# Does NFAA Need to set a Par value on the Field Round



## Archery Power (Feb 4, 2005)

I think a par value should have been set on the NFAA Field Round, Because if that had happened we would have had what is a preceived has a good score on the Field Round.
We all know the very top shooter are shooting near perfect on the Field Round but what is the rest of the shooters doing. Some targets could have a par value of a 18 where as other targets
would have a par of a 19 and what this would show you that you do not have to shoot perfect round to shoot a good score. What if we had a par value for 14 targets with 14 points down that
would give you a 266 for 14 targets this would let the average shooter preceive that he had shot a good score. And in most cases this is a good score that is a 532 for 28 targets. I am not saying this 
is where the par value should be just an example.

Now I have gave you something to think about, put some ideals about this.


----------



## Unclegus (May 27, 2003)

OK, I don't get it? :dontknow: Perhaps I'm not sharp enough to grasp this concept?????? I always thought you used what others in your age group and shooting style scored as a barometer of what you're doing? All I have to do is shoot a fairly big tournament and look at the scores and see where I finished or go to the NFAA website and see what scores have been shot the last couple of years at the nationals. It won't take long to figure out where you stand. But to arbitrarily say this is a good score or a not so good score is very subjective in my opinion. If you like it, then what does it matter what anyone else thinks? Not everyone has the same abilities.


----------



## distributor (Mar 18, 2004)

For me it would be a great ideal coming from a golf background, But remember this is a Field archery fourm and it don't matter if it is the best ideal in the world you will get more
native comments than you will postive comments, But Archery Power I think it is a good ideal if you can sale it to the Field Archers. You will not have enough time to explane the concept to UNCLEGUS by the time
he understand it 2 or 3 years will have passed and by then it will not matter no way. HA HA HA


----------



## pragmatic_lee (Jan 19, 2008)

Uh oh - got to watch out for comments from the natives now.

What has happened to this forum?


----------



## FS560 (May 22, 2002)

I remember back when I started in 1964, many clubs had a "par" value on the sign denoting the target number. This was probably left over from the days when NFAA was instinctive only and unmarked distances. Par would mean nothing now because of the many styles.

Field and hunter distances were marked only beginning in about 1962 and the animals were only marked quite a few years after that.


----------



## TeamWinker (Nov 12, 2008)

I have to agree with UncleGus, if you want to know how your doing look up national level events and insert your score in the amateur divisions then you'll know. Practice scores should always be reviewed with a grain of salt, scores from events where you have competition are the only ones that really count. If you find your score at the top of the amateur divisions, start comparing yourself to pro scores. Adding PAR scores would be complicated and you'd need a book to keep track of the all the age groups, equipment divisions and it would be different for every range that you shot at. A 50 yard shot in open flat ground is easier than a 50 yard shot uphill at 8 degrees, in narrow trees, under heavy cover in the dark, would you have the same par for each of those shots...I think not. Leave par for golfers.


----------



## Spoon13 (Feb 20, 2007)

Maybe I'm just a bit too cynical when it comes to this idea but here goes...

"Par" is a 20. Anything less than that and you FAILED during one of your shots. Do I do it all the time. NOPE. DO I expect it at every target and am I capapble of doing it?? YEP.

If you are a 520 shooter that means you are gonna drop 40 points some where. Does it matter where?? It's not like an 18 on the 20yd target is more detrimental than an 18 on the 80 WU. Dropped points are dropped points. Get all you can get and learn from your mistakes. Then apply that new knowledge to your practice routine and watch your scores go up.


----------



## Unclegus (May 27, 2003)

distributor said:


> For me it would be a great ideal coming from a golf background, But remember this is a Field archery fourm and it don't matter if it is the best ideal in the world you will get more
> native comments than you will postive comments, But Archery Power I think it is a good ideal if you can sale it to the Field Archers. You will not have enough time to explane the concept to UNCLEGUS by the time
> he understand it 2 or 3 years will have passed and by then it will not matter no way. HA HA HA



I've only been shooting for fifty one years and I've never needed something like this BS Par crap to inspire me to do my best and won't need it the rest of what little life I have left. Sounds like something Obama would come up with for the under achievers. I did learn to spell explain when I went to school and was far above par is spelling where it's either right or wrong.


