# Compounders Recruited for 2012 Olympics



## Dado (Aug 1, 2004)

I said this before and I'll say it again - If they introduced friggin beach volley into summer olympics they could introduce compounds into olympics... How? I'm not sure, but I think it is not such a problem of getting compounds in as it is problem with Fita and olympic shooters that are scared of compounds taking all the attention, newcomers and audience with them...
I'm positive compounds would never take audience/newcomers' interest over recurve, no matter were it olympics or not...


----------



## c3hammer (Sep 20, 2002)

This is a great plan. I've been saying this for years. I know of a few junior and cadet world champs that would have loved the chance to give it a go if the NAA had reached out to them. 

This is a huge step in bringing the two games and our archery community together. I give USArchery huge high five for adding this to their bag of tools.

If someone is capible of shooting a compound well, they can quite easily transfer that feeling of being dead to the recurve shot.

Cheers,
Pete


----------



## dead eye dick (Sep 1, 2004)

guys the reason you see recurves in the olympics is because of the skill of shooting them at long distances if they were so easy to shoot more would , a very few compounders do have the skill to cross over most do not, thats why you will probably never see compounds in the olympics ,almost anyone can pick up a compound that is well tuned and shoot x es in a few days , i would like to see you do that with a recurve it will not happen without a lot of practice , the reason archery is where it is at is compounds brought new people in to the sport , they are easier to shoot than a rc, just my thoughts


----------



## Dado (Aug 1, 2004)

dead eye dick said:


> guys the reason you see recurves in the olympics is because of the skill of shooting them at long distances if they were so easy to shoot more would , a very few compounders do have the skill to cross over most do not, thats why you will probably never see compounds in the olympics ,almost anyone can pick up a compound that is well tuned and shoot x es in a few days , i would like to see you do that with a recurve it will not happen without a lot of practice , the reason archery is where it is at is compounds brought new people in to the sport , they are easier to shoot than a rc, just my thoughts



Almost anyone could head to the beach and make arguably a considerable career in beach volley... but beach volley is in the olympics while compounds are not.


----------



## target1 (Jan 16, 2007)

most compunders that pick up a recurve, end up setting them back down, frustrated. They are looking for instant results, not alot of time and work to be successful.


----------



## ShakesTheClown (Jan 25, 2003)

I think there is some of that going on already. 

Locally one promising cadet compounder in the high performance program has switched to recurve and is doing quite well.


----------



## ShakesTheClown (Jan 25, 2003)

dead eye dick said:


> guys the reason you see recurves in the olympics is because of the skill of shooting them at long distances if they were so easy to shoot more would , a very few compounders do have the skill to cross over most do not, thats why you will probably never see compounds in the olympics ,almost anyone can pick up a compound that is well tuned and shoot x es in a few days , i would like to see you do that with a recurve it will not happen without a lot of practice , the reason archery is where it is at is compounds brought new people in to the sport , they are easier to shoot than a rc, just my thoughts



what a total load of bs


----------



## target1 (Jan 16, 2007)

ShakesTheClown said:


> what a total load of bs


this is how you react to someone's opinion? come now. the truth usually lies somewhere in the middle. many compounders do have the skills to shoot recurve, but lack the enthusiasm. they want high scores now, not put in a year worth of training to just look OK. 

One of the reasons compunds are not in the Olympics is due to the fact that in the majority of the rest of the world, recurves are what people use. Compunds are rare. 

Look, I shoot both, competitivly. My scores are way higher shooting my compound, but bores me quickly. My recurve is what keeps me interested, engaged. I will probably set my compound down for good someday.


----------



## Dado (Aug 1, 2004)

target1 said:


> this is how you react to someone's opinion? come now. the truth usually lies somewhere in the middle. many compounders do have the skills to shoot recurve, but lack the enthusiasm. they want high scores now, not put in a year worth of training to just look OK.
> 
> One of the reasons compunds are not in the Olympics is due to the fact that in the majority of the rest of the world, recurves are what people use. Compunds are rare.
> 
> Look, I shoot both, competitivly. My scores are way higher shooting my compound, but bores me quickly. My recurve is what keeps me interested, engaged. I will probably set my compound down for good someday.


I don't know what you mean by rest of the world, but outside USA - or at least here in Europe it's pretty much equal between compounds and recurves. In some cases, especially where I shoot (which is south-south east - east europe) MEN Compounds have twice as much shooters than Men recurve...


----------



## target1 (Jan 16, 2007)

Dado said:


> I don't know what you mean by rest of the world, but outside USA - or at least here in Europe it's pretty much equal between compounds and recurves. In some cases, especially where I shoot (which is south-south east - east europe) MEN Compounds have twice as much shooters than Men recurve...


The Olympics are geared to the entire world. Not just the west.


----------



## ShakesTheClown (Jan 25, 2003)

target1 said:


> this is how you react to someone's opinion? come now. the truth usually lies somewhere in the middle. many compounders do have the skills to shoot recurve, but lack the enthusiasm. they want high scores now, not put in a year worth of training to just look OK.
> 
> One of the reasons compunds are not in the Olympics is due to the fact that in the majority of the rest of the world, recurves are what people use. Compunds are rare.
> 
> Look, I shoot both, competitivly. My scores are way higher shooting my compound, but bores me quickly. My recurve is what keeps me interested, engaged. I will probably set my compound down for good someday.


The facts are that it takes just as much dedication and hard work to reach the top whichever discipline you chose.

The reasons for the compound not being in the olympics has nothing to do with the difficulty.

For one reason, the compound was just becoming popular when archery came back to the olympics in 1972 and probably didn't exist outside the US and wouldn't be a factor internationally for years. Compound archery grew rapidly in the US because of bowhunting, but bowhunting doesn't exist in much of the world so there was little interest in compound shooting. Competitive compound shooting has probably only really taken off internationally in that last dozen years or so. So, there was no interest internationally for a compound division in the olympics. 

Compounds now are certainly popular enough to warrant a place in the olympics, however the olympics aren't interested in adding anything new unless it makes for good tv and pays for itself. According to Jim Easton, archery would have to withdraw and resubmit to get compounds in and that's a risk no one is willing to take.

As for dead-eye's assertion that anyone with a well-tuned compound and a couple of week's practice can sit there and pound the x all day, well that statement is not only pure bs but downright insulting.

If you're so darn good with the compound that you find it boring then why weren't you up there in the shoot-off with Danny at Vegas?


----------



## CloverArchery (Dec 28, 2006)

That is not what he was meaning. Brady and Vic and Butch were all compound shooters before switching to recurve in order to shoot in the olympics. He was not stating for an entire different division be created. If you are interested in becoming an olympic athlete that you may feel free tomake the switch as they have done and compete


----------



## ShakesTheClown (Jan 25, 2003)

CloverArchery said:


> That is not what he was meaning. Brady and Vic and Butch were all compound shooters before switching to recurve in order to shoot in the olympics. He was not stating for an entire different division be created. If you are interested in becoming an olympic athlete that you may feel free tomake the switch as they have done and compete


Exactly. I got that.

But, I did take exception to dead-eyes post.

Also, target1, we aren't talking about "most" compounders. Not just anyone is going to make that switch. JLorenti was talking about recruiting some of the best compounders.


----------



## Cuthbert (Nov 28, 2005)

ShakesTheClown said:


> The facts are that it takes just as much dedication and hard work to reach the top whichever discipline you chose.
> 
> The reasons for the compound not being in the olympics has nothing to do with the difficulty.
> 
> ...



I disagree with your conclusion. While it takes dedication to achieve a level of performance in either discipline, Dead Eye is right when he says that most folks can take a well tuned bow and shoot a significant number of x's in a very short amount of time. Compounds were built to give advantage over traditional bows. Like it or not, it takes more skill to achieve a high score with a recurve than it does with a compound, and since archery is already represented in the olympics, I sincerely doubt that compounds will be allowed.


----------



## ShakesTheClown (Jan 25, 2003)

Cuthbert said:


> I disagree with your conclusion. While it takes dedication to achieve a level of performance in either discipline, Dead Eye is right when he says that most folks can take a well tuned bow and shoot a significant number of x's in a very short amount of time. Compounds were built to give advantage over traditional bows. Like it or not, it takes more skill to achieve a high score with a recurve than it does with a compound, and since archery is already represented in the olympics, I sincerely doubt that compounds will be allowed.


Well, I won't hijack the thread any further than it has been already and this topic has been beat to death at other times. I have both bows and shoot both ways. My competitive days with the recurve are well behind me but at one time that is all I shot. Yes, a compound is easier than a recurve. But, competitively the level of perfection you must achieve and the sheer number of competitors you have to compete with make compound much more difficult than you might imagine. I believe that even limbwalker has said as much on this forum.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

ShakesTheClown said:


> The facts are that it takes just as much dedication and hard work to reach the top whichever discipline you chose.
> 
> The reasons for the compound not being in the olympics has nothing to do with the difficulty.
> 
> ...


what additional athletic skills does a compound present? 

