# 1st PRO Poll



## Two Bears (Feb 9, 2005)

PRO's where do you stand on the arrow size for indoor tournaments?

Do you think the arrow size should be restricted like the NAA to 2315?

Should the scoring be inside out x's and let you shoot what ever you want?


----------



## Two Bears (Feb 9, 2005)

And please tell us why you SWING one way vs the other.


----------



## Aceman (Oct 28, 2003)

How about don't do anything at all. Or restric it to a 27 size shaft. scoring inside out x's is not the answer i can tell you that for sure.


----------



## Brown Hornet (Aug 8, 2002)

Aceman said:


> How about don't do anything at all. Or restric it to a 27 size shaft. scoring inside out x's is not the answer i can tell you that for sure.


I agree....Inside out scoring doesn't change anything really for anyone but the avg shooter. The big dawgs are still gonna shoot close to the same scores. I would bet that majority of the 58-60X rounds are shot with 50-57 inside outs. 

But I would be for an arrow rule of some sort...either nothing bigger then what is out now or go to the 9.3 size so EVERY org is the same.


----------



## rpford53 (Jul 21, 2006)

Inside out won't work or change anything, but restricting the arrow size will make it tougher and the marginal shoot will shoot lower X counts and scores.


----------



## CHPro (May 21, 2002)

Couldn't vote because I'm not in favor of either option. 

I don't see the sense in introducing yet another way of scoring the targets for starters. All other orgs, except IFAA, score "touch" to score the higher value. IFAA still "cut" probably because that was the way NFAA used to score and they haven't changed their rules. People going from NFAA to IBO/ASA/NAA/FITA would have to adapt yet again to another set of shooting rules. Plus, I still do not believe going to i/o scoring would help anything. Seems those that propose this assume the top archers will continue to shoot their big arrows. If you go to i/o I see no reason not to pull out the X10's and other small arrows since you'll more drastically increase your scoring area going i/o with these than you do going to a fatter 27 shaft to catch a few extra lines, imo. I can pretty much guarantee the target butts used for NFAA/WAF events will not handle many shots by the skinnier arrows into a small area before pass-thrus become commonplace. Been there, seen that at Pittsburgh.

And I've expressed my reasons to not support an international standard for arrow size. Why support a standardized arrow size when several other equipment and classes are not standardized as well internationally. I mean, if we're going to go to a 2315 max because that's what FITA has, then I say we also cap bows at 60#, eliminate the speed limits, and get rid of all the NFAA classes, and get rid of the sight lights, angle compensators, rangefinders, Palms, etc., etc.. Then we'd truly have an international standard for those who compete in both venues. I'm not in favor of that because, imo, the NFAA is a unique org which is very specific to the North American continent and shouldn't have to be concerned with any sort of "international" standards. The number of people in the US (compound) who compete in both the NAA and NFAA is a small % of the total NFAA archers and if they wish to have either 2 set-ups to compete in both or opt to shoot one set of arrows legal for both, then they can work around those issues themselves.

And for the record, I do support a size limit. Just not a 2315 just because that is what is used "internationally". 27 or 26 would get my vote just to put an end to the current "arms race". 27 seemed to be good enough for IBO and ASA, both heavily flavored US orgs. Not sure why the NFAA couldn't follow suit so our continent has a similar rule across the board. Betting there are more cross-over competitors in ASA/IBO with NFAA than there are NAA w/ NFAA.

Just a few thoughts.......

>>------->


----------



## itchyfinger (Jun 14, 2007)

Interesting point about the skinny arrows. It would make sense to use a skinny arrow if inside out would be inforced but then the arguement that 27's destroy targets would now be pushed on the skinny arrows.  So that brings back a "happy medium" sized arrow. this whole situation seems like catch 22. In this world where minority vote rules how can anyone get anything done. I really feel for the pros. I mean this is their job and they can't get a solid answer on anything.





CHPro said:


> Couldn't vote because I'm not in favor of either option.
> 
> I don't see the sense in introducing yet another way of scoring the targets for starters. All other orgs, except IFAA, score "touch" to score the higher value. IFAA still "cut" probably because that was the way NFAA used to score and they haven't changed their rules. People going from NFAA to IBO/ASA/NAA/FITA would have to adapt yet again to another set of shooting rules. Plus, I still do not believe going to i/o scoring would help anything. Seems those that propose this assume the top archers will continue to shoot their big arrows. If you go to i/o I see no reason not to pull out the X10's and other small arrows since you'll more drastically increase your scoring area going i/o with these than you do going to a fatter 27 shaft to catch a few extra lines, imo. I can pretty much guarantee the target butts used for NFAA/WAF events will not handle many shots by the skinnier arrows into a small area before pass-thrus become commonplace. Been there, seen that at Pittsburgh.
> 
> ...


