# A new Olympic round format...



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

After considering new OR formats on another message board, I propose we do this:

Cut the field in half each round based on score until there are four archers (or teams) left. Then, for the semi-finals, have them qualify for either the gold or bronze medal matches (again based on score). 

This would reward archers for shooting well, and prevent two top archers or teams from taking each other out early in the event (which is very frustrating for both the archers AND the fans).

The fans and media would still have their head-to-head medal matches to watch, but they could be sure they were seeing the best performing archers at that event, and not just those that were lucky enough to last that long...

So, after the ranking round, cut the field to the top 32. Then after the next round, cut to 16, then again to 8, then have the top 4 archers/teams shoot to see which medal match they will compete in. Then finish with the two medal matches.

Sort of a modified/combined version of the old and new. What do you think?

John.


----------



## Hoytemgood (Aug 19, 2006)

I like that idea. 

I am sort of confused about the Trials format this year. They are shooting 144 arrows on day one and then cut the field to the top 16. Those top 16 shoot the next three days but none of their scores carry over the to the second of the three rounds. Only after the second round when the field is cut to the top 8 will 1/2 of the score or pts carry over to the third and final round.


----------



## JLorenti (Mar 17, 2004)

*John,*

That sounds very interesting. It sounds like a much better format to me.
You are more certain to get the better archers to the end and no real chance of top archers eliminating each other in the early rounds ,which I really like.

If you could be a little more specific about how the rounds are run after the first 32 cut off.Because my question is you mention the ranking round determines the top 32. Then what kind of round(number of arrows and distances) are to be shot by the 32 to get the to the top 16 and so on and so on.. just if you would explain what your thoughts are for those subsequent rounds after the ranking round but before the medal matches.

Sounds very interesting and promising, looking at it quickly in your post.


Joe lorenti


----------



## VFX_Fenix (Feb 8, 2007)

This is the way most Paintball tournaments are run. A general round robin style to determine "the cut" for each stage with high points moving on. The format works really well for sports which its convenient to have running totals for scores. :darkbeer:


----------



## pbzmag (Apr 26, 2006)

VFX_Fenix said:


> This is the way most Paintball tournaments are run. A general round robin style to determine "the cut" for each stage with high points moving on. The format works really well for sports which its convenient to have running totals for scores. :darkbeer:


Your name sounds familiar. Wait...AO?


----------



## VFX_Fenix (Feb 8, 2007)

pbzmag said:


> Your name sounds familiar. Wait...AO?


Guilty :wink: :darkbeer:


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Joe,

Simply put, the field is cut in half after the ranking round, then again after each additional round until there are 4 left. 

So, shoot a ranking round, then cut the field to either 64 or 32, depending on entries. For the Olympics, cut to 32. Then shoot 12 arrows and cut to 16, then shoot 12 arrows and cut to 8, then shoot 12 more and cut to 4.

Now, how you manage those four could be interesting too. But at least you know you have the best four archers/teams at that point.

Once you have the top 4, you could have them shoot 1 vs. 4 and 2 vs. 3 (based on scores from 1/8 round) and then have the winners shoot for the gold and losers shoot for bronze.

So this would satisfy the desire to have the 4 best archers/teams in the medal matches, but still have four head to head matches for medals.

I think this would be a very fair, but exciting format.

Nobody, either archers or fans, like seeing a top ranked archer get knocked out in an early round. You have to set up a format where the best of the field are shooting for medals. That's what makes a quality event. Too much luck just makes the whole thing pretty trivial IMO.

John.


----------



## G33k (Jul 16, 2003)

The head to head format (as it occurs now) brings out an aspect of the game that otherwise we do not experience. The head to head, knowing the exact score you need to move on. Spectators can watch and archer and their competitor and know who is moving on. If that pressure screws you up, you might not shoot that well. I did a mini study that compared top archers Average OR scores and Average 70m FITA score and found them to be very similiar. The Single elimination bracket is used to almost every sport. 

The way that ORs are currently set up, two top competitors should not meet up right away, unless one of them sucked it up in qualification. Sometimes you get knocked out with a great score, sometimes you move on with a bad score but that is true with every sport. Like they say, Any given Sunday.

I guess I am not sure how this is really all that different that what we use now for placements for the FITA? Why bother with an OR at all, why not just have everyone shoot them give out the awards based on those placements?

Personally I love the ORs and I recently introduced them in my beginning archery classes and they loved them. Alot of their scores went up as well.


----------



## G33k (Jul 16, 2003)

VFX_Fenix said:


> This is the way most Paintball tournaments are run. A general round robin style to determine "the cut" for each stage with high points moving on. The format works really well for sports which its convenient to have running totals for scores. :darkbeer:


A round robin is different than what he is talking about. Also paintball is dependant on the skills of the people you go against so it already has a head to head format.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> If that pressure screws you up, you might not shoot that well.


Ha, ha, ha. That's funny.

That must be why so many great archers can shoot much better scores than half of the field, and still be eliminated... :embara: 

I don't agree with the current single elimination format. Far too much luck involved. And nobody watches the first three rounds of the O.R. anyway, except parents and friends...

Let's face it. We can all list tournament after tournament where a great archer was hosed by the current format. It has turned into a game where luck plays far too big a role. Esp. now that we only have 12 arrow matches and 24 arrow team rounds...

John.


----------



## VFX_Fenix (Feb 8, 2007)

The inherent problem I see with single elimination brackets is that you can have a field progress made up of shooters who may or may not actually be the best shooters from the original field. 

If people cave under pressure, fine, that will show up just as in a head to head however if you use the points to determine the cut, not just who won in each match, you'll get a situation where the competators no longer are just shooting against the archer shooting next to them, but the entire field of archers. Having points determine the cut also means that if two shooters in the same elimination bracket shoot well they'll both move on to the next round.

After all, why should an archer who won a head to head against another archer be allowed to move forward if there are archers in the field of "losers" who shot better than they did?


----------



## VFX_Fenix (Feb 8, 2007)

G33k said:


> A round robin is different than what he is talking about. Also paintball is dependant on the skills of the people you go against so it already has a head to head format.


The purpose of the Round Robin is to have enough scored matches to build a point total to determine the cut. Most tournaments have each team play at least 4 others and match that team plays earns them points. After the initial rounds the points are summed and the top teams move on to play in the next elimination round.

I understand that it is still only a single pair of shooters competing once in the same round for the match, however in paintball the disparage between the points of winners and losers is rather significant and so more matches must be played to determine an outcome of what teams are the best of the original field. In archery the difference between a winning score an losing score can be a single point. Because the scores of the match are both qualitative (win/lose) _and_ quantitative (score for the round) it would serve archers well to have the quantity of their shooting judged against all the shooter in the field instead of the quality of their shooting.


----------



## G33k (Jul 16, 2003)

limbwalker said:


> Let's face it. We can all list tournament after tournament where a great archer was hosed by the current format.


Hosed? You mean like they had less points than their opponents and lost? 

Watch any sport and truth is luck will always be a part. Welcome to life. If head to head isn't a fair way to cut half the field then why should we ever have head to head? Why bother cutting half the field each round, why not just cut straight to 4 people? Why not just stick to the FITA and be done with it.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

G33k said:


> Hosed? You mean like they had less points than their opponents and lost?
> 
> Watch any sport and truth is luck will always be a part. Welcome to life. If head to head isn't a fair way to cut half the field then why should we ever have head to head? Why bother cutting half the field each round, why not just cut straight to 4 people? Why not just stick to the FITA and be done with it.


1) TV and olympic dollars are perverting the integrity of sport

2) when someone shoots the second highest score on the field and loses its a joke

3) archery is never going to be a spectator sport in the same league as basketball or tennis

4) John's suggestion at least can balance the $$$$ with keeping things honest


----------



## TomB (Jan 28, 2003)

Anyone want to comment on my idea? You have to win 4 of 7 ends to advance. In a basketball or baseball seven game series or even 5 set tennis match it is not who scores the most points, runs, or points. It is who wins the most games or sets that determines the winner. Even in match play golf, it is not how many strokes, but how many holes you win. I like this better than if one bad quarter, or one bad inning, or one bad set determined the whole series or match. With my idea I can have a bad arrow, loose an end and still come back.

If Limbwalker and I are tied after the first end (in my dreams), closest to the center wins the end. In a seventh end match we would do the same as now, one arrow shootoff (twice) then closest to the center. If match goes seven ends everyone will be watching.


----------



## Huntmaster (Jan 30, 2003)

John, sounds like a good round, but I would question if the 'chance' drama is what FITA is trying to accomplish. 

One more good thing your format would eliminate is the "drop out" issue discussed a while back. If you shoot, it's measured, if you drop out, you get a 0 and is measured as such. That would be a big bonus.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> Hosed? You mean like they had less points than their opponents and lost?


What I mean is that EVERYONE shooting under the current format is shooting in a head to head match. Everyone is under the pressure of matchplay. So yes, the current format is not fair to those who shoot a great score and just happen to be matched up against another archer that also shoots a great score. They both should be rewarded. The current format penalizes far too many good scores for having an unlucky pairing. 

I agree with you on having to win a match for a medal. But I want to know that the best archers are in those medal matches. Not just those lucky enough to "get" there.

John.


----------



## wmt3rd (Oct 20, 2004)

John,

How would you handle ties? If you take 32 top archers shooting 12 arrows, I'm thinking that you are going to have lots of ties. I've never looked at the individual scores, so I'm just guessing here.

Interesting discussion.

Mack


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Aahhh, interesting question. Nothing is ever as simple as it seems.

The "cut the field in half" format has been used in the past. I'm not sure how they addressed ties however. X count? Number of 10's?

John.


----------



## wmt3rd (Oct 20, 2004)

When you mentioned 12 arrows to split the field, that is what peaked my attention. If you shoot more arrows, say 30, I would think that there would be more chance of a spread (less ties). Another benefit is that you'd get to shoot more arrows in the Olympics. :darkbeer: 

At the elite level there isn't a whole lot separating you guys.

Mack


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

And the examples just keep pouring in...



> The OR format is, once again, unkind to the top seeds in Men's Recurve. Five of the top six, along with eight of the top ten seeds have been eliminated





> Last year European Target championships in Greece under heavy wind have already proven that the 12 arrrows matches format for individuals and 24 arrows for teams have definitely pushed the OR beyond the limit of credibility as a sport event.





> Jus to give a real new name to this kind of compettion, some people now in Korea are suggesting to call it "Casual Round" instead of "Olympic Round".
> So, getting to anoter open topic, why not to discuss about changing back the Casual Round format to a real credible Olympic Round matchpaly format more fair to the real levels in our sport?


wmt3rd, they used to shoot 36 arrows (Grand Fita) and then cut the field in half. This suggestion would be a marriage of the old and new, keeping the rationale of rewarding good scores but still providing for head to head matchplay for medals.

John.


----------



## G33k (Jul 16, 2003)

In every sport there is a clamoring to make things 'fair'. I personally like the head to head shoot off. I think alot of archers 'step up to the plate' in that kinda format. It gives them a sense of competing that we seldom get in the FITA

I would argue for more arrows each round but that is me. 

If they change the, I will deal with it. If it stays the same, I will deal with it. No matter what I will love it, because I chose to, but that is just me. 

I don't get why people are against head to heads for cuts but FOR them in the metals. Seems like it should be one or the other. 

But I am done 'discussing' it because people seem pretty heated about it and I am not looking for a fight  I will just get back to teaching college students.... class is about to start.


----------



## krfoss (Aug 25, 2006)

At first I was against the idea of the head to head match with so few arrows. Archery seems to be a sport of longevity and error. Golf is not a sport based on one shot. It is being more accurate over a longer amount of time. Similar, archery is getting a better score compared to his or her opponent over the course of many arrows.

HOWEVER, 

The elimination match is AN excellent way to compare proficiency and skill under pressure. The placement round of the Olympics (or any other competition these days) will weed out the elite archers from the excellent archers. After this, archers show their skill under pressure.
Similarly, track runners are placed into heats compared to their skill. Then, it comes down to one race; one chance to prove they are better than their opponent. 
Archers should be held to this standard as well if it is to become a more exciting sport that earns interest of those outside the discipline. 

Those are my thoughts.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

lots of mediocre to fairly good archers like the OR round because they know they have ZERO chance at beating say Frangilli or Oh in a double FITA.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> If they change the, I will deal with it. If it stays the same, I will deal with it. No matter what I will love it, because I chose to, but that is just me.


Same here. Everone will never agree on all the details, but it's fun to discuss it. And no, no hostility here. Just good lively debate 

Head to head for medals (not metals  ) would be for viewers and media. After all, they only pay attention when a medal is on the line...  

Jim just spoke the unspoken truth about this silly 12 arrow format. It gives folks that really can't shoot all that well an outside chance at beating someone who can. Fair? nope. Exciting? I guess - unless you are interested in seeing the cream truly rise to the top...

John.


----------



## Duss (May 23, 2006)

I suppose this discussion is about "statistics" vs "luck". John seems to be pushing for the statistical point of view.

Yes, a better archer, (consistent, by definition  ) will most often and statistically prevail over other archers who might have "spurts" 

:darkbeer:


----------



## Rchr (Jul 3, 2003)

*Like Bowling*

John, 
The fairest way I have ever heard of is by earning your way up the ladder.
By this: I mean Final Four competitors are Mr. W, Mr.X, Mr. Y and Mr. Z. 

Shooter W(#4)-----------
vs --------------- W (moves up to #3)
Shooter X(#3)-----------


Shooter W(#3)----------
vs -----------------W (moves up to #2)
Shooter Y(#2)----------


Shooter W(#2) ----------
vs -----------------W(wins and becomes #1)
Shooter Z(#1) -----------

The final four, IF they lose their match play they can only fall one position.


----------



## G33k (Jul 16, 2003)

limbwalker said:


> It gives folks that really can't shoot all that well an outside chance at beating someone who can. Fair? nope. Exciting? I guess - unless you are interested in seeing the cream truly rise to the top...


I honestly am not that concerned about this, but I hear an echos of an elitist attitude regarding who is and isn't a great archer and who deserves to be in these matches and that is what rubs me the wrong way. The attitude that even though they shot a higher score than their oppenant , since they are not a 'great shooter' it isn't fair that they move on. The only way that someone that 'doesn't shoot that well' can beat someone that 'can shoot well' is if they shoot a higher score, in which case the win was warranted. How is that not fair? For that round, they were the better archer? Even with the new system that shooter that 'really can't shoot all that well' would still advance. 

I like ORs, I like Round Robins, I will like an new system they come up with. We have a fun game called 'King of the Range' that we play. They all have strengths and weaknesses. But in the end they are about having fun !!! Sometime the rules work for you, sometimes against, but if you stay around long enough it all evens out. 

But I should keep my little nose out of this, I have been around drag racing too long. They use this same method and the top guy doesn't win every race. Each racing is exciting because different people match up. Course in the end, my interest in archery is that it is fun. I will leave the part about making it fair to Marx


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Its elitist to bash a system were someone who cannot break 1250 ever can beat someone who averages 1330? Sort of like that AZ cup a few years ago where Jay Barrs and his 1330+ fita lost to an 1100 shooter

barrs shot well, the 1100 shooter hit more tens in his 18 arrow OR than he did the first 72 arrows of the FITA?

I want a system where the guy who is the best wins. If you shoot 1360 and a 118 and lose to a 1260 and a 119 the best shooter didn't win


----------



## G33k (Jul 16, 2003)

Why is that unfair? The ORs are a seperate game than the FITA. That 1100 shot great in the OR. So we should start 'handicapping' those that are 'good enough' so they win all the matches they 'should'? So then if you aren't good enough (In the FITA) there is no way to win regardless of how you shoot in the OR? Then why should they shoot at all?

That is like saying it is unfair in the sweet 16 if the 1st team loses to the 16th place team, because up til then they were a better team.


----------



## G33k (Jul 16, 2003)

I am not saying that the ORs are perfectly fair. I just think some of the justifications used are a bit.....off

But another point to make about preparing shooters for competition. If archers only shoot head to head when they are already in the top 4, then how do we prepare them? I know you can practice but that is not the same as competition. That is one reason I wish we did more Round Robins, When you first start shooting you get to try one OR per tournament. It takes alot of tournaments to feel prepared. If we eliminated the head to head then most people would never get a chance to do it. Just a thought.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

G33k said:


> Why is that unfair? The ORs are a seperate game than the FITA. That 1100 shot great in the OR. So we should start 'handicapping' those that are 'good enough' so they win all the matches they 'should'? So then if you aren't good enough (In the FITA) there is no way to win regardless of how you shoot in the OR? Then why should they shoot at all?
> 
> That is like saying it is unfair in the sweet 16 if the 1st team loses to the 16th place team, because up til then they were a better team.


why not just have each match one shot? that would make it even more exciting

who cares who wins and who cares if we are picking the best as long as it is exciting

people who push for less arrows to determine a win are those who cannot or do not think they can win over a long course of shooting

I know I cannot beat Darrell Pace in our state shoot if its a fita combined with a 900. I have beat him at a distance before so If I want to win our state championship I would push for a 12 arrow head to head-not 234 arrows.


----------



## G33k (Jul 16, 2003)

Jim C said:


> why not just have each match one shot? that would make it even more exciting
> 
> who cares who wins and who cares if we are picking the best as long as it is exciting


Jim, you are just putting words in my mouth. It took me a while to find the word 'exciting' in any of my posts since I only mentioned it in regards to drag racing. I would really prefer 18 arrows because I think it would help to rule out some of the luck. It is sad how misconstrued my position is being protrayed. If we are in the point of the discussion where we are not even discussing the topic but making up what you think I am saying then any constructive debate is over. Guess that is the problem with debating a lawyer.


----------



## cc46 (Jan 22, 2005)

folks, I'm lurking here and listening to your comments, 

and I kinda like the match play, 

I know that a grand FITA over four days proves who is best, at least most consistant, but its usually decided after a day....that's plain boring. How do you keep the interest for the rest if there is a dominant archer who is always ahead, and how do you keep them in the stands? 

I like some kind of way to reduce the field to a managable number and I like the match play. If you want stars, a little excitement, upsets and drama to the last arrow then why not embrace match play, and get the nerve game tuned up.


----------



## lcv (Sep 7, 2004)

*Tom B*

The format you mentioned is used at the Face 2 Face indoor tournament in Amsterdam. I personally think it is the best method for all concerned. It satisfies good shooting, the crowd, excitement and TV. It is also a proven method. What do you think Vittorio?


----------



## target1 (Jan 16, 2007)

My dime, my chime.

A single tourney should be as stated earlier, like a car race. The first one across the line wins, period. Yes there may be many faster, better more experienced drivers. But stuff happens. tires, engines blow. Run out of gas, someone knocks you out. That's part of the game. 

Bottom line the best many not come in first that day. But the winner will.


----------



## oldreliable67 (Mar 24, 2003)

We all know the problems with the OR, and we all know that FITA is going to adopt nothing that doesn't appeal to TV (which in effect means some form of _relatively_ brief head-to-head competition. So why not simply modify those shortcomings in the current OR format?

First, clearly the relatively few arrows shot produce a situation in which randomness plays a much bigger role in the outcome than desired. Here I'm using randomness in the sense that consistency necessarily plays a much bigger role in the outcome the fewer the number of arrows shot -- it is much more difficult to overcome a relatively poor shot with so few arrows in total -- the fewer the total number of arrows, the more important every arrow. Consequently, the fewer the number of arrows, the more random the outcome. To put it another way, a relatively less skilled archer who is _relatively more_ consistent on a given day will beat an archer with demonstrably higher skills but with _relatively less_ consistency on that day. Thus, the OR in its current format is about skill second; it is about maintaining consistency first.

The first answer that would logically come to mind is: shoot more arrows. Shoot enough arrows such that the relative importance of skill level and consistency are at least equal. But we've been there and done that, and FITA seems, at this point, to be determined to stick with 12 arrow matches.

The second thing that comes to mind is something that has been discussed previously, but not for a while (or if it has, I simply haven't seen it). That is, the double elimination format. The advantages are clear: archers do wind up shooting more arrows but still in a head-to-head match play schema; the finals are still 12 arrows so the TV adherents are pleased; archers have a chance to recover from the impact of "one bad arrow" syndrome.

Administering and running a double elimination round is only slightly more burdensome than a single elimination. In fact, IIRC, GT posted the brackets for double elimination brackets either here or Sagi quite a while back, during another discussion of the dissatisfaction with the OR. A number of software packages are available for double elimination format, some in free shareware. 

Also, IIRC, GT wrote at the time that some at FITA had said rather definitively that the double elimination format would never be used (if I don't remember that correctly, someone please provide the correct info).


----------



## lcv (Sep 7, 2004)

*Limbwalker*

I think your idea is a good one also. The only change I would make is the medal matches. Once who shoots who for the medal matches is established, I would institute the F2F format. Seven sets of three arrows needing four sets to win. If you have three bad arrows in a set you still have a chance to win. If you lose the first two sets you are still in it. Not until you lose four sets are you done. While there are lots of tie breaker one arrow shoot offs indoors at the F2F, at 70 meters I don't think that would be the case. To keep things moving tie breakers are one arrow closest to the center. Lots of drama but you are never out until you lose four sets.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

G33K,

Regarding your "elitist" comment...

We are, after all, dealing with elite archers at Olympic and International events. Recreational archers can (and should) do whatever makes them happy. 

However, world class competitive archers have put their lives on hold, trained incredibly hard and sacrificed much to reach that level. Then along comes an incredibly stupid 12 arrow single elimination matchplay format that all but assures that the best WILL NOT CONSISTENTLY WIN. How is that rewarding ability? Sure, there will alway be a lot of luck involved in sport. But introducing so much luck into the process trivializes the whole event. What may be "fun" to recreational archers is outright insulting to elite level competitive archers, and it needs to be fixed. 

RCHR, that's an interesting solution to the final four. Once you get the final four, or even the "elite eight" - you could do a variety of things. The F2F format sounds interesting, and very fair.

John.


----------



## VintageGold (Apr 29, 2004)

What may be "fun" to recreational archers is outright insulting to elite level competitive archers, and it needs to be fixed. 




I resemble that remark. 



I would like to pose this question, with the exception of Limbwalker, how many of you have shot a match play/OR type tournament?

In my 19 years of tournament shooting I have shot just about every conservable(sic) round of archery there is. In all my years I’ve yet to break the 1300 barrier in a FITA and I average 315 at 70 meters, so I guess that makes me a “recreational shooter”. I do shoot match tournaments on regular bases. My indoor season totally consists of shooting round robin matches albeit it is the team round.

