# Olympic compound = end of Olympic recurve?



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

There's no question that there is more money in compounds in terms of sales and sponsorships, but I do have a question about viewership. Do audiences enjoy watching compound archery on television? More or less so than recurve archery? Would compound archery eclipse recurve archery in the Olympics in terms of TV numbers? Or not?


----------



## foxtrot9 (Jul 12, 2015)

Even if compounds are allowed at the olympics, they won't replace the recurve style of archery. I don't think olympics will forget the roots of archery. In my opinion, recurve is a lot more interesting to watch on television than compound shooting. I see your reasoning, but even if current olympic archers all go to compound, there will always be someone to take their place in recurve.


----------



## iArch (Apr 17, 2015)

I don't think many of these top archers got to where they are today with the motivation of money in mind. It had to be their love of the sport for them to spend their life and many hours to pursue this passion. I assume most have tried all styles and stuck with the one they connected with the most. Each style has a distinct feel IMO and when they switch, they might lose the connection they had - the feeling that made them fall in love with archery. Is it really worth it?


----------



## Paula (Sep 8, 2009)

limbwalker said:


> I think a lot of us are familiar with Brady's comments following his loss to Luis Alvarez at the Pan Am games where he mentioned "going back to compound" if the set system stays in place. I'm convinced those were poorly chosen words brought on by the emotions he was feeling at the time.
> 
> But it did give me reason to think about some of the reasons he and other top recurvers might actually switch to compound (in fact, many have over the years, including Reo, Rod Menzer, Rod White and others) and what that could mean to the future of the Olympic recurve.
> 
> ...


I think paragraph 5 of your above statement says it all. Recurve is both a physical and mental challenge as opposed to compound which lets face it,is a mental game totally. I see lots of people shooting compound of all ages well and it is only because of two things they get to use that recurvers do not. Peep sight and here is the biggy,,release aides. The compound and release aides were made for each other. They grew up together. People were playing around with release aides for there recurves back in the sixties and early seventies. Than Allen ,Jennings and others came along and boom we have what we have today. If you want to chase money,,than chase it,,I believe it will be a sad day if recurve ever leaves the Olympics. Add the compound,,put enough targets on the bale so that you can shoot all your arrows at one set and go off totals as they do now. Four targets left high,right high and two below those,,three arrows at each,,,,hug to all,,I love archery,,all of it


----------



## Mr. October (Feb 15, 2003)

Warbow said:


> There's no question that there is more money in compounds in terms of sales and sponsorships, but I do have a question about viewership. Do audiences enjoy watching compound archery on television? More or less so than recurve archery? Would compound archery eclipse recurve archery in the Olympics in terms of TV numbers? Or not?


Some of us ONLY watch the compound events.


----------



## kshet26 (Dec 20, 2010)

Do all nationalities of elite level compounders make more money? From what I hear, compounds are only ubiquitous in the US. When both compound and recurve are in the olympics, a natural equilibrium will probably be reached (more people will migrate to compound initially, the compound division will become much more competitive, then people will flee to recurve). The only thing I can see happening is if one discipline receives 'favor' due to watchability. History, and roots have little to factor into it. 

Also, the non-archer viewership has no idea about form, mental strength, etc. So it's purely what is more appealing to look at.


----------



## Azzurri (Mar 10, 2014)

I buy the money and fame argument, compound is at another level. However, you're already getting Wiflers without Olympics so it would just people seeking financial security who held out waiting for Olympic recognition. How many of those are there? If it was strictly money or just that you preferred compound, they'd be gone already.

One interesting potential counter-balance could be that as the compound pool rose, and it became harder to make US teams and money (the prizes are there yes but now more people would be chasing them), maybe you might have people reacting to the increased difficulty of that pool by considering recurve. The 9th best compounder is suddenly the 15th best and no longer has illusions he'll make the US team. His earnings are less. Maybe he considers recurve cutting against the grain. Kind of like every so often some compounder picks up a recurve and tries to make the Olympics now.

I think the athlete impact might be country specific, some countries are good at both, but some have historical passion for recurve, plenty of quality depth, and I can't imagine the teams falling apart with compound defections. Koreans could probably stock both teams without dilution. In terms of us, we have a lot of compound shooters in general and so I don't know if it's something to be scared of. It would suit the demand and you'd be left with the people who really want recurve. I don't know if that's so bad. Some countries lower on hunting passion might stay recurve oriented.

In terms of which discipline would dominate the media sphere, why not let the public decide what it wants? The politics surrounding compound's current presentation and Olympic exclusion strike me as paternalistic, we have to protect recurve from threats, compound must be done in a way that makes it look different, we can't even have the same distance swimming pool. Considering it's easier to shoot a compound further more accurately, the present approach of having them shoot shorter is silly. Why can't OR simply be the "more challenging" discipline like breaststroke versus freestyle, or like barebow versus Olympic style? The idea that compound would easily win the media compo is perhaps a guess, to me a lot of sub-perfect scores by people in a challenging discipline is more interesting than waiting for the first 9 to decide some compound shootoff. I might be unusual but at least part of what makes a soccer PK round interesting is at least some people usually miss.


----------



## equilibrium (Oct 31, 2006)

Then it's up to us, to support your, our and my local recurve shooters. Encourage others to see the art and beauty in traditional style archery. When you watch good shooters, the whole group rises to the next level. When that string slips off the tips of your fingers and straightens out, and flies like a smooth, even arc to the target......IMO, but I drank the Kool-aid...all in, all day. Like, iARCH said, it's the connection. Personally, I don't shoot against other recurvers, I'm after the compounders. GOALS, people. You don't have to reach them, you do have to go after them.


----------



## dmacey (Mar 27, 2015)

Warbow said:


> There's no question that there is more money in compounds in terms of sales and sponsorships, but I do have a question about viewership. Do audiences enjoy watching compound archery on television? More or less so than recurve archery? Would compound archery eclipse recurve archery in the Olympics in terms of TV numbers? Or not?


Speaking for myself, I enjoy watching both styles about the same, though that may be because I shoot both (recurve more lately tho). Probably each style has its particular audience but I wouldn't really know the numbers there. 

As for what effect allowing compound into the olympics would have on the recurve, my guess is probably not very much if any effect at all. I doubt KI bo bae and Rick Van Der Ven sit at home at night staring teary-eyed at their compounds on the wall, wishing and hoping for that moment they can put their recurve rigs up on Ebay and finally start shooting their real passion in the hopes of both zillions of dollars as well as an olympic gold medal. 

That just doesn't seem realistic to me, so neither is the worry about a mass exodus to the compound. Heck, I shoot olympic style recurve because for some reason it's just more satisfying. Don't get me wrong, I love making a good shot with my compound, but when I get a good rubber-band-snapping release on my Win&Win it's just somehow sublime, even if the arrow doesn't quite go where I want it. 

I think really all we would see is just more archery at the olympics and that'd be about it - the same group of recurve shooters but now in addition Jesse Broadwater and Sarah Lopez and all the rest also shooting for a medal. And to me, I couldn't think of anything better for archery....

In fact, one of my favorite parts of the World Championships was the exhibition match at the end, where each team was a woman recurve and a male compound. I just ate that up!

DM


----------



## massman (Jun 21, 2004)

Sorry, With all respect I have to disagree. The shift will be swift and devastating. It's happens in every venue that the compound has been added too.

You'll have recurve & compound in one or two Olympics and then they will drop recurve faster than you can blink.

My prediction only--No data to support this prediction.

Regards,

Tom


----------



## dmacey (Mar 27, 2015)

massman said:


> Sorry, With all respect I have to disagree. The shift will be swift and devastating. It's happens in every venue that the compound has been added too.
> 
> You'll have recurve & compound in one or two Olympics and then they will drop recurve faster than you can blink.
> 
> ...


I'd be curious where you've seen this? My suspicion is it would be mostly shooters who were probably harboring a preference for compound from the beginning and perhaps only shot recurve for some reason not connected with really wanting to shoot recurve for its own sake. There's nothing wrong with that at all, but I'm skeptical that that's the typical profile of the large majority of those shooting recurve. 

Particularly at the elite level, I should think the time and energy invested in recurve means they shoot it as a matter of preference in most cases. 

I may be wrong, but I sincerely doubt that the sky is falling in this case. I know it does happen, I think even some of the Korean recurve folks are going over to compound nowadays. But a mass die-off of the recurve solely because compound gets admitted to the olympics.... nah, I really don't see it. 
Worst case scenario is it'll go back to shooting a recurve because you like it and want to shoot it, which is probably the best outcome anyway.

As an older guy shooting recurve with a clicker and a sight, I'm already practically all alone on the shooting line now, so at least for my situation it can't go much further down from here. But it's OK - the freestyle unlimited guys furnish endless entertainment for me, clinching their teeth and cursing on every shot that's not in the x and the barebow folks, who outnumber me 10 to 1, provide all the fun and friends I could ask for . 

DM


----------



## b0w_bender (Apr 30, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> So, what happens when compounds are finally allowed in the Olympic games?


Great topic once again Limbwalker, thanks for poking the group and getting a topic rolling.

I expect that the event practiced by the most people will get the most viewership. I expect they'll reduce the size of the target or increase the distance to make it more competitive and enjoyable to watch. So I don't think viewership will be a problem. 

I think you are spot on about the top end shooters. They will migrate to the compounds and that will become the most competitive. I expect we'll still have a bunch of recurve shooters except that the quality of the competitors will likely drop. Right now most of the youth in my program choose recurve over the compound for the sole reason that they want to keep their Olympic aspirations alive. The ones that try both but have no interest in the Olympics abandon the recurve pretty quickly.

One might be able to look at the difference between finger shooting compounds and shooting a compound with a release. At one point everyone shot a compound with fingers but once release aids became commercially available and everyone saw how much easier they were to master it was a mass exodus. Now if you look at the finger shooting divisions it's just a token number of folks to stubborn to give up their preferred shooting style.

As long as there is Olympic medals to be won some folks will stick with it but I would anticipate there will be a lot less competitors to select from to send to the Olympics.


----------



## Azzurri (Mar 10, 2014)

Compound already has its foothold everywhere but the Olympics. Compound also is very popular here. So I don't see some decisive domestic switch. It's already where 4 or 5 times as many people show up in FSU as in FSLR at TFAA state. You'd just be unleashing that pent up interest here.

And while similarly minded people abroad might also jump at the chance to have Olympic Compound, at least part of the Olympic resistance is the question of broad interest globally. In some countries with similar sensibilities where hunting is big you might see some people who dabble in both switching, but at the WA Championships level, 212 OR versus 119 compound. It also occurs to me that while some countries like Korea might be good at both, and pour effort into both, the explicitly limited size of Olympic fields (64!) and pre-existence of certain strong teams might encourage certain countries to specialize, ie, to stick with Olympic. It's one thing to develop more serious teams for WA events and basically equalize those numbers, knowing it's now an Olympic event, it's another for other countries to prioritize it.


----------



## massman (Jun 21, 2004)

dmacey,

NFAA, where shooting a recurve is almost non-existent. Compared to shooting compound.

You haven't seen it yet in full w NAA because NAA added compound kind of saying. We're an Olympic style organization. You can come play with us, but we're an Olympic style organization.

Same with other venues that feature recurve but allow compound to play...

Regards,

Tom


----------



## Last_Bastion (Dec 5, 2013)

It makes sense for that to be the natural progression.

I think we can let go of OR being any kind of "pure" style of archery since we use long stabilizers and sights lol

What would be really cool would be to see OR, BB and Compound as separate olympic events. The trouble would be a necessary restructuring of the scoring system so that all three events could get fair coverage. There could even be opportunity to have an "archery triathlon" which would be really cool to see (and participate in)


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

I'm going to take this on a different train of thought.

A lot of people are going to go by way of the path of least resistance. If there are a ton of people going the compound route, a lot of people will choose recurve because there are less people (and therefore less competition) to overcome.

So, you may see a burst of people go the compound route. Archers that are good and have the work ethic will be at the top of the heap, no matter which discipline they choose to go towards. There will be others that stick with recurve. Others will do both.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

no one will pursue recurve for the Olympics once compound is in. Recurve has such a longer learning curve. Tom is right. Look at the NFAA. 


Look at vegas. All the money is on the compound side. Even the money for the World cup first place doesn't cover cost to travel to 3 events. 

The Olympics is the only prize for recurve shooters. Once you add compound, it will kill the recurve side of it as the pool will die to almost nothing. 

my opinion. I would have a different opinion if the money at shoots like Vegas were the same for compound and recurve. 

How many pros earn a living at compound? How many recurve? That number alone loses a lot of recurve shooters. The Olympic prize is what keeps them. 

