# New (x=6) scoring for Pros - love or hate poll



## fanio (Feb 1, 2011)

I think the x=6 scoring for the pros make the round less exciting (and of course now there is no direct way to really compare my your own score to the pros' scores). If you need tie-breaks, count back Xs. Doing this is like making the little X count 11 at Vegas - would you support that?


----------



## Archery Power (Feb 4, 2005)

*X Ring = 6 for the Pro's*



fanio said:


> I think the x=6 scoring for the pros make the round less exciting (and of course now there is no direct way to really compare my your own score to the pros' scores). If you need tie-breaks, count back Xs. Doing this is like making the little X count 11 at Vegas - would you support that?


This has to be the worst mistake that the NFAA has made since 1977.........I think it will kill the Pro Division......Look at the diference in the scores at the Nationals.......Change it back before it is to late.


----------



## gcab (Mar 24, 2010)

I'd like to see it changed back. Not like there are multiple pros shooting perfect 560s all the time(yes there are a couple but not many). I'd prefer to leave it and do shoot offs. More exciting. But why can joes compare scores? Just add your x count to your score and then stack it against the pros. It would be just some quick addition.


----------



## FS560 (May 22, 2002)

The most misguided move ever, worse than the target change in 1977 because that at least changed things for everyone, not just one minority group.


----------



## Kstigall (Feb 24, 2004)

I was looking at the scores and scratching my head. I like to see how the best FreeStyle and BHFS guys did in relation to the Pro's. I am in no way a field archer but from the outside looking in it does not make much sense to have two different ways of scoring.


----------



## ThunderEagle (May 11, 2011)

Kstigall said:


> I was looking at the scores and scratching my head. I like to see how the best FreeStyle and BHFS guys did in relation to the Pro's. I am in no way a field archer but from the outside looking in it does not make much sense to have two different ways of scoring.


Well, it was supposed to be presented as 5 +1, so say a "normal" 550 score with lets say 50x's should be 550 +50 for a total of 600. I don't think anyone, including the NFAA mother ship bothered to do that. Makes me think they will just change it all next year to be consistent, be damned if it was needed or not.


----------



## rogersaddler (Feb 4, 2009)

I guess we should ask those who are pros what do you think about the new scoring system


----------



## Kstigall (Feb 24, 2004)

rogersaddler said:


> I guess we should ask those who are pros what do you think about the new scoring system


Sure but I'm fairly certain pro's can choose to participate in the poll or to type there feelings about it. 

It is the members that make the NFAA. Anything the NFAA does can be discussed amongst it's paying members. Heck, fans whine about the NFL or NASCAR all the time. I can't see how the NFAA should think even for a moment that it's members (paying fans) shouldn't discuss any NFAA archery topic. In fact it is a GOOD thing people (fans and/or members) are talking about the new scoring system. At least people (fans and/or members) are talking about the NFAA Pro game. It's not the like the NFAA Pro game has an overwhelming fan base!!!!!


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

ThunderEagle said:


> Well, it was supposed to be presented as 5 +1, so say a "normal" 550 score with lets say 50x's should be 550 +50 for a total of 600. I don't think anyone, including the NFAA mother ship bothered to do that. Makes me think they will just change it all next year to be consistent, be damned if it was needed or not.


Well the breakdowns are there...but you can't get them by looking at the final results from July 28!


Here is the break down for the Field scores on the 26th with normal 560 scoring and the x-count with total field score:
http://www.nfaa-archery.org/depot/u...013726-Outdoor Friday scores - ProResults.pdf

Here is the breakdown on the 27th that shows the "normal 560 scores" and then the X-count and total with X-count:
http://www.nfaa-archery.org/depot/u...013727-Outdoor Saturday Pro ScoresResults.pdf

The NFAA person doing the report for the final tally, however did NOT show those breakdowns by round when posting the FINAL results:
Therein, causing the confusion for those not following the tournament day by day, round by round.
http://www.nfaa-archery.org/depot/uploadedResults/1438-2013728-Outdoor Pros Final ScoreResults.pdf

My opinion only, but those final results should be showing the 560 score breakdowns for each round and then the x-counts so people can go to ONE source to see and not have to go to three spots to figure it out. But who am I? Just a no account devoted NFAA member that gets exasperated every now and again and isn't afraid to voice an opinion and get blasted for it.


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

FS560 said:


> The most misguided move ever, worse than the target change in 1977 because that at least changed things for everyone, not just one minority group.