The reason I have some success against the “elite” archers IMHO is that I recognize that I have to be focused on EVERY SHOT. I can’t afford to have my mind wander or have any doubt in my ability at the moment of truth.

Again the OR is a round that the “elite” archers understands or needs to understand that all the time spent training is for naught if they can’t consistently hit the gold during a 12 arrow match. There has to be a reason a “nobody” beat a “somebody” isn’t there? and I don’t buy into the luck theory. 

The greatest joy for me personally, is seeing the reaction of my competitor after sitting him down because he thought he would cruise through the match.

Nick


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Go read Vittorio's comments on the World Cup thread


----------



## VintageGold (Apr 29, 2004)

Interesting point of view as always.

Maybe I should ask this question. What was the factor that came into play enabling a lower ranking archer defeating a higher ranking one?


FITA established the round for the Olympics, ether you accept the current round, adapt and move on, or gripe about how unfair it is to the few who we think are deserving of winning the medals.


----------



## Duss (May 23, 2006)

Whatever the format of the competition, the winner still is the winner in that format. One part of the definition of the word "sport" is the acceptation of the rules and conditions.

I have shot a 70-m elimination last summer. The weather was terrible, cold, heavy rain. I went much farther than I would have expected even if I was the lesser-ranked in that competition.

My advantage may have been that I sort of thrived in that weather, having been raised in a place where that kind of weather is commonplace :wink: 

We are not machines, just humans.

Why not shoot the ORs indoors? That would eliminate the wind, rain, cold, sleet...


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> In all my years I’ve yet to break the 1300 barrier in a FITA and I average 315 at 70 meters, so I guess that makes me a “recreational shooter”.


I think in the U.S., that makes you a USAT member...  ha, ha, ha.

But I digress...

Regardless of what the "status quo" may be, there will always be a large percentage of the population that will fight to keep it.

Right now, the status quo is the current 12 arrow single elimination format that we have become familiar with. From where I sit, I've seen it much more widely accepted by lower ranked archers than highly ranked ones. And for good reason. It is the only format that gives an average archer the ability to defeat a superior archer. Reducing the initial rounds from 18 to 12 arrows guaranteed this even more.

So is that then what we want? To guarantee that mediocre archers will always have a spot on the medal stand? Again, for recreational events, this surely makes it interesting and I have no problem with it. It's downright fun to see a up and coming archer (or even an old gray haired one) take out a top contender. But as I said before, for world ranking events, world championships and Olympic games, it just isn't very responsible to the sport IMO. And that's just my opinion. I'm surely not in any position to enact such a change tommorrow. And even if I was, I'd want to consider more options than just the one I've proposed.

Considering the F2F format for medal matches is very interesting. The more I think about that, the more I like it.

Fun to ponder these things....

John.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

VintageGold said:


> Interesting point of view as always.
> 
> Maybe I should ask this question. What was the factor that came into play enabling a lower ranking archer defeating a higher ranking one?
> 
> ...



again, the people who want OR rounds are people who cannot win over the long haul. FITA sold out to keep IOC money coming in and the fact is it has not got archery anymore television coverage and only makes a mockery out of the sport.

what other sport has completely changed its scoring system to placate the IOC? track? swimming? crew? the shooting sports don't have single elimination and is rifle more a spectator sport than archery?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

For those of you that support the current 12 arrow single elimination format, let me ask you a question...

Why 12 arrows? Why not less? How about 6, or even just one! Why not more arrows? Oh, but then it would be impossible to beat a better archer over the course of 36 or 24 arrows - and that wouldn't be "interesting"?

Seriously, why is 12 arrows good? 

I think we took another step backward when we went from 18 to 12.

John .


----------



## VintageGold (Apr 29, 2004)

Limbwalker, Jim C.

I see that from a public point of view, archery will always be a second tier sport. No matter what the format is unless it become a national pass time, it will always suffer. Quite frankly the reason I got interested in the sport was for that fact, I didn’t want to do what everyone else was into. As much as I would wish for archery to move into the public lime light, I’m afraid it won’t happen in my life time. 

Spending the last 23 years in Germany and enjoying archery from a different prospective I can’t help but think that I will be in for a shock when I return state side later in the year.  

Nick


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

limbwalker said:


> For those of you that support the current 12 arrow single elimination format, let me ask you a question...
> 
> Why 12 arrows? Why not less? How about 6, or even just one! Why not more arrows? Oh, but then it would be impossible to beat a better archer over the course of 36 or 24 arrows - and that wouldn't be "interesting"?
> 
> ...



I asked that question to Nikki who is a big OR fan (or at least appears to be)

Why not have a tournament like what was depicted in Errol Flynn's(With Howard Hill as his stunt shooting double) Robin Hood? Everyone shoots once-those who hit the bullseye remain

shoot one more arrow-at a longer distance target-cut again (Sort of like the shootoff for the car in Pittsburgh)

talk about pressure


----------



## VintageGold (Apr 29, 2004)

limbwalker said:


> For those of you that support the current 12 arrow single elimination format, let me ask you a question...
> 
> Why 12 arrows? Why not less? How about 6, or even just one! Why not more arrows? Oh, but then it would be impossible to beat a better archer over the course of 36 or 24 arrows - and that wouldn't be "interesting"?
> 
> ...


Why 12 arrows? (Because that's the rules )

Why not less? How about 6, or even just one! ( because I don't think FITA will be that stupid:wink: )

Why not more arrows? Oh, but then it would be impossible to beat a better archer over the course of 36 or 24 arrows - and that wouldn't be "interesting"? ( If an archer can't keep thier attention for 12, what makes you think they can for 24 or 36)


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Ahh, that status quo is so strong...



> because I don't think FITA will be that stupid


Why isn't 12 arrows stupid then? Simply because that's "the rules"???

John.


----------



## VintageGold (Apr 29, 2004)

Reading from an other famous poster:zip: :zip: ,I'm getting the impression that do to "distractions" maybe 12 isn't enough.

Nick


----------



## Paradoxical Cat (Apr 25, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> Ahh, that status quo is so strong...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


As a relative newbie to FITA and Olympic Rounds, as I read this debate, I see a trend here: there appears to be a tension between (what I will call for lack of better terms) "ranking" and "competition." "Ranking" tournaments, like FITA seems to be, separate the elite by virtue of their length. "Competition" tournaments, like the Olympic Rounds (as I understand them), use a direct head-to-head single elimination format to promote rapid advancement and upsets. The advantage of the former is ranking status quo. The advantage of the latter is that whomever brings their "A-Game" wins, creating some level of excitement. I see this as analogous to the distinction between the NBA post-season and the NCAA March Madness.

My question is: since the Olympics, as an alleged amateur competition, are there to promote the sport does this matter? If everyone knows that an Olympic Round is set up to promote unexpected results, should we just discount it as that and move on, instead keeping track of the "regular" competitions? (Aren't Olympic medals somewhat less valuable in the era after the USA's NBA Dream Team?)

Limbwalker, why 12? Why not? It's an semi-arbitrary number that balances the arbitrary ridiculousness of a single-arrow shoot off with the length of a 144 arrow round. (Yes, those are semi-arbitrary numbers as well.) Could you shoot more arrows? Yes. Could you shoot fewer? Yes. Could you roll dice? Probably, but then it would be Craps, not Archery. 

I think the question should be: "what balances what you want from a tournament?" (And I think you are on this path..it's just a matter of format.) If you want upsets and excitement, then shoot fewer arrows in a head-to-head format. If you want a more balanced reflection on archers' rankings, then shoot more arrows in a scored-field type competition. But the ultimate (real-world) question is: what will the public and the promoters want to watch? And what will best serve archery?

Personally, I like the head-to-head, but I also like to know where I stand in the field.

I am enjoying reading this debate, by the way.

PC-


----------



## VintageGold (Apr 29, 2004)

The only way to beat the status quo IMHO is to go to extreme measures like boycotting national and international events.:wink: 

Honestly we can propose and counter propose on how FITA can conduct a proper tournament. But unless we have strength in numbers that support our views, the status quo will continue. I’m viewing this through a shooter prospective not a fan’s. (at least this shooters view):secret: 

Nick

PS: Gotta go fling some sticks, see ya all in the AM (my time)


----------



## JLorenti (Mar 17, 2004)

*Geek....*

I hate to say it but your logic is flawed....

A number 1 seed basketball team gets beat by a 16th seed and you call that the same as an 1100 archer beating a 1350 archer in the 12 arrow match?

The comparison would only make sense if you had that 1100 archer shoot an entire fita against the 1350 archer for that to be consistent.
Remember that 16th seed basketball team is not shooting a 12 point game against the number 1 seed, it is playing an entire game. So the logic follows if the 1100 archer beat the 1350 archer in the full fita head to head after the ranking rounds,then you could cmpare this with the basketball comparison.

12 arrow matches just does not bring the best archers together to determine the best archer on the field.
Good Shootin'
Joe lorenti


----------



## wisemaj (Feb 27, 2007)

Some thoughts from another Newbie (so please excuse any naive, uninformed, or just plain dumb comments ... but let me know ):

From previous posts, it seems that the problem with the ranking round format is that, while being a fair test of skill, it is just too boring for Olympic TV rating standards. And the problem with the current 12 arrow H2H matches is that, while presumably providing more excitement, a top performer can shoot one of the best rounds in the field, but be eliminated by a less-skilled, temporarily "hot" archer.

One solution, as John has suggested, is to compromise by using the ranking round format to successively reduce the field by halves until the final four remain, then go to H2H.

Another solution is to keep the excitement factor of H2H, but to change the format to provide a truer test of skill and to eliminate more of the "luck" factor.

I guess I lean toward the latter solution, and, since this seems to be somewhat of a brain-storming session, would propose the following, borrowing ideas from earlier posts:

1. Use the ranking (qualification) round only to determine who makes the final 32 for the match play rounds, and not seed position. Seed position would be based on current world ranking of those who made the cut. This would help eliminate the problem John alluded to of 2 top archers meeting too early in match play. I'm saying this based on the assumption that seeds are now based on performance in the ranking round and that world rankings are complete and fair enough to permit it's use in this way. I'm too new at this to know whether those assumptions are correct. For teams, seeds would be based on the sum of the team members' world rankings ... lowest total is number 1 seed, etc.

2. Match play would be a race to 6 ends, with each end consisting of 3 arrows, shot alternately. After the 3 arrows, if the end is tied, or if there is a chance of a tie (since some arrows may be too close to call), a 4th tie-breaker arrow would be shot, closest to center wins, just in case it's needed. First shot would alternate. For teams, it could either be 3 arrows per team member, or 1 arrow per team member. Ties would be 1 arrow, closest to center wins, shot by the person of the team's choice.

I think this would be a very exciting format, yet would allow the cream to rise to the top. The fact that the match is broken up into multiple games eliminates the problem of one mediocre shot dooming an archer against someone who's "hot". And I hope you might agree that if a "lesser" archer were hot enough to beat a "top" archer in this format, he/she would deserve to go on. Also, note that this would provide a minimum of an 18 arrow match, possibly as high as 44 arrows in a tightly contested match ... hmm, the closer the match, the more arrows required to determine who's best. I think I like that.

A further thought ... I saw a post, not sure if it was on this thread, referencing a problem with visibility of up-to-date scoring. Since I wasn't into archery at the time of the 2004 Olympics I'm not sure of the situation, but it seems to me that up-to-the-minute real-time scoring is a must to maintain viewer interest. I purchased the DVD of the Athens archery event, and must say that while it was great to see the top archers perform, I was quite disappointed at the lack of scoring visibility. I found it very difficult to follow what the scoring situation was at any point in time in the matches. That seems inexcusable, especially considering this was a post-event production.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

a question for everyone. If the position of archery was guaranteed in the Olympics would anyone be supporting the current system?


----------



## G33k (Jul 16, 2003)

First off, I am mostly talking about ORs at the National level, the tournaments that most of us will compete in. As for international tournaments, they can do whatever they want, they certainly don't care what I think about them. 
------
Jim C, you are getting close to insulting me and alot of other archers. And it is unnecessary. 



> I asked that question to Nikki who is a big OR fan (or at least appears to be)





> again, the people who want OR rounds are people who cannot win over the long haul.





> people who push for less arrows to determine a win are those who cannot or do not think they can win over a long course of shooting





> lots of mediocre to fairly good archers like the OR round because they know they have ZERO chance at beating say Frangilli or Oh in a double FITA.


And yes I do like the OR, and the FITA and Round Robins, GASP, I guess I just like shooting archery. This 'discussion' should be about the TOPIC , not trying to slam other people for speaking up and sharing their thoughts. (Maybe I should have made an Alt to discuss it)

Repeatly I have stated that I wish they used MORE arrows, I like the 18 arrows rounds. And if they change it, that would be great. 



VintageGold said:


> I would like to pose this question, with the exception of Limbwalker, how many of you have shot a match play/OR type tournament?


I have



VintageGold said:


> Maybe I should ask this question. What was the factor that came into play enabling a lower ranking archer defeating a higher ranking one?


They shot a higher score in the ORs. I think people forget that the FITA is one competition and the ORs another. Atleast at USAT events (the incident mentioned from from AZ Cup, which is next week). 


The only reason I came back to this thread was to tell Limbwalker that I had an idea. Most people I know compete because it is fun and we can't completely eliminate fun for the sake of fair. But do we really know (for a fact, through testing) that the OR or this modified system is less fun? Remember that I never really said I was against your idea, just that there are certain factors missing and later on that I disagreed with some justifications stated by various people). So I am thinking I might test them out. I have 175 students (over 7 classes) and we have done ORs before. I think I might have them try the ORs and then this other systems. Compare and look at scores and have them answer questions about how much fun each was, if one was more fair, strength, weaknesses etc. Sure they are beginners but their opinions will still be important and interesting.


To repeat: International/Olympic level make need some new system to be more fair but we can't forget about the local and national level and having fun. For the majority of us we aren't affected (and some don't even care about) by international competition, but national tournaments do affect us and that is all I am talking about


----------



## Dave T (Mar 24, 2004)

I always liked the idea of shooting the full FITA round (more than once for the Olympics) and the one with the highest score at the end was the champion. Boring to the non-archer? Yea, maybe but they aren't watching anyway.

I tried numerous times to see the '04 Archery coverage (checking the FITA or USAArchery web sites) and when I stayed up past midnight to tune in some other stupid sport would be on anyway.

Everyone keeps talking about how it has to be exciting for TV coverage but there doesn't seem to be any serious TV coverage as it is. Which will happen first, Olympic archery becomes a TV draw or serious archers quite participating in disgust?

In answer to JimC's question: I'd rather go back to full FITA rounds but I'll never compete at that level so...

Dave


----------



## mbu (Oct 22, 2003)

wisemaj said:


> A further thought ... I saw a post, not sure if it was on this thread, referencing a problem with visibility of up-to-date scoring.


I don’t know if you were referring to my post on World Indoor Pictures and Results thread, but I did mention scoring over there. 

http://www.archerytalk.com/vb/showthread.php?t=468346&highlight=score

Since I don’t have much to add to my original thoughts, I am copying here my comments from the World Indoor Pictures and Results thread. If you read the “Grand Fita” paragraph, you will see that my comments where very similar to Limbwalker’s opening post on this thread. 

*My Original, comments on the World Indoor Pictures and Results thread:*

Perhaps, your comment shows what might be exactly wrong with this current format. If you were to shoot fewer arrows per match, your chances of winning would be even greater.

I don’t mind to see defeats when a stronger archer does not perform to his/her ability and is getting eliminated from the tournament. On the other hand, I don’t want to see this archer being eliminated in the earlier rounds while posting a very high score which would’ve won most of the matches, just because someone less-skillful got “hot” for 12 arrows and than got eliminated in the very next round, while posting a very low score. 

As an archer, I like both formats: FITA and elimination. I believe that these two rounds test different archer’s skills. As a spectator, I like the elimination round much better. There are some other formats, like Vegas finals, Face-2-Face and Lancaster, which are also very exciting to watch.

The Grand FITA format was also great. As was suggested before, using Grand FITA round earlier and proceed with the elimination rounds later makes a lot of sense and is perceived to be “more fair”. I think that using Grand FITA format (no head to head), but do all the shooting at 70m instead of all FITA distances, would make it a faster paced tournament and it would be more TV-crew friendly. About 12 or 18 arrows per round should be plenty until the field is cut to top 8 or 4 archers. Finish it all with the elimination rounds. 

_Another big problem with FITA round for spectators is not just in its format, but also in posting scores. It is very common at the most of the US tournaments (not so much abroad) to post results later at night or even the next day. I don’t think tennis, golf, baseball, football or soccer (the list goes on and on) would ever become this popular, if fans did not know scores as it happens. Some on-going statistic can also help (look at all those boards during the basketball games and some other sports). I understand that a lot of cost is involved and it might never happen, but score absence does not help archery to become a “spectator friendly” sport. _

I also believe that a bad commentator can make any match very boring and a great commentator can make it very exciting. If you were watching the 2003 World Championship and have heard George’s comments during the final matches, you wouldn’t have said that archery is not a “spectator’s sport”. The environment is also very important – Central Park in New York City attracted thousands of spectators during the final matches.


----------



## scrounger (Mar 13, 2007)

I find the current OR format fascinating to watch and I'd be surprised if I were the only one. 

How about a simple idea of "cut-off" score while keeping current HTH format?
Just as an example, say you start with 16 matches: 16 wins move to next round + 4 top score losses. This would mean 10 matches in next round: 10 wins move + 2 top score losses. Now we go to the semis of 6 matches and no free tickets. Would a format like this be considered fair?
Rob

Edited to add:
Final would be the 3 archers going together: no more pairs...


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

G33K,

I think a study like the one you propose could be very useful.

I was thinking that a purely statistical analysis could be used to determine (based on whatever acceptable limit you placed on it) just how many arrows should be used in a head to head matchplay format to consistently determine the strongest shooter. I would be in favor of "enough" arrows, but no more than that. Perhaps that's already been done and the answer came out to 12? 

For fun events, one format that I find very interesting is to let all archers in the field (from masters on down to bowmen) compete in the OR at their respective distances. I know this has been done successfully in Texas and other places too, and much fun was had by all. Usually, a kid ends up winning against a much older, more experience archer - and that's good for the sport.

If the SI Cup weren't a Jr. USAT Qualifier, I'd be using that format for the O.R.'s. And I may still use it for all divisions other than Jr. and Cadet if we don't have enough in the bowman, cub or adult divisions...

I think it makes for a great O.R. when you're only shooting for fun.

John.


----------



## G33k (Jul 16, 2003)

Another interesting idea is something like what Polevaulting does. They start at a certain height (lets just make up some numbers for the sake of arguement) 10' . Then everyone jumps, if they clear they sit down, the others will get two more tries to clear. After three failed attempts or everyone clears, you move the bar to say 10'6". And they go again. Then to say 11'. Now you don't want to wear yourself out then you might not Start jumping til 11' but if you can't clear then you are really bummed out cause you get no height measurement. 

This is kinda similiar to the Vegas Shoot off and it would be easy to watch and follow because you could just look at the targets and know if that person shot well enough to stay in. Could be shoot using 6 arrow ends. What the starting score would be, how much to raise it each time, etc would be something to discuss and figure out over time. 

Am I saying this should replace the ORs, Heavens NO!!!! But it would be fun to do and anytime we can have some fun events, we can get more people involved which is a big goal for me.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Nikki-was anything I said inaccurate? there are lot more good than great archers-the few great archers I know are not fans of the OR round


----------



## cc46 (Jan 22, 2005)

If anyone has the interest or temperment for more on this here's a related thread from last summer on the match play and OR.

http://www.archerytalk.com/vb/showthread.php?t=341122&highlight=match+play

I noted that 10 of 48 and 5 of 24 match play medals were awarded to archers ranking lower than 8th place in qualification at 2 AZ Cups, 2 Gold Cups and 2 World Cups at Anatalya and Porec. Don't know if this holds true all of the time but its 20% of the time in this small sample. 

I guess the question is ...is an upset 20% of the time unreasonable? does it destroy the sport? or does it add enough excitement, interest and drama to grow it?


----------



## G33k (Jul 16, 2003)

cc46 said:


> I noted that 10 of 48 and 5 of 24 match play medals were awarded to archers ranking lower than 8th place in qualification at 2 AZ Cups, 2 Gold Cups and 2 World Cups at Anatalya and Porec. Don't know if this holds true all of the time but its 20% of the time in this small sample.
> 
> I guess the question is ...is an upset 20% of the time unreasonable? does it destroy the sport? or does it add enough excitement, interest and drama to grow it?


Thank you for doing that, I was going to do something similiar, for my own curiosity.


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

20% is fairly huge. I will be interested to see how G33K's testing comes out on that similar or dissimilar. I think that having a 1 in 5 chance of cleaning the favourites clock is going to draw in some competitors that may else have shied away. But is that how you want to grow a sport?


----------



## e_m_i_l_y (May 10, 2006)

*New OR format*

Sounds like a fair, challenging and exciting format. :wink:


----------



## RecordKeeper (May 9, 2003)

It seems fairly simple to me.....

The more arrows shot, the less luck involved...and the greater the likelihood of determining the best archer.:wink:


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

Recordkeeper said:


> It seems fairly simple to me.....
> 
> The more arrows shot, the less luck involved...and the greater the likelihood of determining the best archer.:wink:


Let me put it this way. Do you think 12 shots is a reliable test of skill?

Would anyone select a team member based on 12 arrows?


----------



## WormBurner (Oct 19, 2006)

I thought this conversation was about high-level Olympic or other international competition...not pick-up matches in podunk?

If shooters in podunk matches want to come up with their own "fun" formats, fine, I don't think anybody has any problem with that. Stand on your head...make everybody shoot weak-handed, loser buys the winner a coke, whatever makes it "exciting" for you. 

But if the real problem here is that "folks" just don't find the basic act of shooting arrows into a target interesting...then is imposing ever-more contrived competition formats upon international competition really the solution? How far do we go, in a further attempt to catch the wandering eye of A.D.D. short attention span spectators (who could frankly care less anyway)?

Do we have archers shoot Biathlon-style falling plates? (I mean, I'm sure that would elicit 175 squeals of delight from the phys-ed department, but geez...)


