# What has happened to the US up-and-coming shooters?



## calbowdude (Feb 13, 2005)

The most prominent names I can think of are Karen Scavotto and Margot Stuchin. I have heard neither hide nor hair of either of them. They stand out as two shooters who were making meteoric ascents up the US ranks, and suddenly poof! they seem to have disappeared. 

It seems there was a junior male whose name escapes me that was also making a similar move up the ranks, and then he dropped off the face of the earth archerywise. My memory is foggy on this one. 

Anyone know what has happened to some of promising young shooters?


----------



## Leighton (Aug 24, 2004)

Margot got sick with something, I don't know what, and quit for a while. She made a brief appearance at Gold Cup 2005, probably because she lives in the area. Not sure if she's getting back into it, but at Gold Cup, she was just visiting people and saying hello, didn't even bring a bow.

Don't know about Karen, but she didn't make the Olympic team cut.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Leighton said:


> Margot got sick with something, I don't know what, and quit for a while. She made a brief appearance at Gold Cup 2005, probably because she lives in the area. Not sure if she's getting back into it, but at Gold Cup, she was just visiting people and saying hello, didn't even bring a bow.
> 
> Don't know about Karen, but she didn't make the Olympic team cut.



Margot was hit by a nasty case of mononucleosis after making the world indoor team last year. She was listed as having entered the JOAD nationals but didn't appear. One of my JOAD lady shooters emails Margot and apparently the mono stayed around longer than anyone thought it initially would. I have heard a couple different things about her but I won't speculate. She is a very very bright young lady-her father is a top ortho doctor from Yale and her mom is very bright as well-Margot has several areas where she can apply her many talents so we will have to see but I suspect she will be successful no matter what she does.

I last spoke to Karen and her father at the Olympic trials. Jim noted that Karen (who also was an academic star in HS like Margot and probably could have gained acceptance at the most competitive universities) was really looking forward to Auburn engineering-the issue was whether she went in the fall or the spring (if she made the team). It appeared to me that Karen wanted to move on -who knows maybe she will shoot again -I suspect after she graduates with honors or better.

People have to realize that in some country-being the best archer in your age cohort is the pinnacle of your life. right now that is not the case for talented (intellectually and athletically) young ladies like Margot and Karen who have the talent to be very successful in areas other than archery


----------



## Tropicalfruitmo (Mar 17, 2005)

Most of the top archers are intelligent, talented kids who can do anything they want. Unfortunately, most find that they would rather put their efforts into a carreer that pays and keep archery as a hobby. Archery just isn't the sport in the US that it is in Europe and Asia. I know of a couple of archers who like to shoot, but arent' interest in going whole hog into it, only to get their butt kicked in internation competition.


----------



## Leighton (Aug 24, 2004)

I've tried to think of ways to make a living doing archery, but they all involve moonlighting as something else to pay the bills.  Its just not that feasible and the rewards, if you do become one of the career elite, are small, unlike football or basketball where the potential gains are millions of dollars.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

like it or not, archery just isn't a spectator sport. People who have never ever played football find it entertaining-same with basketball. Ice skating-probably less than 1% of the people in the stands have ever done it but everone can appreciate teh athleticism of the skaters and given how Sarah Hughes or Katrina Witt look in a skating dress is a big draw too. FOr a sport to pay its top competitiors lots of money, it has to be one that millions will watch on TV even if it has low participation numbers (like Gymnastics or skating)

nothing you will do with archery will ever make it a spectator sport in the same league as football, gymnastics or beach volleyball


----------



## cc46 (Jan 22, 2005)

what if tournaments were modeled after the Pro Bass Fishing tournaments? think it would catch on? do you think a few more of the talented shooters would hang around longer? if there was $20k in prize money each weekend I think there'd be a pile of talent hanging around, for every "300" shooter today there'd be 5 ...yes? no?


----------



## calbowdude (Feb 13, 2005)

That's too bad about Margot. I didn't know she was sick, and that sick to boot. 

Well, if they "retire" then not much to be done. 

I agree w/ JimC, there is no way to make archery have the audience appeal of other sports, not without massively changing the format, and by definition its fundamental purpose. I suppose if archers shot AT each other in a 1 hour melee, and the winning team was the one who shot all the other guys/women off the field then maybe the nonshooting audience would flock to watch. 

Come to think of it, that sort of thing has already been piloted, as evidenced by the many battlefields that litter the landscape.... Not sure of the numbers of spectators in attendance though...


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

money comes from two things-spectators and sponsors. sponsors sponsor because they know lots of spectators will see their sponsorship. Some sports have an upscale image which attracts more sponsorship than the amount of spectators would indicate-show jumping and squash are two examples-at one time tennis and golf were the same way.

archery just won't get the spectators. lets be honest, someone shooting x's just doesn't have the intrinsic appeal of Dr J ramming home a thunder dunk over Dave Cowens, or Peyton Manning hitting an end with a TD pass through three defenders. archery -even if all the archers looked like Karen Scavotto -doesn't highlight the beauty of the athlete like Ice Skating does with a sarah hughes or a stefi Graff in Tennis


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

I know this is off-topic, but I think Jim nailed it.

We have two strikes against us... 1) there just aren't enough folks out there shooting Olympic style or even compound fita archery. 2) Watching what we do is absolutely boring. Without tens of thousands of participating and formerly participating athletes (like football, soccer, tennis, golf, etc.) there aren't interested parties to turn on the television. Without those numbers, the sponsors aren't interested.

Folks tune in because they can relate (used to do it themselves - i.e. football or baseball -, or still do at an ameteur level - i.e. golf) or because it's very exciting to watch.

We have neither of those things. It is unfortunate, but it is reality.

Sad truth is MANY more folks these days can relate to shooting foam deer than they can a 70 meter target.

I know this has an affect on some young archers (not saying that's the case with those named). I've seen several good JOAD archers, including my own son who finished 2nd at the NFAA Indoor Nationals this year, just eventually find their interests lie elsewhere.

John.


----------



## Leighton (Aug 24, 2004)

John,
I think you nailed it as to why people watch golf. Throughout my entire life, I couldn't fathom why it has such a large spectator base, but I think you nailed the reason.

Wonder if we could do the same for archery?


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Leighton said:


> John,
> I think you nailed it as to why people watch golf. Throughout my entire life, I couldn't fathom why it has such a large spectator base, but I think you nailed the reason.
> 
> Wonder if we could do the same for archery?


No but I haven't figured Golf out either though that sport has the best TV cameramen in the world.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Leighton, Jim,

I take it neither of you are golfers. I've yet to meet a golfer who isn't fascinated by the things the PGA pro's can do. My wife and I are perfect examples. Before I started playing 8 years ago, I seldom if ever watched golf. Almost as soon as I took the game up, I couldn't wait to watch the weekend golf coverage. Shortly after, my wife started playing with me and then she began watching too. In fact, she only plays a few times per year, but one of our favorite things to do is watch a good golf tournament on TV. 

Before we started playing, we had no appreciation for the things we were seeing on the TV. 

One other, and most significant difference between archery and golf is that in golf, there is drama. Every single shot is different, and the shots range in "emotion" from adrenaline-pumping 320 yard drives to subtle finesse around the greens. 

Again, you have to have played to appreciate it.

John.


----------



## monty53 (Jun 19, 2002)

From what I,ve seen, a lot has to do with maturing and growing up. Right at about that age, for boys girls become more important and vise versa. Can’t say I blame’em!...


----------



## RecordKeeper (May 9, 2003)

I hate to be a party pooper....and I think that the ideals of those who wish to further our beloved sport are most admirable. And there are likely not many who promote the sport more than I (many others do a lot, so please do not be offended).

But....realistically....reasonable goals are modest growth of archery and just not losing any ground in target and FITA styles. Man, I hope I am wrong.....


----------



## anson (Nov 24, 2004)

Just curious, how did DP, Ann Hoyt, and all the other great shooters from the past do it?? I mean most of them had pretty good careers lasting well over a decade? I guess Ann had Earl as a sponsor and source of income, but how did the others do it? Did they all work and shoot, or did some of them actually find a way to pursue the olympic dream while living a "atomic" life?


----------



## Leighton (Aug 24, 2004)

Anson, the world is not like it was 70 years ago when Howard Hill could make a living off the sport. Just go moonlight as something so you can pay the bills.


----------



## Dave T (Mar 24, 2004)

Not disagreeing with any of the comments above, but I can't help but wonder what changed in archery in the last 30-40 years. When I got started (late 1950s and through most of the 1960s) archery was growing by leeps and bounds. At one point in the '60s it was the fastest growing sport in the US. Has our society changed that much that what had wide and growing appeal in the 1960s is now on what I fear is a steady decline?

I'm on the board of our state field association and at out last meeting we were discussing the fact that membership has gone in just a couple years from 400 down to 125. No one can explain it and no one has a good idea of how stop the decline, let alone turn it around. From what I hear, even shooting at foam deer seems to be trending down. Why is it our sport is fading, aparently on all fronts?

Dave


----------



## baldmountain (Apr 21, 2003)

We live in a much different world today. We've all become Uber consumers. Back in the day there weren't iPods or computers or automatic coffe makers or microwave ovens or any ot the gazillion things that people don't really need to live. Most families were lucky if they owned one car and a radio. To own a TV set and 2 cars meant you were RICH! People didn't own a different pair of shoes for everyday of the week. They didn't own enough clothes so they only have to do laundy once a month. In houses that 3 or 4 people live in today, they had 10 or more people. Extended families lived together not in seperate states...

Because of this people could eek out a meager living in archery.

Well, almost. I think that many people would rather play xBox than walk in the woods. In fact I think that there are a good number of people who'd rather play Cabela's Big Game Hunter on the xBox than actually go hunting. It's not so cold, and not so wet, and they always score a big buck, so why go outside?

One of the interesting things I discovered recently is that for the Puritans the big show of the week was the sermon. The'd spend the rest of the week discussing it. That had a profound affect on me. They could derive a week's worth of entertainment from a Sunday sermon. Today we need a constant stream of TV, radio, newspapers, DVDs and magazines to keep ourselves entertained. It's like we've lost the ability to entertain ourselves.

The world has changed. We've given up our minds to our expensive toys and we've given our time in order to pay for them.

And people wonder why a sport that requires so much time and effort to learn to do well, with no real payback other than the enjoyment of participation, is decreasing in number of people involved.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

anson said:


> Just curious, how did DP, Ann Hoyt, and all the other great shooters from the past do it?? I mean most of them had pretty good careers lasting well over a decade? I guess Ann had Earl as a sponsor and source of income, but how did the others do it? Did they all work and shoot, or did some of them actually find a way to pursue the olympic dream while living a "atomic" life?


Darrell enlisted in the Air Force after HS and was in the service during several of his best years. He has worked for the State of Ohio since then as a radio and systems specialist. Rick McKinney essentially made a living from archery IIRC which he continues as president of Carbon Tech (good arrows IMHO).

The sad fact is that its hard to keep good athletes in a sport where there is little support and where they are up against full time professionals.


----------



## CM JOAD (Oct 9, 2005)

It must start at the begining. The more people that get involved in archery, the more base their will be to watch the sport. The efforts and JOAD and NASP can only help that spectator base. If you don't have a JOAD, get one started. If you don't have NASP in schools, get one started. It certainly won't be immediate, but it will never happen if we don't do something now!


----------



## Hank (Jul 5, 2003)

You can't make people watch boring stuff and no matter how much skill is involved, Target Archery is pretty boring.

Howard Hill put on a show, just like Byron Ferguson does. Bob Mundon and Tom Knapp shooting pistols, rifles and shotguns do. Archery tournaments with moving targets that require accurate, quick shooting is much more entertaining. Throw in some stationary and long distance targets and you really might have something.

There are no sights on tennis rackets, or golf clubs. There are no clickers on footballs to make sure the arm is cocked exactly right for a specific distance.

Take off the aids and make it challenging, fun and exciting, then people might watch. Longbow, recurve, carbon or wood -- let it roll.

Whats with the goofy hats? lol j/k

Hank


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

clickers and sights don't make things boring.


----------



## RecordKeeper (May 9, 2003)

Jim C said:


> clickers and sights don't make things boring.


Neither do the hats!


----------



## Leighton (Aug 24, 2004)

Your argument is flawed sir. If archery is so much more exciting without all the clickers and sights, why is traditional archery so unpopular?









Exactly.


----------



## Hank (Jul 5, 2003)

*clickers and sights don't make things boring.* 

And there are millions of spectators and plenty of high dollar contracts to go around, to boot.

Curling gets more attention in the Olympics than Archery and they use brooms! Wonder what they could do with a carbon broom with a sight?

Not saying shooting a full blown Fita Rig isn't cool or doesn't take skill, just being real.

Hank


----------



## Hank (Jul 5, 2003)

Leighton, because in the USA making money and making things easy is far more important.

By the way I applaud people like you and Jim that take the time to coach and help others out.

Hank


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Hank said:


> *clickers and sights don't make things boring.*
> 
> And there are millions of spectators and plenty of high dollar contracts to go around, to boot.
> 
> ...


I don't know about that-the winter olympics has FAR less events. the competition for air time is not as fierce so minor sports like curling will get more airtime-especially since its a Canadian-Northern USA sport then archery. Table tennis gets almost NO us coverage ( in the uSA) yet it is more popular than all the winter sports combined world wide in terms of participation and spectators.


----------



## sundevilarchery (May 27, 2005)

*AZ Archers*

What about Brady Ellison and Lindsay Pian? 

Brady is in high school and is on fire with his new recurve. And Lindsay is a Freshman here at ASU... and is hoping/expecting to take the Senior division by storm.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

sundevilarchery said:


> What about Brady Ellison and Lindsay Pian?
> 
> Brady is in high school and is on fire with his new recurve. And Lindsay is a Freshman here at ASU... and is hoping/expecting to take the Senior division by storm.



I thought Brady was a compound shooter but I might have him confused with another boy. Lindsay I know-she is a great young lady and will be a top flight contender for the women's 08 Team.


----------



## Artemis (Feb 15, 2005)

Nope, you are thinking of the same Brady Ellison -- he took up a Matthews/Sky recurve recently and is going to town. Hoping to see him make the men's team in '08... a natural archer and all around nice guy.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

cool. Compound archery has alot of talent in it. I would like to see Dave Cousins give recurve the effort he gave compound (I know he practices with one) and I suspect the ubertalented Mary Zorn will be a contender in 08 as well.


----------



## pineapple3d (Oct 23, 2002)

Jim C said:


> I thought Brady was a compound shooter but I might have him confused with another boy. Lindsay I know-she is a great young lady and will be a top flight contender for the women's 08 Team.


Jim, Brady has switched to recurve. He only shoots a compound to hunt. He would like to make the next Olympic team. We are doing what ever it take to help him acomplish his goals. Right now he shoots in two indoor spot leagues a week. He also practices every day for about 5 hours after school. He shoots about 300 arrows a day. Brady and Lindsay practice with each other often. These are two kids to keep a eye on!


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Good to hear. Lindsay is a great example for any JOAD shooter to follow-both in terms of technique and attitude. She is one of the real gems I have met as a JOAD coach. we look forward to Brady doing well at our JOAD nationals this summer in Lebanon, Ohio.


