# FYI, Catching Fire movie is all the sudden "legit" LOL!



## ksarcher (May 22, 2002)

Amen,,, well said!


----------



## Basilios (Nov 24, 2012)

Apparently she is using easton arrows also


----------



## kshet26 (Dec 20, 2010)

Tangent: Why are the Hoyt hunting recurve grips so low? I thought the reason compounders could get away with it is the low holding weight.


----------



## williamskg6 (Dec 21, 2008)

Where's the "thumbs up" button that I can click repeatedly?


----------



## MickeyBisco (Jul 14, 2012)

Didn't Hawkeye use a Buffalo? 

If fictional superheroes don't legitimize a legitimate sport, I don't know what will.


----------



## bobnikon (Jun 10, 2012)

But it was a folding Buffalo. Way cooler, and more legit.


----------



## Dacer (Jun 10, 2013)

Double legit Is better than the standard legit


----------



## x-slayer1440 (May 21, 2012)

Hoyt and easton are USA archery sponsors. Why not promote them?


----------



## w8lon (Jun 2, 2012)

:thumbs_up,:thumbs_up,:thumbs_up


----------



## EBK (Sep 24, 2012)

I guess this is USA Archery attempt to kiss some big time ass and doing it really well! I don't blame them for doing it. It think it would be better received if USA Archery said we are getting paid by Hoyt, a lot of money in fact to progress Archery in America, they are paying us XXXXXXXX and it goes toward this or that. I do believe it serves a self interest, if the sport grows more, there are more archers buying their equipment, I seriously they are doing it for the love of the sport and the people, maybe when Earl Hoyt was running it. 

I just hope you don't have to shoot Hoyt/Easton to make World Cup and Olympic teams, that would suck.


----------



## DruFire (Jan 10, 2013)

"Who else thinks the Hoyt Buffalo deserves to be an Oscar nominee?"

Hoyt Buffalo sales must be down, and they are trying to move some old product out of the warehouses.


----------



## MickeyBisco (Jul 14, 2012)

DruFire said:


> "Who else thinks the Hoyt Buffalo deserves to be an Oscar nominee?"
> 
> Hoyt Buffalo sales must be down, and they are trying to move some old product out of the warehouses.


Search for them on eBay ...there's plenty of new ones for sale.


----------



## DruFire (Jan 10, 2013)

Wonder what the product placement guy got out of the deal on this one.


----------



## MickeyBisco (Jul 14, 2012)

DruFire said:


> Wonder what the product placement guy got out of the deal on this one.


Probably very little. Branding comes more from the name, and less from the shape. Unless it's emblazoned "Hoyt", I'm guessing it's just after-the-fact bragging rights, plain and simple. It looks like the bow was painted, too. 

While I'd imagine the props were provided gratis, I don't think there was much more to it. It's a cool looking bow, and if I was propping it I'd probably have tried to use the Gamemaster, but the Dorado or Buffalo is a solid choice as far as the story goes.


----------



## ScottyE (Apr 17, 2008)

USA Archery didn't create that post they shared it. They share lots of archery related posts everyday. 

No one from USA Archery had any input in the post from Hoyt's Facebook page. All they did was click the share button. 

Instead of a negative post why not discuss something positive. That would be legit


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Ah Scotty... 

I hardly know where to begin. 

I think, instead, I'll just go back to bowhunting and enjoy the upcoming NFAA events and leave all the expert analysis to folks like yourself.


----------



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

Poor, poor Johnny. What he doesn't understand is, we also control the Illuminati, have a significant investment in chemtrails, and hold the keys to the New World Order.

That's right, it must be true, you read it right here on the internet. Apologies to all of you shocked to learn about this, "all the sudden".

Signed,

Minion of That Company Which Shall Not Be Named


----------



## kshet26 (Dec 20, 2010)

I think that's just the nature of the beast with sponsors. They're not just giving you money out of the kindness of their heart. I'd love to live in a world where money comes with no strings attached.


----------



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

kshet26 said:


> I'd love to live in a world where money comes with no strings attached.



That would be known as "American welfare recipient" these days, would it not?


----------



## Dacer (Jun 10, 2013)

>--gt--> said:


> that would be known as "american welfare recipient" these days, would it not?




boom!


----------



## MickeyBisco (Jul 14, 2012)

min·ion (mnyn)
n.
1. An obsequious follower or dependent; a sycophant.
2. A subordinate official, especially a servile one.



I don't think they hand those guys the keys to anything. 

Props for the Golden Dawn /Crowley reference, though!


----------



## gif (Jul 14, 2012)

I think he means that He's the minion of the company which holds the keys.


----------



## DruFire (Jan 10, 2013)

>--gt--> said:


> That would be known as "American welfare recipient" these days, would it not?


Depends on what state your in.


----------



## kshet26 (Dec 20, 2010)

>--gt--> said:


> That would be known as "American welfare recipient" these days, would it not?


Oh snap! 

In most other examples there's a quid pro quo. I'm not saying sponsorships are bad, I don't think USA Archery could survive without sponsorships. I think what slightly bothers me is how Hoyt and the archery division of Easton are essential the same entity and how tightly entwined the 2 corporations appear to be with much of how archery operates here in the US.


----------



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

I can see your point, if all you know is what you read from a few disgruntled, egocentric AT posters. Do your homework and perhaps you will have a more realistic viewpoint.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

>--gt--> said:


> I can see your point, if all you know is what you read from a few disgruntled, egocentric AT posters. Do your homework and perhaps you will have a more realistic viewpoint.


Right, gt, because you aren't egocentric at all.








You really can't deny that Easton has a large influence on USA Archery. Easton is a generous benefactor, but it has a *commercial* reason for its support. Easton invests only because it is good for Easton, with the understanding that Easton will **get more money back** than it pays out in in the long run. And to do that it has to use its sponsorship and influence to get people to buy Easton products and not buy competing products. Which is fine to a degree, however, the extent to which Easton has *undue* influence on USA Archery and on US Archers we should all have a concern as members of the archery community. And I'd say that for you, a high level Easton representative and paid employee who doesn't list that fact in his sig, to mock such manifestly legitimate concerns as "a few disgruntled, egocentric AT posters" is disingenuous, false and misleading.


----------



## kshet26 (Dec 20, 2010)

Maybe its the fact that Hoyt and Easton make good products and are really good at marketing (at least as far as archery marketing goes). So much so that it seems like the Hoyt and Easton juggernaut IS archery. Doesn't hurt that they're literal neighbors in Salt Lake. I don't think there's a conspiracy, as evident by team members who shoot non-Hoyt bows.