Chris


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

Talking to some of the old guys in my archery club, they used to all shoot recurve. They even used releases with their recurve bows. They said when they came out with compounds the guys were not interested thinking it was some fad that would go to the wayside. Some of the women in the club got compounds and the next year the women were out shooting the men. After that all the men, except a few, made the move to compound. Today? Outside a few old timers shooting traditional, I'm the only adult in our club that shoots OR.

Even at the state events, I'm usually the only one in my class. 

Anyway my point being is this, it's happen before, and when it has happened people choose the easiest and most efficient bow to shoot. Everyone wants to shoot the center of the target, and it is way easier to do that with a compound. So except for a few who like the challenge of shooting a recurve, or finally got bored shooting a compound; I think the best archers will move to compound.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Couple folks beat me to my next thought:



> I see your reasoning, but even if current olympic archers all go to compound, there will always be someone to take their place in recurve.





> maybe you might have people reacting to the increased difficulty of that pool by considering recurve. The 9th best compounder is suddenly the 15th best and no longer has illusions he'll make the US team.





> I expect we'll still have a bunch of recurve shooters except that the quality of the competitors will likely drop.


These are my predictions as well.

And like the "mixed team" question I asked waaaay back when, I suspect I'll be pulling this thread up again in 10 years.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Beastmaster said:


> I'm going to take this on a different train of thought.
> 
> A lot of people are going to go by way of the path of least resistance. If there are a ton of people going the compound route, a lot of people will choose recurve because there are less people (and therefore less competition) to overcome.
> 
> So, you may see a burst of people go the compound route. Archers that are good and have the work ethic will be at the top of the heap, no matter which discipline they choose to go towards. There will be others that stick with recurve. Others will do both.


But consider this...

When all those who are trying to make a living shooting archery switch to compound, who will be left shooting recurve? If you can make a better living AND pursue the Olympic dreams with a compound, why would our best shooters choose recurve? I don't think they will.


----------



## dmacey (Mar 27, 2015)

chrstphr said:


> no one will pursue recurve for the Olympics once compound is in. Recurve has such a longer learning curve.


I can't agree with this. To get to Jesse Broadwater's level, for example, is no small feat. In fact, I'd argue the effort is at least equivalent to, if not more than, getting to OH Jin Hyek's or Khatuna Lorig's level on the recurve. I think that's an underestimation of the compound and what it really requires to get to the very top. So again, I think the worry here is grossly exaggerated. Yeah there will be some defection, but I don't think our bow will die out for the olympics. And out here in the land of the great unwashed, there are only a few of us already anyway .

DM


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

chrstphr said:


> no one will pursue recurve for the Olympics once compound is in. Recurve has such a longer learning curve. Tom is right. Look at the NFAA.


I will disagree. Just using our top youth shooters in the cadet ranks as an example - in both the compound and recurve ranks, the amount of hours and shots they put in refining their skills are just huge.

Using Compound and Recurve JDT - the top shooters will put in the time and effort in refining their shooting game, all while balancing school and other recreational activities. This is, of course, basing things on their logs, but if I compare their logs and their efforts and results in the win column - their efforts are pretty equal no matter which discipline they choose.

-Steve


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

Lots of speculation here, but no discussion or comparison to similar situations in the current Olympic world.

Did anything happen to skiing when snowboards were introduced into the Olympics? What about road and track bicycling when they put BMX and mountain biking in? Volleyball vs beach volleyball? Did the athletes move en masse to the new events and abandon their old ones?

Now, you may say this is not a perfectly valid comparison since the Olympics considers these different sports entirely, and ask why not "archery" and "compound archery" as 2 different sports, instead of an additional division inside "archery"? Well, not going to happen. Shooting has 9 different events (9 for men, and 6 for women). All under one sport. Air pistol and trap are entirely different, but both are "shooting". Sailing, same deal (6 men's, 4 women's events). Lots more examples. Swimming, athletics and so on. 

So when a new event is added to one of these sports, do people abandon the old one and go to the new one? Some do, most don't.

I think that even if compound is added to recurve in the Olympics, it won't have any effect on the numbers worldwide who participate in either. Recurve will carry on.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Stash, I hope you're right. However, the $ available to the compound shooter vs. the recurver cannot be dismissed. It will have an impact.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

The reason why compound archers get more sponsorships is that due to hunting, bow makers sell 100 compounds for every recurve. In countries where bowhunting is prohibited, compounds don't have near the following . Its hard to fathom what additional skills compounds bring to the Olympics instead of recurve. Mentally, compound might be tougher in some ways just as American skeet, where one miss means you lose-is often mentally tougher than the more physically demanding International skeet which has much faster targets, delayed target release, more doubles and the requirement that the shooter start with the gun butt touching his hip. 

but I just don't see the IOC replacing the more athletic recurve archery with a version that requires less physical skills to master and which most likely would mean more USA medals than what recurve archery generates


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Jim, it's hard to fathom what additional skills the breaststroke bring vs. freestyle, or the 100 brings vs. the 200. 

And I think you may have answered your own question.

FWIW, even compound is more physically demanding than ANY shooting sport.


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

NFAA is proof positive of what will happen the recurve will be a thing of the past. There will be 5 times the competition in compound as there is in recurve. Just look at the numbers the compounds are 50 to 1 at most shoots. The Manufactures will love it the cash will come. The recurve archer will fade just like the nonsight archers did.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

limbwalker said:


> Jim, it's hard to fathom what additional skills the breaststroke bring vs. freestyle, or the 100 brings vs. the 200.
> 
> And I think you may have answered your own question.
> 
> FWIW, even compound is more physically demanding than ANY shooting sport.


well we see the IOC putting beach volleyball in when there already is real volleyball. according to their rules that shouldn't happen but beach volleyball is a big draw mainly due to the "uniforms" actually the swimming analogy is not really accurate. two different strokes-sort of like table tennis vs badminton or shot put vs the Javelin


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

2413gary said:


> NFAA is proof positive of what will happen the recurve will be a thing of the past. There will be 5 times the competition in compound as there is in recurve. Just look at the numbers the compounds are 50 to 1 at most shoots. The Manufactures will love it the cash will come. The recurve archer will fade just like the nonsight archers did.


Not here in Ohio. JOAD events have far more recurves. I don't know what shoots you are talking about-maybe the foam bunny hunts where there really is no sighted receive division


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

limbwalker said:


> I think a lot of us are familiar with Brady's comments following his loss to Luis Alvarez at the Pan Am games where he mentioned "going back to compound" if the set system stays in place. I'm convinced those were poorly chosen words brought on by the emotions he was feeling at the time.
> 
> But it did give me reason to think about some of the reasons he and other top recurvers might actually switch to compound (in fact, many have over the years, including Reo, Rod Menzer, Rod White and others) and what that could mean to the future of the Olympic recurve.
> 
> ...


In this country, NASCAR is where the money and numbers are, but I'm certainly not prepared to make the leap that less pool money and viewership means that IndyCar drivers are less skilled than NASCAR drivers (my argument would run the other way, actually). There is always a stream of IndyCar drivers who move over to NASCAR (you very rarely see migration in the other direction) for the bigger paydays and 31degree banked turns (versus 9degree at Indy). The fact of some drivers going for fatter, lower hanging fruit hasn't diminished the driving skill level at Indy at all.

If some of the current-at-the-time top recurve shooters do transition over to compound (I think John's correct that this will occur), then the real disarray won't be amongst the recurve world (there will always be those who want to test themselves in that discipline at the highest level) - it'll be amongst the compound world as the top ranks get swaggered when all of this worldclass recurve talent comes barreling in.


----------



## jmvargas (Oct 21, 2004)

i really see BOTH compound and recurve archery being in the olympics when the time comes.....


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Jim C said:


> well we see the IOC putting beach volleyball in when there already is real volleyball. according to their rules that shouldn't happen but beach volleyball is a big draw mainly due to the "uniforms" actually the swimming analogy is not really accurate. two different strokes-sort of like table tennis vs badminton or shot put vs the Javelin


And the "uniforms" are part of the official, sexist rules for beach volleyball. I'm really glad there is no Olympic Beach Compound Archery with matching uniforms :mg: 

I know enough to know I can't predict the future; however, I think those citing the recurve's place in the NFAA post compound as an example of the marginalization recurve are probably right in the long run if compound makes the Olympics. Recurve may not disappear from the Olympics but I'd think it will likely be marginalized. WA Recurve is already a fairly small niche sport compared to compound, with USOC and related Olympic sponsorship and Easton Foundation money being pretty much the only reason there is any WA recurve in the US. And while the recurve and compound might co-exist, not all sports get the same amount of support or viewership. Who here watched the 2012 10 Meter Olympic Air Pistol? Anyone? Anyone? Bueler? (there might be some folks in here, of course, since lots of us like other shooting sports, but the general public? Not so much.) So there is more to the success of a sport than merely being _in _the Olympics.

Now, as to being "paternalistic" trying to keep recurve the only Olympic archery to protect it from compound...well, it isn't any more paternalistic to promote recurve over compound than it is to promote archery over other sports. In both cases people are arguing in favor of something they like over other sports.


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

John - You are spot on.

Compounds are just way too easy too shoot good scores early in ones development. This is not meant to demean all the great compound archers out there. It does take a lot of work and skill to shoot at the level they are at.

But just looks at tournament scores for ALL of the freestyle compound shooters. 80% of the competitors are shootings over 80% of the maximum theoretical score. There isn't that much spread between the people that shoot perfect/near-perfect scores with those who finish in last place.

Then look at the Olympic Style shooter. Their scores have a huge variation between the first place and last place shooter. It takes a lot more work for an Olympic style shooter to get to the point where they can get to 80% of the max score.

So why do Olympic style shooters dedicate themselves to this sport? For most it is the prestige of the Olympics. Right now Oly-Style recures are the only game for the Olympics. 

When the Olympics brings in the compound, most of the young developing shooters will migrate to the compound because it is easier to get the higher scores, and that compounds are part of the Olympics.

Will scores for Oly Recurve drop for the Olympic level shooters? Probably not, since there will always be people that dedicate themselves to that discipline.

People think that barebow is dead because numbers are low. Yes, they are low. But if the Olympics allows barebow, the numbers will explode. 

But John is right about this. When the Olympics brings on Componds, within 1 4 year Olympic season, the number of Olympic recurve shooters that we will see at local tournaments will drop to numbers on the same order as barebow shooters.


----------



## dmacey (Mar 27, 2015)

Well I know one thing's for sure, a) I'm going to keep shooting my recurve regardless, tho it's unknown if I'll ever work up to enough weight to do more than about 30 yards and b) I'll never join the NFAA! I'm USA archery all the way for the next 3 years . 

And I like them both, like watching both on video, and will probably always drag my compound to the range from time to time. So there. 

LS


----------



## R&B (Oct 4, 2006)

*Tour De France or Olympic Gold?*

Until a sport develops it's own history and culture it will remain marginal and more dependent on outside forces. The NBA and NFL aren't going be hurt by lack of inclusion to the Olympics. In fact the IOC probably seeks these types of sports/organizations out because they are self-sufficient and have legions of fans based on that sports own merits. 

I'm just not a big fan of the Olympics. The original concept of the modern Olympic games was an elitist one. Amateur athletics was a system of exclusion. Major league baseball had the same policy before Jackie Robinson was given the opportunity to participate. When I started shooting Freestyle Recurve it always felt and still feels very elitist and exclusionary. I think that is why it needs the Olympics to survive. 

I will continue to shoot my freestyle recurve even if it is dropped from the Olympics because I enjoy it .......... no I love it (LOL).


-PS Field Rounds Rule!!!


-R&B


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

This is a a theoretical discussion that starts form 4 wrong assumptions:

1) Compound will go to the Olympic Games
2) Compound will diffuse in the world same as now in USA
3) Money for shooters is mainly in compound everywere same as in USA
4) Today compound is already a great reality everywere

Of course, point 1 and 2 are related each other like chicken and egg. Korea compound Pro teams have started to exist in 2010, only when it has been sure that Compound was going to be admitted to the 2014 Asian Games. Today they are around 10% of Olympic style teams, growing slowly. Can really grow in number only if Compund goes to the Olympics. 

Point 3 and 4 are simply wrong. The (small) money existing in the world in archery outside USA is for Olympic Style only. as it is mainly coming from Governaments subsidizing Olympic committees for Olympic sports only. Money in USA compound is coming from companies that want to sell target compounds to hunters outside th hunting season. Hunting is the key to present diffusion of compound archery. Not a case that Compound archers outnumber recurve archers in USA, Canada,South Africa and Namibia only ( I don't know about other countries, but surely none in Europe or Asia) 

Jus to give you an example, as FITARCO has an on line data Base that gives real time statistics for Italian archery, here some numbers for my country:


Recurve male: 3366
Recurve female: 1146
-----------------------------
Total recurve: 4512
Were pros are 24 

Compound male: 1313
Compound female: 263
---------------------------
Total compound 1576
Were pros are 5 only

Bare Bow male: 1374 
Bare Bow female: 484
------------------------------
Total Bare Bow 1858
Were pros are 1 only 

Numbers are related to those of any age participating to at least 1 Indoor compeitition in Italyduring last Winter season from October 2014 to March 2015 

Pros means those that are paid full time or part time to shoot (by Military sport groups or by FITARCO/ Olympic Committee) with only 1 that is anyhow working in an Archery Pro Shop.