----------



## hkim823 (Oct 6, 2004)

As a golfer, I've always thought of field archery being the closest to a round of golf. 

I think that because many uninformed people in this country equate target archery and bow hunting as the same sport, with the decline of a population that understand outdoorsmanship, we're just stuck loosing more and more members, unless archery breaks out of it's "backwater" image and attracts people from all walks of life. It's hard trying to promote the sport when a lot of people have an irrational fear of projectile weapons to begin with.


----------



## Huntmaster (Jan 30, 2003)

I'm not sure it's the attitude of the people really.

Look at the sports that are popular on TV. All have the opportunity to play "arm chair quarterback" if you will. Wheather it's hollering at Tiger Woods on the TV about chosing another club or a bad aproach, to trying to communicate through the television channel that the last guy in that fishing spot didn't do worth a crap on that spinner, or who is open down field in the Sunday football game.

Archery has no "strategy" so to speak, and is too quick (release to arrow hit) to be able to correct the shot by body lean (picture Arnold Palmer trying to lean the shot onto the green). There is no strategy to the play either. You either go for the middle, or go home. No sneaking it in from the 2 ring to get bumped by your neighbor into the gold. There is nothing to say, but "you missed idiot" if being watched on TV. 

The games on TV came the closest to watchable archery as I've seen. Shoot spots, then knock the flag down. Well, if you made it a close call, wheather to go straight for the kill, or whittle off some extra points on the spots first, then you'd have a strategy. Try to hit all or some of the stationary dots, then the kill shot, or is your neighbor going to knock that thing over before you ever get a shot at a stationary? Where's the decision making? There is none, and that's why archery fails on public forums. There's only one form of good in archery. If you can plant them in the X ring, your good. If not, well, you loose. At least if you're not the fastest Nascar driver, you can always play dirty.


----------



## patmonahan (Nov 27, 2005)

*Bowling*

Don't you think archery is much like bowling? Most bowlers don't watch the PBA tour on tv. They wouldn't go to the local alley to watch their friends bowl. They only go to participate. If they're there and not bowling it's probably for the pizza and beer. 

Local leagues are the way to grow the sport. Especially if the ranges were more like bowling alleys. I know some are concerned about beer and archery together. But, I'm sure a few hunters take beer with them when they go hunting. I think it could be managed.


----------



## Huntmaster (Jan 30, 2003)

patmonahan said:


> Don't you think archery is much like bowling? Most bowlers don't watch the PBA tour on tv. They wouldn't go to the local alley to watch their friends bowl. They only go to participate. If they're there and not bowling it's probably for the pizza and beer.
> 
> Local leagues are the way to grow the sport. Especially if the ranges were more like bowling alleys. I know some are concerned about beer and archery together. But, I'm sure a few hunters take beer with them when they go hunting. I think it could be managed.



Even on televised Bowling, you've still got the "lean factor". You've also got a second chance, the old 7 - 10 split, too much hook, etc. You can play "arm chair quarterback" in bowling. You've also got different class individuals participating in different sports. Bowling is more of a blue collar sport than competition archery. Hunting is more blue collar, thus the boom on 3D.

I shot at a place that had beer and pizza that you could have while shooting. No problems on the range, but it definately wasn't an attraction point for leagues. Some had a beer instead of pop during the league, but others were overheard slandering those drinking in front of the kids, or just drinking.


----------



## massman (Jun 21, 2004)

*Sponsors are sponsoring, just not target archery*

The fact is that the sponsors (those manufactures who make living from archery) are big into sponsoring archery. Just not the archery we are interested in.

The facts are that they sponsor hunting shows. They most likely sell 1000 hunting bows to 1 target bow. Then the target bow is probably a compound, not a recurve.

You cannot put the genie back into the bottle. The compound has been the best thing going for hunting archery. It also been the worst thing going for target archery.

Add to the the number of classes we have...

There should be four class at all archery shoot.

TRADITIONAL = Longbow & recurves without sights or stabilizers

COMPOUND = Anything goes with a compound

OLYMPIC RECURVE = exactly than per FITA rules

VINTAGE = Any other style not covered by the above three styles, period.

If you are teaching archery you should teach one of the top three only. If a student picks up a compound the it is "Unlimited Compound" as a style.

If they pick up an Olympic recurve than it is FITA recurve.

If they pick up a recurve or a longbow then it is Traditional all of the way.


NEXT******** Field Archery

The current formats (IE NFAA FIELD ARCHERY) are to long. They need to be about as long as it takes to shoot an indoor shoot.

Tom


----------



## baldmountain (Apr 21, 2003)

massman said:


> The current formats (IE NFAA FIELD ARCHERY) are to long.


No, they aren't. The field round is absolutly wonderful. People keep pointing at the round as being the problem. It isn't. See my previous rant...


----------



## massman (Jun 21, 2004)

*Baldmountain*

I'd have to say that we'd have to agree to disagree.

I think the round takes to long. In years past archery was an all day, sometimes even a weekend activity. I can remember when people hauled the camper to a shoot on sat and shot the course as practice then shot the shoot on Sunday. 

Today people do not wish to spend the entire day at one event. It is tough enough to get away from the family for 1/2 a day. 

In my area they still get 100 archers at a 3D event. They get there, shoot their 30 arrows and then they are off to be with the family or the girlfriend for the remainder of the day. Add to this that the major field organization in the country does not have (to this day) and effective youth program and the population of archers is only getting older.

Baldmountain, what is the avg age of the archers in your club? In mine, running the place it is about 50. Shooters I'd guess it is mid to late 40's.

That is why my club has adopted the NAA and runs a JOAD. It is the only organized way we have to get new blood into the sport.

Tom


----------



## Marcus (Jun 19, 2002)

Archery has failed to move with the times, and looking back at old success and dreaming of days gone by proves this. 
Archery also has no common sense direction. 

1) The rounds take too long to shoot. I love NFAA, but the FITA Field round I can get off the course in 3 hous and be home early. Much better in today's lifestyle. 
3D takes FAR too long to shoot given the number of arrows. 

2) Divisions. Adding divisions DOES NOT enhance competition. Archery needs to stop this "must look after everyone" BS. All you need is
Mens
Womens
Compound
Recurve
Vets
Open
Junior U18
Cadet U15
Cub U12

20 divisions tops. Instead of the close to 100 current divisions. Longbow has as much place in modern archery competition as leather helmets do in US football. 

3) Promote the Athlete not the Sport
The major sports doing well promote the players, not the game. My wife currently watches NFL because she likes Payton Manning. I don't think she knows where the Colts are from, but likes Manning. 
In my state our club started putting our names on the back of our shirts, other club's are starting to follow. It's creating interest. It works. 

4) Develop a teams based game like Team matchplay. This is a great format that if used correctly will take archery much further. 

5) Setup comps designed for television and produce events you can give to the sporting networks. They won't come to you. 


Of course nothing will change, it's too hard.


----------



## Hank (Jul 5, 2003)

*Longbow has as much place in modern archery competition as leather helmets do in US football. *

I feel the more stuff you have on your bow, the less of an archer you are. I think it was Gilman Keasy (SP?) who could keep an 6-9" group at 70 yards when he was on top of his game back in the early 1900's using a wooden longbow and wooden arrows. 

Jim Fetro, a personal friend of Gilman's in his later years, who builds and shoots wooden bows (very well -- has taken elk and rabbits at over 70 yards) said that Gilman had shot a few 6" groups at 80 yards. Kinda puts the current day skill level in the proper perspective. (Fetro is not a snap shooter, holds for about 7 seconds and believes form is the name of the game)

Archery is one of the few sports that the more aids and things you have on your bow, the higher recognition you can attain. Limbwalker (Olympian) wants to be a great barebow shooter and thinks there should be a barebow division in Olympic Archery.

Again, there are no sights or govenors on tennis rackets or golf clubs.

Last year at our club's winter indoor 3D leauge, I beat over half of the compound sight shooters with my homemade longbow shooting the same exact distances and targets (and I didn't think I shot that well)

Longbows are and will continue to be the soul of the sport until the end of time as we know it.

Hank


----------



## Hank (Jul 5, 2003)

At the IBO Nationals every year they have the Eagle Eye shoot off with all the winners of all the divisions from the previous year. 70 yard shot at a 1" orange dot. Guess who won it in 2005, the longbow shooter with a wood arrow no less.

Dan Quillian years ago also won a shoot off against Fita shooters -- what bow was he shooting? A longbow.

Hank


----------



## Kav (Jun 6, 2005)

Hank said:


> I feel the more stuff you have on your bow, the less of an archer you are.


I have heard that same statement throughout the shooting sports as well... service rifle guys think palma guys aren't as good due to precision sights, palma shooters say scopes are for the untrained, and those of us that shoot benchrest really have no skill  . Yet in each seperate sport there are usually top guys that can't be beat by no one no matter what polished framus is on your gun or how much you spent on your equipment... they are the top of their game in that *particular discipline*...IE a top shooting traditional shooter very well couldn't shoot a full loaded unlimited rig to save their lives. you excel at what you continually train with. Personally I am anal retentive and prefer extreme accuracy so I prefer sights, new technology, etc that lets me shoot more accurate with training.


----------



## Marcus (Jun 19, 2002)

Hank said:


> Last year at our club's winter indoor 3D leauge, I beat over half of the compound sight shooters with my homemade longbow shooting the same exact distances and targets (and I didn't think I shot that well)


Wow, you must be simply awesome! I'm swapping to Longbow.  

As Leighton said, if longbow is such an awesome draw card for the sport then why isn't it more popular?

Reality is that there is no room for Longbow in modern competitive archery. If you think there is enter in the Open Compound division and beat everyone else. Till then leave it relegated to the Medievil recreationist dorkshows.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> Reality is that there is no room for Longbow in modern competitive archery. If you think there is enter in the Open Compound division and beat everyone else. Till then leave it relegated to the Medievil recreationist dorkshows."


Wow, Marcus. I hardly know what to say to that. Guess it depends on how you define "modern competitive archery.

And I guess I just feel sorry for you in a way. But you are certainly entitled to your opinion.

Archery spans a wide spectrum from pasttime to sport, lifestyle to business. Blanket statements like that seldom accomplish anything other than stirring folks up. By "dorkshows" I can only assume you mean SCA events? I have never participated in one, never even seen one in fact, but if that's your only exposure to longbows, then I feel sorry for you.

John.


----------



## RecordKeeper (May 9, 2003)

Marcus said:


> Wow, you must be simply awesome! I'm swapping to Longbow.
> 
> As Leighton said, if longbow is such an awesome draw card for the sport then why isn't it more popular?
> 
> Reality is that there is no room for Longbow in modern competitive archery. If you think there is enter in the Open Compound division and beat everyone else. Till then leave it relegated to the Medievil recreationist dorkshows.


Now I must say that I am quite surprised you'd say this. Why be so exclusive? Shouldn't we as archers welcome all? What in the world are you expecting to accomplish by driving some out of the sport? What a shame!


----------



## Hank (Jul 5, 2003)

Why has archery lost its way, does not have big sponsorships and is a boring spectator sport?

Marcus -- you have answered the question, it has lost its soul.

Remember, no matter how good you think you are, only your own farts smell good to you.

Happy Holidays 

Hank


----------



## Marcus (Jun 19, 2002)

Limbwalker: I have competed in Clout events using Longbows recently. So no it's not my only expousure to the sport 

RecordKeeper and Limbwalker
Oh man we sit here and wonder why archery isn't growing and developing and wonder why the AUS and USA have next to no target archers while France and Italy have around 50,000 between them. 
The "must please everyone" approach clearly isn't working now is it?
Archery is raping itself with it's constant "but everyone regardless of gear type should be allowed to compete against their peers" and it's out of control. 
Think about it
Compound Freestyle Unlimited
Compound Limited
Bowhunter Release (as above with a pin sight)
Hunter Class (as above with a shorter stabilizer)
Barebow compound (oxymoron)
Olympic Recurve
Recurve Aided
Barebow Recurve
Traditional 
Longbow (different rules)
Barebow recurve hunter (where you have to use a short rod)
and on and on and on

Archery: Where you lose only because you picked the wrong division

FITA based target archery MUST cull it's divisions. Want to shoot a FITA target event then compete in one of the classes on offer. Use your Longbow, but compete against the Olympic guys (Hank should win there)

Reality is that there isn't the numbers of Longbow and Barebow shooters to support themselves. I ran the Target Event at the Australian Nationals this year and without the 4 major divisions (open mens and womens compound and recurve) we would have made a MASSIVE loss. If I ran it again this year I would seriously consider doubling the entry fee for those minor divisions. 
It's unfair to those in those divisions to pay the way of the smaller groups. Seriously do the math sometime. 

Lets say in 10 years time the Longbow shooters somehow manage to make themselves the dominate division featuring all the world's best shooters then I would still have the same attitude but visa versa. 

Remember, it's not because it's Longbow, it's because it's not paying it's own way. 

What's stopping me buying a electronic release aid and demanding my own division at the next NAA Nationals? Come on, don't drive me from the sport. We electronic release shooters are far better than you freestyle unlimited guys. 
Same thing.


----------



## RecordKeeper (May 9, 2003)

While I understand your point, saying things like "Medievil recreationist dorkshows" in reference to longbows hardly will endear anyone to your arguement.


----------



## Rob DiStefano (Aug 9, 2003)

Marcus said:


> Reality is that there is no room for Longbow in modern competitive archery. If you think there is enter in the Open Compound division and beat everyone else. Till then leave it relegated to the Medievil recreationist dorkshows.


Your ridiculous remark doesn't bode well for your image, Marcus. You shouldn't mix apples and oranges, nor dis the cornerstone of all "modern" archery. 

There are devotees and valid venues for each type of bow, let them all coexist in peace.

Archery is an aiming sport - doesn't matter whether the lever you use is a stick or a pulley/cam system - in all instances this is a sport of form, mental and physical control, and consistency. Typically, the longbow is a much more difficult weapon to master than the wheel bow. YMMV - but it shouldn't.


----------



## Marcus (Jun 19, 2002)

Not dissin the bow, dissin some of the shooters and their attitudes to the modern gear (see this thread)

I agree 100% with everything you say. However that doesn't change exactly what what I am saying. 
Please explain how allowing 100 divisions to compete in an event with 40 competitors bodes well to the growth of our sport?

So far have seen alot of pouting from my comments and little counter arguement. 



Rob DiStefano said:


> Your ridiculous remark doesn't bode well for your image, Marcus. You shouldn't mix apples and oranges, nor dis the cornerstone of all "modern" archery.
> 
> There are devotees and valid venues for each type of bow, let them all coexist in peace.
> 
> Archery is an aiming sport - doesn't matter whether the lever you use is a stick or a pulley/cam system - in all instances this is a sport of form, mental and physical control, and consistency. Typically, the longbow is a much more difficult weapon to master than the wheel bow. YMMV - but it shouldn't.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

limbwalker said:


> Wow, Marcus. I hardly know what to say to that. Guess it depends on how you define "modern competitive archery.
> 
> And I guess I just feel sorry for you in a way. But you are certainly entitled to your opinion.
> 
> ...


