# Archer Brady Ellison irked by scoring system after settling for silver



## jguardia (Aug 28, 2014)

It would be a huge shame if an archery like Brady quit recurve because of the scoring system. I hope he was just upset in the moment he said those things and will reconsider. He's big in this sport but not in my opinion so big that the rules are going to change just for him.

But to back up a little bit both he and Luis went into the match knowing how the outcome would be decided. Nobody switched up the rules on them after Luis ran out of time on that shot. So what Luis says makes sense. It's about the pressure and being able to either maintain a high level of shooting throughout or being able to bounce back from a bad shot.

I understand what Brady is saying but to make a comment like that seems unsportmanlike which is unusual since it doesn't seem like his style. He himself mentioned he has won with a lower overall score. But here's the thing. The overall score DOESN'T MATTER if you know going into the match that you win on sets. I think the outcome of a match would be different if you go into it knowing that every arrow counts and that doesn't necessarily mean it would have gone in Brady's favor.


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

He's leaving next year?

Ok.


----------



## jmvargas (Oct 21, 2004)

sure sounds a lot like like sourgraping to me...

a bit similar to matchplay in golf wherein a lower gross score sometimes loses a match...

when the rules are known beforehand there are no reasons to complain AFTER the game......


----------



## MickeyBisco (Jul 14, 2012)

jmvargas said:


> when the rules are known beforehand there are no reasons to complain AFTER the game......


Word. 

/thread.


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

Well, if he does go to compound, he better not shoot Vegas...


----------



## Mombo59 (May 3, 2013)

I'm going to agree with Brady on this. Archery, to me, is about the highest score. Just because some bureaucrat, who either does not shoot or compete, makes a rule does not mean the archery community agrees with said rule. Even if Brady new the rules before the competition, does not mean he agrees with the rule. i understand his frustration. 
I would prefer we went back to 2 full vita's, highest score wins. At least in big tournaments. The shoot off system is interesting, but really should be about the highest score wins.

Tony


----------



## kshet26 (Dec 20, 2010)

What's concerning is that these types of comments aren't usually his style. If he was to win gold in rio, i doubt he'd switch back to compound. 

On the flip side I think Easton and Hoyt have a lot invested in him on the recurve side and they have pull within WA. Let's not even start with what this would mean for USAA and NTS.

He would definitely make a better living though!


----------



## jmvargas (Oct 21, 2004)

Mombo59 said:


> I'm going to agree with Brady on this. Archery, to me, is about the highest score. Just because some bureaucrat, who either does not shoot or compete, makes a rule does not mean the archery community agrees with said rule. Even if Brady new the rules before the competition, does not mean he agrees with the rule. i understand his frustration.
> I would prefer we went back to 2 full vita's, highest score wins. At least in big tournaments. The shoot off system is interesting, but really should be about the highest score wins.
> 
> Tony


...there is a reason why this system is the way it is----the powers that be believe it is the best for the good of the sport.

there are also some rules i also do not agree or like in golf but i can live with them and may even try to change them once i ever have the power to do so...

but right now i don't....but i can live with it..


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

Brady's expressing frustration with the set system - it offends his sense of purity. I'm in his camp with that thinking, although the timing of his comments wasn't ideal.

Of course, recurve archery likely wouldn't still be an Olympic sport without the set system, though, so it's not going away.


----------



## Ms.Speedmaster (Dec 10, 2010)

kshet26 said:


> What's concerning is that these types of comments aren't usually his style.


Exactly. There's probably an undercurrent. It's a pivotal time for him with some serious pressure. If he's not having fun anymore, I wouldn't blame him for changing direction. 

He's still, and will always be, one of my archery heros.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Out of character for him. I think his emotions got the best of him. He had an individual gold medal in his grasp, and lost it, and obviously that hurts. Any of us would have probably reacted the same way.

As for the set system, it's what's made Tennis worth watching for many decades. It's doing the same for archery. It works, it has the desired effect, and we have more happy viewers as a result. 

How many people would watch tennis if they just totaled up the number of points won on the scoreboard, and they just played for 3 hours. Boring...


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> when the rules are known beforehand there are no reasons to complain AFTER the game......


I agree. This is the final word on this topic IMO.


----------



## DarkMuppet (Oct 23, 2013)

Hard call to make as to whether it's better to decide who's the better archer with sets or cumulative score, but the set system has definitively made archery a watchable sport which is ultimately for the best for its longevity as an Olympic sport. 

Besides, going back to deciding the winner after 2 days of fitas presents a situation that wasn't really there when it was in popular use... You would see the same 6 Korean archers on the podium every single time such is one nations domination at point scoring. Just look at the ranking round results at every world cup event/ Asian games/world champs in the last 5 years or so. 

As much as I am in awe of their skills, that would get boring very quickly, at least the set system presents the possibility of mixing it up a bit and making it fun to watch.


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

I think Brady has simply rised openly what 100% of top shooters, top teams and 100% of international coaches think about the set system. No one mentioned it openly to the press untill today, but with so many thinking the same, soon or later someone with enough credit to be heard by media was going to do it. It was not a matter of if, just a matter of when.
The machplay rules have been changed continuously since 1992 not to make the best archer winning in any case, but only to make any match more and more unpredictable. 
Follow this:

Individuals Recurve:
Match:
- 18 arrows matches for all phases including finals
- 18 arrows matches till quarter of finals, then 12 arrows matches
- 12 arrows matches only
- Set system at best of 5 sets, with top 8 qualifiers going straight to 16ths of finals
Time per arrow:
40 sec.
30 sec.
20 sec.
Shoot off:
3 possible shots
1 arrow only

Team recurve:
- team of 3, 27 arrows
- team of 4 (one alternate), 27 arrows
- team of 3, 24 arrows
- team of 3, set system at best of 4 sets

The pattern to unpredictability is clearly evident during the years. But as practical result for individuals is still the same, with Koreans this year winning almost everything they could win, more than any other time in archery history, we can easily guess that the rules will be soon changed again in terms of time, number of arrows or any other possible added variable. 
As far as the team round is concerned, the combined reduction of time, number of archers and number of arrows as well as the set system are by now succesfull in making any match a kind of lottery. But at the end, usually Koreans win in any case.

Clearly, rules changes have changed the winners in many archery competitions, making any result possible, and there is no way now for any top recurve archer to grant a Gold medal or even a podium to his sponsors, regardless how well he shoots, while compound are at least stillin a more stable and predictable system.

But, of course, all lower level archers and coaches of non top nations appreciate the set system, as at least give them an hope, if not a chance, to win a match against a top level archer or team. 

Real question now should be: can recurve Archery survive in future with medium level archers, only (outside Korea), if all best will follow Brady's idea to change to compound for same reason ? 

P.S. 
He is not the only one thinking to change to compound, just the one that has told it ....


----------



## Mika Savola (Sep 2, 2008)

Let's drop out of the Olympics and go back to shooting double-fitas every day, and everyone will be happy... NOT


----------



## MartinOttosson (May 31, 2011)

For the olympics, I would say that the current match system is a disaster for media coverage. The match play elimination rounds takes several days to complete and the chances of getting enough screen time to be able to atleast somewhat follow the archery competition in the olympics is close to zero. Atleast where I live. Maybe you can go to some specialized online stream to get more archery time, but in the main channels, normally only a few arrows in a few matches are shown. At best the semi finals and the final, but often not even that, atleast not live. No big channel is going to show 3-4 hours of archery each day for a full week to complete 1/64, 1/32, 1/16, 1/8 and 1/4-finals. For me the current system is dead boring since it takes forever to complete. It is also boring since the spectator have no chance what so ever to follow the competition as a whole. You just see a match or two. Not even me as a interested archer can get a picture of the competition. No stars are created among the athletes, since you have no idea if the one you see is better than the opponent or if its just a matter of coincidence. The most interesting part is not the competition, but the technique of the archers and the gear that they are using. I see no reason what so ever to look at a full tournament of archery for a non archer. What they see is something that they dont understand, but it looks cool with the bows. Thats the most common comment. 

I would much rather see a elimination of a similar format as what is used in olympic air gun, where they first shoot a qualification round, and then the top 8 or maybe 16 move on to the finals. All 16 stand on the line at one time and shoot a number of arrows, like 18 or whatever. Then the last 8 is eliminated and the top 8 continue. Then you could either let the lowest ranked step of after each round, or go more like WA Field style and pick the top 4 after a few rounds. Exactly how it´s done doesnt matter, but I would much rather see all top archers on the line in the same time than to spread it out in matches during many days. With some modern screen graphics with colour coding for the archers that risk to get eliminated and who is the current top 3, I would say that I really enjoyed to watch the air gun competition of London. Air gun shooting is really like looking at paint drying, but with that format, it was very interesting. Everything is decided in one bigger "match" and that means that the tv channels can show the full competition from finals and on in one single hour. Also, the number of shots/arrows is higher and coincidence doesnt play nearly as a big role since you now compete against a group instead of just an individual. The big names of the sport gets the chance to show how good they are in direct comparison to all the other elite athletes, and not only against a single person. The best will still win. I will enjoy looking at archery and will not need to sit in the sofa for a week. All good.


----------



## Hoogie2004 (Jun 7, 2014)

The set system is the whole reason this sport is interesting to watch. The compound finals are way less fun to watch then recurve finals, just because of the set system.
The only reason Archery is on TV is because the set system makes the finals interesting. If not for this system, the sport would generate a lot less publicity and have fewer interested people in archery as a result.
If the sport would be less interesting, there would be less publicity, less people practicing archery, less money to be made for the sponsors, and ultimately, less money for staff shooters.

I think everyone that is not the world top, would prefer the Set system in a match, because it offers an opportunity. 

And yes, not having the set system ensures the worlds best archers will almost always reach the gold finals, so Brady is just preaching for his own church here (. It would benefit him and just a few others to lose the set system. Why have quarter finals etc, if we can just take the top seeds and have them shoot a gold medal final... 

I love Brady and his shooting, and this does not change that. But I can't help to be a little bit disappointed about his view, which is (to me) a bit short-sighted, especially since the set system helps with publicity, and ultimately, him being a paid pro to shoot. I think it must have been the disappointment.


----------



## Mormegil (Jan 26, 2012)

http://www.archery-forum.com/showthread.php?43818-Wiunning-major-international-competitions

James Park recently analysed match play results compared to rankings. Results suggest (surprise!) that the better archer on the day will win. You might get the occasional upset but match play is not some sort of broken format producing random champions.


----------



## TomB (Jan 28, 2003)

It will always be a lottery as Vitorio suggests until the archers have to shoot at the same time in the same wind.


----------



## gairsz (Mar 6, 2008)

This situation is not unique. Baseball playoffs and the world series. NHL playoffs and the Stanley cup. NBA playoffs and finals. It is the individual wins not the total score. Blowouts in one game happen all the time, but that does not mean that team wins the series. This has been excepted since like forever.


----------



## Shooterdad (Apr 30, 2014)

If he would have shot better on sets 1, 2 and 5 then he probably wouldn't be saying anything at all. I like him but it seems to be an excuse for his struggles.


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

MartinOttosson said:


> The match play elimination rounds takes several days to complete and the chances of getting enough screen time to be able to at least somewhat follow the archery competition in the olympics is close to zero
> ...
> I would much rather see a elimination of a similar format as what is used in olympic air gun, where they first shoot a qualification round, and then the top 8 or maybe 16 move on to the finals. All 16 stand on the line at one time and shoot a number of arrows, like 18 or whatever. Then the last 8 is eliminated and the top 8 continue.


The current match play system could easily be completed in 2 days at most. Right now, the whole thing takes 5 days but they spread it out intentionally. The team eliminations could easily be done on the afternoon after the qualifying round. They don't really need the women and men to shoot their eliminations on separate days, and the medal rounds are just another hour or so after the quarter finals. But things are intentionally set for another day so the venues can be adjusted to focus on just the 2 archers or teams, and the "hype" can be promoted. 

As for the suggestion of elimination for top 16, then top 8 all on the field at the same time - that's been tried. It was called the "Grand Fita" where the field was cut down after each distance of 36 arrows. Full FITA 1440 qualifying round, then top 24 started from zero and shot 9 arrows at each distance, 90M (or 70M for the women) to 30M. Top 18 then went back to zero score and shot the same, but in reverse distance, starting from 30M going to 90. Then again from zero score with the top 12, 90-30M, and finally with the top 8 shooting 30-90M. This was used in the 1988 Olympics.

Didn't go over all that well, and next Olympics they went to the one-on-one format.


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

TomB said:


> It will always be a lottery as Vitorio suggests until the archers have to shoot at the same time in the same wind.


In Belek during world champioships 2013 for the first time in WA history the time to shoot an arrow has been extended to allow compound shooters to keep their arrows on the rest enough time to be able to release the arrows... But it had to be done many times before already and many times after too ...

Tom, alternate shooting in the wind is obviously another casual factor that may influence the match. I did not mention it, as it there since the beginning. Only has become more and more a deciding factor with the reduction of the time from 40 to 20 seconds. 

But topic is about set system in comparison to pure scoring, all other factors remaining equal. Clearlya top level archers think that compound scoring 15 arrows is more fair system than the totally casual result from the set system.


----------



## wfocharlie (Feb 16, 2013)

Professional athletes need to remember that they are primarily salesmen. Professional sports are not organized for the athletes and their goals and desires. They are organized to sell products. These products are sold by getting people to watch the sports so they can view the advertising. However distasteful this may be to some it is the reality. Organizers will use the form of competition that is most desirable for the SPECTATORS not the athletes.


----------



## midwayarcherywi (Sep 24, 2006)

wfocharlie said:


> Professional athletes need to remember that they are primarily salesmen. Professional sports are not organized for the athletes and their goals and desires. They are organized to sell products. These products are sold by getting people to watch the sports so they can view the advertising. However distasteful this may be to some it is the reality. Organizers will use the form of competition that is most desirable for the SPECTATORS not the athletes.


Spot on. And if the changes had not been made, archery would be a pleasant niche sport not included in the Olympics.


----------



## RickBac (Sep 18, 2011)

Professional Sports are entertainment. If we want to be on TV and grow our sport we must entertain.

