# Best Olympic Archers of All-Time - WA ranking



## midwayarcherywi (Sep 24, 2006)

Why wouldn't #1 be Darrell Pace? After all, WA named him the archer of the century. And of course comparing archers from one generation to the next will start more arguments and gain no consensus. I guess it is fun for AT threads but of little use to indicate who is better than whom.


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

As they say " from 1900 to 2012, I'm curious to see if they will include Matilda Howell, 3 Gold Medals in 1904, or Edmond Cloetens, 3 Gold Medals  in 1920 ... those rounds were REALLY different ...


----------



## jmvargas (Oct 21, 2004)

i'm really curious to see their #1-9...

i would imagine their main criteria would be the number of medals won with diminishing emphasis from the golds down...

individual medals would probably also count more than team medals...

i'm also pretty sure we will not see anyone in the list who competed prior to 1972..


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

Pace is the odds-on to be #1 and probably Kim Soo-Nyung #2, but we'll have to wait a few months. Depends on what they mean by "Olympic", though. It's not clear if they mean the archers participated in the "Olympic Games", or just shot "Olympic Style".

Obviously nobody prior to 1972, but I would expect they will include a token archer from the early 20th century Olympics before archery was dropped, as Vittorio suggested. 

Although I would have no problem if they didn't include any from the early 20th century Games, as there were pretty much local events with very low participation. All the medalists from St Louis in '04 were Americans. All the medalists (except one) from the '08 London games were British on the British rounds and French on the French rounds. And all the medalists from the '20 Antwerp games were French, Belgian or Dutch.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

Park Sung Hyun has to be #3, 


Chris


----------



## Bob Furman (May 16, 2012)

Stash said:


> Pace is the odds-on to be #1 and probably Kim Soo-Nyung #2, but we'll have to wait a few months.
> 
> 
> > Depends on what they mean by "Olympic", though. It's not clear if they mean the archers participated in the "Olympic Games", or just shot "Olympic Style".
> ...


.....


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

jmvargas said:


> i'm really curious to see their #1-9...
> 
> i would imagine their main criteria would be the number of medals won with diminishing emphasis from the golds down...
> ......



Wikipedia shows a ranking made by nbr of medals/metal...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Olympic_medalists_in_archery

Flute and Yamamoto are not in the top 28 by that criteria. 
Yamamoto did not win any Gold medal at all.


----------



## jmvargas (Oct 21, 2004)

Vittorio said:


> Wikipedia shows a ranking made by nbr of medals/metal...
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Olympic_medalists_in_archery
> 
> ...



vittorio...i did not mean that winning golds are a must for anyone to be considered but that a gold medal will count more vs a silver or bronze..

IIRC yamamoto has won 1 silver and 1 bronze in the olympics so he can certainly qualify in such a list..

if non-medals winners were to be included they would probably just base it on their final ranking results in the olympics participated...

i would also rank archers who have participated in multiple olympics like your son, natalia valeeva, or butch johnson higher than someone who has won the same number of medals but competed in fewer olympics..


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

jmvargas said:


> vittorio...i did not mean that winning golds are a must for anyone to be considered but that a gold medal will count more vs a silver or bronze..
> 
> IIRC yamamoto has won 1 silver and 1 bronze in the olympics so he can certainly qualify in such a list..
> 
> ...


Just as a question around the cracker barrel, would you apply the same litmus test to a discussion of greatest NFL teams? In other words, would the Buffalo Bills rank in the highest pantheon of Super Bowl teams by virture of going to 4 Super Bowls in a row (or Jim Kelly as a 4-consecutive-time SuperBowl QB), even though they lost them all? That's effectively 4 consecutive silver medals.

Obviously apples and oranges between sports, but I'm just looking/wondering in most people's minds how much weight that 'top step carries'


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

A lot.


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

There's only one winner (except in the NFAA).


----------



## AvalonPlusGuy (Aug 6, 2008)

With Olympic medal bias here it will be interesting to see where Rick McKinney end up. Darrell will or should be #1 or #2 without question, but Rick won 3 Outdoor World titles competing against Darrell in his Prime. Darrell won 2 titles. Rick's 2 Olympic silver medals are "less" than Justin's 2 gold medals but few would place Justin (superb as his achievement was) above Rick in terms of overall accomplishment.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

AvalonPlusGuy said:


> With Olympic medal bias here it will be interesting to see where Rick McKinney end up. Darrell will or should be #1 or #2 without question, but Rick won 3 Outdoor World titles competing against Darrell in his Prime. Darrell won 2 titles. Rick's 2 Olympic silver medals are "less" than Justin's 2 gold medals but few would place Justin (superb as his achievement was) above Rick in terms of overall accomplishment.


Agree with this. Hard to keep Rick out of the top 3 or 4 all time, in my opinion. The 3 worlds, the 6 or 7 US Nationals (again, against Darrell in their primes), the Olympic medals, and simultaneously holding the world record in 3 of the 4 FITA distances ... I mean, damn!


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

limbwalker said:


> A lot.


Yeah, I think so, too. Gotta win to get in.


----------



## jmvargas (Oct 21, 2004)

lksseven said:


> Just as a question around the cracker barrel, would you apply the same litmus test to a discussion of greatest NFL teams? In other words, would the Buffalo Bills rank in the highest pantheon of Super Bowl teams by virture of going to 4 Super Bowls in a row (or Jim Kelly as a 4-consecutive-time SuperBowl QB), even though they lost them all? That's effectively 4 consecutive silver medals.
> 
> Obviously apples and oranges between sports, but I'm just looking/wondering in most people's minds how much weight that 'top step carries'


....good question and my premise is that ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL the one with more participation would rank higher...

and note that this ranking is based or at least quoted as for "olympic" archers and i presume only olympic participation counts..

i however can see some sort of dilemma if 2 archers participated in the same no of games and one has only 1 gold and the the other has multiple silvers or bronzes.. 

my gut will still rank the gold medal winner higher...but that's just me..


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

For the men, the obvious answer is Darrell because of three things

1) his winning margin in 76 was probably the greatest winning margin in Olympic history. I believe his margin was the best for the entire 76 games. as someone said, it was akin to the 1500 meter champion lapping the entire field. 

2) His scores in 76 were higher than the winning score of the 1980 winner where the games were tainted by the impotent silliness of a failed US president. That 1980 winner-a good shooter, wasn't able to break Pace's records and the one guy who was giving Darrell a pretty good battle at that time did not make the 1980 US team. (Rick). Rather it was Scott Kerston if my member is correct.

3) Now one can argue that if Darrell had won the gold medal most people thought he would have if Carter hadn't forced our athletes out of the games, that would have meant that DP would have been a three time winner since he won by a pretty good margin in 1984. That is somewhat speculative because we can only guess if he would have trained as hard for 84 if he had not been essentially cheated out of his chance to defend his 76 title.

4) then we have the change in the rules which make it much harder for the obvious top archer to win which has been proven by the fact that the guy who amasses the most points no longer wins the gold medal


----------



## zal (May 1, 2007)

Jim C said:


> 2) His scores in 76 were higher than the winning score of the 1980 winner where the games were tainted by the impotent silliness of a failed US president. That 1980 winner-a good shooter, wasn't able to break Pace's records and the one guy who was giving Darrell a pretty good battle at that time did not make the 1980 US team. (Rick). Rather it was Scott Kerston if my member is correct.


I agree with you 100% that Pace should be #1. But 1980 score doesn't really relate to 1976 one, the field was ridiculously windy and the weather kept changing all the time. Tomi was also silver medalist in 1992, and in or around top 5 for several consecutive Olympics (like #5 1984) and World Champs at the time, 11 medals in World and European champs and 2 Olympic medals isn't a bad haul. So I wouldn't be surprised to find him to be on that list, though probably closer to #10 than #1. Definitely not one competition wonder like Justin Huish.

People always keep saying what if, but Darrell also lost the World Champs next year to an another Finn, so you never know.


----------



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

lksseven said:


> Agree with this. Hard to keep Rick out of the top 3 or 4 all time, in my opinion. The 3 worlds, the 6 or 7 US Nationals (again, against Darrell in their primes), the Olympic medals, and simultaneously holding the world record in 3 of the 4 FITA distances ... I mean, damn!


Top 3 must be Kim Soo-Nyung, Darrell Pace, Park Sung Hyun (maybe different order). So Rick could be in fight for 4th place only.....it would be hard against many Olympic gold medallists.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

zal said:


> I agree with you 100% that Pace should be #1. But 1980 score doesn't really relate to 1976 one, the field was ridiculously windy and the weather kept changing all the time. Tomi was also silver medalist in 1992, and in or around top 5 for several consecutive Olympics (like #5 1984) and World Champs at the time, 11 medals in World and European champs and 2 Olympic medals isn't a bad haul. So I wouldn't be surprised to find him to be on that list, though probably closer to #10 than #1. Definitely not one competition wonder like Justin Huish.
> 
> People always keep saying what if, but Darrell also lost the World Champs next year to an another Finn, so you never know.


Darrell could have easily been a four time world champion -same score as Rick in 83 and IIRC his 81 results were almost the same as the winner.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Glad to see you're still able to offer an objective, unbiased opinion Jim.  (teasing, of course).


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

For sure, hard to find a reasonable argument that keeps Darrell from being best of all time. 2 Olympic Golds, 2 World Champs, all the other championships, and doing it over such a long period of time (as for the '80 Olympics "what if" ... no way to prove he would have won it, but like a friend of mine says "the fastest horse doesn't always win - but that's the way to bet it"). 

Of course, the 'what if' game is so fun (and excruciatingly painful when it's a subject that you're psychologically invested in) to play ... i.e. one 4point loss to Nebraska in '71, one 3point loss to Nebraska in '72, and a tie against USC in '73 is all (11 points total) that kept the Oklahoma Sooners from winning 5 consecutive football national championships in early 70's (they did win in '74 and '75); or, two close-to-impossible catches are all that's kept Tom Brady from being a 6-time SuperBowl winning quarterback; or if Willie Mays doesn't go in the army in '52 and '53, and he doesn't have to play the majority of his career in Candlestick Park, he'd likely have 850 steroid-free home runs, and the only homerun arguments would be about "who is the 'second best' homerun hitter of all time?'


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

limbwalker said:


> Glad to see you're still able to offer an objective, unbiased opinion Jim.  (teasing, of course).


