# Italian Men's Team Draw Weights



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

Does anyone happen to know what the draw weights were for the three Italians in Paris last weekend attempting to qualify their team for the Olympics?


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

I’m sure Vittorio will be along shortly...😄


----------



## Ray.L (Apr 29, 2021)

Is Mauro back close to 70 lbs? His sight pin position looks like a compound archer's, not to mention how rock solid his shooting looks despite the high draw weight.


----------



## UK_Stretch (Mar 22, 2006)

Personally my observations have always been that Nespoli shakes a lot compared to his peers. So I’d be intrigued to know if it is consistent across qualifying rounds and nock out stages. There was an interview with him recently (WA YouTube?) that confirmed he was way up in the high 60# area. He said (don’t remember the exact wording) that it cleaned up his bad release 

No criticism intended. I guess if it gets him better results than he would otherwise get he is the only person who can make that call.

Stretch


----------



## fango0000 (Mar 16, 2011)

My joints/tendons/ligaments hurt thinking about shooting 300-500 arrows a day worth of repetitive motion at 60+lbs. I feel like Nespoli is unnecessarily putting premature wear on his body by shooting such a high poundage with the volume associated of professional archers.


----------



## cjdewese (Feb 12, 2021)

Could probably do finger pull ups all day long!


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

Stash said:


> I’m sure Vittorio will be along shortly...😄


Yes! His will be the Final Word, for sure


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

Nespoli does look like he has a less-than-stellar-release (takes one to know one!). So, his sledge-hammer solution makes perfect sense to me. I'm sure he's made the conclusion that while high draw weight might take a couple of years off the end of his international career, a lower draw weight (with the same bad/cludgy release) would have been a deal breaker at the front end of his career.

Just as a non-judgmental observation, he looked like he'd put on 15 pasta pounds. In the past he's always looked so taut and fit/strong. But last weekend he looked much less physically fit. I wonder if he's been battling an injury or illness (or recently married a nice Italian girl who can COOK!).


----------



## Ray.L (Apr 29, 2021)

Packing on the lockdown weight like the rest of us.


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

lksseven said:


> Yes! His will be the Final Word, for sure


Mauro is around 60#, Paoli and Musolesi > 50#


----------



## Viper1 (Aug 21, 2003)

Larry - 

Just to put things into perspective, they are still getting their butts kicked by Korean women shooting 10# - 20# lighter. 
Go figure. 

Viper1 out.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

Viper1 said:


> Larry -
> 
> Just to put things into perspective, they are still getting their butts kicked by Korean women shooting 10# - 20# lighter.
> Go figure.
> ...


No kidding! The Italian men and virtually everyone else on the planet, too. I watch the Korean women release the string with what looks like the lightness of a butterfly's wing, and can hardly believe what my eyes just saw.


----------



## TER (Jul 5, 2003)

Not true. Nespoli is scoring in the high 680's. Nobody in the world is kicking his ass.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Viper1 said:


> Larry -
> 
> Just to put things into perspective, they are still getting their butts kicked by Korean women shooting 10# - 20# lighter.
> Go figure.
> ...


If only that were true.

The Korean women are truly amazing and IMO the best archers on the planet.

But day in and day out, they aren't going to beat one of the world's top men at 70 meters in variable wind conditions. Horsepower makes a difference when the wind starts to blow.


----------



## Viper1 (Aug 21, 2003)

John -

I'm not sure if that's true 100% of the time either. 
But admittedly, I don't follow "elite" shooters like you do, as it won't do anything for my shooting.

The problem with discussing it in this arena is that it will invariable\y lead to a host of uninformed shooters using more weight than they can handle in attempts to "buck the wind". Unfortunately, we see the follow the leader thing all the time, and the damage it can can do. 

Viper1 out.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

If a grown-*** man can handle the weight, it's an advantage for him. It's up to that grown *** man to determine whether he can in fact, handle the weight. 

I came off 65# longbows to shoot Olympic recurve. My first Olympic recurve was 56 lbs. on the fingers. I could shoot it for hours. 

I understand your concern, but stupid is as stupid does. Let the archers figure it out. I'm not their parent or babysitter.


----------



## Viper1 (Aug 21, 2003)

John -

Yeah, you're right, ya can't fix stupid, but we don't have to help it along either.

Did you also use 56# otf in Athens???
And did your DL change when going from a LB to an OR, if so, by how much?

We have similar histories, but the fact is what you "did" or what I "did" is irrelevant.
"We" have an obligation to the hobby.

And no, I don't do "day-care" either, but I will tell people something ONCE, and then it's up to them.

edit: and John, just for the record, I've ALWAYS told people to use the most draw weight they can handle. The problem becomes knowing what that weight is. Which side do you think most people err on???

Viper1 out.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

My obligation ended about three years ago, since you asked.

Stupid is as stupid does.

It's not my job to protect hyper-privileged people from themselves.


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

Topic about poundage comes out continuously in the years. In these days, too many don't realize that shooting 90 mt with 1916 XX75 arrows was not for weak people in the 70's already. Giancarlo Ferrari in 1976 Olympic Games was at 53-56# . My son in Atlanta was at 53#, but Magnus Petterson was at 56# already. So, 60# should be "normal" today for man. And Katuna was shooting >50# in London, if I well remember. Today average at top level should be around 43# for women and 52# for men.


----------



## Viper1 (Aug 21, 2003)

John -

Unfortunately, as usual, we end up being in agreement. That's why I said I'll tell them something "once". If some one doesn't want to listen, I stop wasting their time and mine.

Vittorio -

And that's the problem. I couldn't care less what "top level shooters" are using, I'm more concerned with the rest of us who basically don't shoot for a living trying to copy them. I've seen that way too many times, typically with less than stellar results.

You could make the same argument for what "top level" power lifters are lifting and everyone else trying to do, or should be doing, the same. Yeah, John's right.

Viper1 out.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Vittorio said:


> Topic about poundage comes out continuously in the years. In these days, too many don't realize that shooting 90 mt with 1916 XX75 arrows was not for weak people in the 70's already. Giancarlo Ferrari in 1976 Olympic Games was at 53-56# . My son in Atlanta was at 53#, but Magnus Petterson was at 56# already. So, 60# should be "normal" today for man. And Katuna was shooting >50# in London, if I well remember. Today average at top level should be around 43# for women and 52# for men.


I would agree with this.

For an athletic male archer who intends to be competitive in the senior ranks at 70 meters, working their way up to 50# is in all honesty one of the simpler things to do in our sport. I know of at least one well known archer here in the US who, based on their indoor scores, undoubtedly would have made more international teams had they been able to shoot more weight. But 43# simply cannot compete day in and day out against 48-50# when the wind starts to blow.

One of my top female students in the past, despite being extremely light framed, managed to work her way up to 42# and shot all her best 70m scores at that weight. If you stood next to her, you'd probably wonder how she could handle 32#. She never got injured because we worked up very gradually.

The real problem IMO isn't working up to the weight. Where amateurs get into trouble is putting the bow down for a few weeks or months, and then thinking they can go straight out and train for a tournament at that same weight. 

I started at 56# and dropped to 52# when I began competing in 2004. To get my A/C/E 400's with 125 grain tungsten points to tune, I had to trim a half inch off the back, use wraps, plastic vanes and pin nocks and even then they were too weak. So I shot the outdoor season at 49# that year. These days, I'm all the way down to 44# because I want to enjoy shooting whenever I feel like it and that might be 30 arrows every two weeks. LOL


----------



## Viper1 (Aug 21, 2003)

John - 

I can't agree with that, based on my experience. Maybe a healthy athletic 20 or 30 year old might, but a lot of weekend warriors fail in one or more of those areas (20/30 years old, healthy or "athletic"). And even in the case were those criteria are met, more often than not, it becomes a too much too soon thing, and form goes by the wayside because of it being "one of the simpler things to do". Yeah, it's the ya can't fix stupid thing. And it's not just putting the bow down for a few weeks or months. A lot of us can't just go out into our back yards and shoot whenever we please. For a lot of us, shooting a couple/three times a week at a local club or public range is all that's available and maybe even a luxury.

You keep referring to "when the wind starts to blow" thing, well, what about when it's calm or just calmer? Vitterio said that elite women were using 43#, and they seem to be doing OK. At my level, and the level of the people I train, "the wind" has a greater effect on the shooter, than on the arrow. The latter can be predicted, the former, not so much. Just real world stuff.

I'm be willing to bet that most people reading this would do much better understanding that once "strength" becomes a factor, you've already lost. As I said above, shoot the most you can handle, but you'd better understand what that is. 

And no, it's not limited to archery.