From my information, situation in other main European Archery countries (France, Germany, Great Britain and Spain) is very similar.
Asia has now compound pros in almost all countries because of the Asian games, but no basic diffusion of it
Africa has no compound at all apart form South Afrca and Namibia

The reality is that without a very large base of hunters that want to shoot target too, target (only) compound is too much expensive in comparison to BB, not rewarding at all in comparison to Recurve-Olympic because of th eOlympic games , and therfore not pushed by WA member federations. 

If compound shooting is better or worse than recurve (or Bare Bow) for television broadcasting , is totally irrilevant, as TV will broadcast Olympic Games (or Asian, Pan American. European - African games) only.


----------



## Mika Savola (Sep 2, 2008)

Vittorio, thank you for setting the record straight


----------



## j.conner (Nov 12, 2009)

I think a new game would have to be used for Olympic compound to increase the difficulty to that of Olympic recurve. Maybe have them shoot 100m at a five-spot, or something like that. I would like to see barebow in the Olympics too, but that game too should be different, perhaps a field round. That would be more acceptable, IMHO. The analogy is like cycling. You don't put BMX in a velodrome, road bikes don't go on the dirt, and velodrome bikes are not raced on the street.

Otherwise, if compound is added to the Olympics and shoots the same round as recurve, I am concerned it would decimate recurve. I think the general public would view recurve as inferior and shooters themselves would grow tired of being compared and getting "lower scores".

If there could be very different games for the equipment, then adding compound and barebow to the Olympics could be really cool and spread the appeal of archery.


----------



## dmacey (Mar 27, 2015)

> Compounds are just way too easy too shoot good scores early in ones development. This is not meant to demean all the great compound archers out there. It does take a lot of work and skill to shoot at the level they are at.
> 
> But just looks at tournament scores for ALL of the freestyle compound shooters. 80% of the competitors are shootings over 80% of the maximum theoretical score. There isn't that much spread between the people that shoot perfect/near-perfect scores with those who finish in last place.


Sorry to drift off topic a little bit, but this is one of the reasons I don't want to shoot freestyle unlimited compound. It's just not very satisfying to me to spend several years chasing 1 or 2 points. And it's very deflating to actually shoot really well and the discover you're in 65,000th place. The last local tournament I shot with my compound I dropped "only" 6 points out of 60 arrows on an NFAA 5 spot and even did 30x's. For me, with my feeble compound skills, didn't practice my compound all week before because I was playing with my recurve, and not having shot a tournament in about 20 years before that, that was outstanding. But I think I actually beat only one guy in the entire shoot (the overall results aren't available yet) and he was having a _really_ bad day. 

But with my recurve, I'm also in 65,000th place, but it's for some reason a lot more satisfying when I actually shoot a group and get a good shot rate above about 80%. I guess there's just more to chase there with the recurve - it's a lot harder of a bow to shoot so there's a lot more nuts & bolts ahead of me instead of just chasing a point or two and nothing else for the next 4 years or something. 

Anyway, I guess that's a different strokes for different folks type of thing. And I agree it's something the differentiates compound and recurve and why I think a mass exodus won't really happen. They're different enough to attract slightly different mentalities, goals etc.

DM


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

If compound were in the Olympics, Brady Ellison would never have shot Olympic recurve.

And when he first switched, he hated olympic recurve. 

Perfect example of compound vs recurve 


Chris


----------



## dmacey (Mar 27, 2015)

chrstphr said:


> If compound were in the Olympics, Brady Ellison would never have shot Olympic recurve.
> 
> And when he first switched, he hated olympic recurve.
> 
> ...


Well, I wouldn't paint the recurve with that broad of a brush, personally. I don't think that represents everyone who shoots recurve, in fact I'd be surprised to find this secret wish to actually shoot compound represents even a significant portion of elite level recurve shooters. I think you're underestimating the number of shooters who actually prefer the olympic recurve and would continue with it to very high levels even if the compound were available at the olympics. 

I may be wrong about that, but I still don't see an indication that Brady E.'s or Reo W.'s paths are necessarily representative of the recurve as a whole. At the great unwashed level (eg. mine lol), some of us started with recurve and loved it the whole time, some started on compound, went to recurve and loved it, switched back and forth and still love it despite trials/tribulations (my experience) and so on. So there's still, IMO, a wide variety of folks who shoot recurve for its own sake... I think Butch Johnson had a long affair with the compound but eventually went to recurve by personal choice? (sorry if I have his story wrong here).

DM


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

Vittorio - Thanks for the stats from your country. I wish we had published numbers for US shooters. I really wish we had the same ratio of barebow to recurve shooters here in the US. But over the last couple years I am seeing more new faces, I hope it continues to grow.


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

DMacey, many people shoot for many reasons. I, like you, shoot because I love the sport and the challenge, and I am on the barebow side of things.


----------



## jwit76 (May 23, 2015)

Why was the recurve originally embraced by the Olympic committe/s in the first place? What was the appeal at the time? When did compound first surface, and why wasn't it embraced by the Olympics at that time? Origins always give the most interesting perspectives IMO. 

The more human struggle involved in mastering a given discipline, the more attractive and interesting it is to spectators. That being said, it's always the responsibility of any legitimate sport to educate and thus attract an audience, building demand and a future. The athletes also have the responsibility of being ambassadors, and when an elite ambassador fires his arrows at the sport instead of the target, it can certainly errode the foundation. Of course, it can also give other shooters the hunger to step up and represent the sport and make it better.

The Olympic recurve marries the old with the new more so than any other bow IMO, and the physical and mental struggle to master it is nothing less than spectacular. There's something special about having to take on the entire strength of the bow vs a mechanical advantage.

I love all disciplines of the bow, but the oly recurve offers me the most satisfaction as the shooter when observing the beauty of an arrow in flight, and everything that led up to that critical moment.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

dmacey said:


> Well, I wouldn't paint the recurve with that broad of a brush, personally. I don't think that represents everyone who shoots recurve, in fact I'd be surprised to find this secret wish to actually shoot compound represents even a significant portion of elite level recurve shooters. I think you're underestimating the number of shooters who actually prefer the olympic recurve and would continue with it to very high levels even if the compound were available at the olympics.
> 
> I may be wrong about that, but I still don't see an indication that Brady E.'s or Reo W.'s paths are necessarily representative of the recurve as a whole. At the great unwashed level (eg. mine lol), some of us started with recurve and loved it the whole time, some started on compound, went to recurve and loved it, switched back and forth and still love it despite trials/tribulations (my experience) and so on. So there's still, IMO, a wide variety of folks who shoot recurve for its own sake... I think Butch Johnson had a long affair with the compound but eventually went to recurve by personal choice? (sorry if I have his story wrong here).
> 
> DM


you are missing the point. The future elite recurve archers won't get there, because they will move to compound early in their shooting. 

Brady would never have shot Olympic recurve. He was already a Junior national compound champion. If compound had been in the Olympics he would have stayed compound. 

I am not talking about the existing world elite leaving recurve for compound. I am talking about the pool of beginner archers choosing which discipline. And compound with the easier learning curve will win every time if there is no prize for the extra hard learning curve.

I had a parent come up to me a few years ago. Her daughter won the NASP state championships. She wanted info on how to get her daughter on the Olympic team. I gave her the info. And pointed out she would have to switch to an Olympic recurve bow. That was the deal breaker as they were going to get her a compound. 

Never saw that kid or her parents again. 

I am not saying the elite compound archers aren't as skilled or don't shoot as well or haven't earned their place. Give a kid a choose between shooting a compound bow that in a lesson will have him shooting all arrows on the target and pretty centered, vs shooting recurve and arrows all over the wall, the kids will choose the bow that gets them in the center easiest. 


Chris


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

chrstphr said:


> Give a kid a choose between shooting a compound bow that in a lesson will have him shooting all arrows on the target and pretty centered, vs shooting recurve and arrows all over the wall, the kids will choose the bow that gets them in the center easiest.
> Chris


Give a kid a choice between a BMX bike and a track bike, which will he choose? Give a kid a choice between a snowboard and skis, which will he choose? Give a kid a choice between a foil, epee or sabre, which will he choose? Give a kid a choice between a canoe or a kayak, which will he choose? Give a canoe or kayak kid a choice between straight flatwater racing or slalom, which will he choose?

I'm sure the same thing has been discussed by participants in every Olympic sport.

The answer in every case is, some will choose one, some will choose the other, based on what _*THEY*_ happen to like doing. You can't base a choice of what sports should be in the Olympics because of what Brady or some kid in a NASP tournament would have done.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Well, national or international numbers aside, I believe that 1) compound will find it's way into the Olympics (for several reasons), and 2) it will have an impact on the number of full time professional archers who choose recurve - particularly in the U.S.

But again, I could be wrong. At this point, nobody knows. Let's check back in 11 years and see.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

Stash said:


> Give a kid a choice between a BMX bike and a track bike, which will he choose? Give a kid a choice between a snowboard and skis, which will he choose? Give a kid a choice between a foil, epee or sabre, which will he choose? Give a kid a choice between a canoe or a kayak, which will he choose? Give a canoe or kayak kid a choice between straight flatwater racing or slalom, which will he choose?
> 
> I'm sure the same thing has been discussed by participants in every Olympic sport.
> 
> The answer in every case is, some will choose one, some will choose the other, based on what _*THEY*_ happen to like doing. You can't base a choice of what sports should be in the Olympics because of what Brady or some kid in a NASP tournament would have done.


then i have one question for you. Do you run or help coach a JOAD program with new kids coming into the sport? 

I do, and most parents and kids choose recurve because its in the Olympics. They choose compound for just about every other reason, family shooting, hunting. I see it every week. 

Almost all our JOAD kids who have an Olympic recurve setup compete in state, regional and national tournaments. Of the compound archers, less compete. They shoot as more of a hobby. The kids and parents know recurve is a harder learning curve than compound, but they want it for the Olympic goal. If you give them the option of compound and the Olympic goal, most of them will not choose recurve. 

Chris


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

chrstphr said:


> then i have one question for you. Do you run or help coach a JOAD program with new kids coming into the sport?


Not now, but I have about 25 years of archery instruction experience at the high school, university and adult beginner level. In all those years I exclusively taught using recurve instructional bows for the obvious reasons of availability, cost and versatility. 

Of all the people I taught from scratch, I have not noticed any preponderance of favoring compound or recurve once they were introduced to both. (That would not include those who were only interested in learning for the purpose of going bowhunting). In fact, of all these people I have introduced to archery over the years, there were three who went on to represent Canada at FITA international shoots, all with recurves.

I think people _*vastly*_ overestimate the importance of the Olympics as a motivator for people to start and continue in target archery. People, including kids, take beginner lessons in all sorts of non-Olympic sports.


----------



## dmacey (Mar 27, 2015)

chrstphr said:


> you are missing the point. The future elite recurve archers won't get there, because they will move to compound early in their shooting.
> 
> Brady would never have shot Olympic recurve. He was already a Junior national compound champion. If compound had been in the Olympics he would have stayed compound.


I understand that; what I'm saying is Brady's trajectory in the sport isn't necessarily representative of _everyone's_ path, which is how you're painting the picture here. I'm always suspicious when I hear "so-and-so did X. That means everyone's going to do X and the world will end". I just don't think that's realistic, particularly because I see kids where I shoot all the time with recurves shooting fingers. Or Genesis bows shooting fingers (tho yeah that might straddle the line, but..)


> I am not talking about the existing world elite leaving recurve for compound. I am talking about the pool of beginner archers choosing which discipline. And compound with the easier learning curve will win every time if there is no prize for the extra hard learning curve.
> I had a parent come up to me a few years ago. Her daughter won the NASP state championships. She wanted info on how to get her daughter on the Olympic team. I gave her the info. And pointed out she would have to switch to an Olympic recurve bow. That was the deal breaker as they were going to get her a compound.
> 
> Never saw that kid or her parents again.
> ...


Well now you're just saying all kids hate recurves period, basically, another broad generalization that I'm not buying, at least not at this time. And that the only real inducement to get a kid to shoot recurve is the carrot of possibly shooting in the olympics. I don't see that across the board. Yes, I do see a few kids where I shoot shooting recurves and hating it because of that and I would think they'll eventually say to heck with this and go to compound. But I also see some shooting it simply because they like it. 