As mentioned earlier, Tennis has sets, NASCAR and other Racing has yellow flags, Baseball has innings, etc etc. These breaks in the play or leveling of the field puts butts in the seats, eyes on the screen and Budweiser banners in the background.


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

RickBac said:


> Professional Sports are entertainment. If we want to be on TV and grow our sport we must entertain.
> 
> As mentioned earlier, Tennis has sets, NASCAR and other Racing has yellow flags, Baseball has innings, etc etc. These breaks in the play or leveling of the field puts butts in the seats, eyes on the screen and Budweiser banners in the background.


The topic is around the formula used, not against a spectator friendly solution. If Compound uses 15 arrows matches and it seems that this can be good enough to bring them to Olympic games, why Recurve have to use such type of (set) system?


----------



## Bob Furman (May 16, 2012)

MartinOttosson said:


> For the olympics, I would say that the current match system is a disaster for media coverage. The match play elimination rounds takes several days to complete and the chances of getting enough screen time to be able to atleast somewhat follow the archery competition in the olympics is close to zero. Atleast where I live. Maybe you can go to some specialized online stream to get more archery time, but in the main channels, normally only a few arrows in a few matches are shown. At best the semi finals and the final, but often not even that, atleast not live. No big channel is going to show 3-4 hours of archery each day for a full week to complete 1/64, 1/32, 1/16, 1/8 and 1/4-finals. For me the current system is dead boring since it takes forever to complete. It is also boring since the spectator have no chance what so ever to follow the competition as a whole. You just see a match or two. Not even me as a interested archer can get a picture of the competition. No stars are created among the athletes, since you have no idea if the one you see is better than the opponent or if its just a matter of coincidence. The most interesting part is not the competition, but the technique of the archers and the gear that they are using. I see no reason what so ever to look at a full tournament of archery for a non archer. What they see is something that they dont understand, but it looks cool with the bows. Thats the most common comment.
> 
> I would much rather see a elimination of a similar format as what is used in olympic air gun, where they first shoot a qualification round, and then the top 8 or maybe 16 move on to the finals. All 16 stand on the line at one time and shoot a number of arrows, like 18 or whatever. Then the last 8 is eliminated and the top 8 continue. Then you could either let the lowest ranked step of after each round, or go more like WA Field style and pick the top 4 after a few rounds. Exactly how it´s done doesnt matter, but I would much rather see all top archers on the line in the same time than to spread it out in matches during many days. With some modern screen graphics with colour coding for the archers that risk to get eliminated and who is the current top 3, I would say that I really enjoyed to watch the air gun competition of London. Air gun shooting is really like looking at paint drying, but with that format, it was very interesting. Everything is decided in one bigger "match" and that means that the tv channels can show the full competition from finals and on in one single hour. Also, the number of shots/arrows is higher and coincidence doesnt play nearly as a big role since you now compete against a group instead of just an individual. The big names of the sport gets the chance to show how good they are in direct comparison to all the other elite athletes, and not only against a single person. The best will still win. I will enjoy looking at archery and will not need to sit in the sofa for a week. All good.


Not sure where you are at, but NBC hosted over 1000 hours of the 2012 Olympics online/live including all of the various Archery competitions. I know of no better way to get that sort of face time, do you?


----------



## kshet26 (Dec 20, 2010)

I saw a quote by him recently that he has tired of coming in 4th place, and that he really needed to focus on his game, so clearly the frustration has been building. I was told once that silver is that hardest medal to receive. 

I think some of the problem is the frame of mind, with the exclusion of the set system, cumulative score is the be-all and end-all of this sport. But in the set system score doesn't really matter but it's still recorded. Maybe if the set system removed the 'score' component it would help. Imagine a target face used just for the set system with only the center of the target marked (no graduation for value or score). Something like:









With it you could use the 'in/out' system to divvy up set points, or go the super atomic route and award points based on who is closest to center (9 arrows each, each archer shoots in the same 20 seconds, closest arrow to center gets 1 point, first to 5 points wins, ties settled based on lowest cumulative distance to center).


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

Hoogie2004 said:


> The set system is the whole reason this sport is interesting to watch.



seriously? So the scoring system is better than the sport or the form? this is completely ludicrous. The sport is archers hit the target and hit the gold. The spectators watch the archers shooting. the scoring is way to see who is better. And the current set system sucks completely and is ruining the competitions, and has done away with numbers world records. It has turned the heads up matches into a coin toss. 




wfocharlie said:


> Professional athletes need to remember that they are primarily salesmen. Professional sports are not organized for the athletes and their goals and desires. They are organized to sell products. These products are sold by getting people to watch the sports so they can view the advertising. However distasteful this may be to some it is the reality. Organizers will use the form of competition that is most desirable for the SPECTATORS not the athletes.


Archery is not a spectator sport. Its a sport that you DO. 

and if the set system is such a spectator plus for the viewing TV audience, funny how there was NO archery coverage of the Pan Am games on my Direct TV channels. Everything else was shown. But NO archery. So obviously this set system is not accomplishing the goal. How much product did Hoyt and Easton sell when NONE of the competition was shown? 



midwayarcherywi said:


> Spot on. And if the changes had not been made, archery would be a pleasant niche sport not included in the Olympics.


Archery was not made a core sport because of the set system. Archery is a core sport because out was one of the original Olympic events. And Archery will stay an Olympic event because many many countries compete in the sport and its equal for men and women. It has nothing to do with the set system. 

And while everyone knows the rules for a set system competition, it does not mean everyone agrees with the format, or agrees that it decides who is the best archer. It clearly does not. 

Most telling is that Korea still uses double fita to decide who is best archer. They practice set matches, but use double fita for their internal competitions.


Chris


----------



## midwayarcherywi (Sep 24, 2006)

While a double FITA would certainly determine who is the best shooter, it would kill the sport as a spectator sport. Spectators like uncertainty and tense, close matches. Chris, I don't know where you are receiving your information about how and why a sport becomes a core sport, but all the changes made at the WA level were done to keep the sport relevant in the Olympics. A double FITA snooze fest would have been disastrous.


----------



## ryan b. (Sep 1, 2005)

What Chris said. On everything. 

"Ohhhh this set system is just sooo much more exciting and dramatic than the old fita scoring" said no one, ever. 

NONE, ZERO of any non archers I have had watch competitions (on tv) find it interesting at all. I don't think non archers would find it interesting until it got absolutely stupid (moving targets, exploding arrows etc). 

The above basketball analogy isn't a good one. You're talking games not little runs of scoring within the game. It's akin to scoring 3 times in a row, for a couple plays, wins you the game. No. highest score wins the game. 

Archer isn't a spectator sport except to archers. People will sit and watch because it's a bow and arrow, not because of the rules.


----------



## ryan b. (Sep 1, 2005)

midwayarcherywi said:


> While a double FITA would certainly determine who is the best shooter, it would kill the sport as a spectator sport. Spectators like uncertainty and tense, close matches. Chris, I don't know where you are receiving your information about how and why a sport becomes a core sport, but all the changes made at the WA level were done to keep the sport relevant in the Olympics. A double FITA snooze fest would have been disastrous.



Who are all these spectators on the edge of their seats because of match play? No one. Only the spectators who really know archery get excited. And I think those specstors would find any format fun to watch.


----------



## midwayarcherywi (Sep 24, 2006)

ryan b. said:


> Who are all these spectators on the edge of their seats because of match play? No one. Only the spectators who really know archery get excited. And I think those specstors would find any format fun to watch.


I believe you are incorrect, but hey you are entitled to your opinion.


----------



## ryan b. (Sep 1, 2005)

goid points about compound made above as well. 

That's pretty much as hit or miss/ total points wins, as it gets.
And no one is crying that they need match play to make it more exciting. 

Honestly, I don't think the compound shooters would have it any other way 
Mainly because archery is about repetitive, consistency over time, arrow after arrow. 
And ARCHERS know this. 

Match play sure brings a different angle of mental game into it. I do like that element. But then why not go back to the super pressure of the 12 arrow match lol


----------



## ryan b. (Sep 1, 2005)

midwayarcherywi said:


> I believe you are incorrect, but hey you are entitled to your opinion.


Ok, then the excited people aren't archers but they are friends or family of archers. 
People still got excited before match play.
Most people in the stands aren't completely oblivious to archery. People who ARE casual observers are not going to be attracted to the sport because of the "excitement" of match play. 
Archery is more popular because of better coverage, prettier more fan friendly venues, marketing and movies. Not because of match play.


----------



## ryan b. (Sep 1, 2005)

If match play then maybe more sets? Would that make archers and spectators happy?


----------



## midwayarcherywi (Sep 24, 2006)

A new star. Who knew? In NBC's cable coverage, archery is the top-drawing Olympic sport, averaging about 1.5 million viewers — with basketball the runner-up TV draw.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/spor...ael-Hiestand-NBC-Olympics-coverage/56721300/1


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

chrstphr said:


> Archery was not made a core sport because of the set system. Archery is a core sport because out was one of the original Olympic events. And Archery will stay an Olympic event because many many countries compete in the sport and its equal for men and women. It has nothing to do with the set system.


Just a clarification:


> Archery first appeared in the Olympics in 1900 and was held again in 1904, 1908 and 1920. However, international rules had not yet been developed and each host country used its own format. Because of the resulting confusion, the sport was eliminated from the Olympic program, though unofficial archery exhibitions were held in 1956 and 1964.
> 
> In 1972, after enough countries had adopted the international governing body’s rules, archery was readmitted into the Olympic Games.


 http://nbcolympics.com/sport/archery/


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

kshet26 said:


> I think some of the problem is the frame of mind, with the exclusion of the set system, cumulative score is the be-all and end-all of this sport. But in the set system score doesn't really matter but it's still recorded. Maybe if the set system removed the 'score' component it would help. Imagine a target face used just for the set system with only the center of the target marked (no graduation for value or score).


Same things as the Grand Fita I mentioned above - been there, done that, nobody liked it. A Hit/Miss system was used (for compounds) at some of the 2010 major international events. It was universally reviled by everyone.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

midwayarcherywi said:


> A new star. Who knew? In NBC's cable coverage, archery is the top-drawing Olympic sport, averaging about 1.5 million viewers — with basketball the runner-up TV draw.
> 
> http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/spor...ael-Hiestand-NBC-Olympics-coverage/56721300/1


I have to say I was surprised the first time I read that. I don't get the impression, though, that past years have had anything near that level of popularity in the US.

As much as the set system is maligned, and not as fair an overall measure of an archer's skill, I'd also say that few things are less telegenic or narratively interesting than a giant cattle call of archers all shooting at 70 meter targets at once. Archery is decided by objective metrics in a way that real head to head sports like boxing just can't be, so the artificial method of creating head to head completion where none is required to score the archers is, well, artificial. Yet as people we love stories not data, the narrative of people battling head to head, or at least battling a limited number of competitors where we can visually identify the winners and losers, as with track and field. Imagine if other sports were more like regular archery shoots. What if the 100 meter dash was 64 people at a time at a 64 lane wide 100 meter track, with all the athletes doing the dash for cumulatively shortest time out of 144 runs, on their own start timing. That's kind of what archery is without the set system. And even then, the track and field version would be more interesting


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

Recurve and fingers is too difficult to keep evening out the playing field and helping the lower scoring archer. Turns the sport into a luck fest. 


And Archery in the Olympics has nothing to do with the set system. it was an original Olympic sport in ancient Athens. Then it was in 1900s and was the only Women's sport. 

It was pulled because each country hosting the olympics had a different format. It came back in with all countries chose the same format to compete. 

It was named a core Olympic sport because it promoted sports with equality for MEN and WOMEN, and was contested in every continent. It was not named a core sport because of the set system. And it was not going to be removed. Wrestling was removed because it was not promoted equally for women as it was for men. They allowed that sport to reenter. 

Set system, or total points has nothing to do with Archery being an Olympic sport. And it was the most viewed sport in London, so it is in no danger of being removed in the next Olympics to come. 

I am not advocating going back to a double FITA. I am advocating the set system is ruining the sport and should be done away with. We should go back to a FITA 90, 70, 50, 30, or a double 70 for qualifying and then heads up play, 12 arrows for 120 score. 

Then the pin system still works, and you can compare scores over tournaments from 20 years ago to now. And the better archer will win based on score. Archery spectators enjoy watching when they have done the sport and can appreciate how hard it is. Until then, spectators are not interested and the set system is not going to change that. 


in my misguided opinion. 

Chris


----------



## Paula (Sep 8, 2009)

I believe the set system works. I like one arrow shoot offs if tied but perhaps that could be changed to total points scored to settle the tie.The coverage for archery seemed to be non existent during the Pan Am games covered by ESPN. Except for a picture or two during advertisements,,there was nothing. A failure on their part.

As for Brady's statement,,it must be a stressful time for him. World Championships and than Olympic qualifier back here in the states. There are many men out there working hard right now to have a shot at one of those slots and it will not be easy for anyone. I give him a pass on what he said. One can shoot a 10,10,10 and still just split a set. Anything less than a ten can be considered a failure and it still could have been a great shot. I actually believe there should be three medals for the qualifier and those given out in set play. It is all about form,form,form,,and mental to the 10th power. You can't just go for close like in golf,,you can't hit it a third of the time like in baseball and be considered a success,,or shoot 50% like in basketball and be great,,,it's a center butter as one of our young archers call the yellow,,every time or you go home....it is intense,,I love it


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

chrstphr said:


> Recurve and fingers is too difficult to keep evening out the playing field and helping the lower scoring archer. Turns the sport into a luck fest.
> 
> 
> And Archery in the Olympics has nothing to do with the set system. it was an original Olympic sport in ancient Athens. Then it was in 1900s and was the only Women's sport.
> ...


Archery was booted from the Olympics because it had no international rules. So various NGBs banded together to create FITA. By 1931, FITA created the 10 ring FITA target and international rules. FITA and various NGBs then spent decades begging the IOC to allow it back in because it just wasn't that compelling as a sport to the IOC.



chrstphr said:


> Set system, or total points has nothing to do with Archery being an Olympic sport. And it was the most viewed sport in London, so it is in no danger of being removed in the next Olympics to come.


