# X=6 Pro Scoring: One year in how do you feel now?



## EPLC

Ok, this new scoring system for the pro's has been around since last season. How do those that have shot it over the past year feel about it now?


----------



## Mike2787

I've shot this scoring for 2 tournaments, the 2013 NFAA Outdoor National and the 2014 NFAA Mid Atlantic, and for the most part, I like the scoring. It probably boosts my opinion since i had positive outcomes in both tournaments. The best thing about scoring this way is that there isn't as much pressure on any single shot. Missing the spot is not the disaster it was prior to the X=6. There are targets where you feel you are losing ground if you don't get 4 x's and a real bonus on some if you do get 4 x's. My group shot a 65 yard target in the Mid Atlantic. Someone shot a 1x 19, somebody else had no x 20 and the third person had a 1x 20. i shot a 3x 19 and ended up with the high score for the target. I felt a little guilty but not much. If you can handle the guilt, you'll probably like the scoring. We kept the scores like a normal field round and added the x's to the total at the end of the round but the scores were recorded with the final total so it made comparing scores hard. That is the one thing I would like to see so that non-pros can still compare their scores.


----------



## EPLC

Mike2787 said:


> ...That is the one thing I would like to see so that non-pros can still compare their scores.


Thanks Mike, right on! Without the ability to relate score for score the average Joe will loose interest in anything you folks are doing. There has to be a uniform scoring system to keep that interest.


----------



## EPLC

Wow, talk about a lack of interest?


----------



## shawn_in_MA

I wish the amatures scored the same way...or at the very least, I wish the pros scores were recorded as a base score and #Xs so we could at least compare.


----------



## redman

I like to see more people post on this uniform scoring system for everyone . I like the 6 x


----------



## ccwilder3

I despise it and all it represents. Since perfection was hard to attain, they lowered the bar. Jesse could shoot a perfect score when it mattered. Most of the other pro's could not. They could not beat him straight up so they did it with a rule change.


----------



## rogersaddler

I would like to see it go back to the original scoring and use the Xs as a tie breaker because like it has been said before a perfect round does.t seem to have the same meaning anymore. Even though I'm not a pro this is how I feel about it. If it's not broke why fix it


----------



## kballer1

That would be the NFAA they make the rule change but they don't bother changing the score card as it wasn't suppose to be 6 for X, it was suppose to be 5+1 so at the end score card should read score 560 X's 112 Total 672 & that way the rest have a way to compare there scores.


----------



## EPLC

ccwilder3 said:


> I despise it and all it represents. Since perfection was hard to attain, they lowered the bar. Jesse could shoot a perfect score when it mattered. Most of the other pro's could not. They could not beat him straight up so they did it with a rule change.


Don't hold back, tell us how you feel!  All kidding aside, I think you nailed it. But it is what it is, and if it's going to stay they should have it for everyone or get rid of it. Having a separate scoring system for the Pro's is self defeating and will come around to bite them in time. I'm sure they don't want to loose the interest the average Joe has in them and without the ability to relate scores it will go.


----------



## CHPro

Personally not a big fan of the new scoring. I would have preferred the Pros be required to shoot all 5 days of the 3/5 with all scores counting. This would have lessened the impact that the animal round score has on a 3-day total score, which in part was why the Pros wanted the x to score an additional point imo (i.e. have a bad animal round and difficult to outright impossible to make up any ground when everyone is shooting near perfect scores on the field and hunter rounds over the course of those 2 additional rounds). That said, if the scoring is going to remain as is then it should be required to be recorded as was intended when the rule was voted in, with the 560 round score listed separately from the x's and then the overall total. As noted, that way everyone can compare scores on the base field and hunter rounds with the only difference then being the addition of the x's into the Pros overall total scores.

>>--------?


----------



## wolf44

Personally I'm not real sure how I feel yet. My first pro tournament on the last day we shot a half hunter and a 1/2 animal. I finally shot my 280 on the hunter half but it really didn't mean anything since the score didn't show up as 280+whatever it was. 

Either way I'm going to shoot field, love it, and I'll shoot it whatever the rules say. I will say that if they want the x as 6 it should be across the board, and if they do x as 6(or +1 however you want to cut it) they need to do away with the animal round. its almost pointless now with all the "extra" points you can get in the other two rounds(does anyone LIKE shooting the animal round anyway?). 

IMO if their overall goal is to boost participation I think they need to do a two day shoot, hunter round on day one and a field round day two. I know a lot of the die hards love the 5 day event, but with the economy the way it is(I know lame excuse, but its true) asking someone to come and shoot 5 days is a lot. I'm not shooting USA nationals because its in the middle of the week and is a 5 day event. I can't take that much time off of work(both financially and my boss would fire me) Dont' get me wrong, if I could I would love to shoot a 4 or 5 day event, that much time is just too much to ask for any joe bag of doughnuts.


----------



## montigre

I have not shot it as I am not a pro, but I do wish the recording of the pro scores would be unified to the 5 +1 method as was originally designed. As Mike and others have already stated, the 5+1 scoring allows everyone who plays the game the opportunity to compare their scores and evaluate where they stand in the greater scheme of things--while someone shooting a 672 field or hunter round holds no meaning what-so-ever for me...


----------



## huteson2us2

It was nice when X's were counted to break ties. Then the NFAA decided to stop counting Xs but kept putting them on the target. You can shoot all the Xs that you want but it does nothing to your score. I also turned pro when the pros shot the expert round (ID round) instead of the animal round. I got tired of always shooting 560 on the animal and worried about dropping points on one mistake. Then the NFAA stopped that.

I do like the Xs counting as 6 points even though I am no longer a pro. It gives a person a chance to pick up points if needed. I also believe that the NFAA should report the scores as 560 plus 30 Xs = 590 total. That will never happen no matter how much the pros push for it. The voting members and the president of the NFAA has to agree or it won't be done.

I like the FITA field because you do count Xs as 6 points. But everyone scores the same and I never hear anyone complain because this is the way it has always been done in FITA. People that complain are the ones that hate change.I also hate change but justified it as: It's about time the X was used for something other than to look at.

At the nationals in Darrington last year, alot of the archers I shot with counted Xs just so they could add them to their score in order to see how they compared to the pros.No rule agains counting Xs on your score card. Most score cards still have a space for Xs.


----------



## brtesite

Mike2787 said:


> I've shot this scoring for 2 tournaments, the 2013 NFAA Outdoor National and the 2014 NFAA Mid Atlantic, and for the most part, I like the scoring. It probably boosts my opinion since i had positive outcomes in both tournaments. The best thing about scoring this way is that there isn't as much pressure on any single shot. Missing the spot is not the disaster it was prior to the X=6. There are targets where you feel you are losing ground if you don't get 4 x's and a real bonus on some if you do get 4 x's. My group shot a 65 yard target in the Mid Atlantic. Someone shot a 1x 19, somebody else had no x 20 and the third person had a 1x 20. i shot a 3x 19 and ended up with the high score for the target. I felt a little guilty but not much. If you can handle the guilt, you'll probably like the scoring. We kept the scores like a normal field round and added the x's to the total at the end of the round but the scores were recorded with the final total so it made comparing scores hard. That is the one thing I would like to see so that non-pros can still compare their scores.


 I agree with mike about how the scores should be reported. I looked at the scores from the Mid's, couldn't make out what was happing . Perfect score has been a 560 forever. That's how it should be reported.
I also don't like any time there is a separation on how the pros shoot vs the Joe's. As long as you have the 3/5 day nationals, all should have the same opportunity to shoot it as presented. I have been around the block a few times, so I'm aware of why & how rules get changed. We have an 800 lb gorilla shooting amongst us & shooting only 3 days maybe a way of capturing it. While I'm at it, I don't think the animal round should be on the last day. That negates any benefits of having the 3/5 day. All that does is to cut a couple of hours off of the last day. If that is going to be the norm, make it a 3 day & be done with it
Just my $2.00. Inflation you know


----------



## r49740

wolf44 said:


> Personally I'm not real sure how I feel yet. My first pro tournament on the last day we shot a half hunter and a 1/2 animal. I finally shot my 280 on the hunter half but it really didn't mean anything since the score didn't show up as 280+whatever it was.
> 
> Either way I'm going to shoot field, love it, and I'll shoot it whatever the rules say. I will say that if they want the x as 6 it should be across the board, and if they do x as 6(or +1 however you want to cut it) they need to do away with the animal round. its almost pointless now with all the "extra" points you can get in the other two rounds(does anyone LIKE shooting the animal round anyway?).
> 
> IMO if their overall goal is to boost participation I think they need to do a two day shoot, hunter round on day one and a field round day two. I know a lot of the die hards love the 5 day event, but with the economy the way it is(I know lame excuse, but its true) asking someone to come and shoot 5 days is a lot. I'm not shooting USA nationals because its in the middle of the week and is a 5 day event. I can't take that much time off of work(both financially and my boss would fire me) Dont' get me wrong, if I could I would love to shoot a 4 or 5 day event, that much time is just too much to ask for any joe bag of doughnuts.


Its actually only a 3 day tournament with the option to shoot 2 other days if archers want to.


----------



## wolf44

I understand that, imagine playing a golf game and someone saying, you have to play with no mulligans and I get mulligans on 5 holes. 
thats basically what's happening with the people who have the ability to shoot all five days vs those who can only shoot three. And the 5 day thing only goes for the amatures. As a pro, we can ONLY shoot 3 days for score, fri, sat, sun. My point was in trying to increase overall participation going to a 2 day format would give more people the opportunity to shoot the ENTIRE event.


----------



## r49740

wolf44 said:


> I understand that, imagine playing a golf game and someone saying, you have to play with no mulligans and I get mulligans on 5 holes.
> thats basically what's happening with the people who have the ability to shoot all five days vs those who can only shoot three. And the 5 day thing only goes for the amatures. As a pro, we can ONLY shoot 3 days for score, fri, sat, sun. My point was in trying to increase overall participation going to a 2 day format would give more people the opportunity to shoot the ENTIRE event.


Understand completely. But as pros, its a 3 day event then, not 4 or 5 or a week. For the amateurs, allowing 3/5 days, in my opinion, gives the most the ability to go if they can.. of course that was when the animal round was Friday. Personally think it should have stayed on Friday for that reason. But I personally like the 5 day format, enjoy shooting all the ranges, and given the ability to choose for myself to shoot either 3 or 5, I like. If i chose to shoot 3 and someone else 5, then that's my choice.


----------



## wa-prez

brtesite said:


> I agree with mike about how the scores should be reported. I looked at the scores from the Mid's, couldn't make out what was happing . Perfect score has been a 560 forever. That's how it should be reported.
> I also don't like any time there is a separation on how the pros shoot vs the Joe's. As long as you have the 3/5 day nationals, all should have the same opportunity to shoot it as presented. I have been around the block a few times, so I'm aware of why & how rules get changed. We have an 800 lb gorilla shooting amongst us & shooting only 3 days maybe a way of capturing it. While I'm at it, I don't think the animal round should be on the last day. That negates any benefits of having the 3/5 day. All that does is to cut a couple of hours off of the last day. If that is going to be the norm, make it a 3 day & be done with it.


I agree completely.

They might have had some brain cells working on putting the animal round on the last day - because the animals take less time to shoot, allowing everyong to get finished, get the scores tabulated, and awards presented at a reasonable time.

BUT by putting the animal round on the last day, everyone has to stay for that day or take incomplete. That does away with the 3 / 5 advantage of supposedly giving people flexibility on how many days and which days they will shoot. 

AND by making that last day the Sunday, now everyone has to shoot Sunday and even with it being the shorter animal round, it's a little hard to drive any distance and still get to work on Monday - practically impossible to fly anywhere, with needing to get to the airport at least two hours before your flight.

I still think the Monday through Friday was best, but I guess I'm in the minority in that opinion.

IF they are going to stick to having Animal on Sunday of a Wednesday - Sunday event, they should set up one range with Animal on Friday or Saturday for people who want to finish and get out of there.


