# Pro class will it ever grow in 3D?



## Daniel Boone (May 31, 2002)

Been less than 50 shooters for so long as I can remember. Talking ASA!

Get sponsorship money and lower the entry fee. Then you will see the numbers grow.

DB


----------



## 3Dblackncamo (Jul 22, 2009)

got to have it together to go in that class, and most have no intent of winning out of semi, tough as nails to compete in ASA open pro!


----------



## Daniel Boone (May 31, 2002)

3Dblackncamo said:


> got to have it together to go in that class, and most have no intent of winning out of semi, tough as nails to compete in ASA open pro!


Lower those entry fees and see how many shoot the pro class. I think this would be good for pro classes. Raise sponsor money and get everyone involved. Some of those semis have proven they could win occasionally. 
DB


----------



## 3Dblackncamo (Jul 22, 2009)

I will agree with you DB I dont know about lowering the fees, asa has raised the fees in most open classes this yr, there are some that can win out of semi but they dont want to


----------



## tmorelli (Jul 31, 2005)

After a long layoff, I'm truly impressed with almost every class. At the top of virtually every class, there are elite level shooters. 

I used to be imfatuated with the Pro classes but now I firmly believe that any shooter winning in almost any of those classes with regularity, or even consistently near the top or in the race for shooter of the year is the real deal and capable of competing at a high level; with almost anyone.


----------



## 3Dblackncamo (Jul 22, 2009)

DB, I am in the running for soy in the bottom feeders class, but I aint sandbagging


----------



## J Whittington (Nov 13, 2009)

I agree with DB entry fees is an issue for the non sponsored archer. I shot pro last year, semi this year. I didnt got to semi because of fear of competition or the fact my performace was horrible. 
I was uncertain about my job. 57 teachers, some with tenure where laid off in the school system in which I work. Making just one pro shootoff has been my life dream. I tried to win out of semi this year, thought I was going to. After Texas, My yardage left as quick as Obama spens our tax $"s. 
I really enjoyed shooting semi-pro, a lot of great guys,, and do't be fooled, theres some archery studs in that class. But I miss pro class. I do believe in Miracles. Any skilled, experienced archer can have a weekend were the numbers come and the shots hit, where they are in a zone and can do no wrong.
sorry for High jacking your thread DB.....IF was was a wealthy person LIKE DANIEL BOONE, Id shoot pro forever. LOL DB


----------



## 3Dblackncamo (Jul 22, 2009)

what do you guys think the entry fee should be in open pro


----------



## schmel_me (Dec 17, 2003)

Personally i think there is to many classes. I think there should be only one possibly 2 classes pro and semi pro. Then one class for hunter. Ive had a few other hobbies where i was fortunate enough to be sponsored and paid to participate. Over the years orginzations add classes so everybody can win. Me i'd rather compete against the best in the same class. Wouldnt you rather be 
100th place in class with the best than 10th in class of 40-50 guys.


----------



## RichardOleshJr (Jun 25, 2007)

If you want to see the pro class grow. They should make it mandatory that anyone that is sponsored by a archery manufacture, that he or she MUST shoot in the pro class's. There are allot of shooters out their on shooter programs by a bow manufacturer, and they still shoot in the amateur class's.


----------



## 3Dblackncamo (Jul 22, 2009)

schmel_me said:


> Personally i think there is to many classes. I think there should be only one possibly 2 classes pro and semi pro. Then one class for hunter. Ive had a few other hobbies where i was fortunate enough to be sponsored and paid to participate. Over the years orginzations add classes so everybody can win. Me i'd rather compete against the best in the same class. Wouldnt you rather be
> 100th place in class with the best than 10th in class of 40-50 guys.


pay your fees and get right in there with them, they will welcome your money and take it from you!


----------



## 3Dblackncamo (Jul 22, 2009)

Big difference in someone who is on some shooting staff, some in semi will not move up but can, some cant win there way out if they want to, that is a BIG difference


----------



## Daniel Boone (May 31, 2002)

schmel_me said:


> Personally i think there is to many classes. I think there should be only one possibly 2 classes pro and semi pro. Then one class for hunter. Ive had a few other hobbies where i was fortunate enough to be sponsored and paid to participate. Over the years orginzations add classes so everybody can win. Me i'd rather compete against the best in the same class. Wouldnt you rather be
> 100th place in class with the best than 10th in class of 40-50 guys.


Try it and see how they works for your club.
DB


----------



## Bird Dogg (Aug 18, 2009)

RichardOleshJr said:


> If you want to see the pro class grow. They should make it mandatory that anyone that is sponsored by a archery manufacture, that he or she MUST shoot in the pro class's. There are allot of shooters out their on shooter programs by a bow manufacturer, and they still shoot in the amateur class's.


Not sure I 100% agree with this. Yes there are alot of guys that are sponsored to some degree or another. Whether it be free equipment, or a discount and a shooter shirt. 
The real issue is the traveling expenses. By comparison signup costs are cheap.. Even signing up for IBO world championships is cheaper than a round of golf at your local golf course with a cart for the day. The real issue is the Drive, or Flight for some people, hotel for a day or two, gas, food etc.
Honestly it is the only reason why I didnt go to worlds this year myslelf. Im going through a divorce, and just didnt have the extra money this year. VERY few people get their traveling costs paid for by their sponsors for every shoot.
It cost me several hundred bucks to drive out to ohio this year for the indoor worlds.

You want to increase attendance? Make the prizes bigger. Archery manufactures should chip in to prizes for IBO, ASA to make winning more attractive. With all these archery companies, if everyone chipped in a small percentage of sales there would be huge pot to split between asa, and ibo.
Pro's win worlds for little over 2000$. Really? what kind of money does Tiger win for a masters by comparison? If there was a 20,000$ payout for being 1st at a major shoot, your likely to see a few hundred people sign up for pro. Im sure you'd get more yahoo's but the class would definately see a spike.


----------



## BAArcher (Feb 5, 2004)

I'd still like to see some Pro level pin classes! Heck, why not do some with hunting rigs? Just make the course tough as hell and have a great payout. Add this to the ASA and see what happens.


----------



## Bird Dogg (Aug 18, 2009)

another possiblility might be to allow spectators to attend shoots like golf, and charge them admission.. just like golf, you see huge masses of spectators on every hole watching their favorite golfter shoot.. charge spectators admission, rope off areas so they dont interfere with shooters, rent bino's so people can see.. No different from any other sport with spectators.


----------



## Jame (Feb 16, 2003)

I agree with Bird Dogg. One thing to consider is getting other sponsors. Big sponsors. Getting them to donate money to the shoots. There was a time when the pay outs were alot larger. Alot larger.

I do think the spectators would bring publicity therefore tv publicity eventually. Thats one of the biggest reasons I beleive it is hard to go after those large sponsors like Lowes, Home Depot, Penzoil etc. Just a few examples. 

One thing that has to change imo is rules. There are some rules that need to be enforced and there should be some that need to be added. Not to mention we have rules that need to be completely disregarded. 

I think this is a really good topic cause 3D archery ( archery in general ) is growing stagnant. There wont be any differences if we dont do something about it.
Jame


----------



## greimer (Feb 13, 2007)

Isn't it tru most pros get there fees paid for by sponsers?


----------



## Jame (Feb 16, 2003)

greimer said:


> Isn't it tru most pros get there fees paid for by sponsers?


No. Some have contracts that are for a certain amount a year and some get travel money which will help if not pay all of there expenses. Some pros dont get anything.


----------



## greimer (Feb 13, 2007)

Jame said:


> No. Some have contracts that are for a certain amount a year and some get travel money which will help if not pay all of there expenses. Some pros dont get anything.


Always wondered...thanks


----------



## SonnyThomas (Sep 10, 2006)

RichardOleshJr said:


> If you want to see the pro class grow. They should make it mandatory that anyone that is sponsored by a archery manufacture, that he or she MUST shoot in the pro class's. There are allot of shooters out their on shooter programs by a bow manufacturer, and they still shoot in the amateur class's.


Well, personally, your suggestion is a joke. Archery manufacturers and dealers won't even make it mandatory that their staff shooters belong to a archery organization (ASA, IBO, NFAA, FITA or NAA). I think the strictest, years ago, was the NFAA. Your wore a shirt or belt buckle with a bow brand and you had to shoot Pro or Semi. Might have been way back when the Sponsored Shooters class existed.


----------



## RichardOleshJr (Jun 25, 2007)

SonnyThomas said:


> Well, personally, your suggestion is a joke. Archery manufacturers and dealers won't even make it mandatory that their staff shooters belong to a archery organization (ASA, IBO, NFAA, FITA or NAA). I think the strictest, years ago, was the NFAA. Your wore a shirt or belt buckle with a bow brand and you had to shoot Pro or Semi. Might have been way back when the Sponsored Shooters class existed.