Archery is a lot like the sport I once tried to make the olympic in-skeet shooting. here in the USA there is a huge number of American skeet shooters. I shot some of that-was triple A across the board. 100 straights were common-in high wind I shot a 99 in doubles to come in third and in another event I shot a 398/400 to also come in third. Winning a big title was worth a fair amount of money-in one tournament-they gave a new buick away

Then there was "International Skeet" or Olympic skeet-which is what american skeet was once like and what is shot around the world. One year I had a 96.5 average in that -which wouldn't get you top 20 in the state of Ohio in American skeet yet that was considered world class in olympic skeet. Those of us who shot Olympic skeet were a small community and winning the national title got you maybe a 10 dollar medal. And yes, lots of american style shooters suggested that their game be in the Olympics. A couple top American shooters did end up being on Olympic or Pan An Teams but my attitude is -if you want to be in the Olympics you make the sacrifice and shoot the olympic bow.

I remember asking a few years ago what skill does compound archery bring to the table that recurve archery doesn't offer and one guy-apparently seriously-said dealing with a rain covered scope lens.

And BTW I agree that the top compound archers like Jamie and Dave work just as hard and are just as dedicated to their game as Vic or Park etc. Indeed, the "you cannot miss" mentality might be even more demanding mentally-which was true of skeet-I could miss a target and still win a major title-miss one target in American skeet or 16 yard american trap and you go home


----------



## pineapple3d (Oct 23, 2002)

Joe, This is a great topic! I have been recruiting a few compounders to try recurve. Only time will tell.


----------



## ShakesTheClown (Jan 25, 2003)

Jim C said:


> what additional athletic skills does a compound present?


Good point. I didn't mean for my post to be an all-inclusive explanation of why compounds aren't part of the olympics. Nor am I arguing for their inclusion, btw.

I'm just trying to point out that the inclusion of recurve archery in the olympics and the exclusion of compounds is a complicated issue. Not just about difficulty of one discipline or the other.

I really don't want to hijack the thread. It's a topic worth discussing.


----------



## Dado (Aug 1, 2004)

target1 said:


> The Olympics are geared to the entire world. Not just the west.


That's what I'm saying, here in East europe more people shoot compounds in adult divisions than recurves. Overall I'd say that it's about even through entire planet and not like someone said that more people shoot recurve... At least not seriously...


----------



## Not Sure (May 25, 2007)

pineapple3d said:


> Joe, This is a great topic! I have been recruiting a few compounders to try recurve. Only time will tell.


Around my club I think there is an inate fear of compounders trying (olympic) recurve because it will toy with their form and invariably destroy their high compund score. I've heard more than one of them telling me that how hard it was to hold (at whatever poundage) and stay steady while aiming. And the guys having fits going from a mechanical release to a back tension...whooo you ought to see them struggle. I tell them going to a back tension release is a good step toward picking up a recurve! :wink: 

If compound bow was born out of a more efficient way of hunting, why not have a 3D or field archery competition to test the mettle of hunters at the olympics? I don't think that should cramp the oly. recurver's style.

And what about longbows (clout or poppinjay?) or crossbows? Horseback mongolian bow shooting? (sorry to be hijacky)


----------



## pineapple3d (Oct 23, 2002)

Not Sure, I heard the same thing about the form from a few people around here. Brady's compound form has improved. Most of my shooters are adapting well.


----------



## dead eye dick (Sep 1, 2004)

shakes its good to see you crawled out from under your rock your opinion is always so well thought of ! the quote about shooting x s out of the box was for people who first pick up a compound they will have far greater success than if they shot a recurve to start, as far as vegas it was only my first year shooting wheels in the barebow division so i have some catching up to do , most guys in the shootoff are far better shooters than most of us they will practice 7 to 8 hrs a day , so it is not unreasionable to think they can shoot all x s but even they falter using vegas is probably not a good example because of the pressure of the shoot most fall apart only the few and best are left , so shakes i cant wait for your educated reply


----------



## Steve N (Apr 27, 2004)

There will be no sports added to the Olympics unless they have a good T & A or WOW! factor, like beach volleyball and snowboarding. Unless a sport can bring in TV viewers, both internationally and in the US, it won't be added to the lineup. Add to this the fact that for one sport to be added, one has to be dropped, and you'll see why it won't happen. Not saying compounds should not be added, but unless there is enough draw to sell air time, it ain't happening. Follow the money. The Olympics has become an over-hyped semi-pro sports festival intended to make money for someone, and its not the athletes.


----------



## Radman (Sep 19, 2003)

A majority vote by all of the member countries in the Olympics is required for the compound bow to be allowed in the Olympics. My understanding is that the FITA committee had to fight to keep “Recurve Archery” in the last Olympic Games. At that time FITA was happy to just keep archery in the Olympics at all. The big money (read that as TV sports coverage) was not interested in covering archery. The only way that I got to see the games was when the video came out after the Olympics was over.
A second factor is that many other countries classify a compound bow as a firearm. Thus restricting availability of the bow itself, and a place to shoot it. My opinion is that the compound bow will eventually be in the Olympics. But first it has to become widely available in Eastern Europe, Asia, South America, and Africa


----------



## ShakesTheClown (Jan 25, 2003)

dead eye dick said:


> shakes its good to see you crawled out from under your rock your opinion is always so well thought of ! the quote about shooting x s out of the box was for people who first pick up a compound they will have far greater success than if they shot a recurve to start, as far as vegas it was only my first year shooting wheels in the barebow division so i have some catching up to do , most guys in the shootoff are far better shooters than most of us they will practice 7 to 8 hrs a day , so it is not unreasionable to think they can shoot all x s but even they falter using vegas is probably not a good example because of the pressure of the shoot most fall apart only the few and best are left , so shakes i cant wait for your educated reply


dead eye, the Vegas comment was directed at target1. He's the gentleman who finds the compound so easy it's boring. The Danny referenced was Danny Quintana who is from the same part of the country as target1.

What you said that I took exception to was "almost anyone can pick up a compound that is well tuned and shoot x es in a few days." This is simply not true. Is the compound easier than the recurve, certainly. But, go to the NFAA web site and take a look at the scores for the compound flights. It's not so easy as you think.

The other thing you said "guys the reason you see recurves in the olympics is because of the skill of shooting them at long distances."

I was merely trying to point out that there really was little or no compound target archery around when archery came back to the olympics in 1972. And, that even after the compound became popular here it wasn't worldwide for quite some time. Therefore it wasn't a about chosing a more difficult or purer form of archery. Target archery, at the time, was recurve.

Now, please, back to the original topic of the thread.


----------



## dead eye dick (Sep 1, 2004)

shakes your right its not easy to shoot all x s with a compound ,my point being its much harder to shoot x s with a recurve in a range where everyone is comfortable i have a friend who is the king of x s put him in a competitative shoot and its like he forgot how to do it , recurve shooting is a more pure form of archery its like the roots of it thats why it s in the olympics and its as i stated harder to shoot long distances as accurate with a recurve than a compound, a good example last year at 90 meters shooting barebow recurve every shot was a adventure , this year shooting compound barebow i have not missed the target yet , did i really become that better of a archer no its the equiptment that has made me better


----------



## ShakesTheClown (Jan 25, 2003)

Some of my best friends are barebow shooters. :wink:


----------



## JLorenti (Mar 17, 2004)

*back to topic....*

will the best of the best compounders be approached by the USAA and asked to join the Olympic movement for 2012. There have been arguements posted in this thread about recurvers having it harder or compounders this or that.
We have seen an influx of NFAA style shooters come into the USAA ranks over the past several years and do very well at fita compound some even making world teams.
my question to you all is since we can say that there are some very good shooters who have been traditionally 3d or nfaa shooters that have come into the Target fita compound world and have done well, don't you think that there are some top compound shooters out there in this country who would be outstanding recurve shooters and possibly olympians to a level of performance that perhaps we have not seen since Darrel pace. I do. I think of the entire pool of archers in this country as potential Olympians, bringing the sport together will enable us to gleem the best possible archers for Olympic Gold. Isnt that the goal. Isnt that good for archery, the best shooting with one another. NfAA, ASA, IBO, NAA/USAA we are all archers.
if i were Kisik Lee i would be going to Vegas , ASA nationals, IBO world championships, NFAA nationals, national field. world trials , etc,etc to find the next group of Resident archers, I firmly beleive there is a gold medalist Olympian standing in this country somewhere but he or she may not be shooting a recurve right now......what does everyone think. i can think of a handful of archers that i have seen shoot at one or two tournaments over the years and outright win big touraments and then for lack of money or whatever have not been seen much after that. Thse persons should be approached and given the oportunity to shot at no cost to them at the olympic training center. When we start to do that we will have olympic gold back in the hands of americans. For those of you who think that shooting a recurve may mess up your compound form i beleive that learning the recurve bow is like learning how to bow hunt after being a gun hunter, when you go back to the gun , you are that much better of a hunter. maybe a bad analogy but there is a gold medal olympian in this country, i firmly believe this, even as we debate this here, we just have to find them , and its my belief that we should Look EVERYWHERE! We may have one in BE maybe in this Olympics or the next but remember he was a Jr world compound champion......

What is your opinion......we should be talking from the point of view of the whole and not the parts.

Yours in archery 
Joe Lorenti


----------



## JAVI (Jun 19, 2003)

if compound archery is so easy why isn't everyone shooting 1400's...

In 1972 compound bows had been on the market for what? 4 years.. 

