# Would you like to see Barebow in the Olympics?



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

I'll bite.

I'd like to see all three WA field categories offered for outdoor target as part of the Olympic games. I would also like to see WA Field as an event. Possibly indoor for all three categories as a winter event.

Grant


----------



## Demmer (Dec 1, 2012)

If we have a pile of different track events, a pile of diving events, a pile of swimming events, why can't there be three different disciplines of Archery? I've wondered that for many years. 

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

I like Grant's proposal.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Bamacrazy (Dec 20, 2005)

grantmac said:


> I'll bite.
> 
> I'd like to see all three WA field categories offered for outdoor target as part of the Olympic games. I would also like to see WA Field as an event. Possibly indoor for all three categories as a winter event.
> 
> Grant



Well said!


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Demmer said:


> If we have a pile of different track events, a pile of diving events, a pile of swimming events, why can't there be three different disciplines of Archery? I've wondered that for many years.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


A question for another thread. This is a thread for hypotheticals.  If you could create your own category from scratch, what would it be? The same as something that exists? Or something new?


----------



## TER (Jul 5, 2003)

Who would say no? I'd love to see Barebow, the current Sighted and Stabilized Recurve, and Compound all in the Olympics. Target and Field. 

But I'm definitely opposed to indoor archery at the Winter Olympics. Archery is an outdoor sport. Indoor archery is just something to do while it is cold and we are snowbound. I know somebody is going to say, "Indoor archery isn't legitimate? Tell that to the guys competing for the quazillion dollar prize pool in Vegas every February!" I will respond that the fact that the National FIELD Archery Association's premier event is an indoor money shoot shows that when following money one may end up deep down some contrary to one's essence rabbit holes. Don't let money make you forget who you are in your heart. I'm looking at you, NFAA.


----------



## rsarns (Sep 23, 2008)

I go with Grant, WA BB rules, indoor FITA for winter Olympics, and Field and target for Summer Olympics. However, the reason it's not there now is there aren't any good BB archers....


----------



## bobnikon (Jun 10, 2012)

Warbow said:


> A question for another thread. This is a thread for hypotheticals.  If you could create your own category from scratch, what would it be? The same as something that exists? Or something new?


Archery Heptathalon, Individual and/or 7 person team

Day 1, BB unmarked field
Day 2, Compound unmarked 3d
Day 3, Oly Recurve Star Fita
Day 4, Longbow Clout
Day 5, Kyudo round
Day 6, Mongolian Horse bow (mounted)
Day 7, Free-for-all Archery Tag - Double elimination

Day 7 would get the viewership...


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

I would love to see Barebow and Compound in the Olympics.

I would prefer to see Field as the main event. 

Can you just imagine the awesome field courses that can be set up in Brazil? It would be breath taking.

Just look at all of the other shooting events at the summer olympics - 15 different shooting only events, the Pentahlon has a shooting portion. Then the winter olympics has 11 different biathlon events.


----------



## HoytShooter16 (Dec 22, 2015)

Yes


----------



## StarDog (Feb 17, 2007)

good idea. even some kind weird biathlon too, a winter sport. What the heck, all the ther disciplines have multiple iterations


----------



## bobnikon (Jun 10, 2012)

StarDog said:


> good idea. even some kind weird biathlon too, a winter sport. What the heck, all the ther disciplines have multiple iterations


Oh, it exists...

http://www.archery360.com/2014/02/ski-archery-coolest-winter-sport-didnt-know-till-now/


----------



## Bigjono (Apr 21, 2009)

I think both target and field would sit well in the Olympics and that would give BB and Traditional a chance. If golf can make it, along with multiple firearms events, why not archery. I think it's just a lack of will by the governing bodies.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ranchoarcher (Sep 26, 2013)

bobnikon said:


> Archery Heptathalon, Individual and/or 7 person team
> 
> Day 1, BB unmarked field
> Day 2, Compound unmarked 3d
> ...


 Now that would add an element of authenticity. Real combat. Question is, would it give our team a reason to wear camouflage?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

This may be an overreaction, but threads like this are counterproductive to the barebow cause IMO. We have a lot more near-term things to focus on and I think it's best we spend our time and energy on those.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> This may be an overreaction, but threads like this are counterproductive to the barebow cause IMO. We have a lot more near-term things to focus on and I think it's best we spend our time and energy on those.


Out of deference to you making that argument in another thread I _specifically_ created this thread to avoid that very issue, stating in the OP:



> This isn't a thread about demanding barebow in the Olympics, but rather a _hypothetical_ about whether you'd like to see barebow in the Olympics and what kind of barebow.


This is just a thread for fun, to think about possibilities if the world were different, and not a thread to talk about, or get bogged down with, archery politics.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

When the establishment thinks notions like this are absurd, it's sometimes best not to confirm their suspicions. That's all I'm saying.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> When the establishment thinks notions like this are absurd, it's sometimes best not to confirm their suspicions. That's all I'm saying.


I think the politics are making you too serious 

Keep this up and you'll only post by Press Release, like USAA does


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

I would like to see Field, it would cover Olympic Rec, Compound and Barebow. The public would at least get to see that archery is more diverse than just one bow div.


----------



## zal (May 1, 2007)

Not really, and I'll use the same argument for the compound too: they are too similar to recurve, any viewer won't be able to tell the difference unless they know a lot about archery or the commentators spend whole time explaining, rather than commentating. When you watch skeet and trap for instance, they are easy to understand as the shotgun is the common denominator.

I'd rather see more events for recurve, like separate matchplay and full round, like ye olde FITA round. Or field. But with one bow type.


----------



## toj (Aug 22, 2012)

I would not.

In the UK Olympic involvement has ruined recurve archery, the politics and money do nothing for the vast majority of archers and it rubs off into other disciplines. 

The Olympics is no longer the pinacle of so many sports under its umbrella and i don't see it as a forward progression for ours.

It's a tainted organisation and will soon be revealed as the corrupt, money grabbing, back handing, brown envelope that it is.
Once the media are bored with fifa that is.


----------



## Supermag1 (Jun 11, 2009)

I'll say no just because I'd prefer to keep WA and any organization affiliated with the corrupt IOC as far away from the sport as possible. It seems like the closer a sport gets to the IOC, the more corrupt it becomes (ex: cycling) and it's not worth sacrificing the reputations of thousands of US archers a year for another medal or two every 4 years.


----------



## Ar-Pe-Lo (Oct 16, 2011)

rsarns said:


> I go with Grant, WA BB rules, *indoor FITA for winter Olympics*, and Field and target for Summer Olympics. However, the reason it's not there now is there aren't any good BB archers....


