what POTENTIAL shooters want...the NFAA is wanting to expand and gain in membership and participation...yet "WE" continue to IGNORE those on the outside and their valuable inputs! Not a wise move for an organization that wants to expand.

Gotta get input from the OUTSIDE too.

field14


----------



## 2fingers (Feb 2, 2006)

field14 said:


> Might also mention that with the carbon arrow technology...a "23" diameter arrow can be maufacturered with a spine that fits EVERYONE....from the short DL/low poundage person, right on up to the Long DL, heavy poundage person...so EVERYONE could take advantage of the "23" diameter if they so chose to do so.
> 
> With the 27 being the limit...a MINORITY of shooters can really get them working on a regular basis and still have a FORGIVING setup...and those of course are...as always...the elitist, and those with heavier poundages and longer drawlengths....
> 
> field14


One small thing i dont agree with is not being able to get the fat arrows to fly. My wife shoots 27" draw and 45lbs and 2613 fly great they do have 400 grain points cut at 29". Almost any heavy arrow can work with more point weight.


----------



## AlChick (Mar 5, 2003)

*Speaking as a statistician*



voxito said:


> As soon as there is a vote among all participating members of the NFAA, not people on AT, we'll know for sure.


There is a difference between a poll and an election. A poll, when it is properly done, is a statistical sampling that is representative of how a larger population might vote. Although self selected samples are generally not considered truly random, the AT community is likely to be a relatively random group, and as such is likely to produce a polling that is generally representative of the NFAA membership. 

However, if you prefer to climb that hill, by all means continue to advocate for an inside/out rule. It is your right to do so and it is certainly my belief that the greatest good is served when we all express our wishes directly to our state directors, whatever those opinions might be. Where we are under served is when we reserve our comments exclusively for this forum and do not share them with our voting representatives. Of course, after we've all told our directors what we believe we must do one more thing. We must hold them accountable for how they vote on our behalf.


----------



## AlChick (Mar 5, 2003)

2fingers said:


> One small thing i dont agree with is not being able to get the fat arrows to fly. My wife shoots 27" draw and 45lbs and 2613 fly great they do have 400 grain points cut at 29". Almost any heavy arrow can work with more point weight.


I used to think as you did. It was my opinion that, at least for indoors, fat shafts that were overspined were no real disadvantage. Then I experimented with a longer smaller arrow that was properly spined and I saw that my groups shrunk and my arrows were more "forgiving" of form breaks. I now completely agree with Bob Ragsdale who I'll paraphrase by saying that the best shooting bow is the one with the properly spined arrows.


----------



## voxito (Apr 16, 2006)

AlChick said:


> There is a difference between a poll and an election. A poll, when it is properly done, is a statistical sampling that is representative of how a larger population might vote. Although self selected samples are generally not considered truly random, the AT community is likely to be a relatively random group, and as such is likely to produce a polling that is generally representative of the NFAA membership.
> 
> However, if you prefer to climb that hill, by all means continue to advocate for an inside/out rule. It is your right to do so and it is certainly my belief that the greatest good is served when we all express our wishes directly to our state directors, whatever those opinions might be. Where we are under served is when we reserve our comments exclusively for this forum and do not share them with our voting representatives. Of course, after we've all told our directors what we believe we must do one more thing. We must hold them accountable for how they vote on our behalf.


I thank you for being the only person to write a post that I've read with a logical view of the situation. True, this poll may _possibly_ be an accurate sample, but the twenty three people that have voted so far cannot be considered more accurate than a total poll of the entire NFAA membership.

I for one have talked to about half of the participating NFAA members of Mississippi, so far, two want inside out(three including me), 1 wants 23, and one wants 26. The one wanting 26 is our state rep. The three main FITA shooters want the inside out, and a mainly 3d shooter wants the 23, and our state rep likes the 26 limit. Our state rep is a stand up and commendable guy, and I know for a fact he'd have no problem defending and representing our state's decision, and I trust him with that responsibility more than anyone besides myself.


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

2fingers said:


> One small thing i dont agree with is not being able to get the fat arrows to fly. My wife shoots 27" draw and 45lbs and 2613 fly great they do have 400 grain points cut at 29". Almost any heavy arrow can work with more point weight.


Yep...and let her, or ME with a heavier stiff shaft make even a slight mistake or shoot a soft or strong shot...and it is a BIG MISS too...normally right out the bottom! That much "Pile" and a slight mistake results again in a HUGE miss.

