# FITA Hit or Miss Target



## JovenPadaguan (Dec 6, 2004)

I've shot at these faces at university championships, here in Spain, and in the last world univ. championship at Madrid.
We shot at 70 meters, in teams event.
Gold=1 point
Red=0 points

Results are closer, and more easy and funny for spectators or viewers.

:thumbs_up


----------



## Serious Fun (May 12, 2003)

*What to order and where to buy*

What is the name and specifications of the face and where can you buy them?
US Collegiates trainging for the University games should be practicing with them.


----------



## Matt Z (Jul 22, 2003)

*Future of Archery?*

Looks like a way to make archery more television friendly?


----------



## JovenPadaguan (Dec 6, 2004)

No idea where to buy. I'm not sure, but I think nobody sells them. Ask to FITA.
It's like 90/70m face (122cm), and the paper isn't threaded.
If you want to try it, you can paint 1 to 8 red!  
Here it is.


----------



## jerrytee (Feb 5, 2005)

Looks a bit hit and miss to me I'm not so sure about this.


----------



## clever_guy (May 21, 2002)

"Looks like a way to make archery more television friendly?"

I think it is a great idea to encourage "spectator friendliness" for tournaments. You can do a standard FITA for qualification then matchplay with the simplified targets. Unlike ideas like the "ESPN hillbilly games" the technical difficulty is maintained without turning it into a carnival game.

:thumbs_up 

-CG


----------



## JovenPadaguan (Dec 6, 2004)

clever_guy said:


> "Looks like a way to make archery more television friendly?"
> 
> I think it is a great idea to encourage "spectator friendliness" for tournaments. You can do a standard FITA for qualification then matchplay with the simplified targets. Unlike ideas like the "ESPN hillbilly games" the technical difficulty is maintained without turning it into a carnival game.
> 
> ...


I agree.

After shoot these faces in competition, I think that gold should must be only the 10 ring for compound division, with 1-9 red.


----------



## clever_guy (May 21, 2002)

"After shoot these faces in competition, I think that gold should must be only the 10 ring for compound division, with 1-9 red."

Could be a good idea - don't forget though that even in the last FITA World Men's Compound finals there were 8's shot (red). A statistical analysis of major events would show if it is warranted. 

-CG


----------



## Grey Eagle (May 23, 2002)

clever_guy said:


> "After shoot these faces in competition, I think that gold should must be only the 10 ring for compound division, with 1-9 red."
> 
> Could be a good idea - don't forget though that even in the last FITA World Men's Compound finals there were 8's shot (red). A statistical analysis of major events would show if it is warranted.
> 
> -CG


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

Aiming to this face is totally different than aiming to a standard Fita 122 face, as there is at all no contrast between yellow 24.4 cm area and the red around. Very difficult. Have a look to the compound team scores in Turkey to have an idea of how many real hits are possible...
Frankly, is not a target rewarding the best archery team , but the most lucky ones, only. The simple example is that a 9 with 26 misses out of the target face will beat 27 x 8s. 
No meaning from the point of view of finding the best team, just an archery game used for TV purpose, only . Soon or later, for this reason we will be asked to shoot each other, I guess :sad:


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Vittorio said:


> Aiming to this face is totally different than aiming to a standard Fita 122 face, as there is at all no contrast between yellow 24.4 cm area and the red around. Very difficult. Have a look to the compound team scores in Turkey to have an idea of how many real hits are possible...
> Frankly, is not a target rewarding the best archery team , but the most lucky ones, only. The simple example is that a 9 with 26 misses out of the target face will beat 27 x 8s.
> No meaning from the point of view of finding the best team, just an archery game used for TV purpose, only . Soon or later, for this reason we will be asked to shoot each other, I guess :sad:



LOL -maybe if the archers were to dress like the "archers" in your countryman's (Sante Spigarelli) catalogue we could spare the blood shed while increasing the TV popularity of the sport


----------



## clever_guy (May 21, 2002)

"No meaning from the point of view of finding the best team, just an archery game used for TV purpose, only"

Yes...terrible situation, when the contest is judged on the archer who hits the center most frequently winning...

   

-CG


----------



## JAVI (Jun 19, 2003)

clever_guy said:


> "No meaning from the point of view of finding the best team, just an archery game used for TV purpose, only"
> 
> Yes...terrible situation, when the contest is judged on the archer who hits the center most frequently winning...
> 
> ...


I like it.... let's use 'em :thumbs_up Just hit the middle... novel idea


----------



## Matt Z (Jul 22, 2003)

Q: How many championships are determined by 7s & 8s?
A: All of them.

Point is the Hit or Miss target is, in a way, insulting. The rest of the scoring rings hold as much value (not numerically  ) as the gold to gain and lose points. A 10, 8, 8, will win against a 10, 9, 6 . . . but not in the Hit or Miss.


----------



## clever_guy (May 21, 2002)

"A 10, 8, 8, will win against a 10, 9, 6 . . . but not in the Hit or Miss."

Terrible when a hit (10,9) is a hit and a miss (well anything else) is a miss...I agree I would find it insulting to have hit the center twice and missed once to a competitor who missed the center twice and hit once - I think I would just have to throw away the trophy...

   

-CG


----------



## JAVI (Jun 19, 2003)

clever_guy said:


> "A 10, 8, 8, will win against a 10, 9, 6 . . . but not in the Hit or Miss."
> 
> Terrible when a hit (10,9) is a hit and a miss (well anything else) is a miss...I agree I would find it insulting to have hit the center twice and missed once to a competitor who missed the center twice and hit once - I think I would just have to throw away the trophy...
> 
> ...


Kind'a like the NFAA target change.... let's reward a miss   

Seriously... when do we start using this scoring method... it'll be fun


----------



## clever_guy (May 21, 2002)

"Seriously... when do we start using this scorng method... it'll be fun"

We can reduce that pesky math at tourneys as well...

 

-CG


----------



## AggieX10 (Mar 29, 2004)

I dont think the 'Hit Miss' Targets are insulting at all... Look at the Results from the team competitions in the University games for the last three years... 

I've shot in 2 of those competitions and you're right about the 10 9 8 beating a 10 9 6... but look at this way, the United States is usually loaded with 3 guys capable of shooting 340's and higher for the tournament, we could shoot 250-260 on a regular team round. This hit miss round is for the teams who have maybe one stud who will shoot like an 87 and a guy who shoots like a 40... it doesn't penalize the team for having a guy who shoots 4's and 5's who would have no chance of beating a team who's number 3 guy hit 9's and 8's.

EVERY team has a chance to win because EVERYONE has a chance to score hits, and i like that format... I think that the Olympics should adopt it. Closer matches, more shootoffs, more excicitement and less 30 point score differences, especially in recurve (the most boring matches of archery!!).

And about the compound's only have the 10 ring? That's not necessary... only 1 out of the 48 (including women's compound) compound teams that have competed in the World Collegiate Championships using the hit miss target has hit all 27 shots in a round (i was on it). It's not as easy as it looks to have 3 guys hit all 9 of their shots.