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

You have meddled with the primal forces of nature, Mr. Limbwalker, and I won't have it. Is that clear? You think you've merely criticized a business arrangement? That is not the case. The USArchery has has taken thousands of dollars out of this country, and now they must put it back. It is ebb and flow, tidal gravity. It is ecological balance. You are an old man who thinks in terms of sports associations and people. There are no sports associations; there are no people. There is no USArchery. There is no FITARCO, no World Archery. There are no third worlds. There is no West. There is only one holistic system of systems; one vast, interwoven, interacting, multivaried, multinational dominion of dollars.

What do you think the Koreans talk about in their High Performance Archery meetings? KiSik Lee? They get out their linear programming charts, statistical decision theories, minimax solutions, and compute the price-cost probabilities of their transactions, and make a deal with Samick and Win, just like USArchery does to Easton and Hoyt.

It is the international system of currency which determines the vitality of life on this planet. THAT is the natural order of things today. THAT is the atomic and subatomic and galactic structure of things today. And YOU have meddled with the primal forces of nature. And YOU WILL ATONE. Am I getting through to you, Mr. Limbwalker? You get up on your keyboard and howl about USArchery and Colorado Springs. There is no USArchery; there is no Colorado Springs. There is only IBM, and ITT, and AT&T, and DuPont, Dow, Union Carbide, and Easton. Those are the nations of the world today.

The world is a business, Mr. Limbwalker; it has been since man crawled out of the slime. Our children will live, Mr. Limbwalker, to see that perfect world in which there's no war or famine, oppression or brutality - one vast and ecumenical holding company, for whom all men will work to serve a common profit, in which all men will hold a share of stock - all necessities provided, all anxieties tranquilized, all boredom amused. And I have chosen you, Mr. Limbwalker, to preach this evangel.

_Why me?_

Because you're on ArcheryTalk, dummy.


----------



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

Warbow said:


> Right, gt, because you aren't egocentric at all.
> View attachment 1795089
> 
> 
> You really can't deny that Easton has a large influence on USA Archery. Easton is a generous benefactor, but it has a *commercial* reason for its support. Easton invests only because it is good for Easton, with the understanding that Easton will **get more money back** than it pays out in in the long run. And to do that it has to use its sponsorship and influence to get people to buy Easton products and not buy competing products. Which is fine to a degree, however, the extent to which Easton has *undue* influence on USA Archery and on US Archers we should all have a concern as members of the archery community. And I'd say that for you, a high level Easton representative and paid employee who doesn't list that fact in his sig, to mock such manifestly legitimate concerns as "a few disgruntled, egocentric AT posters" is disingenuous, false and misleading.


So, let's look at what you're saying.

Jim Easton sells his baseball bat-hockey-stick division, takes the *half-billion* in proceeds, puts it in a non-profit foundation devoted to building archery ranges, so he can _make more money_ from archers.

My, aren't you bright. You should replace Ben Bernanke.


----------



## cbrunson (Oct 25, 2010)

I really doubt Hoyt, Easton, or USA Archery are at all concerned about the meaningless rant of an AT mega-poster that is clearly just bored, and trying to fuel a pointless debate. I doubt they seek your respect either.


----------



## Dacer (Jun 10, 2013)

cbrunson said:


> I really doubt Hoyt, Easton, or USA Archery are at all concerned about the meaningless rant of an AT mega-poster that is clearly just bored, and trying to fuel a pointless debate. I doubt they seek your respect either.


In all fairness you are just as much a mega poster. 8800 post over 10 years vs 2400 over 3 years there is only a difference of .3 posts per day average between the two I you.


----------



## Ranger 50 (Mar 2, 2012)

WOW! haters are goin' to hate.


----------



## cbrunson (Oct 25, 2010)

Dacer said:


> In all fairness you are just as much a mega poster. 8800 post over 10 years vs 2400 over 3 years there is only a difference of .3 posts per day average between the two I you.


Lol. I really doubt they care what I think either. :grin:


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

>--gt--> said:


> So, let's look at what you're saying.
> 
> Jim Easton sells his baseball bat-hockey-stick division, takes the *half-billion* in proceeds, puts it in a non-profit foundation devoted to building archery ranges, so he can _make more money_ from archers.
> 
> My, aren't you bright. You should replace Ben Bernanke.


1) You don't dispute that your comment about ego centrism applies as easily to you as anybody else, so that was just a groundless attack.

2) You don't dispute that "Easton" have a heavy influence on USA Archery, nor that this is to the commercial benefit of Easton Archery.

3) You don't dispute that you fail to note your commercial conflict of interest in this issue in your sig.

4) Your only dispute is weather the charitable donations of the non-profit Easton Sports Foundations will result in a bigger payoff for the for profit Easton Archery than the investment. That would be a fair point if I was referring merely to ESDF, however, I was primarily referring to the direct sponsorship of USA Archery by Easton Archery.

I should also add that it is also the case that it is not uncommon for a company to have a non-profit charity do donations that are supposedly not entangled with the for-profit corporation , but just "happen" to have the same CEO and/or directors and agenda. However, you are conflating "Easton", which can refer to, among other people and entities, Jim Easton, the non-profit Easton Development Foundations, and the for-profit company Easton Archery. USA Archery is directly sponsored by **Easton Archery**, as well as by the non-profit Easton Development Foundations.


----------



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

In case anyone is wondering- my opinion is that it's not worth the effort to dispute anything with anonymous people who seem to enjoy provoking arguments on the internet. (Especially those who I have come to believe show evidence of possible psychological issues.)

I am sure many reasonably-minded people agree.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

cbrunson said:


> I really doubt Hoyt, Easton, or USA Archery are at all concerned about the meaningless rant of an AT mega-poster that is clearly just bored, and trying to fuel a pointless debate. I doubt they seek your respect either.


You really should quote the post you are responding to. It could be anyone. Who knows what your definition of "mega-poster" is. :dontknow:


----------



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

Res ipsa loquitur.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

>--gt--> said:


> I don't need to dispute anything with anonymous people who seem to enjoy provoking arguments on the internet.


My arguments stand or fall on their own merits rather than on the basis of me being an authority who's claims must not be questioned.

You start arguments on the internet all the time.

And although many know who you are, your own profile is also anonymous. In fact, as little info as they have, my profile and sig have more info than yours.

So, your excuses for why you have no rebuttal ring rather hollow.



>--gt--> said:


> Res ipsa loquitur.


Which means, "the thing itself speaks". An odd concept to invoke for someone who claims that he need not respond to my arguments because they are anonymous. My arguments stand own their own.


----------



## horndog (Jan 5, 2009)

Warbow said:


> My arguments stand or fall on their own merits rather than on the basis of being an authority who's claims must not be questioned.
> 
> You start arguments on the internet all the time.
> 
> ...


Actually thats a legal term. I'm not sure it applies here. If the person responsible can not be identified then the whole group is responsible. (under certain conditions)


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

horndog said:


> Actually thats a legal term. I'm not sure it applies here. If the person responsible can not be identified then the whole group is responsible.