Coach Lee is going to build his team his way and it won't be from current top compound shooters... too difficult to transition to the B.E.S.T. system from compound... He'll build from the youth at the training center...

I look for huge changes in target archery from 3-D up in the coming year or two... It's already started in the NFAA


----------



## ShakesTheClown (Jan 25, 2003)

JAVI said:


> if compound archery is so easy why isn't everyone shooting 1400's...
> 
> In 1972 compound bows had been on the market for what? 4 years..
> 
> ...


I agree that Coach Lee isn't likely to look at the current top ADULT compound shooters.

But, I think he will, and already has, taken a look at some of the YOUTH compound shooters.

As I said earlier one cadet compound shooter in the high performance program here has switched to recurve and his having some success including being invited to the training center for a couple of weeks. I know at least one other cadet compounder that was approached but at this point isn't interested in recurve.


----------



## strcpy (Dec 13, 2003)

JAVI said:


> if compound archery is so easy why isn't everyone shooting 1400's...


Wha? You mean you aren't shooting 1430+'s all day? I've had a few weeks and I'm already in the 1410's so you should be better.



> Coach Lee is going to build his team his way and it won't be from current top compound shooters... too difficult to transition to the B.E.S.T. system from compound... He'll build from the youth at the training center...


Very true, even at the youth level it is hard to transition them let alone at the adult level. BEST takes a level of commitment to shoot at the level he wants that few USians want to put into it (in more ways than one). In fact to shoot it well I've found that the BEST system takes a level of commitment few recreational archers have to put in (whether they want too or not). You need a young archer that is dedicated to not only target archery but doing what Coach Lee states and that is hard to come by. 

Of course, he only needs what - three or so? So I guess it isn't *that* hard to field a team given some time for recruitment but I still think the US is going to be hard pressed to field a top notch Korean Style archery team compared to say, Korea. That being said I really hope I'm wrong so arguing (for those that feel like doing so) isn't going to exactly be productive - time will tell on this one and I *really* hope Coach Lee can find what he wants and I'm wrong.



> I look for huge changes in target archery from 3-D up in the coming year or two... It's already started in the NFAA


I don't know, I guess it depends one what you mean by "huge changes". If anything I see a greater shift *away* from competitive target archery towards recreational and hunting archery amongst most shooting. Though I also think that if gas prices remain high long enough that local club shoots will regain some of their older participation and I hope this brings more into target archery once they see how much enjoyment one can get out of it when you shoot to have fun. There is little out there that compare in value to a one day field shoot (or FITA) at your local range (assuming you have one near you - and if they become popular again you will).


----------



## pineapple3d (Oct 23, 2002)

At the last World Championships in Germany there was talk with the compounders about shooting a recurve. Braden said he had been shooting a recurve a little. Mary Hamm was very interested, she even went to the first Olympic trials in Georgia. Mary finished one spot out of the top 16. Roger Willet is interested so I hope to get him out to my place and see what he can do with a recurve. It's hard to ask a compounder to take a year or two off to train with a recurve. Financially its almost impossible if they have a job and family. Most of our top compounders can make some good money shooting so its easy to see why they chose compound. It would take a very special compound shooter to give up everything and try there hand at recurve.

I think the youth movement is our best bet. It's easy for them to do school over the internet. 

I do wish that more compound shooters would try shooting a recurve.


----------



## Not Sure (May 25, 2007)

Is the solution to have special schools that feature archery? The tennis world has been churning out top pros for at least two, maybe three decades. Was Vic Braden's school in Florida one? I forget). The school would be a place where the students live a life of archery and get a private education at the same time.

I think this would be the U.S.'s version of how Korea distills their population down to champs that can get the job done. The problem now lies in giving a major boost to J.O.A.D programs all over the country to at least increase the popularity of archery. Does a compounder WANT to give up the $ in the pro circuit and dedicate their lives to OR? Maybe that's where the real issue lies.

gulp... It's just my opinion at this point guys... inform me if I'm going in the wrong direction.


----------



## dead eye dick (Sep 1, 2004)

im sure any of the top 10 pro compound shooters could switch to recurve and do well with some practice , but its the money that will keep them where they are at not a lot of money in recurve , thats surly the reason most of them shoot compound, the argument that recurve screws up your compound shooting i dont buy i shoot both and find they compliment each other . didnt dave cousins start as a recurve shooter, he is one of those guys who is very talented and could shoot any way , he had a choice and took the money route,who can blame him!


----------



## Archerone (Mar 30, 2006)

dead eye dick said:


> im sure any of the top 10 pro compound shooters could switch to recurve and do well with some practice , but its the money that will keep them where they are at not a lot of money in recurve , thats surly the reason most of them shoot compound, the argument that recurve screws up your compound shooting i dont buy i shoot both and find they compliment each other . didnt dave cousins start as a recurve shooter, he is one of those guys who is very talented and could shoot any way , he had a choice and took the money route,who can blame him!


I agree. Michele Ragsdale and my daughter both switched to recurve for a while in the 90's. Michele did well for the short time she was shooting. My daughter made the next Junior World Team in 1998 with the recurve after she had won it in 1996 with the compound. She was the top finishing American girl recurve shooter there. Some of her team mates had been top Junior recurve shooters for years with one of them going to the 2000 Olympics. My daughter was burned out and quit after that.


----------



## stamper1924 (Nov 6, 2007)

Not Sure said:


> Is the solution to have special schools that feature archery? The tennis world has been churning out top pros for at least two, maybe three decades. Was Vic Braden's school in Florida one? I forget). The school would be a place where the students live a life of archery and get a private education at the same time.


This could be a great idea. For tennis currently, the Nick Bollettieri Tennis Academy has churned out tons of world champs like Andre Agassi, Jim Courier, Monica Seles, Boris Becker, Anna Kournikova, and The Williams sisters.

A place like this for archery could take archery to a new level.


----------



## RecordKeeper (May 9, 2003)

JAVI said:


> if compound archery is so easy why isn't everyone shooting 1400's...
> 
> In 1972 compound bows had been on the market for what? 4 years..
> 
> ...


Though I don't know Coach Lee real well, I've been around him enough to know that he is a very savy man. I doubt that he will leave any potential talent pool untapped.


----------



## target1 (Jan 16, 2007)

stamper1924 said:


> This could be a great idea. For tennis currently, the Nick Bollettieri Tennis Academy has churned out tons of world champs like Andre Agassi, Jim Courier, Monica Seles, Boris Becker, Anna Kournikova, and The Williams sisters.
> 
> A place like this for archery could take archery to a new level.


The OTC is the closest thing to this we have. But remember, with the pro tennis tourney they can win millions of dollars, that does not exist in archery. So there is no real incentive for someone to attend a pricey school.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

target1 said:


> The OTC is the closest thing to this we have. But remember, with the pro tennis tourney they can win millions of dollars, that does not exist in archery. So there is no real incentive for someone to attend a pricey school.


and more importantly (for most parents) a full ride tennis scholarship from places like Stanford, USC, Duke, Virginia etc. That is what the majority of those kids are shooting for. Lets see a full ride to duke is worth close to 200K


----------



## stamper1924 (Nov 6, 2007)

target1 said:


> The OTC is the closest thing to this we have. But remember, with the pro tennis tourney they can win millions of dollars, that does not exist in archery. So there is no real incentive for someone to attend a pricey school.


Good point!


----------



## DRFrance (Feb 4, 2006)

*New consideration*



JLorenti said:


> What does everyone think? Will the USAA go out and try to recruit some of the best compounders in the country to try their hand at making a run for the 2012 olympics?
> 
> what does everyone think.....Does it depend on a successful out come of this olympics?.. Will they start trying to recruit more brady ellison's (previous Jr world champion with a compound) from within the archery community to try their hand at recurve olympic archery..
> 
> ...



Interesting proposal. Sounds great to me. Do you think they might considering opening the door for a "3D shooter" to step up and give it a try? We don't get over to the target side as much as we like sometimes, but often the skills are well developed.


----------



## dbracer (May 20, 2005)

JLorenti said:


> What does everyone think? Will the USAA go out and try to recruit some of the best compounders in the country to try their hand at making a run for the 2012 olympics?
> 
> what does everyone think.....Does it depend on a successful out come of this olympics?.. Will they start trying to recruit more brady ellison's (previous Jr world champion with a compound) from within the archery community to try their hand at recurve olympic archery..
> 
> ...


Joe,

I think anyone who has trained in archery skills is a possibility and a good resource. I think we should try the compound group or even marksman if they're willing to train. 

My elder son trained in Chula Vista, and we've shot longbows, recurves and compounds. 

I'd have to disagree with some of the commentors herein. Typically our friends chose to go to compounds because of smaller groups more immediately. Nothing wrong with that. The cmpd can definitely help one reduce the radius of his group. 

The public tends to go to the easiest denominator and that's okay. That doesn't mean cmpds are not fun, and I have nothing against them or their shooters, but the finger shooting traditional shooter is dabbling in a slightly more athletic aspect of the sport relying on less mechanization which has a certain appeal to the Olympic stage. 

