# Is it reasonable to have a "no string walking" class?



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Steve Morley trying out target archery reminded me of this issue. Is it reasonable for there to be some trad/Barebow classes that prohibit string walking? I know that Limbwalker has said that the only limit should be the equipment, not the technique. In that line of thinking, though, soccer players should be allowed to use their hands, softball pitchers should be able to pitch over hand and basket ball players should be able to skip dribbling. Don't most sports regulate technique, to some degree or another?

Let me point out, I'm not against string walking per se. I think it is an amazing method of gaming the system - it is a form of improvised adjustable, calibrated sight at the string, rather than at the riser, in classes where sights are prohibited. And the results can be amazing. But I also think there should be room for people who do not string walk to shoot head to head against each other without string walkers in the mix.

Any thoughts?


----------



## anmactire (Sep 4, 2012)

I think as long as everybody agrees to the rules of the game and the category gets attended then no problem. At the end of the day it's just shooting for sport no matter how you do it. The only complaint I can think of for the stringwalking shooter is if they don't have any shoots they can attend where they may use that technique. Then it's a case of solving that problem, not the "problem" of rule restrictions.
To put it in perspective for those that shoot Oly' Recurve, imagine if your category was opened to Compound shooters. Probably how the no stringwalking crowd feel about things.


----------



## Ten_Zen (Dec 5, 2010)

Interesting thought. Although I am not sure it will be well received. It seems like the trend is to eliminate barebow classes from competition, not make more of them.


----------



## Viper1 (Aug 21, 2003)

WB - 

Same problem as before, how many classes do we need?

What if I found or had made a bow where the upper curve of the sight window just happened to line up with the bulls eye at a given distance?
Bare bow? Technically, sure. Ethically? 

Bottom line is all you can regulate is the equipment, and with the example I gave, that's not even fool-proof.

Viper1 out.


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

This target tourney I'm doing, I'm shooting against the sighted Recurve Archers, I don't mind at all as I'm the only one in Barebow. 

Since I made the switch to Barebow in Dec I was pretty much the only shooter here, now we have around 7, a few of the top European Barebows have been a great source of info and help to me over the last 6 months, which helped me progress quite quickly, my first International Barebow outing in France, the IFAA European 3D's I won.

Barebow seems to be better received this side of the pond, many European countries welcome Barebow in target tourneys and the WA Field/3D has healthy numbers in Barebow div. At the start of WA3D the Recurve Instinctive div was a full ILF rig shot with fixed anchor and 3 under, seems they wanted to move further away from Barebow and changed to wood only non ILF risers. One of the reasons I made the switch to Barebow is so I can shoot both WA and IFAA without changing equipment all the time.


----------



## Bigjono (Apr 21, 2009)

BB in the NFAS UK doesn't allow stringwalking, string walkers get lumped into FreeStyle with the Oly crowd.
I believe in just regulating the equipment then shoot it how you want, everyone has the choice.


----------



## screemnjay (Nov 2, 2008)

There are already no-Stringwalking classes. If you don't want to string walk, shoot one of those classes. If you choose to, there's a place to do so.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

screemnjay said:


> There are already no-Stringwalking classes. If you don't want to string walk, shoot one of those classes. If you choose to, there's a place to do so.


Anyone have a master list of all the archery orgs, classes and whether or not they allow string walking?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> imagine if your category was opened to Compound shooters.


Different question. I've always said-regulate the equipment, not how it's used. 

The contest here is how well you can shoot "said" bow. Not, how well you can shoot said bow with one hand tied behind your back while standing on one foot and chewing gum.

In other words, equipment restrictions are not arbitrary. They are objective and easy for everyone to adhere to. 

However, restrictions on HOW you shoot the bow are arbitrary and IMO serve no useful purpose.

What about an Olympic recurve class where you can only anchor under your cheekbone and not under your jaw for the sole purpose of making folks aim off the bale at the longer distances? Most would call that preposterous. And yet, how is that any different than having to touch the arrow nock with your index finger?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

The better question here Warbow, is why is it necessary to not allow stringwalking? What does it accomplish? 

What other division does this? 

Answer - none. Only barebow, to satisfy the neo-trad's who truly believe they don't aim, and they don't want to have to compete against anyone who is. 

It's ridiculous.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

There are some "traditional" events that don't allow 3-under, only split-fingered shooting! 

Where does this end? Who gets to make up those rules? 

And again, what really is the point?


----------



## SBills (Jan 14, 2004)

I really dislike all of the various rules or definitions for barebow. It makes it very difficult to have one setup that is legal and truly optimized. In NFAA barebow has stabilizers, clickers and includes compound. IFAA is the same but recurve only. FITA no stabilizers no clicker. IBO is close to NFAA traditional but allows stringwalking. 

If you have ever tried to explain recurve barebow to someone and what classes shoot what equipment and or aiming technique it can be quiet entertaining.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> The better question here Warbow, is why is it necessary to not allow stringwalking? What does it accomplish?
> 
> What other division does this?
> 
> ...


John, I have to disagree and say it isn't "ridiculous", it is just a rule that you disfavor. And we can agree or disagree on various rules without having to characterize them as ridiculous.

I'd say that all competitive sports are about rules. Without rules to define the competition there isn't one. And I think that we can both agree that both equipment regulating equipment (recurve vs. compound, pistol vs. rifle, show room stock vs. Formula 1) makes sense, so does regulating technique (soccer players can't use hand, softball must pitch under hand), and so does regulating both at once (off handed target pistol must be shot one handed, standing rifle must be shot standing not prone). So, regulating both equipment and technique is common.

The real issue, I think, is not whether regulating behavior or technique are inherently bad in a sport (it is not) but rather that people tend to want the rules to favor their style or philosophy. Equipment and technique can and do confer advantages. To have competition you need to limit equipment and/or technique, especially if you want "fair competition," but the term "fair competition" is value laden and has no one definition, so there will always be arguments over what it means and how to implement it because people have a vested interest in having the rule defined in a way that closely matches their strengths.


----------



## Viper1 (Aug 21, 2003)

WB - 

Maybe there's an elephant in the room, or just my pet peeve, so I'll come right out and say it.

Most the the "top bare bow guys" are shooting Olympic rigs and "sights" every bit as real as my Sure-Loc (be it the arrow or part of the riser or what have you). So, you may be on to something, maybe we should get rid of the "string walking class" at national events, and throw the "bare bow" guys in with the "Olympic shooters". Get rid of the arbitrary stabilizer rules and require the "bare bow" guys to shoot the same scores as the guys with hard sights? 

When you think about it, what's really the difference?

Viper1 out.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Viper1 said:


> WB -
> 
> Maybe there's an elephant in the room, or just my pet peeve, so I'll come right out and say it.
> 
> ...


The difference, in this case, is that you are making the exact opposite point as me, to have fewer categories, and have more people lumped in together at competitive disadvantage to each other based on equipment and technique. 

There is no question that competitive sports must have rules, that draw lines that delimit permitted equipment and behavior. The only thing we are really discussing is how many classes to have and where to draw the line(s).


----------



## SBills (Jan 14, 2004)

Comparing it to soccer is a very poor analogy. Golf is much closer. In golf they regulate the equipment. They do not tell you how to construct your swing or putting technique. Both of which will be ingrained to your technique after hours and hours of practice (sounding familiar?)..............


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

SBills just hit the nail on the head.

At single distances there really is NO different between someone stringwalking or not. The NFAA "Trad" 12" stab rule made more difference indoor then if they allowed stringwalking.

As for "non stringwalking" classes in the US you have the following:

NFAA- Trad, LB, BH
ASA- Trad
IBO- Trad, LB, MLB

Stringwalking classes:

NFAA- BB (which is compounds)
USAA- BB

Tony:

I've never heard you spout something so ignorant. Clearly you've lost sight of what barebow archery is actually about.

-Grant


----------



## SBills (Jan 14, 2004)

IBO also has RU which is stringwalking recurve and a 12" stabilizer. ASA I believe has a class that allows the stabilizer but no stringwalking. Ahhh so very confusing.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Warbow, I'm not going to argue with you about it. It is ridiculous and many of my counterparts (read - top barebow archers in the U.S.) agree with me, as we are all constantly having to change equipment and shooting styles just to shoot "barebow" at the various events where barebow is allowed.

Tell you what... You enter, say, 3 or 4 U.S. Indoor Nationals events in both USArchery and NFAA, then shoot about 10-15 state and local events in each, all while competing for state and national titles and setting state records along the way... then coach a group of barebow archers in both NFAA and USArchery events, including a world championship event, and then let me know whether you think it's ridiculous or not.

'Kay?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Grant, I think Tony's comments were tongue in cheek. 

And Scott, you're absolutely right about the golf analogy. 

What if PGA touring pros could only putt one handed in USGA events, but two handed in PGA events? Then in R&A sanctioned events, they could use long putters?

How preposterous would that be? But that's exactly what we have to deal with in "Barebow" right now. 

John


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

SBills said:


> Comparing it to soccer is a very poor analogy. Golf is much closer. In golf they regulate the equipment. They do not tell you how to construct your swing or putting technique. Both of which will be ingrained to your technique after hours and hours of practice (sounding familiar?)..............


The soccer analogy wasn't meant to be completely analogous to archery, rather it is a stark example that with many sports regulating technique *is* the sport - more than the size and placement of the goals, or the size of the pitch or the other rules, footie is first and foremost a ball moved around the field by players without using their hands. Sports regulate technique all the time. It isn't an exception. 

As to golf, there is no sighting system for golf, so there is no analog to restricting a sighting system that gives users a clear advantage. And, in fact, golf does restrict technique - it is not a free for all based strictly on equipment classes.



> 14-1. Ball to be Fairly Struck At
> 
> *The ball* must be fairly struck at with the head of the club and *must not be pushed, scraped or spooned.*


And you can't just use the gear any way you want to.



