# Increasing the Challenge?



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

Just tossing a thought out there concerning "increasing the challenge" and also increasing the accuracy standard for the Professional Division ONLY.

We are hearing more and more from the Pros that scoring in target archery sucks here in the USA with regard to Vegas, the NFAA Indoor Nationals, and the Yankton Classic.
X's are counted...but they really do NOT "count."
In the past making things "tougher" have always involved shrinking the target and always drawn harsh criticism, boycotts, and loss of participation.

So, We have the targets, the scoring rings are there already...but we don't REALLY utilize them...with a few exceptions.

Here goes:

For VEGAS: For CHAMPIONSHIP DIVISION ONLY during the entire competition: Scoring: 11-10-9-8-7-6. That is 11 points for the BabyX, still touch the line for the higher value.

For the NFAA Indoor Nationals: for the PRO DIVISION ONLY during the entire competition: Scoring the same 5-spot face we now use, but with the following:
7 points for an INSIDE OUT X (any questionable inside outs are called by a line judge)
6 points for an "X"
5 points for rest of white
4 for the rest of the target.

For the Yankton Classic, for CHAMPIONSHIP DIVISION ONLY during the entire competition:
11 points for the inner X
10 for the "X"
9 for the rest of the gold.

Thus, instead of counting x's for the "fun of it" (meaningless), those inner X's now mean everything, and accuracy prevails. Plus you can build a lead...or "catch up" by shooting some inside outs or inner X's. No money spent in changing the target faces, and there would also be a "graduation or move up status" to shooting PRO or CHAMPIONSHIP

No changes to the target face are needed, and this would apply ONLY to the PROS (Championship Division)

I know there is a target face out there that utilizes 7 points for a smaller inner X...but that involves a change in the By-Laws, yet another target face to pay for, and all sorts of other hassles. Would never fly; didn't fly when attempted to be used at the Indoor Pro-Am either.

Blast away. Yeah, I know...I don't compete and definitely wouldn't be competitive in the PRO division or CHAMPIONSHIP Division anymore. But...look at the scores at the Yankton Classic and tell me who had the most X's...that were basically meanginless, only to place 2nd?

Field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## Pete53 (Dec 5, 2011)

Tom, i like the way your scoring should go, way less shootoffs. the guy with the smaller arrow shaft might do better ? as far as anyone 60 or older you might as well face it we have no class in the pro`s we can`t compete with 50 year olds . who knows maybe they will drop it down to 45 year olds soon ?? without there being a silver senior pro division for 60 year olds you might as well quit. just look at what age is winning now in pro division all 50 - 52 years of age ,so ya we have been put out to pasture or just sweep under the rug . my hopes at 60 now retired to shoot in the pro division with a chance at a few bucks are gone ! Pete53


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

Pete53 said:


> Tom, i like the way your scoring should go, way less shootoffs. the guy with the smaller arrow shaft might do better ? as far as anyone 60 or older you might as well face it we have no class in the pro`s we can`t compete with 50 year olds . who knows maybe they will drop it down to 45 year olds soon ?? without there being a silver senior pro division for 60 year olds you might as well quit. just look at what age is winning now in pro division all 50 - 52 years of age ,so ya we have been put out to pasture or just sweep under the rug . my hopes at 60 now retired to shoot in the pro division with a chance at a few bucks are gone ! Pete53


The prowess among the pros and many of the joes is there. There isn't any need to change the target faces at all. Just use the rings as intended (more points for those inner x's) and instead of going "inside out" for ONLY the shootoffs...go inside-out for 7 points for the entire shooting match for the PROS at the INDOOR NATIONALS only.
The scoring tightens up, the shooters are rewarded for lots of accuracy and not eliminated completely for shooting a "4" or a "5".

In addition, of course, the person that shoots the most X's at Vegas or the Classic doesn't have to win twice either. With the 11-ring in play, then catching up and/or building a lead is possible, and one "9" doesn't take you completely out of the tournament either.

Not so sure how it would float for the joes...but thinking it would work for the Championship/Pro shooters to make things for the better. Many of the Championship/Pro shooters think the scoring is problematical and that having it so that one tiny miss rules you totally out with no way to catch up isn't right. I tend to agree with that; thus my thoughts on starting the thread.
I'm not a PRO, and have no say in what the Pro Division would decide to do, but putting something out there based upon a lifetime of competition in this game has perhaps some merit to help with this situation that has people up in arms and split apart on the issue.
It at least offers a solution, instead of a gripe or complaint without offering any solutions....
field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## Blue X (Dec 22, 2007)

Hey field 14, 
I certainly dont think archery tournaments needs to be any harder. You got to give the ol working man a obtainable goal. I think the current targets and scoring methods are tough enough. If a person sees it as a goal thell never reach, they may just not try in the first place. I remember talking to you extensively and I wouldnt think you would be on the make it harder side. 

I think there should be a new class called a pessimist class for everybody who can not shoot top level scores so they could lose by a bigger margin and not take a chance on having a good day. Score a 5 spot backwards so the pessimist will not have to take a chance on accidently being happy. x=3 white=4 blue=5 that way the better they do, the worse they will score. Get the nfaa to put their results page bottom down scoring. That way the guy with the lowest score will get all the sympathy and everybody else in the group will aspire to have the lowest score.

I think it would grow more involvement in archery tournaments were made to lessen the difference between the avg working man and the elite archers. All the people who get most of their stuff free dont really add money into the industry. However the armatures buy most of their stuff and keep everybody in business. Why would anybody want to discourage the working man by making archery harder and turn them away from competing. There isnt anybody I know getting rich off archery tournaments, Let let the working people have a chance to think they could win.

Im going to make it back up to Presley's this dec. I am looking forward to seeing you and Pat. I seen Pat in louisville. Yall r good people. I got to shoot next to Jeff Button last time up there. That guy made my 12 hour drive worth the money. You should let him in for free next year he keep me laughing all weekend. I looked like a toothpick next to Jeff. 

Blue X


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

Blue X said:


> Hey field 14,
> I certainly dont think archery tournaments needs to be any harder. You got to give the ol working man a obtainable goal. I think the current targets and scoring methods are tough enough. If a person sees it as a goal thell never reach, they may just not try in the first place. I remember talking to you extensively and I wouldnt think you would be on the make it harder side.
> 
> I think there should be a new class called a pessimist class for everybody who can not shoot top level scores so they could lose by a bigger margin and not take a chance on having a good day. Score a 5 spot backwards so the pessimist will not have to take a chance on accidently being happy. x=3 white=4 blue=5 that way the better they do, the worse they will score. Get the nfaa to put their results page bottom down scoring. That way the guy with the lowest score will get all the sympathy and everybody else in the group will aspire to have the lowest score.
> ...


You misread something along the way. I stated the changes for the CHAMPIONSHIP/PRO division scoring only. Not for the average joes that really pay the bills for the running and continuance of all the archery tournaments, regardless of venue.
Many of the pros think the targets indoors are BORING. They even voted to make the "X" worth 6 points on the field and hunter rounds for PROS ONLY. Doesn't affect the Average Joes at all.

That, too, is what I'm saying for the indoor tournaments...tighten it up for the PROS and leave the joes alone; it is fine the way it is. Of course, the Iowa Pro-Am, Midwest Open, and KC Shootout use the 6-5-4 scoring for the NFAA 5-spot and the 11-10-9 scoring for the Vegas rounds and those shoots are highly successful. Nobody has "cleaned both rounds" in any of those 3 tournaments....yet.

Beats shrinking the target or creating another "new" target face to just tighten up the scoring.

field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## FV Chuck (Dec 11, 2004)

Couple things.. 

You missed that he's a Pro Tom... He has a vested opinion on it. 

I agree. No reason at all to make it harder. Not enough guys cleaning it week after week, year after year.... 

Respectfully I must say that I also feel very strongly that proposals for PRO scoring changes should come from PRO's.


My. 02


----------



## blueglide1 (Jun 29, 2006)

Chuck,I agree with everything but the inside out X.I think it would slow the game down even slower than it is now.I can imagine 50 hands in the air to decide an inside out arrow by line judges,LOL We have allready bumped up the value for the X in the field game,time to do it on all target faces. I dont mind the shoot offs,thats half the suspense at the end of the shoot.But what they could change there is make it one end of practice then inside out scoring right away on the blue face,and count baby Xs on the Vegas face right away.That would really cut the shoot offs times shorter,and get to the end in a hurry. P.S. the lenses are great!!!

Don W.


----------



## FV Chuck (Dec 11, 2004)

blueglide1 said:


> Chuck,I agree with everything but the inside out X.I think it would slow the game down even slower than it is now.I can imagine 50 hands in the air to decide an inside out arrow by line judges,LOL We have allready bumped up the value for the X in the field game,time to do it on all target faces. I dont mind the shoot offs,thats half the suspense at the end of the shoot.But what they could change there is make it one end of practice then inside out scoring right away on the blue face,and count baby Xs on the Vegas face right away.That would really cut the shoot offs times shorter,and get to the end in a hurry. P.S. the lenses are great!!!
> 
> Don W.


HEy Thanks Don  

Personally I LOVE the shootoffs...I think we agree on that.
I wouldn't mind (( I dont think)) the 6 on the blueface, but agreed on the IO's. That would be a deal breaker for me.
It seems the popularity of the Pro-Am's that use that format seem to be really doing well.

I'm not convinced of the need to change the Vegas one yet tho.

respectfully. 
CHuck


----------



## gcab (Mar 24, 2010)

Since there was only 2.. yes 2.. people eligible for the $1mil. prize this year before the first arrows were fired in Yankton, then what exactly has been too "easy"? The fact that there was 18 people out of couple hundred or whatever it was in Vegas to qualify for a shootoff? Or that there was only about a dozen out of whatever it was in Louisville that made the shootoff? And people don't have to win it twice.. they follow the rules and win it based on the rules provided. The winning superbowl team isn't the one that makes it into the playoffs with the most regular season points scored, its the one that moves through the bracket and beat their opponents. If a game comes to an end and the score is tied, do they keep going or does the team with the most yards run win the game?


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

FV Chuck said:


> Couple things..
> 
> You missed that he's a Pro Tom... He has a vested opinion on it.
> 
> ...