BTW, I definitely agree with the idea of up-to-the-moment display of scoring results. Every shooting sport has banged their head against the wall in an attempt to address the issue of "spectator interest," and the firearm sports already have their answer. They shoot a Qualifying Round...then the Top 10 go into a 10-shot final round with scoring rings subdivided into tenths, and scores are re-calculated and displayed digitally after each shot. The subdivision of scoring rings on the target really creates separation within shooters, and there is significant "movement" and upsets during those last 10 shots. Best of all, the spectators can follow along, and know exactly who stands where, who is falling off, and who's coming on strong. It injects suspense and excitement, while emphasizing perfect shot-making (which is what any marksmanship sport is supposed to be about anyway), and removes the stupid drag-racing element of the current OR.

If the technical problems inherent to this have already been worked out 15 years ago with elegant electronic solutions (on firearm paper target faces which are even smaller than archery faces), then we should be able to do it too.


----------



## VintageGold (Apr 29, 2004)

I’m thinking the reason some people are for or against the current format is that some folks may be forced to play outside of their comfort zone.

In a FITA/grand FITA or ranking round you have X amount of arrows to shoot to obtain the required score to win or move on. With a 144-72 arrow round, outside factors like weather, crowd, and such doesn’t come into play as much as it would in the H2H 12 arrow match. It seems to me that people start becoming critical of match play when it is shot in less that ideal conditions.

Are we trying to change the International/Olympic format for the “good” of the sport or are we trying to come up with a format that will give U.S. a better chance to regain the top spot internationally. I understand that last statement will strike a nerve for some folks, but again I’m viewing this from an expatriate prospective.

Some will say that top shooters of today and yesteryear are against the current Olympic format. Why are those voices silent? I don’t hear the South Koreans, Asia’s and Oceania’s displeasure of the current round. I hear only one voice coming from Europe and of course the discussion taking place here.


FITA changed the Olympic format because Archery was in danger of being eliminated form the games IIRC. If the IOC was so inclined to drop archery, than a change in format wouldn’t matter to them. I submit that the change came about to make it more competitive for all nations that qualified for the Olympics. Since the re-interduction of archery in the 1972 games, the US has medaled in archery with the exception of 1980, 1992, 2004 games. In 2004 the South Korean men were shut out of the individual medal rounds for the first time in recent memory.

Did the medal winners form 04 win because the “big” boys and girls didn’t like the current format? Of did they win because they were able to handled the format and play outside their comfort zone. Regardless of the format, it still comes down to the archers having to deal with the physical and mental factors that surround them during competition.

Nick


----------



## VintageGold (Apr 29, 2004)

Should we try this?

After giving this some thought I propose that an equitable solution in satisfying archers on both side of the fence could incorporated the following:

Shoot a FITA round (144 arrows), at the completion of the round archers are ranked according to their total score and seeded accordingly for the round robin match round.

In the event that there is an uneven number of archers, the top seeds are given a bye until the second round.

The match play round will be 12 arrows and in accordance with the current FITA rules. Points for the match rounds are awarded as follows:

2 points for a win
1 point for each archer in the case of a tie 
0 points for a loss.

The highest total of match points will determine the winner. In the event of a tie, then the total arrow value form all matches shot will determine the winner.

In the event that an archer drops out of the tournament, then all match points won will be surrendered to the archers that lost to this individual, and 2 points will be awarded to all archers that were scheduled to shoot against the before mentioned archer as well as the arrow value (I drop out, my scheduled opponent still shoots for score).

I understand that this format will be used at the next trials, but this adoption of that format does not give you bonus points for scores attained. 

If an archer does not wish to shoot the round robins matches than they should be able to submit their score for a FITA star award. 

To be declared the winner, the archer must shoot both the FITA and match rounds.
I’m including the results of my last indoor tourney to illustrate the point system.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

I will ask my question again

for those of you who like the 12 arrow OR matchplay round is it because

1) you think it will draw more spectators

2) you believe it will keep archery in the olympics

3) you think it is better to keep the top FITA scorers from dominating every major event

4) other


----------



## VintageGold (Apr 29, 2004)

1. if it hasn't done so by now then it probably won't, by the way did you catch that great curly match last night? USA Could medal for the first time in 20 years at the WC

2. That's up to the IOC

3. No, but it'll keep the top dogs honest

So, it's the game that we have to shoot for now, maybe by 2012 all of this will be mute


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

how are the top dogs kept honest when we saw what happened in athens were the (again) rule changes and the winds played all sorts of havoc with the seeding?

Again, why not a one shot match?

a two minute basketball game

one inning of baseball

penalty shots for a soccer (er football) contest

two rallies for a table tennis match


----------



## VintageGold (Apr 29, 2004)

I think I stated my position on this subject. I’ll leave you with a quote from the White Sox manager Ozzie Guillen about the Minnesota Twins.

“They get you in the right situations to beat you. The piranhas attack. That’s the way they attack. They go little by little and then you’re dead.”

That sums up my feeling about the OR, ether you on or your not


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

VG,

I think you are making a lot of assumptions based on your own experience with the 12 arrow format. I guess that's human nature. However you may feel about it personally, and your own chances to "knock off" one of the big dogs or "keep them honest", the integrity of the sport is still at issue here.

Like Jim says, you don't play one inning of baseball, one quarter of football or even 48 minutes of basketball to determine which team moves on and which goes home. 12 arrows, ESPECIALLY when the weather conditions are tough, is simply not enough arrows. FITA knows this. Everyone knows this. I wish folks would just be honest and call it what it is - a design to introduce luck into the event to make it more "interesting"....   

Well, when nobody is even watching the first "x" number of rounds in the elimination brackets - save for a few family and friends who will be there regardless - what's the point? Why not develop a format that will more consistently reward the best archers and give them an opportunity to be in those final elimination matches? 

We have the integrity of the sport to consider here, not just our own selfish motives of "maybe with this format I have a chance to knock of a "big dog"".

John.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

VG,

I think you are making a lot of assumptions based on your own experience with the 12 arrow format. I guess that's human nature. However you may feel about it personally, and your own chances to "knock off" one of the big dogs or "keep them honest", the integrity of the sport is still at issue here.

Like Jim says, you don't play one inning of baseball, one quarter of football, throw 12 darts or play 1 set of tennis to determine which team moves on and which goes home. 12 arrows, ESPECIALLY when the weather conditions are tough, is simply not enough arrows. FITA knows this. Everyone knows this. I wish folks would just be honest and call it what it is - a design to introduce luck into the event to make it more "interesting"....   

Well, when nobody is even watching the first "x" number of rounds in the elimination brackets - save for a few family and friends who will be there regardless - what's the point? Why not develop a format that will more consistently reward the best archers and give them an opportunity to be in those final elimination matches? 

We have the integrity of the sport to consider here, not just our own selfish motives of "maybe with this format I have a chance to knock of a "big dog"".

And "outside their comfort zone?" Again. Let's be a little more honest here and call it what it is. Dumb luck. Any significantly lower ranked archer who beats a top competitor in a 12 arrow match - if they are honest - will tell you that. So can we just call it what it is please?



> If shooters in podunk matches want to come up with their own "fun" formats, fine, I don't think anybody has any problem with that. Stand on your head...make everybody shoot weak-handed, loser buys the winner a coke, whatever makes it "exciting" for you.
> 
> But if the real problem here is that "folks" just don't find the basic act of shooting arrows into a target interesting...then is imposing ever-more contrived competition formats upon international competition really the solution? How far do we go, in a further attempt to catch the wandering eye of A.D.D. short attention span spectators (who could frankly care less anyway)?


Exactly...

John.


----------



## RecordKeeper (May 9, 2003)

limbwalker said:


> And "outside their comfort zone?" Again. Let's be a little more honest here and call it what it is. Dumb luck. Any significantly lower ranked archer who beats a top competitor in a 12 arrow match - if they are honest - will tell you that. So can we just call it what it is please?


Year before last in Pittsburgh I was shooting with Butch. And two straight ends at 60 yards my score was higher than his. Does that make me better? Heck no. But if we had been in a 12 arrow match at that very point in time, I'd have beaten him. So yes....a 12 arrow match introduces quite an element of luck.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

at nationals a few years ago-Canton-Ted Holland-a very good archer but not a world contender(he made USAT one year) started the competition with 59 and 57 at 90M and led the field. IIRC Butch shot a 2700 double but after 12 arrows Ted would have been champion. I think TH finished about 8th or 9th that year. In the 1975 Worlds Spigarelli led Pace after several ends at 90-Spigarelli did not medal while Pace destroyed the world records. same thing in Montreal-if you watch that easton tape- swirling winds threw paces first ends at 90 off-


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Jim, that's a great point (and Recordkeeper too). The 12 arrow format tends to find those that can start quick. Or those that "started quick" for that particular match...

It also makes the lesser archer look better, since even in defeat the margin of victory is far fewer than even an 18 arrow round :tongue: ha, ha.

John.


----------



## VintageGold (Apr 29, 2004)

Gentlemen,

I will gracefully disengage from this topic. Thank you for the insight you all provided.

Sadly I doubt I’ll make it back state side before the nats at CC, But I look forward to having the opportunity to compete with all of you at the indoors next spring.

Until then
Nick


----------



## G33k (Jul 16, 2003)

Hutnicks said:


> 20% is fairly huge. I will be interested to see how G33K's testing comes out on that similar or dissimilar. I think that having a 1 in 5 chance of cleaning the favourites clock is going to draw in some competitors that may else have shied away. But is that how you want to grow a sport?


Perhaps someone could see if the same was true (20%) with the old 18 arrows. rounds. 

Once problem is more arrows , if there are only 8 people then they need to 3 rounds. 16 people then 4 rounds, so if you shoot 18 arrows then with just 16 people you have shot a half FITA. You can do the math to see how it is affected when you have the typical 64 people. I had thought this is why they cut to 12 arrows.

Personally I am fine with 18 arrows rounds. I am also a fan of a one day FITA but I think you will find that alot of people disagree with that many arrows. 

PS Justin Huish Loved the ORs


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

limbwalker said:


> Jim, that's a great point (and Recordkeeper too). The 12 arrow format tends to find those that can start quick. Or those that "started quick" for that particular match...
> 
> It also makes the lesser archer look better, since even in defeat the margin of victory is far fewer than even an 18 arrow round :tongue: ha, ha.
> 
> John.


and I can recount dozens of times where a lesser archer's entire year is "good" if he knocks off a top seed at an important OR only to get beaten in the next round. Its like what Coach K (I believe-maybe Dean Smith) noted about college basketball when his team was top dog-"we are playing with an eye towards winning the national championship-everyone who plays us is playing to say they beat a number one"

you see it in tennis too-where lots of guys would be happy to take out Federer in the first round of the US Open even if they get crushed in the next round. fortunately, the majors in tennis are even longer than other tournaments-5 set matches rather than three which tends to prevent as many upsets (and remember tennis is a "sport" not a discipline where a top guy has time to change his game to win-in archery there is not much an OH or Frangilli can do when someone else is hot-in tennis a top player can adapt)


----------



## WormBurner (Oct 19, 2006)

VintageGold said:


> ,
> Did the medal winners form 04 win because the “big” boys and girls didn’t like the current format? Of did they win because they were able to handled the format and play outside their comfort zone. Regardless of the format, it still comes down to the archers having to deal with the physical and mental factors that surround them during competition.
> 
> Nick



With all due respect...if the only thing that matters is that the competitor prevailed against "whatever situation he was in," then the same thing could be said if the archers were made to shoot standing on their heads. "It all came down to who was best at standing on their head and shooting at that particular moment?" 

There is no limit to what can be done to twist the competition to "jazz" it up. But I think what is being attempted here, is a more elevated discussion of the essential character of the sport and what is best for it. The question is not whether the archer can "shoot outside his comfort zone" or "adapt" to whatever the match organizer throws at them; it's whether what we're throwing at them faithfully represents what the sport is about, and whether it consistently rewards the best.

IMO, sport at this level should be a strict meritocracy. It shouldn't be about "shuffling the deck." I don't think things that only come around once every 4 years should have any element of "crapshoot" introduced whatsoever.


----------



## RecordKeeper (May 9, 2003)

WormBurner said:


> With all due respect...if the only thing that matters is that the competitor prevailed against "whatever situation he was in," then the same thing could be said if the archers were made to shoot standing on their heads. "It all came down to who was best at standing on their head and shooting at that particular moment?"
> 
> There is no limit to what can be done to twist the competition to "jazz" it up. But I think what is being attempted here, is a more elevated discussion of the essential character of the sport and what is best for it. The question is not whether the archer can "shoot outside his comfort zone" or "adapt" to whatever the match organizer throws at them; it's whether what we're throwing at them faithfully represents what the sport is about, and whether it consistently rewards the best.
> 
> IMO, sport at this level should be a strict meritocracy. It shouldn't be about "shuffling the deck." I don't think things that only come around once every 4 years should have any element of "crapshoot" introduced whatsoever.


I agree. And the only thing that could sway my opinion on the matter would be if the notion that we could lose archery as an Olympic sport if the spectator appeal isn't increased is indeed true.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> Personally I am fine with 18 arrows rounds. I am also a fan of a one day FITA but I think you will find that alot of people disagree with that many arrows.
> 
> PS Justin Huish Loved the ORs


I agree with you. I thought 18 arrows was reasonable. By then, you should have a decent idea of who the better archer is, and still give a little room for an early error. Agreed too on the one day FITA. Even my 12 year old son can easily handle this, without training 100+ arrows/day. Plenty of recovery time in between distances and at lunch IMO...

Whether Justin or anyone else loved the OR's is of little consequence IMO. We should be concerned about the proper format for an international event and what's responsible, not necessarily what we "like" or don't like. 

Lower ranked archers will always prefer a short round over a long one. That's just logical because statistically it gives them a better chance of winning. But the responsible thing to do is find a reasonable format that makes both an interesting event and rewards good shooting. Right now, the 12 arrow OR format often rewards mediocre shooting far too greatly. I've seen too many archers get passes with 104's followed by a 103, and then go on to claim gold. Meanwhile, someone who shot a pair of 108's or 110's (shot at the same time, under the same conditions, in a head to head match) is sitting on the sidelines. That's not fair or logical.

John.


----------



## G33k (Jul 16, 2003)

limbwalker said:


> Whether Justin or anyone else loved the OR's is of little consequence IMO. We should be concerned about the proper format for an international event and what's responsible, not necessarily what we "like" or don't like.


That comment was in response to all the fuss about mediocre or bad archers liking the OR and a direct question about if any great archers liked the OR. There is no need to associate someones opinion about a game to their ability as an archer.


----------



## Duss (May 23, 2006)

If the discussion is about "how to propel archery into the realm of the spectacle sports" then we must accept that the "mediocre" and "lesser-talented" may have their word to say. Because for a "spectacle sport" to thrive it must reach a large pool of interested people. And elite and "the best" are not the majority or the plurality.

Ouch!


----------



## oldreliable67 (Mar 24, 2003)

WormBurner said:


> With all due respect...if the only thing that matters is that the competitor prevailed against "whatever situation he was in," then the same thing could be said if the archers were made to shoot standing on their heads. "It all came down to who was best at standing on their head and shooting at that particular moment?"
> 
> IMO, sport at this level should be a strict meritocracy. It shouldn't be about "shuffling the deck." I don't think things that only come around once every 4 years should have any element of "crapshoot" introduced whatsoever.


Excellent points to go along with a very interesting thread (kudos to all who have contributed!) and a good statement of what the objectives of the format should be...no "crapshoot." 

Just my opinion: I like the ranking round followed by a bracket elimination format very much for the Olympics, WC and other major tournaments. What I don't like is the too-great role that random chance plays in the single elimination, 12-arrow format. This format gives way too much weight to random chance over archer skill. These short-comings have been well-documented and all are aware of them, so no need to repeat them here.

But I'd like to ask again: how do folks feel about a *double-elimination* format? The double repecharge (sp?) is used in many sports, perhaps the NCAA baseball champs (i.e., College World Series) perhaps being the best known in the US. There are several variations on the double elimination format, just google it up or refer to wikipedia for a discussion.

A double elimination format, even with shooting only 12 arrows (though personally, I would prefer 15 or 18), would retain the presumed TV attraction of head-to-head finals of _relatively_ brief duration but reduce the role that random chance plays in the outcome. One might even argue that it would test the overall competitiveness of the presumably higher-skilled archer that had been bested by an archer on a "hot streak", in that his/her ability to come back from defeat would be tested, thereby adding another desirable (IMO) element to the overall competition.

Conversely, one might argue that all archer's "comfort levels" would be heightened somewhat by the knowledge that one loss would not send them packing. But then, why would that be a bad thing?

Not all by any means, but seemingly most in the archery community acknowledge that the current 12-arrow, single elimination format is an imbalance between random chance and archer skill -- the outcome is influenced way too much by random chance and not nearly enough by archer skill. If a change is made to the format, this imbalance is the element that needs to be addressed. As wormburner phrased it, we need to do away with any "crapshoot" elements.

Just my opinion. YMMV.


----------



## G33k (Jul 16, 2003)

Duss said:


> If the discussion is about "how to propel archery into the realm of the spectacle sports" then we must accept that the "mediocre" and "lesser-talented" may have their word to say. Because for a "spectacle sport" to thrive it must reach a large pool of interested people. And elite and "the best" are not the majority or the plurality.


Personally I do not care so much about it being a spectator sport but I do care about getting more people involved. In which case what you say is still true. 

Maybe we should split into two. One area for all the elite and great archers to compete in and another for people that love archery, want to have fun and want to get more people involved.


----------



## WormBurner (Oct 19, 2006)

Duss said:


> If the discussion is about "how to propel archery into the realm of the spectacle sports" then we must accept that the "mediocre" and "lesser-talented" may have their word to say. Because for a "spectacle sport" to thrive it must reach a large pool of interested people. And elite and "the best" are not the majority or the plurality.
> 
> Ouch!



Well, again with due respect...I don't think this discussion _is_ about propelling archery into the realm of "spectacle" (sic) sports (Marcus, have mercy on me).

If we wanted to do that, then maybe the women should shoot in beach volleyball attire?

Seriously, I really think the intent was to discuss what is right and fair to the sport, not figuring out what sort of titillation is needed to persuade "Desperate Housewives" viewers to flip over to Archery.

I think we are misplacing our efforts, bending ourselves into pretzels in an attempt to draw viewers who are really more interested in what hair-do Sanjaya Malakar will have on "American Idol" this week.

(Hmmm....I wonder if Shaun White has ever shot a bow?)


----------



## G33k (Jul 16, 2003)

cc46 said:


> I noted that 10 of 48 and 5 of 24 match play medals were awarded to archers ranking lower than 8th place in qualification at 2 AZ Cups, 2 Gold Cups and 2 World Cups at Anatalya and Porec. Don't know if this holds true all of the time but its 20% of the time in this small sample.
> 
> I guess the question is ...is an upset 20% of the time unreasonable? does it destroy the sport? or does it add enough excitement, interest and drama to grow it?


A couple of thoughts on ways we could get more information.

Check back on the old 18 arrow OR and see what the percent was then.

Look at the scores and see how often people were eliminated that would have continued if Limbwalker's method was used. It is possible that those who ranked lower than 8th place would have still won medals with limbwalkers method. No one has suggested any thing to remove archers who shot low FITA and then shot awesome all day in the ORs but that seems to be a major concern since those archers 'are not great'. (personally if they shoot great through the whole ORs, I think they deserve it an OR medal, IMHO)

For the Olympics, ya, I would love a system that gave the archers more of a chance to prove themselves. 

But for the USAT events, the FITA and ORs are seperate, they give out awards for both and both affect your USAT ranking AND your OR scores still benefit your Rolling Ranking regardless of whiether you win or lose. But I may be the only one looking at from that angle rather than just the Olympics.


----------



## Paradoxical Cat (Apr 25, 2006)

G33k said:


> Maybe we should split into two. One area for all the elite and great archers to compete in and another for people that love archery, want to have fun and want to get more people involved.


I think we do that already. How many non-elite shooters travel to the international competitions? For national competitions, you could have a ranking requirement for entry or for seeding into certain parts of the competition. However, how well will that work in this country where archery is largely seen as a weekend hobby?

Also, the whole idea of limiting the competitor pool rubs me the wrong way, especially when the starting pool isn't that large to begin with.

PC-


----------



## WormBurner (Oct 19, 2006)

G33k said:


> ...Maybe we should split into two. One area for all the elite and great archers to compete in and another for people that love archery, want to have fun and want to get more people involved.



I think any sport you can name is already split, according to the principle of "Freedom of Association." For example, Pete & the others are in Korea...I'm here typing on a computer. 

Again, nobody is preventing club shooters from doing what we want, be it shooting at Pepsi cans if that's what floats our boats. The elite archers don't tell us weekend hackers what we can do in our clubs or backyards; so what qualifies us to tell them how to conduct their end of the affair? 

If this is about forcing someone's opinions onto the higher levels of the sport, in apparent contradiction to what appears to be a developing consensus of the people who atually participate in that strata...then I detect a "whiff of arrogance" there that is unbecoming in its own right, and it would appear that the top shooters don't have a monopoly on "elitist attitudes," after all.

I know that politics is unavoidable in International Sports. But just once, it would be nice to find just one event that hadn't been permeated by "Sports Bureaucrats" with University degrees, wrapping their personal whims in the Flag of "Saving the Sport" or "Promoting Wider Participation" and foisting it upon the competitors without debate. 

And there's never any sort of impact study...no metrics or deliverables...nothing to furnish proof that these professional meddlers' ideas provided one iota of benefit in terms of increasing appeal or exposure. It's always just, "This is how we think it should be, and EVERYbody must do it"...then it becomes "fait accompli," the status quo...and it's just "how it is."


----------



## G33k (Jul 16, 2003)

Paradoxical Cat said:


> For national competitions, you could have a ranking requirement for entry or for seeding into certain parts of the competition. However, how well will that work in this country where archery is largely seen as a weekend hobby?
> 
> Also, the whole idea of limiting the competitor pool rubs me the wrong way, especially when the starting pool isn't that large to begin with.
> 
> PC-


No no no no, that is no where near what I meant. I am totally against the idea of limiting who can shoot at AZ Cup or any other USAT event. It was meant more as a rhetorical question for people to think about.


----------



## G33k (Jul 16, 2003)

Soemone asked earlier and not sure that many answer , but how many people actually shoot the ORs? Are many of you going to AZ, TX or Gold Cup?