Viper1 out.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

"For an athletic male archer who intends to be competitive in the senior ranks at 70 meters" is what I said. That's pretty clear who it's intended for. Not weekend warriors. Not guys who should be shooting in the masters ranks, cadets, etc. 

The amount of weight one shoots doesn't rely on how many arrows one can get in. Strength training for archery can be done for free in the comfort of one's living room. If a person that meets the description above wants to shoot 50# there is no reason they can't. If I can get a 17 year old 98 lb. girl to comfortably handle 42#, it's laughable that 50# is too much for a grown man.


----------



## Draven Olary (Jun 12, 2016)

Viper1 said:


> I'm be willing to bet that most people reading this would do much better understanding that once "strength" becomes a factor, you've already lost. As I said above, shoot the most you can handle, but you'd better understand what that is.
> 
> And no, it's not limited to archery.
> 
> Viper1 out.


I will agree and disagree in same time. Strength training brings confidence, confidence improves execution. Mental part of the strength training is dismissed by many and you can't find how much is "too much" without actually building up to find your "comfort level" aka the draw weight that makes you think "I am confident that using this dw I can strive in any conditions". Otherwise, what you said "shoot the most you can handle" it is nothing but "shoot the draw weight I say to you".


And yes, the same happens in other sports too.


----------



## Viper1 (Aug 21, 2003)

John - 

And there are kids doing gymnastic tricks that were thought impossible 30 or 40 years ago by people that age. And while your example of a 98# 17 year old girl handling a 42# (I assume otf) is impressive, take 10 random 98#, 17 year old girls and I doubt few if any would be able to do the same thing. It could be genetics, discipline or desire, but it's not going to be the norm. Finding some one with the genetics, discipline and desire in one package is a feat in itself. 

Maybe we have different definitions of "competitive", but no one I've trained is planning on the 2025 Olympics, but most do want to shoot the best they can. Happily, most are older adults who realize it's not a strength game. For us amateurs, it really can't be. 

For the record, a number of years ago, I was one of those guys using a 60+# hunting bow and out shooting those "target guys" with their little 35#'ers. I kinda know both sides of the game.

For good or bad, I live in the real world, where archery is a hobby and not a calling or means to an end. 

Draven -

It's also been my experience that the instructor or "coach" usually does know the draw weight a shooter can handle better than the shooter. At least below the elite levels. Sometimes we have to push, and sometimes, back off.

Viper1 out.


----------



## Draven Olary (Jun 12, 2016)

Viper, I would like to hear how Nespoli went above #60 if we are talking about Coach knowing what is better for athlete - because I doubt he was elite when he was drawing #45.
I agree on one single point with you: when the Coach is very close to his student, they can work until the shooter gets to that draw weight where the archer gets that "confidence level" reached and backed up by results.
Let's imagine the trend now: "#45 is enough". What if in reality for X it is not enough? How a trendy Coach can push a shooter to get his level of excellency achieved when in his mind "#45 is enough" is carved in?


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

Viper1 said:


> John -
> 
> Unfortunately, as usual, we end up being in agreement. That's why I said I'll tell them something "once". If some one doesn't want to listen, I stop wasting their time and mine.
> 
> ...


OK, I did not mention that I was shooting 44# and 1916XX75 at the end of the 70's , as without that level, it was difficult to compete at 90 mt. It means that average amateur had to face much higher poundages in those years than now. I was working, having a family already and shooting 3 times a week.


----------



## Viper1 (Aug 21, 2003)

Vittori - 

And before the lockdown, I was shooting 44# with 1914s, and they were fine at 70M. Happily, didn't have to worry about 90M. Both scenarios are irrelevant. The point is what "elite", "competitive" archers are doing compared to the rest of us amateurs .

Draven -

Frankly, how Nespoli got over 60# doesn't interest me in the least. 45# is pretty do-able for John's healthy adult male case. Over 50#, much less over 60# ain't gonna happen with an OR, unless it's either your job, or you're using recreational pharmaceuticals. 

The fact is 30# bows with the right arrows will do well at 70M, if conditions aren't terrible. AND,we're not talking about guys looking for Olympic medals or world titles, just amateurs with their hobby.

Viper1 out.


----------



## Draven Olary (Jun 12, 2016)

Viper, archery is a "one sequence" activity. I see the draw weight as a result of "how to get there" and "personal skill improvement". First is mostly Coach's duty, the second is Archer's choice as result of self-assessment. There is the Theory and the Reality - yes, Reality says #30 brings you at 70, but is like hunting with the law's minimum: you can kill if all the conditions are perfect. I agree that #5 difference between #45 to #50 is marginal at long distance shooting, but this is falling on the "personal skill improvement" which is Archer's decision. The Coach can just stay back and tell him "I told you so" when the archer fails or helps him to get through and achieve what the Archer wants. Archery is 90% mental but is 100% feel at full draw.


----------



## TER (Jul 5, 2003)

Viper 1,

Vittorio simply answered the question of what draw weight are the Italian National Team men are shooting. Then he talked about how high draw weights have always been used by world class men. He is not arguing your recreational archers should be shooting 60lbs. You are trying to argue with Vittorio about something he never said. The point is that this thread is about what elite Italian men are doing, not recreational archers.


----------



## Viper1 (Aug 21, 2003)

Draven --

Sure, archery is 90% mental and 10% feel at full draw, the same way OR is 90% form and 10% aiming, but without either one of those 10%s, the rest isn't going to get the arrow where it needs to be. You do understand that coaching above the entry level, is seeing what the shooter can't. 

When I was bow hunting, the legal weight for "big game" was 45#. In North America, there's little a 60# bow would do that a decent 45# couldn't. Like I said, I was on the high end of that debate. Sure there may have been a time in the distant past that you needed a 120# to kill a saber-tooth bunny, but that's not were we are now. And lets be real, most "trad" bow hunters are way over bowed.

TER -

That may be true, but the implication that you have to be at a certain weight to be competitive can and will be read the wrong way by some here. John is correct that we shouldn't be doing day-care for adults, but we do have to remember who our audience is. Most will know better, some won't. 

People typically emulate, or try to emulate their heros. Most marketing is based on that fact. I agree with John that you can successfully increase draw weight gradually, up to a point. Go too fast, or pass that point, and you get into trouble. So, I'm just presenting the counter point, which is what any elite athlete is doing, or using, has little or no bearing on the rest of us. Now, excuse me, I have to fill up my wife's Toyota with 112 octane (like the "Pros" use) to get the most out of her 4 cylinder.

Viper1 out.


----------



## Draven Olary (Jun 12, 2016)

Viper, I understand very well the roll of the Coach, and I've seen coaches who can't see what their student is saying because they can't go past their own ideas on how things should be done. I don't want to get into that argument regarding the trad hunters because we don't talk about formal archery there - we are on the homemade archery and there is just a "if it worked for him it works for me too" lineage. If uncle Joe at 45yo was hunting with a #60 bow the nephew Phill at 14 yo will get him as role model and will get the #60 bow and go hunt.
I would try to move this debate on the balance level: there is a relation between the physical weight of the bow and the draw weight on fingers at full draw - when the body should be in balance without extra subtle work of the brain in the background. I think I've read something about a good ratio around 6 to 1 - aka if your bow weights 7pounds your draw weight that will balance yourself at full draw without extra work will be around #42. If you have a solid platform at full draw, your arrow will go where you want. A solid and balanced platform is what makes the sway natural and effortless. And here is where the particularity of each archer comes into place imo. The draw weight can't be quantified by "because I say so" but because an archer with enough shooting experience will know intuitively what he needs - call it sixth sense - to achieve his goal: to send the arrow "there". It may look like a "chicken and egg" debate, but in the end, the physical parameters of the archer and his choice of rig will dictate the "perfect" draw weight, even if in the beginning I agree that you learn easier when you draw a weight you are not fighting with at full draw.


----------



## Viper1 (Aug 21, 2003)

D - 

Nice deflection.
1. Experienced archers aren't what I'm concerned about. 
They either actually know what they are doing or think they do. In either case, we're not going to change their minds. 
2. Sure, balance is nice, but since the muscles used for holding a bow and drawing one aren't really related, it safe to assume there's a ratio for each shooter, but shoot A's ratio probably wouldn't be the same as shooter B's. 

So, the question then becomes, at what point does the archer (you can substitute any other activity in here) actually know what he's doing and when does he just think he knows. 

As for weight, a good coach or instructor will pick up on, in addition to technical points: when a shooter says he's fine but is actually breaking down and less likely, but possible, when the shooter complains of fatigue, but the instructor sees that he can and should be pushed. In a lot of cases, yeah, the weight or number of shots is because "I said so". 

"Coaches" aren't magicians, and some are certainly better than others, and some just work better with some people, but again, his job is to see the the athlete can't. 