----------



## brtesite

wa-prez said:


> I agree completely.
> 
> They might have had some brain cells working on putting the animal round on the last day - because the animals take less time to shoot, allowing everyong to get finished, get the scores tabulated, and awards presented at a reasonable time.
> 
> BUT by putting the animal round on the last day, everyone has to stay for that day or take incomplete. That does away with the 3 / 5 advantage of supposedly giving people flexibility on how many days and which days they will shoot.
> 
> AND by making that last day the Sunday, now everyone has to shoot Sunday and even with it being the shorter animal round, it's a little hard to drive any distance and still get to work on Monday - practically impossible to fly anywhere, with needing to get to the airport at least two hours before your flight.
> 
> I still think the Monday through Friday was best, but I guess I'm in the minority in that opinion.
> 
> IF they are going to stick to having Animal on Sunday of a Wednesday - Sunday event, they should set up one range with Animal on Friday or Saturday for people who want to finish and get out of there.


only problem with a separate range, is extra work for the club, & most of all there may not be enough ranges if you get a crowd.


----------



## wa-prez

The last two times the Nationals have been at Darrington, they left one range "idle" each day, so of the five ranges only four were in use at a time. They had enough targets and range captains for all five.


----------



## Mike Reynolds

Looks like the topic was hijacked. I strongly support the X=6, not only for outdoors, but indoors as well. If you subscribe to the theory that the winner of a tournament should be the person that shot the greatest number of arrows in the center of the target, then the 55X 299 shooter has a chance over the 10X 300 shooter.

I don't know why this issue wasn't voted on at the Vegas NFAA meeting this year.


----------



## wolf44

Xs as 6 on field comes down to a lot of luck. How many times can you get kicked out of an x on a close one. Anything inside of 30 minus the bunny there can be a lot of kick outs, he(( I got kicked out this last weekend on a 60 yd shot. So a lot of the xs(now points) can be lost by glancing off your own arrows. And someone who hits all 4 in the dot at 65 but just barely misses the x shouldn't score the same as someone who throws two out and puts two in the x. Now I could see if we constantly had people cleaning field and hunter rounds that we would have to change the scoring, but we didn't. Also think about this, we had someone in our group have his release go off and missed the bail completely, he shot his butt off and came back to get second. If I came in third I'd be pissed I got beat by someone who missed the target no matter how good he shot after. 

As far as indoor goes, the name of the game is consistency. Hit the big white spot as many times as you can. And no, I don't think the 299 55x shooter shot better than the 300 10x shooter.


----------



## ccwilder3

wolf44 said:


> Xs as 6 on field comes down to a lot of luck. How many times can you get kicked out of an x on a close one. Anything inside of 30 minus the bunny there can be a lot of kick outs, he(( I got kicked out this last weekend on a 60 yd shot. So a lot of the xs(now points) can be lost by glancing off your own arrows. And someone who hits all 4 in the dot at 65 but just barely misses the x shouldn't score the same as someone who throws two out and puts two in the x. Now I could see if we constantly had people cleaning field and hunter rounds that we would have to change the scoring, but we didn't. Also think about this, we had someone in our group have his release go off and missed the bail completely, he shot his butt off and came back to get second. If I came in third I'd be pissed I got beat by someone who missed the target no matter how good he shot after.
> 
> As far as indoor goes, the name of the game is consistency. Hit the big white spot as many times as you can. And no, I don't think the 299 55x shooter shot better than the 300 10x shooter.


Total agreement with everything you said.


----------



## brtesite

ccwilder3 said:


> Total agreement with everything you said.


unless they change the definition of what is a perfect score is (300, 560) who ever shoots those scores without X's is better than 299 59 X's, because he wins that day


----------



## Mike Reynolds

If it's such a bad idea, then why did the Pros do it? Pro's don't have kiss outs? You can kiss out of the 5-ring just as easily as you can the X-ring. Change is inevitable - get over it.


----------



## wolf44

I am a pro, I did have kiss outs, I kids out of the 5 ring I lose 2 points. It's a game I love to play and will play whatever rules there are, but I think the x as 6 is a bad change and I have voiced my opinion to my pro rep along with the others in my section. 

And just so we are clear, I have benefited greatly from the being shot at six, I have won my sectional and my state by almost 30 and 50 points respectively. I still think it is a bad rule


----------



## field14

wolf44 said:


> I am a pro, I did have kiss outs, I kids out of the 5 ring I lose 2 points. It's a game I love to play and will play whatever rules there are, but I think the x as 6 is a bad change and I have voiced my opinion to my pro rep along with the others in my section.
> 
> And just so we are clear, I have benefited greatly from the being shot at six, I have won my sectional and my state by almost 30 and 50 points respectively. I still think it is a bad rule


I think they're on the same path as what happened in 1976-77 when the "experiment" for one year for the "pros" was placed on the backs of everyone in the NFAA and the entire game was changed, made harder, and the average joes vacated the premises never to return. Since then, field shooting hasn't been the fun it was, the participation has steadily dwindled, and now it is nearly in the death throes in many areas.

My opinion of this is that the 6-ring scoring if adopted for EVERYONE in the NFAA will just about finish things off; people will leave in droves yet again. I personally think that the target is just fine the way it is, but an option that is there but not utilized is to simply score the target in the "expert" fashion....5-4-3-2-1 and use the x-s (require them to be recorded) as tie breakers. Then, simply put the lines in on the hunter faces to match what is already on the field faces and score those 5-4-3-2-1.

I think it would be a huge mistake to make the "X" count as 6 points; but the NFAA will do whatever the membership tells it to...or whatever response they get from the members that really do care, that is.

I sure don't have a horse in the race in the "pro" division, and haven't been able to compete for quite sometime in the Adult division either, BUT...I pay my dues, and as such, I'm entitled to my opinion and my vote/contact with the NFAA director.

There are nowhere near enough perfect 560's being recorded anywhere at any time to FORCE a "6-ring" scoring, pro or otherwise. The percentage of 560's with relation to the total number of scores shot is miniscule and so low my calculator doesn't have room for the zeroes before the first numbers appear for the %.

field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## Rolo

Mike Reynolds said:


> Looks like the topic was hijacked. I strongly support the X=6, not only for outdoors, but indoors as well. If you subscribe to the theory that the winner of a tournament should be the person that shot the greatest number of arrows in the center of the target, then the 55X 299 shooter has a chance over the 10X 300 shooter.
> 
> I don't know why this issue wasn't voted on at the Vegas NFAA meeting this year.


It was. It failed.



wolf44 said:


> I am a pro, I did have kiss outs, I kids out of the 5 ring I lose 2 points. It's a game I love to play and will play whatever rules there are, but I think the x as 6 is a bad change and I have voiced my opinion to my pro rep along with the others in my section.
> 
> And just so we are clear, I have benefited greatly from the being shot at six, I have won my sectional and my state by almost 30 and 50 points respectively. I still think it is a bad rule


The AI was presented with information that the majority of the Pro members who responded wanted the change: X to count as a 6 for the division. Same for the AI establishing a 3 day OD Nationals for the Pro Division. There was some independent polling that was done (nothing formal that I am aware of) that supported the information that was provided...the majority of the Division members who responded were in favor of both.

Undoubtedly, the field game is waning in popularity (not sure why cuz I think its great), but I think the thought as far as the scoring was concerned was to attempt to increase excitement and allow for comebacks. I also think that is why the +1 was adopted, and also why there hasn't been a significant, or popular push to apply it to the AM divisions. I have not seen a huge issue with the AMs being upset by it either...'it' being the +1 (or 6) for the Pros and regular scoring for the AMs.

Obviously, if neither are not popular in the Division, an AI changing it should be presented...though I'm guessing that the popularity of a 3 day event vs. a mandatory 5 day event is higher.


----------



## wolf44

I know that the state of Missouri is 100% against the plus one scoring. My vote would be for a two day format ditching the animal round and have a shoot off for the top three places.


----------



## brtesite

Rolo said:


> It was. It failed.
> 
> 
> 
> The AI was presented with information that the majority of the Pro members who responded wanted the change: X to count as a 6 for the division. Same for the AI establishing a 3 day OD Nationals for the Pro Division. There was some independent polling that was done (nothing formal that I am aware of) that supported the information that was provided...the majority of the Division members who responded were in favor of both.
> 
> Undoubtedly, the field game is waning in popularity (not sure why cuz I think its great), but I think the thought as far as the scoring was concerned was to attempt to increase excitement and allow for comebacks. I also think that is why the +1 was adopted, and also why there hasn't been a significant, or popular push to apply it to the AM divisions. I have not seen a huge issue with the AMs being upset by it either...'it' being the +1 (or 6) for the Pros and regular scoring for the AMs.
> 
> Obviously, if neither are not popular in the Division, an AI changing it should be presented...though I'm guessing that the popularity of a 3 day event vs. a mandatory 5 day event is higher.


knowing how responses to polls are, of the total pro membership, how many responded, & what was the count


----------



## Ned250

wolf44 said:


> I know that the state of Missouri is 100% against the plus one scoring. My vote would be for a two day format ditching the animal round and have a shoot off for the top three places.


This would be cool to see. Agree 100% on the animal round.


----------



## EPLC

field14 said:


> I think they're on the same path as what happened in 1976-77 when the "experiment" for one year for the "pros" was placed on the backs of everyone in the NFAA and the entire game was changed, made harder, and the average joes vacated the premises never to return. Since then, field shooting hasn't been the fun it was, the participation has steadily dwindled, and now it is nearly in the death throes in many areas.
> 
> My opinion of this is that the 6-ring scoring if adopted for EVERYONE in the NFAA will just about finish things off; people will leave in droves yet again. I personally think that the target is just fine the way it is, but an option that is there but not utilized is to simply score the target in the "expert" fashion....5-4-3-2-1 and use the x-s (require them to be recorded) as tie breakers. Then, simply put the lines in on the hunter faces to match what is already on the field faces and score those 5-4-3-2-1.
> 
> I think it would be a huge mistake to make the "X" count as 6 points; but the NFAA will do whatever the membership tells it to...or whatever response they get from the members that really do care, that is.
> 
> I sure don't have a horse in the race in the "pro" division, and haven't been able to compete for quite sometime in the Adult division either, BUT...I pay my dues, and as such, I'm entitled to my opinion and my vote/contact with the NFAA director.
> 
> There are nowhere near enough perfect 560's being recorded anywhere at any time to FORCE a "6-ring" scoring, pro or otherwise. The percentage of 560's with relation to the total number of scores shot is miniscule and so low my calculator doesn't have room for the zeroes before the first numbers appear for the %.
> 
> field14 (Tom D.)


I totally disagree... In 76-77 they changed the entire game, making it more difficult, but the scoring was kept basically the same. The 560 round was still a 560 round and folks that regularly shot 500+ could no longer break or even hit 500 on the new face. This was a very discouraging letdown for many and as a result they quit. This is not the case with the X=6 change. It is no longer a 560 game, it is a 672 game... which makes it easier to obtain points, not harder as in 76/77. Scores will go up, not down as in 76/77. The only real problem with the current change is that it is only a 672 game for the Pro's. Leave this game with two scoring systems and it will certainly die. Everyone needs to be on the same scoring system regardless of which one they choose. 

My initial response to the X=6 was negative but after shooting it for a while (unofficially) I like it. As mentioned it does give you a chance to make up some points and a 4, or even a 3, doesn't hurt as much. And as far as the NFAA Field Round, something had to be done to make the game more appealing to attract new blood. What's the average age of the people shooting field? I'll answer that... they are old coots like me.


----------



## EPLC

Rolo said:


> ...I have not seen a huge issue with the AMs being upset by it either...'it' being the +1 (or 6) for the Pros and regular scoring for the AMs.


That's right, you haven't seen or heard anything... Perhaps that is due to many of us AM's just finding out about this change.