If Darrell had lost those two worlds by the same margin he won the 76 (massive) or 84 games (50+ points) I wouldn't have the same argument. That is his best argument-margin of victory. One arrow here or there would not have changed his wins in either olympics or the two worlds he won. The two he was RU in were by the slimmest of margins.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

Ar-Pe-Lo said:


> Top 3 must be Kim Soo-Nyung, Darrell Pace, Park Sung Hyun (maybe different order). So Rick could be in fight for 4th place only.....it would be hard against many Olympic gold medallists.


I think your top three are correct. Park Sung Hyun has 3 Olympic golds, 1 silver, 3 world champs and held numerous world records, two of which are still current.

Also she is shot the highest womens 70 meter score and only on to break 1400. 

I think Kim Soo Nyung and Darrell are 1 and 2 since they were both named archer of the century by WA, and both have incredible stats. I think Park is 3rd and Rick is 4th. 

Still the top 4 is heady company to be in. Archery stratosphere. 

Chris


----------



## zal (May 1, 2007)

Yun Mi-jin is another one people forget easily. 3 Olympic golds, 3 world champs golds etc. Recent successes are easy to forget, at least if those archers aren't in your own cultural hegemony. Also Park Kyung-mo. If you talk about long careers, he needs to come into equation: individual gold at '93 world champs and individual silver at '08 Olympics, with bucketloads of other medals in between.


----------



## Rick McKinney (Mar 4, 2008)

I personally don't believe I belong in the top 15 as far as the Olympics goes. During my career, I have failed miserably at the Games and this was due to my mental ability dealing with the hype of the Games. I do agree that the individual medal should outweigh team medals. I know some of you are putting names out there that have won Golds, etc. Just make sure that you specify the difference between individual versus team. There is a huge difference. Don't forget John Carlos Ferrari. I think he medaled three times individually. He should be there. The only two archers who should be fighting for the #1 position would be Kim and Pace. Both are considered to be WA's archer of the century and both are deserving of the position. If they are tied, then it would have to go with how brought the most exposure to archery. That is a no-brainer.


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

Rick McKinney said:


> ..... Don't forget John Carlos Ferrari. I think he medaled three times individually. He should be there....


Giancarlo Ferrari... he is our (Italian) legend. Bronze medal in Montreal 76, Bronze medal in Moscow 80, 5 participations to the Olympic Games, World FITA record in 1978 with 1318 (beaten by Darrel Pace 1341 and your 1325 in 1979).
He was the coach of the Italian Cadet and Junior teams at the beginninmg of the career of my son, 1990 to 1994 . Some short movies of him shooting are on youtube ... he was "heretic" much before my son ... 
Rick, only you and very few others can remeber him outside Italy, and unfortunately also in Italy memory is very short term in this respect... 

Darrel Pace beaten by a Finn in 1981? Yes, everything went to the last end at 30 mt after a double FITA in 4 days, between RIck, Darrel and Kyosty Laasonen. Incredible photofinish I watched arrow by arrow. That "Finn" was Kyösti Laasonen, Bronze medal in Munich 72, four Olympic Games participations, European champion and World champion in Punta Ala in 1981. Another name in the Walhalla of the great forgotten archers.


----------



## zal (May 1, 2007)

Vittorio said:


> Darrel Pace beaten by a Finn in 1981? Yes, everything went to the last end at 30 mt after a double FITA in 4 days, between RIck, Darrel and Kyosty Laasonen. Incredible photofinish I watched arrow by arrow. That "Finn" was Kyösti Laasonen, Bronze medal in Munich 72, four Olympic Games participations, European champion and World champion in Punta Ala in 1981. Another name in the Walhalla of the great forgotten archers.


Yep, 17 medals at Olympics, World Champs and European Champs (probably should fix his English Wikipedia page....).

Also maybe the last ever part-time archer to win world champs? He's still around archery, coaching archers at his club and shooting at home for fun. Unassuming man, who even plenty young Finnish archers don't know, only wonder about who he is when he's working in the background. He was working as the head coach of the Finnish para-archery team for quite a long while.


----------



## Blunt Arrow (Mar 2, 2006)

This is another waste of time. With the changes in equipment over the years how can you compare archers ? If Darell Pace had todays equipment what might he Have shot.


----------



## jmvargas (Oct 21, 2004)

guys...i'm assuming only Olympic medals and participation count as far as this ranking is concerned...

considering this is an Olympic year i'm pretty sure this is the case and is also a logical build-up for our sport...

and Rick Mckinney himself has admitted the hype of the Games is something else...

...not to take anything from the "other" championships mentioned but they would seem to have minimal or even no bearing in the making of this list..


----------



## zal (May 1, 2007)

jmvargas said:


> guys...i'm assuming only Olympic medals and participation count as far as this ranking is concerned...
> 
> considering this is an Olympic year i'm pretty sure this is the case and is also a logical build-up for our sport...
> 
> ...


Doesn't explain Yamamoto Hiroshi on that list. Even though he is one of my favourite archers, there are far more than 10 archers who have more medals than him at the Olympics since 1900.


----------



## Bob Furman (May 16, 2012)

Blunt Arrow said:


> This is another waste of time. With the changes in equipment over the years how can you compare archers ? If Darell Pace had todays equipment what might he Have shot.


How can you say it's a waste of time when guys like Darrel Pace, Rick Mckinney and many others were shooting 1300+ scores back in the late 1970's, early 1980's when many shooters now that can barely manage that? Besides this isn't about high score, but rather about achievements such as multiple Olympics and major championships won.


----------



## jmvargas (Oct 21, 2004)

zal said:


> Doesn't explain Yamamoto Hiroshi on that list. Even though he is one of my favourite archers, there are far more than 10 archers who have more medals than him at the Olympics since 1900.


i can only surmise they are disregarding medal winners prior to 1972..


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> Just make sure that you specify the difference between individual versus team. There is a huge difference.


Agreed. In '04, I was ranked 40th in the world, finished 41st at the Olympics, and yet came within one arrow of medaling in the team round. Team medals are great, but should not even be in the same category as individual medals IMO. 

This is one reason I continue to say that Vic is the best Olympic archer the US has seen since Huish in '96. Individual Silver, Team Bronze, Team 4th in Athens, but more importantly, finishing very well individually in all three games he participated in. What other US male archer has done this in the past two decades?


----------



## zal (May 1, 2007)

limbwalker said:


> Agreed. In '04, I was ranked 40th in the world, finished 41st at the Olympics, and yet came within one arrow of medaling in the team round. Team medals are great, but should not even be in the same category as individual medals IMO.


Personally, I think team medals definitely should be taken into account. But like in any team sport, you need to analyze which role they play in that team. I.e. London Olympics, any one of those three gold medallists could have won the individual competition too, but if you think about Chinese women's team, which has taken silver last couple of games, if you discount Zhang Juanjuan, there aren't really any strong individual competitors.


----------



## jmvargas (Oct 21, 2004)

i mentioned in post #4 that o believed individual medals should count more than team medals..

as to how much more?...maybe 3 times more as there are 3 team members??


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

limbwalker said:


> Agreed. In '04, I was ranked 40th in the world, finished 41st at the Olympics, and yet came within one arrow of medaling in the team round. Team medals are great, but should not even be in the same category as individual medals IMO.
> .....



I think we had this discussion before.. anyhow...

1) With OR and even more with set system, the individual event is more than ever tied to a great percentage of luck. Typical example: KI Bo Bae winning the Godl Medal in London with an 8 closer to the center , in variable wind. Silver medal in that case counts exactly same as Gold medal, in my opinion. Even KI Bo Bae was not happy about winning the by that way and honestly admitted it during interwiews.
2) majority of individual matches at the Olympic Games are between archers of very close value, and this makes totally unpredictable who's going to win in the sequence of all matches. Not all of them can win, but more than 50% of them can for sure. 
3) team event on the other end was putting on the table up to London real archer's values by their scores, with stronger archers having to help weakers in the team by a superior performance to win. But, a the end, the total score was belonging to all 3 archers and so was the medal. Much more connected to reality of our sport, in my opinion. 

With set system for teams situation is changed dramatically, and we are also here now in a total impossibility to predict any result, with so many shoot offs deciding the result of matches with a lot of lower scores winning teams (this format really needs to be changed to more sets, IMHO) 

There are pros and contras about medals value for both individual and team medals, so better to rank them same level and look to other parameters in addition to them


----------



## collider (Nov 3, 2015)

Wonder if going to the system pro surfing uses would help matters. The losers of the first round go to round 2, the winners go to round 3 to surf again against the winners in round 2. The losers in round 2 are out. I think 3 is another elimination round, but round 4 winners go to quarters, losers battle round 5. From quarters on it's elimination. It's not perfect, but it at least helps smooth out a little of the luck factor (bad waves, equipment failure, getting used to the site etc.). That still doesn't address the luck in shootoffs, but it would certainly help in situations like the recent Shanghai contest where Brady bowed out early.


----------



## jmvargas (Oct 21, 2004)

i define luck as a random and totally unexplainable happening which benefits(good luck) it's recipient...or not(bad luck)...

in sports certain conditions can be geared to favor certain recipients but there is still no guarrantee due to the luck factor.. 

so to take luck completely out of the equation is impossible no matter what is done..

so i say live with whatever the conditions are as long as everyone plays it the same way...

i'm assuming of course that those competing are of equal or close to it in ability..

and oh...i also remember a famous quote on this topic---"the more i practice the luckier i get!"....


----------



## zal (May 1, 2007)

I don't quite buy the whole concept of luck in matchplay. In tennis you see its results very, very rarely, as whole concept of sport has trained to excel in a matchplay format.

After a while, I think archery will follow and matchplay specialists start to emerge more.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

archery to me is about getting points on the target. Cumulative points. The most points win. Set system belongs in tennis where they should have stayed. 

Set system generally gives the advantage to the poorer performance. Its handicapping scoring at the world level. In my opinion, there shouldnt be any gimmies for bad shots. It keeps the lower scored archer close enough that the smallest thing can turn the tide. 

It keeps each end a coin flip, especially when alternating shooting with variable winds. 

At the world level, if you shank 2 or a miss, it should cost you the match. But that is just my opinion, and im old and outmoded. Set system is ruining the sport, and as it spreads into team rounds and compound, you will see more one arrow shoot offs and barely made wins. There will be no definitive margins anymore. All this to make the suspense of the match more exciting to the TV viewer. No more stamina needed, no more athleticism needed.

Already we see fewer and fewer arrows shot per tournament. Eventually, archers will show up and shoot one arrow to qualify, and then they will flip a coin to see who won the match. 

