# Pure Speculation



## pragmatic_lee (Jan 19, 2008)

Now that a perfect score has been shot at the Nationals on both the Field & Hunter targets, I wonder how long it will be before someone in the "upper ranks" of the NFAA will start campaigning to "change the game" - smaller targets, longer distances, etc.


----------



## lcv (Sep 7, 2004)

*Change! Why?*

I think they should just count x's. The Pro's are the only ones who will shoot perfect for the most part. It seems everyone is enjoy the flatter well groomed course of Mechanicsburg. If the masses love this course which isn't quite so hard on average Joe to either shoot or walk, then why not leave everything alone. All the comments I have heard are nothing but positive. There doesn't seem to be any reason to change either the size of the target or the toughness of the course for the average Joe. Can't predicate change based on one or two people. Just my thoughts.


----------



## dragonheart (Jul 18, 2008)

Way back in 1988 when I attended the Outdoor Nationals in Darrington, WA. I remember that we got a book that showed the attendance at the outdoor nationals. There was some really large participation nationals if I remember corectly until the mid 1970's. Larger than any of recent time. Then there was this massive drop in attendance. The target changed, got smaller and technology was allowed that led to a decision to make the game "harder". 

Field archery became very difficult, at least the perception of the archers due to the reduction in the size of the 5 ring. I bechta many people quit because a "500" shooter became a "450" shooter. I know in reality they were shooting the same size group, but people in general do not think like that. We focus on score. 

There is a small percentage of archers that can shoot in the 550's. To change the game and make it any harder would I believe result in the same effect as the change way back inthe 70's. I understand that the turn out at this nationals is quite high. Field archery is building back. 

The pessimistic side of me kinda agrees with Lee, that someone will think well lets shrink the dot to the size of the x. Lets make it that much harder for everyone to aim and promote even more target panic. 

In reality we need to change the target. In my opinion putting a bigger dot with a smaller "X". The top shooters get there tie breaker and the average guy has a big comfortable spot to aim at so he can progress in the sport without giving up, because we have made the game so user unfriendly to the average archer.

NFAA outdoor would match the successful indoor with a score and "X" count. 

Group size is what we are really measuring, why not make a bullseye that is easy/comfortable to aim at?


----------



## Brown Hornet (Aug 8, 2002)

It won't happen....and doesn't need to happen. PERIOD. 

One person cleans it and that's it. You change the targets and or distances and the same person is still going to win. Why? Because he is better changing the targets does nothing

The old target even though there are guys that cried and went away needed to be changed....good lord if they didn't change it then I would have shot a 558 on Wed and a 560 yesterday.


----------



## pragmatic_lee (Jan 19, 2008)

Brown Hornet said:


> It won't happen....and doesn't need to happen. PERIOD.
> 
> One person cleans it and that's it. You change the targets and or distances and the same person is still going to win. Why? Because he is better changing the targets does nothing
> 
> The old target even though there are guys that cried and went away needed to be changed....good lord if they didn't change it then I would have shot a 558 on Wed and a 560 yesterday.


But Hornet - you're taking the logical route. Since when, in recent years, has that route been taken by the NFAA.


----------



## rock monkey (Dec 28, 2002)

yep, blame the whole attendance issue on the change in scoring...of course, 80% of those shooting field now werent back then. how many of the archers NOW were shooting field in 1977? how many that were, are still shooting competitively now? 

there was the advent of 3D, which started as the Safari Round. the promise of participation monies did it. the local clubs pushed that as faster, cheaper, less work, more fun and pushed the archer's skill part of the game a foot in the grave. is there a certain degree of skill to shoot 3D?, sure is. but there is also a large factor of luck too.

there was the internal struggles of the NFAA, which i'm glad to say i stopped shooting by then. there still are, and most are from the people that want their own class so they can be a winner. need proof?, just look at the proposals for the Bowhunter division each year.

there is the part where everyone HAS TO BE A WINNER. no, everyone ISNT a winner. that is the way life is. encouraging participation is one thing, but spoiling for the sake of attendance numbers is a whole other issue.