What have indoor sport (without ice) to do with winter Olympics? Did not seen any indoor track&field in Sochi...please get real


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Supermag1 said:


> I'll say no just because I'd prefer to keep WA and any organization affiliated with the corrupt IOC as far away from the sport as possible. It seems like the closer a sport gets to the IOC, the more corrupt it becomes (ex: cycling) and it's not worth sacrificing the reputations of thousands of US archers a year for another medal or two every 4 years.


Again, this is meant to be a hypothetical thread, not a political one.


----------



## Bamacrazy (Dec 20, 2005)

limbwalker said:


> When the establishment thinks notions like this are absurd, it's sometimes best not to confirm their suspicions. That's all I'm saying.


In any field of endeavor, the establishment despises change.


----------



## Bamacrazy (Dec 20, 2005)

limbwalker said:


> This may be an overreaction, but threads like this are counterproductive to the barebow cause IMO. We have a lot more near-term things to focus on and I think it's best we spend our time and energy on those.


If enthusiasts don't promote new ideas they will never become reality.


----------



## toj (Aug 22, 2012)

Warbow said:


> Again, this is meant to be a hypothetical thread, not a political one.


So is the question really "who wants to agree with me?"

Not wanting IOC involvement is hardly politics when you're talking about Olympic formats.


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

rsarns said:


> i go with grant, wa bb rules, indoor fita for winter olympics, and field and target for summer olympics. However, the reason it's not there now is there aren't any good bb archers....


lol


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

toj said:


> So is the question really "who wants to agree with me?"
> 
> Not wanting IOC involvement is hardly politics when you're talking about Olympic formats.


No, I explained in the OP that this was a thread about hypotheticals. I was trying to avoid the political pitfalls that John mentioned and make a fun thread about what people would like to see in the Olympics if there were no politics to contend with. However, I did a poor job of communicating that intent in the thread title, and the title of the thread is often the only thing people read before responding.


----------



## Wobbley (Sep 26, 2014)

I would like to see a hypothetical Barebow/Run Archery type of Biathalon.

Not enough people do this yet, but I think it is great sport.

And a Barebow field round.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Wobbley said:


> I would like to see a hypothetical Barebow/Run Archery type of Biathalon.
> 
> Not enough people do this yet, but I think it is great sport.


Makes me think of the scenes of Daniel Day Lewis running in the Last of the Mohicans. Granted, he was running with a gun rather than a bow, but the image sticks in my mind.


----------



## J. Wesbrock (Dec 17, 2003)

FITA Field in the Olympics would be cool as heck.


----------



## b0w_bender (Apr 30, 2006)

Well I would like to see Compounds and bare-bow in the Olympics. Hell, while we're on a roll how about medals for the gross score as well as the match play?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

The more logical progression would be to remove Olympic recurve since it is an outdated set of rules, and include barebow and compound - two disciplines that provide clear and obvious differences in competition formats and skill sets.


----------



## zal (May 1, 2007)

limbwalker said:


> The more logical progression would be to remove Olympic recurve since it is an outdated set of rules, and include barebow and compound - two disciplines that provide clear and obvious differences in competition formats and skill sets.


Those disciplines are still marginalized in most countries, with barebow unexisting outside US and Europe pretty much. Even compound is pretty rare in plenty of countries. But there are a lot of recurve archers around the globe.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

zal said:


> Those disciplines are still marginalized in most countries, with barebow unexisting outside US and Europe pretty much. Even compound is pretty rare in plenty of countries. But there are a lot of recurve archers around the globe.


Yes, in a practical sense. But this is a purely hypothetical thread.


----------



## Bamacrazy (Dec 20, 2005)

zal said:


> Those disciplines are still marginalized in most countries, with barebow unexisting outside US and Europe pretty much. Even compound is pretty rare in plenty of countries. But there are a lot of recurve archers around the globe.


That's surprising! I assumed some form of field archery would be most common. Hard to imagine that when someone wants to shoot, that so many would opt for a fully outfitted Olympic bow.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

zal said:


> Those disciplines are still marginalized in most countries, with barebow unexisting outside US and Europe pretty much. Even compound is pretty rare in plenty of countries. But there are a lot of recurve archers around the globe.


For one reason, and one reason only - because that is the set of rules used in Olympic competition. There is no other reason today to set up a bow that way. Outside of Olympic competition (and all those competitions influenced by the Olympic format and rules), you would probably never see an "Olympic recurve." When you look at archery organizations that have little or no connection to the Olympics, you do not see Olympic recurve bows. You see compounds and you see barebows.

Incidentally, I have shot a bow since around 1973. I participated in my first organized archery tournament around 1978 or 79. It wasn't until 2002 that ever saw an Olympic bow. So for nearly 30 years, I shot a lot of archery across the U.S. and never needed a set of rules that included long stabilizers, clickers and sights on a recurve bow.


----------



## zal (May 1, 2007)

Personally I'd much rather see a longbow division in the olympics than barebow. For me barebow just is "some of the restrictions", recurve has more freedom (think stock cars vs. F1) and longbow is pretty much the pure essentials.

As far as popularity goes, I'd say longbow is probably 2-3x more popular here than barebow, but they rarely compete, even though we added divisions to fita competitions too. But there are plenty of longbow hobbyists or longbow hunters around where I come from.


----------



## zal (May 1, 2007)

limbwalker said:


> When you look at archery organizations that have little or no connection to the Olympics, you do not see Olympic recurve bows. You see compounds and you see barebows.


Well, what you also don't see is shooters. Some of those organizations have become pretty much a running joke, you can enroll into nationals and be quite sure that you win a medal, as they usually have more classes for you to compete in than there are competitors. Last couple of years they have tended to run their competitons as the second day of weekend, after WA-affiliated competitions, to ensure that there are atleast some archers competing. 

Those associations are really, really tiny outside US and perhaps Australia. Plus there were more recurve archers than barebow archers competing in last IFAA-affiliated nationals around here couple of weeks ago.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Interestingly enough, the vast majority of archers in the U.S. couldn't care less about the Olympic sport of archery. Why? because they use weird bows that serve no practical purpose anywhere but that one stage.

So again, this is my point - that if you take away Olympic rules, archery gear all over the world will change accordingly.


----------



## bobnikon (Jun 10, 2012)

Or, conversley, judging the response of the rest of the world based on the perceived response of the US may be just a little egocentric.


----------



## TER (Jul 5, 2003)

bobnikon said:


> Or, conversley, judging the response of the rest of the world based on the perceived response of the US may be just a little egocentric.