----------



## Paradoxical Cat (Apr 25, 2006)

G33k said:


> No no no no, that is no where near what I meant. I am totally against the idea of limiting who can shoot at AZ Cup or any other USAT event. It was meant more as a rhetorical question for people to think about.


I see. However, you raise a point particularly in light of the recent threatened changes to the format of the Gold Cup. What does one do when the ranking field is swamped by archers who have no hope of being ranked? Obviously, accommodation is the ideal, but also the least realistic. So what should the standard be?

I, for one, hope to get to the Gold Cup, but as an unranked archer, feel that I am merely taking up space. However, there are always local shoots.

PC-


----------



## RecordKeeper (May 9, 2003)

Paradoxical Cat said:


> I see. However, you raise a point, particularly in light of the recent threatened changes to the format of the Gold Cup. What does one do when the ranking field is swamped by archers who have no hope of being ranked? Obviously, accommodation is the ideal, but also the least realistic. So what should the standard be?
> 
> I, for one, hope to get to the Gold Cup, but as an unranked archer, feel that I am merely taking up space. However, there are always local shoots.
> 
> PC-


Here I think you have highlighted a serious problem. I think the Joe archers should have the same access to open events as the elite archers. I am opposed to anything that makes archery less inclusive, as I think that is contradictory to efforts to make Olympic style archery more popular.

I think you and I have every bit as much right to be competing at the Gold Cup as anyone else, and thee isn't any reason that the elite archers shouldn't have to beat us in order to be victorious.:wink:


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Now, how did we get from a new Elimination Round format to who all could compete in events...  

I was very surprised when I found out that the Olympic format was single elimination. Even more when I found out it went from 18 to 12 arrows after round 3. I was pretty much an "archery outsider" when I learned about this, and it didn't make any sense at all to me then. I can hardly be considered an outsider these days (although I do reserve the right to feel that way), but I still don't agree with it. Not when there are so many variables that come into play with only 12 shots at 70 meters. 

My bottom line is that I want to see the best of the field contending for medals in the matches at the end. I think it cheapens the credibility of the sport/event in everyone's eyes when the format all but prevents the best archers from advancing.

Again, I go back to my example of 109's and 110's getting sat down when so many 105's and 103's (or whatever) advance. Same exact conditions, same line, so why do they advance? One reason - luck (of the draw). Pure luck.

John.


----------



## G33k (Jul 16, 2003)

Paradoxical Cat said:


> What does one do when the ranking field is swamped by archers who have no hope of being ranked? Obviously, accommodation is the ideal, but also the least realistic. So what should the standard be?
> 
> I, for one, hope to get to the Gold Cup, but as an unranked archer, feel that I am merely taking up space. However, there are always local shoots.


You should go, absolutely. You are not taking up space, you are a part of the archery community. If we only allowed 1200 shooters to shoot, then most clubs would be unable to afford to host the tournaments, too little archers. We want the competitions to grow, not shrink. 

Besides, where do you think great archers come from? They do not pick up a bow and instantly start shooting 1200/1300s , no they start small and grow. You have to compete in order to learn how to compete.


----------



## G33k (Jul 16, 2003)

limbwalker said:


> Again, I go back to my example of 109's and 110's getting sat down when so many 105's and 103's (or whatever) advance. Same exact conditions, same line, so why do they advance? One reason - luck (of the draw). Pure luck.


Limbwalker, I think this is a statement that needs proof. Not because I doubt you (I know it happens, I have been on both sides of that coin) but I want to know how much does it really happen. If it is happening 90% of the time it is very different than 10%. 

I have started to look at some scores from one OR match and it is interesting.

One example is a 1/32 round (64 competitors, 32 matches) three people lost with a 102,99,99 and 3 people won their match with scores below that (98,96,96). So LW system was have switched 3 losers for two winners, so 3 out of 32 matches were 'wrong' (Subjective term but seems to fit well). [one of the 99 was scored by someone with a much lower FITA which some consider to imply he doesn't deserve to move on anyways)

result 9% of the matches were incorrect (compared to LW method)


There is alot more work to do but I am finding it fascinating already from a sports psych point of view. Sometimes when you get some one that upsets an higher ranked person, I see significantly lower scores shoot against that person. Basically the higher ranked archers feels like they are 'supposed' to win and it rattles their nerves. That is part of the reason why not is this is too scientific, because we can not say what the archers would have shot if they weren't 'shooting off' against someone. Shooting head to head against Vic is going to affect your shooting (a little or alot, that is up to you) and being ranked 2nd and shooting against a kid ranked 20th that you are supposed to beat affects you too. Mostly what I see is someone bombing out more that shooting great and still loosing


----------



## G33k (Jul 16, 2003)

limbwalker said:


> Again, I go back to my example of 109's and 110's getting sat down when so many 105's and 103's (or whatever) advance. Same exact conditions, same line, so why do they advance? One reason - luck (of the draw). Pure luck.


Actually it is not pure luck, positions are determined by the FITA. They dont' put 1 and 2 together, they put 1 and 64. But yes I guess you could consider it luck.


----------



## cc46 (Jan 22, 2005)

I agree, PC you should go for it! I think you will enjoy it and besides most clubs want the participation and appreciate your support...

btw if anyone is interested 
@ San Salvador 2006 WC -- 2 of 12 medals went to archers ranked lower than 8th
@ Shanghai 2006 WC -- 0 of 12 medals went to archers ranked lower than 8th
@ Ulsan 2007 WC -- 5 of 12 medals went to archers ranked lower than 8th
running total 10/48 + 5/24 + 7/36 == 22/108 medals still 20%


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Very interesting.

20%. I wonder what a sports analyst or statistician would think about that. Good for the sport? Recreationally I say yes. But in world championship/Olympic competition? Maybe the answer is still yes. I don't know.

But by cutting the field in half over the first 4 or 5 rounds, you reduce that percentage of "lucky" archers. Shouldn't that be a goal if you are truly trying to determine a champion?

Or are we not as concerned about the process as we are the spectacle or the entertainment value. I think that's an honest question. Guess it just lies in the overall objective of the event.

John.


----------



## G33k (Jul 16, 2003)

cc46 said:


> I agree, PC you should go for it! I think you will enjoy it and besides most clubs want the participation and appreciate your support...
> 
> btw if anyone is interested
> @ San Salvador 2006 WC -- 2 of 12 medals went to archers ranked lower than 8th
> ...


Would those same archers have got medals if Limbwalkers idea had been used? I mean did they just get lucky every match; ie they shot low scores but so did their opponent? Or did they just shoot high scores in the OR than their placement in the FITA would imply?

We are now argueing several points in several directions. 

The initial arguement was: It is not fair that someone shoots the second highest score on the field and gets cut, lets fix it. (basically OR is bad)
Another arguement being made was: 12 arrows leaves too much up to luck (12 arrows is bad)
Then: The best people from the FITA should be the ones shooting off for medals because they have proven they are better over the long haul ( better archers can't perform consistantly or something)
later on it became: The Best archer should always win, lets find a way to make that true regardless of how anyone is shooting on that day. (the Best should win every tournament)

If we are going to look at past tournaments we have to look at all the facts regarding the performance of those people in the OR and FITA


----------



## RecordKeeper (May 9, 2003)

G33k said:


> Actually it is not pure luck, positions are determined by the FITA. They dont' put 1 and 2 together, they put 1 and 64. But yes I guess you could consider it luck.


And this is exactly what happened in Colorado Springs last year. Vic was 1 and I was 64.

He shot a 104 in our match....I could, and should have taken him out.:wink: But I am by no means the better archer....


----------



## G33k (Jul 16, 2003)

Recordkeeper said:


> And this is exactly what happened in Colorado Springs last year. Vic was 1 and I was 64.
> 
> He shot a 104 in our match....I could, and should have taken him out.:wink: But I am by no means the better archer....


Why didn't you? You said you could have, but when they whistles blew, what did you shoot?


----------



## RecordKeeper (May 9, 2003)

G33k said:


> Why didn't you? You said you could have, but when they whistles blew, what did you shoot?


Poorly is what I shot....I'm just saying that Vic was ripe for the picking in our match.

Interestingly, in the very next match Vic fired off a 111 in the wind....only to lose to Dakota Sinclair who shot a 112:wink:


----------



## WormBurner (Oct 19, 2006)

Does anyone have any data showing that the head-to-head format has increased interest & participation in recurve archery?


----------



## krfoss (Aug 25, 2006)

THAT would be the most important piece of information here, for THAT is the whole point to creation of the OR match. I'd like to see that info as well.


----------



## G33k (Jul 16, 2003)

There is basically no data about anything in Archery. No money = no research 

Would be pretty tough to prove because you would have to prove that the OR was the reason for increase rather than the billion other factors. 

I guess I could ask around at AZ Cup in a few days, who else is going? I assume yall shoot competively ,right?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> I'm just saying that Vic was ripe for the picking in our match.
> 
> Interestingly, in the very next match Vic fired off a 111 in the wind....only to lose to Dakota Sinclair who shot a 112


In the first round of Athens, I shot a 144 and got pounded. Vic shot a 145 and won easily (his opponent didn't get the memo and didn't shoot his first 2 arrows...). It happens.

But in the case you mention, both Vic and Dakota should have advanced. That would be a fair way to make sure the better archers are headed to the final rounds than the mess we have now. It does NO EVENT any good to have two quality archers shoot well and one of them not advance. That's counter-intuitive. Should never happen.

John.


----------



## lcv (Sep 7, 2004)

*Limbwalker*

Check your PM's

Lance Van Natta


----------



## WormBurner (Oct 19, 2006)

Well, here's _one_ data point...our state outdoor FITA is going to be a 70mOR this year...and I'm going to shoot it...so there's a net increase of one archer (but it ain't because of the format).


Plus the input of 2 actual Olympic archers here - both of whom hate the format.

Heck, I think that's about as close to unanimous as we're going to get here. I consider this myth busted.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

So then here's the proposal...

*Ranking*: Shoot the ranking round (either 72 arrow @ 70M or FITA) and cut to top 32 based on score. 
*Elimination*: Shoot 3 more rounds (12 or 18 arrows) cutting the field in half after each round. 
*Medals*: Once you arrive at the final 4 archers/teams, use F2F format to determine medals. 

Now, how do we get this proposal accepted by the powers that be?

John.


----------



## cc46 (Jan 22, 2005)

Sounds good John, so
72 + 4x12 = 120 arrows 
or 
72 + 4x18 = 144 arrows to finish the medals
could be done in a day, 

everyone shoots minimum 72 arrows and the the best 32 archers shoot more. And those in the medal rounds shoot up to 144, yup I like it...did I get that right?


----------



## BHNTR1 (Apr 6, 2003)

limbwalker said:


> G33K,
> 
> Regarding your "elitist" comment...
> 
> ...





This is the most ass of nine comment that I have ever heard. Lets make archery a game were only a hand full can win, lets not let the archer(someone like myself) that has a full time job, a family, still trains his ass off and one day will win a big tournament, have that opportunity. 


The format the way it is today suits me just fine, one day I will beat one of your Elitist archers. Personally I like the fact there is opportunity for a no name to upset a big dog. For you all to claim that only a few should be winning is about as wrong as It gets.  


Dont think the rest of us dont make sacrifices in our lives also, just because were not at the OTC or other training facility doesn't make us more or less of and athlete or winner. 


The thought process of some of you people is just beyond comprehension.


----------



## BHNTR1 (Apr 6, 2003)

Duss said:


> If the discussion is about "how to propel archery into the realm of the spectacle sports" then we must accept that the "mediocre" and "lesser-talented" may have their word to say. Because for a "spectacle sport" to thrive it must reach a large pool of interested people. And elite and "the best" are not the majority or the plurality.
> 
> Ouch!





Very well put, the Average archer is what makes this thing go round. If the same people are being put into a give, give to win all the time then who is gonna watch. Not many in my book, the spectators are gonna get board and find some thing else to do.

Take the NASCAR analogy, if the races are set up or restricted to a point were there are no wrecks and the big money teams are the only ones winning do you thing the stands are gonna stay full??????????? NOT a snowballs chance.


----------



## BHNTR1 (Apr 6, 2003)

limbwalker said:


> In the first round of Athens, I shot a 144 and got pounded. Vic shot a 145 and won easily (his opponent didn't get the memo and didn't shoot his first 2 arrows...). It happens.
> 
> But in the case you mention, both Vic and Dakota should have advanced. That would be a fair way to make sure the better archers are headed to the final rounds than the mess we have now. It does NO EVENT any good to have two quality archers shoot well and one of them not advance. That's counter-intuitive. Should never happen.
> 
> John.





This is like working for someone that believes in selective hiring, lets make sure our buddies are always taken care of, the others can always be donner's no matter how hard they work to achieve a higher standard. What a load of crap.


----------



## G33k (Jul 16, 2003)

WormBurner said:


> Plus the input of 2 actual Olympic archers here - both of whom hate the format.
> 
> Heck, I think that's about as close to unanimous as we're going to get here. I consider this myth busted.


That falls very short of busting the 'myth' or making it unanimous. LOL


----------



## lcv (Sep 7, 2004)

*Olympic Round*

What are the Pro's of John's theory of cutting the field in half after each twelve arrows after the FITA round cut. 

1. OR World Records can still be maintained.

2. No more would countries play the bracket game that gets some peoples ire up.

3. The best shooters in the world will 99.9% of the time "not" get knocked out in round one or two. All they have to do is beat one half of the field.

4. In the same vain it solves Vittorio's concerns about the "long haul" shooters. TV is not going to cover any of the prelims anyway. 

5. In the end, the four best overall shooters will be there for the medal matches which is what all the archers, TV, and FITA should want to see happen.

Now lets look at the medal matches themselves once it has been determined who is shooting for what medal by halving the field after every 12 arrows. This is where the F2F format should come into play. I say that because it further reduces a loss based on one end of bad shots or one end of just one bad shot. The format is 3 arrows per set with the best score for those three arrows winning the set. In case of a tie score in a set, there is a one arrow shoot off, closest to the center to determine the winner of that set. Seven sets constitutes the match. Therefore you must win four of the seven sets to win your medal. Now you ask "Why This" Here are the Pro's

1. An archer will never be out of the medal match by shooting one or two bad arrows over the course of a match. They might not win that particular set of three arrows but you are not out of the match itself. Shoot one bad end in an OR and you very likely are all done.

2. You can make a come back anytime.

3. TV gets to see more dramatic one arrow shoot offs than they ever would otherwise. In a one arrow shootoff the judges calls are eliminated. Just get out your ruler and measure closest to the center.

To sum it all up if this format was used we would have a lot less flukes with the best overall shooters in the medal matches a very high percentage of the time, FITA gets a manageable tournament that is simple to understand, and TV gets quick fast moving results after each three arrows in the medal matches and the possibility of multiple dramatic one arrow shoot offs. Everybody is happy. Now I am sure there are dissenters out there who have other thoughts or can think of problems with this format so please give me your imput. What "bad" am I missing. I'm sure I am missing something because it is too simple.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

BHNTR1,

How 'bout telling us how you really feel? :wink: 



> For you all to claim that only a few should be winning is about as wrong as It gets.


I don't see anyone saying that at all. Rather, in competition, only the best SHOULD consistently win. If you're not in that group (and none of us always are) then you don't win. 

Isn't that the reason we hold tournaments after all? I mean, what's the point of the event if you don't determine who the best archers are through the course of shooting?

And, there is a BIG difference between "elite" archers (of which we have very few in the U.S.) and "elitist" archers. One is internationally competitive, the other is incredibly boring to be around. :tongue: 

Oh, and I'm sure you meant asinine, not "ass of nine".

John.


----------



## BHNTR1 (Apr 6, 2003)

limbwalker said:


> BHNTR1,
> 
> How 'bout telling us how you really feel? :wink:
> 
> ...





In my best effort to not turn this into a flame fest, Ill refrain from any other Comment until I have done four things.

1) Take a hot shower
2) have a huge plate of hot Pasta
3) Have multiple cocktails
4) reread this entire thread to be sure I haven't read something into this

As it stands what I have had the chance to read doesn't set to well with me.

Ill get back to you when Im in a better frame of mind.


----------



## BHNTR1 (Apr 6, 2003)

limbwalker said:


> Oh, and I'm sure you meant asinine, not "ass of nine"./QUOTE]
> 
> 
> 
> Either way works for me, The latter suits the red neck in me a lil more. :wink:


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

BHNTR1 said:


> This is the most ass of nine comment that I have ever heard. Lets make archery a game were only a hand full can win, lets not let the archer(someone like myself) that has a full time job, a family, still trains his ass off and one day will win a big tournament, have that opportunity.
> 
> 
> The format the way it is today suits me just fine, one day I will beat one of your Elitist archers. Personally I like the fact there is opportunity for a no name to upset a big dog. For you all to claim that only a few should be winning is about as wrong as It gets.
> ...



again-lets make a system where a 1150 archer can beat a 1350 so the 1150 can feel better. what other sport does this happen? not any of the others I participate in. I played Michael Applegren when he was world #2 in table tennis-I had to beat three really good players to even qualify into the main draw of the the US Open, beat a good player and then played him where he beat me 21-8, 21-8, 21-9. I was leading the first game but in a long match like that, I had no chance. should I whine that the rules ought to be changed so I have a chance against him? OF COURSE NOT. maybe I should demand we play just 8 points? maybe I win then-probably not but I sure have a better chance than having to win 63 points 

No other sport can I think of have the rules changed to favor OK to good athletes having more chances to win than in archery. 

LEt me guess=allowing the OK to good more chances will get more people in the sport? no evidence of that. olympic medals are there for the best of the best-and as a dream for the not quite the best to work work work and train train train

if you think you ought to have a shot at Frangilli or Oh when you have a real job etc you have a misplaced sense of reality. as I noted, when I was playing table tennis I was a full time college student -I had no illusions I had a chance against a guy who trained 200 hours a month and was in the top 1/10th of 1% of the world in terms of talent


----------



## G33k (Jul 16, 2003)

What is kinda humorous is that some of the suggestions will almost require more arrows to get the winner of one USAT tournament than the number of arrows shot to determine the members of the 2004 US Olympic team, LOL. Any event that has to fit into a weekend isn't going to be perfect.


----------



## WormBurner (Oct 19, 2006)

But seriously...don't you think you're being a little tough on John?


----------



## lcv (Sep 7, 2004)

*G33k*

My post doesn't shoot any more arrows than they do now, except for the actual medal matches. I'm still waiting for the cons on the proposal. What did I miss? I must have missed something.


----------



## BHNTR1 (Apr 6, 2003)

Jim C said:


> again-lets make a system where a 1150 archer can beat a 1350 so the 1150 can feel better. what other sport does this happen? not any of the others I participate in. I played Michael Applegren when he was world #2 in table tennis-I had to beat three really good players to even qualify into the main draw of the the US Open, beat a good player and then played him where he beat me 21-8, 21-8, 21-9. I was leading the first game but in a long match like that, I had no chance. should I whine that the rules ought to be changed so I have a chance against him? OF COURSE NOT. maybe I should demand we play just 8 points? maybe I win then-probably not but I sure have a better chance than having to win 63 points
> 
> No other sport can I think of have the rules changed to favor OK to good athletes having more chances to win than in archery.
> 
> ...





Get back on your horse and ride away jim, nowhere in my comment did I suggest this. Dont even get where you came up with this at. And for you to suggest that I have a misplaced sense of reality because I have a job is completely unwarranted. 

There is nothing wrong with the current system the way that it is. For arguments sake, if an 1150 shooter does(it can happen) in fact get hot and take out a 1350 shooter in the OR round then so it is. Thats what the thrill of competeing is all about. in fact that's why I thought we had tournaments to begin with, show up shoot and shoot the best you can. If you happen to get hot then you move on. If your one of the world or nations Elites and you have a bad day or match well then you go home, plain and simple.


Just so you dont get to far ahead of yourself, any of today's bracketed playoff systems work in this very fashion, 1 plays 16 and so on. If the lower ranking team is peaking at the right time anything can happen. Seen it in Hockey and Football more times then I care to count. So your first referenced comment holds about as much water as a paper sack.


----------



## G33k (Jul 16, 2003)

lcv said:


> My post doesn't shoot any more arrows than they do now, except for the actual medal matches. I'm still waiting for the cons on the proposal. What did I miss? I must have missed something.


See there kinda is a problem based on peoples complaints. It seems that most people are complaining that 12 arrows is too few arrows, which mean ANY system based on cutting after 12 arrows is flawed.

Another complaint is that a 1150 shooter should never beat a 1350 shooter. In which case there is NO system that will work other than only a FITA.

Now if we set aside those complaints for a second then I am looking into your suggestion as we speak. Basically I am looking at a few past tournaments and reviewing the ORs. I am re-evaluating the scores of each round and seeing how different the results would be if we cut the bottom half of all archers instead of the bottom half of each pairing. Basically what percent of the time did people with high scores get kicked out and losers stay in.


----------



## WormBurner (Oct 19, 2006)

1. (I'm not sure I see anybody defending the 2004 selection method, or advocating its use again?)

2. I'd like to see one-day FITA formats, for my own shooting purposes anyway, because it's hard to balance your family life with 2-day tournaments. However, that's just me...again, I believe this conversation was really about high-level international competition, not what people like me can fit into a weekend. I don't really think I have any place directing the shooting format of elite competitions based on "my" weekend schedule.


----------



## BHNTR1 (Apr 6, 2003)

G33k said:


> See there kinda is a problem based on peoples complaints. It seems that most people are complaining that 12 arrows is too few arrows, which mean ANY system based on cutting after 12 arrows is flawed.
> 
> Another complaint is that a 1150 shooter should never beat a 1350 shooter. In which case there is NO system that will work other than only a FITA.
> 
> Now if we set aside those complaints for a second then I am looking into your suggestion as we speak. Basically I am looking at a few past tournaments and reviewing the ORs. I am re-evaluating the scores of each round and seeing how different the results would be if we cut the bottom half of all archers instead of the bottom half of each pairing. Basically what percent of the time did people with high scores get kicked out and losers stay in.




Now somebodys thinking!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Good post Nikki.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

BHNTR1 said:


> Get back on your horse and ride away jim, nowhere in my comment did I suggest this. Dont even get where you came up with this at. And for you to suggest that I have a misplaced sense of reality because I have a job is completely unwarranted.
> 
> There is nothing wrong with the current system the way that it is. For arguments sake, if an 1150 shooter does(it can happen) in fact get hot and take out a 1350 shooter in the OR round then so it is. Thats what the thrill of competeing is all about. in fact that's why I thought we had tournaments to begin with, show up shoot and shoot the best you can. If you happen to get hot then you move on. If your one of the world or nations Elites and you have a bad day or match well then you go home, plain and simple.
> 
> ...


