# A call for a uniform set of rules for barebow in the Us



## Demmer (Dec 1, 2012)

With all this talk about ideally getting a uniform set of rules for barebow, let's try to make this happen. Who is all with me? For me, s nice the rest of the world shoots wa barebow rules and USA archery has barebow rules, it seams very natural we try to run with that. I think it would be a way easier selling point. I think if we get a big enough petition and put it in the right hands, we can make this happen.


----------



## gitnbetr (Jan 17, 2007)

Count me in. I will sign such a petition.


----------



## vabowdog (Dec 13, 2007)

I'm all in...just tell me where to sign.

Dewayne Martin


----------



## Zarrow (Sep 8, 2010)

Count me in as well


----------



## Stick & String (Feb 1, 2003)

You have my support!


----------



## pencarrow (Oct 3, 2003)

Me too.
Fritz


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

So, what's in this for the NFAA? Because that is who you have to sell this to, and the IFAA.


----------



## RBK (Jun 28, 2011)

Good Luck John.....We couldn't even get the PSAA to align their FITA BARE BOW Rules with WA or USA Archery. I think trying to one set of Rules across the Board will be a MAJOR TASK. I'm with you though I'll sign !!!!

Rick


----------



## Demmer (Dec 1, 2012)

What do you mean what's in it for the nfaa? I don't know what you mean? I think it would be easier for everyone to cross over from event to event. That way should lead to more participation for their events.


----------



## Demmer (Dec 1, 2012)

Rick, tell me about it. . I think if we get people to talk to their reps and have a bunch of state reps in our favor, it would be easier to get NFAA to change than PSAA.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Demmer said:


> What do you mean what's in it for the nfaa? I don't know what you mean? I think it would be easier for everyone to cross over from event to event. That way should lead to more participation for their events.


I think there's more NFAA archery in the US than there is USAA. So I would think from their perspective is why should they change when *you* could change, since you are the smaller group.

I'm someone who is more line with the WA rules than NFAA rules for barebow, but you have to argue it from their perspective if you want to argue them to your side.


----------



## Demmer (Dec 1, 2012)

OK, so this is a reason for this thread. To spitball some great points to put into the petition. Most of the participation in target archery around the world is under the wa barebow rules. I don't know if that would be a big enough selling point or not. This is our year to do this with all this passionate postings. Everyone seems to be fired up. Its a great time for a change to happen.


----------



## Walrustx (Jan 9, 2015)

Is there an international set of rules to go by? If so why not just adopt those?


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Walrustx said:


> Is there an international set of rules to go by? If so why not just adopt those?


WA or IFAA?

Vittorio has pointed out that the WA does not play well with others. The World Archery Federation believes that there should only be one national governing body for archery in each country. It doesn't necessarily benefit the NFAA to adopt WA rules when WA would just as soon see the NFAA wiped off the face of the planet. So, they'll need compelling reasons other than USAA archers would like to impose their rules on the NFAA.


----------



## Laurie Borealis (Mar 10, 2012)

Thank you, John Demmer! I am in, and I am here to help in any way I can with the work of writing and circulating the petition. (Gary, don't hate me!)

L


----------



## Demmer (Dec 1, 2012)

Warbow, they would just be rules for a barebow class. There doesn't have to be any affiliation with each other. Why would there be any need to be an affiliation? Besides, it would be out of the fita rule book as well. Maybe I'm missing a connection there.


----------



## Bigjono (Apr 21, 2009)

I'm in, great idea. Does IFAA, NFAA, EFAA etc all have the same classes anyway, I didn't think they did. At least WA classes are the same everywhere.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Demmer said:


> Warbow, they would just be rules for a barebow class. There doesn't have to be any affiliation with each other. Why would there be any need to be an affiliation? Besides, it would be out of the fita rule book as well. Maybe I'm missing a connection there.


I apologize for getting a tangent going.

So here's part of what I'm thinking. USAA and NFAA cooperate on basic training, but they've backed off of their reciprocal agreements. They are competing organizations. USAA makes money off of its Olympic NGB role. The NFAA make money by not being USAA, and offering stuff USAA does not, including a different set of rules.

If the NFAA thought that adopting WA barebow rules would give it a competetive advantage, and attract more archers to the NFAA than it would alienate by doing so, it might go for it. 

One the other hand, adopting WA rules would take control of the rules out of their hands, something the NFAA doesn't like - - they don't even follow all the IFAA rules, so why would they be any more likely to want to follow the WA rules?

You might be able to get a rule change to get the rules *closer* but I don't think it is possible to get the NFAA to defer to WA rules by incorporating them.


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

Who is your petition going to be given to? Are the people signing the petition all members of the organizations that you would be submitting a petition to? Your best bet would be to garner support from the heads of all the organizations prior to submittal. The other path to success is to get ALL the archers who attend Vegas, Indoor Nationals, Ibo nationals, Ibo trad nationals, USA archery indoor and outdoor nationals to sign the petition. Then take the results of those tournaments along with the signatures to the powers that be. That way, they could realize that the archers who are actually coming to the tournaments are the ones wanting the rules to be uniform. Big task, but, extreme results require extreme effort.


----------



## Bigjono (Apr 21, 2009)

they don't even follow all the IFAA rules, so why would they be any more likely to follow the WA rules?[/QUOTE]

And there in lies the problem surely. How can NFAA equipment regs (we are not talking about adopting anyone's rules here) be the one to follow for those wishing to compete globally. I know both EFAA and NFAA make up their own rules and regs, I'm sure other countries do too. That's what happens when the chiefs are controlled by the Indians. At least WA equipment regs stay the same wherever you go.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Bigjono said:


> And there in lies the problem surely. How can NFAA equipment regs (we are not talking about adopting anyone's rules here) be the one to follow for those wishing to compete globally. I know both EFAA and NFAA make up their own rules and regs, I'm sure other countries do too. That's what happens when the chiefs are controlled by the Indians. At least WA equipment regs stay the same wherever you go.


Well, to be fair, the NAA ignored FITA regs for decades, even though the NAA was one of the founding members of FITA.


----------



## Demmer (Dec 1, 2012)

I think we definitely can come up with something that is really close that doesn't have to change when wa makes a rule change. I don't think wa will ever make a drastic rule change anyway, so it should always stay close enough where it would never be a big deal. Fit the bow through the ring, no clicker, no sights, can string walk and face walk, no marks in the sight window, etc you know the basic simple stuff. It doesn't need three pages of rules for the class.


----------



## Demmer (Dec 1, 2012)

Ben, I don't know if this the right approach or not, but I think it would be easier to start with the target side of first and get the 3d side to roll with it next. I think it is of up most importance to get those that participate in the big events support of this. I will talk to you in private about this.


----------



## stoutstuff (Mar 31, 2011)

I haven't even set my Barebow up yet but I'm in!


----------



## rsarns (Sep 23, 2008)

John, Count me in to help in any way. Getting the NFAA changed is not easy, you need to get backing by multiple State directors or the proposal will die at the annual meeting. Let me know what I can do to help.


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

It is my understanding that the only way to get a rule change within the NFAA is to get a majority vote of the different state reps. So we are talking about, what, 26 people?

Within the NFAA, there are a lot of people that like the current barebow rules and traditional rules. It will be tough to get them to change their minds.

So how about we do this, get the NFAA to split the Barebow class into Barebow-Compound and Barebow-Recurve. Then make the Barebow-Recurve align with WA rules.

This way, the compound barebow shooters can still shoot they way they like, the Trad shooters can shoot they way they like, and we open up the door to WA style barebow shooters.

I know, there are a lot of people that think there are way too many divisions within the NFAA that overly thins the different classes, and there will be some state reps that would vote NO just for this very reason. But this is the only way to get the NFAA to change. Just need about 26 people to vote yes to a change.

Start with the NFAA, and then let the number of competitors competing in the new Barebow-Recurve class be the driving force. If people truely want WA style rules within the NFAA, then they should compete in that new division, and make it a point to shoot it. If the NFAA sees an explosion of number of people competing in the new class, then all of the other organizations will feel the pressure to align or not.

Though I am not a fan of adding more classes within the NFAA, but I for one would be the first to sign up under the new class in all my state shoots.

Pete


----------



## Demmer (Dec 1, 2012)

Pete, ild be surprised if the reps are happy with the trad or barebow rules. Usually no one cares about us and I figured they just vote what everybody else does.


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

Two years ago when I asked my NFAA director to add a stabilizer in the Trad recurve division my goal was to bring NFAA trad recurve and WA Barebow closer together. Scary thought huh. The only difference now is string walking and shortening the Stabilizer. Now do you really think that will get more shooters at the NFAA outdoor Nationals? Second question if NFAA were to adopt WA Barebow rules do you think the USA would get to hold the World Fita Field tournament ? If not do we need a change? Do you think we could ever get IBO to eliminate the clicker and stabilizers in the RU division? 
This is going to be a big job !


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

For me to go from NFAA Trad Recurve to IFAA Recurve Bowhunter to IBO RU to WA barebow is a simple stabilizer change. It takes about 60 seconds I just don't see it being a big deal


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

I think I may have found my replacement for the chair of the barebow committee. 

Sign me up John. I'm all in.

Let's have Barebow mean one thing. If someone wants to allow something else, then they can call it something else, but not BARE BOW.


----------



## Demmer (Dec 1, 2012)

Gary, how was that your goal to get both of them close together? Nfaa trad was pretty close to wa bb back then. The only major difference was string walking. Now it's string walking and a stab? If people want to shoot a stab why not keep it in nfaa barebow? Why have two recurve classes with a stabilizer? I believe if you got out more and shot a lot more different shoots, you would find this way more frustrating than it is for you now. Its not a simple 60 second fix, and you know that with any kind of tuning work. We as a barebow group deserve at least one class with one set of rules just like compounders and oly recurvers. I for one am sick of being the red headed step child of archery. "Just shoot the rules we have for you and like it" is not good enough anymore. With a uniform set of rules, I think you will get more crossover shooters. No more, pick one organization and stick with it. With one set, you don't have to worry about if your aiming is legal from one org to the next. It definitely wouldn't be a crutch anymore. Gary, if we can get a uniform rule across the target world, I believe that getting 3d archery to follow suit will be so much easier. Many trad archers can't afford different setups for different shoots. One bow for all will help some folks out and allow them to participate in everything. 
Take the compound hunter class for example. Can you imagine the outrage there would be if nfaa took away their stabs. It would never happen because their unity wouldn't allow it. I think we can be the same way. There will most likely be niche classes in most organizations for those that don't want to join us.


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

NFAA shooter here who would LOVE to see WA rules for barebow.

-Grant


----------



## Laurie Borealis (Mar 10, 2012)

Mr. Roboto said:


> So how about we do this, get the NFAA to split the Barebow class into Barebow-Compound and Barebow-Recurve. Then make the Barebow-Recurve align with WA rules.
> 
> This way, the compound barebow shooters can still shoot they way they like, the Trad shooters can shoot they way they like, and we open up the door to WA style barebow shooters.
> 
> ...


This may be a good route, one that would keep the name Barebow and maybe ruffle the fewest feathers. If it's too many NFAA categories (and it is), maybe the NFAA could combine plain Bowhunter and Compound BB? I just took a spin through last year's NFAA indoor nationals results, and across the many age categories and both genders, I could only find four people in the BH category. Don't archers in the BH category sometimes shoot Compound BB because the categories are close?


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

Mr. Roboto said:


> It is my understanding that the only way to get a rule change within the NFAA is to get a majority vote of the different state reps. So we are talking about, what, 26 people?
> 
> Within the NFAA, there are a lot of people that like the current barebow rules and traditional rules. It will be tough to get them to change their minds.
> 
> ...


Pete, damn it, you are giving the recurve barebow people a bad name. There are 50 states, each with a director who has a vote on setting rules. Where in the world did you get 26? Our state gets the petitions from the Nfaa that are submitted from the different states. Those petitions are sent to each region of the state to be voted on by the members of the region. The votes from those regions are then tabulated at our state meeting and the NFAA director is instructed on how to vote on that particular petition. California has over 2000 NFAA members so I don't know where this BS of one person or a few representatives determining the rules came about on these threads. Those of you who are Nfaa members and those of you who aren't should do a little research on how these organizations work rather than spread rumors here. Each state has an NFAA director and he should be doing the bidding of that states members. If he is not doing that, then get a new Director.


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

2413gary said:


> For me to go from NFAA Trad Recurve to IFAA Recurve Bowhunter to IBO RU to WA barebow is a simple stabilizer change. It takes about 60 seconds I just don't see it being a big deal


And all this time you thought your problem was target panic.LOL. It's the generic set up, Silly Wabbit.


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

Ok I will try to answer without making you any more up set lol. I have shot Fita BB before you could have a Stabilizer in NFAA trad with a lot of weight on the riser. So when I would go to a NFAA shoot I had to take all the weight off the riser be cause it wasn't legal in NFAA to have weights in or on the riser of any sort. Then comes the stabilizer rule which was passed by about 80% so for me it's an easy fix to cross over. And for the tuning I just change from 12" to 2 1/4" long there is no tuning except for maybe 1/4 turn on my Springy. I will show you at Vegas how easy it is. As for getting out to more shoots we only do about 15 to 20 a year all over the USA.(you want a photo of my medals ?) No I didn't make Croatia you would have kicked my butt. But if you get out more you will see me:wink: I want the same as you recurve Barebow to be the same but it has to start with NFAA. IFAA and WA we will never change. But NFAA and IBO are doable


Demmer said:


> Gary, how was that your goal to get both of them close together? Nfaa trad was pretty close to wa bb back then. The only major difference was string walking. Now it's string walking and a stab? If people want to shoot a stab why not keep it in nfaa barebow? Why have two recurve classes with a stabilizer? I believe if you got out more and shot a lot more different shoots, you would find this way more frustrating than it is for you now. Its not a simple 60 second fix, and you know that with any kind of tuning work. We as a barebow group deserve at least one class with one set of rules just like compounders and oly recurvers. I for one am sick of being the red headed step child of archery. "Just shoot the rules we have for you and like it" is not good enough anymore. With a uniform set of rules, I think you will get more crossover shooters. No more, pick one organization and stick with it. With one set, you don't have to worry about if your aiming is legal from one org to the next. It definitely wouldn't be a crutch anymore. Gary, if we can get a uniform rule across the target world, I believe that getting 3d archery to follow suit will be so much easier. Many trad archers can't afford different setups for different shoots. One bow for all will help some folks out and allow them to participate in everything.
> Take the compound hunter class for example. Can you imagine the outrage there would be if nfaa took away their stabs. It would never happen because their unity wouldn't allow it. I think we can be the same way. There will most likely be niche classes in most organizations for those that don't want to join us.


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

I'm going to have to teach you guys to tune a springy:mg:


itbeso said:


> And all this time you thought your problem was target panic.LOL. It's the generic set up, Silly Wabbit.


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

I have been trying to get compound BH and Compound BB combined. I thought they were going to string me up at the NFAA meeting


Laurie Borealis said:


> This may be a good route, one that would keep the name Barebow and maybe ruffle the fewest feathers. If it's too many NFAA categories (and it is), maybe the NFAA could combine plain Bowhunter and Compound BB? I just took a spin through last year's NFAA indoor nationals results, and across the many age categories and both genders, I could only find four people in the BH category. Don't archers in the BH category sometimes shoot Compound BB because the categories are close?


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

Hi Ben, I think you missed my point. I am not a state director, so I personally have not been involved in the official voting process. But from my understanding each state gets a vote, the state director is the one that makes the official vote for their state. A rule change passes when the majority of the state directors vote to pass the resolution. Hence with 50 states voting, a resolution will pass with 26 votes. That is where the number comes from. Is this wrong? All I can do is let my state director know my thoughts on any particular rule. He is supposed to be representing the wishes of the members in our state. If there is no clear direction for the director, then they can choose how to vote any way they want. Ultimately it is the directors that need to be convinced to vote a certain way. If it takes getting 2000 state members to convince their state director to vote a certain way, then that single vote will go that way. What we have to do is make sure that our state directors needs to know that there is a need to make the changes. We can't be quiet. We need to go beyond passive voting, but more proactive lobbying our reps.


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

Mr. Roboto said:


> Hi Ben, I think you missed my point. I am not a state director, so I personally have not been involved in the official voting process. But from my understanding each state gets a vote, the state director is the one that makes the official vote for their state. A rule change passes when the majority of the state directors vote to pass the resolution. Hence with 50 states voting, a resolution will pass with 26 votes. That is where the number comes from. Is this wrong? All I can do is let my state director know my thoughts on any particular rule. He is supposed to be representing the wishes of the members in our state. If there is no clear direction for the director, then they can choose how to vote any way they want. Ultimately it is the directors that need to be convinced to vote a certain way. If it takes getting 2000 state members to convince their state director to vote a certain way, then that single vote will go that way. What we have to do is make sure that our state directors needs to know that there is a need to make the changes. We can't be quiet. We need to go beyond passive voting, but more proactive lobbying our reps.


States votes are meted out with one vote for every 500 Nfaa members. California has 4 votes, the most of any state. Therefore there could be as many as a hundred votes cast, maybe more,( I don't know the current number). You are right about the director being the voice of his constituents. Like I said, if the Washington director isn't voting the wishes of the archers, then it is time to get a new director. Also, want more votes, sign up a lot of new archers.:smile:


----------



## Demmer (Dec 1, 2012)

Gary, I understand where you are coming from a little better now. Why not just make the more like weights cannot extend farther out than it is wide? Something like that would have kept it inline a lot better. With a 12" stab, I have to change a little more than tension on the button. I also have to change arrows to fully take advantage of the stab. 
Gary, don't take anything I say personal. Tone can be read different that what is intended. You know I love you like a brother. . I was thinking NFAA would be the easiest to start this movement, because the board will listen to its members.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Regarding tuning, during my equipment seminar that I taught last year I covered tuning using the bare shaft method. Many of the coaches and students there were not familiar with the effects of stabilization on arrow flight. That is not unusual. Most archers, even competitive archers, do not fully realize how stabilization affects their tune. So I did a little demonstration. I took my barebow rig set up for WA barebow, and shot the arrows that were tuned for it, along with the bare shaft. Then I removed the weight in the stabilizer hole, and added a 12" stabilizer of the same weight (as per NFAA rules) and shot them again. 

The group was amazed at the difference - the bare shaft moved nearly a foot left at 18 meters since the stabilizer has the effect of "stiffenning" the dynamic spine of the arrow. 

I then added 80 grains to the point of the arrows, and shot again, and got perfect bare shaft flight.

This left/right tuning is even more critical for a barebow archer than an Olympic Recurve archer, since OR archers can always move their sight left or right. If a barebow archer wants to aim point-on, or directly below the spot, then they need their tune to be correct to allow them to do that. We all know that just a few clicks on the plunger can move our group several inches across the target face at just 18 meters. The effect of some 12" stabilizers can be much more than just a few clicks of the plunger.

So at least for the 12" stabilizer I used at the TFAA State Indoor event last year, it alone was worth 80 grains of point weight, or about 1/2 - 1 arrow spine size. 

When I shot the TFAA event, I shot those arrows with 120 grain points + 80 grains of weight screwed into the back end of the point . A week later, I shot USArchery's Indoor Nationals with the same arrows, no stabilizer, and just the 120 grain points.

As if the change from string walking to no string walking isn't enough, this 12" stabilizer rule placed an additional burden on us as competitive archers, to re-tune, or to have a completely different setup for each event - something not every archer is willing to do.

If we want to see as many barebow archers at each event as possible, we will find a way to simplify the rules. If the goal of some is to continue to splinter the competition so that the competitive pool is as shallow as possible, then we don't need to change a thing because that's what we have right now.


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

itbeso said:


> States votes are meted out with one vote for every 500 Nfaa members. California has 4 votes, the most of any state. Therefore there could be as many as a hundred votes cast, maybe more,( I don't know the current number). You are right about the director being the voice of his constituents. Like I said, if the Washington director isn't voting the wishes of the archers, then it is time to get a new director. Also, want more votes, sign up a lot of new archers.:smile:


Thanks for the clarification Ben, I didn't see the 1 vote per 500 people rule in the constitution/by laws. I am not questioning the integrity of our state rep, I just know that how he votes isn't always the same how I would like it. Kind of like every political election I vote in. Who ever I vote for looses up here.


----------



## Ten_Zen (Dec 5, 2010)

But then how will I shoot my 2716's through my fully stabilized compound and still call it barebow? You mean you expect a typical upper level NFAA "Barebow" shooter to give up their precious letoff shoot a _recurve?_ Good luck with that.


----------



## ryan b. (Sep 1, 2005)

Ten_Zen said:


> But then how will I shoot my 2716's through my fully stabilized compound and still call it barebow? You mean you expect a typical upper level NFAA "Barebow" shooter to give up their precious letoff shoot a _recurve?_ Good luck with that.


Compounds with 30" stabs in " barebow" division is really quite ridiculous. But I think you're right, the top guys arent going to give up their winnings or standings. 

Someone earlier mentioned making a NEW class, maybe RECURVE BAREBOW, with the rules that everyone can suffer , then I think there would simply be a mass migration of the recurve shooters to the new class and the compound barebow could keep the class they are in without changing anything.


----------



## High Plains (Feb 29, 2008)

I see that NFAA Traditional allows a 12" rod and rest/plunger as well. How would a near Barebow Recurve class change the Traditional class? ASA Traditional also allows a 12" rod as well.


----------



## Demmer (Dec 1, 2012)

https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/ZFSM2LZ. Here is a survey that a friend put together if any of you guys are interested in participating. It might help out if we a bunch to participate in it.


----------



## SBills (Jan 14, 2004)

I'm in. 


I would have to check into how exactly to write up a petition but in general this would be my suggestion. I would not change the “Barebow” class. I do not think it is right for us to go into a class that is currently predominantly compound and tell everybody to get out. I would prose that the Traditional (I hate that term) class be renamed to Barebow Recurve and adopt the below rules in line with WA standards. With the intent to help archers competing in this discipline to have less equipment change over when going to various tournaments and with a goal to get increased participation in U.S tournaments from archers in other countries. 