Yes, judging the response the rest of the world, or extrapolating out to what's going on in the whole world, based on what one sees in one's local club is an easily fallen into mistake in reasoning. The Philosophy professors probably have named this fallacy. My town represents the world fallacy. My local club is a microcosm of the world of archery fallacy.


----------



## zal (May 1, 2007)

limbwalker said:


> Interestingly enough, the vast majority of archers in the U.S. couldn't care less about the Olympic sport of archery. Why? because they use weird bows that serve no practical purpose anywhere but that one stage.
> 
> So again, this is my point - that if you take away Olympic rules, archery gear all over the world will change accordingly.


I don't quite buy that point. It might be true in US, where there is a major hunting population, but bowhunting is restricted or point blank disallowed in most countries which means people come from different sources. Last few years there have been plenty of newcomers that have got the spark from watching movies, but prior to that I'd say 90%+ have come due to olympics, having watched them on telly and wanting to try it, with similar equipment.

If you take olympic interest away, you are pretty much stuck with a very minor sport with no funding of any kind available. Our associations funding is pretty much based on olympics and preparetion to it.

Now, US and Finland are anomalies (i.e. Finland has 4th highest gun ownership in the world pp after US, Yemen and Switzerland, and you are pretty much only allowed to have one if you have an active hunting license - any other use is pretty prohibited... read: FIN 24 gun homicides per year, vs. US about 10,000 gun homicides per year), there is a major hunting population which means there is some interest in compound bow and longbow along with recurve. In neighbouring countries, which have fewer hunters, there is an active field archery community, but even those often use olympic bows. Olympic bow is still fiercely popular in northern, central/west and southern europe, and I've even seen people use them to hunt with.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> I don't quite buy that point. *It might be true in US*


Which is why I said...



> the vast majority of archers *in the U.S*. couldn't care less about the Olympic sport of archery.


And I expect that if you removed archery from the Olympics, the Olympic recurve would die pretty quickly.

In Asia, they would probably shoot traditional Asian bows and in Europe it would be the compound, traditional bows and longbows. 

There just isn't any practical purpose for an Olympic recurve anymore.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

zal said:


> I don't quite buy that point. It might be true in US, where there is a major hunting population, but bowhunting is restricted or point blank disallowed in most countries which means people come from different sources. Last few years there have been plenty of newcomers that have got the spark from watching movies, but prior to that I'd say 90%+ have come due to olympics, having watched them on telly and wanting to try it, with similar equipment.
> 
> If you take olympic interest away, you are pretty much stuck with a very minor sport with no funding of any kind available. Our associations funding is pretty much based on olympics and preparetion to it.
> 
> Now, US and Finland are anomalies (i.e. Finland has 4th highest gun ownership in the world pp after US, Yemen and Switzerland, and you are pretty much only allowed to have one if you have an active hunting license - any other use is pretty prohibited... read: FIN 24 gun homicides per year, vs. US about 10,000 gun homicides per year), there is a major hunting population which means there is some interest in compound bow and longbow along with recurve. In neighbouring countries, which have fewer hunters, there is an active field archery community, but even those often use olympic bows. Olympic bow is still fiercely popular in northern, central/west and southern europe, and I've even seen people use them to hunt with.


That is an interesting topic, the analysis of whose factors (only one of which is population volume differences (Finland population: 5million; USA population: 330million.) under the blanket of 'population volume' is the basis for an entire academic career, not a forum post. But, as a stand alone stat, it's misleading and pretty much irrelevant. But, I get your point, and so not wanting to pursue it here or incur your ire.


----------



## bobnikon (Jun 10, 2012)

limbwalker said:


> There just isn't any practical purpose for an Olympic recurve anymore.


You are missing the point completely. Without hunting there is no practical purpose for a bow... Actually even with hunting a gun is more efficient and accurate than a bow. People don't shoot bows to be practical, even you, if you let yourself let go of the bone for a minute would concede that point. 

When you take practicality out of it, people will shoot what they want. 

I have a wooden bolt down that I shoot off the shelf, a very nice target compound, and ILF recurve with no sights or stabs, as well as a full blown oly. I shoot all of them, but even though I will never go to the olympics, the oly is my favorite.

But none of this applies to Warbow OP.

Any additional form of archery, including barebow, in the olymics would be awesome.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

limbwalker said:


> Which is why I said...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


John, surely the same thing could be said for many Olympic sports - platform diving and ski jumping come to mind pretty readily for this 'uncomfortable with heights' archer. The Olympics are in large part a collection of different tests of the same theme - testing one's mind and body against others and against the difficulties of the endeavor. The event itself is just a 'differing face' on those themes, and shouldn't really be judged in terms of practicality, should it?


----------



## bobnikon (Jun 10, 2012)

lksseven said:


> John, surely the same thing could be said for many Olympic sports - platform diving and ski jumping come to mind pretty readily for this 'uncomfortable with heights' archer. The Olympics are in large part a collection of different tests of the same theme - testing one's mind and body against others and against the difficulties of the endeavor. The event itself is just a 'differing face' on those themes, and shouldn't really be judged in terms of practicality, should it?


Exactly. 

What on earth is the practical purpose of nascar, golf, hockey, football, soccer, baseball... obviously the list goes on and on?

So yeah, I don't think many of our leisure sports can be judged under the lense of practicality.

People will do what they enjoy.


----------



## zal (May 1, 2007)

limbwalker said:


> Which is why I said...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I agree with our point. But my counter-argument is that you are left with basically ~5% of the funding and in most other countries than U.S. probably 5% of the archers as anyone who wants to compete heads over to other olympic sports. You kind of undervaluate how big draw olympics is on rest of the world, as their funding and interest is almost 100% geared towards it.


----------



## zal (May 1, 2007)

lksseven said:


> That is an interesting topic, the analysis of whose factors (only one of which is population volume differences (Finland population: 5million; USA population: 330million.) under the blanket of 'population volume' is the basis for an entire academic career, not a forum post. But, as a stand alone stat, it's misleading and pretty much irrelevant. But, I get your point, and so not wanting to pursue it here or incur your ire.


Yep. But p1000 U.S. still overshadows Finland 4-1. It was just used to demonstrate the point that Finland has very, very deep hunting roots, and only lately you have been allowed to hunt with bows, but only small game. We don't really have recreational gun use, and to go hand in hand with that, we haven't really had recreational bow use, unless it's olympic recurve, until couple of years ago. But most people who don't know anything about archery can probably still remember Finnish olympic medalists in archer, as a small country we get perhaps couple of medals per game, and over past 40 years archery has give a sizeable chunk of them. It will probably be very different in countries with huge populations and variety of sports medalling.

