# Is it Time to re-design competition 3D targets? I have a Idea!



## cenochs (May 2, 2007)

I had a thought the other day about re-designing competitive 3D target. I had the idea of changing the scoring area of each target used to to have multiple replaceable kill zones that change where the scoring rings are located! Let's say the ASA uses 20 targets for the year and each target at the event had 3 different kill areas with different scoring areas so the ASA would have a combination of 60 different scoring situations. The Archers would not know which scoring area that would be shooting at each target that day! I got the idea from golf because they move the hole location each day so it makes each day different and interesting some easy some hard! Just an idea I would like to pass along


----------



## SonnyThomas (Sep 10, 2006)

In golf they have a flag showing where the hole is. The dual and multiple scoring zones on the Rineharts have proved all but worthless unless set just so-so and McKenzie's Quartering away buck didn't go over well either. Having pictures for the point zone for each target and/or lane would cause more work.


----------



## ABTABB (Apr 4, 2007)

Man, I just figured out where they were on all 24 targets... And Now You want to move them...J/K...lol

Sounds interesting in theory, It would definitely be different...


----------



## 3-D Quest (Jan 26, 2007)

Be careful with this thing man...field 14 is out there...and he's listening!


----------



## WDMJR3DBOWGUY (Dec 2, 2003)

3-D Quest said:


> Be careful with this thing man...field 14 is out there...and he's listening!


 Bahahahahaha......


----------



## psemadman (Jul 7, 2007)

Leave everyting alone. Its hard eough to learn the scoring rings now.


----------



## cenochs (May 2, 2007)

No one else has any thoughts? Another thought I had would be to change the scoring also! It would be 10X - 10 - 8 and zero for a blank. Perfect score would be 400 40x this way there would be no make up points like 11's or 12's. Make the game more interesting! Then would could see if a archer could ever shoot a perfect score!!!


----------



## bow-legged (Nov 26, 2002)

I would like better foam, some new animals, and existing animals in different poses. I don't know about different kill zones I think new lanes diferent angles change it up enough. I like that your thinking of new ideas it makes people think and that leads to changes and change is good!


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

3-D Quest said:


> Be careful with this thing man...field 14 is out there...and he's listening!


3D-quest,
I have to keep you happy, so here goes.....(hahaha)
Yep, and his idea has some merit. It would take away the "I shot 30 "up" on that round, wouldn't it? 

But then again, counting "X's" is more of a "target shooters' thing", so it probably wouldn't float. 

Also, even the fieldman sorta likes the 12 ring type scoring, albeit, I'm sorta "iffy" on the 14-ring..... I think it indeed does put some strategy into the game, which isn't all bad either, ha.

BUT...why not just NOT TELL ANYONE which 20 targets will be out there any given weekend? 
No two tournaments have the same 20 targets during the season, and anything can show up at any given time, on any given range. As long as ALL competitors in THAT tournament shoot the same 20 animals presented at the shoot, it shouldn't matter one iota. In other words, the TOURNAMENT HOST selects WHICH 20 targets will be used on the ranges that weekend and nobody else knows it until they are on the courses. Makes sense with regard to a TRUE TEST for "all" archers, and leveling the playing field a bit for those that cannot afford to purchase their own set of "this year's test" to work on and memorize....hmmmmmm.....

Yeah, I already know...I don't shoot ASA so you figure I have no right to express an opinion...but the constitution of the USA gives me that right, hehe.

Wonder what the situation would be like, however if the shooters never knew WHICH 20 animals have been selected for that tournament? HUH? Talk about stirring the mix up a bit....

I do recall a few 3-D events several years back where people were scoring angled targets completely differently from their intent...as in NOT scoring them as to where the arrow was touching on the outside by the scoring lines...but scoring them based upon where the END OF THE ARROW was deep within the foam! So, we had guys/gals that really shot a "5"....scoring the hit as a 10 or 12 because..."the tip of my arrow is right behind that ring, so I'm taking THAT score." The group of tournament hosts quickly got together and totally eliminated ANY "angled" shots and everything was put straight on to preclude this sort of "mis-scoring" (meaning CHEATING) that was going on.


