# Would Brady's 900 happened if...



## GoldArcher403 (Jun 25, 2014)

Personally, I dont think they should be (with the exception for para-archers), and for many reasons. 

Compound is a saturated discipline. Way more people do it than recurve, the competition is incredibly tight, and the ability to be a "good" compound shooter is a lot more obtainable than it is with recurve. I could be wrong, but if compound was allowed in the Olympics, I feel recurve would shrink to much smaller husk of itself and become an even more niche discipline than what it already is. Recurve is hard to be good at, and its the hope for Olympic glory that continues to fuel our side of the sport I believe. Open the flood gates and allow the compounders in and whats keeping anyone in recurve? Shooting a 290+ indoors and 660+ outdoors on recurve is extraordinary, but scores like that is child's play for compound, in fact, its almost expected you have to shoot like that to be competitive. Ive watched many JOAD kids in my area drop recurve because they thought it was too difficult, and then pick up compound and suddenly have a massive confidence boost because they shoot a 290 within their first month of switching. With the possibility of reaching top level scores, and possibly an Olympic gold medal, much faster in compound than they could with recurve dangling in people's faces like a carrot, what is there to keep anyone in recurve?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

rjbishop said:


> Compound is a saturated discipline. Way more people do it than recurve, the competition is incredibly tight


You just made a very compelling argument why compounds should be included in the Olympics. And I don't disagree necessarily with what else you wrote (except to say it takes an equal amount of skill/talent/effort to be equally "good" with any discipline), but whether compounds should be in the Olympics is not at all what this thread is about.

This is about what might have happened if Brady had the option to continue to the Olympic games after his jr. world championship win in compound, and the resulting affect that would have had on what we now know as USArchery. I know I'm not the only one who's thought of this, and I'm sure Rod Menzer is keenly aware and planning for that eventuality.


----------



## fango0000 (Mar 16, 2011)

limbwalker said:


> ... if compounds were allowed in the Olympics in 2008?
> 
> I think it's an important question for USArchery to consider.
> 
> Once compounds enter the Olympic games, I see a lot of US talent going that direction. Brady was a compund jr. world champion. Jake came over from compound. So did Crystal. And what about Mackenzie? Would she have chosen recurve? It's food for thought.


If Brady stayed with compound, he could also make more money with the giant prize pools that compounds have :darkbeer:


----------



## Boomer2094 (Aug 12, 2016)

Lol, Always liked a good case of ".....what if....?"

I'm glad that Brady choose Olympic Recurve... It really give aspiring US OR archers something to work toward. Even if he would stay with Compounds and competed in the Olympics, he might even medal in the event! Considering how hard he works at his shot, I wouldn't be surprised if he would turn out to be a legendary compound archer as well.

The time has certainly changed, big money wasn't available for the compound shooters back in the days, and being in Olympic (medal or not) would bring fame and potential fortune (coaching/sponsor deals) so I can see why many young compound archer switch to OR with hope to one day be in the world stage. 

Now, things has changed in the United States; with 3D (ASA/IBO) become more popular and sponsor money starts to pour in, Compound archers now have a chance to make a decent living. The rest of world, however, OR is still the thing people think about when you mention archery to them. Although that may change if/when they allow Compound Archery to be in the Olympics.

I'm eager to see Compound in the Olympic, I hope it happens.

Boomer


----------



## vito9999 (Jun 30, 2009)

3d compound as an Olympic Sport would add to sport recognition. Leave it at that and it's an expansion and not a hindrance.


----------



## txarcher5 (Jan 8, 2018)

Brady is going to win Vegas 2021 with a Compound :wink:


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

fango0000 said:


> If Brady stayed with compound, he could also make more money with the giant prize pools that compounds have :darkbeer:


I'm not sure that's true. You're forgetting the sponsorship checks that we never see.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Lotta folks missing the real question here.


----------



## stick monkey (Mar 9, 2015)

He might be one of a couple hundred truly great compound shooters... it's speculation at best... every few years someone unheard of wins Vegas ...or Lancaster...no guarantees with compound as the talent pool is so very deep.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

stick monkey said:


> He might be one of a couple hundred truly great compound shooters... it's speculation at best... every few years someone unheard of wins Vegas ...or Lancaster...no guarantees with compound as the talent pool is so very deep.


Every compounder in Vegas this year, was happy as he.. that Brady is shooting recurve.  I'd lay money on that.


----------



## Utdesertfox (Feb 11, 2020)

Great day for Brady and the recurve shooters! Exciting and congratulations to him!!


----------



## caveman1440 (Feb 5, 2020)

Hey everyone, so I know this is kind of off-topic for this thread but I've seen a number of people doing it and I felt I had to say something: "Olympic recurve" is redundant. Most people here (I hope) understand that only recurves are allowed in the Olympics (not to mention the fact that OR also stands for Olympic Round, although I'm not sure if that's still in usage these days). Just say Olympic, or recurve, please! If this changes down the road, then OR would be totally fine...but we're not there yet.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

caveman, there are lots of recurve divisions. Olympic style is just one. That is why it's important to use both terms.


----------



## stick monkey (Mar 9, 2015)

limbwalker said:


> Every compounder in Vegas this year, was happy as he.. that Brady is shooting recurve.  I'd lay money on that.


I'm doubting it. Brady is amazing but it doesn't just transfer over...one skill isn't the same as the other.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

limbwalker said:


> ... if compounds were allowed in the Olympics in 2008?
> 
> I think it's an important question for USArchery to consider.
> 
> Once compounds enter the Olympic games, I see a lot of US talent going that direction. Brady was a compund jr. world champion. Jake came over from compound. So did Crystal. And what about Mackenzie? Would she have chosen recurve? It's food for thought.


My answer to your question is "no, Brady's 900 would have never happened". My 'what if' is if Brady had still come over to recurve in 2007 for the challenge of it (but then, if compound was already in the Olys by then, why wouldn't he just keep on the compound path?), and won his silver Oly team medal in 2012, the significant finger troubles he endured for several years until a year or so ago would have made him sorely (pun intended) tempted to switch to compound, relieve his daily agonizing shooting fingers, and been the first archer to Oly medal in recurve and compound. 

I'm so glad that he has been forced by circumstances to build one of the greatest RECURVE careers in history. It's been a delight to follow and watch.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

stick monkey said:


> I'm doubting it. Brady is amazing but it doesn't just transfer over...one skill isn't the same as the other.


Okay, you're entitled to your opinion.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

lksseven said:


> I'm so glad that he has been forced by circumstances to build one of the greatest RECURVE careers in history. It's been a delight to follow and watch.


Agreed, and I would include Butch in that statement since he shot professionally in compound and switched to recurve because of the Olympics.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

limbwalker said:


> Agreed, and I would include Butch in that statement since he shot professionally in compound and switched to recurve because of the Olympics.


Ahh! I did not know that about Butch. Kudos to him!


----------



## Huntinsker (Feb 9, 2012)

It may not have happened with Brady doing it but that doesn't mean that another recurve athlete might not do it. It's like any other discipline within other sports. Just because marathon became an Olympic event, people didn't completely quit the long distance track events. It might be different athletes, it may take a bit for the quality of athletes to climb back up but they likely will. There are still world level power tumblers even though gymnastics gets more press. As long as there's the option, someone will dream of being a recurve archery Olympian.


----------



## Draven Olary (Jun 12, 2016)

I think you are right. If compound was an olympic discipline Brady wouldn’t have changed for recurve.


----------



## pbdollar (May 1, 2005)

lksseven said:


> Ahh! I did not know that about Butch. Kudos to him!


Richard "Butch" Johnson, excellence and longevity personified. The following info came from the book "Professional Archery Tournaments 1940-1993" by Robert Rhode. While shot with a compound the "Limited" in the titles means with fingers and the Tropicana Indoor is now usually referred to as simply Vegas.
1987-89-90-91-92-93 P.A.A. National Indoor Limited Champion
1989-90-93 P.A.A. National Outdoor Limited Champion
1989-90-92-93 N.F.A.A. National Indoor Limited Champion
1984-88-90-91-93 N.F.A.A. National Outdoor Champion
1983-84-85-87-88-89-90-91-93 Atlantic City Limited Champion
1990-91 Tropicana Limited Champion
1992-93 P.A.A. Limited Grand Champion


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Draven Olary said:


> I think you are right. If compound was an olympic discipline Brady wouldn’t have changed for recurve.


Someone gets it.

Wow this thread brought out some interesting replies.


----------



## tactic (Jan 11, 2020)

interesting question


----------



## fango0000 (Mar 16, 2011)

limbwalker said:


> I'm not sure that's true. You're forgetting the sponsorship checks that we never see.


Who knows, maybe Brady would be equally or more famous with a compound :darkbeer:


----------



## "TheBlindArcher" (Jan 27, 2015)

Truly difficult to say; has Brady ever said he switched because of the Olympics? Think Crystal has said this on more than one occasion as one of her motivations for the switch, and while I don't catch many of Brady's interviews I've never heard it mentioned. 

There are several shooters at our club who shoot both, but when leagues fire up on Sundays they've got the recurves or trad bows out; Perhaps Brady's interest isn't solely the Olympics but that he enjoys the discipline. 

So to answer the question, if the Olympics was a significant driving factor in the descision then probably not, not yet anywaybut the lure of holding such a record may eventually drive someone to do it. If his motivation is more about the joy of the bow, then I think yes it still would have happened just as it did.


----------



## bobnikon (Jun 10, 2012)

limbwalker said:


> I'm not sure that's true. You're forgetting the sponsorship checks that we never see.


I have to think it is a big fish in a small pond in this case. 

If he had stayed in compound, he probably would have been good, maybe even great, but quite possibly not extraordinary. Just too many that "get it" where compound is concerned. Whereas in Oly he has that something special and only a few others can stand with him. So, he can reap the rewards of the few sponsorship dollars out there in Oly, and maybe/maybe not be able to eek out a living in compound. It really is just a bunch of conjecture, because the sport isn't transparent with its money. 

If it was purely about prize purse *AND *(big and there) he had the same potential in compound, I doubt the Olympics would have been enough to make (and maintain) the switch. If compound was in the Olympics *AND *(big and still there) he had the same capacity in compound, then why would you make the switch, with the chance to earn the compound bucks and an Olympic medal...???

