# Shootability Versus Contingency?



## Reverend (Nov 2, 2004)

So viewing the coverage of LAS Classic this past weekend I noticed many pros shooting bows that were a different brand from years past. This got me to wondering if they made the switch to a different brand because they believe the bow to be better, or is it because the new company pays more for placing in tourneys?


----------



## 57Loader (Nov 27, 2008)

If it were me and Archery was my income.... I’d shoot the bow made by the company that would pay me the most, unless I thought it was unshootable. Same for arrows and accessories. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## carlosii (Feb 25, 2007)

It would be interesting to know what each company offers to their different level staff. I'm sure top pros get bookoo support. But which company pays the most?


----------



## Bobmuley (Jan 14, 2004)

They're all shootable, though not necessarily to the same shooter's preference. 

I thought all the companies were pretty well represented throughout all the shoot ups. Didn't notice any big changes this year from those on the stage.


----------



## whiz-Oz (Jul 19, 2007)

"Shootability" is a great term. 
It actually means nothing, but infers something with a positive aspect. 

You can't define it to a set of measurable characteristics, so it all comes down to an opinion that is guaranteed to never be challenged. 

People who use it can appear knowledgeable, until someone asks them to explain it.. Then references to other people with opinions about it start coming out..

It was something 100 percent invented by a marketing executive.

In my opinion, Baskin and Robin's Ice Cream has a greater eatability than other brands. 
I'm a champion ice cream eater, having sampled it all around the world. My ice cream palate is more developed than yours AND if you knew your ice cream, you'd just know that I was correct. 

If you were a fantastic archer, you'd perform with any brand. Common sense says that you can go to the Olympics and win a gold medal with any brand bow. But if one brand offered you 10 grand if you won with one of theirs, you would take the option of the bow with the best contingency money. 

There's no accuracy potential difference, regardless of what people like to believe.


----------



## Padgett (Feb 5, 2010)

From what i can see all the bows are good enough that the top dogs can switch around and still be at the top and contend for titles.

It comes down to what guy deals with his nerves and pounds out a amazing performance thhat takes home the money.


----------



## bigHUN (Feb 5, 2006)

whiz-Oz said:


> ...if one brand offered you 10 grand if you won with one of theirs, you would take the option of the bow with the best contingency money...


10 grand not enough to shoot tournaments year around in america only, the travel cost plus hotels, meals and the rest of incidental expenses costs a large chunk of greeny, if you plan to fly around a globe well you be ready to multiply 4x or 6x or way more, plus there is the cost for the equipment to keep it in best performance...not speculating further that like with any other full time job assumes you bring a food to the family table as well.


----------



## LMacD (Mar 16, 2015)

whiz-Oz said:


> "Shootability" is a great term.
> It actually means nothing, but infers something with a positive aspect.
> 
> You can't define it to a set of measurable characteristics, so it all comes down to an opinion that is guaranteed to never be challenged.
> ...


Hmmm.....

With respect, not so sure it's that absolute. Consider this analogy: I've been a professional guitarist for nearly two decades, and "playability" (a direct correlate to shootability) is absolutely a factor, both subjective and objective, in the guitar world. Using two model archetypes, the Strat and Les Paul, objectively the Strat "plays" more firmly due to the higher string tension. The pick reacts differently to the strings and they are also harder to bend. So not better or worse, but different. Subjectively, guitarists are fairly evenly divided on which one plays "better", but just about everyone agrees that they both "play" better than a Sears model and most players also agree that one of the two plays better "for them". 

To use a bow example, my Prime Rival "shoots" way, way better than my old PSE G Force. It balances better, has less friction in the system, and the limbs are parallel, so the bow doesn't jump on release. Those are all tangible improvements, so I would argue that with the advancements in technology since 1994, that saying it is has better shootability is an objective statement. The G Force will spit out a fast arrow, yes, but it "shoots" like a tank, and everyone who tries it agrees. Compared with a similar late model bow, such as an Elite, I find the Rival to shoot better for me, but I wouldn't suggest that to be objective - it's purely a matter of taste - but it is still a question of shootability even if from a standpoint of ergonomics and preference.

$0.02


----------



## Bobmuley (Jan 14, 2004)

LMacD said:


> To use a bow example, my Prime Rival "shoots" way, way better than my old PSE G Force. It balances better, has less friction in the system, and the limbs are parallel, so the bow doesn't jump on release. Those are all tangible improvements, so I would argue that with the advancements in technology since 1994, that saying it is has better shootability is an objective statement. The G Force will spit out a fast arrow, yes, but it "shoots" like a tank, and everyone who tries it agrees. Compared with a similar late model bow, such as an Elite, I find the Rival to shoot better for me, but I wouldn't suggest that to be objective - it's purely a matter of taste - but it is still a question of shootability even if from a standpoint of ergonomics and preference.
> 
> $0.02


I don't know anything about guitars but comparing a GForce to a Rival seems more like comparing a guitar and a ukulele. 

I think I understand that you were just saying that some bows fits a person's shooting style better than others. I can agree to that; for instance, I like the feedback of a non-parallel limbed bow.