----------



## pennysdad (Sep 26, 2004)

LMAO, John!


----------



## TNMAN (Oct 6, 2009)

Note to Self: Shoot more field. Play less golf. :smile:


----------



## pragmatic_lee (Jan 19, 2008)

Unclegus said:


> I've only been shooting for fifty one years and I've never needed something like this BS Par crap to inspire me to do my best and won't need it the rest of what little life I have left. Sounds like something Obama would come up with for the under achievers. I did learn to spell explain when I went to school and was far above par is spelling where it's either right or wrong.


I love it!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## montigre (Oct 13, 2008)

distributor said:


> For me it would be a great ideal coming from a golf background, But remember this is a Field archery fourm and it don't matter if it is the best ideal in the world you will get more
> native comments than you will postive comments, But Archery Power I think it is a good ideal if you can sale it to the Field Archers. You will not have enough time to explane the concept to UNCLEGUS by the time
> he understand it 2 or 3 years will have passed and by then it will not matter no way. HA HA HA


HUH???:noidea: And I thought I was a linguist at one time....


----------



## Brown Hornet (Aug 8, 2002)

Would someone please take the "L" off their keyboard....it's almost like the one guy that doesn't know the difference between a "q" and a "g". 

As for the original question....I don't really see a need for a Par system. Like Spoon said...par is a 20. Just like par is a 25 on a 5 spot target. You drop a point you didn't do what you were supposed to do on that target. 

Yes the upper echelon of shooters are going to shoot in the 550+ range.... There are lots of people that play golf that shoot no where close to "par" that are good golfers. 8 years ago I was playing a lot of golf...and I mean a lot. I got down to a single digit...and I sucked in comparison to real good golfers. The avg person that plays golf suck big time...

If your shooting in the 520-540 range your decent...but a good ways from being a top shooter. A par system isn't going to change anything or make someone "feel better". 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Unclegus (May 27, 2003)

Hornet, they'll be wanting a handicap system next. Here we go reinventing the wheel for the umpteenth time....


----------



## FS560 (May 22, 2002)

wheel.....wow
an interesting concept...
what would happen if someone tried to put wheels on a compound bow?

turn loose a few nefarious marketing hacks and fanboys on it and it would sell like sliced bread.


----------



## SCarson (Apr 13, 2008)

Last I checked, there is a Field handicap system that nobody I know uses, although Prag may need it outside 20 yards and I could use it outside 30.

As for a "par" system, keep track of your scores, take an average, and there's your "par." Shoot higher, you beat par. Shoot lower, you didn't beat par. Want to improve? Raise your "par." Don't like a straight average? Use a rolling average. Use every third score. Get really detailed and keep track of every score on every target. Just keep in mind that the #1 40 yarder on course XYZ is not the same as the #1 15 yarder on course ABC. Knock yourselves out. That's what spreadsheets are for. (Before anybody says that I spent too much time thinking about this, yes, 4 minutes WAS too much time. :icon_joker

With all the people claiming Field is too confusing, why introduce an ideal (sic) :idea1: like a par score to add even more to the perceived confusion?


----------



## pragmatic_lee (Jan 19, 2008)

What you talking about. I need a handicap "outside the car". 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Unclegus (May 27, 2003)

I've been handicapped for years. Jim, Wheels on a bow??? It will never catch on. Seriously, which I very seldom am, it takes a lot of practice to shoot great scores along with some god given talent. Just be happy with what you can shoot and not make something that is really hard to excel at even harder. The lowest number of strokes in golf always wins no matter what the par is and the lowest number of misses in archery always wins.


----------



## FS560 (May 22, 2002)

Setting a par value on each target at something less than 20 will not fool anyone. Everyone knows that the top archers shoot mostly 20s. Even the 150,000 Mathews bowhunters on AT know that.

