# NFAA changes seniors class



## lworr

NFAA: as of June 1st 2013, there is an additional age group in the Sr. Div.
>> Sr. will be 50-59, Silver Sr. will be 60-69 and Master Sr. will be 70+.


----------



## archer_nm

This is provided at National and Sectional tournaments.


----------



## FV Chuck

lworr said:


> NFAA: as of June 1st 2013, there is an additional age group in the Sr. Div.
> >> Sr. will be 50-59, Silver Sr. will be 60-69 and Master Sr. will be 70+.


Noting that you posted this in the PRO section, ..... 
Keep in mind that there is not (repeat not) a Silver PRO or Master PRO - 
There was no change to the Professional designation for Seniors other than age. It is 50 to be a Senior Pro as of June 1. 

Chuck


----------



## Pete53

NFAA,should make an 60 and older pro division ,until you reach these golden years you have no ideal how your health changes so often ,at 50 you still have good muscle mass but if you worked for a living by the time you are 60 and maybe even earlier in age your body has gotten beat up. Don,are you in agreement ?


----------



## lworr

My appoligies, I should not have posted this info.


----------



## FV Chuck

lworr said:


> My appoligies, I should not have posted this info.


Nooooo apology needed 
Totally cool man ... archers sharing info, I just wanted to make sure there was no confusion on the rule for the Silvers and Masters

Pete - Keep in mind that I totally get it. Also keep in mind the NFAA dosent make the rules pre-se, the Directors do. The directors from each state bring ideas and rule changes for the entire group to vote on. They respond to the desires of their local membership. 
This February when the rule was presented in the meeting I didnt have enough data or input from the Professional Division to support a request for the addition of those two extra breaks in the Seniors so I did not pursue it. 
I'm not 100% sure I would though. Someone would have to make a pretty compelling argument that is makes good financial sense. (Pro's/money, goes together)
I suppose it is a possibility if there is enough support for it but I have two initial concerns. #1 that it would weaken the overall Senior pool by breaking it into 3 groups, and #2 it would not actually get enough participation to make it viable.
Probably the most critical aspect to look at before going forward with the proposal would be the financial impact. 
There are senior contingencies, senior contracts, etc... Sponsors look at that very intently when deciding what events to support and what shooters to support.
Solve that... you have a winner

Chuck Cooley
Pro Chair


----------



## field14

FV Chuck said:


> Noting that you posted this in the PRO section, .....
> Keep in mind that there is not (repeat not) a Silver PRO or Master PRO -
> There was no change to the Professional designation for Seniors other than age. It is 50 to be a Senior Pro as of June 1.
> 
> Chuck


Thanks for sharing this, Chuck! I know I had a misconception and did think that the SS and Master Seniors' divisions also applied to PRO.

On another note, am I correct in that the PRO Men's Freestyle LIMITED is back as part of the PRO Division, along with PRO Olympic Freestyle being added in 2012?

field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## Pete53

chuck,i kinda understand, but those older seniors are the reason what archery is now.i am not blaming you or anyone else,just that do they just what to throw the old guys out.there are alot more ways to make money than just with youth,my choice would be wisdom !, but maybe someone needs to bring this 60 plus pro class up.when people reach the age of sixty or sooner health has got`n to be a big deal so do you think these guys at over 60 want to shoot against 50 year olds ? i do believe that 60 age class if offered would have more shooter`s than some of those other pro classes and their scores may fall off a little compared to a 50 year old.maybe someone should do a survey ? maybe the NRA president and the directors need to look into this a little more .just remember this someday you will all be this age too, those golden years are not that golden .


----------



## FV Chuck

Pete53 said:


> chuck,i kinda understand, but those older seniors are the reason what archery is now.i am not blaming you or anyone else,just that do they just what to throw the old guys out.there are alot more ways to make money than just with youth,my choice would be wisdom !, but maybe someone needs to bring this 60 plus pro class up.when people reach the age of sixty or sooner health has got`n to be a big deal so do you think these guys at over 60 want to shoot against 50 year olds ? i do believe that 60 age class if offered would have more shooter`s than some of those other pro classes and their scores may fall off a little compared to a 50 year old.maybe someone should do a survey ? maybe the NRA president and the directors need to look into this a little more .just remember this someday you will all be this age too, those golden years are not that golden .


I am PERSONALLY offended that you associate me (as one of the voters) who are trying to "throw the old guys out"... your way out of line on that one Pete. Way Out....
This is not about money except those that shoot for money. They are the ones making it, the shooters Pete...not NFAA.

You need to take another look at the Organization and the process and learn it. This is not a top down decision. None of them are. They all come from the people, to the directors and then to the board (Directors of every state) to vote.
If this is something you feel that passionate about, then I strongly encourage you to work with your shooters in your state, and your section, move it up the chain and get support from shooters all over the country. Do your survey and get the results to the directors. Make the change.

I'm off to the range to work on my game so I can be competitive against guys who are 20 years younger than me and who dont have day jobs. I cant wait until the day when they are only 10 years younger than me and we are both retired. I'll swap with you anytime 
#WORKHARDERTOWIN -


----------



## Pete53

well chuck i will give an apology i didn`t really mean you sorry. i would like to mention what my occupation was that i did all my life tell i retired it was not a healthy easy job nor do i ever wish anyone has to walk in my boots,i was a power lineman or a pole climber in northern Minnesota.i kinda would have liked to get into target archery but at age 60 really this beat up old body just ain`t going to compete anymore very well ,sure i still do well hunting with a bow, probably still can out climb most people but my x count in archery just ain`t going to cut it in the pro`s and again sorry ,Pete53


----------



## field14

20 years younger? Try someone at age 54 trying to compete against others that could be...25-36 years younger than they are!! It was that way exclusively in the NFAA for many, many, many years, you know! And with very, very few exceptions...it was a mountain too tall to climb for the 54 year old regardless of how good they "were" only a few short years prior to that (or when they were in their "prime.")
About the PRO "Silver Seniors" and PRO "Master Seniors".....The only way to find out if there is an "interest" in a "Money" (Championship) class for Silver Seniors (60-69 years old) is for some tournaments to TRY IT and see what the registration turns out to be for that class/division? May well see that coming soon to a shoot or two.
Gotta have the numbers to find out, and without somebody trying that scenario, the "numbers" will never come forth to either justify it...or find out that the interest just isn't there.
field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## Pete53

thanks for the info field 14,i am just trying to help our generation not trying to upset anyone . i am glad the nfaa does have silver senior class now too, nfaa may even get more members. field14 : at my age and health, i have trouble with climbing a small hill now, mountains i need a 4x4 now on a road. the name golden years for us should say old bones and poor eyesight years,i now know why my grandpa hurt , moved slow and liked to sit and watch !


----------



## pe3d

I am confused. Yesterday at the MAA State Shoot here in Michigan, at the PRO meeting, I was told that there is a Silver Pro division for Sectionals and NFAA sactioned events. If this is a misconception, please let the proper parties here in Michigan know. 
Thanks Chuck for your input.


----------



## FV Chuck

pe3d said:


> I am confused. Yesterday at the MAA State Shoot here in Michigan, at the PRO meeting, I was told that there is a Silver Pro division for Sectionals and NFAA sactioned events. If this is a misconception, please let the proper parties here in Michigan know.
> Thanks Chuck for your input.


Thanks Pete - 

PLease let me know who held the meeting or shared that info so I can reach out.

Corrected post:.

Sections and States could I suppose offer that as an OPTION... but it's not required. 
The ONLY requirement they must follow regarding age as it pertains to the Pro Division is 50 for Seniors.

If a local event wanted to offer addition designations for Professional age groups and follow the Adult ages that NFAA and translate that into the Pro's to make additional groups...well. I cant find a rule that prevents it, but it would be odd.

Here is the rule as it will appear:

_Revision, page 35, Article III, Constitution, Section C.
C.
Senior:
A Senior Division for archers ages 50 and older, a Silver Senior Division for archers 60 and older, and a Master Senior Division for archer age 70 and older shall be provided at National and Sectional (Indoor and Outdoor) tournaments. Any archer may compete in only one Division; however, those age 50 and older may compete as either an Adult or Senior, and those age 60 and older may compete as either an Adult, Senior or Silver Senior. Those archers age 70 and older may compete as an Adult, Senior, Silver Senior, or Master Senior._

Further - PLease see NFAA Constitution Article IV Tournaments; Section G - para 2 pg 45 - Defines what divisions shall be recognized at a shoot. For the Pro's it's Adults and Senior Only, we did not change that part of the book.

If you need to see the Full CBL of the NFAA it lives here online. http://www.nfaausa.com/about/documents.cfm

Chuck


----------



## pe3d

That is the way it was presented. If A Senior Pro is 60 they could shoot in a Silver Senior Pro class at the Sectional and State shoot.
Will the Sectional Silver Senior Pro scores be recognised by the NFAA?


----------



## FV Chuck

pe3d said:


> That is the way it was presented. If A Senior Pro is 60 they could shoot in a Silver Senior Pro class at the Sectional and State shoot.
> Will the Sectional Silver Senior Pro scores be recognised by the NFAA?


At this time there is no provision to recognize it at the National Office.
If your Section (collectively) decides to honor it... that's again kind of outside the norm but no recognition will be awarded from HQ. All awards, trophies, money paybacks, shooter points, etc would be 100% localized.

National HQ is only recognizing what you see in my prior post. Pro and SENIOR Pro... (50 and up)

...let me ask again please. Who shared this information so it can be corrected please?.

Chuck


----------



## pe3d

PM sent.


----------



## FV Chuck

pe3d said:


> PM sent.


Not a fan of AT PM System. - insecure, clunky, awkward..I dont use it

Please either e-mail or discuss it openly. 
It's not like it 's a trade secret or a death penalty comment... who presented it at the meeting? ... Tim?
Was Randall not there?


Thanks


----------



## pe3d

Check with Tim Loynes
He will know.


----------



## FV Chuck

pe3d said:


> Check with Tim Loynes
> He will know.


.........


----------



## Pete53

i have sent a message by e-mail to bruce cull asking him if he would consider a silver senior male freestyle pro division ,hopefully the nfaa and mr. cull will consider doing it. it does kinda make sense because with alot of people retiring in the early 60 years of age they may want to shoot a pro division but not against 50 year olds.there is a physical change and some health issues once you reach that 60 something.until you reach that age and or maybe even younger most people do not know or understand what i am talking about with this wonderful golden years thing ! hope i did not offend anyone and do hope some more seniors post in agreement and or e-mail mr.cull too . thanks,Pete53


----------



## just ulgy

There is no Silver senior pro for the sectionals in Michigan only pro and senior pro. 

Wisconsin Director


----------



## archer_nm

Pete why would send Bruce an E-mail he can not do anything about this situation, you can only ask your State Director to bring it to the floor as an agenda item for the meeting in Febuary.