----------



## JovenPadaguan (Dec 6, 2004)

AggieX10, I think you're right. It's a different way to decide who is the best, maybe not the best way, but it rewards the best team as you said.

You has talked about archers. Think in spectators:
With standard face they think: "what it was? 7 or 8? ... blue? what was blue? maybe 4?...now a 10? pooh! now a red..."
With hit or miss: "Hit!!! yeah! in the middle!"

Why golf is more popular than archery? maybe because they have only small one-size holes... imagine they have different hole sizes, from 3" to 20", and the sportsmen have to place a ball in each hole, with different scoring if the ball is near the center or not... more boring that now!


----------



## Matt Z (Jul 22, 2003)

Alright, "insulting" might be to strong of a word. And it would make it much easier for TV purposes, but I still think the average shooter it could be discouraging. For the elite, it proposes that hitting the gold is a major accomplishment, when in fact, it is done more times than not possibly making the sport less exciting.

And what would it be like having GT's bosting "HIT!" over and over again over the Olympic PA


----------



## clever_guy (May 21, 2002)

"the average shooter it could be discouraging."

Well then we won't put the *average* shooters in front of the camera or spectators...perhaps we will have a qualifier to weed those *average* archers out...of course if they are so scared of competing in a fair format, maybe they will just hide somewhere and we won't have to worry about them...

   

"And what would it be like having GT's bosting "HIT!" over and over again over the Olympic PA"

I disagree GT is a fun guy - he would murmur ..hit... and yell MISS!!! over and over again..

   

(see if that brings GT out of hiding...)



-CG


----------



## centerx (Jun 13, 2002)

I have heard of this format before but don't recall ever getting the details of how it is shot..

How many arrows and arrows per end?

What yardage?

How do the team and individual aspects work?

That kind of thing?


----------



## clever_guy (May 21, 2002)

...you Google, you find...



http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cach...andbook/archery.doc+fisu+archery+format&hl=en

universiade.daegu.go.kr/ eng/images/info/handbook/archery.doc

-CG


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

each game has a rule-just like the 00 election when the losers were whining that Gore won more votes. SO What-both guys knew the rules going in. I won a table tennis tournament where the other guy kicked my butt. He beat me 21-3 in the first game as I couldn't get my topspin on the table, he won the second game 21-11 but in the last three games my loop started landing and I beat him three games 21-19. He won alot more points, he outplayed me but he didn't complain that I got the first place money-we both knew the rules.

I like the hit or miss for spectator reasons. Its like skeet-100 chipped targets beats 100 smashed powdered 99 targets everytime though the average accuracy is probably higher for the latter.

don't look at the red as part of the target-look at the yellow as the clay pigeon or the bowling pin or the pepper popper etc.

I do see Matt's well made point-and if we are judging accuracy, then he has an argument as well.

for TV though HIT OR MISS is better IMHO


----------



## Xs24-7 (Aug 1, 2002)

It is braindead. That target face has no business in any legitimate competition. If that face became a FITA reality...it would be the end of any legitimacy. Top compound archers are averaging 350+ now...how many 8s do you think they shoot in 36 arrows...I am only ok...and shot 4 70m rounds this year with nothing outside the gold...archers like Cousins, Gellentien, etc would shoot perfect...all the time...reducing our world championships to one arrow shoot offs, 100% of the time...insane...you dont level the playing field in favour of those who arent competitive in order to make it more competitve. Those who are at the top are there for a reason...If this round was to become the std. FITA face for ORs...it would be great for 3-D


----------



## Reo (May 23, 2002)

I realy don't care for a hit or miss because a guy who shots a 5 and a guy who shoots a 8 are tied and who shot better? I also don't like that a person who shot that 8 can't get a string of tens to makeup for it. There is no reward for a person who shoots tighter groups and that is the one that should win.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Xs24-7 said:


> It is braindead. That target face has no business in any legitimate competition. If that face became a FITA reality...it would be the end of any legitimacy. Top compound archers are averaging 350+ now...how many 8s do you think they shoot in 36 arrows...I am only ok...and shot 4 70m rounds this year with nothing outside the gold...archers like Cousins, Gellentien, etc would shoot perfect...all the time...reducing our world championships to one arrow shoot offs, 100% of the time...insane...you dont level the playing field in favour of those who arent competitive in order to make it more competitve. Those who are at the top are there for a reason...If this round was to become the std. FITA face for ORs...it would be great for 3-D



a fair point as to compounds-the idea has more merit for recurves


----------



## AggieX10 (Mar 29, 2004)

I have seen Gellenthein and Dave shoot a few 8's... in a windy condition though? 8's are a reality... they happen... Sure when you get the best compound team in the world together, they probly will hit all of them... but we are talking about college archers (braden is one, and their team didnt win or hit all 27 shots with the hit miss face in turkey), and using it for recurves. 


Mary Zorn and Amber Dawson don't shoot that many 8's.. but did their team ever clean it? NO... the REALITY is sure... if Reo, Dave, and Braden are on team... 27 no problem... but when they would hit 27... maybe a team like Southeastern Guam could hit 26... 
a little more exciting and little more pressure to get hits when its "So easy" like you said... at least the score wouldnt be 265 to 250... how freaking boring is that?? 

The truth of the matter is when you shoot an 8 in a team round scored normally, its no big deal... people can pick you up... the other team could shoot an 8.. but when you miss a hit miss face... EVERY arrow after that is important for the pace of the team... its not a fish in the barrel sort of event... Your whole team has to be clicking.


----------



## Reo (May 23, 2002)

I think that making the lesser team closer is not what archery needs. Then if a better team hits a red with no score and hits the rest of its arrows dead center but losses to a team who just catches the gold to get hits and gets them all. Then the team which realy shot the best lost and I don't know about anyone but I don't think that is good.

Reo Wilde


----------



## clever_guy (May 21, 2002)

"Top compound archers are averaging 350+ now...how many 8s do you think they shoot in 36 arrows"

You are missing the point - all it takes is 1 8 (1 Miss) and you lose. And that is the simplicity in the format, both teams (or individuals) can shoot well, but you have to shoot clean to win. Now if it really was a problem that there was a shootoff for every match - then you adjust the size of the hit zone, or do something like add a ring inside the hit zone for compounds. Problem solved...

"Then if a better team hits a red with no score and hits the rest of its arrows dead center but losses to a team who just catches the gold to get hits and gets them all."

Absolutely - the team with the most hits in the center wins, fair and simple. You hit you hit, you miss you miss - you miss the target for your miss, hey thats your fault  . I don't see the logic to the argument that a team (or individual) who had more hits in the center isn't the better team (or individual) - it doesn't matter where you missed - you missed. No complaints, no well I was just 1 mm out - miss. If you are the best team or individual then you are the closest to perfect accuracy, no excuses. The assumption that some sub-par team team will beat a better team because they can hit the center more is just odd - if the assumed "better team" can't pull it together for a win that day - they aren't the better team that day - they are the hype that day.