In Finland in past ~40 years you have been pretty much stuck with ski jump, cross-country skiing, downhill skiing, shooting, archery, and couple of track and field sports like shot put and javeling. So take your pick if you are a young, motivated athlete and want to go to olympics, which is pretty much the only way to get a funding and living as an athlete outside very few team sports, like ice hockey.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> You kind of undervaluate how big draw olympics is on rest of the world, as their funding and interest is almost 100% geared towards it.


Zal, that was actually my point.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

zal said:


> Yep. But p1000 U.S. still overshadows Finland 4-1. It was just used to demonstrate the point that Finland has very, very deep hunting roots, and only lately you have been allowed to hunt with bows, but only small game. We don't really have recreational gun use, and to go hand in hand with that, we haven't really had recreational bow use, unless it's olympic recurve until couple of years ago.


Sorry for Finland.


----------



## zal (May 1, 2007)

limbwalker said:


> Sorry for Finland.


And what would happen to countries which only have olympic archery programs? Like Japan, or Malaysia, or most of asian countries?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Their archers would shoot some other kind of bow. Many countries have archery programs for the pursuit of Olympic spots and medals. To me, that's unfortunate if that's the primary driver for their program. Archery should be a sport enjoyed by everyone for the simple pleasure of shooting arrows. And when you remove the Olympic connection, I really don't know too many folks who would reach for a fully tricked out recurve bow to do that with.


----------



## zal (May 1, 2007)

Many countries don't have anythin else than olympic-geared recurve. That's the point. There are huge scathes of world where olympic archery is the only way to do archery, with zero interest to either other disciplines or things like field archery. So what you mean is that let's remove archery alltogether from large parts of the world, so that USA, Canada, Western Europe and Australia can shoot field archery for fun without any interference?

There might be some traditional ways here and there, like Mongolia and Kyudo in Japan, but you would be left with handful of history nerds.


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

How many people take up Olympic recurve precisely because it's in the Olympics but who have zero hope or interest in ever competing on that stage?
If Field or Barebow was also in the Olympics you would see those people who want to share in the prestige pursuing those styles and venues as well which are quite frankly more suited to the recreational archer. 
Additionally coaching would be more available and less ad hoc.

I predict that the same countries would win the majority of archer medals regardless or equipment and venue, but that a far greater segment of the public would be inspired.

Grant


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

grantmac said:


> How many people take up Olympic recurve precisely because it's in the Olympics but who have zero hope or interest in ever competing on that stage?
> If Field or Barebow was also in the Olympics you would see those people who want to share in the prestige pursuing those styles and venues as well which are quite frankly more suited to the recreational archer.
> Additionally coaching would be more available and less ad hoc.
> 
> ...


I took up Oly recurve precisely because I was seeking better coaching for my trad shooting, and Oly Recurve had better coaching than I could find for other types of conventional bow archery. And I would have done exactly as you say, tried a different form of archery if it had that coaching in place instead of Oly Recurve. It had nothing to do with "prestige" though. I don't really feel Oly recurve has much "prestige" in the US.

I agree with John completely in that Oly recurve exists only grudgingly in the US, and even then only because of the Olympics. It isn't "naturally" popular. If people want the ultimate accuracy they go compound, if they want the simplicity of a stick and a string, they go trad. In between there is technical barebow. Oly recurve is a bizarre hybrid that I have grown to appreciate, but found to be weird when I first saw it as a non-archer.


----------



## Ar-Pe-Lo (Oct 16, 2011)

limbwalker said:


> Which is why I said...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


John you forgetting 1 point. In vast majority of the world, there is no real purpose for bow. It's seen a sport or history. No hunting allowed. So for this rest of the world BB mean nothing.


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

And yet BB is most popular in countries without bow hunting.....


----------



## Pete53 (Dec 5, 2011)

rsarns said:


> I go with Grant, WA BB rules, indoor FITA for winter Olympics, and Field and target for Summer Olympics. However, the reason it's not there now is there aren't any good BB archers....


there just might be a few good bare bow archers out there I have seen some with real talent and not these so called string walkers but some real traditional archers


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

zal said:


> Many countries don't have anythin else than olympic-geared recurve. That's the point. There are huge scathes of world where olympic archery is the only way to do archery, with zero interest to either other disciplines or things like field archery. So what you mean is that let's remove archery alltogether from large parts of the world, so that USA, Canada, Western Europe and Australia can shoot field archery for fun without any interference?
> 
> There might be some traditional ways here and there, like Mongolia and Kyudo in Japan, but you would be left with handful of history nerds.


Sure they do. Every single Olympic bow can be made a barebow in less than 5 minutes. 

The idea that if Olympic recurve didn't exist, people would have nothing to shoot is pretty silly.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Pete53 said:


> there just might be a few good bare bow archers out there I have seen some with real talent and not these so called string walkers but some real traditional archers


LOL. And here we go defining "traditional" again.


----------



## bobnikon (Jun 10, 2012)

And maybe LW that is another reason Oly recurve works...

Other than a lense in your sight and a release aid, most other things go... Now I realize that there are some other exceptions, but in general it holds.

As for trad, barebow and even compound, there are just way too many police out there and too many politics and confusion about what constitutes what in each division. 

So what version of barebow, what version of compound will be the next big argument. 

Oly recurve with all its unnecessary and impractical gear, is actually very easy to define and understand. And it is pan organization which is a BIG PLUS in my book.

So despite the naysayers I still think that Oly recurve has its place. 

Lots of agendas at play, but hey, this is the new improved FITA forum. Slowly becoming tradgang I guess.


----------



## Supermag1 (Jun 11, 2009)

Warbow said:


> I took up Oly recurve precisely because I was seeking better coaching for my trad shooting, and Oly Recurve had better coaching than I could find for other types of conventional bow archery. And I would have done exactly as you say, tried a different form of archery if it had that coaching in place instead of Oly Recurve. It had nothing to do with "prestige" though. I don't really feel Oly recurve has much "prestige" in the US.
> 
> .


But that's the rub, the coaching development system is designed to produce olympic recurve coaches and, unfortunately, it's getting even more biased because the NFAA let USAA take over their coaching credential system. There are still a number of good coaches around for both compound and traditional but, unless you really do your research, it's hard to tell the good ones from the rest because there is no for of credential to ask about.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Very true.