----------



## Pete53

i am hoping mr. cull brings it to all involved to their attention,i also did not know that, thanks. i will talk to biill hakl about it also this summer.i also hope some other people read this with some good intentions and help support it.i do hope the NFAA professional archers also help support this issue,someday they will be this age too.and like i have said before i am not trying to upset anyone.thank you ,Pete53


----------



## archer_nm

Pete don't read this wrong, but the NFAA is ran from the member up and the Directors make all of the changes in the C&B, the Council which includes the President and VP run the the day to day activities of the HQ and staff. So,this issue needs the Directors to make the choice. As you can tell by my signature I am the later. So if your issue has a chance then Bill will be your best choice.


----------



## FV Chuck

Pete53 said:


> i am hoping mr. cull brings it to all involved to their attention*,i also did not know that*, thanks. i will talk to biill hakl about it also this summer.i also hope some other people read this with some good intentions and help support it.i do hope the NFAA professional archers also help support this issue,someday they will be this age too.and like i have said before i am not trying to upset anyone.thank you ,Pete53


Please review post #9...

Based on the private emails and calls I've been getting there is something very fishy about this thread. 

Politely ejecting unless I'm needed further.

Thanks - 

CHuck


----------



## rock monkey

and here we see why there are dozens of specialized classes and how they got there.


----------



## Pete53

rock monkey,should we just have only one class for all archer`s ? and this would then be the only class free style,any age,releases,fingers,male,female,recurve,longbow,x-bow,compound ,sights, bare bow. i bet the silver senior pro class will have more people shooting in it than a lot of them,i have a feeling some retired people just may get back into archery ,why not honor the retired people,i grew up learnig respect your elders ,some of these guys are vets too.Pete53


----------



## rock monkey

And some of us that see too many of the 'class for me' classes arent vets? A vet would use their chain of command.

Lets do a simple subtraction game. When did all the boutique classes start popping up? Between 1980 and 1990......30yrs ago at the most to make it an easy math problem. How old are some of the youngest silver seniors?, 60. That would mean that the youngest generation of silver seniors, some were complicit in the problem we have now with too many classes.

Respect doesnt mean i have to agree. When something is wrong, man up and fix it.

FITA/WA seems to do pretty good without the participation awards.


There is A LOT wrong with the current way things are and written. Those that want to make it right get walked on and poo-poo'd by those same elders you want us kids to respect. Have any of the elders ever stopped to think that maybe, just MAYBE the younger generation cares enough to right the wrongs.


----------



## field14

rock monkey said:


> And some of us that see too many of the 'class for me' classes arent vets? A vet would use their chain of command.
> 
> Lets do a simple subtraction game. When did all the boutique classes start popping up? Between 1980 and 1990......30yrs ago at the most to make it an easy math problem. How old are some of the youngest silver seniors?, 60. That would mean that the youngest generation of silver seniors, some were complicit in the problem we have now with too many classes.
> 
> Respect doesnt mean i have to agree. When something is wrong, man up and fix it.
> 
> _*FITA/WA seems to do pretty good without the participation awards.*_
> 
> 
> There is A LOT wrong with the current way things are and written. Those that want to make it right get walked on and poo-poo'd by those same elders you want us kids to respect. Have any of the elders ever stopped to think that maybe, just MAYBE the younger generation cares enough to right the wrongs.


Actually the poop started hitting the fan when release aids were introduced in the early 1970's...not the 1980's!! From then on there has been a constant battle with regard to how many classes there are. There were always too many in the first place, but then when releases came in...that about doubled them!

With regard to the ages thing for Seniors: The names of the shooting classes in FITA/WA are different...but...just so you know, the NFAA was (past tense) the ONLY organization that had its Seniors starting at age 55. In fact, up until June 1, 2013, the NFAA was the only archery org that had seniors starting at age 55..>ALL of the others have their seniors breaking at age 50.

Now, I will agree that way too many shooting classes are available in the NFAA...and something needs to be done about those that there are only a handful or less competitors...who only shoot there because they will get a Silver Bowl. I strongly feel that the "old" rule in the trophy division needs to be put back in, the old 3-5-7- rule: If there are 1-2 shooters in a class/division, NO awards are given. If there are 3-5, then first and second are awarded. To get 3 awards requires at least 7 competitors in a class/division. Flights are made if there are 10 or more in a shooting class or division (don't remember the exact "old" number for flighting, but I think it was 10.
For the Pro Division, the NFAA already has a payout schedule based upon the number of competitors.
When I first started in the late 1960's, the 3-5-7 rule was used and enforced, especially at the club level. Then, the thoughts were that we could abandon this because giving out more would bring more people to the shoots...Didn't work out that way, so I do think we should put the 3-5-7 rule back into play.

I also agree that we don't need so many styles/classes either. a 520 is a 520 regardless of equipment used. Some of the divisions' separations are so muddied and simplified that the division really should be consolidated...and yes, I'm thinking FREESTYLE. However, after all the years I've been in the NFAA, it is a waste of wind to try to consolidate things; it has been tried many times, and failed almost every time, too.

You will be at the seniors age yourself pretty soon...only then will you understand the HUGE difference between someone at age 55 or age 65 and those at age 50 and 60...let alone those "kids" that have yet to have to face reality.

As far as being poo-pooed on...you are eligible to volunteer your services to get off the porch and help MAKE the changes you seem so willing to talk about...but .....do you have the mettle to actually get out and do something to "fix it?" I sure hope you do, because us old farts actually are getting to old to deal with it and would like some time off to enjoy the sport for what little time we have left TO enjoy the sport.
You young guys/gals have it in your heads that the solution for the "seniors" is to just "learn to shoot better"...You'll get yours...and understand better in a much shorter time-frame than you realize.


----------



## field14

rock monkey said:


> and here we see why there are dozens of specialized classes and how they got there.


Dozens? Would you be so kind as to LIST THEM? Be sure to check the participation records as to the number of shooters that shot in each of those DOZENS? I agree that there are too many...but DOZENS of specialized classes?
Be sure also to list your "criteria" used to define "specialized classes", too.


----------



## Pete53

well said field 14 ! thank you from a senior. i guess many people just don`t understand this ageing problem with eyes,old muscle,health problems.one of the last shoots i was with 9 seniors who were shooting together at a tourament 8 of us with health problems in the last two years some almost died and all 8 had major surgery.only one healthy one and he had bad family history on heart problems.so now when i go to those shoots,i am thinking to myself sure hope those guys will still be there ! its kinda fun shoot`n with them we talk about health problems,discuss meds,maybe even get a new health food recipe.10 years ago i would have never thought of these things it sneaks up fast this age thing.Pete53


----------



## field14

Pete53 said:


> well said field 14 ! thank you from a senior. i guess many people just don`t understand this ageing problem with eyes,old muscle,health problems.one of the last shoots i was with 9 seniors who were shooting together at a tourament 8 of us with health problems in the last two years some almost died and all 8 had major surgery.only one healthy one and he had bad family history on heart problems.so now when i go to those shoots,i am thinking to myself sure hope those guys will still be there ! its kinda fun shoot`n with them we talk about health problems,discuss meds,maybe even get a new health food recipe.10 years ago i would have never thought of these things it sneaks up fast this age thing.Pete53


"They" (that used to include 'us' as aging seniors) think they are invincible. The better shooters tend to mock it all when it comes to the age thing. I don't know how many times I've heard, when the age limit for seniors comes up, "You guys just need to suck it up and learn to shoot better"...but those always come from people in the age range 30-45 or so! Just wait, and soon, I can sit back and watch their prowess decline as their scores and x-counts fall...and they work hard to try to figure out what is wrong....or...give up and take up fishing or horse-shoes.

There are those that are seniors and there are those that are going to be seniors, and ALL of us will fall into that 2nd catergory, just some sooner than others due to.....AGE. hahaha. It is going to be fun for me to come back on them WHEN their shooting skills start to deteriorate and say, "Suck it up buttercup, just learn to shoot better."


----------



## FV Chuck

....

One last time

Read the process, understand it.
Do your surveys, get people on your side, contact your State Dir.

a sum total of 2 asking for it is *ahem... not a majority. Do either of you shoot Pro or Pro Senior right now?

As for getting in there and working for change.... you might want to know your audience before accusing them of not working for the Org. - Course you'd have to leave your desk and actually go to a tournament Tom to meet, greet, and know who your talking to on the screen


----------



## FV Chuck

field14 said:


> "They" (that used to include 'us' as aging seniors) think they are invincible. The better shooters tend to mock it all when it comes to the age thing. I don't know how many times I've heard, when the age limit for seniors comes up, "You guys just need to suck it up and learn to shoot better"...but those always come from people in the age range 30-45 or so! Just wait, and soon, I can sit back and watch their prowess decline as their scores and x-counts fall...and they work hard to try to figure out what is wrong....or...give up and take up fishing or horse-shoes.
> 
> There are those that are seniors and there are those that are going to be seniors, and ALL of us will fall into that 2nd catergory, just some sooner than others due to.....AGE. hahaha. It is going to be fun for me to come back on them WHEN their shooting skills start to deteriorate and say, "Suck it up buttercup, just learn to shoot better."


Your so far out of line here with this comment Tom it infuriates me...one more reason I will never be caught DEAD at your shoot.

You continually and constantly bash the hands that feed you.


----------



## field14

FV Chuck said:


> Your so far out of line here with this comment Tom it infuriates me...one more reason I will never be caught DEAD at your shoot.
> 
> You continually and constantly bash the hands that feed you.


You know what, Chuck...that statement, "Suck it up buttercup, just learn to shoot better" is FACT...I have heard that more than once from the "younger set" that haven't experienced what the seniors are going through. You just don't seem to ever accept the FACT, no matter what.
It wasn't intended as a bash at all, a simple statement of FACT and statements made by those that are against (they still are against it, by the way) of changing the age limit for Seniors down to 50 from age 55, etc.

You are way over-sensitive. Once again..."suck it up buttercup, and learn to shoot better"...infuriates me...THEY are biting the hand that fed them for years! 

This works from both sides of the issue, Chuck...They are BASHING the "seniors" with those types of statements, too!

field14 (tom D.)


----------



## FV Chuck

field14 said:


> You know what, Chuck...that statement, "Suck it up buttercup, just learn to shoot better" is FACT...I have heard that more than once from the "younger set" that haven't experienced what the seniors are going through. You just don't seem to ever accept the FACT, no matter what.
> It wasn't intended as a bash at all, a simple statement of FACT and statements made by those that are against (they still are against it, by the way) of changing the age limit for Seniors down to 50 from age 55, etc.
> 
> You are way over-sensitive. Once again..."suck it up buttercup, and learn to shoot better"...infuriates me...THEY are biting the hand that fed them for years!
> 
> This works from both sides of the issue, Chuck...They are BASHING the "seniors" with those types of statements, too!
> 
> field14 (tom D.)


Names Names or drop it. - It is not a fact until you do that. It's the same old "unnamed sources" crap.
This continual BS of "they" and "them" and all of "these" mysterious "younger set" people has got to stop... you may as well be using epithets.

"they are against it" ... who Tom? Who?...were you there for the vote, did you see the surveys?..did you take part in the conversation? Tell us Tom. What do you really know. Who said what.
Did you even leave your desk? - I suspect no.

I wish I could ban you Tom. I really do- I don't see you actually helping very often, What I do see and read is you seeking to hurt those who are working and trying and doing. It's disrespectful, annoying, destructive, and detrimental to the people and the sport you claim to know and love.