Ah, thanks for putting that in context beyond the literal interpretation of the Latin. It isn't clear to me whether gt meant it in that context or not, or whether he meant it in the literal sense, given his outspoken animus towards me, even going so far as to make weaselly and false accusations rather than debate on the merits.


----------



## ScottyE (Apr 17, 2008)

limbwalker said:


> Ah Scotty...
> 
> I hardly know where to begin.
> 
> I think, instead, I'll just go back to bowhunting and enjoy the upcoming NFAA events and leave all the expert analysis to folks like yourself.


In the past year USA Archery has posted about a product once it was for archery jewelry. If hoyt is paying them to post stuff they are doing a bad job.


----------



## horndog (Jan 5, 2009)

Warbow said:


> Ah, thanks for putting that in context beyond the literal interpretation of the Latin. It isn't clear to me whether gt meant it in that context or not, or whether he meant it in the literal sense, given his outspoken animus towards me, even going so far as to make false accusations of "psychological problems" rather than debate on the merits.


Glad to help. Remember, Archers helping archers.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

horndog said:


> Glad to help. Remember, Archers helping archers.


Thanks, and I can honestly say I learned something on AT today


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

ScottyE said:


> In the past year USA Archery has posted about a product once it was for archery jewelry. If hoyt is paying them to post stuff they are doing a bad job.


Hmm...yes, I do think it is the case that relative quantity of posts is something to consider. With social media marketing like USA Archery is trying to do it is a bit of a chore to find stuff to be constantly writing about. So, one or two posts out of a massive stream aren't too much to get excited about. However, I think John is struck by a larger context of Easton sponsorship that he has brought up in other posts, and that this latest mention seemed to be just that much more on top of existing issues.


----------



## Greysides (Jun 10, 2009)

>--gt--> said:


> In case anyone is wondering- my opinion is that it's not worth the effort to dispute anything with anonymous people who seem to enjoy provoking arguments on the internet. (Especially those who I have come to believe show evidence of possible psychological issues.)
> 
> I am sure many reasonably-minded people agree.



So basically, agree with gt to be considered as 'reasonably-minded', or don't, and be considered to possibly having 'psychological issues'.


I imagine there's a definition in psychology somewhere for people who think like that.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> Minion of That Company Which Shall Not Be Named


Well, at least he got that much right.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

>--gt--> said:


> So, let's look at what you're saying.
> 
> Jim Easton sells his baseball bat-hockey-stick division, takes the *half-billion* in proceeds, puts it in a non-profit foundation devoted to building archery ranges, so he can _make more money_ from archers.
> 
> My, aren't you bright. You should replace Ben Bernanke.


You both miss the point. The point is influence. Once you have all the money you need, the only real satisfaction left is how many people you can influence. It's why some people want to own a football team in Dallas, others want a microphone, and still others want foundations that bear their name. There's no price you can put on satisfying one's ego.



> I don't think there's a conspiracy, as evident by team members who shoot non-Hoyt bows.


LOL. True, there are a few hold-outs who have politely told the powers that be "no thanks." And I admire them for that. But have a couple of students become RA's, only to have them call you and tell you that they are being told to change bows, and get back to me.  That was one of the things that started to draw my attention to the scope of the problem about 6 years ago, and honestly, that was just the beginning.


----------



## jocala (Jan 26, 2013)

>--gt--> said:


> Jim Easton sells his baseball bat-hockey-stick division, takes the *half-billion* in proceeds, puts it in a non-profit foundation devoted to building archery ranges


I had no idea. I train at the Easton-Newberry facility; super reasonable rates (65$ for 8-week classes), fine individual coaching too. So, thanks Jim Easton!


----------



## hoytshooter15 (Aug 13, 2012)

I wonder what Hoyt will do when Mockingjay comes out. In the book, they describe that katniss has a recurve with many attachments like a lazer sight and sonar device. Not to mention exploding arrows. Wonder if they will modify the story and give her a compound...


----------



## ryan b. (Sep 1, 2005)

hoytshooter15 said:


> I wonder what Hoyt will do when Mockingjay comes out. In the book, they describe that katniss has a recurve with many attachments like a lazer sight and sonar device. Not to mention exploding arrows. Wonder if they will modify the story and give her a compound...


I'm just biting my nails wondering what kind of shoes she's gonna wear.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

lol


Chris


----------



## cbrunson (Oct 25, 2010)

Warbow said:


> You really should quote the post you are responding to. It could be anyone. Who knows what your definition of "mega-poster" is. :dontknow:


The title and rant from the OP. I rarely read your posts because you don't reply back when someone calls you on your BS anyway. :grin:


----------



## cbrunson (Oct 25, 2010)

ryan b. said:


> I'm just biting my nails wondering what kind of shoes she's gonna wear.


Most guys wont be looking at her shoes.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

cbrunson said:


> Most guys wont be looking at her shoes.


Ryan is referencing a shoe thread started by Hoytshooter15.


Chris


----------



## Ar-Pe-Lo (Oct 16, 2011)

>--gt--> said:


> I can see your point, if all you know is what you read from a few disgruntled, *egocentric AT posters*. Do your homework and perhaps you will have a more realistic viewpoint.


LOL that made me laugh......not sure if there is more egocentric AT poster than gt...


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

cbrunson said:


> The title and rant from the OP. I rarely read your posts because you don't reply back when someone calls you on your BS anyway.


Ah, so when you wrote this:



cbrunson said:


> I really doubt Hoyt, Easton, or USA Archery are at all concerned about the meaningless rant of an AT mega-poster that is clearly just bored, and trying to fuel a pointless debate. I doubt they seek your respect either.


...blithely dismissing the OP without addressing a single one of his points you were perhaps not realizing that the OP is a former US Olympic Team member, Junior Dream Team coach and a consultant to USA archery and archery manufacturers, who also happens to write some of the most useful, down to earth and expert posts here on AT on arrow spine, equipment and coaching, as forum regulars can attest.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Ar-Pe-Lo said:


> LOL that made me laugh......not sure if there is more egocentric AT poster than gt...


It's a shame really. The man has the inside insight, talent and knowledge that could enable him to be one of the most interesting, informative and helpful posters on AT, but instead he comes here to petulantly snipe, while accusing other people of things he is doing himself.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Stash, you crack me up.

Thanks for helping me realize, once again, how pointless this all is, in a very clever way. LOL!

Mega-poster... LOL. Been on AT's fita forum since it's inception and average 2.4 posts per day (Join Date September 25th, *2003*). Usually, two of those are answers to questions from someone seeking help. So "try" to forgive me for the .4 because I don't mind being held responsible for saying what everyone else is thinking anyway. 

Anyway, you guys got it from here. I'm going to check my TV schedule so I can make sure I don't miss the "best prop" awards during the oscars... ROTFLMAO...