For the Barebow Recurve Division the following items are permitted:

1. A bow of any type provided it complies with the common meaning of the word bow as used in target archery, that is, an instrument consisting of a handle (grip), riser (no shoot-through type) and two flexible limbs each ending in a tip with a string nock. The bow is braced for use by a single string attached directly between the two string nocks, and in operation is held in one hand by its handle (grip) while the fingers of the other hand draw and release the string.
The bow as described above shall be bare except for the arrow rest and free from protrusions, sights or sight marks, marks or blemishes or laminated pieces (within the bow window area) which could be of use in aiming. The unbraced bow complete with permitted accessories shall be capable of passing through a hole or ring with a 12.2cm inside diameter +/-0.5mm.
2. Multi-colored bow risers, and trademarks located on the inside of the upper and lower limb or on the riser are permitted. However if the area within the sight window is coloured in such a way that it could be used for aiming, then it must be taped over.
3. Risers including a brace are permitted provided the brace does not consistently touch the athlete’s hand or wrist.
4. A bow string of any number of strand which may be of different colours and of the material chosen for the purpose. It may have a center serving to accommodate the drawing fingers, a nocking point to which may be added serving(s) to fit the arrow nock as necessary, and, to locate this point, one or two nock locators may be positioned. At each end of the bowstring there is a loop which is placed in the string nocks of the bow when braced. No lip or nose mark is permitted. The serving on the string shall not end within the athlete’s vision at full draw. The bowstring shall not in any way assist aiming through the use of a peephole, marking, or any other means.
5. An arrow rest, which can be adjustable.
6. A moveable pressure button, pressure point or arrow plate may all be used on the bow provided they do not offer any additional aid in aiming. The pressure point may not be placed any further back than 2cm (inside) from the throat of the handle (pivot point of the bow).
7. No draw check device may be used.
8. Face and string walking are permitted.
9. No stabilizers are permitted.
10. Torque flight compensators fitted as part of the bow are permitted provided that they do not have stabilizers.
11. Weight(s) may be added to the lower part of the riser. All weights, regardless of shape, shall mount directly to the riser without rods, extensions, angular mounting connections or shock-absorbing devices.
12. Arrows of any type may be used provided they subscribe to the accepted principle and meaning of the word arrow as used in target archery, and that these arrows do not cause undue damage to the targets.
13 An arrow consists of a shaft with a tip (point), nocks, fletching and, if desired, cresting. The maximum diameter of arrow shafts shall not exceed 9.3mm (arrow wraps shall not be considered as part of this limitation as long they do not extend further than 22cm toward the point of the arrow when measured from the throat - nock hole where the string sits - of the nock to the end of the wrap); the tips (points) for these arrows may have a maximum diameter of 9.4mm. All arrows of every athlete shall be marked with the athlete's name or initials on the shaft. All arrows used shall be identical and shall carry the same pattern and color(s) of fletching, nocks and cresting, if any. Tracer nocks (electrically/electronically lighted nocks) are not allowed.
14. Finger protection in the form of finger stalls or tips, gloves, or shooting tab or tape, to draw and release the string is permitted, provided they do not incorporate any device that shall assist the athlete to hold, draw and release the string.
15. A separator between the fingers to prevent pinching the arrow may be used. An anchor plate or similar device attached to the finger protection (tab) for the purpose of anchoring is permitted. The stitching shall be uniform in color. Marks or lines shall be uniform in size, shape and color. Additional memoranda and markings are not permitted. On the bow hand an ordinary glove, mitten or similar item may be worn but shall not be attached to the grip of the bow.
16. Field glasses, telescopes and other visual aids for spotting arrows: Provided they do not represent any obstruction to other athletes.
17. Prescription spectacles, shooting spectacles and sunglasses may be used. None of these may be fitted with micro hole lenses, or similar devices, nor may they be marked in any way that can assist in aiming.
18. Should the athlete need to cover the spectacle glass of the non-sighting eye, then it shall be fully covered or taped, or an eye patch may be used.
19. Accessories are permitted: Including arm guard, chest protector, bow sling, belt-, back- or ground-quiver. Devices to raise a foot or part thereof, attached or independent of the shoe, are permitted provided that the devices do not present an obstruction to other athletes at the shooting peg or protrude more than 2cm past the footprint of the shoe. Also permitted are limb savers


In this petition the longbow rules would need to be more specifically defined as a standalone class because currently they say same as traditional except………………


----------



## twofinger (Feb 12, 2012)

I am one of those compound unsighted shooters, I have a recurve also in which I have played around with. I too think that there are too many classes. But my thing is it would be easy to allow the 12 inch stab then that way guys that don't have a bare bow riser could shoot adding weight to a riser to me is no different then putting on a stab. if nfaa would say to me that we are dropping the barebow compound class I would be fine with that. but by the way Illinois target archery in their upcoming state shoot has a compound bare bow class but to shoot it you need to be a usa archery member for a class that usa archery does not have.


----------



## SBills (Jan 14, 2004)

Survey done John. One thing I also did not address above but probably should is the 9.3mm 23 series arrow thing. I would advocate we use the 9.3mm arrows.


----------



## benzy (Oct 23, 2006)

> ASA Traditional also allows a 12" rod as well.


It says here no stabilizer...

http://www.asaarchery.com/IP/index.php/rules/class-conversion-ibo-chart


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Great job Scott. 

A "recurve barebow" class makes a lot of sense by allowing compound barebow archers to continue. It would also make room for a true "traditional" class in NFAA that would be in line with IBO traditional recurve, for the guys that don't want string/face walking in their division and who want to shoot off the shelf. 

That way, the string walking paper punchers could go back and forth between USArchery and NFAA, and the more traditional crowd could go back and forth between NFAA and IBO. 

I'd be 100% in favor of that.


----------



## High Plains (Feb 29, 2008)

Looks like the ASA needs to fix their site.

From the Archery Shooters Association 2015 Rules of Competition;

http://www.asaarchery.com/IP/index.php/tournament-info/rules


Traditional 25 yards, 280 FPS, Unknown

Bow must be either recurve or longbow without wheels or cams. No release aid, no sights, a single stabilizer up to 12” in length measured from the point of attachment, no overdraws, no draw checks, must have one finger touching the arrow nock, and must use one consistent anchor point. No marks on the sight window, string, or bow to use as an aiming or judging reference. All arrows must be identical in size, weight and construction.


----------



## Laurie Borealis (Mar 10, 2012)

limbwalker said:


> Great job Scott.
> 
> A "recurve barebow" class makes a lot of sense by allowing compound barebow archers to continue. It would also make room for a true "traditional" class in NFAA that would be in line with IBO traditional recurve, for the guys that don't want string/face walking in their division and who want to shoot off the shelf.
> 
> ...


Me too! And great Survey Monkey survey, Demmer. Let's all spread that link around, and to other forums that aren't called "F.I.T.A." so we get input from members of the other organizations, too.


----------



## deadeyedickwc (Jan 10, 2010)

the problem as i see it is getting ever org to play with each other , really doubt it will happen. i tried to start a trad div in vegas a few years ago , was told it needs large numbers to get one , the barebow div they have now is just holding on , though this year look a lot better, your up against tough odds here but good luck , anything possible


----------



## benzy (Oct 23, 2006)

Thank You HP. I thought that's what the ASA rules said, but when I went to verify it, I could only find what I posted...

As a future BB competitor, I would like to see a more standard classification across the orgs. For now I just need to practice more.


----------



## Demmer (Dec 1, 2012)

I like that Scott. Let the compounders have their class. I would hate for them to get something taken away from them. Troy, if this thing gets rolling and has some good traction, who knows maybe for Vegas we could get a recurve barebow class with a big enough participation at indoor nationals.


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

deadeyedickwc said:


> the problem as i see it is getting ever org to play with each other , really doubt it will happen. i tried to start a trad div in vegas a few years ago , was told it needs large numbers to get one , the barebow div they have now is just holding on , though this year look a lot better, your up against tough odds here but good luck , anything possible


Just holding on???? We have at least 44 registered archers this year and a registration that has been going up each year. Kind of reminds me of Mark Twains famous quote, " The reports of my demise have been widely exaggerated". Just to set the record straight, the barebow classes overall are growing and there is definitely a growing interest in recurve barebow. I have been, and always will be, an advocate for less classes in archery. As much as I would like to see a WA rules class of barebow within the Nfaa, I would vote against it if we didn't get rid of the other recurve classes. We don't need dilution of the recurvers, we need to consolidate.JMHO


----------



## SBills (Jan 14, 2004)

I agree with what Ben said. My idea was not to add a class but change Traditional to this. IMO this is not even as dramatic a change as the addition of the stabilizer to the current Traditional rules. So in other words I do not view this as widening the difference between a wood bow recurve shooter and a barebow Olympic style shooter. I think this brings the two closer.


----------



## Demmer (Dec 1, 2012)

Scott, I've always said that if Lancaster or nfaa trad were more in line with fita barebow, they would bring in some wood bow guys. Right now, not so much. I agree with you that it would bridge the gap some.


----------



## SBills (Jan 14, 2004)

Great minds think alike John. :wink:


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

I will say this again it needs to start in NFAA Trad which is not NFAA barebow. you just need to change the Stabilizer rule to fit through 12.5cm and allow string walking. As Ben and Demmer will agree don't mess with Compound barebow. Don't add more divisions to NFAA. just change the TRAD recurve division only ! you do it in petition form through NFAA you still have a month left before the NFAA meeting. This could be done at Vegas if you would just listen. 

If the goal of some is to continue to splinter the competition so that the competitive pool is as shallow as possible, then we don't need to change a thing because that's what we have right now. 
John if you wrote this for my benefit you don't know me !!!! If you didn't I apologize
Gary


----------



## Laurie Borealis (Mar 10, 2012)

2413gary said:


> I will say this again it needs to start in NFAA Trad which is not NFAA barebow. you just need to change the Stabilizer rule to fit through 12.5cm and allow string walking. As Ben and Demmer will agree don't mess with Compound barebow. Don't add more divisions to NFAA. just change the TRAD recurve division only ! you do it in petition form through NFAA you still have a month left before the NFAA meeting. This could be done at Vegas if you would just listen.
> 
> 
> Gary


Gary, this is awesome. You love your stabilizer, you argue passionately for it, but you are giving us your best, and very knowledgeable, advice on how to achieve the change many of us want that would do away with your stabilizer in the trad class. A very sincere thank you. (And what if national politics was like this?)


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

So at Vegas, are we going to have a meeting of the minds one of the evenings to work on this? I will be the first in line to attend.


----------



## Laurie Borealis (Mar 10, 2012)

Mr. Roboto said:


> So at Vegas, are we going to have a meeting of the minds one of the evenings to work on this? I will be the first in line to attend.


Seems like there should be an NFAA petition ready to circulate at Vegas (and elsewhere). Also seems like we're pretty close to arriving at what the petition should basically say? Scott's proposal?


----------



## Demmer (Dec 1, 2012)

I think we should have some kind of proposal written up by then so we could start getting some signatures or maybe some changes made if necessary


----------



## hawghunter2585 (Mar 16, 2010)

From NFAA Traiditional guidelines. Blue would be old rules, and red would be the changes.

H. Traditional:
1. This style of shooting is for those who wish to compete with the Recurve or Longbow.
2. No device of any kind, including arrow rest, that can be used for sighting will be used or
attached to the archers’ equipment.
3. There shall be no device, mechanical or otherwise, in the sight window except the arrow
rest, arrow plate or plunger button.
4. No part of the rest or arrow plate may extend more than ¼ inch above the arrow.
5. No clickers, drawchecks or levels will be allowed. No laminations, marks or blemishes on
the face of the bow or in the sight window will be legal.
6. The string may be of any color but must have a single color center serving. One single
nocking point is permitted. One or two nock locators may be used. Brush buttons and string
silencers, properly placed may be used. Any other marks or string attachments will be
illegal.
7. One anchor point only is permitted. Face walking is permitted
8. The archer shall touch the arrow when nocked and drawing the arrow with the index finger
against the nock. Finger position may not be changed during competition. Stringwalking is permitted. 
In the case of physical disability of the arms or hands, a chew strap may be used in place of fingers.
9. Gloves, tabs or fingers shall be the only legal releases. In the case of physical disability of
the arms or hands, a chew strap may be used in place of fingers.
10. All arrows shall be identical in length, weight, diameter and fletching with allowance for
wear and tear.
11. One straight stabilizer, coupling device included, if used, which cannot exceed 12 inches at
any time as measured from the back of the bow. Weight(s) may be added to the lower part of the riser. 
All weights, regardless of shape, shall mount directly to the riser without rods, extensions, angular mounting connections or 
shock-absorbing devices.The unbraced bow complete with permitted accessories shall be capable of passing through a hole or ring with 
a 12.2cm inside diameter +/-0.5mm.
12. No written memorandum will be allowed.
13. Bow Slings are permissible.
14. During a round no adjustments may be made to the bow and/or its related equipment unless equipment failure is recognized.
A moveable pressure button, pressure point or arrow plate may all be used on the bow provided they do not offer 
any additional aid in aiming, or an arrow rest, which can be adjustable is permitted.
15. For all tournaments below the Sectional level, all traditional archers may shoot at Youth distances.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

If string walking is to be allowed don't forget to add something to the effect of "no marks or blemishes allowed on tabs, nor may tab be measured against any part of the bow or bowserving" (it wouldn't be fair to allow string walkers to do on the tab what POA shooters are prohibited from doing on e bow.)


----------



## SBills (Jan 14, 2004)

Should arrow size be addressed? NFAA allows up to 27 series. I don't really see why a particular class could not specify otherwise, but it might be a hill not worth fighting for. Anyone shooting a WA legal rig could shoot in this NFAA class with their 9.3mm series arrows and anyone wanting to shoot an NAA event would need to have 9.3 size arrows set up.


----------



## SBills (Jan 14, 2004)

Warbow said:


> nor may tab be measured against any part of the bow or bowserving" (it wouldn't be fair to allow string walkers to do on the tab what POA shooters are prohibited from doing on e bow.)


Ummm that is what stringwalking is. You set your thumbnail against the serving and slide the tab down to that mark. We are trying to make this inclusive and common. Not an idealistic or romantic sub set of rules for idealists.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

SBills said:


> Ummm that is what stringwalking is. You set your thumbnail against the serving and slide the tab down to that mark. We are trying to make this inclusive and common. Not an idealistic or romantic sub set of rules for idealists.


Then you need to allow marks on the bow to be consistent - both are *calibrated* aiming systems. It is possible to eyeball your string walking gap just as it is for your arrow point gap, or can use calibtated measurements. I'm just saying to be consistent about calibration measurement aids. Seeing as how you aren't trying to be "idealistic" that shouldn't be a problem.

I consider stringwalking to be highly effective, really cool and highly technical. However, if you allow marks and/or comparative measurements, it is essentially taking the calibrated sight or sighting marks that are prohibited on the bow and sneaking it on to the tab and string.


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

WA rules say the stitching must be consistent in size and width all marks the same


----------



## ryan b. (Sep 1, 2005)

Warbow said:


> Then you need to allow marks on the bow to be consistent - both are *calibrated* aiming systems. It is possible to eyeball your string walking gap just as it is for your arrow point gap, or can use calibtated measurements. I'm just saying to be consistent about calibration measurement aids. Seeing as how you aren't trying to be "idealistic" that shouldn't be a problem.
> 
> I consider stringwalking to be highly effective, really cool and highly technical. However, if you allow marks and/or comparative measurements, it is essentially taking the calibrated sight or sighting marks that are prohibited on the bow and sneaking it on to the tab and string.


Incorrect.

You are still "aiming" with the arrow.

Everyone has an arrow to aim with. Marks on the riser are not an arrow point. They are fine lines, more sight like. Al barebow is equal in that your aiming device is the point of the arrow. If you take the time to set up a point-on or maintain point-on via string walking you are still using the arrow as your primary sight. 

And I'm sorry but how in the hell would you ever enforce the rule of "no counting your serving threads" lol. 
I like almost all of your posts, Warbow, but this point you are making is a little too tarditional


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

ryan b. said:


> Incorrect.
> 
> You are still "aiming" with the arrow.
> 
> ...


Actually, I agree it would be pretty much impossible to enforce a rule about measurements agsinst, say, your thumb ifvy aliwcstring waking. Which is why I proposed allowing marks on the bow as an equivalent to the calibrations allowed in string walking. They could be even "unmarked" marks - something equivalent to even stitching allowed on tabs under WA rules..

String walking is a method of using an adjustable calibrated site. The reticle of this adjustable, mechanical, calibrated sighting system just happens to be the arrow point. But there is no question about it being a calibrated sighting system, something that is not allowed on the bow itself under the current rules.

If you won't go for bow marks, then, at the very least, the tabs should be subject to the same mark and blemish rules the bows are. So no stitching or other distinguishing marks visible on the tab.

/pet peve

Apologies for going OT.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Any rules/allowances/considerations for stringwalking have already been written up in the WA rulebook. No need to reinvent the wheel.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> Any rules/allowances/considerations for stringwalking have already been written up in the WA rulebook. No need to reinvent the wheel.


I disagree to a certain extent, but agree that when attempting to consolidate rules it likely makes sense to go with an existing set, one that has already been hashed out - yet that isn't what is proposed by merging WA Barebow with NFAA trad - creating yet *another* standard, this time warping trad (already oddly defined with the de rigueur NFAA 12" stab) into barebow. Can't we leave a bow class as a no string walking class? (I'm not morally opposed to string waking, but some people prefer to shoot without string walking and it would be nice for them to be able to compete against others to shoot the same way they do.)


----------



## SBills (Jan 14, 2004)

limbwalker said:


> Any rules/allowances/considerations for stringwalking have already been written up in the WA rulebook. No need to reinvent the wheel.


What this guy said ^^


----------



## hammer08 (Aug 28, 2012)

In my opinion string walking needs to be included in the new rules. With out string walking I don't really see the point.


----------



## SBills (Jan 14, 2004)

Warbow this is about equipment rules not idiology or religion. It's like trying to enforce split vision vs gap. Aim how you like it but don't expect a separate class because you don't like how someone else aims.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

SBills said:


> Warbow this is about equipment rules not idiology or religion. It's like trying to enforce split vision vs gap. Aim how you like it but don't expect a separate class because you don't like how someone else aims.


Actually, it is not about equipment rules if you are including string walking in the rule change to NFAA trad. That's not an equipment rule.

As to "aim how I like," what if I like to aim off pencil marks on my bow's sight window? If you can use even stitching marks on your finger tab, or count setvings to calibrate your sightng system why can't I use even marks on my bow? It's the same principle.


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

Warbow said:


> If string walking is to be allowed don't forget to add something to the effect of "no marks or blemishes allowed on tabs, nor may tab be measured against any part of the bow or bowserving" (it wouldn't be fair to allow string walkers to do on the tab what POA shooters are prohibited from doing on e bow.)


Warbow, we are trying to get a set of rules that parallels WA rules. Stitching on tabs and other uniform marks are allowed.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

SBills said:


> Warbow this is about equipment rules not idiology or religion. It's like trying to enforce split vision vs gap. Aim how you like it but don't expect a separate class because you don't like how someone else aims.


Split vision, gap, POA and instinctive are all essentially indistinguishable from one another to a judge. String walking is distinguishable from finger touching the nock. And it's a whole different animal, because it is a calibrated, mechanical adjustable aiming system. Which frankly is the whole point of why some people want to use it, because it works very effectively. But that's because it really is different.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

itbeso said:


> Warbow, we are trying to get a set of rules that parallels WA rules. Stitching on tabs and other uniform marks are allowed.


If you are going to adopt WA Barebow rules wholesale, that's a good point, but less so if you are creating a new bow division. In that case the details are up for debate.


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

Warbow said:


> If you are going to adopt WA Barebow rules wholesale, that's a good point, but less so if you are creating a new bow division. In that case the details are up for debate.


The op and others are definitely not trying to create a new bow division, Wa barebow is the goal.


----------



## rsarns (Sep 23, 2008)

Doesn't WA allow a memorandum in BB? If so the rules a few posts ago should delete that item. By the way I am digging all the pro comments.... Lets not dilute the recurve ranks, I agree with ben and Gary, lets attack the NFAA Trad class with these changes.


----------



## Demmer (Dec 1, 2012)

Ren, that would be the most logical progression. The only thing would be arrow size. With WA, every class is limited on arrow size. In the nfaa, no class is limited. I think this would be the toughest aspect of the rules. What are your guys thoughts on arrow size? Have the new class being the only one that in forces arrow size, or just skip it all together?


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

Leave the arrow out


----------



## Demmer (Dec 1, 2012)

Honestly, I score better with skinny arrows over fat ones any day. I shoot 17/64 diameter arrows. I would think leaving the arrows alone would be best for the nfaa as a whole. No need for confusion on that one.


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

Allow tab markings as per WA, anything else is asinine. Good archers will simply count stitches which will slow the shoot down without any impact on accuracy.
Leave the arrows as is. Only place that might matter is indoor but quite frankly I doubt the 2712 will work well in this class.

As for compounds: BH and BB should be combined under a common set of rules. Its not like any new blood is coming into those classes and I doubt they will be around after the current generation shooting them retires.

-Grant


----------



## SBills (Jan 14, 2004)

Leave the arrows out. It should try to be inclusive. Anyone shooting WA eagle rig would qualify and for someone who wished only to shoot NFAA they could run 27 series arrows.


----------



## archer_nm (Mar 29, 2004)

I know I may regret this, but if you will put a preliminary agenda Item together following the NFAA guide lines (found in the documents section) I will take a look and give you some advice on your best way to get this past. At this point in time your best bet is to put together a 15 Signature item for the meeting in March, 15 signature is getting 15 Directors at the meeting to sign and it will then make to the floor. Depending on the vote from the directors assigned to that committee it may or may not go to the full board for a vote, it is worth a try. The only reason I am willing to help is I would love to see the Championship BB Division at Vegas Top 100 shooters and the only way this will happen is if we involve the International community. I qualified this at the top because I shoot with training wheels, but would change if I need to, some of you know me, so look for me in Vegas. One last thing is you will need to find a NFAA Director willing to run with the ball at the meeting, I won't do it because my track record with agenda items in past years has been less than successful.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Agreed. Leave the arrow out.


----------



## Bigjono (Apr 21, 2009)

How many guys on here shoot NFAA trad class regularly? I'm interested to hear their thoughts on changing their class. I'm a huge supporter of unified BB rules but if it's going to strip a class that guys enjoy away, it will need to be thought about thoroughly. If it's what they want then that makes it easy.


----------



## Demmer (Dec 1, 2012)

Jon, most that shoot nfaa nationals are crossovers that shoot everything under the sun.


----------



## Demmer (Dec 1, 2012)

Archer, I think we have a much better chance to pull international shooters if we can come together and unify a class in the nfaa and maybe with a great enough support make Lancaster and Vegas two of the premier championship shoots in the world for barebow. I might be dreaming, but I am know to dream big.


----------



## hammer08 (Aug 28, 2012)

I want the rule change but Jon brings up a great point. 

NFAA Trad class is bigger than Indoor Nationals. How are all the local shooters going to feel about the rule change? It's great at the top but I don't know how it will be received by everyone else, the vast majority of shooters.


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

Ok finely some here know how to get it done. So lets talk about it at Vegas and at Kentuckey and the World trad IBO in Tennessee. This will give us time to get a feel for the pulse of the top Barebow Community. This would be the first step then send us out to try and get the feel of the local shooters that will never venture out past their local club. I really like NFAA trad the way it is but if the Majority of recurve Barebow shooter want the change I'm ok with that. What I'm not for is to change just to get the Europeans over here. I want to see us grow here. 
Somebody start a poll here and on TradTalk


----------



## Demmer (Dec 1, 2012)

The European thing would be a bonus. Think of it this way. If we all are unified, when all the people are coaching the youngersters they can coach them one way with the same set of rules so all the kids can shoot anything anywhere and not have to worry about if they are legal or not. The coaches don't have to say, pick a side (orginization) and let's run with it, because now everyone is playing the same game. Well for one class anyway. I know there are those that will not cross over from organization to organization because the rules don't match and don't want to have to change their setup. The quality of the archers in general will get better because no more need to keep switching equipment all the time. Access to information on advice and advice in general will be easier to share and help each other out because will be shooting the same type of equipment. Most everyone will benefit from this from coaches to our youth. It will do nothing but grow our community and make it easier for us to excel in the US.


----------



## Bigjono (Apr 21, 2009)

Demmer said:


> Jon, most that shoot nfaa nationals are crossovers that shoot everything under the sun.


Ok, sounds fair then [emoji16]


----------



## Demmer (Dec 1, 2012)

Gary, pretty much the majority of the shooters will be in Vegas and or Louisville. Probably 95 percent of the barebow guys at trad worlds will be at these two shoots.


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

Please keep in mind it's not the crossovers I'm looking for. We have them already its the ones that don't show who I'm looking for


----------



## Demmer (Dec 1, 2012)

You have to look for them as well. They do count for something. The biggest benefit will be from from the ground up. This might not see great immediate results, but 5 or 10 years down the road is where we will see the greatest rewards. Getting that great foundation is the beginning in getting our numbers up.


----------



## Demmer (Dec 1, 2012)

I added a poll to this thread as well.