----------



## field14

FV Chuck said:


> Names Names or drop it. - It is not a fact until you do that. It's the same old "unnamed sources" crap.
> This continual BS of "they" and "them" and all of "these" mysterious "younger set" people has got to stop... you may as well be using epithets.
> 
> "they are against it" ... who Tom? Who?...were you there for the vote, did you see the surveys?..did you take part in the conversation? Tell us Tom. What do you really know. Who said what.
> Did you even leave your desk? - I suspect no.
> 
> I wish I could ban you Tom. I really do- I don't see you actually helping very often, What I do see and read is you seeking to hurt those who are working and trying and doing. It's disrespectful, annoying, destructive, and detrimental to the people and the sport you claim to know and love.


Why do I have to name names and YOU never do, Chuck?
Why when I say something you don't agree with, it is a BASH?

I do NOT have to tell you the who's...But I tend to think you are trying to, without saying it, call me a LIAR...and that infuriates me...and is a personal attack and very offensive towards me, too.

Did I see the surveys? Yes. did I submit my responses to said surveys? YES, I sure did. Did I contact my state of preference NFAA Director? YES, I sure did. And I completed all of the questions on those surveys too, not just the one concerning the Seniors' age changes.

I hear those statements being made concerning seniors as hurtful and offensive too...but I shouldn't have to name names just cuz you say so. Why would I ever publish those names anyways; you sure wouldn't, would you?

But that is OK...YOU have a double standard going, but won't accept the fact of some of the sentiments that are out there. There are always people that are going to disagree regardless of the decisions to be made.
However, you are trying to take away a basic right...the freedom of free speech and opinion...and construe EVERYTHING I say as a "bash" instead of a mere statement of fact...but then again...you basically are calling me a liar without coming right out and saying it...and that is offensive, too.

Put me on your "ignore list"...then you don't have to read what you don't want to see or read. I can't do that with you; otherwise I would.

I won't put things up as all peachy clean and smelling like roses, because it isn't all that way.

Just remember, there are two sides to this bashing thing...not just yours. What you say above to me is all of what you say...disrespectful, , annoying, destructive, and detrimental to me personally and to other people (seniors that just might have the same opinion as I do), but this must be ok for YOU to do and for YOU to interpret and then put me down for stating FACT. Of course, YOU wouldn't ban yourself, would you? 

One more thing, it isn't "my" tournament at which you wouldn't be caught DEAD, either.


----------



## SteveID

If anybody here has ever crossed the pond and compete internationally, you know how much better WA/FITA events are than anything we have over here. One big reason is because the classification system is so simple. All seniors (age 18 and up, not to be confused with 50/55) shoot together and go to eliminations together. 

Trust me when I tell you that all of the shooters 50+ who might not be at the top of their game anymore, still have a darn good time being on the line with the games best. I have seen plenty of posts from people stating that they love Lancaster because they get to be on the line with the Jesse's and Reo's, even though they know they have no prayer of winning in that class. 

The beauty of a WA ran event, after these shooters shoot the qualifying round and don't make the cut, they still get to go to a secondary bracket and compete for prizes (at Nimes it was for Hoyt Target bows) and they compete with people who shot like scores. 

Equipment is irrelevant (beyond the separation of compound/recurve). A guy can shoot BHFS, FS or a mixture of both and have fun while competing for something meaningful. 

Now, I've probably got a few of you heated up, and you're probably reaching for the caps lock button. So let me bring it full circle. I would love to see all organizations go to this classification system, and I wouldn't care if a 50+ and 60+ class were added. But, for the love of the game lets get rid of the jumble of classes that are separated by nothing more than equipment, pool them all together and then bracket/flight accordingly and go head to head.


----------



## FV Chuck

Spot on Steve!

Tom - 
I did publish the names. Watch your step there... these aren't bikes or racquetball rackets, and we are way past the puzzlebooks now. This is the real deal.

Every vote I took in for the survey had a name on it. (A Pro name since it was a Pro topic)
Those results went to every director at the meeting. On Paper. In color. With Names.

I dont have a double standard. What I do have is a sense of responsibility. It should come with the note that said you have the right to free speech, but in your hurry to get a post up, you might have missed it.
What I'm desperately trying to get through to you (and others) is the P R O C E S S. 

The seniors who want the additional level of Pros. Yes... we can do it. They know that, They get it. They understand the Process. 
You though, are not reading my words very well. 

To make a change to the rule... you MUST have the support of the people who want the change. In this case it would be the Senior Pros
The Senior Pros would petition the Pro Chair to submit a rule change
The BOD would want to see some kind of proof that it is supported and will be well received by the membership. 
They (the BOD) will review and vote on it.

So you can sit there and type "they", "them" " whatever... but until you put names on it.? Pointless effort.

As for all the other stuff. Yeah I stick by it. Your reputation precedes you, and it certainly sticks around when your gone.


----------



## field14

FV Chuck said:


> Spot on Steve!
> 
> Tom -
> I did publish the names. Watch your step there... these aren't bikes or racquetball rackets, and we are way past the puzzlebooks now. This is the real deal.
> 
> Every vote I took in for the survey had a name on it. (A Pro name since it was a Pro topic)
> Those results went to every director at the meeting. On Paper. In color. With Names.
> 
> I dont have a double standard. What I do have is a sense of responsibility. It should come with the note that said you have the right to free speech, but in your hurry to get a post up, you might have missed it.
> What I'm desperately trying to get through to you (and others) is the P R O C E S S.
> 
> The seniors who want the additional level of Pros. Yes... we can do it. They know that, They get it. They understand the Process.
> You though, are not reading my words very well.
> 
> To make a change to the rule... you MUST have the support of the people who want the change. In this case it would be the Senior Pros
> The Senior Pros would petition the Pro Chair to submit a rule change
> The BOD would want to see some kind of proof that it is supported and will be well received by the membership.
> They (the BOD) will review and vote on it.
> 
> So you can sit there and type "they", "them" " whatever... but until you put names on it.? Pointless effort.
> 
> As for all the other stuff. Yeah I stick by it. Your reputation precedes you, and it certainly sticks around when your gone.



Did I say anything against the PROCESS? NO, I did not. Did I say what has been said more than once with regard to the age change for the Seniors? Yes, I stated the FACT of what was said...and certainly do not have to give names, nor will I ever do so.

Did I ever say that any "PROS" were saying those things? NO! I did not, and in fact it isn't coming from any PROS that I know, but rather from mid to top level "Open" (Trophy) shooters.

I fully know that if the senior Pros want the additional levels then they need to ask for it and allow the process to be worked through.

Those types of comments to seniors or about seniors, "Suck it up buttercup and learn to shoot better", or "age doesn't matter, just learn to shoot better"..are offensive and hurtful, and Chuck, like it or not, those types of sentiments are out there; some more offensive and some less offensive, but just the same....there is THAT side of the coin too.

You and I both know that there are those out there that are still opposed to that age change for seniors that was implemented, Pro or otherwise. 
That is a given. I responded to a poll that had all the NFAA Agenda Items on it and since it came from an NFAA Director(maybe even put together by work from more than one, I don't know), I along with many other paid up NFAA members and non-members alike responded. One of the first items on that poll was asking if you were an NFAA member or a non-NFAA member.

I'm offended by your snide remarks, innuendos, indirect accusations, and basic rudeness towards me; especially when I'm stating FACT on what I've read or heard. Indirectly calling me a liar isn't acceptable.


----------



## Pete53

i go along with what field 14 has said and do support him.there is a nfaa meeting in a week and half i was told,one of the directors is going to bring up the sliver senior pro freestyle class,i am sure he is reading all of the post,i want to thank him for his support on this issue.i hope all involved will also support this issue also, there are many small classes that will have fewer shooters than this class.this is an opportuity to support our seniors. i do think maybe the bow companies could make a few bucks too by offering easier shooting bows for the seniors ,parker bows has in the past made these bows ,with more people retiring maybe they will get into archery more, but maybe the nfaa needs to start the promotion for us old buttercups ,yes i am one of the buttercups and somedays i don`t feel that good even. lets all work together and try it for five years then make a final decsion,thats the common sense thing to, do not complain about it why do any of you none believers think this way,why not be positive like field 14 .


----------



## TNMAN

If I was the moderator of this professional forum, believe I'd just shoot myself---and that's hard to do with a Dominator 3D. :darkbeer:


----------



## FV Chuck

.... 

you think the unknown "reader" might offer his thoughts?

Honestly. No BS here... the Senior PRO numbers nationally simply do not support it. There literally are not enough Pro members in the age groups proposed (I have the data) to support breaking it into 3 divisions. You would wind up at Nationals with one group of 2 or 3 and one with 10ish, and one with 15-25. At Sectionals and States it would be even less. As in 1 or 2 in each group. 5 at most.

You LITERALLY would pay more in entry fee than you would win. 

From a business point of view I cannot wrap my head around the logic. 
From a competitive point of view I miss it as well.

I'm not against it specifically, but it would take a very strong case to change my perception


----------



## FV Chuck

TNMAN said:


> If I was the moderator of this professional forum, believe I'd just shoot myself---and that's hard to do with a Dominator 3D. :darkbeer:


....ive been trying to think of a way


----------



## Pete53

so is it only about money ? if it is this is an example only, why do you have all these amatuer bare bow classes and lady classes?they are not making any money.a silver senior pro class you may pick up more members and more shooter`s before they quit, no one here knows the true answer. give it a five year trial time and that may go for some of these amatuer classes too. thats the fare way and maybe the senseable way.lets all work together,these sly comments are negative we don`t need that in archery or any other sport.can you guys be more open minded. just because you pay to have your name written as a pro doesn`t always mean you have all the right answers sometimes the little guy may have the right answer .archery is suppose to be fun its not always about money if it is most of us would be broke.how many pro`s are there did more then 20 of the 100 or more make money ? the answer is they didn`t.so really it ain`t about money.here is one more example reo wilde made good money did the nice young man from norway nope he lost money but he had a great time and so did most of the shooter`s.


