# Recurves vs Compounds



## CM JOAD (Oct 9, 2005)

I was very surprised when I saw the inequality of the NAA support between the Recurve archers and the Compound archers for the Jr. World Championships in October. Basically, for the Recurve Archers, the NAA is paying for uniforms, registration, airlines, hotel, food and ground transportation. For the Compound archers, the NAA is paying for uniforms and registration. That's it! This amounts to about $2,000 difference for each of the 12 Compound Shooters on the team! Without some help, I would be very surprised if all 12 of these kids will actual be able to fulfill their dreams.


----------



## PhotoDuck (Jul 17, 2004)

If there was a sudden and continuing surge of financial support to the NAA from compound shooters and bowhunting orgs, Im sure they would change.

Their focus is to get people trained up for the Olympics. 

Compound shooters tend to financially support and favor organizations like the NFAA, ASA, IBO, and other 3d orgs. 

IMHO It is what they have to do to meet their goals and stay financially solvent.


----------



## bownut-tl. (Sep 21, 2003)

*Previous Jr World Tournament in England*

CMJOAD, I understand your feelings about this. I was disappointed two years ago. At that time, the NAA funded the juniors in both recurve and compound and only the top finishing Cadet. The shooter I coached came in second in the trials and she had to pay her way to England from Washington State. The cost was about $3000.

Terry L.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

I understand your frustration, but you have to understand who is paying the bills here (USOC).

There were also some very inappropriate comments (outbursts in fact) made at the meeting following the trials by some compound shooters and their parents.

This is unnecessary and unfortunate. The NAA staff and coaches have responsibilities and are professionals, and don't deserve some of the criticism they recieved. They themselves support both compound and recurve archery, but have been given little choice when it comes to funding.

Until compound archery is included as an olympic sport, there will unfortunately always be this kind of disparity. 

The NAA is, after all, the governing body for the Olympic sport of archery, and as of yet, compounds are not in.

I have thought a lot about this over the past 3 years, and I would absolutely love to see both compounds and barebow archery added to the Olympics. Three diciplines, with Compounds shooting 90 meters, Recurves shooting 70, and barebow archers shooting 50. I think it would be wonderful for the sport.

I mean, if we can have indoor cycling, road racing and mountain biking, then why the He*& can't we have 3 archery diciplines????

John.


----------



## CM JOAD (Oct 9, 2005)

PhotoDuck said:


> Their focus is to get people trained up for the Olympics.


Up until about a year ago, Brady Ellison was a compound shooter. He is now one of the elite recurve shooters. I don't think it is a good idea to ignore these talented kids. Did Brady suddenly become a "real archer" a year ago?


----------



## CM JOAD (Oct 9, 2005)

PhotoDuck said:


> If there was a sudden and continuing surge of financial support to the NAA from compound shooters and bowhunting orgs, Im sure they would change.


Would you point me toward the "sudden and continuing surge of financial support" coming from the Recurve Community? Where does the NAA and the Olympic Committee get most of their support? Do you think that some of the Compounder's membershp money is directed to the Recurver camp? Maybe they should separate the memberships and give support back to the type of bow that each of the members shoots? Put a box on the membership asking members where they would like their membership to go?

It would be interesting to see just how much the compounder DO support the NAA. Or I should say USED TO support the NAA?


----------



## CM JOAD (Oct 9, 2005)

limbwalker said:


> I understand your frustration, but you have to understand who is paying the bills here (USOC).


Where does the USOC get it's funding? Is there public money involved? If there is public money, how do you differentiate? These boys are all archers first, and type of dicipline second. Is there a website that we can look at the USOC's funding sources and their budget?


----------



## CM JOAD (Oct 9, 2005)

*Unsupported Mandates.*

Not only are the compound kids "unsupported", parents aren't being allowed to economize. A flight directly to Mexico would be cheaper than two separate flights, i.e. flying in to Houston, then flying flying to Mexico as a team. Inconvenient you say? How about the financial inconvenience for the parents that are being asked to pay the full fare?


----------



## NavyDMO (Mar 4, 2003)

I was at the awards banquet this Saturday at the Nationals in Colorado Springs. All I can say is that I saw Dave Cousins get a check for $15,000 from Hoyt. Yes the coma is in the right place, Fifteen thousand. I also talked to Camilla Soemod (Denmark) win the Female Compound, she gets some good money from Mathews as well (4 times as much as she got before when she shot a Hoyt).

I guess my point is that there is definitely money in Compounds but it comes from the industry not the NAA or the OC.

Luis


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> Where does the USOC get it's funding?


Sponsors. And not archery sponsors either. It is NOT "public" money, like in some countries.

But that doesn't change the fact that compounds are not an Olympic dicipline, and they (the USOC) are only interested in supporting Olympic sports. It would be irresponsible for the USOC to spend sponsor's money on a sport that is not in the Olympic games, or not expected to be. I don't know why that's so hard for some folks to see.

As much as we love all of these kids, whether they chose to shoot compound or recurves, there has to be a line of responsibility for the money that is handed out. And we're not talking petty cash either. 

Navy DMO makes a good point too. There is "other" money available for compound shooters. I've yet to see a recurver get a "big" check - ever. I have no problem with that. Recurvers mostly know the game, and know what they are sacrificing when they pick up the "old" bow. Don't you know that Brady knew what was at stake when he changed? I guarantee you he knew.

As for looking a gift horse in the mouth....

Well, I have little patience for folks that complain when they or their kids are offered an opportunity. Unless they learn to appreciate the opportunity, their attitude will always be their biggest roadblock, not the other details.

John.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

limbwalker said:


> I understand your frustration, but you have to understand who is paying the bills here (USOC).
> 
> There were also some very inappropriate comments (outbursts in fact) made at the meeting following the trials by some compound shooters and their parents.
> 
> ...


easy answer to your question John-TV revenues. THere are spectator friendly sports like Golf and Squash (both of which have far far more people doing them worldwide) that are trying to get into the Olympics that are in line. The Olympics ultimately comes down to dollars and face it, some bonafide legitimate sports (many of the shooting sports for example) just aren't as TV popular as other things including some "sports" of dubious merit like synchronized swimming, rythmic gymnastics etc (how many countries even have those two sports-maybe 12 or 14 total) yet they have more photogenic athletes.


THE IOC is trying to cut down on costs while raising MORE $$$$$$$
archery doesn't accomplish that primary directive


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

CM JOAD said:


> Up until about a year ago, Brady Ellison was a compound shooter. He is now one of the elite recurve shooters. I don't think it is a good idea to ignore these talented kids. Did Brady suddenly become a "real archer" a year ago?



YOu make a good point-right now-due to the numbers, there is probably more talent in compound archery because there are so many more. we can discuss whether compounds were good or bad for archery (some long time pros think the compounds killed archery in the USA since it made it possible to be a part time archer to bowhunt but I wont go into that) but its clear, there are alot more kids shooting compounds and the more people you have, the more talent you probably have. (I'd love to see Dave Cousins start shooting recurves-Braden G and Mary Zorn both shot both in the college division)

ON the other hand, Brady didn't become a "real archer" as far as the USOC was concerned until he started competiting in a discipline that could lead to another bunch of medals that the USOC cares about and consequently finances. and sorry, I don't buy the argument that its unfair not to have compounds in the olympics. Compounds get the lions share of everything in this country save USOC dollars. I have shot both and I watch say a Doug Pritchett-US field team, 1275 FITA shooter, and once Darrell retired, the clear top archer in Ohio for years, and he gets less help than probably 30 compound shooters in Ohio, most of whom haven't trained half as hard, and half as long as he has.

I watched a girl I coach win the IFAA and NFAA indoor last year, and until she made Jr USAT the only sponsors she had were me and her parents while a girl who came in third in the compound division had about 8 sponsors on her shirt. I gave this girl one of our former shop's Hoyt staff positions and I heard more than a few compound locals whine-so I asked them how many of them were number one in the entire country and they mumbled about recurve archery etc.

maybe its time for the big compound organizations and makers to start tossing kids like Corey M and some other kids who bust their butts in compound FITA some of the bucks they give the local 3D heroes.


----------



## CM JOAD (Oct 9, 2005)

limbwalker said:


> As for looking a gift horse in the mouth....
> 
> Well, I have little patience for folks that complain when they or their kids are offered an opportunity. Unless they learn to appreciate the opportunity, their attitude will always be their biggest roadblock, not the other details.
> 
> John.


I appreciate that you can have your opinion. But does your opinion make my opinion less important to me? John, I have an "opportunity" for you, but it is going to cost you $2,000. Interested?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> I have an "opportunity" for you, but it is going to cost you $2,000. Interested?


See, that's just it. I earned an opportunity two years ago that cost me a LOT more than $2,000 (closer to $7K), but you will never hear me complain about it. It was an honor to represent my country to the world, no matter the cost.

When you get right down to it, each archer and parent has sacrificed many times the $2K to earn a spot on a Jr. World team. Geez, just their bows cost more than that in many cases! 

So why on earth would anyone complain about getting exactly what they asked for?

John.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> I'd love to see Dave Cousins start shooting recurves


Jim, I'm pretty sure he did. I asked him at Gold Cup in '04 if he had ever shot a recurve, and he told me he couldn't do better than a 325 (70M) average with the recurve, so he would rather shoot the compound instead.

Different strokes...

Excellent points about the two archers you used as examples.

Again, if someone goes to a world or Olympic team trials, they should know what they are getting themselves into. And if they are fortunate enough to make a team, they should be damn glad they have the opportunity to represent their country, and not gripe about it. 

That's my opinion.

John.


----------



## L Sinclair (May 24, 2005)

The USOC is only funding SOME of the recurve community. 