-CG


----------



## JAVI (Jun 19, 2003)

clever_guy said:


> "Top compound archers are averaging 350+ now...how many 8s do you think they shoot in 36 arrows"
> 
> You are missing the point - all it takes is 1 8 (1 Miss) and you lose. And that is the simplicity in the format, both teams (or individuals) can shoot well, but you have to shoot clean to win. Now if it really was a problem that there was a shootoff for every match - then you adjust the size of the hit zone, or do something like add a ring inside the hit zone for compounds. Problem solved...
> 
> ...


I agree...


----------



## Reo (May 23, 2002)

I'm sorry but the piont is missed I have shot in the 350's and have had one or two 8's. I was the high score at that distance so you say that even if the score says I shoot the best I should of lost to shooter who shot a 324 but they shoot all 9? I beat this guy by 26pionts but you think that kind of person should of won? If this happens I will tell you top shooters will not shoot in it. 

The team thing is great and there will always be teams with guys who get tight and don't shoot as well as they do all the time. They shouldn't penalize a top shooters on the team for that. They sometimes will see the top shooter step it up and help that guy out and still win. If it is a way that you want to hurt a top shooter than just give handycaps like golf. I will tell you that I spend the better part of about 25+ hours practicing and I know other shooter that do more why penalize them for that? 

Just how I fell and think that a hit or miss is a fun game but not to see who was the best shooter on the field that day.

Reo Wilde


----------



## JAVI (Jun 19, 2003)

Reo am I missing something here isn't the yellow on the hit or miss target the normal 10 ring??? so if you shoot a ten you get a 1 point and if you miss you get a zero?


----------



## clever_guy (May 21, 2002)

"so you say that even if the score says I shoot the best I should of lost to shooter who shot a 324 but they shoot all 9? I beat this guy by 26pionts but you think that kind of person should of won? If this happens I will tell you top shooters will not shoot in it."

That is exactly what I am saying - you would have missed more than he did. If you were able to have shot more arrows in the center then you would have won...pretty simple...and fair...



Yes I am sure all the top shooters would just run away in horror instead of picking up the challange and mastering a new format...much like they all disapeared when matchplay was introduced...

   

-CG


----------



## Reo (May 23, 2002)

No the gold is the size the gold on a standerd face so the 10 and 9 are included. 

The best is you think that a guy who shoots a 324 should beet a shooter who shoots a 353? As for the best shooter not doing it they would do it but they would not respect the game the way they do know. 

Reo Wilde


----------



## Guest (Sep 2, 2005)

I have to agree with Ed, lowering the standard to make the hackers competitive is just dumb. Archery is and always will be a game of atrition, if you decrease the number of arrows enough or make the target large enough the hacker could claim " I am just as good as...." when infact they are not even close, the current OR round gives a glimps into this, a 1330 shooter can shoot 12 arrows just as good as a 1400 shooter can just not as often, a hit or miss target will produce the same results.

instead of a hit or miss they should anounce how far the miss was, at least this way the audience will know if they are actually good or just a drive by shooter. If you can convince yourself that an archer that misses the target by 12" is just as good as someone who misses by an inch more power to ya


----------



## JovenPadaguan (Dec 6, 2004)

Then the problem is the size of the hit zone.
I think most (top)shooters would like that hit zone = 10 ring 

What do you think? :thumbs_up ? :thumbs_do ?


----------



## clever_guy (May 21, 2002)

"No the gold is the size the gold on a standerd face so the 10 and 9 are included."

If you would have read my posts more carefully you would see we covered the idea that the size of the center of the target might have to be reduced for compound. Like any new format you would have to tweek it based on results over time.

"The best is you think that a guy who shoots a 324 should beet a shooter who shoots a 353? As for the best shooter not doing it they would do it but they would not respect the game the way they do know."

I don't buy an inch of that, you may not like it, but other archers - and spectators may find it is a great idea. 

It's pretty simple either you are the guy who can hit the center most often in a match and get to win or you are the guy who can't and you lose. It doesn't matter if you are an inch out or a millimeter out - you missed, if you miss the center of the target more than the other guy you lose. It is a clear system, it is fair, and it is spectator friendly. Honestly it seems like a natural progression for whole idea of FITA matchplay. Its hard to argue that the winner of a match *shouldn't* be the one who hits the center of a target most frequently...

Like I said, I think it is a great idea. I hope someone from FITA is looking at this thread, and the ideas..

-CG


----------



## brgarcher (Jul 8, 2002)

To determine who hits the center the most, the center has to be defined. Is the center the 10 ring? or is the center the 10 and 9? I don't know many competitive compound archers that shoot 9s and feel that they are in the center. If a hit/miss target were to have merit, it should be the size of the smallest scoring ring, the 10 ring. The logic is quite clear, if the number of hits in the center of the target is to determine the winner, then the precise center of the target should be used. I don't believe that the hit/miss target is a true way to determine the best archer, unless only the 10 ring is used. Then, the person with the most 10s will win, and the top class archers will be able to string hit after hit to pick up "points" while 9s will count the same as 8s. In addition, any time that an arrow in the quiver counts the same as an arrow in the "9 ring," you know that there is a flaw in scoring.


----------



## Guest (Sep 3, 2005)

AggieX10 said:


> Mary Zorn and Amber Dawson don't shoot that many 8's.. but did their team ever clean it? NO... the REALITY is sure... if Reo, Dave, and Braden are on team... 27 no problem... but when they would hit 27... maybe a team like Southeastern Guam could hit 26...
> a little more exciting and little more pressure to get hits when its "So easy" like you said... at least the score wouldnt be 265 to 250... how freaking boring is that??
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## JAVI (Jun 19, 2003)

Reo said:


> No the gold is the size the gold on a standard face so the 10 and 9 are included.
> 
> Reo Wilde


Reo, I see your point about the most consistently accurate shot. But wouldn’t they still win? Kind of like the old turkey shoots, back in my younger years; if you didn’t cut the string you didn’t win…. You just donated…. 

I think this would be a fun venue, and I’d love to have a chance to shoot it 

It would certainly be closer to a sudden death event so the TV moguls might get into it… Paint the 9 red also... I'd love it...

A hit would be a point... anything else is a zero... May the best shot that day win....


----------



## Reo (May 23, 2002)

Javi, I don't know for sure but if you got ride of the nine ring there wouldn't be as many hits. TV and people watching want to see scoring. Ask all the low scoring sports out there how there fan bases have been. They are dieing in this country so tv wouldn't fancy that. 

I think there isn't anything wrong with the game we have now in the OR. I think we just have to get the right TV person to see it. We don't do a great job of putting archery out there.

Reo Wilde


----------



## clever_guy (May 21, 2002)

"A hit would be a point... anything else is a zero... May the best shot that day win...."

I agree :thumbs_up 

 

-CG


----------



## clever_guy (May 21, 2002)

"The logic is quite clear, if the number of hits in the center of the target is to determine the winner, then the precise center of the target should be used."

The *logic* in what you are describing is based on an assumption of a definition of accuracy that is only valid for a format where a target has graduated scoring rings - if you predicate your conclusion on that assumption then you are forced to conclude your own argument. 

