# Olympic recurve archers community shrinking?



## vlesiv (Oct 20, 2013)

There were a lot of discussions here at AT about a sad future of Olympic Recurve and focus switching to Compound archery 

One thing that I observed is: 

Look at Classified section and all activities for the past one year. It seems like things were going down really fast. Less posts for sales, less deals, more price drops and people are not snatching stuff in 10 minutes after the ad was posted like it used to happen 3-5 years ago. 

It means - less people are looking for oly stuff - less new archers overall join the community

Is it what you guys see and feel as well? Is it happening right now? Is our community shrinking already?


----------



## hypernewbie (May 8, 2019)

New FITA archer here; I feel like in past years beginner FITA equipment has gotten significantly better, and so there's less need of AT classifieds until way later.


----------



## rat4go (Apr 14, 2011)

I think there are more folks moving to other venues as well. Facebook groups more aligned with a specific shooting style (e.g. barebow) or region being one popular option.


----------



## Rael84 (Feb 22, 2016)

Seconded on traditional forums being replaced with other venues. There are a number of facebook groups for different shooting styles that are very active. Also, the archery reddit sees a fair amount of discussion.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

I've noticed this trend as well, and not just here in the classifieds but also on the forum itself and in local and statewide tournament registrations.

I'm sure a quick review of nationals participants would show how recurvers are stacking up as a % of total registrants. But the feeling I get is the last peak of interest in recurve is slightly behind us. I think it peaked sometime between 2012 and 2106. But that stands to reason because of the "shiny new object" syndrome with our head coach, JDT program and other changes implemented 10-12 years ago. That's about the life cycle for major change like we saw. So I think that's part of it.

The pendulum will swing back after we hit a low, and people notice and insist that something be done about it. The forces that will bring that pendulum back are already underway and have begun to slow the swing, but it takes time to overcome the momentum in either direction before it changes direction and starts coming back. 

OR is always cyclical too, with peaks prior to, during and immediately after Olympic years that depend on how successful the team was determining the height of those peaks. 

Right now, I think the increased interest in compound due to better than ever prospects of it being allowed in the Olympics (which have resulted in the compound JDT) along with the surge of interest in barebow, have "stolen" a number of archers away that would have otherwise shot recurve. But as the late Tom Barker always said, it's not a "zero sum game" so perhaps recurve has only declined as a percentage of the total because those other disciplines have grown?


----------



## midwayarcherywi (Sep 24, 2006)

I don't think Olympic shooters are ebbing, but this site is a bit. 

As it regards classifieds, It is a bit amusing at what some folks are asking for second hand equipment. I see limbs advertised for quite close to retail. Consumables, like arrows, are another head scratcher. High end arrows have a very narrow audience and a good chunk of that audience gets it discounted, or free. My son just bought a new dozen of NPX from Lancaster. There was an issue and CX took care of it immediately. It's a much different story when you're sourcing used arrows. Those used arrows have to be VERY attractively priced to accept a no warranty situation. 

Hypernewbie is correct as it regards beginner equipment. The retail marketplace is now serving that population quite well.


----------



## iArch (Apr 17, 2015)

I think social media has a lot to do with the perceived interest. Forums aren’t as popular as they used to be with newer generations.


----------



## iArch (Apr 17, 2015)

Also, it’s been a while since the Hunger Games! When’s the next archery movie?


----------



## hypernewbie (May 8, 2019)

Hawkeye netflix series?


----------



## bobnikon (Jun 10, 2012)

Most of the decline of the classifieds section is my fault. I haven't been buying and selling in a while... :grinch:


----------



## calbowdude (Feb 13, 2005)

@bobnikon, haha I have seen your lack of activity! Although i may be throwing a few items of interest up on the classifieds...


----------



## Nick728 (Oct 19, 2014)

In my area many shooters are going to lower cost trad recurves from compounds. Hunters buy their children compounds so they can look just like daddy but neglect finding good coaches and opt to teach the children themselves. We all know how that works out. When the movie Hunger Games came out my shop couldn’t keep enough bows in stock and attendance was massive. 
The equipment manufacturers are pricing themselves out of the mass market making it to expensive for many families. Coaching today isn’t free and sadly you might not be getting your money’s worth if you’re new to archery or clueless.
Facebook has a ton of active archery forums but not all are informative or even knowledgeable. Bare-bow is or has become more popular than either compound of Olympic. Olympic takes money, practice time and quality coaching. Olympic is hard work requiring dedication and in today’s climate we’re seeing a perfect storm, Olympic isn’t for everyone and even if ones child wants to learn it might not be practical or even possible. Shooting for the joy of shooting isn’t what most shooters are looking to do. Competitive shooting vs recreational shooting are now from two different mind sets and that wasn’t always the way it was. Without schools actively promoting Olympic recurve it’s future is questionable. 
Buying used equipment on Facebook isn’t something I’d do with confidence. 
Nick


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> Olympic isn’t for everyone


I've said it for years - Olympic recurve is a dying discipline, kept alive only because of the Olympic rules. There literally is no other reason to shoot that type of bow these days. It was the "freestyle unlimited" bow of it's time when the rules were set (in stone) but hasn't been for 2 generations now. It's run it's course, and compound will replace it in the Olympic games eventually, and everyone else will shoot barebow. 

Sorry, but that's what's going to happen.


----------



## hypernewbie (May 8, 2019)

Ehh I'd wouldn't be too hasty on the naysaying. Coming from tech industry, I've seen that talk over and over again - PC is dead laptops are dead tablets are dead TV consoles are dead dedicated handheld consoles are dead ...etc.
A decade later, PC is doing fine, laptops are doing fine, tablets are doing fine, PS4 and Xbox are doing fine, and with Switch dedicated handheld consoles are doing fine.

Concerns for Olympic Recurve are legitimate and decline is probably real in the current state of things, but people in general tend to bias towards over-estimating the speed of both incline and decline of products, tech, and consumer behaviour. Probably yes, Olympic may be dead, or it may not be things change (eg. some NBU country like India gets in on the action and suddenly woah 2 billion people roll in to the market). Even if Olympic is going to be dead, the truth is we might not actually live to see that day. Things die slooooowwwwwwwwwwww.

Now would someone please kill internet explorer 6 as quick as possible?


----------



## bobnikon (Jun 10, 2012)

There is literally no *requirement* to shoot *ANY type of* bow when you really consider it. There are plenty of reasons though. And all of them are based around recreation and enjoyment.

We will shoot what we enjoy. I shoot my barebow, compound, or Olympic as my whim dictates. I will never be world level competitive in any of them. But I enjoy them all, all the same.

Cheers
Erik


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

limbwalker said:


> I've said it for years - Olympic recurve is a dying discipline, kept alive only because of the Olympic rules. There literally is no other reason to shoot that type of bow these days. It was the "freestyle unlimited" bow of it's time when the rules were set (in stone) but hasn't been for 2 generations now. It's run it's course, and compound will replace it in the Olympic games eventually, and everyone else will shoot barebow.
> 
> Sorry, but that's what's going to happen.


John, I totally agree with you, and dying of Recurve Olympic is very evident in archery developed countries, Italy included.

From FITARCO website I can get out real time statistics about archers participating to local competions, and using indoor as reference, Jannuary, 1, 2019 to now, archers attending to at elast 1 indoor shot have been like this:

All ages:
RE M ---> 2525
BB M ---> 1268
CO M --->1072

Senior and Master only:

RE M ---> 1604
BB M ---> 1070
CO M ---> 939

As you can see, if we consider Over 20 archers only, active CO+BB are already 20% more than Recuve archers

But if I go back to January to May 2009, numbers for Senior and Masters only were as follow:

RE M ---> 1716
BB M ---> 868
CO M ---> 825

In a country were number of registered archers has been almost static in the last 10 years (but with 25% turnover yearly), numbers are telling clearly their answer. 

If Recurve Archery will get out from the Olympic games, it will disappear in one single night, IMHO.


----------



## PregnantGuppy (Jan 15, 2011)

Vittorio said:


> John, I totally agree with you, and dying of Recurve Olympic is very evident in archery developed countries, Italy included.
> 
> From FITARCO website I can get out real time statistics about archers participating to local competions, and using indoor as reference, Jannuary, 1, 2019 to now, archers attending to at elast 1 indoor shot have been like this:
> 
> ...


This is actually interesting data, since I was curious whether this is a global phenomenon or just restricted to the USA. I can easily see many reasons why USA archers would be abandoning OR, but I wasn't sure whether this was also true in other countries. Makes me wonder if we can get data for more.

I also think that, for better or for worse, the Olympics is the main thing holding up OR. It does make me wonder, however, who would try to preserve it and how successful they would be. For instance, Hyundai has invested a lot of money in Korea and internationally to promote the sport, so maybe they'd have a vested interest in keeping it around. But I don't think they'd be able to support it beyond Korea, so it would still die out eventually.


----------



## Speedly (Jan 23, 2019)

limbwalker said:


> I've said it for years - Olympic recurve is a dying discipline, kept alive only because of the Olympic rules. There literally is no other reason to shoot that type of bow these days. It was the "freestyle unlimited" bow of it's time when the rules were set (in stone) but hasn't been for 2 generations now. It's run it's course, and compound will replace it in the Olympic games eventually, and everyone else will shoot barebow.
> 
> Sorry, but that's what's going to happen.


Judging by seeing how many people shoot Olympic Recurve in the competitions around here, I would very strongly disagree with you. While we are outnumbered by compound shooters, there's a crapton of shooters with Olympic rigs, and a bunch of kids with them. Maybe your experience is different, though.


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

PregnantGuppy said:


> This is actually interesting data, since I was curious whether this is a global phenomenon or just restricted to the USA. I can easily see many reasons why USA archers would be abandoning OR, but I wasn't sure whether this was also true in other countries. Makes me wonder if we can get data for more.
> 
> I also think that, for better or for worse, the Olympics is the main thing holding up OR. It does make me wonder, however, who would try to preserve it and how successful they would be. For instance, Hyundai has invested a lot of money in Korea and internationally to promote the sport, so maybe they'd have a vested interest in keeping it around. But I don't think they'd be able to support it beyond Korea, so it would still die out eventually.


Main problem is the lack of identification in our sport as shown on TV that is jeopardiziong Recurve archery development.

If you watch Soccer, you can think to play soccer as it involve 10 friends and 1 round ball 
If you watch Tennis, you can think to play tennis as it involves a ball and a tool easy to understand
If you watch trap shooting, you can imagine yourself doing same
If you watch Golf, ...
If you watch Cycling ....

But if you watch Olympic archery, you can not imagine yourself doing same, and in any case you can not imagine to find it amusing. Entering an arena, shooting may be 9 arrows only and then if loosing, going home? Is the same reason why there are more people attending to marathones than to 100 mt races. 

And then:
- Compound is expensive but easy
- Recurve is expensive and difficult
- Bare Bow is cheap and easy
........


----------



## TER (Jul 5, 2003)

From Vittorio's numbers it looks like what has happened in Italy over the past ten years is that Olympic Recurve and Compound have each lost 100 archers to Barebow. John has always said OR will die if it goes out of the Olympics and I think he's right. I've never liked the idea of OR dying but reality is what it is whether I like it or not. It makes sense for Barebow to enter the Olympics to make the sport to grow exponentially in world wide popularity. Regular people see Barebow as a real bow. Not OR and certainly not Compound. Barebow has been making gains in the world based solely on its own charm despite not being in the Olympics and no hint of it having a chance to get into the Olympics. If OR is dropped from the Olympics and Compound goes in that will be another era of archery making slow steady gains in popularity (Compound and Barebow, OR dead) but it won't blow up. Barebow in the Olympics is what would make archery blow up because it's what regular people see as a real bow. 

When I switched from Barebow to OR (we called it Freestyle) in 1984 is was for exactly two reasons: #1 Freestyle was in the Olympics; #2 So many more competitors in Freestyle. The lack of Barebow competitors is now repaired. It gets more popular every year. The Olympics is the next step. 

Of course, predicting the future is just making guesses. Whatever happens will happen and then hindsight is 20/20.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

I never said I like the idea of OR dying, or that I want it to. Its the discipline I'm most competitive in when I shoot target archery - it's where I have the most natural ability. So I would lose that competitive edge if OR were to die, and once again (happily) join the ranks of merry barebow archers who struggle mightily to overcome unannounced TP that comes out of nowhere. 

Millennials seem to "get" barebow a lot more than either compound or OR. I think that bodes well for barebow. In our area, barebow has completely overwhelmed what little OR we had. In other areas, where there is more of an interest in the Olympic sport of archery, OR will persist up until the day it is replaced by the compound at the Olympic games and then you will hear a great sucking sound as all those OR rigs go on FeeBay in order to fund target compounds for the younger crowd (and their parents) with Olympic dreams or the occasional target barebow rig for the older crowd or those who don't have Olympic aspirations (or have parents who dream about their child being an Olympian).

