# Age + years experience beyond which world class level is no longer realistic?



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Off and on, I think about this topic. We've debated talent vs. hard work here ad nausem, but can anyone give me an example of an archer who worked for more than 10 years as an adult before getting the world-class level?

Meaning, is there an archer out there who it took that long before their potential was realized?

Not sure if I'm asking the question correctly, but hopefully it makes sense.

I suspect there a general rule of thumb that beyond a certain number using age plus experience, an archer really can't expect to realistically reach the world class level.

Say, 40 years - meaning 30 years old at beginning and 10 years experience, or something to that effect?

Perhaps it's less. 30 Years - meaning if a 20 year old spends 10 years at the craft and still hasn't reached the world-class level, they probably never will.

I would love to hear Vittorio's take on this. I recall him saying it took on average, 7 years to train an Olympic-level archer.


----------



## acco205 (Jun 13, 2014)

limbwalker said:


> 7 years to train an Olympic-level archer.


WOW.

That is a much lower number than I expected!


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

John,

Great question, and one where the observational data probably irritates the "there's no such thing as natural talent, that all progress is purely repetition and experience" crowd. 

Certainly extenuating circumstances can gum up the works in certain scenarios (brilliant junior career, sky's the limit, then sidelined by college or whatever, then comes back to it in late twenties ... ).

Here's a tangential question - How many world class archers are over 35 years old? And choose whatever definition of 'world class' that is reasonable - World ranking in the top 50? 100?


----------



## cc46 (Jan 22, 2005)

It's a good question John. And I'd agree with the 7 years statement. 

But there are limitations over 45, eyes, ligaments, joints etc. I think athletes that are active all of their lives have a better chance to pick up this sport and take it to Olympic level, especially if they train with coaching and keep with it. I watched a 92 Olympian shoot recently and am still in awe, he's older than me, perhaps 58ish.

In early 40s I think a man reaches his strongest years, and with the most control, finesse etc, endurance starts to wane, but the "old dog" confidence and mind are strong assets that counter it. Then the physical decline starts.

My 2 cents.


----------



## baller (Oct 4, 2006)

In most of my sports I've seen that most of the world class athletes already have the raw natural talent and they generally take less time to fine tune everything to a competetive world class level. 

For the rest of us it's more of an acquired talent or a learned discipline that doesn't come quite as naturally. We have to work at it, and in most cases time and effort put in directly is directly reflected by the results. 

Unfortunately on some occasions there are those middle of the pack journeymen that have some talent and some time but never break through, eventually relenting to life and it's demands of our time and money etc only to pick up the sport again "for fun" when life slows down, usually far beyond a time when one would be capable of world class competition. 


I know of several examples of each in several sports.


In my opinion, natural raw talent come in young and hungry, and make world class levels quickly, usually declining in their 30s as life takes over. Not quite so natural talented take a little more time to blossom, and can still perform late into their 30s and 40s depending on where they are regarding profession/family etc. Journeymen tend to start early and reach a plateau fairly quickly maintaining that plateau for a long time, usually staying competetive for 15-20 years at a sub-world class level, possibly achieving world class success once or twice by law of averages.


----------



## ppayne (Jul 13, 2007)

cc46 said:


> It's a good question John. And I'd agree with the 7 years statement.
> 
> But there are limitations over 45, eyes, ligaments, joints etc. I think athletes that are active all of their lives have a better chance to pick up this sport and take it to Olympic level, especially if they train with coaching and keep with it. I watched a 92 Olympian shoot recently and am still in awe, he's older than me, perhaps 58ish.
> 
> ...


I am guessing Claude Rousseau, incredible talent and ice running in his veins. In a good way, super nice guy ( apologies if i got the wrong athlete mind you)


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Easy. Butch Johnson. He's a freak of nature, and a one-off example that IMO will never be duplicated. There are a lot of great, older archers out there still, but there is only one Butch Johnson. Not even Rick or Darrell had that kind of longevity at that level.



> WOW.
> 
> That is a much lower number than I expected!


When I first read that, I thought it was high based on my own experience, but looking back, I would have to agree with that number now. And that's working with a good coach.

John


----------



## cc46 (Jan 22, 2005)

Absolutely Pascale!, Claude gets my attention each year I see him.


----------



## acco205 (Jun 13, 2014)

limbwalker said:


> When I first read that, I thought it was high based on my own experience, but looking back, I would have to agree with that number now. And that's working with a good coach.
> 
> John


On reflection- I think I may have misinterpreted. 7 years from picking up the bow the first time or 7 years from the beginning of their formal training?

I've never kept track of when world class and Olympic archers start shooting, but compared to many other disciplines 7 years from infancy still seems low. But "seems" is the key word. I am but a plebeian in the world of elite archery.

I guess you just get used to hearing "so and so has been training for X since age 5"


----------



## MJAnderson68 (Nov 15, 2013)

Ages of different athletes at the summer Olympics:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/sports/profiles-in-speed/age/sports-by-age.html


----------



## jmcmurchie (Dec 5, 2003)

Butch isn't a one-off, we keep forgetting Ed Eliason. Made his first international team in the late 1960's and made his lat World team in 1997. Was world class when 1100 was good and was still there in the low to mid 1300's. What they share is a life dedicated to their sport and an undying passion to improve.


----------



## w8lon (Jun 2, 2012)

Senior Pro Dave Barnsdale has remained near or at the top of his game for the past forty years, we see no decline in his abilities. He mentioned this winter shooting in the old PAA days shooting both lines recurve then compound and scoring possible scores both styles.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

limbwalker said:


> Easy. Butch Johnson. He's a freak of nature, and a one-off example that IMO will never be duplicated. There are a lot of great, older archers out there still, but there is only one Butch Johnson. Not even Rick or Darrell had that kind of longevity at that level.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes, Butch, of course. His torch has burned for an incredible length of time (although, to be fair to Darrell and Rick, theirs burned shorter but hotter). 

What about from other countries? 

It seems like except for one or two 'phreaks of nature and persistence', archery is just as much a young person's sport at the world class level as almost any other sport.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

jmcmurchie said:


> Butch isn't a one-off, we keep forgetting Ed Eliason. Made his first international team in the late 1960's and made his lat World team in 1997. Was world class when 1100 was good and was still there in the low to mid 1300's. What they share is a life dedicated to their sport and an undying passion to improve.


Excellent point. How could I forget my old friend Ed. I just didn't have the pleasure of shooting with him as much as I did with Butch. 

However, there is only one of these guys allowed at a time. ha, ha. Just amazing longevity at such a high level. However, they are clearly the exception. For every Ed or Butch, there are thousands of others....

acco, I think 7 years would be for someone who already shoots. I can hardly imagine 7 years for someone who has never even touched a bow. Of course, that's a rule of thumb and there are always exceptions.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

if you are healthy, i dont think age has that much to do with it. its the level of training you can accomplish. 

i didnt pick up an olympic recurve until i was 42 in 2004. i had a three year break 2007-2010 for personal family reasons, but currently shooting competitively for 7 years. i think it takes 8 to 10 years to make a world class archer and you need a good coach.

i think most older men in the 30s and 40s dont try to be world class because they cant or dont put the time into it. Business, family and other things are easy to get in the way. but i think the advantage is i can afford my own sponsorship, and have no pressure to compete. i am competitive on my own time and money.


i feel i have an advantage to the younger guys shooting. i have already had my break for marriage and kids, can afford my bows/ travel, have a business/career, and dont have to worry about college or keeping my place at the OTC. 


look at Reo Wilde. there are a number of older archers in the world cup events. its not all youth. most of the Korean women are age 25-28 and have been shooting 7-10 years. 


chris


----------



## acco205 (Jun 13, 2014)

limbwalker said:


> acco, I think 7 years would be for someone who already shoots. I can hardly imagine 7 years for someone who has never even touched a bow. Of course, that's a rule of thumb and there are always exceptions.


Thank god. I was beginning to feel like a failure!


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> if you are healthy, i dont think age has that much to do with it. its the level of training you can accomplish.


Which is why I ask if there is a "magic number" beyond which it's just not going to happen.


----------



## calbowdude (Feb 13, 2005)

I would say 5 years from whatever age I'm currently at haha! 

I would say mid 50's. Mostly because I see a precipitous decline in performance in many other endeavors that bear a certain similarity to archery, such as golf. As opposed to sports like volleyball or track or basketball, where even a small decline in physical ability translates to becoming not-world-class. 

I feel that in archery, a small decline in physical gifts (strength, hand speed, reflexes, etc) can be overcome by smarter training, better focus under pressure, and a better understanding of one's own shot, at least until the point where the decline begins to outstrip these factors. 

Of course, with sport science evolving at the rate it is, my arbitrary number may very well be too low by decades. The current generation of 40 somethings are sort of at the forefront of remaining active and involved regularly. Look at Michele Frangilli and Natalya Valeeva. They are both "veterans," but no one would deny they're still pretty good haha!


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

I think an archer can reasonably maintain world-class performance into their mid-40's, assuming they brought that level of shooting into their 40's. Not sure there has ever been an archer (at least in the past 20 years) who didn't take up the sport until they were 40, who was able to achieve world class performance. I'd love to the ages of Olympic and World Championship archers ages plotted. I'm sure we'd see a bell curve that peaks around 27-30.


----------



## eljetico (May 13, 2013)

What a timely thread: I'm 44, have shot for 4 years and have just (this past weekend) attained 2nd place at the ArcheryGB National Series Stage 3 event here in the UK. In the qualification round and H2Hs, almost all of our national squad were eliminated. I lost out on 1st to another up-and-coming squad member (and good friend) by a couple of centimetres in a tie-breaker. There are of course, many factors at work here and I'm still 'digesting' the event (world class performance it was probably not), but it makes me wonder how far I could push beyond what I've achieved so far...


----------



## calbowdude (Feb 13, 2005)

Ah, becoming world class in their 40's rather than carrying that over from their 20's. 

I would say it's possible. I would also add the caveat that it has not been done yet, or at least with enough frequency and a large enough sample size to prove that becoming a world class archer in your 40's is possible. Maybe I can add to that sample size! One can dream...


----------



## w8lon (Jun 2, 2012)

Surprising what a little internet search can answer, pretty long history of archers winning Gold into there sixties in the Olympic games.
http://www.topendsports.com/events/summer/oldest-youngest.htm

And another great story, best wishes to this Olympian, as age boundaries are only in our minds.
http://wamu.org/programs/metro_connection/14/03/07/record_holder_for_oldest_winter_olympian_sets_her_sights_on_summer_games


----------



## Sosius (Feb 5, 2014)

Congratulations! I'm 45, so who knows....