----------



## Pro1

Chuck,
You and I have been friends a LONG TIME. I DO NOT appreciate your assault on my Brother and I think you have NO CLUE who you are talking to. I have been a NFAA Member for 43 years. I have been a Pro Member for 23 of those years. And I hate to break the news to you. My FAMILY had (until my Dads passing 2 years ago). OVER 120 YEARS of COMPETITIVE ARCHERY experience AND the NFAA. Tom knows a HELL OF A LOT more about Archery than probably ANYONE on here INCLUDING ME. He has BUILT RANGES, Got started and Ran one of the most successful and well ran major tournaments in the Country (other peoples words not mine) Ran Clubs and Leagues all over the country, Shot competitively all the way up to the National Level while you and I were barely in elementary school, Held Office and helped THOUSANDS of Archer's in his 45+ years in the Sport. He has a Masters Degree in Statistics, Was a quality Control Manager for Nestle, Was a School Teacher for most of his life as well as a CAPTAIN In the US Air Force. To say he doesn't know what he is talking about, and to say he doesn't leave his desk could not be ANY Farther from the truth. He DON'T have to shovel the crap to impress anyone he speaks FACTS. As far as the subject for which he was attacked, I have heard the same comments Tom has off and on while healing up over the last year.I have thought FOR YEARS that it Was ridiculous that a person who was 55 was shooting in the SAME CLASS and for the SAME MONEY against a KID that was 18 years old?? WHAT?? How stupid I thought 37 YEARS YEARS YOUNGER?? And let me tell you STRAIGHT UP. YOU DON'T WANT ME TO START NAMING NAMES of people who run their mouths. Because you KNOW I know them in the Pro Class as well as the Am's. And you KNOW I will do it. The point is not WHO SAID IT. The point is it WAS SAID and it is offensive to people MY AGE and older who now have to face the later years. I will be Senior Pro when I start shooting next season. I have had a rough life emotionally and physically and I had a job which was EXTREMELY physical matter of fact a couple and you know what they are Chuck. Respect is a TWO WAY street not only for us as Pro's but also for the younger generation in the sport who are and are not Pro's to REALIZE they will get older too someday and have to face the Piper. I am not here to argue with you but I will also not stand by and let you attack my Brother who you THINK you know, for saying what he DOES KNOW and not allowing him his 1st Amendment rights. You are doing a good job as Pro Chair and I hate to see you go but don't come on here and act like ALL the Pro's are hugging and singing "Comb by Ya" because it isn't true and there is A LOT of back stabbing going on and it has been going on for a LOOONNNGGG time. It also goes on in the AM Division and everyone knows it. I want the Pro Classes to advance as much as the next guy regardless of what class they shoot or how old they are, but JUST BECAUSE some are at the top don't mean they are ANY more deserving of respect or that their opinion matters more because it doesn't respect is EARNED not DEMANDED. And it also doesn't mean they know more about Archery than the others below them it just means they may shoot higher scores that's it. ALL PRO'S SHOULD BE ABLE TO HAVE THEIR VOICE HEARD and THEN a decision made. You started that Chuck let's hope it keeps going. Now the people that want it. Contact your Director about the class situation and let your voice be heard. Let's hope they will listen to the masses and go from there.


----------



## rock monkey

I have learned 2 important life lessons in this thread......

Respect means i must blindly accept the words of the elders with absolute conviction.

Shooting in the pro class is less about money and more about making people feel good.


Good thing i like to question authority and think for myself.


----------



## Mike2787

Are we talking professional archery here or are we talking recreational archery where we pay money in a flighted system? One of the arguements for moving the senior division age groups to 50 was that it aligned the NFAA to the other archery orgs. It was also stated that pro golf, the one sport that we try to identify with, has 50 as the age when their senior pro class begins. I don't see a super senior PGA tour. There is no senior pro baseball, football or basketball leagues. What do those athletes do when they can no longer compete yet they still have the desire? 

When a competitve person reaches a certain age, they no longer have the same skill level they had when they were younger. It's a matter of fact. It's going to happen to everybody. The wise person knows this and decides to still compete as a professional, knowing that their chances of winning are slim, or they choose to compete in open divisions against people they will be more competitive with. It's simply a matter of choice. An egotistical person will demand that an organization create a new classification for their unique requirement of having to boost their ego. 

The madness of creating more classes and divisions in archery has got to stop. We don't need a super senior pro division for 5 or 6 people.


----------



## FV Chuck

Mike2787 said:


> Are we talking professional archery here or are we talking recreational archery where we pay money in a flighted system? One of the arguements for moving the senior division age groups to 50 was that it aligned the NFAA to the other archery orgs. It was also stated that pro golf, the one sport that we try to identify with, has 50 as the age when their senior pro class begins. I don't see a super senior PGA tour. There is no senior pro baseball, football or basketball leagues. What do those athletes do when they can no longer compete yet they still have the desire?
> 
> When a competitve person reaches a certain age, they no longer have the same skill level they had when they were younger. It's a matter of fact. It's going to happen to everybody. The wise person knows this and decides to still compete as a professional, knowing that their chances of winning are slim, or they choose to compete in open divisions against people they will be more competitive with. It's simply a matter of choice. An egotistical person will demand that an organization create a new classification for their unique requirement of having to boost their ego.
> 
> The madness of creating more classes and divisions in archery has got to stop. We don't need a super senior pro division for 5 or 6 people.


Said it way better than I was....


----------



## FV Chuck

Pro1 said:


> Chuck,
> You and I have been friends a LONG TIME. I DO NOT appreciate your assault on my Brother and I think you have NO CLUE who you are talking to. I have been a NFAA Member for 43 years. I have been a Pro Member for 23 of those years. And I hate to break the news to you. My FAMILY had (until my Dads passing 2 years ago). OVER 120 YEARS of COMPETITIVE ARCHERY experience AND the NFAA. Tom knows a HELL OF A LOT more about Archery than probably ANYONE on here INCLUDING ME. He has BUILT RANGES, Got started and Ran one of the most successful and well ran major tournaments in the Country (other peoples words not mine) Ran Clubs and Leagues all over the country, Shot competitively all the way up to the National Level while you and I were barely in elementary school, Held Office and helped THOUSANDS of Archer's in his 45+ years in the Sport. He has a Masters Degree in Statistics, Was a quality Control Manager for Nestle, Was a School Teacher for most of his life as well as a CAPTAIN In the US Air Force. To say he doesn't know what he is talking about, and to say he doesn't leave his desk could not be ANY Farther from the truth. He DON'T have to shovel the crap to impress anyone he speaks FACTS. As far as the subject for which he was attacked, I have heard the same comments Tom has off and on while healing up over the last year.I have thought FOR YEARS that it Was ridiculous that a person who was 55 was shooting in the SAME CLASS and for the SAME MONEY against a KID that was 18 years old?? WHAT?? How stupid I thought 37 YEARS YEARS YOUNGER?? And let me tell you STRAIGHT UP. YOU DON'T WANT ME TO START NAMING NAMES of people who run their mouths. Because you KNOW I know them in the Pro Class as well as the Am's. And you KNOW I will do it. The point is not WHO SAID IT. The point is it WAS SAID and it is offensive to people MY AGE and older who now have to face the later years. I will be Senior Pro when I start shooting next season. I have had a rough life emotionally and physically and I had a job which was EXTREMELY physical matter of fact a couple and you know what they are Chuck. Respect is a TWO WAY street not only for us as Pro's but also for the younger generation in the sport who are and are not Pro's to REALIZE they will get older too someday and have to face the Piper. I am not here to argue with you but I will also not stand by and let you attack my Brother who you THINK you know, for saying what he DOES KNOW and not allowing him his 1st Amendment rights. You are doing a good job as Pro Chair and I hate to see you go but don't come on here and act like ALL the Pro's are hugging and singing "Comb by Ya" because it isn't true and there is A LOT of back stabbing going on and it has been going on for a LOOONNNGGG time. It also goes on in the AM Division and everyone knows it. I want the Pro Classes to advance as much as the next guy regardless of what class they shoot or how old they are, but JUST BECAUSE some are at the top don't mean they are ANY more deserving of respect or that their opinion matters more because it doesn't respect is EARNED not DEMANDED. And it also doesn't mean they know more about Archery than the others below them it just means they may shoot higher scores that's it. ALL PRO'S SHOULD BE ABLE TO HAVE THEIR VOICE HEARD and THEN a decision made. You started that Chuck let's hope it keeps going. Now the people that want it. Contact your Director about the class situation and let your voice be heard. Let's hope they will listen to the masses and go from there.



Thanks Pat -
Only one point I want to make (you and I have chatted off-screen about everything else) and that is, Yes all pro's should be heard. Keep in mind though many choose not to speak.
I also want to point out not everyone offering opinions on our future in this thread so far are Pro's. Some don't even compete anymore.
I'm 100% certain you agree that you would prefer the Direction of the Pro's to come from the Pro's themselves...active ones. Not the other way around. 

Chuck


----------



## Rolo

I began to realize the effect of aging when it became difficult to miss my feet when I was standing up to take a leak. A sign of things to come I suppose. Simple solution...suck it up and spread my feet a little, problem solved...live vicariously through my boys, and their fire hoses...writing their names in the snow...

Other than that...I personally agree with what Mike said...anyone who doesn't recognize the affect of aging is silly or blind, it happens to everyone, but to desire that things get changed for them and their 'competitive prowess' because of age seems a silly thing indeed...

And yes, the Senior age was changed, and a whole new division was added to keep things 'competitive'...hell, a special different name was given to this new class, because the original name was believed to be 'offensive'...we sure are a lot that gets offended easily...perhaps rather than being so easily offended, we ought to look in the mirror from time to time and recognize 'it' ourselves...


----------



## Pete53

no i may not have paid money to the nfaa to be called a so called pro,and yes i am 60 years of age but in my profession i was in , i had to prove i was a pro, not by paying my way to be called one.another thing baseball,football and basketball players quit the sport they loved when they get old .when i grew up just the rich kids who were poor athletes or to small were the only ones who golfed. i look back now and just wonder how well some of the better athletes would have done in golf and yes that would have included me and many others .so don`t say to me i am a super pro athlete in archery looks like to me if you want to pay money no matter how poor of an archer you shoot you can be called an archery pro.i shoot with two guys in minnesota who have shot much higher scores and they are amatuers.my son would show most of you so called pro`s a thing or two.let`s get back on track the nfaa could use a silver senior pro division at least for a 3-5 year trial.remember do you just want the 60 year plus pro archers to just quit the sport they love like the pro athletes do ? my answer would be no let them shoot and have a great time they deserve it,growing old is not a wonderful thing.


----------



## Rolo

Pete53 said:


> no i may not have paid money to the nfaa to be called a so called pro,and yes i am 60 years of age but in my profession i was in , i had to prove i was a pro, not by paying my way to be called one.*another thing baseball,football and basketball players quit the sport they loved when they get old *.when i grew up just the rich kids who were poor athletes or to small were the only ones who golfed. i look back now and just wonder how well some of the better athletes would have done in golf and yes that would have included me and many others .so don`t say to me i am a super pro athlete in archery looks like to me if you want to pay money no matter how poor of an archer you shoot you can be called an archery pro.i shoot with two guys in minnesota who have shot much higher scores and they are amatuers.my son would show most of you so called pro`s a thing or two.let`s get back on track the *nfaa could use a silver senior pro division* at least for a 3-5 year trial.remember do you just want the *60 year plus pro archers to just quit the sport they love like the pro athletes do ? *my answer would be no let them shoot and have a great time they deserve it,growing old is not a wonderful thing.


Um...they quit playing professionally, but many remain in the games.

I disagree, I don't think it does, and haven't seen any evidence that supports the position.

Why do they have to quit? They don't. They can chose to be in another division, or they can pay their dues to compete in their current division. They don't have to remain pros, or they can chose to remain pros. In the end, it is all their choice of what to do. Individual choice...imagine that. Much different than creating something new for a relatively few number of folks...especially when their are plenty of other options that will allow them to keep on shooting right along, instead of simply quitting...if they chose to do so.

It seems somewhat of a "I'm taking my ball and going home" statement to say that folks will simply quit the sport they love, if someone else doesn't do something for them. How much do they actually love the sport if this is their philosophy...