----------



## D.Short (Aug 5, 2010)

I know I will get crucified for this but,why not multi-colored vitals instead of rings;get back to what 3d was intended for in the 1st place.
Score you cards of a point system based on this,just a thought.


----------



## cenochs (May 2, 2007)

Shopping for tile, get back to yeah in a few field14!!!


----------



## reylamb (Feb 5, 2003)

field14 said:


> 3D-quest,
> I have to keep you happy, so here goes.....(hahaha)
> Yep, and his idea has some merit. It would take away the "I shot 30 "up" on that round, wouldn't it?
> 
> ...


Scoring based upon where the tip was in the foam?????? Crazy.....


----------



## dw'struth (Mar 14, 2008)

reylamb said:


> Scoring based upon where the tip was in the foam?????? Crazy.....


Really! That's as bad as saying, "give me a 10, it would have killed it." haha


----------



## mdarton (Jan 11, 2008)

Wanna shoot spots, do it on paper. Wanna hunt, dont do it in a bowling shirt.


----------



## cenochs (May 2, 2007)

One part I disagree with you on field is with using the same targets for each tournament and letting the shooters know before hand. 
And this is why - As we speak 3D archery target usage from club to club from ASA to IBO is a mess. There needs to be uniformity on the national level for ASA and IBO. Then local clubs could follow and start making 3D archery more uniform. I would compare this to golf. When you go play golf any place in the US you know before hand there will be par 3-4 and 5's. If golf was regulated like 3D you would have courses with par 2's and par 10's. We need conformity starting with local clubs working up to the national level. It won't make it any easier if you know what targets you where going to shoot ahead of time if that was the case then why don't more people ace field and the spots the targets never change? If the ASA would start sponsoring local clubs with ASA used targets then slowly more clubs would follow and one day when you went to a club to shoot you would know the targets that where going to be used not rock animals turkeys and out of date targets! You could still use other targets if you like on another course and set it up as a hunter challenge course.


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

cenochs said:


> One part I disagree with you on field is with using the same targets for each tournament and letting the shooters know before hand.
> And this is why - As we speak 3D archery target usage from club to club from ASA to IBO is a mess. There needs to be uniformity on the national level for ASA and IBO. Then local clubs could follow and start making 3D archery more uniform. I would compare this to golf. When you go play golf any place in the US you know before hand there will be par 3-4 and 5's. If golf was regulated like 3D you would have courses with par 2's and par 10's. We need conformity starting with local clubs working up to the national level. It won't make it any easier if you know what targets you where going to shoot ahead of time if that was the case then why don't more people ace field and the spots the targets never change? If the ASA would start sponsoring local clubs with ASA used targets then slowly more clubs would follow and one day when you went to a club to shoot you would know the targets that where going to be used not rock animals turkeys and out of date targets! You could still use other targets if you like on another course and set it up as a hunter challenge course.


I see what you are driving at with regard to the targets and can agree to a certain point...>HOWEVER....in today's game, those with loads of MONEY or with FRIENDS that have loads of money, purchase the "test" (those 20 targets) and study it to the nth degree (memorize the test); thus giving them an inherent advantage over those that don't have this opportunity. A case where "money talks", in many instances. NOT KNOWING takes away that advantage and adds spice and variety to the tournaments; the element of surprise and "gee, will I have to shoot that "frickin' leopard this week or not?" "Golly, I sure hope I get to shoot that elk out there a ways, I do good on him." Or, "Oh, crap, I haven't shot that "XXXX" for so long, I can't remember for sure exactly where the 12 is on him."

My opinion is that "uniformity" isn't really needed with regard to 3-D each year, which, when the ASA goes from one year to the next, they CHANGE which 20 are going to be used, forcing those clubs to either change to THOSE 20 or be "un-uniform". I think that with the shooters not having any idea of which targets will be used for each tournament, it pretty much completely levels the playing field and opens up the concept of VARIETY completely. Afterall, the 3-D concept "originally" was based upon HUNTING practice, wasn't it? Do you know for sure what is coming up next in a HUNTING environment? Sure, 3-D is far away from its original intent, but having the "test" out ahead of time and a distinct advantage being gained by those with the MONEY and/or friends that have copies of the "Test" is giving undue advantage to those few, and a disadvantage to those that don't.