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

2413gary said:


> Ok finely some here know how to get it done. So lets talk about it at Vegas and at Kentuckey and the World trad IBO in Tennessee. This will give us time to get a feel for the pulse of the top Barebow Community. This would be the first step then send us out to try and get the feel of the local shooters that will never venture out past their local club. I really like NFAA trad the way it is but if the Majority of recurve Barebow shooter want the change I'm ok with that. What I'm not for is to change just to get the Europeans over here. I want to see us grow here.
> Somebody start a poll here and on TradTalk


This is a lot of BS coming from someone who knows better. The local shooters that never venture out past their local club DO NOT COUNT in these decisions. What is important is the opinion of the archers who actually pay it forward by attending state, sectional, and national tournaments. The participation at Nfaa nationals in the trad division is pathetic. The USA Archery org. dropped barebow last year because of lousy attendance. The trad division is usually underrepresented at every "for score' tournament in the country. Why penalize the archers who are trying to get better, who are elevating their game to compete on a high level? Drop the trad division altogether and let those who want to shoot that equipment, go to all the fun shoots where it doesn't matter how you shoot. Those shoots will be well attended and if we make uniform rules for the rest, then all the tournaments that count will be well attended. By tournaments that count, I mean this: The NFAA, ASA, USA archery, and Vegas all have dropped or come close to dropping styles of shooting that weren't getting participation at the big shoots. Yes, even Vegas kicked out the Barebow class for a couple of years because of lack of participants. Those organizations look at one thing, how many participants show up for any given class. The trad class can't keep having 4-6 competitors showing up and expect to survive. In my opinion, those who want to coddle every archer out there are going to be the ruin of competitive archery.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

itbeso said:


> The local shooters that never venture out past their local club DO NOT COUNT in these decisions. What is important is the opinion of the archers who actually pay it forward by attending state, sectional, and national tournaments. .. In my opinion, those who want to coddle every archer out there are going to be the ruin of competitive archery.


Fragmentation does seem to be an issue, yet one can look at it from the opposite side, too. One could call unifying the classes across orgs "codling" people who can't simply shoot the common denominator, or shoot the way the classes are written? Nobody is *required* to shoot a 12" stab in NFAA. 

I don't have skin in this game like you guys do since I'm not an NFAA member, though I do shoot at some NFAA ranges, but the NFAA members who don't travel to shoots are dues paying members, I assume. I can see how it might make sense to let the people who actually use the bow classes have more say in what they should be, but the disparagement of the rest of the membership comes off, to me anyway, as a bit crass. :dontknow:


----------



## wabbithunter (Mar 25, 2005)

Being from Canada I follow WA rules.So for target I shoot barebow,and for 3d I shoot instinctive.Instinctive is wooden riser,touching nock,etc. I know from what I've seen that there should be those 2 classes ,and not try to dump everyone into one class.I shoot in the states ND,MT on regular occasions.Guys there are not shooting barebow the way guys like Dewayne,and Demmer do.I think to be able to try and adopt a change in rules The WA would cover both the Increase in Barebow like the Lancaster Classic shown and also leave a class (Instinctive ) for guys who do not want to enter that level of competition.I think there would be room to have both a instinctive and a barebow class.That being said on the target side only barebow is recognized.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

wabbithunter said:


> Being from Canada I follow WA rules.So for target I shoot barebow,and for 3d I shoot instinctive.Instinctive is wooden riser,touching nock,etc. I know from what I've seen that there should be those 2 classes ,and not try to dump everyone into one class.I shoot in the states ND,MT on regular occasions.Guys there are not shooting barebow the way guys like Dewayne,and Demmer do.I think to be able to try and adopt a change in rules The WA would cover both the Increase in Barebow like the Lancaster Classic shown and also leave a class (Instinctive ) for guys who do not want to enter that level of competition.I think there would be room to have both a instinctive and a barebow class.That being said on the target side only barebow is recognized.


I don't think you can have an "instinctive" class per se, since there is no way to tell it from gap or POA. But you can have the single anchor, finger must touch nock rule, as the NFAA currently does, and the local club shoots use when they do 3D trad shoots with recurve, longbow and primitive or selfbow classes (which people do show up for, though certainly not in Vegas or Redding numbers.)


----------



## Lipi (Sep 9, 2014)

I believe wabbithunter was using the term "instinctive" as an "instinctive bow division" in WA rules (book 4, chapter 22.4). (As with barebow, it covers mostly the equipment. As for shooting technique, it only prohibits string- and facewalking.) "Instinctive" in WA covers most traditional bows (typically TRRB), except for longbow, which has its own division.


----------



## SBills (Jan 14, 2004)

hammer08 said:


> How are all the local shooters going to feel about the rule change? It's great at the top but I don't know how it will be received by everyone else, the vast majority of shooters.


We have to remember we are looking at rule changes for those that shoot competition so these rules are for those that will ever go to shoot competitions. 

I can only speak to my little local piece of the pie. In my region we are lucky enough to have a few of the best barebow shooter in the state (MI) and ones who have been competitive nationally. These same ones including myself also typically shoot at a minimum the indoor nationals as well as local and State shoots. As my club hosts local shoots, I see what guys are shooting. In the last few years I believe I have only seen one or two shooters shooting wood bows. The vast majority of shooters are all shooting ILF or metal riser bows with a now legal stabilizer. I don't think any would be scared off by stringwalking nor as I stated earlier di I think these rules would run these wood bow shooters off and would probably bring the class closer. 

We have a shoot at our club in a few weeks so I can certainly ask.


----------



## pokynojoe (Feb 2, 2006)

My comment that follows concerns the changes you all are proposing for the NFAA. The other organizations are of no concern to me, or the rest of my brother and sister NFAA members in my state.

I’ve been an NFAA member for quite some time, and I like the way the “Traditional” class is at the present time. My state’s NFAA membership is quite small, but we have experienced an uptick in membership among the “Traditional” (for lack of a better term) shooters in the last several years. I don’t exactly know the reasons for this, although we have made an effort the last few years to reach out to this segment. These brother and sister NFAA members in my state that shoot this class, shoot very basic kits, they're not interested in WA or any other organization. I’d hate to alienate them at this point. We only compete at the State and Sectional level so maybe our feelings on this don’t matter, I get the impression from this thread, that the only ones that do, are the handful of elite shooters in this thread, if my impression is incorrect, I apologize in advance. 

Many of our members are Silver Senior and Master Senior, as a matter of fact; the Master Seniors are the largest division in all of our NFAA sanctioned shoots. As you can imagine, they are resistant to change, speaking for myself, I’m more flexible. We are working hard to recruit, but so far we’ve had limited success. I know that “Barebow” and the limited classes are fading away, since these classes are shot by our Master Seniors (at least in my state they are) I hope they get to “just fade away.”

I understand the desire of our elite shooters to reach their highest potential, and I also understand how streamlining their kits would assist them in doing so. As a fellow NFAA member, I’m proud of their achievements, and want them to do well. But then I wonder, what about the rest of us? Many of my brothers and sisters have supported the NFAA for years, paid our dues, ran tournaments and recruiting drives, and persevered through all the changes over the years. We are still here; let us have our day, we’ll be gone soon.

I know this is selfish, but the present NFAA styles and divisions are working for us, but if change comes, and I learned a long time ago that if the “big block states” want it, it will, we’ll persevere.


----------



## brtesite (May 24, 2002)

archer_nm said:


> I know I may regret this, but if you will put a preliminary agenda Item together following the NFAA guide lines (found in the documents section) I will take a look and give you some advice on your best way to get this past. At this point in time your best bet is to put together a 15 Signature item for the meeting in March, 15 signature is getting 15 Directors at the meeting to sign and it will then make to the floor. Depending on the vote from the directors assigned to that committee it may or may not go to the full board for a vote, it is worth a try. The only reason I am willing to help is I would love to see the Championship BB Division at Vegas Top 100 shooters and the only way this will happen is if we involve the International community. I qualified this at the top because I shoot with training wheels, but would change if I need to, some of you know me, so look for me in Vegas. One last thing is you will need to find a NFAA Director willing to run with the ball at the meeting, I won't do it because my track record with agenda items in past years has been less than successful.


it never ends ,does it .even if the committee recommends No action on the agenda, It can still be brought to the floor just by a director votes to 
adopt tHings were a lot simpler before until some one had an idea. When they could't win in one div. they created another.
When I started , there 3 div. FS, BB, & heavy tackle which is BH now. Now we could have maybe 140 (i'm not sure) national champions
good luck Bob. it is like shoveling stuff against the tide


----------



## SBills (Jan 14, 2004)

Just for clarification my points were made for shooters that actually come to shoots. Be they local, State or National. They don’t have to be "elite" just attend. What I don’t believe a class should do is cater to those who just shoot at clubs. There is absolutely nothing wrong with just shooting for fun, practice or hunting. My club has several guys and gals who shoot recurves in what many would call a true traditional (have I mentioned I hate that term) setup. These shooters would not care what the NFAA does with the rules because they are not shooting these events. 

Also once again the general rules being discussed here don’t add to complexity. They are actually more basic in terms of equipment rules and just more liberal on shooting style. 

Since I just had this discussion again the other day I will relate actual discussions I have had for several years. You cannot imagine the look you get from people when you try to explain the rules for barebow as currently constituted. “Well if I shoot this bow in NFAA Trad I have to use a 12’ stabilizer and have my index finger against the nock, but currently I have it set up for NFAA barebow which allows me to use the long rod, v-bars and string walk. But this class also allows the use of a compound. Oh and I could use a clicker if I liked. But if I shoot the NAA shoot in March I can’t have any of those stabilizers but I could add a small weight and I can still stringwalk.” You can practically see their eyes roll back into their head. 

And we wonder why some don’t turn out??????????????


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> You cannot imagine the look you get from people when you try to explain the rules for barebow as currently constituted. “Well if I shoot this bow in NFAA Trad I have to use a 12’ stabilizer and have my index finger against the nock, but currently I have it set up for NFAA barebow which allows me to use the long rod, v-bars and string walk. But this class also allows the use of a compound. Oh and I could use a clicker if I liked. But if I shoot the NAA shoot in March I can’t have any of those stabilizers but I could add a small weight and I can still stringwalk.” You can practically see their eyes roll back into their head.
> 
> And we wonder why some don’t turn out??????????????


I've seen this myself many, many times. 

Unity in barebow target archery is critical at a time like this when we have so many young and new archers coming in - most of whom are interested in shooting barebow (because that's what they do in the movies). 

Trying to explain all the "inside baseball" barebow lingo to someone new to the sport is very frustrating for both them and the person doing the 'splainin'


----------



## Demmer (Dec 1, 2012)

Joe, did you have a problem with the nfaa trad two years ago? What we are suggesting is that that style from two years ago can be shot with no problem now. No you can aim how you want to aim and put weight on it to get it to balance the way you want it to. It makes things soo simple for us and the you get generation to transistion to any shoot and orginiaztion they want. We need everything to be simple for the younger generation, because that's the way it is now. They tend to gravitate to what is simple and makes sense. They are the ones you really need to think about, because the ones that show up to the shoots are generally older 35+. We need the younger ones to keep this going for generations to come. If you guys step back and look at the big picture of things, we really need to take advantage in the surge of movies and TV shows that are highlighting recurves. That will die out eventually, so we have to captivate them while we can. Keeping it simple would be the best way .


----------



## wabbithunter (Mar 25, 2005)

I think unity would be good to establish a barebow class.I know for myself I was considering vegas until I watched a couple past utube videos. Being new to this I didn't realize at the time that compounds with full stabilization was allowed in Barebow.Different organization (WA)Different take on what barebow is considered as up here.With the world cups and coverage WA is getting,would it be wrong to try and bring in their version of Barebow?


----------



## Demmer (Dec 1, 2012)

Wabbit, I will be shooting a wa bb rig in Vegas. I know I'll be sacrificing a little on the points side, but hopefully it will make some kind of statement. Maybe not, but I'm doing it anyway


----------



## hammer08 (Aug 28, 2012)

Demmer said:


> We need everything to be simple for the younger generation, because that's the way it is now. They tend to gravitate to what is simple and makes sense.


Hey now! Easy on us younger guys.


----------



## Demmer (Dec 1, 2012)

Grayson, to a teenager, you're old as dirt too. Lol


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

Now that a bunch have voted how many of us belong to NFAA because these are the rules we are talking about changing. If you don't belong or plan to don't tell us how to run our organization. Don't take this as a slap on the face this is a decision for NFAA members only. Now if you want to join our ranks we would be glad to have you.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

I've been a member of NFAA off and on for probably 7 of the last 10 years. It's a great organization. It's not perfect, but I do like the way it's run better than the current USArchery org.


----------



## Demmer (Dec 1, 2012)

I might make a couple more options tonight for the poll.


----------



## Demmer (Dec 1, 2012)

I am a member of nfaa, and tonight will pony up for the lifetime membership of the nfaa and USA.


----------



## vabowdog (Dec 13, 2007)

I've belonged to NFAA for 4 years...and will continue to be a member.


Dewayne Martin


----------



## hammer08 (Aug 28, 2012)

I'm a member of NFAA and plan to be a member USA.


----------



## Laurie Borealis (Mar 10, 2012)

I have belonged to the NFAA for three years and recently re-upped with a family membership to include my husband. I joined USA Archery as well last year, and I plan to keep supporting both organizations. I plan to shoot trad in Louisville, as I have done the past two years, but I didn't check the box on the poll that said "I'm an NFAA trad shooter" because I primarily think of myself as a recurve BB shooter now. But I love that the NFAA has a lot of field shoots.


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

pokynojoe said:


> My comment that follows concerns the changes you all are proposing for the NFAA. The other organizations are of no concern to me, or the rest of my brother and sister NFAA members in my state.
> 
> I’ve been an NFAA member for quite some time, and I like the way the “Traditional” class is at the present time. My state’s NFAA membership is quite small, but we have experienced an uptick in membership among the “Traditional” (for lack of a better term) shooters in the last several years. I don’t exactly know the reasons for this, although we have made an effort the last few years to reach out to this segment. These brother and sister NFAA members in my state that shoot this class, shoot very basic kits, they're not interested in WA or any other organization. I’d hate to alienate them at this point. We only compete at the State and Sectional level so maybe our feelings on this don’t matter, I get the impression from this thread, that the only ones that do, are the handful of elite shooters in this thread, if my impression is incorrect, I apologize in advance.
> 
> ...


Joe, the key thing that you stated was that you are still here through all the changes in rules through the years. Change is inevitable, and if it is for the good of archery, then it is good for us. The present NFAA styles are not working as several of the classes are severely underrepresented at the shoots that count. These Organizations look at the numbers that show up to their major tournaments. No participants is going to get a style dropped. This isn't about the "elite" shooters as many of you are prone to say, It is about bringing shooting rules in line with the rest of the world so our style of shooting (recurve Barebow) will be stronger and continue to grow.


----------



## SBills (Jan 14, 2004)

NFAA member since 2006 and current USA archery member.


----------



## J. Wesbrock (Dec 17, 2003)

2413gary said:


> For me to go from NFAA Trad Recurve to IFAA Recurve Bowhunter to IBO RU to WA barebow is a simple stabilizer change. It takes about 60 seconds I just don't see it being a big deal


Same here.


----------



## J. Wesbrock (Dec 17, 2003)

Oh, and I'm also an NFAA member.


----------



## J. Wesbrock (Dec 17, 2003)

twofinger said:


> I am one of those compound unsighted shooters, I have a recurve also in which I have played around with. I too think that there are too many classes. But my thing is it would be easy to allow the 12 inch stab then that way guys that don't have a bare bow riser could shoot adding weight to a riser to me is no different then putting on a stab. if nfaa would say to me that we are dropping the barebow compound class I would be fine with that. but by the way Illinois target archery in their upcoming state shoot has a compound bare bow class but to shoot it you need to be a usa archery member for a class that usa archery does not have.


You can shoot the ITAA state championship if you have either an NFAA or USAA membership. If you don't have either, a temporary membership can be arranged during check-in. Come on out. It's a fun shoot.


----------



## Demmer (Dec 1, 2012)

Jason, if memory serves me correctly, you are shooting barebow not trad right?[emoji12]


----------



## J. Wesbrock (Dec 17, 2003)

But my silver bowl says Traditional. 

Yes, I'm shooting Barebow at Louisville. I may switch to back Traditional for field this year. Not sure yet.


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

Do you remember how to gap ? you been string walking a lot lately


J. Wesbrock said:


> But my silver bowl says Traditional.
> 
> Yes, I'm shooting Barebow at Louisville. I may switch to back Traditional for field this year. Not sure yet.


----------



## J. Wesbrock (Dec 17, 2003)

2413gary said:


> Do you remember how to gap ? you been string walking a lot lately


You just want your nickels back.


----------



## UrbanDeerSlayer (Feb 10, 2012)

I will support whatever. I would like to set up a bow and shoot it anywhere. When one organization says you can use a clicker, next one says no clicker........ Use a stab, don't use a stab..... Stringwalking allowed, no string walking allowed.......etc....... It's a big PIA. 

Let's keep it simple and uniform across the board.

And I will add this....it's all about the numbers of shooters that show up. If you accomplish a major rule change then a movement will need to be started to get turnout to these events. But it will be a lot easier if the same "Barebow" can shoot at NFAA, IBO, IFAA, etc.... If I could set up one bow to shoot this stuff I am more likely to travel a bit more.


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

I have been an NFAA member for 12 years now. I even got my chinese made 10 year pin (don't get me going on that insult). I used to be an NAA member but quit that organization a few years ago solely because of how they treated barebow shooters. I am excited to see that they are finally looking to acknowledge that we barebow shooters are a real group of people. I will be happy to rejoin them if I feel that they are sincere about allowing us to be part of their shoots. Yeah, I know, its a catch 22 thing. Why support a group of people that don't bother to show up, or people don't show up because they feel unsupported.


For the most part the rule changes primarily affects two things: whether or not keeping the 12" stabilizer and whether or not to continue prohibiting string/face walking.

There are people that really like the 12 inch stabilizer. Changing the rules that prohibit them will have an unfortunate negative impact on them. But those who don't shoot with a stab, this rule change will have no impact on them. The current rules do not force people to have to put a stab on their bow, it just allows them the option to put one on it they choose. 

The second thing is this whole issue of string/face walking. Changing the rules to allow string/face walking does nothing to everyone that instinctive shoots, gaps, pick a point, uses the shelf, etc. Everyone can still do that and nothing is going to force them to change. This rule change will just allow those that like to string/face walk to be able to use that technique. This rule change doesn't take anything away from anyone. It opens the door for others. So what is wrong with that?

I personally use a combination of gapping and pick a point method. I have been advised to become Ben Rogers best friend at Vegas in hopes that he shows me how he gaps. I have been told that he has the best gapping technique in the world, and I would love to learn it. My equipment is 100% NFAA Traditional Compliant and WA Compliant including my arrows. This rule change will have zero negative impact one me. But it will allow me to try to develop string/face walking. Will I ever use it in tournaments? I have no idea, it all depends on how well I can figure it out. And I am no elite shooter.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Mr. Roboto, I like the results I achieved with the 12" stabilizer too! My NFAA "Traditional" scores went up by at least 10 points/round, overnight! Heck, just imagine what I could score if I were allowed to string walk, could add a clicker and a long stabilizer. And then maybe a sight. Oh wait. I already know what I can do with a tricked-out recurve...  See where I'm going with this?

But really, I (and many others) just want to be able to carry the same bow from shoot to shoot, and still be competitive without being told how we have to hold it or aim it.

If WA allowed the 12" stabilizer and NFAA Trad allowed us to string walk, I wouldn't give a hoot. Everyone would be on the same page and nobody would have to suffer make-believe rules. I'd probably throw up in my mouth a little every time someone referred to the division as "traditional" or "barebow" but I think the reason we compete is to enjoy the competition, not to dissect rules and argue over equipment.

But if the top (read - world class) barebow shooters in the U.S. are ever going to be treated with the same respect as the top compound and Olympic recurve archers, this is a critical issue. Why? Because you don't see Brady or Reo or Jesse or Khatuna having to change their setups from one major event to the next in order to remain competitive. 

This used to be the case with WA/NAA/USArchery barebow and NFAA Traditional, until the 12" stabilizer screwed that up. Now, to keep pace with the top shooters a fellow all but HAS to go back and forth between a weighted bow, and a stabilized bow. It's no small issue.

We just need consistency. And it's not just so the elite shooters can stop wasting time switching gear/shooting styles mid-season, but also so those new to barebow can read one basic set of rules, and then go wherever they want to compete in barebow archery without either being turned away or realizing they didn't bring a competitive setup.

The time is now.


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

John I know just what you mean by not being competitive at a shoot by not bringing the right equipment. like having a bow that fits through a 12.5cm ring VS one with a 12" stabilizer. I get it. On the other hand when you allow string walking VS gapping it's the same problem if I don't string walk I'm not very competitive. So by adding string walking you are forcing us gappers to string walk.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> So by adding string walking you are forcing us gappers to string walk.


I understand. I felt I was "forced" to throw a 12" stabilizer on my bow last year, and "forced" to gap when I wanted to shoot the TFAA event. 

Like I said, to a point, I don't really care as long as the primary target barebow organizations are consistent! If WA said "oh heck, we'll let them use 12" stab's and we don't like string walking anymore" then all that does is simplify my life! I'd laugh every time someone said we were shooting "traditional" or "barebow" but I'd show up and shoot!

And FWIW, I only started stringwalking just 2 years ago. The 25+ years before that, when I shot a NFAA trad or hunting rig, it was 3-under or split, always touching the arrow. So honestly, I have about 10X the years in without stringwalking that I have with it. If someone held a gun to my head and asked, I couldn't honestly say I shoot better scores stringwalking either. After gapping most of my life, I don't think it's the huge advantage that some want to claim.


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

Gap shooting benefits certain face shapes compared to stringwalking. In essence it creates a genetic requirement for success which cannot be trained.
Also limiting technique rather than equipment is not something you see in ANY other shooting sport.

That is the main reason I promote WA BB archery, it provides the most level playing field of any non-sighted shooting.

-Grant


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

Ha Ha I always new you were a gapper at heart


limbwalker said:


> I understand. I felt I was "forced" to throw a 12" stabilizer on my bow last year, and "forced" to gap when I wanted to shoot the TFAA event.
> 
> Like I said, to a point, I don't really care as long as the primary target barebow organizations are consistent! If WA said "oh heck, we'll let them use 12" stab's and we don't like string walking anymore" then all that does is simplify my life! I'd laugh every time someone said we were shooting "traditional" or "barebow" but I'd show up and shoot!
> 
> And FWIW, I only started stringwalking just 2 years ago. The 25+ years before that, when I shot a NFAA trad or hunting rig, it was 3-under or split, always touching the arrow. So honestly, I have about 10X the years in without stringwalking that I have with it. If someone held a gun to my head and asked, I couldn't honestly say I shoot better scores stringwalking either. After gapping most of my life, I don't think it's the huge advantage that some want to claim.


----------



## Laurie Borealis (Mar 10, 2012)

I've been surprised by how many trad shooters have never tried string walking, even just for kicks. It is an old timer technique that is super fun and super easy to learn, an elegant solution to shooting without a sight at close distances with a powerful bow. I don't know about my face shape, but my brain is poorly wired for complex spatial recognition tasks like gap shooting on varied terrain. (I remember my coach shaking his head and saying to me, sadly, "You should be getting this by now.") When I found a technique where I don't have to aim on the ground anymore, I was so relieved. I think great gap shooters (like Sandy McCain!) can still win. But for people like me, string walking makes the field courses a joy. Maybe it would bring in more archers to those shoots.