Viper1 out.


----------



## Draven Olary (Jun 12, 2016)

Short answer: after 3-4 years of shooting under formal supervision.

PS

For the "when does he just think he knows" is a tricky answer. He thinks he knows until the first fail at a tournament - if the tournament is made in a way that all participants will get a prize, he will think he knows in 6 months to one year.

And I agree that what is good for A is not necessary good for B. I think elite archers are the ones who put the work in it and find their needs fulfilled to succeed - the ones that are not just copycats of previous champs.


----------



## Viper1 (Aug 21, 2003)

D - 

Good luck with that 

Viper1 out.


----------



## Draven Olary (Jun 12, 2016)

With which part? I never said at what age you need just 3-4 years and in which type of archery. I don't count kids and I don't count "hunting".
Based on latest Lancaster winner for barebow, you need just 2 years to win it 
Ps But we are off-topic for a while now.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Viper1 said:


> Maybe we have different definitions of "competitive", but no one I've trained is planning on the 2025 Olympics, but most do want to shoot the best they can. Happily, most are older adults who realize it's not a strength game. For us amateurs, it really can't be.
> 
> For the record, a number of years ago, I was one of those guys using a 60+# hunting bow and out shooting those "target guys" with their little 35#'ers. I kinda know both sides of the game.
> 
> Viper1 out.


Yes yes. We know. You are the authority on it all. 

Honestly, I don't care enough to argue with you.


----------



## Viper1 (Aug 21, 2003)

John -

Right back at ya. 

Viper1 out.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Viper1 said:


> John -
> 
> Right back at ya.
> 
> Viper1 out.


You need a serious perspective check.


----------



## Osiris155 (Jun 27, 2016)

Well, leave it to Archery Talk to devolve a simple question into a pissing match. Typical and pathetic!


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Osiris155 said:


> Well, leave it to Archery Talk to devolve a simple question into a pissing match. Typical and pathetic!


If you think that was a pissing match then it's probably best for your blood pressure if you just lurk and use AT for it's classifieds.


----------



## Osiris155 (Jun 27, 2016)

Doesn't bother me that the usual suspects are pounding their chests. I don't come here much anymore anyway. Just not a good representation for the rest of the archery community when a simple question can't be answered civilly.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Osiris155 said:


> Doesn't bother me that the usual suspects are pounding their chests. I don't come here much anymore anyway. Just not a good representation for the rest of the archery community when a simple question can't be answered civilly.


I'm struggling to figure out what you had a problem with tbh. Unless it's disagreements in general which makes me wonder why you're even on the internet.


----------



## tylerjkrahn (Aug 25, 2020)

I learn a lot of stuff from your “pissing matches” so keep at it lol. One of the biggest issues of high draw weight as a hobby shooter is explaining to my wife why I need to buy new limbs and arrows every six months!


----------



## Draven Olary (Jun 12, 2016)

tylerjkrahn said:


> I learn a lot of stuff from your “pissing matches” so keep at it lol. One of the biggest issues of high draw weight as a hobby shooter is explaining to my wife why I need to buy new limbs and arrows every six months!


Tell us why you want to shoot higher poundage then. Maybe they can give you ammunition for your excuses and you will not see everywhere a "pissing contest" when two mature archers are talking about draw weights.

Viper was talking about hunters using heavy draw weights. Here for big game you are not legal if your bow is not at least #48 @ 27.5" and below. This means if you have a short draw, lets say 26", you will need a bow that will push #[email protected]" - aka you buy a bow in the #[email protected]" range. If your draw is longer than 28" you are in trouble again since you will buy a #50 bow to be legal but you will push it in the #53/54 area. So, for this area, if you don't shoot heavy-ish bows you don't hunt, and I don't want to enter in the debate of why hunting when you have food in the stores. But this is a very good reason for shooting heavier draw weight bows #50 and up. How you get there and you are proficient for the task, it is another story. 

To end this: each task has a story line that fits the archer. Thinking that just one story line is the good one it is not quite right.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Draven Olary said:


> Tell us why you want to shoot higher poundage then. Maybe they can give you ammunition for your excuses and you will not see everywhere a "pissing contest" when two mature archers are talking about draw weights.
> 
> Viper was talking about hunters using heavy draw weights. Here for big game you are not legal if your bow is not at least #48 @ 27.5" and below. This means if you have a short draw, lets say 26", you will need a bow that will push #[email protected]" - aka you buy a bow in the #[email protected]" range. If your draw is longer than 28" you are in trouble again since you will buy a #50 bow to be legal but you will push it in the #53/54 area. So, for this area, if you don't shoot heavy-ish bows you don't hunt, and I don't want to enter in the debate of why hunting when you have food in the stores. But this is a very good reason for shooting heavier draw weight bows #50 and up.


Now the "why hunting when we have food in the stores" debate is one I'm game for!  

(brought to you courtesy of free range, organic, cage free, ethically harvested, farm to table venison.  )


----------



## Draven Olary (Jun 12, 2016)

limbwalker said:


> Now the "why hunting when we have food in the stores" debate is one I'm game for!
> 
> (brought to you courtesy of free range, organic, cage free, ethically harvested, farm to table venison.  )


I know you are and this is like opening Pandora's box second time because very few can see the grey, most are seeing black or white.
I don't hunt but I have friends that are target archers (compound) and hunters and half of them are first nation natives. Debate this and their right to do what they knew way before they were westernized.


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

limbwalker said:


> Now the "why hunting when we have food in the stores" debate is one I'm game for!


Shortest debate out there...

“Because I want to”


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Stash said:


> Shortest debate out there...
> 
> “Because I want to”


And there's always "because it's legal" too.


----------



## Metropolis (Oct 10, 2016)

Archers are not equals in the wind, some can read it, some hate it, etc. 
When I see asian women who stay less than a 1/2 seconde at anchor I think they are probably less disturbed by the wind than tall guys who need 6 seconde to shoot their 55#.
To reduce performance in the wind to draw weight is not reasonable IMO.

About Nespoli he is now one of the best shooter at qualifications not because of his 60# but certainly more because of his 20 years of international experience.

Actually 2 questions come in mind: 

why to risk a tendonitis when you're an international / professional archer ?
is high draw weight really an advantage in stress condition ?


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

Metropolis said:


> Archers are not equals in the wind, some can read it, some hate it, etc.
> When I see asian women who stay less than a 1/2 seconde at anchor I think they are probably less disturbed by the wind than tall guys who need 6 seconde to shoot their 55#.
> To reduce performance in the wind to draw weight is not reasonable IMO.
> 
> ...


There are few basic answers and many more complicated explanations to your question, so the debate can go on for the next 20 years without reaching any common understanding.
Th basic, only
1) Why risk tendonitis at the professional level?
Because you want to stay at a professional level., and risk of some injury and surgery soon or later is part of the game you want to play
2) High draw weight is an advantage in stress conditions?
Yes if you can still drive your car ....sorry, I meant your bow

About shooting in the wind, it is more related to the capacity of the archer to analyze the wind and decide where to aim in any single moment as well as how to execute the shot at that moment, than any other factor. But then less the arrow stays on the air, less risk you have for a wind gut to take over. Fast shooters in history have been winning a lot in calm conditions, not so much in windy conditions, women or men ...
The secret of the best combination is ever related to the arrow you want to shoot. Today men X10 shooters want to use 350 or 325 spine, as they give a very superior advantage to 410, so > 50# often becomes a must. 16 years ago the "Korean" arrow of choice was still 450 spine, also Marco Galiazzo used 450 spine in Athens windy Panatinaikos stadium


----------



## Viper1 (Aug 21, 2003)

Vittorio - 

Thanks for that. 
You said:


> 1) Why risk tendonitis at the professional level?
> Because you want to stay at a professional level., and risk of some injury and surgery soon or later is part of the game you want to play
> 2) High draw weight is an advantage in stress conditions?
> Yes if you can still drive your car ....sorry, I meant your bow


My concern is the message it sends out to the non-professionals reading it. I can (sorta) understand that injury may be part and parcel if you're a professional in a given activity, but it seems a little overboard for those of us who shoot as a hobby. I'm sure there are new people reading this that will believe that you have be shooting those weights to be competitive. And in my experience, that leads to (some) people sacrificing form for weight. 

Agree with your statements on shooting in the wind. IF the shooter can handle being buffeted by the wind, then it's a matter of who can dope the wind better. If we can do it at 1,000 yards with a high-power rifle, surely an archer can do it at 70M. 

About the time the arrow in in the air: does a 400 grain arrow from a 50# bow have the same flight time as a 280 grain arrow from a 40# bow? I know there's more to it than just that, and that's why some one has to question it. 