> 14-3. Artificial Devices, Unusual Equipment and Unusual Use of Equipment
> 
> The USGA reserves the right, at any time, to change the Rules relating to artificial devices, unusual equipment and the unusual use of equipment, and to make or change the interpretations relating to these Rules...
> 
> Except as provided in the Rules, during a stipulated round *the player must not *use any artificial device or unusual equipment (see Appendix IV for detailed specifications and interpretations), or *use any equipment in an unusual manner*


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> Warbow, I'm not going to argue with you about it. It is ridiculous and many of my counterparts (read - top barebow archers in the U.S.) agree with me, as we are all constantly having to change equipment and shooting styles just to shoot "barebow" at the various events where barebow is allowed.
> 
> Tell you what... You enter, say, 3 or 4 U.S. Indoor Nationals events in both USArchery and NFAA, then shoot about 10-15 state and local events in each, all while competing for state and national titles and setting state records along the way... then coach a group of barebow archers in both NFAA and USArchery events, including a world championship event, and then let me know whether you think it's ridiculous or not.
> 
> 'Kay?


John, there you are talking about the broader issue of *fragmentation* between different orgs rules, not string walking _per se_. That doesn't make the string walking rules "ridiculous." And if all the orgs had the same rules, well you wouldn't need different orgs, you'd just have the universal church of World Archery. Having different rules is why may people seek out different orgs, to find rules that match with their own interests. I'm not saying there couldn't be value to having some more alignment between orgs, but neither am I convinced that all archery orgs around the US and around the world should be generic and homogenous.

Besides, think of how much more valuable you are as a coach who can help people navigate the organizational differences for Trad/Barebow competition. If it was easy everyone would do it :wink: (Remember your post about how "easy" (sort of ) archery coaches have it compared to coaches of other competitive sports? Well, here's a complex area of archery where you earn the big volunteer coach dollars  )


----------



## MickeyBisco (Jul 14, 2012)

Is there an imbalance here? Meaning, are the folks commonly standing on the podium at Barebow tournaments getting there while string walking? If not, it's kind of a non issue. Are Ben or Alan getting spanked routinely by folks "gaming the system"? If there's points in it, I'd assume everyone would be doing it. 

Maybe I'm wrong, I dunno.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Again, Warbow, I'm not going to argue until you have some personal experience in the area.


----------



## anmactire (Sep 4, 2012)

Limbwalker, I see exactly what you mean by it, I only threw in the Compound line for the sake of the perspective about rules because I find it hard to think of many examples. There are clearly people who want the class there with the rules as they are.
Of course with all things there are those that don't like the rules that group wants, like yourself, and that's an equally valid opinion on the matter.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that if the class is enjoyed by those who want to shoot it, why complain? (<-- Genuine question btw, I may be missing the point of all this) It's their game after all and they're playing it their way.
The members of the associations must have a say in the rules if they want to change them, they should lobby to do so and let the voting do the talking no?
As I said before, if as a stringwalker you can't find places to compete as you want to then the complaint should be about your preferred class not being supported. Not about somebody else's being supported. 

All that said, I'm a mediocre stringwalking barebow shooter at best and know I wouldn't get on well without being able to stringwalk on a bare rig but if that's how somebody wants to shoot it and that's the rule they want for it, I'd just give their tournament a miss. 
Personally I give barebow tournaments that thought as I like my freestyle bow too much.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> Again, Warbow, I'm not going to argue until you have some personal experience in the area.


Sigh... This is an issue about where the arbitrary line should be drawn. All rules have some degree of arbitrariness - and you really haven't disputed any of the analogies or points I've brought up about sports rules. You and many others want the line drawn on the side of string walking. The NFAA and many others want it drawn on the other side. Your opinion is experienced and valuable, but this is as much about the philosophy of sports as anything. You want it the way you want it - I understand that and I respect it. But it is still a personal preference, not a profound universal truth about archery (not that you are claiming it is, but I do think you are elevating this to more than it is, too).


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

MickeyBisco said:


> Is there an imbalance here? Meaning, are the folks commonly standing on the podium at Barebow tournaments getting there while string walking? If not, it's kind of a non issue. Are Ben or Alan getting spanked routinely by folks "gaming the system"? If there's points in it, I'd assume everyone would be doing it.
> 
> Maybe I'm wrong, I dunno.


Nobody is standing on the podium in a class which allows stringwalking who doesn't walk the string. It's happened maybe a handful of times and last I checked the most recent person who did it was Ben Rogers at the World Games qualifier, he's now stringwalking.

-Grant


----------



## MickeyBisco (Jul 14, 2012)

Evolution of a sport is a cool thing to watch.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Warbow said:


> Sigh... This is an issue about where the arbitrary line should be drawn. All rules have some degree of arbitrariness - and you really haven't disputed any of the analogies or points I've brought up about sports rules. You and many others want the line drawn on the side of string walking. The NFAA and many others want it drawn on the other side. Your opinion is experienced and valuable, but this is as much about the philosophy of sports as anything. You want it the way you want it - I understand that and I respect it. But it is still a personal preference, not a profound universal truth about archery (not that you are claiming it is, but I do think you are elevating this to more than it is, too).


Warbow, there is a difference that you're not willing to see.

My personal preference is based on being faced with this for over 10 years now at every level available in the U.S.

Your personal preference is based on what?

You're starting to sound like someone I know who knows all without ever having competed in more than one division.

A wise person understands the boundaries of their expertise.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

MickeyBisco said:


> Evolution of a sport is a cool thing to watch.


Modern compounds and crossbows are the evolution of archery, but we aren't forced to give up all of our conventional bows or old compounds in favor of modern compounds and crossbows. Instead, we get to choose where on that evolutionary scale of archery we want to play, from selfbows, primitive classes, BLS ELBs, IFAA longbow, modern longbow, barebow, WA Recurve through compounds and cross bows. Having trad or barebow class that doesn't include string walking and one that does is part and parcel of that continuum, and of being able to choose how we want to practice and compete on that wide expanse of archery tradition and opportunities.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> Warbow, there is a difference that you're not willing to see.
> 
> My personal preference is based on being faced with this for over 10 years now at every level available in the U.S.
> 
> ...


Indeed, John, you are correct to point out that my experience is limited. I readily acknowledge that. But experience on this issue of personal preference means what, exactly? That you like it? The fact is that many others prefer not to have string walking. I'd like to see *both* so that people can compete in the class of their choice and not impose any bias of mine or your on others, but I realize that is problematic in an era where USAA is not especially friendly to even a single division for Barebow, let alone two. 

Again, this isn't a universal archery truth, it is a personal preference, and arbitrary rule. So, unlike in most cases, I'm not going to defer to you on this. I'll consider your opinion as valuable and experienced and keep in mind on an ongoing basis, as I always do, but I'll still consider it a personal preference of yours.


----------



## rambo-yambo (Aug 12, 2008)

Since we are talking about equipment and techniques , is there a class that is classed by draw weight? May be we should have a class that classified by equipment, technique, draw weight, age, sex and birth month-so everyone will win. 

Can someone tell me what difference does sex make if we classify by draw weight and equipment only?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

It's more than personal preference. It's a real equipment and technique nightmare that many of us have to deal with all the time.

Imagine if Brady had to change anchors when he shot overseas? Imagine if Jenny had to use a 12" stabilizer instead of a 30" rod when she shot Vegas vs. USAA events.

It's real Warbow. And if you ever had to deal with it in person, you'd understand. But you haven't. So you clearly don't.

John


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

rambo-yambo said:


> Can someone tell me what difference does sex make if we classify by draw weight and equipment only?


Provisionally, I don't think it would make a difference. 

I asked in a thread why we had gender based indoor divisions, since that seemed like it should be equal to me, like darts. Some of the shooters said that the higher poundage bows gave men an advantage in terms of forgiveness, since the higher poundage bows pull through the fingers with less deflection. So, draw weight divisions seem a reasonable alternative - but, how would you judge it? At the person's individual draw weight? It would be a judging hassle. Much easier to say "boy, girl" and be done with it. But the bow weight divisions are more fair to *people* of varying strengths, since neither men nor women are homogeneous in their strength. :dontknow:


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> It's more than personal preference. It's a real equipment and technique nightmare that many of us have to deal with all the time.
> 
> Imagine if Brady had to change anchors when he shot overseas? Imagine if Jenny had to use a 12" stabilizer instead of a 30" rod when she shot Vegas vs. USAA events.
> 
> ...


Again, John, it sounds to me like you aren't talking about *string walking* specifically but rather about the broader issue of *rules fragmentation* between orgs, a related issue. And banning string walking or allowing it, so long as either one was across all orgs, would have the same effect of homogenizing the rules, so making string walking legal isn't the issue per se. (Or, if all orgs had both string walking and no string walking BB.)

I don't feel as if we are really talking about the exact same thing. You seem to be talking about logistics of competing across orgs, to which varying string walking rules make inconvenient, but only because string walking really does provide a significant competitive advantage over those who don't, otherwise it wouldn't matter and you'd just stick to finger touching the nock across all orgs.


----------



## screemnjay (Nov 2, 2008)

"A mans got to know his limitations" - Harry Calahan

I have experience gapping, picking points and stringwalking. Having done all three I can tell you there are advantages and disadvantages to all three. What's hilarious to me is the non string walkers responses to string walking. I've witnessed a string walker being assaulted about his score at a 3D tourney, when the reality was 70% of the shots were past his point on. Suggesting that compounds and recurves are equals IS COMPLETELY rediculous yet, the rules (NFAA) insist they are.

Regardless if what system I use, I'm always aiming. Non aimers resent the groups that are a result.

This issue is, more often than not, about who's good enough.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Well said.


----------



## screemnjay (Nov 2, 2008)

grantmac said:


> Nobody is standing on the podium in a class which allows stringwalking who doesn't walk the string. It's happened maybe a handful of times and last I checked the most recent person who did it was Ben Rogers at the World Games qualifier, he's now stringwalking.
> 
> -Grant


Mostly. A more comprehensive answer would have to break down the tourneys. By this I mean, on a regional level, you see aimers of all types on the podium. Trad 3D's that have a max distance of 35 yards(ish), for instance, doesn't offer a distinct advantage to any *prepared*, for those distances shooter. It's has also been pointed out that single distance shooting is a push.