----------



## FiFi

Well I think Field was correct, I was also there when it happened, both times. The change from 5-3 and the face change was forced on everyone, if they would have just changed the face and left the 5-3 for the amateurs it would have eventually changed to 5-4-3 on its own pace, ever wonder why IBO formed a few years after the NFAA lost 1/2 its membership???. When the 6 was brought in it was for the Pros, it should be left for the Pros, same target same time frame to shoot, if you want to shoot in the Pro class you score 6. Will the 6 scoring migrate into the amateurs..sure but let it happen on it own pace. Right now I cannot remember any amateur bowl winner that needed a shootoff to decide a winner in the FS styles so the current scoring system for the amateurs is fine.....for now


----------



## Rolo

Back from a camping trip in the mountains with the boys...



wolf44 said:


> I know that the state of Missouri is 100% against the plus one scoring. My vote would be for a two day format ditching the animal round and have a shoot off for the top three places.


Have no idea how the Missouri Director voted when it was presented, but think it was a role call vote...

Doubt the Animal round will be going anywhere any time soon.



brtesite said:


> knowing how responses to polls are, of the total pro membership, how many responded, & what was the count


Honestly, no idea and not my department. Then we could discuss the Pros that regularly shoot OD Nats that responded, and the Pros that don't who did/did not respond. As you know, those who respond are often in a better position than those who do not...



EPLC said:


> That's right, you haven't seen or heard anything... Perhaps that is due to many of us AM's just finding out about this change.


Not sure what to say. It was adopted in 2013, and has been in place for a year now. Not sure why you are just finding out about it.


----------



## JPE

EPLC said:


> ...As mentioned it does give you a chance to make up some points and a 4, or even a 3, doesn't hurt as much. And as far as the NFAA Field Round, something had to be done to make the game more appealing to attract new blood. What's the average age of the people shooting field? I'll answer that... they are old coots like me.


I enjoy the game & will shoot it however it is scored. But, I don't see X=6 attracting many new archers. Sure, scores will be higher if you add your X's and misses might not feel like they hurt as bad but counting X as 6 is only going to widen the gap, especially in the amateur divisions. The guys at the top aren't missing many and they're hitting way more X's than the rest of us. If I finish a tournament 25 points behind the leaders then I'd like to think that with a little more practice time I can probably catch those guys next time. Just need to pick up 1 point every other target, right? But if you count X's, guys in the middle of the pack like me are suddenly 100+ points behind. Yes, if I really put the time in like the guys who are winning then I could probably catch them but stretching out the field isn't going to do anything for the confidence of the newcomers or the bulk of the field.


----------



## rn3

JPE said:


> I enjoy the game & will shoot it however it is scored. But, I don't see X=6 attracting many new archers. Sure, scores will be higher if you add your X's and misses might not feel like they hurt as bad but counting X as 6 is only going to widen the gap, especially in the amateur divisions. The guys at the top aren't missing many and they're hitting way more X's than the rest of us. If I finish a tournament 25 points behind the leaders then I'd like to think that with a little more practice time I can probably catch those guys next time. Just need to pick up 1 point every other target, right? But if you count X's, guys in the middle of the pack like me are suddenly 100+ points behind. Yes, if I really put the time in like the guys who are winning then I could probably catch them but stretching out the field isn't going to do anything for the confidence of the newcomers or the bulk of the field.


Yep that is exactly what happened when they changed the target and went to 5,4,3 scoring. The people that use to be within 10 to 15 points of the top shooters were all of a sudden 30 to 40 points behind them, talk about a confidence booster.


----------



## brtesite

rn3 said:


> Yep that is exactly what happened when they changed the target and went to 5,4,3 scoring. The people that use to be within 10 to 15 points of the top shooters were all of a sudden 30 to 40 points behind them, talk about a confidence booster.


what do they say, history repeats it's self


----------



## EPLC

rn3 said:


> Yep that is exactly what happened when they changed the target and went to 5,4,3 scoring. The people that use to be within 10 to 15 points of the top shooters were all of a sudden 30 to 40 points behind them, talk about a confidence booster.


I'm sorry but the spread between the Pro's and the average Joe's didn't chase anyone out of Field Archery, what chased them out was the simple fact that they could no longer beat or even come close to their own scores in the old system. If they had changed the scoring along with the target face it would have been recognized by all for what it was...a totally new game. By leaving it a 560 game that was much harder to score they left people in a state of shock... and the Pro's scores had absolutely nothing to do with it. What you are asking for is a fantasy world that creates the elusion of shooting better than you actually shoot. Hang on to your rigid suicidal posturing and count the days this wonderful game has left. There were 35 total shooters at this years NFAA NE Sectional this year. Need I say more. 

_*There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation - Herbert Spencer*_


----------



## EPLC

Rolo said:


> ...Not sure what to say. It was adopted in 2013, and has been in place for a year now. Not sure why you are just finding out about it.


Because our representatives do not communicate these things with us. We were not asked for our opinion prior to the change nor were we informed after the fact.


----------



## r49740

EPLC said:


> I'm sorry but the spread between the Pro's and the average Joe's didn't chase anyone out of Field Archery, what chased them out was the simple fact that they could no longer beat or even come close to their own scores in the old system. If they had changed the scoring along with the target face it would have been recognized by all for what it was...a totally new game. By leaving it a 560 game that was much harder to score they left people in a state of shock... and the Pro's scores had absolutely nothing to do with it. What you are asking for is a fantasy world that creates the elusion of shooting better than you actually shoot. Hang on to your rigid suicidal posturing and count the days this wonderful game has left. There were 35 total shooters at this years NFAA NE Sectional this year. Need I say more.
> 
> _*There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation - Herbert Spencer*_


So counting the x as a point to inflate the scores is real, but shooting the round as a 560 round is fantasy world where those that do, or chase that number, is an elusion of shooting good? Not sure I follow that. The reality is people want to win by default, or at least get something for showing up. I helped out on our state affiliate of the NFAA for a few years, and we had the issue every year(almost every single person was over the age of 55 from what I recall.. just for info) where they wanted classes split up even further so they could "win" something. Or everyone should get a participation award. So instead of working at a 560, it should be change the scoring to have a "higher" score, and be brought back from fantasy? We have one gentleman that is set on scoring indoor 5 spot X as a point because all the major shoots do(don't know of any), and that it would allow him to shoot a 300 or better. His average last league was a 297 with 36x. Mine was 300 with 58x. One way he loses by 3, one way he loses by 25. Which way is fantasy? Not sure I understand the point there.


----------



## ccwilder3

EPLC said:


> Because our representatives do not communicate these things with us. We were not asked for our opinion prior to the change nor were we informed after the fact.


We have very good representation here in the SE and a great state organization here in Florida. The website. floridaarchery.org gives you the deadline to request agenda items, then post up the agenda items and finally lets you know what passed. The email address for our SE representative and our state representative are also posted there so you can let them know how you feel about an item.


----------



## JPE

EPLC said:


> I'm sorry but the spread between the Pro's and the average Joe's didn't chase anyone out of Field Archery...


I don't care about the spread between Pros & the average Joe. I'm more concerned about the spread among the Joe's themselves; the people who make up the bulk of the NFAA.

Let's assume an amateur class approaches a particularly tough target where Shooter A scores 5-5-5-3 and Shooter B, a better shot who eventually wins the class, scores X-X-5-5. The next target is much easier so Shooter A scores X-X-5-5 while Shooter B scores X-X-X-X.

After these two targets Shooter A is down 2 points by today's rules. Counting X as 6 points will allow Shooter A to "make up" for the mistake made on the first target, but now he's down 6 points instead of 2 because Shooter B continues to rack up points. How does this really help anyone?

The only way Shooter A can ever catch Shooter B, under either scoring scenario, is to keep making good shots, not mess up, and wait for Shooter B to slip up. By scoring the X as a 6 you're asking a lot more from Shooter A because "not messing up" now means hitting a much smaller target far more often. 

Shooter A isn't likely to catch Shooter B under either scoring rule, because Shooter B is obviously the better archer. So if Shooter B, the better archer, is already winning without issue then why make the change? Why increase the gap between these two shooters?


----------



## EPLC

OMG! the better shooter wins.. now that's a real problem. Once again we seem to be looking for the illusion of shooting better than we shoot. Shooter B isn't going to beat shooter A regardless of how you score it. The game is dead, they just haven't made it official yet. Hang on to what is... and it will be official. Hey, I'll bet you guy's still think having closed shoots that draw 9 shooters is a good idea because someone from another state may come in and steal the trophy


----------



## rn3

EPLC said:


> I'm sorry but the spread between the Pro's and the average Joe's didn't chase anyone out of Field Archery, what chased them out was the simple fact that they could no longer beat or even come close to their own scores in the old system. If they had changed the scoring along with the target face it would have been recognized by all for what it was...a totally new game. By leaving it a 560 game that was much harder to score they left people in a state of shock... and the Pro's scores had absolutely nothing to do with it. What you are asking for is a fantasy world that creates the elusion of shooting better than you actually shoot. Hang on to your rigid suicidal posturing and count the days this wonderful game has left. There were 35 total shooters at this years NFAA NE Sectional this year. Need I say more.
> 
> _*There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation - Herbert Spencer*_


I didn't say anything about the pro's I said top shooters and I will stick with my assertion by what I heard from the people that were shooting at that time and quit never to be seen again.


----------



## r49740

EPLC said:


> OMG! the better shooter wins.. now that's a real problem. Once again we seem to be looking for the illusion of shooting better than we shoot. Shooter B isn't going to beat shooter A regardless of how you score it. The game is dead, they just haven't made it official yet. Hang on to what is... and it will be official. Hey, I'll bet you guy's still think having closed shoots that draw 9 shooters is a good idea because someone from another state may come in and steal the trophy



Haha.. so whats the purpose to scoring the x as a point then? It has been said to do that to allow someone to make up for a mistake. The point that was made is the better shooter wins either way, so whats the purpose of having others lose by more than 1 or 2 or whatever, and make it 20 or 30 by counting x's? What illusion, as you say, is being looked for? And per typical internet post, you don't know who or what capacity that person has done anything with the sport, and your reply shows that. We ran 7 shoots a year for the state, all allowing out of state shooters if they wanted to come. In fact, our indoor tournament had quite a few from Indiana that were welcomed in with open arms. But can you answer a few questions... 1. What's the point of counting x's for a point? 2. What is the supposed illusion you are stating others have stated? 3. How exactly will having the better shooters win by a larger margin save the sport that you say is dead(although the sectional shoot htat was said to have 35 shooters, our sectional just had 112 I believe, and our state shoot had more than 35.. so maybe its the not the game).


----------



## rn3

Making the X count as 6 will even run some of the pro's back to the open divisions because they will not be able to compete. I see this as the way to finally make field archery so tough, the average person won't even attempt to try it. The best game archery has will be on it's last leg.


----------



## wa-prez

EPLC said:


> Because our representatives do not communicate these things with us. We were not asked for our opinion prior to the change nor were we informed after the fact.


If you have trouble getting info from your state NFAA director, two paths of action appear:

Watch the NFAA website: https://nfaausa.com/. NFAA does post the Agenda Items after they are all received, and they place a document in the Resources / Documents page here: https://nfaausa.com/documents. Then after the meeting NFAA will post another report (also in Resources / Documents) with the results of the meeting - what was passed and which Agenda Items were defeated. Finally, at the time those new rules go into effect (currently 1 June) NFAA posts the updated Constitution and By-Laws on that same "Documents" page. Any newly revised sections are easy to find because they are marked with a "Bar Tab" - a vertical bar in the left margin adjacent to the revised paragraph.

Second: You can submit draft Agenda Items to your NFAA State Director for them to forward to NFAA for consideration at the next meeting.

Third: If that isn't effective, vote your State a new Director (assuming yours is one of the states that selects your Director by a vote.


----------



## EPLC

There's no hope for you guys. Change is bad, a slow death spiral is good. I get it.


----------



## r49740

Well that's a well thought out useful response. Does that mean you can't answer the few questions I had?