----------



## blueglide1

OK Im going to jump in here,I have to agree with Mike,and Rolo. Sorry Steve. I,after reading the reasons back and forth about a silver pro class,dont think we need another class to muck up the system.Also I feel if I cant compete in the Senior Pro class with the scores I shoot,then its time to move on,and accept the fact that I cant get to the podium anymore.Also there are alot of the guys that know they will never shoot the scores that propel them to the podium,not even close. Why do they stay in the Pro class? They have created a bond with their fellow pros over the years and a comradery that friends shoot together no matter what.I couldnt imagine not being able to shoot with my buds that I have bonded with these last few years,they are like family to me.We have had a common bond in the Pro class,and even if I shoot a low score I am still accepted in their ranks as a friend first,competitor second.So I doubt that I would ever move up into another Pro class even if it were offered.Thats all I have to say on it. Don Ward


----------



## Pete53

don, i like your reason and can except that,but one thing to remember there will be alot of older guys who will quit.the real pro atheletes get forced to retire when they no longer can prove themselves.you do not see any football,basketball or baseball players still playing there game ,call it what you want retired,quit or whatever .so with all who have said things positive and negative.it was an ideal that might have been a great thing that could have happened . BUT !!?!!


----------



## FV Chuck

Pete53 said:


> don, i like your reason and can except that,but one thing to remember there will be alot of older guys who will quit.the real pro atheletes get forced to retire when they no longer can prove themselves.you do not see any football,basketball or baseball players still playing there game ,call it what you want retired,quit or whatever .so with all who have said things positive and negative.it was an ideal that might have been a great thing that could have happened . BUT !!?!!


I just want to kind of bounce this out there....just so you understand my position.
You are seriously saying you want a New Professional designation for the Master and Silver Seniors.
If implemented using "current pro membership" could only impact roughly 30 to 60 people N A T I O N W I D E. 
(remember we are discussing Pro's here. The Adult division has already implemented what you seek.

So, Out of the roughly 12,000 members we have thats creating a class for .0025% to .005% of the group, with the HOPE that they actually join the Pro Ranks.
Thats one quarter (1/4 to one half (1/2) of one (1) percent (%) It's a statistical zero.
This is what your trying to propose right?

If you do the math for the Pro Division only... it's still only around 3% to 6% of the total group

Can you even wrap your head around why this is kind of a non sustainable class? The work, the effort, the tracking, the bookkeeping, the record keeping...the list goes on and on Pete. 

I'm not trying to be debbie downer here... I'm just saying that it dosent seem like it has as much impact as you might think.


----------



## Pete53

there are a lot of older people that are retiring that do not shoot now,but they may its just an ideal that maybe it would help bring in more shooter`s in nfaa, but when people can not look at what may happen instead of just saying it will never work thats why the nfaa will continue to be small organization 12,000 members this many years a national club they need to rethink on how to get more members,look at the mess the nfaa did in minnesota a few years ago.i do think there are some real good directors and officers in there now but they do get tired of it also.those statistics may or may not be right the true and only way to know is do a trial time by years ,like 3-5 years not just be negative.one more thing for someone to make a statement that i will never come to your shoot is very very unprofessional ! i am just trying to help in a small way for us older people and hopefully get more nfaa members and get the msaa of minnesota back with the nfaa also.all this bickering and being negative is very wrong we all need to pull together thats how you will have a good strong organization.


----------



## archer_nm

Pete I am sorry to tell you the states of Minnesota, Penn and I believe VA brought what happened upon themselves NFAA only enforced the rules as written. Sorry that this happened yes but it had to be done


----------



## FV Chuck

Pete53 said:


> there are a lot of older people that are retiring that do not shoot now,but they may its just an ideal that maybe it would help bring in more shooter`s in nfaa, but when people can not look at what may happen instead of just saying it will never work thats why the nfaa will continue to be small organization 12,000 members this many years a national club they need to rethink on how to get more members,look at the mess the nfaa did in minnesota a few years ago.i do think there are some real good directors and officers in there now but they do get tired of it also.those statistics may or may not be right the true and only way to know is do a trial time by years ,like 3-5 years not just be negative.one more thing for someone to make a statement that i will never come to your shoot is very very unprofessional ! i am just trying to help in a small way for us older people and hopefully get more nfaa members and get the msaa of minnesota back with the nfaa also.all this bickering and being negative is very wrong we all need to pull together thats how you will have a good strong organization.


Bob Christle?....do you have a new alias?


----------



## Ditch Pickle

FV Chuck said:


> Bob Christle?....do you have a new alias?


This is so utterly classless.....I have not shared one word!! To be honest and frank, your true colors came out a few weeks back when we tried to discuss other issues that you covered up regarding "PRO" behavior. You pick and choose who and what you are going to "represent". Why is it so hard for you to embrace and absorb anyone else's opinion that might be outside of the box of your own? Hats off to Pete53 to stand up for what he believes in (Good for you Steve!!). Used to have respect for you, haven't for a long time....looking forward to your departure soon, perhaps someone can knock you off your pedestal a little more before that happens. One last thought.......wonder if this post will remain or the whole thread for that matter as it seems like history repeats itself with your removal of certain information that calls you out?? Hell, maybe that's why my name got thrown out so the post could just be removed AGAIN???


----------



## davidcamacho

No offense to the old timers but damn I'll be damned if I ever compete in the seniors. I'm 55 still in freaky shape squatting 500 lbs for reps benching crazy weight also. Ive trained myself twice a day for the last 30 years. The heart of a warrior never dies my bow and arrow buddies. Go to youtube. Type in camacho cyclone training Also David camacho MUSCLEHOUSE gym. Vids of me doing what I do. Back to archery.... You put your time in... And you will still be a ass kicker at any age!!!! If Tom Daley can still kick ass at his age, so can Davy You go Tom !!


----------



## Pete53

HELLO Mr.Chuck Cooley,on here i am Pete53 my real name is Steven L. Peterson. Mr. Robert Christle had nothing to do with what i had nicely at first ask, " that was is possible for a silver senior pro class ? " ,then all of a sudden you said NO-WAY but not that nicely.then some other people made some remarks that are not worth commenting on,and some guys did make some great comments both ways.i hope nothing on this thread has been deleted but please don`t drag names in that had nothing to do with this very simple question.if you have any more problems on this thread or your new job you are getting just give me a post maybe i can walk you thru it.thank you,Steven or Pete53


----------



## FV Chuck

Ditch Pickle said:


> This is so utterly classless.....I have not shared one word!! To be honest and frank, your true colors came out a few weeks back when we tried to discuss other issues that you covered up regarding "PRO" behavior. You pick and choose who and what you are going to "represent". Why is it so hard for you to embrace and absorb anyone else's opinion that might be outside of the box of your own? Hats off to Pete53 to stand up for what he believes in (Good for you Steve!!). Used to have respect for you, haven't for a long time....looking forward to your departure soon, perhaps someone can knock you off your pedestal a little more before that happens. One last thought.......wonder if this post will remain or the whole thread for that matter as it seems like history repeats itself with your removal of certain information that calls you out?? Hell, maybe that's why my name got thrown out so the post could just be removed AGAIN???



Wow...no jokes allowed on AT huh?
Sheesh.

By the way the deleted post was my own, no one elses. It existed for less than one min. - It was written poorly with me trying to answer specific comments and the cut and paste didnt work properly...I responded right after that with another post. Every post on this thread still exists. No way you could have seen it, didnt even include you.
I understand you dont like me much, I get it. I dont suspect you ever will. I'm ok with it, but keep in mind that those feelings are because I called you out for physically threatening another shooter. 

This is waaaay different Bob. 
Emotionally charged conversation? Yes. Polarizing? Yes. Personal? No.


----------



## distributor

*Senior pro division*

We all know what would happen when the 50 year olds were put into the senior pro division, a lot of people said that the older pros would ask for more age groups in the pro division and guess
what it has happened now we have created a new problem and no one can solve it, Somes times it would be a lot better if well enought had been left alone. There was not anything wrong with the 55 year old pros to start the senior pro division but noooo the 50 year olds had too open the can of worms. The best thing and the way to solve this senior division problem for older pros is very simple
just do away with senior pro division all together and then the problem will be solved.


----------



## blueglide1

Well I dont think doing away with the division will solve anything, but really make alot of seniors go back to amature status.If they are going to NOT have a chance to make the podium at all, they might as well not spend as much money doing it as they do now in Pro entry fees, and so on.But as I stated a few posts back.Its not allways about winning anything,its about the freindship we Senior Pros have with each other.Catching up with stories ,and finding out what everyones doing in their lives.Sometimes I feel like not shooting at all, and just visiting with my new friends.But the competitive nature in me wont allow that.I can see both sides of the issue with the Silver Pro class.Giving them that renewed desire to compete at a high level knowing they dont have to be perfect in their scores.The Senior Pro div is still a tough division,there are no gimmies there at all.One down won Vegas this year,and Nationals is about the same.Thats not alot of room for mistakes.The Silver Senior class could probably get away with two or three down to make the podium.and I can understand the desire to get to it.I had multiple podium spots in 2010,and believe me it doesnt get old at all.But on the other side I can see that another class would add to the burden of a thousand classes out there, that we should try to trim down a bit.Way to many in my opinion.There should be a minimum number in a class to even think about a bowl, or money.Bow companies require at least ten in your division for contingincies,I think it should be the same for NFAA classes.Once they get the classes under control,I can see adding a class that does have a lot of participation in it. Don Ward


----------



## field14

blueglide1 said:


> Well I dont think doing away with the division will solve anything, but really make alot of seniors go back to amature status.If they are going to NOT have a chance to make the podium at all, they might as well not spend as much money doing it as they do now in Pro entry fees, and so on.But as I stated a few posts back.Its not allways about winning anything,its about the freindship we Senior Pros have with each other.Catching up with stories ,and finding out what everyones doing in their lives.Sometimes I feel like not shooting at all, and just visiting with my new friends.But the competitive nature in me wont allow that.I can see both sides of the issue with the Silver Pro class.Giving them that renewed desire to compete at a high level knowing they dont have to be perfect in their scores.The Senior Pro div is still a tough division,there are no gimmies there at all.One down won Vegas this year,and Nationals is about the same.Thats not alot of room for mistakes.The Silver Senior class could probably get away with two or three down to make the podium.and I can understand the desire to get to it.I had multiple podium spots in 2010,and believe me it doesnt get old at all.But on the other side I can see that another class would add to the burden of a thousand classes out there, that we should try to trim down a bit.Way to many in my opinion._There should be a minimum number in a class to even think about a bowl, or money._Bow companies require at least ten in your division for contingincies,I think it should be the same for NFAA classes.Once they get the classes under control,I can see adding a class that does have a lot of participation in it. Don Ward


There used to be the 3-5-7 rule for awards. In order for ONE place to be awarded, there had to be at least 3 people, for two awards, 5 people, and then 7 or more to award 3 places.
For the _Money Division_, the NFAA Payout Chart takes care of this and bases number of payouts upon how many money shooters there are in each of the Money classes. The chart is easy to use, quick to calculate, and leaves no questions about how the payouts were calculated.