LOL-your comment I responded to clearly stated that you are upset if we went back to a system where only the best of the best could win-=like the double fita. You implied that you think if you train hard you ought to be able to participate in a system where you have a chance against someone who is a full time professional archer

what other sport does that?

I read what you said and its obvious what your sentiments are
you think its unfair to have a system where only a few can win
well look at tennis and golf buddy. they are far more popular than archery and the last time I checked, one guy won more tournaments in tennis and another in golf than say the 30-60 ranked pros combined
btw as to the riding away point I am trying to remember all your contributions to this part of the forum


----------



## lcv (Sep 7, 2004)

*G33k*

Using this method kind of negates the problem with 12 arrows. The reason is that all you have to do is beat half the field and not just one person. It is not like just one person getting lucky against you but in the round of 32, 16 people would have to get lucky against you. If 16 people get lucky against you, then luck was probably not a factor.

I did, just for fun apply the halving method to the World cup compound womens field. In the first round all but 1 lady would have been eliminated in the 4th bracket including one who ended up shooting for the bronze medal but shot a whopping 97 in the first 12 arrows. In the second round the entire second bracket would have been wiped out. As it is now, no matter what, someone from each bracket will make the medal rounds. So it is conceivable that everyone in the other brackets could shoot 116 and up and get beat while the 97 shooter goes through to the medal round also. In defense of the 97 shooter she did shoot two 109 rounds to get to the medal match but then went back to a 99 in the bronze medal match. I think halving the field would eliminate things like that.


----------



## WormBurner (Oct 19, 2006)

BHNTR1 said:


> ...any of today's bracketed playoff systems work in this very fashion, 1 plays 16 and so on. If the lower ranking team is peaking at the right time anything can happen. Seen it in Hockey and Football more times then I care to count. So your first referenced comment holds about as much water as a paper sack.


Bad analogy, IMO. You're talking about true team sports where competitors directly act upon and interfere with others. You can't play a basketball game by yourself for points, then compare your points to someone else playing alone...there has to be an "opponent" for the skill contest to even take place to begin with. Those sports _need_ to have a bracket system (although, college football steadfastly refuses to get the message!).

Some types of auto racing still rely on head-to-head...but I think that's more nostalgia than anything...the historical idea of "racing for pink slips outside the root beer stand."

(You don't see the New York City Marathon being done that way)


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> Either way works for me, The latter suits the red neck in me a lil more.


Hey, I'm bi-lingual. I speak ******* too  Just thought I'd "interpret" for you :wink: 



> But seriously...don't you think you're being a little tough on John?


Ha! You should have been in the public meeting with me Wednesday evening.  Nothing like a room full of drunks to keep you on your toes! 



> Using this method kind of negates the problem with 12 arrows. The reason is that all you have to do is beat half the field and not just one person. It is not like just one person getting lucky against you but in the round of 32, 16 people would have to get lucky against you. If 16 people get lucky against you, then luck was probably not a factor.


Nikki, this is my point exactly. Shoot 12 arrows and beat half the field. Wash, rinse and repeat 

Works pretty well for me.

John.


----------



## BHNTR1 (Apr 6, 2003)

Jim C said:


> LOL-your comment I responded to clearly stated that you are upset if we went back to a system where only the best of the best could win-=like the double fita. You implied that you think if you train hard you ought to be able to participate in a system where you have a chance against someone who is a full time professional archer
> 
> what other sport does that?
> 
> ...





Try this on for size then, I do train ,compete as a professional archer, Have a full time career and a family. So what category do I fit into now? Does that give any more merit to how I feel about taking a persons opportunity away.



And as far a contributions to a forum, when does that have any bearing on a persons opinion or beliefs about a given topic or situation?


----------



## BHNTR1 (Apr 6, 2003)

WormBurner said:


> Bad analogy, IMO. You're talking about true team sports where competitors directly act upon and interfere with others. You can't play a basketball game by yourself for points, then compare your points to someone else playing alone...there has to be an "opponent" for the skill contest to even take place to begin with. Those sports _need_ to have a bracket system (although, college football steadfastly refuses to get the message!).
> 
> Some types of auto racing still rely on head-to-head...but I think that's more nostalgia than anything...the historical idea of "racing for pink slips outside the root beer stand."
> 
> (You don't see the New York City Marathon being done that way)






Your probably right But its the best I could do...:wink: 


Dont get me wrong I all for the cream rising to the top, what Im against is taking away the opportunity from others that are aspiring to become the best or one of them. How many times will this happen before the aspired moves along to do something else....JM2C


----------



## BHNTR1 (Apr 6, 2003)

limbwalker said:


> Nikki, this is my point exactly. Shoot 12 arrows and beat half the field. Wash, rinse and repeat Works pretty well for me.
> John.





OK given that I only got three of my four tasks done(and not in the listed order) What you are implying is to do away with the head to head. Instead take the field and shoot a score, top half stays in, repeat till you get to the final four. Then have a round robin. 


Am I correct here or missing something?


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

BHNTR1 said:


> Try this on for size then, I do train ,compete as a professional archer, Have a full time career and a family. So what category do I fit into now? Does that give any more merit to how I feel about taking a persons opportunity away.
> 
> 
> 
> And as far a contributions to a forum, when does that have any bearing on a persons opinion or beliefs about a given topic or situation?


professional compound archer? 

so you hang with Cousins or Braden or Reo in the US nationals double FITAS?

or do you shoot 3D and indoor spots?

I am still asking for an answer of what other sport makes it easier for the almost great or merely very good to have a better chance of beating the best. Golf tournaments are 4 days and 72 holes-the tennis majors are 5 sets not three.


----------



## G33k (Jul 16, 2003)

lcv said:


> I did, just for fun apply the halving method to the World cup compound womens field.


It is funny you picked the Women Compound because that seems to be the one division I found (in one tournament) to have the most inconsistancies between an OR and 'top half' format. I am guessing inconsistancies mixed with higher overall scores?


----------



## BHNTR1 (Apr 6, 2003)

professional compound archer? 

Yes


so you hang with Cousins or Braden or Reo in the US nationals double FITAS?

Closing the gap.



or do you shoot 3D and indoor spots?

Indoor spots and anything outdoors. Dont care much for the 3D



I am still asking for an answer of what other sport makes it easier for the almost great or merely very good to have a better chance of beating the best. Golf tournaments are 4 days and 72 holes-the tennis majors are 5 sets not three.


probably not many if any, so what is your point?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> Am I correct here or missing something?


Pretty close. But the head to head matches would be reserved for the medal rounds (which is all anyone ever watches anyway). Essentially, the process would take the top half of the field until only four were left. Then those four would shoot a "best of seven" head-to-head match against their opponent to determine who shot for gold, and who shot for bronze.

So, in a way it's a combination of the best of both worlds. You cut the field in half every round the way the old Grand Fita did, but still have the pressure build up as the field gets smaller (and full of only shooters who are performing well), until finally you arrive at high pressure head to head elimination matches for medals.

That way, a shooter has to stay on their toes for the entire event. But it removes the penalty for shooting well and beating most of the field, but still being eliminated because you were unfortunate enough to be paired against someone having a great 12 arrow round.

John.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

BHNTR1 said:


> professional compound archer?
> 
> Yes
> 
> ...


the point is that almost ever other sport I know of, the rules haven't been changed to give the almost great a better chance of beating the top stars and NO ONE seems to think that is a problem.


----------



## BHNTR1 (Apr 6, 2003)

limbwalker said:


> Pretty close. But the head to head matches would be reserved for the medal rounds (which is all anyone ever watches anyway). Essentially, the process would take the top half of the field until only four were left. Then those four would shoot a "best of seven" head-to-head match against their opponent to determine who shot for gold, and who shot for bronze.
> 
> So, in a way it's a combination of the best of both worlds. You cut the field in half every round the way the old Grand Fita did, but still have the pressure build up as the field gets smaller (and full of only shooters who are performing well), until finally you arrive at high pressure head to head elimination matches for medals.
> 
> ...





I see makes more sense now, Sorry for being so brash and quick to judge in my original posts as I didnt follow this entire thread. :embara:


----------



## G33k (Jul 16, 2003)

WormBurner said:


> Some types of auto racing still rely on head-to-head...but I think that's more nostalgia than anything...the historical idea of "racing for pink slips outside the root beer stand."


You mean NHRA? They only have about 50k spectators a race. And John Force has won the National Title 14 total and 12 consequtively. There are about 22 plus races each year and the most he has ever won is 10 in one year. On average it is more like 5 or 6 a year.

How many times do they run the 100 m dash in the olympics?


----------



## BHNTR1 (Apr 6, 2003)

Jim C said:


> the point is that almost ever other sport I know of, the rules haven't been changed to give the almost great a better chance of beating the top stars and NO ONE seems to think that is a problem.




And because they have this mind set in other sports that is justification for the archery world to act the same way? Belive it or not some do think its a problem.


----------



## G33k (Jul 16, 2003)

BHNTR1 said:


> I see makes more sense now, Sorry for being so brash and quick to judge in my original posts as I didnt follow this entire thread. :embara:


 Yeah, you should read the whole thread, the idea has its strong points but it still won't eliminate someone on a hot streak from taking it away from the 'great archers'. Which I think is fine, who ever is on fire that days, deserves the win.


----------



## BHNTR1 (Apr 6, 2003)

G33k said:


> You mean NHRA? They only have about 50k spectators a race. And John Force has won the National Title 14 total and 12 consequtively. There are about 22 plus races each year and the most he has ever won is 10 in one year. On average it is more like 5 or 6 a year.
> 
> How many times do they run the 100 m dash in the olympics?




Nikki, we all know that the NHRA is all about PRO STOCK............ :wink:


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

BHNTR1 said:


> And because they have this mind set in other sports that is justification for the archery world to act the same way? Belive it or not some do think its a problem.


the people who cannot win over a four day double FITA?

the guys who cannot beat Tiger Woods over 72 holes or Roger Federer in 5 sets?

maybe if archery had recognizable top stars like it did with Pace and Hardy Ward and Ann Hoyt and Clark would that help? at one time you had to serve an apprenticeship to be a PRO ARCHER and an apprentice couldn't win first place money in the PAA shoots

yet archery was a growing sport back then


----------



## BHNTR1 (Apr 6, 2003)

G33k said:


> Yeah, you should read the whole thread, the idea has its strong points but it still won't eliminate someone on a hot streak from taking it away from the 'great archers'. Which I think is fine, who ever is on fire that days, deserves the win.




Agreed, so whats the problem????????????? Other then I jumped in with my big mouth first and read later? :wink:


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Jim,

That's because in almost every other sport, casual or recreational archers are NOT ALLOWED to compete against the best in the sport. I'm not saying I like that. In fact, that's one of the things I really love about this sport - that you get a chance to shoot side by side with Olympians, World Champions, etc. But in golf, tennis, and just about any other major individual sport, there is ALMOST NO WAY that a recreational player will even qualify for a major tournament, much less tee it up with Tiger or square off with Roddick in the first round.

Archery is unique. We have both recreational archers and world class competitive archers shooting on the same field all the time. Finding a round that would satisfy such a diverse group of competitors would be impossible. And of course the recreational archers would want any round that will give them an outside chance to beat the pro's. That's only logical. And of course the pro's would like any round that will favor them.

Where I see this becomes an issue really is when you have an entire field of world class archers. Then you need a round that really determines who the best shooters are, not just one that "makes it interesting for everyone." Far too much money and time has been invested at that point to just throw it away on a silly crap-shoot. People don't train for years and travel halfway across the world just to participate in a game of chance. And every time the round has been reduced (from double fita, to grand fita, to OR to 18 arrows to 12), it has increased the opportunity for dumb luck to climb into things.

John.


----------



## BHNTR1 (Apr 6, 2003)

the people who cannot win over a four day double FITA?

As long as I get off to a good first 90m Im in good shape


the guys who cannot beat Tiger Woods over 72 holes or Roger Federer in 5 sets?

dont play golf or tennis so no worries here.


maybe if archery had recognizable top stars like it did with Pace and Hardy Ward and Ann Hoyt and Clark would that help? at one time you had to serve an apprenticeship to be a PRO ARCHER and an apprentice couldn't win first place money in the PAA shoots


I guess our current stars are chopped liver.
As far as the PAA, Im for bringing it back.


yet archery was a growing sport back then

and it still is.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

limbwalker said:


> Jim,
> 
> That's because in almost every other sport, casual or recreational archers are NOT ALLOWED to compete against the best in the sport. I'm not saying I like that. In fact, that's one of the things I really love about this sport - that you get a chance to shoot side by side with Olympians, World Champions, etc. But in golf, tennis, and just about any other major individual sport, there is ALMOST NO WAY that a recreational player will even qualify for a major tournament, much less tee it up with Tiger or square off with Roddick in the first round.
> 
> ...


not really John-I can't shoot in the wordl cup, olympics or worlds
IN skeet you could shoot in the NSSA worlds, the US Open, and in most cases the US international shooting team trials 

same with trap, and rifle and table tennis

once you get to the world events with selected teams its like archery

in tennis you can play qualifiers-because there are so many more players they have more "cuts"

In the 1988 Olympic trials I had two "walk ons" on my squad-the rest of us included the defending olympic gold medalist, a three time pan am medalist and a two time America's Cup winner (me). 

most of the shooting sports are just like archery in the USA. I was a decent trapshooter-like 1175 level for example and I shot on squads that featured Dan Carlisle, Josh Lakatos and Lance Bade (all olympic medalists)


----------



## G33k (Jul 16, 2003)

BHNTR1 said:


> yet archery was a growing sport back then
> 
> and it still is.


Actually archery is very much growing, if you consider the people that have left FITA and gone to NFAA, IBO and ASA.


----------



## BHNTR1 (Apr 6, 2003)

G33k said:


> Actually archery is very much growing, if you consider the people that have left FITA and gone to NFAA, IBO and ASA.




I see that at the local level Nikki, Our state Assc has almost tripled in size in the last four years. Its a good thing. The JOAD clubs in the Denver area are starting to bring FITA back. We have two star FITAs to go to this summer . Cant wait.


----------



## BHNTR1 (Apr 6, 2003)

Jim C said:


> I was a decent trapshooter-like 1175 level for example and I shot on squads that featured Dan Carlisle, Josh Lakatos and Lance Bade (all olympic medalists)




Dan was fun to shoot with, Had the opportunity to shoot with him twice here in Colorado, Although I spent most of my time getting schooled by Ray Stafford.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

G33k said:


> Actually archery is very much growing, if you consider the people that have left FITA and gone to NFAA, IBO and ASA.


there are more people bow hunting now

as to archers? don't know

I know when I was a kid (I am 48 now) Cincinnati could support 2 full time archery ranges/pro shops that sold nothing but archery gear and the owners could support a family on selling stuff and giving lessons. I know that archery lanes were increasing. 

I haven't done a study but there are far less indoor ranges now.

Old time Pros like Steve Robinson doesnt' think its growing.
one of my friends-a top 3D shooter noted that every year he sees lots of new 3D shooters-but tons of the guys he saw the year before no longer shoot

some old pros blamed it on compounds-easy come easy go and the fact you don't have to practice most of the year to accurately shoot a hunting weight bow. Charlie Pierson used to note (he ran the range where Pace learned to shoot) that when he was a boy, bowhunters were archers-by the time he closed his range, most of the guys buying hunting bows would never dream of shooting in his leagues or going to a field (3D didn't exist then) or 900 round shoot

we had 5 active JOAD clubs in OHio when I started running CJO. now there are two with more than 5 kids that come to tournaments


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

BHNTR1 said:


> Dan was fun to shoot with, Had the opportunity to shoot with him twice here in Colorado, Although I spent most of my time getting schooled by Ray Stafford.


two legends

Carlisle was at one time the best shotgun target shooter around-world skeet champion too-Stafford, I only remember him from the Grand American which was held (sadly it moved this year) 50 minutes from my home. I cant remember if he shot the ISU stuff-he's a hall of famer in the american game. I was one of the first "RA's" (all of six weeks back then) at the USOTC at CS in the late 70's. shot an the USAFA and that air force base near there


----------



## BHNTR1 (Apr 6, 2003)

Jim C said:


> two legends
> 
> Carlisle was at one time the best shotgun target shooter around-world skeet champion too-Stafford, I only remember him from the Grand American which was held (sadly it moved this year) 50 minutes from my home. I cant remember if he shot the ISU stuff-he's a hall of famer in the american game. I was one of the first "RA's" (all of six weeks back then) at the USOTC at CS in the late 70's. shot an the USAFA and that air force base near there




Ray shot about everything around, The other Air base is Peterson Field. They are rumored to be shutting it down this summer, That was a really nice place to shoot, broke some of my first clays there.

Its to bad the Grand moved, made it there once, Ill never forget it.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> 50 minutes from my home


Now it's 50 minutes from my home Jim. Sure hope they can make it work there in the middle of nowhere. 'Round here, we all call it the Governor's attempt to show he's pro-gun... about as far from his home town of Chicago as he could get it.  Aaahh politics.

So how 'bout it folks? Do I hear a motion to send the proposal forward?



> the idea has its strong points


Even Nikki is starting to give in... :wink: 

John.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

BHNTR1 said:


> Ray shot about everything around, The other Air base is Peterson Field. They are rumored to be shutting it down this summer, That was a really nice place to shoot, broke some of my first clays there.
> 
> Its to bad the Grand moved, made it there once, Ill never forget it.


sort of up on a hill? that was it-I just remember taking a shell, cutting it with my knife and betting the coach I could hit a jack rabbit with the pseudo slug 65 yards away.


I never shot the grand because I never shot enough trap to avoid penalty yards but it was a neat place to buy stuff. I always got my practice vests there because there were people who would custom fit them to you etc


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

limbwalker said:


> Now it's 50 minutes from my home Jim. Sure hope they can make it work there in the middle of nowhere. 'Round here, we all call it the Governor's attempt to show he's pro-gun... about as far from his home town of Chicago as he could get it.  Aaahh politics.
> 
> So how 'bout it folks? Do I hear a motion to send the proposal forward?
> 
> ...


the serbian dude who wants to ban 50 caliber long range rifles

yuk


----------



## BHNTR1 (Apr 6, 2003)

limbwalker said:


> Now it's 50 minutes from my home Jim. Sure hope they can make it work there in the middle of nowhere. 'Round here, we all call it the Governor's attempt to show he's pro-gun... about as far from his home town of Chicago as he could get it.  Aaahh politics.
> 
> So how 'bout it folks? Do I hear a motion to send the proposal forward?
> 
> ...





John it sounds like a really good Idea, just dont take opportunity away from the up and coming stars. Thats the point I guess I was trying to make.


----------



## Guest (Apr 7, 2007)

*G33k``*

Your correct about shooters going to the NFAA, IBO and ASA. 

A good point, in the IBO and ASA the average shooter can't compete with the elite (Pro) shooters until they work into that class. And, then they need to come up with the money for entry fees.....they need to be serious..not just wannabe's. 

Why not with FITA or Oly style shooting? That way you only have the top level shooters competing against top level shooters. The above average recreational shooter can still have the chance to work up, but the key word there is "work" up. Why not have pre qualification scores before a FITA shooter can compete in top level events. Example if you want to compete for a spot on the US Team you first need to shoot a score (whatever it needs to be) that qualifies you to compete. That way a guy like me who walks out of the woods can't land a spot on a team I have no business being on.....

I really don't think the average recreational shooter wants to compete against elite shooters..I think they want to compete with there own level of shooter. The NFAA, IBO and ASA has done a good job to create levels that less than perfect shooters can still have a chance to compete and win.

I also think this is the reason these organizations are the ones showing the biggest growth in archery. They are also very strongly "family" oriented.

Art


----------



## WormBurner (Oct 19, 2006)

G33k said:


> You mean NHRA? They only have about 50k spectators a race. And John Force has won the National Title 14 total and 12 consequtively. There are about 22 plus races each year and the most he has ever won is 10 in one year. On average it is more like 5 or 6 a year.
> 
> How many times do they run the 100 m dash in the olympics?


How many times does an Olympic Track & Field coach tell one of his relay people to drop the baton intentionally, to drop his team into a less-competitive bracket?

And regarding the first point, Archery will not get 50k spectators if people shot naked. Again, if this whole subject is predicated on getting massive spectator appeal, then we're just drinking the Kool Aid.


I have no delusions here...I can't race the winner of the New York City Marathon for 26. But there's nobody I know that wouldn't try to out-sprint him for a block, if that's all it took to win the prize. Otherwise - that little Brazilian guy is going to be putting the Verrazano bridge in his rear-view mirror before I even get close enough to see it, leaving me and 8,000 other flatfoots nothing to look forward to but a 4+ time, a T-shirt (the same one you'd get for handing out water) and a sore plane ride home.

My opinion counts for nothing. But I see an awful lot of people going to great lengths here to avoid confronting simple truths like intentionally dropping arrows (we call that "sandbagging" where I come from), and people advancing with 106 when 109 sat down one butt away.


----------



## Dave T (Mar 24, 2004)

G33k said:


> Actually archery is very much growing, if you consider the people that have left FITA and gone to NFAA, IBO and ASA.


You may be right about the 3D organizations but NFAA is dying faster than an orange grove in a drought. I'm a board member of the state NFAA organization and in the past three years every event we put on has gone down in attendance. Field archery is DEAD, except for the State Championship and as stated attendance is dwindling every year. The only thing I participate in that shows steady attendance is the Senior Olympics and time will take care of that one. And, I know no one who has any idea of how to fix it.

FITA does seem to be holding its own, which surprises and delights me even though I'm only a FITA Field shooter.

Dave


----------



## BHNTR1 (Apr 6, 2003)

art v said:


> I really don't think the average recreational shooter wants to compete against elite shooters..I think they want to compete with there own level of shooter. The NFAA, IBO and ASA has done a good job to create levels that less than perfect shooters can still have a chance to compete and win.Art




Rather funny you mention this as there is currently a moment by a few to bring the NAA format to the NFAA..........this should be interesting to watch.


