# Korea annexed by USA



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

From AZ Cup results:

_*USK	USA-Korea*_

I mean, seriously, what does this mean?


----------



## gif (Jul 14, 2012)

I was wondering the same thing. It shows the Californian flag, so maybe they are Korean athletes training at the OTC?


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

limbwalker said:


> From AZ Cup results:
> 
> _*USK	USA-Korea*_
> 
> I mean, seriously, what does this mean?


No idea but when I played table tennis the US Open had team competition that one year had the PRC national team, a team from Sweden featuring World #2 Appelgren, the Canadian team, the US team, the Mexican team and several other Central/South American countries and the "Korean/Californian team (nationals from Korea attending university or working in California)


----------



## x1440 (Jan 5, 2003)

I think it's the JOAD kids in California who are Korean but not US Citizens. There has been a surge of Korean Americans in Southern California participating in archery ever since Coach Lee was hired by USA Archery.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Then why not put them down as Korea?


----------



## fluke (Aug 12, 2012)

that way even if team usa loses against them usa still wins?


----------



## HikerDave (Jan 1, 2011)

fluke said:


> that way even if team usa loses against them usa still wins?


When you say 'them' you're talking about kids who live here in the USA, have spent most of their lives in the USA, and want to fit in. I'm pretty sure that a lot of these kids won't be going back to Korea because California is their home.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Interesting situation for sure HD...

I wonder how USArchery plans to handle these kids at Nationals?


----------



## R&B (Oct 4, 2006)

*Titles*



limbwalker said:


> From AZ Cup results:
> 
> _*USK	USA-Korea*_
> 
> I mean, seriously, what does this mean?


On the field of play it means nothing. That's the beauty of sport. 

The target doesn't care neither do I (smile) . 


-Cheers
-R&B


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

R&B, what matters are the rules, and preparing for Nationals. Best not to wait until July for a kid (or more likely their parents) to know... 

As a JOAD program leader and coach who takes the responsibility of preparing his archers and their families very seriously, this is something I'd like to have an answer for before it begins.

Guess I'll have to check and see if the rules state "Citizen" or "Resident" - as it's not likey that our USAA staff will catch this before the event begins. At least, this is the kind of thing that has slipped through in previous years. When it affects final rankings, esp. for JR. USAT spots, it matters.

Folks should know going in. That's all I'm saying.

John


----------



## Bigjono (Apr 21, 2009)

I guess if they are permanent residents or citizens they class as USA, if not they have to come under their home nation, irrespective if whether they intend going back or not.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

limbwalker said:


> R&B, what matters are the rules, and preparing for Nationals. Best not to wait until July for a kid (or more likely their parents) to know...
> 
> As a JOAD program leader and coach who takes the responsibility of preparing his archers and their families very seriously, this is something I'd like to have an answer for before it begins.
> 
> ...


good point-twice kids I coach (Ian once and Daniel McLaughlin once)" was the top US citizen at the NATIONAL field archery indoor nationals but the National Title went to a Canadian


----------



## jmvargas (Oct 21, 2004)

in my country you can have dual citizenship...does the USA have something like this?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

I have no idea, but my only interest here - at all - is to avoid more drama at Nationals when these kids are shooting and potentially affecting final rankings. Hopefully the rules are clear, and USAA has a handle on it, lest it become yet another "what just happened" moment for us coaches who get swamped with questions from confused parents.


----------



## mbu (Oct 22, 2003)

limbwalker said:


> R&B, what matters are the rules, and preparing for Nationals. Best not to wait until July for a kid (or more likely their parents) to know...
> 
> As a JOAD program leader and coach who takes the responsibility of preparing his archers and their families very seriously, this is something I'd like to have an answer for before it begins.
> 
> ...


From the USA Archery Website (2015 USAT Selection Procedures):
http://www.teamusa.org/USA-Archery/Archers/National-Teams-and-High-Performance/US-Archery-Team

"Naming of the	U.S.	Archery	Teams:
• USAT,	Junior	USAT,	Cadet	USAT,	and	Para	USAT	designaIons	are	awarded	only	to	*U.S.	ciIzens* who	are	
current	US	Archery	Members."


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

mbu said:


> From the USA Archery Website (2015 USAT Selection Procedures):
> http://www.teamusa.org/USA-Archery/Archers/National-Teams-and-High-Performance/US-Archery-Team
> 
> "Naming of the	U.S.	Archery	Teams:
> ...


So it will be interesting to see how USAA plans to mitigate this at JOAD Nationals, re: matchplay...

I noticed that last year, the Chinese Taipei kids were only there for the ranking round. That's disappointing since I know my archers really enjoyed shooting with them and against them in the matchplay events the year before. 

However, it's not really fair to have non-citizens thrown in there affecting placement for citizens either. 

It's a bit of a conundrum...


----------



## rj2012 (Aug 16, 2013)

Looks like they are in the mix for elimination - here are this years rules for JOAD Nationals:

Citizenship Requirements for Easton JOAD Nationals:
Participants in the Easton JOAD Nationals must be U.S. Citizens to qualify for the title of Grand
National Champion.
Non-U.S. Citizens will compete in the Guest division of the Easton JOAD Nationals during the
qualification round, _and will be combined with U.S. Citizens in the elimination round_


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Check that...

It just occurred to me that the AZ Cup is in fact a Jr. USAT and USAT ranking event that features matchplay, which - as Bob has explained, means that the final ranking points earned by the archer will be a combination of their ranking round and matchplay finishes. 

Well, it's easy enough to remove non-citizens from the ranking round and determine ranking points earned by U.S. Citizens. However, when you allow non-citizens to participate in matchplay at a ranking event, invariably you are going to have archers finish well below where they otherwise would have finished due to losing a match early in the event to a non-citizen.

There is no way to mitigate that, only ignore it.

If I were the parent of an archer who was a U.S. citizen that lost in an early round to a non-citizen, I guess I'd have to file a protest and see what happens...

Again, this should be resolved before JOAD Nationals. Actually, it should have been resolved before the first USAT or Jr. USAT ranking event, since now the ranking points have already been irreversibly altered.

Any comments Bob?

John


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> and will be combined with U.S. Citizens in the elimination round


Yes, last year the decision was to essentially ignore it. Guess that's what it is again this year. 

I'm not sure how this could be allowed to stand.


----------



## R&B (Oct 4, 2006)

*Agendas*



limbwalker said:


> R&B, what matters are the rules, and preparing for Nationals. Best not to wait until July for a kid (or more likely their parents) to know...
> 
> As a JOAD program leader and coach who takes the responsibility of preparing his archers and their families very seriously, this is something I'd like to have an answer for before it begins.
> 
> ...


If your primary concern is awards/ranking this is a big concern and you should know and comply with the rules. 

My take on this is the Arizona Cup is billing itself as an international event much like the Vegas WAF. International events tend to promote inclusive agendas (diversity in participation). Everyone is welcome to participate no matter where you are from or claim to be from (smile). US Nationals, JOAD Nationals and even the US Olympic Trials are promoting exclusive agendas (US citizens and or NAA members). 



-Cheers
-R&B


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> My take on this is the Arizona Cup is billing itself as an international event much like the Vegas WAF. International events tend to promote inclusive agendas (diversity in participation). Everyone is welcome to participate no matter where you are from or claim to be from (smile). US Nationals, JOAD Nationals and even the US Olympic Trials are promoting exclusive agendas (US citizens and or NAA members).


I understand that. And I like big, inclusive events. Many of us JOAD leaders really like seeing our kids shoot with/against internationals for the experience.

However, the rub here is that I don't see a way to have both inclusive international USAT and Jr. USAT selection events, and an exclusive system for selecting US team members - who are required to be US Citizens - without the internationals affecting final placement and final ranking points for the eligible archers.

It's a pickle. I don't have the answer. Just asking the question. If a conscious decision was made to essentially ignore the affect that international archers have on final ranking for our US archers, then I'd like to know why and on what grounds.

This is something everyone needs to be heads-up on. Senior archers and Parents especially, as they are shelling out thousands of dollars to give themselves or their child an opportunity to compete for a Sr./Jr. USAT spot. 

It would really stink to be an archer "on the bubble" of making USAT, and find out that a loss to an international archer during an elimination round is what cost you a spot on the USAT squad. An eligible archer should never find themselves in a position of being denied a spot on USAT because they had to compete against an ineligible archer. 

Hopefully, USAA will find a way to do both - allow international guests to participate fully in the events, but ensure their performances don't have any affect on USAT ranking.

John


----------



## Cephas (Sep 7, 2010)

I would love to hear USA Archery's answer to those questions. How can you truly have the best five or eight on USAT if internationals are in the mix? Especially if they have a higher representation in certain events. AZ Cup has many more non US competitors than say Gator Cup.


----------



## Poutine (Aug 2, 2012)

why not have two sets of rankings; one for the USAT and another for the event? The former's rankings are based on the latter but the scores of international archers are dropped for purposes of maintaining the point standings in the USAT.


----------



## Cephas (Sep 7, 2010)

Isn't it impossible to do that for the matchplay portion of the competition? USAT averages ranking and elimination rounds when a tournament has both.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

Poutine said:


> why not have two sets of rankings; one for the USAT and another for the event? The former's rankings are based on the latter but the scores of international archers are dropped for purposes of maintaining the point standings in the USAT.