----------



## TheAncientOne (Feb 14, 2007)

calbowdude said:


> I would say 5 years from whatever age I'm currently at haha!


For me it would be 5 years younger than I am now.

TAO


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

eljetico said:


> What a timely thread: I'm 44, have shot for 4 years and have just (this past weekend) attained 2nd place at the ArcheryGB National Series Stage 3 event here in the UK. In the qualification round and H2Hs, almost all of our national squad were eliminated. I lost out on 1st to another up-and-coming squad member (and good friend) by a couple of centimetres in a tie-breaker. There are of course, many factors at work here and I'm still 'digesting' the event (world class performance it was probably not), but it makes me wonder how far I could push beyond what I've achieved so far...


Excellent work.

For me personally, my personal best outdoor 70 meter scores were all shot at the age of 42, with 9 years of competitive recurve archery behind me. 

Looks like you're number may be 50 (40 years + 10 years experience).


----------



## ThomVis (Feb 21, 2012)

limbwalker said:


> Not sure there has ever been an archer (at least in the past 20 years) who didn't take up the sport until they were 40, who was able to achieve world class performance.


Karen Hultzer comes to mind.


----------



## Borja1300 (Oct 12, 2007)

I think that all depends on many time you got to spend on training and what you do with that time.

The older you are, less time you got. Family, job, etc.

When you are younger, you got much time and less commitments.


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

The most incredible "not very young" archer around still at international level is our living legend Alvise Bertolini. Born in 1947, at 67 he is still compeeting close to the top guys in Italy. At last year Italian target championships finals he has finished 4th after Nespoli, Frangilli and Cazzaniga. 
Before starting archery not very young, he has been competing in Judo... 
Italian results data base only goes back to 2000, but then you can have an idea of his last 24 years of competitions having a look here:

http://www.fitarco-italia.org/arcieri/situazione.php?Codice=8392

Then, we have had Mario Casavecchia, born in 1960. he picked up the bow for the first time in 1997, if I well remebre, and in 2000 he has been the alternate of the italian team for Sidney Olympic Games
He was and is a techer in physical education. He stropped in 2009..

http://www.fitarco-italia.org/arcieri/situazione.php?Codice=3350

I reconfirm my number, 7 years in western countries and 5 years in Korea to form an international level archer, but starting from childhood, let say picking up the bow first time at 10..
At other ages, time may vary a lot depending form talent, previous (sport) education and of course coaching. But, for sure, never more than 7 years ... 

As far as longevity at top level is concerned, there are no rules, but for sure time is becoming short and shorter with the years. Ilario Di Buo' started at 10 and has stopped at 47, while still in the national team.:
http://www.fitarco-italia.org/arcieri/situazione.php?Codice=2196

Michele has started at 10 too, and this year is in the italian team for the 24th consecutive year... but I don't think will beat Ilario in this

Some of those that I call the (fantastic) boys of the '76 are still competing at world cup level in these days, count among them, in addition to Michele, Jang Yong Ho, Larry Godfrey and Vic Wunderle, and I'm really happy to see all of them still competitive around, but their time will probably end just after Rio 2016, when they all will be 40...

OK, other rnumbers to debate: age for absolute top performance in archery
I say between 20 and 28 ... 
I know, OH Jin Yek is an exception ... :wink:


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> The older you are, less time you got. Family, job, etc.
> 
> When you are younger, you got much time and less commitments.


It was actually quite the opposite for me. I didn't have time or the $ to devote to a hobby like archery until I was in my 30's. Before then, I was too busy working while going to college, starting a career and starting a family. Once our youngest could feed and clothe herself (for the most part) it freed up some of my time in the evenings and on the weekends to shoot. And finally I could afford a few personal luxuries, like a competition bow and some decent arrows. 

I know a lot of college archers who would be much better than they are, if they had more time and more $ to devote to archery. But I like where their priorities are too.


----------



## UrbanDeerSlayer (Feb 10, 2012)

Great topic. I am entering my upper 40s, and have been shooting for a little over 2 years. I have primarily been competing in IBO events in longbow, but am planning on shooting in other barebow type events in the near future (600 rounds, possibly field). I have managed to score on the top 5 on occasion but this is against a limited class. However, the top dogs in this division are 60+ years of age, i believe.

And Ben Rogers is no youngster either, and i believe he recently qualified 3rd for the WA Barebow USA Field archery team.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Yea, barebow is a different animal. So is compound. I was thinking primarily Olympic recurve, which is more of a young-man's sport due to the physical demands of the discipline. 

It's not uncommon at all to see top barebow shooters who are in their 50's and even 60's. Right now, that seems to be the norm actually. It is surely an art form that takes a long time to master at a high level.

John


----------



## Last_Bastion (Dec 5, 2013)

I am really glad this thread is happening right now. I, myself, have national an Olympic dreams and had started to feel like I would be too old to make the dream a reality by the time my shooting is good enough to be competitive on that level. All the responses here have truly lifted my spirits back up about this.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

In Athens, in '04, I think that the U.S. men's team was the oldest by a fair margin (average age of 37). By the end of the event however, I think that was an advantage for us. I always saw my age and "life" experience as a great advantage to me when I started competing. Especially when you're competing against 20-somethings for whom the consequences of not making the team are quite dire by comparison.


----------



## acco205 (Jun 13, 2014)

limbwalker said:


> I know a lot of college archers who would be much better than they are, if they had more time and more $ to devote to archery. But I like where their priorities are too.


We have a saying in motorsports- If you want to make a million dollars racing cars, start with two million.

Archery, among other expensive hobbies and sports, can easily be substituted in there as well I think. One thing I've observed, and I'm sure you have as well (since you directly interact with a lot more archers) is that there are two primary types of younger people (highschool/college) in the sport- those who save every penny to buy better gear, pay for coaching, range time, tournaments, etc by themselves and those who have parental sponsor to handle the bulk of costs. 

I think the former tends to create better, lifelong archers. Those are the ones with the drive and dedication to make it far (in anything really) and they wont fizzle out when the "sponsor" decides to invest money elsewhere.

Would they be better if they could afford more? I'm sure they would. But I think the drive is more important than the gear. I see a few of the same young, middle school aged kids locally every day- formula bows, an entourage of family and coaches, usually there before I get there and leave well after I do, but it bums me out because I dont see them smiling nearly as much as some of the other kids.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Yup. Great observation. 

No question the ones with a passion for the sport - regardless of what "toys" they get - will be in it long-term. I think those are the ones we all enjoy seeing, and I know are the ones I enjoy shooting with the most.

I got to shoot a little archery while in college. Mainly weekend 3-D and some casual events, all with my hunting bows. There was no conceivable way I could have competed for a Jr. USAT or USAT slot at that time in my life. Not enough time, not enough money. But I always had the passion for shooting and interest in learning more about the sport. Finally at the tender age of 33, I had a chance to finally get involved in target archery, and had enough time and money to pursue it. I think that's going to be true for a lot of adults who focus on their education, career and family first. I think there is indeed a nice window in those mid-30's to pursue this sport at quite a high level.

As a coach, I really enjoy working with young professionals who have discovered the sport a little later in life, but still want to excel at it.


----------



## acco205 (Jun 13, 2014)

As a young professional who came back to the sport once he had more time and money, I really like coaches who like and want to works with us!


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

acco205 said:


> As a young professional who came back to the sport once he had more time and money, I really like coaches who like and want to works with us!


ha, ha. Yea, it's a nice diversion from coaching kids. No drama, no parents.  (or maybe it's "no parents, no drama"? ha, ha.)


----------



## shamlin (Aug 18, 2007)

Not to sound cliche' but I believe that 75% of archery success is the 6" between the ears. It is debatable whether any amount of money or coaching can improve the mental discipline it takes to compete and be successful at World Class levels. I think there is a fine line that teeters between being young enough to not truly realize the magnitude of successfully competing at World Class type tournaments and being older and wiser enough to understand and overcome the mental aspects of the game. I have seen so many archers that are "form duplicate" and train their shot cycle and equipment to perfection, and one just not have the mental game under control. I have coached some fine athletes in travel baseball, collegiate wrestling, trapshooting and now archery and there is a common theme among the elite athletes; they just "have it"! I have seen and even partook in the money game, when parents will spare no expense to obtain top tier coaching, supplemental instruction, etc all to insure "Johnny" will be successful. Sometimes "Johnny" does not have the 6" between the ears to take his game to the highest of levels. I truly believe this is what separates great from good.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

I can't disagree with the "six inch" rule. Very important to the success of an archer at any age. And I've seen it come and go too. Guys that once were mental steel traps who just lost it somewhere and have no confidence anymore. 

Olympic recurve archery in particular is IMO the most physical of all archery styles. It is very physically demanding, which is why I would suggest that if a person hasn't reached a world class level by the age of about 40, they are not likely to. 

Preparing for and competing in the 2nd leg of the 2012 Olympic trials, I lost a total of 12 lbs. in about 3 months. I didn't change anything except that I was shooting a 48# recurve that weighed 7 lbs., 10-15 hours/week, and probably walking 2 or 3 miles to retrieve arrows every day. When I got home from the trials I was 188 lbs. - as light as I've been since high school. It takes that much of a toll on a person to train at that level. And that's not even close to the level they train at the OTC.

There just aren't that many guys or ladies in their mid to late 40's who can sustain that level of training long-term. Of course, archers who formerly shot at a world class level can once again do so with much less effort than it took to get there, as the muscle memory is still there. But getting there in the first place burns a lot of calories and takes a great deal of time.

John


----------



## acco205 (Jun 13, 2014)

I actually did the math the other day- A full FITA round incorporates 1.8 miles of walking on its own. If you shot the same number of ends from 70m, you're at a solid 2 miles. 

Do that 5 days a week in addition to stretches and strength training...yeah...I can see that.

But as many have pointed out there are numerous people over 40 who can still manage that and perform at a world class level. I think though, when it comes down to who has more X's the younger archers are definitely at an advantage physically. Mentally...maybe not so much. I think that would depend on when they started shooting.

I think for many people its probably apparent within a few years of real training and competing whether or not they have a shot at being internationally competitive. You either plateau low and fight for marginal gains or you dont.

I think it might be less age+experience and more how long until you are no longer seeing improvement and how good you are when that happens.

The "6 inch rule" of course factoring in there as well. If you're a great shot in training but choke at the tourney I think that can still be addressed as soon as its known.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> I actually did the math the other day- A full FITA round incorporates 1.8 miles of walking on its own. If you shot the same number of ends from 70m, you're at a solid 2 miles


Except that I cheat and usually shoot 9-arrow ends when I'm training, both for shooting endurance, and to save on the walking. 