Most people that are lucky enough to be recognized by a manufacture or a pro shop. They usually shoot good enough to compete at a semi pro level. In the IBO, of the 200+ MBO class shooters. I bet at least 40 of them have some kind manufacture or pro shop kickback, that the average shooter in that class does not. If some of those elite shooters in MBO class moved up to the SPM class. It would almost double the current amount of shooters in the SPM class. This would not only increase the overall payout for the SPM class, but also give a chance to the average amateur shooter to win some $$$ too.


----------



## Jame (Feb 16, 2003)

greimer said:


> Always wondered...thanks


Your welcome.


----------



## Bowtech54 (Sep 20, 2006)

Yes, there are a lot of shooters out there that have some type of sponsorship from a Archery Shop or manufacture but that doesn't make them a Pro or Semi Pro. I don't buy a bow because a Pro shoots it... do you? The local guys and gals are just helping promote local business and manufacturers to sell their products. Believe it or not the local archer has more influence on sales than the pro's. A majority of the tournament archers aren't even know in the hunting circle. As far as spectators paying....you might as well drive a stake in the heart of 3D archery. We aren't ready for that gaint step. The archery organizations are going to have to step up and offer manufacturers some better incentives for them to increase their sponsorship investment. Also, archery organziations are going to have to improve their benefits for the 3D shooter. We pay and pay and pay for what??????????? entry fees to participate in a tournament?????? What else?????? Should we have to even belong to an organziation to shoot a tournament since they are counting on our entry fees?????I'm not wanting to start a verbal war but lets not bash those that are fortunate to recieve some type of sponsorship because what else does the majority recieve in the end?

As far as the Pro Class growing........at present time and situations with the economy...I don't see it happening.


----------



## tmorelli (Jul 31, 2005)

Some of the diverse responses got me to thinking.....

Do we want the Pro Class to grow? Why would we single out that class for targeted growth?

Dont read that in a bad way. It isn't a bash on Pros. I mean if the pro class alone grows, without the other classes, have we really accomplished anything. The pro class is not the heart of the sport. If you really want to grow the sport, I believe the challenge lies in attracting and retaining common back yard archers and bowhunters. The entry level classes are the future of the sport. I honestly see pros today playing little role in that.


----------



## 3D Pinwheeler (Jan 29, 2007)

tmorelli said:


> Some of the diverse responses got me to thinking.....
> 
> Do we want the Pro Class to grow? Why would we single out that class for targeted growth?
> 
> Dont read that in a bad way. It isn't a bash on Pros. I mean if the pro class alone grows, without the other classes, have we really accomplished anything. The pro class is not the heart of the sport. If you really want to grow the sport, I believe the challenge lies in attracting and retaining common back yard archers and bowhunters. The entry level classes are the future of the sport. I honestly see pros today playing little role in that.


Agree totally.


----------



## mocheese (Dec 19, 2003)

I agree with a lot of statements made on this thread. But definately agree with DB that the pro classes would grow with a lower entry fee. I also think that a lot of the amature classes would grow if there weren't so many shooters in them that could compete at the pro level.


----------



## Dr.Dorite (Oct 27, 2008)

Bird Dogg said:


> another possiblility might be to allow spectators to attend shoots like golf, and charge them admission.. just like golf, you see huge masses of spectators on every hole watching their favorite golfter shoot.. charge spectators admission, rope off areas so they dont interfere with shooters, rent bino's so people can see.. No different from any other sport with spectators.


 If a large sponsor is to contribute, they surely want to at least expect exposure. Why would we expect them to spend advertising money to sponsor an event, until the very archers who want it to grow will attend the final shoot offs. Why would they expect exposure, and why would the media provide coverage if the hundreds of archers, who have traveled, spent their time and money, and are already there wanting the big sponsors, won't attend the free Pro Shootdown. 
Why expect large sponsors to support an event that we won't even attend ourselves. I really enjoy watchiing the final shoot down as a spectator, and feel it's the icing on the cake of the national events. It's only a small percentage of the archers who are already there, that feel it's worth watching. My feeling is, they are missing one of the best parts of the event, and I won't even go into the amount of interest that we show, when it comes to wanting to watch the Pros compete on the range......Just my 2cents


----------



## Bowtech54 (Sep 20, 2006)

Look at the type of shoot off, what class is involved, and the format. To get spectators the format is going to have to be changed. IBO does not have a spectator friendly format during their shoot off and the ASA thinks that Pro's should be the only one's involved in theirs. We need to get to the heart of the tournament participates. Those are the folks that need to be involved. They are the ones who bring family and friends because most ot the time it's made into a family vacation. I'm no way wanting to sound like I'm bashing the Pro's.... but the amateur is the backbone and invests more money into archer than the Pro's because they have to purchase the biggest part of their equipment. As far as TV coverage....if we had coverage we would see an increase at the shoot offs.


----------



## SonnyThomas (Sep 10, 2006)

RichardOleshJr said:


> Most people that are lucky enough to be recognized by a manufacture or a pro shop. They usually shoot good enough to compete at a semi pro level.


Well then there sure are a lot of factory and dealership sponsored shooters good enough and not shooting Semi or Pro. Granted a lot of sponsored shooters aren't sponsored long. Still, I just feel factories and dealerships should make it mandatory for shooters to belong to a organization before even applying for a sponsorship.


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

SonnyThomas said:


> Well, personally, your suggestion is a joke. Archery manufacturers and dealers won't even make it mandatory that their staff shooters belong to a archery organization (ASA, IBO, NFAA, FITA or NAA). I think the strictest, years ago, was the NFAA. Your wore a shirt or belt buckle with a bow brand and you had to shoot Pro or Semi. Might have been way back when the Sponsored Shooters class existed.


Sonny,
I've been an NFAA member since 1968. To my knowledge there has NEVER EVER been a "sponsored Shooters class" in the NFAA.

Where do you draw the line on a "sponsored" shooter? They tried this in Pennsylvania (might still be doing it) that if a shooter so much as got a free hat, they would be considered a "pro" and have to shoot there. How ludicrious and carried away does an org become?

Lower the entry fee = LOWERING the amount of money to the payout, since in many organizations, 80% "pay-back" out of registration fees has been the norm. It has been tried before to lower the entry fees, which, didn't help one iota on how many shot the division...and that obviously ended up with LOWER payouts?

MORE and bigger sponsors? WHO is going to go out and pound the bricks to get those sponsorhships? The PROS won't go out and fend for themselves. the ORGANIZATIONS won't pay a person on their staff to go out and get more sponsorships. The sponsors sure won't volunteer. OPEN shooters ain't going to go out and pound the bricks to get more MONEY sponsorships for the Pros.....So, just where on earth and how on earth are these "sponsorships with more money" going to come about?

We've had harsh discussions before about the PROS themselves going out and seeking sponsorship monies...and most don't want to "go there", rather expecting the organization to provide the people and do the footwork FOR the Pros. Doesn't work, won't work.

Several years ago, I attended a racquetball tournament in Casper, Wyoming...it was a LOCAL tournament...but...the tournament was limited to 20 PRO players. Entry fees were low ($100 or something like that), SINGLE elimination. The reason it was limited to 20 pros was because of the number of open and amateur competitors and the court time availability. Anyways....the winning pro was guaranteed $10,000 at that one event!
How was this done? The PROS didn't pound the bricks, but they did "speak with" their sponsors, and the sponsors did respond. The bulk of the money, however, came from LOCAL SUPPORT....you know, doctors, lawyers, lumber yards, bars, restaurants, banks, real estate brokers, grocery stores, sporting goods stores, gas stations, etc, etc, etc. YES...you CAN get local support...but SOMEBODY or a committee of persons MUST get out and pound the bricks to do this.
Problem is getting people to do it; most don't want to get involved; many won't do it to "give it all to the Pros", expecting rather the AMATEURS to get MONEY to compete.
Never ending quandry....BUT...if a tournament venue wants more money...it is NOT going to come exclusively from the archery manufacturers and vendors...you MUST HAVE LOCAL SUPPORT...and promote the heck out of that...and POUND THE BRICKS to get that LOCAL support. This means people getting off their butts and getting out there to get 'r DUN...and isn't something that happens very often.

field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## Jame (Feb 16, 2003)

Bowtech54 said:


> Look at the type of shoot off, what class is involved, and the format. To get spectators the format is going to have to be changed. IBO does not have a spectator friendly format during their shoot off and the ASA thinks that Pro's should be the only one's involved in theirs. We need to get to the heart of the tournament participates. Those are the folks that need to be involved. They are the ones who bring family and friends because most ot the time it's made into a family vacation. I'm no way wanting to sound like I'm bashing the Pro's.... but the amateur is the backbone and invests more money into archer than the Pro's because they have to purchase the biggest part of their equipment. As far as TV coverage....if we had coverage we would see an increase at the shoot offs.