I think John's point is that if the international archers are shooting in the _elimination matches_, then they are directly altering the final placements of those eligible for USAT slots.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

lksseven said:


> I think John's point is that if the international archers are shooting in the _elimination matches_, then they are directly altering the final placements of those eligible for USAT slots.


RE: - USK code

I asked Sheri Rhodes yesterday about that coding - even she didn't know why some people were coded that way. If I get a chance to corral Janice Price or Christian Deligant down (the scoring team), I'll ask them. I'm there today to watch some of my friends shoot the Para WRE portion of the event.

RE: - Cadets being impacted in USAT rankings

I'm wondering exactly the same thing. My son ranked 8th overall in Cadet Compound, and technically (when you remove the international competitors) is 4th after the ranking round for USAT. 

He got eliminated in the head to heads by someone from Team Mexico in the 1/8ths. I'm wondering how that factors into his overall USAT ranking.

(Note, Spencer's 12. He's not going for a Cadet USAT ranking - I'm doing this as a intellectual exercise...when he *IS* going for it.)

I guess it's something to ask around again. Sheri's going to be sick of answering questions.

-Steve


----------



## Cephas (Sep 7, 2010)

Exactly Steve. I want to know beforehand if it will be an issue since Meghan is pursuing cadet recurve USAT. Who is the contact for that sort of question? Would it be Sheri R?


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

Cephas said:


> Exactly Steve. I want to know beforehand if it will be an issue since Meghan is pursuing cadet recurve USAT. Who is the contact for that sort of question? Would it be Sheri R?


No. It's Audrey Tyrell. I just kicked her an email. Here's what I sent her:



> Audrey,
> 
> I have a question on how Cadet USAT rankings can be affected by international competitors in the head to head/elimination formats.
> 
> ...


----------



## Cephas (Sep 7, 2010)

Thanks. Looking forward to an answer.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

As soon as I get one, I'll post it. She wasn't there at the Arizona Cup, so I'm hoping she's able to answer quick. I should have hit up Guy when I talked with him yesterday, but the Cadet USAT ranking thing escaped my head at the time.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

In retrospect, there is a way to sorta/kinda sift out the rankings.

Yee was eliminated in the 1/8ths. Menke was eliminated in the 1/4's. Bell (my goof) got eliminated in the finals.

So...

Kevin was 5th ranking, 1st head to head. 5+1 = 6. 6/2 = 3 points.
Jimmy Bell was 2nd ranking, 2nd head to head. 2+2 = 4. 4/2 = 2 points

This is where it gets odd. How do you rank Menke and Yee on the head to heads? You can do that for the top 4 rather easily. You can't from past that.


----------



## rj2012 (Aug 16, 2013)

It is only outdoor nationals where the 2 are averaged to receive a placement. For the USATs like AZ Cup only the qual finish is counted and they remove the guests from that equation. You can look at last years and compare with the USAT rankings to see that is the case. i.e. Bell finished quals at AZ Cup 2013 in 3rd but received a "2" for AZ Cup pts because #2 finisher for quals was a guest. They strip out the guests because in quals your score is your score. Now with Nationals the guests are kept in the mix during _head to head_ and your final placement is your final placement - the guests are not stripped out so using your scenario as an example only from this yrs AZ Cup if it had been Nationals - Yee being eliminated in the 1/8s behind some guests would give him a score of 8+9=17 17/2 = 8.5pts for the nationals score. One can look at last years Nationals and compare to the 2014 USAT scores to see this is the case. 

CAVEAT! I used 8th for quals in the example not taking into account any guests ahead that would have been stripped out. I already closed the results though and I'm not going back to them! Memory says maybe 3 or 4 ahead of him that would have been considered guests at Nationals...so instead of 8+9th in my math example it would have been 5 or 4 + 9. Sorry! Hopefully that clarifies things as far as how the USAT points are being calculated. Of course, it still leaves the debate about guests having an effect on final ranking points in the elimination round at Nationals.


----------



## Cephas (Sep 7, 2010)

Not so this year. All cadet qualifiers will average ranking round and elimination round if there is one.


----------



## rj2012 (Aug 16, 2013)

Haha you know I had that little tickle in the back of my head after posting that...did it change this year? Did I see something somewhere? Too much to keep track of!!


----------



## rj2012 (Aug 16, 2013)

Yeah I remember it now. They made a point of highlighting that snippet in the news headlines for AZ Cup. My bad!


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

I got a response back. It still needs clarification.

So - in the case of Kevin and Jimmy - the rankings I posted would hold water. I don't see how one can mathematically quantify a physical "ranking" when in an elimination round, you have a pool of archers (the losers of their bracket) that sit together, and what value do you assign that pool?


----------



## Cephas (Sep 7, 2010)

Maybe one of our engineer/mathematicians can chime in?


----------



## rj2012 (Aug 16, 2013)

In the past that pool all gets the same value such as 9th. I ran the numbers for some of the cadets last year and the math worked out. It's why I posted which as you can see from my number of posts I rarely do. I doinked up the other part about only Nationals being averaged. The math example though is how it appears to have been done with the few random archers I picked out to test the calculation.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

RE: "USK" country code

I got official word back from the scoring team.

The "USK" tag was used to show Korean archers who are living in the United States, but are not part of the Korean National team. 

FYI - Steve


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Glad to know I'm not the only one confused, and concerned, abut how this will be handled.

Mathematically, or otherwise, there is no way to reconcile rankings in the elimination rounds if internationals are allowed to play. The presence of ineligible archers in the brackets makes the entire system invalid.

This should have been considered and addressed before the method expanded to all USAT/Jr. USAT ranking events. Now instead of just Nationals, we have all the events to contribute "junk data" into the system.

I don't understand how those who created this system, couldn't see this problem.


----------



## TomB (Jan 28, 2003)

limbwalker said:


> Glad to know I'm not the only one confused, and concerned, abut how this will be handled.
> 
> Mathematically, or otherwise, there is no way to reconcile rankings in the elimination rounds if internationals are allowed to play. The presence of ineligible archers in the brackets makes the entire system invalid.
> 
> ...


John, it may come back to who the customer is. If USA archery only wants to be a mini World Archery and answer to USOC, then this makes sense. Who cares about "national rankings". World rankings is all that matters. I am afraid this is a box that we can't get out of. It ultimately removes some of the prestige of making Jr/Sr USAT as there will be folks who don't play after being burned by the system. Critics will say just shoot better and it will take care of it self, but we all know head to head matches can go either way with a gust of wind or a little bad luck. So, we end up doing rock,paper, scissors for USAT positions.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> So, we end up doing rock,paper, scissors for USAT positions.


LOL Tom. I don't think many of us will ever forget Simon Fairweather's characterization of matchplay in Athens.  That quote was priceless.

I see this as an issue that needs to be taken seriously, but not one that is really all that earth shattering either. Clearly, it's not a completely fair and honest ranking system as it stands now. The "bright side" - if there is one - is that this is only going to affect a few archers who are really on the bubble of making USAT or Jr. USAT. Some would say that those are the most important ones, as they are the least likely to have a chance to make USAT/Jr. USAT multiple times, however...

Of course, one way to mitigate this is to shoot more events, or consciously avoid those events that are well attended by internationals. Of course, that's not an option for Outdoor Nationals as it is a required event, so that's where I would start first in fixing the problem. 

But if this does become more of an issue and people start to perceive it as unfair, then we may see some prospective USAT/Jr.USAT competitors purposely avoid shoots like the AZ Cup for this reason. And that would be very unfortunate, since I think we could all agree there is value in our kids shooting with/against international competitors whenever they can.

Like I've said, it's a pickle. Hopefully we can find a way to do both.

John


----------



## straat (Jan 22, 2009)

So what's the difference between losing to a international visitor vs a US citizen who is shooting just that event and will never make the team?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

The international visitor is not eligible to qualify for USAT, and therefore, by definition, should not be allowed to affect the outcome, period. 

You're presenting a hypothetical that assumes we are willing to accept a flawed system. Not good science.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

The issue is that a lot of international archers shoot SoCal and Texas too. Same rule applies to those as well. 

My biggest bugaboo is the face that once you get out of 4th place, how do you quantify those in the quarters and back with a number for averaging?


----------



## bobnikon (Jun 10, 2012)

Beastmaster said:


> The issue is that a lot of international archers shoot SoCal and Texas too. Same rule applies to those as well.
> 
> My biggest bugaboo is the face that once you get out of 4th place, how do you quantify those in the quarters and back with a number for averaging?


Could you do a shoot-out between the affected shooters? Not perfect, but a parallel round shooting to determine the remaining standings of those not in the ranking who were theoretically going to be minus their elimination by a non-eligible shooter. Not an elegant work-around, but perhaps it would make it easier to comb through the algebra, sort of like a B-pool...