Flying great and being forgiving are two different animals, and getting both at a light poundage and short drawlength is a monumental task that FEW shooters can accomplish with any sort of consistency.

Other than the upper echelon shooters of which I can only think of about two or three that are "short drawlength" and light poundage that are in or even close to the winner's circle on a routine basis....

field14


----------



## AlChick (Mar 5, 2003)

voxito said:


> I thank you for being the only person to write a post that I've read with a logical view of the situation. True, this poll may _possibly_ be an accurate sample, but the twenty three people that have voted so far cannot be considered more accurate than a total poll of the entire NFAA membership.
> 
> I for one have talked to about half of the participating NFAA members of Mississippi, so far, two want inside out(three including me), 1 wants 23, and one wants 26. The one wanting 26 is our state rep. The three main FITA shooters want the inside out, and a mainly 3d shooter wants the 23, and our state rep likes the 26 limit. Our state rep is a stand up and commendable guy, and I know for a fact he'd have no problem defending and representing our state's decision, and I trust him with that responsibility more than anyone besides myself.


That's an interesting breakdown. Your post brings up a fascinating (at least to me) situation. If you are correct, your state director's 1 vote speaks for about 10 people. On the other hand, our Wisconsin director, when he votes, represents a much larger constituency. Would that give your vote more weight than mine? (Understand I am not challenging you, I am questioning the system.)


----------



## 2fingers (Feb 2, 2006)

voxito said:


> I thank you for being the only person to write a post that I've read with a logical view of the situation. True, this poll may _possibly_ be an accurate sample, but the twenty three people that have voted so far cannot be considered more accurate than a total poll of the entire NFAA membership.
> 
> I for one have talked to about half of the participating NFAA members of Mississippi, so far, two want inside out(three including me), 1 wants 23, and one wants 26. The one wanting 26 is our state rep. The three main FITA shooters want the inside out, and a mainly 3d shooter wants the 23, and our state rep likes the 26 limit. Our state rep is a stand up and commendable guy, and I know for a fact he'd have no problem defending and representing our state's decision, and I trust him with that responsibility more than anyone besides myself.


The only problem with the nfaa members voteing on an arrow size is we do not have ALL the information. What we want and whats best for the nfaa might be 2 different things. The sponcers have pull as well as the board.


----------



## AlChick (Mar 5, 2003)

*I don't agree*



2fingers said:


> The only problem with the nfaa members voteing on an arrow size is we do not have ALL the information. What we want and whats best for the nfaa might be 2 different things. The sponcers have pull as well as the board.


I can't agree with this statement. We are the NFAA and what is best for us is best for the NFAA. Sponsors' needs might be considered as a courtesy, but there is no one more qualified to determine the terms of our competition than we, the members, are. That actually brings us full circle to the original purpose of the discussion. If there are Directors or Councilmen who think that they run the show and that their opinion is the only one that counts then they are wrong and they should be voted out of office. If we have a President or Council that thinks that what the manufacturers want is more important than the membership's opinion then they are wrong and should be voted out of office. I am in favor of establishing a partnership with our manufacturers and sponsors, but when it comes to our competition rules, the membership needs to be the senior partner. 

My position was, and still remains, that it is our job, as members, to communicate our wishes to the directors and then hold the Board of Directors, the Council, and the President accountable for how they represent us with regard to the organization. If we fail in this responsibility, then we deserve to have the "Good Old Boys" running the show.


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

AlChick said:


> I can't agree with this statement. We are the NFAA and what is best for us is best for the NFAA. Sponsors' needs might be considered as a courtesy, but there is no one more qualified to determine the terms of our competition than we, the members, are. That actually brings us full circle to the original purpose of the discussion. If there are Directors or Councilmen who think that they run the show and that their opinion is the only one that counts then they are wrong and they should be voted out of office. If we have a President or Council that thinks that what the manufacturers want is more important than the membership's opinion then they are wrong and should be voted out of office. I am in favor of establishing a partnership with our manufacturers and sponsors, but when it comes to our competition rules, the membership needs to be the senior partner.
> 
> My position was, and still remains, that it is our job, as members, to communicate our wishes to the directors and then hold the Board of Directors, the Council, and the President accountable for how they represent us with regard to the organization. If we fail in this responsibility, then we deserve to have the "Good Old Boys" running the show.


I agree...but one result of me pushing this issue time and again is an accusation of "pursuing a personal agenda"that does "not having the "good of the organization, or archery in general" in mind."