There are something like 200,000 + members on AT and probably less than 25,000 members of all organized archery associations combined plus perhaps another 10,000 3D shooters that are not members of anything.

So, where are the fools lurking? The ones that would be fooled by a feel good par value.

Par is 20.


----------



## wa-prez (Sep 9, 2006)

It seems like this discussion should REALY be about setting par values so people could compare one course against another.

Some are easy and flat level, others have up, down, side-hills, and maybe wind to contend with.


----------



## Unclegus (May 27, 2003)

I'll never be a pro, but the only difference I see in my scores between a flat course and a goat path is when I'm not in shape to travel a difficult terrain or the ground is so hard you can't get your feet level. Wind on an open range like Yankton or the Yellow or black range at Mechanicsburg gets my vote as the deal breaker.


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

We use the classification A, B, and C class, as you enter the sport you make your way up each class and strive to keep shooting above 'A' class status to consider shooting respectable scores, I strive to get as close as I can to WR/ER but as long as I shoot over 'A' class in allowing for terrain differences I'm fairly happy i.e. I can shoot an 'A' class score on the most difficult terrain and better on a flat course. These class systems seem to have worked fine for many years


----------



## Unclegus (May 27, 2003)

We used to have classes here too, and still do some places, but there was tons of sandbagging.


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

Unclegus said:


> I'll never be a pro, but the only difference I see in my scores between a flat course and a goat path is when I'm not in shape to travel a difficult terrain or the ground is so hard you can't get your feet level. Wind on an open range like Yankton or the Yellow or black range at Mechanicsburg gets my vote as the deal breaker.


Yes, but everyone at that event will have the same footing, pretty much the same wind or rain conditions, etc...so what does it matter about the "par rating"? Nada.

In my particular case, I've shot better on some pretty hilly courses than I have on flat ones because the hilly courses make me pay closer attention to detail and to concentrate and focus more on my game. On a flat course, I tend to just go through the motions and get complacent. Maybe that is just me, but I dunno, and pretty much worry about my own focus and form and my own shot process and "cuts" or no "cuts" and use MY information and not somebody else's. I also don't rely on computers and electronics either. Nice to have, but not nice to depend completely upon them. They won't make the shot for you and that is the proof of the pudding.


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

Unclegus said:


> We used to have classes here too, and still do some places, but there was tons of sandbagging.


IFAA are now insisting of classification cards to enter a World/European event, I think some sandbagging has been going on for "C" and "B" class awards. 

I'm interested to see what they have done in Yankton in prep for next years IFAA Worlds, it was a pretty boring/flat course from last time I visited for World Bowhunters, a great public Field range just outside of town. Anybody seen the improvements yet, are there any?


----------



## Bob_Looney (Nov 17, 2003)

Archers will never be happy till they can write a 560 on their card regardless of what they shot. It hasn't changed in the 40 years I've been in the NFAA.


----------



## brtesite (May 24, 2002)

Folks , remember that the par system was put on way back when nobody was expected to hit the dam target. A 560 was only a multiple of score vs targets. And that was on the 5- 3 face. The equipment was crude as compared to today, & aiming systems were also crude. It was a way of trying to make people feel good if they shot par. Like every one has to feel good today.


----------



## Unclegus (May 27, 2003)

Bob_Looney said:


> Archers will never be happy till they can write a 560 on their card regardless of what they shot. It hasn't changed in the 40 years I've been in the NFAA.


I agree. That's why I've never really understood the reluctance to go back to the 5/3 target where you can actually have some chance of actually getting it done without a really sharp pencil. We continue to just make it harder and then have the deer in the headlights look as to why we don't have many new people coming into the game. I can remember back in 71 when I shot my first 350 on a 3/5, I thought I was king of the archery world.