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

Laurie Borealis said:


> I've been surprised by how many trad shooters have never tried string walking, even just for kicks. It is an old timer technique that is super fun and super easy to learn, an elegant solution to shooting without a sight at close distances with a powerful bow. I don't know about my face shape, but my brain is poorly wired for complex spatial recognition tasks like gap shooting on varied terrain. (I remember my coach shaking his head and saying to me, sadly, "You should be getting this by now.") When I found a technique where I don't have to aim on the ground anymore, I was so relieved. I think great gap shooters (like Sandy McCain!) can still win. But for people like me, string walking makes the field courses a joy. Maybe it would bring in more archers to those shoots.


" Complex spatial recognition"?:icon_study::smile:


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

grantmac said:


> *Gap shooting benefits certain face shapes compared to stringwalking. *In essence it creates a genetic requirement for success which cannot be trained.
> Also limiting technique rather than equipment is not something you see in ANY other shooting sport.
> 
> That is the main reason I promote WA BB archery, it provides the most level playing field of any non-sighted shooting.
> ...


This is particularly true indoors. I cannot achieve a zero gap indoors regardless of what I do. If I anchor higher than under my cheekbone, the nock is so far to the right of my eye that I would have to aim 2' right of the spot to hit it at 18 meters. When I shot the TFAA state indoor last March, I was aiming at a spot exactly 16" below the X of the target I was scoring. When my target was on top, I was aiming directly at the "x" on the target below mine. I gotta tell you it takes some practice and focus to aim on someone else's target to hit your own.  ha, ha.


However, I can shoot 3-under, anchor under my cheekbone, and have a point-on zero gap at 60 meters outdoors.  So I'm at a disadvantage indoors but at an advantage outdoors at longer distances merely because of the way the Lord put me together.


----------



## T2SHOOTER (Feb 26, 2014)

KISS comes to mind when reading this thread. I'm shooting for fun, and this year, my first, it will include tournaments. Why not have two classes? Barebow that includes 12" stabilizer and string walking on recurves and one that's called, I guess, the ugly term "Traditional" that is recurve and fingers touching nock and no stabilizer. I love shooting my recurve bare and simple: no sight, stabilizer, and fingers touching nock. It seems to me if everyone is on the same page, why would we need anything else. It's just a bow and string. Then I'd know what class I'm in--the one that's bare. Smile. But, since I haven't attended events, I won't have an input.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

T2Shooter, I hear what you're saying. I think a lot of us are striving for simplicity here. 

Out of curiosity, why do you feel shooting with your finger touching the nock is any simpler than if it doesn't?

I'd never tell a person they HAVE to string walk, but then again, I'd never tell them where they have to grip the string either.


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

limbwalker said:


> This is particularly true indoors. I cannot achieve a zero gap indoors regardless of what I do. If I anchor higher than under my cheekbone, the nock is so far to the right of my eye that I would have to aim 2' right of the spot to hit it at 18 meters. When I shot the TFAA state indoor last March, I was aiming at a spot exactly 16" below the X of the target I was scoring. When my target was on top, I was aiming directly at the "x" on the target below mine. I gotta tell you it takes some practice and focus to aim on someone else's target to hit your own.  ha, ha.
> 
> 
> However, I can shoot 3-under, anchor under my cheekbone, and have a point-on zero gap at 60 meters outdoors.  So I'm at a disadvantage indoors but at an advantage outdoors at longer distances merely because of the way the Lord put me together.


30# limbs and 34" 620gr arrows got me point-on at 20yds. Not what you could call forgiving though.
It's easy to get a longer POD for anyone, but impossible to get a short one for us similarly "blessed" people.


Revolutionary idea: run the classes in tandem. A person can choose to either follow WA BB rules or NFAA Trad rules. Ie: you may stringwalk but not run the 12" stab, or you may run the 12" stab but not stringwalk. Everyone gets their advantages and handicaps.

-Grant


----------



## T2SHOOTER (Feb 26, 2014)

If everyone is shooting the same, fingers touching nock, then it's the shooter and not an aiming device. Everyone is the same. It's just seems simpler. Stick and string. Smile. I guess it just sameness that intrigues me.


----------



## Demmer (Dec 1, 2012)

2413gary said:


> John I know just what you mean by not being competitive at a shoot by not bringing the right equipment. like having a bow that fits through a 12.5cm ring VS one with a 12" stabilizer. I get it. On the other hand when you allow string walking VS gapping it's the same problem if I don't string walk I'm not very competitive. So by adding string walking you are forcing us gappers to string walk.


So what you are saying in a round about way is that you guys are forcing us not to stringwalk at the outdoor stuff or the indoor stuff? Me and people like me will not show up to outdoor nationals for the nfaa with the rules that are in place. I know you said a couple of times that the crossovers don't matter much, but they do. With a uniform set that we are trying to propose, you will pull me in and others like me. I don't know if that is something you guys want or not. That's not a what if number, that's a hard number.


----------



## GBUSA (Jun 6, 2013)

T2SHOOTER said:


> If everyone is shooting the same, fingers touching nock, then it's the shooter and not an aiming device. Everyone is the same. It's just seems simpler. Stick and string. Smile. I guess it just sameness that intrigues me.


Your thinking of what's simple as a first year non competitive shooter asking long time competitive shooters at the top of their craft to throw all the time away and backtrack to a less precise method and lower scores.
Do you really expect that will fly with uber competitive people?

Personally I'd just show up at any local shoot I could attend and string walk, or whatever and let them DQ me.
Do that enough and people may just notice their scores are poor comparably. Perhaps minds will change, if not you got quality practice for the shoots that do count towards your ranking.


----------



## j.conner (Nov 12, 2009)

I think NFAA should create a barebow recurve class aligned with USAA barebow. This would allow the BB compound shooters to continue and allow the "trad" shooters to continue having their own class for their own technique and equipment, which is clearly different from weighted ILF risers and face/string walking.

I am a member of both NFAA and USAA.


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

Demmer said:


> So what you are saying in a round about way is that you guys are forcing us not to stringwalk at the outdoor stuff or the indoor stuff? Me and people like me will not show up to outdoor nationals for the nfaa with the rules that are in place. I know you said a couple of times that the crossovers don't matter much, but they do. With a uniform set that we are trying to propose, you will pull me in and others like me. I don't know if that is something you guys want or not. That's not a what if number, that's a hard number.


Just for clarity here, the NFAA is a hell of a lot bigger than you and people like you, John, whatever that means. So, saying you will never show up there will not diminish any barebow championship they give out. Also, when you have as many silver bowls setting on your mantel as Gary does, then maybe you can question whether he is afraid of competition or not. Don't let your relative small amount of success make you think you can talk down to your fellow archers, and make no mistake about it, you just talked down to Gary.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

T2SHOOTER said:


> If everyone is shooting the same, fingers touching nock, then it's the shooter and not an aiming device. Everyone is the same. It's just seems simpler. Stick and string. Smile. I guess it just sameness that intrigues me.


T2Shooter, I've always felt the restrictions should be placed on the equipment, and not how it's shot. Forcing an archer to touch the arrow nock is really a make-believe rule that only further complicates the sport IMO. As was said, facial geometries, draw lengths, etc. make the "finger touching the nock" result in something completely different for each archer. So to even out those differences, we should allow archers to grasp the string anywhere they want. What in practice is the difference between an archer who was able to work out a point-on zero gap while touching the arrow nock, and an archer who uses the same 1" crawl on every shot indoors? They are both grasping the string in the same place every time. 

The finger touching the nock was an attempt to force archers to "not aim" or to at least use the "gap method" of aiming instead of holding the point of the arrow on the X. And I would ask, to what end? Is this an aiming contest, or a shooting contest? And to act as if those archers who touch the nock are NOT aiming... !?! That would be silly. Any archer who is competitive is aiming like heck. It may be at the X, it may be at the 2 ring, and it may be 16" below the X, but they are using the point of the arrow to aim plain and simple.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

itbeso said:


> Just for clarity here, the NFAA is a hell of a lot bigger than you and people like you, John, whatever that means. So, saying you will never show up there will not diminish any barebow championship they give out. Also, when you have as many silver bowls setting on your mantel as Gary does, then maybe you can question whether he is afraid of competition or not. Don't let your relative small amount of success make you think you can talk down to your fellow archers, and make no mistake about it, you just talked down to Gary.


Ben there you go again trying to find insults where they don't exist. John was simply saying that with the current rules, there are archers who won't show. He wasn't talking down to anyone. That's how you read it.
And the NFAA may be a lot bigger than a few barebow archers, but there aren't more than a few competitive barebow/Traditional archers in the NFAA in the first place. Not when compared to the compounders. How many flights of Trad archers were there at Louisville compared to how many flights of compounders? This is a small group who should be more nimble and responsive than the larger membership.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

GBUSA said:


> Your thinking of what's simple as a first year non competitive shooter asking long time competitive shooters at the top of their craft to throw all the time away and backtrack to a less precise method and lower scores.
> Do you really expect that will fly with uber competitive people?
> 
> Personally I'd just show up at any local shoot I could attend and string walk, or whatever and let them DQ me.
> Do that enough and people may just notice their scores are poor comparably. Perhaps minds will change, if not you got quality practice for the shoots that do count towards your ranking.


Again, I don't find personally that string walking is any more accurate for me than gapping. I shot a 286 NFAA indoor score at a SYWAT event a year ago, gapping 16" below the X. I don't think I've ever equaled that score while stringwalking. So to me at least, allowing string walking just opens the door for those who choose to use that method. If I were forced to gap, I would fear no string walker, and if I were allowed to string walk, I would not feel sorry for any gapper. 

Rules should be for equipment, not how it's used. They don't tell the boys in Olympic recurve they can only shoot split finger, do they? Of course not. That would be ridiculous.

What I do want is consistency. And we moved further from that in the last year, not closer to it.


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

limbwalker said:


> Ben there you go again trying to find insults where they don't exist. John was simply saying that with the current rules, there are archers who won't show. He wasn't talking down to anyone. That's how you read it.
> And the NFAA may be a lot bigger than a few barebow archers, but there aren't more than a few competitive barebow/Traditional archers in the NFAA in the first place. Not when compared to the compounders. How many flights of Trad archers were there at Louisville compared to how many flights of compounders? This is a small group who should be more nimble and responsive than the larger membership.


John, you would have to be an idiot not to be able to read between the lines in Demmers post. Actually ,you don't have to read between the lines because" I don't know if that's what you guys want or not" speaks for itself. And yes, he definitely was talking down to Gary. Realizing Demmer is your hero, I knew you would blast your opinion to my post. My feelings on the barebow class are well documented in previous posts so I will exit this thread.


----------



## Demmer (Dec 1, 2012)

Ben, I hope Gary knows me way better than you. There was no talking down. I was giving a hard example of someone that doesn't go to everything because of the rules. I was giving him a hard example of one that would show with a unified set of rules and saying that I'm sure there are more out there like me. I'm not going to go into how little you think of me. The NFAA would definitely share more shooters that the USA archery has. Its always about getting more people. When I go to a 3d shoot, we always pack a car full of guys and go. This will be more common if we all come together. I have talked some of my friends joining us in a lot of shoots. See how that turns one into a few?


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

limbwalker said:


> The finger touching the nock was an attempt to force archers to "not aim" or to at least use the "gap method" of aiming instead of holding the point of the arrow on the X. And I would ask, to what end? Is this an aiming contest, or a shooting contest? And to act as if those archers who touch the nock are NOT aiming... !?! That would be silly. Any archer who is competitive is aiming like heck. It may be at the X, it may be at the 2 ring, and it may be 16" below the X, but they are using the point of the arrow to aim plain and simple.


Thank you John, that is exactly what I have been trying to tell people. I "Aim" with my arrow tip on every single shot. I know how far above and below the target I need to aim to put the arrow in the spot. If there is a good rock below the target or a tree branch above it at the right spot, I am shooting 4's and 5's. If not I am 3 or less. Bottom line is that I "aim" and I "aim" a lot. If I string walk, I am still aiming the exact same way, and shoot the bow the same way. But if I can get the arrow tip on paper, then I can remove some of the "luck" in having a target with just the right rocks and tree branches in front of it. The exception to this rule is 90m, I aim off my knuckles on my bow hand. lol


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> then I can remove some of the "luck" in having a target with just the right rocks and tree branches in front of it.


 

The day I shot that 286, I was at Tom Barker's range in Victoria TX. He had me on a bale with a wood stand and I realized when I hung my bottom target face that there was a nice dark knot in the wood just about 16" below where I hung the "x" on the target. After a slight adjustment, I was able to aim at that knot in the wood on the target stand and proceeded to shoot something like a 145 first half. I had a 22 on my first end after the break, then aiming at the "x" on the target face below mine, but then got rolling again. 

At the TFAA state indoor event, I had a bale number hanging on a card below the bale. Boy was I glad to see that number hanging there when I walked into that venue.  Gave me a nice spot to aim for the bottom target.

Yea, touching the nock really stops us from using the point of the arrow to aim alright... :embara: LOL!


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Poll is 43 for (45 if you count those with the majority) to 5 against. So far, that's pretty overwhelming in favor of unifying the rules.


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

Don't worry I know how to String walk was doing it before most of you ever shot a bow lol


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

Gary, I am the clay, you are the potter, mold me at Vegas


----------



## UtahIdahoHunter (Mar 27, 2008)

SBills said:


> Since I just had this discussion again the other day I will relate actual discussions I have had for several years. You cannot imagine the look you get from people when you try to explain the rules for barebow as currently constituted. “Well if I shoot this bow in NFAA Trad I have to use a 12’ stabilizer and have my index finger against the nock, but currently I have it set up for NFAA barebow which allows me to use the long rod, v-bars and string walk. But this class also allows the use of a compound. Oh and I could use a clicker if I liked. But if I shoot the NAA shoot in March I can’t have any of those stabilizers but I could add a small weight and I can still stringwalk.” You can practically see their eyes roll back into their head.
> 
> And we wonder why some don’t turn out??????????????


My point exactly too. Just the other day I was trying to explain my WA BB setup to a local trad shooter who was curious about the weights on my riser. His eyes glazed over after I started talking about differing rules dealing with stablilizers.


----------



## UrbanDeerSlayer (Feb 10, 2012)

Being a high anchor, gap shooter myself, transitioning to string walking for longer shots will mean I will have to lower my anchor. My point is I will have to make changes but have no problem with it. I have adapted my shooting to play the short game...IBO and punching paper at 18m. At this point, I am NOT going to try and transition myself to the long game (field) with multi-organizational rule differences. I don't have the time to set my game and equipment up to conform to all the little discrepancies. 

I am with Demmer on this one...uniform rules will increase attendance. And without attendance you have nothing. You can't grow this sport with just a few top shooters showing up to all of these events. You need all the beginners and average shooters to make it work.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Urban, you can just face walk for the longer distances without having to change your setup. I have several barebow archers in my club who do this, since they only have one bow and one set of arrows. They use a high anchor indoors, and a low anchor outdoors.


----------



## UrbanDeerSlayer (Feb 10, 2012)

limbwalker said:


> Urban, you can just face walk for the longer distances without having to change your setup. I have several barebow archers in my club who do this, since they only have one bow and one set of arrows. They use a high anchor indoors, and a low anchor outdoors.


I have been contemplating, and will most likely use face and string walking simultaneously. However, my larger point is the need for equivalent equipment across the multiple organizations. Being an intermediate level archer, I believe that having one set of barebow rules across the board is going to attract more beginner and intermediate shooters. Its all too confusing for somebody fresh on the scene. Plus newcomers dont want to keep buying and setting up different bow and arrow combinations. A uniform definition of barebow will help to attract new shooters to these events.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

^^^ Yup!


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Something to keep in mind through all this discussion is that USArchery is going to have no choice but to deal with the archers in the "basic compound" division they have created through the JOAD and Adult Achievement programs. We in the barebow committee have struggled a bit with this so far, and for now at least, have put this back in USAA's lap to figure out. They threw the basic compound into the barebow achievement matrix, and really, they need a plan for the future with this group. And I think "we" as barebow enthusiasts, do as well. 

We have tens of thousands of young archers who not only learned archery, but who began to COMPETE in archery tournaments, using these "basic compounds" or Genesis bows. In the interest of being inclusive and drawing more archers into competitive barebow, I think we need to provide a place for them.

John


----------



## rsarns (Sep 23, 2008)

Heck Gary can just adjust the angle of his head from eyebrow touching to full upright and everything in between... with his calibrated eyesight.  

Now now gents, lets keep all of this discussion friendly, as I think the majority all want the same thing. Now shake hands and go to your corners.....


----------



## vabowdog (Dec 13, 2007)

I for one am all for unifying the rules into 1 that we all can live with and compete...I attend ALOT of shoots per year mostly 3-D but I WOULD LOVE to try field and some of the other spot games of archery because of the distance and the amount of arrows shot per day.

However, I'm not willing to have 5 different setups to shoot the different games...it's just stupid..the OLy shoots know what they have to shoot at any and all shoots just like 99% of the compounders.

Here in my area if the rules wasn't so hard to understand we too could load the car with shooters and go shoot..but the way it is now I'm not even willing to try tomfigure the rules out.


Dewayne


----------



## Stick & String (Feb 1, 2003)

Since you are looking to make changes in rules, how about making the "12cm" rule to be applicable for risers with front mounted weights only. I'd love to be able to use my Tec riser, which is legal for NFAA. You guys think it's a pain to retune when you remove your stabilizer, I think it would be pain to have to have different risers setup and tuned for various styles of competition. I know, you aren't going to be able to make everyone happy, but I think the WA 12cm rule is a stupid, especially when they specifically list: No Stablizers.


----------



## Demmer (Dec 1, 2012)

Stick, the ring rule for wa is way more versitile than you let on. You can put weights on the bottom half of the riser in pretty much any way to get the weight of the riser you want and the balance of the shot you are looking for. Just don't get hung up on the word stabilizers. You can put weight on the backside, front side, or both to get what in balance and weight. You can get pretty creative and still stay legal in the rules.


----------



## J. Wesbrock (Dec 17, 2003)

Does anyone suppose the equipment differences between NFAA and USAA have stifled compound attendance? NFAA allows 27/64 arrows; USAA restricts archers to 23/64. That's a lot bigger tuning issue than a 12" stabilizer or the short ones WA allows. 

Just two more cents for the pile. 

And Dewayne. You already have more bows than Lancaster. I'm sure somewhere in that pile of Hoyts, Skys, and WF25s is a bow you could use for field archery.


----------



## vabowdog (Dec 13, 2007)

Jason, at one time that was certainly the truth...now that im poor,broke and largely in debt..LOL.. its not the quite as it use to be....However Im sure Ive got one setup for RU.


Dewayne Martin


----------



## Demmer (Dec 1, 2012)

Jason, the arrow thing is never a big deal with compounds. The only issue ever is indoors. And there really is never a tuning issue. You can plug and play compounds soo much easier. Set the centershot to 0, set the nock height to where its normally at, and pretty much shoot the same spine equivalent and done. It is by far and a way the easiest tuning you'll ever do. Its pretty much a non issue.


----------



## hawghunter2585 (Mar 16, 2010)

As far as the arrow difference for compounds, I know many guys just have two sets of arrows and will shoot whichever depending on the format of the shoot. The rest setup for compounds is nice for this because center shot doesn't really change with arrow diameter. Guys shooting a blade rest may swap blades when they change arrow size but that is pretty quick and easy. Aside from that, sighting in for most compound guys may take a half dozen shots. I do think the 23/64 size for USAA does keep a few guys away that may not be setup for that, but on flip side, I can't imagine anyone setup with 23's would hesitate to shoot a NFAA or open shoot.


----------



## J. Wesbrock (Dec 17, 2003)

vabowdog said:


> However Im sure Ive got one setup for RU.
> 
> 
> Dewayne Martin


That would be awesome!


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

Lets not muddy the waters with arrow diameters. Let the NFAA keep the 27/64 rule in tact with out having exceptions to different diameters for different classes/shoots. They define there arrows in a different area in their rules. Lets not touch it for simplicity. WA has a max of 23/64, so we leave this up to the archer to make sure he/she has the right arrow diameters. I am pretty sure that most of the people that will be shooting both NFAA and WA events will shoot the 23's or smaller. There will always be a couple that will want the fattest possible arrow, but those are the ones that will be willing to have the different arrow sets. We want to keep the rule changes as simple as possible to minimize the nit picking that will come.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Yea, for all practical purposes, compounders and Oly. recurve shooters never have to worry about the things we deal with as BB archers. The biggest decision I ever had as an OR shooter was whether I was going to shoot skinnies or fatties indoors. That's it. But that wasn't because of any rules I was suject to - that was all on me. 



> However, I'm not willing to have 5 different setups to shoot the different games...it's just stupid..the OLy shoots know what they have to shoot at any and all shoots just like 99% of the compounders.


Agreed 100%. BB needs to get it's act together the way the elite compound and recurve archers have. The stubborn hard-headed nature of BB archers has really kept us down and the other disciplines have been perfectly happy to see us stay splintered, small and out of the way. That needs to change, but so long as we're all heads-down and tinkering with our gear, it won't.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Demmer said:


> Stick, the ring rule for wa is way more versitile than you let on. You can put weights on the bottom half of the riser in pretty much any way to get the weight of the riser you want and the balance of the shot you are looking for. Just don't get hung up on the word stabilizers. You can put weight on the backside, front side, or both to get what in balance and weight. You can get pretty creative and still stay legal in the rules.


Agreed. Sorry tec riser fans. I retired my beloved Axis years ago too. 

No question they are effective risers for the organizations that currently allow them though. They really shined when NFAA didn't allow any stabilizers or external weights, as they were the heaviest riser on the line in many cases. But the advantage of the tec riser (esp the Axis) has been lost now that the stabilizer is allowed. And IMO, a weighted WA BB riser that can fit through the 12.2cm ring is just as, if not more effective, than the Axis was.

Looking at the new riser Dewayne and co. came up with, I'm not even sure the Axis is the most competitive "heavy" riser anymore anyway.


----------



## massman (Jun 21, 2004)

Consider what would happen if you grouped archers not by equipment but rather by average score shot?

Regardless of the equipment used. No longer do you then need to worry about equipment/arrow size/poundage, release or fingers/ sight or not.

Each archer will rise to a level of proficency and their average score will show this. once you reach you average proficency a GREAT DEAL of effort needs to be expelled in order to improve.

Regards,

Tom


----------



## Stick & String (Feb 1, 2003)

Massman, that's a good thought and is kind of the way the NRA runs Bullseye Matches. You shoot at a level until yours average scores improve and then you get bumped up to the next. The only problem I see with some of these money matches, is that you would have to give a cash prize to each level within a defined bow class, and then the overall best shooters winning a large pot of money is less, and I think partially that's the $$$ is the big draw for some folks to participate at various events.

Limbwalker, I understand where your coming from. I just like the TEC riser, but for BB it's out dated. I'll probably buy a dedicated BB riser down the road to replace it, or go back to shooting the traditional class when available.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Hey, those Axis risers were legendary. Still one of my to 3 ever made, and a fantastic platform for NFAA Trad. I get that.

As for "flighting" people, we already do that within divisions at the major NFAA events. Do they flight folks across equipment divisions in shooting sports? We will for our informal local leagues, but that's not a national championship or even state championship event.


----------



## massman (Jun 21, 2004)

Using average scores is exactly how we shot a club outdoor field league, many years ago. We had about 15 shooters but it was one or two of this NFAA style and a few of another. Shooingt grouped as averages was VERY interesting. And FUN. I can remember one group was comprised of an older gentleman shooting FSL, two women shooting BB (string walking compounds) and one guy shooting instinctive (with a compound). Very close scoring...

The guy shooting instinctive actually won the group. But then he also won, indoors, MFAA/NFAA field states and NFAA NE sectionals that year too. From Westfield MA.