However in the case of the hit/miss target the idea of "accuracy" by hitting the center of the target is still maintained, if one competitor does not *hit* as many times as another then they are not as *accurate*. The definition of “accuracy” is then where one competitor (or team) has the larger total number of hits within a pre-defined match – this definition of accuracy, although different than one using a graduated scoring target, is no less valid. If the methodology of the format does not give one competitor an unfair advantage over another (and I have yet to hear a valid argument that disputes this) then it meets the standard of fairness. The point every one seems to want to jump on with this format involves the degree of a miss, there is an assumption that you are more accurate if you were to say miss by a 8 rather than a 6, and that competitors should be given credit for a less egregious miss. However if the focus is only on hits then the degree of a miss becomes moot. 

"27 no problem... but when they would hit 27... Maybe a team like Southeastern Guam could hit 26..."

I love that argument, a team that could score 1 point fewer are total hacks and a team that can score 1 point more are obviously the better team. So no one can really *earn* a win in a tourney based on how they shoot that day except if they first win in the court of opinion...    ... 

I think there is a huge assumption that the somehow a poorer archer is going to be able to hit the center more that a better archer. Interesting assumption, let's face some facts if you can't hit closer to the center of a target more than someone else in current FITA match play you don't win either  , and there are still those who say that *that* system is nothing more than a lottery and *sub-par* shooters will win over *better* shooters. If you are afraid a *sub-par* team is going to shoot a 26 - then you better come ready to shoot a 29, and if your team ends up shooting a 29 and someone else shoots a 30 then too bad - no hero biscuit for you. 

If you don't shoot your best shot every shot and you don’t give your best performance in that match, that day - then you aren't the winner. If the athlete or team from Southern Guam does - then they are the winner - they out shot you in a fair contest, that is competition, that is sport, welcome to the jungle. Just because someone has been declared a *better* archer based on previous accomplishments doesn't have any when it comes to the current performance. It doesn’t matter if you are the former world champion or had the best score in qualification. Every *better* archer was once an underdog. And competition in archery is rising to the occasion - don't count Southern Guam out for all you know they are the next Southern Korea.

Archery has many formats and I can see no reason why this one couldn’t be as or more successful than any other. 

-CG


----------



## Guest (Sep 4, 2005)

the hackers would love this type of game as it would elevate their team status closer to a top level team, it is a feel good round nothing more. I wonder why they chose not give a minus score to the misses like say -10 miss and +10 hit this would give a "PAR" situation and show the true depth of the team like a graduated target does, when you change the target and make an otherwise lower level team seem compatitive you know it is nothing but a side show.


You really want media coverage then start shooting at each other


----------



## clever_guy (May 21, 2002)

"...make an otherwise lower level team seem compatitive you know it is nothing but a side show."

Again, you are making an assumption based on conjecture rather than evidence...if the center is of an appropriate size then the level difficulty would be such that the better archer would be able to hit that center more than the poorer archer. Its not like you see *poor* archers shooting 1,400+ (compound), a say 1,350 archer isn't going to hit the center of a standard 122cm target as many times as 1,400+ archer. The 1,400 archers are in the center zone already. If anything the poorer archers may have a much harder time because they are more likely to shoot an 8 (or lower) and thereby a miss. The better shooter will always have the advantage because they are more consistently in the center, poorer shooters will always be at a disadvantage because they are less consistent, and along with the stress of matchplay should divide the field appropriately...

The only way you can say the *hacks* will have an advantage is if you say defined the *hacks* as 1,380 archers in a field where there were some 1,400 archers. But the 1,380 archers are within striking distance for a win at any rate if they can step up their game and if the 1,400 archers do not perform as well. Does Dave Cousins win every FITA 144? Has he ever been upset by an archer who was considered a poorer archer - but pulled it together for a win? 

Its not like a 1,300 shooter is going to stand much of a chance against a 1,400 shooter in this format. 1,296 is theoretically solid 9's but in practice a 1,296 is more likely to a scattered score. Likewise the lower 1,300 shooter is more likely to have the higher number of 8's (misses) in the score. If it turned out that the 1,300 and 1,400 archers were shooting evenly in this format and winner could not be resolved in matchplay in a timely manner, or that the outcome was random - then the center would be modified to a smaller dimension to increase the likelihood that the more proficient and consistently better shooting archer would win. This could be done either by reducing the size of the center to say a point that reflects an area inclusive of 9.5 on a standard face, or perhaps add a ring at the 9.5 area, the inner ring being the score zone. This would resolve any issues with random outcomes as it would be less likely the poorer archer would be able to as consistently hit within the smaller center.

Now the two potential problems I see are these. Visually a solid color like red would be harder to aim off of (no reference ring/point), especially for compound - so in a good wind there could be problems. Secondly, if the entire center is reduced, it may become to small visually - like aiming at a small dot. Those would be the issues that I would be more concerned about. They could probably be resolved though with testing and modifications.

-CG


----------



## Xs24-7 (Aug 1, 2002)

Funny how those who have been there...who actually compete on the field...who have won medals at the world level...all agree this is a stupid idea...yet the armchair quarterbacks sit back and try to make up stupid rules...and then justify them...the scary thing is that there are people like you all who are on the FITA rules board...
Tell you what...instead of changing FITA to suit your miss guided fantasy round...create your own round...hold an event...and see who shows up...
Why is it that we have to solve problems that dont exsist. I have yet to hear one complaint from a world competitive level archer about the present system...(aside from the usualy griping of those who shot a high score and got knocked out early...the format being pushed here would only agrivate that) The archers arent calling for a change...the round is fine...and does an acceptable job of finding the best archer on any particular day..while being exciting for spectators...we dont need to fix/change/ruin it to satiate those who dont know any better.
To think a 324 with no 8s is better than a 350 with one eight...that is insane...there is no comparison...and anyone who has shot scores of that level would agree...


----------



## centerx (Jun 13, 2002)

Everybody sure does get riled up over nothing 

Has anybody even suggested that this is the new format that would take over world and Olympic competition??

What’s wrong with an organization branching out and trying new things.. Testing the waters in this case at the college level..

What if it was it’s own separate tournament…??

What if had a world champion aside from the traditional format?? What if the two were combined Fita 90-70 day one ?? 50-30 day two .. Hit/Miss day three 

Just a little armchair quarterbacking I guess I don’t get to shoot the big time stuff so I obviously have no cause to having a conversation surrounding this I know :embarasse

On a side note how come I can center punch an NFAA face all day and just miss the 5 ring by a 1/16 of an inch once and lose to somebody who caught a line 5 every shot for 60 arrows and never hit the x once 

How come I can shoot A Fita face all day and shoot a 299 29 x and lose to somebody who shot a 300 no x??


----------



## clever_guy (May 21, 2002)

"Funny how those who have been there...who actually compete on the field...who have won medals at the world level...all agree this is a stupid idea...yet the armchair quarterbacks sit back and try to make up stupid rules...and then justify them...the scary thing is that there are people like you all who are on the FITA rules board..."

Yeesh...untwist the panties a little X's...

   

-CG


----------



## Xs24-7 (Aug 1, 2002)

No twisted panties here ...just tired of new rounds, rules, BS year after year...that accomplish nothing, add nothing to the game...
I think that the FITA game at present is great, and wish it to stay that way.