----------



## R&B (Oct 4, 2006)

*Orin of sport*



Ar-Pe-Lo said:


> John you forgetting 1 point. In vast majority of the world, there is no real purpose for bow. It's seen a sport or history. No hunting allowed. So for this rest of the world BB mean nothing.


No real purpose for golf, futbol, formula 1, motogp, etc. ... These sports exist for entertainment. A sport doesn't have to have any other purpose other than itself............ Much like art. 


"Sport" comes from the Old French desport meaning "leisure", with the oldest definition in English from around 1300 being "anything humans find amusing or entertaining

-R&B


----------



## R&B (Oct 4, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> Sure they do. Every single Olympic bow can be made a barebow in less than 5 minutes.
> 
> The idea that if Olympic recurve didn't exist, people would have nothing to shoot is pretty silly.


I refer to my bow as a Free Style Recurve just like the NFAA. 

We don't call Free Style Compound bows Vegas Bows. Naming/referring to your equipment based on an event is a bit bizarre. It is almost like we are embarrassed about our equipment so we have to name drop in order to gain some semblance of legitimacy (LOL). Flying arrows regardless of the style needs no justification. 

Until archery develops its own culture and history that is independent of an event it will always be a footnote in the sports world. Most all Futbolers (soccer) with forgo an Olympic Gold medal for a World Cup Title. This is as it should be. This is because the history and culture of the sport exist as an independent entity. 

-R&B


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Well, to be fair, archery has more history and culture than most modern sports will ever have.


----------



## Ar-Pe-Lo (Oct 16, 2011)

R&B said:


> No real purpose for golf, futbol, formula 1, motogp, etc. ... These sports exist for entertainment. A sport doesn't have to have any other purpose other than itself............ Much like art.
> 
> 
> "Sport" comes from the Old French desport meaning "leisure", with the oldest definition in English from around 1300 being "anything humans find amusing or entertaining
> ...


Yes, but it's exactly what I meant ;-) You should read the post I reacted to first. So my logic is: if there is no real purpose for ANY bow in most parts of the world there is no real reason for change oly recurve with BB other then change itself.


----------



## zal (May 1, 2007)

Most of archery's modern history is deeply tied in olympics. Things like crossbow archery died out fairly quickly, even though they tried to keep the competitions running in the 90's. Olympic recurve has kepts whole recurve archery thing going very well ever since 1972. Prior to that it was really just for few selected countries with mostly differing sets of rules.

I just think that going for barebow you'd be essentially going with less accurate bow, which would make whole thing seem more amateurish to random viewers. Most of first time reactions when talking about competitive archery highlight that the distance seems very long and people are amazed that bows are accurate at that distance.

Compound archery's modern history is tied in hunting, so I see the point why it should be 50m, which is more common hunting distance. I definetely wouldn't be comfortable hunting longer distances than that with a bow, and generally get most game at 30-50m. So it has a logic of a kind.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> Most of archery's modern history is deeply tied in olympics.


??? Maybe in Finland.



> Olympic recurve has kepts whole recurve archery thing going very well ever since 1972


Here in the U.S., I'd say there are easily 10 traditional recurves for every Olympic recurve bow. I shot traditional recurves and longbows, and with a LOT of people who did the same, for nearly 20 years before I ever saw an Olympic recurve. They were that rare here in the states. The traditional recurve and longbow crowd far outnumbers OR archers, although I think some of that is starting to slowly change.

As for how it appears to random viewers, most of the comments I get are very supportive of archers who can shoot well without all the accessories on their bow. I mean, following your logic, then everyone would naturally see the compound as a better choice than Olympic recurve because it is the more accurate bow. But most people are smart enough to understand the challenges presented by a recurve vs. a compound, and a barebow vs. an Olympic bow. In fact, I'd say that the typical non-archery viewer would be more interested in watching someone shoot a barebow than an Olympic recurve. The minute you start putting on fancy looking accessories, the appreciation for pure human skill diminishes in their eyes.

And while it may seem compound's modern history is tied to hunting, the target archers here in the U.S. were some of the earliest adopters of compounds. I was around when compounds started taking over, and even as a small boy I can remember the debates that were going on at some of the archery clubs I frequented. A lot of die-hard hunters wanted nothing to do with those "fancy target bows" (compounds). They were too loud, too slow, and too heavy for hunting.


----------



## Ar-Pe-Lo (Oct 16, 2011)

limbwalker said:


> ??? Maybe in Finland.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes in US....but that's about that. US is very, very different to rest of the world with BB.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

So in the rest of the world, you're saying that the bow chosen for the Olympic competition will be the most popular, regardless of what it is?

That's sad to me. As a lifelong archery enthusiast, I would hope that archery would be pursued in all of it's many forms worldwide, independent of what is used in one competition.


----------



## jmvargas (Oct 21, 2004)

for me archery started when i saw the robin hood movie starry richard tod sometime in the 50s --am 70--and i have been fascinated with it ever since..

i started with homemade bamboo bows at around 9 or 10 years old and my first real bow was a ben pearson hickory set when i was 12..

over the years i had a 40# ben pearson varsity,a 53# black widow hp1225,and a 37# wing presentation II.. .

always shot these instinctively and barebow at targets and small game until 2004 when i saw my archer friends shooting olympic at the range and got hooked...

went thru a LOT of olympic gear and became fairly good---1100+ fita at 60+ years of age and won a few senior events...

the olympics never entered into the picture but i had visions of entering some senior world indoor and outdoor events if i got good enough..

as a veteran golfer the disciplines involved in both sports--ie--repetition and one shot at a time--were very similar and helped my archery a lot too...

at 70 now i am still passionate about both my sports and have just purchased a complete barebow set-up to try in addition to my olympic gear...

the barebow set-up is also easilly converted to olympic just in case...

i really like the competition aspect in golf and archery in addition to the social and health benefits.. 

i hope to be able to enjoy both sports for some time yet so wish me luck!


----------



## R&B (Oct 4, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> Well, to be fair, archery has more history and culture than most modern sports will ever have.


True. However no one knows about it........ other than some us archers posting in archery forums ;-) 

Most moderns think archery starts and ends with The Hunger Games. 



-R&B


----------



## R&B (Oct 4, 2006)

Ar-Pe-Lo said:


> Yes, but it's exactly what I meant ;-) You should read the post I reacted to first. So my logic is: if there is no real purpose for ANY bow in most parts of the world there is no real reason for change oly recurve with BB other then change itself.


I agree with you. The issue I feel is the importance of the Olympics in terms of archery as a legitimate sport. Why is it so important Archery be associated with the Olympics? Futbol (soccer) has no such dilemma. 

Archery is archery.