In 2004, most recurve and compound archers went unfunded for Jr. Worlds (it was only the top 4 Juniors...no cadets). They not only received full funding, but also received stipends to attend the Jr. Worlds, while 28 other kids were unfunded. The tab for the trip was double of this one---$3000+

In 2004, NONE of the college archers, recurve or compound, were funded.

In 2005, NONE of the college archers, recurve or compound, were funded.

In 2006, NONE of the college archers, . recurve or compound, were funded. Archers had to write a check for $3000 the day of team selection.

Then there's the world field teams for the same years....
compound and recurve---NON FUNDED.

It didn't matter what bow they shot, they didn't have funding. 
It's not an issue of recurve vs compound. 
It's an issue of resources, priorities, leadership, and marketing. 

To try out for the 2006 Jr. World team, compound archers and their parents had to be prepared to pay the full cost or they wouldn't have tried out. 

Shelley Christiansen's efforts, along with Jay Susan to sell donated dvd's has brought in some money, but you would be amazed at how few people offered to help like Jay did. Yet, there were many parents who wondered where funding was going to come from.

One compound cadet archer can receive a $1000 scholarship through Clarke Sinclair Memorial Archery Scholarship. That covers 2/3 of the trip.

Planning has to start long before the teams are selected. It was well known there was no funding for this team.... beyond the mail-in which had limited participation, not one fundraiser was set up. 

As the president of a nonprofit corporation dedicated solely to supporting youth and collegiate archers, esp those making World Teams, I can tell you that the lack of support from the archery community is disheartening. We've funded more than $6000 to youth and college archers in less than 2 years, yet the bulk of the donations has come from outside archery. Efforts by a few will never be enough to take care of all these unfunded teams. 

In Honor of Clarke,
Lorretta Sinclair
www.clarkesinclair.org


----------



## rodeoman67 (Nov 10, 2004)

*compound*

what would the turn out be at the naa shoots if the compounds were not there and only went to the nfaa where it seems the compound is more welcome.


----------



## Guest (Aug 8, 2006)

I suspect they would lose about half from the results list. We had something very similar happen here with our Provincial body.They funded recurves and limited compounds even though they brought home most of the medals,it finaly came to a head and the compounds for the most part left for a new org. which in a few years time nearly killed what was left of the recurvers. The simple reality is that they need them and their membership.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Very, very fine, informative post Ms. Sinclair. Thank you.



> compound archers and their parents had to be prepared to pay the full cost or they wouldn't have tried out.


Or better yet, _SHOULDN'T_ have tried out. That's unfair to those who are willing and able, and can cost archers valuable ranking points.



> It was well known there was no funding for this team


Or at least it should have been. The information was available to anyone who cared to look for it. This isn't JOAD class, it's the Junior World Team for goodness' sake. There is no excuse for being uninformed, and the outbursts on the field were totally unacceptable IMO. Tom doesn't deserve that.



> yet the bulk of the donations has come from outside archery


Just like the USOC funding for the NAA...

We have no right to complain.

John.


----------



## Marcus (Jun 19, 2002)

Sorry CMJoad, but that's life. 

We have the same compaints in Australia as well. Our recurve teams are fully funded, our compound teams are pay your own way. 
After many years of whinging from some quarters most have gotten over it and simply accept it now. 
The alternative was that a number of years ago neither team was fully funded. 
You have 2 teams. What is better, one fully funded or neither at all?

I remember the days in Australia where the recurvers paid their own way to the Olympics (my Dad had to) and there was no national training program and no national coach of the calibre of Ki Sik Lee. I remember attending elite camps and getting nothing from it. 
Now our young archers can get scholarships to the institute of sport and work with world class coaches like Ki Sik, Mr Oh, etc and train full time. 
The compounders do not had this, but then, we never have. 

Two of my coached juniors are off to Mexico (from the other side of the world) one is a recurve archer and is fully funded and the other a compounder. Instead of crying about how unfair it is we have gotten off our butts and fundraised the money. The club is working together (and we have another junior going as well) and helping where we can. At no point have those kids gotten bitter over having to raise the money. They are excited to be given the opportunity. 

I'm sorry but Limbwalker is correct. Your attitude is poor. $2000 to represent your country is a bargain. If money is all that matters then keep your kid at home.


----------



## Guest (Aug 9, 2006)

I tend to disagree if I paid the same membership money and got less for it you bet I would raise hell, complian you bet and you should and have every right to, now if they paid less then no problem


----------



## Marcus (Jun 19, 2002)

yep we get that argument too. 
The funds for the trip ARE NOT coming from your membership fees. The USOC would have given the money strictly for the use for the Olympic program. If the NAA spends that money on other things (like compound teams) they will lose ALL their funding and suddenly noone gets anything and both teams must pay their own way. 
No more olympic training centre, no more top head coach, nothing, zip. 

The NAA has no choice in this, if they want any funding they must do what the USOC says. 

We have the same issue in Australia and it works exactly the same way. The CEO of Archery Australia is a compound shooter and would love nothing more than fully funded compound teams, but his hands are tied.


----------



## archery1 (Apr 12, 2003)

My question is: Why are there a compound trials if it will not be at least partially funded?


I am EXTEMELY fortunate that my sponsors and fellow AT'ers are willing to help pay. But as for the others, they most likely will have great trouble. 


It feels like we work hard all year, we prepare for trials, and succeed in reaching our goals. We feel great! And then, in reward to our success and great shooting, we have to pay 3,000 dollars!  



If this pay pal thing works out, I am going to try to split it between the 3 of us so I do not go by myself. I want our TEAM to show up. Not just me. 

A HUGE Thankyou to my sponsors, friends, fellow AT'ers, for all of the help. It is greatly appreciated.

As for the NAA organization, I think you guys could be a tad more fair. Like split the finance between the recurve and the compounds so we all have a chance to go.

That is not intended negatively or sarcastically, nor sound snotty. I just think it would be much more better off that way.

Even if I was one of the curvers who is getting funded, I would still speak up and say split it. it's unfair. Weather I'm the one who's funded, or they are. It just is.


----------



## WarrenDean (Jun 19, 2002)

limbwalker said:


> I understand your frustration, but you have to understand who is paying the bills here (USOC).
> 
> There were also some very inappropriate comments (outbursts in fact) made at the meeting following the trials by some compound shooters and their parents.
> 
> ...



+1 

Excellent points, John.


----------



## Marcus (Jun 19, 2002)

archery1 said:


> My question is: Why are there a compound trials if it will not be at least partially funded?


Because there is not enough money in the NAA to pay for it. 
The NAA is not just you and your friends, it's ALOT of people who all pay their fees and all need something back from the organisation. 
The compound trials are there to select a team. 
Were you told it would be a funded trip before you competed in the trials? Or did you just assume you would be?


----------



## L Sinclair (May 24, 2005)

As a parent who has paid to fund my sons to two different world events (2004 & 2006), I expected to pay to get them there when I was told there wasn't funding for them. We made the decision to 'figure it out' and they tried out with us knowing the VISA card was about to take yet another 'hit'. BUT then, a wonderful thing happened and all kinds of people, some I don't even know, stepped forward to help us out----and it was appreciated beyond belief. The VISA still took a hit, but the kindness and generosity of others made it much easier. Regardless of the 'grown-up' stuff, we need to get these kids funded. 

The estimated cost for the JR. World Team is $1500, not $3000.

We have abt $1200 in dvd sales that will be evenly divided.
Shelley Christensen has more dvds if people will pay for shipping to get them and sell them for a $10 donation.

We have 1 $1000 scholarship to be awarded through a selection process.

Donations specifically earmarked for these team members can be sent via paypal at www.clarkesinclair.or or directly to me. Please make sure you note 'Jr World Team' so the treasurer can differentiate it. 100% of the money will be evenly divided between the unfunded team members. Your donation will be tax deductible.

I think it's important for compound archers to know that they aren't the only ones not being funded for teams. And many of us recurve archers are also unhappy about the funding issues for both compound and 'forgotten' recurve teams. But at this point, the priority is getting $1500 per kid for 12 archers. Several archers apparently already get corporate funding and don't have the same issues as others. We need, as a community, to help the rest of them. It is only through the grassroots efforts that any organization survives.... much less thrives. Let's take care of the kids.

In Honor of Clarke,
Lorretta Sinclair
www.clarkesinclair.org


----------



## Guest (Aug 9, 2006)

Marcus said:


> yep we get that argument too.
> The funds for the trip ARE NOT coming from your membership fees. The USOC would have given the money strictly for the use for the Olympic program. If the NAA spends that money on other things (like compound teams) they will lose ALL their funding and suddenly noone gets anything and both teams must pay their own way.
> No more olympic training centre, no more top head coach, nothing, zip.
> 
> ...


Doesn't matter since both pay the same fees and one has get less. There are all kinds of ways to include both using the allocated funds,and if not then the equal amount should be awarded both with general funds it is an easy fix once you take the us and them out of it.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

I try to do what I can. I also want to tell you a little story. years and years ago, I was selected for a summer program the first year or two of the Olympic training center in Col Springs-a program the then NGB of shooting -the NRA ran. It was the ancestor of the Resident Athlete Program-a several week training camp for top juniors (20 and under). I was fortunate, my father was able to afford the plane fare and ammo which was the only costs. OUT OF THE Blue, without asking, I received a check for like 500 dollars from our state NRA affiliate. THey had heard that I (I was state international skeet champ at 19) had earned this training camp and they gave me enough to buy me ten cases of ammo while i was there. Every kid at the camp had gotten similar support from their state associations-some even had local gun clubs help pick up plane fare.

Where are the state associations, the big clubs etc.? I told my kids if anyone made the world team, the club or failing that, I would make sure they could go.


----------



## archery1 (Apr 12, 2003)

Marcus said:


> Because there is not enough money in the NAA to pay for it.
> The NAA is not just you and your friends, it's ALOT of people who all pay their fees and all need something back from the organisation.
> The compound trials are there to select a team.
> Were you told it would be a funded trip before you competed in the trials? Or did you just assume you would be?