Marcus is just mad he doesn't look good in a doublet and tights

Marcus does have a point-unlike the NAA where there are basically two major divisions with barebow and crossbow in some tournaments, the NFAA and rubber bambi organizations have too many divisions. you dilute things with several compound divisions.


----------



## Rob DiStefano (Aug 9, 2003)

Marcus said:


> Not dissin the bow, dissin some of the shooters and their attitudes to the modern gear (see this thread)
> 
> I agree 100% with everything you say. However that doesn't change exactly what what I am saying.
> Please explain how allowing 100 divisions to compete in an event with 40 competitors bodes well to the growth of our sport?
> ...



When you make a remark like - "_Reality is that there is no room for Longbow in modern competitive archery. If you think there is enter in the Open Compound division and beat everyone else. Till then leave it relegated to the Medievil recreationist dorkshows._" - you've immediately lost credibility with scores of good archers and alienated yerself in the process.

I'm not sure I fully understand just what yer trying to say, but suffice for me to say that I've never thought any major archery event "win" tier structure made logical sense (club level events are very different), nor do I think the IFAA's longbow gear rules are in the proactive interest of longbow archery, but that's another battle I've waged for well over 3 years. 

I organized a large 270 member archery club back in the 60's and hosted many local events that had many dozens of classes with at least 4 places per class - now *that* bordered on insane. The only redeeming fact is that it's human nature to wanna win *something* and having that many club awards stokes the archery interest. But at a national or world level, that's bogus IMO - you create the proper shooting STYLE class and winner takes all in their respective class. Now YMMV.


----------



## hkim823 (Oct 6, 2004)

Hank said:


> Again, there are no sights or govenors on tennis rackets or golf clubs.


No but when's the last time you've seen someone use a small head wooden racket in a professional tennis match? High tech materials have proven themselves to build a better racket / golf club, and while these sports still look towards the past and respect tradition, they don't ignore modern technological advances either. These advances also have changed the nature of the game, but at it's heart it's still the same game. 

The same could be said for our sport. There will always be purist out there, and that's fine and dandy, but I'm all for going with the times. Modern archery has in it's current state boiled down to three classes, recurve and compound, and pure traditional with no sights / aids. Yes it does take more skill to be as good with just a stick, a string and an arrow than with your full target rig, but at the same time no one holds wooden only racket tournaments to my knowledge. Each sport has to balance technology with tradition, we're just at a crossroads with ours.


----------



## Dave T (Mar 24, 2004)

Although I agree with Marcus when it comes to the many styles recognized by NFAA (when I was introduced to field archery it was Barebow and Freestyle, period) I have a problem with his putting down longbows, and I don't even shoot one. I suspect he doesn't think much of me shooting Barebow Recurve (Olympic style bow without sights, stabilizers or clicker). I admit I can't find much competition locally but I pay the same entry fee as the compounds and Olympic recurves. Should I not be allowed to shoot, Marcus? Or perhaps I should move to Europe where Barebow Recurve is very popular? Wonder how that would improve archery?

Dave


----------



## G33k (Jul 16, 2003)

Dave T said:


> Should I not be allowed to shoot, Marcus? Or perhaps I should move to Europe where Barebow Recurve is very popular?


BURN HIM AT THE STAKE.

I kid I kid. 

But on a seperate note, This is something I wonder about (and maybe someone has numbers for me)

How popular is Bowhunting? How many bow hunters are there? How does this compare to 10 years ago? 20 years ago? 30 years ago?

How many hunters are there? Were there 10?20? 30? 

I ask because I bet that you would see a decrease in hunters but an increase in bow hunters. Maybe this is an avenue.

Look at some of our top recurve shooters (now and in the past) Butch, Rob White, and quite a few RAs were all hunters and no doubt about compound. We don't think of them as FITA people (atleast most of us in the city don't) but obviously they are. 

Discuss


----------



## Floxter (Sep 13, 2002)

Marcus, to say that the longbow has no place in modern competitive archery and to relegate it to "Medieval Dorkshows" demonstrates an appalling provincialism and a total ignorance of reality. At the most recent IFAA Championships in Europe there were 112 longbow shooters entered, whereas there were only 36 olympic recurve shooters and 42 unlimited compound shooters (your chosen discipline.) Visit almost any archery club in the United States or England and you will be hard pressed to find one where olympic recurve shooters even approach the number of traditional archers. At the largest FITA shoot in the United States (NAA Nationals) you'll only find 400 archers, and yet a traditional shoot in Pennsylvania every year will draw several thousand. Your problem Marcus is that you equate "Modern Competitive Archery" only with the discipline that you choose to shoot. FITA isn't the only game in town and certainly not the largest.


----------



## Rob DiStefano (Aug 9, 2003)

hkim823 said:


> ....Each sport has to balance technology with tradition, we're just at a crossroads with ours.


Nonsense. The only crossroads are the ones we put in our minds. There is never a need for a "balance of technology" - your style of archery is your style, with or without the bells 'n' whistles. The gamut of archery styles ranges from a simple wooden stick 'n' string shot bare bow to a cam bow with scope sight and release aid and levels and stabs and gosh-what-else. None of these are incorrect, and none need to find some "balance of technology".


----------



## baldmountain (Apr 21, 2003)

You guys are all missing the point. The decline in archery participation has nothing to do with the rounds, equipment or rules. It also has nothing to do with how long it takes to shoot a round. (A round of golf takes 5 hours and you don't hear anyone complaining about that. Most people would like it to go longer...)

The real issue is the change in attitude the gernal populace has of shooting sports. People look at you like some kind of freak if you participate in a sport using some kind of weapon. In the past owning and using a bow and/or gun was a way of life. In this day in age the authorities make it damn hard to own a weapon due to fear and lack of understanding what causes crime and criminal behavior. This spills over into innocuous sports like target archery.


----------



## Rob DiStefano (Aug 9, 2003)

baldmountain - there are two parts to archery shooting events: internal and external. part of the problem with fostering archery as a spectator sport is that the internal archery issues haven't been resolved, and maybe they never will. and yes, it's a 'weapons' issue mindset to overcome, but it's less tough than guns and a bit harder than darts.


----------



## c3hammer (Sep 20, 2002)

G33k said:


> How popular is Bowhunting? How many bow hunters are there? How does this compare to 10 years ago? 20 years ago? 30 years ago?


I was just looking this up last week and found a statistic that showed that there were 14,750,000 certified paid big game hunting licences sold in 2004. This was just off the all time high of 15,150,000.

I believe that of these, something in the neighborhood of 15% are archery permits. In other words there are roughly 2 million bowhunters in the US.

To make a long story short, we target archers are but a very tiny piece of the archery community. My guess is that there are a 100 times the number of traditional archers in the US than tournament target archers worldwide.

Back to the subject at hand, there are a dozen up and coming young American archers hungry and capible of making the 2008 Olympic Team. The next few years should be a very interesting time in US archery lore.

Cheers,
Pete


----------



## Hank (Jul 5, 2003)

I agree with advances in materials and technology, but in tennis and golf the integrity of the game has not been lost -- the shot still has to be made.

I am not against aids and sights, in fact I made some new compound open/pro friends last summer. I like to hang with them now and then because of their dedication to form. I have gotten some pointers just from watching them and asking questions. One is even thinking of picking up the OR.

The barebow division is down in the US for a few reasons, one, all the aids and easier ways is what is marketed, two, it is percieved as hard (it isn't, just most are told it is) and three, there is very little good information on how to do it.

Hank


----------



## hkim823 (Oct 6, 2004)

You could ask some tennis players / golfers and they'll say big ultra huge hitting surface and carbon shafts have taken the mediocre player and made them into better opponents. On a recreational level, you could call these rackets and clubs as being aids to people who do not have textbook correct form / control.

I don't think an aiming device can be used to describe that same argument though. There have always been ways to "aim" a bow without a pin / magnified scope / etc. etc. etc., personally I could shoot my bow without my pin and make up my own aiming point and at least hit the paper, I'd be a hell of a lot worse off without my finger tab. 

Rob, it is a balance of technology in archery. Even in the unlimted compound divisions, there are certain technological advances not allowed, such as electronic devices, bows that have a grip unattached to the riser. Technology is always being pushed but there are very few bow makers who are producing equipment that don't follow the set of rules currently established in our sport.


----------



## massman (Jun 21, 2004)

*One point*

During my level II course we watched a video from england on the history of archery. One point of note is that archers used to go out to the tournament field and place a stone or something in the field at a known distance from the target. This was their "point on" aiming mark. They would adjust it prior to the tournament. Then the day of the tournament they would use it to aim and adjust accordingly.


There have been many fractures of the tournament archery community over the past 30-40 years. The first may have been "walking the string". Then "sights" were introduced. Then it was "releases" called ledges & hooks. Then it was the "compound". Then it was "3D" as apposed to paper targets. Add to this that there are (HOW MANY?) multiple groups all having their own rules on how to split the deck and play the game?

I know of the NFAA, FITA, NAA, PAA , IBO? I'm sure I've missed far, far more than I've written down.

All this has claimed a bit of the archery population as a member and the remaining archers as a victum by dividing us up rather than building us up.
We've all been doing the destruction under the umbrella of building up archery. 

I think we need to be "INCLUSIVE" rather than "EXCLUSIVE" when setting up tournaments, talking amoung ourselves and or dealing with the public. To thisinclusion however there is a practical/financial impact that the archer needs to understand. There need not be 150 classes dividing how we shoot up so that everyone who attends is likely to win a plastic award.

I say again;

4 styles, Traditional, Olympic Recurve, Compound, Vintage (other)

2 sexes, Male or Female

4, Age groups, Under 10, 10-13, 14-17 , 18 and older.

Perhaps we need an all inclusive meeting with the one goal to develop one all inclusive group. All of the ways to play the game of cards under one roof.

One mans' opinion

Tom


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Marcus,

Longbow rhetoric aside, I do agree with you on the ridiculous number of divisions created these days. I love both the NFAA and NAA, but I must admit that I wholeheartedly agree with the NAA's divisions for the competitive SPORT of archery. Compound or recurve or barebow. Period. I love that.

Folks should know what they're getting into when the begin to compete. It's a COMPETITION for goodness sake. So belly up and get the gear you need to be competitive. If you don't need all the gear (clickers are one gadget that comes to mind...most use them, but some don't) then don't use it. But don't ask for your own class because you won't adapt to the standards. I mean, calling yourself the national champion when only 3 folks showed up in your division seems like a hollow victory to me.

When I stepped away from the traditional hunting bows to pursue Olympic style archery, I knew exactly what I was doing, and exactly what I needed to do in terms of equipment to be competitive. I'm no idiot. I had no delusions that I could be competitive without a clicker or a sight, or a plunger, etc., etc., etc. So I sucked it up, bought the gear and learned how to use it.

But the reasons I shoot the longbow and traditional recurve have little or nothing to do with international competition. It is apples vs. oranges. Pastime vs. Sport. 

So I do at least agree with you regarding the divisions and the SPORT of archery. I think all of the divisions create by the NFAA are there to keep alive the traditions of archery, not necessarily to foster the highest forms of competition.

At least, that's my take.

I think the NFAA and NAA serve two different customers. And I think that's a great thing.

Sorry for the rambling... :tongue: 

John.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Tom,

I agree with you, but even that is 24 divisions!!! A LOT if you are setting up a tournament and handling awards.

This brings to mind poor Jack and Diane Hoffarth of Belleville, IL. For many years they ran the Prairie State Games archery event. The classes were simple. Adult or Scholastic division, male or female, recurve or compound. They may have had a division for compound fingers. I don't recall. Anyway, they TRIED to keep it simple until all the whiney parents and coaches got involved. Then they were forced to create divisions for all the various age groups. At the last event I attended, there were so-called "state champions" that were the only kid in their division! GEEZ!

Heck, my son won the Silver medal at Louisville in the Olympic recurve for the under 12 division. But then there were only 5 or 6 kids in his division, and only 3 had been involved in a real coaching/training program. Again, pretty hollow victory, and even my 10 year old son admits this (he even recognized it at the event!).

While I'm rambling... IMO, any kid 16 or over should be shooting with the adults. Plain and simple. How many 16, 17 or 18 year old kids can kick most adults butts anyway! A lot. And maybe if we made them shoot with the adults, they would stop using their age as an excuse, suck it up and shoot. I know they have the ability. They just don't know it yet because we keep telling them they aren't ready.

John.


----------



## massman (Jun 21, 2004)

*Consider this...*

John,

I agree it is a lot of classes and that most likely the 16 years olds and older can shoot with the (other) adults.

Back in the 70's I ran a club summer field league. You shot 14 targets of the NFAA field round per week for a score. We had barebow(compounders), stringwalkers (compound), Freestyle & Freestyle Limited all shooting together regardless of their equipment.

We grouped the archers not by their equipemnt but by 85% of their average.
Interesting enough was that those who you understood as the standouts won thir groups. No one makes a quantum leap in the quality of their score without putting in the time. Equipment alone will help a bit but an average scoring archer in one of todays classes will not be a top ranked shoter in another class just because he/she buys this or that. Yes they will shoot a higher score by the flaws will still be there keeping them in the middle of the pack at a new higher score ranking.

I'm not a 1300 or 1200 or 1100 shooting archer, not because of the bow in my hand but because I have not developed the form to be a 1100 or 1200 or 1300 shooting archer. Not Yet anyways, there is always hope.

Tom


----------



## Huntmaster (Jan 30, 2003)

limbwalker said:


> Heck, my son won the Silver medal at Louisville in the Olympic recurve for the under 12 division. But then there were only 5 or 6 kids in his division, and only 3 had been involved in a real coaching/training program. Again, pretty hollow victory, and even my 10 year old son admits this (he even recognized it at the event!).
> 
> John.


Heck, we had to have crossed paths then!

You remember seeing a girl there shooting a silver/gold Merlin Super Nova with hot pink strings?


----------



## Marcus (Jun 19, 2002)

> Marcus is just mad he doesn't look good in a doublet and tights


No I look great in my kilt I wear while shooting longbow! :lol:

Rob DiStefano
Please note that my opinions are aimed at NAA/FITA shooting and not IFAA which is doing a brilliant job of self-imploding regardless of the number of divisions. 
Now here is the reality. IF longbow (OR ANY OTHER DIVISION) isn't capable of sustaining itself in a competitive area then it should not be allowed to compete. It should either be merged in with a higher division or if it doesn't fit then simply not allowed. 
Common sense. 
(BTW sustaining itself is NOT "they have heaps of them in England")

Dave T
Actually I DON'T think Barebow recurve should be supported for FITA target because FITA doesn't recognise it. HOWEVER it SHOULD be supported for FITA Field where it is heavily supported. 
Barebow recurvers who wish to compete in a target event should compete against the sighted shooters. Unless numbers support it they should compete in an open system only in field, possibly mixed sexes. 
WHat I do hate is when idiot organisations like IBO ban string walking from Recurve unaided. String walking is a very very neat artform. Watching the barebow europeans at the world field was impressive. 
Longbowmen of the world rejoice, FITA is introducing a longbow peg for Fita field. Hoo-ray!
Now Barebow Compound is one division I think is just plain silly. 