It's not the walking though. Compound and barebow archers will do the same amount of that. Just the physical act of shooting a heavy 48# recurve through a clicker for hours on end really takes a toll. I think the other thing that always causes me to lose weight is the hours upon hours of working on equipment, fine tuning, prepping for events, etc. Mind is going 24/7.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

As an aside to all this, I had one of the most well-known archery coaches in the U.S. tell me to my face that I was "too old" for him to work with while at the NFAA Indoor Nationals in Louisville in March of 2004. I was 34 at the time. The next day, I shot a 299 with 39X's using a 52# bow and Easton Navigators, right next to Butch Johnson, with that coach watching us from a few rows back. He walked up to me after I was done and handed me his card. Guess he changed his mind. :shade:

I never called him. 

To his credit though, from that day on he offered me quite a bit of encouragement whenever I saw him at tournaments.


----------



## acco205 (Jun 13, 2014)

Not to derail, but which coach are you referring to? I'm pretty sure I know, but double checking.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

If I wanted to name him, I would have.  He is good people though. And I totally get where he was coming from at the time. I myself may have said the same thing, knowing what I know now.

I do kick myself sometimes for not calling him though. If for no other reason than to have learned what I could from him.


----------



## acco205 (Jun 13, 2014)

Sorry, wasn't trying to call anyone out or anything, I was just curious.

I very randomly met another well know coach a few weeks ago and had a short talk with him that I thought was productive, but from what I've heard from others my experience was rather...atypical of those who talk to him while on the range- scientific curiosity just made me want to compare. I'd have sent you a PM but your inbox is full.

No worries.

Mike


----------



## cagrizzly (Aug 26, 2014)

Ben Rogers just won team gold at the World Archery Field Championships with Ellison and Broadwater, and he took 4th individually in barebow....at age 67. He has said he would like to start shooting recurve to try to make the 2016 Olympic team. He would be 69. That would be quite a feat.


----------



## spogshd (Mar 14, 2014)

Well I picked up my first bow at 50, a year ago, I've just shot a 514 long metric , I've practiced and practised and still improving.
I guess I'm never going to make the Olympic game's then. I like the mental stimulation it gives me and the buzz of trying to beat my personal best each time I shoot.
I must be close to plattowing, but will it be as much fun when I do. I think it's something you can take well into retirement and probably help keep all your marbles in order.
Love it.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> I guess I'm never going to make the Olympic game's then.


No, you won't.

But this should be enough for anyone...



> I like the mental stimulation it gives me and the buzz of trying to beat my personal best each time I shoot...I think it's something you can take well into retirement and probably help keep all your marbles in order.


I know it's why I continue to shoot.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

Reflexes decline with age (for most, anyway!), which diminishes consistent accuracy ... so 'advantage youth'.

To continue John's point, another big advantage of youth is the superior workload and recovery speed enjoyed by younger athletes as a result of their younger/more powerful/more resilient energy generating capabilities. In support of that, consider that maybe the biggest benefit to the major league baseball players who were juicing in the 90's/early 2000's wasn't the raw strength increase (more strength doesn't make you any better, per say, in making solid contact with a slider or curve ball), but rather that the steroids help you recover so much quicker from intense exercise (taking steroids and watching TV won't make you stronger - the dramatic strength increases come because the steroids dramatically increase your body's ability to produce prodigious amounts of energy and force, thus enabling you to lift more weight in training and recover much quicker from that workload). So ballplayers could take their 'A' game much deeper into the long season, and could recover much faster from a night game and and be much sharper for the following day's day game. Those things become significant advantages in August and September, when the grind of the long season begins to perceptively impede the non-juicers.

All of which, for me, makes so impressive the ongoing performance levels of some aging athletes who truly are defying the odds.


----------



## MJAnderson68 (Nov 15, 2013)

I saw a segment on Dara Torres, the 41 year old Olympic swimmer showing what she had to do in order to compete at that level at her age. It was amazing. Not that every Olympic swimmer doesn't train hard, but it really was 110% in order to continue to compete. She didn't qualify for the 2012 Olympics after knee surgery, missing the cut by 0.09 seconds.


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

Ben Rogers at 67 wins gold at the world field championships against people half to a third his age. One doesn't have to be young to shoot awesome scores. One just needs to know how to shoot. He is an inspiration to me. I know that I can not put the hours needed to be an Olympic caliper archer, but I know that as I further refine my skills, my scores will go up, and hopefully good enough for people to consider me a good archer.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

With all due respect to Ben, barebow and compound are two disciplines where you can be competitive a bit longer than recurve. Anyone who's shot Olympic recurve at a high level will tell you that if you're not training, you're losing what endurance and skill you've developed, every minute of the day. Olympic recurve is not quite like the other diciplines. It's much more physically demanding. A lot of older archers can shoot as well as they ever have for 20, 30 or even 40 arrows, but pretty quickly the fatigue starts to kick in - especially on windy days.

One reason Butch Johnson has been able to have success into his 50's is because he shoots one discipline year-round. He has an indoor range in his basement and an outdoor range in his back yard. To be proficient with the Olympic bow, you cannot go more than a few days in a row without shooting. 

Maintaining a 700-1000 arrow/week schedule through a clicker with a competitive weight recurve is just something very, very few people can do. And that's after you've reached a high level. Most folks will need to shoot even more than that just to get there.

John


----------



## midwayarcherywi (Sep 24, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> With all due respect to Ben, barebow and compound are two disciplines where you can be competitive a bit longer than recurve. Anyone who's shot Olympic recurve at a high level will tell you that if you're not training, you're losing what endurance and skill you've developed, every minute of the day. Olympic recurve is not quite like the other diciplines. It's much more physically demanding. A lot of older archers can shoot as well as they ever have for 20, 30 or even 40 arrows, but pretty quickly the fatigue starts to kick in - especially on windy days.
> 
> One reason Butch Johnson has been able to have success into his 50's is because he shoots one discipline year-round. He has an indoor range in his basement and an outdoor range in his back yard. To be proficient with the Olympic bow, you cannot go more than a few days in a row without shooting.
> 
> ...


Amen


----------



## MJAnderson68 (Nov 15, 2013)

limbwalker said:


> Maintaining a 700-1000 arrow/week schedule through a clicker with a competitive weight recurve is just something very, very few people can do. And that's after you've reached a high level. Most folks will need to shoot even more than that just to get there.
> 
> John


Now my 3 days a week 150 arrow goal seems weak...


----------



## InKYfromSD (Feb 6, 2004)

Mr. Roboto said:


> Ben Rogers at 67 wins gold at the world field championships against people half to a third his age. One doesn't have to be young to shoot awesome scores. One just needs to know how to shoot. He is an inspiration to me. I know that I can not put the hours needed to be an Olympic caliper archer, but I know that as I further refine my skills, my scores will go up, and hopefully good enough for people to consider me a good archer.


Why do you care if anyone else considers you to be "a good archer?" Are you having fun shooting or not?


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

Really ? 
If its that easy why doesn't every body shoot Barebow. How many arrows do you think top barebow archers shoot a week ? how much training does it take to get to the top shooting of the Barebow division. To get to the top of any division is tough. Young or Old. How many arrows a week do you think a top Barebow archer shoots?

I must respectfully disagree
Gary



limbwalker said:


> With all due respect to Ben, barebow and compound are two disciplines where you can be competitive a bit longer than recurve. Anyone who's shot Olympic recurve at a high level will tell you that if you're not training, you're losing what endurance and skill you've developed, every minute of the day. Olympic recurve is not quite like the other diciplines. It's much more physically demanding. A lot of older archers can shoot as well as they ever have for 20, 30 or even 40 arrows, but pretty quickly the fatigue starts to kick in - especially on windy days.
> 
> One reason Butch Johnson has been able to have success into his 50's is because he shoots one discipline year-round. He has an indoor range in his basement and an outdoor range in his back yard. To be proficient with the Olympic bow, you cannot go more than a few days in a row without shooting.
> 
> ...


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

limbwalker said:


> With all due respect to Ben, barebow and compound are two disciplines where you can be competitive a bit longer than recurve. Anyone who's shot Olympic recurve at a high level will tell you that if you're not training, you're losing what endurance and skill you've developed, every minute of the day. Olympic recurve is not quite like the other diciplines. It's much more physically demanding. A lot of older archers can shoot as well as they ever have for 20, 30 or even 40 arrows, but pretty quickly the fatigue starts to kick in - especially on windy days.
> 
> One reason Butch Johnson has been able to have success into his 50's is because he shoots one discipline year-round. He has an indoor range in his basement and an outdoor range in his back yard. To be proficient with the Olympic bow, you cannot go more than a few days in a row without shooting.
> 
> ...


We will soon find out. As I have stated for the last year, when the Field championships were over, I would be setting up an oly recurve and striving to make the next Olympic team. A pipe dream? Maybe, but it is a dream of mine. The problem with a lot of people is that they set limitations for themselves, I never have. Realizing that I am 30 years past my prime only makes the fire burn hotter in my gut. I hope you are wrong, John.:smile:


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

Everybody has someone they look up to in life. I have been fortunate to room with Brady Ellison for the last two major field shoots. This young man is one of the most down to earth champion archers I have ever met and I have got to pick his brain on a lot of recurve setups. Knowing that the USA has had previous Olympic champions doesn't dampen the feeling I have that Brady is the best finger shooter the US has ever produced. He makes me want to up my game and try to be a teammate on the highest stage of archery there is. My friend and teammate, John Demmer is also going to try oly style so the barebow division is going to be represented for the next year or so in an attempt to master the clicker and 70 meters.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

I hope I'm wrong too Ben. But then I've been through it all twice now, once at 34 and again at 42 years old. So I do have a little experience here. And I wish I had 10 bucks for every trad guy on the Leatherwall back in the day who basically said "how hard could it be? You get all that stuff on your bow to help you!" LOL.

And what others have found out, Gary, and Ben and John will soon find out, is that 200 barebow arrows = about 50 Olympic recurve arrows. 

I've put a couple dozen, if not close to 100 barebow archers on an Olympic rig by now, and it never fails. What used to be effortless shooting just turned into real work.

But don't take my word for it. Try it yourself. Put a clicker on your bow, add a sight, add about 2-3 lbs. worth of stabilizers, and then put a bale out at 70 meters on a windy day and shoot a 144-arrow scoring round. 

I'm not making this stuff up guys. I lived it. What do you think I shot for nearly 20 years before I started shooting Olympic recurve?