----------



## cbrunson (Oct 25, 2010)

Warbow said:


> Ah, so when you wrote this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...blithely dismissing the OP without addressing a single one of his points you were perhaps not realizing that the OP is a former US Olympic Team member, Junior Dream Team coach and a consultant to USA archery and archery manufacturers, who also happens to write some of the most useful, down to earth and expert posts here on AT on arrow spine, equipment and coaching, as forum regulars can attest.


Yes I do know those things. The relevance is equivocal given the nature of the rant. Professionalism should invoke impartial comments unless he feels he has been dealt with unjustly by the association, and is simply throwing a temper tantrum.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

cbrunson said:


> Yes I do know those things. The relevance is equivocal given the nature of the rant. Professionalism should invoke impartial comments unless he feels he has been dealt with unjustly by the association, and is simply throwing a temper tantrum.


Pardon me if I find that unconvincing. Calling the OP a rant from a mega-poster was a way of trivializing the OP not based on its content but by an aspersion upon Limbwalker's posting history, with the implication being that having a lot of posts means the posts are trivial, when, in fact, if you "do know those things," you know his posts include some of the most useful information in the FITA Forum, spread out over a decade. If you meant " Professionalism should invoke impartial comments unless he feels he has been dealt with unjustly by the association" then I'd say that is what you should have said rather than making implications about post count. (And, no, I'm not defensive about my own post count. My own posts include many trivial posts in the forums that are for fun, as well as more serious posts, including in the Trad and FITA forum.)


----------



## cbrunson (Oct 25, 2010)

Warbow said:


> Pardon me if I find that unconvincing. Calling the OP a rant from a mega-poster was a way of trivializing the OP not based on its content but by an aspersion upon Limbwalker's posting history, with the implication being that having a lot of posts means the posts are trivial, when, in fact, if you "do know those things," you know his posts include some of the most useful information in the FITA Forum, spread out over a decade. If you meant " Professionalism should invoke impartial comments unless he feels he has been dealt with unjustly by the association" then I'd say that is what you should have said rather than making implications about post count. (And, no, I'm not defensive about my own post count. My own posts include many trivial posts in the forums that are for fun, as well as more serious posts, including in the Trad and FITA forum.)


Well then, my sincerest apologies to the OP for the post count reference. You are correct it was not fair to assimilate this post with the integrity of the poster in question. I will stand by the tantrum assertion and only speculate its purpose.


----------



## w8lon (Jun 2, 2012)

Back on topic, the marketing placement of a particular bow in these movies is brilliant in a sense of attracting our youth to archery. Volunteering to instruct aspiring young archers over the past year as either a project of a college course in marketing through the YMCA or the MI DNR Pocket Park at the State Fair has shown a high increase in young girls wanting to learn. Our three day session with the YMCA with 28 participants was 70% girls between 8-10 years of age. A Fall college archery club recruitment day of shooting also had a higher number of young women willing to participate. This of course in area of outdoors people and vast wilderness. This high interest of young woman can surely have a correlation with recent movie roles.

The problem I see though is product placement without having an affordable product to the target audience, can an aspiring young student of archery buy them selves a bow with allowance money or chore money from a big name company, few can! Manufactures of archery equipment are hurting them selves at current price points by not having the starting point product available.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

w8lon said:


> Back on topic, the marketing placement of a particular bow in these movies is brilliant in a sense of attracting our youth to archery. Volunteering to instruct aspiring young archers over the past year as either a project of a college course in marketing through the YMCA or the MI DNR Pocket Park at the State Fair has shown a high increase in young girls wanting to learn. Our three day session with the YMCA with 28 participants was 70% girls between 8-10 years of age. A Fall college archery club recruitment day of shooting also had a higher number of young women willing to participate. This of course in area of outdoors people and vast wilderness. This high interest of young woman can surely have a correlation with recent movie roles.
> 
> The problem I see though is product placement without having an affordable product to the target audience, can an aspiring young student of archery buy them selves a bow with allowance money or chore money from a big name company, few can! Manufactures of archery equipment are hurting them selves at current price points by not having the starting point product available.


Our club certainly saw an increase in interest in archery. Just general awareness is helpful, so that when people are thinking "what do I want to do this weekend" archery is somewhere in the back of their mind in the list of activities that people can choose to do. People find our group rather than the other way around, we aren't doing any purchased advertising.

As to affordable products, I cringe a bit over that one. Our local sporting goods stores sell blister-packed bows with 3 included 28" carbon fiber arrows. It isn't that I think that inexpensive bows can't be a fun way to get into archery, but rather they are so often the wrong fit and draw weight for the kids and adults who buy them. We spend a fair bit of time talking new students out of immediately buying a bow for lots of reasons, including that they may decide they don't actually like it that much. But mostly we want to get a person into the right bow for them, something that even archery shops can be really bad at, generally over bowing archers and over spining arrows. 

I guess we all need to work at out reach to provide good answers to people interested in buying bows. It's just a bit of a challenge to simplify the options in archery. There are so many of them.


----------



## HikerDave (Jan 1, 2011)

>--gt--> said:


> I can see your point, if all you know is what you read from a few disgruntled, egocentric AT posters. Do your homework and perhaps you will have a more realistic viewpoint.


The sponsorship agreement between Hoyt/Easton and USA archery would be a great place to start. That agreement, or details on how a company would go about being a sponsor of USA archery, and such a sponsor should expect and should not expect, are not easily available on the USA archery web site.

I think that it is reasonable for USA archery to link to a sponsor's product announcements and news on their web site, but I also think that better transparency would help. Right now we have no idea whether competing companies such as Win & Win or Carbon Express could become sponsors of USA archery, if they so desired.

The key question is whether Hoyt's sponsorship of USA archery is charitable (my purchase of thousands of dollars of Hoyt products has somehow helped USA archery) or avaricious (my contribution to USA archery has somehow helped Hoyt promote their products.) or something in between.

My opinion, not based on fact, because I'm not willing to "do my homework" is that I paid a high price for my HPX riser in part because of the cost of Hoyt's marketing, including their subsidy of USA archery.


----------



## MickeyBisco (Jul 14, 2012)

Skirting the issue of who is in bed with whom for just a moment, as someone who has watched filming moved overseas, I'm heartened they used Georgia and Hawaii for much of the locations. Also, again sidestepping the bedfellows issue, if I were propping this show I would likely have chosen a Hoyt bow as well. I'd certainly choose an American company, and the wider availability of Hoyt products would make replacing lost hero props easier. I think visually the Buffalo photographs well, as do most Formula bows. 