----------



## clever_guy (May 21, 2002)

"No twisted panties here"

Good, I was worried about you welfare - didn't want you straining or cutting off the blood flow to anything important...

   

Like centerx mentioned, I think some of you are taking a discussion of an idea a l i t t l e too seriously. I don't think there is any danger of FITA switching to the format we are discussing anytime soon. However AT is a place where we should be able to reasonably discuss archery ideas, and *everyone* should feel free to contribute, regardless of their pedigree (or imagined pedigree  ) ...

Have fun,

-CG


----------



## Jari (Jan 29, 2003)

Serious Fun said:


> What is the name and specifications of the face and where can you buy them?
> US Collegiates trainging for the University games should be practicing with them.


Hello,

You can order them buy Sweden, my lokal archery shop is making them,
and all the rest of Björn Bengtson target,s

just email this store and ask fore them.

[email protected]

http://www.bagaropilar.com/

//Jari :smile:


----------



## Guest (Sep 5, 2005)

centerx said:


> On a side note how come I can center punch an NFAA face all day and just miss the 5 ring by a 1/16 of an inch once and lose to somebody who caught a line 5 every shot for 60 arrows and never hit the x once
> 
> How come I can shoot A Fita face all day and shoot a 299 29 x and lose to somebody who shot a 300 no x??



ah some one who gets it  A hit/miss target gives the same value no matter how far the misss was, just think you will be awarded the same score if you miss by 1 mm as someone who doesn't shoot at all, some how I fail to see any logic in it


----------



## Reo (May 23, 2002)

I see you all look at it diffrent but put things the way you want them heard. Yes you can miss one five and lose to someone with less x's but you can also lose to someone because you shoot a zero not a 4 or a 5. In Fita you can lose to some on who shot a 299 and you shot a 300 with more x's but you also can see a guy shoot a 8 and not miss a nother x and win because he made up for his mistake. This can be made to sound how we want it to I just think that we need to sale what we have before we think that it is the round. 

Reo Wilde


----------



## Serious Fun (May 12, 2003)

*Quote from a FITA website posting*

FYI

From the FITA website, 8-16-2005, regarding Archery competition in the Universiade 2005 in Izmir, Turkey.
http://www.archery.org/clients/fita...714bb3d01eea519d412570610056789d?OpenDocument 

“...Archery is a “TV” sport, and the Hit/miss target is the future to present our sport as an exciting and high interesting sport for media and spectators…”


----------



## Joe T (Apr 5, 2003)

“...Archery is a “TV” sport, and the Hit/miss target is the future to present our sport as an exciting and high interesting sport for media and spectators…”

If that's the route you want to go then clearly the archers should shoot while balancing on a tightrope over a lake with the crowd throwing custard pies at them.


----------



## clever_guy (May 21, 2002)

"In Fita you can lose to some on who shot a 299 and you shot a 300 with more x's but you also can see a guy shoot a 8 and not miss a nother x and win because he made up for his mistake."

Think about Vegas though. Vegas is a format of who can stay consistantly in the outer 10 in qualification rounds, and then move to a shoot off (if needed) and see who can maintain outer 10 shooting for the the longest duration. Now X counts are recorded, and with the skill of the competitors involved there are high X counts - but it isn't the determining factor (like FITA I - inner 10). Is Vegas any less of a format than FITA I? Does the FITA I World Champion always win Vegas? ...

“...Archery is a “TV” sport, and the Hit/miss target is the future to present our sport as an exciting and high interesting sport for media and spectators…”

I didn't want be the one to post that   

But it would still have to go through commitee at FITA before it was adopted, and you can bet there would be the same type of "discussion" as on this thread...



-CG


----------



## Xs24-7 (Aug 1, 2002)

Yes...it would have to go through the same commitee that came up with the idea we have to wear matching belts at the world championships;-)...the same committee that just reduced team sizes to 3 archers in order to reduce the size of the world championships...theirby leaving 50 of the best archers in the worlds sitting at home while 3 guys from Israel can shoot there 1230s and pretend they are on a world level...the same committee that made calling a second judge for a ruling illegal...pardon me if I dont have much confidence in this committee. 
The hit/miss round may be ok for thursday night club league in order to level the playing field...but as has been mentioned...any round where a shot arrow is equal in score to the unshot arrow in your quiver is a round that does not belong on the world stage at any level. If anyone should be liking this round, it should be guys like me, as it would allow me to shoot on an equal level to guys like Reo...when the seperation between us is very large. 

The scoring system being used at present is not at all confusing. No one with basic logic/reasoning skills has any confusion over what is happening...so what would be gained form switchign to this system? What would it add?

“...Archery is a “TV” sport, and the Hit/miss target is the future to present our sport as an exciting and high interesting sport for media and spectators…”

It is quotes like the one above that cause myself and others to take topics like this seriously. A guy like Reo can spend more time practicing than many of us work...and then loose to a guy like me at worlds..not because he did something wrong..but because someone changed a rule to level the playing field...whats next...handicaps on the PGA tour?


----------



## clever_guy (May 21, 2002)

"What would it add?"

Specifically - increased visual appeal of the event for spectators, while maintaining the competitive difficulty for the event. Generally - perhaps increasing the popularity of archery as sport. Strategically - keeping archery in the Olympics by constantly fine tuning the event so there is a better chance it can maintain the votes it needs to remain in the Olympics, and show that it can contribute to the "Olympic package" - which means media selling, event sales, etc.

You gotta have vision... 

"it would have to go through the same commitee that came up with the idea we have to wear matching belts at the world championships"

Sure you need matching belts - but just be glad they didn't think leotards would make a more dramatic statement of what a "team" is...

   

"No one with basic logic/reasoning skills has any confusion over what is happening..."

You know you keep mentioning how there is this "logic/reasoning" that defeats this format - but I don't see you making a point to prove it. Must be "gremlin" logic - and only you can see it...

   

-CG


----------



## JAVI (Jun 19, 2003)

*I know I'm going to regret this....*

Xs24-7

But do you honestly feel that having to hit the gold to score a point will make you competitive with the top shooters in the world...??? 

If so then you should already be competitive with them, yet you acknowledge that their game is at a level superior to yours. So in what way will having to be more precise inorder to score a point, somehow level the field to raise your game to a new level?


----------



## Xs24-7 (Aug 1, 2002)

A miss that misses by 1cm scores the same as a miss that misses by 100 yds...how is that logical...my 1370 FITA scores the same as Reos 1400...cuz we both hit the gold an equal amount...it is like if they did away with the hundred/thousand of a second in the hundred meter sprint...or in bowling if they only had 1 pin...all it would serve to do is dumb the sport down...

"Specifically - increased visual appeal of the event for spectators, while maintaining the competitive difficulty for the event. Generally - perhaps increasing the popularity of archery as sport. Strategically - keeping archery in the Olympics by constantly fine tuning the event so there is a better chance it can maintain the votes it needs to remain in the Olympics, and show that it can contribute to the "Olympic package" - which means media selling, event sales, etc."
A hit or miss target is not going to make/break our participation in the Olympics. On the contrary, contrived rounds that lessen the integrity of the event could in the end cost us our spot. One of the important things to remember, is that archery is in the Olympics based on the tradion of our sprt...and the more we change it...the further we get from what got us into the Olympics. While beign spectator friendly is very veyr important, this round crosses the line and turns it into a side show.