----------



## Brown Hornet (Aug 8, 2002)

CHPro said:


> Couldn't vote because I'm not in favor of either option.
> 
> I don't see the sense in introducing yet another way of scoring the targets for starters. All other orgs, except IFAA, score "touch" to score the higher value. IFAA still "cut" probably because that was the way NFAA used to score and they haven't changed their rules. People going from NFAA to IBO/ASA/NAA/FITA would have to adapt yet again to another set of shooting rules. Plus, I still do not believe going to i/o scoring would help anything. Seems those that propose this assume the top archers will continue to shoot their big arrows. If you go to i/o I see no reason not to pull out the X10's and other small arrows since you'll more drastically increase your scoring area going i/o with these than you do going to a fatter 27 shaft to catch a few extra lines, imo. I can pretty much guarantee the target butts used for NFAA/WAF events will not handle many shots by the skinnier arrows into a small area before pass-thrus become commonplace. Been there, seen that at Pittsburgh.
> 
> ...


I have been saying that for sometime now....:wink:

The object is to put em in the middle...you shoot what you want and I shoot what I want....let the dust settle and declare a winner


----------



## FV Chuck (Dec 11, 2004)

CHPro said:


> Couldn't vote because I'm not in favor of either option.
> 
> I don't see the sense in introducing yet another way of scoring the targets for starters. All other orgs, except IFAA, score "touch" to score the higher value. IFAA still "cut" probably because that was the way NFAA used to score and they haven't changed their rules. People going from NFAA to IBO/ASA/NAA/FITA would have to adapt yet again to another set of shooting rules. Plus, I still do not believe going to i/o scoring would help anything. Seems those that propose this assume the top archers will continue to shoot their big arrows. If you go to i/o I see no reason not to pull out the X10's and other small arrows since you'll more drastically increase your scoring area going i/o with these than you do going to a fatter 27 shaft to catch a few extra lines, imo. I can pretty much guarantee the target butts used for NFAA/WAF events will not handle many shots by the skinnier arrows into a small area before pass-thrus become commonplace. Been there, seen that at Pittsburgh.
> 
> ...


yep...What he said.....

Chuck


----------



## The Swami (Jan 16, 2008)

I, like Jeff don't like the options in the poll.

I am for a limit and I think there needs to be one. I am in favor of eventually getting to a 23 series limit, but I like the phased approach like others in the general section have mentioned. I say cap it at 26 or 27 now with it going to 23 in 2 or so years.

We have target faces that are now a fair and good test of your ability. If we let those arrows get to big, then we obsolete those faces. That brings a lot of factors into the equation that could really mess up participation for indoor archery.

It is still a pretty good test with 27 sized arrows, but we need to cap it ASAP.

I am shooting 2314s right now and shot them in Vegas. I could have shot 2512s and maybe gained a point and some Xs, but I could have shot worse too.

FYI - I am not sponsered by an arrow company at all so factor that into my opinion.


----------



## centerx (Jun 13, 2002)

Odd I was thinking of Jeff's comments just this morning… concerning the 2315 to be "in line" with the international community when nothing else is …Although a phase in period or a current cap works fine as far as I am concerned… What ever works out the best for the largest cross section of archers, Orgs and manufacturers

As far as I/O scoring… I have frequently brought that up … I am neither for or against such an idea… it's just an idea that has several intereresting prospects to it and may eliminate some problems…. May create a few as well??.. As long as the rules are the same , fair and consistent is the primary and only concern 

Small diameter shafts eventually will cause target damage just like there Fat shaft counterparts….. It is a different kind of damage and you can better utilize the face of the target over a longer period of time. However you have to be pro active and prepare the back for more pass through …I can do all kind of "stuff" to prevent pass through. However, once a face will no longer support a target or hold arrows in the target very well for scoring it is in essence ruined.. Smaller shafts will allow a target butt's surface to take more damage over the long haul…. If I am shooting out a 1 square inch area I have to move the target over an inch.. If I am shooting out 2 inch area I have to move it over 2 inches


----------



## itchyfinger (Jun 14, 2007)

centerx said:


> Odd I was thinking of Jeff's comments just this morning… concerning the 2315 to be "in line" with the international community when nothing else is …Although a phase in period or a current cap works fine as far as I am concerned… What ever works out the best for the largest cross section of archers, Orgs and manufacturers
> 
> As far as I/O scoring… I have frequently brought that up … I am neither for or against such an idea… it's just an idea that has several intereresting prospects to it and may eliminate some problems…. May create a few as well??.. As long as the rules are the same , fair and consistent is the primary and only concern
> 
> Small diameter shafts eventually will cause target damage just like there Fat shaft counterparts….. It is a different kind of damage and you can better utilize the face of the target over a longer period of time. However you have to be pro active and prepare the back for more pass through …I can do all kind of "stuff" to prevent pass through. However, once a face will no longer support a target or hold arrows in the target very well for scoring it is in essence ruined.. Smaller shafts will allow a target butt's surface to take more damage over the long haul…. If I am shooting out a 1 square inch area I have to move the target over an inch.. If I am shooting out 2 inch area I have to move it over 2 inches



I love smaller diameter arrows. I prefer them because I know I can get them to spine for my setup easier than the bigger arrows. That's just my tastes. I shoot 2214's but everyone in my league shoots the 26's. Since I joined the local club I have taken closer notice to target damage (since I have unlimited access) I notice that the difference in my favorite lane vs the favorite lane of a 26 shooter is not that great. I just think that the arguement that 27's cause too much damage is silly. the 27's are a fraction of an inch from the 26's. You would think my 22's would cause waaay less damage but in reality they just don't. Target damage is something club owners have to deal with and I don't think they will have to change them any sooner regardless if everyone shoots 27's or nano's.


----------



## WV Has Been (Aug 9, 2002)

itchyfinger said:


> I love smaller diameter arrows. I prefer them because I know I can get them to spine for my setup easier than the bigger arrows. That's just my tastes. I shoot 2214's but everyone in my league shoots the 26's. Since I joined the local club I have taken closer notice to target damage (since I have unlimited access) I notice that the difference in my favorite lane vs the favorite lane of a 26 shooter is not that great. I just think that the arguement that 27's cause too much damage is silly. the 27's are a fraction of an inch from the 26's. You would think my 22's would cause waaay less damage but in reality they just don't. Target damage is something club owners have to deal with and I don't think they will have to change them any sooner regardless if everyone shoots 27's or nano's.


I disagree. I belong to a club that has been shooting into the same back stop material for 15 years. We use to get three years out of the back stops. As the arrow size increased the duration of time that the backstop lasted decreased. Around 8 years ago we still had mix of large and small shafts. the back stop still lasted 2 years. Now we have 99% of the shooters shooting 26-27 size shafts and will not make a full indoor season without having to replace a butt or two. 

Now I am not downplaying your example of damage but there is no other explanation on why our backstop only last a third of the time they used to last.


----------



## centerx (Jun 13, 2002)

All I know is I can stop a pass through on a butt with a good face.. When that face ceases to be able to be scored on or hold a target it is worthless to me ...

I have also have noticed when a heavier fat shaft does not hit "square" and "kicks" the kinetic energy allows for a much bigger "tear" in the material

I don't think any mumbo jumbo scientific test has been conducted to prove or disprove the concept


----------



## Jim Pruitte (May 27, 2002)

WV Has Been said:


> I disagree. I belong to a club that has been shooting into the same back stop material for 15 years. We use to get three years out of the back stops. As the arrow size increased the duration of time that the backstop lasted decreased. Around 8 years ago we still had mix of large and small shafts. the back stop still lasted 2 years. Now we have 99% of the shooters shooting 26-27 size shafts and will not make a full indoor season without having to replace a butt or two.
> 
> Now I am not downplaying your example of damage but there is no other explanation on why our backstop only last a third of the time they used to last.



Agreed


----------



## WV Has Been (Aug 9, 2002)

Many viable points have been brought up on this subject in other threads. I think the manufactures should make an effort to meet the orgs int the middle. The way it stands now the orgs are going to the manufactures side with no effort from the manufacture to meet the orgs in the middle. I am not aware of any manufactures contacting our directors prior to making changes in there product line. So out of respect for the Orgs I fail to see why the Org should contact the manufacture to make a rule change. 

This is the reason that we have manufactures getting bashed. Many look at the situation as strong-arming.

The situation is a bit awkward for many. Kind of puts them in the middle. They represent manufactures as well as support the NFAA.

I don't know what the best answer is but I can assure you it is not bending backward to allow any manufacture to dictate the way our directors vote. I think that a middle of the road approach would be more acceptable to the members of our Org.


----------



## SuperX (May 21, 2002)

*Some thoughts*

Since this is not a restricted forum (and I don't ask that it is) be careful you don't read too much into the results as there is no guarantee this is treuly what the PROs want... anyone can vote.