I knew we were not funded. And from the start I did not understand. 


I did not say it's just me and my friends, but I feel that the money for the funding should be split between everyone so we all have to pay a little, verses one side of it pay a lot...


----------



## Marcus (Jun 19, 2002)

There is no point complaining to the NAA about it. Take your complaints to the USOC. Let us know how you go. 
Remember the USOC is paying. 

It would be like Martin giving you a bow, you selling it and buying a Hoyt, and then asking Martin for another bow. 
How well will that go down?


----------



## CM JOAD (Oct 9, 2005)

Sean McKenty said:


> I tend to disagree if I paid the same membership money and got less for it you bet I would raise hell, complian you bet and you should and have every right to, now if they paid less then no problem


John thinks that because that is the way it has been, we should just shut up and let the inequity continue. Sean is right. Compounders will soon say, "Fine, if we are contributing to the organization and not getting support of the organization, then we will start our own organization." And all of the compound money will be gone, and soon the recurve association will be gone. A big reason this is going to happen is because this inequity is exposed and is being discussed on Archery Talk.


----------



## rodeoman67 (Nov 10, 2004)

*World Games*

The more I read and the more Ithink about this the more it p------- me off. I don't care if you are recurve or compound or just have a stick and string . Are these not the world games and are not these shooters going to Mexico to rep. the USA as the USA TEAM. I did not know we the people had to pay to rep. this country. If the NAA or USOC are taking a compound team to these games they should get the same funding as any other team from the USA. When thes kids win the metals as they have done inthe past you can bet the NAA and the USOC will let everyone know that the USA team won. Not that Ryan. John and Paul won NO it will be The USA Compound Team. This country stands for FREEDOM and EQUALTY for ALL not just a few. If this coach and the USOC only wants recurve to rep. the USA don't take the compound team. If this happens I will bet the USA want bring home very many metals. They have'nt in the past. It is time for an org. to get together and stand for the whole USA and stop this b--- s---.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

rodeoman67 said:


> The more I read and the more Ithink about this the more it p------- me off. I don't care if you are recurve or compound or just have a stick and string . Are these not the world games and are not these shooters going to Mexico to rep. the USA as the USA TEAM. I did not know we the people had to pay to rep. this country. If the NAA or USOC are taking a compound team to these games they should get the same funding as any other team from the USA. When thes kids win the metals as they have done inthe past you can bet the NAA and the USOC will let everyone know that the USA team won. Not that Ryan. John and Paul won NO it will be The USA Compound Team. This country stands for FREEDOM and EQUALTY for ALL not just a few. If this coach and the USOC only wants recurve to rep. the USA don't take the compound team. If this happens I will bet the USA want bring home very many metals. They have'nt in the past. It is time for an org. to get together and stand for the whole USA and stop this b--- s---.


great do what I and others do-get out the check book and send Loretta Sinclair's foundation or an archer some $$$$$.

Not all teams in all sports are funded btw.


----------



## Marcus (Jun 19, 2002)

rodeoman67 said:


> If the NAA or USOC are taking a compound team to these games they should get the same funding as any other team from the USA.


What are you? A communist?
Welcome to a capitalist society.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> The CEO of Archery Australia is a compound shooter and would love nothing more than fully funded compound teams, but his hands are tied.


Just like Tom Parrish is a compound shooter (he shot at Nationals), but still runs the high performance program...

Kudo's to him, I say.

Archery1, compounds were at the Jr. WTT because of the relationship between the NAA and FITA, with the responsibility for selecting international teams on the shoulders of the NAA.



> We made the decision to 'figure it out' and they tried out with us knowing the VISA card was about to take yet another 'hit'. BUT then, a wonderful thing happened and all kinds of people, some I don't even know, stepped forward to help us out----and it was appreciated beyond belief. The VISA still took a hit, but the kindness and generosity of others made it much easier.


My wife and I had the exact same experience. Many friends and family, and many folks I've still never met, donated generously to send my wife to Athens. But the fact is, the Visa card (that we were within 2 months of paying off!) took a BIG hit. 

And we'd do it again, too 

John.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> John thinks that because that is the way it has been, we should just shut up and let the inequity continue.


I think nothing of the sort. If you knew me very well, then you'd know I don't *ever* just "shut up and let inequity continue." 

However, I am very loyal, and I always "dance with the one that brought me" so to speak... 

In this case, the USOC is paying the bills, plain and simple, and the USOC has little or no reason to spend money on compound teams until they are wearing five little rings on their uniforms.

I didn't make up the rules after all...

The last thing I will say on this issue is that if compounds were the only bows shot at the Olympic games, what do you think I'd be shooting right now? That's right - A compound. 

I shot a longbow off the shelf before I took up the O.R. for goodness sake! I had no need for all the bells and whistles until I learned the rules of the Olympic game.

If you want to play with the USOC's money, then you just have to use the gear that they use at the Olympics. Seems simple to me. Just like if I want to play with Hoyt, Mathews', or the NFAA's money, then I just have to shoot a Compound. It's not an emotional issue at all. It's just plain business.

I can live with that.

John.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

limbwalker said:


> Just like Tom Parrish is a compound shooter (he shot at Nationals), but still runs the high performance program...
> 
> Kudo's to him, I say.
> 
> ...



John, given the way you have represented this sport I can pretty much confidently state that if you make another team you won't have to worry about the VISA card. You can bank on that:wink:


----------



## xringshooter7 (Aug 29, 2005)

limbwalker said:


> This is unnecessary and unfortunate. The NAA staff and coaches have responsibilities and are professionals, and don't deserve some of the criticism they recieved. They themselves support both compound and recurve archery, but have been given little choice when it comes to funding.


Lets take all of the world teams into perspective. I know people on this years and past years world teams. The NAA has allways seemed to favor recurves in one way or anoter. Okay thats great. But what really gets me is that the NAA is whining about why they have a hard time getting compounds to shoot and getting quality compound teams. Well isn't it obvious. At JOAD Nationals in Lebanon, OH this year, it was blatently obvious that they were catering to the recurves and only letting the compounds shoot to pay the bills. 
I expect to get the same treatment and help as the recurve provided that i pay the same amount of money for the tournament fees and the membership. 
How does the NAA expect to keep going if it keeps makeing the compound people mad. Then they will be really screwed.
Jack


----------



## centerx (Jun 13, 2002)

In don't know why people think you are not getting you monies worth as a compound archer

Everbody KNOWS what the organization is all about when you send your check for $150.00 you get a chance to work towards olympic dreams IF YOU WANT TO and as a compounder YOU DON"T but that does not mean that as a compounder you can't find value shooting the FITA games and competing on the world stage should you be able to qualify to do so 

Fielding an international team and sending them out into the world is part of that olympic development and it is funded. Want the opportunity?? Pick up a stick and train

There is no such need to pay for the compound archers to compete abroad.Show up or don't show up it does not affect the NAA's goals 

Every year people KNOW this and yet they try to qualify . Once they do they whine about the unfairness of it all. Saying that I am totally on board with helping the unfunded attend with fundraisers , donations and the such However I just don't know why it comes as such a suprise?


----------



## CM JOAD (Oct 9, 2005)

limbwalker said:


> If you want to play with the USOC's money, then you just have to use the gear that they use at the Olympics. Seems simple to me. Just like if I want to play with Hoyt, Mathews', or the NFAA's money, then I just have to shoot a Compound. It's not an emotional issue at all. It's just plain business.
> 
> I can live with that.
> 
> John.


I agree John. It should not and is not an emotional issue. It is pretty straight forward and logical. It is an inequity that has been exposed, is being discussed at large and it will soon correct itself. Unfortunately, if they don't make some changes in fair distribution of funds, I see it as the end of the NAA as we know it and the beginning of the NCAA, National Compound Archers Association. If the NAA is "out of money" now, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what will happen to them without the 40% compound contribution. In a few years the NCAA will "let" the recurves shoot in their tournament.


----------



## CM JOAD (Oct 9, 2005)

xringshooter7 said:


> Lets take all of the world teams into perspective. I know people on this years and past years world teams. The NAA has allways seemed to favor recurves in one way or anoter. Okay thats great. But what really gets me is that the NAA is whining about why they have a hard time getting compounds to shoot and getting quality compound teams. Well isn't it obvious. At JOAD Nationals in Lebanon, OH this year, it was blatently obvious that they were catering to the recurves and only letting the compounds shoot to pay the bills.
> I expect to get the same treatment and help as the recurve provided that i pay the same amount of money for the tournament fees and the membership.
> How does the NAA expect to keep going if it keeps makeing the compound people mad. Then they will be really screwed.
> Jack


Even down to the photographs. Take a look! 90 % of the photos are recurves. If I didn't know better, because I was there, the number of recurvers to compounders was about 9 to 1.


----------



## Selil (Sep 5, 2005)

Can I ask a question?


I don't like the freakcurver versus training wheels crowd. It's bad for archers, bad for archery in general, and bad for the Olympics.


Yeah the question is still coming.


With NAA, NFAA, IBO, ASA, USOC, name your favorite acronym or group archery has a lot of chiefs for the few indians...


Here comes the question.



Is the recurve kind of like CART or IROC or about any automotive sport where they say what you can run, how it can run, and better have the restricter plate in place so the sport is about the driver/archer and not the equipment?


Is that kind of what they are doing with recurve? They want it to be one way so that it is possible to compare this years archers with yester years archers?


another question coming...



Is that why FITA want to keep training wheels out of the mix...


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> If the NAA is "out of money" now, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what will happen to them without the 40% compound contribution.


I'm not so sure that's true under the current funding configuration, or at least what little I know about it...