If you are shooting varied distances NFAA field for instance, you have to get creative when you hit your point on and BETTER know something else. Using the shelf can help but, isn't necessarily ideal.

In Croatia this week, I belive a long shot is 45 yds. With a 50yd(ish) point on, in that environment, StringWalking is deadly.

In Southern Ca, especially at 3D distances, the gappers are formidable. Bill Henderson, Gary and Sandy McCain, Lori Prichard, Darwin Potter etc. They aren't awful concerned about how others shoot either. They serve up major ***** whippins. Been there.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

My point is not which style is superior. My point is that there aren't that many folks who shoot barebow, and not only do all these unnecessary (and at times, illogical) "rules" further divide a very small group of archers, they impose very burdensome requirements on those who wish to shoot in multiple organizations.


----------



## ryan b. (Sep 1, 2005)

screemnjay said:


> "A mans got to know his limitations" - Harry Calahan
> 
> I have experience gapping, picking points and stringwalking. Having done all three I can tell you there are advantages and disadvantages to all three. What's hilarious to me is the non string walkers responses to string walking. I've witnessed a string walker being assaulted about his score at a 3D tourney, when the reality was 70% of the shots were past his point on. Suggesting that compounds and recurves are equals IS COMPLETELY rediculous yet, the rules (NFAA) insist they are.
> 
> ...



Right. Exactly. 

The main problem people are having is with someone being able to aim better. 

If I'm 1finger touching nock and not string or face walking but I have my point on then that's the same as walking. 

I can set up point on for the most average distance and shoot a real fast setup. Is this acceptable or would some people prefer if I just didn't aim. 

Let's make sure no one is allowed to have small gaps either. Your gap has to be at least 3 arrow widths for each ten yards. And no more gapping at the bow either. Oh, and definitely no simultaneous gapping methods like gapping the arrow for close then arrow point for point on and using riser at long distances. 

How bout if you can intuit that some one is aiming they just have to shoot from the compound stakes?


----------



## screemnjay (Nov 2, 2008)

limbwalker said:


> My point is not which style is superior. My point is that there aren't that many folks who shoot barebow, and not only do all these unnecessary (and at times, illogical) "rules" further divide a very small group of archers, they impose very burdensome requirements on those who wish to shoot in multiple organizations.


Your points are complete truths. Not much to add. I couldn't agree more. I shoot, and feel like I need, 3 bows.

The opposing viewpoint however, is that a chasm exists between styles. I'll offer that's an old misunderstanding that is the basis of the perceptions and burdensome rules. I'll be harsh and say, it's a misunderstanding mostly promoted by uninformed, closed minded, segregationist "Traditional" Archers. If the last sentence bothers you, there's an old saying, "If the Shoe Fits..."


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> I'll be harsh and say, it's a misunderstanding mostly promoted by uninformed, closed minded, segregationist "Traditional" Archers. If the last sentence bothers you, there's an old saying, "If the Shoe Fits..."


Yup. 

I know because I used to be a snap-shooting, short-drawing, longbow-toting knuckledragger of the first order. For nearly 20 years in fact. 

So when folks don't understand where my criticism comes from, I tell them - it comes from personal experience. I've lived both sides of this coin.

When I finally got sick of the "elitism" of the closed-minded, passive-aggressive neo-trads, that's when the objectivity and honesty of target archery began to appeal to me.


----------



## Azzurri (Mar 10, 2014)

The soccer analogy can work inasmuch as if I want to do forward passes, American football, use my hands, rugby, use my feet, soccer. They have in fact split into technical classes despite having similar size fields and some common aspects and origins.

However, as a practical matter, when I look at attendances at many events, does the BB/Trad pie really need to be further sliced? Personally, the gap vs. instinctive argument tends to resolve itself when people compete. Stringwalking would likely be the same. Allow the technique at some "test" events -- like NFL trying preseason PATs from further out -- and based on the results, play with the rules. If the class gets mixed results, stringwalking at that event is no more helpful than the normal way, you're in the normal class, who cares anymore. If stringwalkers dominate, OK, you either need a new class for them, or we have to acknowledge it's a competitive advantage and perhaps perpetuate the rules as-is (or include them and everyone wanting to win becomes a stringwalker).

Since the sport is trying to gain popularity, not regulate its way to smaller size, I'd err on the side of inclusiveness.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> or include them and everyone wanting to win becomes a stringwalker


Yup. Just like - if you want to qualify for a spot at the Olympic trials, put a sight, stabilizer and clicker on your bow - just like I did in 2003. 

What I want to hear the answer to is this question: What's the point of requiring the index finger touch the nock of the arrow? 

Could someone PLEASE offer a good explanation to that?

If the answer is "to make it more challenging" or "so folks don't use the point of the arrow to aim" then I call BS because we don't require that type of thing in any other division. 

The "finger touching the nock" is solely there to satiate the neo-trad "instinctive" shooters who believe the point of the competition is to see who is best at "using the force." 

It's actually quite amusing to learn the degree to which some NFAA "trad" shooters will go to cover up the fact that they are aiming with the tip of the arrow. Some of them actually believe they aren't! ha, ha. Whenever I'm at an NFAA shoot and someone brings up aiming, I'm always the first to say "I don't aim. I just shoot instinctively" just to see their reaction. It's become such an inside joke now on the line. Anyone who wants to be remotely competitive is aiming like hell, and has probably manipulated their equipment to get the point of the arrow on, or as close to, the X as possible. 

Allowing stringwalking would simply remove all this nonsense and put everyone on equal footing, regardless of draw length, draw weight, face shape, or any other individual characteristic that gives one archer an aiming advantage over another. And if you don't believe there is that much difference from one archer to the next, you've not done the barebow thing very long.

Stringwalking is the only way to remove the subjectivity and put all archers on equal footing. And that is why organizations that prefer facts and fair competition, like World Archery, allow it.


----------



## Azzurri (Mar 10, 2014)

I took it to be an anti-stringwalking rule, if your top finger is on the arrow then your whole hand isn't six inches walked up the string. But I don't know the history, just guessing.

The odd thing is, any good archery teacher drums into you, space your fingers off the arrow, and the rule is the opposite....but then you aren't required to shoot hunched over with the bow canted and such.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> Stringwalking is the only way to remove the subjectivity and put all archers on equal footing. And that is why organizations that prefer facts and fair competition, like World Archery, allow it.


Oh, good grief, John. I think there are many good arguments for having divisions with string walking. I think it is a remarkable tool, but to claim that only fact haters and promoters of unfair competition have divisions that disallow it is, to use your word, ridiculous.


----------



## Ten_Zen (Dec 5, 2010)

Warbow said:


> Modern compounds and crossbows are the evolution of archery, but we aren't forced to give up all of our conventional bows or old compounds in favor of modern compounds and crossbows. Instead, we get to choose where on that evolutionary scale of archery we want to play, from selfbows, primitive classes, BLS ELBs, IFAA longbow, modern longbow, barebow, WA Recurve through compounds and cross bows. Having trad or barebow class that doesn't include string walking and one that does is part and parcel of that continuum, and of being able to choose how we want to practice and compete on that wide expanse of archery tradition and opportunities.


I hear the Renaissance Fair has a competition for people like you.

Seriously, how many barebow divisions do we need? if you wanna make life harder for yourself and not use the methods available to you for aiming, that is your choice. If you wanna compete only against people who have made that same choice, then find some people and make your own competition. But if you expect to be recognized by the international archery community for shooting "barebow/no stab/no stringwalk/recurve/40#and under" division and beating all 10 other people in your division, well, that IS ridiculous. My opinion, there should be 4 major shooting categories:

Freestyle
Bowhunter
Recurve
Barebow

If you wanna shoot recurve but dont wanna use a V-bar, that doesnt mean you are in "Recurve no vbar" division. That means you have made a choice as a shooter NOT to use the equipment/techniques available to you. That doesnt mean the whole world should start revolving around you.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> If you wanna shoot recurve but dont wanna use a V-bar, that doesnt mean you are in "Recurve no vbar" division. That means you have made a choice as a shooter NOT to use the equipment/techniques available to you. That doesnt mean the whole world should start revolving around you.


Amen.

And I completely agree with your 4 categories. Bowhunter would be fixed pins and 12" stabilizer, freestyle as is, recurve as is, and barebow according to WA rules. 

Done.

And warbow, just answer the question why must an archer touch the nock with their index finger please.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

limbwalker said:


> ......... or "so folks don't use the point of the arrow to aim" then I call BS because we don't require that type of thing in any other division.


I could read "so folks don't use the *nock* of the arrow to aim" in relation to the front (effective peep) and just taking it one step further than others.

"_The serving on the string must not end within the athlete’s vision at full draw. The bowstring must not in any way assist aiming through the use of a peephole, marking, or any other means._"


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> Amen.
> 
> And I completely agree with your 4 categories. Bowhunter would be fixed pins and 12" stabilizer, freestyle as is, recurve as is, and barebow according to WA rules.
> 
> ...


John, the touch the nock rule is a simple, but easily observed, rule to prevent string walking. 

And, again, I'm not against string walking, but I do think it is reasonable to have a class that doesn't include it.

There is no reason to make the arguments hyperbolic, such as claiming that disallowing string walking is the result of "fact haters" and people who are against "fair competition".


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Warbow, what's the point in preventing string walking? 

Since you have no experience in this area, and haven't been around "trad" guys most of your life like I have, I'll help you out...

It's a thinly veiled attempt at trying to make people shoot "instinctively" or, without "aiming." Why else do you think the NFAA named that division "traditional?" Who decided that touching the arrow nock was "Traditional?" This is why it's too arbitrary to be fair. 

Fact haters is your term. 

And it IS in the interest of fair competition to allow a person to shoot the bow however they wish because then it puts everyone on equal footing, regardless of draw length, draw weight, face shape or length, etc.

Otherwise, these arbitrary and often inexplicable rules will favor some, and put others at a disadvantage. And that is why I ask, "what's the point?"