Floxter
Sorry but modern competitive archery is referring to the FITA game which is the only true worldwide game. IFAA use to be up there but has been screwed up bigtime. Plus FITA has the media recognition. 
Longbow should be kept in traditional tournament situations like you mention where it can be fostered and given correct expousure. FYI I have been pushing for something similar in my state. 
"Your problem Marcus is that you equate "Modern Competitive Archery" only with the discipline that you choose to shoot."
Read my posts again and you will see I said that IF Longbow because the #1 division for competitive archery and only 1-2 compounders were turning up to shoot I would have exactly the same opinion except I would be saying "sorry no room for compounders, take up longbow"
I shoot compound because it is the most competitive in my area. I would rather finish 26th/50 than 1st/1


This is the problem with archery and you guys have illustrated my point perfectly. Too busying crying over validating your division than actually reading and understanding the problem. Same people who want to see archery grow, but ONLY if it grows in your direction. 
No one is saying that Longbows should be struck from the earth and never allowed to compete. However if you want to get tournaments well attended and MARKETABLE you must cull some divisions and get back to basics. 




Archery: We have too many divisions, but you better not dare say anything bad about mine!


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

Marcus, I totally agree with you. We already have too many Divisions in FITA, and they are even addidding additional confusion to them, like different rules for compound and Barebow between field and 3D. 
One of my old Italian friends in archery is ever commenting that the slow down to the development of FITA(rco) has been generted by the introduction of the ... compound division in 1993...
May be this is a little bit too much, but certainly any new division added since then has only fractioned the number of existing and potential archers among the divisions, without adding anything to the possibility of growth of our sport, but increasing the difficulties in communication to media, the expenses of the national federations and the confusion in explaining outside what the sport of archery is.
Why we should have 3 world field champions and now 3 world 3dI champions for a total of 6 men and 6 women title for 6 (some time slightly) different divisions ?

It's time to re-think the whole approach. We need more archers, but more divisions iis not the way to get them.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Huntmaster, I think I do remember her.

My problem at Louisville last year is that I tried to do everything. I had a student there (who set a new record and won the national championship!), my son shot, and I shot too. I figured out that I just couldn't do it all. Or at least, do it all well. I doubt I will shoot again at an event where I have a student or child shooting. It isn't fair to them, and it's not fair to me. 

So if I go next spring, something's gonna give 

John.


----------



## Huntmaster (Jan 30, 2003)

limbwalker said:


> Huntmaster, I think I do remember her.
> 
> My problem at Louisville last year is that I tried to do everything. I had a student there (who set a new record and won the national championship!), my son shot, and I shot too. I figured out that I just couldn't do it all. Or at least, do it all well. I doubt I will shoot again at an event where I have a student or child shooting. It isn't fair to them, and it's not fair to me.
> 
> ...


That's kinda the way I have been looking at it for a while now. Course you have something to gain by shooting, where I am just going for the fun anyway  so I bowed out of competition and was there for my duaghter when she needed it. Wish I'd have known you had a young'n there. It's hard meeting other members of AT when you have an adjenda that goes along with the kids.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

limbwalker said:


> Huntmaster, I think I do remember her.
> 
> My problem at Louisville last year is that I tried to do everything. I had a student there (who set a new record and won the national championship!), my son shot, and I shot too. I figured out that I just couldn't do it all. Or at least, do it all well. I doubt I will shoot again at an event where I have a student or child shooting. It isn't fair to them, and it's not fair to me.
> 
> ...


Been there done that-I haven't been to a shoot in years where I didn't have at least several kids or a wife shooting. Had two IFAA winners in L'ville, three NFAA winners-poor old coach was the only one who shot lower than I should have :embara:


----------



## MerlinApexDylan (Oct 14, 2002)

Leighton said:


> John,
> I think you nailed it as to why people watch golf. Throughout my entire life, I couldn't fathom why it has such a large spectator base, but I think you nailed the reason.
> 
> Wonder if we could do the same for archery?


I watch golf because of Tiger woods. I don't even golf, I've golfed maybe 5 times in my life. But I can watch an entire 18 holes if he's on the card. 

I watch him because he has Charisma. Not only that, I learn from him. Mental aspects of sport. How to win, how to lose, how to make a come back when you are down, how to see things as not being overly impossible to achieve. How to be a sportsman. For not playing golf and being an archer. I sure get alot out of Golf.

I've never really played ice hockey, besides maybe shinney, street or floor hockey. I watch hockey because I love it! Not because I can relate to playing it. I see that the players love it and perhaps I can relate to that.

The question is. How do we as archers purvey the fact that we hold such a love inside for our sport? Golfers know how to do it, hockey players know how do it. The players that loose that ability are generally the ones we no longer want to watch. They whine, want more money a better contract and get to big for their britches.

Creating an emotional draw can take only one archer and the right televisation and bam we have people that can relate to that emotion.. that love of something and popularity grows. 

My thoughts.


----------



## massman (Jun 21, 2004)

*OK, SO what is the fix?*

In an attempt to use the energy generated in this thread, I pose the question.

What are the things to do to turn these downward trend around?




I'll suggest that we (as coaches) coach only;

1 Olympic Recurve

or

2 Unlimited compound

If someone comes into the sport and wants to learn then these are the two types of archey we teach. If the student then takes this and decides to shoot a bowhunter or traditional style then that is there decision. Hopefully they will have learned the basics. Hopefully they will shoot one of the two styles taught.

I teach olympic recurve only. If a student comes in with a compound then I'll teach them release shooting. If they want to talk hunting, I do not do that.

At the club where we teach our JOAD only circle targets are hun on all practice butts when a JOAD course is underway. All animal paper targets are removed until the kids are gone.

I do not think there is an easy fix for the multitude of classes that currently exist except to stop teaching all but the two above classes.

Your ideas?

Tom


----------



## cc46 (Jan 22, 2005)

way back in the 70's I remember the habit of clubs having shoots with no divisions

instead, at the half way mark all score cards were turned in and ranked highest to lowest and everyone was re-assigned to a new target

butt 1 was for the 4 highest scores 
butt 2 for the next 4 highest scores 
etc down to the last butt which had the 4 lowest scores

then the shoot countinued and you competed only against the other 3 on your butt, which ment you were closely matched by skill level regardless of equipment, age or sex.

at the end of the round the highest of each butt wins!

the archers feel it was fair since they all had chance to win and the club has a guarenteed number of prizes geared to 1/4 of the attendence and the archers mingle with others that use different styles

anyone do this now?


----------



## Huntmaster (Jan 30, 2003)

Since when are all the classes a deturant to more archers joining? I see it like this; If you shoot equipment other than Olympic recurve, or Unlimited compound, you're in it for the fun of it (not saying the OR and UC aren't). These classes only exist in the NFAA, IBO, etc. Where are you going to go in the NFAA internationally anyway? There is no where to go......perfect for someone that wants to just compete locally. If you want to play pro golf, ya gotta go to the big tounies and be good enough. Otherwise, stay on the local courses. 

Currently, the only piece of equipment that has the potential of making you a world renound archer is the OR. If you want to be that person, you join the NAA and compete in that venue. Right now, this set up serves it's purpose perfectly. What needs to happen is that the NFAA, or IBO needs to step up to the plate, and make their own champion of champions.

Like I said, all other sports have an "arm chair quarterback" appeal. Archery doesn't. Either you hit the middle or you don't. The arrow gets to it's target too fast (unlike golf), the pace is too slow (unlike skeet), and there is absolutely no decision making being done (pick a sport). If you can't hit the middle, you go home. What would happen if skill was part of it, but your decisions weighed as important? I don't know how to do this, but where's the chance factor?


----------



## sundevilarchery (May 27, 2005)

This is just my opinion... so don't jump on me... but for me, it's no fun to compete if I'm only shooting in a class by myself or five other people. Here in the States, we have an "everybody is a winner" attitude. Personally, that bores me and I lose interest. I want to know that when I place in an event... it's because I've worked harder than the 20 other people there. I need competitive incentive.

If I ran the universe, I would have an occassional shoot where the men and women were all shooting for the same trophy... at the same distances. Kids too. It give you something to reach for. Granted, it's no fun getting beat ALL the time, you have to have some success to hold your interest... but now, it's a bit absurd. It seems like there are 847 divisions at every tournament.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

sundevilarchery said:


> This is just my opinion... so don't jump on me... but for me, it's no fun to compete if I'm only shooting in a class by myself or five other people. Here in the States, we have an "everybody is a winner" attitude. Personally, that bores me and I lose interest. I want to know that when I place in an event... it's because I've worked harder than the 20 other people there. I need competitive incentive.
> 
> If I ran the universe, I would have an occassional shoot where the men and women were all shooting for the same trophy... at the same distances. Kids too. It give you something to reach for. Granted, it's no fun getting beat ALL the time, you have to have some success to hold your interest... but now, it's a bit absurd. It seems like there are 847 divisions at every tournament.


good point, I had a boy win a "world championship" at the IFAA indoor (16 year old olympic recurve shooter) 6 months after he started archery because he was the only kid in the group. On the other hand, I used to shoot skeet at a rather high level. there were two kinds of skeet-american skeet and international. IN international there were few classes and few trophies-at the 88 nationals 120 people and since you had to qualify to be there, most of us were A or AA-basically three medals and a couple concurrents

in american skeet you have class E, D, C, B, A , AA, (and at big tournaments) AAA. you have four gun events 410, 28, 20, 12 and doubles and HOA (four gun) and HOA plus doubles. ages start at 40-sub sub sub senior is what they call it.

I had american skeet shooters tell me that international sucks because its like shooting recurve at the NAA tournament-18-50 there are only 3 medals. ON the other hand, the American (NSSA stuff) is like NFAA-50 people at a tournament-45 could get medals or awards if t hey demographics are right.

what keeps people interested? I think for the average guy its the NFAA format where you can pick a soft division and win. once you get good its the other way around. you need one to get the other in this country.

I shoot recurve and xbow. Xbow doesn't have alot of guys. I haven't lost an Ohio tournament-ever in the 7 years I have shot here. last february, I was tired from recurve (really strugggling-major bone spur and injury in my arm) and I was shooting xbow on the afternoon line. A guy I beat easily had been practicing alot. he led after one day. I was actually hoping he would hold it together and win because he deserved it more-he only shot xbow and I mainly practice recurve. He was shooting a 2500 dollar bow with a radioactive tritium sight-useful in the dark corner of the Wittenberg U gym where the Ohio indoor was. I was shooting a 400 dollar excalibur with an AMBO iris. ON the last couple rounds he shot a few 27's and I shot a few 30's and I beat him by a point. that was a title that actually meant something-not the ones I had beat hm and a couple others by 50 points. still I felt sorry he lost-he just got tight in the end. you don't get better if you don't have people to push you and that is why I almost lost.


----------



## TexARC (Mar 5, 2003)

limbwalker said:


> ... I doubt I will shoot again at an event where I have a student or child shooting..... It isn't fair to them, and it's not fair to me. John.


 It only took me one tournament, years ago, shooting at the same time as Lindsey, to arrive at that awareness - I was NOT having fun! 
Of course, John, I was nothing of an archer like you are, so it was much less difficult of a decision for me to make.  But it was the right one. What a fantastic sport archery can be!


----------



## skybowman (Jan 31, 2004)

*And what was the subject of this thread?*

One comment from an old guy: I shoot many styles because it's FUN. I do like different divisions so I can compare my performance against record scores that have been shot. (sorry, I don't do it often, but barebow compound is also fun and I like to know what some benchmarks are when I shoot it).

Some tourneys have many guys in my division; others don't, but I know whether I've shot to my potential or not--trophies be dammed. To me archery is about competing with yourself. Youngsters understand that, but they do like some reward. Archery should be fun and winning occasionally is motivation. 

Furthermore, they know whether they've shot a good score or not, but what's wrong with recognizing that they were the best that day, regardless of the competition. If they are good archers, they can place the "victory" in the proper context. If you shot a 1400 fita, it wouldn't matter if you were 1/1 or 1/201; you would still know how it compared.


----------



## sundevilarchery (May 27, 2005)

skybowman said:


> One comment from an old guy: I shoot many styles because it's FUN.


I agree, in many instances, there is simply a "fun" factor. I shoot league on Tuesday nights because I enjoy the company and the experience is fun. My brother, when he shot, did it because he enjoyed the zen sensation of shooting one good shot. 

However... if I ever return to competition archery... it will be (and boy am I going to hear about this) because there is somebody that I want to beat. That's what will get ME practicing 3-4 hours a day. That's what will bind me to the sport... not the intrinsic joy of playing bows and arrows. If there were only a couple of people in my class, I would lose interest.


----------



## Marcus (Jun 19, 2002)

TexARC said:


> It only took me one tournament, years ago, shooting at the same time as Lindsey, to arrive at that awareness - I was NOT having fun!
> Of course, John, I was nothing of an archer like you are, so it was much less difficult of a decision for me to make.  But it was the right one. What a fantastic sport archery can be!


Funny guys I coach a number of Australian Champ Juniors (and they beat other people too! How rare is that!) and yet at competitions I shoot and they shoot. I'll pop down and see how they are going between distances, but otherwise they are on their own. 
If they have a problem they come and see me. 
However when they go to the Nats I won't be there so they learn how to look after themselves. Me standing behind them watching each arrow isn't going to help them. 
In fact in many cases I can say to them "look don't stress, I'm getting drift out to the left, aim off, it aint you" which I would not be able to do as well if I was watching. 

My coach also competes in the same shoots I do (and often against me) and it's never an issue. 

skybowman
There are different issues involved with the divisions you need to take into account. 
1) When you dillute the pool of archers and increase the medals you also dilute the worth. When an event produces 100 National Champions it has no value. Especially when half could have been handed out at registration. 

2) Cost. I priced out a small local comp and costed it based on each division. 2 divisions broke even (mens and womens recurve), 2 made a profit (mens and womens compound) and the other 15 division (yes 15) had less than 4 competitors each and made a huge loss. The event scraped through OK, but no thanks to the extra divisions. 
Now if those divisions were merged in with Open then I could have charged <$10 enrty fee instead of $18. 

3) Learning to lose. 
The new guys don't get this as much. But while people win at every shoot they attend they never lose the most important lesson in life. How to lose. 
I never once as a junior came home empty handed. I was shooting in divisions with up to 15 kids locally, and still always placed. (went 18 months without being beaten). However when I got to seniors instantly I knew it would be impossible to keep that up. It took me a number of years to learn that losing was OK, and not the end of the world. 
Now locally I almost never see a kid gohome empty handed, and when one is in the situation of losing you can see the desperate panic on their face. Few lose well. 
It is a lesson that must be taught, because only when you accept that losing happens and are comfortable with that can you start to learn how to win.


----------



## baldmountain (Apr 21, 2003)

massman said:


> I'll suggest that we (as coaches) coach only;
> 
> 1 Olympic Recurve
> 
> ...


NO! just be supportive of any class people want to shoot!