I'm not saying you're wrong, I think you're just painting a more dire picture than really exists. It may just be a matter of presentation of the recurve to kiddos and good equipment and training availability like it's always been. I just don't see this looming threat of a plague of compounds flying in and eating up the recurve bow; just not realistic.

DM


----------



## T2SHOOTER (Feb 26, 2014)

Why worry about something we can't control? If I had to shoot freestyle(tried all styles), I wouldn't be shooting a bow. That said each person will have their own story of style of shooters making up their area. Ours is diverse, and at the last meeting we had more recurve shooters join than compound. The NFAA requires traditional shooters to shoot same distance as compound--a big turn off. The Traditional only events draw good crowds--50 yards and under with many novelty shots. Smile. While our club isn't set up for Oly-style shooting, it's coming because many have requested it. The world isn't ending, it's becoming what we make of it. Have fun.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

Kids that quit the recurve because it's too hard will soon quit the compound (or at least drop their aspirations of Olympic glory) when the lowhanging fruit is all picked, and they have to start actually 'training' to earn those extra points that are higher up the tree.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

dmacey said:


> I understand that; what I'm saying is Brady's trajectory in the sport isn't necessarily representative of _everyone's_ path, which is how you're painting the picture here. I'm always suspicious when I hear "so-and-so did X. That means everyone's going to do X and the world will end". I just don't think that's realistic, particularly because I see kids where I shoot all the time with recurves shooting fingers. Or Genesis bows shooting fingers (tho yeah that might straddle the line, but..)
> 
> 
> Well now you're just saying all kids hate recurves period, basically, another broad generalization that I'm not buying, at least not at this time. And that the only real inducement to get a kid to shoot recurve is the carrot of possibly shooting in the olympics. I don't see that across the board. Yes, I do see a few kids where I shoot shooting recurves and hating it because of that and I would think they'll eventually say to heck with this and go to compound. But I also see some shooting it simply because they like it.
> ...


i truly hope you are right.


Chris


----------



## Ms.Speedmaster (Dec 10, 2010)

chrstphr said:


> <snip>and most *parents* and kids choose recurve because its in the Olympics.<snip>


Yup. I will start my students on a barebow, then we'll play a little with sights on a recurve, and sometimes try a basic compound. If they like the basic compound, I'll set up my son's old PSE Chaos to get them shooting full compound. Some prefer barebow, some prefer Olympic recurve and some, compound.

I have a fairly new young man shooting exceedingly well with this compound, but when his mother asked the question, "he can shoot this at the Olympics, right?", she was not happy that he could only get as far as "world championships" with a compound, and insisted that I start coaching him with a recurve. The poor kid LOVES the compound bow. I managed to divert the conversation by suggesting that compound would likely be in the Olympics in the future.

If/when that happens, will that be the end of recurve archery? Nah. Too many diehards out there.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Chris is right for the US. I suspect Stash is right for other nations.

It's rather stunning to me the number of media, parents, relatives, friends, etc. I've heard make reference to "future olympian" or "trying out for the olympics" when referring to a compound archer.

My point is, take anyone off the street here in the U.S. and they have no idea what an "Olympic recurve" is, or that compounds are not allowed in the Olympics. 

When you have to explain in great detail what an Olympic recurve even is, compared to a compound or even a barebow, that tells me what the cultural norm is. 

Look at the success of the NASP program. How many of those archers or their parents could even give you the basic elements of an Olympic recurve? Not many. 

It's coming folks. Just wait. There is too much money at stake for it not to. Do you seriously think the major player in this sport will continue to be satisfied with recurve sales when the compound is allowed into the Olympics?

And when it does, Lynda is correct - there will be some of us die-hards that still choose to shoot a recurve, but it will be 10X harder than it is now for a JOAD coach in the U.S. to convince a kid that OR is a legitimate way to go. 

In some ways, the argument for the Olympic recurve will become - for some who choose it - the same as it is now for barebow. Then the recurvers will learn what it's like to be on the outside looking in.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> I think people vastly overestimate the importance of the Olympics as a motivator for people to start and continue in* recurve* target archery.


Fixed it for ya' and no, those of us south of the border do not overestimate it. Frankly, I may not have ANY recurve target archers in my JOAD club if it were not the Olympic bow. I'd have compounders or barebow archers, period.

I think the idea that something other than the Olympics has kept the target recurve alive is kinda silly. Think about it. When freestyle went compound, what other reason did people have to shoot a recurve with long stabilizers and sights on it? None.

If not for the Olympic connection, we wouldn't have a separate Jr. USAT and USAT squad for archers to aim for. We would have a compound JDT only, and no recurve JDT for young archers to aspire to. The reasons that exist for a young person to pick up a recurve target bow are based SOLELY on it's use in the Olympic games. Let's not kid ourselves - at least, not here in the U.S.

The natural progression of things was for compounds to take over the target archery world and for traditionalists to stick with barebow. The only thing that interrupted this progression for the past 43 years has been the Olympic recurve. When that's no longer the only "Olympic" bow, the progression will start up once again and the OR will go the way of the dinosaur for one primary reason - money. Too much at stake to stick with a bow that is too hard to shoot for very long, doesn't earn the archer enough prize money, and doesn't offer much profit to the manufacturer. The deck is stacked against the OR and the only thing that's kept it afloat is the Olympic connection.


----------



## Old Sarge (Sep 9, 2008)

What it will become is a new catagory....Trad OLY Recurve!! Compounds are already the norm in 3-D, and NFAA at a rate of 100 to 1 or more. So it is silly to think that they won't dominate The Olympics as well. I have been in literally hundreds of archery shops in the SE United States in the past 25 years. My work required extensive travel and so anytime I passed an archery shop I would stop and look around. Not once have I ever been to a shop that had OLY recurves in stock. In fact not many had Trad bows in stock either.

As a long time Trad recurve and longbow shooter that bothered me at first but over the years I have come to accept that the world changes and you can either go with it or fight a losing battle. Compounds are here to stay folks and they are only going to get more and more popular world wide. It would be my guess they will become more popular in Europe than recurves in the near future. The Koreans are already heading that way and now Win &Win has jumped into the game with their own line of compounds. They have seen the writing on the wall and want a piece of the pie. There bows look great in fact I think I may go to LAS and buy one!


----------



## dmacey (Mar 27, 2015)

Well, to be fair, I've never seen an archery shop stock olympic style equipment of any kind. When I was working on my degree at TAMU in the late 80's, my coach had to order my TD4+ directly from Ann Hoyt (he could get blem items directly from her at a pretty steep discount). We had a local shop in College Station which was great but they only stocked compounds and the usual line of beginner and a few traditional bows here and there. 

So we've kind of always been kind of hoity toity in the archery community. A few months ago at our range, in fact, an unfamiliar guy was standing behind me and went "uh oh, now we're going to see an expert form!" when I stepped up to the line and he wasn't exactly smiling or being friendly either. 

One other really nice influence, though, has been the Hunger Games movies. There's an absolute flood of not only kids but people of all ages at our local shop in Albuquerque who are coming in trying out archery because of that. And literally 9 times out of 10 when the dad goes "ok, we'll take it and these arrows too", it's a Samick Sage or other recurve. The adults walk out with these too a lot of the time. 

I don't know if that means they'll eventually switch over to olympic, but if anything it seems to be filling the barebow ranks which is good too.

DM


----------



## Old Sarge (Sep 9, 2008)

dmacey said:


> Well, to be fair, I've never seen an archery shop stock olympic style equipment of any kind. When I was working on my degree at TAMU in the late 80's, my coach had to order my TD4+ directly from Ann Hoyt (he could get blem items directly from her at a pretty steep discount). We had a local shop in College Station which was great but they only stocked compounds and the usual line of beginner and a few traditional bows here and there.
> 
> So we've kind of always been kind of hoity toity in the archery community. A few months ago at our range, in fact, an unfamiliar guy was standing behind me and went "uh oh, now we're going to see an expert form!" when I stepped up to the line and he wasn't exactly smiling or being friendly either.
> 
> ...


Yeah that is good and since I've shot trad type bows since 1959 I am obviously a fan of single string archery of any kind. As others have said though the money will dictate the eventual outcome of all this and the compound will win out. There will always be trad, and OLY recurve, along with barebow but it just won't be the big dog in the Olympics though. Would be nice for the Olympic folks to allow both disciplines as was mentioned. We will all just have to wait and see how long it takes what the end product will look like.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

dmacey said:


> Well, to be fair, I've never seen an archery shop stock olympic style equipment of any kind. When I was working on my degree at TAMU in the late 80's, my coach had to order my TD4+ directly from Ann Hoyt (he could get blem items directly from her at a pretty steep discount). We had a local shop in College Station which was great but they only stocked compounds and the usual line of beginner and a few traditional bows here and there.
> 
> So we've kind of always been kind of hoity toity in the archery community. A few months ago at our range, in fact, an unfamiliar guy was standing behind me and went "uh oh, now we're going to see an expert form!" when I stepped up to the line and he wasn't exactly smiling or being friendly either.
> 
> ...


It is good. But to take it a step further, do those Samick Sage or Polaris bows go out the door with a sight, stabilizer and clicker on them? Nope. In other words, in the U.S., there is compound, barebow and "hoity toity" LOL. (yes, I've heard the exact same thing when I've come into archery shops with my Oly. bow - thankfully, after a few dozen arrows downrange, those guys either went away, or came in for a closer look. )

Compound IS the "archery" culture in the U.S. - like it or not. And when the compound finally makes it into the Olympic games, we are going to see some serious competition here in the U.S. heat up for those 6 slots. The world thinks our compounders are good now? Just wait. When a compounder can earn a decent living, get great support from their sponsors all the way down to their local shop, receive the notariety that comes with TV appearances or hunting shows, compete in the world championships AND dream about winning an Olympic gold medal... Whew. I actually can't wait to see that.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

dmacey said:


> Well, to be fair, I've never seen an archery shop stock olympic style equipment of any kind. When I was working on my degree at TAMU in the late 80's, my coach had to order my TD4+ directly from Ann Hoyt (he could get blem items directly from her at a pretty steep discount). We had a local shop in College Station which was great but they only stocked compounds and the usual line of beginner and a few traditional bows here and there.
> 
> So we've kind of always been kind of hoity toity in the archery community. A few months ago at our range, in fact, an unfamiliar guy was standing behind me and went "uh oh, now we're going to see an expert form!" when I stepped up to the line and he wasn't exactly smiling or being friendly either.
> 
> ...


What a simping pr!ck this guy was. Speaks to a Smallness/Meanness of person and of character - a crab in a barrel full of crabs, dragging the climbers back into the pile.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

limbwalker said:


> It is good. But to take it a step further, do those Samick Sage or Polaris bows go out the door with a sight, stabilizer and clicker on them? Nope. In other words, in the U.S., there is compound, barebow and "hoity toity" LOL. (yes, I've heard the exact same thing when I've come into archery shops with my Oly. bow - thankfully, after a few dozen arrows downrange, those guys either went away, or came in for a closer look. )
> 
> Compound IS the "archery" culture in the U.S. - like it or not. And when the compound finally makes it into the Olympic games, we are going to see some serious competition here in the U.S. heat up for those 6 slots. The world thinks our compounders are good now? Just wait. When a compounder can earn a decent living, get great support from their sponsors all the way down to their local shop, receive the notariety that comes with TV appearances or hunting shows, compete in the world championships AND dream about winning an Olympic gold medal... Whew. I actually can't wait to see that.


John, the money, the numbers ... the compound world already has all of that. If the Olympics only has limited uplift for Oly recurve, why will this Olympic inclusion of compound have such a dramatic uplift to the already much bigger compound culture/world? 

I get that some of the top level dedicated motivated recurve archers will switch to compound (which will just create opps for other dedicated motivated recurve archers, and put pressure on existing almost top level compound shooters) - agree. But numbers rarely predict excellence. I think a missing piece of the discussion here is an analysis of what percentage of new compound purchasers will only always be casual shooters, and what percentage are legitimate potential dedicated pursuers of archery excellence? 300 Spartans versus 10,000 conscripted farmers and casual sportsmen ... I'll take the Spartans.


----------



## dmacey (Mar 27, 2015)

lksseven said:


> What a simping pr!ck this guy was. Speaks to a Smallness/Meanness of person and of character - a crab in a barrel full of crabs, dragging the climbers back into the pile.


Well I will say that's the first time I've actually had that happen, but I'm not surprised. I myself developed a (fortunately short lived) recurve resentment a long time ago when I showed up on the TAMU front lawns during team practice with my old Darton compound. I was unceremoniously run off with frowning faces - that was back when the compound was still a red-headed step child in collegiate archery. That was about a year before I actually joined them with a TD4+ and pair of blem Hoyt limbs. 

As for that incident, I therefore had an understanding of why the guy had a 'tude and I defused the situation by saying "haha, what you're really going to see is an old man runnin' around in those bushes behind the bale huntin' arrows is what you're going to see". He laughed and so did I. He turned out not to be a bad guy at all. 