And I do have to agree with a statement above, that no body "wins" because the weight of their bow, it's because of their skill. 

Viper1 out.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Metropolis said:


> Archers are not equals in the wind, some can read it, some hate it, etc.
> When I see asian women who stay less than a 1/2 seconde at anchor I think they are probably less disturbed by the wind than tall guys who need 6 seconde to shoot their 55#.
> *To reduce performance in the wind to draw weight is not reasonable IMO.*
> 
> ...


I never saw anyone say that.

All else being equal, it's an advantage. That's just simple physics.


----------



## Z3R0 (Nov 6, 2014)

Vittorio said:


> Today men X10 shooters want to use 350 or 325 spine, as they give a very superior advantage to 410, so > 50# often becomes a must. 16 years ago the "Korean" arrow of choice was still 450 spine, also Marco Galiazzo used 450 spine in Athens windy Panatinaikos stadium


Vittorio, do you mean that 16 years ago Galiazzo and the Koreans were specifically choosing the 450 arrow and building the rest of their setup to match that? If so, why the 450? Or is it just that the 450 was the common size that happened to work for all these competitors at that time.

I was nowhere near sport archery at that time, so maybe it's that the 450 was the stiffest/heaviest X10 in that period?

Sent from my SM-G970U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

Z3R0 said:


> Vittorio, do you mean that 16 years ago Galiazzo and the Koreans were specifically choosing the 450 arrow and building the rest of their setup to match that? If so, why the 450? Or is it just that the 450 was the common size that happened to work for all these competitors at that time.
> 
> I was nowhere near sport archery at that time, so maybe it's that the 450 was the stiffest/heaviest X10 in that period?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G970U1 using Tapatalk


Simple answer is yes. 450 was the choice in X10, the best combination between spine, lateral size and mass weight. Almost all men in Korean national team were using X10 450 and their average poundage was 47#. So they built their set up to use that specific arrow. 
The game is changed at real top-level when Eston introduced the new generation of X10 with high module carbon, in 2012, limiting availability to 350 and 325 spines. Then these have become the arrows to use and poundages followed it.
Maybe GT can tell us a bit more about the reason why same technological solution has not been made commercially available for other weaker spines. And, don't forget the appearancof 140 gr tungsten point to help use them.
Don't forget also that to shoot high poundages you need an arrow that can tune with them. Not so easy when you need to cut a 325 on tha back .


----------



## fango0000 (Mar 16, 2011)

@>--gt-->

I would love to know why the weaker spines of x10s don't get updated too. The higher modulus carbon would also mean that they are less likely to have a groove worn in the shaft by beiter plungers right? That was one small thing that bugged me about x10s and why I don't buy them used - the outside carbon is soft enough that I see grooves worn in after just 1 to 2 seasons of moderate use. Obviously I'm not rich enough to fit the target audience of the x10s


----------



## mdyan (Mar 7, 2013)

@Vittorio,

You mentioned the Koreans tuned their setups to 450s. Does this mean that they chose lower draw weight to avoid using 410/380?

If yes, is this idea still relevant today if not using 350 and 325? use 450 instead of 410 and 380? 😳


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

mdyan said:


> @Vittorio,
> 
> You mentioned the Koreans tuned their setups to 450s. Does this mean that they chose lower draw weight to avoid using 410/380?
> 
> If yes, is this idea still relevant today if not using 350 and 325? use 450 instead of 410 and 380? 😳


Pay attention to what he said though. The 350 and 325's are being made with a higher modulus carbon. The 350's are actually lighter GPI than the 380's. So if you can tune a 350, you're going to have a real advantage.

I used to be right on the 380/410 line at 48-49 lbs. Had the 350's been around then and I were trying to make an international team, it would have been pretty simple to work up to 52# or so, and tune the 350's and it would have made good sense.


----------



## mdyan (Mar 7, 2013)

limbwalker said:


> Pay attention to what he said though. The 350 and 325's are being made with a higher modulus carbon. The 350's are actually lighter GPI than the 380's. So if you can tune a 350, you're going to have a real advantage.
> 
> I used to be right on the 380/410 line at 48-49 lbs. Had the 350's been around then and I were trying to make an international team, it would have been pretty simple to work up to 52# or so, and tune the 350's and it would have made good sense.


I understand why 350/325 are superior today if you can use them. But let's say you can't use them -- suppose your draw is too short draw to use them, or suppose it's still 2010.

My question was: did the Korean team in the 2000s forgo higher poundage because they got better results with 450 and a "lower" poundage of ~47#? 410/380 existed back then, and presumably more poundage wouldn't be an issue with their training.

If true, going back to the above, is this relevant today for short draw archers who can't practically shoot 350? Should short draw archers just tune to 450 and not bother with 410/380?


----------



## OhioChris (Feb 5, 2018)

Listen to the part at 30:57.

Rob asks about draw weight. Something about “we are all young and dumb, and at one point he thought 56# was a good idea”.


----------



## Z3R0 (Nov 6, 2014)

OhioChris said:


> Listen to the part at 30:57.
> 
> Rob asks about draw weight. Something about “we are all young and dumb and at one point he thought 56# was a good idea”.


Well that totally validates me and my current setup of 47-48# with 380s! Hahaha. 

Sent from my SM-G970U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

If we still were in 2004 with 2004 materials, best choice was ACEs 430 or X10 450
Unfortunately (?) today limbs are much more efficient they were in 2004, so you can tune those with 2 to 4 pounds less on fingers, which brings you automatically to try a stiffer arrow, being poundage same. Today you can tune 450 29" at 44# only or less with tungsten points, so at 47# you need 410 at least, but you drop in a disadvantaged situation, and so you will try to use 380/350 going >>50# at least. 
The answer again is yes, if you aren't a pro, stay to 450 and drop your poundage to use them.


----------



## OhioChris (Feb 5, 2018)

“ it's laughable that 50# is too much for a grown man.”

So in your “opinion” Brady Ellison is laughable?


----------



## damiaan (Feb 17, 2014)

@Vittorio For me the only issue with higher poundages is the callusses on my fingers and the joints in my fingers. i'm currently shooting at 52# ish, with 380 x10 which are tuning (slightly) weak.
how does Mauro deal with his fingers?
and should I move up to 350 spine x10?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Vittorio said:


> If we still were in 2004 with 2004 materials, best choice was ACEs 430 or X10 450
> Unfortunately (?) today limbs are much more efficient they were in 2004, so you can tune those with 2 to 4 pounds less on fingers, which brings you automatically to try a stiffer arrow, being poundage same. Today you can tune 450 29" at 44# only or less with tungsten points, so at 47# you need 410 at least, but you drop in a disadvantaged situation, and so you will try to use 380/350 going >>50# at least.
> The answer again is yes, if you aren't a pro, stay to 450 and drop your poundage to use them.


Or, we get older, enter the Masters division, use more efficient limbs and shoot 2-4 lbs. less while still using ACE 430's.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

OhioChris said:


> “ it's laughable that 50# is too much for a grown man.”
> 
> So in your “opinion” Brady Ellison is laughable?


It's laughable that 50# is too much for him. He shoots what he shoots by choice. Not by necessity.

Darrell Pace, who is much smaller framed than Brady, shot over 50# for a long time.

Yes, it is laughable that 50# is too much for a grown man when I myself have trained fairly small women who easily handled 40-44# all day.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

damiaan said:


> @Vittorio For me the only issue with higher poundages is the callusses on my fingers and the joints in my fingers. i'm currently shooting at 52# ish, with 380 x10 which are tuning (slightly) weak.
> how does Mauro deal with his fingers?
> and should I move up to 350 spine x10?


This is a serious consideration. I had no idea what Coban was until Stephanie Arnold told me about it (and loaned me some) following the '04 trials. I had never shot that many arrows in one week before, and my fingers were killing me. But with ample wraps of Coban (or the equivalent) you can manage tendon and joint pain and callouses. Callouses are also managed fairly easily with an emory board or sandpaper and some hand lotion or baby oil so long as you stay on top of them and don't let them crack.


----------



## Rick McKinney (Mar 4, 2008)

There is a lot of misinformation here, probably more from sharing information from someone not in the know. 1st off, Darrell Pace never shot 50# or more. He stayed in the mid to upper 40's. Jerry Pylypchuk and I were the only two men who shot over 50# during this era for the top US archers. There were lower level archers shooting heavier poundage but not the elites. I only used it up to the 1977 World Championships (51#). I traded Vladimir Escheev for his limbs which were 2# lighter. My reasoning was I could get equipment easier than one from the Soviet Union. However, I loved the lighter poundage since I could control it so much better than before. My scores skyrocketed after that (thanks Vladimir!). Even at the 1996 Olympics there were no archers using over 50# who were of any significance. Top male archers have found that upper 40's was controllable during that period. Today, it could be different. 

