# Compounds in the Olympics and it's affect on U.S. recurvers?



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Thinking about this today some...

What will the affect of allowing compounds into the Olympics mean to U.S. Recurve archers?

Will the utter domination of U.S. compound archers for so many years, and the potential for our compounders to continue to be a dominant force in any potential Olympic games, that shift the USOC spotlight? 

Will USArchery open a compound RA/JDT program? Will the press coverage of our perennial contenders in compound overwhelm the recurve interest and have young archers looking at compounds as their Olympic bow of choice?

So long as the discipline is offered in the Olympics, there will be a following, whether compound or recurve. But knowing how human nature tends to work, if the success our U.S. compounders continues into the Olympics someday, it will undoubtedly affect our recurve teams in some ways. Maybe good, maybe bad?

I'm sure this has been considered at length by some in the sport, and the industry?


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

Some personal thoughts, along with some other items that I know are fact.

All interspersed.

-Steve



limbwalker said:


> Thinking about this today some...
> 
> What will the affect of allowing compounds into the Olympics mean to U.S. Recurve archers?


I feel that it won't make much difference in the sport. It will make a huge difference in the trials, where you're going to see a LOT of people coming out of the woodwork to do it.



> Will the utter domination of U.S. compound archers for so many years, and the potential for our compounders to continue to be a dominant force in any potential Olympic games, that shift the USOC spotlight?


The Compound domination is waning. In my view, we are in the same position as we were back when we were dominating in Recurve years ago, then lost it. You have Korea and other countries pushing ahead with a huge compound program, and they fully intend to make history repeat itself. 



> Will USArchery open a compound RA/JDT program? Will the press coverage of our perennial contenders in compound overwhelm the recurve interest and have young archers looking at compounds as their Olympic bow of choice?


It's my understanding (backed with a lot of confirmation) that Coach Linda Beck is tasked with creating the outlines for what will become the Compound JDT. An unnamed camp date is to occur in the fall of this year, supposedly.



> So long as the discipline is offered in the Olympics, there will be a following, whether compound or recurve. But knowing how human nature tends to work, if the success our U.S. compounders continues into the Olympics someday, it will undoubtedly affect our recurve teams in some ways. Maybe good, maybe bad?
> 
> I'm sure this has been considered at length by some in the sport, and the industry?


I still think there will be challenges other than what's mentioned to get Compound into the Olympics.

Personally, the 10,500 athlete cap is the biggest hurdle. Another sport has to cough up slots (64 to 128) in order to accommodate Compound. There has been talks within the IOC (via the magazine "Inside The Games") where the IOC has had the athlete cap either expanded or eliminated. Sports like Baseball and Softball are clamoring for that because they can then petition the IOC to be re-included into the Summer Games.

I also don't feel that the 50m target setup is enough to really differentiate Compound from Recurve. But that's just me.

-Steve


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Totally agree on the last statement Steve. 

Personally, I'd love to see indoor compound introduced to the winter games. That would be a win-win.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

limbwalker said:


> Totally agree on the last statement Steve.
> 
> Personally, I'd love to see indoor compound introduced to the winter games. That would be a win-win.


Back when the 50m Hit/Miss target was being proposed, a group of archers from Team Russia were doing the 50m Hit/Miss targets at 90 meters. That, frankly, would be more exciting. 

I do wonder if that's the reason why Maple Leaf Press hasn't dropped that specific target face off of it's catalog yet. Either that, or they have pallets full of them that they need to sell off.

But, with media coverage rearing it's head, there's two reasons why you see Compound at 50

One - You have preplanned camera coverage. You know where to place cameras, and how you're going to work with it.
Two - People in the stands can see stuff at 50m.

I'd be willing to toss this out - make everything compound use the Baby X for 10's. We already do that for indoor. Why not outdoor?


----------



## baller (Oct 4, 2006)

See now that would be night and day different, and would also eliminate overcrowding at the trials etc with recurves and compounds fighting for space on the line. 

MOST of the compound shooters I know shoot spots indoors, very few shoot FITA outdoors. With the popularity of Vegas and Lancaster etc, I bet the following would be there. Would the IOC see it as a "winter" sport? Dunno. Yet another possible avenue to get both disciplines recognized in the Olympics, which would definitely be a win/win for Archery as a whole. 


Would it affect the recurve teams? Most likely. I think wed still have competitive teams, but the pool of athletes will be much smaller as right now they have no choice. With the introduction of compounds as an Oly sport, your recurve shooters will be those athletes who WANT to shoot recurve, not who have to. That mental/character trait can be pretty important when it comes to the desire and drive it takes to be an Olympian, in any sport.


----------



## dmassphoto (Feb 8, 2010)

For one thing, you'll see more beards at the Olympics.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

dmassphoto said:


> For one thing, you'll see more beards at the Olympics.


No, you'll see a huge, short term influx of members into USA Archery, followed by a total amount of grumbling because you can't shoot in indigo blue denim or wear camo.

As a judge and tournament organizer, I really would shudder to think of the influx taken in at Stage 1 Trials if we did Compound. It would be interesting, though.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

I too think the compounds should be shooting 90 meters. Look at how many perfect ends have already happened from Adult to Junior age ranges. 50 meters is still too close for the target if you look at how many 150s have been shot in tournaments. A junior just set the world record with a 150 at the Gator Cup. Reo Wilde shoots 150s consistently in heads up matches. 

How many 60 point ends do you see in recurve at 70 meters? How many 300s at 18 meters in recurve? 

The problem with using 90 meters though is its hard for the tournament hosts. They need so much more room. everything WA has been for making it more compact and easier to host. So i dont think we will see 90 meter anything anymore. 

I dont think reducing the target is the answer, as the groups most compounders shoot would still be mostly all tens if shot on a 60cm target at 50 meters. 


Chris


----------



## Sosius (Feb 5, 2014)

I don't have a problem with compounds in the Olympics. There are multiple distances and types of track events (how many different hurdles are there, anyway?), why not different distances and equipment for archery? Archery was one of the most popular televised sports in the 2012 Olympics. If the number of archery events were doubled, there would be more coverage, which on the whole would be good for archery. 

I think the US has some great compound shooters out there that nobody knows about. It would make for one heck of a wild and wooly (or hairy and plaid) trials! I won't make any comments about the average fitness level of many of these athletes, but maybe I just did!

Sosius


----------



## Azzurri (Mar 10, 2014)

I don't see why compound shoots SHORTER than recurve in any environment. If 70m is a sufficient test for recurve compound should shoot that far, at least.

I too see a potential influx of compounders into USAA with accompanying complaints about things such as skinnier arrows, which would be less valid as the competition progressed out in distance. I could also see an incremental uptick in people electing to start/stick with compound if it is then a co-equal Olympic sport with a fuller array of career trajectories.

I don't see much of a change in terms of people shifting disciplines. Some of it is cultural and that would only brick up higher if you didn't have to even consider a change. The levels of quality and effort necessary to make the national teams force a choice. A small minority have tried to change from compound to recurve to make the Olympics. That approach would trend infinitesimal if a direct route was open.