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

to make the indoor team you shoot a trials
to make the world target team you shoot a trials
to make the Olympic team you shoot a trials (sometimes one event, sometimes three legs)

You win a world medal shooting well over 3-4 days in a row
you win an Olympic gold medal shooting well over 3-4 days in a row
you win a world field title shooting well over 3-4 days in a row

NONE of those most important titles are based on how you do over 6-9 months at several venues

seems me we ought to have a shoot that picks the Jr USAT team

and by having one event its fairer because

a) the current system hurts kids from the colder regions given 3/4 USAT shoots are over by July 1, with two being in the spring

b) to be fully competitive kids have to attend all of the events especially if they are right on that 4-5-6-7 line. This is brutally expensive for lots of families and causes kids to miss school as well given that 3/4 USAT shoots are during the school year

IF the entire purpose of Jr USAT is to select and groom kids who are going to get the US archery MONEY from the USOC by winning medals, we might as well base the selection on a do or die one event selection because that's how Olympic medals are won


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

Jim C said:


> to make the indoor team you shoot a trials
> to make the world target team you shoot a trials
> to make the Olympic team you shoot a trials (sometimes one event, sometimes three legs)
> 
> ...


agree completely. 


Chris


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

Frankly, our discussion here regarding Cadet scoring for Cadet USAT isn't going to really impact anything.

Hit up Audrey Tyrrell. She's the one that is in charge of this matrix. [email protected]

The more coaches that voice concern, the better. I know that when Robby Beyer was handling things, USAT criteria evolved thanks to input from coaches. 

Carbon Copy Denise Parker too. [email protected]. 

I have. We need more sending emails to them.


----------



## Serious Fun (May 12, 2003)

Has anyone compared USAT tourney qualification round and match play arrow average ranking and USAT points ranking? Is there a great USA shooter out there that didn't make USAT because of a lot of bad draw luck? And as a result we are discouraging the great archer from becoming a USA World/Olympic team member?


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

Serious Fun said:


> Has anyone compared USAT tourney qualification round and match play arrow average ranking and USAT points ranking? Is there a great USA shooter out there that didn't make USAT because of a lot of bad draw luck? And as a result we are discouraging the great archer from becoming a USA World/Olympic team member?


Bob,

In the old system, no.

There isn't enough data for the current system to see if someone would have been affected negatively.

In either way, this isn't a reflection on the Cup nor on its staff. It's merely an issue with USAT ranking calculations as it stands now.

My issue is the ambiguity for anyone outside of the semis in the elimination rounds. How can anyone calculate a "rank" for anyone outside of positions 1-4 is beyond me.

I am asking for clarification from Audrey Tyrell. She and I have already calculated examples but only to positions 1-4 and using tournaments in which statistically you wouldn't have a non-US archer in the eliminations.


----------



## Serious Fun (May 12, 2003)

25 years of AZ Cup. In the early and mid 2000s the AZ Cup was a USAT tourney with lots of international competition because AZ Cup was the traditional first major open outdoor tourney of the season. In 2007 the AZ Cup flipped to be International World Ranking first, and USAT ranking tourney second, as a convenience to the USA archers that wanted to compete in a world ranking tourney and have a chance at USAT ranking points at the same time. Including AZ Cup as USAT is a service to the US archer. The primary USAT event is National Target Championship as well it should be. AZ Cup, So Cal, Texas and Gator are USAT support tourneys.
Instead of fiddling with USAT events. I would like to see us grow event offerings. I would like to see a Fall USA Archery Cup series as well as a December/January/February USA Archery Indoor Archery Cup. Master USAT is out there also.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Totally avoiding the question...

I was hoping we could stay on topic. This is a serious issue that deserves serious consideration.



> In either way, this isn't a reflection on the Cup nor on its staff. It's merely an issue with USAT ranking calculations as it stands now.


Agreed. People need to remember this.

We're talking about a SYSTEM - not individuals here.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

Ineligible competitors being allowed to influence team selection via elimination matchplay just doesn't compute. If this setup is fair and reasonable, then why not have the US Olympic Trials be open to international archers, too? I don't see the logical difference.

How can this tournament structure eat their cake and have it, too?


----------



## rj2012 (Aug 16, 2013)

So it would appear a change has taken place to the 2015 USAT procedures doc - not sure when (the ver/date appear to have not been updated) I will have to compare to my previously downloaded doc when I get the chance. Bottom line though - there is a blurb stating the non US Archery members will be removed after the event for the purposes of USAT scoring. The blurb is in both sections - Nationals _and_ the optional USAT events. Here is the exact phrase:

*c. Non-USA Archery members will be removed after the event from the final rankings of the ranking round and elimination round to determine final placements in each round.*


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

Okay. Being a doofus, I posted this onto another thread and really meant it to be here.

http://www.archerytalk.com/vb/showthread.php?t=2159038&p=1069916257#post1069916257


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

Okay...in using Compound Cadet Male, the way USA Archery seems to be calculating things appears to be like this. All of the calculations are based upon discussions with Audrey at USA Archery.

First off - you take the positions of all the US based archers on the ranking round. Using the Arizona Cup as the only example, you have:

Ranking Round Real results:
(http://www.ianseo.net/TourData/2014/536/IQCCM.php)

1	MENKE Matthew MN	Usa-Minnesota	338	2	344	1	682	36	14
2	BELL Jimmy MA	Usa-Massachusetts	340	1	336	5	676	37	19
3	DEL BOSQUE Jose G CH	Mexico-Coahuila	333	10	341	2	674	31	11
4	CASTRO Luis BC	Mexico-Baja California	333	8	339	3	672	36	15
5	CLAYTON Kevin VA	Usa-Virgina	334	5	337	4	671	33	15
6	MORAN Tristan CAN	Canada	335	4	335	6	670	30	12
7	DE LA GARZA Armando CH	Mexico-Coahuila	337	3	332	9	669	31	14
8	YEE Spencer AZ	Usa-Arizona	334	6	330	12	664	32	11
9	GONZALES Ricardo CH	Mexico-Coahuila	331	11	333	8	664	32	11
10	DEMARCO Max CO	Usa-Colorado	333	9	331	11	664	31	5

Ranking Round Results after removal of International archers:

1) MENKE, Matthew
2) BELL, Jimmy
3) CLAYTON, Kevin
4) YEE, Spencer
5) DEMARCO, Max

Elimination Round Results:
(http://www.ianseo.net/TourData/2014/536/IFCCM.php)

1	CLAYTON Kevin VA	Usa-Virgina	671-5	-Bye-	138	144	142	142T.10
2	BELL Jimmy MA	Usa-Massachusetts	676-2	-Bye-	142	139	142	142T.9
3	DEL BOSQUE Jose G CH	Mexico-Coahuila	674-3	-Bye-	137	139	137	142
4	GONZALES Ricardo CH	Mexico-Coahuila	664-9	-Bye-	143	144	138	133
5	MENKE Matthew MN	Usa-Minnesota	682-1	-Bye-	142	142
6	DE LA GARZA Armando CH	Mexico-Coahuila	669-7	-Bye-	144	137
7	CHONG Josue BC	Mexico-Baja California	663-11	-Bye-	137	136
8	CASTRO Luis BC	Mexico-Baja California	672-4	-Bye-	134	134
9	BUNKER Logan WA	Usa-Washington	647-17	144	141
9	CORRIDORI Jeremy AZ	Usa-Arizona	652-14	138	135
9	DEMARCO Max CO	Usa-Colorado	664-10	-Bye-	135
9	EILINGER Hayden ME	Usa-Maine	647-18	141	138
9	MARCOZZI Gabriel PA	Usa-Pennsylvania	660-12	132	137
9	MORAN Tristan CAN	Canada	670-6	-Bye-	136
9	ORIHUELA Gabriel BC	Mexico-Baja California	657-13	143	132
9	YEE Spencer AZ	Usa-Arizona	664-8	-Bye-	138

Elimination Round results after removal of the International Archers:
1	CLAYTON Kevin VA	Usa-Virgina	671-5	-Bye-	138	144	142	142T.10
2	BELL Jimmy MA	Usa-Massachusetts	676-2	-Bye-	142	139	142	142T.9
5	MENKE Matthew MN	Usa-Minnesota	682-1	-Bye-	142	142
9	DEMARCO Max CO	Usa-Colorado	664-10	-Bye-	135
9	YEE Spencer AZ	Usa-Arizona	664-8	-Bye-	138

Calculation of the ranking and elimination averaged together:

1) BELL, Jimmy - 2 (ranking round) + 2 (elimination round) = 4. 4/2 = 2 points
2) CLAYTON, Kevin - 5 (ranking round) + 1 (elimination round) = 6. 6/2 = 3 points
2) MENKE, Matthew - 1 (ranking round) + 5 (elimination round) = 6. 6/2 = 3 points
4) YEE, Spencer - 8 (ranking round) + 9 (elimination round) = 17. 17/2 = 8.5 points
5) DEMARCO, Max - 10 (ranking round) + 9 (elimination round) = 19. 19/2 = 9.5 points

So, that's how I understand the calculations. 

-Steve


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

Serious Fun said:


> 25 years of AZ Cup. In the early and mid 2000s the AZ Cup was a USAT tourney with lots of international competition because AZ Cup was the traditional first major open outdoor tourney of the season. In 2007 the AZ Cup flipped to be International World Ranking first, and USAT ranking tourney second, as a convenience to the USA archers that wanted to compete in a world ranking tourney and have a chance at USAT ranking points at the same time. Including AZ Cup as USAT is a service to the US archer. The primary USAT event is National Target Championship as well it should be. AZ Cup, So Cal, Texas and Gator are USAT support tourneys.
> Instead of fiddling with USAT events. I would like to see us grow event offerings. I would like to see a Fall USA Archery Cup series as well as a December/January/February USA Archery Indoor Archery Cup. Master USAT is out there also.