A large part of the reason I'm still in archery is because of two guys, Duke Willard and Steve Senay. They probably don't know it, but I had a great time shooting a field round with those guys. I joined the Lunenburg Sportsman's club because of those guys and still belong. I shoot as many tournaments as I can, and developed a real love of tournament archery due to the introduction by those guys. Thanks!

Oh and Cedric, Dave, Eddie, Gabe, Mike, Ruby, Jay, and Larry keep me going...

Thanks to you too!

If you want to build archery numbers, help the new guy out. He will be a fan for life if you include him in the in-crowd...

Oh, and the good folks at Hoops too...


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> Funny guys I coach a number of Australian Champ Juniors (and they beat other people too! How rare is that!) and yet at competitions I shoot and they shoot. I'll pop down and see how they are going between distances, but otherwise they are on their own.
> If they have a problem they come and see me.
> However when they go to the Nats I won't be there so they learn how to look after themselves. Me standing behind them watching each arrow isn't going to help them.
> In fact in many cases I can say to them "look don't stress, I'm getting drift out to the left, aim off, it aint you" which I would not be able to do as well if I was watching.


Marcus, I really have no idea what level of archer you are, so don't take this the wrong way, but the main reason I had difficulty at the NFAA Nationals is that I had a legitimate chance to win the National Championship vs. Butch and Vic. However, my attention was divided and it showed in my scores. For example, my 10 year old son was shooting on the opposite side of the venue at the same time as me on day 1. That meant after every other end (which I shot quicker than I should have) I was running over to see his progress. He is only 10. He needed me A LOT. I shot one of the poorest 300 round scores I've ever shot that day and literally took myself out of the championship right there.

Now, the 14 year-old archer I coach shot at another time, and he was doing just fine without me. Like you, I don't babysit him. He's a mature young man and I let him come to me if he needs something. I may watch a few shots, or talk to him after his practice arrows to see how it's going, but most of the time I just visit with his parents and watch the other archers.

I think hovering over a young archer can be a detriment to them, depending of course on their personality.

But at the level I was shooting at, I needed 100% focus on my shooting if I were to be satisfied with my results. I did not have that, and the results were sub-par. I cannot live with that. I would rather not shoot the O.R. than not be in a position to win. If I am there to recreate, I will shoot in the traditional division.

I hope that makes sense.

John.


----------



## Huntmaster (Jan 30, 2003)

Wow, there's so much wrong with Marcus's post, I don't know where to start :noidea: 

Diluting the worth is totally your oppinion and value. It's only what you place on it. "Diluting the worth" is probably the only thing that's kept the sport going the way it is. I know if I started, and kept getting my arse handed to me because I was agianst the open pros with my hunting rig, I'd stay in the tree stand, cause I didn't want to get that serious. The word spreads, and you have bunches of ppl in tree stands instead of finding that they are a natural and need to move up.

These orginizations are non profit orgs for a reason. Their purpose is not to make money, but to make a name. If this was big buisness, your entry fees would be $100 at least for even the cubs, then you wouldn't have a buisness at all because no one in their right mind is going to pay that for a goofy little medal. Scraping by is just a name of this game. If ya wanna make money, go be a lawyer or something. The club only needs to sustain it's self. The only way money needs to be involved is to pay off it's competitiors, and for that you need rich shooters, or sponsors. Now we're talking about making it tv and sponsor worthy again.......nuther subject.

Learning to loose is one thing, but see point #1. As I see it, we need to pay for the kids to shoot. Heck, we shouldn't charge them to compete, and they should all get awards. You really think they are there for the competition? If so, you don't know kids. Mostly, they're too young to process it that way. They are there to shoot their bows, but see three people get awards and nothing for them. Our club holds the Iowa Pro-Am. It was my idea to give all the kids an award. They simply took the piece of printed paper that goes in all the trophies, and put it on a piece of wood with a piece of plexiglass in front of it. I offered to do it, but the guy that's in charge of awards did it. They probably have 50 cents in the awards, but the shoot had more kids in it each year since then. It works, and here's the proof Link Ya, they still feel the agony of defeat, because it's not the big trophy the other kid got, but they still took a piece home with them to cherish and remember.

If you had empty wins, you wern't shooting for self improvement. Cub1 rarely has other competion, but she keeps bumping the records (9 so far). Maby you should teach self improvement first.


----------



## Marcus (Jun 19, 2002)

> Learning to loose is one thing, but see point #1. As I see it, we need to pay for the kids to shoot. Heck, we shouldn't charge them to compete, and they should all get awards. You really think they are there for the competition? If so, you don't know kids. Mostly, they're too young to process it that way.


OK let me give you a few examples.
#1 we have a young girl in our state who would win everything, often without competition. Very enthusiastic but one time her dad found her state championship medal under the car seat. He told her and she shrugged and said "so what, doesn't mean anything"

#2 I competed as a junior and know exactly what it is like in those ranks. As a parent you can't understand it at the same level. Trust me, it's not what you think. 
The kids take it very seriously. They mouth off more and put more value on winning than anything else. By pandering to it you are sending them the wrong message. Sport is about self improvement, handing out medals is not required for that. 

As for the non-profit. Read it again. I don't want to make a profit, I want to charge much less for competitions. We have comps here with $40 entry fees that could be down to $10 if so much money wasn't tied up in 1 person division awards. 

Limbwalker
Yeah U10 is a tough one and can sympathise with you there. Hopefully it doesn't keep you out of competing for long.


----------



## Huntmaster (Jan 30, 2003)

Marcus said:


> OK let me give you a few examples.
> #1 we have a young girl in our state who would win everything, often without competition. Very enthusiastic but one time her dad found her state championship medal under the car seat. He told her and she shrugged and said "so what, doesn't mean anything"
> 
> #2 I competed as a junior and know exactly what it is like in those ranks. As a parent you can't understand it at the same level. Trust me, it's not what you think.
> ...


First, understand I don't like using Cub1 as an example, and I don't intend to brag her up. I'd rather not because I think I look like a bragging parrent (but I am proud of her, as I should be  ). Her qualifications and accomplishments will speak for her in it's own time. I only talk about her because she is my experience.

I do understand. My daughter is that girl and probably more. Up through Nationals this year, she shot cub fingers compound. She quit going to local shoots 4 years ago so she wouldn't push anyone else in her class out in hopes she'd get some competiton. She won everything she went to (except for when she ran into target panic). She set all the state records, and kept re-setting them. Heck, her state indoor record is 8 x's below the mens unlimited record. You have no idea the degree in which I really know about that. 

Sure they take it seriously. She's not won everything, and not set every record. She was actually more dissapointed at Nationals this year because she missed the national record by one point because of a little lingering tp/clicker issue, yet she bumped the x count by 50%. That's self competion and a desire to preform, and that's what it sould be about.

The cost to the archer is not the problem as I see it. We're talking about increasing participation here. Floating the non profitable classes is part of increasing the shooters, which in turn brings the tallent up the ranks. The new tallent wants to go worldly, they join the NAA. Like I said, If I'm new, and gotta buy $2K worth of equipment just to find out if I'm competitive, I'm gonna stay in the tree. The NFAA does have it's place in target archery. The NAA is basically what you desire, yet the NFAA is the one with the most members. The proof is in the pudding as they say. 

_EDIT: oops, forgot you're on the opposite side of the globe, but I believe you have a good idea of membership here in the states. _


----------



## skybowman (Jan 31, 2004)

*one more comment*

Marcus:

I think you make some good points. I heard a guy describe himself as a champion recently and I smiled as I knew that he scarcely had any competition in his division. However, I guess it meant something to him. For myself, if I'm shooting against only one other competitor, I'm less interested in that archer's score than in my level of preparation and how my score compares to my expectations. That challenge keeps me on the range practicing every day.

Regarding younger archers, I think those who have shot awhile understand the worth of their scores and "victories". I'm not sure how it is where you shoot, but I'll offer a few comments concerning my teenage son who shoots in the US.

When he has won his age class in local tournaments (not uncommon), he has certainly enjoyed it, particularly since he is very familiar with the guys with whom he shoots and knows their capabilities. Winning over familiar competitors can certainly be fun. However, he also shoots in national tournaments and is prepared to see how he places among the national range of shooters. For him, that puts the whole issue in context.

He has won his region before and then placed 10-20 nationally. As he gets older, the competition gets tougher. He fully understands the significance of that and assesses where his "game" is, usually synomymous with his level of practice. I'm not saying his experience is universal, but he is well aware of his level of expertise and prepardness when he steps to the line compared to the best youth archers nationally.

When he first started shooting, he placed major emphasis on those local wins and that kept him interested, which was good. He still enjoys that, but as his skills improved, he placed more emphasis on "bigger" tourneys and how he placed on a national level. It keeps his assessment of his skill more real.

When you are new to the sport, clearly winning is important against ANY competition. It's an endorsement of your effort. However, when you develop skills and become serious about the game, that changes and you want to shoot meaningful scores and potentially win against QUALITY competition.


----------



## Larry Yien (Jul 8, 2004)

*Fita needs their bearing set straight*

The longbow rhetoric got my attention initially, but after reading through the whole thread I started to see the points that many of you were trying to make, and it got me thinking. 

I ask that you hone your blade to a finer edge and make some honest cuts to create an "archery world" for archers and the public to embrace. Fita needs to find true "North" again. Marcus says:"Longbow has as much place in modern archery competition as leather helmets do in US football. " 

I say compounds have as much a place in modern archery as atv's do in US football.

Let's leave the romance of longbow and the gadgetry of compounds to Marcus's dorkshows. This will alleviate the excess styles, and the non-competitive classes.

Freestyle recurve and barebow recurve can be Fita events and all archers, whatever type can ready themselves to the task of competing in major events by buying competitive equipment and stepping up to the line.

For most of you, it wasn't that long ago when Fita was exactly that, recurves! I say, regain the bearing. *Olympic style recurves decked out or bare!*

Personally, I would still hunt with my longbows/stickbows. But taking a recurve into competitive battle excites me!  :thumbs_up


----------



## Huntmaster (Jan 30, 2003)

Larry Yien said:


> I ask that you hone your blade to a finer edge and make some honest cuts to create an "archery world" for archers and the public to embrace. Fita needs to find true "North" again. Marcus says:"Longbow has as much place in modern archery competition as leather helmets do in US football. "
> 
> I say compounds have as much a place in modern archery as atv's do in US football.
> 
> ...


Actually, FITA needs to get with the rest of the world. You wanna talk about living in the past? Jeez, the last time flight was usefull was in the dark ages. Ski and run archery too. :noidea: Clout archery is what the kids do when they got lots of room and a new toy  And have you ever seen the rule book(s)? Holly buckets! 

FITA needs to get with the game.


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

John, in 1989 I reached the same conclusion as you. I could not compete properly in the same competion were my son was shooting, as my focus could not stay be on my own target. Then I started to become more a coach than an archer. And if it happens, like 2 weeks ago, that I'm again shooting in competition (I have been forced to pick up the bow, with no training at all, to be the third one of my club's Master class team at our regional champs) and Michele and Carla are sooting at the same time, I pass my shooting time on on the line shooting one arrow and then looking to my children's targets.... not really a good example of concentration :embara:

Well, someone has added a new argument to the discussio: sport or recreation?
Personally, I always propose archery as a sport, that can be played at racreational level as well, but is a pure competitive sport. And a sport has image only if it has public exposure. And, in our world, the public recognition (and public money) only comes from the Olympic games and the division shooting there.....
All other divisions are, by definition, recreational and uncomplete, as they do not allow to reach the top of our archery world. Thereore, in my club we only proposes to the beginners the Olympic bow, just mentioning the existance of all other, let me say, second and third choice alternatives. 
Not needed to say that the majority of those starting archery in my club choose then the Olympic division, a small part the compound division, and very few the Bare Bow division. LB is out of the proposals in my club, at least up to now. And children simply are not allowed to pick up any other bow than the Olympic one until we are sure that they have unfortunately no chance to become good shooters with it. 
Summarizing: limited number of choices, simple identification of the objectives, clear picture of what an archery champion should be and of the (long) process neded to become an Olympian. And strong focus on comeptitons since the beginnin, in order to simply identify potential athlets from the others. 
My club is growing a lot in this way (closed the 2005 with 135 members), and can even grow more, with the limit in the structures and coaching power, only.

We are all out of topic, here. The topic was about good potential archers abandoning the sport prematurely. And this is really another story.


----------



## ROB B (Oct 30, 2002)

*Marcus*

I am the "national champ" you are complaining about. There was only 2 in my division at outdoor nats last yr. I went to take a young girl who is changing to Recurve for the same reasons you talk about, no competition in her compound classes.
I did not go to win a "bowl". I went for the experience, and had set certain goals for myself,which I made.
But I hear a lot of this complaining about noone in the classes. Well, I say those people should shut up and bring their bows and shoot! If you didn't take the time off work, put in the practice, walk those hills , get your first taste of a National Tournament listening to all the "old"guys complain, then you have no right to open your mouth.(and I realize this is not for you personally)
If there was limited classes I would not have shot at all,would have only watched.
Where would you class Olympic Bows? Compound Unlimited?
And as far as trad not belonging there..... I got my butt handed to my by the AMTRAD Champ(way to go Tim).... who was shooting by himself by the way.

ROB


----------



## Hank (Jul 5, 2003)

*I say compounds have as much a place in modern archery as atv's do in US football.*

Larry, now thats priceless 

I have a Target Recurve that I shoot barebow and shoot longbows, as well. Just getting started in Field, 900 rounds and Indoor target.

I live in Iowa and there isn't much competition/participants in those divisions.

I am there for me and to see what I can do, anything else is icing on the cake.

Hank


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> Let's leave the romance of longbow and the gadgetry of compounds to Marcus's dorkshows. This will alleviate the excess styles, and the non-competitive classes.
> 
> Freestyle recurve and barebow recurve can be Fita events and all archers, whatever type can ready themselves to the task of competing in major events by buying competitive equipment and stepping up to the line.
> 
> For most of you, it wasn't that long ago when Fita was exactly that, recurves! I say, regain the bearing. Olympic style recurves decked out or bare!


Larry Yien for PRESIDENT!!!

awesome post, Larry. I love it. Talk about simple.

John.


----------



## Dave T (Mar 24, 2004)

*Absolutely!*

Here's another vote for Larry. Couldn't agree more with everything he said.

Dave


----------



## VanillaGorilla (Jul 22, 2005)

Larry Yien said:


> The longbow rhetoric got my attention initially, but after reading through the whole thread I started to see the points that many of you were trying to make, and it got me thinking.
> 
> I ask that you hone your blade to a finer edge and make some honest cuts to create an "archery world" for archers and the public to embrace. Fita needs to find true "North" again. Marcus says:"Longbow has as much place in modern archery competition as leather helmets do in US football. "
> 
> ...



I've been reading this thread from the start and I've I wanted to saying something. There are a lot of valid points and I didn't quite know how to say what I wanted to say. Now, I don't need to say anything because the post by Larry Yien says it all. THANK YOU. :thumb:


----------



## skybowman (Jan 31, 2004)

*What was the topic again?*



Vittorio said:


> We are all out of topic, here. The topic was about good potential archers abandoning the sport prematurely. And this is really another story.