But yes when we show up at the local club range with an olympic recurve, good PR skills really go a long way... 

DM


----------



## dmacey (Mar 27, 2015)

limbwalker said:


> It is good. But to take it a step further, do those Samick Sage or Polaris bows go out the door with a sight, stabilizer and clicker on them? Nope. In other words, in the U.S., there is compound, barebow and "hoity toity" LOL. (yes, I've heard the exact same thing when I've come into archery shops with my Oly. bow - thankfully, after a few dozen arrows downrange, those guys either went away, or came in for a closer look. )
> 
> Compound IS the "archery" culture in the U.S. - like it or not. And when the compound finally makes it into the Olympic games, we are going to see some serious competition here in the U.S. heat up for those 6 slots. The world thinks our compounders are good now? Just wait. When a compounder can earn a decent living, get great support from their sponsors all the way down to their local shop, receive the notariety that comes with TV appearances or hunting shows, compete in the world championships AND dream about winning an Olympic gold medal... Whew. I actually can't wait to see that.


Well that's a good point. I guess at least it exposes beginners to the recurve if only for a short time in the cases where they eventually give it up. I guess we'll all find out soon enough, if the IOC is actually seriously considering allowing the compound within our lifetimes anyway.....

Slightly off topic, but I also mourn the relative demise of compound freestyle limited - full freestyle compounds but shot with fingers. That would be the class that I'm the most curmudgeonly about since that's what I did when I very very first picked up a bow. That was mid 80's and there were still some compound finger shooters around at the time. First time I ever saw a freestyle limited match I thought that was the coolest thing I ever saw. 

I believe FSL is still shot at Vegas (?) but it seems to have become a lost art almost everywhere now....

DM


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

dmacey said:


> Well I will say that's the first time I've actually had that happen, but I'm not surprised. I myself developed a (fortunately short lived) recurve resentment a long time ago when I showed up on the TAMU front lawns during team practice with my old Darton compound. I was unceremoniously run off with frowning faces - that was back when the compound was still a red-headed step child in collegiate archery. That was about a year before I actually joined them with a TD4+ and pair of blem Hoyt limbs.
> 
> As for that incident, I therefore had an understanding of why the guy had a 'tude and I defused the situation by saying "haha, what you're really going to see is an old man runnin' around in those bushes behind the bale huntin' arrows is what you're going to see". He laughed and so did I. He turned out not to be a bad guy at all.
> 
> ...


You handled it much like I would have (mimicking my dad's style), with a self deprecating quip and wink. Kudos.

There is a fairly common personality type that resents those who have the moxy to dare valiantly. No field is exempt from that.


----------



## dmacey (Mar 27, 2015)

lksseven said:


> You handled it much like I would have (mimicking my dad's style), with a self deprecating quip and wink. Kudos.
> 
> There is a fairly common personality type that resents those who have the moxy to dare valiantly. No field is exempt from that.


Well I shoot both compound and recurve, so I've worked both sides of the fence and seen what tweaks each one. The compounds look at olympic style and they think rich, stuffy college kid bow; the olympic styles look at the compounds and think grumpy old men with target panic barely able to hit a deer at 10 yards. So whichever bow I happen to drag to the range that day, I just adjust my expectations accordingly.

I'm a compulsive gear head tho so I'm the guy who oo's and aa'hs at everyone's bow and gib gabs with everyone on the line between ends anyway. So they have to be really really grumpy to end up shooing me away. 

I will say, tho, that I usually end up over at that end of the line where the barebows and kids are almost all the time. The freestyle compound guys are too serious for me, part of why I don't want to shoot that division.

DM


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

dmacey said:


> The compounds look at olympic style and they think rich, stuffy college kid bow; the olympic styles look at the compounds and think grumpy old men with target panic barely able to hit a deer at 10 yards.
> 
> 
> DM


I think that view is antiquated. At our ranges, we view everyone as a archer and friend and try to be as helpful as we can, and have as much fun as we can. That however has no bearing on the compound in the Olympics debate. No one is promoting Crossbow in the Olympics. Why not? Its very much the same as a compound bow. Barebow also would be a great inclusion for the Olympics. I would rather watch that personally. 


While people can talk about how compound is just as viable a discipline and deserving of being in the Olympics, the very nature of the bow is to make it easier to shoot arrows accurately and consistently. 

its very design is to shoot a higher poundage arrow faster with more KE, to hold less poundage at full draw while waiting/ aiming at the target, using a release to remove the finger release variables, etc etc etc. 

Compound is a bow that does not take dedicated practice to shoot consistently like recurve with fingers / poundage. It was invented for the hunter who only shoots during season, needs to hold while waiting for prey to enter the kill zone and be consistent and accurate enough for the kill shot without much practice. ( I am not talking about World cup archers who practice as much or more than elite recurve archers). 

No one here will debate, you can take a brand new first time beginner and in 1 hour, have them hitting a 20 yard target as consistently as a 2 year recurve shooter. 

Compound coming into the Olympics will relegate the Olympic recurve bow to a " Traditional Olympic recurve bow" much as bare bow is today. 

The only people gravitating to it will be archers who can't crack the top 100 in compound and have no chance to make an Olympic team due to the high skill of the top elite compound shooters. Much as we see now in Korea, where former world champions of recurve who can no longer compete in the top 100 recurve archers switch to compound to still make International teams. The pool of elite recurve archers there is so great that sometimes Olympic champions have to wait 2 or 3 Olympics to make the team. The reverse will happen here. 

Compound has its international place in competitions, But i feel it will be detrimental to Olympic recurve if added to the Olympics. 

Chris


----------



## dmacey (Mar 27, 2015)

> I think that view is antiquated.


You're telling me! . I do still encounter this from time to time, but I agree that it's finally and fortunately on the decline (and I do what I can to help lol).

DM


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Gent's I never intended this to become a "compound vs. recurve" debate. It is not. It's simply a question - and our speculations on what the result may be to the target archery landscape if compounds make it in. I think it will have a tremendous affect in the US, but perhaps not so much in the rest of the world. 

But Chris and I - both of whom coach many new young archers - see it coming. I think it will really open some eyes.

Larry, you are truly the purist and I love your spirit, but practically speaking, I may never get another Olympic style bow in the hands of a 4-H archer if it happens. Perhaps some of the girls, but I'd say NONE of the boys. And I've been working with 8-18 year olds for over two decades now.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

And we arent even talking about the ease of travel and use which the kids would choose. Compound is shorter, smaller, smaller case to carry, fit in car, pull through airport. Nothing to assemble or disaemble other than the front stab if long rod. Bought pretty much in one piece. 

Recurve, bought in pieces, larger case, more time to assemble/ disasemble, learning curve on how to put it together/string. 

Bigger to case, carry /pull through airports, more pieces to lose/break/ upgrade. Longbow is longer, bigger case, harder to fit in car etc.

Chris


----------



## kenfx0 (Mar 27, 2015)

limbwalker said:


> It is good. But to take it a step further, do those Samick Sage or Polaris bows go out the door with a sight, stabilizer and clicker on them? Nope. In other words, in the U.S., there is compound, barebow and "hoity toity" LOL. (yes, I've heard the exact same thing when I've come into archery shops with my Oly. bow - thankfully, after a few dozen arrows downrange, those guys either went away, or came in for a closer look. )


When I got my Samick Sage it left the shop with a sight. The plunger, stabilizer and clicker came later. They have since migrated from the Sage to my SF Premium +. Some day I will do something fun with the Sage.

BTW-When I got interested in archery last winter, a compound bow was the last thing I was interested in. Too much stuff just to launch an arrow. I prefer the elegance of the recurve.

Ken


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

Has there ever been an example of a situation in an Olympic sport where a new event has been added that led to the elimination or "death" of an existing event, in the manner in which we are discussing here? (I'm not talking about not an entire sport, but one event within a sport.)

Don't know, not trying to prove a point, just asking.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Good question. One could argue that beach volleyball has killed indoor volleyball. Sure, indoor volleyball is still contested, but look at the numbers of viewers. 

I'm not saying recurve will go away. At least, not right away. What I'm saying is that compounds in the Olympics will fundamentally change the landscape for target archers and coaches and training programs - here in the U.S. Maybe not at first, but maybe so. Just consider for a moment the impact it would have if compounds were allowed in the Olympics, and Brady switched back to compound. We would all hear a huge sucking sound in the world of Olympic recurve (especially the young men) and the used equipment market would be a bargain store for a while.


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

I still don't read anything here other than opinion based on personal belief, rather than a prediction based on valid comparisons to past similar situations.

Volleyball vs Beach Volleyball is at least considered 2 different Olympic sports. And we all know that the viewership is mostly due to the "uniforms". 

I just had a horrible vision of some of our more prominent compound shooters wearing speedos...

Sorry.

But back to serious: I'm thinking sports like Sailing where they update events a lot. Any competition sailors here? Or anyone into competitive shooting? I don't follow this, but I don't think that any events have recently been added or dropped within Shooting.


----------



## Darryl Longbow (Apr 11, 2003)

It seems that money for the manufacturers will override everything else. If those makers of the compound could they would get rid of everything but compounds. That is where the money is at.I do believe the compound will make it into the Olympics and in time the recurve will be dropped from that competition. It will not end the use of Olympic style equipment {recurve} any more tthan.. it has wiped out what we call traditional today but it will regulate it to a much lower status than it has today. The recurve shooter will be seen as a quaint throwback to another time that is not used by serious archers who really want to hit their target ( or so every advertisement will tell us) Who knows ? perhaps the compound in time will be replaced by the cross bow or perhaps even a real backlash where archery becomes the long bow again {just dreaming I know}


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> I still don't read anything here other than opinion based on personal belief,


Pretty much what this thread is based on. Don't let it upset you.


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

I wonder if they will keep Kisek Lee as head archery coach if the compounds became an Olympic sport, or would he try to use his influence to keep that from happening?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

The better question would be, who would the compound head coach be? I wouldn't be surprised to see someone like Braden Gellenthein or Reo in a compound head coaching role someday.


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

A good shooter doesn't necessarily mean a good coach. 

George Ryals?


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

chrstphr said:


> And we arent even talking about the ease of travel and use which the kids would choose. Compound is shorter, smaller, smaller case to carry, fit in car, pull through airport. Nothing to assemble or disaemble other than the front stab if long rod. Bought pretty much in one piece.
> 
> Recurve, bought in pieces, larger case, more time to assemble/ disasemble, learning curve on how to put it together/string.
> 
> ...


Don't fly, drive! I drove through 9 states in July with my bow in the front seat keeping me company the whole time








Being facetious, of course. So, my resistance to breaking my bow down makes me closer to a compound mindset, I guess. That's ironic, because I've always thought it was really imagery whenever a sniper gets to a rooftop, opens his long briefcase, and starts assembling the disparate rifle components, complete with twist lock scope.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

oddly enough, i consider Olympic recurve shooting at 70 meters very much like long range sniping. 


And the Olympic recurve bow much the same as a sniper rifle. One shot one kill sort of shooting. Each arrow is the one shot etc. 


Chris


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Stash said:


> A good shooter doesn't necessarily mean a good coach.
> 
> George Ryals?


True. There is always that argument. But when you look at how many times Braden or Reo have stood in the box for their teammates, or other compound archers at major international events, that's experience you can't really get any other way. And at the elite levels, it often does come down to knowing how to handle an archer or team in a medal match at the world championship level. Not too many folks have their level of experience. Jamie Van Natta comes to mind for the women. She would be an awesome US Women's team coach.


----------



## Azzurri (Mar 10, 2014)

lksseven said:


> Kids that quit the recurve because it's too hard will soon quit the compound (or at least drop their aspirations of Olympic glory) when the lowhanging fruit is all picked, and they have to start actually 'training' to earn those extra points that are higher up the tree.


In our TFAA Sywat indoor tournament series, 9 people accumulated at least 3 perfect tournament rounds plus two perfect state rounds for a 1500 in the standings, and were only separated by x count. The lowest cumulative x counts among them were 260 x, which is basically no less than 300 52x per round. There are people who shot 300s interspersed on down to about 72nd place. You can't win a TFAA tournament generally with less than 300 and about 50x. Granted, only some people shoot outdoor target, but that might increase if people smelled Olympics, and there is no short cut to success. You can shoot the easier bow, but get 60x at it? Dominate it outdoors at 50m? Not so much.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Jay, if compounds make the Olympics, you won't believe how fast those 60x indoor shooters will master the 50M outdoor face, in the wind.  

As competitive as compound is in the US, can you just imagine how many compounds will show up at the Olympic trials - esp. since they are "just" shooting 50 meters now? Maybe 1000? Maybe more. 