One thing to remember is The Pros were all ametures at one time so they are just as much a backbone for the sport of archery as anyone else. Most people competeing want to make it to the top level. They want to be as good or here there names mentioned with Levi, Jeff Hopkins, Danny McCarthy, Christianberry, Gillingham, Brooks, Gomez etc. There the best and thats what most ametures are striving for. 
There has to be some changes before any class grows or we get those big sponsors like:
Rules need to be enforced or changed
Needs to be more Media coverage but you wont get that unless it some how becomes a spectator sport and you recruit some big sponsors.
It wont grow without the Faith of God in it. 
Jame


----------



## Jame (Feb 16, 2003)

field14 said:


> Sonny,
> I've been an NFAA member since 1968. To my knowledge there has NEVER EVER been a "sponsored Shooters class" in the NFAA.
> 
> Where do you draw the line on a "sponsored" shooter? They tried this in Pennsylvania (might still be doing it) that if a shooter so much as got a free hat, they would be considered a "pro" and have to shoot there. How ludicrious and carried away does an org become?
> ...


Preach on My brother. Preach On. 

I agree with Field 100%.


----------



## cenochs (May 2, 2007)

I think the Pros should shoot for free and sponsors should pay their prize money with some rules. The format needs to follow the PGA let's say only the top 100 archery pros are allowed to compete in the Pro Class and at the end of the year any archers not qualifying for the top 75 spots are moved to semi pro and 25 semi pro guys are moved up. You get my drift right now the way the Pro Class is run allowing anyone to enter will not get sponsors. There is no structure to build off of. I do agree the lower ranks build the sport but sponsors want to see the Pros for marketing and coverage. I set my bow down a month ago and started playing golf and it is so refreshing to participate in a sport that has one set of rules and it does not matter where you go and play it is still the same. Competitive archery does not need to be like golf but use some of what makes golf great!


----------



## asa_low12 (Mar 15, 2008)

I want to say lower entry fee's would help out a lot, but i'm not sure it would. Seems like most archers at these shoots have enough money to pay their way in pro class, so if they wanted to shoot it they could. Low fee's would help for me, but i'm just one person. I would absolutely love to shoot pro class. 

As far as the guy that said make only a pro, semi pro, and hunter class, I definetly don't agree with you. It doesn't make sense to me to have all open shooters labeled as pros. That's definitely not the case. Pro, amateur open, and hunter seems to make more sense to me.


----------



## 3Dblackncamo (Jul 22, 2009)

Jame said:


> One thing to remember is The Pros were all ametures at one time so they are just as much a backbone for the sport of archery as anyone else. Most people competeing want to make it to the top level. They want to be as good or here there names mentioned with Levi, Jeff Hopkins, Danny McCarthy, Christianberry, Gillingham, Brooks, Gomez etc. There the best and thats what most ametures are striving for.
> There has to be some changes before any class grows or we get those big sponsors like:
> Rules need to be enforced or changed
> Needs to be more Media coverage but you wont get that unless it some how becomes a spectator sport and you recruit some big sponsors.
> ...


Jamie,
we all like the fact that you come on here and talk with us answer a question here and there it shows you have not forgotten where you came from, but I am going to agree with the majority, the reg. joes are the one keeping alot of things rolling, everything I do I pay for, entry fees, travel, motel, arrows, releases, etc. and some pros it may be the same way but for alot of them it is not. Now that you have been in a shootdown and won, do you think that people will buy stuff that you are shooting, They will I will bet on it ameaturs want to use stuff that pros are using and winning with. I still would like to know just how much everyone thinks the Pro class enrty fees should be


----------



## HokieArcher (Mar 13, 2009)

field14 said:


> Sonny,
> I've been an NFAA member since 1968. To my knowledge there has NEVER EVER been a "sponsored Shooters class" in the NFAA.
> 
> Where do you draw the line on a "sponsored" shooter? They tried this in Pennsylvania (might still be doing it) that if a shooter so much as got a free hat, they would be considered a "pro" and have to shoot there. How ludicrious and carried away does an org become?
> ...


Very good post!!


----------



## Daniel Boone (May 31, 2002)

Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results in insane. 

Promoting TV coverage would be a good start. Europeans can do it, we should be able to as well. I was hoping Rob at Lanecasters would some how get it on TV with his tournament. ESPN would air it if someone would come cover it right. Maybe he could hire the guys who do archery TV
DB


----------



## SonnyThomas (Sep 10, 2006)

field14 said:


> Sonny,
> I've been an NFAA member since 1968. To my knowledge there has NEVER EVER been a "sponsored Shooters class" in the NFAA.
> 
> field14 (Tom D.)



Tom, the exact name of the class escapes me for the time being. It may have been the manufacturer's class or something of that nature. Again, it was a long time back. I have the article, just somewhere in stacks of Archery magazines. I'll try to dig it out....


----------



## shootist (Aug 28, 2003)

SonnyThomas said:


> Tom, the exact name of the class escapes me for the time being. It may have been the manufacturer's class or something of that nature. Again, it was a long time back. I have the article, just somewhere in stacks of Archery magazines. I'll try to dig it out....


I am pretty sure IBO had a "manufacturers class" or something like that. I am talking about late 1980's. I don't know if there was a payback or what.


----------



## SonnyThomas (Sep 10, 2006)

shootist said:


> I am pretty sure IBO had a "manufacturers class" or something like that. I am talking about late 1980's. I don't know if there was a payback or what.


That may have been, but I have only Archery magazine. Paul Davison wrote the article for sure and had pictures.


----------



## ThatArcheryDude (Jul 26, 2011)

Bowtech54 said:


> Yes, there are a lot of shooters out there that have some type of sponsorship from a Archery Shop or manufacture but that doesn't make them a Pro or Semi Pro. I don't buy a bow because a Pro shoots it... do you? The local guys and gals are just helping promote local business and manufacturers to sell their products. Believe it or not the local archer has more influence on sales than the pro's. A majority of the tournament archers aren't even know in the hunting circle. As far as spectators paying....you might as well drive a stake in the heart of 3D archery. We aren't ready for that gaint step. The archery organizations are going to have to step up and offer manufacturers some better incentives for them to increase their sponsorship investment. Also, archery organziations are going to have to improve their benefits for the 3D shooter. We pay and pay and pay for what??????????? entry fees to participate in a tournament?????? What else?????? Should we have to even belong to an organziation to shoot a tournament since they are counting on our entry fees?????I'm not wanting to start a verbal war but lets not bash those that are fortunate to recieve some type of sponsorship because what else does the majority recieve in the end?
> 
> As far as the Pro Class growing........at present time and situations with the economy...I don't see it happening.


Bowtech54, Thank you for putting that in a very professional manner (sorry for that pun). I agree with you 100%. Someone could make the argument that if a person would only get a free shirt or 5 dollars off the bow, it would technically make them sponsored by a shop or company. How is a free shooter shirt really gonna make them capable of shooting with Levi Morgan and Reo Wilde, to name others. This whole "sponsored" thing is a little overrated. I know tons of shooters who shoot for shops and companies and get a specific amount of money taken off their purchases of bows and accessories. Almost half of these people arent good enough to shoot a semi or pro class. Shoot, most cant finish top 10 in Bow Novice (not to bash Bow Novice or shooters who may not be as skilled as some). They do it because the shop or company wants to use them for advertisements. But, at the end of the day, they would still be "pro" to some. This so called sponsored advantage is non existant.


----------



## t8ter (Apr 7, 2003)

Could be entry fees.We have a similar problem in the nort georgia rotation.Money class is a $20 entry fee with a 75% payback.Trophy class is $10 entry with a trophy for the prize.Money class is only drawing around 4 to 5 shooters.Trophy class is around 3 times as much.Both shoot from the same stake.Funny thing is the guys winning trophy would win the $ class with the scores there putting up.In trophies defense there is a rule if you shoot open a or higher in ASA they have to shoot $ but still there scores would win in the $ class.
I know one thing I want and planning to shoot pro next year but the entry fees will probably stop me.


----------



## Bowtech54 (Sep 20, 2006)

Ken and Mike can you respond to this Thread????? I'm sure the 3D archery nation would like to hear what you two men have to say!


----------



## Jame (Feb 16, 2003)

I honestly think the price is fine. Now thats my opinion and I think most of the pros will agree. If they cut the prices down then I think they should only pay the top 5 places. This way you can still make some money when you make the top 5. 
jame


----------



## Babyk (Jul 5, 2011)

I dont think the pro class will grow until some rules are changed like Jame said eariler......also higher gas prices and the cost of just getting to the shoot and having a pillow to lay your head on has gone up which probley has kept some away....then theres the skill level factor that has to be brought into the mix.....

would love to see the pro class grow to what it once was but I think we will never see a shoot with 100 pros in it again just my 2 cents


----------



## Bird Dogg (Aug 18, 2009)

who ever wants to be considered a pro pays to play, I shoot MBR and if I want to shoot pro I Pay the fee, and wham Pro. but the TITLE is earned. Any one of us who wish to shoot pro can do so by paying the high signup fees and more than likely at your local IBO shoot will finish in the top 20 because nobody signs up in that class.
Im sure if alot of people signed up and paid the high entry fee, they could shoot right along side the big names, and I am also sure Levi, Chance, Tim etc, will gladly take your contribution to the prize money..
If IBO and ASA advertised half as much for upcoming shoots as mathews did for the z7 extreme or Hoyt did for the carbon element , attendance would have doubled.... OR BETTER YET! maybe the manufactures pick up some of the advertising, "join the IBO", or information about competitions, wether it be nfaa or asa, or ibo, attendance would double.
When I tell customers at the shop that I enjoy competing, and have attended the world championships, or national events, most of them are un-aware that anything like that exists.. and the only competative archery they are familiar with is the field archery like you would see in the olympics. It's obvious that there is no exposure


----------



## J Whittington (Nov 13, 2009)

Why wouldnt we want the pro class to grow? Also want all the other classess to grow too!