----------



## JPE

EPLC said:


> OMG! the better shooter wins.. now that's a real problem. Once again we seem to be looking for the illusion of shooting better than we shoot. Shooter B isn't going to beat shooter A regardless of how you score it. The game is dead, they just haven't made it official yet. Hang on to what is... and it will be official. Hey, I'll bet you guy's still think having closed shoots that draw 9 shooters is a good idea because someone from another state may come in and steal the trophy


It is absolutely all about that illusion. It's Marketing 101. We have a product to sell and in order for any one to buy into it they need to believe that they stand a reasonable chance of winning. How many beer commercials have you seen where the guy goes home from the bar alone at the end of the night?

If you're going to bring in new shooters they need to feel like winning is something they can reach if they invest a little time. After a few years some will quit, some may win, but many, like most of us, will continue to participate because we enjoy the game and enjoy spending time outside with friends we've made in the sport. Go tell a newbie that you want them to spend hundreds of dollars on travel, entry fees, equipment, etc, just so they can hang out and never win a thing. Let's see how many flock to join.

By your logic we should start scoring only the X, be it 6 or 16 or 60, and the rest of the target becomes zero. The better shooter will still win, so why not? Alienating the current core and keeping new shooters away would put the final flush on your death spiral.


----------



## JPE

EPLC said:


> There's no hope for you guys. Change is bad, a slow death spiral is good. I get it.


Something definitely needs to change but I don't think this scoring change is the answer. I don't know what the answer is, but I do know part of the problem with growing the sport in this part of the country is lack of available field courses. Clubs don't want to invest thousands of dollars into a sport that not many are participating in, and you can't get people to participate if there are no courses to shoot. Maybe it would help if the NFAA would partner with target companies to offer discounts to affiliated clubs but that's a discussion for another thread.


----------



## rn3

JPE said:


> Something definitely needs to change but I don't think this scoring change is the answer. I don't know what the answer is, but I do know part of the problem with growing the sport in this part of the country is lack of available field courses. Clubs don't want to invest thousands of dollars into a sport that not many are participating in, and you can't get people to participate if there are no courses to shoot. Maybe it would help if the NFAA would partner with target companies to offer discounts to affiliated clubs but that's a discussion for another thread.


Go back to the class system and get rid of all the different styles, run what you brung and shoot against shooters who shoot the same scores as you do.


----------



## Rolo

EPLC said:


> Because our representatives do not communicate these things with us. We were not asked for our opinion prior to the change nor were we informed after the fact.


Yep...someone else's fault...


----------



## EPLC

r49740 said:


> Well that's a well thought out useful response. Does that mean you can't answer the few questions I had?


I'll answer them all with this: Hanging on to what isn't any more is insane. And many of the responses here are exactly why this game is dying. Attendance awards... OMG!


----------



## r49740

EPLC said:


> I'll answer them all with this: Hanging on to what isn't any more is insane. And many of the responses here are exactly why this game is dying. Attendance awards... OMG!


That doesn't really answer any of the questions. I posted them below again to help with finding them easier. Just curious what the responses are to those...

1. What's the point of counting x's for a point? 2. What is the supposed illusion you are stating others have stated? 3. How exactly will having the better shooters win by a larger margin save the sport that you say is dead(although the sectional shoot that was said to have 35 shooters, our sectional just had 112 I believe, and our state shoot had more than 35.. so maybe its the not the game)?


----------



## brtesite

EPLC said:


> I'm sorry but the spread between the Pro's and the average Joe's didn't chase anyone out of Field Archery, what chased them out was the simple fact that they could no longer beat or even come close to their own scores in the old system. If they had changed the scoring along with the target face it would have been recognized by all for what it was...a totally new game. By leaving it a 560 game that was much harder to score they left people in a state of shock... and the Pro's scores had absolutely nothing to do with it. What you are asking for is a fantasy world that creates the elusion of shooting better than you actually shoot. Hang on to your rigid suicidal posturing and count the days this wonderful game has left. There were 35 total shooters at this years NFAA NE Sectional this year. Need I say more.
> 
> _*There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation - Herbert Spencer*_



You are correct in your assessment . All of our egos were shattered . I went from 550's to 510 then. How ever it was always nice to know that I was always within a broken nock of catching some of the big guys. That may not have been the way to win, but stuff happens. The ones that left were the ones that couldn't win any more. The ones that stayed was because of the love of the game.


----------



## Ned250

JPE said:


> Something definitely needs to change but I don't think this scoring change is the answer. I don't know what the answer is, but I do know part of the problem with growing the sport in this part of the country is lack of available field courses. Clubs don't want to invest thousands of dollars into a sport that not many are participating in, and you can't get people to participate if there are no courses to shoot. Maybe it would help if the NFAA would partner with target companies to offer discounts to affiliated clubs but that's a discussion for another thread.


I completely agree that the scoring isn't going to attract a darn thing. From my own observations, the 3 big issues are:

1 - The game is too complicated. We live in an ADHD society; our attention spans are terrible. Most just go cross-eyed by the time you start telling them the procedure for shooting the FAN targets. I'd cut a big portion of the nit picky rules like shooting orders, target specs, etc.
2 - The game is too long. 112 shots (126 for an official f/h/a round) intimidates any non-hardcore archer. Look at the most popular game now (3D)......30 or so shots!
3 - Shooting a paper target just doesn't have the same cool factor that shooting a 3 dimensional target does. It's a huge uphill battle.

While I personally love the game the way it is, I don't see field ever regaining any sort of popularity without addressing the top 2 issues.

I also really liked wolf's shootoff suggestion. That's all the rage right now and would really add an excitement factor to the game.


----------



## EPLC

Ned250 said:


> I completely agree that the scoring isn't going to attract a darn thing. From my own observations, the 3 big issues are:
> 
> 1 - The game is too complicated. We live in an ADHD society; our attention spans are terrible. Most just go cross-eyed by the time you start telling them the procedure for shooting the FAN targets. I'd cut a big portion of the nit picky rules like shooting orders, target specs, etc.
> 2 - The game is too long. 112 shots (126 for an official f/h/a round) intimidates any non-hardcore archer. Look at the most popular game now (3D)......30 or so shots!
> 3 - Shooting a paper target just doesn't have the same cool factor that shooting a 3 dimensional target does. It's a huge uphill battle.
> 
> While I personally love the game the way it is, I don't see field ever regaining any sort of popularity without addressing the top 2 issues.
> 
> I also really liked wolf's shootoff suggestion. That's all the rage right now and would really add an excitement factor to the game.


1: If you can't even discuss a simple change such as the topic at hand how could you possibly make the changes needed to simplify the game. Isn't it obvious that no change is possible with everyone being the poster child for the Herbert Spencer quote? 
2: Number of arrows, hmm... if we cut it down to 28 we'll have less but we'll also have to cut the distances down to 30 yards and under to attract the people you are targeting.
3. This is true. That said, I shoot very little 3D now because hardly anybody shoots the open classes anymore so 3D is experiencing a downturn as well. 

The problem isn't so much a "field archery" problem. I believe it is a lack of interest in shooting freestyle equipment and that filters down into all 2D target venues. Looks like the NAA is doing fine though... maybe the NFAA should take a hard look at what the NAA is doing right. A lot of youth involvement that's for sure. Where are the kids shooting field archery? And finally, NAA FITA Field counts the X as a 6


----------



## EPLC

EPLC said:


> 1: If you can't even discuss a simple change such as the topic at hand how could you possibly make the changes needed to simplify the game. Isn't it obvious that no change is possible with everyone being the poster child for the Herbert Spencer quote?
> 2: Number of arrows, hmm... if we cut it down to 28 we'll have less but we'll also have to cut the distances down to 30 yards and under to attract the people you are targeting.
> 3. This is true. That said, I shoot very little 3D now because hardly anybody shoots the open classes anymore so 3D is experiencing a downturn as well.
> 
> The problem isn't so much a "field archery" problem. I believe it is a lack of interest in shooting freestyle equipment and that filters down into all 2D target venues. Looks like the NAA is doing fine though... maybe the NFAA should take a hard look at what the NAA is doing right. A lot of youth involvement that's for sure. Where are the kids shooting field archery? And finally, NAA FITA Field counts the X as a 6


Here's an interesting fact: Look up Field Archery in Wikipedia... not even a mention of the NFAA. Interesting


----------



## r49740

EPLC said:


> Here's an interesting fact: Look up Field Archery in Wikipedia... not even a mention of the NFAA. Interesting


Quote yourself?? Nice.. Beyond that.. can you answer my questions? I'm still confused as to what those answers are.


----------



## EPLC

r49740 said:


> Quote yourself?? Nice.. Beyond that.. can you answer my questions? I'm still confused as to what those answers are.


Answer this instead: With all this fear of counting X as 6... I ask who exactly is it that's going to leave? Are you going to quit? I think not. Is any one of you that does not like this change going to quit? I think not. The people you fear will leave already left, they went in 1976. Anyone that was around then and didn't quit will never quit. You couldn't get them out with a gun to their head. Perhaps I should have made this topic a poll: "If they count the X as a 6 will you quit Field Archery?" BTW, I polled the 5 people that showed up last Sunday at Tiverton Rod & Gun Club's field shoot and none said they would quit. As a matter of fact the small percentage of archers that still shoot field are old die hard shooters that will never quit. So once again, who's going to quit over this? I submit no one. The fear that once again people will leave in droves is a false fear... there are no droves. Just look at the number of archers that post in the field archery forum... once again, there are no droves.


----------



## r49740

EPLC said:


> Answer this instead: With all this fear of counting X as 6... I ask who exactly is it that's going to leave? Are you going to quit? I think not. Is any one of you that does not like this change going to quit? I think not. The people you fear will leave already left, they went in 1976. Anyone that was around then and didn't quit will never quit. You couldn't get them out with a gun to their head. Perhaps I should have made this topic a poll: "If they count the X as a 6 will you quit Field Archery?" BTW, I polled the 5 people that showed up last Sunday at Tiverton Rod & Gun Club's field shoot and none said they would quit. As a matter of fact the small percentage of archers that still shoot field are old die hard shooters that will never quit. So once again, who's going to quit over this? I submit no one. The fear that once again people will leave in droves is a false fear... there are no droves. Just look at the number of archers that post in the field archery forum... once again, there are no droves.


Ok, well we happen to get more than 5 people to show up around here to shoot, so that's all well and good. But basically what it comes down to is that you have an opinion that may or may not help the game, and instead of giving a thought as to why that is, you try to be condescending to those that ask what it is exactly you are talking about. And since you have no valid reasoning besides it just is what it is, or we're all lost and worthless, or just heres a question to deflect, then all you have is an opinion just like the rest. Difference is some have some valid reasoning behind their opinion of which there hasn't been a reasonable argument against.


----------



## ccwilder3

EPLC said:


> 1: If you can't even discuss a simple change such as the topic at hand how could you possibly make the changes needed to simplify the game. Isn't it obvious that no change is possible with everyone being the poster child for the Herbert Spencer quote?
> 2: Number of arrows, hmm... if we cut it down to 28 we'll have less but we'll also have to cut the distances down to 30 yards and under to attract the people you are targeting.
> 3. This is true. That said, I shoot very little 3D now because hardly anybody shoots the open classes anymore so 3D is experiencing a downturn as well.
> 
> The problem isn't so much a "field archery" problem. I believe it is a lack of interest in shooting freestyle equipment and that filters down into all 2D target venues. Looks like the NAA is doing fine though... maybe the NFAA should take a hard look at what the NAA is doing right. *A lot of youth involvement that's for sure. Where are the kids shooting field archery? And finally, NAA FITA Field counts the X as a 6*


And practically none of those kids are continuing to shoot after the graduate high school. I live near and shoot a lot at the Easton Newberry complex here in Florida. In the three years since I've been shooting there their is only one kid who continues to compete as an adult. Even counting all the kids, the NFAA has a third again as many members as the NAA.