Agreed on the point that scoring changes for the pros should come from the pros. BUT...somebody has got to start the ball rolling. I have heard from several pros that the "target rounds' " scoring needs to be "adjusted" to reward accuracy. Thus the reason I started this thread. The field/hunter round situation on scoring has been dealt with. Now perhaps, the situation with indoor scoring on all indoor rounds and the scoring on the Yankton Classic for the CHAMPIONSHIP/Pro Division needs "adjusting" too.
Sure is something to bring up and talk about.
I also agree that the percentage of 120X scores at the indoor nationals has remained pretty static and that when compared to the total number of rounds shot by everyone in the tournament, that % of "perfect/perfects" is really low. The number of 900's at Vegas is even lower, let alone the number of 30X rounds.
Yankton, was glaring in the difference in X-count (made 'em count 'em, for whatever reason, but the X's really meant nothing). For the original standings before the shootoffs for 1st and 2nd, and even 3-5....??? Why count the x's if they are meaningless for the CHAMPIONSHIP shooters?

Just started the thread as food for thought "for" the Pros based upon what I've heard and discussed with several card-carrying Pros and Championship Division Shooters at other events. Wish I still had the prowess to be able to compete in the Senior Pros; I would do it, even without a recognized Pro Silver Senior Division.


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

Yes, but even the NFL has a "bye" system for the TOP TEAMS???? Something to ponder in giving at least a "bye type of reward" to the person that shoots a 900 with the highest X-count at Vegas? SOMETHING should be done to reward that person for hitting the middle of the middle more than anyone else that shot the 900?? I've thought for a long time that the Vegas shoot should reward that top dog (most X's scored with a perfect 900 total) should be guaranteed no worse than 4th place...and even better yet, no worse than second place and that the other shooters must "Shoot up" to him. Just sayin'.....But then again, all this should, as Chuck said, come from the Pros...not from a "joe."
Maybe there are several "pros" that think the same thing, but are afraid to come forward with their opinions cuz they fear reprisals and ridicules?


----------



## gcab (Mar 24, 2010)

field14 said:


> Yes, but even the NFL has a "bye" system for the TOP TEAMS???? Something to ponder in giving at least a "bye type of reward" to the person that shoots a 900 with the highest X-count at Vegas? SOMETHING should be done to reward that person for hitting the middle of the middle more than anyone else that shot the 900?? I've thought for a long time that the Vegas shoot should reward that top dog (most X's scored with a perfect 900 total) should be guaranteed no worse than 4th place...and even better yet, no worse than second place and that the other shooters must "Shoot up" to him. Just sayin'.....But then again, all this should, as Chuck said, come from the Pros...not from a "joe."
> Maybe there are several "pros" that think the same thing, but are afraid to come forward with their opinions cuz they fear reprisals and ridicules?



They get a bye, but they don't "win". Peyton Manning just had one of the greatest seasons ever, if not absolutely ever, for a quarterback. Since he was "top dog", should he be given the superbowl win? No, he should have to win against Seattle. Is there a different award they could do, sure. That would be like the MVP that he won. But to get a bye in the shootoff just because of a top score, that doesn't make any sense to me. Maybe just pay the highest x count an extra grand or whatever. But that doesn't mean they should get second place no matter what. The 9ers had a great season last year. Should they get second place automatically even though they lost in the playoffs(ie shootoff)?


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

gcab said:


> They get a bye, but they don't "win". Peyton Manning just had one of the greatest seasons ever, if not absolutely ever, for a quarterback. Since he was "top dog", should he be given the superbowl win? No, he should have to win against Seattle. Is there a different award they could do, sure. That would be like the MVP that he won. But to get a bye in the shootoff just because of a top score, that doesn't make any sense to me. Maybe just pay the highest x count an extra grand or whatever. But that doesn't mean they should get second place no matter what. The 9ers had a great season last year. Should they get second place automatically even though they lost in the playoffs(ie shootoff)?


Professional bowling has run a play UP to the #1 seed for years and years. The number one person through the qualifying round SITS an everyone bowls up to him/her to the final bowl off game for all the marbles. He/she is rewarded for bowling the best throught out the week and guaranteed no worse than...2nd place. Worked for Pro Bowling ever since I can remember.

Now as far as just going for "6's" for the Pros on the NFAA Blue face. It wouldn't resolve anything...there would still be 11-15 guys that shot perfect 360. Thus, the idea I presented for "7 points" for the inside out x's. Perhaps the required calling of the close or questionable inside outs by a line judge pushed it a bit far...but with respect to the situation recently at the ASA event...that is what prompted the line judge thing.
The 7 points for inside out was presented as fodder To avoid making a new target with an "inner X" that would score 7 points...but that new "CHAMPIONSHIP" target has already been made by, I think, Creekwood Archery? I have shot on that particular target face, and it does offer a different look and perspective, and it is fun to shoot on. That would be an option in lieu of using the current 5-spot face and scoring inside out as a "7". But again, only for the PROS, not everyone.
That would give the PROS their "identity target" for the Indoor Nationals and maybe even sectional level events? I"ve attached a photo of this "420 Target" for those that likely haven't seen it. Problem is that the target face in the photo has "All Rights Reserved" to Creekwood archery and could be a big stumbling block to adopt this target, what with royalties and permissions and such??? Another reason for the idea of using the current Blue 5-spot face and scoring inside-out as "7 points."
But hey, the NFAA owns the current blue face and could make a Championship target (they've had one before!!) and put an "inner X" in the middle of the current X ring about 1/2 that size with the printed "X" in it and use that as 7 points, the rest of the current X ring as 6 points, etc. Similar to the baby x on the Vegas target?







Just thinking.


----------



## blueglide1 (Jun 29, 2006)

I do agree Chuck that the blue face needs something,and also that the Vegas shoot offs are a spectator bonanza,LOL


----------



## FV Chuck (Dec 11, 2004)

field14 said:


> Agreed on the point that scoring changes for the pros should come from the pros. BUT...somebody has got to start the ball rolling. I have heard from several pros that the "target rounds' " scoring needs to be "adjusted" to reward accuracy. Thus the reason I started this thread.


You lost me right here..... 

I'm kinds of shying away from the "I've had a bunch of guys say" kind of things. 
Big fan of thinking that policy should be less "hearsay" and more "he said"


----------



## FV Chuck (Dec 11, 2004)

Field - Personally or Professionally, or any other way I will never support that face 

Ever.


----------



## gcab (Mar 24, 2010)

Bunch of what guys.. guys that shot a 900 and didn't win, guys with high x count and didn't win, guys with high x count but didn't shoot a 900? I remember a certain pro, won't name names since its not about throwing anyone under the bus, but had a high x count in vegas but didn't make the shootoff. The answer to that was par archery sucks and lets all not go to Louisville(although was there anyways). But probably wouldn't think that if won the tournament.


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

FV Chuck said:


> Field - Personally or Professionally, or any other way I will never support that face
> 
> Ever.


I could agree with that...if you are talking about the Creekwood face (which I"m assuming you are talking about). 
OR...are you talking about a Championship Face with an "inner X" in it for 7 points? Not sure which you are talking about exactly. 

I would surmise that you also have also heard rumblings about the scoring for the pros on the indoor rounds sucks and super accuracy needs to be rewarded? Just sayin'.
gcab... nice you brought the term "par achery" up. That happens to be something I've heard about the indoor game scoring more than once. Apparently nobody wants to discuss the SOLUTION or potential solutions and come to terms with a solution rather than just "the scoring sucks, par archery sucks", et cetera.
The Pros should come out of the woodwork and discuss potential solutions. It came about for them on the field and hunter with the 6-ring scoring. Why can't it come about with the indoor venues/rounds? Just sayin'.
Surely more than one pro has some ideas on the solution to make this more than "par archery."


----------



## FV Chuck (Dec 11, 2004)

the creekwood face is a dealbreaker for me in any conversation. THere will need to be monumental hurdles cleared before I support that.

I'm not convinced yet that we need inner 7 or anything like that yet for any event....just don't think we are near that measure yet. Stop making it harder. It's hard as hell already....

As for the Pro's coming out of the woodwork to discuss options, changes, etc. They are..... just not here. Dont be looking for solutions for problems that dont exist yet either though....

respectfully

Chuck


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

I agree the Creekwood face would be a huge problem. BUT.....
If the scoring is made to 360 on the blue face, nothing is resolved; you are just spinning the wheels for no gain. There will still be 11-15 guys that shoot a pair of 360's at the indoor Nationals. There will be several that shoot 119 and on down, too. This still puts a shooter that misses an X out of the competition completely with no chance of catching up or for the leaders to apply some sort of strategy to either play it safe or go for a "bigger lead."
Inside out scoring is tough to deal with, I agree, and line judge calls would be problematical. One other problem would of course be that the shooters, because of inside-out scoring would quit shooting the fat shafts. We've already had a fat shaft fiasco; don't need another one, yet.

Yes, it is hard as hell as it is. I agree also that the Creekwood face would require lots of talk, negotiations and hassle. I brought it up more from the standpoint of "a reward for increased shooting accuracy and as a starting point for perhaps a "Championship Target Face" for the Pros.

So, the next best thing is an inner x inside the current one and get 7 points for hitting it. They could and will still shoot fat shafts and it still forces "inside out X's" to get the 7 points, but makes it easier to score, because touching the line on the inner X would still give you the 7 points. It is indeed 'inside out X's" but without the negatives that go along with it.
Here is a sample, _*NOT TO SCALE*_ of what I'm talking about for a Championship Face: Again, not to scale, but you should be able to get the idea of what I'm talking about. Size of that "inner X"? I figure 1/2 of the size of the existing X would be about right? That could be decided upon by the Pros affected. A real "Pros Only" CHAMPIONSHIP target face that rewards prowess, and also allows some strategy, maybe? A means to catch up if you happen to miss an X or two the first or the second day...Still have a chance...shoot more "7's" to try to catch up. I got tired of playing with that line on the "inner X" but of course on the real target face, the line would be solid, not broken as depicted in the general photo idea. Of course the background would be identical to the NFAA 5-spot target. 
Another idea would be to make the gap between the outer line of the "inner-X" and the inner line of the "6-ring larger than the outside diameter of the 2712 or XXX shaft so that just getting your arrow barely inside of the line on the "6-ring" would NOT give you a "7". Truly have to have that puppy in there to get the 7 points, ha.