And I'm thrilled to know that Ben and John are planning to give it a go. I've been on John to try it for some time now because I thought he might enjoy competing against the top recurve guys, and because he's still young enough to have a chance to make the top 16 cut at the next trials if he really applies himself.

John


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> Brady is the best finger shooter the US has ever produced.


Top three, yes. Darrell and Butch in their prime vs. Brady? I'd call it a toss-up.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

limbwalker said:


> Top three, yes. Darrell and Butch in their prime vs. Brady? I'd call it a toss-up.


Based upon career performance and milestones, I'd have to include Rick McKinney in that Top Three. Seven or eight times US National Champ, Olympic medal, 3-time World Champion, and at one point in his career simultaneously held the world record in 3 of the 4 FITA distances.


----------



## Orange+Blue (May 20, 2011)

I agree with limbwalker.
As a decent FITA barebow shooter, I thought its might be interesting this last year to go full Olympic recurve , if for no other reason to see where I stand against a larger pool of talent.
It was significantly harder than I expected and frankly, I'm still only 50% comfortable using the clicker after a year (although an on-off injury curtailed the amount of practice I could get in)
Switching back to barebow for this indoor season, the good news is that the effort is also showing a marked improvement in that discipline.

Cheers,

Matt


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

limbwalker said:


> Top three, yes. Darrell and Butch in their prime vs. Brady? I'd call it a toss-up.


For years, I considered Butch the best finger shooter ever. Watching Brady on target and field ranges changed that opinion for me. The three you mention are all worthy of the utmost respect.


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

John I know you are not making this stuff up. and I'm not a trad guy from leatherwall. I might have a little experience also just a difference of oppinion. I'm just saying its just as hard to shoot 144 perfect arrows no matter how you do it.


limbwalker said:


> I hope I'm wrong too Ben. But then I've been through it all twice now, once at 34 and again at 42 years old. So I do have a little experience here. And I wish I had 10 bucks for every trad guy on the Leatherwall back in the day who basically said "how hard could it be? You get all that stuff on your bow to help you!" LOL.
> 
> And what others have found out, Gary, and Ben and John will soon find out, is that 200 barebow arrows = about 50 Olympic recurve arrows.
> 
> ...


----------



## midwayarcherywi (Sep 24, 2006)

Seems to me Ed Eliason should be part of this conversation. He's the template for shooting at a high level for many decades. And if memory serves, gave up a USAT spot for a younger archer? Great archer, classy guy.


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

Orange+Blue said:


> I agree with limbwalker.
> As a decent FITA barebow shooter, I thought its might be interesting this last year to go full Olympic recurve , if for no other reason to see where I stand against a larger pool of talent.
> It was significantly harder than I expected and frankly, I'm still only 50% comfortable using the clicker after a year (although an on-off injury curtailed the amount of practice I could get in)
> Switching back to barebow for this indoor season, the good news is that the effort is also showing a marked improvement in that discipline.
> ...


Matt, I'm sure you are right but that doesn't mean the effort can't be made to pursue a dream. I will use your skepticism as a motivational factor. It's funny, when I told archers that I have known for years such as Tim Strickland, Brady, Jesse Morehead, Frank Pearson, Ed Eliason, Mike Gerard, etc., not one of them laughed. They were very supportive of my quest. There can't be any harm in trying.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

2413gary said:


> John I know you are not making this stuff up. and I'm not a trad guy from leatherwall. I might have a little experience also just a difference of oppinion. I'm just saying its just as hard to shoot 144 perfect arrows no matter how you do it.


I don't think John is speaking to the technical proficiency required of each discipline, but rather the greater physical demands of Olympic recurve.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

itbeso said:


> Matt, I'm sure you are right but that doesn't mean the effort can't be made to pursue a dream. I will use your skepticism as a motivational factor. It's funny, when I told archers that I have known for years such as Tim Strickland, Brady, Jesse Morehead, Frank Pearson, Ed Eliason, Mike Gerard, etc., not one of them laughed. They were very supportive of my quest. There can't be any harm in trying.


Ben, I'm 58 and rooting for you! Show me the way, baby!


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

lksseven said:


> Ben, I'm 58 and rooting for you! Show me the way, baby!


Thanks Larry, I'm going to give it a shot for at least the next 6 months to see if I can shoot a competitive 70 meters score. Brady said that I would need to be in the 325 330 range to possibly make the top 16 qualifiers. I am definitely going to be honest with my evaluation of myself. No self delusion if not making the scores.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Ben, I don't think anyone would laugh at you any more than they laughed at me back in '04. Those trials were my 4th national-level event... ever. I'm sure you and John will approach it much the same way I did - more of a test of your own skill than an attempt to qualify for any particular team. If you go far with it, that's just icing on the cake. That was always my mindset. The goal is really just to challenge oneself and see what's possible at the age you're at. I still do that almost daily. Some days I "win" and some days I "lose." 

Yes, Larry, you're right. There is a great deal of difference in shooting 144 arrows technically well, and being physically prepared to shoot 144 arrows with some of the best archers in the world on a windy field with the clock ticking down. But I can talk all day and it won't mean anything to those who've never tried it. Lots of things sound easy enough until you try them. I once thought I'd get my golf game down to a 2 handicap so I could play in a Monday qualifer for a tour event. LOL. Sounds easy enough when you're at a 5 handicap, right? What I learned after a couple years of steady work is that the difference between 5 and 2 is much bigger than the difference between 10 and 5. 

The same is true for making the transition from being a good barebow or compound archer to a good Olympic recurve archer IMO. And the reason I say this is only because of all those I've seen attempt it over the years. Many have tried. Very few have ever made it. I'd say 90-95% go back to what it was they were shooting within 2 years.

John


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

itbeso said:


> Thanks Larry, I'm going to give it a shot for at least the next 6 months to see if I can shoot a competitive 70 meters score. Brady said that I would need to be in the 325 330 range to possibly make the top 16 qualifiers. I am definitely going to be honest with my evaluation of myself. No self delusion if not making the scores.


Yes, that's the new standard. If 330's at 70M on a calm day are not only common, but routine, then there really isn't much hope of making that top 16. And that's a standard that's easy enough for any of us to use to evaluate ourselves at our home range. 

Prior to the '12 trials, my training average at home in reasonable winds was 332. Then the trials came and the winds were pretty ridiculous - UNTIL the final 36 arrow pass where I shot a 336 and moved up from 14th to 10th. 

So keep in mind when looking at those qualification scores from previous qualifiers that even those guys who are shooting 330's in training routinely, will more likely be shooting 320-325 at the trials. 



> There can't be any harm in trying.


Absolutely not. In fact, what you will learn along the way will enrich your whole archery experience, make you a better mentor and coach, and most likely, make you a better barebow shooter as well. I know I was a 240-250 NFAA trad shooter the year prior to switching to Olympic, and following a few years with that bow, came back to enjoy a 260-270 barebow average, solely because of all those arrows I shot through the clicker. Training with an Olympic rig will make anyone a better barebow shooter. I'm convinced of that.

John


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

And I'll pull a "gt" here and remind everyone that there is a big difference between qualifying for the top 16 cut at the first leg of our Olympic trials, and being considered a "world class" archer. World class these days is 340+ in competition. Right now, we only have 2 guys capable of that, much the same way that 10 years ago, we only had 2 world class male recurve archers in the U.S. - Vic and Butch.

On the women's side, 330+ is world class, and we only have two women capable of that in the U.S. who are actively competing. Perhaps 3, but that is yet to be seen. 

John


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

limbwalker said:


> And I'll pull a "gt" here and remind everyone that there is a big difference between qualifying for the top 16 cut at the first leg of our Olympic trials, and being considered a "world class" archer. World class these days is 340+ in competition. Right now, we only have 2 guys capable of that, much the same way that 10 years ago, we only had 2 world class male recurve archers in the U.S. - Vic and Butch.
> 
> On the women's side, 330+ is world class, and we only have two women capable of that in the U.S. who are actively competing. Perhaps 3, but that is yet to be seen.
> 
> John


I'm glad I got in on this thread because now I'm just dying to get out and set up an oly rig, sore finger and all. Archery is just a fun journey. Just got thru meeting some great new friends from around the world in barebow and other classes as well as getting to know Jake Kaminski and getting lots of support from him in the team rounds. Life is good. Good luck to all the others putting in the time to pursue their dreams.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Ben, how much weight are you pulling on your barebow, and how much do you plan to start with on the Oly. rig?


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

limbwalker said:


> Ben, how much weight are you pulling on your barebow, and how much do you plan to start with on the Oly. rig?


John, I'm currently shooting 48# in barebow. I am going to start with that and see if I can go through the clicker cleanly. If not, I have no issues with going down around 42-43 pounds. The border limbs I currently shoot are so smooth on the back end that I'm hoping the clicker process won't be too bad. Back in early 2012, right after I started shooting the recurve, I tried a clicker and under the chin anchor and was pleased with the results. Also, It seems to be so much easier to set my bow up for accuracy with my fingers against the nock rather than having to set up for stringwalking tune. I don't have any delusions that the process will be easy, I'm just going to make an honest effort and see where the chips fall. Your story is also an inspiration for all of us dreamers.


----------



## Orange+Blue (May 20, 2011)

itbeso said:


> Matt, I'm sure you are right but that doesn't mean the effort can't be made to pursue a dream. I will use your skepticism as a motivational factor. It's funny, when I told archers that I have known for years such as Tim Strickland, Brady, Jesse Morehead, Frank Pearson, Ed Eliason, Mike Gerard, etc., not one of them laughed. They were very supportive of my quest. There can't be any harm in trying.


Just to be clear, I'm not being skeptical in the slightest. You have my fullest support in your endeavors. Just wanted to add my experience as barebow shooter that is (still) considering getting serious with the full recurve.
I haven't given up , I'll come back to it full time for outdoors next year and I'll keep working with it over the winter. But I definitely have had to reset my expectations of what I might be able to achieve and when I might achieve it by.

Cheers,

Matt


----------



## acco205 (Jun 13, 2014)

limbwalker said:


> Anyone who's shot Olympic recurve at a high level will tell you that if you're not training, you're losing what endurance and skill you've developed, every minute of the day.


This. 

I normally shoot M W Th(or F, depending on the week) S Su, recently took Th-Su off as I was out of town. Brought stretch bands and everything with me but didnt get to spend as much time on them as I'd hoped. Monday was like shooting for the first time again. I dont think anyone is saying barebow isnt physical, but even a bare Oly rig takes less effort to shoot than one loaded with weights. (and dont forget all of the walking!)



itbeso said:


> As I have stated for the last year, when the Field championships were over, I would be setting up an oly recurve and striving to make the next Olympic team.