Tom


----------



## j.conner (Nov 12, 2009)

Reading all this, I am convinced that the equipment classes should be synced. I also think that the technique, like how you hold the string or how you anchor, should not be in the rules. Pure equipment class is much more objective. Let's say that somebody starts shooting their recurve horizontally instead of vertically and uses their thumb instead of fingers - to me, that should be OK. If the archer next to me is shooting a bow like mine and figures out a better way, then good on them.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> If the archer next to me is shooting a bow like mine and figures out a better way, then good on them.


:darkbeer:

52 votes for to 7 against. 

I'd say that's pretty overwhelming. Of course, any set of criteria will make someone feel displaced. There is no avoiding that. I hope we can convince the major organizations here in the U.S. to find one set of rules for "recurve barebow" we can all live with and are happy to compete under. Whatever they are. 

I'll support whatever that set of rules is, so long as we have consistency between the major org's.

Just for kicks, I was practicing yesterday evening and tried gapping and string walking back-to-back with the same bow/arrows. The setup I have chosen for our state indoor and indoor nationals only has my crawl at 1/2" or so, which means my gap is almost on paper if I touch the arrow. I was able to shoot the same scores either way. I personally don't see any real advantage to stringwalking indoors. Outdoors at various distances? Perhaps. But one could argue that a consistent tune achieved by gapping could overcome string walking if the archer has a good gap system in place. In other words, I don't think the gap vs. stringwalking argument really holds as much water as some think. But then again my experience shooting barebow field is not nearly as great as some here. 

If we're talking indoors or even outdoor target (like we'll shoot at this year's Outdoor Nationals in Decatur) then I certainly don't think stringwalking or not makes any difference.

John


----------



## rsarns (Sep 23, 2008)

limbwalker said:


> :darkbeer:
> 
> 52 votes for to 7 against.
> 
> ...


John, yes, I agree that gapping can be as effective as SW'ing, or a very good gapper can be competitive anyway. Look at the score differentials in the NFAA in Bowhunter (No string walking and 12" stab) and the compound BB class. Not much difference if any. Not saying it cant be a big difference, but it has more to do with the archer and his proficiency at the style.


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

I am just a newb at string walking and I have been shooting two back to back vegas rounds since the beginning of december. Using the same bow and same ACC arrows. Using the NFAA Trad rule, I have to aim 26 inches below the spot to hit is. With string walking I can aim on the spot, but may arrows hit at 3 O'Clock in the 3 ring. I have to put 3 full turns on the plunger to move it to the center. average result is that I am shooting about 10 points higher with string walking than with the current NFAA trad rule. At the Oregon Barebow challenge last weekend, I used full length cobalts that put me about 4 inches below the bottom of the paper using NFAA Trad anchor rules. I shot 30 points higher for front and back half of the shoot. So string walking lets me be point on, but only gets me +10 over my normal anchor. Using fully length arrows and keeping the same style gets me +30. One might think that the fixed anchor technique is better with different arrows. I am not at that point in making any conclusions since I am still just a newb at string walking. But it is a data point for me.

Bottom line, we shouldn't have rules that tell us how to shoot. Just leave it to the equipment. If a person was shooting a longbow off the hand, should there be a rule that prohibits him from canting different angles at different distances? Or or should there be a rule that prohibits them from shooting right handed at certain distance and then switching to left handed at other distances? Or what about a right handed shooter shooting a left handed bow with three fingers under, but the palm is facing away from the face versus towards the face. If a person wants to shoot with an open stance, or a close stance, of on their knees. Let them. Keep the rules to the equipment.


----------



## rsarns (Sep 23, 2008)

Pete,
For me stringwalking actually lowered my indoor scores a bit, and I think that is only do to my lack of effort if getting the correct tune. It is way too easy to setup a BB rig for point on at 18 M or 20 Yards. For outdoors, in my experimenting with SW'ing, I jumped my scores up significantly in a 3D practice round and last year I shot a couple rounds of field with the same increase in scoring. I am still more comfortable gapping, but with time and effort I think I am going to really like SW'ing.


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

It won't help at Redding:wink:


rsarns said:


> Pete,
> For me stringwalking actually lowered my indoor scores a bit, and I think that is only do to my lack of effort if getting the correct tune. It is way too easy to setup a BB rig for point on at 18 M or 20 Yards. For outdoors, in my experimenting with SW'ing, I jumped my scores up significantly in a 3D practice round and last year I shot a couple rounds of field with the same increase in scoring. I am still more comfortable gapping, but with time and effort I think I am going to really like SW'ing.


----------



## Demmer (Dec 1, 2012)

For anybody those that are interested, there will be a bunch of us in Vegas with a petition to sign. I'm looking forward to seeing yall.


----------



## brtesite (May 24, 2002)

Demmer said:


> For anybody those that are interested, there will be a bunch of us in Vegas with a petition to sign. I'm looking forward to seeing yall.


you still have to give it to a director or councilman to present it at the meeting. get your ducks lined up


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> It is way too easy to setup a BB rig for point on at 18 M or 20 Yards.


For some. Maybe most. But not me. I've never been able to achieve this using reasonable weight bows, and I'm not willing to drop into the 30's in draw weight to get it. I see no difference between aiming at the edge of the paper and the center of the X really.

Different archers will face different challenges if trying to achieve a point-on tune at 20 yards. This is why IMO the "finger must touch the nock" rule is actually biased, and why stringwalking (whether used or not) should be allowed to level the playing field.

John


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

limbwalker said:


> For some. Maybe most. But not me. I've never been able to achieve this using reasonable weight bows, and I'm not willing to drop into the 30's in draw weight to get it. I see no difference between aiming at the edge of the paper and the center of the X really.
> 
> Different archers will face different challenges if trying to achieve a point-on tune at 20 yards. This is why IMO the "finger must touch the nock" rule is actually biased, and why stringwalking (whether used or not) should be allowed to level the playing field.
> 
> John


Yeah, with my full length cobalt arrows, this past weekend I was trying 145, 175, 225, and 250 grain tips I went from 7 inches below the bottom of the paper to 2 inches below the bottom of the paper with my 43# limbs and fixed anchor at the corner of the mouth and finger touching the nock.


----------



## rsarns (Sep 23, 2008)

Mr. Roboto said:


> Yeah, with my full length cobalt arrows, this past weekend I was trying 145, 175, 225, and 250 grain tips I went from 7 inches below the bottom of the paper to 2 inches below the bottom of the paper with my 43# limbs and fixed anchor at the corner of the mouth and finger touching the nock.


I have setup my 40# (47#OTF) with 2712's and 300 gr tips full length, with my high anchor I am point on at 20 or my full length 2315's with 300 gr tips. With my lighter limbs (that you shot), I could go as low as 2315's and 200 gr tips and be point on. High anchor is the key, I switched to that a few years ago to bring my outdoor point on down to 45 yards. Much more palatable for field than my 60+ yard.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> High anchor is the key


Which is great if you have narrow enough cheekbones to keep the nock of the arrow under your eye.


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

limbwalker said:


> Which is great if you have narrow enough cheekbones to keep the nock of the arrow under your eye.


Huge +1 from me. Unless I want arrows that arrive at a brisk walk I'm stuck with huge gaps. Gary talks about seeing the gap in fractions of an inch, using his method I see them in inches (3 or 4 of them)!

-Grant


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

Back to the original topic. At the Oregon Barebow Challenge a couple weeks ago, the guy that spanked all of us was a string walker. What did I do at the end of the shoot? congratulated him for his great shooting, and then tried to talk him into coming to some of the upcoming outdoor field shoots. It didn't bother me one bit that he was a string walker. His form was far better and more consistent than mine. I used the NFAA Trad form for the shoot, and I had a great spot to aim at under the target. I shot my best indoor FITA round. Did I think that String Walking gave him an unfair advantage? No. The fact is, he executed his choice of shooting style fare better than how well I executed my choice of shooting.

Will allowing string walking in the NFAA Trad suddenly mean I will jump on the String Walking band wagon? No. I will definitely spend a lot of time this year working on it along with trying to get better at my gapping methods. In the end I suspect I will be using a combination of string walking, gapping, pick a point, face walking, Tilt-A-Head, and aiming off the knuckles depending on the specific target.

Pete


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Great post Pete.

Opening up a barebow division to stringwalking only levels the playing field for everyone.


----------



## zipper62 (Sep 9, 2008)

John,

I commend you for wanting to grow barebow and inciting such interest as illustrated in this thread. But please heed a word of advice---proceed with caution and proceed slowly! Just because you have the overwhelming support of a few elite shooters, do not forget that there are many, many more who do not follow this forum that you may adversely affect by your proposal, however good and logical it may seem to you at this time. Speaking from experience, the worst things happen when seemingly good ideas are pushed through the NFAA and voted on by a bunch of directors who don't know the difference between a gap and a clothing store.

I am fortunate to have enjoyed NFAA barebow for over four decades, starting in 1964. Barebow was strong and exciting in those days because the rules were inclusive. There was a melting pot of shooting styles, instinctive. face walkers, gap shooters, three under, and about the time I started, string walkers. Barebow was a melting pot of experimentation and innovation from which todays aiming methods evolved. But it was not utopia. By 1966, there was unrest in barebow, so much so that the NFAA president wrote several pieces about fixing barebow. Why? Because the rapid rise in popularity of stringwalking had pushed everyone else off the medals platform. The president had a huge dilemma which had no good solution. Rather than messing with the rules, which was sure to make everyone mad, the solution was the initiation of a handicap system which evened the playing field at the local level but did not help at major tournaments. The eventual result was loss of barebow competitors to other classes or to archery altogether. Even with these losses, we still had 150-180 barebow shooters at outdoor nationals in the early to mid 70s.

Then, archery organizations and especially barebow faced another challenge - the compound bow. By membership vote, NFAA allowed compounds and the race was on. In 1974, David Hughes blew us away with his Olympus, now legal under the rules. I had won the two previous nationals with a recurve and am the last shooter to do so. Once again, NFAA evolved and barebow evolved. There were again losses. Diehard recurvers were forced to compete against compounds or quit. Eventually, the traditional class was established, but by then the few remaining recurve shooters were already lost. My point in all this is that rules changes can lose archers. My concern is that if done too quickly and without much notice another piece of the barebow pie can be easily offended and leave us. I fear the unintended consequences.

The recent success of the LAS Classic is worth comment. I was amazed at the turnout in barebow and attribute it to two primary factors. First, the influence of many of you in this thread in getting the word out. Second, the genius of the LAS crew in choosing an inclusive set of barebow rules. Think about it. If your goal is to maximize attendance, then you select a set of rules that is appealing to a broad spectrum of barebow shooters. So, you allow stringwalking and clickers to draw in IBO RUs, shelf rests and stabs for NFAA trad, etc, etc. I may be one of the few, but without this specialized set of rules, I would not have attended.

Similarly, the Vegas shoot exists for barebow shooters solely because its rules are inclusive. Barebow, bowhunter, men, women, recurves, compounds, longbows, stringwalking, etc, etc. Make no mistake, it will only exist for all to enjoy as long as the rules remain inclusive. My fear is that, should barebow recurve seek to be separated out, then all the rest will be excluded from Vegas. 

Many in this thread seem to think that WA rules should be the goal of a barebow recurve class and that this will somehow grow barebow archery. By what logic? I consider WA rules to be exclusive, not inclusive. Do you really think we will benefit by all the droves of Europeans who are waiting and chomping at the bit for us to change our rules so they can come and compete? That is just ludicrous! Me thinks their absence on our scene has more to do with the cost of the trip - simple as that. Same reason droves of elite US archers don't swarm to Europe to attend shoots.

So, I tend to think our barebow recurve rules should be inclusive and designed to draw from all the various US organizations that have barebow competition in one form or another. That would seem to me to be a better bet if your goal really is to grow barebow.

Denny


----------



## hammer08 (Aug 28, 2012)

Great post Denny!

WA Barebow rules are fine with me but you bring up a good point. Those rules exclude archers form shooting the equipment they want. How can you grow a class if you're basically telling people to stay home? 

If the rules are more inclusive then everyone can play. Even the Europeans Johnny likes to talk about


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> Many in this thread seem to think that WA rules should be the goal of a barebow recurve class and that this will somehow grow barebow archery. By what logic? I consider WA rules to be exclusive, not inclusive. Do you really think we will benefit by all the droves of Europeans who are waiting and chomping at the bit for us to change our rules so they can come and compete? That is just ludicrous! Me thinks their absence on our scene has more to do with the cost of the trip - simple as that. Same reason droves of elite US archers don't swarm to Europe to attend shoots.
> 
> So, I tend to think our barebow recurve rules should be inclusive and designed to draw from all the various US organizations that have barebow competition in one form or another. That would seem to me to be a better bet if your goal really is to grow barebow.


Denny, with all due respect (and believe me, I have tremendous respect for any archer who accomplished what you have) you are making the argument against change. That is a pretty easy argument to make. And frankly, it ignores the fact that NFAA Trad. and WA Barebow were virtually identical just 13 short months ago from an equipment standpoint. The only real difference now is that 12" stabilizer - which a lot of folks are not happy with because it took us in the wrong direction (further away from a unified set of rules, not closer to it).

I also believe the "no string walking" rule is a make-believe rule imposed to stifle competition and satisfy stereotypes of what is or isn't "traditional." This is a target competition after all. If one person figures out a better way to shoot the bow, why should they not be allowed to use it? 

So, just 13 months after one of the most significant changes in barebow archery in a long, long time, you're willing to argue against change? 

The 12" stabilizer really made this mess. We need to clean it up.

As for internationals coming over, believe me, they will if Vegas and Rob's Lancaster Classic have rules they are familiar with. Vegas is seen as a vacation opportunity for many European archers already, and Rob's shoot is going to be huge in just a few years. Manufacturers and retailers in Europe will make the trip to Lancaster just to do business with Rob - who already handles more target barebow equipment than anyone I can think of.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> WA Barebow rules are fine with me but you bring up a good point. Those rules exclude archers form shooting the equipment they want


How does NFAA Trad not exclude archers from shooting the equipment they want? I cannot string walk, or use a clicker in that division. If I do, I'm thrown in with compound shooters, which nobody could argue is a "bare bow" with a straight face.


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

John I understand where you are coming from but we need to clarify a few things. Before the stabilizer rule came into effect NFAA and WA were not the same in equipment. NFAA trad recurve you could not have any weight or counter balance of any kind. So by adding the Stabilizer I was able to add weight to my bow like WA does or use a stabilizer like ASA , IFAA and IBO thus bringing my bow more in line with four other organizations. This is not just about WA


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

No, they were not the same in equipment, but for all practical purposes, a fellow could shoot the same bow and still be very competitive. Many of us DID shoot the exact same bow. And most if not all NFAA Trad bows were weighted. Best Moon, Spigs, even my TR7 I shot in Louisville had a big ol' honkin' steel weight in the lower hole. 

The difference between those riser weights and the 12" stab. is huge. For me personally, I had never consistently broken 270 on the NFAA face using "trad" gear. The very first tournament I shot with the 12" stabilizer, I shot a 286. I then went on to shoot a 2-day 280 average at TFAA state a few weeks later. The 12" stab. is easily worth 10 points to me on that round. Probably more.

I understand this not just about WA. I get that. But a bow with a 12" stab. is neither bare, nor very "traditional." 

If you want to say 4 org's, we could say two with WA and USAA. 

I would be fine with everyone adopting the current NFAA "traditional" rules. I'd probably laugh every time someone referred to it as "traditional" but I'd be fine competing under that set of rules. The trouble is we'll never get WA or USArchery to adopt those as "barebow" because the international standard that the top barebow archers in the world shoot under, is (like it or not) WA rules. So essentially what the change did was make it harder for many of us who shoot both WA and NFAA Trad. I understand this may have made it easier for some who shoot NFAA and 3D. 

I just want to see agreement and simplification. Again, compound and Oly. recurve archers do not have to deal with this. Only those of us who choose "barebow". And it stinks.

I also see this as a critical time because - as a JOAD and Adult Archery program leader - I see a LOT of interest in barebow target archery right now. USArchery will have for the first time, a barebow division at outdoor nationals for ALL ages this summer. And it's a make-or-break event for barebow in USArchery. The timing is very important.

John


----------



## hammer08 (Aug 28, 2012)

I don't think NFAA Trad has an inclusive set of rules. I feel IFAA Barebow Recurve rules are inclusive..No sights or release, other than that bring what you got. It lets everyone play. 

I do think a uniform set of rules is a good idea and I'm for it. I'm ok with WA rules. I'm more than willing to give up the clicker, stab, and their benefits if it's best for the sport. I just think a more inclusive set of rules would be better. 

The "you can't say that's a bare bow with a straight face" doesn't make sense to me. Just because you like WA rules and you think that's the definition of a bare bow doesn't make it so. You're subjectively picking and choosing which accessories make a "bare bow". Adding a rest and plunger to a bow makes it more than a "bare bow". 

Again, I'm all for a uniform set of rules. I just think the more inclusive the better.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> you think that's the definition of a bare bow doesn't make it so


It's not my definition. Believe me.

Show 100 people on the street a WA rig, a NFAA Trad rig and a NFAA "barebow" rig, and ask them to pick which one is a bare bow. 

That's what I call my "normal person" test, and only the WA rig would pass it.

Any bow with a stabilizer on it moves into what I would call a "target recurve" and is somewhere between a bare bow and an Olympic recurve.

Semantics, yes, but again we need to think about what those new to the sport are going to expect when they are deciding which competitive division to enter. And don't underestimate the value of first impressions to our new archers. Right now, explaining the maze that is barebow/trad/recurve is an absolute mess.


----------



## hammer08 (Aug 28, 2012)

Your "normal person" test brings this to mind -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJlY9C7YWzI -- It's worth watching!

But you're right, it is just semantics. I hope we can look past the name "barebow" and just make the best choice for the sport. If that's going with WA rules then great. I'm on board.

If I can make it as long as Denny has then I've got 50 more years in this sport. I want to do whatever I can to make sure it's still going strong when I'm done.


----------



## Laurie Borealis (Mar 10, 2012)

zipper62 said:


> John,
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Denny,

I agree that rule changes should be well thought out and all the consequences and factions considered and heard from. But the inclusivity argument makes me wonder. I strongly believe both Lancaster and Vegas would have more barebow shooters, not fewer, with WA rules. Because yes, a woman longbow shooter can pay $275 to be included in the barebow category at Vegas, where she would get to compete against men shooting compounds with long stabilizers and clickers and contribute to their prize money. By the same token, a compound barebow shooter could be included in the compound freestyle category -- they're not banned, are they? Or a recurve shooter who wants a stabilizers can shoot in the recurve freestyle category, it's inclusive for them. We had 35 people show up for a barebow tournament with WA rules here in a far corner of the country. I know of almost no one who shoots compound barebow here. Compound shooters seem to gravitate toward all the technology they can get. What the grass-roots trad and barebow archers are shooting is closest to WA rules and more of those people will travel to tournaments if they're not outgunned on equipment. Barebow and trad are about simplicity. Yes, plungers are technological, but they are unobtrusive and widely accepted across all the organizations. Some of the more elite shooters around here have gone to the 12-inch stabilizer but most of them are only doing it so they aren't at an equipment disadvantage. And yes, stringwalking is an advantage on field courses -- but it comes back to not legislating technique. They didn't ban the Fosbury flop when it came out (in Oregon!) in the high jump even though you can't podium without it now, right? I would urge Lancaster to put it to the test. Make the barebow rules conform to WA next year and see what happens to the participation levels. If we're wrong, it's just one year, and they can go back to the anything-goes rules. But I predict a significant leap in participation with WA rules. (While we're at it, more women would show up if there was a women's barebow category.) Barebow shooters, the kind who like stripped-down Olympic-style bows without stabilizers, are really hungry for tournaments where they can compete on a level field. And there are more and more and more of them out there all the time, at least in this part of the country.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

57 to 9 now...

However, this is a fita forum which is largely populated by WA/USArchery members. Need to do the same poll on TT or another forum frequented by barebow archers who shoot more NFAA/IBO events to get an objective view.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> Because yes, a woman longbow shooter can pay $275 to be included in the barebow category at Vegas, where she would get to compete against men shooting compounds with long stabilizers and clickers and contribute to their prize money. By the same token, a compound barebow shooter could be included in the compound freestyle category -- they're not banned, are they? Or a recurve shooter who wants a stabilizers can shoot in the recurve freestyle category, it's inclusive for them.


Great quote. And something to really consider in this discussion. There is a reason we don't see barebow archers in the Oly Recurve division, or finger shooters in the compound division folks.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Just browsing the results from indoor nationals, USArchery had 45 male and 17 female adult barebow archers who shot Nationals in 2014. 

NFAA (Louisville) had 15 male and 5 adult trad. archers.


----------



## SBills (Jan 14, 2004)

Nor really a fair comparison though. Can't discount the travel factor between a one venue tournament and one done regionally.


----------



## Arrowwood (Nov 16, 2010)

https://www.nfaausa.com/sites/default/files/combined results.pdf

I count 47 "traditional" and 11 longbow archers at Louisville?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

SBills said:


> Nor really a fair comparison though. Can't discount the travel factor between a one venue tournament and one done regionally.


Yea, I recognize that. 



> I count 47 "traditional" and 11 longbow archers at Louisville?


I was just counting the adult division. USArchery had more barebow archers in their masters division but I didn't include those.

I would love to know how many "barebow" archers in Vegas are shooting recurve. Anyone there who could count that?


----------



## Arrowwood (Nov 16, 2010)

I wish I were in Vegas to count them, but I don't see _any_ masters barebow archers in the USArchery results:

http://www.teamusa.org/~/media/USA_...oor Nationals Results Program V1 041614-2.pdf

Can masters shoot in seniors? I don't know. I still haven't switched to NFAA senior (50+), although I'm eligible.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Apparently Bruce and Denise are on board. Here they are holding the most famous "BAREBOW" arrow in the world.


----------



## twofinger (Feb 12, 2012)

As I said in an earlier post I shoot compound unsighted why? its easier plane and simple. I have a recurve that I mess with too if the only class was recurve and I wanted to shoot in tourneys then I would switch. has far has rules goes I agree on the no stab rule I also think that how you shoot is up to you string walk gap I don't care. the word traditional needs to be thrown out its not traditional when you shoot carbon arrows or 2512 arrows this is a target bare bow discussion we need to forget about that word. I trust people like John and the person that started this thread they are world class archers me I just a one a week arrow flinger.


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

17 or 18 a Barebow recurve is leading everyone 45 shooters total 
Dwayne Martin 286 recurve
Bubba Bateman 280 compound
John Demmer 277 recurve


limbwalker said:


> Yea, I recognize that.
> The stabilizer did not make the difference it was shot execution and nerves lol
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Laurie Borealis (Mar 10, 2012)

2413gary said:


> 17 or 18 a Barebow recurve is leading everyone 45 shooters total
> Dwayne Martin 286 recurve
> Bubba Bateman 280 compound
> John Demmer 277 recurve


Thanks for the count! I've been curious, too. And Gary (271, 8th place), you and Sandy (249) are shooting awesome, too. How about the women? Which of them are shooting recurves?


