# Compound in olympics LA 2028 ?



## Tipe (May 19, 2018)

Pretty interesting if this goes thru and we see compound bows in LA Olympics 2028 !

Easton: Target Compound At A Crossroads- New Plans for the Future from World Archery

I would love to see that and even 3 different kind of sport.
Spot, Field and 3D... that would be even better if olympic compound would be 3-game. 
Combination for all those to get final results !


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

Seems like this topic comes up every 4 years, prior to the announcement of new sports for the future Games.

I remain skeptical. While the Archery community would likely be solidly in favor of compounds in the Games, regardless of how we feel about it, it’s never going to be a TV friendly, hence moneymaking event. 

New sports for 2020 are Surfing, Skateboard, Rock Climbing, Karate. All watchable. I understand that “Breaking” will be provisional for 2024.

I doubt if the IOC will give compound archery serious consideration for the future. Hope I’m wrong.


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

Weird thought...

Surfing, Skateboard, Climbing and Karate combined with Breaking and Compound Archery = a new Hexathlon.


----------



## lees (Feb 10, 2017)

Stash said:


> Seems like this topic comes up every 4 years, prior to the announcement of new sports for the future Games.
> 
> I remain skeptical. While the Archery community would likely be solidly in favor of compounds in the Games, regardless of how we feel about it, it’s never going to be a TV friendly, hence moneymaking event.
> 
> ...


Never say never, though.... Yes, compound in the olympics has been turned down over and over throughout the years, but OTOH, it refuses to die as a topic pretty much everywhere you go in the world of archery itself.

I started shooting compound in the late 80's, right before the compound bow began its climb to first-class-citizen status as mentioned in the article. Even with shooters like the Ragsdales, Dave Cousins, etc., it was definitely still the Red-Headed Stepchild of bows, still thought of as too easy to shoot and the bow you resorted to as a fallback when you couldn't figure out the oly bow. When I showed up to places with my old Darton wheel bow, I was often run off the bales where the olympic recurve shooters had gathered. Even though I was still shooting it fingers at the time, I was definitely looked-down upon over the noses of the oly folks. Later I came back with my GM4+, which I shot far far worse than the compound, but I was at least allowed to stay on the bale with the other recurve guys and gals, now that I'd returned with a "real bow".

Fast forward 20-some years to this last time I reentered archery (7 or 8 years ago now I believe) and it was like I'd landed on another planet. Virtually every event - local, state, regional, national - everyone was shooting these pretty compound target bows with anodized handles and hinge releases. And all had the spiffy uniforms and big 3-tube Easton quivers, just like the oly guys and gals. 

Well, I could go on, but you get the idea: the compound bow has not only worked its way into first-class status in target archery, it's continuing to skyrocket into it. In the last few years I've seen it start to take hold in many countries where it hadn't really penetrated yet for financial/logistical reasons, etc. 

I hate to say things like this but now it's practically only the Olympics that seems anachronistic in its continuing rejection of the compound bow. Everywhere else, it stands alongside the olympic recurve even in the coveted pure target archery disciplines. Yeah, I'm merely echoing the sentiment in the article, but only to confirm that what it says is true. 

So I think it's only a matter of time before the compound is finally allowed into the olympics too; it's certainly become accepted practically everywhere else as a peer of all our other bow types. 

I don't think the minor differences between it and the recurve in terms of spectator interest are going to be that much of a factor. Neither are TV friendly and both tend to be watched with interest mainly by other archers, so I don't think that'll make much difference.

OTOH, the enormous depth in terms of number of shooters of the compound bow I think will be a factor. As I said, it continues to get more and more popular at a fantastic rate. And it's not weird at all to think it'll start to eclipse the recurve even in countries where the compound has been stubborn historically. 

And of course, now that S. Korea is taking it seriously, that's the writing on the wall, IMO.....

As for how I feel about it, my feelings are mixed. But that's a whole other thread, so won't go into that here...

lee.


----------



## lees (Feb 10, 2017)

PS: on the topic of getting more women involved in the compound: a significant factor there that I don't see much recognition of is the bows themselves. To my knowledge, Hoyt is the only manufacturer that has consistently offered a 40lb limb option on their full target bow lineup. Most others have had short-draw options on some of their target bows, but seemingly always only with beastly heavy 50lb limb options as a minimum poundage. So those bows are out of reach (literally) for beginner women shooters too.