As for FITA Field, a grand total of 7 men shot in the compound division, only 45 adults total at the national championship in 2014 . No thank you. You can have FITA Field


----------



## EPLC

ccwilder3 said:


> And practically none of those kids are continuing to shoot after the graduate high school. I live near and shoot a lot at the Easton Newberry complex here in Florida. In the three years since I've been shooting there their is only one kid who continues to compete as an adult. Even counting all the kids, the NFAA has a third again as many members as the NAA.
> 
> As for FITA Field, a grand total of 7 men shot in the compound division, only 45 adults total at the national championship in 2014 . No thank you. You can have FITA Field


You are talking about here in the States... how's FITA Field and IFA fFeld archery doing in Europe? (I don't have an answer to that myself.)


----------



## ccwilder3

EPLC said:


> You are talking about here in the States... how's FITA Field and IFA fFeld archery doing in Europe? (I don't have an answer to that myself.)


In Europe FITA field has the same problem as here in the states, at least as far as compound shooters. Barebow is hugely popular however. 

Over the next few years you will start to see some of the pros migrating back to regular freestyle with its 560 scoring. A 560 is something a few of them have obtained in practice and they could take that dream to the Nationals with at least a hope for winning. Now they are just going to shoot for the exercise with their very best practice scores coming up short of what it will take to win. With that dream dead, there will be little reason to stay in the pro class.

That's one reason you see so little compound participation in the NAA or USA Archery as they now want to be called. You have 6 or 7 "true" professional archers who are going to win everything.


----------



## brtesite

ccwilder3 said:


> In Europe FITA field has the same problem as here in the states, at least as far as compound shooters. Barebow is hugely popular however.
> 
> Over the next few years you will start to see some of the pros migrating back to regular freestyle with its 560 scoring. A 560 is something a few of them have obtained in practice and they could take that dream to the Nationals with at least a hope for winning. Now they are just going to shoot for the exercise with their very best practice scores coming up short of what it will take to win. With that dream dead, there will be little reason to stay in the pro class.
> 
> That's one reason you see so little compound participation in the NAA or USA Archery as they now want to be called. You have 6 or 7 "true" professional archers who are going to win everything.[/QUOTE
> 
> What needs to be done IMHO, is to try to bridge the gap from the NASP kids to field. they only know one way of shooting , 3 fingers under, no sights & Genisis only. there were over 10,000 kids from all over the country that attended their indoor national this year. Most of them had their parents ,Grand parents & friends with them.Most of them had to raise the funds to get there.


----------



## Ned250

EPLC said:


> 1: If you can't even discuss a simple change such as the topic at hand how could you possibly make the changes needed to simplify the game. Isn't it obvious that no change is possible with everyone being the poster child for the Herbert Spencer quote?
> 2: Number of arrows, hmm... if we cut it down to 28 we'll have less but we'll also have to cut the distances down to 30 yards and under to attract the people you are targeting.
> 3. This is true. That said, I shoot very little 3D now because hardly anybody shoots the open classes anymore so 3D is experiencing a downturn as well.
> 
> The problem isn't so much a "field archery" problem. I believe it is a lack of interest in shooting freestyle equipment and that filters down into all 2D target venues. Looks like the NAA is doing fine though... maybe the NFAA should take a hard look at what the NAA is doing right. A lot of youth involvement that's for sure. Where are the kids shooting field archery? And finally, NAA FITA Field counts the X as a 6


1: Isn't this thread 3 pages of discussion? Just because there are some that are strongly against your opinion doesn't mean you're not allowed to discuss it. Keep an objective mind and don't get so personal about it. You're clearly passionate about this game - lets keep it about the game.
2: 28 arrows? LOL c'mon now, lets not get extreme. Who would you suggest we target if we don't target the competitive 3D shooters? At least here in my area (IBO country), they're all MBO shooters and aren't afraid to shoot 60-80yds.
3: IBO is certainly experiencing a downturn, but how about ASA? They're exploding from what I can tell. Just take a look at Bow Junky's coverage...

I definitely agree with you on the youth involvement. Of all the field shoots I attend, I can count on 1 hand the number of kids out there shooting. Lets face it - for the cubs especially, a field round is a looooong day. I take my 7yr old son out at times. He won the cub BHFS state champ for indoors and can shoot very well, but to keep him interested in shooting 112 shots - well, that's a big challenge.


----------



## EPLC

ccwilder3 said:


> ...Over the next few years you will start to see some of the pros migrating back to regular freestyle with its 560 scoring. A 560 is something a few of them have obtained in practice and they could take that dream to the Nationals with at least a hope for winning. Now they are just going to shoot for the exercise with their very best practice scores coming up short of what it will take to win. With that dream dead, there will be little reason to stay in the pro class.


Pro's migrating back to amateur has been around forever and I do not see this as a valid concern as anyone shooting 560's is capable of shooting a lot of X's. The biggest reason Pro's drop back is simply because they aren't winning enough to support the dream... 



ccwilder3 said:


> ...That's one reason you see so little compound participation in the NAA or USA Archery as they now want to be called. You have 6 or 7 "true" professional archers who are going to win everything.


The X counted as 6 will widen the field and allow more shooters to opportunity to win, it will not lessen it... and the top shooters will always find a way to win.


----------



## field14

EPLC said:


> Pro's migrating back to amateur has been around forever and I do not see this as a valid concern as anyone shooting 560's is capable of shooting a lot of X's. The biggest reason Pro's drop back is simply because they aren't winning enough to support the dream...
> 
> 
> 
> The X counted as 6 will widen the field and allow more shooters to opportunity to win, it will not lessen it... and the top shooters will always find a way to win.


How's about the REALITY of it all, OK? Once a "Pro" moves to Senior Pro at now, age 50 that's it. When they hit age 60 to qualify for Silver Senior, there is no such thing in the PROS, so what do they do? Simple. Migrate back to the Amateur division because there isn't much of a snowball's chance in hell of holding their own (with very vew exceptions) to those in the "Senior" division...at Age 50-59. Bad enough that the age gap for regular Pro is 32 years (18-49) when it used to be 37 years.
It is rare for someone aged 49 to compete and make the podium when competing with those 30+ years younger...it happens, but not very often.
What to do? Heck, I dunno...we've had "pros" backing off back to Adult for years and years, and it will continue to happen. There have even been rules drafted that would stop a former card carrying "Pro" from competing in an Adult Division at Sectional and National Level for two years after dropping back to Adult status...but that didn't stop the wrath of Khan from falling about the heads and shoulders of former pros that dropped back to Adult Divisions.
Normally, you don't see the TOP ECHELON "Pros" dropping back to Adult Divisions unless something serious happens, or from age catching up to them, however.
I'm not so sure I buy this "watering down" the Pro Division if they were to add the Pro Silver Seniors or not. Nobody knows how many in that age group would move to Silver Senior from Senior Pro because nobody has tried that Silver Senior Pro Division in any bigger events; at least none than I know about, that is.
field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## brtesite

field14 said:


> How's about the REALITY of it all, OK? Once a "Pro" moves to Senior Pro at now, age 50 that's it. When they hit age 60 to qualify for Silver Senior, there is no such thing in the PROS, so what do they do? Simple. Migrate back to the Amateur division because there isn't much of a snowball's chance in hell of holding their own (with very vew exceptions) to those in the "Senior" division...at Age 50-59. Bad enough that the age gap for regular Pro is 32 years (18-49) when it used to be 37 years.
> It is rare for someone aged 49 to compete and make the podium when competing with those 30+ years younger...it happens, but not very often.
> What to do? Heck, I dunno...we've had "pros" backing off back to Adult for years and years, and it will continue to happen. There have even been rules drafted that would stop a former card carrying "Pro" from competing in an Adult Division at Sectional and National Level for two years after dropping back to Adult status...but that didn't stop the wrath of Khan from falling about the heads and shoulders of former pros that dropped back to Adult Divisions.
> Normally, you don't see the TOP ECHELON "Pros" dropping back to Adult Divisions unless something serious happens, or from age catching up to them, however.
> I'm not so sure I buy this "watering down" the Pro Division if they were to add the Pro Silver Seniors or not. Nobody knows how many in that age group would move to Silver Senior from Senior Pro because nobody has tried that Silver Senior Pro Division in any bigger events; at least none than I know about, that is.
> field14 (Tom D.)


 tom you do realize that the pros go to master Sr at 70


----------



## field14

brtesite said:


> tom you do realize that the pros go to master Sr at 70


Mike, When did THAT change? I, along with others caught the holy dickens for even bringing up recognition of the Silver Senior and Master Senior PRO divisions.
Unless that changed in the past few months and now the PRO Silver Senior and PRO Master Senior are reocognized PRO Divisions that is? There were arguments that the recognition of the two additional age levels in the PRO Division would water it down too much and that there was nothing to gain by doing it?
I also heard, but obviously wasn't there, that when it was brought up, the person(s) bringing it up were basically told not to bring it up again either?

So, what changed in the past few months? Do we really have official Pro Sanctioned Silver Senior and Master Senior PRO Divisions now?


----------



## Rolo

I think what Mike means is that after the Pros age out at 60 (assuming they don't stay in the Senior Division) they progress to the SS AM division, and then progress to the Master Senior AM/adult divisions.

There is not a SS Pro or MS Pro Division, and unlikely that there will be.


----------



## ccwilder3

EPLC said:


> Pro's migrating back to amateur has been around forever and I do not see this as a valid concern as anyone shooting 560's is capable of shooting a lot of X's. The biggest reason Pro's drop back is simply because they aren't winning enough to support the dream...
> 
> 
> 
> The X counted as 6 will widen the field and allow more shooters to opportunity to win, it will not lessen it... and the top shooters will always find a way to win.


No it won't. You are asking guys that already had trouble hitting the larger dot to now hit a smaller dot. Again, all you have to do is look at the participation in the NAA tournaments to see that very few compound shooters participate.


----------



## EPLC

Here's the solution: Get this big mother target face that has a spot in the middle that doesn't really count for anything and count the big white scoring area around it as 5. The rest of the target will be scored as 3. Then everyone will have a chance for a 560... no wait, some folks will still shoot a lot of 3's. Maybe we just make the whole face a 5 and then everyone will be happy. No wait someone may miss the butt entirely... so we'll give Mulligans (and a trophy) for those that can't hit the butt. In the case of the Pro's we'll just have to split the pot amongst the 560 shooters. And by the way, out of state NFAA members will not be awarded prizes because we don't want any real competition going on and those nasty out-of state people might just steal our $7 trophy.


----------



## EPLC

r49740 said:


> Ok, well we happen to get more than 5 people to show up around here to shoot, so that's all well and good. But basically what it comes down to is that you have an opinion that may or may not help the game, and instead of giving a thought as to why that is, you try to be condescending to those that ask what it is exactly you are talking about. And since you have no valid reasoning besides it just is what it is, or we're all lost and worthless, or just heres a question to deflect, then all you have is an opinion just like the rest. Difference is some have some valid reasoning behind their opinion of which there hasn't been a reasonable argument against.


I've given my reasoning, you seem to be blind to it.


----------



## r49740

Actually what you said is no one has any hope since they disagree with you, complain about out of state shooters(which no one mentioned or complained about), stating people want it easier to shoot a 560(which no one said), and that there is illusions that some chase(except you wont answer what those illusions are), and wont seem to respond to questions people had with the logic you have compared to the logic they have in how it would make it harder for those to make up mistakes, and would widen the gap. Generally in discussion on a topic, one may ask a question or two to understand position of someone else, and then that person with said positions answers as explanation, and the conversation moves forward in a constructive manner. Apparently that doesn't happen here.


----------



## EPLC

r49740 said:


> Actually what you said is no one has any hope since they disagree with you, complain about out of state shooters(which no one mentioned or complained about), stating people want it easier to shoot a 560(which no one said), and that there is illusions that some chase(except you wont answer what those illusions are), and wont seem to respond to questions people had with the logic you have compared to the logic they have in how it would make it harder for those to make up mistakes, and would widen the gap. Generally in discussion on a topic, one may ask a question or two to understand position of someone else, and then that person with said positions answers as explanation, and the conversation moves forward in a constructive manner. Apparently that doesn't happen here.