I'll see you at trials next year.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

The 1st leg of the trials events are always an interesting mix of folks - young AND old. 

I remember the crowd in '04 well, guys I'd shot with at ranking events, kids I'd shot with, etc. A few of them kept shooting after those trials. Most did not. Seemed like almost an entirely new crowd in 2012, save for a few of us. Once again, lots of diversity young and old. I expect to see significant turnover again for the 2016 trials event.

I don't have the numbers in front of me, but my guess is that out of an average of about 70-80 folks, only about 15 return for the next trials event. And of those 15, about 6 or 7 attend consecutive trials events. So that's close to a 80% turnover rate in the Olympic recurve discipline every 4 years at the upper level. 80% 

Seems high right? 

I didn't know why that was at first, but now I do.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> Just to be clear, I'm not being skeptical in the slightest


Being skeptical of ANYONE making a 3-person Olympic archery team is just playing the odds. It's simple statistics. Being skeptical is actually the REASONABLE reaction. Telling someone they have any shot at all is as reasonable as telling them they will eventually win the lottery. 

This is why I tell my students that instead of making it their goal to make the Olympic team, they should instead make it their goal to be in a POSITION to make it. Because there are dozens of guys and gals who were fantastic archers, but never made it.

Again, just 16 men have represented the U.S. at the Olympics since 1972. 16 out of how many who have shot Olympic style archery in the U.S.? If you just look at those who qualified to attend the trials, it's still an incredibly small percentage.


----------



## acco205 (Jun 13, 2014)

That IS an interesting statistic. Though I dont think that seems high at all. For a lot of people I think they just go to see if they can cut it. For others they want to know if their dream is realistic. A lot can happen in 4 years. Injuries, new hobbies, new jobs, starting a family. Considering the volume of people that go, I dont think its unreasonable for that many people to change their mind 4 years later. What I'd really like to see is the number of people who say they are going to come back vs the number that do and the number of people who stop shooting all together after trials.

Personally I'm planning to go to trails next year for the experience with the hope that by 2019 I wont be there for experience. But who knows, 2019 is still many, many arrows away and life has an interesting way of turning you in different directions when you least expect it.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> What I'd really like to see is the number of people who say they are going to come back vs the number that do and the number of people who stop shooting all together after trials.


Honestly, it was very sad to me to see how many of our top shooters essentially stopped competing after the trials events. Guys like John Burkett, Scott McKechnie, Guy Krueger, Shawn Rice, Mark Williams, Dane Peterson, and many others on the men's side. More recently, guys like Ezra Wheeler, Dakota Sinclair and Thomas Stanwood have been conspicuous in their absence. On the women's side, Kendra Harvey ('04 alternate) comes to mind, along with a few others who came and went in a flash. 

But it's not really any surprise when you're viewed as a "failure" in some people's eyes for not making the team... 

http://www.vindy.com/news/2004/jun/19/archery-sharpsville-native-burkett-fails-to-make/?print

It's a standard that is simply too high for some to even attempt for fear of being viewed as a failure.

On the men's side right now, just as in 2004, everyone should pretty well know that all but 2 archers will be competing for basically one spot. If Brady and Jake keep shooting the way they have - and I fully expect they will - then that means we all get to compete against the likes of Wunderle, Johnson, Wukie, Fanchin, Klimitchek, Cusick, and the McLaughlin twins for one spot.


----------



## acco205 (Jun 13, 2014)

All oh whom have the distinct advantage of being able to train with their coach daily to prepare as well. Not to mention plenty of high level competition under their belts.

I still see no reason not to attend if I am able though, again if only to see just how far I still have to go if I want to have a decent shot at that one spot for 2020.

Incidentally I shot with Fanchin on monday and he kicked my ass handily.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

limbwalker said:


> And I'll pull a "gt" here and remind everyone that there is a big difference between qualifying for the top 16 cut at the first leg of our Olympic trials, and being considered a "world class" archer. World class these days is 340+ in competition. Right now, we only have 2 guys capable of that, much the same way that 10 years ago, we only had 2 world class male recurve archers in the U.S. - Vic and Butch.
> 
> On the women's side, 330+ is world class, and we only have two women capable of that in the U.S. who are actively competing. Perhaps 3, but that is yet to be seen.
> 
> John


What a great thread!

Speaking of >gt>, where is >gt>? I haven't seen him post here in almost a year, it seems.


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

limbwalker said:


> With all due respect to Ben, barebow and compound are two disciplines where you can be competitive a bit longer than recurve. Anyone who's shot Olympic recurve at a high level will tell you that if you're not training, you're losing what endurance and skill you've developed, every minute of the day. Olympic recurve is not quite like the other diciplines. It's much more physically demanding. A lot of older archers can shoot as well as they ever have for 20, 30 or even 40 arrows, but pretty quickly the fatigue starts to kick in - especially on windy days.
> 
> One reason Butch Johnson has been able to have success into his 50's is because he shoots one discipline year-round. He has an indoor range in his basement and an outdoor range in his back yard. To be proficient with the Olympic bow, you cannot go more than a few days in a row without shooting.
> 
> ...


Nobody is saying it isn't hard work to make a team where it is extremely competitive to get one of those few spots.

I would say that if the Olympics brought in compounds and barebows, the number of people competing for those few coveted spots would skyrocket. And because of that, barebow and compound shooters will have to put the same number of hours in to get that one or two point edge. I am sure that many of the professional compound shooters out there put in as much time as any olympic shooter does.

But to say that shooting an Oly bow is harder just isn't the case. I am of the opinion that shooting a barebow is harder because of the greater number of uncertainties in the shooting form that don't have mechanical assists that the Oly and compound shooters have to help with the shooting process.

In any endevor, it takes a lot of time and effort to be good. It takes even more time to be excellent, and it is a life style to be the best of the best.

Right now there is only one event where there is a best of the best recognition, and that is the olympics, and that is limited to the Oly bow and the 70m round. So there is a natural viewpoint that Oly shooters have a lot of hard work to be excellent when compared to the other disciplines, because it does take a lot of work to get there. But if compounds and barebows were official divisions, that argument would be gone.

Anyways, the olympic round is more of a test on ones ability to maintain repeatability. The better you are at repeatability, the better your scores are. Yeah, age and endurance does play a factor in things. But so does skill. In the end, it is all about the final score and not the age of the shooter. The original post was about being concerned about being too old. I would say, your never too old. Lets not put constraints on ourselves thinking we are too old. Lets show the world that we old farts can still teach the youngsters a new trick or too.

I don't have grey hair, I just have a bad case on dandruff

Pete


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Pete, shooting an Olympic bow is physically more demanding than compound or barebow. You won't convince me otherwise, because I shoot all three and my body can easily tell the difference.

Shooting any of them at the elite level demands an equal amount of training and skill.

And yes, to shoot at the world class level with an Olympic bow, at some point, you are too old. So far Ed Eliason is the gold standard.

Let's not live in la-la land here.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

limbwalker said:


> Honestly, it was very sad to me to see how many of our top shooters essentially stopped competing after the trials events. Guys like John Burkett, Scott McKechnie, Guy Krueger, Shawn Rice, Mark Williams, Dane Peterson, and many others on the men's side. More recently, guys like Ezra Wheeler, Dakota Sinclair and Thomas Stanwood have been conspicuous in their absence. On the women's side, Kendra Harvey ('04 alternate) comes to mind, along with a few others who came and went in a flash.
> 
> But it's not really any surprise when you're viewed as a "failure" in some people's eyes for not making the team...
> 
> ...


You forgot "... and Seale."

La la la la la ...


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

Help me understand the difference between the two recurve shots. I totally understand the difference with the compound. Why would you shoot the recurve Barebow and not execute the shot the same as when you shoot Olympic style? The only difference is the higher anchor. I went through 4 years of training for my wife with Don Rabska for the Olympics I do know what the shot is all about. So what part of the shot is more demanding ?

Gary


limbwalker said:


> Pete, shooting an Olympic bow is physically more demanding than compound or barebow. You won't convince me otherwise, because I shoot all three and my body can easily tell the difference.
> 
> Shooting any of them at the elite level demands an equal amount of training and skill.
> 
> ...


----------



## TER (Jul 5, 2003)

"But to say that shooting an Oly bow is harder just isn't the case. I am of the opinion that shooting a barebow is harder because of the greater number of uncertainties in the shooting form that don't have mechanical assists that the Oly and compound shooters have to help with the shooting process."

I used to believe that when I had shot only barebow. But shooting with a clicker is physically harder work than barebow and a more complex skill to master. It is a mechanical assist that will result in higher scores once you know how to use it... but it makes shooting physically harder.


----------



## acco205 (Jun 13, 2014)

The physical weight of the bow (mass weight) is greater

The draw weight *may* be higher

Clicker control is a beast on its own

distances are greater, which magnify any minor issues with form and fatigue

balance of the bow is much farther forward (hold a 2 pound weight in your hand at arms length, then to it again with the weight on a 30" stick)

The act of simply aiming the bow higher on its own can be demanding (not to mention pulling through the clicker while aiming so high)

the list goes on...


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> Why would you shoot the recurve Barebow and not execute the shot the same as when you shoot Olympic style? The only difference is the higher anchor. I went through 4 years of training for my wife with Don Rabska for the Olympics I do know what the shot is all about


I'm sorry Gary. I cannot reconcile those statements.

I have many years of experience doing both, at what I consider a pretty high level (finished in the top 3 in the U.S. in each discipline, at Olympic trials with recurve and indoor Nationals with barebow). So you'll just have to take my word on this one.


----------



## centershot (Sep 13, 2002)

Tony Harbaugh - 3 time NFAA Nationals winner, 2 time Vegas winner (+ a Second place) in the last 3 years shooting in the Pro Senior Unlimited class. I remember him working his way through the ranks at the local range and has now really hit his stride.


----------



## GMarz (Aug 7, 2013)

So I have read most of this and being 35, having shot now close to two years I am still seeing scores improve steadily, but not drastically. I shot a 792 the other day in a 900 American round (60,50,40 yards). My friend shot an 812 two weeks prior, is older and has been shooting a few months less than me. Anyone else care to share scores and experience in this thread or another. Curious as to the true numbers that are out there.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

GMarz, my first outdoor target round was a metric 900 I shot for the Illinois State Games, 3 months after switching from barebow to Olympic in the fall of 2013. I shot a 814. The following May at the Hoyt Days shoot in St. Louis, I shot an 854 (again, metric 900). I was 34 then.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

GMarz,

Shot an 837 American 900 round last year in OKla State Outdoor Tournament, at age 57 - shooting for 3.5 years to that point.
Midwayarcherywi shot an 842 in 2011 National Senior Games American 900 round while in his mid fifties.