----------



## Blue X (Dec 22, 2007)

Hey field my personal thoughts are not of trying to catch up nor to be pin point accurate. I think the dividing line between target and 3d archery is the difference between pin point accuracy and absolute consistency. I also think this is why a lot of target people do not shoot 3d venues. Not all but most, I know the 3d guys can do good on targets and that target guys can do good on 3d as individuals but as a whole I think indoor archery is a consistency based game even though it looks like a pin point accuracy based game. Thats why we use the big dots and not .10 pins and we shoot at round targets in my opinion. 

It sounds to me like you are describing the indoor asa game to a T. They have the need for pin point accuracy and there is a immediate points loss for small mistakes. I have never shot this game and I promise you I never will. I dont need to battle the ol shooting problem that come from tiny pins and huge points losses shooting at a oblong target that my mind cant center in. I do not ever hear much about the asa indoor game since it was introduced a few years back. I am guessing that most 3d people dont like having a paper target on flat floor with no excuse to miss. I also dont think many serious round target archers would like that type of game either. 

pin point accuracy and consistency in archery are as different as hockey and figure skating. both played on the same field with the same equipment but with two different objectives. Pin point accuracy people usually set up shorter to have less gross sight movment and have to pay more attn to execution and follow thru, consistency people usually set up a little longer so their bad shots dont travel as far off center. 

I think indoor archery as a whole would not do well with any target that put pinpoint accuracy above consistency. 

I am shooting some 3D this summer to support a friend recovering from cancer who needed to get out of the house and get over depression. I have in the past done fairly good at 3D but I can tell you I hate 3D archery with a passion for the reasons I stated above. But as far as me shooting 3d as a serious sport, I cant ever see myself doing that. Well maybe known I might could get interested in. If indoor archery ever gets to the point that I have to set up a little short and have a small pin and deal with all the issues that come from that on paper, id just put my money in the wifes walmart fund and stay at home.

I think the nfaa blue face is awesome just the way it is scored. A new person can learn fairly quickly to shoot a 300 just like the top guys, theres a personal reward for the new guys to the sport. The ol hard working blue collar guy can work and practice and train and shoot scores close to the same scores that the top guys shoot, theres a personal reward in it for the ol working man.
They have x counts that narrow it down to a few people for a shoot off and someone wins money so theres something in it for them. 
Nobodys getting left out, I dont see any reason to change anything. Can you imagine being a cub or a youth or a working man being 100 points below the best and having the drive to keep learning? I can not see that at all, I see people being discouraged and thinking that a big score difference is an unobtainable goal and quitting archery. As hard as it already is, why make it harder? As few tournament archers as there are, why make it less? I think the nfaa blue face is the most perfect game that can ever be shot.
Blue X


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

Blue X said:


> Hey field my personal thoughts are not of trying to catch up nor to be pin point accurate. I think the dividing line between target and 3d archery is the difference between pin point accuracy and absolute consistency. I also think this is why a lot of target people do not shoot 3d venues. Not all but most, I know the 3d guys can do good on targets and that target guys can do good on 3d as individuals but as a whole I think indoor archery is a consistency based game even though it looks like a pin point accuracy based game. Thats why we use the big dots and not .10 pins and we shoot at round targets in my opinion.
> 
> It sounds to me like you are describing the indoor asa game to a T. They have the need for pin point accuracy and there is a immediate points loss for small mistakes. I have never shot this game and I promise you I never will. I dont need to battle the ol shooting problem that come from tiny pins and huge points losses shooting at a oblong target that my mind cant center in. I do not ever hear much about the asa indoor game since it was introduced a few years back. I am guessing that most 3d people dont like having a paper target on flat floor with no excuse to miss. I also dont think many serious round target archers would like that type of game either.
> 
> ...


Personally, I don't want any part of the ASA "indoor game." It doesn't interest me in the least.

However, I still think that for the CHAMPIONSHIP divisions and in light of the success of the Midwest Triple Crown format of 360 followed by 330 on day 2, there is something to be said about "pin point accuracy." There are some ties, but as of right now, nobody has cleaned both days on this format.
That being said, there isn't a snowball's chance that the NFAA Indoor Nationals would use a different format for day 2 to allow "catchup" for someone that had a couple of burps on day one. Thus the idea of the 7-ring scoring so that one miss out of the X or even a couple of misses out of the X don't mean you are totally out of it and have no chance at all.
There are many that think the NFAA blue face is just fine. There are many, however, and I honestly think a growing number of those that think that being taken out for missing an X is just a bit beyond reasonable. Of course, they know the rules going in and come anyways. I do not think, however that having the 7 ring scoring would reduce the participation in the Pro Division at NFAA Indoor Nationals. I think the competition would be improved and perhaps even more would show up. Never know unless it is tried.
Cannot try it until it is discussed and agreed upon by the PROS. You Pros have done it for the OUTDOOR NATIONALS...so what is wrong with tightening it up with that "bonus point" for the INDOOR NATIONALS?
Got a surprise in 2013 with that 6-ring scoring, did you all?


----------



## FV Chuck (Dec 11, 2004)

field14 said:


> Personally, I don't want any part of the ASA "indoor game." It doesn't interest me in the least.
> 
> However, I still think that for the CHAMPIONSHIP divisions and in light of the success of the Midwest Triple Crown format of 360 followed by 330 on day 2, there is something to be said about "pin point accuracy." There are some ties, but as of right now, nobody has cleaned both days on this format.
> That being said, there isn't a snowball's chance that the NFAA Indoor Nationals would use a different format for day 2 to allow "catchup" for someone that had a couple of burps on day one. Thus the idea of the 7-ring scoring so that one miss out of the X or even a couple of misses out of the X don't mean you are totally out of it and have no chance at all.
> ...


............ Not a fan of the idea. By a long way.

You still havent sold me on why it needs to be so much harder. 

Every aspect of your position is 100% hypothetical. 
So far the response has been fairly cool or as in my case downright no.

PLease bring data that supports it.


----------



## Sparky360 (Feb 7, 2010)

Why change anything? Guys that are complaining about missing one arrow and are done should not of missed. Lets just keep making it easier to miss and still be in it to win it. I was good for 119 out of 120 shoots and now I can't win. Well should of been 120 out of 120. Why do things need to change? That will just increase time at indoor nationals even more. I didn't get to leave until almost 8 this year. Inside out scoring hell we won't finish until 10. Why don't we just make it a 3 day shoot and shoot another 60 arrows. That will lower the number of perfect scores even more. Or lets only count one day instead of two. Then you can make a mistake and just throw it out. Leave it alone until more people the whole class shoots clean it is not to easy.


----------



## gcab (Mar 24, 2010)

Interesting to me as well is that the class that supposedly wants the change is the only class by rule that can miss one and still have a chance against those that didn't miss.


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

FV Chuck said:


> ............ Not a fan of the idea. By a long way.
> 
> You still havent sold me on why it needs to be so much harder.
> 
> ...


Chuck, you were so willing to do this for FIELD/HUNTER rounds? Why not for indoors? It is the same difference? That sure made OUTDOORS much tougher and it was tough enough already!
Won't provide data; it is obvious people's minds are already made up...Did you have conclusive DATA to support the 6-ring scoring for field and hunter and what would happen with the standings if it was changed to the 6-ring scoring...but were apparently tired of "par field archery" and it passed easily. Then came the huge surprise when....the NFAA National Outdoor was over after round #1 and first place won by an even wider margin than before the 6-ring scoring went in. Even the gaps from 2nd -4th were larger (and larger than what I bet most predicted too). Besides that if I did provide data, I'm not a Pro...so I wouldn't have one snowball's chance in getting anywhere with it anyways. Afterall, you mentioned or somebody did that it is a pro issue and is only for the pros to decide.

The "don't bring it up again, it won't be changed" thing comes to bear quite often these days.

As I said, the Midwest Triple Crown events are set up to provide a "tougher task" on day #2 by shooting the Vegas face as an 11-10-9 scoring. What happens is that many of the shooters that shot 360 on day 1 do NOT place in the top 3 or 4. Yes, normally the overall winner did shoot a 360 on day one...but many of the others don't shoot enough 11's to hold position on day #2 and those that shot 359 or even 358 on Saturday move up in the standings.

I only put this out there as a suggestion, but obviously the mold is cast and apparently it is "don't bring it up, because this just simply won't happen." Some other touchy subjects are that way within the NFAA too. Enough said.
So, I guess it is, miss some 5's on the field/hunter rounds and get a chance to make it up...but NFAA indoor Nationals don't you dare miss an X or you have spend thousands of bucks and can sit back and watch the rest of the tournament with no chance whatsoever...not even a "lucky dog."
One can see the writing on the wall.....
field14


----------



## Pete53 (Dec 5, 2011)

field 14 i still like the 7 point ring ideal, but maybe only the top 10 - 20 top pro`s of the pro mfs division,10 top senior mfs pro division and 5 top ffs should be contacted, that`s just an example of how many ? and asked their opinions.really even in the last shoot jesse broadwaters x count meant nothing so why count them ? or chance at vegas a couple years ago ? easton should not get a vote ! these top pro`s shoot so well why not ?? the top pro shooter`s want more of a challenge so why be negative ? i also see if you had one bad arrow you just might be able to come back this way?? in vegas they already have the lucky dog ? so why not ?


----------



## gcab (Mar 24, 2010)

field14 said:


> Chuck, you were so willing to do this for FIELD/HUNTER rounds? Why not for indoors? It is the same difference? That sure made OUTDOORS much tougher and it was tough enough already!
> Won't provide data; it is obvious people's minds are already made up...Did you have conclusive DATA to support the 6-ring scoring for field and hunter and what would happen with the standings if it was changed to the 6-ring scoring...but were apparently tired of "par field archery" and it passed easily. Then came the huge surprise when....the NFAA National Outdoor was over after round #1 and first place won by an even wider margin than before the 6-ring scoring went in. Even the gaps from 2nd -4th were larger (and larger than what I bet most predicted too). Besides that if I did provide data, I'm not a Pro...so I wouldn't have one snowball's chance in getting anywhere with it anyways. Afterall, you mentioned or somebody did that it is a pro issue and is only for the pros to decide.
> 
> The "don't bring it up again, it won't be changed" thing comes to bear quite often these days.
> ...