Frankly, I would love to see the Arizona Cup remain as a World Ranking Tournament, and the USAT side separated off to something in October or so (in Arizona) as part of the USAT tour. This would allow the USAT side to be totally unaffected, and the Cup side unaffected by the need to push for USAT to be part of it. 

It also would free up space normally taken up by USAT archers for more international archers to take part. A lot of the scramble to the Arizona Cup on the USAT side is due to it being one of 4 out there.

-Steve


----------



## Serious Fun (May 12, 2003)

I think it helps the archers to be able to go to one tourney and receive both world ranking and usat ranking. I think many overlook the wants and needs of others. As the sport grows, providing for a broad spectrum of diverse needs helps to accommodate a variety of customers.


----------



## Cephas (Sep 7, 2010)

So if I understand correctly there is an advantage (concerning USAT rankings) to competing in a smaller event with fewer foreign competitors like in the cadet division at Gator Cup and TX Shootout? Just realized that cubs shooting up for experience sake like Meghan did last year for Gator Cup might have the same effect right? Don't get me wrong, we love having the high level of competition and experience that our visitors bring just wondering if it's the best system for determining USAT teams.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

Cephas said:


> So if I understand correctly there is an advantage (concerning USAT rankings) to competing in a smaller event with fewer foreign competitors like in the cadet division at Gator Cup and TX Shootout? Just realized that cubs shooting up for experience sake like Meghan did last year for Gator Cup might have the same effect right? Don't get me wrong, we love having the high level of competition and experience that our visitors bring just wondering if it's the best system for determining USAT teams.


There always has been the advantage of gaming the system by shooting the smaller USAT tournaments. 

Cubs shooting up won't affect anything since they eventually shoot Nationals in their age category. That alone washes it out.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Beastmaster said:


> There always has been the advantage of gaming the system by shooting the smaller USAT tournaments.
> 
> Cubs shooting up won't affect anything since they eventually shoot Nationals in their age category. That alone washes it out.


I have advocated two solutions to that gaming

1) Jr USAT based solely on EJN or a trials

2) or what we did in skeet-weight the shoots based on participation

a few years ago ONE Junior recurve shot the Yankton Cup. THREE Cadets. if a kid who was averaging 6 an arrow showed up in the Junior event he would have left with TWO Points-and thus would have a better JrUSAT position over say the kid who shot an 1130 National Indoor and finished third. A kid who beat no one would get a better ranking than a kid who beat 65 out of 67 other competitors.


----------



## Serious Fun (May 12, 2003)

I foresee that there will no longer be small USAT ranking tourneys. Having international and NFAA members help tourneys receive enough entry fees to be able to host significant tourneys worthy of an important sport. An un tapped group of competition and archers is masters usat.


----------



## Serious Fun (May 12, 2003)

Note:
There are several ranking systems. For instance at AAE AZ Cup there are:
World ranking for seniors and paras.
USAT ranking for cadets, juniors, seniors and para.
Tourney category (cadet/jr/sr/para) and combined (jr/sr/para) qualification, national team, mixed team, open fun team and cadet and combined (jr/sr/para) individual elimination.
There are also achievements such as Joad star pins, wa star pins, adult achievement awards and even manufacturer contingency funds. 
I have more questions than answers when an archer comes to me and asks..."how does ranking work?" 
The key is that the tourney is hosting an event for a tourney outcome. Other programs may use the results however they wish. The key for the archer is to determine their personal reason to participate in events and act accordingly. We appreciate that 526 archers plus families, friends, spectators, fans, teamstaff and coaches, made the AZ Cup choice this year. Our hope is that all participants achieved a meaningful outcome.


----------



## Cephas (Sep 7, 2010)

It wouldn't be a matter of intentionally gaming the system for us even though we will attend the smaller events, Gator Cup is ten minutes away and TX is a lot closer than SoCal and AZ Cup when you're on a tight budget. Still doesn't seem to be the best measure of talent. Masters USAT, now there's an idea. Maybe Outdoor Nationals should be weighted somehow?


----------



## Cephas (Sep 7, 2010)

We do hope to make it to AZ Cup in the future. We always hear great things about it and would love to visit the area having lived there for a few years a decade ago.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Bob, you and Steve both make very valid points, but you are still missing or ignoring the fact that the current system for calculating USAT ranking points by using elimination finish is not a valid system. Well, I guess it is if we're all willing to suspend reality and ignore the influence that the international archers have on the final rankings of US archers... But if that's what we're doing, then let's at least say that and all agree that it's a necessary evil, please.

I like Steve's suggestion that AZ Cup should remain a WRE, but perhaps not a USAT ranking - IF the current way of calculating USAT rankings by combining ranking and OR placement is kept in place. 

But we are trying to have our cake and eat it too here. Actually, it sounds like were trying to have THREE cakes, and eat them all too...

World Ranking event, USAT ranking event, AND ignore the invalid ranking system, all at the same time...

Who is our resident mathematician / statistician on here? Surely they can explain what effect that allowing ineligible contestants into the brackets has on final rankings? 

There has to be a mathematical solution for this. One that will allow internationals to play in the OR, but still not affect USAT rankings? 

If we can find that, then I'm all for keeping both. But our 1st priority should be protecting the USAT ranking system. Right now, our 1st priority seems to be accommodating the internationals, at the potential expense of some USAT contestants.

In the words of Larry the cable guy... "that ain't right..."


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

BTW, I love the Masters USAT idea. Will give me a reason to keep shooting (not that I need one) and will give Vic the chance to be on USAT for another 20 years. LOL.


----------



## Serious Fun (May 12, 2003)

I imagine that the athlete representatives advise that it is best to allow events to provide multiple benefits so that an archer can get the most bang for their buck. Providing opprotunities is the key. Usat is important as a stepping stone to higher and better achievement. Including internationals exposes the US archer going for usat to the international stage. It's a big world out there.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Bob, I think we all understand the benefits. How do you propose to solve the statistical flaw in the current system?


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

limbwalker said:


> Bob, I think we all understand the benefits. How do you propose to solve the statistical flaw in the current system?


When I get home later today, I'll run the old system vs. the new system using the same kids. 

Or... Even better, run the current '14 USAT Cadet compound kids through the new system and see if it affected it.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

limbwalker said:


> Bob, I think we all understand the benefits. How do you propose to solve the statistical flaw in the current system?


the obvious answer is to count only the 72 arrow total-just as was the case the last several years


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Agreed Jim, but we should be able to find a way to incorporate matchplay. Perhaps just at Nationals?


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

Okay - taking the new ranking method into account, and using the 2013 Arizona Cup results, here's what calculates out using Cadet Compound Male.

2013 Arizona Cup - Ranking Round:
(http://www.ianseo.net/TourData/2013/373/IQCCM.php)

1	BEE Chris MI	USA-Michigan	342	2	345	1	687	43	16
2	CHONG Josue BC	BC - Mexico	342	1	337	4	679	40	16
3	BELL Jimmy MA	USA-Massachusetts	328	6	341	2	669	32	12
4	KUPCHANKO Logan CAN	Canada	337	3	332	6	669	30	9
5	EILINGER Hayden ME	USA-Maine	327	7	340	3	667	29	6
6	LAMB Brandon CAN	Canada	336	4	327	7	663	30	6
7	OVIEDO Salvador BC	BC - Mexico	336	5	327	8	663	26	7
8	YEE Spencer AZ	USA-Arizona	315	11	333	5	648	24	5
9	MORAN Tristan CAN	Canada	323	8	308	10	631	24	5
10	MARTINEZ Domonic UT	USA-Utah	317	10	309	9	626	16	6

Top 5 Ranking round after removing the International archers:
1) BEE, Chris
2) BELL, Jimmy
3) EILINGER, Hayden
4) YEE, Spencer
5) MARTINEZ, Domonic

Elimination Round for the 2013 Arizona Cup - cutoff was the 1/8th
(http://www.ianseo.net/TourData/2013/373/IQCCM.php)

1	BELL Jimmy MA	USA-Massachusetts	669-3 136	141	139	137
2	BEE Chris MI	USA-Michigan	687-1	-Bye-	138	139	133
3	EILINGER Hayden ME	USA-Maine	667-5	135	140	136	135
4	CHONG Josue BC	BC - Mexico	679-2	137	140	137	133
5	OVIEDO Salvador BC	BC - Mexico	663-7	139	139
6	LAMB Brandon CAN	Canada	663-6	135	136
7	MORAN Tristan CAN	Canada	631-9	138	135
8	KUPCHANKO Logan CAN	Canada	669-4 136	133
9	BROWN Chase TX	USA-Texas	599-13	124
9	JOHNSON Cody AZ	USA-Arizona	607-11	132
9	MARCOZZI Gabriel PA	USA-Pennsylvania	602-12	126
9	MARTINEZ Domonic UT	USA-Utah	626-10	134
9	ORIHUELA Gabriel BC	BC - Mexico	565-14	134
9	SHAW Jeremy CA	USA-California	503-15	85
9	YEE Spencer AZ	USA-Arizona	648-8 129