I think it would be wise to go back to the 3-5-7 rule in the trophy division/classes and enforce it. In years past, we've all seen a class or in some instances several classes with only one shooter in it...take home a Silver Bowl, while other classes had many shooters and got the same reward for it.

Might not hurt for those that have the authority to go back thru several tournaments and take a close look at the various classes to see how many simply don't pass muster for numbers of competitors...and then weed those out and eliminate them due to lack of participation in said classes/categories. I think there have been steps taken about this, but perhaps it needs closer scrutiny. In the interim, use of the 3-5-7 rule wouldn't be a bad idea, especially in State level and above tournaments. It is time for the days of "show up and get an award" to come to an end, IMHO. The "everybody makes the team" political correctness thing could use some nipping in the bud.
Of course, this thread is about Silver Seniors and Master Seniors in the Pro Division...but has implications across the board for all the classes; money and trophy alike.
field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## FV Chuck

field14 said:


> There used to be the 3-5-7 rule for awards. In order for ONE place to be awarded, there had to be at least 3 people, for two awards, 5 people, and then 7 or more to award 3 places.
> For the _Money Division_, the NFAA Payout Chart takes care of this and bases number of payouts upon how many money shooters there are in each of the Money classes. The chart is easy to use, quick to calculate, and leaves no questions about how the payouts were calculated.
> 
> I think it would be wise to go back to the 3-5-7 rule in the trophy division/classes and enforce it. In years past, we've all seen a class or in some instances several classes with only one shooter in it...take home a Silver Bowl, while other classes had many shooters and got the same reward for it.
> 
> Might not hurt for those that have the authority to go back thru several tournaments and take a close look at the various classes to see how many simply don't pass muster for numbers of competitors...and then weed those out and eliminate them due to lack of participation in said classes/categories. I think there have been steps taken about this, but perhaps it needs closer scrutiny. In the interim, use of the 3-5-7 rule wouldn't be a bad idea, especially in State level and above tournaments. It is time for the days of "show up and get an award" to come to an end, IMHO. The "everybody makes the team" political correctness thing could use some nipping in the bud.
> Of course, this thread is about Silver Seniors and Master Seniors in the Pro Division...but has implications across the board for all the classes; money and trophy alike.
> field14 (Tom D.)


While I agree with the post in general...

Guys PLEEEEEEEASE keep in mind (please please please please please) - leadership is powerless to change even one of these things. None of them. 
Nope not O N E
Membership has to change them...the members. 

The Members have to bring it to a Director, the Dir has to submit it as a rule change, then the entire National Board of Directors has to vote in favor of a change. 
If you started the process right this very second...has to be written and submitted by Sept 1 this year. Goes to vote in February, assuming it passed, June 1 2014 would be the effective date.

So, we can converse all day about what should be done (FWIW I like the 3 to 1 rule for Trophy's) but it is not a top down process no matter how good or how fiscally responsible it is. It really has to come up from the members.


----------



## Pete53

i have been reading all the post on here about the silver senior pro posts,and also about the scores from the past post and that the pro`s shot for fun and it wasn`t about of money.now the last two silver senior pro posts are very well put, don you have some great ideas ,field 14 you have an excellent suggestion and do you think at those excellent touraments that you put on. maybe try that 3-5-7 rule ,just may be a great thing to try ? it sure is nice to see a couple of guys write some nice positive ideals for the senior pro division and it may help some other divisions as well ? Don and Tom ,i personally thank you and have great respect for both of you,Pete53


----------



## field14

Chuck:
You well know that I've been in the NFAA since 1969 (don't know how old you are, but unless you are over 55, you were still in elmentary school when I first joined the NFAA), so I know the ropes and how it works...however...as a lowly "member", I also figure that the DIRECTORS are part of the "leadership" since they are obviously a cut above we mere mortal members. 
That being said, however, it would seem to me that with regard to the expense of supporting all these classes that have little participation, the Directors, Councilmen, and maybe the VP would see the financial impact of giving awards when only one or two are in a shooting class? It doesn't seem to me to be up to an individual member to examine the costs, number of participants, and have to do all the "homework" while the "leadership" just goes along at the status quo and if nothing is said/brought up about a problem of financial nature...nothing is done?

This is NOT intended to bad-mouth the "leadership" or the "membership"...it is common sense...You mentioned earlier how adding SS and MS in the Seniors was watering down the Senior Pros with regard to those classes...what about the watering down of those other Trophy classes that for years have had so few competitors...and yet the Silver Bowls and awards for those keep flowing?

At least the Pro Division does have the means of distribution of the monies in the Payout Chart, which is a good thing...when and if it is followed. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out those payouts and those participating also don't have to second guess how the money was distributed either.

The 3-5-7 rule isn't something I came up with. For many years after I first started competing in the NFAA, that is just the way it was, and then it started changing...I cannot recall when the 3-5-7 "rule" was taken out...or even if it is "out" of the rules/guidelines, and frankly, I'm not going to sit down and read the book to find out. I do well remember using it during tournament awards administration for many years, but it has gone by the wayside, and maybe, just maybe it should be brought back into play. Back when it was in use, people knew it, they accepted it, and as such, many would simply shoot that style anyways, but register in another style/class.
Like you say, it starts with the members...and maybe the local shoots should start using it; it will sure save them the costs of several awards. May cause a decline in number of shooters; but they'll get used to it again after a period of adjustment. If a local club starts this ball rolling, however or if a particular tournament starts this, then it will have to be announced well in advance so people know ahead of time and it isn't just sprung on them when they show up at the event.
_As a "member" I know I certainly wouldn't be opposed to a "higher up" taking some initiative and coming up with those numbers concerning the classes that constantly have few participants and then showing the members those numbers and asking them for "recommendations" as to what to do? Yeah, maybe that isn't the way the book says it works...but....._


----------



## FV Chuck

field14 said:


> Chuck:
> You well know that I've been in the NFAA since 1969 (don't know how old you are, but unless you are over 55, you were still in elmentary school when I first joined the NFAA), so I know the ropes and how it works...however...as a lowly "member", I also figure that the DIRECTORS are part of the "leadership" since they are obviously a cut above we mere mortal members.
> That being said, however, it would seem to me that with regard to the expense of supporting all these classes that have little participation, the Directors, Councilmen, and maybe the VP would see the financial impact of giving awards when only one or two are in a shooting class? It doesn't seem to me to be up to an individual member to examine the costs, number of participants, and have to do all the "homework" while the "leadership" just goes along at the status quo and if nothing is said/brought up about a problem of financial nature...nothing is done?
> 
> This is NOT intended to bad-mouth the "leadership" or the "membership"...it is common sense...You mentioned earlier how adding SS and MS in the Seniors was watering down the Senior Pros with regard to those classes...what about the watering down of those other Trophy classes that for years have had so few competitors...and yet the Silver Bowls and awards for those keep flowing?
> 
> At least the Pro Division does have the means of distribution of the monies in the Payout Chart, which is a good thing...when and if it is followed. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out those payouts and those participating also don't have to second guess how the money was distributed either.
> 
> The 3-5-7 rule isn't something I came up with. For many years after I first started competing in the NFAA, that is just the way it was, and then it started changing...I cannot recall when the 3-5-7 "rule" was taken out...or even if it is "out" of the rules/guidelines, and frankly, I'm not going to sit down and read the book to find out. I do well remember using it during tournament awards administration for many years, but it has gone by the wayside, and maybe, just maybe it should be brought back into play. Back when it was in use, people knew it, they accepted it, and as such, many would simply shoot that style anyways, but register in another style/class.
> Like you say, it starts with the members...and maybe the local shoots should start using it; it will sure save them the costs of several awards. May cause a decline in number of shooters; but they'll get used to it again after a period of adjustment. If a local club starts this ball rolling, however or if a particular tournament starts this, then it will have to be announced well in advance so people know ahead of time and it isn't just sprung on them when they show up at the event.
> _As a "member" I know I certainly wouldn't be opposed to a "higher up" taking some initiative and coming up with those numbers concerning the classes that constantly have few participants and then showing the members those numbers and asking them for "recommendations" as to what to do? Yeah, maybe that isn't the way the book says it works...but....._



Relax Tom - 
I was on your side on that one.
Lets just look at this part here....
_You well know that I've been in the NFAA since 1969 (don't know how old you are, but unless you are over 55, you were still in elmentary school when I first joined the NFAA), so I know the ropes and how it works...however...as a lowly "member", I also figure that the DIRECTORS are part of the "leadership" since they are obviously a cut above we mere mortal members. 
That being said, however, it would seem to me that with regard to the expense of supporting all these classes that have little participation, the Directors, Councilmen, and maybe the VP would see the financial impact of giving awards when only one or two are in a shooting class? It doesn't seem to me to be up to an individual member to examine the costs, number of participants, and have to do all the "homework" while the "leadership" just goes along at the status quo and if nothing is said/brought up about a problem of financial nature...nothing is done?_

The Directors did exactly what you said above during the Dir Mtg in Feb. when the "new" classes were implemented. It was pretty contentious because of the added expense. Trust me they didnt just blindly go with status quo. It was hotly debated over 2 days.
If memory serves I think it added something like 60 or 80+ bowls for Nationals ... seemed like a alot, and it's going to be wicked expensive.

----
Anyway, moving on - 

In reading the last few posts I cant help but sense a fair bit of irony. - This thread started as a thought to add classes. I was pretty vocal against it... Now here we are talking about how much respect there is for the guys who said, no...you should probably not add, in fact go to a 1 to 3 kind of rule like we had long ago.... which I support

odd.


----------



## field14

FV Chuck said:


> Relax Tom -
> I was on your side on that one.
> Lets just look at this part here....
> _You well know that I've been in the NFAA since 1969 (don't know how old you are, but unless you are over 55, you were still in elmentary school when I first joined the NFAA), so I know the ropes and how it works...however...as a lowly "member", I also figure that the DIRECTORS are part of the "leadership" since they are obviously a cut above we mere mortal members.
> That being said, however, it would seem to me that with regard to the expense of supporting all these classes that have little participation, the Directors, Councilmen, and maybe the VP would see the financial impact of giving awards when only one or two are in a shooting class? It doesn't seem to me to be up to an individual member to examine the costs, number of participants, and have to do all the "homework" while the "leadership" just goes along at the status quo and if nothing is said/brought up about a problem of financial nature...nothing is done?_
> 
> The Directors did exactly what you said above during the Dir Mtg in Feb. when the "new" classes were implemented. It was pretty contentious because of the added expense. Trust me they didnt just blindly go with status quo. It was hotly debated over 2 days.
> If memory serves I think it added something like 60 or 80+ bowls for Nationals ... seemed like a alot, and it's going to be wicked expensive.
> 
> ----
> Anyway, moving on -
> 
> In reading the last few posts I cant help but sense a fair bit of irony. - This thread started as a thought to add classes. I was pretty vocal against it... Now here we are talking about how much respect there is for the guys who said, no...you should probably not add, in fact go to a 1 to 3 kind of rule like we had long ago.... which I support
> 
> odd.


Chuck,
I am relaxed. No problem with that.