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

I think 4 ladies are shooting recurve 

Lori 257
Cody 254
Sandy 249
Shana 241
Allison 191
Irena 162

There might be more


----------



## Demmer (Dec 1, 2012)

Denny, I love you and consider you a friend. I know my thoughts and suggestions will never please all. That's a fact of life that I can live with. Here is the thing with barebow. It is not supposed to be easy. Thete should be no aids to help anyone shoot it. There shouldn't be any bridge to olympic style. It needs its own distinction to be a true and legitimate class. A clicker and stabilizer pretty much makes it a minor league Olympic style bow. A WA barebow style bow is its own thing with no connections to anything else. It is what sets its self apart from anything else. The Olympic class is an all inclusive class. Those that truely love the sport and go for the experience and want to shoot a long rod and clicker can shoot the oly class. 
Let's face the facts. Lancaster was going to be a success whatever rules they chose for barebow. Everyone that came minus maybe two wouldn't have come if the long rod and clicker wasn't allowed. Here is the other thing. Would the class be a lot healthier without the stab and clicker? My guess would be absolutely. Most of us put in a lot of hard work into what we do and take great pride in that fact. It absolutely pains me to see those aids allowed into a barebow recurve class. I guess the point I'm making is that WA barebow style is a distinct class that should have no easy way outs into performing. We know that we won't get everything aligned perfectly, but we can get everything really really close. 
I know a lot of people might hate me for this, but those that go to the championships are the ones that really carry the weight of the class for everyone. If no one shows up to the nationals, they will drop the class for sure. That's why we try get more and more shooters to nationals. I really believe others and myself have the very best at heart for the growth and health for the barebow community across all organizations.
I apologize if these thoughts are very well planned out. I am typing this on my phone while only able to read two lines of text while on very little sleep supporting the Vegas shoot. Lol


----------



## Demmer (Dec 1, 2012)

What would an all inclusive longbow class sound? ...... Any style three piece bowbow as long as the strings only touch the limbs at the string nocks. Any style clicker may be used. Any marks can be put on the bow in any fashion as long as you don't have a sight protruding out of the window. Any length stabilizer may be used as well as vbars, wbars or anything else you wish to stick in a stabilizer hole. String waking and face walking are also permitted.
That would make the longbow class open up to everyone. Does that make any sense?  you can easily see how all inclusive is not a good thing. You make a very select group happy, and a very large group unhappy.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

2413gary said:


> 17 or 18 a Barebow recurve is leading everyone 45 shooters total
> Dwayne Martin 286 recurve
> Bubba Bateman 280 compound
> John Demmer 277 recurve


Awesome. Thanks.

This is a GREAT TIME for recurve barebow archery! If it wasn't Alan and Ben, then now John and Dewayne are setting everything we knew about barebow recurve on it's ear. It's amazing to see. Wish I was there to see it in person!



> the word traditional needs to be thrown out its not traditional when you shoot carbon arrows or 2512 arrows this is a target bare bow discussion we need to forget about that word.


Well put.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> but those that go to the championships are the ones that really carry the weight of the class for everyone.


That statement doesn't offend me at all. You guys put your money where your mouth is. It's one thing for me to travel to Austin or Waco or College Station to try and set a new state record, or to shoot the regional event for USAA Indoor Nat's, but it's an *entirely different* thing to get on a plane and pay the registration fee for Louisville or Vegas, with zero money on the line. Someday I'll get there and I won't miss a single Louisville or Vegas shoot. I look forward to that time. But I'm not quite there yet for a couple of reasons. 

Until then, yes, those who are at the major events carry the weight IMO. 

I do hope one of those major events will be US Outdoor Nationals in Decatur, AL this year. 

It will be the very first time I have shot USArchery's Outdoor Nationals, despite being an Olympian and Senior USAT member. It's hard for even me to believe, but it's true. I've coached at 5 of those events now, but this summer will be my first outdoor nationals, and I am proud to say I will shoot my first Outdoor Nationals as a BAREBOW archer.


----------



## vabowdog (Dec 13, 2007)

John, Vegas has a money payout...I think the most we compete for all year.


Dewayne


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

vabowdog said:


> John, Vegas has a money payout...I think the most we compete for all year.
> 
> 
> Dewayne


Yes, you are correct. I meant to say Louisville (NFAA Indoor Nationals) and the USArchery Indoor Nationals, where we are all shooting for the love of the sport, with no hopes for a payout.

And GREAT shooting by the way. Just fantastic! Keep it up!


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

Demmer said:


> Denny, I love you and consider you a friend. I know my thoughts and suggestions will never please all. That's a fact of life that I can live with. Here is the thing with barebow. It is not supposed to be easy. Thete should be no aids to help anyone shoot it. There shouldn't be any bridge to olympic style. It needs its own distinction to be a true and legitimate class. A clicker and stabilizer pretty much makes it a minor league Olympic style bow. A WA barebow style bow is its own thing with no connections to anything else. It is what sets its self apart from anything else. The Olympic class is an all inclusive class. Those that truely love the sport and go for the experience and want to shoot a long rod and clicker can shoot the oly class.
> Let's face the facts. Lancaster was going to be a success whatever rules they chose for barebow. Everyone that came minus maybe two wouldn't have come if the long rod and clicker wasn't allowed. Here is the other thing. Would the class be a lot healthier without the stab and clicker? My guess would be absolutely. Most of us put in a lot of hard work into what we do and take great pride in that fact. It absolutely pains me to see those aids allowed into a barebow recurve class. I guess the point I'm making is that WA barebow style is a distinct class that should have no easy way outs into performing. We know that we won't get everything aligned perfectly, but we can get everything really really close.
> I know a lot of people might hate me for this, but those that go to the championships are the ones that really carry the weight of the class for everyone. If no one shows up to the nationals, they will drop the class for sure. That's why we try get more and more shooters to nationals. I really believe others and myself have the very best at heart for the growth and health for the barebow community across all organizations.
> I apologize if these thoughts are very well planned out. I am typing this on my phone while only able to read two lines of text while on very little sleep supporting the Vegas shoot. Lol


My feelings 100%. The lack of stabs and clicker are what really separate it from other classes.

-Grant


----------



## hammer08 (Aug 28, 2012)

limbwalker - Do you have any more info on USA's Outdoor Nationals as far as the barebow class is concerned? Or could you point me in the right direction to find the information. I'd like to attend if I could make it work.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

You can PM me if you'd like.

I'm not sure when USArchery will release the info. I can only tell you what the committee sent them for a proposal. No word yet on whether it was accepted (that I've seen).

We proposed that the barebow archers would shoot the same format (72 arrows/day for 2 days, followed by a team and OR round) but at one distance closer than their recurve counterparts, with one exception - the Masters would shoot the same 60M distance as their recurve counterparts. 

So Bowman would shoot 20, cubs 30, cadets 50 and Juniors/Seniors/Masters, 60 meters on a 122cm face. 

This will allow barebow archers to simply mix in with the recurve archers rather than be forced onto their own field, or have to come up with their own target size or distance. 

We all liked the idea of barebow recurve archers shooting alongside the Olympic recurve archers. I suspect it will lead to more barebow participation in the future once some of the recurve archers see how well a trained barebow archer can shoot.

But that's the proposal. Again, no final announcement yet that I've seen. 

John


----------



## zipper62 (Sep 9, 2008)

Demmer said:


> Denny, I love you and consider you a friend. I know my thoughts and suggestions will never please all. That's a fact of life that I can live with. Here is the thing with barebow. It is not supposed to be easy. Thete should be no aids to help anyone shoot it. There shouldn't be any bridge to olympic style. It needs its own distinction to be a true and legitimate class. A clicker and stabilizer pretty much makes it a minor league Olympic style bow. A WA barebow style bow is its own thing with no connections to anything else. It is what sets its self apart from anything else. The Olympic class is an all inclusive class. Those that truely love the sport and go for the experience and want to shoot a long rod and clicker can shoot the oly class.
> Let's face the facts. Lancaster was going to be a success whatever rules they chose for barebow. Everyone that came minus maybe two wouldn't have come if the long rod and clicker wasn't allowed. Here is the other thing. Would the class be a lot healthier without the stab and clicker? My guess would be absolutely. Most of us put in a lot of hard work into what we do and take great pride in that fact. It absolutely pains me to see those aids allowed into a barebow recurve class. I guess the point I'm making is that WA barebow style is a distinct class that should have no easy way outs into performing. We know that we won't get everything aligned perfectly, but we can get everything really really close.
> I know a lot of people might hate me for this, but those that go to the championships are the ones that really carry the weight of the class for everyone. If no one shows up to the nationals, they will drop the class for sure. That's why we try get more and more shooters to nationals. I really believe others and myself have the very best at heart for the growth and health for the barebow community across all organizations.
> I apologize if these thoughts are very well planned out. I am typing this on my phone while only able to read two lines of text while on very little sleep supporting the Vegas shoot. Lol



John, your response is discouraging for several reasons. It reveals your true agenda which appears to be to jam WA barebow rules down the throats of all organizations in the country. Growing barebow is what you hope will happen, but changing the rules is your goal. I cannot support this because the rule change will throw long time barebow enthusiasts under the bus.

I have no problem with eliminating the stabilizer. The clicker, however, is another matter, and its necessity and use are widely misunderstood by many. Neither of these "aids", as you call them, make barebow easy. At the highest levels, no style of shooting is easy and all top level competitors, from Jesse Broadwater to Brady Ellison to you and Ben and Dewayne all work hard to get results. What sets barebow apart from all other styles is the lack of a sight - period. 

A clicker is not a bridge to anything. Please understand that those who shoot barebow with a clicker *love to shoot barebow *and are not in the least interested in Olympic freestyle. Similarly, those who shoot NFAA Trad are not interested in shooting compounds. To call the clicker an aid is not inaccurate. But, a better term would be to call it a pair of crutches. What is so widely misunderstood about clickers is their primary benefit, which is to *control target panic*. Without the clicker, many barebow archers, including me, would have had short and inglorious careers in archery. The clicker does not make barebow easy. In fact, it can make you work harder and expend more energy. Finally, clickers do not guarantee you will win. Last week at Vegas proves that. Look at the NFAA outdoor records and you will see that non-clicker shooters hold most of the records in barebow. Bowhunter records are even higher. Brad Marshall, Dave Clem, Ben and Jim Brown are examples of the best and did not use clickers. I realize they shot compounds. But, I expect similar results with today's recurves and light arrows, especially having seen you and Dewayne and buddies shoot. The clicker will not take over the podium but it will let some compete who otherwise would go to the darkside or just quit. If you are truly interested in *growing* barebow, you should not eliminate the clicker.

In the 70s, when I shot my first good scores, I dreamed of competing in the FITA field competition and tried hard but to no avail to ditch the clicker, Likewise, when NFAA set up the trad division. So, I compete in barebow compound. I have fun shooting 3D wherever clickers are allowed, but you want to change that too. The current rules and the changes you seek won't let me and others like me play with you, which is unfortunate. Lord only knows how many barebow archers we have already lost who could not master the clicker and conquer TP. It just seems to me that barebow recurve in the USA would benefit by allowing clickers. Those of you who want to compete internationally can still do so without changing anything. 

Denny


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

And we sometimes wonder why we are misunderstood and not taken seriously...


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

I had (have?) TP, I'm not in favor of allowing a clicker for Barebow. The entire concept of Barebow being a specific entity is the lack of an external shot trigger.

There are plenty of classes where a person can compete with others who use a shot trigger. Olympic and Compound would be two good ones.

-Grant


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Denny, I don't think your response is very professional or appropriate, and frankly it's pretty insulting since I consider John a friend. You're basically calling him a liar, and that's BS. Anyone who knows him knows better. 

Nobody is proposing dropping the current "barebow" division that allows compounds and clickers. Not that I've seen. What we're hoping to see is a unified division for folks who are serious about competing

*without accessories* on their recurves. 



> If you are truly interested in growing barebow, you should not eliminate the clicker.


I doubt you could find many folks who agree with this. 



> because the rule change will throw long time barebow enthusiasts under the bus.


Have you looked at the poll at the top of the page?

Look, I suffered from TP when I shot fingers and pins on my compound back in the 80's. By the age of 18, I couldn't hold a pin on a bullseye to save my life. So I ditched the compound and became a snap-shooting "instinctive" trad archer and shot that way for a long time. I didn't get any better, but I didn't get any worse either, and at least I was having fun again.

When Larry Skinner saw me shoot in 2003 he asked me if I would consider trying the Olympic bow. I gave him two reasons why I wouldn't. First, I preferred bows that didn't have all those accessories on them. Second, I admitted to him that I couldn't use a sight because of TP. In 2003, when I tried to shoot NFAA trad with a target recurve and actually use the arrow to aim, it was a disaster. TP came right back as if I was using a compound and pins. Larry was relentless and finally talked me into putting a clicker on that bow and trying Olympic style. He was 100% correct, and with the clicker, I could aim as long as I wanted to. It was literally an overnight fix, and I went on to have quite a bit of success shooting that way.

But my heart was and still is in the simplicity of bows without accessories on them. I think a lot of folks, if they were asked, would tell you they wished they could shoot a simple bow, well. 

What I realized after 2 years of competing with the clicker was that I could go back and shoot barebow without a clicker and I was finally able to aim. 100,000 arrows through a clicker over 2 years conditioned me to be able once again to anchor, aim and make a controlled shot. So I went back to shooting barebow. Gradually, versions of the TP came back, and I struggle (like most barebow shooters do) to aim and execute a controlled shot without prematurely releasing, double-clutching or collapsing. It's a challenge every time out. It's SUPPOSED to be a challenge. That's why we shoot BAREBOW. For the challenge.

There are already divisions for archers who want clickers and stabilizers. There are already divisions for archers who want to use compounds and releases.

Folks like John and I simply want a division for a simple recurve bow without accessories, in the organizations we compete under. I cannot believe that this day and age, that is too much to ask.

John


----------



## rsarns (Sep 23, 2008)

Biggest issue is the current BB compound individuals are afraid when the BB recurve people get a class of their own, the current BB compound class will be empty except for a few. No offense to Denny and the great shooters I have had the pleasure of meeting, but its very apparent that the arguments I have heard against this is because of that fact.


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

Personally I don't see a place in the future of competitive archery for fingers compound. It's dying and eventually will be dead.

Do we really want to stifle growth in barebow shooting to appease a few dozen shooters?

-Grant


----------



## Bigjono (Apr 21, 2009)

I agree with Grant, Ren and John on their points. Demmer wants a unified RECURVE barebow class to shoot classic barebow. Leave the compound finger shooters to their own class, it is going to shrink and die soon anyway I think.


----------



## Supermag1 (Jun 11, 2009)

Instead of trying to limit other people's choices on what equipment they use why don't all of you that want to get rid of the stabs, clickers and compounds ditch YOUR arrow rests, slap on some mole hair and go shoot with the trad guys. After Vegas this year, it's obviously not the equipment that's making the difference between winning and losing.


----------



## Demmer (Dec 1, 2012)

No one said that to achieve the hieghts of any class is harder than any others. You will never hear me say that, or belive that. Every class has its level of achievements and is all relative. 
Dont get caught up in a name to define a class. It is just a name and that is all. We arent going to get into how trad NFAA is any better or worse than TRD in the IBO or Trad in the ASA its just a name. Names don't define a class, the rules do. 
Denny, we are not trying to change nfaa barebow and Ibo compound unaided. These two classes are pretty much the excact same thing. We arent seeking to change those two classes thay have a long tradition with those rules. If you are dependant on clickers, you can always participate there which you have done for all these years. Out of every organization that doesn't allow compounds in the class Nfaa, IBO, ASA, and US archery, only IBO RU allows clickers. I bet over half the shooters that shoot Ru don't even use clickers. And at least half that do are not married to it. Why would every other organization change to clickers for the sake of a few?
The whole thing that is being missed by some is that WA has set the standard for what "barebow" (remember its just a name and every org has different names that it goes by). Those rules are shot buy a huge group around the world and yes even in the US. That would be the easiest way to go about change in unifying a class for "barebow" (recurve shooters without stabs, sights and clickers). It is the absolute largest competing class in a the world that shoots with an unsighted recurve. It is only natural to use those standards. For the NFAA Trad class for example, it opens up a bigger pool of people to come to their events. For years they weren't allowed to use stabs or even weights. With these rules, this class will still be able to use almost any bow they want because they still can achieve the balance they like with weights place where they need it as long as it can fit through the ring. That ring gives you more than enough room to achieve the balance you want.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> Instead of trying to limit other people's choices on what equipment they use


Everyone is limited on their choices of equipment the use already. Brady doesn't get to use a scope on his Olympic recurve. Should he complain about that? Reo can't use a draw stop. Should he complain about that? Traditional longbow archers at many 3D shoots cannot use aluminum or carbon arrows. Should they complain about that? 

This isn't about any single archer, or their preferences, no matter how much some people want to make it personal. 

It's about making sense out of a division that is scattered to the wind, and not taken seriously by the governing bodies because of it. The longer all of us cannot agree and each want our own colored marbles to play with, the longer the governing bodies will marginalize us. Meanwhile, recurve and compound archers simply focus on the next competition because they don't have to fiddle with their gear and re-read rules every time out.

John


----------



## rsarns (Sep 23, 2008)

Supermag1 said:


> Instead of trying to limit other people's choices on what equipment they use why don't all of you that want to get rid of the stabs, clickers and compounds ditch YOUR arrow rests, slap on some mole hair and go shoot with the trad guys. After Vegas this year, it's obviously not the equipment that's making the difference between winning and losing.


Ummm the Trad guys in NFAA can have elevated rests, plungers and 12" stabs......


----------



## zipper62 (Sep 9, 2008)

John, John and all,

It was not my intent to ruffle feathers or call anyone a liar. I understand that you are not trying to impact NFAA barebow (compound) and agree with several of you that its days are numbered. Until that time, I will continue to participate in that style.

But here is the rub. What happens when NFAA barebow (compound) is gone? Some of us still want to play and would like to participate with recurves. Heck, I would now if the rules were different. In this past year, I have thoroughly enjoyed shooting the recurve again in 3D and indoor shoots where clickers were allowed. There are not many of us left, but we will be shut out if clickers are not allowed in barebow recurve. I was simply trying to point out that barebow recurve numbers could be enhanced somewhat by allowing those of us who rely on clickers to participate. We love barebow (shooting without sights) and have no interest in another style. Sorry for not being clear enough.

Denny


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

Way too many people are hung up on the word "Barebow" All of the organizations of a recurve class that is very close to WA Barebow already. Unifying one of the non-sighted non-mechanical release recurve divisions within these orgainzations about the WA rules will have a very minimal impact on the vast majority of the shooters.

This isn't about shoving WA Barebow down people's throats. This about having a common set of rules people can jump from WA to NFAA to IFAA to IBO to ASA without being "Forced" to change their gear and shooting style.

It takes a lot of time an dedication to become proficient in one style. Most of us don't have the time to become half-way proficient in different styles and equipment, so then most of us don't compete in the other organizations shoots. And thus the large number of non-sighted non-mechanical release recurve shooter pool that is available for any tournament is dramatically reduced, and then event organizers that spend a boat load of countless hours trying to put on a good shoot get discouraged do to the low turnout which eventually leads to the thinking of "why bother" and then events and classes get canceled.

This change isn't about being exclusive. It is the most inclusive thing we can do. Unify the rules.

Pete


----------



## Demmer (Dec 1, 2012)

Denny, the NFAA barebow and IBO compound unaided classes aren't very strong in numbers, but I doubt they will die out and disappear any time soon. I don't think anyone has to worry about that for a while if ever. 
You have to consider the health of the class, and I think a clicker is definitely not the way to go. It will help a very few out that wouldn't go without it, but it will make even more people very unhappy that work their butts off to not depend on one and invite many to just not show up anymore. If one truly loves the sport, they will show up without a clicker even if they know they struggle without one. That is if they want to shoot a class that doesn't allow it. There are way too many classes in the orginizations that do not allow it thus making it not a practical move that would do way more harm than good. Besides, this is the perfect compromise to those that shoot all wood bows and those that shoot everything but sights. A lot of the organizations don't have a wooden bow class, so this may catch a few of those with the kind of rules we are promoting. At least it opens it up more for them as a possibility and not feel like they are that far behind the 8 ball.


----------



## BubbaDean1 (Dec 20, 2014)

No reason there is not a barebow or traditional recurve class at Vegas. WTH? It can't be about number because crossbow only had 6 shooters and I don't see NFAA dropping them.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> What happens when NFAA barebow (compound) is gone?


If folks want that division to continue, then they need to recruit some new shooters to that style. Shooting a compound with fingers is pretty old school. I started out this way in the 70's. In fact, in those days it was a little odd to see someone using a release, and we would usually ask them what was wrong that they had to use one. ha, ha. But styles come and go and that's just the way it is. 

We have struggled with keeping barebow in USArchery events, mostly due to low participation or perceived low participation, compared to compound and Oly. recurve. So I get it. 

What John said is right though. If someone truly loves to shoot, they will adjust. Just like I adjusted when I went from NFAA trad to Oly. recurve in 2003. I did't particularly want to shoot a tricked-out recurve, but if I wanted to shoot target archery with a recurve - at that time - I needed a clicker. But I also wanted good competition, so I went all-in and got an Olympic recurve. I didn't particularly want to put a 12" stabilizer on my NFAA trad bow last year, but I did because I knew I wouldn't be as competitive without one. We all make choices when we decide to enter competitive events.

I wouldn't care if the common set of recurve barebow rules did allow a 12" stabilizer. I wouldn't call it "barebow" anymore, but I'd shoot it. The problem with that is that it's a very "American" definition of "traditional" or "barebow" and USArchery (who plays by WA rules) won't go for it, and our international barebow counterparts won't go for it. 

The most likely bow that we could get all organizations to agree on is the WA barebow. There are thousands of archers shooting under these rules worldwide, and most of the serious barebow archers in the U.S. still compete under these rules at many events. On top of that, as recently as a year ago, NFAA trad was nearly identical to the WA Barebow rules. 

I actually enjoyed shooting NFAA trad last year with the 12" stab. It was darn nice to routinely shoot 280's with a recurve and no sights or clicker. But if it means we will get more participation and thereby better competition by using WA rules, then I'll go that direction too. We just need agreement among the major governing bodies on what a target barebow recurve is.


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

Mr. Roboto said:


> It takes a lot of time an dedication to become proficient in one style. Most of us don't have the time to become half-way proficient in different styles and equipment, so then most of us don't compete in the other organizations shoots.
> 
> Pete


I shoot both IFAA and WA, it's logical for me to have my rig setup for WA rules, last years IFAA European 3D's they guys that only shoot IFAA used long rods and clickers and the rest of us used WA legal setups, I didn't once feel at any disadvantage.

Loet Smit asked why I shot WA setup and then asked me to propose an IFAA rule change but to be honest after being involved in the Longbow rule joke for last 10 years it's left a bad taste in my mouth about getting involved in rule changes. I'll let other play with the rules and just shoot what they decide.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Steve, shooting 3D targets with a long stabilizer and a clicker just seems stupid to me. Like racing pickup trucks or something. It's just not right IMO.


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

limbwalker said:


> Steve, shooting 3D targets with a long stabilizer and a clicker just seems stupid to me. Like racing pickup trucks or something. It's just not right IMO.


I was thinking those steep up/down shots makes the clicker and longrod kinda awkward to use, although Steve Partridge and Brad Marshal made it work to great effect in Field.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

It just isn't very realistic. 99.9% of hunters will never use a long stabilizer or a clicker. Yes, there are a few who use a clicker, but not that many and they wouldn't use it if they didn't have to. 

Field archery and 3D are rooted in hunting. That long stabilizers, scopes, and clickers ever became so popular in those events seems odd to me. Like a solution looking for a problem.


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

I have been reading more and posting less (it's really hard) I see a group that thinks if you have a Stabilizer then you are not barebow. Then there are some that have been shooting in the barebow division with stabilizers longer than most here have been breathing. Then there are some that think if you string walk with a clicker you have an advantage. How about a compromise ? In NFAA trad recurve add stringwalknig and a clicker ? Because in real life the only shooters here that are forced to change are NFAA members. All other organizations fit NFAA trad with the exception of stringwalking and a clicker.


----------



## DanZ (Feb 17, 2009)

Maybe the solution is to change the NFAA rule about stabilizers so that it is conditional – you can use a 12”stabilizer, but only if your index finger touches the nock  Now everybody can play and nobody can complain too much.