World Archery thought the gold medal with Ki Bo Bae and Aida was the greatest of the great. Coming down to a one arrow shoot off. All it did was barely declare a winner by the slimmest of margins, both shot an 8 in the tie break. 

Yet by the fourth set, the cumulative score was Ki BoBae 109 - Aida 102. By a large margin. 


Chris


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

Just checked my twitter feed from World Archery. 

11 shootoffs and 5 upsets. They have hashtags for #shootoff and #upset.

Just what they want. Everyone regulated to the same coinflip. Surprising when you see the seated numbers #40ish going against #12 ish and it goes to shoot off. Yet in qualifying the score is not close.


Set system havok on standings. It will get harder and harder to determine who is the best.

Chris


----------



## jmvargas (Oct 21, 2004)

i agree that the set system is more prone for the luck factor to be involved vs the previous cumulative system...

but the powers that be decided that it was too boring save for the most hardcore enthusiasts and needed a more exciting format specially for a tv audience---hence the change.

the double Fita identifies the best archer for the week...the set matches determines the better archer for that particular match..

win enough set matches and you are the best match player for the week..

much like stroke-play vs match-play in golf...

some are good at both...some not so...

but in the long run the cream will rise to the top...no matter what the format is..


----------



## midwayarcherywi (Sep 24, 2006)

chrstphr said:


> archery to me is about getting points on the target. Cumulative points. The most points win. Set system belongs in tennis where they should have stayed.
> 
> Set system generally gives the advantage to the poorer performance. Its handicapping scoring at the world level. In my opinion, there shouldnt be any gimmies for bad shots. It keeps the lower scored archer close enough that the smallest thing can turn the tide.
> 
> ...



Who is the best shooter? One who can shoot a 10 when it counts, or one who can shoot the most 10s over 144 arrows? They are distinct skills and are not mutually exclusive. My opinion is that the set system has elevated archery in the Olympics. It has created tension and excitement. The head to head matches are a boon for TV and spectators. Far from killing the sport, the set system has invigorated it.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

I would agree that a team medal is worth 1/3 of an individual medal. Not sure how the statistics would play out, but I think that's a fair assessment in our sport, if not generous. For many people, it would be simply impossible to earn an individual medal, and a team medal is the only chance they have of medaling at the Olympics. I put myself squarely in that group. It would have taken a miracle for me to medal individually, but all I had to do to be part of a team that medaled was shoot my average, which I failed to do in the afternoon sessions of the team event. 

So give the individual medals 3X the weight of the team medals, then see how things play out mathematically. I'd be okay with that.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

midwayarcherywi said:


> Who is the best shooter? One who can shoot a 10 when it counts, or one who can shoot the most 10s over 144 arrows? They are distinct skills and are not mutually exclusive. My opinion is that the set system has elevated archery in the Olympics. It has created tension and excitement. The head to head matches are a boon for TV and spectators. Far from killing the sport, the set system has invigorated it.


Money is what drives this. It has nothing to do with picking the best. Shooting has become worse. I just won our state International Trapshoot.

I was 10 targets behind first place, 7 targets behind second place and 3 targets up on fourth place after 125 targets. So the top 6 shoot 15 targets-a right, a left and a straight from each of the five posts. Me and the #2 ranked shooter hit 13/15 (in the shoot off you are limited to one shot rather than two). Three others including #1, #4, and #6 have tens and #5 has a 9. he's out and 1, 4, 6 shoot sudden death. #1 misses first so he is done even though his cumulative bird count is still 7 up on me and 4 up on the second seeded shooter. the two left shoot another 15 and #4 beats #6-

so I shoot off with the state junior champion We both hit 12/15. now its sudden death. I hit, he hits, I hit, he hits, I hit, he misses

I win but he hit 6 more targets than me and the guy who lost but was seeded first hit several more than I did as well. 

Back when I was internationally competitive in ISU Skeet, we would shoot 200 targets. The top 6 would shoot off in a 25 target round. HIGHEST SCORE (225 targets) won but if there was a tie, the guy with the higher final round won. Now that was fair. and it has "more excitement" because it put the top 6 on the same field shooting under the same conditions. But no, the powers that be wanted even more excitement so why not start from scratch so ANYONE can win even if (in smaller tournaments) they are 10 targets back

its all about TV and like it or not, archery is never going to be a TV sport like beach volleyball, basketball, football or boxing.


----------



## jmvargas (Oct 21, 2004)

Jim C said:


> Money is what drives this. It has nothing to do with picking the best. Shooting has become worse. I just won our state International Trapshoot.
> 
> I was 10 targets behind first place, 7 targets behind second place and 3 targets up on fourth place after 125 targets. So the top 6 shoot 15 targets-a right, a left and a straight from each of the five posts. Me and the #2 ranked shooter hit 13/15 (in the shoot off you are limited to one shot rather than two). Three others including #1, #4, and #6 have tens and #5 has a 9. he's out and 1, 4, 6 shoot sudden death. #1 misses first so he is done even though his cumulative bird count is still 7 up on me and 4 up on the second seeded shooter. the two left shoot another 15 and #4 beats #6-
> 
> ...


..first of all congratulaions on your win Jim!!

and don't sell yourself short...you won by being the best match shooter head to head against all the qualifiers..

...and THAT'S what it's all about!!


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

midwayarcherywi said:


> Who is the best shooter? One who can shoot a 10 when it counts, or one who can shoot the most 10s over 144 arrows? They are distinct skills and are not mutually exclusive. My opinion is that the set system has elevated archery in the Olympics. It has created tension and excitement. The head to head matches are a boon for TV and spectators. Far from killing the sport, the set system has invigorated it.


head to head matches, yes a boon. But they were better when they shot for the highest score out of 120. Not shooting for sets. I find sets boring and not exciting at all. 

Its a format setup to give the loser each time a fresh start. Eventually the poorer performer will win.

Just ask the 1972 Olympic USA men's basketball team in the final play. Im sure the Russian team was happy with the first two gimmes. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1972_Olympic_Men's_Basketball_Final

Im sure that was also a boon for the TV viewer. 

Chris


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

jmvargas said:


> ..first of all congratulaions on your win Jim!!
> 
> and don't sell yourself short...you won by being the best match shooter head to head against all the qualifiers..
> 
> ...and THAT'S what it's all about!!


true but I don't believe its the proper way of picking a winner. It should be to the person who hits the most targets. wasn't Darrell the Last guy to win the Olympics with the highest arrow value?

I know Barrs didn't have the top arrow value and I know Hush didn't. I know Simon didn't and I suspect neither did the Marco and Viktor 04 and 08


----------



## jmvargas (Oct 21, 2004)

Jim C said:


> true but I don't believe its the proper way of picking a winner. It should be to the person who hits the most targets. wasn't Darrell the Last guy to win the Olympics with the highest arrow value?
> 
> I know Barrs didn't have the top arrow value and I know Hush didn't. I know Simon didn't and I suspect neither did the Marco and Viktor 04 and 08


jim..this is very similar to stroke play vs match play in golf...

tiger woods was actually great in both formats and still lost a lot of head to head matches..

right now the winners in archery events which have the set system in effect are identified as the best in BOTH formats for that week but with emphasis on the match play format.

i guess another way would be to have a winner of the medal(cumulative) format and another for the match(set system_

but i am not part of the powers that be..


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

Jim C said:


> true but I don't believe its the proper way of picking a winner. It should be to the person who hits the most targets. wasn't Darrell the Last guy to win the Olympics with the highest arrow value?
> 
> I know Barrs didn't have the top arrow value and I know Hush didn't. I know Simon didn't and I suspect neither did the Marco and Viktor 04 and 08


No, the top men in ranking since 1992 never won the the Gold.... let see this time ....


The start of the change in giving a rank to archers value begun when FITA dropped the "targets hits" first, and " arrows to target" after, from the way to rank archers in qulification. 
Presently they are only ranked by 10 and X, but before and for tens of year, they were ranked by "arrows to target" and 10's and 9's. This started to reverse the situation in favour of archers hitting a lot of golds insted of archer not missing any arrow. 
Rest of the story is just an evolution of this fast forgotten change.

Going to the1 arrow shoot off, that is purely TV choice, with no technical value at all if both archers hit the 10 ring. The 12 cm 10 ring stlil today is a valid area to receive all arrows well shot by a recurve archer, but the X10 ring is not. Several tests have been already done to show that even a shooting machine simulating finger release can not hit 12 times the X ring at 70 mt with any given set of arrows, even with those very selected and so terribly expensive that only appear in the Olympic years. Closest to the centerfor 2 arrows in in the 10 is pure luck of having the right arrow flying there.


----------



## zal (May 1, 2007)

It has simply changed its focus from people who hit the center most often, to people who miss dramatically least often.

I think matchplay is the way to go and much more interesting way of doing things. It just takes time for people and coaches to get the right mindset. Like I said, everyone knows who are the four best male tennis players, and their stats show it. There are still upsets every now and then, but people treat them just as that, upsets. They have build their whole setup with A and B game in mind. If your A game fails, you still have the B game, which is enough to get through most matches. Currently archers only have their A game, there is no plan B to rely upon.

It is just a matter of perspective: do we value archers who never shoot, say below 8.5 or archers who range from 7-10.


----------



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

chrstphr said:


> head to head matches, yes a boon. But they were better when they shot for the highest score out of 120. Not shooting for sets. I find sets boring and not exciting at all.
> 
> Its a format setup to give the loser each time a fresh start. Eventually the poorer performer will win.
> 
> ...


Not sure this is anything to do with poorer performer winning......this was chaos from scoreboard officials and 1 US official telling them what to do (even he did not had any powers to do).


----------



## Demmer (Dec 1, 2012)

It has everything to do with everyone can win with this, and the best less often now. That's the bummer part. I'm sorry, but I like seeing the best win. Anyone participating in the shootoffs can stumble into a small unbeatable run. Doesn't make them far superior or even better than the top players. To say one is better off at one format than the other because they won 30-29; 30-29, 25-30, 24-30, 30-29 is rediculious. And you know it happens. 

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

Cumulative score reveals who showed up and demonstrated the highest archery skill level. Match play probably in most cases demonstrates 'poor nerves management' by the better skilled archer. And I think most serious archers recognize that, beyond some point on their skill curve, "shooting well" is more about managing to "all day not shooting that 6 or 7' rather than upping the ten count a couple of more times. 

But, archery is inherently flawed as a spectator sport, just due to its physical realities (distance, can't viscerally track/process the arrow flight with the naked eye). I agree with Gabe that likely the reality is that the matchplay system saved archery to continue to be an Olympic sport. So, I try to just hold my nose and embrace match play as the price we pay for 1) keeping recurve in the Olympics, and 2) living beyond the 80's.