As long as the Olympic Recurve, as we have known it since 1972, is still in the Games, it will always have a following. There is no practical reason for anyone to bolt a sight and TV antenna to their recurve otherwise.


----------



## j.conner (Nov 12, 2009)

Go Olympic Barebow! That would make sense if compound goes Olympic. You have the high tech gadget bow and the non-gadget bow, which is easy for viewers to understand and appreciate. With OR and compound, it would be modern gadget bow versus vintage 70s gadget bow.

I like Vittorios comment about compound = expensive/easy, OR = expensive/hard, barebow = cheap/easy but would add that barebow is hard to get good at. Barebow is like golf in this regard... many have seen it, done it, tried it, and readily appreciate the skill when it is done well.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

Well, I'm not sure rational analysis that factors in practicality gets us very far down the road. Just off the top of my head, Ensconced Olympic sports that have zero practical value and yet aren't going bye-bye anytime soon - pole vaulting, long jump, javelin, hammer throw, shot put, Olympic weightlifting, rhythmic gymnastics (especially after Will Ferrell's 'take on it in Old School), is anyone tracking the growth numbers in participation of precision air rifles (which is fascinating, but talk about zero practicality)?, ...

If Olympics switch from recurve to compound, it'll just mean more compound bows collecting dust in the closet or garage. It won't mean millions of avid dedicated compound shooters frequenting ranges and clubs and getting their competitive juices racing. And the Olympic committee's going to be sorely disappointed with viewership ratings of Compound competition - Nobody's going to fill up a stadium to watch a field goal kicking contest from 40 yards where both kickers hit 15 out of 15 attempts. 9 out of 10 compound owners/seldom shooters are strutting around seeing themselves as studs because they're in the 80centimeter yellow at 20yards (but knowing in their heart of hearts they're not studs, and have no intention of putting in the time and effort to become studs). Obviously there are myriad exceptions of archers who approach compound with the same zeal and professionalism as do committed recurvers (or, really, more accurately described as "clickists", because the CLICKER is the NUT that separates OR from ALL Other disciplines - it is the great separator and tormentor of the archery world). 

You can't predict future bridge traffic by counting the number of swimmers currently crossing the river. Recurve is HARD and has no practical value - but it is a romantic calling of the spirit, and is (when shot with the clicker) the great 'tester' of the archery world. It will always have its core practitioners and will ebb and flow with movies and cultural swings. 

Barebow in the Olympics would be a winner, though.


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

Elite is elite, and we will ever have elites doing elite sports. But recreational sport is recreational sport, and moves the numbers. My synthesis about Compound/Recurve/Bare Bow was related to attraction level as recreational sport, not surely about skills and dedication needed to reach the top, that in my opinion is identical among the 3 divisions. 

So, the weakest among the 3, in this regard, is surely OR. Using an extreme comparison, how many do you think will go on with Greek-Roman Wrestling if specialty will be excluded from Olympic Games? 

Personally I find Archery at Olympic Games as played today a boring casul nonsense from the sport point of view, but what OG require is colors, action, nice girls (here for sure we have to work a bit more) and drama. We give colors and drama, no one cares if by a Recurve, Compound or BB, unfortunately, and if 50 mt are better or worse than 70 mt or 90 mt or 18 mt... No one cares at IOC level because average occasional TV spectator will stay tuned to any minor sport no more than 4 minutes, and very few times only ... Not enough to really judge or even understand spectacle from the technical point of view. 

But getting new people to play our sport is a totally different matter...


----------



## TER (Jul 5, 2003)

limbwalker said:


> I never said I like the idea of OR dying, or that I want it to.


I never said you like the idea of OR dying. I said I didn't like the idea but my dislike doesn't change reality. I was just trying to give you props for seeing for many years what's going to happen. 

People think OR must be easy because of the sight and the stabilizers. We can explain to them that those bits of equipment don't help as much as they think. We can explain to them how difficult, and necessary to become competitive, it is to learn how to properly use the clicker. We can explain that the best OR archers make it look easy but it isn't, just like every other difficult to become good at activity. Until we are blue in the face we can talk about these things. Nobody cares. Sights and stabilizers are seen as crutches that must make it easy. We know that's not true but nobody cares. But a barebow archer shooting accurately is known to be great skill by everyone.


----------



## lees (Feb 10, 2017)

I'll take the contrary view, though mildly, about the idea that compound is "easy". I've written elsewhere about my personal experience with that, which is limited, but I'm not sure the compound is as "easy" as it may be thought to be. Like anything else, the best of the best compound shooters certainly make it look easy, but that doesn't mean that it is.

I would also cite as evidence that there are actually only a few more (and not 100s and 100s more) Sarah Lopez's in compound than there are OH, Jin Hyek's or Brady Ellison's on the olympic recurve. Part of why there are more is, I would argue, that there's simply more depth in the pool of shooters at the current time. And the reason there aren't a lot more, OTOH, I would argue is because the compound is not in fact "easy". Instead, by Occam's Razor, the more reasonable explanation is that the compound is in fact "hard", not easy, to reach an elite shooting level with. I'd argue that the scarcity of Sarah Lopez's or Sergio Pagni's has more to do with the effort, skill and determination required to get to their level on the compound than other factors. Otherwise, every Tom, Ron and Harry who picks up the compound would podium at the world cup at some time or another. 

That's putting aside the other criticisms of the compound (which I agree with in general) and just the general track of folks' feelings about shooting one vs the other. I agree and am not contradicting any of those points of view. And of course I'm not diminishing the recurve bow in any way either.

But I do think it's a slight exaggeration to label the compound as "easy", especially when it comes to getting really good at shooting it. As I wrote earlier, in my own compound shooting, it really snuck up on me in terms of going from "easy" to shoot to "hard". That was around the 295 mark in my scores and that was without a scope and freestyle stab setup. I shoot a 10" stab and a recurve sight ring only, on all my compounds, which made even the 295 level suddenly like a brick wall for me when I got there last year. 

That was just my taste of trying to get really good at it; it was enough for me to see how the increase in work was going to absolutely skyrocket if I wanted to get to the 300 level, especially without going to a scope (which I truly do not enjoy shooting) and a freestyle stab setup. 4 or 5 stinking points was, from my perspective at that time, literally years and probably 10's of thousands of shafts through the bow away....

lee.


----------



## Farfletched (Mar 6, 2018)

Compound at entry level is easier. It’s a more accurate bow that is easier to draw and aim for the average beginner and gives them the opportunity to put the arrow in the middle earlier and more consistently than OR which takes longer to master. This results in a higher retention rate of archers continuing with the sport.

At the highest level success comes only with talent, dedication and hard work. This is the same whether you shoot OR, Compound or twist a rubics cube. So your assertion that compound is not easier at the top level is also correct. But people don’t enter the sport at the highest level.


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

lees: What you’re forgetting is that for every Sara Lopez and Sergio Pagni, there are many other compound archers at the same level (especially in the US) who choose not to shoot WA events simply because there’s no money in it 

A single example of many - Chris Perkins, a WC world target champion and Vegas champion, who has passed on attending WA events in favor of money shoots in the USA. 

Compounds have several viable alternatives to WA, in IFAA/NFAA and the 3D organizations, which have little attraction to Olympic style.


----------



## lees (Feb 10, 2017)

Stash said:


> lees: What you’re forgetting is that for every Sara Lopez and Sergio Pagni, there are many other compound archers at the same level (especially in the US) who choose not to shoot WA events simply because there’s no money in it
> 
> A single example of many - Chris Perkins, a WC world target champion and Vegas champion, who has passed on attending WA events in favor of money shoots in the USA.
> 
> Compounds have several viable alternatives to WA, in IFAA/NFAA and the 3D organizations, which have little attraction to Olympic style.


I’m familiar with that assertion, but I’m going to have maintain my skepticism for the time being. It’s a little like the backyard champion argument (Lots of folks shooting at Sarah Lopez’s level in their backyards, but they don’t ever show up to beat her because they just don’t wanna), which is notoriously difficult to support with actual numbers and evidence.

I’ll give the benefit of the doubt tho, and agree that maybe it’s true in the case of compound. There definitely is a wider variety of playing fields available for compound and that may be masking the real numbers of Sarah Lopez’s out there.....

Lee


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

How real distribution of recreational archers develops in US, you can compare numbers of the 3 divisions at Lancaster classic and Las Vegas shot


----------



## SteelBuckeye (Jan 15, 2019)

I live in a city with over 1 million people. It is nearly impossible to find an Olympic recurve coach. I couldn’t even find an Olympic setup in my city. The one instructor couple I had charge $50/hour and they are too busy doing other things to schedule another lesson. I have tried twice and they seem interested but never follow through. I can get compound lessons in five different places all around the city any time I want. I would love to get to a level where I won’t be embarrassed in a competition but I don’t see myself driving 4 hours to get a single lesson. I feel like the mega stores (Lancaster) have killed the smaller shops and the coaches are collateral damage. Even the compound shops here are really gun stores that have a small section of hunting compounds.


----------



## Nick728 (Oct 19, 2014)

Competition is not for everyone & a few shooters I know that once participated in competition no longer do. If you're sponsored participating on any level is easier to continue. After being out of archery for a couple of decades I was amazed at scores locals thought were good. It's easier to pick up a compound and shoot a respectable A or AA score. Running with the big boys you learn pretty quick what you bragged about shooting isn't close to good much less good enough to compete. "Drop an X, put the bow away and go home". Competition isn't for everyone 
Today's mindset is that the more expensive the equipment the more "forgiving" it is to bad form. 
The top shooters shoot thousands of arrows a week under the watchful eye of the top coaches in the sport. Sponsors pay for everything unlike the rest of us in the real world. "OR isn't for everyone" & that's for darn sure. Watching old archery matches from decades ago one thing becomes obvious, the scores they shot with the less than stellar equipment, by today's standards, was nothing short of amazing. Today, once archery is no longer fun it's appeal gets lost very quickly. A lot of my fellow club members have given up the OR & the compound because a return to the simplicity of the wooden stick Trad bow, cost less, is more relaxing and more fun. Plus, unlike OR or competitive compound it's not another job you don't get paid to do. 
Nick
Without children coming into archery from schools they might get a bow to hunt with dad or not know the joy of archery at all. This forum is about FITA competition but we can see just how many are or were the competitors & how many recreational shooters & to some the difference matters. Make no mistake, this forum keeps archery alive, no matter how you see archery without community helping community archery would have died a long time ago. When all's said and done quality over quantity isn't so terrible. 
Nick


----------



## Bigjono (Apr 21, 2009)

I would say Olympic revive and K50 compound are the fastest growing classes here. Most kids are shooting Oly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Doughman (Aug 28, 2016)

What is it for the Olympic Games? It is only for the ultimate superior human to attend. You can always give it a try, a best of your ability. Do you have it? Either bows will do I think. Motorcycle race vs. bicycles race same difference; one gets there earlier than the other. That's all.

Hey, I just want to fill my 20 posts to qualify for viewing the classified Ads; my OR set up needs update.


----------



## Doughman (Aug 28, 2016)

*Olympic archery*

What is it for the Olympic Games? It is only for the ultimate superior human to attend. You can always give it a try, a best of your ability. Do you have it? Either bows will do I think. Motorcycle race vs. bicycles race same difference; one gets there earlier than the other. That's all.

Hey, I just want to fill my 20 posts to qualify for viewing the classified Ads; my OR set up needs update.


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

I do not think that we have to worry for anytime in the future that compounds are going to replace OR in the Olympics. I just don’t see it happening. I think barebow would have a better shot than compounds. IMO it would be like replacing bicycling with drag racing or NASCAR. I’m not saying that to become elite with compounds doesn’t require incredible work and dedication; but the biggest thing mission is the physical factor. The only thing physically difficult with compounds is holding up the bow with all that mass weight them guys and gals put on their bow. So IMO at an elite level the biggest factor and the primary factor of success with all other things being equal is mental. 

OR though is not just mentally demanding, but physically as well. Not only are you hold up a fairly heavy bow, but you are also holding 40 to 50lbs at anchor, and then trying to put your sight and hold it there while hold all that weight, but then you have to work through a clicker and a clean release as well. The difficulty of an OR physically vs a compound...well there isn’t any comparison, IMO. So with ORs it has a greater physical element than compounds, and I think that this fact is respected by WA and the IOC.

Also, from what I understand there is a very limited number of participants that the IOC allows at the Olympics from WA, and for compounds to get there pretty much they would have to replace the OR outright. 