However, your points, from your point of view are well-taken too. I don't see however, the ASA "sponsoring" local clubs, since nearly all clubs are "non-profit" and the ASA is a "for-profit" organization, and conflicts of interest/ownership would be compromised...and the tendency to FORCE clubs to be all ASA and not have NFAA or IBO or NAA could become rampant; not good for archery, IMHO.

In addition, in golf, yes, you see so many par 3's, 4's, and 5's...BUT....the distances vary vastly, the terrain and course layouts vary drastically, and even the PIN POSITION (location of the 12-ring) varies from day to day, correct me if I'm wrong on this? So, could the animals have different INSERTS and the 12-ring positioning CHANGE between days 1 & 2 for ALL ASA National events? That's a concept that could work...SAME animals...but DIFFERENT inserts with different 12-ring positions each day for each animal...HMMMMM....

NO TWO field courses are the same either. Sure, the "standard distances" and "standard sizing" of the targets is identical, but the terrain and lighting conditions, among other things varies drastically from range to range. The other HUGE difference is that field shooting requires you to shoot FOUR shots per target and all 28 targets for the day in 5-6 hours (people complain like crazy if it is over 6 hours for 112 shots in ONE day).

The reason the field shooters aren't "acing" those targets is because about the ONLY thing that doesn't change is the size of the target/max scoring rings....from there on, it is anyone's EQUAL chance to practice the distances and faces...but...it is OUTDOORS, so all the other variables (INCLUDING SHOOTING IN THE WIND, without ANY help of a "blocker"), so footing, lighting, weather, "cuts", sidehills, etc all factor in, just like golf. More and more are getting closer to "acing" the field rounds these days, with scores above 550 becoming quite common, even in the bowhunter freestyle division.


----------



## cenochs (May 2, 2007)

In addition, in golf, yes, you see so many par 3's, 4's, and 5's...BUT....the distances vary vastly, the terrain and course layouts vary drastically, and even the PIN POSITION (location of the 12-ring) varies from day to day, correct me if I'm wrong on this? So, could the animals have different INSERTS and the 12-ring positioning CHANGE between days 1 & 2 for ALL ASA National events? That's a concept that could work...SAME animals...but DIFFERENT inserts with different 12-ring positions each day for each animal...HMMMMM....

Now we are on the same page field! Same targets just the position of the 12 ring change! Now we have a better game! The element of surprise would be not knowing where the 12 ring is and what shape and size the 10 ring is going to be that day! I shoot the known classes so I don't care to study targets for yaradage estimation practice I have binoculars to find the 12 ring and then I try to make the shot!


----------



## Hoosier bowman (Jan 10, 2010)

My theory is that your theory is nice, but they need to actually make the rings accurate with the animal's vitals. I have noticed pretty much all the 12 rings are on the shoulder and high. They need to put them right in the "pocket rocket" zone where the heart really is. Just my $0.02


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

Hoosier bowman said:


> My theory is that your theory is nice, but they need to actually make the rings accurate with the animal's vitals. I have noticed pretty much all the 12 rings are on the shoulder and high. They need to put them right in the "pocket rocket" zone where the heart really is. Just my $0.02


Very astute of you Hoosier bowman...ANATOMICALLY correct positioning of the 12 ring/kills would really separate the men from the boys...instead of having them incorrect. The idea originally was hunting practice, and that should include correctly positioned areas for maximum scoring on any given target. Make a "real" killing shot, or pay the price, ha.

cenochs,
Yep....perhaps just changing inserts between days 1 and 2 would suffice. Like you say, EVERYONE has binoculars to find that 12-ring...and perhaps the SIZE of the 12 ring could be SMALLER the 2nd day as opposed to the first day? ADDING more to the element of ACCURATE range "estimation" AND making an even more perfect shot. Similar to a "smaller landing zone" on the greens in golf with pin positioning closer to the edges....????

field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## Daniel Boone (May 31, 2002)

Bottomline guys ASA doing alot of thing right and growing each year. Not a darn thing wrong with semi pro class and guys if someone needs to move back down after giving the pro class a shot and cant afford the high entrys it good for archery and keeps someone shooting.