As for the x10 commonality during the 90's and early 2000's. I would hazard to state that most top archers had similar poundage on their fingers and the 450 fit that tune. In the early to mid 1980's the US men's team (who at that time were the best in the world) were mainly using 2114's. Only two of the top 10 were using a different size. We had different draw lengths and different poundages but I would hazard to guess that most tuned out really well. I was one of the archers who was using a different size (2115) and upon review of some high speed filming I discovered my bow was very unstable, thus tried the 2114 and found it to give me extra points. Thus, 9 of 10 of the top archers used the same size shaft. 

Again, you need to find the poundage that you can control 100% of the time. As for the Italians using heavy poundage, they are more arm shooters than back shooters. Brady is proving that using the arms allows more poundage, but using the back with a few pounds lower gives you the win! Learning how to use the back instead of the arms is the challenge.


----------



## Viper1 (Aug 21, 2003)

Mr. McKinney - 

Thank you.

As a side note: I shot with Jerry and his wife Eileen back in Brooklyn in the early 70's. 
Trying to picture him using 50#, weird. 
Unfortunately, due to club politics, we lost contact later that decade.
Still miss the old crew.

Viper1 out.


----------



## lameduck (Jul 24, 2019)

The great Byron Ferguson said the reason he shoots with at least 70# draw weight is to minimize the effect of a bad release (or in other words, to keep each release more consistent).

Now, if only I had the strength to shoot at least 300 rounds per day with at least a 100# bow...


----------



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

There might be some value for some in reviewing the last time this sort of thing came up. It might provide additional perspective.









First in Europe over 690


Today at the second competition for the selection of 2017 the Italian Team, Mauro Nespoli has scored 692 points (339+353) becoming most proabably the first one in Europe to score over 690. Remarks: - It is an official Italian record, as previous one (also European record) was 589 again by...




www.archerytalk.com


----------



## InKYfromSD (Feb 6, 2004)

Maybe it's time to discuss his archery shoes...


----------



## UK_Stretch (Mar 22, 2006)

I think it comes down to what you want from the sport. If you want to shoot a long time, avoid injuries and surgeries then 50#+ isn‘t the best idea. However if you have the potential to win internationally then you‘re going to take more risk with your body. And if you dumb you might try to use higher weight as a band-aid for poor form.

I’ll second 3M Coban for protecting fingers (more easily available as 3M Vetwrap in some countries). I always preferred a thinner tab with a couple of wraps of Vetwrap. It‘s cheap and it works.

Control 100% of the time... yes definitely this ++++

Stretch


----------



## Viper1 (Aug 21, 2003)

UK_S -



> I think it comes down to what you want from the sport. If you want to shoot a long time, avoid injuries and surgeries then 50#+ isn‘t the best idea. However if you have the potential to win internationally then you‘re going to take more risk with your body. And if you dumb you might try to use higher weight as a band-aid for poor form.


^^^ That kinda sums it up.

Guys -

Sorry, but when someone considers archery a high risk activity (like injuries and surgeries being part of the game), red flags go up. That may preclude me from becoming an International champion, but at my age, I can deal with that.

Viper1 out.


----------



## Osage (Jan 19, 2003)

The thing is you have to compare the number of people who lost it because they were shooters, and were shooters, and lost it. Half the people in the world probably have crappy fingers, at a certain late middle age, these days probably mostly from working technology, and underlying medical causes. 

I used to be heavily into rock climbing. There are guys who can do one finger pull-ups, and who can crank all day long on holds that look like they were bowstrings glued to the rock. And they aren't in some cushy sport where there are trials every now and again, they are cranking every day.

Back when Super Topo was up, a lot of the greats from the 70s and on would contribute, and the proportion who were crippled up did not seem that different from the general population. Some were still active others were not. Actually, the original Mr One Finger Pull Up, was still rocking it a while back.

Not saying this means anything, other than that life is long, and injuries are common. The strongest archer I know just blew a shoulder moving some logs!


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

I thought I remembered Darrell telling me he shot more than 50# so I just asked him again. This was his reply:



> #48 lbs in 1976 games. #51.25 in 1984 games. Mostly stayed around 48-49 outdoors. Indoors I always dropped ~4 lbs to 43-45


Straight from the GOAT's keyboard.

At the risk of repeating myself, there is no reason a grown man can't shoot over 50# unless they choose not to.


----------



## Rick McKinney (Mar 4, 2008)

I stand corrected John. I guess his one time 50+ pound usage invalidates my post...Interesting that he mainly used 48-49# similar to Brady, myself and other "world champions" and then as all elite archers, they drop down in poundage as they age due to their ability to what they can control. That pesky 100% control gets you every time! 
The reason I said he never shot it is that the records I have (I had a lot of information during our 2 camps per year for our USAT's) and our discussions at events, he did not use over the 49# mark. Maybe in 1984 he had to go up in order to get the A/C's to work. Not sure, but generally speaking his best performances were upper 40's. Arms vs back....


----------



## tassie_devil (Aug 15, 2018)

Vittorio said:


> The answer again is yes, if you aren't a pro, stay to 450 and drop your poundage to use them.


To be honest, I'm loving this conversation from our very knowledgeable regulars ex Olympians and all. I'm 48, have a day job, a wife and shoot 30-33lb (easily). Maybe I'm stupid, but I'd say if you aren't a pro, don't shoot freakin' x10s. But that's just me...


----------



## tassie_devil (Aug 15, 2018)

Sorry, that may have come off a bit rude. But I'd think you'd want to be shooting north of 650 to be worried about dropping/gaining poundage to match optimal modulus carbon in $500 arrow shafts when you'll get skinny (admittedly parallel) 40 ton carbon Much lighter for 1/3 the price that'll happily shoot 620+ from another vendor.


----------



## Viper1 (Aug 21, 2003)

tassie -

Ah, no. It didn't come off as rude, and was spot on. 

I've said this before, and even a certain "ex-olympian" agreed with me, that there are only two types of people shooting X10s', those that don't pay for them and those that don't know any better. 

To elaborate slightly, at distance (60 yards to 70M), I have and have shot XX75s, X7s, Carbon Ones, ACEs and X10s (the X10's were gifted), and the scores were pretty much within statistically error. I'm not an Olympic level shooter, (and am very happy around a 1200 on a full FITA, at least at one point I was). And admittedly, the range I use is (usually) a fairly low wind environment. In fact the last two years, all I'm using are X7s @ 1914 from a 40# rig for everything. Just makes life easier.

I believe what folks are saying about X10s spines is true, I just don't think it's all that important for, you know, "the rest of us". 

And regarding a healthy adult male being able to handle a 50# OR, well, if you look around, the number of amateur OR shooters doing that weight is probably less than .1%, and that .1% probably ain't doin' that well. 

Just tryin' to keep it real.

Viper1 out.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

tassie_devil said:


> To be honest, I'm loving this conversation from our very knowledgeable regulars ex Olympians and all. I'm 48, have a day job, a wife and shoot 30-33lb (easily). Maybe I'm stupid, but I'd say if you aren't a pro, don't shoot freakin' x10s. But that's just me...


No ex-Olympians here. Just Olympians.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Rick McKinney said:


> I stand corrected John. I guess his one time 50+ pound usage invalidates my post...Interesting that he mainly used 48-49# similar to Brady, myself and other "world champions" and then as all elite archers, they drop down in poundage as they age due to their ability to what they can control. That pesky 100% control gets you every time!
> The reason I said he never shot it is that the records I have (I had a lot of information during our 2 camps per year for our USAT's) and our discussions at events, he did not use over the 49# mark. Maybe in 1984 he had to go up in order to get the A/C's to work. Not sure, but generally speaking his best performances were upper 40's. Arms vs back....


Not sure why you'd suggest his "one time" use invalidates your post. You made a lot of great points. It just bothered me that I thought I distinctly remembered him telling me he shot over 50 lbs during a conversation we had at dinner when his son Doug was one of my JDT charges. But I don't remember things all that well these days either so I had to ask him for my own sake.

Yes, being able to shoot from the back is indeed the holy grail in our sport. Much like hitting from the inside in golf. Every pro does it and very few amateurs do it. Coming over the top is the "arm shooting" of golf. LOL Not that you can't shoot a good score either way. It's just harder to be consistently good.


----------



## ryan b. (Sep 1, 2005)

There are only olympians. Not ex-olympians. 

From my own experience as amateur of 30 years 😝: 

If it hurts don’t do it.

If heavier equals better results and you’re pain free; try it. 