Anyway, my 2 cents.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

One other thing, concerning the popularity of compounds in competitions in the USA is due, IMO, to having two, really three, archery organizations that cater to compound archers and provide actual money for placing, NFAA, ASA & IBO. The archery world in the USA can support 10 to 20 professional compound shooters, where we have only one or two OR archers who can make a living shooting. And that number of professional compound shooters is growing as the sport grows, where it isn’t in the OR class.

IMO for that to change the USA needs a organization that will provide tournaments that OR shooters can make similar money to the compounders. Here is where the rubber meets the road. The only thing that a young OR shooter can aspire to is getting to the Olympics. Where a young compound shooter can aspire to being one of those 10 to 20 professional archers.

Also there are a lot more compound archers out there getting sponsored, getting free stuff or at least heavy discounts on equipment, than there are recurve shooters. 

Before anyone points out that OR archers do win money in some of the shoots and that there is the resident athlete program, the money earned by OR archers is penny’s compared to compound shooters and the resident athlete program is nice and all that but if you want to have a life outside of archery I doubt it is easy to do as a resident athlete.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## BulletDrop (Jan 8, 2019)

I am looking for my first ilf recurve riser. Pm me if anyone has one that isn’t ridiculously expensive.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

There are some online at both Lancaster archery and Alternative archery.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

One thing that shocked me this year in Louisiana was the number of kids who shot OR in 4H shooting sports. Normally there is only about 4 or 5 OR shooter, but this year there was over 20! Don’t know why, but definitely happy to see it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## peanut_gallery (Mar 30, 2011)

I’m always surprised at the low amount of OR Senior shooters at tournaments in my area and at the large amount of juniors there are. I can understand it though. To be competitive you have to have the time, patience, and drive to train and hone your form and as adults it can be hard with all the responsibilities we take on. 

I shot traditional for about 5 yrs and was locally competitive and that community was amazing and their events were some of the best times I’ve had in archery. I don’t get that in OR but the mentality is also very different and from the outside looking in the traditional/barebow shooters are joking around and aiming at rubber ducks and playing cards and shooting arrows with big feathers while the OR shooters are wearing holes in the yellow which is impressive at first then monotonous. I watched Brady at this years Lancaster Classic and after 3-4 ends I had watched enough and gleaned as much as I could of his form and moved on. 

I’ve never spent so much time adjusting or tuning a bow and myself but that is also what I like about it because I’m a tinkerer and I’m always doing something to my bow. One of these days I’ll get my trad bow out and mess around but I’ll be focusing on OR for the foreseeable future. I’ve worked to hard to increase my average by 15 points since Lancaster to give it up anytime soon and I don’t feel like I’ve topped out, when I do then I’ll reevaluate. 






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## DarkLightStar (Apr 7, 2016)

Once Archerytalk decided to hide the classifieds behind a "registration-wall", it prevented smaller sellers from being able to promote their products to casual visitors. 

While this possibly helps curb scam artists, it also benefits the larger sponsors of the site in giving them the ability to promote their products outside of this "registration-wall." 

It's a pay-to-play model. It's their site, and they are certainly welcome to run it exactly as they see fit.

I'm very grateful to the customers I've made and met here, but it's not exactly a huge profit margin or a large archery community.

That's my theory and experience. Olympic Recurve is a passion and a wonderful subset of the broader archery community, but its a niche sport and quite expensive.

It's always going to be small. So embrace the tight family that we are. 

Things change. I was an officer at the Austin Archery club for a few years and I used to be regaled with stories about how large 3D tournaments used to be in the past. Weekly shoots of one hundred participants or more.

Now you can play on your phone all day and download aps and stay indoors and be entertained 24/7.

It's a different world. Lots of neat things about the changes we're all involved in, but something suffers. From what I'm seeing, participation in outdoor activities that involve regular training to be effective is one of them.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

SteelBuckeye said:


> I live in a city with over 1 million people. It is nearly impossible to find an Olympic recurve coach. I couldn’t even find an Olympic setup in my city. The one instructor couple I had charge $50/hour and they are too busy doing other things to schedule another lesson. I have tried twice and they seem interested but never follow through. I can get compound lessons in five different places all around the city any time I want. I would love to get to a level where I won’t be embarrassed in a competition but I don’t see myself driving 4 hours to get a single lesson. I feel like the mega stores (Lancaster) have killed the smaller shops and the coaches are collateral damage. Even the compound shops here are really gun stores that have a small section of hunting compounds.


Sounds familiar. You must live in the Southeast?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> I’m always surprised at the low amount of OR Senior shooters at tournaments in my area and at the large amount of juniors there are. I can understand it though. To be competitive you have to have the time, patience, and drive to train and hone your form and as adults it can be hard with all the responsibilities we take on.


I agree. Most parents are willing to subsidize a child who is interested in OR up until the point it is clear that child will never make an Olympic team. 

But a lot of people will continue to shoot compound as adults for a variety of reasons, primarily because it does not require as much regular physical conditioning to be somewhat competitive and enjoy shooting. You simply cannot lay off of the OR for a few months, then expect to enter a tournament and have any fun at all. That's not how OR works, and IMO that's also a big reason we don't see as many OR senior shooters compared to Juniors.


----------



## f_thomas (Oct 12, 2006)

Even on AT if you look at the number of threads in different archery styles OR is small by comparison.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

I'm not gonna spend all morning looking up national results on usarchery.org (most years they don't yet have 'results' listed for indoor nationals anyway. But in participation #s in 2013 and 2019 Indoor USA Nationals: 

Juniors Recurve: 2013 Male 48; Female 46
2019 Male 53; Female 70


Cadets Recurve: 2013 Male 118; Female 122; 
2019 Male 124; Female 170.

Cub Recurve: 2013 ... Male 61; Female 54; 
2019 ... Male 60; Female 72.


----------



## midwayarcherywi (Sep 24, 2006)

Larry, there are now mostly posts with assumptions and suppositions. Vittorio posted one small country's numbers. Your data jives with what I see locally and regionally. Numbers are up. Archery Talk FITA site participation is down. Oh well. That metric doesn't speak at all to Oly participation rates.


----------



## speedfirex (Jun 11, 2014)

rat4go said:


> I think there are more folks moving to other venues as well. Facebook groups more aligned with a specific shooting style (e.g. barebow) or region being one popular option.


I have to agree with this. If you check out facebook groups, there are many specific group catering to specific style. Some are much more organized, some are just plain out sucks.


----------



## xyren (Sep 10, 2018)

Also bear in mind that the world is slowly moving off desktop computers onto mobiles and tablets. Old school forums like this don’t have a nice user experience on mobile. There’s tapatalk, but other avenues like facebook still has a much better experience.


----------



## Skropi (Jan 1, 2019)

I will be honest. I love olympic recurve because I love everything related to archery and it happens to be the Olympic archery sport. If compound ever replaced it, I wouldn't follow suit, as I dont like compound, but I wouldnt have any problem switching to barebow, provided a small rules change, not allowing all the extra weight a barebow rig needs.
I guess everyone who likes recurve bows, wouldn't mind a change, if it didnt mean a switch to compound.


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

The original question was about Olympuic Recurve Community trend: increasing, decreasing or stable?

My interpretation was:
- Given 100% the number of the archers registers to any Archery Fedration in any given year, 
- is % of Olympic recuve archers increasing, decreasing or stable? 

Absolute numbers have nothing to do with the question, of course. 

It seems general opinion that Olympic archery is more an more related to young people only, while Senior and Master classes tend to be more Compound or Bare Bow(and Trad) orineted. So that trend percentage wise for > 20 is negative.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

USA Indoor Nationals (not JOAD) ...

Senior Recurve ...
Men ... 2013 - 98 ; 2019 - 163
Female ... 2013 - 64; 2019 - 153

Masters Recurve (50+ and 60+ divs combined) ...
Men .. 2013 - 67 ; 2019 ... 105
Female ... 2013 - 18 ; 2019 ... 44


My observations of adult competitors at local competitions and my range traffic doesn't really mirror these numbers, though. Incomings are primarily barebow and some compound (a small fraction of the compound bows being bought each year, because most purchased compound bows are never going to see competitions, just the woods that first Fall, and then the closet 11 months of the year), with just a very few new recurvers showing up at local stuff. 

So, who knows? 

Of course, if you count participation in the idiotic Archery Tag outfits, the numbers are probably booming. Gag.


----------



## Rael84 (Feb 22, 2016)

I've got the feeling that a fair portion of barebow shooters will move to olympic as they run out of things to buy for their barebow rig.


----------



## j.conner (Nov 12, 2009)

Rael84 said:


> I've got the feeling that a fair portion of barebow shooters will move to olympic as they run out of things to buy for their barebow rig.


Perhaps with younger folks, but most older barebow shooters I know are doing it deliberately and used to shoot something else.


----------



## hypernewbie (May 8, 2019)

Rael84 said:


> I've got the feeling that a fair portion of barebow shooters will move to olympic as they run out of things to buy for their barebow rig.


hahahahahah this makes my day


----------



## Propknut (Apr 8, 2018)

Bare bow is a rapidly growing segment of archery. I see it at my local range. 

At our local archery shop you can get an entry level bare bow setup for around $250 or an entry level compound setup for $500. They just put together an entry level Olympic recurve for $500 with no arrows or tab. It is not hard to see why fewer Olympic shooters are out there. 

For roughly the same price, the compound is faster, more accurate, and smaller. 

In my opinion it is not as satisfying to shoot. There is nothing like a good release and an arrow in the 10 ring. 

I am the UNICORN at my local range and my rig is in the $1400 range. That is a scary price for most people starting in archery.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

hypernewbie said:


> hahahahahah this makes my day


Anyone who would do this, was a BINO anyway.


----------



## PregnantGuppy (Jan 15, 2011)

Propknut said:


> Bare bow is a rapidly growing segment of archery. I see it at my local range.
> 
> At our local archery shop you can get an entry level bare bow setup for around $250 or an entry level compound setup for $500. They just put together an entry level Olympic recurve for $500 with no arrows or tab. It is not hard to see why fewer Olympic shooters are out there.
> 
> ...


See, my local shop would do the same thing. But for most people there was a pretty much unspoken understanding that the $250 barebow (usually Samick Sage or equivalent) was just a starter, and that they would eventually add more equipment to go to Olympic. Of course, this was not in the USA, so it might be a different situation there.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

PregnantGuppy said:


> See, my local shop would do the same thing. But for most people there was a pretty much unspoken understanding that the $250 barebow (usually Samick Sage or equivalent) was just a starter, and that they would eventually add more equipment to go to Olympic.


That is the pipe dream of a lot of recurve elitists within USArchery. I can tell you that. I've heard it so many times it makes me sick.


----------



## PregnantGuppy (Jan 15, 2011)

limbwalker said:


> That is the pipe dream of a lot of recurve elitists within USArchery. I can tell you that. I've heard it so many times it makes me sick.


Yeah, I can see that. To be clear, in my region it's not done out of any elitist attitude. If people want to shoot barebow, then they do, and that's that. But it just doesn't seem to be very popular, and there is next to no instruction for that style. So basically most people end up shooting a hybrid barebow/Olympic style, or go compound. Out of those that stuck to a non-compound bow, a few move on to Olympic, a few keep shooting recreationally, and most drop the sport eventually. Very few end up shooting barebow with any significant level of dedication. There really isn't a set path for people to shoot that style. Then again, perhaps it could be argued that barebow doesn't need coaching and instruction in the same way that Olympic and even compound do, so even with no organization to back it up people will still find their way to it. 

Either way, my point when replying to the original post was that we can't really use the bows people buy to determine which discipline is growing, since way too many people get the advice to buy a simpler bow to try out the sport without massive commitment. I know that I wouldn't recommend a beginner to buy a full Olympic rig with stabilizers and everything off the bat; even if they can afford it, I think it would be detrimental to technique to start with full equipment. So a lot of the "barebow" sales might actually be people who move on later to another discipline, people who stick through and keep shooting barebow, or (most likely, if we're a bit pessimistic) they just drop the sport altogether after a few months.


----------



## Skropi (Jan 1, 2019)

At least here, in Greece, olympic recurve is going strong as far as numbers are concerned. The only problem we have is lack of proper instruction.


----------



## Rael84 (Feb 22, 2016)

PregnantGuppy said:


> So a lot of the "barebow" sales might actually be people who move on later to another discipline, people who stick through and keep shooting barebow, or (most likely, if we're a bit pessimistic) they just drop the sport altogether after a few months.


I wouldn't expect many who start shooting barebow recurve to move to a compound (for target archery), unless they are really into shooting and something prevents them from continuing to shoot a recurve. I think the pool of barebow and olympic recurve target shooters has a lot of overlap.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

limbwalker said:


> That is the pipe dream of a lot of recurve elitists within USArchery. I can tell you that. I've heard it so many times it makes me sick.