----------



## brtesite (May 24, 2002)

Unclegus said:


> I agree. That's why I've never really understood the reluctance to go back to the 5/3 target where you can actually have some chance of actually getting it done without a really sharp pencil. We continue to just make it harder and then have the deer in the headlights look as to why we don't have many new people coming into the game. I can remember back in 71 when I shot my first 350 on a 3/5, I thought I was king of the archery world.


 wow, 350. It was hard. Don't forget it was a recurve. Of course you had to wade thru a crowd of maybe 150 shooters on a Sunday, not like now with a leisurely pace with maybe 20 shooters. Just think , no hold ups. 
gus , a time gone by


----------



## Archery Power (Feb 4, 2005)

I think that all of us has their own par value set in their mind what it should be.
Some will have a 500 par where others will have a 530 for their par
and still others will have a par value of a 550 plus I guess it don't matter
as long as you will have your own par value set in your mind what it should be.
So your par in your mind is where you think that you should be shooting.


----------



## Unclegus (May 27, 2003)

Mikie, I've always said that looking back on shooting since I was little, that the two worst days of the whole thing was first when I picked up a compound bow, and the second was the day I decided to put a sight on it.


----------



## James Thurman (Feb 3, 2004)

Unclegus I can understand where you are coming from Most likley it was the worst day for all of us, but we did not know it at that time like everyone else 
I jumped on the band wagon, and for sure that is one wagon I wished I had stayed off of. But that is water under the bridge or over the dam what ever you 
would like to call it the way I see it now I wish I had stayed with Recurve shooting.


----------



## TNMAN (Oct 6, 2009)

Hey Jim, How you doing? Didn't you shoot 560 with fingers?


----------



## James Thurman (Feb 3, 2004)

IN 1971 I had shot 5-- 560 Field Rounds before the southeastern with my Fingers but a 558 was the best round that I shot on the Field round at the Southeastern
with the recurve then. Jim Quarles shot the first 560 Field round at the NFAA Nationals in 1972 while useing a recurve . At that time compounds had become a part of Field shooting
with several 560 rounds shot on the hunter round at the 1972 Nationals.


----------



## TNMAN (Oct 6, 2009)

James Thurman said:


> IN 1971 I had shot 5-- 560 Field Rounds before the southeastern but a 558 was the high round that I shot on the Field round there
> 
> Jim Quarles shot the First 560 Field round at the national in 1972 which was done with recurve On the hunter round there also there were
> 
> ...


Thanks. I thought you had shot some of the last few 560's ever shot with recurve/fingers. I get tickled sometimes on here when someone tells J. Quarles that he's 100% wrong and doesn't know beans about archery. Hope to see you at a shoot next season. Ernest


Excuse me OP for interrupting. Thurman doesn't post but once ever 3 or 4 years, and I had to holler when had the chance.


----------



## James Thurman (Feb 3, 2004)

This is one thing that I will have to say Jim Quarles was the best shooter that I shot with back in the earky 70"s


----------



## brtesite (May 24, 2002)

TNMAN said:


> Thanks. I thought you had shot some of the last few 560's ever shot with recurve/fingers. I get tickled sometimes on here when someone tells J. Quarles that he's 100% wrong and doesn't know beans about archery. Hope to see you at a shoot next season. Ernest


Me thinks that JQ knows a lot about archery. Maybe some times to deep. Sort of like 0ne pink & one yellow for the ice tea


----------



## brtesite (May 24, 2002)

Unclegus said:


> Mikie, I've always said that looking back on shooting since I was little, that the two worst days of the whole thing was first when I picked up a compound bow, and the second was the day I decided to put a sight on it.



Gus you may be right, although I think it has kept more old farts in the game longer


----------



## James Thurman (Feb 3, 2004)

Come on Mike, You know that you could still shoot a recurve.


----------



## brtesite (May 24, 2002)

James Thurman said:


> Come on Mike, You know that you could still shoot a recurve.


jim, I think that if I had to use a recurve, I would take up bowling


----------



## FS560 (May 22, 2002)

I have the hots for a Sky TR7 and Borders limbs.