That televised success was with the *set system* was it not? I don't think that one can assume that a different format will have the same numbers. Viewers want a narrative, they want something they can viscerally experience. 



chrstphr said:


> I am not advocating going back to a double FITA. I am advocating the set system is ruining the sport and should be done away with. We should go back to a FITA 90, 70, 50, 30, or a double 70 for qualifying and then heads up play, 12 arrows for 120 score.
> 
> Then the pin system still works, and you can compare scores over tournaments from 20 years ago to now. And the better archer will win based on score. Archery spectators enjoy watching when they have done the sport and can appreciate how hard it is. Until then, spectators are not interested and the set system is not going to change that.
> 
> Chris


I"m not saying you are wrong about what could work, but I do say that you can't just assume the audience will feel the same about it as you do as a competitor. And for good or for ill, the Olympics, and World Archery, are all about the money (the last figures I saw were that FITA got the bulk of its money from Olympic tv rights, so they have a very, very strong interest in what works on tv, perhaps more so that what works for athletes.).


----------



## TomB (Jan 28, 2003)

kshet26 said:


> Imagine a target face used just for the set system with only the center of the target marked (no graduation for value or score). Something like:
> 
> View attachment 2526897
> 
> ...



Sort of horseshoes with arrows.


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

The most interesting system I've yet seen televised is the shoot-up used in the LAS open. Not as fickle as the set system, and it allows one heck of a Cinderella story victory.

Grant


----------



## Hoogie2004 (Jun 7, 2014)

Warbow said:


> That televised success was with the *set system* was it not? I don't think that one can assume that a different format will have the same numbers. Viewers want a narrative, they want something they can viscerally experience.
> 
> I"m not saying you are wrong about what could work, but I do say that you can't just assume the audience will feel the same about it as you do as a competitor. And for good or for ill, the Olympics, and World Archery, are all about the money (the last figures I saw were that FITA got the bulk of its money from Olympic tv rights, so they have a very, very strong interest in what works on tv, perhaps more so that what works for athletes.).


I fully agree with this view. 

The set system makes archery interesting for non-archers (which are people that might be interested to try if they see it). 
It makes the matches more intense and less predictable, and thus, more entertaining to watch. (imagine NASCAR without yellows, that would be boring..)

If the finals were about score, why not hand out medals after the first round of scoring (144 arrows, 72, whatever), since there is a ranking there, and the one on top is obviously the best...


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

Warbow said:


> I"m not saying you are wrong about what could work, but I do say that you can't just assume the audience will feel the same about it as you do as a competitor. And for good or for ill, the Olympics, and World Archery, are all about the money (the last figures I saw were that FITA got the bulk of its money from Olympic tv rights, so they have a very, very strong interest in what works on tv, perhaps more so that what works for athletes.).


If you don't have the shooters, then you don't have an audience. period. 

If your competitors are not happy with the format, and don't compete. then where are your sponsors and TV coverage? 

perhaps it would be better to lose the Olympics and get back to basics with what Archery is. a family sport with a comradery community. its not a sport chasing publicity or tv time. its a recreational pastime shared by young and old. Archery would be better if it forgot about sponsors and tv time. 

How well has that NIKE sponsorship been with clothing for USA archery? 

Chris


----------



## midwayarcherywi (Sep 24, 2006)

chrstphr said:


> If you don't have the shooters, then you don't have an audience. period.
> 
> If your competitors are not happy with the format, and don't compete. then where are your sponsors and TV coverage?
> 
> ...


You may want to reconsider Chris. You sound like an old timer wishing that new fangled internet thing would go away. Archery is not going back to all whites, with no compounds. Here we are. Now we can play by the rules with grace and good humor, while trying to make tweaks where it makes sense. Ellison's comments were out of bounds.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

Hoogie2004 said:


> If the finals were about score, why not hand out medals after the first round of scoring (144 arrows, 72, whatever), since there is a ranking there, and the one on top is obviously the best...


actually we already do in our National championships. Our USA Nationals gives medals for each distance placing top 3, and the top Qualifier is the NATIONAL CHAMPION. 

The heads up matches the next day are the EASTON OPEN and the winner there is just the Easton Open Champion. 

Chris


----------



## dshea19 (Jun 15, 2015)

I am divided on this one. I do have to admit that watching the set system makes things far more interesting from a spectator's perspective, but I do understand how the archers feel that they are being punished if they prove to be more consistent and still lose. You can hit 9's on a solid basis, and the other guy can be hot for one set, and off for the other. To win in a consistent manner under this format, you have to be a machine... like the Koreans. Pounding the 9 and 10 rings will win regardless of the scoring system. There is a lack of fairness since not everybody is shooting under the same conditions. I think that is probably a bigger problem than the set scoring itself. Perfectly fine for indoor archery, but field archery should be done where all archers have to do with the same conditions.


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

Me personally, I think the biggest thing missing from match play is world/Olympic records. I think it is a HUGE vacuum. Seriously, in the Olympics the biggest thing that draws non-fans to watch an Olympic event, is the opportunity to see history made. Match play doesn't offer that, thus it will be hard for archery to attract the casual watcher in my opinion. 

For example Michael Phelps. I normally don't watch swimming, my kids (or me) are not competitive swimmers, and so no one would ever classify me as a fan of any sort when it comes to swimming. But when Michael Phelps was going for those records, and the record number of gold medals, I will be honest I was tuning to see if history was made.

Anyway my question is this: Why not a 36 arrow round at 70m on a 80cm target? Work the bracket system like before. Heck you can have a standard FITA round or two to establish the brackets for the top 16 or 32 archers, and then work brackets from there. 36 arrows usually takes about an hour to shoot, and thus it won't seem like watching a marathon. The 80cm target will provide more scores than just 9s and 10s, so it would give people who have fell behind hope that they could catch up if they were able to hit a few 9s and 10s, while their competitor is hitting 7s and 8s. Also have the archers shoot at the same time, so that wind will have equal effects on the archers, so that will help eliminate the lottery aspect of the game as well. Anyway with this an archer has an opportunity to set two different records, individual round and cumulative score. I think that would give back to the Olympic sport that match play took out.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

midwayarcherywi said:


> You may want to reconsider Chris. You sound like an old timer wishing that new fangled internet thing would go away. Archery is not going back to all whites, with no compounds. Here we are. Now we can play by the rules with grace and good humor, while trying to make tweaks where it makes sense. Ellison's comments were out of bounds.


perhaps....

did you ever shoot Nationals when it was a double Fita? When it was 12 arrows out of 120 points? 

Then have it go to double 70 quals, then 72 arrow quals? 

How many tournaments have you paid $1000 in airfare and hotel to shoot 72 arrows? 

The more tournaments people choose NOT to go to because of the format, the less the spectators. the worse for the sport. 

Personally i think the 50 meter distance is also bad for compound archery. Perhaps i am an old-timer. I for sure have the age for it. I know what i liked in a format and what i don't. My competing days are numbered and i will be cutting back a lot next year. I encourage as many kids as i can to compete regionally and nationally. Doesn't mean i like the format. 

i think archery distances should be based on score and length of shooting time, not age. My wife just picked up the bow. She shoots maybe 20 pounds. Her distance will be 20-30 yards. for awhile. However if she wants to shoot a tournament with me, she has to shoot 70 because of her age, not her skill level. 

i think tournament distances should be like the FITA pins. shoot a 1000 pin score and 30 meters is your distance, then 1100 pin you can shoot 50 meters. Then next is 1200 pin, once you got that, you shoot 60 meters. Then 1300 pin and you get to shoot 70 meters. age would have nothing to do with it. 

of course you could still shoot any distance you wanted going up. have a 1000 pin and you can shoot 70 meters if you want. 

i would have 30,50, 60 and 70 for all archers. Compound would shoot 80cm target at all distances. You could always shoot up a distance but not down. Your pin level would be on your USAA membership. All national and world tournaments would be at 70 or all four distances. 

and total score would be how heads up matches were decided. Losing 90 meters would make it easy for venues still and tournament hosting. 

maybe i am an old timer...

Chris


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

chrstphr said:


> If you don't have the shooters, then you don't have an audience. period.
> 
> If your competitors are not happy with the format, and don't compete. then where are your sponsors and TV coverage?
> 
> perhaps it would be better to lose the Olympics and *get back to basics with what Archery is. a family sport with a comradery community. its not a sport chasing publicity or tv time. its a recreational pastime shared by young and old.* Archery would be better if it forgot about sponsors and tv time.


There is *nothing* preventing you from doing that right this second. That's what the JOAD/AAP I'm with is, a recreational program for kids, adults and families. And we do it "in spite of" the Olympics :wink:

However, if you want to compete in WA Recurve against a large field of highly trained, well equipped archers in the US, I'd say you need the Olympics. WA Recurve is pretty marginal in the US compared to compound, and its really only hanging on at the level it is because of the Olympics. And USA Archery gets the bulk of its money from its association with the Olympics. Loose the Olympics and WA recurve competitive opportunities in the US will tank.


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

Come on, lets be real here, the set system is not why people watch archery. It is because people enjoy watching archery.

NBC totally misrepresents facts. People watched the archery through their online streaming broadcast, not on TV. I orient my life around the summer and winter olympics and watch every channel and stream I can get every waking minute during the 2 weeks of competitions. One thing for sure, up here in the NW, not 1 second of archery made it to TV. NBC was too busy broadcasting every microsecond of beach volleyball and diving. How many equestrian events did they show? Decathalon? pentatalon, skeet, rifle, pistol? Speed walking got more TV coverage than archery. Fortunately it was on their website for streaming.

Because it was only on their NBC website and was via streaming, people had to deliberately make an effort to watch it. And with all the internet hickups, it was a deliberate effort to watch. People don't accidentally watch archery, it is because they want to watch it. Match Play is not the reason people choose to watch archery.

I am with Brady, and others. Total score is what gets you though each phase of the competition.

I wouldn't be surprised if there are coaches out there that monitor scores in real time that tell their athletes to drop a point or 2 just to alter ones placement in the seeding for match play.

Let scores rule the day, not luck of who you shoot against, or time of day, or weather condition at the time of your particular line, or the light of the day, etc.


One thing for sure, when (not if) Brady goes compound, he will make a boat load of more money and have a very long professional archery career.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

erose said:


> Me personally, I think the biggest thing missing from match play is world/Olympic records. I think it is a HUGE vacuum. Seriously, in the Olympics the biggest thing that draws non-fans to watch an Olympic event, is the opportunity to see history made. Match play doesn't offer that, thus it will be hard for archery to attract the casual watcher in my opinion.
> 
> For example Michael Phelps. I normally don't watch swimming, my kids (or me) are not competitive swimmers, and so no one would ever classify me as a fan of any sort when it comes to swimming. But when Michael Phelps was going for those records, and the record number of gold medals, I will be honest I was tuning to see if history was made.
> 
> Anyway my question is this: Why not a 36 arrow round at 70m on a 80cm target? Work the bracket system like before. Heck you can have a standard FITA round or two to establish the brackets for the top 16 or 32 archers, and then work brackets from there. 36 arrows usually takes about an hour to shoot, and thus it won't seem like watching a marathon. The 80cm target will provide more scores than just 9s and 10s, so it would give people who have fell behind hope that they could catch up if they were able to hit a few 9s and 10s, while their competitor is hitting 7s and 8s. Also have the archers shoot at the same time, so that wind will have equal effects on the archers, so that will help eliminate the lottery aspect of the game as well. Anyway with this an archer has an opportunity to set two different records, individual round and cumulative score. I think that would give back to the Olympic sport that match play took out.


Personally, I'd like to see IFAA longbow be the Olympic bow class (with 2 piece takedowns allowed). I think that would really put the emphasis on the human performance. Others have pointed out, though, that Olympics fans want to see perfection, so they expect 9s and 10s. :dontknow:


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Mr. Roboto said:


> Come on, lets be real here, the set system is not why people watch archery. It is because people enjoy watching archery.


I think we need some statistics on this. We are all able to quote our personal preferences, but I don't get the impression that we have good data on what the general public will watch vis-a-vis set archery vs. other types of competitions. I mostly watch archery to check out top form. I don't actually find watching archery events on tv that interesting, and when I do watch for the competition, I prefer the head to head matches.


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

Warbow said:


> I think we need some statistics on this. We are all able to quote our personal preferences, but I don't get the impression that we have good data on what the general public will watch vis-a-vis set archery vs. other types of competitions. I mostly watch archery to check out top form. I don't actually find watching archery events on tv that interesting, and when I do watch for the competition, I prefer the head to head matches.


The general public wasn't watching channel 5, and all of a sudden archery showed up, and they got excited because of the format. If one wanted to watch archery, they had to get on their computer, got to the overloaded NBC website, wait long times for latency issues, go through the endless pages to find the archery events, and then click on the past or live streaming. All of this was a deliberate act because they wanted to watch archery. It has nothing to do with the format. I contend the same number of people would have watched it regardless of the format because they enjoy archery.

NBC quotes high numbers of people watching the archery events. Well high numbers are a direct result of number of people that participate in the sport themselves. There are more people doing archery than equestrian. Archery gets more internet hits than equestrian.

I am hoping that NBC will take those internet numbers from the last olympics, and actually give archers real prime time TV coverage for 2016. If they do that, there will be more people jumping into archery.


----------



## midwayarcherywi (Sep 24, 2006)

chrstphr said:


> perhaps....
> 
> did you ever shoot Nationals when it was a double Fita? When it was 12 arrows out of 120 points?
> 
> ...


Sorry to hear your competing days are numbered. I compete because I enjoy the heck out of competing, versus chasing the Olympics. I hope in time your love of the sport and competing in it will change your mind about just going for the Olympics.

I am an old timer and have seen this sport change so much over the decades. Some of it I liked, some of it not. What has not changed is the enjoyment I get from archery competitions. It is the people. It is the camaraderie. It is what you choose to make of it. I choose to enjoy every moment on the field. Life is too short to do otherwise.

The current format does not always reward the best shooter. It does reward the best pressure shooter. Bring it when you have to bring it. 

I am sure there will be changes in the future. Aren't there always? I guess when that happens ill figure out what I need to do and shoot it.


----------



## RickBac (Sep 18, 2011)

We all have a different opinion on what is best for the sport.