Lets dont force folks out because of high entry fees.

ASA knows what it doing! It why there surving and doing well in a tough economy.
DB


----------



## cenochs (May 2, 2007)

field14 said:


> Very astute of you Hoosier bowman...ANATOMICALLY correct positioning of the 12 ring/kills would really separate the men from the boys...instead of having them incorrect. The idea originally was hunting practice, and that should include correctly positioned areas for maximum scoring on any given target. Make a "real" killing shot, or pay the price, ha.
> 
> cenochs,
> Yep....perhaps just changing inserts between days 1 and 2 would suffice. Like you say, EVERYONE has binoculars to find that 12-ring...and perhaps the SIZE of the 12 ring could be SMALLER the 2nd day as opposed to the first day? ADDING more to the element of ACCURATE range "estimation" AND making an even more perfect shot. Similar to a "smaller landing zone" on the greens in golf with pin positioning closer to the edges....????
> ...


You could not have said it any better I like it!! It would make the game so much more interesting!! Like your ideas!


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

Daniel Boone said:


> Bottomline guys ASA doing alot of thing right and growing each year. Not a darn thing wrong with semi pro class and guys if someone needs to move back down after giving the pro class a shot and cant afford the high entrys it good for archery and keeps someone shooting.
> 
> Lets dont force folks out because of high entry fees.
> 
> ...


One thing you cannot knock ASA for...and that is going out on a limb and trying something NEW, INNOVATIVE, and DIFFERENT....Practically everyone was totally against the Known Yardage and said it would "never work".... However, ASA took the bull by the horns and did it anyways...and now look at what we have?

The problem with *amateurs *shooting for money is that in order for them to have "decent" money...those ENTRY FEES HAVE GOT TO GO UP! There are administrative costs to run the tournament, and those are covered by the registration fees. Thus, to allow for a money pot (even if the only source is shooter registration for that division), the admin fees have to be covered PLUS some more money coming (from INCREASED registration fees above and beyond the admin fees) in in order to cover the "Amateur (an oxymoron) Money pot. You said it...FEES GO UP...shooter participation goes down.

The same goes with the semi-pro. IF NONE of the "sponsorships money from manuf/vendors" goes to the Semi-Pro purse, then their registration fees, should they want a bigger pot..have got to come from INCREASED registration fees. They use the ranges, targets, scorecards, flyer prep, advertising, and all associated administrative fees just like everyone else...so they should NOT (and neither should the pros) get a "reduced rate" on admin fees so that their "purse" is bigger. It isn't right or fair to those REAL amateurs not shooting for money!

Therein lies the quagmire when amateurs start wanting MONEY purses....Where does it come from...and how much do the reg fees get raised to get a "decent purse" to satisfy those that want to be paid for coming? WHen/how does this vicious circle for MONEY EVERYWHERE stop?


----------



## cenochs (May 2, 2007)

Daniel Boone said:


> Bottomline guys ASA doing alot of thing right and growing each year. Not a darn thing wrong with semi pro class and guys if someone needs to move back down after giving the pro class a shot and cant afford the high entrys it good for archery and keeps someone shooting.
> 
> Lets dont force folks out because of high entry fees.
> 
> ...


DB I think you posted to the wrong thread?  I think you where looking for the semi pro thread!


----------



## Daniel Boone (May 31, 2002)

cenochs said:


> DB I think you posted to the wrong thread?  I think you where looking for the semi pro thread!


Your right.
DB


----------



## TAYLOR CO. (Jun 9, 2005)

Daniel Boone said:


> Your right.
> DB


HAHAHA..I hear you! I was kind of getting tripped up myself there..these mis-directed threads are killing me here..But I liked your post above DB and agree.