Hold onto your horses, Jim...wouldn't surprise me one bit to have the "new" Pro scoring system implemented across the board. The 1977 fiasco was an "experimental scoring system" for the PROS on Friday at the National Outdoor. Come February, ALL the scoring and the target was changed to keep it ONE AND THE SAME FOR EVERYONE!

Same procedure, different generation of Pro shooter is all. Round is TOO EASY...so make it tough on the PROS and impossible for everyone else.

It was akin to Hari-Karie in 1977...and come 2013, the Dagger has been sharpened and prepared again.

Stopped an 8 in a row for a Men's Pro Freestyle, but in effect the Men's Pro title was decided on day 1 and a formality on day 2...and 1st place was basically akin to a slaughter. Another huge gap between 2nd and 3rd too. I don't think this was expected or anticipated.


----------



## wolf44 (Mar 31, 2009)

I think its crazy that Kendall misses two dots on the whole round and was behind someone who missed six dots on day one. To me the challenge of a field round is to hit all the dots, not hit most of them and get a bunch of x's. Just using day one as an example, even though Kendall only missed two dots, he got "punished" because more weren't closer to the middle. Its not like there are that many shooting 560's. 

I think they should use x's as a tie breaker and not count them as points

Just looking at standard scoring after the first two days here's how it would have broken down
Ben E 1116
Braden 1116
Bass 1116
Woody 1116
Jesse 1115

Looks a lot more exciting that way IMO. I am happy it went to a 3 day format


----------



## Bob_Looney (Nov 17, 2003)

The reality is, the guy who put more in the middle won the shoot. There's now a 6 ring.


----------



## mag41vance (Mar 13, 2008)

Bob_Looney said:


> The reality is, the guy who put more in the middle (pros only, why?) won the shoot. There's now a 6 ring.


BUT, only for the pros. Why should their scoring be different?? :noidea:


----------



## fanio (Feb 1, 2011)

field14 said:


> Stopped an 8 in a row for a Men's Pro Freestyle, but in effect the Men's Pro title was decided on day 1 and a formality on day 2...


Actually, Jesse's 556 on day 1 stopped the 8 in a row: even with "proper" scoring Jesse would still not have won. I've actually crunched the proper numbers and the only change in the top 5 for PMFS would have been Jesse and Braden swapping places (so Jesse 2nd and Braden 3rd).

It seems, at first, "bad" that someone shooting a 555 80x beats someone shooting a 560 70x. I guess it makes more sense if one accepts, now, that in fact a 5 is a "miss".

This is how it is in FITA field, and scoring in that round - where the "5" is generally slightly larger than the NFAA "5" - went from max 360 to max 432 when they went to scoring x as 6. It has hurt shooter numbers and the enjoyment of the round for the "Joes".


----------



## fanio (Feb 1, 2011)

mag41vance said:


> but, only for the pros. Why should their scoring be different?? :noidea:


exactly!!


----------



## brtesite (May 24, 2002)

I think that the change was a knee jerk reaction just like society does in life. We went thru this once before. 
I think the directors were sold a bill of goods. I can't believe every pro had an input . I'm sure some did. probably the most vocal. 
I can tell you what the ambient was at the meeting . It was ( it is only for the pros, if they want it , let them have it.) Been there done that.( Why should a FS tell what the BB guys should do) Same thing.
What was missing, is that the pro division should have no more weight than any other division of the NFAA. Don't misunderstand me, I do admire the skills that some of these guys have. We all know why the change. It was to try to level the playing field to catch one great shooter. In the past, the pros shot the expert round while the Joe's shot the animals. iT made extra work for the host needing an extra range. It got changed that every one was on the same page. The addition of the dot was a good thing, but every one benefited.
I have a hunch that it may have backfired on some of the ones who are only behind by a couple of points not realizing that not all of their fives were in the X.
There should never be a difference between the divisions for treatment or importance. only difference is the divisions they shoot in.


----------



## brtesite (May 24, 2002)

mag41vance said:


> BUT, only for the pros. Why should their scoring be different?? :noidea:


ASk your director how he voted


----------



## brtesite (May 24, 2002)

FS560 said:


> The most misguided move ever, worse than the target change in 1977 because that at least changed things for everyone, not just one minority group.


yep


----------



## FS560 (May 22, 2002)

My opinion also is that the directors were sold a bill of goods about that poll of pros. I cannot believe that that many pros actually thought that the six ring would give them a chance to win or even appear to be closer to the top. Actually, I don't believe it, but do believe it was a con job.