So, without him stating his reasons, the best we can do is make a bunch of guesses.

For me, I still believe the Olympics should be the amateur sport ultimate venue. But that ship has long sailed, and in many cases was corrupted anyway by "semi-pro" national teams.


----------



## Gregjlongbow (Jun 15, 2016)

I definitely say no he wouldn’t be shooting recurve the way he is now. So no 900. 

I think he’d be a pro compounder and shoot recurve on the side. I recall an interview from 2014 or something like that where he said he prefers to shoot compound and enjoys it more, but shoots recurve because of the Olympics. I’ll see if I can dig up the video. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## lees (Feb 10, 2017)

limbwalker said:


> ... if compounds were allowed in the Olympics in 2008?
> 
> I think it's an important question for USArchery to consider.
> 
> Once compounds enter the Olympic games, I see a lot of US talent going that direction. Brady was a compund jr. world champion. Jake came over from compound. So did Crystal. And what about Mackenzie? Would she have chosen recurve? It's food for thought.


Interesting thought, but it kind of brings up other questions for me, that I also think are legitimate:

- was Brady E's success driven merely by the type of bow he shot? There's a suggestion here that maybe he wouldn't have achieved an equivalent goal on the compound bow if that's the bow type he chose. Would his accomplishments have been more reduce if he'd stayed on compound? Did Brady E. make the bow or did the bow make Brady E.?

- are major accomplishments on the compound tapped out? Meaning, is it truly a "saturated discipline": has it "all been done" on the compound bow and there's no goal left like a clean 900 like there was on the recurve? Is it finally "too easy" to shoot it well and have we run out of accomplishments we can make on that bow? I have my own opinions on this, but I'm not criticizing the suggestion. I think it's a legitimate thing to wonder about.

- would the compound's addition to the olympics change this situation? The olympics is now the only forum left on the planet where the compound is disallowed to my knowledge. Everywhere else and in every other form of target archery the compound has achieved first-class citizen status. You can become a celebrity on the compound bow now and even make a pretty decent pile of cash. Would the olympics finally allowing it in even be noticed? Seriously, there's probably a demographic within the compound that wouldn't really care that it's now one of the olympic bows. Again, I have my own views on that, but I think this is a legitimate thing to think about also.

Anyway, I think this is a great question but it only brings up more questions for me and not really any solid answers. But definitely good food for thought....

lee.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

I believe we'll see a talent drain, with a coaching drain to follow, on the recurve side in the U.S., once the compound is allowed in the Olympic games. Solely because American archers are overwhelmingly more familiar with compound archery, and have more of an appetite for gear and precision accuracy than they do simplicity and the "art" of archery.

Those more interested in the "art" of archery will choose barebow because it checks that box better.


----------



## lees (Feb 10, 2017)

limbwalker said:


> Lotta folks missing the real question here.


I agree with the other folks; this isn’t a question we can really answer. Even Brady Ellison himself would have to speculate, really, because that’s not the path he actually took.

I do think at this juncture that it follows to ask questions we really can answer, like is compound too easy and just for slackers (just kidding! Just kidding!) and what affect would it have on the Olympic recurve and so on.

My thoughts in a nutshell:
- the easiest thing on earth to do is make shooting a bow and arrow harder. C’mon fellers.... If the compound is truly saturated at 18 and 50m, well just move the damn bale further out. Or make the target smaller. Make em shoot more arrows, change the scoring, put limits on the equipment. It ain’t rocket science, here. No, the compound isn’t tapped out. We are, not the bow.

- will adding the compound to the Olympics change life on the recurve bow? It depends on what its state of health is already. It takes a lot of damage to kill a big healthy animal, but only a little rat poison will take out something already on its last leg. 
We can debate the health of the Olympic bow and make predictions about what this would do to it here. I have no opinion on it, as I don’t keep track of the Olympic bow well enough to say.

- would it change the way I approach the compound bow? Personally yes. Its journey into first-class citizenship would be complete, and I’d probably feel a little more kinship with the athletes who blood sweat and tears their way into their accomplishments in the olympics. 

- would it stop my struggles with my Olympic bow? No. I’m too stupid to quit, not because it has anything to do with Olympic competition.

Anyway my thoughts.....

Lee


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

I think the question needs to be asked, which is: "Why did Mr. Ellison transition into OR?" Was it just for a chance to go to the Olympics, or did he make the move because of something else? We shouldn't just assume that the intention of an archer to shoot OR is just the Olympics, especially considering that it only comes around every 4 years.

I wish someone in an interview would ask Brady straight up why he transitioned into OR. Was it just for the opportunity to shoot in the Olympics, or was there other reasons?

Here is a fact: What Brady did in Vegas, was by far the greatest accomplishment of any archer in Vegas probably ever. And it is damn right sad, that Brady won't get the full recognition for one of the greatest accomplishments ever in Vegas, because he isn't shooting a compound bow. And whenever someone asks in the future or even now who won Vegas in 2020, it isn't Brady's name in the answer.


----------



## lees (Feb 10, 2017)

limbwalker said:


> I believe we'll see a talent drain, with a coaching drain to follow, on the recurve side in the U.S., once the compound is allowed in the Olympic games. Solely because American archers are overwhelmingly more familiar with compound archery, and have more of an appetite for gear and precision accuracy than they do simplicity and the "art" of archery.
> 
> Those more interested in the "art" of archery will choose barebow because it checks that box better.


I know this won’t be very consoling, but the recurve won’t lose me. I can’t execute a shot correctly more than twice in a row yet, but the challenge of just that is what keeps it jumping into my hand. My new compound is already sitting on its stand for longer periods of time, but the recurve stays in the truck for some reason. One day I’ll figure out how to repeat a shot more than 3 times in a row.

I’d try barebow but I can’t command-shoot, due to many decades of target panic. If a clicker were allowed, I’d give it a try tho.....

Lee


----------



## lcaillo (Jan 5, 2014)

I think if they added compounds to the olympics and kept recurve, it would only help recurve archery. If they added compound and eliminated recurve it would kill it. Whether Brady would have changed is a question for him personally, but I think having both would help archery overall.


----------



## Rick McKinney (Mar 4, 2008)

John, I would speculate that Levi Morgan would not have been as big a name if Brady had been able to stay compound.....


----------



## Rick McKinney (Mar 4, 2008)

Vic Wunderle won many IBO titles with a compound before he switched over to recurve.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

lees said:


> I know this won’t be very consoling, but the recurve won’t lose me. I can’t execute a shot correctly more than twice in a row yet, but the challenge of just that is what keeps it jumping into my hand. My new compound is already sitting on its stand for longer periods of time, but the recurve stays in the truck for some reason. One day I’ll figure out how to repeat a shot more than 3 times in a row.
> 
> I’d try barebow but I can’t command-shoot, due to many decades of target panic. If a clicker were allowed, I’d give it a try tho.....
> 
> Lee


Hey, it won't lose me either but the choices of the aging archers are of less consequence to USArchery every day. LOL

I'm looking at the future of the Olympic recurve in the sport, and I think we can look back at several former compound archers - Brady in particular - and make some observations based on the impact he's had on Olympic recurve in the U.S. that might help us forecast the future. 

Said another way, if Brady had stayed with the compound, imagine for a moment how different the Olympic recurve landscape would have been in the U.S. for the past 14 years. His choice may well have sustained O.R. in the U.S. for a good 20+ years. How many kids saw his performance in Vegas this year, and will be interested in the Olympic bow now? 

Surely this is speculation, but part of planning for the future is looking back and seeing what got you where you are now.


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

Concerning my opinions on compounds in Olympics, in all honesty I hope it never happens period. Why? Because IMO there needs to be some physical as well as mental athleticism to an Olympic sport. Granted the Olympics have recently been saturated by some sports that call that in question, but physical athleticism should be considered. Compound, and for that matter barebow, archery doesn't require as much physical athleticism that olympic recurve requires to reach the elite levels of the sport. You want proof of this, all you have to do is look at the difference in scores between the under 50 divisions and the over 50 divisions. There is just not a huge difference between the scores of compound and barebow archers when you compare the under 50 to the over 50. When it comes to OR...well there is a huge difference, and the reason for that is the physical athleticism difference between the under 50 and over 50 crowds. Just an example there has never been a master archer to break 1300, ever. Think about that just for a second.

If compound archery entered the Olympics, I don't think it would kill OR at least internationally. The world outside the USA still considers recurve archery as the elite form of archery. But I think it would kill it in the USA which considers compound archery as the elite form of archery. It is hard enough as it is for USA Archery to attract young archers into OR and keep them there, and if you take away the bait of "Olympic glory can be found only here!". You will never attract enough talent. The fact would be that after Brady retires, outside of Casey the USA will never sniff a podium on the international level again if everything stays the same. The fact is right now, USA Archery is already having a hard enough time as is finding and keeping archers in OR that could help Brady and Casey bring home some medals. 

It is simple as this, compound archery is king in the USA, thanks primarily to hunting, NFAA and 3D. OR archery outside of National USAA tournaments is seen as a fringe discipline, that probably most compound archers view as made up of archers not good enough to compete with the big boys. Until that view changes, it is what it is; and compounds in the Olympics would make OR archery a fringe discipline even in USAA National tournaments.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Rick McKinney said:


> John, I would speculate that Levi Morgan would not have been as big a name if Brady had been able to stay compound.....


I agree with your reasoning, although Levi is probably as well known for his hunting show as his target archery. But it's not hard to imagine Brady dominating compound the same way he has recurve.


----------



## Rick McKinney (Mar 4, 2008)

The fastest growing part of our sport right now is recreational archery. That's part of the reason we are seeing barebow grow. I don't believe that Olympic recurve will drop off as long as it is one of the disciplines in the Olympics. If it is taken out, then you would see it go by the wayside like barebow archery.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Again, whether Brady would have switched is not the question or point of this thread. I think some folks are getting distracted by that. 

The question is, where would O.R. be in the U.S. without him (not hard to imagine really) and whether that is an inevitable outcome once compounds are in the Olympics.