For the PROS...the 1-3 distribution for "money payout (awards) is already cut and dried. The NFAA Payout chart prescribes how many places to pay and what the percentage "cut" is for each person paid. That one is DONE. From experience, that payout chart works; it is fair, and everyone understands it. So dealing with those participation numbers in the PROS isn't the problem.

Now, however...where are these 60-80 new additional Silver Bowls coming from? First off, I was under the impression that the Silver Bowls went ONLY to the winner of the TOP FLIGHT, or basically the OVERALL winner in each of the Shooting Styles? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I sure don't see why/how a person that wins the 2nd or 3rd flight should get a Silver Bowl for it and a National Champion Patch & Certificate?

_Maybe you meant to say "potential" of those extra Silver Bowls if there were competitors in Silver and Master Seniors in every single shooting style available?_ I'm thinking that is what you meant?

Thus, I again think it would make perfect sense for someone "higher up" the chain, rather than a conscientious member, do the ground work and research to find out which shooting styles and "ages"(you get my drift, I hope) are just not holding up their weight. This research should likely be done for several years back from the tournament results listing. Then, said person, could assemble the data, come up with the numbers as to the impact (or the resulting SAVINGS) of having these styles/classses continue, versus eliminating them. At that point, the information could be distributed to the members asking them what the "members" think should be done about it. To me, it just makes complete sense...especially now that you say this 60-80 additional bowls? OUCH.
This also adds impact to the 3-5-7 rule being put back into play for local (their choice, obviously), State (their choice), Sectional, and National tournaments. 
Again, I don't know exactly when this ceased to be followed, but it has been a long time. It was probably done away with to try to get more participation and now getting an award in many instances is akin to simply showing up, turning in a score...or even shooting 10 targets and you "shot", so you get the award. I think you understand what I'm saying here. 
I have heard scuttlebutt about this handing out of awards thing getting out of hand in that people are shooting a different style as the only competitor or against one other person so that an award can be received, and I'm sure you've heard it too.
I think we realize that sooner or later this award bubble is going to burst and some tournaments are going to, on their own, come up with a minimum participation number before an award is given for that style. It has to happen.

It would be most interesting to see those "numbers" of the styles/classes (whatever you want to call them) that have only a very few people competing in them at the National level, and the savings netted should those be eliminated. Pure "numbers" game, with the costing factored in and then presented in an easy to understand format. Members will then be making an informed decision to give their Directors the guidance based upon those numbers and recommendations. I myself as a mere mortal member would not argue with a bit of a "downflow" of information to help me make an informed decision based upon numbers and dollars, versus one made by emotion...cuz the style to be eliminated might be my own! As a responsible mere mortal member, if my style was costing way more than it was making, then the only sensible thing to do is to vote to eliminate it.

*Could THAT type of instruction to have a "higher up" gather those numbers/costs be done as an agenda item?*


----------



## Rolo

FV Chuck said:


> The Directors did exactly what you said above during the Dir Mtg in Feb. when the "new" classes were implemented. It was pretty contentious because of the added expense. Trust me they didnt just blindly go with status quo. It was hotly debated over 2 days.
> If memory serves I think it added something like 60 or 80+ bowls for Nationals ... seemed like a alot, and it's going to be wicked expensive.
> 
> ----
> Anyway, moving on -
> 
> In reading the last few posts I cant help but sense a fair bit of irony. - This thread started as a thought to add classes. I was pretty vocal against it... Now here we are talking about how much respect there is for the guys who said, no...you should probably not add, in fact go to a 1 to 3 kind of rule like we had long ago.... which I support
> 
> odd.


To confirm and add on: Yes, this very thing was discussed. There have also been discussion, among at least a few Directors, at looking at classes, numbers, etc, and going from there. However, one thing that also needs to be remembered in doing this, is not just "how many shooters have there been in class x"...but also a market analysis of what segments (divisions) are growing the most...both inside the NFAA, and OUTSIDE. There is evidence of 2 different pictures. Some of that evidence suggests that the allure of a Silver Bowl isn't all that powerful.

Back to a point Chuck may be alluding too...while there has been some discussion about this issue among some Directors, a director also needs, and should have the support of the members of his/her State before they go marching on this merry path. What if the State members, by majority don't support it? So, again, it goes back to the membership.

But another question...why leave it up to the Directors? I mean, each State Director is pretty easy to find and contact. If the issue is that important to a member...why is that member not contacting their Director?

Oh yeah...there was no agenda item for Senior, "Silver Senior" and Master Senior divisions. There was an agenda item for lowering the age of the Senior Division. The "Silver Senior" Division was an advent of an amendment because...well I guess, some people still wanted an opportunity at a bowl. I wonder what the response of some would have been had the amended agenda item failed because of the amendment...


----------



## FV Chuck

field14 said:


> Chuck,
> I am relaxed. No problem with that.
> 
> For the PROS...the 1-3 distribution for "money payout (awards) is already cut and dried. The NFAA Payout chart prescribes how many places to pay and what the percentage "cut" is for each person paid. That one is DONE. From experience, that payout chart works; it is fair, and everyone understands it. So dealing with those participation numbers in the PROS isn't the problem.
> 
> Now, however...where are these 60-80 new additional Silver Bowls coming from? First off, I was under the impression that the Silver Bowls went ONLY to the winner of the TOP FLIGHT, or basically the OVERALL winner in each of the Shooting Styles? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I sure don't see why/how a person that wins the 2nd or 3rd flight should get a Silver Bowl for it and a National Champion Patch & Certificate?
> 
> _Maybe you meant to say "potential" of those extra Silver Bowls if there were competitors in Silver and Master Seniors in every single shooting style available?_ I'm thinking that is what you meant?
> 
> Thus, I again think it would make perfect sense for someone "higher up" the chain, rather than a conscientious member, do the ground work and research to find out which shooting styles and "ages"(you get my drift, I hope) are just not holding up their weight. This research should likely be done for several years back from the tournament results listing. Then, said person, could assemble the data, come up with the numbers as to the impact (or the resulting SAVINGS) of having these styles/classses continue, versus eliminating them. At that point, the information could be distributed to the members asking them what the "members" think should be done about it. To me, it just makes complete sense...especially now that you say this 60-80 additional bowls? OUCH.
> This also adds impact to the 3-5-7 rule being put back into play for local (their choice, obviously), State (their choice), Sectional, and National tournaments.
> Again, I don't know exactly when this ceased to be followed, but it has been a long time. It was probably done away with to try to get more participation and now getting an award in many instances is akin to simply showing up, turning in a score...or even shooting 10 targets and you "shot", so you get the award. I think you understand what I'm saying here.
> I have heard scuttlebutt about this handing out of awards thing getting out of hand in that people are shooting a different style as the only competitor or against one other person so that an award can be received, and I'm sure you've heard it too.
> I think we realize that sooner or later this award bubble is going to burst and some tournaments are going to, on their own, come up with a minimum participation number before an award is given for that style. It has to happen.
> 
> It would be most interesting to see those "numbers" of the styles/classes (whatever you want to call them) that have only a very few people competing in them at the National level, and the savings netted should those be eliminated. Pure "numbers" game, with the costing factored in and then presented in an easy to understand format. Members will then be making an informed decision to give their Directors the guidance based upon those numbers and recommendations. I myself as a mere mortal member would not argue with a bit of a "downflow" of information to help me make an informed decision based upon numbers and dollars, versus one made by emotion...cuz the style to be eliminated might be my own! As a responsible mere mortal member, if my style was costing way more than it was making, then the only sensible thing to do is to vote to eliminate it.
> 
> *Could THAT type of instruction to have a "higher up" gather those numbers/costs be done as an agenda item?*


Yes the Pro Payout while not universally loved and endorsed is perfectly functional... that's a whole other topic for another discussion so... yes. Fine. Works great More events should use it for local shoots IMHO.

Yes I suppose "Potential" is the proper word, but... I also believe the NFAA will probably buy the bowls in advance... who wants to show up to a National and be told ...well we didn't order one for this class because we've never had a participant before? - It's a double edged sword I think.

As far as the research... yeah absolutely it needs to be done. Although again I think it could realllly backfire if not done properly.

YOur idea of an agenda item is absolutely spot on.....


----------



## Ditch Pickle

FV Chuck said:


> Wow...no jokes allowed on AT huh?
> Sheesh.
> 
> By the way the deleted post was my own, no one elses. It existed for less than one min. - It was written poorly with me trying to answer specific comments and the cut and paste didnt work properly...I responded right after that with another post. Every post on this thread still exists. No way you could have seen it, didnt even include you.
> I understand you dont like me much, I get it. I dont suspect you ever will. I'm ok with it, but keep in mind that those feelings are because I called you out for physically threatening another shooter.
> 
> This is waaaay different Bob.
> Emotionally charged conversation? Yes. Polarizing? Yes. Personal? No.


The reference to "deleted posts" was not on this current thread but rather on ones in the past. You seem to have a pattern of making everything into an argument. I'm not playing tit for tat with you, I've wasted my time doing that in the past. Never threatened anyone unless you consider telling someone to "shut their mouth" as a physical threat......I GET IT......keep taking the focus off the real issues that were reported to you that were swept under the rug. You made it personal by throwing a name out that had nothing to do with the topic of the current thread, your "humor" was not appreciated. An apology goes a long way, sometimes the "bigger" person is the one that walks away or admits when they are wrong. Hopefully, the new Pro Chair will not keep the same battles going as you have, with the same people regardless of what topic or issue is being discussed.


----------



## FV Chuck

Ditch Pickle said:


> The reference to "deleted posts" was not on this current thread but rather on ones in the past. You seem to have a pattern of making everything into an argument. I'm not playing tit for tat with you, I've wasted my time doing that in the past. Never threatened anyone unless you consider telling someone to "shut their mouth" as a physical threat......I GET IT......keep taking the focus off the real issues that were reported to you that were swept under the rug. You made it personal by throwing a name out that had nothing to do with the topic of the current thread, your "humor" was not appreciated. An apology goes a long way, sometimes the "bigger" person is the one that walks away or admits when they are wrong. Hopefully, the new Pro Chair will not keep the same battles going as you have, with the same people regardless of what topic or issue is being discussed.


Bob... I hardly believe this is the time or place, but..
We will have to agree to disagree.
I have done my best to resolve all of your issues to the best of my ability. It's clear that you feel I have fallen short of that. There literally is nothing I can do and I have done my BEST to explain that in all ways possible. Polite and not. 
Apologies if you feel you need it....humor is often lost in the keystrokes.