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

To further make my point, Olympic recurve archers can shoot split, 3-under or string walk, and they can anchor high, middle or low if they wish. The restrictions are on the EQUIPMENT and not how you use it. Same with compounds.

Why is barebow any different?

I'll tell you why. Because there is a group out there who wants to make the game about "using the force" or some such nonsense and believes that "tradition" trumps competition.


----------



## Ten_Zen (Dec 5, 2010)

Warbow said:


> John, the touch the nock rule is a simple, but easily observed, rule to prevent string walking.
> 
> And, again, I'm not against string walking, but I do think it is reasonable to have a class that doesn't include it.
> 
> There is no reason to make the arguments hyperbolic, such as claiming that disallowing string walking is the result of "fact haters" and people who are against "fair competition".


What I am hearing is you got beat by a string walker and now you're stomping your feet and yelling its not fair. Now you want a division that doesnt allow those mean old stringwalkers to come in and beat you with their superior aiming techniques.

I saw a BLIND woman shooting in vegas. I saw a guy with NO ARMS shoot a 300. They arent complaining about the advantages everyone has over them, they arent asking for their own division. They use what is available to them to do the best they can with it, and sometimes that is better than people with NO disadvantage. 

So rather than having a "special olympics" for people who dont stringwalk, how about you accept your disadvantage and work with it, and be proud when you DO beat someone who stringwalks because that means you have overcome adversity.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

limbwalker said:


> To further make my point, Olympic recurve archers can shoot split, 3-under or string walk, and they can anchor high, middle or low if they wish. The restrictions are on the EQUIPMENT and not how you use it. Same with compounds.
> 
> Why is barebow any different?


OK, but if a FITA recurve shooter cannot have his serving ending within his line of sight, if he stringwalked to make that happen, would he not violate the rule? To me, aiming off the string is the issue. Different ways of saying it for different venues.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> Warbow, what's the point in preventing string walking?
> 
> Since you have no experience in this area, and haven't been around "trad" guys most of your life like I have, I'll help you out...
> 
> It's a thinly veiled attempt at trying to make people shoot "instinctively" or, without "aiming." Why else do you think the NFAA named that division "traditional?" Who decided that touching the arrow nock was "Traditional?" This is why it's too arbitrary to be fair.


Most of my life? Well, no, but I've had my share of run ins with fundie neo-trads. And I'm against utterly unenforceable rules like trying to enforce "instinctive" shooting over gapping of POA - there is just no way to tell, and it would be silly to try to do so. (Yes, that's close to your position on string walking, but bear with me.) And if you search the boards you'll probably find some old threads by me that say just that.

String walking, though, is a sufficiently different animal that it can be distinguished from standard gapping/POA because it requires multiple distances from the nock. String walking is a method of gaming the rules (where allowed) in classes that prohibit calibrated sights. Instead, string walkers use various methods of calibrating their nock gap at the string, from counting serving strands, stitches, finger widths, etc. String walking is a very cool "improvised" calibrated sighting system. However, it is not unreasonable to disallow at the string what is disallowed at the riser - a calibrated sighting system based on marks on the equipment. 

And - yet again - let me point out that I'm not against string walking. However I do think it is reasonable to have divisions where it isn't allowed. 





limbwalker said:


> Fact haters is your term.


True, yet your own post:



> And that is why organizations that prefer facts and fair competition, like World Archery, allow it.


...implies that only people who are *against* facts and fair competition have divisions that don't allow string walking - which is a hyperbolic assertion.



limbwalker said:


> And it IS in the interest of fair competition to allow a person to shoot the bow however they wish because then it puts everyone on equal footing, regardless of draw length, draw weight, face shape or length, etc.


And I think that is a good argument for your position. And one of the reasons why I'm not against string walking, no more than I am "against' compounds, but think it makes sense that they have their own division.

However, there is no universally fair rule in archery. What may make it more fair to some, makes it less fair to others. Why don't we have draw weight divisions instead of sex divisions? That would be more fair, IMO, though an equipment judging nightmare, to people of varying ages and strengths of both sexes. But it would disadvantage strong shooters, and those who train really hard who would no longer be shooting against the same broad pool of archers. I don't know if there is any "universally" fair rule because "fairness" isn't easily defined in a world where people have different advantages. Fairness is subjective.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Ten_Zen said:


> What I am hearing is you got beat by a string walker and now you're stomping your feet and yelling its not fair. Now you want a division that doesnt allow those mean old stringwalkers to come in and beat you with their superior aiming techniques.
> 
> I saw a BLIND woman shooting in vegas. I saw a guy with NO ARMS shoot a 300. They arent complaining about the advantages everyone has over them, they arent asking for their own division. They use what is available to them to do the best they can with it, and sometimes that is better than people with NO disadvantage.
> 
> So rather than having a "special olympics" for people who dont stringwalk, how about you accept your disadvantage and work with it, and be proud when you DO beat someone who stringwalks because that means you have overcome adversity.


Based on your own argument there shouldn't be _ahy_ divisions, yet you are *for* divisions.

So it isn't that you don't think we should draw lines between divisions, you just want it drawn to your preferences, and anybody who doesn't hold your exact same preferences is a whiner. Sorry, but I just don't buy that. I think we can disagree on sports rules without making it personal. This isn't baseball, after all


----------



## Mulcade (Aug 31, 2007)

Honestly, what this whole discussion boils down to is if the trad shooter can't beat the stringwalker, the trad shooter needs to practice more and figure out how to make the best use of his advantages.

There was a guy I used to know that did car audio systems and interior design and whenever he and his team would go to a competition, other people who had signed up would pack up and leave. He eventually quit going to competitions altogether as it wasn't any fun any more. He wasn't better because he had access to better equipment and resources, he just did better work. His 'competitors' decided it was better to just go home than figure out what it would take to match him and then beat him.

The old adage of excuses being like a**holes applies here. Quit crying about how it's unfair and step up your game to beat the other guy! If that fails, beat him at his own game and it won't matter any more. :grin:


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> However, there is no universally fair rule in archery.


Yes, there is. Decide what equipment can or cannot be used, then go shoot it however you wish. That, is universally fair.

And here I am doing what I said I wouldn't do - arguing with Warbow.

In the words of Phil Mickleson... "I'm such an idiot."


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> Quit crying about how it's unfair and step up your game to beat the other guy! If that fails, beat him at his own game and it won't matter any more.


I agree. Not exactly what you were saying, but I once again played by "their" rules and upped the state record by 10 points last March, touching the nock the whole time.

I'm not saying it cannot be done. Not at all. But those of us who seriously compete in the barebow/trad divisions can all see the effect it has. And the irony is that it only really affects the most serious competitors. Most of the shooters would never know the difference.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> Yes, there is. Decide what equipment can or cannot be used, then go shoot it however you wish. That, is universally fair.


Ok. No age or sex divisions. Mandatory 70 pound draw weight, no let off. Universally fair. Right?

No, of course not, not if you want archery to be just for a narrow segment of the population. What you say superficially sounds fair, but fairness is more complex than that. Even as you wrote "Decide what equipment can or cannot be used, then go shoot it however you wish. " you still likely had other limitations in mind, like sex and age divisions, accommodations for paralympians, etc. Fairness is subjective, and can be complicated.


----------



## SBills (Jan 14, 2004)

In all sports, equipment and technique evolve over time. Seems this little segment of archery is the only one which has people who cannot handle it. 

Some think metal risers and rest an abomination others stringwalking. SMH……………….


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Mulcade said:


> Honestly, what this whole discussion boils down to is if the trad shooter can't beat the stringwalker, the trad shooter needs to practice more and figure out how to make the best use of his advantages.


Or one can simply turn that argument around and say that the string walkers should try shooting and beating the non-string walkers (as John notes he did). I don't see that the argument inherently proves either side.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

It is worth noting that the contributors to this thread who have personal experience competing at a high level in barebow, all agree with me.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

SBills said:


> In all sports, equipment and technique evolve over time. Seems this little segment of archery is the only one which has people who cannot handle it.
> 
> Some think metal risers and rest an abomination others stringwalking. SMH……………….


Indeed, equipment evolves, but does that mean you should have to shoot against the truly evolved equipment, modern compounds? Unless you think there should be no divisions at all then all we are discussing is *where* to draw the line(s) not whether there should be lines.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Warbow, you coach archers, right? 

Well, here's a challenge for you that will make you a better, more well-rounded coach. 

Sign up and compete in the barebow division at a USArchery event, and then do the same at a NFAA event in the "traditional" division. What you learn will make you a better coach, esp. of all those new archers who are wanting to shoot barebow like Katniss Everdeen.

Once you've done this, get back with me and let me know what you learned.

Meanwhile, I'll be shooting compound at our fall indoor league. Why? Because I prefer to have some personal experience behind my "preferences" particularly if I'm teaching archery students. 

John


----------



## Mulcade (Aug 31, 2007)

Warbow said:


> However, there is no universally fair rule in archery. What may make it more fair to some, makes it less fair to others. Why don't we have draw weight divisions instead of sex divisions? That would be more fair, IMO, though an equipment judging nightmare, to people of varying ages and strengths of both sexes. But it would disadvantage strong shooters, and those who train really hard who would no longer be shooting against the same broad pool of archers. I don't know if there is any "universally" fair rule because "fairness" isn't easily defined in a world where people have different advantages. Fairness is subjective.


There are all kinds of ways to game the system if we went to a weight division model instead of male/female. From cranking limb bolts to switching limbs to twisting strings can have a profound impact on your weight division. We've never met, but I can assure you that I could not ever in any way pass myself off as a female. No amount of clothing, makeup, or prosthetics could hide the fact that I am highly proficient at growing body hair.

Someone might say, but I can't shoot 40lbs OTF! So? It's not fair that I can't hold the same weight as Brady! Have you been putting in the same amount of practice that Brady has and continues to do? Each of us has advantages and disadvantages compared to other archers. John has an advantage that he has a freakishly long draw length, but that also means he has a higher center of gravity than most of the other archers on the line. Get him out in the wind and he's going to catch more of that wind than say Michelle Gilbert.