I also shot a 792 two months ago, confirming something else John said earlier - if your training input diminishes, so does your performance output.


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

limbwalker said:


> Pete, shooting an Olympic bow is physically more demanding than compound or barebow. You won't convince me otherwise, because I shoot all three and my body can easily tell the difference.
> 
> Shooting any of them at the elite level demands an equal amount of training and skill.
> 
> ...


John, I am getting confused here. Your original post was about wondering if you have passed your prime to be realistically able to compete at the Olympics. I was trying to encourage you to chase your dreams. I was trying to use Ben as an example of an older gentleman that is able to shoot some awesome scores and is still going strong if not stronger. And yet these are the replies.....


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

i didnt take the original post as John contemplating his own prime. I thought he was talking in general about everyone.

Chris


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

Competitive BB draw weight for men is anything over 36# these days, you just don't need more for any of the WA disciplines which can be shoot by BB.
Competitive Oly draw weight for men is +45#


Plus the added mass of the Oly bow, plus more arrows, plus the work-load of the clicker, plus the work-load of shooting in generally a lot more wind.

I shoot BB to a reasonably high standard for 900 rounds, WA Field, Indoor and 3D. I also dabble in Oly and Compound. Oly is just flat-out more physically demanding then those disciplines and it shows in the archers.

However I do consider BB to require a different sort of mental control which can be very hard to master that can make it a sport which is won on experience more than athletic ability.

-Grant


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

chrstphr said:


> i didnt take the original post as John contemplating his own prime. I thought he was talking in general about everyone.
> 
> Chris


Chris, as usual, you are correct. It was a general statement. I'm perfectly aware of what my capabilities are, and after 10+ years competing at a fairly high level with both Oly. and barebow, know what training and effort are required to get to various levels of performance.



> I was trying to encourage you to chase your dreams. I was trying to use Ben as an example of an older gentleman that is able to shoot some awesome scores and is still going strong if not stronger. And yet these are the replies.....


I appreciate the encouragement, but I realized my "dream" (of making the 2005 U.S. Archery Team) many years ago. Everything since, including making the 2004 Olympic team, has been a nice bonus. 

This past March, I realized another "dream" of mine - setting a new record indoors for TFAA on the blue/white target shooting traditional. I had to go back to that format because it's what I left when I picked up the Olympic bow, and I felt like I never finished what I had started back then. My goal was to average 280 on that face over 2 days, and I met that goal and raised the state record by 10 points. Maybe if someone breaks my record, I'll have a new goal. 

As for Ben being an example of what's possible, you are correct. What you may not realize is that I've shot alongside Butch Johnson long enough to fully understand what is possible for archers of an advanced age. In 2012, he once again beat me in a match at a time when I was shooting the best I ever had, and he was 56 years old. He's just incredible. Ed Eliason is another one who has proven what is possible. But I was used to this, as one of my target archery mentors - a fellow named Bob Wolff from Southern Illinois who is easily old enough to be my father - whipped my rear end pretty handily back in 2002, and that's what got me started on the target archery path in the first place.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> Oly is just flat-out more physically demanding then those disciplines *and it shows in the archers*.


I wasn't going to point that out...  

In the months leading up to the 2nd leg of the 2012 trials, I lost 16 lbs. I went from 204 to 188 between January and May of that year, and it was all due to training with the Olympic bow. There is a reason most Olympic shooters are thin. 



> However I do consider BB to require a different sort of mental control which can be very hard to master that can make it a sport which is won on experience more than athletic ability.


This is true with both barebow and compound. More mentally demanding, but less so physically.

John


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

Unless I am missing something witch I must be. Olympic shooters train harder? This would be the difference because you have a sight and a clicker? 
Please don't think I'm a pain in the ass even if I am. I'm 64 and have shot for 53 years and at a Relatively high level at times and trained the same. I just can't see the difference. 
Gary


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Gary, you can answer your own question if you just rig up an Olympic bow and go fling a few at 70M on a windy open field.


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

John should I use my Nexus,GMX,RX or my HPX:wink:


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

2413gary said:


> John should I use my Nexus,GMX,RX or my HPX:wink:


As long as you have Border limbs on them, who cares?:mg:


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

2413gary said:


> John should I use my Nexus,GMX,RX or my HPX:wink:


Makes me no difference. Just get out there and break 300 at 70 meters four times in a row on a single day, and report back. 

Should be no harder than shooting 144 arrows from a barebow, I hear.


----------



## midwayarcherywi (Sep 24, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> Makes me no difference. Just get out there and break 300 at 70 meters four times in a row on a single day, and report back.
> 
> Should be no harder than shooting 144 arrows from a barebow, I hear.


Quit poking the bear John!


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

I thought we were talking about the physical difference of the two styles. I give the Olympic shooters are tougher than barebow


limbwalker said:


> Makes me no difference. Just get out there and break 300 at 70 meters four times in a row on a single day, and report back.
> 
> Should be no harder than shooting 144 arrows from a barebow, I hear.


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

limbwalker said:


> Makes me no difference. Just get out there and break 300 at 70 meters four times in a row on a single day, and report back.
> 
> Should be no harder than shooting 144 arrows from a barebow, I hear.


I know it's not relevant to anything but I have shot 307 at 70 meters in practice-barebow. We have the Pacific Coast Championships, full fita round, Sept.20. That will probably be my last barebow tourney for this year. If I can match the practice score, I'll post up.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Four times in a row, with an Olympic rig.  And that's just day one of the Oly. trials... 

Ben, maybe you should just shoot the trials barebow? 

In 2011, Joe McGlyn was our 16th place qualifer, and finished with a 1249, or a 312.25 average. 
I suspect it will be even higher next year. Probably a 315 average to make the top 16.

I qualified 10th with a 320.25 average. I'm not even sure a 1280 will make the top 16 in 2015.


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

John you just not trying hard enough shooting barebow:wink:


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

2413gary said:


> John you just not trying hard enough shooting barebow:wink:


You're absolutely right about that! A man can't serve two masters, much less three, and I routinely rotate between Olympic, barebow and compound. Mainly because I have students who shoot all three, and I want to be able to help them as much as possible through my own experience. But I'm sure I'd shoot BB better if I just focused on that alone.


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

Off topic - Sounds like there are several hardcore barebow/trad shooters following this thread. I have been trying to find some tournaments that I can afford to go to so I can get to meet some of the best of the best so I can learn from them about what I am doing wrong so I can up my game. Up here in Washington, the only person that routinely beats me is Dan Croft. But he hasn't been shooting much lately. He tells me to just keep shooting. But for all practical purposes everything, good or bad, is learned by trial and error on the flat range. Most of Washington is in bed with the NFAA so string walking is illegal at most tournaments. I have been thinking about doing Vegas again, but have no idea who will be there shooting barebow-recurve. The NAA target championships has already dropped barebow. I might go to mechanicsberg next year for the NFAA field championships. Maybe Gary will go there. I didn't get to shoot with him at Darrington because he shot the senior division and I shot the adult division. But what I would like to do is do WA field. As far as I can tell the WA world field championships is the Olympics for barebow shooters and it would be the ultimate challenge to be good enough to be selected to represent the US. But training under real tournament pressure is hard to do when one lives in a NFAA state. I don't know where next year's WA field championships are going to be yet. But that might be the tournament to go to to learn from the best. As for where I am in my abilities, I shoot around 700 on the 900 rounds, and 400 on the NFAA Field rounds. So you experts out there know that there is a lot of room for improvement. I would like to do one big tournament next year, but which one will have the most barebow-recurve shooters there to learn from.

Pete


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

Vegas would be a place to start. tell Dan I said hi 
Gary


Mr. Roboto said:


> Off topic - Sounds like there are several hardcore barebow/trad shooters following this thread. I have been trying to find some tournaments that I can afford to go to so I can get to meet some of the best of the best so I can learn from them about what I am doing wrong so I can up my game. Up here in Washington, the only person that routinely beats me is Dan Croft. But he hasn't been shooting much lately. He tells me to just keep shooting. But for all practical purposes everything, good or bad, is learned by trial and error on the flat range. Most of Washington is in bed with the NFAA so string walking is illegal at most tournaments. I have been thinking about doing Vegas again, but have no idea who will be there shooting barebow-recurve. The NAA target championships has already dropped barebow. I might go to mechanicsberg next year for the NFAA field championships. Maybe Gary will go there. I didn't get to shoot with him at Darrington because he shot the senior division and I shot the adult division. But what I would like to do is do WA field. As far as I can tell the WA world field championships is the Olympics for barebow shooters and it would be the ultimate challenge to be good enough to be selected to represent the US. But training under real tournament pressure is hard to do when one lives in a NFAA state. I don't know where next year's WA field championships are going to be yet. But that might be the tournament to go to to learn from the best. As for where I am in my abilities, I shoot around 700 on the 900 rounds, and 400 on the NFAA Field rounds. So you experts out there know that there is a lot of room for improvement. I would like to do one big tournament next year, but which one will have the most barebow-recurve shooters there to learn from.
> 
> Pete


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Couple of thoughts for you Pete...



> The NAA target championships has already dropped barebow.


We're trying to get barebow back at Outdoor Nationals. I working on a committee right now that is preparing a proposal for the board. I hope Outdoor Nationals becomes a serious event for barebow archers someday.



> As far as I can tell the WA world field championships is the Olympics for barebow shooters and it would be the ultimate challenge to be good enough to be selected to represent the US. But training under real tournament pressure is hard to do when one lives in a NFAA state.


Tournament pressure is the same wherever you go, as long as you're shooting against good shooters. NFAA Indoor Nat's in Louisville was a hot event this year. Just as hotly contested as the world field trials, if not moreso. If you can win there, you can win anywhere.

Since you're in WA, you should just travel down to the CA state championships and shoot against Alan and Ben. That's about as far as you have to go to find world class barebow competition.

Going from NFAA trad to WA barebow is a PITA, yes, but it's not such a big deal that the top shooters cannot do both. They do, as evidenced by John, Ben and Alan. 


and this is just a pet peeve of mine, but as an archery coach, this is one of my least favorite phrases:



> so I can learn from them about what I am doing wrong


I've never heard a championship caliber archer say anything like this. But I hear it quite often unfortunately. I'd say the first thing that has to change is your mindset. You're going to have to find a way to focus on the things you're doing right, and how to get better. Top archers rarely, if ever, think they are doing anything "wrong," they just think they could always get better.