----------



## TAYLOR CO. (Jun 9, 2005)

field14 said:


> One thing you cannot knock ASA for...and that is going out on a limb and trying something NEW, INNOVATIVE, and DIFFERENT....Practically everyone was totally against the Known Yardage and said it would "never work".... However, ASA took the bull by the horns and did it anyways...and now look at what we have?
> 
> The problem with *amateurs *shooting for money is that in order for them to have "decent" money...those ENTRY FEES HAVE GOT TO GO UP! There are administrative costs to run the tournament, and those are covered by the registration fees. Thus, to allow for a money pot (even if the only source is shooter registration for that division), the admin fees have to be covered PLUS some more money coming (from INCREASED registration fees above and beyond the admin fees) in in order to cover the "Amateur (an oxymoron) Money pot. You said it...FEES GO UP...shooter participation goes down.
> 
> ...


Please start a thread on this "Money thing" that you are so wrapped up in...I like the way ASA has things, and it is affordable. As far as scoring where the point ends up..I am w/reylamb that's Crazy!!


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

TAYLOR CO. said:


> Please start a thread on this "Money thing" that you are so wrapped up in...I like the way ASA has things, and it is affordable. *As far as scoring where the point ends up..I am w/reylamb that's Crazy!*!


I couldn't agree with you more...BUT...it WAS BEING DONE, and by more than just one or two groups too! We really did have to completely eliminate any type of quartering shots...and even tilt the animals "straight on" for downhills and uphills in an effort to try to eliminate this type of CHEATING! Then, they started "pulling the lines" by 1/4" or more, too!

Sad state of affairs, but SOME people will stoop to anything to win a trinket or get some "showing off" to their local neighbors.


----------



## Hoosier bowman (Jan 10, 2010)

field14 said:


> Very astute of you Hoosier bowman...ANATOMICALLY correct positioning of the 12 ring/kills would really separate the men from the boys...instead of having them incorrect. The idea originally was hunting practice, and that should include correctly positioned areas for maximum scoring on any given target. Make a "real" killing shot, or pay the price, ha.
> 
> cenochs,
> Yep....perhaps just changing inserts between days 1 and 2 would suffice. Like you say, EVERYONE has binoculars to find that 12-ring...and perhaps the SIZE of the 12 ring could be SMALLER the 2nd day as opposed to the first day? ADDING more to the element of ACCURATE range "estimation" AND making an even more perfect shot. Similar to a "smaller landing zone" on the greens in golf with pin positioning closer to the edges....????
> ...


Thank you. That's pretty much exactly what I meant!!!


----------



## bustn'nocks (May 11, 2010)

Golf move the holes and 3-d moves the stakes. Not a terrible idea but I think it would over-complicate things.


----------



## BigEv13 (Oct 13, 2010)

My take on all of this is maybe the first thing that should be done is get rid of binos. I am going to be truthful with the fact that i occassionally do use binos on the 3d course, normally for the first couple of the season and thats it. How many guys do you think would get x's with not being able to pin point where the ring is before there shot? Not to mention if the first shooter in the group nails it in the 12 ring and the next shoother can glass the target they know exactly where to aim. I really think making everyone shoot bino less would make things very interesting.


----------



## 3-D Quest (Jan 26, 2007)

Field,
Yes, you are entitled to your opinion, and I was just having a little fun with ya'...tryin' to see if I could get you to bite! I must say though, that some of your post are just too long and redundant to read. But, by all means continue to exercise your God given liberties and post away! All I can say to those that don't like it, you have the power of the mouse, ignore him if it truly bothers you that bad.


----------



## cenochs (May 2, 2007)

bustn'nocks said:


> Golf move the holes and 3-d moves the stakes. Not a terrible idea but I think it would over-complicate things.


Remember golf also moves the stakes it's called the Tee Box! And they move the hole!! How would it over complicate?


----------



## Hoosier bowman (Jan 10, 2010)

BigEv13 said:


> My take on all of this is maybe the first thing that should be done is get rid of binos. I am going to be truthful with the fact that i occassionally do use binos on the 3d course, normally for the first couple of the season and thats it. How many guys do you think would get x's with not being able to pin point where the ring is before there shot? Not to mention if the first shooter in the group nails it in the 12 ring and the next shoother can glass the target they know exactly where to aim. I really think making everyone shoot bino less would make things very interesting.


Which is exactly why they need to put the score rings relative to the heart/lungs of the animal. If they did this, the people who actually know the anatomy of an animal would do very well. Bino's would never be needed even for a 12 ring!!!!