we have the selfish and self serving people involved in a sport who view bows as investment commodities, shoots as a source of personal income and sponsorships as a rite of passage. they wont play a game where they are responsible for their score and cant make an income. to be blunt, their egos dont wanna be butt-hurt.


the 'blame the decline on the scoring change' thing is old, beat up and burned in the bonfire. if you want to have a single moment in sports history to blame, sure....go ahead and use it. when you apply a broader look at things, then you will see why archery went into a decline......what's in it for ME.


how come no one talks about the scoring change for the indoor round? what? you mean that slipped your selective memory? yes, there was. 

there was a time where the blue face was scored 5-4-3. the 4 ring comprised what was once the current 4&3 rings and the 3 ring was once the 1&2 rings. the 5 spot target didnt exist. where was the decline you so eloquently and repeatedly use for outdoor targets? changing the scoring on the blue face didnt make the game harder, just spread out the scores a little more. the effect? made better shooters out of everyone.

the single biggest thing that has dropped attendance in the outdoor games is the change in values. a person's time is more valuable, their familiy priorities are different, their family budgets are different. maybe with the 'adjustment' of the economy and what people view as 'important' things may change and become more family oriented again, like archery used to be.


today IS today, lets shoot what the game has to offer TODAY.


if you want the attendance numbers to improve and grow, get your clubs back to shooting field. get more people involved. get the interest up. sitting around and blaming different reasons why is a nursing home game, not a solution to a problem.


----------



## mdbowhunter (Oct 22, 2002)

Prag,
If they do, then they truly have not learned from history. From what I have heard from *LONG TIME* NFAA members, when they switched from the 5-3 face to the present target they lost a *HUGE* number of members. 

There is no need to change the game. If you make it harder either by increasing distances...or changing scoring...you will drive the little guys and gals away. As much as I admire the Pros in this sport, their numbers are small compared to us Joes. Soooo, keeping us interested...and participating is job 1.


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

How many THOUSANDS of 28-target FIELD rounds have been shot at the Sectionals and NATIONALS since 1976? 

We have ONE....as in "1", UNO, UN...PERFECT 560 in 34 years and someone is talking "making the target smaller and more difficult?"

Get real...the change in 1976 almost killed field archery by "making it harder for the PROS to score on" and basically taking the average Joe out of it all together.

I seriously doubt that the NFAA or any organization will make THAT mistake again.

We have only had a handful of perfect 560's on the HUNTER round in National competition as well...

Let's say for the sake of argument, there has been an average of 250 shooters at the NATIONALS over the course of the last 34 years....With each one shooting TWO field rounds that gives us....500 rounds a year for ONLY the Nationals time 34 years, or, 17,000 total rounds shot. We have ONE perfect 560 out of 17,000 rounds (per this scenario)...which works out to a percentage of perfect scores of: 0.00588%....and someone wants to make the target more difficult? C'mon, folks, wake up and smell the roses.

That is 5 one-thousanths of a percent perfect scores...not hardly anything significant enough to CHANGE A THING.

Leave it alone. Field shooting is making a comeback as people are finding the challenge worth the effort and enjoying it and having fun. There is a CHANCE of shooting 560...but not much of one except for the truly gifted, talented, and dedicated archers.

Besides that, the "THEY" that are shooting perfect on the FIELD round is a party of ONE PERSON....not plural....YET....

Can/will Jesse try to shoot another 560 FIELD score tomorrow, or will he opt to "sit on it", since the National Championship is pretty much his and in the bag. NOBODY can "best him"...they can only have a chance at getting to 2nd place!? Sure, the others can try to shoot 560 field and 560 hunter...and still lose to Jesse, since they can't PICK UP ANY POINTS on him. What are the odds of anyone shooting another 560 FIELD score? Based on the scenario above for 34 years...ONE in 17,000!

field14


----------



## DHawk2 (Feb 18, 2007)

"What are the odds of anyone shooting another 560 FIELD score? Based on the scenario above for 34 years...ONE in 17,000!"

field14 

So you are saying there is a chance???  lmao


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

DHawk2 said:


> "What are the odds of anyone shooting another 560 FIELD score? Based on the scenario above for 34 years...ONE in 17,000!"
> 
> field14
> 
> So you are saying there is a chance???  lmao


Absolutely...and, IMHO, the most likely candidates are:

1. Jesse Broadwater to do it again and 
2. DAVE COUSINS...who had the 558 FIELD round with a single miss (which was a "3").