John


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

limbwalker said:


> Chris, as usual, you are correct. It was a general statement. I'm perfectly aware of what my capabilities are, and after 10+ years competing at a fairly high level with both Oly. and barebow, know what training and effort are required to get to various levels of performance.


Yes, I didnt think the thread was about you. If anything the thread is about me and shooters like me. I didnt pick up an Olympic bow until age 42, ( having only shot barebow as a youth in boy scouts some 30 years prior). I have been training for 6 years total since 2004 as i had a break in there. I have high level competition goals and high score goals. I train to meet those goals. 

I have dreams of making a world cup team or Olympic team even at my age, but i dont train specifically for that. I train to shoot the best scores i can. 

I hope to be one of the ones who bucks the trend and does it. Having said that, it is on one hand much harder each year that i get older to train as hard, and it much more demanding on my body. 

The good side is i am grown, have a family and business that i manage with archery, i can afford to fund myself, and i dont have to worry about getting sponsors or meeting any requirements to stay on a team, or at the OTC, or worry what i will do after archery ( college, job etc).


Chris


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Ben Rogers is a perfect example of what an archer, who is in their 60's and is still capable of shooting, improving and being a strong competitor.

With any question regarding age and experience there will always be an answer that the majority will fit into...and than there will be those that go beyond the norm.

Where there's a will there's generally a way and it often involves passion but there is a point where our bodies start deteriorating and we are no longer capable of doing what we use to be able to do. 

Archery is just not that physically demanding of a sport...generally speaking, so an athlete can continue to be a strong competitor allot longer than other sports...especially if an archer can maintain their mental focus.

Ray :shade:


----------



## midwayarcherywi (Sep 24, 2006)

Very cool thread and I like all the passion. I'm in the group that believes Father Time will not allow a 70yo to make an Olympic team, but I sure would like to be proven wrong. Heck, if a 70yo could shoot a 330 in a major event, that would be just as impressive. A 1300 shooter at 70 years of age, well that would be extraordinary.


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

Pete,

JOAD recognizes WA BB so there has actually been a few people shooting the division in Washington.
Depending on my work situation I'm going to try to get a WA Field league happening in Mount Vernon at Silver Arrow bowmen. Probably just a 12 target round to get started but I'm trying to make it free or cheap to get participation and maybe draw a few JOAD archers out.

-Grant


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

midwayarcherywi said:


> Very cool thread and I like all the passion. I'm in the group that believes Father Time will not allow a 70yo to make an Olympic team, but I sure would like to be proven wrong. Heck, if a 70yo could shoot a 330 in a major event, that would be just as impressive. A 1300 shooter at 70 years of age, well that would be extraordinary.


I would agree with the 70 year old statement but I will only be 69 so I think it's worth a shot.:teeth:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

This video is really not specifically archery related...but it is a good example of what proper training, diet, passion and determination can do...even when some people think we are way past our prime.

The human body is capable of much more than what some people want to acknowledge or will realize!

Ray :shade:


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

BLACK WOLF said:


> Ben Rogers is a perfect example of what an archer, who is in their 60's and is still capable of shooting, improving and being a strong competitor.
> 
> With any question regarding age and experience there will always be an answer that the majority will fit into...and than there will be those that go beyond the norm.
> 
> ...


Yes! And I think a significant factor in the erosion of archery performance is not only some diminished physical capabilities, but also that an under appreciated aspect of diminished performance metrics is the aging archer's ability to maintain a high mental focus for extended periods of time.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> I have dreams of making a world cup team or Olympic team even at my age, but i dont train specifically for that. I train to shoot the best scores i can.


This.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

lksseven said:


> Yes! And I think a significant factor in the erosion of archery performance is not only some diminished physical capabilities, but also that an under appreciated aspect of diminished performance metrics is the aging archer's ability to maintain a high mental focus for extended periods of time.


:thumbs_up

This may offend some people...but archery isn't really that physically demanding. Each aspect of form is pretty easy in and by themselves to perform...especially with a lighter draw weight. It's the mental aspect of the game...that becomes the most crucial aspect of our sport once the fundamentals are learned as it is with many other sports. I believe in archery it becomes 90% mental and 10% physical.

Ray :shade:


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

BLACK WOLF said:


> :thumbs_up
> 
> This may offend some people...but archery isn't really that physically demanding. Each aspect of form is pretty easy in and by themselves to perform...especially with a lighter draw weight. It's the mental aspect of the game...that becomes the most crucial aspect of our sport once the fundamentals are learned as it is with many other sports. I believe in archery it becomes 90% mental and 10% physical.
> 
> Ray :shade:


Spoken like someone who has a genetic predisposition towards strength and zero experience with olympic archery.

-Grant


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

grantmac said:


> Spoken like someone who has a genetic predisposition towards strength and zero experience with olympic archery.


I'm sorry if my statement offends you or causes you to feel the need to make a false accusation about me...but the fact of the matter is...an Olympic archer or really any competitive archer does not need to be in tip top physical shape as many other sports require. Being in great physical condition can surely help an archer...but so can dropping down to lighter draw weights.

Look...I absolutely love archery!!! All aspects of it...whether it's Olympic, field, 3D, trick shooting or bowhunting. I love it all. It's unfortunate that some take my comments negatively...when there really is no reason to.

Ray :shade:


----------



## acco205 (Jun 13, 2014)

There is a very big difference between saying something is only 10% physical and saying its "less physically demanding than other sports"

In the case of oly recurve, however, I think both are (generally) false. I will less that it is less apparently physically demanding than say running or swimming, but any competent shooter should know that there is FAR more to the equation than that. 

I have the argument with people seemingly weekly who say that racing cars (my other passtime) is not physically demanding. Yet I still maintain that anything that elevates your heart rate and can leave a fit person sweaty and sore is a very physical activity. With a select number of people I've even go so far as to take them on track (or stage, since I'm a rally driver) for an hour and sweat it out in a real race car. Most cant handle it. It takes training and preparation to be able to endure that sort of abuse. The same way running a marathon or shooting a bow requires that you train for that.

The fact of the matter is that you have to work and work hard to be able to shoot 144 arrows from any bow. And thats not even with proper form or any sort of accuracy. Thats just to get 144 arrows to leave the bow. I would also go sofar as to say "peak physical condition" is a relative term. Many professional athlets are considered to be in "peak physical condition" as is every olympic athlete. But I bet you a olympic sprinter couldnt keep up with an olympic swimmer. And neither of them could keep up with a weight lifter. And just like the archer might not be able to do those 3 activities, none of them could shoot 144 arrows from a 40# bow without a lot of training.


And since the main argument has been weather barebow is less demanding or not, I would simply challenge any barebow shooter the same way I challenge someone who tells me racing isnt demanding. Load your bow down with weights, walk out to 70m and shoot 144 arrows in the sun and let us all know if it was just as easy.


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

I really don't understand my bow weighs just over 6 lbs its no big deal to shoot 144 arrows so is it the sun or the 70 meters that makes Olympic so physically demanding. Don't tell me its the clicker expanding through the shot is the same. A perfect shot is demanding with or without a sight. I will say I can't shoot 300 four times in a row. But I have tried many times. Challenge met.
Gary


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

2413gary said:


> Vegas would be a place to start. tell Dan I said hi
> Gary


Sure thing, I will say hi to Dan for ya.

Yeah, I would love to do Vegas again. Still working on getting the wife to say yes to the spending of the family money just on me because she wont go. The last time we did Vegas we learned just how bad her allergy to cigarette smoke was when it was at the Riviera.

Anyways, Congrats on your wins at both the NFAA and IFAA field championships last month.


----------



## acco205 (Jun 13, 2014)

2413gary said:


> I really don't understand *my bow weighs just over 6 lbs* its no big deal to shoot 144 arrows so is it the sun or the 70 meters that makes Olympic so physically demanding. Don't tell me its the clicker expanding through the shot is the same. A perfect shot is demanding with or without a sight. I will say I can't shoot 300 four times in a row. But I have tried many times. Challenge met.
> Gary


But consider that the center of mass on your 6lb bare bow is situated at the end of your arm. Even relocating 3oz of that weight to 30" in front of your hand will make a considerable difference. Its basic physics. Its also why no sane coach starts their oly students with side rods and big weights. It doesnt seem like much, but when you're dangling a few pounds of weight 6 feet away from your shoulder its suddenly a bigger deal. Add in the physical effort to control it all when a gust of wind catches all the extra crap hanging off your bow...yeah. It makes a difference. Its not something that cant be overcome, but its definitely advantage to the younger archer who can adapt and recover faster.


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

limbwalker said:


> Couple of thoughts for you Pete...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Right now I am in a frustrating period with my shooting. I am quite sure there are some things that is just wrong with my form right now. I just can't feel what it is. When I ask some of the Level 3 and 4 coaches at the range I get the same response, I am doing fine. The guy that runs the pro shop at the range asks me "why am I spending so much time typing to change my release because you shoot good". But since they all work with either oly or compound shooters their experience isn't with barebows. Everything I have learned about shooting since that intro to bow shooting class I took 10 years ago has been self taught and refined. I am sure that if I spend a weekend on field round with some of you experts out there my brain would be exploding with all sorts of new information on how I can improve my game. And who knows, maybe by the time I get to 70 I might be able to shoot as well as Ben.


----------



## ThomVis (Feb 21, 2012)

chrstphr said:


> I have dreams of making a world cup team or Olympic team even at my age, but i dont train specifically for that. I train to shoot the best scores i can.


Amen.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

acco205 said:


> There is a very big difference between saying something is only 10% physical and saying its "less physically demanding than other sports"
> 
> In the case of oly recurve, however, I think both are (generally) false. I will less that it is less apparently physically demanding than say running or swimming, but any competent shooter should know that there is FAR more to the equation than that.
> 
> ...


Agree.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> Don't tell me its the clicker expanding through the shot is the same.


Okay, I won't tell you. Mostly because you already have your mind made up.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> I am sure that if I spend a weekend on field round with some of you experts out there my brain would be exploding with all sorts of new information on how I can improve my game.


Sounds like it probably would, which is most likely an area you could get better.  If you can't learn to switch that brain off and just shoot, you'll find yourself spinning in place for a long time.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

2413gary said:


> I really don't understand my bow weighs just over 6 lbs its no big deal to shoot 144 arrows so is it the sun or the 70 meters that makes Olympic so physically demanding. *Don't tell me its the clicker expanding through the shot is the same.* A perfect shot is demanding with or without a sight. I will say I can't shoot 300 four times in a row. But I have tried many times. Challenge met.
> Gary



Shooting with a clicker, under the pressure of competition, is more physically demanding than shooting without a clicker. Like the difference between a normal benchpress rep and benchpressing that same weight while keeping a glass of water balanced on the bar. The _enforced demands of the physical precision_ require a different order of magnitude in the muscle exertion and control involved


----------



## midwayarcherywi (Sep 24, 2006)

We are just about the point in this thread where words will convince no one. As John suggested, train and shoot 144 competitive Olympic recurve arrows, then share the experience with us.