We have pro football, baseball, hockey, billiards, golf, tennis, heck even pro "Wrastlin"

crying shame that the best in the world can't break even on expenses from making the top ten at a National or World shoot.


----------



## SonnyThomas (Sep 10, 2006)

Lack of competitors. Probably will always be, not for the lack of people with money to shoot in the Pro classes. A lot of archers know their ability and just won't enter for that reason. Check the local 3Ds and such. Barely half will turn in their score cards.

Just did a quick check of scores I have one hand. Less than half, 40%, turn in their score cards.

Most generally you go back to Square One to sort things out. Square one meaning at the local level. What if where possible clubs would put on demos, shoot offs so the public could watch and advertise for the public to attend? If nothing else surely some club could at least benefit from this if done properly.


----------



## Jame (Feb 16, 2003)

Bird Dogg said:


> who ever wants to be considered a pro pays to play, I shoot MBR and if I want to shoot pro I Pay the fee, and wham Pro. but the TITLE is earned. Any one of us who wish to shoot pro can do so by paying the high signup fees and more than likely at your local IBO shoot will finish in the top 20 because nobody signs up in that class.
> Im sure if alot of people signed up and paid the high entry fee, they could shoot right along side the big names, and I am also sure Levi, Chance, Tim etc, will gladly take your contribution to the prize money..
> If IBO and ASA advertised half as much for upcoming shoots as mathews did for the z7 extreme or Hoyt did for the carbon element , attendance would have doubled.... OR BETTER YET! maybe the manufactures pick up some of the advertising, "join the IBO", or information about competitions, wether it be nfaa or asa, or ibo, attendance would double.
> When I tell customers at the shop that I enjoy competing, and have attended the world championships, or national events, most of them are un-aware that anything like that exists.. and the only competative archery they are familiar with is the field archery like you would see in the olympics. It's obvious that there is no exposure


Amen. Great idea.


----------



## Hopperton (Oct 30, 2005)

Lower entry fees and you will see alot more shooters in all the classes I bet expecially pro class. That goes for IBO as well.


----------



## Hopperton (Oct 30, 2005)

Bird Dogg said:


> If IBO and ASA advertised half as much for upcoming shoots as mathews did for the z7 extreme or Hoyt did for the carbon element , attendance would have doubled.... OR BETTER YET! maybe the manufactures pick up some of the advertising, "join the IBO", or information about competitions, wether it be nfaa or asa, or ibo, attendance would double.
> When I tell customers at the shop that I enjoy competing, and have attended the world championships, or national events, most of them are un-aware that anything like that exists.. and the only competative archery they are familiar with is the field archery like you would see in the olympics. It's obvious that there is no exposure


Absolutely


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

Hopperton said:


> Lower entry fees and you will see alot more shooters in all the classes I bet expecially pro class. That goes for IBO as well.


And just where are "we" supposed to get the INCREASE in the MONEY POT...if "we" LOWER the entry fee for the PROS? Money doesn't just fall from the heavens.
Sponsors are NOT going to just fly out of the trees or appear out of thin air. I can tell you from years and years of experience that unless several "somebodies" get off their butts and go out there, pound the bricks and GO TO THE SPONSORS and ASK THEM>...those magical "sponsorships" will not appear, and neither will the money pot grow!

Wanting the cake and eating it too does NOT apply when it comes to Pro Money Pots! It takes committment and a ton of work on behalf of the club/group putting on that tournament...and so far, it is few and far between to find the people that want to get off their duffs and go out and ASK! Very few and far between.

field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## SonnyThomas (Sep 10, 2006)

field14 said:


> And just where are "we" supposed to get the INCREASE in the MONEY POT.../// It takes commitment and a ton of work on behalf of the club/group putting on that tournament...and so far, it is few and far between to find the people that want to get off their duffs and go out and ASK! Very few and far between.
> field14 (Tom D.)


Tom's tellin' it straight. Sponsors are hard to come by, but they are out there. Look at the growth of Presley's MidWest Open.
And "getting of their duffs" should apply to State Champ events too. Tom may chastise me a bit here, but had the IAA 3D Championship had people pushing for, pounding the bricks, it may have continued in Illinois. As it was, it was deleted from the IAA Championship program. And the IAA 3D was a sanctioned State Championship open to the public.


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

SonnyThomas said:


> Tom's tellin' it straight. Sponsors are hard to come by, but they are out there. Look at the growth of Presley's MidWest Open.
> And "getting of their duffs" should apply to State Champ events too. Tom may chastise me a bit here, but had the IAA 3D Championship had people pushing for, pounding the bricks, it may have continued in Illinois. As it was, it was deleted from the IAA Championship program. And the IAA 3D was a sanctioned State Championship open to the public.


Sonny, why would I chastise you for telling the truth...SOME "target groups" (not all) won't do squat to help promote anything to do with 3-D. However, in my experiences over the past 30 years or so...3-D "groups" are WAY LESS inclined to promote anything to do with punching paper! FACT! Plain and simple!
Now, some of this onus for building purses MUST be put on the PROS, too. THEY can also get off their duffs and ask their sponsors to help with any of the given events; THEY can "pound the bricks" just as easily as those putting on the tournaments! IMHO, it is NOT all up to the host site or club to do ALL the footwork to help build the money pot up. We at the Midwest Open are very fortunate in that many of the CHAMPIONSHIP shooters do indeed seek out to help PROmote the Midwest Open. They've contacted their sponsors and manuf. to try to put the Midwest Open on the map, and it has helped a ton.
It of course remains to be seen how this terrible recession is going to impact the Purse this year at the 2011 Midwest Open...and the affects could well be substantial as people have to pull back on the purse strings! The PROS, the shooters, and everyone concerned has got to remember that the money doesn't grow on trees, haha. Time will tell.


----------



## Devine Shot (Mar 17, 2008)

What will lower entry fee's do. More shooters competing for the same money, that is not a formula for success in my opinion. The entry fees are way lower than any sport I know for the pro division. It is not the entry fees that are keeping it stagnant it is the fact that each and every pro is shooting for an different amount of money. Look at Jame and Levi at the classic. jame prob cost Levi 20,000 dollars and it did not even earn Jame 20,0000 total. Until the tournament itself is paying big money and not the sponsors paying individual successes our sport will remain stagnant. Sponsors should be helping with expenses not the total winnings. That what the tournament should be paying for.


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

Devine Shot said:


> What will lower entry fee's do. More shooters competing for the same money, that is not a formula for success in my opinion. The entry fees are way lower than any sport I know for the pro division. It is not the entry fees that are keeping it stagnant it is the fact that each and every pro is shooting for an different amount of money. Look at Jame and Levi at the classic. jame prob cost Levi 20,000 dollars and it did not even earn Jame 20,0000 total. Until the tournament itself is paying big money and not the sponsors paying individual successes our sport will remain stagnant. Sponsors should be helping with expenses not the total winnings. That what the tournament should be paying for.


And just who is going to provide that "big money"....there isn't a single "club" that has free coin just lying around waiting to be given away to PRO shooters. Contributors are needed...and neither the PROS nor very many of the people running the tournament are willing to get out and FIND contributors.
For a "paper" tournament, there are NOT that many expenses to put on a big shoot, so the sponsors paying for the targets is noteworthy, but not a significant amount of money. The 3-D venue's cost for targets is very, very significant for a host club or organization because of 20 targets each for what 5 or 6 or maybe more ranges? THAT is significant "coin"...BUT...even if a "sponsor" provided those free of charge...that money still wouldn't satisfy the hunger pangs of many people for MORE MONEY.
The host has NOTHING to do with any amount of money other that what the HOST pays out in their Tournament Purse...and ALL the PROS in any given shooting style are shooting for the SAME amount of money. The host cannot control, nor should they interfere, with the individual contracts of any of the Pros in the event. That is between the Contracting company (Pro's sponsor) and the PROS themselves, and nobody else's business.
Sponsors helping with expenses won't put a dent in much of anything to help bring the purse up.
Archery clubs don't have philanthopists just giving millions of dollars to help a cause!
Expecting the money to basically magically appear will get people nowhere...just like it has up to this point.