----------



## lees (Feb 10, 2017)

Agree with Lmac. I've played bass for over 30 years and we have the same general collection of objective and subjective measures of "playability" on the bass also. Generally, there are standards like scale length, string spacing, and neck profile that pretty much all brands and types stick pretty close to. Then there are less important variations like pickup type and placement, body shape and overall balance, on down to totally subjective - the types of woods used and variations in construction like top woods, etc.

I agree that for modern bows anyway, you have a similar collection of specs that are kept pretty close among all the brands, particularly for target bows. Such that, IMO, a truly elite archer could basically shoot any of them with approximately the same "shootability". I, of course, am nowhere near that level so that's just a guess at what goes on at that level. At my level, I don't see anything wildly different about any of the target bows currently on the market in terms of specs.

In fact, a huge difference would be something like my Hoyt wheel bow vs my Supra Max. Basically, 1980 target bow technology vs 2015 target bow technology - that really is a huge gulf I think. The wheel bow is significantly more difficult to shoot well than the SM is by a pretty long ways, even shooting it with a release aid. It takes a lot of muscle and concentration to shoot an arrow much slower than the SM. I like shooting it more than I like shooting the SM, because the whole bow just goes bonkers on the shot and I love that for some reason. But I'm more accurate with the SM, even tho its a lot more boring to shoot. 

But among what the upper crust in target, 3D, etc. choose from, I think all the manufacturers are very close to each other in shootability terms....

lee.


----------



## whiz-Oz (Jul 19, 2007)

So what you guys are actually referring to with regard to instruments is a preference to build quality and design, which is exactly the same as my musician friends do. 
They don't like cheap guitars and one of them doesn't like the cheap Chinese bows much either. 

After they get above a certain level of quality and design, the mere fact that there are so many variations which exist around the world, as used by top professionals demonstrating high performance, and extolling the virtues of, means that it's almost totally subjective. 

Was that previous sentence referring to playability of guitars, or shootability of bows?


----------



## cbrunson (Oct 25, 2010)

Anyone ever see Slash play a Telecaster?


----------



## SonnyThomas (Sep 10, 2006)

Let's face it, we are looking from the bottom of barrel to the archers at the top. They are at the top because they are that good. They can pick up any bow and *make it *shoot. Chance has been with Hoyt, PSE and now Elite. Some noticed Chance have a premature shot, but then he still took 3rd. Sam has been around the block a couple times and knows as well as the next what works for him. Mathews is offering $50,000 for a Vegas win.

Tim G. was Hoyt, then PSE and now Bowtech....Some one said long, long time Mathews Pro Jeff Hopkins is shooting a different brand. 

Eric Greggs laid off shooting for near a year and came back with the Gearhead bow. He did well for being laid off a year and then he was using the *all carbon* Gearhead and had to weight it tremendously. 2 pounds bare bow I think. DJ told me today that Eric had weights on the risers along with a bunch weights on the stabs. If by his Facebook report he didn't start practicing until last week and he pictured his T36. Gearhead is offering $50,000 for a Vegas win if I understood correctly.
Friend of mine, DJ, just got back from Wisconsin. Skip and crew built DJ's T36 right in front of him, custom grip and all.

For the last few years seems a lot of the top archers have been playing musical chairs.

That you have to shoot a bow to see if it's the bow for is a joke. "Let the bow choose you." Hahahaha!


----------



## mmukav (Sep 5, 2011)

Actually, everyone loves Teles! Even Slash!


----------



## cbrunson (Oct 25, 2010)

mmukav said:


> Actually, everyone loves Teles! Even Slash!
> View attachment 6384129


There we have it ^^^^

It’s the indian, not the bow.....or axe. :grin:


----------



## huteson2us2 (Jun 22, 2005)

I shot pro from 1977 to 1995. During that time, I shot for Martin, PSE, Hoyt, Pearson, and then PSE again. I changed companies because I was offered more incentives and equipment. I was offered great deals from two different companies that no longer exists, but turned them down because I was not able to compete with their bows. I was not a top pro but I did get free equipment including two bows a year and 5 dozen arrows a year and any equipment that the company sold. I also received matching funds for any money won and contingency money for my equipment used. Most bows are made well and can win a tournament. There are some that I as an individual was not able to shoot as well and I stayed away from them. 

The top pros are doing the same. If you work for a company and another company offers you a higher wage with better benefits and you were capable of handling your new tasks, would you change or would you stay loyal to the old company while new employees are being hired on for more money than you? It is the same in archery. Joe wins tournaments with bow A, but Bow B's company offers a better deal and bow B is a good bow that shoots well for him. Should he change companies or stay loyal so all the Bow A fans won't get upset?


----------



## 1/2 Bubble Off (Dec 29, 2016)

Padgett said:


> From what i can see all the bows are good enough that the top dogs can switch around and still be at the top and contend for titles.
> 
> It comes down to what guy deals with his nerves and pounds out a amazing performance thhat takes home the money.


This^^^.

I'd happily shoot a bow from practically any company out there if they were willing to pay me to do it.. (sadly they aren't lining up to throw offers at me)


----------