Korea is moving into compound without Olympics and others might emphasize it with Olympics. I see our international competitiveness as a separate issue, we are either putting the energy in or not. We should have a talent pool in bulk from the hunting crowd but the whole reason other countries can compete is internationally it's more how well you've identified and groomed a select set, for which a deep pool is a helpful initial condition, but not necessarily one that results in dominance depending how they progress. What really matters there is how well coached, funded, prepared, etc. the team and/or its immediate shadow are. Having 100s of people almost as good as your team doesn't change whether individual team members do enough for 1st place in the World Cup, so to speak.


----------



## Sosius (Feb 5, 2014)

Azzurri said:


> I don't see why compound shoots SHORTER than recurve in any environment. If 70m is a sufficient test for recurve compound should shoot that far, at least.


My theory is that since compounds are far more accurate than recurves, they wouldn't want to have competitions where compounders outshoot recurvers at the same distance (70 meters), or even at greater distances (90 vs. 70 meters). That would make the recurve shooters seem less skilled in the eyes of many viewers with little archery knowledge. We know that is the not the case, but 99 out of 100 members of the general public do not know this. By having the compounders use a smaller target at shorter range, it prevents comparisons like "wow, that Reo Wilde is a heck of a lot better than Brady Ellison, he hit a lot more 10s at the same target and distance than Ellison did." Rather the comparison would be "Reo Wilde and Brady Ellison are the two best US archers for their kinds of archery." 

I could be wrong, but this makes intuitive sense to me.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

Interspersed...

-Steve



Azzurri said:


> I don't see why compound shoots SHORTER than recurve in any environment. If 70m is a sufficient test for recurve compound should shoot that far, at least.


Frankly, from a personal (shooter) perspective, it should be 70 meters with the current 80cm 6 ring target. This way, you have an entire field set for 70 meters, with only the need to do a 122cm target (for recurve) or 80cm (for compound).



> I too see a potential influx of compounders into USAA with accompanying complaints about things such as skinnier arrows, which would be less valid as the competition progressed out in distance. I could also see an incremental uptick in people electing to start/stick with compound if it is then a co-equal Olympic sport with a fuller array of career trajectories.


IMHO, I hear a lot of complaints, ranging from how everyone should shoot Cabelas 55-75 arrows because it's manly, to how the tournament is run, to where you should allow bowhunter equipment into it's own class for World Archery, to complaining about a 100 point score differential when the archer signed the scorecard and his balemates shafted him the 100 points right under his nose. And yes, the 100 point shafting occurred at a recent Star FITA tournament here in Arizona and I was running the scoring. He blamed me (as the scorer) rather than the fact that his signed scorecard didn't have proper addition. 



> I don't see much of a change in terms of people shifting disciplines. Some of it is cultural and that would only brick up higher if you didn't have to even consider a change. The levels of quality and effort necessary to make the national teams force a choice. A small minority have tried to change from compound to recurve to make the Olympics. That approach would trend infinitesimal if a direct route was open.


Agreed.



> Korea is moving into compound without Olympics and others might emphasize it with Olympics. I see our international competitiveness as a separate issue, we are either putting the energy in or not. We should have a talent pool in bulk from the hunting crowd but the whole reason other countries can compete is internationally it's more how well you've identified and groomed a select set, for which a deep pool is a helpful initial condition, but not necessarily one that results in dominance depending how they progress. What really matters there is how well coached, funded, prepared, etc. the team and/or its immediate shadow are. Having 100s of people almost as good as your team doesn't change whether individual team members do enough for 1st place in the World Cup, so to speak.


Having a hunting crowd doesn't mean crap. When you have a combination of keyboard jockeys claiming 1" groups at 70 yards and the reality of these same bowhunters getting their rear ends blown out of the water by kids shooting freestyle rigs, you're going to get even more complaints, even though these kids work their rear ends off to be able to beat adults at their own game.

The issue that I have is that we still don't have a decent, effective way of identifying and nurturing talent on a centralized basis - recurve OR compound. Then, when the talent is identified, we don't have the centralized resources to train, nurture, and develop them. Other countries are doing that - and, they see the profitability and marketability of developing compound and recurve.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Beastmaster said:


> Back when the 50m Hit/Miss target was being proposed, a group of archers from Team Russia were doing the 50m Hit/Miss targets at 90 meters. That, frankly, would be more exciting.
> 
> I do wonder if that's the reason why Maple Leaf Press hasn't dropped that specific target face off of it's catalog yet. Either that, or they have pallets full of them that they need to sell off.
> 
> ...


Again, I agree. It would make sense wouldn't it? Then ALL the world cup and other major venues could just set up for 70M and be done with it.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> As a judge and tournament organizer, I really would shudder to think of the influx taken in at Stage 1 Trials if we did Compound. It would be interesting, though.


Not a problem. Just have a MQS and regional qualifying events like we had before '04. That will weed them out sufficiently so the trials will still include only the best of the best.


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

As long as compound continues the use of similar target faces and formats to recurve, it will not be considered for entry into the Olympics.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Says you.


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

No, someone I know, from the inside.


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

I think a number of you out there know about this.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Apparently you must have information that even World Archery does not have...


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

World archery is made up of a bunch of people each knowing different things.


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

At this moment, there may be a bunch of very interested compound archers reading this. The last thing they are interested in is whether or not I am personally right, or whether or not my friend is right, but they are interested in where to start.

And that is my contribution for today for my compound friends.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

So generous of you.


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

I'm sitting in a Starbucks in Southeast Daegu waiting for my wife to get her hair done and I'm bored......


----------



## caspian (Jan 13, 2009)

comments from a predominantly compound archer:



limbwalker said:


> What will the affect of allowing compounds into the Olympics mean to U.S. Recurve archers?
> 
> Will the utter domination of U.S. compound archers for so many years, and the potential for our compounders to continue to be a dominant force in any potential Olympic games, that shift the USOC spotlight?


I expect there would be a natural and expected dilution of the support and following for the recurve team, as some people who would prefer to support their discipline of choice migrated.

that said, if compound becomes an Oly event, watch how interested teams like South Korea become in seriously competing. that domination might well lessen to a degree.



> So long as the discipline is offered in the Olympics, there will be a following, whether compound or recurve. But knowing how human nature tends to work, if the success our U.S. compounders continues into the Olympics someday, it will undoubtedly affect our recurve teams in some ways. Maybe good, maybe bad?


this will no doubt rub some people up the wrong way, so be it.

are we interested in seeing support for archery in general, or just our own personal discipline within it?


----------



## FlyingWatchmake (Apr 15, 2012)

I personally would like to see compound in the Olympics as a field event, IFAA rather than the FITA/WA format.. Gives a greater difference in televising, and given the budgets involved they could use a cross country cycling track or even the equestrian cross country course and make it seriously visually pleasing! 

My 0.02

To


----------



## All Torque (May 10, 2014)

FlyingWatchmake said:


> I personally would like to see compound in the Olympics as a field event, IFAA rather than the FITA/WA format.. Gives a greater difference in televising, and given the budgets involved they could use a cross country cycling track or even the equestrian cross country course and make it seriously visually pleasing!
> 
> My 0.02
> 
> To


That sounds awesome, it would be even better if they made it into a 10km cross country archery biathlon.