Hey, I'm not the one who refuses to allow compounds into the Olympic games... I say bring them in! But then I'd be screaming for barebow to get in too!!! :wink: 

If compounds were an Olympic dicipline, then I think we could all agree that there would be equitable funding and no argument here at all. 

So answer this for me...

Is it the fault of the NAA that only recurves are allowed in the Olympics?

If not, then don't kill the messenger...

John.


----------



## CM JOAD (Oct 9, 2005)

centerx said:


> In don't know why people think you are not getting you monies worth as a compound archer
> 
> Everbody KNOWS what the organization is all about when you send your check for $150.00 you get a chance to work towards olympic dreams IF YOU WANT TO and as a compounder YOU DON"T but that does not mean that as a compounder you can't find value shooting the FITA games and competing on the world stage should you be able to qualify to do so
> 
> ...


Did I just hear you say, "if you don't like it, tough, nobody cares so go away"? Boy, "with friends like you, the NAA doesn't need enemies". Oh, and is the "olympic dream" to be treated like a second class citizen? 

If the NAA's goals don't include compounders, then they won't miss us when we are gone. It is simple. Fix it or it will fix itself!


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> Even down to the photographs. Take a look! 90 % of the photos are recurves. If I didn't know better, because I was there, the number of recurvers to compounders was about 9 to 1.


Oh for crying out loud!!! Do you know the person you are criticizing now???

I'm sure you don't.

Ron Carmichael, like Jane Johnson, is one of the finest people I've ever met. How on earth can you be so careless as to criticize all of the hundreds of hours he has DONATED to make photos possible for all of us!!!

There isn't some mirrored-sunglass, jackboot-wearing "agent" going around for the NAA carefully selecting which archers to photograph!

Geez.

John.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

CM JOAD said:


> Did I just hear you say, "if you don't like it, tough, nobody cares so go away"? Boy, "with friends like you, the NAA doesn't need enemies". Oh, and is the "olympic dream" to be treated like a second class citizen?
> 
> If the NAA's goals don't include compounders, then they won't miss us when we are gone. It is simple. Fix it or it will fix itself!


grow up Jim-its the USOC not the NAA. its not Darrell's fault its not Tom's fault and its certainly not Jane Johnson's fault. these people bust their butts for all archers. I know what Darrell does for archery. I know somewhat of what Jane (whom I have NEVER HEARD A SINGLE BAD WORD ABOUT in every tournament she has been an official at) and while I gave Tom perhaps some less than polite grief over this coaching situation, his effort to this sport cannot be questioned either


----------



## xringshooter7 (Aug 29, 2005)

I agree with CM Joad. I shoot with his son. We both shoot compound. Great they don't want to fund compound, thats okay. Its the level of respect that was given, or shall i say, not given to the compound. In Lebanon, OH, it was made perfectly clear that nobody cared that the compounds were there. 
If you take alook at this situation from an outsiders stand point you could see that Usa is a major compeditor in the world arena with a coumpound. We have Dave Cousins, Braden Gellinthein, Jamie VanNatta, and we had Mary Zorn. Most of the ones that i have listed have world titles or have come very close. As for recurve we are definately not a big player on the grand scheme of things.
All i am asking for is alittle respect.
Jack


----------



## CM JOAD (Oct 9, 2005)

limbwalker said:


> I'm not so sure that's true under the current funding configuration, or at least what little I know about it...
> 
> Hey, I'm not the one who refuses to allow compounds into the Olympic games... I say bring them in! But then I'd be screaming for barebow to get in too!!! :wink:
> 
> ...


Don't have to. I believe that the messenger (NAA) just might be killing itself.


----------



## CM JOAD (Oct 9, 2005)

limbwalker said:


> Oh for crying out loud!!! Do you know the person you are criticizing now???
> 
> I'm sure you don't.
> 
> ...


I wasn't criticizing Ron. I have always enjoyed Ron's photos. Ron wasn't the photographer at the JOAD Nationals. I am surprised you didn't know that. I have "little patience" for people that "jump to conclusions"


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

I give up.

Jim, surely you are familiar with the way business works. You can't stay in business if you take money from your customers and give someone else the product. In this case, the USOC is the NAA's customer, not the other way around.



> Ron wasn't the photographer at the JOAD Nationals. But, then you probably knew that???


Well, the majority of photos I've seen were Ron's. So then you are accusing the other photographer of favoritism?

John.


----------



## xringshooter7 (Aug 29, 2005)

CM JOAD said:


> Don't have to. I believe that the messenger (NAA) just might be killing itself.


Well said Jim
Jack


----------



## CM JOAD (Oct 9, 2005)

Jim C said:


> grow up Jim-its the USOC not the NAA. its not Darrell's fault its not Tom's fault and its certainly not Jane Johnson's fault. these people bust their butts for all archers. I know what Darrell does for archery. I know somewhat of what Jane (whom I have NEVER HEARD A SINGLE BAD WORD ABOUT in every tournament she has been an official at) and while I gave Tom perhaps some less than polite grief over this coaching situation, his effort to this sport cannot be questioned either


I didn't say it was anyone's fault. I said that the NAA better fix the problem regardless where the problem is coming from, or the "problem" will fix itself. Simple.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

xringshooter7 said:


> I agree with CM Joad. I shoot with his son. We both shoot compound. Great they don't want to fund compound, thats okay. Its the level of respect that was given, or shall i say, not given to the compound. In Lebanon, OH, it was made perfectly clear that nobody cared that the compounds were there.
> If you take alook at this situation from an outsiders stand point you could see that Usa is a major compeditor in the world arena with a coumpound. We have Dave Cousins, Braden Gellinthein, Jamie VanNatta, and we had Mary Zorn. Most of the ones that i have listed have world titles or have come very close. As for recurve we are definately not a big player on the grand scheme of things.
> All i am asking for is alittle respect.
> Jack



what sort of BS are you spewing. tell me how compound kids were not treated with respect at our JOAD nationals. I sure didn't see any difference in treatment. the only difference was compounds shot their OR in the morning-in the morning when it was cooler, the winds were less, and you could get out of there earlier. same trophies, same referees, same judges. 

the usa is a major competitior in compounds because most countries focus on the olympics. many countries don't have bowhunting which drives the compound popularity in the USA. 

yet to say that the compound archers were disrespected at our shoot is an insult to those of us who ran it and I sure didn't hear anything from anyone that was there and I have been around long enough that people who know me know they could have told me this if they saw it


----------



## CM JOAD (Oct 9, 2005)

limbwalker said:


> I give up.
> 
> Jim, surely you are familiar with the way business works. You can't stay in business if you take money from your customers and give someone else the product. In this case, the USOC is the NAA's customer, not the other way around.
> 
> ...


 I am not nor do I have to accuse anything. I think the photos pretty much speak for themselves.

As for your business comparison, I think you just made MY point for me. "You can't stay in business if you take money from your customers (Compounders) and give someone else the product (Recurve funding)"


----------



## xringshooter7 (Aug 29, 2005)

Jim C said:


> the only difference was compounds shot their OR in the morning-in the morning when it was cooler, the winds were less, and you could get out of there earlier. same trophies, same referees, same judges.


That whole thing about compounds shooting in the morning is just trivial. It was the same for everyone in each division. It didn't hurt that all the recurves had to shoot in the wind. So it brought their scores down, but it brougth not just certain scores down it brought all of their scores down.


----------



## xringshooter7 (Aug 29, 2005)

Jim C said:


> the usa is a major competitior in compounds because most countries focus on the olympics. many countries don't have bowhunting which drives the compound popularity in the USA.


You just made my point recurve is probably the minority of shooting in the States, so why doesn't the NAA realize this and take this into consideration.


----------



## Nicely (Jun 13, 2002)

I've read through all of the posts above and have mixed feelings. I heard a couple years ago that the NAA stands to lose some USOC funding if our olympic medal count doesn't improve. It seems moves have been made to improve our chances as it should be.

BUT

Ignoring a large percentage of your membership base(compounds) is not going to keep them around. I would like to see what steps will be taken in the future to help raise additional funds for compound archers. If there is no vision or plan let it be known and some can walk otherwise treat us like a customer and give us our moneys worth.

I'm not sure who made the statement along the lines of if you can't afford to go stay home and let someone who can compete. If this isn't a have vs have nots I'm not sure what is. It's better to have the best Archers who can afford to go rather than the best Archers?

Here's where I stand personally. My daughter competed in Colorada springs as a cadet compound shooter, she won the double FITA rounds and set 5 National records in the process. She went on to win every match on Sunday to make the JR. World team. This was under extremely competitive circumstances, this was a deep field of female cadet archers. We are financially on the fence, this is the type of archer you want to stay home? Credit cards are already maxed and we were just denied an extension of our credit line, oh and my oldest daughter is starting College this fall and they want a check soon.

Enough whining paper work has been sent and we will find a way to raise the money hopefully enough to send at least one parent (not comfortable with my 15 y/o with strangers in Mexico). I would appreciate any fund raising suggestions PM'd to me. For the record I will remain an NAA member and will continue to develop archers through our JOAD program. I have some confidence that the NAA will address the compound funding issue.

Thanks 
Matt Nicely 
Nicely's Precision Archers


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> I am not nor do I have to accuse anything. I think the photos pretty much speak for themselves.


Typical. 

You can't just write stuff about people here and act like it doesn't mean anything. There are real people behind those bows and real people behind those cameras. You ARE accusing someone of unfair treatment, and you and I both know who it is. So just come out and say it like a man already. Innuendos are for the weak.

Sorry, 'bout your example, but when the USOC brings a bunch of money to the table, who do you think the customer is? The NAA has to be responsible to those that pay the bills, or the lights go off. 

But it's obvious to me that you've decided you want to feel like a victim, and I'm not getting in between you and that. Those that want to feel like victims often get what they want.