Why a need for a "lucky dog"? Why need a chance to make it up? Isn't archery supposed to be a precision sport? So confused why its a need to allow people to miss but still allow them "stay in the game". What a joke.. Funny thing is how many people blame the "Young" generation for having entitlement mentality, wanting everything handed them, not working for things, ect.. but yet, seems the young people want to earn wins and the old want to just change rules to make it easy.


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

gcab said:


> Why a need for a "lucky dog"? Why need a chance to make it up? Isn't archery supposed to be a precision sport? So confused why its a need to allow people to miss but still allow them "stay in the game". What a joke.. Funny thing is how many people blame the "Young" generation for having entitlement mentality, wanting everything handed them, not working for things, ect.. but yet, seems the young people want to earn wins and the old want to just change rules to make it easy.


You are doing it on the outdoor field round with the 6-ring bonus. Sorta hypocritical on your part isn't it?

Vegas has the lucky dog...and while there are those that don't agree with it...it is there and being done...for VEGAS?? Again, a bit hypocritical, isn't it?

So, if archery is supposed to be a precision sport...what is wrong with the "inner X" REALLY counting for something during an event? That rewards precision, does it not? Again hypocritical...it is OK to have a "6-ring bonus point" or a bonus point for a "dot" on the animal round OUTDOORS, but not indoors? Such hypocrisy.
Think it through...you can play catch up OUTDOORS on the field, hunter, and animal, but yet apparently you are against having the same opportunity INDOORS? That is talking out of both sides of your mouth at the same time..... For it on one side of the fence and against it on the other?
field14


----------



## Blue X (Dec 22, 2007)

Hey Field 14, 
I personally like the blue face just like it is. I am curious as to why your so intent on changing it. I want all of my arrows to hit the middle no matter where I am or how its scored. I think its a great target and game for the broad range of archers that participate. I certainly like the fact that the working man and kids can practice as read and learn and practice, and they can score with in a few x's of the people that they are looking up to. I think it would be a huge mistake to remove that aspect of that particular game. 

On the internet, your always on a lot of controversial ideas and sometimes radical issues. I cant always see your point of view sometimes but I still like you even when I dont understand your point of view.

You know field when I started traveling and You actually made my life a little easier. We shared a few pic and had a few good conversations about your shooting from days of old and how it was for you after you were recovering. I remember you telling me your story after you got sick and trying to go and shoot the best you could and those few guys making it hard on you and how that made you feel. I never will forget your story or the hard work and diligence you have put into archery your whole life. I dont know what you scored that year in vegas because I lost no respect for you over any low number score. If there was a class for people trying to recover from a stroke, i am sure you would have won it. I actually gained so much respect for you going to shoot knowing good and well that you would shoot a lower than your normal score. So much respect for you that years later I remember you and your story and meeting your brother, because your story was and still is important to me. So much, that the only reason I clicked on this thread was because you started it. There is not a time when I open archery talk or shoot with a older person or someone with health issues that your story dont cross my mind. After meeting you, I never miss a chance to stop and show respect to people who are still shooting after a major life change. 

I gave up my 2012 2013 2014 run at the pro class to shoot locally with a old man who was diagnosed with and is now recovering from cancer and now depression. Thanks to your story I was able to see something more important right in front of my face than what was not actually in my own personal gain. When this guy got me into target archery he was the man and I couldnt hit a blank bail and couldnt afford equipment or arrows or entry fees and ol Jim Castle pulled me thru. patiently he helped me learn to shoot and consumed my life with archery so I wouldnt have time to get on drugs and stuff. Now its all backward. He dont have money for equipment or arrows or entry fees and feels bad when he misses targets because after chemo he cant feel his fingers and hits his release early sometimes. I took him to louisville this year just to sit and watch the pros shoot trying to give him some confidence and do something archery related that didnt end in a bad score and a loss of confidence for old Jim. 

Its for this reason I like the blue face target just like it is. Everyone isnt always at the top of their game and some people are still learning to shoot and some people are recovering from health issues and some people are getting older. I think its a great target face with normal scoring for building confidence. Since theres more people in general that for some reason or another may need a confidence boost than there are people cleaning the round, I would hate to see it change. As for me personally, i dont really care how anything is scored. I want them all to hit the middle and the numerical score or winning or losing dont effect me at all. Basicly their just numbers to me I dont lose confidence because of a missed x or 2. 58x is still better than going to work and I get to be happy for someone else that wins. But there is some people who need the confidence from a closer numerical score to the top guys scores for building confidence for reasons we may never know. 

If your now in a position to vote on issues like this that you would take a minute and think about all the people whom may be effected and not just a few who are going to shoot good scores any way the game is structured. Theres more important things going on in peoples lives life than winning and losing Tom. I would ask that you would consider the effects to young and the old and new and sick people who will not today or may never win and leave a little meat on the bone for those people. 

Blue X

PS
While Im on this issue, id like to think a few people. My friend Jim loves Dave Cousins and has followed him for years. While we was in Louisville I met a lady named Patty at the Prime booth and she set up a personal meet and greet between Dave Cousins and my friend Jim. I told her Jims story and as soon as the pro line was done shooting, Dave turned in his score and gave Jim a few minutes of his time and was really encouraging and thanked Jim for all that he has done in his archery life. Dave then signed one of his indoor arrows and gave it to Jim. Now it hangs on his deer head in the living room and everyday from that confidence booster he gets out in the yard and shoots his bow and we hit the range every weekend now. I despise 3D archery with a passion but I shoot it every weekend for Jims benifit. 

Dave Cousins and the Prime crew sure changed a mans life. Best archery tournament of my life and I didnt even take a bow.


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

Blue X said:


> Hey Field 14,
> I personally like the blue face just like it is. I am curious as to why your so intent on changing it. I want all of my arrows to hit the middle no matter where I am or how its scored. I think its a great target and game for the broad range of archers that participate. I certainly like the fact that the working man and kids can practice as read and learn and practice, and they can score with in a few x's of the people that they are looking up to. I think it would be a huge mistake to remove that aspect of that particular game.
> 
> On the internet, your always on a lot of controversial ideas and sometimes radical issues. I cant always see your point of view sometimes but I still like you even when I dont understand your point of view.
> ...



I only brought this up based upon PM's and e-mails I've received and hearing conversations at the past couple of Midwest Opens concerning the "par archery" that indoors has with regard to scoring and the remarks of how "boring" indoor archery is because for the Pros, it is too easy.
I then coupled that with the fact that for field & hunter rounds for PROS ONLY...they are scoring a bonus point for the X of 6 points to reward precision, etc. On the animal round, there is also a "bonus point" for hitting the "dot" on the animal target.
Don't you find it strange that outdoors there are bonus rewards...but for indoors, with the exception of the Midwest Triple crown events, there are not bonus points for supreme accuracy during the main competition?

I only proposed this as a result of the above items, and for the Indoor Nationals, for PROS ONLY; not for everyone. They don't use the 6-ring scoring on field and hunter for everyone either; just the PROS.

I thank you for your respect and also for tolerating my diatribes. Frankly I really don't care what you all do, but sure would think some consideration needs to be given and those "Pros" that are bored and are tired of "par archery" indoors could come forward, state their cases, etc without being chastised for it like I have been chastised.
I wonder if, had it been some high profile "Pro" that brought up this thread...if it would be viewed differently. I am sure that it would be; at least from a few of the participants. It isn't always what you know...it is WHO you know or who you are that counts more...

I sure wish I could compete without the negative taste in my mouth from that incident in Vegas several years back. It put a 'fear' into me that I simply have been totally unable to conquer...all from the tasteless, heartless comments of a few IDIOTS that didn't have a clue.

I keep trying...and by golly, I haven't missed the BALE in years, hahahahaha. But shooting 20's and 21's from 20 yards? I could likely do better than that barebow/string walking...and it has been tempting to do so...with a recurved bow, no less.

So much for trying to plant a seed for "change." Guess it won't happen and is pretty much in the category of "don't bring it up ever again, we will NOT change anything."
I put it out there, food for thought and one side of the fence (outdoors) it is OK, but for indoors "bonus points" must be verboten.
field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## gcab (Mar 24, 2010)

field14 said:


> You are doing it on the outdoor field round with the 6-ring bonus. Sorta hypocritical on your part isn't it?
> 
> Vegas has the lucky dog...and while there are those that don't agree with it...it is there and being done...for VEGAS?? Again, a bit hypocritical, isn't it?
> 
> ...


Not speaking for Chuck, but I can definitely see how it's post like this that lead him to not give a thought to any of the "heresay, he said, she said, they said, ect" posts that you have for facts of the change needed. How can I be a hypocrite when I am against the lucky dog and the 6 for field? The lucky dog is a joke for and a shame they have it. Especially for those that stay clean to begin with. But yea, reward those that miss with a second opportunity.. That's a good idea. And no lot a hypocrite, all those example you gave of hypocrisy don't apply to me, I think they are all wrong. It's a shame that it's always pushed upon us to make it easier. Maybe the PGA will allow mulligans on every shot this year for the majors, or qbs on the NFL and get a redo on interceptions, or instead of 3 strikes they should make it like teeball and just stay at the plate until you get in base and then they can all go for ice cream after the game.


----------



## Pete53 (Dec 5, 2011)

nobody seem`s to answer the question why the x count is even counted indoors on the vegas face or what happened last weekend when jesse broadwater and reo wilde tied but jesse had him beat by over 10 x`s and they then had a shootoff,so why count x`s they do nothing in some of these shoots ??


----------



## gcab (Mar 24, 2010)

Pete53 said:


> nobody seem`s to answer the question why the x count is even counted indoors on the vegas face or what happened last weekend when jesse broadwater and reo wilde tied but jesse had him beat by over 10 x`s and they then had a shootoff,so why count x`s they do nothing in some of these shoots ??


Because x counts are used for tie breakers for places outside the top 3. Same as it has always been.


----------



## gcab (Mar 24, 2010)

Since the money is different for 4-10th, need a tie breaker just in case toes are shot. That's why. Not hard to understand. It's all in the rule books


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

gcab said:


> Because x counts are used for tie breakers for places outside the top 3. Same as it has always been.


At the Yankton classic, There was a tie for 3rd place too. Three guys...and they shot it off for 3rd 4th and 5th. It was not decided by their total X-count during the event.
Of course it is in the rule books. Everyone knows the procedure well in advance of the event. That still doesn't do anything about the sad case of "par archery" for the Indoor events.