----------



## jmvargas (Oct 21, 2004)

archery needs the Olympics more than the other way around...

and comparing archery to soccer is an apples and oranges situation...

...and i don't feel any more explanation is needed......


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Hate to break it to all the Olympic archery enthusiasts here, but archery does not need the Olympics at all. Not in the U.S. anyway. I've been involved in archery since I can remember. I grew up shooting bows as a young kid and have all my life, all across the U.S. I only saw pictures of Olympic style archery in books, and didn't see my first Olympic bow in real life until I was 32 years old, despite having competed in field archery, indoor archery and 3-D events for years.

Yes, we all love our Olympic archery, but I think we are the minority.


----------



## jmvargas (Oct 21, 2004)

limbwalker said:


> Hate to break it to all the Olympic archery enthusiasts here, but archery does not need the Olympics at all. Not in the U.S. anyway. I've been involved in archery since I can remember. I grew up shooting bows as a young kid and have all my life, all across the U.S. I only saw pictures of Olympic style archery in books, and didn't see my first Olympic bow in real life until I was 32 years old, despite having competed in field archery, indoor archery and 3-D events for years.
> 
> Yes, we all love our Olympic archery, but I think we are the minority.



i'm glad you qualified this with "Not in the U.S. anyway" john...

but i's like to add that archery in the U.S. usually refers to bowhunting and compound which is also almost unique in your country but for the rest of the world we DO need the Olympics in order to grow "recurve" target archery which most often is the only archery we are allowed legally to do...


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

The Olympics is what got me drawn into archery. Well, indirectly. My wife was working hard to get her scores up to so she can chase the Olympic dream. About 13 years ago, she sucked me into archery. More something to do with her more than anything else. I chose barebow. She wanted me to go the Oly route because she thought I could shoot a lot better with all the accessories and try out for the team also. I knew I couldn't devote even a fraction of the time required to shoot at that level, so I stuck with barebow. I really liked it. Well, 10 years ago she got pregnant, and her goals changed and no longer wants to deal with the work required to shoot at the highest levels. I stuck with barebow. Now she is coming over to the dark side and is now shooting barebow and learning string walking.

So in essence, and indirectly, the Olympics started our journey. But our passion is barebow/trad.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> we DO need the Olympics in order to grow "recurve" target archery which most often is the only archery we are allowed legally to do...


Such a shame.


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

There are multiple aspects in this discussion, and almost all participants are right, in may opinion, as things are different continent from continent and country form country.
Some countries of old archery tradition don't need Olympic games, as archery is popular there since much before it came back to the games in 1972. US is surely on top of these. 
Some (Asian and African) countries have archery only becauuse of the Olympic Games, so the most popular (more known) bow there is the bow used at the Games, but numbers are very small there. 
Some countries are not influenced at all by the Olympic games if not in marginal way, but they are growing in archry anyway, and in this case Traditional or Bare bow are the driving bows 
TV coverage of WA events has no influence at all on these situation. I have been one of the 1000 only connected worldwide to watch the compound finals from Ankara last Sunday. 1000 only, all already archers, parents or coaches. Ridiculous number.
TV coverage of the Olympic games has a limited influence in this situation. Attendance is much more, but only happens once every 4 years. Olympic medals have a bit more influence, but they are limited to few countris, only. 
Popular movies and TV series have much more influence on our world. Hunger Games movies, The Avengers movies, Arrow, Robin Hood movies (and Rambo 2 many years ago) have generated more archers than any Olympic game did, IMHO. 
So, anyone has a bit of the puzzle, here... no unique answer ...


----------



## jmvargas (Oct 21, 2004)

limbwalker said:


> Such a shame.


..because of the 2nd amendment in the US constitution americans are in the enviable position of being able to legally own all sorts of weapons--including bows--both for recreation and protection purposes..

almost all other countries do not have this luxury and privilege and we always have to go thru the eye of a needle to legally own a weapon...and it isn't getting any easier to do so..

...so yes it IS a shame and i hope you will all thank your lucky stars for the wisdom of your founding fathers and ensure that this right will never be taken away...


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

jmvargas said:


> ..because of the 2nd amendment in the US constitution americans are in the enviable position of being able to legally own all sorts of weapons--including bows--both for recreation and protection purposes..
> 
> almost all other countries do not have this luxury and privilege and we always have to go thru the eye of a needle to legally own a weapon...and it isn't getting any easier to do so..
> 
> ...so yes it IS a shame and i hope you will all thank your lucky stars for the wisdom of your founding fathers and ensure that this right will never be taken away...


The 2nd Amendment, for the most part, only protects the right to own firearms. Due to various interpretations over the centuries, it does not protect the rights of bow owners. Some municipalities ban the discharge of any firearm or projectile weapon in city limits - just because you can *own* something here in the US doesn't necessarily prevent various governments from banning the actual use of it. And states, counties and cities can ban just about anything other than guns (and even then they can place restrictions). "Blow guns", for example, are banned in California - as in a long pipe you *blow* though to project a small dart. But guns are legal.

I think the 2nd Amendment *indirectly* helps keep bows legal, because people can point to guns being legal, but it doesn't help directly. There have been some recent court cases that have called into question whether less lethal weapons, such as Tasers, should be given the same protection as firearms (yes, yes they damn well should), but there is no national court case on that yet, and there may never be.


----------



## zal (May 1, 2007)

It is a cultural aspect too. Like I said previously, we have bucketloads of guns, but they are extremely regulated, so their use is strictly for hunting and licenced target practice. But bows are more free - you can walk into a outdoors shop and buy a high powered crossbow, which has no practical use whatsoever and continue your walk to a bank to rob it with it. That means every few months we have high profile cases of bows being targeted in media - gun crime is pretty low but bow crime seems to flare up more and more and gets even more media survey.

That has led to calls for legistlation for bows, when I was in our national associations board of directors, some time ago we were consulted on wether bows should be made illegal/licenced/otherwise restricted. It is very similar discussion to that what's happening with guns in U.S. right now, as points of sale are being targeted. It is a case that's still rumbling on, but in worst case can totally annihilate most forms of archery from our country.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

So how about those barebows in the Olympics? LOL...

I think it's far more likely that we see barebow at the WC's, probably indoors first. Then if we're really lucky, outdoors, maybe. 

As JimC points out continually, Olympic sports that feature athletes that don't exactly fit the "Olympian" image aren't usually very well covered in the media. And since the Olympics are in fact a huge business, this is a problem for archery, and an even bigger problem for compound and barebow archery. And I shouldn't have to explain why to anyone who attends a lot of tournaments.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> As JimC points out continually, Olympic sports that feature athletes that don't exactly fit the "Olympian" image aren't usually very well covered in the media. And since the Olympics are in fact a huge business, this is a problem for archery, and an even bigger problem for compound and barebow archery. And I shouldn't have to explain why to anyone who attends a lot of tournaments.