Elimination round after removing the International Archers:

1	BELL Jimmy MA	USA-Massachusetts	669-3 136	141	139	137
2	BEE Chris MI	USA-Michigan	687-1	-Bye-	138	139	133
3	EILINGER Hayden ME	USA-Maine	667-5 135	140	136	135
9	MARTINEZ Domonic UT	USA-Utah	626-10	134
9	YEE Spencer AZ	USA-Arizona	648-8 129

Calculation based on the new system

1) BEE, Chris - 1 (Ranking Round), 2 (Elimination Round). 2+1 = 3. 3/2 = 1.5
2) BELL, Jimmy - 3 (Ranking Round), 1 (Elimination Round). 3+1 = 4. 4/2 = 2
3) EILINGER, Hayden - 5 (Ranking Round), 3 (Elimination Round), 5+3 = 8. 8/2 = 4
4) YEE, Spencer - 8 (Ranking Round), 9 (Elimination Round), 8+9 = 17. 17/2 = 8.5
5) MARTINEZ, Domonic - 10 (Ranking Round), 9 (Elimination Round), 10+9 = 19. 19/2 = 9.5

Compare that against purely the old system, where you would have had:



> 1) BEE, Chris
> 2) BELL, Jimmy
> 3) EILINGER, Hayden
> 4) YEE, Spencer
> 5) MARTINEZ, Domonic


Jimmy Bell and Chris Bee swapped places.

Next up, adding SoCal into the mix to see how that affects things. I gotta find that in Ianseo next.

-Steve


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

Now, I choose the SoCal Showdown specifically because the same archers (in the top 5 shown in the example above) also shot SoCal. 

Here's the results on SoCal. And I'll pick on only the 5 archers that were mentioned (Bee, Bell, Eilinger, Yee, and Martinez).

Ranking round - 2013 SoCal Showdown
(http://www.ianseo.net/TourData/2013/405/IQCCM.php)

1	PRUITTE* Tyson W NC	Usa	353	1	345	1	351	1	348	1	1397	106	39
2	BEE* Christopher Lincoln MI	Usa	342	2	336	2	331	5	343	2	1352	76	32
3	EILINGER* Hayden USA	Usa	338	3	333	5	332	4	334	5	1337	64	21
4	MENKE* Matthew MN	Usa	330	9	331	7	334	3	331	7	1326	63	18
5	WRIGHT* Corey GA	Usa	334	5	334	4	331	6	324	11	1323	53	28
6	DIXON* Justin TX	Usa	333	7	324	10	328	7	335	4	1320	52	16
7	RAPER* Will GA	Usa	337	4	310	17	335	2	337	3	1319	57	15
8	OVIEDO Salvador MEX	Mexico	330	11	332	6	320	12	331	6	1313	54	12
9	GREEN* Tyler TX	Usa	333	6	327	9	321	10	330	8	1311	46	15
10	ORIHUELA* Gabriel CA	Usa	330	10	329	8	323	9	327	9	1309	59	15
11	BELL* Jimmy MA	Usa	326	12	335	3	324	8	322	13	1307	49	17
12	MARCOZZI* Gabriel PA	Usa	332	8	317	15	320	11	323	12	1292	47	18
13	CLAYTON* Kevin VA	Usa	325	13	318	14	320	12	324	10	1287	43	13
14	MARTINEZ* Domonic UT	Usa	321	14	318	13	318	14	313	15	1270	38	22
15	GALVEZ* Josh Elias MI	Usa	321	15	323	11	310	17	314	14	1268	40	16
16	YEE* Spencer AZ	Usa	301	18	322	12	316	16	310	16	1249	34	12

Removing the International archers yields this:

1	PRUITTE* Tyson W NC	Usa	353	1	345	1	351	1	348	1	1397	106	39
2	BEE* Christopher Lincoln MI	Usa	342	2	336	2	331	5	343	2	1352	76	32
3	EILINGER* Hayden USA	Usa	338	3	333	5	332	4	334	5	1337	64	21
4	MENKE* Matthew MN	Usa	330	9	331	7	334	3	331	7	1326	63	18
5	WRIGHT* Corey GA	Usa	334	5	334	4	331	6	324	11	1323	53	28
6	DIXON* Justin TX	Usa	333	7	324	10	328	7	335	4	1320	52	16
7	RAPER* Will GA	Usa	337	4	310	17	335	2	337	3	1319	57	15
8	GREEN* Tyler TX	Usa	333	6	327	9	321	10	330	8	1311	46	15
9	ORIHUELA* Gabriel CA	Usa	330	10	329	8	323	9	327	9	1309	59	15
10	BELL* Jimmy MA	Usa	326	12	335	3	324	8	322	13	1307	49	17
11	MARCOZZI* Gabriel PA	Usa	332	8	317	15	320	11	323	12	1292	47	18
12	CLAYTON* Kevin VA	Usa	325	13	318	14	320	12	324	10	1287	43	13
13	MARTINEZ* Domonic UT	Usa	321	14	318	13	318	14	313	15	1270	38	22
14	GALVEZ* Josh Elias MI	Usa	321	15	323	11	310	17	314	14	1268	40	16
15	YEE* Spencer AZ	Usa	301	18	322	12	316	16	310	16	1249	34	12

Elimination Rounds from the 2013 SoCal Showdown
(http://www.ianseo.net/TourData/2013/405/IFCCM.php)

1	BEE* Christopher Lincoln MI	Usa	1352-2	-Bye-	139	139	144	143
2	MENKE* Matthew MN	Usa	1326-4	-Bye-	137	137	140	129
3	PRUITTE* Tyson W NC	Usa	1397-1	-Bye-	143	140	139	144
4	DIXON* Justin TX	Usa	1320-6	-Bye-	142	139	138	139
5	GREEN* Tyler TX	Usa	1311-9	-Bye-	140	138
6	EILINGER* Hayden USA	Usa	1337-3	-Bye-	140	137
7	WRIGHT* Corey GA	Usa	1323-5	-Bye-	137	136
8	RAPER* Will GA	Usa	1319-7	-Bye-	133	135
9	BELL* Jimmy MA	Usa	1307-11	-Bye-	131
9	CLAYTON* Kevin VA	Usa	1287-13	133	132
9	GALVEZ* Josh Elias MI	Usa	1268-15	134	136
9	MARCOZZI* Gabriel PA	Usa	1292-12	-Bye-	135
9	MARTINEZ* Domonic UT	Usa	1270-14	-Bye-	133
9	ORIHUELA* Gabriel CA	Usa	1309-10	-Bye-	132
9	OVIEDO Salvador MEX	Mexico	1313-8	-Bye-	125
9	YEE* Spencer AZ	Usa	1249-16	129	133

Eliminating down the international archers AND the archers that aren't part of the 5 person sample group...

1	BEE* Christopher Lincoln MI	Usa	1352-2	-Bye-	139	139	144	143
6	EILINGER* Hayden USA	Usa	1337-3	-Bye-	140	137
9	BELL* Jimmy MA	Usa	1307-11	-Bye-	131
9	MARTINEZ* Domonic UT	Usa	1270-14	-Bye-	133
9	YEE* Spencer AZ	Usa	1249-16	129	133

So, for calculation purposes, you have, with Ranking Rounds adjusted for International competitors removed:

1) BEE, Chris - 2 (Ranking Round), 1 (Elimination Round). 2+1 = 3. 3/2 = 1.5
2) EILINGER, Hayden - 3 (Ranking Round), 2 (Elimination Round). 2+3 = 5. 5/2 = 2.5
3) BELL, Jimmy - 10 (Ranking Round), 9 (Elimination Round). 10+9 = 19. 19/2 = 9.5
4) MARTINEZ, Domonic - 13 (Ranking Round), 9 (Elimination Round). 13+9 = 22. 22/2 = 11
5) YEE, Spencer - 15 (Ranking Round), 9 (Elimination Round). 15+9 = 24. 24/2 = 12

For Reference, you have the rankings after only the AZ Cup:


> 1) BEE, Chris - 1 (Ranking Round), 2 (Elimination Round). 2+1 = 3. 3/2 = 1.5
> 2) BELL, Jimmy - 3 (Ranking Round), 1 (Elimination Round). 3+1 = 4. 4/2 = 2
> 3) EILINGER, Hayden - 5 (Ranking Round), 3 (Elimination Round), 5+3 = 8. 8/2 = 4
> 4) YEE, Spencer - 8 (Ranking Round), 9 (Elimination Round), 8+9 = 17. 17/2 = 8.5
> 5) MARTINEZ, Domonic - 10 (Ranking Round), 9 (Elimination Round), 10+9 = 19. 19/2 = 9.5


Now, taking Arizona Cup + SoCal for points, you have:
1) BEE, Chris - 1.5 (AZ Cup) + 1.5 (SoCal) = 3
2) EILINGER, Hayden - 4 (AZ Cup) + 2.5 (SoCal) = 6.5
3) BELL, Jimmy - 2 (AZ Cup) + 9.5 (SoCal) = 11.5
4) YEE, Spencer - 8.5 (AZ Cup) + 12 (SoCal) = 20.5
4) MARTINEZ, Domonic - 9.5 (AZ Cup) + 11 (SoCal) = 20.5

Under the old system, you would have had:

AZ Cup figures by pure ranking


> 1) BEE, Chris
> 2) BELL, Jimmy
> 3) EILINGER, Hayden
> 4) YEE, Spencer
> 5) MARTINEZ, Domonic


and SoCal figures by pure ranking:


> 2) BEE, Chris
> 3) EILINGER, Hayden
> 10) BELL, Jimmy
> 13) MARTINEZ, Domonic
> 15) YEE, Spencer


Pure total under the old system:
1) BEE, Chris - 1 (AZ Cup), 2 (SoCal). 1+2 = 3
2) EILINGER, Hayden - 3 (AZ Cup), 3 (SoCal). 3+3 = 6
3) BELL, Jimmy - 2 (AZ Cup), 10 (SoCal). 10+2 = 12
4) MARTINEZ, Domonic - 5 (AZ Cup), 13 (SoCal). 5+13 = 18
5) YEE, Spencer - 4 (AZ Cup), 15 (SoCal). 4+15 = 19

Under the new system, Yee and Martinez are tied. Under the old system, Martinez beats out Yee by one point.