It can't be unfair if you're basing your rules on the equipment that can and can't be used and leave it up to the archer to decide how best to use it.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> It is worth noting that the contributors to this thread who have personal experience competing at a high level in barebow, all agree with me.


Well, John, if it is popular it *must* be true 



limbwalker said:


> Warbow, you coach archers, right?
> 
> Well, here's a challenge for you that will make you a better, more well-rounded coach.
> 
> ...


Sound advice, John. But, again, I'm not against string walking.


----------



## Ten_Zen (Dec 5, 2010)

Warbow said:


> Based on your own argument there shouldn't be _ahy_ divisions, yet you are *for* divisions.
> 
> So it isn't that you don't think we should draw lines between divisions, you just want it drawn to your preferences, and anybody who doesn't hold your exact same preferences is a whiner. Sorry, but I just don't buy that. I think we can disagree on sports rules without making it personal. This isn't baseball, after all


WOW talk about putting words in someones mouth. 

NO, based on my argument there should be 4 divisions.

The divisions I quoted already exist. The archers I used as examples were shooting in those divisions (not a division of their own) and not whining like you are right now. 

YOU ARE THE ONE WHO WANTS A NEW DIVISION BASED ON YOUR PERSONAL PREFERENCE! How did you manage to get that turned around in your head, did you forget why you posted this thread? 

I am saying that we DO NOT need any more divisions. We need to consolidate all divisions into 4 big groups that include everyone. That is the majority view in the archery community right now and it has nothing to do with me or my personal preference.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Ten_Zen said:


> WOW talk about putting words in someones mouth...
> 
> YOU ARE THE ONE WHO WANTS A NEW DIVISION BASED ON YOUR PERSONAL PREFERENCE!


So you say, putting words into my mouth. 

John, and others, argue that the no-string walking divisions in other orgs need to be changed to allow string walking. My OP was written with the idea that it might be reasonable to retain them: " Is it reasonable for there to be some trad/Barebow classes that prohibit string walking? "

Again, no need to make this discussion personal or hyperbolic.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> John, and others, argue that the no-string walking divisions in other orgs need to be changed to allow string walking


John (if I may speak for myself) has always maintained that the restrictions should be on the equipment, not on how it's used, and that barebow archery is really the only place where you see the subjective rules on how equipment can be used. And all of us who have a history in barebow/traditional archery understand precisely the origin of those rules - which is why we get so fired up about it. 

Imagine how silly it would seem if Olympic recurve archers could only shoot split-fingered in USArchery events, and could only shoot 3-under in NFAA events. Everyone would say "that's just dumb." But in barebow archery, there is all sorts of voodoo and superstition that you will find yourself up against if you begin to take it seriously and win events. And all of us who shoot barebow/trad know this and we typically have a list of our top 5 or top 10 most riduculous, inexplicable "rules." 

Need examples? Here's a few for ya' from actual barebow/trad competitions -

Index finger must touch arrow nock...

Cannot shoot from elevated rest...

Must shoot split fingered...

Longbows cannot have any reflex in the limbs, or detachable limbs...

Cannot have multiple anchor points...

Cannot put powder on the point of the arrow...

Aluminum arrows only...

Feathers only...

Feathers must be at least 4"....

Screw-in points only...

And that's just a start. If I pulled up some of the "rules" from many of the traditional shoots around the country, it would simply blow people's minds at the stuff they come up with.

The reason barebow archery is not taken seriously in this country is exactly because of this stuff. Because of all these divisions and silly rules that mean the world to one person, but nothing to the next. 

It's basically the reason archery was removed from the Olympics in 1908 and didn't return until 1972, when everyone could come together and agree.

That's where we are with barebow. And I don't entirely blame the likes of USArchery for not taking it very seriously because of this.

John


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Here is why this is an important topic to the future of this sport -

Because all these "rules" fragment an important discipline within the sport of archery - a discipline within which the MAJORITY of archers get their start.

The fragmentation keeps like-minded competitors apart because they pursue competition under one set of rules, and don't have the time or energy to set up separate bows and learn different techniques for different competitions, even though they are all "barebow" competitions! So the best IBO shooters stay together, the best NFAA trad shooters shoot together, the best FITA/WA barebow shooters stay together, and rarely do they cross over to compete with one another because it's just too damn much trouble!

This is a big reason that barebow archers simply don't have a voice in this country anymore.

Something as simple as string walking or not string walking seems inconsequential at the surface, but when you dig a little deeper and see the affect it has on an important part of the sport, you realize it isn't.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> Here is why this is an important topic to the future of this sport -
> 
> Because all these "rules" fragment an important discipline within the sport of archery - a discipline within which the MAJORITY of archers get their start.
> 
> ...


Much of what you pointed out are *equipment* rules, and you've already stated equipment rules are the definition of fair... :dontknow:

So, again, I'd say your concerns really aren't about string walking per se, but about homogenizing BB rules across orgs. 

And, yes, archery got bounced out of the Olympics because there wasn't an international body to standardize the rules. FITA was formed by national archery orgs, including the NAA, to create rules for international competition that would get archery back into the Olympics - rules the US largely ignored through the 1950's because we had strong domestic interest in archery, stronger than our interest in international competition. I've got mixed feelings about slavishly following FITA as the standard for all archery. Just as you've criticized USAA's high performance NTS coaching program for bucking our strong penchant for individualism, so, too, is allowing FITA to dictate all Barebow rules in the US across all orgs. If you think USAA is unresponsive to membership, just how responsive is FITA?


----------



## Orange+Blue (May 20, 2011)

Warbow said:


> So you say, putting words into my mouth.
> 
> John, and others, argue that the no-string walking divisions in other orgs need to be changed to allow string walking. My OP was written with the idea that it might be reasonable to retain them: " Is it reasonable for there to be some trad/Barebow classes that prohibit string walking? "
> 
> Again, no need to make this discussion personal or hyperbolic.


I tend to agree with you, in as much as its their playground, their rules and if we (the stringwalking barebow shooters) want to compete with them, then go do it under their rules , regardless of whether they makes any sense or not.

Yes, it would be preferable to have some consistency between the organizations to make it easier for barebow shooters to move back and forth, but any "We're right, your wrong" arguments aren't going to make it happen any sooner.

What intrigues me with this discussion is that I still don't quite understand why string walking is perceived to be such an advantage over 3 under/ split finger. At the end of the day, at the shorter distances, the only difference for those that that consciously aim is how much gap and where your point of aim ends up. All I perceive I get from stringwalking is an ability to have a smaller gap (I've never shot truly 'point on' as it doesn't work for me). Those that claim to shoot instinctively without consciously aiming are already at a disadvantage to the 3-under gap shooters. 

To some extent, I could even make a case that stringwalking can be a disadvantage for multiple distances as finding a tune that works for 3 under /split at long distances, and a large crawl at shorter distances is a tricky task that has eluded me for years.

Cheers,

Matt
(Stringwalking Barebow shooter)


----------



## Azzurri (Mar 10, 2014)

Wanna know my complaint? I buy an extremely stripped down trad setup for occasional change of pace shooting and competitions, shoot off a shelf, no rest, no sight, bear hair rest, generally want to use it with aluminum feathered arrows (3") with glue in tips, I'm thinking, basic, inoffensive to anyone, something I could use in USAA, NFAA, TBoT, you name it.

But based on above comments, it sounds like the feather length is no good for one class, the glue in tips are no good for another. And now I'm wondering if my cutesy flemish twist string -- my one style element on a basic bow -- violates USAA's Dacron rule. Does anyone know? [I can go dig the string it came with out of the junk pile, or buy something new, but this is getting silly.]

Setting aside the specific thrust of the thread, when I can't even be sure that a pretty basic setup survives rules even though the whole point was to be so basic it was diverse......there is a need for standardization and simplification. And then we get to the next step being discussed here, how you shoot it.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Azzurri said:


> And now I'm wondering if my cutesy flemish twist string -- my one style element on a basic bow -- violates USAA's Dacron rule. Does anyone know? [I can go dig the string it came with out of the junk pile, or buy something new, but this is getting silly.]
> .


I think you are good, assuming the Flemish string is made of Dacron:
ARY Traditional Rules -071414


> D. Traditional Recurve Division Rules:
> ...
> 7. Bow string material shall be Dacron.


Your serving, on the other hand....

Kidding, kidding. The rules don't say anything about what material the serving must be made out of.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

I'm done. Warbow, you've proven one thing. That you can sustain an argument entirely on your own.

Crack a window, you'll need the oxygen.


----------



## MickeyBisco (Jul 14, 2012)

This all kind of reminds me of the advent of digital photography, and the corresponding conversations that occurred online at that time.

Long story short, as long as someone is still making film, it will have folks defending its soul, nuance and subtleties...while the rest of the world has moved on and accepted that _"because that's the way it used to be, and always has been"_ isn't a good enough reason anymore.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> I'm done. Warbow, you've proven one thing. That you can sustain an argument entirely on your own.
> 
> Crack a window, you'll need the oxygen.


John, I think of discussions like this as a way of seeing whether ideas can stand up to scrutiny, something that applies to all sides. And if there should be one thing that separates those of us here in the FITA forum from some fundie neo-trad forums I hope it is the ability to discuss various aspects of archery without making the arguments heated or personal, or being reflexively intransigent. So, promises not to argue aside, I think your posts have contributed valuable input that others will be able to reference going forward.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

MickeyBisco said:


> This all kind of reminds me of the advent of digital photography, and the corresponding conversations that occurred online at that time.
> 
> Long story short, as long as someone is still making film, it will have folks defending its soul, nuance and subtleties...while the rest of the world has moved on and accepted that _"because that's the way it used to be, and always has been"_ isn't a good enough reason anymore.