John.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

xringshooter7 said:


> That whole thing about compounds shooting in the morning is just trivial. It was the same for everyone in each division. It didn't hurt that all the recurves had to shoot in the wind. So it brought their scores down, but it brougth not just certain scores down it brought all of their scores down.


so what were you whining about-I want some proof backing up your claim that our tournament somehow disrespected compound archers.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> Enough whining paper work has been sent and we will find a way to raise the money


Now that's the right attitude. Good for you.

These are OPPORTUNITIES folks. Not burdens. 

John.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

xringshooter7 said:


> You just made my point recurve is probably the minority of shooting in the States, so why doesn't the NAA realize this and take this into consideration.



how many kids shot recurve vs compound at the JOAD nationals? how about at the US nationals adults and kids? I think we had TWO bowman girls shoot compound because I know that was a class where we didn't have to order three plaques.

how many compound women vs Recurve? we had ONE joad compound kid at the state championship. in the winter-maybe 4 and we certainly aren't anti compound. fact is FITA is about the only game for recurves (THERE IS NO OLYMPIC BOW DIVISION in IBO-they got rid of that 10 years ago) while there are several venues for compounds

you all forget that the NAA doesn't discriminate against compounds and as a crossbow archer and the husband of a pretty good barebow shooter I note the NAA doesn't discriminate against those two small groups either

ITS THE USOC.

and while the wheelies are much more popular in the USA they are not the dominant division in the NAA

look it up


----------



## centerx (Jun 13, 2002)

*Did I just hear you say, "if you don't like it, tough, nobody cares so go away"? Boy, "with friends like you, the NAA doesn't need enemies". Oh, and is the "olympic dream" to be treated like a second class citizen? 

If the NAA's goals don't include compounders, then they won't miss us when we are gone. It is simple. Fix it or it will fix itself!*

No,

I meant what I said... Finding, Training, Developing and Fielding world class Olympic archers TO ME seems to be the PRIMARY focus of the NAA. Let's face it if there not nobody is.

It also seems to me that they are pretty up front with this. Plus if you don't hear it in so many words you only have to look were they NAA has been and were they seem to be trying to go from there publications , programs , an coaching... and if people STILL can not figure it out?? Well I don't know what to say..Or do I know why it continues to be such a suprise after all I don't see a High Performace Compound Coach or Compund residency opportunities at the training center.. But yet nobody complains about these issues. Only "I can't get my share of the money to see the world" 

I also don't think they TRY to exclude Compound archers for the most part. You can join , You can shoot tournaments in fact for the most part I think we enjoy the same beneifits ... except perhaps one ... funding... and you know if It's going to dilute avaliable resourses and prevent the NAA from developing and fielding the best Olympians this country has to offer I can understand that. 

Now maybe compound membership should be ear marked for compound development and support. Maybe 25% of that membership should go to field the world teams I do not know the financials but if ALL I get to do is everything the Recurve segment gets to do BUT I have to pay my own way should I EVER get so stupid lucky to qualify for a world event?? To me that's not a bad way to spend $150.00 a year. If the leaders of the NAA are plain out making compunders feel like 2nd class citizens in the commets and actions then that is plain wrong. However TO ME I get the feeling they just tip toe around the issue ... that Olympic Development Is THERE PRIMARY PUPROSE so that they DONT offend the compound segment for the very reasons you see displayed here .. and that lack of honesty is what people are having problems with. 

Now I am not sure what I did to deserve such insults on your behalf.. I would refrain from doing it again however


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Did any recurve archers hold up big checks this year?

Maybe all of the compound archers who have used NAA events to earn contingency money from major sponsors should donate those checks to the compound Jr. World Teams?

There's a thought...

Glad we could help. 

John.


----------



## xringshooter7 (Aug 29, 2005)

Jim C said:


> how many kids shot recurve vs compound at the JOAD nationals? how about at the US nationals adults and kids? I think we had TWO bowman girls shoot compound because I know that was a class where we didn't have to order three plaques.
> 
> how many compound women vs Recurve? we had ONE joad compound kid at the state championship. in the winter-maybe 4 and we certainly aren't anti compound. fact is FITA is about the only game for recurves (THERE IS NO OLYMPIC BOW DIVISION in IBO-they got rid of that 10 years ago) while there are several venues for compounds
> 
> ...


Great i see your point, but look at archery as a whole. Take out all those acronyms that stand for organizations and look at archery as a whole. I understand that the NAA is based on recurves, because the other orginazations have shoved them out because recurves didn't change with the times and they weren't the direction that the other orgainizations wanted to specialize in, so they got left out. I shoot recurve as well as compound. I know what you are saying I am nomally the only one who is in my compound division. what i am saying about the discrimination is why doesn't the NAA make everyone pay alittle instead of one dicipline pay basically nothing out of pocket, and the other pay for it all. That was the discrimination i was talking about.


----------



## xringshooter7 (Aug 29, 2005)

*Now maybe compound membership should be ear marked for compound development and support. Maybe 25% of that membership should go to field the world teams*

That is my arguement. with my $150.00 i am paying for a recurve archer to go to trials. I don't have any problems with that. But, i do have problems with paying that towards the recurves and having none go to the compounds. I was going to have to make that dicision, if i made the team. Which i didn't becase made 2 stupid mistakes.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

I really want to hear how Steve Cornell, Darrell Pace, JIm Coombe (me), Liz Coombe, Brian Montgomery and DOS Neil FOster and COJ Jack A somehow disrespected compound archers at the 06 JOAD Nationals.


----------



## Huntmaster (Jan 30, 2003)

xringshooter7 said:


> what i am saying about the discrimination is why doesn't the NAA make everyone pay alittle instead of one dicipline pay basically nothing out of pocket, and the other pay for it all. That was the discrimination i was talking about.


Let me just quote my post on the other thread like this



> The NAA has no problem with compounds as I can see it. In the first seminar I attended, one of the NAA staff bluntly said, quoting as good as I can recall, that "the US has always led in compound archery, and still are". This is an apparent attempt to salvage what we can of our integrety as a competitive country, and put our recurve team back in contention. Since the compound world is thriving on it's own, they probably don't have an urgency to "fix" or highly fund the compound archers way for world compititions, and I can see why for the time being. There are MANY compound archers, but few recurvers. With low funding, do you pay for what you alredy have, or fix what you're lacking?
> 
> Item 2 - This funding comes down from the USOC which is the United States Olympic Committie.........THIS IS NOT THE NAA! The NAA is a charter, if you will, of the USOC. The NAA has little membership money to hire it's people and pay for it's basic expenses. If you don't like the funding, I would suggest that you not only complain to the NAA, but also, and especially, the USOC. Why do the runners, bobsleders, swimmers, divers, etc. get so much more spending cash than archers? I can see that the NAA is not only trying to salvage their medal chances, but also open the eyes of the USOC to let them see that they are trying to become a contender in the USOC's goal of obtaining more gold. If you want more funding from the parrent, you have to first show them that you are "worth it", and I see in a way that the NAA is trying to do so.
> 
> As for the funding, I also share your concern about the entire team. I see that it's not fair to all archers, which is a shame. I've also heard that we need to wait a couple years. There are plans in the making to increase the funding from the USOC to the NAA. I only hope it's true, because the compounders are on top of the rest of the countrys, and need to stay there.


Now, I did see some descrimination in the Nationals, but in a different way. Let me just say, watch for a couple of the "not so prety" people to be on a couple teams in the future, and probably on their own.:zip:

ps. descrimination may be a little strong, but the idea fits.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> I really want to hear how Steve Cornell, Darrell Pace, JIm Coombe (me), Liz Coombe, Brian Montgomery and DOS Neil FOster and COJ Jack A somehow disrespected compound archers at the 06 JOAD Nationals.


You didn't Jim. You know that.

I had 6 students at that event, and half were compounders. I guarantee that they or their parents were just as happy to be there as the recurve crowd.

John.


----------



## Marcus (Jun 19, 2002)

xringshooter7 said:


> That is my arguement. with my $150.00 i am paying for a recurve archer to go to trials. I don't have any problems with that. But, i do have problems with paying that towards the recurves and having none go to the compounds. I was going to have to make that dicision, if i made the team. Which i didn't becase made 2 stupid mistakes.


How many times does it have to be posted that your $150 is NOT sending recurve teams away?
Or have you made up your mind on something and running with that regardless of the facts?
I suggest you don't take your facts from CM JOAD, this person has zero creditbility. 

From my understanding the NAA has spent about one million dollars US on compound team funds in the past 14 years. None of that comes from the USOC funds (in other words it comes from your membership fees)
The membership money for the NAA would barely fund the office staff, none of it goes to the funding of teams.
So it is the case that the compounds have sucked about million dollars in revenue from the NAA and have not brought in a dime.

The NAA for the World Juniors is paying for entry fee and uniforms, around $300 each. So that's $3600 the NAA is paying for that this year. They also have the World Field and Indoor and Target to fund. Plus the pile of other costs that go into running the organisation for you. 

It would also be pretty horrible if a junior or their parent cost themselves sponsorships while slamming the NAA at meetings. Can't be good for public image.


----------



## xringshooter7 (Aug 29, 2005)

I see your point. Then NAA is not to blame. But, the NAA needs to come out and say that. Take the current situation with the training center for example. The USOC said that the training center was for recurves only, but the NAA allowed applicants that shot compound to go their for coaching. Now the NAA has put out its applications for the 2006 camps, which most have been canceled, They didn't say why they wouldn't accept the applications that were denied. I sent in two one for recurve and one for compound. The compound was rejected and the recurve was accepted. Suspicious, eh. I met the requirements for both. What i am trying to get at is that the Naa has never officially come out and said that they weren't going to help the compounds with coaching. Yet, they expect to have a self-funded and self-coached team. 
The NAA needs to get rid of it's dogmatic views of recurve being supreme. I have no biases i shoot both, currently it's a compound. It just rubs me wrong with how the financial situation is being treated.