I wish we would train our archers a little more seriously making them have better developed physics and more disciplined attitude. The cmpd may lend itself to some bad habits, but that doesn't mean we should not ask those that use them to step up. Heck, use slingshot competitors if they can answer the call. Certainly it can be shown that cmpdrs have been able to surpass others in some cases. 

What do you think, Joe?

dbracer


----------



## dead eye dick (Sep 1, 2004)

you hit the nail on the head if you watch most compound shooters most have very bad form


----------



## Grey Eagle (May 23, 2002)

dbracer said:


> Joe,
> 
> I think anyone who has trained in archery skills is a possibility and a good resource. I think we should try the compound group or even marksman if they're willing to train.
> 
> ...


The average archer gravitates towards the compound bow for two simple reasons, and it's not about smaller initial groups. They either get into archery for the bowhunting aspect of it, which by and large is compound saturated...... equipment, marketing etc. Or, as with most of us are exposed to archery at a local level first, and there are far more local clubs that have a compound flair than recurve. I'm willing to bet that a vast majority of those who pick up a bow (compound) can go years without any real knowledge, need for knowledge, or understanding of recurve archery. Let alone the dynamics of the system that feeds the trail to the Olympics



dead eye dick said:


> you hit the nail on the head if you watch most compound shooters most have very bad form


And as long as you, and others of your ilk, continue to push those misconceived notions, you'll be stuck wondering why your chosen niche is mired where it is......... grasping to pull in bodies.

And a poor form shooter is just that, and they come in all equipment catagories. Step out to any average local club range on a Saturday afternoon. You'll see bad form and technique shares equal billing amongst compound and recurve/longbow shooters alike. No discrimination there.

Those archers that have mastered their form and equipment, have done so because they have taken the necessary steps to achieve those levels of accomplishment. And again, the equipment has nothing to do with it.

Cheers


----------



## target1 (Jan 16, 2007)

Grey Eagle said:


> Those archers that have mastered their form and equipment, have done so because they have taken the necessary steps to achieve those levels of accomplishment. And again, the equipment has nothing to do with it.


you are quite correct. there's plenty of bad recurvers also. this thread is about recruiting compounders. the best of the best in any category will always be the best. they have put in the time and effort and discipline to be good at what they do. I think compound bows give one more of an instant gratification and that is were it usually stops. the shooter never really develops themselves any further. It takes someone one the drive and determination to better themselves and that is who we need going to the Olympics.


----------



## Grey Eagle (May 23, 2002)

target1 said:


> you are quite correct. there's plenty of bad recurvers also. this thread is about recruiting compounders. the best of the best in any category will always be the best. they have put in the time and effort and discipline to be good at what they do. I think compound bows give one more of an instant gratification and that is were it usually stops. the shooter never really develops themselves any further. It takes someone one the drive and determination to better themselves and that is who we need going to the Olympics.


Agreed. I do believe that a compound bow takes less time to master to a level that is sufficient for most average archers to enjoy the sport........ be it plunking around the local 3D course, or hunting deer at close range. Though that level of skill is far removed from what top shooters possess. And I believe that this disparity is equal amongst all equipment ranges.

Back to the topic though, it certainly would be welcome to see the pool of Olympic hopefuls swell to new levels. Possibly there is some merit in attempting to lure compounds to take up the cause. I would hope though that this would be accomplished in a positive fashion.


----------



## dbracer (May 20, 2005)

Grey Eagle said:


> The average archer gravitates towards the compound bow for two simple reasons, and it's not about smaller initial groups. They either get into archery for the bowhunting aspect of it, which by and large is compound saturated...... equipment, marketing etc. Or, as with most of us are exposed to archery at a local level first, and there are far more local clubs that have a compound flair than recurve. I'm willing to bet that a vast majority of those who pick up a bow (compound) can go years without any real knowledge, need for knowledge, or understanding of recurve archery. Let alone the dynamics of the system that feeds the trail to the Olympics


Grey Eagle,

That is a good point. I'm so cottonpickin' old I forget that many young people never even take a look or actually see a recurve, let alone a long bow. Well said my friend. 

I was reminded that when I wanted to try the new Hoyt hunting recurve in Boise here a while back, and the kids laid down the cmpds they were trying in the pro-shop and simply watched me shoot a recurve. I felt a little like a freak.

Yes evolution of the industry, and the market has much to do with what people select.

That being said the older guys that shoot with me do slip to the cmpd when they want to feel a little better about there shooting. And, that's okay. More power to'em.





Grey Eagle said:


> And as long as you, and others of your ilk, continue to push those misconceived notions, you'll be stuck wondering why your chosen niche is mired where it is......... grasping to pull in bodies.
> 
> And a poor form shooter is just that, and they come in all equipment catagories. Step out to any average local club range on a Saturday afternoon. You'll see bad form and technique shares equal billing amongst compound and recurve/longbow shooters alike. No discrimination there.
> 
> ...


You are right those who master their chosen type of archery do so with much time and effort.

That being said, what Dead Eye is trying to say, maybe with a little less tact than one might like, is that shooting a recurve at least in the initial stages takes a little more time and effort than using a cmpd, or at least that is the way it was for me. Much the same as it is easier to master the scoped rifle, initially, that the open sighted. 

Of course that means when it comes to competing at the upper levels you are competing against others who have mastered the much closer tolerances of the cmpd (or scoped rifle) which makes the needed effort very similar in either case. 

Still, for the purposes of the Olympics, I like the recurve because I like to think of the Olympics as a game of athletics of the human body. Just as in bicycling the Olympic committee requires bicyclers to use basically the same structure of bicycling, not giving a major advantage to the mechanics of the bike, not that some advantage are completely eliminated -- a tricky task.

One could argue that they could require the same of the cmpd, but when you start using telescopic sights and trigger releases I find it hard to think of it as "archery," so my vote is to not go there, making me have a certain empathy for Dead Eye's comments. His "ilk" is not completely ill conceived. 

It's an opinion. I don't hate others for having different ones. 

Respectfully,
dbracer


----------



## strcpy (Dec 13, 2003)

Grey Eagle said:


> The average archer gravitates towards the compound bow for two simple reasons, and it's not about smaller initial groups. They either get into archery for the bowhunting aspect of it, which by and large is compound saturated...... equipment, marketing etc. Or, as with most of us are exposed to archery at a local level first, and there are far more local clubs that have a compound flair than recurve. I'm willing to bet that a vast majority of those who pick up a bow (compound) can go years without any real knowledge, need for knowledge, or understanding of recurve archery. Let alone the dynamics of the system that feeds the trail to the Olympics


Also do not discount the "used equipment" factor - this is especially true with kids.

I know in my club any prospective archer comes in and mentions they are looking for a compound and people fly out of the woodworks with them for sale. Anywhere from really old and near giveaway to a couple of years old and most give good prices. 

Someone decides they are going to shoot a recurve and we pull out the Lancaster book. If they happen to try buy/sale forums then they typically can not find nice cheap ones, most are selling their older top end stuff for newer top end stuff and recurves tend to hold their value fairly well.

I have a brother and sister that started shooting a while back, the male decided to shoot a compound. He immediately finds a browning micro-midas, a toxonics scope from the late 90's, long stabalizer, release, easton aluminums, and Trophy Taker fall away for around 150 dollars. He got it from another student and he will most likely sell it to another one in a year or two. 

His sister wants to shoot barebow recurve (not traditional) - so what are her options? A KAP winstorm with T-Rex limbs, plunger/rest, arrows, and a tab and she will be looking at nearly 300 for not as good a setup. If she looks to used stuff from forums it will usually be quite a bit higher than that since the lower end stuff is rarely traded and recurves retain a good deal of their initial value. If she wanted to shoot Olympic add in sights and a stab (though she should be able to swindle a stab out of someone like her brother). At least with traditional recurves you can usually go to a traditional shoot and find a number of used ones for sale, but even then few are less than 350-400 by themselves.

Add the above to what Grey Eagle posted and it makes it hard to get into. Most recurvers today will enter it the same way I did - you have shot compounds for a number of years and you see someone shooting a recurve at a range. If they don't have too expensive a setup you build up enough nerve to ask if you can try it. Hopefully they say yes and have you go up close to the butt and let a few arrows fly.

The Olympic recurve I just purchased a few weeks (W&W Winact with KAP carbon limbs) ago is the first new bow I have owned in ages, it is also the first non-top of the line bow I have had in ages. I've always purchased the year before model in compounds cheaply and I happened to luck up on a trade for my traditional recurve (I've shot it for about 5-6 years now so I'm not new to recurves, it is a Sky Hawk if anyone is wondering). I'm quite happy with the bow, given the amount of time I have to shoot it will most likely always outshoot me - but it was a different experience purchasing it.


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

Grey Eagle said:


> Agreed. I do believe that a compound bow takes less time to master to a level that is sufficient for most average archers to enjoy the sport........ be it plunking around the local 3D course, or hunting deer at close range. Though that level of skill is far removed from what top shooters possess. And I believe that this disparity is equal amongst all equipment ranges.
> 
> Back to the topic though, it certainly would be welcome to see the pool of Olympic hopefuls swell to new levels. Possibly there is some merit in attempting to lure compounds to take up the cause. I would hope though that this would be accomplished in a positive fashion.