----------



## dragonheart (Jul 18, 2008)

rock monkey said:


> yep, blame the whole attendance issue on the change in scoring...of course, 80% of those shooting field now werent back then. how many of the archers NOW were shooting field in 1977? how many that were, are still shooting competitively now?
> 
> there was the advent of 3D, which started as the Safari Round. the promise of participation monies did it. the local clubs pushed that as faster, cheaper, less work, more fun and pushed the archer's skill part of the game a foot in the grave. is there a certain degree of skill to shoot 3D?, sure is. but there is also a large factor of luck too.
> 
> ...


I am in no way blaming anything. I identifed a factor as to why the participation in NFAA outdoor had declined in the past in regards to the original post on this thread to make a point that making the dot smaller is not the answer in my opinion. You mentioned several other factors that I am sure influenced the drop in attendance. I do not think that you can discount the change in the target face as an issue in participation numbers dropping in the 1970's. The allowing of release aids is another factor. 

As far as the decline in indoor when they changed the scoring, there was no decline right? Did the size of the dot change. I argue that reduction in the size of the aiming dot, not the scoring method is what is detrimental to growing the sport. Have a bigger dot, its allows new archers to enjoy the sport and progress quicker without developing overaiming and target panic. Possibly why indoor is so popular is that the dot is not tiny. Yes the "X" is a challenge, but the aiming dot has not been shrunk. 

You betcha there are too many classes. Your suggestion of getting field courses going and promoting the sport is great. The current system of classes simply cannot support the sheer number of awards required to hold an invitational shoot. If you try to buy trophies for all of the classes and give places, clubs simply cannot afford it. New shooters to events like to get a trophy. In Texas, we have a program where you get a certificate at the invitational shoot, then at the state you can win a best score award over several shoots. It has had success, but someone new to the sport, especially young people want to get an award of signifiacnce if they shoot well. Everyone does not desire an award, but the token is important to those new to the sport. I like shooting bowhunter class, but realize that if you wanted to revamp the system and get back to classes that a club could handle with the amount of money they have for awards then you need this:

Freestyle, limited, hunter (BHFS), barebow
cub, youth, young adult, adult, senior
male, female


If a change in values is the reason for the lack of participation, how do you explain the grow of 3-d in the 80's and 90's with huge number of people attending shoots way more than NFAA. Archers left NFAA and went to 3-D. There are far more bowhunters than there are target. The 3-d folks jumped on creating a game that appealed to more people and caputured archers who were headed out of NFAA. 

With hope for positive change,

Jeff


----------



## Bees (Jan 28, 2003)

The game doesn't need changing.

Jessie Broadwater has uped the bar. I suspect the rest of the field will respond and work at becoming competeive again.

Tiger Did it to golf and the golf field today is better than it was, when Tiger first took it to em.


----------



## rock monkey (Dec 28, 2002)

one word for the growth of the 3D..........

GREED



dragonheart said:


> If a change in values is the reason for the lack of participation, how do you explain the grow of 3-d in the 80's and 90's with huge number of people attending shoots way more than NFAA. Archers left NFAA and went to 3-D. There are far more bowhunters than there are target. The 3-d folks jumped on creating a game that appealed to more people and caputured archers who were headed out of NFAA.
> 
> With hope for positive change,
> 
> Jeff


----------



## Bees (Jan 28, 2003)

> If a change in values is the reason for the lack of participation, how do you explain the grow of 3-d in the 80's and 90's with huge number of people attending shoots way more than NFAA. Archers left NFAA and went to 3-D. There are far more bowhunters than there are target. The 3-d folks jumped on creating a game that appealed to more people and caputured archers who were headed out of NFAA.