However, let's just wait and see in the next issue of Archery magazine if our "leaders" do indeed give DETAILS concerning the "issues" surrounding that vote being rescinded...and WHAT EXACTLY is being done to either rectify the situation or as importantly...make a WISE decision, and WHO and HOW that decision is going to be made. Until we hear it from "the boss", we can only come up with the alternatives as WE, the members, who don't have ALL THE TRUTH, see it.

We have given "them" potential questions, we have given them a broad-based series of polls that clearly demonstrate what is on OUR minds as members and tournament participants...The ONLY shoot thus far that is open to ONLY NFAA members...the Lousville tournament didn't ask any questions of those attendees....

the WAF shoots, being WIDE OPEN to ANYONE...means that these polls here on AT SHOULD BE INCLUDED in the decision-making process in some manner!! So, I guess some people's thinking that ONLY NFAA members should "vote" isn't quite right...since the WAF runs a couple of WIDE OPEN SHOOTS...and the WAF is trying to coordinate/align with NFAA....so...these AT POLLS are positively, and unmistakedly COUNTABLE as GOOD DATA, don't cha all think?

WAF participants should also have a say in this shaft size limit...but egads...that would mean either Hartford this month...OR waiting ANOTHER YEAR...AFTER the next NFAA meeting at Vegas...to get a polling of VEGAS participants...don't quite think we want to look 24 to 30 months down the road living with this?

field14 :tongue::wink:


----------



## voxito (Apr 16, 2006)

AlChick said:


> That's an interesting breakdown. Your post brings up a fascinating (at least to me) situation. If you are correct, your state director's 1 vote speaks for about 10 people. On the other hand, our Wisconsin director, when he votes, represents a much larger constituency. Would that give your vote more weight than mine? (Understand I am not challenging you, I am questioning the system.)


Well the way I see it and the way I put it in the other thread was a ditch of a republic system for this issue. Like you said, it makes no sense for my vote to count as much as 30 in a state with 300 members. That's not the way I see this issue being resolved. 

What I thought up was that the representative could tally the votes for each option from the state they represent, and then take the totals to the national convention of reps where this would be decided. The votes for each option would be totaled from all states and that would show a clear winner.

It's like my state: 5 for 26, 2 for I/O, 11 for 23 (examples)
and your state : 91 for 26, 13 for I/O, and 200 for 23 (examples)

so thats 

96 for 26
15 for I/O
211 for 23

this will be done with all votes of every state in the US

the people of the NFAA have decided, 23 is the clear winner with 211 votes


----------



## Tecumseh (Jan 14, 2007)

...limiting arrow sizes limit innovation.


----------



## AlChick (Mar 5, 2003)

*Democracy is too close to anarchy.*

True democracies rarely work out well. Human nature being what it is, voter fraud and administrative misconduct often dominate the discussion and the issue gets lost. I trust my Director to represent my state properly but I verify that he is doing so by checking with him when he votes. 

I admit that I was curious about the schema of one state = one director regardless of how many members are in a state, but making the system more complicated won't make us any happier or better informed.


----------



## AlChick (Mar 5, 2003)

Tecumseh said:


> ...limiting arrow sizes limit innovation.


That may be true, and "racing improves the breed" but fair competition may require some limitations that insure competitive equality.


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

AlChick said:


> That may be true, and "racing improves the breed" but fair competition may require some limitations that insure competitive equality.


"Arrow size limits will limit innovation? What is so "innovative" about a super fat shaft that allows you to miss the middle by 1 1/2 inch or more and still get the X? That is NOT innovation...that is lunacy, IMHO. Where is the prowess in that? It is so simple a cave man can do it; where is the challenge...? Oh, that's right BUY A SCORE, BUY your X's....no time to WORK for them....gotta catch up and be on top in a month or two....by BUYING it.

And maintain the integrity of the game!

Notice that after "Big Bertha" in golf, the driver club heads kept getting bigger and bigger and bigger....just like archery, it was getting so a "shooter" could MISS the sweet spot...and STILL hit it straight (bullseye)...so even GOLF put a LIMIT on the SIZE and WEIGHT of that clubhead!

How "competitive" is it to have an arrow fat enough that if you hit even the outside of the line on the bullseye...you still get the "10" or the X? It is right now a contest of who can "control" the FATTEST SHAFT and COMPETITIVE SPIRIT and PROWESS have taken a back seat to the arms race. INTEGRITY of the game is on back burner.