I say this as the owner of both W&W products as well as Hoyt.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

MickeyBisco said:


> Skirting the issue of who is in bed with whom for just a moment, as someone who has watched filming moved overseas, I'm heartened they used Georgia and Hawaii for much of the locations. Also, again sidestepping the bedfellows issue, if I were propping this show I would likely have chosen a Hoyt bow as well. I'd certainly choose an American company, and the wider availability of Hoyt products would make replacing lost hero props easier. I think visually the Buffalo photographs well, as do most Formula bows.
> 
> I say this as the owner of both W&W products as well as Hoyt.


Well, I just hope they fix those fetches. The hero prop arrow fetchings in the last movie looked futuristic and unshootable.

And as to bows, I'm happy they aren't using a compound bow. Nothing against compounds, but they just aren't what I shoot or teach at the moment and I'm being entirely selfish.


----------



## arrowyn (Jul 4, 2013)

I think its a big problem when a governing and regulative body (USA archery) decides to promote specific brands. Well then there's sponsorship . . . but in the end it's supposed to accept any brand (as long as it fits in the regulations ) because sponsorship can lead to a type of lobbying and then lobbying is bad because it opens up an avenue for something wrong to happen. One can look to the current state of American government if lobbying rules the roost instead of the ideals and principles the US nation was founded upon. 

Don't crack open a bottle when you know a recovering alcohol addict (especially if you know them) is around . . .

And its a bigger problem when a governing and regulative body states that 'legitimization' doesn't come from archery's mere existence (aside its the mega importance, impact, and influence of the bow and arrow upon human history), and requires that "Hollywood", a movie, or the news media, or excessive popularity legitimizes something, when in fact figures like hunters, Genghis Khan's riders, Robin Hood, Howard Hill, Paris, or the Bible (archery is mentioned at least in 7 different places in the Bible) have done so already. 

not being able to see the forest because of the trees doesn't bode too well for a governing body of archery


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

HikerDave said:


> The sponsorship agreement between Hoyt/Easton and USA archery would be a great place to start. That agreement, or details on how a company would go about being a sponsor of USA archery, and such a sponsor should expect and should not expect, are not easily available on the USA archery web site.
> 
> I think that it is reasonable for USA archery to link to a sponsor's product announcements and news on their web site, but I also think that better transparency would help. Right now we have no idea whether competing companies such as Win & Win or Carbon Express could become sponsors of USA archery, if they so desired.
> 
> ...


I don't think you can "do your homework" even if you had the time and interest to do so. I assume that the sponsorship agreement is secret. Even those with individual archers are covered by NDAs. So that isn't on you, that is on people like industry insider gt, the sponsors and USA archery to be transparent about their relationship with a non-profit national governing body that receives special Olympic and government privileges.



arrowyn said:


> I think its a big problem when a governing and regulative body (USA archery) decides to promote specific brands. Well then there's sponsorship . . . but in the end it's supposed to accept any brand (as long as it fits in the regulations ) because sponsorship can lead to a type of lobbying and then lobbying is bad because it opens up an avenue for something wrong to happen. One can look to the current state of American government if lobbying rules the roost instead of the ideals and principles the US nation was founded upon.


I think you both make good points. We can see where the money comes from in the audited financials for USA Archery, but we can't see the influence that the sponsors have because the sponsorship agreements, AFIK, are secret. We don't know what agreements or obligations the sponsors or USA Archery have. And even on top of that there may well be un-written understandings, as well, about promotions of sponsors and frowning on the products of non-sponsors. There may well be lots of self-censorship by management to not tick off the cash cows :dontknow:


----------



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

w8lon said:


> The problem I see though is product placement without having an affordable product to the target audience, can an aspiring young student of archery buy them selves a bow with allowance money or chore money from a big name company, few can! *Manufactures of archery equipment are hurting them selves at current price points by not having the starting point product available.*


One cursory look at Lancaster's website will reveal a half-dozen choices for beginner bows, all under a hundred dollars. Like this one, for instance. Made in USA and priced under $70.00

http://www.lancasterarchery.com/easton-recurve-bow.html


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

Warbow said:


> *I don't think* you can "do your homework" even if you had the time and interest to do so. *I assume* that the sponsorship agreement is *secret*. Even those with individual archers are covered by NDAs. So that isn't on you, that is on people like industry insider gt, the sponsors and USA archery to be *transparent about* their relationship with a non-profit national governing body that receives special Olympic and government privileges.
> 
> 
> 
> *I think* you both make good points. We can see where the money comes from in the audited financials for USA Archery, but *we can't see* the influence that the sponsors have because the sponsorship agreements, AFIK, are *secret*. *We don't know* what agreements or obligations the sponsors or USA Archery have. And even on top of that *there may well be* un-written understandings, as well, about promotions of sponsors and frowning on the products of non-sponsors. *There may well be* lots of self-censorship by management to not tick off the cash cows :dontknow:


And you "may well be" grasping at your own farts. 

The movie is part of a hugely successful franchise and Hoyt scored big with its product placement. Congratulations to Hoyt and congratulations to US Archery. Its all good. USA!


----------



## tjk009 (Feb 15, 2007)

Love a lively discussion, makes me smile. I am thankful that I can spend considerable time shooting on fields where ESDF has been involved. I will note that when I was a law student years ago a very smart professor told me to never forget "things aren't what they are, but what they look like." A smart marketing department of any business shouldn't disregard this premise.


----------



## w8lon (Jun 2, 2012)

Very nice to see GT, now about those arrows that are actually spined to fit this bow as a set, not those Genesis 1820's out of a 20# bow

I stand corrected with an affordable American made bow for those inspired, bravo!


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Seattlepop said:


> And you "may well be" grasping at your own farts.


That seems rather gratuitous, SP.

Do you think any of the sponsorship agreements between Easton Foundation, Easton Archery, Hoyt and USA Archery are available to the public? I don't. What is your reason for thinking otherwise? Sponsored shooters in this forum have said their personal sponsorship agreements are covered by NDA. Do you have any basis to think that the USA Archery agreements are different in that respect? If so, where are they on-line?


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Seattlepop said:


> And you "may well be" grasping at your own farts.


That seems rather gratuitous, SP.

Do you think any of the sponsorship agreements between Easton Foundation, Easton Archery, Hoyt and USA Archery are available to the public? I don't. What is your reason for thinking otherwise? Sponsored shooters in this forum have said their personal sponsorship agreements are covered by NDA. Do you have any basis to think that the USA Archery agreements are different in that respect? If so, where are they on-line? I would think that if the sponsorship agreements were public gt would know about it and be more than eager to point them out to prove me wrong. He hasn't done that.

And as to me using qualifiers to be accurate, I think accuracy in writing is a good thing, something we should all strive towards.


----------



## cbrunson (Oct 25, 2010)

Warbow said:


> That seems rather gratuitous, SP.
> 
> Do you think any of the sponsorship agreements between Easton Foundation, Easton Archery, Hoyt and USA Archery are available to the public? I don't. What is your reason for thinking otherwise? Sponsored shooters in this forum have said their personal sponsorship agreements are covered by NDA. Do you have any basis to think that the USA Archery agreements are different in that respect? If so, where are they on-line? I would think that if the sponsorship agreements were public gt would know about it and be more than eager to point them out to prove me wrong. He hasn't done that.
> 
> And as to me using qualifiers to be accurate, I think accuracy in writing is a good thing, something we should all strive towards.