Inside out scoring - or any toughening of the scoring system at all - has a tendency to lose shooters. I don't think that is the direction we need to take archery as a whole.

A voluntary size restriction by the pro division is not feasible, enforcable, or sensible. It is not likely that the guys shooting for 70K will give up any legal advantage they may get just to appease a subset of archers who feel strongly about a limit. 

The pros shoot any size shaft in the same hole so it doesn't really save anything to shoot smaller shafts, in fact they will often pass through faster than a fat shaft. 

Target Butt damage seems to favor the butt manufactures. If we damage the butts, they can sell more targets. If the shop or orgs need to buy more target butts they will pass the price on to the shooters in the form of higher range fees or entry fees. If archers don't want to pay more to shoot they should shoot lower poundage or bigger groups :wink: Or patronize the target company that builds a better target butt

If smaller arrows truly were better then all the pros would shoot them - the truth is the majority of us get slightly higher indoor scores on average with fat shafts so we use them even if they don't spine perfectly.

Just my $.02


----------



## Jeff Heeg (Nov 24, 2005)

Folks

A cap on the overall max diameter may be of importance and for now I would favor the 26-27 area,
There has been a large amount of discussion based on the average lifetime of our backstops today compared say eight years ago or so and yes arrow diameter has increased some. I still would say that the increased wear and tare on back stops today is more so the advancement or technology in our bows versus the arrow diameter there were a lot of 22-23-24 series arrows shot years ago without to much concern but you take the increase in the efficiency and energy / speed factors of today’s bows this is where the backstops are taking the wear.
Having to be a line judge and also be responsible for good quality backstops as being a member of the hosting organization I have noticed that it’s not really just the fatter arrows that are sinking deep 
My feelings as stated I would say the advancement in our bows today with or without the combination of arrow diameters has surpassed the advancement in arrow stopping abilities of today’s backstops thus causing them top break down quicker 

Maybe I’m a wet but that’s my opinion


----------



## itchyfinger (Jun 14, 2007)

WV Has Been said:


> I disagree. I belong to a club that has been shooting into the same back stop material for 15 years. We use to get three years out of the back stops. As the arrow size increased the duration of time that the backstop lasted decreased. Around 8 years ago we still had mix of large and small shafts. the back stop still lasted 2 years. Now we have 99% of the shooters shooting 26-27 size shafts and will not make a full indoor season without having to replace a butt or two.
> 
> Now I am not downplaying your example of damage but there is no other explanation on why our backstop only last a third of the time they used to last.


Our club is very small. So my observation is probally not a good example. I personally have not seen much difference. Between me and the club owner (the 26 shooter) we make up 80-90% of the arrows shot into the bales. With your example I can clearly see why club owners would be hit hard considering how expensive it is for those range type bales.


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

WV Has Been said:


> I disagree. I belong to a club that has been shooting into the same back stop material for 15 years. We use to get three years out of the back stops. As the arrow size increased the duration of time that the backstop lasted decreased. Around 8 years ago we still had mix of large and small shafts. the back stop still lasted 2 years. Now we have 99% of the shooters shooting 26-27 size shafts and will not make a full indoor season without having to replace a butt or two.
> 
> Now I am not downplaying your example of damage but there is no other explanation on why our backstop only last a third of the time they used to last.


We replaced all our bales two weeks before the Presley's Midwest Open...The vast majority of the shooters at that single tournament were shooting 26's or 25.....because NOBODY could get ahold of any 27's! Anyways, it was quickly noted at the end of that shoot that our BLOCK targets were really shot up much worse that in the past...due to the heavy concentration on those bales of nearly all archers shooting the HEAVY 26's with at least 150 grains or more in point weight.

For our leagues, most shooters are also shooting the 26's and this year, point weights are up from the 150 grains to running 200 grains or more...AND a FEW (very few) are now shooting 27's with 300 grain points in them....

The owner has already said that he wants a size limit of 27...and NOTHING larger....he isn't happy that he will most likely not make it thru the "indoor season" without having to replace most of the BLOCK bales...where in the past...they lasted a FULL 12 months or a bit more....these are NOT going to make it this time.

We'll have NEW bales in November again...for the Midwest Open, but more than likely...a 27 max limit shaft size will be part of it...to follow suit with Lancaster's....and self-imposed SHOP LIMITS on shaft size.

Personally, I just think the LIMIT needs to be set....preferably at 26, with MAYBE a "phase down" to the 23's....but if the 9.3mm doesn't come to pass....FINE...as long as the limit is set ASAP at the most of 27 diameter and NO MORE THAN THAT.