----------



## gcab (Mar 24, 2010)

field14 said:


> At the Yankton classic, There was a tie for 3rd place too. Three guys...and they shot it off for 3rd 4th and 5th. It was not decided by their total X-count during the event.
> Of course it is in the rule books. Everyone knows the procedure well in advance of the event. That still doesn't do anything about the sad case of "par archery" for the Indoor events.


Pretty sure I said outside of top 3.... Right? So yea, tie for 3rd shootoff. Because that's inside the top 3. So the rest are broken by x count for places 6 on since the losers of shootoff would be in 4th and 5th. Idk. For someone that likes to say how long then been a member, would think you'd understand it.


----------



## Pete53 (Dec 5, 2011)

i guess i did not know top 3 shoot-off rule but in a way there again the top x shooter gets the shaft and the poor x shooter gets rewarded for being a little sloppy with his x count. is this any different than the lucky dog ?? so there again maybe a point should be rewarded ? its a thought that may be right,so maybe Easton should decide again, kinda like shaft size-" quick vote change"?? have a happy easter day and god bless !


----------



## gcab (Mar 24, 2010)

Pete53 said:


> i guess i did not know top 3 shoot-off rule but in a way there again the top x shooter gets the shaft and the poor x shooter gets rewarded for being a little sloppy with his x count. is this any different than the lucky dog ?? so there again maybe a point should be rewarded ? its a thought that may be right,so maybe Easton should decide again, kinda like shaft size-" quick vote change"?? have a happy easter day and god bless !


How do the get shafted? If there is a tie score then they are tied. If nfl game goes to overtime because it's tied, does one team get shafted if they scored all their points by touchdowns and the other team scored by field goals? The score is tied so they shoot off. They are not going to shootoff for 8th place if there is a tie there, so they need a tie breaker... Hence the xs.


----------



## Sparky360 (Feb 7, 2010)

All score ties must shootoff 1st-3rd because of the contingency money. Whats wrong with a shootoff? It makes things way more interesting. Look at Lancaster it is all about the head to head matches.


----------



## Pete53 (Dec 5, 2011)

you guys must be management material by avoiding the question ,why count x`s,jesse broadwater lost even thougth he had many more x`s.ya shoot off`s are great but why count x`s??????? does Easton want the shoot offs ? and pin point accuracy for great x counts does not count that much ? i hope jesse broadwater starts shooting carbon express arrows and wins with those shafts with a poor x count ,bet easton will want the x count then ??


----------



## Rolo (Dec 16, 2002)

Pete53 said:


> you guys must be management material by avoiding the question ,why count x`s,jesse broadwater lost even thougth he had many more x`s.ya shoot off`s are great but why count x`s??????? does Easton want the shoot offs ? and pin point accuracy for great x counts does not count that much ? i hope jesse broadwater starts shooting carbon express arrows and wins with those shafts with a poor x count ,bet easton will want the x count then ??


To break ties from 4th place down, as has been stated on this thread. No reason to count them for 1-3, except that you don't know who 1-3 is until the shoot is over.


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

Well, seems "inside-out" scoring for a "7" on the current target face wouldn't pass muster. I can understand some of it, too because the conditions of the shooting bales don't lend themselves to reasonable holding the path of the arrows into the target bale; in addition, the paper itself isn't conducive to this either.
I still might suggest however, a "Pro Championship NFAA 5spot target face" has some merit with a smaller "X-ring" in the middle of the current X-ring that scores 7 points could work. The old PAA way back when had their own target faces for their indoor championships and also for their OUDOOR rounds, too. Would be nice to have a Professional Championship 5-spot indoor target face for the PROS to identify with.

OR..*for PRO Championship ONLY*...for the PROS, keep the indoor target face exactly the same, but go to a 360 round (X counts as "6") and on Day 1 shoot the normal 20 yards. Then on DAY 2 increase the yardage for the PROS to 25 yards, or even 30 yards. That would be akin to trap shooting whereby when the prowess of the shooter increases, so does the distance. By shooting normal distance on day 1, the Pros can mix with the joes. 
Then on Day 2 when all the Pros shoot the same line times anyways, add to the challenge and the competition by shooting the 360 round, but from a longer distance.
Just another suggestion...that will likely get rejected promptly...but what the heck.

field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## erdman41 (May 6, 2009)

What other sport has separate scoring for Pros vs Amateurs? This is something I just can't comprehend. Pull up last years Field Championships scores and compare the top amateur to the pros and you can't. Why? Pull up 2012 and you can. I just don't understand how making them score different helps anything.


----------



## FV Chuck (Dec 11, 2004)

I have an idea...

Field - 
Implement this at your event. Please. I beg you...

Get back to us with all the details. 
Your smart enough. You know what to track and how to sort it.

Seriously.... I think you are desperate to find a solution for a problem thats not there.
Of ALL the topics that have been discussed in the Pro meetings over the last several years I've been going, this has not been one.


----------



## Rolo (Dec 16, 2002)

field14 said:


> Well, seems "inside-out" scoring for a "7" on the current target face wouldn't pass muster. I can understand some of it, too because the conditions of the shooting bales don't lend themselves to reasonable holding the path of the arrows into the target bale; in addition, the paper itself isn't conducive to this either.
> I still might suggest however, a "Pro Championship NFAA 5spot target face" has some merit with a smaller "X-ring" in the middle of the current X-ring that scores 7 points could work. The old PAA way back when had their own target faces for their indoor championships and also for their OUDOOR rounds, too. Would be nice to have a Professional Championship 5-spot indoor target face for the PROS to identify with.
> 
> OR..*for PRO Championship ONLY*...for the PROS, keep the indoor target face exactly the same, but go to a 360 round (X counts as "6") and on Day 1 shoot the normal 20 yards. Then on DAY 2 increase the yardage for the PROS to 25 yards, or even 30 yards. That would be akin to trap shooting whereby when the prowess of the shooter increases, so does the distance. By shooting normal distance on day 1, the Pros can mix with the joes.
> ...


I'm neither for or against the idea, but I think if something like this is going to happen, it is going to have to come from the Pro division and outside the current orgs. In other words, if the Pros (the majority of them want this) they are going to have to start their own association to make it happen. I don't see any interest, or reason strong enough, for the orgs to change the current scoring system to satisfy a small portion of the total shooters. The current orgs are dependent on the amateur classes, and the pro divisions are also dependent on the amateur classes. (see: erdman41's response). If the pros want this, then they are going o have to convince the manufacturers to support it, and they are also going to need to convince non-endemic sponsors to get on board. Based on the current logistics, I don't see that happening, and see such an endeavor to be very beneficial to the few, and not the many of the pro division. 



erdman41 said:


> What other sport has separate scoring for Pros vs Amateurs? This is something I just can't comprehend. Pull up last years Field Championships scores and compare the top amateur to the pros and you can't. Why? Pull up 2012 and you can. I just don't understand how making them score different helps anything.


Had the score been reported according to the way the amendment was made, then it would have been easy to do a direct comparison. The reporting of the scores got screwed up, and was not done correctly. It was supposed to be reported on a base 560 + system. General 'normal' scoring +1 for the X. So, a perfect score should have been reported as 560 +112: total: 672. Instead, they just scored the X as a 6 in 'normal' scoring, and the ability to compare became impossible.


----------



## Pete53 (Dec 5, 2011)

would be nice to here from the pro`s on what their take on this is ? and mostly from the ones that win or have won in the past . also stepping back farther the second day is a great ideal, as long as its a 360 round and x`s count, even the vegas face could work on it too ?? why not have the nfaa send out a questionaire to the top twenty scoring pro`s and a equal number pro`s from the past who have won about increasing the challenge ??


----------



## Rolo (Dec 16, 2002)

Pete53 said:


> would be nice to here from the pro`s on what their take on this is ? and mostly from the ones that win or have won in the past . also stepping back farther the second day is a great ideal, as long as its a 360 round and x`s count, even the vegas face could work on it too ?? why not have the nfaa send out a questionaire to the top twenty scoring pro`s and a equal number pro`s from the past who have won about increasing the challenge ??


Why just the top 20 pros, and the last 20 winners?

The simple answer is that the NFAA is not about the Pro division. The BOD would have to agree with the change for NFAA events at a minimum. The chances of that happening are slim to none, especially if it meant a different face, or different distance. There ain't much of a desire amongst the general membership to create more separation. And considering that the former Pro chair is posting on this thread and states that it has not been something that has been discussed at the Pro meetings, I'd say the answer is there.

The better questions are: If this is something the Pros want, why is it up to an organization vastly made up of amateurs to make it for them? Why is it not on the pros to make it for themselves, if that is really what the pros want? Will the manufacturers support it? Will that take from their support of the events that support the Amateur venues?


----------



## gcab (Mar 24, 2010)

Pete53 said:


> you guys must be management material by avoiding the question ,why count x`s,jesse broadwater lost even thougth he had many more x`s.ya shoot off`s are great but why count x`s??????? does Easton want the shoot offs ? and pin point accuracy for great x counts does not count that much ? i hope jesse broadwater starts shooting carbon express arrows and wins with those shafts with a poor x count ,bet easton will want the x count then ??


What does Easton have to do with X counts or tournament rules? And second, did you read the responses to the first time you posted this? X'S ARE USED FOR TIE BREAKERS OUTSIDE THE TOP 3. THEY DO NOT DO SHOOTOFFS FOR ANYTHING OUTSIDE THE TOP 3(TOP 1 FOR AMATEURS), SO THEY USE X'S FOR TIEBREAKERS. IT IS QUITE EASY TO UNDERSTAND.


----------



## Pete53 (Dec 5, 2011)

who do you think change the shafts size to 27 by a quick late vote the rest on here know what really happened. the reason too ask the top pro`s otherwise anyone can buy a pro card spot for money ,your top pro`s have proved themselves already. x`s they mean nothing in vegas the first 2 days except bale assignment,really a week ago jesse broadwater loses by a rule top three shootoff even if you have a poorer x count ? that`s why either award a point per x or make the distance farther the last day for the pro`s are both very good ideals.


----------



## Rolo (Dec 16, 2002)

Pete53 said:


> who do you think change the shafts size to 27 by a quick late vote the rest on here know what really happened. the reason too ask the top pro`s otherwise anyone can buy a pro card spot for money ,your top pro`s have proved themselves already. x`s they mean nothing in vegas the first 2 days except bale assignment,really a week ago jesse broadwater loses by a rule top three shootoff even if you have a poorer x count ? that`s why either award a point per x or make the distance farther the last day for the pro`s are both very good ideals.