Ha. 

Olympic air pistol has the same problem as above, but the mechanics are even less telegenic than archery. At least you can see the arrows on TV.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Being very general here, the typical Olympic recurve archer is younger and fitter than the typical compound or barebow archer. All one has to do is walk the line at a major event and it will be painfully obvious. I'm 100% sure this has come up in conversation at some point, when including other disciplines in the Olympic games were the subject.

I don't see how it couldn't. TV ratings drive everything these days. I wonder if anyone ever said anything to Brady when he stopped shaving and started putting on weight. I bet they did. Or if they didn't, they sure wanted to. 

Anyway, the average age of the elite barebow archer (and compound for that matter) isn't helping. So in a weird way, the fact that people can be competitive, and often are more competitive, as they enter their 30's and 40's with both barebow and compound, is both a blessing and a curse.


----------



## Rick McKinney (Mar 4, 2008)

I would like to see barebow in the Olympics as a skeet/trap shooting format. These new foam discs that are used appear to be a popular thing and it portrays what a barebow archer can do on a moving target. It also allows the uniqueness that the Olympic Committee is asking for. 

As for the rest...you might want to read the history about F.I.T.A. and how they evolved into the style of archery that is being used in the Olympics. It isn't just about one country.


----------



## Hunter Dave (Jul 17, 2007)

I would _rather_ see bare recurve bows in the olympics than "olympic recurve bows", but we all know that is never going to happen.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Rick McKinney said:


> I would like to see barebow in the Olympics as a skeet/trap shooting format. These new foam discs that are used appear to be a popular thing and it portrays what a barebow archer can do on a moving target. It also allows the uniqueness that the Olympic Committee is asking for.
> 
> As for the rest...you might want to read the history about F.I.T.A. and how they evolved into the style of archery that is being used in the Olympics. It isn't just about one country.


Rick's comments are not surprising to me. I've heard this viewpoint about barebow from target archers for many years and on the surface it makes perfect sense. There are a lot of people who view barebow as best played in a dynamic, "instinctive" archery environment. 

However, I'm afraid the serious target barebow discipline remains held back by this image of barebow archers "slinging arrows." And some people are just fine with that because it's fun, and that's their idea of what archery should be. For a long time, I was one of those people and wanted nothing to do with static target archery. I had no idea how accurate a well trained barebow archer could be with the right tools.

Last summer, both Rick Stonebraker and I broke 300 on a 36-arrow round at 60 meters, shooting barebow. Rick does this routinely in fact (often at my expense). Looking at the masters recurve scores, who also shoot at 60 meters, Rick would have placed 6th in that division, among former world class and collegiate All-American recurve archers. This is anything but flinging arrows.

Rick, I'm not saying you're wrong. It takes great skill and its exciting to watch a good barebow shooter connect with aerial targets. I've done this myself and I've watched Byron Ferguson and others do it. But aerial targets are not the exclusive domain of traditional archers, and are increasingly becoming popular with compound archers. Tim Wells is well known for his incredible aerial shooting with a compound, as are others. There just aren't enough people shooting bows at aerial targets for it to be taken seriously as a legitimate competition format IMO.

I'm sure that if barebow were ever seriously considered for the Olympic games, field archery would be the most likely format because of it's popularity and long competitive history internationally.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

In fact, I have thought for a while now that barebow field archery and compound indoors, would be great additions to the Olympic format.


----------



## Rick McKinney (Mar 4, 2008)

limbwalker said:


> Rick's comments are not surprising to me.


The same can be said about you. 

However, it really does not matter. I was asked about what I thought of how barebow should look like if it were in the Olympics. For some reason you appear to dislike recurve freestyle. I for one have always appreciated all forms of archery. My opinion has been that if you enjoy archery in any form, it's ok with me because it is still archery. I have shot all forms, just like anyone who has been in the sport long enough. We enjoy all facets but pick one that appeals to us. Right now, I am contemplating on switching over to compound and shooting in ASA events. Why? Because I think it would be fun. This in no way reflects on barebow. I shot barebow and my family was very prolific in the barebow world in the 1960's. Thus, I do have an appreciation for that particular discipline. 

The point I was trying to make about recurve freestyle archery with F.I.T.A. (WA) is that it started as barebow but evolved into recurve freestyle. It is still evolving and trying to develop and grow. That is why compound archery is growing worldwide. Reading their history will enlighten you on the dynamics of 100+ countries that have helped WA become what they are today. It just isn't about one country. It isn't about the Olympics. It is about the world of archery. The masses speak on what is enjoyed worldwide and then WA works within that framework.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Easy Rick. Your point of view comes from one experience, and mine from another. I lived in the "trad" world for a long time before I ever picked up a target bow, so I am especially in tune with what target archers think of bare bows. I heard it for over 20 years. 



> For some reason you appear to dislike recurve freestyle.


 LOL. Good one Rick! I guess that was meant to solicit a response?  Aside from it being a preposterous statement, my opinion on OR, Trad and target barebow come from many years of experience with each, at a pretty high level, with each. So I feel I am qualified to offer an objective, informed opinion. I think when people who are very well versed in one discipline begin offering their opinion on disciplines they have little experience with, that's where the rub begins. I don't offer many opinions on compound archery, for that very reason. I don't feel qualified to.

I'm glad to hear you have experience with barebow, from the 60's, but modern recurve barebow target archery is making a comeback, for a good reason. And it seems dismissive to suggest they should be used for something other than the style of target archery that OR's and compounds are used for. What you're describing is traditional barebow or longbow archery, not modern recurve barebow which is what I think this thread is about.

You are 100% correct that the goal is to enjoy archery. I'm glad we have three distinctly different disciplines within World Archery because each appeals to a certain personality. 

But I do stand by my statement that if another bow was used in the Olympics, we'd hear a huge sucking sound at all the OR vendor's booths and factories. But there is of course no way to prove that, so getting upset about an opinion on it is kinda pointless.

So Rick, I'm open minded about competing with different disciplines. I've (obviously) competed with the OR and the Barebow, and even the compound, and have enjoyed my time with each. How about you? Are you open minded enough to compete with a barebow? I'd love to see that. I think a lot of people would. We can always use another good barebow archer on the line.


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

Hey Rick, Do you have any links/sources where I can learn about the history of FITA.