----------



## Xs24-7 (Aug 1, 2002)

"Xs24-7

But do you honestly feel that having to hit the gold to score a point will make you competitive with the top shooters in the world...??? "

Umm...yes, yes it would. The number of archers in the world who can hit the gold 12 times in a row is much much higher than the number who can shoot 117+ with the present scoring system. 12 in the gold on a world level is nothing...it is the equivalent of keeping your car on the right side of the road...On my best day I can compete with Reo under the present system...on any day I coudl compete with Reo under the hit/miss system.


----------



## JAVI (Jun 19, 2003)

Xs24-7 said:


> "Xs24-7
> 
> But do you honestly feel that having to hit the gold to score a point will make you competitive with the top shooters in the world...??? "
> 
> Umm...yes, yes it would. The number of archers in the world who can hit the gold 12 times in a row is much much higher than the number who can shoot 117+ with the present scoring system. 12 in the gold on a world level is nothing...it is the equivalent of keeping your car on the right side of the road...On my best day I can compete with Reo under the present system...on any day I coudl compete with Reo under the hit/miss system.


How about 12 in the 10 ring? Which I believe both Clever Guy and I proposed for compound shooters...????


----------



## Xs24-7 (Aug 1, 2002)

The method being tested at the world university games makes no distinction between compound/recurve. All catagories score the same.
While making it ten ring only would make it a better alternative to the present hit/miss target...it still doesnt take into account varying degrees of misses...eg...Reo misses by 2 by 1 cm....I hit 2...but my miss is 25 cm away...I win...
And...it still wouldnt add anything to the sport that is not already there.


----------



## Guest (Sep 5, 2005)

JAVI said:


> Xs24-7
> 
> But do you honestly feel that having to hit the gold to score a point will make you competitive with the top shooters in the world...???
> 
> If so then you should already be competitive with them, yet you acknowledge that their game is at a level superior to yours. So in what way will having to be more precise inorder to score a point, somehow level the field to raise your game to a new level?



Jari, you need only look at the scores from any Oylmpics/WC and you can easily see that there are several archers that have no bussiness there taking up space but yet can call themselves Oylmpians etc.


----------



## clever_guy (May 21, 2002)

"A hit or miss target is not going to make/break our participation in the Olympics. On the contrary, contrived rounds that lessen the integrity of the event could in the end cost us our spot. One of the important things to remember, is that archery is in the Olympics based on the tradion of our sprt...and the more we change it...the further we get from what got us into the Olympics. While beign spectator friendly is very veyr important, this round crosses the line and turns it into a side show."

Making archery as visually attractive to spectators is paramount to staying in the Olympics, archery isn't beach volleyball and there are no end of sports that want entry to the Olympics - which can only happen with the removal of another sport. Every sport has a tradition, so there is no traction in that argument - beach volleyball has a tradition - are you going to stand in front of an Olympic committee arguing "my sport is better than theirs because I think we have a better tradition”. Didn't work for women's softball...

I can see nothing in this format that would lessen the integrity of the archery or archery as an Olympic event, and I have yet to hear anything on this thread that would change my mind. The format is fair, simple for spectators to understand, and in all likelihood maintains the degree of difficulty required Olympic caliber competition. The only problem I see is that it defines accuracy in a slightly different light than the current format. If you are trying to pain this format in the same vain as the “ESPN carnival games” I think you are pretty off-base. I think it comes down to Xs24-7 doesn’t like the format – but can’t really come up with a good argument against the format…

A miss that misses by 1cm scores the same as a miss that misses by 100 yds...how is that logical...

It makes perfect sense, provided you think about it. It is no different than being in Vegas and shooting a 299, when your competitor shoots a 300 - you are out of the running for winning because you missed the 10 ring – doesn’t matter if you shot a 9 or if you missed the target – you are out. That is the same difference. In my mind what would need to be established is whether the diameter of the center "hit" area is of a sufficient size to guarentee that it reflects a level of difficulty which is acceptable for top calibre archery - but I see no reason as to why that couldn't be determined. 

my 1370 FITA scores the same as Reos 1400...cuz we both hit the gold an equal amount...

You need to re-read the thread for content – I think we have already covered the idea about accuracy – no point trying to debate an issue if you don’t pay attention to the conversation…   

-CG


----------



## Xs24-7 (Aug 1, 2002)

Ok...so we both agree on something...that the other is wrong..and that we wont be changing our minds...I am done..


----------



## clever_guy (May 21, 2002)

"How about 12 in the 10 ring? Which I believe both Clever Guy and I proposed for compound shooters...????"

Javi,

Actually, the ring I was talking about would still be a "hit" ring - it wouldn't have any additional value other than being a "hit". The reason for the ring would be reduce the size of the center "hit" area - while still allowing the center area to be of sufficient size to see it at 70m. If you made the center "hit" area too small on a solid color background it might be difficult to reasonably aim at. 

-CG


----------



## Guest (Sep 5, 2005)

[QUOTE=clever_guy
Making archery as visually attractive to spectators is paramount to staying in the Olympics, archery isn't beach volleyball and there are no end of sports that want entry to the Olympics - which can only happen with the removal of another sport. Every sport has a tradition, so there is no traction in that argument - beach volleyball has a tradition - are you going to stand in front of an Olympic committee arguing "my sport is better than theirs because I think we have a better tradition”. Didn't work for women's softball...

This target will do nothing for making it visualy acrative since it doeasn't address the down fall of the sport itself that being you can't see whats going on.



I can see nothing in this format that would lessen the integrity of the archery or archery as an Olympic event, and I have yet to hear anything on this thread that would change my mind. The format is fair, simple for spectators to understand, and in all likelihood maintains the degree of difficulty required Olympic caliber competition. The only problem I see is that it defines accuracy in a slightly different light than the current format. If you are trying to pain this format in the same vain as the “ESPN carnival games” I think you are pretty off-base. I think it comes down to Xs24-7 doesn’t like the format – but can’t really come up with a good argument against the format…


The arguements against are clear an concise if you really want to understand it, how you can logicaly justify a 1cm miss being equal to a 100m miss is just to far out there for me to comprehend. No one at the outdoor games are claiming to be Oylmpians are they.