And what exactly, do sponsorship agreements have to do with a shameless plug for marketing?


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

cbrunson said:


> And what exactly, do sponsorship agreements have to do with a shameless plug for marketing?


If you are referring to the FB Hoyt/USA Archery posts Limbwalker referred to in the OP, then we don't know for certain, do we, because we don't know what is in the sponsorship agreements.

I don't have any issues with Hoyt doing product placements in movies, or not.


----------



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

Warbow said:


> I would think that if the sponsorship agreements were public gt would know about it and be more than eager to point them out to prove me wrong. He hasn't done that.


That's 'cause you are on my IGNORE LIST, sunshine, and I wouldn't have seen this if it hadn't been quoted by another member. In other words, as Tony Soprano might say... well, never mind what Tony Soprano would say. I am sure some people can figure it out.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

>--gt--> said:


> That's 'cause you are on my IGNORE LIST, sunshine, and I wouldn't have seen this if it hadn't been quoted by another member. In other words, as Tony Soprano might say... well, never mind what Tony Soprano would say. I am sure some people can figure it out.


Notice anything missing from your post, gt? 

1) You don't deny that the sponsorship agreements with USA Archery are secret.

So I'm not sure what the point of your post is other than to be counter-productively snarky, which is, oddly, typical of many of your posts.


----------



## ArtV (Jan 29, 2008)

There really are things in our world more important to spend time contemplating than who does what is archery. USArchery isn't telling anyone what bow, what limb, what arrow they need to be shooting. The elite shooters shoot what is given them and spend the check that comes with the sponsorship so they can keep shooting....but that doesn't impact the rank and file. Mathews has done much the same thing in the world of 3D shooting. Hoyt has a hard time keeping up with them in the hunting field....and that's were the money is in archery.

If Obama is allowed to keep it up, most of use won't be able to afford anything more than a selfbow.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

_"If Obama is allowed to keep it up, most of use won't be able to afford anything more than a selfbow."_

+10 ... we'll soon all be grist for the "USA Hunger Games" mill.


----------



## ArtV (Jan 29, 2008)

Just got an email from Lancaster Archery about the bow in the movie....they are playing it up also. Plenty of publicity gonna be goin on.

Lancaster's Lead out on the bow......

Styled after the Hottest bow in Hollywood
• This bow is Catching on Fire with movie fans

Hell, it's the only bow in Hollywood...lol


----------



## ArtV (Jan 29, 2008)

Warbow said:


> Notice anything missing from your post, gt?
> 
> 1) You don't deny that the sponsorship agreements with USA Archery are secret.
> 
> So I'm not sure what the point of your post is other than to be counter-productively snarky, which is, oddly, typical of many of your posts.


He's learned from Obama.....tell em one thing, do another, or don't say anything and just let it happen....justifiable eh? It's for the common good, it's for the kids, my deceased grandmother will benefit too!


----------



## ArtV (Jan 29, 2008)

cbrunson said:


> And what exactly, do sponsorship agreements have to do with a shameless plug for marketing?


It's call "doin business"


----------



## Bigjono (Apr 21, 2009)

Hoyt are a business with money to make and wages to pay and can be counted as an American success story.
Problems start if they are using their $$$$ to gain unfair influence I've an "independent" national archery body. I don't know if they are but if there is a shoot Hoyt to shoot here policy then that's wrong.


----------



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

Bigjono said:


> Hoyt are a business with money to make and wages to pay and can be counted as an American success story.
> Problems start if they are using their $$$$ to gain unfair influence I've an "independent" national archery body. I don't know if they are but if there is a shoot Hoyt to shoot here policy then that's wrong.


There is obviously no such policy. Anyone who says their is can easily be proved a liar.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

>--gt--> said:


> There is obviously no such policy. Anyone who says their is can easily be proved a liar.


OK. Prove it.



(If it was actually easy to prove you would have done so rather than just claiming it is easy to prove without doing so and calling the poster a liar anyway.)


----------



## w8lon (Jun 2, 2012)

ArtV said:


> Just got an email from Lancaster Archery about the bow in the movie....they are playing it up also. Plenty of publicity gonna be goin on.
> 
> Lancaster's Lead out on the bow......
> 
> ...


Should be setting up a trailer full of the kits outside the theater now! Great deal for a kid starting out for $100, three 1816's , tab, armguard, and ambidextrous to boot.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

w8lon said:


> Should be setting up a trailer full of the kits outside the theater now! Great deal for a kid starting out for $100, three 1816's , tab, armguard, and ambidextrous to boot.


There is the whole safety thing, though. People need a backstop, and a safe place around it. Archery is actually illegal outdoors in some communities, and even illegal **indoors** in at least one I've heard of from a local Kuydo instructor.

But, yeah, I'd love to see some well thought out tie ins to responsibly promote archery.


----------



## Xs24-7 (Aug 1, 2002)

Warbow said:


> OK. Prove it.


Prove what? That the paranoid suspicions of a few are wrong...when there is no proof that the paranoid suspicions are anything more than that. Numerous archers on numerous teams shoot a variety of equipment from companies that don't sponsor US Archery. That should be evidence enough that your delusions are just that.
That being said, I'm sure many choose to support companies that make great equipment. Companies that give back to the sport they love through contributions to the development of their sport. I am confused by those who criticize US archery for promoting a sponsor...that's how it works. I'd defy any of you to show me any NSO that doesn't make efforts to promote their sponsors.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Xs24-7 said:


> Prove what?


Bigjono wrote this:


Bigjono said:


> Hoyt are a business with money to make and wages to pay and can be counted as an American success story.
> Problems start if they are using their $$$$ to gain unfair influence I've an "independent" national archery body. I don't know if they are but if there is a shoot Hoyt to shoot here policy then that's wrong.


gt retorted:


>--gt--> said:


> There is obviously no such policy. Anyone who says their is can easily be proved a liar.


If it is so obvious and so easy to prove that sponsors have no unfair influence on the NGB for archery, then gt needs to do so. It can be hard to prove a negative. But USA Archery and its sponsors could start the process by being transparent about their agreements and publish them like they do the USA Archery financials. I'm a big fan of transparency for government and public institutions like National Governing Bodies for sports. 

If gt wants to have any credibility in what he says in his posts here at AT he needs to follow up on his claim. Right now his claim that being a well known person makes one more credible on AT isn't consistent with the content of his actual posts.