Yeah, that happens so rarely as to be a statistical zero.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

PregnantGuppy said:


> Yeah, I can see that. To be clear, in my region it's not done out of any elitist attitude. If people want to shoot barebow, then they do, and that's that. But it just doesn't seem to be very popular, and there is next to no instruction for that style. So basically most people end up shooting a hybrid barebow/Olympic style, or go compound. Out of those that stuck to a non-compound bow, a few move on to Olympic, a few keep shooting recreationally, and most drop the sport eventually. Very few end up shooting barebow with any significant level of dedication. There really isn't a set path for people to shoot that style. Then again, perhaps it could be argued that barebow doesn't need coaching and instruction in the same way that Olympic and even compound do, so even with no organization to back it up people will still find their way to it.
> 
> Either way, my point when replying to the original post was that we can't really use the bows people buy to determine which discipline is growing, since way too many people get the advice to buy a simpler bow to try out the sport without massive commitment. I know that I wouldn't recommend a beginner to buy a full Olympic rig with stabilizers and everything off the bat; even if they can afford it, I think it would be detrimental to technique to start with full equipment. So a lot of the "barebow" sales might actually be people who move on later to another discipline, people who stick through and keep shooting barebow, or (most likely, if we're a bit pessimistic) they just drop the sport altogether after a few months.


I should have clarified my comment. What makes me sick is when people push Olympic on those who are perfectly happy (or will be) shooting competitive barebow, for their own personal reasons/biases. I saw and continue to see young archers and new archers get steered toward OR or away from barebow due to nothing more than elitist mindset, but luckily that is changing. I'm looking forward to the point when all three major disciplines are finally on equal footing.

There are a lot of reasons for folks to switch from one discipline to another, and I am glad we have choices. A lot of the time, people switch to solve a particular problem. Maybe not enough competition (as in the example you cite above) - that has also gone the other direction around here, where there is much better competition in the barebow ranks these days, so some folks who probably would otherwise have shot OR, just switched to barebow or focus on barebow because they can find a deeper competitive pool to jump into. Personally, I switched from barebow in '03 to OR to solve the problem of TP. When I learned the clicker would allow me to shoot the way I knew I could, I had to give it a chance even though I didn't want the sight and stabilizer and all the politics that came with OR. For some, the switch is to solve an injury problem. I've seen a lot of reasons and I'm glad we have choices. But the reason should never be because a person looks down on one discipline or another.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

IMO,

Mostly, the people who persevere at Olympic Recurve fall into one of two categories:
1) those romantic souls who wax joyous at the "heroic, noble 'cut' of the Olympic archer at full draw" and just thrill to be trying/participating in the same quest/vein (even if on a lower outcome level)
2) those personality types who, when his group is faced with a group of toughs, instinctively says "I'll take the big one" .... "Wow, this is going to be really physically and skillfully demanding and require years of consistent/relentless effort and discipline? Good, bring it!"

These two trait-types comprise a very small % of the overall population.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

lksseven said:


> IMO,
> 
> Mostly, the people who persevere at Olympic Recurve fall into one of two categories:
> 1) those romantic souls who wax joyous at the "heroic, noble 'cut' of the Olympic archer at full draw" and just thrill to be trying/participating in the same quest/vein (even if on a lower outcome level)
> ...


You missed one group...

3) Those young people who have figured out that they can continue to travel (and even live) on someone else's dime (parents, sponsors or USOC), visiting with friends all over the country and the world, so long as they maintain what appears to be a sincere interest and somewhat competitive aptitude in OR.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

limbwalker said:


> You missed one group...
> 
> 3) Those young people who have figured out that they can continue to travel (and even live) on someone else's dime (parents, sponsors or USOC), visiting with friends all over the country and the world, so long as they maintain what appears to be a sincere interest and somewhat competitive aptitude in OR.


Ah! You're speaking of course, of the "system manipulators" - a much larger % of the general population, and inclusive of our future leaders in politics, academia, and the media.


----------



## JByers (Jul 18, 2007)

The new projectile in archery is not an arrow but a bolt. In my neck of the woods, compound bow sales are bottoming while crossbow sales are booming. There are now 500 FPS crossbows. Crossbows have cranks to load and they are easier to shoot. Crossbows were once a part of the NAA competition.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

jjryan said:


> The new projectile in archery is not an arrow but a bolt. In my neck of the woods, compound bow sales are bottoming while crossbow sales are booming. There are now 500 FPS crossbows. Crossbows have cranks to load and they are easier to shoot. Crossbows were once a part of the NAA competition.


Crossbow is to recurve archery what commercial fishing trawlers/nets are to fly fishing. 

Crossbow isn't a part of the sport of archery. It's just a part of the commercial business of archery.

PS - for those who may not know this already, cross bows aren't 'new', they're just a newly reintroduced business niche for manufacturers. They suck as a sporting vehicle (quick, how quickly can I get bored practicing my crossbow?), and they suck as a weapon (erm, will I arm myself with my AR15, or my crossbow?) In the 14th and 15th Century, during the Hundred Year War, A LOT of Frenchmen holding crossbows died at the hands of English longbowmen. The killing range of the longbow was a hundred yards longer than that of the crossbows of the day. Slogging through the muck and a torrent of longbow arrows for a hundred yards before you get to shoot back was a tough morning. Much like the Apache Longbow helicopter with its 3mile radar/missile range against the Russian tanks' 2mile radar/missile range ... tough day for the tanks.


----------



## lees (Feb 10, 2017)

Actually, the crossbow goes back more or less into prehistory. Historically, it's been around as long as the regular stick-n-string and all around the entire world and I don't think it's actually known when it was originally invented and by whom (I may be wrong about that tho). But it has always been more of a siege type weapon for obvious reasons - slow loading times but able to store huge amounts of energy. 

Today, it's kind of the same thing. Still slow and cumbersome to load, but can store at least as much energy as a modern vertical bow. And maybe more if you get a really high poundage one. And of course, more like a firearm to shoot than a bow, so that particular skillset applies to it more than archery skillsets....

lee.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

lksseven said:


> Crossbow is to recurve archery what commercial fishing trawlers/nets are to fly fishing.
> 
> Crossbow isn't a part of the sport of archery. It's just a part of the commercial business of archery.


Don't let JimC hear you say that.


----------



## tunedlow (Nov 7, 2012)

limbwalker said:


> You missed one group...
> 
> 3) Those young people who have figured out that they can continue to travel (and even live) on someone else's dime (parents, sponsors or USOC), visiting with friends all over the country and the world, so long as they maintain what appears to be a sincere interest and somewhat competitive aptitude in OR.


Ah..the bankrolled club who don't have to worry about bills and PTO haha


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

limbwalker said:


> Don't let JimC hear you say that.


Rats! I guess I'm gonna be in the doghouse for 'not-the-first-time'.


----------



## Black46 (Oct 16, 2013)

lksseven said:


> Crossbow is to recurve archery what commercial fishing trawlers/nets are to fly fishing.
> 
> Crossbow isn't a part of the sport of archery. It's just a part of the commercial business of archery.
> 
> PS - for those who may not know this already, cross bows aren't 'new', they're just a newly reintroduced business niche for manufacturers. They suck as a sporting vehicle (quick, how quickly can I get bored practicing my crossbow?), and they suck as a weapon (erm, will I arm myself with my AR15, or my crossbow?) In the 14th and 15th Century, during the Hundred Year War, A LOT of Frenchmen holding crossbows died at the hands of English longbowmen. The killing range of the longbow was a hundred yards longer than that of the crossbows of the day. Slogging through the muck and a torrent of longbow arrows for a hundred yards before you get to shoot back was a tough morning. Much like the Apache Longbow helicopter with its 3mile radar/missile range against the Russian tanks' 2mile radar/missile range ... tough day for the tanks.


Oh man, I hope JimC doesn't read this!

Edit: LOL, I guess I should have read all the posts 1st


----------



## gratrat (Sep 9, 2018)

*Classifieds "20 posts" reqt is ridiculous*

My son is a JOAD recurve archer, shooting Gator Cup next weekend and SoCal a few weeks later. Churning through his second set of gear. Just spent another $500 on a riser on Ebay. I would love to buy gear from other archers on this site and sell some of my son's older limbs here but I don't have access to the classifieds section. Sadly, this type of restrictive policy really diminishes the utility of this site for us..






vlesiv said:


> There were a lot of discussions here at AT about a sad future of Olympic Recurve and focus switching to Compound archery
> 
> One thing that I observed is:
> 
> ...


----------



## Yukisaru (Jan 4, 2016)

The USA archery numbers and local range observations are a little bit of.a mix bag. 

5 years ago my local range was full of young JOAD Oly archers within 2 years they all went off to college and joined collegiate teams (which is inline with USA archery numbers). Now the 3 ranges to go to are full of trad bow and compound archers, with a growing number of horse bow style shooters.
The new JOAD Oly kids are really young, they're not entering outside tournaments yet and they have at least another 5 to 7 years until they sprout up into the collegiate ranks. That might explain why many people get the impression that Olympic archers are on the decline.

Personally, I've shot Oly and compound for decades, age has taken it's toll on my back and shoulders. Recently I've switched up to shooting trad bows along with physical therapy. Several of my aging archery compradres have followed suit. The lower mass weight of trad bows allows us geezers to keep on shooting.


----------



## spruis (Jan 15, 2015)

Vittorio,

I think the problem is with knock-out (_aka _single elimination) tournament. I suggest a more valid head-to-head tournament could be had by taking all of the survivors of the Ranking Round and lining them up on the field. Then #1 and #2 shoot off, #3 and #4, and so on. After six arrows (all could be shot in one end). The winder steps up the line and the loser steps down the line. Repeat this for X ends. Imagine the kinds of crowds who engage at the team rounds. Imagine a player clawing his way up from eight place to fifth to third to second with the crowd going wild. This could go on for a substantial amount of time, giving championship experience to all participants and compelling TV as favorites get knocked down the line and upstarts work their way up to a medal. (All ties settled by one arrow closest to the center ... quick like a bunny.)

This would put a great deal of importance on the Ranking Round (too far from #1 probably means "no chance to medal"). This would mean that the #1 archer couldn't be knocked out on a fluke. Currently if #64, say, beats #1 in the first round, they not only knock out #1 but they inherit that archer's place in the tournament bracket!

BTE ... Hi!


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

jjryan said:


> The new projectile in archery is not an arrow but a bolt. In my neck of the woods, compound bow sales are bottoming while crossbow sales are booming. There are now 500 FPS crossbows. Crossbows have cranks to load and they are easier to shoot. Crossbows were once a part of the NAA competition.


Our local Bass Pro shop archery department manager says the same thing; but for right now they are used primarily for hunting. I shoot crossbow with ASA and right now there aren't many that shoot crossbows competitively. Last year I was the only one, and this year there has been four of us who have shot at least one tournament.

Anyway I think it will start growing as people realize that a crossbow is an option to shoot at 3D tournaments, where in my opinion, go hand in hand with each other. Crossbows are not as easy to reload as a bow, so shooting 20 bolts with one in a 3D tournament makes the 3D tournament work for me. My biggest issue with 3D has always been the number of arrows. If I'm travelling outside my location for a tournament, I damn sure want to shoot more than 20 arrows. But I don't have the same problem with a crossbow. 20 bolts are perfect, and it is a different challenge than what I'm used to with my OR rig.


----------



## ScottieV (Mar 7, 2011)

I have 2 young daughters that I plan on getting them both shooting Olympic style. They are half Korean, so who knows...


----------



## >--gt--> (Jul 1, 2002)

vlesiv said:


> There were a lot of discussions here at AT about a sad future of Olympic Recurve and focus switching to Compound archery
> 
> One thing that I observed is:
> 
> ...



Using an observation about activity in the classified section of a dying website to correlate to the state of recurve archery overall is quite a bit like looking at your car's fuel tank gage approaching "E", and then postulating that the global oil supply is about to run out.

If you were to see the actual numbers from WA MA's, and global recurve equipment sales numbers, you would not be entertaining the basis of this thread.


----------



## vlesiv (Oct 20, 2013)

>--gt--> said:


> Using an observation about activity in the classified section of a dying website to correlate to the state of recurve archery overall...
> 
> If you were to see the actual numbers from WA MA's, and global recurve equipment sales numbers, you would not be entertaining the basis of this thread.