That's only two sets of data using the same 5 archers. But, with the sampling done, it doesn't look like the new averaging system affects the outcome too much.

-Steve


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> it doesn't look like the new averaging system affects the outcome *too much*.


I think this is the real question here. How "much" is "too much" and who gets to decide that?

The one indisputable fact is that the presence of ineligible archers in the OR rounds DOES affect the final ranking, and has the potential to affect USAT rankings.

Are we collectively in agreement that that's okay? That it's not "too much" or it is in fact, "too much?" 

And when were we, the membership, ever asked?


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

limbwalker said:


> I think this is the real question here. How "much" is "too much" and who gets to decide that?
> 
> The one indisputable fact is that the presence of ineligible archers in the OR rounds DOES affect the final ranking, and has the potential to affect USAT rankings.
> 
> ...


Based upon the same 5 archers and the two data sets, the new system creates a tie (and one could extrapolate that it benefits slightly weaker archers in the process) for the last 2 positions for a theoretical Cadet USAT.

The old system breaks the tie. 

I have a two fold argument on the OR round issue. On one side of the coin, the ranking round numbers that were adjusted to eliminate the international archers appears to water down the pool a bit.

On the flip side of the coin, the 5 archers used in the example all were able to get to the 1/8ths, making a worst case OR Ranking of '9' possible. In the case of the current averaging system, the averaging actually helped Spencer in this theoretical exercise, since it put him in a tie with Domonic. 

Now, one could argue that the averaging could theoretically help a weaker archer get into the mix of scoring. One also can argue that an archer can tamper with the prior and current system by shooting in tournaments with a low pool of talent and up your average.

This is one of the reasons why I love either a single shootoff situation (like what Jim proposed), or a per arrow average like what the Seniors have to do. You can game the system with one type of math like what we have now - you can't game the system with a per arrow average.

(Edit/Update)

Using Cadet Compound Males, there were none that shot the Gator Cup for 2013. So - if only one person shot it, you'd have an instant 1 for a ranking round and an instant 1 for the OR's.

That's definitely gaming the system in that case...


----------



## Mulcade (Aug 31, 2007)

What if they were to have a mini bracket of those that aren't in the top 4, but are in the top 10 US archers (or however deep you would want to go) to complete the rankings? The mini bracket could be held either right before or right after the awards and then you'd have your rankings for the USAT. If those that fall in this category are there for USAT ranking points, I don't think they're going to care much about having to shoot a couple more matches to get it finished out.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

Mulcade said:


> What if they were to have a mini bracket of those that aren't in the top 4, but are in the top 10 US archers (or however deep you would want to go) to complete the rankings? The mini bracket could be held either right before or right after the awards and then you'd have your rankings for the USAT. If those that fall in this category are there for USAT ranking points, I don't think they're going to care much about having to shoot a couple more matches to get it finished out.


When would you hold this? At every USAT?


----------



## Serious Fun (May 12, 2003)

I am good with using the data that comes out of normal tournament results "naturally" without added time and specialty events. We are teaching and promoting the international standard of competition that leads to the Olympic and World championship level. More contained programs NASP can engineer what they do to the outcome they seek and that's okay. I think we offer a promise that what USAA members do is relevant. We ask for WA Star events, dress codes, WA rules compliance so that the archers are not surprised or blind sided when some are able reach the international stage. One of the first things that I wanted as a parent and a common things I hear from parents is "why don't we better prepare the JOADs for the next step up". I have learned to test archery actions with "how does it help to grow archery" Its a pretty good test and keeps me moving in the right direction.


----------



## TomB (Jan 28, 2003)

Chess and tennis have systems for ranking players in the same zero sum format as archery matchplay. Somehow they are able to rank players who never face each other. You get points for staying close to a better player and even more points for an upset.


----------



## Serious Fun (May 12, 2003)

TomB said:


> Chess and tennis have systems for ranking players in the same zero sum format as archery matchplay. Somehow they are able to rank players who never face each other. You get points for staying close to a better player and even more points for an upset.


 Match competition, makes prefect sense to use as an example  I just hope the system can be kept simple. The real test is when the archers are face to face. I think ranking is just one of those things that humans like to do for some unknown reason.


----------



## TomB (Jan 28, 2003)

Here is a link that offers "a simple explanation" of the ELO system used in chess, pool, and tennis.

http://www.thepoolclub.com/gs/elorank.php


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Bob, we're talking about one specific issue, and you keep talking around it...

Again, we all know and agree with the benefits of the whole. We're trying to fix a specific part.



> I am good with using the data that comes out of normal tournament results "naturally" without added time and specialty events.


I agree 100% so long as that data is valid. Right now, it's not. Not under the new system. If you're okay with using invalid data, then I really don't have any answer for that. I think there is a way to get a "natural, normal" result that produces valid USAT ranking points. However, what we have now may be natural and normal, but it's not 100% valid.


----------



## Serious Fun (May 12, 2003)

TomB said:


> Here is a link that offers "a simple explanation" of the ELO system used in chess, pool, and tennis.
> 
> http://www.thepoolclub.com/gs/elorank.php


 Archery has the advantage of having arrow values. What skews it are the weather conditions. As still as indoors or a tree lined field or as windy as Turkey world championships.


----------



## TomB (Jan 28, 2003)

What really skews it is matchplay/ zero sum games where not everyone shoots against everyone else AND when some matches "don't count" in the rankings due to ineligble (for ranking purposes) participants. The Elo system tries to credit a player for a "good" loss by playing well gainst a strong opponent and by penalizing a player for playing poorly against a lesser opponent. We are not the first sport to deal with rankings in match play format. We ought to be able to learn something from these other sports and disciplines.


----------



## Serious Fun (May 12, 2003)

TomB said:


> What really skews it is matchplay/ zero sum games where not everyone shoots against everyone else AND when some matches "don't count" in the rankings due to ineligble (for ranking purposes) participants. The Elo system tries to credit a player for a "good" loss by playing well gainst a strong opponent and by penalizing a player for playing poorly against a lesser opponent. We are not the first sport to deal with rankings in match play format. We ought to be able to learn something from these other sports and disciplines.


 So long as we use the data that tourneys normally generate, wins, arrow values, etc. I am good with it. Keeping it simple and not added extras for a ranking system is my choice. I am more than willing to tolerate the subjectivity of an imperfect ranking system so long as there is the clarity of the archer left standing is the winner.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> I am more than willing to tolerate the subjectivity of an imperfect ranking system so long as there is the clarity of the archer left standing is the winner.


This statement makes no sense at all. How can it be clear to anyone that the archer left standing is the winner when the system is imperfect. Those two things cannot be reconciled.

I'll give you an example of what I mean...

Say there are four archers in a USAT or Jr. USAT division that are head and shoulders above the next four. This is not an unusual scenario at all actually. It's very common.

Now say that three of those four were paired up in matches against very high ranked international archers, and they all lost their matches, but the US Archers ranked 5th through 8th didn't have to shoot against top international archers and moved on to the next round, eventually finishing 2nd through 5th behind the top ranked US archer. Meanwhile, US archers 2-4 fell in the quarters and got crappy ranking points...

How is this clarity? 

It's utter nonsense. 

But there are some within USAA who see what they want to see, and hear only what they want to hear, so things go on unchanged.

And some folks wonder why so many in the organization are frustrated.


----------



## Serious Fun (May 12, 2003)

Fun conversation. Keep a multi tourney ranking system simple is my advice. The tourney and the tourney outcome is what counts in my book. A ranking system is just a system. The archers that stands on the tourney podium are the archers I focus on. Multi tourney ranking is a statistics excercise, sort of a game made by grouping a bunch of other games. To each their own I guess.


----------



## R&B (Oct 4, 2006)

Cephas said:


> I would love to hear USA Archery's answer to those questions. How can you truly have the best five or eight on USAT if internationals are in the mix? Especially if they have a higher representation in certain events. AZ Cup has many more non US competitors than say Gator Cup.


 So does the Olympics and World Championship (smile).