----------



## Xs24-7 (Aug 1, 2002)

GT has to prove nothing. YOU are the one making unsubstantiated claims. The onus is on YOU to prove those claims. Why would GT have to prove anything to you? You are a nobody. You have some baseless claims that are rediculous, inconsequential, and baseless. 
I am sure if another company wanted to dole out money by the truck load, US archery would be happy to spend it for them as well. Until that happens, I'm grateful that the Easton foundation is stepping up to sponsor facilities, events, and infrastructure that is needed to grow our sport. How anyone can find fault in that is beyond me.


----------



## Dacer (Jun 10, 2013)

Xs24-7 said:


> GT has to prove nothing. YOU are the one making unsubstantiated claims. The onus is on YOU to prove those claims. Why would GT have to prove anything to you? You are a nobody. You have some baseless claims that are rediculous, inconsequential, and baseless.
> I am sure if another company wanted to dole out money by the truck load, US archery would be happy to spend it for them as well. Until that happens, I'm grateful that the Easton foundation is stepping up to sponsor facilities, events, and infrastructure that is needed to grow our sport. How anyone can find fault in that is beyond me.



Yea, baseless claims are baseless.

I think the point is - there is an appeance of heavy influence over those that make it to such programs as the RAs and JDT to use hoyt bows. There is plenty of evidence of group dynamics where there are unspoken, unwritten practices that those in the group are pushed to conform too - such as you should hoyt bows. 

I have no dog in the fight I really like my helix. 


However - from my observations one side has anecdotal evidence mixed with some personal experience versus the other side saying - that's not our policy. 


And the side saying it's not our policy is the one using most f the snarky and sarcasti language , and trivializing the personals of the other side. 


Neither side is going to convince the other without definitive proof and at least one side is saying - show us that we are wrong and well get over it. 


That all said I am enjoying to back and forth.


----------



## TER (Jul 5, 2003)

So ridiculous. This is like asking the classic loaded question, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" But instead it's "Hey if GT does not deny the existence of secret deals I made up in my head that means they are real. Like unicorns."


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

TER said:


> So ridiculous. This is like asking the classic loaded question, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" But instead it's "Hey if GT does not deny the existence of secret deals I made up in my head that means they are real. Like unicorns."


When gt says stuff like this:



>--gt--> said:


> There is obviously no such policy. Anyone who says their is can easily be proved a liar.


...it is likely BS, because if it was so easy to prove, he'd prove it. But he can't. Because proving a negative isn't actually easy or obvious, especially if NDAs are involved.

Is there no undue influence on USA Archery? Transparency is the answer. Transparency is what gt would have to enable to do that "easy" proof. And I'm all for it. So, it's up to gt to step up to the plate and make the easy proof rather than make claims about people being liars.

Tell me why sponsorship agreements with the NGB for archery should be more secret than the financials?


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

Warbow said:


> When gt says stuff like this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So...how much are you and John being paid to sabotage US Archery and Easton/Hoyt? There must be at the very least a "secret" agreement to undo the alleged influence pedaling in order to bring favor to other manufacturers. Go ahead, prove you are not. We'll wait. (Well not really).

John, I suspect you started this thread at least half tongue in cheek, but folks like Warb make it impossible to see the value in your sentiments. You have so much more to offer than this thread would lead anyone, new members in particular, to believe.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Seattlepop said:


> So...how much are you and John being paid to sabotage US Archery and Easton/Hoyt? There must be at the very least a "secret" agreement to undo the alleged influence pedaling in order to bring favor to other manufacturers. Go ahead, prove you are not. We'll wait. (Well not really).


One difference is that I'm not the one who claimed this:



>--gt--> said:


> There is obviously no such policy. Anyone who says their is can easily be proved a liar.


I know negatives are hard to prove, so I try not to make such over broad claims. But USA Archery and Hoyt/Easton could put a big dent in any such potential speculation by publishing their NGB and, if any, USA Archery coaches, sponsorship deals. NGBs are powerful, semi-public bodies and their actions should all be transparent and above board, including sponsorship deals and obligations.

I support transparency. Do you?

In that spirit, even in response to your snarky and sarcastic post which seems to be based on personal animus, I note that I have no sponsorship deals or arrangements of any kind whatsoever with any manufactorer or archery organization. Just my membership. 100% transparent. Can gt say the same thing for himself and Hoyt/Easton and USA Archery?


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

Warbow said:


> One difference is that I'm not the one who claimed this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Emphasis added. Have a nice evening.


----------



## Mindhunter (Apr 16, 2013)

While I respect the fact you desire supporting evidence rather than blindly following the opinions of person a or person b, the fact is that gt really has no " negative" to prove. The fact that there are plenty of shooters at national, world, and Olympic events using equipment other than Hoyt/Easton IS the proof you are requesting. If you take a step back from the intense verbal repartee for a moment, you will realize this is already obvious within the context of logical argument. If it was actual policy that one "must shoot Hoyt to shoot here," then every shooter on the line would be shooting only Hoyt. Because brands other than Hoyt/Easton are used at competitions, gt recognizes that he needs no further evidence to support his statement of "no such policy" (This is res ipsa loquitor in its more literal translation as the thing obviously speaks for itself here, and well beyond the anecdotal or circumstantial evidence standard in tort law). He made no claim that people are not pressured/paid/heavily influenced by advertising into shooting a particual brand, only that there was no policy requiring the use of specific brands. 

Since you seem to be an intelligent individual, I can only assume that emotions have entered into the argument, making things seem much more convoluted...something that happens to everyone, even Mr. Spock, upon occasion...omg, did I just make a Star Trek reference in an Internet argument?!?! My mega-nerdhood status is now irrevocably official (*shakes fist at sky*)


----------



## spangler (Feb 2, 2007)

Warbow. Eat a snickers.

This thread is awesome. It still doesn't hold a candle to the shoe thread.....but at least the shoe thread WAS referenced in this thread.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

spangler said:


> Warbow. Eat a snickers.
> 
> This thread is awesome. It still doesn't hold a candle to the shoe thread.....but at least the shoe thread WAS referenced in this thread.



:set1_rolf2:


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

I think John's main target here was the sycophant behavior/stance of USA Archery toward big sponsorship money (Hoyt's just doing what big companies do - utilizing their muscle/influence to further their markets). 

The original point being made (at least how I read it) is that USA Archery is too inclined to be a willing floozy to the seduction, while seeming to under serve its 7000+ paying grass roots membership.


----------



## rharper (Apr 30, 2012)

I'm interested. Besides sharing all sorts of information via Facebook (not just shared Hoyt tweets), and using a US movie to push archery (that was pushed by Hoyt because it uses it's bow) what other strange and weird influence do you see happening?

The only thing I can think of as (publicly looking like an influence of manufacturers) was the re-vote on 27 vs 23 arrows sizes being legal in NFAA.