Agreed.

And somehow the discussions on this board always come back to bashing this style versus that style. Hardly productive, but illustrative that the "archery community" is fairly divided even within the narrow realm of target archery.


----------



## Rob DiStefano (Aug 9, 2003)

Larry Yien said:


> The longbow rhetoric got my attention initially, but after reading through the whole thread I started to see the points that many of you were trying to make, and it got me thinking.
> 
> I ask that you hone your blade to a finer edge and make some honest cuts to create an "archery world" for archers and the public to embrace. Fita needs to find true "North" again. Marcus says:"Longbow has as much place in modern archery competition as leather helmets do in US football. "
> 
> ...


Pre-compound NAA American Round stickbow events - ah, those were the dayze. The hot shooters with their wooden Hoyt Pro Medalists with Reynolds pin sights, Easton XX75 arrows with Plasti-Fletch vanes and fingers-only release. Yea baby, bring it all back ... but who will do the lobbying of the archery manufacturers and orgs, where the compound rules the roost because it takes in the biggest share of a mini-sport archery revenue? 

Truth be told, ain't likely to happen. The real issue is that world archery is a highly fractured sport that's dominated solely by industry dollars, and the orgs are their lacky minions. Too bad for target archery in general.


----------



## Huntmaster (Jan 30, 2003)

Vittorio said:


> We are all out of topic, here. The topic was about good potential archers abandoning the sport prematurely. And this is really another story.


Only if you don't hold your mouth right 

Acutally, it is kinda on topic.....if you squint enough  Earlier (much) someone stated that some of these shooters have a bright future in other aspects of life, which is possibly taking them from archery. How do you make the sport something that's profitable to the shooter? By making the sport watchable and getting sponsors involved.

:noidea:


----------



## Rob DiStefano (Aug 9, 2003)

skybowman said:


> Agreed.
> 
> And somehow the discussions on this board always come back to bashing this style versus that style. Hardly productive, but illustrative that the "archery community" is fairly divided even within the narrow realm of target archery.


I think the talk so far is right on target. Folks leave target archery because it so disorganized, where class shooting and gear rules vary from org to org, and there is no firm future direction.


----------



## Rob DiStefano (Aug 9, 2003)

Huntmaster said:


> Only if you don't hold your mouth right
> 
> Acutally, it is kinda on topic.....if you squint enough  Earlier (much) someone stated that some of these shooters have a bright future in other aspects of life, which is possibly taking them from archery. How do you make the sport something that's profitable to the shooter? By making the sport watchable and getting sponsors involved.
> 
> :noidea:


These dayze, it takes corporate dollars to bankroll a sport. There isn't enuf general population interest in target archery, partly because ours is a 'weapon sport', and partly because no one has put together a proper archery spectator package, repleat with sponsors and media.


----------



## Larry Yien (Jul 8, 2004)

*1990*

Rob D, it almost sounds like you crawled out of a time capsule. I am not asking that "we" go that far back: to wooden recurves and the aforementioned pre-compound days. Although, if you read the FITA definition of the "standard bow"... 

*It was 1990 or there abouts that compounds were recognized in FITA competition.* It wasn't so very long ago.

I say we use the Olympics as a beacon. I have not seen the compound dollars usurp the recurve in the Olympics. There are plenty of models around the world that aspire towards Olympic excellence and revel in mastering the classic recurve.:thumbs_up 

Lead, follow or get out of the way.


----------



## Rob DiStefano (Aug 9, 2003)

Larry Yien said:


> Rob D, it almost sounds like you crawled out of a time capsule. I am not asking that "we" go that far back: to wooden recurves and the aforementioned pre-compound days. Although, if you read the FITA definition of the "standard bow"...
> 
> *It was 1990 or there abouts that compounds were recognized in FITA competition.* It wasn't so very long ago.
> 
> ...


Larry, I was only waxing nostalgia, not endorsing it verbatim - in essence, I'm supporting your proposal ... it's a great idea and one I've always thought of, but I just don't think it'll fly, unfortunately.


----------



## hkim823 (Oct 6, 2004)

I sense that this discussion is leaning towards that, "Wheels make a devil bow" and honestly we don't want to go there, because compound archers are just as much athletes as their recurve brethern. To compete at the highest levels of either require a lot of time and dedication and we could argue till everyone is blue in the face about what's the "better" bow on so many levels. 

I personally like the idea that FITA become a recurve organization again, the IFAA could cater to the compound guys but then you run the risk of each organization competing with each other, further dividing archers rather than uniting them. Hypothetically if the IOC one day decides to drop FITA for IFAA and make them the governing body for the Olympics, would you pick up a compound?


----------



## Rob DiStefano (Aug 9, 2003)

hkim823 said:


> I sense that this discussion is leaning towards that, "Wheels make a devil bow" and honestly we don't want to go there, because compound archers are just as much athletes as their recurve brethern. To compete at the highest levels of either require a lot of time and dedication and we could argue till everyone is blue in the face about what's the "better" bow on so many levels.
> 
> I personally like the idea that FITA become a recurve organization again, the IFAA could cater to the compound guys but then you run the risk of each organization competing with each other, further dividing archers rather than uniting them. Hypothetically if the IOC one day decides to drop FITA for IFAA and make them the governing body for the Olympics, would you pick up a compound?


Quite the converse - I think Marcos' remark about longbow competition brought in more than a few new member posts in rebuttal. I've shot all manner of stick and compound bows competitively, and they're all viable fun. 

Theoretically, there's plenty of room for all bow styles, if you could get all the recognized archery orgs to sit down, think "proactive archery" and create a proper gameplan that has the competitors in mind, first and foremost.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> I sense that this discussion is leaning towards that, "Wheels make a devil bow" and honestly we don't want to go there, because compound archers are just as much athletes as their recurve brethern


No, I don't think we're heading that direction any more than we were berating those that shoot the longbow... But Larry just put Marcus' arguments into perspective, in a VERY valid way.

Just in my short target archery tenure, I have seen several young top compound talents switch to recurve in order to "test the Olympic waters" so to speak. I think that's great, and I think it's exactly Marcus' and Larry's point (albeit made from different directions  ).

Good compound shooters are skilled athletes just like good longbow shooters are. They are just competing in a different "event" if you will, than that which was established as the international "standard"... the Olympic recurve.

Again, I think Larry's point is a brilliant one. And I think it would lead to less confusing options for youngsters, providing that clear direction that many of them lack. I mean, I've seen JOAD students and their parents wring their hands over Compound or Recurve, Barebow or sights, 3-D or indoor, field or Fita. Too many decisions in some ways.

John.


----------



## Huntmaster (Jan 30, 2003)

limbwalker said:


> Again, I think Larry's point is a brilliant one. And I think it would lead to less confusing options for youngsters, providing that clear direction that many of them lack. I mean, I've seen JOAD students and their parents wring their hands over Compound or Recurve, Barebow or sights, 3-D or indoor, field or Fita. Too many decisions in some ways.
> 
> John.


Too many "worry" about this stuff. With the proper instruction (or guidance), that should find it's own direction though.


----------



## Marcus (Jun 19, 2002)

Ah and once again most have totally missed the point of this conversation and have taken things out of context.  

FITA has to a degree done the divisions thing well. It has catered to just about every bow type without the need to bloat all events. 

Previously we had

Olympics: Recurve
World Target: Recurve, Compound
World Field: Recurve, Compound, Barebow
World 3D: Compound, Barebow, Longbow

Great thinking. Why have recurve in 3D? Why have Longbow at the world target? What would either of them bring to the event? Nothing. 

Lets see if I can spell this one out for the hard of reading

If you want to get archery on TV and sponsored you must focus on 1-2 popular bow styles and stop trying to be all things to all men. 

Reality is that Recurve and Compound have established themselves as forces in competitive target archery (and did so long before 1990) while barebow recurve and longbow have been unable to do so in the last 30 years. Survival of the fittest.


----------



## RecordKeeper (May 9, 2003)

limbwalker said:


> I mean, I've seen JOAD students and their parents wring their hands over Compound or Recurve, Barebow or sights, 3-D or indoor, field or Fita. Too many decisions in some ways.
> 
> John.


Good points, John. And look at it from the poor archery shop owner's perspective as well....how much capital must one lay out in order to attempt to stock goodies for everyone. It isn't easy, but we sure try!


----------



## Dave T (Mar 24, 2004)

Marcus said:


> Why have recurve in 3D? Why have Longbow at the world target? What would either of them bring to the event? Nothing.


And what would they take away from either event? Nothing. The cameras, if they ever showed up would focus on the big boys, with maybe a side bar clip about the history of target shooting showing longbows. They pay an entrance fee and add another participant. A stinking ribbon or cheezy medal isn't going to break the bank for heaven's sake. I fail to understand your insistance that Barebow recurves or Longbows have to be banned from participation.

Dave


----------



## Serious Fun (May 12, 2003)

*Guests are always welcome to join in!*



Dave T said:


> And what would they take away from either event? Nothing. The cameras, if they ever showed up would focus on the big boys, with maybe a side bar clip about the history of target shooting showing longbows. They pay an entrance fee and add another participant. A stinking ribbon or cheezy medal isn't going to break the bank for heaven's sake. I fail to understand your insistance that Barebow recurves or Longbows have to be banned from participation.
> 
> Dave


Dave,
I thought we should let all know that 2006 Arizona Cup is inviting Collegiate, Barebow, Junior and Paralympian to officially compete for the championship and in their respective categories by having their score sorted and listed for recognition purposes.
Once an archer meets the equipment criteria including poundage, safety and perhaps membership and dress code requirements, I don’t know any tournament that will not let anyone take part. 
We allow anyone to come and play, they just need to be association member to be eligible for association championship award.
Guests are always welcome to join in.
It’s how we encourage archery in general.


----------



## OCA04Matrix (Dec 17, 2004)

up and commings dont always have to be kids... i mean look at some of the people who have picked up a bow later in life... are we not up and comming... i mean.... i know of a few of us who r averaging 280s and up and who have only been shooting for 4 years...


----------



## calbowdude (Feb 13, 2005)

I should include John Magera since he's made an Olympic team. I wasn't excluding archers over the age of 18. I used the two young women because they were the best examples I could think of. 

Although, with the directive to bring home medals from Beijing, will the NAA's focus narrow down to youth? Or will the NAA accept older applicants to the RA program? 

I am very curious as to the direction US archery will take in terms of coaching tenets and methodology.


----------



## x1440 (Jan 5, 2003)

Larry Yien...are you the same Dr. Larry Yien from Santa Cruz? The champion barebow archer??


----------



## Huntmaster (Jan 30, 2003)

With John being as good as he is, I'd suspect he'd probably wished at some point that he'd have done this at an earlier age..........he can tell you for sure, but I sure wish *I'd* have visited the target scene before the age of 30!

I'm almost betting the youth will start to become a bigger force in our Olympic efforts. At a younger age, we are all (were) able to do more easier.


----------



## calbowdude (Feb 13, 2005)

Oh, no question I would have liked to have started at a younger age, but then again as I've gotten older I have found more patience. Every time I think that I'm too "old," I think of Butch Johnson and his longevity.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> I'd suspect he'd probably wished at some point that he'd have done this at an earlier age..........he can tell you for sure,


Yea, I thought of that quite often. However, I would have lacked the dicipline and maturity in my late teens or early 20's to persevere the way I did. At 34, I didn't really need a lot of direction, or care what anyone else thought about my chances. And having been married for 14 years, the father of 3 kids, and 13 years into my career, the consequences of not making the team weren't all that significant to me. I felt literally no pressure at all.

I think one of the reasons some of the 'up and comers' had trouble at the trials, and at other events, is that there is simply too much on the line for them (residency at the OTC not being the least of that... don't make the team? - Pack your bags). But only they know for sure. I know the results of the trials shocked a lot of folks. Not necessarily because of who made the team, but becuase of those that didn't, or didn't really even come close. But I think if you look closely at their individual situations, they all had a LOT of pressure on them that folks like myself simply didn't have. 

An example of that was the top 5 men at the trials. Vic, Butch, Myself, Jason and Joe. Two over 25, two over 30, and one over 40. And, all trained basically at home, self supported, and all had established careers. No coaches looking over our shoulders, and no calling the moving van if we didn't make the team.

I expect things to change significantly with KiSik Lee here now. In what direction, I don't know. I suspect it will be much more difficult for someone like myself, Jason or Joe to fit into the program. We simply don't have the time to take off for the OTC and stay for any length of time.

I'm not saying that's a bad thing. If the ultimate goal is to produce medals (which I think everyone would agree should be the goal of the OTC and the NAA's olympic training program) then there needs to be proper structure, training and support. There will also be casualties, and that means folks like me. I can live with that, and I support the direction the NAA is going. 

We should have internationally competitive teenagers (I mean competitive in the senior division), and right now we don't (well, at least not in recurve). That is our future, and our 16-20 crowd should be more competitive IMO. Hopefully Mr. Lee will find our own "Cuddihy and Barnes" to shoot with Vic in the future 

John.


----------



## Larry Yien (Jul 8, 2004)

John, great post, thanks for your insight and candor. Heck, most all of you here have given some fine insight into our sport and athletes. I can only hope that some of these ideas will continue onwards and upwards to actually making a difference!

I've pretty much given up on Marcus, acknowledging that we are on opposite sides of the equator, perhaps we can blame our lack of communication on that. Although I suspect it has something to do with someone's "tea cup being too full" .

On another note I will be making the trip down to Australia in June to shoot in WFAC. I probably won't see Marcus there with his diss'n of IFAA and all. But Randall Wellings promises that it will be one of IFAA's finest WFAC's. I am looking forward to meeting and shooting with archers from around the World that will take on the muster.

X1, I am from *Santa Cruz.*


----------



## Marcus (Jun 19, 2002)

No Larry you won't be seeing me there, I was hoping t go as I love the IFAA game, I think it's a fantastic field round. However I have no time for the local organisation that runs it in Australia. They have been very active in discouraging participation between different shooting bodies and very dishonest in relation to their insurance and rights of members. 

I have said it before, this thread is in relation to FITA TARGET shooting (did you guys even bother to read what started this thread off? Or did you see something you didn't like and jump to conclusions?) I have no problem with longbow or barebow being in the Field organisations, it's where it belongs and where it should prosper. 

If everyone likes the current standing of target archery in the world and likes our target talent drifting away from the game at 18-22 years of age then stay out of the thread. 

I offered my opinions on what I believe it would take for FITA TARGET ARCHERY to grow in popularity. Instead we get a bunch of IFAA shooters having a sook over 4 of my words. 

So please, focus on what is said and not what gets you upset and also consider whether it is even related to you and your shooting before jumping in and going off the handle. 

You could also blame our lack on communication on discussing 2 totally different things.  

Hope you enjoy the shoot, and say hello to Randall for me. 

John
I think you will find Mr Lee supportive of you efforts to make the team for Beijing, however his main focus will be on young archer development I would suspect. He will also be supportive of anyone who chooses to attempt his technique and won't spend alot of time on those who don't. Some of the older archers may have trouble there if they don't have open minds to what he is teaching. 
Should be great to see how it goes for you guys.