Like it or not, and believe it or not, this is a major bar to introducing women shooters to the compound and it always has been. The selection of bows a new compound female shooter has available is severely limited. At a much higher rate than men, women are unable to find a compound bow they can even draw back at a local shop period. Much less actually shoot more than once or twice without an assistant to help her draw it back and so forth. It's just a brute fact that you can't build a career as a compound archer without a bow, and good one too, that you can actually shoot and certainly you can't hold any interest in doing so either.

I've been complaining about this for all the years I've shot compound and it continues to fall on deaf ears. There have been some recent releases from PSE, for example, of short draw target bows with a 40lb limb option, but by and large this continues to be a problem. Supply and demand, who knows, but for sure this is a big issue that will need to be addressed and fixed by manufacturers.

The olympic bow, OTOH, has always had limbs in weight ranges to suit a very wide audience of new shooters. Even when ILF became the standard back in the 80's, you could buy 16 and even 14lb AMO ILF limbs for your olympic bow and actually be able to draw it back enough times to learn to shoot it. No matter what your strength range was, male or female. You can still get 16lb ILF limbs in all sizes - short, med, long - even today for comparatively dirt cheap prices too.

So this bow availability problem will need to be addressed as well, IMO, before we see a significant uptick in female participation in the compound. Only time will tell if anyone ever wakes up on this. There are indications here and there, but nothing like the real groundswell we really need in order to truly open the compound bow to women. IMO....

lee.


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

Supply and demand, as you said. 

ILF limbs are easy easy to make, easy to store, mostly inexpensive at the beginner level. Not a hardship for manufacturers or retailers to keep stock.

But compounds are a different matter. Not easy to just stock and swap out lighter limbs onto a bow. Compounds are manufactured, assembled and shipped whole, and are much more expensive and space-consuming to stock, and of course, there’s much lower demand for the short DL bows. Not a good business decision.


----------



## lees (Feb 10, 2017)

Totally agree. 
In fact, when I decided to get a supra focus I had to call and find out if it had a 40lb limb option. It is available, but only at a $75 upcharge and of course it's a special order that's not advertised. I went ahead and ordered a 50lb bow since I think I can handle it fully backed off at 40 and it'll have higher resale in the event that I don't like it, etc. But it's almost incomprehensible to me that PSE not only doesn't advertise, but also hides that option on their mid-priced midrange target bow, probably the bow in their lineup you'd most want to select for a beginning female shooter. 

Like I said, Hoyt is the only manufacturer I currently know of that offers 40lb limbs as a regular option on all their high-end/elite-level target bows. 

It might not be an accident that Hoyts are probably the most-seen bows in the hands of female shooters in competition also....

lee.


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

All of the competitive female compound shooters are using at least 50#. Nobody is winning with a sub 40# bow.
That is roughly true for OR as well, the competitive women are in the mid-40# range.

So I would say the availability of lighter target bows has more impact on unfit aging archers, not competitive newbies.


----------



## lees (Feb 10, 2017)

grantmac said:


> All of the competitive female compound shooters are using at least 50#. Nobody is winning with a sub 40# bow.
> That is roughly true for OR as well, the competitive women are in the mid-40# range.
> 
> So I would say the availability of lighter target bows has more impact on unfit aging archers, not competitive newbies.


Wrong.

This is the prime example of the mentality I'm talking about that keeps women out of our sport. In fact, it does just so happen that the woman shooting a sub-40lb bow will absolutely, definitely outshoot the woman who doesn't have a shootable bow at all. And therefore has no interest in even trying to outshoot the 50lb shooter or even the 40lb shooter. It makes no difference that elite-level women shooters are at the 50lb mark; what matters is a shootable bow for a beginner, if your goal is to bring women into our sport, which is the current topic under discussion. 

This is also the mentality that discourages kids and other people of varying physical levels, etc., from getting into the compound bow. Yes, of course there are exceptions and many of them. But again if your goal is increasing the level of participation by refreshing our ranks, this mentality has to go and be replaced with something a bit more thoughtful and receptive.

It's no accident that, over on the hunting side, Ted Nugent has been advocating for lighter poundage/less aggressive bows for even longer than I have. The situation for hunters is even worse, given all the different folklore out there about what it takes to kill an animal, over against just a sheet of paper.