Reason 3D is popular: because you can shoot a decent score with considerable amount of target panic. 
I know in may case it was true, I got a couple of local trophies at 3D.

When I started shooting spots I found out just how bad my target panic actually was. what I could get away with at 3D I no longer could get away with shooting at spots. So I had to overcome my target panic to get better at spots. 3D ranges are still full of target panic shooters and they can get away with it and do quite well.


----------



## dragonheart (Jul 18, 2008)

Bees said:


> Reason 3D is popular: because you can shoot a decent score with considerable amount of target panic.
> I know in may case it was true, I got a couple of local trophies at 3D.
> 
> When I started shooting spots I found out just how bad my target panic actually was. what I could get away with at 3D I no longer could get away with shooting at spots. So I had to overcome my target panic to get better at spots. 3D ranges are still full of target panic shooters and they can get away with it and do quite well.


Why is that you can shoot with a more relaxed, comforable, and intent on a 3-d target and not a spot? It is because there is not a visual perception of a tiny dot that promotes overaiming and the development and continued reinforcement of anticipation of the shot? I would argue that 3-D shooters due to the more relaxed target to aim at, no definative aiming dot, are simply executing the shots without the anticipation of the shot that a dot promotes. 

What you have stated is in line with what I am saying. When you started shooting spots you had to overcome target panic. What about an archery round that promotes a more easier relaxed aiming? Increasing the size of the aiming dot would bring more people into the field shooting. The x ring is left the same size, simply enlarge the aiming dot. With a bigger dot many people would not have your experience or at least it may not be as severe.


----------



## rock monkey (Dec 28, 2002)

ok....come up with a 'make me feel good' round or the 'ego' round. yanno, the kind where fireworks shoot out of the back of the target, clowns come out and dance around and give you candy for hitting a bullseye thats 9 inches instead of the normal 5 1/8" at 60yds instead of 80...dont want to hurt anyone's fragile ego. gotta have EVERYONE feel like a winner.

pros have to shoot the smaller targets because, well, they're PROS

amatures get to shoot at half the distance at a bullseye twice the size. while you're at it, make the amateur classes pay out on par with the pros but dont increase the dues. they need to get their income too.

tell hinklemonster his two championships need to be dumbed down and trivialized. i bet that would be a short conversation

the game is what it is, the rules are what they are. learn to play within the confines of the rules instead of tryin to make the game accomodate you. those that put the time in to improve themselves are the ones that reap the rewards. i'm sure everyone of those people shooting the best game they have are feeling the rewards of self accomplishment. leave the damn game alone.




golf hasnt changed the size of the cup, or the ball, but there seems to be no shortage of participation there.

bowling hasnt made the pins bigger or made the balls bigger (yeah, i know the puns comin from this one) or the lanes shorter, but they seem to be doin ok.

billiards....they havent changed the pocket size. they dont make the cue ball larger so it's easier to play with english.


----------



## dragonheart (Jul 18, 2008)

Wow! This started as a thread about reduction of the size of the dot, and you sir have truely taken it to a brand new level. I am sure as it says onm your about me on your profile you have been "pissing people off since 1966"


----------



## Bees (Jan 28, 2003)

dragonheart said:


> Why is that you can shoot with a more relaxed, comforable, and intent on a 3-d target and not a spot? It is because there is not a visual perception of a tiny dot that promotes overaiming and the development and continued reinforcement of anticipation of the shot? I would argue that 3-D shooters due to the more relaxed target to aim at, no definative aiming dot, are simply executing the shots without the anticipation of the shot that a dot promotes.
> 
> What you have stated is in line with what I am saying. When you started shooting spots you had to overcome target panic. What about an archery round that promotes a more easier relaxed aiming? Increasing the size of the aiming dot would bring more people into the field shooting. The x ring is left the same size, simply enlarge the aiming dot. With a bigger dot many people would not have your experience or at least it may not be as severe.