If compounds make the Olympics, there will have to once again be qualifying events prior to the trials.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

limbwalker said:


> Jay, if compounds make the Olympics, you won't believe how fast those 60x indoor shooters will master the 50M outdoor face, in the wind.
> 
> As competitive as compound is in the US, can you just imagine how many compounds will show up at the Olympic trials - esp. since they are "just" shooting 50 meters now? Maybe 1000? Maybe more.
> 
> If compounds make the Olympics, there will have to once again be qualifying events prior to the trials.


Results page of 2015 Nationals for Compound Open Division shows 49 competitors. 64 for the Recurvers Open Division. These numbers coming from, supposedly, 18 million people in USA who are counted as 'currently participating in archery'. 

I get that compounds being in the Olympics will fuel a lot of impulse compound bow purchasing and casual (if probably fitful) increase in local range activity. But I'm not convinced that that increased low level participation demographic will result in appreciably higher numbers of compound archers with the desire and metal and wherewithal to commit to making the long journey (training and preparation as well as travel) to national event shooting lines for a chance at the podium.


----------



## midwayarcherywi (Sep 24, 2006)

lksseven said:


> Don't fly, drive! I drove through 9 states in July with my bow in the front seat keeping me company the whole time
> View attachment 2638185
> 
> 
> Being facetious, of course. So, my resistance to breaking my bow down makes me closer to a compound mindset, I guess. That's ironic, because I've always thought it was really imagery whenever a sniper gets to a rooftop, opens his long briefcase, and starts assembling the disparate rifle components, complete with twist lock scope.


A strung bow in the front seat; lucky the troopers did not stop you. Many states have laws about having strung bows cased.

Anyway, I find it a lil amusing there is so much discussion about a hypothetical scenario. And I'm sure it could go on ad nauseam.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Larry, the Olympic trials are different than USAT ranking events. Because it is an open event, you will see every 3D compound archer within a day's drive showing up to shoot at 50 meters, I predict. The first compound Olympic trials event in the U.S. is going to be a sure-enough goat rodeo that I simply cannot wait to see.

I suspect in some people's minds, the compound JDT is an early effort to get ahead of the 3D crowd by fielding international teams of cadet and junior compound archers who will then go into a compound RA program once the compound is accepted. 

It's going to be fun to watch it all play out.


----------



## MHoward (Aug 18, 2008)

Jamie Van Natta gets my vote as head coach!
Matt Cleland for the guys!


----------



## Old Sarge (Sep 9, 2008)

Anyone who thinks that the Jesse Broadwaters, Levi Morgans, Reo Wildes, of the worlds will not show up to shoot if compounds are allowed to compete in the Olympics is nuts. They can all shoot at 50 meters , no extra practice for them to get ready.


----------



## Azzurri (Mar 10, 2014)

limbwalker said:


> Jay, if compounds make the Olympics, you won't believe how fast those 60x indoor shooters will master the 50M outdoor face, in the wind.
> 
> As competitive as compound is in the US, can you just imagine how many compounds will show up at the Olympic trials - esp. since they are "just" shooting 50 meters now? Maybe 1000? Maybe more.
> 
> If compounds make the Olympics, there will have to once again be qualifying events prior to the trials.


I was thinking more cautionary tale about the kids who think they can switch to compound and see if they can shoot 300 and all their problems are solved. My impression, the real men from the boys part of adult male compound is those last points to 300 and then the x count. Which based on my watching compound archers is no easier to swing than getting each 10 point incremental improvement in recurve. In Texas you move from a moderate line of competent recurve archers with skill to a long line of competent compound archers with skill. Shooting anything short of 300 50x is second place. And you have to work for that just like recurve. No short cuts.

I think if there became an Olympic Compound you'd have some increase in serious archers pursuing USAT and trials, and perhaps some increase in local archers showing up for the experience. But compound is subject to the same oddities of interests as recurve, I know many people better than me that didn't go to Arizona like I did. But that interested me a lot and I could afford it. I know some people shooting USAT compounds well down Texas series' rankings. You'd have to motivate the set of quality people who when things go outdoors start thinking 3d and then hunting and not the target series. If we ever did, yeah, there is a huge amount of talent around that would swamp USATs and trials. But they'd have to care about punching paper at 50. I think a lot of people could be good at 50 if they cared. Are the Olympics enough to motivate them....?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

One thing to consider here is the time behind the bow. In the US, there are 1000 times more arrows shot with a compound than with a recurve. Maybe 10000 times more. Who knows. All I know is that there are probably 1000 compounds out there for every recurve. So the hours and arrows in those archer's experience will drive the skill level higher and higher, particularly once an Olympic medal is on the line. 

Think of all the kids in the US who are shooting Olympic recurve right now that never would have picked one up if they and their parents knew they could make the Olympic team shooting compound. Then think of all those shop owners who are now "qualified Olympic compound coaches." 

Again, you're going to hear a big sucking sound when this happens.


----------



## tbrash01 (Oct 7, 2010)

The best comparison between different disciplines in a sport and the Olympics as a comparison to me would be Skiing and Snowboarding. Even with my physical issues I will always stick to skiing. It is classic, harder to master, less forgiving, longer learning curve, and has been a key winter Olympic sport. When snowboarding first started some 30 years ago I was against it. It did not take as much skill to master and brought a different attitude to the slopes that was not accepted by most. It became very popular because it is simply easier for most to do compared to skiing. When it became an exhibition in the Olympics many skiers were worried it might take over. While the numbers do not lie and snowboarding is way more popular these days than skiing, that discipline has increased every number across the board and has done nothing but help downhill sports. For the average Joe snowboarding has allowed them the ability to more easily join the ranks of downhill slopes and enjoy the same things that skiers have for generations. There is still a bitter taste in everyone's mouth amongst the skiers and boarders. It will take some time before we all just get along, but the important factor is that while the slopes are slammed with more boarders there was a massive increase in lift ticket sales, gear sales, etc. . Eventually the common ground will be seen by all that both sides to the sport can coexist without affecting the other one, especially at the Olympics where Nordic skiing is massive and snowboarding is climbing especially with viewers. 

In comparison compound archery is a different discipline compared to Oly recurve. Compound is very much like snowboarding as it is easier to master faster for most archers. Olympic recurve is the Elite of the sport and takes many years to master but will always hold a special place in the sport and I feel it will as well in the Olympics. Both sides of the sport have their challenges, but compound is easier. Do not deny it! I have always hated this topic because it gets everyone wound up and mad. It shouldn't! Each to their own and it should all be in an effort to unify and grow archery as a whole. For 30 years I have advocated that Olympic recurve is not for everyone. The whole purpose of the compound was to re-invent the wheel...Literally! Make archery easier, more accurate, and make it to where any given person did not have to shoot all the time to stay fit for it. Compounds have helped the sport grow in a way I never thought possible, but DO NOT for one minute think that they are equal to recurve shooting. You have to either be crazy, glutton for punishment, have a desire to be whipped, or just plain stubborn to want on purpose to shoot a recurve! It will kick your butt in every way possible, both mental and physical. That is what makes it an elite sport fit for the Olympic games. I do believe in the spirit of the Games and in the spirit of moving forward in a modern time that compounds should be allowed to compete in the Games as long as the Recurve is never touched and stays in the Games. 

Leave Olympic recurve alone and make sure it stays. Allow compounds to compete just as the snowboarders were and are able to now. It will only help the longevity of the sport worldwide. 

I have been "PC" long enough, well over 30 years on this subject. Now the truth. Why is it that compounds only shoot 50m when we shoot 70m? Shouldn't compounds compete at 90m? You know, 90m, the distance that FITA was shooting forever. Compounds should be held to a tougher format than recurve. They shoot faster, quicker learning curve, many many aids, and can shoot long distances. I understand the whole TV, sponsors, etc but the Olympics was not for the professional. It might be today, but then it isn't archery that is ruining the Games but sports governing bodies in general. Isn't the Games for us athletes anymore or just about politics and money? Just like any sport archery is a game of chance and a gold can be won by anyone on any given day. If you want to increase any sport you have to get the spectators involved. How many of you watch pistol shooting during the Games? Rarely anyone actually watches pistol shooting anymore but it will always be in the Games as I feel Recurve will always be there too. Compound shooters will always favor compound on TV and the same for recurve. The idea of mixing teams with both types is the best way to go as it has been at WA. Want to see who the best archer is period? That is easy enough. One archer shoots both disciplines in the same day. The challenge is just has hard as a snowboarder slapping on skis in the same day. Mind and body have to switch modes to do things two different ways even though they are basically similar. In that regard my money would be on the recurve guys now being able to shoot both ways compared to the compound guys picking up a recurve. Two completely different sides to the sport, but there will always be one side best for the individual. Don't let the sponsor or TV or Games tell you which one to shoot. Shoot what you love! Even with my broken body and destroyed mind, I will always shoot the more challenging of the two. A true champion never takes the easy way but the most challenging to them. Again... To each their own! Just my .02.


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

When looking at the number of competitive compound archers word wide, and the number of competitions around the world with compounds and then looking at all the money, even TV revenue, with compounds, then compare that with Trampoline.

What is really bizarre is that Trampoline is an Olympic event whereas Compound Archery is not. It is this mindset that is probably what is keeping Compound Archery out of the Olympics


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

tbrash01 said:


> ...
> In comparison compound archery is a different discipline compared to Oly recurve. Compound is very much like snowboarding as it is easier to master faster for most archers. Olympic recurve is the Elite of the sport and takes many years to master but will always hold a special place in the sport and I feel it will as well in the Olympics. Both sides of the sport have their challenges, but compound is easier....


I am of the opinion that Barebow is the Elite of the sport, but that is my opinion.....

But like you said, Compound is a different form of archery, so is Barebow. I would love to see Compound, Frestyle Recurve, and Barebow in the Olympics. The Olympics has multiple shooting events with different weapons (including air guns which I used to compete in for a few years) and different types of scoring systems. So why not with Archery? Why not add Field events. Field events are not exactly spectator friendly, same as with Biathlon and yet it is an Olympic event.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Mr. Roboto said:


> When looking at the number of competitive compound archers word wide, and the number of competitions around the world with compounds and then looking at all the money, even TV revenue, with compounds, then compare that with Trampoline.
> 
> What is really bizarre is that Trampoline is an Olympic event whereas Compound Archery is not. It is this mindset that is probably what is keeping Compound Archery out of the Olympics


Perhaps, but I'd rather watch trampoline - it is way more viscerally athletic than compound archery/machine operation. 

doDA3zT_V-o?t=26m5s

https://youtu.be/doDA3zT_V-o?t=25m22s

Check out the winner at 25m 22s. That is amazing, injury defying athleticism. With compound the top archers are objectively better than lower tier archers, but in a matter of degrees, how *many* Xs they get, not in, say, getting Xs. The differences are minute. With gymnastics, though, we can all see the differences.

Of the two, trampoline, IMO, deserves to be in the Olympics. If we allow compound archery, why not precision excavator operation and other machine operator jobs? 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7N1HUbusarY


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Gent's, again, please stop comparing one vs. the other. If you think that's the point of this thread, it is not. If you want to discuss compound VS. barebow or recurve, start another thread. I'm simply trying to point out the effect that compound entering the Olympics will likely have on the recurve, and why. 

As for tbrash's comments:


> *stick to* skiing


This is very telling, and very important. Why? Because like those of us who already shoot recurve and will most likely stick with it for that reason, you (and me) already used downhill skis before the snowboard came along so we are much more likely to see skis as just as legitimate - if not more so -of an option than snowboarding.

And eventually guys like you and me - who started downhill skiing before snowboards made their debut - will die off, so will recurve archers in much the same way that compound finger shooters have died off. 

We (you and I) have what you could call a "traditional bias" based on our personal experiences. New young archers won't have that bias, and for all the reasons I outlined already, will choose the compound over the recurve 10:1 or maybe 100:1

I'm not saying recurve will be completely killed by the compound, and I'm certainly not recommending that it be. So please don't put those words in my mouth.

Yes, downhill skiing is certainly the more technical discipline and harder to master, and will continue to attract a percentage of enthusiasts for that reason. Recurve will do the same. But can either of them continue to keep enough momentum to sustain their presence at the Olympics? I guess time will tell. At some point, when sports go on the chopping block so that new sports can enter, which one will be kept?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> If we allow compound archery, why not precision excavator operation and other machine operator jobs?


That's not very fair, or very nice. Again, if you want to compare them or make an argument against compounds in the Olympics, please start your own thread.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> That's not very fair, or very nice. Again, if you want to compare them or make an argument against compounds in the Olympics, please start your own thread.
> 
> I for one want to see compounds in the Olympics. My opinion on this has changed over time and after getting to know some of the top compound archers in the world, I believe they have as much right to compete as the recurve or the barebow.
> 
> We don't refer to cyclists as "machine operators" or sailors as "wind machine operators" after all.