Buying scores has taken the front seat and priority over working for them and SHOOTING THEM. An out of control situation.

field14:tongue::wink:


----------



## voxito (Apr 16, 2006)

field14 said:


> "Arrow size limits will limit innovation? What is so "innovative" about a super fat shaft that allows you to miss the middle by 1 1/2 inch or more and still get the X? That is NOT innovation...that is lunacy, IMHO. Where is the prowess in that? It is so simple a cave man can do it; where is the challenge...? Oh, that's right BUY A SCORE, BUY your X's....no time to WORK for them....gotta catch up and be on top in a month or two....by BUYING it.
> 
> And maintain the integrity of the game!
> 
> ...



By the looks of that post if I didn't know any better I'd think you were pushing inside out scoring:wink:

You want prowess, make sure your arrow is inside the x and not touching the line


----------



## Blue X (Dec 22, 2007)

*Communist National Field Archery Association.*

I would rather pay extra for a range fee than be told what arrow is legal and what is not. 
Freestyle is freestyle if you can carry it you should be able to shoot it. Thats the purpose of freestyle to overcome human flaws through the use of innovative products and new tecniques that is constantly evolving.

As far as range target butts I couldn't care less. It is not my responsibility to make sure you come out. It is yours if you set the range fee to low How is that my fault. When I make a estimate for my customers I calculate cost to cover myself or I lose money. If you don't do that it's not my fault.

Perhaps someone should call nascar and get them to start running snow tires or mud grips before someone sets a new record. 

Maybe the olympic commity could replace water with molasses in the olympic pool. This way if someone hits thier head on the wall they wont be going fast enough to get hurt.

Maybe they will pass a rule where everybody should wear steel toe shoes in case someone drops a heavy arrow on thier toe. There are thousands of rules to follow now. Why make more. 

It sounds to me that your suggesting we should all shoot recurves so we would score less. Is this why I have a hobby in the first place so I can make it harder than work? No it is for stress relief. Lets make it harder and you wont have enough archers to pay the light bill, and then your target butt problem will fix it's self.

Blue X


----------



## voxito (Apr 16, 2006)

I'm afraid you're not looking at this logically. You sound like the shop owner where an indoor league is held. How much are you going to charge the guy when he shoots an arrow the size of a baseball bat into target? Once he's done, so is that target after 60 shots.

In nascar, do want it to be legal to have nitrous injection? That's a fair limit when nobody can have it. 

If there was molasses in the pool everybody would hit their head on the wall, they couldn't see when to flip over and swim back:wink:

I actually like shooting in my house shoes, I just wish they were dew-proof so I could wear them at outdoor shoots. If they make us wear steel toe boots I quit.

Sure, I would like it if everybody shot recurves with me, but I couldn't ask somebody to stop shooting a compound if that's what they like, and I don't expect anybody to ask me to stop shooting recurves.


----------



## AlChick (Mar 5, 2003)

Blue X said:


> I would rather pay extra for a range fee than be told what arrow is legal and what is not.
> Freestyle is freestyle if you can carry it you should be able to shoot it. Thats the purpose of freestyle to overcome human flaws through the use of innovative products and new tecniques that is constantly evolving.
> 
> As far as range target butts I couldn't care less. It is not my responsibility to make sure you come out. It is yours if you set the range fee to low How is that my fault. When I make a estimate for my customers I calculate cost to cover myself or I lose money. If you don't do that it's not my fault.
> ...


Interesting that you mention the Olympics. Olympic archery has an arrow size restriction. 

As for "if you can carry it you should be able to shoot it"; why not crossbows? For that matter, why not a "stabilizer" that projects downward so you can rest the bow on the floor for greater stability? What about a rearward projecting support that rests against the rib cage just below the arm pit? The idea is to maintain the spirit of the game while observing rules that place a premium on individual performance and personal excellence.


----------



## Blue X (Dec 22, 2007)

AlChick said:


> Interesting that you mention the Olympics. Olympic archery has an arrow size restriction.
> 
> As for "if you can carry it you should be able to shoot it"; why not crossbows? For that matter, why not a "stabilizer" that projects downward so you can rest the bow on the floor for greater stability? What about a rearward projecting support that rests against the rib cage just below the arm pit? The idea is to maintain the spirit of the game while observing rules that place a premium on individual performance and personal excellence.