For me all those reasons, but I wanted to become a better shooter, so I gave up 3D and devoted my effort into spots. 
the game doesn't need to be changed, the spot doesn't need to be changed. 

The people just have to have a desire to be better archers and put in the work required.


----------



## NockOn (Feb 24, 2003)

If you want an indication of what's to come, look at FITA field. They changed the scoring from X,5,4,3,2,1 to 6,5,4,3,2,1. Now instead of aiming for a perfect 180 you have to shoot 216. A lot harder to accomplish a perfect game that's for sure. But the best guy on that day is still winning. I sure wish they would have left it alone.


----------



## dead eye dick (Sep 1, 2004)

I think two things have happened the equiptment has got better ,and the archers have also gotten better


----------



## Bees (Jan 28, 2003)

dead eye dick said:


> I think two things have happened the equiptment has got better ,and the archers have also gotten better


Well, one archer has anyway.


----------



## pragmatic_lee (Jan 19, 2008)

Man - I know it hard for some of us to have to sit back and not be at the Nationals, but some of you are just way too up tight. Give it a break - this whole thread was meant to be a bit sarcastic in regards to how what appears to be split seconds decisions have been made in the past. 

Never did I say in the OP that anything "should be done" - just pure speculation on what "might" happen.

If there's a MOD around that wouldn't mind, I'd appreciate it if this thread was locked or deleted before any more fur flies. :thumbs_do:thumbs_do:thumbs_do


----------



## south-paaw (Jul 3, 2006)

*hey Prag....*

just what are the size limits in NC anyway..or do they just measure the stringer..???


----------



## mdbowhunter (Oct 22, 2002)

pragmatic_lee said:


> Man - I know it hard for some of us to have to sit back and not be at the Nationals, but some of you are just way too up tight. Give it a break - this whole thread was meant to be a bit sarcastic in regards to how what appears to be split seconds decisions have been made in the past.
> 
> Never did I say in the OP that anything "should be done" - just pure speculation on what "might" happen.
> 
> If there's a MOD around that wouldn't mind, I'd appreciate it if this thread was locked or deleted before any more fur flies. :thumbs_do:thumbs_do:thumbs_do


Fret not Lee, we will keep it civil.  Funny thing is......I was having the same thoughts as you when I heard about Jesse's perfect Field score. :wink:


----------



## pragmatic_lee (Jan 19, 2008)

south-paaw said:


> just what are the size limits in NC anyway..or do they just measure the stringer..???


You've been to NC enough to know, it's quantity - not quality. :shade:



mdbowhunter said:


> Fret not Lee, we will keep it civil.  Funny thing is......I was having the same thoughts as you when I heard about Jesse's perfect Field score. :wink:


Truth be known, I'd bet a lot of folks had these thoughts as well. 


Now, I'm headed to DCWC to get my weekly quota of Quantity in - maybe there'll be a bit of Quality as well. At lease it'll be fun watching Carson and his new "device".


----------



## WrongdayJ (May 22, 2008)

Just my $.02. . .

I love Field Archey the way it is. No change needed. Just as I believe ALL the Archery games are pretty much fine the way they are. Continuity is how these games are preserved and passed on generation to generation. 

All the different rounds have something for everyone. And for the people that just don't like spots (or use Archery games exclusively to sharpen their hunting skills) there is always 3D. For something a bit more internationally formal and standardized there is always FITA. 

It is the responsibility of each of us to be ambassadors of our sport/hobby and promote good sportsmanship, competition, and above all else. . .Fun.


----------



## kavo 71 (May 9, 2009)

i switched from 3-d to dots because i started shooting some marked 3-d shoots with some dot shooters who kept selling me on how dot shooting would make me a better hunter and 3-d shooter. they were right! i don't think i would have shot an entire season if it were any harder. as a newbie you realize quite quickly what your flaws are as an archer, and the first time your game goes in the pot, it can be quite humbling. the encouragement of other archers kept me coming back and evey week i picked up a point or to. whether or not they make this came harder noboby knows, but its definitely the comradere(sp) of the shooters that keep everyone coming back. lets keep that in mind.


----------