Hey I got into recurve due to hunting. Couldn't *get* me to look at a FITA rig back then

Your right on the, compound it takes significantly less time to be _*proficient*_ with it than it does the recurve. Of course they could allow peeps and releases on recurves and that would make an enormous difference:wink:

The other thing you are all failing to look at is it is relatively unheard of to transition to recurve from compound. Most that transition transition the other way. There is a very good reason for this and it is simply human anatomy. By the time you have hit elite capable status in compound you are older and are really going to be less likely to want to give up what remains of your shoulders to coming up to speed on a recurve which is significantly harder on the body. Age is a major factor here.

As for "cookie cutter" rigid training programs. Archery is a lot like art, you can teach anyone how to paint like van Gogh, but you will never create another van Gogh. Individual style and an ability to try new methods and either refine them or discount them and move is the only way to keep the sport moving forward score and technique wise. Assembly line archers are never going to get it done.


----------



## c3hammer (Sep 20, 2002)

Hutnicks said:


> .....The other thing you are all failing to look at is it is relatively unheard of to transition to recurve from compound.....


Actually that was the original discussion topic of the thread 

Actually it's very much heard of, as most, if not all the current crop of top recurve archers here in the US where and have been compound archers. I think that was the point Mr. Lorenti was making is his very first post.

It makes perfect sense to me to recruit from the compound pool. That is the game of choice for millions of Americans while there are only fist full of recurve shooters in the whole country 

Cheers,
Pete


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

c3hammer said:


> Actually that was the original discussion topic of the thread
> 
> Actually it's very much heard of, as most, if not all the current crop of top recurve archers here in the US where and have been compound archers. I think that was the point Mr. Lorenti was making is his very first post.
> 
> ...


The move the other way is still miles more prevalent. Sure if you can nab em at the junior level, but even then it's an uphill battle. Getting a top notch Adult compounder to go over is no easy sell. You pretty much have to find someone who absolutely needs to win and Oly medal. And then sell em that foreign dominance can be overcome on a shoestring budget. 

The only thing you cannot win with a compound is an Olympic medal, and for the majority of US archers I just don't think thats a big enough pull.

FWIW as a long time recurver I really wish the Olympics would include the compound simply because if you are looking to showcase the full aspects of the sport the increases in technology it represents should be included. In every other sport represented from composite vaulting poles to straight pull biathalon bolts new and emerging technologies have been embraced.


----------



## Mr. October (Feb 15, 2003)

dead eye dick said:


> you hit the nail on the head if you watch most compound shooters most have very bad form


As do most archers regardless of bow when they are shooting casually or are comfortable shooting at their own level. This includes recurve & traditional shooters as well. But if you look at the top archers in the compound game . . the ones that can and do put up consistently top scores, their form is every bit as good as top recurve shooters. 

Heck, the recurve community can't even agree on what is good form these days.


----------



## Mr. October (Feb 15, 2003)

There is a recurring theme on this and other similar threads that "It takes less time to become proficient with a compound". While I will agree that the average person could be up and running in fairly short order with a compound vs. a recurve, proficiency is relative. Proficient for what? Casual backyard shooting, club 3d shooting? Not losing arrows? Okay . . . with that I agree. But becoming a top, winning archer? No . . . that takes years of work and practice regardless of the equipment. In fact, I would argue that the precise nature of compound archery makes the necessity to iron out form flaws even more critical. Even our local tournaments are typically won by a single point or even a single X. None of these archers picked up a bow last week or even last month and started shooting perfect or near-perfect scores a week later. I know I've never achieved that level of skill and I've been shooting for 30 years. At my best I was still a step or two below the best shooters . . and I lived, breathed, and thought archery 24x7 with hours and hours of practice. No . . . recurve vs. compound does NOT take less or more dedication or skill . . . they are just two different disciplines with different scoring requirements to win. 

A top compound archer properly using back tension to shoot a compound is well likely to be able to pick up a recurve and learn to shoot it. Would he/she? No idea . . . I think I'd rather win Vegas with the big pay check then the Olympics.


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

Mr. October said:


> There is a recurring theme on this and other similar threads that "It takes less time to become proficient with a compound". While I will agree that the average person could be up and running in fairly short order with a compound vs. a recurve, proficiency is relative. Proficient for what? Casual backyard shooting, club 3d shooting? Not losing arrows? Okay . . . with that I agree. But becoming a top, winning archer? No . . . that takes years of work and practice regardless of the equipment. In fact, I would argue that the precise nature of compound archery makes the necessity to iron out form flaws even more critical. Even our local tournaments are typically won by a single point or even a single X. None of these archers picked up a bow last week or even last month and started shooting perfect or near-perfect scores a week later. I know I've never achieved that level of skill and I've been shooting for 30 years. At my best I was still a step or two below the best shooters . . and I lived, breathed, and thought archery 24x7 with hours and hours of practice. No . . . recurve vs. compound does NOT take less or more dedication or skill . . . they are just two different disciplines with different scoring requirements to win.
> 
> A top compound archer properly using back tension to shoot a compound is well likely to be able to pick up a recurve and learn to shoot it. Would he/she? No idea . . . I think I'd rather win Vegas with the big pay check then the Olympics.


Okay I'll try to tackle this without opening a whole new can of worms. There is a wide gulf between proficient and top level. I'd say an acceptable standard for proficiency is a shooter who can hit scores in the 75 % bracket. Where as a top level shooter is never out of the 90% zone and is more often than not 95% and up.

Without the benefit of the peep and a fixed draw length, as you have on the compound a massive amount of personal variables come into play. The only way to solve these variables is through form (developing and maintaining a fixed anchor and a good release etc.). Until you have shot both it is very hard to understand the advantages that the compound gives you "out of the box" (notice there are not a whole lot of compound "fingers" shooters) getting used to as simple a device as a clicker can be an archers undoing:wink: Add to that that the recurve is absolutely unforgiving of the users anatomy when errors in form are made and you have a higher level of complexity / difficulty than the wheelbow. A much steeper learning curve, if you will.

They are two different disciplines, and do require different skill sets. Much like Nascar vs Indycar. One will let you get away with a lot of abuse the other will punish you ruthlessly for your mistakes.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> will the best of the best compounders be approached by the USAA and asked to join the Olympic movement for 2012


I guess I'm confused...

Why would anyone need to be "approached" by USAA and "asked" to join the Olympic movement?

As far as I can tell, anyone is free to put down the bow they use now and pick up an Olympic recurve. I put down my longbow to pick one up in '03... Compound, barebow or any other kind of archers are free to do the same. 

Usually, if you have to be "approached" or "asked", then it's not something your head and heart are into in the first place. And I think that's the bigger issue here - that the Olympics are very significant to some archers, but not all archers. I've had top level compound archers look me in the eye and ask me what the big deal is about the Olympics when they can win more money at other tournaments. Seriously.

Either the Olympic fire burns inside of you, or it doesn't. Plain and simple. And if it doesn't, you probably won't have the drive to train and sacrifice enough to get there.

John.


----------



## Mr. October (Feb 15, 2003)

limbwalker said:


> I guess I'm confused...
> 
> Why would anyone need to be "approached" by USAA and "asked" to join the Olympic movement?
> 
> ...


That post is worth repeating . . . well said John.


----------



## Hollywood (Oct 24, 2002)

limbwalker said:


> I guess I'm confused...
> 
> Why would anyone need to be "approached" by USAA and "asked" to join the Olympic movement?
> 
> ...





Mr. October said:


> That post is worth repeating . . . well said John.


You read my mind, John (and Mr. October). Why would anyone need to be approached? If you want to shoot recurve, then shoot recurve. If you're interested in pursuing the Olympic path....then do it. If you want to approach Coach Lee about pursuing the Olympic path....then do it. Don't ever wait on someone to invite you to switch bow types. Go for what you want! We've got a ton of talented compounders out there but I hope to the heavens that none of them are waiting to be invited to switch. That's not saying that some of them *won't* be asked about switching (it could well happen), but I would never sit around waiting.

-peace,
Hollywood


----------



## dbracer (May 20, 2005)

*Being asked.,*

Of course I think we would all have to agree Limbwalker is right. You either want the Olympics or you don't. 

If you want money for shooting, the Olympics ain't the way. 

If you want the Olympics then you'll use whatever equipment is required, and you can come from any wher -- trap shooting to dart throwing. 

Good post Limbwalker.

Respectfully,
dbracer


----------



## Mr. October (Feb 15, 2003)

dbracer said:


> Of course I think we would all have to agree Limbwalker is right. You either want the Olympics or you don't.
> 
> If you want money for shooting, the Olympics ain't the way.
> 
> ...


Or get involved in some ridiculous activity that is big on TV and lobby for it to make the olympics . .


----------



## JAVI (Jun 19, 2003)

limbwalker said:


> I guess I'm confused...
> 
> Why would anyone need to be "approached" by USAA and "asked" to join the Olympic movement?
> 
> ...


That’s pretty much true for any worthwhile endeavor… 

I often get individuals wanting to shoot like the pros in one easy lesson… 

And they often leave horribly disappointed when I tell them of the dedication required to train at that level.


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

JAVI said:


> That’s pretty much true for any worthwhile endeavor…
> 
> I often get individuals wanting to shoot like the pros in one easy lesson…
> 
> And they often leave horribly disappointed when I tell them of the dedication required to train at that level.