----------



## baldmountain (Apr 21, 2003)

limbwalker said:


> That is our future, and our 16-20 crowd should be more competitive IMO. Hopefully Mr. Lee will find our own "Cuddihy and Barnes" to shoot with Vic in the future


Why invest in teenagers?

You even provide the reason not to...



limbwalker said:


> Yea, I thought of that quite often. However, I would have lacked the dicipline and maturity in my late teens or early 20's to persevere the way I did.


Not to mention that there is no long term career in recurve archery in the US. Even if you win the Olympics you are not going to get a big Nike contract. You will end up painting houses or flogging archery gear for almost no money.

IIRC didn't Mr. Barnes put down his bow to go to University so he can get a real job?


----------



## Larry Yien (Jul 8, 2004)

Marcus, I am getting more of a handle of where you are coming from. Thanks for taking the time to explain yourself and some of your comments. 

I did read this thread through and through before I thought to respond. While my competitions of late have been primarily in IFAA and NFAA, I am a life member of NAA since '88 and have shot in many NAA tournaments and attended a World Fita Championships. I do have more perspective in this issue than the average keyboard quarterback. I am not posting on this thread out of anger for some half-wit remarks about longbows or the archers that shoot longbows.

I have a sincere interest in FITA and the US component NAA, the athletes, the direction, the focus, and ultimately archery. I would hope that you have read my initial post as a reply to the body of the thread. It isn't a tit for tat, but rather an honest proposal to streamline and aspire towards greatness!


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Geoff,

Good point. I didn't explain myself completely.

I consider the progress and ability of that 16-20 age group as a real barometer of how a program is doing. It is during that period that an archer, or athlete in general, learns their craft and learns to handle competition. Generally speaking, if an athlete has been working within a good program for a number of years, you will know by the age of 20 whether or not they will be world-class material. 

The reason I say I would have lacked dicipline and maturity at 20 is because I had no foundation in competitive archery at that age, other than local 3-D traditional events. And I was too busy getting married, finishing my degree and starting my career. By maturity, I mean "competitive archery" maturity, if you know what I mean. I've met plenty of archers from around the world that were very mature archers, but outside of archery they were just kids. Hope that makes sense.

I think Mr. Lee has the ability to find our U-20 talent and develop it in a way that we have not been able to. At least, that's my hope.

When we begin fielding recurve archers for the Junior worlds that are finishing in the top 5, then at that point we are on the right track. I predict that this will take about 4-6 years. 

Also, your point about there not being any incentive for the young archers is debatable. I don't see anything wrong with a talented young archer postponing career and possibly even college if they have a LEGITIMATE chance of making an Olympic team. I think there are life lessons to be learned there, and the credentials certainly won't hurt when tacked on top of a good education someday. Jenny Nichols is a good example of this. She is at an age where a less talented archer should just finish their college education and get on with life. But for her, there is a realistic opportunity to travel the world and gain life experience that will really help her down the road. And she's bright enough to finish college (probably in 3 years) and have a successful career later on.

Each young archer will have to make those tough decisions for themselves eventually, since as you say, there is not much of a future in archery for Olympic recurve shooters.

I doubt any recurvers that ever made an Olympic team would ever trade the experience however, no matter what the cost of getting there.

John.

John.


----------



## TexARC (Mar 5, 2003)

limbwalker said:


> I doubt any recurvers that ever made an Olympic team would ever trade the experience however, no matter what the cost of getting there.


Or, a paralympic archer. 
Who may very well be competitive for the Olys, 2008, even with college full time, no "3 years" wonder. There are a lot of perspectives out there, John...


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Indeed there are Ron. How's Lindsey doing in school? Major picked yet?

John.


----------



## MoonDragn (Jun 19, 2006)

Marcus said:


> Wow, you must be simply awesome! I'm swapping to Longbow.
> 
> As Leighton said, if longbow is such an awesome draw card for the sport then why isn't it more popular?
> 
> Reality is that there is no room for Longbow in modern competitive archery. If you think there is enter in the Open Compound division and beat everyone else. Till then leave it relegated to the Medievil recreationist dorkshows.


I belong to one of these dorkshows (the SCA) and they just recently had a big east coast competion with over 300 people. The shoot was extremely fun with alot of interesting novelty shoots : Moving Targets, Stationary targets, and there was one clout shoot where you had to arc your arrow over a giant Plywood turnip to hit the knight cutout in the back. The finals involved head to head archers shooting at distances drawn from a hat. They had to shoot these targets that fall backwards when you hit them like a shooting gallery. The targets were about 2 inches in diameter drawn like skeleton pirates. (I made it into the finals but only made it up to the top 8 before I got beat)

The SCA does more to promote archery among kids than even joad does. We have kids that are shooting that was barely 3 years old. There are a couple of kids in their teens who are better than most adults.

As for those longbow shooters, there is one person that I know who can group his arrows all in the 10 (about 1 inch diameter) at 40 yards very very consistently. Its a wonder to watch him shoot.

Btw, we don't allow compounds into our competitions. If you were allowed though, you would have probably lost. Over half of our shoots were timed. Given how slow most compound shooters are, you'd have scored 1 point by the time we scored 10.


----------



## Cryptic (Feb 14, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> I know this is off-topic, but I think Jim nailed it.
> 
> We have two strikes against us... 1) there just aren't enough folks out there shooting Olympic style or even compound fita archery. 2) Watching what we do is absolutely boring. Without tens of thousands of participating and formerly participating athletes (like football, soccer, tennis, golf, etc.) there aren't interested parties to turn on the television. Without those numbers, the sponsors aren't interested.
> 
> ...


I agree with people relating to a sport. I find archery "fun" to watch on TV, however, I cannot find a chennel that shows it sometimes, or it's difficult to locate when it's on. I would LOVE to see general competitions on TV if they have them. As far as I aware, I will only be able to watch archery every four years 

I just wanted to share my perspective of my exposure of different sports:

I am currently 27 yrs old. I grew up in NYC, then lived in Florida. I participated in Track & Field in middle school and high school because it was available and tryouts announced on the loud speaker.

I probably never heard of archery until I saw it on TV one day while flipping through some channels. It was the Olympics and I was probably 13 yrs. old. However, at this age, I didn't know that I could learn archery or take classes, etc. If I would have known this, I probably would have showed an interest. That's why I believe that children and teenagers should be exposed to a little of everything out there (if you can afford it), because you never know what they might like or be good in.

Now, I participate in tae kwon do. I was exposed to it when I was 14yrs. old when my uncle from Puerto Rico came to visit. He was a high-ranked black belt. This got me thinking that I can try this sport. However, there is so much politics in tae kwon do, that making the Olympic team is extremely difficult (2004, Olympics, only one girl and one boy got to compete). Anyway, I am now interested in archery. I just looked at the list of Olympic sports that interested me, tried it out, and now I'm hooked!

So, in the end, for me, it was exposure to the sport. I had to know a) that the sport exists, and b) if I could learn it without it costing a fortune for my mom.


----------



## Leighton (Aug 24, 2004)

Since this thread has been revived...

Well, I for one can relate to the "go to college or train for the olympics" dilemna. When I was younger and in JOAD, I wanted to go to the Olympics and probably could have gotten really good for a youngster if I understood that I'd need to train much more than twice a month, what tuning a bow meant. But none of that came about, so I went to college and dropped archery for a year and a half. There was just no future in archery, I mean seriously, there is only one professional archer in the US. Besides Vic, I don't see anyone living off of their skill in O-style archery.
Even after I picked up my bow again and began shooting (rather bought a new one thinking it'd make me a better shooter), archery was always less important than getting my degree. So I only trained during the summer and winter breaks.
Now that I'm out of college, it sucks big time. Can't live off of shooting archery.


----------



## baldmountain (Apr 21, 2003)

Leighton said:


> Can't live off of shooting archery.


Maybe not shooting, but you can make a living in the archery business. Not a good one, but it is possible. Make a release, develop a bow, manufacture accessories, etc. 

With the right marketing and business direction I think that archery could be developed into a sport in which people could make a living shooting. But it would take someone with a LOT of connections and the drive to make it happen. Heck, if driving in circles making left hand turns can generate as much money as NASCAR does archery should be able to as well. (I'd much rather watch Grand Prix racing or the Isle of Man TT. Those guys are nuts!)


----------



## MoonDragn (Jun 19, 2006)

I know several people who make a living making and selling bows and arrows for a living to the SCA. While they don't make a killing, it suppliments whatever else they chose to do and pays for their hobby.


----------



## winst (Nov 21, 2002)

Reading through this and then looking at the entries for the upcoming National Target Championships... i noticed Karen Scavotto's name on the list... how old is she now? And has she been shooting since she last compteted? just curious!!


----------



## Leighton (Aug 24, 2004)

Apparently, she is 24, not too old.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_Scavotto


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

winst said:


> Reading through this and then looking at the entries for the upcoming National Target Championships... i noticed Karen Scavotto's name on the list... how old is she now? And has she been shooting since she last compteted? just curious!!



Last I saw her was the 04 Olympic trials in my town. She was getting ready to attend auburn and train in engineering


----------



## azarcherymom (Jul 13, 2004)

some up and comers : Brady Ellison and Maggie Huff, two Az Kids, who put a definite hurtin on the competition at Joad Natls. Each won their jr recurve div by 50 pts or more and won the OR also. Brady broke the 1300 mark and Maggie came pretty darn close herself. Kudos to the both of them and good luck at Nationals and the Trials.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

azarcherymom said:


> some up and comers : Brady Ellison and Maggie Huff, two Az Kids, who put a definite hurtin on the competition at Joad Natls. Each won their jr recurve div by 50 pts or more and won the OR also. Brady broke the 1300 mark and Maggie came pretty darn close herself. Kudos to the both of them and good luck at Nationals and the Trials.



I didn't watch Maggie shoot much save for her quarterfinal match with my student-5th place finisher Melissa Ash. Brady looked very smooth and is obvioulsy the clear cut favorite at the trials

as to the girls-hard to say-Will 1300+ shooter Margot Stuchin get back to the level she was at prior to getting zapped with Mono? (I note she is not registered yet though she told me she is going to the trials-at least as of JOAD nationals)


----------



## calbowdude (Feb 13, 2005)

Well, looks like the 2 examples I cited, Karen Scavotto and Margot Stuchin, are both back in action and doing more than just OK. Ms. Scavotto looks like she's about to break 1300 with ease, and in 2nd place today against a bunch of USATer's, RA's, Olympians, etc. 

Welcome back ladies, and good luck to all the competitors at Nationals.


----------



## Marcus (Jun 19, 2002)

I hate Novalty shoots. You can keep it. But end of the day SCA is to archery as playing with Matchbox cars is to NASCAR. 




MoonDragn said:


> I belong to one of these dorkshows (the SCA) and they just recently had a big east coast competion with over 300 people. The shoot was extremely fun with alot of interesting novelty shoots : Moving Targets, Stationary targets, and there was one clout shoot where you had to arc your arrow over a giant Plywood turnip to hit the knight cutout in the back. The finals involved head to head archers shooting at distances drawn from a hat. They had to shoot these targets that fall backwards when you hit them like a shooting gallery. The targets were about 2 inches in diameter drawn like skeleton pirates. (I made it into the finals but only made it up to the top 8 before I got beat)
> 
> The SCA does more to promote archery among kids than even joad does. We have kids that are shooting that was barely 3 years old. There are a couple of kids in their teens who are better than most adults.
> 
> ...


----------



## Miles Gloriosus (Feb 11, 2006)

MoonDragn said:


> Over half of our shoots were timed. Given how slow most compound shooters are, you'd have scored 1 point by the time we scored 10.


Does this sound incredibly silly to anyone else?


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Miles Gloriosus said:


> Does this sound incredibly silly to anyone else?



no more than guys running around in tights and armor whacking each other with swords


----------



## MoonDragn (Jun 19, 2006)

Jim C said:


> no more than guys running around in tights and armor whacking each other with swords


No more silly than guys dressed in jumpsuits going round and round in the same track over and over.

Or someone who takes forever to shoot one arrow and thinks they are the best archer in the world.

Archery should be fun and enjoyable. This is the reason why alot of people get turned off by archery. They get told that unless they do everything perfect, they will never be good at it. We don't all aspire to be in the olympics, some of us just like to have fun shooting arrows.


----------



## Miles Gloriosus (Feb 11, 2006)

People running around a track are highly conditioned athletes. They're not trying to pretend that they're Hermes.

People who take a long time to shoot arrows shouldn't be penalized (Unless they take egregious amounts of time - like six arrows in exactly four minutes, for example), it may simply the way they go through the shot process.


----------



## MoonDragn (Jun 19, 2006)

Just saying its not just about accuracy. Archery was traditionally used for war. In war you want to shoot as many arrows as accurately as you can. It wasn't just about accuracy. The combination of both skills is what truely makes a traditional archer. The same skills used to shoot an arrow slow is used to shoot it fast. The fun is in the results. This also helps in hitting moving targets like a running deer for example.

Anyway, these novelty shoots are very enjoyable. Thats all I'm saying.
Competitions that involve shooting just 2 arrows at each target are boring as heck.


----------



## OCA04Matrix (Dec 17, 2004)

now i know.. up and comming shooters here in cali..... one of which who is still up and commin. you all knowhim too

Scott MaKechnie
Marcus Clinco
Tom Weselis

look out ..... these 3 guys will be in the top 10 in 07.... sadly the last 2 names could not make nationals.


----------



## Marcus (Jun 19, 2002)

And then when you guys miss you can laugh and say "Well at least we are real men shooting at moving targets and not those wimpy men who can hit what they aim at, while I bet we would make great warriors back in those times, except that we are all accountants and programmers and got beat up alot in high school."

Coming onto a archery section full of serious athletes and proclaiming that what they do is boring is stupider than dressing up like a King from 500 years ago and expecting other people to take you seriously. 

Anyway I'm convinced, how do I join up with this lot?




MoonDragn said:


> Just saying its not just about accuracy. Archery was traditionally used for war. In war you want to shoot as many arrows as accurately as you can. It wasn't just about accuracy. The combination of both skills is what truely makes a traditional archer. The same skills used to shoot an arrow slow is used to shoot it fast. The fun is in the results. This also helps in hitting moving targets like a running deer for example.
> 
> Anyway, these novelty shoots are very enjoyable. Thats all I'm saying.
> Competitions that involve shooting just 2 arrows at each target are boring as heck.


----------



## iceman77_7 (May 5, 2005)

OCA04Matrix said:


> now i know.. up and comming shooters here in cali..... one of which who is still up and commin. you all knowhim too
> 
> Scott MaKechnie
> Marcus Clinco
> ...


I think Scott, with his 3rd place ranking round finish in the 04 trials, and Marcus and his 1230+ scores are already here.


----------



## tecshooter05 (Mar 7, 2005)

*appears karen is back*

lookin at the US Nats results from day 1, karen scavotto is back and doesnt look like she missed a step


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

MoonDragn said:



> No more silly than guys dressed in jumpsuits going round and round in the same track over and over.
> 
> Or someone who takes forever to shoot one arrow and thinks they are the best archer in the world.
> 
> Archery should be fun and enjoyable. This is the reason why alot of people get turned off by archery. They get told that unless they do everything perfect, they will never be good at it. We don't all aspire to be in the olympics, some of us just like to have fun shooting arrows.