----------



## D.Short (Aug 5, 2010)

Hoosier,you hit the nail on the head and are absolutely in line with what 3d SHOULD be all about,but apparently hunters have no voice,only the actual sponsored shooters and 3d wasn't even designed for them in the 1st place;they have corrupted it over time if you ask me. 3d can be just as competitive as ever using actual vitals as scores,get rid of bino use and just use whatever you want to put on your bow and limit shot time to 30 seconds.I love 3d and will play by whatever the rules are but,I would like it to get more hunting oriented and less bullseye,spot,or ring oriented.My opinions don't matter;I know that but,I can still voice them anyway and if only a few agree then I sparked at least a shredd of hope for the pureness of 3d's original intent.


----------



## BigEv13 (Oct 13, 2010)

I agree that the rings are not where the "perfect" kill shot actually is but! good bowhunters know proper shot placement, on a living animal its in the heart on a 3d its where that scoring ring is. I just hate that guys have shot 3d all season long, beginning in jan and ending in sept not to mention shooting multiple shoots per month and they still need binos to know where the ring is? Its not like the scoring rings are in the guts, all of them are great kill shots. I see both sides of the argument here but one thing i would like to add would be how do you determin a proper kill shots on targets like, jackalope, cobra. I don't know about you but i would not want 30 deer or normal game targets out there just so its heart shots. If you actually look at the shot scenario sometimes on a 3d course you would just wait for that animal to take another step and get in a bigger clearing where a shot would be easier. Lastly what about the unethical shots that are set up out there. The bear standing on hits hind legs facing away? To me that is a bad shot to take but that is just me.


----------



## 3D Pinwheeler (Jan 29, 2007)

I think even taking bino's out of play wouldn't change much...the guys winning before would still win. The reason guys use them like myself is even when it appears you have a perfect broadside shot the kill or scoring area is actually not where it appears to be. A muddy soft course guys pulling arrows pushing on targets pretty soon your 10 ring is alot higher or lower depending on target lean. Sometimes it appears the target is square to you but it can be turned just enough to move the scoring rings forward or backward on a apparent broadside shot. 

I think you'll get guys scoring their arrows by the "it would of killed it" scoring system. 3D is a target event just like all other shooting events. Mho.


----------



## bustn'nocks (May 11, 2010)

field14 said:


> BUT...why not just NOT TELL ANYONE which 20 targets will be out there any given weekend?
> No two tournaments have the same 20 targets during the season, and anything can show up at any given time, on any given range. As long as ALL competitors in THAT tournament shoot the same 20 animals presented at the shoot, it shouldn't matter one iota. In other words, the TOURNAMENT HOST selects WHICH 20 targets will be used on the ranges that weekend and nobody else knows it until they are on the courses. Makes sense with regard to a TRUE TEST for "all" archers, and leveling the playing field a bit for those that cannot afford to purchase their own set of "this year's test" to work on and memorize....hmmmmmm.....


I thought most places would do that anyway. Our club sets the range the afternoon before a shoot and then closes the course. The only one who knows what targets are set is the range officer. Makes it a ton of fun. Especially when they decide to set out the bobcat, beaver, turkeys and racoon. A lot of shooters don't like it because they don't know what to expect. One of the reasons we have a lot of low scores at our shoots.


----------



## bustn'nocks (May 11, 2010)

cenochs said:


> Remember golf also moves the stakes it's called the Tee Box! And they move the hole!! How would it over complicate?


Tee box=stakes. Hole=target (bear, ****, deer etc.) They all change. As far as the scoring system, I just think changing the scoring system would complicate things. People get set in thier ways and don't take well to change. Keeping with the golf theme, the stableford system came in and makes a lot of sense. It still has not changed the mindset of the masses because they know what they know and don't want change. Plus the stableford(not sure on the spelling) system is a bit more complicated to score.


----------



## cenochs (May 2, 2007)

D.Short said:


> Hoosier,you hit the nail on the head and are absolutely in line with what 3d SHOULD be all about,but apparently hunters have no voice,only the actual sponsored shooters and 3d wasn't even designed for them in the 1st place;they have corrupted it over time if you ask me. 3d can be just as competitive as ever using actual vitals as scores,get rid of bino use and just use whatever you want to put on your bow and limit shot time to 30 seconds.I love 3d and will play by whatever the rules are but,I would like it to get more hunting oriented and less bullseye,spot,or ring oriented.My opinions don't matter;I know that but,I can still voice them anyway and if only a few agree then I sparked at least a shredd of hope for the pureness of 3d's original intent.