Buff women and men running through the forest with compound bows - now that would be something people would watch!


----------



## caspian (Jan 13, 2009)

IFAA would be difficult in terms of a standard for records keeping.

on the other hand, if it defeats the (silly*) argument about compound not being sufficiently differentiated from recurve to warrant a second discipline, then so be it.

*silly - because we clearly require 14 different rowing events and 10 sailing events, but we don't warrant a second archery event.


----------



## dmassphoto (Feb 8, 2010)

I think it would be awesome to see a field event, but with teams instead of individuals. Compound, Barebow, Recurve. 

Actually, I think it would be cool to see barebow before compound.


----------



## deadeyedickwc (Jan 10, 2010)

seems like some of there other countries have caught up with us , and yes usa archery is getting involved with the compounds, not sure if thats good or bad


----------



## massman (Jun 21, 2004)

To attempt to answer the question as posed... COMPLETE DEVISTATION of the recurve JOAD/STP program.

Take as an example hunting. 
Almost 100% domination in the market place with compound.

Why? 

It's easier to hit the target. Period.

Stand Janie or Joey shooting recurves next to BillJoe or Larry shooting compounds and see how fast things change...
Same would be the case with recurve versus Compound archery as an olympic sport.

Regards,

Tom


----------



## hoytshooter15 (Aug 13, 2012)

It would certainly rock the boat. Recurvers may be thrown off their game having compound coaches around and compound shooters invading their tranquil, recurve only practice space. And yes, if you have a good mental game, that shouldn't be an issue, but I have found that even though I have pretty good mental fortitude at competitions (at least now I do) even if I can keep my head on straight at competitions, I can very easily be thrown off when something new invades my practice area. But that's just me as a recurve shooter.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

hoytshooter15 said:


> It would certainly rock the boat. Recurvers may be thrown off their game having compound coaches around and compound shooters invading their tranquil, recurve only practice space. And yes, if you have a good mental game, that shouldn't be an issue, but I have found that even though I have pretty good mental fortitude at competitions (at least now I do) even if I can keep my head on straight at competitions, I can very easily be thrown off when something new invades my practice area. But that's just me as a recurve shooter.


Huh? I don't want to sound like a jerk, but a lot of coaches do BOTH recurve and compound on a high level. It's a bit arrogant to view that there's a "recurve only" area and a "compound only" area of the range, and the two shall never meet. Yes, it's found that recurves are one one side of the field in most major tournaments, and compound are on the other, but that's due to field arrangement by the tournament organizers, not because they don't get along.

There's a bunch of high end coaches that do both compound and recurve. Mel Nichols, Derek Davis, Linda Beck, Eric Bennett, and a lot of others do both.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

caspian said:


> IFAA would be difficult in terms of a standard for records keeping.
> 
> on the other hand, if it defeats the (silly*) argument about compound not being sufficiently differentiated from recurve to warrant a second discipline, then so be it.
> 
> *silly - because we clearly require 14 different rowing events and 10 sailing events, but we don't warrant a second archery event.


Again - television, television, television. Whether it's broadcast via traditional methods or via the internet, field is not conducive to television coverage in a near-live scenario.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

massman said:


> To attempt to answer the question as posed... COMPLETE DEVISTATION of the recurve JOAD/STP program.
> 
> Take as an example hunting.
> Almost 100% domination in the market place with compound.
> ...


Ahh...yet we don't necessarily see large amounts of compound archers achieving the higher levels of Olympian pins. If compound was such a huge influence in accuracy, you would see an absolute ton of youth archers getting their bronze, silver, or gold Olympian pins in droves.

But you don't.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

theminoritydude said:


> At this moment, there may be a bunch of very interested compound archers reading this. The last thing they are interested in is whether or not I am personally right, or whether or not my friend is right, but they are interested in where to start.
> 
> And that is my contribution for today for my compound friends.


Hm. Interesting contribution.

To get started - it's pretty easy. Start shooting tournaments with the current 50 meter system. In the United States, with it's open Stage 1 Olympic Trials process, anyone can shoot Stage 1. In the 2012 trials, even compound archers shot recurve for a chance to get into the Olympics.


----------



## fluke (Aug 12, 2012)

massman said:


> Almost 100% domination in the market place with compound.
> 
> Why?
> 
> It's easier to hit the target. Period.


True, especially beginners who struggle hitting the bale with the recurve. but i believe recurve archers still have a long time in front of them. i mean look at barebow. they are to recurves what recurves are to compounds and they are still going strong 




hoytshooter15 said:


> It would certainly rock the boat. Recurvers may be thrown off their game having compound coaches around and compound shooters invading their tranquil, recurve only practice space. And yes, if you have a good mental game, that shouldn't be an issue, but I have found that even though I have pretty good mental fortitude at competitions (at least now I do) even if I can keep my head on straight at competitions, I can very easily be thrown off when something new invades my practice area. But that's just me as a recurve shooter.


i have loads of friends in recurve and loads of friends in compound. we shoot together, sometimes (most of the time) on the same bale and we get along great. If something as futile as a compound shooter standing next to you throws you off.... 

here's something that might help you strengthen your mental game 
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=242730429243946


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

This might be off topic. I used to shoot the full body targets from my assault rifle at 300 to 500 metres, these targets were marked 5,4,3 points with the smallest rectangle being 5 points.

Then when I was in Australia shooting their marksmanship course, we were introduced to tear shaped point boundaries. There is nothing to say it has to be a concentric circle for compound archery.


----------



## Blue X (Dec 22, 2007)

I would personally love to see compound archery be an Olympic sport. 

I would also love to see some kind of support and training be available to people wanting to learn to be better archers. As it stands now competing in archery on a high level is a rich persons sport. I dont see how anybody can afford to shoot anything above national level tournaments and most cant afford to do that. I also think that it is a hard sport to learn and takes a considerable amount of time to learn. There is no positive end in compound archery to work toward except for personal pride and accomplishment. Most people are looking for a easy hobby and overlook archery because it is a hard sport that takes things that people just dont value anymore. 

We as compound target archers are a small sect where nobody makes any money and everybody from archers and ranges are barely hanging on financially. I think if someone made a way for people to make a living shooting compound archery that people would come out of the woodwork that are better than has been seen yet. If there were more cooperate sponsors and millions of dollars then the IOC may change their mind someday. 

As for the effect on recurve archery, I dont see any effect on it. 

Blue X


----------



## dmassphoto (Feb 8, 2010)

Beastmaster said:


> Again - television, television, television. Whether it's broadcast via traditional methods or via the internet, field is not conducive to television coverage in a near-live scenario.


Just like golf.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

dmassphoto said:


> Just like golf.


Yep. It's all pre-planned. The difference though is that golf generates the revenue. 