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

limbwalker said:


> Again, whether Brady would have switched is not the question or point of this thread. I think some folks are getting distracted by that.
> 
> The question is, where would O.R. be in the U.S. without him (not hard to imagine really) and whether that is an inevitable outcome once compounds are in the Olympics.


Well, we probably would have a different Olympic archery coach by now.


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

limbwalker said:


> Again, whether Brady would have switched is not the question or point of this thread. I think some folks are getting distracted by that.
> 
> The question is, where would O.R. be in the U.S. without him (not hard to imagine really) and whether that is an inevitable outcome once compounds are in the Olympics.


Also to be honest how the OP was written, one could take it that was the question of the OP.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

erose said:


> Also to be honest how the OP was written, one could take it that was the question of the OP.


Fair enough. I didn't put my thoughts together clearly enough.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

erose said:


> Concerning my opinions on compounds in Olympics, in all honesty I hope it never happens period. Why? Because IMO there needs to be some physical as well as mental athleticism to an Olympic sport. Granted the Olympics have recently been saturated by some sports that call that in question, but physical athleticism should be considered. Compound, and for that matter barebow, archery doesn't require as much physical athleticism that olympic recurve requires to reach the elite levels of the sport. You want proof of this, all you have to do is look at the difference in scores between the under 50 divisions and the over 50 divisions. There is just not a huge difference between the scores of compound and barebow archers when you compare the under 50 to the over 50. When it comes to OR...well there is a huge difference, and the reason for that is the physical athleticism difference between the under 50 and over 50 crowds. Just an example there has never been a master archer to break 1300, ever. Think about that just for a second.
> 
> If compound archery entered the Olympics, I don't think it would kill OR at least internationally. The world outside the USA still considers recurve archery as the elite form of archery. But I think it would kill it in the USA which considers compound archery as the elite form of archery. It is hard enough as it is for USA Archery to attract young archers into OR and keep them there, and if you take away the bait of "Olympic glory can be found only here!". You will never attract enough talent. The fact would be that after Brady retires, outside of Casey the USA will never sniff a podium on the international level again if everything stays the same. The fact is right now, USA Archery is already having a hard enough time as is finding and keeping archers in OR that could help Brady and Casey bring home some medals.
> 
> It is simple as this, compound archery is king in the USA, thanks primarily to hunting, NFAA and 3D. OR archery outside of National USAA tournaments is seen as a fringe discipline, that probably most compound archers view as made up of archers not good enough to compete with the big boys. Until that view changes, it is what it is; and compounds in the Olympics would make OR archery a fringe discipline even in USAA National tournaments.


I agree with you that this is likely the predominant view of the majority of compound archers. And laughing at how they couldn't be any more wrong. A top recurve archer trained up and with the requisite strength and body control to hold steady with 45-50lb on the fingers, somehow wouldn't be able to "hang with" the "big boys" who are holding likely no more than 20lb at full draw, fingers twice removed from the string, a minutely sensitive sear trigger, and looking through two sights (at least one amplified) ... yeah, right. 

At age 30, you see lots of top level road racer motorcycle riders transition to successful car racing careers. But never do you see top car racers at age 30 transition to successful (or even unsuccessful) road racing motorcycle careers. 

I would love to see a demonstration event where the top 10 national recurvers and compound shooters trade bows and shoot for scores, and see what the comparative deviations are from their preferred discipline. 

And, no doubt we'd have a different OR national coach by now. 

Sorry for the derail, John.


----------



## stick monkey (Mar 9, 2015)

Okay... I'll bite again... I don't ever see OR ever going away... people start shooting OR who have no expectations of the Olympics... black powder rifles still very much going strong despite rifles with infinite magazine capacity...stick shift in almost every high end cars...not automatic... traditional longbows still being made...shoes with laces still more popular than the easier Velcro closure...or better yet...boots with laces probably still outnumber slip ons... maybe I am still missing the point... the newfound barebow excitement might say that just cause compound is the most popular discipline in archery people are different...not everyone wants to be like everyone else...not everyone wants to do what is popular...Easton archery would probably have more affect as to what might happen to recurve in the US...OR isn't going away and Levi Morgan would still be just as popular.


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

lksseven said:


> I agree with you that this is likely the predominant view of the majority of compound archers. And laughing at how they couldn't be any more wrong. A top recurve archer trained up and with the requisite strength and body control to hold steady with 45-50lb on the fingers, somehow wouldn't be able to "hang with" the "big boys" who are holding likely no more than 20lb at full draw, fingers twice removed from the string, a minutely sensitive sear trigger, and looking through two sights (at least one amplified) ... yeah, right.
> 
> At age 30, you see lots of top level road racer motorcycle riders transition to successful car racing careers. But never do you see top car racers at age 30 transition to successful (or even unsuccessful) road racing motorcycle careers.
> 
> ...


Well let us be honest. The only people that really understand the feat that was accomplished in Vegas are the men and women who shoot OR competitively. What Brady did...well it is absolutely mind boggling what he did. And sadly in 5 years when someone asks who won Vegas, nobody will say Brady Ellison.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

erose said:


> Well let us be honest. The only people that really understand the feat that was accomplished in Vegas are the men and women who shoot OR competitively. What Brady did...well it is absolutely mind boggling what he did. And sadly in 5 years when someone asks who won Vegas, nobody will say Brady Ellison.


Sad, indeed. But how fortunate are we, that we are among the relative few who DO get it and can thrill to the majesty of his performance!


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

erose said:


> Well let us be honest. *The only people that really understand the feat that was accomplished in Vegas are the men and women who shoot OR competitively*. What Brady did...well it is absolutely mind boggling what he did. And sadly in 5 years when someone asks who won Vegas, nobody will say Brady Ellison.


I'm sorry but I don't agree with that statement at all. I wonder how many top compound archers some of you have spent time with. I've spent enough to know they are just as serious, and in some cases (and I won't mention specifics here) more serious than, recurve archers. I came away from my coaching experience at the '07 Turkish Grand Prix event with a whole new respect for our compound teams. 

I also don't agree with the idea that his feat won't be remembered (although that's not exactly what you said). If anything, a crap ton of compound archers will always remember that time Brady Ellison shot a 900 with a recurve, and it may have even motivated some of them to a) shoot their compound better or b) give recurve a try.

As a group, compound archers in the U.S. have the mental edge over recurve archers. You can talk about physical effort all you want, and yes it's critical to being successful with the Olympic recurve, but the top compounders in the U.S. are mentally forged in the fire of intense competition every time they sign up for an event. And it shows when they travel internationally to compete.

Switching gears a little, I forgot to mention earlier that both Reo Wilde and Rod Menzer were recurve RA's at one time, and later went on to become compound world champions.


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

stick monkey said:


> Okay... I'll bite again... I don't ever see OR ever going away... people start shooting OR who have no expectations of the Olympics... black powder rifles still very much going strong despite rifles with infinite magazine capacity...stick shift in almost every high end cars...not automatic... traditional longbows still being made...shoes with laces still more popular than the easier Velcro closure...or better yet...boots with laces probably still outnumber slip ons... maybe I am still missing the point... the newfound barebow excitement might say that just cause compound is the most popular discipline in archery people are different...not everyone wants to be like everyone else...not everyone wants to do what is popular...Easton archery would probably have more affect as to what might happen to recurve in the US...OR isn't going away and Levi Morgan would still be just as popular.


I disagree and here is why. Compound Archery in the USA is THE king of archery in the USA. Barebow (really Trad) is what everyone outside of archery thinks of when they here the word archery. OR exists because it is what is shot in the Olympics. If that goes away, so does OR archery. In the NFAA for example they have divisions that in the past were quite popular. At one time the division FSL was what you had to shoot to be a pro in the NFAA. When they opened a Pro FS division, guess what happened to FSL? It is all but dead, and will be dead once the generation that shot it and is still holding onto it are no longer around to keep it alive. The same goes with the NFAA version of Barebow, and already the BH division has been killed. Just an example of what I'm talking about is this: 

Here are the equipment divisions currently for adults in the NFAA: 
Free Style (FS)
Free Style Limited (FSL)
Bow Hunter Free Style (BHFS)
Bare Bow (BB)
Free Style Limited Recurve (FSLR)
Traditional (TRAD)
Longbow (TRAD-L) added back this past year.
Bare Bow Recurve (BBR) probationary style added the past year.
Crossbow (CXB) 

Okay, here is the youth divisions:
Free Style
Bowhunter Free Style
Free Style Limited Recurve
Bare Bow

See my point here? Even the NFAA knows that there are divisions they offer adults that will not make it past the existing generation, so they don't even offer them to the youth as an option.


----------



## stick monkey (Mar 9, 2015)

I think he's amazing... he's a beast. No doubt, an amazing feat. His accomplishment may be forgotten by most... even before his 900 he's been one of the most recognizable archers in the sport today across all disciplines...I know casual compound shooters that know who he is... he himself will not be forgotten.


----------



## stick monkey (Mar 9, 2015)

erose said:


> I disagree and here is why. Compound Archery in the USA is THE king of archery in the USA. Barebow (really Trad) is what everyone outside of archery thinks of when they here the word archery. OR exists because it is what is shot in the Olympics. If that goes away, so does OR archery. In the NFAA for example they have divisions that in the past were quite popular. At one time the division FSL was what you had to shoot to be a pro in the NFAA. When they opened a Pro FS division, guess what happened to FSL? It is all but dead, and will be dead once the generation that shot it and is still holding onto it are no longer around to keep it alive. The same goes with the NFAA version of Barebow, and already the BH division has been killed. Just an example of what I'm talking about is this:
> 
> Here are the equipment divisions currently for adults in the NFAA:
> Free Style (FS)
> ...


Don't you think that this is more a generational argument... people today want the easy way...I see young people come into my archery shop with no interest in archery... only crossbows. My son was a incredible barebow shooter at 6 years old...I wàs disappointed when he wanted to shoot compound. Maybe it's parents and archers fault for not keeping these things alive...granted compound has the whole hunting world driving it... I am no way lobbying for compound in the Olympics. I think what was said earlier about OR being a much more physically demanding discipline and that the Olympics should stay recurve and I agree.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

limbwalker said:


> Someone gets it.
> 
> Wow this thread brought out some interesting replies.