Welcome to "fast food culture" , have to wonder just what expectations are being set in schools and the home these days.


----------



## dbracer (May 20, 2005)

*Asking them to step up to the Olympics*

Wait a minute. Maybe asking some child if he'd step-up to Olympic archery isn't a bad idea. 

My younger wasn't all that excited about wrestling. Someone watched him, then asked him to consider it more seriously when he was 12.

Since, twice he has taken second in the state high school championships. At the club level he has been to the nationals twice. Once was ranked in the top 20 in the nation. 

Kids really don't know what they want. Some need asking. 

Who gives a rip whether TV likes it or not. Use it while it's here. When it's gone it's gone. 

It's every bit as great as golf.

Respectfully,
dbracer


----------



## Huntmaster (Jan 30, 2003)

If I'm not mistaken, there have been kids recruted to the Olympic Recurve. That's part of the recrutement effort by the NAA from the ASAP program and others.

Don't ask me how it's working out......I really don't know.


----------



## Rick McKinney (Mar 4, 2008)

Nice comments Limbwalker. I not only agree with you wholeheartedly I am really baffled. If I didn’t know any better there is a request for “entitlement”, which since I live in California I am very familiar with, unfortunately. :wink: But then again, it is probably just the delivery of the discussion.

Most “elite” athletes will either want to pursue the Olympics or not. Those who do, I encourage you to give it 100%. Those who do not, that’s fine too. Go for what ever you really enjoy doing. Archery will not make you a millionaire so just shoot for the passion of it no matter what discipline it may be. 

Although Brady is doing well, he was young enough to make those changes with little effort or it appears so. Let’s not forget this young man is extremely talented and he was willing and wanting to make that change. Some of you might remember that Reo Wilde went to the training center and gave it his all for a few years and although did well, he did not make the Olympic Team. Two years later after the Trials he was able to be one of the best in the compound world again. Michele Ragsdale gave it her all as well and fell a bit short too. This is not meant for any disrespect for either of these remarkable archers. As a matter of fact, I give them extra respect for making the effort. Most “top” archers state they could do it, but very few give it the effort it takes to find out if they have it or not. Oh and by the way, Butch Johnson won the National Indoor Championships in the Recurve division in the mid-1970’s, beating Pace and myself. He switched to compound some time after that and then switched back to recurve in the early 1990’s. Vic Wunderle was about 16 when he switched over to the recurve. There’s a lot of similarities between Vic’s path and Brady’s. 

Any discipline takes an amazing amount of effort and thinking that they could do the same thing with a different discipline is dependent on their desire and capabilities to form adaptation. Lee is looking for “champion” minded attitudes. Thus it would include anyone who can win in their respective discipline. It is far easier to work on physical form over a mental attitude change any day. HOWEVER, you still have to really want it bad enough and then you are not guaranteed success. Most elite’s struggle going from best in the world in one discipline to rookie overnight. If they have the patience and understanding they just might be able to pull off an amazing feat (Limbwalker….)  

However, this brings up another variable. Shooting long bow to recurve, the score get’s a bit better, thus making the mindset easier to deal with. As a compound shooter, you are used to shooting lots of tens or at least far more than you will with a recurve. This is not fun for those who are not used to it. Thus, the drop in score may be a bit frustrating to a compound shooter compared to a long bow shooter or bare bow archer.


----------



## strcpy (Dec 13, 2003)

dbracer said:


> Wait a minute. Maybe asking some child if he'd step-up to Olympic archery isn't a bad idea.


I can't speak for Limbwalker or the others, but as I agree with they wrote I will note that there is a difference from recruiting kids into the sport and recruiting top compound shooters into the Olympics.

Recruiting kids is nearly a must, I don't think anyone here is saying not to introduce them to Recurve archery and talk about the Olympics - they need exposure to it. There are many of the top NFAA compound juniors who most likely know VERY little about it and may be quite interested in it, especially when looking at the 14 and below age group. Above that and they start being old enough to know the difference and decide where to go.

However anyone here think that the Wilde bunch or Dave Cousins isn't aware of the Olympics? Why recruit them as the OP seemed to be talking about (as they are the top end compounders)? What Limbwalker said there holds - if they aren't currently doing it I doubt they will have the drive to do what is necessary if someone tries to recruit them.


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

Rick McKinney said:


> Nice comments Limbwalker. I not only agree with you wholeheartedly I am really baffled. If I didn’t know any better there is a request for “entitlement”, which since I live in California I am very familiar with, unfortunately. :wink: But then again, it is probably just the delivery of the discussion.
> 
> Most “elite” athletes will either want to pursue the Olympics or not. Those who do, I encourage you to give it 100%. Those who do not, that’s fine too. Go for what ever you really enjoy doing. Archery will not make you a millionaire so just shoot for the passion of it no matter what discipline it may be.
> 
> ...


Excellent post.


----------



## c3hammer (Sep 20, 2002)

Hollywood said:


> Why would anyone need to be approached? If you want to shoot recurve, then shoot recurve. If you're interested in pursuing the Olympic path....then do it.


That's exactly the point of this discussion. Most archers don't have an interest in persuing the Olympic path. Most don't even know what it's all about.

My family grew up with Olympic sports. My brothers ran track for Oregon and Wisconsin. I was raised and brought up around the people with the Olympic dream. For me it was easy to see, yet it still took me 20 years to take up a recurve to give it a go.

Most archers don't have any idea what it's all about. Let's face it, recurve archers are few and far between, not to mention that we are rather odd for wanting to shoot a recurve in the first place. Barebow shooters are even more odd 

The point being, developing the Olympic dream in people who don't have a clue should be a priority. There's nothing like walking around the Olympic Training Center for the first time. There's nothing like catching the fire from seeing those who've dedicated their lives to the Olympic dream.

There's a whole country full of compounders out there who need to be asked and nudged along to catch it.

Cheers,
Pete


----------



## Old Hoyt (Jul 28, 2005)

Firstly, excellent posts by Rick & Limbwalker. As a Canuck, I'm kind of on the outside looking in on all this discussion, but here are a few observations:

NASP & ASAP programs create an awareness and exposure to the sport for a lot of kids.Anyone in these programs wanting to compete at a higher level, be it recurve, compound or 3D: will have to make some changes to form, equipment, etc. - maybe potential olympians.

NFAA moving to Yankton & building an "archery center", also creating more recurve classes for juniors. Is this a step towards "recruitment"? (I'm not an NFAA member - just going from what I've seen from time to time on A/T.)

Talent & desire will prevail. In this country we have a World Target Champion, who came from a 3D background (albiet he didn't change from compound). We too have young top level Recurve shooters that started with compound.


----------



## sundevilarchery (May 27, 2005)

Well I think it's a great idea... the bigger the pool to draw from, the better... and a little competition raises everyone's level.

"You want to shoot better, shoot with better shooters..."


----------



## dbracer (May 20, 2005)

c3hammer said:


> ...The point being, developing the Olympic dream in people who don't have a clue should be a priority. There's nothing like walking around the Olympic Training Center for the first time. There's nothing like catching the fire from seeing those who've dedicated their lives to the Olympic dream.
> 
> There's a whole country full of compounders out there who need to be asked and nudged along to catch it.
> 
> ...


Great post, Pete. 

That was what I was trying to say. You just said it with much more eloquence. 

All the Olympiads start as kids (children). In fact, a significant percentage are below 18. 

Someone needs to stir the desire, then work their butts off so they have the physique of gymnasts, the mental attitude of marathon runners, call themselves archers, and... most of all, make them love it.

Respectfully,
dbracer


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> However, this brings up another variable. Shooting long bow to recurve, the score get’s a bit better, thus making the mindset easier to deal with. As a compound shooter, you are used to shooting lots of tens or at least far more than you will with a recurve. This is not fun for those who are not used to it. Thus, the drop in score may be a bit frustrating to a compound shooter compared to a long bow shooter or bare bow archer.


Very true. I still remember how surprised I was at Gold Cup in 2004 when I approached the then top-ranked compound fita shooter in the world and asked him if he had ever tried Olympic recurve. He was very polite and matter-of-fact when he told me "yea, but the best I could ever do was a 324 average, so I went back to compound..."

Those were his exact words. The irony to me is that a 324 average would have secured him a spot on the 2004 Olympic team! I made the team with a 320 average at the trials and secured a 4th place rolling rank at the end of the season with a 160 18-arrow average!

So I guess that's why I say the Olympic dream is either in you, or it isn't. 

And I agree wholeheartedly with Rick. Pick your weapon and shoot it as well as you can. Whatever that may be. I have great respect for all world class archers, regardless of the style they shoot. It takes great technique, training and sacrifice to get to that level.

I will add this too - I think there would be a great deal of value in exposing all young archers (i.e. NASP) to Olympic recurve archery. I was 32 years old before I ever saw a real Olympic recurve bow, and I had been shooting bows since I was old enough to remember - and traditional bows at that! I'm sure there are many NASP kids that have that Olympic fire in them. Hopefully the combined efforts of NASP, the NAA and NFAA will add to the pool of talented young archers shooting for Olympic spots someday.

John.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Mr. October said:


> Or get involved in some ridiculous activity that is big on TV and lobby for it to make the olympics . .