First, other than rumor or innuendo, do you have any proof that Easton did anything? The reality is that whether Easton did or did not do anything, the change was made by a majority of the Directors of the NFAA. It's only one org too. ASA and IBO both have 27/64ths as the maximum diameter. That Easton's fault too? And we can discuss the method in which the whole arrow size restriction was put on the agenda too? How much of the general membership knew about it? How many of them had the opportunity to express their feelings about an AI that was there under the 15 signature rule?

So, we just ask the top pros? Got it. Then the pro division shrinks even more. So, what's going to support the pro division.

The fact of the matter is, you still don't have a friggin clue how it works. For the first 3 days of regular shooting at Vegas on the Championship lines (don't have to be a pro to shoot Championship) Xs mean nutt'n. The only time Xs mean anything is in the shoot-off (assuming there is one) and only after the first 2 ends of regular scoring. At that time, an X is worth 10 and everything else in the yellow is a 9. (No bonus points).

And I ask again, is there really a desire for all this change within the Pro division? The former Pro Chair, current pro division shooter has indicated it is NOT something that the Pro body wants. If the Pro body does not want it, why in the world do people not part of that body want it?


----------



## Pete53 (Dec 5, 2011)

are you sure the better pro`s don`t want change ? did someone send them a questionaire ? do you really want to ask all the pro`s ? anyone can pay the fee and say they are a pro. so just sweep another thought under the rug ,it was a good ideal field 14 brought up ,and yes glad you do know what happened with the arrow size ,and believe it or not its over and also under the rug. NFAA membership ,pro division getting smaller you say , well then lift that rug up pull some of these ideals back out .simple: change may bring more members and more pro`s back ???


----------



## gcab (Mar 24, 2010)

Pete53 said:


> who do you think change the shafts size to 27 by a quick late vote the rest on here know what really happened. the reason too ask the top pro`s otherwise anyone can buy a pro card spot for money ,your top pro`s have proved themselves already. x`s they mean nothing in vegas the first 2 days except bale assignment,really a week ago jesse broadwater loses by a rule top three shootoff even if you have a poorer x count ? that`s why either award a point per x or make the distance farther the last day for the pro`s are both very good ideals.


Both are terrible ideas. Watched the OKC/Mem game last night. Was tied after regulation time. They should have called the game and gave the win to whoever had the most 3 pointers made. Doesn't matter the score, just whoever made the most 3 pointers. No overtime. That makes sense. And shaft size has nothing to do with anything. Jesse didn't lose by x count. He lost because he didn't beat Reo in a shootoff. That's the way it should be. Read the rules.


----------



## FV Chuck (Dec 11, 2004)

....(( General observation here )) this tone, this level of respect for opinions or the innuendo and back-story that keeps getting brought up from years past. The inability for some to grasp and understand the mechanics and inner-workings of the org and it's membership, who controls what and how decisions are made is EXACTLY why you'll see very few interactions by most pros here.

I see people trying to help, I see tempers flare. 

and now.

I see myself ejecting.

(( By the way I also see the Mods STILL have not fixed the Heartbleed bug on here. )) - another reason to stop coming around


----------



## Rolo (Dec 16, 2002)

Pete53 said:


> are you sure the better pro`s don`t want change ?


Considering the representations made by the former Pro Chair, I'd say it is a safe bet to say the vast majority, including the top 20 (whomever those are) don't. But again, the "better pros" (again whomever those are) eliminates the majority of the Division, and any input they may have. Almost sounds like you want to cater to the few. But wait, when the NFAA 'caters' to a manufacturer, at least in conspiracy land, that is bad, bad, bad.



Pete53 said:


> did someone send them a questionaire ?


Do you understand how the NFAA Pro Division works? Do you still want to just send the questionnaire to the select few?



Pete53 said:


> do you really want to ask all the pro`s ?


Do you really want to ask a very small minority to make decisions for the majority? Do you care what the general membership of the various orgs think? If this is such a great idea, why don't you do it? Why, like everything else, do you want other people to do it for you? (Silver Senior Pro Division for example).



Pete53 said:


> anyone can pay the fee and say they are a pro. so just sweep another thought under the rug


True, anyone can pay to buy a card...of course the number of actual 'pros', people who make their entire living from shooting bows at targets is how many? Less than 20? Less than 10? Can you even name them? Who is sweeping what under the rug?



Pete53 said:


> it was a good ideal field 14 brought up


Field's idea may very well have some merit, but the merit does not lie in any of the current orgs. It seems to be a Pro issue only, and if it is doable and viable, would appear to be something that would need to take place exclusive of any of the orgs. Of course, that will take support from the players, the manufacturers and non-endemic folks. (It may actually prove to be a boon to Pro archery). Field has been asked to implement such a thing at a tournament that he was instrumental in starting. So far, he hasn't responded. It would be the 'perfect' venue to try it and see what happens, being restricted by no rules other than what the tournament wants to impose. Again, to you, if this is such a marvelous idea, why don't you take the lead on it and hold the tournament yourself.



Pete53 said:


> yes glad you do know what happened with the arrow size ,and believe it or not its over and also under the rug.


Yes, it has been over for several years, but people who really don't understand the issue continue to bring it up, over and over again, in an attempt to prove some conspiratorial point. That would be you in this thread. The reality is that if there was a desire among the membership to implement an arrow size restriction, all it takes is an Agenda item. Nothing was swept under the rug, regardless of what you have convinced yourself to be true.



Pete53 said:


> NFAA membership ,pro division getting smaller you say , well then lift that rug up pull some of these ideals back out .simple: change may bring more members and more pro`s back ???


Let me repeat...the purpose of the NFAA is not to have a Pro Division. Period. Membership among the amateurs, which is what actually makes up the NFAA, has been incrementally increasing. The biggest negative effect to membership numbers occurred when the game was changed to suit the Pros. Yes, it changed for the amateurs too. But, a significant change to the game under the NFAA, and an increased division between the vast majority of the general membership and the pro division will not benefit the NFAA, and the chances of something like this ever coming to fruition are less than slim to none.

So, and for the love of comprehension, if this idea is a really good one, and if it makes sense to change the game between the amateur and pro divisions, then do it. Make it a stand alone entity that will thrive or not, based on the people that will be the ones playing the game, those top 20 pros. If it is viable, you should have no problem getting it up and running, since you seem to think it is a great idea.

I am interested to see if Field proposes changing Pressley's to this format, or target face, and certainly interested to see the results and opinions if he does. Heck, it is 'his' idea. Why not implement it at 'his' tournament? The outcome of this idea, and reaction to it on a relatively 'smallish' shoot (compared to Vegas and Nationals) certainly may provide some indication of how the idea would be received. The idea of radical change (which this would be) at the NFAA/WAF level to see what happens lacks any meaningful foresight. Did I mention that there are already 25 yard games that aren't very popular?


----------



## gcab (Mar 24, 2010)

FV Chuck said:


> I have an idea...
> 
> Field -
> Implement this at your event. Please. I beg you...
> ...



Agree with this, and Rolo... if it is broken and this is your fix, then do it yourself and see what happens. Be "PRO"active and change your own tournament to this.


----------



## FV Chuck (Dec 11, 2004)

Rolo - Brilliant ! Thanks for taking the time to do that...

GCab, THanks ... good call.


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

Rolo Stated:
"_Field's idea may very well have some merit, but the merit does not lie in any of the current orgs. It seems to be a Pro issue only, and if it is doable and viable, would appear to be something that would need to take place exclusive of any of the orgs. Of course, that will take support from the players, the manufacturers and non-endemic folks. (It may actually prove to be a boon to Pro archery). Field has been asked to implement such a thing at a tournament that he was instrumental in starting. So far, he hasn't responded. It would be the 'perfect' venue to try it and see what happens, being restricted by no rules other than what the tournament wants to impose. Again, to you, if this is such a marvelous idea, why don't you take the lead on it and hold the tournament yourself.

I am interested to see if Field proposes changing Pressley's to this format, or target face, and certainly interested to see the results and opinions if he does. Heck, it is 'his' idea. Why not implement it at 'his' tournament? The outcome of this idea, and reaction to it on a relatively 'smallish' shoot (compared to Vegas and Nationals) certainly may provide some indication of how the idea would be received."_

I can respond to that; but in a very limited manner.
- First off it was The *PRESLEYS Midwest Open* tournament, _not _field14's; so I have little to no control over the event anymore (never really did anyways).
- Secondly, Presleys' indoor range does not have the room to extend the distance to 25 yards, let alone 30 yards. There would be zero room for spectators or much of anything else...not even bowracks.
- Thirdly, Presleys coordinates the format with the Iowa Pro-Am to help make the Midwest Triple Crown a reality. Changing the format of the Presleys event at this time wouldn't be wise; Furthermore, the tournament committee and the Store Manager at Presleys are in the driver's seat.

Obviously it would take a venue similar to what they have at Iowa or at the NFAA Indoor Nationals to "experiment" with Day 2 being 25 or 30 yards with 6-ring scoring for the CHAMPIONSHIP shooters. A change of venue for Presleys is costly, requires extensive planning, a completely separate set of bales, bow racks, netting, stands, chairs, and a lot more personnel to run the tournament. It isn't just waltz right in and start shootin' 'em up. 

It sure would be fun to try the format, however...two 360 rounds. For the Championship shooters, Day 1, 360 at 20 yards. Day 2 for CHAMPIONSHIP Division shooters only 360 round at 25 or 30 yards. Wouldn't have to create anything "new" and "special" for the Championship Shooters...just another shooting line at longer distance...or back the bales up 5 yards or 10 yards.

field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## gcab (Mar 24, 2010)

field14 said:


> Rolo Stated:
> "_Field's idea may very well have some merit, but the merit does not lie in any of the current orgs. It seems to be a Pro issue only, and if it is doable and viable, would appear to be something that would need to take place exclusive of any of the orgs. Of course, that will take support from the players, the manufacturers and non-endemic folks. (It may actually prove to be a boon to Pro archery). Field has been asked to implement such a thing at a tournament that he was instrumental in starting. So far, he hasn't responded. It would be the 'perfect' venue to try it and see what happens, being restricted by no rules other than what the tournament wants to impose. Again, to you, if this is such a marvelous idea, why don't you take the lead on it and hold the tournament yourself.
> 
> I am interested to see if Field proposes changing Pressley's to this format, or target face, and certainly interested to see the results and opinions if he does. Heck, it is 'his' idea. Why not implement it at 'his' tournament? The outcome of this idea, and reaction to it on a relatively 'smallish' shoot (compared to Vegas and Nationals) certainly may provide some indication of how the idea would be received."_
> ...