----------



## Pete53

my issue about the silver senior pro divisiion kinda has been said .in the pro division you get no bowl only money so whats the big deal about having the silver senior pro division if 6 people show up and each pay 100.00 thats 600.00 3-5-7 rule ,little paper work its done. and all those silver senior divisions narrow it down to three classes, freestyle,bowhunter freestyle,free style limited,no other classes period ! in minnesota all those classes for each age group and male- female is gotten way out of hand . people think well i will shoot that easy class with nobody in it and i will be the champion that`s bullcrap,i have seen the same thing at nationals.my son at age 14 shoot a 599 109 X`s got nothing that year he was ok with it, another kid shot a b.b. recurve all alone shot like a 350 with a couple of X`s got a national title and a silver bowl ,thats very wrong ! that`s showing are youth take the easy way you don`t have to practice or work hard.that`s part of reason why there are so many deadbeat kids out there and thats why my son and other parents who made there childern learn the hard way have lots of job opportunities . i really would like to remain retired but common if you read what the common sense people wrote it does not take a rocket scientist to figure it out politely`and how to fix these problems and if you can`t Quit ! let`s try to work together and make archery fun for all, this money thing is way out of line for over 95% of the shooters and maybe hurting archery now ?? this silver bowl thing if there is not at least 10 shooters in that division , give them a $3.00 medal, no matter if its a kid ,man or a woman .senior what ever.it just does not need to be that complicated.Pete53


----------



## Pro1

Ok The horse is DEAD.. The truck came and got it...It has already been delivered to the slaughter house or dump...I think we can pretty much say it has been beaten enough. All aspects of adding the class and how it is done or not done has been discussed. The Pros and Cons have been stated...Now The phrase that comes to mind is....MOVING ON>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


----------



## rn3

Pro1 said:


> Ok The horse is DEAD.. The truck came and got it...It has already been delivered to the slaughter house or dump...I think we can pretty much say it has been beaten enough. All aspects of adding the class and how it is done or not done has been discussed. The Pros and Cons have been stated...Now The phrase that comes to mind is....MOVING ON>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


Might be a little soon to move on without discussing adding a Centennial senior division, I don't think it would add to many silver bowls to the mix.LOL!


----------



## distributor

*Old pros of the past*

Don't forget about a lot of us old pros that help start the nfaa pro division in the late 1972 and early 1973 took a lot of work to pull it off with the nfaa.
But now these same old shooters have been swept under the rug with very little thanks or no thanks at all. Why do we no longer compete in the pro division?
because our age will not allow it. Take a look at the last NFAA nationals at mechburg pa. and look at the master seniors in the open dividision
and you will see a lot of old pros of the past that are competing with their pals in the master senior division . guess why? there is no place for the legions or archery in the master seniors pro division because there is not one. and sounds like most do not want one.
That is why we shoot there and would love to have stayed in the pro division but was not wanted there and a lot of us had as much as 30 to 35 years in the pro division. So like every thing else the old archers will just fade away . Or if giving the chance we might just come back to the master senior pro division and shoot why? because pro archery was in our blood.


----------



## field14

distributor said:


> Don't forget about a lot of us old pros that help start the nfaa pro division in the late 1972 and early 1973 took a lot of work to pull it off with the nfaa.
> But now these same old shooters have been swept under the rug with very little thanks or no thanks at all. Why do we no longer compete in the pro division?
> because our age will not allow it. Take a look at the last NFAA nationals at mechburg pa. and look at the master seniors in the open dividision
> and you will see a lot of old pros of the past that are competing with their pals in the master senior division . guess why? there is no place for the legions or archery in the master seniors pro division because there is not one. and sounds like most do not want one.
> That is why we shoot there and would love to have stayed in the pro division but was not wanted there and a lot of us had as much as 30 to 35 years in the pro division. So like every thing else the old archers will just fade away . Or if giving the chance we might just come back to the master senior pro division and shoot why? because pro archery was in our blood.


"Fade away" or is it more like being "_Forced to Retire_" because there just isn't anywhere else to go?....just like in private business, or on the job market? Seems like Douglas MacArthur said it once, "Old Soldiers Never Die, they just fade away."
I'd put the link to the You Tube video here...but it would be deemed inappropriate.
What isn't realized is that the Pro Dues paid by those Silvers and Masters...is no longer going to be paid to the PRO division...so the revenue is lost anyways and likely isn't being picked up tit for tat by additions to the younger divisions? Can't prove that, because I'd wager that AGE data isn't available and a break down of the Pro Division by AGE isn't either, without a lot of work on the part of a conscientious member.
I hadn't thought about the fact that the Silvers and Masters (especially the Masters) are going back to the Open Division because there is nowhere else to go.


----------



## distributor

Tom there is about 60 to 70 percent of the master seniors that shot in the nfaa nationals last year at PA. would be happy to go back to the pro division if the pro division of now had not have run us off. We did not leave the pro division they left us by not having age group for us. All you have to do is look at the nfaa field nationals last year and you can see all of the old pro names in the master senior division and most of us would be glad to return
to the master senior pro division, but i don't think they want us. What do you think?


----------



## field14

distributor said:


> Tom there is about 60 to 70 percent of the master seniors that shot in the nfaa nationals last year at PA. would be happy to go back to the pro division if the pro division of now had not have run us off. We did not leave the pro division they left us by not having age group for us. All you have to do is look at the nfaa field nationals last year and you can see all of the old pro names in the master senior division and most of us would be glad to return
> to the master senior pro division, but i don't think they want us. What do you think?


I'm thinking that your annual pro dues and your contributions to the overall total number of those in the Pro Division have been cast away as not important in some peoples' eyes? The "watering it down" thing, when you think about it can be bothersome in so many "ugly" ways. I don't dare express exactly what I'm thinking, however, ha.
I'm wondering just how many "Pros" are picked back up that are between the ages of 18 and 49 each year vs. how many are "forced to retire" by basically being cast off as no longer "Useable" (and USEABLE can have different connotations, too).
Of course, maybe with the age 50 thing, the Senior Division overall will GROW this year...as those between 50-54 jumping from "regular" Pro to Senior Pro mpe may well be most interesting to see, too.
It still doesn't do anything at the upper age end of the Senior Division, which it appears that many don't think is "needed" in the Seniors.

There are so many ways of looking at this and so many cast-offs and opinions....


----------



## Pete53

WOW ! has anyone been watching how high the views on this post is getting ? 1900 views since may 25th we have have a record ! 
doesn`t it seem us older under class seniors " rug sweeper`s " are kinda have some viewer`s very interested on what the heck is going on,i have people who want to give us a new horse so this issue just ain`t going away soon ! being retired now and age 60 i want a chance to shoot with these great senior pro`s win -lose or draw. i hunted,was friends with,a great old decessed pro ,Wayne Miller,from little falls ,Mn..i have also shot with a living yet the great pro Jim Poen.SO DON`T THINK YOU ARE GOING TO SWEEP ANYONE UNDER THE TABLE ! just because you people feel its about money and only for younger pro`s ,i wish Pete Shepley would start making some comments too ! silver seniors if you want a pro class its time to get ahold of your directors and if they say its a dead issue vote somebody else in,so when these younger pro`s get older we again have the ground work all done for them.i`ll start warm`n the bottles !Pete53


----------



## Pro1

I am requesting that this thread be locked or deleted. It has gotten out of hand. ALL aspects of the discussion have been gone over and over and over. The proper Channels have been described and how things are changed within the NFAA. NO ONE PERSON OR GROUP has control. It comes from the members. All we are doing here is making the PROS such as me and others look even MORE ELITE to the masses. We are solving nothing. If you want something changed tell your Directors. Get it on the ballot and have it voted on. It will either pass or not. If it doesn't the people have spoken there is NOTHING that can be done after that. I'm sorry but this has gotten ridiculous. Blast away I don't really care. But the request has been sent to have this thread removed.


----------



## field14

Sometimes when a person posts something, it doesn't turn out at all as intended. In spite of my re-reading my last post and thinking it wasn't slamming or bashing anything and was saying what I wanted it to....it isn't. Unfortunately, I didn't get back to it in time to delete it...and stuff like that happens.

I don't really think anyone is trying intentionally to sweep people under the rug. It is simply that we really don't have any real "numbers" with which to base the real impact of not having the SS and MS in the PRO division. We also don't really have any accurate numbers as to how many dropped out of the Pros and back to open from the Seniors or MS either. 
It would be something interesting to investigate just what the impact that AGE is having with regard to the PRO Division. Are people coming in at the younger end of the spectrum to make up for those that are moving out at the older end of the Division?
What is the number of Pros that would stay shooting PRO if the Master Seniors, for example, was recognized as part of the Pro Division? We haven't a clue.
That is really what I was trying to say...and failed miserably at it.

Perhaps Pro1 is correct...this issue has been beat to death and nothing has really been accomplished other than to have people getting bent out of shape over each other. We are really getting nowhere at this point.
field14


----------



## FV Chuck

Pro1 said:


> I am requesting that this thread be locked or deleted. It has gotten out of hand. ALL aspects of the discussion have been gone over and over and over. The proper Channels have been described and how things are changed within the NFAA. NO ONE PERSON OR GROUP has control. It comes from the members. All we are doing here is making the PROS such as me and others look even MORE ELITE to the masses. We are solving nothing. If you want something changed tell your Directors. Get it on the ballot and have it voted on. It will either pass or not. If it doesn't the people have spoken there is NOTHING that can be done after that. I'm sorry but this has gotten ridiculous. Blast away I don't really care. But the request has been sent to have this thread removed.


Pat -

Agreed, I admit I may have been part of the problem but yes we collectively and I certainly have gone to great lengths to correct myself and make amends where needed.
The added comments at this point are no longer constructive to the initial desire of the OP.

I will lock it. I wont delete yet...unless I get more requests.


----------



## FV Chuck

field14 said:


> Sometimes when a person posts something, it doesn't turn out at all as intended. In spite of my re-reading my last post and thinking it wasn't slamming or bashing anything and was saying what I wanted it to....it isn't. Unfortunately, I didn't get back to it in time to delete it...and stuff like that happens.
> 
> I don't really think anyone is trying intentionally to sweep people under the rug. It is simply that we really don't have any real "numbers" with which to base the real impact of not having the SS and MS in the PRO division. We also don't really have any accurate numbers as to how many dropped out of the Pros and back to open from the Seniors or MS either.
> It would be something interesting to investigate just what the impact that AGE is having with regard to the PRO Division. Are people coming in at the younger end of the spectrum to make up for those that are moving out at the older end of the Division?
> What is the number of Pros that would stay shooting PRO if the Master Seniors, for example, was recognized as part of the Pro Division? We haven't a clue.
> That is really what I was trying to say...and failed miserably at it.
> 
> Perhaps Pro1 is correct...this issue has been beat to death and nothing has really been accomplished other than to have people getting bent out of shape over each other. We are really getting nowhere at this point.
> field14


Tom - your second attempt here...much improved. Thanks I understand you position much better now. 
The numbers you want are there though, thats what you need to understand. It was part of m report to the BOD in February. Our growth as Pro's, where it was, and how many. FWIW The entire Pro division grew by about 30% under my tenure to just over 300 at the close of 2012.
I dont have access to deep data mining for all of NFAA...clearly that kind of personal information is well guarded, as it should be. Having someone at HQ do it for the Pro's though...might be possible. I'm not sure.

All of you can have absolute faith that this message will carry over to the new Pro Chair. He will follow through I assure you. I will also take it as a personal mission to assist him in this in any way I can. 
It's clear that I misunderstood the importance of it. 
Until this thread not one soul had indicated to me or other chairs how critical it was. 

I am going to lock it up... I wont delete it right away unless I get more requests.

Chuck


----------