All sports are something we do. The point of the set system was to make it spectator friendly, more exciting. That is what governing bodies in the sport want. They want viewership, they want sponsorship (outside of archery companies). I think all of us (archers and coaches) agree that seeing who has highest score at the end of a full FITA would show us who is the best archer on that day(s). However, no spectator wants to sit and watch archery for that long. People understand head to head competition. People want to watch the comeback. If we want this sport to jump into the upper levels of professional sports, the rules have to reflect what the spectator wants and can understand. The competitors needs come second to the greater future growth of the sport.

If tennis did not have sets, the sport would be like watching grass grow. If the scores did not reset someone could take a big lead and the channel would get changed.

Golf at the Ryder cup uses match play, that way each hole is a new game. Keeps it exciting for the fans.

Racing, especially NASCAR, realizes this ten fold. The magic caution flag comes out for debris and the field closes up. How often does a driver lose a half a lap lead when a caution flag appears with 3 laps left? Drivers hate it, fans love it. 

If we can come up with a better system that spectators can understand and watch, especially with the current immediate channel flipping, then propose it and we can discuss it.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

I shot traditional, then barebow, before finally taking up Olympic recurve. I didn't want to take up Olympic recurve, I wanted to continue to compete in barebow. However, barebow wasn't a discipline offered for the Olympics or USAT. 

So I had a choice. Adapt or not play in those competitions. Some choose to adapt. Some choose to not play. I'm glad I chose to adapt.


----------



## Mormegil (Jan 26, 2012)

midwayarcherywi said:


> The current format does not always reward the best shooter. It does reward the best pressure shooter. Bring it when you have to bring it.


Statistics suggests otherwise. Read James Park's paper. It covers this. When you ignore how it feels or looks and just run the numbers what you end up with is that the best shooters win in matchplay. I've seen debates before about the "matchplay specialist" - a mediocre tournament shooter who shines under pressure. It's a myth. 

So we now have a format that is television friendly and allows the best shooter to win. Wanting to go back to double FITA's means you might as well go back to white uniforms and riding a horse and buggy to the event.

I think it's important not to blow one moment of frustration from someone who I'm guessing has an ultra competitive personality into a reason to spin the sport around.


----------



## Rick McKinney (Mar 4, 2008)

So this set system isn't good? Why does Vegas have 10-15 archers who shoot perfect for 3 days and then everybody gets excited about the shoot offs? These archers who can shoot flawlessly for 3 days have a hard time getting 3 arrows in the center when it comes to shoot offs.  Oh, and the Vegas event continues to grow and grow, although we shoot fewer and fewer arrows. Originally they shot 60 arrows a day. Now it is down to 30, but the main excitement is the shoot offs. Similar to the elimination rounds. 

The only reason head to head competitions are not acceptable here in the US is that we do not practice it. We still are stuck in the old world of wanting to shoot lots of arrows and seeing who has the highest score in the end. Our National Championships are based on a double 70 meter round. Then they offer a US Open? for the eliminations. I believe they should make the eliminations the National Champion and offer a High Score award for those who shot the highest score during the double 70 meter round. We are doing a disservice for our archers when we fight this. 

Here is a good example as to how it works. In AZ they shoot the elimination rounds for state titles. In California, they continue to shoot the FITA round or 1440 as they call it now. At the National Target Championships California had the most archers there, but if you check the medal count and percentage of return, the AZ archers cleaned up. This is due to their willingness to help encourage their youth to start thinking and training like the rest of the world.


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

chrstphr said:


> ...I am advocating the set system is ruining the sport and should be done away with.


What would be your evidence for that? Can you define what you mean by "ruining"?


----------



## Rick McKinney (Mar 4, 2008)

What's really funny is that the set system was designed with the top archers in mind. If a top archer had one bad shot, they lost in the "120" round. Now, they can do just what Luis did and still come back and win. I am sure many of us feel bad for Brady, but realistically, he had the opportunity and did not capitalize on it. Maybe he will come back with a vengeance at the World Target Championships.


----------



## jguardia (Aug 28, 2014)

limbwalker said:


> I shot traditional, then barebow, before finally taking up Olympic recurve. I didn't want to take up Olympic recurve, I wanted to continue to compete in barebow. However, barebow wasn't a discipline offered for the Olympics or USAT.
> 
> So I had a choice. Adapt or not play in those competitions. Some choose to adapt. Some choose to not play. I'm glad I chose to adapt.


Maybe Brady can jump from recurve into compound and still compete at the Olympic level. Best of both worlds for him.

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


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

Stash said:


> What would be your evidence for that? Can you define what you mean by "ruining"?


before with the 120 round, anyone in archery could compare their scores to a world class archer's scores. 

Parl Sung Hyun averging 110 or better. 118 out of 120 set by Yun Ok Hee. You could look at scores from one tournament to another and compare how your favorite archer was doing. The FITA pins still mattered and were current. Shooting a 1300 or 1350 was a benchmark and a goal. 

Now with the set system, archers advance or fall until one is crowned. And then theres nothing to compare. 6-0,6-2, 6 whatever. 

Theres no more World record. No more FITA pin. Shooting for a 630 or a 650 out of 72 isn't the same thing. Most of the records are now obsolete. It is dumbing down the sport to nothing. Not about scores, not about records, Might as well make it a one arrow shoot off for all eliminations. That way the spectators can follow the entire 1/32 to finals and root for their archer. Thats about the luck factor in it. 

The more you even it out so that luck is the deciding factor with limited time to shoot, alternating shooting in the wind, it becomes a coin flip even for top archers. I guess i am a dinosaur. 

But i would hazard a guess that more people on the world competition circuit don't like the set system as well, but don't say anything as they don't want to be vocal against World Archery. 

And if everyone loves it and it works so well, then where is the boost in spectator numbers? 

I was at nationals this year. Beautiful venue, hundreds and hundreds of archers from Youth to adult from all over the USA. Where was the filming by NBC? CBS Sports? ESPN? Even local news? 

No where.....thats where. 

I see Curling and Darts get primetime showings. You can't tell me there are more curlers or dart throwers than archers. I don't thin format is getting more spectators. I think USA archery needs to get EPSN or CBS etc to get an interest in showing our largest meets. Vegas, Nationals, Field etc. That gets spectators. 


Chris


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Rick McKinney said:


> So this set system isn't good? Why does Vegas have 10-15 archers who shoot perfect for 3 days and then everybody gets excited about the shoot offs? These archers who can shoot flawlessly for 3 days have a hard time getting 3 arrows in the center when it comes to shoot offs.  Oh, and the Vegas event continues to grow and grow, although we shoot fewer and fewer arrows. Originally they shot 60 arrows a day. Now it is down to 30, but the main excitement is the shoot offs. Similar to the elimination rounds.
> 
> The only reason head to head competitions are not acceptable here in the US is that we do not practice it. We still are stuck in the old world of wanting to shoot lots of arrows and seeing who has the highest score in the end. Our National Championships are based on a double 70 meter round. Then they offer a US Open? for the eliminations. I believe they should make the eliminations the National Champion and offer a High Score award for those who shot the highest score during the double 70 meter round. We are doing a disservice for our archers when we fight this.
> 
> Here is a good example as to how it works. In AZ they shoot the elimination rounds for state titles. In California, they continue to shoot the FITA round or 1440 as they call it now. At the National Target Championships California had the most archers there, but if you check the medal count and percentage of return, the AZ archers cleaned up. This is due to their willingness to help encourage their youth to start thinking and training like the rest of the world.


Yup.

A couple years ago, we introduced double-elimination matchplay on day two of the state JOAD outdoor championships for Texas. The ranking round was just that - a ranking round. Then all the kids got to shoot a minimum of two matches, for the right to be called "state champion." 

There were some major upsets. There were some eyes opened wide. And there were some archers who went home and started practicing their 3 arrow sets and head to head mental game. The results show in the Texas JOAD archer's performances at Nationals in the past few years.

The spectators and parents absolutely love it. They can look down at the bales and see the set points and know exactly where their archer stands.

This is the new game. Embrace it or switch to something else. 

If they allow compounds in the Olympics, I predict it won't be 3 cycles before compounds are also shooting sets.


----------



## bobnikon (Jun 10, 2012)

chrstphr said:


> I see Curling and Darts get primetime showings. You can't tell me there are more curlers or dart throwers than archers. I don't thin format is getting more spectators. I think USA archery needs to get EPSN or CBS etc to get an interest in showing our largest meets. Vegas, Nationals, Field etc. That gets spectators.
> 
> 
> Chris


Come on Chris,

You can't seriously be comparing archery to curling and darts.

There is no beer in archery! :beer:


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

chrstphr said:


> before with the 120 round, anyone in archery could compare their scores to a world class archer's scores.


You still can. Harder to find, but the individual arrow scores are still tracked and posted.


> Theres no more World record. No more FITA pin. Shooting for a 630 or a 650 out of 72 isn't the same thing. Most of the records are now obsolete.


It's a new millenium. Things change. Nobody runs the 100 yard sprint, nobody shoots the 9-7-5-3-1- American Round. These records are obsolete, but life has gone on somehow. I personally have maybe 5 Canadian records for rounds nobody shoots any more. It hasn't really affected me all that much.


> Might as well make it a one arrow shoot off for all eliminations. That way the spectators can follow the entire 1/32 to finals and root for their archer.


Reductio ad absurdum


> I guess i am a dinosaur.


Well, even dinosaurs had a few hundred million years to do things their way, but time moves on.


> But i would hazard a guess that more people on the world competition circuit don't like the set system as well, but don't say anything as they don't want to be vocal against World Archery.


If they don't like it, why are more and more archers and countries participating in WA events? World Cup is hugely popular, and this World Target Champs has the highest entry numbers ever.


> And if everyone loves it and it works so well, then where is the boost in spectator numbers?


It's archery, man. Nobody will watch archery until the one-on-one is _*AT*_ each other.


> I was at nationals this year. Beautiful venue, hundreds and hundreds of archers from Youth to adult from all over the USA.


 Doesn't sound like "ruined" to me.


> Where was the filming by NBC? CBS Sports? ESPN? Even local news?


It's archery, man. Nobody will watch archery until the one-on-one is _*AT*_ each other.


> I see Curling and Darts get primetime showings. You can't tell me there are more curlers or dart throwers than archers.


There's actually something to watch there. You can see what's going on. And there are MANY more dart players worldwide, and in some countries MANY more curlers than there are target archers. In any event, what do numbers have to do with showing sports on TV? How many 4-man bobsledders are there? When's the last time you went discus-ing (not "discussing" )? And if participation numbers and public activity in the sport correlate to TV coverage, why isn't there a 24/7 gun-shooting channel?


----------



## Rick McKinney (Mar 4, 2008)

Chris. I am not sure how old you are, but if you are 50 or older, you can shoot with Gabe and myself at the Master events! They have 900 rounds and it is lots of fun. No spectators, but still fun for the archer and the price is really good. Every 5 year age group gets medals too!  50-54, 55-59, 60-64, etc all the way up to 100!!!! We don't worry so much about what the elites are doing. We just compete and have lots of fun.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Rick McKinney said:


> Chris. I am not sure how old you are, but if you are 50 or older, you can shoot with Gabe and myself at the Master events! They have 900 rounds and it is lots of fun. No spectators, but still fun for the archer and the price is really good. Every 5 year age group gets medals too!  50-54, 55-59, 60-64, etc all the way up to 100!!!! We don't worry so much about what the elites are doing. We just compete and have lots of fun.


Where's the "Like" button for this?


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

Hey, Rick, good to see you back on AT. Stick around this time.  

I still have your bronze medal from the 1979 Pan Am Games in Puerto Rico. (Stan, Canadian team)


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> why isn't there a 24/7 gun-shooting channel?


There's more than one of those, I think.


----------



## dmacey (Mar 27, 2015)

Rick McKinney said:


> Chris. I am not sure how old you are, but if you are 50 or older, you can shoot with Gabe and myself at the Master events! They have 900 rounds and it is lots of fun. No spectators, but still fun for the archer and the price is really good. Every 5 year age group gets medals too!  50-54, 55-59, 60-64, etc all the way up to 100!!!! We don't worry so much about what the elites are doing. We just compete and have lots of fun.


I'd sure be interested in this. I'm in my 50's but am not going the way us old guys are expected to go and do compound in our dotage. My Win & Win just keeps jumping back into my hand, so I've decided to stop fighting it and am going fulltime olympic style. Unfortunately, in my area I know only one other gentleman in my age group who shoot olympic style and I'm not sure where to go for tournaments, etc., once I get into "competition" condition... Now way I'm shooting against those JOAD kids either, they're awesome! 

DM


----------



## dmacey (Mar 27, 2015)

limbwalker said:


> Where's the "Like" button for this?


Exactly. What an honor it would be to shoot with Rick McKinney too!

DM


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

limbwalker said:


> There's more than one of those, I think.


Really? I get like 900 channels, haven't seen one. Maybe our social dictatorial gun-hating government here in Canada blocks them from coming from US sources.  Either that, or I just haven't noticed because gun shooting is even more boring to watch than archery. Except Youtube gun "fails". I like those.


----------



## jwit76 (May 23, 2015)

Ellisons comments certainly seem to be uncharacteristic of the interviews I've seen in the past, but I'm sure frustration can bulid up in any athelete eventually until the point that it needs to vent. I believe any athlete that truly loves their sport needs to also be a servant to the sport, with an understanding that the viewer and sponsors are the lifeblood of existence. It can be good for the athlete, but if it's not good for the spectator there's no future expectation of growth. Every athlete must also be an ambassador for their chosen discipline. 

I happen to live and work in the race hub of the country, and I've witnessed mAny times NASCAR, for example, forgetting that the folks in the stands are the true customers and bill payers.


----------



## RickBac (Sep 18, 2011)

jwit76 said:


> Ellisons comments certainly seem to be uncharacteristic of the interviews I've seen in the past, but I'm sure frustration can bulid up in any athelete eventually until the point that it needs to vent. I believe any athlete that truly loves their sport needs to also be a servant to the sport, with an understanding that the viewer and sponsors are the lifeblood of existence. It can be good for the athlete, but if it's not good for the spectator there's no future expectation of growth. Every athlete must also be an ambassador for their chosen discipline.
> 
> I happen to live and work in the race hub of the country, and I've witnessed mAny times NASCAR, for example, forgetting that the folks in the stands are the true customers and bill payers.


Well said.