So basically, you say something is broken but won't take the effort to fix it yourself. And at same time, give reasons why it can't happen at one venue based on size and logistics, but expect the NFAA events to fix what is only broken in your mind by logistically changing events that are far far bigger than the one that you are involved with? About sum it up? Doesn't seem too "Pro"active. By the way, track down the factual data you had yet to the number upon number of pros that wanted the change you proposed, or is just based a couple being upset that they missed and didn't win because there are mulligans upon mulligans provided?


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

gcab said:


> So basically, you say something is broken but won't take the effort to fix it yourself. And at same time, give reasons why it can't happen at one venue based on size and logistics, but expect the NFAA events to fix what is only broken in your mind by logistically changing events that are far far bigger than the one that you are involved with? About sum it up? Doesn't seem too "Pro"active. By the way, track down the factual data you had yet to the number upon number of pros that wanted the change you proposed, or is just based a couple being upset that they missed and didn't win because there are mulligans upon mulligans provided?


FV Chuckand Rolo:...What is this "baloney" that the Midwest Open is MY tournament? I don't own it, and for the past two years, have not even been the tournament chairperson either. *The tournament belongs to PRESLEYS OUTDOORS, so get that straight, once and for all. I have never said it was MY tournament.*

Also, my suggestion was made for the NFAA Indoor Nationals, where the venue is indeed big enough to be able to get the 25 or 30 yards for the PROS on day 2 without really creating a huge logistics problem, The PROS do shoot together on day 2, correct? Same shooting line could be used, but the bales moved back to 25 or 30 yards. I know full well that most indoor ranges cannot handle 25 or 30 yards...but the National Venue...even if it was held in Yankton CAN handle that distance easily.

As I stated, PRESLEYS Midwest Open, at the current site does not have the space to back up the distance to 25 yards; won't and cannot happen in that store. Nowhere to put the bow racks, nowhere to put shooter chairs, and positively nowhere to put spectators behind the shooters' area either.

Then again, you told me that it is a PRO decision and not a "joe" decision. I was merely offering up suggestions, not policy. I'm not a card carrying Pro, so I don't count anyways.

Please, in the future, refrain from calling the PRESLEYS Midwest Open..."field14's Tournament"...because it is NOT my tournament, I am NOT the boss and never was. I could only offer up suggestions to the tournament committee for their approval and then get the store manager's approval to finalize anything with regard to the PRESLEYS Midwest Open.

Being "proactive" really has nothing to do with this...it isn't up to ME, one person to carry the load. You have a Pro Rep...perhaps more of you should be talking to him and giving him feedback or ideas. I really don't think you know for sure whether there is a majority that wouldn't mind something other than par archery at the NFAA Indoor Nationals..or if it is a "minority"...cuz I'd think that the questions and potential solutions have never_ really_ been offered up formally in an "Open" discussion without any fear of reprisal or ridicule of the PRO group to any card carrying pro that brings something up before the group.

Gcab...why should I "fix it myself"...I'm not YOUR slave. Besides it would, according to this thread be a failure anyways, since NOBODY wants it (or so you say). Seems there are so many out there these days that want someone else to get their hands dirty and do the dirty work so those that don't want to do anything don't have to. I'm a "joe" and not a "Pro" anyways. You all just laugh it off thinking everything is hunky dorey.
field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## erdman41 (May 6, 2009)

Why the different rules for the "Championship" shooters? I still have not heard a coherent answer to this.


----------



## Blue X (Dec 22, 2007)

I hate discussions on by laws and rules and needless arguing over everything that people always wants to change. Thats needless and unproductive time wasted. My goodness we are in this for fun remember. We got wives and in laws and co workers to fuss with, use your time to get better at shooting, or shooting. Let the people who collect the dues do their job and they will tell you what to shoot at and how to score it. I dont want to work on my free time, I want to poke some holes in someone elses targets for a fee. 
Ill tell you the way I look at archery tournaments. Who ever host the tournament makes up their own game and charge a fee to come and shoot it. If I think its worth the money and if I think I can hit the targets, I will come and shoot it, and ,if I dont I will stay at the house. Thats really simple. 

If archery gets to be more aggravation and arguing than fun people will quit and go back to the other manly hobbies. Drinking & chasing women. Now archery is cheap compared to those things. So use your money and time to either get better at shooting or shooting and let the people who collect the dues tell you where to go and what distance to shoot from and how to score it.

FOB customer, You provide the target, ill provide the arrows.
Blue X


----------



## Rolo (Dec 16, 2002)

Simple stuff first:



field14 said:


> Rolo Stated:I can respond to that; but in a very limited manner.
> - First off it was The *PRESLEYS Midwest Open* tournament, _not _field14's; so I have little to no control over the event anymore (never really did anyways).





field14 said:


> FV Chuckand Rolo:...What is this "baloney" that the Midwest Open is MY tournament? I don't own it, and for the past two years, have not even been the tournament chairperson either. *The tournament belongs to PRESLEYS OUTDOORS, so get that straight, once and for all. I have never said it was MY tournament.*


There is a reason I used these: *' '*

Now that we have established that...



field14 said:


> Secondly, Presleys' indoor range does not have the room to extend the distance to 25 yards, let alone 30 yards. There would be zero room for spectators or much of anything else...not even bowracks.
> - Thirdly, Presleys coordinates the format with the Iowa Pro-Am to help make the Midwest Triple Crown a reality. Changing the format of the Presleys event at this time wouldn't be wise; Furthermore, the tournament committee and the Store Manager at Presleys are in the driver's seat.
> 
> Obviously it would take a venue similar to what they have at Iowa or at the NFAA Indoor Nationals to "experiment" with Day 2 being 25 or 30 yards with 6-ring scoring for the CHAMPIONSHIP shooters. A change of venue for Presleys is costly, requires extensive planning, a completely separate set of bales, bow racks, netting, stands, chairs, and a lot more personnel to run the tournament. It isn't just waltz right in and start shootin' 'em up.
> ...





field14 said:


> Also, my suggestion was made for the NFAA Indoor Nationals, where the venue is indeed big enough to be able to get the 25 or 30 yards for the PROS on day 2 without really creating a huge logistics problem, The PROS do shoot together on day 2, correct? Same shooting line could be used, but the bales moved back to 25 or 30 yards. I know full well that most indoor ranges cannot handle 25 or 30 yards...but the National Venue...even if it was held in Yankton CAN handle that distance easily.
> 
> As I stated, PRESLEYS Midwest Open, at the current site does not have the space to back up the distance to 25 yards; won't and cannot happen in that store. Nowhere to put the bow racks, nowhere to put shooter chairs, and positively nowhere to put spectators behind the shooters' area either.
> 
> ...


So what you're really saying is that you have identified a problem that appears only to you or a very small population. It is unknown whether the Pro Division sees this as a problem. It would appear that the Pro Division DOES NOT see it as a problem, but you are convinced it is a problem, and propose the change be made at the National Indoor tournament, without vetting it or trying it at smaller events. Am I following? 

So, while Pressley's may not have the room, that eliminates that. What about the reduced alternative target that you proposed? There is no reason that it cannot be used right? Iowa? Well if this 'problem' truly exists, why wait for Iowa? Seems Pressley's would be the perfect place to try the alternative target. Trying additional distance at the National Indoor Shoot is IMO, not a very well thought out proposal at all. Bordering on foolish for the National Tournament to be the laboratory to fixing a problem that does not appear to exist.

For the love of comprehension...within the NFAA it is NOT a Pro decision. It may be a Pro discussion, but the decision is left with the NFAA BOD or WAF. The Pro Division does not get to decide what and how it gets to shoot within the NFAA or any other current org that I am aware of. If the division wants to discuss an issue (which they apparently have not seemed too concerned about this issue) they can. If they reach a consensus, they can bring it to whatever entity makes the decisions. That entity can approve, modify, or reject. The Pros can either accept that action, or they can go their own way.

Again, if this really is a problem within the Pro Division, and the members of that Division want something different, why do they need to rely on the orgs to do it? Why don't they do it themselves? It's easy to place blame on the orgs. It's hard to actually do something about it. The reality is that the Pro Division needs the orgs, the orgs don't need the Pro Division.

So, Pressley's can still employ the modified face at 20 yards. No issue with available room. A perfect venue to try it out. A perfect venue to see what the response is. You have the foot in the door to suggest it, lobby for it, and even twist arms to get it done. If it works, you're a genius. If it doesn't work, then like many have said, you are attempting to solve a problem that does not exist. You have identified the "problem". No one is asking you to carry the load. What is being asked is that since you identified the problem, and since you have the connections with Pressley's, what are you doing to change that tournament, or even suggest changes to that tournament to fix the "problem"? 

And sorry, but extending the range and counting the X as a 6 for the Pro Division (there is no Championship division at Indoor Nationals) IS creating something new and special for a small percentage of the people participating.


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

Rolo said:


> Simple stuff first:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The NFAA provided the "mulligans" with 6-ring scoring (bonus point for an "X-ring hit) for the Professional Division only for field and hunter rounds. What is the huge burr under the saddle with doing it indoors as well? They created something new and special for a small percentage of the people participating, too. So it isn't like it hasn't been done in the recent past is it, and it wasn't the first time, either.
The indoor proposals are the same thing; a bonus point for increased accuracy on the part of the shooters competing.
Of course, the 6-ring scoring did not "tighten up" the leaderboard...the 2013 National Outdoor Tournament was over after the 1st round on the first day; The lead the winner had was next to insurmountable. Of course one could suspect the same could happen by having an inner X count 6 points at the National Indoor, too.
I don't believe it was experimented with or any data provided prior to the decision being made to go with a bonus for the "X" on the field and hunter rounds? There wasn't a trial period before implementation, which did differ from the 1976 season and full implementation in 1977 when the current 5-4-3- scoring for field and hunter went into effect for everyone.