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

TNMAN said:


> Thanks. I thought you had shot some of the last few 560's ever shot with recurve/fingers. I get tickled sometimes on here when someone tells J. Quarles that he's 100% wrong and doesn't know beans about archery. Hope to see you at a shoot next season. Ernest
> 
> 
> Excuse me OP for interrupting. Thurman doesn't post but once ever 3 or 4 years, and I had to holler when had the chance.


There weren't a lot of 560's shot with fingers and recurves, but I seem to recollect those mentioned, along with, I think, Bob Rhode shooting 560 with his Golden Eagle recurve and fingers on the string.
Best I could ever muster was a 548 Hunter with my Golden Eagle and fingers on the string...dwarfed by Jim Quarles, Jim Thurman, Bob Rhode, and probably several others. 
The first 560 I ever witnessed wasn't done with a recurve and fingers, but it was shot by Gene Parnell shooting his Spartan II recurve bow and home-built rope spike style release aid. Wyoming State Field in Gillette Wyoming, August, 1972.

I wonder how long it has been since anyone has tried to shoot recurved bow with fingers on the string along with a bubble and a peep site? Sure, they would have to compete in Freestyle Limited (and NOT FS OLY), but I would think that INDOORS a person shooting that way just may well stay right with the FS-L compounders shooting fingers on the string. HMMMMM


----------



## James Thurman (Feb 3, 2004)

FS560 said:


> I have the hots for a Sky TR7 and Borders limbs.


 Jim I have been thinking alone the very same line
but I may go just a little bit farther, In fact I am thinking very strong about getting a Sky TR7 and may very well spend the rest of my time
in archery shooting oly style.


----------



## James Thurman (Feb 3, 2004)

A par value should be self imposed, What ever your average is it should be your par for 28 targets, Example if your average is 546 and you shoot a 548 then you would be 2 over par.
That is the only benefit that I can see a par value would have. But why don't we just say I shot 2 points over my average.


----------



## FS560 (May 22, 2002)

My forearm is not long enough relative to my shoulder spread to obtain good alignment with fingers on the string and under the chin anchor. I need the trigger rope or d-loop to obtain good alignment to my elbow. The best Olympic shooters have always been the ones with gorilla length forearms and/or narrow shoulders.

Maybe I could ask the surgeon that installed my new hip if he can extend my left forearm about 1.5 inches.

When I shot recurve/fingers/freestyle I used an anchor with first finger just under my lip, but there was no problem because the peep was my rear sight. I have never shot fingers/freestyle without a peep.

With the DW I would have to shoot now, a high anchor is out of the question, even with the sight on the near side of the bow. A prism would not be legal equipment.

I think that learning to shoot without a peep at our age would be a long process, if attainable.

These new adjustable clickers are kinda neat though. And the adjustable flipper arrow rests are also.

Might have to get little oxygen masks for my arrows because they would get up in the stratosphere on the way to the target.


----------



## va MTN MAN (Jan 24, 2003)

FS560 said:


> My forearm is not long enough relative to my shoulder spread to obtain good alignment with fingers on the string and under the chin anchor. I need the trigger rope or d-loop to obtain good alignment to my elbow. The best Olympic shooters have always been the ones with gorilla length forearms and/or narrow shoulders.
> 
> Maybe I could ask the surgeon that installed my new hip if he can extend my left forearm about 1.5 inches.
> 
> ...


Jim when did you get a new hip.
Ricky


----------



## FS560 (May 22, 2002)

Ricky,
March 20 and then had a grapefruit size hematoma removed April 19. Walking good the day after the original procedure, never any pain, doctor had me take it real easy after the second procedure, and I had to take myself off the walker June 10. My medical waiver of availability ends August 12, so I could be deployed anywhere or not.
JQ


----------



## va MTN MAN (Jan 24, 2003)

FS560 said:


> Ricky,
> March 20 and then had a grapefruit size hematoma removed April 19. Walking good the day after the original procedure, never any pain, doctor had me take it real easy after the second procedure, and I had to take myself off the walker June 10. My medical waiver of availability ends August 12, so I could be deployed anywhere or not.
> JQ


Well it sounds like you are getting along ok so maybe we can go shoot sometime. I am sure Ginny is ready to get rid of you for a day.