Even with the revenue in golf, a lot of golf tournament broadcasts aren't covering all 18 holes. You get a select number of holes based on terrain and commentator availability.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

Beastmaster said:


> Ahh...yet we don't necessarily see large amounts of compound archers achieving the higher levels of Olympian pins. If compound was such a huge influence in accuracy, you would see an absolute ton of youth archers getting their bronze, silver, or gold Olympian pins in droves.
> 
> But you don't.


most compound kids get bored with it and quit. Thats why you dont see many Olympian pins. Its too easy to start off with, they win a number of pins, get bored and are gone. The recurve kids ( who tackle recurve because its the Olympic sport) have a harder slower time, its more challenging for them. and they stay longer. He is correct that you will see recurve for JOAD be decimated. its human nature, any one will want the easier way. 

And pretty much the last 10 or so Olympian JOAD pins won shown on the USA website were all compound. 

I dont have a problem with compound in the Olympics, i just dont thank they have found the right distance and format to make it different from recurve. 


Chris


----------



## montigre (Oct 13, 2008)

Beastmaster said:


> Ahh...yet we don't necessarily see large amounts of compound archers achieving the higher levels of Olympian pins. If compound was such a huge influence in accuracy, you would see an absolute ton of youth archers getting their bronze, silver, or gold Olympian pins in droves. But you don't.


Why should they? Until very recently, the majority of JOAD programs did not cater to the compound archer, and to this day, compounds are not allowed to partake in the standard Olympic games. Compound archers have always had to "find their own way" in the international competitive world. Even the most notable coaches and organized coaching programs cater primarily, if not exclusively, to the recurve shooter. So, if the JOAD/JDT programs (as well as the coaching certification programs) were restructured to allow for the full inclusion of compound archery, it would stand to reason these programs would see exponential growth, and not devastation.

I should think the basis of this discussion should be mute, since compound archers are included in the Paralympic Games along side of their recurve counterparts and there does not seem to be schism between shooting styles as there exists on the able-bodied side of the fence. 

Would some current Olympic caliber recurve archers choose to compete with a compound, if given a competitive choice, probably so. That would only serve to greatly strengthen our nation's level of competitive competency on an international level. Would such equipment switches spell the demise of Olympic recurve archery, I highly doubt it. There will always be those who prefer to train and compete in that style. So, in the greater scheme of things, allowing compound archers to compete in the "standard" Olympics could only promote the popularity of the sport and would probably create a deeper pool archers who are capable of successfully meeting the challenges of Olympic competition. 

It's late and I had a long day at the range today with a short-staffed work party followed by practice, so I do hope my mumblings are making sense to the masses....


----------



## Azzurri (Mar 10, 2014)

I don't understand why track can have sprinting and hurdling over similar distances (I did both, and I don't think any half bright person knocks hurdlers for having somewhat slower races), and swimming can have multiple disciplines doing the same distance in the pool, but shooting compound at recurve distance is somehow a threat. You can have different target faces to underline the difficulty difference. When I go someplace to practice people with even a basic understanding of archery know one's easier.

I think there should be a field tournament at the Summer Olympics. And maybe even indoor archery for the winter games. Maybe it would be perceived as less of a threat if recurve expanded to more events while compound was integrated.


----------



## Azzurri (Mar 10, 2014)

Far as sailing goes, they get multiple events and then each Games the boats change. Catamaran was out, in, out, back in. Windsurfing, which is fun, was in for a bit, but now out. Even the Laser has no assurances. Some guy who made the medal stand 8 years ago has no event the next Games, then maybe they restore it, etc. It could be worse, in terms of reliability and politics.

I've seen interesting presentations of field championships online and can't believe it would be taken different than match play target. It showcases the difficulty of the sport.

You could use the same venues for both disciplines. It would create more use of the same facilities, justifying any construction, or making that much more economical pre-built setups.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> Thinking about this today some...
> 
> What will the affect of allowing compounds into the Olympics mean to U.S. Recurve archers?


I'm thinking it will largely kill off competitive recurve in the US. USAA archery is a niche organization that pushes a niche sport - WA Recurve target archery - because that is what USAA is paid to do as the NGB for Olympic archery, which only allows recurves. In that, USAA Archery is constantly swimming against the tide of compound archery. Compounds dominate competitive archery in the US. I have little doubt that if compounds are allowed in the Olympics, USA Archery will grow towards the light, in the direction of big sponsorship money, and the big money is all in compound archery, reducing funding and support for recurve target archery. It might not happen overnight given the current momentum of the organization, but I think it would happen.


----------



## Mulcade (Aug 31, 2007)

Putting the compound as a field event would satisfy quite a few of the problems that exist with the similarities between recurve and compound. It would make the round more like golf in that you're going station to station (hole to hole) and each one is going to be different and have its own challenges. Doing that would also cause a surge in the popularity of the field rounds. Setting up TV coverage would require more cameras, but should be still be fairly simple.


----------



## target1 (Jan 16, 2007)

Ah...compounds in the Olympics...another thing that USA can get embarrased by. We may have had domination, but as soon as it becomes an Oly sport all the other countries who's archers are willing to train harder and spend more will quickly rise to the top, again leaving us in the dust. We are just not really wanting to do whatever it takes to win.


----------



## Sosius (Feb 5, 2014)

...which is why the US has never won an olympic medal in any sport, right? Oh wait, the US wins lots of medals...


----------



## agillator (Sep 11, 2011)

Compound and recurve should be regarded as being no more similar than rifle and pistol. 

The effect of compound in the olympics on U.S.recurvers? Hopefully it would create separate coaching tracks and certifications for olympic compound and recurve including demonstration of knowledge of training and equipment issues. Sure, there is some overlap in both equipment and technique as in rifle and pistol, but if I were training for olympic pistol I would not be seeking an olympic rifle coach.

I'll second Mulcade's suggestion that olympic compound be a field event for all the good reasons he gives.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

agillator said:


> Compound and recurve should be regarded as being no more similar than rifle and pistol.


An interesting analogy. That being posited, it makes no sense for the more accurate bow to shot at 50M instead of 70M for outdoor target. What is the average distance in FITA field?


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

Warbow said:


> An interesting analogy. That being posited, it makes no sense for the more accurate bow to shot at 50M instead of 70M for outdoor target. What is the average distance in FITA field?


Totally agree, the logic ever wanted compound shooting at 90mt on 122 cm face or at 70mt on 80 cm face. As WA people is everything but stupid, if this never happened is because they don't want it to happen. Reasons, you can guess....


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

Follow the $€£¥......


----------



## tunedlow (Nov 7, 2012)

dmassphoto said:


> For one thing, you'll see more beards at the Olympics.


beards, camo, blue jeans, a few big bellies here and there


----------



## montigre (Oct 13, 2008)

tunedlow said:


> beards, camo, blue jeans, a few big bellies here and there


That's a very shallow comment to make. If there is a dress code in place, I am sure all of the competitors, whether they shoot compound or recurve, would abide by them as they do now....


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

montigre said:


> That's a very shallow comment to make. If there is a dress code in place, I am sure all of the competitors, whether they shoot compound or recurve, would abide by them as they do now....