It's not all bad; there have been some gains, but sadly, this issue is what's keeping certain parts of compound archery in the doldrums, like female target archery....

lee.


----------



## huteson2us2 (Jun 22, 2005)

I completely agree with Lees. When I introduced my wife to archery several years ago, she could not draw anything more than 28# to begin. I had to make her a Frankenbow. She eventually worked up to 40# over a couple of years. Women do not enter compound shooting because they are unable to find a bow that they can start with. There are exceptions, women shooting 50# compounds, but they are few.

Archery will never draw crowds at the Olympics and will never be a money maker. Archery is only allowed in for tradition. Therefore archery will not be expanded to allow compounds because watching compound archery is no more exciting than watching a recurve. Ballroom dancing is a bigger money maker to the Olympic Committee.


----------



## lees (Feb 10, 2017)

Because no one ever pays attention when I say it in these threads, I normally just go ahead and drop this video of Uncle Ted Nugent saying it. Hopefully then at least someone listens. I agree that it's kind of like holding back the Red Sea, but you never know if the right folks will finally wake up to the problem or not:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_lIWsBpGBw&t=236s

lee.


----------



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

huteson2us2 said:


> Archery will never draw crowds at the Olympics and will never be a money maker.


Clearly, you've never been to an Olympic Archery event.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5M4-hB9t3kY

At any rate, some of us are actively working in a positive way to help make a compound Olympic event a reality, because without an effort, the result will be a foregone conclusion.

Nothing worthwhile happens without effort.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

lees said:


> Because no one ever pays attention when I say it in these threads, I normally just go ahead and drop this video of Uncle Ted Nugent saying it. Hopefully then at least someone listens. I agree that it's kind of like holding back the Red Sea, but you never know if the right folks will finally wake up to the problem or not:
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_lIWsBpGBw&t=236s
> 
> lee.


Lee that might just be the first thing I've ever agreed with Ted on. LOL He is absolutely right.



> At any rate, some of us are actively working in a positive way to help make a compound Olympic event a reality, because without an effort, the result will be a foregone conclusion.


I hope everyone working to include compounds in the Olympics are successful. It should be in. It is the future of the sport. Just don't cry too hard when nobody is shooting the Olympic recurve anymore. If compounds get in, you're going to hear a giant sucking sound in 
Olympic recurve sales. Parents and kids who learn they can shoot compounds and still make an Olympic team will never bother having to learn all the skills required to shoot a recurve. Not in this country anyway.


----------



## lees (Feb 10, 2017)

limbwalker said:


> Lee that might just be the first thing I've ever agreed with Ted on. LOL He is absolutely right.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Speaking for myself, I will say that the "barrier for entry" on the compound is significantly lower than for the oly recurve. In fact, hugely lower. The only real problem that needs to be solved is the overbowed issue I just mentioned, and then you could argue that it's smooth sailing more or less for the compound to take over the whole kit and kaboodle. 

Not to diminish the fact that the compound eventually does turn on you like a dog that suddenly decides not to take you kicking him anymore, when you get to the higher levels. It definitely does and does so somewhere around the time you're keeping them all in the gold on purpose and not really shooting 8's anymore. Further work at increased accuracy after that, I argue, really is an athletic trial, though probably more mastering the art of holding still and managing your nerve and mental game without just absolutely going mad and ending up in the insane asylum. 

But I do think it'll allow more depth in the overall population of archers, simply because the compound is far more versatile in terms of being able to accommodate varying anatomies and so forth. And us old guys who can't do a finger release at all will have more of a chance to actually participate . 

That said, I don't like the prospect of the oly recurve diminishing or going away though. I hope that doesn't happen and it keeps its status in olympic competition. Maybe a way will be found to keep them together without the recurve going away...

I'm going to keep shooting mine and in fact will continue to just shoot both types. The compound will be when I want to hit something, though. The recurve is the one that gives the really divine shot in the rare event I pull through and release correctly. I've done it a couple times and it's a feeling I wouldn't trade for the world, even amongst all the many 1000's of horrible shots I've made...

lee.


----------



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

lees said:


> That said, I don't like the prospect of the oly recurve diminishing or going away though. I hope that doesn't happen and it keeps its status in olympic competition. Maybe a way will be found to keep them together without the recurve going away...
> 
> 
> lee.