The late, very great Charlie Pierson told me some interesting things. He was cutting edge in archery right before, during and right after the compound bow became available, and "legal" for hunting and many competitions.

he noted that compounds were both a blessing and a curse for archery range operators such as he and the other major league range in his area-the late Larrell DIck's Primitive weapons Arena (where two world field champions trained (one, Doug Brothers was on the US target team and finished 5th at the 75 worlds, the other, was on the 72 Olympic team).

He stated that before compounds came around, almost all his clients were ARCHERS. They shot leagues in the winter, in the spring, they started shooting field or clout, in the summer they shot outdoor target, and in the fall, they hunted. Recurve archery required constant practice. And his clients, were active at his shop year round. Compounds were different. He stated many compound archers were (he used the analogy because he knew I was a high level skeet competitor) akin to shotgun deer hunters. People who took their bow out in late summer, shot it for a month or so, hunted, and then put it away for the rest of the year, just like a slug shotgun. The compound opened up archery to many many more bow hunters. And he said, in some ways that expanded the talent pool because some of those people-people who never would have shot archery but for the compound, were exposed to it, and some of his good JOAD kids were ones whose parents or siblings were introduced to archery purely for compound hunting reasons. But he also noted that the compound craze-which in the 70s really put a serious beat down on the sale of recurve bows-especially hunting bows, changed the entire environmental for archery ranges and clubs. I think he did note that compound archery expanded the available talent pool, even for recurve target by getting some people "in the door" who would later try recurve


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

limbwalker said:


> I'm sorry but I don't agree with that statement at all. I wonder how many top compound archers some of you have spent time with. I've spent enough to know they are just as serious, and in some cases (and I won't mention specifics here) more serious than, recurve archers. I came away from my coaching experience at the '07 Turkish Grand Prix event with a whole new respect for our compound teams.


I'm not sure how you got that I was belittling compound archers by my statement, but you are way off base on your assumption. I live in Louisiana, and all I shoot with is compound archers. That is all we have here that show up consistently at tournaments, and I respect their game what they have to do to compete on a National level, and some do very well from here. BUT none of them have a full understanding what it requires to be as perfect as Brady Ellison was in Vegas with a recurve bow. Most of them have never shot a bow with their fingers, and if they did it was with a Genesis bow when they were kids (if they are young enough) or a long bow in the BoyScouts. Some of the old timers do, because they predate releases, but if you have never shot without a release you just wouldn't understand IMO. That is all I'm saying.



limbwalker said:


> I also don't agree with the idea that his feat won't be remembered (although that's not exactly what you said). If anything, a crap ton of compound archers will always remember that time Brady Ellison shot a 900 with a recurve, and it may have even motivated some of them to a) shoot their compound better or b) give recurve a try.


 I didn't say he won't be remembered. I asked in 5 years when someone asks who won Vegas, the answer will never be Brady Ellison. The answer will be and always will be Kyle Douglas. 

Also I don't think what Brady did will impact any compound shooter. They see what he did, just how I see someone break a World record in pole vaulting. Interesting and impressive, but it ain't going to convince me to pick up a pole and try it myself.



limbwalker said:


> As a group, compound archers in the U.S. have the mental edge over recurve archers. You can talk about physical effort all you want, and yes it's critical to being successful with the Olympic recurve, but the top compounders in the U.S. are mentally forged in the fire of intense competition every time they sign up for an event. And it shows when they travel internationally to compete.


 And why is this? Because the group is so deep. It doesn't matter where you shoot, the compound pool is so deep it is going to be a battle. The OR community isn't deep enough here for that. Heck that is why Korea as a nation is so good, because it is harder to make the National team than it is to win Internationally. That is the same here when it comes to compound. More than one compound archer I follow has stated the same thing, that it is harder to make the USA Compound National Team than to compete on the international stage. The only way that changes here is to deepen the pool of OR archers. Until that happens, that will remain the same. Iron sharpens iron, and that is how it works here in the compound world. It is the King here, where OR is just another fringe discipline.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Hey, that's just what your comment sounded like to me, and I'm not even a compound archer.

We may be talking about the difference between "understanding" and "appreciating." But more top compounders have shot fingers than you might think. Quite a few of them in fact.



> Also I don't think what Brady did will impact any compound shooter.


We can agree to disagree on this.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

So to get this back on track...

How would the O.R. world be different had Brady made the last three Olympics with the compound? Anyone want to speculate? 

So many questions really...
Does Jake stick with compound to try and make the Olympics with it? 
What then happens to the talent pool in '08 or '12 or '16? 
Do Vic and Butch make one more Olympic team each? Two more?
Does a Jacob and Joe and ? team medal in London? 
If not, does Lee keep his job (assuming he was hired at all) after two consecutive Olympics without a medal? 
Does NTS become mainstream then? 
What about JDT? Or would we have already had a compound JDT first? 

I don't think the ripple effect of Brady switching to recurve can be understated really.

Of all the people to be leading USArchery right now, Rod is one who has enough experience in both arenas to possibly forecast and plan for the effect that compounds in the Olympics might have on the U.S. recurve program.

I would love to hear a conversation with him, Brady, Jake, Reo, Dave Cousins, Butch, Vic and others about this very topic. Why they picked up the recurve and whether or not they would have if compound had been an option in the Olympic games, and how USArchery should manage for that if and when it happens to maximize the competitiveness of both teams.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

I agree that as a general statement, high level compound competition is the most mentally demanding (in the ranking round, anyway) due to the regularly attainable (therefore demanded) standard of perfection. Relentless Pressure! That the top compound guys are worldclass mentalists (and professionally serious about their prep/approach) is not in dispute in my mind.


----------



## stick monkey (Mar 9, 2015)

How many American companies make a Olympic recurve... only one. Maybe what's happening to archery is only an effect of greed and nothing to do with heritage of archery or participation in competition


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

stick monkey said:


> How many American companies make a Olympic recurve... only one. Maybe what's happening to archery is only an effect of greed and nothing to do with heritage of archery or participation in competition


PSE and SKY were significant players in the recurve target world for quite some time. Mathews could have been. They had Brady until they dropped their O.R. plans. The first recurve 900 in Vegas history could have been shot with a Mathews recurve if they had stayed the course.


----------



## Rick McKinney (Mar 4, 2008)

limbwalker said:


> I also don't agree with the idea that his feat won't be remembered (although that's not exactly what you said). If anything, a crap ton of compound archers will always remember that time Brady Ellison shot a 900 with a recurve, and it may have even motivated some of them to a) shoot their compound better or b) give recurve a try.
> 
> Switching gears a little, I forgot to mention earlier that both Reo Wilde and Rod Menzer were recurve RA's at one time, and later went on to become compound world champions.


Just like you all remember when Vic Berger beat all release shooters at Vegas and won the Championship division using his fingers, recurve and no clicker....

Clarification: Reo was a World Compound Champion and switched over to recurve to give it his all to make the Olympics. Didn't happen. He went back to his compound winning ways. Rod Menzer was a recurve archer and did switch to compound winning the World Field Championships.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

limbwalker said:


> So to get this back on track...
> 
> How would the O.R. world be different had Brady made the last three Olympics with the compound? Anyone want to speculate?
> 
> ...


Jake - or maybe, if Brady goes compound, Jake becomes the #1 USA OR guy, and that gives him the mental swagger to take his game up a notch and swing a bigger club for more Intl podium appearances?

Lee - so maybe he doesn't get hired, or gets fired early on, and whomever takes his place hits upon a better approach to foster/nurture more USA OR ability/success amongst the women and the men. Under a healthier/more supportive culture, might some of our most promising young OR women have pressed on and 'found their switch', instead of many of them transitioning prematurely (and sometimes under some duress) out of high level archery and onto other things. Maybe Miranda sticks around, and her positive influence nurtures some other younger female archers (who never were) to prominence? 

Interesting 'Twilight Zone/how many angels on the navel?' question - if one starts with the premise (just for the sake of this thread) that Coach Lee has been overall a negative impediment to the upward progression of the USA OR state, is that overall trainwreck (under the heading of ironic unintended consequences) then ironically owned by Brady, given that Coach Lee surely only continues to serve from Brady's thumb's up to Easton and USA Archery admin/board, out of Brady's sense of personal loyalty to Lee?


----------



## lees (Feb 10, 2017)

limbwalker said:


> Hey, it won't lose me either but the choices of the aging archers are of less consequence to USArchery every day. LOL
> 
> I'm looking at the future of the Olympic recurve in the sport, and I think we can look back at several former compound archers - Brady in particular - and make some observations based on the impact he's had on Olympic recurve in the U.S. that might help us forecast the future.
> 
> ...


Well that's true. But another way to look at it is, what would the addition of 10,000 times more depth do to OR in the US? Right now, the main complaint I hear about olympic archery is the lack of exactly that. And legitimately so. On OR here in the states, we have Brady Ellison, Mackenzie Brown and Casey Kaufold and that's pretty much it for our upper upper upper crust. What if, instead of just 3 or 4 shooters, you had 100 Roman Legions worth of shooters, all of them able to shoot 300's on command, vying for a spot on the Olympic archery team? 

Maybe in that respect compound going to the Olympics wouldn't be a wholly bad thing. Or maybe it would introduce its own "victims of our own success" type problems. Who knows. 

But given that this lack of depth and ever diminishing level of interest and participation really is the main thing that gets groused about with olympic archery here in the US, throwing an Invicta and Supra Focus or two or three in the ring might stir things up a bit and be just what the doctor ordered...... 

Of course, Olympic archery would be transformed away from something pretty close to a martial art like it is on OR, into more of a game of pure grunt and grit like a Spaghetti Western. Where the first one to finally crumble to their knees and go insane in the last end and punch the trigger on the final arrow is the one that finally loses. It definitely would be a different game, and I guess it would just boil down to if that's the kind of game we want olympic archery to be.

But that's my prediction of what would happen if the compound finally made it in.

Speaking for myself, I'm agnostic; I like watching that last end to see who slings one out no matter what kind of breakdown it is . I'd watch the olympics regardless of the bow type. 

As for barebow, that's a whole 'nother thread. 

lee.