-R&B


----------



## Cephas (Sep 7, 2010)

The Olympic and World trials have foreign participants? I thought the Olympic and World trials were US citizens only. I'm not saying, and I don"t think anyone else is either, that the tournaments need to change anything they are great the way they are and I can't wait to get to more of them. The problem, if one exists, is with the team selection process.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

R&B - apples and oranges. What the issue is here is the possibility that an archer who deserves to make USAT gets knocked out of a matchplay event by an archer who is not even eligible to make USAT. More than once, I've seen a single match make the difference between an archer making or not making USAT. It happens every year. How do you explain it to an archer who missed USAT because they were beaten by an international archer at a ranking event?

Bob, if you want simple, then that's easy... just use the ranking round, strip out the internationals, and voila' ! No controversy at all then. See, simple! However, you and I would both agree that there is value in using matchplay to determine ranking points. So, we just need to fix the international presence in matchplay somehow so that it doesn't affect the final outcomes. Not sure how to do that, but that really is the issue. 

Until then, the current system is invalid and every US archer who had a reasonable chance to make Jr. USAT or USAT but was defeated by an international archer in a ranking event, has a beef IMO. 

I think we can do better. Not saying I know how, but I'm also not willing to just act like nothing is wrong...


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

limbwalker said:


> R&B - apples and oranges. What the issue is here is the possibility that an archer who deserves to make USAT gets knocked out of a matchplay event by an archer who is not even eligible to make USAT. More than once, I've seen a single match make the difference between an archer making or not making USAT. It happens every year. How do you explain it to an archer who missed USAT because they were beaten by an international archer at a ranking event?
> 
> Bob, if you want simple, then that's easy... just use the ranking round, strip out the internationals, and voila' ! No controversy at all then. See, simple! However, you and I would both agree that there is value in using matchplay to determine ranking points. So, we just need to fix the international presence in matchplay somehow so that it doesn't affect the final outcomes. Not sure how to do that, but that really is the issue.
> 
> ...


let the top five finishers at the EJN make the Jr USAT and limit its OR to eligible archers only. If international kids shoot they have their own

this takes the money and academic issues out of JR USAT which heavily favors kids who can skip school and attend the three Jr USAT selection matches during the school year


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

_I am more than willing to tolerate the subjectivity of an imperfect ranking system so long as there is the clarity of the archer left standing is the winner._

*This statement makes no sense at all. How can it be clear to anyone that the archer left standing is the winner when the system is imperfect. Those two things cannot be reconciled.*

John, I'm so glad to read your response. I read the statement in question about three times, and then started thinking maybe I'd gotten hold of some bad mushrooms in my salad (or 'good' mushrooms, depending on one's goal!). 

The apologists for the flawed system are reminiscent of Vichy France - they have received their marching orders from on high, and no amount of reasoned logic or alternatives proposed here is being listened to, much less evaluated.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

I'm going to put two hats on here. 

The one hat is from the perspective of a tournament organizer. 

From a tournament standpoint, it's not the tournament organizer's job to worry about how rankings are generated. I share Bob's view on this where a TO needs to merely worry about a clean and we'll run tournament where you have a clear winner. 

The other hat is one of a coach and dad. I want to know that the rankings are fair and equitable. 

Using real world examples, and using my own child as part of the ranking examples, his elimination rounds do not terribly affect the outcome after two tournaments. 

In fact, there is a possibility that the averaging in the new system can push a weaker archer higher. 

I'm not going to do the entire Cadet Male Compound for 2013. But the early math proves out...the effect of averaging ranking plus eliminations does not appear to affect the outcome negatively based upon the 5 sample archers across two tournaments when you compare the old system to the new one. 

In retrospect, having the OR round is something that should be factored in. You win on your ability to place above the cutoff AND performing in the OR's. 

I see the logic in doing both in the formula. It's interesting to see that both the old formula and new one results in very similar findings.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

Being knocked out of a team-making competition by an archer not eligible for the team - how can that be defended on principle? Limited 'back data' that dovetails with a flawed structure doesn't make the flawed structure less flawed.

It looks pretty clear to me - the interests of the internationalists are being put ahead of the interests of the USAT stakeholders.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> From a tournament standpoint, it's not the tournament organizer's job to worry about how rankings are generated. I share Bob's view on this where a TO needs to merely worry about a clean and we'll run tournament where you have a clear winner.


Yes, absolutely you are correct there Steve. And Bob does his job very well indeed. We all know that.

But that's not really the question here. The question is, are we willing to accept a clearly invalid system - regardless of how severe the flaw is? Your sample size is a very small one. This will become a bigger and bigger issue as more internationals are shooting USAT ranking events. It may be a statistically insignificant difference today, but in years to come, it won't be. All it takes is one archer who didn't make USAT because of losing to an international in a critical OR round, and then someone has to answer to that archer, their parents, or their coach and explain why "that's okay..." 

We don't even know that hasn't already happened actually.


----------



## Casualfoto (Mar 10, 2009)

limbwalker said:


> I understand that. And I like big, inclusive events. Many of us JOAD leaders really like seeing our kids shoot with/against internationals for the experience.
> 
> However, the rub here is that I don't see a way to have both inclusive international USAT and Jr. USAT selection events, and an exclusive system for selecting US team members - who are required to be US Citizens - without the internationals affecting final placement and final ranking points for the eligible archers.
> 
> ...



At the 2012 JOAD National at least one kid came very close to not making Cadet USAT because he lost to an international participant. At the time, I requested, and posted here, my desire to see the math as it was applied to the all the kids that lost to an international participant. That never happened. For the record, I like the idea of international competitors at JOAD National, and that they compete in the OR rounds. However, it just goes to reason that we need to see the math upfront, before the tournament starts!

foto


----------



## Serious Fun (May 12, 2003)

Beastmaster said:


> I'm going to put two hats on here.
> 
> The one hat is from the perspective of a tournament organizer.
> 
> ...


I think the USAT is a series of tournaments where the results of a select group of tourneys is used to name archers to a lists for recognition and sponsors support.
As such I don’t think the ranking system needs to be engineered to exacting standards since the USAT is a name and title only. USAT is just a reason to come out and play at a full season of events.

When ranking must be more exacting, specific team eligible only trails events are conducted. The last archer(s) standing win.

I do think that exacting ranking is required for certain critical purposes. An exacting USAT selection process is not critical my world. I think USAT is nice but should not divert attention that real competition is at the international world archery level. Those that think they have really done something exceptional by making USAT have a rude awaking waiting for them. I think we do archers, parents and families a disservice with we imply that making USAT is more than it really is. Been there done that. It’s certainly nice to make USAT but it don’t not deserve a ponderous restrictive event series effort.

That having been said, I think it would be great if the USAT members competed a made for TV competition after the season is over so that USAT is something more than just a title and some free arrows and the archers have a chance to show the public who they are and how they do what they do.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

_"I think USAT is nice but should not divert attention that real competition is at the international world archery level. Those that think they have really done something exceptional by making USAT have a rude awaking waiting for them. I think we do archers, parents and families a disservice with we imply that making USAT is more than it really is."_

I love it - now someone tell me again why the 'over 50' crowd should be at all interested in a Masters USAT (given its above indicated lack of importance/relevance)?


----------



## Serious Fun (May 12, 2003)

lksseven said:


> _"I think USAT is nice but should not divert attention that real competition is at the international world archery level. Those that think they have really done something exceptional by making USAT have a rude awaking waiting for them. I think we do archers, parents and families a disservice with we imply that making USAT is more than it really is."_
> 
> I love it - now someone tell me again why the 'over 50' crowd should be at all interested in a Masters USAT (given its above indicated lack of importance/relevance)?


“I think the USAT is a series of tournaments where the results of a select group of tourneys is used to name archers to a lists for recognition and sponsors support.”
“…It’s certainly nice to make USAT…”
“I think it would be great if the USAT members competed a made for TV competition after the season is over so that USAT is something more than just a title and some free arrows and the archers have a chance to show the public who they are and how they do what they do.”
Like the PGA champions tour. The Master matches at NTC were a blast! A master ranking system is just for smiles. The real fun and competition is being on the field together and competing match after match to get to the top. What is tragic is that folks are focused on changing successful events instead of focusing on growing existing events that have lots of potential like field archery and bare bow..


----------



## Serious Fun (May 12, 2003)

Casualfoto said:


> At the 2012 JOAD National at least one kid came very close to not making Cadet USAT because he lost to an international participant. At the time, I requested, and posted here, my desire to see the math as it was applied to the all the kids that lost to an international participant. That never happened. For the record, I like the idea of international competitors at JOAD National, and that they compete in the OR rounds. However, it just goes to reason that we need to see the math upfront, before the tournament starts!
> 
> foto


 I think that the national championship should be exclusively for those eligible for the national championship. NTC and EJN are not appropriate for World Ranking and international guest archers. The days of deciding the national championship on a ranking round are over. Like it or not, it is all about making the match play cut and match play itself.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> A master ranking system is just for smiles.


Don't look now, but so is the Sr. and Jr. USAT.  "Just for smiles..." is all.



> What is tragic is that folks are focused on changing successful events instead of focusing on growing existing events that have lots of potential like field archery and bare bow..