Best be prepared to wear a speedo or a leotard:wink:


----------



## target1 (Jan 16, 2007)

Jim C said:


> Best be prepared to wear a speedo or a leotard:wink:


Are you trying to say to shoot "B.E.S.T." you have to wear a speedo or leotard. It wouldn't be a pretty sight.


----------



## dbracer (May 20, 2005)

limbwalker said:


> ...I will add this too - I think there would be a great deal of value in exposing all young archers (i.e. NASP) to Olympic recurve archery. I was 32 years old before I ever saw a real Olympic recurve bow, and I had been shooting bows since I was old enough to remember - and traditional bows at that! I'm sure there are many NASP kids that have that Olympic fire in them. Hopefully the combined efforts of NASP, the NAA and NFAA will add to the pool of talented young archers shooting for Olympic spots someday.
> 
> John.


John,

Got no argument with you on any of this. Pull the kids from any of the "projectile driven" crowd.

But pardon my ignorance here. What is the NASP?

Respectfully, 
dbracer


----------



## JAVI (Jun 19, 2003)

dbracer said:


> John,
> 
> Got no argument with you on any of this. Pull the kids from any of the "projectile driven" crowd.
> 
> ...


http://www.nasparchery.com/activea....ID&cboApplicationID=321&cboFileCategoryID=962


----------



## Mr. October (Feb 15, 2003)

Jim C said:


> Best be prepared to wear a speedo or a leotard:wink:


Well I've heard that may be the new FITA dress code anyway. You know . . . to sort of spice things up a bit for the TV camera. :wink:


----------



## Rick McKinney (Mar 4, 2008)

Folks, I am really sorry about the lengthy posts. It appears I have the gift for gab. Not able to condense it any less and I would love to add more, but feel I am putting way too much in. For those who don’t like to read long posts, feel free to skip it. 

Thanks Limbwalker. I think it’s funny that a lot of people want to make a major effort to recruit just the compound archers when we should be thinking of recruiting anyone and everyone to consider “Olympic” archery, especially our youth, just as you said. And I mean EVERYONE! I am happy to read that you agree that you were an “anomaly” (well OK, I just presumed you meant that in your post!) :wink: Just like the five time Olympic female swimmer who is 41 years old and setting new records and will go to Bejing. . Although not impossible to do, it is a rare and wonderful treat to see and enjoy when someone out of the blue does something like that. Who shakes the rafters and strikes fear in the younger ones. It causes more drive, more motivation for the younger competitors and gives hopes and inspiration (and admiration) to us older ones! 

Years ago, I was a bit perplexed when the NAA had to develop a compound division for the JOAD program (Junior OLYMPIC Archery Development). I fully understood that the compound archers wanted a place for their kids but it did a tremendous disservice for training and introducing these future potential champions to “Olympic” archery. In Korea it is totally discouraged to introduce any other discipline except Olympic Archery. Although there are a few “compounders” in the country, it is highly discouraged because the archery organization wants all archers to use the recurve so they have a better chance of getting champions. Kind of works too, huh? It’s not the American way but it does work. 

Now, having said this, just remember to not shoot the messenger. I fully support programs that encourage people to shoot and enjoy all types of archery. However, we cannot have it both ways. If you want Olympic Champions then figure out a way to get more people involved in the Olympic Discipline. We don’t need to belly ache about it, nor yell it’s unfair and scream that the recurve archers are a bunch of high and mighty stuck in the muds. Recurve archery is in the Olympics and it’s the way it is and it is very difficult to make changes in the world of the Olympics. I know many people want to have compounds in the Games, but that takes decades and more to make that happen. And when it does, chances are the recurve will be no more. It will go by the wayside as the traditional and barebow disciplines. That is not to say it is right or wrong, it is just a fact. The United States is one vote out of 200+ countries. Europe is by far the most powerful block of votes in archery and then Asia. Europe is about 50/50 in compound/recurve. Asia is about 5/95. You are talking of about 500,000 archers who are working towards Olympic archery all over the world compared to the United States who has about 1000 recurves and about 30,000 (this might be high) over all target, field, 3-D shooters combined.. France alone has near 60,000 archers in one organization according to some. That’s near double to what we have in the good ole’ US of A. Don’t forget that many people in the US belong to more than one organization. Now, if we can find a way to get that approximate 6 million bowhunters to consider getting their kids involved, then we can blow them out of the rings (so to speak). However, then we have to get the kids to think that recurve archery is what they want to use instead of what daddy and mommy use for hunting. 

Great programs such as the NASP and similar are a wonderful start but still we are misdirecting our archers. How can we make it better? Since it appears the compound bow is the dominant one here in the US, then we need to figure out a way to communicate to ALL archers about the Olympic movement so if they have a dream then they can gravitate towards it. And finally, as the old cliché goes “you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make them drink it” goes for Olympic archery. It's not for everyone...


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

target1 said:


> Are you trying to say to shoot "B.E.S.T." you have to wear a speedo or leotard. It wouldn't be a pretty sight.


LOL I have seen some real babes in archery but sadly that seems to be the only way a new sport gets adopted for the Olympics

1) Beach Volleyball-Bikinis MANDATORY for women

2) synchro-diving-speedos

3) Trampoline-chicks in leotards

4) Synchro swimming-speedos, and MAKEUP 

5) Mountain biking-real tight spandex suits

No golf (long pants) no squash (shirts with sleeves, loose shorts)


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Great post Rick-you think as well as you once shot:cocktail:


----------



## Man-n-Pink (Nov 7, 2006)

Dado said:


> Almost anyone could head to the beach and make arguably a considerable career in beach volley... but beach volley is in the olympics while compounds are not.


How true.

and they introduced a trampoline into the games why not compounds


----------



## target1 (Jan 16, 2007)

Thanks Rick for a great post.

Oly Arch is an archery niche, just as traditional, bow hunting, flight, bowfishing and even spots. It is all part of the same world, not better just different. An archer picks their niche and focuses on it. We all want to see the USA on top of the world. But as has been said here a few times, it takes someone with the vision, drive, discipline and talent to do it. 

Until we commit ourselves that we are to be the very best, the Koreans and others will continue to lead the way. 

It really is a battle of cultures, eastern vs. western thought. They will do something regardless of the costs. We on the other hand want it to come easy. That is why compounds are so popular, instant results, without the same level of commitment.


----------



## JAVI (Jun 19, 2003)

I don't think the commitment level is any less at the top of the compound world than for an Olympic archer.
Both require a huge commitment of time, money and sacrifice not only by the archer but by their family and friends as well if they are to achieve world class results.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

JAVI said:


> I don't think the commitment level is any less at the top of the compound world than for an Olympic archer.
> Both require a huge commitment of time, money and sacrifice not only by the archer but by their family and friends as well if they are to achieve world class results.


 I would agree with that but I also note that I believe recurves require more actually range time to perfect. The mechanical release and the peep sights allow more people to play at high levels without the same physical gifts. Its like red dot sights on target and "combat pistols". Once those came around, more people could shoot at the master level-not just those with 20/15 vision as was the case with iron sights. I have been teaching olympic recurve (in the shadow of perhaps the greatest finger release archer in history and his coach) for over a decade and some kids and adults-no matter how hard they work and no matter how hard they train, never really learn the back tension and relaxed release that people like Butch and Darrell have. Mentally, the top compound champions have to be just as tough-maybe tougher-since they are shooting in a sport (which is like american skeet) where one miss of the x or the ten or the yellow means they lose. However, that being said I have had several very good national to top archers -including the late great Steve Gibbs-tell me that they went to the compound because they no longer had the time to maintain the physical skills to remain competetitive with the recurve.


----------



## dbracer (May 20, 2005)

JAVI said:


> http://www.nasparchery.com/activea....ID&cboApplicationID=321&cboFileCategoryID=962


Thanks.

I'm familiar with that program. I just hate it when people talk in initials. I can never recognize them for what they are.

dbracer


----------



## JAVI (Jun 19, 2003)

Jim C said:


> I would agree with that but I also note that I believe recurves require more actually range time to perfect. The mechanical release and the peep sights allow more people to play at high levels without the same physical gifts. Its like red dot sights on target and "combat pistols". Once those came around, more people could shoot at the master level-not just those with 20/15 vision as was the case with iron sights. I have been teaching olympic recurve (in the shadow of perhaps the greatest finger release archer in history and his coach) for over a decade and some kids and adults-no matter how hard they work and no matter how hard they train, never really learn the back tension and relaxed release that people like Butch and Darrell have. Mentally, the top compound champions have to be just as tough-maybe tougher-since they are shooting in a sport (which is like american skeet) where one miss of the x or the ten or the yellow means they lose. However, that being said I have had several very good national to top archers -including the late great Steve Gibbs-tell me that they went to the compound because they no longer had the time to maintain the physical skills to remain competetitive with the recurve.


I do believe it is easier to cheat the release with a compound and mechanical release. But the process of learning to shoot a fully relaxed release with back tension requires the same training and practice for either. I will admit that a smooth finger release requires more practice to maintain in any case. I shot fingers for many years and can attest to how quickly the feel is lost... But on the other hand it is easier to shoot a re-curve with a relaxed release than a modern compound of equal draw weight.