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

lksseven said:


> I agree that as a general statement, high level compound competition is the most mentally demanding (in the ranking round, anyway) due to the regularly attainable (therefore demanded) standard of perfection. Relentless Pressure! That the top compound guys are worldclass mentalists (and professionally serious about their prep/approach) is not in dispute in my mind.


No one is disputing that fact.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Rick McKinney said:


> Just like you all remember when Vic Berger beat all release shooters at Vegas and won the Championship division using his fingers, recurve and no clicker....
> 
> Clarification: Reo was a World Compound Champion and switched over to recurve to give it his all to make the Olympics. Didn't happen. He went back to his compound winning ways. Rod Menzer was a recurve archer and did switch to compound winning the World Field Championships.


Thanks for the clarification Rick. I believe Rod was also on a compound indoor WC team, correct?


----------



## Rick McKinney (Mar 4, 2008)

limbwalker said:


> Thanks for the clarification Rick. I believe Rod was also on a compound indoor WC team, correct?


He might have. Not real positive.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

lees said:


> Speaking for myself, I'm agnostic; I like watching that last end to see who slings one out no matter what kind of breakdown it is . I'd watch the olympics regardless of the bow type.
> 
> lee.


That's just sick and twisted man. LOL


----------



## lees (Feb 10, 2017)

limbwalker said:


> That's just sick and twisted man. LOL


Oh yeah, Ive always been a little off center like that. The best tournaments are when they're both flinching and then punching the trigger on the last 2 shafts; I've seen it between Stephan Hanson and Mike Schlosser. #1 on the planet against #2 in the world cup gold final, IIRC. Pressure is 50,000 PSI. And both of them hammer the trigger with a big ol flinch on the last arrow. Mike S wins tho because he only needed an 8 and he shot an 8. That's some good stuff. Can't find the video right now, but if I do Ill post it.

Well, a little off topic I guess. But there are recurve matches that have been like that too, so....

lee.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

Brady said in an interview sometime in 2006-2007 that he was shooting compound and his bow didnt make it to a tournament or didnt work. So he borrowed a spare recurve bow and shot the tournament. He scored higher than many of the recurve archers, so the coaches talked with him about switching and going to the Olympics. On his website is pretty much this story as well. 

He latched on to the idea of going to the Olympics. In another interview shortly after, he said specifically that in the beginning, he hated recurve. It frustrated him that he would make what felt like a great shot and the arrow went everywhere on the target. 

From the context of both those statements in the interviews, i would say that he would not have stayed with recurve at all if compound was in the Olympics. 

And he would not have endured the difficult challenge of mastering the Olympic recurve bow. He would have stayed with compound where he was already a Junior World Champion in 2004. 

I tried to google the two original interviews that he gave but there isnt much that i could find from 2006-2007. Almost all of what shows up is 2012 to current. 

Chris


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

The decision was completely his and I think we can all agree that with his talent and drive, he would be at the top of either division right now.

But, just think about the consequences of that decision - if he had the option to remain with the compound to the Olympics... and what it would have meant to the current situation with recurve in the U.S.


----------



## woof156 (Apr 3, 2018)

caveman1440 said:


> Hey everyone, so I know this is kind of off-topic for this thread but I've seen a number of people doing it and I felt I had to say something: "Olympic recurve" is redundant. Most people here (I hope) understand that only recurves are allowed in the Olympics (not to mention the fact that OR also stands for Olympic Round, although I'm not sure if that's still in usage these days). Just say Olympic, or recurve, please! If this changes down the road, then OR would be totally fine...but we're not there yet.


Probably should use Olympic style recurve to denote the traditional recurve used in the Olympics with stabs, clickers, sightv vs just a plain recurve.


----------



## woof156 (Apr 3, 2018)

limbwalker said:


> Those more interested in the "art" of archery will choose barebow because it checks that box better.


..... and the "arch" in archery as well......


----------



## woof156 (Apr 3, 2018)

limbwalker said:


> So to get this back on track...
> 
> How would the O.R. world be different had Brady made the last three Olympics with the compound? Anyone want to speculate?
> 
> ...


When you say world do you mean the US or the world? I got into recurve and never heard of BE until after I got into the sport so for me not so much. Maybe it would be a lot less popular in the US??? But the rest of the world -- I don't think lives and breathes what BE does or eats for breakfast. You may have a point for the US, the world I imagine would not change much. As for compounds in the OLy World Archery has them and that is a step closer. Bet the manufacturers will really be campaigning for them to be included-- sales sales sales.... For me I still prefer the challenge and frustration of recurve shooting barebow and trad- just me, my bow, an arrow, a decision and the consequences.... if I wanted to make it a career whew I am not sure...


----------



## woof156 (Apr 3, 2018)

limbwalker said:


> So to get this back on track...
> 
> How would the O.R. world be different had Brady made the last three Olympics with the compound? Anyone want to speculate?
> 
> ...


When you say world do you mean the US or the world? I got into recurve and never heard of BE until after I got into the sport so for me not so much. Maybe it would be a lot less popular in the US??? But the rest of the world -- I don't think lives and breathes what BE does or eats for breakfast. You may have a point for the US, the world I imagine would not change much. As for compounds in the OLy World Archery has them and that is a step closer. Bet the manufacturers will really be campaigning for them to be included-- sales sales sales.... For me I still prefer the challenge and frustration of recurve shooting barebow and trad- just me, my bow, an arrow, a decision and the consequences.... if I wanted to make it a career whew I am not sure...


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Not necessarily talking about popularity, although that's connected, but rather all the wheels that were put into motion post-2005 in the NAA (which has been dba USArchery since around 2007?). For those in the know, they realize those wheels that were put into motion wouldn't have gone very far if not for the success of one talented young man who chose to put down the compound and pick up the Olympic bow. What many folks know as USArchery today, would most likely look very, very different if not for that choice by one athlete. 

And yet that choice might still be made in the near future, where the next Brady Ellison chooses to make the Olympic team using the compound, rather than making the switch over to recurve - a pretty challenging transition for even the best compound shooters, as we have seen over and over again.

So when the group with the deepest talent in the sport (compound archers) don't have to quit what they are doing and switch bows to compete for a spot on the Olympic team, just how much talent will be attracted to the Olympic recurve then? Where will that talent come from? Possibly the growing barebow ranks?  Growing barebow might just be more important to USArchery than they realize.  

It's Something to think about for sure.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

erose said:


> No one is disputing that fact.


I was only trying to parse out the 'mental side/demands' from the 'physical side/demands'. In other words, lauding the greater physical demands/commitment of the recurver shouldn't be seen as an indictment throwing shade on the compounders' mental demands/commitment to their craft excellence. Thanks for giving me a chance to clarify!


----------



## ArtV (Jan 29, 2008)

That is really a true statement.......Glad you said it John............


----------



## Rick McKinney (Mar 4, 2008)

John, I will try to do my best to explain my philosophical understanding versus yours. You feel that if Brady did not switch over, we would not be where we are now and that is excellence and popularity. I disagree. You also say that in the future that if Compounds come into the Olympics that recurve archery will die or decline like barebow did when the sight came into existence. I disagree. Although I respect your thinking, I believe that you are still a "newbie" in my world. No offense, but I walked in your shoes years ago but have come to realize that what we see is our own perspective from the amount of information that we have absorbed/experienced over the years. You and I are usually similar in our thoughts on many items in archery, but some have yet to reach a further level. 
1. If Brady did not switch over, then someone else probably would have risen to the top and excelled as good or maybe even better than Brady. We just do not know for sure because it is only hypothetical. However, I do know that usually someone comes up through the ranks, is encouraged by many and their confidence soars as they improve. This could have been Jake or Jacob or who knows, if Brady wasn't around. I do know that Brady has not even come close to any resistance compared to the likes of Butch or Vic or even myself in the years we were climbing or at the top. Whether it be the organization or the major archery companies who did their best to beat down these guys, they became champions in their own right. However, they would have been greater if they were supported better at the time. I am not saying that they could be better than Brady nor worse. We just do not know and never will know. 
2. As for the future of the recurve freestyle division. There may be a time that this division falls to the wayside, but as you can see what is happening with barebow, it has a place in archery's future. These three disciplines are here to stay. They may ebb and flow but they are here to stay. The one thing you keep forgetting is that the Olympics is about athleticism, not equipment. Yes, some equipment comes into play, but it still requires athleticism. I am not disparaging the compound bow, but it still has a way to go for the elite compound archers to be athletes. They are a far cry better as athletes than 30 years ago, but they still have a bit to go. Once they become athletes on average and not just a small percentage then we may see the IOC reconsider the athleticism in compound shooting. Olympic archery would be laughed at if they brought in the big bellies and a scruffy looking group. We were laughed at in the 1984 Olympics due to Mr. Braun of Belgium who weighed near 350 pounds or more. One guy caused archery all kinds of disparaging remarks. The press had a field day and most of the comments were questioning archery as an Olympic sport? I think our only saving grace was Neroli Fairchild from new Zealand who shot in a wheelchair which gave archery big respect (the first Olympic athlete in a wheelchair). I can't tell you how silly it sounds comparing a overweight person to a person in a wheelchair, but it is what it is. 

At the 1993 World Archery Congress, I mentioned to the congress members that compound archers had a long way to go to become respected athletes. Obviously I was lambasted by congress because of it, but in my opinion it was more about embarrassment on their part because they did not want to face the elephant in the room. I will say that I am tickled pink that the compound archers have come a long ways of being respected and many are starting to change the image, like the looks of Braden, Dave, Stephan and many others. However, a lot of times, it only takes one to hurt the image. 

I remember Joe Thorton of the 1960's and how he made a huge impact because he was Cherokee (I believe) and Ray Rogers of Cherokee descent as well. Both of these guys were World Champions and they made an impact on our sport. Hardy Ward had similar looks as James Dean and his smile capture the world as he won the World Championships, John Williams won the World Field, World Target and the first Modern Olympics as a young boy (17-19 years of age), all in a row. It had never been done before and he did it and then there was Darrell Pace who set the world on fire by shooting the first 1300. Each of these guys by mere chance picked up a bow and chose to shoot the style they shot and did wonders. Just like Brady. Each have made an impact but if they didn't, someone else would have filled their shoes. That I am sure of. There is always someone waiting in the wings ready to break out and shoot some phenomenal scores. I personally appreciate the path Brady took and his struggles have been real and yet he continued on like a real champion would. But in my opinion he is just another really great archer who came out to do battle with the rest of the world and make America proud. This is just my opinion. I guess you could say it is a flip side of opinions of Johns and only my take.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Rick, I appreciate your perspective as always. 