I agree that the technology has generally moved forward from film to digital because digital works better in the real world of photo and video production. However, the analogy to archery falls down a bit, because all conventional bow archery is what would be akin to film, not merely one shooting technique. We have now compound bows, cross bows with scopes, and firearms - those are more analogous to digital, not string walking. You choose to shoot a conventional bows because you like them for whatever reasons, not because of their inherent technological superiority.


----------



## MickeyBisco (Jul 14, 2012)

Ok


----------



## J. Wesbrock (Dec 17, 2003)

Just a few thoughts from someone who shoots NFAA/IFAA Barebow and Traditional, IBO Recurve Unaided, and WA Barebow and Recurve depending on whether or not I hook up my clicker...

I agree with John’s assessment on string walking. I have a good friend who is singlehandedly responsible for archery clubs in the greater Milwaukee area banning string walking from traditional classes…because they don’t want him beating them anymore. On a local level, “traditional” class rules seem to evolve from the mantra of “if you can’t beat ‘em, ban ‘em.” On a national level, I’m not sure why the NFAA opted to exclude string walking from Traditional. The rules in that class seem to follow Bowhunter, so maybe that’s the reason. If I want to walk the string, I just register in Barebow and shoot against the compound folks. That’s probably what I’ll do next year in Louisville.

Where I politely and respectfully disagree with John is that all organizations should adopt identical rules. If they did that, why even have separate organizations? And if they did get on the same page, whose book should they use? Some allow stabilizers; others don’t. Some allow clickers; others don’t. Some allow written memoranda; others don’t. You get the idea. I like World Archery, but I reject the notion that they should be the end all of Barebow archery, especially here in the United States where our national arm seems totally disinterested in the class anyway. 

I like the variety that different organizations provide, and I’ve never found it difficult to swap out stablizers and hook/unhook my clicker accordingly. When I shoot NFAA Traditional or IBO RU I use a B-Stinger short rod with a 17oz weight. For NFAA/IFAA Barebow or WA Recurve I screw in a long rod and a set of v-bars. For WA Barebow I use a pair of 12oz counterweights. It’s pretty straightforward, and all of it fits in one bow case. 

One final thought, regarding something that was brought up earlier. Yes, string walking uses carefully calibrated markings on a finger tab. And if anyone thinks pick-a-point doesn’t involve carefully calibrated distances between various items on the front of the bow they’re either kidding themselves or have little to no experience in the matter. I can guarantee those who shoot that system well know exactly how to find their aiming points, and there’s no guesswork involved. 

Regulate the equipment. Let people shoot it how they please


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

Well, here is my 2 cents worth.

I am a trad shooter that is primarily restricted to NFAA rules. The reason I say restricted is that the majority of the major events up here in washington state are slaves to the NFAA rule system. So if I want to be competitive I have to spend a majority of my time perfecting my techniques that is compliant to the NFAA system.

The past couple weeks I decided to "experiment" with string walking, and I am rather surprised at how well I did and how fast I got to shooting better scores than my gapping method. It is amazing how well one can shoot if they can keep the arrow tip on paper instead of rocks on the ground or tree branches above the target.

But there really isn't any purpose to become proficient at stringwalking because most of the tournaments don't allow it, and unless I want to spend a bloody fortune traveling to tournaments in other states, it is just a waste of time and money. Well, I think I will continue to experiment with it, I find it rather intriguing to have the arrow so close to my eye on the 20 yard targets.

Anyways, I would rather see the different organizations get together and make consistent rules across the board. So we non-mechanical-sighted finger shooters can shoot in all of the tournaments without having to have different hardware and shooting techniques. If string walking is to be allowed, then let it be allowed. It is fine with me. If they make it not-allowed, then that is fine with me also. I will adapt. They just need to be uniform in the rules.

USAA wants to get rid of barebow from their tournaments because there is very little interest. Is there very little interest? I doubt it, there are a lot of us non-sighted finger recurve shooters out there, but this pool of people have to follow different types of rules everywhere. If the rules are unified, then there might be this problem of too many people coming to tournaments.


----------



## SBills (Jan 14, 2004)

Lest we forget the fact that the same guys are typically winning or placing regardless of style. Myself, Eagleton and Demmer as examples who have won in both NFAA and NAA (FITA) in recent years. Shoot Demmer set two national record this year shooting both styles.

But why muddy a good argument with facts?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

If the same guys are winning regardless of the rules, it just further proves how pointless all the minutia is and why there should be one basic set of rules for "barebow" archery in the U.S. I mean, if the same 4 or 5 guys are going to rise to the top anyway, then what exactly is the point of making them touch the nock for one event, then not for the next, then put on a stabilizer, then take off a stabilizer, etc. ??? What's the purpose?

All the top shooters are aiming like hell, so why create an artificial reality where we make believe we don't aim?

Jason, I respectfully disagree that it's not a big deal. Are you using the exact same arrows for all those different setups and have the bow tuned the same regardless of stabilization? Because if you are, you're giving up points.



> USAA wants to get rid of barebow from their tournaments because there is very little interest. Is there very little interest? I doubt it, there are a lot of us non-sighted finger recurve shooters out there, but this pool of people have to follow different types of rules everywhere. If the rules are unified, then there might be this problem of too many people coming to tournaments.


Exactly.

John


----------



## J. Wesbrock (Dec 17, 2003)

limbwalker said:


> Jason, I respectfully disagree that it's not a big deal. Are you using the exact same arrows for all those different setups and have the bow tuned the same regardless of stabilization? Because if you are, you're giving up points.
> 
> John


Exact same arrows, slightly different plunger tension. I write the plunger settings on little stickers I put on the coupler attachments. Potter says I'm anal. I tend to agree. 

Although, I am entertaining the idea of a dedicated indoor setup with 23 diameter arrows this year. I'll have to play with it and decide which makes the most impact on my scorecard, the fine aiming of skinny arrows or cutting lines. Demmer says it's probably a push.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Jason, FWIW - the difference in arrows I shot with the 12 in. stabilizer and those I shoot without amounts to 80 grains of point weight. It's that significant of an effect on the tune. And that's just a 12 in. rod. Most folks, even very experienced archers, don't realize the difference a stabilizer makes in arrow selection and setup. 

If you can fix it with a tweak of the plunger, you're doing better than I can.

And of course you're 100% right in saying "it's no big deal, we'll shoot whatever rules they give us..." and you, me, Demmer, Alan and Ben and others have all done just that, and we've all enjoyed a great deal of success. 

My question is, why is it necessary? Because I don't think it is. I don't think it proves a thing, and my proof is that the best shooters continue to win regardless of whether they are allowed to string walk or not. So just dispense with the rule and make it the same for all of us so we don't have to continue to jump through these hoops. 

What the rule DOES accomplish is to keep people from shooting barebow in more than one organization.

Imagine if there were rule changes like this in recurve or compound unlimited. Imagine how many folks would just shoot NFAA and not USArchery events, or vise-versa. There would be a lot who would just say "screw it" and stay in their own org. The closest thing those divisions have is the 23/64 arrow rule, and most don't even bother with that. And as inconvenient as it may be to re-tune a bow for new arrows, it still doesn't affect the way that either of those divisions SHOOT their bow.

Why we have to have antiquated, make-believe rules that further divide barebow archers is beyond me. It will be the death of us. It already has been in USAA events, in fact.

John


----------



## J. Wesbrock (Dec 17, 2003)

John,

I think what helps with my tuning is keeping the overall mass weight of my stabilizer combinations the same. My long rod, v-bars and one internal weight weighs the same as two internal weights and my short rod as well as two internal weights and two counterweights. If I went from no weight to a stabilizer the difference in tuning would be significant.


----------



## Azzurri (Mar 10, 2014)

I think the trad debates get rolling as they do because it is a throwback and to fence that off somewhat from people who might want to use technical means to win within a throwback division, you have to be somewhat defensive. The debates in the more modern divisions seem to be the opposite, how far will we let you get on the leading edge. More than 60#? More than 300 FPS? 23/64 arrows made of space age materials? Scope like sights? Arrows that are like shooting a pencil?

The irony to me in that context is we're shouting over the use of an old school technique that can be deployed on most anything that counts as trad equipment -- hardly counter to the throwback ethos other than it's not "instinctive" (like I'm supposed to believe hunters and warriors didn't aim for thousands of years until modern archery suddenly brought gapping???) -- and that the fuss isn't more about stabs, clickers, etc. You know, real modernity intruding in on traditions.

But then every time I go over on the threads in trad stuff, the thing that seems to upset people is when I encourage holding/anchoring/etc. There is a separate subset who love wooden bowmaking and seem really into the traditionalism aspect, but it's the instinctives who are the firey ones. Lot of emphasis on technique as defining traditional, when it's the bows that would be more in the nature of real throwback (depending what you call traditional).


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

Warbow,

Put together a competitive rig for NFAA Trad that will win Indoors, 3D, Field, Safari and Target without changing arrows. You simply CAN'T do it if you want to win.
However within the rules for WA Barebow you can shoot competitively in all those venues with ONE set-up, including arrows.

Stringwalking also levels the playing field in terms of bio-mechanics. I simply cannot shoot as high an anchor as many good gap shooters do, if you make me touch the arrow I'm stuck with a minimum 40m POD or slow arrows. That just isn't going to cut it for 3D or Indoor where guys like Dewayne Martin are able to get point-on with arrows going 190fps.

Stringwalking also takes a form and aiming problem then makes it a tuning problem. It's requires a methodical approach and ability to analyse what is happening in a complex system. Some people just can't do that which is fine. Those people aren't cut-out to be barebow champions. When the sight comes off archery becomes much more about limiting compromises and less about following a well trodden path.

-Grant


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> Stringwalking also levels the playing field in terms of bio-mechanics.


Correct. Which is one reason I say that if you put the rules on the equipment, and not how a person shoots it, it levels the playing field and favors everyone, and no one.


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

limbwalker said:


> Correct. Which is one reason I say that if you put the rules on the equipment, and not how a person shoots it, it levels the playing field and favors everyone, and no one.


My exact experience as well. Honestly for certain events a good gapper has the advantage (3D) since you can use the same sight picture for quite a few distances. If my yardage is off by 3M I'm out, possibly even off the target.