Indoor volleyball actually grew after beach volleyball was accepted into the Games. It’s a reasonable analogy. If you read the article, it makes it clear that the only way compound would be advanced as a round would be in addition to recurve, not at its expense.


----------



## lees (Feb 10, 2017)

>--gt--> said:


> Indoor volleyball actually grew after beach volleyball was accepted into the Games. It’s a reasonable analogy. If you read the article, it makes it clear that the only way compound would be advanced as a round would be in addition to recurve, not at its expense.


Yep and I sure hope so. It could be with two game types, instead of just one, that might perk up spectator attention and improve the attitude towards archery generally. With two bows in, it might look more like a sport to be "taken seriously" and improve participation and viewership for both bows....

lee.


----------



## target1 (Jan 16, 2007)

I think it would be interesting if they had to shoot both. one round compound next round recurve thn combine scores.


----------



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

target1 said:


> I think it would be interesting if they had to shoot both. one round compound next round recurve while riding on laser equipped sharks.


There, fixed it for you to reflect even greater practicality.


----------



## OneHandClapping (Aug 15, 2019)

If I had my way, the Olympics would feature both barebow and compound. Barebow, because it is far closer to most people’s idea of traditional archery and Robin Hood, and is more relatable for the general public. Compound, because that’s what most hunters use and is such a big market compared to other forms of archery.

Oly recurve is neither fish nor foul, looks weird and alien to the public, and might not even exist but for the olympics. 

But to paraphrase the Big Lebowski, that’s just like my opinion, man.


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

OneHandClapping said:


> Oly recurve is neither fish nor foul, looks weird and alien to the public, and might not even exist but for the olympics.


You mean, like luge, rhythmic gymnastics, bobsled, modern pentathlon, discus, race walking, synchronized swimming, synchronized diving, skeleton, ski jumping, butterfly stroke, biathlon, breast stroke, javelin, hammer throw, shotput, dressage, and a whole bunch of other sports that nobody would do unless they were in the Olympics?

Of course "Oly recurve" would not exist without the Olympics. If it wasn't an Olympic sport it would be called what everyone called it before 1972 - "freestyle".

That's just, like, my opinion, man.


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

OneHandClapping said:


> If I had my way, the Olympics would feature both barebow and compound. Barebow, because it is far closer to most people’s idea of traditional archery and Robin Hood, and is more relatable for the general public. Compound, because that’s what most hunters use and is such a big market compared to other forms of archery.
> 
> Oly recurve is neither fish nor foul, looks weird and alien to the public, and might not even exist but for the olympics.
> 
> But to paraphrase the Big Lebowski, that’s just like my opinion, man.


Totally agree. Nobody would shoot FSR if not for the Olympics. We would see a few more compounds and a lot more barebow.


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

I agree with Limbwalker on this matter. The danger of pushing compounds into the Olympics, is that it could very well be the deathknell of OR archery, at least here in the USA. At this time there is no doubt that compound archery has supplanted OR archery in the USA as THE archery discipline, and if it wasn't for USA Archery and the desire to have the USA represented in the Olympics in archery, OR archery would no longer exist in the USA. 

IMO most of the best archery talent is already choosing the compound over the recurve in the USA, because there is a better chance of earning a living shooting a compound than shooting a recurve. Sadly, a chance at Olympic glory is the only thing that may entice some of that archery talent to pick up the recurve. If it gets to the point were an archer can have the opportunity to make a living AND go to the Olympics with a compound they are going to choose compound 10 times out of 10. It is simple as that. The USA will no longer even sniff a podium in OR archery on an international level it is simple as that. USA Archery just will not have the ability to entice the archery talent away from their compound bow.

I do find this as a sad development, because I don't even think it can be argued against, that OR is the hardest and most challenging discipline of archery there is, and requires the most athleticism. You want proof of this? Look at the difference in scores between the under 50 class and the over 50 classes in each discipline. There is just no comparison. Hell just look at the National records for men in the USA for example:

Compound Indoor Senior Record is 599 and the master record is 595, a 4 point difference. OR Indoor senior record 599 and the master record is 582 a 17 point difference. 

Compound outdoor senior record is 718 and the master record is 706, both at 50m, a 12 point difference. OR outdoor senior record 697 at 70m master record 655 at 60m, a 42 point difference and a 10m difference in target distance! There has never been a master OR to break 1300. Let that sink in for a minute.