Not my intent. And, I could reverse your point and say you aren't being very nice to professional machine operators. They have some serious skills, yet those skills don't get recognized with international Olympic medals. Why should compound archery be recognized but not other precision skills? :dontknow:

The question is, though, what does the public want to *watch* on TV during the Olympics? I made my notes about trampoline because it relates to what is fun, for me, to watch on TV. And the Olympics are all about TV money. Will the the viewing public find compound as compelling to watch on TV as recurve? I think that will play a role in how having the two in the Olympics will play out. If it isn't fun to watch then I think that is good for Recurve, but I don't know if it would save recurve from marginalization... :dontknow:


----------



## T2SHOOTER (Feb 26, 2014)

There may be at least one drawback for going to compounds in the Olympics. To really determine the best, all equipment would be the same. Another words, what manufacture would be selected to produce the Olympic compound bow, and what would be the criteria for that particular bow? I raced in World outrigger canoe races, and all canoes were the same, produced by the same manufacture, and even set up by the same. Even if you had purchased the same canoe, you still had to race theirs. Just saying there are other aspects that could hold up compounds ever being in the Olympics. As I understand it, just making the selection took years, and while all other single outriggers have rudders, the World outriggers do not.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

midwayarcherywi said:


> A strung bow in the front seat; lucky the troopers did not stop you. Many states have laws about having strung bows cased.
> 
> Anyway, I find it a lil amusing there is so much discussion about a hypothetical scenario. And I'm sure it could go on ad nauseam.


Gabe, Hah! I hadn't even thought about that. Of course, I drive like the old man I'm getting to be, so my vehicle is virtually invisible to troopers.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

limbwalker said:


> Larry, the Olympic trials are different than USAT ranking events. Because it is an open event, you will see every 3D compound archer within a day's drive showing up to shoot at 50 meters, I predict. The first compound Olympic trials event in the U.S. is going to be a sure-enough goat rodeo that I simply cannot wait to see.
> 
> I suspect in some people's minds, the compound JDT is an early effort to get ahead of the 3D crowd by fielding international teams of cadet and junior compound archers who will then go into a compound RA program once the compound is accepted.
> 
> It's going to be fun to watch it all play out.


I agree it will be a fascinating thing to watch morph.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

Mr. Roboto said:


> I am of the opinion that Barebow is the Elite of the sport.


I would agree.


Chris


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

chrstphr said:


> I would agree.
> 
> 
> Chris


You mean I had to go "backwards" to go forward? Who knew?


----------



## Astroguy (Oct 11, 2013)

I could see Olympic compound shooting well past 90m. or use a much smaller target with its own scoring system. Or go completely 3-D with money brought in from about every seller, dealer and club. The money will win over conventional target archery. How many Golfers here use their Pop's woods? Or a 460cc Metal Driver with a graphite shaft ? We have longer courses because of the change in equipment. Archery will make adjustments as well.


----------



## teebat (Oct 28, 2013)

I was thinking of another type of team competition. From the top 20 shooters (all countries at the event) have a random team , 2 men, 2 women. You would never know who your team mate will be until just before they compete, and offer money prize to the winners. This would add an extra incentive to those who may not medal at the events and might be a cool way of changing things up a bit.


----------



## Mika Savola (Sep 2, 2008)

Yes, everyone has an opinion how to shoot competitions, but this is useless speculation since compounds are not going to olympics for a long time...


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Mika Savola said:


> Yes, everyone has an opinion how to shoot competitions, but this is useless speculation since compounds are not going to olympics for a long time...


You sure about that?


----------



## shawn_in_MA (Dec 11, 2002)

limbwalker said:


> The better question would be, who would the compound head coach be? I wouldn't be surprised to see someone like Braden Gellenthein or Reo in a compound head coaching role someday.


3 years ago I would have said you were crazy if you thought Braden would be a coach. But after watching him help the likes of Ben Cleland, Bridger, and especially the coaching he has done with Dahlia Crook and Daniel Mathews I can definitely see him doing something like that once his shooting days are behind him.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

shawn_in_MA said:


> 3 years ago I would have said you were crazy if you thought Braden would be a coach. But after watching him help the likes of Ben Cleland, Bridger, and especially the coaching he has done with Dahlia Crook and Daniel Mathews I can definitely see him doing something like that once his shooting days are behind him.


I had a quick visit with him at Nationals to congratulate him on stepping up to help coach some of the younger shooters. I can see it in his eyes and know the feeling well. He's experienced the satisfaction that cannot come from one's own accomplishments, but from helping others succeed. He's going to be a very good coach for a very long time.


----------



## jegeig (Dec 1, 2013)

So is compound more enjoyable, or just easier to pick up? It seems to me the premise that recurve would drop off the map if compound goes into the Olympics is based on a premise that JOAD parents are delusional (not saying they aren't!).

I set down my recurve for a month to give a compound a go. It was fun - it was archery! After 1 month I shot as well as I did with my recurve, and I've been shooting recurve for over a year.

Now here's where the delusion comes in. As pointed out before in this thread, the competitive field with compounds is HUGE! The amount of time and dedication to become a world-class compound archer is just as great as with recurve. Essentially, if the olympics are your goal, it seems the mental aspects and the time commitment to the sport of archery are just as great with recurve and compound. It hardly matters what you're holding in your hand. So why not compete in recurve, against a smaller, but just as elite field? Also, compounds are more expensive and the gear and tools required to maintain them are more expensive. So are parents thinking compounds would somehow be an "easier" path for their child to stand on an Olympic podium? Isn't that delusional?

I suppose it's also the kids though - that initial rush of doing so well with compound compared to the recurves a lot of kids start on that gets them hooked... 

Here's another question - do JOAD coaches see compound interest waning at a higher rate than recurve? While you can start at a high scoring threshold with compound, it seems that you can hit a plateau faster than with a recurve. At that point, if you want to get to the next level, it's that massive mental and time commitment mentioned above. Recurve seems to have a more gradual learning curve, where the next milestone improvement always seems just over the horizon.  I know that's one thing keeping me hooked. 

Anyway, I've tried both, I'm sticking with recurve. Not because I hope to shoot in the Olympics. Just because it's what I enjoy. For what it's worth, my background is that I didn't pick up a bow until I was in my mid-20s. Never had parents pressure me to shoot one thing or another. Just picked something to get started, fell in love, then chose what I thought I'd enjoy and like to try.

Edit to say: I absolutely think compound archery should be an Olympic sport.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> Essentially, if the olympics are your goal, it seems the mental aspects and the time commitment to the sport of archery are just as great with recurve and compound. It hardly matters what you're holding in your hand. So why not compete in recurve, against a smaller, but just as elite field? Also, compounds are more expensive and the gear and tools required to maintain them are more expensive.


If the Olympic are your goal, wouldn't it be easier to make that journey as a sponsored archer supported by even your own local shop, who has a legitimate chance to earn prize money at even local 3D events? Sponsor dollars reach "maybe" to the 20th ranked recurve archer, if that. Sponsor dollars - of some form - reach well down to the 200th or even 2000th ranked compound archer, esp. if you want to consider local support from mom and pop archery shops. 

Don't believe me? Just check the Easton, Hoyt, Mathews or Carbon Express Facebook pages and count the number of "pro staff" compounders you see vs. anyone shooting a recurve. 

If the Olympics are your goal, why not choose the bow that offers you 10 Olympic cycles to compete for instead of 4 or 5? 

If compounds are an option, then there is another dynamic that will sound silly at first, but is very real - the top compound youth will be come celebrities in their own local shops and ranges. When these shops/coaches/parents/family/friends can stick that "future Olympian" label on a 10 year old shooting a Diamond compound, they will do it so fast our heads will spin. 

I've seen the disappointment year after year in our 4-H program when mom and dad bring in their kid with a tricked-out compound they bought at Bass Pro, and then learn their kid will have to shoot a recurve before they can stick the "future olympian" label on them. They aren't happy about that, believe me.

Yes, the field will be deeper, but look how many "good" recurve shooters have moved on to become "great" compound shooters. Far more in my experience than "good" compound shooters who've become "great" recurve shooters. I'm not saying it's a one-way door, but from what I've seen it's easier to go from recurve to compound than the other direction, and this is why I see much of our recurve talent making that choice when this happens.

Parents may not think it's easier with compound, but they will be more familiar with compound by and large - here in the U.S.



> So are parents thinking compounds would somehow be an "easier" path for their child to stand on an Olympic podium? Isn't that delusional?


Believe me, modern parents will be drawn to the idea that if they spend a lot of money on a bow, it will be the easier path for their child. We can laugh about it, but I see it every single day around me - parents of even modest means spending, spending, spending on their kid's youth sports. Baseball clinics, select teams, individual coaches, volleyball camps, $400 bats and $150 jerseys. There is a certain culture out there that is willing - no, wanting - to spend money on their kid's sports activity to show all the other parents they are "better" parents because of what they buy for their kids. And those parents care nothing about antiquated technology either. They want their kid to be shooting the latest and greatest because they themselves are gearheads and techno-geeks just looking to spend money on toys.

Think of all the parents who shoot compounds right now. Think of all the 3D shooters who are out there right now, with kids, who don't give the Olympics a minute of their attention because they know compounds are not allowed and they know nothing about Olympic recurve. Just wait until they get the news that compounds are allowed in the Olympics. You're going to see a rush on youth compound target bows, believe me. The industry had better get ready.



> Recurve seems to have a more gradual learning curve, where the next milestone improvement always seems just over the horizon. I know that's one thing keeping me hooked


In today's youth sports society, this kind of thinking is the exception, and not the norm.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

Interspersed

-Steve



limbwalker said:


> If the Olympic are your goal, wouldn't it be easier to make that journey as a sponsored archer supported by even your own local shop, who has a legitimate chance to earn prize money at even local 3D events? Sponsor dollars reach "maybe" to the 20th ranked recurve archer, if that. Sponsor dollars - of some form - reach well down to the 200th or even 2000th ranked compound archer, esp. if you want to consider local support from mom and pop archery shops.
> 
> Don't believe me? Just check the Easton, Hoyt, Mathews or Carbon Express Facebook pages and count the number of "pro staff" compounders you see vs. anyone shooting a recurve.


Using Eric Bennett (2x ParaOlympian) as an example - Eric shot a lot of local 3D tournaments here in Arizona. It's worth it to get into the top 5 in local stuff.



> If the Olympics are your goal, why not choose the bow that offers you 10 Olympic cycles to compete for instead of 4 or 5?


There are a lot of Orthopedic specialists that feel that our joints have a limited amount of use. Just like strings have a certain amount of shot cycles - our joints have a certain amount of shot cycles. If Compound can extend the life of an archer's career, why not? Unless you have the freakishly odd genes of Butch Johnson...



> If compounds are an option, then there is another dynamic that will sound silly at first, but is very real - the top compound youth will be come celebrities in their own local shops and ranges. When these shops/coaches/parents/family/friends can stick that "future Olympian" label on a 10 year old shooting a Diamond compound, they will do it so fast our heads will spin.
> 
> I've seen the disappointment year after year in our 4-H program when mom and dad bring in their kid with a tricked-out compound they bought at Bass Pro, and then learn their kid will have to shoot a recurve before they can stick the "future olympian" label on them. They aren't happy about that, believe me.


It already happens now. A shop in Virginia sponsors a female youth shooter who is on the Compound Junior Dream Team and got hit up by the USOC's lawyers for improper use of the logos. I see GoFundMe's for youth compound shooters that talk about the Olympic Dream. 

I also get hit up via email/private message/whatever on whether or not Spencer is going to train for the Olympics. No - Spencer's training for more realistic goals. Those goals are Cadet Compound USAT, maintaining his position in the Compound JDT, and doing well at the 2015 Texas Shootout. 

Until Compound is officially named as a sport for whatever future Olympiad that will be upcoming, there is no point in training for something that is totally blue sky. Train for the now.



> Yes, the field will be deeper, but look how many "good" recurve shooters have moved on to become "great" compound shooters. Far more in my experience than "good" compound shooters who've become "great" recurve shooters. I'm not saying it's a one-way door, but from what I've seen it's easier to go from recurve to compound than the other direction, and this is why I see much of our recurve talent making that choice when this happens.


Good form is good form. Regardless of which bow you use - if you have good form, you will be successful.



> Parents may not think it's easier with compound, but they will be more familiar with compound by and large - here in the U.S.


It's more familiar, but the amount of work to put in is the same, no matter which discipline you choose in archery. I think parents and kids in this video game mentality based world tend to forget that. You have to put the work into it.

It's just like cars. You can buy your way into horsepower, but can you realistically use it properly? 90 percent of the people can't. It's the same with bows. You can buy all the whizz/bang/boom you want, but if you don't put the work in to pound the X ring, there's no point in it.