My questions do not require a rebuttal. It is simply food for thought. That is all it's intended to be. A good CEO would look back and do a few "what ifs" - particularly when a sport such as ours dangles so perilously on the strings of success or failure of one or two individuals, and their personal choices.

And Rick, I will always be a "newbie" in your mind, as will the younger shooters today that weren't alive when I competed in Athens. It's just the way the world works. I shot one day of indoor nationals this year with a young lady who wasn't born when I was at the Olympics, and when I mentioned shooting with Jay Barrs (she was a lefty also), she asked "who is that?" LOL

Not sure why you think I would ever forget that athleticism is what the Olympics are about. LOL 

I sometimes wonder why people can't just state their opinions here without having to disagree with someone. That's not a requirement in logical discussion. Again, I appreciate your input Rick, as does everyone else here.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

One of my favorite Star Trek episodes (original series) is the one where some of the Enterprise crew find themselves back in time, in the USA in the 1930s during the Great Depression. Captain Kirk falls in love with a soup kitchen worker (Joan Collins, later of Dynasty and Playboy fame). Somehow Mr. Scott (head Enterprise engineering officer) rigs up a machine that can see newspaper headlines in the future. There are different futures, one in which Joan Collins gets killed in a traffic accident, and another future in which she is saved from the car hitting her, and then goes on to great personal influence with the American government and the dynamics are altered such that the Nazis win the war, America and hundreds of millions the world over are devastated and the Enterprise never comes into existence. So Captain Kirk is faced with the impossible choice - to knowingly let his love interest die, thereby saving hundreds of millions of people? Or save her, knowing that hundreds of millions of people (including his crew) will be devastated. 
(he chooses. In the moment of truth, he grabs/obstructs Dr. McCoy as the doctor is jumping to pull Joan Collins to safety from the careening car. She is flattened, and Dr. McCoy (not privy to the machine's future predictions) cries out accusingly "Jim! I could have saved her! What have you done?! Do you know what you've done?!" ,,, and Spock (who was privy to the machine's predictions) laments softly, "he knows, Doctor... he knows." 

Sadly, we don't have Mr. Scott around to make us such a handy machine. But if there was .... a good chance Rick is right, that someone would have come to the fore. But, there's precedence, too, for an outcome where that void would go unfilled. Lots of people have lived and died, and only one Shakespeare. Zillions of horses have come and gone, and only one Secretariat. Sometimes it's just a 'one off'.

Now, what was the question again?


----------



## lees (Feb 10, 2017)

Interesting, but what if the big scruffy guy can outshoot everybody? That's been the case more times than one in compound - Reo Wilde is or was the most recent example that we're all familiar with. He doesn't podium quite as often nowadays as he used to, but there's no denying he's one of the GOATs (Greatest Of All Time) of archery, perhaps period. 
Mr OH Jin Hyek is a large fellow too and even Brady Ellison quit shaving and put on some weight for a while. 

I guess I thought we were kind of getting past all that where an athlete had to look a certain way or had to have no special needs to compete in an event, etc.? But Rick M. may be right, maybe we're not past that, at least not in archery and maybe it's we who still have a ways to go? I'm not disagreeing, just throwing that thought out there?

In saying that, I do agree the compound has a kind of a PR problem with the focus it has on equipment. If you think it's bad on olympic style, on the compound we certainly fiddle, twiddle, tweak and just generally try to buy points with new improved this that and the other at a fantastic rate. And I guess it is a lingering truth that compound is more a game of skill and raw nerve than it is strength. 

But still.... what if the burly guy with the big beer gut and beard can still outshoot everyone else? That thought just keeps going through my mind...

lee.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Lee, chances are the burly guy with the beer gut is gonna shoot compound, which further makes my case of what will happen once compounds are in the Olympics.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

And Larry, I can't wait to read your book about archery. You have a gift man. I love it.


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

lksseven said:


> Somehow Mr. Scott (head Enterprise engineering officer) rigs up a machine that can see newspaper headlines in the future.


Now you’ve done it...you’ve awakened the sleeping nerd in me and filled me with a terrible resolve...

Scotty wasn’t on that landing party that went back through the portal. It was only Kirk and Spock who followed McCoy, and it was Spock who rigged up the machine.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Stash said:


> Now you’ve done it...you’ve awakened the sleeping nerd in me and filled me with a terrible resolve...
> 
> Scotty wasn’t on that landing party that went back through the portal. It was only Kirk and Spock who followed McCoy, and it was Spock who rigged ip the machine.


LMAO   

Now you've gone and done it Larry. LOL


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

lees said:


> But still.... what if the burly guy with the big beer gut and beard can still outshoot everyone else? That thought just keeps going through my mind...


Well, ummm, since I was (and still am) a “burly guy with a big beer gut and beard”, perhaps we should all be thankful that I didn’t actually get to compete in the Olympics because of the boycott, and thereby destroy Archery as an Olympic sport?


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

Stash said:


> Now you’ve done it...you’ve awakened the sleeping nerd in me and filled me with a terrible resolve...
> 
> Scotty wasn’t on that landing party that went back through the portal. It was only Kirk and Spock who followed McCoy, and it was Spock who rigged up the machine.


I can't believe it - I've been out-StarTrek-nerded by a Canadian!!!!! LOL! I readily concede. 

ps - what was I thinking? Mr Scott never does well in earlier times. In another episode, he's back in time, sitting at a computer monitor, keyboard and mouse. He tells the monitor "Computer, show me the main directory." Nothing happens. One of the locals points at the mouse and says "you have to use this." And Mr Scott says "Oh! Yes of course." And he picks up the mouse, holding to his mouth like a microphone and says "Computer, show me the main directory." .....


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

Jeez, why are you even trying? Scotty says “Computer...computer” then McCoy hands him the mouse and he says “Hello computer”.


Let’s get back to Brady and his 900 and the death of recurve archery as we know it.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Nerds. LOL


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

Stash said:


> Jeez, why are you even trying? Scotty says “Computer...computer” then McCoy hands him the mouse and he says “Hello computer”.
> 
> 
> Let’s get back to Brady and his 900 and the death of recurve archery as we know it.


I'm in awe. :77:


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

Only scratched the surface...but thanks.


----------



## Gregjlongbow (Jun 15, 2016)

Almost. You got the quote right, but it’s from Star Trek IV-The Voyage Home (aka the whale movie). It’s the transparent aluminum scene. *Shows nerd badge*


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## GeorgiaArcher01 (Oct 7, 2018)

fango0000 said:


> If Brady stayed with compound, he could also make more money with the giant prize pools that compounds have :darkbeer:


^^^^^


----------



## woof156 (Apr 3, 2018)

I feel much better about the future of the world now....there still are trekies about.... we are not doomed- yet....but Scottie stand by to beam me up...


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

woof156 said:


> I feel much better about the future of the world now....there still are trekies about.... we are not doomed- yet....but Scottie stand by to beam me up...


Just to make sure we keep one foot on the archery floor, https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Bow_and_arrow


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

So we’re sticking with this derailment?

That one was a Martin El Dorado dyna-bow, actually a production bow, around 1975.









Didn’t Kirk make a bow and arrows to use as weapons in the episode “Savage Curtain”, the one with Abraham Lincoln and the rock creature?


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

Stash said:


> So we’re sticking with this derailment?
> 
> That one was a Martin Dyna-bow of some sort, can’t remember the model but it was actually a production bow.
> 
> Didn’t Kirk make a bow and arrows to use as weapons in the episode “Savage Curtain”, the one with Abraham Lincoln and the rock creature?


I'm just laughing my head off here, and so glad my wife's visiting grandkids out of town so she can't haze me over this scenario .. I'm 63, it's a Monday morning, and I'm immersed in a discussion about Captain Kirk and archery implements in the Abraham Lincoln Star Trek episode. Gotta love it! Maybe just one beer with lunch won't hurt anything! :darkbeer:


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

Found a pic of that bow so I edited my post.

At least I have an excuse. I’m 65 and retired and have nothing better to do.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

Stash said:


> Found a pic of that bow so I edited my post.
> 
> At least I have an excuse. I’m 65 and retired and have nothing better to do.


that is one ugly ***** bow. :mg:

I'm not retired yet, I have lots of 'better' things I 'should' be doing. Yet here I sit .... is it lunchtime yet? :darkbeer:


----------



## bobnikon (Jun 10, 2012)

nevermind. Gregjlongbow beat me to it...


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

Ok, so after a bit of digging, it appears that in the Lincoln episode our guys just made some pointy sticks to use as spears. But they did make bows and arrows and they shot a Klingon and a couple of other people in a different episode, “Friday’s Child”, incidentally yet again violating the Prime Directive in the process.







We’re still relevant to the FITA forum, right?


----------



## lees (Feb 10, 2017)

Stash said:


> Ok, so after a bit of digging, it appears that in the Lincoln episode our guys just made some pointy sticks to use as spears. But they did make bows and arrows and they shot a Klingon and a couple of other people in a different episode, “Friday’s Child”, incidentally yet again violating the Prime Directive in the process.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yep, this is good stuff....

lee.


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

Good.


So, tough to see from the brief video clip, but is Kirk using a linear draw or angular?

Wonder also what the FOC on his arrows is, and if he rotated the nocks to align with the stiff side of the shaft. He and Spock seemed to have pretty good accuracy. Helical fletch, or offset?


----------



## lcaillo (Jan 5, 2014)

If Brady had stayed with compound would we have risers made of transparent aluminum yet?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

lcaillo said:


> If Brady had stayed with compound would we have risers made of transparent aluminum yet?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


No. We'd be on to Unobtanium by now.


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

Probably no practical archery application. Too heavy. Except maybe for X10 points if you want an FOC of 30% or higher.

You can get hats and sweatshirts on Amazon.