----------



## Rick McKinney (Mar 4, 2008)

First off, I am not baiting you. I thought since you gave the At'ers your opinion of what you thought of my "thoughts", I figured I would let you know my thoughts on your thoughts of my thoughts.....  



limbwalker said:


> I lived in the "trad" world for a long time before I ever picked up a target bow, so I am especially in tune with what target archers think of bare bows. I heard it for over 20 years.


As for what you have heard for 20 years from recurve freestyle archers, I think you have pooled all recurve freestyle archers into one mindset, which I totally disagree with you. There are more personalities in archery than there are divisions and age groups! Thus, you heard what you wanted to hear. I would hazard to guess you ignored those who thought highly of your discipline or had no opinion of it one way or the other. I too have lived through an era of listening to belittlement from release shooters when I was training with my recurve freestyle system or heard barebow shooters put me down for needing "help" using sights and stabilizers. However, I know there are far more good archers out there than a few "bigots". One of my best friends is a barebow archer and not once have we put the other down because he chose his style or I chose mine. 

Sorry, I do not have your years of experience since I mainly focused on one discipline. Each of us has a goal in mind in what we go after. Mine was entirely different than yours. This does not mean one is better, it just means that we each had different goals. 

I personally believe you are wrong about recurve freestyle since it evolved from barebow and the majority of archers worldwide chose that discipline over the other. When the compound bow was accepted by WA, the balance was tipped again, however, the compound and freestlye recurve has enough followers to be considered to be in the Olympics. The barebow does not have enough followers worldwide, but with your effort and others, just maybe you can turn that tide. 

As for me shooting barebow, at this time I am interested in shooting the compound to see how it goes. My body doesn't allow me to enjoy recurve as much as I used to.


----------



## Rick McKinney (Mar 4, 2008)

Mr. Roboto said:


> Hey Rick, Do you have any links/sources where I can learn about the history of FITA.


There are three books by Robert Rhode, "History of the Federation Internationale De Tir A L'arc" Volume 1, 2 & 3. You might be able to get them from Arlyne Rhode from US Archer. If not, she would be able to tell you where you can get them.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Rick McKinney said:


> I would like to see barebow in the Olympics as a skeet/trap shooting format. These new foam discs that are used appear to be a popular thing and it portrays what a barebow archer can do on a moving target. It also allows the uniqueness that the Olympic Committee is asking for.


Assuming the general public can tell a bow from a shotgun - somedays I'm not so sure... :embara: 

However, Laporte does make a foam trap thrower for archery. So, Olympic humor aside, the foam throwers are fun. I've had fun shooting using cruder versions, but worried as my arrows came crashing to the ground attached to a relatively heavy (not a laporte) ethafoam disc.



Rick McKinney said:


> As for the rest...you might want to read the history about F.I.T.A. and how they evolved into the style of archery that is being used in the Olympics. It isn't just about one country.


Even as a founding member, the US/NAA ignored FITA for decades. You couldn't even buy 10 ring FITA targets in the US. The 5 ring target was the official target of the NAA.

Texarc got permission from Arlyne Rhode to scan and post The History of FITA by Robert Rhode - which is more a collection of primary documents, such as meeting minutes, than a narrative history. I found it fascinating none the less. (I'm not sure if he has all the volumes, though.)

He also has Rhode's history of the NAA. 

http://www.texasarchery.org/Documents/NAAHist/

A huge thank you to texarc and the Rhode's for this. These are the kinds of thing FITA and the NAA should be preserving and posting to the web, and neither does. They both only pay lip service to their history, if that.


----------



## Rick McKinney (Mar 4, 2008)

Good info Warbow. I did not realize that Ron had scared the books. Glad somebody took the initiative (kudos to Ron!). 

Yes, NAA was resistant like most groups. It appears nobody likes change. I recall in 1976 Clayton Shenk announced that the NAA Nationals would be a double FITA instead of 1 FITA and two 900 rounds. The membership just about strung up Clayton on the spot! George got up and spoke to the membership and calmed them down. It was decided during that time to follow FITA's rules voted on by the NAA membership, thus here we are, following FITA rules. The one thing I like about the following of FITA rules is that it is consistent with 100+ other countries. It may not be perfect, however, we are following the same rules as the rest of the world. It is not the only organization that an archer can join though, as you all know. We have the IBO, ASA, NFAA and now there is a new professional organization starting up, plus I am not familiar with the "Trad" groups, but I am sure they have their own organization as well. That's the beauty of archery. There are so many avenues you can choose to follow. Pick one and enjoy it. It doesn't really matter what the rest are doing, if you enjoy it.


----------



## Pete53 (Dec 5, 2011)

Rick McKinney said:


> I would like to see barebow in the Olympics as a skeet/trap shooting format. These new foam discs that are used appear to be a popular thing and it portrays what a barebow archer can do on a moving target. It also allows the uniqueness that the Olympic Committee is asking for.
> 
> As for the rest...you might want to read the history about F.I.T.A. and how they evolved into the style of archery that is being used in the Olympics. It isn't just about one country.


yes I think this is a great solution for the barebow archers in the Olympics, and would that be fun to watch !


----------



## cc46 (Jan 22, 2005)

I would not want to watch barebow shooters at the Olympics. 


I would watch compound shooters at 70m and a 80cnm or 90 cm target.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> My body doesn't allow me to enjoy recurve as much as I used to.


Rick, there is a reason I'm competing with the barebow and not the recurve anymore.  

And cc46, let's hear why. That could be interesting.


----------



## pjfmad (Aug 11, 2015)

Yes!!


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Okay, so am I just being dense and not seeing them, or did Rick and my responses get deleted?


----------



## cc46 (Jan 22, 2005)

I posted a few days ago, but I can't see every post now, anyway I saw on my phone an email from AT that John aka Limbwalker replied asking me why I wouldn't watch barebow at the Olympics, well, it's just a personal preference. 

If barebow included skis or running then I'd think it'd be interesting and I'd watch. 

But seriously if compound is introduced along with the current version of recurve I think that's enough. I watch diving and swimming and track and gymnastics but there are so many events in those sports that I barely keep track of. The beauty of archery is it's uniqueness, and it's history in every culture in the world. 4 Distance Olympic archery has heritage in warfare between armies, but now single distance and match play, is warrior against warrior. I'm just not sure barebow plus the others would get enough attention.


----------



## cc46 (Jan 22, 2005)

Hey AT, my screen shows Limbwalker's post #80 and my post a few minutes ago numbered 107. Does that mean 26 or 27 posts are missing from my screen?


----------