I am glad Brady has the passion he does for the sport. He was frustrated and vented, nothing wrong with that. I wish we all had that kind of passion for what we do for a living.


----------



## jmvargas (Oct 21, 2004)

if it's all about recognition why not just give medals for highest scores in the elimination rounds and again for the over-all winners in the match play....

....we do it in golf all the time---low gross and low net champions, 1st runner-up and 2nd runner-up--ie--1st,2nd,and 3rd place.....

but if it's not only about recognition....carry on!


----------



## ccwilder3 (Sep 13, 2003)

I shoot compound and much prefer the 15 arrow cumulative system for outdoor archery.

Rick is right of course, the set system is there to keep one bad arrow from taking a top shooter out of the tournament. I personally feel one really bad arrow should take a shooter out of the tournament. Every arrow should count.


----------



## Rick McKinney (Mar 4, 2008)

Stash said:


> I still have your bronze medal from the 1979 Pan Am Games in Puerto Rico. (Stan, Canadian team)


Ouch! Do you want me to give you an address to ship it?  Just kidding. I have picked up quite a few medals off of ebay over the years.....


----------



## dmacey (Mar 27, 2015)

ccwilder3 said:


> I shoot compound and much prefer the 15 arrow cumulative system for outdoor archery.
> 
> Rick is right of course, the set system is there to keep one bad arrow from taking a top shooter out of the tournament. I personally feel one really bad arrow should take a shooter out of the tournament. Every arrow should count.


That kind of goes back to the spectator interest thing again, though. Suppose a shot becomes a perfect storm - a huge gust of wind + a collapse on the back end + a giant yank at the release - and you miss the bale (It can happen, I saw it happen to Khatuna Lorig once). Everyone watching it on Youtube is glued to their computer for 15 seconds, but if it's an elite level shoot - "uhp, well, that's over" and off you go to watch something else. In the set system, though, it's possible to claw your way back at least sort of from even a really bad shot. And that can be pretty dramatic.

Otherwise, yeah, I have to agree you have a definite point. On some level, you should be penalized for mistakes in a competition. I shot a local tournament last week with my compound; I didn't practice it all the week before because I was having too much fun practicing my recurve. So I knew I was going to have lapses in judgment and sure enough I did. I still had a blast, but definitely felt the punishment of those few that I slung out into the 4 ring. It was just for fun but I also knew if I'd taken it seriously and actually practiced I might have shot clean with some number of X's....

So I dunno, I'm kind of undecided as a spectator. There seem to be plusses and minuses to each approach. As a competitor, I'm always more worried about doing better than I did before and only secondarily how I do against someone else, so I don't know which I would prefer....

Interesting thread.....
DM


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

Rick McKinney said:


> Chris. I am not sure how old you are, but if you are 50 or older, you can shoot with Gabe and myself at the Master events! They have 900 rounds and it is lots of fun. No spectators, but still fun for the archer and the price is really good. Every 5 year age group gets medals too!  50-54, 55-59, 60-64, etc all the way up to 100!!!! We don't worry so much about what the elites are doing. We just compete and have lots of fun.


i am 52, and that sounds fun. 


Chris


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

Stash said:


> I still have your bronze medal from the 1979 Pan Am Games in Puerto Rico.





Rick McKinney said:


> Ouch! Do you want me to give you an address to ship it?  Just kidding.


Just in case anyone is interested in trivia - Rick came in 3rd at the Pan Ams in 1979 after Rod Baston and Darrell Pace, but at the time they had a rule where one country couldn't win more than 2 medals per event. Rick Bednar was 4th, so I ended up "winning" the bronze despite actually finishing 5th.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archery_at_the_1979_Pan_American_Games

So as you can see, losing a medal due to the rules isn't anything new to archery.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> with an understanding that the viewer and sponsors are the lifeblood of existence


Weeellll, not exactly. You're mixing the amateur side of this sport (you know, the part that's kept it going for well over 100 years in the US) and the professional side. On the professional side, you of course are right. And Brady and others who are professionals must remember that. But for us recreational "amateur" archers, we don't need viewers (we are the viewers) and we don't need sponsors to keep things going along quite well.



> I wish we all had that kind of passion for what we do for a living.


I didn't file that comment under "passion for what he does" but rather more like complaining about a decision the boss made. And yes, we all do that at times even if we are passionate about our jobs.


----------



## LBinTN (Sep 30, 2010)

limbwalker said:


> As for the set system, it's what's made Tennis worth watching for many decades. It's doing the same for archery. It works, it has the desired effect, and we have more happy viewers as a result.


Now we just need some better coverage for those viewers. Pan Am coverage for archery was pretty lacking.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

LBinTN said:


> Now we just need some better coverage for those viewers. Pan Am coverage for archery was pretty lacking.


I completely agree.


----------



## gairsz (Mar 6, 2008)

Doesn't seem frustrated at the end of this match. A great moment but after five sets Brady should have lost if you count arrow for arrow. You can't have it both ways. No public complaining from the Koreans.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

gairsz said:


> Doesn't seem frustrated at the end of this match. A great moment but after five sets Brady should have lost if you count arrow for arrow. You can't have it both ways. No public complaining from the Koreans.
> 
> View attachment 2530537


Why would he be? He shot the higher score. I'm sure you intended to use an example where Brady had the lower cumulative score, but still won the match (which I'm sure has happened before).


----------



## bobnikon (Jun 10, 2012)

limbwalker said:


> Why would he be? He shot the higher score. I'm sure you intended to use an example where Brady had the lower cumulative score, but still won the match (which I'm sure has happened before).


Actually by my read he was down by a point, cumulative score, before the tie break, so no need for a tie break. He would have lost...


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Ah, right you are.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

Rick McKinney said:


> Chris. I am not sure how old you are, but if you are 50 or older, you can shoot with Gabe and myself at the Master events! They have 900 rounds and it is lots of fun. No spectators, but still fun for the archer and the price is really good. Every 5 year age group gets medals too!  50-54, 55-59, 60-64, etc all the way up to 100!!!! We don't worry so much about what the elites are doing. We just compete and *have lots of fun.*


But why was so much of it at my expense???!!!!!! :set1_punch:


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

Topic discussion moved again about machplay vs qualification to decide the winner. But it was about Set system vs Cumulative scores in matches.

The system choosen has different effects in terms of Archers competing and in terms of TV spectators. 
Spectators on the stands don't count in this, as they will be there or not there independently from the formula. Archers, parents and those driven by curiosity are the typical public on the stands, and formula used does not influence their presence or absence. May be no one noted, but WA has anounced that in Rio the ranking round for the first time will be in the official program and will have spectators. This after the problems in London were plenty of people were cueing otside the field to buy tickets to watch the ranking round and there were no stands and no ticket for it. Personally, I have seen stands full in Atlanta in 96, were formula was allowing 4 matches a the same time, stands empty in Sydney, very few spectators in Athens, stands full again in London. And spectator records still lists Los Angeles 4 days double Fita as one of those with more cumulative spectators on stands. 
But, sport needs to be televised with good audience to stay at the Olympic Games, so many sports, archery included, have been modified to become more TV spectator friendly. So, the matchplay has been invented by a TV director, and rules changed continuously following TV suggestions. Fast shooting and long scoring time for commercials (too fast the action and too long the commercials at present, anyhow), but in any case in the formula both 12 arrows cumultive total and present set system were and are easy to explain to casual viewers. 
During recent European Games I have watched several different "minor" sports in TV and for sure many are more complicated to understand than archery. But i liked rifle competition with cumulative score and one shooter only dropping from the line after each shot in the finals. Very similar to Vegas formula, very fair for shooters and very understandable for spectators (suppose this is the formula Martin was referring to).
So, provided that the 12 arrows formula was good for TV for many years, why to change it to an even more unpredictable formula? Provided that London Gold Team final between Italy and USA was on top of TV audience in Italy and in several other countries with its cumulative scoring, why to change to set system and at the same time reduce number of arrows? 

My conclusion is still that these changes in formula are not related to TV or spectators, but to the need to make as many countries as possible winning sometime a medal. Result is clearly intentionally planned against best archers, in a kind of undocumented handicap system. But, unfortunately, while all other countries may have just one single archer at top world level, Koreans still have tens if not hundreds of them and they are the only country that can really train at top level in any kind of formula without spending a fortune to travel to face may be one or two real top level matches two or three times a year. So their medal count is this year more than ever, in a clean terrible sequence including Nimes, Las Vegas, Indoor world cup final, Shanghai, Antalya, World Junior champs and Universiads. And that will 99% cover also Copenhagen Word champs next week. 
This situations (no more medals for anyone but Koreans only) is seriously jeopardizng the survival of many archery federations, even the largest ones, and it is well undertood at top managemnt level. Solution found up to now are joint training camps. France went to train with Great Britain 2 weeks ago, and the week before Italy, Germany, Netherland and Ukarina had a training camp toghether. But, for sure, archers like Brady Ellison, Mauro Nespoli, Florian Kallund, Victor Ruban, Rick Van der Ven are those that being closer to Koreans in terms of absolute scores, have to face the toughter reality: they are those that have the handicap, not those that profit from it 

Post too long, apologize if boring


----------



## Azzurri (Mar 10, 2014)

We do the cumulative arrows thing for quali and you already get the benefit of being the best cumulative points archer that day through higher seeding and "easier" matches (at least on paper). I don't think the casual fan is going to be entertained by 30 mins - 1 hr more of cumulative arrows. The H2H thing is drama for the cameras, and I think the increased potential for surprise in sets is actually what tv would want. I can't believe when people are shooting 27-30 under those stressful conditions that it's not really the best man or woman winning, at least to an extent we can be comfortable with. Guy who beat Brady put up some good numbers except for the round where he shot late, and then I wonder if that happens if he's not already leading.

Compound you have people who can shoot close to or on the dot 150 and that makes that a little different. The viewer would get that they don't miss often and the misses become what is suspenseful. More like indoor. But recurve even Brady might shoot a 27 some ends, and he was 2 points down after 2 sets. If that guy doesn't shoot the late arrow he loses on both systems, right? And if one archer is a few points down in a cumulative points system the suspense the viewer will want disappears.

I did a tournament in June with knockouts after quali and it was a single 5 arrow end. The guy who knocked me out was simply better, but it would be in that context that more equally matched archers could see it as a lottery. OK, he had a breeze, I started slow, whatever. But even in this match Brady started slow, climbed back in, only to lose the last set. That's not a lottery, he was able to use his skill to fight back, but ultimately he'd handed too much away early and lost. That to me is a reasonable outcome using a more dramatic approach.


----------



## tunedlow (Nov 7, 2012)

Rick McKinney said:


> The only reason head to head competitions are not acceptable here in the US is that we do not practice it. We still are stuck in the old world of wanting to shoot lots of arrows and seeing who has the highest score in the end. Our National Championships are based on a double 70 meter round. Then they offer a US Open? for the eliminations. I believe they should make the eliminations the National Champion and offer a High Score award for those who shot the highest score during the double 70 meter round. We are doing a disservice for our archers when we fight this.


Before I started competing I didn't get what the deal was with the OR set system but when I participated in eliminations and team rounds -boy that was where the fun was for me. The set system requires a shooter to shoot the best shot they can get off the bow. Period. I like the pressure situation of OR rounds because it forces novice shooters like me to just knuckle down, not think and have fun.


----------



## Rick McKinney (Mar 4, 2008)

lksseven said:


> But why was so much of it at my expense???!!!!!! :set1_punch:


You love the attention!!!!


----------



## dchan (Jun 29, 2004)

Hey Rick

Good to see you still poking your head in here once in a while. It's been a long time since we saw a post from you..

:wink:


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

If they truly want to make archery more spectator and TV exciting, then change the target to something like a dart board. Put strategy into the shoot, have a risk reward or punishment system.

Should the archer choose to go after the tripple 20 for 60 points and take the chance that a slight miss would yield a 1 or a 5? Or should they go with the center bull for 50 and a slight miss can be a 25, or a larger miss could be anything from 1 to 20. Have them shoot the double ring to start the scoring. Have them shoot a 501 round and the first to exit with an exact score.

Right now, missing the 10 ring means there is a lot of 9 to hit all the way around the that 10. So left-right and up-down errors yield the same 9. But on a dart board, going after that tripple 20 for 60 points, means an up-down error is only 20 points, a 3'clock or 9'clock error is 2 or 10 points. Then all other small errors is either 1 or 5 points.

If we want to keep it a skill based game, and yet add some uncertainty where a 1 inch error isn't always a 9, but could be a wide variety of points, that can really make for some really exciting spectator and TV viewing.

How many people here will find it exciting to shoot on a 122cm diameter dart board, and have to start double ring at the beginning of the shoot. How many archers in the world would be able to shoot a 6 arrow out in a 301 round? I don't think the Koreans would be able to do that?

I am not saying shoot that format, but it could make for a very interesting format.


----------



## gairsz (Mar 6, 2008)

USA takes Gold. Congratulations to Khatuna. Any protests or complaining after this match members of the USA team or organization?


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

Rick McKinney said:


> You love the attention!!!!


Ouch ... the truth is so rude ...


----------



## bobnikon (Jun 10, 2012)

You wonder if Brady still would have said it if he had seen those results first???


----------



## ryan b. (Sep 1, 2005)

gairsz said:


> USA takes Gold. Congratulations to Khatuna. Any protests or complaining after this match members of the USA team or organization?
> 
> View attachment 2533706


Why would USA complain? Khatuna won the sets but shot an actual lower total score. 
This is exactly what the anti-set scoring people are citing. Khatuna put together better runs of consistency but still shot a lower total. 

This was my basketball analogy from above. You don't win the game by scoring 4times in a row when your opponent only scored twice during the same time; You win the game by scoring the most total points. 

I get the arguments for set scoring regarding mental pressure etc but it's really not that many arrows anyway. And of of the 12 total arrows shot, Khatuna scored less. 

The set system seems to just be scoring consistency in accuracy over 3 arrows. That's pretty chancy. Gives everyone a chance to win. Even if you're not shooting as well as the person you just "defeated".


----------



## Rick McKinney (Mar 4, 2008)

The one thing many of you might be missing is that when the total score was used in the past, many bronze medal matches where higher scores than the gold medal matches. Obviously, the pressure was a bit higher, but the public only noticed the scores and questioned why the high score did not win? Total score should not be compared to other matches for this reason. We as archers can probably understand this. Well some can for sure. Anyway, the spectators were frustrated and confused due to the varying scores in different matches. 