----------



## Hopperton (Oct 30, 2005)

Well I would think: 

1.) If you take 10 shooters at $500.00 a piece one year and give back 100% that would be $5,000.00 payback

2.) Then the next year you cut the entry fee to $250.00 you will get a lot more shooters so let’s just say 10 more shooters = 20 shooters at $250.00 100% payback making payout $5,000.00.


Now let’s look at the above two scenarios. We cut the entry fee in half and for now we will say only doubled the class count. Now the pro’s have double the competition (they should like this) and there class is growing (this would pull in more sponsors and spectators). The same would go with semi pro class. Look at NASCAR there are the great racers and there are the guys who just barlyt made enough to build a car even though they are not great they make the whole sport larger and more competitive. At the same time bringing in more sponsors and LARGER purse.



These numbers are all rounded and may not be accurate counts but for this example they work fine.


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

Hopperton said:


> Well I would think:
> 
> 1.) If you take 10 shooters at $500.00 a piece one year and give back 100% that would be $5,000.00 payback
> 
> ...


Problem is that while this looks great on paper... Based upon my experiences over the past 45 plus years....in the REAL WORLD, it does NOT work that way! ALL the money cannot come from registration fees. No matter what you try, there are only so many "Pros" around...and archery people are funny...they like to talk about "turning pro" and compare their scores to the pros' scores all the time and say "Man, if I would have shot for money, I would have taken 2nd place today." BIG "IF" and not true at all in most cases.
When it comes to putting that dough down on the table and getting off the porch and running with the big dogs..it IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN...and "doubling your "pro" shooters simply with registration fees....IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN, period. Been around a long, long time and never have seen it work that way.

Is just like bending over backwards to try to bring BOWHUNTERS into FIELD SHOOTING...DO what you want...it is NOT HAPPENING and won't either.

That entry fee has LITTLE to do with how many shoot for money, and halving the lower registration fee is NOT going to double the amount of people that register to shoot for money. Most likely, it won't put even a dent in it to increase that participation. Too many people look to see "who" is there and if the pecking order is established, many of the wannabee money shooters "chicken out" and won't put their money on the table simply to hand it over to whomever top notch shot...FACT.
Again....that purse cannot ALL come from the registration fees; doesn't work that way.

field14 (tom D.)


----------



## Hopperton (Oct 30, 2005)

field14 said:


> Been around a long, long time and never have seen it work that way.(tom D.)


 *How many times have "you" seen it tried?

*


field14 said:


> Is just like bending over backwards to try to bring BOWHUNTERS into FIELD SHOOTING...DO what you want...it is NOT HAPPENING and won't either. (tom D.)


 *What does this have to do with Pro's in 3D*



field14 said:


> That entry fee has LITTLE to do with how many shoot for money, and halving the lower registration fee is NOT going to double the amount of people that register to shoot for money. Most likely, it won't put even a dent in it to increase that participation. Too many people look to see "who" is there and if the pecking order is established, many of the wannabee money shooters "chicken out" and won't put their money on the table simply to hand it over to whomever top notch shot...FACT.
> Again....that purse cannot ALL come from the registration fees; doesn't work that way.field14 (tom D.)


 *If you know what works and what doesnt why dont you start an organization? Do you even shoot 3D?*


----------



## SonnyThomas (Sep 10, 2006)

Get the popcorn!


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

Hopperton said:


> *How many times have "you" seen it tried?
> 
> * *What does this have to do with Pro's in 3D*
> 
> *If you know what works and what doesnt why dont you start an organization? Do you even shoot 3D?*


THe organization is the same way...MONEY does NOT grow on trees, and there aren't any archery philantropists to donate the cash either.
I've seen "it" tried...that is to reduce the entry fee for the money shooters to 'encourage' participation too many times to count..>FAILED to do anything for any increase in money participants...cuz 80% payout of a lower fee made the money that was there 'uninteresting' to many of the pros...so THEY quit coming too. 

It has a LOT to do with the Pros in 3-D...they are mostly former TARGET shooters anyways...that are well capable of competing with the best of the best field shooters at anytime and on any range. 3-D Pro, NFAA Pro...PAA Pro (a former organization), doesn't matter...all the same thing when it comes to trying things to get "more Pros" into competition. People on the outside looking in think the "Fees" are what is keeping people away, or they think that finding some magical money that will appear all by itself in the way of "sponsorships" is the key to it. Been tried and tried for YEARS...and it comes down to the orgs NOT having a person in charge of that very thing....SPONSORSHIP and PROMOTION for that organizaton's Professional archers...doesn't matter 3-D or otherwise.
Yep, and just how would you expect yet another off-shoot "organization" to ever compete with IBO, ASA, NFAA, NAA, FITA, WORLD CUP, ALTERNATIVE SPORTS (Europe) and survive? There are only so many "weekends in a year"...and conflicts of schedule are pretty much the rule of the roost. Some intentionally schedule against each other; or so it seems. This fragments the PROS even more...and they go to what is closest to them for that time, or what has the MOST PAYOUT that is closest to them.

The WORLD CUP Series right now, is probably one of the best paying Tours on the Planet...and more and more competitors are vying for a spot to Qualify for the WORLD CUP SERIES...and that one isn't about 3-D....it is about INTERNATIONAL competition, qualifying to even get there, and competing not only from oneself and their sponsors, but for the United States as well. On a world scale, the USA is a drop in a bucket on numbers of archers competing...but yet, in the area of Men's and Ladie's COMPOUNDS and Men's recurve...the USA ranks #1 consistently....but doesn't always win the gold medal every single time.

field14 (tom D.)


----------



## Hopperton (Oct 30, 2005)

SonnyThomas said:


> Get the popcorn!



LOL that is why I did it. I knew he would be easy to keep going.:darkbeer:


----------



## SonnyThomas (Sep 10, 2006)

I agree, Tom. Archery people have to look at what's going on right now. This meaning, archery manufacturers are supporting archery. Those big pay checks have Hoyt and Mathew on them, not General Mills, M&Ms, Budweiser, Tide, Viagra, UPS, FED EX. We don't have these type sponsors pouring thousands of dollars into our sport and we don't have thousands of spectators in the stands.


----------



## Bird Dogg (Aug 18, 2009)

Possible ways to increase attendance and payouts. 
1. Get manufactures to Promote not just hunting but IBO, ASA, and NFAA shoots. Get people interested in going to these events. If they can pump up a bow, sight or other archery equipment for hunting, they can do the same for target archery/3d.
2. having a rolling Pot for large events, IE: World championship payout for IBO for example should be very attractive. take a portion from the rest of the events all year, to help accumulate a larger pot at the World championships. even if it is only 5% from every IBO/ASA shoot. For example, 1st leg of national triple crown paid $2093 for first... so lets say that prize was 5% less, around 1990$ and so on down the line 1st, 2nd, 3rd etc. that money goes in a till for the World championship at the end of the year. by august, prize money could be in the tens of thousands. Sounds pretty appealing doesnt it?. 
Lets face it, even if you do win a national event more than likely your breaking even or slightly ahead after food, lodging, hotel, etc, unless your a paid shooter, and there are arent alot of those.


----------



## Bird Dogg (Aug 18, 2009)

just did some quick math... 1st leg of triple crown paid out $11,514.98, 2nd paid out $9,310.01, and 3rd paid $10,290. for total Pirze moneys awarded in all the payout spots for a total of $31,114.99 if my math was correct, and that was for just those three shoots. Payouts are listed on the ibo website. 
NOW, if you took 5% of that for just those three shoots it would total $1555.75, 10% would be $3111.50. You then do this with all the shoots and nobody has to raise or lower entry fees, and you make a very attractive pot for PMR at the end of the year, or for any of the other classes for that matter.
Then if manufactures start contributing, that would only make it that much more attractive.
just to re state the 5%... of 31,114.... 1500 less is still almost 30,000 spread out among the diffent paid spots is not a huge difference in individual payouts.


----------



## Jame (Feb 16, 2003)

what you do is pay someone 10% of all money they bring to the org. What i mean is have a few people knock on the bricks, make them phone calls etc. what ever money they earn for sponsorship they earn atleast 10%. You have to give people encentives if you expect them to do the dirty work.


----------



## SonnyThomas (Sep 10, 2006)

Bird Dogg said:


> Then if manufactures start contributing, that would only make it that much more attractive.


What manufacturers? Archery?


----------



## J Whittington (Nov 13, 2009)

if it wasnt for the manufactors...there would be NO pro archery as it is today.

IMHO Mathews, Hoyt, PSE, etc are doing more than their part.....


----------



## happyhunter62 (Dec 31, 2010)

BAArcher said:


> I'd still like to see some Pro level pin classes! Heck, why not do some with hunting rigs? Just make the course tough as hell and have a great payout. Add this to the ASA and see what happens.


that sounds like a lot of fun but unfortunately ther are way too many cry babies out there for that to happen


----------



## SonnyThomas (Sep 10, 2006)

J Whittington said:


> if it wasnt for the manufactors...there would be NO pro archery as it is today.
> 
> IMHO Mathews, Hoyt, PSE, etc are doing more than their part.....