I would try and influence a governing body too if I put money into developing arrows to be used in competition (27 series of Gold Tip, Easton, Eagle) and then have then decide they are not cool based on opinions of purists of what is too big.


----------



## rharper (Apr 30, 2012)

As pointed out, USA doesn't suggest the use of Hoyt/Easton products in their manuals. They don't require you to use their products at higher levels. A shared post half promoting archery and half promoting a movie doesn't equal an all encompassing imposition of decisions in my book. Are there examples of other archery companies doing such a large promotion on a national scale that have been left out by USA archery?


----------



## SteveID (May 6, 2008)

Dang all of these companies that are trying to make money!! They're only trying to grow the sport so that they can make more money!! What kind of a business does that??!! 

I'm so mad that they give our NGB money to help them operate, and can you believe that the NGB helps promote them?? 

Then they have the nerve to provide equipment for the National teams if the archers CHOOSE to shoot that equipment!! Corporate bast*rds!! I'm only going to support the companies that don't support US Archers.

OMG!! Incredulous!! Preposterous!!


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

lksseven said:


> I think John's main target here was the sycophant behavior/stance of USA Archery toward big sponsorship money (Hoyt's just doing what big companies do - utilizing their muscle/influence to further their markets).
> 
> The original point being made (at least how I read it) is that USA Archery is too inclined to be a willing floozy to the seduction, while seeming to under serve its 7000+ paying grass roots membership.


That is one of my points Larry, but only a secondary one.

What started the rant - and yes, it was just a rant so don't get too excited folks - was the ridiculous "claims" in the ad:



> #archery #legit by having Katniss Everdeen shooting a #Hoyt Buffalo! #HungerGames #CatchingFire
> 
> Who else thinks the Hoyt Buffalo deserves to be an Oscar nominee? #bestprop2013 #catchingfire #hungergames #getseriousgethoyt


Suggesting that the BOW makes the movie "legit" and going so far as to suggest the bow should be nominated for best prop. 

Well, by the looks of the movie poster, someone forgot to tell the production company. That is unless, of course, Hoyt is now producing Howard Hill-style longbows. LOL!









After thinking about it for a few days, I do owe USArchery, and in particular, Teresa Iaconi, an apology, as suggesting they endorsed or were promoting the Hoyt ad was incorrect. As was pointed out, they merely shared it to promote archery.

So Teresa, if you're reading, please accept my apology. I sometimes forget how FB works. My bad.

I think folks know where I stand however on the influence of corporations on what I feel "should" be an organization of amateur athletes. Corporate influence has gone too far in their grip on the Olympic games and athletes. I do stand by that.

SteveID, there's absolutely nothing wrong with companies trying to make money. It's HOW they make it that should be examined. Using your position or dollars to influence a "non-profit" ? Not cool. If nobody can draw the parallel between this behavior in archery, or sports in general, and our sell-out congress, then I guess I can't help you.

John


----------



## w8lon (Jun 2, 2012)

Nice graphic art with one exception the BH of the Hill bow is quite strong by estimation the string should be 1 1/2" longer!


----------



## SteveID (May 6, 2008)

limbwalker said:


> SteveID, there's absolutely nothing wrong with companies trying to make money. It's HOW they make it that should be examined. Using your position or dollars to influence a "non-profit" ? Not cool. If nobody can draw the parallel between this behavior in archery, or sports in general, and our sell-out congress, then I guess I can't help you.
> 
> John


I'm just not seeing where anything between USAA and Hoyt or Easton crosses the line to somehow become "unethical." Nor do I see where sponsorship dollars are "influencing" USAA. If I go to a Ducks Unlimited Banquet, and Beretta has donated 10 shotguns for auction, I won't be surprised when the Ducks Unlimited folks throw Beretta some love, and I completely understand that the end-result for Beretta's donation is to put more money in their pocket.


----------



## ryan b. (Sep 1, 2005)

Moderators, I really think we should merge this thread with the shoe thread.


----------



## red_elan10 (Apr 23, 2008)

Thanks, John  We do try to make the Facebook page fun and interesting for everyone. As always, I invite all of you who are involved with archery programs and coaching to share your photos, videos, etc. - we love to share them on Facebook, Twitter and Google Plus. You are welcome to send them via message to USA Archery's Facebook page, or to my email: [email protected].


----------



## robin smith (Jun 6, 2011)

I think you are looking at this all wrong!!!
Instead you should be asking yourself why are so few of the companies that the archery industry is supporting not putting anything back into the bysness.
And please do not tell me about sponcers. If all you are getting is a bow at 10% above cost the sponcer is not giving you anything. truth be told you are being horde out.
You are providing a valuable service and getting very little in return.


----------



## Dacer (Jun 10, 2013)

robin smith said:


> I think you are looking at this all wrong!!!
> Instead you should be asking yourself why are so few of the companies that the archery industry is supporting not putting anything back into the bysness*(business) *
> And please do not tell me about sponcers*(Sponsors)* . If all you are getting is a bow at 10% above cost the sponcer*(Sponsors)* is not giving you anything. truth be told you are being horde out
> You are providing a valuable service and getting very little in return.


Honestly I'm really not sure if i understand what you said here. 

I think you meant...

There are few companies investing back into the sport - i.e. donating money to youth programs or events (at least that is what I assume you mean or something along those lines). 

If you are getting a large discount on equipment, if not getting it free, then the sponsor is giving you something. I'm not sure how the Athlete is being *****d( it gets censored)out. I am assuming you didn't actually mean Horde - as in the Mongol Horde or a Horde of people but rather the sexually promiscuous meaning. I'm sure our elite archers have contract obligations they have to meet but I don't think that is in anyway the kind of relationship you are implying it to be.


----------



## HikerDave (Jan 1, 2011)

robin smith said:


> I think you are looking at this all wrong!!!
> Instead you should be asking yourself why are so few of the companies that the archery industry is supporting not putting anything back into the bysness.
> And please do not tell me about sponcers. If all you are getting is a bow at 10% above cost the sponcer is not giving you anything. truth be told you are being horde out.
> You are providing a valuable service and getting very little in return.


We don't know whether Hoyt's sponsorship of USA archery is exclusive or why Win & Win or other manufacturers are not also sponsors.


----------



## Arcus (Jul 7, 2005)

limbwalker said:


> After thinking about it for a few days, I do owe USArchery, and in particular, Teresa Iaconi, an apology


How refreshing. Unfortunately, all too rare.


----------



## ArtV (Jan 29, 2008)

This ain't the bow...
[email protected] <[email protected]>


----------



## w8lon (Jun 2, 2012)

Art your link may just send an email to Lancasters spambot,,, FYI


----------



## jmvargas (Oct 21, 2004)

...khatuna lorig is supposed to have coached jennifer lawrence in archery for the HUNGER GAMES movies but when i see a poster with her putting her left forefinger OVER the arrow at full draw i cringe!!


----------