As a commentator for the 2012 Archery Games, I have met many "non" archery people who have told me how exciting and thrilling the round was watching the event. Most archers just want to see good shooting and a good match. Spectators want to see excitement and on the edge matches that can change in one shot. All in all, the good shooters still win the rounds. They just have to work harder!


----------



## tbrash01 (Oct 7, 2010)

Archery has always been an exciting sport for the archers. I remember when the Grand FITA was under threat almost 30 years ago with the ideas of "shoot-off" style tournaments coming. I agree with Brady's frustration, even though I don't agree this was the way to vent about it, but needless to say I agree. I see his point about having more points and still losing due to "sets". The sets are currently the worlds compromise to be on the same level in competition. As an archer returning back after a bad run of luck, I came into a new world with more glitter and show than before! I know the sport and very very well I add, but to come back to a colorful TV shoot-off style sport was very exciting. So I see the allure of the changes for the spectators with the sets. I could do without one single distance of 70m. The beauty of the Grand FITA was that men were made at 90m and every archer had some distances they excelled at creating a more unified overall archer. To win any championship with a full FITA really meant something and I am happy to have contributed to that list of National Champions, even if it was as a junior and on occasion a senior. But it was very boring to watch over 8 hours a day and only on occasion would it come down to the last few arrows to decide the winner. 

The set system as helped archery in ways that I never thought possible. It is more fun to watch for sure and that is the key here. Without TV spots where sponsors can show off, you have no sports in the Games anymore. My wife is an example of one who cannot stand watching archery. Way too boring for her. She doesn't mind watching me because she can root for me. I am her favorite, thank God lol. But that is how people think when watching a sport in person or on TV. They root for their favorites to win. The set system seems to allow more winners on the podium and makes more hero's to others. The more hero's there are, the more people keep watching. The more they watch, the more the sport grows. Simple really.

I personally like the set system because it gives everyone a chance on any given day to be the hero. I still have some days where I can't miss at all, and of course others where I wonder why I ever picked up a bow to begin with. But that is what makes any sport so great to watch. If the same person won every time it would be so boring that no one would watch it and many would stop trying to beat that person. The set system gives everyone the chance. In my opinion Brady purely lost. Ever been rattled by something Luis? Did you come back the next three arrows to claim the victory? Amazing mental game to come back and beat one of the best mental players in the sport like Brady. 

Now the downside is that I am one who is typically better at shoot-offs, but not the best in getting ranked. This was true when we used to try a shoot-off like today 25 years ago and is still true today. I'll admit that I crack more from shooting arrow after arrow after arrow after arrow, because I have moments of mistakes that cost me. But in a shoot-off, that is a different story because I focus more and do my best when under that kind of pressure. I know the current training idea is to crush it in qualifying just to make the elimination rounds. Awesome idea but just because someone can shoot a 690 doesn't mean they have the game to shoot like that in match play. Want to test who is the better archer? Shoot Field. The varying terrain, target size, and distances challenge everyone differently. Field archery, if done right, would bring even more spectators. It does get boring standing on one line shooting one distance over and over. In this first year back into archery I have not shot one 70m only tournament. However I have stayed more local, due to cost and back issues still, to shoot more field and hunter rounds and look forward to my first 900 round later this year! This is supposed to be fun!

Just my .02


----------



## jmvargas (Oct 21, 2004)

many interesting points raised here but in the end the initial comments of brady may be understandable from his point of view but still smells like sourgraping...

it may have been made in the heat of the moment and some have chosen to ride his bandwagon but they are only banging their head against the wall...

there are protocols that must be followed to effect any changes at this level and no amount of internet discussion will be effective unless those in power will act on them...

perhaps that is what this is all about but having had experience at the highest level in the sports organizations in my country all this posturing is not the way to go if real changes need to be made...

discuss all you want but that's all it will be....for now.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> The one thing many of you might be missing is that when the total score was used in the past, many bronze medal matches where higher scores than the gold medal matches. Obviously, the pressure was a bit higher, but the public only noticed the scores and questioned why the high score did not win?


I guess I have the right to complain now too then, since had the rules from 1988 still been in place in 2004, our US Men's team would have won Silver and the 1988 US Women's team would have finished 4th. 

Yes, it is very common for the scores in the bronze medal matches to be higher, and it's also common for a team to lose in the semifinals with a higher score than a team that won and went on to the gold medal match. This also happened to us in Athens. 

Oh well. Too bad, so sad. That's the way the game is played. 

I have a saying that my students hear often - "if you don't like the outcome, shoot better."


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

This is a matter of perception.

Consider a set of three arrows as a single shot equivalent, but the single shot being completed over a longer broken series with 2 intervals. The set system could then be viewed as shooting a maximum cumulative of 5 shots, but having the strange rule of awarding the win to the individual who wins three shots first. See? Five shot maximum game, abruptly deciding who the winner is after only completing three shots, sometimes.

Then we compare that to a cumulative scoring system based on individual shots. To lose one shot out of the five, one shoots a 6. I'm comparing this scenario with having missed one shot out of the set system's three arrows.

The archer that just shot a 6, continues to shoot 9, 9, 9, 9. In the set system equivalent, that's like shooting 10, 10, Miss, and all 9's subsequently, but twelve times, chalking up a cumulative score of 128. While his opponent (who ultimately lost) shoots [10, 8, 6] [9, 9, 9] [10, 9, 8] [10, 10, 6] [10, 9, 7], managing 130.

I'd just like to ask everyone, who do you think is the more consistent archer, and who is the opportunistic shooter, and which kind should we reward?

Try to imagine the spread of the fifteen arrows on the respective targets when answering this question.


----------



## cpnhgnlngct (Dec 9, 2010)

How about the hypothetical guy who steps up to the line with super human confidence in the gold medal match.

He stares at his opponent while he shoots all three of his arrows, never breaking the intimidating awkwardness. All the while letting the clock expire on his #1 then #2 then #3 arrows. First set goes to the archer shooting, our hypothetical badass loses.

Repeat the scenario through set #2. You can smell his confidence in the air. Our shooting archer is now up 2 sets to 0.

Then he nocks his first arrow in set #3 and destroys our shooting archer for the next 3 sets. Match won by our hypothetical egotistically confident badass.

Of course total score was taken by our archer who shot through all 5 sets. But does he have the right to complain about the game?

Who really won and had the mental and physical advantage ? Who was really the true champion on this hypothetical day?

I know who my vote is for....


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

Why am I reminded of "Casey at the Bat"?


----------



## cpnhgnlngct (Dec 9, 2010)

HahahahHa, stash, hilarious


----------



## MickeyBisco (Jul 14, 2012)

cpnhgnlngct said:


> How about the hypothetical guy who steps up to the line with super human confidence in the gold medal match.
> 
> He stares at his opponent while he shoots all three of his arrows, never breaking the intimidating awkwardness. All the while letting the clock expire on his #1 then #2 then #3 arrows. First set goes to the archer shooting, our hypothetical badass loses.
> 
> ...


I'm guessing it's not Spassky.


----------



## kshet26 (Dec 20, 2010)

Here's my take on alternative hybrid method

The H2H Elimination Round using the Cumuloreductive System:

- Both archers have the same 20-second period to shoot 1 arrow each
- The higher scoring arrow is awarded 2-points, ties are 1-point and the lower scoring arrow is awarded 0-points
- This continues for 15 arrows each (or until an archer has accumulated 16 points)
- If after 15 arrows, both archers are tied, a sudden death shootoff occurs. Both archers continue to shoot 1 arrow each until one of the archers breaks the tie with a higher scoring arrow.

What this would look like in practice is that both archers are shooting near-simultaneously giving more of an appearance of competing against each other which the set system currently lacks (exciting and engaging!). It would be faster paced than the current set system. 

Each pair of arrows is compared to one another, but because this assigns points instead of using arrow value, a single bad arrow doesn't ruin a match. Because recurve isn't about extreme accuracy, having shootoffs be sudden-death removes some of the luck aspect. Because this is faster, shootoffs of 2-3-4 arrows wouldn't be detrimental to watchability and if 2 archers can keep the tie alive that long would be pretty exciting/intense.

Using this for Brady's match, it would have resulted in 15-15 leading to a shootoff, for Khatuna's match it would have also resulted in 15-15 and a shootoff. Khatuna's semi match wouldn't have gone to a shootoff with her winning 16-14.

Is this perfect, no. A 5-10-10-10 run beats 8-9-9-9. But this removes much of the 'averaging' that the set system contains. It also seems like this would feel more like a direct competition, rather than the feeling of 2 people that just happen to be shooting next to each other.

Just a thought 

/end ravings of a lunatic


----------



## Hoogie2004 (Jun 7, 2014)

The problem with shooting at the same time in an elimination round is the same as qualification rounds. It's not suitable for TV audiences, since it's impossible to follow both shots.

By the way, I personally love shooting elimination rounds using the set system, it gives an extra edge to a match, where you already did the normal qualifying rounds. It makes it more exciting and fun for me, and for the people watching and cheering.


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

Hoogie2004 said:


> The problem with shooting at the same time in an elimination round is the same as qualification rounds. It's not suitable for TV audiences, since it's impossible to follow both shots.


This is just a wrong assumption. I have followed in TV perfectly rifle finals with 8 on the line shooting at same time at the beginning, until they have been two at the end. TV director just concentrate on the one in the most critycal situation or close to elimination, and fun is granted to spectators. The formula choosen for archery has created the probelm, not viceversa.


----------



## straat (Jan 22, 2009)

I don't get why the scoring system would show total score for a set-play match. This just creates confusion because it's irrelevant. A journalist who probably never covers archery sees this and makes a story out of it.

The big problem in this particular case is comparing the set system with cumulative score while assuming the same arrow scores. The winning archer knew very well he was up 4-0 in sets so for him a miss was not going to put him in big trouble. If the rules were different he could have handled the situation differently. He would be in a different place mentally.

To think the shots would have been exactly the same had the set system not be in place is a very wrong assumption. To expect the same output with different input makes no sense to me.

Saying Brady would have won had the set system not been in place is a possibility but there are way more variables in play than just the scoring system.


----------



## ThomVis (Feb 21, 2012)

limbwalker said:


> I have a saying that my students hear often - "if you don't like the outcome, shoot better."


Quoted for truth.
You first need to "beat" yourself (shoot your best, focus hard etc., things you can influence), then you can go and look if you can beat others on a level playing field. The playing field was level, he lost. The other guy was better at the game they were playing at the time.


----------



## Hoogie2004 (Jun 7, 2014)

Vittorio said:


> The formula choosen for archery has created the probelm, not viceversa.


I don't believe there actually is a problem. The current format is fine, judging by the massively increased (tv/online) coverage in the last few years.


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

Hoogie2004 said:


> I don't believe there actually is a problem. The current format is fine, judging by the massively increased (tv/online) coverage in the last few years.


Another wrong assumption. Best TV attendance for archery in Italy still is 1996 Bronze final in Atlanta with more than 4 Million viewers in prime time and a similar attendance in quarte of finals when my son was facing Justin Huish in a 12 arrows match tied with triple shoot off formula. London TV attendance was much less in 2012 Olympic finals as TV risìghs were exclusive to Sky pay TV. TV broadcasting and specific interest to participants makes attendance to increase, not competition formula. TV coverage worldwide is increasing because of more nations participating, and here we are back to the need to spread around medals more and more ...


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

I agree with Vittorio on alternating shots. It's no bueno. In the early rounds when archers are shooting at the same time, that's as fair as it gets. I know in Athens, when the winds were extremely strong and gusty, there were times when an archer was forced to shoot an arrow that they could barely keep on the bale, while their competitor stood by and watched. Then their competitor was able to shoot in relatively calm conditions before the next gust came up. I saw this many times actually. There were a number of archers at that event that just plain got screwed. 

I'm all for the set system, but alternating shooting really does have the potential to make things very unfair in this sport.


----------



## Azzurri (Mar 10, 2014)

Simultaneous shooting of 3 arrows, set style, 2 minutes to shoot 3 like in indoors. Conditions for the period are the same but the archer can pace themselves for weather or whatever purposes. People often de facto stagger themselves (and could freely do so within a bigger time period) so it's not shooting at literally the same time. Split screen would cover the shooting for TV. It would be harder for the athletes to have an idea of their scores or to adjust to misses but the fans could still follow in real time and feel the drama.

You could also do something like volleyball does with serving if you really wanted to reward someone who wins a set. OK, they get to pick first or second next end (assuming staggered). They keep winning they get to press the advantage.

I think cumulative makes more sense in compound where the elite scores approach perfection and that gives any miss drama. But I think comparing gold and bronze scores is silly because obviously they lost to the gold people heads-up. This is kind of missing the point to a "tournament," which is winning as opposed to score. The score obviously makes an impression and may signal future importance or a great performance. But if score is the end all be all then you'd be better off lining up all the qualifiers and eliminating 1/2 at intervals until it's over, to try and bring some drama into it, instead of muddying the "tournament" or "score" concepts. If score is what really matters it should be versus the field and not just the draw. What if your draw requires lower scores to win? You can see where a high seed like Ellison, though they have earned the easier draw, is not required to score as high to advance if given an easier road. So it's not like some pure exhibition of score, unless they have to shoot against the whole remaining field each round to re-prove their superior scores.


----------



## Rick McKinney (Mar 4, 2008)

Vittorio said:


> Another wrong assumption. Best TV attendance for archery in Italy still is 1996 Bronze final in Atlanta with more than 4 Million viewers in prime time and a similar attendance in quarte of finals when my son was facing Justin Huish in a 12 arrows match tied with triple shoot off formula. London TV attendance was much less in 2012 Olympic finals as TV risìghs were exclusive to Sky pay TV. TV broadcasting and specific interest to participants makes attendance to increase, not competition formula. TV coverage worldwide is increasing because of more nations participating, and here we are back to the need to spread around medals more and more ...


Vittorio, You might be missing the reason behind the large numbers in 1996. If you recall, the men and women's Italian team won the European Championships just before the Olympics. This brought on a huge amount of hope for winning medals at the Games. I am sure there was a lot of hype in Italy just before the 1996 event. in the 2012 European Championships the Italian men finished with a silver and women did not medal. I doubt you had that much hype just before the 2012 Olympics, thus the lower numbers. 