The pros tried at several directors meetings to push this through and were unsuccessful every time except for this last time, when the poll was mentioned. I have no idea if poll results were provided because I was not there.

At the 2012 directors meeting, they even tried an agenda item to remove all pro legislation from the directors and allow the cabinet to decide anything and everything relative to the pro division.


----------



## SteveID (May 6, 2008)

Honest question here:

How does it affect those who are not in the pro class?


----------



## mag41vance (Mar 13, 2008)

SteveID said:


> Honest question here:
> 
> How does it affect those who are not in the pro class?


It only makes it difficult to compare how the average Joe is shooting with the pros. Remember this, the Pro's have most of the talent, but not the money that keeps the NFAA alive.

I say keep the Scoring at 5 for a dot or an x, and just let the x be for bragging or tie breaking. No CPA's required.


----------



## jmann28 (Nov 22, 2010)

Personally, I'm a fan of any target venue (indoors or out) that rewards an x. Who's clearly the better archer here...a 299 59x or a 300 40x? Nobody would disagree the 59x shooter is better. If you can go out and shoot more accurately than someone else, you should be rewarded for it. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2


----------



## ThunderEagle (May 11, 2011)

jmann28 said:


> Personally, I'm a fan of any target venue (indoors or out) that rewards an x. Who's clearly the better archer here...a 299 59x or a 300 40x? Nobody would disagree the 59x shooter is better. If you can go out and shoot more accurately than someone else, you should be rewarded for it.


I disagree.


----------



## brtesite (May 24, 2002)

jmann28 said:


> Personally, I'm a fan of any target venue (indoors or out) that rewards an x. Who's clearly the better archer here...a 299 59x or a 300 40x? Nobody would disagree the 59x shooter is better. If you can go out and shoot more accurately than someone else, you should be rewarded for it.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2


this has been bantered forever. 
The better archer was the 300 40 x's. that day He didn't choke ,The name of the game is 300 not 299.


----------



## Bob_Looney (Nov 17, 2003)

brtesite said:


> this has been bantered forever.
> The better archer was the 300 40 x's. that day He didn't choke ,The name of the game is 300 not 299.


 You can argue semantics, 5+1 or a straight 6 for the center, but the results and score are the same. The target now scores 6,5,4,3 for the Pro Division.
Shoot more 6's and you win.


----------



## gcab (Mar 24, 2010)

the better archer is the one that doesn't miss the highest scoring ring for points. so if the game is like the NFAA indoor, then the better shooter is 300 and 0 xs and not 299 with 59 xs. 300 is always better than 299. Now if it is 6 points for the x, well then the best shooter will always be the one closest to 360. So if someone shoots 59 of the "6" rings and then a 0, they would lose to the one that shot 58 of the x rings and a 4.

And why is it so hard to compare scores? Does paying for the pro membership automatically give a calculator to add score and xs together to compare to pros? why is that so hard to do exactly? 

With that said, I wish they left it alone personally.


----------



## wolf44 (Mar 31, 2009)

brtesite said:


> this has been bantered forever.
> The better archer was the 300 40 x's. that day He didn't choke ,The name of the game is 300 not 299.


Agreed, 560 used to be the name of the field game, now its 672.
Gonna be hard to do when if you're shooting anything than a nano sized arrow, 4 arrows barely fit inside the x ring on some targets, and now glance outs hurts when you glance out of the x! Someone said it was over after jesse shot his 556 on day one if it was standard scoring....actually he brought it back within one after day two. You're adding up scores after the fact with shooters who were shooting with a different mindset. You think being ahead of Jesse by one point(this is if standard scoring was used) won't be causing some panic? Only being ahead by one as opposed to 28 with the animal round left(comparing Jesse to Ben again), and if was standard scoring four people would have been tied at the top? Thats exciting! Ben had a 16 point lead going into the last day....he could have missed 13 dots and still won if Braden cleaned it, thats not exciting.


----------



## Brown Hornet (Aug 8, 2002)

SteveID said:


> Honest question here:
> 
> How does it affect those who are not in the pro class?


It doesn't...the PROS voted and this is what they wanted. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Brown Hornet (Aug 8, 2002)

One thing that everyone missed is that either someone needs to learn how to add or enter numbers in a spread sheet or use Excel or whatever program they used....

Go back and look at the scores posted in the links that F14 posted....

The final scores are WRONG...Jesse never should have been in a shoot off...