In my opinion, the disparity in scores shows the difference in the amount of athleticism required for both disciplines.

People may argue that winning in compound requires more mental fortitude because you are shooting not to miss, which is just plain BS, because when you get to the level of an elite OR archer you are also shooting not to miss. And when you have two archers close to the same skill level, the one with the best mental game will win 9 times out of 10 no matter what you are shooting.


----------



## lees (Feb 10, 2017)

erose said:


> People may argue that winning in compound requires more mental fortitude because you are shooting not to miss, which is just plain BS, because when you get to the level of an elite OR archer you are also shooting not to miss. And when you have two archers close to the same skill level, the one with the best mental game will win 9 times out of 10 no matter what you are shooting.


I almost agree, but there are differences that somewhat level that playing field too. 

As a general principle too, you have to keep in mind that everyone else in your division has the same equipment advantages the compound brings with it, along with the disadvantages, that you do. All of your competitors are also shooting the most advanced equipment money can buy, etc., just like you are. Unless they're just poorer or have made equipment choice mistakes, etc., you're no better off against your competitors with a compound/release aid than you are with olympic recurve. 

Also, the greater depth just in terms of sheer numbers of shooters that can shoot at such-and-such a level adds to your task of beating them.

Finally, there are other logistics you can adjust to level the playing field too. For example, compounds shoot at smaller targets and use cumulative scoring to decide matches. Bizarrely, for WA competition, they shoot at 50m rather than 70m - go figure -, but shooting to not miss can be made as hard as you want it to by adjusting these parameters. Maybe for the olympics you could put the compounds at 70m too, and still give them the 80cm target. And keep cumulative scoring and so forth. 

There are all kinds of ways to make shooting a compound bow harder too and in all the different ways you can think of.

So while I'm sympathetic to the argument that the compound is "easier", well, it's actually not if you want to get to an elite level. Last I shot compound, I was an about a 295 level shooter on a Vegas face, but I was just as far, or at least negligibly further ahead, from being competitive, even in masters, as I currently am on the olympic recurve. Where my task there is still just repeating a shot period more than 3 times and getting them on the bale at 20 yards.

Seriously: once we start getting them in the gold on the compound, we can start thinking we're pretty hot stuff. Until we look at what the competition is really like on the compound.... and that idea very quickly falls away and we realize we still have our work cut out for us.....

lee.


----------



## Mahly (Dec 18, 2002)

I would suggest that if compound archery has supplanted OR archery in the USA as THE archery discipline, then we should be fighting to add it to the olympics.
Yes, the the raw scores for compound are closer between the younger and senior archers, but compound normally gets higher scores. missing a couple points moves you from the winners circle to also ran status. And of course, holding a recurve is going to be harder than holding a compound, but they are different disciplines. 
There is clearly room for both sports. I wouldn't suggest making the compound games longer in distance, if no one has shot a perfect game yet, there is no need....plus shoot offs are exciting.
I would also add the mixed couples, and 3 person team events. Those can be much more engaging for new and experienced viewers alike.


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

lees said:


> I almost agree, but there are differences that somewhat level that playing field too.
> 
> As a general principle too, you have to keep in mind that everyone else in your division has the same equipment advantages the compound brings with it, along with the disadvantages, that you do. All of your competitors are also shooting the most advanced equipment money can buy, etc., just like you are. Unless they're just poorer or have made equipment choice mistakes, etc., you're no better off against your competitors with a compound/release aid than you are with olympic recurve.
> 
> ...


My point isn't that winning in the compound division is easier than the OR division, in this country it isn't, because like you said the depth of talent in that division. Brady Ellison and Casey Kaufhold really don't face true competition until they go overseas, where here in the USA every National tournament for the compound division is a dogfight. But again that is due to the depth of the division here in the USA, since the compound division is THE division. 

My point is that the level of athleticism required to shoot at an elite level in OR division is much greater than the CP division, and the significant dropoff in performance level with age, IMO proves that. OR is just a much more physically demanding sport to excel in; and a much more difficult sport to reach an elite level. Shooting a 290 indoor score with a recurve is a whole hell harder task than shooting a 300 with a compound bow for example. The numbers show this to be the case. 