In the free style class, it looks to me like you could toe the line with anything propelled from a stringed bow, where all the propulsion comes from the limbs only. The projectile could be anything that could travel the distance with out putting anybody else in danger. Nomatter what you choose to bring to the line hence the word "FREE" in freestyle. 
If you set limits for the freestyle class it would nolonger be free. Now it would be Un-freestyle or limited or communist-style. Free means free. 

I went to field 14 shoot last year and loved it. I paid $75 and drove 12 hours it was well worth the trip. I think everybody should make plans to shoot in Peoria next year. Awsome is a big understatment for the experiance. Now they know the target damage why not up the price to cover cost. I would gladly pay more, I dont want Kelly Presley to go in the hole.

Dont take the "FREE out of freestyle. Or call it used to be free but is now limited; style.
Blue X


----------



## AlChick (Mar 5, 2003)

Blue X said:


> In the free style class, it looks to me like you could toe the line with anything propelled from a stringed bow, where all the propulsion comes from the limbs only. The projectile could be anything that could travel the distance with out putting anybody else in danger.
> Blue X


But since it's *free*style why limit yourself to a string bow? Why must my projectile be propelled by a limb? Why not compressed air. And if the projectile can be "anything that can travel the distance" I'd like to shoot paintballs. If the spatter touches the X ring I get an X. Any way you look at it, at some point you have to constrain the parameters of the sport or it ceases to be that sport.

By the way, I take it by your silence on the subject that you are OK with floor standing stabilizers and body mounted bow supports in your *free*style event?


----------



## voxito (Apr 16, 2006)

Blue X said:


> In the free style class, it looks to me like you could toe the line with anything propelled from a stringed bow, where all the propulsion comes from the limbs only. The projectile could be anything that could travel the distance with out putting anybody else in danger. Nomatter what you choose to bring to the line hence the word "FREE" in freestyle.
> If you set limits for the freestyle class it would nolonger be free. Now it would be Un-freestyle or limited or communist-style. Free means free.
> 
> I went to field 14 shoot last year and loved it. I paid $75 and drove 12 hours it was well worth the trip. I think everybody should make plans to shoot in Peoria next year. Awsome is a big understatment for the experiance. Now they know the target damage why not up the price to cover cost. I would gladly pay more, I dont want Kelly Presley to go in the hole.
> ...



are you serious?

At the field shoot, what were the target butts made of? If they were like all I've seen, they were compressed cardboard. At the bird target, what happens when you are in the forth group and everybody that shot your 4 spots shot them with 1" shafts? 

You pass through and lose all your arrows. I hope you feel "free" when you're behind the target looking for your arrows with no fletching on them, all because you think free style literally means free style. *Be reasonable and think logically.*


----------



## AlChick (Mar 5, 2003)

*Bye*

This thread has transitioned from the ridiculous to the sublime. G'night all!


----------



## txarcher1 (Aug 5, 2003)

*Arrow Sizes*

I have read every post up here and all i think about is, Who thought up 
changing? What has worked just fine for the past 10 years could still be going strong today. WHO WAS THE IDIOT THAT THOUGHT BIGGER IS BETTER!. You guys are aruguing a point that should have never been brought up. Just because a Shaft Manufacturer is losing a hold on the arrow kingdom, he has to make a change? WHATEVER! Have the scores improved? I looked at all the people shooting those NEW 27's, and I didn't see anymore people in the shootoff than in the past. Did Terry Ragsdale set any records shooting 26's and 27's? - NO. matter of fact, it was a round wheel bow with a springy rest and probably a size 23 arrow. 
I shot with FRANK PEARSON AT THE PRO-AM some 2 years ago and he brought out these stupid sized arrows that looked more like spears than arrows. You know what, he didn't shoot any better with those logs than with than what he was shooting the Tournament with. He actually shot them worse. It was flat stupid.(They would have made better tomato stakes). Everybody thought it was very funny "look at the size of the arrows he is shooting" I tell you what, I didn't think it was funny, I paid good money to shoot with a pro and he showed up with tree trunks for a joke. Not very funny! Especially at my expense. I almost asked for my money back. :zip: He could'nt get those shafts to tune either.( And he is supposed to be an EXPERT). Well where I come from. A *EX* is a -was been -and a *Spert* is a drip under pressure. What an idiot. I don't have someone to make those special points for me either. How would you like to shoot with Cousins and he shows up with a slingshot for a joke. 
Who was that said "YOU CAN SHOOT A 1.5" arrow and still get an "X" is right. "but its not". They tried to make golf balls bigger, but they didn't make the holes bigger. They stopped making them. They did put a limit on club head size and everything still works just fine. They put restrictor plates on NASCAR and the cars are actually going faster. What if they made tennis balls the size of basketballs and basketballs the size of medicine balls? What then? You make those courts the size of shopping malls? Where does it stop. 
As far as the inside out thing, In every other sport, if the ball touches the line it's in. There is no inside out in vollyball. it hits the line, it's in. if I hit the X, no matter where, in the center or just touching the outside of the line, I want to be scored an x. If you made it ISO scoring you would lose a lot of shooters. 
I think all of this makes for good conversation, but for what. Who said we need a bigger shaft. That is not in my humble opinion but that ---*IS MY OPINION*!