Oh, I just think he's making fun of mainstream compound shooting in the US. And it certainly is the case that compound shooters, even champions, don't always have the look one might expect of an Olympic level athlete (perhaps true of Olympic shooting sports, too). It makes me wonder about the convergence of skill vs. athleticism. From raw power of weight lifting and the raw speed of track all the way to minute precision and skill of Olympic firearms. All of them require world class dedication. Yet I wonder about skill based sports whether that means we might someday have Olympic snooker or Olympic pool, especially given that we already have Olympic curling. Compound archery is archery, but with hard walls, let off, optics, front and rear sights, and mechanical trigger releases, it seems, in some ways, more related to fire arms than to finger shooting a recurve.


----------



## dmassphoto (Feb 8, 2010)

montigre said:


> That's a very shallow comment to make. If there is a dress code in place, I am sure all of the competitors, whether they shoot compound or recurve, would abide by them as they do now....


I don't think he was being shallow or offensive. Of course we could go the opposite way and say many recurve shooters are too uptight/high strung. 

I myself prefer to shoot with uptight folks with beards.


----------



## montigre (Oct 13, 2008)

Warbow said:


> Compound archery is archery, but with hard walls, let off, optics, front and rear sights, and mechanical trigger releases, it seems, in some ways, more related to fire arms than to finger shooting a recurve.


Then, call one sport Recurve and the other, Compound with both categorized under the main title of Archery.... Like Artistic, Rhythmic, and Trampoline all being categorized under Gymnastics or BMX, Road, Track, and Mountain Bike all being categorized under Cycling.... What's the primary differentiation between those already-included sports? Simply, the specialization of the equipment used. 

Why, if not for some outdated fear of loss of participants or revenue, should Archery be considered any differently? All of these off-shoots did not mystically come into being, but sprung from the primary sport and have been successfully coexisting and growing--not causing the demise of their parent sport.... Why should not the same be expected of archery?


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

I only find bellies offensive. After all, Archery is an offensive sport. If you don't have a belly, do something about it.


----------



## deepsprayj (Nov 4, 2011)

I think 50 meters with a smallish bull and no lenses being allowed would make olympic compound very challenging. Without the ability to aim as one can with a lense, micro precision shots become very difficult. I can kill a 3D course with no lense if it is 10-8-5 scoring. Add 12's and 14's and a lense becomes more necessary for longer shots. A pin is difficult to be precise with at medium to long range for me anyways.


----------



## jmvargas (Oct 21, 2004)

70m with a 80cm target face or a smaller 10 ring similar to the indoor target is in my opinion the best way to differentiate between compound vs recurve in the olympics..

...am pretty sure this has been suggested in the past but for some reason it didn't pass...and i have some theories why..


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

maybe targets similar to what the biathlon athletes shoot at. sort of like the saunders Slingshot target?


----------



## caspian (Jan 13, 2009)

Beastmaster said:


> Again - television, television, television. Whether it's broadcast via traditional methods or via the internet, field is not conducive to television coverage in a near-live scenario.


they seem to manage for events like golf.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Jim C said:


> maybe targets similar to what the biathlon athletes shoot at. sort of like the saunders Slingshot target?


Knock downs would be cool, but I know folks like John - ok, John specifically - don't want to shoot their expensive, breakable, carefully tuned arrows at a target where they could get damaged. Bullets are disposable. Arrows less so.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

caspian said:


> they seem to manage for events like golf.


They do, but it takes a crapload of cable laying, gear, personnel and logistics to do. And with golf, you can often cheat with a single camera that can shot the golfer and then follow the ball - and a high camera can often cover more than one hole. Not so much with field archery. So it is *possible* to do, but it would be expensive. Does the Olympics want yet another specialized set up that will have to be custom built for the event or upgraded if there is a suitable field archery range near enough to the host city? I don't know, but I think it would be an uphill sales pitch unless it can be shown that it is already popular on TV.


----------



## dmassphoto (Feb 8, 2010)

Warbow said:


> They do, but it takes a crapload of cable laying, gear, personnel and logistics to do. And with golf, you can often cheat with a single camera that can shot the golfer and then follow the ball - and a high camera can often cover more than one hole. Not so much with field archery. So it is *possible* to do, but it would be expensive. Does the Olympics want yet another specialized set up that will have to be custom built for the event or upgraded if there is a suitable field archery range near enough to the host city? I don't know, but I think it would be an uphill sales pitch unless it can be shown that it is already popular on TV.


Think how cool a field course outside Rio would be? It would almost be a challenge to negotiate the jungle as it would to shoot.


----------



## baller (Oct 4, 2006)

Nothing says a field course has to be in a field or a jungle or a Forrest. One of my favorite world FITA field finals was held at a castle. I saw some pics on FB the other day of a field course among some ruins in Israel. Why not an urban field range? Or even hold a field event on a golf course (a really hilly one ).


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

dmassphoto said:


> Think how cool a field course outside Rio would be? It would almost be a challenge to negotiate the jungle as it would to shoot.





baller said:


> Nothing says a field course has to be in a field or a jungle or a Forrest... Why not an urban field range? ).


Rio? You'd have to shoot in a course in the favela. That would be a challenge. Your return rate of fire would be way, way lower than that of the local drug dealers. So, probably not a good idea. :mg:


----------



## ArcherXXX300 (Apr 22, 2013)

I think the Olympics need to realize that they are two entirely different disciplines of shooting, and allow compound in the Olympics.


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

This discussion is interestinng, but is just a copy of many similar done in the past. Unfortunately, speaking seriously, everyone has to realize that compound will never go to the Olympic games in a near or even far future. Too many opposite interests and no positive lobbing for it will stop compound almost forever. I can list tens of reasons why a lot of important people is against compound at the games (but will never tell). And this peple includes a lot of those in the compound bows market, too. 

You don't go to the Games if you don't lobby for it at IOC level ... think ... nothing to do with target faces, distancies, rules , but surely some wrong ones are helping to make the process even slower...


----------



## dmassphoto (Feb 8, 2010)

baller said:


> Nothing says a field course has to be in a field or a jungle or a Forrest. One of my favorite world FITA field finals was held at a castle. I saw some pics on FB the other day of a field course among some ruins in Israel. Why not an urban field range? Or even hold a field event on a golf course (a really hilly one ).


There was one WA event I watched a few years back held at a Croatian castle. I was frankly stunned more by the view than the actual archery. That's the beauty of field archery, is that it can be held in any environment. 

(I'm still imagining a missed shot at Rio landing in one of those fruit basket hats)


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Vittorio said:


> This discussion is interestinng, but is just a copy of many similar done in the past. Unfortunately, speaking seriously, everyone has to realize that compound will never go to the Olympic games in a near or even far future. Too many opposite interests and no positive lobbing for it will stop compound almost forever. I can list tens of reasons why a lot of important people is against compound at the games (but will never tell). And this peple includes a lot of those in the compound bows market, too.