Just sayin. Having separate scoring for Pros and joes is obviously not digging up new turf, now is it? It isn't revolutionary at all.

Enough of this...it is a no win situation once people's minds are made up. But again, if a high profile, big name Pro brought this up, would the response be different? Guess we'll never know...until something like that happens.

In the meantime, I guess indoor "par archery" just continues on its "boring and too easy" path.

field14 (Tom D)


----------



## erdman41 (May 6, 2009)

erdman41 said:


> Why the different rules for the "Championship" shooters? I still have not heard a coherent answer to this.


I still haven't heard one. Just because it was done before doesn't make it wise.


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

erdman41 said:


> I still haven't heard one. Just because it was done before doesn't make it wise.


Yep. It sure doesn't make it wise or make it unwise either...but they did it anyway with regard to Field/hunter scoring for Pros only, providing the "bonus point" for an X. "Close only counts in horseshoes, hand grenades, and nuclear weapons.
field14 (tom D.)


----------



## erdman41 (May 6, 2009)

field14 said:


> Yep. It sure doesn't make it wise or make it unwise either...but they did it anyway with regard to Field/hunter scoring for Pros only, providing the "bonus point" for an X. "Close only counts in horseshoes, hand grenades, and nuclear weapons.
> field14 (tom D.)


So nobody has a reason why it is good to do for one group but not the other. Got it.


----------



## Rolo (Dec 16, 2002)

So about trying to get Pressley's to change the face...?



field14 said:


> The NFAA provided the "mulligans" with 6-ring scoring (bonus point for an "X-ring hit) for the Professional Division only for field and hunter rounds.


The actual Agenda Item was for +1 scoring to allow score comparisons. The implementation got screwed up and caused problems.



field14 said:


> What is the huge burr under the saddle with doing it indoors as well? They created something new and special for a small percentage of the people participating, too. So it isn't like it hasn't been done in the recent past is it, and it wasn't the first time, either.


It was an Agenda Item. It failed, for all classes, for Indoor and Field. Any more questions?



field14 said:


> The indoor proposals are the same thing; a bonus point for increased accuracy on the part of the shooters competing.


Absent going to I/O on the 5-spot, nutt'n changes. Multiple people will shoot 360s / 720s. So, What's it accomplish? I/O scoring will just make the marathon longer. Or, are you proposing a 'baby X'? Maybe the pros could just shoot a Vegas 5-spot.



field14 said:


> Of course, the 6-ring scoring did not "tighten up" the leaderboard...the 2013 National Outdoor Tournament was over after the 1st round on the first day; The lead the winner had was next to insurmountable. Of course one could suspect the same could happen by having an inner X count 6 points at the National Indoor, too.


So, back to fixing a problem that may not exist...



field14 said:


> I don't believe it was experimented with or any data provided prior to the decision being made to go with a bonus for the "X" on the field and hunter rounds?


You would be wrong. The majority of the Pro Division that cared to respond were in favor.



field14 said:


> There wasn't a trial period before implementation, which did differ from the 1976 season and full implementation in 1977 when the current 5-4-3- scoring for field and hunter went into effect for everyone.


Yes, and look what happened. Just say'n...



field14 said:


> Just sayin. Having separate scoring for Pros and joes is obviously not digging up new turf, now is it? It isn't revolutionary at all.


No it's not. Of course, it hasn't exactly proven to be popular either has it? Make it greater, that will change the perception I'm sure.



field14 said:


> Enough of this...it is a no win situation once people's minds are made up. But again, if a high profile, big name Pro brought this up, would the response be different? Guess we'll never know...until something like that happens.


If *A* high profile, big name pro brought this up (wait, one sorta already has) my response and thoughts would be exactly the same. Not sure why the Pro division should cater to *A* high profile, big name pro anyway. But, if a decent percentage of the Division brought it up, well it would tend to demonstrate that there may be some interest for an alternative within the Pro Division. If the majority agreed, well then something may need to be seriously considered. (See: Field scoring). But that ain't happened yet, and one or 2 or 20 high profile, big name pros, should not be allowed to determine the direction of the entire Division.



field14 said:


> In the meantime, I guess indoor "par archery" just continues on its "boring and too easy" path.


Considering the number of Pros, including the high profile, big name ones (including the one that coined the term "par archery") that can't seem to even score at par, well an argument can be made that it ain't all that easy.

Anyway, back to you using your powers of persuasion to change the face for the Pressley's shoot to avoid regular ol' par archery?


----------



## Rolo (Dec 16, 2002)

erdman41 said:


> So nobody has a reason why it is good to do for one group but not the other. Got it.


Yep, you got it. :wink:


----------



## gcab (Mar 24, 2010)

field14 said:


> FV Chuckand Rolo:...What is this "baloney" that the Midwest Open is MY tournament? I don't own it, and for the past two years, have not even been the tournament chairperson either. *The tournament belongs to PRESLEYS OUTDOORS, so get that straight, once and for all. I have never said it was MY tournament.*
> 
> Also, my suggestion was made for the NFAA Indoor Nationals, where the venue is indeed big enough to be able to get the 25 or 30 yards for the PROS on day 2 without really creating a huge logistics problem, The PROS do shoot together on day 2, correct? Same shooting line could be used, but the bales moved back to 25 or 30 yards. I know full well that most indoor ranges cannot handle 25 or 30 yards...but the National Venue...even if it was held in Yankton CAN handle that distance easily.
> 
> ...


 You should fix it because you are the one that think its messed up and broken. That's why. Did I say its broken, or that it doesn't work, or that it should change.. or did I say it should stay the same and those that don't like losing because they themselves missed shouldn't miss? Pretty sure I know which one, so you changing anything would have nothing to do with being a slave since I don't think it should change anyways. It's a terrible idea


----------



## gcab (Mar 24, 2010)

field14 said:


> The NFAA provided the "mulligans" with 6-ring scoring (bonus point for an "X-ring hit) for the Professional Division only for field and hunter rounds. What is the huge burr under the saddle with doing it indoors as well? They created something new and special for a small percentage of the people participating, too. So it isn't like it hasn't been done in the recent past is it, and it wasn't the first time, either.
> The indoor proposals are the same thing; a bonus point for increased accuracy on the part of the shooters competing.
> Of course, the 6-ring scoring did not "tighten up" the leaderboard...the 2013 National Outdoor Tournament was over after the 1st round on the first day; The lead the winner had was next to insurmountable. Of course one could suspect the same could happen by having an inner X count 6 points at the National Indoor, too.
> I don't believe it was experimented with or any data provided prior to the decision being made to go with a bonus for the "X" on the field and hunter rounds? There wasn't a trial period before implementation, which did differ from the 1976 season and full implementation in 1977 when the current 5-4-3- scoring for field and hunter went into effect for everyone.
> ...



Yep, so easy that the one running around calling it par archery is the one that misses, shoots the wrong target, and misses some more. The easy part is that if they, or he, or she wants to win, then don't miss. Cant be any easier to understand. Maybe that's why the archer is puzzled.. for working hard to get better only to have rules changed to make it so people can miss and still win.


----------



## FV Chuck (Dec 11, 2004)

.....

I swore I wasnt coming back.
Really wish I hadnt.

Tom.... let it go dude. 
Seriously.

Or get names. I know who the Par archer is. ... we all do. Get more.... or stop

there are 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 reasons. ( well. maybe not that many) why this is a logistical nightmare as well as scoring fiasco.
Oh and in case no one pointed it out yet (i just skimmed for highlights and bodyslams) - the Pros in Loiusville have not shot witht he adults for several years now. All segregated. But... you would have to go to know.

out y'all -
Rolo, GCab... keep fighting the good fight. 
I'll be in the corner petting felt listening to old accordion music watching racquetball tapes on VHS

Smile Tom... it's a joke


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

FV Chuck said:


> .....
> 
> I swore I wasnt coming back.
> Really wish I hadnt.
> ...


Chuckles.... 10 to the 60th reasons? Could you provide data that supports such a large number? How long will it take you to count that far? THAT is a joke, too, hahahaha.

You also should prepare to watch the Tour de France (druggies and drug testing and all such stuff), Racquetball tapes on DVD's (the game has advanced beyond many persons' understanding), and really get in on the excitement of accordion music, too, and while you are at it, watch out for short, left handed Italians that speak French and shoot archery right handed while bowling and playing racquetball left-handed, but using right handed scissors and operating a hammer left-handed but screwdrivers and socket wrenches right handed and shooting rifles equally well on either side of the stock. hahahahaha. 
Speaking of racquetball...today's players are smacking that thing during a low drive serve or a kill shot at 160+ mph, so quick reflexes and some really smart strategy make that game most interesting; and the grass won't grow under your feet while on the court...Don't have to be big and tall to be good at it; in fact often times being tall is a disadvantage, but playing smart is always an asset!

I sense the humor in all this, and do see the point of a "scoring nightmare". Isn't up to ME to provide numbers, but it certainly wouldn't hurt for the Pros to get together and discuss things in depth concerning the "boredom and how easy indoor shooting on the NFAA 5-spot face is for the Pros and a way to spice it up so that they aren't so bored and sick and tired of it, ha." Doncha seriously wonder just how many are really wanting something to spice it up some as opposed to the same ole same ole year after year?

So is "Felt" your cat, dog, guppy, cockatiel, rodent, lizard, boa constrictor, pirahhna or parakeet?

Let's just drop this thing...we are beating a dead horse to a pulp; nobody will change their minds, so shut 'er down.

field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## Pete53 (Dec 5, 2011)

field 14: your ideals do have much merit but the answer appears NO WAY JOSE ! a few think they know better and will not change. I do think you won this year`s 2014 best thread and most post on this thread with most views.so with all the people that viewed this post, there really may be some problems ?? I do thank you for bringing these wonderful ideals up, here in Minnesota our MSAA that is no longer a member of the NFAA, the MSAA has around 2,000 members strong,with over 1,000 state indoor stooters every year, we may just need some of these ideals field 14. and again thank you for your positive ideals,Pete53


----------



## N7709K (Dec 17, 2008)

I'd love to see blue face be abolished... But that won't happen. I'd love to see Vegas become a legit fita tourney and it may be headed that way with the WC counting it as a stage.. But in the near future nothing will change. 

Adding extra points IMO isn't the way to do it...


----------