Correct. It flattens me that today's archery people don't realize this! What do we need to do, post up and a few hundred pics of winners holding those big checks?


----------



## Dr.Dorite (Oct 27, 2008)

J Whittington said:


> if it wasnt for the manufactors...there would be NO pro archery as it is today.
> 
> IMHO Mathews, Hoyt, PSE, etc are doing more than their part.....


I agree 100%, and just my thoughts on all the post I've been reading that suggest that everyone except the archers should be promoting archery.
The media will certainly beat a path to your door wanting to cover it if, you have an event with enough spectators that their sales staff can sell it to advertisers.
In my opinion, ASA is to be commended for, not only providing the arena, but working their staff overtime, just to show that 3D archery can certainly draw spectators. I hate to think that ASA has to provide it without asking for an admission, even though most archers are there and, if you can believe the post, they are all wanting the sport to grow. I just wonder if archers would even pay a modest admission, or would it be the same as the Sunday shootdown. We say we want it to grow, and to be able to draw enough people to attract the media and advertisers, but getting on the road is more important to most than watching the free Pro shootdown that we want the media to cover. 
Do we enjoy watching the Pros compete enough to walk through the course and observe. Maybe we are asking for the media to cover, and sell something, and the advertisers to spend money on an event that we ourselves should be more involved in. I really enjoy watching the Pros, and maybe it will evolve into an event that the media, and advertisers will embrace. 
Again I'd like to say Thanks to ASA for at least doing what they can, to try and show that people will attend a final shootdown.


----------



## Bird Dogg (Aug 18, 2009)

They may be promoting at events, but honestly 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of the customers that walk through the door dont even know the first thing about competative archery other than what they see in the olympics.. AND......AND, just how much coverage was there on t.v. for Olympic archer's... zilch... none.... You could watch sycronized swiming in its entirety but just get the end of day results in the ticker in archery, and be grateful. 
THAT is what I mean. Yeah, there is some promotion... but not like there is for golf, soccer, or basketball, and that is what I meant... Wasnt thinking I would get flamed for my response. 
I havent seen it yet, but I have heard that there is a segment on the end of Levi's show that is dedicated to 3d shooting....


----------



## mocheese (Dec 19, 2003)

What about Archery manufactures; PSE, Mathews, Hoyt etc.. putting X amount of dollars into the pot? Rather than payout a contingency of 10 or 15K if their shooter wins. Each company put in a lesser amount to be paid out. They would still get there publicity if someone shooting their product wins. However, I think it is kind of crappy that shooter X can win way more money than shooter Y at the same shoot. If a guy shows up shooting 20 year old Jennings and pays the entry fee and wins does he deserve less money than someone shooting a new hoyt of mathews?


----------



## ky hammer (Jan 7, 2003)

it does not matter what the game is if you do not promote it it will not grow. the orgs do a great job of putting the shoots on but some of them lack in promoting the sport. as earlier posters said get outside sponsorship promote the fire out of it and it will take off. it does not matter what the sport is if people dont know about it then they are not going to support it. it dont matter if its 3-d field indoor target or what the venue is just promote it. as Field stated earlier there is only so many weekends a year to go around.


----------



## SonnyThomas (Sep 10, 2006)

field14 said:


> Sonny,
> I've been an NFAA member since 1968. To my knowledge there has NEVER EVER been a "sponsored Shooters class" in the NFAA.
> 
> field14 (Tom D.)





Jame said:


> Preach on My brother. Preach On.
> 
> I agree with Field 100%.





SonnyThomas said:


> Tom, the exact name of the class escapes me for the time being. It may have been the manufacturer's class or something of that nature. Again, it was a long time back. I have the article, just somewhere in stacks of Archery magazines. I'll try to dig it out....


So I found it, Archery Magazine - Apr/May 2008. Still, I looked under Paul's history site and could not find the article.



shootist said:


> I am pretty sure IBO had a "manufacturers class" or something like that. I am talking about late 1980's. I don't know if there was a payback or what.


Happy Days? The Fonz? "I may not always be right, but I'm never wrong."

Title; Remembering the Factory Pro Team Shoot." Author; Paul Davison. 
1973 NFAA Professional Division born - unlimited compounds. NFAA Pros experientmented with a "any goes" tournament at Mahoment, Illinois. Pro tournaments were sponsored by bow manufacturers - Jennings, PSE, and Astro. 1974, Carrol, Bear and a few others jumped in. 1976 gave the go ahead in Aurora, Illinois, "World Professional Team Shoot." Sponsors put up $500.00 for each two man team. 1986 ended the factory sponsorship and winner take all prize money and teams then competed as Professionals or Adult.
(nice old stuff delelted). Team Bear, Dave Young and Joe Drury, took the "winner-take-all" $6000.00 purse.


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

That was a Team shoot...NOT an entire separate class for all tournaments.

In 1977, Team Bear did start a program where, if you signed up in advance of shooting the first arrow of the tournament, AND you were shooting a BEAR bow and you scored in the top three of the TOURNAMENT of those shooting BEAR equipment, then the top scorer got $200 SILVER DOLLARS in a custom hand carved jewlery box; 2nd Place got $100 SILVER DOLLARS in a custom carved wood box, and 3rd place got $50 SILVER dollars. All three got a very nice TEAM BEAR shooting jacket as well.
This was NOT a separate shooting class at all; just exclusively for those shooting BEAR equipment.

I still have the $100 silver dollars and also that hand carved box. Dunno what ever happened to the TEAM BEAR jacket, however. GRRRRR. I got 2nd place (lost by a single point) in the Great Lakes Sectional Field Tournament held in Midland, MI. Had I not shot 19's on all 4 bunnies at that tournament, I'd have gotten the $200 Silver Dollars instead of only the $100 Silver Dollars. I was shooting a Bear TamerlaneII compound bow with the short riser on it, without speed pylons.

Confusion still exists of "separate classes" and individual team events at various tournaments.

field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## markb317 (Nov 18, 2009)

I think there are a lot of comment to this thread made by people that don't know much of what they are talking about. 
I know a few guys that placed evry well in the open classes at IBO and ASA this year that have to move to Semi Pro next that had no sponsership from bow companies or proshops. There are a few companies that pay contengince money to the amature shooters for doing well. I appreciate this and think it is a great thing for them to do, these are the people that are spending there money on bows and product, not getting it for free, and taking time off from there jobs to attend shoots.


----------



## Nolanoutdoors (May 3, 2009)

This has been an interesting conversation to follow, from an “outsiders” perspective. I am new; real new to 3D so I don’t have a clue how to make the “pro” class grow. I will attempt to bring a different perspective to this discussion. I competed in and promoted bass tournaments for about 20 years and was sponsored by a number of major tackle and boat manufactures during that time. Here are my thoughts on the subject.

When I stated looking at competing in 3D last year I was looking through the eyes of a retired competitive bass fisherman. I was quick to see there are a number of major differences while there are some similarities.

If you guys want to increase the number of “pros” it would appear to me the best way to get there is from the bottom up and follow the money.

Frist grow participation. I have read many treads and talked to a number of guys and gals that would like to participate in 3D but do not for one major reason. There are too many rules. Just go read the repeated questions on this website and others on the different classes and other rules. I have read and read and reviewed the rules and classes for almost a year know and am still not sure I understand. Maybe I am a slow learner. 

If you want the sport to grow follow the money. Manufactures spend money for one reason, increased sales. They have no other motivation. How do they grow sales? One way is to increase participation. One way for them to increase sales is to support such programs as archery in the schools. Why do they pour money into these programs? Because they are expecting a return on that investment, knowing that a percent of the kids will continue to participate and or get their family’s involved in the sport. Spend a few thousand now and reap the reward of increase sales a few years from now. Works in every sport and at every level. It will work at growing the pro competitors as well.

The manufacturing companies could care less about throwing money into 3D shoots unless there is a return on that investment. Why do the companies “sponsor” an archer? They are expecting a return on that investment, in other words, the “pro” better be selling product. They don’t sponsor them because the like em.

It appears to me that 3D shoots are in the same boat bass tournaments are in (no pun intended). The fast majority of all fishing tournaments are self-funded and self-supporting. With the exception of BASS and FLW and maybe a couple of others up north there is little sponsor money at the pay window. Archery is the same way, self-funded.

To grow the sport, stop thinking like a competitor and start thinking like a business man. It is a numbers game. Increase participation at the bottom and all ships rise on that incoming tide.


----------



## SonnyThomas (Sep 10, 2006)

Nolanoutdoors said:


> If you want the sport to grow follow the money. Manufactures spend money for one reason, increased sales. They have no other motivation. How do they grow sales? One way is to increase participation. One way for them to increase sales is to support such programs as archery in the schools. Why do they pour money into these programs? Because they are expecting a return on that investment, knowing that a percent of the kids will continue to participate and or get their family’s involved in the sport. Spend a few thousand now and reap the reward of increase sales a few years from now. Works in every sport and at every level. It will work at growing the pro competitors as well.