Why would those in the compound market oppose compound in the Olympics? Is it because the makers of bows that dominate the Olympic archery market do not dominate the compound market and they don't want the extra publicity for the compound shooting? :dontknow:


----------



## arrowyn (Jul 4, 2013)

I wonder if its because compound archers are used to modifying their bows anyway they like. to limit them in the equipment limitations of olympic archery, alot of them will balk. agreeing on equipment restrictions is hard, even the very mention of rules relating to equipment will alienate the big movers and pushers in the compound realm . . . my compound friends, the first thing they do with their new baby compound, is take it apart and replacing parts . . .


----------



## R&B (Oct 4, 2006)

Stick tossing is stick tossing. I feel the Olympics should have little to do with the popularity of any sport. The sport of archery should and does survive on it's own sustainable merits. Placing the value or importance of a sport on a entertainment event/festival (Olympics) is a mistake in my mind. Shooting a re-curve or compound should be based on your own personal taste. Create a genuine passion for the sport and the rest will follow. 

Futbol is #1 for a reason. That reason has nothing to with the Olympics or the World Cup. People participate because it is a beautiful sport in and of itself. The success of the World Cup comes from the bottom up not the other way around.


-R&B


----------



## jmann28 (Nov 22, 2010)

I remember reading something about the 70m recurve vs 50m compound, that for recurve it's how many 10's can you hit. For compound, it's how many 10's are you gonna miss. Has any official statement or stance been said/written/documented about the exact reason why compound is closer than recurve?


----------



## dmassphoto (Feb 8, 2010)

I bet if Shakira were commissioned to do a song for World Archery, it'd gain some popularity.


----------



## jmvargas (Oct 21, 2004)

any sport that is in the Olympics will always get more gov't funding vs those that are not...

if that is not important to some......so be it.


----------



## toj (Aug 22, 2012)

I think it more likely that they'll drop archery altogether.
The industry doesn't generate the kind of revenue that makes the bribes and favours officials are looking for worth it.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

toj said:


> I think it more likely that they'll drop archery altogether.
> The industry doesn't generate the kind of revenue that makes the bribes and favours officials are looking for worth it.


The IOC has already voted and listed Archery as one of the core sports. They love it because men and women compete equally and its a sport that is in over 100 countries. People shoot archery everywhere. The revenue it provides is from the TV viewers. At the last Olympics, Archery was the top watched sport of all the events. Several hundred spectators even showed up wanting to see the qualifications which were not open to the public. Even poor countries like Africa or the Philippines can field archers. 

One of the reasons wrestling was first ejected was there is no womens division and its not competed everywhere. Same thing for Women's softball. It was removed as an olympic sport because its not played in a lot of countries, mostly just USA, and only 13 nations ever fielded an Olympic women's softball team out of 4 Olympic games, 1996,2000,2004, and 2008. 

Archery as an Olympic sport isnt going anywhere. its easy to put on. All you need is an open field and rented targets. You dont need a million dollar Velidrone track, or BMX dirt bike course. 

Chris


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

chrstphr said:


> Archery as an Olympic sport isnt going anywhere. its easy to put on. All you need is an open field and rented targets. You dont need a million dollar Velidrone track, or BMX dirt bike course.
> 
> Chris


That would seem to be a point against folks who have proposed compound be put forward as a field archery event. Also, target archery head to head competition can be covered with just a few cameras, unlike field archery.


----------



## blanco (Mar 19, 2014)

montigre said:


> That's a very shallow comment to make. If there is a dress code in place, I am sure all of the competitors, whether they shoot compound or recurve, would abide by them as they do now....


If you're smart, you know that the poster is mocking a stereotype. 

tsk. tsk.


----------



## Mulcade (Aug 31, 2007)

Warbow said:


> That would seem to be a point against folks who have proposed compound be put forward as a field archery event. Also, target archery head to head competition can be covered with just a few cameras, unlike field archery.


Part of the reason field archery was suggested is that in the past statements have been made to the effect that there wasn't an interest in adding compound partly because the game that is played is too similar to recurve. If we make compound a field event, it would be vastly different from the recurve game and might give it some more appeal as an addition to the Olympics. It might also add to the TV appeal as the environment would change from target to target so the layman isn't sitting at home saying, "Oh good. Another 18-30 arrows at a 70m target." It would also give the announcers more to talk about and make their jobs a little easier.


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

The way the last WA Field worlds were presented would make a great Olympic event. They shot all of the finals with I think maybe 3 cameras.
So what if the ranking rounds were only sparsely televised in a highlight reel sort of way, the finals were edge of your seat thrilling.

-Grant


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Mulcade said:


> Part of the reason field archery was suggested is that in the past statements have been made to the effect that there wasn't an interest in adding compound partly because the game that is played is too similar to recurve. If we make compound a field event, it would be vastly different from the recurve game and might give it some more appeal as an addition to the Olympics. It might also add to the TV appeal as the environment would change from target to target so the layman isn't sitting at home saying, "Oh good. Another 18-30 arrows at a 70m target." It would also give the announcers more to talk about and make their jobs a little easier.


I get that. The question that remains is whether those points are sufficient for the IOC to want to have to construct yet another specialized venue that can't be used by any other sport. Whereas target archery can take place in multi-purpose sports fields.


----------



## jmvargas (Oct 21, 2004)

Warbow said:


> I get that. The question that remains is whether those points are sufficient for the IOC to want to have to construct yet another specialized venue that can't be used by any other sport. Whereas target archery can take place in multi-purpose sports fields.


...all they need is a nice golf course...


----------



## AngelRa (Nov 15, 2010)

A while back olympic archery was bare bow recurve only. With time they allowed the stabilizers, sight, arrow rest and clicker. My opinion is that there is no two disciplines, recurve and compound, it is just archery, what changes are the restrictions on innovations. Imagine how stuck they are in the archery past, the equivalent to the Oly Recurve to firearms is a musket without rear sight. I do not see a future where there are Oly recurve alongside compound, only one, compound. Just like there are no musket shooting, only rifles.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

AngelRa said:


> A while back olympic archery was bare bow recurve only. With time they allowed the stabilizers, sight, arrow rest and clicker. My opinion is that there is no two disciplines, recurve and compound, it is just archery, what changes are the restrictions on innovations. Imagine how stuck they are in the archery past, the equivalent to the Oly Recurve to firearms is a musket without rear sight. I do not see a future where there are Oly recurve alongside compound, only one, compound. Just like there are no musket shooting, only rifles.


By your own reasoning, there should be no archery in the Olympics, only electronically enhanced, scoped sniper rifle. As an artillery technology archery has been supplanted by firearms.

If you look the various sports in the Olympics, none of them are about doing something based on the most advanced technology per se. Instead, all sports are about doing something the hard way for the challenge. If I just want to get a bunch of tiny holes in a distant target I can walk up to it and poke holes in it. Instead, we choose to adopt a set of *limitations* and compete head to head with other people under those same limitations. There is no reason to assume that Olympic archery will naturally progress to compounds anymore than Segway races will replace track, or flying drones will replace the hammer toss.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

jmvargas said:


> ...all they need is a nice golf course...