Here's my case... plane and simple. The animal round was dead until they added the spot for the extra point. And yes, it widened the gap but it also provided a way to make up points. As a result the animal round is now a viable part of field archery once again. I believe the X=6 will work the same way but on a larger scale. Granted that counting the X as 6 takes away the mystique of a perfect 560, but it does provided a comeback possibility which can be exciting... with the 112 extra points available anything can happen so the field of possible winners widens greatly. 

Also, what you are missing is that the change has already taken place... where the Pro's go the rest will follow... they have to. The only question is how long will it take for the Herbert Spencer crowd to accept the inevitability of the situation.


----------



## x-hunta

EPLC said:


> Here's an interesting fact: Look up Field Archery in Wikipedia... not even a mention of the NFAA. Interesting


That's because the NFAA merely adopted the IFAA rounds, no involvement in creating the rounds.


----------



## EPLC

One more: In the standard scoring round w/o the X=6 a great shooter (doesn't matter which great shooter as there are many) shoots a 4 on the first target... or has a bad target or two early on in the match. Because there is no possible way he can make up those points he has to hope the other contestants miss... it's the only way he can win. If the X is counted as a 6 he still has a chance and still is in control of his/her own destiny.


----------



## brtesite

EPLC said:


> Here's the solution: Get this big mother target face that has a spot in the middle that doesn't really count for anything and count the big white scoring area around it as 5. The rest of the target will be scored as 3. Then everyone will have a chance for a 560... no wait, some folks will still shoot a lot of 3's. Maybe we just make the whole face a 5 and then everyone will be happy. No wait someone may miss the butt entirely... so we'll give Mulligans (and a trophy) for those that can't hit the butt. In the case of the Pro's we'll just have to split the pot amongst the 560 shooters. And by the way, out of state NFAA members will not be awarded prizes because we don't want any real competition going on and those nasty out-of state people might just steal our $7 trophy.


what your saying is that the dot on this big mother doesn't count for anything? I thought that it was a 5. There aren't but maybe 2-3 people in the whole country that are able to hit 112 of them in a row with out missing one. From what I read in your threads, that you want the guys that can't keep hitting all of the dots in a row to be able to come thru the back door & catch the very few that have the nerves to keep hitting them all. 
Sounds like Wash DC where everyone should have an equal chance. As for those nasty NFAA out of state shooters, You can only shoot for awards in the state or section that issued your card.


----------



## field14

brtesite said:


> what your saying is that the dot on this big mother doesn't count for anything? I thought that it was a 5. There aren't but maybe 2-3 people in the whole country that are able to hit 112 of them in a row with out missing one. From what I read in your threads, that you want the guys that can't keep hitting all of the dots in a row to be able to come thru the back door & catch the very few that have the nerves to keep hitting them all.
> Sounds like Wash DC where everyone should have an equal chance. As for those nasty NFAA out of state shooters, You can only shoot for awards in the state or section that issued your card.


Bingo! What is so interesting is that "They" are so willing to have "catch up points" for the OUTDOOR field/hunter/animal rounds...but are vehemently AGAINST having a "7-ring" "Catch up point" for those that miss the X-ring a couple of times??? So, INDOORS they have the same situation...miss a single "X" and you are out of it...and INDOORS that is ok with them...but OUTDOORS, however, "they" are all for the extra point so that they can "catch up" if they shoot a "4" or three...sure seems a bit "off canter" to me. OK OUTDOORS, but won't have any part of "catching up" INDOORS? WTH is with this line of thinking? 
Of course the thread is about the outdoors and the "X for 6" scoring.


----------



## ThunderEagle

OK, you don't get much more average Joe than me. In fact, I'm below average.

In the last 3 years of competing in OAA Shoots (Ohio chapter of NFAA) I've been at the very bottom of pretty much every shoot I've attended.

At last weekend's State Field, I was again dead last in AMFS. I love to shoot, and I'm trying to get better, but I don't seem to be advancing much. The field round day I shot bad, and ended with a 504 total. I shot the half hunter round much better, and probably at the top end of my score for 14 targets at 261. I shot bad on the Animal, first time I have ever shot it, and I'm not afraid to admit I was a bit intimated by some of the targets, not sure why.

So, I'm against X=6. I don't see it as a way to make up points. Sure, for the top 2 or 4 guys in a division that may be what it is, but looking at the entire field, it just makes the top that much farther away than the bottom.

So, if the top shooters are shooting 555+, and if I'm *ON* I can pull off 520+. There is 35 points, not really close, but as I practice and get some hits up there, get more consistent, and say I can start scoring 270 on 14 targets, now I'm in the 540's, and then the top shooters seem to be in range then.

You put in the X=6 and now they have jumped out so far ahead of me, why freaking bother? I'm already seriously considering why I keep going to the OAA shoots other than the fact I enjoy shooting them, but at what point do I say, I'm really not competing, so why plop down 40 bucks to shoot for the weekend?

Maybe the ASA is so successful right now is the class progression level. If I were closer ASA tournaments, I can take my freestyle setup and start out in Open C, all known, but there are win out thresholds. You reach a certain level and time to move up. Then you can go K45 and K50, or go into the yardage judging classes.

There is nothing like that in the NFAA. I want to shoot freestyle equipment, I'm in the same class as the top shooters. That is fine, but I wonder if there would be more participation if there was path to advancement, there by putting winning something (I'm not talking about getting something for nothing) in reach.

So, X=6, honestly, really isn't the issue, as keeping it as 5 doesn't really address keeping people involved, but I think it is a step backwards. A more skill based class system is probably what is really needed here, in fact I'll go out on a limb and say that is why ASA is growing so well. There are a few equipment classes for different styles, then you have a known and unknown path, and then finally the skill classes.

I seriously wonder if the Field game had the ASA equipment and skill classes applied to it, if you couldn't get it to take off like a rocket? 

I think we need to focus less on the fact that 3d shoots animal targets, and more on the equipment and skill level classifications.


----------



## Pete53

let`s mention one thing more about 3-D they now use the 14 ring for catch up,even Levi Morgan used it to his advantage to win last weeks pro 3-D shoot. so why not keep the x as a point for 6 but for all shooters in the outdoor shoots and in the winter like field14 says use the 5-6-7 point rule ,just makes for a more exciting ending,its just time to make a few new changes for the good of archery. don`t tell me a sloppy 300 29 x is better than a 299 55x that`s bullcrap ,that 300 was dang lucky not good .


----------



## EPLC

brtesite said:


> what your saying is that the dot on this big mother doesn't count for anything? I thought that it was a 5. There aren't but maybe 2-3 people in the whole country that are able to hit 112 of them in a row with out missing one. From what I read in your threads, that you want the guys that can't keep hitting all of the dots in a row to be able to come thru the back door & catch the very few that have the nerves to keep hitting them all.
> Sounds like Wash DC where everyone should have an equal chance. As for those nasty NFAA out of state shooters, You can only shoot for awards in the state or section that issued your card.


This is exactly the problem. This game has been protected to the brink of extinction by this kind of posture. What this game needs is shooters! These protective rules, closed shoots, etc. continue to make it as difficult as possible for the numbers to increase. If you guys have the intention of taking this game with you you're headed in the right direction. Keep up the good work!


----------



## ThunderEagle

EPLC said:


> This is exactly the problem. This game has been protected to the brink of extinction by this kind of posture. What this game needs is shooters! These protective rules, closed shoots, etc. continue to make it as difficult as possible for the numbers to increase. If you guys have the intention of taking this game with you you're headed in the right direction. Keep up the good work!


X=6 does nothing to increase shooters.


----------



## brtesite

EPLC said:


> This is exactly the problem. This game has been protected to the brink of extinction by this kind of posture. What this game needs is shooters! These protective rules, closed shoots, etc. continue to make it as difficult as possible for the numbers to increase. If you guys have the intention of taking this game with you you're headed in the right direction. Keep up the good work!


 yes we do need the shooters. 

Can you make a list of what will bring in the shooters. I don't mean the 6 rule. Actual restructuring of the system that will do it . Then give it to your director to bring it to the floor. You see what ever you want to do is in the hands of the 50 directors, not some mythical group Called the NFAA in Yankton. Or better yet take over the directors job & you do it.


----------



## r49740

EPLC said:


> This is exactly the problem. This game has been protected to the brink of extinction by this kind of posture. What this game needs is shooters! These protective rules, closed shoots, etc. continue to make it as difficult as possible for the numbers to increase. If you guys have the intention of taking this game with you you're headed in the right direction. Keep up the good work!


So out of state shooters cant win the $7 trophy that you are laughing about others within the state that aren't the top shooter constantly still wanting a snowballs chance with the scoring the way it is of winning the same $7 trophy. Which one is it? And FYI, I shoot multiple state events. I can only win the $7 trophy in one state(although the two I have shot it give out better awards than $7 trophies), the state I am affiliated with, but I can shoot in both all I want. As I stated before which apparently went unread, we always got a large crowd from Indiana to shoot out Ohio shoots. Was never a problem.


----------



## ccwilder3

EPLC said:


> Here's my case... plane and simple. The animal round was dead until they added the spot for the extra point. And yes, it widened the gap but it also provided a way to make up points. As a result the animal round is now a viable part of field archery once again. I believe the X=6 will work the same way but on a larger scale. Granted that counting the X as 6 takes away the mystique of a perfect 560, but it does provided a comeback possibility which can be exciting... with the 112 extra points available anything can happen so the *field of possible winners widens greatly.*
> 
> Also, what you are missing is that the change has already taken place... where the Pro's go the rest will follow... they have to. The only question is how long will it take for the Herbert Spencer crowd to accept the inevitability of the situation.


You are completely ignoring facts that we already have with last years scores.

Some scores from 2012 and 2013 for comparison.
2013
Winning score-1888
20th place -1755
Difference -133

2012
Winning score-1704
20th place - 1688
difference - 16

2013
Average of top 5-1866.4
Average of 11-15 - 1811.8
Difference of 54.6

2012
Average of top 5- 1700.8
Average of 11-15- 1692.4
Difference of 8.4

Right now some of the pro's think like you do. They think that if they drop a few points they can make it up with X's. The reality is that the guys who have the mental toughness to not drop points are also shooting at those same X's and are going to hit more of them and extend their lead even further. The numbers bare out what I'm saying.

Over the next few years you will see the pro ranks start shrinking as more of them realize they no longer have any chance to win or even finish high. This will start having an affect on pay out. It will be interesting to compare the number of pro's who shot in Yankton this year to how many make the trip back in three years.


----------



## EPLC

ccwilder3 said:


> You are completely ignoring facts that we already have with last years scores.
> 
> Some scores from 2012 and 2013 for comparison.
> 2013
> Winning score-1888
> 20th place -1755
> Difference -133
> 
> 2012
> Winning score-1704
> 20th place - 1688
> difference - 16
> 
> 2013
> Average of top 5-1866.4
> Average of 11-15 - 1811.8
> Difference of 54.6
> 
> 2012
> Average of top 5- 1700.8
> Average of 11-15- 1692.4
> Difference of 8.4
> 
> Right now some of the pro's think like you do. They think that if they drop a few points they can make it up with X's. The reality is that the guys who have the mental toughness to not drop points are also shooting at those same X's and are going to hit more of them and extend their lead even further. The numbers bare out what I'm saying.
> 
> Over the next few years you will see the pro ranks start shrinking as more of them realize they no longer have any chance to win or even finish high. This will start having an affect on pay out. It will be interesting to compare the number of pro's who shot in Yankton this year to how many make the trip back in three years.


You say the ranks will drop, I say they won't. I think we will have to agree we disagree. As far as who is right and who is wrong time will tell. Regardless of the end result, the game of field archery needs to have the same scoring system for all, regardless of which one it is.


----------



## ccwilder3

EPLC said:


> You say the ranks will drop, I say they won't. I think we will have to agree we disagree. As far as who is right and who is wrong time will tell. Regardless of the end result, the game of field archery needs to have the same scoring system for all, regardless of which one it is.


True, time will tell. I think you will see more NFAA pro's going over to the ASA Known 50 where they can compete. 