----------



## AlChick (Mar 5, 2003)

txarcher1 said:


> I have read every post up here and all i think about is, Who thought up
> changing? What has worked just fine for the past 10 years could still be going strong today. WHO WAS THE IDIOT THAT THOUGHT BIGGER IS BETTER!. You guys are aruguing a point that should have never been brought up. Just because a Shaft Manufacturer is losing a hold on the arrow kingdom, he has to make a change? WHATEVER! Have the scores improved? I looked at all the people shooting those NEW 27's, and I didn't see anymore people in the shootoff than in the past. Did Terry Ragsdale set any records shooting 26's and 27's? - NO. matter of fact, it was a round wheel bow with a springy rest and probably a size 23 arrow.
> I shot with FRANK PEARSON AT THE PRO-AM some 2 years ago and he brought out these stupid sized arrows that looked more like spears than arrows. You know what, he didn't shoot any better with those logs than with than what he was shooting the Tournament with. He actually shot them worse. It was flat stupid.(They would have made better tomato stakes). Everybody thought it was very funny "look at the size of the arrows he is shooting" I tell you what, I didn't think it was funny, I paid good money to shoot with a pro and he showed up with tree trunks for a joke. Not very funny! Especially at my expense. I almost asked for my money back. :zip: He could'nt get those shafts to tune either.( And he is supposed to be an EXPERT). Well where I come from. A *EX* is a -was been -and a *Spert* is a drip under pressure. What an idiot. I don't have someone to make those special points for me either. How would you like to shoot with Cousins and he shows up with a slingshot for a joke.
> Who was that said "YOU CAN SHOOT A 1.5" arrow and still get an "X" is right. "but its not". They tried to make golf balls bigger, but they didn't make the holes bigger. They stopped making them. They did put a limit on club head size and everything still works just fine. They put restrictor plates on NASCAR and the cars are actually going faster. What if they made tennis balls the size of basketballs and basketballs the size of medicine balls? What then? You make those courts the size of shopping malls? Where does it stop.
> ...


Well ranted Tex, but the Genie is out of the box and what some of us want to do is put him back before he causes more mischief.


----------



## voxito (Apr 16, 2006)

txarcher1 said:


> I have read every post up here and all i think about is, Who thought up
> changing? What has worked just fine for the past 10 years could still be going strong today. WHO WAS THE IDIOT THAT THOUGHT BIGGER IS BETTER!. You guys are aruguing a point that should have never been brought up. Just because a Shaft Manufacturer is losing a hold on the arrow kingdom, he has to make a change?
> 
> I think all of this makes for good conversation, but for what. Who said we need a bigger shaft. That is not in my humble opinion but that ---*IS MY OPINION*!


This is why we are talking about changing: If no limits on arrow sizes are set they will snowball and you will see people shooting arrows bigger than you ever imagined, just so they can break more lines. 

It's not that anybody said we _*need*_ a bigger shaft, it's just that many people are leaning towards acquiring the biggest shafts on the market so they will win more easily. 

As soon as an arrow manufacturere comes out with an arrow that is a 5416 you'll be wishing the NFAA limited it to a 2315 if no limits are set now. Every shot they shoot will be an x, *talking about a joke competition*, that guy will win everytime. 

That is why limits must be set, the future of archery as a fair competitive sport depends on it.


----------



## txarcher1 (Aug 5, 2003)

*Arrows*

I know people that would just rather buy there way to the top. If the trend continues,its gonna happen. I would prefer for all of us to by Genisis Bows and shoot Goldtip Scout arrows than just waive $ and get the gold. Its not the end that counts, but the journey. I would much rather win an award than buy it. If I want a Silver Bowl, I could just go to e-bay and by it. Tex


----------