----------



## Alik (Apr 3, 2019)

Stash said:


> Probably no practical archery application. Too heavy. Except maybe for X10 points if you want an FOC of 30% or higher.
> 
> You can get hats and sweatshirts on Amazon.


But.....it'd be radioactive.
And the point weight would constantly change.


----------



## Z3R0 (Nov 6, 2014)

Alik said:


> But.....it'd be radioactive.
> And the point weight would constantly change.


How long is the half life though? You should periodically check and retune anyway.

Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Z3R0 said:


> How long is the half life though? You should periodically check and retune anyway.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk


That goes without saying. LOL


----------



## Alik (Apr 3, 2019)

Z3R0 said:


> Alik said:
> 
> 
> > But.....it'd be radioactive.
> ...


Ununoctium (the heaviest element currently) has a half life of 1.8 ms. So the half life of unobtanium should be in the same order of magnitude.


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

We are of course talking about depleted unobtanium. 

Most of the Ub-308 has decayed and the remaining Ub-311 is fairly harmless, although you do want to have a lead-lined quiver. The weight issue is just plain silly - we're talking about a percent and a half (3 out of 190 neutrons) of less than a percent (Ub-308 makes up about .74% of naturally occurring Ub, and depleted Ub is down to about .33% Ub-308).

And where have you been, Alik? Ununoctium was renamed to Oganneson over 4 years ago.


----------



## Alik (Apr 3, 2019)

Stash said:


> And where have you been, Alik? Ununoctium was renamed to Oganneson over 4 years ago.


Sorry, didn't know that. Just searched for uuo. 

By the way, where did you get those numbers from?


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

What a badass Spock would have been in head-to-head elimination matches. Talk about a great mental game!


----------



## woof156 (Apr 3, 2018)

Stash said:


> We are of course talking about depleted unobtanium.
> 
> Most of the Ub-308 has decayed and the remaining Ub-311 is fairly harmless, although you do want to have a lead-lined quiver. The weight issue is just plain silly - we're talking about a percent and a half (3 out of 190 neutrons) of less than a percent (Ub-308 makes up about .74% of naturally occurring Ub, and depleted Ub is down to about .33% Ub-308).
> 
> .


:teeth::teeth::teeth: This alone was worth turning on my computer this evening. However the Pandorian miners where the majority of this is mined never wear lead protection so yes this appears to be fairly harmless.


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

Rick McKinney said:


> John, I will try to do my best to explain my philosophical understanding versus yours. You feel that if Brady did not switch over, we would not be where we are now and that is excellence and popularity. I disagree. You also say that in the future that if Compounds come into the Olympics that recurve archery will die or decline like barebow did when the sight came into existence. I disagree. Although I respect your thinking, I believe that you are still a "newbie" in my world. No offense, but I walked in your shoes years ago but have come to realize that what we see is our own perspective from the amount of information that we have absorbed/experienced over the years. You and I are usually similar in our thoughts on many items in archery, but some have yet to reach a further level.
> 1. If Brady did not switch over, then someone else probably would have risen to the top and excelled as good or maybe even better than Brady. We just do not know for sure because it is only hypothetical. However, I do know that usually someone comes up through the ranks, is encouraged by many and their confidence soars as they improve. This could have been Jake or Jacob or who knows, if Brady wasn't around. I do know that Brady has not even come close to any resistance compared to the likes of Butch or Vic or even myself in the years we were climbing or at the top. Whether it be the organization or the major archery companies who did their best to beat down these guys, they became champions in their own right. However, they would have been greater if they were supported better at the time. I am not saying that they could be better than Brady nor worse. We just do not know and never will know.
> 2. As for the future of the recurve freestyle division. There may be a time that this division falls to the wayside, but as you can see what is happening with barebow, it has a place in archery's future. These three disciplines are here to stay. They may ebb and flow but they are here to stay. The one thing you keep forgetting is that the Olympics is about athleticism, not equipment. Yes, some equipment comes into play, but it still requires athleticism. I am not disparaging the compound bow, but it still has a way to go for the elite compound archers to be athletes. They are a far cry better as athletes than 30 years ago, but they still have a bit to go. Once they become athletes on average and not just a small percentage then we may see the IOC reconsider the athleticism in compound shooting. Olympic archery would be laughed at if they brought in the big bellies and a scruffy looking group. We were laughed at in the 1984 Olympics due to Mr. Braun of Belgium who weighed near 350 pounds or more. One guy caused archery all kinds of disparaging remarks. The press had a field day and most of the comments were questioning archery as an Olympic sport? I think our only saving grace was Neroli Fairchild from new Zealand who shot in a wheelchair which gave archery big respect (the first Olympic athlete in a wheelchair). I can't tell you how silly it sounds comparing a overweight person to a person in a wheelchair, but it is what it is.
> 
> ...


Rick, there is something about what you said that sticks out to me, and I would like your thoughts on it. You say that, "Each have made an impact but if they didn't, someone else would have filled their shoes. That I am sure of. There is always someone waiting in the wings ready to break out and shoot some phenomenal scores." My question is if this is true, what is holding someone else back from stepping out now and putting up those scores and giving Brady a run for his money here in the USA? I mean the USA having D. Pace didn't stop you. So what is holding back other archers from coming to the front?

My thoughts on the matter, and I will be honest I'm not, nor have I ever been, on the inside of this industry, and so my observations are of an outsider, is that it has to do with money. That for multiple reasons the USA archery world can only support one true full-time archer right now. And this IMO explains why there have been promising archers to just leave the circuit, because adulthood hits, mom and dad weans them off, and they have to start supporting themselves, and archery isn't paying the bills, and thus they move on. I think a good example from the best I can figure of this is Collin Klimitchek. This kid for at least a few years was IMO every bit as good an archer as Brady, and while Brady was dealing with his finger issue, was I think our best archer. Now the best I can figure he is out of the industry. 

Anyway curious about what your thoughts are on the matter.


----------



## lcaillo (Jan 5, 2014)

While I generally agree with Rick, I would suggest that what motivates someone to excel to the top of the elite level is much more individual and very dependent on lots of factors. I doubt that the presence or absence of one person, in general, is the biggest factor. What can be said that I think most would agree with is that we need a program that supports more athletes better and recognizes their individuality and leverages that. Applying a one size fits all function to US archers and expecting the output to be medals is never going to work.


----------



## Rick McKinney (Mar 4, 2008)

Erose. Good question. I believe there is always someone out there trying very hard to get to the top and what holds them back is usually another archer. It is impossible to prove that if a person was not there another would take his or her place, but I can use a similar situation by sponsorship. Yes, Darrell held me back for a short period but I was one tenacious sob. One of the reasons that I pushed on top was due to an unfortunate circumstance that forced me to switch over to Yamaha. I went from being number 2 at Hoyt to number 1 at Yamaha. Although it doesn't seem like much to many, it made all the difference to someone like me. That gave me a boost that when I did make the switch, six months later I became World Target Champion. Another example was Rod White who shot for Hoyt in the early stages of his career and then made the switch over to PSE. That gave him the confidence he needed to help make the Olympic Team and win a Gold Medal at the 1996 Olympics. Brady has been able to keep some really good archers from reaching their prime due to his tenacity and desire to be the "greatest archer ever" (his words, not mine). However, Jake, Zach and a few others have not been able to blossom because of the huge shadow Brady exudes. This not only hurts these near top archers, but sponsorship hurts their case as well. Brady gets the goods first, then maybe a Jake or a Zach gets what's left over. This hurts mentally far more than one can imagine. I believe that is what hurt me when I was with Hoyt and they had Darrell. A company doesn't need anyone else but the champion. Thus a Brady or a Darrell wiii always get treated "Better" than the next person in line. This works on the mental approach. If that person slips or quits, then the next person in line gets all of the encouragement and support, thus boosting their ego to the point that gives them the ability to bust open to the top and enjoy the fruits of victory. I am not taking anything away from Brady, but there are others waiting in the wings if and when he walks away or something happens to where he cannot go on. That is a given. US Archery has always ended up with some really great archers and how is beyond me. USA Archery is small compared to other organizations and they are always hurting on funds to support the top archers while trying to develop a grass roots program to encourage more kids to become top archers. This system may not be perfect but it is successful.


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

Rick McKinney said:


> Erose. Good question. I believe there is always someone out there trying very hard to get to the top and what holds them back is usually another archer. It is impossible to prove that if a person was not there another would take his or her place, but I can use a similar situation by sponsorship. Yes, Darrell held me back for a short period but I was one tenacious sob. One of the reasons that I pushed on top was due to an unfortunate circumstance that forced me to switch over to Yamaha. I went from being number 2 at Hoyt to number 1 at Yamaha. Although it doesn't seem like much to many, it made all the difference to someone like me. That gave me a boost that when I did make the switch, six months later I became World Target Champion. Another example was Rod White who shot for Hoyt in the early stages of his career and then made the switch over to PSE. That gave him the confidence he needed to help make the Olympic Team and win a Gold Medal at the 1996 Olympics. Brady has been able to keep some really good archers from reaching their prime due to his tenacity and desire to be the "greatest archer ever" (his words, not mine). However, Jake, Zach and a few others have not been able to blossom because of the huge shadow Brady exudes. This not only hurts these near top archers, but sponsorship hurts their case as well. Brady gets the goods first, then maybe a Jake or a Zach gets what's left over. This hurts mentally far more than one can imagine. I believe that is what hurt me when I was with Hoyt and they had Darrell. A company doesn't need anyone else but the champion. Thus a Brady or a Darrell wiii always get treated "Better" than the next person in line. This works on the mental approach. If that person slips or quits, then the next person in line gets all of the encouragement and support, thus boosting their ego to the point that gives them the ability to bust open to the top and enjoy the fruits of victory. I am not taking anything away from Brady, but there are others waiting in the wings if and when he walks away or something happens to where he cannot go on. That is a given. US Archery has always ended up with some really great archers and how is beyond me. USA Archery is small compared to other organizations and they are always hurting on funds to support the top archers while trying to develop a grass roots program to encourage more kids to become top archers. This system may not be perfect but it is successful.


Rick, thanks for the response and that makes perfect sense. I always assumed it was money, but didn't realize the other factors involved. So if we had lets say another couple of companies step up and were willing to fully back and support some up and coming elite archers to allow them to become fulltime archers, then we could expand our talent pool? Or if we had like Korea has in which several non-endemic companies sponsored teams it would do the same thing.