----------



## centerx (Jun 13, 2002)

*That is my arguement. with my $150.00 i am paying for a recurve archer to go to trials. I don't have any problems with that. But, i do have problems with paying that towards the recurves and having none go to the compounds. I was going to have to make that dicision, if i made the team. Which i didn't becase made 2 stupid mistakes.*

I guess one could look at it that way... But one could argue that your $150.00 gets you membership, competitve opportunites, a publication and other such things such as a chance to qualify for the world events

I don't KNOW that "compound money" goes for the recurve team?? It could go for recurve coaching, Utilities, Rent , Who knows what else. 

But like I said, everybody who shoots a compound KNEW in advance should they qualify they were on there own. I fail to see people who can not fly to Mexico having the money to fly and spend a week in Colorado. I did not go this year because I DID NOT have those resourses. 

One viewpoint is that those in attendance dominating the competition is the best of the best and those are the people that we WANT that we NEED at the world level and that it should not be a game of have's and have not's

However 

How do you know that the ONLY reason you may have dominated is because indeed the have nots ( like myself) were not in attendance to begin with?? 

Why spend a $1,000.00 I could not afford trying to qualify for a spot on a team that I needed to spend $2,000.00 on if I made it? However $1,000.00 on a week long archery vacation in excellent country because the NAA gives me a competitive venue for such is very much worth it on years I can afford it 

One mans haves is another mans have nots you know. People have a great week and qualify for an Excellent opportunite and then complain about not having the resourses ..... while others never even got that far


----------



## xringshooter7 (Aug 29, 2005)

Marcus said:


> How many times does it have to be posted that your $150 is NOT sending recurve teams away?
> Or have you made up your mind on something and running with that regardless of the facts?
> I suggest you don't take your facts from CM JOAD, this person has zero creditbility.
> 
> ...


You might want to take that statement about CM Joad not haveing any credibility. I have looked at some of you posts and i have found you to have little to no credibility, but thats not the point. If you look at the broken down budget, the entry fee and the uniforms are some of the least expensive things on it. 
They put on nationals twice a year the rest of the year is spent with local Naa people putting on shoots. 
If that last statement was aimed at my Hoyt sponsorship, take note. I like my Hoyt, but with their current product line i will be concidering other optioins because of their lack of long axle-to-axle bows.


----------



## Huntmaster (Jan 30, 2003)

xringshooter7 said:


> I see your point. Then NAA is not to blame. But, the NAA needs to come out and say that. Take the current situation with the training center for example. The USOC said that the training center was for recurves only, but the NAA allowed applicants that shot compound to go their for coaching. Now the NAA has put out its applications for the 2006 camps, which most have been canceled, They didn't say why they wouldn't accept the applications that were denied. I sent in two one for recurve and one for compound. The compound was rejected and the recurve was accepted. Suspicious, eh. I met the requirements for both. What i am trying to get at is that the Naa has never officially come out and said that they weren't going to help the compounds with coaching. Yet, they expect to have a self-funded and self-coached team.
> The NAA needs to get rid of it's dogmatic views of recurve being supreme. I have no biases i shoot both, currently it's a compound. It just rubs me wrong with how the financial situation is being treated.


Actually, it has been stated that the compounds are welcome at the OTC, but the NAA head coach will not be working with them. As an ex-compounder, I'm not sure if Larry Skinner will be working with them or not. It's my understanding that the archers are welcome to use the facilities. Also, coaches are allowed in the OTC, so put two and two together, and the compounders and their coaches are welcome to come train at the OTC. That's what I take from it.


----------



## xringshooter7 (Aug 29, 2005)

centerx said:


> *
> But like I said, everybody who shoots a compound KNEW in advance should they qualify they were on there own. I fail to see people who can not fly to Mexico having the money to fly and spend a week in Colorado. I did not go this year because I DID NOT have those resourses.
> 
> *


*
Most of the people in my division drove. Most of the people that i knew at the tournament drove. Two tanks of gas is alot cheaper than 4 round trip air tickets, renting a larger car, plus paying for lodgeing, which i realize you have to pay for either way.*


----------



## xringshooter7 (Aug 29, 2005)

Huntmaster said:


> Actually, it has been stated that the compounds are welcome at the OTC, but the NAA head coach will not be working with them. As an ex-compounder, I'm not sure if Larry Skinner will be working with them or not. It's my understanding that the archers are welcome to use the facilities. Also, coaches are allowed in the OTC, so put two and two together, and the compounders and their coaches are welcome to come train at the OTC. That's what I take from it.


Okay, but according to my sources i have come to believe that the USOC has put in the Easton Archery Complex to accomodate recurve shooters. and they want it to be only recurve archers.


----------



## Marcus (Jun 19, 2002)

My creditbility is just fine. 
The entry fees and uniform add up when you factor in the whole team. 

Actually it was aimed at all people causing a ruckus, in particular parents, and especially those doing so in public. (you can see many here are disgusted with some behaviour that has occured)

I'm sure Hoyt is happy with you.

So, what price will you pay to reprsent your country? We pay for things we value. 



xringshooter7 said:


> You might want to take that statement about CM Joad not haveing any credibility. I have looked at some of you posts and i have found you to have little to no credibility, but thats not the point. If you look at the broken down budget, the entry fee and the uniforms are some of the least expensive things on it.
> They put on nationals twice a year the rest of the year is spent with local Naa people putting on shoots.
> If that last statement was aimed at my Hoyt sponsorship, take note. I like my Hoyt, but with their current product line i will be concidering other optioins because of their lack of long axle-to-axle bows.


----------



## centerx (Jun 13, 2002)

All that means is you live closer then many ... many who may not have been able to afford it and therefore you may or may not have had the best of the best qualifying for the world team

I could have driven as well and Gas compared to airline would have saved me around a hundred but with the Full day needed to travel to and from lost in wages it was probabaly a wash 

Also

Don't Hoyt make many 40" AtoA bows and even one 45" AtoA??


----------



## xringshooter7 (Aug 29, 2005)

Ya they are and they are sad that they are loosing me. Im out.


----------



## xringshooter7 (Aug 29, 2005)

Yeah they do. but I'm 6'3 and am shooting an ultra tec with xt3000 limbs and Im twisting the bow and missing tens to the left and right. The limbs on their ATA bow of 45" aren't what they used to be, i had one this year. I live in illinois about 80 miles from chicago. about a thousand miles.


----------



## ROB B (Oct 30, 2002)

WOW!!!!!!!!! At last the compounders some of their own medicine!!! I hear nothing but "don't give those recurvers anything, It's ours" around here.
Sponsors donate cash for archery promotion and Open Class Compounders cry until it is all theirs, none to recurve or trad or any of the real archers

The Olympic Committee should NOT fund any archer that can not win aN Olympic Medal!!!!!

JMHO
Rob

Flame on


----------



## xringshooter7 (Aug 29, 2005)

ROB B said:


> WOW!!!!!!!!! At last the compounders some of their own medicine!!! I hear nothing but "don't give those recurvers anything, It's ours" around here.
> Sponsors donate cash for archery promotion and Open Class Compounders cry until it is all theirs, none to recurve or trad or any of the real archers
> 
> The Olympic Committee should NOT fund any archer that can not win aN Olympic Medal!!!!!
> ...


Rob, Have you ever shot at a big shoot. Obviously it sounds like you haven't. Only a handful of people get the big contingency checks, aka the winners of the pro divisions. Compounders don't whine untill they get it all. It is the sponsors choice where it goes. For most sponsors, recurve and traditonal archery isn't where they are trying to aim their market because they are such a small group of people.


----------



## StevenB (Jun 2, 2002)

xringshooter7 said:


> Rob, Have you ever shot at a big shoot. Obviously it sounds like you haven't. Only a handful of people get the big contingency checks, aka the winners of the pro divisions. Compounders don't whine untill they get it all. It is the sponsors choice where it goes. For most sponsors, recurve and traditonal archery isn't where they are trying to aim their market because they are such a small group of people.



is that fair to the recurve shooters?


----------



## coach1 (Apr 14, 2003)

*Photographs - 90% NOT!*

I have been following this post and I cannot believe that anyone brought the number of photographs published into the debate. Since I am the photographer in question let me start here. When photographing an event .... never mind. Anyway just for fun I went back and tabulated the pictures published. Which by the way is a small fraction of the number actually taken! JOAD Nationals competition pictures are broken down as Bows in the picture Compound, Recurve or both. The other category includes spectators, ceremonies, coaches and athletes watching or discussing the event. 

US Nationals in Colorado Springs I had someone else do and is broken down a bit more Here are the results:

JOAD Nationals:

Recurve 69 pictures for 26% of the total
Compound 40 pictures for 15% of the total
Both 6 pictures for 2% of the total
Other 154 Pictures or 57% of the total

I believe this is actually a fairly accurate spread of the attendance of the event. There were a few more recurves there than compounds.

122nd National Championships, Competition Pictures. 

Description

Recurve 174	32%
Compound	106	20%
Both 19	4%
Spectators	78	14%
Paralympic	17	3%
Coaches 28	5%
Crossbow 19	4%
Other 83	15%
Unknown 16	3%

Total Pictures	540 pictures

The above numbers do not include the US Open The weather was better in the morning which created a greater number of photo opportunities. 168 to 106 published for those that are interested. 

There is a link off of the USA Archery website on the US Nationals results page to the galleries.

Just to add to the argument in an ideal world each image would represent a potential $16.00 - $32.00 depending on size etc. I have made high-resolution images available to anyone for personal, non-commercial or fundraising purposes at no cost. All I ask is proper photo credit be given.

Gary


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Gary,

You don't need to defend yourself against an idiotic accusation.