Careful, if they are going to look into using a golf course they might just decide to go for Olympic Golf instead of field archery :mg:


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

AngelRa said:


> A while back olympic archery was bare bow recurve only. With time they allowed the stabilizers, sight, arrow rest and clicker. My opinion is that there is no two disciplines, recurve and compound, it is just archery, what changes are the restrictions on innovations. Imagine how stuck they are in the archery past, the equivalent to the Oly Recurve to firearms is a musket without rear sight. I do not see a future where there are Oly recurve alongside compound, only one, compound. Just like there are no musket shooting, only rifles.


In my opinion.....

The advent of stabilizers, sight pin, arrow rest and clicker on the recurve do not make shooting a bow easier. 

Compound with hard wall, 60-80 % let off, Magnified scope, peep and mechanical release make shooting the bow easier and easier to be more accurate. The Olympics isnt about making things easier. Compound needs a different format than Olympic recurve so it is NOT compared. Otherwise, its just an easier version of the recurve and not a addition they seem to want to add. 

not that i am opposed to adding compound to the Olympics, but i think it needs a different format that is more challenging. Too many perfect matches so far for the 150 at 50 to be it in my opinion. How many 60s do you see in Olympic recurve at 70 meters? 

Chris


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

chrstphr said:


> In my opinion.....
> 
> The advent of stabilizers, sight pin, arrow rest and clicker on the recurve do not make shooting a bow easier.
> 
> ...


I've shot Oly recurve, BB recurve and now compound. Without a doubt the Oly set-up is much, much easier to shoot then BB especially under pressure. It's a greater difference then between Oly and Compound in my experience.

I do agree that compound needs to be shooting a different format and I think the 80cm at 70m would suit that really well.

-Grant


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

grantmac said:


> I've shot Oly recurve, BB recurve and now compound. Without a doubt the Oly set-up is much, much easier to shoot then BB especially under pressure. It's a greater difference then between Oly and Compound in my experience.
> 
> -Grant


I am not sure i understand how the barebow is way different from Compound and Olympic recurve. The power draw for barebow and Olympic recurve is the same, starts out easy and gets harder as you pull back. anchor and aiming is similar ( check/face/jaw), either with a sight or without. Letting go of the string is the same with the fingers is the same regardless of clicker or stabs or arrow rest. Bows are similar length. 

Compound starts out at full poundage and reverses in power draw to a let off of a fraction of the total weight. Aiming is through a front and rear sight with optics. Mechanical release is much more forgiving than any with fingers. I have shot Bare bow and Olympic recurve. They are much the same to me (though i have not shot with string walking etc). I have only shot a compound a few times, but it was completely different for me. especially the draw weight curve. I would have to say my compound shooting history is less than minimal though for an experience to draw on. 

Chris


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

In my opinion any enhancement in equipment should be limited to generating continued interest in the partaking in of such a sport, leaving the challenge of planting arrows onto targets at long distances largely unaltered, at least from a third party point of view. One thing about technology: should technology make matters more complicated, there should be a good reason to support its implementation, else technology should make things look simpler and more elegant. Like the glass cockpit.


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

chrstphr said:


> I am not sure i understand how the barebow is way different from Compound and Olympic recurve. The power draw for barebow and Olympic recurve is the same, starts out easy and gets harder as you pull back. anchor and aiming is similar ( check/face/jaw), either with a sight or without. Letting go of the string is the same with the fingers is the same regardless of clicker or stabs or arrow rest. Bows are similar length.
> 
> Compound starts out at full poundage and reverses in power draw to a let off of a fraction of the total weight. Aiming is through a front and rear sight with optics. Mechanical release is much more forgiving than any with fingers. I have shot Bare bow and Olympic recurve. They are much the same to me (though i have not shot with string walking etc). I have only shot a compound a few times, but it was completely different for me. especially the draw weight curve. I would have to say my compound shooting history is less than minimal though for an experience to draw on.
> 
> Chris


I will paraphrase MartinO who is a multi-time world barebow champion:
The winner of a barebow championship is the person with the least target panic that day.

Without any sort of external shot trigger the execution phase of barebow shooting is much more mentally taxing compared with either compound or recurve. Either one of those you can simply continue to expand until either the clicker or release fires. With barebow that trigger is entirely internal and is much more vulnerable to any sort of mental stress.

Also you can never separate aiming from tuning with Barebow since the arrow is the sight. At the highest level everything is stringwalking which creates a changing tune depending on distance and there are form compromises which must be made to aid aiming which you just don't see with Compound or Recurve.

But on a more objective note: The scores are much closer between Compound and Recurve vs. Recurve and Barebow.

Personally I'd LOVE to see WA Field or Barebow target in the Olympics, but it would never happen. Even though I think Barebow would actually have much more spectator appeal then either Compound or Recurve.

-Grant


----------



## Mr. October (Feb 15, 2003)

I'll take the approach that compounds in the Olympics might be REALLY GOOD for US archery. In case nobody has noticed, the US compound archers are starting to get beat. Maybe not at the team level but individual gold at world cup events is getting fewer and farther between. The world's compound archers are getting better and they aren't spending their days out shooting rubber deer. It wouldn't be a bad thing to lure a few more of our top archers away from 3D with the promise of Olympic gold. Otherwise the French, Dutch, South Africans, etc. are going to become the dominant forces in compound archery just like other nations took over recurve archery.


----------



## AngelRa (Nov 15, 2010)

How hard and physically demanding compound competitive target shooting is? It can be as hard or harder than recurve, why? In outdoor competitive compound archery, letoff in the compound is against your accuracy in wind. To counter that, mass weight is greatly increased and letoff is reduced to about 65%. Letoff only buys the shooter an easier transition to find anchor. After that the backwall pressure is increased to pressures probably exeeding the peak weight of the bow. At the end, top compound shooters in outdoor events may end up holding more than the recurve counterparts in both, pulling weight and mass weight.

The argument of greater physical challenge of the recurve is a myth. Compound could bring more popularity and more participants to the sport.


----------



## TER (Jul 5, 2003)

AngelRa said:


> How hard and physically demanding compound competitive target shooting is? It can be as hard or harder than recurve, why? In outdoor competitive compound archery, letoff in the compound is against your accuracy in wind. To counter that, mass weight is greatly increased and letoff is reduced to about 65%. Letoff only buys the shooter an easier transition to find anchor. After that the backwall pressure is increased to pressures probably exeeding the peak weight of the bow. At the end, top compound shooters in outdoor events may end up holding more than the recurve counterparts in both, pulling weight and mass weight.
> 
> *The argument of greater physical challenge of the recurve is a myth*. Compound could bring more popularity and more participants to the sport.


Welp, I've heard it all now. I literally laughed out loud. AngelRa, get your hands on a low draw weight recurve and try shooting it for a while. You will find out compound is just easier. Your opinions come from an absence of real life experience. Do both before you form an opinion. I let your first bad post slide, but now you need to get some truth laid on you.


----------



## jmvargas (Oct 21, 2004)

Warbow said:


> Careful, if they are going to look into using a golf course they might just decide to go for Olympic Golf instead of field archery :mg:


...golf is already IN the olympics starting 2016 in Rio..