Agree, and I'm just a recreational archer, dont see a big picture. But still this thread turned to a very detailed open discussion of the overall state of recurve archery. We all learned a lot from all the smart people sharing their thoughts and observations ) 

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


----------



## cttomb (Aug 16, 2013)

I have been a compound shooter for years but I am starting my son off with a recurve with a JOAD team at a local club. I am hoping he sticks with it because I think it will make him a better shooter no matter the equipment. The issues I have is since I am new to Olympic archery the equipment choices are somewhat overwhelming. The lack of local shops and difficult to search internet stores makes entry into the sport both difficult and expensive. We are lucky to a have one reputable shop within an hour drive where he was able to try both compound and recurve and get him setup to start, not everyone has that.


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

lksseven said:


> Crossbow is to recurve archery what commercial fishing trawlers/nets are to fly fishing.
> 
> Crossbow isn't a part of the sport of archery. It's just a part of the commercial business of archery.


ASA, IBO and now the NFAA are changing that.


----------



## davek4591 (Mar 4, 2019)

vlesiv said:


> There were a lot of discussions here at AT about a sad future of Olympic Recurve and focus switching to Compound archery
> 
> One thing that I observed is:
> 
> ...


I got into olympic recurve about six months ago and went to all the archery shops in the midwest where I live (western Missouri and eastern Kansas) looking for equipment. It's all compound bows, maybe a couple of wooden recurves. Even the shop at the range where I take lessons sells all compound equipment, I think that I've seen two other olympic recurve shooters there. I haven't shot any tournaments so I'm not sure what the turnout at those is like. The kids taking lessons at the range learn on small compound bows and I doubt that they ever change if they stick with archery.


----------



## midwayarcherywi (Sep 24, 2006)

>--gt--> said:


> Using an observation about activity in the classified section of a dying website to correlate to the state of recurve archery overall is quite a bit like looking at your car's fuel tank gage approaching "E", and then postulating that the global oil supply is about to run out.
> 
> If you were to see the actual numbers from WA MA's, and global recurve equipment sales numbers, you would not be entertaining the basis of this thread.


GT speaks. It's been a while. 10, 10, 10!


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

vlesiv said:


> Agree, and I'm just a recreational archer, dont see a big picture. But still this thread turned to a very detailed open discussion of the overall state of recurve archery. We all learned a lot from all the smart people sharing their thoughts and observations )
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


Agreed. 

Smart people who are also willing to share that knowledge make this place much better.



> If you were to see the actual ... global recurve equipment sales numbers


Feel free to share that info anytime, if you have it.


----------



## Gregjlongbow (Jun 15, 2016)

National Outdoor Collegiate Championships had over 500 shooters this year. Quite a few of them were recurve and barebow. The trick for me is giving people more opportunities to compete. Granted it’s tough to out on a good tournament, but if people had more opportunities to shoot their expensive bows, it would be more fun and more people would do it! 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## hypernewbie (May 8, 2019)

FITA only hunting group.

Calling it, it's gunna happen


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

limbwalker said:


> Feel free to share that info anytime, if you have it.


We'll see that some time after we see Trump's tax documents.


----------



## Vince Price (May 22, 2014)

I have been an Olympic Style Archer since I began in archery as an eight year old in 1957. At that time you learned barebow first, and you couldn't wait until you could get a sight for your bow. At that time, an archer could go into any sporting goods store and view and then purchase the top of the line Bear, Hoyt, Ben Pearson, Damon Howatt, Colt, etc.

Today, the compound bow had a birth about the same as the mega sporting goods stores. For the most part these stores have salesmen who are not archery technicians, and it is easy to sell a compound bow for a hunter, than it is to setup and tune a competitive recurve bow. 

Another barrier to the growth of Olympic Archery, is the restrictions that Matthews has put on the Archery in the Schools Program. When youngsters are only exposed to one form of anything, their growth and choice is restricted, and impressionable minds of students are directed to something that diminishes their growth.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Vince Price said:


> Another barrier to the growth of Olympic Archery, is the restrictions that Matthews has put on the Archery in the Schools Program. When youngsters are only exposed to one form of anything, their growth and choice is restricted, and impressionable minds of students are directed to something that diminishes their growth.


I keep hearing that, and yet I wonder how many people realize the talent level of several current OR shooters who were NASP champions, including Mackenzie Brown.


----------



## Dodosaur (Mar 18, 2018)

I started out with Olympic Recurve and switched to barebow.

I wanted something to take outdoors and be practical and easy to carry. I also have a compound for hunting.

But in general I think there's a few reasons Olympic Recurve isn't as popular.
One is that the media tends to portray barebow shooting only. The vast majority of the people who got into archery because of media depictions aren't going to compete, but only a small percent of people have to stick with it to swing the numbers.
Two is that barebow has enough shooters now that there's really intense competition, and I'm sure some people look for that in a sport. In the past the only option for the most competitive people was OR.
Three is that compound bows used to be something that dedicated sportsmen and women - often hunters - spent time tuning and adjusting. Compound bows aren't that complicated to tune anymore, and are more adjustable and easier to learn than ever. If those people want to compete, it only makes sense for them to compete in compound. Plus it doesn't hurt that it's probably easier to stick with when you can outshoot even well-practiced recurve shooters at the range.

I do expect OR to continue to decline in popularity. Barebow was always pretty popular in Europe, and in the US compound is going to remain dominant because of hunting. But I also imagine Asia will stick to OR for a while.

Also, something I've noticed... at some of the ranges I go to OR shooters act pretty cliquey, and do things like hold up the line by continuing to shoot while everyone else is done. It's definitely not the majority, but it's also something I don't notice very often with barebow or compound shooters.


----------



## PregnantGuppy (Jan 15, 2011)

spruis said:


> Vittorio,
> 
> I think the problem is with knock-out (_aka _single elimination) tournament. I suggest a more valid head-to-head tournament could be had by taking all of the survivors of the Ranking Round and lining them up on the field. Then #1 and #2 shoot off, #3 and #4, and so on. After six arrows (all could be shot in one end). The winder steps up the line and the loser steps down the line. Repeat this for X ends. Imagine the kinds of crowds who engage at the team rounds. Imagine a player clawing his way up from eight place to fifth to third to second with the crowd going wild. This could go on for a substantial amount of time, giving championship experience to all participants and compelling TV as favorites get knocked down the line and upstarts work their way up to a medal. (All ties settled by one arrow closest to the center ... quick like a bunny.)
> 
> ...


The problem with this is that your method compared to the elimination system is like comparing bubble sort to merge sort. In layman's terms, it would take much too long. An elimination event for 64 archers requires 6 rounds (7 if you count the bronze medal separately), each of at most 5 ends, so 30-35 ends total, and at most 150 arrows shot by the winner. Importantly, every single archer in this method has a chance (however small) of making it to the finals. For your method to have the same property, you would need at least 63 ends. Your proposed ends are also 6 arrows instead of 3, adding more to the length. I'm not sure it would be possible to organize such a long event, and I'm also not sure how people would react to having to shoot 414 arrows for score.

I do like your idea overall, though. It might make for an interesting format for a fun shoot. But definitely not for that many people. Which is a valid option; just take down the field to 32 archers and now you only need 31 rounds and 212 arrows. But I don't think limiting the field that much is in our best interest. I'd personally rather see 64 archers in contention for a medal.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Spruis that's an interesting concept.


----------



## wheelistadlock4 (May 22, 2014)

All,

What an interesting thread. Thank you all for sharing your thoughts.

Archery is a very spectator-challenged sport at all levels. Only the participants can see the action (even then they need scopes and such). There may be an entertainment measure at some level that needs to be fed in order to keep interest up (doesn't matter if it's BB, CO, or OR).

I like the ideas of Vittorio, Spruis, and PregnanGuppy, kicking around ways to make OR competitions more engaging for a larger percentage of participants. They potentially also increase spectator interest. One can see how challenging it is to consider putting these good ideas into practice. 

This forum at AT provides a venue for such discussions, and this one is a great example.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

An unintended side effect (or collateral damage if you wish) of archery becoming much more mainstream is that many of the archers today who enjoy success will be buried in the standings by much more athletic, full time archers. 

Look at other popular sports that have spawned entire youth sports industries including teams of youngsters who travel all over the nation to "find" competition. 

There will be a direct correlation between the popularity of the sport and the cost for a child or adult to make USAT. At some point, not everyone who wants to, will qualify for Nationals. It's inevitable. 

Be careful what you wish for.


----------



## wheelistadlock4 (May 22, 2014)

limbwalker said:


> An unintended side effect (or collateral damage if you wish) of archery becoming much more mainstream is that many of the archers today who enjoy success will be buried in the standings by much more athletic, full time archers.
> 
> Look at other popular sports that have spawned entire youth sports industries including teams of youngsters who travel all over the nation to "find" competition.
> 
> ...


Well said. I am looking at it like Golf. I can't expect (nor did I ever expect) to be able to compete at Golf high levels equivalent to USAT. But Golf is big enough that everyone is able to enjoy it at their skill level. There are plenty of places to play, and lots of folks to play with, thus there is a tremendous interest in following various competitions, competitors and outcomes. Golfers have a readily available and easy access experience. This is how the sport overcomes the problem of participants being 'buried in the standings by much more athletic, full time' competitors. 

Unfortunately, Archery (OR in particular) doesn't currently have a population base large enough to offer that broad experience. Hopefully, it will grow into this model someday, resolving the whole question as to the future of OR (regardless of Olympic status). 

One of the biggest challenges I see is the lack of available venues for shooting. Young or old, novice or expert, you have to find a place where you can sling some arrows.

I think our forum, with threads like this one, inspire ideas on how we can address some of these challenges to benefit and sustain our sport.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Archery and golf are very similar in many ways, and if pro archers ever started competing for 1M checks you can forget having the chance to shoot on the same bale with them. That's always been one of the driving interests for many recreational archers in this sport - access to the pros and Olympians. Take that away, and it will be interesting to see how many recreational archers (the base) react. However if pro archers start competing for 1M checks, perhaps there will be a much larger base. It truly is a chicken or egg conundrum.

You would think though, that since archery has been around much longer than golf, that had it been interesting enough the masses would have figured out a way to make a viable pro sport out of it. They tried in the 60's and 70's but there are simply more interesting games to watch and play, and those got the market share. 

If the action after every single commercial break looks exactly the same (the way I view Basketball), then why bother sitting through all the ads?


----------



## rat4go (Apr 14, 2011)

But it's not like golf...I golf better with "golf sauce". 

While I have never tried, I am quite doubtful I would shoot better with the same pre-treatment.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

There is an element of luck and/or imperfection that is intrinsic to golf. It makes it interesting to watch ("Drama!"). It's the same with almost all spectator and participation sports (if luck or imperfection isn't present in some of them, then 'subjectivity' is, or 'risk')

There is no luck or subjectivity in target archery. Or in chess. The action of Target Archery happens too fast, too far away, and too invisibly. So for a few people (us, and them like us) it's impressive to watch; but for most people it's snoozeville. And if almost no one's watching, where're the $1M checks going to come from?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

rat4go said:


> But it's not like golf...I golf better with "golf sauce". [emoji481][emoji481][emoji481]
> 
> While I have never tried, I am quite doubtful I would shoot better with the same pre-treatment.[emoji848]


There is a reason alcohol is a banned substance for archery in the Olympics.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

lksseven said:


> There is an element of luck and/or imperfection that is intrinsic to golf. It makes it interesting to watch ("Drama!"). It's the same with almost all spectator and participation sports (if luck or imperfection isn't present in some of them, then 'subjectivity' is, or 'risk')
> 
> There is no luck or subjectivity in target archery. Or in chess. The action of Target Archery happens too fast, too far away, and too invisibly. So for a few people (us, and them like us) it's impressive to watch; but for most people it's snoozeville. And if almost no one's watching, where're the $1M checks going to come from?


Exactly.


----------



## PregnantGuppy (Jan 15, 2011)

limbwalker said:


> An unintended side effect (or collateral damage if you wish) of archery becoming much more mainstream is that many of the archers today who enjoy success will be buried in the standings by much more athletic, full time archers.
> 
> Look at other popular sports that have spawned entire youth sports industries including teams of youngsters who travel all over the nation to "find" competition.
> 
> ...


That's something that I have thought about a lot recently. I've had the chance to talk to a lot of Korean shooters lately, and I've come to the conclusion that if I had been born Korean, maybe I would have started in elementary school, shot until around middle school, but then I would have quite likely failed to make the team for high school, and I never would have seen a bow in my life again. In that sense, they're the extreme of the situation you are forewarning here. Regardless of how much I would have wanted to keep shooting and how much effort I put in, if the scores didn't show up at the right time I'd never shoot again. That's without even considering the costs, which is another significant factor.


----------



## dozy lizard (Mar 12, 2013)

Dodosaur said:


> Also, something I've noticed... at some of the ranges I go to OR shooters act pretty cliquey, and do things like hold up the line by continuing to shoot while everyone else is done. It's definitely not the majority, but it's also something I don't notice very often with barebow or compound shooters.