The idea of including clickers in a recurve bare bow category is, in my opinion, a bit ridiculous – clickers change everything. Above you have someone arguing that clickers are not that big of an advantage … but I won't shoot in a class that doesn’t allow them.

Clickers may not offer a huge advantage to everyone at 20yrds, but they would for many. Controlling target panic IS the name of the game in the top tiers of recurve bare bow archery. I think it would really change things at the top.

In field, when shooting different distances, ups, downs, and awkward angles -- a clicker is a complete game changer for everyone.

IMHO the biggest difference between shooting Olympic recurve indoors and shooting WA Bare bow indoors is the clicker – not the sight. A sight is just a reference; be it an aperture or the tip of an arrow.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> Because in real life the only shooters here that are forced to change are NFAA members.


To be fair, only NFAA has changed recently, forcing those of us who shoot WA rules to change as well. 

I agree clickers change everything. Even though I'm allowed to string walk in WA, I still gap. Why? Because if I truly use the tip of the arrow to aim with, I need a clicker. Any time I consciously aim, my TP comes back. So I've developed a combination of string walking and gapping that works for me. I still focus on the x, but only have the tip of the arrow in my peripheral vision. If I used a clicker, I could use the tip of the arrow exactly the same way I use my aperture, and I suspect my scores wouldn't be very far off from what I shoot with Oly. recurve.

Barebow is an exercise in control and physical ability. A bow without accessories is the best tool for this test.


----------



## j.conner (Nov 12, 2009)

This is great discussion. It proves to me that the equipment classes should be based purely on equipment, not technique. I agree that the NFAA trad class should remove the nock-touching rule. While they are at it, I would remove the word "trad" from the name of the class.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

j.conner said:


> This is great discussion. It proves to me that the equipment classes should be based purely on equipment, not technique. I agree that the NFAA trad class should remove the nock-touching rule. While they are at it, I would remove the word "trad" from the name of the class.


Completely agree on both counts.


----------



## High Plains (Feb 29, 2008)

I have put a lot of thought into this after reading this and other threads. I'm new to Barebow even at my somewhat advanced age (I was a back yard trad guy) and want to participate in shoots this year. I have no opinion on a clicker, I've never used one. As for 12" stabilizer or WA weights I will go with either. I just want to get in the game and be active this year. I know there will be local shoots where I won't fit in equipment wise but heck with that I rather just shoot.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Welcome High Plains! I was a backyard trad guy for a long time too. I think you'll learn a lot and enjoy the barebow target world.


----------



## High Plains (Feb 29, 2008)

limbwalker said:


> Welcome High Plains! I was a backyard trad guy for a long time too. I think you'll learn a lot and enjoy the barebow target world.


Thanks John, I'm practicing every chance I get.

Jeff


----------



## DanZ (Feb 17, 2009)

What was the rationale for adding 12" stabilizers in the NFAA last year?


----------



## rsarns (Sep 23, 2008)

DanZ said:


> What was the rationale for adding 12" stabilizers in the NFAA last year?


Gary can answer this. However, I was not against it because people were using quivers weighted as stabilizers anyway. The quivers were mounted on steel, sticking out in front of the riser, and some... well some had the quiver heads weighted with lead. Some just had them on there with heavy steel and loaded with arrows. Some of us weren't smart enough to build them...


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

There are some who were involved in that decision that can answer better than I can, but the most logical reason I heard was to bring NFAA trad in line with ASA Traditional and IBO Recurve Unaided.

I know there are a lot of NFAA trad shooters that also shoot ASA/IBO, and I can understand that reasoning. The trouble is it just took NFAA further from WA Barebow, which is where the rest of the world plays in barebow target archery.

I admit it's a bit of a mess trying to please everyone.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

rsarns said:


> Gary can answer this. However, I was not against it because people were using quivers weighted as stabilizers anyway. The quivers were mounted on steel, sticking out in front of the riser, and some... well some had the quiver heads weighted with lead. Some just had them on there with heavy steel and loaded with arrows. Some of us weren't smart enough to build them...


This is just absurd, and it's exactly why WA barebow rules make so much sense to so many of us. Otherwise, you see stuff that just isn't even logical.


----------



## Arrowwood (Nov 16, 2010)

I thought the stabilizer rule was so the NFAA was the same as IFAA - both org.s' outdoor field championships were in Yankton last year.

Why not just allow stringwalking in NFAA traditional and change the name?


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

I think the stab rule change occurred 3 years ago. The first time I saw a Trad bow with a stab on it was 2 years ago. From my understanding the rule change had nothing to do with IFAA. It was driven by the desire to raise one's scores due to its added stability, and looking at scores since then, it looks like it did just that.

ASA is a 3D organization, not a target shooting organization. Their max distance for Trad shooters is 25 yards. The NFAA should never even consider trying to adjust their rules to ASA.


----------



## Arrowwood (Nov 16, 2010)

That was the rationale given for the proposed rule change on the agenda at the time, "traditional is the only division that must change their equipment when changing from NFAA to IFAA or NAA."

page 7 of the pdf:

http://wyoming-archery.org/pdf12/2013-NFAA-Agenda.pdf


----------



## archer_nm (Mar 29, 2004)

I am one of you that use a clicker due to TP and have a real problem shooting at all without it, do you really think it is ok to exclude us with this problem. I need to ask the person that believes there is an advantage shooting a field round why he thinks this, do you really understand the reason for using a clicker and what it does for archers with TP.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> I am one of you that use a clicker due to TP and have a real problem shooting at all without it, do you really think it is ok to exclude us with this problem


Please go back and read my posts from earlier in this thread. I could not shoot with sights, or even use the arrow to aim until I began using a clicker. This is why I chose to enter the Olympic recurve division. There is already a division for those who use clickers. It's called the Olympic Recurve division. IMO clickers don't belong in a barebow division any more than releases or peep sights. 

I don't understand how someone can argue they want to use one aid (clicker) but not another (sight). 

Barebow should be archery without aids. As in BARE bow.

But understand, I'm not suggesting we change the NFAA barebow division that allows clickers. I'm suggesting that NFAA and USArchery (NAA) need a common set of rules for archers who wish to compete with recurves or longbows, without aids or stabilizers.

IMO, NFAA and USArchery have more in common than NFAA and IBO or ASA. NFAA is a target archery organization that predominately shoots paper faces with bullseye targets, just like USArchery.

John


----------



## wfocharlie (Feb 16, 2013)

I have a hypothetical question. If barebow was an Olympic class do people think it would be easier to consolidate the barebow rules? Just wondering if this is why it is so easy for Olympic recurve which NFAA has basically the same rules and calls it freestyle limited recurve.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

wfocharlie said:


> I have a hypothetical question. If barebow was an Olympic class do people think it would be easier to consolidate the barebow rules?


It would be dead simple. WA rules would apply. Period. There would be no consolidation. WA is the NGB for Olympic Archery.


----------



## archer_nm (Mar 29, 2004)

John then as I read your response you would exclude anyone wanting to use a clicker to shoot in this division. First off your response was not the one I was referring too, but I will ask you for the reason (besides a bow being bare) of why you think a clicker is an advantage.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

My own personal experience. Before ever trying a clicker, I could not use anything to consciously aim. Pin, aperture, arrow... it didn't matter. As soon as I consciously tried to look at something I was aiming with, I would freeze up on the target. Literally within 48 hours of learning to use a clicker, I could aim all day long. It's a huge aid. And IMO has no place on a bare bow. The whole purpose of barebow is to challenge the archer to shoot without aids. 

NFAA already has a division for recurve and clickers. They don't need two. 

Compound barebow is it's own animal. Nobody is proposing to change that. If someone needs to use a clicker, they can compete in barebow (that includes compounds, which have been proven to offer no real advantage in accuracy) or Olympic recurve.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

And Bob, by "this division" I mean a hypothetical recurve barebow division, not the current NFAA barebow division that includes compounds.


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

Barebow has a unique shot process compared to Olympic and Compound. When you remove that unique aspect then it loses that which makes it different.

I believe MartinO once said that a Barebow competition was decided by who had the best control of their TP that day. Speaking as someone who has TP and shoots WA Barebow that statement is complete truth. Allowing clickers would remove the most important thing dividing Barebow from Olympic.

-Grant


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Grant, it's pretty easy for me to agree with that statement, as the clicker was what allowed me to gain control of my TP and aim again. However, I'd include stabilizers in the short list of things that separates WA barebow from Olympic. Even that 12" stab. on the NFAA trad bow was easily worth 10 points on the blue/white 300 round face for me. I can only imagine what a long rod w/ v-bars and a clicker would do. Oh wait, I don't have to imagine.  ha, ha.


----------



## archer_nm (Mar 29, 2004)

Before anyone tries to read between the lines, I am one of the people that have offered to help get a good, fair and logical set of rules submitted to the NFAA Board of Directors for approval to make it easier to cross over from NFAA to WA shoots. But I am confused as to why it was easier for you to shoot with a clicker. Was it because it was arrow activated or just a psychological response to allow you to aim? For me I can aim all day as long as I don't have to think of releasing the arrow so the type of clicker I use has nothing to do with arrow length and it is not hooked to the string mater of fact it is tapped to my bow and is activated by my thumb.


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

A lot of great stuff here. We all have a very different idea of what Barebow should be. If its bare bow then let's take everything off. Everything we add to our bow is an aid weather it's an arrow rest stabilizer or a clicker a quiver full of arrows or 2 lbs of weight added to the riser. It all helps us hit the target. For me Barebow is a bow without a sight pretty much been the rule for 50 some years.

I wrote the stabilizer rule for NFAA and have been asked why. It has been said before the rule NFAA and WA were the same not even close NFAA trad could not have any weight or counter balance of any kind. I shoot NFAA trad , IBO RU , IFAA Bowhunter recurve and last but not least WA Fita Barebow. So by adding the Stabilizer now I can shoot the same bow for NFAA , IBO , IFAA and by changing my 12" stabilizer to a 2 1/2" stabilizer I am WA legal. So this is why and for those who think just because my stabilizer is only 2 1/2" long it's not a stabilizer. I disagree they do exactly the same thing help me hit target


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

Bob they don't want the clicker because its not WA Barebow legal


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Bob, it simply gave me something to focus on besides aiming. And within days, I had programmed the release into my subconscious to occur on the click. It just "rewired" my brain. I think this is true for a lot of folks.

These days, I shoot WA barebow/NFAA Trad (without a clicker of course), and the two reasons I can have success now are 1) 100,000+ arrows through a clicker with an Olympic rig trained my body to recognize the full draw/anchor position, and 2) I still gap shoot even though I string walk to prevent the TP from returning. My gap is just smaller when I string walk, but it's still gap shooting.

John


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

grantmac said:


> Barebow has a unique shot process compared to Olympic and Compound. When you remove that unique aspect then it loses that which makes it different.
> 
> I believe MartinO once said that a Barebow competition was decided by who had the best control of their TP that day. Speaking as someone who has TP and shoots WA Barebow that statement is complete truth. Allowing clickers would remove the most important thing dividing Barebow from Olympic.
> 
> -Grant


Grant I'm pretty sure the thing that Separates Olympic Recurve and Barebow is the sight


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

2413gary said:


> Grant I'm pretty sure the thing that Separates Olympic Recurve and Barebow is the sight


Uh, nope. Not from where I sit. In all my experience shooting Olympic, rarely did I ever hold the sight on the x anyway. In other words, I was usually gapping with the sight. Not really that much different than what I do with the tip of the arrow now. 

The clicker is without question, the major difference between Oly. and WA barebow and I think anyone who has shot both would most likely agree.

John


----------



## archer_nm (Mar 29, 2004)

First John I fully understand what you are saying, Gary you are correct in your assessment of what some are saying and in my opinion some are saying my way or the highway, without some compromise it stands as much chance as a snowball in hell of surviving a vote by the NFAA Directors. But I made a promise to John at Lancaster that I will try to help and that I will do, but the only way it will stand a chance is a compromise. But as you know the Directors will not add another style and it will take dropping a style to get another one added


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Bob, I'd be thrilled with one common set of rules. Unfortunately, I don't see WA or USArchery changing their rules to suit a relatively small number of NFAA members. I don't mean to marginalize those who voted in favor of the 12" stabilizer, and I understand their reasoning, but the rest of the world shoots barebow under WA rules, and therefore USArchery will continue to follow that lead. 

But I had just as much fun shooting NFAA trad last year with the 12" stab. as I have with the WA barebow. I just know where the greater likelihood of change lies. 

Well, and to be fair, I think the finger touching the nock rule is just archaic neo-trad nonsense. 

John


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

2413gary said:


> A lot of great stuff here. We all have a very different idea of what Barebow should be. If its bare bow then let's take everything off. Everything we add to our bow is an aid weather it's an arrow rest stabilizer or a clicker a quiver full of arrows or 2 lbs of weight added to the riser. It all helps us hit the target. For me Barebow is a bow without a sight pretty much been the rule for 50 some years.
> 
> I wrote the stabilizer rule for NFAA and have been asked why. It has been said before the rule NFAA and WA were the same not even close NFAA trad could not have any weight or counter balance of any kind. I shoot NFAA trad , IBO RU , IFAA Bowhunter recurve and last but not least WA Fita Barebow. So by adding the Stabilizer now I can shoot the same bow for NFAA , IBO , IFAA and by changing my 12" stabilizer to a 2 1/2" stabilizer I am WA legal. So this is why and for those who think just because my stabilizer is only 2 1/2" long it's not a stabilizer. I disagree they do exactly the same thing help me hit target


There really isn't a lot of good stuff here, Gary. It is just the same crap that is bandied about yearly. What really needs to happen is to have someone take the bull by the horns and make a set of rules that apply to anyone who shoots a recurve or longbow. Having the inmates make their own rules has never worked and it won't work now. Set the rules and make them permanent, no changing every two years. The archers who want to shoot recurves in competition will adapt and will have a bigger class and more competitive tournaments. Those who never come to competitions can shoot however they want. The archers who actually support tournaments are the ones whose voices should be heard on these matters. You want a voice, get your self out to the tournaments that the powers that be pay attention to when considering whether this class or that class deserves to be kept on the roster. Bob Borges or Tom Daley needs to make a decision, present it to Nfaa, and be able to take any flak from it until the noise dies down. These men are both in a position with the Nfaa to influence legislation to accomplish these goals IMHO. Let's quit talking and do something about this, before I get past my prime.:smile:


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

:mg:If you feel the sight is no big deal then take it off at the next trials and see how far you get


limbwalker said:


> Uh, nope. Not from where I sit. In all my experience shooting Olympic, rarely did I ever hold the sight on the x anyway. In other words, I was usually gapping with the sight. Not really that much different than what I do with the tip of the arrow now.
> 
> The clicker is without question, the major difference between Oly. and WA barebow and I think anyone who has shot both would most likely agree.
> 
> John


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

2413gary said:


> :mg:If you feel the sight is no big deal then take it off at the next trials and see how far you get


I'd get a lot further without a sight than I would without a clicker. I've shot barebow at 70 meters, and I can tell you for me at least, the lack of a clicker is the limiting factor. I can put the point of my arrow on the flag just as easily as I can put my aperture ring around the gold. 

And I don't have to speculate. I've actually done both. 

Of course, if you don't agree, you're always welcome to come to the trials with a sight on your barebow, sans clicker, and prove otherwise.  Many have tried since the clicker came into fashion. Many have tried. All of us who have shot Olympic for years now can probably tell you a story about the "traditionalist" who shows up to shoot Olympic and refuses to use a clicker, or insists on using it only as a "draw check" as if they get points added to their score for being more pure. I saw it every year, and almost at every tournament. Never were they competitive. Ever. And they all had sights.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Look guys, if this is going to turn into a whizzing contest where folks get defensive about their choice of gear, nothing will ever change and barebow or trad or whatever you want to call us, archers will continue to dwell in the margins of serious archery. 

It's time the defensiveness is set aside for once, and it's time that traditional "barebow" archers finally look at things with an objective, serious view toward the future. Look at the numbers of who shoots what, and why, and look objectively at the rules and why they are in place. Are they there to protect someone's ego? Are they there to perpetuate some myth about what is or isn't "traditional" (whatever that is), or are the rules there to encourage serious competition and put barebow archers on equal footing with Olympic recurve and compound archers? 

If we're not serious about being seen as equal competitors as compound and Olympic archers, then I'm afraid we're doomed to be marginalized and subject to the whims of the compound and Oly. recurve crowd.


----------



## archer_nm (Mar 29, 2004)

Ben I agree with most of what you said, Neither Tom nor I have to make a decision we are only your voice and as I have stated before we can present the Agenda Item but it needs to be what the majority of the Archers who compete at the Major Tournaments want, which would make it optional at State Level and below.


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

archer_nm said:


> Ben I agree with most of what you said, Neither Tom nor I have to make a decision we are only your voice and as I have stated before we can present the Agenda Item but it needs to be what the majority of the Archers who compete at the Major Tournaments want, which would make it optional at State Level and below.


Bob, we need the rules to extend down to the local level, not use the sectional and national security blanket. I feel that we are in a resurgence of recurve shooters in this country and we can perpetuate that growth if we give validity to that style of shooting by adapting to what the rest of the world is doing. The current generation of recurve barebow archers will either embrace the rules or not, but the future archers coming into this shooting style will have a consistent set of rules that they can practice to. Forget the compromise and convince the rest of the directors that this is what the people who are showing up to tournaments want.Please.


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

As has been brought-up many times in this and other discussions:

Why not just allow WA BB to complete directly with NFAA Trad using both of their existing equipment and technique rules.

Want to stringwalk? The bow must fit through a 4.4" ring.
Want a 12" stab? No stringwalking for you.

-Grant


----------



## archer_nm (Mar 29, 2004)

Ben then that is our goal, John from Lancaster is gong to contact me and we will put it together and then the hard work begins. I will contact each Director to try and convince them. But all of you need to do the same if we want this to work.


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

archer_nm said:


> Ben then that is our goal, John from Lancaster is gong to contact me and we will put it together and then the hard work begins. I will contact each Director to try and convince them. But all of you need to do the same if we want this to work.


Thanks Bob, I will see if we can get a signed petition for you no later than the Indoor nationals.


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

Thanks Bob,

This is something that barebow-recurve shooters really need to happen. You know that there are proposals to the NFAA to change the awards rules and forced consolidation rules for Trad and Longbow because of the low numbers. The biggest reasons for low attendance is the rules for the two different classes. I want to see the numbers of people competing explode. In order to do that we need a common set of rules. Changing NFAA Traditional rules to be same as WA Barebow will be easy to do since it is essentially the same except for the 12" stab and the string/face walking restrictions. And since NFAA Traditional doesn't allow clickers, changing NFAA Traditional to WA Barebow will have Zero impact on the those that like clickers. 

One of the sad things in archery today is that many of the teaching programs for young people push them to Compounds or Olympic Recurves. Those who have a desire for barebow are generally pushed away. Part of the reasons for that is the teachers don't understand all the different rules that pollute this class so they don't know how to teach it, or what they teach is contrary to what local tournaments allow. Unification of the rules is needed for the growth from the young up.

I being one of the most active NFAA Traditional shooters in the last 10 years up here in Washington State want to see this happen.

Pete


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

Mr. Roboto said:


> Thanks Bob,
> 
> This is something that barebow-recurve shooters really need to happen. You know that there are proposals to the NFAA to change the awards rules and forced consolidation rules for Trad and Longbow because of the low numbers. The biggest reasons for low attendance is the rules for the two different classes. I want to see the numbers of people competing explode. In order to do that we need a common set of rules. Changing NFAA Traditional rules to be same as WA Barebow will be easy to do since it is essentially the same except for the 12" stab and the string/face walking restrictions. And since NFAA Traditional doesn't allow clickers, changing NFAA Traditional to WA Barebow will have Zero impact on the those that like clickers.
> 
> ...


Pete, I support all you say except the reasoning behind the demise of barebow shooting. The main reason behind the push away from barebow shooting is the lack of accessories that manufacturers can sell compared to freestyle compound archers. There was a definite bias from the manufacturers to do away with any finger related shooting style. This bias was carried on through the ASA as they eliminated limited freestyle for the pros. Vegas eliminated the barebow class for several years. Vegas also demoted limited freestyle to secondary status and put Olympic style in and upgraded the purses for that style. The only thing tournament organizers respect is numbers. By consolidating the barebow recurve and longbow shooter, we could make a formidable force at major tournaments. What a lot of barebow archers don't seem to realize is that this process is going to make us all better archers as consolidation will make the competition and performances become better and better.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

grantmac said:


> As has been brought-up many times in this and other discussions:
> 
> Why not just allow WA BB to complete directly with NFAA Trad using both of their existing equipment and technique rules.
> 
> ...


If those are my two options, I'm taking the stabilizer and gapping every time. I can barely break 270 on my best day with a WA legal barebow on the NFAA indoor face. The very first time out with a 12" stabilizer (fingers touching the nock, mind you) I shot a 286. That 12" stabilizer is a big advantage, which is why guys use them.

To me at least, the advantage the accessories offer I would rank in this order:

1) clicker
2) stabilizer
3) string walking

4) weights
5) plunger

John


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> The main reason behind the push away from barebow shooting is the lack of accessories that manufacturers can sell compared to freestyle compound archers.


Yup.



> The only thing tournament organizers respect is numbers.


Again, yup.

So, the manufacturers want to be able to sell accessories, and the event organizers want to see participation (numbers).

Is it any wonder then that the biggest prize money is in the divisions that use the most accessories and that encourage the most participation? 

If anyone hasn't figured out the way archers are used as marketing tools yet, they should give it some thought. 

Imagine a Vegas event with no prize money. At all. How many guys would switch divisions and try something else? Maybe not that many, but you know some would. 

Archers, like golfers tend to be sheep. The prize money that is offered at major events is chump change to the manufacturers and the organizations they are in bed with.


----------



## brtesite (May 24, 2002)

itbeso said:


> Pete, I support all you say except the reasoning behind the demise of barebow shooting. The main reason behind the push away from barebow shooting is the lack of accessories that manufacturers can sell compared to freestyle compound archers. There was a definite bias from the manufacturers to do away with any finger related shooting style. This bias was carried on through the ASA as they eliminated limited freestyle for the pros. Vegas eliminated the barebow class for several years. Vegas also demoted limited freestyle to secondary status and put Olympic style in and upgraded the purses for that style. The only thing tournament organizers respect is numbers. By consolidating the barebow recurve and longbow shooter, we could make a formidable force at major tournaments. What a lot of barebow archers don't seem to realize is that this process is going to make us all better archers as consolidation will make the competition and performances become better and better.


having not shot a compound BB style, I can see where the clicker would control TP. but having shot BB with a recurve before compounds were around, the big controversy then was the sliding clicker . Had nothing to do with TP. iT kept the tip of the arrow on the face all the time when sliding the string. 
Some one got beat then it got outlawed. to many time rules got changed or protected by the director that that shot a particular way. to many times it had nothing to do with what was for the good of the masses. I agree with Ben that make a rule ,if you don't like it find a place where you can fit in.
Spent more than 25 yrs at those meetings & nothing has changed, except the players. I wish you all luck


----------



## Blackfletch (Dec 2, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> Great job Scott.
> 
> A "recurve barebow" class makes a lot of sense by allowing compound barebow archers to continue. It would also make room for a true "traditional" class in NFAA that would be in line with IBO traditional recurve, for the guys that don't want string/face walking in their division and who want to shoot off the shelf.
> 
> ...