----------



## mudcat dale (Sep 9, 2015)

Just my opinion, but, I don't believe the tennis set system is really a good comparison to the current archery set system. To win a tennis match equals several hundreds of successful shots hit over a several hour period vs to win an archery match equals possibly less than a dozen successful shots over a very few minutes. I'm not all together for or against match play and really don't have the competition experience to make firm recommendations on this. However, I do think that at the least there should be significantly more arrows shot in each match which should to some degree reduce the luck factor. Like I said, just my 2 cents.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

It use to be that archers shot 18 arrow rounds in the first two round of heads up matches. Then as the field cut to quarterfinals, the number of arrows went down to 12. This was to put pressure on the top archers. When you cut it to set system, most arrows shot is 12-15. 

Also the amount of time to shoot has dwindled to a minimum 20 seconds increasing luck factor. Team round shot system also changed to one arrow per archer in short time. It use to be team shot 9 arrows with archers shooting up to 3 arrows at one time. Now team round is 6 arrows shot individually. 

Chris


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

Ar-Pe-Lo said:


> Not sure this is anything to do with poorer performer winning......this was chaos from scoreboard officials and 1 US official telling them what to do (even he did not had any powers to do).


it still gave the Russians several attempts. You get enough attempts, you will make it. 


Chris


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

lksseven said:


> Cumulative score reveals who showed up and demonstrated the highest archery skill level. Match play probably in most cases demonstrates 'poor nerves management' by the better skilled archer. And I think most serious archers recognize that, beyond some point on their skill curve, "shooting well" is more about managing to "all day not shooting that 6 or 7' rather than upping the ten count a couple of more times.
> 
> But, archery is inherently flawed as a spectator sport, just due to its physical realities (distance, can't viscerally track/process the arrow flight with the naked eye). I agree with Gabe that likely the reality is that the matchplay system saved archery to continue to be an Olympic sport. So, I try to just hold my nose and embrace match play as the price we pay for 1) keeping recurve in the Olympics, and 2) living beyond the 80's.


I am not against match play. I love match play. I just hate the set system used for scoring, the minimum of arrows shot, and the speed time constraints. 

I loved it when the matches were scores cumulative of 120 and 180. 


Chris


----------



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

chrstphr said:


> it still gave the Russians several attempts. You get enough attempts, you will make it.
> 
> 
> Chris


Sorry you just simplifying the facts.....did you actually read that article? First 2 attempts has been stopped by officials and cannot be completed, 3rd attempt was successful.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Demmer said:


> It has everything to do with everyone can win with this, and the best less often now. That's the bummer part. I'm sorry, but I like seeing the best win. Anyone participating in the shootoffs can stumble into a small unbeatable run. Doesn't make them far superior or even better than the top players. To say one is better off at one format than the other because they won 30-29; 30-29, 25-30, 24-30, 30-29 is rediculious. And you know it happens.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk



yep, and it both helped and hurt archers I coach. One of the first EJN's I had two strong archers. One no longer shoots, the other is one of the USOT finalists. The latter shot the WRONG target his first end. in the set system, he's down 2-0, under the old system he's toast. But he came back and won 6-2 (his wrong target score was 29, the other boy 25 IIRC). the former kid, same tournament, same division was the #2 ranked archer. In the quarters he up against #7 who was 60 points or so behind him. My archer shoots (IIRC) 29-27-30-27-28. The other boy shoots, 25-28-24-28-29 and wins despite losing the total arrow count. SO it helped one of my kids win the OR round, and cost the kid who probably was the real #1 or #2 in the event from medaling and making Jr USAT that year since if he had won that match he was on


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

Ar-Pe-Lo said:


> Sorry you just simplifying the facts.....did you actually read that article? First 2 attempts has been stopped by officials and cannot be completed, 3rd attempt was successful.


Sorry, Ar-Pe-Lo, you've just misstated what happened (did you actually see the game, or the replay?). Some of us don't have to 'read the article', we watched it live, and watched it in replay dozens of times. That game got stolen from the USA - that's the fact. On the second attempt, the officials did not stop the action and thus the Russians were unable to 'complete' the attempt - the Russians in fact inbounded the ball, at the behest of the official who handed the Russian the ball and signaled play ball, and the Russians were unsuccessful in making the basket, and the game was over. AFTER the game was then over, the officials (due to a technical or human error that had the clock saying 50 seconds instead of 3 seconds at the commencement of the final play) decided to put 3 seconds back on the clock and then give the Russians another crack at it. Lunacy.

I'll bet Brady would have liked another shot to replace the 7 he shot to bow out of the individual matches in the 2012 Olympics, too.


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

Those of you complaining about someone with match scores like 28-29-28-29-28 losing to someone shooting 29-24-25-30-29...do you also complain when a basketball team loses a series 4 games to 3, winning the 3 games by 10-15 points but losing the 4 by a single point or two?

You have to think of each end as a single playoff game, not as part of a whole round.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

Stash said:


> Those of you complaining about someone with match scores like 28-29-28-29-28 losing to someone shooting 29-24-25-30-29...do you also complain when a basketball team loses a series 4 games to 3, winning the 3 games by 10-15 points but losing the 4 by a single point or two?
> 
> You have to think of each end as a single playoff game, not as part of a whole round.


Apples and Oranges. Golf is a better analogy than basketball.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

lksseven said:


> Apples and Oranges. Golf is a better analogy than basketball.


and the basketball playoffs have been the same for years. I have never heard of a world series or a basketball championship where the points were cumulative. Same with tennis. People lose tennis matches all the time where they won more games. But that has been the case with tennis for as long as anyone reading this board has been alive. 

Let me ask those in favor of the set system (which was clearly designed to create more suspense) the following. If we weren't so worried about TV revenue and being dropped from the Olympics if our TV revenue is not high enough, would anyone support what is clearly the *******ization of how winners are picked in the world championships and the Olympics?


I sure never heard anyone say Darrell Pace was not the best archer in 76 or 84. That the gold medal was wrapped up long before he shot his last end in 76 might have been disappointing to some but my attitude is so what? The people who complain are akin to those who hope the guy with a 15 m lead in the 400M hurdles trips on the last hurdle to make things "more interesting"


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

lksseven said:


> Apples and Oranges. Golf is a better analogy than basketball.


OK, golf then. Matchplay. Is the golfer who has 18 pars better or worse than the golfer who has 16 pars, two birdies and a quadruple bogey?


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

Perfect example of what is wrong with the set system.


Colin Klimichek defeated Lee Seungyun 6-2. No big deal. 6-2 happens all the time. Not even 6-0 which happens all the time. 

The real story which wont show in the records is he won 120-117!

Normally if you shoot a 117, you have crushed it. But Colin responded each end with a 30! Colin shot a perfect 120 to beat a top archer who shot a 117!

That is a story that is lost with the set system. No one cares its 6-2. Just one more match with a winner and loser. Set score is a yawner. 

That is what is ruining the sport.

Chris


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

This is kind of funny to me really. You play the game you are playing. Not some make-believe game you wish you were playing. Either accept the rules and play, or go do something else. 

Should I complain that the '88 Olympics team format would have resulted in a silver medal for my team in Athens? I don't think so. I knew the rules going in and played the game. Anything less is just sour grapes IMO.

Matchplay, and particularly the set system are great additions to this sport IMO as both a competitor and spectator.


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

chrstphr said:


> Perfect example of what is wrong with the set system.
> 
> 
> Colin Klimichek defeated Lee Seungyun 6-2. No big deal. 6-2 happens all the time. Not even 6-0 which happens all the time.
> ...


How is the sport ruined? Popularity is up, participation is up, it's getting more and more exposure in the media and culture, scores and records are going up, and the top athletes are actually starting to be able to make a living doing it. If this is "ruined", please bring me more ruin.


----------



## straat (Jan 22, 2009)

If you like cumulative scoring, go play or watch compound. There is a choice.

Seems to me some people on this board complain all the time. I guess if you can't perform well, you call out for rule change instead of improving your game. 

Lots of rules are arbitrary. If the rings on the target face were a different size, you would see different scores while arrows are in the same physical location. How is it fair an arrow just touching the line gets the same score as an arrow which is nearly touching the higher scoring zone? Clearly the better archer is not rewarded here. Yet it's been this way for a long time and we accept it as part of the game.


----------



## zal (May 1, 2007)

Stash said:


> How is the sport ruined? Popularity is up, participation is up, it's getting more and more exposure in the media and culture, scores and records are going up, and the top athletes are actually starting to be able to make a living doing it. If this is "ruined", please bring me more ruin.


I agree 100%.

Personally I think that movement towards matchplay is perfect step for the sport. I always found FITA's utter dross and lost interest after 70m. Also people kept thinking that 72 arrow round is the "competition" and finals are just a bit extra. Now people are waking up to the reality that you need to excel in matchplay to win. I think next logical step is to get rid of ranking rounds altogether and just focus on a longer matchplay.

I also think that it is closer to the original idea of archery: every arrow has to count, not the average over gazillions of arrows.


----------



## ShooterPhill (Feb 23, 2015)

zal said:


> ...not the average over gazillions of arrows.


From a statistical standpoint, shooting lots of arrows - and comparing raw scores - is the best way to diminish outlier effects from streaky shooters and determine which shooter is consistently putting arrows in the middle of the target. So to me the question should be whether or not the competition format rewards consistency or rewards who can "turn it on" over a short time? 

The name of this game is repeatability and consistency, right? Developing a repeatable shot is essentially the core what we are all doing here. With that in mind, doesn't it make more sense to use a format that rewards shooters who have mastered the ability to repeat their shot time after time after time? To me, the best way to reward that consistency is by evaluating raw scores, whether it be at the end of a 12 arrow match or at the end of a double FITA round.


----------



## zal (May 1, 2007)

ShooterPhill said:


> The name of this game is repeatability and consistency, right?


It has only meant that in the double FITA and full FITA days.