Cliquey I can't comment on, but hold up the line? Really? Do you use a clock?

It might depend on the event. At tournaments, in my experience, it is nearly always compound shooters who are last to finish, but hey, they are entitled to their 240 seconds or whatever. I'm an OR shooter and when I do club shoots, I am often last to finish even though I know I shoot pretty quickly, (compared to other tournament shooters) often using around half my allocated time.

My conclusion is that most club shooters haven't learned how to pace themselves. Nothign to do with compound vs recurve.


----------



## bobnikon (Jun 10, 2012)

rat4go said:


> But it's not like golf...I golf better with "golf sauce". [emoji481][emoji481][emoji481]
> 
> While I have never tried, I am quite doubtful I would shoot better with the same pre-treatment.[emoji848]


You might be on to something. I throw darts MUCH better with a top-up of _aiming fluid_.


----------



## PregnantGuppy (Jan 15, 2011)

dozy lizard said:


> Cliquey I can't comment on, but hold up the line? Really? Do you use a clock?
> 
> It might depend on the event. At tournaments, in my experience, it is nearly always compound shooters who are last to finish, but hey, they are entitled to their 240 seconds or whatever. I'm an OR shooter and when I do club shoots, I am often last to finish even though I know I shoot pretty quickly, (compared to other tournament shooters) often using around half my allocated time.
> 
> My conclusion is that most club shooters haven't learned how to pace themselves. Nothign to do with compound vs recurve.


I can actually agree with the original comment, and I say it as a OR shooter. In a practice range during free shooting, typically barebow shooters don't hold up the line since their style is usually fast, they don't tend to take long breaks between shots, and they don't have a fixed number of arrows they need to shoot. Compound shooters sometimes do, since they usually have the slowest shot sequence. But OR shooters tend to also have a relatively longer draw cycle, while some of them also take longer breaks between shots, and some of the ones into more serious competition will shoot a larger volume of arrows per end. So yeah, it's quite possible that they hold up the line. I've been the one to hold up the line many times because of this, but I always make sure that's fine with the other people in the range.

If you're in a tournament, then you have 240 seconds, and there's no arguing around that. But that's not the scenario that I think the original comment was considering.


----------



## j.conner (Nov 12, 2009)

PregnantGuppy said:


> That's something that I have thought about a lot recently. I've had the chance to talk to a lot of Korean shooters lately, and I've come to the conclusion that if I had been born Korean, maybe I would have started in elementary school, shot until around middle school, but then I would have quite likely failed to make the team for high school, and I never would have seen a bow in my life again. In that sense, they're the extreme of the situation you are forewarning here. Regardless of how much I would have wanted to keep shooting and how much effort I put in, if the scores didn't show up at the right time I'd never shoot again. That's without even considering the costs, which is another significant factor.


Great points, LW and PG! I got to spend a good amount of time with a bunch of KNSU archers and one thing they admired here is the recreational aspect of archery, that many shoot for fun only and that's OK. For them, there is essentially no recreational archery except for a few old men who shoot horsebow in the park. Too much competition could suck the fun out of it. It may be a cultural thing, though - with golf there is big money and stiff competition, but still plenty of recreational opportunities.


----------



## j.conner (Nov 12, 2009)

I think that field archery is more analagous to golf. A good walk spoiled. I like to say that field archery is the outdoorsman's equivalent of golf.

I also think that field archery would be more interesting than target archery on TV. Lots of diagrams and commentary illustrating the nuances of each shot, camera flyovers, beautiful scenery, etc., like golf on TV.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Still no question about what happens when the shot lands, or how that affects your next shot, so no, still not as good to watch as golf.

Golf is a great analogy for life itself, because of the cause and effect nature of every shot. This is one reason it enjoyed much more popularity than target archery despite being a much newer "sport."


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

Personally I think one of the biggest vacuums among the OR community is the lack of ambassadors for the sport on media. For example there are at least three active podcasts dedicated to compound archery competition in the US: Bowjunky, Archery Uncensored, Beecast; at least one active for trad/barebow: The Push; one that covers competitive archery for CP and OR: Easton; one that covers the whole sport: CAM; and zero that covers OR archery only. There is a lot more compound pro archers out there who are pushing the sport either through podcasts, youtube videos, and using other social media. There are a couple of barebow archers doing the same, particularly Mr. Demmer, but who is currently the ambassador(s) for OR archery? 

Here is the thing, you can't expect people to become interested in trying Olympic Recurve archery and possibly getting into it, if they don't even know something like OR archery exists, and what is so great about it. Here in America the general public sees archery as either what we know of as TRAD or Compound. The general public has no clue that OR even exists as a sport, and in many locations where archery is shot, unless you have an odd ball OR archer shooting local tournaments, even archers have no clue that OR exists.

In my opinion the biggest issue with growing the OR community is that our community is like one of those isolationist communities that shun outsiders and don't want anyone knowing about us and what we do. Barebow is growing because the barebow community proselytizing. OR community needs to learn from the BB community, if not in 10 years in the USA the OR community may become the third fiddle instead of the second one.


----------



## midwayarcherywi (Sep 24, 2006)

erose said:


> Personally I think one of the biggest vacuums among the OR community is the lack of ambassadors for the sport on media. For example there are at least three active podcasts dedicated to compound archery competition in the US: Bowjunky, Archery Uncensored, Beecast; at least one active for trad/barebow: The Push; one that covers competitive archery for CP and OR: Easton; one that covers the whole sport: CAM; and zero that covers OR archery only. There is a lot more compound pro archers out there who are pushing the sport either through podcasts, youtube videos, and using other social media. There are a couple of barebow archers doing the same, particularly Mr. Demmer, but who is currently the ambassador(s) for OR archery?
> 
> Here is the thing, you can't expect people to become interested in trying Olympic Recurve archery and possibly getting into it, if they don't even know something like OR archery exists, and what is so great about it. Here in America the general public sees archery as either what we know of as TRAD or Compound. The general public has no clue that OR even exists as a sport, and in many locations where archery is shot, unless you have an odd ball OR archer shooting local tournaments, even archers have no clue that OR exists.
> 
> In my opinion the biggest issue with growing the OR community is that our community is like one of those isolationist communities that shun outsiders and don't want anyone knowing about us and what we do. Barebow is growing because the barebow community proselytizing. OR community needs to learn from the BB community, if not in 10 years in the USA the OR community may become the third fiddle instead of the second one.


You are a verbal person, as can be seen in your comments. Once again 'You're it!'. The problem with waiting for someone else to do it is that it will not happen. If you see a problem you can address, fix it.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

erose said:


> Personally I think one of the biggest vacuums among the OR community is the lack of ambassadors for the sport on media. For example there are at least three active podcasts dedicated to compound archery competition in the US: Bowjunky, Archery Uncensored, Beecast; at least one active for trad/barebow: The Push; one that covers competitive archery for CP and OR: Easton; one that covers the whole sport: CAM; and zero that covers OR archery only. There is a lot more compound pro archers out there who are pushing the sport either through podcasts, youtube videos, and using other social media. There are a couple of barebow archers doing the same, particularly Mr. Demmer, but who is currently the ambassador(s) for OR archery?
> 
> Here is the thing, you can't expect people to become interested in trying Olympic Recurve archery and possibly getting into it, if they don't even know something like OR archery exists, and what is so great about it. Here in America the general public sees archery as either what we know of as TRAD or Compound. The general public has no clue that OR even exists as a sport, and in many locations where archery is shot, unless you have an odd ball OR archer shooting local tournaments, even archers have no clue that OR exists.
> 
> In my opinion the biggest issue with growing the OR community is that our community is like one of those isolationist communities that shun outsiders and don't want anyone knowing about us and what we do. Barebow is growing because the barebow community proselytizing. OR community needs to learn from the BB community, if not in 10 years in the USA the OR community may become the third fiddle instead of the second one.


As much as I have spent a lot of time and energy trying to believe and hope over the years that your premise is correct that "if only they are exposed, they'll respond and come running to become committed target archers", my anecdotal experience disagrees....

Out of two ranges and 3 or 4 weeklong summer camps each year, I've taught 1200 people how to shoot in the last 6 years. My JOAD club has about 25-30 active roster members, 15 range recurve bow of various makes and strengths for newbies and new club members to use and test drive for as long as they want, 24/7 access .... and about 11 of the club members actively compete at indoor competitions, and about 6 of them compete at outdoor competitions. That's it. 99% of the archers won't/can't sustain the commitment to training and remaining curious on 'how to improve', and 99% of the parents won't/can't sustain their resolve to support and nurture the kids that are committed and enthused. OR Target archery is a wonderful, engaging, fascinating thing, but also very much a demanding 'niche' thing. OR archers are recruited from something inside themselves - they are "Called", not texted. And not many are "Called".

But, maybe this "it is what it is" is just an anomaly around my state.


----------



## Draven Olary (Jun 12, 2016)

lksseven said:


> OR archers are recruited from something inside themselves - they are "Called", not texted. And not many are "Called".


I think this is true with all the "niche" sports. And I think something it was said but is not quite "finger pointed". If you are good at Golf you can make a living from it. It is not quite the case for OA on this part of the pond. For Koreans - at least based on my info - being OA it is a way of making a good living. Thinking that you might make a living from shooting a bow adds incentives and the pool will grow. Pragmatism beats wishful thinking.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

Draven Olary said:


> I think this is true with all the "niche" sports. And I think something it was said but is not quite "finger pointed". If you are good at Golf you can make a living from it. It is not quite the case for OA on this part of the pond. For Koreans - at least based on my info - being OA it is a way of making a good living. Thinking that you might make a living from shooting a bow adds incentives and the pool will grow. Pragmatism beats wishful thinking.


Respectfully, I guess it's my opinion that this sentiment is what is the wishful thinking. Other than Korea's cultural/national/historical archery anomaly, who else has a juggernaut program that is creating high money, high participation machines in their countries? The top 10 or 15 OR archers currently are a sprinkling of onesies and twosies from around the world - Turkey, Iran, Italy, France, Japan, Netherlands, China, Mexico (maybe not lately, maybe the women), USA (Brady and lately, Jack Williams). No big money lures that's pulling up zillions of participants and then automatically the studs by the dozens rising from this Borg in these countries. Just a few people with a gift and a love and a drive (and a little luck to be able to pursue/cultivate the first three). Always been that way, and doesn't look to change anytime soon. Archery has been successfully pursued and dominated and stayed competitive for over 50 years in the USA, arguably the richest, most capitalistic "money is one of the highest goals and will solve the fill-in-the-blank problem" country around, and yet "no juggernaut program, no big money showers" .... because virtually no one wants to go watch, or sit at home and watch, and then buy stuff being shown on the commercials. How's it ever going to be different? 

But, I'd love to see Jeff Bezos throw $20million in prize money/financial training support at US Archery and test the theory that money will magically make everything different.


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

midwayarcherywi said:


> You are a verbal person, as can be seen in your comments. Once again 'You're it!'. The problem with waiting for someone else to do it is that it will not happen. If you see a problem you can address, fix it.


Two things with that: 1) Hosting a podcast or doing interviews for various media requires someone who is respected in the industry, and someone folks would want to tune into to listen to. Right now I'm not that person, although I feel that I have learned a good deal about archery over my time as an archer and I do have something to contribute, I'm not someone who anyone would consider being respected in the industry. 2) I have a very demanding job already and between that job and my rehab time is not something I have a ton of. That being said if somewhere in the future those two things get corrected in my life, then I wouldn't have an issue podcasting.

Locally, at my level, I do consider myself as an ambassador for the sport. I do my part to encourage adults and kids to give it a try, and those that do, I give them whatever support I can offer. I also post here regularly and on the facebook sites as well. I have in the past wrote articles of encouragement for our state's NFAA website. So I do feel that at my level currently I am an ambassador of the sport.

IMO to have a national ambassador of OR that person, needs to be someone known and respected nationally, say for instance a former Olympian archer or coach. Me trying to be an ambassador of OR archery nationally would be a joke. For example if I tell you how to fix an issue you are dealing with and then Rick McKinney gives you a totally opposite method of doing so, which one are you going to pursue to fix your issue?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

OR is hard and expensive, which would be okay if there was a payoff short of the nearly statistically impossible Olympic medal.

When compound shooters see even mediocre archers get sponsorships and prize money at local and regional shoots, it's a no-brainer.

Barebow archery is not as physically demanding, not as expensive, and typically a lot more fun and a LOT less political, which is why we're seeing lots of folks who aren't interested in the compound game, gravitate toward barebow these days. 

But if some folks think OR is growing, then great! I hope they are right because that will only give more archers more opportunities.