I agree 100% John.
William Cisek


----------



## Blackfletch (Dec 2, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> This is particularly true indoors. I cannot achieve a zero gap indoors regardless of what I do. If I anchor higher than under my cheekbone, the nock is so far to the right of my eye that I would have to aim 2' right of the spot to hit it at 18 meters. When I shot the TFAA state indoor last March, I was aiming at a spot exactly 16" below the X of the target I was scoring. When my target was on top, I was aiming directly at the "x" on the target below mine. I gotta tell you it takes some practice and focus to aim on someone else's target to hit your own.  ha, ha.
> 
> 
> However, I can shoot 3-under, anchor under my cheekbone, and have a point-on zero gap at 60 meters outdoors.  So I'm at a disadvantage indoors but at an advantage outdoors at longer distances merely because of the way the Lord put me together.


I have found that pointing the arrow (with secondary vision) at the spot you want to hit while focusing on the spot you wish to hit is a perfect method of aiming close range. In my case I can use this method up to 30 yards which is where the arrow starts to drop and I have to gap.
But hey, I'm 77 years old and shoot the USAarchery Instinctive Bow Division which is defined in book 4 section 22.4 and is not in play in any event that I know of. I am a life member of NFAA, USAarchery and FAA (Florida). I am used to shooting my equipment in events with snickering by some on the line. I'll continue to shoot my equipment regardless of the barebow,traditional,instinctive, etc. rules that exist.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> before the rule NFAA and WA were the same not even close *NFAA trad could not have any weight* or counter balance of any kind.


Uhm, well, that was always a question every year at Louisville. I personally called to ask about this several years ago. Nobody could give me a straight answer on the weights that fit into the risers (spig/best/etc.). Guys have been using weighted risers at Louisville for as long as I can remember. This is why I say just 15 months ago, the only real difference between NfAA trad and WA Barebow was the stringwalking. 

John


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

limbwalker said:


> If those are my two options, I'm taking the stabilizer and gapping every time. I can barely break 270 on my best day with a WA legal barebow on the NFAA indoor face. The very first time out with a 12" stabilizer (fingers touching the nock, mind you) I shot a 286. That 12" stabilizer is a big advantage, which is why guys use them.


I would choose the opposite for Field and 3D especially. Indoors perhaps I'd use the stab.

Bottom line is that I think the class would be pretty even if shooters were given the choice and nobody would necessarily feel left out except for the Neo-Tradies who, lets face it, don't really matter.

-Grant


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

I wouldn't say they don't matter, since it appears some of them are in positions of influence (which is why we still have to touch the arrow with our index finger and make believe we aren't using the arrow to aim). Rather they don't either show up, or don't place well when they do because at the end of the day, "the force" is something only true Jedi's can harness.


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

Ok I have a question since I'm outnumbered like 823 to 2 and you want to change NFAA trad rules and you think this will grow NFAA trad. Why don't I see any of you at the NFAA outdoor Nats. With the exception of one or two. Why don't you show and give your support to NFAA if you want the sport to grow. Just know if the rules are changed I will still be there will you?


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

2413gary said:


> Ok I have a question since I'm outnumbered like 823 to 2 and you want to change NFAA trad rules and you think this will grow NFAA trad. Why don't I see any of you at the NFAA outdoor Nats. With the exception of one or two. Why don't you show and give your support to NFAA if you want the sport to grow. Just know if the rules are changed I will still be there will you?


By the same token, why don't you come and compete with us at the NFAA indoor nationals? There are a lot of tournaments out there to attend each year. I can't speak for others but I have to pick and choose because, living on the left coast, it is expensive trying to get to all the tournaments I would like to get to.


----------



## Astroguy (Oct 11, 2013)

My thoughts on this....If its not your class , stay out of it !!! 

With all the kids shooting JOAD right now, all classes will fill back up .


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

You splitting the cost of the rental car and buying my dinner ? When I have to choose between NFAA outdoor IFAA outdoor IBO world Trad Vegas Redding NFAA marked 3'd. Well you know Indoor gives me TP. But I have been thinking about it. I will let you know after this next weekend at the USA indoor Nat. In Tulare shooting without my beloved Bomar stabilizer in the Barebow recurve division


itbeso said:


> By the same token, why don't you come and compete with us at the NFAA indoor nationals? There are a lot of tournaments out there to attend each year. I can't speak for others but I have to pick and choose because, living on the left coast, it is expensive trying to get to all the tournaments I would like to get to.


----------



## Astroguy (Oct 11, 2013)

When I ran a local Bowmen in Maryland back in the 90's. String walking a compound lead to limb failures and was a dying class. I shot FSL then with a clicker, sight, peep and 36" Easton stabilizer. Bowhunter class shot 1 anchor, 12" stabilizer limit. Barebow had stringwalking and larger stablizers . 

I would not teach stringwalking a compound to anyone. I don't think pulling the bottom wheel harder is a safe style. I don't have a problem if stringwalking is taught on a recurve. 

I wonder how many NFAA Barebow champions did it on a recurve? And how many won on a compound over the last 30 years. 

I think clickers only belong in NFAA freestyle classes. Now I could see Barebow and Bowhunter merging someday.


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

Astroguy said:


> When I ran a local Bowmen in Maryland back in the 90's. String walking a compound lead to limb failures and was a dying class. I shot FSL then with a clicker, sight, peep and 36" Easton stabilizer. Bowhunter class shot 1 anchor, 12" stabilizer limit. Barebow had stringwalking and larger stablizers .
> 
> I would not teach stringwalking a compound to anyone. I don't think pulling the bottom wheel harder is a safe style. I don't have a problem if stringwalking is taught on a recurve.
> 
> ...


Every Nfaa outdoor and indoor barebow championship has been won with a compound for the last 30 plus years. I have never personally seen a set of compound limbs fail because of stringwalking. It's probably true to say that barebow as a whole class suffered Participation woes nationwide but California and other west coast states have pretty well kept it alive along with pockets of Virginia. I do not want to affect compound barebow classes. I do hope we can unite all the barebow recurvers into one class.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

2413gary said:


> Ok I have a question since I'm outnumbered like 823 to 2 and you want to change NFAA trad rules and you think this will grow NFAA trad. Why don't I see any of you at the NFAA outdoor Nats. With the exception of one or two. Why don't you show and give your support to NFAA if you want the sport to grow. Just know if the rules are changed I will still be there will you?


That's a great question. I started shooting Louisville when I lived in S. Illinois and it was only a 4 hour drive. I love that event, and the venue. I also enjoy seeing all the vendors, and visiting with all the archers in the same big room. Same reason I and many others enjoy Vegas so much. Outdoor field events just have a different vibe. I also don't think NFAA outdoor nationals is that prestigious of an event, for whatever reason. And I don't mean to take anything away from those who attend it. It's just an observation I've had when I look at attendance and who it is that's going. So in a way, it's a catch .22 because if the top shooters aren't there, some folks won't go. Louisville has all the top trad/bb shooters. Vegas is the biggest bb shoot. So those events have some prestige and serious competition. I'm not sure NFAA Outdoor Nat's has the level of competition those other events have. Maybe it does. I just don't know.

In my mind, the three "big" events for recurve barebow archers in the U.S. are Louisville, USArchery's Indoor Nationals, and USArchery's National Field Championship. But that's just me. I tend to pay a little closer attention to USArchery events due to my JOAD/AA program. Other folks would probably include Vegas or Yankton in that list.

John


----------



## Laurie Borealis (Mar 10, 2012)

limbwalker said:


> That's a great question. I started shooting Louisville when I lived in S. Illinois and it was only a 4 hour drive. I love that event, and the venue. I also enjoy seeing all the vendors, and visiting with all the archers in the same big room. Same reason I and many others enjoy Vegas so much. Outdoor field events just have a different vibe. I also don't think NFAA outdoor nationals is that prestigious of an event, for whatever reason. And I don't mean to take anything away from those who attend it. It's just an observation I've had when I look at attendance and who it is that's going. So in a way, it's a catch .22 because if the top shooters aren't there, some folks won't go. Louisville has all the top trad/bb shooters. Vegas is the biggest bb shoot. So those events have some prestige and serious competition. I'm not sure NFAA Outdoor Nat's has the level of competition those other events have. Maybe it does. I just don't know.
> 
> In my mind, the three "big" events for recurve barebow archers in the U.S. are Louisville, USArchery's Indoor Nationals, and USArchery's National Field Championship. But that's just me. I tend to pay a little closer attention to USArchery events due to my JOAD/AA program. Other folks would probably include Vegas or Yankton in that list.
> 
> John


Well, yeah, but by the same token, the USA Archery outdoor nationals have not been a priority for barebow recurve shooters, and you really, really want them to show up for that for the growth and credibility of the sport. (...in Alabama... in July...) For as many of us as can afford to, let's support the tournaments that offer BB and trad, whether NFAA or USAA. The more of us that show up, the more voice we will have for rule changes, etc. (And Gary and Sandy, I'll buy you dinner in Louisville if you come. I won't have a rental car, though. Good to see that you're shooting U.S. Nationals in Tulare this year.)


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

Laurie Borealis said:


> Well, yeah, but by the same token, the USA Archery outdoor nationals have not been a priority for barebow recurve shooters, and you really, really want them to show up for that for the growth and credibility of the sport. (...in Alabama... in July...) For as many of us as can afford to, let's support the tournaments that offer BB and trad, whether NFAA or USAA. The more of us that show up, the more voice we will have for rule changes, etc. (And Gary and Sandy, I'll buy you dinner in Louisville if you come. I won't have a rental car, though. Good to see that you're shooting U.S. Nationals in Tulare this year.)


Whoa, whoa, whoa,---whoa, I'll need some nourishment also. After plane and other expenses, I won't have money for food. Was going to drive over to Indiana to sponge off friends.:teeth:


----------



## Laurie Borealis (Mar 10, 2012)

itbeso said:


> Whoa, whoa, whoa,---whoa, I'll need some nourishment also. After plane and other expenses, I won't have money for food. Was going to drive over to Indiana to sponge off friends.:teeth:


OK, dinner for you, too, Ben. But I can't extend the offer to everyone... I have to save my pennies for airfare to Alabama (assuming my target panic doesn't destroy me in the meantime).


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

Did I just get bumped of the dinner table ?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> the USA Archery outdoor nationals have not been a priority for barebow recurve shooters


I sure hope this becomes a priority shoot for serious barebow archers. Where else do barebow archers shoot outdoors at 60 meters shoulder to shoulder with their recurve and compound counterparts? We do this all the time around the country at local 900 tournaments. It would be nice to see that "National Champion" title come to mean something over the next few years.


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

If World Archery wakes up and recognize Barebow as a legitimate Target Discipline and allow barebow shooters at the world championships and world cups, then I am absolutely sure you will see an explosion of barebow competitors showing up at the US Outdoor nationals.


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

Mr. Roboto said:


> If World Archery wakes up and recognize Barebow as a legitimate Target Discipline and allow barebow shooters at the world championships and world cups, then I am absolutely sure you will see an explosion of barebow competitors showing up at the US Outdoor nationals.


:thumbs_up


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

limbwalker said:


> I sure hope this becomes a priority shoot for serious barebow archers. Where else do barebow archers shoot outdoors at 60 meters shoulder to shoulder with their recurve and compound counterparts? We do this all the time around the country at local 900 tournaments. It would be nice to see that "National Champion" title come to mean something over the next few years.


July, A month that is home to:
1). 3rd leg of IBO triple crown.
2).IBO Trad World Championships
3). Nfaa National Field Championships
4).Now, USA Archery target Nationals
That is a long list of championship tournaments in the same month. With barebow archers generally lacking sponsor help, footing the bill for these shoots can get pretty costly. I hope we can get a big list of competitors in Decatur but it is asking a lot of our fellow barebowers to turn their back on other tournaments that have been a priority for them for a long time. I don't have an answer for the logjam, just wish I was retired and rich.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Mr. Roboto said:


> If World Archery wakes up and recognize Barebow as a legitimate Target Discipline and allow barebow shooters at the world championships and world cups, then I am absolutely sure you will see an explosion of barebow competitors showing up at the US Outdoor nationals.


True enough.

I wonder why/when field and 3D became the preferred playground of barebow archers. Or asked differently, why folks felt they needed compounds, sights and stabilizers to shoot outdoor target competitions?

I can tell you that after shooting many 900 rounds and many of our TOTS 1080 rounds with a barebow rig, it is very much my preferred outdoor target bow. Makes life much more stress free. 

Every competition I enter, it seems that us barebow guys/gals are enjoying ourselves much more than the compound/Oly. folks are.


----------



## Darryl Longbow (Apr 11, 2003)

I wish the recurve BB community well for the future. I will make some predictions though. By altering the trad division you may doom yourselves along with the trad class. It will be all about money from sponsers in the long run and while sales of BB equipment and accessories will increase along with recurve BB shooters for a while you will eventually find the rules changed again to include clickers and the compound.The organizations do not care about world archery rules because their money does not come from that. Almost all the manufactures today are interested in the compound and the sale of accessories for it. Neither BB nor trad is very popular because of that with those manufactures. Traditional will still exist and continue because companies are seeing a steady increase in sales to hunters but Recurve BB will not increase those sales over the long run and will as compound BB has done show a drop in numbers until it is the bastion of very few and eventually be relegated to the basement so to speak as all recurve archery has done for the sake of money to the compound. The idea to use the weights; the adjustable rest; the pressure button; string walking;face walking etc. is a reinvention of the wheel. So was the silly rule to allow stableizers. in trad today. Whats more the NFAA has shown many times how they are incapable of keeping things the way they are when it comes to rules and what is allowed. Do you really believe they wont change them from what you now want after a few years ? That just because the rules they might follow now will not change ? Perhaps by shooting your WA legal BB rigs you should compete directly against the compound BB shooters and prove their are enough non overt sight shooters left to make keeping BB of any type around,perhaps trad should shoot against compound bowhunter class shooters,then the same rules as to how you shoot would be on a equal basis.Why not? is it the shooter or the bow,would not add any more classes,in fact would reduce them. If we are ever going to prove that a recurve shooter is just as legitimate as a compound is to compete directly against them. sorry for the rant but its just the way I see it as a long time competitive shooter that has seen the past and I fear the future.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> By altering the trad division you may doom yourselves along with the trad class. It will be all about money from sponsers in the long run


So you mean we'll go the way of the Olympic recurve then? 

Longbow, the barebow target recurve needs to come out of the shadows and become a legitimate competitive division at all US shoots. That is the goal of many of us. If we are taken seriously enough that sponsors choose to begin supporting barebow archers, then so be it (I hate to break the news, but some barebow archers already receive sponsor support...  ). But the goal as I see it should be to put barebow archers on equal footing with compound and Oly. recurve archers. There are many things that will need to happen for that to occur. A single set of rules nationwide for barebow recurve is in the opinion of many of us, the first of those things.

But I wouldn't worry too much about traditional. Why? Because the anti-establishment sentiment will always be there. A certain % of humans, be they archers or otherwise, will always want to maintain the "old ways" and set themselves apart from the pack. That will never go away, and I hope it doesn't. 

Just realize this is not a zero-sum game. In other words, a fellow can be a serious target recurve barebow archer by day, and a traditional archer by night. We do have choices and nobody is going to have to declare at the beginning of the season what will be the only bow they use all year.


----------



## Laurie Borealis (Mar 10, 2012)

2413gary said:


> Did I just get bumped of the dinner table ?


No, but you have to bring Sandy with you.


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

Laurie Borealis said:


> No, but you have to bring Sandy with you.


He's already crawfishing on going.


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

Darryl Longbow said:


> I wish the recurve BB community well for the future. I will make some predictions though. By altering the trad division you may doom yourselves along with the trad class. It will be all about money from sponsers in the long run and while sales of BB equipment and accessories will increase along with recurve BB shooters for a while you will eventually find the rules changed again to include clickers and the compound.The organizations do not care about world archery rules because their money does not come from that. Almost all the manufactures today are interested in the compound and the sale of accessories for it. Neither BB nor trad is very popular because of that with those manufactures. Traditional will still exist and continue because companies are seeing a steady increase in sales to hunters but Recurve BB will not increase those sales over the long run and will as compound BB has done show a drop in numbers until it is the bastion of very few and eventually be relegated to the basement so to speak as all recurve archery has done for the sake of money to the compound. The idea to use the weights; the adjustable rest; the pressure button; string walking;face walking etc. is a reinvention of the wheel. So was the silly rule to allow stableizers. in trad today. Whats more the NFAA has shown many times how they are incapable of keeping things the way they are when it comes to rules and what is allowed. Do you really believe they wont change them from what you now want after a few years ? That just because the rules they might follow now will not change ? Perhaps by shooting your WA legal BB rigs you should compete directly against the compound BB shooters and prove their are enough non overt sight shooters left to make keeping BB of any type around,perhaps trad should shoot against compound bowhunter class shooters,then the same rules as to how you shoot would be on a equal basis.Why not? is it the shooter or the bow,would not add any more classes,in fact would reduce them. If we are ever going to prove that a recurve shooter is just as legitimate as a compound is to compete directly against them. sorry for the rant but its just the way I see it as a long time competitive shooter that has seen the past and I fear the future.


Respectfully disagree with whole post.


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

I also disagree


----------



## Astroguy (Oct 11, 2013)

limbwalker said:


> True enough.
> 
> I wonder why/when field and 3D became the preferred playground of barebow archers. Or asked differently, why folks felt they needed compounds, sights and stabilizers to shoot outdoor target competitions?


Back in the 80's when I started shooting NFAA and played around with different classes. The Club President shot Barebow , and switched to a compound trying to keep his scores up. He was getting older and just could not shoot his recurve well anymore. All his friends from other local clubs also shot Barebow. Those guys grew up on Fred Bear. And complained about everything, even trying to make 65% illegal. They were perfectly happy with their scores. They tried to beat the local Bowhunter master ( who understood wheel timing ) we had in the area with little success. At the end of the Day it was Barebow vs Bowhunter, the sighted classes held no passion for them. The Bowhunter class felt Barebow was for non-sportsmen.

I thought if they would shoot the same stabilizer length. And loosened the rules on how to anchor. That they really could compete against each other fairly.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> Those guys grew up on Fred Bear.


Well believe it or not, I did too. But I think even Fred understood the difference between shooting a hunting bow and shooting a bow for target archery. I doubt he ever confused them the way so many of his followers did (and still do).

If you bring up some of the old Olympic film archives, you'll see Fred there in the audience, seeing how "his" archers were doing with his target bows. 

But ask some guys and you'd think the only bows he ever touched were 65# hunting bows. LOL.


----------



## Astroguy (Oct 11, 2013)

limbwalker said:


> If you bring up some of the old Olympic film archives, you'll see Fred there in the audience, seeing how "his" archers were doing with his target bows.


Small world. The man who taught me how to shoot well was sponsored by Bear back in the 70's.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Astroguy said:


> Small world. The man who taught me how to shoot well was sponsored by Bear back in the 70's.


As was a fellow I used to work with.


----------



## dtirell (Jan 2, 2004)

Astroguy said:


> Small world. The man who taught me how to shoot well was sponsored by Bear back in the 70's.


The guy who got me into archery was a Bear sponsored shooter in the 70's as well.


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

Homer was the name of the man who got me into archery and NO, it wasn't the Homer who wrote " The Illiad ".lol


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

Thanks for clearing that up Ben, 

My wife drug me unto this kicking and screaming.

The coaches at the club where I shoot whos bias against barebow drew my attention to it.

Mark Applegate's 1100+ Outdoor Target scores with a Barebow sealed it for me.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Mr. Roboto said:


> Thanks for clearing that up Ben,
> 
> My wife drug me unto this kicking and screaming.
> 
> ...




What Mark did on the full fitas (out to 90 meters) always impressed me. For many years, he was one of the few who took barebow outdoor target archery seriously. And I'm glad and thankful that he did. I've always looked at his outdoor target scores as the "gold standard" to aspire to.

John


----------



## UrbanDeerSlayer (Feb 10, 2012)

itbeso said:


> Bob, we need the rules to extend down to the local level, not use the sectional and national security blanket. I feel that we are in a resurgence of recurve shooters in this country and we can perpetuate that growth if we give validity to that style of shooting by adapting to what the rest of the world is doing. The current generation of recurve barebow archers will either embrace the rules or not, but the future archers coming into this shooting style will have a consistent set of rules that they can practice to. Forget the compromise and convince the rest of the directors that this is what the people who are showing up to tournaments want.Please.


Ben is right on the money. Being a relative newcomer, and having shot my first true Barebow event recently at the Lancaster Classic I couldn't agree more. All of this bickering is a major turnoff. First of all, the rules between organizations is confusing. Secondly, changing equipment (stab/no stab, clicker/no clicker) or changing shooting styles (stringwalking/ no stringwalking) is a major deterrent. I personally don't have a bias as to what the rules are, I would just like to see a consistent set of rules across the board so I can shoot the same set up at all of the various events, and practice accordingly. It has to be simple, uniform and easy enough to understand in order to attract more shooters. Otherwise, we will just stay home and shoot in our backyards.

Tony


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

UrbanDeerSlayer said:


> Ben is right on the money. Being a relative newcomer, and having shot my first true Barebow event recently at the Lancaster Classic I couldn't agree more. All of this bickering is a major turnoff. First of all, the rules between organizations is confusing. Secondly, changing equipment (stab/no stab, clicker/no clicker) or changing shooting styles (stringwalking/ no stringwalking) is a major deterrent. I personally don't have a bias as to what the rules are, I would just like to see a consistent set of rules across the board so I can shoot the same set up at all of the various events, and practice accordingly. It has to be simple, uniform and easy enough to understand in order to attract more shooters. Otherwise, we will just stay home and shoot in our backyards.
> 
> Tony


:thumbs_up


----------



## Demmer (Dec 1, 2012)

UrbanDeerSlayer said:


> Ben is right on the money. Being a relative newcomer, and having shot my first true Barebow event recently at the Lancaster Classic I couldn't agree more. All of this bickering is a major turnoff. First of all, the rules between organizations is confusing. Secondly, changing equipment (stab/no stab, clicker/no clicker) or changing shooting styles (stringwalking/ no stringwalking) is a major deterrent. I personally don't have a bias as to what the rules are, I would just like to see a consistent set of rules across the board so I can shoot the same set up at all of the various events, and practice accordingly. It has to be simple, uniform and easy enough to understand in order to attract more shooters. Otherwise, we will just stay home and shoot in our backyards.
> 
> Tony


That is the reasoning for the push. It makes too much sense not to try.


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

If you are a competitor you better know the rules. When I go to a tournament I know what to expect because I know what the rules are before I get there. I wonder how some of you passed the driving test lol


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

2413gary said:


> If you are a competitor you better know the rules. When I go to a tournament I know what to expect because I know what the rules are before I get there. I wonder how some of you passed the driving test lol


You have to test for driving?


----------



## Cuthbert (Nov 28, 2005)

After reading the considerable number of pages and weighing the outcomes, I am in favor of a unified set of rules for two major reasons. First, I think it will eventually create a stage for everyone to compete internationally. The title of world champion needs to mean something. Second, the confusion in competing in various organizations is a major distraction. As competitors, we should be thinking about shot execution rather than equipment compliance. Keep it simple, and if this thread is any indication, the adoption of an international standard should clear the path for serious competitors.
With this in mind, I don't want to sound insensitive to the objectors. They have honed their skills and compete with the rules as they are written However, if WA rules supported your way of shooting and a contingent of archers didn't want to change because it didn't include some aspect they deemed essential, would that change the way you feel about it?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Well lookie who came out from under the snow.  Hey Paul!



> First, I think it will eventually create a stage for everyone to compete internationally. The title of world champion needs to mean something.


I couldn't agree more with this statement.


----------



## Cuthbert (Nov 28, 2005)

limbwalker said:


> Well lookie who came out from under the snow.  Hey Paul!


Cindy lets me out occasionally. Snow hasn't been the bad part. It just been damn cold for too many days in a row!


----------