----------



## Rick McKinney (Mar 4, 2008)

I think that virtually everyone agrees that getting to the top of any discipline (compound, recurve, long bow, release, fingers, sight, barebow, etc.) requires tremendous dedication, effort, sacrifice (although this particular word is NEVER in a true elite’s vocabulary), drive, determination, heart, etc. But to think that as a beginning “archer” it is just as difficult to shoot groups with a compound as it is with a recurve has not thought it through thoroughly. Just like it would be totally insane to think that a long bow would be just as easy to shoot as a recurve. The learning curve for a long bow is very slow. The recurve learning curve is a bit faster. The compound learning curve is even faster. HOWEVER, once you reach a certain plateau in any of these disciplines it becomes just as hard to achieve a higher level. And one more thought….have you ever heard a compound archer say they will have to start shooting a recurve, because their shoulder, wrist or something else is giving out? I have heard it a lot from the recurve world. They want to continue shooting but the recurve bow is just too difficult to shoot due to the physical demands. Will they shoot the compound better? Hard to say, but at least they get to continue shooting in a sport they love. The compound bow requires fineness and a great mental mind. It doesn’t mean that the physical does not come into play. But I have talked with too many of these shooters who say that the physical demands are not as hard as the recurve archer. Most of us who have shot the recurve for years consider the compound a blessing so we will get to continue shooting when our bodies start failing us. And when the compound is too much for us, there is one more option….guns!


----------



## Grey Eagle (May 23, 2002)

Rick McKinney said:


> I think that virtually everyone agrees that getting to the top of any discipline (compound, recurve, long bow, release, fingers, sight, barebow, etc.) requires tremendous dedication, effort, sacrifice (although this particular word is NEVER in a true elite’s vocabulary), drive, determination, heart, etc. But to think that as a beginning “archer” it is just as difficult to shoot groups with a compound as it is with a recurve has not thought it through thoroughly. Just like it would be totally insane to think that a long bow would be just as easy to shoot as a recurve. The learning curve for a long bow is very slow. The recurve learning curve is a bit faster. The compound learning curve is even faster. HOWEVER, once you reach a certain plateau in any of these disciplines it becomes just as hard to achieve a higher level. And one more thought….have you ever heard a compound archer say they will have to start shooting a recurve, because their shoulder, wrist or something else is giving out? I have heard it a lot from the recurve world. They want to continue shooting but the recurve bow is just too difficult to shoot due to the physical demands. Will they shoot the compound better? Hard to say, but at least they get to continue shooting in a sport they love. The compound bow requires fineness and a great mental mind. It doesn’t mean that the physical does not come into play. But I have talked with too many of these shooters who say that the physical demands are not as hard as the recurve archer. Most of us who have shot the recurve for years consider the compound a blessing so we will get to continue shooting when our bodies start failing us. And when the compound is too much for us, there is one more option….guns!


Rick,

That is about as well put as any of us could. And essentially what I said two pages back, but with a little more tact and expansion  

But I disagree on one point....... before heading to guns, there is the crossbow :wink:

Stay well


----------



## target1 (Jan 16, 2007)

:focus: Let's get back to the question at hand. We will debate the easziness of one or the other forever and only a few of us will ever agree. The question is will or *should* they try another avenue to find gold medalists.




JLorenti said:


> What does everyone think? Will the USAA go out and try to recruit some of the best compounders in the country to try their hand at making a run for the 2012 olympics?
> 
> what does everyone think.....Does it depend on a successful out come of this olympics?.. Will they start trying to recruit more brady ellison's (previous Jr world champion with a compound) from within the archery community to try their hand at recurve olympic archery..
> 
> ...


----------



## target1 (Jan 16, 2007)

I personally think that USAA should not go looking for just anyone that can shoot good. I've seen them come and go. What they ought to do is to promote the heck out of this Olympics in every venue. Take out ads showing oly archers, promote every after school program, every JOAD club, every pro shop they can. Don't recruit, but promote. This will catch the eye of that shooter that catches the olympic torch that burns within. That alone will drive some to the excellence of Olympic competition.


----------



## cc46 (Jan 22, 2005)

very good post everyone...I'll humbly add that if the goal is to recruit individuals that have the best chance at oly excellence then I believe you need to start with a string and a stick...then the desire is key.


----------



## Old Hoyt (Jul 28, 2005)

*Promote & Recruit*

Why not do both? - *Promote & then Recruit from the ranks*. The 2012 Olympics are 4 years away - lots of time to find & train talented shooters. 

Coach Lee has been onboard for what... 2+ years? With 4 full years to 2012, this is the time to promote, then recruit. You have a huge base to draw from, compared to us north of the border. There must be younger compound shooters that have the talent, commitment & drive to put in 4 years of training with a recurve.

I can see where Chuck is coming from - while it might be ideal for Olympic hopefuls to start with a "stick bow", I'm not sure it's practical. In our own club, we still try to start beginners with a recurve, but we also have a few Genesis bows that they can try; and many gravitate directly to the compound. Of those who start with a recurve, probably 95% end up buying a compound & shooting "Foam Bambies", 'cause that's what the other kids are doing - decked out from head to toe in Camo! I'll stop before this becomes a rant. 

Our club & the Province as a whole have a well organized indoor JOP (Junior Olympic Program) that the kids progress through at the club level - again they turn to compound, because its so much easier to get to the next level of badge and they can get a compound at the local shop. Unfortunately while this program is very strong indoors, we have nothing like it outdoors & 3D shoots out number our target events 10 to one. 

So this is why I say that the Olympic style has to be promoted, no matter where we are in North America!


----------



## JAVI (Jun 19, 2003)

target1 said:


> I personally think that USAA should not go looking for just anyone that can shoot good. I've seen them come and go. What they ought to do is to promote the heck out of this Olympics in every venue. Take out ads showing oly archers, promote every after school program, every JOAD club, every pro shop they can. Don't recruit, but promote. This will catch the eye of that shooter that catches the olympic torch that burns within. That alone will drive some to the excellence of Olympic competition.


Exposure is the answer but the product must at least seem to be attractive. Olympic archery in particular and competitive archery in general isn’t a hot topic there is no TV coverage, no household names, no fantasy leagues, Michael Waddell is more widely known than Darrell Pace this is what we have to overcome. 

Youth are where we need to look if we want to expand the base. However, unless you can make the recurve attractive, the kids will go to the compound and mechanical release because as you said it provides almost instant gratification. In today’s world, first, you have to show them success then you get them addicted…

I started archery in 1959 and it was magazine articles in Boy’s Life, and Outdoor Life and film clips in the Saturday matinees about Fred Bear, and Howard Hill plus exposure to archery through the Cub and Boy Scouts that enticed me to try archery. Today we compete with everything from skateboards to soccer for the attention of the youth and the money of the parents, how many archery scholarships are there each year?


----------



## Old Hoyt (Jul 28, 2005)

JAVI,
Great point. I started 10 years after you - 1969, the year Canada had a Ladies' World Target champion, Dorothy Lidstone. That event created quite a stir in the Canadian archery scene. 
I had the pleasure of meeting and shooting with her another 10 years later in the Western Canada Games & most of the shooters there didn't even know she was a World Champion.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> The question is will or should they try another avenue to find gold medalists.


Yes, I think so. 

Start with great athletes, and then teach them to shoot a bow.

Imagine what you could do with a man or woman who has great natural athletic ability, but has never shot a bow. They would not have any bad habits!

I firmly believe that any young person who works hard enough and is smart enough can learn to shoot at the 1250 level eventually. But I believe it takes a gifted athlete - or at least someone with unusually good coordination, balance, eyesight, etc. to become a 1300+ shooter.

I have often wondered where we would be if our best athletes were interested in shooting Olympic recurves instead of slam dunks, homeruns, touchdowns or whatever else...

Oftentimes I see a tall young man or woman that is a great athlete with long arms and think - " I bet they could become a great archer"...

Elite level archers around the world could probably be top athletes at a variety of sports if they so chose. They all have that nice combination of athletic ability and coordination, mental dicipline, work ethic, problem solving skills, stubbornness, optimism, self belief and raw determination. And those that make the Olympic team have all those things - plus an Olympic spirit.

John.


----------



## target1 (Jan 16, 2007)

John,
I think your right on. At our shop we had a young 17 year old that was a natural. He shot for 3 months and went to Vegas and won his division (YAMR). His scores were 272 & 284. He was a natural, placed 2nd I think in Louisville. However, graduation, girls and other sports got the best of him and he has set it aside, even after plucking down the $$$ for a Helix, 900x limbs and X10's. 

He was having fun, he was talented, but he didn't have the dream from within. Which to me is the single most important ingredient to a champion archer.


----------



## mhertwig (Mar 19, 2011)

this is why i switched from compound to recurve, waay more oppourtunities


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

Dado said:


> Almost anyone could head to the beach and make arguably a considerable career in beach volley... but beach volley is in the olympics while compounds are not.


Beach volleyball as a spectator sport is about smoking hot athletic bodies stretching and writhing and leaping around mostly naked (disclosure: I'm not opposed to it). If where you live, "almost anyone" there can make a considerable career in beach volleyball, then I'm moving next door to you, brother!


----------