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

FS560 said:


> My forearm is not long enough relative to my shoulder spread to obtain good alignment with fingers on the string and under the chin anchor. I need the trigger rope or d-loop to obtain good alignment to my elbow. The best Olympic shooters have always been the ones with gorilla length forearms and/or narrow shoulders.
> 
> Maybe I could ask the surgeon that installed my new hip if he can extend my left forearm about 1.5 inches.
> 
> ...


Jim, you could shoot RECURVE with fingers and the peep site and register in the Freestyle Limited Division. You would have to shoot against people shooting their fingers with compounds, but especially indoors, I think a person could be competitive with recurve/fingers/peep/scope/clicker...or even with the old Killian Drop/up pins with bubble that we used to shoot!

I'm trying to get ahold of my wife's old Swift Wing recurve and have given serious consideration to shooting fingers/recurve with peep and the REYNOLDS site and aperture that is on that bow. It also has the old Hoyt Pro-Rest on it, too.
I shot 300's indoors with a recurve/fingers/peep/Killian drop pin/bubble...and the first two 300's were shot with that Hoyt ProRest on my Golden Eagle. Of course that was then, while I was in my 20's...and now is now, on the other side of the bow and in my 60's??? HOO-RAW!


----------



## FS560 (May 22, 2002)

Hey Tom, Recurve/fingers/freestyle will not work for me because my shoulder/forearm geometry does not work for a low anchor with fingers. Recurve/trigger does work because the rope effectively lengthens my forearm.

In any event, recurve/trigger/freestyle might be fun. Certainly will not have to fake good tension execution.

Quoted
Field14
Jim, you could shoot RECURVE with fingers and the peep site and register in the Freestyle Limited Division. You would have to shoot against people shooting their fingers with compounds, but especially indoors, I think a person could be competitive with recurve/fingers/peep/scope/clicker...or even with the old Killian Drop/up pins with bubble that we used to shoot!


FS560 
My forearm is not long enough relative to my shoulder spread to obtain good alignment with fingers on the string and under the chin anchor. I need the trigger rope or d-loop to obtain good alignment to my elbow. The best Olympic shooters have always been the ones with gorilla length forearms and/or narrow shoulders.

When I shot recurve/fingers/freestyle I used an anchor with first finger just under my lip, but there was no problem because the peep was my rear sight. I have never shot fingers/freestyle without a peep.

With the DW I would have to shoot now, a high anchor is out of the question, even with the sight on the near side of the bow. A prism would not be legal equipment.


----------



## brtesite (May 24, 2002)

FS560 said:


> Hey Tom, Recurve/fingers/freestyle will not work for me because my shoulder/forearm geometry does not work for a low anchor with fingers. Recurve/trigger does work because the rope effectively lengthens my forearm.
> 
> In any event, recurve/trigger/freestyle might be fun. Certainly will not have to fake good tension execution.
> 
> ...


why would a prism not be legal? You talking FITA?


----------



## FS560 (May 22, 2002)

Tom had suggested FSLR where the prism would not be legal. It would be legal in FS or FSL. I can shoot a low anchor with a release but with fingers, I am unable to obtain good alignment, my elbow hangs out too far. I can get good alignment with fingers and a high anchor but no distance, hence the prism.

Understanding the cant issues with prisms, I would never waste time looking for one. They were a big thing in the old days with instinctive shooters trying a sight and could not get the long shots because of their high anchor, even with the sight on the near side of the bow.

Probably the main reason shooters moved the sight to the target side of the bow was to keep others from looking over their shoulder to see the distance they shot it for. Remember, freestyle cam in in the 1950s and the field and hunter distances were marked only in 1962 and later.

Animal distances were not marked until, I think, early 1970s. Of course, it was easy to simply step it off from the field stake. The field stakes are likely to be the most accurate, and to this day, I always step off the hunter and animal stakes from the field stake, just to make sure.


----------