I don't think most people really care what is used to win medals. However, for the longevity, the excitement will create interest. The set matches generate far more interest than accumulation of points. Although I love a double FITA round, it is only for the archer and not the spectator.


----------



## Greysides (Jun 10, 2009)

Rick McKinney said:


> Although I love a double FITA round, it is only for the archer and not the spectator.


Which gets us to the crux of the situation. Is World Archery for the benefit of its members, the majority of whom are journeyman archers, or for the benefit of self-promotion?

If the answer is to promote the sport (i.e. self-promotion) isn't that a bit hollow if it is out of step with the wishes of its members?

What's the point of promoting a sport and then ignoring the people you bring into it?


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Greysides said:


> Which gets us to the crux of the situation. Is World Archery for the benefit of its members, the majority of whom are journeyman archers, or for the benefit of self-promotion?
> 
> If the answer is to promote the sport (i.e. self-promotion) isn't that a bit hollow if it is out of step with the wishes of its members?
> 
> What's the point of promoting a sport and then ignoring the people you bring into it?


Only a fraction of USAA's income comes from membership dues. The by-laws of USAA have been re-written to conform with the requirements of the Ted Stevens act and the USOC. It is not a membership driven organization. It is an Olympics driven organization. To a degree, members is just a means to an end, not a constituency. I'd say the same is true for WA, which is definitely an Olympics driven organization - that's why it was founded.


----------



## MickeyBisco (Jul 14, 2012)

Greysides said:


> Which gets us to the crux of the situation. Is World Archery for the benefit of its members, the majority of whom are journeyman archers, or for the benefit of self-promotion?
> 
> If the answer is to promote the sport (i.e. self-promotion) isn't that a bit hollow if it is out of step with the wishes of its members?
> 
> What's the point of promoting a sport and then ignoring the people you bring into it?


The people it's "bringing in" really have no reverie or wistful fondness of double FITAs, or all white uniforms for that matter. It's hard to be nostalgic for things you never experienced. My son has recently become very interested in photography, but has only a passing interest in learning in my darkroom. It's a novelty to him, but not much else.


----------



## Rick McKinney (Mar 4, 2008)

Greysides and others who think this way. You are all purists and it will always be that we have purists and we have visionaries and lots near the middle. In order to grow the sport a compromise must be struck. World Archery has become a business in order to grow the sport. The growth is self evident with 158 countries who belong. This is a far cry from the 1970's when barely 100 were members and we were always on the edge of getting booted again. The continental organizations are better organized compared to when I was the Secretary General of COPANARCO in the early 1990's. There was virtually no communication and no understanding of how to operate. Now, the continental organizations have better cohesion with World Archery and visa-versa. The money generated by the IOC which trickles down to the NOCs and on down to each sport has helped. The sponsorships in WA have grown 100-fold. All of this in combination to find who is the best in our sport. There are many ways to claim who is the best, but right now, WA has determined that the set matches work the best and allow for future growth. If those who disagree and choose to opt out, then many others will fill the void. Chances are when the older generation fades away, the new generation will not understand how we used to do things and not be in conflict with yesterday, however new conflict will arise. There is no perfect answer, but I am very comfortable with the leadership of WA. At this moment I see no conflict of personal gain as in the past. Kudo's to Tom, Ugur, and others who are leading this growth. 

Just for fun, do you know how the World Champions were determined before FITA was formed? A country would host the event and they chose the round used. One time it was in Belgium and Pop-N-Jay was used. Not sure how many birds were killed, but this was a time when live birds were used. In 1931 the countries decided to form FITA and for 41 years they tried to get into the Olympics again but most of the time they were denied due to lack of number of countries or for lack of cohesion within the organization. 1972 was a great time for archery except for the purists who stated that it would be the death of archery. It was the death for certain rounds, but archery continues to grow and it is with the help of visionaries that have helped make it grow.


----------



## RickBac (Sep 18, 2011)

Rick McKinney said:


> Greysides and others who think this way. You are all purists and it will always be that we have purists and we have visionaries and lots near the middle. In order to grow the sport a compromise must be struck. World Archery has become a business in order to grow the sport. The growth is self evident with 158 countries who belong. This is a far cry from the 1970's when barely 100 were members and we were always on the edge of getting booted again. The continental organizations are better organized compared to when I was the Secretary General of COPANARCO in the early 1990's. There was virtually no communication and no understanding of how to operate. Now, the continental organizations have better cohesion with World Archery and visa-versa. The money generated by the IOC which trickles down to the NOCs and on down to each sport has helped. The sponsorships in WA have grown 100-fold. All of this in combination to find who is the best in our sport. There are many ways to claim who is the best, but right now, WA has determined that the set matches work the best and allow for future growth. If those who disagree and choose to opt out, then many others will fill the void. Chances are when the older generation fades away, the new generation will not understand how we used to do things and not be in conflict with yesterday, however new conflict will arise. There is no perfect answer, but I am very comfortable with the leadership of WA. At this moment I see no conflict of personal gain as in the past. Kudo's to Tom, Ugur, and others who are leading this growth.
> 
> Just for fun, do you know how the World Champions were determined before FITA was formed? A country would host the event and they chose the round used. One time it was in Belgium and Pop-N-Jay was used. Not sure how many birds were killed, but this was a time when live birds were used. In 1931 the countries decided to form FITA and for 41 years they tried to get into the Olympics again but most of the time they were denied due to lack of number of countries or for lack of cohesion within the organization. 1972 was a great time for archery except for the purists who stated that it would be the death of archery. It was the death for certain rounds, but archery continues to grow and it is with the help of visionaries that have helped make it grow.


I agree +1


----------



## Ranger 50 (Mar 2, 2012)

You know, I've read all six pages of this post and have decided that I don't give a crap what the format is. Give me a tournament and I will shoot it. Straight up scoring, elimination rounds, Olympic whatevers, birds popping out of Rick's behind. I don't care, I'll shoot it.

(Grumpy old man new to the sport)
Get The Hell Off of Mt Lawn!


----------



## kshet26 (Dec 20, 2010)

Just 'cuz I like beating a dead horse, I made a little video of what the start of a cumuloreductive elimination match would look like (no audio):






- Archers shooting at the same time in the same :20 window
- Each arrow is compared and assigned points
- Points are cumulative across 15 arrows each
- No 'sets' but arrows are pulled after 3 are shot (indoor and out)

I wanted to use an outdoor competition, but I couldn't fake it without still cameras 

With the set system Lacroix beats Gibilaro 6-2. But when each arrow is pitted against the other, this match only ended at 14-10 (first to 16 should be the winner). This would clearly be a faster match but slower than the video I made.


----------



## jmvargas (Oct 21, 2004)

Warbow said:


> Only a fraction of USAA's income comes from membership dues. The by-laws of USAA have been re-written to conform with the requirements of the Ted Stevens act and the USOC. It is not a membership driven organization. It is an Olympics driven organization. To a degree, members is just a means to an end, not a constituency. I'd say the same is true for WA, which is definitely an Olympics driven organization - that's why it was founded.


...+1..

in my country if you are not an Olympic sport your funding sources are limited to those who play your sport or from some generous philanthropists...

Olympic sports get funding from the national government, giant corporations and even the general public...

if your Olympic sport also happens to be a potential medal getter for your country the medalist get substantial financial incentives from all these funders..

our Olympic medalists get at least a $100,000 incentive for gold, $50,000 for silver and $25000 for bronze plus the potential for very lucrative commercial endorsement deals...

without the set system our archers have practically no chance to medal...the set system gives them hope!!

PS: we have yet to get an Olympic gold in a regular Olympic sport although we did get one in bowling when it was a demo sport..


----------



## Paula (Sep 8, 2009)

Rick McKinney said:


> Greysides and others who think this way. You are all purists and it will always be that we have purists and we have visionaries and lots near the middle. In order to grow the sport a compromise must be struck. World Archery has become a business in order to grow the sport. The growth is self evident with 158 countries who belong. This is a far cry from the 1970's when barely 100 were members and we were always on the edge of getting booted again. The continental organizations are better organized compared to when I was the Secretary General of COPANARCO in the early 1990's. There was virtually no communication and no understanding of how to operate. Now, the continental organizations have better cohesion with World Archery and visa-versa. The money generated by the IOC which trickles down to the NOCs and on down to each sport has helped. The sponsorships in WA have grown 100-fold. All of this in combination to find who is the best in our sport. There are many ways to claim who is the best, but right now, WA has determined that the set matches work the best and allow for future growth. If those who disagree and choose to opt out, then many others will fill the void. Chances are when the older generation fades away, the new generation will not understand how we used to do things and not be in conflict with yesterday, however new conflict will arise. There is no perfect answer, but I am very comfortable with the leadership of WA. At this moment I see no conflict of personal gain as in the past. Kudo's to Tom, Ugur, and others who are leading this growth.
> 
> Just for fun, do you know how the World Champions were determined before FITA was formed? A country would host the event and they chose the round used. One time it was in Belgium and Pop-N-Jay was used. Not sure how many birds were killed, but this was a time when live birds were used. In 1931 the countries decided to form FITA and for 41 years they tried to get into the Olympics again but most of the time they were denied due to lack of number of countries or for lack of cohesion within the organization. 1972 was a great time for archery except for the purists who stated that it would be the death of archery. It was the death for certain rounds, but archery continues to grow and it is with the help of visionaries that have helped make it grow.


Great stuff,,thank you for all you do for archery


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

limbwalker said:


> I agree with Vittorio on alternating shots. It's no bueno. In the early rounds when archers are shooting at the same time, that's as fair as it gets. I know in Athens, when the winds were extremely strong and gusty, there were times when an archer was forced to shoot an arrow that they could barely keep on the bale, while their competitor stood by and watched. Then their competitor was able to shoot in relatively calm conditions before the next gust came up. I saw this many times actually. There were a number of archers at that event that just plain got screwed.
> 
> I'm all for the set system, but alternating shooting really does have the potential to make things very unfair in this sport.


My experience has been that there is no situation that doesn't have the potential to make things unfair. People just have to accept that those are the breaks, and you have to deal with them.

Back to the 1979 Pan Am Games in Puerto Rico - we shot 3 lines at the time. The only thing I really remember from the actual shooting was one end at 90M. Our line was 3rd on that end (the Canadian team and others) and we were watching this tropical storm quickly approaching. The first line (US team and others) shot in dead calm and Rick, Darrell and the others all shot 25-26-27, like that, for their first 3 arrows of the end. The second line came up and the wind picked up a bit and it started to rain. Then our line came up and the clouds opened up. One of our guys had 3 misses, in the mud under the target. I had some experience shooting in heavy rain and knew enough to aim high so I aimed on the barely visible flag on top of the target and lucked out with 3 low hits and something like 12 points. THEN the DOS stopped the shooting. 

I'm sure we all complained, but them's the breaks.

Doesn't seem to make any difference if everyone shoots on the same line - someone will complain that one end of the line has better shelter from the wind or better shade from the trees. A couple of years ago during a World Cup (I think) final with only 2 targets side by side, people were complaining that the wind was stronger on one of the two targets.

People complain in field and 3D that some targets are harder to see in the morning or due to varying cloudiness, and therefore other shooters have an advantage shooting these targets under different conditions. I've even heard people complain INDOORS that they were at a disadvantage due to the lighting at their end of the range.

Varying conditions are all part of the game. You just have to accept that and deal with it.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> Varying conditions are all part of the game. You just have to accept that and deal with it.


Yes, of course this is the correct answer. However, neither you or I are trying to make a living by shooting an Olympic recurve bow.


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

When will World Archery let barebow shooters participate in any of the target championships?

Pete


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

Mr. Roboto said:


> When will World Archery let barebow shooters participate in any of the target championships?
> 
> Pete


When sights become too expensive to use and stabilizers become so short it's welded onto the riser.


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

jmvargas said:


> ..........
> 
> our Olympic medalists get at least a $100,000 incentive for gold, $50,000 for silver and $25000 for bronze plus the potential for very lucrative commercial endorsement deals...
> 
> ...


Exactly what I was saying .... 


Using another example, archery rules are now a kind of payout system of a slot machine. If winning is too much predictable, then software is adjusted to allow more casual results ...

Of course professional gamblers don't like this, but casual players do, and casual players are much more than professionals ....


Sorry, I was thinking sport was another thing , anyhow ...


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

limbwalker said:


> Yes, of course this is the correct answer. However, neither you or I are trying to make a living by shooting an Olympic recurve bow.


No, but consider that there are many more professional golfers than there are professional archers, and golfers all accept varying conditions as part of the game without complaint. The effect of varying conditions on archers is minimal in comparison. 

We just like to whine more, I guess. I mean, look at this thread. Six pages because one archer lost a match _*without any rule being broken*_, and whined about it in front of a reporter. Wait until after the next Vegas shoot for the annual btchfest when someone with a lower X-count ends up winning the shootoff again.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

Stash said:


> No, but consider that there are many more professional golfers than there are professional archers, and golfers all accept varying conditions as part of the game without complaint. The effect of varying conditions on archers is minimal in comparison.
> 
> We just like to whine more, I guess. I mean, look at this thread. Six pages because one archer lost a match _*without any rule being broken*_, and whined about it in front of a reporter. Wait until after the next Vegas shoot for the annual btchfest when someone with a lower X-count ends up winning the shootoff again.


That's an hilarious statement. Golfers complain/whine more than any other group of people on the planet (or at least in my neck of the woods). And God forbid someone 60 yards away should step on a twig or snap a camera while His Highness is in his stance or backswing. 

The more interesting comparison to me is that almost all golf major championships are still being contested under the same format as they were 50 years ago - 4 days and 288 holes and let's see who has the best score. No mulligans. No set system so a bad shot or two is superfluous and of no consequence. I wonder how affable and equable pro golfers would be if the rules/format was being constantly tweaked and they were currently made to play two days of ranking rounds, then they all got bracketed and the Masters champ was determined by a 3ball set system of 'closest to the hole or closest to the middle of the fairway'. I suspect there would be a lot of high profile golfers expressing their opinions about whether that was the best format to determine the best golfer. 