Too light can be a problem because it allows you to do “weird stuff” that is not the technique you want to be ingraining. Too heavy or too fatigued is the same thing. I could shoot 70lb longbow and not know what correct alignment was on a 30lb target recurve under chin target form. 
It’s deceiving because you can build up weight with poor form.. 
Leave ones ego at the door and get some professional opinions. 
I love Ricks be in 100% control ALL the time. And everyone else’s advice is great too.


----------



## Viper1 (Aug 21, 2003)

ryan - 

And it's not always a black and white thing. 
Yeah, in most cases, pain bad, and there's a difference between soreness and form breakdown, guess which one usually happen first?

When I was a little more "serious" about it, a had a technique that might blend the two, or three.

Assuming a 4 day/week shooting schedule:
2 days (including matches, if any) with your std weight, in my case, about 42-44#.
One *short *session with 5-10# heavier, as a weight training thing, and stopping as soon as any compensation occurred.
One longer session, with 5-10# lighter, to amplify flaws and refine form.

This actually worked well, not only for training, but as a diagnostic tool. 
For example, if you find yourself shooting better on the light (or heavy) days, maybe you need to reevaluate your std weight 

I think stuff like the above would do most "serious armatures" more good than trying to fit into a perfect arrow size or draw weight.

Viper1 out.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Slightly off-topic, but for those of you shooting OR in the aluminum days, what would a guy with a 32.5" draw length like myself have been using for arrows? I know I was shooting 2117's and 2216's from my hunting bows, but I can't imagine shooting a 2117 at 90 meters. Maybe a 2115 with a 100 grain nibb @ 50 lbs?


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

Our usual answer to that was “why don’t you go try basketball instead”.

I simply don’t recall any super tall archers in my area. The biggest guy (I think) shot 2213s and aimed high at 90.


----------



## UK_Stretch (Mar 22, 2006)

I shot 32”+ 2117 at 90m. It wasn’t pretty, once was enough. I shot 2213 at 90m and they were OK as long as it wasn‘t very windy. I couldn’t get a 2115 to tune but Steve Hallard used 2115 well after carbons came in but he had a shorter arrow and was 50+#. I was only shooting around 46# (yes the 2117 were too stiff). I don’t remember there being point options other than 7% and 9% FOC NIBB.

When I switched to Beman Diva S I put around 300 points on my scores. Really, just like that. 800 plus to 1100 plus. I shot 1192 that year but alas broke the bow just before the next outdoor season and it took me a year plus to break 1200 with ACE after switching to a TD4+ (Bemans were awful by then).

I had a decent year in 1996 and shot 1250+ with ACE but really struggled in medium wind. After talking to a few folks I trusted, I established in medium -light wind they were hardly aiming off the yellow with their short thin sticks and I was aiming in the blue. So I jumped at X10s (they werent that expensive back then and compared to the cost of competing they were nothing). They did exactly what I hoped. In strong wind it remains all about wind reading regardless of shaft but in mid-light wind you just aim on or edge (47# on 410 with 100gr). They shot the same in good weather but I broke 300 at 90m in wind where ACE shooters (2 of whom were 1300+ archers) were 280 or less.

So yeah, I shoot X10s. I could shoot ACE or something cheaper but then I’d have to relearn them and buy hardware etc. They are expensive, true. However, I am fortunate enough to have a decent job and after the bills are paid I can afford them. Even if I had to buy a set every year it still wouldn’t be high cost compared to many many many sports and hobbies.

Alas us apes would need to drop to 20# to tune a 1913 and I can’t really imagine that working. Realistically John I think you would have shot a 2113 or 2115 as short as you could get away with. 7% points and as much weight as you could use and get good flight, mid 40s? Maybe even rear weighted with heavy plastic vanes.

But as I‘ve always paid for X10s I guess I’m in the don’t know much category. My take on that attitude is why does it bother you what someone else shoots and have you ever shot 90m with a 32” version of your preferred shaft? Maybe the Skylon Paragon type shafts tilt the table a little but I’m happy with what I have.

Stretch


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

UK_Stretch said:


> I shot 32”+ 2117 at 90m. It wasn’t pretty, once was enough. I shot 2213 at 90m and they were OK as long as it wasn‘t very windy. I couldn’t get a 2115 to tune but Steve Hallard used 2115 well after carbons came in but he had a shorter arrow and was 50+#. I was only shooting around 46# (yes the 2117 were too stiff). I don’t remember there being point options other than 7% and 9% FOC NIBB.
> 
> When I switched to Beman Diva S I put around 300 points on my scores. Really, just like that. 800 plus to 1100 plus. I shot 1192 that year but alas broke the bow just before the next outdoor season and it took me a year plus to break 1200 with ACE after switching to a TD4+ (Bemans were awful by then).
> 
> ...


Stretch, thanks for the reply. Your answer reminded me of a conversation I had at the '04 trials. After we pulled our last arrows from a match, one of my shorter competitors asked me where I was aiming in that wind. I was shooting 400 ACE's with 125 grain tungsten points and plastic vanes, and he was shooting X10's with spin wings. I told him I was aiming in the 7-ring and he just shook his head. He said he had been aiming in the 4-ring all day. I kinda felt for him. My draw length was over 5" longer than his.


----------



## tassie_devil (Aug 15, 2018)

limbwalker said:


> No ex-Olympians here. Just Olympians.


Yeah, sorry to our olympians. No offence intended. I am loving this discussion, both from the elite and experience recreational perspective.

I have been concerned about over bowing myself given I don't always get to shoot a lot of volume some weeks. I may try to add some pounds - even if only to have that "total control" feeling Viper and Rick referred to if I back them off again.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

tassie_devil said:


> Yeah, sorry to our olympians. No offence intended. I am loving this discussion, both from the elite and experience recreational perspective.
> 
> I have been concerned about over bowing myself given I don't always get to shoot a lot of volume some weeks. I may try to add some pounds - even if only to have that "total control" feeling Viper and Rick referred to if I back them off again.


When I was competing I would often set up two bows, one 2# heavier than the other. Typically the lighter bow was my backup bow, but not always. But the very thing you mention can be a useful training approach - shooting more weight in order to gain control over a lighter bow. I only chose the lighter bow in competition a few times but it was there if I needed it.


----------



## olympics84 (Nov 5, 2004)

limbwalker said:


> Slightly off-topic, but for those of you shooting OR in the aluminum days, what would a guy with a 32.5" draw length like myself have been using for arrows? I know I was shooting 2117's and 2216's from my hunting bows, but I can't imagine shooting a 2117 at 90 meters. Maybe a 2115 with a 100 grain nibb @ 50 lbs?


John, I shot 2115 X7's with "heavy" 9% points, 30.5" draw length at 47-50 lbs.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

olympics84 said:


> John, I shot 2115 X7's with "heavy" 9% points, 30.5" draw length at 47-50 lbs.


Thanks Glenn. I'm sure I would have had to use 2117's or 2215's. Those would have made a "thump" when they hit the bale. LOL Kinda makes me glad I didn't pick up the OR until 2003!


----------



## Rick McKinney (Mar 4, 2008)

Most of the archers used 2114's (xx75) or 2115's (x7) who used heavy poundage. I don't recall anyone using 2117's other than hunting. Realize that carbon arrows made their entry in 1983 which at that time we had left Dacron and Kevlar string material on our shelves and used Fastflight or Spectra material. Carbon limbs came into play around 1976 (Darrell was the only archer that had them at the 1976 Olympics). All of these materials made a difference on which shaft you used. I personally used a 2115 at the 1977 World Championships but had to have a 10.5" brace height in order to get the arrows to tune. It was an extremely slow set up (slowest on the men's line) but it worked just fine in very windy conditions. I didn't switch over to 2114's until late 1980. Points were either 7% or 9% according to the marketing arm of Easton. Nobody used the term FFOC until the carbon arrow era. I used the 7% points in my 2115 and had a 5.4% FOC (didn't know that until 15 years later).

One of the reasons I used a 2115 was because of Kevlar. I had a good tuning setup with dacron string using 2014's and 51# but the Kevlar made the 2014's too weak. The 2115's were too stiff, so I continued to raise the brace height until the tune dialed in and the groups came together. Upon reflection, I would have been smarter to just lower my poundage until the 2014's worked with Kevlar. However, we all believed that heavy poundage was the only way to get good at 90 meters. Even good archers are not always good at logic or analyzing the different alternatives, only experience helps that!