I do do believe if compound enters the Olympics, it won't kill OR worldwide; but here in the USA it will. And the USA may be a force in the compound division, which they already are normally; but you will never see another American standing on the podium for an Olympic Recurve International event ever again, except for Casey, after Ellison hangs up his bow.


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

Mahly said:


> I would suggest that if compound archery has supplanted OR archery in the USA as THE archery discipline, then we should be fighting to add it to the olympics.


 If you are a compound archer...yeah fight for it. Me as a OR archer, no I don't want to see it, because it will eventually force me to either change equipment or leave the sport, which I would probably leave, since for me compound bows are so boring to shoot.




Mahly said:


> Yes, the the raw scores for compound are closer between the younger and senior archers, but compound normally gets higher scores. missing a couple points moves you from the winners circle to also ran status. And of course, holding a recurve is going to be harder than holding a compound, but they are different disciplines.


 They are closer because personal athleticism, which declines with age, is not a factor when shooting compound bows, since these bows are just a better machine than a recurve setup. The scores are higher because of the equipment, not the archers skill level. Don't get me wrong I'm as impressed as anyone to see the level of shooting coming from our elite compound shooters, but no less impressed when I see a rifle target shooters hit with the accuracy they do. 



Mahly said:


> There is clearly room for both sports. I wouldn't suggest making the compound games longer in distance, if no one has shot a perfect game yet, there is no need....plus shoot offs are exciting.


 Well that is the thing WA has been fighting. Right now there isn't room for two disciplines, and WA is trying to get the IOC to double the number of slots to add compound. There is already elimination rounds and they can be pretty intense.



Mahly said:


> I would also add the mixed couples, and 3 person team events. Those can be much more engaging for new and experienced viewers alike.


 Team rounds is already part of the Olympic games, and in Tokyo mixed rounds are being added. So these you already have.


----------



## lees (Feb 10, 2017)

erose said:


> My point isn't that winning in the compound division is easier than the OR division, in this country it isn't, because like you said the depth of talent in that division. Brady Ellison and Casey Kaufhold really don't face true competition until they go overseas, where here in the USA every National tournament for the compound division is a dogfight. But again that is due to the depth of the division here in the USA, since the compound division is THE division.
> 
> My point is that the level of athleticism required to shoot at an elite level in OR division is much greater than the CP division, and the significant dropoff in performance level with age, IMO proves that. OR is just a much more physically demanding sport to excel in; and a much more difficult sport to reach an elite level. Shooting a 290 indoor score with a recurve is a whole hell harder task than shooting a 300 with a compound bow for example. The numbers show this to be the case.
> 
> I do do believe if compound enters the Olympics, it won't kill OR worldwide; but here in the USA it will. And the USA may be a force in the compound division, which they already are normally; but you will never see another American standing on the podium for an Olympic Recurve International event ever again, except for Casey, after Ellison hangs up his bow.


I definitely agree with this and having said what I said, sadly I think you may be right about oly going away here in the US. In fact, and I hate to say things like this, ironically the situation with bow selection that I and Uncle Ted complained about earlier,  , could be a factor in why oly hasn't gone even further down. Especially among younger and beginning shooters who would ordinarily be the best candidates for going to the oly bow. Probably more than we would think may go recurve simply because they can't find a shootable bow at their age/strength level. Some probably get hooked but a lot probably give it up and revisit compound once they're strong enough to shoot the typical shoulder-crusher on the rack at their shops.

Old weak guys with no talent and no athleticism like myself are lost causes for olympic style - we're supposed to go Out To Pasture and switch to compound - but I wouldn't be surprised if the situation gets worse if Hoyt/Easton/whoever gets their act together and gets serious about attracting women and younger shooters to the sport with new, full lines of shootable bows with 40lb limbs and still top quality, etc.

Like I said, I'm going to keep on struggling with olympic style since I'll probably always be chasing that divine perfect release which is such an elixer-like drug with recurve/fingers. when I want to hit the paper, I have no choice but to shoot the compound, so that's what I have to do if I'm killing targets.

If I had no interest in ever shooting a tournament again, I'd just shoot my olympic bow with a d-loop and my Like Mike. I've done that a lot lately and it works surprisingly well. If I really put some devotion into it, I could probably shoot some pretty decent scores with it.... But alas, recurve/release-aid is barred everywhere except the open classes, to my knowledge....

lee.


----------