English 1882
Braden 1870
Jesse 1859
Bass 1858

That's what the final scores should be...they messed up the math and nobody caught it. :doh: 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

Brown Hornet said:


> One thing that everyone missed is that either someone needs to learn how to add or enter numbers in a spread sheet or use Excel or whatever program they used....
> 
> Go back and look at the scores posted in the links that F14 posted....
> 
> ...


It still does turn out, however that with this new scoring for PROS only, Ben had it pretty much won after day #1. It was a "slaughter" for 1st place, another "slaughter" for 2nd place, and then it sorta followed course from there down the leader board.
The exciting "If we shoot a four, we can catch back up by shooting more extra "x's" " - - didn't happen.
Sure hope that this isn't adopted across the board for ALL competitors - - it will be worse than the fiasco of 1977.


----------



## Brown Hornet (Aug 8, 2002)

I got fat fingers....English is the only one with a wrong score. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## markdenis (Sep 7, 2010)

I think with the new scoring system luck will play a much bigger part in the final score than it use to. With four quality shooters shooting at a single dot, or even just one person shooting at his own small dot at close distances, glance outs are a problem. Most times they don't glance completely out of the dot, but they do glance away from the X ring.


----------



## mag41vance (Mar 13, 2008)

markdenis said:


> I think with the new scoring system luck will play a much bigger part in the final score than it use to. With four quality shooters shooting at a single dot, or even just one person shooting at his own small dot at close distances, glance outs are a problem. Most times they don't glance completely out of the dot, but they do glance away from the X ring.


So this will bring about the pros shooting on their own Targets butts, having a single target per archer, (like the smaller targets now). Hmmmm sounds a little like Fita
One thing about change, It brings about more change. (allegedly)


----------



## wolf44 (Mar 31, 2009)

I can tell you that at our state shoot we had 16 arrows jammed in the 45yd x and there wasn't room for any more. It was very painful after the shot to hear all the carnage down range


----------



## gcab (Mar 24, 2010)

wolf44 said:


> I can tell you that at our state shoot we had 16 arrows jammed in the 45yd x and there wasn't room for any more. It was very painful after the shot to hear all the carnage down range


Wouldnt that be the same regardless of whether the x scores as a 6 or a 5 though? Do people not aim for the x on purpose if it isn't scored as an extra point? I really do not know so am asking. I know I don't shoot like those guys to where I can aim off the spot like that and be comfortable.. especially in field with uneven footing and so forth. But don't see why that would be different as a 6 or a tie breaker


----------



## wolf44 (Mar 31, 2009)

My point in saying that is that its that much easier to get kicked out of a point, not just a tie breaker now. 

For example, lets just say on the 80 walk up I shoot two waay out, around the expert line, and hit two xs and someone shoots them all in the dot but just barely misses the x, we have the same score for the target...that's not right and that's why it makes a difference


----------



## mag41vance (Mar 13, 2008)

wolf44 said:


> My point in saying that is that its that much easier to get kicked out of a point, not just a tie breaker now.
> 
> For example, lets just say on the 80 walk up I shoot two waay out, around the expert line, and hit two xs and someone shoots them all in the dot but just barely misses the x, we have the same score for the target...that's not right and that's why it makes a difference


Exactly!
Well stated!


----------



## EPLC (May 21, 2002)

There's a lot more to consider when changing a scoring system. Old records are the first thing that comes to mind... If the Pros wanted their own scoring system they are not thinking this through. One of the main draws that attract people to follow the scores of the Pros is to compare how well they are doing against the benchmarks the Pros set. To have a separate scoring system is self defeating to say the least. These folks do not learn from their own history... If it ain't broke, don't fix it... and this ain't broke. A 672 game... OMG!


----------



## knarrly (Dec 21, 2004)

Bob_Looney said:


> The reality is, the guy who put more in the middle won the shoot. There's now a 6 ring.


^^^^

The most accurate shooter will still win not a big deal, i don't understand why it is only the pros though.


----------



## EPLC (May 21, 2002)

knarrly said:


> ^^^^
> 
> The most accurate shooter will still win not a big deal, i don't understand why it is only the pros though.


Just my opinion but with a 672 game there's nothing to relate to... With the 560 game 500, 510, 520, 530, 540, 550 & 560 milestones mean something to the various skill levels of the shooters. By adding a 6 ring it changes the entire dynamic of the game. Having it for only the Pros compounds the problem even more... still less to relate to. A Pro shoots a 560 round and I know how impressive that is. Last years Nationals was won with a 652... 652 means nothing to me, it's just a number with no significance.