Have you ever checked into the deerman 3D I think that is what's it's called it is a truely hunter driven 3D challenge the scoring is totally different and if it is not a kill shot I think you get minus points. I may be wrong but it also sounds fun!


----------



## cenochs (May 2, 2007)

bustn'nocks said:


> Tee box=stakes. Hole=target (bear, ****, deer etc.) They all change. As far as the scoring system, I just think changing the scoring system would complicate things. People get set in thier ways and don't take well to change. Keeping with the golf theme, the stableford system came in and makes a lot of sense. It still has not changed the mindset of the masses because they know what they know and don't want change. Plus the stableford(not sure on the spelling) system is a bit more complicated to score.


Your exactly right people don't want to change or try something different especially in 3D. I am just racking my brain trying to come up with new ideas for a great sport that needs more attention. I think more of the younger generation would be interested in the type of targets I have proposed it would be more challenging.


----------



## milkman38 (Mar 5, 2007)

on where the arrow tip ends up in the target. i'm going to use that line on my buddys next time i shoot see if i can get away with it. thats awesome


----------



## SonnyThomas (Sep 10, 2006)

Well, no matter what changing the location of the rings ain't gonna happen. First, not all targets have inserts. So this means two new molds would have to be made, one for inserts and one for the standard target section. You're talking money here. And then acceptance across the 3D world. And even if accepted clubs aren't going to junk good targets - so time frame to work in the newer target. The only thing I disagree with organizations is the setting of targets. It's alright to have a quartering away shot, but it's not alright to have a quartering to shot. Always mentioned is glance offs. Sorry, I don't buy it. I suppose if you have those rounded field points this could happen, but manufacturers and archers are pretty quick to go the field point that assures penetration. And I have seen these big rounded field points bounce out of straight on targets (saw this at Metro this past summer). I do not agree of bounce outs being scored. I think they should be shot over. And then on the national circuit it seems events are held on fairly flat or rolling ground and rarely, if at all, a severe uphill or down hill shot. I can't remember the use of platform stands for that treestand type shot.


----------



## cookiemonster (Dec 4, 2006)

Leave the rings alone as for rinehart with all those rings need to remove them because at local shoots the newbies get confused. people say take the 12 or 11 out they are in because shoots had been cleaned all 10's. people say remove bino it was done and made no differance. it makes no differance what you do the best shooter will always be the best and the only thing that is done running off someone that just started shooting.


----------



## New River (Oct 29, 2007)

Actually I shot with a guy last week who said flat out he used his binos to judge distance. Even told me how he did it. Your idea of eliminating binos might not be a bad one but I bet it would never fly. Since the tail wags the dog in our sport or hobby the manufactors would pitch a fit over such an idea, especially on the national level. Different ain't wrong it's just different.


----------



## red1691 (Jun 8, 2007)

cookiemonster said:


> Leave the rings alone as for rinehart with all those rings need to remove them because at local shoots the newbies get confused. people say take the *12 or 11 out they are in because shoots had been cleaned all 10's.* people say remove bino it was done and made no differance. it makes no differance what you do the best shooter will always be the best and the only thing that is done running off someone that just started shooting.


That's not why the 12 ring was put in the 10 ring!


----------



## mag41vance (Mar 13, 2008)

SonnyThomas said:


> In golf they have a flag showing where the hole is. The dual and multiple scoring zones on the Rineharts have proved all but worthless unless set just so-so and McKenzie's Quartering away buck didn't go over well either. Having pictures for the point zone for each target and/or lane would cause more work.


 I wouldn't say worthless. Last year shooting a tournament My group came up on a well worn Rinehart turkey which was set at 23 yds. Through the binos, the normal scoring area was indistinguishable. Our group agreed as a whole to shoot at the practically untouched rearward scoring rings. There was1 time it was good anyway. :becky:


----------