If you go back in time, the best archer was one who could perform under extreme stress and deliver with the first arrow. That is what I mean when talking about "going back to the original idea". I think measuring averages isn't what it should be about. It works that way when hunting too, you only get one chance, not average of four hours of trying.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

zal said:


> It has only meant that in the double FITA and full FITA days.
> 
> If you go back in time, the best archer was one who could perform under extreme stress and deliver with the first arrow. That is what I mean when talking about "going back to the original idea". I think measuring averages isn't what it should be about. It works that way when hunting too, you only get one chance, not average of four hours of trying.


if TV dollars were not at stake, I doubt the push for "anyone can win" would be at play. I know it wouldn't be in the ISSF. but the powers that be want people who really don't understand the sports to watch for a few minutes and be "entertained", even if it means the best doesn't win. why have several game playoffs in the NBA-have just one overtime and every team gets into the playoffs.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

straat said:


> If you like cumulative scoring, go play or watch compound. There is a choice.
> 
> Seems to me some people on this board complain all the time. I guess if you can't perform well, you call out for rule change instead of improving your game.


My dislike of the set system has nothing to do with my performance. But my love of the sport and the changes it brought.

I wouldnt bet on compound staying cumulative. If WA loves it for recurve and its such a boon for TV viewers, and they want to build up compound, why wouldnt they apply it to compound? If it isnt great for compound, then why is it for recurve? 


Chris


----------



## Demmer (Dec 1, 2012)

If you think the popularity up tick has to do with the set system, I believe you are mistaken. Lol

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## Demmer (Dec 1, 2012)

The example with Colin shows how luck is involved with this system. You run into the wrong person at the wrong time and you are out dispite the fact you shot almost clean. 
I shot against a 16th seed at the Lancaster classic and I was a one seed. I beat him something like 117-111. If that 16th seed faced anyone else in the elimation round, he would have moved on easily. I never like it when luck is involved. 
IMHO when you start involving luck more in more into the sport, it takes away the purity. 

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## zal (May 1, 2007)

Demmer said:


> If you think the popularity up tick has to do with the set system, I believe you are mistaken. Lol


My dad, who's never held a bow in his hands but enjoys watching sport on TV, and now religiously follows archery on Eurosport (amongst other sports, like snooker and curling) would argue with you. He did come to see couple of competitions before the set system (full FITA's) and wasn't really able to follow anything, even though there were clear scoreboards etc. Now it's easy for him to follow and understand as it's akin to other sports that he likes.

I don't buy the "anyone can win" aspect. You just have to have different skillset for a different game. It is becoming far more mental game, which I like.


----------



## bobnikon (Jun 10, 2012)

It is an interesting argument to say the least.

What does consistent mean? I guess it is relative.

If you consistently win, I think you probably win.
If you consistently shoot the highest scores, then I think you probably win.
The trick is you just have to be *consistent consistently*. 

If you shoot 30, 30, 30, 30. I don't think you are going to lose! If you pepper in some 27, 28, 29's then you are leaving it up to the other guy to beat you.

So, if a person is beat out in the set system, due to a person who "happened" to beat them in 3 sets, but they had an overall slightly better score... are they consistently better than the person who won? They weren't in three of the sets that round.

I mean really, is it that the person who shot a higher score but lost was gipped, or were they not up to the clutch shots... *when they were necessary*. 

Just because our concept of the better archer, by raw score, was what we grew up on, doesn't mean that better archer performed better when they had to.

Take a single arrow challenge.
Call it luck, call it fluke, call it well tuned archer and equipment. For some reason one person shoots a better arrow than the other. 
If we don't like the result do we make them shoot again until we get the result we like?

Sure, a given arrow may perform on a given shot slightly differently with all other factors being the same, but that is part of the thrill of the sport. I don't want to shoot my arrows out of a hooter shooter with a remote control switch. Then it just becomes a matter of who can tune a bow and fletch an arrow better than the other guy.

There is always going to be some controversy. Not the least of which is what if a particular shooter, or country doesn't even show up. 

How about the women's team with their respective placing's doing so well in the team round. *Should they recuse themselves *because based on their individual scores they don't deserve to be there?

Just some ponderings.


----------



## bobnikon (Jun 10, 2012)

What is that old saying...

On any given Sunday?

I would rather see how the archer shoots in the game we have, on the day at hand.

Otherwise we could hand out the medals *before *the match based on the world archery rankings and call it done.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Demmer said:


> The example with Colin shows how luck is involved with this system. You run into the wrong person at the wrong time and you are out dispite the fact you shot almost clean.
> I shot against a 16th seed at the Lancaster classic and I was a one seed. I beat him something like 117-111. If that 16th seed faced anyone else in the elimation round, he would have moved on easily. I never like it when luck is involved.
> IMHO when you start involving luck more in more into the sport, it takes away the purity.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


Easy solution for that 16th seed is to shoot better during the ranking round, and not face the #1 seed until late in the matchplay.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

zal said:


> My dad, who's never held a bow in his hands but enjoys watching sport on TV, and now religiously follows archery on Eurosport (amongst other sports, like snooker and curling) would argue with you. He did come to see couple of competitions before the set system (full FITA's) and wasn't really able to follow anything, even though there were clear scoreboards etc. Now it's easy for him to follow and understand as it's akin to other sports that he likes.
> 
> I don't buy the "anyone can win" aspect. You just have to have different skillset for a different game. It is becoming far more mental game, which I like.


Your dad is the typical viewer, which is what WA is trying to attract because without them, this sport will never go anywhere. 

And I agree with your dad. The set system is much more interesting and easier to follow than the old matchplay system.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

BTW, providing a format that allows upsets is for the fans, not for the competitors. But ultimately if you choose to make your living from this sport, it is also for you because it's the fans that will pay your salary.

So I really don't understand what all the [email protected] is about.


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

Why even have a qualifying round if everyone wants to see head to head matches. Just start the match play immediately until you get to the top 16, then put them on Television. If you want to reward mediocrity, then this is the way as, inevitably, there will be someone who wouldn't make the top 16 scores, who will scratch their way to the top 16 only to have their lucky run ended in a bad way. But, this is the current world way, don't reward skill and practice, give an award to all participants or give all participants a lottery chance to luck into a set win against someone who they couldn't beat 99.9% of the time. T.V. rules rule our sport and ruins it at the same time. As you can probably tell, I'm a fan of the best score wins.


----------



## >--gt--> (Jul 1, 2002)

itbeso said:


> Why even have a qualifying round if everyone wants to see head to head matches. Just start the match play immediately until you get to the top 16, then put them on Television. If you want to reward mediocrity, then this is the way as, inevitably, there will be someone who wouldn't make the top 16 scores, who will scratch their way to the top 16 only to have their lucky run ended in a bad way. But, this is the current world way, don't reward skill and practice, give an award to all participants or give all participants a lottery chance to luck into a set win against someone who they couldn't beat 99.9% of the time. T.V. rules rule our sport and ruins it at the same time. As you can probably tell, I'm a fan of the best score wins.


Well, as the best shooters seem to be repeatedly making it into the finals, I'm not sure what you're on about.


----------



## zal (May 1, 2007)

limbwalker said:


> Your dad is the typical viewer, which is what WA is trying to attract because without them, this sport will never go anywhere.
> 
> And I agree with your dad. The set system is much more interesting and easier to follow than the old matchplay system.


I think that's where the whole issue lies. It's not a sport my dad chooses to do (he's avid cross-country skiier and used to coach in Finnish Baseball, plus worked as a part-time sports journo for 25 odd years), rather, what he chooses to watch for fun. In the past whole sport was geared towards hobbyists who were involved in it. One of previous presidents of our national association spoke about fallibleness of holding perfect competitions, in the middle of the woods where no-one will ever find you, rather than even haphazard competitions in public arenas where someone might actually find you. This was perfectly shown last summer when we had our national championship finals in the middle of the capital, in the steps of Helsinki Cathedral. I think I agree 100% with him, even though at the time I was wondering if the change of perception amongst people involved in the game could ever actually happen.

I think set system works perfectly in situations like that as it keeps the chance of winning possible, even if you are still losing before the final arrow 4-0 down. It was shown in those finals, where in compound finals one missed arrow meant that the match was pretty much dead air, and TV treated it pretty much as that (finals were actually televised in major national channel, first time in donkey's years).

You can watch some of the (windy) matches here as raw format, from the production company's channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NyjkxYPkaI&list=PL-0cZdEQK0_Yt8wVmQXbQ2WE5tAzJYmcg


----------



## zal (May 1, 2007)

There are also multitude of ways different associations prepare for matchplay format. For instance, when I was in the national associations board of directors, I initiated a format where every position would be decided in a matchplay format, i.e. if you start with 1/32, after first match it evolves into two groups of 1/16, losers and winners from first match. Then 4x 1/8, then 8x 1/4 etc. So everyone gets plenty of matchplay practice in every competition.

It is fairly tricky format to run, but when it has been run it's been very popular and people feel that they definitely get their money's worth, not just 72 arrows and one lost match, plus the boredom of waiting for the competition to end. National competitions (non-STAR) give plenty of interesting ways to prepare and evolve, you don't need to strictly follow the international setup if you feel that it's not the way that best prepares your archers for international competition.

I've always been highly supportive for instance clubs who run matchplay round robins, rather than your usual competitions.


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

>--gt--> said:


> Well, as the best shooters seem to be repeatedly making it into the finals, I'm not sure what you're on about.


George, you know as well as I do that there have been many finals with one timers in them.


----------



## Demmer (Dec 1, 2012)

Also, there seems to be an up tick in ASA, USA indoors, nfaa indoors. I don't see match play in those, so..... 😊😊😊

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

itbeso said:


> Why even have a qualifying round if everyone wants to see head to head matches. Just start the match play immediately until you get to the top 16, then put them on Television. If you want to reward mediocrity, then this is the way as, inevitably, there will be someone who wouldn't make the top 16 scores, who will scratch their way to the top 16 only to have their lucky run ended in a bad way. But, this is the current world way, don't reward skill and practice, give an award to all participants or give all participants a lottery chance to luck into a set win against someone who they couldn't beat 99.9% of the time. T.V. rules rule our sport and ruins it at the same time. As you can probably tell, I'm a fan of the best score wins.


That's a good idea. Professional Tennis has done this for years already.


----------



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

itbeso said:


> Why even have a qualifying round if everyone wants to see head to head matches. Just start the match play immediately until you get to the top 16, then put them on Television. If you want to reward mediocrity, then this is the way as, inevitably, there will be someone who wouldn't make the top 16 scores, who will scratch their way to the top 16 only to have their lucky run ended in a bad way. But, this is the current world way, don't reward skill and practice, give an award to all participants or give all participants a lottery chance to luck into a set win against someone who they couldn't beat 99.9% of the time. T.V. rules rule our sport and ruins it at the same time. As you can probably tell, *I'm a fan of the best score wins*.


As far as I can see best score in each set still wins the set, so what's the problem? 

And please let me know about some 60+ seeded archer winning world cup/world champs/Olympics........