-Grant


----------



## Mormegil (Jan 26, 2012)

limbwalker said:


> Longbows cannot have any reflex in the limbs, or detachable limbs...
> 
> And that's just a start. If I pulled up some of the "rules" from many of the traditional shoots around the country, it would simply blow people's minds at the stuff they come up with.
> 
> John


On a side note I saw it mentioned recently that Archery Australia gets more calls for adjudication and clarification on longbows than they do on any other division. It is also one of the divisions with the fewest shooters.

I do take Warbow's point that any lines between styles are arbitrary but ultimately see that this sort of thing just dilutes divisions that are already small. I'm free to shoot my compound with fingers but understand that if I do that then I'll be at a disadvantage and just because that's what I like to do I don't get to have a division for it (although in Australia we do have compound barebow).


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

Longbow (and even moreso Instinctive) has had somewhat fluid rules over the last few years which explains the request for clarification. As of right now WA Longbow rules are pretty solid and easily understood in my mind with the exception of the rule requiring 3 under shooters to sew the fingers on their gloves/tabs together. 

-Grant


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

Totally agree with Jason 
And 12" rod or bow passing through a 4 13/16 ring as long as the weight is close perfect tune. The 12" rod is just more forgiving on a bad shot. Only thing I can guess is my springy saves my bacon on the tune 
Gary


J. Wesbrock said:


> Just a few thoughts from someone who shoots NFAA/IFAA Barebow and Traditional, IBO Recurve Unaided, and WA Barebow and Recurve depending on whether or not I hook up my clicker...
> 
> I agree with John’s assessment on string walking. I have a good friend who is singlehandedly responsible for archery clubs in the greater Milwaukee area banning string walking from traditional classes…because they don’t want him beating them anymore. On a local level, “traditional” class rules seem to evolve from the mantra of “if you can’t beat ‘em, ban ‘em.” On a national level, I’m not sure why the NFAA opted to exclude string walking from Traditional. The rules in that class seem to follow Bowhunter, so maybe that’s the reason. If I want to walk the string, I just register in Barebow and shoot against the compound folks. That’s probably what I’ll do next year in Louisville.
> 
> ...


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

J. Wesbrock said:


> I like the variety that different organizations provide, and I’ve never found it difficult to swap out stablizers and hook/unhook my clicker accordingly. When I shoot NFAA Traditional or IBO RU I use a B-Stinger short rod with a 17oz weight. For NFAA/IFAA Barebow or WA Recurve I screw in a long rod and a set of v-bars. For WA Barebow I use a pair of 12oz counterweights. It’s pretty straightforward, and all of it fits in one bow case.


At the recent IFAA Euro Bowhunters most of the Barebows including myself were shooting WA Barebow setups, I never once felt at any disadvantage against the few that used long rods and I didn't see any clickers being used. 

The IFAA President Loet Smit asked me why, I said it's easier and less complicated to stick with the one setup and the WA setup is the logical choice if you shoot both assoc, he suggested I propose a rule change in Barebow to make it the same as WA rules. 

I may consider training with a clicker for Indoors, were hosting 2015 Worlds in March, I hope it doesn't mess up my head


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> I said it's easier and less complicated to stick with the one setup and the WA setup is the logical choice if you shoot both assoc, he suggested I propose a rule change in Barebow to make it the same as WA rules.


Wow, what a concept.  Seems I'm not the lone ranger on this one.


----------



## Harperman (Sep 3, 2006)

SBills said:


> Lest we forget the fact that the same guys are typically winning or placing regardless of style. Myself, Eagleton and Demmer as examples who have won in both NFAA and NAA (FITA) in recent years. Shoot Demmer set two national record this year shooting both styles.
> 
> But why muddy a good argument with facts?


Scooter, awesome post...Lets not forget that Dewayne Martin has done very well shooting with the Gap style, off the shelf, and no stabilizer or clicker...I've experimented with Stringwalking, and it is no easy task to become successful with overnight, it takes more tuning and experimenting than basic Gap shooting, (for me anyway), but maybe more important is that fact that an Archer MUST have complete control over his/her mind, impeccable Form, and be able to master the bow's draw weight to hold the aim...The equipment decides the shooting class, what method the Archer chooses to aim the bow is irrelevant as long as it's safe....Take care.........Jim


----------



## SBills (Jan 14, 2004)

Correct. Dewayne was one bad arrow from winning the NFAA Indoor last year. He's won about all there is to win in IBO this summer. I guess his non SW style is not hurting him too bad.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Fellas, this isn't about stringwalking vs. gapping. We did that and continue to do that on the trad sites. That debate will never end.

This is about whether we need seperate divisions. I don't think we do. I think we need to bring everyone together and let them shoot however they choose. That would be good for everyone. If folks want to gap, let 'em. If they want to string walk, let 'em. That's how we grow barebow. Not by breaking it up into tiny factions.


----------



## vabowdog (Dec 13, 2007)

I don't mind competing against the string walkers or the Gappers with any non sighted equipment....it's all about the archer not the method or the equipment.


Dewayne Martin


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Further proof we need to remove these silly artificial criteria.


----------



## Teetsjon2 (10 mo ago)

I completely agree 



Warbow said:


> Steve Morley trying out target archery reminded me of this issue. Is it reasonable for there to be some trad/Barebow classes that prohibit string walking? I know that Limbwalker has said that the only limit should be the equipment, not the technique. In that line of thinking, though, soccer players should be allowed to use their hands, softball pitchers should be able to pitch over hand and basket ball players should be able to skip dribbling. Don't most sports regulate technique, to some degree or another?
> 
> Let me point out, I'm not against string walking per se. I think it is an amazing method of gaming the system - it is a form of improvised adjustable, calibrated sight at the string, rather than at the riser, in classes where sights are prohibited. And the results can be amazing. But I also think there should be room for people who do not string walk to shoot head to head against each other without string walkers in the mix.
> 
> Any thoughts?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Teetsjon2 said:


> I completely agree


Soccer players using their hands would be an example of "equipment" and not "technique." So it only furthers my point. 

Anyone who thinks string walking makes things so easy should just do it and clean the floor with everyone else to prove their point. Otherwise, they are just shaking their fist at the sky like an angry old man. The last point he makes is idiotic at best. There IS in fact, room for those who don't string walk to compete with those who do. Nobody is stopping them. Just like if someone chooses to shoot recurve without stabilizers because they find them inconvenient or feel they are "gaming the system." What an absurd argument.

Rules should be on equipment, and not how it's used.


----------



## FerrumVeritas (Oct 9, 2020)

For a single distance game (18m, 50m) string walking has no advantage over gap shooting. NFAA trad archers just build an arrow that gives them point on at the distance they're shooting, or throw the nock a bit high indoors. You're making a tune compromise either way, so it's really just a question of what tune compromise you're willing to accept. 

For field, 3D, and other variable distance games I would argue that stringwalking has a significant adjustability advantage. Yet some people that stringwalk in field gap or fixed crawl and gap in 3D. People like Demmer. So that clearly isn't always true. 

I definitely think bans on facewalking are even sillier than bans on stringwalking, but they're both silly.

Personally I think there should only be 4 divisions and everything else us useless faff created by someone who was butthurt about losing: 

Compound (Freestyle): Any non-electrionic accessories permitted. This shows off the best innovations in equipment in top shooters' hands.

Recurve: Recurve with a sight, stabilizers, clicker. The Olympic game.

Barebow: Unsighted, no stabilization (just weight), and certainly no clicker. Modern equipment and modern technique with limited aid. 

Historical/Primitive/Traditional: Wood arrows shot off the hand. Horsebows, longbows, doesn't matter. I'd allow micarta and fiberglass because it makes usable bows more affordable, and I'd want to give this class a chance. I'd allow plastic nocks and modern strings for safety. Otherwise this is basically pre-20th century. I wouldn't allow stringwalking, because stringwalking doesn't work without modern nocks and strings, but I would allow facewalking (there's some historical evidence for varying draw hand position at different distances, and it's a technique that does not require changes in equipment to "discover").


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

FerrumVeritas said:


> For a single distance game (18m, 50m) string walking has no advantage over gap shooting. NFAA trad archers just build an arrow that gives them point on at the distance they're shooting, or throw the nock a bit high indoors. You're making a tune compromise either way, so it's really just a question of what tune compromise you're willing to accept.
> 
> For field, 3D, and other variable distance games I would argue that stringwalking has a significant adjustability advantage. Yet some people that stringwalk in field gap or fixed crawl and gap in 3D. People like Demmer. So that clearly isn't always true.
> 
> ...


Can't disagree with any of that, especially the butthurt part. If a person doesn't like the rules, nobody is forcing them to enter the competition. If they do enter the competition and then complain about the rules, what does that make them? I think we all know what that makes them. Not someone anyone wants to shoot with at the very least.

Years ago, I wanted to try my hand at NFAA "traditional" after they changed the rule to allow stabilizers up to 12" (an absurd rule IMO but nonetheless...). That meant I couldn't string walk for the state indoor event, which at my draw length and weight, gave me a 16" gap at 20 yards. So I embraced the rules for the division, made my adjustments, practiced until I felt I was ready and then attended my first and only TFAA state indoor event. I accomplished my personal goal of a 280 average over 2 days, broke the state record, collected my buckle and patch and went home and cooked myself a steak dinner, finishing it off with a nice craft IPA to celebrate. I haven't been back and 8 years later that record still stands.

Rules should be for equipment, not how it's used. However if you do enter a competition - 1) don't complain about the rules after you enter, and 2) if you don't take full advantage of the rules, don't expect anyone to be impressed.


----------



## c_m_shooter (Aug 15, 2018)

There are already classes that don't allow string walking. As someone who prefers to shoot a crawl, I find it difficult to find shoots that allow it.


----------



## MooseisLoose (11 mo ago)

With World Archery becoming more and more dominant and NFAA (and other non-WA organizations in each country) becoming less and less important I think the WA rules will eventually be THE ruleset. You're even seeing this bleed into NFAA-style shoots like Vegas where they use the WA ruleset for barebow recurve.