----------



## EPLC (May 21, 2002)

EPLC said:


> Just my opinion but with a 672 game there's nothing to relate to... With the 560 game 500, 510, 520, 530, 540, 550 & 560 milestones mean something to the various skill levels of the shooters. By adding a 6 ring it changes the entire dynamic of the game. Having it for only the Pros compounds the problem even more... still less to relate to. A Pro shoots a 560 round and I know how impressive that is. Last years Nationals was won with a 652... 652 means nothing to me, it's just a number with no significance.


In addition: I run an indoor league each winter at my club. We have alternating 300 (Blue & White) and 450 (Vegas) rounds. A couple of seasons ago we decided to count the X as a 6 in the 300 round, making it a 360. The result was a total disaster as no one could relate to the new scoring. A 300 with a good X count means something to folks... a 312 or whatever simply doesn't. Same applies here.


----------



## knarrly (Dec 21, 2004)

In general i work on my shooting and always trying to improve, as long as i know if i'm getting more consistent that's all i worry about. Other shooters scores don't mean much too me. As long as i know the rules going in it's all good, if i worried about all the rules i'd prefer to change i'd do nothing but whine 

Big arrows at vegas comes too mind but again as long as i know the rules going in i just need to worry about making good shots and not worry about rules.

It's why i voted not caring on the poll.


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

knarrly said:


> ^^^^
> 
> The most accurate shooter will still win not a big deal, i don't understand why it is only the pros though.


This likely relates back to the target change fiasco of 1977 when an "experiment" was suddenly gospel and the new 5-4-3- scoring was shoved down to everyone, and not just the pros. The NFAA immediately LOST a ton of shooters and it has been on the decline ever since.
Going 6-5-4-3 scoring for everyone now, would be basically committing the same sin all over again, since the target scoring is hard enough now, let alone cobbling it up to make it even harder for the average shooters.
Remember...it is the average joes that support the events with their attendance...make the scoring more difficult and the gap wider, and the shooters will go over to 3-D (which many have already done in droves), or take up fishing.
I would like to see 5-4-3-2-1 scoring (Expert, using all the rings) on both the field and hunter rounds for everyone as opposed to the 6-5-4-3 scoring that is, for now, being used ONLY for the "Pros."
It is easy to simply put in the scoring lines on the hunter face (that aren't visible from the shooting line) and do that; at least IMHO...and then you are "nailed" for making a big miss (outside the identity line becomes a "3" and not a "4", thus rewarding for a close miss, but paying dearly for a big one.


----------



## alwayslookin (May 28, 2003)

EPLC said:


> In addition: I run an indoor league each winter at my club. We have alternating 300 (Blue & White) and 450 (Vegas) rounds. A couple of seasons ago we decided to count the X as a 6 in the 300 round, making it a 360. The result was a total disaster as no one could relate to the new scoring. A 300 with a good X count means something to folks... a 312 or whatever simply doesn't. Same applies here.


Roger that.
A guy can shoot a 280 with 32 X's and get a 312.
X's should only be counted as points to break ties in perfect rounds.
JMO.
Foolish decision and short sighted for the game.


----------



## EPLC (May 21, 2002)

Today my shooting buddy and I shot a full 28 target round of Field and kept track of X's. Using the old scoring method he beat me with a 533 to my 531... Using the X as 6 and the tables turned as I beat him 580 to 575. My 49 X's overtook his 42 X's even though he shot more 5's than I did. I may actually be seeing there is a possible good side to this. Granted it changes the dynamics of the game but it certainly opens up the possibility for comebacks. I've liked that concept in other games such as 3D and Vegas rounds. In 3D an 8 or 2 won't kill you if you shoot enough 12's and Vegas rounds don't have to be perfect at my level of competition either. This will certainly widen the field and put some new folks in the winner circle. 

If they do keep it for the Pros they should implement it across the board. (How's that for a flip-flop)


----------



## TNMAN (Oct 6, 2009)

There is something else that the pro div rule change has done. The animal round is no longer heavily weighted in determining the pro winner. All 3 rounds now have almost equal weight, with maybe an edge to the field/hunter for a guy or gal who can shoot a bunch of X's.


----------



## EPLC (May 21, 2002)

Perhaps I've been in the dark but I just learned about this change recently. My initial reaction was "Oh S***" but I've had time to think about it. Field archery is a game I love above all other archery venues. It is dying. Some sort of change was needed to spark some new interest or we will loose this wonderful venue forever. Perhaps this change will be a good thing (assuming they expand it across the board). It's been a full year since this was implemented. A question for those who have competed under the new scoring system? Do you like it or hate it and why? I'm all ears.


----------