Well, NASP is a few years old and not one word how it's effecting "big business." Got this for idea; Parents thought NASP good and kid did good. The kid then wanted to take the next step and mom and dad were looking at dropping a $1000 to $1200 to $1500. Mom and Dad blow a gasket and tell kid; "Find another sport." And what about parents with 2 or more kids? Yeah, enough money there to start the kids in college....Well, figuratively speaking.


----------



## carlosii (Feb 25, 2007)

kind of off topic, but every year i have to throw out a bit of history regarding funding of archery and how archers were scammed by the feds. no, this ain't an Obama rant.
back when fred bear was a big dog in the archery business he threw in with the major manufacturers, distributors, and independent businessmen in an effort to get funding for archery activities. they lobbied congress to include archery tackle in the collection of excise taxes on certain sporting goods. there already was an excise tax on guns, ammo, and fishing gear. the money collected from those taxes was then earmarked to go back to the states to develop hunting and shooting areas as well as enhanced fish habitat.

for archery the idea was to use the money collected to grow the sport through development of shooting ranges, both indoors and outdoors, as well as archery instruction and development of bow hunting opportunities.

as i recall the excise tax is 11%. that is paid on bows, arrows, rests, strings, cables, vanes, points, targets, string wax, and just about any archery related item you can think of. the question is, where's that money going? well, some of it goes for hunter education. some goes to pay for NASP coordinators at the state level. but a big chunk of it goes to state conservation agencies who in turn can pretty much do as they please with the money within broad guidelines. another big chunk goes to the department of the interior and pays for "administrative activities". that means it pays for trips for the feds to conferences in really nice resort areas, among other things.

in the early days there was a push to open archery lanes similar to bowling alleys. people who operated such businesses back then thought there'd be some support for them to help grow the sport through that medium.

you might want to check and see how much money your state is getting from your archery excise dollars and how they're using that to promote the sport. here in indiana i think we have three outdoor ranges that have a target set at 20, 30, 40, and 50 yards. that's it. how many archers do you know who have been consulted by the state agency regarding how this money should be spent to help grow archery? nobody that i know.

well, i'm off my soap box. but i'm still p.o.ed at how our archery excise tax dollars are NOT going to help grow the sport.

we now return you to our regular program already in progress.


----------



## cenochs (May 2, 2007)

One thing that would help the sport grow is to set one universal set of rules the govern all 3D archery. If a sport wants to grow it can't grow with every organization having different rules and every club having their own spin on the rules. The IBO and ASA need to get together and set one universal set of rules. Other sports like golf baseball even tennis dont have different rules for different organizations and clubs. If I shoot at a club in Kentucky or Texas I would like to know there is one set of rules everyone is following, I don't want have to change my equiptment every month!


----------



## Nolanoutdoors (May 3, 2009)

> Well, NASP is a few years old and not one word how it's effecting "big business." Got this for idea; Parents thought NASP good and kid did good. The kid then wanted to take the next step and mom and dad were looking at dropping a $1000 to $1200 to $1500. Mom and Dad blow a gasket and tell kid; "Find another sport." And what about parents with 2 or more kids? Yeah, enough money there to start the kids in college....Well, figuratively speaking.


With all due respect Sonny, in my opinion your line of thinking is in part the reason competitive archery will struggle. You have what I would call “tunnel vision” and maybe a dose of “broke thinking” to go with it.

There are lots of folks that have or at least have the wherewithal to find the expendable income to support their kids in their passion of choice. You don’t have to look any farther that the FFA, softball, baseball or any numbers of other sports to see parents that spend a lot of loot and a lot of time supporting their kids. It is not all just money for equipment either. Talk to a parent of a traveling baseball team member and see how many miles they travel each year to watch their kids play. A friend of mine is in a different state every month during the spring and summer and has even traveled over 1500 miles one way with his son for a week long baseball camp. Another drives 70 miles round trip 3 times a week so his daughter can spend an hour with a pitching coach. I don’t know how much the coach costs him. Neither of these guys is “well do to”, just average Joe’s with average jobs. 

I would not expect you to hear how NASP is making “big business” any money. The archery companies appear to be willing to make the investment. If there is a return on that investment remains to be seen. I have seen where it worked with one young man I shot with this year. His single mom was taking him to 3D shoots in Oklahoma and in Texas. 

My point is; getting fresh blood in the sport is the only way to sustain long term growth. Archery in the schools is only one program, if it works we all enjoy the benefits. Females are another demographic being pursued by every manufacturer, including archery, in the hunting industry. If you want more “pros” increase the number of total participants in the sport and I suspect you will see an increase at every level. Or you cannot grow the sport and see how that works out for you.


----------



## Nolanoutdoors (May 3, 2009)

> as i recall the excise tax is 11%. that is paid on bows, arrows, rests, strings, cables, vanes, points, targets, string wax, and just about any archery related item you can think of. the question is, where's that money going? well, some of it goes for hunter education. some goes to pay for NASP coordinators at the state level. but a big chunk of it goes to state conservation agencies who in turn can pretty much do as they please with the money within broad guidelines. another big chunk goes to the department of the interior and pays for "administrative activities". that means it pays for trips for the feds to conferences in really nice resort areas, among other things.


The Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act, popularly known as the Pittman-Robertson Act, began in 1938. The purpose of this Act was to provide funding for wildlife habitat and wildlife management research among other similar things. The Act was amended 1970 to include funding for hunter education programs and to fund public target ranges. 

Funds come from an 11% Federal excise tax on sporting arms, ammunition, and archery equipment, and a 10 percent tax on handguns. These funds are collected from the manufacturers and are handed out to the states by the Department of the Interior. Funds for hunter education and target ranges come from one-half of the tax on handguns and archery equipment. 

Each state's part of the money is determined by a formula which considers the size of the state and the number of licensed hunters in the state. The program is a cost-reimbursement program, where the state covers the full cost of an approved project then applies for reimbursement. Up to 75 percent of the project expenses may be reimbursed with the state picking up the tab on at least 25 percent of the project costs from a non-federal source.

Have you seen any evidence of the fat cats taking trips on your Pittman-Robertson money? I have a close friend that is a biologist for the fisheries division in Oklahoma. He and I have had numerous conversations about how the state fish and game is funded, where the money comes from and how it is allocated. He has never expressed any concern that there are inappropriate uses if the aforementioned funds. Maybe there is - maybe there is not. If you know of any please put your sources to good use and expose the fraud.


----------



## carlosii (Feb 25, 2007)

Thank you for your comments. I am familiar with Pittman-Robertson and its purposes. For many years I was involved in the development and implementation of outdoor recreation projects here in Indiana.

Dick Lattimer in his book, I Remember Pappa Bear provides a rather detailed explanation of the process through which the tax was initially proposed and how it was ultimately passed. In his discussion he points to the fact that the archery business community was misled by the law makers as it relates to the final version of the legislation. It was the intention of the business community that the tax funds generated would be devoted to archery, not blended in with the Pittman-Robertson funds.

I have it buried somewhere I'm sure, but there was a rather serious effort by the NRA to call into accountability the federal use of the excise taxes collected for firearms as well as fishing and archery. In their brief, the representatives of the NRA questioned the use of the funds to support what they described as improper use of the funds, including expenses paid for elaborate "business trips" taken by agency officials.

Last year there was a former IRS official who presented a session at the ATA show regarding taxes and how they affect shop owners. I spoke with him about this subject after his presentation. He indicated that substantially more funds should be going to support archery activities in the various states, but due to federal regulations that folllowed passage of the bill setting up the tax, the states and feds were able to sidestep making such investments. Again, I refer you to Dick Lattimer's book.

My point is, the money is there but the amount devoted by my state to supporting target archery is insignificant. I suspect it is the same in situation in many states.


----------



## SonnyThomas (Sep 10, 2006)

Nolanoutdoors said:


> The Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act, popularly known as the Pittman-Robertson Act, began in 1938. The purpose of this Act was to provide funding for wildlife habitat and wildlife management research among other similar things. The Act was amended 1970 to include funding for hunter education programs and to fund public target ranges.
> .


And to take advantage of the Pittman/Robertson Act you must be in the "click." Been there, done that. May as well beat your head against the wall. And the wait for probably denial is something of 2 to 3 years. Again, been there, done that.


----------



## SonnyThomas (Sep 10, 2006)

Nolanoutdoors said:


> With all due respect Sonny, in my opinion your line of thinking is in part the reason competitive archery will struggle. You have what I would call “tunnel vision” and maybe a dose of “broke thinking” to go with it.


I told it the way it probably is.... You backed that up with your rambling of what parents are doing.

Tunnel vision? 

I was first contacted by the local FFA Leader and supported it. Club Officers agreed and it happened.

Our club has hosted the Illinois FFA 3D State Championship, I believe, 3 times in the last 4 years - no charge. The high turn out being 16 schools represented. Our club was also open the local schools should they need a archery practice range - new officers in place I don't know if this is still available, but feel that it probably is. Again, no charge. The local FFA leader got this going, but for FFA students state wide. We offered to host a event or Championship open to all students, not just FFA kids. So far no word has come of it.... If this took off we thought other clubs would step up. 