Yes in H2H matches is luck involved, but it's very far from pure luck as many here try to say. Perform under pressure when it's matter is skill, not luck.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

Ar-Pe-Lo said:


> As far as I can see best score in each set still wins the set, so what's the problem?
> 
> And please let me know about some 60+ seeded archer winning world cup/world champs/Olympics........
> 
> Yes in H2H matches is luck involved, but it's very far from pure luck as many here try to say. Perform under pressure when it's matter is skill, not luck.


top 16 in Medellin had a 55th place archer, 43rd place archer, and a 29th place archer. 


Chris


----------



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

chrstphr said:


> top 16 in Medellin had a 55th place archer, 43rd place archer, and a 29th place archer.
> 
> 
> Chris


Top 16 is not winning.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

chrstphr said:


> top 16 in Medellin had a 55th place archer, 43rd place archer, and a 29th place archer.
> 
> 
> Chris


And if you looked at the rankings of the PGA tour pros after one round of golf (and not their long-term world ranking) then you would frequently have 55th, 43rd and 29th "ranked" golfers winning tournaments. Heck, the other day a golfer ranked over 100+ in the world won an event. And last I checked, the fans loved it. It's good for the game when someone can have a good week and come out of nowhere. It creates great stories. The same four or five or even eight archers winning all the time may be fun for some, and perceived as more "fair" but I can assure you it's not good for the game long-term. Spectators are what will take archery to the next level, not some carefully arbitrated uber-"fair" format that is loved by the top archers in the world. 

So the debate here really is as always - what format works best for the archers (and even then, WHICH archers) and what format works best for viewers? You could poll any sport and the elite athletes would always want a change in format. It's a constant topic of debate in every sport I can think of. 

DH rule in baseball,
Kicking in football,
Penalties in hockey and basketball,

Blah, blah, blah.

Play the game in front of you, or go play cards or read a book. In 2003, I switched from NFAA traditional to Olympic recurve because I wanted to play the game for a little while. Would I have preferred the Olympic format did not include sights and a clicker and stabilizers? Sure I would, but that wasn't the game. So we all have two choices - play along or not. Grumbling about it while still playing along is not something that anyone really wants to hear though.


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

Discussion went already too much (again) about matches against scores... let's get back to topic...


*#9 - LEE Sung Jin* http://worldarchery.org/news/140089/best-olympic-archers-all-time-9-lee-sung-jin

Clearly they are nominating in the list the archers winning Olympic Medals during more than one edition as well as having multiple participations 

8 names left, and Darrel Pace, KIM Soo Nyung, PARK Sung Hyun, YUN Min Jin have not appeared, yet.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

limbwalker said:


> And if you looked at the rankings of the PGA tour pros after one round of golf (and not their long-term world ranking) then you would frequently have 55th, 43rd and 29th "ranked" golfers winning tournaments. Heck, the other day a golfer ranked over 100+ in the world won an event. And last I checked, the fans loved it. It's good for the game when someone can have a good week and come out of nowhere. It creates great stories. The same four or five or even eight archers winning all the time may be fun for some, and perceived as more "fair" but I can assure you it's not good for the game long-term. Spectators are what will take archery to the next level, not some carefully arbitrated uber-"fair" format that is loved by the top archers in the world.
> 
> So the debate here really is as always - what format works best for the archers (and even then, WHICH archers) and what format works best for viewers? You could poll any sport and the elite athletes would always want a change in format. It's a constant topic of debate in every sport I can think of.
> 
> ...


The DH rule sucks.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

Vittorio said:


> Discussion went already too much (again) about matches against scores... let's get back to topic...
> 
> 
> *#9 - LEE Sung Jin* http://worldarchery.org/news/140089/best-olympic-archers-all-time-9-lee-sung-jin
> ...


Zhang Juanjuan will be there. two olympics, silver and Gold. Last gold beating all three Korean ladies. 

Chris


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

chrstphr said:


> Zhang Juanjuan will be there. two olympics, silver and Gold. Last gold beating all three Korean ladies.
> 
> Chris


Is already there at #15 ...


----------



## Azzurri (Mar 10, 2014)

Demmer said:


> Also, there seems to be an up tick in ASA, USA indoors, nfaa indoors. I don't see match play in those, so..... &#55357;&#56842;&#55357;&#56842;&#55357;&#56842;
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


ASA you compete against the course, which can bite someone in the middle of a runaway round. My friend and I were talking about this and it's that element that makes 3d or field naturally more dramatic than 100 people qualifying on a target at a set distance. The scenery changes, the target changes, the archer has to adjust, etc.

People also love Vegas' world finals and Lancaster, which have knockouts. One thing I have been surprised at is how strong a pure quali format is indoors here. When everything outdoors seems to have a knockout attached. I think the growth in USA Indoor and NFAA Indoor is more about growth in interest, and people accepting whatever format they get, because it's nationals. If we did one USAA event instead of a dozen regionals people would adapt. If we did a knockout at the end people would adapt. It might even make those events more broadcastable. I don't know many watchers who see WA events and want to see quali. People want drama. Sets are drama.

I would compare it to F1 versus Indycar. They have virtually the same viewership here despite one being a higher level than the other. I watch Indycar more avidly because I don't know who the winner is just from testing and qualifying, ie, who built the best car. The cars are more spec, it becomes more of a strategy/driver skill/and sometimes luck on cautions challenge. So 10 different people win in a season. Yes, a few are like F1 better than the rest, and they usually rise to the top over a season. But any given weekend is worth watching because it's not a foregone conclusion.

Re "the best," the upset merchants are usually not that much less qualified than their seeded victims. We're talking 9.3 an arrow versus 9 an arrow. There is no .3 arrow score so in practice that is a diceroll. If the "better" archer is on their game, they should on average pull out their 1 point more per set round. If they are not on their game, they aren't actually "better" that day, and they open the door for an archer of similar if slightly inferior skill. The upset merchant might be shooting out of their mind, but if Ellison shot 30 30 30 to win we wouldn't blink at his advancement. Why is it any different if a more inconsistent or less experience or reknowned archer pulls off the same high quality string of ends?

Last thought, I don't think I've ever done anything higher than 28 at 70 for 3 competitive arrows. People are dismissive of the "lucky archer" but to do the upset you have to be a fairly capable archer who can do 30s on call under pressure. You might have a consistency problem that drags you down, or struggle with pressure, but the reality is among the sort of 300+ level archers competing at 70, they're all pretty darned capable, and if someone shoots unusually well or poor, why shouldn't they advance. I think that's better drama and better tv, and among people who toss out 27-30 like candy under pressure, I don't think it's that big a travesty if someone on a roll capable of 30s advances over someone whom a more protective (15 arrows for score, pure quali format, double elimination) format would help, also capable of 30s and usually with more accuracy, just not that day. Yes, 15 arrows a round would be a more pure shooting test, and favor the elite most days, but I don't think you'd attract many new viewers, just the sort of people who wanted the 15 arrows in the first place.

The one thing I'd change is the one arrow shoot off but that's akin to soccer PKs, at some point it has to end and if there is no clear victor, you aren't being that messed over if you can't separate yourself over 15-18 arrows, and the facility has more rounds to fit in that day to progress the tournament along, something has to give. Maybe it should be like certain tennis tournaments, that you can't win the championship that way, that the sets keep going until someone gets the proverbial two ahead, but that you could win an earlier round just so the rounds keep rolling by.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

I think Darrell Pace would have been one heluva matchplay archer in today's set system.


----------



## toxoph (Mar 24, 2005)

While watching the latest World Archery Cup video from Medellin, it was pretty funny the main announcer (Carl?) said that "Brady was perhaps the greatest recurve archer the USA has ever produced, in fact, I dont think you'd get much argument from anyone else."

He may be one day (Hopefully), just not yet.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

toxoph said:


> While watching the latest World Archery Cup video from Medellin, it was pretty funny the main announcer (Carl?) said that "Brady was perhaps the greatest recurve archer the USA has ever produced, in fact, I dont think you'd get much argument from anyone else."
> 
> He may be one day (Hopefully), just not yet.


Reminds me of all the "greatest of all time" lists in other sports or professions (music comes to mind). The contemporaries of those making the list always get ranked higher than they probably deserve. 

For the past 20 years, no US archer has managed the track record at the Olympics that Vic Wunderle had, whether in team or individual competition. It would take even Brady another 2 Olympics to surpass Vic's accomplishments of a team bronze, individual silver, team 4th, and consecutive top 8 individual finishes at 3 games.


----------



## jmvargas (Oct 21, 2004)

i believe the "greatest" in any sport will always be subject to different opinions unless there is a standard and common criteria in determining these...

in golf the number of major championships won is the unofficial accepted criteris and jack nicklaus and tiger woods with 18 and 14 proferssonal majors respectively or 20 and 17 if you include the amateur majors are commonly acknowledged as the top 2 greatest golfers of all time..

career longevitvity and number of other tournaments won are also considered but the majors have the heaviest weight... 

applying these criteria to archery there must also be an agreement on what events to consider majors vs the others...

in my mind the majors are the Olympics and World championships and the rest are others...

once an agreement is reached it's all about mathematics to decide a winner...


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> in my mind the majors are the Olympics and World championships and the rest are others...


Yup. Anyone who shoots at a high level knows this. They are the only two events where every nation sends their best archers.


----------



## TER (Jul 5, 2003)

toxoph said:


> While watching the latest World Archery Cup video from Medellin, it was pretty funny the main announcer (Carl?) said that "Brady was perhaps the greatest recurve archer the USA has ever produced, in fact, I dont think you'd get much argument from anyone else."
> 
> He may be one day (Hopefully), just not yet.


I'm sure Carl Arky is a good person and a real nice guy, but the whole time he's worked for WA he's been saying ridiculous things. He needs some coaching on how to do his job better.


----------



## TER (Jul 5, 2003)

limbwalker said:


> Yup. Anyone who shoots at a high level knows this. They are the only two events where every nation sends their best archers.


Not every nation goes to the Olympics. So it's impossible for every nation to send their best archers to the Olympics. The Olympics is not even the 64 best archers in world competing. It has about 55 archers who are amongst the best, and about 9 who are given spots for reasons other than competitiveness.


----------



## Infinite_Curve (Aug 27, 2013)

TER said:


> Not every nation goes to the Olympics. So it's impossible for every nation to send their best archers to the Olympics. The Olympics is not even the 64 best archers in world competing. It has about 55 archers who are amongst the best, and about 9 who are given spots for reasons other than competitiveness.