Sorry - I'm off the fairway a bit. Now through.


----------



## monterey (Feb 16, 2015)

The current setup would be like the track and field governing bodies saying "no more marathon, everybody's going to be a sprinter" - and yet they don't and the marathon gets live coverage during the Olympics.

To me, and by the length of this thread many others, throwing away the 1440 round diminishes the sport for the athletes and throws away decades of history in favor of the spectators and sponsors. 

The 1440 round adds variety and lets those who like to compete against themselves feel a sense of personal achievement. (similar to marathoners)
If someone gave me the option to have enough skill to earn a 1350 pin or win a match play world championships, I would take the pin. 
Others disagree and like the head to head format. The increase in sponsorship for this format by World Archery has been amazing and it's entertaining to watch.

A fix that would satisfy both sides would be for the World Championships (not the Olympics) to host two medal events: 
One match play and one 1440 round. 

This sport is big enough for two events.
They are distinctively different, more so than in other sports that have multiple medals for distance like swimming or shooting.

Advantages: 

-The Olympics and World Cup would continue with match play like they do now. No loss for the organizers of those events. 

-The folks who like the 1440 round (including a lot of compound shooters who strive to break 1400) get their event preserved.

-The controversy of "who's the best" would be good for the sport - the press likes controversy. 

-There would be occasional winners of both events - "undisputed world champion" - another press friendly outcome.

-The sport gets continuity in its history. Anyone can compare their score to those of previous decades. World records are recognized.


----------



## bobnikon (Jun 10, 2012)

I like that, sort of like the fastest man alive from a few olympics ago. Is it the 100m or the 200m runner. Cool idea, but adding events is probably unlikely.


----------



## zal (May 1, 2007)

We had finals of our nationals televised in major TV channel for first time in ages. In compound men's final first arrow shot was a miss, so they cut that match to show about four arrows per archer in TV feature, which was cut live, broadcast starting about 1h after match. There wasn't anything worth showing as all tension was over after one miss. They did show most of the recurve finals, even though somes matches were pretty done right from the start and ended up 6-0, as even 4-0 kept it open.

So there's your answer why set system is held in high regards up in WA echelons. It works perfectly well for TV and your average TV viewer.


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

lksseven said:


> That's an hilarious statement. Golfers complain/whine more than any other group of people on the planet (or at least in my neck of the woods). And God forbid someone 60 yards away should step on a twig or snap a camera while His Highness is in his stance or backswing.


Not tour pro golfers about the rules. In fact, the opposite is often the case - they have been known to penalize themselves even if an official didn't see the infraction. Never heard of a pro golfer say he was thinking about quitting because he didn't like the rules. 


lksseven said:


> The more interesting comparison to me is that almost all golf major championships are still being contested under the same format as they were 50 years ago - 4 days and 288 holes and let's see who has the best score. No mulligans. No set system so a bad shot or two is superfluous and of no consequence. I wonder how affable and equable pro golfers would be if the rules/format was being constantly tweaked and they were currently made to play two days of ranking rounds, then they all got bracketed and the Masters champ was determined by a 3ball set system of 'closest to the hole or closest to the middle of the fairway'. I suspect there would be a lot of high profile golfers expressing their opinions about whether that was the best format to determine the best golfer.


Hasn't been necessary for golf to change its format, because it's obviously interesting enough as-is for people to watch.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

A lot of pro golfers have weighed in on the upcoming change to putters - banning anchoring. Of course, it's the right thing to do, but it may well end the careers of some -up-to-now- very successful golfers. We're talking millions of dollars at stake here. When they first announced the governing bodies had decided to ban the use of anchored putters, the btchfest was in full swing. Some of the whining by some very well known golfers was a bit ridiculous if you ask me.


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

limbwalker said:


> A lot of pro golfers have weighed in on the upcoming change to putters - banning anchoring. Of course, it's the right thing to do, but it may well end the careers of some -up-to-now- very successful golfers. We're talking millions of dollars at stake here. When they first announced the governing bodies had decided to ban the use of anchored putters, the btchfest was in full swing. Some of the whining by some very well known golfers was a bit ridiculous if you ask me.


Yes, but after the rule is passed I'll bet they won't complain about it _*in public*_ if they lose because of some missed putts.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> A lot of pro golfers have weighed in on the upcoming change to putters - banning anchoring. Of course, it's the right thing to do, but it may well end the careers of some -up-to-now- very successful golfers. We're talking millions of dollars at stake here. When they first announced the governing bodies had decided to ban the use of anchored putters, the btchfest was in full swing. Some of the whining by some very well known golfers was a bit ridiculous if you ask me.


I don't follow golf, so this is entirely new to me. So they are actually banning a _technique_ rather than a type of equipment?









http://mweb.cbssports.com/golf/eye-...le-anchored-putters-illegal-on-january-1-2016

And there was "whining" about it? Hmm...


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

Yeah. It would be sort of like archers bracing the bow against their body with a side stabilzer and doing it for a few years, then a rule being made to disallow it. Although not a perfect analogy since archery already has a rule against it.

Golf has gone through this before - square grooves on irons comes to mind.


----------



## jmvargas (Oct 21, 2004)

i have been both an archer and a golfer for more than 50 years and the only times i see golfers *****ing about the rules is when they're not playing well.....me included.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

LOL. Ain't that the truth.


----------



## midwayarcherywi (Sep 24, 2006)

Kisik Lee weighs in on Face Book. 

"I feel very sorry for Canada as well as MANY MANY other strong countries who did not qualify by this system! I'm happy with my country qualifying but I felt always this is bit harsh.The way to qualify team for Olympic slots needs to be adjusted."


KiSik Lee "In my opinion on current Olympic qualifying, at least world top 4 ranked countries should earn their full Olympic spots automatically. Why every national government body have to spent so much money and effort for sending team to World Cups as well as all other major tournaments? This system has not considered about high level of team's performence and their hard work nor all NGB's dedications toward to our sport."


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Good grief.


----------



## Ms.Speedmaster (Dec 10, 2010)

Yes, I saw that post on FB, and was a little shocked. Coach Lee never posts anything negative. 

Either everyone's getting caught up in the "bare all on social media" thing, or it's a concerted effort to get the ball rolling to bring about change.


----------



## midwayarcherywi (Sep 24, 2006)

Agree. Wrong place to air out the dirty laundry. I'm not sure about the WA political structure, but when other bodies are pressed that way in public, they push back pretty heavily in private. I hope it doesn't hurt our standing at WA.


----------



## rharper (Apr 30, 2012)

Getting hammered left and right. 

FanStream Live Session: Individual Eliminations | Copenhagen 2015 @ 46:00


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Yup, apparently blaming the process is now in vogue. 

But you know what they say - shooting well takes care of everything.

Midway, you raise a good point.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

rharper said:


> Getting hammered left and right.
> 
> FanStream Live Session: Individual Eliminations | Copenhagen 2015 @ 46:00


Ouch.

Well, it's clear which system the media (and fans) like. And probably every team and archer except for the top 10 or so. I mean, sure, a pure point total system works great to select the "top" shooters, but it sure makes for boring viewing, and frankly, there really is no point for all but the top 10 to even show up to the competition if there are no chances to come from behind in a pressure situation. Call it "luck" if you want, but pressure does funny things to even the best athletes and every so often, a less skilled athlete is simply better at keeping it together when it matters most. And I think the fans deserve to see that.


----------



## TER (Jul 5, 2003)

How is WA supposed to know where the improvements need to be made if archers and coaches are not allowed to point out problems? Shut up and shoot. Submit to the system. Dissenters will continue to be shot at dawn until morale improves.

The notion that "shooting well takes care of anything" is becoming untrue and can only be saved if archers and coaches refuse to allow to continue the current efforts NGB's are making to take the objectivity out of archery. 

Here's a recent event that illustrates how wrong it is to demand archers shut up and submit to the system and also the current threat to "shooting well takes care of anything." After the Canadian Pan Am Team Trials Archery Canada announced the women's team would consist of the women who placed first, second, and fifth at the trials, not first, second, and third. Then one of the archers on the men's team posted on facebook that this is clearly bovine fecal matter. Archery Canada claimed it had the right to deny the third place woman a spot on the team and that the male archer had to appear at a disciplinary hearing and would possibly be kicked off the Pan Am and World Championships teams. The archers lawyered up. There was criticism from all over the archery world. AC announced the third place woman would be on the team. AC posted on it's website a letter the male archer wrote to AC apologizing for using a bad word on facebook but maintaining his criticism still stands. Does this illustrate how unhealthy it is to claim archers should not be allowed to make criticisms and that shooting well is in danger of becoming irrelevent?

BTW, the woman who placed third at the trials was the highest placing Canadian woman archer at the Pan Am games. The male archer who used a farmer word on facebook won the bronze medal. In your face, Archery Canada.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> How is WA supposed to know where the improvements need to be made if archers and coaches are not allowed to point out problems?


There is a time and place for pointing out improvements, and the standards are higher for coaches than individual athletes.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

i never understood why they didn't qualify more teams. Why is it all three archers must qualify to shoot the individual? 

Why not have 32 or 64 teams. And out of all those teams, the top 64 get to shoot eliminations individual. So you can win a spot on the Olympic team and shoot team rounds, but not have qualified previously for the 64 Olympic individual spots. 

Then the 64 can shoot qualifications for seeding in the Olympic individual round. 

That way a lot more archers from many many countries get Olympic experience as a team shooter. 

You could have continental qualifiers and the World champs as the qualifiers for the individuals. Top 64 scores or placement or points based on such. Or top 64 ranked in the world get the 64 slots. 

I think I'm a dinosaur. but limiting the slots to 16 teams out of how many countries 120??? 


Chris


----------



## kshet26 (Dec 20, 2010)

I would assume that the costs to room and board that many athletes is prohibitive.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Chris, they don't have to qualify a full team to shoot the individual. In 2008, Jenny and Khatuna went to China, but didn't shoot the team event. In 2004, Canada sent one man (Jonathon Ohayon) and one woman (Marie Pierre-Bedeaut).


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

Yes, i undertand that. But i am saying it would be better to do the reverse. Have countries qualify teams but not all three for the individual.

Limiting to 16 teams out of 120 countries means a lot are left out. 

There are many countries now that are competitive and not able to win a team slot. Great Britian, Ukraine, Japan and Germany have failed so far as well as Canada to name a few.


What happens to the funding and program when those countries DONT send a team? What will happen in the USA program when the men AND women dont win a slot for the team?

Chris


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

here are the final results for who qualified what

http://worldarchery.org/news/125746/secondary-qualifier-allocates-five-additional-olympic-quotas


Chris


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> What happens to the funding and program when those countries DONT send a team?


Probably what happened here after Beijing when the women didn't qualify a full team.


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

chrstphr said:


> Limiting to 16 teams out of 120 countries means a lot are left out.
> 
> There are many countries now that are competitive and not able to win a team slot. Great Britian, Ukraine, Japan and Germany have failed so far as well as Canada to name a few.


I would submit that if these countries were in fact competitive, they would by definition be able to win a team slot.

I don't follow the international recurve archers all that much, but in Canada, which you mentioned, we currently have only 2 men and no women who are really competitive at the world level, so without any depth we can't field a "competitive" team on either side.

In any event, as I understand it (please correct me if I'm wrong), the Olympic field is limited to 64 men and 64 women. 16 teams plus the host country equals 51 archers, leaving 13 open individual spots. I'm not sure how many sports are still available after today, but in any event, the limitation is set by the IOC, not WA. I'm sure WA would like to see 128 each men and women, but it isn't going to happen.


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

Actually I got that wrong, sorry. 8 teams from Copenhagen plus individuals, 32 archers plus 3 from the host country Brazil so far qualified.

In any event, the field size is limited and there's no way to allow for full teams from 120 countries, or anywhere close.


----------



## teebat (Oct 28, 2013)

Is there video to that match?


----------



## jharrowmom (Aug 20, 2005)

_
nobody shoots the 9-7-5-3-1- American Round. _



Well, actually we do. At the USAA Traditional Target Championships. We still use the Imperial scoring, as do GNAS and BLBS 


http://usarcherytraditional.org


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

jharrowmom said:


> _
> nobody shoots the 9-7-5-3-1- American Round. _
> 
> 
> ...


What's with the separate website? It makes it seem like it's not really Sanctioned by USA Archery.


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

Warbow said:


> What's with the separate website? It makes it seem like it's not really Sanctioned by USA Archery.


Wow, if you hadn't mentioned it I never would have noticed that they set the page up under a different site. The highly visable USAArchery Logo and large, bold "USAA Traditional Target Archery" really threw me off.


----------



## TER (Jul 5, 2003)

limbwalker said:


> There is a time and place for pointing out improvements, and the standards are higher for coaches than individual athletes.


Are you saying coaches have a higher obligation to be quiet and not criticize WA? I think coaches, as advocates for their archers, should be louder about critiquing the system.

What time and place is there? "There is a time and a place" is a nonsense phrase that is only used to shut up dissenters.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> I think coaches, as advocates for their archers, should be louder about critiquing the system.


I agree, but there is a time and place. That's what I'm saying - particularly about the coaches. They know the process (or should) better than anyone.

The "time and place" I'm referring to is through appropriate channels within WA or through your country's org. in an official statement to WA. That's called being a professional. Complaining on social media is not the way professionals handle things.

Also, to say the coaches complaining serves all their archers may not be true either. Fact is, the set system serves a higher % of any particular coaches archers than a point total system, strictly from a statistical point of view.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Seattlepop said:


> Wow, if you hadn't mentioned it I never would have noticed that they set the page up under a different site. The highly visable USAArchery Logo and large, bold "USAA Traditional Target Archery" really threw me off.


Perhaps "sanctioned" isn't quite the right term, how about "not good enough" to be on the official site? 

However, I mentioned section specifically because the first time I saw that website, perhaps in a different version than it is now, I wasn't sure if it really was officially approved by USA archery. Anybody can register a web domain or use a logo. And there didn't seem to be any justification for it not being on the main site if it was official. It's confusing, to me, at least. And it's example of siloing - he kind of thing that USAA was trying to get away from when JOAD Denise took over. Remember when the NAA, JOAD, collegiate, and the junior dream team all had separate "official" websites? It was a mess. This harkens back to those days.


----------