----------



## AngelRa (Nov 15, 2010)

TER said:


> Welp, I've heard it all now. I literally laughed out loud. AngelRa, get your hands on a low draw weight recurve and try shooting it for a while. You will find out compound is just easier. Your opinions come from an absence of real life experience. Do both before you form an opinion. I let your first bad post slide, but now you need to get some truth laid on you.


Instead of bashing me, assuming I am an ignorant rookie. Question yourself and your blinding arrogance. I do not make my post for you to judge it. It is my voice of *experience*, meant to make you think the status quo and myts. Probably you pulled back a compound bow, felt the letoff and judge it easier, period. It is always the bad shooters that are the most arrogant. Can you tell us how much have you won with a compound and your experience with it?


----------



## target1 (Jan 16, 2007)

shooting a 100 arrows with a 45# recurve takes MUCH more endurance than a 100 arrows with a compound. This IS the voice of experience speaking.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

AngelRa said:


> Instead of bashing me, assuming I am an ignorant rookie. Question yourself and your blinding arrogance. I do not make my post for you to judge it. It is my voice of *experience*, meant to make you think the status quo and myts. Probably you pulled back a compound bow, felt the letoff and judge it easier, period. It is always the bad shooters that are the most arrogant. Can you tell us how much have you won with a compound and your experience with it?


Angel,
Each discipline has its own skill sets and challenges, and each is very difficult to excel at against good competition (hell, tiddlywinks is hard to excel at against good competition). 

But, having said that, is it really your claim that a compound shooter with a 60lb compound with a 65% letoff (so, roughly 21lbs on the mechanical release) is holding/pulling an additional 34lbs of drawing pressure and so matching the drawing force of a recurve archer holding 55+ pounds on the fingers? If so, do you have any data to support that contention?

And, can _*you*_ tell us how much you have won _with a recurve_ and your experience with it?


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

AngelRa said:


> How hard and physically demanding compound competitive target shooting is? It can be as hard or harder than recurve, why? In outdoor competitive compound archery, *letoff in the compound is against your accuracy in wind*. To counter that, mass weight is greatly increased and letoff is reduced to *about* 65%. Letoff only buys the shooter an easier transition to find anchor. After that the backwall pressure is increased to pressures *probably* exeeding the peak weight of the bow. At the end, top compound shooters in outdoor events *may* end up holding more than the recurve counterparts in both, pulling weight and mass weight.
> 
> The argument of greater physical challenge of the recurve is a *myth*. Compound could bring more popularity and more participants to the sport.


Most of this is his guesstimations at best and flawed postulation. He has no real data, only his guesses at a PROBABLE pull weight, MIGHT be holding more, ABOUT 65% letoff etc etc etc. 

And the compound arrow speed more than makes up for ANY disadvantage letoff might give in the wind ( which also the added mass of the bow would would negate). 

I did find it an interesting read, but more myth than fact. I would hazard a guess that he has not shot an Olympic recurve other than a 20 lb club bow. 

I highly doubt any compound shooters are pulling 50+ lbs into the wall of the 22 ish holding weight. But i also do not have any data on that postulation.


Chris


----------



## AngelRa (Nov 15, 2010)

Here are two videos:
1st video is a compound match. Pay attention to the explosive reaction of the release arm. 2nd Video is a recurve match for reference. For the compound, sitting at the 22lb letoff will result in a very weak shot where the arm will not move an inch. To get the explosive release of these champs you must pull really hard.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

AngelRa said:


> Here are two videos:
> 1st video is a compound match. Pay attention to the explosive reaction of the release arm. 2nd Video is a recurve match for reference. For the compound, sitting at the 22lb letoff will result in a very weak shot where the arm will not move an inch. To get the explosive release of these champs you must pull really hard.


I appreciate the videos for viewing. And appreciate that accomplished compounders do use good back tension to help execute their shot. But surely there's a big difference over the course of a day's competition between 1) having the choice of how much back tension to exert (compound) to execute the shot, and 2) the external non-negotiable demands of a 50+ lb recurve bow that MUST be obeyed on every shot.

And I'd still like some actual draw force data, if you have any, on the amount of draw force being applied 'against the wall' by some of the well known compound archers. Perhaps Braden Gellenthien could give you some firsthand insight on that, as he's competed in both disciplines - he shot a recurve in the 2011 Olympic Trials Stage 1, finishing 51st.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

jmvargas said:


> ...golf is already IN the olympics starting 2016 in Rio..


I didn't know that. If they already have a golf course and wired it for tv I wonder if it would be practical to repurpose it for field archery? Although I've assumed that lack of easy facilities could play into future IOC decisions, on the other hand the IOC is good at making *other people* pay for their decisions.


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

I hold 19# with my compound and 36# with recurve. Follow-through is similar. The release is a bit more explosive with the compound because I can relax more with the lower holding weight.

There are release aids designed for compound which release based-upon how much weight the archer is pulling. Generally they are set 2-4# above the holding weight.

-Grant


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Larry, FYI - I shot compound off and on this past winter, and shot two tournaments with it (indoor, 60-arrow). I was using a hinge release (what most folks refer to as a "back tension" release) and my back was sore as hell after those events. I was trying to pull the wheels off the bow on every shot.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

limbwalker said:


> Larry, FYI - I shot compound off and on this past winter, and shot two tournaments with it (indoor, 60-arrow). I was using a hinge release (what most folks refer to as a "back tension" release) and my back was sore as hell after those events. I was trying to pull the wheels off the bow on every shot.


was the compound harder to shoot than your Olympic 46+ lb recurve rig? bow mass and holding weight? 


Chris


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Nope. Mass was the same (both bows are 7#). Holding weight on the compound was somewhere near 12# as I was shooting the high letoff cam.

Frankly, I couldn't hit crap with it. Would have scored better with my Olympic bow. ha, ha.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

John, that's interesting. I can see where the dynamic would be so different as to make precision tough to come by.


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

limbwalker said:


> Nope. Mass was the same (both bows are 7#). Holding weight on the compound was somewhere near 12# as I was shooting the high letoff cam.
> 
> Frankly, I couldn't hit crap with it. Would have scored better with my Olympic bow. ha, ha.


A former recurve shooter using compound automatically tends to pull more to the wall to balance the static weight of the bow than average compound shooters. Tests i made some years ago with Michele when he was shooting compound often in the winter, found that he was going up to 33 to 37 pounds over the let-off to feel stable. Cams were torquing and limbs were bending ... No suprise your back was sore at the end.. It is a quite different way of shooting than usual "rifle aiming" styles.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Vittorio said:


> A former recurve shooter using compound automatically tends to pull more to the wall to balance the static weight of the bow than average compound shooters. Tests i made some years ago with Michele when he was shooting compound often in the winter, found that he was going up to 33 to 37 pounds over the let-off to feel stable. Cams were torquing and limbs were bending ... No suprise your back was sore at the end.. It is a quite different way of shooting than usual "rifle aiming" styles.


One thing I know for sure - those compounds really STACK at the end! ha, ha.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> One thing I know for sure - those compounds really STACK at the end! ha, ha.


That hard wall must have made it _really_ hard to pull through the clicker. No wonder you were sore after a day shooting compound


----------