Erm, it's 128 archers, not 64. 

Six places of those 128 (three men, three women) are reserved for Brazil as host nation. I think a Brazilian archery medal may be a longer shot but the teams are competitive - don't forget the men's team finished 9th at the worlds, out of 58. 

Six more places are Tripartite Commission spots, which are designed to increase the Olympics' inclusivity, so a guy from one of the poorest countries in the world might get a chance to go and shoot against an archer from wealthy country with an Olympic programme funded by millions. But only if they can make the minimum qualifying standard (630 for men and 600 for women on a 70m round). Have a read of this: https://worldarchery.org/news/139633/malawis-areneo-david-pursuing-rio-2016-olympic-dream


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

TER, I understand what you're saying, but to elite archers, the Olympics and WC's are the most competitive events in the sport.


----------



## AvalonPlusGuy (Aug 6, 2008)

chrstphr said:


> Zhang Juanjuan will be there. two olympics, silver and Gold. Last gold beating all three Korean ladies.
> 
> Chris





Vittorio said:


> Discussion went already too much (again) about matches against scores... let's get back to topic...
> 
> 
> *#9 - LEE Sung Jin* http://worldarchery.org/news/140089/best-olympic-archers-all-time-9-lee-sung-jin
> ...


There you have it - they rank medals regardless of team or individual. Zhang Juanjuan has 1 individual gold and 2 team silvers. She's #15. Lee has 1 individual silver and 2 team golds. She's #9. In my book, those positions would be reversed. 
To add to Vittorio's list - Kyung Mo Park has to be included. 1 individual silver (2008) and 2 team golds (2004, 2008) in addition to an individual world title back in 1993


----------



## zal (May 1, 2007)

If it follows that trend, and multiple medals plus longevity seems to matter, my guess would probably be something like: 

5-8) 
Jay Barrs 
Park Kyung-mo
Tomi Poikolainen
Marco Galiazzo
4) Yun Mi-jin
3) Darrell Pace
2) Park Sung-hyun
1) Kim Soo-nyung

But who knows what their criteria is. That would definitely not be a list of my top 8 archers of all time (leaves people like Natalia Valeeva well out of the picture).


----------



## ssxd (Apr 15, 2015)

And #8 is Michele Frangilli

Bronze in Atlanta
Silver in Sydney
Gold in London

All team medals


----------



## Pete53 (Dec 5, 2011)

competition is much tougher now than in the old days and yes the those older archer`s were great shots but to be honest archer`s now may be the best of all times for now ? our American archer Brady has done well and some others from other countries too. I have watched those matches and these new young archer`s are dang good !


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

One could easily argue that archers from the past had to be even better due to the equipment limitations they faced vs. what they use now.


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

It would be interesting to give Brady and a few others a TD2, a quiver full of 2114s and some '70s vintage hardware and see what scores they could come up with.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Stash said:


> It would be interesting to give Brady and a few others a TD2, a quiver full of 2114s and some '70s vintage hardware and see what scores they could come up with.


That's what I was thinking. I think the top shooters have always been about the same skill level. We're talking human athletes here - the DNA of which really hasn't changed in thousands of years.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Wunderle not being in the top 15? Hmm. I'd say his accomplishments compare favorably to Yamamoto's.


----------



## beefstew27 (Mar 18, 2008)

I'll put Brady as *maybe* one of top 3 overall target shooters from the US...but until he get's that Gold from the Olympics.... Although, in my mind, the Olympics aren't as fun as the WC matches. Everybody hypes up the Games every four years, but they're 'meh' I much prefer watching the different legs of the WC, more rivalry, drama, and upsets.


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

limbwalker said:


> That's what I was thinking. I think the top shooters have always been about the same skill level. We're talking human athletes here - the DNA of which really hasn't changed in thousands of years.


Last year I showed Crispin Duenas a 1-piece Hoyt from the '60s. He drew it back once and handed it back, shaking his head.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Stash said:


> Last year I showed Crispin Duenas a 1-piece Hoyt from the '60s. He drew it back once and handed it back, shaking his head.


Have him play around with some kevlar strings 

back in 2004, we played around with having a FITA event to honor the 25th Anniversary of the best FITA ever shot with aluminum arrows. We were going to require Magnesium handled bows, aluminum arrows, glue on nocks, Aluminum Stabilizers etc. Ann Hoyt had a like NEW Sky Made TD 2 she sent me (it was not compatible with FF strings) a pair of New TFCs and side bars, and a Chek It sight. I got some Blue X7s with HOMER ROOT vanes. WE never got past the planning stages with that event (maybe we will do a 40th anniversary edition if people can find gear). I did shoot a couple practice FITAS with that rig and other than my 30M score which was pretty similar to what I was shooting with X10s , the other distance scores amounted to at least 100 point lower total


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

We should start a "good old days" thread for us dinosaurs. FITA archery from before Brady Ellison was born. Shouldn't hijack this one.


----------



## crushedeiffel (May 24, 2015)

Would be interesting to see how they rank the 1900 1920 champions ?
Also could anybody confirm a story my coach ( directly heard from one of the French participant in 1920) told me 20 years ago :
They came to the Olympics in Antwerp a barrel of wine (100L +) and drank it (with the other archers and relations also carrying local alcoholic beverage) in between the shooting and the medal ceremony.
Thus arriving at the ceremony as a pretty merry crowd. 
The IOC did not thought of it as funny.
This being the reason of the exclusion of archery from the Olympics until 1972....


----------



## AvalonPlusGuy (Aug 6, 2008)

limbwalker said:


> Wunderle not being in the top 15? Hmm. I'd say his accomplishments compare favorably to Yamamoto's.


It's not mentioned in his citation but Yamamoto holds the record for the most consecutive world championship appearances at 13 (1981-2005). That's longevity and some.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

limbwalker said:


> That's what I was thinking. I think the top shooters have always been about the same skill level. We're talking human athletes here - the DNA of which really hasn't changed in thousands of years.


Yup - Babe Ruth and Mickey Mantle and Willie Mays would still be among the top studs today, just like they were 50 and 80 years ago. Brady would be a stud in the 70's, and Pace and McKinney would be studs today.


----------



## Azzurri (Mar 10, 2014)

The interesting x factor on past/present comparisons is technology and the expansion and improvement of training methods. It is interesting if counter factual to imagine what past greats in their prime would do with modern tech and modern training methods. But the counter would be that I think we demand more discipline and punish people for their behavior more than in the 70s-90s, eg, Adrian Peterson and Ray Rice, private versus public is collapsing. And we have better technology to catch cheats, eg, Lance. I don't know if that would affect archery so much, but I think we are less tolerant of the brat, the substance abuser, or the outright criminal than we were for a period, and we can catch people engaged in doping or performance enhancement better.


----------



## zal (May 1, 2007)

I think plenty of people underestimate the pure talent some of those archers in 70s and 80s or even earlier had. I think the biggest difference has been in training methods and regime, rather than equipment. For instance couple of years ago, 2013 IIRC, Tomi Poikolainen appeared suddenly at nationals in master's class (50+), blasted new national record with 655, after pretty much 10+ years break, using pretty ancient Hoyt TD4 with pretty basic accessories. Past few years he's surprised everyone every now and then, appearing in competitions, and can pretty much hold his own with the country's top archers, without (reportedly) much preparation.

I think that if you gave those archers similar chance to train and earn a living with archery, as archers these days can, you'd see similar, if not better scores from them. I think it was at least partially financial pressure which hindered their training and development, as even plenty of top archers had to do jobs at the side, or ended up in a point when continuing wasn't financially possible.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

AvalonPlusGuy said:


> It's not mentioned in his citation but Yamamoto holds the record for the most consecutive world championship appearances at 13 (1981-2005). That's longevity and some.


Understood, but few archers from the US have ever had the longevity and success that Vic has had. He was a Junior World Champion over 20 years ago, and has probably lost count of the US Archery Teams he has been on. 

Again, his track record at Olympic Games is pretty remarkable when you look at it.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

limbwalker said:


> Understood, but few archers from the US have ever had the longevity and success that Vic has had. He was a Junior World Champion over 20 years ago, and has probably lost count of the US Archery Teams he has been on.
> 
> Again, his track record at Olympic Games is pretty remarkable when you look at it.


I can think of one guy who I think of when I think of longevity in recurve Archery. Richard "Butch Johnson. World Class in the 70s, 80s, Olympic team gold medalist in the 90s, Olympic team bronze medalist in the new century. won vegas, US Nationals a bunch of times over those years, still holds the US indoor record IIRC and I don't know if anyone broke the 2700 double FITA he put up on the board in Canton about 15 years ago. 

Next up would be one Edwin Eliasson-Fifth in 72 Olympics, was still competitive at the NTCS almost 30 years later. As Rick McKinney says in his book-He was good when 1100s were good, he was good when 1200s were good, he was good when 1300s were good, he was good when the Grand FITA was the standard and he was still good when the elimination round began (this is not a direct quote but from memory even though several copies of that book are spread across my residence and indoor range)

This is not knocking Vic who is a friend of our family and an all around great guy and archer


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Of course Butch is a legend in the sport, and deserves consideration as well. Team gold, Team bronze. But Vic's individual silver, team bronze, and top-8 individual finishes at three consecutive games trumps that, if we're talking about the Olympic games. 

Lots of great archers to consider however.


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

My best guess now for remaining 7 names is:

Marco Galiazzo
Jang Yong Ho 
Park Kyung Mo
Yun Mi Jin
Park Seung Hyun
Darrel Pace
Kim Soo Nyung

Those above all have at least 3 medals with minimum 2 golds ... difficul that WA will choose other names


----------



## Shirt (Aug 31, 2002)

Vittorio said:


> My best guess now for remaining 7 names is:
> ...
> Jang Yong Ho
> ...


For my money, one of the greatest never to really stand out. Was shooting 1350s reasonably consistently from 1991 when they were still exceptionally rare, through to mid-2000s (when they were still comparatively few and far between); reappeared recently to come second at the Berlin Open (which prompted a whole generation of archers to go "Who's this Korean we've never seen before!") which makes him relatively unique in terms of longevity for a Korean archer.

His 1378 at the World Championships in 2003, with the unique feature of shooting a world record at 90m and then scoring less at 70m, is one I remember well watching on semi-live results and hoping he was going to break the very long-standing record of Oh Kyo-Moon for the FITA.

And has some of the cleanest form I've ever watched. Still pull up Miika Aulio's slow motion and wish I could get a shot that looked that fluent.