I know how many folks appreciate your efforts. A VERY proud JOAD parent forwarded me a copy of one of your pictures just yesterday. You make a huge contribution that we all appreciate.

John.


----------



## SmithX (Aug 11, 2006)

*?????*

I have nothing against compound shooter and nor does the NAA...you're still shooting in the tournaments...can't say that for recurves in certain tournaments. The main reason compounders don't get funded is because as many have stated we are funded by the USOC and they only care about the olympics, and righfully so. If you want the USOC to change there funding then maybe the IOC should let compounds in the olympics. (this probably won't ever happen simply becasue the US is one of the only countries with such a huge compound following due to various reasons)

and if you want to complain about pictures or what not go get me pics from field, Ibo, and 3-D shoots then i can play the pout game of why recurve shooters arn't in as many (rediculous and childish) and being that the NAA is the org. in charge of making our olympic and world teams then you could be mean and say compounds and all other none olympic eligibale disciplines should not be included but that is not so. the NAA is nice enough to see compound shooters are important and welcome them. 

and CMJOAD you always are saying the Naa or whatever should fix the problem or it will fix it self...well your endless ranting isn't going to effect that happening or start some huge revolution. if it happens (and i hope it dosn't because i have many good compound frineds and some converts ie brady and aaron tedford) it happens and that will be it. and if you insist to say that the compounders money if funeled to suit recurve archers think of this. If no compound shooters come or pay then guess what that is ALOT of people that the hard working volunteers and tournament organizers won't have to caiter or prepare for and Im sure Jim Coombe, Darrel Pace, Steve Cornell, and all the countless staff from Joad Natl. and World trials wouldn't have minded the decrease in work, but i know they didn't mind because they truely care for this sport.

So when recurve shooters hold huge checks and get local hero status in 3D and IBO shooting while Compound shooters get 'more pictures' and world funding all will be well but these things won't happen. John Magera has got it right when he says "be thankful". You should be thankful that you can rep. this country and if good enough get a huge check. Recurve's have the dream of going to the Olympics for a Gold Medal and go broke doing so and Compounds can be big money winners and World Champions at the same time...I sure havn't made money from recurve and if it wasn't for generous support from the Coombe's, Trenton IGA before they closed and local good sumaritans that belive in me I wouldn't be able to nearly fund my recurve dreams. 

I see no unfair play when you break this whole thing down to every possible angle you can. If you want funding and are willing to discipline yourself for the NAA and USOC its simple shoot recurve if not then shoot compound after all shooting is shooting but its up to you to decide what you want to shoot.





and John Magerra it was a plesure meeting you at Trials. sorry Lee didn't make the team. He's a great guy and good friend.


----------



## Welshman (Oct 5, 2002)

CM JOAD said:


> Up until about a year ago, Brady Ellison was a compound shooter. He is now one of the elite recurve shooters. I don't think it is a good idea to ignore these talented kids. Did Brady suddenly become a "real archer" a year ago?


YES, yes he did.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Welshman, that's not helping.

I hope you were joking. Any archer at the top of their sport deserves our respect, regardless of what they choose to shoot. 

I've often said the recurve and compound are two completely different games, with one being more mentally demanding, and the other more physically demanding. Seperate but equal, so to speak.

I'm not sure that many recurvers would be up to the mental challenge of shooting for an entire weekend without a miss. You'd see some mental meltdowns I think. Different game. That's all.

John.


----------



## OneBowTie (Jun 14, 2002)

ROB B said:


> WOW!!!!!!!!! At last the compounders some of their own medicine!!! I hear nothing but "don't give those recurvers anything, It's ours" around here.
> Sponsors donate cash for archery promotion and Open Class Compounders cry until it is all theirs, none to recurve or trad or any of the real archers
> 
> The Olympic Committee should NOT fund any archer that can not win aN Olympic Medal!!!!! JMHO
> ...


interesting...... be careful what you ask for.....

just how many would have been funded at the last olympics?????? and how many would be funded at the next one if they followed your train of thought......

hum, perhaps yall should just lay down your bows and hand over all your money to the Koreans......yall seem to be defeated by them anyway before you ever start the first competition....


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

limbwalker said:


> Welshman, that's not helping.
> 
> I hope you were joking. Any archer at the top of their sport deserves our respect, regardless of what they choose to shoot.
> 
> ...


agreed-some people can never be competitive in recurve because they can't master the physical requirements-but those who can tend to have long careers. Compound allows more people to "compete" but that means more competition and mental discipline becomes more important-and burnout becomes more prevalent. You see top recurve winners having longer careers-remember even the "youngest" member of the men's olympic team had been Junior world champion 15 years ago

the guys who won the first three fita world indoor gold medals for the usa starting in 1991 don't even compete anymore. For every Dee Wilde there is an Ed Eliason and many more.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> hum, perhaps yall should just lay down your bows and hand over all your money to the Koreans......yall seem to be defeated by them anyway before you ever start the first competition....


That's a pretty interesting remark. So you must have beaten a whole list of Korean archers then...

John.


----------



## NHSarcher (Oct 15, 2004)

coach1 said:


> I have been following this post and I cannot believe that anyone brought the number of photographs published into the debate. Since I am the photographer in question let me start here. When photographing an event .... never mind. Anyway just for fun I went back and tabulated the pictures published. Which by the way is a small fraction of the number actually taken! JOAD Nationals competition pictures are broken down as Bows in the picture Compound, Recurve or both. The other category includes spectators, ceremonies, coaches and athletes watching or discussing the event.
> 
> US Nationals in Colorado Springs I had someone else do and is broken down a bit more Here are the results:
> 
> ...


Gary,


I have to tell you, this is the first year I had an opportunity to compete at many national tournaments. As a person who generally travels to these events by myself, I truly appreciate the time and effort you put into taking these pictures. I enjoy being able to pull them off of the net to remember my experiences. 

Thanks for what you do.

- Timm Hines


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

onebowtie said:


> im beginning to think your thinking cap comes and goes.....you seem to say things half cocked at times and at other times you seem so far out in "left" field and other times you actually say things that make perfect sense....
> 
> look, if your upset that i commented on your "repeated" question of why compounders dont dontate their big contingency checks....just say that so
> 
> ...


you confuse the USOC with the NAA Mike


----------



## Bow Caddy Mom (Jul 16, 2006)

*Good Post*

Good Post, John. I agree completely with you. I always seems as there is such opposition and never about trying to further the sport as a whole. Everything has to be a personal attack.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Well, I don't care for attacks but... I will certainly defend myself, my friends and the good people I know working for the NAA.

Even before I started shooting competitive archery, I got sick of all the name calling coming from the traditional ranks (with whom I shot) toward the compound and target crowd. It doesn't matter what style of archery you choose, line up enough of them and there's always one or two jackasses who want to put down everyone who doesn't shoot that style. It ruins the whole sport IMO.

I love to see top-flight compounders shoot perfect 60X scores and 1400 fitas. It's awesome to see and it is every bit as demanding (albeit in a different way) as anything a recurver can do. Fact is, anyone at the top of their division is working their butts off - period. I don't care if that's Mark Applegate and Ty Pelfry shooting barebow, Vic or Butch shooting recurve, Dave or Reo shooting compound, or Steve Hilger and Greg Brown that I shot clout with. To get to the top, you have to put in the work. There are no shortcuts, and I admire that regardless of the piece of equipment sending arrows (or bolts) downrange.

Any moron I catch using the phrase "training wheels" will hear from me just as quickly as someone calling recurvers "elitists." For a marginal sport like ours, there is simply no room for any of that.

And mine isn't a unique perspective. I see the majority of NAA members the same way - cheering the achievements of all archers. I especially see the NAA staff the same way. I can NEVER recall any member of the NAA staff making snide comments about a certain style of archery or a certain archer because of what they choose to shoot. They are professionals, and from what I've seen they conduct themselves as such. Often with little or no appreciation to boot. 

John.


----------



## zydeco (Jan 14, 2005)

Limbwalker

I don't have a dog in this fight. I'm an old guy returning to archery and love shooting my recurve. I chose recurve over compound simply because that is what I grew up with. While I did compete years ago at the collegiate level, I'm just a back yard shooter who enjoys the physical and mental challenge of competing against myself. 

I have watched this debate from afar and applaud your reasoned and gentelmanly approach. With an outside, and I think objective view, I think this debate started with some whining that lacked wisdom. You have consistently and gallantly fought to instill wisdom and common sense. Unfortunately no one can legislate common sense. Additionally you have stood tall in defending those who really contribute to all forms of archery. I know that in the past you have really helped me 

Hang in my friend.

PS: Just the issue of photos is a prime example. People taking photos and posting them without charging big bucks just shouldn't get slammed by those who think there are not enough of one type of archery. My wife and daughters are professional photographers with their own businesses. I know just how difficult photography can be - it's far more than just pointing the camera. My hat is off to those folks who do what they do for the love of archery.


----------



## ROB B (Oct 30, 2002)

onebowtie said:


> interesting...... be careful what you ask for.....
> 
> just how many would have been funded at the last olympics?????? and how many would be funded at the next one if they followed your train of thought......
> 
> ...


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Zydeco, thanks, that helps. Sometimes I wonder...

John.


----------



## CM JOAD (Oct 9, 2005)

Bow Caddy Mom said:


> Good Post, John. I agree completely with you. I always seems as there is such opposition and never about trying to further the sport as a whole. Everything has to be a personal attack.


If anyone disagrees with you, is that a "personal attack"?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Oh give it a rest CM. I apologized for the harsh reply. Let it go already.

John.


----------



## CM JOAD (Oct 9, 2005)

limbwalker said:


> Oh give it a rest CM. I apologized for the harsh reply. Let it go already.
> 
> John.


Consider it "rested"...