----------



## BHNTR1 (Apr 6, 2003)

Dave T said:


> You may be right about the 3D organizations but NFAA is dying faster than an orange grove in a drought. I'm a board member of the state NFAA organization and in the past three years every event we put on has gone down in attendance. Field archery is DEAD, except for the State Championship and as stated attendance is dwindling every year. The only thing I participate in that shows steady attendance is the Senior Olympics and time will take care of that one. And, I know no one who has any idea of how to fix it.
> 
> FITA does seem to be holding its own, which surprises and delights me even though I'm only a FITA Field shooter.
> 
> Dave




Sorry to hear that you all are struggling, I find it odd that we have grown so much in the last few years and a neighboring state is in such bad shape. Good luck and I hope you can get it back on track.


----------



## Guest (Apr 7, 2007)

*Bhntr1*

That would be interesting. We had a bad experience with the NAA here in TN and now I'm not sure the NAA could get any NFAA shooters to particpate in any of their events.

Dave.....the NFAA is dead outdoors here too. They are lucky to get 20 to 25 shooters at an outdoor event. The indoor state championships had 35 shooters in the middle of the state....I'm not sure what the total participants were state wide..probably not over 125 total from all classes. 
Art


----------



## WormBurner (Oct 19, 2006)

Hey, I see a lot of trapshooting-related posts here...

I'm a trapshooter, too (grew up 15 minutes from Vandalia). And can you guess what the #1 debate topic has historically been on Trapshooters.com? (Other than 7.5s vs. 8s)...The HANDICAP SYSTEM & how to make it more fair for the "little guy." Do we increase the maximum handicap yardage from 27? Mandate 1oz. loads? Mandatory yardage reductions for 27-yarders like me (who can't maintain the 90% breakpoint average for my zone, but still can't get a yardage reduction because I always manage to re-set my 1,000 target counter at the Grand every year by shooting a 96 or 97 in a 4,000-entry handicap event)?

The reason I bring up the above: I guess the irony is, all shooting sports seem to have the same dilemma: how to make the competition "fair for all," and yet, still reward the discipline and hard work of the elite "Big Dogs."

This will never be solved. But it's fun to discuss. I see we've crossed the line into compound fever, so let's all have some pie.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

WormBurner said:


> Hey, I see a lot of trapshooting-related posts here...
> 
> I'm a trapshooter, too (grew up 15 minutes from Vandalia). And can you guess what the #1 debate topic has historically been on Trapshooters.com? (Other than 7.5s vs. 8s)...The HANDICAP SYSTEM & how to make it more fair for the "little guy." Do we increase the maximum handicap yardage from 27? Mandate 1oz. loads? Mandatory yardage reductions for 27-yarders like me (who can't maintain the 90% breakpoint average for my zone, but still can't get a yardage reduction because I always manage to re-set my 1,000 target counter at the Grand every year by shooting a 96 or 97 in a 4,000-entry handicap event)?
> 
> ...


that is for the gambling aspect-to get as many guys to play 

the national target championship has no handicap as you know and in that event the only people left at the end are the 200X200

note they shoot 200 for the championship while the handicap is only 100


----------



## BHNTR1 (Apr 6, 2003)

art v said:


> That would be interesting. We had a bad experience with the NAA here in TN and now I'm not sure the NAA could get any NFAA shooters to particpate in any of their events.
> 
> Dave.....the NFAA is dead outdoors here too. They are lucky to get 20 to 25 shooters at an outdoor event. The indoor state championships had 35 shooters in the middle of the state....I'm not sure what the total participants were state wide..probably not over 125 total from all classes.
> Art




Im gonna scare both of you, We had over 225 shooters at out winter indoor, a record over last years 214. The spring indoor was close to the same number. Our state membership is pushing the 450 mark. The number that is really scary is our local outdoor range has a membership that is over 650.


----------



## G33k (Jul 16, 2003)

WormBurner said:


> My opinion counts for nothing. But I see an awful lot of people going to great lengths here to avoid confronting simple truths like intentionally dropping arrows (we call that "sandbagging" where I come from), and people advancing with 106 when 109 sat down one butt away.


Tell me who you have seen intentionally drop arrows and where? Was this a USAT event? I think you are confused about sandbagging because it doesn't work in USAT events. It would negatively affect your Rolling ranking and your USAT rank and your placement within the OR. The only place sandbagging benefits you in America is at Vegas. I am not sure what other issues you think people are going to great lengths to avoid.


----------



## WormBurner (Oct 19, 2006)

Jim C said:


> that is for the gambling aspect-to get as many guys to play
> 
> the national target championship has no handicap as you know and in that event the only people left at the end are the 200X200
> 
> note they shoot 200 for the championship while the handicap is only 100


Oh yes...have to keep the jackpot money rolling in. To keep the dream alive. 

Thing is, even the money isn't keeping people "in" anymore. It's just not there. People figured out that it's like Las Vegas...an illusion in the desert, and you're just giving your money to the winners. My best payday ever was $5k for a 99 in handicap where I tied with 13 other people, and that was in the Grand American Handicap with 4,000-some competitors on the line that day...if it was a regular state shoot today, you could cut that in half if not more. People figured out they're only giving their money to the Big Dogs, and they don't want to play anymore. They won't even play the Lewis Class. Used to be, you could play that on the 200 singles, and guarantee you'd triple your target & shell money back as long as you didn't miss more than one per fifty...(just because so many people played that jackpot reflexively, then went out and shot 186)...I won our state championship with an uncontested 200 a few years back (no ties / no money splits), and the money didn't cover my entries for the tournament week..and if one or two other 200s split it with you (as has been the case every year since), forget it.

Perfect scores are the norm...kinda like NFAA compound...and everybody gripes but nobody does anything about it. It just goes to show 'ya...every sport has the same problems. That's why I'm here now...I get the same amount of fun, the targets are a $1.00 piece of paper, and I can re-use my bullets over and over again!


----------



## WormBurner (Oct 19, 2006)

G33k said:


> Tell me who you have seen intentionally drop arrows and where? Was this a USAT event? I think you are confused about sandbagging because it doesn't work in USAT events. It would negatively affect your Rolling ranking and your USAT rank and your placement within the OR. The only place sandbagging benefits you in America is at Vegas. I am not sure what other issues you think people are going to great lengths to avoid.


Nikki, I may very well be confuseded...but I was referring to the female team event that generated the stink some time back...the regulars here who were posting about it (about 3 mos. ago) didn't seem a bit confused about it, and a fair portion even defended the practice as an unavoidable, Machiavellian survival strategy, given the nature of the team matchups in the bracketed competition. They were all very respectful in not naming names, but I got that it was someone who had a fork in them as an individual, and whose only play left was to benefit the team.

If I'm referring to something that didn't happen, I sure hope somebody clears up the misconception. Everybody sure seemed awful well-informed about it, and I specifically remember it was two arrows intentionally in the dirt (as directed by her coach) that generated the discussion.

Am I smoking dope here, folks?

As for the other issues, if you have no problem with 109s sitting down while 106s advance, then we'll just have to agree to disagree. It will likely not affect me personally, but I do respect what John & Vittorio feel about that & can see where that is coming from. (Pete of course would probably take the other side but isn't here to comment).


----------



## G33k (Jul 16, 2003)

WormBurner said:


> As for the other issues, if you have no problem with 109s sitting down while 106s advance, then we'll just have to agree to disagree.


If that is what you think I am saying then I guess you can believe whatever you want. 

As for everyone else, I have finished up my look at that all divisions for the 12 arrow ORs versus Top Half/Bottom Half. I am too tired to post up now.


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

G33k said:


> If that is what you think I am saying then I guess you can believe whatever you want.
> 
> As for everyone else, I have finished up my look at that all divisions for the 12 arrow ORs versus Top Half/Bottom Half. I am too tired to post up now.


Oh, you are such a tease


----------



## WormBurner (Oct 19, 2006)

G33k said:


> If that is what you think I am saying then I guess you can believe whatever you want.
> 
> As for everyone else, I have finished up my look at that all divisions for the 12 arrow ORs versus Top Half/Bottom Half. I am too tired to post up now.


Nikkita,

I guess then maybe I'm not sure what you're saying, and if so, I don't want to misquote or otherwise malign your viewpoint. I'm not trying to start any ill will here.

What I think I can say, however, is that:

A. You do seem to be a proponent of the single-elimination.
B. What I said above about 106s and 109s is virtually guaranteed to occur by that arrangement.

...so if these two premises are correct - then I don't know what other conclusion they can lead to? Please straighten me out if I'm off-track or being unfair. (The sport is new to me and I guess this is how I will learn). 

Look forward to seeing your data analysis...anything that improves the data-to-opinion ratio is always good.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> just dont take opportunity away from the up and coming stars


Nobody wants to do that. But the "up and comers" should understand, like Jim suggests, that they will have to work to get to the top level and consistently make it to the medal rounds. Thinking they're there already because they managed to put together a good 12 arrow pass...? Anyone can do that at any time. Even an 1100 shooter can occasionally shoot a 109 or 110 pass for two ends.

Again, I think a lot of this comes down to a person's philosophy of why we hold tournaments, and what the broader purpose of those events really is.

If they are simply to provide entertainment value and satisfy the broader membership, then surely the fewer arrows/match the better because that produces more upsets and less predictable results at the end. How many times over the past 3-4 years have I seen someone in the medals that surprised everyone (especially themselves!). 

But if the purpose of the event(s) is to determine the greatest archer for that week or weekend, then something should be done. The 12 arrow single elimination matchplay virtually ensures that 20% (or whatever) of the field will not be rewarded for shooting well.

John.


----------



## WormBurner (Oct 19, 2006)

John,

How much impact do you think the domination of the Asians is having on people's preference (or non-) for the single-elimination?

I know especially if I was a female recurver, it would be somewhat discouraging looking across the pond...and perhaps if a format were presented that doesn't involve having to hang with them for the full 144 to get a medal, that might seem like a beneficial deal to me?

But then again, I read Vittorio's comments on the Ulsan thread, and he presents it a different way...the Koreans for example have so many good women shooters, they can virtually guarantee survival of at least some of them to the medal round, whereas the rest of the countries that have, say, 1 or 2 good shooters, have to make it through the bracket meat-grinder to even be in a position to challenge...so he seems to feel the format is an advantage for a place like Korea (with a large, deep team). 

In other words, the Koreans can rely on the "meat grinder" to eliminate at least half the good shooters who could be in a position to threaten them, so it becomes a numbers game...who has the most good contenders, to ensure survival of one or two?

I guess things like this are impossible to predict...but after reading Vittorio's post, I was left with the impression that although deep teams will have the advantage in any format, elimination brackets really press that advantage.


----------



## scrounger (Mar 13, 2007)

limbwalker said:


> ...But if the purpose of the event(s) is to determine the greatest archer for that week or weekend, then something should be done. The 12 arrow single elimination matchplay virtually ensures that 20% (or whatever) of the field will not be rewarded for shooting well.
> 
> John.


Well, while the format that I proposed didn't get even one comment, it would exactly correct for this: for example 4 top scoring losses out of 16 would advance to next round. So indeed, if you got paired with a "hot shooter of the day" but scored high, you would still have a chance for a next match. 
Rob


----------



## Guest (Apr 7, 2007)

*Pro's quite*

Recently at an ASA event in Texas in the Pro/Am event. They set up the coarse to make it competitive for the non professional shooters. Several of the Pro's quite and left the course because it was to easy.

The Pro's received a stern warning that their Pro cards would be pulled if they ever did it again.

If you want to make it easier for the less than elite shooters to be competitive or even the playing field like a handicap in golf you will find the elite shooters doing something else.

Art


----------



## G33k (Jul 16, 2003)

scrounger said:


> Well, while the format that I proposed didn't get even one comment, it would exactly correct for this: for example 4 top scoring losses out of 16 would advance to next round. So indeed, if you got paired with a "hot shooter of the day" but scored high, you would still have a chance for a next match.
> Rob


I went back and reread your suggestion, it is something I might try and see if there are any problems. but it is interesting


----------



## RecordKeeper (May 9, 2003)

G33k said:


> Tell me who you have seen intentionally drop arrows and where? Was this a USAT event? I think you are confused about sandbagging because it doesn't work in USAT events. It would negatively affect your Rolling ranking and your USAT rank and your placement within the OR. The only place sandbagging benefits you in America is at Vegas. I am not sure what other issues you think people are going to great lengths to avoid.


It was in the Olympics. It was an effort to seed a certain team such that said team would not have to face the Korean women until the gold medal match.

It was well documented here on AT a couple of years ago.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

That's another thing I like about this format. None of that "bracket watching" nonsense. Everyone tries to shoot their best score, every round, period, and that's how it should be.

John.


----------



## G33k (Jul 16, 2003)

Recordkeeper said:


> It was in the Olympics. It was an effort to seed a certain team such that said team would not have to face the Korean women until the gold medal match.
> 
> It was well documented here on AT a couple of years ago.


As I have said, I am not too concerned with the International events, I am talking about USAT events. They are suggesting the replacement of the ORs in our USAT events. If people want to discuss International events that is fine, they have every right but if they want to direct comments at me then we have to be debating the same thing, not apples and oranges. 

And regarding that occuring in the Olympics ....cough WEAK cough


----------



## RecordKeeper (May 9, 2003)

G33k said:


> As I have said, I am not too concerned with the International events, I am talking about USAT events. They are suggesting the replacement of the ORs in our USAT events. If people want to discuss International events that is fine, they have every right but if they want to direct comments at me then we have to be debating the same thing, not apples and oranges.
> 
> And regarding that occuring in the Olympics ....cough WEAK cough


But it is the format of the international events....especially the Olympics....that ultimately influences the format of USAT events. And yes....I agree that it was "weak" *cough, cough* But it was a coaching decision, and I can live with that. I doubt that I would have complied had it been me......


----------



## G33k (Jul 16, 2003)

Recordkeeper said:


> But it is the format of the international events....especially the Olympics....that ultimately influences the format of USAT events.


ya , I know, that is the bummer about it. 


BTW, I am getting some kinda exciting results from my analysis , It is making me kinda giddy


----------



## G33k (Jul 16, 2003)

No one has addressed a serious point I have made. The idea that the OR scores cannot be perfectly reanalyzed because the effect of shooting against someone affects there score.

It is the idea of playing up or down to your competition. You see it in all sports. Does it affect archers, oh yeah! Way way more than it should, but it does. I would always prefer to shoot against a great archer than a weak one or even my peer. If you don't know what I am talking about then you need to get out to more tournaments. I can't even recount the number of Medal matches I have sat and watched where they are going arrow for arrow then someone shoot a bad shoot. Their opponent has it but oh NOES they shot a bad one too. 

So you can say ' it is unfair that they lost with a 107 but that guy won with a 98' but can you say for fact that the first guy would have shot a 107 or the other a 98 if they weren't shooting against the person they were? Once again I am not defending or negating any system, only critiquing the arguments.

I would like to hear some feedback from some of the archers who have competed. I know it has happened to me (God Bless those Nichols sisters, I have shot some amazing losing scores against them ) and I have watched it happen to my friends. And afterwards I can share some of my findings, if nothing else there was some fun facts and weird nuisances.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Nikki,

I think that at least in the elimination rounds, shooting a score the beat half the field will produce enough "pressure" to select the best. And that pressure will build with every round, especially since you will know you are shooting against the best shooters from the previous round. The round of 8 will be rather tight indeed.

Finally, the medal matches will give everyone what they want - the ability to see the best archers in the field square off in head to head matches that are easy to follow along for the crowd and viewers.

You will never know what someone "would have" shot in a different format. No point in even trying to go there. However, you do have to make room for those archers who step up their game when they know they have a tough competitor ahead. 

Again, this format will remove the "randomness" that I often see in the current OR format, where an archer can shoot a great score, followed by a terrible one, and so on, and continue to advance for no other reason than who their competitor was for the match. The new format would reward those who consistently bettered the field average.

John.


----------



## G33k (Jul 16, 2003)

limbwalker said:


> You will never know what someone "would have" shot in a different format. No point in even trying to go there. However, you do have to make room for those archers who step up their game when they know they have a tough competitor ahead.


That is my point. People seem to have totally forgotten or are actively chosing to ignore the affect that 'Win or leave' has on a competitor. Just because someone shoot a lower score on the FITA doesnt mean that they can't step it up in the OR. Besides the FITA is 4 distances, elimination matches (all kinds) are done at 70m. My best scores are 70m, I love it. Something about the distance, the timing of the shot, the feel of the form, all of it comes together. Of course I choice to love 70m, you have to otherwise you are sunk.
----------------------------
Ok, I am dubbing Limbwalkers system Top Half (or TH), since the top half of the field moves on. I looked at all the matches up to the semi finals. The percents given indicate how different the results would be if TH was used instead of OR rules. 

I looked at two events, one using 12 arrow matches, one using 18 arrow matches.

I also looked at another concern, people receiving medals that were ranked lower than 8th. So I looked at the archers that shot in the Semi-finals and who received medals.

*OR vs TH: % difference*

*12 Arrow Matches*
Male Recurve 15% 
Female Recurve 16%
Male Compound 10.8%
Female Compound 25%
Total: 16% 



*18 Arrow Matches *
Male Recurve 14.3% 
Female Recurve 9.7%
Male Compound 15%
Female Compound 15%
Total: 13.3%


*People entering that were ranked <8th place*
*12 Arrow Matches*
Male Recurve Bronze=20th place, OR moved him up twice when TH wouldn't, rest were top 8
Female Recurve Semi-Finals were all top 8
Male Compound Gold=16th BUT he would have gone to Semi-final in the TH system as well,silver= 19th TH would have cut him 
Female Compound all top 8

So out of 16 Semi Final Participants, 3 were not top 8. One would have been there regardless of OR or TH, but 2 were there with OR but not with TH
_12.5% discrepancy in Semi-Finals Between OR and TH_

*18 Arrow Matches*
Male Recurve all top 8
Female Recurve all top 8
Male Compound Bronze=ranked 12 but would have been there with the TH as well
Female Compound all top 8
Out of 16 Semi Finals only was was not ranked top 8 in FITA. He would have been there regardless of OR or TH system.

_No discrepancy in Semi-Finals between OR and TH_


----------



## scrounger (Mar 13, 2007)

If you can endure some more comments from peanut gallery... 

I watched EVERY recorded or televised OR HTH match from Athens while I'd have trouble getting any focus on 16 archer line in my own club. It was the first time I had conversations with people who never even looked at archery before about Vic "duels" and how close he was to Marco. Considering comments from other, more into archery spectators, I suspect is somewhat indicative tendency. Is it bad for the sport? 

The "score only" results would mean difference in Athens for 6 archers after the 1/32 round, for 4 archers after 1/16 round and for 2 archers after 1/8 round. While it is debatable what the scores from HTH matches mean (I very much subscribe to the Nikki "step up to the level of competition" notion. For example while Marco didn't work as hard as Anton in 1/8, Anton had an easy 1/16 as far as the numbers go.), nevertheless, the format as I proposed would allow the score to be important (going back to Anton example, he would advance to 1/4). In effect, nobody would give up after getting one bad flier. 

John, most of us mortals have very limited span of attention. Looking at a long line of archers and a score table is about as entertaining as... Oh well, fill in the blank. 
Rob


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Nikki, I assume your results were from a domestic event?

If so, it's not really a fair assessment of the affects of such a change in format. Reason being, in the U.S. there are far fewer dominant shooters than in an international event. As the field deepens, the percentage of top 8 shooters medaling is bound to go down.

Scrounger, I hear what you are saying about attention span (I have a rather short one myself, being a 37 year old adolescent  ). But my point was that really only archers or relatives of archers bother to watch the early elimination rounds. Not only that, but the format I'm suggesting for the medal matches would produce a more understandable and exciting finale to an event.

John.


----------



## G33k (Jul 16, 2003)

limbwalker said:


> Nikki, I assume your results were from a domestic event?


Yep, Like I said before yall can do whatever you want with the International events ....my concern is about USAT events and archery here in America.


----------



## JLorenti (Mar 17, 2004)

*I was home earlier in this debate....*

then constant work called. John, GeeK, where are we now. What has all the pages of debate concluded. Is there a system that you all have come up with now that all can say would be better?
If you don't mind what s the current idea? Sorry for not wanting to read all the past posts.

Joe lorenti


----------



## JLorenti (Mar 17, 2004)

*Heres an interesting post....*

that was just put up on another thread concerning the OR in the first leg of the World cup. It reads:

.....The OR format is, once again, unkind to the top seeds in Men's Recurve. Five of the top six, along with eight of the top ten seeds have been eliminated. Of the top 10 qualifers, only 2nd-seeded Mr. Im of Korea and 10th seeded Xue Hai Fing of China advance to the semis. 

The most distant seeds to make the semis are 29th seeded Wang, Cheng Pang from Taipei, 25th seeded Tsyrempilov, Balzhinima from Russia, and 22nd seed Ilario Di Buo from Italy.

In sharp contrast to the Men's results, only 4th seeded Yun Mi Jin of Korea failed to make the semis in Women's Recurve. With the exception of Yun Mi Jin, the first seven seeds are in the semis, along with 36th seeded Banerjee, Dola from India and 24 Zhao Ling from China.

Gusty winds and cold temps may have contributed, but the elimination of so many of the top seeds in Men's Recurve versus all of the top seven seeds save one, in Women's Recurve is striking nonetheless.......



There you go the OR doing another job on the top seeds. Maybe weather conditions had more to do with this one but it is an interesting comment considering what we all are talking about here in this thread. Food for thought.

Joe Lorenti


----------



## G33k (Jul 16, 2003)

If you back up a few posts, I put together a comparision of how the ORs of two tournaments would be different if they used the TH method. TH is the Top Half, where all the scores are gathered together and the top half of the scores continue on.

I am only discussing National Level events but it looks like alot of people only care about the Olympics


----------



## jmvargas (Oct 21, 2004)

i have been following this thread since the beginning and respect and even agree to most of the opnions given but i think it is time to face the reality of things....unless and until the OR format is changed all archers who want to win will just have to find a way to DEAL WITH IT.....the true champions in any sport have always found a way to do this and i have no doubt that they will contnue to do so in ours....rick mckinney recognized this as early as 1996 in his book and even devoted one whole chapter on how to deal with it....kisik lee and the frangillis have done the same in their more recent books...these champions recognized that the OR has changed how archery competitions USED to be and have done their best to help all archers deal with it.....JMHO..