Whatever scoring they use, I'll be out there lobbing arrows.


----------



## EPLC

Here's some facts: Since 2008 the overall trend for male FS shooters at the NFAA Outdoor Nationals is slightly up but this can be very misleading as the only FS subgroup that is actually trending upwards is the 50-70+ age groups. Every other FS class is trending down... including the Pro class. This is a death march and something has to be done about it. (note that 50+ = SMFS, SSMFS & MSMFS)


----------



## ccwilder3

EPLC said:


> Here's some facts: Since 2008 the overall trend for male FS shooters at the NFAA Outdoor Nationals is slightly up but this can be very misleading as the only FS subgroup that is actually trending upwards is the 50-70+ age groups. Every other FS class is trending down... including the Pro class. This is a death march and something has to be done about it. (note that 50+ = SMFS, SSMFS & MSMFS)


The last two years have both trended up for the location where they are shot. The way attendance depends on location, it is a little hard to tell. With the 3 year location cycle it will take a little time to really figure out how it is affecting attendance.

I think the decline in field archery is inevitable and unstoppable. Society has changed. Entertainment now is digital and done in an air conditioned room. People are more interested in being spectators than participants unless money is involved


----------



## Pete53

what i do see is just maybe the NFAA better take a look at us older archer`s maybe make a silver silver pro class ,that pro class has not been done yet, maybe it would work ? remember now days there are alot of broken families out there, so somebody needs to help teach these youth kids archery? that`s were grandpa comes in "us the silver seniors ! the group the nfaa seems to want to sweep under the rug" if the nfaa wants more members of all ages it had better learn how to take care of the archers who are members now first , these archers are the backbone of this organization .


----------



## Brad Rega

Though I haven't tried it yet, I kinda like the scoring. I am one of those people who either make a great shot and shoot an X or mess something up and get a 4. no 5's for me. 

First of all right now this is only for the Pro division and it isn't going to put an end to field archery. The scoring system is the scoring system and you just have to deal with it. Just try to beat your average and you're all set. Quit complaining. Thats all I have to say about the scoring. 

There is no problem with structure or scoring systems keeping people away from field archery. The problem is finances. I get to pick up my bow only a few times each year. Last time I picked up my bow was for NAFAC in Miami, and thats only because I was able to work while I was there. The next time will be Yankton because I was able to save a little money and shooting for 2 whole weeks in two major competitions is well worth it for me. However I will be making a 20 hour drive to do it because flying would cost an extra $500 plus luggage fees. A flight anywhere is over a weeks paycheck for most people. add in entry fees, hotel, car... you are looking at spending three paychecks for going to a shoot, not including the one you miss from being away. living paycheck to paycheck, many people cant give up a months worth of work for a few days shooting. Just imagine the cost if you had a whole family competing! Plus now people have $150 cell phone bills and $200 cable bills each month to worry about. Why is the senior division increasing? Many of them don't work full time. Heck I remember when I first stopped practicing. It was because I couldn't afford a new dozen nocks every other week. 

Instead of looking at attendance per division, take a look at how far people are traveling to go to the shoots. I bet most attendees are within a 6 hour drive. Convenience is the number one factor in getting attendance at major shoots. As for local shoots, who knows. 

The difference between the person at the top and the person at the bottom isn't always they way things are scored, better or worse equipment, its the shoes they are in. 

Want attendance to increase? Increase minimum wage and use Europe as an example. http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/05/25/cooper.vacation.europe/


----------



## EPLC

ccwilder3 said:


> The last two years have both trended up for the location where they are shot. The way attendance depends on location, it is a little hard to tell. With the 3 year location cycle it will take a little time to really figure out how it is affecting attendance.
> 
> I think the decline in field archery is inevitable and unstoppable. Society has changed. Entertainment now is digital and done in an air conditioned room. People are more interested in being spectators than participants unless money is involved


I do not read it that way. The only class that has shown a positive trend is the senior+ classes at each location. Take for example the PA shoots in 2009 & 2012. Overall attendance was slightly down (260 vs. 252) and AMFS went from 122 to 96 while the senior classes jumped from 108-123. The PMFS went from 30-33 shooters that year which was 1 of only 2 exceptions in the down trend). Interesting to note that 2013, the first year scoring X=6, the Pro numbers went up from 13 to 20 as compared to 2010 in that same location. It will be interesting to see how many Pro's shoot this year as compared to 2011 as this will be the second year of the scoring change.

Other than death and taxes nothing is inevitable and unstoppable if you can adapt in a changing environment. Field archery needs shooters and there are rules in place to keep them away. How smart is that?


----------



## 2little2late

I know this is digressing a bit, but how many members did the NFAA have in the glory days and how many attended the Nationals, Sectionals, etc. as opposed to now. Tom or Mike, please help here. I am fearful that all this discussion may be useless if the downward spiral continues in attendance. If you totally restructure the game it will no longer be field archery. I just don't think there is really much interest in archery period. I work with 168 people and I haven't found but one that shoots (I should say used to shoot) target archery and only a couple that shoot 3d for fun only because they hunt. I once heard that trap shooting was dying due to sporting clays, but I don't think so. You won't either if you know anything about Elysburg. And yes, like in field archery, there are very few that can flat out crush it in the rigid and structured disciplines of trap. Misses are very costly when you are at the top of the heap, as well they should be.


----------



## ccwilder3

EPLC said:


> I do not read it that way. The only class that has shown a positive trend is the senior+ classes at each location. Take for example the PA shoots in 2009 & 2012. Overall attendance was slightly down (260 vs. 252) and AMFS went from 122 to 96 while the senior classes jumped from 108-123. The PMFS went from 30-33 shooters that year which was 1 of only 2 exceptions in the down trend). Interesting to note that 2013, the first year scoring X=6, the Pro numbers went up from 13 to 20 as compared to 2010 in that same location. It will be interesting to see how many Pro's shoot this year as compared to 2011 as this will be the second year of the scoring change.
> 
> Other than death and taxes nothing is inevitable and unstoppable if you can adapt in a changing environment. Field archery needs shooters and there are rules in place to keep them away. How smart is that?


Membership was up 4.5 percent in 2013. That was reflected in participation. I'm not sure what rules you are talking about. If you are talking about the X=6, you only have to look at the NAA's National Field Championship to see that that kind of scoring keeps compound archers away. A total; of 11 adult men shot in that tournament, 4 at 50+ and 7 in senior male. That is the reality of X = 6.


----------



## wa-prez

x-hunta said:


> That's because the NFAA merely adopted the IFAA rounds, no involvement in creating the rounds.


I think that is a little twisted around, I'm pretty sure NFAA created the Field round, and that NFAA existed BEFORE IFAA. I was looking for some history but didn't find it yet.

The Wikipedia article only refers to the two major International organizations, IFAA and WA. The only national-level organization included there is England, probably someone from England wrote the article.

Wikipedia fans - you can always write your own article or paragraph and submit it for inclusion.


----------



## brtesite

wa-prez said:


> i think that is a little twisted around, i'm pretty sure nfaa created the field round, and that nfaa existed before ifaa. I was looking for some history but didn't find it yet.
> 
> The wikipedia article only refers to the two major international organizations, ifaa and wa. The only national-level organization included there is england, probably someone from england wrote the article.
> 
> Wikipedia fans - you can always write your own article or paragraph and submit it for inclusion.


nfaa 1 ifaa 2


----------



## brtesite

2little2late said:


> I know this is digressing a bit, but how many members did the NFAA have in the glory days and how many attended the Nationals, Sectionals, etc. as opposed to now. Tom or Mike, please help here. I am fearful that all this discussion may be useless if the downward spiral continues in attendance. If you totally restructure the game it will no longer be field archery. I just don't think there is really much interest in archery period. I work with 168 people and I haven't found but one that shoots (I should say used to shoot) target archery and only a couple that shoot 3d for fun only because they hunt. I once heard that trap shooting was dying due to sporting clays, but I don't think so. You won't either if you know anything about Elysburg. And yes, like in field archery, there are very few that can flat out crush it in the rigid and structured disciplines of trap. Misses are very costly when you are at the top of the heap, as well they should be.


 I will always say it that when the target face changed so did the membership go down.. There were approx 35000 , then the change, within a few years it went down to approx. 18000. Location does have a lot to do with attendance. The past 10 years, the largest crowd was Mechanicsburg 502. That is for Nationals only. Many years ago there were crowds in the 700, 600, I think Grayling had 1400. If you look at Nationals ratio of members to attendance, it really is piss poor ,even now.


----------



## EPLC

ThunderEagle said:


> X=6 does nothing to increase shooters.


You can't possibly know that.


----------



## EPLC

brtesite said:


> yes we do need the shooters.
> 
> Can you make a list of what will bring in the shooters. I don't mean the 6 rule. Actual restructuring of the system that will do it . Then give it to your director to bring it to the floor. You see what ever you want to do is in the hands of the 50 directors, not some mythical group Called the NFAA in Yankton. Or better yet take over the directors job & you do it.


I do not want to restructure the system, field archery is a wonderful game. What we need to do is to promote FS target archery in general. Around here the folks shooting hunting type equipment far outnumber the movable sight/scope shooters. As mentioned earlier I very seldom shoot 3D anymore due to the lack of competition in the open class. As far as the X=6 thing, it's already in, it just hasn't caught up to everyone as yet. Where the Pro's go the rest will follow.


----------



## wa-prez

EPLC said:


> What we need to do is to promote FS target archery in general. Around here the folks shooting hunting type equipment far outnumber the movable sight/scope shooters.


That feels like a funny statement to me.

The part about promoting target archery is "on target" but when you add the qualifier FS (Freestyle) I think your aim is a little off.

It seems like there are enough archers at Field tournaments in the Freestyle and Bowhunter Freestyle categories, but we need to convince the rest of the people (those who shoot Bowhunter, Barebow, Freestyle Limited, FSL Recurve, Traditional or Longbow) that field is a fun game and there is a place for EVERYONE. 

There is so much emphasis on the people who get the top scores, pushing the "perfect" limit, that the others might not be so aware that if they come to a Field shoot, they are only competing against others with their same equipment / restrictions. 

Who cares if CB is shooting 560, or a Pro is shooting 620, with the X=6 scoring, I want to be the top Freestyle Limited archer. That's the attitude we need.

And even for the BHFS shooters, if your hunting rig isn't maybe so fancy or so fast, come anyway. I've seen some fun rivalries for "who in this division is going to finish LAST". Someone has to have that spot!


----------



## ccwilder3

wa-prez said:


> That feels like a funny statement to me.
> 
> The part about promoting target archery is "on target" but when you add the qualifier FS (Freestyle) I think your aim is a little off.
> 
> It seems like there are enough archers at Field tournaments in the Freestyle and Bowhunter Freestyle categories, but we need to convince the rest of the people (those who shoot Bowhunter, Barebow, Freestyle Limited, FSL Recurve, Traditional or Longbow) that field is a fun game and there is a place for EVERYONE.
> 
> There is so much emphasis on the people who get the top scores, pushing the "perfect" limit, that the others might not be so aware that if they come to a Field shoot, they are only competing against others with their same equipment / restrictions.
> 
> Who cares if CB is shooting 560, or a Pro is shooting 620, with the X=6 scoring, I want to be the top Freestyle Limited archer. That's the attitude we need.
> 
> And even for the BHFS shooters, if your hunting rig isn't maybe so fancy or so fast, come anyway. I've seen some fun rivalries for "*who in this division is going to finish LAST*". Someone has to have that spot!


I shot a 720 matchplay event yesterday and shot a personal worst. I felt a weird sense of accomplishment. :embara:

Don't be surprised if you see a little surge in participation from the barebow crowd in the NFAA. USA archery just spit in their faces by kicking the division out of the nationals despite excellent attendance in that class.