If the Koreans did field and indoor with the same emphasis as target, I can't help but think he'd have a huge pile of victories behind him.

Right, moving on, where's Sebastian Rohrberg on this list? Indoor and field dominance for a good period of time?


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

Jang Yong Ho is another of those "boys of 76" like my son, Vic Wunderle and Larry Godfrey, still very competitive today. A generation that will be remember..
Sebastiana Rohrberg has been World and Field champion, but has no Olympic caps, in my memory.


----------



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

#7 - Park Kyung Mo

http://worldarchery.org/news/140803/best-olympic-archers-all-time-7-park-kyung-mo


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

#6 - Marco Galiazzo

http://worldarchery.org/news/140820/best-olympic-archers-all-time-6-marco-galiazzo


----------



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

#5 Yun-Mi-Jin

http://worldarchery.org/news/140827/best-olympic-archers-all-time-5-yun-mi-jin

4th would be Jang Yong Ho and 3rd Park Sung Hyun.


----------



## collider (Nov 3, 2015)

> Marco Galiazzo
> Jang Yong Ho
> Park Kyung Mo
> Yun Mi Jin
> ...


You're list is perfect so far, Vittorio


----------



## jmvargas (Oct 21, 2004)

i'm wondering now who would also be included if the World cnampionships would also be included when determining the top archers ...


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

jmvargas said:


> i'm wondering now who would also be included if the World cnampionships would also be included when determining the top archers ...


well Rick has three with a few other podium finishes
Darrell has two and a few other podium finishes
both held the world record-and Darrell was the Roger Bannister of Archery

if you were rating the greatest target archers in the modern Era-Rick would be way ahead of most of the gold medalists who never won a world title. Personally, I would rate Rick ahead of say John Williams (John and Darrell are the only two men in modern US archery to win both the gold medal in the olympics and the world championship). You wonder how many gold medals Rick and Darrell would have had if the Olympics had team events back in the day-You figure the 76, and 84 olympics the USA would have won and of course we had the Jimmy Carter idiocy in 1980 as well. 

A side note what is a harder event to win-the Olympic gold or the world championship when it comes to archery. In some sports, the worlds are harder since there are more top competitors. The same is true with tennis grand slam events.


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

Jim C said:


> well Rick has three with a few other podium finishes
> Darrell has two and a few other podium finishes
> both held the world record-and Darrell was the Roger Bannister of Archery
> 
> ...


Since the change to the Olympic Round format for Word Championships in 1993, ALL world champions have been from Korea apart for my son in 2003 and Natalia Valeeva in 1995 and 2007. And, for sure, the World Championships are a much harder competiton to win than the Olympic Games for both individuals and teams. So, it reamains very difficult to compare old days of the Double FITA to the age of the OR in all its copntinuous variations. 

Any ranking that compares athlets of different ages competing in different kind of competitions is therefore related to the subjective parameters of the one doing the ranking. 

For instance, WA totally forgets Indoor and Field results (and Rick and Darrelò were also good in those), and also forgets that before the World cup circuit, the top level world circuit was the European Grand Prix circuit that just evolved to be called World cup. Not to mention World and Olympic records shots in the years.

For those that like the scores to compare results, guess who has been the only one non Korean archer on top of the qualification round of two World Championships and one Olympic Game since 1992?

Time is passing , arrows have been shot, medals only will remain, all other parameters are definitely useless and no one will remember them 10 years from now.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

Vittorio said:


> Since the change to the Olympic Round format for Word Championships in 1993, ALL world champions have been from Korea apart for my son in 2003 and Natalia Valeeva in 1995 and 2007. And, for sure, the World Championships are a much harder competiton to win than the Olympic Games for both individuals and teams. So, it reamains very difficult to compare old days of the Double FITA to the age of the OR in all its copntinuous variations.
> 
> Any ranking that compares athlets of different ages competing in different kind of competitions is therefore related to the subjective parameters of the one doing the ranking.
> 
> ...


And that is a tragedy. Archery's inherent ability to be so objective regardless of the decade (distance, target size, score) creates this linkage from today's archers back to the beginning of the modern (1972) Olympic era. Just like baseball. It's one of the things that is so valuable about both sports - the objective ability to compare apples to apples across the ages (more than many sports, anyway). It's a shame to see that lost with the 'only the bracket matters' push going on today.


----------



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

Vittorio said:


> For those that like the scores to compare results, guess who has been the only one non Korean archer on top of the qualification round of two World Championships and one Olympic Game since 1992?


Not hard given the person who ask 

1996 - 684 - Michelle


----------



## jmvargas (Oct 21, 2004)

i agree with the previous posts and now wonder again who would be the top archers who had NEVER competed in the Olympics.....or never won an Olympic medal...yet.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

lksseven said:


> And that is a tragedy. Archery's inherent ability to be so objective regardless of the decade (distance, target size, score) creates this linkage from today's archers back to the beginning of the modern (1972) Olympic era. Just like baseball. It's one of the things that is so valuable about both sports - the objective ability to compare apples to apples across the ages (more than many sports, anyway). It's a shame to see that lost with the 'only the bracket matters' push going on today.


which is why i complain of the set scoring system. All you get for history is 6-0,6-4, etc. 


Chris


----------



## zal (May 1, 2007)

jmvargas said:


> i agree with the previous posts and now wonder again who would be the top archers who had NEVER competed in the Olympics.....or never won an Olympic medal...yet.


You'd be looking at 50's and 60's when archery wasn't an olympic sport. The game was totally dominated by archers from States, Sweden and Finland. 

I'd say Swedish archer Hans Deutgen has a strong shout. 4 times world champion in consecutive years, plus handful of silver medals. The most decorated archer of all time at World Championship level.


----------



## zal (May 1, 2007)

Dug around a bit from him. Holder of 7 out of 9 world records in 1950. Here's a short info in swedish. Retired in 1953 but says in that blurb that might come out of retirement if archery becomes olympic sport in 1956. It didn't.

Form isn't bad in today's standards either:


----------



## DarkMuppet (Oct 23, 2013)

jmvargas said:


> i agree with the previous posts and now wonder again who would be the top archers who had NEVER competed in the Olympics.....or never won an Olympic medal...yet.


There's Kim woojin, who's won 2 world championships and holds 3 world records. He's never competed in the Olympics. However, he's going this year and he's made it quite clear he's fully intending to come back with Gold and a 700+ qualifying round. Can't fault his determination.


----------



## jmvargas (Oct 21, 2004)

wow! those last 2 guys mentioned--hans and kim--are certainly great examples pf what i was looking for...specially hans in the pre-olmpic area...

i also remember names like like joe fries and hardy ward when i was younger and i did meet hardy ward when i was in LAS last october..


----------



## kshet26 (Dec 20, 2010)

#4 - Hubert van Innis? Don't know if anyone was expecting him!

http://worldarchery.org/news/141566/best-olympic-archers-all-time-4-hubert-van-innis


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Why can't we shoot moving birds at the Olympics anymore...


----------



## bobnikon (Jun 10, 2012)

kshet26 said:


> #4 - Hubert van Innis? Don't know if anyone was expecting him!
> 
> http://worldarchery.org/news/141566/best-olympic-archers-all-time-4-hubert-van-innis


Okay, opens it up a little. Quite the career!


----------



## zal (May 1, 2007)

Problem with those early games is that it was format which was used in only very limited countries. Like 1920 games, which had 30 archers, but only 3 participating countries (BEL, FRA, NED).

That's why it was pulled from the Olympics in the first place. Competing federations couldn't decide on a common format. I.e. 1904 only USA competed in archery.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

If we did have moving bird targets, then I think we might see barebow back in the Olympics. LOL.


----------



## zal (May 1, 2007)

I've seen those being shot. It is a discipline that is still alive somewhere around Europe.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Maybe barebow can finally make it back into the Olympics as a shooting sport discipline using flu-flu's and clay pigeons on the skeet range.


----------



## shogun90 (Jul 2, 2006)

#3: Park sung-hyun


----------



## Zombie_Feynman (Jun 27, 2014)

Vittorio said:


> Since the change to the Olympic Round format for Word Championships in 1993, ALL world champions have been from Korea apart for my son in 2003 and Natalia Valeeva in 1995 and 2007. And, for sure, the World Championships are a much harder competiton to win than the Olympic Games for both individuals and teams.


Also Maja Jager in 2013. She had to shoot against both Ki Bo Bae and Yun OK Hee during the eliminations.


----------



## mbu (Oct 22, 2003)

Also in 2011: Women's individual	Denisse Van Lamoen Chile (CHI)


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

mbu said:


> Also in 2011: Women's individual	Denisse Van Lamoen Chile (CHI)


Ohhps... my memory clearly stopped working after 2007 ... I was in Tourin in 2011 and Belek il 2013 and I watched live the women finals there ...


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

shogun90 said:


> #3: Park sung-hyun


Clearly Jang Yong Ho is out of the 15 .... Only two places reamaining ....


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Pace #2-sort of expected the man would be the second spot not the first


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Jim C said:


> Pace #2-sort of expected the man would be the second spot not the first


Why would you expect that?


----------



## Justinbullseye (Jun 30, 2016)

That has to be the best article yet. Lots of commendation for Rick which was nice.
Anyone know why he was shooting an out of tune bow in Japan '79?


----------



## Black46 (Oct 16, 2013)

Justinbullseye said:


> Anyone know why he was shooting an out of tune bow in Japan '79?


Because he was shooting a world record score with it!

Paul


----------



## zal (May 1, 2007)

Black46 said:


> Because he was shooting a world record score with it!
> 
> Paul


I've seen a guy shoot a 109 12 arrow score after accidentally mixing a pair of limbs - using 70" limb as top limb and 68" limb as bottom limb. Shows what you can do if you trust your form and equipment. He did spend quite a while putting sights right during practice, first arrows were well over the target. He noticed it and swapped to right limbs after that match.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

limbwalker said:


> Why would you expect that?


do you really need me to explain that to you :wink:


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Jim C said:


> do you really need me to explain that to you :wink:


Nope. LOL. Just trying to get you to say it out loud. ha, ha. But of course you know better.


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

And #1 is:

KIM Soo Nyung - https://worldarchery.org/news/142020/best-olympic-archers-all-time-1-kim-soo-nyung

Honestly, I have seen almost all the 15 shooting, and many others not in the list shooting too, but I never doubt she deserved #1 place. 

My memory? She crying in Sydney because her individual medal was just a Bronze and not the Gold she was looking for. 

Really, no one can compare in history to her incredible shooting resuts and even more incredible come back.


----------