----------



## Hollywood (Oct 24, 2002)

I can appreciate the work that you put into this, Nikki. However, it concerns me that you would try to generalize this or "have it say something" when you admitted that you only looked at one event each (one 12-arrow event and one 18-arrow event). I'm not sure what the conclusion of your analysis was, but whatever the conclusion, I am quite sure that it can't be generalized. 

Also, John's point about only looking at domestic events is incredibly important. I understand that you are interested in domestic events and the impact on domestic events, but to see the whole picture, it is necessary to do the analysis on international events also - and to include a large sample, not just one event. 

Thanks for your efforts though.

-peace,
Hollywood


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Wow! Over 2,000 views in five days. I guess folks are more interested in the OR format than I imagined. 

JMVargas, 

Folks have been dealing with it for a while now. But the status quo needs to be reviewed from time to time, if not broken. There is a certain percentage of the population that will always vote for the status quo, no matter what it is. Some because they don't want to have to learn something new, others because they fear change, and still others because they understand it. But it should be reviewed often.

It is the duty of any good coach to prepare their students to deal with the OR as we know it. That is one of the principles of coach Lee's BEST method - That it won't necessarily allow you to beat Im or Yang's next 1370, but rather beat them in a 12 arrow match. So yes, folks are "dealing with it" as it were.

Nikki, for better or worse, the domestic events are going to follow the FITA rules and format. Therefore, changing the international and Olympic format will eventually mean changing the USAT ranking, and perhaps other domestic events too.

On the Sagi-site, Vittorio laid out what would have to happen to affect a change in the format. It is daunting to say the least. Mike (MBU) pointed out a very valid point, that a change in format to encourage the best archers to make it to the medal rounds will obviously favor the few countries that have elite archers, and decrease the medal count for other "up and coming" countries. So it is unlikely that many countries would vote for a format that would virtually ensure that their nation's archers won't be in that final four.

Like I wrote on Sagi, it bothers me that the format has been changed to allow more lower ranked archers to medal more often. The competitor in me says that cheapens the sport. Rather than change the format to suit the underperforming countries, shouldn't we be training better archers?

John.


----------



## G33k (Jul 16, 2003)

This is no offense to the gentleman who posted this. Everyone has to remember that things can be written to sound more exciting than they really are. 
Going into the semi finals means that they are down to 4 people, so by definition 4 of the top 8 and 6 of the top 10 HAVE to be out.

How did the 25th seed made it to the semifinals?
1/32 round : score 101 was three way tie for 20th highest out of 64 scores
1/16 round : score 107, three way tie for 10th highest out of 32 scores
1/8 round : score 111, 4th highest out of 16 scores
1/4 round: score 107, 2nd highest out of 8 scores
He was always in the top half of the scores

And according to the results listed on the World Cup page neither 29th seeded Wang, Cheng Pang from Taipei, nor 22nd seed Ilario Di Buo from Italy made the semifinals.  



JLorenti said:


> that was just put up on another thread concerning the OR in the first leg of the World cup. It reads:
> 
> .....The OR format is, once again, unkind to the top seeds in Men's Recurve. Five of the top six, along with eight of the top ten seeds have been eliminated. Of the top 10 qualifers, only 2nd-seeded Mr. Im of Korea and 10th seeded Xue Hai Fing of China advance to the semis.
> 
> The most distant seeds to make the semis are 29th seeded Wang, Cheng Pang from Taipei, 25th seeded Tsyrempilov, Balzhinima from Russia, and 22nd seed Ilario Di Buo from Italy.


----------



## G33k (Jul 16, 2003)

Hollywood said:


> I can appreciate the work that you put into this, Nikki. However, it concerns me that you would try to generalize this or "have it say something" when you admitted that you only looked at one event each (one 12-arrow event and one 18-arrow event). I'm not sure what the conclusion of your analysis was, but whatever the conclusion, I am quite sure that it can't be generalized.


Sorry, I only had a few hours and I was only able to look at two events. People said they would be interested so I did it. I am not sure what you are concerned about. No need to be concerned, despite what everyone things, I have no agenda. I just prefer for people to debate using facts rather than a story of one time something happened. 

I most certainly am not trying to have the numbers "say anything". I didn't include any conclusions, just showed the numbers. I am surprised people haven't commented on the numbers, I think there are some interesting aspects that would support some peoples POV.


----------



## Hollywood (Oct 24, 2002)

G33k said:


> I just prefer for people to debate using facts rather than a story of one time something happened.


This is my point, exactly. If you only have one event, you really are not providing "the facts."



G33k said:


> I most certainly am not trying to have the numbers "say anything". I didn't include any conclusions, just showed the numbers. I am surprised people haven't commented on the numbers, I think there are some interesting aspects that would support some peoples POV.


And....in this post, you admit that you think what you found "supports" people's POV. In other words, you are drawing conclusions. Which, is really dangerous, given the tiny sample. 

I'm not asking you to take more of your time on it, I certainly understand a shortage of time!  But, at the same time, I would caution anyone from using those numbers - either in support of or against an argument. I think a good, thorough analysis would be very interesting. That's all I'm saying.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Hollywood, Nikki

Some of the numbers that have come up (particularly the rather consistent 20% "upset" ratio) however interesting, are of no use until we all decide what the goal of the event is in the first place.

John.


----------



## G33k (Jul 16, 2003)

This was just a more indepth look at some of the 'data' that was being used already (what percent of medals were given out to people ranked higher than 8th place). Besides, you can use this data to describe one event, nothing wrong with that. It is only a problem if you say "This is the case for ALL events". (As you pointed out)

In research you start with a small sampling before you expand to a full study. In this case I do find it interesting and might continue.


----------



## G33k (Jul 16, 2003)

limbwalker said:


> are of no use until we all decide what the goal of the event is in the first place.


I imagine there as as many different answers to that as there are grains of sand.


----------



## jmvargas (Oct 21, 2004)

john..i think that wanting to CHANGE something is NOT dealing with it.....i have no problem with someone PROPOSING a change(which is what you're doing) but people almost demanding for it is NOT dealing with it....JMHO.


----------



## Hollywood (Oct 24, 2002)

Nikki - 

Sorry, I guess I misunderstood your reason for posting the numbers. I didn't realize you were simply wanting to describe what happened at one event. Yes, you can definitely use the data to do that.

Which was the event you used (for the 12-arrow numbers) and which was the event you used (for the 18-arrow numbers)? 

Thanks,
Hollywood


----------



## RecordKeeper (May 9, 2003)

Hollywood said:


> Nikki -
> 
> Sorry, I guess I misunderstood your reason for posting the numbers. I didn't realize you were simply wanting to describe what happened at one event. Yes, you can definitely use the data to do that.
> 
> ...


And if you read the entire thread...you'd see she is supportive of the current format:wink:


----------



## Hollywood (Oct 24, 2002)

Recordkeeper said:


> And if you read the entire thread...you'd see she is supportive of the current format:wink:


I've been reading the thread since John started it, thanks. And, yes, I've read the whole thing. I don't know what her being supportive of any format has to do with the data (which is what I logged on to talk about). Hopefully the format that you support doesn't impact the data.....or we're all in big trouble.


----------



## RecordKeeper (May 9, 2003)

Hollywood said:


> I've been reading the thread since John started it, thanks. And, yes, I've read the whole thing. I don't what her being supportive of any format has to do with the data (which is what I logged on to talk about). Hopefully the format that you support doesn't impact the data.....or we're all in big trouble.


I don't have a dog in the race. I prefer the best archer of the day be the winner....but realize that it is the Olympic format that drives this ship.


----------



## oldreliable67 (Mar 24, 2003)

G33k said:


> And according to the results listed on the World Cup page neither 29th seeded Wang, Cheng Pang from Taipei, nor 22nd seed Ilario Di Buo from Italy made the semifinals.


Yes and no. 

Wang not only came from the 29th seed and was in the semis, Wang, Cheng Pang was the Gold Medalist. And you are correct, my bad. Di Buo, the 22nd seed, did not make it to the semis; he only made it to the quarterfinals, where he lost to the 19th seed, Kuo, Chang Wei from Taipei. The correct comment should have read, "and Kuo, Chang Wei, the 19th seed, from Taipei," who, by the way, made it to the Gold Medal finals, losing to his countryman, Wang.

In Men's Recurve, the Finals were composed of the 29th seed, the 19th seed, the 25th seed, and the 2nd seed. Three out of the four finalists were seeded no better than 19th.

Congratulations to them all! 

Source: http://www.archeryworldcup.org/UserFiles/Document/Results/Results/07_WCup_Ulsan/IEFRM.pdf


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> I imagine there as as many different answers to that as there are grains of sand.


Or at least as many as there are archers and spectators...

This argument is as old as the Olympic archery event itself. Probably even older than that.

Which round to shoot to determine the winner? What is the truest test? Hey, at least we aren't shooting arrows at "birdies" at the top of tall poles anymore...  Although that sounds like a heck of a lot of fun too!

The pendulum swings back and forth, I think. A double FITA had it's share of problems... (i.e. "watching grass grow"), and the pendulum began to swing. Now we are down to 12 arrows, loser goes home... 

I believe it has swung far enough, and needs to start swinging back.

My proposal is merely what I consider a healthy blend of somewhere in the middle 

John.


----------



## G33k (Jul 16, 2003)

oldreliable67 said:


> Yes and no.


You are correct, thank you for clearing up the remaining confusion.


----------



## G33k (Jul 16, 2003)

limbwalker said:


> I believe it has swung far enough, and needs to start swinging back.


I agree, we all get 12 arrows and get put into an arena. We stay til only one man/woman remains. 

Actually did you look at my description about Pole Vaulting? I would not suggest it to replace the OR but it would be fun to try at a tournament some time. And it would be easy for spectators to follow.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> Actually did you look at my description about Pole Vaulting?


Yes, I did. See Nikki, that's the beauty of all this. Your pole vaulting example makes my point exactly! The average score of the field IS "the bar."

In other words, by cutting the field in half - you raise the bar each round. But since weather and wind can influence the average score so quickly, you simply have to "clear" the field average during that round to remain in the game.  And all archers shoot at the same time, so the "bar" is equal for everyone.

Thanks for the support! :darkbeer: 

John.


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> Yes, I did. See Nikki, that's the beauty of all this. Your pole vaulting example makes my point exactly! The average score of the field IS "the bar."
> 
> In other words, by cutting the field in half - you raise the bar each round. But since weather and wind can influence the average score so quickly, you simply have to "clear" the field average during that round to remain in the game.  And all archers shoot at the same time, so the "bar" is equal for everyone.
> 
> ...


I like the idea of cutting the field in half at each round. Alternatively you can consider a system of having to shoot within a percentage of the highest score in a round to advance. A system like that allows for flexibility in different venues, if you need to eliminate the field quickly you can raise the percentage. It also tends to eliminate sandbagging as dropping arrows just allows the field to stay close to the leader. I am not sure how that would fare with Nikki's shoot better / shoot worse depending on whom you are shooting with issue. I think that is a goal seeking issue that may have an explanation in the bowels of zero sum game theory.


----------



## G33k (Jul 16, 2003)

limbwalker said:


> Yes, I did. See Nikki, that's the beauty of all this. Your pole vaulting example makes my point exactly! The average score of the field IS "the bar."


HUGE DISCLAIMER:This is not to replace the OR!!

I do see your point but for the aspect of a 'fun' shoot, I like the idea of the 3 chances at each 'height'. Psychologically there is a different aspect that I think would be fun to try and play with. And there is no law that says you HAVE to cut the field in half each time. But obviously if you had too many people this could last all day and night. I was thinking this might be fun for some of the 'college get togethers' we are discussing for the fall.


----------



## G33k (Jul 16, 2003)

Hutnicks said:


> Alternatively you can consider a system of having to shoot within a percentage of the highest score in a round to advance. A system like that allows for flexibility in different venues, if you need to eliminate the field quickly you can raise the percentage.


 I like the idea of a percentage of the lead. So many great ideas to play with. After Spring Break my students are going to have alot of shooting and feedback to do.


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

G33k said:


> I like the idea of a percentage of the lead. So many great ideas to play with. After Spring Break my students are going to have alot of shooting and feedback to do.


 It is used in Pro Cycling a lot in Europe where they have to pare the fields down due to the immense size of entrants. It also gives a measure of fatigue in the riders, which is not completely relevant to Archery. As I said before I will be interested to see what you can do with your students. Must be great to have a tame control group.

TOT- Still interested in the use of the release to train recurvers, not familiar with that, care to start a thread?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

The problems I see with 3 chances at a given "height" or score are that, 1) It would be more difficult for the audience to follow 2) Because of quickly changing weather (esp. winds), you could have a situation where the average score of the field goes DOWN (I've seen this many times as an afternoon's event goes on), and 3) You could have practically all, or practically none of the shooters advance. The advantage of cutting the field in half is that it leads to a logical conclusion, predictable to determine how long it will take, and accomodates any weather conditions.

John.


----------



## G33k (Jul 16, 2003)

limbwalker said:


> 1) It would be more difficult for the audience to follow


And I like the idea of using a percent of the leaders score. 

Actually alot easier to follow, because they could see what the score currently was then look down at the targets and see who has that score. I would probably just use 6 arrows (GASP) but like I said , it would be just to do something new and different on a Saturday afternoon. You can't be scared of things not working perfectly the first time.


----------



## WormBurner (Oct 19, 2006)

Okay, all right...I see what's afoot here. Well, I can take the aloof, detached, devil's advocate, hide-in-the-weeds approach myself:

I have no agenda here, but the following are facts:

1. Nobody has provided any data showing the current OR format has increased interest, exposure, or participation (which seems to be the "biggie" supporting argument employed in its defense).

2. The "intentionally dropping arrows" issue _did_ happen at least once...it's only one data point, but that data point is fact, and cannot be argued away.

Hey, I have no interest in what happens here, other than critiquing arguments and challenging the statements people are making in support of them. 

And the way I see it, the OR proponents have a pretty shaky canoe here. The OR opponents have presented at least 2 concrete examples of how the format distorts the competition; on the other hand, the proponents have failed to support their claims.

Hey, I'm just the impartial referee here, callin' 'em like I see 'em...(wink)


----------



## RecordKeeper (May 9, 2003)

WormBurner said:


> Okay, all right...I see what's afoot here. Well, I can take the aloof, detached, devil's advocate, hide-in-the-weeds approach myself:
> 
> I have no agenda here, but the following are facts:
> 
> ...



Actually...the proponents have one huge plus on ther side. This is exactly how the Olympics are run....and that is what drives this ship.

Is that best for archery? Likely not.

But it hardly matters....because if we lost our participation in the Olympics...freakcurve archery is done.


----------



## G33k (Jul 16, 2003)

Recordkeeper said:


> But it hardly matters....because if we lost our participation in the Olympics...freakcurve archery is done.


That not true RK, we will keep the freakcurve spirit alive (for about 5 minutes then you know we are both going Pro Compound). There does seem to be alot of people that ,when deciding between compound and recurve, are influenced by recurve being an olympic sport. 

We keep on talking about only the Olympics but lets not forget that compounders don't get to shoot in the Olympics and yet they are still stuck with the ORs.


----------



## RecordKeeper (May 9, 2003)

G33k said:


> That not true RK, we will keep the freakcurve spirit alive (for about 5 minutes then you know we are both going Pro Compound). There does seem to be alot of people that ,when deciding between compound and recurve, are influenced by recurve being an olympic sport.
> 
> We keep on talking about only the Olympics but lets not forget that compounders don't get to shoot in the Olympics and yet they are still stuck with the ORs.


That's a great point Nikki! Absolutely true! And my hat is off to any compounder that keeps their NAA membership.

These are trying times....and we appreciate all the support...no matter where it comes from:thumb:


----------



## G33k (Jul 16, 2003)

Recordkeeper said:


> These are trying times....and we appreciate all the support...no matter where it comes from:thumb:


I was talking to a Pro compound shooter and trying to convince him to try out one of the NAA shoots. He was interested especially in the idea of the ORs but he is already attending something like 17 archery events this year. Either time or money, usually one of the time is a limitor.


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

JLorenti said:


> ... In sharp contrast to the Men's results, only 4th seeded Yun Mi Jin of Korea failed to make the semis in Women's Recurve. With the exception of Yun Mi Jin, the first seven seeds are in the semis, along with 36th seeded Banerjee, Dola from India and 24 Zhao Ling from China.
> 
> Gusty winds and cold temps may have contributed, but the elimination of so many of the top seeds in Men's Recurve versus all of the top seven seeds save one, in Women's Recurve is striking nonetheless.......
> 
> ...


I did not want to intervene here... but I can't resist.. Just few comments....

The field infrastuctures in Ulsan were protecting a lot from wind the archers on the first targets during qualification (Koreans and partially Italians, too), just opposite of what FITA is saying on their comments on FITA web site. But those in the second bracked have then been moved to the right side of the field, in total open air, with more unpredictable results during matches, at least for men.
In these conditions, only those with a really clean superirity can go on, i.e. Korean ladies. Nowdays, ther is only one lady in the world that can compete against Korean top ladies, and is (still) Natalia Valeeva. All others give to Prk S.H, Cho or Lee or any of the others at least 40 points in a Fita round, that means at least the enormity of 3 to 6 points in any 12 arrow match. Forget about ladies, in you comparisons. 

The "pressure" factor is an urban legend. It only exiists at very low level, or during very top level competitons, only (Olympics, or World championship finals). In a "normal" grand prix, the top guys perfectly know that the casual round dominates results, so they just shoot their arrows and score their points. Much different for self convinced low level archers. They may shoot the "end of their life" agains Park, and then loose the match after in the happiest way and without caring of it. They have nothing to loose (in terms of salary or sponsors) and they will go on with the glory of their victory in a single match for ages...
In the present Casual Round system, a very hight level archer may hope to win a major international competiton average every two years, with all others winning one competiton once in their live, mainly, and if they can. So , why to be under pressure for something that can happen only few times in your life?
Park Kyung Mo is shooting at compettive level since 1992, and he has won, if I well remember, one world championship and 3 grand prix, only. 
Jang Jong Ho is shooting at top level since 1996, and has got one or two grand prix only in more than 10 years. Please....... the "slow sighters", as all of them are, don't think like the "fast shooters" at all..


I'm so honest, as coach, to recognize that I can't do anything against the Casual Round, but training my archers to score higher scores. All other theories are built straight from Casul Round results of some lucky archer. You are just so lucky to work with a very good archer, you train him, he is the luckiest in the world and gets an Olympic medal, and you start saying around that you are the best coach in the world. In this respect, Marco Galiazzo's father is surely the best coach in the world, as he was and is his only one coach. As a matter of fact, FITARCO has nominated him Coach of the Year 2004.... 
No, gents, there are no secrets, but scoring possibly 1380 with constance, as Korean girs do. Then, Casual Round will influence you a little bit less...let say, may be in htis case you can win a major competiton once every 3 years ... :sad: 

And, as someone already mentiond from my comments in another thread, the number of 1380 shooters helps korens, At the end, at least one of them (and possibly one Italian  ) wil be in the finals... The only thing FITA has got is that the winner won't be the same too hoften !


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Vittorio,

As always - thanks for the perspective. Your experience should speak for itself.

TomB (if I may) just suggested to me a great solution to those who are concerned that this "new" format would forever exclude lesser ranked archers from getting to compete in head to head matchplay.

His suggestion is for domestic tournaments, to form a "consolation bracket" from the lower 1/2 of the field after the first cut. This would be easy to do, since they could simply shoot on the same line and whistle as the championsip bracket. Sort of a "2nd flight" if you will. I think that's a great idea. Then even someone who ranked 40th in the qualification round would have a good chance to eventually compete in a medal round. Thanks Tom!

John.


----------



## G33k (Jul 16, 2003)

Vittorio said:


> I did not want to intervene here... but I can't resist.. Just few comments....
> 
> The "pressure" factor is an urban legend. It only exiists at very low level, or during very top level competitons, only (Olympics, or World championship finals).


Please do stay involved. You are one of the few that can speak from first hand knowledge rather than just repeating what you heard someone else say. 

But I must comment on the urban myth part of your statement, atleast if I understand your meaning. I would say the pressure is always there even more so in higher level athletes because they are 'supposed to win'. But I could agree that a high level athlete can use that pressure to help them win, is that in line with what you meant or not? I base this on the discussions I have had with athletes, the information from my sport psych classes, my professors, people who work in the field (PGA golf, Olympic athletes, NHRA top 5 finishers, the Romanian Gymnastic team, rugby teams, professional Baseball) and one research articles.

I cannot claim to fully understand your point, so please stay involved in the conversation. My best example of pressure on archers would be at Vegas on Compound archers in the shoot off. They have shot 90 arrows over 3 days and not a single X but sure enough some of these guys will shoot an 9 in the first few round. And these are elite archers.


----------



## Oly1 (Jun 8, 2002)

art v said:


> That would be interesting. We had a bad experience with the NAA here in TN and now I'm not sure the NAA could get any NFAA shooters to particpate in any of their events.
> 
> Dave.....the NFAA is dead outdoors here too. They are lucky to get 20 to 25 shooters at an outdoor event. The indoor state championships had 35 shooters in the middle of the state....I'm not sure what the total participants were state wide..probably not over 125 total from all classes.
> Art


Art we had 110 shooters at the indoor down a little from last year. The loss was mainly in the east. 110 out 150 members isn't to bad a turnout..State International round at Knoxville on Memorial day weekend, Shoot Saturday or Sunday. We will be also having the Dogwood the same weekend so you can shoot one or both.. get in touch with me for further info....Oly


----------



## oldreliable67 (Mar 24, 2003)

limbwalker said:


> TomB (if I may) just suggested to me a great solution to those who are concerned that this "new" format would forever exclude lesser ranked archers from getting to compete in head to head matchplay.
> 
> His suggestion is for domestic tournaments, to form a "consolation bracket" from the lower 1/2 of the field after the first cut. This would be easy to do, since they could simply shoot on the same line and whistle as the championsip bracket. Sort of a "2nd flight" if you will. I think that's a great idea. Then even someone who ranked 40th in the qualification round would have a good chance to eventually compete in a medal round. Thanks Tom!


This suggestion is but one of several formats possible from a double elimination format, mentioned earlier in the thread. Here is the description from Wikipedia:



> A double-elimination tournament is a competition in which a participant ceases to be eligible to win the tournament's championship upon having lost two games or matches. It stands in contrast to a single-elimination tournament, in which only one defeat results in elimination.
> 
> A double-elimination tournament is broken into two sets of brackets, the Winners Bracket and Losers Bracket (W and L Brackets for short; also sometimes Upper Bracket and Lower Bracket, respectively). After the first round, the winners proceed into the W Bracket and the losers proceed into the L Bracket. The W Bracket is conducted in the same manner as a single-elimination tournament, except of course that the losers of each round "drop down" into the L Bracket.
> 
> ...