----------



## Draven Olary (Jun 12, 2016)

Wishful thinking - like having more involved in a niche sport - is not directed to someone and is also my way of thinking. But the society changed and you have to push/educate the kids to enjoy outdoor activities. Archery is one of them, and OR requires even more from them and their parents.


----------



## Draven Olary (Jun 12, 2016)

lksseven said:


> Respectfully, I guess it's my opinion that this sentiment ... But, I'd love to see Jeff Bezos throw $20million in prize money/financial training support at US Archery and test the theory that money will magically make everything different.


Money will not make you better, but will increase the interest. How many kids are starting playing tennis thinking they are new "..." (insert known tennis player here) and how many become pros at the end? But with the interest due to that magical thinking "I can be next Wimbledon winner" you can find yourself with a lot of kids in the tennis courtyard. Winners begets winners - when the reward is also there, you have a big pool of candidates.

Just check the Lancaster BB shooting. Started with local archers and this year the winner was an Australian who came to shoot and got a free visit to USA and some spare change - based on the $ amount he received. $6000 for a couple of days of "work" is not bad. To say something about the prizes the compound shooters win in big competitions like Vegas?
You can't hunt with an OR, this is the other issue - hard to attract some interest from the hunters side


----------



## Draven Olary (Jun 12, 2016)

PS An "s" too many there.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Draven Olary said:


> You can't hunt with an OR, this is the other issue - hard to attract some interest from the hunters side


This comment gets to something I've said for years - that there really is only one practical use today for the OR (Olympic-style competition) and without the Olympics the OR would die very quickly. 

It's not a big stretch for a compound shooter to shoot a compound target setup. It's not a big stretch for someone who hunts or shoots 3-D with a traditional recurve to shoot target barebow.

But it is quite a leap from either of those two more common styles, to OR - particularly when you introduce a clicker. I've seen clickers make grown men and women cry. Fact is - without a clicker you're never going to be competitive. Fact is also that that little piece of spring steel is what keeps a lot of folks from shooting OR recreationally because it doesn't allow you to take breaks away from training.

Now, a little known secret is that that little piece of spring steel could also be what resurrects someone's shooting who is currently struggling with TP in the barebow division. Ask me how I know this.


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

lksseven said:


> Respectfully, I guess it's my opinion that this sentiment is what is the wishful thinking. Other than Korea's cultural/national/historical archery anomaly, who else has a juggernaut program that is creating high money, high participation machines in their countries? The top 10 or 15 OR archers currently are a sprinkling of onesies and twosies from around the world - Turkey, Iran, Italy, France, Japan, Netherlands, China, Mexico (maybe not lately, maybe the women), USA (Brady and lately, Jack Williams). No big money lures that's pulling up zillions of participants and then automatically the studs by the dozens rising from this Borg in these countries. Just a few people with a gift and a love and a drive (and a little luck to be able to pursue/cultivate the first three). Always been that way, and doesn't look to change anytime soon. Archery has been successfully pursued and dominated and stayed competitive for over 50 years in the USA, arguably the richest, most capitalistic "money is one of the highest goals and will solve the fill-in-the-blank problem" country around, and yet "no juggernaut program, no big money showers" .... because virtually no one wants to go watch, or sit at home and watch, and then buy stuff being shown on the commercials. How's it ever going to be different?
> 
> But, I'd love to see Jeff Bezos throw $20million in prize money/financial training support at US Archery and test the theory that money will magically make everything different.


I'm not sure if money would attract a lot more archers to OR archery, but what money would do is allow for more young promising elite archers to keep archery as their focus and thus reach their potential. It would be hard IMO to have a non-archery related job and a family, and be able to put in the time to become an elite archer. Right now it seems that there is only enough money in OR in the US to support one or two archers. What if there was enough money in the sport to support five or ten truly professional archers? This would be IMO a game changer for US archery on the World Stage, right now the USA rolls out one Professional and two amateurs at all the World competitions to compete against professional archers from all over the world. It is no wonder that the only US archer that fairly frequently stands on the podium is the professional one.


----------



## Draven Olary (Jun 12, 2016)

limbwalker said:


> Now, a little known secret is that that little piece of spring steel could also be what resurrects someone's shooting who is currently struggling with TP in the barebow division. Ask me how I know this.


I don't think I have to ask. A Coach has to do what he has to do  Repairing the way of thinking starts with the mechanical part.


----------



## midwayarcherywi (Sep 24, 2006)

erose said:


> Two things with that: 1) Hosting a podcast or doing interviews for various media requires someone who is respected in the industry, and someone folks would want to tune into to listen to. Right now I'm not that person, although I feel that I have learned a good deal about archery over my time as an archer and I do have something to contribute, I'm not someone who anyone would consider being respected in the industry. 2) I have a very demanding job already and between that job and my rehab time is not something I have a ton of. That being said if somewhere in the future those two things get corrected in my life, then I wouldn't have an issue podcasting.
> 
> Locally, at my level, I do consider myself as an ambassador for the sport. I do my part to encourage adults and kids to give it a try, and those that do, I give them whatever support I can offer. I also post here regularly and on the facebook sites as well. I have in the past wrote articles of encouragement for our state's NFAA website. So I do feel that at my level currently I am an ambassador of the sport.
> 
> IMO to have a national ambassador of OR that person, needs to be someone known and respected nationally, say for instance a former Olympian archer or coach. Me trying to be an ambassador of OR archery nationally would be a joke. For example if I tell you how to fix an issue you are dealing with and then Rick McKinney gives you a totally opposite method of doing so, which one are you going to pursue to fix your issue?


You presented a perceived problem and a solution. Waiting for someone else to address it is not effective. If you are not 'Rick McKinney', get a Rick MicKinney, or equivalent, (Yes Rick, I know you are peerless) to advance your cause. You see, you don't have to be 'that person'. You need to create the structure and pull the levers. A wise man once told me never to volunteer someone else, but to pick up the slack and complete the task.


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

midwayarcherywi said:


> You presented a perceived problem and a solution. Waiting for someone else to address it is not effective. If you are not 'Rick McKinney', get a Rick MicKinney, or equivalent, (Yes Rick, I know you are peerless) to advance your cause. You see, you don't have to be 'that person'. You need to create the structure and pull the levers. A wise man once told me never to volunteer someone else, but to pick up the slack and complete the task.


I get what you are trying to do, but here is the thing: if everyone who had a good idea, but not the means to carry it out, stayed silent; then how many good to great ideas would have never came to fruition? Maybe what I wrote will inspire someone more qualified than I to start a OR specific podcast. Who knows?

When you look at the archery podcasts out there, that have been successful, they all have one thing in common: they are all hosted or co-hosted by a professional or formerly professional archer(s). The only one that one can question is "The Push" podcast, but I believe that at least one of the hosts for that podcast works at Lancaster (thus he works in the industry) and is respected in the Barebow/Trad community. Again I'm not qualified. It may be different if I had a personal relationship with one of the great ones, and we co-hosted the podcast, but I do not have that. Podcasts to be successful with co-hosts need to have some chemistry between them. Hard to have that with a stranger, right?

One of the things I do have in the works is a website dedicated to Olympic Recurve archery, which I was hoping to make this happen this year; but this year has been a hell year for me for multiple reasons, and it got kicked way down the list of to-do things. Heck I haven't even competed in a single tournament this year with my OR rig because I'm still rehabbing from a serious illness from the beginning of the year, so I'm not even sure one could even call me a competitive archer at this time. See what I'm saying here. 

Anyway, just because some perceives a problem, and is able to give a possible solution to that problem, doesn't always mean that that person is the best person for the job, which I'm not. Who knows maybe someone who is qualified picks up the idea and runs with it. Maybe not.


----------



## >--gt--> (Jul 1, 2002)

Draven Olary said:


> You can't hunt with an OR


Clearly, you don't know Vic Wunderle very well.


----------



## Draven Olary (Jun 12, 2016)

I might not know Vic Wunderle hunting habits, but spot and stalk hunting in the brush with full OR rig is not his doing. If you are hungry enough, you will go hunting with what is available; but if you are not, there are better options than OR for this. I am still looking for a 70 yards ethic hunting distance rule in the bow hunters community. But I might not find it even if in not quite old times, shooting an animal 70 yards away was not a moral problem.
But we digress.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

I have known Vic and his family for a while, and know him pretty well. Just had lunch with him 2 weeks ago in fact. 

No, he does not hunt with a full OR rig and if he did, it was not more than once and that was only as a curiosity despite what anyone might suggest. He did tell me he's taken a deer or two with A/C/E's and he hunted with an old GM riser a few times but again, only because he had extras and it was a curiosity. Vic hunts with a compound, just like most guys who compete with the OR. This is actually something he and I have talked about more than once (because I expected more elite recurvers to hunt with, well, recurves). Being a long-time traditional bowhunter that's something I personally have never understood, but it is what it is. That being said, he and any other Olympian could hunt with whatever bow they wanted and still be successful. I'm not really sure what it has to do with the topic or why Vic's name was brought up other than to name-drop.


----------



## tassie_devil (Aug 15, 2018)

_Archers are recruited from something inside themselves - they are "Called", not texted. And not many are "Called"._

Spot on. The moment I did a bit of archery on holiday I know I was hooked and answered my call. Although the way I shoot, I think I was a wrong number....:sad:


----------



## Speedly (Jan 23, 2019)

tassie_devil said:


> _Archers are recruited from something inside themselves - they are "Called", not texted. And not many are "Called"._
> 
> Spot on. The moment I did a bit of archery on holiday I know I was hooked and answered my call. Although the way I shoot, I think I was a wrong number....:sad:


As long as your main focus is safety and fun, who cares? Fun is the name of the game!


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Speedly said:


> As long as your main focus is safety and fun, who cares? Fun is the name of the game!


Fun is the name of the game until you choose to make a living shooting a bow, or manufacturing and selling archery equipment.


----------



## Fly2High (Feb 25, 2019)

To me, these are reason why archery, not just Olympic archery is declining:

1. Cost. It is too expensive.
Archery is just like golf or R/C sailplanes and airplanes. It needs a dedicated space that cannot be used for other things. Space is expensive. In NY, if it isn't one of the big sports(football, baseball, soccer, basketball, etc.), space is just not allocated and maintained. there are plenty of golf course in NY though. Too bad we cannot use a hole or two while they are repairing or resting them. In my area it is even illegal to fire a bow in your backyard. 

I am currently looking at a barebow setup and that will exceed $1000. A tidy sum that is leaps and bounds more than is needed to get a kid into a major sport. With the advances in technology, the basic equipment is rather expensive to purchase for a child or adult. This is just like DLG (discus launch gliders). At first, a $300-400 plane was enough to compete. You could even make your own for under $100. Now, you need a $1000+ plane made from molds and such to get to that nitty griddy level of performance. It just cost too much to buy several planes in order to compete. Should a set of limbs really cost what they cost? even with the rising cost of carbon fabric ($50 sq. yd), a set of limbs should still be under $60 - 70 for a carbon/foam limb. I get they need to cover R&D and advertising but should they cost in excess of double?OK maybe $300-400 should be the max. With off shore labor added in, the price should be much lower. Instead, we are pricing ourselves out of the market. Is archery just a rich man's folly? 

It is expensive for town's to provide archery space, for clubs to purchase land and the equipment for the individual to own is all expensive. Add in the fact that you have an expensive hobby that requires someone else to provide a venue to do this hobby and I find it difficult to part with funds when there isn't a certainty the space will continue to exist. 

2. stigma against hunting
In my area, we have 1 in 7 play golf but far, far less hunt. Everyone's food magically arrives at the grocery store. No animals were hurt in producing the beef, pork and chicken products. Yeah Uh huh.. People are removed from hunting and associate all fire arms with a negative stigma. Again, it is NY or at least downstate liberals. I seriously doubt any money is ever sent to promote these kinds of things and people associate guns and weapons with terrorists, organized gang violence and bad things. They do not want their children associated with them so archery takes it on the chin. 

3. no local school involvement 
When I graduated from HS in the late 80's, we worked to bring back a rifle team. Some schools even had their own guns and ranges. I do not believe that shooting is offered in a gym class nor as a team sport much. Yeah, I get it with all the school shootings and all, why would you want to teach kids how to respect others and weapons. I am sure a procedure could be worked out to bring guns and lock them up to keep everyone safe. OK, forget about a rifle team, how about an archery team. I am not aware of any on Long Island in the schools. If kids can experience archery in the schools with school provided/supplemented equipment, that might get the seed started earlier. With all the complaints that our school have a lack of funds, I can see this idea being challenged. Maybe they should stop overpaying their administrators with exuberant salaries and instead fund the school, the students and the teachers and accept what remains instead. Put the money into the kids, not into having competitive salaries to lure the top administrators. OK, off that soapbox but my point is, if they wanted to fund a program, they can find a way. Sacrifices can be made. We use to do so much more before with so much less. 