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Rick McKinney said:


> Most of the archers used 2114's (xx75) or 2115's (x7) who used heavy poundage. I don't recall anyone using 2117's other than hunting. Realize that carbon arrows made their entry in 1983 which at that time we had left Dacron and Kevlar string material on our shelves and used Fastflight or Spectra material. Carbon limbs came into play around 1976 (Darrell was the only archer that had them at the 1976 Olympics). All of these materials made a difference on which shaft you used. I personally used a 2115 at the 1977 World Championships but had to have a 10.5" brace height in order to get the arrows to tune. It was an extremely slow set up (slowest on the men's line) but it worked just fine in very windy conditions. I didn't switch over to 2114's until late 1980. Points were either 7% or 9% according to the marketing arm of Easton. Nobody used the term FFOC until the carbon arrow era. I used the 7% points in my 2115 and had a 5.4% FOC (didn't know that until 15 years later).
> 
> One of the reasons I used a 2115 was because of Kevlar. I had a good tuning setup with dacron string using 2014's and 51# but the Kevlar made the 2014's too weak. The 2115's were too stiff, so I continued to raise the brace height until the tune dialed in and the groups came together. Upon reflection, I would have been smarter to just lower my poundage until the 2014's worked with Kevlar. However, we all believed that heavy poundage was the only way to get good at 90 meters. Even good archers are not always good at logic or analyzing the different alternatives, only experience helps that!


Rick, did you know anyone with a 32"+ draw length at that time, and what would they have been shooting? Or was it as someone suggested - they were told to go play basketball. LOL

The first "new" dozen arrow shafts I bought with my first paycheck from KMart in 1985 were those fragile "X-Calibur" fluted shafts. I don't recall what size they were but I was shooting them from my hunting bow and they just didn't hold up well at all. What a disappointment for a kid who worked almost two hours/arrow shaft. That was my first real lesson in falling for archery marketing hype.  LOL


----------



## UK_Stretch (Mar 22, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> Stretch, thanks for the reply. Your answer reminded me of a conversation I had at the '04 trials. After we pulled our last arrows from a match, one of my shorter competitors asked me where I was aiming in that wind. I was shooting 400 ACE's with 125 grain tungsten points and plastic vanes, and he was shooting X10's with spin wings. I told him I was aiming in the 7-ring and he just shook his head. He said he had been aiming in the 4-ring all day. I kinda felt for him. My draw length was over 5" longer than his.


We just didn’t have ACE points that heavy in the early and mid 90s. I did try the Easton FFOC inserts but they really didn’t add anything for me. Mind you I don’t get on with heavier points in x10s either. I preferred around 100gr in my ACE and x10s is the same. Even when well tuned I get more vertical spread with 120gr (probably because I have the crappy release of a knuckle-dragger).

I‘m guessing the ‘04 trials were very windy. In that much wind it’s never going to be about the arrow. if I need to aim in the black at 70m then it is too windy for archery and time to find something with a sail.  Your ACE sound very Frangilli-esq - get em going fast enough with enough up front and they won’t drift. Damned if I could ever get it to work. Mind you I needed an ACE 400 and when I shifted to x10 I found the 410 was fine. (Now a 450 because I am broken and puny). Dunno why but I definitely tune a weaker spine x10 than most folks - if I am right at the top of the box it tunes, if I am in the middle of the box it is stiff. Was never true of ACE or aluminium for me.

Anyone who hasn’t shot 90m with fat aluminium’s should try it. It’s kind of fun in a masochistic way... made more fun by knowing you don‘t have to compete with them of course. Big ACC are similar funzies.

Stretch


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

UK_Stretch said:


> We just didn’t have ACE points that heavy in the early and mid 90s. I did try the Easton FFOC inserts but they really didn’t add anything for me. Mind you I don’t get on with heavier points in x10s either. I preferred around 100gr in my ACE and x10s is the same. Even when well tuned I get more vertical spread with 120gr (probably because I have the crappy release of a knuckle-dragger).
> 
> I‘m guessing the ‘04 trials were very windy. In that much wind it’s never going to be about the arrow. if I need to aim in the black at 70m then it is too windy for archery and time to find something with a sail.  Your ACE sound very Frangilli-esq - get em going fast enough with enough up front and they won’t drift. Damned if I could ever get it to work. Mind you I needed an ACE 400 and when I shifted to x10 I found the 410 was fine. (Now a 450 because I am broken and puny). Dunno why but I definitely tune a weaker spine x10 than most folks - if I am right at the top of the box it tunes, if I am in the middle of the box it is stiff. Was never true of ACE or aluminium for me.
> 
> ...


My very first OR setup (that I had been using for NFAA trad before) was an old TD-2 with wood/glass limbs shooting A/C/C's to 90 with probably 54# on the fingers and a dacron string. I could make a sandwich and have it half eaten between release and impact. LOL Not long after, I went to a GM riser with 46# medium C+ limbs that gave me 56# on the fingers, and I still had to use those A/C/C's but they arrived a bit faster.

The tuning lighter arrows must be a knuckle-dragger thing since I'm the same way. I've always tuned weaker arrows than other guys at the same specs. I competed with 400 A/C/E's in Athens and trimmed a touch off the back of my 410 X-10s in the brief time I used them. Now I'm down in the mid-40's and find that 430 A/C/E's do really well and are very easy to tune. And since I get to shoot a barebow distance now (60m) I don't feel the need for anything thinner or more expensive than A/C/E's


----------



## Skeptix_907 (Jul 30, 2020)

limbwalker said:


> The tuning lighter arrows must be a knuckle-dragger thing since I'm the same way. I've always tuned weaker arrows than other guys at the same specs.


33 and 3/4" AMO draw length here (long arms even for 6'6"), have the same happen to me too. I always used spine charts and every single arrow I tuned I had to add a heavy point, or put my OTF weight higher than the charts say it should be for a good tune. Brace height was never too high either.

Nowadays I just find the spine I'm supposed to use via a spine chart, and go one spine up. That usually solves it. It seems to me archery in general ( and spine charts in particular ) are designed for "average" shooters. When you get to 32" draw and above, things are just different. Brace height has to go up, plunger stiffness has to go down, and you're better off going with a slightly weak spine than a slight stiff one (in my experience). The weak spine might take 10 yards to recover out of the bow and fly straight, but it'll impact where you're aiming down range. Stiff spines for long draw archers, at least in my opinion, create havoc coming out of the bow but also on the target face.


----------



## UK_Stretch (Mar 22, 2006)

@Skeptix_907 Lol you’re half an inch taller than me and have 1.5” longer draw! I was always OK with recommended brace heights but agree on the soft button and arrows slightly weak rather than slightly stiff. Interesting... it’s not just me.

@limbwalker i shot 52# for a while (borrowed limbs when my bow broke) but it just wasn’t for me... not in the days of the double FITA anyway. My fingers looked like raspberries at the end of a weekend. So I dropped to mid 40s, that was a better place for my thin tab preference, average form and weedy bone structure 

Stretch


----------



## Metropolis (Oct 10, 2016)

Rick McKinney said:


> I personally used a 2115 at the *1977 World Championships* but had to have a 10.5" brace height in order to get the arrows to tune. It was an* extremely slow set up (slowest on the men's line) *but it worked just fine in *very windy conditions*.


That's why you couldn't shot for the gold.
Oh wait… 
you've just smashed 5 pages of blabla.

To the younger archers please don't try to reproduce the elite. Valladont or Woojin shoot 50#, only few others shot more and under 55# (Van der berg, Wijler, Gazoz, Huston, Oh Jinhyek…). They all increased their draw weight gradually, with a coach, completed by work out, followed by physiotherapist, 200-400 arrows per day, for years, as professionals… Outside from a national training center it's absolutely unreasonable to shoot more than 45#, let's say 47-48# if you're tall (principle of leverage, known since Archimede). 

Just to remember, Ksenia Perova became 2017 world champion in the ladies with 37# (678 a year ago).
Yuri Leontiev shot the 90m world record at the end of 80's -329- with 39#.
Flute, Huish, Fairweather, all won Olympics with 45-46#.
And 2019, Bradley started the season "under 50" -> world champion, world record.

Beyond "simple physics" archery is a mental game inside which things are not equals,
you can get success in the wind without shooting the strongest bow.


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

UK_Stretch said:


> We just didn’t have ACE points that heavy in the early and mid 90s. I did try the Easton FFOC inserts but they really didn’t add anything for me. Mind you I don’t get on with heavier points in x10s either. I preferred around 100gr in my ACE and x10s is the same. Even when well tuned I get more vertical spread with 120gr (probably because I have the crappy release of a knuckle-dragger).
> 
> I‘m guessing the ‘04 trials were very windy. In that much wind it’s never going to be about the arrow. if I need to aim in the black at 70m then it is too windy for archery and time to find something with a sail.  Your ACE sound very Frangilli-esq - get em going fast enough with enough up front and they won’t drift. Damned if I could ever get it to work. Mind you I needed an ACE 400 and when I shifted to x10 I found the 410 was fine. (Now a 450 because I am broken and puny). Dunno why but I definitely tune a weaker spine x10 than most folks - if I am right at the top of the box it tunes, if I am in the middle of the box it is stiff. Was never true of ACE or aluminium for me.
> 
> ...