> Believe me, modern parents will be drawn to the idea that if they spend a lot of money on a bow, it will be the easier path for their child. We can laugh about it, but I see it every single day around me - parents of even modest means spending, spending, spending on their kid's youth sports. Baseball clinics, select teams, individual coaches, volleyball camps, $400 bats and $150 jerseys. There is a certain culture out there that is willing - no, wanting - to spend money on their kid's sports activity to show all the other parents they are "better" parents because of what they buy for their kids. And those parents care nothing about antiquated technology either. They want their kid to be shooting the latest and greatest because they themselves are gearheads and techno-geeks just looking to spend money on toys.


Again, I agree with you. It's the work ethic that needs to shine, not the equipment side. But, a lot of people don't see that.

I'll use Spencer as an example for this one as well. Up until recently (where the bows went on a long term lend to fellow archery classmates of his), I kept his 2012 Pan Am bows up to date with his draw length and draw weight. These were 2009 Hoyt Ultra Elite bows that were mildly Frankensteined to handle GTX cams instead of the original C.5+ cams, with one converted to Spirals to match his Pro Comp Elite and Podium X.

Spencer shoots nearly identical scores with the Ultra Elite (3 models behind the current model), the Pro Comp Elite (the prior Hoyt model), and the Podium X (the current model). It's not the technology...not that the Podium X really has *THAT* much better technology than the Ultra Elite.

So I've always said that people can be competitive with older equipment. It's the tuning of the bow, the proper arrows, and the proper training of the archer that will create the success. But again - this is a world where people think they can buy their way into things.



> Think of all the parents who shoot compounds right now. Think of all the 3D shooters who are out there right now, with kids, who don't give the Olympics a minute of their attention because they know compounds are not allowed and they know nothing about Olympic recurve. Just wait until they get the news that compounds are allowed in the Olympics. You're going to see a rush on youth compound target bows, believe me. The industry had better get ready.
> 
> In today's youth sports society, this kind of thinking is the exception, and not the norm.


The industry won't be ready. And I await the insanity that will occur when they do announce it. It will be interesting, to say the least.


----------



## jegeig (Dec 1, 2013)

You are cynical, limbwalker! But I can't disagree at all that marketing will cause a lot of parents to try to buy a better score for junior to try to get to the Olympics. It's a good time to be in the compound bow business. 

Also nice to see the perspective on local money. That's not something I see as much of in my region of Southern CA. 

Is part of the issues mentioned the public misinformation about the actual sport of archery? The common thread seems to be one of the ignorance of outsiders. In that way Olympic compound is a way of conforming reality to expectations rather than vice versa. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing. But should Olympic recurve be more accessible or understandable to those outside or just entering the sport?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

What part of that is cynical? 

I spend a LOT of my time dealing in youth sports. Whether it's my JOAD program or my daughter's school sports. I'm just passing along what I'm seeing in this youth-sports-crazed area of SE Texas (Houston/Katy leading the way).

Compound is more familiar, and will always be in the US because it's what's stocked on the shelves. It's what's stocked on the shelves for three reasons - because bowhunters overwhelmingly use compounds, because the amount of time it takes to hit the "x" with a compound is 1/10th of what it is for a recurve, and people by and large want immediate results, and finally because it's WAY MORE profitable for both the manufacturers and the shops to sell compounds. There are only so many accessories you can stick on a recurve, and the type of people who are willing to use a recurve aren't those who usually buy a lot of accessories in the first place.

Compounds will make it to the Olympic games because archery is popular, and people are diverse.


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

I don't know exactly how this might fit into the discussion, except to say people will watch anything if it's presented properly.


----------



## jegeig (Dec 1, 2013)

Cynical part is that modern parents will be drawn to the idea that if they spend a lot of money on the bow, it will be the easier path for their child. I agree. But I also think it is a cynical point of view towards the manufacturers who market to exploit the mistaken belief that the easiest way to improve a skill is to spend more money.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Stash said:


> I don't know exactly how this might fit into the discussion, except to say people will watch anything if it's presented properly.


LOL! Right you are!


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

jegeig said:


> Cynical part is that modern parents will be drawn to the idea that if they spend a lot of money on the bow, it will be the easier path for their child. I agree. But I also think it is a cynical point of view towards the manufacturers who market to exploit the mistaken belief that the easiest way to improve a skill is to spend more money.


Since we both know these things occur, I'm not sure why it's cynical and not factual, but I'm not a wordsmith so you may be right.


----------



## jegeig (Dec 1, 2013)

A bit of cynicism can be a good thing. If we don't have some distrust of the claims of people selling us stuff, we'll never get to the factual. It's critical to managing expectations, a skill I'm sure you have have developed well in teaching kids. It will be even more critical with the coming compound bowsplosion. 

Anyway, I appreciate your honesty on this site. Thanks.


----------



## Azzurri (Mar 10, 2014)

Mika Savola said:


> Yes, everyone has an opinion how to shoot competitions, but this is useless speculation since compounds are not going to olympics for a long time...


"Realistically, we are possibly looking at 2024, but more likely 2028." Which feels like a while but is 9 years, would be announced ahead of then.

http://www.teamusa.org/USA-Archery/...rch/19/Is-Compound-Archery-an-Olympic-Hopeful
http://www.teamusa.org/USA-Archery/...Is-Compound-Archery-an-Olympic-Hopeful-Part-2

I don't buy equipment as a problem, I'm sure the mfrs. would spread cheap or free equipment far and wide to national teams if it helped get Olympics, which might then help them sell more compound bows on the back end. Nor do I buy the gender balance issue. The prize issue verges on laughable because in the strong regions of the world compound draws more, not less money. 

I do think they need to figure out how to package it and the problem might be, we won't be shooting 50 on a medium face (though that is the present competition format) but they can't figure out the next step. The solutions to me seem easy, either 70 on the medium or 90 with a 122 face. You reflect their sharper accuracy while supplying a sterner test that also differentiates the competition from recurve where it's not an obviously unflattering same distance same face setup. I don't see where all the angst is coming from, if recurve takes half an Olympics compound takes the other half. Venue gets complete use and they sell twice the tickets.

I also think field, including barebow, is the beach volleyball they need for a more visual TV product. Add that too. Comes across to me like golf on TV. You admire the archery quality and get nice scenery. There is no Danish Archer quick shooting silver bullet for summer games. Maybe ski archery for the winter like biathalon.


----------



## BobCo19-65 (Sep 4, 2009)

LOL, that was hilarious Stash! Thanks for the laugh.


----------



## centershot (Sep 13, 2002)

I think the OP's opinion is valid in the US. I wonder what the opinions are from areas in the world where archery is not driven by hunting? It appears Europe has a big recurve barebow following - something that is all but non existent here in the USA.


----------



## equilibrium (Oct 31, 2006)

It's funny you say its "all but non existent here in the USA." and your signature is of Pope. Just an observation....



centershot said:


> I think the OP's opinion is valid in the US. I wonder what the opinions are from areas in the world where archery is not driven by hunting? It appears Europe has a big recurve barebow following - something that is all but non existent here in the USA.


----------



## toj (Aug 22, 2012)

In the UK competitive target barebow is all but nonexistent, the national rankings only had about 12 archers in it!

Field archery has a healthy barebow following in mainland Europe but again target is far from popular.
Most target competitions I've attended this year have been about 50/50 gents recurve/compound and ladies compound seems to be overtaking recurve.
Oddly most of the newer compound archers aren't converts but archers who took to compound straight away.

I think compound will just replace recurve at the top level, there's very little money in recurve archery to bung Olympic officials anymore.

I also think that recurve archery (in the UK at least) may be better off out of it anyway.


----------



## Azzurri (Mar 10, 2014)

toj said:


> In the UK competitive target barebow is all but nonexistent, the national rankings only had about 12 archers in it!
> 
> Field archery has a healthy barebow following in mainland Europe but again target is far from popular.
> Most target competitions I've attended this year have been about 50/50 gents recurve/compound and ladies compound seems to be overtaking recurve.
> ...


I was thinking have the big 3 in a theoretical Olympic Field, as in WA Field Worlds already. I'd think the rotating station nature of field would allow more archers and more classes through the space in the time allotted, such that you could accommodate them all.


----------



## toj (Aug 22, 2012)

I think the biggest obstacle field archery has is the difficulty in getting spectators into it.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Agreed on spectators and field archery.

And yes, I started this thread mainly thinking of the affect on recurve archery in the U.S. since it's what I know best. I've been around archery since I couldn't see over the countertop of our local archery shop in the 1970's. I remember pouring through a well worn copy of Fred Bear "Archer's Bible" in the late 70's and always being fascinated by the target recurve bows. But as much as I was around archery in the 70's, 80's and 90's, it wasn't until 2002 that I saw my first REAL Olympic recurve. And I never passed an archery shop in all those years without stopping. That's just how it is in the U.S. - even still. It's changed a little bit (more traditional bows since the early 90's) but not that much. In fact, the local Bass Pro and Gander Mountain took their traditional bows completely out of their archery departments over the past 5 years. The only recurves they stock anymore are kid's starter bows. 

That's how overwhelming the compound bow is here.

I am "just" old enough to remember a time when only about half the guys at the Tyler archery club even had a compound. And I was old enough to remember the joking and teasing that was being given from the recurve archers (most of whom had sights on their hunting recurves) to the compound shooters - they were so new.


----------



## centershot (Sep 13, 2002)

equilibrium said:


> It's funny you say its "all but non existent here in the USA." and your signature is of Pope. Just an observation....


Not everyone shares my view on "effort involved vs. reward". lol.


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

Stash said:


> I don't know exactly how this might fit into the discussion, except to say people will watch anything if it's presented properly.


Exactly: formula and subject has nothing to do with TV, as TV will find a solution to to show everything in a fascinating way.

Two real examples from Copenhagen:

1) Question to one WA official: why this formula for team round? Not enough teams participating, not enough arrows to select the best team.
Answer: We are thinking to go to 24 or 32 teams in the matches in future. For the formula, TV people told us they don't care of the rules, they told us just don't make matches longer to show than they are already. So we had to stay in 4 sets.

2) Comment from a VIP watching part the finals live from the stands on the Parlament square, then having to leave and watching the Gold finals at the airport by a tablet:
"by TV the spectacle is much much better than in reality, it looks amazing, but on the stands it is really boring ..."


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

I can't disagree with the VIP. LOL.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

How vexing - more people were watching and cheering at this rock/paper/scissors match than will be at our JOAD State Championship tournament tomorrow ... of course, serving beer and some rock and roll at the tournament might change things up, eh?


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

And you know that someone will insist that rock/paper/scissors/lizard/Spock (google it - it's a thing) be added to the event because it's the 21st century. And then the rock/paper/scissors advocates say that it will be the end of rock/paper/scissors because all the new people will want to play rock/paper/scissors/lizard/Spock. 

And then the traditionalists will chime up after a while and say that just plain "rock" is the "elite" of the game.

And then somebody will insist that rock/paper/scissors/lizard is the way to go - Spock just makes it too mechanical.


And then people will start an argument about whether men and women should play rock/paper/scissors against each other or stay in separate divisions.

And someone will complain about the dress code.

And someone will complain about the new USRPSA coach from Korea and his "system".


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

Stash said:


> And you know that someone will insist that rock/paper/scissors/lizard/Spock (google it - it's a thing) be added to the event because it's the 21st century. And then the rock/paper/scissors advocates say that it will be the end of rock/paper/scissors because all the new people will want to play rock/paper/scissors/lizard/Spock.
> 
> And then the traditionalists will chime up after a while and say that just plain "rock" is the "elite" of the game.
> 
> ...


Haha - Ouch! You made me laugh before I even had coffee!


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

Stash said:


> And you know that someone will insist that rock/paper/scissors/lizard/Spock (google it - it's a thing) be added to the event because it's the 21st century. And then the rock/paper/scissors advocates say that it will be the end of rock/paper/scissors because all the new people will want to play rock/paper/scissors/lizard/Spock.
> 
> And then the traditionalists will chime up after a while and say that just plain "rock" is the "elite" of the game.
> 
> ...


Nominate for post of the year.


----------



## R&B (Oct 4, 2006)

*Hammers*

When I was doing camera research a while back I found this on a camera blog. It is some of the funniest series post I've read on the old Innerweb. Those wacky carpenters have a fantastic a sense of humor....... I think (LOL). 

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/03/hammerforum-com

When customers come in and are looking for bows I always tell them......."Bows are like hammers to me they are just tools". To take it a step further the tool doesn't make you great it is the one that uses the tool that determines greatness. The same should apply to titles and metals. Olympic metals are important to many because they are quantifiable. However the greatest achievements in life are not quantifiable. 

Enjoy what you do and do it to best of your ability. Those who do are usually winners in life.


-R&B 

"Some medals are pinned to your soul, not to your jacket." Gino Bartali


----------