I like shooting a correct shot. its true-if you don't do it right you won't get good at it. Its true with anything. If you don't stroke a table tennis ball correctly you won't get a 2000 rating. If you don't learn to serve a tennis ball properly, you won't make the varsity. I suppose I could play tennis with the same strokes I swat a mosquito with but that isn't going to be much fun. I spent years learning the correct way to play several sports and that is more fun than being a hacker

I used to have the SCPA types come to my range. They were fine-the sad thing is they really didn't want to learn form. Brit archers had good form-that's the only way 120 pound average weight men could shoot a 110 pound longbow 12 times in less than two minutes. Good alignment, good balance, good back use. The SCPA types are using artificially light bows so they can shoot fast without having the form


----------



## MoonDragn (Jun 19, 2006)

Jim C said:


> I like shooting a correct shot. its true-if you don't do it right you won't get good at it. Its true with anything. If you don't stroke a table tennis ball correctly you won't get a 2000 rating. If you don't learn to serve a tennis ball properly, you won't make the varsity. I suppose I could play tennis with the same strokes I swat a mosquito with but that isn't going to be much fun. I spent years learning the correct way to play several sports and that is more fun than being a hacker
> 
> I used to have the SCPA types come to my range. They were fine-the sad thing is they really didn't want to learn form. Brit archers had good form-that's the only way 120 pound average weight men could shoot a 110 pound longbow 12 times in less than two minutes. Good alignment, good balance, good back use. The SCPA types are using artificially light bows so they can shoot fast without having the form


SCA, not SCPA. Dunno who SCPA people are, but SCA stands for Society of Creative Anachronisms. We have all types of people from using recurves, to longbows to crossbows. They are only allowed to use traditional bows with wooden arrows. So this artificial light bow grouop is definately not them.

The really good archers in our group all have the proper form, and our goal is to shoot correctly also, not rush our shots. The point is though, with a regular system, there is a max amount of points one can shoot in a competition. When you add a timed element to it, the point potential is not set. Therefore there are people who can both shoot fast AND accurately.


----------



## MoonDragn (Jun 19, 2006)

Marcus said:


> And then when you guys miss you can laugh and say "Well at least we are real men shooting at moving targets and not those wimpy men who can hit what they aim at, while I bet we would make great warriors back in those times, except that we are all accountants and programmers and got beat up alot in high school."
> 
> Coming onto a archery section full of serious athletes and proclaiming that what they do is boring is stupider than dressing up like a King from 500 years ago and expecting other people to take you seriously.
> 
> Anyway I'm convinced, how do I join up with this lot?


Check out www.sca.org to find a local group near you.

I am not saying that serious atheletes are boring. I'm saying some of the shoots that people come up with are boring. These atheletes are very impressive but they also should find out what other avenues there are to practice their skills other than these boring competitions. The SCA provides fun with archery without the stress.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

MoonDragn said:


> SCA, not SCPA. Dunno who SCPA people are, but SCA stands for Society of Creative Anachronisms. We have all types of people from using recurves, to longbows to crossbows. They are only allowed to use traditional bows with wooden arrows. So this artificial light bow grouop is definately not them.
> 
> The really good archers in our group all have the proper form, and our goal is to shoot correctly also, not rush our shots. The point is though, with a regular system, there is a max amount of points one can shoot in a competition. When you add a timed element to it, the point potential is not set. Therefore there are people who can both shoot fast AND accurately.



Yep, I got SCA mixed up with School of creative and performing arts:embara: 

artificially light-SCA people aren't shooting the same weight (100 pound plus) bows as what the real Archers were shooting. You can't shoot a 100 pound bow with bad form unless you are some freak of nature or won at least the bronze medal in the Olympic "clean and Jerk" heavyweight division


----------



## Marcus (Jun 19, 2002)

I find firing arrows into a clout or taking shots at cardboard cutouts dull and boring. 
When you are trying to hit a tiny target 30 straight times and you have only 3 shots to go to clean it the heart is going bigtime. 
Shooting head to head against Clint Freeman and John Dudley in teams matchplay and keeping up with them is also not boring. (they are real champions in case you don't know)

Dressing up nd pretending you are something you not isn't exciting, it's annoying. 

Do what you like, but end of the day, it isn't archery, you are pretending to do archery. Just like you are pretending to sword fight and pretending to be important noblemen. 

Jim C is spot on. Shooting a 30lb longbow is nothing like shooting a 100lb longbow.


----------



## baldmountain (Apr 21, 2003)

With post like these it is easy to see why people are leaving the sport of archery. :embara:


----------



## MoonDragn (Jun 19, 2006)

Jim C said:


> Yep, I got SCA mixed up with School of creative and performing arts:embara:
> 
> artificially light-SCA people aren't shooting the same weight (100 pound plus) bows as what the real Archers were shooting. You can't shoot a 100 pound bow with bad form unless you are some freak of nature or won at least the bronze medal in the Olympic "clean and Jerk" heavyweight division


Thats where you are wrong. There are a few people shooting close to 100 lb longbows and they are very good.

Also, if you think going head to head with someone is heart pounding, try shooting against them competing to hit the same targets. The first person to hit the target scores. Or maybe one of those rotating targets where the last shot rotates the target so you can't hit it.

I've been to many shoots like that where there are various different types of targets to shoot at, moving, obstructed targets, shooting from standing, sitting, kneeling, or lying down. 

This is archery. Shooting at some paper or 3D target shot known distance away is great, but you're not exploring all the other fun things you can do.

The point is though, we're promoting the sport of archery. Kids are shooting bows and learning to shoot with the proper form. They are getting interested in archery even as young as 3 years old. See how many archers lose interest in archery because they can't compete with the big boys. Its not always about competition. Archery is fun as a recreational sport and everyone should be able to enjoy shooting, not just the olympic champions.

To give you an example. 2 years ago we had a 19 year old deciding to take up archery with us. He started learning and in those 2 years he's already shooting very well. He shoots a 55 lb recurve and is shooting about 2 inch groups at 40 yards with it. Without the SCA, he may have never taken up archery on his own.


----------



## tacoben (Jun 24, 2004)

*Goverment Subsidy?*



calbowdude said:


> The most prominent names I can think of are Karen Scavotto and Margot Stuchin. I have heard neither hide nor hair of either of them. They stand out as two shooters who were making meteoric ascents up the US ranks, and suddenly poof! they seem to have disappeared.
> 
> It seems there was a junior male whose name escapes me that was also making a similar move up the ranks, and then he dropped off the face of the earth archerywise. My memory is foggy on this one.
> 
> Anyone know what has happened to some of promising young shooters?



I talked to a friend of mine and this discussion came up. Don't know if this is fact, but he stated that, in some other countries, sports and the "top" athletes that participate in them are supported by their goverments. The goverment pays for their housing, meals, and even their education. In the scheme of things, archery will likely take a back seat to more glamorous sports like track and field, basketball and so on. But if our goverment can somehow have a system that supports the "crem de la crem" financially, then I think we might see the like of Karen Scavotto stay in the sport while allowing her to finish school.


----------



## Miles Gloriosus (Feb 11, 2006)

MoonDragn said:


> Thats where you are wrong. There are a few people shooting close to 100 lb longbows and they are very good.


Please define very good.



MoonDragn said:


> Also, if you think going head to head with someone is heart pounding, try shooting against them competing to hit the same targets. The first person to hit the target scores. Or maybe one of those rotating targets where the last shot rotates the target so you can't hit it.


So, the person that shoots horribly and just manages to clip the target gets points, while the person that takes an extra second to produce an excellent shot doesn't even get a target to shot at?


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Miles Gloriosus said:


> Please define very good.
> 
> 
> 
> So, the person that shoots horribly and just manages to clip the target gets points, while the person that takes an extra second to produce an excellent shot doesn't even get a target to shot at?



fast is fine, but accuracy is everything.


Wyatt Earp


----------



## Miles Gloriosus (Feb 11, 2006)

I think this guy has the greatest hat I've ever seen. You could inspire musicians and end world hunger with that hat. I can't tell how he's shooting (too busy looking at the hat), but he definitely deserves a medal for best dressed.


----------



## MoonDragn (Jun 19, 2006)

Miles Gloriosus said:


> Please define very good.
> 
> So, the person that shoots horribly and just manages to clip the target gets points, while the person that takes an extra second to produce an excellent shot doesn't even get a target to shot at?


One guy with the longbow that I know of consistently groups Xs with every arrow at 40 yards. He does this shooting about 1 arrow every 5 secs.

The person that shoots horribly may get lucky once, but he's not lucky all the time. Most of the time in these shoots theres enough leeway to even out the field. There are stations where skill is more of a factor. The crossbowmen usually compete with the recurve/longbow guys and the speed shoots are in there to even them out with the rest. Otherwise the crossbow guys will win almost every time.

Heres an example of some of the fun stuff we got to shoot at :

- clay pigeons mounted on a mock up peacock's tail
- plastic heads on a rotating carousel turned by someone
- a moving target on a clothesline, between two trees
- targets with a door, like a shark mouth or a coffin door where you can only hit the target when the door is open.
- Pendulum target that swings back and forth behind a tree, and you can only hit it when it peeks out on your side of the tree
- Square targets mounted on a mock castle wall, that falls over when you hit them
- a thin slat of wood mounted on a frame about 1 inch wide that you have to break
- a target mounted on a very springy stick that bobs back and forth while it is shot
- Friend and foe shoots like picking off rubber rats off a suit of armor without hitting the armor.
- Clout shoot with a mock giant turnip blocking the target, forcing you to arc the arrow over the target thats out at about 90 yards.


As you can see we have a blast shooting. Its not always about who wins.


----------



## Marcus (Jun 19, 2002)

Problem is MoonDrgn is that you think shooting at funny shapes to be fun. I have no interest in that at all. Done it, was interesting for about 30 seconds and then was boring. 
We attended a clout shoot a few years ago where a bunch of us turned up in fancy dress and shot longbow. The idea was to promote it a bit better (they usually had 20 entries to the state clout) and we got 61 entries. After about 2 ends I was bored out of my mind. Firing 6 arrows in the air in 1 minute and then spending 20 minutes scoring was mind numming. 

What you fail to understand is that most of the people here could shoot at rubber rats if they wanted to, but are more interested in chasing 10's. To me nothing beats shooting a perfect indoor round, or putting all my arrows into the gold at 90m away, and then trying to do it again. 
Do what you like, but I, and many others, are not interested in shooting arrows at fake castles or over turnips, nor would I consider it fun. I like games and rounds which allow me to compare myself to archers from all around the world. There is no world record for shooting rubber rats.


----------



## MoonDragn (Jun 19, 2006)

I understand what you are saying Marcus, but for every one of you there are 10 of us. So you can be elitist all you want, the rest of us are just promoting archery the way it is meant to be, for fun, not cut throat profit.


----------



## Marcus (Jun 19, 2002)

MoonDragn said:


> I understand what you are saying Marcus, but for every one of you there are 10 of us. So you can be elitist all you want, the rest of us are just promoting archery the way it is meant to be, for fun, not cut throat profit.


You just keep telling yourself that. 

How is letting people compete in a world wide game promoting archery for profit only?

Actually don't bother responding, I'm bored with you.


----------



## Miles Gloriosus (Feb 11, 2006)

I could write a long dissertation as to why you're not "promoting archery the way it is meant to be" (Mostly because that doesn't really mean anything), but I think it would be tl;dr. Instead, I'm just going to ask why you think a non-standardized fun shoot is the epitomy of all that is archery, while a standardized format, which stands as an unquestionable indicator of ability, is inferior. Surely there's a reason one system is used in the Olympics, as well as in various forms in every single major archery orginization?

There's a reason archery was axed from the Olympics until 1972; people were tired with all the BS that surrounded every archery event in every Olympics (Especially the year that only Americans competed). It's becvause of what FITA did that archery is as big as it is, not the SCA.


----------



## baldmountain (Apr 21, 2003)

I went back over MoonDragn's posts and I can't see where he ever claims that his type of shoot is any better than FITA. In fact all he seems to be doing is promoting archery in gerneral and you guys insist on ridiculing him. It's no wonder people consider FITA archery elitist. You are. It makes me sick to see the way you treat fellow archers. I can't imagine how you must treat a new archer. Do you ridicule his low end bow or just laugh behind his back when he puts one in the blue?

:embara:


----------



## MoonDragn (Jun 19, 2006)

Miles Gloriosus said:


> There's a reason archery was axed from the Olympics until 1972; people were tired with all the BS that surrounded every archery event in every Olympics (Especially the year that only Americans competed). It's becvause of what FITA did that archery is as big as it is, not the SCA.



Do you have proof of that as the reason? Archery is not just considered a sport in my birth country but a philosophy. To give you an example of how popular archery was in ancient times, my family name translated from Chinese was longbow and was given to my ancestor by the emperor for inventing the longbow. 

The Olympics, while symbolizing the best of the best, has always been more about promoting friendship between countries and friendly competition between competitors. 

It was never meant to promote cut throat behavior by people who would do anything to win, including taking steroids and other questionable behavior. Where is the spirit of the event? 

The reason Olympic archery events are the way it is today is because certain people are used to doing things the way it has been done and very resistant to change. We have all seen those old robin hood movies, and I ask you, how many of you have not been inspired by robin hood's deeds to explore the sport of archery? How about Howard Hill?

What you see at the olympics only shows one side of archery, there are so many other skills you can achieve with archery. Some of these SCA shoots are taken directly from historical shoots in the past. These aren't just silly little competitions.

I can get a robot to hold a bow and shoot and hit an X every single time. Is that what we strive to be? Robots? The Koreans are always winning the olympics. You know why? They are trained from childhood to be monkeys of form. Did you see that contortionist shoot with her legs on TV? She was hitting the bullseye also. She's just a circus act.

So I ask you again, who's the one doing silly tricks?


----------



## OneBowTie (Jun 14, 2002)

MoonDragn said:


> Do you have proof of that as the reason? Archery is not just considered a sport in my birth country but a philosophy. To give you an example of how popular archery was in ancient times, my family name translated from Chinese was longbow and was given to my ancestor by the emperor for inventing the longbow.
> 
> The Olympics, while symbolizing the best of the best, has always been more about promoting friendship between countries and friendly competition between competitors.
> 
> ...


you lost me there.....because isnt it the archery teams and competitors that defy that very statement of yours ......ive been told that throwing matches to improve your teams place in the next match is common and acceptable....doesnt seem like the olympic creed at all


and we all know...tricks are for kids....:wink:


----------



## MoonDragn (Jun 19, 2006)

onebowtie said:


> you lost me there.....because isnt it the archery teams and competitors that defy that very statement of yours ......ive been told that throwing matches to improve your teams place in the next match is common and acceptable....doesnt seem like the olympic creed at all
> 
> 
> and we all know...tricks are for kids....:wink:


Bingo...


----------