In 2004 I got for Michele 125 gr tungsten for 430 ACE's from same guy that gave them to limbwalker. My daughter used them on 620 cut to 110 gr. getting to >>20% foc, and Michele also used them cut to 110 gr on 470 for field. Some of them went to Sebastian Rohrberg, too. Great in the wind, for sure.
It took years to Easton to accept the need for heavier points than 120 gr tungsten, and in 2015 crazy wind in Copenhagen 140 gr tungsten for X10 and Pro tour were dominant. At the end of the qualification, I remember one well known compound archer shooting Nano Pro addressing heavily the Carbon express guy discussing with me about point weight, blaming his drop in the list because of no140g or heavier Tungsen points "like Easton guys had"
150 gr tungsten points for Nano Pro came too late for London, but 150 gr existed for Nano pro in 2016 already. Michele is back using them on NanoPro Extreme 450 in these days, and performance remains fantastic in the wind, cut very short and at 47# only (our C88 limbs are very efficient, compared to 2015 limbs). Still "very Frangilli-esq"


----------



## cerelestecerele (Aug 5, 2019)

Has Nespoli changed to lighter arrows since 2019? They've gotten quite a bit faster since he was shooting 68# in 2019, especially if he may have also reduced his draw weight. Or perhaps he was exaggerating a bit one of the times he was asked.

In 2019 he said he was using X10 325 cut from the back with 140gr points, and had 68# on the fingers. In his match against Brady in the World Cup final, his arrows spent 1.127s in the air compared to 1.165 for Brady (who was around 48# using 350s), so a 38ms advantage. In other words, when Nespoli's arrow hit the target, Brady's still had about 2 meters left to travel

In this year's matches in Paris, Nespoli averaged 1.085s and Brady 1.139s, so a 54ms gap.

Those numbers are from the videos and I've accounted for the different microphone placements at the venues though the absolute values could still be off by a few ms, but not enough to change significantly.

With some back of the envelope calculations, if the change in Nespoli's arrow speed was just from arrow weight (no poundage change) then it would require a ~30 grain reduction in arrow weight, which would be a lot to remove from the point unless he also changed to a 350 spine.



fango0000 said:


> @>--gt-->
> The higher modulus carbon would also mean that they are less likely to have a groove worn in the shaft by beiter plungers right?


Modulus (elastic bendiness) and abrasion resistance aren't that closely ralted, especially for carbon fiber. Abrasion resistance often can be approximated using equations that relate to the strength of the material, and in the case of high modulus carbon fibers increasing the modulus happens to be accompanied by a small decrease to the strength. However there are enough other variables affecting shaft abrasion resistance - any differences to the epoxy and fiber size/fraction could easily have a larger effect.



Rick McKinney said:


> As for the x10 commonality during the 90's and early 2000's. I would hazard to state that most top archers had similar poundage on their fingers and the 450 fit that tune. In the early to mid 1980's the US men's team (who at that time were the best in the world) were mainly using 2114's. Only two of the top 10 were using a different size. We had different draw lengths and different poundages but I would hazard to guess that most tuned out really well. I was one of the archers who was using a different size (2115) and upon review of some high speed filming I discovered my bow was very unstable, thus tried the 2114 and found it to give me extra points. Thus, 9 of 10 of the top archers used the same size shaft.


Out of curiosity, where did you see the instability and what did it look like? The only high speed video I've found from that period is from Easton's "The Winning Edge" with Jay Barr, though it's post-1988 which is a long way from the early 80s technology-wise.


----------



## Rick McKinney (Mar 4, 2008)

cerelestecerele said:


> Out of curiosity, where did you see the instability and what did it look like? The only high speed video I've found from that period is from Easton's "The Winning Edge" with Jay Barr, though it's post-1988 which is a long way from the early 80s technology-wise.


Believe it or not, the USAT in 1980 started their "science" testing at training camps (mainly in Colorado Springs and at ASU). One of the tests was high speed videos of the archer shooting in different angles. One of the angles showed my limbs flexing far greater than the rest of the men's team, thus the deduction of "instability". In another thread, it appears that a very inaccurate statement was made that Lee was the first to bring science to US Archery. We had it in the early 1980's and as a matter of fact, a US pseudo coach would wait for our results at the camps and then hand that information over to the Korean Team who just happened to be training nearby. Unfortunately, the next person in charge of the program felt that mental and science was way overrated, so it was dropped. The Korean program was based on our program. 

As for the wear on carbon fibers, I used a lot of different types of resin here at Carbon Tech and noticed that the resin affected the wear more than the actual fibers. However, it was just on my studies when making pultruded and wrapped shafts with different resins. I was not much of a "book" learner in the science of carbon and resin design, just a practical trial and error guy with guidance from the engineers and scientists.


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

Wow, Rick, that brings back memories.

ASU and USAT were kind enough to invite the Canadian team to participate in some training camps there in (I think) ‘83 and ‘84. I still have footage of my own slow-motion shooting. Unfortunately, the “video” is in the form of 16mm movie film, so kind of hard to post it up on Youtube. 😄 I don’t recall what useful information I got out of analyzing the footage back then.

Other studies we participated in involved strength testing and balance.

I actually have a print of a few frames of my release that a professional photographer made for me from the film. It shows about 6 frames from the arrow just away from my fingers to just passing the bow.

But no way I’m posting a clear 40 year old pic of me shooting. 😄 Lots of hair, beard, trucker hat and aviator sunglasses.



Now I’m curious. Wonder where I can borrow a 16mm movie projector.....😄


----------



## fango0000 (Mar 16, 2011)

OhioChris said:
“ it's laughable that 50# is too much for a grown man.”

So in your “opinion” Brady Ellison is laughable?




limbwalker said:


> It's laughable that 50# is too much for him. He shoots what he shoots by choice. Not by necessity.
> 
> Darrell Pace, who is much smaller framed than Brady, shot over 50# for a long time.
> 
> Yes, it is laughable that 50# is too much for a grown man when I myself have trained fairly small women who easily handled 40-44# all day.


Little bit of a shtpost but maybe all that angular form shooting is not doing favors to his shoulders, joints, and rotator cuff as it is advertised to do...🍺

In all fairness Brady has been competitively shooting for a long time.


----------



## AR720 (Jun 28, 2016)

fango0000 said:


> OhioChris said:
> “ it's laughable that 50# is too much for a grown man.”
> 
> So in your “opinion” Brady Ellison is laughable?
> ...



Or, you know, maybe the well documented finger injury he's had has more to do with it


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Stash said:


> Wow, Rick, that brings back memories.
> 
> ASU and USAT were kind enough to invite the Canadian team to participate in some training camps there in (I think) ‘83 and ‘84. I still have footage of my own slow-motion shooting. Unfortunately, the “video” is in the form of 16mm movie film, so kind of hard to post it up on Youtube. 😄 I don’t recall what useful information I got out of analyzing the footage back then.
> 
> ...


Immediately following the '04 trails, someone set up a camera and provided each of us slow motion "Dartfish" video to review. I was like, what the h am I supposed to do with this information? LOL No coach to review it with me, and just a month or so before the games. That seemingly harmless or "beneficial" act had more potential to cause harm than it did good IMO - leaving archers to review their own slow motion video... I just shake my head at that whole thing looking back. It was like someone said "oh, we need to throw some technology at them so we can say we had an Olympic training camp." LOL At that point I was the only coach I had ever had and I had 100's of hours of video of myself shooting (it's how I coached myself) so I took one look at the Dartfish video, recognized what I saw and put the DVD away and never looked at it again. I still have no idea what they were thinking by doing that.


----------



## Hikari (May 15, 2021)

limbwalker said:


> I was like, what the h am I supposed to do with this information?


But it looks cool.

Actually, high-speed footage can be really useful, but it is not obvious on how to understand or analyze the information. But if it is any consolation, the people that gave it to you did not understand it either.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Hikari said:


> But it looks cool.
> 
> Actually, high-speed footage can be really useful, but it is not obvious on how to understand or analyze the information. But if it is any consolation, the people that gave it to you did not understand it either.


No, they certainly did not. A young lady was told to video us and give us the copy. That's it. By then, it was about 6 months too late. LOL


----------



## Taufiq (Oct 17, 2016)

Stash said:


> Now I’m curious. Wonder where I can borrow a 16mm movie projector.....😄


Instead of borrowing a projector, maybe it's better to scan the film? 😁 After a quick search it seems most would charge around $ 0.5/ft


----------