Several of the "local shooters" are in the process of self-imposed shaft size limits of correctly spined arrows regardless of diameter...and DOWNSIZING away from the 25's, 26's, and 27's...and even the 24's. MANY are just going with ACC's, GT ULPros, Carbon Express small diameters, etc...that FIT THEIR SPINE REQUIREMENTS.

field14


----------



## NEVADAPRO (Jul 5, 2007)

I agree and will go in the opposite direction! When I owned my shop, we had the NEW Hips target wall with replaceable cores. At that time, there were no carbon arrows around! Everyone shot the massive 2213's! Then the carbons came and our Hips targets started lasting 2 or 3 times longer! Stanley actually called us to find out if business had dropped off and to see if there was anything he could do to help!! 

There is NO doubt that large diameter arrows will reduce the life of the targets! Also, Frank Pearson was at our local indoor range before Vegas and was shooting CUSTOM arrows (5/8" diameter!!) and I can tell you first hand, they leave one heck of a hole!!!





WV Has Been said:


> I disagree. I belong to a club that has been shooting into the same back stop material for 15 years. We use to get three years out of the back stops. As the arrow size increased the duration of time that the backstop lasted decreased. Around 8 years ago we still had mix of large and small shafts. the back stop still lasted 2 years. Now we have 99% of the shooters shooting 26-27 size shafts and will not make a full indoor season without having to replace a butt or two.
> 
> Now I am not downplaying your example of damage but there is no other explanation on why our backstop only last a third of the time they used to last.


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

SuperX said:


> Since this is not a restricted forum (and I don't ask that it is) be careful you don't read too much into the results as there is no guarantee this is treuly what the PROs want... anyone can vote.
> 
> Inside out scoring - or any toughening of the scoring system at all - has a tendency to lose shooters. I don't think that is the direction we need to take archery as a whole.
> 
> ...


You raise a couple of good points here.

First off, if this is going to be an open forum is there any merit to you pros adding that fact in your sig so we mere mortals can see who is who?

Inside out I doubt will ever be popular, might as well count the centre of the group for all 3 and reduce the overall total score for the round by a factor of 3.

I think newer material's will eventually take care of the target damage issue. Longer lasting targets butts are always being developed been that way for ever.

The slightly higher scores with fat shafts intrigues me as this is the only real motive I have heard that would make a compelling reason to support fat shafts. But it raises a few questions. Are the scores higher because of linecutting ability? Or is it more consistent arrow flight? Curiosity here is piqued because I cannot find a _*technical*_ reason for the development of the fat shaft. In other words I see it as an evolutionary dead end, with only indoor applications as far as arrows go.


----------



## SuperX (May 21, 2002)

Hutnicks said:


> The slightly higher scores with fat shafts intrigues me as this is the only real motive I have heard that would make a compelling reason to support fat shafts. But it raises a few questions. Are the scores higher because of linecutting ability? Or is it more consistent arrow flight? Curiosity here is piqued because I cannot find a _*technical*_ reason for the development of the fat shaft. In other words I see it as an evolutionary dead end, with only indoor applications as far as arrows go.


I think it is as simple as it seems - you have a larger chance of catching the higher scoring area because the arrow is wider. I think that is as technical as it gets. If it didn't work nobody would do it


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

SuperX said:


> I think it is as simple as it seems - you have a larger chance of catching the higher scoring area because the arrow is wider. I think that is as technical as it gets. If it didn't work nobody would do it


 Hmmm. Then basically it's just a workaround for the size of the target face, kinda like trying to sneak a .22 cal airgun into a 10M competition


----------



## DRFrance (Feb 4, 2006)

*9.3 is Reasonable*

9.3 is a reasonable rule.

Really does not matter to most of our games. I agree a limit should be set. Either make it 26/64 to continue with the general status quo or go with the World Standard of 9.3.

Personally I would like to see us go to the next higher level of challenge and adopt the 9.3 rule as the standard. The average ability level at Nationals is ever increasing.


----------



## 2fingers (Feb 2, 2006)

neither!! 



At the shop i work at we did a test i shot my fat arrows at 63lbs and the shop owner shot his x10's at 63lbs.we shot at the same 4x4 block next to eachother. after 12 ends he was punching through the back of the target butt and i was not even going half the way though. we both shoot 56x plus and both had about the same group sizes. we then switched targets and shot 6 more ends. after the 6 ends he was punching through the back and i was still only going half way through on his target. how are the fat shafts all the blame. once you start punching out the back with the small arrows will that lossen up the target butts? then the fat arrows punch more out the back? or is it the fat arrows chew up the front and the small arrows punch out the back???


----------