----------



## zydeco (Jan 14, 2005)

onebowtie said:


> interesting...... be careful what you ask for.....
> 
> just how many would have been funded at the last olympics?????? and how many would be funded at the next one if they followed your train of thought......
> 
> hum, perhaps yall should just lay down your bows and hand over all your money to the Koreans......yall seem to be defeated by them anyway before you ever start the first competition....


With all due respect this is where you got off on the wrong foot as I see it. The quote you slammed was suggesting that the Olympic Committee should not fund anyone competing in a type of archery not recognized as an Olympic event. Your comment seems to suggest that those who had the misfortune of not winning a medal in an Olympic sanctioned event are in the same arena. Did I misunderstand somthing? If so, then sir you have my apologies. If not, then once again with all due respect I think you picked the wrong dog in this fight.

God Bless


----------



## Welshman (Oct 5, 2002)

limbwalker said:


> Welshman, that's not helping.
> 
> I hope you were joking. Any archer at the top of their sport deserves our respect, regardless of what they choose to shoot.
> 
> ...


Yes, I was joking John so just calm down.  

I do think that recurve is just as mentally demanding as compound though. Recurvers just have the benefit of much more physical pain to endure which distracts the brain from recognizing the mental demand that is going on as well.

BTW, how fast do you type? :wink:


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> Recurvers just have the benefit of much more physical pain to endure which distracts the brain from recognizing the mental demand that is going on as well.


Now THAT's funny... LOL! 

'bout 60 wpm, thanks to my high school freshman typing class. Now, if my mind could only reason at 60 wpm I'd be fine... 

John.


----------



## calbowdude (Feb 13, 2005)

As an avid recurver, I have to say that at least several of us probably need to get more than the 1/2 a brain we've been dealt so that the physical demands can actually distract from the mental demands... :wink:


----------



## MerlinApexDylan (Oct 14, 2002)

CM JOAD said:


> John thinks that because that is the way it has been, we should just shut up and let the inequity continue. Sean is right. Compounders will soon say, "Fine, if we are contributing to the organization and not getting support of the organization, then we will start our own organization." And all of the compound money will be gone, and soon the recurve association will be gone. A big reason this is going to happen is because this inequity is exposed and is being discussed on Archery Talk.


It will never happen. So long as recurve is the only form of archery in the olympics. The USOC will always support them monetarily. 

Leaving to create a new organisation will still create inequality. Then there will be the argument of which compound archers should get the funding. It is impossible to make everyone happy.

Sean can say what he likes, but here in Canada there is no comparison to the funding the US olympic team gets. Recurve archery and archery as a whole is not as prevailent as it is in the states. Making comparisons with local organisations here in Canada makes even less sense. 

In Canada you don't get funding unless you are a carded athlete. You have to be shooting in the top percentage of world scores in order to have a chance at being carded. Our coaches don't get paid for the most part and are mostly volunteers, who consequently pay their own way to become coaches. I can't speak for our national coach as I have never asked.

Two provinces I know of actually fund their archers. Manitoba and Quebec. I believe manitoba portions money off in a fair and equitable manner to both compound and recurve archers. Not sure about Quebec.

Really, there is no right to complain. If I could represent my country in any sport. I would gladly raise the $1500-$3000 for a trip.

I've come to realise that running a club takes a good deal of money. Thus running an organistation takes money. Our membership barely covers our rent for the year at our club. So, other funds, like grants, casino's, fundraiser and local competitions have to come into play also. 

I would imagine the membership of an organisation serves much the same purpose. As it's just an extension of a local club. 


Dylan


----------



## rodeoman67 (Nov 10, 2004)

*changes*

the newest news in the jr. boys compound team is it has changed it looks like. it seems that some score cards were not right and now a week later one of the members gets a call saying he is no longer on the team some one ealse is. 
it is good for the boy that has now made it you can't take anything away from him ; if he shot the winning score he should have the spot. but for the one that was told he made it and was posted as a team member and now is not how can you make it easy on him. he had already sent his $875 to the NAA for the trip from houston had already booked his fliight to houston to meet the team and looks like he is going to have a hard time geeting any of his money back even from the NAA. this isn't just bad for compounds this is a bad mark for the NAA all together. hope they get it worked out for both boys.that NCAA is looking better all the time


----------



## IM2BZ2P2 (Oct 7, 2004)

There's something to be said for the Aussie attitude after all. 

Before a selection shoot such as the Nationals those wishing to be considered for a team selection from the event have to give a *considered * nomination in advance (having already achieved a pre-determined score). This indicates that that family has already considered the cost factor, so even if you win the immediate event and realised the costs would be beyond your means and therefore had not nominated for team selection you could enjoy the title earned, without begging for support to whatever event happened to be up for grabs.

In Australia if you win a place on a team, even if a totally self-funded one, it is assumed you have allowed costs involved, therefore basically begging for funds is not required. Many community members may be asked to support the archer's participation by buying raffle tickets, eating a sausage at a sausage sizzle, buying products at an inflated price etc, but no one is expected or even asked to GIVE for nothing. 

And yes, to attend non-target events such as field and indoor, you usually pay your own way regardless of being recurve or compound!  

Approaching local councils who give small grants is fine (a thank you letter at the time and after the event is only polite), or even local sporting groups who support elite athletes, but you would never imagine that someone would give you $10 just because you shot a score to qualify. If they do that is a bonus, asking friends for money is possibly tolerated (though I do not know of it occurring), and asking strangers just does not happen. Receiving funding though a scholarship (such as the Clarke Sinclair Memorial Scholarship) after qualifying would be considered a huge bonus, not an essential. Check out http://archery-forum.com for proof.


----------



## FITAchick (Feb 8, 2004)

"the newest news in the jr. boys compound team is it has changed it looks like. it seems that some score cards were not right and now a week later one of the members gets a call saying he is no longer on the team some one ealse is."

I believe you are looking at Jr. World Team versus USAT team. Each are totally different animals and are not the same thing. The Jr. World Team for Junior Compound boys results have not changed from what they previously were at the conclusion of the tournament two weeks ago. Jr. World Team was a "selection by invitation only" type situation. The USAT team is based solely upon performance at certain given tournaments throughout the shooting year. 

I have not heard anything of what you quote above, Rodeoman. Where did you "hear" this information from? If one of the Junior Boys or their parent -- who was it?


----------



## rodeoman67 (Nov 10, 2004)

*jr wourld team*

fitachick i was talking about the team going to mexico it has changed. maybe not on the websight but behind doors it has. i just got off the phone with Ryan Day's mother and he got a call a few days ago telling him he would not be on the tean. from what little she can get from the NAA a mistake was made on one of the last rr matches.the NAA will not return her calls or give her any real answers. and they may not return the $875 she sent them for the flight from houston to mex.


----------



## TomB (Jan 28, 2003)

The news on Ryan Day is indeed tragic. I would bet in the end the financial part will be taken care of. There is no way to mend the mental part of thinking you have made the team and then due to some tragic circumstances have it taken away. 

tom


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> from what little she can get from the NAA a mistake was made on one of the last rr matches.the NAA will not return her calls or give her any real answers. and they may not return the $875 she sent them for the flight from houston to mex.


Let's not jump to conclusions. My bet is that it all gets straightened out in the end. If a mistake was made, that is truly unfortunate for the archers affected. But please remember we are all human (even the good folks at the NAA  ). I am confident the issue will be resolved to everyone's satisfaction.

John.


----------



## Ryan Day (Apr 4, 2006)

You know, my opinion, speaking from the archer himself, is that the best should go because he deserves it. And personally, I believe that everything happens for a reason, so I have accepted this as the truth. I had the chance to go to England in 2004 and had a fantastic outcome, so I'm happy that someone else has the chance to go.

As far as financial reasons go, I just hope they pay us back for what they've put us through, no more no less.

Take it home, guys, for me alright?


----------



## Huntmaster (Jan 30, 2003)

Ryan Day said:


> You know, my opinion, speaking from the archer himself, is that the best should go because he deserves it. And personally, I believe that everything happens for a reason, so I have accepted this as the truth. I had the chance to go to England in 2004 and had a fantastic outcome, so I'm happy that someone else has the chance to go.
> 
> As far as financial reasons go, I just hope they pay us back for what they've put us through, no more no less.
> 
> Take it home, guys, for me alright?


Now there is a lesson that several people need to take a page from!

Ryan, Sorry to hear that plans have changed:sad: If anyone deserves it, you do, but unfortuntely... 

I know your parrents, coach, and community are proud of you for what you've accomplished:thumbs_up and the great days are yet to come. 

We'll be starting back up here in a while, and I'll let you know when we do. Miranda and I hope you can join us.


----------



## TomB (Jan 28, 2003)

> You know, my opinion, speaking from the archer himself, is that the best should go because he deserves it. And personally, I believe that everything happens for a reason, so I have accepted this as the truth. I had the chance to go to England in 2004 and had a fantastic outcome, so I'm happy that someone else has the chance to go.
> 
> As far as financial reasons go, I just hope they pay us back for what they've put us through, no more no less.
> 
> Take it home, guys, for me alright?



There is a winner. No doubt!

tom


----------



## Arcus (Jul 7, 2005)

Ryan Day said:


> You know, my opinion, speaking from the archer himself, is that the best should go because he deserves it. And personally, I believe that everything happens for a reason, so I have accepted this as the truth. I had the chance to go to England in 2004 and had a fantastic outcome, so I'm happy that someone else has the chance to go.
> 
> As far as financial reasons go, I just hope they pay us back for what they've put us through, no more no less.
> 
> Take it home, guys, for me alright?


That is probably the most mature post I've read on any board.


----------



## Valkyrie (Dec 3, 2002)

$875 for a 2 hour flight?

Is that first class? I just did a quick search and found a flight - nonstop, for $426 including taxes. Granted, I don't know the times or if the team is going a few days earlier or not, but $875?


----------