Our club has trophies for Cubs, kids 11 and under, and these kids shoot for free, plus they are to recieve a Competition ribbon when they turn in their score card. Trophies are handed out at the next 3D event. What happens? The Parents don't return or they don't bring their kids and they won't even look for their kid's scores. I know. I was club Sec/Trea for 9 years - June 2002 thru 2010.

The shop I work at? Open to all local schools for their archery program, if they have one - no charge. The shop also gives a introductory class to one local Church for their Youth groups - no charge. 

Under ASA's insurance practice our shop is open to clubs who wish to have a indoor range they call their own to host archery events. The club pays the fee for the Additionally Insured and they can set their event dates. Minimum charge is applied for events. Designated as Supporting Club the club members recieve a reduced rate for practices, whether paper or 3D. All kids get to shoot for half normal fees. Okay, it's a archery shop and lights need kept on. 

I also was probably the first to suggest a NASP 3D event. No one has stepped forward, sanctioning body or school.

Is there something else you want me to do or support?


----------



## JimmyP (Feb 11, 2006)

They will never lower the entry fees why should they they are still getting the money from the open a and semi pro guys.the key is growing the sport at local levels and getting more into archery.the school programs are a start.women classes are growing i think the kids classes are to.numbers are up from a few years ago.the economy would help to.


----------



## TAYLOR CO. (Jun 9, 2005)

The biggest problem that I see from archery/3-d especially is, that the BOW IS A WEAPON. "Outside Sponsors" such as M&M Mars, Colgate Palmolive, etc..these Co's see these bows as weapons. Also, they see it as supporting hunting(3d animal targets). Most of these Co's are afraid to make a stand for it. That's it in a nutshell on gaining sponsorship for the ProAm tour.

As far as the Pro Class growing, it is in a sort. I would like to see it grow faster. But it is growing some. There are a few that are coming into the Pro Class from Semi-Pro that will stay active. Alot of folks from Semi-Pro that get to Pro don't continue. The Pro Class should grow every yr. There are winners in Semi-Pro every yr. What happens to them?


----------



## J Whittington (Nov 13, 2009)

Cars are not weapons? I agree, they are not advertised as such, thousands PEOPLE die in car accidents ever year. IMHO 99.9 % of those fatalities could be avoided. When car companies manufacture sports cars that can easily double the speed limit? Why?

How many bows are used to kill people? I agree and support that 90-95% of bow sales are to hunters, so what? Where in Sam Hill does that matter? Mc Donalds alone has sold over 100 billion hamburgers, cows don't exactly volunteer to be your next meal.

I wish could afford to return to the pro class. Maybe nxt year. The one year that I did, I. Performed terribly, but I enjoyed shooting that 1 year more so than any year I shot before and after . I'm a teacher, not a drug dealer. My wages have been cut,
Number of days to work have been increased, and my responsibilities have doubled. It takes $ and time to compete with the big dawgs


----------



## TAYLOR CO. (Jun 9, 2005)

J Whittington said:


> Cars are not weapons? I agree, they are not advertised as such, thousands PEOPLE die in car accidents ever year. IMHO 99.9 % of those fatalities could be avoided. When car companies manufacture sports cars that can easily double the speed limit? Why?
> 
> How many bows are used to kill people? I agree and support that 90-95% of bow sales are to hunters, so what? Where in Sam Hill does that matter? Mc Donalds alone has sold over 100 billion hamburgers, cows don't exactly volunteer to be your next meal.
> 
> ...


Oh, it matters. I have always respected alot of your opinions..but, it does matter. You said it, 90-95% are sold to hunters. Cars are a mode of transportation and are necessary and are more acceptable. I couldn't agree more with your thoughts. But that is the reason. Nobody kills anything with golf clubs. When you grasp what I am saying, you will see.


----------



## SonnyThomas (Sep 10, 2006)

TAYLOR CO. said:


> The biggest problem that I see from archery/3-d especially is, that the BOW IS A WEAPON. "Outside Sponsors" such as M&M Mars, Colgate Palmolive, etc..these Co's see these bows as weapons. Also, they see it as supporting hunting(3d animal targets). Most of these Co's are afraid to make a stand for it. That's it in a nutshell on gaining sponsorship for the ProAm tour.


Yep, big hurdle here. I would say; Archery, 3D, depicting violence, killing animals. We could have people in dress suits shooting and it wouldn't make a difference. How long has some dress codes been required? Where do they help?

As far as the Pro Class growing, it is in a sort. I would like to see it grow faster. But it is growing some. There are a few that are coming into the Pro Class from Semi-Pro that will stay active. Alot of folks from Semi-Pro that get to Pro don't continue. The Pro Class should grow every yr. There are winners in Semi-Pro every yr. What happens to them? [/QUOTE]

Whittington pretty much nailed it. Time off is a big issue. Expense money follows. Two or three years back a very good shooter had to move up to Semi Pro (ASA). He was not the happiest of people, begroaning the Semi Fee, but made the move. He was then made to move up to Pro. Good shooter that he is I doubt he will be competing long. How many can drop $500 or more 7 or 8 times a year? 

I believe desire to shoot Pro is there, but family values come first for many. Many wanna be Pros probably have descent jobs. What's more important, taking in a national event or Pro class or getting that overtime pay? I worked at Caterpillar, Inc., East Peoria, Illinois - 36 years service. Before I retired I was making something like $24.50 an hour. I recieved time and one-half for anything over 8 hours through the week, time and one-half for Saturday and double time for Sunday. Nearly $50.00 an hour for Sunday is pretty dang hard to turn down. Heck, my retirement check and Social Security is probably near what some make working.


----------



## cenochs (May 2, 2007)

You want a easy way for the pro class to grow! Let the pros shoot for free but there is a catch!! There must be a point system involved for each year and if you don't meet a certain point requirement or finish lets say in the top 50 you are shipped back to semi pro! Then have the semi pro guys that finish at the top graduate to the Pro Class! Easy fix and have the sponsors for each shoot put up the prize money for the Pro Class!! And which ever sponsor puts up the most money gets to pick what shoot they sponsor!!!! Things need to change from a weekend hobby sport to a serious competitive sport for it to grow like it should!!!


----------



## J Whittington (Nov 13, 2009)

cenochs said:


> You want a easy way for the pro class to grow! Let the pros shoot for free but there is a catch!! There must be a point system involved for each year and if you don't meet a certain point requirement or finish lets say in the top 50 you are shipped back to semi pro! Then have the semi pro guys that finish at the top graduate to the Pro Class! Easy fix and have the sponsors for each shoot put up the prize money for the Pro Class!! And which ever sponsor puts up the most money gets to pick what shoot they sponsor!!!! Things need to change from a weekend hobby sport to a serious competitive sport for it to grow like it should!!!


That's something different.

I really believe there is sponsor ship $ out there for an archery org. However, do the owners/ directors of these organizations really want it? That's all I'm going to say regarding this. Don't Want to get into trouble.


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

J Whittington said:


> That's something different.
> 
> I really believe there is sponsor ship $ out there for an archery org. However, do the owners/ directors of these organizations really want it? That's all I'm going to say regarding this. Don't Want to get into trouble.


J Whittingon: I'll be danged, we finally agree on something! YES! I'm with you that indeed there IS sponsorship $$$ out there for an archery org....if those in it are willing to ASK. There are two options for those approached to offer up: Yes we can contribute X amount, or NO, it isn't in our budget and we can't do it. So, what do the orgs have to lose by TRYING? Or, what do the Pro shooters themselves have to lose by going out and trying and working WITH the sponsors and orgs/host club or range to get the purse contributions?

field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## drtnshtr (Jan 20, 2003)

field14 said:


> J Whittingon: I'll be danged, we finally agree on something! YES! I'm with you that indeed there IS sponsorship $$$ out there for an archery org....if those in it are willing to ASK. There are two options for those approached to offer up: Yes we can contribute X amount, or NO, it isn't in our budget and we can't do it. So, what do the orgs have to lose by TRYING? Or, what do the Pro shooters themselves have to lose by going out and trying and working WITH the sponsors and orgs/host club or range to get the purse contributions?
> 
> field14 (Tom D.)


Good question, what do they have to lose?


----------



## asa_low12 (Mar 15, 2008)

Why doesn't Bone Collector and other hugely successful hunting companies sponsor us?


----------



## TAYLOR CO. (Jun 9, 2005)

asa_low12 said:


> Why doesn't Bone Collector and other hugely successful hunting companies sponsor us?


There's a a good idea too!


----------



## grimjeeper (Nov 1, 2005)

Look at all the hunting shows and the money going to that. Can t tell me they cant help with tournements. Look at the price of bows and equipement. People can barley afford that (at least around here). $1,000.00 for a bow. really. Its slowly becoming a rich mans sport. Just my 2cents


----------