----------



## 60Xbulldog60X (Mar 12, 2005)

I think that the thought of a hit or miss target is rediculous. You get out of archery what you put into it. Those that practice every day and are meticulous about the game are the shooters that excell. This idea may be good for viewing I agree, but would not be fair to those that put the serious time and effort into achieving good results. Target archery has never been much of a spectator sport for those that are not into target archery, and I doubt that it ever will, unless everyone in the world would pick up a bow and try to shoot it. Only then would they realize how difficult the game is and respect those that have a talent for it. It is kind of like golf. For example, when I was much younger I could not stand to watch golf on the tube. Years later I was talked into trying my luck at a driving range. Well, that's all it took, and I was hooked. I now have an utmost respect for the good and great players of the game, pro's and amateure's alike. The only way you can respect the player's of the game is to have tried the game yourself. I now watch golf on the tube every chance I get. This is just my opinion, but if every fascet of archery were to adopt this type of target , you would probably push most of the top archers out of the sport. The top archers in this sport are in it for the challenge. Why make it less challenging? I would not be able to understand why anyone would not go out and try to shoot the best they ever have. I don't know of anyone that does not go out and try to get better at whatever sport they enjoy, and would not expect anything different.
Just my 2 cents worth :thumbs_up


----------



## clever_guy (May 21, 2002)

"that the other is wrong..and that we wont be changing our minds...I am done.."

I am not conceding that I am wrong - I am just pointing out that you aren’t adding a lot to the discussion by ignoring parts of the discussion. I am willing to discuss any topic, but it boring to have to make the same point over and over again 1,000 times because the other person isn’t paying attention. It is fine to have an opinion, but don’t assume it means anything to anyone else unless you can reasonably prove and defend your position. You can wave around words like “logic” and “reasonable” but you still have to outline and defend your logic and reasonableness, before anyone is going to be in any way convinced of your reasoning.

Same goes for this “you should listen to me because I am a pro” crap – no we don’t have to listen to you because you *think* have an expert opinion – unless you can back up that expert opinion with a reasonable point or argument. There are a lot of useless and incorrect *expert* opinions out there, if you want to prove that your opinion is valid – then prove it. If you can’t you are just another guy with an opinion. Now we all should feel free to have an opinion and contribute that opinion (politely), because without an exchange of ideas these forums are pointless. But at the same time a forum of pointless opinions has no value… 

I am not claiming that my position is in anyway more valid or better than anyone else’s – I am just exploring the idea of this new format. If you want to discuss or debate feel free, but don’t think I will just roll over because you say “I am XXXX, and I say I am right”… 

  

-CG


----------



## JAVI (Jun 19, 2003)

clever_guy said:


> "How about 12 in the 10 ring? Which I believe both Clever Guy and I proposed for compound shooters...????"
> 
> Javi,
> 
> ...


Yep... I just used the present 10 ring as a reference to reduce the HIT scoring area. I too believe this would aid in being able to see what is happening... as it would be clearly visible if you hit or miss...

I also have nothing against the present scoring format, but it does take some explaining to the average non-FITA shooter... The hit or miss format would remove the understanding the scoring issues... and make it easy for TV viewers to see what is happening with each shot... 

TV is the media that will make or break archery as it has made golf, get coverage of the major venues and you will get the youth interested...


----------



## clever_guy (May 21, 2002)

"This target will do nothing for making it visualy acrative since it doeasn't address the down fall of the sport itself that being you can't see whats going on."

Actually it does because the spectators can immediately see a "hit" or a miss - which makes the competition more easy to understand and get involved with. Pretty simple really... 

The arguements against are clear an concise if you really want to understand it, how you can logicaly justify a 1cm miss being equal to a 100m miss is just to far out there for me to comprehend. 

Well then you aren't trying to hard - it is very clear - read any of the 10 post I have made and think about it a little. Just because you claim to not get it don't think that it doesn't made sense. There are obviously organizations like FITA and FISU that "get it".   

-CG


----------



## clever_guy (May 21, 2002)

"I too believe this would aid in being able to see what is happening... as it would be clearly visible if you hit or miss..."

The only thing I was thinking about is how visable a ring would be at 70m inside the yellow "hit" area. The ring itself would have to be of a certain diameter so it could could be seen unaided at 70m - but at the same time still allow gold areas inside and outside. Unless it was a "hidden" ring, where you couldn't see the ring 70m away unaided - but that seems a little unfair for competitors.

-CG


----------



## JAVI (Jun 19, 2003)

clever_guy said:


> "I too believe this would aid in being able to see what is happening... as it would be clearly visible if you hit or miss..."
> 
> The only thing I was thinking about is how visable a ring would be at 70m inside the yellow "hit" area. The ring itself would have to be of a certain diameter so it could could be seen unaided at 70m - but at the same time still allow gold areas inside and outside. Unless it was a "hidden" ring, where you couldn't see the ring 70m away unaided - but that seems a little unfair for competitors.
> 
> -CG


I understand and agree... but I have no merit...


----------



## Xs24-7 (Aug 1, 2002)

oops...said I was done...but I guess not 
In no way do I think that my dubious status makes me an authority on everything. But I do think that my experience in the sport should hold some credense over those who a discussing something at which they have never competed...namely...FITA archery on a world level.
Of course there are those at FISU/FITA that would sell their soul if they though that it would put another person in the stands...that does not mean that it is right for our sport. At some point we have to say that enough is enough. That we should run our sport for the participants, not for the imagined need of spectators who may show up once every four years to see archery at the Olympics. 

"but it does take some explaining to the average non-FITA shooter... The hit or miss format would remove the understanding the scoring issues... and make it easy for TV viewers to see what is happening with each shot..."

...only if the people you are watching it with took the short bus to the event...  
10,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1
very very simple...its a lot like those number things they taught you in kindergarden...


----------



## 60Xbulldog60X (Mar 12, 2005)

clever guy, I noticed in your earlier post that you said that this format would not give another team an unfair advantage. Could you define unfair advantage? Are you refering to the unfair advantage being the talent, practice and preperation that one team may have over another? Could you clarify?


----------



## JAVI (Jun 19, 2003)

Oh I understand the format well enough, but I don’t understand hockey or soccer both seem too complicated to someone who has neither played nor followed either… And water polo is beyond me…. But what the heck I walked to school….


----------



## Xs24-7 (Aug 1, 2002)

Exactly...so what hockey has to do is cut the rink in half...maybe only have one player per team...and..the goal should be bright pink...then the spectors will show up right...cuz it will be much easier to understand and follow...and...lets make the games last 60 seconds..cuz thats all anyone can follow it for...same goes for soccer...but instead of counting goals, we will make it so that all you have to do is kick the ball thorugh the end of the field...and...of course..the 60 second rule applies here as well...


----------



## Guest (Sep 5, 2005)

Now that is real funny, some how the fita target needs explaining when it has a 24cm yellow are but doeasn't when the same yellow area is used for a hit/miss target.


----------



## clever_guy (May 21, 2002)

"10,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1 very very simple...its a lot like those number things they taught you in kindergarden..."

Actually it isn't simple to a non-archer or an non-competitive archer/bowhunter. The trick is to make it visually exciting, and easy for the spectators to follow who is winning. Thats why you want score boards have cummulative totals in real-time, but the 122cm target is still more cumbersome than a simplier hit/miss target for readily judging shots and calculating scores (less math).

"Could you define unfair advantage?"

If you create a format it has to be as fair as possible for all competitors. In other words no competitor has any advantage over another - other than the skill/ability of the competitors and natural events (like wind) that can't be mitigated (ie if we shoot outdoors and the format is to be determined in a certain timeframe, we have to accept that wind may cause an unfair advantage to some competitors in some periods - but it should also be somewhat random for all competitors).