I always found it interesting how deep of a pool of compound archers that the US has versus OR, and how much money is thrown out there by the endemics to compound shooters.


----------



## Rick McKinney (Mar 4, 2008)

Erose, Money is a big factor for programs, but for individual archers, I don't think it is as serious as one would believe. I had very little money when I came up through the ranks but found ways to get to the tournament. Once you are on the line shooting, money makes no difference. However, what does make a huge difference is support. What I mean by that is mental support and encouragement. What helps Brady more than anything is his support group. His mom is the number one fan (as she should be). His wife has upped that game to push him over to more confidence and more security than he has ever had. The support from the arrow company, bow company, sight company, etc. just increases his mental confidence in himself. 

That is why I agree with you. If more companies would pick up the potential next big champion they not only would help themselves, but they would be helping that next big champion to leap over the current champion or at least make a big go of it and cause both to increase their abilities. That's what happened to Darrell and myself. We kept pushing each other. When I won the world title, Darrell won the following one by 3 points. The next world title I won by having more 10's than him. We battled it out like no other for 10 years and won 5 of 6 world titles between us during that time. But getting a company to support an unknown is very risky on their part. It would really take a non-archery company to make things happen and if archery continues to grow (from 3.4 million to 21 million from the latest info), there just might be an American Express, or a Ford, or a Chase or even the Untied States Postal Service that would be willing to invest in our organization's future archers.


----------



## woof156 (Apr 3, 2018)

Rick McKinney said:


> However, Jake, Zach and a few others have not been able to blossom because of the huge shadow Brady exudes. This not only hurts these near top archers, but sponsorship hurts their case as well. Brady gets the goods first, then maybe a Jake or a Zach gets what's left over. This hurts mentally far more than one can imagine. I believe that is what hurt me when I was with Hoyt and they had Darrell. A company doesn't need anyone else but the champion. Thus a Brady or a Darrell wiii always get treated "Better" than the next person in line. This works on the mental approach. If that person slips or quits, then the next person in line gets all of the encouragement and support, thus boosting their ego to the point that gives them the ability to bust open to the top and enjoy the fruits of victory. I am not taking anything away from Brady, but there are others waiting in the wings if and when he walks away or something happens to where he cannot go on.


But this is not really about Brady is it? Rather it is about anyone who is at the top- Zack or whoever their effect would be the same- it is the game. The one at the top will always shadow those under them, bleed off sponsorship money and notarity . Look at the korean team-- some of the stars a few years ago are now virtually missing and new younger players pushing out the old who disappear -- i.e. they exit stage left and are gone. Very few hear of or know the struggling masses beneath the kingpins--but they are there. One day Brady will be replaced as well (Kudos to him on his great year) It is the game of "thrones".


----------



## Rick McKinney (Mar 4, 2008)

Very well said woof156. This is not about Brady but the position he holds. I admire the guy and his work ethic and his tenacity. The game of "thrones" is the best comment yet on what this is about. The guy rules right now and I hope he enjoys it while he can. There is nothing quite like it!


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

erose said:


> Rick, there is something about what you said that sticks out to me, and I would like your thoughts on it. You say that, "Each have made an impact but if they didn't, someone else would have filled their shoes. That I am sure of. There is always someone waiting in the wings ready to break out and shoot some phenomenal scores." My question is if this is true, what is holding someone else back from stepping out now and putting up those scores and giving Brady a run for his money here in the USA? I mean the USA having D. Pace didn't stop you. So what is holding back other archers from coming to the front?
> 
> My thoughts on the matter, and I will be honest I'm not, nor have I ever been, on the inside of this industry, and so my observations are of an outsider, is that it has to do with money. That for multiple reasons the USA archery world can only support one true full-time archer right now. And this IMO explains why there have been promising archers to just leave the circuit, because adulthood hits, mom and dad weans them off, and they have to start supporting themselves, and archery isn't paying the bills, and thus they move on. I think a good example from the best I can figure of this is Collin Klimitchek. This kid for at least a few years was IMO every bit as good an archer as Brady, and while Brady was dealing with his finger issue, was I think our best archer. Now the best I can figure he is out of the industry.
> 
> Anyway curious about what your thoughts are on the matter.


(admittedly) Small points here:
- With Easton paying Lee's wife $six figures as a "consultant", I suspect there's enough money for more than one full timer

- I believe Colin, after failing to make the 2016 Oly team, joined the military.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Rick's explanation is why I think it would have been SOOOO very interesting had Mathews decided to continue their recurve line development and kept Brady on board. Brady didn't leave Mathews. Mathews left Brady. Had they not, there would have been one heluva fight for that top spot IMO. An archery "arms race" so to speak. And it would have been very, very good for USArchery. Just like when Hoyt had Butch and Mathews had Vic. Those two went back and forth for years and not only made each other better but pulled the rest of us along with them. Vic and Butch made three Olympic teams together with three different teammates from 2000-2008. What Rick is saying could very well be the reason for that.

Erose - Collin has been proudly serving in our nation's Army and is now competing with things that go bang.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Rick McKinney said:


> there just might be an American Express, or a Ford, or a Chase or even the Untied States Postal Service that would be willing to invest in our organization's future archers.


I honestly can think of 100 ways that the USPS could use archery in their ad campaign. That would be fun to see.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

Errm, does anyone here have Jeff Bezos' ear? Turning Jeff into an archery fan solves ALL of the USA's archery issues.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

lksseven said:


> Errm, does anyone here have Jeff Bezos' ear? Turning Jeff into an archery fan solves ALL of the USA's archery issues.


So I wonder if all these up-and-coming 3rd world countries that are producing world class Olympic archers, have such a sponsor. Probably not, I'm guessing.

I don't buy the fact that it's just a money problem, per se. We simply are not getting enough great athletes (talent,drive or both) in the sport because great American athletes have so many better options. So we get that once-a-decade situation where some young person gets hooked on archery, and they just happen to be a great athlete and don't really care about the college scholarship opportunities or prize or sponsorship or salary money. And that's just very rare.

So maybe attracting athletes is a money problem of sorts? How much does Easton pay athletes in other sports to use their products? That would be interesting to know. Not from a "fairness" point of view but rather for the sake of comparing priorities based on expected return on their investment. If the NCAA allows college athletes to earn endorsement money moving forward, how much money will Easton be spending to attract the top college baseball players?


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

lksseven said:


> Errm, does anyone here have Jeff Bezos' ear?


I think somehow we're back to talking about unobtanium again.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

Stash said:


> I think somehow we're back to talking about unobtanium again.


Just laughing out loud. That is FUNNY!!!


----------



## mhojnacki (Aug 9, 2011)

Butch was originally a recurve shooter. He shot at an event with compounds and money payouts. Someone accused him of being a pro. Back in the day that was a big deal. There was so much heat from it, he switched to compound and the rest is history. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Dilligaf (Dec 25, 2005)

rjbishop said:


> Personally, I dont think they should be (with the exception for para-archers), and for many reasons.
> 
> Compound is a saturated discipline. Way more people do it than recurve,


That statement is actually not true, In the USA your 100% correct but in Europe and Asia nowhere near recurve is extremely dominant.


----------



## Smokewaggin (Dec 31, 2019)

limbwalker said:


> ... if compounds were allowed in the Olympics in 2008?
> 
> I think it's an important question for USArchery to consider.
> 
> Once compounds enter the Olympic games, I see a lot of US talent going that direction. Brady was a compund jr. world champion. Jake came over from compound. So did Crystal. And what about Mackenzie? Would she have chosen recurve? It's food for thought.


He may not have made the switch, but maybe he would have and kept up with compound. Why couldn't he shoot and excel at both? Dual sport athletes in the Olympics isn't as common as it once was, but it's not unheard of.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Smokewaggin said:


> He may not have made the switch, but maybe he would have and kept up with compound. Why couldn't he shoot and excel at both? Dual sport athletes in the Olympics isn't as common as it once was, but it's not unheard of.


If anyone could, it would be Brady. But competition schedules alone, would preclude anyone today from reaching the top in both. It's just not physically possible to be in two places at once.


----------



## rarchtalk (Nov 10, 2011)

I'm very unqualified to reply in this post as I don't follow the elite archers. But, what I would like see is the Olympics adopting compound bows as a new event. Have them or someone make the rules. There are new events all the time. When did all of the new events like mogels and trick skiing become Olympic event? Expand archery in the the Olympics. If Brady can't compete in both that's OK. Or if he can that is great. Expand the sport. I think it would work best for everyone.


----------



## Sydneyphoenix (Jan 4, 2020)

Or fields, that will be so cool and definitely doable, they let BMX bikes in after all.


----------



## JenLHarvey (Jan 7, 2015)

*900 for Brady*



limbwalker said:


> ... if compounds were allowed in the Olympics in 2008?
> 
> I think it's an important question for USArchery to consider.
> 
> Once compounds enter the Olympic games, I see a lot of US talent going that direction. Brady was a compund jr. world champion. Jake came over from compound. So did Crystal. And what about Mackenzie? Would she have chosen recurve? It's food for thought.


Brady's Talent is more than just the bow. It is his work ethic, mind, body, soul. He puts everything into the shot. He has worked through more than most archers will do. I have been blessed to know him for all these years. It is not just the equipment that makes the shot one after another to get a 900.


----------



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

Boom. With one single post the neighborhood has been vastly improved.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

>--gt--> said:


> Boom. With one single post the neighborhood has been vastly improved.


What are you even talking about?



> Brady's Talent is more than just the bow. It is his work ethic, mind, body, soul. He puts everything into the shot. He has worked through more than most archers will do. I have been blessed to know him for all these years. It is not just the equipment that makes the shot one after another to get a 900.


Hello Jen. 

I don't see anyone questioning that, really anywhere. And it's not the point of the thread. The question is whether he would have switched to recurve had compound been an Olympic event. That's the question. It's not about Brady's ability. It's about his choices and what the recurve landscape might look like if he had a choice. 

I don't think very many folks have stopped and thought about that at all. What US recurve archery would look like today if Brady had the option to keep shooting compound in the Olympic games.


----------