4. Competition proximity and exposure -
When I talk about competitions, I am talking about the ability, on a whim, to go see a local high school, JOAD or adult competition. To me the first issue is finding where they post them. Newsday (local newspaper) publishes a Fun Book and I never see any listing for competitions in it, nor its sports pages. Why? With the internet, why isn't there a single place where every archery competition is listed? For myself, I tend to find that exposure seems to be more of a distant thing and if you do not get exposure, why would someone want to join in that endeavor. Why do we hide when we have meets be it local, club, regional or national? I stumbled on a regional indoor competition at a Queens range on accident. Why isn't there a governing body who is looking to promote ALL archery events? Oh wait there is but, in my opinion, they are not getting us enough exposure. When Hunger games and Avengers came out, we got an influx of archers because kids saw them as interesting and fun. By hiding, we are killing ourselves.


----------



## Nick728 (Oct 19, 2014)

limbwalker said:


> Fun is the name of the game until you choose to make a living shooting a bow, or manufacturing and selling archery equipment.


Two words that can screw up perfectly pleasant pastime sports, professional & expensive. Even fishing was fun until the cane rod & worm needed an upgrade & became a billion dollar business. 
Nick


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Nick728 said:


> Two words that can screw up perfectly pleasant pastime sports, professional & expensive. Even fishing was fun until the cane rod & worm needed an upgrade & became a billion dollar business.
> Nick


It all depends on who you ask. With the advent of "professional" bass fishing tournaments in the 70's and 80's, a lot of folks took recreational fishing and turned it into a competition. That competition grew and grew, and now supports thousands of pro, semi-pro and weekend club anglers who compete for a lot more money than all archery worldwide combined. There are now more college and high school fishing teams and clubs than I would have ever imagined 30 years ago. 

There is so much merchandise (boats, motors, rods, reels, tackle, accessories) to sell to fishermen - and more yet to sell to "competitive" fishermen, that the manufacturers created the market they now benefit from. 

I know quite a few guys and gals who think fishing tournaments are more "fun" than the recreational fishing the rest of us do. So, it just depends on how you look at it and what you want out of the sport.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

Fly2High said:


> To me, these are reason why archery, not just Olympic archery is declining:
> 
> 1. Cost. It is too expensive.
> Archery is just like golf or R/C sailplanes and airplanes. It needs a dedicated space that cannot be used for other things. Space is expensive. In NY, if it isn't one of the big sports(football, baseball, soccer, basketball, etc.), space is just not allocated and maintained. there are plenty of golf course in NY though. Too bad we cannot use a hole or two while they are repairing or resting them. In my area it is even illegal to fire a bow in your backyard.
> ...


Agree with much of this (maybe all of it).

How long do you think K-12 football would continue to thrive if for each practice and game, the parents and coaches had to go get the goal posts out of the storage facility/building and drag them to each end of the field and then lever them up and into the ground, and then after the game have to do the reverse? About 1 practice would be the limit.

Same thing with basketball - go drag the support beams and backboards and hoops from the storage building and the ladders needed to mount and bolt everything in place, for each practice and each game. Basketball would be toast in a couple of hours.

For most archery outdoor practices or tournaments, the above is what has to happen, though. The logistics are HARD and EXHAUSTING, and therefore only happen a few times a year. How nice to have an outdoor archery facility permanently installed where you could have weekly competitions all Spring and Summer and Fall (like you can a bowling alley). So, we're dependent on a few die hards and go getters to do the heavy lifting and logistics, and they've only got so much gas in their tank. 

No real solution for that (land is expensive, many city counsels are freaked out by the 'weapon' aspect of it (so much easier to pour some concrete and put up some more basketball goals (without nets, which gags the experience), or better yet drill a few holes on the edge of existing public tennis courts and throw up some basketball backboards. A $30 basketball and 8 or 10 kids are in business.

Target archery is never going to be a mainstream sport in this country. And NASP isn't the answer, as long as they're restricted to the Genesis bow and the short distances/big targets indoors. The number of kids who transition from NASP experience to outside-the-school and outside the building recurve/barebow competition is statistical 0.00something Pipedream - NASP converts to recurve barebows and kids are taught proper form (like in Korea) for years before anyone starts keeping score or cares .... it's all physical fitness and form/form/form. So kids are conditioned/indoctrinated to the feel/technique/geometry/possibility of the recurve bow, so they're not totally intimidated by it (as 98% of them are) and that intimidation dissuades the curiosity some of them have (said curiosity rarely being nurtured by the teachers involved in the NASP program).


----------



## Nick728 (Oct 19, 2014)

limbwalker said:


> It all depends on who you ask. With the advent of "professional" bass fishing tournaments in the 70's and 80's, a lot of folks took recreational fishing and turned it into a competition. That competition grew and grew, and now supports thousands of pro, semi-pro and weekend club anglers who compete for a lot more money than all archery worldwide combined. There are now more college and high school fishing teams and clubs than I would have ever imagined 30 years ago.
> 
> There is so much merchandise (boats, motors, rods, reels, tackle, accessories) to sell to fishermen - and more yet to sell to "competitive" fishermen, that the manufacturers created the market they now benefit from.
> 
> I know quite a few guys and gals who think fishing tournaments are more "fun" than the recreational fishing the rest of us do. So, it just depends on how you look at it and what you want out of the sport.


Perception is everything. Seeing the world of We being replaced by Us and Them is more common theses days. Asking a compound shooter about “those recurve guys” is alway fun at the club. Asking trad or OR guys about compounds or crossbows even more so. The kid that just wants to catch a catfish or wants to rove with a bow today doesn’t have the same experiences, opportunity or expectations many of us enjoyed. The simple pleasures I’ve enjoyed I guess were generational perceptions. The real question is, how many of us still see archery as a community. Has equipment diversity helped or hurt archery? Naturally the answer is: it depends on who you ask. 
Nick


----------



## Scott_cr (Oct 22, 2015)

Does ArcheryTalk have a forum specific to OR? From the description the FITA forum is more about clubs and organization of events. I joined AT several years ago as a compound shooter and received tons of useful help from fellow archers regarding setup, tuning, equipment selection etc. About a year ago I wanted a new challenge and traded one of my compound setups for a high-end OR. It's been a fantastic growth experience, but I haven't found here on AT the same level of community support that was overwhelming for compound... for example where would I post a question like vane contacting shelf after following tuning for tens guidelines or something like that. Searches on specific questions in google generally take me to ArcheryInterchange which is good, but on the wrong side of the ocean... any recommendations here?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Scott_cr said:


> Does ArcheryTalk have a forum specific to OR? From the description the FITA forum is more about clubs and organization of events. I joined AT several years ago as a compound shooter and received tons of useful help from fellow archers regarding setup, tuning, equipment selection etc. About a year ago I wanted a new challenge and traded one of my compound setups for a high-end OR. It's been a fantastic growth experience, but I haven't found here on AT the same level of community support that was overwhelming for compound... for example where would I post a question like vane contacting shelf after following tuning for tens guidelines or something like that. Searches on specific questions in google generally take me to ArcheryInterchange which is good, but on the wrong side of the ocean... any recommendations here?


This is as close to an OR forum as you'll find. It's not the old Sagittarius Archery Blackboard, but then nothing is.


----------



## Scott_cr (Oct 22, 2015)

Thanks LimbWalker! I have found/read lots of your posts and they have been very helpful. All the best, s.


----------



## BulletDrop (Jan 8, 2019)

Still looking for a riser


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## BrandonMReeves (Dec 27, 2016)

I've been meaning to post up on this question, as I've had a recent interesting experience. Like most of us, I'm also part of various archery groups on other social media platforms. I recently shared to two different archery groups a post from a Midwestern university promoting that they had unfilled scholarships for the next school year for qualified archers. On an Olympic Recurve group, I received 130 views, but only 1 comment and just 3 interactions (likes). Sharing the same post to a Target Archery group, the number of views were not shown, because the number of interactions and comments was so significantly greater, with 26 comments and 1 share, plus 128 interactions (likes, loves, laughs).

I found it interesting the difference between the two groups and how they received and interacted with the shared post, which is one of the great reasons to be on social media. On the Olympic Recurve group, I've been feeling like I am only one of a handful of people even posting here lately, whereas the Target Archery group has several dozen archers participating regularly, with multiple times the output of posts compared to the OR group. I don't know that this exactly extrapolates into a decline in OR shooters, but there is a distinct lack of participation from this group through other channels, so it is being felt elsewhere, and not just here on AT.


----------



## s.r.patten (Sep 29, 2018)

Like a lot of people have said, I think a big issue is cost. Even a basic setup with average arrows will set you back quite a bit, not to mention the cost of participation in events and travel etc. There's also the issue of equipment availability. You can't just walk into an Academy Sports store and buy an OR setup. When I first started out I didn't know about Lancaster or AT so I went to a local range to see what my options were and they had compound and hunting equipment and that's about it. Luckily I found a club that introduced me to OR and I've been hooked ever since.


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

s.r.patten said:


> Like a lot of people have said, I think a big issue is cost. Even a basic setup with average arrows will set you back quite a bit, not to mention the cost of participation in events and travel etc. There's also the issue of equipment availability. You can't just walk into an Academy Sports store and buy an OR setup. When I first started out I didn't know about Lancaster or AT so I went to a local range to see what my options were and they had compound and hunting equipment and that's about it. Luckily I found a club that introduced me to OR and I've been hooked ever since.


Cost hasn’t affected the numbers of Compound Freestyle shooters at all. And the same thing with them, nothing they use can be found at a local Academy or Bass Pro, and it’s hard as all get out to find a Proshop that caters to these archers albeit they are more prevalent than those that cater to OR if there is such a thing. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## lees (Feb 10, 2017)

erose said:


> Cost hasn’t affected the numbers of Compound Freestyle shooters at all. And the same thing with them, nothing they use can be found at a local Academy or Bass Pro, and it’s hard as all get out to find a Proshop that caters to these archers albeit they are more prevalent than those that cater to OR if there is such a thing.


For what it may be worth, the cost factor has been around ever since the bow and arrow started being sold for a profit. I don't know how long ago that is, but it's been a while. 

And today it has about the same effect on participation as always. Folks with more money frequently (but not always) tend to shoot the more expensive gear and similarly for those with less. That's about the only generalization you can make about it.

As for olympic style's cost compared to compound: my observation is that from a pure shooter's perspective it's generally a little cheaper. From a DIY perspective, olympic is significantly, maybe even hugely, cheaper. I'm thinking here in terms of making your own gear where desirable and keeping it up. 

Namely, the compound bow is somewhere between significantly more, and a hell of a lot more, expensive to DIY:

- the bow itself has many more moving parts to fail or wear out or go out of adjustment from time to time.
- it requires significantly more tooling to setup and maintain - a press being the most expensive, and then on down for general maintenance tools,
- it's shot with a release aid which also has moving parts that sometimes fail and need replaced, etc. Releases themselves can cost twice as much as a tab, or an order of magnitude more if your tab is just a piece of leather.
- making strings/cables for a compound is a different ballgame altogether, requiring a more complicated and expensive jig and a hell of a lot more training for the string maker. If that string maker also happens to be you the shooter, the time it takes away from your shooting is huge in comparison. 
- arrows can be a little more expensive, especially if you shoot different disciplines (outdoor, field, 3D, indoor, etc). You tend to have several different shafts that you shoot for each one. 

Finally, planned obsolescence is a much larger problem on the compound bow than for the olympic bow. There have been threads on this in the past, so won't go into the details on that here. But it is a factor in the cost, when you finally have to replace a bow but it's no longer made and supported by the manufacturer.

Anyway, that's just to try to inoculate the thread from the cost argument . But it is true, in my experience, the the compound bow does tend to come out ahead in terms of impact on the checkbook......

lee.


----------



## BrandonMReeves (Dec 27, 2016)

Just a note of observation while practicing yesterday. At the facility/shop I use for equipment purchases, JOAD classes for my kids, and general indoor practice, they have multiple ranges available to use separately. Various coaches may come in with their groups to use range time, including at least one local university.

There is an independent coach not affiliated with the store who coaches individuals regularly throughout the year, but yesterday she had requisitioned one of the two range areas for her summer classes, which I counted between 20-24 kids in attendance yesterday alone. This is fantastic, in terms of recognition of the sport and it's growth. She only coaches OR style, well, because she's a former Olympic champion. I'm sure that has a lot to do with her class attendance and students during the school year as well, but it was nice to see the volume of kids cycling through her classes yesterday. In talking with her, she's at this facility 3 days a week, with another two at local outdoor ranges, every week.


----------