I think that is what you were asking...

Cheers!

-CG 

Feel free to debate without me I have some things to do. Try not to kill each other


----------



## JAVI (Jun 19, 2003)

Sean McKenty said:


> Now that is real funny, some how the fita target needs explaining when it has a 24cm yellow are but doeasn't when the same yellow area is used for a hit/miss target.


I think it might be a bit easier to understand and follow... Gold=1 point... anything else = nada... 

Against... 

well.... Sean cut the 7 line on his 9th shot, but he hit the 6 just missing the 7 on his 11th shot so to win he needs a 10 on the 12th shot...


----------



## 60Xbulldog60X (Mar 12, 2005)

?


----------



## Guest (Sep 5, 2005)

JAVI said:


> I think it might be a bit easier to understand and follow... Gold=1 point... anything else = nada...
> 
> Against...
> 
> well.... Sean cut the 7 line on his 9th shot, but he hit the 6 just missing the 7 on his 11th shot so to win he needs a 10 on the 12th shot...



See how difficult was that

or would you rather see" well team Canada is 4 hits ahead since there is no way for team Sweden catch up, they can just shoot their last arrows in the dirt and win" now thats exciting eh.


----------



## Reo (May 23, 2002)

I think that the best part of this is, these that think it would better for the people watching is funny. I will give a quick archery lesson for those who don't know. Last I tried I couldn't see a little X10 at 70m without something helpping me see it. It doesn't matter what the type of target is you can't see that at 70m. Maybe we should shoot bigger arrows so they can be seen. I think that we just need to get out and sale what we have before we give up on it. We will never have it infront of anyone if we only play for pennys. We have to get sponcers and give a lot more money out people love to watch shooters or anyone freak out over a ton of money.

Clever Guy ,
I want you to know that no one thinks that they are better becaue they are a pro. They just talk from the experiances they have had and that should hold a little more weight than someone who has never walked in those shoes. When you talk to them like they don't know what they are talking about then should they respect you? 

Just my thought, but I will tell you people that think a person who has been there done that has no idea what they are talking about is why a ton of top shooters left here. I do respect peoples ideas but present them in a way that is good not try to demine any top shooter because we talk from what we know first hand. 

Reo Wilde


----------



## JAVI (Jun 19, 2003)

I can't see an X-10 at 80 yards either.... But a TV camera can... 

I see no harm in discussing this format, especially since it seems to be in at least some limited use already. Although I must admit it intrigues me. 

However, since I obviously have no merit in this discussion I will back away quietly to my corner... And leave this forum to those of world level experience.

Since the prerequisite for participation in this forum is complete agreement; I will ask Bill to block my view of it; as I have the hunting and soapbox forums.


----------



## Reo (May 23, 2002)

I did meen for this to make anyone feel bad or be rude. I just felt like we all need to look at the other persons thoughts. I just saw how people were on here and had no respect for anyones post and it drives me crazy to see anyone put the others down on here. No one person is any better than another that what makes archery great. Hope we all can respect the others this is a great place to just be able to help archery grow.

Reo Wilde


----------



## clever_guy (May 21, 2002)

"talent, practice and preperation that one team may have over another?"

"?"

none of the above - I was talking about the format

-CG


----------



## clever_guy (May 21, 2002)

***TEXT DELETED FOR PERSONAL ATTACKS. PLEASE READ FORUM RULES. OX****


----------



## Guest (Sep 6, 2005)

immature,and not very sharp,now thats good discussion points,what were we supposed to agree it is the best thing, I personaly don't think a target that levels the playing field has any bussiness in tournament shoots, but that just me. I also don't think we should be selling our game at any cost for the almighty TV coverage, heres something new how about a game for the people actually participating


----------



## EPLC (May 21, 2002)

*FITA Newbee*

Since I now have 3 whole days under my belt shooting an actual FITA range I thought I'd toss in my 2 cents. I like the idea...

I played a somewhat similar personal game today (my 3rd day). Its called "Shoot 6 arrows at 90m and pull all that are not in the gold. Keep walking back and forth, shooting the remaining arrows until they are all in the gold." When all are gold, start over. 

What I found was shooting 90m is no cake walk (especially when you slouch). :angel:


----------



## centerx (Jun 13, 2002)

Basically like Korean archery.. Big red dot at around 144 yards you basically hit or miss. Always looked fun to me 

It’s just another game I don’t know if is should take the place of what exist now but it would be a fun one to play and perhaps even to crown annual individual and team champions from.. If it’s a shorter faster version of what exist now and hooks a few people into watching what’s the harm of playing it her and there.. Ultimately it will be the participants that determines it’s fate..

Anybody see the Buck master tornaments . How them targets fall down when you hit the electronic sensor. You know if something like this was implemented into a Hit/Miss format with the score changing electinicaly with the hit it would add something to the spectator side of things…

Come on people the good ones will more times then not be at the top anyhow and if a sleeper get’s lucky then that’s fun as well.. On blood and guts international competition? Perhaps not but for it to be a sanctioned Fita round with tournaments and champions ? What’s the harm


----------



## Spotshooter2 (Oct 23, 2003)

I can see where this format would have some appeal but I think the only way it could be done right is if the scoring ring was the size of the ten ring only . When people say it would elevate a lesser shooter to the likes of Reo , Cousins and many others they are correct . Because as it is now told you wouldnt have to punch anything in the center , just barely keeping it in the gold is good enough so a 1350 shooter is elevated to the level of a 1400 shooter, not a good idea imho. Shrinking the hit spot to the size of the 10 ring would be the only good way to use this type of scenario.


----------



## Serious Fun (May 12, 2003)

*Balance*

TV:
Should target archery create a TV friendly format shooting 70 meters at a hit and miss target hoping that sponsors will someday buy TV commercial time during the Olympics and other major tournaments? 
Wouldn’t it be nice if archery championships were reported on the network news?

Archers:
The current supporters of target archery are the archers of the world that buy equipment, train, pay their entry fee, travel, compete in tournament after tournament and measure their personal achievement on a 10 ring target at the four FITA distances. 
Archers are the foundation of the sport.

Growth:
If target archery is looking to increase the number of archers to grow the sport, then indoor target archery is the place to focus on as most can shoot 18 meters. Look at the success of the Vegas World Archery Festival. 
No wind? 
Is indoor shooting real archery? 

Future:
Right now our resources of time, money and attention are diluted as different groups support different formats for different reasons.
Vision and leadership are needed to bring groups together to work towards a common goal and balance.


----------



## Javier (Aug 23, 2002)

I find this format quite similar to indoor shooting(18m), specially for compound shooters: only the X´s count. Most of the shooters will hit within the nine with every arrow they shoot. If you miss the nine, if doesn´t matter if it was an 8 or a 6, you´re out (in both senses).
Anyway, I wouldn´t insist in compare this format with the FITA target. They´re different games.
Just my opinion


----------



## Lusch (Nov 8, 2002)

I posted a movie of the compound final at the Universiade 03 in korea on our website:
http://www.dutchtarget.com/album/displayimage.php?pos=-1481

Give's an idea what hit-miss is all about...


----------