----------



## G33k (Jul 16, 2003)

oldreliable67 said:


> This suggestion is but one of several formats possible from a double elimination format, mentioned earlier in the thread. Here is the description from


I have always liked the idea of the double elimination bracket, even if the 'losers bracket' has no affect on the final placement or Rolling Rankings. At the very least the beginner gets a second chance to practice the ORs. I guess one of the things that interests me is a way to get more practice at the various parts of the competition. Wheither you love or Hate the OR , for the moment, they are still here, so we might as well prepare for them as best we can.


----------



## jmvargas (Oct 21, 2004)

can't resist putting up what kisik lee wrote at the end of chapter 9 "THE OLYMPIC ROUND" in his book TOTAL ARCHERY:
WHINING IS FOR LOSERS!
"All this is might seem extreme,but any archer aspiring to compete at the highest level,such as the Olympics, has to push themselves beyond their limits and way beyond their comfort zone.
To be the best, you are required to set standards that exceed everybody else's in the world. This requires determination, self sacrifice and it is not for the faint hearted.
A CHAMPION WILL DO ANYTHING TO CREATE THIS WINNING ATTITUDE."

As everyone knows here, kisik lee is the head coach of the USA in archery...Good luck to you all!!


----------



## WormBurner (Oct 19, 2006)

Vittorio said:


> ...........The "pressure" factor is an urban legend.


...Ah, but it gives aspiring sport-psych hacks material for no end of papers and dissertations...



Vittorio said:


> .......In a "normal" grand prix, the top guys perfectly know that the casual round dominates results, so they just shoot their arrows and score their points................In the present Casual Round system, a very hight level archer may hope to win a major international competiton average every two years, with all others winning one competiton once in their live, mainly, and if they can. So , why to be under pressure for something that can happen only few times in your life?................let say, may be in htis case you can win a major competiton once every 3 years ........... The only thing FITA has got is that the winner won't be the same too hoften !


Vittorio,

What you have just perfectly described, is what we here call a "crapshoot."

A good competitor & friend put it well when he said: "You just shoot your scores and wait your turn" (meaning in the spotlight). 

I suppose maybe I can see this driving some interest in one sense: you create a new "champion" every time around the horn. Some new face every year, someone who can go back to his country as an ambassador & fuel his countrymens' interest for a couple years. You know...spread the seed far and wide, instead of near and deep.

Spares us from having to suffer another D.P...God forbid.


----------



## G33k (Jul 16, 2003)

WormBurner said:


> ...Ah, but it gives aspiring sport-psych hacks material for no end of papers and dissertations...


LOL, I choose to take that as good natured ribbing rather than a serious dig where you call me a hack.


----------



## WormBurner (Oct 19, 2006)

G33k said:


> LOL, I choose to take that as good natured ribbing rather than a serious dig where you call me a hack.



Hack! No way...I refuse to believe that a serious shooter who's that smart and pretty could also be a hack (well, ok - full disclosure statement:...I'm not speaking from first-hand knowledge...I'm just repeating what I've heard others say).

Beer-drinking smiley goes here >>> _


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> A good competitor & friend put it well when he said: "You just shoot your scores and wait your turn" (meaning in the spotlight).
> 
> I suppose maybe I can see this driving some interest in one sense: you create a new "champion" every time around the horn. Some new face every year, someone who can go back to his country as an ambassador & fuel his countrymens' interest for a couple years. You know...spread the seed far and wide, instead of near and deep.
> 
> Spares us from having to suffer another D.P...God forbid.


Excellent observation...

Shoot your scores and wait your turn... Yea, that's about right. It really removes a lot of incentive for many top level archers, I think.

John.


----------



## Dave T (Mar 24, 2004)

WormBurner said:


> Spares us from having to suffer another D.P...God forbid.


Didn't realize we suffered from Mr. Pace winning an Olympic Gold medal or a National Championship. Sorry for your pain...on second thought, no I'm not!

Dave


----------



## Jock McBile (Apr 10, 2007)

This has been an interesting thread – I usually just lurk here, but thought I would sign up and post to add my two cents.

There seems to be a desire to paint people as “for” or “against” the current system. I consider myself to not be in either camp. Certainly when I came back to the sport in 1997 after being out for 15 years, a lot had changed, including the format. I recall looking at the results from Atlanta and thinking “what the hell?” I had no idea what the numbers meant so I had to look up the format.  

Once I started competing again, it was clear to me that the OR was a different animal to the standard FITA. I believe it requires and rewards different skills, just like shooting a field round requires different skills. The base archery skills are still needed in the OR as they are in a FITA, but the mind set is different in my opinion. Comparing the two is like comparing oranges and lemons – too similar to say apples and oranges, but still different.

Some observations on this thread…..

The incident with Jay Barrs being knocked out at AZ Cup was put up as one example of what is wrong with the OR. Well, later that year I was shooting a match against Jay, and while he was handing me my arse we talked about FX limbs between ends since I was considering purchasing a set. He mentioned issues with brace height (FX requiring a lower brace height than with Carbon Plus limbs), and told me that he had inadvertently set the brace height too high on his bow prior to that infamous match, and could not shoot a decent end to save his life because of that. I’m not saying this proves anything one way or another, but according to Jay there were other factors than the OR round itself that lead to that incident. I think when putting up an example such as this that seems to prove something, it's potentially misleading (intentional or not) if the facts are not looked at in their entirety.

I am all for healthy discussion about the rounds and what is good or bad about them, but I get the feeling from reading comments by a few here that they think those who don’t oppose the current format are selfish and have some agenda. On the contrary, I feel they are just being pragmatic in most cases. I wasn’t in the sport when the OR was conceived by “the powers that be” but I very much doubt the rank and file archers were consulted to see if this format would be to their benefit or liking. And, I very much doubt if all the “non-elite” archers were polled, and somehow a miracle happened and all agreed that the OR should be changed/scrapped, that FITA would care one bit. So I can’t really understand the feeling of some here (at least from what I have read) that the “non-elite” archers are somehow “responsible” for holding back this change in format. I get the feeling that some here think if you don’t openly oppose the format you are basically a bad person. That is not the way to promote a healthy discussion IMO.

I have competed in quite a few OR’s both in Canada, the US, and in some other countries. I have shot with or against a lot of the “elite” archers out there, from the US and from other countries. That would include Butch, Jay, Vic, Justin, Magnus, Martinus, Rod, etc….I have heard complaints about a lot of things over the years, but can’t recall once any of these people complaining about the OR round. Maybe they do complain about it, but not in public at tournaments that I saw. Even when they were the “victims” of the round, I didn’t hear them complain. Certainly the round has been both good and bad for me. I’ve beaten archers who had higher ranking round scores than I did, and have been beaten by archers with lower scores. It sucks to lose, but it’s simply the sport we are in and I accept it for what it is. If that makes me a bad person in the eyes of some here, then so be it.

I believe that some of the stats put up here need to be looked at with a critical eye, as many assumptions are being made on both sides. For instance, a “concern” expressed was that people who ranked lower than 8th have won medals a certain percentage of the time. This is pointed to as a flaw in the system. Well, I have certainly had bad FITA rounds in my time, and I managed to squeak into the OR with what for me was a sub-par FITA score. If I went on to beat the higher ranked archer I was up against, and someone looked at my FITA and rank, they would call it an upset, when in reality it might not have been an upset at all. Does this account for all cases where the lower ranked archer wins? Of course not, but it can’t be discounted.

I saw Limbwalker say that a certain percentage of elite archers will sit down when they deserve to go on. That is true, but you also have to account for the elite archers that tank it during a match. It happens, and sometimes to the best. I’ve seen Vic put an arrow into the dirt during a match, and lose as a result. Did he deserve to win? Not in my mind. I’ve shot against someone who finished within the top 8 at the US Nationals (for US archers - not in the entire draw), and he put an arrow into the dirt during our match and I moved on. Did I deserve the win? I think so because that archer simply cracked under the pressure of match play. There was no doubt this was due to pressure as the weather was perfect, and there were no issues with his equipment – this is a 1300+ archer. IMO if you are putting arrows in the dirt at 70m you should not be winning regardless of the format**. By the way, I don’t believe for a second that pressure is only a factor at very low or very high levels. I’ve seen some of the best archers in the world crack under match play conditions (in both individual and team competitions). The pressure is there, but how you handle it is the key.

** Before someone counters with this - certainly Athens OG was mishandled, but I think that was as much the fault of the organizers as the format. There is no doubt in my mind the competition should have been cancelled on the day when the wind was so strong, but it’s not clear to me who makes that decision – FITA, IOC, or Athens Organizing Committee – whoever it was, they dropped the ball big time.

So my conclusion regarding the stats is that they need a lot of study to come to any hard conclusions one way or another.

For the record, in Canada we shoot a double elimination round for our major events, and I believe this has a lot of merit. Not only does it give archers more opportunities to hone their match play skills, but it gives the archer who has “one bad pass” a chance to come back and win the event in our system. I would certainly support such a change at all events.

The bottom line for me is that I am under no illusions that a discussion on this or any other archery forum is going to lead to a significant change in the format. Discussion is always a good thing as long as people can respect each other’s positions and not launch personal attacks and label people unfairly. This goes for both sides, and those who call those who complain “whiners” are just as guilty as those who think the “non-elite archer/bad person/conspiracy” is to blame for all the elite archers who don’t win when they “should have.”

Due to health reasons I am no longer able to shoot at the level I once did. From my perspective, no matter how flawed the competition format is, it is far better than not competing at all. Cheers, and thanks for reading. :darkbeer: 

Let the pummeling and labeling begin!  

PS – IMO the true test of the “best” archer would be shooting FITA barebow in a field round – that would be going back to my roots!


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Dave, I think that was tongue-in-cheek 

As if we should be so unfortunate to have US recurve archers dominating events again! ha, ha. 



> There is no doubt in my mind the competition should have been cancelled on the day when the wind was so strong


Agreed. We were dumbfounded when they canceled rowing and sailing, but allowed archery to go on in those ridiculous conditions. World class archers missed the entire butt. Ridiculous. One archer said it was like playing "rock-paper-scissors" for a medal. I agreed with him.

Oh, and you make some very good points. However, in the example you use about someone putting an arrow in the dirt, well, the "cut the field in half" format would still eliminate that archer...

Anyway,

I've noticed (and recieved several PM's) that some folks are getting all wrapped up in a bunch over this. Why? I don't know. These are nothing more than friendly "what if" discussions on an internet message forum. I'm not sure why they upset some people so much.

Nobody is going behind anyone's back and trying to change things. God forbid the "status quo" would be changed ... ha, ha, ha.

Relax everyone, and enjoy a good lively discussion on one tiny aspect of our sport. Contribute or don't. Entirely your decision. And if you think too many folks are spending way too much time debating this issue, then go shoot your bow and ignore it! It's still a free country. 

It's warming up 'round here (finally). Think I'll go fling some more arrows this afternoon.

John.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Dave T said:


> Didn't realize we suffered from Mr. Pace winning an Olympic Gold medal or a National Championship. Sorry for your pain...on second thought, no I'm not!
> 
> Dave


Yeah I saw that and decided to hold my fire. That we had two great champions (Darrell and Rick) who dominated world archery from about 1973-through the mid 80's only helped the sport in the USA (and they never were accused or charged with any nastiness either


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

G33k said:


> My best example of pressure on archers would be at Vegas on Compound archers in the shoot off. They have shot 90 arrows over 3 days and not a single X but sure enough some of these guys will shoot an 9 in the first few round. And these are elite archers.


Yes, that's pressure, as it is combined with a 25,000$ check!  
Or, when an arrow at the end of the Olympics means life pension, an apartment, and plenty of money.
It is NOT pressure when you just have to shoot 12 arrows and to hope the wind will favour you instead of your opponent, in a situation where the real value of the prize if very minimal, like almost in all other cases. 
Believe me, pressure is ever there in the qualification round, were everybody mesure you, your sponsor and your national coaches included. Then, when the Qualification Round is over, everybody really knows it's just a joke......


----------



## Dave T (Mar 24, 2004)

Jock McBile said:


> PS – IMO the true test of the “best” archer would be shooting FITA barebow in a field round – that would be going back to my roots!


Here, here! Right on! Ditto! Yea man, you tell 'em! (smiley face goes here)



John,

And my post was a little tongue-in-cheek too...or maybe not! (sfgh too!)

Dave


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

Dave T said:


> Here, here! Right on! Ditto! Yea man, you tell 'em! (smiley face goes here)
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Excellent idea the hybrid shootout. I love that idea. Use barebow to settle the hash.

Nikki, if you're out there, were you not looking for interesting training games for the students?


----------



## wisemaj (Feb 27, 2007)

Someone asked for data ... well, I've got data! Being somewhat of a Microsoft Excel junkie, I created a spreadsheet to analyze archery tournament data cut and pasted from the FITA web site. I selected the 2006 World Cup matches, which provide 16 data points (Men's and Women's Recurve and Compound from each of the 4 stages).

2006 World Cup Matches
Analysis of Percentage of Archers Ousted with Scores Higher than the Median Score

Event Stage Matches Ousted Percent
M Rec . 1 ... 60 .... 14 ... 23.6
M Rec . 2 ... 60 .... 13 ... 22.2
M Rec . 3 ... 48 ..... 9 ... 19.4
M Rec . 4 ... 60 .... 15 ... 24.2
W Rec . 1 ... 60 .... 10 ... 16.7
W Rec . 2 ... 60 .... 13 ... 22.4
W Rec . 3 ... 38 ..... 6 ... 16.7
W Rec . 4 ... 60 .... 11 ... 18.0
M Com . 1 ... 60 .... 12 ... 19.8
M Com . 2 ... 59 .... 14 ... 23.7
M Com . 3 ... 44 ..... 8 ... 17.4
M Com . 4 ... 32 .... 10 ... 32.3
W Com . 1 ... 33 ..... 8 ... 23.6
W Com . 2 ... 37 ..... 9 ... 23.0
W Com . 3 ... 30 ..... 3 ... 10.6
W Com . 4 ... 29 ..... 5 ... 17.2
Average .... 770 ....160 ... 20.8


Note that the percentages are remarkably consistent around the 20% mark, as previously estimated by John and Nikki.

A word about my method for those interested (feel free to ignore this boring stuff) ... The data includes all OR matches up to the final 4. "Ousted" is defined as an archer being eliminated with a score greater than the median score (ie, would have advanced in the Top-Half format). However, it also includes "partial archers" in the situation where 2 or more archers were on the median score and therefore would have been subjected to some sort of tie-breaker. Since there is no data to determine what the actual results would have been, I used a statistical approach, assigning to each competitor the probability that they would have advanced in a Top-Half format. So an archer whose score was above the median score was assigned a probability of 1, and one whose score was below the median, 0. Archers who were at the median score, and therefore tied, were each assigned a probability equal to the number of playoff spots available divided by the number of archers tied. I then simply added the totals for all the archers who lost their matches to come up with the number of archers who lost their match, but would otherwise have advanced. The numbers displayed in the "Ousted" column are rounded to the nearest whole integer, but the percentages are based on the fractional calculated value.

These numbers are interesting, although I'm not sure what they really mean. Is 20% too high? .. too low? just about right? I think there may be some more telling data available, which I'll post tomorrow. Sorry for the tease, but it's really late ...


----------



## WormBurner (Oct 19, 2006)

Cool...interesting study. 

Again, we can't take it as face-value evidence that any travesty against justice has occurred in these matches, because after all, some of the upper-hemisphere shooters may have simply "gacked" (as Pete put it).

However, the consistency of the numbers does give some pause...to think about what exactly is being accomplished.

Thanks for the concise post...


----------



## G33k (Jul 16, 2003)

I just wanted to add a few thoughts which I KNOW Jim C and Limbwalker will agree with 

I just wanted to thank everyone that added their thoughts to this discussion, especially the lurkers and those that watched until they felt they needed to share. I want to thank those 'in the know' and those that have never seen or shot an OR. I want to thank especially those that civilly disagreed with me and even those that supported my right to have an opinion.

You all added to the discussion and I believe that the conversation stayed extremely respectful for an internet discusion. And I know I have benefitted from everyones input. This may sound like a farewell note and in a way it is, it is time for me to get off the bench and get into the game. This weekend is AZ Cup. 

Who knows, I may come back from AZ and demanded that they change 'that darned OR!' LOL. If you are there, come and say hi


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

G33k said:


> I just wanted to add a few thoughts which I KNOW Jim C and Limbwalker will agree with
> 
> I just wanted to thank everyone that added their thoughts to this discussion, especially the lurkers and those that watched until they felt they needed to share. I want to thank those 'in the know' and those that have never seen or shot an OR. I want to thank especially those that civilly disagreed with me and even those that supported my right to have an opinion.
> 
> ...


go get 'em bat chick


----------



## wisemaj (Feb 27, 2007)

*More Data ...*

OK, here's a different way of looking at the data from the 2006 World Cup that might be a little more informative. I ws thinking that perhaps a pretty good indicator of performance, one that I hope most people could agree on, would be "Per Shot Average". In other words, take the total points scored by an archer, and divide it by the number of shots the archer took, to give you the average number of points the archer scored per arrow. I think it would be safe to say that the higher averages would be those that shot the best. This would assume that conditions were fairly equivalent for all the archers and no-one had any handicaps, such as "a windy end of the field" or such to deal with. Of course I have no way of knowing this, or of dealing with it data wise even if I knew, but if that were a significant problem, then the Top Half format would have some problems of it's own.

So, here's a look at the results from the view of per shot average. This looks at how the top per shot average performers finished place-wise in the tournament.

2006 World Cup Matches
Per-Shot-Average and (Position) of the Top 4 Performers as Defined by Per-Shot-Average for All Arrows
*G*:Gold *S*:Silver *B*:Bronze T:Tie


___________ ____________Per Shot Average Rank__________
Event Stage _____1____ _____2____ _____3____ _____4____ 
M Rec . 1 . 9.33 ( 5T) 9.31 ( *B* ) 9.25 ( 5T) 9.24 ( *G* )
M Rec . 2 . 9.41 ( *G* ) 9.31 ( *S* ) 9.25 ( 6 ) 9.24 (12 )
M Rec . 3 . 9.28 ( *G* ) 9.21 ( *B* ) 9.21 ( 7 ) 9.18 ( *S* )
M Rec . 4 . 9.33 ( *S* ) 9.27 ( *G* ) 9.22 (19 ) 9.16 (24 )
W Rec . 1 . 8.89 ( 6T) 8.85 ( 5 ) 8.85 ( *G* ) 8.83 (20 )
W Rec . 2 . 9.19 ( 4 ) 9.18 ( 5 ) 9.17 ( *B* ) 9.15 ( *G* )
W Rec . 3 . 9.17 ( 7 ) 9.14 ( *B* ) 9.14 (15T) 9.12 ( *G* )
W Rec . 4 . 9.36 ( *G* ) 9.31 ( *S* ) 9.22 ( *B* ) 9.19 ( 5 )
M Com . 1 . 9.56 ( 9T) 9.54 ( *B* ) 9.53 ( *G* ) 9.47 (12T)
M Com . 2 . 9.67 ( *B* ) 9.63 ( *G* ) 9.61 (20T) 9.61 ( 5 )
M Com . 3 . 9.75 (10 ) 9.73 ( *S* ) 9.67 (32 ) 9.65 ( 6 )
M Com . 4 . 9.59 ( 7 ) 9.58 ( 4 ) 9.57 ( *G* ) 9.56 ( *S* )
W Com . 1 . 9.39 ( *G* ) 9.35 ( 4 ) 9.34 ( *S* ) 9.33 (20T)
W Com . 2 . 9.40 ( *G* ) 9.35 ( *S* ) 9.33 ( 6 ) 9.31 ( 5 )
W Com . 3 . 9.65 ( *G* ) 9.57 ( *S* ) 9.52 ( *B* ) 9.45 ( 5 )
W Com . 4 . 9.31 ( 4 ) 9.26 ( 6 ) 9.23 ( *G* ) 9.22 ( *B* )
Avg. Position ... 4.0 ...... 3.0 ...... 7.9 ...... 7.8
Golds ............ 6 ........ 2 ........ 4 ........ 3 
Silvers .......... 1 ........ 5 ........ 1 ........ 2
Bronzes .......... 1 ........ 4 ........ 3 ........ 1
Medals ........... 8 ....... 11 ........ 8 ........ 6

A few notes:


If you had the best per shot average, you had a 50/50 shot at medaling

The top 4 performers by per shot average took home 33 of the 48 available medals, or 68.8%

That leaves 15, or 31.2% of the medals that went to archers who shot 5th or worse overall by per shot average


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Great data there. Thanks!

20% upset ratio, or as your last post indicates, 30% of the medals going to archers below the top 5...

Interesting to consider.

I guess the next iteration of data analysis would be to compare with what the results would be if the same archers were put into a new format. 

But data is only useful if you know what the goal is in the first place. Data without goals is really just numbers.

So, again, we would all have to first agree on what the goal of an event is before we could begin arguing the finer points.

And before you all say... "well, everyone KNOWS what the goal of a tournament is...", I beg to differ. I think there are a lot of different goals. Perhaps even as many as there are contestants and spectators...

John.


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

Yes I think the actual goals need to be considered from a POV standpoint.

The organizations agenda

The tournaments agenda.

And the competition.

It would be interesting to see exactly what goal this criteria fills. Arguably from the inital interpretation it seem to distribute medals in a wider pattern. That may be great on the scale of say, the IOC. Not so good for local qualiying tournaments.

If the 20% result holds constant, it has an interesting cumulative effect if it would be used at say a, local, regional, state, national, interntional event chain.



3K - best of luck in AZ -post results if possible, And are we ever going to see the BatGirl Avatar again? Kinda miss that, maybe an animated gif with the transition?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

It just occurred to me that all this friendly debate about tournament formats and rounds probably pales in comparison to what they argued between 1920 and 1972... 

John.


----------



## RecordKeeper (May 9, 2003)

limbwalker said:


> It just occurred to me that all this friendly debate about tournament formats and rounds probably pales in comparison to what they argued between 1920 and 1972...
> 
> John.


Isn't that the truth.:nod:


----------