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

John John John I'm not so stubborn that my mind can't be changed. Acco205 tels me about the center mass I'm going to try it now I don't have side rods but my front stabilizer is almost 2 lbs and is 12" long. (Still not buying it but?) I'm wondering if you as an Olympic shooter you put more pressure mentally on yourself which makes you tired. Giving you the sense of more physical strength to shoot only style.


limbwalker said:


> Okay, I won't tell you. Mostly because you already have your mind made up.


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

Thanks


Mr. Roboto said:


> Sure thing, I will say hi to Dan for ya.
> 
> Yeah, I would love to do Vegas again. Still working on getting the wife to say yes to the spending of the family money just on me because she wont go. The last time we did Vegas we learned just how bad her allergy to cigarette smoke was when it was at the Riviera.
> 
> Anyways, Congrats on your wins at both the NFAA and IFAA field championships last month.


----------



## acco205 (Jun 13, 2014)

2413gary said:


> John John John I'm not so stubborn that my mind can't be changed. Acco205 tels me about the center mass I'm going to try it now I don't have side rods but my front stabilizer is almost 2 lbs and is 12" long. (Still not buying it but?) I'm wondering if you as an Olympic shooter you put more pressure mentally on yourself which makes you tired. Giving you the sense of more physical strength to shoot only style.


12" isnt even close. A 30" stab is a much larger lever and will catch quite a bit more wind than a 12" stab.

Here is a cheap an easy experiment- grab some weight- any weight. Dont care how much. Hold it arms length. Then have someone time how long before you can no longer hold it steady without drooping or shaking.

Then tape the weight to the end of a yard stick and hold the yard stick straight out so that the weight is ~30-36" away from your hand, parallel with the floor. Have someone time how long before you droop or shake.

Report back. Again this is the basic physics of a lever here.

Then you have wind.

Tape a ruler to the wall, parallel to the floor.

With the weight in your hand, held at arms distance, set your hand to about the 0 mark on the ruler and have someone gently push your hand. attempt to keep your hand at 0. Measure how far they can push it.

Repeat with weighted yard stick. Have your helper push the end of the yard stick.


And then there is the clicker. I dont have a drill for this, but they are cheap enough to just go play with. Just remember that when you shoot, towards the end of the day it gets hard and harder to expand, right? Your back gets tired, your shoulders start to collapse...believe it or not, your draw length has now shortened by 2mm and on a bare bow, you'll never be able to measure that. Its 2mm after all. Hard to feel, isnt going to translate a whole lot at the target.

The clicker knows that 2mm is there. And it hasnt gone off yet. So your options are fudge the shot and force it through by pulling with your fingers, bicep, expanding with the chest, etc which is going to turn a 9 into a 5 at 70m OR you simply have to train past that and work on your clicker control. After a few hours of shooting on your own its difficult enough. Add the stress of competition to that mix too and it only gets harder.


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

acco205 thank you this is the explanation I was looking for. I may still have a few issues but I now understand where you get your thoughts on why you feel it's more demanding. 
Gary


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

acco205 said:


> There is a very big difference between saying something is only 10% physical and saying its "less physically demanding than other sports"


I agree. There's definitely a difference :thumbs_up



acco205 said:


> I will less that it is less apparently physically demanding than say running or swimming, but any competent shooter should know that there is FAR more to the equation than that.


I just want to make it clear. I am not saying that what an Olympic archer does is easy. Far from it. I'm just saying it is less physically demanding than many other sports which is why an archer can remain competitive longer than most other sports. 

IMO...the shooting sports...are more mental than physical which is NOT saying they aren't physically demanding in some way. I've shot full blown Olympic rigs and the fatigue factor for me didn't show much of a difference when compared to my regular bow. I could just tell that my bow arm shoulder had to work more to hold the bow up but my draw arm didn't have to work as hard because the draw weight was 30lbs. lighter. Just different yet similar in regards to the amount of fatigue.

Ray :shade:


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

I have a question on this clicker thing. I have never shot with a clicker so I don't have any personal experience with it. My wife does and she agrees that it gets harder to pull through it as the day goes on when she gets more tired.

It is my understanding that a clicker is there to make sure that you have a very consistent draw length. So the consistent draw length results in the same energy entering the arrow upon release, and thus the same initial velocity upon launch. As far as I know, the clicker doesn't do anything more than that.

My wife says she has been instructed to place the clicker to be near her max pull where she is most comfortable with it being at. For her it is 26" and that is all what she trains at, and she says as she gets tired by the end of the day it gets hard to pull through by. 

So where do people put their clickers with respect to their draw? If a shooter can easily pull out to, say 29" but set there clicker to be at, say 28" the then practice to release at 28" when the clicker goes off. But this archer has the physical strength to easily pull 29". So pulling through the clicker should never be a problem for the archer, right? I am thinking that from a strength training point of view, world class archers can easily pull much greater than their regular bows.

Like I said, I have never shot with a clicker, so this may be more of an academic argument from ignorance.


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

How much weight do barebow shooters use? My bow is 43#@28 and I draw 29. I have been thinking about going higher to get a flatter trajectory because NFAA rules prohibit string walking. I hate having to aim on the ground for those easy 10 yard shots that suddenly become hard because I picked the wrong twig to aim at.

I see comments about how barebow shooters are shooting 30 to 36 pound bows, and Oly shooters are doing 45+. I always thought the Oly shooters were doing lighter because they have sights, and the barebow shooters are shooting heavier bows. Most of the Oly shooters I know are physically smaller than me, and most of the barebow shooters I know are bigger than me. So I have been assuming that I was a wimp because I have been shooting such a light bow and I struggle pulling a 60# compound with my fingers.


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

BLACK WOLF said:


> I'm sorry if my statement offends you or causes you to feel the need to make a false accusation about me...but the fact of the matter is...an Olympic archer or really any competitive archer does not need to be in tip top physical shape as many other sports require. Being in great physical condition can surely help an archer...but so can dropping down to lighter draw weights.
> 
> Look...I absolutely love archery!!! All aspects of it...whether it's Olympic, field, 3D, trick shooting or bowhunting. I love it all. It's unfortunate that some take my comments negatively...when there really is no reason to.
> 
> Ray :shade:


So you are saying you've competed with an Olympic recurve at a high level?

-Grant


----------



## Corene1 (Apr 27, 2014)

I have been reading this thread and it really has me thinking, so today I took some time and went to the range with my barebow recurve and my Olympic recurve and did a little testing just to see what gives. It has been a while since I shot a 144 arrow round but figured it would show up problems quicker. I have been shooting 112 arrow NFAA field rounds barebow style. Granted my equipment is not state of the art but it is what I have. My barebow is a 25" hoyt horizon with short Easton 720 carbons with 38 pounds on the fingers, 12 inch stab with 1 pound 1 oz. total weight. 3 fingers under. My Olympic bow is a 25" sf forged riser with medium Win and Win Winnex limbs at 34 pounds on the fingers through the clicker. 30 inch total stab with 4 ounces up front 12" v bar with 1 1/2 oz weight on the ends. With my setup I do have pretty equal mass weights but with the v bar set up there is not a lot of forward cantilever effect just a very slight forward roll to the shot. I have a beiter clicker and Shibuya sight. To make it as fair as I could I shot 6 arrow ends shooting 3 barebow and 3 Olympic style at 2 different targets at 70 meters. I shot a group of six did a 4 minuet rest then another group of 6. then scored. In the final few ends , yes I could feel the fatigue messing with my shot sequence and yes the shots were harder but it wasn't just pulling through the clicker that was harder . it was also keeping the bone structure correct and keeping back tension at full draw while pulling through the clicker. It was the same shooting barebow. Very difficult to keep the shoulder solid and keep the back tension correct . Arrow 141 from the bare bow setup was no easier than 144 through the Olympic set up. I shot a total 961, 521 with sights 440 barebow not too bad for being rusty and a vintage 59 years old. I know it's not very scientific but at least it is a base to measure from. Oh and by the way our range is notorious for wind. Quartering wind in your face.
Good Luck to Ben, and best wishes.


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

I like this experiment. Thanks for doing this and sharing your experience/results.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

midwayarcherywi said:


> We are just about the point in this thread where words will convince no one. As John suggested, train and shoot 144 competitive Olympic recurve arrows, then share the experience with us.


Pretty much. One thing I learned during my 20+ years of "trad" archery is that many traditional/barebow shooters think they are invincible. 

Probably because they've learned to use the "force" to aim. LOL.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Corene1 said:


> I have been reading this thread and it really has me thinking, so today I took some time and went to the range with my barebow recurve and my Olympic recurve and did a little testing just to see what gives. It has been a while since I shot a 144 arrow round but figured it would show up problems quicker. I have been shooting 112 arrow NFAA field rounds barebow style. Granted my equipment is not state of the art but it is what I have. My barebow is a 25" hoyt horizon with short Easton 720 carbons with 38 pounds on the fingers, 12 inch stab with 1 pound 1 oz. total weight. 3 fingers under. My Olympic bow is a 25" sf forged riser with medium Win and Win Winnex limbs at 34 pounds on the fingers through the clicker. 30 inch total stab with 4 ounces up front 12" v bar with 1 1/2 oz weight on the ends. With my setup I do have pretty equal mass weights but with the v bar set up there is not a lot of forward cantilever effect just a very slight forward roll to the shot. I have a beiter clicker and Shibuya sight. To make it as fair as I could I shot 6 arrow ends shooting 3 barebow and 3 Olympic style at 2 different targets at 70 meters. I shot a group of six did a 4 minuet rest then another group of 6. then scored. In the final few ends , yes I could feel the fatigue messing with my shot sequence and yes the shots were harder but it wasn't just pulling through the clicker that was harder . it was also keeping the bone structure correct and keeping back tension at full draw while pulling through the clicker. It was the same shooting barebow. Very difficult to keep the shoulder solid and keep the back tension correct . Arrow 141 from the bare bow setup was no easier than 144 through the Olympic set up. I shot a total 961, 521 with sights 440 barebow not too bad for being rusty and a vintage 59 years old. I know it's not very scientific but at least it is a base to measure from. Oh and by the way our range is notorious for wind. Quartering wind in your face.
> Good Luck to Ben, and best wishes.


Well that settles it then.


----------