----------



## EPLC

wa-prez said:


> That feels like a funny statement to me.
> 
> The part about promoting target archery is "on target" but when you add the qualifier FS (Freestyle) I think your aim is a little off.
> 
> It seems like there are enough archers at Field tournaments in the Freestyle and Bowhunter Freestyle categories, but we need to convince the rest of the people (those who shoot Bowhunter, Barebow, Freestyle Limited, FSL Recurve, Traditional or Longbow) that field is a fun game and there is a place for EVERYONE.
> 
> There is so much emphasis on the people who get the top scores, pushing the "perfect" limit, that the others might not be so aware that if they come to a Field shoot, they are only competing against others with their same equipment / restrictions.
> 
> Who cares if CB is shooting 560, or a Pro is shooting 620, with the X=6 scoring, I want to be the top Freestyle Limited archer. That's the attitude we need.
> 
> And even for the BHFS shooters, if your hunting rig isn't maybe so fancy or so fast, come anyway. I've seen some fun rivalries for "who in this division is going to finish LAST". Someone has to have that spot!


Well that's not going to happen anytime soon. Sure you get FS shooters at field shoots... but not enough. Like it or not, field archery is a FS/movable sight game. For that matter, target archery in general is as well. I've tried many times to get the pin shooters and even the traditional folks to shoot field. Generally they try it once or twice and move on to the easier venues. The only way to attract folks other than FS shooters would be to introduce a less intimidating round for them to get their feet wet. If they like it they may move up to the real thing. There is already in place the tools to do this so no changes would be required. I suggest the following:

Introduce a 50 yard max round to attract new shooters of any style. Since the Youth stakes are already there we could use them for an "intermediate" field archery round. With a 50 yard max the round would be less intimidating and may attract some additional shooters. Regular and intermediate rounds could be run together without much trouble with awards given for both. Like I said, everything is in place, someone just has to implement it. Hey, you could call it the EPLC round


----------



## wa-prez

EPLC said:


> Well that's not going to happen anytime soon. Sure you get FS shooters at field shoots... but not enough. Like it or not, field archery is a FS/movable sight game. For that matter, target archery in general is as well. I've tried many times to get the pin shooters and even the traditional folks to shoot field. Generally they try it once or twice and move on to the easier venues.


That always strikes me as funny, as the rounds we shoot for Field and Target, including the distances and number of arrows, were set BEFORE there were sights, release aids, and compound bows.

The problem is that the expectations have changed, with all the focus on the top Freestyle shooters and their high scores. No reason the rest of us can't have fun, within the performance parameters of the equipment we choose to shoot.

So what if we aren't chasing a perfect score, or if not all of our arrows get any score at all, or if we even BLANK some of the targets. It is how we compare with our peers that counts, not ranking against the hot dogs.


----------



## EPLC

wa-prez said:


> That always strikes me as funny, as the rounds we shoot for Field and Target, including the distances and number of arrows, were set BEFORE there were sights, release aids, and compound bows.
> 
> The problem is that the expectations have changed, with all the focus on the top Freestyle shooters and their high scores. No reason the rest of us can't have fun, within the performance parameters of the equipment we choose to shoot.
> 
> So what if we aren't chasing a perfect score, or if not all of our arrows get any score at all, or if we even BLANK some of the targets. It is how we compare with our peers that counts, not ranking against the hot dogs.


While all that may well be true... you are in a small minority with your line of thinking... Yes things have changed. In the "days of old" the game of field archery reflected the equipment of the times "BEFORE there were sights, release aids, and compound bows". That's why they changed the target face in 76/77... the equipment had changed, scopes and compound bows were making 560's a common place occurrence on the old 5-3 face. The only mistake they made then was keeping it a 560 game. Had they changed the scoring and introduced it as a new round... and perhaps kept the old round, they may have avoided the exodus that followed. Today, there needs to be a round the is not as intimidating to lure some new folks in. A 50 yard max round could do this...


----------



## 2little2late

If long distance is a problem, why not let first timers shoot from the youth stakes to get their feet wet. That would get your 50 yard max without reinventing the game. (If you read much of the general discussion forum, most guys are busting nocks at 50 yards so they should easily clean it.)


----------



## EPLC

2little2late said:


> If long distance is a problem, why not let first timers shoot from the youth stakes to get their feet wet. That would get your 50 yard max without reinventing the game. (If you read much of the general discussion forum, most guys are busting nocks at 50 yards so they should easily clean it.)


2little2late... Hmmm... great name, and very appropriate based on your post.


----------



## wa-prez

2little2late said:


> If long distance is a problem, why not let first timers shoot from the youth stakes to get their feet wet. That would get your 50 yard max without reinventing the game. (If you read much of the general discussion forum, most guys are busting nocks at 50 yards so they should easily clean it.)


We always tell people when they register for our events that if they feel the distance is too far for them, no need flinging arrows into the dirt. Just declare yourself "non competitive" and move up to a closer stake (like the blue "Youth" stake with maximum 50 yard distance".

Everyone is happy that way. Just don't expect to turn your scorecard in and take an award, it isn't a special competitive class, just "non-competitive".


----------



## EPLC

wa-prez said:


> We always tell people when they register for our events that if they feel the distance is too far for them, no need flinging arrows into the dirt. Just declare yourself "non competitive" and move up to a closer stake (like the blue "Youth" stake with maximum 50 yard distance".
> 
> Everyone is happy that way. Just don't expect to turn your scorecard in and take an award, it isn't a special competitive class, just "non-competitive".


Well why can't we make it a competitive class? That way it would be an official round that new shooters (or anyone that wants to) could compete in. Field archery is a great game. Once folks get their feet wet many may stick around. Getting them started is the key. While I think you are on the right track, having it non-competitive doesn't really produce a taste of what field archery is. In fact it's almost an insult to tell someone to shoot the kids markers. On the other hand, having it a sanctioned 50 yard max round that is open to anyone just could bring in shooters that are intimidated by the mere perception of having to shoot out to 80 yards. At the same time they wouldn't feel embarrassed shooting the round as it would be just another sanctioned round. While the youths would still shoot this as an official field round, we would have to call the new round something else as it would not be part of the standard round.


----------



## erdman41

EPLC said:


> Well why can't we make it a competitive class? That way it would be an official round that new shooters (or anyone that wants to) could compete in. Field archery is a great game. Once folks get their feet wet many may stick around. Getting them started is the key. While I think you are on the right track, having it non-competitive doesn't really produce a taste of what field archery is. In fact it's almost an insult to tell someone to shoot the kids markers. On the other hand, having it a sanctioned 50 yard max round that is open to anyone just could bring in shooters that are intimidated by the mere perception of having to shoot out to 80 yards. At the same time they wouldn't feel embarrassed shooting the round as it would be just another sanctioned round. While the youths would still shoot this as an official field round, we would have to call the new round something else as it would not be part of the standard round.


I like it. There would only be 4 stations that are different anyway.

If the proper name was used for the round I think it could gain some traction. Like was said once some people get a taste of it it is easy to set the hook. Just need to change the name from Youth to something else.


----------



## erdman41

Field 50
Field 80
Field 80X


----------



## ThunderEagle

erdman41 said:


> Field 50
> Field 80
> Field 80X


Kind of like in ASA:
Open C
Known 45
Known 50

I like it.
Establish some kind of move up criteria, score, wins, whatever makes sense based on participation.


----------



## wa-prez

Well people are already saying NFAA has "too many classes".

So if we add another category with reduced distances, is this just ONE group? One for MEN and one for WOMEN = 2? Add SENIORS and it's up to 4? Add BAREBOW and it's 8? Where do you stop?


----------



## 2little2late

When I suggested the youth stakes it was just for those totally new to field archery as a trial run so to speak, not a dedicated competitive game. They can shoot what they bring. No need for special bows, arrows, etc. Perhaps their trusty old hunting bow. After a trip around a unit or two they might just realize that yes, they can hit 50 and 65 cm faces farther than they thought. That person now is thinking about how much fun this would be if he learned the game. Some thoughts may go as follows: "I just might be able to hit that 80 yard walk up sometimes and those bunnies might be just fine if I get some good marks. Gee, a little less draw weight and 112 shots would really be doable. After all, I guess I do like to shoot - a lot." Next thing you know, said archer is showing up at shoots ready to go the distance. After all, I do believe we all are trying to draw more shooters in. Then we can talk about the 6 for an X. As I said before in so many words, if the game dies, it won't really matter how you score it.


----------



## EPLC

wa-prez said:


> Well people are already saying NFAA has "too many classes".
> 
> So if we add another category with reduced distances, is this just ONE group? One for MEN and one for WOMEN = 2? Add SENIORS and it's up to 4? Add BAREBOW and it's 8? Where do you stop?


I think we should through up our hands and do nothing.


----------



## ThunderEagle

wa-prez said:


> Well people are already saying NFAA has "too many classes".
> 
> So if we add another category with reduced distances, is this just ONE group? One for MEN and one for WOMEN = 2? Add SENIORS and it's up to 4? Add BAREBOW and it's 8? Where do you stop?


Well, I'd kill a lot of those specialized classes too. I'd have the current freestyle, a Pins and short stab class, a class that would include your Olympic Recurves, and then a trad class. Yes this doesn't give compound finger shooters a class to themselves anymore.


----------



## EPLC

2little2late said:


> When I suggested the youth stakes it was just for those totally new to field archery as a trial run so to speak, not a dedicated competitive game. They can shoot what they bring. No need for special bows, arrows, etc. Perhaps their trusty old hunting bow. After a trip around a unit or two they might just realize that yes, they can hit 50 and 65 cm faces farther than they thought. That person now is thinking about how much fun this would be if he learned the game. Some thoughts may go as follows: "I just might be able to hit that 80 yard walk up sometimes and those bunnies might be just fine if I get some good marks. Gee, a little less draw weight and 112 shots would really be doable. After all, I guess I do like to shoot - a lot." Next thing you know, said archer is showing up at shoots ready to go the distance. After all, I do believe we all are trying to draw more shooters in. Then we can talk about the 6 for an X. As I said before in so many words, if the game dies, it won't really matter how you score it.


2little... My original suggestion was to use the youth stakes for an as yet un-named intermediate round to draw in shooters that are intimidated by the distances of the standard round. By making it an official round new shooters would not feel like they were being babied or being treated like second class citizens. It would be an official round that all of the current rules, classes, etc. would apply. You want to shoot the standard round, fine... you want to shoot the intermediate round, fine... It would be open to all that would like to shoot it. You could even run both rounds in the same shoot with separate awards for each. I'm actually going to try and get one going at my club to see if we might lure in some of the 3D folks...


----------



## 2little2late

Let us know how it works out at your club, because if it takes off that would be great. What we really need is youth shooters. I can usually find folks to shoot with, but I have already been (by a good bit) the youngest in a target group already and my first shoots were as an NFAA senior before they dropped it to fifty.


----------



## wa-prez

Well, maybe we in Washington are doing something right!

Out of 97 archers at our WSAA Field Championship this year, 28 of them (more than 1/4) were in the Young Adult, Youth, and Cub categories (22 in Youth and Cub).

We've got some active youth groups (JOAD and others) that are working to introduce their participants to the greater world of "all ages" archery. They even brought a BIG BUNCH to the NFAA Nationals 2013. They all camped together and had a great time.


----------



## TNMAN

wa-prez said:


> Well, maybe we in Washington are doing something right!
> 
> Out of 97 archers at our WSAA Field Championship this year, 28 of them (more than 1/4) were in the Young Adult, Youth, and Cub categories (22 in Youth and Cub).
> 
> We've got some active youth groups (JOAD and others) that are working to introduce their participants to the greater world of "all ages" archery. They even brought a BIG BUNCH to the NFAA Nationals 2013. They all camped together and had a great time.


That sound great---a lot like it used to be. Maybe a short article for the magazine about how Washington is getting it done?


----------



## EPLC

TNMAN said:


> That sound great---a lot like it used to be. Maybe a short article for the magazine about how Washington is getting it done?


I think that is a great idea. We had 33 total shooters at the NE Sectionals this year. Yes the entire NE Section could only draw 33 shooters. 21 of those were 50-70... There was 1 cub and the rest were 18+ adults.


----------