Bob, don't feel like you need to defend your event. I'm not suggesting you need to change your event. If any event retains internationals in the OR round outdoors, it should be the AZ cup, as it paved the way for this in the U.S. What needs to be changed is only how we calculate the rankings for USAT, if internationals are going to be thrown into the mix. That's all.


----------



## R&B (Oct 4, 2006)

*Luck.*



limbwalker said:


> R&B - apples and oranges. What the issue is here is the possibility that an archer who deserves to make USAT gets knocked out of a matchplay event by an archer who is not even eligible to make USAT. More than once, I've seen a single match make the difference between an archer making or not making USAT. It happens every year. How do you explain it to an archer who missed USAT because they were beaten by an international archer at a ranking event?
> 
> Bob, if you want simple, then that's easy... just use the ranking round, strip out the internationals, and voila' ! No controversy at all then. See, simple! However, you and I would both agree that there is value in using matchplay to determine ranking points. So, we just need to fix the international presence in matchplay somehow so that it doesn't affect the final outcomes. Not sure how to do that, but that really is the issue.
> 
> ...


You're putting individuals before the sport. This is a political move. 

Eligible and non-eligible??? What are you talking about!! Barring a 30 year old shooting in the Cadet class everyone who paid their money and passed tech inspection is an eligible competitor. The tournament is for everyone not just those who choose to chase USAT points. 

What if your archer lost in the first round to a non international (a.k.a competitor) (smile)? Would he still be eligible for the team? What do you tell him when he doesn't make the team because he lost in the 1st round? What do you tell the kid that beat him........ "it doesn't count because your ranking is lower"........"or it doesn't count because you're not eligible due to the fact you're not chasing USAT points" (smile). Is it even conceivable your archer would ever loose in the first round of any USAT tournament? What if your archer beat the international (a.k.a competitor) does it count (smile)? If I'm the international (a.k.a competitor) should I forfeit the match because my results will be reflected in some recalculation of the actual event that took place. This a slippery slope. This is a tournament and everyone on the field of play is equal in deed and action. There shouldn't be some double standard or secondary agenda. 

In life we often give it our best effort and for whatever reason it is not good enough. Life has it's own agenda and often times it is not the same as your own (smile). That is where courage, perseverance and humility come into play. Applying these lessons learned on the field a play make you a winner in life which is a bit more important to me. I can go on and on about character vs. outcomes (smile)

-Big Fish In Small Ponds Don't Swim Far (smile).

-Cheers
-R&B


----------



## rharper (Apr 30, 2012)

R&B, what are you talking about?? 
1. Events take place to gain points to rank people trying to make USAT
2. USAT team is for US archers
3. Events for these points also include people NOT eligible for the USAT team
4. By doing this, we are changing what the actual ranking would be if we just have US people VS US people. THAT is the point we are arguing.
5. People could be bumped off the USAT team by taking a hit from an international competitor while another gets a higher ranking by luck of the draw. (This makes the ranking system invalid to determine which US archer gets on the team, however close it may be)

I gotta ask, what up with the (smile) at the end of your sentences?


----------



## Cephas (Sep 7, 2010)

While the system is flawed it is not the tournament hosts job to figure it out. That job lies squarely on USAArchery's shoulders in my opinion. But then again it really doesn't matter does it?


----------



## Serious Fun (May 12, 2003)

I think folks have expressed their opinions as best they can. Great input. In summary country/state codes are used by a tourney to sort results and eligibility. Usat ranking is a topic of much interest. My suggestion is to alway look for ways to support the sport that has done so much for so many. Join an archery group, become involved in a club, become an official, become a certified instructor. Learn, teach, promote and help the archers do what they do.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Cephas said:


> While the system is flawed it is not the tournament hosts job to figure it out. That job lies squarely on USAArchery's shoulders in my opinion. But then again it really doesn't matter does it?


Agreed. If I said anywhere that it's the tournament director's job to fix this flaw, then I misspoke. It's not. It's USAA's job. They created the problem and it's their job to fix it.



> My suggestion is to alway look for ways to support the sport that has done so much for so many.


Bob you do a fine job of making general statements that everyone already agrees with. But that comment sounds to many like "just ignore this problem and focus on other things instead..." which is very disingenuous. I know it's not your job to fix the USAT ranking issues when internationals are allowed in the mix, but please don't act like this isn't a problem and we need to just "move along people..."

Your suggestion to "learn, teach, promote" makes it sound as if none of us are doing that already, when in fact, most of us are.

So, Learn? ... Check..., Teach?.... Check...., Promote?.....Check.....

But you left out the feedback loop that says "identify and resolve problems with the system."


----------



## Cephas (Sep 7, 2010)

limbwalker said:


> Agreed. If I said anywhere that it's the tournament director's job to fix this flaw, then I misspoke. It's not. It's USAA's job. They created the problem and it's their job to fix it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Hope you don't think I was taking you wrong, I think we're on the same page w the current usat system problem which, by the way, will favor Megs I think.


----------



## Azzurri (Mar 10, 2014)

My two cents:
Just as a matter of process, the USA - Korea (USK) designation -- and anything else similar -- strikes me as complicating and obscuring. From a sporting or legal perspective you don't want designations that confuse things now and might be hard to decode in a few years if there is some dispute. Being either USA or KOR strikes me as clear cut for posterity. I assume the reason that the somewhat similar "asterix" approach of the Indoor Nationals towards guest internationals has not stirred up similar issues is that the indoor WCs are open and the indoor worlds team is decided by trials, so there's no reason to squabble about it. Whereas the key outdoor meets are built into a USAT selection process.

What strikes me as the solution is you use the qualifying rank (apples to apples with the foreign nationals removed) from each of the included tournaments, and then provide a limited amount of bonus points to people making the knockout podium or some other high ranking cutoff. You get your objective qualifying rank minus the internationals, and then you objectively have to make a particular round to get the bonus points and if you don't -- regardless of what nationality you lose to or finish behind -- so what. Everyone knows that level of tournament is tough, that's why it counts. If what you're worried about is getting the best archers from an apples to apples competition not distorted by a bunch of strong internationals, then you really need to use Nationals or a trials like indoor.

The discussion of how one tournament relates to another in terms of international participation or point value sounds to me like a different discussion in terms of whether that tournament should even be part of the matrix. If a different tournament is low prestige, has little or no international participation, maybe even has one American kid registered in a class, but has outsize impact because it is included as the equivalent of Arizona Cup, the real discussion seems to be whether it should count at all, not whether it's fair vis a vis Arizona Cup. That being said, if the tournament is on the list and only x number kids show up and rack up points towards being on the team, the rules were the rules and it's not their fault or your beef that they showed and you didn't. You chose to go to the elite tournament where results are harder to achieve, and skipped an event that might have provided an easier points gain. If the tournament doesn't belong or should really be treated as 1/2 or 1/4 of the big boys, then have the rules changed.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

"then have the rules changed."

The powers that hold the keys to the "rules" washroom, are also the ones that came up with the flawed system ... as this thread obliquely reveals, 'change' might be an uphill trek.


----------



## Mulcade (Aug 31, 2007)

lksseven said:


> "then have the rules changed."
> 
> The powers that hold the keys to the "rules" washroom, are also the ones that came up with the flawed system ... as this thread obliquely reveals, 'change' might be an uphill trek.


When is change not an uphil trek from this side of the hill in this sport?


----------



## Serious Fun (May 12, 2003)

We are USA Archery we select the leadership. Codes are used to sort results and eligibility. For instance when a archer is Korean and shoots for KOR in the team round they are sorted as such, however if an archer is Korean but not in the official national team, they must be sorted separately. Think of results as a big excel spread sheet sort. Tourney management is interesting to say the least. I encourage more folks to host tourneys to keep up with the demand.


----------



## Serious Fun (May 12, 2003)

A huge part of USA Archery are the athlete reps. I suggest that all USAA archers get to know their athlete leadership reps. They are the ones that help shape programs and priorities with help from the broad membership community. Come and voice membership thoughts and ideas with the leadership at the annual meeting and to the leadership one on one, face to face. We are usa archery.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Bob, this is an issue that should be visible from the inside. Easily. I can't believe it was overlooked or ignored. I'm pretty sure we pay the staff to address these issues.


----------



## c3hammer (Sep 20, 2002)

I missed out on making Sr. USAT in 2006 by 1/2 a point due to this exact issue. I also missed making a trip to the World Indoor Championships in 2007, even though my scores, actually shot during the round robins were higher than Staten who got to go. How about showing up at the Olympic Trials as a newbie to find they've aimed the field south directly into the sun all morning for a lefty during the ranking round. As the FITA rules clearly state, the field of play must be facing north, who would of ever thought to practice shooting south while looking into the sun?

Sour grapes? Absolutely, but rules count and when they are inconsistent, not clear or can be manipulated, it's not good for the sport or the individuals involved.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

As much as that stinks (about missing USAT by 1/2 pt.), the field orientation is not an issue. It can be either North, or South. And if that's a problem, then imagine what all us Righty's have to deal with every single morning on a North-facing field.  

I shoot looking into the sun all the time Pete. Usually for tuning, so I can see the reflection off my bare shaft and track it's full flight to the target. It works great. I wouldn't tune any other way.

But your point about missing USAT because of an error in the selection method, is valid, and is exactly what the staff at USArchery are paid to prevent.


----------