Personally I like the WA ruleset the best and I think the 5 divisions each make sense. What I don't like is creating fifty divisions (I'm looking at you, IBO) so that everyone can claim they're a national champion when they only had to beat out 4 guys.


----------



## Hikari (May 15, 2021)

Shoot the way you want to shoot. Chose the game you want to play. 

However, have a bit of grace and not be condescending toward things you personally don't like. You only come off sounding old and grumpy.


----------



## FerrumVeritas (Oct 9, 2020)

While I agree with that sentiment in theory, there needs to be a line. And a lot of the discussion in this thread is and was about the theory behind what orgs can and should legislate within the rules. 

Otherwise we get a Silver Senior Limited Lever-Bow class with one participant every two years.


----------



## rsarns (Sep 23, 2008)

Amazing someone with a first post digs up a thread 8 years old.


----------



## lees (Feb 10, 2017)

Holy thread resurrection, Batman....
Agree about complaining about the rules. I've done my share of it, but at the end of the day, limbwalker is right. I try to quit whining and just go "run what you brung"; this is supposed to be fun.
For me, it has been my BHFS illegal recurve sight ring, the only part of my (compound) bow that doesn't fit into Bowhunter class. So nowadays, I just try to keep quiet and just have fun shooting it in freestyle as is.

The key is to understand that I'm competing against myself, really. I'm actually at an advantage over myself than if I showed up with a scope and that huge Hydra of 20lbs of weights and stabs all over the place on the bow. The bow is nice and light, and the target isn't flying back and forth in the peep. Only the sight ring is flying back and forth. Resulting in an at least 50% reduction in my shot crappiness overall. So I'm actually better off with that setup shooting in freestyle than if I were on a "level playing field" with the scope and 20lbs of weights.

And I even have the opportunity to have an actual advantage over the guys who would otherwise also shoot a 10" hunting stab with a recurve sight better than the bowling ball they're shooting right now. If they only knew that, that is... 

So I at least try not to complain. Sometimes I still do, but I feel like I'm getting better about it. At least somewhat.

lee.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

lees said:


> *The key is to understand that I'm competing against myself, really.*
> 
> lee.


This really is the key to this sport. Top archers have figured this out, which is why it is so common for them to cheer each other on and be genuinely happy for their competitors when they have a good day.


----------



## FerrumVeritas (Oct 9, 2020)

limbwalker said:


> This really is the key to this sport. Top archers have figured this out, which is why it is so common for them to cheer each other on and be genuinely happy for their competitors when they have a good day.


I think the only time it's difficult to do this is during matchplay.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

FerrumVeritas said:


> I think the only time it's difficult to do this is during matchplay.


Anyone who's shot matches with me has heard me encourage them mid-match. Coach's habit I guess. LOL But who here doesn't want to win a match when the other person is shooting well? I think we all do. It's much more satisfying that way.

Stonebraker is another one. His opponent is often likely to get a "good shot, keep it up" comment whenever they make a good shot, for the same reason. He wants to win when his opponent is shooting well. There is very little satisfaction in beating anyone when they aren't shooting well.


----------



## lees (Feb 10, 2017)

limbwalker said:


> This really is the key to this sport. Top archers have figured this out, which is why it is so common for them to cheer each other on and be genuinely happy for their competitors when they have a good day.


To me, this aspect of rooting for your opponent is what I’ve always liked about competitive archery, at least at the amateur level. It’s kind of like declaring Detante and instead deciding to work together for mutual improvement before the match even starts. Instead of crush the other guy by any means necessary and don’t stop till he’s dead.

For me, the shot has always been about trying to make it better than the shot I just made. Maybe because it’s an achievable goal because I suck so bad, unlike actually shooting better than the other guy. When you’re outclassed by the other guy, which I virtually always am, you can’t really do anything about it. But I always have a chance to outclass myself on the next shot.

lee.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

lees said:


> To me, this aspect of rooting for your opponent is what I’ve always liked about competitive archery, at least at the amateur level. It’s kind of like declaring Detante and instead deciding to work together for mutual improvement before the match even starts. Instead of crush the other guy by any means necessary and don’t stop till he’s dead.
> 
> For me, the shot has always been about trying to make it better than the shot I just made. Maybe because it’s an achievable goal because I suck so bad, unlike actually shooting better than the other guy. When you’re outclassed by the other guy, which I virtually always am, you can’t really do anything about it. But I always have a chance to outclass myself on the next shot.
> 
> lee.


In my experience, elite archers actually encourage one another in competition more than amateurs do. Maybe because of the mutual respect they have for the amount of time and effort it took to get them to that match in that moment.


----------



## lees (Feb 10, 2017)

limbwalker said:


> In my experience, elite archers actually encourage one another in competition more than amateurs do. Maybe because of the mutual respect they have for the amount of time and effort it took to get them to that match in that moment.


I felt like Bowhunter class was always particularly low-pressure and mutual help and fun, which is part of why I gravitated towards BHFS. I liked the simpler equipment but it just seems more laid-back. Barebow is even more like that, and I always went over and shot with the BB guys at the shop I used to shoot at in NM. Even tho I was shooting my compound, just seemed more fun over there….

lee.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

lees said:


> I felt like Bowhunter class was always particularly low-pressure and mutual help and fun, which is part of why I gravitated towards BHFS. I liked the simpler equipment but it just seems more laid-back. Barebow is even more like that, and I always went over and shot with the BB guys at the shop I used to shoot at in NM. Even tho I was shooting my compound, just seemed more fun over there….
> 
> lee.


yea, any BB archer who takes themselves too seriously will soon be cured of that affliction by the BB mafia. LOL

I won't name names but we once had a BB archer who shot here in Texas about 10-12 years ago who conducted themselves as though BB archery was an Olympic sport and they were the most recent individual gold medalist. LOL Literally nobody wanted to shoot with that person. Were they good? Yea, they were. They even held the state indoor record for a while. But you want to talk about motivation to break a state record. LOL A bunch of the native Texan BB archers all got together and agreed they couldn't allow that record to stand, just because that person took themselves so damn seriously.


----------



## lees (Feb 10, 2017)

limbwalker said:


> yea, any BB archer who takes themselves too seriously will soon be cured of that affliction by the BB mafia. LOL
> 
> I won't name names but we once had a BB archer who shot here in Texas about 10-12 years ago who conducted themselves as though BB archery was an Olympic sport and they were the most recent individual gold medalist. LOL Literally nobody wanted to shoot with that person. Were they good? Yea, they were. They even held the state indoor record for a while. But you want to talk about motivation to break a state record. LOL A bunch of the native Texan BB archers all got together and agreed they couldn't allow that record to stand, just because that person took themselves so damn seriously.


My brushes with greatness were very few, but they can fool you. I think because they’re so focused, they can give the impression they’re kind of aloof. But they’re not, they’re just normal folks who are just abnormally great shooters. The one or I’m thinking of right now was #11 in the world at the time and she shot at our shop and in league, etc. Definitely very focused on her shooting but was just a regular person like everyone else.

I‘ve never been afflicted with any form of talent or success, tho, so I’ve never had to worry. Scratch that, I won a mug at state indoor one year with my old Supra Max, but I’ve forgotten what for.

To me, the Bowhunters and Barebow/Trad folks seemed to have the most fun. The FS guys seemed to have the least. The Olympic recurves had the loudest bows.

All this talk is making me want to get back on a line again lol. With something, even if it’s my Supra…

lee.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

lees said:


> My brushes with greatness were very few, but they can fool you. I think because they’re so focused, they can give the impression they’re kind of aloof. But they’re not, they’re just normal folks who are just abnormally great shooters. The one or I’m thinking of right now was #11 in the world at the time and she shot at our shop and in league, etc. Definitely very focused on her shooting but was just a regular person like everyone else.
> 
> I‘ve never been afflicted with any form of talent or success, tho, so I’ve never had to worry. Scratch that, I won a mug at state indoor one year with my old Supra Max, but I’ve forgotten what for.
> 
> ...


I would agree with your fun scale. Olympic shooters are usually pretty laid back. They are just too tired to look like they are having fun because the clicker kicks their (our) asses. LOL


----------



## lees (Feb 10, 2017)

limbwalker said:


> I would agree with your fun scale. Olympic shooters are usually pretty laid back. They are just too tired to look like they are having fun because the clicker kicks their (our) asses. LOL


Agree. The struggle is real when the clicker is fitted. But as much fun as the other guys. And most of the guys on the FS line suffer needlessly, IMO. The octopus of weights and the 6x scopes make them shoot worse rather than better, in most cases the stuff is on there only because they think it’s supposed to be on there.

More than once I had been asked how I shot the scores I did with just the 10” stab and the recurve sight. When I told them the truth they didn’t believe me.

Those Were The Days, tho. Nowadays I can’t prove anything at all 

lee.


----------



## psnguyen (Jun 15, 2018)

These old guys making fun of millennials for supposedly wanting a participation trophy for everything, and then turn around and demand a specific class that fits their own needs because they can't hang ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


----------



## carlosii (Feb 25, 2007)

grantmac said:


> SBills just hit the nail on the head.
> 
> At single distances there really is NO different between someone stringwalking or not. The NFAA "Trad" 12" stab rule made more difference indoor then if they allowed stringwalking.
> 
> ...


ASA has Barebow Recurve that allows stringwalking.


----------



## Steve_M. (Feb 26, 2018)

This thread is 8 years old and it's amazing to me how things have changed. From what I've seen locally barebow/string walking classes have big turnouts and traditional classes have only a handful of people. I can remember a time when barebow/string walking classes here had 3 participants max.


----------



## FerrumVeritas (Oct 9, 2020)

carlosii said:


> ASA has Barebow Recurve that allows stringwalking.


Which was added long after that comment was made (something like 5 years).


----------



## carlosii (Feb 25, 2007)

FerrumVeritas said:


> Which was added long after that comment was made (something like 5 years).


Dang it. I gotta start looking at the dates on these things.


----------

